Tired of Religion threads,let's have a Philosophy Thread?

[4Chan]

I'm relatively new to philosophy, having only been introduced to it last semester by a friend of mine, and I'm extremely curious.

Unlike religions, philosophy is mostly based on logic, repeatable observations, and empirical stuff.
(I assume there are exceptions.)

I've read a little bit into existentialism, and a little bit into utilitarianism, and I'm trying to understand what this "objectivism" stuff people are talking about lately.

I'm starting to learn about the big names like Kant, Heidegger, Descartes, Bentham, Mill, etc. etc.



Let's discuss philosophy guize!

 

[Dene]

Empiricism and logic are branches of philosophy. Philosophy is most certainly not based on them.

EDIT: and I have no idea why you think "repeatable observations" is something in and of itself. Do you mean modern science, or empiricism?

 

[teller]

"Objectivism" usually refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand drives people nuts...you either love her or hate her. The haters used to foam at the mouth, but lately it's more fashionable to have an involuntary self-important sneer at the mention of her name, the likes of which require plastic surgery to remove. If you can get over all that ridiculous nonsense and just read some of her work for yourself, you'll find her approach to philosophy quite original and interesting whether you agree with it or not.

As for Kant and all the others all the way back to Plato...it's mostly a steaming dumptruck full of navel-gazing fail. "I'm not sure if I exist or not," etc., stuff that doesn't help guide your life at all. Paul Graham said it best here: How to Do Philosophy. Instead, some of the best modern philosophy isn't labeled as such, so you have to scavenge for it. I recommend the work of Daniel Dennett or Douglas Hofstadter.

 

[Kian]

"Objectivism" usually refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand drives people nuts...you either love her or hate her.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Rand is fantastic.

 

[4Chan]

Oooh ooh!
I'm 300 pages into Atlas Shrugged, and well, I'm seeing a few concepts.

I'm reading through your link right now. :d

 

[Googlrr]

Oooh ooh!
I'm 300 pages into Atlas Shrugged, and well, I'm seeing a few concepts.

I'm reading through your link right now. :d

Atlas Shrugged is a fantastic book.

If you're really liking Ayn Rand and her ideas, I'd recommend reading Anthem (if you haven't, that is). It's a really short read (at least, it was in comparison to Atlas Shrugged), but it was definitely interesting.

 

[4Chan]

I'm actually reading into objectivism and Atlas Shrugged for a paper I have to write.

I'm planning on reading Anthem, I love Atlas Shrugged so far!

 

[Escher]

I'm starting an MA in Politics and Philosophy next year, and I'm addicted to reading philosophy books

"Objectivism" usually refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand drives people nuts...you either love her or hate her.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Rand is fantastic.

I love inspiring passages like this in philosophy, Nietzsche has some beautiful ones regarding the Ubermensch.

Regarding Rand, I personally prefer collectivist ideologies, but being brought up an anarcho-syndicalist I guess that's unavoidable

 

[Dene]

As for Kant and all the others all the way back to Plato...it's mostly a steaming dumptruck full of navel-gazing fail. "I'm not sure if I exist or not," etc., stuff that doesn't help guide your life at all. Paul Graham said it best here: How to Do Philosophy. Instead, some of the best modern philosophy isn't labeled as such, so you have to scavenge for it. I recommend the work of Daniel Dennett or Douglas Hofstadter.

Just because they had different views, it does not make them worthless. You clearly do not understand how important the likes of Plato and Descartes have been. Have you even read the Republic or the Meditations?

 

[Escher]

As for Kant and all the others all the way back to Plato...it's mostly a steaming dumptruck full of navel-gazing fail. "I'm not sure if I exist or not," etc., stuff that doesn't help guide your life at all. Paul Graham said it best here: How to Do Philosophy. Instead, some of the best modern philosophy isn't labeled as such, so you have to scavenge for it. I recommend the work of Daniel Dennett or Douglas Hofstadter.

Just because they had different views, it does not make them worthless. You clearly do not understand how important the likes of Plato and Descartes have been. Have you even read the Republic or the Meditations?

Yeah, I agree with Deney ^
Just because a philosopher's views and ideas might not have instantly practical utility and application to your own life doesn't make them useless.

Hofstadter is a pro though.

 

[Kian]

As for Kant and all the others all the way back to Plato...it's mostly a steaming dumptruck full of navel-gazing fail. "I'm not sure if I exist or not," etc., stuff that doesn't help guide your life at all. Paul Graham said it best here: How to Do Philosophy. Instead, some of the best modern philosophy isn't labeled as such, so you have to scavenge for it. I recommend the work of Daniel Dennett or Douglas Hofstadter.

Just because they had different views, it does not make them worthless. You clearly do not understand how important the likes of Plato and Descartes have been. Have you even read the Republic or the Meditations?

He precisely said that he thought very abstract considerations like Descarte's Meditations were unimportant. It's not a matter of realizing, as he considers philosophy which is more applicable to life to be more "important." It's simply a matter of opinion. One which I would, in some sense, agree with. When I studied them in college, I thought Descarte's Meditations were very intriguing, but I'd concede that they're not terribly useful for everyday life, which is what teller is getting at.

 

[kprox1994]

Is this the same Descartes from the Descartes rule of signs?

 

[Kian]

Is this the same Descartes from the Descartes rule of signs?

Indeed. He was quite the intellectual.

 

[teller]

Yeah, if Descartes turns you on, great. And Plato practically invented philosophy, so good on him. But all ideas are not equally valid and the ancients did not have access to modern science or the benefit of the hindsight of history to see if their political ideas would play out as they wished. It's of historical interest, perhaps, and once in awhile they have some great thoughts and quotes. But I wouldn't refer anyone (I liked) to the ancient alchemists to learn about chemistry, and I wouldn't equalize that material on the basis that their ideas "merely differ from mine." Bleah.

 

[qqwref]

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Rand is fantastic.

I don't really see how someone could vitriolically hate Rand, but everyone has an opinion, I guess.

I took a philosophy class at Caltech and didn't really like it - it seemed like a lot of the arguments (especially from the centuries-old philosophers) were clearly flawed in an obvious way, such as being based on incorrect reasoning about the physical world. I remember in particular one modern philosophy article which claimed that, since there is something fundamentally different about a photo of a tree and a photo that isn't of the tree but looks exactly like it, it logically follows that we must not all be brains in a vat. Some of the people I read about seemed to be essentially demanding that we try an alternate and somewhat silly style of thinking about the world, without realizing the obvious merits of the standard approach. To be honest, the whole thing struck me as a gigantic load of BS.

 

[Escher]

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Rand is fantastic.

I don't really see how someone could vitriolically hate Rand, but everyone has an opinion, I guess.

I took a philosophy class at Caltech and didn't really like it - it seemed like a lot of the arguments (especially from the centuries-old philosophers) were clearly flawed in an obvious way, such as being based on incorrect reasoning about the physical world. I remember in particular one modern philosophy article which claimed that, since there is something fundamentally different about a photo of a tree and a photo that isn't of the tree but looks exactly like it, it logically follows that we must not all be brains in a vat. Some of the people I read about seemed to be essentially demanding that we try an alternate and somewhat silly style of thinking about the world, without realizing the obvious merits of the standard approach. To be honest, the whole thing struck me as a gigantic load of BS.

I love philosophy in that it challenges a lot of 'common sense' ways we think about the world...
But yeah, unsubstantiated bullshitting is extremely easy to get away with.

A lot of people who hate Rand are those who hate lessaiz-faire capitalism and individualism, which imo is fair enough.

 

[Slowpoke22]

Indeed, a lot of philosophy is outdated, flawed, and in many ways simply irrelevant. However, it's interesting to see how ideas/beliefs about the nature of reality have developed throughout the centuries. I am most fascinated by the philosophy of language. Kripke and company make my head spin. Heh.

 

[Hiero]

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Rand is fantastic.

I don't really see how someone could vitriolically hate Rand, but everyone has an opinion, I guess.

I took a philosophy class at Caltech and didn't really like it - it seemed like a lot of the arguments (especially from the centuries-old philosophers) were clearly flawed in an obvious way, such as being based on incorrect reasoning about the physical world. I remember in particular one modern philosophy article which claimed that, since there is something fundamentally different about a photo of a tree and a photo that isn't of the tree but looks exactly like it, it logically follows that we must not all be brains in a vat. Some of the people I read about seemed to be essentially demanding that we try an alternate and somewhat silly style of thinking about the world, without realizing the obvious merits of the standard approach. To be honest, the whole thing struck me as a gigantic load of BS.

I don't like Rand, but I do agree with the last statement. It's BS. I read about halfway through Critique of Pure Reason and realized it was a big waste of time. I did like Nietzsche and have about 20 books on him. I've read about half of them so far. I thought I liked philosophy because I was so into Nietzsche, but realized he really isn't philosophy in the same sense that the others are. That's when I realized that philosophy is BS and boring.

 

[Dene]

As for Kant and all the others all the way back to Plato...it's mostly a steaming dumptruck full of navel-gazing fail. "I'm not sure if I exist or not," etc., stuff that doesn't help guide your life at all. Paul Graham said it best here: How to Do Philosophy. Instead, some of the best modern philosophy isn't labeled as such, so you have to scavenge for it. I recommend the work of Daniel Dennett or Douglas Hofstadter.

Just because they had different views, it does not make them worthless. You clearly do not understand how important the likes of Plato and Descartes have been. Have you even read the Republic or the Meditations?

He precisely said that he thought very abstract considerations like Descarte's Meditations were unimportant. It's not a matter of realizing, as he considers philosophy which is more applicable to life to be more "important." It's simply a matter of opinion. One which I would, in some sense, agree with. When I studied them in college, I thought Descarte's Meditations were very intriguing, but I'd concede that they're not terribly useful for everyday life, which is what teller is getting at.

I have to disagree with your interpretation of what teller said. He actually said that "As for Kant and all the others all the way back to Plato...it's mostly a steaming dumptruck full of navel-gazing fail." He then went on to say that this is of no practical use to anyone.

For the two of you that see no practical use in either Plato or Kant:
Do you realise that Plato was the first ever person to defend women as equal to men? It only took humanity about 2500 years to catch up on that one.
Do you have any conception whatsoever of Kant's ethics? If this isn't a way to live your life, I don't know what is. At the very least, if you think Rand's ethics are of any use to you, then shame on you for following a self-defeating ethical theory.

I don't want to sound mean, but it seems like you guys are completely overlooking the usefulness of such great philosophers as these, and I would strongly recommend that you put more consideration into their works.

While we're on the topic of existentialism, Kierkergaard ftw, amirite?

 

[teller]

@Dene,

Ayn Rand and Immanuel Kant are opposites. If you advocate Kant, it's not surprising you would be anti-Rand. It's an interesting tension, to be sure.

I don't want to get into some huge debate...been there, done that, all through the 90's. The Internet hasn't changed since the Usenet days--everyone thinks they are the smartest and have done the most research; most debates are a waste of energy.

But I'm glad someone in your generation at least takes an interest. Hopefully you will keep reading and continue to expand your mind.