@Joshs

But the bottom line is the myth of rationality is still adhered to.

Any philosophers claiming intuition or beliefs are primary yet?

I'm saying that a lot of what is called compassion and those go around talking about it and signalling its values are hypocrites. — Protagoras

I think that's true but it has little bearing on whether compassion is valuable or not. Fake anything or hypocrisy is bad. Genuine compassion is not bad. Was N talking about fake compassion? I don't think so. Josh's may have an interesting perspective on this.

I can't imagine looking around the world and determining that we need less compassion.

[reply="Protagoras;[/b]

How does one distinguish proper philosophy from just a whole lot of ideas. There must be a right and a wrong way of doing philosophy. A series of Ideas are not the same as philosophy.

@Tom Storm
Of course real compassion is a tremendous virtue.

Nietzsche was talking about compassion being in reality a form of asserting power over the recipient.

However,he didn't discount a different type of compassion between elites born of strength.

Nietzsches ideas on normal compassion havent had any overall effect in the real world.

Folks will always use it to make the world run smoother and to keep bonds between people.

But genuine compassion is very rare.

@Ross Campbell

Well,academic philosophy sticks to appeals to authority and dialectic reason.

Myself,I think a person's intuition and desire is the criteria.

But the bottom line is the myth of rationality is still adhered to.

Any philosophers claiming intuition or beliefs are primary yet? — Protagoras

Husserl made intuition ( the primal impression ) fundamental. Heidegger defined truth as disclosure. What he meant was that what appears in every single
moment of experience is truth. He rejected the idea of truth as correctness

Of course real compassion is a tremendous virtue.

Nietzsche was talking about compassion being in reality a form of asserting power over the recipient.

However,he didn't discount a different type of compassion between elites born of strength.

Nietzsches ideas on normal compassion havent had any overall effect in the real world.

Folks will always use it to make the world run smoother and to keep bonds between people.

But genuine compassion is very rare. — Protagoras

There are many readings of Nietzsche; who knows?

Compassion is not so unusual - the version I prefer is that experienced quietly by ordinary folk as they go about their daily business, never having heard of Nietzsche.

@Joshs

Did they both reject platos justified true belief?

Are you saying that both say truth is subjective?

If so,are there some subjectivities better than others?

In other words,why should I agree with the majority of heideggers or husserls philosophy?

@Tom Storm
I think nietzsches writings are clear enough to not have the numerous interpretations that academia like to churn out.

I agree partly with your version. I just think it rare for it to be genuine.

Heidegger was saying that we don't see truth with a God eye view. As with treating people, one should go with one's gut in each situation

Christianity gave West the idea that we are all one mystical body being showed mercy by God. However, karma applies perfectly to all good and bad acts. There is no room for mercy pushing aside justice in the name of pity disguised as love

Did they both reject platos justified true belief? — Protagoras

Here’s a very partial list of philosophers who reject platos justified true belief:

george Kelly
Derrida
Heidegger
Husserl
Gene Gendlin
Merleau-Ponty
Nancy
Zahavi
Gallagher
Ratcliffe
T. Fuchs
Varela
Thompson
Noe
Lyotard
Piaget
Deleuze
Protevi
Massumi
Foucault
William Connolly
Manuel Delanda
Bernard Stiegler
Bennington
Joseph Rouse
John Shotter
Ken Gergen
Jan Slaby
Arthur Fine
Gadamer
Rorty
LaClau
Colombetti
William James
John Dewey
G H Meade

@Gregory

Well the gods eye view has always been nonsense,so of heidegger says that,I agree.

Does heidegger say go with your gut?

@Joshs
OK. But whats their criteria for truth?
They are philosophers so how do they try to explain or argue for their ideas? Or are they just asserting them or?

Any anytical philosophers who reject justified belief?

I know Rorty does, but he probably got booted out of the club for that. What about Putnam, Sellers or Davidson? Maybe even Quine?

Nietzsche's psychology is flawed in many aspects as if I'm not mistaken, it's not based on empirical observation or evidence and it's unfortunate that his ideas have acquired almost cult like status and great influence since his death, not least amongst the Nazis and other right wing value systems who shared his contempt for the virtues of pity and compassion regarding them as weaknesses which inhibit the "strong" individual, — Ross Campbell

The empirical observation is parallel to the method of La Rochefoucauld, who noticed that many expressions of selflessness were actually outbreaks of self-love.

Whatever Nietzsche considered the best political system, it was not based upon the nationalistic sense of identity displayed by the forerunners to the Nazis. In later works, the criticism of all things "German" became more pronounced.

So he laughed at the notion of the "good European" in some places and appealed to the idea in other places. He was either nuts or had a sense of humor that delighted in his inconsistencies. Maybe both things were true. I am not writing this as an apology.

Well the gods eye view has always been nonsense,so of heidegger says that,I agree. — Protagoras

What’s the difference between the god’s eye view and justified true belief?

@Joshs
I'm not conversant with those 3. Did they reject?

But the main thing is what's their criteria for truth?

And that's one of my points,half the philosophy world would kick out folks who don't follow plato.

And I'm yet to be shown those continentals explicitly reject reason.

“Rorty wishes to undermine modern philosophers' conception of philosophy and its place in culture, as did his philosophical heroes, Dewey, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein. Yet his argument owes most to Sellars attack on the 'myth of the given' and to Quine's attack on the analytic/synthetic, necessary/contingent, a priorila posteriori distinc- tions. Their joint insight (suitably purified by Rorty) that is truth, justifica- tion, and knowledge are nothing 'more than what Dewey caled "war- ranted assertability" ... what our peers will, ceteris paribus, let us get away with saying (176). Rorty labels this insight 'epistemological behaviourism.

@Joshs
I agree with dewey.

But a lot of those guys still believe in science.

Rory may be an exception

But making a truth out of "no truths" or everything is a narrative is once again epistemic behaviourism.

None of these guys has escaped the bottle of philosophy or has a genuine criterion for truth.

The empirical observation is parallel to the method of La Rochefoucauld, who noticed that many expressions of selflessness were actually outbreaks of self-love. — Valentinus

There's no question that this is true. But this unfortunate fact is misused by people constantly to drown out the idea that there may also be (as there should be) genuine compassion or empathy for people who are struggling to survive.

@Tom Storm:up: For your above post to valentinus.

Christianity gave West the idea that we are all one mystical body being showed mercy by God. However, karma applies perfectly to all good and bad acts. There is no room for mercy pushing aside justice in the name of pity disguised as love — Gregory

Nonsense. That's your idea of what Christanity gave. An incorrect and prejudicial idea like the one i had commented/corrected here

Now you are introducing another idea, the idea of karma, which is borrowed from Hinduism. Then admit to all the principles of Hinduisim.

Make up your mind. This kind of picking and choosing to build a shoddy blanket isn't a credit to reason or logic.This is not the way of the bear, but that of a weasel.

This is what happens when you deny a system of checks and balances, which one may hypothetically and loosely call God. The denial can occur because of many reasons. But some of the most common is a reaction to life experiences, and the allurement of no accountability. The latter is a very tempting proposition to many. They are now free (at least they think they are) to do as they like, rape, pillage, cruelty, violence etc. Or, if circumstances do not permit the prior then they will attempt to do that in other ways, like economically, socially, in business etc. So the bottom line incentive is an absence of accountability. One knows not many have examined this deeply, but this is so simple even a caveman/woman can see it. This isn't rocket science.

So for such people whose life is based on a lack of accountability, to say they will be self-accountable as in kindness and justice, ts laughable. Just some thoughts in simple language. No response sought or required. carry on with your beleifs.

None of these guys has escaped the bottle of philosophy or has a genuine criterion for truth. — Protagoras

Rorty says that we know how to justify ideas, we just don't know anything about capital T truth - this being a remnant of Greek philosophy and monotheism. We are clever animals for whom language is a tool to manage our environment. We cannot access The Truth.

@Tom Storm
But saying we cannot access truth is still positing the myth of the Gods eye view.

How does Rory justify ideas.

Why the allergy to the word truth?

Why the allergy to the word truth? — Protagoras

Maybe this will help. Rorty explains why the notion of truth needs to be jettisoned.

http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica/article/download/696/668/

@Joshs
With respect joshs. Why can't you explain in your own words.

The word truth is used fine in my life and many others.
We know what we mean in normal language.

Why do Rorty and these kinds of philosophers want to dictate how people speak?

tik tok

Is the "unfortunate fact" something that is a problem for all discussions of morality?
If so, Nietzsche's approach either brings that factor into view or made a mess of the issue.
Nobody likes a mess.

But saying we cannot access truth is still positing the myth of the Gods eye view.

How does Rory justify ideas.

Why the allergy to the word truth? — Protagoras

You need to dig deeper. It is not truth that is the problem - hence Rorty's view that justification is achievable in a range of areas. He is saying The Truth (as in a foundational truth) is a myth. As per God or transcendent purpose. However we can know if an idea works or not and can clarify language.

I am not a Rorty scholar so someone else can take it further if they wish. Rorty often seems to be disliked for his 'postmodern relativism'.