The Philospher's thread

[Stella_Omega]

Note!

This is NOT!!!!! intended to be the thread to explain why you think philosophy is bullshit. This is the thread for those among our midst who do take it seriously, to argue it-- keeping it somewhat out of more... realism-based threads. Unless Russell or Wittgenstien faced the possibility of bearing an unwanted child, they have no bearing in a discussion about abortion.

But you can fight over them here. if you want.

"The first wave came in the summer Of 1913, when Wittgenstein temporarily destroyed Russell's philosophical self-confidence through his devastating attack on Russell's theory of judgment. The second wave came in 1919, after Russell had to some extent rebuilt his self-confidence, when he read Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and became convinced by it that the view of logic that had motivated his own work on the philosophy of mathematics was fundamentally wrong.

"Up until his reading of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, Russell took a more or less Platonist view of logic, regarding it as the study of objective and eternal truths. After reading Wittgenstein, Russell became convinced that, on the contrary, logic was purely linguistic, so-called 'logical truths' being nothing more than tautologies. Though this might sound a fairly recondite matter, it is almost impossible to exaggerate its effect on Russell's life. Russell's great work on the philosophy of mathematics was inspired by the dream of arriving at truths that were demonstrable, incorrigible and known with absolute certainty.

"Logic, he thought, was such a body of truth, and his ambition of proving that mathematics was but a branch of logic was driven by his desire to show that a substantial body of knowledge, namely mathematics, was impervious to sceptical doubt. If logic was not a body of truth, but merely — as Russell put it immediately after his conversion to a Wittgensteinian view — a matter of giving 'different ways of saying the same thing', then this dream vanished and with it the hope of arriving at any absolutely certain knowledge. Neither logic nor mathematics had the philosophical interest that Russell had attributed to them, and that, fundamentally, was why he abandoned the philosophy of mathematics."

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/monk-01russell.html

The Principles of Mathematics is an easier read than Principia, still, it's more of a history lesson than a logic lesson.

The forum has suffered through this before...and more than once. The final refuge of intellectual cowards is to propose solutions to moral questions that involve arcane and obscure mathematical and philosophical references.

There is nothing difficult in the basic equation of assuming responsibility for ones' own actions and the consequences thereof.

Joe Six Pack with a tenth grade education can tell you, with certainty, that if you commit an act that has consequences, you are responsible.

n.
A philosophy asserting the primacy of observation in assessing the truth of statements of fact and holding that metaphysical and subjective arguments not based on observable data are meaningless. Also called logical empiricism.

A key component of logical positivism is that it rejected statements about ethics and aesthetics as being unverifiable, and therefore not a part of serious philosophical thinking. To have meaning, a given statement had to be connected to either empirical data or analytic truth. Logical positivism was a key step in connecting philosophy more closely to science, and vice versa. It continues to have influence to the present, playing a vital part in the formulation of philosophical ideas throughout the 20th century. [/I]

20th Century Philosophers, and, since they are referenced, Mathematicians, ashamed that 'faith' played a role in their moral and ethical pursuits, began what is a continuing quest to divorce philosophy from religion and then set forth to prove, logically, that there is no natural, innate, logical approach of human ethics and morals.

The conclusion of a generation of thought was that all human actions are without a moral component, were transcendental and existential and essentially that human life is accidental with no meaning or purpose.

Such a deal.

Amicus

Take it away, boys!

 

[redgiantuk]

a random website once told me I was a visionary philosopher so I'd piss this one. Unfortunately I've had a few glasses of wine so can't even attempt to read it let alone make sense of it...phew

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Another reason Russell gave up mathematics was that he burned out his brain on Principia. According to mathematicians I know the last part of the book isn't of the quality the first half was. Possibly Russell's desire for absolute mathematics was his reaction to his parents atheism and (when they died) his grandfather's dogmatic fundamentalism. In any event, Kurt Godel demolished Principia leaving Russell nowhere to turn but to philosophy. Are his philosophical writings still of interest? Not being a philosopher I can't say but I have some doubts. Academic philosophy seems to be turning away from the linguistic model and returning to attempting to answer Socrates' most profound question, "How shall men live?"

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/yah/hangglider.gif

 

[Handley_Page]

I get lost with many of the abstruse words used in Philosophy, so my answer to

Socrates' most profound question, "How shall men live?"

is (hopefully) logical.

By Faith, Education, Food & Shelter.

or something like that.

(I'll get my coat, then)

 

[redgiantuk]

I get lost with many of the abstruse words used in Philosophy, so my answer to

Socrates' most profound question, "How shall men live?"

is (hopefully) logical.

By Faith, Education, Food & Shelter.

or something like that.

(I'll get my coat, then)

the bed, bread, bullet and bible

get my coat whilst youre there

 

[3113]

Joe six-pack takes responsibility for consequences? I thought most Joe Six-Packs blamed illegal immigrants and liberals for all their problems

This does, by the way, have to do with the argument, as Amicus argues that intellectual philosophy has no basis in reality and yet his example has no basis in reality either as it is a fictional character. He is as much imagining the way he believes ethics ought to work (or works) as the philosopher does, with a mind game rather than empirical evidence.

I tend to like empirical evidence, myself, but maybe that's because I'm a writer and i know how easy it is to use one's imagination to make up, well, almost anything. But then, on the other hand, as none of us can really ever leave our heads or our subjective realities, perhaps that's all we ever have and all we ever will have. Imaginary morals, ethics and philosophy.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Joe six-pack takes responsibility for consequences? I thought most Joe Six-Packs blamed illegal immigrants and liberals for all their problems

This does, by the way, have to do with the argument, as Amicus argues that intellectual philosophy has no basis in reality and yet his example has no basis in reality either as it is a fictional character. He is as much imagining the way he believes ethics ought to work (or works) as the philosopher does, with a mind game rather than empirical evidence.

I tend to like empirical evidence, myself, but maybe that's because I'm a writer and i know how easy it is to use one's imagination to make up, well, almost anything. But then, on the other hand, as none of us can really ever leave our heads or our subjective realities, perhaps that's all we ever have and all we ever will have. Imaginary morals, ethics and philosophy.

Are they imaginary if we live by them? Empirically they are not. We make our morality real by the way we live. And our beliefs, as well.

 

[stephen55]

Say what you will.....

Rene Descartes, a notable figure in philosophy once said...

One cannot conceive anything so strange and so implausible that it has not already been said by one philosopher or another.

 

[3113]

Are they imaginary if we live by them? Empirically they are not. We make our morality real by the way we live. And our beliefs, as well.

Um...not if some people live by them and others don't. I mean, if you obey the voices in your head that you hear but no one else does, does that make them real?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Um...not if some people live by them and others don't. I mean, if you obey the voices in your head that you hear but no one else does, does that make them real?

Absolutely. Perception is reality. At least, my perception is my reality. If I start making a nuisense of myself I may get my reality changed but quick!

 

[bronzeage]

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
attributed to John Cleese

Philosophy is useless, theology is worse.
Mark Knoffler.

 

[rgraham666]

Western philosophy got started by a rude old man who wandered around Athens annoying people with endless questions. The Athenians eventually killed him for it.

His chief disciple decided that meant democracy was a bad thing and proposed a system run by philosophers who ruled from an ivory tower. He backed it up with a literary character with the same name as his teacher.

So, ever since, philosophers have followed Plato while believing they were following Socrates. With such a dichotomy in the center of their beliefs is it any surprise that philosophy contributes so little to our lives?

 

[fifty5]

Philosophy?

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY

and

http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/philo.html (with references).

I also read Sophie's World, but Gödel, Escher, Bach made my head hurt!

 

[fifty5]

"It takes a philosopher to smoke" [a pipe]

 

[PoppingTom]

Joe Six Pack with a tenth grade education can tell you, with certainty, that if you commit an act that has consequences, you are responsible

OK, I'm responsible, so what ?

Every action has its consequences, so what?

You are responsible for filling your garbagecan and bring more garbage to the world, so what ?

Do you really change your life by knowing that ?

 

[rgraham666]

"It takes a philosopher to smoke" [a pipe]

I must be a philosopher then, because I smoke a pipe.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And I used to be a philosopher because I used to smoke a pipe? Or I posed as a philosopher because the pipe was one of the props I used in a job I had? I think I'm a philosopher because I occasionally think with my hand where a pipe ought to be? Jeez, this is getting philosophical!

 

[TE999]

One recalls the writings of the Philosophes, Rousseau, Kant, et.al. which were in the main dedicated to solving society's problems stressing reason and independent thought as the avenues to do so. They believed the spread of knowledge as opposed to fanaticisim, intolerance and bigotry would advance the human condition.

Yet here we are in the 21st Century and Philosophy is an arcane form of reasoning studied only in the halls of academia. Group think, xenophobia, bigotry, fanaticisim, 'Us versus Them' class warfare, greed, envy and hate still hold sway in our so-called 'modern' world.

Reasoning has been replaced by rhetoric, knowledge by rumor and assumption, facts by intentional distortions and, most sad of all, individualisim by socio-political groupings.

The rationale of 'Enlightenment' so celebrated in the time of the Philisophes recedes further from us every day.

 

[3113]

"It takes a philosopher to smoke" [a pipe]

I must be a philosopher then, because I smoke a pipe.

And I used to be a philosopher because I used to smoke a pipe? Or I posed as a philosopher because the pipe was one of the props I used in a job I had? I think I'm a philosopher because I occasionally think with my hand where a pipe ought to be? Jeez, this is getting philosophical!

And my philosophical answer to that:

http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~thurston/fish/images/pipe.jpg

Nothing like a Dadaist to put thing in perspective....

 

[voluptuary_manque]

One recalls the writings of the Philosophes, Rousseau, Kant, et.al. which were in the main dedicated to solving society's problems stressing reason and independent thought as the avenues to do so. They believed the spread of knowledge as opposed to fanaticisim, intolerance and bigotry would advance the human condition.

Yet here we are in the 21st Century and Philosophy is an arcane form of reasoning studied only in the halls of academia. Group think, xenophobia, bigotry, fanaticisim, 'Us versus Them' class warfare, greed, envy and hate still hold sway in our so-called 'modern' world.

Reasoning has been replaced by rhetoric, knowledge by rumor and assumption, facts by intentional distortions and, most sad of all, individualisim by socio-political groupings.

The rationale of 'Enlightenment' so celebrated in the time of the Philisophes recedes further from us every day.

And sad to say, the very things we so abhor have their roots in the very Enlightenment that was supposed to prevent such degradation. The Enlightenment led to the American Revolution and then to the French. Unfortunately, the French Revolution led to the Terror, to Napoleon, to Marx and to Modernism which was split between Fascism and Stalinist Totalitarianism. There seems to be no system of philosophy or theology that Mankind can't degrade.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And my philosophical answer to that:

http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~thurston/fish/images/pipe.jpg

Nothing like a Dadaist to put thing in perspective....

My dear 3113, Magritte was not a Dadaist! Surrealist he was and first among them both technically and thematically but never, never, never as silly as a true Dadaist. HMPF!

 

[3113]

My dear 3113, Magritte was not a Dadaist! Surrealist he was and first among them both technically and thematically but never, never, never as silly as a true Dadaist. HMPF!

And my Dadaist answer to that: Flamingo.

 

[rgraham666]

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Fish.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Fish.

and then it looks like this:



http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii177/1volupturary_manque/abc_magritte68.jpg