Ask a Philosopher!

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Anything that is not a nominal statement. "The sky is blue," "2+2=4," If I have my head cut off I will die soon after," etc..

That would be almost everything. And if ethics is nearly everything, that makes it mean next to nothing, since it could mean nearly anything. Especially, it could mean anything you want it to mean in this discussion, which would be quite convenient to you, and not at all to me.

So you are arguing against people being 'ethical elitists' by being an ethical elitist? I am so confused by this statement that I do not know what to do. You said all people do not run their lives according to ethical principles. I've shown you that at least one does. You can't avoid the counterexample by saying "I could care less."

You are easily confused.

So what? None of that means that law is the product of self-interest exclusively, regardless if I agree with the claim above.

Let's face it: I am not going to argue on your terms, which, as I've pointed out above, are quite convenient to you and not to me, by your design. If you want to play dumb and exasperated, be my guest, but it doesn't work on me.

 

[Mark1031]

I'm still unclear as to what that means however.

Is that all ethics? Some ethics? Political ethics?
Is it a tendency to vary? necessary variance?
What does "needs" mean?
Explain "as can be seen through history?

these are all questions that remain unanswered and there is nothing to challenge until they are.

There are a whole host of things that Nano brought in that are not covered by the above statement as well.

This is the best demonstration I have seen of the difference between science and philosophy. The role of the former is to generate simple and general principles from immense complexity. The role of the later is to take the simplest of ideas or principles and make it seem incomprehensibly complex.

I know which I prefer.

 

[_elf_planator]

Has anyone ever been able to justify having children?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I have just finished reading The Republic, by Plato, and I maintain my original opinion. Plato espouses what amounts to totalitarianism, collectivism, and the widespread use of propaganda to achieve those aims. I don't see why any person should be interested in living in such a state, where in all his work he gains nothing for himself, and everything for the institutions of the state, especially since there is better already in existence. And while Plato can be forgiven for being a product of his times, philosophers and scholars who have admired him cannot take such excuses. It says something disturbing about humanity, I think.

And I don't believe that Plato was simply illustrating a bad situation, for he attempted to pull it off through the tyrant of Syracuse, who betrayed him.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't see why any person should be interested in living in such a state, where in all his work he gains nothing for himself, and everything for the institutions of the state, especially since there is better already in existence.

Why not. You've argued before that you can't argue theres anything morally wrong with such a place.

 

[aelf]

Why is philosophy so degenerate and stupid?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Why not. You've argued before that you can't argue theres anything morally wrong with such a place.

Morality is defined by man. I'm talking about quality of life. Why should I be pleased to live in a state where any little thing I say or do can be construed as an excuse to kidnap, torture, and kill me? That's basic survival instinct that is common to all animals. You don't need philosophy to explain that.

 

[GoodGame]

Why is philosophy so degenerate and stupid?

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/book/

 

[Ayatollah So]

OK, so Plato sucks, he advocated authoritarianism of the most dangerous sort. He's still worth a read on account of his influence (if it's bad influence, it's still influence) on Christianity and other powerful threads of Western history.

Why is this relevant? The fact that people disagree about ethics is plain, but what does it have to do with the point at hand? Are you saying that because people disagree, there can be no rational evaluation of the subject? Why would anyone think that?

Plato sucks, but Plotinus is awesome.

I find it odd that someone should be championing the scientific method and yet arguing in favour of irrationality. The scientific method is nothing other than being rational about stuff. Philosophy, including ethical and political philosophy, is just being rational about other stuff.

I guess being rational is just too much work for some people

On a more serious note, philosophy has a self-image of rationality; the extent to which it lives up to that image is debatable.

 

[Bill3000]

Why is philosophy so degenerate and stupid?

Blame the French.

 

[GoodGame]

Blame the French.

Hey I like Descartes.

 

[Agent327]

Why is philosophy so degenerate and stupid?

Citation needed. (And please don't cite Nancyoborgasm...)

As a general rule however, philosophers are not exempt from being any less degenerate and stupid than the average person - although they should know better.

 

[GoodGame]

OK, so Plato sucks, he advocated authoritarianism of the most dangerous sort. He's still worth a read on account of his influence (if it's bad influence, it's still influence) on Christianity and other powerful threads of Western history.

No offense to your opinion, but can't someone have Good ideas as well as Bad ideas. Plato is still worth a read for getting the field of philosophy started, regardless of political ideas that he invented well before political science was mature. It's anachronistic to compare Plato with the likes of Stalin or Hitler.

 

[aelf]

Fine, I'll rephrase my question: Why is philosophy so wrong and science is so right?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

No offense to your opinion, but can't someone have Good ideas as well as Bad ideas. Plato is still worth a read for getting the field of philosophy started, regardless of political ideas that he invented well before political science was mature. It's anachronistic to compare Plato with the likes of Stalin or Hitler.

It's an exaggeration to claim that Plato started philosophy. There were philosophers that preceded him, such as Pythagoras. It may be more accurate to claim that he started political philosophy, as there appears to be nothing written beforehand that approaches the sort of analysis that he performed. Even though he was erroneous on many counts, I do not, as I said, condemn him, because he was a product of his time. What I condemn are admirations of him that are without merit beyond him simply being a founder.

It is quite obvious to me that Plato was writing Republic out of great frustration. Reading it and knowing the history of the period, I can clearly see him placing implied references to specific events and people. He even gets so exasperated that he even sacrifices knowledge of the history of his own city of Athens. At one point, he tries to claim that tyrannies emerge from democracies, even though Athens' tyranny actually emerged from an oligarchy. He was trying to make a philosophical point, but I can't help thinking that he was ignoring his own knowledge out of anger.

 

[stormbind]

Dear Philosophers, my Question is: To what extent is life an illusion?

Please draw on Buddhist values if possible. If the external stimuli are considered an illusion, is the internal not also an illusion?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Morality is defined by man. I'm talking about quality of life. Why should I be pleased to live in a state where any little thing I say or do can be construed as an excuse to kidnap, torture, and kill me? That's basic survival instinct that is common to all animals. You don't need philosophy to explain that.

Aside from the fact that many people evidently do, why should a government care if you're pleased to live under it?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Why is philosophy so degenerate and stupid?

St. Augustine had a lot to say about this.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Dear Philosophers, my Question is: To what extent is life an illusion?

Please draw on Buddhist values if possible. If the external stimuli are considered an illusion, is the internal not also an illusion?

Personally, (and I'm drawing on Vedic thought here), I find the argument that external and internal stimulii are both illusions quite convincing, with the entailed destruction of the self. The only way I can see around it is the existence of a non-phenomonological self, I.E. a soul.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Aside from the fact that many people evidently do, why should a government care if you're pleased to live under it?

Ok, I'll play this game.

It shouldn't care, but I'm arguing the merits of a state.