12
   

The best 500 words of philosophy you know of

 
 
Victor Eremita
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 11:16 pm
@kennethamy,
I can accept that if there's no argument to support an assertion, that doesn't make it philosophy. Though, eat drink and be merry as a philosophical insight can be used to support hedonism. Everyone is capable of philosophical insight, it's what you do with it, namely argue for or against, is what makes it philosophy.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 11:20 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
No, what would have made you think I thought that people should not be concerned for each other? But that is something quite distant from your original contention that the passage from Donne was a great philosophical passage.


You had two objections, one was that it wasn't philosophy the other was that it was not true. We have just been discussing the objection about whether it was not true, which is indeed quite distant from the objection about whether or not it's philosophy (and which is why this is moving the goal posts to switch to from the objection about the statement's truth).

As for the objection to it being philosophy you seem to be narrowly defining it and arbitrarily excluding philosophical insight if it were not part of the act of philosophizing but that part of your objection just isn't something I have tremendous nits to pick with (just because I don't really think what particular insights we consider to be philosophy is as interesting as contributions you might be able to make that you do consider philosophy).


I suppose it would be nice if people were more concerned about others, but, of course, within reason. I don't think everyone has to be a Mother Theresa (in fact, from what Christopher Hitchens reports, even Mother Theresa was not a Mother Theresa). And if we understand Donne as advocating that, then, hooray for Donne. But philosophy does not consist in shooting off bits of wisdom (although some may think that is what it is). It consists in a sustained effort to understand and analyze our fundamental concepts of thought and language.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2010 11:22 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:

I can accept that if there's no argument to support an assertion, that doesn't make it philosophy. Though, eat drink and be merry as a philosophical insight can be used to support hedonism. Everyone is capable of philosophical insight, it's what you do with it, namely argue for or against, is what makes it philosophy.


I would have thought it to be an expression of hedonism, and not something that supports hedonism. But I agree with the rest.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 03:49 am
@Robert Gentel,
From Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment?

Quote:
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me. The guardians who have kindly taken upon themselves the work of supervision will soon see to it that by far the largest part of mankind (including the entire fair sex) should consider the step forward to maturity not only as difficult but also as highly dangerous. Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided. Now this danger is not in fact so very great, for they would certainly learn to walk eventually after a few falls. But an example of this kind is intimidating, and usually frightens them off from further attempts. [...]

There is more chance of an entire public enlightening itself. This is indeed almost inevitable, if only the public concerned is left in freedom. [...] And the freedom in question is the most innocuous form of all 'freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. But I hear on all sides the cry: Don't argue! The officer says: Don't argue, get on parade! The tax-official: Don't argue, pay! The clergyman: Don't argue, believe! (Only one ruler in the world says: Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!). . All this means restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which sort of restriction prevents enlightenment, and which, instead of hindering it, can actually promote it ? I reply: The public use of man's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men;


Full article
0 Replies
 
fobvius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 04:23 am
@Robert Gentel,
So me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKyLjMQGjqI
0 Replies
 
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 05:38 am
@Robert Gentel,
"what we are at liberty to do- One can dispose of one’s drives like a gardener and, though few know it, cultivate the shoots of anger, pity, curiosity, vanity as productively and profitably as a beautiful fruit tree on a trellis; one can do it with the good or bad taste of a gardener and, as it were, in the French or English or Dutch or Chinese fashion; one can also let nature rule and only attend to a little embellishment and tidying-up here and there; one can, finally, without paying any attention to them at all, let the plants grow up and fight their fight out among themselves- indeed, one take delight, in such a wilderness, and desire precisely this delight, though it gives one some trouble, too. All this we are at liberty to do: but how many know we are at liberty to do it? Do the majority not believe in themselves as in complete fully-developed facts? Have the great philosophers not put their seal on this prejudice with the doctrine of the unchangeability of character?"- Nietzsche, Daybreak.



0 Replies
 
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 09:16 am
The following is from Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay on Self-Reliance.

There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till. The power which resides in him is new in nature, and none but he knows what that is which he can do, nor does he know until he has tried. Not for nothing one face, one character, one fact, makes much impression on him, and another none. This sculpture in the memory is not without preestablished harmony. The eye was placed where one ray should fall, that it might testify of that particular ray. We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents. It may be safely trusted as proportionate and of good issues, so it be faithfully imparted, but God will not have his work made manifest by cowards. A man is relieved and gay when he has put his heart into his work and done his best; but what he has said or done otherwise, shall give him no peace. It is a deliverance which does not deliver. In the attempt his genius deserts him; no muse befriends; no invention, no hope.
0 Replies
 
johndoethelast
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 07:19 pm
@Victor Eremita,
nice quote.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 08:04 pm
@fresco,
Your very own Existence is all knowledge everywhere every time made thing...a TRUE and certain knowledge in itself, which BE...you are the alignment of all meanings, possibles and potentials, as your mirror is, and your mirrors mirror...patterns come patterns go but all them remain Patterns...Patter Es !
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 12:57 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Not sure why that was directed at me ....or should I say the committee with a social label "fresco" which gives the illusion of permanence. That blurred entity "exists" by virtue of its role in a social system in which it "makes decisions" relative to other entities. It mirrors nothing.
0 Replies
 
fobvius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 04:12 am
@Robert Gentel,
To be or not to be, that be the answer.
0 Replies
 
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 06:36 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
flimflam and nonsense!
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 08:46 am
@existential potential,
Have you more then two words to spare? hmmm...
Have you ever realized that any point in any geometrical form can only find its operative identity in relation to the very wholeness of the form? or that its final function in the form depends on the form itself, like the completeness of the form depends on it...why do you occupy the exact point in time and space that you do right now? A point that ends up describing your local interactions and through them your very own nature, your momentum...was it not the entire sequential chain of reactions in the network asserting the efficient cause who have lead to were you stand?maybe that helps...I mean, how hard can it be to get it ?
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 08:52 am
"Life! Don't talk to me about life."

Marvin, the Paranoid Android
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 09:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I don't know if your just trying to impress me with convoluted jargon, or whether your actually trying to explain something to me.

"Operative identity"?

My "Momentuum"?

"Chain of reactions in the network"?

it all sounds very fancy, but ultimately fantastic.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 09:04 am
@djjd62,
...well, you seam to be the closest "droid" expert around...
Was it not "Data´s " cousin in Star Trek coming up with that line ? I mean, I can´t remember...my positronic matrix is degrading ! ahhhhh !.. Shocked
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 09:08 am
@existential potential,
1 - Yeah ! You very much ARE what YOU do ! Your operativeness gives away what you are. like: if you can roll you pretty much are a wheel...you people can´t read !!! I mean one has to go step by baby step or you just entirely miss it...how dumb is that ? the post is very much crystal clear.

2 - yes your "momentum" ! Your mass your position direction and your goal...that which you are targeting to do !

3 - "Chain of reactions" most certainly ! Do you understand what a causal chain/sequence even is ?

4 - ...it must be something in the water...I mean you all people think that someone is trying to impress you. One can´t help but smile...
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 09:19 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
hmm, you could of just said "you are what you do".

If I have "momentum", in the same way that a wheel can have momentum, then I guess I'm a wheel.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 09:24 am
@existential potential,
..."You are what you do" is the very notion of Function...but them mind that what you do has a cause...and a cause of a cause in a causal system...what brought you to the point is space time in the present was no less them the entirety of the Universe´s History, even if that which delivered it all, was so simply, an efficient cause in context ! To understand a final Cause through an efficient Cause one pretty much must see the FUNCTION through the CONTEXT...after all that very same function comes with it and cannot be without it...now, it happens that the local functional context/micro-system which establishes a systemic holistic relation with each of its variables, as a whole, is in a greater degree of order, or in the set above, also a Function in the Structure, which also has a context...that is, the local System who provided the context to the smaller functions, in its entirety also becomes a "thing" given it has a Function, it does something, it operates , in relation with other contextual local systems ! And you can go on and on from the Structure to the Super-Structure ad infinitum...or at least up to length of the entire Universe !
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 12:22 pm
@existential potential,
You can't 'have' momentum. 'Momentum' is not a 'thing' to have.

Be-ing human means spending your entire life asking “Who am I?”, uncovering who you are, and projecting what you have uncovered out in front of you.

You are the asking, the uncovering, the projecting, and the 'languaging' of what is being projected. This is as close as it gets to momentum.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2019 at 02:34:46