Philosophy

Actually, all. Psychology and it sub sets are a spin off from philosophy. It was an attempt to measure as opposed to interpretation of abstracts.

As for social psychology, that has to do with group dynamics and the values and ethics of a given community.

JL, this turned out to be a good thread even without Shakespeare. <smile>

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, the title of this thread was to be something about "values." I meant to put it in the philosophy forum, not for it to be ABOUT philosophy, per se. I meant to make a comparative DESCRIPTION between situation ethics and conventional morality, and to invite contrasting descriptions. I agree, and don't mind, that my discussion is tinged with prescriptive implications. I understand your reservation.

I put no weight on the title of the thread -- honestly, I didn't even consider it. I make the distinction only to avoid confusing two inconsistent methods of interpretation: one which is prescriptive (ethics), and one which is descriptive (sociology). The examination of ethical behavior in society is interesting and worthwhile, but it tells us nothing about ethics (unless one maintains that ethics is nothing but a type of behavior, in which case ethics would be a philosophically empty concept). Using sociological methods to examine ethics, then, doesn't throw additional light on the topic but rather obscures it.

JLNobody wrote:

Regarding your response to Letty, there does exist a (sub)discipline of sociology called the Sociology of Knowledge (which is tangential to philosophy). And there is the well-established discipline called the Sociology of Science.

Well, I'd imagine that every discipline is, in some way, tangential to philosophy. That doesn't make every discipline the equivalent of philosophy.

0 Replies

A little shakespearish philosophy for letty if I can manage (or philosophy in a shakespearian guise at least):

For will or won't, to ask, to find
Our precious needed answers
To see, to hear, the mute and blind
Exert the mercy of panthers
For blood, our purpose, bloodied day
For peace, or tranquil stances
This eternal truce of lord and slave
Where ignorance advances
Is the lasting looming paradox
By wich we read our stories
To steady beats of golden clocks
Is a shield agains our worries
All this aside, let silence speak your heart
And finally you may trancend your art

Best I could do in five minutes.

0 Replies

Cyracuz, beautiful, but not as beautiful as seeing you back, Norway.

The love of our fellow man is the best philosophy of all.

0 Replies

Yes, Letty; that is a profound philosophy in the sense of a policy for living. But I do believe that Nietzsche's notion of "amor fati" is the most profound philosophical policy of all. Love your destiny, love everything that has happened to you regardless of the pain it is wrought. It is REALITY. To totally accept it without qualification, to accept it as if it were something that will happen over and over again into infinity without change is to have conquered yourself, your small egotistical need to have the world as you fantasize it SHOULD be. There is nothing that should not be: cancer, war, death, decay, misery, aloneness (as well as all the joys and beauties of existence) are all expressions of "God." And that is your True Self. To feel and see this is to have conquered all that spoils the joy of life.
I do believe this to be so--whether or not it is. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Yes, Letty; that is a profound philosophy in the sense of a policy for living. But I do believe that Nietzsche's notion of "amor fati" is the most profound philosophical policy of all. Love your destiny, love everything that has happened to you regardless of the pain it is wrought. It is REALITY. To totally accept it without qualification, to accept it as if it were something that will happen over and over again into infinity without change is to have conquered yourself, your small egotistical need to have the world as you fantasize it SHOULD be. There is nothing that should not be: cancer, war, death, decay, misery, aloneness (as well as all the joys and beauties of existence) are all expressions of "God." And that is your True Self. To feel and see this is to have conquered all that spoils the joy of life.
I do believe this to be so--whether or not it is.

How is that your "true self"? How can such a statement even be made when that very philosophy is paradoxical and a contradiction in itself? If one were to try to obtain such a nature of unbreakable and boundless love for all things that have been, are, and will be, they are necessarily already in a state in which they are longing for something else (hence the need to achieve the entire "armor fati" thing) and, therefore, must behave in the same manner they always have been to achieve that state of consciousness.

To make it a bit simpler, if one is to recognize that they have not obtained their "true self", they must go against the very conclusion made by the "armor fati" in order to obtain it, thus nullifying its validity. If "armor fati" was a valid notion, then the most one could do is love the fact that they are someone who hates things, wants things, and lives in a state of desire and unfulfilled dreams. To adhere to the principle of "armor fati" is to knowingly love and accept such a state of painful existence (as it concludes that one must accept ALL THINGS since there is NOTHING that shouldn't be), but, if the existence that is loved is one that is based on want and pain, how can the notion of "armor fati" be plausible?

The notion is a paradox in and of itself. One cannot say with any sort of sense "Yes! I must accept all things as they are and then I shall be happy!" without acting upon the fact that they are refusing to accept the state of being they were in before learning of "armor fati". To accept its conclusion is to defy it.

0 Replies

Well, I'll declare, lobsterdoctor. Welcome to A2K.

0 Replies

Thanks Letty. It's good to be back. I may stray again, but never far, and never for too long.

JL, it is good to read your eloquent lines. I believe that this unconditional love you speak of is the very essence of Bhuddism. In fact, there are many similarities between Nietzche's philosophy and the experiences of the Buddha and all who follow in his footsteps. This gives testament to Nietzches sincerity, a trait I place great value on in a philosopher.

For myself I have given up thinking in terms of good and bad, since I realized that there just isn't any adequate measure. There isn't even a clear distinction between events, and even to call them events is in fact misleading. It is not plural, merely infinite. Thus, everything is either good or bad. There is no "a little of both", and then, at last, this doesn't really apply to the world, but to the entity percieving it.

So now, whenever I get a fuzzy picture, I try adjusting the lens rather than the motive.... Smile

0 Replies

great response/challenge, LD. I do think that Nietzsche was not exhorting us to love pain in order to be happy. That's more like the admonition of the Buddha to transcend all dicthotomies (true-false, pleasure-pain, good-bad, and so on) in order to give up the grasping that generates life's sorrow.
Nietzsche (similarly but not identically) calls for our transcendence of pain by accepting it as it is because it is Reality, for to do otherwise is a form of philosophical unsanity (this from a man who finally went "insane" (but it is possible that this is problematical).
Amor fati, as I understand it, is not a psychological analgesic; it's a spiritual value.

0 Replies

Letty wrote:

Well, I'll declare, lobsterdoctor. Welcome to A2K.

Thanks! I just found this place yesterday. It's certainly apparent that there are many smart people here and some great discussions, and I only hope I can contribute.

JLNobody wrote:

great response/challenge, LD. I do think that Nietzsche was not exhorting us to love pain in order to be happy. That's more like the admonition of the Buddha to transcend all dicthotomies (true-false, pleasure-pain, good-bad, and so on) in order to give up the grasping that generates life's sorrow.
Nietzsche (similarly but not identically) calls for our transcendence of pain by accepting it as it is because it is Reality, for to do otherwise is a form of philosophical unsanity (this from a man who finally went "insane" (but it is possible that this is problematical).
Amor fati, as I understand it, is not a psychological analgesic; it's a spiritual value.

Interesting. I'm still incapable of accepting even a small part of Nietzsche's proposition on what it is to be philosophically sound, as transcendence cannot be obtained if acceptance is a step in obtaining it as acceptance would inherently have to imply a rejection of one's current state, thus leading the person attempting to follow Nietzche's suggestion absolutely nowhere.

I suppose, though, if we're talking more in sense of "spirit" than in sense of logic, it becomes much easier to understand. If we're talking about it in terms of that which transcends the physical universe and that which cannot be measured and reasoned but merely felt by the spirit (or whatever it is one wants to classify it as), it serves more use since, as is so common, emotion tends to defy reason.

0 Replies

LD, I hope our problem here is not that I am misrepresenting Nietzsche. He stressed the need to "overcome" oneself, to grow, to expand, to, as he paradoxically put it, "become who we [truly] are." (that's what I meant by "transcendence";he was no otherworldly metaphysician) As such, your suggestion that total acceptance of things as they are implies or includes a contradictory rejection of one's non-acceptance of Reality is correct, if we take "rejection" to mean "overcoming". I believe that Nietzsche is as much concerned to intuit (note: this can be an unemotional process) the nature of the world as he is to apply logic. Indeed, I think he gives more weight to the former--he certainly is no philosophical rationalist. He was famously indifferent to contradiction--its occurence reflects the complexity (the "multivalence"?) of both his perspective and the world.

0 Replies

JLN,

This comment on ethics is from Bernard Scott's paper on "second order cybernetics".

http://www.thehope.org/Bernard_Scott/Abs-Intro.html

"In recognising that self-awareness and self-reflection arise in "languaging", which is necessarily a social affair, von Foerster has been lead to develop a theory of ethics (see, for example, von Foerster ,1993). He notes that conscience and conscious have the same roots, a point also developed by C.S.Lewis (1967). The essence of the argument is that we are conscious (we "know with" ourselves, L. con-scio,) precisely because we "know with" others. Awareness of the mutuality and interdependence is the root of conscience: we know, without being told, that the "other" is what makes us a "self", that we owe her our respect, our care, our love for helping us be a "self" at all. Unfortunately, all too often, this tacit knowledge is not fully alive in us. We err; we sin."

The implication to me is that "absolute values" are only meaningful if "existence of self" is not such a function of "existence of others". Yet ironically from the transcendent position the "existence of ethics" per se would be axiomatic (absolute) though its local manifestation would be relative.

0 Replies

Fresco, thanks for that. I have to give it more attention, but I would like to make the comment suggested by your statement
("Awareness of the mutuality and interdependence is the root of conscience: we know, without being told, that the "other" is what makes us a "self", that we owe her our respect, our care, our love for helping us be a "self" at all."
that the INTERSUBJECTIVE nature of our "languaged world" creates the inescapable impression that it is objective and, as such, absolute. You and I both realize, however, that our world is a cultural and social phenomenon mediated by symbols.
The possibility of transcendental realization, however, is an everpresent possibility for individuals willing to make the necessary efforts and sacrifices (of meaning), and as such ineffable or extra-cultural in nature.

P.S., it's good to hear from you again.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Fresco, see if you like this philosophical joke.
One philosopher is describing someone to another philosopher: "He looks like an idiot and talks like an idiot, but be not deceived, he IS an idiot!"

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Great!

I am going use that one at my next philosophy group meeting.!

1 Reply

@fresco,

Especially if you can manuver the group into settling on the problematics of appearance and reality.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

The thing that is valued is absolute in the sense that it is a goal with a destination. For example, I aim to answer this question, and find value in the answer, and it indeed has an answer.
However, in a practical sense, no two situations are alike, and therefore each has its own goal. For example, I aim to answer this question in a way that is appropriate for this circumstance.
When the goal is not obvious, when the absolute is something that needs to thought about, an ultimate and higher absolute is sought. (For example, I compared my answer to Truth, beforehand).
In this way, each value is absolute to itself, but relative to (and part of) a higher absolute.

1 Reply

@demonhunter,

Good point. You might enjoy the concept of "nested systems" advocated by Von Forester in second order cybernetics. (Reference given above ...but try google if link fails).

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know