|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Is there a good philosophy must read texts list anywhere? All of this stuff is highly interesting to me but since my sum total of philosophy knowledge is one semester of babby's first logic class and a political theories class, a lot of this is flying over my head. To hopefully lay some ground work, think of the body of philosophical work like the body of scientific work. There are identifiable fields, they sometimes overlap, sometimes things get updated or outdated, sometimes the refutation of something requires a serious technical understanding of the material surrounding the subject. Asking for philosophical must read texts is kind of like asking for scientific must read texts. Which field are you interested in and why? For example, Nozick was brought up in this thread with reference to his political/economic philosophical works. He's also done work in epistemology (theories of knowledge). Those two things are separate subjects, and while I don't doubt that a link could be drawn between the two, it's the same link that might be drawn between, say, quantum physics and biology. Knowing about the one isn't going to be super helpful in deciphering the other.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Alright gotcha, from a brief glance through wikipedia utilitarianism seems to most reflect my views and beliefs so that seems like a pretty good starting point or is would that still be too broad? Utilitarianism is a good starting point. There's basically three major branches of ethics. Utility: Greatest good for the greatest number are what make actions good. Duty/Deontology: Duties derived from some place are what make actions good. Virtue: Actions that lead to the good life constructed in some way that it's not actually a consequence of those actions are what make actions good. (Virtue is fuzzy for me and I don't like it). They've all got various issues associated with them. There's a short story, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, that raises one for Utility. The same sort of issue is in Brave New World, if you've ever read that. Other issues circle around defining exactly what good is (usually cashed out in terms of happiness/protection from harm) and who counts in that number. Buried alive fucked around with this message at 06:08 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
absolem posted:I didn't make anyone do anything. I did try to make this more than a "debate me" thread, and the conversation seems to have taken an interesting turn (people are actually talking about ethics...) since I fell behind. Oh good, you're still around. I had a thought. So self-ownership is the basis of all argumentation. Part of what it means to own something is to be able to sell it. Based on my understanding of libertarian philosophy, you could sell yourself into slavery if you really had a mind to. According to your understanding of Hoppe, slavery is untenable because it leads to a contradiction in performance of some sort. I contend that banning slavery is just as untenable, because it violates this idea of self-ownership. How can you be forbidden from selling something that you rightfully own? To say that you own yourself, but can't sell yourself, is a contradiction in performance. So either you allow slavery, and the ethic collapses, or you ban slavery, and the ethic collapses. What do you think?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 20:40
|
|