0
   

Anything New?

 
 
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 08:11 pm
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?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,042 • Replies: 34
No top replies

 
Nietzsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:52 am
Re: Anything New?
extra medium wrote:
Have there been any sort of major breakthroughs in Philosophy in the last 50 years or so?


The way I understand it, "modern" philosophy is essentially "technical"; that is, maybe there's been "breakthroughs" in the field, but they're so specialized and esoteric, it's not as if the general fan of the subject can pick up a book and "catch up."

Quote:
Are there any new thoughts under the sun?


Goethe wrote more than a hundred years ago that there's nothing one can think that hasn't already been thought by someone else; the trick, I suppose, is to formulate the thought into a medium by which more people can utilize the given information.

Quote:
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?


I like the first half; but the second half, I think you're jumping the gun a tad.

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


One of the first things I ever wrote down in terms of writing "philosophy" was that the wisdoms of life are not what escape humanity but rather the ability and drive to implement them.

To keep with the analogy, I think what we have is a square or oval wheel: it works okay - but we (that is, modern humanity) can do much to better it. I think those who came before us chipped away quite a bit, but their work is harldy complete.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:20 am
Here's a new thought:

Time is not linear. Past and future are but illutions.

We say "time passes", but when someone dies a common phrase used is that "he passed away". Isn't that a giveaway. We say that time passes, but we never really see an end to it. We see an end to our loved ones on the other hand. They are the ones who truly pass. How could that be so if time did so too? We'd stand still.

To think as time as something real is but another way for us to deny our mortality.
0 Replies
 
Marquis de Carabas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 11:38 pm
Re: Anything New?
extra medium wrote:
Have there been any sort of major breakthroughs in Philosophy in the last 50 years or so?


There's more to philosophy than the 100 section of a dewey decimal system library. The philosophy of our culture is in all the actions and mediums of expression of each of us. That said, there are wonders in philosophy books making them well worth the read.
0 Replies
 
-FreeLancer-
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 06:57 am
Re: Anything New?
extra medium wrote:
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?


Nothing! We are stumbling in darkness!! Shocked

Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

Seriously, I don't think we can invent anything... we already know the earth is round and all that....
what we can do is bring new interpretations to things we already know.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 07:43 am
Daniel Dennett is doing new things, necessarily, since his work is intimately tied to computers. however, there's no consensus on whether he's made any "breakthroughs."
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 08:35 pm
In the area of legal philosophy, many many new developing theories:

- feminism: liberal, radical and I think the third one is social.

- postcolonialism: is it the whites who are raceless? who gave permission for the UK to colonise every single "inferior, irrational, depraved and primitive" country they saw (Quoted from Said's orientalism.)

- post modernism (from the hippy era) - are there such things as rights? If so, how come not everyone can exercise it? Whose rights come before whose first? (example - in a democratic voting system, but what happened to the rights of the minority?)
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 11:04 pm
Hasn't there been attempts to solidify human rights theory?

Good thread btw. Oh, I have a feeling that Buddhism is also growing.
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 11:08 pm
Ray wrote:
Hasn't there been attempts to solidify human rights theory?


Yes there have been - I live where the australian greens dominate the issue of human rights, animal rights and environmental issues. the real question that postmodernists tackle is - do they work in the real world? The answer is probably not. One example - all people have a right to be heard. yes?

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
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 11:13 pm
Another example - the right to be heard by the law was definitly not exercised in this case. Would you be kind enough to review this issue, here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1409846#1409846

I look forward to your feedback.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 11:16 pm
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...

Quote:
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


Actually many do have a voice, though not a global voice, but a a voice in the local news. The media's objective seem to be to get the most viewers so that they can get money. Surely enough, it is the reality of today, but as always the question is ought it to be?
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 11:22 pm
Ray wrote:
Surely enough, it is the reality of today, but as always the question is ought it to be?


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

Well no its not. But no use looking at what it ought to be if one cannot bring this ought into an is - is it possible? I wish, but as the realist, probably not.

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. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 11:23 pm
Ray wrote:
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.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 11:40 pm
lol, it seems that we're responding to each other in a record time.

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


Laughing , the world's a mystery.

Quote:
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."


I guess so.

Quote:
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.


It's okay Very Happy , 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. Rosa Parks (civil rights activist in the US) sparked a movement to end the restrictions on blacks from seating in the front of the bus. The black community followed on her path, and because of this Montgomery Bus Boycott, the law was changed.
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 11:46 pm
Ray wrote:
lol, it seems that we're responding to each other in a record time.


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

Ray wrote:
It's okay Very Happy , 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.


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.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 11:51 pm
Quote:
I agree - in this thread and the util thread. But you keep logging on and off!!


I do Shocked ?

Quote:
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


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:
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jun, 2005 11:56 pm
Ray wrote:
I do Shocked ?


Yeah. no matter - you're talking now. That proves you're still alive. Laughing


Ray wrote:
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.


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. Confused

Ray wrote:
BTW, are you a lawyer? :wink:


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. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2005 12:01 am
Ray wrote:
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.


That and whether we should follow what the gov of the day says, no matter how tyrannical it is. But hart had his minimum ideals/standards - although we should follow what the gov and its laws says (and use retrospectivity to correct any "bad" laws) his minimum standards did introduce a amount of moral considerations into the calculations.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2005 12:05 am
Quote:
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.


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.


Quote:
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.


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

I was in law class, and my social studies course two years ago required me to learn the legal system.

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.

Okay, so I'm a bit biased. Razz

I'm going to go to bed now, it's night time on the other side of the world.
Nice talking (or typing) to you.
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2005 12:20 am
Ray wrote:
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.


The one we had to read was absolutely ridicolous. Just the sheer length and content (I mean, come on! 7 judges with 4 different judgements and two different outcomes. Bentham (the util!!) would scream with hatred and I don't blame him) makes me hate the common law system sometimes. Europe seems to make so much sense.


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


Thank you.

Ray wrote:
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.


Shocked are we talking about the one and the same chinese legal theorists here?

Nice talking to you too.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Anything New?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/10/2022 at 09:04:24