Anyone here interested in philosophy?

[goodatthis]

I've been reading a decent amount of philosophy lately and I've been putting lots of things on my reading list. I like continental phil much more than analytical phil (I don't really like kant, most of the classic philosophers, mill, etc) and I also tend to lean towards the more critical/leftist end of philosophy, with authors such as Deleuze and Guattari (currently reading Anti-Oedipus, soon to read A Thousand Plateaus), Foucault, Baudrillard, Agamben, Butler, etc, being some of my favorites. Here's a reading list I put together, with them in rough order of interest:

Simulacra and Simulation by Jean Baudrillard
Giving an Account of Oneself by Judith Butler
Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life by Giorgio Agamben
Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? by Judith Butler
Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri
Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times by Jasbir Puar
Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Friere
No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive by Lee Edelman

Despite being much less versed in the literature of analytic philosophy (I probably couldn't pinpoint most ideas or theories to most authors aside from utilitarianism to mill or the categorical imperative to kant), I do know a decent amount about moral phil, which is probably my favorite part of analytical phil, and I've often pondered questions of existence, perception, and reality, specifically solipsism. Other than that, I haven't really read too much on other areas of philosophy, they just don't interest me. Oh and also the classics. I've never ever touched Plato or any of the ancient philosophers lol.

Anyone else here like philosophy, no matter what kind?

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

But what does "philosophy" really mean?

 

[goodatthis]

But what does "philosophy" really mean?

Already on my reading list.

 

[David Zemdegs]

I am but only if it exists, which is questionable.

 

[One Wheel]

Philosophy can be fun. Whoever said that the last 3000 years of philosophy is just a series of footnotes on Plato was about right. I tried wade through a little Aristotle, but he's a real drag. Find a copy of The Republic and read it. It will be well worth your time. Some of Plato's other stuff is pretty short, and really pretty entertaining. I read a bit of other stuff in college, but Plato is about all I remember.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

Sometimes I am interested in philosophical questions. What happens when you die? You are put in a hole. Question? Answer.

Spoiler

I never said that there wasn't an afterlife. I don't believe in one, but you can't argue- you are put in a hole (unless you are cremated or something)

 

[One Wheel]

Presumptions are interesting things. If you are correct that there is no afterlife (which statement I disagree with) and the typically associated belief that "you" are nothing but a physical body, then you can fairly say that when you die you are put in a hole. Your body is put in a hole, and you can say that you believe that when you die you are put in a hole, but until you disprove the existence of the soul you can't say that when you die YOU are put in a hole.

 

[Hssandwich]

Is this a question?

 

[One Wheel]

Which one?
Anyone interested in philosophy?
What is philosophy?
What happens when you die?
Is there such a thing as a soul or an afterlife?
Self referential questions?

 

[Malkom]

Which one?
Anyone interested in philosophy?
What is philosophy?
What happens when you die?
Is there such a thing as a soul or an afterlife?
Self referential questions?

Or instead of you talking about your religion we could talk about more interesting philosophical questions

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

What is life?
*grabs popcorn*

Presumptions are interesting things. If you are correct that there is no afterlife (which statement I disagree with) and the typically associated belief that "you" are nothing but a physical body, then you can fairly say that when you die you are put in a hole. Your body is put in a hole, and you can say that you believe that when you die you are put in a hole, but until you disprove the existence of the soul you can't say that when you die YOU are put in a hole.

and burden of proof please

 

[One Wheel]

Or instead of you talking about your religion we could talk about more interesting philosophical questions

That was a question posed by JustinTimeCuber that I was repeating. I am happy to discuss either religion or philosophy, although I admit that the two are closely connected in my mind. Questions of the soul and afterlife are at least pondered by every religion I am aware of, so it's not an issue of discussing MY religion either.

and burden of proof please

Yes, the burden of proof is properly on you, since you made the initial claim (albeit possibly unwittingly). If there is no soul, then you are correct that when you die you are put in a hole. If you have a soul that is distinct from your body, then that assertion is incorrect. The question is: what are you? Until that question is answered, then the question of what happens when you die remains an open question.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

That was a question posed by JustinTimeCuber that I was repeating. I am happy to discuss either religion or philosophy, although I admit that the two are closely connected in my mind. Questions of the soul and afterlife are at least pondered by every religion I am aware of, so it's not an issue of discussing MY religion either.

There's no reason for me to assume that there is a soul so I don't. I'm making a negative claim.

 

[One Wheel]

There's no reason for me to assume that there is a soul so I don't. I'm making a negative claim.

A negative claim does not absolve you of the burden of proof. Personally I'm not entirely convinced that it is possible to either prove or disprove the existence of the soul with mathematical certainty, and that's my point. You can believe what you like, just be clear what it is that you believe to be true and what is definitely true.

 

[Chree]

There's no reason for me to assume that there is a soul so I don't. I'm making a negative claim.

I think that's why he's saying you have the burden of proof. "Making a negative claim" is not the same thing as "not making a positive claim".

If I say "There are no cubes on my desk", I have still made a factual claim. But if I say "I don't know if there are cubes on my desk", the question is still open, but I am not burdened with proving whether or not cubes are currently on my desk.

Not that you ever actually made a claim. You simply stated what you believe.

 

[One Wheel]

Not that you ever actually made a claim. You simply stated what you believe.

He stated what he believed as fact. That's what I was picking on. Sorry if I was too harsh.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

Generally if you can't prove to me that something exists then it probably doesn't exist. I don't think I need to PROVE that there is no teapot orbiting halfway between Earth and Mars.

I never stated that there is no soul as fact, just as I can't state that there is no teapot. I am convinced, however, that it is incredibly unlikely that either the teapot or the soul exist.

 

[One Wheel]

Generally if you can't prove to me that something exists then it probably doesn't exist. I don't think I need to PROVE that there is no teapot orbiting halfway between Earth and Mars.

I never stated that there is no soul as fact, just as I can't state that there is no teapot. I am convinced, however, that it is incredibly unlikely that either the teapot or the soul exist.

First, whether or not there is a teapot orbiting halfway between earth and mars doesn't really matter, but whether you have a soul matters immensely.

Secondly, when you talk about proving anything you end up coming around to the issue of solipsism that goodatthis mentioned: how do you get outside your own head? This is what Descartes was trying to address when he said "I think, therefore I am." I don't remember how far he reasoned, but I know he didn't stop with mere existence.

 

[Chree]

First, whether or not there is a teapot orbiting halfway between earth and mars doesn't really matter, but whether you have a soul matters immensely.

Secondly, when you talk about proving anything you end up coming around to the issue of solipsism that goodatthis mentioned: how do you get outside your own head? This is what Descartes was trying to address when he said "I think, therefore I am." I don't remember how far he reasoned, but I know he didn't stop with mere existence.

Maybe I'm only speaking for myself here, but issues of solipsism shouldn't make a difference when it comes to proving things.

Whether or not this is an actual reality or only my perception of reality is irrelevant to the fact that I am apparently stuck dealing with what, by all accounts, seems to be "The Reality". And if you and I can agree that we're both chillin in the same reality, and can work together to figure things out, then solipsism needn't be a question when it comes to proofs.

That goes back to those presumptions you mentioned, of course. But if we're talking about what matters, then for all other things, solipsism is (IMHO) a useless consideration.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

First, whether or not there is a teapot orbiting halfway between earth and mars doesn't really matter, but whether you have a soul matters immensely. "matters" is a hazy, subjective term that in my mind does not belong in philosophy. What if I instead asked whether or not there is a UFO orbiting halfway between Earth and Mars, aboard which there are intelligent aliens and technology capable of destroying our planet? Equally un-provable, and therefore likely false, but that matters, doesn't it?

Secondly, when you talk about proving anything you end up coming around to the issue of solipsism that goodatthis mentioned: how do you get outside your own head? This is what Descartes was trying to address when he said "I think, therefore I am." I don't remember how far he reasoned, but I know he didn't stop with mere existence. I would. Everything else could be an illusion created by my brain and not really exist at all. You might not exist. From your perspective (if you have one lol) I might not exist. Unless you want to make a few assumptions, the only thing you can KNOW is that you think and therefore "are", as Descartes would put it.

Solipsism is fundamentally true, because the senses are not 100% reliable and can lie to you. This does not mean that you should live as if nothing is real, just that it is impossible to be 100% certain that anything is real, and instead need to assume things that could be viewed to have a 99.99999999999999% chance of being true or real.