What is it that's so amusing about watching you nail yourself to a cross?

Keep suffering. It's amusing as hell.

Your anguish is adorable. :)

Baleeted.

To be honest, I am really confused when people complain that philosophy is too abstract and needs to get back to "concrete lived experience" (whatever that is). I want to talk about the problem of universals. If you want "concrete lived experience," go look at a wall or something.

On a less catty note, I guess it just annoys me when philosophers use "real world" rhetoric, because I feel that they are dishonestly trying to co-opt philosophy for whatever faddish political movement they're a part of.

Sorry, Pneu, but credibility is an archaic term in the world of modern politics in the digital age. — Landru Guide Us

I'm just doing my little part to delegitimize the conservative freakazoids who have used their usual memes on this thread and elsewhere. — Landru Guide Us

This is where the error is. Credibility may be archaic in the world of modern politics, but I'm talking about your audience on this board.

I really don't think propaganda works that way, and I would invoke George Lakoff in that regard, and the fact that conservatives continue to win elections and policy decision saying absolutely crazy things. Gun policy is a case in point. — Landru Guide Us

There is a question of tone. I can say something batshit insane and, if I say it the right way, it will sound reasonable. Conversely, one can say reasonable things and sound like a lunatic if one uses the wrong wording.

Since the archaic rational debate method doesn't work, and since we even know why it doesn't work, to continue to engage in it seems almost cowardly to me, or even worse, unimaginative. — Landru Guide Us

Do you think that this statement is going to help or hurt your credibility (and, by extension, that of your movement) with people here?

Give me an example of what isn't true here — Landru Guide Us

I can say something true in a manner, or use a conversational tone, that makes me sound hysterical. You can fight memes with memes, sure, and propaganda with propaganda - but if you sound like you're using propaganda, then you're not an effective propagandist.

We either defeat them completely or we'll all be in the Hand Maiden's Tale. — Landru Guide Us

Possible complication: couldn't you damage your side's credibility by talking that way? There is a fine line, after all, between "impassioned" and "raving."

Maybe all of those theories are true or false, depending on the person and the period in that person's life. Or maybe you were implying exactly that. :-O

I see what you're saying. There certainly is a melodramatic teen-angst sort of feel to the idea of Weltschmerz. Romanticism has that problem a lot. Additionally, there's a temptation to use the idea of Weltschmerz as a cover for a "too-hip-for-this-room" attitude, except it's too-hip-for-this-world.

On the other hand, I think there's something legitimate to it as well. Nothing will ever satisfy me, not because there isn't enough stuff, but just because I, as a human, am not the kind of creature that can get to a comfortable place and just stay there. I'll get bored, or the comfortable situation will change.

What I really don't like is when people say, "Oh, you just haven't had enough EXPERIENCES in this wide wonderful world!" People use the term "experience" as a sort of rhetorical foot in the door here, but the fact is that every experience whatsoever goes like this: you feel something, and then it goes away. On the downside, this makes the pleasant experiences seem less worthwhile; on the upside, it makes the bad experiences seem less awful. But overall, that observation seems to push you away from an attitude of "Go get what you need in order to be happy" and more toward "Try not to want stuff so much."

I think that Weltschmerz can be productive, as long as it's a transitional phase. The problem is that you can get caught there because it (sometimes) inflates your ego. I have a lot of Weltschmerz myself, and I find that it only really goes away when I concentrate on "being simple."

The first verse of Ecclesiastes and the First Noble Truth. Life is suffering, dissatisfaction, craving, desire, what have you.

I have dealt with plenty of Weltschmerz. Not sure what the cure is, but meditating seems to help, in my case anyway. Makes it easier to say "no" to stuff.

'It' [American society] is represented by the Houses of Congress. — Wayfarer

This is your problematic assumption right here.

American society is not represented by the Houses of Congress. A very small, elite portion of American society is represented by the Houses of Congress. So it follows that a very small, elite portion of American society thinks that murder is okay, not because of 'freedom' but for the sake of the almighty dollar.

If I can't come up with arguments in favor of absurdism except for "GOD IS DEAD ∴ NO MEANING checkmate" or "look at all the suffering, it must be for no reason!", then it's ironically absurd to hold such a position. I feel like the absurd is taken for granted to be true, as an axiom, without actually proving it. — darthbarracuda

Well, we can insist that transcendental meaning has been handed to us on a silver platter. We can also throw a bitch fit because it hasn't. I think that an existentialist could use a false dichotomy here and insist that we have to do the latter because the former is false. I don't think that's true, though.

I know you weren't. I was. O:)

I believe you. O:)

What don't you understand?

And what does pessimism recommend they do about it?

I think the Master Argument does not establish idealism; what it does establish is that the realist is committed to talking about things he can't conceive of — The Great Whatever

Person 1: "There is stuff you can't conceive of, but I can."
Person 2: "Well, then, there's stuff I can't conceive of, but you can."
Person 1: "Wrong! You're trying to talk about stuff you can't conceive of. It's only right when I say it."

This seems like a reductio to me... Unless you think it's impossible for one person to be able to conceive of something another one can't. But then we're back to this argument:

I am male. Therefore, if we don't make a distinction between conception simpliciter and conception ex hypothesi, then I can't conceive of something that isn't being imagined by a male. Thus, I am entitled to reject the idea of objects that are not conceived of by males.

I can see how Stoicism could be used to ensure people are content even if their empire is abusing them. — schopenhauer1

I can see how pessimism could be used to convince people that it's no use trying to even be content, because everything sucks anyway. Potential for abuse != necessity of abuse.

So, first, I'm not saying there is no such distinction. I am denying that it is the distinction in which the realist is interested. The realist is interested in objects independent of experience simpliciter, not independent of experience within certain hypothetical scenarios, while dependent on experience in order to be conceived of in those hypothetical scenarios. — The Great Whatever

This realist is interested in the idea that this stuff would all be here even if we weren't. The argument against this seems to be that we cannot conceive of anything without that thing being conceived of by us; therefore, we can't make sense of the idea of an unconceived object. But this is a non-sequitur: in order to conceive of an unconceived object, the object need only be unconceived within the conception.

Second, even if that were what the realist is talking about, your conclusion does not follow from your premise, since you are not the only one who can conceive things. And so there is no inference from what you can conceive to what can be conceived. — The Great Whatever

I didn't say anything about what can be conceived, only about what is conceived. As a realist, I am happy to entertain the idea that everything can be conceived or perceived or whatever word you want to use for the idea that a mind can make sense of something. That's just saying that everything is intelligible. Mind-independence just means that the universe would happily chug along even if we weren't here, and that is perfectly compatible with the idea that such a universe would still be intelligible to the next race of sentient creatures that evolved to perceive it. By analogy: the fact that a sphere is visible does not mean that someone is currently looking at it, and its visibility does not make it "vision dependent."

I am also interested in this:

you are not the only one who can conceive things. And so there is no inference from what you can conceive to what can be conceived. — The Great Whatever

First, why should I accept the premise? I can't conceive of a person of whom I am not currently conceiving, so why should I assume that other people are conceiving things without me? After all, I can't conceive of it. Unless you're asking me to accept things I can't conceive of, in which case the master argument fails anyway.

What do you mean by, 'conceived ex hypothesi?' Do you mean that, when we imagine an object no one is experiencing, that object is actually experienced, but not experienced ex hypothesi? Is this what the realist is interested in? — The Great Whatever

Of course. For example, I am male. Therefore, if we don't make a distinction between conception simpliciter and conception ex hypothesi, then I can't conceive of something that isn't being imagined by a male. Thus, I am entitled to reject the idea of objects that are not conceived of by males.

But you can't conceive of an object no one is conceiving of. — The Great Whatever

Do you think that being conceived is the same as being conceived ex hypothesi?

Can a painter ever paint someone alone?

Baleeted.

I am always baffled by the hostility I see toward Stoicism from some people. "Self control is fascist" seems to be the implicit (but never directly stated) premise.

You still haven't said anything about how the existence of your computer is analagous or similar to the supposed existence of abstracta. — John

They both involve existence. You said,

I have no idea what it means to say 'abstractions exist' — John

If you know what an abstraction is, and you know what the word "exist" means, then you understand the phrase "abstractions exist." I really hope you're just prevaricating, because the only other reasons not to understand that phrase are not understanding one of the two words in it or not understanding how to connect a noun to a verb. Is English a second language for you?

EDIT: just read your post in response to Wayfarer. I see the problem: you don't understand "exist." If "exist" means that you can see and feel it, then I guess neutrinos don't exist. Neither do time and space, 'cause you don't see either of those.

Of course, I'm nitpicking here, but I see all of your points. People who become tenure-track professors imagine that they have some special merit that allowed them to do so. And they do have a special merit - the same one as people who win the lottery.

What we need is to begin building a system supported on an entirely volunteer basis. If this sounds impossible, I humbly ask that you consider the case of open-source software. Ubuntu Linux is a highly efficient and user-friendly OS built for free by people who simply had the time on their hands and the will to do so. Ditto for every other piece of open source software. If they can do it, why can't we?

(being a professor as opposed to being a menial laborer of some kind is always going to be more amenable to contemplative persons) — Thorongil

You might be surprised. Right now I work at a factory, doing the same thing over and over. When your work is so menial that it requires literally no attention, you get to space out and think about anything you want. Perhaps that's why Socrates chose to be a stonemason. ;)

Not sure if "commune" would be the preferred model. I'd prefer "collective" -- since I think anarchist spaces are healthier and more prone to longer lives. [since they do recognize individual needs in addition to collective needs] — Moliere

I wasn't talking about Marxism, just communal living. Really my thinking was something along the lines of "secular monastery." It's fashionable to talk shit about asceticism (given our culture's permissiveness fetish), but I think that a community that looks down on wanton self-indulgence would be a good place for philosophy.

I read it and it said precisely nothing about what it means for an abstraction to exist; and you haven't augmented your paucity of explanation since. If you can't be bothered explaining yourself then fine; I'm happy to end this here. — John

I gave you an example. That's when you point to an instance of something so your interlocutor can tell what you're talking about. Superman does not exist. My computer does.

Also, "augmenting my paucity" is nonsensical. You want to say, "correct the paucity of explanation in your post," but that's just a convoluted way of saying "explain yourself." Philosophy is about writing clearly, not impressing people with obfuscated six-dollar words that don't need to be used. Or should I say, "The preponderance of sesquipedalian verbiage in your discourse renders your bloviations risible and nugatory?"

Then how can an abstraction be "more like your computer"? — John

Try reading the post.

I dunno. I guess it depends on why you think the internet is generally less serious. Maybe it's anonymity?

At any rate, I think that humanities departments are, by and large, on their way out. There will always be a philosophy department at Yale for the children of CEOs who want to study it, but non-elite universities as we know them will go the way of the thylacine. With the rising percentage of adjunct faculty, the steady encroachment of corporate models, bureaucratic parasitism, and so forth, I foresee universities become job-training daycares for middle-class kids within the next three decades or so, with maybe a few elite institutions remaining as they are. Maybe we need to look into building philosopher communes or something. Meh. Not sure where to go from here.

Second, I really think that part of a good academic community is living and working in physical proximity. Being an academic, to me, means being dedicated to seriously trying to understand a topic as a lifestyle. I don't think the internet, now anyway, is at all amenable to that level of dedication and seriousness, and there is the problem of physical distance as well. — The Great Whatever

I think that there are enough people who come home from work every day and immediately get on the computer for such things to begin popping up, given enough time, at least when we're looking at it from the "dedication" angle. If some guy works at a boring job, then spends all his leisure time contributing to an online philosophy community, then we might have something good going on, provided that nobody minds the "internet socializing loser" stigma.

As to working in physical proximity - that's an intriguing point. Why is physical proximity necessary? It didn't stop Kant from replying to Hume, for example. Then again, I notice that you often take the ancient Greek stuff as a model. Are you doing that here? And if so, what's your motive?

jests aside, you have mentioned supposed hypocrisy, aloofness, and elitism and I am genuinely curious why you believe that to be so. — Phil

1) The humanities have a very strong current of ostensibly egalitarian sentiment.
2) There is a great deal of elitism in academia.

I don't think either of those are controversial.

But then it bears asking, if such a community is something we could have, why don't we have it?

Universities are old institutions. They were built painfully and slowly. It shouldn't be expected that other fora for the same caliber of discussion could just pop up overnight for no reason. — The Great Whatever

I don't think that we can build an online version of the Stoa from scratch in a decade. But if we take Brassier's lead, then we won't even start, now, will we?

I feel though in part, you greatly dislike the humanities. And that is a topic I find far more interesting — Phil

I'm flattered.

Your computer is not an abstraction. — John

I did not say or imply that it was.

I've had philosophical conversations with people over the internet that were just as good as the ones I've had in academia. As to having consistently good conversations, that's another story - academia is better for that. That is to say, you may not find an online community with consistently good philosophical conversation going on, but any sufficiently large philosophical community will probably have a few people capable of such a conversation.

That being said, Brassier's idea that the internet is "not an appropriate medium" would seem to suggest that an online community that produces good philosophy is something we can't have, which I find implausible.

Superman doesn't exist. My computer does exist. If abstractions exist, they are more like my computer in that regard than like Superman.

My objection to the idea of " a huge universe of abstracta" existing is that we have no idea what it means. For me it is really no better than gibberish. — John

If you understand "abstraction," then you understand "big group of abstractions." That's all there is to it. Not sure what's so baffling about it. :-|

No, certainly not, but the bar for those outside of the academy and its rules are set higher, partly because the work created is so poor. — Phil

But Brassier said,

I don’t believe the internet is an appropriate medium for serious philosophical debate;

He's not saying that internet philosophy must be held to a higher standard. He's saying that you literally cannot do philosophy outside of academia. Which is hogwash.

And I'm sure he bloviates about "structural inequality" day and night, being a humanities academic...