- #1
Entropia
- 1,474
- 2
So... who do you think?
And why?
And why?
Originally posted by N_Quire
Descartes, because you were utterly wrong about dualism.
Originally posted by zimbo
Philosophers like Descartes and Socrates may have been wrong about lots of things, but it's their attitudes that make them good philosophers.
LOL, that is ammusing simply because a good friend of mine just recently left her Ayn Rand book with me telling me that I have to read it, its great. The book is Atlas Shrugged, and I am interested in it, but we'll see how it goes.Originally posted by RageSk8
Ayn Rand... That is if one even considers her a philosopher... "Peddler of hegemony" would be a much better term.
Originally posted by Mentat
I really don't know, as my knowledge of Philosophy is extremely limited. But I never much cared for Socrates (he is the one that popularized the immorality of the soul, right?).
Ayn Rand... That is if one even considers her a philosopher... "Peddler of hegemony" would be a much better term.
Originally posted by Andre
In terms of how many people had to die, due to a mere philosophy, I think we have the winner http://radicalacademy.com/philmarx.htm.
Originally posted by N_Quire
LW Sleeth wrote: "Still, his [Marx] is awful philosophy because applying it requires acting so completely contrary to human nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It could be argued then whether it was human nature or the philosophy which did the killing. I don't think there is much correspondence between the ideas of Marx and the version of them seen in China, the former Soviet bloc, Cuba, North Korea, Albania, etc. To argue that direct correspondence is like blaming Jesus for all of the killing done in the name of christianity.
Originally posted by kyleb
i agree on Descartes; however, i don't see how you can say that a man who claimed he knew nothing was wrong.
oh, and i probably will get some complaints on this; but in my opinion Nitche was rather loopy as well.
Anyway, what I said was that to apply Marx's philosophy means to go against human nature (at least, as we understand it now).
Originally posted by RageSk8
Except not... Take the !Kung of Africa (or, rather, take the !Kung 50 years ago) - total redistribuation of wealth, no definite hierrarchy (except that edlers were respected), and NO PRESTIGE. In other words, when a !Kung would bring back a big kill, he would get no recognization for his work, no extra food, no benefit beyond what everyone else in the tribe got. Helps to know anthropology... Not that I am a Marxist... Dialectical history is BS.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I know it's dated, but I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs still has relevance to discussions like this. Applying it to the !Kung . . .
In a tribal setting survival is often a pretty all-consuming job so, putting it in terms of Maslow's hierarchy, when it is difficult to get past that bottom level of survival, issues like self actualization take a back seat.
Yet there can be great personal rewards in a tribal setting because of the intimacy of it. Lots of friends, membership in the group, the sense of power one gets when part of that group (similar to what attracts some people to gangs) . . . all are personally rewarding. Compare that to how one can be an invisible nothing in modern societies (or a business).
Originally posted by RageSk8
How I hate "all consuming" definitions. Philosophically, now that mysticism has been swept aside by naturalistic metaphors, the whole notion of "a human nature" is utterly useless. All theories attempt to give meaning to the impossible - the whole, the absolute.
To barrow an argument from Wittgenstein, it does not make sense to talk about the world, it only makes sense to talk about entities or relations in the world. Donald Davidson says much the same but with the metaphor of organizing a closet. the meta-picture can only be defined by its micro-elements. Because of this, "human nature" must simply, and broadly, be defined as any set of behaviors humans have, will, and do exhibit.
This "selfish gene" slant of yours can not escape the constraints of describing content. The "selfish gene", just like Nietzsche’s "will to power", Rousseau's "noble savage", Hobbes' "corrupted spirit", Foucault's "power-knowledge relation", and, of course, Marx's "material dialect of classes", is of no use outside of demonstrating a basic concept or pattern.
You have to shape, construe any behavior seemingly aberrant to your predetermined epistemology, limiting truth and loosing any pragmatic use. It is not that hard to content a redescription - the question is if it is of any use. Clearly your circumscription of the !Kung into sociobiological terms is about as enlightening – to barrow an analogy from Wittgenstein – as checking what is said in a newspaper with a copy of the same paper.
Originally posted by N_Quire
Kyleb, I would guess that you would dislike Nietzsche. I suppose somone who writes a book called "The Antichrist" is not going to be one of your favorites. I don't defend the political uses of his work by extremists but I do admire his philosophy and critique of christianity.
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, a person who claims that he knows nothing is, without a doubt, wrong. It is not possible to claim anything, without first knowing how to claim.
Originally posted by RageSk8
How I hate "all consuming" definitions. Philosophically, now that mysticism has been swept aside by naturalistic metaphors, the whole notion of "a human nature" is utterly useless. All theories attempt to give meaning to the impossible - the whole, the absolute.
Originally posted by RageSk8
To barrow an argument from Wittgenstein, it does not make sense to talk about the world, it only makes sense to talk about entities or relations in the world. Donald Davidson says much the same but with the metaphor of organizing a closet. The meta-picture can only be defined by its micro-elements. Because of this, "human nature" must simply, and broadly, be defined as any set of behaviors humans have, will, and do exhibit.
Originally posted by RageSk8
This "selfish gene" slant of yours can not escape the constraints of describing content. Your "selfish gene", just like Nietzsche’s "will to power", Rousseau's "noble savage", Hobbes' "corrupted spirit", Foucault's "power-knowledge relation", and, of course, Marx's "material dialect of classes", is of no use outside of demonstrating a basic concept or pattern.
Originally posted by RageSk8
You have to shape, construe any behavior seemingly aberrant to your predetermined epistemology, limiting truth and loosing any pragmatic force. It is not that hard to give content a redescription - the question is whether that redescription is of any use. Clearly your circumscription of the !Kung into sociobiological terms is about as enlightening – to barrow an analogy from Wittgenstein – as checking what is said in a newspaper with a copy of the same paper.
First of all, you shouldn’t hate. Second, you need to talk to me, not your own mind. I say that because you seem outraged, and I can’t figure out why. I don’t think I insulted you by anything I said. So honestly, I don’t know what you are talking about. It doesn’t seem to me that you responded to a single thing I said (e.g. exactly what all-consuming definition did I cite?). Still, now that you’ve thrown down the gauntlet, let’s get it on.
So, you are joining the ranks of those who “sweep aside” that which they neither are knowledgeable about nor understand? When someone dismisses something they don’t understand, it is usually because it interferes with their objectives of proving they are right. If you can unceremoniously discredit something, then you don’t have to make your case by evidence. Philosophers dismiss mysticism, mystics dismiss philosophers . . . what is the difference? In either case it is a dubious debating tactic and not worthy of anyone genuinely in search of truth.
Why don’t we just stick to science to decide this question of whether or not humans have a “nature”?
ht. What do YOU see when you observe reality, what have YOU concluded from your personal life experiences. That interests me, not guys who can’t explain themselves now.
What selfish gene are you suggesting I have talked about? I have neither said nor implied anything “selfish.” By nature I am talking evolution and any other influences that have shaped us. We are not able to be just any old way we decide to be without consequences. Some conditions help humans thrive, other conditions damage us. If we have not a nature, then how can that be?
Blind faith? Jesus Christ…All you did was describe the !Kung by a preset interpretation of individual gain and necessity Your post was meaningless. Richard Feynman (physicist if you didn’t know) said a scientific theory had to do two things: 1. Accurately describe events 2. Point to outside areas with empirically testable conclusions (by said description of course) Anyone who has a layman conception of the scientific method would agree with Feynman. Now, where in anything that you posted was the second stipulation fulfilled? It wasn’t – not at all, not in any stretch. Again, all you did so far is take what I said about the !Kung and try to fit it to your conception of evolution and culture (and a very bad one at that). How is that scientific? You end up "comparing a newspaper with a copy of the same paper" by merely redescribing the !Kung in a different vocabulary that could draw no performative (be it scientific or meaningful) distinction from my origional description! There is no useful outcome, no differentiation found in your description of the !Kung.I would love to hear you explain this: “Clearly your circumscription of the !Kung into sociobiological terms is about as enlightening . . . as checking what is said in a newspaper with a copy of the same paper.” Have you studied tribal anthropology versus the values that develop in non-tribal, modern, technologically-driven societies? Demonstrate in one single way (evidence please) that I have misconstrued facts to support some epistemology you’ve imagined I embrace. I will tell you plain and simple the basis of my epistemology: experience and know. That’s it. What about you? The vast majority of stuff you toss out you have never experienced. I think you are just infatuated by complicated thinkers. There is no difference in blind faith in mysticism, the Bible, the existentialists, empiricism, and anything else. Blind faith is blind faith . . . mouthing of other people’s ideas sans personal experience.