Printable View
this is a good sequence for the philosophy chatters to become familiar w/...
first, darwin and w/ his ideas all the implications...
then nietzsche and w/ his attempt to coerce meaning out of a post-darwin world...
and when you find out where you stack up in the world...move on to thoreau, philosophy chatters...
there you'll be able to further work towards a peace and contentment in your own existance...
it's worked for the doc and it should work for you, philosophy chatters...
ROAR!
I like all three. Nietzsche and Thoreau have some affinities. Both were deeply contemplative men who wrote from the quiet corner of solitude. Nietzsche from his mountains and Thoreau from his woods, they both went far and deep, getting as near as they could to the truth. I haven't read either in some time. Perhaps I'll revisit them. I got half-way through the Origin of Species but it was too dry for me.
change through time, philosophy chatters, change through time...
once you understand the concept and the implications, it's time to head to the woods...
you'll find all your answers in the woods, philosophy chatters...
darwin, nietzsche and thoreau in that order...
and then to the woods, philosophy chatters, to the woods...
ROAR!
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep. ~ Robert Frost
I'm not sure Thoreau belongs in this trio, Doc. Darwin's contribution was, in the "philosophical" sense, more or less neutral, secular if you will, though it is not in any way a denial of how he irreversibly transformed understanding of natural science. The second person you cite is indeed a member of the philosophical profession, though his influence found its way into a tragic realm of misinterpretation, possibly helping to cause subsequent political nightmares. Again, both of these thinkers are secular, despite Nietzsche's famous declaration that God is dead.
Thoreau is a thinker as well, but light-years away from the other two, possibly antithetical to Nietzsche. Though rooted in the glories of nature, Thoreau's philosophy is more or less "religious" in the sense of its mystical power of transporting one to a certain awareness of the Eternal. "Transcendentalism" and all that.
I get what you're trying to propose, though, and perhaps in your frame of mine these triple thinkers aren't mutually exclusive.
Nietzsche was not a philosopher. In fact, philosophy was finished after he finished saying what he had to say. Those were the nightmares and they were umprecedented and healthy for the long run.
Philosophy is not dead. Philosophy will live as long as man continues to draw breath. And Nietzsche was a philosopher, a self-proclaimed one at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
@Auntshecky: Nietzsche drew heavily on Darwin. His theory of mankind's development differed from Darwin's in some aspects but the two corresponded for the most part. Without Darwin I don't think you get Nietzsche, or at least the Nietzsche we know.
As far as Thoreau and Nietzsche.... I have not read Thoreau in quite some time and my memory is a little foggy. The two were both very spiritual, very contemplative, very principled and reclusive. Thoreau had much in common with Emerson and Emerson exercised a profound influence on Nietzsche's thought.
Hey we have lots of museums full of philosopher. It's gossip that will not die. But it no longer has influence of any important kind for the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Nietzsche predicted the nihilism of the 20th century as a consequence of the false values posited by philosophers, and in the Gay Science cheered the advent of science. Philosophy is done for keeps where the action is.
Nietzsche was a philologist and one of the best historians that ever lived. And a humorist. All attempts at absorbing Nietzsche through philosophy have failed miserably, including Foucault who wrote the most about it. Humanities have been fully overcome, lasting only in museums.
So you get nothing from Plato, Descartes, Hume, Mill, and all the other "gossipers?" That's preposterous. Philosophy is no longer what it was, no longer the main avenue of knowledge, but it surely has not died. There's still political philosophy, the philosophy of religion, existentialism, and it goes on, even Platonism, that millenia old school of thought, remains viable to this day.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
And you extend your pronouncement to embrace all the humanities. So history too is no longer relevant? Nor the study of literature?
The liberal arts will remain relevant until the sun explodes some billions of years hence.
History is extremely relevant. That's precisely why we had to get rid of them so that they don't keep making history. It was preposterous that they did make history from ignorance, tyranny and prejudice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I approve their study as historical pieces. There is nothing beneficial to learn from most of them today. One hundred ways to fry an egg is a better book today. Ha! Good luck.
It is no longer justifiable to confront humanistic studies with science.
I think you make a good point, one I've heard many times before. I studied a lot of philosophy and before I switched to English I was planning on making it my major. So I've heard this before.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Much of philosophy's history of naturalistic speculation is outdated, incorrect, like some of Aristotle's work. But the core concerns of philosophy - the study of human nature, the way to live the good life, grappling with things like God, science, existentialism, politics - these will never fade, never become null or beside the point.
Plato's Republic is applicable to the here and now, as is Spinoza's Ethics, the writings of the stoics and epicureans, even those of the pre-socratics, and the list of relevant texts goes on and on.
You say science has rendered philosophy a pointless pursuit. Science has little to say on matters of meaning, virtue, aesthetics, right-living, spirituality, ect. Science itself rests on a philosophical foundation, that of empiricism.
What I'm saying is that there is room for and need for both. Read Emerson's Essays and then come tell me that philosophy is a dead relic. The observations he made back in the 19th century contain no less relevancy or power than those now being made in laboratories the world over.
Humanism will linger. But without any significant effect. It'll eventually disappear even from the museums as mayor exhibits.
Then we can all be soulless mechanistic automata lacking spirituality, imagination and passion.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Nonsense. Passion is not a product of humanism. Soul is not a product of humanism. How much credit do you want to give the idiots who instituted the circular ruins of human/inhuman behaviour at the expense of all possibilities of development?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
They already did enough with the slautherhouses of history. They are finished. Don't believe it, because it is happening. No need to believe or disbelieve. Watch it closely. Recognize it.
I can't make any sense of this. You can go right on ahead and deny yourself the enrichment to be had by studying history, literature, religion, philosophy. I for one believe there's more to be learned than what is revealed by the microscope.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini