Are there any philosophers here in sciforums?:confused: What I mean by philosophers is professional ones, that studied philosophy at university...

What a deep question....

Would a real philosopher ever take a philosophy degree at university?

I studied logic and scientific method at uni, but I think your wanting more of a history of philosophy rather than method of thought.

Originally posted by kaduseus
Would a real philosopher ever take a philosophy degree at university?

Uh, most of them do... in fact most of the better known philosophers teach philosophy at universities. In fact I can't think of any famous philosophers who didn't have a doctorate in philosophy.

But I really doubt any of them are here. I'm sure there are people here who've been philosophy majors at their universities (myself, for example), but it's unlikely that anyone here is published.

No I did not study philsophy at university. I studied cognitive psychology, and had philosophy of mind and cognition as a main topic.

Hoth,
"In fact I can't think of any famous philosophers who didn't have a doctorate in philosophy. " I take it you mean 'no philosopher of the last 150 years'.

kaduseus,

I studied logic and scientific method at uni, but I think your wanting more of a history of philosophy rather than method of thought.

Actually, I want a method of thought...


The reason I ask that, is because I would like to study philosophy somewhere, but I don't know how good or bad the earning for a philosopher is. Besides that, I would like to have my own philosophy, besides agreeing with an existing one.

Maybe Hoth can answer my questions...?

If you want to become a philosopher in the sense of writing books and articles, you are expected to have your own philosophy. However, you should also have a thick skin. There will be a lot of scrutinizing!
The same holds for any other scientist. We may respect each other, but we will burn each others ideas. "Test it to the limit."

BTW earnings will be minimal, probably.

Does philosophy gives me any credibility to get other better jobs?

uh, NO. that's why more people don't do it.

Philosophers don't make a cent unless they teach. Take Searle, Dennett, Chalmers, Nagel, the Churchlands, or just about any other well-known philosopher and you'll find that what they do for a living is teach. To make money you have to become a professor and then require your students to buy the books you've written. That's just the way it is.

I'm about a month away from my B.A. in philosophy, and I'm sure I'll be stuck in a low paying job for which philosophy is no help.

I've met a few philosophy grads, they all seem to have alot of money to start with.
Take up photography as a technical hobby as well, you can always survive selling artistic b/w photo's or make a packet selling other types of photo's on the net.

engineering is a pretty good substitute for philosophy if you think of it that way while you're learning engineering. probably a lot of topics are great subs if you view them philisophically, and you don't have to be poor! :) *giggle*

it's about supply and demand see. not a lot of businesses make more money via philosophical exploration (not entirely true I suppose).

Hoth,

Why are you studying philosophy then?

I study philosophy because computer science didn't work out, I had to change my major and I needed something that didn't require many units to graduate. Plus, it's interesting and easy. It's no worse than being an English major or a history major, probably, as far as jobs... for some things, just having a degree of any sort helps.

Those who say studying philosophy means just knowing the history are wrong... there's actually not that much emphasis on history, with the exception of a few specialized history of philosophy classes. In most classes it's about presenting philosophical problems and comparing possible solutions to them... this natually involves considering the solutions historical people have thought up, but original thought is always considered good if you can give rational arguments for a new solution.

Cool! I was thinking of going to Computer Science but I have been feeling that it wouldn't work!!

So... why did you plan to do computer science? Do you want to work with computers (or computer games...:D)? Does philosophy helps?? (thank God it is not mostly history!! I love philosophical problems... :) )

Having a degree in philosophy no more makes you a philosopher than sleeping in a garage makes you an Alfa Romeo.

However, if you want to get published....

Most of the people who get degrees in philosophy, I'd never want to call philosophers. However, it'd certainly be a larger percentage than of those who don't. Someone who doesn't know the problems of philosophy or the sorts of approaches people have tried and the objections to those, is almost certainly not going to be worth much philosophically. You just waste time running through arguments that have already been done, not knowing the objections that have already been made, if you haven't had much formal exposure to the subject. You also get a lot more feedback or higher quality feedback on your own ideas, of course, if you have a professor to criticize an essay or other students to rip apart an argument.

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
So... why did you plan to do computer science? Do you want to work with computers (or computer games...:D)? Does philosophy helps?? (thank God it is not mostly history!! I love philosophical problems... :) )

I've always liked coding, used to do basic and C and C++, these days I do mostly PHP. Mainly got killed by all the math and physics requirements, though I can't say I liked data structures much either (though I like OOP)... I'll be happy if I never have to balance another AVL tree. I don't think philosophy particularly helps with computer science, except maybe that they both require the invention of ordered logical systems to solve problems.

Tips for the Top: How to be a philosopher (http://www.philosophersnet.com/article.php?id=540)

nope, i took the required course work in college, though(either that or i had the choice of logic, which i like to, but somehow prefer phil. ) just because i don't have a degree in phil, however, doesn't mean i'm not able to sit out under the stars at night and contemplate deep, meaningful thoughts. :D

a thinker..

I'm minoring in philosophy

I'm majoring in philosopy(unless a change my mind) because I find it interesting and helpful in understanding the world. However, a degree in philosophy does not effect your ability to be a philosopher. Some of the deepest philosophical ideas people have communicated to me came from high school drop outs

Hy

I'm a philosohy's teacher and trying to be a little philosopher. I studied philosophy and social sciences at Universitat Jaume I of Castelló in Catalonian Countries (Spain, Europe). Then I passed a "oposición" (I don't know its english) to become a teacher. Now I'm finishing Filosofia in the UNED (a non presential university) and learning about astronomy. I investigate about a minimal ontology (reality theory) who autorize us to start thinking and saying in each field of the sciences, trying to discover the metaphysical prejudices in each science (matemathics, physics, biology...) and how to reconciliate phenomenology and analaithical philosophy.
I can tell you all that a good philosopher is like and old spanish medicine: "good for all things and able for nothing!"

I'm majoring in philosopy

some one wants to work at McDonalds:p

I tried to take a philosophy of mind course once. wasn't really my thing. it was just too wishy washy. and the prof always deflected any good questions.

Originally posted by spacemanspiff
some one wants to work at McDonalds:p

I tried to take a philosophy of mind course once. wasn't really my thing. it was just too wishy washy. and the prof always deflected any good questions.
Yeah, the working at mcdonalds thing might yet change my major...at least as an enlish major i could be an editor or something.

I've never taken a philosophy of mind course, but that hasn't been my experience in any of the philosophy classes i've taken. Perhaps you had a bad professor?

1. The quality of education varies much within the field of philosophy just like many other fields of schoolarship. My point is you can't seperate the formally educated with from the non-educated some will have a significantly better education than others.
2. The concept of philosophers are very vague some just mean people who wonder some again others mean formally educated philosophers. Having the first kind in mind im sure you will find many outside universities e.g. children tend to like this This is true but it should not be confused with the idea that formal education in philosophy is worthless. Anybody can wonder(and ought to) but formally educated know the different stances and the arguments that have been made through time. Also fields of e.g. "theori of argumentation" and "logic" are presented to formal educated these serve as tools of the trade. I can proberly aid some who has experienced a traficcrash in someway(firsthelp) but that doesn't make me a docter(med). Obviosly the years of medical training will make a difference between the med. and me, the same goes for philosophy.
3. Concerning money. I don't think anyone natural philosophically inclined will put this above the interest in philosophy. Philosophy means love of knowledge(wisdom) if your more concerned about the money then you should pick something else. Else you could do like Spinoza who though himself a handwork and made lenses for selling. I think a person who attend philosophy(high level education) should be pretty serious. This is not something you should expect to earn money on this should be from pure interest. Also at least where a study the dropout rate is very high this deffinatly isn't for everybody.
4. Philosphy=history, that is WAY off at least where I attend. Sure there is plenty of "history of philosophy" BUT it is very "theory-oriented" which means that the focus is on the different stances presented throughout history. The purpose is that we should know the different stances and the flaws of these stances so that will not present the same flaws that have already been made. Where I attend there is little historical detail all weight is put on the agumental philosophical technical side.
5. Why study philosophy? Because it is a field that can be improved and formal education is the most natural and proerly effective way to do it.

Cheers Frotiw

"Philosphy=history, that is WAY off at least where I attend. Sure there is plenty of "history of philosophy" BUT it is very "theory-oriented" which means that the focus is on the different stances presented throughout history"

Disagree wholeheartidly. In my studies of philosophy, discussions with the formally educated various university professors one thing I can safely say is that you learn the HISTORY as well!

Think about this way; could you understand how Beethovan arrived at his music without studying his period in time? Could you understand the birth of democracy without understanding the struggle in Athens first? Could you understand the French Revolution without understanding all the causes and events that led up to it? Nope. And you sure as fuck couldn't understand Descartes without the Renaissance, Nietzsche without the Franco-Prussian wars or Wittgenstein without Hitler.

Like Sartre said; The essense cannot precede the existence.

A B.A. in Philosophy will involve discussion about history. It will involve the professor teaching you about the setting. Past that, from what I've heard, you better be prepared to learn what's actually going on in the world at the time the author wrote.

Originally posted by Tyler
Disagree wholeheartidly. In my studies of philosophy, discussions with the formally educated various university professors one thing I can safely say is that you learn the HISTORY as well!

Think about this way; could you understand how Beethovan arrived at his music without studying his period in time? Could you understand the birth of democracy without understanding the struggle in Athens first? Could you understand the French Revolution without understanding all the causes and events that led up to it? Nope. And you sure as fuck couldn't understand Descartes without the Renaissance, Nietzsche without the Franco-Prussian wars or Wittgenstein without Hitler.

Like Sartre said; The essense cannot precede the existence.

A B.A. in Philosophy will involve discussion about history. It will involve the professor teaching you about the setting. Past that, from what I've heard, you better be prepared to learn what's actually going on in the world at the time the author wrote.

Well thats a philosophical stance you can choose. You may opt for this stance or not, but it is not necessarily the natural view of the role of "history of philosophy". Personally I disagree on this stance, I understand(correct me please) as philosophy in the context of history. Sure the setting has great influence on what stances that will evolve. The focus of philosphical investigation will also be greatly determined by historical setting but this is almost purely of interest of the historicans. Yes we need to understand the historical context to understand why e.g. this specific stance was introduced instead of another one. But this is historical investigation and undoubtly of great interest for the historians. This is not philosophical investigation. The philosophers(doing philosophy) are generally not that interested in historical setting. The philosophers are not interested in the conditions and underlaying past that has lead to a certain idea. The philosophers are concerned with the "eternal ideas". The supposed stances are either valid or not valid completly independant of history. That is exactly why we need to be educated in past theories, we need to concider them as philosophical theories. That is why e.g. Platon, Socrates etc. are often mentioned because their thought are still relevant.
The understanding of how these theories came to be that is what Tyler express, are indeed interesting but for the historians.
There is nothing wrong with the persude of wisdom of the way a theory was produced but this is the field of "History of Ideas" and should not be confused with philosophy. Just to point it out again "History of Ideas" are a historical area not an philosophical. What tyles points at is not within the field of philosphy but histoty.
As you might have noticed "history" and "history of ideas" both depend on a philosophical stance(also know as theory of history). That is the methodology of the "history".
The last comment was intended those that would subscribe "historicism" as philosophical stance. Tyler's reply seem to indicate such a thought.

To get my point: concider the offence to Descartes if his works was only to be understood in a historical frame. He intentionaly started out doubting anything(he thought) to build up a secure foundation of knowledge. What would he had said if told him his works was dependant on historical context? He explicitly attemptet to counter such thought by doubting anything and then building only on what was claimed sucure(also through history).

Cheers

Originally posted by Tyler

Think about this way; could you understand how Beethovan arrived at his music without studying his period in time? Could you understand the birth of democracy without understanding the struggle in Athens first? Could you understand the French Revolution without understanding all the causes and events that led up to it? Nope. And you sure as fuck couldn't understand Descartes without the Renaissance, Nietzsche without the Franco-Prussian wars or Wittgenstein without Hitler.

Like Sartre said; The essense cannot precede the existence.


screw satre. why get bogged down in the details. cant the essence of anything be captured by by merely focusing and paying attention it? is it like to learn, i gotta make mistakes first? if fuckers are that stupid to include historical baggage in whatever endeavour, it probably not worth the time! are you aware of the term "timeless"? aim for that. make sure your relevance is not tied down to any fucking period in time!

Sadly, you boys seem to have missed the point here - though spookz in a much more unthinking manner.


So, first, Frotiw;

"Well thats a philosophical stance you can choose. You may opt for this stance or not, but it is not necessarily the natural view of the role of "history of philosophy"

Not true at all. If you've studied music to a great degree, philosophy, psychology or basically anything else that falls into this kind of category you'll soon find out that you inevitably are forced to learn the history.


"The focus of philosphical investigation will also be greatly determined by historical setting but this is almost purely of interest of the historicans. Yes we need to understand the historical context to understand why e.g. this specific stance was introduced instead of another one. But this is historical investigation and undoubtly of great interest for the historians...The philosophers are concerned with the "eternal ideas". The supposed stances are either valid or not valid completly independant of history"

Wrong, and I can't stress enough the extent to which. First of all, most philosophers of the twentieth century on (or, hell, the 19th on) would be disgusted if you told them they were concerned with "eternal ideas". There are no "eternal ideas" in modern philosophy. That's an admitted fact. And as for the stances being completely independant of history? Hell no. Philosophy students are being taught to understand the concepts of philosophy. You cannot understand the concepts of philosophers to the full extent until you understand the times they were bred in.

Like I said before, you will never get through a music course without learning about Chopin's Poland or Mozart's Austria.


"That is why e.g. Platon, Socrates etc. are often mentioned because their thought are still relevant."

No. They are still discussed because they were the founders of philosophy and the basis of rational thought.


"The understanding of how these theories came to be that is what Tyler express, are indeed interesting but for the historians."

Wrong. Philosophy in University is the study of philosophy, the study of knowledge and the persuit of it. Like I've said before, you cannot understand the product until you understand the production.


"What tyles points at is not within the field of philosphy but histoty"

Wrong. And I can get numerous statements from Professors if you'd like.


'"The last comment was intended those that would subscribe "historicism" as philosophical stance. Tyler's reply seem to indicate such a thought."

Wrong. I simply wish to understand the assembly before I state I understand the product.


"To get my point: concider the offence to Descartes if his works was only to be understood in a historical frame."

Where in fuck did you see me say that it was "only to be understood" in historical frame?


"What would he had said if told him his works was dependant on historical context?"

Probably; "Yes, Tyler, I agree. I am definetly influenced largely by my environment - like every single human being"

"screw satre. why get bogged down in the details. cant the essence of anything be captured by by merely focusing and paying attention it?"

I'm not going to go through the concepts of Sartre and existentialism with you - but you need to do some reading if that's your understanding of what I said.


"are you aware of the term "timeless"? aim for that. make sure your relevance is not tied down to any fucking period in time!"

Yes, and at the same time I will make myself a flying purple unicorn. That's about as likely as me being able to overcome what every human has suffered - and that's being greatly shaped by your environment.

hey i just read frotw and he seems to be saying the same thing as i did!
(the man is a genius)
;)

Originally posted by Tyler
Yes, and at the same time I will make myself a flying purple unicorn. That's about as likely as me being able to overcome what every human has suffered - and that's being greatly shaped by your environment.

enjoy your childhood fella. it aint gonna come around again

Sartre was a child? Eh.

I'll deliver your message to UofT post-haste, spookz. I've not been speaking on my own assumptions here - I'm speaking from what I've been told by many

Tyler:
Wrong. Philosophy in University is the study of philosophy, the study of knowledge and the persuit of it. Like I've said before, you cannot understand the product until you understand the production.

This is exactly where you go wrong. The last sentence is what shows the confusion between history and philosophy. Production(the progress) emphasized over product is history. Had you attented a course of "theory og argumentation" perhaps also "logic" would you ought to know that the way of manufaction(origin) is insignificant to the validaty of an argument. As a matter of fact this is exactly what is known as the "genetic fallicy". For those that do not know it that is the generalization of such arguments as e.g. "Ad Hominem". Philosophers tend not to wish to build their framework on a well known fallacy. I am repeating myself when I say this but here I go again:
Your right you cannot historically understand a theory without understanding the historical context. This however is not the job for philosophers. The philosophers are to concider the theory on it's own merrits. In practis this e.g. means that it is very commen to use broad concept like e.g. empirism which are easily understood without referering to history. In philosophy we are simply not concerned with the origin(or way of manufacturing) of a theory that is for the historians. The same goes for quantum mechanic. You do not have understand the timeframe of Bohr and Einstein to understand Quantum Mechanic. If you historically want to understand how Quantum Mechanic came to be as a theory(historicaly) you can concern yourself with the historical background setting. If you are phycisian working as a phycisian with quantum phenomenons you have little need of knowing the historical background. For the theory of quantum mechanics the history means shit. Obviosly the same goes for philosphy we don't need to know the historical background to know either vaildaty or argumental force and flaws.

A B.A. in Philosophy will involve discussion about history. It will involve the professor teaching you about the setting. Past that, from what I've heard, you better be prepared to learn what's actually going on in the world at the time the author wrote.

Well this is not the case with my B.A.

There are no "eternal ideas" in modern philosophy. That's an admitted fact

Ok a simple confusion I wasn't refering to onthological ideas I simply means objective/absolute theories or at least and argumentation based on an objective level.

Wrong. I simply wish to understand the assembly before I state I understand the product.

Yes and understand the assembly is historical investigation not philosophycal just like the above "quantum mechanic example" is history of science and not science.

"Production(the progress) emphasized over product is history"

Again you amke this one error that completely looses it for you.
I never said production over product. I said understanding production is neccesary to understnad the product.

I think, Frotiw, you and I are saying very similar things. You just seem to think I put more weight on the history than I actually do. I put as much importance on understanding The Renaissance in understanding Descartes as I saw the importance on understanding history when learning about Mozart and Chopin and Strauss in music training.


"Well this is not the case with my B.A."

No? It's my understanding that most B.A.'s in philosophy discouse Descartes' Discourse on Method. Did you not talk about the renaissance and it's influence on Descartes during your years? If not, it appears I'm well ahead of myself!


"Ok a simple confusion I wasn't refering to onthological ideas I simply means objective/absolute theories or at least and argumentation based on an objective level"

Good enough.


"Yes and understand the assembly is historical investigation not philosophycal just like the above "quantum mechanic example" is history of science and not science"

No, you are right, the history is not a philosophical investigation. However, you are not thinking in enough dimensions here. Imagine you could only see ten feet above your head. All of a sudden you notice rain dropping. Would you tell me that to understand rain we need only look at the rain itself - or should we look at the clouds as well? A look at the cause is definetly important. Perhaps not to the amateur philosopher (which is what I am right now), perhaps not to the B.A. student (as the B.A. course in Uni tends to lead most people out of philosophy, not onto a Ph.D.) - but if you want to reach any kind of plateau in understanding philosophy and the progression of human thought (note; no, this is not a "history" topic. If you look at your course selection sheets for further studies in Philosophy you'll likely notice that the history aspect of philosophy is found there - and not in a "history" course), it is integral to actually know what causes the thoughts men have.

However, you are not thinking in enough dimensions here

ahh the frikking arrogance! i am gonna have some fun with your ass!

Imagine you could only see ten feet above your head. All of a sudden you notice rain dropping. Would you tell me that to understand rain we need only look at the rain itself - or should we look at the clouds as well?

what a ridiculous example. where is its relevance? you are being disingenuous

If not, it appears I'm well ahead of myself!

yes it is very apparent. dont come running back crying for mommy! :D

If you look at your course selection sheets for further studies in Philosophy you'll likely notice that the history aspect of philosophy is found there - and not in a "history" course), it is integral to actually know what causes the thoughts men have.

the authors of a school curriculum are now of exalted status? the inclusion of history keeps you guys busy and them paid!

instead of frikking generalizing and standing in the rain, why dont you pull out a philosophical concept that cannot be understood without a notion of its circumstance? once that is done, introduce another that can be understood by itself (honesty for a change!)

now that i think about it you were pulling the same shit in some movie thread
what was it, mr ebert? to really understand the movie you gotta..........what?

"Well thats a philosophical stance you can choose. You may opt for this stance or not, but it is not necessarily the natural view of the role of "history of philosophy"

Not true at all. If you've studied music to a great degree, philosophy, psychology or basically anything else that falls into this kind of category you'll soon find out that you inevitably are forced to learn the history.
Forced? Probably a non acurate concept. You don't need more history to study aristotelian logics than you need in astronomy.








"The focus of philosphical investigation will also be greatly determined by historical setting but this is almost purely of interest of the historicans. Yes we need to understand the historical context to understand why e.g. this specific stance was introduced instead of another one. But this is historical investigation and undoubtly of great interest for the historians...The philosophers are concerned with the "eternal ideas". The supposed stances are either valid or not valid completly independant of history"

Wrong, and I can't stress enough the extent to which. First of all, most philosophers of the twentieth century on (or, hell, the 19th on) would be disgusted if you told them they were concerned with "eternal ideas". There are no "eternal ideas" in modern philosophy. That's an admitted fact. And as for the stances being completely independant of history? Hell no. Philosophy students are being taught to understand the concepts of philosophy. You cannot understand the concepts of philosophers to the full extent until you understand the times they were bred in.

This is an unaccaptable prejudice that I have listened many times before. First, let us stablish what world is and what time is and then (not before) we can talk about history. It's impossible understand history without some ontological precepts beacuse it suposes that "existence", "universe" or "time" are out there. What do you mean when said that there are not eternal ideas in the modern philosophy? What about hegelian idealism? What about transcendental idealism in Kant?






Like I said before, you will never get through a music course without learning about Chopin's Poland or Mozart's Austria.
Music starts from a matemathical bases. If you want to apreciate formal objectes of any art, you don't need its historical context.





"That is why e.g. Platon, Socrates etc. are often mentioned because their thought are still relevant."

No. They are still discussed because they were the founders of philosophy and the basis of rational thought.
Yes, my God! Aristotle or Plato are classic philosophers beause the problems they investigated seems as interesting now as before.







"The understanding of how these theories came to be that is what Tyler express, are indeed interesting but for the historians."

Wrong. Philosophy in University is the study of philosophy, the study of knowledge and the persuit of it. Like I've said before, you cannot understand the product until you understand the production.
Nope. The logic value of a sentence (E=mc^2) doesn't depends of the making off.







"What tyles points at is not within the field of philosphy but histoty"

Wrong. And I can get numerous statements from Professors if you'd like.






'"The last comment was intended those that would subscribe "historicism" as philosophical stance. Tyler's reply seem to indicate such a thought."

Wrong. I simply wish to understand the assembly before I state I understand the product.


"To get my point: concider the offence to Descartes if his works was only to be understood in a historical frame."

Where in fuck did you see me say that it was "only to be understood" in historical frame?
I just understood the same way, help me understand you.






"What would he had said if told him his works was dependant on historical context?"







Historicism, in philosophy, it's a hardly reductive tendence I have never understand at all. The historical context can help you to understand an autor, agree; but a) Philosophy is not only waht philosophers said, b) What philosophers said is significant by its internal logics not by its historical impact, c) May be there's not history at all... but I'm sure there is any idea in my conscience (Descartes), d) In philosophy and sience, we must to separate the arguemental context and the historical context (Richenback), and I state that the philosophically important is the first, e) "Every statement needs its historical context to be justified" (I don't know if anybody here thinks that way) needs, if right, its historical context to be true... so it can result true today and false tomorrow. If this sentence wants to itself become a serious true, it must become a non historical sentence; but then we would obtain A and no A; and f) When Sartre, using an "ethiolate use of the lenguage" (Austin) by my point of view, said that the essence is posterior to the existence, they only spoke about human being.

Huh ?

I don't need to study History or the history of Philosophy to be
able to understand and read essays on Free Will, God, Morality
and other most interesting topics. Who the hell needs to know
what was going on at the time to enjoy such timeless problems?

:confused: What am I missing here people ? (if anything...) :confused:

i channelled sartre and he demands you stop misrepresenting him!

Ha, ha, ha! I remember that Sartre was quite materialist... I don't think that he goes easily to a ouija session!

I'm kind of busy at the moment, so I'm gonna make this to the point.


" It's impossible understand history without some ontological precepts beacuse it suposes that "existence", "universe" or "time" are out there"

This is a debate for another thread altogether, but I would disagree with that (if I'm understanding you correctly). Existence before essence, if you get my drift, and an ontological discussion is about essence.


"What do you mean when said that there are not eternal ideas in the modern philosophy?"

I mean there have been few acknowledged philosophers who have subscribed to the idea of objective, eternal or universal "truths". Most have accepted a basic subjectivity and then worked off of language (note: "modern" meaning twentieth century. Or, better yet, Nietzche on - so, postmodern)


"Aristotle or Plato are classic philosophers beause the problems they investigated seems as interesting now as before."

Subjective arguement. I find Aristotle a bore and Plato repetitive. They're studied because they founded - this does not mean their arguements are still relevant. We discuss early Greek science but we still don't consider the "four elements" to be relevant.


" just understood the same way, help me understand you."

Keep readin'! Like I said, I htink we miscommunicated.


"The historical context can help you to understand an autor, agree"

Historical context helps you understand an author.
Understanding an author helps you understand his logic.
Understanding his logic helps you both find fault and good in his arguements.
Thus, helping philosophy.


"b) What philosophers said is significant by its internal logics not by its historical impact"

Wrong, on language. It is "significant" largely through it's historical impact. Would you say Marx is significant because he wrote some funky ideas or because it changed the shape of the world?


") In philosophy and sience, we must to separate the arguemental context and the historical context (Richenback), and I state that the philosophically important is the first"

Agreed.


"f) When Sartre, using an "ethiolate use of the lenguage" (Austin) by my point of view, said that the essence is posterior to the existence, they only spoke about human being"

I'll check into that, but I don't believe so.

Rest of you - I got work to do, I'll be back in a minute.

"ahh the frikking arrogance! i am gonna have some fun with your ass"

Well, for starters it's not arrogance - it's an analogy.
Second, when are you going to start having fun? I've seen you talk a lot about how dumb I am, but I'm not sure where you've actually said anything of intelligence?


"what a ridiculous example. where is its relevance? you are being disingenuous"

If you were studying Hitler would you look at Mein Kempf, the Holocaust, WWII and that's that? I doubt it.
It's not a ridiculous example at all. And if it is - you've yet to show why.

Where is the relevance of history? Generally when you study a subject in depth you hope to understand all the causes. When I study Sartre I want to know who Sartre is. When I study Wittgenstein I want to know that he was insane enough to join the most likely death in WWI despite not even having to fight. Why? It helps me understand the man. And that helps me understand their logic.


"the authors of a school curriculum are now of exalted status?"

I'd trust a professor above you, yes.
Pick up a copy of Wittgenstein's Poker. The first, oh, 180 pages are spent simply discussing the history of Wittgenstein and Popper.


"why dont you pull out a philosophical concept that cannot be understood without a notion of its circumstance"

I've but said that to take philosophy to a full extent one must understand the philosopher.


"to really understand the movie you gotta..........what?"

Uh. Which thread? The independant film one? Or the one about American Beauty? I said to understand that specific movie you have to understand the message (philosophy) of the movie. To be honest, I really don't think that's much a stretch.

I haven't said this in this forum before, but I also say that a comprehension of the delivery is important in appreciating a movie (also - I didn't say to "understand" the movie, I said to "appreciate it to it's full potential")

I understand that you taked "modern philosophy" as from about Nietzsche to XXI century, and in our ages most of the philosophical tendences uses to avoid eternal ideas, agree.

Well, could be there are more than four elements! But Aristotelic ideas about logics, biology (taxonomies), the being, polithics and many others are absolutely actual. Plato repetitive? Have you ever seen Matrix?

Well I'm still thinking that you mixes tendencially history and philosophy: Of course Marx historical context and consequences of his historical materialism was very significative... from a historical point of view! From a philosophical one, Marx it's as important as if Lenin had followed Adam Smith!

Could be I remembered wrong about Sartre... if you revise it correct me, Tyler, please. At least, I allways thought that existence before essence is only a metaphorical assertion cause it's ontologically nonsense, I think: if something exists before "is", can we say that thre "is" something? It is not a mere linguistical game.

Probably you have seen that I'm very influenced by Descartes and racionalism and although I have received a long formation in history and humanities and a antropological point of view on philosophy, I never have been clever enough (?) to note the rellevance of the history in philosophy or sience more than giving a clue to understand the autor... not his theories. I'm not the only one, remember Karl Popper, one of the most influenciant thinker of the XX century who adviced the "miserys of historicism" and had not any problem in recognise three ontological realms one of them was not a historical realm. I'm not sure if you're agree with historicism, when you say "Philosphy=history, that is WAY off at least where I attend" may be yes; if yes may be you can help me understand you (we're at similar historical contexts!), if not, it's as interesting as that understanding you.

Originally posted by Tyler
Well, for starters it's not arrogance - it's an analogy.
Second, when are you going to start having fun? I've seen you talk a lot about how dumb I am, but I'm not sure where you've actually said anything of intelligence?

debating you is not my idea of fun. making snide remarks is. for instance the reason you have never noticed me saying anything intelligent is an indication of your stupidity. ( do i really call you dumb? a lot? show me!)

If you were studying Hitler would you look at Mein Kempf, the Holocaust, WWII and that's that? I doubt it.
It's not a ridiculous example at all. And if it is - you've yet to show why.

we are talking philosophy. not soc/psych/hist/physics. this is why your examples are not relevant. rain falling from a cloud is hardly the concern of philosophy. you would be better off studying the physical sciences for an understanding of that process. likewise investigating the life of hitler is best dealt with the social sciences. philosophy on the other hand seems to deal with abstract notions, ideas, concepts. it proceeds by reasoning and argument. there is no faith, tradition, culture, history or intuition required here. what was logical in the past should be so now and in the future (assuming of course our mode of reasoning remains the same, ie: the brain).

Where is the relevance of history? Generally when you study a subject in depth you hope to understand all the causes. When I study Sartre I want to know who Sartre is. When I study Wittgenstein I want to know that he was insane enough to join the most likely death in WWI despite not even having to fight. Why? It helps me understand the man. And that helps me understand their logic.

again you are getting sidetracked. this discussion is about your assertion that philosopical ideas are best understood if the historical context in which they arose are factored in. i would maintain that you are then studying history and not philosophy. for instance if i was eyeballing satre's logic, all i would be concerned about if there is any fallacious reasoning behind his ideas. thats it! a pox on the gonnorhea........bad plumbing......revolution.

I'd trust a professor above you, yes.
Pick up a copy of Wittgenstein's Poker. The first, oh, 180 pages are spent simply discussing the history of Wittgenstein and Popper.

whats trust got to do with anything?
excellent! thats 180 pages less to read

I've but said that to take philosophy to a full extent one must understand the philosopher.

your concept of full extent maybe necessary for you to pass your exams but has no relevance to me

look, philosophy is an interdisciplinary kinda thing. there are a lot of overlapping areas

"again you are getting sidetracked. this discussion is about your assertion that philosopical ideas are best understood if the historical context in which they arose are factored in"

Where did I say this? I believe my words were that the history is integral to fully understand the philosophy because to understand the base logic of a philosopher we must understand the man. What you've just said is much more general and makes it to think that I suggest you go learn the Renaissance and then read Descartes. This is not what I believe is a good idea. I think it's helpful to know the Renaissance and it's impact on Descartes after having read his works. I believe this will help you understand why Descartes thought the way he did. And frankly, if I understand how someone thinks it's much easier for me to analyze what it is they're saying exactly.

I'm doubting you'll argue that many philosophers have been somewhat criptic, almost. At the very least, their works are open to multiple interputations. And as such, I'm not about to think I can pick out exactly what they're trying to say until I understand how they think (and though it is impossible to fully understand how they think, it's obvious that we can have some understanding).

Originally posted by Tyler
No? It's my understanding that most B.A.'s in philosophy discouse Descartes' Discourse on Method. Did you not talk about the renaissance and it's influence on Descartes during your years? If not, it appears I'm well ahead of myself!

If I'd had to learn about the reaissance in philosophy, I would've changed my major. For that matter if I'd had to study Descartes' Discourse on Method I would have as well... don't get me started on how much I hate Descartes.

For my BA in philosophy, I had to take 2 history of philosophy classes: ancient and early modern. I disliked them both since they tended to disallow modern objections to the old dead guys. However, fortunately, they never involved and history outside of the philosophy itself. Never did I feel I was in the history department, I only felt like I was in a boring philosophy class where we were restricted to ancient ideas.

There were also a couple of classes that were time-specific in that they were modern only... 20th century analytic philosophy, for example, was a class I took. Never was any historical context discussed, of course, except for the context of one philospher responding to another. Plato even enters as the guy who Ryle responds to, for example.

In all other classes, ideas discussed were selected from across any period of time... ideas from 500 B.C. and 2000 A.D. were often tossed about in in the same discussion with no regard for historical context.

To put it simply, we don't care about history. If I'd been required to, I would've hated philosophy.

While I'm highly suspect of the notion of progress in philosophy, and I might for example find myself agreeing more with Parmenedes than with David Chalmers, I couldn't care less about what was going on in the world during the life of Parmenedes.

:bugeye:

I guess reading 'Reason and Responsibility' is out of the question
because having no knowledge of the time period in which most of
the problems have come from, surely I will not understand a thing!

Is this what you guys are arguing ? :D

philosophy on the other hand seems to deal with abstract notions, ideas, concepts. it proceeds by reasoning and argument. there is no faith, tradition, culture, history or intuition required here.

i am gonna remove intuition from here! reasoning is old and tiring and gets me nowhere. i prefer intuition, insights, conjecture and whatnot. hopefully something new will come out of it (something with a logical structure would be nice!).

;)

Originally posted by Tyler
Where did I say this?

I'm doubting you'll argue that many philosophers have been somewhat criptic, almost. At the very least, their works are open to multiple interputations. And as such, I'm not about to think I can pick out exactly what they're trying to say until I understand how they think (and though it is impossible to fully understand how they think, it's obvious that we can have some understanding)

apologies. i should have mentioned i was paraphrasing or that you said something to that effect.

stoned?

Originally posted by Tyler
What you've just said is much more general and makes it to think that I suggest you go learn the Renaissance and then read Descartes. This is not what I believe is a good idea. I think it's helpful to know the Renaissance and it's impact on Descartes after having read his works. I believe this will help you understand why Descartes thought the way he did. And frankly, if I understand how someone thinks it's much easier for me to analyze what it is they're saying exactly.

oh lordy lordy!
i recommend high colonics