The Philospher's thread

[3113]

The Enlightenment led to the American Revolution and then to the French.

Not the French (correction for correction, VM ). Financial debt and bad grain harvests were far more responsible for the French Revolution than enlightenment thinkers. Napoleon, by the by, professed himself to be an enlightenment thinker, asserting that he raised people up to higher postions on merit not on breeding (arguable that he did, but that's what he said). And I'm not quite sure what your objection to him is. The French loved him. Other countries didn't because he was taking them over, but that's what countries did in those days.

As for Marx...I fail to understand how Marxist economic theory can be held responsible for fascism or totalitarianism. History has shown that dictators use all sorts of economic and theological philosophies to take over countries and run them brutally. You might as well condemn just about every religion on earth for leading to totalitarianism or fascism in some way or form at some time.

Unless the philosophy espouses a dictatorship, then you really can't blame it if it was used by a dictator to manipulate the unhappy masses (with promises of utopia--where have we heard this before?), to gain power and take control. Almost any philosophy will do under the circumstances, and almost any dictator (they're all bullies who twist the philosophy to fit their cause).

I, personally, don't think pure Marxism is any more viable than pure Libertarianism, but that doesn't mean it hasn't led to some successful and very democratic socialist countries. It's really time we got past this cold war mentality that matches up Marx with dictatorships. That would be like me asserting that the philosophy of Christianity leads to Inquisitions and witch burnings. I don't think you'd agree that was historically or philosophically accurate, would you?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Not the French (correction for correction, VM ). Financial debt and bad grain harvests were far more responsible for the French Revolution than enlightenment thinkers. Napoleon, by the by, professed himself to be an enlightenment thinker, asserting that he raised people up to higher postions on merit not on breeding (arguable that he did, but that's what he said). And I'm not quite sure what your objection to him is. The French loved him. Other countries didn't because he was taking them over, but that's what countries did in those days.

As for Marx...I fail to understand how Marxist economic theory can be held responsible for fascism or totalitarianism. History has shown that dictators use all sorts of economic and theological philosophies to take over countries and run them brutally. You might as well condemn just about every religion on earth for leading to totalitarianism or fascism in some way or form at some time.

Unless the philosophy espouses a dictatorship, then you really can't blame it if it was used by a dictator to manipulate the unhappy masses (with promises of utopia--where have we heard this before?), to gain power and take control. Almost any philosophy will do under the circumstances, and almost any dictator (they're all bullies who twist the philosophy to fit their cause).

I, personally, don't think pure Marxism is any more viable than pure Libertarianism, but that doesn't mean it hasn't led to some successful and very democratic socialist countries. It's really time we got past this cold war mentality that matches up Marx with dictatorships. That would be like me asserting that the philosophy of Christianity leads to Inquisitions and witch burnings. I don't think you'd agree that was historically or philosophically accurate, would you?

I wasn't talking about economic theory. I was talking about pseudo logic and that's what Hegelian/Marxist argument is. However, I am still too distraught from yesterday to argue the point. Carry on.

 

[bflagsst]

I enjoyed reading that other thread. The Principia Mathematica was in fact referenced offhandedly in a thread about abortion.

 

[bflagsst]

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?"

Russell's History of Western Philosophy is the best book on philosophers I've ever read. The Problems of Philosophy is a perfect book for first year philosophy students. He has some great essays on atheism too, but his social theory essays are wholly uninteresting. He's probably most important for his influence and for being influenced by GE Moore, Wittgenstein, Santayana. Russell and William James are kinda the overseers of 20th Century philosophy.

Really though, Bertrand Russell is a member at Literotica, he should be here telling us what time it is. See --> http://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=1053868

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Every Joe Six-pack with a 10th grade education is a Democrat, thus a liberal.

The problem with philosophy and philosophers is: Philosophy is a flashlight aimed from a fixed position in a dark room. It assumes its aim is correct and no others are worth examination. Philosophy is thus the antithesis of discovery.

 

[bflagsst]

Every Joe Six-pack with a 10th grade education is a Democrat, thus a liberal.

The problem with philosophy and philosophers is: Philosophy is a flashlight aimed from a fixed position in a dark room. It assumes its aim is correct and no others are worth examination. Philosophy is thus the antithesis of discovery.

Philosophy was about discovery a hundred plus years ago, but all these new sciences came up in the 20th century. Philosophy is relegated to 'How do we form arguments?', not so much 'How do we describe the workings of the brain or universe?'

So I guess you are right in saying it's the antithesis of discovery. If discovery is about finding the facts of the natural world and describing them, philosophy has no place in the discovery of facts of the natural world. Logic games are still important though, thinking about how arguments work is still relevant. But finding a better way to argue something isn't about making a discovery about the world.

 

[Freefall_mc]

Every Joe Six-pack with a 10th grade education is a Democrat, thus a liberal.

The problem with philosophy and philosophers is: Philosophy is a flashlight aimed from a fixed position in a dark room. It assumes its aim is correct and no others are worth examination. Philosophy is thus the antithesis of discovery.

Drop the flashlights, roll in the lanterns. Don't stare too long Jimmy. It will only serve to give you a headache.
http://www.dflock.co.uk/portfolio/raytracing/images/lanterns large.jpg

Debate philosophy? Are you kidding? With an open mind, it is nothing but discovery; as simple and unifying, or as complex and segregating as we choose to make it.

 

[stephen55]

This is not a good thing.....

I'm quoting myself......is that like talking to yourself?

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.

He also came up with the famous "cogito"...
Cogito, ergo sum...I think, therefore I am

Apparently, it actually goes like this....

Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am"

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

bflagsst

When I was looking around at PhD programs I considered my school's PhD in applied anthropology because I was interested in forensic work, that is, I wanted to identify rotted corpses. But the program was under the control of boneheads, and molecular biology was beyond verboten, eventhough genetics is a branch of anthropology. Bones and teeth are all that exists in the bonehead world, and I didnt intend to be a Legionaire at Fort Boner. I wanted to be a scout!

Psychology is the same; mental disability depends on your political party.

So I got into rehab because it was 1/2 psychology and 1/2 brain-spinal cord injuries and 1/2 addictions. And I had plenty of fights with the 12 step cha cha cha tango prancers running addictions.

 

[bflagsst]

bflagsst

When I was looking around at PhD programs I considered my school's PhD in applied anthropology because I was interested in forensic work, that is, I wanted to identify rotted corpses. But the program was under the control of boneheads, and molecular biology was beyond verboten, eventhough genetics is a branch of anthropology. Bones and teeth are all that exists in the bonehead world, and I didnt intend to be a Legionaire at Fort Boner. I wanted to be a scout!

Psychology is the same; mental disability depends on your political party.

So I got into rehab because it was 1/2 psychology and 1/2 brain-spinal cord injuries and 1/2 addictions. And I had plenty of fights with the 12 step cha cha cha tango prancers running addictions.

I know the boners. There's a new branch of anthropology called Medical Anthropology, all they're concerned with is how different cultures deal with erectile dysfunction. The narrowing fields make discoveries less fantastic, no one knows about the other fellow in the other field who's basically doing the same thing. Things had to get very narrow in philosophy too. If Paul is dealing with Mary's soul, Peter's dealing with her achy uterus.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My alma mater, University of South Park, didnt offer a PhD in medical anthropology, medical anthropology was within the applied anthopology wing.

 

[Freefall_mc]

Jimmy, I always thought the twelve steps promoted line dancing, not the tango.

Applied anthropology has become so specialized? Even the Incas knew to drill a hole in the skull to accomodate swelling of the brain.

I am, therefore I think I'll go drink.

 

[LaRocha]

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.




Take it away, boys!

I like the premise of this thread, just not the quotes you highlighted to begin it. Amicus, I believe, was referring to Stephen's view of logic which was dealing with Amicus' perspective of the science of morality. So I don't know what they're talking about, probably something they went over in other threads.

I responded to Stephen's logic response, not to whatever Amicus was talking about. Then I think Amicus responded partly to me, but mostly to Stephen, which I did reply to. My reply about existentialism would be a fitting place to start, and then maybe we can talk about morality and structure of discourse.

But I think this thread's already past the point where we could continue the abortion thread tangents. So maybe I'll just paraphrase Thrasymachus and go have a party:

"Morality is the advantage of the stronger."

(The party's in my pants, JamesBEEJohnson is invited)

 

[Freefall_mc]

I like the premise of this thread, just not the quotes you highlighted to begin it. Amicus, I believe, was referring to Stephen's view of logic which was dealing with Amicus' perspective of the science of morality. So I don't know what they're talking about, probably something they went over in other threads.

I responded to Stephen's logic response, not to whatever Amicus was talking about. Then I think Amicus responded partly to me, but mostly to Stephen, which I did reply to. My reply about existentialism would be a fitting place to start, and then maybe we can talk about morality and structure of discourse.

But I think this thread's already past the point where we could continue the abortion thread tangents. So maybe I'll just paraphrase Thrasymachus and go have a party:

"Morality is the advantage of the stronger."

(The party's in my pants, JamesBEEJohnson is invited)

Not sure if that's sophic within the argument of abortion, or if you're meaning to be sarcastic from a view of existentialism, which is easy to agree with.

Morality is based on individual beliefs, within the effects of benefit and harm, which is relevant to an individual's circumstance.

Philosophically based social issue arguments? I guess I'm out. *shuffles away*

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Jimmy, I always thought the twelve steps promoted line dancing, not the tango.

Applied anthropology has become so specialized? Even the Incas knew to drill a hole in the skull to accomodate swelling of the brain.

I am, therefore I think I'll go drink.

OMG Youre right! Line dancing!

 

[CharleyH]

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 this is the kind of interesting post (that stirs passions ... and stirs thoughts, imaginations and debate) that I'm here on this thread to discover. Thank you.

 

[Freefall_mc]

OMG Youre right! Line dancing!

I always thought line dancing was stupid, and never learned it. But I'll tango with you any day honey. You'll have to rise up from off your knees though.

 

[Handley_Page]

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

Here, Here.
I think the Yeh,Yeh movement would be delighted with that.

 

[CharleyH]

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.

Thanks for posting this thread Stella. I never tire of philosophical discussions, even if I'm simply lurking and never really have time to post something worthwhile.

As I read these posts I hear a lot of discussion regarding historical philopsophy (nothing wrong with this - I'm a fan of Aristotle's Poetics and a proponent of existentialism. Nevertheless, I've been out of the philosophical loop since Camille Paglia bashed, battered and renewed feminism in the 90's. Is there anything new? I don't ask this lightly. I ask quite seriously because I've been out of the loop so long and seriously have no clue.

 

[bflagsst]

Posted by TE999

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

This is basically the whole point of Plato's Apology. Socrates is defending reason against the power of the socio-political tribe that was governing at the time. Which makes one think, there probably never was a time in human society where governing went beyond rhetoric.


"How you have felt, O men of Athens, at hearing the speeches of my accusers, I cannot tell; but I know that their persuasive words almost made me forget who I was - such was the effect of them; and yet they have hardly spoken a word of truth. But many as their falsehoods were, there was one of them which quite amazed me; - I mean when they told you to be upon your guard, and not to let yourselves be deceived by the force of my eloquence."

 

[bflagsst]

Thanks for posting this thread Stella. I never tire of philosophical discussions, even if I'm simply lurking and never really have time to post something worthwhile.

As I read these posts I hear a lot of discussion regarding historical philopsophy (nothing wrong with this - I'm a fan of Aristotle's Poetics and a proponent of existentialism. Nevertheless, I've been out of the philosophical loop since Camille Paglia bashed, battered and renewed feminism in the 90's. Is there anything new? I don't ask this lightly. I ask quite seriously because I've been out of the loop so long and seriously have no clue.

Camille bashed up poetry pretty good too.

 

[CharleyH]

Camille bashed up poetry pretty good too.

LOL - Break, Blow, Burn is the only book of Paglia's that I don't have on my shelf yet.

 

[Loring2]

Ok

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....

Le quel est que ? Now we're in a philisophical discussion.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The biggest problem with Paglia is the same problem that besets all women who think and talk about what they think about; They are female, therefore they are "female philosophers."

As opposed to men, who are philosophers of... religion, economy, morality, snake oil, etc. There are no "male philosophers."

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The biggest problem with Paglia is the same problem that besets all women who think and talk about what they think about; They are female, therefore they are "female philosophers."

As opposed to men, who are philosophers of... religion, economy, morality, snake oil, etc. There are no "male philosophers."

Then are not those philosophers who happen to be female philosophers of womanhood? At least some of them are. On the other hand, there must be philosophers who happen to be women who aren't particularly concerned with the male/female dynamic. No one seems to talk about them. Is it because no one knows their names? Or because they don't exist? That seems unlikely.