More Philosophy Questions!

Off Topic
81

[quote]vroom wrote:

Most people understand that in general killing is “bad” but that there are exceptions to this. For example, many will rally behind corporal punishment for criminals. Suddenly the “rule” changes. Wow, relativism in action, making a decision based on the issues involved as you see them.[/quote]

I think that may be the problem - what you described is not relativism. A ‘rule’ changing because of different circumstances is the result of other moral considerations, not because the original ‘rule’ wasn’t correct on its face.

Making decisions based on issues involved is not a practice in relativism, because the point is after you consider all the facts and contexts you still come up with a ‘right answer’ that you generally think applicable beyond your own personal predilections for each situation. There is no question people can come to different conclusions, but it is only relativism if you think those other conclusions have the same inherent value regardless of the answer arrived at.

The idea that you create ‘exceptions’ to a more general maxim is not evidence of relativism - it is evidence that the Right Answers are much more detailed and individualized than a simplistic general tenet.

In the case of killing: murder bad, war ok, self-defense ok, virgin sacrifice bad - these aren’t examples of relativism, these are examples of Right Answers in various moral contexts.

82

[quote]pookie wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Certainly there are things that the ancients understood better or more completely than we do, now.

Interesting. Would you have an example?
[/quote]

I think nephorm already pointed to another example:

The ancients, to a man, wrote with a kind of moderation and care for the political consequences of their writings that is not evident in all modern authors, even all great modern authors.

For instance, while Plato’s writings inspired some of those who read them to attempt to overthrow tyrannies, with various degrees of success, Rousseau’s writings inspired the Terror. Perhaps this is because Plato frames his reflections on political life in such a way as to dissuade his readers from drawing a radical revolutionary program from them. It is very hard to come away from a good translation of the Republic with the idea that Plato wants you to burn your city to the ground and build it up anew from the ground up. It is much easier to get this idea from the Second Discourse and the Social Contract.

I am certainly not suggesting that we should evaluate the worth of author’s works on the basis of how they have been misinterpreted. But perhaps ancient writers knew a thing or two that some moderns don’t about how to protect their cities from the bad consequences of their writers.

[quote]pookie wrote:

…I just couldn’t think of anything where ancients would be “more advanced” than we are.

…Isn’t it quite unlikely that whatever mathematical thought that language expressed has long since been re-expressed by other mathematicians? Mathematics has come a long way since Plato…

[/quote]

Plutarch indicates in his Life of Marcellus that certain ancient thinkers had a theoretical knowledge of mechanics (the cornerstone of modern natural science). He also seems to suggest that Plato deliberately prevented the earlier development of something like modern science by suppressing the public teaching and writing on mechanics.

The ancients, in other words, seem to have considered the possibility of the sort of science we have now, and deliberately and knowingly rejected it. Rather than comparing the ancients and moderns point-for-point in regard to how much they have advanced ‘science,’ it might be better to try to understand why the ancients chose to reject science and why the moderns chose to embrace it.

83

[quote]nephorm wrote:

no one comprehends the whole… and the whole is the aim of Philosophy.
[/quote]

In order to see the whole one must stop judging the parts.

84

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

To think forming CONCEPTS is, as Aristotle said, an essential attribute.

[/quote]

I respectfully disagree.

To think forming concepts x To be perceiving reality as is.
…
Judgement x Discernment

Conceptualization x Perception
…
Developing the perceptive powers of our minds = Discernment

Conceptualizing powerful ideals = Judgement

85

[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
The ancients, to a man, wrote with a kind of moderation and care for the political consequences of their writings that is not evident in all modern authors, even all great modern authors.[/quote]

Interesting point. Although that’s not really lost knowledge, but more a difference in style. It might be cultural, as less hectic times might be more conductive to a more sedate, so to speak, approach to discussion.

Consider that throughout history and it’s countless wars, it’s generally the “more advanced” civilization that won the conflicts.

Choosing to reject science and progress might be a justifiable proposition… until you meet an aggressor who’s embraced them. The final outcome being that any civilization that rejects progress and technology, for whatever reasons, is doomed to fall to one that accepted progress.

86

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
bradams wrote:
Just a quick philosophical question for you…

Does anybody ask that works in quantum mechanics be “readable”? If not, then why is it a requirement for ethics?

I would say that it should be made accessible to the layman, especially if their taxes are funding the research or the university where these folks work.

Why leave everything as a mystery? Wouldn’t we want the average person on our side, so to speak, if we were researching an important topic?

Because they don’t have the answer.
Only enough intellect to camouflage it eloquently.

Cynic! :wink: Just joking!!!

Actually, I love explaining calculus to students who always thought that the subject was some ‘outer space, whacked out math stuff’. If only philosophers felt the same — might’ve spared the world a LOT of agony.

[/quote]

I don’t believe in them - I believe in you.
You have the answer to your question right there in your own example:

Love for humanity.

Love in Action:
Love that is evident in actions to prevent suffering and perpetuate life.

87

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What makes for “good philosophy” is the philosopher?s ability to make extreme generalizations and at the same time be completely unambiguous about a particular framework.

In general, philosophers attempt to answer questions of the following type:

  1. Metaphysics–what is the nature of reality?[/quote]

Dynamic ( change is constant )[quote]

  1. Epistemology–what is truth and what are the limits of knowledge?[/quote]

A direct experience of reality as perceived ( as opposed to conceptualized ) in each moment = Love is the dynamic part of truth, since it is fully discerning ( as opposed to judging ) = fully feeling and fully responding.
The limits of knowledge are the limits of one’s consciousness. Which can be as expansive as the universe.[quote]

  1. Axiology–what is good and where does goodness come from?[/quote]

A state of well being.
From the well of life ( good is what prevents suffering and promotes life ).

88

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think that may be the problem - what you described is not relativism. A ‘rule’ changing because of different circumstances is the result of other moral considerations, not because the original ‘rule’ wasn’t correct on its face.[/quote]

There is another problem then, because people often ascribe relativism to people incorrectly, according to your definition.

However, there was a point earlier where I did suggest that a formal definition may declare such, but that’s not how we usually deal with it in these parts.

The other people making those decisions presumably have come to the same conclusions of the inherent value of their decisions.

However, there are and have been many problems caused by one society attempting to force it’s values on another. Making piecework changes based on external judgments of value is very dangerous, because the situations are not the same.

I’m not sure if you see where I’m going. The realities of life for the people in their own situation will add a subjective factor to what is “right” and “wrong”.

The line starts to get very fine…

If you want to argue in formal terms, then supply the formal term for realizing the subjectivity of judgment of right and wrong based on the circumstances and understanding of the participants.

89

[quote]pookie wrote:
Ross Hunt wrote:
The ancients, to a man, wrote with a kind of moderation and care for the political consequences of their writings that is not evident in all modern authors, even all great modern authors.

Interesting point. Although that’s not really lost knowledge, but more a difference in style. It might be cultural, as less hectic times might be more conductive to a more sedate, so to speak, approach to discussion.

Rather than comparing the ancients and moderns point-for-point in regard to how much they have advanced ‘science,’ it might be better to try to understand why the ancients chose to reject science and why the moderns chose to embrace it.

Consider that throughout history and it’s countless wars, it’s generally the “more advanced” civilization that won the conflicts.

Choosing to reject science and progress might be a justifiable proposition… until you meet an aggressor who’s embraced them. The final outcome being that any civilization that rejects progress and technology, for whatever reasons, is doomed to fall to one that accepted progress.
[/quote]

There is definitely a ‘the-cat-is-out-of-the-bag’ dimension to this problem. You can’t just shoot an email to your Top 8 and ask them if they’re up for giving up all scientific progress and helping you found a polis this weekend.

What I’m trying to suggest is that until we understand why some thinkers chose scienctific progress and others repudiated it, we don’t have any understanding of the ultimate worth of our world as it has developed under the guidance of science, and we lack the means of comparing the worth of the ancient and the modern life.

90

Interesting thread. I think there are some examples of lost usefull knowledge. I remember a documentary about the Nidaros cathedral in Trondheim, Norway (built around 1100-1300). It was built with some special stones that has tolerated the teeth of time much better than any types we know of today.

91

[quote]pookie wrote:
Ross Hunt wrote:
The ancients, to a man, wrote with a kind of moderation and care for the political consequences of their writings that is not evident in all modern authors, even all great modern authors.

Interesting point. Although that’s not really lost knowledge, but more a difference in style. It might be cultural, as less hectic times might be more conductive to a more sedate, so to speak, approach to discussion.

Rather than comparing the ancients and moderns point-for-point in regard to how much they have advanced ‘science,’ it might be better to try to understand why the ancients chose to reject science and why the moderns chose to embrace it.

Consider that throughout history and it’s countless wars, it’s generally the “more advanced” civilization that won the conflicts.

Choosing to reject science and progress might be a justifiable proposition… until you meet an aggressor who’s embraced them. The final outcome being that any civilization that rejects progress and technology, for whatever reasons, is doomed to fall to one that accepted progress.
[/quote]

Plato lived in very chaotic times and sought for a stable system that would ensure justice for all (in his definition). Its understandable why he wanted humans to live as if in a beehive, each person having their place.

Science and reason have always posed a threat to the established order. Change, to the powers-that-be, is to be avoided as much as possible.

All of this, btw, is one of the themes of ATLAS SHRUGGED.

92

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
bradams wrote:
Just a quick philosophical question for you…

Does anybody ask that works in quantum mechanics be “readable”? If not, then why is it a requirement for ethics?

I would say that it should be made accessible to the layman, especially if their taxes are funding the research or the university where these folks work.

Why leave everything as a mystery? Wouldn’t we want the average person on our side, so to speak, if we were researching an important topic?

Because they don’t have the answer.
Only enough intellect to camouflage it eloquently.

Cynic! :wink: Just joking!!!

Actually, I love explaining calculus to students who always thought that the subject was some ‘outer space, whacked out math stuff’. If only philosophers felt the same — might’ve spared the world a LOT of agony.

I don’t believe in them - I believe in you.
You have the answer to your question right there in your own example:

Actually, I love…

Love for humanity.

Love in Action:
Love that is evident in actions to prevent suffering and perpetuate life.

[/quote]

Hmmm…from an existentialist point of view, what is love?
Remember, in your explanation, that I worship at the throne of Reason (when not worshipping the porcelain gods :wink:

93

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What makes for “good philosophy” is the philosopher’s ability to make extreme generalizations and at the same time be completely unambiguous about a particular framework. [/quote]

Huh? Hey I like crack as much as the next guy, but this makes no sense what so ever.
A “good philosophy” as you call it, is one where the conclusion derived from a argument follow deductivly from the premises presented. This is not relative. A conclusion is true despite the surrounding circumstances. It’s acutally mathmatical. 1+1=2 is true anywhere in the universe at any time.

94

[quote]pat36 wrote:
1+1=2 is true anywhere in the universe at any time.[/quote]

Not when counting votes in Florida.

95

[quote]Imbrondir wrote:
Interesting thread. I think there are some examples of lost usefull knowledge. I remember a documentary about the Nidaros cathedral in Trondheim, Norway (built around 1100-1300). It was built with some special stones that has tolerated the teeth of time much better than any types we know of today.[/quote]

Although those stones appear to be highly flammable, if the Wikipedia entry is correct… :slight_smile:

96

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Actually, I love explaining calculus to students who always thought that the subject was some ‘outer space, whacked out math stuff’. If only philosophers felt the same — might’ve spared the world a LOT of agony.

I don’t believe in them - I believe in you.
You have the answer to your question right there in your own example:

Actually, I love…

Love for humanity.

Love in Action:
Love that is evident in actions to prevent suffering and perpetuate life.

Hmmm…from an existentialist point of view, what is love?
Remember, in your explanation, that I worship at the throne of Reason (when not worshipping the porcelain gods :wink:

[/quote]

Life renewing energy.

= prevents or ameliorates suffering and promotes and perpetuates the continuum of life.

Or love for something in general or someone in particular is to be bothered, to care to contribute in a way that promotes the life and the well-being of the subject - love itself is the object(ive).
Love is objective.
( And I am quite sure on that one since I have trouble dating : apparently I don’t give out “the right signals” - or something irrational like that…; D )

97

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
1+1=2 is true anywhere in the universe at any time.

Not when counting votes in Florida.[/quote]

Haha. Good one.