i was recently thinking about how important stuff like plato and nietzsche are. also sartre, maybe. at least spinoza. but well, what the gently caress do i know about philosophy  ? i'm just here to learn and talk about it with you lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
|
when dealing with philosophy it is good to start with the basics. so let's start with a self-evident proposition such as "I think, therefore I am." another noted philosopher has observed "I yam what I yam." transitive logic compels us to conclude: I think, therefore I yam . . . which means everybody should eat yams today. I personally am fond of sweet potato fries, you just slice em up pretty thin, toss them with olive oil, put them in the oven for a half hour or so until the ends are slightly crispy but they still retain some softness in the middle. toss those puppies with salt, pepper, maybe some smoked paprika or cumin and youre good to go. *mouth full* I love philosophy
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
spinoza doesnt sound like a philosopher name. it sounds like an entertainer or maybe a host of a gossip show. like, before ryan seacrest, there was spinoza.
---------------- |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
|
I use to think Kant was cool because I read the Wild Cards novels before I read anything of philosophy and there was this lizard-man detective whose last name was Kant and I assumed it was intended to be a complimentary reference (although he got hosed up in one scene when a guy grabbed his long lizard tongue and smeared hot deli mustard on it) then I read more about Kant and I realized he was basically nice but religion had hosed up his brain, but not so hard that he couldn't do something about it, so he wrote out a bunch of ideas people took real seriously, like it's never okay to lie ever, even if a murderer is at your door asking if the person they intend to kill hiding in your house he just wanted to be good so hard that he constructed entire paragraphs and books justifying his desire to get patted on the head and told he was good, which I bet he wasn't, like, ever speaking of which I still think Freud was on the right track despite how people want to sort of disclaim/debunk him, these days, but I like Jung better because he was a true-believing space cadet |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Human beings are likely to be wrong about stuff because they're human, and that's true of philosophers as well. What we can ask of philosophers is that their ideas are responsibly constructed, and clearly and consistently stated. By this standard, many well-regarded philosophers -- Nietzsche, for instance -- fail horribly. Here is a short list of some famous philosophers that aren't fail lords: Socrates, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Isaiah Berlin, J.P. Sartre, Bertrand Russell, and about a quarter of Spinoza.
---------------- |
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
philosophy is a slippery slope, y'all. i should know, i majored in phil but then realized right before graduating that going to school for more degrees to teach a bunch of dribble to some college kids would be a terrible idea, so i never got my degree and instead traveled the country with freight hopping hoboes, drinking bum wine under bridges and sleeping in abandoned crack houses. i just think you should think twice before using words like "dialectics" and "empirical" around young people least they head down the terrible path towards endless schooling, tell them to skip ahead to the dropping out and being a bum part, it's a lot healthier for the psyche and you don't end up with thousands in college debt. anyways, the only thing that good philosophy should teach us is gently caress it, live yr loving life and worry abt this poo poo when yr old and can't get out of bed anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
|
Reading some Descartes and he's cool and all except pretty sold on the existence of God and seems to think you're screwy if you don't believe it. Not that I have a really big opinion on the matter. *Passes you the bong |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:17
|
|
| Descartes sucks rear end...imo... | |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
|
I used to like Descartes in highschool but I got bullied so frickin hard for it. "Cogito ergo nerd" they'd say, as they shoved my head into the toilet, flushing my sense of self. |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
|
Fredflonston posted:Reading some Descartes and he's cool and all except pretty sold on the existence of God and seems to think you're screwy if you don't believe it. Not that I have a really big opinion on the matter. the price you had to pay being a philosopher during the inquisition |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
|
imo nihilism is pretty wack, not that it matters or anything |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
|
*Flipping through Simulacra and Simulation Me - "No doi, Jean." |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
|
Do all philosophers have an 'S' in them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
|
[quote="“Robot Made of Meat”" post="“477156812”"] Do all philosophers have an ‘S’ in them? [/quote] If you think Plato is Socrates then yes |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
My current fav is Hegel. I am really interested in the Elements of the Philosophy of Right, but his writing is literally the worst. It was hand-crafted to piss me off. Here is why it is good: Hegel's project is to describe how the "mere ought" of Kantianism can become present in the world, to describe the components of the good life and why they are good, and to explain the relationships and attitudes that support different kinds of normative interaction. This is very good stuff and is very informative even if you do not accept his specific arguments in relation to these projects. Here's why it makes my eyes bleed with rage: He strives for a fully systematic philosophy, so he tries to preserve the same terms throughout different projects. In other words he might use the same words to talk about metaphysics, logic, (what we would now call) sociology, and normative ethical theory. One cannot help but admire his thoroughness, but it also makes it very difficult to figure out what the ground level claim is. What does it mean to say that something "has being in itself but not for itself?" As I understand it, that phrase means that something exists -- it has substance, if you like -- but is not yet explicitly conceived of and pursued. A whole bunch of Hegel's writing suggests that he's just asking over and over, what can be done to make sure that rights exist in practice, that people are treated as moral agents, and that the practices constitutive of the good life are available to all people? You will never find him saying that sentence in any clear way. |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:54
|
|
ShinyBirdTeeth posted:My current fav is Hegel. I am really interested in the Elements of the Philosophy of Right, but his writing is literally the worst. It's terrible. His writing so loving bad. I can't believe that someone who could write that poorly could think clearly. Sometimes I wonder if it's just about trying to translate from German into English but I've read translations of other German writers and I doubt it. I think he just sucked at writing and we should throw all his books in a lake. ShinyBirdTeeth posted:He strives for a fully systematic philosophy, so he tries to preserve the same terms throughout different projects. In other words he might use the same words to talk about metaphysics, logic, (what we would now call) sociology, and normative ethical theory. One cannot help but admire his thoroughness, but it also makes it very difficult to figure out what the ground level claim is. What does it mean to say that something "has being in itself but not for itself?" As I understand it, that phrase means that something exists -- it has substance, if you like -- but is not yet explicitly conceived of and pursued. A whole bunch of Hegel's writing suggests that he's just asking over and over, what can be done to make sure that rights exist in practice, that people are treated as moral agents, and that the practices constitutive of the good life are available to all people? You will never find him saying that sentence in any clear way. You are right, this is a good critique, and I am prepared to certify that you are smarter and a better thinker than Hegel ever was. ---------------- |
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
cda posted:It's terrible. His writing so loving bad. I can't believe that someone who could write that poorly could think clearly. Sometimes I wonder if it's just about trying to translate from German into English but I've read translations of other German writers and I doubt it. I think he just sucked at writing and we should throw all his books in a lake. I've tried reading it in the German and no it is not any better. I recommend that people just read some Hegelians. Charles Taylor, Alisdair MacIntyre, Axel Honneth, Ludwig Siep, and Robert Williams are just much clearer ways to get versions of his ideas. Robert Williams "Ethics of Recognition" is just SOooooOOOOoo much clearer |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
I can contribute at this moment only my affirmation that this thread is good and you all are cool
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:47
|
|
Happy halloween |
|
cda posted:Human beings are likely to be wrong about stuff because they're human, and that's true of philosophers as well. What we can ask of philosophers is that their ideas are responsibly constructed, and clearly and consistently stated. By this standard, many well-regarded philosophers -- Nietzsche, for instance -- fail horribly. Here is a short list of some famous philosophers that aren't fail lords: Socrates, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Isaiah Berlin, J.P. Sartre, Bertrand Russell, and about a quarter of Spinoza. ew |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
I'll fight you |
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 00:20
|
|
| If you step to me, there's going to be two philosophies: you philosopheeling bad about contradicting me, and me philosophearing that I hurt your feelings. | |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
What do you all do if you are reading a book about philosophy or religion and you don't really agree with the first chapter? Do you keep going? Or is doing so just a waste of time? It's tough because the first chapter usually explains the fundamental ideas upon which the rest of the book's arguments will be based, and if you don't agree with these fundamentals then it tends to invalidate everything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
|
blaise rascal posted:What do you all do if you are reading a book about philosophy or religion and you don't really agree with the first chapter? Do you keep going? Or is doing so just a waste of time? It's tough because the first chapter usually explains the fundamental ideas upon which the rest of the book's arguments will be based, and if you don't agree with these fundamentals then it tends to invalidate everything else. Sometimes I keep reading in order to find more things I hate in it and gently shake my head and glare. Sometimes I find something interesting later on! (But they have to overcome my fervent bias at that point). |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
|
blaise rascal posted:What do you all do if you are reading a book about philosophy or religion and you don't really agree with the first chapter? Do you keep going? Or is doing so just a waste of time? It's tough because the first chapter usually explains the fundamental ideas upon which the rest of the book's arguments will be based, and if you don't agree with these fundamentals then it tends to invalidate everything else. Me? I flip forward to Chapter 2 to see whether it starts with, "HOWEVER,"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
It depends on why I am reading the book. Sometimes I'm trying to develop my understanding of a specific idea or reading, in which case I'm just looking for further material to develop that idea. Sometimes I'm trying to understand the breadth of the issue itself or seeking out alternative treatments. If I'm doing the first thing, then anything off track is just a distraction. If I'm surveying or engaging with alternatives, then I would continue unless I already know the point and/or think it is merely stupid. After all, there are lots of really brilliant ideas that I happen to think are wrong, but some ideas are just loving stupid. Often the stupid versions have better versions anyway so I'd just go look for one of those. |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
|
ShinyBirdTeeth posted:Sometimes I'm trying to understand the breadth of the issue itself This is mostly me. I've also found that if I read up on the authors life beforehand and it's a setting that is interesting to me I usually enjoy their thoughts at least out of curiosity. It's the same for poetry and philosophy. |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 20:53
|
|