Philosophy discussion
Introductions and Comments
>
Introductions and General Comments
I had lost sight of the Great Refusal. I think that's because I no longer saw it happening anywhere. However, the Arab Spring has been stunning, particularly because they had no apparent enlightenment going on. What actually did happen, especially in Egypt, also made me think more about the relevance of Rosa Luxemburg to modern outbreaks of civil disorder.
Hopefully there will be some more positive results, than what happened to Luxemburg, for those who stand up and refuse in order to make a better society.
Hello everybody, I am interested in philosophy for quite some time now, so a couple of years ago I started to read about the history and development of western philosophy. I have no professional link to the subject, other than art. I am a contemporary dancer and choreographer/theatre maker from Germany and I find that whenever researching an idea or a theme for a new project, it often is philosophy that helps me dig into a subject deeper, provides a different angle and sets me off to interesting associations. As for my knowledge of philosophy: I'd consider myself a passionate beginner and amateur. It took me forever to arrive at the philosophy of the Middle Ages, partly because I am so helplessly thorough (In that department I proof all prejudices about Germans to be true) and then took a deep breath and more or less jumped from Aquino directly to Descartes, because going at the pace I was going, I was afraid I wouldn't make it to modern times before I turned 60. I am very interested in art philosophy as well as in the subject of philosophy and language. Also I have this idea in my head that I would like to keep tracing the history of thinking - beginning with Descartes, Pascal and Spinoza - by reading a main work, a book about their philosophy and a fictional reverence for each of them. Any recommendations are highly welcome. Also I want to add that "hooray" was literally my responds when finding this group, very glad it exists and will during the next days try to read my way through your numerous threads.
Hi Jenny --Welcome to the group. The question of what art is doesn't have a thread here yet, but I expect many people are interested in it.
I've read some philosophy from Late Antiquity, Early Medieval Philosophy (480-1150), by John Marenbon, but I have yet to read his companion book about medieval philosophy itself.
I hope you will enjoy the discussion threads already in progress, and if you don't see one about a topic you're interested in, by all means start a thread on it, too.
Hi Naxa --Welcome to the group. The philosophers you refer to are an eclectic bunch, so your overall philosophy must be interesting. Keep reading. Other philosophers introduce new ideas and add new layers to one's understanding. That's been my experience.
Several discussion threads involve some of these philosophers or their ideas. You can also add a thread of your own if something you'd like to discuss isn't yet posted.
Hi, I’m Sorcha. I like thai food and long walks on the beach… I couldn’t tell you how exactly I came to be interested in philosophy. I always liked English and literature (in fact I went to college for it before changing courses) which overlaps a lot with philosophy. In the past two years I‘ve really started to take philosophy seriously and I'm now majoring in it. Broadly speaking, I like metaphysics and epistemology, phil of language, phil of mind and analytic philosophy. My favourite philosophers are Wittgenstein and Nietzsche. Right now I’m really interested in paraconsistent logic and dialetheism (the view that there are true contradictions). I attended a lecture by Graham Priest recently and was really taken by his ideas. Something I would love to know more about is… formal logic >_< lol.
I’ve been really busy with college lately so I haven’t been reviewing many books or participating in this forum. Thankfully the holidays will be upon us soon!
I’ve been really busy with college lately so I haven’t been reviewing many books or participating in this forum. Thankfully the holidays will be upon us soon!
Hi Sorcha --Well, that's two votes for Wittgenstein and Nietzsche in the past few days. I have a question for you and Naxa: I've only read Thus Spoke Zarathustra so far. Which book by Nietzsche would be good to follow that up with?
I don't know anything about paraconsistent logic and dialetheism. I hope you'll have time to post about those subjects at some point. For now, welcome to the forum.
Sorcha, can you give us one example of a statement and its contradiction that are both true.
@Tyler I would recommend Beyond Good and Evil.
@Jimmy According to dialetheism, the liar's paradox "this statement is false" is a paradigm example of a true contradiction. Graham Priest would say that these contradictions represent the limit of our thought. Here is a good introductory article on dialetheism: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/...
@Jimmy According to dialetheism, the liar's paradox "this statement is false" is a paradigm example of a true contradiction. Graham Priest would say that these contradictions represent the limit of our thought. Here is a good introductory article on dialetheism: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/...
Hello all, I'm glad there's a discussion group on philosophy. I joined this group some time ago, but have only got around to introducing myself, well, now. I enjoy the history of philosophy, in particular (though my interests are generally broad). Nice to meet everyone, and I look forward to participating in the group.
Cheers,
Dereck
Nice to hear from you, Dereck. Welcome to the group.
Hi everyone,I've been in the group for the long time but I haven't post anything so that makes me new right? :)
I'm a student who's trying to study philosophy seriously. Now planning to take Philosophy major in US. I'm somewhat starter in the subject but I'll try my best to keep up and contribute.
My interest in Philosophy started with religion. Around 14-15 years old, my mind is filled with religious ideas which are skeptical about the traditional way. I seek the truth in order to clear my doubts, then I found philosophy. (Now I'm an atheist! lol)
Anyway, just an introduction. I'm interested in ethics, economic and politics. My favorite philosopher (so far) is Nietzsche. (score one for Nietzsche again!) Feel free to discuss with me and you can also add to the friend list too.
Welcome to the group, Arkar. I like Nietzsche, too, but I haven't read much of him yet. Sorcha suggested Beyond Good and Evil, which I think I'll read as my next Nietzsche. Philosophy is all about the search for truth, and that inherently involves some (but not too much!) skepticism. People commonly avoid philosophy because they don't want to read things they don't like, but a very few of us humans come to feel they must find out the truth, no matter what. Perhaps that's part of a mental "will to power."
I like ethics (and morality, too). It's all about humans, and in the end what other reason do we have for wanting to study philosophy?
Economics and politics I didn't at first like, but I have made myself read philosophies about both subjects because they are essential ingredients to human well being. Now I like those subjects better. I recently read a remark that you don't have to participate in the political system itself in order to be politically active. I find that a thought-provoking observation.
Hello, fellow deep thinkers. My mind has always tended to spin around the why's, ifs and buts of existence. First came Christianity then Budhism, follwed by Advaita Vedanta or Non-duality (from Hiduism). The Non-duality thing has stuck with me from the age of 45 (I'm 56 now)and I can recommend it! I know nothing about any other philosophers or philosophies so am willing to learn
Hi Anthony, and welcome to the group. The Concept of Mind is a book I've been reading that also takes up the question of dualism, but more in relation to modern Western philosophers such as Descartes.
Tyler wrote: "Hi Anthony, and welcome to the group. The Concept of Mind is a book I've been reading that also takes up the question of dualism, but more in relation to modern Western philosophers s..."Hi Tyler. Thanks for the welcome. I had a quick look on Amazon at 'The Concept of Mind' and thought that, by the look of the table of contents, the book appears to cover its subject very comprehensively.
Having thought about the subject of non-duality for many years it now seems strange to me that I could ever have imagined my mind to be isolated from its surroundings. The origin of this non-dualistic thinking appears to have its roots in some sections of ancient Eastern thought. Books on Advaita Vedanta exist somewhere but I've got to tell you that I have never read one and, therefore, can't recommend one. In my experience, once there is acceptance that nothing is really separate from anything else, a change in pespective occurs regarding one's thoughts about the nature of existence.
Hi. this is my first post also. I've added my book, The 98 Things Socrates Would Know if he were Alive Today. Longtime lover of philosophy and debate. I'll post a short little thing I just wrote on my website.
GOD ON THE RUN; GOES INTO WITNESS PROTECTIONPublished by admin under Religion. First, the Bigfoot disappeared. The family of the gentleman that perpetrated the hoax came forward after his death. No Bigfoot, just a big galumpy guy running around in an extra-large fuzzy suit. Who knew! A few years back, scientists took a vote and decided that poor, enfeebled little Pluto, who always had trouble taking care of itself in the school yard, was going to be victimized once again and demoted to the status of non-planet. Sort of like a non-person. It gets one to thinking. Don’t these things big things seem to always come in threes? Like celebrity deaths. First one, then two celebrities die (which is blessing all its own) and then the death watch goes up all across the nation waiting for the trifecta to be completed. Who will it be? Tune in to “EXTRA.”
As we wait for the third shoe to drop in the somewhat protracted Bigfoot, Pluto evisceration lineage, I’m offering one up now. Gee there are so many to choose from, believe me, it was one of the hardest choices I’ve ever had to make. Why don’t we pick the biggest one? Sure, some people believed in Bigfoot and most in Pluto, but what is the one that is the most universal, the most powerful, the most consequential, and conversely, the most patently false?
Now hear me out, just hear me out before you fire up the torches and sharpen the pitchforks. I was going to say werewolves, because really, there isn’t much evidence for their existence either, but you know what, it doesn’t pass the test of being consequential enough. Hmm, what could complete the trio? How about the gods? Not ours, but the other guys. We all know that his dumbass gods are false. Just made up fantasies and delusions about this and that. Rivers of this and virgins of that and, oh please, come on. And look at all the damage they do. The believers, believing in afterlife and rewards, they can and will do anything. And the Hindus and Buddhists with their reincarnation. Oh come on.
While I’m sporting this most modest of all proposals, just think of the ramifications. Think of the incalculable lives we would save. If we could eliminate the religious insanity, what person would drive a plane into a building, or blow themselves up in a pizza parlor? We could eliminate so much hatred, so much division, so much rage. Instead of dividing people into soldiers, we could turn them into citizens, human beings. They would have to give up their notions of reincarnation and the like, but think of the benefits. People actually living here and now, in this life. Think how much stronger they would be. Instead of simply existing until death and then mercifully whisked away from this veil of crocodile tears, they would be forced to actually seize the reins of their lives and make the best they could with them right here and now.
Revolutionary! Yes, yes I like this idea better than the werewolf. Besides there is so much more evidence for the existence of werewolves than for that of these imagined gods of the other guys. I mean come on, aren’t their gods just their own fantasy creations to help them weather the storms of a short, nasty and brutal life?
Oh but wait. Wait a sec. There’s another test, measuring stick, that needs to be brought into the mix here. Damn, I hate that. We’ve got to include diversity, fairness, equality, if we are to call ourselves truly fair, American. Gee…well, to that end we’re going to have to put our own god on the pyre along with the others. I mean, we can’t possibly ask them to abandon their phony gods unless we are ready to relegate our own god to the flames as well. Painful as it is, it is something that simply must be done. After all, they would immediately point out that our god is just as, well how does one put this prudently, phony as theirs.
There you have it. Bigfoot, darling little Pluto and god, all gods. If this is how the current spate of debunking plays out it would be a consummation devoutly to be wished, as humanity, for the first time in it’s history, would finally be on the path to some semblance of maturity.
Hello. This is my second post, my first being on the existence of free will about an article I read on the internet. I began having a serious interest in philosophy my senior year of high school when I ran across the theory of solipsism which stimulated quite a bit of thinking. I tend to spend my time pondering solipsism and abnormal behavior, I have also slightly thought about “why is there something rather than nothing?” Do to the previous question I have also thought about does the concept of nothing exist or does it defy its own definition thus making its concept false? I also enjoy debating ethics which was spiked during my AP Psych class in high school.
Hi Garrett --Thanks for your post.
All the questions you raise are interesting ones. In fact, you may want to start threads on them when you have time to participate because I don't think anyone has posted on them yet, except for the free will issue.
If I understand your post correctly, one thing you asked about is the idea that "nothing exists." That idea is a proposition, not a concept. As such, it doesn't contradict itself. But since a proposition is composed of concepts, you might look closer at what we mean by the concept of "existence" and the concept of "nothingness" in order look more critically at the proposition.
Anyhow, welcome to the group. I hope you find this a profitable space for thinking. And again, feel free to start a topic if you don't see it being discussed yet.
Maybe I am mistaken but when I said “the concept of nothing” I was using the word “concept” in the form of defining the nature of the subject (subject being the word “nothing”) I'm speaking of or the idea that the subject of discussion presents a false idea, rather than proposing a theory or idea.I believe I know what the difference between a proposition and concept are, thus I felt the need to defend myself at least a small amount. If you believe your previous statement and how I use the word “concept” still holds true I would appreciate it if you could try and define the difference for me a bit more.
Hi Garrett --This is your quote:
Do to the previous question I have also thought about does the concept of nothing exist or does it defy its own definition thus making its concept false?
I wasn't sure I could figure out what you were trying to say, which is why I qualified my response with, "If I understand your post correctly ... ". I ordinarily understand the concept in question as "nothingness," not "nothing."
I simply could not make heads or tails of that sentence and should not have responded. My apologies.
I just wanted to clear up what I was saying. By all means continue to comment on things similar to that. I am aware that I do not have the best sentence structure or grammar and appreciate it when people point out things like that so I can clear them up and improve on my writing skills. So there is no reason to apologies for simply helping me with my writing skills.
Well, I am seventeen, but I've very interested in the idea of Philosophy since I've been 14; yet I failed to teach myself until now.
I may young and bit ignorant, yet I'm willing to learn and see other view of life :)
I may young and bit ignorant, yet I'm willing to learn and see other view of life :)
I'm currently a student at Nottingham Trent university studying Philosophy with International Relations (and Japanese)First got exposed to philosophy via my cousin, who also did philosophy at uni. This encouraged me to take the a level for philosophy and it introduced me to a whole new world of thinking. I couldn't imagine my life without philosophy now. I find it's helped me a lot, in finding myself and learning more about the world.
However, I'm still relatively 'new' to the subject. There's still so much to learn and so much to read.
Hello folks,I've read some philosophical books and been interested for much of my life but I've never really formalised my thinking. I was in the debating society at school,and my father has always been beset with existential anxst and felt great pressure from his own father, a methodist preacher, about religion.
Its probably not just a coincidence then I have taken a more pragmatic approach. I am an atheist ecologist and interested in thinking around the nature of mans relationship to the nature. I am also interested in how we perceive the world, and subscribe to an idea of humans as filters for sensory data so that individual perception is a product of how your filter is constructed through nature or nurture. I'm sure the more philosophically educated amongst you might be able to point me in the direction of philosophers that might expound on this idea, but its come to me from my own observation.
But I want to learn! And I want to take a more structured and logical approach to my thinking so i've bought a big jotter and will be keeping track of where my reading takes me. Looking foward to sharing ideas with you
Hi Jim --An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 2 represents a good early attempt to make sense of the interaction between the mind and its environment. Later authors have built upon it, and phenomenology concerns itself with much the same question.
Welcome to the group. I hope you find the discussions interesting.
Hello all,my name is Jason and I'm new to the philosophy group.
I'm primarily interested in political philosophy. I was fortunate enough to take a political philosophy class through Oxford's department of continuing education. highly recommended if anyone is interested. at any rate I'm looking to learn more about philosophy in general in addition to learning more about political philosophy. I'm also untested in ethics. please provide book recommendations if you have any. thanks.
Hi - I studied philosophy at Uni many years ago and it's remained a subject of central importance to me ever since. I'm particularly interested in the later philosophy of Wittgenstein, though I seem to be going through a bit of a Nietzsche phase at the moment. Also interested in philosophy of religion.PS - this group has been pretty quiet lately. Is Tyler still with us?
Each and every day I think philosophical and enjoy this so much. I wonder hat it would have been to see the great library in Greece prior to it's demise....
Hi --Yes, I'm still around. Sorry I haven't posted much lately, but I hope that gives the rest of you a chance to get a word in!
Hi Susan --Oh wow, yes that is a good question. With all the manuscripts from ancient times that have been lost, one really has to wonder how much better off we'd be today if that knowledge were preserved.
Hi C.J. --Welcome to the forum. I grew up in a religious atmosphere as well. Religion and philosophy used to be intertwined but went their separate ways during the Enlightenment. Actually, there is a philosophy of religion for people who like to explore the topic at a general or abstract level.
You're right that philosophy poses questions that don't have exact answers. We humans have a desire for certainty, but we also have a desire to examine our lives and minds.
***
To all our new members, please feel free to participate in the threads or start one of your own if you like. Around here the only dumb questions are the ones that go unasked.
Hi All,I'm Kevin, and I've been on Goodreads for about three months. Great site! I've been reading philosophy avidly for the last fifteen years. That interest was sparked by my desire to get into the philosophical antecedents of post-structuralism, which I became acquainted with as a lit major at UC Santa Cruz in the mid '90's. An influential book for me at that time was Roland Barthes' S/Z, which is a tour de force of structuralist analysis. What could be drier than that, right? Wrong! The man had a passion for language, which was focused on a structuralist reading of a short story by Balzac--something like 250 pages of analysis for a fifty page story. The combination of intellectual passion and methodological rigor was simply intoxicating. It was as if Michelangelo had painted the Sistine Ceiling on a fava bean. What a stylist! He described the sensation we have when we lift our head from a book and ponder what we had just read. His book was a collection of those moments.
I found a bridge to those aforementioned antecedents in a class on Nietzsche and postmodernism, which I took during my first semester in an MA program in lit at San Francisco State. The next semester I took another class that proved to be influential in my pursuit, The Politics of Aesthetics in the 18th Century. The readings were focused upon a critique of representation as figured through the discourse of the sublime in the 18th century (Longinus—viz his appropriation, Addison, Burke, Kant, and Wordsworth). These texts were read and discussed critically through the (postmodern) rapproachment with the sublime as a trope on the postmodern critique of subjectivity, whereby the various treatments of the sublime as a concept within a discursive economy, despite its evocation of the ineffable, becomes an index into the ideological underpinnings of these economies. A good entry into this area of study is Terry Eagleton's The Ideology of the Aesthetic. More advanced, and not limited to the 18th century, is the collection of essays edited by Librett, Of the Sublime: Presence in Question, and the work of Paul de Man and Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe.
My advisor told me that I should be able to boil down my MA thesis into one sentence, and it took me several years, so here goes: I attempted to show how Heidegger interpolates the analytic of Dasein in Being and Time into his lectures on Nietzsche. If anyone is interested in what this means, or what I mean by this, let me know. It's a fruitful topic. Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche (or appropriation, or misappropriation depending upon one's view) is a point of contention in postmodernism, representing a nexus between hermeneutics and deconstruction, and other postmodern discourses that came out of France in the '60s (Deleuze and Foucault, in particular). I have varying degrees of facility here (Deleuze is a blind spot), and an exposure to various perspectives is desirable. Some titles here include: Wolin ed., The Heidegger Controversy, Michelfelder and Palmer, Dialogue and Deconstruction, Derrida, Of Spirit, and Lacoue-Labarthe, Heidegger, Art, and Politics.
More recently I've become interested in the intellectual milieu of German philosophy in the early 20th century, specifically phenomenology, Neo-Kantianism, Dilthey, Scheler, and Cassirer (who is not reducible to Neo-Kantianism, IMO), in addition to Heidegger. A common thread in these pursuits is a critique of representation as a means to structure our understanding of experience. Entry level books here include: Spiegelberg's The Phenomenological Movement, Palmer's Hermeneutics, Cassirer's An Essay on Man, and Gadamer's Philosophical Apprenticeships. Ringer's The Decline of the German Mandarins is also good, but it deals most directly with social theory in general (Weber, Troeltsch, Meinecke, for example).
My pursuit is fueled by a joy in the process of discovery. I love making connections with the material I read, and how these tend to coalesce around a specific area of interest, enriching it, deepening it, broadening it, or otherwise challenging my understanding of its significance. I've been away from the stimulus of conversation on these matters for a long time, and am looking forward to expanding my horizons with all of you.
Hi Kevin --The mention of Heidegger reminded me that I just read
The Jargon Of Authenticity by Adorno. I really liked his critique of Heidegger's existentialism, but I haven't actually read Heidegger himself -- I've just read a lot about him.
The Continental philosophy you mention is something I'm not very well read in, but I'd like to learn more about it. In particular, I haven't done too much reading on art, and by chance I've been hearing lately of the general effort to blend psychoanalysis and philosophy to help create meaning. If you know anything about this, I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Anyhow, welcome to our Goodreads group. I've been on the site a few years and I'm surprised how much I've liked it. Feel free to post as you like or start a thread if you don't see a topic you like.
Thanks, Tyler. I'll have to get around to Adorno's critique. I've read some of his stuff, but I've really only scratched the surface. A number of early critiques of Heidegger's existentialism did not appear to appreciate how radical Heidegger's critique of subjectivity (e.g. consciousness) was. His mentor, Husserl, for example, considered Being and Time as an anthropology (yet Dasein is a site for the clearing of Being and not just another name for "human being"). For this reason Heidegger's notion of authenticity is not normative or axiological but ontological. Heidegger was asked by Jean Beaufret in the '40s when he would write an ethics, and his response was published as "A Letter on Humanism," in which he distances himself from Sartrean existentialism (for Heidegger, to simply reverse the essence/existence heirarchy is to remain within metaphysics, a critique reminiscent of his attempt to rethink Being beyond the being/becoming dualism).
On a personal note, I had something of a breakthrough in my understanding of Being and Time when I began to appreciate the ways in which that work constitutes a synthesis of existential, phenomenological, and hermeneutic approaches (this would complicate a critique that would concentrate on Heidegger's use of Kierkegaardian concepts, for example). Again, I don't know Adorno's critique, but I thought I would throw that out there. IMO, the best singular intro to Heidegger's own work is probably still Basic Writings, edited by David Farrell Krell. You get the Letter, The Question Concerning Technology, The Origin of the Work of Art, and others, including the Introduction to Being and Time.
I'd like to hear more about the synthesis of psychoanalysis and philosophy. My main interest in aesthetics has been the consideration of Kant's imagination as a productive force that mediates between the objects of intuition (phenomena) and the understanding. The way this is figured is something of a nodal point in Heidegger, phenomenology, Cassirer, and more.
Hey, it's great to be able to share our perspectives on this stuff. Thanks again.
Hi Faisal --I'm currently focusing on Political Philosophy which, while not necessarily my favorite branch, but is easier to grasp and more relevant than other branches
Welcome to the group. I'll add that I also think political philosophy is important for the reasons you mentioned. I think many people avoid political philosophy for the same reason they avoid politics -- it seems like a great way to start a useless fight. But I don't think this is a good excuse if the discussion involves philosophy. There are already some threads on that topic and if you'd like to add to the discussion that would be great.
Faisal:Yes, political philosophy is different from politics as philosophy of science is different from science, but how so?
In that the acting politician or scientist can either be ignorant of their implicit philosophical assumptions and first principles, and the philisophical history of the principal ideas, or they may not be ignorant of these.
Sadly, this ignorance seems more often to be found today in our extremely specialized sciences (the specialization taking a science further away from the root of science in metaphysical questions and first principals) where the false notion now holds sway (with awful and ugly results for the culture of science) that science can exist independent of philosophy, independent of certain basic assumptions and principles, and the history of how these developed and have shaped and frame our empirical views.
The most glaring example of such an assumption is "reason" itself! The notion that the universe can be rationally understood. Why should scientists make this clear and distinctly non-empirical assumption? An assumption that cannot be verified through empirical experiment?
Because this assumption is historically intertwined and irrevocably entangled with the history of the Western theological concept, viz., that there is a rational mind behind the natural universe.
Now witness today how the philosophical-metaphysical assumption of Naturalism is creating serious internal conflicts with the implicit historical assumptions of Rationalism of science. This internal conflict and how it is playing out is an example of what Hegel called the Internal Dialectic of Reason in History.
Hello Faisal,Instead of the overused/ misused/ out of use word ”science” I suggest to use the word ”disciplines”, and instead of ”philosophy of science” to use ”metadisciplines” or ”metadisciplinary discourse”. The advantage is that ”disciplines” are linking what you call ”science” and what we call ”philosophy”. So, both philology and epistemology are disciplines, although some may consider philology as a ”science” and epistemology as pure philosophy. In my mind, both are disciplines. My position is meant to clean the road to better interconnect ”science” and philosophy. This is part of a new vision on knowledge called transdisciplinarity, I am promoting and considering as a source of new ideas and a bridge to unified field of knowledge (science-philosophy-religion). As about politics (that is not only simply political games) what about my proposal to consider the very essence of this discipline as ”formulating/ knowing and following the ends/ interests of people, using certain means”? Of course, this proposal is intimately connected with other two: economics = the field of collecting, combining and consuming means in order to attain specific ends/ interests. This help us to better understand the words of Machiavelli (father of modern political theory) - Ends justify means!. the other proposal is to redefine the field of ethics as adequating/ fitting/ matching means to ends and/ or ends to means. As anyone can observe I mixed two ”sciences” (politics and economics) and a philosophical discipline (ethics). Hope to have all your counter arguments to continue our dialog. Best to you all!
Any ethic theory is a discussion on end/means ratio. Of course, utilitarians put as their highest/ most important end UTILITY, usefulness of a thing/ idea/ service etc. To be useful means to be adequate to/ to be good for. So, an expert may be sometimes very useful to a company, but in other context it is not necessary at all, so managers are thinking about the usefulness of any item that may help him/ her to attain the desired ends. Deontology is a specific ethics applied to a specific field: norms of behavior to be sure the proposed end will be attained. There is no contradiction among this theory (deontology) and my End Means Methodology (EMMY) where ethics is (re)defined as end/means ratio. Any individual may have its own E/M ratio or may obey to a imposed one. Virtue ethics should (re)define what virtue is for a guy or another. Fidelity is a virtue for someone and a quite stupid thing for other, but everyone is accepting the consequences of her/ his behavior.
Sorry, a reworded correction of my last post:Yes, political philosophy is different from politics as philosophy of science is different from science, but how so?
In that the acting politician or scientist can either be ignorant of their implicit philosophical assumptions and first principles, and the philisophical history of the principal ideas, or they may not be ignorant of these.
Sadly, this ignorance seems more often to be found today in our extremely specialized sciences (the specialization taking a science further away from the root of science in metaphysical questions and first principals) where the false notion now holds sway (with awful and ugly results for the culture of science) that science can exist independent of philosophy, independent of certain basic assumptions and principles, and the history of how these developed and have shaped and frame our empirical views.
The most glaring example of such an assumption is "reason" itself! The notion that the universe can be rationally understood. Why should scientists make this clear and distinctly non-empirical assumption? An assumption that cannot be verified through empirical experiment?
Because this assumption is historically intertwined and irrevocably entangled with the history of the Western theological concept, viz., that there is a rational mind behind the natural universe.
Now witness today how the philosophical-metaphysical assumption of Naturalism is creating serious internal conflicts with the implicit historical assumptions of Rationalism of science. This internal conflict and how it is playing out is an example of what Hegel called the Internal Dialectic of Reason in History.
Hi, I'm Lit Bug - I'm heavily interested in feminist theory, postmodernism/post-structuralism and the intersections of feminism, psychoanalysis, Marxism and postmodernism.Some of my favorite philosophers are Jacques Derrida, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, Antonio Gramsci, Simone de Beauvoir among others.
I'm doing my Ph.D. on feminist cyberpunk, which examines post-1990s sci-fi from the above philosophical positions. Searching for discussions on Derrida, I ended up here and am looking forward to discussing these and more.
Glad to be here :)
For those interested, Coursera (the site that offers free college level courses) will be starting a course on Kierkegaard on October 7th. It will be taught by Jon Stewart, of the University of Copenhagen. (Although he teaches in a Danish university, his English is excellent and will be no problem.) The course description reads "In this course we will explore how Kierkegaard deals with the problems associated with relativism, the lack of meaning and the undermining of religious faith that are typical of modern life. His penetrating analyses are still highly relevant today and have been seen as insightful for the leading figures of Existentialism, Post-Structuralism and Post-Modernism. "
In a pre-course email he writes "During the first week, the basic premise of the class is presented, namely, the idea that Kierkegaard used Socrates as his model. Since Kierkegaard sees himself as fulfilling a Socratic task, it is important to gain some insight into the thought of Socrates in order to determine exactly what it is that this means. So a portion of the first week’s lesson looks briefly at a couple of Plato’s dialogues, Euthyphro and The Apology, which Kierkegaard studied carefully."
Since Coursera courses are free, you can try them out and, if you don't find one worthwhile, you can drop it with no issue. And you can decide on your own level of interaction: just listening to the lectures, that plus doing the readings, engaging in the discussion forums or not, taking any quizzes and tests and doing any assigned writing or not. Entirely up to your time and interest. I have tried about a dozen courses; some I completed all the way with great enjoyment and intellectual reward, some I just listened to the lectures and got the information without doing all the readings and assignments, some I dropped out of because they weren't satisfying me for some reason or other.
This is a link to the Kierkegaard course page, where you can view an introductory video by Professor Stewart discussing the course.
https://www.coursera.org/course/kierk...
Thank you so much for this link, Everyman. Kierkegaard is very close to my heart and to find a course like this, for free! well, let's just say I am very happy. Isn't the internet wonderful?
Hi, I'm new to the group but not to GR or Philosophy. I have a degree from Philosophy and Geography and I devour books, I really love to read. Lately I've been back to philosophical reading that's why I joined the group. I hope to find some new ideas and suggestions. Other than books I enjoy jogging and other sports.
was more childish than anyone can imagine.
Tyler wrote: "So ... how did you become interested in philosophy and its many children? Are you new to the subject? What part of philosophy do you like best? Which topics do you want to find out more about? ..."
My name is Paul, I live in Florida, and i'm new to goodreads and I just love what this site is all about. I joined this group to pursue my interest in Philosophy as well as to meet others who share my interest! Here's my story of how I was introduced to Philosophy.
Well, I was recently incarcerated, and well, during that time, I was able to get in touch with myself and realize a lot of things I had always been interested in but had put onto a shelf for later. Reading and writing were two of those things. Thanks to all the time I had during this period of my life, I got reacquainted with both. I had always loved reading growing up and had many fond memories of going to the library as a kid, but over the years, I guess I lost touch with that. Anyways, during my incarceration, I reconnected with reading and I spent a lot of my time in the library. I was there every week, perusing through the available selections and looking at whatever caught my interest. Most of the books on my goodreads "read" shelf, are from that time.
One book that really opened up my interest in Philosophy was the book Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do so! It is a novel about the history of Philosophy and basically it educates you about all the different ideas of the great philosophers as well as entertains you with a wonderful story. I would definitely suggest it to anyone who is interested in Philosophy and doesn't really know where to begin.
I have found myself drawn to the existentialist teachings and would love to learn more. I've read a little bit of Camus' work and a small bit of Dostoevsky. I'm really open to learning anything about Philosophy. I enjoy reading those books where they compare the ideas/plots/characters of different tv shows/movies to different philosophies. Such as Seinfeld and Philosophy and The Matrix and Philosophy.
I also think that i'm attracted to Philosophy because I've always been fascinated in how people think, and why we think the things that we do, and I always like trying to figure out why people do the things that they do. Plus, since i've been studying Philosophy, i've noticed that the world is a lot bigger than what we think it is. possibilities are infinite. we are capable of anything just about. its really amazing.
Anyways, I figured i'd just introduce myself and say hey to everyone here. If anyone has any good books to suggest to me or just want to chat or whatever, let me know! I'm also really into Buddhism and studying different world religions as well as cults/new religious movements. I have a big interest in Scientology.
Feel free to message me anytime!
thanks.
Paul
Arghya wrote: "My name is Arghya Dutta and i am from Kolkata, India. I am presently doing phd in theoretical physics. Besides doing that, for the last 10 years or so i am studying indian philosophy with the help ..."Hey Arghya, my name is Paul, nice to meet you! I was wondering if you could tell me a brief overview of what you've been learning about when it comes to Indian Philosophy. What exactly are you studying specifically? I'm relatively new to studying Philosophy myself, and I mostly do it as a hobby. I'm always open to learning new things though.
Philosophy
Books mentioned in this topic
Meditations (other topics)The Art of War (other topics)
A Book of Five Rings: The Classic Guide to Strategy (other topics)
Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess (other topics)
The Duck That Won the Lottery: and 99 Other Bad Arguments (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Marcus Aurelius (other topics)Sun Tzu (other topics)
Jostein Gaarder (other topics)
Also remember Marcuse gave the answer to what needs to be done in One Dimensional Man. The Great Refusal - the ability to stand up and say no I refuse. When a mass of people can refuse things change. At the end of the book he imagined the change coming from third world countries. From the people all over the world that Dr. King was becoming increasingly aware of. Also remember Marcuse was a sweetheart of the New Left. The idea of refusal made its way into the movements of the Sixties, However, Marcuse saw limitations in the student movements in advance societies and perhaps that is the worrisome tone that fills the text.
Today there are Great Refusals in many countries all over the world. Happening in countries that Habermas thought be beyond the reach of ideal speech, Enlightenment thinking, and democratic ideals.