Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Do you have any particular examples in mind?
Underrated philosophers
- Thread starter Tahuti
- Start date
plarq
Crazy forever
When I think about this, I think Jesus Christ.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I know this isn't exactly a surprising answer from me, but I do really think Chesterton is underarrated and viewed primarily as a popularizer of Orthodoxy rather then an original thinker.
I was reading The Grue Paradox recently, and once I got a grip on it, I realized it was simply Chesterton's "Laws of Elfland" and that the 'new riddle of induction' was about 60 years old.
I was reading The Grue Paradox recently, and once I got a grip on it, I realized it was simply Chesterton's "Laws of Elfland" and that the 'new riddle of induction' was about 60 years old.
Is there a reasonably thorough introduction that would help me skip a lot of trial and error? I'm afraid to step foot into subjects I'm totally unfamiliar with; a result of how badly I screwed up when I first tried to learn economics.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Marx is largely classical economics turned upside-down. A significant influence from Karl Marx came from David Ricardo.
It isn't a really a radical departure from classical economics, rather, a revision within the framework provided by such.
Well, since Traitorfish praised the incredible "depth and breadth" of Marx's scholarship I was interested in what I could get from a decent book on him, not a few sentences. As an analogy: Wittgenstein thought all philosophy came from imprecise terminology; true to a degree, but not particularly helpful.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
It is. Almost of philosophy requires self-aware oversimplification in order to see the bigger picture. Even if the same is also the reason why certain philosophical concepts are misunderstood. For instance, historicism never claims there can be no outliers that make history essentially impossible to predict, even if it is often attacked as such.
^ Re Wittgenstein:
While it is no secret (nor was it before him either) that language replaces the non-lingual sense-connection the infant has with his/her mental world, to argue that all philosophy (or rather as he put it "all problems in philosophy") is the result of 'imprecise terminology' is a claim which renders all other human thought equally problematic.
One might think that other orders don't have this issue. For example you can learn that in the arithmetic system 1+1=2, but it does not mean you have been given a precise relation to form between any of those notions and your mental abilities to form a stable relation of this kind. Ie when you think of "1" as a number, it is rather certain that you don't think of it in entirely (or even largely) the same way that the next person does. If we were already given along with numbers a full number theory, along with a theory of number theory, along with a theory of a theory of a number theory (and so on), chances are we would not need numbers by the end of all that anyway.
*
And a note: Wittgenstein was very interested in the idea of a limit (in math), and also argued that sentences are not an approximation of the mental phenomenon they supposedly communicate, but a limit to it. I find this view also largely suffering from the fault i outlined above, namely that it makes little sense to first argue we cannot approximate, and then try to approximate the border of a larger approximation. In reality (i suppose) we don't approximate but don't calculate losses in approximation either, due to the system of calculation (the human mind) being more complicated than any examiner of it.
While it is no secret (nor was it before him either) that language replaces the non-lingual sense-connection the infant has with his/her mental world, to argue that all philosophy (or rather as he put it "all problems in philosophy") is the result of 'imprecise terminology' is a claim which renders all other human thought equally problematic.
One might think that other orders don't have this issue. For example you can learn that in the arithmetic system 1+1=2, but it does not mean you have been given a precise relation to form between any of those notions and your mental abilities to form a stable relation of this kind. Ie when you think of "1" as a number, it is rather certain that you don't think of it in entirely (or even largely) the same way that the next person does. If we were already given along with numbers a full number theory, along with a theory of number theory, along with a theory of a theory of a number theory (and so on), chances are we would not need numbers by the end of all that anyway.
*
And a note: Wittgenstein was very interested in the idea of a limit (in math), and also argued that sentences are not an approximation of the mental phenomenon they supposedly communicate, but a limit to it. I find this view also largely suffering from the fault i outlined above, namely that it makes little sense to first argue we cannot approximate, and then try to approximate the border of a larger approximation. In reality (i suppose) we don't approximate but don't calculate losses in approximation either, due to the system of calculation (the human mind) being more complicated than any examiner of it.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Honestly, I don't think there is one. Marx was a great thinker, but he was also a hopelessly disorganised one, and apart from Capital, he never really undertook any coherent project for scholars to grasp onto. Most of his work is found in his notebooks, which are very open-ended. Most attempts to introduce him are written about Marx-the-economist, Marx-the-historian, etc., but never as far as I can tell simply about Marx.
That's hardly fair. Marx turns classical economics entirely inside out, arguing that its essential categories- capital, value, the commodity- are works of collective fiction. He may argue that these fictions operate along lines similar to those outlined by classical economics, but he also examines the way in which these fictions break down, the ways in which the framework of classical economics proves itself to be insufficient, and that can hardly be written off as a simple "revision".
edit: for the record, i didn't mean this to turn into "traitorfish talks about marx, again". i thought i'd say "marx", somebody would say "isn't he very famous?", and i'd say "aha, but that isn't the same as appropriately-rated", and then we'd all go "oh, tf, you and your antics". i didn't think we'd end up debating, although i probably should have guessed.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
^Tell me about it, Socrates had to drink the conium due to this..
Ancient Greek philosophy is really crappy and is generally read for historical importance rather than scientific. They wouldn't last a semester today.
Marx is a philosopher. The field has changed greatly since the Greeks. 'Natural philosophy', for example, luckily isn't a core part of the field anymore.
^Ok, sorry for mentioning the lowly Greek philosophy. Great summation of it by yourself, though 
(considering you have the habbit of offending your own self and then try to offend others as if they meant to harm you, i think i should leave it at that..).
(considering you have the habbit of offending your own self and then try to offend others as if they meant to harm you, i think i should leave it at that..).
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
^Ok, sorry for mentioning the lowly Greek philosophy. Great summation of it by yourself, though
(considering you have the habbit of offending your own self and then try to offend others as if they meant to harm you, i think i should leave it at that..).
I have no idea what you are talking about right now. You merely made a long post correctly noting that the notion of philosophy has historically changed, but incorrectly implying that this notion means that the term is naturally misapplied today. If it is misapplied, being "true" philosophy is not something to strive for anyways. Because ancient Greek philosophy is more often than not really bad.
I'll have to take your word for it. I suppose you read a significant amount of the 30K+ pages that surviving texts of ancient Greek philosophy consist of, and therefore i cannot realistically match your background for a brief and correct critique of all that.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
What the Greeks did was to provide a lot of really good philosophical framework to work from, such as the conceptualization of logic and essence. Those things are fine and good. It merely happened to congregate as naturalized slavery, Platonic idealism, negative hedonism etc., and oh god the Aristotlean conception of physics, all really terrible conclusions. I mean, you can't fault them fairly for their time, and they are, as foundations are, necessary to contextualize when producing modern thought.
EDIT: Aaand I'm editing that out. Sorry for that, I'm having a bad day.
EDIT: Aaand I'm editing that out. Sorry for that, I'm having a bad day.
Not sure what you edited out, but what you left is not good either... Surely you understand that your sentences above are nothing other than a made-up summation.
Given that i am not here to attack this or that post or poster, i regard this form of posting to be quite meaningless. I would still type this even if it was not by now an RD thread.
Given that i am not here to attack this or that post or poster, i regard this form of posting to be quite meaningless. I would still type this even if it was not by now an RD thread.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
I have no idea what you are saying in the second line. My first point was in regards to your massively problematic claim that philosophy today isn't philosophy anymore.
On the first, well. We aren't taught Greek philosophy for any reason except to understand where fundamental philosophical terminology and thought comes from. It's for historicist interest. I am yet to encounter an ancient Greek philosophical paper which correctly describes the world. I still do appreciate it, but for what it is, not for what some people make it out to be.
Having experienced your posting for a while now, I see you don't appreciate ancient Greek philosophy the same way. I'm unsure whether it's because of you or the education system that has molded you; I have never attended a Greek university, and I don't ever plan to, so I don't know their discourse. Care to enlighten me? I'm curious in regards to how you arrive to the conclusion you do in post #10.
On the first, well. We aren't taught Greek philosophy for any reason except to understand where fundamental philosophical terminology and thought comes from. It's for historicist interest. I am yet to encounter an ancient Greek philosophical paper which correctly describes the world. I still do appreciate it, but for what it is, not for what some people make it out to be.
Having experienced your posting for a while now, I see you don't appreciate ancient Greek philosophy the same way. I'm unsure whether it's because of you or the education system that has molded you; I have never attended a Greek university, and I don't ever plan to, so I don't know their discourse. Care to enlighten me? I'm curious in regards to how you arrive to the conclusion you do in post #10.
Neither have I. I studied in the university of Essex, in 3rd world England.
As for your claims:
a) Your first claim: 'modern philosophy is not philosophy' (as if I argued along those lines) :
-The argument was on whether Marx is part of philosophy or not. No one here (and surely not myself) claimed that modern philosophy is non-existent. On my part (along with other posters in the thread) i noted that Marx is not part of modern philosophy, cause philosophy is very distinct from economical theory or sociology. I even mentioned Heidegger, who surely wrote a bit later than Marx.
b) Your second claim: 'I am yet to encounter an ancient Greek philosophical paper which correctly describes the world.' :
-"Correctly describing the world" is not a subject of modern philosophy either. Nor was it of ancient philosophy. The topic would have been unpractically vast, not to mention horribly ambiguous. While a number of ancient Greek philosophical works do feature math of their time as part of the phenomenon of human thought, they do not form a hybrid of physics and philosophy. The latter is a modern phenomenon, practised by non-philosophers. A good example of such a problematic hybrid which does not help their actual scientific order and background, while fails to incorporate any serious philosophical thought either, would be biologico-philosophical treatises with a helping of anti-religious focal points
Math, on the other hand, is not of the same order as physics or biology etc, since it is by itself a system of thought, and as such a direct expression of the human mind. It is not dependent on external objects (despite being crucially influenced by the facts of our senses, such as our ability to differentiate meaningfully between numeral ammounts). In particular the issue of the relation between the (human) thinker and the world of thought, was examined in the classical era by Anaxagoras, Protagoras, Anaximander, Plato, Socrates and a number of other thinkers, and as i mentioned in a previous post in this thread it presented itself as of the core issues of classical philosophy.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Yet Marx does not at any point venture outside questions posed by Classical Economics, other than to subjugate such to the field of (Marxian) economics.
Greek philosophers were constrained by the lack of knowledge of the world we now have. That doesn't render Greek philosophy bad in general.
Hojsimpson
Prince
Anyone that was not an eastern white man?
I was told that there aren't any women philosopher, and that eastern philosophy = eastern religion.
I wonder if some of you know anyone worth reading.
I was told that there aren't any women philosopher, and that eastern philosophy = eastern religion.
I wonder if some of you know anyone worth reading.
Spoiler :
Similar threads
