Can a bad person be a philosopher?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

SSInvictus
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 12:55 am
@sarek,
sarek;102612 wrote:
I really wish that philosophy was a route that led exclusively to 'good' thoughts. But philosophy is in essence a-moral, as are all the products of the mind.


You keep the crack-barrel attitude on and I will keep debunking it.

Products = Mind = Amoral = Essence-in-philosophy.

Oh really?

So thus products = Brain = Morals= Essence-in-?

If you don't know the basics, or haven't swallowed the history of Philosophy don't misinform the public on naive per se BS.

Secondly, because everything is a product of thing mind, there is no such thing as "Morals and ethics"?

*Yawns*

Yeah the mind is the alien in here, were it produces non-stop beats, melodies and rhythms amorally.

Duh uh.

But I know, since morality does not exist in nature, thus everything and all of it are by all means amoral.

Last time I checked, morals and ethics came by the mind, language, pathos, society and humans.

I still wonder to my surprise why morality is not "natural"!

No wait, morals and ethics are an illusion! They don't exist!

I know, our brain/minds emerge this sense, this beautiful illusion, this aphrodisiac divinity.

Hence, again a Martial!
 
IntoTheLight
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 01:39 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;102594 wrote:
In his book, Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy, the author, Emmanuel Faye argues that Martin Heidegger was not a philosopher, and that his works should not be classified under "philosophy" because they were entirely based on National Socialism. Faye argues that Heidegger's work should be classified under "hate speech".


Absurd.

Any person's views on any subject = philosophy.

-ITL-
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 01:54 am
@IntoTheLight,
If thinking about Being itself isn't philosophical, what is?
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 07:16 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;106226 wrote:
To be a good philosopher is to earn some points in the direction of being a good person. Didn't Schopenhauer kick a prostitute downstairs and end paying her bills for the rest of her life? Oh well, he's still a great philosopher.

Not at all...It was his landlady talking with her friend that got on his nerves... And he was cold about it... He wrote in his notes; She is dead and the debt is paid... Which it was...He is another example of the complete inability of so many philosophers to form normal relationships...If they coulld not manage relationships how can anyone believe they understood relationships... And this question is essential to philosophy since the focus is usually on forms, but all of our forms and every form is a form of relationship...Forms are just forms, and to a degree interchangeable; but the relationship is the life of the form and essential... Failed forms kill their relationships...Working forms feed their relationship...Philosophy is not an escape...If you cannot relate you never grasp the truth, and never will know it...

---------- Post added 11-27-2009 at 08:24 AM ----------

Reconstructo;106308 wrote:
If thinking about Being itself isn't philosophical, what is?

Everything we do is the subject of philosophy... Socrates said it best, that knowledge is virtue...And yet I would not say it as he seems to have thought it true, that virtue can be learn and taught...Yet people seem to generally understand that they can reach a better existence through knowledge...And people do act as they know, though they usually act without thought on the basis of prejudice, or emotion...An advanced society as a form of relationship demands that people act rationally, and not impulsively on emotion....
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 04:18 pm
@Fido,
Perhaps you are right about Schopenhauer. I stand by my assertion that he's a great philosopher, and the man couldn't stand his own mother.

Socrates fought with his wife, I believe. Isn't there a joke about him learning dialectic from this?

Some would say that Diogenes had problems relating. Some might say this about Nietzsche or Heidegger. Who does and does not "relate" is a matter of interpretation.

I describe my favorite philosophers as creative writers, conceptual artists, purveyors of interpretations. If their product is good, I call them good philosophers.

That being said, I do like to consider a philosopher's biography against his text.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 09:59 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;106452 wrote:
Perhaps you are right about Schopenhauer. I stand by my assertion that he's a great philosopher, and the man couldn't stand his own mother.

Socrates fought with his wife, I believe. Isn't there a joke about him learning dialectic from this?

Some would say that Diogenes had problems relating. Some might say this about Nietzsche or Heidegger. Who does and does not "relate" is a matter of interpretation.

I describe my favorite philosophers as creative writers, conceptual artists, purveyors of interpretations. If their product is good, I call them good philosophers.

That being said, I do like to consider a philosopher's biography against his text.

Hegal and Marx were married, but as with many, it could have been all form and no relationship....

And isn't it funny about Schopenhaur??? His mother went to work for him on her husband because she could see his genius; yet he could not see her love...Reason as a source of knowledge is clearly over rated... Those who cannot feel the truth never know the best part of life...We are what we are, heart and head, and our lives are found balancing these two... Reasonable people are entirely lopsided; so real people look at philosophers as a joke... Me too...I would call myself a moralist and never call myself a philosopher, though I cannot tell the difference... I won't kick myself because I can't spare the feet, and I won't hang a kick me sign on my butt with a name; but I will say that philosophy is about love, and if you can't love you don't get it...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 04:13 pm
@Fido,
I agree that reason (criticism, analysis) without intuition and passion is ridiculous. Too much of philosophy is an idolatry of word-play. I don't really like the term "philosopher." Hence my moniker. "Wisdom maketh a man's face to shine." Ecclesiastes.

Myth is prior to philosophy. Philosophy is not as reasonable as it supposes.

Regards
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 07:10 pm
@Fido,
Fido;106617 wrote:
but I will say that philosophy is about love, and if you can't love you don't get it...


Yes, and the love is of wisdom and the desire is to replace opinion with knowledge. That is philosophy.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 07:19 pm
@IntoTheLight,
IntoTheLight;106304 wrote:
Any person's views on any subject = philosophy.
My view about Craisins is that they taste really good on my cereal but I wish they didn't have so much sugar.

Is that philosophy?

If you're going to give philosophy a definition as loosey-goosey as this, there is essentially no reason to have the word or concept to begin with.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 11:01 pm
@Aedes,
"Knowledge" is a fine term. I use it in subjects more concrete than philosophy. For abstract philosophy, I like opinion. It keeps me open-minded. Or not.

I agree of Nicholas of Cusa that "all science (knowledge) is conjecture." I also agree with Hegel that the truth is the whole. Any thing we consider in isolation from the whole is an abstraction. I sympathize with holism, but not without a bit of irony.

Nicholas had the humility to suggest a negative theology. Hegel had the audacity to present his version of the whole (his Absolute).

But Hegel's description of the Absolute does not convince me, however impressive and valuable. For the Absolute is always a work in progress. It is always-already subverted. For man is capable of continual redescription of his reality and his descriptions are part of this reality.

Whatever knowledge we have appears to me to be partial, approximate. I like to keep my mind flexible, and avoid any sort of prejudice that might hamper my enjoyment of this little life on planet earth.

I enjoy mysticism as feeling and not as argument. I enjoy myth as myth and not as cosmology. I enjoy critical philosophy as an acid against prejudice. I agree with Keats that negative capability is a virtue. I will wear the term "ironist" --until it bores me.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 11:08 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;106791 wrote:
I agree of Nicholas of Cusa that "all science (knowledge) is conjecture."



I don't know what Nicholas meant by the word translated as "conjecture", but the notion certainly does not fit our knowledge that water is H20, or that Mars is the fourth planet. Those are not conjectures according to the following definition(s) of the word.

con⋅jec⋅ture

 -noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.


-verb (used with object) 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 11:20 pm
@kennethamy,
Ah, but that's what I love about science. Nothing is ever proven. Or do you think the conservation of energy was "proven"? It turned out to be conjecture, however useful at the time.

And then Newton's conception of space and time were (by our current lights) incorrect. Also Newtonian physics was not perfectly accurate about the movement of the planets, because he didn't "know" about relativity.

Einstein refused to believe that god plays dice.

Technology is evidence, yes, but not proof. Proof enough, I agree. But not a finished description of "reality."
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2009 08:43 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;106795 wrote:
Ah, but that's what I love about science. Nothing is ever proven.
Nothing is proved in absolute terms, but that is not a standard that anyone maintains outside of metaphysics and religion; in the latter case because of faith, in the former case because of a high opinion of human reason. Courtrooms demand proof "beyond reasonable doubt". Science demands preponderance of evidence. Proof, in the real world, is a functional thing, not an absolute thing. And besides, even if it's true that nothing is proved in science, what other domain in life has absolute proof? Nothing.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2009 09:20 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;106795 wrote:
Ah, but that's what I love about science. Nothing is ever proven. Or do you think the conservation of energy was "proven"? It turned out to be conjecture, however useful at the time.

And then Newton's conception of space and time were (by our current lights) incorrect. Also Newtonian physics was not perfectly accurate about the movement of the planets, because he didn't "know" about relativity.

Einstein refused to believe that god plays dice.

Technology is evidence, yes, but not proof. Proof enough, I agree. But not a finished description of "reality."


I don't know what you mean by "conjecture", but no scientist doubts any of the laws of thermodynamics, including the first law of the conservation of energy. Scientists use the term "proof" to mean, evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt,and that is what scientists believe is true of the first law. If overwhelming evidence is not proof, then what is proof?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2009 09:02 pm
@kennethamy,
E= MC2.

Energy can be created from matter, and matter from energy. This "law" of the conservation of energy was the mathematical/conceptual description of a tendency. And one that I doubt any educated scientist continues to believe in. Hiroshima was "proof" that the conservation of energy wasn't proven after all. The "sufficient" evidence was misleading. At the same time this "law" was useful for the construction of technology. But today's success is tomorrow's prejudice. I describe the critical aspect of philosophy as an attack on prejudice. I think the word "proof" encourages a static view of truth.

"Proof" like any other word has a different meaning depending upon its context. For instance, in a legal context as opposed to a geometrical context. Note that Spinoza cast his ethics in a pseudo-geometrical form. This form did not imply a pragmatic/dynamic view of truth.

If all you mean by "proof" is a sufficient amount of evidence for the purpose at hand, I have no objection to that. But my suspicions about the word "proof" are focused on philosophical "proofs." And in the realm of abstract thought especially (such as Hegel's or Descartes') "opinion" remains the word I prefer.

I identify myself with pragmatism, enjoy the study of science, etc. I think highly of Kuhn, Feyerabend. If you haven't read them, I recommend it.

It's exactly because I love the critical aspects of philosophy that I prefer the word "opinion." And linguistic philosophy has instilled within me an irony in regards to this word "proof," except in the everyday pragmatic sense of sufficiently convincing. As I said before: proof is actually persuasion, and "truth" is a matter of consensus.

Smile
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2009 07:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;106794 wrote:
I don't know what Nicholas meant by the word translated as "conjecture", but the notion certainly does not fit our knowledge that water is H20, or that Mars is the fourth planet. Those are not conjectures according to the following definition(s) of the word.

con⋅jec⋅ture

 -noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.


-verb (used with object) 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

Water is also h3O...There is also the water of life in several languages, including Gallic, and whisky is part of the word...To exclude water in all its kinds is to talk about only h2o as h2o...It is easier to say h2o is water than to say water is h2o...To be fair, most people qualify water that is not h2o, and in the same fashion that people refer to property rights, because they are not rights at all, but privilages through which society expects to see a gain...
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 09:48 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;106974 wrote:
E= MC2.

Energy can be created from matter, and matter from energy. This "law" of the conservation of energy was the mathematical/conceptual description of a tendency. And one that I doubt any educated scientist continues to believe in. Hiroshima was "proof" that the conservation of energy wasn't proven after all. The "sufficient" evidence was misleading. At the same time this "law" was useful for the construction of technology. But today's success is tomorrow's prejudice. I describe the critical aspect of philosophy as an attack on prejudice. I think the word "proof" encourages a static view of truth.

"Proof" like any other word has a different meaning depending upon its context. For instance, in a legal context as opposed to a geometrical context. Note that Spinoza cast his ethics in a pseudo-geometrical form. This form did not imply a pragmatic/dynamic view of truth.

If all you mean by "proof" is a sufficient amount of evidence for the purpose at hand, I have no objection to that. But my suspicions about the word "proof" are focused on philosophical "proofs." And in the realm of abstract thought especially (such as Hegel's or Descartes') "opinion" remains the word I prefer.

I identify myself with pragmatism, enjoy the study of science, etc. I think highly of Kuhn, Feyerabend. If you haven't read them, I recommend it.

It's exactly because I love the critical aspects of philosophy that I prefer the word "opinion." And linguistic philosophy has instilled within me an irony in regards to this word "proof," except in the everyday pragmatic sense of sufficiently convincing. As I said before: proof is actually persuasion, and "truth" is a matter of consensus.

Smile

I do not think you read that correctly... Matter is a form of energy with much of the energy as we know energy gone out of it... Yet, a rock sitting on a table still has energy...You would know it for example, if you dropped it on your toe, but kinetic energy is only another form...With our science and technology we can take a huge amont of matter that is naturally radioactive, and by speeding the nuclear reaction up only slightly can cause a great release of energy..Well; everything is radioactive... The nuclear material in our bombs are continually releasing huge amounts of energy, which is matter moving... If you can get even a slight increase of that movement, the matter -moving at the speed of light -which is light- takes a lot of matter with it at lower speeds, or by gravitational friction it gives up speed and releases heat energy...E equals does not say what energy is, except in gross, but shows a certain ratio of mass to energy which Hosserel, God forgive my spelling, had seen before, only his math was a little off, and he was figuring it from mass, which we have enough of, and not solving for energy which no thinks they have enough of...

So, you are wrong to say that energy is not conserved... All matter is conserved energy, and all mass has energy... What happened in the explosion is that matter realeasing energy was made to release it at a slightly faster rate...There was no more matter or less after the fact, but some was moving at at faster rate, and as light which is matter, or was reabsorbed by the mass of the earth as heat which is also light...

I like your last lines and agree with them to a point... Truth and proof are forms of relationshiip, and without the stuff of relationship we have no proof or truth...These qualities are given meaning as abstractions by our lives which the truth makes possible... The relationship between truth and humanity is a dynamic; it is life itself... And no one should have more truth than is socially acceptible or they will lose life and the meaning that goes with it... We need enough truth to survive, and that is plain, since most of us are surviving... We will need a little more truth to have lives secure and moral...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 12:07 pm
@kennethamy,
Fido;107052 wrote:
Water is also h3O...
No it is not. That would be a positively charged hydronium ion, not water. Hydronium ions will exist in a certain proportion within water, but water itself it is not. Nor is tritiated [SIZE="1"]3[/SIZE]H2O the same as H3O.

What does this all have to do with the topic, by the way??
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 02:40 pm
@kennethamy,
I respect your criticism, Fido. But perhaps you will admit that our mental-model of energy has changed significantly over time. And, am I wrong, or was it once believed that energy and matter were two different things?

Ah, these slippery words...
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 06:15 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;107311 wrote:
No it is not. That would be a positively charged hydronium ion, not water. Hydronium ions will exist in a certain proportion within water, but water itself it is not. Nor is tritiated 3H2O the same as H3O.

What does this all have to do with the topic, by the way??

You must be kidding me...Heavy water is not water??? Why is water a part of its name??? Is it not because it is a form of water??? It is qualified, as aqua vitae is qualified';and I am correct that if you want to talk about water as it never acually is: Pure Water, then you talk about h20, and everyone will figure out that you are talking about unqualified water...Never presume that when you are talking about an abstraction that everyone sees the same form as yourself...

Look; I am considered a thread Hijacker around here, and I don't want to be a bad person trying to be a philosopher... To me, that charge is just the last refuge of a wanna be... Oh, I can't win this argument, so you are thread hijacking...It is an ad hominin... What good is it to learn many subjects reliably if you must attack every question from the same plane as everyone else...The more you know the more possibilities present themselves...

---------- Post added 12-01-2009 at 07:17 PM ----------

Reconstructo;107356 wrote:
I respect your criticism, Fido. But perhaps you will admit that our mental-model of energy has changed significantly over time. And, am I wrong, or was it once believed that energy and matter were two different things?

Ah, these slippery words...

When I was a child I spake as a child...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/19/2024 at 06:19:48