News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Your thoughts on Philosophy

Started by GurrenLagann, February 19, 2013, 01:55:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TheDevoutPasta

"It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the device of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."
-Sorry, i kinda just fell in love with dat intro (Karl Marx's critique of Hegel's philosophy of the right.)
"The criticism of the atrocities inherent to religion is an undeniable prerequisite of societal progress."

commonsense822

Philosophy is definitely interesting, and I like reading it.  That being said you have to be highly arrogant to be a philosopher.

Jmpty

philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know. There's an irony; the difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you already know. It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings, and making it strange. Thats how those examples worked, the hypotheticals with which we began, with their mix of playfulness and sobriety. Its also how these philosophical books work. Philosophy estranges us from the familiar, not by supplying new information, but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing, but, and here's the risk: once the familiar turns strange, its never quite the same again. Self-knowledge is like lost innocence; however unsettling you find it, it can never be unthought, or unknown. What makes this enterprise difficult, but also riveting, is that moral and political philosophy is a story, and you don't know where the story will lead, but what you do know is that the story is about you.

Those are the presonal risks. Now what of the political risks? One way of introducing a course like this would be to promise you that by reading these books and debating these issues you will become a better more responsible citizen. You will examine the presuppositions of public poilicy, you will hone your political judgement, you will become a more effective participant in public affairs. But this would be a partial and misleading promise. Political philosophy for the most part hasn't worked that way. You have to allow for the possibility, that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen rather than a better one, or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one. And thats because philosophy is a distancing, even debilitating activity, and you see this going back to Socratesm theres a dialogue, the Gorgias in which one of Socrates' friends Calicles tries to talk him out of philosophising. Calicles tells Socrates "philosophy is a pretty toy, if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life, but if one pursues it further than one should it is absolute ruin. Take my advice," Calicles says "abandon argument. Learn the accomplishments of active life. Take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles, but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings." So Calicles is really saying to Socrates, "Quit philosophising. Get real. Go to business school."And Calicles did have a point. He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions, from established assumptions, and from settled beliefs.

Those are the risks; personal and political. And in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion. The name of the evasion is scepticism, its the idea... well it goes something like this: we didn't resolve once and for all, either the cases of the principles we were arguing when we began, and if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill haven't solved these questions after all of these years, who are we to think that we here in Sanders Theatre over the course of a semester can resolve them. And so maybe its just a matter of each person having his or her own principles and theres nothing more to be said about it, no way of reasoning. Thats the evasion, the evasion of scepticism. To which I would offer the following reply: Its true, these questions have been debated for a very long time, but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted, may suggest that though they're impossible in one sense, they're unavoidable in another. And the reason they're unavoidable, the reason they're inescapable is that we live some answer to these questions everyday.

So scepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection is no solution. Immanuel Kant described very well the problem with scepticism when he wrote "scepticism is a resting place for human reason, where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings. But it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement. Simply to acquiesce in scepticism," Kant wrote, "can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason." I've tried to suggest through these stories and these arguments, some sense of the risks and temptations, of the perils and the possibilites. I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course is to awaken the restlessness of reason, and to see where is might lead. Thank you very much."

- Michael Sandel

Transcribed from introductory lecture  from Michael Sandel's undergraduate course in Political Philosophy at Harvard University broadcast on BBC4 as: Justice 1.The Moral Side of Murder. Tuesday 25 Jan 2011 at 8.30pm

"When we first came together some thirteen weeks ago, I spoke of the exhilaration of political philosophy, and also of its dangers. About how philosophy works, and had always worked, by estranging us from the familiar; by unsettling, our settled assumptions. I tried to warn you, that once the familiar turns strange, once we begin to reflect on our circumstance, it's never quite the same again. I hope you have by now experienced at least a little of this unease. Because this is the tension that animates critical reflection, and political improvement, and maybe even the moral life as well."

Michael Sandel. Justice: 8.The Good Life. Broadcast on BBC4 8.30pm Tuesday 15 March 2011.
???  ??

GurrenLagann

Thanks for the input you all. :) There were some great/interesting responses here and there. Although sadly, no one seems to have responded to the final question in my OP. :(
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

Zatoichi

#19
I think Manley P Hall put it best in his book, "The Secret Teachings of All Ages," when he said quite simply...

"Philosophy is the science of assigning values."

Important to keep that in mind for perspective as philosophy is not intended to determine truth, but rather to determine what's useful to know.

And yes, of course religion is overly concerned with science. It's the primary threat to their flawed thinking and the most capable of disproving their beliefs.

When their entire thing hinges on people being ignorant in order to accept their pitch, the last thing they want is a methodical, systematic approach to determining fact seeming like a viable option to the poor suckers who bought into their BS.
"If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it." ~Skippy's List

bennyboy

Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Thanks for the input you all. :) There were some great/interesting responses here and there. Although sadly, no one seems to have responded to the final question in my OP. :(
Okay, I'll try.

I think some non-scientists are too infatuated with famous scientists as figures of authority.  They see scientists as village elders-- essentially, a secular replacement for the wisdom of clerics.  Don't believe me?  How many times have we seen "Science hasn't solved problem X yet."  This is a statement of faith, unless the only limitation to a solution is known to be brute force calculation (like sequencing DNA for example).
Insanity is the only sensible response to the universe.  The sane are just making stuff up.

Zatoichi

^^^
What I was trying to say, only much better put.
"If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it." ~Skippy's List

SGOS

Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Thanks for the input you all. :) There were some great/interesting responses here and there. Although sadly, no one seems to have responded to the final question in my OP. :(

You mean this part?

QuoteWhat are your thoughts on philosophy, and do you think some unbelievers are a bit too infatuated with science?
Some unbelievers?  Yes, I suppose it would be possible for some unbeliever somewhere, but not generally speaking, not by a long shot. None that I've ever met. There is no reason to be infatuated with reality or the scientific exploration of it.  Your question becomes loaded with the inclusion of the word "infatuation."  

Infatuation is about fantasy.  It takes a part of reality or something imagined, and projects all manner of unwarranted attributes onto it until one adulates and glorifies it beyond reason.  No, this is not what unbelievers do with science.  It's what mindless flibbertigibbets do with fantasy.

aitm

Quote from: "GurrenLagann", and do you think some unbelievers are a bit too infatuated with science?

NO, quite the opposite, not enough are infatuated enough.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Brian37

I get thrashed on this topic. I hate the word "philosophy". The reason is people get married to them like religion. I like to think of things as ideas, not philosophies. That way you can take the good of what someone presents without having to get married to the entire theme of what the "philosophy" is.

We would not have modern science if it were not for the prior ideas of others before. We should know what "philosophies" are in a historical manor. But now that we have the most accurate idea in scientific method, we don't need to dwell in the past, even if we should be aware of it's contributions.

The only way to improve on something is to be willing to scrap the bad and take the good and be willing to change when better data comes in.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama
Poetry By Brian37 Like my poetry on Facebook Under BrianJames Rational Poet and also at twitter under Brianrrs37

GurrenLagann

Quote from: "SGOS"Some unbelievers?  Yes, I suppose it would be possible for some unbeliever somewhere, but not generally speaking, not by a long shot. None that I've ever met. There is no reason to be infatuated with reality or the scientific exploration of it.  Your question becomes loaded with the inclusion of the word "infatuation."

I seem to have been unclear in my question. I don't find my question loaded. I was asking if anyone else felt that some unbelievers put too much stock into science's ability to answer all manner of questions, even those it has not traditionally (or currently much) dealt with, like say ethics/morality and the origins of existence itself (cosmogony doesn't seem like a topic easily, if at all graspable in scientific terms, if it can be grasped at all). Mt question had nothing to do with infatuation with reality or with scientific explanations, but with the purview and ability of the enterprise of science itself.

Sam Harris once made a case for a possible science of ethics, which softened me up to it being potentially possible for a science of ethics one day.
 

QuoteInfatuation is about fantasy.  It takes a part of reality or something imagined, and projects all manner of unwarranted attributes onto it until one adulates and glorifies it beyond reason.  No, this is not what unbelievers do with science.  It's what mindless flibbertigibbets do with fantasy.

Woah, do not agree. As I hinted above, some unbelievers (and not merely a non-mention worthy amount) certainly glorify science to a somewhat unreasonable degree. And I would say that such is indeed a fantasy.

Not that I'm saying most unbelievers do that, simply that it is common enough to warrant a mention and question. :)
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

SGOS

Quote from: "GurrenLagann"
Quote from: "SGOS"Infatuation is about fantasy.  It takes a part of reality or something imagined, and projects all manner of unwarranted attributes onto it until one adulates and glorifies it beyond reason.  No, this is not what unbelievers do with science.  It's what mindless flibbertigibbets do with fantasy.

Woah, do not agree. As I hinted above, some unbelievers (and not merely a non-mention worthy amount) certainly glorify science to a somewhat unreasonable degree. And I would say that such is indeed a fantasy.

Not that I'm saying most unbelievers do that, simply that it is common enough to warrant a mention and question. :)

A few hours after I posted that, while driving my car down the road, I reconsidered my statement.  I would agree with you to a degree.  Yes obviously, some unbelievers probably give science undo credit.  In other words (your words), "to a somewhat unreasonable degree," although not to the extent of an infatuation for the vast majority of us, I think.  Infatuation is a very strong word that represents an extreme of unreasonable glorification.  

I've often seen unbelievers point out the limitations of science in forums like these.  It's usually done when theists accuse us of having the same sort of "infatuation" with science as they do with their faith, so my post was partly a reaction based on the unfair comparison often posed by theists.

GurrenLagann

Ah, I see. Fair point. :)
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

Jutter

Over in Holland we call philosophy "giroblauw".
[youtube:buo5d83w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5fHruaOyM[/youtube:buo5d83w]
No religion for me thank you very much; I 'm full of shit enough as it is.

Being flabbergasted about existence never made anyone disappear in a poof of flabbergas, so nevermind why we're here. We ARE here.

bennyboy

QuoteI seem to have been unclear in my question. I don't find my question loaded. I was asking if anyone else felt that some unbelievers put too much stock into science's ability to answer all manner of questions, even those it has not traditionally (or currently much) dealt with, like say ethics/morality and the origins of existence itself (cosmogony doesn't seem like a topic easily, if at all graspable in scientific terms, if it can be grasped at all). Mt question had nothing to do with infatuation with reality or with scientific explanations, but with the purview and ability of the enterprise of science itself.

Sam Harris once made a case for a possible science of ethics, which softened me up to it being potentially possible for a science of ethics one day.
People need to be flexible on values-- otherwise those values cannot adapt to new circumstances, making the memes they embody mostly impotent.

That's why morality MUST be arbitrary, and why Sam Harris is kind of full of baloney on this subject, IMO.  What he's saying is that science can study things like the amount of suffering in a brain, etc.  But what he's implying is that scientists are the right people to establish the criteria with which we evaluate goodness in life.  I don't accept that idea at all.  Nor should quotes from Dawkins or Dennett, or Einstein, or anyone else be used to validate the opinions of anyone else.  If one's ideas are just references to the ideas of famous people, then one might as well be quoting the Bible for all the intellectual participation one's engaging in.
Insanity is the only sensible response to the universe.  The sane are just making stuff up.