Ask a Philosopher!

[ParkCungHee]

I would point out that Christianity itself is the most notable theory in western thought that posits the inherent evil of man.

 

[Fifty]

I would point out that Christianity itself is the most notable theory in western thought that posits the inherent evil of man.

If you mean to imply that original sin entails that man is inherently evil, I think that is a pretty big leap, and maybe an unwarranted one.

I mean maybe you know more about Christian morality than I do, but I think the idea is just that everyone has sinned. It is not, however, necessarily true that just by sinning one is thereby evil. Although NYHunter might profitably research the notion of original sin since it is at least somewhat similar to the idea that everyone is inherently evil.

 

[Bill3000]

I would point out that Christianity itself is the most notable theory in western thought that posits the inherent evil of man.

I don't see how that's true unless you're talking about Total Depravity?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Your right, it does differ from various Christian schools of thought, and varies greatly by what you define as "Evil." But Generally Christian thinkers have stressed that man by nature does bad things, and has trouble living up to even basic standards of decency.

 

[Fifty]

Well in any case, its certainly a good suggestion for NYHunter to check out original sin and Christian writings on morality in general.

One good read I just finished on that stuff is "Desert Christians: An Intro to the Literature of Early Monasticism" by William Harmless. He talks about asceticism a lot and the ways in which early monastic theology focused on developing ways in which man might resist the various tempting evils of the world. NYHunter might find that interesting.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't see how that's true unless you're talking about Total Depravity?

Total Depravity seems to me a negation of this thesis, as man is without any hope of choosing not to sin without the grace of god, and therefor, doesn't seem to be a moral entity capable of good or evil.
"Inherently Evil" might be a poor choice of words, considering the connotations that holds in Christian thought. "Inclined by nature towards evil." That is, Humans have a natural tendency towards Sin, and only by deliberate effort can it be broken as opposed to later thinking that man is inherently good, and is shaped towards evil by the world.
But we should stop there before this derails.

 

[NYHunter]

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.

Sorry if this is supposed to be obvious but can you define "highest sorts of people" for me. Thanks.

One good read I just finished on that stuff is "Desert Christians: An Intro to the Literature of Early Monasticism" by William Harmless. He talks about asceticism a lot and the ways in which early monastic theology focused on developing ways in which man might resist the various tempting evils of the world. NYHunter might find that interesting.

Actually that does seems very interesting. I'll check that out along with the other work you recommended.

Since you know nothing about Chinese Legalism I really appreciated your response more. Thanks bro.

 

[Fifty]

Sorry if this is supposed to be obvious but can you define "highest sorts of people" for me. Thanks.

You can get a general idea of the sort of people Nietzsche is thinking of by thinking of the examples he cites: Goethe, Beethoven, and himself. More specifically, a leading Nietzsche scholar delineates the following traits as being constitutive of "higher sorts of people":

1) They are solitary and deal with others only instrumentally.
2) They seek burdens and responsibilities in pursuit of a project.
3) They are healthy and resilient.
4) They are life affirming in that they would gladly will that they repeat their life again over and over.
5) They have self-reverence.

 

[Perfection]

What's so great about Nietzsche anyways?

 

[Fifty]

What's so great about Nietzsche anyways?

Well he's certainly worshipped in odd ways by certain sorts of teenagers, and literary theorists misunderstand him in a way only literary theorists are capable of, but he's an important thinker.

He was one of the first philosophers to take seriously the idea that moral character might be heritable, and try to spell out the consequences of that.

He had some novel arguments against the existence of objective moral truths.

He apparently had a somewhat novel notion of free will that I don't understand at all.

There's some other stuff, but that alone is enough to secure him as an important dude.

I think the reasons he's well known outside of philosophy to a greater extent than philosophers of similar merit are 1) he's a german dude who talks about "higher men", so people naturally want to connect him with naziism etc.. 2) his writing style is aphoristic and literary and often quite awesome 3) he has some brutal rhetoric towards Christianity, which lots of people find awesome, 4) He's seeped into broader culture by the attention paid to him by people in other humanities (though they often misunderstand him since they read him as literature and not as philosophy).

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

I don't have a specific goal, other than a broad scope of knowledge without necessarily detail. Mostly what I'm asking is if my impression of Rousseau being a bipolar manic on a flight of ideas holds true. Yes, my impression of him is that he was mentally ill, as he writes with all the characteristics often held by those who are bipolar, including a flight of ideas. Before you respond, I should point out that mental illness does not necessarily prevent someone from being great. Lord Byron, for example, was also bipolar yet he achieved great literary fame.

And yes, you can readily gain insight into someone's psychopathology by reading what they've written. Try reading the book of Ezekiel in the Old Testament for a flavor of a paranoid schizophrenic.

I have been reading a commentary on Rousseau, called "Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals" by Cohen, and mostly it's just him trying to make sense of what can't be made sense of. Mind you, his effort is valiant, but little substance comes through without him having to rewrite everything Rousseau ever wrote.

 

[Orange Seeds]

I don't have a specific goal, other than a broad scope of knowledge without necessarily detail. Mostly what I'm asking is if my impression of Rousseau being a bipolar manic on a flight of ideas holds true. Yes, my impression of him is that he was mentally ill, as he writes with all the characteristics often held by those who are bipolar, including a flight of ideas. Before you respond, I should point out that mental illness does not necessarily prevent someone from being great. Lord Byron, for example, was also bipolar yet he achieved great literary fame.

And yes, you can readily gain insight into someone's psychopathology by reading what they've written. Try reading the book of Ezekiel in the Old Testament for a flavor of a paranoid schizophrenic.

I have been reading a commentary on Rousseau, called "Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals" by Cohen, and mostly it's just him trying to make sense of what can't be made sense of. Mind you, his effort is valiant, but little substance comes through without him having to rewrite everything Rousseau ever wrote.

I don't think Rousseau's mental state is relevant to anything you'd read Rousseau for. GH Cohen is a highly esteemed commie. I'd imagine he knew Rousseau pretty well. I don't know why you think Cohen should be staying true to Rousseau; that's not how philosophy works. I'm also not sure why you think Rousseau is so inconsistent, I certainly never had that strong of an impression after reading the Social Contract.

 

[Imrahil91]

Q: Which other academic field has most influence on (the development of) philosophy nowadays?

 

[Fifty]

I don't have a specific goal, other than a broad scope of knowledge without necessarily detail. Mostly what I'm asking is if my impression of Rousseau being a bipolar manic on a flight of ideas holds true. Yes, my impression of him is that he was mentally ill, as he writes with all the characteristics often held by those who are bipolar, including a flight of ideas. Before you respond, I should point out that mental illness does not necessarily prevent someone from being great. Lord Byron, for example, was also bipolar yet he achieved great literary fame.

And yes, you can readily gain insight into someone's psychopathology by reading what they've written. Try reading the book of Ezekiel in the Old Testament for a flavor of a paranoid schizophrenic.

I have been reading a commentary on Rousseau, called "Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals" by Cohen, and mostly it's just him trying to make sense of what can't be made sense of. Mind you, his effort is valiant, but little substance comes through without him having to rewrite everything Rousseau ever wrote.

Philosophers aren't particularly concerned with getting a great philosopher's views right. Rather, they are interested in the solutions to philosophical problems. If that means a strict reconstruction of the argument of a great philosopher, then fine. If that means rewriting what that philosopher wrote and merely using his work as a starting point, fine.

If you want an example of a great dead philosopher who is widely read and who is considered to be not in need of big revisions to his views (i.e. his views are pretty well developed and defensible as is), look up stuff by Frege.

Q: Which other academic field has most influence on (the development of) philosophy nowadays?

Tough to say. Psychology and neuroscience have a large influence on the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of action. Social science experimental methodology is having a big impact on lots of areas in philosophy via the "experimental philosophy" movement. Physics has a big impact on metaphysics (depending on who is doing the metaphysics). Linguistics has had a very large influence on philosophy of language. In fact, since semantic analysis is a big huge part of philosophy across all its subfields, I guess I'd nominate linguistics as the biggest single influence. The work of mathematical logicians is used a lot in the work of philosophical logicians.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I don't think Rousseau's mental state is relevant to anything you'd read Rousseau for.

It can go a long way to explaining some things.

GH Cohen is a highly esteemed commie. I'd imagine he knew Rousseau pretty well.

The author is Joshua Cohen, not GH Cohen.

I'm also not sure why you think Rousseau is so inconsistent, I certainly never had that strong of an impression after reading the Social Contract.

That's my impression. Rousseau starts every essay the same way -- with a great opening statement that is convincing both in its own right and with the supporting statements he gives in the beginning. But once the opening is over, he's all over the map. It's impossible to tell what he's supporting and condemning. There seems to be little connection between different points. There are tangents that veer into directions that never return. No coherent point seems to be made. By the time I reached the end, I had no idea what the point even was. Even when he renders conclusions, they are so weak, because he is so disconnected in his logic, that I found myself shooting them down in my mind.

As one example, he has an outrageous love affair with the Roman Republic, seeing it as the best possible of all governments. He sings its praises so often that subtle references to it appear even when he's not referring to it directly. If the Roman Republic were a man, Rousseau would make himself gay and perform oral sex on it hundreds of times a day. That's how outrageous these songs of praises were. Worst of all, he forgets that this "perfect" government collapsed from within, a matter which he completely ignores.

Philosophers aren't particularly concerned with getting a great philosopher's views right. Rather, they are interested in the solutions to philosophical problems. If that means a strict reconstruction of the argument of a great philosopher, then fine. If that means rewriting what that philosopher wrote and merely using his work as a starting point, fine.

If you want an example of a great dead philosopher who is widely read and who is considered to be not in need of big revisions to his views (i.e. his views are pretty well developed and defensible as is), look up stuff by Frege.

So that's what's going on here. Here I thought I was reading commentary when I am actually reading reconstruction.

 

[Algeroth]

Q: I've read some things from the "sociobiology vs. social sciencies" debate. However, everything I read was from the involved scientists. Have philosophers produced any relevant articles that you could recomend me? Thanks.

And one clarification to the Chinese Legalism. Legalism is even less concerned with good and evil in some methaphysical sense than Hobbes is. They are both convinced that human nature needs coercion ( you would find similiar but not so brutish theme among mohists) but i don't think that "evil" is the right way how to describe it.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I didn't say things, I said Processes.

Well, a person's life is composed of processes. A person is composed of things - like cells, or (at another level) molecules, or ... etc.

 

[Ajidica]

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.

What is it exactly that makes Ayn Rand the philosopher bad?
From what I know of Objectivism, it just appears to be a variation on Aristotle and Plato. My understanding is probably wrong, but how wrong is it?

 

[Fifty]

Q: I've read some things from the "sociobiology vs. social sciencies" debate. However, everything I read was from the involved scientists. Have philosophers produced any relevant articles that you could recomend me? Thanks.

Could you go into a bit more detail about the nature of that debate? Is it basically nature vs nurture? I'm aware of the hoopla surrounding various attempts at biological explanations of human social behavior (especially Bell Curve style stuff), but I don't know if that is specifically what you are talking about. Once I have a more clear idea of the debate I'll be better able to provide recommended philosophical reading.

And one clarification to the Chinese Legalism. Legalism is even less concerned with good and evil in some methaphysical sense than Hobbes is. They are both convinced that human nature needs coercion ( you would find similiar but not so brutish theme among mohists) but i don't think that "evil" is the right way how to describe it.

Interesting! Thanks for the clarification. Like I said, my knowledge of Chinese Legalism consists entirely in the one sentence about it I read on Wikipedia yesterday. It sounds like on your clarification, Chinese Legalism has more affinity with Nozick perhaps.

What is it exactly that makes Ayn Rand the philosopher bad?
From what I know of Objectivism, it just appears to be a variation on Aristotle and Plato. My understanding is probably wrong, but how wrong is it?

Well, I don't think it has anything particularly in common with Aristotle or Plato except maybe broad sweeping stuff. Two of the main issues with Objectivism is that it is amazingly poorly argued (I haven't read any Objectivist stuff in years, but I vaguely recall some hilariously bad inferences from the law of identity), and it misreads famous philosophers (like Kant) to an incredible degree. There are very very few serious philosophers who take Rand at all seriously. The only one I can think of is Robert Nozick. I wish I can provide more detail, but the details of Objectivism have blessedly seeped out of my memory from when I read a book about it as a kid.

 

[Ajidica]

Any good non-Ayn Rand worshiping intros to Objectivism that you know of?