|
On July 04 2010 14:58 BottleAbuser wrote:
Fuck Hume. By his logic, we can't trust our eyes and ears.
Of course, he's right. We should all revert to solipsism... but for everyday life, induction works well enough that we use it.
I give this post a 10/10. ;P Pretty much my opinion after doing philosophy for several years is that you have to separate practicality from philosophy. If you try to LIVE philosophy you will end up a blind man in a cave with no where to go.
|
I think its pretty easy to justify practical philosophies logically.
Hume's argument in particular works on the basis of assuming a link between past and future where no such link can be proven - but practically, we are concerned with answering the question "what should I do next?". It benefits us, in answering that question, to have information about what will happen in the future. Whether we can prove causation or not, the assumption of causation generates better decisions than not making that assumption, so we continue to make it until it fails us.
Likewise, with arguments founded on our inability to prove that the world we perceive is the objective world, we are concerned with acting, and the only information we have access to is that which we perceive. This information is imperfect, but past actions and perceptions suggest that it is not completely useless, so we continue to use perceptive data to guide our actions.
The problem is most people don't want to let go of the idea that what they perceive is real - but what "real" means is variable. It is entirely possible to live practically while accepting that our knowledge may well have nothing to do with the objective reality.
|
I personally just operate under the assumption that whether or not I am a brain in a vat (think matrix) isn't really relevant. As we can never know whether reality is "real" it would seem to me that the question isn't worth pondering over to begin with. Whether or not this is real, this is the reality we experience, so it's the only relevant one.
My real problem with trying to justify practical philosophies is that sometimes what works within the system does not work outside the system (in particular this is true of philosophy of mathematics.) Mostly, this comes down to the will and determinism. Determinism works if you are an observer on the outside, but if everyone lived as if determinism were true, the world would fall apart.
Determinism is basically the belief that everything has a cause, thus every event is caused by another. It is up to debate whether or not thoughts are caused by something or completely random, but I'd like to believe that thoughts are caused as well. If this is the case, then we are not truly responsible for anything that we do. As we are all caused by certain events to do what we do.
Now, having a free will has been defined as "being able to choose to do otherwise." But if someone truly believes in determinism, you would not be able to choose to do otherwise. The events that caused you to do this gave you no other choice. You have an illusion of choice, where you feel like you could have done otherwise, except you didn't.
Now this point of view of determinism is perfectly valid if observed from the outside. As long as everyone believes that they have a choice, it's not problematic. But if everyone were to discover that they did not, then the philosophy would no longer work practically. Our laws would not be able to punish those for breaking the law validly, as they were caused to do so by forces beyond their control. They were not really responsible, in the sense that none of us are responsible for anything that we do.
So bleak a view, I know.
|
One of the only things I took from Kant that I actually liked was his argument "for" free will. I say "for" in quotes because, as far as my understanding goes, Kant proved that the actual argument is irrelevant and that we must assume free will is true, whether or not it is, to act at all. He did this rather better than I can do, and it was a while ago, so I can't really give much more on that.
If you really want more, you can try to read the Critique of Practical Reason, but fuck me that book is ridiculous.
|
Start with this book: http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Guide-through-Subject-Vol/dp/0198752431
The above book explains different ideas, schools of thought and philosophers well in a collection of articles. The authors express themselves in such way that you can understand them relatively easily but without making things too simple. It also has long lists of recommended reading concerning each subject if you want to learn more. This is the kind of book you should start with. You probably won't understand anything what the famous philosophers of the past say in their books (unless it has the editor explaining it to you).
|
On July 04 2010 11:38 noko wrote:
recommending 'sophie's world' then 'Socrates to Sartre'.
I liked it a lot when i was 16.
I think it is a really good introduction to philosophy 
|
On July 04 2010 14:22 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +
You're as bad as the last guy with your take on Descartes. That's just really stupid. Yes, he spent a lot of time on trying to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, but the actual argument he used is still relevant and is debated and written about today (conceivability argument). It's very interesting stuff and is VERY MUCH worth looking into. In addition, his skepticism is very important too. Modern philosophy doesn't put much stock in metaphysical proofs of God's existence. My take on Descartes dates back as far as Kant. Sure, the argument is still relevant and debated, in as much as nearly every major philosopher's arguments are relevant and debated. To be honest here, though, every metaphysical proof for God's existence either ends in circularity or an endless regression, no matter how complexly created. It's not really a stupid point of view to dislike his metaphysics, in my opinion. Especially when there are really solid arguments out there as to why believing that metaphysics can prove the unknown is a rather fruitless endeavor. "I think, therefore I am." Yet what is I?
You're still missing the point. What's important is not that he was trying to argue for the existence of God or god or whatever. His conceivability argument is actually very important, particularly in Mind/Body philosophy. It was expanded and slightly edited by David Chalmers, and is one of the many theories still brought in and discussed in that field (that's apparently now a hot subject).
I don't care that you don't like that he talked about god or tried to prove he exists...that's not important, and that crucial point you're missing is really making you look bad right now.
|
but it depends on how you intend to use it. if your preparing for a class or just want to be smartass without the burden of reading too much, start with wikipedia (unscholarly but practical) and familiarize urself with the canons, then focus on a philosopher or 2 that u think cud best serve ur purpose. perhaps this landscape : plato, socrates, kant, hegel, marx, nietzsche, focault, deleuze, etc.
but if you want, like to teach philosophy or write a credible philo book (and ur just starting with philo), still skim the canons, but concentrate on a field that you want to be an expert of or develop. no sense knowing it all, the most significant philosophers never tried to know it all: foucault read mostly marx and develop his french PS flavored with constant friendly battle with derrida, marx had hegel, nietzsche had schopenhauer but was just as happy to vomit him eventually, as derrida of sartre...
to summarize, READ READ READ, and, like lenin, LEARN LEARN LEARN
|
On July 04 2010 20:12 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2010 14:22 shinosai wrote:
You're as bad as the last guy with your take on Descartes. That's just really stupid. Yes, he spent a lot of time on trying to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, but the actual argument he used is still relevant and is debated and written about today (conceivability argument). It's very interesting stuff and is VERY MUCH worth looking into. In addition, his skepticism is very important too. Modern philosophy doesn't put much stock in metaphysical proofs of God's existence. My take on Descartes dates back as far as Kant. Sure, the argument is still relevant and debated, in as much as nearly every major philosopher's arguments are relevant and debated. To be honest here, though, every metaphysical proof for God's existence either ends in circularity or an endless regression, no matter how complexly created. It's not really a stupid point of view to dislike his metaphysics, in my opinion. Especially when there are really solid arguments out there as to why believing that metaphysics can prove the unknown is a rather fruitless endeavor. "I think, therefore I am." Yet what is I? You're still missing the point. What's important is not that he was trying to argue for the existence of God or god or whatever. His conceivability argument is actually very important, particularly in Mind/Body philosophy. It was expanded and slightly edited by David Chalmers, and is one of the many theories still brought in and discussed in that field (that's apparently now a hot subject). I don't care that you don't like that he talked about god or tried to prove he exists...that's not important, and that crucial point you're missing is really making you look bad right now.
I don't believe I claimed that everything Descartes said in metaphysics is wrong, just that I'd be wary of them because of the great deal of importance he put into his arguments for God (and on that note, his arguments for the existence of self). As far as dualism is concerned, while I don't agree with it, I'm not attacking it. Just because I dislike his metaphysics in general doesn't mean that everything Descartes said was wrong in metaphysics.
To be clear: the only things that I'd be skeptical of with Descartes is his arguments for the existence of self and the existence of God, both of which I think have been debunked by modern philosophy. Of course, on that note, it's still important to know his theories. But they should be taken in with a certain amount of skepticism.
|
There is a series of 3 books called 'Classics of Western Thought' which takes the important excerpts from pretty much every single western thinker and puts a good introduction to each piece. What's really great about these books is that you will get an incredible overview of Western philosophy from the greeks to today.
You can pick and choose to find the originals if you want to really get into it, but these excerpts will equip you with enough to know what the person was saying easily. I honestly can't see anyone who wants to start reading philosophy at home starting anywhere else.
|
Carl Schmitt is awesome. I thikn he justifies a place as a part of the canon. The Concept of the Political is definitely worth a read.
Very interesting thread. My only piece of advice is be ware of Kant. What little I've read of Kant was tough to read. His language is just ... very very difficult to unpack. To be fair, I have only a light background in political philosophy so I might not have the experience or tools to understand it well, but in any case it was not reader friendly. You may want to delay reading him.
The ancients are awesome because you can see their influences later on. I would strongly recommend Nicomachian ethics, then Plato's Republic and The Politics.
Hobbes' Leviathan is a must read. It's simply excellent.
Political Economists are also pretty sweet, but that's well that's probably not the philosophy you are thinking of.
|
On July 04 2010 15:15 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2010 14:58 BottleAbuser wrote:
Fuck Hume. By his logic, we can't trust our eyes and ears.
Of course, he's right. We should all revert to solipsism... but for everyday life, induction works well enough that we use it. I give this post a 10/10. ;P Pretty much my opinion after doing philosophy for several years is that you have to separate practicality from philosophy. If you try to LIVE philosophy you will end up a blind man in a cave with no where to go.
That is an extremely stupid conclusion.
|
On July 05 2010 04:15 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2010 15:15 shinosai wrote:On July 04 2010 14:58 BottleAbuser wrote:
Fuck Hume. By his logic, we can't trust our eyes and ears.
Of course, he's right. We should all revert to solipsism... but for everyday life, induction works well enough that we use it. I give this post a 10/10. ;P Pretty much my opinion after doing philosophy for several years is that you have to separate practicality from philosophy. If you try to LIVE philosophy you will end up a blind man in a cave with no where to go. That is an extremely stupid conclusion.
I'm surprised it took your 4pages of a philosophy topic before you came in and made a comment, Bly. Still pretty much the response I would expect
|
On July 04 2010 15:07 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2010 14:55 kzn wrote:On July 04 2010 14:51 shinosai wrote:You yourself are now making a circular argument.
"Deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible because in the past deductive arguments have not been able to be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the present, when I make an argument using deduction, the argument cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the future when I make a deductive argument, it cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Because deduction worked in the past, it will work in the future."
Hume's problem was that "it works" was not a valid justification for him. It's not a case of "past deductive arguments have never been false". Its a case of the conclusion in all deductive proofs being already contained within the premises. As a method of reasoning, this is infallible mostly because it generates no new knowledge, it merely rephrases what is already known. If nothing is known, then this is practically useless, but the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight, and incapable of generating an invalid conclusion. I agree that the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight. I was merely explaining Hume. For all practical deductions (one's based on real life examples), his argument against induction works just the same as deduction. However, if you were to do something abstract such as P->Q, P thus Q where P's relationship to Q was not relevant, then I think you are absolutely right.
His argument applies to induction only. Your deduction example is wrong because you assumed the justification for deductive arguments lie in induction. Deduction is justified a priori, induction a posteriori. Basically everything kzn said is correct.
|
On July 04 2010 14:58 BottleAbuser wrote:
Fuck Hume. By his logic, we can't trust our eyes and ears.
Of course, he's right. We should all revert to solipsism... but for everyday life, induction works well enough that we use it.
Hume was an empiricist so he argued for the exact opposite.
|
I have this short book from my intro to philosophy class that I took a few years back.
"Existentialism is a Humanism" - Jean Paul Sartre
It's really easy to read so far.
I took your advice and will buy one of this summary books and see where things go from there.
|
On July 05 2010 04:13 Sabu113 wrote:Very interesting thread. My only piece of advice is be ware of Kant. What little I've read of Kant was tough to read. His language is just ... very very difficult to unpack. To be fair, I have only a light background in political philosophy so I might not have the experience or tools to understand it well, but in any case it was not reader friendly. You may want to delay reading him.
He's pretty much as difficult as anything gets in philosophy. I took a course on the Critique of Practical Reason after 3 years of fairly intense philosophy and still had a seriously hard time understanding the raw text.
|
Hegel is considerably more difficult than Kant.
|
Yes but Hegel is pure continental and thus cannot be expected to make any sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
