Can a bad person be a philosopher?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Aedes
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 06:35 pm
@Fido,
Fido;107402 wrote:
You must be kidding me...Heavy water is not water???
I did not say that. I said that [SIZE="1"]3[/SIZE]H2O is not H3O. [SIZE="1"]3[/SIZE]H2O (tritiated water) is heavy water. Hydronium is not tritiated water. You wrote H3O is also water. H3O is not heavy water. [SIZE="1"]3[/SIZE]H2O is. Comprenez vous?

Fido;107402 wrote:
Why is water a part of its name??? Is it not because it is a form of water???
Save your vacuous, vituperative rants until you're sure you've correctly read the post you're sinking your gums into.

Fido;107402 wrote:
Pure Water, then you talk about h20
Ok, if you want to include trace solutes then you may as well call benzene and mercury water too.

Fido;107402 wrote:
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...
"To review your bill, press one. To add services, press two. To learn about our new high speed internet, press three. For technical support, press four. For all other calls, please stay on the line. The next available representative will assist you. We appreciate your business."
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 07:18 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;107413 wrote:
I did not say that. I said that 3H2O is not H3O. 3H2O (tritiated water) is heavy water. Hydronium is not tritiated water. You wrote H3O is also water. H3O is not heavy water. 3H2O is. Comprenez vous?

Save your vacuous, vituperative rants until you're sure you've correctly read the post you're sinking your gums into.

Ok, if you want to include trace solutes then you may as well call benzene and mercury water too.

"To review your bill, press one. To add services, press two. To learn about our new high speed internet, press three. For technical support, press four. For all other calls, please stay on the line. The next available representative will assist you. We appreciate your business."

I have already been called on this, and while I'll admit you are right about the heavy water I must say, as I said to the administation that water is a morph an not a morpheme, what we would consider a form, or an idea distinct from all other ideas... Water is a very generic term, never found completly free of other chemicals... The Oceans are water, and so are the clouds, and you can't drink either one....
So we can get back on track now so I don't get another ticket???
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 03:32 am
@kennethamy,
Wow, this water issue was a real thread wrecker.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 10:43 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;108765 wrote:
Wow, this water issue was a real thread wrecker.

Sorry...There might have been a better way to handle it; but I was right...There might be a million different variations of water all having the quality of some h2o, but if you are tying to say H2O, there is no better way than saying just that...One of the qualities of water is that is absorbes everything...You know the ocean is water... Is it only the H2O; or everything else, because water is naturally H2O and whatever else... If one says water and it must always be qualified water, for example, calling H2O- pure water, then you can never say water is water...It is false...I always use cats and dogs as examples... The forms are defined...What ever comes out of a cat though it may stretch the definition of cat, will never be a dog...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 12:01 am
@kennethamy,
Only saints can think straight. It's the blood of Jesus that screws our heads on right. Thus spoke Reconstructo.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 12:14 am
@kennethamy,
Can we please get back on topic before I decide to start issuing more infractions?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 12:20 am
@kennethamy,
I was trying to, chief. The water thing is a bore. Smile
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 06:37 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109513 wrote:
Only saints can think straight. It's the blood of Jesus that screws our heads on right. Thus spoke Reconstructo.

There is a certain logic to the language, and this is obvious since people are not just misunderstood, but understood... I do not think it is possible for people who cannot speak clearly to be philosophers...Clear thought follows from clear talk... Voltaire said if you want to talk with me, define your terms...(my paraphrase)...Too often has humanity been made the prisoners of their ideas because they did not have the means to examine them in detail...Even look at this question...It is simple enough unless one considers that two words, Bad, and Philosopher have only approximate meanings... Fortunately, nothing much hangs on the question....On the one hand, philosophy cannot be divorced from the daily activity of every life as once it was... Everyone is a philosopher... But is philosophy any sort of activity to enthrall a 'bad' person??? What makes many bad people bad is not the desire to learn, but the need to forget...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 03:10 pm
@kennethamy,
I agree that philosophy is usually associated with clear language, but we do have our Heraclituses and our Heideggers. Rorty liked to distinguish between the oracular type who offer us new metaphors and the argumentative type who wring out clarifications.

My last post is half-ironic and half-sincere. Wisdom is the elephant in the room. A denial of intuition and the desire of philosophers to distinguish themselves from mystic is both good and bad. A holistic view sees that, as you say, all must be philosophers, for all of us alive have important questions concerning this life.

On the other hand, the tradition is a progress, I think. We who read this tradition and act as critics of it are in a significantly different situation than those who don't. We spend time down in the dialectical trenches and get a real taste for the process of philosophy, which I related to Hegel's dialectic.

Anti-intuitional philosophy has given me a machete to clear a path for intuition. Criticism must criticize itself, and confess its limitations. Life often requires a leap of faith, and an intuition of value. The poets sometimes know more about this than their shamefaced cousins, the philosophers, who would like to deny that they too are only poets, however suffused with their polished thrice-negated metaphors.

I recommend to anyone Derrida's "White Mythology" in Margins.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 05:31 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109635 wrote:
I agree that philosophy is usually associated with clear language, but we do have our Heraclituses and our Heideggers. Rorty liked to distinguish between the oracular type who offer us new metaphors and the argumentative type who wring out clarifications.

My last post is half-ironic and half-sincere. Wisdom is the elephant in the room. A denial of intuition and the desire of philosophers to distinguish themselves from mystic is both good and bad. A holistic view sees that, as you say, all must be philosophers, for all of us alive have important questions concerning this life.

On the other hand, the tradition is a progress, I think. We who read this tradition and act as critics of it are in a significantly different situation than those who don't. We spend time down in the dialectical trenches and get a real taste for the process of philosophy, which I related to Hegel's dialectic.

Anti-intuitional philosophy has given me a machete to clear a path for intuition. Criticism must criticize itself, and confess its limitations. Life often requires a leap of faith, and an intuition of value. The poets sometimes know more about this than their shamefaced cousins, the philosophers, who would like to deny that they too are only poets, however suffused with their polished thrice-negated metaphors.

I recommend to anyone Derrida's "White Mythology" in Margins.

Forward is a goal with many paths..And philsophy is too....It can't be totally intuition...Insight comes with knowledge...I may not have the knowledge to say what is right, but I usually know enough to say when something does not make sense with what I know...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 05:34 pm
@kennethamy,
I think it takes both intuition and criticism, and I respect critical philosophy and religious myth. Just as I respect passion and intellect, male and female, tradition and progress.

And sometimes rashness is even to be praised.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 12:40 pm
@kennethamy,
?

Please tell me about some "good" people, which I in most cases find utterly naive, stupid and group thinkers, who only causes as much chaos as these "evil" people.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 01:36 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;127080 wrote:
?

Please tell me about some "good" people, which I in most cases find utterly naive, stupid and group thinkers, who only causes as much chaos as these "evil" people.



True, many that parade themselves as good do evil. On the other hand, imagine a kind old grandmother who is too busy lovingly making a peanut-butter & jelly sandwich for her grandson to contemplate her own goodness. As far as philosophical types go, Krishnamurti seems pretty honest (good w/o much b.s.)
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:47 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;127080 wrote:
?

Please tell me about some "good" people, which I in most cases find utterly naive, stupid and group thinkers, who only causes as much chaos as these "evil" people.

I always like to follow my labels to a cut and dried conclusion.... So, is this an expression of your concept of good in all things???
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 09:25 pm
@Fido,
Reconstructo;127099 wrote:
True, many that parade themselves as good do evil. On the other hand, imagine a kind old grandmother who is too busy lovingly making a peanut-butter & jelly sandwich for her grandson to contemplate her own goodness. As far as philosophical types go, Krishnamurti seems pretty honest (good w/o much b.s.)
Oooh! When you become a granparent, you automaticly shrug off all past sins, you no longer do taxevasion, drive to fast, lie, child molest, manipulate, psycotic ppl are turned normal and such.

Ahem?


Fido;127239 wrote:
I always like to follow my labels to a cut and dried conclusion.... So, is this an expression of your concept of good in all things???
no, not at all. You can do immense evil, by trying to do good.

To answer the #0 post, being good or bad is very subjective. Too often bad people are labled bad, just because scorned people lable them bad.

Imo everybody can be a philosopher, anoyone who can speculate, ponder and such.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 11:46 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;102996 wrote:

But the question is about how to regard someone who is a philosopher of morals who fails to condemn the most outwardly destructive and self-destructive regime in the history of the world.

[...]

So Heidegger, it seems, couldn't let go of it. He couldn't separate his philosophy from it, or at least separate his self. If he can't do that, being intellectually equipped to do so, then why should we grant him that favor?

To me, if only because I haven't read Mein Kampf, Hitler is a funny-looking ugly man with a Charlie Chaplin moustache and an Ian Paisley style of oratory who killed an awful lot of people in a foreign country many decades ago. He remains both external to me, and unattractive to me (to put it mildly). Thus I too easily keep at a distance Hitler and all that he represents. How then can I learn to fight against whatever he represents? Perhaps by reading Heidegger. Then, Heidegger's closeness to Nazism becomes a good thing for me, not a bad thing - if only I can resist him.

I have only dipped into Heidegger, but enough to know that he is seductive, and therefore immediately dangerous to me, in a way that Hitler is not. There are already warning signs in the kind of philosophy that is done under Heidegger's influence. That is not a way I want to go.

So how do I resist?

With more philosophy. (Your mention, elsewhere in the thread, of Plato's Republic is apt. We have Popper to warn us against Plato, and others to defend Plato against Popper, and so on. It is as it should be. And as with Plato, so with Heidegger.)

With a sense of intellectual and moral intuitions which I do not want to sacrifice to his powerful genius. I cannot even imagine being interested in Heidegger without them. (I mentioned elsewhere his strange advice to put off reading Nietzsche until after studying Aristotle for a decade or so! Perhaps part of the reason for that is the converse of the other kind of use of philosophy I mentioned in the previous paragraph: as a prophylactic, rather than an antidote after the fact. I don't have any prior study of Aristotle, but I do have some resources - not properly philosophical, but not weak, for all that - with which to arm myself against Heidegger's possibly toxic influence.)

And by knowing the facts of his life and character. So Faye's book, too, must be read. (I will wait until it comes out in paperback. It is already out in hardback.)

But, just as we need not accept Heidegger's judgements (which, because they touch on moral matters, may be evil, to the extent that his character was evil, making him an evil philosopher - even if he is not a 'bad' one! - and even if he is, as he appears to be, a great one), so we need not accept Faye's (which, on the face of it, are absurd).

I am tempted both to quote some Heidegger, just to show how absurd it is to think of classifying his writings en masse as "hate speech". (Is that not itself a hateful idea?)

It is hardly necessary to quote anything to show how absurd it is to suggest that he was "not a philosopher". (At best, that might be an exercise in humour.)

I am also tempted to quote extensively from a short, balanced and clear appraisal by Habermas, which I have just been reading, but this article is already too long (and probably more than a bit odd), so I will just give the reference:

Juergen Habermas, "Work and Weltanschauung: The Heidegger Controversy from a German Perspective"

This was originally printed as the Foreword to Victor Farias, Heidegger et le Nazisme (1988), but it is also reprinted as Chapter 10, pages 186-208 of:

Hubert L. Dreyfus and Harrison Hall (eds.), Heidegger: A Critical Reader (Blackwell 1992)

The Habermas chapter is pretty readable (even for a total beginner like me); I haven't yet read any of the rest of the book, so can't comment on its usefulness.

[I must apologise for this article probably being long and odd and difficult to read. A strange synchronicity is going on with me at the moment. I learned only yesterday of the death in 2007 of a man who had influenced me with strange profundity, just through some conversations on the Internet. I was somewhat in awe of him intellectually. I had more illuminating conversations with him than with anyone else I have ever known. He is mourned by many others who knew him. Yet he described himself as a fascist! And at the same time as I learned of his death, I read of a rumour that he had been a Holocaust denier! On top of this, another man who influenced me profoundly, in a different way, and longer ago, was heavily under the influence of Heidegger. At the same time as that, I shared a house with a number of people including an astonishing schizophrenic German Jewish woman, whose sister had a PhD in philosophy, yet looked up to her as the really intelligent one in the family; and she held regular communion with, she said, invisible spirits of fascists. And there was more, strange and shocking, but which I need not detail. I am shaking as I type this; I do not know what it all means; I cannot sleep tonight. But you can see that the topic of Heidegger and Nazism has an enormous resonance for me right now, and I can't really contain it within normal bounds.]

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 06:11 AM ----------

Quote:
how absurd it is to think of classifying his writings en masse as "hate speech"
Ah, no, wait - I tell a lie. Here he is in Part I, Lecture I of What is Called Thinking?
Quote:
The teacher is ahead of his apprentices in this alone, that he has still far more to learn than they - he has to learn to let them learn. [...] If the relation between the teacher and the taught is genuine, therefore, there is never a place in it for the authority of the know-it-all or the authoritative sway of the official. For you, ze war iss over, Britisher pig-dog! Heil Hitler! Achtung! Spitfeuer! Gott in Himmel! Aiee!
How come I never noticed that bit before? I must have been blind.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 07:32 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;102594 wrote:
a bad man need not be a bad philosopher. Being a bad philosopher is being bad at philosophizing, and being a bad person is being bad at being a person (in this view I am taking from Aristotle) Both are "jobs", but being bad at the one job has nothing to do with being bad at the other "job". "Bad philosopher" carries no ethical meaning, but "bad person" certainly does.


So GW Bush might have been a bad president but a good person. To who was he bad and to who was he good? Did he choose to be a president first, or a good human being?.:whoa-dude:
 
Deckard
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 08:37 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
A bad person can be a philosopher but a bad person cannot be a wise person.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 08:55 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;127438 wrote:
A bad person can be a philosopher but a bad person cannot be a wise person.
Ofcause they can, I'v seen too many sick people full of intriques, who manipulate weak people into doing bad things.

Why do I see serial killers evade the FBI? How can they do that without wisdom?
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 09:00 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;127272 wrote:
Oooh! When you become a granparent, you automaticly shrug off all past sins, you no longer do taxevasion, drive to fast, lie, child molest, manipulate, psycotic ppl are turned normal and such.

Ahem?


no, not at all. You can do immense evil, by trying to do good.

To answer the #0 post, being good or bad is very subjective. Too often bad people are labled bad, just because scorned people lable them bad.

Imo everybody can be a philosopher, anoyone who can speculate, ponder and such.

What makes bad people bad is the inability to love, and without love there is no philosophy...

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 10:03 AM ----------

HexHammer;127442 wrote:
Ofcause they can, I'v seen too many sick people full of intriques, who manipulate weak people into doing bad things.

Why do I see serial killers evade the FBI? How can they do that without wisdom?

Wisdom is the chief of all the virtues, not because people do good out of knowledge, but because all do evil out of ignorance...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/20/2024 at 06:40:26