Modern philosophers- jukeboxes...

Cyr:-

You should have put that one on the Cambridge Budget Scoffers thread.

I think nowadays it is very tough to call oneself a philosopher. Every idea seems to have already been thought of by the Ancients, and if someone tries to elaborate something, it is more or less a regurgitation of old ideas. I got that impression after reading a book called "The Everything Philosophy Book" by James Mannion.

Re: Modern philosophers- jukeboxes...


You argued with him over the definition of a philosopher? Sounds like you are both well on your way to becoming great philosophers!

Bram wrote:


That's what I mean. Countless times I have started debates, and everytime someone sees a resemblance to some ancient philosophy they burst out: "Oh.. that's this or that philosophy", and then they proceed with the assumption that I am arguing some old philosophy.
Precious few are capable of seeing a matter through independent eyes. They always have to compare it to something they already know from somewhere else.

Usig such a method learning becomes a methodical fulfilling of previously established expectations. That in turn negates philosophy. So I feel that there is a difference between the philosopher, who poses the question in hopes to learn the answer, and the knowitalls who pose the question for the sake of the argument.

Reminds me of the philosophers in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. The ones who blew up the supercomputer so it couldn't give a final answer and take their livelihood away from them...

OK, I deleted the link to the book because it makes the screen too big.

I agree with you, Cyracus. In order not to have people mention to you that such and such has said that, you would have to speak to someone who does not have previous knowledge of those authors. Believe me, a lot of people don't, as I think in today's curriculum, philosophy is not taught in school anymore.

I think philosophy is not so much to ask questions to try to get answers, because most of the time, there is no one answer, but rather to engage into discussions to "understand" a little better, to try to come to grip with some "questions". I think, after "all" had been said by the Ancients, that they were not more advanced than when they started. Do we really get answers? Answers are pretty much based on our previous knowledge, and so we are maybe building on previous "answers" to answer our questions. I know, I go in a circle.

I remember reading that Walter Benjamin's passion was to create a work containing nothing but quotes.


Interesting idea I thought.



This might be a reference to that project,……..from wikipedia…

"The Passagenwerk or "Arcades Project," Benjamin's lifelong project, was to be an enormous collection of writings on the city life of Paris in the 19th century, especially concerned with the roofed outdoor "arcades" which created the city's distinctive street life and culture of flânerie. The project, which many scholars believe might have become one of the great texts of 20th-century cultural criticism, was never completed; it has been posthumously edited and published in many languages in its unfinished form."

Re: Modern philosophers- jukeboxes...


That alone disqualifies him.

I think the question here is what makes a person worthy of the title 'philosopher.'

To me, someone who, by their own accord, spends a great deal of time thinking about serious philosophical, societal, and cultural issues, and subsequently writing those thoughts down and fine-tuning them, all the while maintaining an entirely impartial attitude (insofar as this is possible): such a person is a philosopher.

In other words, an attempt must be made to emulate and immitate the tasks of other philosophers. If this attempt is made, no matter the degree of "success," that person deserves the title much more than any who merely studied the "academic subject" of philosophy.

since the ancients managed to become philosophers without getting philosophy degrees, a degree isn't necessary for philosophizing. conversely, a degree in literature does not make one a writer, so it wouldn't surprise me that the same holds true for philosophy.

I am toying with the idea that philosophers exist, but not philosophy.

What did Kant get out of his work? He strived hard to force the nature of things to fit into his categories. Look at his life. He was perhaps the most routine driven man among all philosophers. A daily walk, always the same path, at the same time was only one of his many routines. The man was utterly predictable.
I get the impression that he tried to live his life according to his philosophy, and proving it true by not exposing himself to situations where the philosophy was inadequate.

Still, he raised some valuable questions that still stand, simply because those who learn his questions also learn his premisses and his answers.

Another thing I dislike about philosophy is the way it has become methodical. Philosophers treat their mind as a lab and their thoughts as research subjects. Thus they strive to give philosophy a respected place right along science. They seek to prove the existence of god through all sorts of stunts, in the manner wich science proves the existence of atoms, for instance.

Life is not knowledge, an so it is not science. That is why science can never alone give all the answers. We need our love of wisdom, our intuitive facilities need room to function. To force our free thought into the confines of method to earn higher credability among sceptics seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction.

When it comes down to it, every philosophy stands or falls on how justifiable the philosophers scepticism is.

cyr:-

That's pretty damn good.Your English astonishes me.

I'm not sure scientists attempt to prove the existence of atoms.They demonstrate effects caused by something which they use the word "atom" as a metaphor for.That is how they learn to work with it.It's a nebulous concept.

Thanks spendius.



I see your point. What I was trying to convey was that many philosophers seem to envy science for for it's equations, so to speak, and so they want to adapt a similar system for their thoughts. A proverbial ball and chain on the facilities of free thought.

cyr:-

I don't think philosophers envy scientists because philosophers have a much more comfortable existence,so far,and don't have to get their hands dirty.They are a bit like shamans in relation to the hut builders and fishermen.They rely on gullibility so it must be amusing as well.Pass the claret old boy.I quite fancy it myself and I am going to rattle their cage until they invite me into it.

If I hammer a nail into two pieces of wood, does that make me a carpenter?

I like to think of myself as something of a conservative,a proper one I mean,and I don't trust regulated intellectuals.

No need to defend the term "conservative." No wait, yes there is, I was wrong. Reactionaries have stolen it, so I'll amend that comment. It's too late to defend the term "conservative", it's been raped. Now it needs help.

It sure does.There's communists calling themselves conservatives these days.They must think we are stupid.

Yep, a big problem. Actually aside from being a rape victim the term "conservative" is now being used as a Trojan Horse (not the computer type).

Is this famous first sentence the work of a true conservative?

riverrun,past Eve and Adam's,from swerve of shore to bend of bay,brings us by a commodius victus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

What is it to be conservative? It is to walk in the footsteps of our predesessors. All well and good if that's what you want, but it is a trap to snare your mind in if you're not careful.