Philosophy: What's The Point?

[Hit The North]

I've noticed that the Philosophy forum is quite busy on Revleft. This is in spite of Marx rejecting speculative philosophy in favour of political economy and a scientific paradigm. My question is this: Has philosophy ever contributed practical knowledge to humanity?

A subsidiary question is: Can philosophy contribute to the advancement of our class and cause?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, simple answer to both, no, and again no.

We just need more and better science.

[Monty Cantsin]

Simple Answer to both, yes and yes again.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Simple question, Monty: why do we need philosophy if science can tell us all we need to know about reality, and philosophy can only tell us about an unreal world full of a priori 'facts' of mystical provenance, each and every one the result of a misuse of language?

[Monty Cantsin]

No we need philosophy and to argue against that proposition would be foolish and self-defeating as it would be an act of engaging in the debate of meta-philosophy. Something you wouldn’t do if you found no value even if just to declare it as having no value.

And besides the logical problem of the proposition scince doesn’t make value judgments it just observes facts.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 11 2006, 01:52 PM
No we need philosophy and to argue against that proposition would be foolish and self-defeating as it would be an act of engaging in the debate of meta-philosophy. Something you wouldn’t do if you found no value even if just to declare it as having no value.

And besides the logical problem of the proposition scince doesn’t make value judgments it just observes facts.
Could you offer an example of how philosophy helps us to make definitive value judgements about particular scientific discoveries?

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+Jul 11 2006, 02:18 PM--> (Citizen Zero @ Jul 11 2006, 02:18 PM)
Monty [email protected] 11 2006, 01:52 PM
No we need philosophy and to argue against that proposition would be foolish and self-defeating as it would be an act of engaging in the debate of meta-philosophy. Something you wouldn’t do if you found no value even if just to declare it as having no value.

And besides the logical problem of the proposition scince doesn’t make value judgments it just observes facts.
Could you offer an example of how philosophy helps us to make definitive value judgements about particular scientific discoveries? [/b]
Cognitive science can tell us that the psychopath has a brain dysfunction. But it can’t tell us what the ethical course of action is in relation to a psychopath. That would be the domain of philosophical argument.

Beside’s scientific method doesn’t exist unless a philosopher of science defines it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MC:


But it can’t tell us what the ethical course of action is in relation to a psychopath. That would be the domain of philosophical argument.

Sorry Monty, I thought you meant serious philosophy, not that Mickey Mouse stuff called 'ethics'.

Sure, I'll grant you that, but what on earth makes you think you will ever get any answers from this branch of make-believe?


Beside’s scientific method doesn’t exist unless a philosopher of science defines it.

So, since we haven't yet actually got an answer to what 'the' scientific method is (from philosophers, that is, who, let's face it, have not had long to work on this -- just 2500 years!), then there is no such thing (or things) as science/the scientific method?

Is that what you are saying?

[Monty Cantsin]

I like how you’ve tried to down play things but go back to my original assertion. This is a philosophical debate, one wouldn’t engage in such things if they held no-value what so ever. You’d be hard pushed to argue other wise because that would be an act of self-contradiction.

----

Science does exist, different scientist use slightly different model of enquire and one has to be aware of that. Some would not consider string theory legitimate science if looking at it from a critical rationalist view-point on science. But if your scientist takes his lead more from Quine then it’s less of a problem if string theory fits into the jigsaw puzzle of modern physics.

The fact that there’s no absolute consensus on all things philosophy of science related is pretty unremarkable because then there’s no absolute consensus on all scientific theories about natural phenomenon either.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MC:


This is a philosophical debate, one wouldn’t engage in such things if they held no-value what so ever. You’d be hard pushed to argue other wise because that would be an act of self-contradiction

You can't mean that; people have been known to debate all manner of empty ideas, and seemingly endlessly (here the words 'angels', 'dance' and 'pin' come strangely to mind).

So, the fact that 'ethical issues' are debated means less than a Blairite promise.


Science does exist, different scientist use slightly different model of enquire and one has to be aware of that. Some would not consider string theory legitimate science if looking at it from a critical rationalist view-point on science. But if your scientist takes his lead more from Quine then it’s less of a problem if string theory fits into the jigsaw puzzle of modern physics.

The fact that there’s no absolute consensus on all things philosophy of science related is pretty unremarkable because then there’s no absolute consensus on all scientific theories about natural phenomenon either.

Well, I do not disagree with most of this, but it undermines your earlier assertion that the 'scientific' method is unclear and waits on the dithering of 'philosophers':


Beside’s scientific method doesn’t exist unless a philosopher of science defines it.

It may be unclear, but I cannot figure out why you think it is up to philosophers to lay the law down here.

They do not even make the reserve list. :D

[Monty Cantsin]

Why rosa do you post in the philosophy section, are you not doing a thesis in a philosophy facility?

If you engage in philosophical debate to declare minimal practical usage for philosophy then that philosophical debate yields particle results by unnecessary processes being avoided. You have thus found a practical value for philosophical debate, at least in this example according to the precepts that the argument is in fact valid.

But then that last statement on the value of philosophy you quoted me on was not about practicality but something having no value at all, so yes I support that proposition fully. Even debates about angles can have value on an aesthetic level.

------------

I never contradicted myself on the relation between philosophy of science and science. Because I never said that science hasn’t been defined just that it a philosopher of science who defines it. Why is it a philosopher of science who defines science? Because it’s a philosophical debate and thus something a philosopher engages in, whether or not they are professionally trained to be a philosopher or not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MC:


Why rosa do you post in the philosophy section, are you not doing a thesis in a philosophy facility?

Like Marx and Wittgenstein, I am trying to shut that discipline down (not that I stand much chance), but posting in the 'Chit Chat' section would not be much use.

Sorry, could not follow this:


If you engage in philosophical debate to declare minimal practical usage for philosophy then that philosophical debate yields particle results by unnecessary processes being avoided. You have thus found a practical value for philosophical debate, at least in this example according to the precepts that the argument is in fact valid.

Now you say:


just that it a philosopher of science who defines it.

Well what you used to say up until recently (i.e., a few hours ago) was this:


Beside’s scientific method doesn’t exist unless a philosopher of science defines it.

And then one might wonder what they are defining if it does not exist (and, worse: what the dickens scientists will be doing in the meantime).

Not even you can say, until this specially chosen one speaks.

I hope it will be soon, I am sick of waiting.

Any news on that score?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Marx and Wittgenstein were both philosophers. Rosa, you never justify your argument that philosophy is "evil and useless" with any credible sources. It's quite disturbing how quickly you are to discredit the field. Science analyzes our world while philosophy gives us meaning and ethics as well as satisfies are desire to learn more about or world. You completely bastardize what philosophy is to make it fit into your twisted theory about how philosophy is simply mystic nonsense that can't be true because things like paradox and metaphor are somehow logically inconsistent. Your arguments are non sequitur:

A. Philosophy misuses language.
C. Philosophy is therefore invalid.

Flaw: you fail to justify your argument that a misuse of language makes a philosophical concept invalid. Your entire argument contains a hidden premise that you think everyone should just accept.

A. Philosophy originates from religious ideas.
B. Philosophy is immoral.

Philosophy has evolved beyond religious ideas. You do force people to accept the premise that religion is wrong (but that is no problem here). However, you do not prove that philosophy is (in all contexts) religious today. Therefore, your argument loses validity.

Furthermore, you repeatedly patronize everyone who disagrees with you and dress up your arguments with fancy philosophical terms. Also, you attempt to distance yourself from common discourse to protect your arguments from refutation. This action suggests a desire simply to refute and not have an open debate. You are so convinced what you believe is correct that you simply try and force others to a priori accept your ideas.

It is fine if you simply want to revamp your current idea of the world anytime a criticism emerges - claiming the context of a criticism is invalid. However, you are depriving yourself of the wisdom that one can gain through philosophical agnosticism - and perhaps denying yourself the opportunity to reach some of the greater truths around us. If evidence doesn't fit the theory, adjust the theory? There is a time to do that within scientifc method, I agree, but there is also a time to scrap the theory and accept that evidence points in another direction.

Empiricism accepts that realities are the result of sensual perceptions. Science attempts to analyze these perceptions. However, they are still perceptions, and some, as Locke revealed, vary between individuals. The gap between rationalism and empericism cannot simply be destroyed though harsh scientific method. The subjectivity of analysis must be accepted because Occam's Razor suggests so due to the absence of legitimate alternatives.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


Marx and Wittgenstein were both philosophers. Rosa, you never justify your argument that philosophy is "evil and useless" with any credible sources

But they both wanted to end the subject -- so they will do as my 'credible' sources.

And where do I say it is 'evil'?

Philosophy is far too confused to be evil.

And, I rather think I do more to justify my assertions than you ever will yours.


It's quite disturbing how quickly you are to discredit the field.

1) Well you are easy to 'disturb', aren't you? Heaven help you if and when the revolution happens; you will be wetting yourself.

2) After 2500 years of going nowhere slowly, Philosophy has rather discredited itself.


Science analyzes our world while philosophy gives us meaning and ethics as well as satisfies are desire to learn more about or world.

1) Says who?

2) Science provides all the answers we need; you do not need anything else.

3) If you want 'ethics' read a good novel, or ask a priest.

Better still, give up your need for anyone or anything to guide you in this area.

It is far too servile of you.


You completely bastardize what philosophy is to make it fit into your twisted theory about how philosophy is simply mystic nonsense

1) It's not a theory.

2) Wittgenstein originated this idea. It is not mine. I just push it further and harder than he ever did.

3) I have demonstrated in an earlier post in another recent thread (the one which began with determinism, but ended discussing this very topic) just how philosophical ideas arise from a distortion of language -- to an extent I reckon you could not match.

I challenge you to find any flaws in it; until then you should refrain from advertising your own ignorance.


Flaw: you fail to justify your argument that a misuse of language makes a philosophical concept invalid. Your entire argument contains a hidden premise that you think everyone should just accept.

See the previous paragraph.


A. Philosophy originates from religious ideas.

B. Philosophy is immoral.

Not my ideas. Get your facts right.


Furthermore, you repeatedly patronize everyone who disagrees with you and dress up your arguments with fancy philosophical terms.

Translated this either means you do not like what I say, or you cannot understand difficult ideas.

If the first, I should care.

If the second, you need to stop moaning and learn some philosophy before you try to take me on.


Also, you attempt to distance yourself from common discourse to protect your arguments from refutation.

The opposite of this is the case; I use the vernacular to show that philosophy is an empty discipline, whose only achievement is the production of hot air dressed up as profund truth.

And you, like most, have fallen for it.

[The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.]


This action suggests a desire simply to refute and not have an open debate. You are so convinced what you believe is correct that you simply try and force others to a priori accept your ideas.

As I said, I aim to destroy this bogus 'discipline' (not that I will succeed with naive adepts like you around), so naturally I will adopt an aggressive stance toward traditional philosophy -- a bit like ridding the planet of a virus.


It is fine if you simply want to revamp your current idea of the world anytime a criticism emerges

I do not have 'an idea of the world'; I leave that to the scientists. So should you.


However, you are depriving yourself of the wisdom that one can gain through philosophical agnosticism

Eh?

Do you know what the word 'agnosticism' means? How can that give you wisdom?


and perhaps denying yourself the opportunity to reach some of the greater truths around us.

If they are 'truths' then science will find them.

If not, they are not truths.

Unless, of course, you are confusing the word 'truth' will 'fable', or 'wish-fulfilment'?

If so, you should become a Buddhist, or a Christian -- or better, a head hunter.


If evidence doesn't fit the theory, adjust the theory? There is a time to do that within scientifc method, I agree, but there is also a time to scrap the theory and accept that evidence points in another direction.

Eh?


Empiricism accepts that realities are the result of sensual perceptions. Science attempts to analyze these perceptions. However, they are still perceptions, and some, as Locke revealed, vary between individuals. The gap between rationalism and empericism cannot simply be destroyed though harsh scientific method. The subjectivity of analysis must be accepted because Occam's Razor suggests so due to the absence of legitimate alternatives.

1) Occam's Razor is unreliable.

2) Who wants to destroy the things you say through science? I for one have no need to; I can show that all areas of philosophy are nonsensical.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

You don't have to refute arguments that are non sequitur. Anyone who reads that thread will know what I am talking about. I'm not even trying to convince you - I just find it necessary to bring up criticism because you bash philosophy in almost every thread and try to fill people's heads with unjustified criticisms of the field. In fact, you claim you can prove that philosophy is illogical - yet I see plenty of people who still believe in it. If this proof is so universal, I would think people would accept it more readily. Surely, for the purpose of logical discussion and the advancement of ideas, it is beneficial that we both present perspectives to those seeking answers?

Also, my point on you saying philosophy originates from religious ideals is still a valid criticism of your anti-determinist viewpoint, which says the theory is flawed because of its origins (which you link but do not definitively prove).

On a side note, since you criticize my knowledge of philosophy (which I never claimed to have) I will work on it. In what work does Wittgenstein begin a criticism of philosophy as mysticism?

While we are dealing with mysticism, I wish you would stop with your suggestion that I am some sort of mystic individual who needs to join a cult. I'm an atheist just like everyone else who believes in proper scientific method. I just use philosophy to reach conclusions about what science means. Science is just facts. How can it give meaning to those facts aside from physical interaction? Science is emotionless to my knowledge.

Furthermore, how can you criticize Occam's Razor as unreliable? Even if it is, it surely has contextual use, and it is extremely prevalent within scientific theory (which you support I assume?)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


Anyone who reads that thread will know what I am talking about.

I did, but I do not know what you are talking about, so that refutes that claim.

Why do you make things up:


In fact, you claim you can prove that philosophy is illogical

Where so I say this?

I merely say it is too confused to describe as illogical.


yet I see plenty of people who still believe in it.

Yes and plenty believe in alien abduction.


In what work does Wittgenstein begin a criticism of philosophy as mysticism?

He does not, and I never said he did.


While we are dealing with mysticism, I wish you would stop with your suggestion that I am some sort of mystic individual who needs to join a cult. I'm an atheist just like everyone else who believes in proper scientific method. I just use philosophy to reach conclusions about what science means. Science is just facts. How can it give meaning to those facts aside from physical interaction? Science is emotionless to my knowledge.

1) Well you need to stop using mystical language.

2) Science is not 'facts' as you put it. It is mainly theory.

3) Why should facts have meaning?

Sentences and words have meaning, or did you not know?


Furthermore, how can you criticize Occam's Razor as unreliable? Even if it is, it surely has contextual use, and it is extremely prevalent within scientific theory (which you support I assume?)

Because it is. It was introduced by Occam to eliminate abstract ideas, which approach no science can adopt.

Or did you not know that either?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The first quote was poor wording on my part. I was merely trying to suggest that most people will agree with my arguments. Although that still doesn't make them more valid, of course.

You said, "Wittgenstein originated this idea. It is not mine. I just push it further and harder than he ever did." That was in my response that you are claiming philosophy is mystic. If that was your not your intent, please elaborate on what it was.

I assumed we were trying to discuss logically. In such a case, it is usually assumed facts are considered valid. However, if you have a criticism of facts, which can be used to prove things scientifically (as far as we have constructed what a proof is) then please put it forward.

Why should I stop using mystical language, and what language am I using that is mystical? Where did I indicate that I don't believe sentences have meaning? I simply disagree with the idea that language determines the validity of concept. Empiricism dictates that we analyze with our senses. This sense of analyze exists regardless of what language it exists alongside, does it not?

It's fairly inconsistent to criticize me for not knowing something when I do not take it into account when I use Occam's Razor. Can you give me an example of where an abstract idea, perhaps one that most people agree with (if possible), is considered invalid because of the Razor?

[Monty Cantsin]

Rosa, I don’t really want to reply to your points because you’re deliberately missing the point. It’s an attempt on your part to elude having to enter an argument which logically speaking you can’t argue for it would be a self-contradicting act.

But just so we’re clear, scientific method doesn’t exist unless a philosopher of science defines it. Whether or not you see this task as complete or still in need of more work is irrelevant science has to be defined before it can be applied (even if that's a different conception for every scienctist, doenst matter because it must frist exist before it can be used). The way you talk about science makes it sound like Plato’s theory of forms. Like science existed independent of all things and therefore is some kind of universal form of the good.

But what does it matter your ability to handle this conversation really shows your ‘scientific rigour’ at its best.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


You said, "Wittgenstein originated this idea. It is not mine. I just push it further and harder than he ever did." That was in my response that you are claiming philosophy is mystic. If that was your not your intent, please elaborate on what it was.

Indeed, he originated the idea that all Philosophy is nonsense, but not the idea that it was mystical.

I asserted the former, but not the latter.

[On that thread I mentioned earlier, you will find a long explanation of why I think this of Philosophy. I am not inclined to repeat it.]


I assumed we were trying to discuss logically. In such a case, it is usually assumed facts are considered valid. However, if you have a criticism of facts, which can be used to prove things scientifically (as far as we have constructed what a proof is) then please put it forward.

Read what I said, not what you think I said, and then get back to me.


Why should I stop using mystical language, and what language am I using that is mystical?

Well, use all the mystical language you like, but stop claiming to be an atheist then.

And, if you are not aware of the mystical language you do use, re-read the exchange we had on determinism; it will then become a little clearer to you.


I simply disagree with the idea that language determines the validity of concept.

But you are, of necessity, forced to use language to make this point, and to 'determine' the validity of a 'concept', as you rather oddly put things.

So, you are in a corner; unless you know a way of expressing your ideas without using language, there is no way out.


Empiricism dictates that we analyze with our senses. This sense of analyze exists regardless of what language it exists alongside, does it not?

I'd like you to tell me (but you are not allowed to use language) what this means, if anything.


Can you give me an example of where an abstract idea, perhaps one that most people agree with (if possible), is considered invalid because of the Razor?

Read Occam; he is full of examples.

[You could start, however, with 'determine'. Just a suggestion.]

Monty, I am at work right now; I will get back to you later.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MC:


Rosa, I don’t really want to reply to your points because you’re deliberately missing the point. It’s an attempt on your part to elude having to enter an argument which logically speaking you can’t argue for it would be a self-contradicting act.

Well, I understood the first part, but deny it (in fact I think I have got the point, and you have missed it), but the second half seemed not to make much sense, so I cannot comment.


But just so we’re clear, scientific method doesn’t exist unless a philosopher of science defines it.

Defines what, though?

I challenge you so say (if it does not exist, there is nothing to define; if it does, it does not need defining, only describing).

This is the point you keep missing.

And this just seems confused to me:


Whether or not you see this task as complete or still in need of more work is irrelevant science has to be defined before it can be applied (even if that's a different conception for every scienctist, doenst matter because it must frist exist before it can be used). The way you talk about science makes it sound like Plato’s theory of forms. Like science existed independent of all things and therefore is some kind of universal form of the good.

What job is it of philosophers to tell scientists what to do?

And what have scientists been doing all these years? They have made huge strides in understanding the world; philosophers have made zero progress.

And I speak of science the way I do since it is a practice that has gone on for well over 2500 years, which, of course, has reacted with philosophy (often in a Platonistic way), but which exists in many forms, so that no one definition can capture it.

Now that is a description of science, albeit very brief (but a la Wittgenstein); now you need to say why you think there could be one defintion of the diverse things scientists have done and still do, and why scientists should pay any attention at all to philosophers, who cannot even make their minds up what a 'thing' is (after 2400 years of trying)!

[Donna]

without the question there are no answers ? philosophy is all questions.

[RebelDog]

What is the diference between uncomfirmed theory and philosophy?
And also, what theories are confirmed?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter:


What is the diference between uncomfirmed theory and philosophy?
And also, what theories are confirmed?

Was this addressed to me?

Donna:


without the question there are no answers ? philosophy is all questions.

But, Philosophy is all empty questions.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 12 2006, 10:40 AM
Dissenter:


What is the diference between uncomfirmed theory and philosophy?
And also, what theories are confirmed?

Was this addressed to me?

Donna:


without the question there are no answers ? philosophy is all questions.

But, Philosophy is all empty questions.
it wasn't particularly addressed to you but I don't mind if you answer it.

[che's long lost daughter]

To answer questions, one uses philosphy.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by che's long lost [email protected] 12 2006, 12:03 PM
To answer questions, one uses philosphy.
You don't need philosophy to answer the question, what is the capital of Sweden.

In fact, most questions don't require philosophy.

'What is the meaning of life?' is a question that does require philosophy but, as Rosa intimated, after 2500 years of trying, no philosopher has cracked it.

I don't think any of the defenders of philosophy on this thread have so far answered my two questions:

What practical knowledge is produced by philosophy and how can it serve the working class and their struggle against capital?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Che's long lost claimant:


To answer questions, one uses philosphy.

If a question is answerable, philosophy is not needed; if it is not answerable, philosophy is no use.

I have 2500 years of failed attempts of philosophers to show I am right.

A small point, but one worth making.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Diss:


What is the diference between uncomfirmed theory and philosophy?
And also, what theories are confirmed?

'Unconfirmed theories': depends what you mean.

'Philosophy': the systematic production of nonsense.

Confirmed theory: again depends what you mean.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


[1] What practical knowledge is produced by philosophy and [2] how can it serve the working class and their struggle against capital?


I answered them: [1] none at all, and [2] even less.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 12 2006, 01:10 PM
Z:


[1] What practical knowledge is produced by philosophy and [2] how can it serve the working class and their struggle against capital?


I answered them: [1] none at all, and [2] even less.
R:

I know you did. My point was that the advocates of philosophy have not answered the questions.

The fact that RevLeft has a thriving philosophy forum would lead one to suspect that philosophy therefore has some relevance to the working class movement and the struggle for socialism. I'm just eager to find out what.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, my apologies for not divining your meaning.

It is thriving on this foum, you are right --, mainly because Marxists have generally regarded philosophy as important (even though Marx did not think much of it), hence the consternation I have caused by claiming that the entire discipline is bogus.

[RebelDog]

What is the diference between uncomfirmed theory and philosophy?

Well there are so many different theories regarding quantum mechanics, the nature of space time, the origin of the universe, a single unified theory, etc, etc. Where does philosophy end and science begin? Both to me are searching for reality. There are bullshit wild goose chase scientific theories and there is a lot of crap philosophy. We have better and better understanding of what reality is or isn't through emperical results that were once theoretical and philisophical.




And also, what theories are confirmed?

Very few physical theories of the universe are confirmed. I have heard scientists say that the only one that looks rock solid and that is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So what I am trying to say is that before things can be written in stone (if they ever can) we need philosophy. Sometimes philosophy leaves science behind and vice-versa. We need both to build the foundation on which we can test our rational proposals and find what reality is.

[Monty Cantsin]

No Philosophy = no social movements, it’s as simple as that.

Social movements look at the material conditions and make value and ethical judgements in relation to the Material conditions.

It’s that fucking simple, no philosophy - oh no Anarchism no Marxism no anything that requires one to understand questions of values and ethics.

Rosa -


I challenge you so say (if it does not exist, there is nothing to define; if it does, it does not need defining, only describing).


Fucking Christ rosa, I’m was talking about process A -> B simple type stuff. A commodity needs to be created before it can be consumed. It’s the same in intellectual production, idea first needs to be thought before the idea can be applied.

A scientist needs to have a conception of scientific method to apply in his research before he can engage in said research.

Why is it a philosopher of science who defines science? Well because that’s what philosophy of science largely is, it asks the question what is science. Now the actual individual who defines the method used in investigation doesn’t have to be professionally trained as a philosopher of science but they take on that role by asking and answering those questions.


------------------------------

To say philosophy is a history of failure is just fucking stupid because different material condition demands different answers. The same ethics used during the French revolution are defined for those conditions and the interests of whom created them. They don’t work for now…because material conditions have changed thus ethics needs to keep up with the times. Philosophy is not mere abstractions it influxes the way people live their lives.

[Neo Bolshevik]

To say philosophy is a history of failure is just fucking stupid because different material condition demands different answers.

Really? That's interesting. Marx frequently stated that scientific socialism was developed out of a combination of English political economy, French socialism and German philosophy (dialectics). Would you say that the relevance of dialectics changes as historical conditions evolve? Or did Marx actually grasp the laws of historical development? Because if Marx was correct, your statement that on philosophy, which I'm presently quoting, is incorrect. ;) It's not good to contradict yourself, but it's worse to have your enemy point it out to you. Which is precisely why forums like these are useful - they help us educate ourselves and each other before we meet the enemy.

[Monty Cantsin]

Thus events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic surroundings led to totally different results. By studying each of these forms of evolution separately and then comparing them one can easily find the clue to this phenomenon, but one will never arrive there by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical.

Karl Marx

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/wo...7/11/russia.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1877/11/russia.htm)

I'd say somthing about humility now but then you can only be humble if you’re good enough at something to be humble about it. But then thank the dialectics for this forum.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

As I understand it, the definition of scientific method is "The formulation of hypotheses, which one should then attempt to disprove until it seems sensible to offer temporary agreement". That's according to 78 Nobel laureates, the ones who saved the american schools from Intelligent Design. :)

-Alex

P.S. Rosa - But don't you find philosophy beautiful? It is like poetry. Useless in all practical senses, but beautiful none the less. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Monty:


No Philosophy = no social movements, it’s as simple as that.

I thought you were a Marxisy=t of sorts.

Or is this your resignation speech?


Social movements look at the material conditions and make value and ethical judgements in relation to the Material conditions.

They all do this do they?

And I suppose you have the survey results to prove it....?

Well, let's see them.


It’s that fucking simple, no philosophy - oh no Anarchism no Marxism no anything that requires one to understand questions of values and ethics.

Swearing does not make something true. But nice try.

MC, if you have nothing other than assertions backed by the 'F' word to offer, I suggest you admit defeat now.


Fucking Christ rosa, I’m was talking about process A -> B simple type stuff. A commodity needs to be created before it can be consumed. It’s the same in intellectual production, idea first needs to be thought before the idea can be applied.

Two 'F' words in one post; that does it, you win. I can't match logic of this power and consistency.

One small favour though: could you let me know the classic work of logic or philosophy you learnt this powerful line of argument from, otherwise I won't be able to show my face here again.

A minor niggle, too: if something does not exist, how do you know the proposed defintion is right; and if it does why does it need defining?

Please do not use the 'F'' word again; you have already destroyed my self-confidence enough as it is.

But now you say this:


A scientist needs to have a conception of scientific method to apply in his research before he can engage in said research.

When before it was this:


Beside’s scientific method doesn’t exist unless a philosopher of science defines it.

I take it you just like being enigmatic.


Why is it a philosopher of science who defines science? Well because that’s what philosophy of science largely is, it asks the question what is science. Now the actual individual who defines the method used in investigation doesn’t have to be professionally trained as a philosopher of science but they take on that role by asking and answering those questions.

2500 years later, no definition, no answers, but loads of science.

Any wonder scientists by-and-large think philosophy is c*ap?

But, you stay enigmatic, that should help.

Oh no, here it is again:


To say philosophy is a history of failure is just fucking stupid because different material condition demands different answers. The same ethics used during the French revolution are defined for those conditions and the interests of whom created them. They don’t work for now…because material conditions have changed thus ethics needs to keep up with the times. Philosophy is not mere abstractions it influxes the way people live their lives.

I am totally floored, I cannot respond; you are clearly a superior being from a parallel universe.

[Nevertheless, despite the enigmatic prose and the devastating use of the 'f' word: 2500 years later, no answers at all.

You are welcome to this way of going nowhere slowly.

I think we'd get more wisdom out of a toothbrush.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

OliveT:


P.S. Rosa - But don't you find philosophy beautiful? It is like poetry. Useless in all practical senses, but beautiful none the less.

To be honest, I do find some of it intriguing (and a few passeges here and there that you could describe with those words), but you could say the same for passages from the Bible.

And not all of philosophy is bunk (I just adopt the maximalist pose to piss certain people off); there are some works that genuinely try to help us understand material reality -- I could mention parts of Plato, Aristotle, Berkeley, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Schelling, Feuerbach, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, but most certainly all of Frege and Wittgenstein (among others).

But I'd better not say any more, or my maximalist pose will suffer somewhat....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Neo:


Marx frequently stated that scientific socialism was developed out of a combination of English political economy, French socialism and German philosophy (dialectics).

I think this was Lenin.

And if you check the threads here, you will see that dialectics has been comprehensively trashed.

[Monty Cantsin]

Sorry Rosa your ability to elude the point and lose the powers of understanding right when it suits you is annoying. And it looks like you’ve used my swearing to miss the point yet again.

When I said your position was logically inconsistent and self-refuting you didn’t answer it seriously, you turned around and said “I thought you meant serious philosophy, not that Mickey Mouse stuff called 'ethics”. I mean really who’s being vague and trying to stay ‘enigmatic’?

You main point of argument started at this point-


Well, I do not disagree with most of this, but it undermines your earlier assertion that the 'scientific' method is unclear and waits on the dithering of 'philosophers':

But the quote you agreed with and the one you didn’t, they don’t contradict each other. You haven’t argued a logical position you merely stated over and over that philosophers have been going for 2500 years and still don’t agree.

But you agreed with this statement of mine- “The fact that there’s no absolute consensus on all things philosophy of science related is pretty unremarkable because then there’s no absolute consensus on all scientific theories about natural phenomenon either.”

If at the end of the day philosophical inquire has the only value of declaring philosophy of no-value then it has at least has practical value. Because it stops people wasting their time with philosophy and getting on with say more important stuff like science. If that’s the bare minimum philosophy can provide then it still has practical value for an individual, even for the modern class movement.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MC:


Sorry Rosa your ability to elude the point and lose the powers of understanding right when it suits you is annoying. And it looks like you’ve used my swearing to miss the point yet again.

I could say the same of you, but I am far too polite.


When I said your position was logically inconsistent and self-refuting you didn’t answer it seriously, you turned around and said “I thought you meant serious philosophy, not that Mickey Mouse stuff called 'ethics”. I mean really who’s being vague and trying to stay ‘enigmatic’?

I'd like you to point out the 'logical inconsistency' if you can.


You haven’t argued a logical position you merely stated over and over that philosophers have been going for 2500 years and still don’t agree.

Again, I could say the same of you, but I am far too...


But you agreed with this statement of mine- “The fact that there’s no absolute consensus on all things philosophy of science related is pretty unremarkable because then there’s no absolute consensus on all scientific theories about natural phenomenon either.”

I hardly think you can compare these, and when did I agree to it?


If at the end of the day philosophical inquire has the only value of declaring philosophy of no-value then it has at least has practical value. Because it stops people wasting their time with philosophy and getting on with say more important stuff like science. If that’s the bare minimum philosophy can provide then it still has practical value for an individual, even for the modern class movement.

Eh?

[hoopla]

I think that Rosa has proved, that we need philosophy to be a reasonable person.

Wouldn't be much fun if everyone was like Rosa, iyswim.

Wannabe robot "does not compute - does not compute"

:angry:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


I think that Rosa has proved, that we need philosophy to be a reasonable person.

I am not sure how you think philosophy can be a person, let alone a 'reasonable' one, nor yet why you think I proved this.

I don't think I mentioned it once.


Wouldn't be much fun if everyone was like Rosa, iyswim.

I see, thinking that participles of the verb 'to be' (like 'being' (or "being")) are really names is your idea of fun is it?

So, how many laughs are there in full stops?

[hoopla]

I'm sorry Rosa, you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. Sigh.

:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


I'm sorry Rosa, you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. Sigh.

Something about participles of the verb 'to be', wasn't it?

[hoopla]

I think, that what is needed, is a rigorous examination of Rosa's claims.

So (If I may be so bold, I've had enough of skirting round the real question here) I'm highjacking this thread to try and encourage a debate on this topic.

Rosa wants to
Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)destroy philosophy[/b]
She thinks that
Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)We just need more and better science.[/b]



I think we should see whether Rosa is right, and ask if,

1. Philosophical problems are not real problems, and are a result of a misuse of language
Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
misuse of language
2. Philosophical answers are false
Rosa [email protected]
the result of a misuse of language
3. And philosophy is a failure
Rosa Lichtenstein
2500 years of failed attempts of philosophers

I think, it would be more sensible to stick to philosophy as a whole, and leave dialectics to another day.

I think this is an important question for anyone who spends time in this forum, and we should look to settle the issue.

Thats unless, Rosa, you don't want your views to be scrutinized... And any claims that what we are talking about is meaningless, will HAVE to be shown to be true.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


So I'm highjacking this thread to try and encourage a debate on this topic

Here's some advise that might help you put me in my place:


You should either remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+Jul 27 2006, 01:07 PM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Jul 27 2006, 01:07 PM) Hoopla:


So I'm highjacking this thread to try and encourage a debate on this topic

Here's some advise that might help you put me in my place:


You should either remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers [/b]
Rosa:

I am not trying to put you in your place. I would like to think, that I am offering you the possibility to put forward your views, in a single place, so that people can decide for themselves if philosphy should be
Rosa Lichtenstein
destroyed

I assume that the Boxing Glove "joke" is because what I am saying doesn't make any sense. Could you explain why?

Man, I'm getting bored of this already.

Nice try tho, on my part :lol:

[hoopla]

Originally posted by hoopla
any claims that what we are talking about is meaningless, will HAVE to be shown to be true

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Man, I'm getting bored of this already.

I used to get bored, then I discovered this amazing cure:


Either remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers

Try it, it worked for George Bush.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by hoopla+Jul 27 2006, 01:15 PM--> (hoopla @ Jul 27 2006, 01:15 PM)
hoopla
any claims that what we are talking about is meaningless, will HAVE to be shown to be true [/b]
:angry:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


any claims that what we are talking about is meaningless, will HAVE to be shown to be true

Excellent point; nearly as good as:


Either remove the boxing gloves or get a new set of fingers

[emma_goldman]

"The unexamined life isn't worth living."

Socrates?

:D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Emma, thanks for that reminder, but what has Philosophy got to do with 'examination'?

[A 'fantasised life' is not worth living would have been more accurate, but Socrates would not have said that, even if it is a more appropriate saying with respect to Philosophy.]

2500 years later, and not one result to show for it, I think history has passed an appropriate judgement on Philosophy.

I prefer:

"The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class."

Even if some who post here prefer the opposite, and want to cling on to the ideas and thought-forms of the ruling class.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html


Okay, it's Ayn Rand. But the points are valid, methinks. Rosa, i'd be interested in your thoughts on this, since you don't like the entire concept of philosophy.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

hmmm. Ignore the parts about communists being maggots and the part about Aristotle being a cultural barometer for human history. :rolleyes:

-Alex

[Hit The North]

From the Rand article:


Most men spend their days struggling to evade three questions, the answers to which underlie man's every thought, feeling and action, whether he is consciously aware of it or not: Where am I? How do I know it? What should I do?

Where am I? Planet Earth.

How do I know it? Everyone around me confirms it.

What should I do? Get on with my life.

But the most telling paragraph is this:


Philosophy would not tell you, for instance, whether you are in New York City or in Zanzibar (though it would give you the means to find out). But here is what it would tell you: Are you in a universe which is ruled by natural laws and, therefore, is stable, firm, absolute — and knowable? Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux, which your mind is impotent to grasp? Are the things you see around you real — or are they only an illusion? Do they exist independent of any observer — or are they created by the observer? Are they the object or the subject of man's consciousness? Are they what they are — or can they be changed by a mere act of your consciousness, such as a wish?

a) Actually a map would be a surer way of finding out where you are.

b) "But here is what it [philosophy] would tell you..." followed by a bunch of questions. In other words, philosophy tells you nothing at all but poses a number of questions which are best answered by science!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn, sorry, would not touch anything by or about Ayn Rand with a condom covered barge pole.

As Z points out, her stuff is either brainless, crass, ill-informed or a priori bull*hit -- or all four

[JimFar]

For the Marxmail (http://www.marxmail.org) list, I once wrote a couple of posts on Ayn Rand:

In one such post, I wrote:

Much of McLemee's article focuses on Chris Sciabarra's book Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. Sciabarra is a libertarian who did his doctorate under the Marxist scholar, Bertell Ollman. Ollman is noted among other things for his studies of Marxist dialectics in which he applied the American idealist philosopher Brand Blanshard's,analysis of internal relations to the elucidation of dialectics.

Sciabarra has in several of his works attempted to apply Ollman's approach to provide reconsiderations of libertarian and classical liberal thinkers like F.A. Hayek, Karl Popper, and Ayn Rand. In the case of the first two thinkers, Sciabarra's approach seems quite plausible and fruitful since despite their avowed anti-Hegelianism, both Hayek and Popper in their mature thought advanced evolutionist conceptions of history and culture. Both Hayek and Popper were not incapable of subtle thought. Their are IMO aspects of their thought that can indeed be understood as being dialectical in character and doing so has made these aspects much clearer. BTW the Soviet philosopher, Igor Naletov, arrived at an evaluation of Popper's mature thought that is similar to Sciabarra's.

In the case of Rand though, this argument seems less plausible, if only for the reason she was such a crude and often dishonest thinker. I dare say that Chris Sciabarra is far more learned and intelligent than Rand ever was and he tends to read back into her a work a subtlety of mind that he himself possesses but in which Rand was lacking.

Much of Sciabarra's book is devoted to tracing the influences of Russia's Silver Age on the genesis of Rand's thought. In particular he points out the influence of Nietzsche on her philosophy, something that she was most loathe to admit since Rand and her Objectivist disciples have always dismissed him as an irrationalist. Of course Rand's Nietzscheanism ought to have been apparent. After all, the hero of her novel, The Fountainhead, Howard Roark, was based, at least in part, on the architect Frank Lloyd Wright who was very much a professed Nietzschean. It is true that Barbara Branden in her biography of Rand noted her youthful infatuation with the writings of Nietzsche and the impact of Nietzsche on the development of her own ethic of egoism and on her romantic individualism. That didn't stop orthodox Objectivists from denying the influence of Nietzsche on Rand but on this point Sciabarra has made a persuasive argument that has given the orthodox Objectivists much trouble. In general Rand was very reluctant to admit to being influenced by other thinkers. She claimed that her thought stemmed from Aristotle and from the free-market economists.

Rand was also arguably quite dishonest in her denials that she was influenced in any significant way by contemporary philosophers. Her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology includes among other things a sustained argument aimed at demolishing the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions. For Rand the analytic/synthetic distinction was at the root of nearly everything that she thought was wrong with modern philosophy. So far, so good but what she didn't say in her book was that Harvard philosopher, W.V. Quine had years before published a demolition of the analytic/synthetic distinction in his famous essay "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" in his book From a Logical Point of View. Perhaps, Rand can be excused or forgiven for this lapse since she was not a professional philosopher but how does one explain the fact that the essay by Leonard Peikoff on the analytic/synthetic distinction which appears in Rand's book makes no mention of Quine either? Peikoff, who became Rand's designated intellectual heir after she had dumped Nathan Branden, was, unlike Rand, a professional philosopher with a doctorate in the subject and he has served as a professor at several universities. What's his excuse?
--------
In another post, I wrote:

I realize that I omitted the name of the American idealist philosopher in question. His name was Brand Blanshard, who taught for many years at Yale and was basically the last of the American idealists, a neo-Hegelian school that had pretty dominated American academic philosophy towards the end of the 19th century (British academic philosophy was similarly dominated by idealists at about the same time). Unlike most of the earlier idealists though, Blanshard was an avowed atheist, and he was active in various freethought and humanist organizations. He was noted among other things for his defense of the notion of internal relations, an issue that he debated vigorously with the empiricist philosopher, Ernest Nagel.

The notion of an internal relation is closely tied to the notion of necessity. Thus if an individual X has a property, such that by virtue if having that property, X necessarily has a relation R to a certain thing or things, then R can be described as an internal relation of X. Thus if X is a bachelor, then the relation of not being married to anyone else is an internal relation of X. The notion of an internal relation is contrasted with the notion of an external relation. Thus if X has a relation to certain other things but there is no property that X necessarily has this relation, then this relation is said to be an external one. Towards the end of the last century, however, some of the British neo-Hegelians were arguing that all relations are internal. This thesis was closely connected with the coherence theory of truth that was also embraced by the neo-Hegelians.

In the US, Brand Blanshard, who was a disciple of Bradley, was a leading defender of the thesis that all relations are internal, notably in his 1939 book, The Nature of Thought. As such his thesis bore an obvious kinship with Leibniz's view that all truths are analytic as well as to Spinoza's idea that causal relations can be reduced to logical relations. Blanshard's own defense of this thesis focused on the argument that the distinction between logical necessity and causal necessity which most Anglo-American empiricists took for granted was in fact untenable. Since, empiricist philosophers derived most of their understanding of causality from Hume, Blanshard turned much of his firepower against Hume's analysis of causality. Many of the connections between the thesis that all relations are internal and associated conceptions of causality were elucidated in the course of the debate between Blanshard and Nagel.

Concerning Blanshard, I once saw him at a commencement at Boston University back in the 1980s where he delivered the commencement address. He was well into his 90s but he was still writing and publishing in philosophy. For his commencement address, he delivered a learned talk on the life of reason. As I recall, he cited his old friend, John Dewey, as an exemplar of the life of reason. He may have also said something about Bertrand Russell but I am not sure. I also recall, that he lambasted religious fundamentalism and so-called "scientific" creationism. One thing that I am sure about is that his talk sailed over the heads of at least 95% of the audience at BU. I suppose that he believed that university commencement was a proper place for delivering a learned address. He probably also thought that universities were places for learning and scholarship. Imagine that! What cheek!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that, Jim.

I have read Blanshard, and his work is as classic an example of a priori superscience as one could wish to find --, i.e., the confusion of some shaky logic (compounded by 'innovative' grammar) with truths about reality.

I will be dissecting 'internal relations' (as they feature in Ollman mainly) in a later Essay.

[I wasn't too sure what this had to do with Rand, though!]

The post on Rand herself was interesting; thanks for publishing it, too.

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 2 2006, 07:57 AM
Emma, thanks for that reminder, but what has Philosophy got to do with 'examination'?

There's plenty of examination in philosophy.

Like, what is right and what is wrong?
Is there a God?
Am I a rational being?
What is my purpose?
What is the nature of reality?

ETC.
:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Emma:


There's plenty of examination in philosophy.

..of meaningless questions, impenetrable jargon, obscure 'concepts'...

Yes, how could I have been so blind?


Like, what is right and what is wrong?
Is there a God?
Am I a rational being?
What is my purpose?
What is the nature of reality?

Exactly.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


have read Blanshard, and his work is as classic an example of a priori superscience as one could wish to find --, i.e., the confusion of some shaky logic (compounded by 'innovative' grammar) with truths about reality.

I will be dissecting 'internal relations' (as they feature in Ollman mainly) in a later Essay.

[I wasn't too sure what this had to do with Rand, though!]

Blanshard is relevant in that Chris Sciabarra draws upon him (especially as he is interpreted by Ollman) in his interpretation of Rand's Objectivism. One of theses of Sciabarra's book Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical is that she is best understood as having been a dialectical thinker. And Sciabarra in that books probes her background and education in Russia, to show that she had been exposed to dialectical thought and that this made an imprint on her despite her professed anti-Hegelianism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Jim; I was aware that Randies were dialecticians.

[emma_goldman]

Ideologies are philosophies.

Political philosophy is very important.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Emma:


Ideologies are philosophies.

Political philosophy is very important.

Philosophy is an ideology, you mean (I think).

I agree -- and it is ruling-class ideology, too. [Hence my hostility toward it.]

I prefer to call the latter 'political science'.

If so, we agree.

[Epoche]

Rosa, or, Mother Matriarch of Marxism (we call her the Triple M), let me ask you this:

What do you not know?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


What do you not know?

I did not know you would ask that, if that is any help?

[And who is this 'we'?]

[Epoche]

I did not know you would ask that, if that is any help?

This is nonsense. Is that a statement or a question? If it is a question, then I cannot answer it because I cannot know that you couldn't know I would ask it. If it is a statement, then your knowledge (or prediction) of my asking the question must rely on the case of it "being any help," which I deduce from the function "if."

I'm confused, Rosa.

Thanks for nothing.

[Epoche]

[And who is this 'we'?]

Me, myself, and I.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


Me, myself, and I.

I do hope that this is not an admisson of multiple personality disorder....


I'm confused, Rosa.

Possibly because you tried to read a colloquial sentence as if it were a proposition from Kant.


Thanks for nothing.

Don't thank me; thank nobody for that.

[Epoche]

Don't listen to Rosa, Epoche.

She's toying with you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


Don't listen to Rosa, Epoche.

She's toying with you.

Where did Descartes' demon come from?

[Bretty123]

Rosa, I don't really agree that philosophical ideas are of the ruling class alone. Many have tried to advocate for systems of equality through one's maxims of action. So do you still state that all philosophy is of ruling class? or do you only think some of it is? Very many philosophers were quite poor their whole lives. Also I think the term political science is very poorly defined. Politics cannot be deemed a "science" otherwise I would argue that your statement that it is such would make it something that the ruling class could use to make the citizen be below it, or conformed to a particular structure. Politics is defined by myself as ethical representation of one's self to other persons in a society. You cannot be "good" or educated at politics as you suggest by stating it a science.

And also, the concepts are only obscure(like moral concepts such as kantian ethics and Sartrean ethics because you choose them to be obscure. If you choose not to try to see the points they make because you consider it "ruling class" then your the creator of your own problems with philosophy.

P.S. I don't completely disagree with you but you speak out alot on the forums and further you completely ignored the ayn rand bit because you think it is in some way negative to read it, I would at least give it a moment to read if your willing to be so outspoken in the present.

[Epoche]

The demon is impossible.

In order for there to be a conscious entity capable of tricking, by illusion, another conscious entity, there would have to be another demon who was possibly tricking the first demon into believing he was tricking a conscious entity, or else the demon could not determine whether or not his trick was real.

This process must repeat ad infinitem.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


Rosa, I don't really agree that philosophical ideas are of the ruling class alone. Many have tried to advocate for systems of equality through one's maxims of action. So do you still state that all philosophy is of ruling class? or do you only think some of it is?

You are right, the situatioin is far more complex that the summaries I give here might suggest.

My position on philosophy in general is that like religion, it can reflect genuine distress and a desire to fight back (some of the examples you give illustrate that), but ultimatley, it gains its rationale from ruling ideas.

However, my objection to philosophy in general is not that it represents ruling ideas, but that it is arrant nonsense.

Sure some philosophers were poor, but most of the important ones were not, and these were loinised by their masters.


P.S. I don't completely disagree with you but you speak out alot on the forums and further you completely ignored the ayn rand bit because you think it is in some way negative to read it, I would at least give it a moment to read if your willing to be so outspoken in the present.

I could not really follow this.

I have read Ayn Rand, or shall I say, I began to, got only so far and could not stomach any more.

I would need to be threatened with a rather large gun to try again.

[Bretty123]

I can agree that some philosophy is genuinely hard to handle as far as being realistic. however I can name slices of the more famous philosophers and some of the less known ones philosophical conclusions to be very practical and/or very possible. I think brushing off their ideas as nonsense because you dont have as much existential curiousity as myself or others is not fair. If you look at a philosopher like Sartre, because he writes difficult passages does not mean his philosophy is hard to be defined as practical. He has gone through the same motions of logical reasoning that we all do at some point, is there a god? no. then I must have free will? yes. no god no human nature? exactly. The questions each philosopher has asked him or herself have been legitimate questions. Sartre had great ideas and they can be used in realistic situations, he made Kantian Categorical imperatives very organic in respect to the human "spirit" or natural conception of reality. These are not absurd ideas, next time you find money and are deciding whether its right to return it or not think of this chat we're having and tell me philosophical ideas of people being NATURALLY connected to each other morally is not something your marxist thoughts can sympathize with? In fact I wrote an essay on Kant and Marx and their similarities if you want to read it.

Also I can't sit here and hear someone say science is not intertwined with philosophy in every way possible. Every science has philosophy on its shoulders. And I don't have any idea where you got the idea that ultimately ideas are from the ruling class. Even the most western thinkers in times with much sexism like Plato made great strides stating women were capable of philosophizing too. These are NOT ideas of the ruling class at the time. In fact very few philosophers were anywhere near the capitalist class, and most were poor or middleclass.

I'm not attacking your outlook because in many respects I agree but I think the ideas you propose about philosophy being a moot point or something along those lines make it hard for me to sit back while something I find so important is pushed into the shadows.

Thanks for your time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


He has gone through the same motions of logical reasoning that we all do at some point, is there a god? no. then I must have free will? yes. no god no human nature?

All meaningless questions.

1) Is there a god?

Meaningless, since it conmtins at least one empty term: 'god'.

2) I must have free will.

Meaningless, for the same reason except we have here an empty phrase 'free will'.

And just because I reject all philosophy does not mean I am not curious about nature; I just look to science to tell me what it contains.

[I refrain from commenting about moral issues, since I am not a priest.]


Also I can't sit here and hear someone say science is not intertwined with philosophy in every way possible. Every science has philosophy on its shoulders.

This is what we are constantly told, I just deny it.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


All meaningless questions.

1) Is there a god?

Meaningless, since it conmtins at least one empty term: 'god'.

2) I must have free will.

Meaningless, for the same reason except we have here an empty phrase 'free will'.

And just because I reject all philosophy does not mean I am not curious about nature; I just look to science to tell me what it contains.

[I refrain from commenting about moral issues, since I am not a priest.]

So Rosa, how does your position differ from that of the logical positivists? After all, many of them would have answered the questions above in much the same way that you did.

[Bretty123]

I understand the terms can be meaningless but you must of gone through an investigation of sorts to realize that they are "empty". Welcome to philosophy.

And your appeal to the authority of science is unmistakably blind. Since there are the same problems in philosophy that are in science. One example is the causality debate. This ties into both philosophy and science.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim:


So Rosa, how does your position differ from that of the logical positivists?

They were super-glued to the verification principle (and their porition floundered because of that, as you know); I just appeal to ordinary material language.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


One example is the causality debate. This ties into both philosophy and science.

In science, this is just a question of the use of words (i.e., which convention to adopt)

In philosophy, it is a question of setting up necessary truths (or falsehoods), etc.. based on the misuse of language.

No comparison.


I understand the terms can be meaningless but you must of gone through an investigation of sorts to realize that they are "empty". Welcome to philosophy.

No 'investigation' needed; just an appeal to ordinary language.



And your appeal to the authority of science is unmistakably blind.

Look, as you can see from my Essays (if you have read them), I am well-versed in the history of philosophy, and have read all the relevant literature (and more); so please do not say this is 'blind'. I am aware of all the main issues (and of some you do not know of, it seems).

You may disagree; that is OK. But I can defend in depth everything I assert.

I might not choose to do so here, but I do precisely this in my Essays (the ones already published and the ones in the pipeline).

[Bretty123]

Your correct I am in no way versed in all philosophy however I do read quite a bit. I'm a student(like us all). But unlike many do, I don't take being well versed as necessarily making you "right".



In science, this is just a question of the use of words (i.e., which convention to adopt)

In philosophy, it is a question of setting up necessary truths (or falsehoods), etc.. based on the misuse of language.

No comparison.

Could not science's definitions of causality have the same problems as philosophies? if not, please explain why.


No 'investigation' needed; just an appeal to ordinary language.

Your being very general in your answers. You can't expect me to be satisfied by saying your appealing to ordinary language. What is this ordinary language your appealing to? and how did it come about with such definitions of finding these things as empty? How is something such as "free will" not ordinary language? How would you define your determined or free state of existence? and please define it in your terms of ordinary language. [/QUOTE]


Look, as you can see from my Essays (if you have read them), I am well-versed in the history of philosophy, and have read all the relevant literature (and more); so please do not say this is 'blind'. I am aware of all the main issues (and of some you do not know of, it seems).

You may disagree; that is OK. But I can defend in depth everything I assert.

I might not choose to do so here, but I do precisely this in my Essays (the ones already published and the ones in the pipeline).

Although I'm impressed with your work which i'm going to read through I still have problems with your position. I'd like for you to explain to me your definition of abstract concepts such as love and how science can explain them realistically. Since scientific research cannot trace emotions and single them out, even if you think it is chemical reaction. The chemical reaction is particularly general compared to the plethora of emotions one can feel. I'm not saying philosophy can solve these either, but if niether are possibly useful in situations like this, then how does one expect to choose one as better if they ultimately are twined together.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


I don't take being well versed as necessarily making you "right".

I agree, and the only reason I said this was to neutralise the idea that I was not aware that some think this view of mine ill-informed.

If you are going to challenge 2400 years of ruling-class thought (as I am), your ideas are going to seem 'odd'. In addition, the vast majority will disagree with you (that is why Marx said the ruling ideas are always those of the alien-class; just as soon as the majority begin to agree with me, then I will know i have gone wrong) -- I expect this to happen (and even from those who 'say' they are radicals, but who think along the lines set down for them by the last 2400 years of aimless theory, because they are taught that this is the only 'acceptable' way to think).


Could not science's definitions of causality have the same problems as philosophies? if not, please explain why.

Of course they could, but if scientists have to make their ideas work, they have to adopt one convention or another -- their 'philosophical ideas will then drop out as mere affectation.


Your being very general in your answers. You can't expect me to be satisfied by saying your appealing to ordinary language.

Well, I also said that I will not try and defend these assertions here; that is why I set up my site.


What is this ordinary language your appealing to?

The sort that workers and ordinary humans (including you) use all the time to manage their practical affairs.

We have been through all this on other threads here.


How is something such as "free will" not ordinary language?

It does not appear in this way in ordinary talk; Anthony Kenny's books are a good guide in this area.


How would you define your determined or free state of existence? and please define it in your terms of ordinary language.

I would not try to, since these sentences contain several meaningless terms.


I'd like for you to explain to me your definition of abstract concepts such as love and how science can explain them realistically.

Well, forgive me if I decline to do so; one does not need to define certain words to be able to use them (no more than you need to know any physiology to use your legs).


Since scientific research cannot trace emotions and single them out, even if you think it is chemical reaction. The chemical reaction is particularly general compared to the plethora of emotions one can feel. I'm not saying philosophy can solve these either, but if niether are possibly useful in situations like this, then how does one expect to choose one as better if they ultimately are twined together.

Again you will learn more about how we use words for emotion by reading Anthony Kenny's books (his best is 'Action, Emotion and Will') than you will from speculating about it (or from reading any number of philosophy texts) -- or better still read a good Russian novel (or even perhaps von Kleist); I recommend 'Resurrection' by Tolstoy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Existentialism will always be a neccessary branch of philosophy, will it not? Even if you disagree with philosophy, I hardly think existentialism can be eliminated.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


Existentialism will always be a neccessary branch of philosophy, will it not? Even if you disagree with philosophy, I hardly think existentialism can be eliminated.

I do not know why you think I'd exempt it.

In fact, I'd put it near the top of the list.

[JimFar]

Dooga wrote:


Existentialism will always be a neccessary branch of philosophy, will it not? Even if you disagree with philosophy, I hardly think existentialism can be eliminated.



In a review that I once wrote of a textbook that Kai Nielsen wrote back in the 1970s, Reason and Practice: A Modern Introduction to Philosophy, I wrote:

"In connection with this, Nielsen provides a discussion of existentialism and continental philosophy. He finds much of continental philosophy, especially that of Heidegger and Jaspers, to display most of the same faults as traditional speculative metaphysics. He seems sympathetic to the idea that Heidegger may have been a clever fraud, but nevertheless Nielsen finds in existentialism an attempt to deal with important aspects of human experience, which cannot be and should not be ignored by philosophers. He holds existentialist literature in higher esteem than he does formal existentialist philosophy. That is, he perceives more value in the novels and plays that Sartre wrote than his formal philosophical writings such as Being and Nothingness. Nielsen does consider both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche to have been very profound philosophers, from whom much can be learned by analytical philosophers."

I think that I would agree with Nielsen on that point. Rudolf Carnap was driving at much the same point when he condemned Heidegger and praised Nietzsche for having realized that Lebensgefühl is best expressed through the arts rather than through metaphysics. The existentialists should have stuck with literature and left metaphysics alone.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim:


I think that I would agree with Nielsen on that point.

Well I am less tolerant of nonsense than you (or Kai Nielsen) seem to be, Jim.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


Well I am less tolerant of nonsense than you (or Kai Nielsen) seem to be, Jim.

Well, then you are also less tolerant that Wittgenstein was. He was a great admirer of Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim:


Well, then you are also less tolerant that Wittgenstein was. He was a great admirer of Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche.

I agree, that is why I describe my work as doing a Feuerbach on him -- finishing the job he started, but did not, or could not, see through to the end.

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 2 2006, 05:24 PM
Philosophy is an ideology, you mean (I think).

I agree -- and it is ruling-class ideology, too. [Hence my hostility toward it.]

I prefer to call the latter 'political science'.

If so, we agree.
Debating semantics is of no positive effect. You seem to find meaning in philosophy but don't wish to call it that.

When there is no ruling class, will there still be philosophy? I think yes.

So, the fact that philosophy can exist w/o a ruling class makes it not merely a ruling class ideology.

People will still philosophize, I think, without a ruling class, in other words. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Emma:


When there is no ruling class, will there still be philosophy? I think yes.

Possibly, just as there might be religion; but I think we will learn to grow out of it.

[Bretty123]

Rosa, I think your avoiding very important parts of philosophical debate such as ethics, human nature, or a priori if you want to call it that, and your assuming science can solve these problems. However even Einstein claimed that the moment he realize the theory of relativity he became conflicted by moral judgements. He was also vegetarian, so even the scientists who are praised as revolutionaries in revealing truth, are conflicted every day or confronted by philosophical problems.

Perhaps you don't agree with metaphysical speculation and I will agree with you on most points, that alot of it seems like nonsense. But in my opinion I think Wittgenstein was right in admiring men like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche for their ideas on worldly life. They had great ideas on ethics, the world in general, and human realities. (i'm excluding many others who had good ideas too) and I think your wrong to assert they are nonsense.

For the most part I will only agree with you on very few points mostly on metaphysical philosophy, as for the rest of philosophy I would have to say your not considering it enough as valuable.

I'd like to know what you think about this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


Rosa, I think your avoiding very important parts of philosophical debate such as ethics, human nature, or a priori if you want to call it that, and your assuming science can solve these problems.

Well, I do not think science can solve these 'problems' because they are not problems to begin with, just nonsensical confusions.

Whatever there is to know about nature, science can tell us. Anything else we can leave to the mystics/the terminally-confused.


But in my opinion I think Wittgenstein was right in admiring men like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche for their ideas on worldly life. They had great ideas on ethics, the world in general, and human realities. (i'm excluding many others who had good ideas too) and I think your wrong to assert they are nonsense.

Well, you are welcome to your views. Just count me out.


For the most part I will only agree with you on very few points mostly on metaphysical philosophy, as for the rest of philosophy I would have to say your not considering it enough as valuable.

I'd like to know what you think about this.

About what?

About the 'value' of philosophy in general?

Let me put it like this: I think it allows people to think they can access truths about reality on the cheap.

[Freud's ideas have a similar effect; armchair psychiatrists can indulge in easy diagnoses without doing any science, and without worrying about the consequences.]

And that is it's only value.

[Apart, that is, from helping to ratify ruling-class ideas indirectly: that truths like these can be 'found' by thought alone, on the cheap.

Oh, and providing me with more examples of how ruling ideas rule even Marxist minds.

Apart from that, no value whatsoever -- Hume's bonfires are sorely needed.

I thought I had made all this clear!]

[Bretty123]

How can science tell us how to act if we consider all the ethical alternatives? Science tells us what happens, or can happen. We have to use it one way or another(i'm speaking in terms of scientific breakthroughs i.e. atomic bomb). I think also our definitions of philosophy may be the problem during the whole discussion. For me philosophy is not a conglomeration of ideas that are put together to form religions or moral commitments or metaphysical doctrines. Philosophy to me is just enquiry into everything and my alternatives and the connections. Sciences are intertwined with philosophy in this respect. Science can tell us the research found from phenomena but it cannot tell us why we are here, or if their is purpose or other questions of the sort. This is where philosophy stands for me. It has alot of potential to help enquire about what we find, what we see, what we feel, what we experience in regards to findings in science as well as just empirical sensations.


I think you define(like many others) that philosophy is more of a dogmatic commitment or moral commitment or nonsensical search for necessary connection when in fact it is so much more then this. And those who think it is, are viewing it incorrectly. all 2500 years or more of it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, plase read what I have posted more carefully:


How can science tell us how to act if we consider all the ethical alternatives?

Where did I say science can answer this sort of question?


Philosophy to me is just enquiry into everything and my alternatives and the connections.

As I say, an illegitimate set of topics, and a well-trodden way of going nowhere slowly. But, you can waste you time on this; who am I to stop you? If 2500 years of pointless enquiry won't convince you, I certainly cannot.

May I suggest you stop trying to rope me in, though. I learnt over 25 years ago what it seems you have yet to wake up to.

[Bretty123]

Where did I say science can answer this sort of question?

I'm not saying you said this, i'm asking how your concept of science could answer it. Since i'm assuming your a marxist your social dream would require lots of ethics.




As I say, an illegitimate set of topics, and a well-trodden way of going nowhere slowly. But, you can waste you time on this; who am I to stop you? If 2500 years of pointless enquiry won't convince you, I certainly cannot.

May I suggest you stop trying to rope me in, though. I learnt over 25 years ago what it seems you have yet to wake up to.

It's fine if you don't enjoy and see the benefits of philosophy, I won't try to rope you in. I think your misusing the term philosophy, and I would ask you not tell me i havent woken up I am no mystic, and I'm not living a pipe dream, for all we know YOU are the one living the pipe dream, misusing language to the benefit of your argument and avoiding the problems true science cannot help solve after 2500 years of examining the world.

Whether or not you consider ethics a problem or a confusion, there is obviously something wrong with our current state of society, and I think you'd agree that science has yet to help us in this respect, because we still fight, we still let people die, many see no connection to others. How do we solve these problems, if you do not advocate social modes of control to MAKE us help others, then how do you suggest we find common ground? through science? what can science offer for our morals?

To make myself clear, our definitions of science and philosophy have to be clear. Philosophical enquiry for me is the judgements that come after the scientific discovery or observation. This is why I state philosophy is intertwined with science.

[Hit The North]

Bretty:


Whether or not you consider ethics a problem or a confusion, there is obviously something wrong with our current state of society, and I think you'd agree that science has yet to help us in this respect, because we still fight, we still let people die, many see no connection to others. How do we solve these problems, if you do not advocate social modes of control to MAKE us help others, then how do you suggest we find common ground? through science? what can science offer for our morals?


If you want to change the current state of society then you must take social action in order to transform it. No abstract debate about ethics will change society for us.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Once again, Bretty you must read what i post more carefully:



i'm asking how your concept of science could answer it.

No one can answer such meaningless questions, so it is no surprise that science can't.


Whether or not you consider ethics a problem or a confusion, there is obviously something wrong with our current state of society, and I think you'd agree that science has yet to help us in this respect, because we still fight, we still let people die, many see no connection to others.

The point is, to change things not to moralise about them.


Philosophical enquiry for me is the judgements that come after the scientific discovery or observation.

So why not become a scientist?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Z: we are at last beginning to see eye to eye!

[Bretty123]

No one can answer such meaningless questions, so it is no surprise that science can't.


I'm not sure how this is a meaningless question to ask?



The point is, to change things not to moralise about them.


I think your forgetting that most philosophies are trying to do this, much like you want to change and dissolve philosophy through your work people are trying to change the world through theirs. Why do you suggest your work is more important than Sartre's? or Kantian ethics? Your all trying to shape the world through writing.


So why not become a scientist?

I never said one was better then the other, or i'm not becoming a scientist, or that science isn't valuable. I think they are intertwined completely and cannot be devoid of the other. Maybe I will be a scientist, but I will never be distinct of philosophy.


If you want to change the current state of society then you must take social action in order to transform it. No abstract debate about ethics will change society for us.

It's only abstract as long as people don't transform it into a practical application. If people actually considered themselves necessarily connected to each other or not necessarily connected to each other, then they would definitely look at their actions in a more serious context.


Mind-Revolution (http://www.mind-revolution.com)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


I'm not sure how this is a meaningless question to ask?

It is if you are asking it philosophically.



I think your forgetting that most philosophies are trying to do this, much like you want to change and dissolve philosophy through your work people are trying to change the world through theirs. Why do you suggest your work is more important than Sartre's? or Kantian ethics? Your all trying to shape the world through writing.

Sartre's work makes no sense; Kant's very little.

It is up to you to decide if mine does or does not (I am hardly a neutral judge of my own work).

In which case, I am the wrong person to ask if my work is or is not better/more important than the meaningless prose philosopshers have inflicted on humanity.

And I cannot accept that philosophers are trying to change the world with their work (as opposed to their political activity, such as it was); if they are then Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky was as valid an attempt to do so as Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' was.

Except, the Jabberwocky made more sense:


Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Ah, good honest nonsense, not like that pretentious stuff you get in books of philosophy.

[Epoche]

Sartre's work makes no sense

(oh no she didn't!)

[suddenly, Epoche's right eye shifts]

That statement's event involves two things: Rosa (consciousness) and the object which she is conscious of; the empirical data gleaned from its place, its "being there." To assume that either the state of the reality, that is, the "truth" of the event of the statement lies only in its state before it is the object of Rosa (consciousness), or the object of Rosa, but without its being empirical data, is to assume that the being of it is not a negation, and not in question; that is, that both Rosa and the object are synonomous. If this be the case, then it would be impossible for it to be "true," because it would be impossible for it to be "false" because there would be no Rosa to say so.

The dichotomous "truth" of the proposition you offer above is the very manifestation of Sartre's concept of the in-itself and the for-itself. These very simple phenomena, the being of the object and the consciousness of the object, are engaged in a dialectical process of reference to truth. This is why Rationalism and Empiricism are nonsense epistemologically because the source of knowledge is not in the object or the consciousness, but both, the "referencing".

Is it possible that that statement is "false?" Sure, because you would have to consider your having misunderstood Sartre, yet, at the same time, "understanding" does not lie in the object alone; it requires intentional structures which involve negation. Negation is both a freedom from necessity and being such that anything you say in language cannot be a priori possible as a case of true or false without two functions being involved; the object and the presence to the object. The "sense" you make in the statements you make are infintely circular. "Your" theory is no more valid than anyone elses (although I absolutely love it). No? Okay, what do you mean by "sense"? What is sense? You answer something like "the result of impressions on the mind." Well, what is the mind?

Oh nevermind.

Look, I gotta soft spot for Sartre so please, spare him, mmkay?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


That statement's event involves two things: Rosa (consciousness) and the object which she is conscious of; the empirical data gleaned from its place, its "being there." To assume that either the state of the reality, that is, the "truth" of the event of the statement lies only in its state before it is the object of Rosa (consciousness), or the object of Rosa, but without its being empirical data, is to assume that the being of it is not a negation, and not in question; that is, that both Rosa and the object are synonomous. If this be the case, then it would be impossible for it to be "true," because it would be impossible for it to be "false" because there would be no Rosa to say so.

Sweetie, what are you on, and can you share it around more in future??


Look, I gotta soft spot for Sartre so please, spare him, mmkay?

Only if you spell his name "Satire".

[Epoche]

Sweetie, what are you on

Two iced mochas, Frank Zappa, and some of the kindest bud you could ever smoke.

(my friend has some home-grown. These buds were loved and cared for, Rosa, unlike the treatment I get around here.)

[Epoche]

You're not ready for Sartre, Rosa.

In good time, Triple M.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


You're not ready for Sartre, Rosa.

In good time, Triple M.

Correct, I'll book the lobotomy tomorrow.

[Epoche]

"Put the ball in the basket, chief!"- McMurphy

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

EP:


"Put the ball in the basket, chief!"- McMurphy

I can see what reading Sartre does for one; thanks for the indirect warning!

[Bretty123]

Well I've exhausted as much criticisms as you have made possible. I think their ideas make sense but you just don't agree with them making sense because they don't agree with what you believe. This is okay. It is not nonsense though.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


Well I've exhausted as much criticisms as you have made possible. I think their ideas make sense but you just don't agree with them making sense because they don't agree with what you believe. This is okay. It is not nonsense though.

You need to remember I am using the word 'nonsense', not in a judgemental sense (as in 'ridiculous', 'rubbish', or 'absurd'), but in a technical Wittgensteinian sense (pertaining to what he called 'logical grammar').


This is one of the most difficult areas of his work, and scholars are still working on it.

It is roughly based on the idea that in the past theorists confused what are in effect merely rules for the use of words with super-empirical theses about reality.

Such theses were either necessarily true or they were necessarily false (as the case may be). If so, their necessity ruled out one of these semantic possibilites. So, if the thesis was necessarily true, it ruled out the possibilty that it was false.

But, in that case it undermined itself, for if something could not be false, then saying it was true had no content, for it was then unclear what was being ruled out for it to be true (and vice versa if it were false).

Now I try to outline this argument in the summary to Essay Twelve (link below), but this partially lies behind the reason why I reject all of traditional philosophy as nonsensical.

In turn, this depends on W's description of the sense of empirical propositions; if they have no truth conditions, they are senseless; if they can be given none (for whatever reason) they are nonsensical. And that is the sense in which I am using it.

That, of course, does not address things like ethics.

I do not enter into this topic at all (not because it is not important, but because it is of no immediate concern for me in the work I am doing).

However, I have to say that ethical theory, since it is an off-shoot of mainstream traditional philosophy, has fed off the sorts of logico-linguistic errors the latter has always made.

The argument is far more messy, but the upshot is the same, all the concerns of traditional philosophy are nonsensical since thay misconstrue rules for the use of words with superscientific truths about reality, or with super-valid moral maxims, etc.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

[Bretty123]

Are there any criticisms on Wittgenstein that affect your work and his?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, there are loads, but all of them (or all I have seen) fail to understand the Tractatus, and hence fail to understand W.

[Bretty123]

How is it that he chooses to speak in such ordinary language yet nobody can understand him?

Also, if one argues that things are by choice(free will) or determined by conditions(determinism) and one or the other is true or false then how is it possible that they are empty terms? I understand that things like a priori cartesian ideas are impossible to prove and their truth lies only on the meaning of the word itself(read part of your essay twelve) but what about possibilities of them being true for things like choice or determined?

This Wittgenstein character is starting to interest me, I might end up buying his book and jumping right into it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Determinism may or may not be true, but I am inclined to believe it is as to say otherwise, to me atleast, is to deny causation as a universal principle. The problem is, however, a lack (to my knowedge) of a scientific or philosophical proof of causation. Based on individual observation, I feel there must be one as no logical alternative has been presented.

Free will is semantics and really isn't free. People think they have the ability to choose more than one thing in a given situation. They do not, necessarily, because whatever they choose is determined by prior factors. Furthermore, if determinism is incorrect, randomness is the current alterative, which also denies the concept of free will.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty;


How is it that he chooses to speak in such ordinary language yet nobody can understand him?

His emphasis on ordinary language was in his later work.


Also, if one argues that things are by choice(free will) or determined by conditions(determinism) and one or the other is true or false then how is it possible that they are empty terms? I understand that things like a priori cartesian ideas are impossible to prove and their truth lies only on the meaning of the word itself(read part of your essay twelve) but what about possibilities of them being true for things like choice or determined?

We went over this in an earlier thread.


I might end up buying his book and jumping right into it.

You need to avoid the Tractatus; it is one of the most difficult books ever written.

Begin with the 'Blue Book'.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 5 2006, 02:45 AM



I might end up buying his book and jumping right into it.

You need to avoid the Tractatus; it is one of the most difficult books ever written.

Begin with the 'Blue Book'.
i read the Tractatus a couple months ago. i wrote an essay which contained criticism on Wittgenstein's notion of logical sybolism. it's in this forum under the title meaning of life stuff.

[Bretty123]

Why would i want to avoid it? I'll have to read it at some point.

[Jesus Christ!]

"Philosophy is to life as masturbation is to sex"-Marx

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ!@Aug 5 2006, 05:35 AM
"Philosophy is to life as masturbation is to sex"-Marx
That’s not the actual quote, does anyone remember where it’s from though. I’ve read it before in the original but I can’t remember.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


Why would i want to avoid it? I'll have to read it at some point.

I meant, do not try to start with it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Monty it's from The German Ideology:

"Masturbation is to sex as philosophy is to reality."

'Philosophy stands in the same relation to the study of the actual world as masturbation to sexual love.'

— Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology

http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/marx-skeptic.html

It depends on which transaltion you use, the exact wording.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

I quote it (and other passages) to show that, at least in his early work, Marx agreed with me.

[mr_brit]

Ok I’m new here so bare with me lol

well philosophy to me is just a people writing crap tbh, never really got on with people who do it as there major and never ever seen a point to it, as I am doing aerospace engineering and I think of everything as proven or not proven or improbable, it has no use in my field of work, which in its purest form is science and maths, philosophy is useless for most other things as well and its a just a very outdated science (except ethic's) but then again ethics has been pretty much replaced with sociologists anyway.

the only real use of philosophy really is to expand your knowledge of things (in which I normally hate because people doing act like fucking smart arse's lol) but still some of the great minds of the 20th century did it, it let them expand there field of view to what they where doing.

[da_prole]

There isn't a point. That's the point of philosophy.

;)