I do not understand why the writer places some of the names he mentions on the same plane as Aristotle and Plato. After all they were outstanding thinkers whose relevance and importance has endured long after their age. Giving us new understanding of the world. After all, when some of the writers you cite actually attack and undermine the most basic premise and foundation of philosophy which has been built on historically - and that is truth.

Writers of the postmodernist school (I'll refer to them as posties) put forward "that we cannot know truth." Some of these 'posties' are actually revered and elevated to prominence as theoreticians and thinkers in the universities by academics - who really should know better.
I would argue that the "posties" are so thick that they do not think their ideas through in the light of critical reasoning: Of course, that would immediately contradict their basic premise "that we cannot know the truth." Nor does it bother them that they write books, but what then is the thrust and substance they are building upon "if you cannot know the truth."

When confronted with their howling inconsistencies they start ducking and weaving, then backpedal claiming "we can only know subjective truths." Apparently there is no objective reality that happens outside of our heads, nor can billions of people know that objective reality. Which is comprised and made up of objective truths verified historically including the underlying components of matter such as molecules and atoms which are subject to objective laws. Then there is the field of mathematics, which too, is not subjective. Then there is history which happened before our age such as Napolean dying in 1821 objectively true and can be objectively proved. Another howling idiocy of postmodernism is that classic "the sign is the signifier if it is signified." Their claim that they are modern (postmodern) is spurious for when they attack the truth they are reactionary essentially conservative, a school of thought against the idea of a comprehensible objective reality and the introduction of relativism into every field of thought and science.

But for all the 'posties' pretensions and they are not shy, none speaks louder than they have yet to show us new knowledge - new understanding from new insights about the world from their so called philosophy. They are actually relativists that have brought forward a revival of obscurantism.
Man is a part of nature, its highest product. "Life gives rise to the brain, " the socialist writer Lenin writes. "Nature is reflected in the human brain. By checking and applying the correctness of these reflections in his practice and technique, man arrives at objective truth" ( Philosophical Notebooks, page 201).
.

Sigh.

The original question was an interesting one, and I'd like to hear the answers people have. It's sort of an "Erdos Number" question. If someone on this board took lessons directly from Popper or Kuhn, I'd be fascinated to hear about it.

So, though I am sympathetic to what johncee is saying, it is trolling (or baiting or pontificating or whatever word you want to use) in the worst way. It would be better to use a separate thread and link to this one.

But, Fido's reply isn't much better. Such absolute statements ("there is no objective truth") cannot be made by anyone other than an omniscent being. And, the "even if it exists, it's irrelevant because I can't know it" line of defense doesn't work. If objective truth exists, it certainly is relevant.

But, here is my plea: can we focus on the original question?

I'm taking my own advice

I attended a lecture by John Searle once, shook the guy's hand even.

It's like you're expecting them to acknowledge there's something special about you, but they never do, and then you're disappointed. It's a bit childish, really.

Looking at three or four "greatest philosophers" books, a handful of contemporary philosophers have made it into a book that also includes Plato, Aristotle, Descartes and Kant.


" Was there a sense of history being made in the room; like if you were a pupil being lectured by Kant or Hegel?"

How can there be a sense of history being made if you disagree with the objective truth???

Me? I don't disagree with objective truth.

Victor Eremita wrote:

Looking at three or four "greatest philosophers" books, a handful of contemporary philosophers have made it into a book that also includes Plato, Aristotle, Descartes and Kant.


" Was there a sense of history being made in the room; like if you were a pupil being lectured by Kant or Hegel?"

How can there be a sense of history being made if you disagree with the objective truth???

If history is the story of the Class Struggle as Marx might have you believe; it is also the story of the struggle between true and false. As with the question of morality: Is there an objective morality? Hardly; but it tends toward a universal because of general acceptance that we consider as objective fact. Is their an objective truth to be found in history? Well not exactly, or people would not make the same mistakes repeatedly. There is no break between history and prehistory unless one considers that in all of prehistory people were building societies and relationships that were strong enough to resist other forces of nature and humanity, while history, with its classes, its injustice, its luxury, and indolence, and slavery was often interrupted by war or revolution or invasion in spite of superior philosophy, science, and technology. If there were an objective truth to be found by searching, then it would have saved advanced societies which had most of the time to look for them. Instead, history has seen many civilizations buried. It is primitive societies trading on the currency of honor and justice that have swept the mighty from their thrones. Is it possible that primitive societies know a truth they cannot speak?

Disagreement with the idea of objective truth is a good place to start philosophy and agreement with the idea of objective truth is a good place to end philosophy.

Wow... grossly off-topic

Victor Eremita wrote:

Wow... grossly off-topic, but to respond, I would say objective and subjective truths are both important for philosophy. I agree that subjective truths are important for us as living human beings. But without objective truth, how would one distingiush between madness and truth?

This is sooo easy. We know madness by the damage it does, and we know truth by the good it does. And these are both subjective definitions. For example, the mad and the truthful may seem little different. The mad very often tell the truth, and seldom consider themselves mad. And the truthful would not bother to tell the truth and seek it if all about them were not madness.

Quote:

Let's open a new topic on this, and get back on topic in this thread: has anyone been lectured by or had a world famous philosopher as your professor? How did you feel about it?

johncee wrote:

"Is their an objective truth to be found in history? Well not exactly, or people would not make the same mistakes repeatedly. . If there were an objective truth to be found by searching, then it would have saved advanced societies which had most of the time to look for them. Instead, history has seen many civilizations buried. It is primitive societies trading on the currency of honor and justice that have swept the mighty from their thrones. Is it possible that primitive societies know a truth they cannot speak?

This is not an unknown and abstract argurement for primitive society often put forward by reactionaries. 'Backwards to the future' is the motto which is consistent with those who deny objective truth such as the 'posties.' For example, one group who advance a similar argurement forward is the Taliban.
The writer asserts "primitive societies" got the upper hand but what primitive societies? It was not the US red Indians nor the Australian aboriginals for the right wing governments carried out genocidal massacres in various forms to grab their land and stop any future claims. Nor the Incas. It was not in Africa either with tens of millions slaughtered since 1870 for colonial plunder including mineral resources, land, and the many millions of chattel slaves for the forceful export of cheap slave labor. Who they regarded as their colonial possessions. Then there are todays multi-nationals who exploit workers and treat them as modern slaves with no rights.
Marx also mentioned: "The history of all hitherto existing society was a history of class struggle." AND "In a word oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, now hidden now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

" If there were an objective truth to be found by searching, then it would have saved advanced societies which had most of the time to look for them." Here the writer uses an old reactionary trick where the real relations are inverted. You take out of the equation the filthy role the media owned by billionaires has played in creating climates of fear, superstition, lies and propaganda in keeping the old order going. For instance, all the lies told about the Iraqi war to steal the oil and bomb the Iraqis calling that "democratic." By the way one objective truth "is that the first casualty of war is the truth."