Philosophy

[captain5640]

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

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?

First of all, I like your statement of it's only obnoxious if you talk like you know the answer. I 100% agree with this. If someone truly knew the answer, then everything would come to an end. Which leads into your question of "Why the fuck are we here?" I believe that we are here because we are trying to answer that same question. Because there are so many circumstances, situations, and ideas in the world, we will never know or have the answers to all. But the ability to try and comprehend these situations is what keeps us here, and why we are here in the first place. I think it can almost be looked at as a test. To pass that test you need to contribute something. This contribution does not have to be of astronomical significance, but it should be significant in your life. There will always be someone questioning someone else, but honestly, fuck them. We are here to make a place for ourselves on a singular level. If your place contributes to another person's learning or ascension, then great. But as long as you feel that you have done enough for yourself and answered your own question of why "you" are here not why "we" are here. Then the question has been answered.

[domdomdomdom]

Personal favourites;

Peter Singer - Animal Liberation

forget nietzche for now, i dont like peter singer. i dont find suffering to wholly equate to sentience which would make them equal to us on that level

[thomparetta]

I participated in the last philosophy thread that went around. it's a shame that i can't seem to locate it in the abyss that is the new superfuture, but nonetheless i will participate in this one as well.

i'm a junior working toward a bachelor in philosophy.

some courses i have taken include

kant

philosophy of mind

space time and god

phenomenology

epistemology

aesthetics

and i've done extensive professor-lead immersion studies on Husserl, Heidegger, Kant, Sartre, and others.

next semester i will be studying nietzsche and logic....!

if anyone has any questions regarding any of the following subjects i will do my best to suggest some reading or provide a particular philosophical perspective of it

for the fellow studying epistemology, i wrote a paper discussing why Bonjour's Holistic Coherentism ultimately fails due to extended demon hypotheses, a priori metajustification, etc. as observed by Miriam Solomon.

but i also found a deeper intrinsic problem regarding when the truth conferrence occurs for Bonjour, since he believes that "the equally justified threads will diverge and one holistic system will converge on truth"

THIS METHOD ONLY RESULTS IN TRUTH recognizable in the future! it ends up becoming like marxist historiography, with the subject working and investing faith toward a future which he will never see...

if you'd like to see the essay i would be willing to message it to you.

i also have had no luck finding a satisfactory method of truth conferrence through epistemological constructs. no defeaters, coherentism, reliablism, foundationalism all fail.

[semper]

Bumping this thread because:

Creationists base it all on Nessie

How very sad.

[Lendo]

ur5fGSBsfq8

[patrill]

http://twitter.com/zizekspeaks

also, http://a.aaaarg.org/

[jack napier]

fuck, my posts in this thread suck.

[back211]

anyone wanna talk about the next level on consciesnous in societal point of view, that the next transfromation from capitalism and democracy with heavy incorporation of socialism, or communism all together as a next level of developement as a society. I believe this was either marx or hegel.

I find philosphy interesting cuz it DOES make you smarter, and reading philosophy gives you a better backround for rhetoric and ethics. Especially with a relativist rampant society ethics and morales and being put down more and more as making profit replaces morals and ethics.

also i believe philosphy is a dying art, the p in PHD is philosophy, and also the lack of emphasis on philosophy in modern teaching is also downfall of moral and ethics as well as destroying of analytic thinking and logical thinking.

[into the rain]

woah bump for any philosophers up in sufu

[destructodisk]

somebody disprove epiphenomenalism for me.. I'm starting to believe there's a zombie-class of humans, and that's awfully cynical.

where my zombies @?

[into the rain]

my scholarship in the analytic philosophy of mind is more than lacking, but epiphenomenalism just sounds wrong on an intuitive level. that physical events do not have any antecedent mental events is really a crazy position to hold. i mean, think about it: to make the claim that a person's physical behaviors and actions are completely unaffected by whatever mental state (e.g., depression, joy, anxiety, etc.) he is in is fucking crazy.

but you should know that the epiphenomenalist view (and the problem of mind-body interaction in general) is only relevant for the few that still endorse substance dualism a la descartes. there is only a handful of contemporary philosophers of mind, to my knowledge, who ascribe to that view. most of the work is done by those who endorse property dualism.

[destructodisk]

I agree with you that it doesn't seem to add up entirely from our experiential view, but it's more of what we can't prove about consciousness that lends validity to epiphenomenalism.

Some would say that decision making (or mental events to keep with the vernacular) is an epiphenomenon itself, and that it's really split-second physical reactions within our brain that lend to a sort of grand illusion of consciousness and belief in mental events that guide our physical response. This would take mental events out of the equation essentially, and reduce life for some to a linear experience dictated only by physical events -- sort of like an ant, or sheep (or zombie!).

I don't necessarily believe all humans operate like this, but it would sure explain a lot about how people behave if some, or many did.

I feel like there is so much more I need to go into in order to properly explain what I'm getting at, but alas, a joint beckons.

[into the rain]

shit, i could really use the joint!

but to the issue at hand: i will admit that argument from intuition is generally a poor one; but that is also the case for arguments made from a lack of evidence. just because we have no proofs about X cannot be the basis for the legitimacy of any argument Y.

now, as ive mentioned before, analytic philosophy of mind is neither my area of expertise nor competence; so i apologize ahead for any errors and/or assumptions made on my part - please feel free to correct me where needed.

from my understanding, the central argument of epiphenomenalism is that all mental events are merely byproducts of physical events, rendering everything into a material process. to me, it seems much like what william james wrote about emotions. we dont sweat or tremble because we feel fear; rather, we have the mental event of fear because of those antecedent physical events (sweating, trembling, heart beating faster, etc, caused by some external physical stimulus, e.g., seeing a stranger in the dark with a knife).

but consider this (and for this i will assume you are not some jesus-freak, christian fundamentalist): the human species originally began as a very simple, purely physical entity, behaving much in the fashion of an ant or a zombie, as it were.

but even though such a materially operating being may be our ancestor, it is clear to us that we now have something we call a "mind" with its distinctive set of mental properties such as emotions, ideas, volitions, etc. then the question we have to ask is this: why the difference? how is it that we have developed into a being with a mind from a species that originally did not have a mind, if the mind has no effective role in making any causal difference as the epiphenomenalist says?

our current species, i.e., one that has a mind, survived and developed over time in a Darwinian fashion precisely because of the fact that having a mind made a significant causal difference than those of our ancestry who were purely physical operated entities.

but even without relying on an argument from evolution, epiphenomenalism can be further problematized by considering aesthetics: if epiphenomenalism is true, then EVERY SINGLE TIME we watch a particular film, listen to a musical piece, observe any form of plastic art, we would have the exact same mental event, i.e., the same reaction. do you think this is really plausible? i can think of countless instances in which my reaction to a particular film differed by the particular mood (mental state) i was in. at times i was angry, but at another time i was sad, each event having a different bodily reaction (heart pacing faster in the former, getting teary-eyed in the latter). in other words, all our aesthetic experiences are done with the viewer engaging with the work of art with a particular set of mental states. put simply, mental events are a causal factor in any aesthetic experience.

the absurdity of epiphenomenalism is that it is completely one-sided, in my opinion. and its systematic rigidity and one-sidedness cant possibly take into account how people can have different reactions at different times to the same exact physical event.

maybe i dont know what the fuck im talking about, and this is certainly possible as my knowledge in philosophy of mind is severely lacking; but i hope ive made some convincing objections.

[destructodisk]

this is a post which i will edit with a response that i will create when i am not making music/high/drawing/drinking/other reason i stopped going to philosophy classes

[phive-oh-won]

anybody know anything about predicate logic? I was bored/avoiding working on an ethics paper so...

dolla dolla bill, ya'll

feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Symbolic Logic is kicking my ass/destroying my GPA currently

[condothecloud]

Scholars and visionaries:

The late Manly Palmer Hall is one who has provided me with a strength of knowledge pertaining to ideas as various as Ethics, War & Peace, Enlightenment, etc...

Please share some of your inspirations. Thanks to all.

[wayoutwest]

I like a lot of Peter Singer's stuff. Heavy Petting might change your opinion on bestiality.

[denimdestroyedmylife]

^ i've been meaning to get back to p. singer

it has been ages since i've read him; animal liberation was crucial to me when i started going vegetarian (about 18 years ago?), now it is just habit

[lil brown brother]

bordering on political but still philosophical ..

[jackg]

more of this thread please....current obsession Rand

The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962.

by Ayn Rand

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

• Metaphysics Objective Reality
  
• Epistemology Reason
  
• Ethics Self-interest
  
• Politics Capitalism
  

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed†or “Wishing won’t make it so.†2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.†3. “Man is an end in himself.†4. “Give me liberty or give me death.â€

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

• Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
  
• Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
  
• Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his ownhappiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
  
• The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The governmentacts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
  

• 
  

Edited September 5, 2012 by jackg

[jackg]

[kelleydenham]

I find Rand interesting because I deeply agree with her first 2 points of objective reality and reason, yet at the same time completely disagree with her last 2 points of self interest and Laissez-faire Capitalism

[bfan]

I think growing up in the soviet union deeply influenced rand. I think she's 'popular' precisely because she espouses this pro capitalist viewpoint which is so in line with our world today. honestly I didn't get much out of atlas shrugged, I read it years ago and the whole thing about these benevolent capitalists who will triumph over all just seems like so much more propaganda flying in the face of what really happens in the so called laissez faire

[x2br00tal4ux]

Does anyone here have or are working towards a degree in philosophy?

If so, what the fuck do you do for a living?

I'm in my senior year of school and the only feasible future for my philosophy degree is grad school.

[Hocus Pocus]

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

Edited June 18, 2013 by Hocus Pocus

[jackg]

I definitely don't subscribe to rand verbatim, I simply find some of her views interesting and maybe that stems from their difference from traditional philosophical standpoints.

[Hocus Pocus]

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

Edited June 18, 2013 by Hocus Pocus

[kelleydenham]

Finished Descartes earlier in the week. Class only went over the first 3 meditations so I have yet to read the others. Idk, I enjoyed the 1st meditation, but I found the 2nd and 3rd to be much weaker (specifically the 3rd). I found that he began to assume too many things, and that many of his conclusions can be easily debunked with modern science.

[Ignaurus]

Does anyone here have or are working towards a degree in philosophy?

If so, what the fuck do you do for a living?

I'm in my senior year of school and the only feasible future for my philosophy degree is grad school.

I have a BA in Philosophy and recently landed a very good job with a good company, 2.5 years after graduating. I saw myself going to grad school but just ended up working my ass off after I graduated and using my degree as something positive to put on a resume. Studying philosophy was life changing and incredibly rewarding, I don't think I would change a thing about the path I took. I loved going to school and I'd love to pursue a masters later in life.

[conqueror]

singer is cool but there are some major views of his that i find really disturbing and can't agree with him on whatsoever (i.e. kids born with disabilities). i've done a few philosophy courses as part of my psych degree, i particularly liked one looking at morality (what is it, where does it stem from, why do we class some things as morally right/wrong etc) and another revolving around aesthetics and what is perceived as beauty - wrote my major paper on japanese street fashion.

Edited September 19, 2012 by conqueror