The end of philosophy

Yup.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

seems like in response to this......

some explanation of another set of ground rules is in order.

I can only imagine they would have to have an experience-based, long term investment. But that is a guess.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Philosophic endeavors are implied in all others.

Or do you think that statements in, say, ethics, sociology, astronomy, art or whatever, are beyond the need for philosophical scrutiny and accuracy?


Personally, I am struck when I see, for example, sociologists, artists, art critics, not to mention politicians do as if philosophy doesn't exist or say 'Oh, that is a problem of philosophy, not ours.'

For example, they will make some claim, such as 'People should be kind', 'This is important to realize', 'All people are equal' - but ask them to explain it and justify it, and they come up with some pseudo-babble.

By far the worst are many artists and politicians: They flirt with philosophy, but resent to be called on it.

On Sci, reason tends to be (ab)used to justify people's emotionalism.
Emotionalism tends to come first, reason is just its servant.
Or do you think it is right and good that it is so?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is a word missing there where I underlined.
What did you mean?

 

Would you say that ethics has nothing to do with philosophy?

 

'Because I am louder and bigger and stronger than you!'

If philosophy is not given primacy, it's all just a fight between one person's sense of their ego and another's sense of their ego.
Which is why ad baculums in all their varieties work.

 

The end of philosophy
That's the worst thing imaginable.

 

never mind.

 

I didn't.
I was merely pointing out that the article's scope is limited to ethics, unlike the indication given to us in the thread title.

 

Actually its more along the lines of examining the pre-existing state of carte blanche, immunity or impunity etc etc

Hence the common understandings of structural dimensions within ivory towers ....

 

I think we have seen many example of philosophy being engaged as the humble servant of one's ego.

What I tend to think is the last leg of philosophy however, is that which deals with how the ego succumbs.
IOW how there is "something" teleologically greater than ourselves that brings all issues of ego to their proper context.
(an atheist commonly experiences this as death)

 

If you have the means to relegate common instances of reason to an emotional agenda, you take quite a large slice of philosophic endeavours.

As long as one has flaring issues of ego, there is practically no methodology.
The prerequisite is that one has the ability to lead a lifestyle where there is the possibility of controlling themselves.
Of course this probably seems archaic in our contemporary culture of over-indulgence (... hence contemporary philosophy is what it is .... namely not too different from a thousand pages fresh from the lunatic asylum)

 

That mistakenly assumes 2 things: that emotions are an important part of ethics; that emotions are a part of other philosophical realms at all.

Thus, impassionate reason is the only reliable guide.

Interesting.
If contemporary philosophy could be said to be anything, it would be the exact opposite of indulgence of any sort: extreme caution.

 

glaucon

or alternatively, if we are to determine any merit in the OP, thinking that one can breach issues of reason divorced from one's emotional agenda is a mistake

or, understanding that "impassionate reason" is an imagination for anyone in possession of a sense of self, there are guidelines for determining how ego can be utilized yet still retain a handle on the situation.

yet you certainly don't see that trickling down into the daily lives within consumerate culture ...
:scratchin:

 

Ahh, now there my friend, you have an interesting (and in my opinion, correct) point.

Again, I have to agree with this.

And again, I agree wholeheartedly.
Of course, no one ever said philosophy (or, for that matter, any reasoned approach..) had sway in the realm of consumerism.

Sadly, consumerism is driven be the deification of the ego. As to who is to blame for this, well, that's an entirely different discussion....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And logical fallacies. For all practical purposes, if there is one thing that keeps a (more or less philosophical) discussion in check is the awareness of so-called logical fallacies. This awareness varies from one person to another and throughout time and context, though.

As if by providence, logical fallacies are that area of philosophy that enjoys great, if not the greatest popularity.

 

I heard once someone say (cannot remember from whom) something like this (Sorry it's been a while):
"Philosophers today certainly know science, but they do not know philosophy."

I recall my history of philosophy professor last semester would go on about how scientific findings denied Aristotle (physics yes, but he never actually addressed Aristotle's philosophy), and modern philosophy is in-line with scientific knowledge. He seemed, certainly, to claim that any philosophy advocating an objective reality was patently false.

Another interesting statement (I think it may have been from the same person as the first) was: "Philosophers today do not seek the depths of the human experience, but are instead focused on being clever. Cleverness is not philosophy."