Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Philosophy as boring academia

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 1:40:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So I've been reading more and more about the Hellenistic philosophies of ancient Greece (Epicureanism, Cynicism, among others) and it made more contemporary philosophy suck by comparison. I mean, these schools weren't necessarily preoccupied entirely by whether reality was made up of one or two irreducible substances or whether possible worlds exist. They were exploring the human condition and looking for a way for people to best live in harmony both with themselves and with others.

I've been getting more into early Hinduist teachings, some Buddhism and of course Taoism (the non-religious aspects of the respective schools) as of recent because they do much the same. Philosophy as it now stands just seems boring and completely disconnected from reality (not in the sense of not knowing what really is or is not but disconnected from the problems that affect most people). Does it really matter in the long run if determinism and free will are compatible? How will that change your life?

I'm not really sure what the point of this post is it's just something that's been bugging me. Why did philosophy move away from such problems that Hellenistic and ancient Indian and Chinese philosophies took as their main focus?
: 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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 1:46:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 1:40:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
So I've been reading more and more about the Hellenistic philosophies of ancient Greece (Epicureanism, Cynicism, among others) and it made more contemporary philosophy suck by comparison. I mean, these schools weren't necessarily preoccupied entirely by whether reality was made up of one or two irreducible substances or whether possible worlds exist. They were exploring the human condition and looking for a way for people to best live in harmony both with themselves and with others.

I've been getting more into early Hinduist teachings, some Buddhism and of course Taoism (the non-religious aspects of the respective schools) as of recent because they do much the same. Philosophy as it now stands just seems boring and completely disconnected from reality (not in the sense of not knowing what really is or is not but disconnected from the problems that affect most people). Does it really matter in the long run if determinism and free will are compatible? How will that change your life?

I'm not really sure what the point of this post is it's just something that's been bugging me. Why did philosophy move away from such problems that Hellenistic and ancient Indian and Chinese philosophies took as their main focus?

Keep digging. Contemporary philosophy can be quite pragmatic. What you're referring to, is the pretentious underpinnings of Western Thought, which, above all else, seeks to quell a nagging moral tinge that admits the wrongness of our general paradigm. This is why Eastern Philosophy suddenly seems so attractive.

I mean, Ayn Rand can go on and on about how nothing really matters except how you feel about things, dissolving any conception of morality, but Ren, Li, and Yi seem so much more relevant to human interrelationships, indeed.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 1:53:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 1:46:54 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/21/2012 1:40:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
So I've been reading more and more about the Hellenistic philosophies of ancient Greece (Epicureanism, Cynicism, among others) and it made more contemporary philosophy suck by comparison. I mean, these schools weren't necessarily preoccupied entirely by whether reality was made up of one or two irreducible substances or whether possible worlds exist. They were exploring the human condition and looking for a way for people to best live in harmony both with themselves and with others.

I've been getting more into early Hinduist teachings, some Buddhism and of course Taoism (the non-religious aspects of the respective schools) as of recent because they do much the same. Philosophy as it now stands just seems boring and completely disconnected from reality (not in the sense of not knowing what really is or is not but disconnected from the problems that affect most people). Does it really matter in the long run if determinism and free will are compatible? How will that change your life?

I'm not really sure what the point of this post is it's just something that's been bugging me. Why did philosophy move away from such problems that Hellenistic and ancient Indian and Chinese philosophies took as their main focus?

Keep digging. Contemporary philosophy can be quite pragmatic. What you're referring to, is the pretentious underpinnings of Western Thought, which, above all else, seeks to quell a nagging moral tinge that admits the wrongness of our general paradigm. This is why Eastern Philosophy suddenly seems so attractive.

I mean, Ayn Rand can go on and on about how nothing really matters except how you feel about things, dissolving any conception of morality, but Ren, Li, and Yi seem so much more relevant to human interrelationships, indeed.

It depends on how you're using the word pragmatic. I honestly hate pragmatism as a philosophy. Pragmatic theory of truth? *throws up* Fvck you John Dewey. But I assume you mean in the sense as being applicable to actual life so yeah I agree. Rand I can see as being somewhat interested in the good life, though the strict moralities of say Kant or Aristotle or Bentham (and Rand of course) are all unattractive in the sense that they make morality into simply some arbitrary set of rules or limitations when in reality the only reason ethics even becomes a problem is when dealing with the question of social interaction and harmony. If you can solve that problem ethics doesn't seem necessary or even relevant.
: 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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 1:54:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I mean, Ayn Rand can go on and on about how nothing really matters except how you feel about things, dissolving any conception of morality
wut.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 1:59:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 1:54:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I mean, Ayn Rand can go on and on about how nothing really matters except how you feel about things, dissolving any conception of morality
wut.

Yeah I didn't really get that part. Rand clearly has a very strong and specific conception of morality which is what seems to be the problem in the first place. Also her epistemic beliefs clearly preclude anything really being contingent on how you feel. But whatevs maybe that was just a miscommunication.
: 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.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 2:11:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Philosophy is just a cheap way for egoists to feel better about themselves while pretending that they know everything. Philosophy is crap.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 3:17:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 1:59:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/21/2012 1:54:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I mean, Ayn Rand can go on and on about how nothing really matters except how you feel about things, dissolving any conception of morality
wut.

Yeah I didn't really get that part. Rand clearly has a very strong and specific conception of morality which is what seems to be the problem in the first place. Also her epistemic beliefs clearly preclude anything really being contingent on how you feel. But whatevs maybe that was just a miscommunication.

Hmmm... am I remembering the right lady? The novelist who came up with Objectivism?

If she is, then perhaps I wasn't being clear. I wasn't suggesting that Rand rejects the concept of morality; instead, I was averring my own criticism by stating that her mode of thought leads to a dissolution of morality. She reminds me of Martin Heidegger -- someone who critically assesses existence as a means to an end, with all that we experience therein as part of a precluded paradigm. Accordingly, the only thing that really matters is what we feel at each given moment. Heidegger perceives this in a more social or nationalistic sense, whereas Rand takes it much further to claim that it applies to each individual.

This takes morality away from the objective nature with which she attempts to characterize it, because happiness/satisfaction and morality/virtue are mutually exclusive. This is what leads to her (what I consider) aggregious error of rejecting altruism. There is no room for altruism in existentialism or objectivism, because there is no room for virtue. Only sensorial accomodation; present titilation. To Heidegger, the greatest good is the government. To Rand, the greatest good is masturbation.

These characters, they're smart, but they fancied themselves smarter, imo.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 3:22:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 1:40:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
So I've been reading more and more about the Hellenistic philosophies of ancient Greece (Epicureanism, Cynicism, among others) and it made more contemporary philosophy suck by comparison. I mean, these schools weren't necessarily preoccupied entirely by whether reality was made up of one or two irreducible substances or whether possible worlds exist. They were exploring the human condition and looking for a way for people to best live in harmony both with themselves and with others.

I've been getting more into early Hinduist teachings, some Buddhism and of course Taoism (the non-religious aspects of the respective schools) as of recent because they do much the same. Philosophy as it now stands just seems boring and completely disconnected from reality (not in the sense of not knowing what really is or is not but disconnected from the problems that affect most people). Does it really matter in the long run if determinism and free will are compatible? How will that change your life?

I'm not really sure what the point of this post is it's just something that's been bugging me. Why did philosophy move away from such problems that Hellenistic and ancient Indian and Chinese philosophies took as their main focus?

These fields have been mainly replaced through psychology and the social sciences.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 3:31:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 1:53:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/21/2012 1:46:54 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/21/2012 1:40:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
So I've been reading more and more about the Hellenistic philosophies of ancient Greece (Epicureanism, Cynicism, among others) and it made more contemporary philosophy suck by comparison. I mean, these schools weren't necessarily preoccupied entirely by whether reality was made up of one or two irreducible substances or whether possible worlds exist. They were exploring the human condition and looking for a way for people to best live in harmony both with themselves and with others.

I've been getting more into early Hinduist teachings, some Buddhism and of course Taoism (the non-religious aspects of the respective schools) as of recent because they do much the same. Philosophy as it now stands just seems boring and completely disconnected from reality (not in the sense of not knowing what really is or is not but disconnected from the problems that affect most people). Does it really matter in the long run if determinism and free will are compatible? How will that change your life?

I'm not really sure what the point of this post is it's just something that's been bugging me. Why did philosophy move away from such problems that Hellenistic and ancient Indian and Chinese philosophies took as their main focus?

Keep digging. Contemporary philosophy can be quite pragmatic. What you're referring to, is the pretentious underpinnings of Western Thought, which, above all else, seeks to quell a nagging moral tinge that admits the wrongness of our general paradigm. This is why Eastern Philosophy suddenly seems so attractive.

I mean, Ayn Rand can go on and on about how nothing really matters except how you feel about things, dissolving any conception of morality, but Ren, Li, and Yi seem so much more relevant to human interrelationships, indeed.

It depends on how you're using the word pragmatic. I honestly hate pragmatism as a philosophy. Pragmatic theory of truth? *throws up* Fvck you John Dewey. But I assume you mean in the sense as being applicable to actual life so yeah I agree.

Lol, yeah, I meant generally pragmatic, rather than as an appeal to pragmatism.

Rand I can see as being somewhat interested in the good life, though the strict moralities of say Kant or Aristotle or Bentham (and Rand of course) are all unattractive in the sense that they make morality into simply some arbitrary set of rules or limitations when in reality the only reason ethics even becomes a problem is when dealing with the question of social interaction and harmony. If you can solve that problem ethics doesn't seem necessary or even relevant.

Hmmm...

...well, I don't know, I've only looked through one of Rand's books and otherwise, read a lot of criticism, so if you're well versed in her novels, then perhaps you know much better than I (which, it appears you might). However, it didn't appear to me that Ayn Rand set forth a series of rules and regulations a la Categorical Imperative. As I understood it, whereas Kant would, for example state that lying is wrong no matter what, Rand would concede that lying is acceptable if it is "for the best." Aristotle, on the other hand, didn't seem nearly as caught up with specific rules regarding reality, but instead, how one could interpret reality, thus leading to distinctions between right and wrong. That is completely different than his protege Plato, though, who wrote entire books about how things ought to be. An example is the republic, in which is literally maps out an entire idealized society. Plato would probably agree that lying is wrong, as well, but for entirely different reasons than Kant. Aristotle, on the other hand, may say something along the lines of the fact that lying simply is, and is right given that it is. Only in a system in which lying did not previously exist, would introducing lying be wrong.

I think.

Lol, I'm at work, so I'm basing this all on memory.

In terms of your interpretation of ethics, that is an ethical foundation in and of itself... the optimization of social interaction (which is about 80% Rand) and harmony (which is that Eastern influence coming out). It certainly doesn't coincide with Rand's ultimate theory, though, which focuses mostly on the individual, inevitably drawing away from harmony. I have to admit, though; I completely agree that in a system in which there is harmony and cooperation, ethics is superfluous.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 3:47:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wait, wait, wait... Plato was Aristotle's teacher, and Socrates was Plato's teacher, right? Lol, and although my general description of Aristotle was pretty accurate, I think that interpretation of lying would have been held by Socrates, although he did have some rather distinct ideas about government and society, himself.

Aristotle seemed less concerned with that and more interested in the nature of being in and of itself. He was more interested in Plato's forms and the Cave Allegory, amirite?

Lol... oh, philosophy. I'm sorry it's become tiresome to you; you must read about it exclusively.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 4:19:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 2:11:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Philosophy is just a cheap way for egoists to feel better about themselves while pretending that they know everything. Philosophy is crap.

Yeah no. You can't escape philosophy unless you act completely based on some animal instinct. You have to contemplate means to ends, you make choices everyday regarding your actions, you use logic to solve most problems, huge social institutions have various metaphysical or ethical presuppositions i.e., Christianity with dualism, democracy with natural law or utilitarianism, etc. You can't really just say "hurr durr philosophy is stupid" while ignoring the fact that philosophy is pretty much the base on which we (unknowingly or not) ground everything we do.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 4:30:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 3:47:04 PM, Ren wrote:
Wait, wait, wait... Plato was Aristotle's teacher, and Socrates was Plato's teacher, right? Lol, and although my general description of Aristotle was pretty accurate, I think that interpretation of lying would have been held by Socrates, although he did have some rather distinct ideas about government and society, himself.

I don't think Socrates would have had an opinion on lying per se. Forgive me if there's something in the dialogues about it but I just don't. I' also not too familiar with Plato's ethics. I know his social ethics and epistemology are pretty crazy but I can't remember him formulating any real ethical problems explicitly. Aristotle's ethics weren't action-based, but character-based. To me that suggests a rather light attitude towards lying i.e., a mean between only lying and only telling the truth.

Aristotle seemed less concerned with that and more interested in the nature of being in and of itself. He was more interested in Plato's forms and the Cave Allegory, amirite?

I don't think Aristotle was on board with Plato's Forms. He was big into empirical investigation which is the opposite of Plato's innate rationalism. Lol I just remembered that Plato hated artists because he thought the world was already an unreal reproduction of reality. Stupid Play-doh.

Lol... oh, philosophy. I'm sorry it's become tiresome to you; you must read about it exclusively.

It's not philosophy but merely its current state Philosophy is one of the things I enjoy for the sake of itself so I can't see myself abandoning it altogether. I see my current viewpoint as simply a transition rather than a rejection.
: 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.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 4:31:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 2:11:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Philosophy is just a cheap way for egoists to feel better about themselves while pretending that they know everything. Philosophy is crap.

The Fool: Are you able to stand up to you own claims in a debate.. ??
"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
9/21/2012 4:38:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 3:47:04 PM, Ren wrote:
Wait, wait, wait... Plato was Aristotle's teacher, and Socrates was Plato's teacher, right? Lol, and although my general description of Aristotle was pretty accurate, I think that interpretation of lying would have been held by Socrates, although he did have some rather distinct ideas about government and society, himself.

Aristotle seemed less concerned with that and more interested in the nature of being in and of itself. He was more interested in Plato's forms and the Cave Allegory, amirite?

Lol... oh, philosophy. I'm sorry it's become tiresome to you; you must read about it exclusively.

The Fool: Being is not particluar nature. That is irrational post and continental Brain damaging Pseudo-philospohy. To speak of existentism is to read me be bible. There is Absolute no merit.
"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
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 4:39:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 4:31:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/21/2012 2:11:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Philosophy is just a cheap way for egoists to feel better about themselves while pretending that they know everything. Philosophy is crap.

The Fool: Are you able to stand up to you own claims in a debate.. ??

Debate is philosophy in a general sense i.e., it aims at truth in a sort of meta-sense, touches on theories of human nature and psychology, and requires logic and reason and stuffs. Performative contradiction anyone?
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 4:41:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 4:38:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/21/2012 3:47:04 PM, Ren wrote:
Wait, wait, wait... Plato was Aristotle's teacher, and Socrates was Plato's teacher, right? Lol, and although my general description of Aristotle was pretty accurate, I think that interpretation of lying would have been held by Socrates, although he did have some rather distinct ideas about government and society, himself.

Aristotle seemed less concerned with that and more interested in the nature of being in and of itself. He was more interested in Plato's forms and the Cave Allegory, amirite?

Lol... oh, philosophy. I'm sorry it's become tiresome to you; you must read about it exclusively.

The Fool: Being is not particluar nature. That is irrational post and continental Brain damaging Pseudo-philospohy. To speak of existentism is to read me be bible. There is Absolute no merit.

What in this post are you referring to? It was simply Ren speaking historically about some philosophers and making a general remark to me. Where's the "continental Brain" damage? And also, fvck analytic philosophy. It's evolved into the purely academic bullsh1t which prompted me to make this thread.
: 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.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 4:48:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 4:30:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/21/2012 3:47:04 PM, Ren wrote:
Wait, wait, wait... Plato was Aristotle's teacher, and Socrates was Plato's teacher, right? Lol, and although my general description of Aristotle was pretty accurate, I think that interpretation of lying would have been held by Socrates, although he did have some rather distinct ideas about government and society, himself.

I don't think Socrates would have had an opinion on lying per se. Forgive me if there's something in the dialogues about it but I just don't. I' also not too familiar with Plato's ethics. I know his social ethics and epistemology are pretty crazy but I can't remember him formulating any real ethical problems explicitly. Aristotle's ethics weren't action-based, but character-based. To me that suggests a rather light attitude towards lying i.e., a mean between only lying and only telling the truth.

Aristotle seemed less concerned with that and more interested in the nature of being in and of itself. He was more interested in Plato's forms and the Cave Allegory, amirite?

I don't think Aristotle was on board with Plato's Forms. He was big into empirical investigation which is the opposite of Plato's innate rationalism. Lol I just remembered that Plato hated artists because he thought the world was already an unreal reproduction of reality. Stupid Play-doh.

Lol... oh, philosophy. I'm sorry it's become tiresome to you; you must read about it exclusively.

It's not philosophy but merely its current state Philosophy is one of the things I enjoy for the sake of itself so I can't see myself abandoning it altogether. I see my current viewpoint as simply a transition rather than a rejection.

The Fool: These are the lies you are getting from Schools. They over simply contexts to make it easier to learn. But over time and repetion it slowly seperate far from the Truth Its scary. There is no Rationalist empirist distinction, Nore is there anybody who was sharply Utiliarian OR some other form. They hyperbolize this distinction for pedagol, reasons but they forget over time. If anything they are suttle distinctions. Aristotle and Plato are not all that different. There difference have been hyperbolized and then reinterprete with the bias conception societies who are reinterpretating it.
"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
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 4:58:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 4:48:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: These are the lies you are getting from Schools. They over simply contexts to make it easier to learn. But over time and repetion it slowly seperate far from the Truth Its scary. There is no Rationalist empirist distinction,

Really? I find that incredibly hard to belief. Do tell.

Nore is there anybody who was sharply Utiliarian OR some other form.

Whether people actually follow their philosophies says nothing of their validity so wut.

They hyperbolize this distinction for pedagol, reasons but they forget over time. If anything they are suttle distinctions. Aristotle and Plato are not all that different. There difference have been hyperbolized and then reinterprete with the bias conception societies who are reinterpretating it.

Dude I'm the one who's cool with Eastern philosophy but you seem to be the one who thinks everything is One. Oh ma gawd dat Hegel! Continental brain damage! Plato and Aristotle were different. I don't think either were especially right in their positions but then again beginnings are always crude. Also I don't understand anything else from that random combination of letters.
: 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.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 6:51:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's interesting that you view philosophy as more interesting in past times. I find both modern and ancient philosophy interesting, for different reasons.

Ancient philosophy, while admirable for it's objectives, can lack the formalisation of ideas that can be appreciated in modern philosophy; some ideas in modern philosophy can be incredibly useful - for instance, the formalisation of utilitarianism (as a general principle or way of understanding things, I don't necessarily subscribe to it) can be useful. That said, modern philosophy has a certain detached element, which although intellectually challenging can also be constrictive at times.

I haven't read too much philosophy, but I do recommend Russell's The History of Western Philosophy. I'm about 5/8 of the way through, and one of the things that ought to strike you throughout the book is the way philosophy is influenced by events of the time. Philosophy becomes more individualistic after Aristotle, as exemplified by groups such as the Stoics; this resulted from general disorder in the Hellenistic world. This changed with the rise of the Papacy. It's things like this that make an examination of ancient philosophy so fascinating.

Your desire for certain answers requires a deeper exploration into other social sciences, as Darkkermit suggested. I find philosophy to be one part of a grand synthesis. This might just be me speaking though - I use a similar synthesis to form political opinions.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 6:55:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 4:58:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/21/2012 4:48:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: These are the lies you are getting from Schools. They over simply contexts to make it easier to learn. But over time and repetion it slowly seperate far from the Truth Its scary. There is no Rationalist empirist distinction,

Really? I find that incredibly hard to belief. Do tell.

The Fool: I could write a book in it.

P1 They do it for Pedagogy..

Firstly, if you know any about chemstry, you will know that the majority of the orginal explanation, Get change as you proceed to higher the levels. Not because they are playing games. But to hit someone with massive load of complecity that is chemesty in its entirty. They do that with most education. Because people don't learn well when being hit with to much complexity at one.

P2 We don't learn early enough as we should

But philosophy we don't learn about philosophy as early as we should. So even in university(at least in undergrade) you never really have time to get into the complexities of the nature. So they start you will simple demarcation, or over generlized ways of thinking. And the relations become more complicated, intertwined and much more continuious.
e.g.

p3 Many conceptions taught don't even exist at the time.
Nobody was ever a Rationalist or empircist, nore were was there Byzantium empire in its own right. Nor is Newton even a Scientist. He doesnt' know this. To him he is a Natural philosopher. These labels Get back label based on the different biases of other societies in different times. And so slowy the interpretations get Hyberbolized. These conceptions didnt even EXIST the time!

Whether people actually follow their philosophies says nothing of their validity so wut.

The Fool: I don't recognize anything related to validy. Are you taking about the argument that philosphers made? Or whether such notions actually correspond to positions held by philosophers?

They hyperbolize this distinction for pedagol, reasons but they forget over time. If anything they are suttle distinctions. Aristotle and Plato are not all that different. There difference have been hyperbolized and then reinterprete with the bias conception societies who are reinterpretating it.

Dude I'm the one who's cool with Eastern philosophy but you seem to be the one who thinks everything is One.

The Fool: I am the Fool, Nothing more Nothing less. Firstly, it was mean to be informative about how history gets destorded over time. What is the Relation to Cool and Eastern philosophers?

Oh ma gawd dat Hegel!

The Fool: It shoudl be obvious that I am making a generalization about the Whole. Not parts taken into consideration. That would be quite unpractical. Everbody has something good to say somewhere. But as far as progressive critical philosophy is concerned I would say it hurt us. Badly. It introduces alot Ideological conception that only ever caused blood shed. And The destruction of language.

Continental brain damage!

The Fool: Its does, its creatist more mystical, ideologic, and non-existent entities. And has maybe perminetly damaged the credibility of philosophy For ever.

Plato and Aristotle were different.

The Fool: They were both major achievement on the advancement of human understanding. The the contenentals Just Used the word "Understanding" to refer to different concepts. They thought by using the same physcial symbols such as "words" It follows that they communicated with others. But if you change the referrenct of a word. You have changed topics.

I don't think either were especially right in their positions but then again beginnings are always crude.

The Fool: Well For one the Greeks can't be wrong about philosophy Because its there own Definintion. Just if I wanted use the word HHm to refer to a folder on my computer. I could never be wrong about it. Its ONLY OTHERS that can MISINTERPRET the meaning. Eastern thinking was introduced by Schopenhauer. But only then the TERM philosophy had been already extremly over generalized to include certain types of Eastern thinking.
<<>>>>> NOT THE CONCEPT!
The contentalist were no longer the PolyMathic philosphers of the past. They were not even doing the same thing, The quest wisdom,. got changed into the Quest for salvation. Which is more that of religion. Contenental in its generalized sense. Not all people and all argument. But all Ideologist philosophy is about as philosphic as the bible. And all equallty forms FUNDEMTALIST Garbage.

Also I don't understand anything else from that random combination of letters.

The Fool: Well then how did you respond to them??? Can you explain?
"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
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 7:04:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 1:40:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
So I've been reading more and more about the Hellenistic philosophies of ancient Greece (Epicureanism, Cynicism, among others) and it made more contemporary philosophy suck by comparison. I mean, these schools weren't necessarily preoccupied entirely by whether reality was made up of one or two irreducible substances or whether possible worlds exist. They were exploring the human condition and looking for a way for people to best live in harmony both with themselves and with others.

I've been getting more into early Hinduist teachings, some Buddhism and of course Taoism (the non-religious aspects of the respective schools) as of recent because they do much the same. Philosophy as it now stands just seems boring and completely disconnected from reality (not in the sense of not knowing what really is or is not but disconnected from the problems that affect most people). Does it really matter in the long run if determinism and free will are compatible? How will that change your life?

I'm not really sure what the point of this post is it's just something that's been bugging me. Why did philosophy move away from such problems that Hellenistic and ancient Indian and Chinese philosophies took as their main focus?

It has a lot to do with the western emphasis on analytical philosphy. If you want to explain how the universe works in analytical terms, unless you just so happen to be omniscient the analytical model will have some inaccuracy or imperfect representation of what is being discussed.

Newton is a great example. He derived laws to model the actions of objects (i.e. first law of motion, etc). This is fine to an extent, but it meant that Westerns could not accurately understand objects which move according to quantum physics. In the east, the division between Newtonian and Quantum wouldn't really be recognized. Instead, eastern emphasis would be on the movement itself as it relates to the universe as a whole.

That's why, for instance, some Eastern medicine works EVEN though the explanations are entirely unscientific (Chi? Give me a break). Acupuncture does theraputically help in ways western medicine does not, but this was discovered not through analytical modeling but instead through a more trial and error means. The "overarching theory" behind it all does not describe the constituent parts, since in eastern thought the distinction between constituent parts is an abitrary construct, and there is only the totality.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 7:20:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 6:55:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/21/2012 4:58:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/21/2012 4:48:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: These are the lies you are getting from Schools. They over simply contexts to make it easier to learn. But over time and repetion it slowly seperate far from the Truth Its scary. There is no Rationalist empirist distinction,

Really? I find that incredibly hard to belief. Do tell.

The Fool: I could write a book in it.

P1 They do it for Pedagogy..

Firstly, if you know any about chemstry, you will know that the majority of the orginal explanation, Get change as you proceed to higher the levels. Not because they are playing games. But to hit someone with massive load of complecity that is chemesty in its entirty. They do that with most education. Because people don't learn well when being hit with to much complexity at one.


P2 We don't learn early enough as we should

But philosophy we don't learn about philosophy as early as we should. So even in university(at least in undergrade) you never really have time to get into the complexities of the nature. So they start you will simple demarcation, or over generlized ways of thinking. And the relations become more complicated, intertwined and much more continuious.
e.g.

p3 Many conceptions taught don't even exist at the time.
Nobody was ever a Rationalist or empircist, nore were was there Byzantium empire in its own right. Nor is Newton even a Scientist. He doesnt' know this. To him he is a Natural philosopher. These labels Get back label based on the different biases of other societies in different times. And so slowy the interpretations get Hyberbolized. These conceptions didnt even EXIST the time!

Regardless, it's obvious the philosophers generally called British empiricists had in common the emphasis on sensory experience in attaining justified knowledge while the Continental rationalists (and their influences) came from more the position of innate ideas and non-sensory based reflection i.e., Leibniz, Descartes, and Plato. Just saying that Hume wouldn't have called himself a British Empiricist doesn't mean his theories and ideas don't conform generally to what we now conceive as such. I have no idea what the devil your other two points are supposed to mean.


Whether people actually follow their philosophies says nothing of their validity so wut.

The Fool: I don't recognize anything related to validy. Are you taking about the argument that philosphers made? Or whether such notions actually correspond to positions held by philosophers?

You said no one has ever actually held to utilitarianism. Through your communicative flaws I was only able to surmise that you were extrapolating the invalidity of the doctrine by saying no one abides by it. If that's not the case then what did you mean?


They hyperbolize this distinction for pedagol, reasons but they forget over time. If anything they are suttle distinctions. Aristotle and Plato are not all that different. There difference have been hyperbolized and then reinterprete with the bias conception societies who are reinterpretating it.

Dude I'm the one who's cool with Eastern philosophy but you seem to be the one who thinks everything is One.

The Fool: I am the Fool, Nothing more Nothing less. Firstly, it was mean to be informative about how history gets destorded over time. What is the Relation to Cool and Eastern philosophers?

You're saying Plato (father of rationalism and intuitive based epistemology) is not that much different from Aristotle (father of empiricism and sensory based epistemology). Whether some of their differences have been hyperbolized (and you certainly haven't given any warrant) might be so but it doesn't mean they're "not all that different".

Oh ma gawd dat Hegel!

The Fool: It shoudl be obvious that I am making a generalization about the Whole. Not parts taken into consideration. That would be quite unpractical. Everbody has something good to say somewhere. But as far as progressive critical philosophy is concerned I would say it hurt us. Badly. It introduces alot Ideological conception that only ever caused blood shed. And The destruction of language.

Bloodshed? K. And what of analytic philosophy? You think it's been a resounding success?

Continental brain damage!

The Fool: Its does, its creatist more mystical, ideologic, and non-existent entities. And has maybe perminetly damaged the credibility of philosophy For ever.

I think the reclusiveness of philosophers to universities and academia has hurt philosophy more. At least Sartre and Hegel were dealing with people, their problems and the human condition rather then trying to come up with a perfectly logical language or spending their time thinking about how quantum mechanics will change our (forever constant) concept of volition and will.

Plato and Aristotle were different.

The Fool: They were both major achievement on the advancement of human understanding. The the contenentals Just Used the word "Understanding" to refer to different concepts. They thought by using the same physcial symbols such as "words" It follows that they communicated with others. But if you change the referrenct of a word. You have changed topics.

Wut the wut.

I don't think either were especially right in their positions but then again beginnings are always crude.

The Fool: Well For one the Greeks can't be wrong about philosophy Because its there own Definintion. Just if I wanted use the word HHm to refer to a folder on my computer. I could never be wrong about it. Its ONLY OTHERS that can MISINTERPRET the meaning. Eastern thinking was introduced by Schopenhauer. But only then the TERM philosophy had been already extremly over generalized to include certain types of Eastern thinking.

K. So Greeks called philosophy something so when we say philosophy we have to use the same meaning? Nah. Philosophy now generally refers to ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and logic. Aristotle and Plato were both relatively early thinkers in such subjects and while they were remarkable thinkers I think most of what they argued was wrong. The theory of Forms and virtue based ethics were sorta retarded amirite?

<<>>>>> NOT THE CONCEPT!
The contentalist were no longer the PolyMathic philosphers of the past. They were not even doing the same thing, The quest wisdom,. got changed into the Quest for salvation. Which is more that of religion. Contenental in its generalized sense. Not all people and all argument. But all Ideologist philosophy is about as philosphic as the bible. And all equallty forms FUNDEMTALIST Garbage.

You see I read what you write and all I see is empty generalizing about Continental philosophy as a whole without any particulars or anything more than an ambiguous undefined overview. You see my problem?
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 7:29:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 7:04:13 PM, Wnope wrote:

It has a lot to do with the western emphasis on analytical philosphy. If you want to explain how the universe works in analytical terms, unless you just so happen to be omniscient the analytical model will have some inaccuracy or imperfect representation of what is being discussed.

Newton is a great example. He derived laws to model the actions of objects (i.e. first law of motion, etc). This is fine to an extent, but it meant that Westerns could not accurately understand objects which move according to quantum physics. In the east, the division between Newtonian and Quantum wouldn't really be recognized. Instead, eastern emphasis would be on the movement itself as it relates to the universe as a whole.

That's why, for instance, some Eastern medicine works EVEN though the explanations are entirely unscientific (Chi? Give me a break). Acupuncture does theraputically help in ways western medicine does not, but this was discovered not through analytical modeling but instead through a more trial and error means. The "overarching theory" behind it all does not describe the constituent parts, since in eastern thought the distinction between constituent parts is an abitrary construct, and there is only the totality.

Yeah, a lot of the differences I can see right of the bat are the methodological and paradigmatic differences between Eastern and Western (I'm mostly referring to Analytic here) philosophy. Daoism related the individual to nature, Confucianism to society, and Hinduism to the universe as a whole. A lot of Western philosophy is more individualistically based. For instance, Descartes' main focus was what *he* could be certain of and the same general emphasis can be seen down the line from Locke to Leibniz to Hume to present.

Furthermore the self seems to be a big difference (and interrelated to the previous one). Buddhists and Hindus see the self as something illusory and as keeping us from seeing the real transcendental reality (kind of like a mystic version of bundle theory and sensory skepticism, lol Sage Hume) while Locke and other Western liberal political philosophers took the self as the primary starting point. The general viewpoint also seems to subsist all throughout the rest of Western philosophy too (as in the earlier example of Western epistemology).

I dunno. I definitely have an immediate attraction to Eastern philosophies of the Taoist and Buddhist type (not so much Confucianism). I just wonder if I'll be able to fully grasp their concepts since the paradigm that Eastern philosophers operate under is so much different from that of Western ones.
: 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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 7:31:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 7:29:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:
(not so much Confucianism).

Well, fine, to hell with you!!

I'm kidding. :P

What specifically appeals? Let's open the conversation. What is your meta-ethical conception? ^_^
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 8:02:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 7:31:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/21/2012 7:29:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:
(not so much Confucianism).

Well, fine, to hell with you!!

I'm kidding. :P

What specifically appeals? Let's open the conversation. What is your meta-ethical conception? ^_^

Meta-ethically? Nihilist. Though I still value social harmony and contentment and all that even if I realize it's ultimately subjective. I definitely see value in the Hellenistic schools and Chinese and Indian philosophy. For instance, Cynicism and Taoism emphasize harmony with nature which is something that prima facie I can get behind. Buddhism an Epicureanism focus on relieving suffering, heck Stoicism seems a lot closer to mild Existentialism then anything. And Buddhism and Hinduism are great in regards to problems of personal identity.
: 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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 10:23:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 3:17:57 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/21/2012 1:59:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/21/2012 1:54:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I mean, Ayn Rand can go on and on about how nothing really matters except how you feel about things, dissolving any conception of morality
wut.

Yeah I didn't really get that part. Rand clearly has a very strong and specific conception of morality which is what seems to be the problem in the first place. Also her epistemic beliefs clearly preclude anything really being contingent on how you feel. But whatevs maybe that was just a miscommunication.

Hmmm... am I remembering the right lady? The novelist who came up with Objectivism?

If she is, then perhaps I wasn't being clear. I wasn't suggesting that Rand rejects the concept of morality; instead, I was averring my own criticism by stating that her mode of thought leads to a dissolution of morality. She reminds me of Martin Heidegger -- someone who critically assesses existence as a means to an end
Existence exists, it is not a means or an end. Critically asses?

with all that we experience therein as part of a precluded paradigm.
Wha?

Accordingly, the only thing that really matters is what we feel at each given moment.
Big No.

This takes morality away from the objective nature with which she attempts to characterize it, because happiness/satisfaction and morality/virtue are mutually exclusive.
Mutually exclusive says who?

This is what leads to her (what I consider) aggregious error of rejecting altruism.
Error why.

There is no room for altruism in existentialism or objectivism
Duh.

because there is no room for virtue.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://aynrandlexicon.com...

Only sensorial accomodation; present titilation.
"Neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive by any random means, as a parasite, a moocher or a looter, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment"so he is free to seek his happiness in any irrational fraud, any whim, any delusion, any mindless escape from reality, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment nor to escape the consequences."

However, it didn't appear to me that Ayn Rand set forth a series of rules and regulations a la Categorical Imperative.
I should hope not.

"

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride."

As I understood it, whereas Kant would, for example state that lying is wrong no matter what, Rand would concede that lying is acceptable if it is "for the best."
That's pragmatism, not Objectivism.

"Rand : I don"t believe the American people should ever be told any lies, publicly or privately [that is, by the government or by the movies]. I don"t believe that lies are practical. I think the international situation now rather supports me. I don"t think it was necessary to deceive the American people about the nature of Russia. I could add this: ... perhaps there are reasons why it was all right to be an ally of Russia, then why weren"t the American people told the real reasons and told that Russia is a dictatorship but there are reasons why we should cooperate with them to destroy Hitler and other dictators? All right, there may be some argument to that. Let us hear it."

She never put forward a general theory of lying (you certainly won't find any prohibition of, say, lying to a man who wants to know the location of your husband for purposes of murder), but if she had it would have had rather limited allowances.

In terms of your interpretation of ethics, that is an ethical foundation in and of itself... the optimization of social interaction (which is about 80% Rand)
If by "optimization of social interaction" you understand optimizing how one interacts with oneself as an end. But anything social isn't 80% of Rand anything.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 1:51:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What are some of the philosophical topics that you do and don't find insignificant to life?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 1:53:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 2:11:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Philosophy is just a cheap way for egoists to feel better about themselves while pretending that they know everything. Philosophy is crap.

Heh, philosophy has only brought me to the conclusion that I know literally nothing.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 11:49:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 8:02:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/21/2012 7:31:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/21/2012 7:29:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:
(not so much Confucianism).

Well, fine, to hell with you!!

I'm kidding. :P

What specifically appeals? Let's open the conversation. What is your meta-ethical conception? ^_^

Meta-ethically? Nihilist. Though I still value social harmony and contentment and all that even if I realize it's ultimately subjective. I definitely see value in the Hellenistic schools and Chinese and Indian philosophy. For instance, Cynicism and Taoism emphasize harmony with nature which is something that prima facie I can get behind. Buddhism an Epicureanism focus on relieving suffering, heck Stoicism seems a lot closer to mild Existentialism then anything. And Buddhism and Hinduism are great in regards to problems of personal identity.

I wonder why there's such a focus on subjectivity... subjective in what regard? In terms of how ethics apply universally? Well, humans don't really interact with reality on a universal scale, so how can that be relevant?

I'd say a few of those overall perspectives are antithetical to nihilism... such as Taoism and Buddhism. There are several instances during which the Buddha, for example, asserted that there is a distinctly right and wrong way to behave, exemplified by his interactions with other gods (such as the monkey Goku) and messages or lessons relayed through bodhisattvas (which usually became such through virtue, much like cannonization). Buddhism borrows from Confucianism in this way, asserting a concept of karma, which relates a direct consequence for moral/immoral actions.

Cynicism and Taoism is almost an extended criticism of immoral or unethical behavior by humans, by which students are drawn back to an ultimate "ought" that coincides with a more natural existence, as opposed to a contrived one, as most social paradigms are considered under such schools of thought.

Epicureanism diverges away from that completely, though... it seems to coincide more with Western perspectives, leading to ideas such as those entertained by Rand and Heidegger. In other words, that pleasure or satisfaction on a given scale is the ultimate good.

In fact, I think you're probably confusing Epicureanism and Stoicism, because Stoicism isn't much like Existentialism (while Epicureanism very much is). Instead, it focuses on concepts that seem to borrow from Eastern philosophies, such as Confucianism -- positive emotions/states resulting from moral/ethical/rational behavior. Stoicism is almost an entire philosophy derived from the avoidance of "negative emotions."

Hinduism an personal identity... expound? Hinduism is quite spiritual, and shares a lot of concepts regarding morality with Buddhism, such as Karma and Dharma. It is probably the most well-developed and multifaceted of Eastern religions.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 12:07:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 10:23:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/21/2012 3:17:57 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/21/2012 1:59:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/21/2012 1:54:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I mean, Ayn Rand can go on and on about how nothing really matters except how you feel about things, dissolving any conception of morality
wut.

Yeah I didn't really get that part. Rand clearly has a very strong and specific conception of morality which is what seems to be the problem in the first place. Also her epistemic beliefs clearly preclude anything really being contingent on how you feel. But whatevs maybe that was just a miscommunication.

Hmmm... am I remembering the right lady? The novelist who came up with Objectivism?

If she is, then perhaps I wasn't being clear. I wasn't suggesting that Rand rejects the concept of morality; instead, I was averring my own criticism by stating that her mode of thought leads to a dissolution of morality. She reminds me of Martin Heidegger -- someone who critically assesses existence as a means to an end
Existence exists, it is not a means or an end. Critically asses?

Existence isn't limited to it's own general state. Existence is something of a generalized term to refer to everything that interacting with reality entails. In terms of my interpretations of Heidegger and Rand, this existence is living among others for the duration of your life, and how that life is actually a means to achieve the highest possible state of happiness or satisfaction, either on a social (Heidegger) or individual (Rand) scale.

with all that we experience therein as part of a precluded paradigm.
Wha?

Society or what we consider life (but, is actually a contrived organized state that directs the majority of our day-to-day activities).

Accordingly, the only thing that really matters is what we feel at each given moment.
Big No.

??? Why not?

This takes morality away from the objective nature with which she attempts to characterize it, because happiness/satisfaction and morality/virtue are mutually exclusive.
Mutually exclusive says who?

Says anyone with any sort of foundational moral/ethical perspectives. Morality and virtue are literally parameters that help direct people to make correct decisions rather than those driven by self-interest, which literally makes happiness/satisfaction and morality/virtue mutually exclusive.

This is what leads to her (what I consider) aggregious error of rejecting altruism.
Error why.

That should have been egregious, lol. But, that's because altruism is essentially the crux of ethical behavior -- doing something for the sake of it being right, rather than subjective self-interest.

There is no room for altruism in existentialism or objectivism
Duh.

Lol.

because there is no room for virtue.
http://www.amazon.com...

This is brand new to me: "Far from representing the rejection of morality, selfishness, in Rand's view, actually demands the practice of a systematic code of ethics. This book explains the fundamental virtues that Rand considers vital for a person to achieve his objective well-being: rationality, honesty, independence, justice, integrity, productiveness, and pride."

My first question regarding this is -- how could one prioritize justice while remaining selfish? Couldn't honesty be counterintuitive to selfish happiness while remaining virtuous? Clearly, I've never read that book, so this is why I'm asking you. :)

http://aynrandlexicon.com...

I don't disagree with this definition of virtue, but I do disagree that Rand's perspectives directly coincide with it.

Only sensorial accomodation; present titilation.
"Neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive by any random means, as a parasite, a moocher or a looter, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment"so he is free to seek his happiness in any irrational fraud, any whim, any delusion, any mindless escape from reality, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment nor to escape the consequences."

That doesn't really disprove my point; it merely asserts that one must rationally think through and pursue titillation, rather than blindly and relentlessly pursuing something that may not even result in happiness, even if it may appear so at the time you made the decision.

However, it didn't appear to me that Ayn Rand set forth a series of rules and regulations a la Categorical Imperative.
I should hope not.

Well, actually, that book you linked to me seems to disagree, and instead assert that her views are ultimately quite Kantian. I'd like very much to discuss this further...

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man"s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

HMMMmmmm... Although that's not quite what I was saying, I see your point, and completely agree.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists"and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason"Purpose"Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge"

Up to this point, the similarity between these statements and my own assertions in similar conversations is uncanny. However, we diverge at:

Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve"Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man"s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride."

Happiness and self-esteem? They seem almost irrelevant to the previous statements with which I agree.

As I understood it, whereas Kant would, for example state that lying is wrong no matter what, Rand would concede that lying is acceptable if it is "for the best."
That's pragmatism, not Objectivism.

They're pretty similar, no?

"Rand : I don"t believe the American people should ever be told any lies, publicly or privately [that is, by the government or by the movies]. I don"t believe that lies are practical. I think the international situation now rather supports me. I don"t think it was necessary to deceive the American people about the nature of Russia. I could add this: ... perhaps there are reasons why it was all right to be an ally of Russia, then why weren"t the American people told the real reasons and told that Russia is a dictatorship but there are reasons why we should cooperate with them to destroy Hitler and other dictators? All right, there may be some argument to that. Let us hear it."

Wow... that is so far from... that's very much politics, rather than ethics. In other words, all things considered, and given the way things are, it is necessary that the federal government remain at least somewhat opaque in the interest of national security. If all information about this country were available to everyone, that would include its enemies.