i’ve only read wittgenstein’s tractatus, so i don’t know much about later period wittgenstein. i like how well he’s able to break down “the world”. i feel like he has a good idea about what it is possible to know and what exactly that means (which is: not much and nothing too significant). usually i’m pretty wary of axiomatic philosophies, but his allows for so much of the grey area and uncertainty that we constantly brush up against. it’s so mysterious and compelling. i also like his logic (hah!).
the analytic and pragmatic traditions are the only truly american branches of philosophy. i like that i’ve started where i did. i feel like the continental is easier to get at after an analytic education rather than the other way around. we’ve got a lot of life left to study it all; that is, if we want to.
oh, and to answer your question: i don’t think either of them is more or less ethical if they both don’t steal the chips. they ultimately took the same course of action even though their mental processes were different. it would be easy to be distracted by the implication of wrong-doing in the thoughts of the second person, but i don’t feel like it is significant without further information.
I’m not very familiar with Wittgenstein. I like continental over analytical, but I see the importance of both…Anyway, I hear you on the ethical question. I see that you’re more of a results vs. intentions kind of guy. Personally I prefer to look at things through an “intention” point of view (Kant influence!!!). I think of ethics, for the most part, in terms of intentions. I think an action can be moral if it was intended to promote “the good” but really yielded a bad result. To a limit of course…
Also, what are your stats LaPointe? Are you in school/where did you study/what do you wanna do? Sorry if you already mentioned all that lol.
I’m not very familiar with Wittgenstein. I like continental over analytical, but I see the importance of both…Anyway, I hear you on the ethical question. I see that you’re more of a results vs. intentions kind of guy. Personally I prefer to look at things through an “intention” point of view (Kant influence!!!). I think of ethics, for the most part, in terms of intentions. I think an action can be moral if it was intended to promote “the good” but really yielded a bad result. To a limit of course…
Also, what are your stats LaPointe? Are you in school/where did you study/what do you wanna do? Sorry if you already mentioned all that lol.
i go to the University of Missouri in Kansas City. i’m two weeks away from graduating with a double major in philosophy and spanish. i have no idea what i want to do after i graduate outside of getting a job and paying off my student debts. we’ll see how that goes…
Most people dog on her and say she’s not a real philosopher. I’m not arguing that, so please don’t bring that up…I’m no expert on her stuff either, but here are some of my thought/likes.
I just read a bit of Atlas Shrugged, and I really like her anti altruism. She says that people are unhappy in our altruistic society. People live for others. Her example was an architect I believe. Most architects would say they like their job. They don’t, however. Most people don’t actually like their work for what it is, but rather the result. Most architects don’t like being architects, but rather the fame that comes from being one, the recognition, the acceptance.
This made me think of how people (myself included) tend to live life in a mirror reality. Most of us are only as okay as people see us. We do things and are motivated by our perception of how people perceive us. This struggle to reach perfection also reminds me of Yukio Mashima. He wanted so badly to achieve perfection that he was basically crazy (in my opinion). The more we want things, the more we set ourselves up for failure.
But, to avoid the inevitable “then why do anything”…I like to draw a distinction. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t set goals b/c they’ll just end up diasappointed. I’m saying that you should reach for the stars, but have your feet planted on earth. You can want to have a great physique, a great career, money, family, blah blah blah, but what keeps you sane is the acceptance of your current situation. If all you think about is reaching the ideal perfection, you’re in trouble.
This trouble comes from the fact that my idea of perfection is static. What I think is ideal and perfect today is probalby not going to be the same in five years or even five weeks from now. Also, most people don’t want to reach their idea of perfection, but rather society’s idea of perfection. This is particularly troublesome because society’s idea of perfection is even more static than my own!
Sorry for the rant, but I was just “feeling it” tonight!
I really like virtue ethics. I even bought a book about it that I fully intended to read but then I took anatomy and physiology and that book has consumed my life these last three terms.
Dude, Aristotle is the man. I’m at university, and in EVERY class the teacher always says, “Aristotle was the inventor/founder of _______.” lol. He wrote/contributed/started everything, or at least it seems that way! How could one man have been so knowledgeable? It’s insane!
PS does anyone else think that Socrates willed to die the way he did (when he had the choice of fleeing and getting away from Athens) in order to attain fame? People say he wanted to stand up, blah blah blah, but in my PERSONAL OPINION he was more of an attention whore…Just saying
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
Dude, Aristotle is the man. I’m at university, and in EVERY class the teacher always says, “Aristotle was the inventor/founder of _______.” lol. He wrote/contributed/started everything, or at least it seems that way! How could one man have been so knowledgeable? It’s insane!
PS does anyone else think that Socrates willed to die the way he did (when he had the choice of fleeing and getting away from Athens) in order to attain fame? People say he wanted to stand up, blah blah blah, but in my PERSONAL OPINION he was more of an attention whore…Just saying[/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong because it has been a while and I’m playing off memory. He was sentenced to death or exile for some pretty bogus charges like corrupting the youth.
He was extremely old especially for that time period. Like 60’s or 70’s.
I feel that he was standing up for what he truly believed. He was old and probably felt he had no where to go. Athens was his life the culture the people and philosophical debates. This man dedicated his whole life to spreading his word and philosophy and Athens was the place to be. He was the stubborn old man who won’t flee his home during a natural disaster because his life and memories are all vested there. Without it he has no reason to live.
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
Haha good responses. I like Kant’s ethics and his non-consequential ideas. I also like Nietzsche’s work a lot. I love his whole will to power idea, I love his “get out there and take what you want” attitude. Yes, I realize these 2 philosophers are pretty much polar opposites, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect them both.
In fact, I just wrote a huge paper on consequential vs. non-consequential ethics. My professor wanted us to contrast Utilitarianism w/ Kantianism. I see how these two ethical theories are different, but I honestly think that both can work simultaneously. Life isn’t a vacuum, there usually isn’t ONE WAY ONLY to think about things. I mean to say that in any given situation I can think about things through a Utilitarian perspective WHiLE also thinking through a Kantian perspective. I don’t know if that makes any sense, lol, I’ve been busy/sleep deprived all week, but yeah, I’m glad to see other people dig philosophy![/quote]
no it doesn’t make sense, because with Kant, morals (the good) are fixed, while in Utilitarianism whatever benefits the most people is what is good or right and thus not fixed. This leads to inherent clashes between the philosophies.
Hypothetical: terrorists say they will blow up a city unless you kill 10 innocent girls. Utilitarians would say killing the girls is right and good, because it benefits the most people. Kant would say killing is always morally reprehensible and thus killing the girls would be bad. Clearly not compatible.[/quote]
False dichotomy.
Utilitarians would say kill the terrorists.
[/quote]
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, but killing the terrorists wasn’t supposed to be possible in the hypothetical. But even if it were possible, it still isn’t the best utilitarian decision, because there is the huge risk to a vast amount of people that the terrorists will blow up the city when you try to kill them. That’s definitely not the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Therein lies a problem with utilitarianism. How do you get the calculus right? You are supposed to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but from those intentions you do a great harm.
@ Apollo: I understand what you’re saying, and you are correct. He was charged with impiety and corrupting the youth. On one hand, yes - he was stubborn and was the type to stick to his guns. However, other philosophers have ran in situations similar to the one he was in. My personal belief is that he wanted to be remembered as a martyr.
When someone KNOWS that they will die, and do nothing to prevent their death, I see that act as a quasi-suicide. Socrates could have ran, and in fact several guards advised that he do so. He didn’t, however, and therefore acted as if he wanted to die.
I equate this kind of “assisted suicide” with the way that many other famous people have gone out. For example, Martin Luther King…People told him that he was going to be killed, but he went on anyway. Or Yukio Nimisha. I’m not saying that this is bad. In fact, sometimes suspending your desire (such as the desire to live lol) in the name of a greater good, or something more important than yourself, is a good thing.
Most heroes possess that quality - being able to thrive and perform under conditions we wouldn’t. Soldiers are a good example. I PERSONALLY don’t believe in the wars America is in ATM, but I still respect people who put themselves in the face of death for something greater than themselves. We don’t remember average folk, but rather those who do great things…
Does anybody have any thoughts on the philosophy and/or practical applications of BBing to tie this thread into the website BTW?
Word. Thanks, i"m looking for a good philosophical read.
Let’s talk about good books! I just read a John Grisham book called The Appeal - super great book!
I also just read Ayn Rand’s For the New Intellectual - one of my all time favorites now, seriously check it out. I know people hate on her, but just do yourself a favor.
Maybe it is like courage. One analysis of courage is that fear is necessary for courage. A person who doesn’t feel afraid doesn’t have the opportunity to display courage or to act courageously. Psychopaths might act in accordance with courage (do acts that we, from the outside, might be tempted to think of as courageous) but they can’t act from courage insofar as they can’t act rightly despite their fear since they lack fear.
Similarly, virtue might be like that. Virtue might require (in a Kantian way) doing the right thing because it is the right thing. In the face of temptation? Perhaps… Acting in accordance with morality might not be enough for virtue. One might have to act from morality.
Was Foot Kantian? Don’t know why I though she was Aristotelian… Not really my area…
Before I got all jaded and cynical (just kidding - sort of) I got a lot of enjoyment from Sophie’s World. Curiosity. Wonder. Simplicity.
I also enjoyed Nagel’s 'What does it all mean?" for similar reasons:
[quote]LaPointe wrote:
Ayn Rand is garbage. why? because she doesn’t actually understand the history of philosophy. [/quote]
Just for the record - GET THE FUCK OUT.
Right, Ayn Rand didn’t understand philosophy is like saying Frank Zane didn’t REALLY know about bodybuilding.
Fuck.[/quote]
whatever. it’s just opinions anyway. no one can be “right” because the right answer is wholly dependent on context. nothing is objectively true/right/good or whatever you want.
so, you like Ayn Rand and think she’s a smart lady. i think she’s a tool for shitty people to justify systematizing their shitty-ness. obviously, me saying she’s a tool isn’t going to jive with your perception of her. neither one of us is right though. objectively, all she is is worm food.