You brought up the idea that some of this activity of thinking was not important to being an active and effective agent in the life we are alive in. — Valentinus

Then I wasn't clear enough. It's not that I don't think it's important; quite the opposite. But in the same way a Christian would consider reading the Bible and prayer to be important -- and I want to apply the point that Jesus made about Christians (or Jews in that case) to philosophers (even amateurs or philosophical hobbyists, of which I include myself): by the fruits you will know them.

What are the fruits of this group of philosophers? Judging myself only (but I know it's true of many others), I am often petty and rude and impatient and aggravated, especially online. Not a lot of "wisdom" there that I'm supposedly in love with, and others are often turned off by that -- and they're right to be, even if they're otherwise wrong about this or that (which they usually are :wink: ).

I'd rather be unphilosophical and live a good life than read philosophy all day long and be a miserable asshole. I guess that's my point.

So I think it's extremely important, so important that I take it seriously enough to ask the question of its effects and its "use" (for lack of a better term) and its impact on us as individuals and in society generally. I think, ideally, it should make us better human beings. And if it isn't, then we're exactly like one of those mathematicians who, while perhaps brilliant in that domain, are otherwise not what one would aspire to be like.

Maybe a better way to express my point here is not in quoting Jesus and using parallels with religion, but to switch to what's called "political hobbyism," where many people inform themselves and Tweet and write long Facebook posts, etc., but don't actually gain any power. Eitan Hirsch wrote a book about this, "Politics is for Power." What I'm saying is somewhat related to this.

beautiful — matt

Thank you?

The "philosophizing" is not something that has a result or value by itself. — Valentinus

Not sure what "by itself" means. Thinking is an activity, and philosophy is a certain kind of thinking -- at least that's how I think of it. If there's no value and no result in doing so, then why do it? You argued earlier that there's a value in itself, apart from any personal connection or gain. Now there's no value whatsoever "by itself"? Maybe I'm not following you.

Appreciate the response nonetheless.

Those who are "fans" won't be swayed anyway. Likewise for Peterson's following.
— Xtrix

I'll keep posting as long as you continue not to see the point.

I guess that'll be a while, given you're a Peterson devotee. So be it. :yawn:

Perhaps 'abstract thought' (and the heroic posing that goes with it) functions like a drug. Is it caffeine or meth? Depends on the person & phase of life perhaps. — j0e

I think it certainly can become an addiction, a habit, a hobby, etc -- like anything else, yes. Something we mindlessly do for "fun." And that's fine. But that's not how I feel about it, nor do I think that's how one SHOULD think about it. Again, I quoted Jesus for a reason here. There are parallels. If you claim to be a devout, Bible-reading Christian, and nothing shows up in your actual life -- what's the point of the Bible reading? Or take Aristotle as another example -- you are what you do, not what you think you are. I can't go around claiming I'm a carpenter if I don't have any skills of cutting and shaping wood. (I suppose I could, but I'd be a fraud.)

It is like anything else, if it is a clue to what you want to find then it is worthy, if it is a distraction, then it is not. — Valentinus

I think I agree with you, but I don't think I completely understood fully what you meant here. If philosophy is just a diversion, then yes I think at that point it's on par with these "spiritual" people who are petty, unfocused, impolite, impatient, etc. Just a kind of hypocrisy. It's another form of hobbyism, where there's no real action.

In other words, "Where's the beef?" What has all this reading and philosophizing accomplished? What is it doing for you or others? That's not totally fair, of course, but I insist it's worth asking.

Philosophy is mostly a recreational activity — Judaka

I don't agree with that, but it's not an irrational position.

The things one can do to produce positive effects in their life are generally, in my view, simply too simple to be useful for a deep philosophical thinker. — Judaka

Very true. Simple in nature but extremely hard in practice. And pretty rare, in fact.

I think you could argue, prioritise getting your life in order before *insert any recreational activity*. The more someone is committed to a recreational activity, where that be gaming, sports or philosophy, the more I expect that they are going to live a less "balanced" life and sacrifice more for that passion. — Judaka

I see your point, yes. But I think of philosophy as something that can be profoundly beneficial. If it isn't, and is on par with video games, then fine. But I don't see it that way. Nor do I put keeping up with the news in the same category -- I think that is important, and more so than simple entertainment.

When philosophy becomes sport, or fashion, or some fleeting recreation, then yes -- one should simply balance it with the rest of your life. But ditto for religion or spirituality -- which is likewise very common. But what's the point of that if it doesn't lead to real change in your life? That was Jesus' point. I see philosophy as much more like spirituality/religion than sports or video games. But that's me.

And that's basically what I'm saying in this post: if philosophy, or math, or religion, or politics, etc., simply becomes an addiction or a "hobby," then maybe it's time to move on to something more productive.

It wouldn't really make sense that having a complex and nuanced understanding of history, geography, geopolitics or philosophy or anything like that - would help your personal life. They're all fairly terrible subjects to be asking "what good is it to me to know this". if you don't think it is interesting and of value to know by itself, without further producing any positive changes in your life, then your interests kind of suck. — Judaka

Eh, that's a pretty superficial way of looking at it. Odd to mention after you say philosophy is mostly "recreation," too. Does this imply only what's pleasurable or "fun" is done "for itself"? That's hardly doing it "for itself," though -- which is really a meaningless phrase.

But regardless, there's no real split between "personal life" and some other activity. It's all integrated. Not everything has to "improve" your life, no...particularly things like hobbies, or candy or sex or sitcoms or anything else you like. But the question of "What is a good life?" and "How should I be spending my time?" is hardly an irrelevant question to ask, whether about video games or history.

I'm not arguing they have to be a drag or a grim duty, either. Philosophy and history ARE fun and interesting, of course.

Again, strangely enough you're proving my point by your assertion that philosophy (or history, or politics) is "mostly recreational," while at the same time should be interesting and valuable "in itself" without question. In other words, enjoy sports without concern for your "personal life," because it should be seen as valuable in itself. But balance it well, like a diet -- a little candy never hurts.

Not convincing, really.

Those who are "fans" won't be swayed anyway. Likewise for Peterson's following.
— Xtrix

I forgot to mention: the Woody Allen quote is from Crimes and Misdemeanors.

That you class Jordan Peterson and Deepak Chopra in the same neighborhood of competency, is frightening. — Aryamoy Mitra

Those who are "fans" won't be swayed anyway. Likewise for Peterson's following. — Xtrix

Yes, Hitchens' razor. Classic. — Aryamoy Mitra

Well done. :clap:

What's rather sad is that you haven't placed forth any constructive criticisms; many of which I might concur with. — Aryamoy Mitra

Very true. Nor do I care to. They're so irrelevant as to not even be worth the effort. Pointing out that they're frauds, when possible, is sufficient. As it is with most charlatans. If I said Deepak Chopra was basically a fraud, I don't see many disagreeing -- unless it's a New Age forum. But if someone did, I would certainly not be willing to quote him chapter and verse and have a long debate about it. Those who are "fans" won't be swayed anyway. Likewise for Peterson's following. Anyone with such poor judgment isn't even worth debating. So I leave it to them. And to you.

Some of that is true, some is blatantly ridiculous. My feeling is that Chomsky could intellectually mop the floor with any of those writers, as he's done in nearly every debate I've seen.

To accuse him of being a "bully" of some kind is common, and kind of a joke. He's not a pushover, true. But he's never insulting and always sticks to the facts, whether or not he's curt. Sam Harris made the same claims, for example. And I like Sam. But if you read the e-mail exchanges, it's pretty clear that Chomsky, although clearly being cantankerous, is also factually correct. The same is true in most cases. He's very rarely factually wrong, so far as I can see. That's all I'm interested in -- not in opinions about his personality, his voice, or his writing style. Even if the claims are true about those things -- and they usually aren't -- it's more or less irrelevant.

So already to compare to JP or Zizek is irrelevant, because neither say anything value even despite their posturing.

If you're referring to JP, I really doubt you can, or are of the temperament to have read Maps of Meaning. Either way, feel free to drown yourself in pretense. — Aryamoy Mitra

Like, for example, by reading Maps of Meaning?

I literally can't even type the titles of these turds without laughing a little. They sound so profound. Again: "an elaborate, unprovable, unfalsifiable, unintelligible theory" sums it up nicely.

If you find him obfuscating, that's a personal misgiving - unless you can substantiate it with more than a derisive piece of journalism. — Aryamoy Mitra

It's a personal misgiving to think this fraud is "profound." What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A rather thorough, accurate article is all you deserve -- and you're lucky you got that. Please go read more Maps of Meaning and be happy with it, I don't care.

I readily admit that I may be projecting here. When I began a sincere attempt to investigate the foundations of Chomsky’s political philosophy, I had a heck of a time figuring how to integrate his ideas with other political thinkers I had some familiarity with. Was he a fan of Marx? No. he stated explicitly that he was not a Marxist. Well, what about the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt school? No luck there. Postmodernists like Foucault? His discussion with Foucault , available on youtube , clearly puts that out of play. I finally came to the conclusion that Chomsky goes back to the very early era of socialist theorization, when Marx was just one among a variety of responses to capitalism, which was at that time still relatively young. — Joshs

Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. Anarchism has a long tradition, and he talks very clearly about it. Related to socialism, Marxism, communism, etc., but not identical. This isn't hard to find out. So why you think it's his trying to evade being "labeled" is kind of odd. He's also, to use your term, a very big fan of Marx indeed. Also Rudolph Rocker, Bakunin, and other anarchist thinkers.

This suspicion was strengthens considerably by a long video I watched of a debate between Chomsky and Dershowitz on Israeli politics. I began the video fully prepared to be on Chomsky’s side. After all , he is on the left and Dershowitz is a conservative. I really wanted him to nail Dershowitz to the wall. But to my surprise I became more and more exasperated with Chomsky’s performance. Dershowitz, as you would expect , presented straightforward lawyerly arguments that I expected to see Chomsky directly refute. — Joshs

I really can't see how anyone watches that debate and comes out thinking that Dershowitz wasn't a complete and utter weasel and fraud. Chomsky literally destroys him, and I've known people who are ultimately on the side of Dershowitz agree -- a terrible showing. Especially when he invokes "Bill Clinton told me so" when confronted with the long, extensive documentary record which Chomsky refers to and gives a sampling of. If you showed up "fully prepared" to be Chomsky's side, and yet came away "exasperated," perhaps you're simply not listening. Chomsky is a rather dull speaker, and rattles off facts and figures and terminology that's very hard to follow -- so there's a double-whammy there. Dershowitz, on the other hand, is just a buffoon -- but keeps it simple and uses a lot of debate tricks and appeals to the audience.

Maybe we're just living in different realities, I don't know. I don't even care to defend Chomsky -- but on the two points you mention, it's just too off track to ignore.

It really speaks to your character that you'll invite secondary sources for the determination of your stances on primary ones, before acting facetiously so as to evade it. — Aryamoy Mitra

Because both these men, and you, mean so little to me that's it's not worth the effort of writing it myself. If that's hard for you to figure out, again that's your issue.

Yes, I've read both of those frauds. Hence why I agree with Robinson.

I guess if I agreed with his political
philosophy I would notice his passive-aggressive style of argumentation less. — Joshs

Give me one example of what you consider passive-aggressive. He's had thousands of interviews, so it shouldn't be hard to point to one.

Perhaps , like me, you notice their personal idiosyncrasies because you dislike their ideas. — Joshs

Well they don't really say much, and that's the point. As far as posturing goes -- yeah, that's pretty obvious. I wouldn't care so much if they had anything useful to say, though. But I really can't find anything. Could just be me -- who knows? But I don't see any reason to waste time with them.

I’m assuming youre a fan of Chomsky’s political thinking? — Joshs

A fan? I think Chomsky is clear and relevant. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's never irrelevant or obfuscating.

Chomsky is a brilliant psycho-linguist but as a political theorist is an egomaniac to rival the other two, — Joshs

I see no basis for this remark. I really don't see Chomsky as an egomaniac in anything, politics or otherwise. Especially not to "rival" Peterson and Zizek. Give me a break.

Exactly. I think it's just an avoidance of real work. It's much easier to pontificate about truisms. But also it's a kind of trickery to sell books, be famous, and gather a following. Very self-serving. Peterson and Zizek are both egomaniacs.

Give me 5 minutes of someone like Noam Chomsky over either of their oeuvres.

Have you read Maps of Meaning? Have you chanced across his lectures of Existentialist Psychology? Are you acquainted with his contentions to New Atheism? — Aryamoy Mitra

:lol:

"If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured." -- From "The Intellectual We Deserve"

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

"Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.

But we do not live in a reasonable world. In fact, Peterson’s reach is astounding. His 12 Rules for Life is the #1 most-read book on Amazon, where it has a perfect 5-star rating. One person said that when he came across a physical copy of Peterson’s first book, “I wanted to hold it in my hands and contemplate its significance for a few minutes, as if it was one of Shakespeare’s pens or a Gutenberg Bible.” The world’s leading newspapers have declared him one of the most important living thinkers. The Times says his “message is overwhelmingly vital,” and a Guardian columnist grudgingly admits that Peterson “deserves to be taken seriously.” David Brooks thinks Peterson might be “the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now.” He has been called “the deepest, clearest voice of conservative thought in the world today” a man whose work “should make him famous for the ages.” Malcolm Gladwell calls him “a wonderful psychologist.” And it’s not just members of the popular press that have conceded Peterson’s importance: the chair of the Harvard psychology department praised his magnum opus Maps of Meaning as “brilliant” and “beautiful.” Zachary Slayback of the Foundation for Economic Education wonders how any serious person could possibly write off Peterson, saying that “even the most anti-Peterson intellectual should be able to admit that his project is a net-good.” We are therefore presented with a puzzle: if Jordan Peterson has nothing to say, how has he attracted this much recognition? If it’s so “obvious” that he can be written off as a charlatan, why do so many people respect his intellect?"

Says it better than me. Worth a read before wasting a second more on this fraud.

Shouldn't have foreseen anything less myopic. — Aryamoy Mitra

Yeah, it's a shame I don't put more effort into Jordan Peterson-like witticisms, like the following:

Please be careful, while scaling down that mountain of sanctimony. It's fairly high. — Aryamoy Mitra

:lol:

Posturing and appeals are quintessential of every academic. — Aryamoy Mitra

Then you aren't very widely read. It's no wonder you think this, considering you laud the likes of Jordan Peterson and his "profound" contributions to...something or other.

Insofar as their 'non-real work' is concerned, it's only a shame that they haven't met your exalted standards. — Aryamoy Mitra

Exalted, no. That I have standards, yes. If you call asking for something beyond truisms "exalted," that's your issue. I asked for what exactly the "work" is. You, like all those taken in by Peterson's superficiality, can't point to any. I suppose "cleaning your room" is one piece of that profound work?

Eh, I'm already bored. It's not even worth discussing this bore.

For Heidegger, Nietzsche and Holderlin became those figures whereas Kierkegaard was one step removed from this circle. This is what I meant by his being ‘disparaged’ by Heidegger. — Joshs

:up:

Is your high horse conveniently tethered nearby — Tom Storm

Please be careful, while scaling down that mountain of sanctimony. It's fairly high. — Aryamoy Mitra

Oh how witty.

He's laid forth a substantive, and profound set of arguments that underpin the utility of Theistic beliefs — Aryamoy Mitra

:rofl:

he's been tremendously contributory towards Hegelianism (and certain psychoanalytic fields). — Aryamoy Mitra

What are these contributions, exactly? Where is the work?

Both are pseudo-intellectual charlatans. A lot of posturing, a lot of appeals to the masses, a lot of truisms dressed up, lots of italics, and absolutely no real work whatsoever. Not one thing they say can be disproved— by design.

If you’re into them, you’re welcome.

I am well aware of Peterson's work — Tom Storm

JP's a brilliant thinker, — Aryamoy Mitra

anything is permitted (Zizek has made this point) — Tom Storm

Zizek and Peterson. This is what we spend our time reading? Good heavens.

Nice copy-and-paste of secondary sources, but nowhere does Heidegger disparage Kierkegaard.

The only Heidegger quote (I think):

The pertinacity of dialectic, which draws its motivation from a very definite source, is docu- mented most clearly in Kierkegaard. In the properly philosophical aspect of his thought, he did not break free from Hegel. His later turn to Trendelenburg is only added documentation for how little radical he was in philosophy. He did not realize that Trendelenburg saw Ar- istotle through the lens of Hegel. His reading the Paradox into the New Testament and things Christian was simply negative Hegelianism. — Joshs

This isn't a disparagement. Not even close. That Heidegger sees Hegel as the culmination of Western metaphysics (since Plato) is not in question. I never once said Hegel wasn't an influence on Heidegger; I said Kierkegaard was a large influence on Heidegger. And he was. Heidegger had nothing but respect for Kierkegaard, just as he had for Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Descartes, and others -- despite the fact that he considers them still operating within the realm of Greek ontology, and thus within the metaphysics of presence.

Was Nietzsche correct that the ‘death of God’ would usher in a time of meaninglessness and bloodshed? — Tom Storm

Of nihilism. So perhaps "meaninglessness" but not necessarily bloodshed. I personally think he got it right -- the Christian church is losing its grip even more. But it seems like science has largely replaced it, and our reactions against Christianity still keep us Christians, in a strange way.

I wish he touched on the economy more, as Marx did. Because it appears that the real power in the world today is now in the hands of those with wealth, the business class -- or, more specifically, big business: the corporate sector. The owners of these corporations, the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie), are making the decisions that shape the lives of billions of people. They own the future of humanity. What is their worldview? Are these people Christian? What tradition were they raised in? Where have they been educated? Since it's a global phenomenon (multinationalism), I think it has more to do with science and technology than the death or existence of God. Their ideology is one of greed and accumulation of wealth -- which is a kind of "will to power" in its own right, which again Nietzsche doesn't discuss much (from what I've read).

Is this nihilistic? Yeah, I'd say so. So the world, in a sense, is being directed by a small class of human beings, whose brains have been shaped by a Judeo-Christian tradition and culture, but educated in a mainly secular way, and have earned their place within a segment of the world (business and economics) that operates within its own system (capitalism). So whether you believe in God or believe God is dead, it really doesn't matter -- because to play the game (and especially to rise to the top of it) you have to internalize the rules of the game. This game is based on a particular variant of the will to power: accumulate wealth, personal gain, greed, etc.

So perhaps there will be bloodshed, but not from war. It'll be from this group of people, acting on their particular will to power, playing this particular capitalistic game, who will eventually cause the destruction of the species. Look no further than the environmental disaster currently underway, and the reactions to it, for all the evidence you need about where we stand.

I don't think even Nietzsche could have predicted that.

These were published as 2 two volume books of 200 pages each. — Joshs

who he wrote two volumes about , — Joshs

The lectures being published in two volumes is not the same as him writing two volumes. But yes, he did consider Nietzsche important enough to have four courses in. Ditto with Hegel, Parmenides, Aristotle, et al.

Past , present and future are the same moment, what Heidegger calls the three ecstasies of the ‘ now’, — Joshs

Not sure I like this explanation. Sounds very Buddhist. I don't recall Heidegger saying anything like the ecstases being part of the "same moment" or the "now," either. But they do appear to be a unity rather than separate dimensions. Remember that he considers the future to be the more "primary" of the unity, not the present.

I think he was much more influenced by Nietzsche, who he wrote two volumes about , than kierkegaard, who he only mentioned disparagingly. — Joshs

I can't find a single time he "disparages" Kierkegaard. As for Nietzsche, he didn't write two volumes, he taught several courses -- and later than Being and Time.

That being said, the similarities between Kierkegaard and Heidegger are much more striking to me than Nietzsche and Heidegger.

Keep in mind that Heidegger didn’t want to equate Dasein with anthropos , the ‘ human being ‘ as biological entity. — Joshs

True, but nothing I said (and nothing you quoted) implies a biological perspective. Perhaps "needs"? But even there, there's no reason it has to be considered strictly in biological terms.

Yes, It emerges and is constructed out of Dasein, but more specifically , it is the structure the the past only existing as what it occurs into and is changed by. — Joshs

This isn't very clear, I'm afraid. What does the second "it" refer to? Time or temporality? As for the rest, it's not clear enough to guess.

One of the most challenging and influential books on this, of course, is Being and Time.

Heidegger is highly influenced by Kierkegaard. It's worth the effort in reading it.

Heidegger, in my reading, rather than focusing on what time "is," per se, discusses the perspective upon which all interpretations of time (and being) are based. Starting with Aristotle's essay on time (in the Physics), he'll argue that Aristotle's perspective ("being" as ousia, which in Heidegger means "constant presence") is one where time itself gets treated as an object that's "present-at-hand" -- viz., as a series of sequential, changing now-points (which align with the measure of "seconds" of the moving clock pointer), perceived as such because "presence" (phusis as enduring, persistent identity -- the ιδέα Plato) gets privileged in the thinking of thinkers (philosophers).

Time therefore needs to be analyzed anew, as does the human being that interprets and defines "time." Why? Because this all comes out of the human mind, the human being. As Heidegger says, "time temporalizes itself," meaning it emerges and is constructed out of something else. That "something else" is human being, human experience, human needs and interests. Particularly, human projection, goals, possibilities, plans (which becomes the "future"); memory, tradition, and the already-existing ("throwness") which becomes the "past"; and being amidst things in action (the "present").

The same can be said of interpretations of what it means to be human generally, what it means to be an individual, and what it means for anything to "be." The understanding of "being" (including human being) and "time" are very much connected, at least in Heidegger's thought. Human beings instead get re-interpreted as embodied time, or "temporality" in the sense mentioned above. This temporality -- this human constitution -- has been hidden from most thinkers through history for the very fact that everything (humans, time, being, nature) gets interpreted from the perspective of presence, or what is later called the "metaphysics of presence."

From this perspective -- which itself is based on a privative (derivative) mode of a human being (namely the "present-at-hand", which is detached from the everyday, integrated, holist world of automaticity, habit, and skill of the "ready-to-hand") -- one cannot help but interpret human beings as "rational animals," and time as a kind of number line or "container."

That's the best cartoon version I can give, but I find it compelling indeed. It makes all these questions about "time" fairly irrelevant. Ditto the "mind/body" problem, et al.

Where are you going to be in the future? One hundred years from now?

No one exists in the future. — Andrew4Handel

How very profound.

Actually, you do exist in the future. The future is now. Grandchildren will exist a hundred years from now. People will exist -- provided we don't go extinct.

Basically what you're saying is that since there's death, life is meaningless. But to paraphrase Nietzsche: it is only YOU who is meaningless, and your one way of looking at the world.

Since nothing matters, by all means quickly die off.

I cannot see any reason to create a new child and I have not had any children myself. — Andrew4Handel

Why does there have to be a "reason"? Shaping the future generation of human beings seems pretty important to me, although I myself still have no kids.

I really can't abide by the cheap and easy nihilism that pervades your post. Perhaps it's best if you don't have kids. On the other hand, all that will be left are people who don't think at all and end up with 8 kids. If that's where things trend, we'll end up with an Idiocracy type situation.

So the question embedded in your inquiry about children is this: do we care about the future or not?

I, for one, do.

My source of information was not Richard Dawkins but the history of education of which I have several books. You really do not know about Aristotle, the church, and Scholasticism, do you? — Athena

I never once said your source was Richard Dawkins. I never once stated that Aristotle (or Plato) weren't influential in the development of the church.

Shows your level of reading comprehension as well, I suppose. Not a shocker.

Your linear view of the history of philosophy is embarrassing.

Yes, true. But I was trying to apply the KISS principle, that categorisation is standard in all intro to philosophy University courses, sure it can be critiqued, but for new students, best to just go with it in my view. — Wayfarer

I disagree with you, but fair enough.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, unfortunately. I have no interest in the simplistic formulations of Darwinists.
— Xtrix

Very good argument! Totally irrefutable, and iron-hard! — god must be atheist

Oh, you mean like this:

That may very well be because RD was right. — god must be atheist

Also a great argument.

You gave no reason why we should or would believe you... you gave your private opinion. — god must be atheist

True. Given that you did the exact same thing, I figured it was appropriate.

You are the laughing stock of this forum board — god must be atheist

Oh no! :fear:

Coming from you, this is devastating.

Basically you're casting yourself in the role of philosophy lecturer, trying to set the poor newbie straight, who's being fed useless disinformation by her university. — Wayfarer

Sorry, but it wasn't the "poor newbie" who brought rationalism and empiricism into this discussion. What I'm setting straight is the useless, simplistic, conventional textbook nonsense that gets repeated over and over again by the people on this forum who've evidently not read one sentence of the people they so easily label x, y, z. If we want to discuss these thinkers seriously, then we owe at least a few passages of their works, and not regurgitating, verbatim, what we remember from our undergraduate history of philosophy course.

Where did I imply that I thought that they were imbeciles? — Wayfarer

By making this distinction, which is useless. Anyone who is a pure empiricist -- if such a thing can be imagined -- and truly believed we were "tabula rasa," would have to be a complete imbecile. It takes 10 seconds to see why. And, of course, that's not what we see when we actually read these thoughtful men. These labels -- "rationalism," "idealism," "empiricism," etc., came later. You look into it further, and you find that there are complex interplays between the mind and body when discussing knowledge. That entire division itself is a long refuted one, and yet we continue we these formulations anyway. Why? Who knows. But it's difficult for me to tolerate on a philosophy forum.

Google the term 'empiricist philosophers', and they are the top two names! — Wayfarer

Oh! Well, in that case...

Xtrix, think of it as the natural evolution of philosophy. — god must be atheist

You don’t know what you’re talking about, unfortunately. I have no interest in the simplistic formulations of Darwinists.

It was Locke's phrase is that men are born 'tabula rasa', a blank slate, on which knowledge is inscribed by experience. Locke is a textbook example of empiricism and his work set the model for it. — Wayfarer

Then try learning less from textbooks. Locke was also a dedicated nativist, as was Hume. You have to read them to find out, but it should be obvious even before that. Why? Because these guys weren’t imbeciles.

Those debates were the height of intellectual achievement, until the backlash opposing Aristotle's rationalism. That is when empiricism emerged beginning the science of modernity. — Athena

Sounds like the typical narrative of a Richard Dawkins.

“Back when men were ignorant, they would debate about angels— and then humans discovered EMPIRICISM and we were pulled out of the dark ages into the light led by science.”

Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah.

Cute, simple fictions.

I think empiricism and rationalism are quite sufficiently defined, and that Locke and Liebniz, respectively, are exemplars. — Wayfarer

They aren’t. When they are, they do not apply to these men. Unless of course you don’t read them and are forced to use conventional shorthands. In which case, that’s fine. But useless otherwise.

Let's try to avoid simplistic labels.
— Xtrix

That is like agreeing to meet and not being specific about the time or place. The word "word" is a label and we can not know what we are talking about without them. — Athena

I really don’t see the relevance of that remark; I didn’t say avoid using labels — I said avoid using simplistic labels, particularly when borrowed from introductory philosophy textbooks.

The rest of your post regarding creationism and science, I sympathize with but I fail to see how that’s relevant to my post either.