Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The dangers of philosophy
Options
-
18-11-2009 11:01pm#1I think philosophy is single handedly the most dangerous concept to the existing institutions in this country and worldwide. By philosophy I mean using reason and evidence to evaluate yourself and your environment. Nothing else I have ever undertaken in my life has fundamentally changed me as positively as critical thinking. The reason + virtue = happiness formula works like crack! One hit and youll never go back.
The reasons I think that philosophy is so dangerous to our well fed overlords is because of the following. :
Religion: Priests will evaporate in a rational society. I went from your average Irish catholic that visited the church on occasion to a full blown rationalist with the end product being atheist. But I dont really like being labeled an atheist. Sort of like Dawkins is a biologist and the natural progression of logic leads to the conclusion that there is no god. Or like I think someone mentioned on the forum that you dont label somebody a santa clausist is they dont believe in santa its just a logical conclusion.
My favorite argument :
Do you believe the is a god that is all knowing and all powerful?
Christian: yeah he is the coolest!
Me: well do you have free will?
Christian: Yeah I do my best to be good!
Me: But if god is all knowing he knows all of your futures actions, therefore you have no free will?
Christian: breaks into Christian song to blur out the the pain of using his mind!
Government - I believed it was necessary that I strode my way up to the ballot box at election time to cast my vote. I was doing my duty for the common good! I have a little more pride now than to embarrass my self by taking part in that hoax. The double standards that these swine shovel down our throats is insulting but quite comical also.
My favorite argument here.
During elections,
Knock knock
Hello im Ivor Cally...blah
Me: ahh Good Mr Cally, are you a man of principals?
Ivor : Why yes indeed!
Me : Good well I think there is a problem with theft in this country, would you agree that no man has the right to steal from another man in this country as a principal.
Ivor : yes, we will be cracking down on the criminals big time!
Me: excellent so you will be abolishing taxation if you get into power?
Ivor: well thats not theft !
Me: well if I refuse to pay wont you also take my liberty?
Ivor: eh...well here take a leaflet!
Me: Nah Im not a tree hugger but the death of a tree so your face can be printed on it is a pretty sad way to go.
On a personal level it has effected me profoundly.
About two years ago I was a heavy drinker and drug taker. I felt like **** most of the time. I always felt as though I had to try and get along with people for the sake of getting along. I would rarely challenge anyones opinions and preferred comfort to conflict. I used philosophy to find values that I wanted to live by , honesty, integrity, courage , empathy and self knowledge. I evaluated my relationships and I say cut at least 20 people out of my life along with drink and drugs. It was the hardest part but after the initial pull of the plaster my happiness has gone through the roof and I see no limit.
Anyway this is why I think philosophy is dangerous to the existing powers that be because a rational thinking , confident population with strong values would have so much pride that they would never let these people get away with the evils that they are committing.0
Comments
-
It is also a danger to your own social life. The problem with getting deep into philosophy is that it gets harder to have a "normal" conversation with people.
A sustained chitchat has become non-existent to me. I prefer a deeper conversation than "so d'you hear about your one". Initiating a conversation about the complexities of life and the future of the universe, the existence of souls and other spiritual beliefs outside of a common religion, cruelty to animals, cruelty to humans. For some reason people like to avoid these issues and I have no idea why, maybe it will spoil their dinner or make them use their brains.
I also don't like when people use the whole, "your entitled to your opinion" approach and then leave. That really ticks me off. I want someone to challenge my beliefs. Put me on the spot. It helps me work out if I have been thinking about something the wrong way, and alows me to see if any of my beliefs are completely stupid... which has happened before... with the help of a few substances. I want a chance to defend my beliefs and if I find they are undefendable then they are probably wrong, probably.
That being said though. You can find a few like minded individuals out there who you can have a good chat with but from my experience there are too few of us out there. Either that or I'm looking in the wrong places.0 -
I completely agree the fact that people hate hearing logical , ethical or principal based arguments. Its because when you go waving around your truth-saber people scramble behind the rocks and hide. It scares the hell out of them because most peoples lives are built on the foundation of lies.
My life was anyway, I remember telling myself things like " of course their my real friends just because we only really drink together dosent mean they arent, everybody in Ireland does this , its the CULTure" or " just because my parents treated me badly it doesnt mean their bad people" and " there has to be a god everybody believes in somthing"
When you bring up questions like " do you think drinking is a defence mechanism driven by the ego that helps sooth childhood trauma?" Around a few lads a bar you are guaranteed a beautifully awkward silence.
Id argue that it improves your social life because it enables you to weed out the people who match your values. For instance i used to go out thinking what value can i offer to the people around me,and Id mould myself around people I met hoping they would approve. Now I look for value in other people and by that I mean honesty, integrity etc. This works so well because the only people that can handle you are these types of people. But their is very few of them. Im lucky enough to have met about 5 people who I can tell anything to and the quaility of the relationships outweigh having hundrends of phonys that I point to on face book and show people how cool I am.
Just about the chit chat , Do you like music?movies?food?family?work?college?
You really have to get down with the chit chat first before you can get to the tasty questions. Trying to chat someone up in tescos by asking the meaning of life may sound fun but it dosent work to well.
ohh and I think meetup.com has a good few groups around Ireland.0 -
Oh and if your a big fan of rational philosophy I suggest heading over to have a look at Ayn rand and Stefan Molyenux on:
http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/
Her book Atlas shrugged is incredible , completely changed the way I thought.
If your looking for a philosopher that is still alive check out some of stefans podcast they are mind blowing!
www.freedomainradio.com0 -
simplistic wrote: »I think philosophy is single handedly the most dangerous concept to the existing institutions in this country and worldwide. By philosophy I mean using reason and evidence to evaluate yourself and your environment.....................
But even a dog uses reason and evidence to evaluate its environment (I'm not sure about evaluating itself) and you cant stop people from doing this. Its just what people do.
As Aristotle states in his first sentence of the Metaphysics 'All men by nature desire to know' http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html
Thats human nature, nothing more or nothing less. How are you going to change this?0 -
I think philosophy is single handedly the most dangerous concept to the existing institutions in this country and worldwide. By philosophy I mean using reason and evidence to evaluate yourself and your environment. Nothing else I have ever undertaken in my life has fundamentally changed me as positively as critical thinking. The reason + virtue = happiness formula works like crack! One hit and youll never go back.
OK. So do you think philosophy is using reason and evidence? (For any reason)
That sounds like science my friend.
Critical reasoning sounds like more like Socrates/Kant to me.
Ideology is the the danger I think you mean to say.0 -
Advertisement
-
And just to refine my previous poor post....
I mean ideological isms....... marx,capilital,social etc0 -
By the way.
Rationlalist Philosophy is an ism......0 -
By the way.
Rationlalist Philosophy is an ism......
its only an -ism when it becomes dogma, that is, uncontestedly the 'best' manner in which to comport oneself in relation to the world. Or at least so I remember from Adorno, who's presumably who your referring to?
Id also be highly wary of your zealousness for rationality OP (especially if your reading Ayn Rand, but thats another issue). Youl find there are plenty of philosophers in the twentieth century, and outside of the western tradition going back as far as you like, that either dont recognise that there is such a faculty as what you call rationality, or if they do recognise it it isnt priveledged in any way.
For example, there is a concept of the Earth in Heidegger (which I dont claim to understand that well tbh) which is continuously "self-concealing". This is to say that it is only by means of human beings engaging with the Earth in ways which bestow meaning on it, and hence bring it out of its self-concealment and into the light of our relational contexts that we can 'know' it in any sense. These ways of engaging are not simply sitting down in our armchairs and pondering a la descartes, but rather by going out and acting in it, dwelling, making tools, drawing etc. Heidegger sees the abstracted knowledge which science offers us (or abstract, rationalist philosophy) as being a vastly inferior, and only secondary, way of coming to know the world (i think, someone correct me if im wrong) than is practical knowledge of it which emerges from our being there and acting in it.
Ive been reading way too much Heidegger recently and it would actually be really helpful if someone would let me know if the above makes any sense or not to someone who hasnt read him before0 -
But even a dog uses reason and evidence to evaluate its environment (I'm not sure about evaluating itself) and you cant stop people from doing this. Its just what people do.
As Aristotle states in his first sentence of the Metaphysics 'All men by nature desire to know' http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html
Thats human nature, nothing more or nothing less. How are you going to change this?
I dont want to stop people using logic.My whole point is that If people use reasoning we will have a better world.
Yes its very true that all humans are" born with a desire to know" but he doest finish the sentence by saying " sadly many people have this desire ground out of them".
This is done through our public school system that teaches conclusions instead of a methodology for reaching conclusions. Its done through religious indoctination by parents who literally threaten their children to accept that there is a god or they will be sent to hell. Also social osctracisation is a powerful tool that people use so that you wont question their actions.
Anybody with a true desire to seek knowledge knows that we can only ever meet in reality ,and our tools for meeting there are reason and evidence.0 -
I thinks its interesting (and good) that Heidegger has been brought in into this discussion and I think what would be also interesting is his view on alienation and technology.
Now, in a way, on reflection and thinking about Heidegger and alienation, I can see where the original poster may be coming from, in that we have become beings-in-an-'unreal and highly structured and complex'-world. We have lost contact with nature and 'reality'. Our view of the world is through complex 'isms' and through technology, which distorts and gives us a highly simulated view of the world.
So in a way, it is not philosophy that is at fault as such, but the highly complex constructed and technical life that we lead and our alienation from 'the-world' and this leads to a desire for simplicity, to return to the real and natural world, a world without ideology and 'isms'.
The romantics and transcendentalists philosophers and poets reflected this desire for simplicity and suspicion of 'reason'. For example Walt Whitman's in his famous lines rejects book-learning and longs for animal simplicity and later refuses to be constrained by reason....
'You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through
the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books,
You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me,
You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self.....(2)
... I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain'd,
I stand and look at them long and long.
They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things,
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,
Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth....(32)
..... Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.).......(51)'
http://www.daypoems.net/poems/1900.html0 -
Advertisement
-
I think philosophy is single handedly the most dangerous concept to the existing institutions in this country and worldwide. By philosophy I mean using reason and evidence to evaluate yourself and your environment. Nothing else I have ever undertaken in my life has fundamentally changed me as positively as critical thinking. The reason + virtue = happiness formula works like crack! One hit and youll never go back.
OK. So do you think philosophy is using reason and evidence? (For any reason)
That sounds like science my friend.
Critical reasoning sounds like more like Socrates/Kant to me.
Ideology is the the danger I think you mean to say.
No what I said was what I meant to say.
Philosophy is a branch of science.
from wiki,
philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.[3] Philosophy comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία [philosophia], which literally translates to "love of wisdom".[4][5][6]0 -
its only an -ism when it becomes dogma, that is, uncontestedly the 'best' manner in which to comport oneself in relation to the world. Or at least so I remember from Adorno, who's presumably who your referring to?
Id also be highly wary of your zealousness for rationality OP (especially if your reading Ayn Rand, but thats another issue). Youl find there are plenty of philosophers in the twentieth century, and outside of the western tradition going back as far as you like, that either dont recognise that there is such a faculty as what you call rationality, or if they do recognise it it isnt priveledged in any way.
For example, there is a concept of the Earth in Heidegger (which I dont claim to understand that well tbh) which is continuously "self-concealing". This is to say that it is only by means of human beings engaging with the Earth in ways which bestow meaning on it, and hence bring it out of its self-concealment and into the light of our relational contexts that we can 'know' it in any sense. These ways of engaging are not simply sitting down in our armchairs and pondering a la descartes, but rather by going out and acting in it, dwelling, making tools, drawing etc. Heidegger sees the abstracted knowledge which science offers us (or abstract, rationalist philosophy) as being a vastly inferior, and only secondary, way of coming to know the world (i think, someone correct me if im wrong) than is practical knowledge of it which emerges from our being there and acting in it.
Ive been reading way too much Heidegger recently and it would actually be really helpful if someone would let me know if the above makes any sense or not to someone who hasnt read him before
Id like to hear your views on Ayn rand and why I should be careful?
Id say that yeah if you look at the effect of philosophy that rejects rationality look at the dark ages and Plato. For a rational time in history look at the renaissance and Aristotle.
Ive never heard of Heidegger but I dont understand how "acting on the world " and gaining knowledge is any different " then using a scientific test to act on the world and gain knowledge. Sounds like he is just milking a bit more out philosophy by using fancy rhetoric.0 -
simplistic wrote: »I dont want to stop people using logic.My whole point is that If people use reasoning we will have a better world.
Yes its very true that all humans are" born with a desire to know" but he doest finish the sentence by saying " sadly many people have this desire ground out of them".
This is done through our public school system that teaches conclusions instead of a methodology for reaching conclusions. Its done through religious indoctination by parents who literally threaten their children to accept that there is a god or they will be sent to hell. Also social osctracisation is a powerful tool that people use so that you wont question their actions.
Anybody with a true desire to seek knowledge knows that we can only ever meet in reality ,and our tools for meeting there are reason and evidence.
I am sympathic to some of what you say and I have quoted Whitmans view on book-learning above. I think this may be applicable to your argument in that school and book-learning (and watching TV, internet etc) ( to some extent) could be considered as second-hand living and viewing the world through 'dead men eyes' and is not really living at all.
But interestingly, philosophy is not taught in secondary schools in many countries (e.g.Ireland or US). One possible reason for this is that schools dont really want student to think too freely. Schooling could be more about conditioning and training and socialising than anything else. ( Both Scruton and deBono have written about this)
Philosophy properly taught and without restrictions (imo) does lead people to think for themselves but this may lead to too much 'individualism'??0 -
I thinks its interesting (and good) that Heidegger has been brought in into this discussion and I think what would be also interesting is his view on alienation and technology.
Now, in a way, on reflection and thinking about Heidegger and alienation, I can see where the original poster may be coming from, in that we have become beings-in-an-'unreal and highly structured and complex'-world. We have lost contact with nature and 'reality'. Our view of the world is through complex 'isms' and through technology, which distorts and gives us a highly simulated view of the world.
So in a way, it is not philosophy that is at fault as such, but the highly complex constructed and technical life that we lead and our alienation from 'the-world' and this leads to a desire for simplicity, to return to the real and natural world, a world without ideology and 'isms'.
The romantics and transcendentalists philosophers and poets reflected this desire for simplicity and suspicion of 'reason'. For example Walt Whitman's in his famous lines rejects book-learning and longs for animal simplicity and later refuses to be constrained by reason....
'You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through
the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books,
You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me,
You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self.....(2)
... I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain'd,
I stand and look at them long and long.
They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things,
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,
Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth....(32)
..... Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.).......(51)'
http://www.daypoems.net/poems/1900.html
Id argue that the philosophy that most people in society live by is the single biggest contributor to the effect on that society. I do believe that society has complex problems but these are derived from the principals that society and these are simple to understand. So just take a look at the different principals that arab countries live by( sharia law,etc) with western principals (separation of church and state).
So when we are able to see what principals have an overall negative effect on society we can change them. As a little exercise you could change your own principals and see the effect on your own personal life.0 -
I am sympathic to some of what you say and I have quoted Whitmans view on book-learning above. I think this may be applicable to your argument in that school and book-learning (and watching TV, internet etc) ( to some extent) could be considered as second-hand living and viewing the world through 'dead men eyes' and is not really living at all.
But interestingly, philosophy is not taught in secondary schools in many countries (e.g.Ireland or US). One possible reason for this is that schools dont really want student to think too freely. Schooling could be more about conditioning and training and socialising than anything else. ( Both Scruton and deBono have written about this)
Philosophy properly taught and without restrictions (imo) does lead people to think for themselves but this may lead to too much 'individualism'??
There is only individuals. There is no such thing as a nation there is only people living on a rock.There is no such thing as a forest just individual trees. There is no such thing a government , there is just buildings ,flags and monkeys in suits. There is no common good. This is why philosophy is so dangerous to the powers that be.Because that is reality and once people really start to get this Imo their will be another renaissance.
Ive read some of de bonos books there are great if you have an entreprenurial mind. Im terribly passionate about education so ill leave that for a different day or ill be ranting like a mad man!:D
But yeah philosophy is not taught in schools.Why?
They are run by the church. Philosophy is the opposite to religion.
Public school teachers will be found out to be hypocrites.
Teacher : remember kids never ever steal
Pupil : but arent your wages funded through theft?0 -
simplistic wrote: »There is only individuals. There is no such thing as a nation there is only people living on a rock.There is no such thing as a forest just individual trees. There is no such thing a government , there is just buildings ,flags and monkeys in suits. There is no common good. This is why philosophy is so dangerous to the powers that be.Because that is reality and once people really start to get this Imo their will be another renaissance.
Ive read some of de bonos books there are great if you have an entreprenurial mind. Im terribly passionate about education so ill leave that for a different day or ill be ranting like a mad man!:D
But yeah philosophy is not taught in schools.Why?
They are run by the church. Philosophy is the opposite to religion.
Public school teachers will be found out to be hypocrites.
Teacher : remember kids never ever steal
Pupil : but arent your wages funded through theft?
People are constantly changing their viewpoint on thing and how they see the world. You could say that there exists a sort of 'collective consciousness' that contains the language and thoughts of many people. However, this 'collective consciousness' is not unified or whole but is very loosely put together (because is not really a whole but a collection of individuals) and contains belief systems, principles, customs, laws, morals, prejudices, myths, truths, lies and of course individual differences). We get most of our ideas from other people.
The only certainty is change and how people view the world is constantly changing, evolving and adapting.
However, this change is not entirely random because people have a certain amount of intelligence and judgement and try to control (and resist) change.
As such, there is nothing wrong with principles, once people are aware that things change and principles can change along with them: and that their principles are not necessarily your principles.
On the other hand, I suppose there are some principles that would really be difficult to live without. For example, the principle that we all drive on the left hand side and stop at red traffic lights is rather useful and I can see difficulties if some individuals decided not to adhere to these. One could then say that the reason why drivers freedom is limited (to obeying traffic rules) is because it is a 'common good'.0 -
I seek the truth in everything, I do not find "the truth" I only find other peoples truths, they differ so much, some I agree with, some I don't.
Surely they are not all correct? how can totally different views all be true?
Can they all be wrong?, are they lies or misconceptions?
"The truth" does not exist, only my truth and your truth exist, they differ, yet both are true... Could it be down to relativity?
The truth has has many colours and many shades of grey.
It is like beauty in the eye of the beholder, yet subject to change.
My universe is all I can see from where I stand, no more, no less.
I need to see more, I must move, is it OK if I stand on your shoulders?0 -
People are constantly changing their viewpoint on thing and how they see the world. You could say that there exists a sort of 'collective consciousness' that contains the language and thoughts of many people. However, this 'collective consciousness' is not unified or whole but is very loosely put together (because is not really a whole but a collection of individuals) and contains belief systems, principles, customs, laws, morals, prejudices, myths, truths, lies and of course individual differences). We get most of our ideas from other people.
The only certainty is change and how people view the world is constantly changing, evolving and adapting.
However, this change is not entirely random because people have a certain amount of intelligence and judgement and try to control (and resist) change.
As such, there is nothing wrong with principles, once people are aware that things change and principles can change along with them: and that their principles are not necessarily your principles.
On the other hand, I suppose there are some principles that would really be difficult to live without. For example, the principle that we all drive on the left hand side and stop at red traffic lights is rather useful and I can see difficulties if some individuals decided not to adhere to these. One could then say that the reason why drivers freedom is limited (to obeying traffic rules) is because it is a 'common good'.
I agree with the idea of a type of collective conscious like if you plant individual seeds in a wood they will if unrestricted each grow and compete for sunlight. Their roots will intertwine to strengthen each other for mutual benefit.They will allow each others branches enough room to collect sunlight. On the other hand if we plant the seeds in a small pot in bad soil ,the trees will become deformed and eventually out grow the pot and kill the trees in the process.
What Im trying to say is that if you teach people some fundamental principals and allow maximum freedom in society they will naturally self regulate as it is in their self interest to work together.
A good example of the collective ideas ,needs and wants of a society can be seen through the free market (although its not entirely free, gov etc,.)
I dont think that people stop at lights because of rules, they stop because it is in there own self interest to live. When I drive I think of my own safety first then other people. Its not in my interest to drive down the at 100mph breaking lights and screaming at people , its also not in anybody else interest to do this, unless its the gardai.
A type of common good arises out of this but the usual type of common good people ramble on about is self-sacrifice and paying for the welfare of others and all that non sense.
Just wondering did you study philosophy in college? or if anybody else did what was your experience of it ? did it effect you and in what way?0 -
simplistic wrote: »I dont think that people stop at lights because of rules, they stop because it is in there own self interest to live. When I drive I think of my own safety first then other people. Its not in my interest to drive down the at 100mph breaking lights and screaming at people , its also not in anybody else interest to do this, unless its the gardai.
Sorry, dont have time to reply to the other stuff in the thread right now but... If this was the case then why do people occasionally drive at 100mph breaking lights and screaming?Just wondering did you study philosophy in college? or if anybody else did what was your experience of it ? did it effect you and in what way?
I did and still am studying philosophy. I really enjoy it, think its actually made me less argumentative over the years, but better at it when I do :pac:. Also makes the world seem like an even more fascinating place then it already does. Highly recommended if you're thinking of doing a course0 -
simplistic wrote: »I agree with the idea of a type of collective conscious like if you plant individual seeds in a wood they will if unrestricted each grow and compete for sunlight. Their roots will intertwine to strengthen each other for mutual benefit.They will allow each others branches enough room to collect sunlight. On the other hand if we plant the seeds in a small pot in bad soil ,the trees will become deformed and eventually out grow the pot and kill the trees in the process.
What Im trying to say is that if you teach people some fundamental principals and allow maximum freedom in society they will naturally self regulate as it is in their self interest to work together.
A good example of the collective ideas ,needs and wants of a society can be seen through the free market (although its not entirely free, gov etc,.)
I dont think that people stop at lights because of rules, they stop because it is in there own self interest to live. When I drive I think of my own safety first then other people. Its not in my interest to drive down the at 100mph breaking lights and screaming at people , its also not in anybody else interest to do this, unless its the gardai.
A type of common good arises out of this but the usual type of common good people ramble on about is self-sacrifice and paying for the welfare of others and all that non sense.
Just wondering did you study philosophy in college? or if anybody else did what was your experience of it ? did it effect you and in what way?
Your analogy to economics goes back to Adam Smith and 'the invisible hand'. However, most economists would agree that Governments need to intervene from time to time as when the markets and companies can go wrong (e.g bubbles, Enron, bank scandals etc) if left completely to themselves. Many small and innocent people get hurt when capitalism is left unrestrained. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
Anyhow, to some extent, you could argue that the form of democracy that we presently have also has a certain 'self-regulation' in terms of the people having some control of the government and visa versa. Although it may not be perfect, Ireland is certainly not the worst country in the world to live in.
Finally, the welfare of others is of great concern not only to the government but to everyone. The state faces a difficult task of on the one hand encouraging wealth, work and enterprise and on the other hand, being seen to be fair to the poor and weaker members of society. This is quite a difficult balance to achieve. But remember, the rich can remain rich because the laws of the country protect wealth and property. Poverty and social unrest threaten the rich as much as the poor. No one wins if there is excess poverty.
PS I studied History & Philosophy ( BA ).0 -
Advertisement
-
There is nothing which frightens those in power more than the notion of a rational public acting as individuals0
-
I think human society has evolved certain personality types, ergo there are very few independent rationals but they perform a vital function in pushing society forward, they might not always get any credit during their day though. The majority are gaurdians who maintain social cohesion, therefore some types within this category dislike it when any critical/dissenting voices are heard. This is an interpretation I find I like to have of the world but I don't think it accurately describes it.
I think that to some extent the view you're putting forth is somewhat elitist and unfair to the many people who could be considered typecast by it. If there is one thing I can say truthfully its that human social systems are really complex and its risky to say n people=this while n people= that. In additon the way people behave is constrained by the global product of their environment, in other words, some people may be very philosophically inclined but are unwilling to express this in a given social situation. That said there is a saying in the Ukraine that the active idiot is better than the lazy philosopher. But again I don't think euphemisms can really sum up the complexity of human history and existence. I symphatize with many of the points in your argument, especially those pertaining to power structures but I'm on the fence as to its validity with regards to the psychology of individuals.0 -
"The truth" does not exist, only my truth and your truth exist, they differ, yet both are true... Could it be down to relativity?
This is the way I read this " Objective truth does not exist, only my subjective truth and your subjective truth exist, they differ, yet both are true...could it be down to relativity."
The problem I found with this thinking is that if only your subjective truth exists. Then your entire reality exists in your mind ,your mind encompases reality. Therefore when you wrote that message you were just writing it to a figmet of your imagination. You cannot say that I have subjective truth because only you and your mind exist and I am just part of your imagination.
If you want to go around telling people that they are nothing more than a part of your imagination, go a head but then youll be asking yourself why do my imaginary friends think im crazy!:D
Plus the very statement " truth does not exist" is a truth statment. Truth is the part where are minds over lap with reality. So if we make a truth statement like " all living humans have blood" we can test our theory in objective reality.
On the other hand we have subjective thoughts like dreams ,where if you were to wake up in the morning after having a dream about dancing on top of mount everest with an ice queen. You realise that it is just a subjective thought and it is unliky for it to of happened in reality.
Here is a graph that shows it well.
http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/b001tluoto/reality1.jpg0 -
Sorry, dont have time to reply to the other stuff in the thread right now but... If this was the case then why do people occasionally drive at 100mph breaking lights and screaming?
I did and still am studying philosophy. I really enjoy it, think its actually made me less argumentative over the years, but better at it when I do :pac:. Also makes the world seem like an even more fascinating place then it already does. Highly recommended if you're thinking of doing a course
I think the key word here is occaionally. I enjoy exercising and eating well because it is in my own self interest to be fit and healthy. But every now and again on a sunday ill take a trip down to tescos stock up on chocolate , pizzas and junk food for the day. Ill sit in all day and gorge and watch movies. I know its bad for me and I know I could spend my time more constructivly but I let my emotions govern my action ie my love food.
Similary the person that does break the lights a 100mph doesnt break every single light at 100mph. Because they know that this will result in a negative.
My point being that when a person breaks the lights that fact that there is rules and regulations will make no difference to someone who is acting irrationally. Like the dude showing of to his mates.
I think that it is pretty well proven that punishing people for bad behaviour is nowhere near as effective as rewarding people and using incentives for good behaviour.
What are your career prospects like with a philosophy degree?0 -
Your analogy to economics goes back to Adam Smith and 'the invisible hand'. However, most economists would agree that Governments need to intervene from time to time as when the markets and companies can go wrong (e.g bubbles, Enron, bank scandals etc) if left completely to themselves. Many small and innocent people get hurt when capitalism is left unrestrained. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
Anyhow, to some extent, you could argue that the form of democracy that we presently have also has a certain 'self-regulation' in terms of the people having some control of the government and visa versa. Although it may not be perfect, Ireland is certainly not the worst country in the world to live in.
Finally, the welfare of others is of great concern not only to the government but to everyone. The state faces a difficult task of on the one hand encouraging wealth, work and enterprise and on the other hand, being seen to be fair to the poor and weaker members of society. This is quite a difficult balance to achieve. But remember, the rich can remain rich because the laws of the country protect wealth and property. Poverty and social unrest threaten the rich as much as the poor. No one wins if there is excess poverty.
PS I studied History & Philosophy ( BA ).
I agree that businesses can harm people through fraud,but they dont even rate when it come to how much pain and suffering governemnts cause people and many of them are un restrained like the US is slaughering people like cattle.I think the number directly killed by the US is somthing like 60 million since world war two. Inderectly who knows?
Yeah I love Ireland , Im glad I live here and am happy that I do but when you see the holes and the cracks in systems its natural for people to want to problem solve . I just want to strive for somthing better thats all.
Sadly though the government incentivises poverty. Looking thoughout history the figures of people living in poverty shoot up after the government installs a welfare state.0 -
SarahChambers wrote: »There is nothing which frightens those in power more than the notion of a rational public acting as individuals
Bingo!0 -
nyarlothothep wrote: »I think human society has evolved certain personality types, ergo there are very few independent rationals but they perform a vital function in pushing society forward, they might not always get any credit during their day though. The majority are gaurdians who maintain social cohesion, therefore some types within this category dislike it when any critical/dissenting voices are heard. This is an interpretation I find I like to have of the world but I don't think it accurately describes it.
I think that to some extent the view you're putting forth is somewhat elitist and unfair to the many people who could be considered typecast by it. If there is one thing I can say truthfully its that human social systems are really complex and its risky to say n people=this while n people= that. In additon the way people behave is constrained by the global product of their environment, in other words, some people may be very philosophically inclined but are unwilling to express this in a given social situation. That said there is a saying in the Ukraine that the active idiot is better than the lazy philosopher. But again I don't think euphemisms can really sum up the complexity of human history and existence. I symphatize with many of the points in your argument, especially those pertaining to power structures but I'm on the fence as to its validity with regards to the psychology of individuals.
I understand what your saying , I would never just attack sombody who has no clue say for instance a public school teacher who doesnt understand that taxation is violence. Many of them want a better world so they teach. But if say I was to point out contradictions to people and they act blindly ignorant to the facts then I have no problem calling them that.
To turn your nose at the truth for the sake of your own personal comfort is pure cowardice.0 -
simplistic wrote: »I understand what your saying , I would never just attack sombody who has no clue say for instance a public school teacher who doesnt understand that taxation is violence. Many of them want a better world so they teach. But if say I was to point out contradictions to people and they act blindly ignorant to the facts then I have no problem calling them that.
To turn your nose at the truth for the sake of your own personal comfort is pure cowardice.
It depends how they act in relation to that. On some occassions tact overrides truth. For example someone might be religious as they need it as a crutch to get through life, thats the way they're adjusted, if you call them out on the falsity of their beliefs you're attacking their whole personal foundation, its not for anyone to do this if they keep their beliefs to themselves or its not affecting anyone. This would be different if they were engaging in a debate or imposing their beliefs on others but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.0 -
Simplistic. I think it’s great you are interested in philosophy, and I think philosophical questioning is a worthwhile action. There are many ‘dangers’ in asking philosophical questions. Philosophical development causes us to consider many extraordinary ideas, and sometimes the complexity of such ideas can be overwhelming, particularly when we have not studied a variety of philosophers.
One danger is becoming indoctrinated by a paradigm. It is easy to be convinced of the “truth” of an “understanding” of the world, but the real strength of philosophy is to escape paradigms, and in this respect, philosophy is similar to science. One of the most important aspects of philosophy, in my opinion, is the acceptance of fallibility. If we examine any philosophical position we invariably find inconstancies, regardless of how meticulously a theory has been constructed. Both good science and good philosophy will continually attempt to undermine itself in an effort to understand inconsistencies. The more philosophy we read, the more we appreciate that it is not an effort to find the absolute solution to any problem, but to understand the problem as best we can. This understanding can help us to make measured decisions, whilst striving for an ethical balance.
Another danger of philosophy is to become nihilistic, or disillusioned without the realization of truth. Most philosophy students will experience this at some point, and how we respond to this is very important. One can shut one’s eyes, and return to dogmatic rhetoric, often with a self righteous tone. However, the mark of arrogance often reveals the absence of philosophy’s greatest tool, modesty. Philosophy is about questions, and the best philosophers will take a stand on issues, but will also acknowledge the weakness of their position. The “truth” can be the philosopher’s greatest enemy, it stops the thinker questioning, and consequently, stops the thinker philosophising. The other way we can deal with nihilism is to accept our subjectivity, and take our heads out of the clouds. You are the philosopher, what do you think? This experience can be liberating because we now are no longer required to recognise the truth of mankind, only the best for mankind, from the perspective of a man. This is where (I dare to suggest) progress is made, with two feet on the ground.
By the way, Ayn Rand is an interesting writer, but man, is her head in the clouds or what? Check out this review of a book about her: AYN RAND AND THE WORLD SHE MADE.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have began to dip my little toe into this vast subject, the last post is one of the most amazing I have read.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement