Mental vs physical meaning of self is the basis for this distinction. See prev post:
Ask a Philosopher!
- Thread starter Fifty
- Start date
Mental vs physical meaning of self is the basis for this distinction. See prev post:
Let me be clear about what I mean by "whatever dude". I mean it is a dumb argument that I will not participate in. It is a waste of intellectual energy. The anticipated sorites paradox is an argument about definitions and categorization. It is a way to sound smart or profound while being neither. Definitions are in the realm of linguistics and recognition/categorization is in the realm of neuroscience. Unless you have expertise in these domains you will have nothing to contribute. Within these domains there are much more interesting ways to phrase testable questions related to the core idea underlying this whole discussion of how a word defines a category/concept esp one based on some quantitative distinction.
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
It seems the problem is one of definition. What was once defined as philosophy is now called "critical thinking." It's nothing more than critically analyzing an issue that is otherwise taken for granted. Granted, it's a big deal to question what you are told, but that is not as good as to yield, necessarily, useful practical answers. All it does is offer avenues for suspicion.
I can take this object lesson from my own life. There are many things, social and moral premises, that I have taken for granted, which were inculcated to me as I was growing up. I would say that about 99% of those things I have found to be false. The reasons were varied, but in most cases, it was because I questioned them and refused to take them for granted. These suspicions have led me to my opinions today, but I still view them as opinions. I leave open the possibility that I may have had other conclusions.
I can take this object lesson from my own life. There are many things, social and moral premises, that I have taken for granted, which were inculcated to me as I was growing up. I would say that about 99% of those things I have found to be false. The reasons were varied, but in most cases, it was because I questioned them and refused to take them for granted. These suspicions have led me to my opinions today, but I still view them as opinions. I leave open the possibility that I may have had other conclusions.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUMP! Lets see if we can get this thread going again.
ANY QUESTIONS!?
ANY QUESTIONS!?
_random_
Jewel Runner
How would you react to the statements in the philosopher's column? Plotinus can feel free to answer for the theologian's column too.
Verbose
Deity
What, no column for historians? These are sad times...
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How would you react to the statements in the philosopher's column? Plotinus can feel free to answer for the theologian's column too.
How to make Angry: Yes, serious philosophers think Ayn Rand is a bad joke. Most are more amused by standard teenage Rand worshippers though, rather than angered by them.
How to make Happy: Silly and dumb. First of all, serious philosophy types hate people who try to impress by name-dropping. Second, philosophers aren't all that often concerned with elaborating on something vague written by a great old philosopher. They're more apt to use it as a jumping off point by quoting it, then specifying the interpretation they want to use, then use that interpretation to make their argument. Close interpretive stuff is done by history of philosophy folks, but they are a minority in the discipline.
How to Stupefy: Silly and dumb. Its pretty easy to describe what philosophers do. They teach philosophy, and they do philosophy. There might be some debate at the margins about what the proper object of philosophy is, but pretty much everyone has a very general idea. I don't think its any less clearly defined than any other academic subject.
One has to keep in mind that most web comics are written with a certain not-always-bright demographic in mind, namely high school students who think they are smart because they have read a few pop-sci books and taken AP Calculus.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I forgot about this argument, and when I saw the thread bumped, I remembered it, and was prepared to adress the argument, but now I get to pose this question:
Doesn't that mean a different person entirely is posing this question, because I forgot about this thread?
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
Welcome back, Fifty!
As part of my involvement with political philosophy, I have come to read two tracts by Rousseau. One is "Discourse on Inequality" and the other is "Social Contract." My understanding of Rousseau, on purely historical terms, was that he was a major figure not only of the Enlightenment, but also of the formation of modern liberal democracy. But after reading his two major works on politics, I am dumbfounded as to how this can be achieved. My own reading tells me that he is very disjointed, tangential, and confuses himself as much as the reader. It's nearly impossible to come to any firm conclusions reading anything of his tracts, despite their titles. Throughout them, he often contradicts himself. He seems to be neither an advocate for democracy nor equality, and about the only conclusion that I can make firmly is that he abhors monarchies. I leveled my criticism to a friend and colleague of mine who is highly interested and versed in philosophy, and he gave me a commentary book, called "Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals." I am loathe to read commentaries on anything other than established sciences, as I prefer to form my own opinions from the facts, and I am reaching the edge of patience with this one. In this commentary, it seems the only way to make sense of Rousseau is to gather as many of his works as possible and make inferences from the whole. Even there, this book is wearing thin on me because it stretches the bounds of inference. I have to wonder where the author's opinion ends and Rousseau's actual words begin.
My only conclusion to all this is that Rousseau was not a very eloquent or rational philosopher. I don't know why he is so praised, any more than I know why Plato, with whom I have my own qualms, is so praised.
What's your take on the matter?
As part of my involvement with political philosophy, I have come to read two tracts by Rousseau. One is "Discourse on Inequality" and the other is "Social Contract." My understanding of Rousseau, on purely historical terms, was that he was a major figure not only of the Enlightenment, but also of the formation of modern liberal democracy. But after reading his two major works on politics, I am dumbfounded as to how this can be achieved. My own reading tells me that he is very disjointed, tangential, and confuses himself as much as the reader. It's nearly impossible to come to any firm conclusions reading anything of his tracts, despite their titles. Throughout them, he often contradicts himself. He seems to be neither an advocate for democracy nor equality, and about the only conclusion that I can make firmly is that he abhors monarchies. I leveled my criticism to a friend and colleague of mine who is highly interested and versed in philosophy, and he gave me a commentary book, called "Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals." I am loathe to read commentaries on anything other than established sciences, as I prefer to form my own opinions from the facts, and I am reaching the edge of patience with this one. In this commentary, it seems the only way to make sense of Rousseau is to gather as many of his works as possible and make inferences from the whole. Even there, this book is wearing thin on me because it stretches the bounds of inference. I have to wonder where the author's opinion ends and Rousseau's actual words begin.
My only conclusion to all this is that Rousseau was not a very eloquent or rational philosopher. I don't know why he is so praised, any more than I know why Plato, with whom I have my own qualms, is so praised.
What's your take on the matter?
Fifty, do you have your degree now? How are you staying up to date on the field?
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
Two philosophy student friends of mine had a brief argument about if you could make an argument for free will without resorting to a supernatural explanation. So I am putting the question to you, can you make a convincing argument for the existence of free will without resorting to a supernatural explanation?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Fifty:
I read Russell's A History of Western Philosophy a few months ago like you recommended. Wonderful book. However, I understand that he got Leibniz all wrong. Can you explain how?
I read Russell's A History of Western Philosophy a few months ago like you recommended. Wonderful book. However, I understand that he got Leibniz all wrong. Can you explain how?
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I don't see why one is the Bathwater and one is the baby I suppose. To me it seems like keeping the Bathwater after you've thrown out the baby. You certainly can, but it seems to make more sense to me that my phenomological self is just shorthand for a series of barely related processes, rather then a thing.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Yes. The argument is going to focus on what we mean by "free will" and attempting to tease apart fundamental meaning of the concept from add-ons brought in by people's theory of the person. The fundamental meaning of "free will" is largely contained in the thought that one's mind, including conscious reasoning about what to do, controls one's bodily actions. The supernatural concepts of what a person is (e.g. a "soul") are add-ons that can be dispensed with. A brain is quite capable of sustaining a mind that reasons and that exercises control.
One thing can be composed of many related things. That doesn't seem particularly problematic. (Not that it's easy to state a precise philosophical theory of the relation "is composed of" - but one can often see that a relation obtains without being able to precisely define it.)
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I didn't say things, I said Processes. That is, a series of things that are coming into an out of being.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I can't speak to your specific reading of Rousseau. Like most philosophy departments, mine had very little concern with reading the works of great dead philosophers, since contemporary defenses of various positions tend to be both better and clearer.
I think it would be a great idea to read commentaries on Rousseau. Even better, you might wish to figure out a specific view that you tend to attribute to Rousseau, and then try to figure out its "modern incarnation". From there, read the best defense of the modern incarnation. For example, you might be interested in social contract theory. If so, I think you'd do better to read, say, Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick, than to read Rousseau.
If your main goal is to understand what great dead philosophers thought rather than critically examining the best descendents of views that they had, though, you'll want to read commentaries, and you'll need to read those philosophers in their original language. But that's something Plotinus would know WAY more than me about, since he does history.
Yes. I am staying up to date on the field by keeping up with the happenings on various very good philosophy blogs, and perusing journals mostly.
I think you can. I like the view called "semicompatibalism". Basically, you start by acknowledging the soundness of arguments that the past + the laws of nature determine a unique future (or at least a unique future in decision-relevant senses, to account for quantum weirdness). But you say that that fact does not entail that we are not free. You then offer an account of what it means to say an action is done freely. The account basically states that an action is done freely if its causal history "flows through" a person in the right sort of way (a way involving the person's intentions, desires, etc.). I like that sort of view, and it of course doesn't involve the supernatural. In fact, I tend to think that invoking the supernatural, or assuming some sort of large scale indeterminism in the world, does nothing to help arguments for free will! In my opinion its compatibalism or nothing.
If you're into Free Will, by the way, "Four Views on Free Will", published by Blackwell, is an excellent read. It contains defenses by modern philosophers of forms of libertarianism, compatibilism, hard incompatibalism, and revisionism, and then responses by other philosophers criticizing the essays, and then replies to the responses! Its cool!
I have no clue! Again, I suck at history of philosophy. Plotinus would surely know this one, though. He knows a ton about Leibniz. I will say though that its my understanding that Russell gets Leibniz less wrong than he gets almost every other figure he mentions. You don't read Russell's history for the historical accuracy, you read it for how well-written it is, and how well Russell conveys the awesomeness of philosophy.
_random_
Jewel Runner
What sort of work do you do? If you are not currently a professional philosopher, do you plan to become one?
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Teacher, and no. Thought about it, but the economic crisis has decimated university budgets, and the humanities are an easy place to swing the budget cut axe. This will further constrict the already incredibly amazingly horrible employment prospects for becoming a philosophy professor. For example, a tenure-track position at a very very regional school (in flyover territory) will get 700+++ applications. Since I think that the recession is going to be L-shaped rather than U-shaped, it just doesn't make sense to get a PhD right now. I'd even be wary if I got into the best philosophy PhD program in the country.
Besides Chinese Legalism are there any other philosophies that argue humans are naturally evil? If so, what differences do they have with Chinese Legalism? And are any of them relevant enough to become potential threats to the order of liberty in Western civilization should chaos occur?
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know anything about Chinese Legalism. If wiki is correct, it is the view that "humans are evil and need to be controlled using laws in order to prevent chaos". The closest thing I might think of to this is the view that humans are basically self-interested, and that social and legal arrangements result from a sort of implicit game theory that occurs on the assumption that everyone else is, like you, basically self-interested. To that end, check out Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick. One plausible reading of Nozick is that he isn't arguing that people are actually self-interested, but rather that construing them as self-interested is a useful rhetorical device for arriving at the correct theory of justice. So that would be one difference.
Another candidate for a similar system to Chinese Legalism (the wiki version) is Nietzschean views on morality. Nietzsche thought that folk morality (incl. Christian morality) prevents or at least reduces the frequency of the flourishing of the highest sorts of people. Since Nietzsche held the promotion of the flourishing of the highest sorts of people as the proper end of morality, you might reasonably think that his view entails that most people are evil, since their moral behavior stifles the highest good. It is different than the wiki version of Chinese legalism in that Nietzsche did not regard literally everyone as evil, since he thought some of these higher sorts of men did exist (for instance Goethe and Nietzsche himself). Furthermore, Nietzsche viewed morality as the vehicle through which the flourishing of higher men is either promoted or discouraged, rather than laws.
