Anyone interested in Philosophical enquiries unrelated to Religion? We'll start slow, name one of ya favourite philosophers and why. For me, right now it's Schopenhauer 'cause he's so amusing.
As of late I have been reading on philosophy. Been examining Normative ethics and Meta-ethics. I am not familiar with Arthur Schopenhauer. I am interested in why people disagree. Why for example two people can read a point of law but have two diametrically opposing views. The tree of philosophy has many different branches that seem to contradict one another.
Counterquestion to your suggest that's clothed as if it would like to be a question: Why not unrelated to the history of the social relations between human beings and dogs? Or why not unrelated to architecture and other expressions of lifestyle and arts? Why unrelated to religion? ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHebBuxrJ6I
Schopenhauer may be amusing but his philosophy is not unrelated to religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
What do you think about Democrit[us] or evolutionary epistemology? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDTQQWSmo8s
Michel Foucault. Even though he'd probably tell you that it's impossible to have a conversation not dominated by the Abrahamic faiths in our western civilization, because our discourses have been dominated by the Christian faith for so long that it's become integral part of all our thinking. Thus even atheists can't rid themselves from having been shaped by Abrahamic discourses.
Sometimes I think that philosophers are self important know it alls who have questions and few answers. I have read some Plato and Socrities they are the originals and few have differed from from their brillience and originality.
I submit that the Myers/Briggs Type Test which identifies the "twelve fruits" from the "Tree of Life which ripen into human beings is" the reason for the twelve major practicing philiosophy that have emerged from the earlier evidence of seven foundational perspectives concerning the purpose of life. To wit, we are genetically grounded in a dozen different perspective each one particial correct about the reality it will try to explain to the person himself and others interested in his views. This is all because we each are dominated by a particular Fruedian/Jungian archetype and its supporting auxilliary componet archetype. We see "life" through these twelve different windows, and ignore that other views from other people are equally valid, the truth lying somewhere in the middle: Matt18:20 For where two (people) or (even) three (whole different denominational congregations?) are gathered together in my name, (Truth), there am I, (the son of Reality, or the Father of the real world we live in), in the midst of them, (Truth: [John 14:6])
More false appeals to authority. Meyers Briggs measures 16 personality types. Your "7" and 12" claims are just numerological BS. You don't know anything about The MIB. I'm beginning to believe that your habitual tendency to lie is pathological. We aren't genetically grounded in 12 different perspectives and there is no such thing as a "Freudian/Jungian archetype." There are 5 Jungian archetypes. Just more numerological bs on your part. And, no, not every viewpoint is equally vaild. Your viewpoint, for example, is particularly invalid in comparison to most others.
Those men were just Rationalist who believed inside our mind we had all the answers, but just undiscovered at the moment. Of course, the Empiricalists came upon the scene and through physical experiments demostarted the falacies of believing Rationalism. As they demonstrated that a canon ball and a baseball dropped from the Tower of Piza will hit the ground at exactly the same time, Rational thinking poored weak indeed, as the common sesne of it was hard to grasp.
He was very radical in his thoughts. Basing on him I could say for example to you: "If you see something then this is only an illusion, because you don't see really the atoms and the space all around your own atoms and your own space. The only way you are able to see this is with your thoughts." But what is with the thoughts? Are thoughts also only illusions of atoms and space? And this is not as surreal as one might think in the first moment. If we see something then we don't see it directly. Our brain is very complex in the process "to see". In the end we are seeing electrochemical potentials of nervous reactions. But who is this what sees and says "I see a nice apple"? Often I call the brain "reality-simulator" - and everyone is able to understand waht I say with this very short expression - but without the life of Democritus and all the peopüle who are directly and indirectly remembering him and his idea - could I say so in this case? I doubt about. ON thje otrher side: If something is real today from Mr. Democritus: What kind of atom in what kind of space could this be? And what kind of energy keeps him alive? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-MOZ4YFGTo
I do my best to not ignore the views of others. I find wisdom in the dissenting view. It is hard to learn if one is locked into their narrow view. My views are open and subject to change. It is easy to play the fool, arrogantly dispensing wisdom to all man kind while summarily dismissing all opposing views. Its very hard to be open to what others have to say, to humble ourselves, to make an admittance. By the way, my reference to the fool is not in reference to you. Just a general view I have on know it all's.
Paul Lafargue, Son In Law of Karl Marx and author of the book The Right to Be Lazy where he advocated using technology to end menial work and let people "contribute to society" as they are able and not have to worry about meeting needs. He uses as an example the Romans whose more wealthy classes had slaves do "all the menial work" freeing them to do other things be philosophers, study the law, master commerce and make war not that he supported capitalism but he has a point. People given the option to have undesireable work be done by someone else they always go to the someone else, couldn't that someday be a machine? Even in our own country slavery in the south freed slave owners to not do menial ,I will use this term since its what they thought, "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)" work and then do things they felt as whites they were more proper doing. The north used cheap labor and in many ways abusive practices in industry to counter slavery which to me was not much different save the labor could say no in theory. To me he takes Marxism to its true final step in many ways freeing men and women to contribute in ways they desire to this can be in medicine, science, art, music, crafting or any other areas. If a man or woman wants to study science they will in most cases since that is what their nature is and others might find enjoyment in sports or in healing others or in farming (but machines would do the work freeing the farmer to oversee the practice of the work perhaps).
Is philosophy the antithesis of ideology or are they interdependent? Is the following true? Philosophy shows us the world from a certain perspective an ideology is created to correct the faults of that reality its failures spawn a new philosophy.
Ask 100 philosophers the meaning of something and you'll get 100 different answers. To me, philosophy is just someone's opinion on the meaning of something, typically life.
I could not agree more. But none the less it is interesting to me exploring the different philosophies. But what you said could apply to theology just as easily.
Well stated. That just about sums up the entire story on such people as Plato, Aristotle, and all the others that have built a sand castle that they call 'logic'. . . . "just someone's opinion on the meaning of something." Thanks for clarifying what those contributors of the past submitted.
No you don't ? Just because you don't know a thing about Philosophy does not mean that you should just make stuff up. Blind leading the Blind ?
Nope. Just another public notice presented by you showing the degree of uncertainty that exists in your mind.
I was going to make a thread about virtue ethics, but this works...anyway I doubt many people would know what I'm talking about.
