Philosophy Discussions for Nerds

[PhuturePriest]

So I'm currently doing a course in philosophy at my community college. It's just an intro class, so it arches across the entire history of philosophy and speaks about the most influential philosophers/philosophical thoughts. I find it incredibly enjoyable, and I think philosophy is perhaps on par with theology, which is my favorite subject.

I think I enjoyed it most when we were on Greek philosophers, particularly Socrates and Plato. We just got done with Descartes (who was certainly interesting, in his own respect), and now we're onto Hobbes and Rousseau, and their theories of social contract and man in a state of nature. Oh my word. Rousseau is wonderful, but I sincerely think Hobbes was never hugged by his parents and his high school crush did something unspeakably horrible and shattered his heart. The only other possible explanation was that he was a legitimate sociopath. His belief in man's absolute fundamental depravity is only rivaled by that of Luther.

Just remember, kids: the only reason we don't murder each other is for our own safety's sake.

Anyone have any interesting philosophers or philosophies they want to discuss/nerd out about?

[PhuturePriest]

Oh, and I think ontology, teleology, and metaphysics are my favorite subjects of philosophy. The nature of being, being itself, and the ends of our actions are very interesting subjects for me, and I think an understanding of ontology and teleology in particular are absolutely crucial in order to properly debate matters like contraception and marriage.

[Nihil Obstat]

My current great philosopher hatred is for John Stuart Mill. What a dork. You are probably about to cover him.

[PhuturePriest]

3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

My current great philosopher hatred is for John Stuart Mill. What a dork. You are probably about to cover him.

It's hard for me to determine the philosopher I hate most. Probably the one I dislike most so far is Kant, if for nothing else the fact that it's incredibly difficult to understand what he's saying.

But if we're going by difficulty in understanding what they're saying, Saint Anselm takes the cake. His bit on "That than which nothing greater can be thought" was a riddle that took me half an hour to understand. If it hadn't been for an explanation in laymen's terms after the passage I still wouldn't have fully grasped it.

[Nihil Obstat]

I thought Anselm was hilarious. I remain convinced, since the first time I heard that argument, that it was more of a metaphysical joke that anything else. 

[PhuturePriest]

4 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I thought Anselm was hilarious. I remain convinced, since the first time I heard that argument, that it was more of a metaphysical joke that anything else. 

I hope this is true. If were an influential churchmen, I would probably write an incredibly complex bit on a simple matter just for laughs.

[Nihil Obstat]

If you like complex discussions of simple ideas... Gottlob Frege's discussion of the concepts of zero and one in The Foundations Of Arithmetic.

[PhuturePriest]

One particularly interesting philosopher who is incredibly undervalued (and was sadly skipped in our class) is Marcus Aurelius. I once read a passage in his Meditations about how, just as it would be unnatural and against its nature for a bee to not do what is proper to a bee, it is unnatural and against man's nature to do nothing. He wrote something to the effect of "If a man lies around doing nothing, he is going against the very nature of man itself."

Edited March 25, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Not The Philosopher]

[Amppax]

2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

It's hard for me to determine the philosopher I hate most. Probably the one I dislike most so far is Kant, if for nothing else the fact that it's incredibly difficult to understand what he's saying.

But if we're going by difficulty in understanding what they're saying, Saint Anselm takes the cake. His bit on "That than which nothing greater can be thought" was a riddle that took me half an hour to understand. If it hadn't been for an explanation in laymen's terms after the passage I still wouldn't have fully grasped it.

Clearly you haven't reached Kierkegaard yet. I'm thinking specifically the beginning of Sickness Unto Death. "The self is a relation that relates itself to itself..." etc. 

[Nihil Obstat]

10 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Clearly you haven't reached Kierkegaard yet. I'm thinking specifically the beginning of Sickness Unto Death. "The self is a relation that relates itself to itself..." etc. 

Fear and Trembling is fun.

[enitharmon]

If you like classical philosophy, I recommend you read Pierre Hadot's "Philosophy as a Way of Life" or "What is Ancient Philosophy?" (particularly the later sections of this book). He demonstrates that ancient philosophy was about spiritual exercises and a way of life, that became incorporated into early monasticism, and he shows how this notion of philosophy is still there to some degree in Descartes. His works made me rethink both the role of philosophy in classical Greece and Rome, the purpose of monastic spiritual exercises, and the relationship between theology and philosophy.

 

[PhuturePriest]

8 hours ago, enitharmon said:

If you like classical philosophy, I recommend you read Pierre Hadot's "Philosophy as a Way of Life" or "What is Ancient Philosophy?" (particularly the later sections of this book). He demonstrates that ancient philosophy was about spiritual exercises and a way of life, that became incorporated into early monasticism, and he shows how this notion of philosophy is still there to some degree in Descartes. His works made me rethink both the role of philosophy in classical Greece and Rome, the purpose of monastic spiritual exercises, and the relationship between theology and philosophy.

 

Oh, definitely. All one must do is read Aristotle's thoughts on the contemplative life and one will immediately be inspired to throw on a robe and be a hermit on some mountain. I actually had an in-depth discussion with a philosopher once about it, and I found it incredibly interesting.

[Nihil Obstat]

So here is a philosophy question for discussion among philosophers:

What does it mean to be a philosopher. What are necessary and sufficient conditions to say one is a philosopher? Are there objective criteria? Is being a philosopher a state of mind? Does it entail formal academic work, publishing in academic journals? Teaching? Professional work of any kind? Or is it just, like, your opinion, maaan?

[Not The Philosopher]

11 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

So here is a philosophy question for discussion among philosophers:

What does it mean to be a philosopher. What are necessary and sufficient conditions to say one is a philosopher? Are there objective criteria? Is being a philosopher a state of mind? Does it entail formal academic work, publishing in academic journals? Teaching? Professional work of any kind? Or is it just, like, your opinion, maaan?

My knee-jerk reaction is that there is no hard and fast definition because philosophy is the one discipline lacking any universal axioms. Methodology and style differs quite radically from individual to individual and school to school, if we compare Plato's dialogues with Aquinas' articles with Locke's treatises with Nietzsche's aphorisms with modern analytic philosophers. Even a commitment to a belief in the efficacy of reason to discover truth doesn't seem to be a prerequisite, unless we want to rule out the ancient skeptics, Hume, Nietzsche et al. You can say that they follow after the issues defined by Plato, except Heidegger wants to identify this as a red herring.

I'd probably say, in somewhat Wittgensteinian fashion, that philosophers all bear a family resemblance in terms of the issues which they are concerned about, and a commitment to thinking rigorously about them..

It is easier to answer questions like, what is required to be an analytic philosopher, a phenomenologist, etc. as these particular subdivisions at least involve some concrete commitments.