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.

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!

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?

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.

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?

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.

--

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?
--

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

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

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.

I guess Pleasantville (1998) isn't your favourite movie, then?

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.

This personal liberation is a sham type of freedom. What is so 'free' about universal decadence?

--

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?