Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 73

Thread: Is philosophy relevant anymore?

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Plato's dialogues were reworkings of whatever Socrates was doing when he talked to people.
    Which yours truly thinks was structuring premises.

    It is not the dialogues but the act of talking with others that is important here and talking to each other is what we are doing now. We are not writing dialogues but we are part of a dialog which is what I think Socrates was originally doing.
    Disagree. Interpret the dialogues as a guised philosophical system. Kind of fitting, actually, when you think about the marriage of rhetoric and reason.

    I suspect the dichotomy between emotive and logical is false. It is not Captain Kirk and Spock. We aren't one or the other when we talk and perhaps we are neither depending on what those words are supposed to mean.
    Also disagree here. Hume wrote that reason is motive. That's a powerful idea. While it may not be a dichotomy between 'logic and emotions,' Jack of Hearts offers firstly emotion. Mostly emotion. Almost entirely emotion.

    What is the value of entertainment? Not necessarily to soothe, but to enlighten, because you provide me with something new that I would not have come up with on my own without you. That entertains and enlightens.
    As spontaneous and controllable as what you might experience if you just shut your eyes and measured your thoughts. Which philosopher wrote about us all as survivors in a shipwreck with just enough for each of us to float on our own debris; not a pinch more for our 'truth' or philosophy? Emerson.






    J

  2. #32
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts View Post
    Which yours truly thinks was structuring premises.
    I don't understand what you are trying to say here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts View Post
    Disagree. Interpret the dialogues as a guised philosophical system. Kind of fitting, actually, when you think about the marriage of rhetoric and reason.
    I agree that the dialogues that Plato wrote are a philosophical system. What I am suggesting is that what Socrates actually did was more like what we do in these threads. We don't know where it will lead us and we need and use each other as a means to challenge us beyond our limited perspectives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts View Post
    Also disagree here. Hume wrote that reason is motive. That's a powerful idea. While it may not be a dichotomy between 'logic and emotions,' Jack of Hearts offers firstly emotion. Mostly emotion. Almost entirely emotion.
    I am not sure if I agree or not with you.

    I am suspicious of dichotomies of which logic and emotions are one. They are cultural simplifications. Another dichotomy is determinism and chance. I don't think either determinism or chance exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts View Post
    As spontaneous and controllable as what you might experience if you just shut your eyes and measured your thoughts. Which philosopher wrote about us all as survivors in a shipwreck with just enough for each of us to float on our own debris; not a pinch more for our 'truth' or philosophy? Emerson.
    I am not following you. However, I disagree with the "shipwreck" and "debris" metaphors. Why use negative metaphors to describe your humanity?

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    9
    There has been a lot of debates surrounding this for the past several years. Progress is also contingent upon getting things wrong, and ideas/theories can be proven to be correct at a later date. There are some philosophical theory that is counter intuitive to materialistic sciences in regards to ontology, but, I believe that it provides plenty of uses to cognition, metaphysics, and other branches such as history that give us new insight.

  4. #34
    Registered User EmptySeraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    I'll admit when I read Cioran it was in French and I don't understand that language as well as English, but the example you provided of his writing in English makes me think I understood him well enough. He is not worth reading but if you would like to discuss him, I would be willing to do so.
    How bold an affirmation! Surely this inflexion of the voice, that is easily recognisable even in writing and which emerges as an evidence for one's convictions, is placed on a very solid foundation that, obviously, allows the uttering of such lamentable assertions. Fear not, my irrecuperable enamoured by philosophy fellow, for I have just the adequate aphorism, coming from the same author, to counteract your turpitude.

    Aristote, Thomas d'Aquin, Hegel - trois asserviseurs de l'esprit. La pire form de despotisme est le système, en philosphie et en tout.

    This one is from De l'inconvénient d'être né, a book that, true to form, is comprised exclusively of aphorisms, of fragments, of disparate morphemes and of contradictions camouflaged as the debris of who knows what deranged thought. So, you're trying to analyse Cioran's work, ideas, style and, ultimately, system (what an emetic word!) from a purely objective position, as it ought to be done in philosophy, innit?! Look, for instance, what the author himself is saying about this eclectic way of writing and about his idiosyncratic remnants that, to some degree, resemble the great moralists (he is, in fact, the last one) in an interview later in his life:

    JW: The first time we met, you were saying that a writer's education must
    remain incomplete.
    EMC: Ah yes. A writer mustn't know things in depth. If he speaks of
    something, he shouldn't know everything about it, only the things that go
    with his temperament. He should not be objective. One can go into depth
    with a subject, but in a certain direction, not trying to cover the whole
    thing. For a writer the university is death.
    JW: Could you speak about the evolution of your use of the aphorism?
    Where does it come from?
    EMC: I'm not sure exactly. I think it was a phenomenon of laziness perhaps.
    You know, very often aphorisms have been the last sentence of a
    page. Aphorisms are conclusions, the development is suppressed, and they
    are what remains. It's a dubious genre, suspect, and it is rather French.
    The Germans, for example, only have Lichtenberg and Nietzsche, who
    got it from Chamfort and the moralists. For me it was mostly due to my
    dislike of developing things.
    JW: But what made you decide to use the aphorism for certain books and
    not others? Your second book, Syllogismes, was all aphorisms, though the
    first wasn't; for the next twenty years you hardly use them in your books,
    and then The Trouble with Being Born is all aphorisms too, as is much of
    Drawn and Quartered.
    EMC: Well, now I only write this kind of stuff, because explaining bores
    me terribly. That's why I say when I've written aphorisms it's because I've
    sunk back into fatigue-why bother? And so, the aphorism is scorned by
    "serious" people, professors look down upon it.
    JW: Because professors can't do anything with an aphorist.
    EMC: Absolutely not. When they read a book of aphorisms, they
    say, "Oh, look what this guy said ten pages back, now he's saying the
    contrary. He's not serious." I can put two aphorisms that are contradictory
    right next to each other. Aphorisms are also momentary truths.
    They're not decrees. And I could tell you in nearly every case why I wrote
    this or that phrase and when. It's always set in motion by an encounter,
    an incident, a fit of temper, but they all have a cause. It's not at all
    gratuitous.

    (JW stands for Jason Weiss and EMC for E.M. Cioran)

    I conclude by saying that Cioran must be understood only through empathy. He's merely an iconoclast, a skeptic that refutes all the dogmas, convictions and systems. You can only identify yourself with the author, suffer for him, or beside him (it depends on the reader, and on the sum of his afflictions), sketch a stupid grin and close his book because he's not offering answers, nor arguments. He's all about the questions, the big ones, or anyway, the ones that can torment one's peripatetic existence.
    Having said this, I've nothing more to add rather than another quote, but this time from a thinker whose ideas you probably hold in higher esteem, because of his predilection for logic, and I think you should keep it in mind as a means to restrain your potential further ignominies: ''Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.'' In this case, that is Cioran's, you should rest your case, for it's obvious you're not compatible with his style.

  5. #35
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Blanchot View Post
    There has been a lot of debates surrounding this for the past several years. Progress is also contingent upon getting things wrong, and ideas/theories can be proven to be correct at a later date. There are some philosophical theory that is counter intuitive to materialistic sciences in regards to ontology, but, I believe that it provides plenty of uses to cognition, metaphysics, and other branches such as history that give us new insight.
    Welcome, Blanchot! What philosophers do you find interesting? Or what science?

  6. #36
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post
    How bold an affirmation! Surely this inflexion of the voice, that is easily recognisable even in writing and which emerges as an evidence for one's convictions, is placed on a very solid foundation that, obviously, allows the uttering of such lamentable assertions. Fear not, my irrecuperable enamoured by philosophy fellow, for I have just the adequate aphorism, coming from the same author, to counteract your turpitude.
    I like your use of the words, "lamentable assertions". That is a perfect description of my view of Cioran's writing. He says nothing of value, but he does make pompous assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post
    Aristote, Thomas d'Aquin, Hegel - trois asserviseurs de l'esprit. La pire form de despotisme est le système, en philosphie et en tout.
    I don't read French very well. But Cioran is very easy for me to read. Le petit prince is more of a challenge for me than Cioran.

    Now examine that sentence critically. Did Cioran say anything? No. He didn't. Sure, he dropped three names but that is a rhetorical trick to make the gullible reader think he knows something. He then puts in "asserviseurs" and "despotisme" and "systeme" to add rhetorical scorn.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post
    This one is from De l'inconvénient d'être né, a book that, true to form, is comprised exclusively of aphorisms, of fragments, of disparate morphemes and of contradictions camouflaged as the debris of who knows what deranged thought. So, you're trying to analyse Cioran's work, ideas, style and, ultimately, system (what an emetic word!) from a purely objective position, as it ought to be done in philosophy, innit?!
    You are getting my position wrong. I don't think one can completely objectify subjectivity. However, that does not mean a philosopher is permitted to talk nonsense. I'm expecting Cioran to say something that I will be able to understand subjectively, one human being to another. I have no intention of uncritically accepting the Cioran catechism just because he happens to shoot his mouth.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post
    Look, for instance, what the author himself is saying about this eclectic way of writing and about his idiosyncratic remnants that, to some degree, resemble the great moralists (he is, in fact, the last one) in an interview later in his life:
    For Cioran to call himself the "last" or even a "great" moralist is outrageous self-promotion. As far as I'm concern he is neither. Here is an article that criticizes Cioran's more youthful antisemitism claiming that it "cannot be ignored": http://www.upm.ro/jrls/JRLS-05/Rls%2005%2071.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post
    JW: The first time we met, you were saying that a writer's education must
    remain incomplete.
    EMC: Ah yes. A writer mustn't know things in depth. If he speaks of
    something, he shouldn't know everything about it, only the things that go
    with his temperament. He should not be objective. One can go into depth
    with a subject, but in a certain direction, not trying to cover the whole
    thing. For a writer the university is death.
    Notice how Cioran jumps to a dubious conclusion about the university and death with no argument preceding it. Of course, this is the sort of "lamentable assertions" that Cioran serves to his devotees.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post
    JW: Could you speak about the evolution of your use of the aphorism?
    Where does it come from?
    EMC: I'm not sure exactly. I think it was a phenomenon of laziness perhaps.
    You know, very often aphorisms have been the last sentence of a
    page. Aphorisms are conclusions, the development is suppressed, and they
    are what remains. It's a dubious genre, suspect, and it is rather French.
    The Germans, for example, only have Lichtenberg and Nietzsche, who
    got it from Chamfort and the moralists. For me it was mostly due to my
    dislike of developing things.
    I agree with him that his approach is a form of laziness. However, I think more is true: he really doesn't know what he is talking about, but he needs to make the impression that he does.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post
    JW: But what made you decide to use the aphorism for certain books and
    not others? Your second book, Syllogismes, was all aphorisms, though the
    first wasn't; for the next twenty years you hardly use them in your books,
    and then The Trouble with Being Born is all aphorisms too, as is much of
    Drawn and Quartered.
    EMC: Well, now I only write this kind of stuff, because explaining bores
    me terribly. That's why I say when I've written aphorisms it's because I've
    sunk back into fatigue-why bother? And so, the aphorism is scorned by
    "serious" people, professors look down upon it.
    Aphorisms are the sort of bull one hears from politicians and incompetent philosophers who can't explain themselves.

    Note: I just made an assertion. Whether it is lamentable or not depends on the reader.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post
    JW: Because professors can't do anything with an aphorist.
    EMC: Absolutely not. When they read a book of aphorisms, they
    say, "Oh, look what this guy said ten pages back, now he's saying the
    contrary. He's not serious." I can put two aphorisms that are contradictory
    right next to each other. Aphorisms are also momentary truths.
    They're not decrees. And I could tell you in nearly every case why I wrote
    this or that phrase and when. It's always set in motion by an encounter,
    an incident, a fit of temper, but they all have a cause. It's not at all
    gratuitous.

    (JW stands for Jason Weiss and EMC for E.M. Cioran)

    I conclude by saying that Cioran must be understood only through empathy.
    Empathy? I am not an undergraduate trying to get an A in Cioran's class. I am not a true believer memorizing his sacred texts. I am under no obligation to cut him any slack.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post
    He's merely an iconoclast, a skeptic that refutes all the dogmas, convictions and systems.
    He is a source of dogma, convictions and systems for his devotees to proselytize. These systems do not have to be consistent. His followers need to believe. They need faith. They need to hope he is right. And maybe they even need empathy (love) and then they will reach the nirvana of understanding their messiah holds out to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post
    You can only identify yourself with the author, suffer for him, or beside him (it depends on the reader, and on the sum of his afflictions), sketch a stupid grin and close his book because he's not offering answers, nor arguments. He's all about the questions, the big ones, or anyway, the ones that can torment one's peripatetic existence.
    Unfortunately, I don't cut philosophers any slack unless I plan to use that slack against them.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post
    Having said this, I've nothing more to add rather than another quote, but this time from a thinker whose ideas you probably hold in higher esteem, because of his predilection for logic, and I think you should keep it in mind as a means to restrain your potential further ignominies: ''Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.'' In this case, that is Cioran's, you should rest your case, for it's obvious you're not compatible with his style.
    I have only begun my case against Cioran provided you are willing to tell me more.

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1
    I think philosophy is definitely relevant and it can help us understand ourselves and others better. Philosophy engenders introspection and reflection and facilitates our critical thinking about the world. There's many good starters for philosophy. I guess it depends on what type of philosophy interests you. For example, I really like existentialism and Buddhist philosophy and the comparisons and contrasts between Western and Eastern philosophy. And by no means do I find that science can replace philosophy. In fact, I think science today suffers from a lack of philosophy and it is guided by a too narrow-minded philosophy. For example, new medications being guided by a narrow-minded view of what it means to heal disease. Also there are many ethical problems associated with science that get into philosophy such as what I consider the ultimate philosophical question about science: Is is it true that just because we can do something mean we ought to do it? More than ever today, I believe, we need philosophy. We need people to pay attention to the moral consequences of our high tech society and scientific technologies such as nuclear weapons and the new age of warfare.

  8. #38
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I agree that science cannot replace philosophy. Science is a way of reporting observations in order to make predictions. It is a past full of observations and a future full of predictions with little interest in the present. The "now" in science is a single point where t = 0 (assuming we start the coordinate system with now being the origin). The mathematics used by scientists suggests determinism and time-reversibility but we experience some free will and experience time as irreversible.

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Munich
    Posts
    75
    The climax of philosophy, not only in our days, is - in my opinion - the Integral Theory of Ken Wilber. Here are two links:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber

    One of Wilber´s prominent fans is Bill Clinton (as well as Hillary):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEjKr2gA8Wk

  10. #40
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Is there a YouTube video, or some other online source, that you would recommend related to Ken Wilber? From the Wikipedia article, he sounds interesting, but I don't understand his position. Splitting knowledge into four quadrants based on individual-collective and interior-exterior sounds interesting.

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Munich
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Is there a YouTube video, or some other online source, that you would recommend related to Ken Wilber? From the Wikipedia article, he sounds interesting, but I don't understand his position. Splitting knowledge into four quadrants based on individual-collective and interior-exterior sounds interesting.
    A useful entry into his theory is his early book ´The Atman Project´, online available as PDF. Please check Google for ´The Atman Project - Imagomundi´. This post is denied when I insert the link.

    Here is a video with Ken explaining the levels of consciousness:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXyiDI6e26o
    Last edited by Tammuz; 07-22-2016 at 01:13 PM.

  12. #42
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I enjoyed the video, Tammuz. I usually see only the vertical development. I don't understand what's involved in the horizontal development that Wilber refers to.

  13. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,548
    A fradulent hock of crap.





    J

  14. #44
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Could you be more specific? What do you think is not crap? Do you have links to some of it?

  15. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,548
    You're not crap.

    Here's something that is not crap, with a link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2xBaX5awlc







    J

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A Contemporarily Relevant Classic
    By Jeff Knowles in forum The Secret Agent
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-16-2012, 12:30 PM
  2. Relevant to todays times
    By Tiny Dancer in forum Austen, Jane
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-28-2008, 06:18 AM
  3. Historically Relevant Modern Novels, Anyone?
    By ParanoidAndroid in forum General Literature
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 11:32 PM
  4. Oedipus Rex - still relevant?
    By fayhound in forum Oedipus Trilogy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2006, 05:15 PM
  5. surprisingly relevant
    By mitch m in forum Don Quixote
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •