0
   

The Philosopher's Motto

 
 
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 02:37 am
"Being a philosopher, I have a problem for every solution."

You betcha :bigsmile:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,072 • Replies: 24
No top replies

 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 06:36 am
@Victor Eremita,
he who laughs last laughs last...
0 Replies
 
jgweed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 07:34 am
@Victor Eremita,
Φιλοφια Βιου Κυβερνητης
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 07:36 am
@Victor Eremita,
"Philosophers have sought to understand the world. The point, however, is to change it."
~ Karl Marx
hammersklavier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 02:16 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed wrote:
Φιλοφια Βιου Κυβερνητης

Filo[so?]fia viou kuvernetes? What does that mean?
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 03:25 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita;33123 wrote:
"Being a philosopher, I have a problem for every solution."

Hahahaha!! So true! Thanx
0 Replies
 
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 04:54 pm
@hammersklavier,
hammersklavier wrote:
Filo[so?]fia viou kuvernetes? What does that mean?


He could have added Gνωθι σεαυτον , also an oldie.

(Greek?? Loool. Here we go again Very Happy )
0 Replies
 
democritus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 05:04 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
"Philosophers have sought to understand the world. The point, however, is to change it."
~ Karl Marx

Thank you for bringing this most misinterpreted quote for the debate.

a- Did Marx undervalued the task of "seeking to understand the world"?
No, he apparently did not, since he has spent most of his life "understanding" rather than "changing". Of course it is arguable that his studies and writings were the essential tools to "change" or revolutionise the existing class structure. This changing bit comes after understanding [particularly for a philosopher].

b- What did Marx mean with "The point, however, is to change it."?
My understanding is that, he is drawing attention to the urgent task of changing the established order of the day. He was probably not naive thinking that this task could have been achieved by philosophers alone, therefore he was addressing to the masses.

c- Unfortunately, Marx's quotation was used as a demagogic instrument [as if by saying - we do not have the luxury of "understanding" now, let us change it first we will understand it later] to keep the masses ignorant by politicians supposedly defending Marx's ideas.

Thanks
democritus
0 Replies
 
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 05:32 pm
@Victor Eremita,
My reading of the Marx quote is that philosophy is a tool that needs to be put into action for it to serve its purpose. Sure, you can understand as much as you want about the world, but if that understanding is not put to use it is little more than empty rhetoric.

Obama is a good example of this. All of his understanding and rhetoric will do no good as President if he does not affect the world in some way.
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 03:45 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;43840 wrote:
Sure, you can understand as much as you want about the world, but if that understanding is not put to use it is little more than empty rhetoric.

Sometimes 'understanding' entails that nothing needs to be 'done', perhaps all is balanced and complete as it is...
0 Replies
 
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 06:30 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Something tells me that not is all balanced or complete within civilization, and hasn't been since the beginning of its history.
Jay phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 07:15 pm
@Theaetetus,
From Nameless:
"Sometimes 'understanding' entails that nothing needs to be 'done', perhaps all is balanced and complete as it is..."


Nice statement! The Taoist call this, "Wei Wu Wei" (doing not doing).
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 07:33 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;44082 wrote:
Something tells me that not is all balanced or complete within civilization, and hasn't been since the beginning of its history.

That 'something' would be, I think, ego. It is such a Perspective as ego that 'judges' existence of the moment..
Every universe of the moment is complete, balanced, wanting nothing...
It's all a matter of Perspective.

"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must, perforce, contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole." -Rene' Guenon

On what basis do we adjudge this and that as 'bad/evil/unbalanced/wrong'? Personal comfort (and ultimately ego/thoughts, vanity) appears to be the usual basis for such (arbitrary) distinctions.
0 Replies
 
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 08:17 pm
@Victor Eremita,
That something is not my ego. It is your perspective that judges that my ego is the "something" in my statement. Never mind the wars, the pollution, the unnecessary repression of the third world, consumer based economies, waste, garbage, genocides....
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 06:47 am
@jgweed,
Mistakes in religion (and politics) are dangerous; in philosophy, merely ridiculous. (Hume)
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 08:00 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
Something tells me that not is all balanced or complete within civilization, and hasn't been since the beginning of its history.


Everything is always balanced.

What you seek when you seek balance is balance according to your desires.
0 Replies
 
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 08:11 am
@Victor Eremita,
A quick study of complex systems theory will show that things are not always in balance--only when the systems are in equilibrium. Otherwise, there are positive and negative feedback loops that push the system away or towards equilibrium.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 08:31 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
A quick study of complex systems theory will show that things are not always in balance--only when the systems are in equilibrium. Otherwise, there are positive and negative feedback loops that push the system away or towards equilibrium.


Are these completely isolated systems?

EDIT: If we artificially isolate a system, it is easy to perceive it as out of balance. Falling back on my favorite topic, take pricing equilibrium in economics. It is certainly recognized that prices can fall out of equilibrium. However, a central tenet of economics is that as prices fall out of equilibrium, there is also a resulting shift in the natural equilibrium of supply and demand. So while price may shift out of balance, it is coupled with a shift of the desires of market actors, and the great cosmic balance sheet remains true.
0 Replies
 
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 09:17 am
@Victor Eremita,
One of the main reasons why it is called complex systems theory is because it recognizes that systems which are artificially isolated appear to be many things that they are not. Typically complex systems fall out of equilibrium, and then some stimuli brings the system back into equilibrium. But there is also a runaway effect that can happen when the system move too far away from its balanced state. Runaway population growth is an example of this. The U.S. economy seems that it may suffer a similar fate.
0 Replies
 
Jose phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 01:17 am
@Victor Eremita,
"To philosophise is to learn to die."
 

Related Topics

Your Quote of the Day - Discussion by edgarblythe
Poo-tee-weet? - Question by boomerang
can anyone help me with this quote - Question by ritchielmk
Quotes...not exactly correct. - Question by Frank Apisa
Post your favorite tv shows Quotes? - Question by makwarne01
looking for a peace offering quotes - Question by aycelsanorjo
Looking for a particular quote... - Discussion by LocalHero
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Philosopher's Motto
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/28/2022 at 04:33:01