Like you're saying, philosophy can open one's eyes. To what and why? For what purpose? — Noble Dust

Good question.

For no purpose. Because I'm curious. Because I have a drive for self-awareness. It's not a goal I'm striving for, it's a force that's pushing me, where I don't know and I don't really care. It's an engine, not a steering wheel. — T Clark

Being curious is a reason, and the purpose is to learn something, or understand, or "see," etc. There's no way around wanting something -- even many Buddhists acknowledge that. You want to free yourself from suffering and attachment, for example. If you didn't, you wouldn't be meditating.

I never bought the claim that we do some things for no purpose whatsoever. We're pushing into a future, and while we may not consciously have a goal in mind, there's certainly a purpose to be found in everything we do. I don't see a way around it. Happy to have my mind changed though.

This isn't to suggest that "doing" philosophy (whatever that means exactly) has to be a means to some other conventional end, like making more money or learning how to be more confident (plenty of self-help books to that end) -- but to say there's no purpose in itself is contradictory.

Might be all I am to them, but it's not all I am. — Michael

Good point. I assumed that's what he meant, but now I look at it and it isn't that clear even with the context put in.

I take him to mean something similar to Durant's take on Aristotle: "You are what you do." There's definitely something in that. Actions speak much louder than words, or in this case thoughts and feelings. "Job" in the sense of employment isn't what's meant, of course, but more in the sense of what you do with most of your time.

Or perhaps I'm giving this dude more credit than he deserves.

Well it’s failed.

No— looks good. “They say geniuses pick green.”

Absolutely. A fine example.

I like it. Very Irish.

Give me a guy who reads nothing but pop philosophy books and who is healthy, happy, creative and productive over one who has spent his time reading the complete works of Kant and endlessly examining his life any day.

Most people probably shouldn’t question things, and are better off in not doing so. Of those who do, let their actions speak for its value. (In my experience, usually very little.)

Pop philosophy is about self-improvement. Real philosophy is about self-examination. — T Clark

Nah. But if true, then fuck “real” philosophy anyway.



:up:

because you say, “I'd prefer my nephew (and anyone, really) read direct sources,” you’re an elitist but not a snob. — Jamal

It’s a fine line to walk, let me tell you.

I think the crucial difference is that pop philosophy, unlike secondary literature, is often dumbed down, written to please people or to catch the attention or to sell books, not to enlighten or teach. — Jamal

Agreed. But when it’s done well, it can pique a person’s interest.

In my own experience, pop philosophy/psychology books were very helpful as a kid and made me curious about the direct sources. I see articles like the one in the OP similarly— the difference being I’m more “elitist” now, do I have to counter the instinct to look down my nose.

It's the same place where e.g. Musak, juice bars and horoscopes belong. — 180 Proof

Eh, I wouldn’t go that far.

Same as sugar. — 180 Proof

Better. :up:

All I'm saying is that there can be interesting philosophical/psychological and ethical matters that could be discussed absent specific figure X. — Manuel

Surely— and often are. In the specific case of the Matrix, the source was obvious. But if you take, say, a Kurosawa film, the influences may be there (Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Balzac) but are not that obvious.

I like the coffee analogy.

Mindfulness comes up a lot, as does stoicism. — Tom Storm

Yeah I definitely see mindfulness going "mainstream" the last decade or so. Even prior to that, in the 90s, I remember reading the top selling books of the week for nonfiction and it was usually "Who Moved my Cheese" and "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" and the like. (I remember like the latter when I read it -- but it's really a re-wording of a lot of buddhist principles.) Things haven't changed too much from then. Now it's a lot of stuff about habits and time management.

A lot of it coincides with pop psychology, of course.

Robert Hughes — Tom Storm

Nice.

Is snobbery or elitism always bad? — Tom Storm

It's a good question. Having good taste isn't bad -- but probably being a snob is.

It's a delicate issue. I think there are pop tv-series, movies and maybe even games, that certainly have quite interesting philosophical concepts and art is often the most direct way to expose complex ideas pertaining to mood, insight, looking at persons thinking process and so on. — Manuel

Yeah, I mean one thing that comes to mind is The Matrix. That's had a lasting impact. All along it's just the brain in the vat thought experiment, itself an iteration of Descartes. A lot of fun -- but more worthwhile than actually reading Descartes? I'm inclined to say no.

There's a lot going on today (April 4th, 2023) in the United States and elsewhere. I feel the need to summarize it all in one place, so here it is:

* Finland joined NATO.
* Donald Trump is being arraigned in New York city.
* Wisconsin's Supreme Court is up for grabs (will have a major impact on abortion, gerrymandering, and elections in a swing state).
* Chicago is electing a new mayor (also has ramifications far beyond the borders of the city).

This is for posterity. Will be interesting to look back in a few years and see how consequential (or not) each of these events were.

I’m sorry I missed this course. Seems interesting indeed. I meant to join, but life happens.

I haven’t read through the entire thread, but does he mention anything about the ruling class ideas? On his podcast he talks about this in relation to the Grundrisse. Very interesting.

Translation: Collectivism bad; Fascism good. :up:

First of all they have PhD's (doctor of philosophy) so technically they all are philosophers. — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl:

Bye.

You seem to be simply naming people you’re familiar with. Haidt and Zimbardo aren’t philosophers. Neither is Sean Caroll or Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking, just to name a few. If we’re considering anyone we like to be philosophers, then “philosopher” becomes relatively meaningless.

Some of the people you mentioned are considered philosophers — like John Searle — but as I mentioned before, I see them as mostly academics and fail to see any real contribution. May be good teachers— but that’s different.

anyone with a PhD) and with important contributions. — Nickolasgaspar

A Ph.D.? Thousands of those are handed out. That makes you a philosopher? In terms of important contributions — yeah, exactly. Who?

Original thinkers perhaps go elsewhere? — Tom Storm

Where? I’m talking about worldwide.

Heidegger or Ryle? — Tom Storm

Heidegger.

there are many modern philosophers who produce valuable work. — Nickolasgaspar

Who?

I hadn't even thought of this possibility. Can you say some more? — Tom Storm

Sure. Who would you point to as a living philosopher? Not a chronicler.

Nagel is still alive, and Charles Taylor and John Searle and Dan Dennett…I guess they’re considered philosophers, but I’ve never been particularly impressed. Seems like professionalization run amok. Where’s our truly original thinkers? In my opinion the last one died in ‘76.

But that’s me.

My criticism is that there are no philosophers, and haven’t been in decades. We get people like Zizek. I think it’s a low point in philosophy.

Rest assured I'm pissing more people off in the real word than suffer from my "militancy" here. — Isaac

Nice! :clap:

I think a movement to restrict gun ownership to those with a licence (if easily obtained) might work, and would certainly help - because it's not an economic change, it doesn't really change the fundamental sociao0economic structure of the country. But it also won't help (not much anyway). — Isaac

It would have helped in this case. And at least it’s a sensible start. Gotta start with the low hanging fruit.

But I don’t disagree: for significant changes to happen, you need to tackle issues like power — wealth inequality, etc., and that is certainly harder and will receive more pushback.

As long as pessimism isn’t a preventative for action, I’ve no problem with it.

THE RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS HAVE LIED, CHEATED, AND STOLEN IN THEIR MANIACAL OBSESSION TO “GET TRUMP,” BUT NOW THEY’VE GONE TOO FAR, INDICTING A TOTALLY INNOCENT MAN IN AN ACT OF OBSTRUCTION AND BLATANT ELECTION INTERFERENCE. HOW MUCH MORE ARE AMERICAN PATRIOTS EXPECTED TO TAKE???…AND ALL OF THIS WHILE OUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL!

:rofl:

He tried to recruit a governor and Secretary of State to literally invalidate the will of millions of voters. For that he should be in prison. — Hanover

:up:

But because it didn’t happen (because others had the decency to refuse), it’s “just words.”

Trump apologists are hilarious.

1-4 is especially good.

Eh, at this point it’s like whack-a-mole. Almost random snippets, but no consistency and no logic. Perhaps leave the man and his fascist agenda to his dreamworld and let him be happy with that.

I still don’t think race and gender ideology ought to be taught in public schools. — NOS4A2

Way to legislate your own feelings. So you’re fine with restricting the rights of others if it suits your fascist agenda. Got it.

I’m not that optimistic, but it’s possible. Look at civil rights, women’s rights, gay marriage, even attitudes towards marijuana. Look at the IRA and gun bill last year. They’re both way too weak and I’m not an apologist for either, but I don’t think either of us would have predicted that even they would pass.

Regardless, this is on the federal level. On the state and city level, which I’ve increasingly focused on politically, things are much less gridlocked. Not to mention more energy in the labor movement. All gives me more hope than others perhaps.

Human beings grant rights. But not the state — even though the state is just a bunch of human beings. We don’t like states, because St Reagan said government is the problem.

Something something human nature, something something natural rights, blah blah blah collectivism blah blah blah I hate paying taxes and read too much Ayn Rand yada yada yada. :yawn:

“Child labor is wrong.”
“But what if a kid wants to work?”

“What if a kid wants to learn about sex in school?”
“Too bad.”

Hey, a man can dream.

a solution that you've just admitted will never work because no matter how much support it has — Isaac

I never said that. I only mentioned why it has so far been enacted. There was a (albeit weak) gun bill passed last year, which surprised some people. It’s not impossible for the majority to win out— it’s just a matter of effort and time.

Hopefully lots of other indictments follow, particularly the Georgia “perfect phone call.”

Been a criminal flouting the rules for years, thinking he’s above the law.

Next up: George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, and other war criminals/international terrorists.

I should be allowed to fly a plane. I have no history of crashing planes and don’t intend to. My passengers safety? In a free market, they can fly elsewhere, and my airline would quickly go out of business. No need for meddling statists trying to restrict my natural right to fly.

What about the people in houses that I could potentially crash into? Well, that’s in the future— and imaginary. Who are these people I’m “protecting”, after all? Can you name them? What’s the color of their eyes? Their rights aren’t as important as restricting my right to fly.

Likewise, anyone should be allowed to buy a gun. It’s also a totally natural right. Been posting about shooting up schools for months? Well, who knows what the future brings— here’s your AR-15. Your right to “defend yourself” is more important than schoolchildren’s rights to life.

So sarcasm and a red herring from the Trump guy always talking about “fallacies.”

No surprise — I wouldn’t want to explain why I support school shootings and child labor exploitation either.

“Oh these poor kids who are forced to work! Let them work and be exploited by corporations - Better than selling themselves on the street!”

“What if the government helps them out so they don’t have to do either? We’re a very wealthy country, after all.”

“Collectivist/statist!”

Good god, imagine holding this ideology?

What will a child do if they are forced to work — NOS4A2

Which is why we shouldn’t have a society where kids (or anyone) are “forced to work.” We know you want to keep it this way by abandoning all social programs, but try not projecting your fantasies on others.

That doesn't fall foul of the fallacy you've mentioned but points to the corrupt influence of special interests. — Baden

Yes. Gun rights aren’t sensible because a huge majority believe they are; in this case, it’s so sensible that a huge majority (even in a deeply divided nation and among gun owners) are in favor of it. Basically common sense.

If not allowing businesses to hire children is unjustified, then that implies businesses should be able to hire children. — Pinprick

Oh the good ol’ days before child labor laws! You know, when children’s “rights” (wink wink) to work weren’t violated by a meddling bureaucracy and employers could exploit workers with impunity.

Looking for a true libertarianism paradise? Look no further.

:rofl: at this conversation.

Let anyone fly a plane — you think restricting their rights will protect anyone? That’s in the future. Who are you to play God? They never crashed a plane before and don’t intend to. So you’re in no position to restrict their rights, you statist.

Anyway, yeah most Americans don’t want the mentally ill to have guns and want background checks. Close to 90%. Turns out they care more about the right for children not to get shot than some libertarian nutjob’s Minority Report view of crime.

So our response, is exactly on the issue of gun control, it's not avoiding it, it's the main issue because its our opponent's main argument and they're currently winning. — Isaac

A majority want gun control. In some instances a vast majority, including republicans. So they’re really not winning— not with their arguments anyway. They win by buying off politicians and through gerrymandering and through stocking the courts, etc.

But yes we should talk about healthcare when it’s appropriate. In the meantime: gun measures to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining a gun has huge public support.

:yawn:

it's about the position that is being dismissed — Isaac

In that case: yes, I think mental health is very important indeed and would be happy to discuss the causes and what can be done about it. On this thread, however, it’s avoiding the issue of gun control.

Go Bernie.



Never realized what a worm Shultz was. Should have known.

Eh, good. Criminals should be indicted. About time. Hopefully many more to come. It’ll be good for the country.