Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (91 users) | |
|
| CosmicSpiral United States. August 05 2012 12:46. Posts 7565 | Profile Blog # |
On August 05 2012 12:42 frogrubdown wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 12:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Wow, it's almost as if "philosophy" were just some made up word with no objective meaning and people were going in circles arguing about whose subjective definition is "correct" without any possible criteria for correctness.
There's a world of difference between a word being made up and it not having and "objective meaning". 'Electron' is also a made up word. All words are made up words. The dispute with mcc is not just a verbal one. He's made explicit statements about the relevancy of the type of philosophy taught in universities. It doesn't matter what he thinks that philosophy is like or what his definition of 'philosophy' is, because if the philosophy taught in universities differs from his conception of it he is wrong. "Objectively" wrong.
...why? Neither of them are objectively right. Last edit: 2012-08-05 12:46:40 |
| | ONE MILLION YEARS DUNGEON! | |
|
|
| frogrubdown August 05 2012 12:49. Posts 979 | Profile # |
On August 05 2012 12:46 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 12:42 frogrubdown wrote:
On August 05 2012 12:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Wow, it's almost as if "philosophy" were just some made up word with no objective meaning and people were going in circles arguing about whose subjective definition is "correct" without any possible criteria for correctness.
There's a world of difference between a word being made up and it not having and "objective meaning". 'Electron' is also a made up word. All words are made up words. The dispute with mcc is not just a verbal one. He's made explicit statements about the relevancy of the type of philosophy taught in universities. It doesn't matter what he thinks that philosophy is like or what his definition of 'philosophy' is, because if the philosophy taught in universities differs from his conception of it he is wrong. "Objectively" wrong.
...why? Neither of them are objectively right.
Because he's made explicit statements about the utility of the philosophy taught in universities. Whether he is right about the utility depends on what the philosophy taught in universities is like, not what he thinks it's like.
edit: and presumably one of the meanings is the "objective" meaning of 'philosophy'. Words have natural language meanings determined by their uses. This doesn't usually determine its application to every possible case (that's where vagueness comes in) but it does work for enough cases to cover the types of scenarios people end up talking about. I don't see any reason for thinking this is the type of thing that's undetermined by natural language use of 'philosophy', but maybe it is.Last edit: 2012-08-05 12:52:42 |
| | "that's a load of fashionable, banal, neo-pagan yuppie bullshit" RIP |
|
|
| doughd August 05 2012 12:51. Posts 1 | Profile # |
Graduated magna cum laude, BS in phil.
Dont waste your breath on politicians. They are smarter than they act; and they will refuse to answer serious questions out of fear of acting erudite or abstract or out of touch.
Use phil as a tool for you. Use it as a way to gauge where you are, and how your character is being shaped over time. Use it to not settle for the mundane, but rather strive for the exceptional. Use it as a tool to navigate poverty- if you need to, because your values are worth more than money; and reading the Republic is more fun than watching cable TV. Use it to be smarter than everyone, without them knowing. Watch people exist on a immediate cause, and force yourself to exist three causes behind the immediate.
|
|
|
| CosmicSpiral United States. August 05 2012 13:13. Posts 7565 | Profile Blog # |
On August 05 2012 12:49 frogrubdown wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 12:46 CosmicSpiral wrote:
On August 05 2012 12:42 frogrubdown wrote:
On August 05 2012 12:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Wow, it's almost as if "philosophy" were just some made up word with no objective meaning and people were going in circles arguing about whose subjective definition is "correct" without any possible criteria for correctness.
There's a world of difference between a word being made up and it not having and "objective meaning". 'Electron' is also a made up word. All words are made up words. The dispute with mcc is not just a verbal one. He's made explicit statements about the relevancy of the type of philosophy taught in universities. It doesn't matter what he thinks that philosophy is like or what his definition of 'philosophy' is, because if the philosophy taught in universities differs from his conception of it he is wrong. "Objectively" wrong.
...why? Neither of them are objectively right.
Because he's made explicit statements about the utility of the philosophy taught in universities. Whether he is right about the utility depends on what the philosophy taught in universities is like, not what he thinks it's like. edit: and presumably one of the meanings is the "objective" meaning of 'philosophy'. Words have natural language meanings determined by their uses. This doesn't usually determine its application to every possible case (that's where vagueness comes in) but it does work for enough cases to cover the types of scenarios people end up talking about. I don't see any reason for thinking this is the type of thing that's undetermined by natural language use of 'philosophy', but maybe it is.
Hmmmm, I considered the statement out of context (I didn't realize you two had been arguing for several posts prior to this one). I have nothing interesting to add to that particular conversation.Last edit: 2012-08-05 13:15:44 |
| | ONE MILLION YEARS DUNGEON! | |
|
|
| Friedrich Nietzsche Germany. August 05 2012 14:50. Posts 154 | Profile # |
On August 05 2012 08:13 koreasilver wrote:
I think the funniest thing about these exchanges is how it reveals that everyone, whether they want to think so or not, always have an implicit, if not rather explicit, way of thinking that is grounded in some kind of philosophical method. The cherry-on-top would then be the fact that almost all of these underlying grounds are methods of thinking that flourished in the century before us.
I would agree that for most people the study of academic philosophy isn't really that important for their daily lives. But I definitely think that learning the history of philosophy is rather helpful because it helps everyone realize that the way people think in the modern world isn't as "intuitive" or "common sense" as many people think, because for the general society to come to the current state it had to go through many changes that were preceded by the thoughts of philosophers. In this way I think that doing philosophy and hoping for the world you live in to change is a pretty foolhardy thought. At best your grandchildren will see the fruits of your labour.
Still funnier (more funny?) is that reading the OP, I think the intention was completely different for this thread. All this discussion in the 9 pages of this thread can appear in any philosophy or science or political science thread here in TL, to be honest, and they'd still fit.
What the OP wanted to discuss if I understand right is simply how would politicians would welcome discussion of philosophy within its sphere. There could have two purposes, test their character (not knowledge of philosophy), and see how they can weave it within the practical concerns of politics.
edit.
Thanks for referring to the book. I'll grab a copy tomorrow.Last edit: 2012-08-05 14:55:44 |
| |
|
 sam!zdat United States. August 05 2012 14:53. Posts 4170 | Profile Blog # |
| I would like to have a rigorous education in philosophy (edit: humanities) be a requirement for all public office, but I'm just weird like that. Last edit: 2012-08-05 14:55:01 |
| |
|
| Kukaracha France. August 05 2012 22:00. Posts 1890 | Profile Blog # |
On August 05 2012 10:08 mcc wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 08:27 Kukaracha wrote:
It is amazing how far mcc goes to rationalize his own ignorance.
We humans are fascinating walking miracles.
Great post, the amount of arguments I found in it. I think I can safely say the same thing about you.
I already provided you with a few points you weren't able to address; But anyway, I was referring to your intellectual defense mechanism of being sure, without having any sort of knowledge in philosophical field and while misusing terms and refusing corrections coming from people who specialize in them, that philosophy was "useless" and abused "unnecessary" jargon. Labelling anything you don't understand (even though everyone else here does) "empty semantics" is also quite meaningful.
To give you a comparison that you may understand, it's as if someone says that the CERN is bullshit, wondering why they have to go through such "unnecessary procedures" and that science should just "follow common sense" and "see the world the way it is".
But don't worry, we're all guilty of such fallacious statements. I sometimes think a girl is a "slut", and no matter how rational I try to be about it she's still a slut in my eyes. Even though I can't accuse her of anything, I'll find her behaviour disgusting. Same with some right-wing ideas.
We're hard-wired like that.
On August 05 2012 03:46 18- wrote:
Je vous aime, baguette, zinedine zidane !
Vive la République!
Last edit: 2012-08-05 22:08:44 |
| | Le long pour l'un pour l'autre est court (le mot-à-mot du mot "amour"). |
|
|
| koreasilver Canada. August 05 2012 23:02. Posts 7488 | Profile Blog # |
On August 05 2012 14:50 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 08:13 koreasilver wrote:
I think the funniest thing about these exchanges is how it reveals that everyone, whether they want to think so or not, always have an implicit, if not rather explicit, way of thinking that is grounded in some kind of philosophical method. The cherry-on-top would then be the fact that almost all of these underlying grounds are methods of thinking that flourished in the century before us.
I would agree that for most people the study of academic philosophy isn't really that important for their daily lives. But I definitely think that learning the history of philosophy is rather helpful because it helps everyone realize that the way people think in the modern world isn't as "intuitive" or "common sense" as many people think, because for the general society to come to the current state it had to go through many changes that were preceded by the thoughts of philosophers. In this way I think that doing philosophy and hoping for the world you live in to change is a pretty foolhardy thought. At best your grandchildren will see the fruits of your labour.
Still funnier (more funny?) is that reading the OP, I think the intention was completely different for this thread. All this discussion in the 9 pages of this thread can appear in any philosophy or science or political science thread here in TL, to be honest, and they'd still fit. What the OP wanted to discuss if I understand right is simply how would politicians would welcome discussion of philosophy within its sphere. There could have two purposes, test their character (not knowledge of philosophy), and see how they can weave it within the practical concerns of politics. edit. Thanks for referring to the book. I'll grab a copy tomorrow.
Well, every "philosophy" thread gets derailed really fast.
And to be fair, I think that plenty of politicians do have at least some knowledge of philosophy but they just don't really talk about it much in public because they don't have any real reason to. I remember reading this one journalist's encounter with Obama where Obama talked about some "complex" problem involving Niebuhr. It's too bad that the journalist didn't actually reproduce what Obama said about Niebuhr but I would say that most of these individuals in the higher echelons of political spheres are, in general, well read. I would also contend that their thoughts do have a pretty direct influence on their politics even if it only manifests in rhetoric. |
| | "I don't think that the polls accurately reflect how far this race has swung in Romney's favor. I'm still expecting a landslide victory for Romney." - TL's very own Nostradamous, xDaunt |
|
|
| AlphaWhale Australia. August 06 2012 02:54. Posts 321 | Profile # |
As much as I would like to see the results, politicians are seen as more or less soulless creatures (even if that is a cartoon character-like description) the general public doesn't look to politicians for guidance on spirituality nor do they consider a reliable source.
That being said, how does a speech writer prepare a serious answer for an existential question without endangering entire demographics of voters and not sound like what would not pass off as "hippy shit".
On the topic of philosophy as a whole, I have found absurdism to be working out well. |
| | The icon for diamond league is actually a sapphire. |
|
|
| xwoGworwaTsx United States. August 06 2012 03:02. Posts 845 | Profile # |
| No two things can be farther apart than philosophy and real life. Let me restate it. Philosophy often times do not engage in issues concerning real life. |
|
|
| sam!zdat United States. August 06 2012 03:42. Posts 4170 | Profile Blog # |
On August 06 2012 03:02 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
No two things can be farther apart than philosophy and real life. Let me restate it. Philosophy often times do not engage in issues concerning real life.
Those are two different claims, not a restatement. |
| |
|
| xwoGworwaTsx United States. August 06 2012 03:51. Posts 845 | Profile # |
On August 06 2012 03:42 sam!zdat wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 03:02 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
No two things can be farther apart than philosophy and real life. Let me restate it. Philosophy often times do not engage in issues concerning real life.
Those are two different claims, not a restatement.
Exactly the kind of stuff "philosophy" would be concerned about. Useless impractical rhetorics. Should we now argue whether in the statement "There are clouds in the sky." if by "in" we means inside the sky? Or if it is not the other way around, that the sky is in the clouds? Or if there are clouds and skies at all? Or if there is really "us" who see the clouds and sky?
Come on don't be ridiculous. |
|
|
| frogrubdown August 06 2012 04:08. Posts 979 | Profile # |
On August 06 2012 03:51 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 03:42 sam!zdat wrote:
On August 06 2012 03:02 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
No two things can be farther apart than philosophy and real life. Let me restate it. Philosophy often times do not engage in issues concerning real life.
Those are two different claims, not a restatement.
Exactly the kind of stuff "philosophy" would be concerned about. Useless impractical rhetorics. Should we now argue whether in the statement "There are clouds in the sky." if by "in" we means inside the sky? Or if it is not the other way around, that the sky is in the clouds? Or if there are clouds and skies at all? Or if there is really "us" who see the clouds and sky? Come on don't be ridiculous.
What are you talking about? Your two statements clearly mean completely different things by anyone's standards. I thought you were conscious of how hyperbolic the first one was. You might as well have said:
"No two things can be farther apart than cars and me. Let me restate it. Often I'm not inside of a car."
And why would anyone think the sky is in the clouds? Is that supposed to be a meaningless question with no clear answer, because it seems pretty straightforward to me. |
| | "that's a load of fashionable, banal, neo-pagan yuppie bullshit" RIP |
|
|
| Kukaracha France. August 06 2012 04:12. Posts 1890 | Profile Blog # |
On August 06 2012 03:51 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 03:42 sam!zdat wrote:
On August 06 2012 03:02 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
No two things can be farther apart than philosophy and real life. Let me restate it. Philosophy often times do not engage in issues concerning real life.
Those are two different claims, not a restatement.
Exactly the kind of stuff "philosophy" would be concerned about. Useless impractical rhetorics. Should we now argue whether in the statement "There are clouds in the sky." if by "in" we means inside the sky? Or if it is not the other way around, that the sky is in the clouds? Or if there are clouds and skies at all? Or if there is really "us" who see the clouds and sky? Come on don't be ridiculous.
Sorry for thinking and asking questions.
As for "useless" and "impractical"... where did communism, positivism and the age of enlightenment come from? |
| | Le long pour l'un pour l'autre est court (le mot-à-mot du mot "amour"). |
|
|
| sam!zdat United States. August 06 2012 04:19. Posts 4170 | Profile Blog # |
On August 06 2012 03:51 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 03:42 sam!zdat wrote:
On August 06 2012 03:02 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
No two things can be farther apart than philosophy and real life. Let me restate it. Philosophy often times do not engage in issues concerning real life.
Those are two different claims, not a restatement.
Exactly the kind of stuff "philosophy" would be concerned about. Useless impractical rhetorics. Should we now argue whether in the statement "There are clouds in the sky." if by "in" we means inside the sky? Or if it is not the other way around, that the sky is in the clouds? Or if there are clouds and skies at all? Or if there is really "us" who see the clouds and sky? Come on don't be ridiculous.
Ok, you're right. Let me restate it. I disagree.
(thesis: people who don't like philosophy have no sense of humor. Discuss.)Last edit: 2012-08-06 04:29:50 |
| |
|
| xwoGworwaTsx United States. August 06 2012 17:01. Posts 845 | Profile # |
On August 05 2012 12:51 doughd wrote:
Graduated magna cum laude, BS in phil.
Dont waste your breath on politicians. They are smarter than they act; and they will refuse to answer serious questions out of fear of acting erudite or abstract or out of touch.
Use phil as a tool for you. Use it as a way to gauge where you are, and how your character is being shaped over time. Use it to not settle for the mundane, but rather strive for the exceptional. Use it as a tool to navigate poverty- if you need to, because your values are worth more than money; and reading the Republic is more fun than watching cable TV. Use it to be smarter than everyone, without them knowing. Watch people exist on a immediate cause, and force yourself to exist three causes behind the immediate.
LOL.
Me too, graduated Maxima Ultra cum laude in PhD Philosophy. Currently in my 4th and 5th PHDs, and I'm taking them simultaneously .
Really internet people just say anything nowadays. If duscussion on philosophy is bad enough in classrooms, it really takes on another level in the internet, where anonymous people can just claim anything, and the vocal argumentative few who really know nothing get to say the most simply because they can. |
|
|
| Catatafish August 19 2012 01:05. Posts 75 | Profile # |
On August 04 2012 01:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 01:01 Split. wrote:
On August 04 2012 00:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The average person can't even understand philosophy.
After you realized this you make a post about philosophy yourself? Thanks for nothing
I can understand most philosophy just fine, although I don't expect you to take my word for it. I do expect a lot of people who love talking about the meaning of meaningless things to address my comments with some frustration. I should have taken more care to distinguish between the various meanings of the word philosophy to prevent confusion as well.
The fact that justice, morality etc. are invented by the human mind and do not correspond to anything outside of it does not make them meaningless or unworthy of study. |
|
|
| B1-66ER August 19 2012 13:55. Posts 22 | Profile Blog # |
On August 03 2012 23:08 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 15:35 B1-66ER wrote:
On August 03 2012 15:06 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Russell's intro is heavily biased towards analytic philosophers and hilariously bad for everyone else. Only people who have read nothing after the Greeks can retain their naivete.
Please discuss further. To say that Russell is inclined towards analytic/atomistic philosophy in his approach is similar to saying the Marx will have a markist interpretation of Occupy Wall street. Regardless, his countless publications - let us focus on introductory reading here since it what I discussed and to which you replied: The Problems of Philosophy, Philosophical Essays, Human Knowledge, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, A History of Western Philosophy, and An Outline of Philosophy are the best efforts on the historization and problematization of the issues of philosophy, written with equal lightness, clarity, and authority. When someone is published in areas ranging from metaphysics, specific political issues (China, war), science, morality, Foucault (in my assessment one of the clearest appropriation of Foucault), religion, etc., and be well-received, that person deserves way much more than being labelled "hilariously bad".
analytic philosophy is a tradition. when i say intro i meant a history of western philosophy, if you read his sections on modern thinkers they are pretty underwhelming. He was as dismissive of Nietzsche as anyone has been. I'm not aware he wrote anything on Foucault, plz link.
Russell, B. (1965) On the philosophy of science. Indianapolis : Bobbs-Merrill
Russell, B. (1967) War Crimes in Vietnam. London: Allen & Unwin
Russell, B. (1971) Dear Bertrand Russell... Houghton Mifflin
among many other books, including editorial compilations on Foucault.
|
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
