HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

The Philosophical Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-13-2012, 01:56 PM
  #26
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
 
WarriorOfGandhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: Scotland
Posts: 14,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsholygrail View Post
How deep would the oceans be without all the sponges?


Meditate on this.

WarriorOfGandhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:56 PM
  #27
USF Shark
ZŰion politikÚn
 
USF Shark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DC Area
Country: United States
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
We should discuss the always crystal clear Martin Heidegger and his account of being!
.......if you can explain that to anyone, you deserve a PhD and a job at Harvard.

__________________
"I hate books; they only teach us to talk about things we know nothing about."
-Jean Jacques Rousseau
USF Shark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 06:49 AM
  #28
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by USF Shark View Post
.......if you can explain that to anyone, you deserve a PhD and a job at Harvard.
Challenge accepted! I had to give a presentation on Heidegger in one of my seminars; I also took a course just on his work Being and Time. Even after the course I only understood about 40% of what was going on.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 08:35 AM
  #29
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Anyone study Heraclitus at all? If so, what was your interpretation of the Logos?

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 08:46 AM
  #30
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
We should discuss the always crystal clear Martin Heidegger and his account of being!
The fact that most philosophers this side of the pond can't grasp his ideas is more a reflection on the abject state of philosophical thinking in the Anglo-Saxon world (sans Wittgenstein).

Heideggerarian phenomenology over the analytical mode every day of the week, twice on Sundays, and (being)-unto-death.

slip is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:11 AM
  #31
Epictetus
Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
There are far, far too many philosophy majors in law school.
Not sure if this is a good thing or not

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
We should discuss the always crystal clear Martin Heidegger and his account of being!
To be honest, I find Hegel and his Phenomenology of the Spirit to be a much more difficult reading.

Anybody else, agree or disagree?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
As I've said before, I dislike philosophy in general, as it isn't much more than a process to consider what is possible.

Personally, I'm more interested in what's probable.

That said, a philosophical discussion isn't a bad thing, as long as it's just a thought exercise and not something one wants to state as true.
Philosophers, people in philosophy, or people who have studied philosophy, rarely all agree on the same thing with absolute certainty. This is a major reason why what is considered 'possible' never becomes 'probable'. This is not to say the problem lies with philosophy itself, but the method of critique and what is considered to be a part of the institution of reason, make it difficult to have certainty.

Other disciplines like science have moved past this, and have adapted what it 'most likely' or 'probable' to the real world, but this is not to say this method is better than a philosophical method (i.e., descriptive v. normative).

I disagree with the notion that a thought excerise holds no truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLager View Post
Anyone study Heraclitus at all? If so, what was your interpretation of the Logos?
Yup.

And I am still confused between the sides to story (sorry to not answer your question):

1) Is everything in flux and logos is meant to provide stability and the real reality or 2) Fire, is the first principle, in which everything gives rise or originates from? But if so, what is everything still in flux... Is fire the real reality then? Or, 3) Logos = fire, as a first principle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
The fact that most philosophers this side of the pond can't grasp his ideas is more a reflection on the abject state of philosophical thinking in the Anglo-Saxon world (sans Wittgenstein).

Heideggerarian phenomenology over the analytical mode every day of the week, twice on Sundays, and (being)-unto-death.
I'm with you. Continential philosophy is vastly underrated on this side of the pond.

Epictetus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 01:09 PM
  #32
RonFournier
Registered User
 
RonFournier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,495
vCash: 500
I love the christian paradoxes like "If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it himself?". The answers from the Church are even better.

RonFournier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 02:17 PM
  #33
Eisen
Registered User
 
Eisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene
Country: Germany
Posts: 7,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Challenge accepted! I had to give a presentation on Heidegger in one of my seminars; I also took a course just on his work Being and Time. Even after the course I only understood about 40% of what was going on.
The trick with Heidegger is getting the last 20%^^

And just a tip for the Germans here on this board. Don't read German philosophers in German language. Do yourself a favour and get translations in a language that you're good at. It's soooo much easier.

Eisen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 02:59 PM
  #34
Stephen Goalbert
Puck Don't Lie
 
Stephen Goalbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,241
vCash: 500
I'm taking an Honors Philosophy course in high school this year. Laying the groundwork and enjoying it.

Stephen Goalbert is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:02 PM
  #35
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
The fact that most philosophers this side of the pond can't grasp his ideas is more a reflection on the abject state of philosophical thinking in the Anglo-Saxon world (sans Wittgenstein).

Heideggerarian phenomenology over the analytical mode every day of the week, twice on Sundays, and (being)-unto-death.
I'm not so sure it is that people on this side of the pond "cannot grasp his ideas", because his ideas once understood are pretty clear and fascinating. The problem really is the language through which those ideas are given, which most Heideggerian scholars will agree that his language is VERY difficult, but also VERY clear and precise once understood and gotten used to.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 08:49 PM
  #36
invictus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,575
vCash: 500
Anyone have thoughts on Montaigne?

invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:03 PM
  #37
Hippasus
1,9,45,165,495,1287,
 
Hippasus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bridgeview
Posts: 2,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gojackets1 View Post
Hippasus brought up a good topic, I'd be interested to hear what everyones thoughts on determinism and free will are.
If true freedom is strictly defined as absolute freedom, only possibly God is free; or it doesnít exist at all. This is because even the set of choices with which we are presented is beyond the control of a biological individual. If freedom just means really choosing something in a localized context, then itís possible for us. I donít believe in it personally from an outsider / emic / scientific point of view, personally. Quantum mechanics can be explained as supporting both freedom and causal determinism, but typically the former I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
It's something I struggle with, mostly because I have a trifecta of ADHD, cynicism, and neurosis; leaving me to uselessly obsess over things that I can have no influence on.

At the end of the day it's hard for me not to believe in determinism, anyone have any good writers on the matter?
I think Kant is supposed to be important for the topic, but Iím not really sure who else. Spinoza for determinism and Kant for freedom maybe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
We should discuss the always crystal clear Martin Heidegger and his account of being!
What I was saying about being and non-being as closely connected is sort of inspired by him--the essay ďWhat is metaphysics?Ē in particular. I havenít read him in years though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisen View Post
The trick with Heidegger is getting the last 20%^^

And just a tip for the Germans here on this board. Don't read German philosophers in German language. Do yourself a favour and get translations in a language that you're good at. It's soooo much easier.
Strange advice. I always thought untranslated reading is optimal, assuming one knows German well enough. German has been called one of the best languages for philosophy because of its lack of ambiguity and liberal sort of ad hoc word-formations.

Hippasus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 12:58 PM
  #38
Epictetus
Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippasus View Post
If true freedom is strictly defined as absolute freedom, only possibly God is free; or it doesnít exist at all. This is because even the set of choices with which we are presented is beyond the control of a biological individual. If freedom just means really choosing something in a localized context, then itís possible for us. I donít believe in it personally from an outsider / emic / scientific point of view, personally. Quantum mechanics can be explained as supporting both freedom and causal determinism, but typically the former I think.
I'm curious. How far has quantum mechanics come towards being accepted in the philosophy field? I assume it has made some advancement for determinism in this field, with more scientific inquiry to follow, but I can't imagine philosophy would ever agree to a descriptive approach to allow normative conclusions especially of this magnitude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippasus View Post
I think Kant is supposed to be important for the topic, but Iím not really sure who else. Spinoza for determinism and Kant for freedom maybe?
There's quite a few religious philosophers on this topic (obviously advocating compatibly) but I think in terms of the history of philosophy, the progression on this topic is now more modern between philosophy and science. I don't think many philosophers of the past have adequately explored this topic (exceptions are probably Kant, Spinozna, and Hume). You can probably expect to see a lot more modern approaches to the topic.

Epictetus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 05:10 PM
  #39
Pink Mist
RIP MM*
 
Pink Mist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,062
vCash: 500
First year Poli Sci student here. Handed in a paper today on Foucault, disciplinary power and modern surveillance

Pink Mist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 05:58 PM
  #40
Eisen
Registered User
 
Eisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene
Country: Germany
Posts: 7,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippasus View Post
If true freedom is strictly defined as absolute freedom, only possibly God is free; or it doesnít exist at all. This is because even the set of choices with which we are presented is beyond the control of a biological individual. If freedom just means really choosing something in a localized context, then itís possible for us. I donít believe in it personally from an outsider / emic / scientific point of view, personally. Quantum mechanics can be explained as supporting both freedom and causal determinism, but typically the former I think.

I think Kant is supposed to be important for the topic, but Iím not really sure who else. Spinoza for determinism and Kant for freedom maybe?

What I was saying about being and non-being as closely connected is sort of inspired by him--the essay ďWhat is metaphysics?Ē in particular. I havenít read him in years though.

Strange advice. I always thought untranslated reading is optimal, assuming one knows German well enough. German has been called one of the best languages for philosophy because of its lack of ambiguity and liberal sort of ad hoc word-formations.
It's still very intricate and the sentence structure makes you get lost a lot of times. I was born and raised in Germany and have humanities education. I can't read that without problems. I found that the sentence structures in English translations was far easier to understand. On a lexical level, I'm with you though.

Eisen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 06:05 PM
  #41
Hippasus
1,9,45,165,495,1287,
 
Hippasus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bridgeview
Posts: 2,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
I'm curious. How far has quantum mechanics come towards being accepted in the philosophy field? I assume it has made some advancement for determinism in this field, with more scientific inquiry to follow, but I can't imagine philosophy would ever agree to a descriptive approach to allow normative conclusions especially of this magnitude.



There's quite a few religious philosophers on this topic (obviously advocating compatibly) but I think in terms of the history of philosophy, the progression on this topic is now more modern between philosophy and science. I don't think many philosophers of the past have adequately explored this topic (exceptions are probably Kant, Spinozna, and Hume). You can probably expect to see a lot more modern approaches to the topic.
I would think that philosophical specialists in the area of free will (BTW, I think of free will as a positive issue rather than a normative one.) would be all ears to any major theories in an area of science that would have bearing on their specialty. There’s some overlap here. The scientists have their philosophical hats on when they’re formulating their hypotheses, interpreting data, etc. Likewise the philosophers have their scientific hats on when they’re considering descriptive (rather than a priori or whatever) evidence all-around on the various positions. A question as complex as the free will-determinism debate should have a wide range of interdisciplinary evidence, I would think. From descriptive and scientific--to abstract, aesthetic, mathematical, and philosophical. It’s such a hard question and even the scope of relevant evidence can be contentious, but I think it’s probably good to cast one’s net out fairly widely when considering what is relevant or not. Ultimately, when the issue is the free will-determinism debate, it’s philosophy through-and-through even though the evidence may be largely scientific and descriptive for some thinkers.

Hippasus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 06:45 PM
  #42
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
But is anyone familiar with philosophers using quantum mechanics in determinism/free will arguments? I'd be interested in reading some credible papers on the matter.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 07:02 PM
  #43
Hippasus
1,9,45,165,495,1287,
 
Hippasus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bridgeview
Posts: 2,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StringerBell View Post
But is anyone familiar with philosophers using quantum mechanics in determinism/free will arguments? I'd be interested in reading some credible papers on the matter.
Here's a start: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Hippasus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 08:28 PM
  #44
Panteras
perennial loser
 
Panteras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Television sky
Country: United States
Posts: 7,857
vCash: 500
Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it

Panteras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 08:37 PM
  #45
nyrfonmoni
beyond good and evil
 
nyrfonmoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: yo old soorbrockon
Country: Germany
Posts: 7,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panteras View Post
Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it
Determinism or free will? React and/or Act?


It was asked for opinions on this indeed very interesting question. I'm glad to give mine, since haven't contributed much yet


The world, space, time, us humans. Are we determined? Or do have a free will at any time?

I believe in dynamics and thus I believe, life, to be a dynamic "thing", being in movement and full of energy. It has two poles that stay interconnected trough our being.

Life and death. Active and passive. Action or reaction.

We are both, determined and of free will. How?

Easy, you are born, and you live, and then you die. Determinism there you go. Its called natural determinism. You live, you die. You live, you eventually get hungry, and thristy, and then gotta get going. To the supermarket.


The opposite is cultural relativity. Whilst you live, you can make your decision! So much can be opened to you. You have a free will, as a human being remind! A city, a society, a planet, are different planes, perspectives. As a human you have always a free will, yet just in a spefictic space of freedom according to your surroundings (country/ law/ determinism?) ; a cage lets say. Yet in that cage, there are tools and possibilities. Make something out of it.

As for space and time and the planet. Hey, as on the ground so it is above. I believe Hawkings proved the universes birth, and part of their theory is that all will at some point melt back into one. This also fits quantum mechanics, both determines and yet relative.

As for God? This is not the place for it. Love



(for all the moral philosophers going nuts about the culturaly relativity, I claim that morality comes from our bodies. The desire to not be harmed is a naturally determined thing. Of course not, if you have been cuturally relativized.

nyrfonmoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 09:20 PM
  #46
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,154
vCash: 800
Instead of studying philosophy people should do philosophy.

Studying philosophy imposes better-structured road of thoughts from more experienced or intelligent philosophers and one way or another will bring the fresh mind into biased territory and one particular philosopher who is loved by the fresh mind will ''hold his hand'' in the process in some ways because of the subjective preferance the fresh mind will have toward this philosopher (or a small number of philosophers).If you philosophe yourself , you not only practice the skills of structuring your ideas together and being better at seeing things outside the box , but you also offer your real point-of-view , the point-of-view of a different living human being that isn't only re-spewing ideas of past great thinkers , but his own , which is fortunately or unfortunately just as real as the point-of-view of the excellant past philosopher and therefore a factor to consider as a species.

You can't lose against any philosopher in a debate if you understand how to always bring every debate to the very basic that is still completely not-understandable to the human race.His opinions , stuck on this unknown platform , won't be worth much more than any others.It's quite easy to ''slide'' on words until you reach the very fundamental , where any guess is as good as yours.

(And while in a subject like math it might be better to find someone who can hold your hand for some time because you are convinced the things he teaches you are proven , no philosophy can be proven)


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 11-22-2012 at 10:23 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 09:25 PM
  #47
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
Instead of studying philosophy people should do philosophy.
What do you mean by "do"?

slip is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 09:37 PM
  #48
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
Instead of studying philosophy people should do philosophy.

Studying philosophy imposes better-structured road of thoughts from more experienced or intelligent philosophers and one way or another will bring the fresh mind into biased territory and one particular philosopher who is loved by the fresh man will ''hold his hand'' in the process in some ways because of the subjective preferance the fresh mind will have toward this philosopher (or a small number of philosophers).If you philosophe yourself , you not only practice the skills of structuring your ideas together and being better at seeing things outside the box , but you also offer your real point-of-view , the point-of-view of a different living human being that isn't only re-spewing ideas of past great thinkers , but his own , which is fortunately or unfortunately just as real as the point-of-view of the excellant past philosopher and therefore a factor to consider as a species.

You can't lose against any philosopher in a debate if you understand how to always bring every debate to the very basic that is still completely not-understandable to the human race.His opinions , stuck on this unknown platform , won't be worth much more than any others.It's quite easy to ''slide'' on words until you reach the very fundamental , where any guess is as good as yours.
This is completely unintelligible. Back to the drawing board.

slip is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:18 PM
  #49
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,154
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
This is completely unintelligible. Back to the drawing board.
my logic was quite simple to understand , maybe my use of the english language wasn't intelligible but I can't do miracles.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:40 PM
  #50
Epictetus
Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panteras View Post
Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it
Karl Marx? Nice.

His philosophy is very interesting to study if you remove its ratification to other social sciences. He's much like Freud in this respect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
This is completely unintelligible. Back to the drawing board.
I think he failed to consider that in the process of 'studying philosophy' you are in fact 'doing' philosophy. Similarly, a person studying calculus is 'doing' calculus (unless they are studying the history of calculus or something but that's a different subject than mathematical calculus).

So yeah, I disagree with the distinction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
Studying philosophy imposes better-structured road of thoughts from more experienced or intelligent philosophers and one way or another will bring the fresh mind into biased territory and one particular philosopher who is loved by the fresh man will ''hold his hand'' in the process in some ways because of the subjective preferance the fresh mind will have toward this philosopher (or a small number of philosophers).
'Fresh minds' are nearly impossible to come by in philosophy since what your mind is thinking about on its own has the chance of already being thought about since the beginning of man. New thoughts are hard to come by, but critique and argumentation can always have originality.

Also, you forgot the secondary nature of philosophy: it's not only enough to agree with a philosopher's argument, but you must be able to state why you agree with a philosopher's argumentation. This is an application of where the thought may not be original, but your argumentation could be.

This is why, for me, the greatest philosophers are the one's who change the question. We've seen this with some great continental philosophers and how they've differed from analytic tradition; Nietzsche comes to mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
If you philosophe yourself , you not only practice the skills of structuring your ideas together and being better at seeing things outside the box , but you also offer your real point-of-view , the point-of-view of a different living human being that isn't only re-spewing ideas of past great thinkers , but his own , which is fortunately or unfortunately just as real as the point-of-view of the excellant past philosopher and therefore a factor to consider as a species.
See above. Through studying philosophy you come to be better at philosophy. And you eventually reach a point where you can write your own book if you want -- anyone can actually. I've yet to see any proof, however, to suggest that ignoring other philosophers and having your own original ideas (assuming they exist) is a better avenue than critiquing, arguing, and debating about issues that many of the greatest philosophers have since the beginning of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
(And while in a subject like math it might be better to find someone who can hold your hand for some time because you are convinced the things he teaches you are proven , no philosophy can be proven)
I don't understand what you are trying to communicate here.

Epictetus is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.