Philosophy?

JColtrane

JColtrane

Member
Jan 11, 2004
350
0
16
Duke University
Seriously. There is not enough discussion of philosophy on this forum. This forum is supposed to be about philosophy right? Every topic seems to be about either God's existence or the social/political issues of the day (both of which can involve philosophy, but the danger is that the debates become non-philosophical, which is occuring quite frequently). I will try to do my part to keep my discussions at least grounded in philosophy, and I think this forum would be a better place if we all tried to do this.
 
It does seem that quite a few of the threads deteriorate into religion- (or lack thereof) -oriented bickering...

However (in my humble opinion) the intent of this forum is not necessarily philosophy and only philosophy. I see it as a home for intelligent and hopefully mature discussion of any sort. If any of the threads here were started in the regular forums, I'm sure they'd either be deleted for distinct off-topic-ness or they'd deteriorate into mindless insult-flinging, i.e.:

"I believe/don't believe in God."
"You believe/don't believe in God, therefore you must be gay."
"You listen to ________ (Dimmu Borgir/CoF/CoB/whoever) so you're the one that's gay!"
*lame photo-evidence of someone's stupidity goes here*
"Well your mom is gay..."
"haha pwned"

in a matter of posts.

The truth is, I really don't care what we talk about, as long as it doesn't turn into crap like that...
 
i agree. i enjoy talking religion. it is a topic that interests me a great deal, but i enjoy other topics as well. it simply seems that topics as they were phrased and targeted so far, seem to involve religion, so i discuss it.
 
No offense, but of course a discussion of something as ideal and non-wordly as philosophy is going to turn into a religious discussion. There arent many differances. Ancient Greek philosophy is quite akin to religion, and buddhism is a religious form of philosophy. And once one talks about the infinite, one must discuss the temporal issues of the day that shape our perceptions.


Furthermore, I think it is almost a total waste of time to discuss the fine points of such systematic and abstract philosophers as Kant, Hegel, Plato etc. They are imaginary constructs of highly intelligent minds that just dont apply to life.
 
And with that comment, you have just disqualified yourself from any further posting in this forum, or any expectation of people taking you seriously.
 
Inchoate said:
And with that comment, you have just disqualified yourself from any further posting in this forum, or any expectation of people taking you seriously.
Click to expand...

Who has? Speed? Frankly, although I learned about those things in classes and books, I don't have any desire to talk about systematic idealists, either. Social philosophy is what interests me. I don't mean that in a humanist way, rather an examination of values and truth through history and how they are constituted. Also, discussion of what is tenable for the future. If you want to talk about Fichte, though, go right ahead and I'll add my two cents.
 
I was referring to speed.

The same basic things interest me as well; the foundations laid by Plato, Aristotle, and German idealists is also incredibly interesting, albeit ponderous.

To dismiss the subjects out of hand because someone feels that these systems, or idealism itself have no correspondence to reality is patently ridiculous, and doesn't say much for that person's reading comprehension.

Tangent: It's one thing to discuss philosophy (i.e. wank), but it's another to put it into action, especially in these times we live in. All the philosophizing in the world doesn't mean shit if you can't put it to good use for something that benefits the rest of the planet and our collective future. Unless of course, all you care about is appearing erudite to a bunch of strangers on the internet, winning the oneupmanship games that characterize "debate" around here, or playacting for the benefit of BBS politics/expectations, then you are free to continue - don't be surprised when you're not taken seriously by anyone else.
 
Demiurge said:
Who has? Speed? Frankly, although I learned about those things in classes and books, I don't have any desire to talk about systematic idealists, either. Social philosophy is what interests me. I don't mean that in a humanist way, rather an examination of values and truth through history and how they are constituted. Also, discussion of what is tenable for the future. If you want to talk about Fichte, though, go right ahead and I'll add my two cents.
Click to expand...

Thanks demiurge, I have read or am somewhat familiar with all of these philosophers, but frankly I find one finds much more philosophical meaning in say a fugue of Bach, a landscape painting of Lorraine, a film by Tarkovsky, or a novel by Gogol or Dostoesvky. If you would rather read these gargantuan mountains of logical construction, then that is fine with me, I will always argue their largely ineffectual and downright dangerous position in the real world. But remember this, I respect the intellect of these men--all but the positivists, the utilitarians and the god awful Ayn Rand.

I remember this line from a Jean Luc Godard movie-- that I will paraphrase becuase I cannot remember the literal lines-- I think applies to most philsophers: Writers and philosophers should never be followed, because they do not understand the world; those that do understand the world are men of action, and they do not write.

Here is the synopsis:
After arranging a meeting with his former classmate, French writer Pierre Bergounioux, the Ambassador asks if writers know what they’re talking about. “Of course not,” says the writer. He explains that people who act don’t have the ability to express themselves about what they do; and likewise people who tell stories don’t know what they’re talking about.
 
Inchoate said:
I was referring to speed.

The same basic things interest me as well; the foundations laid by Plato, Aristotle, and German idealists is also incredibly interesting, albeit ponderous.

To dismiss the subjects out of hand because someone feels that these systems, or idealism itself have no correspondence to reality is patently ridiculous, and doesn't say much for that person's reading comprehension.

Tangent: It's one thing to discuss philosophy (i.e. wank), but it's another to put it into action, especially in these times we live in. All the philosophizing in the world doesn't mean shit if you can't put it to good use for something that benefits the rest of the planet and our collective future. Unless of course, all you care about is appearing erudite to a bunch of strangers on the internet, winning the oneupmanship games that characterize "debate" around here, or playacting for the benefit of BBS politics/expectations, then you are free to continue - don't be surprised when you're not taken seriously by anyone else.
Click to expand...

You have just contradicted yourself. One you say it is ridiculous to reject idealism and systems because one doesnt believe they are realistic, then you go on to say in your next paragraph that is almost impossible to put these systems in action, other than talk about them on internet boards. Bravo! You understand.

This paradox has been around for at least 2,500 hundred years. The ancient joke was Plato has dreamt up the perfect republic, but it seems to only exist in the clouds, as he ran home with his tail between his legs from his failure in Syracuse.

And on a humeorus side note, to tell you what kind of men these systematic philosophers were, Kant wrote books and essays on how to properly conduct and serve a dinner party; what decorations, silverware, etc. You can see what kind of man he was.
 
speed said:
and the god awful Ayn Rand.
Click to expand...

I've only read Atlas Shrugged, which I enjoyed, although more because of the story than the philosophy. But why is it that so many people reject her writings? Why do so many people pull out here name when they discuss philosophers-gone-wrong? Is it the "I *heart* capitalism"? Is the hero worship?
 
speed said:
I respect the intellect of these men--all but the positivists, the utilitarians and the god awful Ayn Rand.
Click to expand...
:lol: Ayn Rand's a woman...I think...
But I do agree with the "god awful" part. Atlas Shrugged is a horrible book, imo. I probably need to read it again, though...I was 15 when I first read it and I don't think I got much out of it. Maybe there's something I missed...
 
Planetary Eulogy said:
Politics, religious practice and ideology are all applied forms of abstract philosophy. The relationship is akin to that between engineering and physics.
Click to expand...
Notice that I did say this, I guess I wish there was more discussion of abstract philosophy, instead of just these applied forms.
 
When I do discuss subjects I like to have them be set in the real world. Not much abstract philosophy appeals to me. Sorry JColtrane. :cry:
 
All that modern French bullshit about our perception of reality and such, written in ANUS like style is really useless in my opinion. The philosophy of moralism is much more interesting and valuable.
 
"All that modern French bullshit about our perception of reality and such, written in ANUS like style is really useless in my opinion. The philosophy of moralism is much more interesting and valuable."

I'm beginning to think this way as well. I had a lot of time to kill and read Being and Nothingness a few years back. And while I was really blown away by it's logical structure and incredibly complex thought processes, I started to feel like I had read a highly complex writing on absolutely nothing.

These type of books are great to exercise your mind, but they don't have many profound ideas.
 
It seems that the discipline of philosophy can't help but get caught up in these basic problems that don't seem applicable to real life. I mean, you go from talking political/ social philosophy to inevitably talking about the foundations of ethical systems to even more abstract, piecemeal discussions about language, truth, logic, etc. I think that's why a lot of 20th century analytic philosophy seems so self-referential and pointless to the layman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Philosophy, Life and Scholasticism
Replies
26
Views
1K
The Philosopher
Norsemaiden
N
anonymouswierdo
Basics of philosophy, to help beginners.
Replies
26
Views
1K
The Philosopher
no country for old wainds
N
S
Should Philosophy NOT be Taught in the University?
Replies
11
Views
711
The Philosopher
Europa Ascendent
E
Cythraul
philosophy, science, and knowledge
Replies
11
Views
660
The Philosopher
speed
S
S
The Rational Economic Man
Replies
8
Views
528
The Philosopher
speed
S
Top Bottom
Back