Philosophy Discussions for Nerds

[PhuturePriest]

Well, philosophy essentially means "love of knowledge". However, simply loving to learn stuff doesn't make anyone a philosopher, in my opinion, as philosophy as a practice is much more defined than a general love of knowing everything.

You could say that studying and being well versed in philosophical concepts makes you a philosopher, but I think simply learning the material makes you a philosopher no more than reading a zoology textbook makes you a zoologist.

It seems to me that what makes someone a philosopher is a genuine search for truth through philosophical concepts, but that could perhaps be more defined.

[Papist]

[Nihil Obstat]

18 hours ago, Not The Philosopher said:

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.

 

How can I trust you on this? You are not even the philosopher.

[Not The Philosopher]

3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

How can I trust you on this? You are not even the philosopher.

You have passed the first test.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Not The Philosopher said:

You have passed the first test.

 

[4588686]

On 3/25/2016, 6:57:56, Nihil Obstat said:

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

Frege hated Catholics.

On 3/25/2016, 6:04:06, PhuturePriest said:

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?

You should go read Frege, Wittgenstein, Russell, Alasdair McIntyre, Nietzsche and that's about it. 

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, Hasan said:

Frege hated Catholics.

I know. Makes me sad. He was an interesting guy. Heidegger was something of a Nazi, and I rather enjoyed studying him as well.

[4588686]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

I know. Makes me sad. He was an interesting guy. Heidegger was something of a Nazi, and I rather enjoyed studying him as well.

Have you ever read Michael Dummett?

 

[Nihil Obstat]

9 minutes ago, Hasan said:

Have you ever read Michael Dummett?

 

No, but based on the bit I just read about him I think I definitely should.

[Era Might]

On 3/25/2016, 7:01:34, PhuturePriest said:

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."

I like Marcus Aurelius, but also the Taoists Lao Tzu and Chang Tzu who would see it differently...to do anything is to do nothing, all there is actionless action. Man is breath...the maintenance of breath is not to burn it up in effort, but simply to maintain its balance and harmony.

I'm also partial to the anarchists, particularly the Russian Mikhail Bakunin.

[4588686]

1 minute ago, Era Might said:

I like Marcus Aurelius, but also the Taoists Lao Tzu and Chang Tzu who would see it differently...to do anything is to do nothing, all there is actionless action. Man is breath...the maintenance of breath is not to burn it up in effort, but simply to maintain its balance and harmony.

I'm also partial to the anarchists, particularly the Russian Mikhail Bakunin.

get out of here!!

[Era Might]

On 3/26/2016, 7:25:05, 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.

 

I listened to a lecture a while back vehemently rejecting this spiritualization of the Greeks. The lecturer argued that Greek philosophy was a life of reason, and that the philosopher's only goal was to live by reason...which is not the goal of Christianity or monadticism, because an illiterate peasant can have a spiritual life, it is not a life of reason. In the lecturer's view, to turn ancient philosophy into spirituality is to divorce the philosopher from reason, which was the Supreme law...nothing else mattered except reason, and the philosopher was to question everything.

[enitharmon]

4 hours ago, Era Might said:

I listened to a lecture a while back vehemently rejecting this spiritualization of the Greeks. The lecturer argued that Greek philosophy was a life of reason, and that the philosopher's only goal was to live by reason...which is not the goal of Christianity or monadticism, because an illiterate peasant can have a spiritual life, it is not a life of reason. In the lecturer's view, to turn ancient philosophy into spirituality is to divorce the philosopher from reason, which was the Supreme law...nothing else mattered except reason, and the philosopher was to question everything.

I don't know if that lecturer responded to Hadot specifically, but if he did, he grossly misrepresented Hadot's views. Hadot is not "spiritualising" Greek and Roman philosophy, but merely showing that for them the work of reason was not an end in itself, but rather part of a way of life. The goal was not knowledge per se, but to become a better person. Reason had a huge role to play in this. I recommend you read his work--he is intimately familiar with classical philosophy and makes a strong case.
 

[Era Might]

5 hours ago, enitharmon said:

I don't know if that lecturer responded to Hadot specifically, but if he did, he grossly misrepresented Hadot's views. Hadot is not "spiritualising" Greek and Roman philosophy, but merely showing that for them the work of reason was not an end in itself, but rather part of a way of life. The goal was not knowledge per se, but to become a better person. Reason had a huge role to play in this. I recommend you read his work--he is intimately familiar with classical philosophy and makes a strong case.
 

Not sure if he was responding to him. I think his point was not that knowledge was the end, but that for the Greeks spirituality would be redundant, because to reason was not a handmaid to the spiritual, but rather reasoning and acting were the same thing. Reason was their way of being, whereas in Christianity reason is a handmaid to contemplation, but the believer acts in obedience, not as a process of reasoning. The Christian monks had a different agenda than the philosophers, even if they did try to spiritualize philosophy.

[PhuturePriest]

10 hours ago, Hasan said:

Frege hated Catholics.

You should go read Frege, Wittgenstein, Russell, Alasdair McIntyre, Nietzsche and that's about it. 

I take the advice of a man who publicly expresses love for Sophists and dislike for Socrates with very little weight, even if that man is my sultan.