0
   

Why would you want to be a philosopher?

 
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 09:21 am
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
In reality the medieval society has a lot more in common with Aristotelian philosophies since slavery and casts were glossed over by the hypothesis of the 'good' end'goal' of a cretain state within oneself (eudaemonia). By looking at the 'goal' one does not look at the act-in-itself. Plato Does the opposite and does look at the act-in-itself, but with the intent to create something which is beneficial to the entire polis. He looks towards Sparta (Athens had just been defeated by Sparta) to find strength and discipline. He is no dictator however because of the fact that his intent is to benefit the entire populace, while Aristotle has the intent to benefit only the elite.

This is often confused because of neo-platonism, which 'somehow' seems to focus on finding simularities between Christianity and Plato's works. Another confusing factor is the fact that the church of the dark ages is the christian church in the Greek tradition (thereby signifying that it has a lot of simularities with Plato), while in reality preaching the devision between the divine an dthe worldly as in Aristotle's works. When Aristotle's works surfaced again and certain facts become more well known the church rejoiced because of the oppurtunity to actively pursue what it had done covertly all along and that is the inquisition of all people, populaces and countries which understood the difference between intuitions and cognitive thoughts. Genocide was committed on a large scale because of this.

I think the difference I mentioned between the hypothetical 'goal' and examining the act-in-itself is quite thoroughly examined by Immanuel Kant. I wrote a little something on it which I think might benefit you (and everybody else that is interested). It can be found here.

Hope this helps.

p.s. No, I do not advise his work. He has not understood Plato, as he has not understood researching.

And you do understand researching? I just read, and follow my interests. I would not think it strange if the student of an elitist were an elitist; but I do not get that from Aristotle, and not from ethics which I have read much of. I do think there is a presumption in Plato of tangible justification, much as the Jews and many protestants accept, that the blessed are blessed in this life in a tangible fashion like creme ascending to the top while milk settles to the bottom. Again, each may be forgiven some. There was not mythology as a science, no sociology, and no anthropology, as such. There was much that was primitive in their social structure, and again, the period was one of transition from a primitive honor economy to a money economy. And no less than them, we think those with wealth and power are honorable without critical judgement of what power and wealth are.

On the other hand, I might caution you not to judge slavers too harshly. Slavery is a form of relationship, and far better than the cannibalism that preceeded it. While it is unequal, it is better to have an unequal relationship than no relationship. The question, it seems to me, is this: Since slavery was a sign of wealth, and because people might transition into slavery for debt, in other words through the form of economy, and because of this, divided the society and ultimately weakened it; how can slavery be justified from the broader view of social and cultural good?

The question is never just the one of the nature of the relationship between slave and master, but the effect over all on the whole society and ultimately on history. We see first Greece, and then Rome, torn apart because they could not keep that which made them great while trading it for all that made them small. Tiberious Gracchus saw the slaves disposses the small landholders of Rome from their fields. While they still had political power, Caesar rode that to power. We are in the same position, where wealth is found honorable, but political equality cannot be maintained in the face of economic inequality. And, the same thing brought Israel to ruin; but I don't want to be Gracchus, or Jesus seeing wealth and political power at one extreme while powerlessness and poverty settle to the other extreme of society. We have the example of history and should be able to see the score. And we are losing. Thanks
Arjen
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 10:20 am
@Fido,
The reason I said that he does not know how to research is because the current scientific method was for a large part designed by Popper.
Code:
[I][B]1[/B][/I]. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Characterizations"][COLOR=#800080]Use your experience[/COLOR][/URL]: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step [I][B]2[/B][/I].
[I][B]2[/B][/I]. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Hypothesis_development"][COLOR=#800080]Form a conjecture[/COLOR][/URL]: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
[I][B]3[/B][/I]. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Predictions_from_the_hypothesis"][COLOR=#800080]Deduce a prediction from that explanation[/COLOR][/URL]: If you assume [I][B]2[/B][/I] is true, what consequences follow?
[I][B]4[/B][/I]. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Experiments"][COLOR=#800080]Test[/COLOR][/URL] : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove [I][B]2[/B][/I]. It is a logical error to seek [I][B]3[/B][/I] directly as proof of [I][B]2[/B][/I]. This error is called [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent"][COLOR=#0000ff]affirming the consequent[/COLOR][/URL][/I].

This model does not take into account ontological differences though. The model only works in an empirical world-model (which does not allow for creation, ontological differences). Therefore the model does not survive itself because it creates paradoxes, refuting the outcome of research results.

If oyu did not get the casts-system from Aristotle's work, then please read them again. Aristotle is a very nasty person once you see what he speaks about. I'd say that the thought-objects causing problems in the world today are directly related to Aristotelianism, but who am I?
Plato does something else and I would like to note that the people arguing for free societies during the enlightenment were Platonists.

Concerning and slavery new topics might be needed. I, for one, like to state that in no situation slavery is ever 'good'. It is merely something that was accepted because people did not know how to resist it. There were other ideas around though, like Plato's or perhaps the slaves had some ideas concerning that...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 12:35 pm
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
The reason I said that he does not know how to research is because the current scientific method was for a large part designed by Popper.
Code:
[I][B]1[/B][/I]. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Characterizations"][COLOR=#800080]Use your experience[/COLOR][/URL]: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step [I][B]2[/B][/I].
[I][B]2[/B][/I]. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Hypothesis_development"][COLOR=#800080]Form a conjecture[/COLOR][/URL]: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
[I][B]3[/B][/I]. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Predictions_from_the_hypothesis"][COLOR=#800080]Deduce a prediction from that explanation[/COLOR][/URL]: If you assume [I][B]2[/B][/I] is true, what consequences follow?
[I][B]4[/B][/I]. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Experiments"][COLOR=#800080]Test[/COLOR][/URL] : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove [I][B]2[/B][/I]. It is a logical error to seek [I][B]3[/B][/I] directly as proof of [I][B]2[/B][/I]. This error is called [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent"][COLOR=#0000ff]affirming the consequent[/COLOR][/URL][/I].

This model does not take into account ontological differences though. The model only works in an empirical world-model (which does not allow for creation, ontological differences). Therefore the model does not survive itself because it creates paradoxes, refuting the outcome of research results.

If oyu did not get the casts-system from Aristotle's work, then please read them again. Aristotle is a very nasty person once you see what he speaks about. I'd say that the thought-objects causing problems in the world today are directly related to Aristotelianism, but who am I?
Plato does something else and I would like to note that the people arguing for free societies during the enlightenment were Platonists.

Concerning and slavery new topics might be needed. I, for one, like to state that in no situation slavery is ever 'good'. It is merely something that was accepted because people did not know how to resist it. There were other ideas around though, like Plato's or perhaps the slaves had some ideas concerning that...

As you say, slavery was accepted. No man could be made a slave against his will, his consent. There is even an element of democracy involved, because the owners of slaves were no less slaves than the slaves and each ate off the same soil. It is not good, only better than no relationship, as canibolism was, or killing prisoners. Judged against what it did to the larger society, on the one hand freeing some people to thought, and making slaves of the population forced to compete with slaves, it was not good, but a positive evil. Philosophers are never in the right position to judge their own societies, even if they can refine our methods at arriving at truth.
And, your statement about the enlightenment strikes me as strange since it is Metaphysical and Christian values that most resulted in it. I don't know what Aristotle called his metaphysics, but I do know it was not called metaphysics. And yet metaphysics, and St. Paul stand behind the Declaration of Independence which is one of the finest fruits of the enlightenment. All men are created equal. Nice thought. No one believes it, and Nietzsche was right to abuse Paul over it. People are not created at all. We are equal, genetically equal, inbred to a brittle and dangerous degree, but we are not created at all, equal or otherwise. And so far as I know, PLato had no metaphysics as such. I'll have to look in my Windelband to see what he has to say.

And I agree that the method proposed by Popper has its faults. I would say the weakness is general, but specifically between three and four. If you are in error about a consequence, that does not imply that its opposite is right. If you say the further off from England the nearer is to France; it is only true in a very particular sense, and generally false, but to state the opposite conclusion gets us no nearer the truth. Only in a dictionary is truth the opposite of false. Just as with the world, anywhere not north is the opposite of north, if taken from a single point, and from that point every direction is south, which is retarded to say too, that every point is south, when south is not a point usually, but a direction. Yet, we are used to looking at life in opposition, so we say hate is the opposite of love. It is not. Not love is the opposite of love. Does that make sense to you.
Arjen
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:20 pm
@Fido,
I think we should start an ethical topic because I think I can point you to some things that you have not seen completely. I think perhaps we should focus on the interactions between humans, from the stateforms to the social contract and making it a point to address the question of equality in every situation spoken of. Shall we?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 07:08 pm
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
I think we should start an ethical topic because I think I can point you to some things that you have not seen completely. I think perhaps we should focus on the interactions between humans, from the stateforms to the social contract and making it a point to address the question of equality in every situation spoken of. Shall we?

Sure. I'm a moralist, so I never tire of changing flats. Who am I trying to ****? I'm 55 and always tired. I could never drive it, and now I is it. There is just too much of me and too little of life. And then you die. Tell me that's fair.
and something else. I have never seen anything completely, nor obscen anything completly. No one has time to do more than a few thing right, and I have a good eye for wrong thought. Here is the thing. Popper's critical judgement, or what ever it was is inessential to moral philosophy. The key to moral behavior is to know what people do, and what has been done, and to recognize the logic of moral behavior. It is purely a method of amassing enough facts so reasonable conclusions can be drawn, and so the faults in ones judgement become visible as well. It is easy to beat up on long dead philosophers for what they did not know, but the real challenge is to whip them over what they should have known. When Socrates shone a light on himself he also shined a light on his society, and I think, if you read some one like Morgan who was a pretty good scholar of ancient society, you can see much that Socrates did not grasp about his own society because so much of it was invisible to him, that he was able to make visible to us. And of course, this means Plato. So feel free to enlighten me. The best path to knowledge is through the ears...
Arjen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2008 04:11 am
@Fido,
The ethical topic can be found here.
0 Replies
 
Poseidon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 06:32 am
@William,
Why a philosopher?

Its the darndest challenge!

Plugging computers in to each other, and making loads of money, is just so boring. When you have been the highest earner in your peer group when at high school, then the ego is satiated.

Well, maybe a poet would be a greater challenge. But I actually cannot really tell the difference between a philosopher and a poet?

And besides, the lesson of King Solomon seeking wisdom first, and attaining riches as well as old age, is quite an inspiration, even for the unsatiated ego.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 07:28 am
@Poseidon,
Poseidon wrote:
Why a philosopher?

Its the darndest challenge!

Plugging computers in to each other, and making loads of money, is just so boring. When you have been the highest earner in your peer group when at high school, then the ego is satiated.

Well, maybe a poet would be a greater challenge. But I actually cannot really tell the difference between a philosopher and a poet?

And besides, the lesson of King Solomon seeking wisdom first, and attaining riches as well as old age, is quite an inspiration, even for the unsatiated ego.

Poetry is an appeal to fate in its older forms especially. I think it is enough that words reason, and too much to ask that they rhyme because communication is truth, and So unlikely that words will rhyme and tell truth. Something has to give, truth or fate, for a poem to rhyme.

I would like to tell you that Philosphers are made and not born. I do see some similarity between the lives of various philosophers, and a common strain of unhappiness. But, that is a frame of mind and not a measure of truth, Is it not? And yet when I look to my earliest remembered moments I can see myself facing even the most joyful events with a tinge of sadness or unfuflilled expectation dragging on my emotions. Why can't I feel only one thing at once? What is it about me? Perhaps, for the philosopher philosophy is like the canvas or clay to the artist, and the place he writes his personality large. So, Philosophy first and ultimately is aimed at the answer of moral questions, some times personal moral questions, and only in between dwells on a firm definition of truth and of reality that we find current through out physics. I think this is because what people come out of and what they go into is unreal, that truth and life are inevitably the same, and your truth can only be similar to my truth, and never quite the same unless we see life as being in common. Thanks
Poseidon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 03:32 pm
@Fido,
Quote:

Why can't I feel only one thing at once?

Because you have not explored the poetic side of philosophy.

Quote:

I think it is enough that words reason, and too much to ask that they rhyme because communication is truth, and So unlikely that words will rhyme and tell truth. Something has to give, truth or fate, for a poem to rhyme.


I think that words when in reason and in rhyme
are more sublime.
Beauty is truth and is more easily understood
than mere philosophy could.

Take your time, with the rhyme,
ones thoughts are more carefully construed
and reach their goal, more ensured
when poetic truth glimmers like starshine.

Brilliance of the cosmos,
Brilliance of mind,
Illuminating us all,
in a patient, meticulous, etymological,
star-sign.

When one observes that words have a leaning
and often a hidden subtle meaning,
revealed only by rhyme
and patient patient time,

like 'infidel' and 'infidelity',
one sees the poets' truth
like a myriad of stars,
twinkling with our aged ancient galaxy.

;-j
0 Replies
 
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2008 09:02 pm
@Victor Eremita,
My explanation would have to state...in the quest of universal translation....the philosophers' stone(chrysopoeia).


-Marc

Victor Eremita wrote:
Why..wha--- I just can't fathom it, I just can't. I mean, a philosopher?! Couldn't you be a systems engineer or cancer researcher or chief financial officer? A philosopher?! My god, man. You know those guys think a priori? Geez. No, don't you dare give me that look. Don't you dare--- stop that! Stop that now! Now, listen. You are going to be a M.D. or a LL.B or CEO, you will NOT throw your life away and become a philosopher.... I don't CARE if it's your life to throw away, it's for your own good. Hey.. where are you going? Hey, come back... come back! If you leave, I'll... I'll disown you! ... I... COME BACK!!!!

--------

A pivotal moment in America's history, the young individual who ran away from home did go to school to become a philosopher. After earning his doctorate in philosophy, he worked as cook at the McDonald's in Times Square, where he was lucky enough to serve a Quarter Pounder to the President of the United States. He was later promoted to White House Chef, and served food and offered advice to six US presidents, influencing the course of world history.

-- United States Heritage Moment.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 04:31 am
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
My explanation would have to state...in the quest of universal translation....the philosophers' stone(chrysopoeia).


-Marc

Youth reads philosophy if so inclined, but only age can do philosophy because age/time/life are the fundamental values against which all values are compared.
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 08:33 am
@Fido,
That totally made sense to me.lol

More or less Age/time/life experiences are chrysopoeia...

Thank you very much;)

-Marc
Fido wrote:
Youth reads philosophy if so inclined, but only age can do philoosphy because age/time/life are the fundamental values against which all values are compared.
0 Replies
 
sarek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 02:05 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Why, because I am cursed with the genes of one.
I cannot stop thinking.
I like to ask my own questions and answer them. I like to reinvent square wheels.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2008 08:58 am
@sarek,
sarek wrote:
Why, because I am cursed with the genes of one.
I cannot stop thinking.
I like to ask my own questions and answer them. I like to reinvent square wheels.

No one invented the wheel, but discovered it as a natural form...
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 04:22 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Good boy Fido:P

Welcome to my NewYork....I set my mind in motion I set my body in control...

Code: -BaC <--A bone indeed .....
^
An enlightened one for sure...
How quick is your time?

Code: -TRoN
^
Fido wrote:
Youth reads philosophy if so inclined, but only age can do philosophy because age/time/life are the fundamental values against which all values are compared.
0 Replies
 
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 04:35 pm
@Fido,
We call that "thought"where I come from.....


-BaC
Your move my friend......

-TRoN
Fido wrote:
No one invented the wheel, but discovered it as a natural form...
0 Replies
 
musicman1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 10:32 pm
@Victor Eremita,
You do not want, you become through a course of events be it the course of events your genes took at birth deciding which to turn on and which to leave waiting dormant or a course of events during your own life. Some event is always what lead a person to decide to be whatever they are.Your interpretations of your environment determine what you are weather you want to be what you've become or not.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 07:52 am
@musicman1,
musicman1 wrote:
You do not want, you become through a course of events be it the course of events your genes took at birth deciding which to turn on and which to leave waiting dormant or a course of events during your own life. Some event is always what lead a person to decide to be whatever they are.Your interpretations of your environment determine what you are weather you want to be what you've become or not.

If it were possible to isolate every event in a person's life it might be possible for you to prove what you think is true... In fact, life is not only events, but interactions, and it is not just determined in any sense, but cheated on... People always have their fingers on the scale of life, and it is not just your finder but all fiingers; culture, fears, prejudice, relationships and etc... As much as we talk about people, individuals, inevitably it is impossible to slip the finest blade between individual and society, and individual and culture without cutting some meat... We grow up together, and this is no more true than in philosophy where the distance between a philosopher and his father might be measured by centuries, so no ones ideas are their own. You give me your knowledge, and I will give you my insight.... You may not be able to give a person the sort of mind to seek insight, but no person alone could ever get enough knowledge to draw relevent conclusions... As has been often noted.. We all stand upon the shoulders of the great... Does that make us great??? Only in the sense that it takes some greatness to recognize greatness..
0 Replies
 
Henrik phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 10:06 am
@Arjen,
The reason why want to be a philosopher is mostly genetical i guess. I have always been a dreamy person, and performed philopsophy long before i knew what the word philosophy really meant.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 06:34 am
@Henrik phil,
Henrik wrote:
The reason why want to be a philosopher is mostly genetical i guess. I have always been a dreamy person, and performed philopsophy long before i knew what the word philosophy really meant.

Genetical does not cut it... Genital does... If you have the nads then you realize you have something to lose before death dims your light, and if you are willing to put what you have on the line, balls and all, for a peek at the truth, then no matter what you take from that look willl be more than you started with, and I will tell you why: Perhaps one percent of life is devoted to finding truth, but the rest is spent in denial... People do not need a clean mirror to see who they are, or what they become, or how we end... The truth is us, and all that is without, but the making of humanity is that little bit of courage required to face our fate, our individual and ultimate fate, and not curse God, our lives, our parents, or each other...So if you get a wish, do not ask for truth that any one can have, but for courage, which few have, and none enough for all their life and actions...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What inspired you to write...discuss - Discussion by lostnsearching
It floated there..... - Discussion by Letty
Small Voices - Discussion by Endymion
Rockets Red Glare - Discussion by edgarblythe
rate this rap - Discussion by theprofessor
Short Story: Wilkerson's Tank - Discussion by edgarblythe
The Virtual Storytellers Campfire - Discussion by cavfancier
1st Annual Able2Know Halloween Story Contest - Discussion by realjohnboy
Literary Agents (a resource for writers) - Discussion by Craven de Kere
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 02:40:32