81–90 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A wise man (my advisor when I was doing my philosophy degree) once said something to the effect of: There are two great mistakes you can make in philosophy. One is deciding there is no ultimate answer. The other is deciding you've found it.
Is it a mistake to say "There may be an ultimate answer, but we have no means of reaching it"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would rather people look to philosophy for answers to their intractable problems than religion. Religion ended slavery. (Yes, some religions advocated and supported slavery - they lost to the ones that didn't.) What has philosophy done in that domain. (Is it poor form to point out that philosophy pretty much went Nazi during the 30s.) Yes, philosophers produced logic et al.
Religion ended slavery? Please explain (I'm genuinely curious). Philosophy went nazi? No, nazism went philosophy, and poorly too. They raped Nietzsche's philosophy until it fit their needs, with the help of his decadent Missgeburt of a sister. Heidegger is perhaps a much more problematic case, but also not a matter of black-and-white. Philosophers _produced_ logic? Wittgenstein is lolling at you in his grave right no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would rather people look to philosophy for answers to their intractable problems than religion. Religion ended slavery. (Yes, some religions advocated and supported slavery - they lost to the ones that didn't.) What has philosophy done in that domain. (Is it poor form to point out that philosophy pretty much went Nazi during the 30s.) Yes, philosophers produced logic et al.
Religion ended slavery? Please explain (I'm genuinely curious). Philosophy went nazi? No, nazism went philosophy, and poorly too. They raped Nietzsche's philosophy until it fit their needs, with the help of his decadent Missgeburt of a sister. Heidegger is perhaps a much more problematic case, but also not a matter of black-and-white. Philosophers _produced_ logic? Wittgenstein is lolling at you in his grave right no…
I'm not sure what anamax meant, but the abolitionist movements were highly religious. It's not just that they happened to be religious; their religion drove their activism. Wilberforce and Rankin are good examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neurology and related sciences can help illuminate what our interests are, but cannot resolve the moral problem of what to do when those interests come into conflict . Science can tell me what kind of diet a child needs to grow into healthy adulthood, but it can’t tell me under what circumstances it would be moral to take money from the wealthy (or, heck, the middle class) in order to feed starving children.
but it can’t tell me under what circumstances it would be moral to take money from the wealthy (or, heck, the middle class) in order to feed starving children. Sure it can. Take north western Europe, notoriously secular (when compared to the US) yes quite socialist with an extensive social safety net. Economics, sociology, etc, all help you identify what you need to do to reach what ever goals you are aiming for. And…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Religion ended slavery? Please explain (I'm genuinely curious). Philosophy went nazi? No, nazism went philosophy, and poorly too. They raped Nietzsche's philosophy until it fit their needs, with the help of his decadent Missgeburt of a sister. Heidegger is perhaps a much more problematic case, but also not a matter of black-and-white. Philosophers _produced_ logic? Wittgenstein is lolling at you in his grave right no…
I'm not sure this is what the parent meant, but in America at least, the antislavery movement was part of a broad social reform movement which was strongly tied to the popular Christianity of the day. For example, see the connections between Charles Finney (a prominent theologian) and Oberlin College (one of the first integrated universities). Also, look up the full lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic- it sound…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Chri...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Oppo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather people look to philosophy for answers to their intractable problems than religion.
> I would rather people look to philosophy for answers to their intractable problems than religion. Religion ended slavery. (Yes, some religions advocated and supported slavery - they lost to the ones that didn't.) What has philosophy done in that domain. (Is it poor form to point out that philosophy pretty much went Nazi during the 30s.) Yes, philosophers produced logic et al.
To this day, religion continues to be a powerful driver of racism, classism, and slavery. In case you need examples, may I point you to the Hindu caste system and the Muslim doctrine of Dhimmitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the example you yourself gave of 'I think therefore I am', the claim following 'therefore' is a conclusion, not a premise. So no, Descartes didn't start with the premise that he existed.
He seems to assume that because he (what?) can think, he exists. Either he has an implicit assumption about what it means to exist (which he never describes, and which is therefore useless to me), or his definition of exist is "can think", in which case the famous proof would be trivial and useless (it would boil down to "I exist therefore I exist"). I already see many people here don't understand what I mean, but th…
Vx [x thinks > x exists].
You also seem to think that Descartes needs to provide an accont of what it means to exist. Why think that? You speak English. 'Exists' is a perfectly intelligible English word. And so we can understand the conclusion and the explicit assumption.
Of course, it is an interesting philosophical question as to what existence amounts to. Quite a hard one. But it's a different philosophical question.
You seem to be criticising Descartes for not answering that question, but that's just to conflate distinct issues.
It's also a little incoherent to say that philosophy is useless because it ignores certain questions, which then turn out on inspection to be further philosophical questions.
And philosophers do grapple with what existence amounts to. Go read some Quine if you're actually interested.
In fact, Quine provides an account of existence which vindicates teh implicit premise I've outlined above. But Quine is writing 400 years after Descartes, after the great philosophical revolution brought about by the logical developmenets of the philosopher Frege (which incidentially had an impact on computing and so on). So we might say that Descartes doesn't answer the questions you raise fully. But only someone a little up their own arse would criticise Descartes for failing to deal with questions it took 400 years of philosophical, logical and mathematical development to make substantive progress on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Religion ended slavery? Please explain (I'm genuinely curious). Philosophy went nazi? No, nazism went philosophy, and poorly too. They raped Nietzsche's philosophy until it fit their needs, with the help of his decadent Missgeburt of a sister. Heidegger is perhaps a much more problematic case, but also not a matter of black-and-white. Philosophers _produced_ logic? Wittgenstein is lolling at you in his grave right no…
I'm not sure this is what the parent meant, but in America at least, the antislavery movement was part of a broad social reform movement which was strongly tied to the popular Christianity of the day. For example, see the connections between Charles Finney (a prominent theologian) and Oberlin College (one of the first integrated universities). Also, look up the full lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic- it sound…
The fact that religion so permeated debates in those times makes it easy for us to cherry-pick people and places to support our positions (this applies to me as much as you).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't downvote anyone, but perhaps because it's a paradigm example of a particular strain of thought you see a lot amongst techie/engineering types with limited experience of philosophy, and a line of thought that doesn't stand more than a cursory examination. You've already answered it with your neurons example. Someone else has pointed out that neuroethology will not touch on normative facts (although will pre…
I think you underrate this line of thought. The existence of neurons is, of course, not justified in the philosophical sense - but its hard to argue that anything is justified in the philosophical sense. Reason might be a source of justification, but for that to be so you first have to assume that reason is justified. Senses might be a source of justification, but first you have to assume that knowledge derived from…
We normally think that the belief that neurons exist is justified. Philosophy will ask what that amounts to. It may turn out that the belief is unjustified - but most philosophers will reject this. They will argue over different accounts of what that justification consists in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but it can’t tell me under what circumstances it would be moral to take money from the wealthy (or, heck, the middle class) in order to feed starving children. Sure it can. Take north western Europe, notoriously secular (when compared to the US) yes quite socialist with an extensive social safety net. Economics, sociology, etc, all help you identify what you need to do to reach what ever goals you are aiming for. And…
I have an instinctive emotional desire to keep what I possess. You have an instinctive emotional desire to feel compassion for someone who is suffering. Because of your emotions, you want to raise taxes on my property to support the poor. Because of my emotions, I want my taxes to stay the same, if not lower. How can science decide between us?