Philosophy

[poopie boy]

So what thinkers do you guys enjoy reading?

I enjoy Nietzsche, Levinas, Badiou is dope, too.

Old Skool thinkers I enjoy are Spinoza and some Marx is dope, too.

Rawls is pretty interesting as well.

Any of you guys read other shit thats dope? Or have anything to say about thinkers I posted?

Word..

Oh! Edit: also talk about any philosophical ideas or questions you've had recently... it'd be interesting to talk about, even if you aren't really familiar with philosophical thought, just post anyway.

[ProfMonnitoff]

what would happen...

if u launched a ball of weed...

the size of the sun...

into the sun???

[poopie boy]

as the ball of weed began to travel towards the sun, the sun's rays would begin to burn at the ball of weed. by the time the ball of weed actually reached the sun, we would all be high as fuck.

everybody would be high as fuck due to unavoidable contact smoke being sent at us within the sun's rays.

because the sun is much more dense than the ball of weed, the ball of weed would not make such a large impact into the sun, but will burn tenderly until its demise.

after we are all high as fuck for a period of several thousands of years. we will develop a technology to travel to the sun and smoke out the marijuana resin located on the sun's surface.

i'm no scientist, but i think that's how it'd go down.

[Gil Belford]

just think of the munchies that would create.

[jmayhew]

I've been reading a lot of post-modernist shit (Foucault, Nietzsche, etc.) and in a holistic view, everything becomes such a mindfuck because it's not studying cause and effect but rather all the different relationships power has within society and once you break it all down, everything is so interrelated you can't even begin to trace the steps of any action.

[linkejeuk]

There have been some philosophy threads before on here, they never became very interesting though. don't know if your able to search for them in this recent mess.

[shagnscoob]

im all up on epistemology.

but based on recent papers ive writtern:

presentism --> dumb.

free will --> strictly speaking there is none, but the sufficient causes allow us to do what we want to, so kind of.

induction --> doesn't work, no way no how.

[poopie boy]

I've been reading a lot of post-modernist shit (Foucault, Nietzsche, etc.) and in a holistic view, everything becomes such a mindfuck because it's not studying cause and effect but rather all the different relationships power has within society and once you break it all down, everything is so interrelated you can't even begin to trace the steps of any action.

word. everything is so interrelated.. nietzsche was on some shit for real. dude made me hate philosophy and socrates. its wack real talk.

still very interesting, although wack.

[Gil Belford]

im all up on epistemology.

but based on recent papers ive writtern:

presentism --> dumb.

free will --> strictly speaking there is none, but the sufficient causes allow us to do what we want to, so kind of.

induction --> doesn't work, no way no how.

I'd be very interested in hearing why you think that free will does not exist.

I'm being serious by the way.

[ProfMonnitoff]

i'm still not very far into philosophy (not studying it at school but reading a fair bit on my own), but so far it seems like I'd really like to meed Adorno and talk about life over a beer or two. Dude really appeals to me.

Also, not really philosophy, but "The Masculine Self" by Christopher Kilmartin probably did more for my personal development than any other text.

[captain5640]

What about Pluralism? Currently reading the book of the same title by William Connolly.

[superdupersang]

im a devout dualist

whos with me on this one!!

[MirrorLockUp]

I'd be very interested in hearing why you think that free will does not exist.

I'm being serious by the way.

It'd probably make more sense for you to explain why you think free will does exist.

Clearly there are all sorts of literal impediments to our freedoms. Laws exist in society that often stop me from doing something I might want to do, like drive 80 mph on a 65 mph highway. People have to pay for rent and food and other bills so typically people need to work, which comes with all sorts of expectations of where you need to be at what time and what you need to be doing.

Add to that all sorts of social forces that coerce us in less obvious ways. Rules of etiquette and fashion. Gender roles. Race relations. Etc.

But let's even imagine that you disregarded all of these rules and just did what makes you "happy." Is this really being free? When we get hungry, we eat. Is our desire to eat really an expression of free will? Similarly, there is a psychological/biological imperative to maximize happiness (i.e. it makes us feel good), so is it really an expression of free will or is it just our will responding to a psychological/biological need? It would actually be a clearer sign of free will if we did something that specifically made us unhappy, but no one does that. And I'm not talking about preservation of life here. People often sacrifice their physical or mental well being for others, but that's typically because they get a sense of satisfaction out of doing so. It'd be more of a sign of free will if we sacrificed ourselves for someone we really despised, but again, no one does that. Or so the logic goes.

I'm not so much concerned with whether humans truly have free will or not. If I'm doing the things that make me happy, that's enough for me. I'm even willing to accept certain rules/norms/limitations that hinder my pursuit of happiness because they result in a more ordered and just society. The way I conceptualize it is we're all living on an island. There's plenty of stuff to do on the island, in fact so much stuff that we probably can't exhaust the possible activities to do in our lifetime. Sure, there might be something out there over the water - perhaps another island, or even a continent, or something else entirely - but if we spend all our days standing along the shore trying to figure out how to escape we won't get the opportunity to try nearly as much of the stuff that's available on the island.

[superdupersang]

no offence, but mirrorlockup, your argument doesnt sound like you hvae read that much about the philosophical arguments behind free will.

the concept of free will is that it is the opposite of a pre-destined path.

therefore, are we following a path set out in front of us or are we making that path?

[Tea]

Personal favourites;

Jean Paul Satre - Existentialism and Humanism

Peter Singer - Animal Liberation

Where to start with Nietzche?

[ProfMonnitoff]

i hate to crap on a predominant theme of philosophy but the free will vs determinism debate is dumb as hell from beginning to end

[captain5640]

MirrorLockUp, why is it free will when someone sacrifices themselves for another? They are just as free to not sacrifice themselves for another.

In terms of following a path set out in front of us rather than one that is "pre-destined," this make much more sense to me. But where is this pre-destined path coming from? God? Your innate sense of being? Your parents guidance? What if you believe that this path simply comes from within at any given moment, does this mean that is is then pre-destined?

I have not studied free will so these are simple questions that I would like some responses to. Feel free to correct me wherever I may be wrong.

[shagnscoob]

I'd be very interested in hearing why you think that free will does not exist.

I'm being serious by the way.

Well I have a lot of issues with the jargon of philosophy first of all. "Free Will" to me exists because we do what we want when we want. But strictly speaking it seems that sufficient causes cause all of our actions/feelings which can be traced back ad infinitum. If I eat cake, it's because I'm hungry, and because there was a cake in the fridge, because at the store I didn't want pie, because when I was a kid I didn't like pie, etc... Paul Ree suggested that we differentiate between actual states and potential states. I could potentially close this window, or jump around my room squawking like a chicken, or smash my computer, but there are no sufficient causes to do any of that, so my ACTUAL state is... replying to your message and then going to class.

[jack napier]

I enjoy Nietzsche, Levinas, Badiou is dope, too.

Old Skool thinkers I enjoy are Spinoza and some Marx is dope, too.

Rawls is pretty interesting as well.

How do you go about reconciling Levinas with Nietzsche? Those are two diametrically opposed thinkers in a large number of ways... I mean, enjoying them in a literary fashion is one thing, but subscribing to both philosophically is a bit fantastic.

I've been reading a lot of post-modernist shit (Foucault, Nietzsche, etc.) and in a holistic view, everything becomes such a mindfuck because it's not studying cause and effect but rather all the different relationships power has within society and once you break it all down, everything is so interrelated you can't even begin to trace the steps of any action.

Nietzsche is not post-modern, he's modern (no-elitist). But Foucault's archeology, etc. is definitely a good thing to follow Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals with. If you want to take interrelation to the next level read Derrida's 'Structure, Sign, and Play' for a start.

i'm still not very far into philosophy (not studying it at school but reading a fair bit on my own), but so far it seems like I'd really like to meed Adorno and talk about life over a beer or two. Dude really appeals to me.

Adorno was definitely a badass, but unless you're into prickley and beyond cynical old men, I don't know how great he'd be to hang out with. His critiques of Jazz music are just ridiculous. What have you read? The 'Dialectic of Enlightenment' with Horkheimer is one of my favourites.

Some of my favourites:

Derrida:

- Writing and Difference

- The Ends of Man from 'Margins of Philosophy'

- Abraham the Other (I think this was translated only recently. For those interested in the Jewish aspect of his thought, which is in retrospect, absolutely crucial, you ought to read this)

Frankfurt School

- Dialectic of Enlightenment

- Soon to start on some Habermas

Others:

- Story of the Eye, Georges Bataille (great in light of Nietzsche)

- Society of the Spectacle / The Revolution of Every Day Life - Debord / Vanegeim

Recently Finished:

- The Star of Redemption, Franz Rosenzweig

- Religion of Reason, Hermann Cohen (an absolutely monstrous book. would not reccomend unless you're into neo-Kantian, religious rhetoric)

- The Critique of Pure Reason, Kant. Obviously needs to explanation... and despite my dislike of Kantian ethics, this book is just unreal.

Reading in the near future:

- Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel

- Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, Kant

Reading in the indeterminately near future:

- History of Sexuality vol. 1, Foucault (started, but school killed my spare time)

- The Order of Things, Foucault (same reasons as above)

- S/Z, Roland Barthes

- Simulacra and Simulation, Baudrillard (also started, but shelved for now)

- The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt

- Illuminations, Walter Benjamin

- Of Grammatology, Derrida

- The Sublime Object of Ideology, Slavoj Zizek

- Some supplementary Lacan...

So much I want to read, but no time. Fuck life.

[jack napier]

Also, I'm aware of how pompous most of that post was, so apologies in advance.

[MirrorLockUp]

no offence, but mirrorlockup, your argument doesnt sound like you hvae read that much about the philosophical arguments behind free will.

the concept of free will is that it is the opposite of a pre-destined path.

therefore, are we following a path set out in front of us or are we making that path?

That's pretty much what I said, but you're replacing my argument with a "path" analogy. What do you mean by "are we making that path?" At a more specific level, I assume you mean that we make independent spontaneous choices rather than having our choices already determined by an outside force. I'm saying that there are any number of outside forces that "make" the path set out in front of us and force us to walk it. Some might say that outside force is God. Some might say it is society. Some might say it is biology. If you're walking along a "path set out in front of you" and then you decide to step off the path and walk through the woods, is this really some pure free independent spontaneous decision? Or does it occur because somewhere in your brain something physical/biological happens that tells you it'd be more fun or rewarding to "make that path?" I was more thinking about this in terms of ethics/morals (i.e Kant). But that's just the last thing I've read on the subject, so forgive me if it wasn't what you had in mind.

There are kind of two levels to think about. Freedom of action and freedom of behavior. Both can be connected to 'free will.' Clearly we have a fairly large amount of freedom to do what we choose to do. I can stay awake and get some more work done, or I can go to bed. Even if I know I "should" stay awake, I can still choose to sleep, but do we arrive at those choices freely? We can deviate from the path set out in front of us, but do we freely arrive at the decision to deviate?

[jack napier]

That's pretty much what I said, but you're replacing my argument with a "path" analogy. What do you mean by "are we making that path?" At a more specific level, I assume you mean that we make independent spontaneous choices rather than having our choices already determined by an outside force. I'm saying that there are any number of outside forces that "make" the path set out in front of us and force us to walk it. Some might say that outside force is God. Some might say it is society. Some might say it is biology. If you're walking along a "path set out in front of you" and then you decide to step off the path and walk through the woods, is this really some pure free independent spontaneous decision? Or does it occur because somewhere in your brain something physical/biological happens that tells you it'd be more fun or rewarding to "make that path?" I was more thinking about this in terms of ethics/morals (i.e Kant). But that's just the last thing I've read on the subject, so forgive me if it wasn't what you had in mind.

There are kind of two levels to think about. Freedom of action and freedom of behavior. Both can be connected to 'free will.' Clearly we have a fairly large amount of freedom to do what we choose to do. I can stay awake and get some more work done, or I can go to bed. Even if I know I "should" stay awake, I can still choose to sleep, but do we arrive at those choices freely? We can deviate from the path set out in front of us, but do we freely arrive at the decision to deviate?

No, 'superdangsang' is right. Most of that is pseudo-philosophical bumbling, and you don't appear to understand what Kant means at all.

That entire post makes my brain hurt. Maybe you have some kernel of truth in that post... but it's exceedingly hard to find, and if there, it's totally obscured by muddy writing.

[Clockwork_killa]

Im sure I posted in this thread yesterday:confused:

Anyway, Simulacra and Simulation is a very interesting read, as is pretty much anything Baudrillard has written on the topic of hyper-reality.

[6MT]

krishnamurti is very interesting, but he is very questionable in another way.

[poopie boy]

Personal favourites;

Jean Paul Satre - Existentialism and Humanism

Peter Singer - Animal Liberation

Where to start with Nietzche?

I'd start with the Gay Science, or more specifically, the Death of God essay. I'd start here because this is Nietzsche's whole premise:

You realize God doesn't exist, all of your religions, customs, belief system etc. fall apart and you have nothing left. nihilism. Nietzsche's whole game is, where do you go from nihilism? This nihilism is your potentiality to live. Now without all of these religions, customs, belief system etc. to hold you back, you can live life for what it is. You can "say yes to life."

Nietzsche is a beautiful writer to read, one that brings great joy, seriously.

As far as Levinas and why I tie him into Nietzsche is because he is also an existentialist! He is also speaking of this huge interruption in your life where the Other comes to you. Its the same type of shock and the same "where do i go from here?" kind of mindset. Of course, Levinas takes a completely different path, but so does Heidegger and Derrida.

[linkejeuk]

most philosophy related threads and posts on public message boards are pretty bad, this one is not an exception. it makes me dislike being interested in philosophy.

[poopie boy]

Also, I'm aware of how pompous most of that post was, so apologies in advance.

you don't come off as pompous, you come off as a new jack for thinking Nietzsche is modern and not post modern and for titling Derrida's book "Writing and Difference" instead of Writing and Differånce"

haha.

I'm just joking of course, I honestly wouldn't categorize Nietzsche as any category.. He was just way too out there to be pinned down to something.

[jack napier]

I own the book, it's on the bookshelf right next to me... there is no accent aigu in the title there, nor in any other edition.

And for the sake of brevity, Nietzsche is, strictly speaking, 'modern.' This was a specific period of time. I don't care to lump classifications on philosophy, but that's simply a historical definition.

And for Levinas and Nietzsche, I don't think you can reconcile the moment of first philosophy at all. They might be both 'existentialist' (whatever that's supposed to mean), but one is an expression of responsibility to the Other, and the other is the domination of the Other by the strong will... Like I said, literary value there's lots to be had, but when concerned with the central thought, it's really a binary choice.

But to weigh in on where I think you should start with Nietzsche, you should read "On the Genealogy of Morals." Be wary of the Kaufmann translation... on the plus side, you get Ecce Homo with it, but on the negative side, he tries too hard to promote a non-offensive version of Nietzsche. The German is generally fine... but it would be good to remember that Nietzsche was deliberately offensive.

Why read this first? It's easily the most straightforward introduction to his style, and the place where his philosophy is laid the most threadbare. So, this should lend his broad course of thougth out, and make it easier to approach the other texts. And of course it's very funny and all that...

Anyways, linkejeuk is completely right, I feel somewhat filthy for engaging in this over the internet. I probably shouldn't post this, but I will anyways.

[jack napier]

I honestly wouldn't categorize Nietzsche as any category.

Oh, but I agree with this, and will now abstain from internet douchebaggery - somehow this sort of discussion always comes across as the kind of bullshit drunken idiots talk about at parties.

[poopie boy]

haha it seriously does... but i think its still cool if we all know we're not trying to come off this way. I have the Derrida book, too. Mine says Differánce. Weird.

I really liked reading Nietzsche because it made me realize that philosophy is utterly useless in the real world. It does, however, culture my 'mental world' (allows me to see the world in different ways) and is just interesting overall.

I guess you could say its like music. I know how to play guitar, but that doesn't make me a better person or anything, just makes me someone who can play guitar. Wow, big deal. Reading philosophy, I feel, doesn't make me a smarter person or more sophisticated, 'better' person, just makes me some other loser who likes to think about weird shit.

I don't really see any douchebaggery or snobbiness in discussing it. Its only abnoxious when you talk like you KNOW THE ANSWER.

Anyway, I got a question for you guys that I have been thinking about recently... obviously, I'm not looking for any right answer, just hearing yalls opinions will be nice enough. Here goes:

We as human beings always ask ourselves "What is my purpose in life?" and "Why am i here?" But when I stopped to think about it, I thought,

'Hm, what a universal thought. Everyone thinks about that shit. I wonder if there has ever been anyone who never thought about it. Well, sure there has.. There has to have been? Maybe egyptian slaves who never knew how to read, write, or even think for themselves, just slaved all day. Their only concern was if they'd get food to eat that night. Surely there must have been some of them to whom the question "Why was I put on earth?" never crossed their minds. If you don't think so, well, obviously, babies, infants, etc. who died before they could reach the mental coherence to ask themselves such a 'profound' question.'

Sooooo.... if there have been lives which have been lived without that purpose in mind, then its obviously not one of the reasons we do exist. We are not here to find our purpose, and thus are not put here FOR a purpose. If so, then WHY THE FUCK ARE WE HERE?

Hmm.. feel free to make fun of my thought all you want, too. I don't really care.. I'm just bored as fuck in class and thought about this...