Any Philosophers here??

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

Click to expand...
 
"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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
: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)
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

oh lordy lordy!
i recommend high colonics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top