On July 15 2010 00:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
In philosophical debates / presentations I've attended, I tend to hear more about "this logic is airtight" than I do about the actual subject under discussion. As the other poster pointed out, there is much more concern with argumentative form, than with the pursuit of truth.
Edit* Speaking of analytical philosophy, that is. I'm discovering I'm much more a "fan" of Continental philosophers.
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
There is a point to life? Why does there have to be?
Nothing. You die eventually and that's it.
I don't like value systems. I prefer intrinsic values.
Good and evil are anthropomorphic projections of human conscience on the world.
Wisdom at its basic level is decision making.
Fav. Philosophers: Wittgenstein, Kant (when his writing is clear-usually not though), Zen philosophy, Rousseau(though not really into political philosophy; minarcho-capitalism ftw), Descartes(so many modern ideas and fallacies can be traced back to his work), and Kuhn(not really a philosopher, but as an engineering major his examination of paradigm based science is valuable)
Also, Pinker is a good read for philosophers and psychologists alike.
On July 15 2010 00:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
In philosophical debates / presentations I've attended, I tend to hear more about "this logic is airtight" than I do about the actual subject under discussion. As the other poster pointed out, there is much more concern with argumentative form, than with the pursuit of truth.
Edit* Speaking of analytical philosophy, that is. I'm discovering I'm much more a "fan" of Continental philosophers.
Why aren't the two related? You have to bring more examples, I still don't know what you're referring to.
Your teaching would deny the existence of suffering, so it does not give an answer. To say it another way, if I asked a monk "Why do I suffer?" He would say, as I understand you, "there is no such suffering". That does not explain, uncover, understand or attain the cessation of suffering. It only denies the obvious.
I believe you have misunderstood the meaning of 'emptiness'. Emptiness does not mean absence of experience only absence of inherent existence.
Suffering is an experience. We cannot deny that there is suffering. Suffering is empty of any inherent existence but this does not mean that the experience of suffering is not possible. Just as even though all forms are empty does not mean that we do not experience so called forms.
From the monks point of view suffering is not inherent to existence or reality. It is only created as an experience by thought systems in your mind which are based on delusions about reality. I mean delusions in the sense that you believe in something which is not. Such as separation.
Therefore, suffering is an experience that people have but that does not mean that it was based on something that was real. Just because someone has hallucinations under the influence of drugs does not mean that the experience was based on anything real.
On July 15 2010 00:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
In philosophical debates / presentations I've attended, I tend to hear more about "this logic is airtight" than I do about the actual subject under discussion. As the other poster pointed out, there is much more concern with argumentative form, than with the pursuit of truth.
Edit* Speaking of analytical philosophy, that is. I'm discovering I'm much more a "fan" of Continental philosophers.
Why aren't the two related? You have to bring more examples, I still don't know what you're referring to.
Well, now I'm confused. I was saying that some philosophers care more about their arguments, than what they are arguing over. Are you thinking I meant something else?
Even though Objectivism is a remarkably coherent philosophy, it still hinges on one assumption: that the basis of morality is to not initiate violence. The problem is that this assumption is completely unfounded and there are no good reasons to treat it as an axiom.
This is not an accurate account of Objectivism or Objectivist ethics.
Objectivism argues there are three axioms:
1. Existence exists --e.g., there is something 2. Consciousness -- e.g., existence is perceived 3. Identity -- e.g., that which exists is what it is
The pattern of argument involved in defending these axioms is, basically, the same: to attack the axioms you must implicitly rely on them. i.e., Anti-Objectivist: "No, nothing exists" Objectivist: "So you don't exist and neither does your argument. But you are relying on your argument existing in order to...make an argument."
Note that the axioms are very basic. "Existence exists" doesn't tell you if there is matter or, instead, a realm of platonic ideas, or if you are sleeping in the matrix or whatever. The point is simply that there is something whatever that something is.
Moving from the foundational axioms to ethics is a long road through metaphysics and epistemology. Objectivism certainly does NOT argue that non-violence is an axiom. In many situations, stealing or killing another person would be morally permissible even if they had done nothing to you: e.g., you wash up on an island with only one inhabitant. The inhabitant has collected all the fruit on the island and there is nothing else to eat. You ask him for some fruit in order to avoid starvation. He says "you'll have to kill me to get something to eat." Objectivists would NOT claim that it would be wrong to kill this man to get some food.
I may have slightly oversimplified Objectivist ethics, but the assumption that initiating violence is (almost) always unethical is still at the very centre of Objectivist ethics. In the one page summary that you linked, Rand herself writes that "no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others." You still have done nothing to show why this assumption is true.
On July 15 2010 00:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
In philosophical debates / presentations I've attended, I tend to hear more about "this logic is airtight" than I do about the actual subject under discussion. As the other poster pointed out, there is much more concern with argumentative form, than with the pursuit of truth.
Edit* Speaking of analytical philosophy, that is. I'm discovering I'm much more a "fan" of Continental philosophers.
Why aren't the two related? You have to bring more examples, I still don't know what you're referring to.
Well, now I'm confused. I was saying that some philosophers care more about their arguments, than what they are arguing over. Are you thinking I meant something else?
I meant why can't logic and content be related. I thought you were referring to specific cases within analytic philosophy thus I asked for examples. Saying "some" philosophers care about arguing for the sake of arguing more than what they're arguing over is a very vague and unfounded statement.
Your teaching would deny the existence of suffering, so it does not give an answer. To say it another way, if I asked a monk "Why do I suffer?" He would say, as I understand you, "there is no such suffering". That does not explain, uncover, understand or attain the cessation of suffering. It only denies the obvious.
I believe you have misunderstood the meaning of 'emptiness'. Emptiness does not mean absence of experience only absence of inherent existence.
Suffering is an experience. We cannot deny that there is suffering. Suffering is empty of any inherent existence but this does not mean that the experience of suffering is not possible. Just as even though all forms are empty does not mean that we do not experience so called forms.
From the monks point of view suffering is not inherent to existence or reality. It is only created as an experience by thought systems in your mind which are based on delusions about reality. I mean delusions in the sense that you believe in something which is not. Such as separation.
Therefore, suffering is an experience that people have but that does not mean that it was based on something that was real. Just because someone has hallucinations under the influence of drugs does not mean that the experience was based on anything real.
So what you are saying is that although suffering is an experience, it is an illusion? And if that's what you were saying, I would go the step further and say, therefore, there is no suffering.
On July 15 2010 00:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Continental philosophy is interested in the meaning of life, analytic philosophy is not. Depending on where you live, one branch maybe more influential than the other. I don't understand what is meant by "air-tight" logic or worthwhile content.
In philosophical debates / presentations I've attended, I tend to hear more about "this logic is airtight" than I do about the actual subject under discussion. As the other poster pointed out, there is much more concern with argumentative form, than with the pursuit of truth.
Edit* Speaking of analytical philosophy, that is. I'm discovering I'm much more a "fan" of Continental philosophers.
Why aren't the two related? You have to bring more examples, I still don't know what you're referring to.
Well, now I'm confused. I was saying that some philosophers care more about their arguments, than what they are arguing over. Are you thinking I meant something else?
I meant why can't logic and content be related. I thought you were referring to specific cases within analytic philosophy thus I asked for examples. Saying "some" philosophers care about arguing for the sake of arguing more than what they're arguing over is a very vague and unfounded statement.
On July 15 2010 00:53 zulu_nation8 wrote: what were you saying then?
I'm talking about "philosophers" who are more concerned with arguments, than with truth.
This is an oxymoron. It is impossible to be concerned with truth without being concerned about how to prove it, without being concerned with arguments.
Analytic philosophy is characterized by an approach to philosophy that attempts to mirror the rigorous approach taken in the harder sciences, insofar as this is possible with the issues philosophy deals with.
The only definitions of truth which separate truth concerns from argument concerns are definitions that remove everything important about truth in the first place, making the point moot.
On July 15 2010 00:53 zulu_nation8 wrote: what were you saying then?
I'm talking about "philosophers" who are more concerned with arguments, than with truth.
This is an oxymoron. It is impossible to be concerned with truth without being concerned about how to prove it, without being concerned with arguments.
Analytic philosophy is characterized by an approach to philosophy that attempts to mirror the rigorous approach taken in the harder sciences, insofar as this is possible with the issues philosophy deals with.
The only definitions of truth which separate truth concerns from argument concerns are definitions that remove everything important about truth in the first place, making the point moot.
Sure, I never disagreed with this. To say things a different way, since I've retracted my previous comments. What could be said is that not everyone who argues is concerned with the truth (i.e. someone who likes to "win"), whereas generally everyone who is concerned with the truth, argues.
I just started studying philosophy. Not even philosophy yet (As in writing papers on specific arguments) but just basic logic. Anyhow, I just want to make a distinction between philosophy and "thinking about stuff", cause I get the impression that a lot of people think they're doing philosophy when they clearly aren't. I'm just saying... You wouldn't talk about the Pythagorean Theorem with a bunch of friends and actually think that you were doing what mathematicians were doing would you? Poor philosophers don't get any credit, I wonder what people think they actually do all day long? They do a lot more than flip your burgers at McDonalds. There's a lot more to philosophy.
i realize the contradictory and paradoxical arrogance that is associated with a phrase like "real philosophy" but my point was that no matter what the subject, contemporary analytic philosophy is concerned with validity and soundness, i.e. logic. i do not champion this is any qualitative way and i am merely stating, as a matter of fact, the way the word "philosophy" is used today by "philosophers". arguments, phrasing and builld-orders, are what drives the field today more than any of the content of said BO. In summation, philosophy IS concerned with "these things" but only by happenstance. philosophy has run away from moral question since, as we know from various T-shirts, GOD IS DEAD. it might be better if philosophy were still aimed at such lofty idealism but it is not in any functioning way.
Isn't this true of analytic philosophers...circa 1960? As far as I know analytic philosophers don't subscribe to a particular doctrine. Instead analytic philosophy is more of a method, with a focus on clarity , logic, "linguistic precision", and it naturally aligns with science. Also contrary to what you say the Philosophy of ethics is still a very active field (especially in applied/bio ethics). And hey, even G.E. Moore made a significant contribution to ethics with his "Principia Ethica."
On July 15 2010 00:53 zulu_nation8 wrote: what were you saying then?
I'm talking about "philosophers" who are more concerned with arguments, than with truth.
This is an oxymoron. It is impossible to be concerned with truth without being concerned about how to prove it, without being concerned with arguments.
Analytic philosophy is characterized by an approach to philosophy that attempts to mirror the rigorous approach taken in the harder sciences, insofar as this is possible with the issues philosophy deals with.
The only definitions of truth which separate truth concerns from argument concerns are definitions that remove everything important about truth in the first place, making the point moot.
Sure, I never disagreed with this. To say things a different way, since I've retracted my previous comments. What could be said is that not everyone who argues is concerned with the truth (i.e. someone who likes to "win"), whereas generally everyone who is concerned with the truth, argues.
So you're basically accusing a random group of intellectuals of being bad philosophers and somehow connecting that opinion with your dismay at philosophy in general.
Before you, the reader, continue on, let me warn you that this is a sobering and direct analysis of the suppression framework and I would advise everyone who reads this to remain neutral as they examine my answers. If you find the information feeling too “heavy” or evoking fear, set it aside or return to it later. This story is not for everyone. Some will feel threatened by it and react with a sense of alarm, and others will feel like someone pulled the rug from underneath them. If you feel any of this, you may not be prepared to confront these realities
Ayn Rand is pretty well-known for drawing positively ridiculous inferences from her "axioms". Her moves from trivialities like A=A to political or moral conclusions are chock full of embarrassing non-sequiturs. Similarly, her attempt to justify libertarianism out of basically egoist principles makes some pretty basic errors. Consequently, she isn't taken seriously in philosophy, though she retains a really obnoxious and dogmatic cult (as we can see in this thread).
If one wants to read about a sort of neo-aristotelian individualistic egoism it's better to go to Nietzsche, and if one wants a competent defense of libertarianism, it's better to go to someone like Robert Nozick or Jan Narveson.
She's also a terrible, bombastic writer but that's neither here nor there.
EPT
