Reply With Quote
Bingo was his name'o.
I'd rather be wrong then intellectually dishonest.
Also, Science != Philosophy
Nope, not even for clarity. A philosopher's contribution, IMO and in my world, are little tidbit sayings that ring true. Theyre fun, concise and usually full of wisdom and perspective.
Otherwise, when it comes to lengthy works of world perspective and the human condition, I pass every time.
I will not agree with nearly all of it, I guarantee that. Also, this forum is a place to bounce ideas around, so I get my "other side" perspective from real life individuals who share the same world I live in. Listening to philosopher's and artists who could rationalize things like slavery, yet provide insight into the nature of man and his position in the universe strikes me as ironic at best, sociopathic at worst.
Bingo was his name'o.
I'd rather be wrong then intellectually dishonest.
Also, Science != Philosophy
I think philosophy, and longer works especially, are a great way to figure out about first principles. I'm not sure how many people actually hold first principles, but I think they're quite useful in determining morality and decision making.
Of course some philosophers justified slavery; others of course, did not. But it's an insight into the past, which is valuable.
For instance, I believe it was Sartre who posited that by our choices, we choose for the world, even if subconsciously. If you cheat on your wife, you are by your actions stating that you think it's presumptively normal or acceptable for others to cheat on their wives. If you gain a better education, then you think it's better for most to gain an education. Not saying this applies in all cases, but it always struck me at a time of decision-making; what would I do not for myself, but what would I expect of someone else in my decision?
What about John Rawls, and his veil of ignorance? Or Locke, and the great influence he had on our Founding Fathers? How about Nietzsche's argument of the Ubermensch often claimed to be a talking point for the rize of Nazis?
What about even people like Socrates, Aristotle and Plato? Some of the earlier philosophers doubled as scientists. Even going to in the 1600s, whose "Cogito ergo sum" or, IIRC in his native tongue "Je pense, que je suis" (I think, therefore I am), was a way of scientifically determining what could and could not be proven?
And those are just the 'classical' philosophers. What about Dostoyevsky, who wrote great works of fiction with very philosophical themes? Orwell? How about even modern day philosophers like Daniel Dennett, who deals with themes of consciousness?
I think you'll find philosophers have shaped the world more than you think.
Have you tried reading a few bits of the above?
How's this for a first principal.
Everything is binary. On or off, right or wrong, in or out, up or down, here or there. Life is an exercise in throwing switches and seeing what happens. Eventually, you have an idea of which way to throw the switch based on past experience, education, upbringing, etc...
I'd like an opportunity to flesh this out someday in the future...it just kind of spilled out right now.
Tertium non datur, but be on your guard for false dilemmas.
Couldnt disagree more.
I bet you could if you tried.
No, because this isnt the first time another member has said "read this" because somehow, its relates to our current discussion.
Point is, I may be wrong, but I'm asking the right questions. Half the fun, it is.
Ha...maybe, I guess.
But the world doesnt unfold quite the same for me as it does for you, apparently.
Safe bet, my internet friend. Safe bet, indeed. Now, don't bogart the doobie.
Pass it over to Yoni.
Ssssssssthp, here.
Hm... not quite sure that could be considered a 'first principle'.
Here, check this out Yoni.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle
For instance, usually conservatives work on a first principle that all men should be free. From that principle, they reason that if a man is free, his property should also be free. From there, it follows that taxes diminish that liberty. See how it works?
Of course, liberals may work from a similar first principle, that all men should be free. But from there, they usually go something along the lines of, "For all men to be free, they must be free from hunger, etc etc" and thereby justification.
The most famous first principle, as far as rational logic, is probably "I think, therefore I am."
Fair enough. However, I think you'll find that people have been asking some of the 'big' questions for a long time. And it's interesting to see other responses and beliefs, and how those responses shape the world. We still have philosophers today; they're just in specialized fields.
Yonivore might have meant something more like logical first principles, like the law of the excluded middle. Everything is either true or false.
Perhaps... but he'd have to flesh it out to see if he really lives his life by that rule.
For instance, enhanced interrogation. Is it acceptable, or not? I'm sure in some instances it is for Yoni, and in others, it is not. So it wouldn't seem like the Law of the Excluded Middle would be a first principle he works from.
As I suggested above, I think it underpins the false dilemmas he poses so often in these pages. He doesn't have much philosophical concern for actual truth and falsity, he just wants to see his own preferences affirmed, so he defines them as being axiomatically true. He loads the dice, then he calls all contrary outcomes false and depraved.
I detect a smidge of Kantian smugness in Yoni's method:
I can see that. Instead of starting from a basis and building from there, it's very possible to start at each situation 'anew' as it were, and immediately label the choices as 'true/false', disregarding prior results. What's sinister though, is when there are MORE than one options, and you assume yours as the true and reject all other claims as false
I've only read a small amount by Kant. Worth it? I don't mind smugness...just as long as he's not as depressing as Kierkegaard (forgive the spelling if incorrect; I always have trouble spelling his name correctly.)
Depends on what you mean by worth it. Reading Kant is not a pleasant experience (though I actually like Critique of Judgment, which is mainly his aesthetics) but his morality is foundational by now, like his skepticism for science. I'm a bit surprised you haven't gone there yet, but we all jump right in and start swimming wherever we happen to be, I guess.
Kant has the Gothic penchant for inventing his own terminology and a million dependent clauses. Still, for clarity and focus I'd take him over Hegel any day.
God, as soon as I read the first sentence, I thought about Hegel. I needed a nearby "Hegel" dictionary to keep track of all the 'dasein' references and whatnot.
I jumped from Descartes, to Sartre/Camus, to Nietzsche, then to some of the modern days ones like Dennett, with occasional bits of Socrates/Aristotle/Plato. Haven't worked my way back towards Kant yet, and probably won't until I get finished with some Dostoyevsky.
Edit: Forgot to mentions John Rawls and John Stuart Mill. Not sure where in there I read those.
Argh, not Hegel. I meant Heidigger. Don't think I've read Hegel yet.
It's understandable. The hipsters will beat you up for saying it, but Heidegger was a blockhead and a Nazi. He's a big waste of time IMO. If you really need the phenomenology, particularly as it relates to actual science, read Husserl.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
