This 'use' - in the instrumental sense, like a bureaucrat's - doesn't seem to me to respect the autonomy of philosophy's problems. — StreetlightX
Any philosopher knows that problems impose themselves upon you, that they worm their way into you so its not a simple matter of submitting philosophy to one's whim and fancy, even if that is a 'therapeurics of the soul'; to engage in philosophy is to be driven where the problem takes you: to submit to necessity, as one does to a landscape which one maps out. — StreetlightX
Deleuze once wrote that the only use of philosophy is to sadden and shame and these are affects I think far more appropriate to philosophy than the self-gratifying attempts to make it some bourgeois weekend retreat in the Caribbean. — StreetlightX
Therapeutics makes use of philosophy as one makes use of another without regard or respect for their autonomy. It prostitutes philosophy. — StreetlightX
Eh, don't read too much into it. I just couldn't care less about the posts of the windbag I was responding to. — StreetlightX
I do think they have an incredibly flawed understanding of philosophy: they treat philosophical cartography as a matter of collecting pretty things; they have a dilettante's understanding of philosophy. — StreetlightX
Ah, sadly the academy isn't perfect. They'll let any old dolt through once in a while. Somtimes, rooted agape by a series of shiny letters, people even look up to them. — StreetlightX
I feel passionately about child welfare and children's rights and there is nothing legalistic in my approach to that.
It also disturbs me that I could have a child if I wanted to despite no one knowing me or my capacities or dysfunctions. — Andrew4Handel
I am discussing whether people are entitled to have children and not whether life has joy and value. — Andrew4Handel
You appear to be claiming that these things justify everyone having children. — Andrew4Handel
You can hold that life has joy in it with out claiming people are entitled to have children. — Andrew4Handel
If you think joy and pleasure count for having children then it would be consistent to recognise that things like, suffering, drug addiction, overpopulation count against people having children.[/i] — Andrew4Handel
You were saying people that try and monitor and manage the welfare of children are too analytic and contrasted this with a sentimental picture of motherhood which in no way helps children in need of an intervention. — Andrew4Handel
It is questionable sentimentality that seemed to be your only argument after you questionable depiction of those "analytically" concerned with child welfare. — Andrew4Handel
This really suggests having children can't be justified by reason only sentiment which is a suspicion I had already. — Andrew4Handel
It is not a sacrifice to take care of child that you created that did not ask to be born. It is like a masochistic imposition on yourself that you are portraying in the most sentimental unreasonable light that doesn't tally with historical evidence.
[...]
The matter of supreme importance is child suffering and suffering and individual integrity not someones desire to enact yet another narcissistic fictional drama with the fruit of their loins where they feature as some kind of heroic self sacrificing benevolent life giver. — Andrew4Handel
Society does not function based on mothers playing with their children in the garden, rather on hard work, technology, exploitation,sacrifice and the like. — Andrew4Handel
So using some kind of irrational sentimental template to justify the rest of what reality consists of, the real non manipulative harsh reality(famine war, disease, blind chance) I find more than disturbing and not the least philosophical. — Andrew4Handel
It is an empathetic and not a legalistic mindset that refutes the right of people to have children along side personal experience of dysfunctional families.I can't think of any children's right movements inspired by legalism. — Andrew4Handel
I'd only want to say, his ideas resonated with me especially at that time in my life, and have had a lasting influence. — Baden
Sure, that's always been obvious. But there are many possible reasons for that other than "She's a moron and her philosophy is shit." — gurugeorge
Well if you put it that way, then Rand isn't "ignored," but a modestly popular taste on the Right. (Lots of books sold, remember?) — gurugeorge
And if you want to use "intelligence," as a criterion, what better measure of general intelligence do we have than IQ tests? — gurugeorge
Generally a good guide, but not always. — gurugeorge
(Also, I'd be careful about that sort of appeal to authority - libertarians have the highest IQ of all the political persuasions ;) ) — gurugeorge
So I've been looking for a book, idealy, that disects "Philosophical Investigations" remark by remark from start to finish, and just explains everything remark by remark. — Amit Mish'an
Well that's why I referenced him - like, come on guys, get off your arses, it's not totally alien to your own tradition. So what if you get it wrong and other philosophers laugh and point? Try. — gurugeorge
She wasn't "officially" a philosopher no, but she had a decent enough educational attainment (in the context of her milieu) to be not entirely discountable as a thinker. IOW, she was notably bright and did well at school and university, so people who try to make out that she was thick and utterly discountable are protesting too much. — gurugeorge
It's true that her understanding of philosophy and the history of philosophy isn't what's standard these days, but again, that's down to the context of her education — gurugeorge
One might say, in a trope, that her understanding of philosophy is frozen in amber, from a past time and another culture, and that's why it looks a bit strange to people who have been weaned on either the post-Frege/Russell analytic tradition or the post-Lukacs continental tradition. — gurugeorge
For example, criticisms of her ethics on the basis of the standard analytic is/ought distinction (such as Nozick's), completely miss the point that she really does take seriously the Aristotelian view that things have specific natures, which bypasses the Humean problematic entirely. — gurugeorge
In sum, once one understands her context and limitations better, one tends to cut her some slack, and within those limitations, she's actually quite an interesting philosopher. But of course many people will be unwilling to cut her that slack, for the obvious reason that she was vehemently anti-Communist and pro-Capitalist. — gurugeorge
Nietzsche already more or less said that but kept doing it anyway. — csalisbury
I ask this sincerely. it seems like a virus of the mind, one with which I've been infected, and im really just tired of it. It doesnt care for its host, or others, and seems to have no raison d'etre of its own. — csalisbury
"Can an ass be tragic? - Can someone be destroyed by a weight he cannot carry or throw off? . . . The case of the philosopher." — Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
What can obstruct such an observation is that it can quickly reveal than we, including almost all the so called "experts", are not the intelligent rational people we like to assume ourselves to be. — Jake
As example, writing an article about Plato as your kitchen catches on fire could be labeled philosophy given that Plato is generally seen as an important philosopher. But surely such an activity could not be labeled an act of reason. — Jake
Personally, I choose not to give much attention to thinkers who can't reason their way to grasping that the kitchen fire is a more pressing matter than their Plato article. — Jake
What nuclear weapons can teach us is that as human beings we have a very tenuous relationship with reason. We think we are reasoning, but usually what we are doing is referencing authority, typically in the form of the group consensus. — Jake
But I agree, perhaps I was out of line. Actually, I know I was. But I am very sensitive when it comes to ideas about LGBT — Blue Lux
Random quotes? Oh really? Jabbing a finger? Oh now I am the bad guy? Not the Virgin who makes a contention that transgendered people are fundamentally inauthentic and at base are delusional. Oh yes, the opposition to this is going to be very kind, caring and concerned of the other, and is going to be absolutely respectful!
And what is philosophy if it is without polemic? — Blue Lux
I'm going to try and take some units of philosophy for fall and was wondering how do you go through getting the best out of it. — Posty McPostface
I've always wondered how ancients and the great philosophers before us have studied philosophy. — Posty McPostface
Is there some method to it? — Posty McPostface
But, in my free time, which I have an overabundance of, I was wondering how to follow through with studying philosophy out of academic constraints? — Posty McPostface
That's a really interesting post. One of my main interests was (still is, in an amateur sense) in how people hold and defend ideas, and places like this are irreplaceable as a resource for that. — Pseudonym
What's interesting for me about what you're saying is that I see so many similarities between the young would-be geniuses and some of the more seasoned academics, in terms of the way in which beliefs are held. The more seasoned simply have better rhetorical skills. — Pseudonym
The whole discussion about post quality (though I get the feeling that it's really not quite about what I first thought it was) reminds me of certain team meetings where everyone agrees collectively that there needs to be improvements only each individual is nodding along sagely without realising that all the others think the improvement needed is their immediate dismissal. — Pseudonym
Whoa! I thought you were jorn doe and I was taken aback by some of your responses, in other threads because it just didn't seem like his kind of wording.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum John! — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Maybe so according to the notion that more = better, but the most fun times I had at PF were in '02-'05. For me, the discussions were more fun precisely because there were few enough people that I could actually read a whole thread instead of having to skim 10 pages super-quick. And it was possible to get a good back and forth going with someone. Why bother to post if there are going to be too many replies to engage with? — Paul