Merry Andrew(?) wrote-
As for me, I'll leave this thread now. I find the original propoisition not only wrong-headed but odious and vile.
So there you go.Philosophy is "odious and vile".
Spendius, why do you insist on putting words into my mouth, words I have never uttered? You did it with the (intentional?) misinterpretation of what I said about Ayn Rand, and here you are, doing it again. I said the statement regarding altruism was odious and vile.
Philosophy cannot be either vile or good, no more than mathematics or chemistry or astronomy. The only difference between philosophy and those other disciplines is that philosophy is not subject to rigorous scientific proofs. Much of it is necessarily subjective, expressing the philosopher's personal beliefs, cloaked all too often in what amounts to sophistry. Often times modern philosophers are admired -- and quoted ad nauseam
-- because of their glibness, or their articulateness, rather than the substance of their utterances. Anyone who can say, honestly, that he agrees with the ravings of Neitzsche is probably just as certifyable as Friedrich himself was toward the end of his life. We read him for the prose, not the content.
The bone I am picking with you, however, is not about philosophy but , rather, your habit of misquoting me. I hold no brief against either philosophy nor the discusion of it here. However, as it is by its nature a subjective exercise, I reserve the right to disagree with any given philosophical position. In the long run, that is what philosophy is all about -- a discussion of one's position and a refutation of competing, or contrasting, positions.