The Philosophy Thread

Off Topic
81

[quote]LaPointe wrote:
no one can be “right” because the right answer is wholly dependent on context. nothing is objectively true/right/good or whatever you want.
[/quote]

I go over to your house and stab you with a screwdriver for no reason and that’s OK with you.

The whole notion of objective and verifiable sciences doesn’t exist in your universe, correct? When you go to the doctor for a life-saving medication is his prescription based on your Kantian relativism or is it based on hard science?

Right. Get the fuck outta here.

Hiss09 - the Mike Wallace interview with AR on youtube is awesome. I sometimes give the Playboy Interview with AR as a good intro to Objectivism.

82

whoa, dude. whoa. clearly you don’t understand much about philosophy, saveski.

i should have known better than to assume that this thread would contain anything cool when the “philosophers” getting the most attention were actually economic/political dogmatists. go buy some gold and shove it up your ass.

83

[quote]LaPointe wrote:
whoa, dude. whoa. clearly you don’t understand much about philosophy, saveski.

i should have known better than to assume that this thread would contain anything cool when the “philosophers” getting the most attention were actually economic/political dogmatists. go buy some gold and shove it up your ass.[/quote]

Actually, you were wrong to state as fact that there are no absolute ethics. That was a subjective statement. And if I believe there are absolute ethics, it does not matter to me whether you believe in them or not, because from that side, they are absolute.

84

Guys, guys, guys - this thread is about discussion. Socrates would bitchslap all of you for the hostility. “I’d rather be proven wrong than prove someone else wrong…”

Let’s keep this thread friendly. Differences of opinion are a GOOD thing!

Saveski - sounds like you’re a teacher, are you? And if so, where and what?

DD - do you have any formal philosophical training?

85

LaPointe wrote:
no one can be “right” because the right answer is wholly dependent on context. nothing is objectively true/right/good or whatever you want.

Lapointe, if NOTHING IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE, does that include your above statement? That is, if nothing can be objectively true how can your statement possibly be true?

(Hiss - I’m a radical capitalist but happen to run a restaurant. Not a teacher, but did go to some fancy schools and have a masters. I was VERY religious, having been brain-washed all through Catholic high school and Jesuit college and then pulled my head out of my ass after a Libertarian wake-up (at USC!). In high-school I’m sure I would have disagreed with Rand. Actually ran for US Congress as a Libt but of course there wasn’t a chance.)

Smartest human that ever walked the earth - put this in your pipes and toke it:

86

Wow Saversk, tell us more. What’s your degree in? And what do you like about Rand the most…Give us some stuff!

87

alright… no one has yet understood what i said about objectivity and i don’t expect you to. i was making an ontological statement and not necessarily one of ethics. ethics cannot exist without context and we (humans) are supplying endless contexts to “the world”. it is arrogant/ignorant/stupid to assume that there is an absolute anything about “the world” that we can have access to because we are constantly imposing linguistic constructs onto “the world” that exists independent of those constructs.

unfortunately, these are the only ways in which our minds can understand the world. what we are doing all of the time is compensating for the fact that we can conceive of absolutes, but will never ever nenverino have access to them. any “philosophy” that assumes that “the world” is a certain way is necessarily mistaken. it is, however, informative about that “philosopher’s” position in society.

all of whatever stupid things that you or i believe about the way things ought to be are reflections of the level of privilege that we have, the cultures in which we were raised and whatever other environmental factors that we can come up with (and they are legion). it is all connected and reflected out by our minds. there is nothing “original” or “transcendent” available to us other than the constant struggle to understand that we are wholly incapable of actually knowing anything at all.

what we are arguing about when we argue about things like truth and goodness is our perspectives. there is necessary friction here. that’s how morality is formed. it’s like the tao though, true morality is not the one that can be named or pointed at or written on a piece of paper. it is elusive to us because it is in constant flux, but we always have it.

before you get all reactionary on me, take a deep breath. yes, saveski, anything i have ever said has no objective value whatsoever. likewise, everything you’ve ever said is subject to the same rules. the problem i have with Rand is the same problem i have with ANY person who says that things are a certain way and that they know this to be true. there is no way that is possible.

what i do believe is that Rand had her day (remember that dude Alan Greenspan? a fat lot of good he did for our economy…) and it is past. anyone appealing to her philosophy or rules for life set out for a nomadic desert culture that lived thousands of years ago or to final solutions to all the world’s problems are going down a dangerous road. “because i say so” is the slipperiest slope of all.

morality is a social construction. it’s around no matter what. ethics is an attempt to describe morality and to pass judgement on past and future actions. it is a reflective process and is just as empty as any other linguistic construction. what gives any of the stuff that we say or do any weight at all is society. we don’t have much else besides each other. in fact, without the common linguistic agreement that we all share, we don’t even have things like truth and goodness.

to me, what is most evil and ignorant in Rand’s “philosophy” is that she provides the same sort of grounds for societal “cleansing” that a hitler or a stalin or a mao have given us. this is the most violent act anyone could possibly carry out. not only is it bad for other people (and in america, you don’t have to give a shit about anyone else. you are totally free to be as bigoted and selfish as you want.) but it’s bad for you.

the straw man of the libertarian survivalist that i set up in my first post is a representation of the suicidal notion implied by the “i am better and i don’t owe you anything” attitude. you can’t even be “better than” without the “worse thans”. the privilege allowed by capitalist society is predicated upon the exploitation of those that are “less creative” or “parasitic”. a Randian “rebellion” is misguided because it is an act of violence towards that which allowed your privileged perspective in the first place.

and, yes, there is no objective value to any of this. please take your kool-aid and move along…

ps. i watched that interview (i have watched it before.) and i am still waiting with bated breath for her “morality that can be proved with logic” or for her to properly understand/use basic philosophical terms.

88

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
Guys, guys, guys - this thread is about discussion. Socrates would bitchslap all of you for the hostility. “I’d rather be proven wrong than prove someone else wrong…”

Let’s keep this thread friendly. Differences of opinion are a GOOD thing!

Saveski - sounds like you’re a teacher, are you? And if so, where and what?

DD - do you have any formal philosophical training?

[/quote]

Nope, just a hodge podge of personal experience and study. Unless you include quantum mechanics which did influence my philosophical beliefs a lot.

89

[quote]LaPointe wrote:
alright… no one has yet understood what i said about objectivity and i don’t expect you to. i was making an ontological statement and not necessarily one of ethics. ethics cannot exist without context and we (humans) are supplying endless contexts to “the world”. it is arrogant/ignorant/stupid to assume that there is an absolute anything about “the world” that we can have access to because we are constantly imposing linguistic constructs onto “the world” that exists independent of those constructs.

unfortunately, these are the only ways in which our minds can understand the world. what we are doing all of the time is compensating for the fact that we can conceive of absolutes, but will never ever nenverino have access to them. any “philosophy” that assumes that “the world” is a certain way is necessarily mistaken. it is, however, informative about that “philosopher’s” position in society.

all of whatever stupid things that you or i believe about the way things ought to be are reflections of the level of privilege that we have, the cultures in which we were raised and whatever other environmental factors that we can come up with (and they are legion). it is all connected and reflected out by our minds. there is nothing “original” or “transcendent” available to us other than the constant struggle to understand that we are wholly incapable of actually knowing anything at all.

what we are arguing about when we argue about things like truth and goodness is our perspectives. there is necessary friction here. that’s how morality is formed. it’s like the tao though, true morality is not the one that can be named or pointed at or written on a piece of paper. it is elusive to us because it is in constant flux, but we always have it.

before you get all reactionary on me, take a deep breath. yes, saveski, anything i have ever said has no objective value whatsoever. likewise, everything you’ve ever said is subject to the same rules. the problem i have with Rand is the same problem i have with ANY person who says that things are a certain way and that they know this to be true. there is no way that is possible.

what i do believe is that Rand had her day (remember that dude Alan Greenspan? a fat lot of good he did for our economy…) and it is past. anyone appealing to her philosophy or rules for life set out for a nomadic desert culture that lived thousands of years ago or to final solutions to all the world’s problems are going down a dangerous road. “because i say so” is the slipperiest slope of all.

morality is a social construction. it’s around no matter what. ethics is an attempt to describe morality and to pass judgement on past and future actions. it is a reflective process and is just as empty as any other linguistic construction. what gives any of the stuff that we say or do any weight at all is society. we don’t have much else besides each other. in fact, without the common linguistic agreement that we all share, we don’t even have things like truth and goodness.

to me, what is most evil and ignorant in Rand’s “philosophy” is that she provides the same sort of grounds for societal “cleansing” that a hitler or a stalin or a mao have given us. this is the most violent act anyone could possibly carry out. not only is it bad for other people (and in america, you don’t have to give a shit about anyone else. you are totally free to be as bigoted and selfish as you want.) but it’s bad for you.

the straw man of the libertarian survivalist that i set up in my first post is a representation of the suicidal notion implied by the “i am better and i don’t owe you anything” attitude. you can’t even be “better than” without the “worse thans”. the privilege allowed by capitalist society is predicated upon the exploitation of those that are “less creative” or “parasitic”. a Randian “rebellion” is misguided because it is an act of violence towards that which allowed your privileged perspective in the first place.

and, yes, there is no objective value to any of this. please take your kool-aid and move along…

ps. i watched that interview (i have watched it before.) and i am still waiting with bated breath for her “morality that can be proved with logic” or for her to properly understand/use basic philosophical terms.[/quote]

You are still stating your personal philosophical beliefs as fact. The possibility of a god negates all you just presented as fact. There is a possible absolute source for things like morality that is outside the constructs of society. It’s possible it is a component of the universe, like gravity or matter.

It is also possible that people do know this as fact through revelation. (I’m not saying it does happen, just noting that you are ignoring it)

You should really preface most of what you said with “I believe”.

90

LaPointe,

I hear you. I agree that ethics doesn’t REALLY “matter” at the end of the day the way that science does. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, and so is morality, because a system of ethics DOES reflect a personal value set. There truly is no right or wrong action. I look at ethics, however, as completely necessary. How can a human being go about life without a set of rules to live by? Most people make the fatal mistake of never defining, to themselves, who or what they are/believe in. I think that people like Aristotle were on to something with the Golden Mean ideal. I think morality and ethical actions are the “middle ground” between extremes. It is hard to say for sure what is and what is not “good,” but I feel that, on an intuitive level, as long as I’m not harming anyone or myself, then I’m on the right path.

This is the tragic part of philosophical study. Philosophy means “the love of wisdom.” Wisdom, however, cannot truly be interpreted. 2 different cultures have 2 different views on wisdom. We’re always striving to reach the good, but we will NEVER reach it because it is a) elusive like a vanishing point, b) culturally relative, c) unattainable to finite creatures like we are.

I also think that the wise person is better than the clever person. A lot of folks see ethics as a means to becoming better at living. I think that a clever person knows how to achieve a given end. A clever man will know how to do something. People that we mistake as wise tend to be people that are skillful and know how to get things done. The truly wise man may not know much at all. Think about how Confucius was berated by those around him for not knowing how to do many things. He couldn’t be a politician, etc. But wisdom involves knowing or having an inclination towards understanding what is good. A clever man may know how to attain a goal, but a wise man knows what goals are WORTH attaining.

Also, I like Rand. I’m not going to call you stupid or disagree blatantly. In fact, I LOVE these types of passionate debates. That said, I don’t think Rand would qualify among the ranks of Hitler or Mao. She preaches that people should live for themselves, not for others. I absolutely could not agree more. She is saying that people should pursue what they want, but not at the expense of other people. Hitler wanted his agenda to be seen through, but obviously other people would be living for him.

Rand’s political and economic theories aren’t as distinguished, and I’m not as versed on those, but I really like her philosophy nonetheless. One thing she talks about that I love is about how people sacrifice and perceive that as good when in reality sacrifice is bad. For example, people live for others. An example - very few people in a given profession - say engineers - truly love being engineers. They love the recognition they get from others, they love the way that recognition makes them feel, they love their status, they love the ramifications of engineering. This is living for others. This is selfless. If that person really loved building toy trains, let’s say, then by giving up engineering and embracing their true love they would become virtuous.

Lastly, I see philosophy as a guide, as stated above. A lot of philosophers give up at a certain point when they can no longer explain. This comes out when philosophers turn to metaphysics to explain the physical realm. God always comes up. As finite creatures with an earth-bound perspective, we CANNOT see and understand anything. Like lifting weights, you must leave your ego at the door to progress! Socrates greatest wisdom was that he knew nothing. It is dangerous, arrogant, and irresponsible to believe or say that you know everything. How could we? (I’m not accusing anyone in this thread of this).

91

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
I agree that ethics doesn’t REALLY “matter” at the end of the day the way that science does.

[/quote]

Funny, I would have said the opposite. Ultimately philosophy is all that matters and science does not.

92

2+2=4.

that is a fact. whether people believe it or not it is a fact. that certain marks on a page or sounds in the air pick out or designate the numbers they do is convention, of course. it could have been otherwise (is otherwise in different cultures). it could have been that there were no marks or sounds to pick out or designate the numbers at all (e.g., if people had never existed). that doesn’t change the fact that 2+2=4 regardless of whether you or I or anybody else ever believes it or not. regardless of whether anybody states or conceives of the fact or not.

torturing an innocent child solely for fun is morally wrong.

many people think that is a fact. whether people believe it or not it is a fact. note that the statement doesn’t commit to children actually existing. it is universal (just like the math case).

the number case shows us that there can be objective facts quite aside from our subjectivity (beliefs about those objective facts). quite aside from our own contingent existence.

morality might be like that, too.

of course many people think morality isn’t like that. but they might well be wrong.

if we grant (for the sake of argument) that there are objective facts about morality (right and wrong, good and bad) then the issue arises - what (if anything) can we come to know about those facts?

ethics might be more like mathematics than is commonly supposed…

but yeah… means we gotta get our concepts in order…

93

I like the way you think. Interesting point(s). I agree that some things are absolute, but my skepticism pokes through. Just the other day a teacher handed out an article on political rhetoric. One politician said something along the lines of, “If you don’t have our values, then get out.”

That made me think, what are the values he’s referring to. I’m not trying to have an ontological argument, I’m just commenting that people assume things too often. I hear “our values” and think of money hoarding, exploitation, corruption, etc. Somebody else might see “our values” completely differently. I just think that we should state things clearly.

The US gov’t is FULL of contradictions. For example, church and state are SUPPOSED to be separate, yet courthouses hang the 10 commandments…I just don’t understand sometimes! Anyway, my thought on ethics is that as long as we can all live harmoniously, then any branch of ethics will ‘work’ for the most part.

But then again, what if your ethic, or your virtues, consist of having no virtues? Phillipa Foot put it well. She asked, “Can a person be virtuous in vice?” Can a criminal ever be virtuous? Can a corrupt politician be “good?” If so, where is the line? I personally believe that people need to look at the big picture. For example, a president frees slaves, but he also has slaves. Is he therefore a bad person?..Sorry for the jumbled post…I just lifted legs, and am now skiploading/refeeding. Insulin fucks with my brain after a hard week of dieting lol.

94

Lapointe said:

we are wholly incapable of actually knowing anything at all.

I was able to follow your reasoning until your statement above.

AGAIN - If there is no objective reality - HOW CAN YOU KNOW ANYTHING? You’re so sure of your own argument when your own argument says you can’t be sure of anything!

Don’t you see this makes NO sense and is contradictory?

LaPointe - How do you know you’re not a ghost? How do you know you’re not living in an electron in Mickey Rourke’s ball-sack?

There can be no discussion with anyone that states that NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN. Your very existence nullifies your statement.

As Alexus stated nicely 2+2=4. If you don’t believe that then you’re lost.

95

[quote]hlss09 wrote:
Wow Saversk, tell us more. What’s your degree in? And what do you like about Rand the most…Give us some stuff! [/quote]

The thing I like about Ayn Rand the most is that finally, for the first time in human history, a complete philosophy has been conceived based on REALITY. Existence exists. Reality is an absolute and reality, in order to be commanded, must be obeyed. What’s amazing also is that she has a complete epistemology, ethics and politics and a lot of the shit takes some studying and it’s not easy - unlike religion.

She sums it all up perfectly in the Mike Wallace interview. Watch it and think about it. Years ago in religious brainwash mode I’m sure her philosophy would have confounded me since it was counter to the horseshit that I strongly believed in.

AR states to not just believe her but follow her logic - unlike religion.

(My undergrad was marketing and my grad was film production. I had one philo class in college and one ethics class and couldn’t stand them because they were SO fucking confusing. Like Kant’s nonsense and all the other philosopher’s just writing TONS of obtuse sentences that I just could not follow and which seemed to have ZERO basis in reality.)

96

[quote]hlss09 wrote:

Rand’s political and economic theories aren’t as distinguished, and I’m not as versed on those, but I really like her philosophy nonetheless.
[/quote]

She is very clear about her politics and economics - laissez faire capitalism (which we still haven’t experienced). She knows the answers to Mike Wallace’s questions before he’s even finished asking.

97

I watched the video, and will def watch it over again. I didn’t mean to say that her theories didn’t make sense, I’m just saying that I’m not a Rand expert. I picked up her book “For the New Intellectual” which is basically the Cliff Notes of her works. It has selections from most of her writings. I think it’s a compilation by editors or something. The ONLY thing that struck me as odd, and somebody else mentioned it in this thread, was her account on the history of philosophy. I didn’t like how she completely dismissed some philosophers. But yeah, her stuff seems to be oriented in a way that suggests going out and doing things. A lot of philosophers argue about issues that don’t really have any practical application. Someone like Rand or Nietzsche urge us to DO THINGS. I really dig both those philosophers.

I’m also not a Kant expert, but I do like his intention based ideals of right vs wrong. I don’t like utilitarianism, and he seems to oppose them just as I would.

I really like Rand’s view on capitalism, and on Facebook (lol) her page said that there’s going to be a debate called “Capitalism: Is it Moral?” or something along those lines soon. It’s going to be put on the internet somewhere, probably through her website or something. Let’s keep this going guys!

98

There are different things that could be candidates for moral evaluation.

The outcomes / consequences of acts (behaviors) - as in utilitarianism (standardly understood)
The intention behind the act (what the person aimed to do) - as in kantianism (standardly understood)
The actor (person behind the intention / act) - as in aristotelian virtue ethics (standardly understood)

If we assume (for the sake of argument) that there are facts about the rightness / wrongness / goodness / badness of some or all of the above… It is perfectly possible for them to come apart.

(e.g., for a bad / vicious person to do an act with the worstest of intentions that happens to result in a good outcome).

Those are fairly standardly thought to be the main three ethical theories (utilitarianism, kantianism, aristotelianism). They each have good points… They each have bad points…

The aim: To develop a theory that captures the good points of all and avoids the bad points of all. Usually by developing or extending one of the above theories in various ways…

99

ugh… i need to stop forgetting that people don’t want to talk about philosophy with me. sorry, dudes. i’m going to go to the gym and not type anymore.

100

I’m not a philosophy major but I was invited into a select group some time ago, to take part in talks on individuality. The group is a well known one, historically as well as recently. The world academy of art and science.

You should google it and if you ever want to talk philosophy shoot me a PM because what I could discuss could probably fill this thread and I don’t really want people who have no understanding of philosophy chiming in.

As for some of my favorite philosophers…

Spinoza, Nietzsche, Descartes, von Goethe and many others who may not be considered philosophers but I believe anyone with any sort of set of principles they live by and are true to are philosophers.

Also a reason I decided to learn about philosophy and put my intelligence to that end is, while science is excellent and is definitely important, I believe that trying to find a way to live your life, and be happy is more important than what is going to happen to the sun in 2 billion years time. I refer to it as the human condition - that which is vital to us as we live our life, what affects us and how to deal with it.