Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Judging Philosophy by its Philosopher

Champanzee
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 1:14:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This question concerns the agreement with one philosophy or another, or encompassing many aspects from many philosophies, and whether or not those opinions and agreement should be based, in part, on the philosopher himself and not entirely on the philosophy.

Concerning Immanuel Kant, for example; in a response to criticism from one Father Labat, a Dominican missionary, by a black carpenter concerning the poor treatment of his wives, the carpenter responded...

"You whites are indeed fools, for first you make great concessions to your wives, and afterward you complain when they drive you mad."

To this, Kant responded...

"And it might be that there were something in this which perhaps deserved to be considered; bit in short, this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was stupid."

My question is whether or not you can follow the philosophies and teachings of particular philosophers like Kant, or Aristotle (slavery defender), or even Jefferson (slave owner), when their rhetoric seems fundamentally flawed.

Immanuel Kant, one of the 'greatest' philosophers in history has no doubt influenced countless people and has shaped opinion everywhere. But is this universal acknowledgement that he is a great thinker flawed when the great thinker himself could not bring himself to agree with a black man, when he clearly asserts that there was truth to his statement?

Is his, and practically every other philosophers theories fundamentally marred by their inconsistencies from their own philosophies and the personal life?

Philosophy is the 'love of wisdom', so why did Kant fail to recognize what he surely perceived as wisdom from a black man? Did his racial tendencies cloud his judgement, and therefore, his knowledge, and hence, his philosophy?

Is it possible that he and other 'great thinkers' allowed their so-called wisdom to be plagued by not only racist opinions, but perhaps other detriments as well?

If this is possible, which surely I have proven is the case at least in respect to racist beliefs, than than does this destroy credibility to a widely-accepted philosophy? Does Kant's various detriments mar his credibility in any way?

I ask this question for myself. I am in a constant inwards struggle with myself to learn or to waste. I am constantly struggling with the extreme ends of one side of an issue and another, never knowing which side to support. I want nothing more than the be...sure. Sure of anything; I just want to have meaning in my life, but when I cannot even rely on the supposed 'great thinkers' to be selfless and consistent with their teachings, how am I to achieve consistency?

I want to learn philosophy deeply. But I can't seem to get past an introductory textbook when I think about these things. I constantly struggle from one end to another on literally everything.

This has turned away from the original question, but it was more for a little 'sureness' for myself than anything.

So, should one judge a philosophy by its philosopher?
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 12:28:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Welcome to the path of disillusionment. All of your heroes are flawed mortals, with skeletons in their collective closets.

If you are going to discard anything made by inconsistent people, you will have to throw away literally every bit of science and philosophy. Learning the discretion needed to sort through a philosopher's work and recognize the mistakes is a sign of maturity; rejecting everything because the men weren't perfect is not.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 1:11:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Plato is my favorite philosopher and one flaw he had that troubles me is his disrespect towards women. It was the culture of the time to regard them as inferior (and probably always has/will be) but I feel like he should have known better.
Rob
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 3:29:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you follow the philosophy of an individual and you disagree with NOTHING that individual has said, done, or believes in, you are not looking hard enough.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:56:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most philosophers have some sort of personal flaw. One would certainly be hard pressed to find anyone perfect. This would leave me to believe a philosopher maybe being racist has near the same effect on their work as an engineer being a racist. Honestly it's in the eye of the beholder to judge Kant's work for yourself to decide if his racism plagued his work though. His work in ethics actually focused primarily on universalization of maxims which clearly doesn't leave room for racism as motivators for actions. Either way, trust your own judgements about whether personal defects necessarily flow into the systems of philosophers.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 6:12:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Buddha - I don't see any flaws in him personally other than his lifestyle is not one I personally choose, yet his choice is noble.

Lao Tzu - Don't know much about his actual life, but I can't think of any flaws.

Chuang Tzu - Same as above.

Martin Heidegger - His ties to the Nazi party are a problem, but I know that he never personally believed in Nazism.

Alan Watts - An Eastern philosopher. Can't think of any flaws off the top of my head. He's probably the closest person to me among those listed.

David Hume - I don't agree with him entirely, but I don't know of any substantial flaws. Maybe someone else here knows some.

Bodhidharma - Zen founder who meditated too much perhaps, but he makes up for it having spent much time in martial arts being the founder of Shaolin Kung Fu.

Jiddu Krishnamurti - I don't see any flaws with this man.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 6:18:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 6:12:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

David Hume - I don't agree with him entirely, but I don't know of any substantial flaws. Maybe someone else here knows some.


Was really racist.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 12:35:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 6:18:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/8/2012 6:12:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

David Hume - I don't agree with him entirely, but I don't know of any substantial flaws. Maybe someone else here knows some.

Was really racist.

Really? You have any info on that?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 7:13:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 12:35:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 6:18:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/8/2012 6:12:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

David Hume - I don't agree with him entirely, but I don't know of any substantial flaws. Maybe someone else here knows some.

Was really racist.

Really? You have any info on that?

"I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered the symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.1"

http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com...

He was also sexist.

"On the theory of the soul's mortality, the inferiority of women's capacity is easily accounted for. Their domestic life requires no higher faculties either of mind or body. This circumstance vanishes and becomes absolutely insignificant on the religious theory: the one sex has an equal task to perform as the other; their powers of reason and resolution ought also to have been equal, and both of them infinitely greater than at present.1"

http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Champanzee
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 9:01:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 6:12:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Buddha - I don't see any flaws in him personally other than his lifestyle is not one I personally choose, yet his choice is noble.

Lao Tzu - Don't know much about his actual life, but I can't think of any flaws.

Chuang Tzu - Same as above.

Martin Heidegger - His ties to the Nazi party are a problem, but I know that he never personally believed in Nazism.

Alan Watts - An Eastern philosopher. Can't think of any flaws off the top of my head. He's probably the closest person to me among those listed.

David Hume - I don't agree with him entirely, but I don't know of any substantial flaws. Maybe someone else here knows some.

Bodhidharma - Zen founder who meditated too much perhaps, but he makes up for it having spent much time in martial arts being the founder of Shaolin Kung Fu.

Jiddu Krishnamurti - I don't see any flaws with this man.

David Hume most certainly WAS a racist, as pooka said. Also, Heidegger was through and through a Nazi; I can present a few quotes if you still disagree.

Thank you for the feedback!
Champanzee
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 9:06:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:56:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Most philosophers have some sort of personal flaw. One would certainly be hard pressed to find anyone perfect. This would leave me to believe a philosopher maybe being racist has near the same effect on their work as an engineer being a racist. Honestly it's in the eye of the beholder to judge Kant's work for yourself to decide if his racism plagued his work though. His work in ethics actually focused primarily on universalization of maxims which clearly doesn't leave room for racism as motivators for actions. Either way, trust your own judgements about whether personal defects necessarily flow into the systems of philosophers.

Thank you for your reply.

But I think everyone failed to understand my dilemma. You say that Kant maxims for Universalization leave 'no room for racism", but that is where the dilemma lies.

How can the man claim to know anything about that when he himself fails to conform to his own philosophy? The man couldn't hold to the principles HE set forth. Is there a possibility that the entire work is flawed, perhaps unknowingly to the reader, from Kant's racism? Are there areas of his philosophy that people strictly adhere to that was perhaps influenced in some way by his flaws?

Does this discredit his foundation? For me, I simply do not know. I will read Kant and decide for myself.

Thanks to all for their great responses!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 8:09:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This question concerns the agreement with one philosophy or another, or encompassing many aspects from many philosophies, and whether or not those opinions and agreement should be based, in part, on the philosopher himself and not entirely on the philosophy.

The Fool: you take the ideas. lol. its not a faith like in god...lol... where you just follow everything on person does.. I hope nobodies thinks otherwise. But he is trying to imply that philsophy is a faith..as to make it similar(this is active deception) in its very act.. its live and its real.

Scary Sophist: Concerning Immanuel Kant, for example; in a response to criticism from one Father Labat,(who can';t be found historically) a Dominican missionary, by a black carpenter concerning the poor treatment of his wives,(whos wives?) the carpenter responded...

The Fool: I would not trust anything thing from a missionary. not because of being a missionary. Just there credibity is shot to the point of it would be irrational to trust there accounts, of anything without feeling a huge not in my stomach.

We know for sure the church(which has nothing to do with the bible) hint hint.. have always been deciptive. Always.. This is not just my opinion. We know from the records and records of it. I don't know how people keep falling for it.
Its like how do drug dealer get new people to smoke crack?
Answer: because they take advantage of the niave, and weak, which they are doing right here.

THe Fool: Do we really expect a black person of the time in Germany(if there were any at all) speaking in 'German' to randomly come out of nowhere and slander all whites in a all white country, and even especially to be saying that to a well known celebraty of the time.

The Fool: Dude have to be a little more critical of your sources that...

Random black guy in a northern part of Europe "You whites are indeed fools, for first you make great concessions to your wives, and afterward you complain when they drive you mad." no way!!!! Think of the type of contextual necessities for such a think to be true. He is also "short" when blacks tend to be taller... hmmm give me a break. (and even the feminist theories dont exist at the time)

To this, Kant responded...
The Fool: yes he started with AND really!!!

"And it might be that there were something in this which perhaps deserved to be considered; bit in short, this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was stupid."

The Fool: Remember, he was hated by the church because he encoured people to think!!

This is why they hate Him or anybody using thier minds. Kant held it necessary that all church and state paternalism be abolished and people be given the freedom to use their own intellect.

Scary Sophist.: My question is whether or not you can follow the philosophies and teachings of particular philosophers like Kant, or Aristotle (slavery defender), or even Jefferson (slave owner), when their rhetoric seems fundamentally flawed.

The Fool: Another problem, you have to remember the concept, of slaves being bad does not exist in minds. In rome it was immoral to treat a slave to good. because they would think that they were more then slaves.. we would think this crazy and evil. but you have to remember. that universal rights, are just called 'universal' , they are not really universal. So even such ideas are relativly only modern.. They don't exist in anyones minds of those times. They are just ignorant of it.

The Fool: The fact that you are ready to believe this bull sh!t with out any intellectual critique. Is good evidence that you would pro slavery at that time.

The Fool: he are just people like everybody else.. even nazis were regular people. It was Hilter with great speeching. emphizing to NOT THINK and JUST DO.. right ..

Scary Sophist; Is his, and practically every(yes these accounts for practically all) other philosophers theories fundamentally marred by their inconsistencies from their own philosophies and the personal life?

The Fool: Yes so we shoud generalize to every great thinker ever. THat makes sense. This is obviose hate slander to thinkers. And part of the emphisis on getting people to not think about life.. sound a little to close to Hitlers idealogy.

Scary Sophist; Philosophy is the 'love of wisdom', so why did Kant fail to recognize what he surely perceived as wisdom from a black man? Did his racial tendencies cloud his judgement, and therefore, his knowledge, and hence, his philosophy?

The Fool: okay this is a pure demonstation of deception. Some form of anti-reasoning propaganda. its really 'the love of knowledge; he is trying to transite the world knowledge in the sense of biblical of wisdom.

Scary Sophist; Is it possible that he and other 'great thinkers' allowed their so-called wisdom to be plagued by not only racist opinions, but perhaps other detriments as well?

The Fool: awww. you are right .. this a weak jump to all thinkers. NOw its Universal claim. think of what he is saying.. that its the non-thinker who know about racism?????? really??

Scary Sophist: If this is possible, which surely I have proven is the case at least in respect to racist beliefs, than than does this destroy credibility to a widely-accepted (its not belief based)philosophy? Does Kant's various detriments mar his credibility in any way?

The Fool: he is claiming to refute philospohy by appealing to it.

Scary Sophist: I ask this question for myself. I am in a constant inwards struggle with myself to learn or to waste. I am constantly struggling with the extreme ends of one side of an issue and another,

The Fool: he hasnt mention the other... Hhhmm what is other.

The Fool: You see, they are taking advantage of your weakness. Trying to make the world seem hopeless. It is sad that this happens.

Scary Sophist: I want nothing more than the be...sure. Sure of anything; I just want to have meaning in my life, but when I cannot even rely on the supposed 'great thinkers' to be selfless and consistent with their teachings, how am I to achieve consistency? (he is saying to not think)

Scary Sophist:I want to learn philosophy deeply. But I can't seem to get past an introductory textbook when I think about these things. I constantly struggle from one end to another on literally everything.

The Fool: oh ya (hate is in all) its all the philosophy intro texts. lol
I often joke around with the use of the word Sophist. But this is a real live active One!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 8:14:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 7:13:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/9/2012 12:35:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 6:18:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/8/2012 6:12:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

David Hume - I don't agree with him entirely, but I don't know of any substantial flaws. Maybe someone else here knows some.

Was really racist.

Really? You have any info on that?

"I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered the symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.1"

http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com...

He was also sexist.

"On the theory of the soul's mortality, the inferiority of women's capacity is easily accounted for. Their domestic life requires no higher faculties either of mind or body. This circumstance vanishes and becomes absolutely insignificant on the religious theory: the one sex has an equal task to perform as the other; their powers of reason and resolution ought also to have been equal, and both of them infinitely greater than at present.1"

http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com...

The Fool: I do respect you as young thinker.. and we have our differences. but this is what I am talking,.. about .. its a fake profile.. and its not based of anything.. they are trying to stop you from thinking.. but you have some philosophical skill.. this is where you need to use them the best,. Think for yourself you have the power to reason. the Second profile which agrees with him is fake to. You are smarter then that.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 8:26:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:56:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Most philosophers have some sort of personal flaw. One would certainly be hard pressed to find anyone perfect. This would leave me to believe a philosopher maybe being racist has near the same effect on their work as an engineer being a racist. Honestly it's in the eye of the beholder to judge Kant's work for yourself to decide if his racism plagued his work though. His work in ethics actually focused primarily on universalization of maxims which clearly doesn't leave room for racism as motivators for actions. Either way, trust your own judgements about whether personal defects necessarily flow into the systems of philosophers.

The only purpose of this Forum was to slander philosophy. He is hiding his identity.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:49:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 1:14:08 AM, Champanzee wrote:
This question concerns the agreement with one philosophy or another, or encompassing many aspects from many philosophies, and whether or not those opinions and agreement should be based, in part, on the philosopher himself and not entirely on the philosophy.

It depends. One of the interesting aspects of philosophy is that it is an attempt to explain something that we must first understand and be capable of explaining before we can explain it.

In other words -- philosophy is essentially a search for truth or knowledge. However, everything is a search for truth and knowledge, although every other competency focuses on a given area, whereas philosophy assumes that it can figure everything out in general.

However, mathematicians like Kurt Godel or physicists like Steven Weinberg indicate that there is no truth in generalized or overarching claims. Instead, we must figure everything out one-by-one, very gradually coming to some sort of understanding about the Universe. However, it's generally accepted as impossible that we will ever learn and understand everything.

In this regard, philosophy is wholly defunct.

But, when one does not use philosophy to answer questions, but instead, to explore answers presented in other studies, then derive conclusions for how these answers relate to one another, everyone, and each individual, then you have something not only logical, but functional, as well.

Moreover, you result in a body of thought that is not contingent on the behaviors or beliefs of the person presenting them, but instead, the logic they applied to their interpretation of knowledge that they did not originally procure.

In other words -- walking outside without sunscreen on at any given time does not invalidate your knowledge that UV rays can cause skin cancer.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 3:57:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 3:37:59 PM, mestizomongrel wrote:
I don't see how Kant's racism is a personal flaw. It seems pretty well reasoned given the time period.

Lol, once the Western World already had knowledge of prevailing winds, then I suppose you can somehow apply some warped sociopolitical logic to it.... however, one way or another, you can't get away from the fact that some of the things Kant said was bigoted or ignorant, if only because he was so rigid and pedantic in his beliefs that it often made him come off as judgmental. This is why he's considered alongside people have David Hume (who is, in my opinion, one of the fathers of current western imperialistic thought and generalized ignorance), instead of more fitting complements, like say, Rene Descartes (of who's writing's I'm only slightly more fond than Kant).

In terms of Kant's view, I like Jesus' take better. Not to be a Christian or anything, since that's some sort of pejorative here.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:11:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 7:13:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/9/2012 12:35:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 6:18:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/8/2012 6:12:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

David Hume - I don't agree with him entirely, but I don't know of any substantial flaws. Maybe someone else here knows some.

Was really racist.

Really? You have any info on that?

"I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered the symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.1"

http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com...

In all fairness, this wasn't that bad given the time and the information people had available to them. Hume wrote before Jared Diamond, before Darwin, before there was virtually any information on race out there. It seems Hume's racism is certainly not that of Kant. He starts the paragraph "I am apt to suspect" in other words he's speculating. Kant seems to directly say that blacks literally can't have intelligent ideas.

This is why he's considered alongside people have David Hume (who is, in my opinion, one of the fathers of current western imperialistic thought and generalized ignorance), instead of more fitting complements, like say, Rene Descartes (of who's writing's I'm only slightly more fond than Kant).

Can you make that case against Hume? I'd be interested to hear it.

Descartes made me want to gouge out my eyes.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 4:37:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:11:13 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Can you make that case against Hume? I'd be interested to hear it.

Hume is, for all intents and purposes, a descriptive sociologist. He was only concerned with matters that dealt with human interrelationships, and prided himself on deducing all of his conclusions regarding it from "empiricism," or observations he's made about people.

However, when one delves deeper into particularities regarding his perception of people, he becomes terribly vague, if not outright abstruse. In other words, for example, he cannot define morality, so he assumes it undefinable: "...our improvement in the moral or metaphysical sciences is the obscurity of the ideas, and ambiguity of the terms." (Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding). Moreover, he believes that there it is impossible to obtain new knowledge, as we are only capable of understanding concepts that are interrelated, making the fundamental source of knowledge all but a mystery:"Here is a kind of Attraction, which in the mental world will be found to have as extraordinary effects as in the natural, and to shew itself in as many and as various forms. Its effects are every where conspicuous; but as to its causes, they are mostly unknown, and must be resolv'd into original qualities of human nature, which I pretend not to explain. Nothing is more requisite for a true philosopher, than to restrain the intemperate desire of searching into causes, and having establish'd any doctrine upon a sufficient number of experiments, rest contented with that, when he sees a farther examination would lead him into obscure and uncertain speculations" (A Treatise of Human Nature). So, instead, he attempts to rationalize morality as it currently is, rather than perfect it. Through this, he touches on various aspects of his personal political beliefs, such as imperialism, manifest destiny, and the inferiority of natives of Third - World Countries with the greatest resources. He was ridiculously nationalistic, penning the tour de force "History of England," alongside other statements of his (groundless) beliefs, such as "The Natural History of Religion," which as mostly conjectural. Through this, he culminated a secular, anti-religious philosophy that rejected or trivialized normative ethnics and morality while touting nationalism and imperialism.

Which is precisely one of the ideas that set us in the direction we're moving today. Or, at least, which rationalized it most effectively.

Descartes made me want to gouge out my eyes.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 5:03:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 4:11:13 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/9/2012 7:13:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/9/2012 12:35:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 6:18:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/8/2012 6:12:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

David Hume - I don't agree with him entirely, but I don't know of any substantial flaws. Maybe someone else here knows some.

Was really racist.

Really? You have any info on that?

"I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered the symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.1"

http://www.philosophicalmisadventures.com...

In all fairness, this wasn't that bad given the time and the information people had available to them. Hume wrote before Jared Diamond, before Darwin, before there was virtually any information on race out there. It seems Hume's racism is certainly not that of Kant. He starts the paragraph "I am apt to suspect" in other words he's speculating. Kant seems to directly say that blacks literally can't have intelligent ideas.

This is why he's considered alongside people have David Hume (who is, in my opinion, one of the fathers of current western imperialistic thought and generalized ignorance), instead of more fitting complements, like say, Rene Descartes (of who's writing's I'm only slightly more fond than Kant).

Can you make that case against Hume? I'd be interested to hear it.

Descartes made me want to gouge out my eyes.

Dude you guys honesty believe any of this.???
I am a professional phlisphor, not of the link to the sources are valid, I have read almost all there works. Its a fake site. its a hate site ot slander philosophy . do you just really believe that of just that information. all the source links dont work.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:35:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 1:11:05 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Plato is my favorite philosopher and one flaw he had that troubles me is his disrespect towards women. It was the culture of the time to regard them as inferior (and probably always has/will be) but I feel like he should have known better.

Nothing about his view of slaves as property, not people? Okay...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
mestizomongrel
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 6:56:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 3:57:48 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/12/2012 3:37:59 PM, mestizomongrel wrote:
I don't see how Kant's racism is a personal flaw. It seems pretty well reasoned given the time period.

Lol, once the Western World already had knowledge of prevailing winds, then I suppose you can somehow apply some warped sociopolitical logic to it.... however, one way or another, you can't get away from the fact that some of the things Kant said was bigoted or ignorant, if only because he was so rigid and pedantic in his beliefs that it often made him come off as judgmental. This is why he's considered alongside people have David Hume (who is, in my opinion, one of the fathers of current western imperialistic thought and generalized ignorance), instead of more fitting complements, like say, Rene Descartes (of who's writing's I'm only slightly more fond than Kant).

In terms of Kant's view, I like Jesus' take better. Not to be a Christian or anything, since that's some sort of pejorative here.

I don't find Hume's statements to be 'ignorant'. Obviously they are politically incorrect and rough, but its not like he is spewing emotionally driven hatred.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 10:06:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why judge a construct by the standards of its proposer? Surely, the OP understands that the human behind the theory is far different compared to the theory/philosophy itself???? :S
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau