Philosophy As A Weapon

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

mister kitten
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 07:04 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;127119 wrote:
Sure. Also consider that my original post hardly made any claim to be exhaustive. If philosophy is described metaphorically as a weapon, this is a rhetorical device used to emphasize an aspect of philosophy.

Wouldn't you say that your last post is the wielding of rhetoric in the name of philosophy? Are you using rhetoric/philosophy as a weapon against the concept of rhetoric/philosophy as a weapon?

I'm aware that many seek from philosophy a sort of replacement for religion.

I'm not saying this is you. But many a man points his finger in indignation and calls it wisdom. Calls the Bible silly, worships other books instead.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 04:09 PM ----------



You mention good alternative definitions of philosophy. I certainly do not consider my O.P. exhaustive on that matter. For me, philosophy is never finished inventing itself. Perhaps it shares something with Art since Duchamp took the p*ss out of it.

Philosophy as eros or the wisdom to love is something I can relate to. I see thinking and feeling as intimately related. "I feel therefore I think," etc.
I used to metaphor "weapon" in this case when I could have just said "tool." A metaphor like this stresses that philosophy serves the purposes/values of man which are not necessarily "rational."

The idea of "good sense" is indeed a good idea. But this is also a sort of rhetoric. It should be noted that rhetoric is not for me a pejorative word. It's exactly because I valued reason that I faced up to its slavery to not-so-reasonable purposes. However, a concept like "good sense" is likely to come from a good heart. Some thoughts come from better feelings than others. This is of course an opinion, but then for me all philosophy is opinion. I can only conceive of certainty as a feeling. As far as logical certainty goes, I don't believe the Skeptic can be answered.



What would be the weapon in your weapon metaphor? A blade, which requires knowledge of swordplay, something to keep it sharp and hands, or a gun, which requires knowledge of the gun, maintenance, ammunition and hands?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 07:10 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;127013 wrote:

They hate common sense, they despise it, they revolt against it in the name of 'freedom' which is, in reality, nothing but selfish non-sense. They have destroyed the public decency and lurch toward cultural and historical illiteracy.

They are freaking insane!


Who's up for a good witch-hunt?

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 08:11 PM ----------

mister kitten;130146 wrote:
What would be the weapon in your weapon metaphor? A blade, which requires knowledge of swordplay, something to keep it sharp and hands, or a gun, which requires knowledge of the gun, maintenance, ammunition and hands?


I would say that either might apply. One might charactize this or that philosopher by gun, knife, poison, or mine.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 08:13 PM ----------

Someone suggested "philosophy and philosophy." Is this not "meta-philosophy as tautology"?
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 07:18 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;130148 wrote:
Who's up for a good witch-hunt?


I'm up for honest debate and open discussion. I am not a "witch-hunter". And to reasonable men I can always make a cogent case.

Thanks.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 07:23 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;130154 wrote:
I'm up for honest debate and open discussion. I am not a "witch-hunter". And to reasonable men I can always make a cogent case.

Thanks.


Ok, man, but your post was pretty aggressive. It's not as if I agree with the actions of "my" government. I was just trying to point out the dangerously righteous passion I found in your post. Who are we going to contrast the U.S.? Which nation, by your standards, is doing it right?
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 07:48 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;130155 wrote:
I was just trying to point out the dangerously righteous passion I found in your post.


To whom or to what do my ideas endanger exactly? The typical crazy American liberal? The hollywood whore? The lamestream media with their self-righteous, sanctimonious, hate whitey, hate America, orgies?

I speak out at what I perceive to be totalitarian tendencies among liberals today. It is the liberals who promote free sex, drugs, rock and general insanity. These are all illiberal and extreme life-styles, and not conducive to proper human conduct and rational, enlightened self-interest. This is the danger. It is the mind of the liberal that puts the society in danger. It is their hatred of America that puts us in danger.

It is the post-modern conception of individual freedom posing as 'righteous' that is the source of American decadence today. This irrational conception of freedom is nothing more than naked and irresponsible selfishness disguised as 'civil rights'. Liberals are the ones who hold the extreme ideological and political posittions today.


Quote:
Who are we going to contrast the U.S.? Which nation, by your standards, is doing it right?


We need to imitate American society as it existed in the 1950's with family values, sexual decency, genuine honor and common sense.

We should teach young children to emulate Beaver Cleaver in the "Leave It To Beaver" television shows. We should teach families to emulate Ozzy and Harriet etc.

--
 
mister kitten
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 08:02 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;130167 wrote:



We need to imitate American society as it existed in the 1950's with family values, sexual decency, genuine honor and common sense.

We should teach young children to emulate Beaver Cleaver in the "Leave It To Beaver" television shows. We should teach families to emulate Ozzy and Harriet etc.

--

No. Family Guy teaches me my moralz
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 08:09 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;130167 wrote:
To whom or to what do my ideas endanger exactly? The typical crazy American liberal? The hollywood whore? The lamestream media with their self-righteous, sanctimonious, hate whitey, hate America, orgies?
--

Oh, in that case we might be more in agreement than I suspected.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 09:11 PM ----------

Pythagorean;130167 wrote:

We need to imitate American society as it existed in the 1950's with family values, sexual decency, genuine honor and common sense.

We should teach young children to emulate Beaver Cleaver in the "Leave It To Beaver" television shows. We should teach families to emulate Ozzy and Harriet etc.

--


I can relate to this. I just wonder if the hands of the clock can go in that direction. As far as values go, I generally agree. But I do like the freedom of women to pursue a career, and not just the legal freedom but a society that makes this possible.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 09:13 PM ----------

mister kitten;130174 wrote:
No. Family Guy teaches me my moralz


Sometimes I wonder if shows like Family Guy (which is brilliant!) aren't a sort of parody of decadence. Sometimes I think comedy has this sly spiritual purpose. We laugh because of how naked it all is in a show like Family Guy?
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 12:13 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;130167 wrote:
We need to imitate American society as it existed in the 1950's with family values, sexual decency, genuine honor and common sense.

I guess Pleasantville (1998) isn't your favourite movie, then? Smile
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 12:17 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;130167 wrote:
We need to imitate American society as it existed in the 1950's with family values, sexual decency, genuine honor and common sense.

We should teach young children to emulate Beaver Cleaver in the "Leave It To Beaver" television shows. We should teach families to emulate Ozzy and Harriet etc.


Funny. You do realize those were written shows right? They weren't reality and you know they were not a true reflection of the typical American family, right?

I really hope you were joking and I just missed it.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 12:20 pm
@Krumple,
But who was writing reality?
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 03:23 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;130176 wrote:
I can relate to this. I just wonder if the hands of the clock can go in that direction. As far as values go, I generally agree. But I do like the freedom of women to pursue a career, and not just the legal freedom but a society that makes this possible.


You're right. The hands of time can not go back. The fundamental question for me is, can a society that has completely lost any semblance of morality and decency survive for long? History teaches that such a society will degrade in one way or another. And I don't believe that the fact that we are facing long term economic decline is completely unrelated to our moral degradation.

- -



Twirlip;130315 wrote:
I guess Pleasantville (1998) isn't your favourite movie, then? Smile


If you remember Twirlip, in the movie the girl played by Reece Witherspoon, stays within the old black and white world in order to complete her education.

I think the old world was a classic world and that we have fallen from a classical reality into to a post-modern dystopia. We are like the world from "It's A Wonderful Life" when George Baily was never born; we are living in "Potterville".

-- -

America in the 1950's was a freer and more liberal society. There was not the media driven group think that exists today.

Back then American's were more diverse in their opinions, there was a genuine diversity of philosophical positions. Today, everyone thinks more or less the same things. They were individuals; we are more of a mass commercialized society.

--Pyth
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 04:11 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;130616 wrote:
You're right. The hands of time can not go back. The fundamental question for me is, can a society that has completely lost any semblance of morality and decency survive for long? History teaches that such a society will degrade in one way or another. And I don't believe that the fact that we are facing long term economic decline is completely unrelated to our moral degradation.


I'm not terribly optimistic, but I try to be cheerful almost on principle. Of course one of the reasons I'm not a parent is because I feel at odds with the values of the society around me. Also the economy. I do think it's all related. A cohesive society with resources is potentially a rich and happy society. Pluralism is dangerous because only capitalism seems to be able to hold different sub-cultures together in its universal gel --in our case fiat currency. What is an American? They vary immensely. How can they work it out? Super-poor to super-rich. The culture wars. Racial tensions that go way back. Immigration issues. The drug war and addiction problem. Tricky business.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 04:24 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;130648 wrote:
I'm not terribly optimistic, but I try to be cheerful almost on principle. Of course one of the reasons I'm not a parent is because I feel at odds with the values of the society around me. Also the economy. I do think it's all related. A cohesive society with resources is potentially a rich and happy society. Pluralism is dangerous because only capitalism seems to be able to hold different sub-cultures together in its universal gel --in our case fiat currency. What is an American? They vary immensely. How can they work it out? Super-poor to super-rich. The culture wars. Racial tensions that go way back. Immigration issues. The drug war and addiction problem. Tricky business.



Just because there is more immoral, selfish behaviour on the part of the American populus does not necessarily mean that there is more genuine pluralism, in my opinion.

The more selfish perversity the more closed mindedness. Multiculturalism is a means to establish a left-wing, illiberal social order. What is so open minded about sex orgies? What is so openminded about rap music with its degradation of women and the family? What is so open-minded about tatoos, drugs and immorality that pretends its all part of "civil rights"?

Only a moral society tolerates genuinely divergent view points. An immoral society does not tolerate opposing views. This personal liberation is a sham type of freedom. What is so 'free' about universal decadence?

--
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 04:31 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;130655 wrote:
This personal liberation is a sham type of freedom. What is so 'free' about universal decadence?

--

I think it's also freedom for a person to reject orgies, drugs, conspicuous consumption, etc. One can boycott, protest, self-publish. There are positives to individual freedoms that are paid for by negatives. Decadence is relative. I may be more on your side of the values equations but perhaps you wouldn't approve of drinking for instance. These are manufactured examples, not my biography. What if a couple tries a threesome once? Or shrooms?

I can't approve of homophobia, personally. I do believed in decorum, and laws that regulate public behavior, but I would prefer them to be gender neutral. I may be too liberal for you, but I'm not the classic liberal by any means. I've always been attracted to libertarianism, but there are problems with that. A nation among nations has problems that are not internal, that influence what internal solutions are reasonable. Holism.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 04:41 am
@Reconstructo,
For anyone who may be interested here is a link to an article explaining some of the tendencies that I have been indicating in this thread. It is brief with comments at the end.

"Racial Socialism": Article Link
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:50 am
@Reconstructo,
Philosophy as whatever you didn't want it to be. Philosophy as whatever they told you it should be. Philosophy as the "correct method of free thought."
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 07:36 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;130929 wrote:
Philosophy as whatever the F you want it to be.


Yes, and there are those who want to stop you from letting philosophy be what you want it to be. Do their limits define what philosophy is?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 09:48 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;131256 wrote:
Yes, and there are those who want to stop you from letting philosophy be what you want it to be. Do their limits define what philosophy is?


As I see it, their limits define what philosophy is for them. And definition is the setting of limits. The frame is the limit of the picture, you might say.

I think humans at times want their own limitations imposed on others. I also should make it clear that I don't think limits are necessarily bad. In fact, limits are often necessary. It's just that I think philosophy is unlimited. And not philosophy-for-others but philosophy-for-yours-truly. The others can work out their own salvation-exhibitionism-negation-etc.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 12:59 am
@Reconstructo,
Is philosophy a hole that farts beings?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 11:05 am
@Reconstructo,
All these pages, an not even a single post that are convincing that philosopy can be used for anything but selfendulgence.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 12:57:08