11–20 of 29 posts
The concern for truth and power (metaphysics as imperialism; theories setting the context of what counts as fact; the illusion of democracy) is certainly food for thought.
This was interesting and the site looks like a great resource. I am particularly glad there are transcripts with the videos. The concern for truth and power (metaphysics as imperialism; theories setting the context of what counts as fact; the illusion of democracy) is certainly food for thought.
[0] http://rickroderick.org/304-marcuse-and-one-dimensional-man-...
[1] http://rickroderick.org/301-paul-ricoeur-the-masters-of-susp...
[2] http://rickroderick.org/306-foucault-and-the-disappearance-o...
[3] http://rickroderick.org/206-nietzsche-the-will-to-power-1991...
> In fact I think that it’s perfectly consistent to believe a wide number of things with a great deal of passion, and then believe about those beliefs that you could be wrong. I hope that’s not a further paradox, I do not think that it is. It seems to me to be perfectly consistent to believe something passionately, to believe it in a very deep way and have a belief about that belief that “Well, you know. I could be w…
Knowing that you could be wrong, is very different to thinking it is impossible to know what is right. The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy. It seems to be that it is often used as a way to excuse lazy reasoning and irrational behaviour. Better to pretend that truth can't be known, than earnestly seek it out, etc. The irony of course, is that people who don't think truth can be known, oft…
Great comment.
It is very rare, in my opinion to find anyone who isn't acting on beliefs as if they were knowledge. 99.999% of people are unable to understand that what they think is 'knowledge' is actually a set of unverified assumptions. These assumptions are presented as true at school, in work, on TV, etc and they see that everyone else treats these assumptions as true, so... well they are true, right?
People cannot accept holding something as a hypothesis. They may even say they do this, but they do not change their hypotheses when they get new information. If pushed, they may state something to be a 'hypothesis' and that they use the word 'know' as a shortcut to that - all fine - but then if they are presented with additional information they cannot take it on and will reject it. Cognitive dissonance has no place in their minds - it is a tension that is unacceptable. Apparently most of us seek certainty and prefer a certain story to just resting with the evidence.
The idea of 'believing we know' permeates our lives, and is why I argue that science is religion. And beliefs held as true operate on fundamental levels, despite a lack of verified evidence.
TLDR, people prefer stories to truth.
Taken out of context, he seemed a bit crazy. My Christian upbringing told me people like Nietzsche didn’t believe anything could be known, which is demonstrably false. Things can be “known” but it’s context dependent.
I certainly read Nietzsche differently to this author (and probably Kierkegaard too by the sound of it). I think a point both of them made was that truth can only exist within the context of an agreed upon set of axioms. If you accept that you can’t prove your axioms, then your not accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally valid, you’re only accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally capable of being…
Things like talking about power in the article seem more related to people that came after Nietzsche. Something more like Foucault.
I also don't think he's really concerned with mathematical versions of truth.
I think there's probably a good way to interpolate between Nietzsche and the programming world. In the sense of believing in things because the community does. That's probably another discussion.
Philosophize with a Hammer!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knowing that you could be wrong, is very different to thinking it is impossible to know what is right. The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy. It seems to be that it is often used as a way to excuse lazy reasoning and irrational behaviour. Better to pretend that truth can't be known, than earnestly seek it out, etc. The irony of course, is that people who don't think truth can be known, oft…
this is ironic because that's a very stereotypical and lazy take on modern philosophy straight out of a Jordan Peterson book. If we came closer to the truth every time someone on the internet mirepresents modern or postmodern philosophy as "we can't know anything bro" we'd have ascended to some higher plane of existence by now.
I wish I had read this before my philosophy course assigned reading Nietzche. It’s completely changed how I view the works I’ve read by him. They make sense to me now. Taken out of context, he seemed a bit crazy. My Christian upbringing told me people like Nietzsche didn’t believe anything could be known, which is demonstrably false. Things can be “known” but it’s context dependent.
This is evident before his death, where he was obsessed with the problem of Dionysus versus the example of Christ, ultimately recognizing that they were the same figure, but conjugated toward a lie (creation of a false divine through ritual violence) or the truth (a victim of collective irrationality, for which it is our duty to transcend):
The first is pretty relatable for an adolescent in Germany, he was found drunk in a ditch after having a few beer.
The second: He ate a sausage behind a pillar in the cloister. (At the time you were just allowed to eat in the dining hall during the appropriate times.)
So every time someone uses Nietzsche in an argument, I imagine a pubescent guy saying the thing while mumbling a sausage behind a pillar. Of course in my imagination he has the Nietzsche beard as well.
On a more earnest note, Nietzsche clearly was a great mind. Which was later eaten away by neurosyphilis.