philosophy

[Tathagata]

Your AV gave me a caffeine-like jolt. Thank you.

That's what I'm here for

 

[LadyJeanne]

Things usually have a way of working out for the best in the end.

 

[gauchecritic]

I'm confused now. Would someone kindly point out which of the following philosophers aren't of the 20th century and why they are considered to be minor philosophers?

Heidegger, Schaupenhauer, Witgenstien, Nietzsche, (only just), Bergson.

Could someone also explain the complete disregard of the phrase "On the shoulders of giants" (which prompted this less than serious post)

I'll refrain from giving a personal philosophy because I'm apparently unable (and debarred) to formulate one, not being a philosopher (or logician)

But the question "What is the best moral philosophy to live your life by?" contains an abstract qualifier viz "best" and so the following:

The next step is for you to acknowledge that a 'proper, right and truthful' moral philosophy exists and than you can comprehend and practice it.

is really irrelevant at best. Don't care too much for the definition of 'truth' which takes no account of frames of reference nor the loaded use of 'proper' and 'right'.


I therefore proclaim Amicus 'hijacker' and pedantic Bergsonite. (Henri: Nobel prize winner and philosopher b. 1859. d. 1941[oops 20th C. what a bugger] )

Gauche

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Philosophy is what you're left with when all the girls have gone home.

--Zoot

 

[matriarch]

I'll refrain from giving a personal philosophy because I'm apparently unable (and debarred) to formulate one, not being a philosopher (or logician)

Gauche

G, if you are able to think, you are able to philosophise. That much at least, this ol' lady did learn.

'debarred' you may be, but 'unable', you most certainly are not.

Mat

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Philosophy is what you're left with when all the girls have gone home.

--Zoot

Svenska should put that on a shirt.

 

[haldir]

surely philosophy is what arises from the interaction of "boys" and "girls"?

 

[amicus]

The awkward one said:

"I'm confused now. Would someone kindly point out which of the following philosophers aren't of the 20th century and why they are considered to be minor philosophers?

Heidegger, Schaupenhauer, Witgenstien, Nietzsche, (only just), Bergson."

That was in response to my statement about Ayn Rand being the pre-eminent 20th Century Philosopher. Apparently Gauchecritic disagrees...

Schopenhauer, born 1788
Nietzche, born 1844
Bergson, born 1859
Wittgenstein, born 1889
Heidegger, born 1889

Ayn Rand, born 1905.

Those born in the 1700's are 18th century folks.
Those born in the 1800's are 19th century folks.
Those born in the 1900's are 20th century folks.

It would take a blind dogmatist who could not read or research to deny that Ayn Rand is THE major philosopher of the 20th century.


Gauche further said:

"I therefore proclaim Amicus 'hijacker' and pedantic Bergsonite. (Henri: Nobel prize winner and philosopher b. 1859. d. 1941[oops 20th C. what a bugger] )"

Gauche


__________________

Bergson won the Nobel for Literature, not Philosophy. Debating with Gauche is unfair as he only brings a knife to a gunfight and I am loathe to slap a drunk.

the benificent amicus

 

[gauchecritic]

I wasn't disagreeing mic, I was asking a serious question, the list was originally a lot longer and I cut it down to those that had lived in the 20C and I obviously got the wrong Shaupenhauer.

So I take back everything I asked if simply living in a particular century is not sufficient reason to be of that century. People born in 1899 are not 20C people. Right. Got it.

OK then Sartre, Russel, Faucault, Bergmann. These are minor 20C philosophers?

Bergson won the Nobel for Literature, not Philosophy. Debating with Gauche is unfair as he only brings a knife to a gunfight and I am loathe to slap a drunk.

The reason why I inserted the word 'and' between 'prize winner' and 'philosopher' was to make the distinction and then by implication re-visit the earlier tongue-in-cheek declaration about anti-dualism.

Hand to hand is more my forte when fighting, I get a much better chance of running away in those situations. After all he who strikes the first blow loses the fight.

Knives, guns and slapping (disregarding with some distain use of the epithet 'drunk') fighting talk, do you do semantics too?

Give me words over combat every time.

My original contention was a pedantic hijacking which, rather than positively refute, you chose to attempt discreditation which is a poor form of debate, and I find more often than not deteriorates into simple mud-slinging.

I think I've mentioned before (not necessarily on this thread) knowing the words and making use of the words are distinct and separate skills

My previous declaration still stands. (adding myself to the hijacking part and being in two minds as to the efficacy of dualism)


A token effort to answer the original question (having been given the go ahead, thanks Mat.) My philosophy of life: It's all bollocks.

This will get you through a surprising number of fretful situations and is a simplification of: In the Grand Scheme of Things, does it really matter?

Gauche

 

[Pure]

well, haldir, utilitarianism has lots of problems:

1) How do you sum 'happinesses' ? how would one determine, for any given action, the SUM of everyone's happiness (or, if you like, the total aggregated happiness)?

2) How long would the process run (the period one sums over)? A year, ten years, 100 years?

----
Disagreement with commonsense intuitions in lots of cases

3) Keeping the wrong man in jail-- sort of like some of the Rummy ordered detentions-- because it's going to reassure the public that 'something was done'. Even executing him. Or, in the first place, 'framing and shanghaiing the wrong person' and making everyone think 'we've caught the guy.'

4) Torturing prisoners based on the benefits (expected to be) obtained (e.g., for lots of people).

5) Possibly not keeping old folks alive (or euthanizing them) *depending on the numbers and the persons' wealth.* Simple case: ONE disliked old geezer, with say 5 billion, being sacrificed to give $250,000 dollars (which buys a lot of prerequisities) to 20,000 people.

6) Breaking promises dependent on numbers. Example, you've promised your kid a bike on a certain day, like a birthday. That day 20 members of your extended family say, "Let's go to the zoo; that would make us *very happy." you say "Sorry kid. Maybe another day."

NOTE: Cantdog, above, put some of these points VERY nicely; relying on only one principle or dimension, for moral choice is going to lead to serious fuckups-- like 3-6 I've given above.

====
No amicus, Rand doesn't make the highest ran, or even top ten philosophers of the 20th century because of her lack of originality, and lack of historical knowledge. Since--as she admits-- many of her views are from Aristotle, that just makes her a mouthpiece or proponent.

Likewise she drew heavily on Adam Smith, and had faith in the 'invisible' hand of capitalism, to develop productive forces and make people happy.

Similarly her admiration for the elite of creative individuals (the 'John Galts' and other 'creators' with masculine family names) has roots she never acknowledged. She is barely--if at all-- included in even the largest dictionaries and directories of 20 century philosophers, a bit like the Rev Sun Moon, having failed to convince anyone but a PORTION of her original 'true believers' of her merits.

A good portion of these original believers, LEFT her and went with BRANDeN, her former apostle and heir apparent, to form a slightly more appealing (and literate) movement and philosophy. Branden likewise does not make the top ten, on grounds of lack of originality (also he's more a psychologist).

 

[rgraham666]

I'm not going to be funny this time. I'll just post my personal philosophy.

1. There's enough pain in the universe without me adding to the sum total.

2. The characteristics most important for a sentient being to cultivate are empathy, wisdom and courage.

Empathy sets the destination of your life. I believe that without empathy, some feeling for the joys, sorrows and pain of others, you're unlikely to accomplish much good in this life.

Wisdom picks the road to the destination. It also tells you what paths not to take. I think lack of wisdom results in lack of restraint and lack of restraint puts you too often in 'bull in a china shop' mode.

Courage is needed because if you follow the path empathy and wisdom set for you, you're going to piss off a lot of people with power. And they don't play fair.

 

[cantdog]

Bravo, Mr. Graham.

Well put, succinct, and balanced in triplet form besides; thus, also literate!

Cool ass. I wish everyone had introspected enough to be able on short notice to put that much reasoned reflection in so brief a form.

As to Rand-- piffle. Demonstrably ridiculous piffle. I go with Pure on that, and I don't require so much any more to define things step by step before weighing in.

Philosphy is fundamental but not an altar requiring genuflection to approach. Every human needs to address some aspect of it. Setting up barriers of careful definition and proving first that it exists serves that end particularly poorly.

Introspection isn't up there with Graham's triad, but it's as cool as history, at least. Siomething all should do, in order to be enabled thereby to benefit from experience.

A Louis XV chair is older than you are, but it can't be expected to have introspected; no one imagines it has learned from experience, and no one asks it for wisdom except Neil Diamond. It is a squandering of your human gifts to act like a Louis XV chair.

 

[shereads]

That was in response to my statement about Ayn Rand being the pre-eminent 20th Century Philosopher.

No, you poor friendless poseur, it was in response to your having claimed that Rand is "the only 20th century philosopher taught in every major university," or some such, which is typical of the way you dismantle your own arguments before you even begin them. Readers are left to choose from one of two conclusions: you're either dilusional enough to believe that your favorite 20th century philospher is the only one whose credibility is unquestioned by insitutions of higher learning; or your list of "major" institutions is limited to Bob Jones University and some internet diploma mill with a link on the Heritage Foundation's home page.

Poor Gauche. I hope your scathing critique hasn't shattered his confidence.

 

[Guest]

Personal examination of ethics

Warning: this is long, but I finally took the subject seriously, and personally. - Perdita

Well, finally, it isn’t a matter of reason; finally it is a matter of love. - Thomas More/Robert Bolt

With a too cursory, but honest and intent look at the moral ropes I find myself using at present I must admit that I appear to be some combination of a subjective relativist and basic egoist. This is hard to pronounce on myself—I know that I am self-centered and selfish. Though I have at times felt forced to be so, it is nonetheless true. I am usually generous only when it particularly pleases me, more so than when I believe it would be good to be generous for no personal reason. Of course I separate egoism from egotism, the psychological term. I am not naturally egotistical. In fact, I too easily ignore, lose or even discard my ego (self) when certain occasions arise. I dare say at those times my lack of egotism somewhat ironically serves my base egoism.

So as not to be presumed merely self-derisive, I will also state that I believe most human beings to be egoists at some basic level, with various qualifications and embellishments, such as my own subjective relativism. I think Mr. Hobbes was rather on the mark in his perspective on the nature of man. When push comes to shove humanity does seem always to create some version of Hobbes’ state of war, i.e., all men against all men. The story of the magic ring of Gyges is as relevant and insinuates as much truth today as when narrated by Plato. We need no magic to prove that many people would “do the wrong thing” or not “do the right thing” if they could get away with it.

When I speak of what I think I should be, I speak of the nature of human beings, and our basic purpose and inclusive desires in living our lives, as opposed to merely existing or surviving. Particularly, despite the modern world and the makeup of its too often hostile and alienating societies, it seems to be essential that people live amicably, and often enough, interdependently. Individual lives and the general welfare of humanity must rely on those conditions, for the only alternative I see is a status in the vicinity of Nietzsche’s master/slave universe.

Next, I have seriously examined and come to embrace certain fundamental tenets of feminism; there is no one feminist philosophy, but I have studied and gleaned from a myriad of theories: a variety of Radical theories, Marxist and socialist feminism, Black (African American) feminism, gynocentrism, lesbian/queer theory, French feminism (ecriture feminine), humanistic and liberal feminism (even!), psychoanalytic and post-modern feminism, the politics of the body, gender-bending ideas, and standpoint theory. I must say that the most appealing and authoritative ideas I have come across so far, and which I would combine for myself, are derived from the Black, French, Queer and Standpoint theorists. I am not black, French or queer, but those various women writers and thinkers have provided me with clear and exemplary guidelines for examining the world in which I exist, and out of which I must continue to devise a moral way to live. (Needless to say, I have spent much of my conscious life actively studying how I ought to live, but it was feminist thought that opened my mind in the most unique and incalculable way. I cannot compare this to any other studied knowledge I have come across in my life.)

From Black feminists such as Audre Lorde (also a lesbian), Alice Walker and Patricia Hill Collins, I learned that it was not only possible but valid to examine and devise theory and discourse through other means than classical empirical reasoning or western patriarchal academic assumptions. French feminists such as Luce Irigaray, Helene Cixous and Julia Kristeva, or rather, their philosophy of “writing the body,” intellectually confirmed and patently validated my self worth. As a life-long reader and writer, I have always read and written my body; I just did not know that is what I was doing. I have never been able to divorce my body from my sense of self, nor had the desire to do so. I believe that is a male trait, but not to be explained or explored herein. Suffice it to say, basic feminist thought needs be a fundamental influence in how I live and how I think I ought to live.

As I said earlier, I believe it essential that human beings live amicably and interdependently, by necessity. Yet, I do not think that factor of “necessity” means the same as in those tenets with which utilitarianism reasons, or has to do much with Kant’s absolute sense of duty. I speak simply to the worth and makeup of a human being (soul) as opposed to a “rational being,” or Man. It concerns me that Reason is given such power, weight and authority. I understand how well it serves to raise “man” above all living things, even to allow for “his” having been created in the image of god, to some, but reason is not all that fundamentally distinguishes us from other living matter.

Passion is missing in much that I’ve read outside of feminist-thought, and, by passion I do not mean the desires, good will and various other pleasure principles and motives of some well known philosophies. To speak of passion seriously, I believe it is only through passion that theory can come into practice. (I credit a former English professor with that statement but cannot name her here.)

Passion is a valuable human quality more deeply, and so not easily or comfortably, accessible than reason, and is not always necessarily at odds with reason. It does not mirror reason, nor rely on reason, yet reason can serve passion and vice versa. Passion can be self-serving in its basest forms, but at its more elevated expression, passion serves others, and somehow, life itself.

Some years ago I found much in Robert Bolt’s examination of St. Thomas More that helped me think on all this. In the preface to his play, “A Man for All Seasons”, Bolt speaks of More as “a man with an adamantine sense of his own self. He knew where he began and left off.” As a clever and passionate man, More managed to live well within the bounds of his society, but eventually that society asked him “to retreat from that final area where he located his self.” He refused though it meant his death.

I am not certain what that “area” was for Thomas More. It has been called his conscience (“that horrible moral squint”), his duty, his faith, even his “love of God”. But, I do know that area for myself, and it is there I demand truth, yearn for tenderness and passion, and reason how I ought to live. It is in that area in others where I can love with chief regard for an other. It is a love that commands, unlike that which satisfies or is dependent on everything outside that area of my self.

As an ordinary woman who has loved and lost, I am grateful to know what I have lost. Though it may have appeared to be forced on me, I chose to lose a great deal of what I desired, loved and satisfied, rather than retreat from that area where I located my self, and so, preserved my self. I also strive to preserve the goodness of those whom I am privileged to love. I am committed to that without reason, but with passion. I will continue to search out guidelines and directions, even theories, for how I ought to live, but I do not imagine I will find much more foundations to my goals than I have already discovered and expressed herein. At this mid-life point I also strive for a simple life, simple and noble, if you will.

 

[shereads]

A Louis XV chair is older than you are, but it can't be expected to have introspected; no one imagines it has learned from experience, and no one asks it for wisdom except Neil Diamond.

That's inaccurate. He doesn't ask the chair for wisdom, but for compassion.

 

[rgraham666]

Good one perdita.

Your noting that reason alone was insufficient for living a full and good life resonated with me.

Several of my favourite books, by a Canadian authour named John Ralston Saul deal with this issue in great depth.

The first book I read by him, Voltaire's Bastards - The Dictatorship of Reason in The West was a very good history on how Reason has become the only allowable trait to show in public, and it's massive failings as a stand alone trait.

His most recent book, On Equlibrium covered what he regarded as the important traits, and how all must exist in equilibrium with each other. If not in the individual, then in a society. Any trait alone will destroy itself.

Very good and very interesting reads.

And my thinking on Rand: She fled one economic determinism (Communism) for another (lassez faire Capitalism). A classic case of 'what you resist, you become.'

 

[cantdog]

That's inaccurate. He doesn't ask the chair for wisdom, but for compassion.

Yeah, but I had to throw it in. What's the good of philosophizing if you can't yentz a little?

 

[cantdog]

Thank you, perdita.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

I am very intrigued by your sense that the body does not separate from the self, which you attribute to your femaleness.

I have never applied a feminist critique to mystical writings before. I will have to see the woman you cite about this.

When I discovered that my mind was distinct from my body I identified with my mind. Later, I found myself standing outside either. I was an Observer, whereas my mind and my body, still distinct, were not me in a strict sense.

The sensation of it came in a trancelike state, a split in awareness (I know I'm not being rational in my terms, but what mystic can be?). My intellect was suppressed by the immediate clamoring of my flesh for attention. I was concentrating (in an obsessive, emotional way only, because my intellect was down), my mind had shut up for once.

I do not believe in souls, and the mystics who, like myself, found that same separation of soul, mind, and body in their experimentations, all use soul instead of Observer to label the part which I knew undeniably to be me, if nothing else. I felt distinct from body and mind, yet still responsible for both; indeed, distinct from time or location. I could be here or over there; now or out of time altogether.

I can not say how long the state lasted. When I realized, at last, that it was happening and began to analyze it, it passed immediately, because analysis is the mind processing the raw input, and the mind overrode the trance state.

I have interpreted this with the aid of other testimony from other mystics, but I now realize all were male.


cantdog

 

[Guest]

Cant, this is not as thoughtful as I'd like, but to reply sooner than later-- I am sure you know of the Cartesian split. It's that and the pedestal rise of reason that I fought against and rejected. Yes, I can separate my body and mind, they are discrete, but it does no good as far as my experience goes. Until I die (at least ) I want to be a whole self, vs. an ambiguous or embattled "one".

Mysticism is another realm (been there, gave it up) .

Perdita

 

[shereads]

The unexamined life is not worth living.

Tell that to my dog. While we're examining life, she's lying on her back upon the freshly-mown grass, showing her plump belly to the sky and lazily waving one front paw in time to some inner signal.

She appears to be smiling, but that could be an illusion caused by the way gravity acts on her floppy jowls, peeling them back so her teeth sparkle in the sun.

 

[Guest]

Sher, you are annoying me (here and elsewhere). I want only to be frank (vs. rude). I took time and serious thought to post, and received two thoughtful replies. You post silly non sequitors. I need no apology or excuse though (of mood or today's drug side effects); I just needed to express my reaction, utterly personal.

Perdita

 

[haldir]

I'm back again - internet time in Bonnie Scotland.

Many thanks for all the contributions - using a Socratic method is clearly useful.

Some thoughts of mine

1. ALL philosophies have their inherent contradictions. However, these are only truly manifest when the attempt is made to take a personal philosophy and try to make it apply to a society or societies. Your points about utilitarianism are valid but only om that scale. A utilitarian would never agree to imprisoning an individual wrongly and I don't think (I certainly wouldn't) they'd agree to torturing someone.

However, given the last scenario - what is the greater moral wrong, torturing someone to gain information that could save thousands of lives or not torturing someone and losing those lives?

2. Perdita - thank you for your reasoned post. I do not agree with it all. For example, I do believe that utilitarianism deals with life within a passionate context - at a personal level - my soon to be ex was seeing someone else while we were together. I knew this and actively helped her by making myself available to look after our kids when she wanted to go out. This caused ME pain but made the family unit happier overall. Mum was happy which made the kids happy.

I do SO agree about your arguements concerning feminist writers and thinkers. Us men need to read more of this - the little I have read has certainly inspired me.

Again many thanks.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Morals? Philosophy? Hmmm...

Okay, seriously, I'm not sure about posting my personal philosophy because to understand how it and my brain works, you'd need to know a huge amount of very personal things about me. Suffice it to say that at a generalized level I have distinct traits of nihilism (most people ARE stupid, Universe does tend toward chaos, order is an illusion), romanticism (albeit dark) (believe in true love, chivalry, the remote possibility of a good ending), random (everything and anything is at some level possible so discernation falls to what is probable, irony is an active force in people's lives, insanity is not neccesarily a bad thing and is in fact often a very very good thing) and much more.

Does my philosophy contradict itself? Yes, but that's the point. My mind works off self-contradictions fighting to determine the final moral solution. However, through this style, I have come away with a greater moral record than many of my Christian friends which has led to a side philosophy of mine that "one can have morality without religion and religion without morality" and that has much as people want them to be one and the same, they're really not.

I also hold that moral philosophy should be personal for the most part. When people try and force their brand of morality on others you get weird results like "gays should be killed" and "ban the vibrators".

All right, enough pointless babbling from the demon man.

 

[haldir]

enough rambling

Hey Lucifer_Carroll

That was a totally excellent post.

This is the point surely. ALL philosophies have inherent contradictions and it is the way that we as individuals reconcile them that determines our personal moral landscape.

Like you, I try to be the best human being I can be. I'm certainly not interested in forcing my views on others. That way lies fascism and oppression.

My point in starting this thread was to make people really think about what they believe to be a fit moral compass for their lives.

 

[matriarch]

Re: enough rambling

Hey Lucifer_Carroll

That was a totally excellent post.

This is the point surely. ALL philosophies have inherent contradictions and it is the way that we as individuals reconcile them that determines our personal moral landscape.

Like you, I try to be the best human being I can be. I'm certainly not interested in forcing my views on others. That way lies fascism and oppression.

My point in starting this thread was to make people really think about what they believe to be a fit moral compass for their lives.

Unfortunately, H, the sad thing about all this, is that the majority of the population do not have or live by a philosophy - their own or someone elses. They simply live.

In this rarified atmosphere of people who are capable of stringing together coherent words and thoughts, thinking about what we say and do comes quite naturally. I don't think that applies to the majority of people.

They just get by. But most of them would say they were trying to be the best person they could. But what constitutes 'best' to one is most definitely not 'best' to another. Any personal philosophy has to be dependent upon, and driven by, the personal goals and ambitions of that person.

This may come over as rather cynical, but I happen to think its true. Ask any John or Jane Doe in the street, what is their philosophy for life and most of them will look at you as if you were speaking Martian. Or trying to sell them something.

Thinking about why they act the way they do, and the consequences of those acts is way too terrifying for a great many people.

I think I've put this clumsily and maybe a tad too simply, but its late, I'm tired, and I really had no intention of joining in this thread. but...........

OK people, had my say, now hang me out and crucify me.

Mat