The final authority that was, Paul was also pretty darn sophisticated in the art of philosophy, so he had some idea on how to gear the forum towards higher standards. Timothy was a moderator, as were some other grad students or undergrad students. — Posty McPostface
We also had a debate forum that encouraged higher quality posts on the old site. We even invited some professional philosophers, like Chalmers or Searle, to put in their thoughts to organized questions of the sort. So, there was certainly an incentive to post higher quality posts also. — Posty McPostface
But certainly there is no greater tolerance for low quality posts here than there was on the old site, and there is no sudden drop in the philosophical skills of internet denizens. — Baden
It sticks closer to older issues and major figures, you'll find many discussions of solipsism, scientific realism and horrifically bad interpretations of quantum mechanics much more than people discussing current scholarship on the issues. [...] This makes moderating the site contentious at times, because it is actually pretty popular for an academic interest discussion forum and what makes it so is higher quality requirements and the mods' resisting the medium's natural tendency toward shitposting and meme-to-meme combat. So moderating policy also has to contain an element of attention economy management, this keeps things on topic and stops the forum being co-opted by special interest groups. Somewhat ironically, this is what makes it an island of free and reasoned expression amidst the sea of piss which is internet debate. — fdrake
He did believe that even truth is allways a falsification to some extend. I'd recomment to read "on truth and lies in an extra-moral sense" to understand where he's coming from, it's not that long... — ChatteringMonkey
But then he clearly also believes in some sense of truth, as is evident in numerous passages — ChatteringMonkey
We begin with the most crude falsifications of the world, which then can eventially be refined into something that is progressively more accurate or less wrong. — ChatteringMonkey
Also note that truth and untruth, is not to be confounded with 'the will to truth' and 'the will to decieve' which is what he is talking about in the quote in the opening post. — ChatteringMonkey
I'm not sure Nietzsche really holds to any unequivocal notion of truth - — StreetlightX
(cf. the famous: "What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions — they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.) — StreetlightX
- and that he holds to a more or less pragmatic understanding of truth where truth simply is a variable plank in a larger assemblage of elements that allow one to live in some way or another (truth is as truth does, as it were). Raymond Geuss has a wonderful article (in his recent Changing the Subject) where he tries to disentangle some of the different ways in which Nietzsche talks about truth, depending on the context in which those discussions take place. — StreetlightX
Any attempt to treat Nietzsche on truth would need, I think, to attend to the multiplicity of these differing approaches. — StreetlightX
[M]aybe people can [too] easily succomb to pessimism if they knew the terrible truth — Aleksander Kvam
could he mean that truth is false? — Aleksander Kvam
one of Nietzsche's recurring motifs is that nihilism, taken to the limit, effectively undermines itself [...] and that the real problem with nihilism is that it draws the wrong conclusions about its own procedures: not pessimsim, but unburdened affirmation is what you get once you leap through the fire of nihilism to get to the other side (hence also Nietzsche's self-declaration in the WTP of himself as a 'perfect nihilist'). — StreetlightX
And this jibes with some of Nietzsche's other comments on truth, in which - far from simply devaluing it, he treats it as a measure of spirit: ""Something might be true, even if it were also harmful and dangerous in the highest degree; indeed, it might be part of the essential nature of existence that to understand it completely would lead to our own destruction. The strength of a person’s spirit would then be measured by how much “truth” he could tolerate, or more precisely, to what extent he needs to have it diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted"; — StreetlightX
[Nietzsche] considers that a person "addicted" to truth is ugly and weak. They can't "rise up" and affirm life. They can't "rise up" and affirm life. There is no art, there is no journey, there is no ambition or passion or any of that. This is why Nietzsche criticizes Christianity, Platonism, Socrates, Buddhism, etc for being "nihilistic" and death-worshipping. — darthbarracuda
Nietzsche wasn't exactly the most impressive person all things considered. His philosophy of the Ubermensch looks more like a fantasy day-dream than something that can be seriously put into practice and lived. — darthbarracuda
Nietzsche should be integrated into a broader pessimistic worldview that includes things like antinatalism, in my opinion. — darthbarracuda
I don't think that's likely. — Ciceronianus the White
It may be necessary to use the words "essence" and "Being" and "existence" quite often — Ciceronianus the White
Would hyphens count as words? — Ciceronianus the White
And it would be challenging, but I think I could manage. — Ciceronianus the White
[a] And the idea that all that makes sex moral is "consent", is related to capitalism, because it makes sex out to be a service or exchange between two parties- [c] the buyer and the seller. Invariably the buyer is the man, the seller is the woman. The woman is the object, the man is the subject. — darthbarracuda
The woman is the object, the man is the subject. — darthbarracuda
The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does. — darthbarracuda
In fact, the notion of sexual consent itself brings with it certain revealing assumptions. We do not typically ask for consent for other activities - I do not ask for consent to sit across from you, for example. I do not ask for consent when I approach a cashier to check out from the grocery store. — darthbarracuda
So then what is it about sex that makes consent so important? — darthbarracuda
sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating. Consider: it is usually the man who asks for consent of the woman — darthbarracuda
Yet this is clearly contradictory, you cannot ask a person to suspend their dignity and still claim to respect them as a person. — darthbarracuda
I enjoy thinking about The Nothing, which can't be discussed but which I encounter only by the dread I feel when thinking of Heil--wait, I mean HEIL--wait I mean that back-stabbing, anti-Semitic, Hitler-worshipping acolyte of the "inner truth and greatness of National Socialism"; Joseph Goebbels' Mini-Me, that... — Ciceronianus the White
I view Dimitri as the "most successful" of the 3 brothers — Agustino
I disagree with your interpretation of Dimitri. I view Dimitri as the "most successful" of the 3 brothers, the one who ultimately rights his wrongs and emerges on top, despite the fact that he ends up sentenced for a crime he did not commit. — Agustino
The problem with Alyosha is that he never put his hand in the fire so to speak. He was always a spectator, whatsoever was happening, was not happening to him. — Agustino
Each apple is so much different from the other that it is hard to imagine how we can talk about (number) two apples. And that is a miracle we do almost every moment of our life – without noticing what we are doing. — Damir Ibrisimovic
It seems that we need to reinvent our theories to enable unique phenomena occurring in our picture of the universe. — Damir Ibrisimovic
Could anyone please explain to me why Dimitry has to look for 3,000 roubles when he apparently has them tied to his neck the whole time? Also, why does he have to look for the full amount when he apparently split it in two and only spent 1,500? — Daniel Miller
I'm getting first hand information as to what is meant by "Trump Derangement Syndrome" on this thread. — raza
It's not for me. It's for the impeachment process. It will falter or it will not, based on evidence presented to that particular forum and how it may be defended. — raza
A stage of "the process" has begun, has it not? Introduction of the resolution? — raza
Now, I didn't say he wasn't carrying out his duties. I merely paraphrased as to why the impeachment. — raza
Also - this kind of thing, where one is persuaded not at the level of belief, but at the level of 'topic of interest' is one place where I think persuasion has a role on forums like these. Some of my most consequential shifts in thought haven't been from changing an already held position, but having an interest aroused where it would not have done otherwise.
To put it in terms I like to use: I've been persuaded about questions, not answers. The most interesting interactions on the forum are not - are never - 'oh you're right', but 'oh I didn't think about that'. — StreetlightX
There may be other laws which apply. I don't know, and am not inclined to research that right now, having quite enough legal work for which I'm being paid (though not enough). — Ciceronianus the White
Please address the actual argument and tell me what premise(s) you disagree with. — Relativist
It's written in the Guidelines, which I hope everyone wandering in off the street or off anything else would read: :) — Baden
I have the feeling that if I hadn't encountered many of the (kantian and post-kantian) ideas in them already, his essays would have seemed so scintillatingly insightful that I would have been inclined to go along with the rest of what he says. But, having encountered those ideas before, the additional concepts he constructs from them seem like severely unjustified leaps. — csalisbury
I don't know if you read different threads to me, but I think that's overly magnanimous. I'd rather your generous optimism than my bitter misanthropy but I'm struggling to see how you're interpreting the sort of statements we regularly get here as quirks of the format and not the narcissistic excesses anonymity encourages. — Pseudonym
the rejection of a priori knowledge (which, as I mentioned to Wayfarer) is what this is really about, — Pseudonym
If the only method of communicating some insight is so open to interpretation that virtually any conclusion could be drawn from reading it, then nothing had really been achieved by studying it. — Pseudonym
but what justification do we have for thinking ourselves more likely to find it by determining what Heidegger really meant than by simply following through whatever we think he means? — Pseudonym
But the overwhelming evidence from decades of investigation is that it cannot be established whether an interpretation is "closer to his actual position". — Pseudonym
In my profession I have cause to discuss matters with professional philosophers and almost exhaustively I've found them to be humble about their beliefs and accepting of their limited nature. Most published papers will use terminology like "it seems to me...", "I find X more persuasive because...", or "my feeling is that...". It's only places like this, where people are desperate to prove themselves that you will encounter the more dogmatic "so and so proves that...", "you've misunderstood what X means", "you don't know what you're talking about until you've read X..." etc. As I say, no academic philosopher I've ever met actually speak like that, but it seems entirely de rigueur here, and that's a disappointment. — Pseudonym
Nietzsche is just as valid a target of your argument as Kant, or Lewis. It doesn't matter what the target of his philosophical propositions were, nor the result of an 'understanding' of them, it is still your understanding of them, It is still monumentally narcissistic of Nietzsche to write (especially in such a obscure manner), with the intention that his understanding of the world (even Nihilistically), actually means anything other than as an insight into his own mental state. — Pseudonym
In terms of critiquing Philosophy, the effects are what is relevant, not the intentions. If the effect of the presentation of certain existential texts is that they are wielded as evidence in a pseudo-analytical project, then they are as guilty of misleading as the analyst. — Pseudonym
Again, this is more the case outside of academia where you here nonsense like "that's not Heidegger's point..." (which I read recently), like any of us actually have a clue what Heidegger's point actually is. I guarantee you that if you name any conceivable interpretation of Heidegger I will find you a published author who has proposed it. — Pseudonym
There is something noble and, as Descartes and Husserl (et al) noticed, an ethical dimension to the philosophical endeavor. But yes, I am less concerned with other forms of philosophy here than I am with others, you are correct about this. When speaking of philosophy I have in mind a certain kind of philosophy rather than "philosophy" in the abstract. Anti-philosophy is still philosophy, etc etc. I have in mind philosophers who evidently see philosophy as some kind of grand narrative that almost ought to be worshiped, its traditional problems as of utmost importance. Philosophy is used to banish evil ideas, solipsism, relativism, skepticism, "nihilism", etc. — darthbarracuda
It's significant to me that we have no clear foundation for knowledge and that at the end of the day we really just have to hope that certain things are true. — darthbarracuda
I think the general skepticism of this thread has not ever been refuted but simply passed by because there are "more important" things to do. — darthbarracuda
:sad: — Wayfarer
Philosophy is an anthropocentric narcissism of the highest magnitude that entails an exceptional view of the power of reason. To hold any theoretical belief is to assert that one has a special place in nature, a privileged position concocted by the illusions called "knowledge" and "understanding". — darthbarracuda
Yet it has not been shown that "understanding" has any relation to truth. — darthbarracuda
-- are reasonable objections to a certain sort of philosophy that I too hate (e.g. Continental Rationalism and huge swaths of analytic philosophy), but not, as you assert, philosophy as a whole; that is, not philosophy as a practice or as the whole history of a tradition.Reality is forcibly coerced into reason, subjugated by the ambitions of a finite being whose narcissism tells him that reality can be "understood", and that the limits of his faculties forms the limits of the world itself. — darthbarracuda
But neither he, nor they, have had any inkling of Sophia in my book. Cast your mind back to the Greeks - the things they were able to conceive of and develop, due to the power of reason, ought to astound you. — Wayfarer
It's a semantic quibble over what obtains in reality (Sachverhalt) and what not necessarily so or is otherwise possible (Sachlage). — Posty McPostface
Yeah, that's not how I understand Sachlage. More like a possible configuration of atomic facts giving rise to it having a 'sense'. — Posty McPostface
Sachverhalt is what is and Sachlage is what could be. — Posty McPostface
1. The World is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not things.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
2. What is the case—a fact—is the existence of a state of affairs. [Was der Fall ist, die Tatsache, ist das Bestehen von Sachverhalten.] — L.W.
So, I hope I'm not going too off topic here. I'm just trying to understand if there is any apparent difference between 'Sachlage' (state of affairs) and 'Sachverhalt' (atomic facts). — Posty McPostface
2.0121
It would, so to speak, appear as an accident, when to a thing that could exist alone on its own account, subsequently an [objective situation] could be made to fit.
If things can occur in [facts and relationships], this possibility must already lie in them.
(A logical entity cannot be merely possible. Logic treats of every possibility, and all possibilities are its facts.)
Just as we cannot think of spatial objects at all apart from space, or temporal objects apart from time, so we cannot think of any object apart from the possibility of its connexion with other things.
If I can think of an object in the context of [how stuff hangs together], I cannot think of it apart from the possibility of this context. — L.W.
Objects contain the possibility of all [objective situations].
(Alternatively:) Objects contain all possible ways stuff might lie together. — L.W.
The possibility of its occurrence in [how stuff holds together] is the form of the object. — L.W.
Maybe, but not in this essay. Pay attention to his references to Hegel. This essay is not complete gibberish. It seems like you're suggesting that it is. — frank
I answered your question and your response didn't make any sense. As far as I'm concerned I'm arguing about treating people with basic human dignity. — Baden
But if someone really thinks, in advance, that it is open to question whether such an action as procuring the judicial execution of the innocent should be quite excluded from consideration — I do not want to argue with him; he shows a corrupt mind.” — G.E.M. Anscombe
I need an answer to this question so I use the only tools at my disposal. I know these tools are not entirely satisfactory: science gives provisional answers, probability even more so but the pure logic tool failed to give an answer for 1000s of years and there are no other tools to use. — Devans99
I fail to appreciate your objections. We can have absolute knowledge of abstract concepts only (eg logic and maths); we can never have absolute knowledge of the physical world.
So we can discuss the physical world as much as we like but we will never reach any conclusions without employing probability. — Devans99