# Philosophers



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Any philosophical minds out there? I've been quite enthralled with Alan Watts recently.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Holy cow, no philosophical types here? This isn't meant to be overly serious. Just a playful questioning of life.

Edit: Some of these videos have started at odd times when you hit play, and they really should be played from the beginning.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

I have a good fried who is a PhD candidate specializing in David Hume. Him thinking aloud is about the extent of my philosophical training.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

I've read some books on philosophy of science. For years I've intended to read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions but I've never got round to it.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Philosophy is frustrating. One nice idea pops up, then another guy comes along saying he was wrong. Then the next guy says the other guy was wrong, the first guy was actually right, and around we go.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Manxfeeder said:


> Philosophy is frustrating. One nice idea pops up, then another guy comes along saying he was wrong. Then the next guy says the other guy was wrong, the first guy was actually right, and around we go.


Philosophy is almost by definition pointless armchair theorizing that goes nowhere. If it "goes somewhere", it becomes a branch of science, or maybe religion or art.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> Philosophy is almost by definition pointless armchair theorizing that goes nowhere. If it "goes somewhere", it becomes a branch of science, or maybe religion or art.


Hey, you're philosophizing right now. It's the questioning of the experience of life. Well within every man's rights.

Saying that it "goes nowhere" is missing the point entirely. It's a tool to shake people out of complacency.

So, it's not information one needs to pick up through the education system. I've studied it in college, and trust me, it's not an object to be gathered in your mind, but an attitude of questioning existence. And everyone has their own ways, as they should.

Some extraordinary minds have come through philosophy.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

I do enjoy a bit of philosophy "light" like Alain de Botton's books every now and then.
Those heavyweights in that field were completely lost on me when I was at uni. Foucault, Derrida; I still have the books, should read them again to see if they make more sense now I'm "matured".....


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Jos said:


> I do enjoy a bit of philosophy "light" like Alain de Botton's books every now and then.
> Those heavyweights in that field were completely lost on me when I was at uni. Foucault, Derrida; I still have the books, should read them again to see if they make more sense now I'm "matured".....


Yea, some get so abstract I can hardly muster a hold. But as I've said, there are a ton of great minds expressing through philosophical thinking. It can be quite a trip.

I wanted to see who else people were reading up on, but it doesn't look like this is a popular subject around here.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> Philosophy is frustrating. One nice idea pops up, then another guy comes along saying he was wrong. Then the next guy says the other guy was wrong, the first guy was actually right, and around we go.


You are aware that philosophers are expected to support their ideas with arguments and logic and things like that, yes?


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2015)

ahammel said:


> You are aware that philosophers are expected to support their ideas with arguments and logic and things like that, yes?


This I think appertains to analytic philosophy, not to other traditions of thinking necessarily, such as continental philosophy. It is a common assumption to English speakers because it is the prevalent tradition in English-speaking countries.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

ahammel said:


> You are aware that philosophers are expected to support their ideas with arguments and logic and things like that, yes?


Of course. I was making a general statement. I'm not the only one; Will Durant's Story of Philosophy  is replete with Philosopher X said ___ is wrong, ___ is right statements.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

I like philosophy when it takes a more tangible form, such as the novels of Kierkegaard. I started reading Sartre's Nauseau but it is the sort of thing I cannot stand. Mostly I like works of armchair "philosophy" by more literary-minded men who did not have a particularly insightful (true) philosophy at all -- Emerson's Essays, Coleridge's Biographia Literaria, Ruskin's works. Plato is great too. I read Nietzsche a bit when I was younger, but mostly the aphoristic works, and as an artist first, philosopher second.

I really dislike Alain de Botton and those sort of popular philosophy gurus. I read the last compilation of Alan Watts "Beyond Seeking" which was given to me by a teacher and remember finding it awful too. I'll think again about why that was.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> I like philosophy when it takes a more tangible form, such as the novels of Kierkegaard. I started reading Sartre's Nauseau but it is the sort of thing I cannot stand. Mostly I like works of armchair "philosophy" by more literary-minded men who did not have a particularly insightful (true) philosophy at all -- Emerson's Essays, Coleridge's Biographia Literaria, Ruskin's works. Plato is great too. I read Nietzsche a bit when I was younger, but mostly the aphoristic works, and as an artist first, philosopher second.
> 
> I really dislike Alain de Botton and those sort of popular philosophy gurus. I read the last compilation of Alan Watts "Beyond Seeking" which was given to me by a teacher and remember finding it awful too. I'll think again about why that was.


For sure. I think Watts is absolutely brilliant. He doesn't at all claim to be a guru, I'm sure he would laugh at the idea of someone calling him that, but his philosophies are inspired by ancient eastern ways - Buddhism, Taoism, etc...

To each their own. Different temperaments. :tiphat:


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

I dig Laozi, Gautama, Nagarjuna, some poet-philosophers, Socrates.

I also like one line by Wittgenstein: _Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent._

Otherwise, I am usually irritated by philosophy (pages and pages of "profound" mental constructs).


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I tend to look at it as an art-form... at least the great philosophers. Turning ideas on itself and spinning the mind into a whirlpool until it becomes silent. Of course, like everything else, it has its ups and downs.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I'm very much into philosophy, but I'm more of an enthusiastic fan than any serious connoisseur. It sort of overlaps my studies, too. Plato, Kant, Hegel, Marx are my foundation. Also romantics like Schiller and Schelling, late marxists like Benjamin, Lucacs. Nietzsche, Adorno, Heidegger in moderation. Guys like Merleau-Ponty, Nancy and their ilk just for fun (it is very much fun!). Freud (!), Lacan and Zizek for the real deal. Foucault, Derrida and Levinas are my enemies, I think, but that's why I read them, too. Wittgenstein I sort of like but he frustrates me. I'm also increasingly into classical theology, which is philosophy, too. Art people like Harold Bloom, Maurice Blanchot and Erwin Panofsky also sometimes border on philosophy, I like them very much. Generally, I read everything that smells even a bit of western philosophy. But I don't want to neglect the east either, Confucius is one of my absolute favourites.

But if there's one over everyone else, it's Plato.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Xaltotun said:


> I'm very much into philosophy, but I'm more of an enthusiastic fan than any serious connoisseur. It sort of overlaps my studies, too. Plato, Kant, Hegel, Marx are my foundation. Also romantics like Schiller and Schelling, late marxists like Benjamin, Lucacs. Nietzsche, Adorno, Heidegger in moderation. Guys like Merleau-Ponty, Nancy and their ilk just for fun (it is very much fun!). Freud (!), Lacan and Zizek for the real deal. Foucault, Derrida and Levinas are my enemies, I think, but that's why I read them, too. Wittgenstein I sort of like but he frustrates me. I'm also increasingly into classical theology, which is philosophy, too. Art people like Harold Bloom, Maurice Blanchot and Erwin Panofsky also sometimes border on philosophy, I like them very much. Generally, I read everything that smells even a bit of western philosophy. But I don't want to neglect the east either, Confucius is one of my absolute favourites.
> 
> But if there's one over everyone else, it's Plato.


Was it Plato or Socrates who said, "I know that I know nothing?" I love that little nip.

I see it to mean that all relative knowledge is simply learned ignorance, taking it's source from the primal ignorance of birth.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Blake said:


> Was it Plato or Socrates who said, "I know that I know nothing?"


Socrates

..................


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Ahah, well... here's some Plato:

"The business of the philosopher is to practice dying." 

Another great nip. Interpret that as you will.


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

I've read two of Watt's books, and really enjoyed them. For a follow up, you might want to try Eugen Herrigal's Zen in the Art of Archery. It really blew me away, and was not what I was expecting from the title. If you enjoyed Watts, you should also get a lot from Herrigal.

I was rather older when I began reading works of philosophy, which was a good thing in my case, because I would have been too immature as a college student to really understand it. But have now read quite a few, and find it fascinating. Hegel and Sartre have influenced me quite a bit. As have Paul Tillich and R. D. Laing.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Not sure where I read it, but it was along the lines that philosophy has extended its stay as a discipline that aims to actually provide solutions. Science and even the more science oriented humanities have taken its task long time ago. For me philosophy is interesting, but at times it's so much devoid of any answers and disconnected from reality that it become borderline pointless.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Søren Kierkegaard, Edmund Husserl, R.G.Collingwood, Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, because they know how to write. Reading their books is a consummate joy, comparable with reading thrilling suspense novels. From them I learn hermeneutics, text interpretation.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I love the Catholic big guns, especially Augustine, who writes with such a poetic and passionate style, especially in his Confessions. St Thomas Aquinas is dry and slices things finely without cutting the thread. His stuff I read with an index finger beneath each word because it gets so legalistically impossible for me to grasp every concept and terminology, but I love to force myself through even a paragraph if I can. Feels good if I can actually understand it. :lol:

Plato and a few Greeks, but otherwise my range is fairly limited. I'd love to tackle the more modern tough guys but I'm not really into them...


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Kieran said:


> St Thomas Aquinas is dry and slices things finely without cutting the thread. His stuff I read with an index finger beneath each word because it gets so legalistically impossible for me to grasp every concept and terminology, but I love to force myself through even a paragraph if I can. Feels good if I can actually understand it. :lol:


You're a better man than I. I have An Aquinas Reader, and I've tried to plow that field, but there are too many stones in the way.

As you said, Augustine, is quite a different story, at least from the little I've read from him.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Chrythes said:


> Not sure where I read it, but it was along the lines that philosophy has extended its stay as a discipline that aims to actually provide solutions. Science and even the more science oriented humanities have taken its task long time ago. For me philosophy is interesting, but at times it's so much devoid of any answers and disconnected from reality that it become borderline pointless.


The problem is that no one knows what reality really is. Why is no one unquestionably satisfied?

Some say the intellect is the way to find the source. Some say intuition. Some say devotion to a higher power. But as long as you really don't know your own source of life, how are we to judge what "reality" is?

Maybe it's beyond sense... maybe the individual intellect is just a temporary effect of the cosmic movement. Who knows, eh?


----------



## Bruce (Jan 2, 2013)

Blake said:


> The problem is that no one knows what reality really is. Why is no one unquestionably satisfied?
> 
> Some say the intellect is the way to find the source. Some say intuition. Some say devotion to a higher power. But as long as you really don't know your own source of life, how are we to judge what "reality" is?
> 
> Maybe it's beyond sense... maybe the individual intellect is just a temporary effect of the cosmic movement. Who knows, eh?


It seems to me, and this is just a theory, that we run into trouble defining reality because we expect such a thing to exist which is true for all people--a universal objective reality. But from what I can gather, that reality is just a little bit different for each subjective perception. How can your reality be exactly the same in all its particulars as mine? There must be a significant area of intersection, or no one could communicate with another. But even within this intersection, there are subtle differences which must be taken into account.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Bruce said:


> It seems to me, and this is just a theory, that we run into trouble defining reality because we expect such a thing to exist which is true for all people--a universal objective reality. But from what I can gather, that reality is just a little bit different for each subjective perception. How can your reality be exactly the same in all its particulars as mine? There must be a significant area of intersection, or no one could communicate with another. But even within this intersection, there are subtle differences which must be taken into account.


We'd have to specify what we mean by reality. Most people consider the world they experience to be the reality, but how could something so relative and time-bound be called reality? All of that drops as soon as the body goes, so it's more of the nature of a mirage than what I would think of as reality.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> You're a better man than I. I have An Aquinas Reader, and I've tried to plow that field, but there are too many stones in the way.
> 
> As you said, Augustine, is quite a different story, at least from the little I've read from him.


This is the difficulty with Aquinas, it's so fine and nit-pickingly exact that the stones have to be lifted, one by one, examined, polished, re-examined, and placed down carefully. He goes deep, but the language isn't exciting or inviting. Augustine is more robust and energetic, he wheels through everything with surety and broad swinging arms, it's poetic and personal, expressive and beautiful and all that stuff that makes him quite compelling...


----------



## georgedelorean (Aug 18, 2017)

I love philosophy. It's such a fun and fascinating way of examining things which aren't necessarily so black and white. Even some authors who aren't philosophers per se, definitely have some very philosophical views. The likes of G.K. Chesterton, Rene Descartes, Confucius, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Aristotle, Homer, Plato, and Socrates.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

Blake said:


> We'd have to specify what we mean by reality. Most people consider the world they experience to be the reality, but how could something so relative and time-bound be called reality? All of that drops as soon as the body goes, so it's more of the nature of a mirage than what I would think of as reality.


Both you and Bruce might be interested in the subjective idealism ("immateriality") of Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753) (if you don't know of him already, of course). He denied that there was a substrate of some indefinable, inaccessible "stuff" called "matter"; everything that exists consists of ideas (of shape, size, color, mass, solidity, etc.) in the mind of the perceiver; "to exist" is "to be perceived by a conscious intelligence;" things don't "wink out" of existence when not perceived by anyone, because everything is constantly being perceived/monitored by God as ideas in his mind, including us. Check out also contemporary scientist Dr. Robert Lanza's theory of "biocentrism" (nutshell: consciousness creates the universe), as well as everything having to do with perception at the quantum level. Interesting stuff!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I am most drawn to that "school" of philosophy that is called Naturalism. This can lead to some confusion with that somewhat older term for an ecologist; such were often known as "naturalists", though it is very likely that most such naturalists were also comfortable with Naturalism as a working theory of How Things Are. Ernest Nagel was a well-known Naturalist philosopher and summed up the basic tenets of Naturalism in a short essay entitled, aptly, _Naturalism Reconsidered_. The essay was first presented as a presidential address before the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in 1954. A brief sentence in that essay struck me with peculiar force: "....I prefer not to accept in philosophic debate what I do not believe when I am not arguing...". In a sense, this is just how Doctor Johnson chose, in his more vigorous manner, to refute Bishop Berkeley's Idealism, as discussed by Totenfeier above. A particularly American variant of Berkeleyan Idealism can be found in Ralph Waldo Emerson's first important essay, _Nature_. I think it is fair to say that, in their lived lives, the vast majority of scientists are practicing students of Naturalism--for the most part they believe and act as if that the world in which they are immersed and which they study is real. Actually, most people act the same way, truth be told.


----------



## TennysonsHarp (Apr 30, 2017)

I find that a lot of current philosophy is not to my liking. I prefer classical philosophy and Enlightenment philosophy, or philosophers with a firm grounding in the world around them. I enjoy the writings of the Stoics to a degree, as well as Zen Buddhist philosophy. Confucius has some great passages as well. Postmodern thought is something I do not care for in the least, since I believe it does not contribute anything of its own, but instead prefers to deconstruct things merely for the sake of deconstructing things. 

I've considered writing some philosophical work of my own, but I don't know how quite to go about it. Should it be a dialogue, as in Plato, or should it be a collection of maxims, as in Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, or should I put my poetic skills to work and write it in verse, as with Lucretius?


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

TennysonsHarp said:


> I find that a lot of current philosophy is not to my liking. I prefer classical philosophy and Enlightenment philosophy, or philosophers with a firm grounding in the world around them. I enjoy the writings of the Stoics to a degree, as well as Zen Buddhist philosophy. Confucius has some great passages as well.* Postmodern thought is something I do not care for in the least, since I believe it does not contribute anything of its own, but instead prefers to deconstruct things merely for the sake of deconstructing things. *
> 
> I've considered writing some philosophical work of my own, but I don't know how quite to go about it. Should it be a dialogue, as in Plato, or should it be a collection of maxims, as in Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, or should I put my poetic skills to work and write it in verse, as with Lucretius?


That's quite a sweeping generalization about "postmodern thought." Since you mentioned deconstruction, I'm assuming that you were thinking primarily of Derrida. In my opinion, his deconstructive arguments actually _do _make an important contribution to the philosophy of language. Derrida analyzed many philosophical texts (Kant, Plato, Nietzsche...) in order to explore their contradictions and inconsistencies. His point was that language is inherently ambiguous and contradictory. You may or may not agree with his conclusions, but you shouldn't say that he was deconstructing things simply for the sake of tearing them down. He was not attempting to tear language down, but rather to show its complexity and unpredictability.


----------



## TennysonsHarp (Apr 30, 2017)

You're correct, I was thinking of Jacques Derrida when I wrote that. His deconstruction, when I first read about it, seemed largely pointless. A lot of postmodern thought is too vague and subjective for my taste.

I consider myself a blend of modernist and classicist. I prefer to have a grounding in the objective world around me. When I ponder why a thing is, I first have to look at it and see what it is to figure out why. I like to go to the heart of things as much as I can using the evidence around me. You could say it's a more scientific way of philosophizing, in a sense.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Few spectacles are sadder than that of a committed Solipsist on stage before a large crowd, microphone in hand, attempting to persuade his audience of the validity of his position. And the audience mostly hears what it wants to hear .


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

TennysonsHarp said:


> You're correct, I was thinking of *Jacques Derrida when I wrote that. His deconstruction, when I first read about it, seemed largely pointless. A lot of postmodern thought is too vague and subjective for my taste.*
> 
> I consider myself a blend of modernist and classicist. I prefer to have a grounding in the objective world around me. When I ponder why a thing is, I first have to look at it and see what it is to figure out why. I like to go to the heart of things as much as I can using the evidence around me. You could say it's a more scientific way of philosophizing, in a sense.


Hours of fun:

http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

"The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link."


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Blake said:


> Any philosophical minds out there? I've been quite enthralled with Alan Watts recently.


my god, Alan Watts, such a bright mind and what a sense of humor. I believe it's not a good philosopher who has no sense of humor. Nietzsche would agree with me  even though I love Kierkegaard and this guy showed less humorous side, maybe just in some episodes of his life when he at the very last moment broke up with his fiance but I don't think it counts 

well, anyway back to the question: now my admiration is Heidegger and I follow him on his "forest paths of being".


----------



## TennysonsHarp (Apr 30, 2017)

Dr Johnson said:


> Hours of fun:
> 
> http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
> 
> "The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link."


I love this. Thank you so much.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I think this just about sums up my knowledge of classical philosophy:


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

I like the Pre-Socratics. 

"The world is made of cheese" and suchlike. That's the kind of philosophy I can relate to.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Dr Johnson said:


> I like the Pre-Socratics.
> 
> "The world is made of cheese" and suchlike. That's the kind of philosophy I can relate to.


Pull up a Perfect Chair and we'll talk about it.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

hpowders said:


> Pull up a Perfect Chair and we'll talk about it.


Ideal. .


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Pull up a Perfect Chair and we'll talk about it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TxllxT said:


>


Yes, I have one.

I use that chair strictly for Platonic relationships.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Let's not forget the power of logic:

Captain Queeg: Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers...

_The Caine Mutiny_


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

When I was at university, Derrida was all the rage. My own interests, at the time, were literary, not philosophical (some may argue that these are the same, and they are in a way, differentiated only by focus) so my entry to his theories was through Deconstructionism. The theory divorces authoritorial intent from the text (as the author is the only one who truly knows the intent, and this in itself is mutable) so meaning from text becomes "fluid". The text becomes the object, not author or implied meaning. Being rather gullible at that tender age, I took this all in as valid and reasonable. However, I soon found that this sort of thinking, if applied to real life, doesn't work very well (unless you are an Anarchist or, ultimately a Nihilist).


----------



## TennysonsHarp (Apr 30, 2017)

Do you suppose it's possible to reconcile the findings of modern science with the ideas of classical philosophy? It occurs to me that the various schools of philosophy regarding the soul are somewhat at odds with modern scientific and psychological thought about how the mind works. There are certainly no bad geniuses residing in our minds, as Descartes would have it; nor is everything simply a mental image, as Bishop Berkeley might have it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Here is my avatar Robinson Jeffers on the nature of reality: his poem _Credo_. His position on Berkeleyan Idealism is essentially the same as Samuel Johnson's, but here he gives Bishop Berkeley's position to a hypothetical Eastern mystic....

My friend from Asia has powers and magic, he plucks a blue leaf from the young blue-gum
And gazing upon it, gathering and quieting
The God in his mind, creates an ocean more real than the ocean, the salt, the actual
Appalling presence, the power of the waters.
He believes that nothing is real except as we make it. I humbler have found in my blood
Bred west of Caucasus a harder mysticism.
Multitude stands in my mind but I think that the ocean in the bone vault is only
The bone vault's ocean: out there is the ocean's;
The water is the water, the cliff is the rock, come shocks and flashes of reality. The mind
Passes, the eye closes, the spirit is a passage;
The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heartbreaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Here is my avatar Robinson Jeffers on the nature of reality: his poem _Credo_. His position on Berkeleyan Idealism is essentially *the same as Samuel Johnson's,*


Hurrah! .


----------



## TennysonsHarp (Apr 30, 2017)

Speaking of the eminent Doctor, his 308th birthday was yesterday. Happy belated birthday to the first modern English lexicographer!


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

It is long past time that I reveal that Samuel Johnson is one of my idols. I'm more or less always reading the Biography at a slow boil, and his philosophy is bracing: "My view is correct, and there's an end on't!"


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Bettina said:


> Derrida analyzed many philosophical texts (Kant, Plato, Nietzsche...) in order to explore their contradictions and inconsistencies. His point was that language is inherently ambiguous and contradictory..


A point which he expressed using, umm.... language.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

If you look at philosophical writing only as something to study, to learn, or to from, something to help you figure out life and how you understand it, well you have missed a lot of the pleasure. Recreational philosophical reading can be very very rewarding. In the same way that listening to great music can be rewarding. A great philosopher, even if you totally disagree, can be great good fun to read and ponder. A lot like the pleasure of recreational mathematics (an equally esoteric and socially uncool pleasure). A good philosophical argument can be just plain entertaining fun to tease out, to run down, to follow, to push against. 

And its something to do with your discretionary brain cells besides Facebook.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

There is always this - written by a famous philosophical writer:

"If you feel nothing but boredom when reading the virtually unintelligible theories of _some_ philosophers, you have my deepest sympathy. But if you brush them aside, saying: 'Why should I study that stuff when I _know_ it's nonsense?' - you are mistaken. It _is_ nonsense, but you _don't_ know it."


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

JeffD said:


> There is always this - written by a famous philosophical writer:
> 
> "If you feel nothing but boredom when reading the virtually unintelligible theories of _some_ philosophers, you have my deepest sympathy. But if you brush them aside, saying: 'Why should I study that stuff when I _know_ it's nonsense?' - you are mistaken. It _is_ nonsense, but you _don't_ know it."


Yeah - epistemology rocks!


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Blake said:


> Hey, you're philosophizing right now.


Exactly. Like Engels said: people who reject philosophy actually simply maintain ordinary, bad and outdated philosophy. Because everybody has opinions on ethics, politics, beauty, science, etc and thus uphold some philosophy!


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Manxfeeder said:


> Philosophy is frustrating. One nice idea pops up, then another guy comes along saying he was wrong. Then the next guy says the other guy was wrong, the first guy was actually right, and around we go.


Actually, this is basically what Hegel is all about! Hegel found a way - actually the idea is as old as philosophy itself - to dialecticly bridge the opposites (known as thesis-antithesis-synthesis) and to interprete all history and it's historical truths as a dialectical ascending to absolute truth (i.e. to Hegel's truth of course ).


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Blake said:


> I tend to look at it as an art-form... at least the great philosophers.


Me too. Great philosophy is recreating the universe from our mind or even one idea. So e.g. Descartes wrote six meditations: the reader should read one meditation per day. Why? Because God created universe in six days/meditations as well...


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Blake said:


> Ahah, well... here's some Plato:
> 
> "The business of the philosopher is to practice dying."
> 
> Another great nip. Interpret that as you will.


I's rather see that people interprete it as Plato meant it: the philosopher aims to see the true Forms (Ideas) which our souls can see but our body "the grave of our soul" mingles with it. When we are dead our souls will be relieved from the bodily shackles and see Truth which the philosopher wishes to see already in this world.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

It is very very hard to know, in philosophy, as well as in mathematics, what is invented and what is discovered.

In music we don't talk about uncovering truth, but rather innovation, new kinds of beauty, invention. But in mathematics, similar developments are, by many, considered a gradual revealing of objective truth.

Same thing, perhaps in philosophy? Is it the gradual revealing of the real truth, (making all earlier philosophy more of a museum piece - this is what we used to think), or is it the invention and development and constant (hopefully) improvement of intellectual structures, having no better claim to truth than their occasional utility when applied?

Except with philosophy, the only tool you have to tease out this question is philosophy itself, so is it no better than a self fulfilling delusion? We prove its truth using the tools we developed from it, and we confirm the truth of the tools because they prove the truth of what we were trying to prove....

No wonder my pencils all have tooth marks.


----------

