Anything New?

Have there been any sort of major breakthroughs in Philosophy in the last 50 years or so?

Are there any new thoughts under the sun?

To save time in our short lives, should we simply study all the classic top philosophers of the past, apply the appropriate best ideas they had, and dispense with coming up with our own philosophies to interface with the universe we find ourselves in?

Have our wheels already been invented, and we're trying to re-invent it?

Have there been any sort of major breakthroughs in Philosophy in the last 50 years or so?

Have there been any sort of major breakthroughs in Philosophy in the last 50 years or so?

Are there any new thoughts under the sun?

Hasn't there been attempts to solidify human rights theory?

But when australian pop princess Kylie Minogue got breast cancer, only her right to be heard seemed to be exercised. How about the millions of women around the world who aren't celebreties, but mothers, young women with their future ahead of them, daughters who are also hit with cancer? Have their right to be heard been exercised by the media? its a matter of, in the real world, whose-more-popular-and-then-you-have-the-right-to-be-heard. This is the reality of today

Surely enough, it is the reality of today, but as always the question is ought it to be?

There's also a green party in my province (though they don't have any seat in the provincial government). Most of my friends and I don't get what their economical view is...

I don't understand what Bob Brown is trying to do here either. Don't even like the guy for his political stances.

We seem to be seeing the issue at two very different views here (I'm at that) - I believe I am looking at it from the "what it is" and you are arguing from the "What it ought."

Speaking of ought, the issue then becomes split into two again (I'm sorry, this is the legal philosopher coming out of me now), but:

- natural law theorists would argue ought as in with religious, moral or ethical issues;

- Hans kelsen (who loathed such considerations) would look at it from the positivist issue - ought as in "Has the law been passed validly by the government? If it has, then we ought to follow it, even if has validated people killing one another for no apparent reason."

I believe you would follow the natural law theorists, but I am a positivist and would agree with kelsen's approach. Cruel but true. I'm sorry.

lol, it seems that we're responding to each other in a record time.

It's okay , there are always opposing views and probably a somewhere in between one.

Ethics, is the study of right and wrong actions, so yeah I'm probably with the natural law theorist on this issue.

The latter presents its own can of worm. I despise this approach actually.

I agree - in this thread and the util thread. But you keep logging on and off!!

Kelsen has been critizied for his approach - I admit that its not ideal to the natural lawyers. I get the idea you would hate Hart as well. Interested to know about him? He and Fuller had a huge debate over the Nazi laws - Hart supported them, Fuller hated them. Your typical positivist vs natural lawyers

I do ?

Oh yes, I remember this argument of natural vs. positivist now. I think the main concern for a positivist is whether a certain action would set a precedent. I must admit I never can quite understand why we need this precedence idea embedded in our legal system.

BTW, are you a lawyer? :wink:

Oh yes, I remember this argument of natural vs. positivist now. I think the main concern for a positivist is whether a certain action would set a precedent.

you mean the common law system? Hmmm...its a mix of natural law and positivist, not to mention every other legal theory under the sun. Just read the Australian high court cases - they drive me up the wall with their theory based arguments - interesting but brain killing.

Law student and immersed into legal theory and philosophy. Currently studying chinese legal theory and its impact on the chinese and international laws.

Are you? You seem to know exactly what I'm talking about, not to mention fantastic at rebutting it.

I'll check it out if I have time. I don't really like reading the documents sometimes. They're long and too technical I guess.

Oh, good luck with your studies. Your posts show that you are an intellectual and intelligent person.

Chinese legal theory? The legalists? Oh, those guys are the one that believed that people are evil and that we need laws to keep societ in tact. Interesting, but philosophically flawed.