Serious Philosophy Discussion

[EyeOfNewt]

I hope you're not just trolling, because I'm up for talking about math and science and their relation to philosophy if that's another direction people want to go. I've quoted Leonhard Euler bashing skepticism before and Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's Intellectual Impostures is a glorious send-up of the worst kind of philosophical pretentiousness.

He had a far more intuitive (compared to today) approach to calculus. Euler worked with infinitesimals, or infinite numbers that satisfy ordinary arithmetic. But 19th century came and a witch-hunt took place. Someone had decided that any notion of the infinitely small or big had no place in math. Calculus was then rewritten from scratch using a hail of epsilons and deltas which ultimately led to long and ugly proofs (pick any modern textbook for real analysis if you don't believe me)

I'm not a fan of making life complicated when there's opportunity to keep it simple. Maybe people get hardons from reading needlessly laborious and verbose text, but I get mine from "Would you date this woman?" type of threads or trannies and I love it that way. Thinly veiled

Edit: thinly veiled i failed undergrad math

 

[genecop]

I think therefore I’m not...

 

[El Chimpo]

Sometimes it be like that

Sometimes it dont


Take that, descartes

 

[Yotsuya]

I like that, as opposed to Confucianism, it's individual-focused (though it's a misconception to think of Confucianism as a collectivist philosophy), but Confucianism is more my speed because it's very pragmatic and no-nonsense.

Isn’t Confucianism pretty much just a ruleset for deontological ethics? That’s a big no-no from Randian perspective where as Daoism has a more Aristotelean virtue ethics approach and leaning towards non-agression principle.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Why? What started you down that road? Personally - and this is manifest in my rejection of postmodernism/poststructuralism - I find that it too often falls back on paradox-speak and esoteric mumbo-jumbo passed off as insight. I like that, as opposed to Confucianism, it's individual-focused (though it's a misconception to think of Confucianism as a collectivist philosophy), but Confucianism is more my speed because it's very pragmatic and no-nonsense.

Not sure where I first came across Daoism actually. But it does jive with other 'philosophy' I am interested in (using the term with a very light touch here), namely various kinds of mysticism, as well as neo-platonic philosophy and apophatic (ἀπόφασις - negative) theology (this is @Spoken's area of expertise if I remember correctly, since we talked about pseudo-Dionysus once). I linked this paper I wrote before, but John Scottus Eriugena is my boy when it comes to early christian philosophy and this was basically my way of sneaking some philosophy in to my MA (history of ideas). There was a module where basically we could do it on anything we wanted provided there was someone available to supervise an essay on the topic and I wrote this paper:

How important was the concept of nihil (nothingness) in the philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena? - https://www.docdroid.net/4NLQoer/nothingness-in-eriugena.pdf

Coming from stuff like that I have no problems with the use of paradox to make a point about the limits of human language in dealing with the Ultimate Reality. The philosophical argumentation is obviously key as well, but acts more like a step-ladder which eventually falls away, to borrow a Wittgenstenian metaphor:

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

And to quote the Huahujing:

Words can never convey the beauty of a tree; to understand it, you must see it with your own eyes. Language cannot capture the melody of a song; to understand it, you must hear it with your own ears. So it is with the Tao: the only way to understand it is to directly experience it. The subtle truth of the universe is unsayable and unthinkable. Therefore the highest teachings are wordless. My own words are not the medicine, but a prescription; not the destination, but a map to help you reach it. When you get there, quiet your mind and close your mouth. Don't analyze the Tao. Strive instead to live it: silently, undividedly, with your whole harmonious being.

Of course I am not proposing that Daoist philosophy operates in the same manner as Wittgenstein either, it's obviously much looser and, obviously, less coherent since what we call Daoism is made up of all kinds of vaguely connected writings. It's not a systemic philosophy in terms of it's origins, but there is a lot of fascinating stuff there imo.

Although there is a great article I cited in that essay comparing Eriugena and Wittgenstein, you might like that:

Joke Schakenbaad, ‘The Rational Mysticism of John Scottus Eriugena and Ludwig Wittgenstein’, in Willemien Otten & Michael I. Allen (eds.), Eriugena and Creation (Turnhout, 2014).

And although it's pop philosophy I do also rather enjoy Huxley's Perennial Philosophy, so comparative philosophy interests me a lot. I also have a passing interest in certain aspects of Chan/Zen Buddhism. What I find interesting in terms of modern applications of Zen is the Kyoto Schools attempts to reconcile those Buddhist concepts with that of Western ideas, one book I love is Keiji Nishitani's Religion and Nothingness. Nishitani is real big on Meister Eckhart, who is cool and all, but Eriugena predates him and his much less well known despite influencing those 'Rineland Mystics'. Maybe it's just because he is Irish. Obviously apocryphal, but there is a great joke allegedly told by Eriugena (this is the 9th century),

He was asked by the French King (Charles the Bald):

Quid distat inter sottum et Scottum? (What separates a sot [drunkard] from an Irishman?), to which he replied Tabula tantum (Only a Table) <45>

So not to out myself a some kind of wannabe-mystic but I do think there is 'something' mysterious in the sense used by Daoists, so I find it very interesting along with other kinds of 'mystical philosophy'. Of course in historical terms confucianism and daoism mostly got along ok, in that folks could be Confucian publicly and Daoist privately understanding them to deal with two separate things (the state, and the ultimate reality respectively). But I find, from what I understand of it, Confucianism to be too stuffy, rigid and, well, you said, pragmatic compared to Daoism.

Link? Shit, this is academia, Rimbaud. That essay won't see the light of publication for a year!

True enough, PM me an advance copy then

Over the summer, my PhD supervisor and I put together a conference on Bruce Lee. Now we're putting together two special issues for two different journals based on shit from the conference. The first will be a special issue of the Martial Arts Studies journal. That's the journal that he and another guy created and on which I've worked as the editorial assistant from day one. We're going to do an issue likely called "Bruce Lee's Martial Legacies" next summer in which I'll have an essay that works through the philosophical underpinnings of Jeet Kune Do and that establishes Bruce as a "perfectionist," with that term connected up with Aristotle, Emerson, and Rand. We're also going to do an issue likely called "Bruce Lee's Media Legacies" in a SAGE journal called Global Media and China next September in which I'll have an essay continuing the Bruce and perfectionism stuff by bringing Aristotle and Confucius together and analyzing Bruce's perfectionist mode of teaching by way of his famous appearance on the TV show Longstreet.

Sounds intriguing

edit: it's obviously worth saying that a lot of this stuff blurs the lines between religion/philosophy/spirituality as well.

 

[Bullitt68]

Reminds me of the other problem with the field. Valuing the appearance of intellect over clear and concise communication.

This was actually the subject of the thread from out of which this one was created. You won't find disagreement on this thesis in here. I promise, this thread is devoted to intelligence, not just the appearance of it

Does critiquing the discipline fall under the heading of "serious discussion". I say that it does.

In all seriousness, critique is absolutely serious business. And academia on the whole desperately needs critiquing. I'm actually listening to the JRE podcast with two of the people responsible for the recent gender studies hoax. Academia is at an all time low, there's no disputing that. And I think that a lot of academics know that the pendulum is gearing up for a huge swing.

Hell, I doubt that it's a coincidence that the paper of mine that's gotten the most views - I'm talking almost ten times as many views as anything else of mine - is the one where I critique the discipline with reference to the philosophy of art.

has there been a serious counterpt to either the Argument of Motion (First Mover) or Ex Nihilo (from nothing comes nothing) from Aquinas's Summa Theologica?

I've read Kant and Hume's critique of the Cosmological Arguments, haven't read Dawkins critique tho.

By "counterpart," do you mean critique/refutation? I don't have anything for you specifically relating to Aquinas, but, for some "proof of God" stuff that I never see mentioned, you might enjoy the Objections and Replies included in Descartes' Meditations as they appear in the second volume of Cambridge's The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, particularly the Fifth Set of Objections and Replies featuring objections made by Pierre Gassendi, if you haven't already read them.

He had a far more intuitive (compared to today) approach to calculus. Euler worked with infinitesimals, or infinite numbers that satisfy ordinary arithmetic. But 19th century came and a witch-hunt took place. Someone had decided that any notion of the infinitely small or big had no place in math. Calculus was then rewritten from scratch using a hail of epsilons and deltas which ultimately led to long and ugly proofs (pick any modern textbook for real analysis if you don't believe me)

I'm not a fan of making life complicated when there's opportunity to keep it simple. Maybe people get hardons from reading needlessly laborious and verbose text, but I get mine from "Would you date this woman?" type of threads or trannies and I love it that way. Thinly veiled

I'm the type of person who can read the most "laborious and verbose text" and enjoy the hell out of it yet who, upon seeing "f(x) = 1 - x + x2," desperately scrambles for the nearest bridge to jump off of

Despite my mathematical and scientific ignorance/aversion, I do often find that I enjoy listening to mathematicians and scientists philosophize. There is a clarity of thought often manifest in the way they conceptualize and articulate things.

I think therefore I’m not...

Sometimes it be like that

Sometimes it dont


Take that, descartes

Looks like we got us some comedians.

Isn’t Confucianism pretty much just a ruleset for deontological ethics? That’s a big no-no from Randian perspective where as Daoism has a more Aristotelean virtue ethics approach and leaning towards non-agression principle.

I'm no expert on Eastern philosophy. I'm an admitted noob. So I can't comment on the Taoist side (sorry, @Rimbaud82, I can't break the "T" habit) and whether it's in line with virtue ethics. However, what was so exhilarating about reading the Analects was how scary close it was to Aristotle, Emerson, and Rand on the ethics front. Confucianism is all about character; a hallmark of Confucian teaching is juxtapositions of the thoughts and actions of the junzi (君子), or the "superior man" - which I take to be analogous to the Aristotelian phrónimos (as does May Sim in her excellent book Remastering Morals with Aristotle and Confucius) and the Emersonian "Over-Soul" - and the xiaoren (小人), or the "small" and "inferior" man, and the juxtapositions are always at root about the characters of each and how/why they think what they think and act how they act.

So no, I wouldn't say that Confucianism is just a rule-set and that it's antithetical to Aristotelian/Objectivist philosophy; quite the opposite, I'd say that it's remarkably close to Aristotelian and Objectivist philosophy.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

This was actually the subject of the thread from out of which this one was created. You won't find disagreement on this thesis in here. I promise, this thread is devoted to intelligence, not just the appearance of it



In all seriousness, critique is absolutely serious business. And academia on the whole desperately needs critiquing. I'm actually listening to the JRE podcast with two of the people responsible for the recent gender studies hoax. Academia is at an all time low, there's no disputing that. And I think that a lot of academics know that the pendulum is gearing up for a huge swing.

Hell, I doubt that it's a coincidence that the paper of mine that's gotten the most views - I'm talking almost ten times as many views as anything else of mine - is the one where I critique the discipline with reference to the philosophy of art.



By "counterpart," do you mean critique/refutation? I don't have anything for you specifically relating to Aquinas, but, for some "proof of God" stuff that I never see mentioned, you might enjoy the Objections and Replies included in Descartes' Meditations as they appear in the second volume of Cambridge's The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, particularly the Fifth Set of Objections and Replies featuring objections made by Pierre Gassendi, if you haven't already read them.



I'm the type of person who can read the most "laborious and verbose text" and enjoy the hell out of it yet who, upon seeing "f(x) = 1 - x + x2," desperately scrambles for the nearest bridge to jump off of

Despite my mathematical and scientific ignorance/aversion, I do often find that I enjoy listening to mathematicians and scientists philosophize. There is a clarity of thought often manifest in the way they conceptualize and articulate things.




Looks like we got us some comedians.

I'm no expert on Eastern philosophy. I'm an admitted noob. So I can't comment on the Taoist side (sorry, @Rimbaud82, I can't break the "T" habit) and whether it's in line with virtue ethics. However, what was so exhilarating about reading the Analects was how scary close it was to Aristotle, Emerson, and Rand on the ethics front. Confucianism is all about character; a hallmark of Confucian teaching is juxtapositions of the thoughts and actions of the junzi (君子), or the "superior man" - which I take to be analogous to the Aristotelian phrónimos (as does May Sim in her excellent book Remastering Morals with Aristotle and Confucius) and the Emersonian "Over-Soul" - and the xiaoren (小人), or the "small" and "inferior" man, and the juxtapositions are always at root about the characters of each and how/why they think what they think and act how they act.

So no, I wouldn't say that Confucianism is just a rule-set and that it's antithetical to Aristotelian/Objectivist philosophy; quite the opposite, I'd say that it's remarkably close to Aristotelian and Objectivist philosophy.

thanks for the info,
I read Meditations in like H. Philosophy in undergrad, but I don't remember all of it i'll have to reread it again

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This was actually the subject of the thread from out of which this one was created. You won't find disagreement on this thesis in here. I promise, this thread is devoted to intelligence, not just the appearance of it

If you ever get a good discussion going where people are relying on their own arguments to debate a philosophical issue please tag me in. That's much more fun than a battle of academic citations.

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

Talking philosophy is like playing chess and only using other players' established moves. Too many terms, references to schools of thought, and relying on someone else's words and arguments. At some point it's just regurgitation.

its armchair science IMO

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Sometimes it be like that

Sometimes it dont


Take that, descartes

They don't think it be like it is.

But it do.



I really need to not be posting from my phone right now.

 

[Luminosity]

Reminds me of the other problem with the field. Valuing the appearance of intellect over clear and concise communication.

Does critiquing the discipline fall under the heading of "serious discussion". I say that it does.

Communication is entirely based on the context in which it is given, for example the language that I use in a published journal article is completely different to that in which I teach undergrads, or even postgrads. One example is when I teach undergrads the difference between modernism and post modernism, in an art context, I use really basic examples and slowly introduce the terminology we use in the field. I start by discussing the difference between older Disney cartoons (modernism) with contemporary cartoons like Shrek (post modern). You may start off saying to students, hey notice how Shrek talks to the audience directly? Well that is known in film studies as breaking the fourth wall. It also exhibits a characteristic in postmodernism know as reflexivity....etc. But writing in a journal it is assumed everyone knows about reflexivity. It does not need to be outlined in simple terms but a more complex and nuanced approach with very specific language that at times can be complex or require a fair amount of prior knowledge.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

its armchair science IMO

What I enjoy most is the component of logic. While not so much a science, there's still observable rules that weren't just made up out of thin air.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Communication is entirely based on the context in which it is given, for example the language that I use in a published journal article is completely different to that in which I teach undergrads, or even postgrads. One example is when I teach undergrads the difference between modernism and post modernism, in an art context, I use really basic examples and slowly introduce the terminology we use in the field. I start by discussing the difference between older Disney cartoons (modernism) with contemporary cartoons like Shrek (post modern). You may start off saying to students, hey notice how Shrek talks to the audience directly? Well that is known in film studies as breaking the fourth wall. It also exhibits a characteristic in postmodernism know as reflexivity....etc. But writing in a journal it is assumed everyone knows about reflexivity. It does not need to be outlined in simple terms but a more complex and nuanced approach with very specific language that at times can be complex or require a fair amount of prior knowledge.

Yes, academic journals have to assume a bit of familiarity on the part of the audience. You sound like a good teacher.

 

[Rimbaud82]

They don't think it be like it is.

But it do.



I really need to not be posting from my phone right now.

lmao I was going to post this

 

[jabba the punk]

What's the smallest unit of consciousness? Do trees have consciousness? Chairs? Protons?

In defense of panpsychis; Yes. But to a lesser degree. Do individual neurons have consciousness like a human; no. But somehow there is an emergent property collectively. I’m not super onboard with this position but I do consider myself a dualist.

 

[Yotsuya]

I'm no expert on Eastern philosophy. I'm an admitted noob. So I can't comment on the Taoist side (sorry, @Rimbaud82, I can't break the "T" habit) and whether it's in line with virtue ethics. However, what was so exhilarating about reading the Analects was how scary close it was to Aristotle, Emerson, and Rand on the ethics front. Confucianism is all about character; a hallmark of Confucian teaching is juxtapositions of the thoughts and actions of the junzi (君子), or the "superior man" - which I take to be analogous to the Aristotelian phrónimos (as does May Sim in her excellent book Remastering Morals with Aristotle and Confucius) and the Emersonian "Over-Soul" - and the xiaoren (小人), or the "small" and "inferior" man, and the juxtapositions are always at root about the characters of each and how/why they think what they think and act how they act.

So no, I wouldn't say that Confucianism is just a rule-set and that it's antithetical to Aristotelian/Objectivist philosophy; quite the opposite, I'd say that it's remarkably close to Aristotelian and Objectivist philosophy.

I’m sure there’s some glorification and mental carrots too, but Junzi’s virtuosity is determined by his relatioship to the society and the pursue social harmony, no? (Trying to reach back to stuff studied 20 years ago or so here.)

 

[HunterSdVa29]

i always looked at Philosophy as Religion without the Supernatural; i.e. it attempts to explain the purpose and meaning of things from a human perspective without relying on 'well it's God's plan' line of reasoning

I realize that's probably a huge swath of generalizing, but it makes sense to me haha

 

[EyeOfNewt]

In defense of panpsychis; Yes. But to a lesser degree. Do individual neurons have consciousness like a human; no. But somehow there is an emergent property collectively. I’m not super onboard with this position but I do consider myself a dualist.

How do you know? Not as small as neurons, but bacteria and other cellular life are propelled by a whip attached to a rotor. They can perform complex maneuvers and switch gears to reverse. The kind of actions you perform when driving a car, unless you're asian. Then you shouldn't be behind a steering wheel to begin with.

 

[Pupi]

And, with that, the floor is open. Tell us: Who/what have you read, who/what do you like, who/what do you dislike, and, the most important question, the question that makes this thread serious: Why?

I've got a Masters in History, but I specialize in Intellectual History of the Atlantic World. Historical methods can lead to a lot of interdisciplinary activities, so I've had to read a lot of political science, economics, anthropology, and criminology for my research. I've read Homi Bhabha, Foucault, Arendt, Barthes, Gramsci, Marx, Carl Schmitt, Jefferson, Hegel, Montesquieu, Walter Benjamin, Locke, Hobbes, Hobsbawm, Weber, Friedman (and a lot of critiques about him lol), Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Thomas Kuhn, Kant, Hans Mommsen, Abbe Sieyes, Bourdieu, Habermas, blah blah blah the pompous list can go on but I think the point has been made. I enjoy reading the names I included, despite the theoretical variety, because its fun. I dislike and I like things about most authors, but they all have some contribution to knowledge that should be analyzed to dispute or validate.

Why study philosophy? It's a fascinating field to me because philosophy is the bedrock of science. Science is popularly based on the scientific method, but a major component of that is the hypothesis, for example. Various theses' have been around since before the birth of the modern sciences or have followed the growth of the sciences. It's important to see that science is an enterprise that is in constant evolution and different scientific disciplines have gone through different rates of growth. Old ideas may not be used anymore (fortunately or unfortunately), some might be currently used yet they change forms, and new ideas or "conclusions" are born out of continuous testing of different methods, technologies, and intellectual currents in order to validate or disprove old or current ideas.

Just came in to say hi to that Dirty Commy...

Good thread,

I'll see myself out now...

Lol!

Go on...

 

[Rimbaud82]

I'm no expert on Eastern philosophy. I'm an admitted noob. So I can't comment on the Taoist side (sorry, @Rimbaud82, I can't break the "T" habit) and whether it's in line with virtue ethics. However, what was so exhilarating about reading the Analects was how scary close it was to Aristotle, Emerson, and Rand on the ethics front. Confucianism is all about character; a hallmark of Confucian teaching is juxtapositions of the thoughts and actions of the junzi (君子), or the "superior man" - which I take to be analogous to the Aristotelian phrónimos (as does May Sim in her excellent book Remastering Morals with Aristotle and Confucius) and the Emersonian "Over-Soul" - and the xiaoren (小人), or the "small" and "inferior" man, and the juxtapositions are always at root about the characters of each and how/why they think what they think and act how they act.

So no, I wouldn't say that Confucianism is just a rule-set and that it's antithetical to Aristotelian/Objectivist philosophy; quite the opposite, I'd say that it's remarkably close to Aristotelian and Objectivist philosophy.

Well, see I always looked at Confucianism as a deontological system as Yotsuya's says, but I am certainly no expert either so it might be that I was totally wrong in my impressions of it.

In Daoism, it is obviously very much about naturalness and effortless (ie. non-action or wu-wei) when things are done in harmony with the Dao. Certainly that might also seem to apply to doing things which can be considered to be moral actions, and from that point of view, you could perhaps fit Daoist thought into virtue ethics. Of course it's messy when deciding what is considered ethical because at other points it seems like Daoist writings are more ambivalent about questions of right and wrong and advocate a kind of moral relativism. Basically, I am not sure on this point lol.