Im having trouble keeping up with you tonight..As an untrained novice at philosophy my main interest is contemplating the universe and its mysteries.I hate politics because it brings out the very worst in me , i cant abide certain views and i overreact.Trying to analyse myself and my opinions is a self philosophical exercise that never resolves itself.I have a dominant characteristic that is not easily subdued by my reasoning side, it has been a long philosophical battle.Do you find this in yourself?

I'm most interested in moral philosophy and philosophy of mind. My entry point into philosophy, as with so many non-philosophy students at university, was existentialism and I've remained interested in both the nature of morality and ethics, and the psychological aspect of Sartre's work (self, other, consciousness). In both respects I'm very interested in their association to evolution: how we arrived at consciousness, self-awareness, awareness of the other, and how we became moral beings and where that morality is derived from.

But I too am a novice (I studied physics) and there is much I don't even know enough about to have my interest piqued yet. Part of my reason for joining this forum was to discover what interests me.

As may be obvious by arguments and opinions in my posts, I am primarily interested in socio-cultural philosophical subjects, Linguistics and semiology, and ethics...

I've learned to control my more passionate, emotional side with temperance and logic (or reason). Not that I've perfected it by any means, but I have gotten a lot more disciplined with my emotions. So your favorite field is metaphysics?

Ontological metaphysics has to be my favorite. Cant beat the search for primary substances... and I suppose neither could the ancient Greeks. Logic is pretty neat once you get into it... kinda like sodoku... but not. The philosophy of law is fun too, but I think just because of the nonsensical abstractions you can play around with by reasoning by analogy.


The joys of legal "economics."

Metaphysics, in particular space and time. Both "something has always existed" and "something was created from nothing" deeply puzzle me (is there any alternatives) Even more troubling (for me) is where does the possibility of existence come from, is it guaranteed?

But it is all fascinating.

my entry point was religion... how existance began... why and how.

next big thing was determinism, fate, and freewill.

from there it was anything that made me think and wonder

now i can talk about ANYTHING... bring up a topic or subject and ill have something to say about it

My main interests lie in the Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of mind and Philosophy of Science. Am also interested in the History of philosophy with particular interest in 20th Century Philosophy. I personally I find these the most interesting area's of Philosophy, I find most area's of Philosophy interesting though certain area's not appeal too me much.

My main interests are the philosophy of geography, political and social philosophy, environmental ethics, and the philosophy of literature. I also like ancient Greek philosophy and existentialism. I am/was? a philosophy major and I have soured quite a bit on philosophy and many of the traditional topics discussed.

Did you receive a bachelor's degree in philosophy? What do you do for a living now?

When you say that you've soured a bit on many of the traditional topics, what do you mean? Are you speaking of the traditional topics in academia?

History of Ancient/Midieval Philosophy

I just finished my first semester of my senior year. I am actually taking a year off for health reasons and to finish my last semester of my tech degree in electrical engineering technology.

I have soured on academic philosophy in general. Most of it just seems so pointless and generally useless to society. The only thing valuable in philosophy is learning to critically think and write, which is why ethics and informal logic (argumentation) are so important. But those things should not be confined to stodgy philosophy departments. They should be critical components in all education. I am into applied philosophy and discussing topics that are relevant to the times--especially issues that deal with environmental and social justice. But those issues are rarely or never even considered in philosophy departments.

The., with a good background in the history of philosophy, you won't -need- to have specialized classes in "applied" philosophy. You can figure it out for yourself.

Philosophers like David Hume, Descartes, and the like are not going to help solve problems of resource distribution, social concerns, environmental problems, gender concerns, and all of the other major problems that the world faces. My biggest concern is that students that most need courses in ethics and argumentation, do not take them because they degree track doesn't require them, and they professors do not incorporate them into their courses. My whole point is that the higher education system is totally messed up, and needs to be rethought. There is no need for it to be structured as is, because it is best suited for the concerns of the 17th and 18th century, not the modern world.

I disagree, The. If you have a Cartesian view of the human person, you are going to have very different things to say about "resource distribution, social concerns, &c," than if you were to have say...Hume's or Mill's.

Descartes says that the human person is a "res cogitans," entirely set apart from all other creatures in this respect. Animals are but automatons. If you hold this view, you're certainly not going to join PETA (I am something of a Cartesian in this respect).

If you are a Lockean, you are going to have a very different view of property rights than if you are...I don't know...a Marxist.

Furthermore, your view of "The History of Philosophy" is far too narrow. By "The History of Philosophy," I mean everyone from Thales to Heidegger, from Plato to the French Continentals. These different philosophers have a whole lot to say individually about a -lot- of different subjects, not to mention when you look at the entire scope of the history of philosophy.

Simply put, I think you are wrong when you say that our predecessors aren't able to help us in our modern concerns. There are no new problems, The. If there appear to be "new" problems, they're actually old problems in modern dress.

"Resource distribution"? What's your view of property rights? If you are a Kantian or a Lockean, you'll have different stuff to say about "resource distribution" than if you are a Marxist or a Utilitarian. Mill says to do whatever leads to the happiness (defined as the satisfaction of desires) of the greatest number, whereas Locke tells us that there is no "right" distribution system. There's only "right" modes of transaction. What "resource distribution"? This thing is mine. I have mixed my labor with it, or I have gained it by a lawful contract. What right do you have to take this from me, this, to which I have an inalienable right of property?

"Social concerns"? What's your view of the human person? If you view the human person as a part of nature, like Spinoza, then you are going to have a very different view of these social issues than if like Kant and like the Doctors and Fathers of the Church, you view man as being called to a supernatural end, since he is created in the image and likeness of God.

"Environmental issues"? Locke says "No spoilage." Are you a Lockean?

I am sure you can see where I am going with this.

I understand what you are saying about the history of philosophy. I have a good enough background in the area. What I am saying though, is that the modern education system is based on an archaic way of doing things. Everything is broken up into their little niches, and very little is done to integrate different departments within a college or university--much less between colleges and universities. All the system does is churn out students that accumulate massive debt to essentially get a worthless degree that says that so and so jumped through all of these hoops. It doesn't mean that they actually learned anything, just that they have proven to be able to do exactly as they are told.

Well I'd like to distinguish the two claims that you were making:

1. The history of philosophy is useless to us with respect to modern problems. You are wrong.

2. There is a need for certain fields of philosophy to cross over into the less important (by which I mean everything but theology and philosophy) fields. I agree with respect to logic and epistemology. The problem with applying philosophy (generally speaking) to other fields is the self-critical nature of philosophy. Who determins which philosophical systems are best to be applied to these other fields? I'm sure you'll say "Logical positivism, naturalism, etc...gotta indoctrinate all these people in these fields." The problem with that is that other philosophers (professional, amateur, student, or otherwise), such as myself, will say that these systems are -wrong.-

Why should logical positivism, naturalism, or these other systems have any more "say so," so to speak in non-philosophical fields than Scholasticism?

Theaetetus, I agree with what you are saying. Academic philosophy is indeed rather absurd a lot of the time. The professionalization/conventionalization of philosophy into the academy has rendered a good deal of its output as little more than intellectual masturbation for an "elite" stratus of society.

But, there are several reasons why this doesn't sour me on going through academia to become a "professional" philosopher.
1) I believe the only way to change a system is to work inside of it, subverting it in subtle ways.
2) I have my own goals that are contrary to the system. This is the only way to stay sane. I want to seize all the knowledge the elite are hoarding and distill it into the proletariat.
3) When you have a professor who is similarly dedicated in his/her own life to the questions that matter most to you, it is an inspiring thing.
4) Most importantly, the intense focus on critical thinking, evaluation, regional pattern recognition, integration of right and left-brain, abstraction and ethics rewires your mind to think about things in a more novel, clear-headed, and profound way. Even if a lot of it is crap, working through it has these benefits.

A lot of contemporary philosophy has shown me how I do not want to do philosophy. Even that is valuable.

I'm looking to get a B.A. in philosophy. The graduate department of the school I'm looking at has a specialization in ethics in society.