Philosophers that interest you, and why (Jazzfanz Philosophy Thread)

[Hekate]

From Wiki:

I can agree that Sartre's existentialism is contradictory but that may be the reason I took interest in him. "Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” I only read Nausea and made some research on the internet. I have got other books to read before I delve into philosophy. Thanks for the info.

 

[Hekate]

Is that the one with the child molester subplot? It's a pretty good novel. It feels a lot more Cartesian than most of Sartre's work. I personally find Camus to be a more powerful thinker, so you should check him out if you like Sartre. I bet you'd also like the work of James Joyce (who's not a philosopher).

As far as the actual philosophy, existentialism holds a certain appeal to me as well. Not Sartre specifically. Unfortunately, the philosophy of the modernists of that period reeks of Freudian religiosity, even thought it obsesses over the shortcomings of metaphysics. It's an annoying contradiction, and it's just too hard to ignore as it permeates most aspects of Sartre's thought.

Edit: You should also check out the work of other non-existentialist modernists, like James and Dewey, whom I mentioned in my first post. And you should most definitely explore Bertland Russell, who was unjustly omitted from my list of greatest philosophers.

Thanks for the recommendations. I have Albert Camus' l envers et l endroit(The Wrong Side and the Right Side) and will read it after I finish reading Martin Eden by Jack London and will read only philosophy books for a long time after I finish fantastic fiction series Wheel of Time.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Is that the one with the child molester subplot? It's a pretty good novel. It feels a lot more Cartesian than most of Sartre's work. I personally find Camus to be a more powerful thinker, so you should check him out if you like Sartre. I bet you'd also like the work of James Joyce (who's not a philosopher).

As far as the actual philosophy, existentialism holds a certain appeal to me as well. Not Sartre specifically. Unfortunately, the philosophy of the modernists of that period reeks of Freudian religiosity, even thought it obsesses over the shortcomings of metaphysics. It's an annoying contradiction, and it's just too hard to ignore as it permeates most aspects of Sartre's thought.

Edit: You should also check out the work of other non-existentialist modernists, like James and Dewey, whom I mentioned in my first post. And you should most definitely explore Bertland Russell, who was unjustly omitted from my list of greatest philosophers.

I'd take James and Dewey over Russell.

My favorite philosopher (Alfred North Whitehead) and Bertrand Russell were lifelong friends and co-wrote Principia Mathematica together, on of the major mathematical works of the century. Even so, Russell thought that Whitehead was "muddle-headed," while Whitehead thought Russell was "simple-minded." I always think of the "simple-minded" comment with Russell -- not to say that he was dumb, but sometimes he lacks some nuance. To me James and Dewey are way more interesting.

 

[Siro]

I'd take James and Dewey over Russell.

My favorite philosopher (Alfred North Whitehead) and Bertrand Russell were lifelong friends and co-wrote Principia Mathematica together, on of the major mathematical works of the century. Even so, Russell thought that Whitehead was "muddle-headed," while Whitehead thought Russell was "simple-minded." I always think of the "simple-minded" comment with Russell -- not to say that he was dumb, but sometimes he lacks some nuance. To me James and Dewey are way more interesting.

I don't think I disagree. Russell was one of those philosophers who had a serious impact on me as a teenager. He is clear and accessible, and I would most certainly recommend him for a newbie over the standard heavyweights like Kant or Descartes. He's just a great introductory example of modern realists.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

I don't think I disagree. Russell was one of those philosophers who had a serious impact on me as a teenager. He is clear and accessible, and I would most certainly recommend him for a newbie over the standard heavyweights like Kant or Descartes. He's just a great introductory example of modern realists.

Yep, this.

 

[babe]

There's no such thing as a physical law, except in the sense of things generally behaving the same way.

well, teach, that's not what the book says.

what on earth do you imagine is the meaning of "the sense of things generally behaving in the same way"???

do you imagine that perhaps "things" could just start behaving some other way, on pure randomness, any old day and twice on Sunday??

the reason cosmologists believe there was a "Big Bang" is a logical extension of things they believe they know about the Universe. I could see someone arguing that there was a singularity at time zero, but I would argue against that because there is no need for a time zero, and in fact most equations that involve extrapolation to such a singularity will approach it on an exponential curve of some kind, and on the other "side" of the singularity point may have a negative exponential curve just as hard to imagine.

I imagine a "big bang" to be the other opening of a black hole where matter and energy come pouring out. . . .. and I imagine a "universe" with regular singularities going on . . along points of convergence or divergence, or along the seams or 'strings' that connect the otherwise disparate phases. .. all nested in an actual time line that is not path dependent. And with unchanging principles of correspondence we can reliably call "laws" if we can understand and express them well enough.

get things in view on the right scale or from a vantage point that can "see it all", and I propose everything has been going along on the same correspondence principles. . . . . forever.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Can't believe I forgot Dostoevsky, one of greatest 19th century philosophers.

 

[One Brow]

well, teach, that's not what the book says.

I don't know which book you are reading, but that's what the science boo

what on earth do you imagine is the meaning of "the sense of things generally behaving in the same way"???

do you imagine that perhaps "things" could just start behaving some other way, on pure randomness, any old day and twice on Sunday??

See, you understood what I meant after all.

 

[leftyjace]

Meh. Here's the only philosophy you need to know.

Live Long, and Prosper.









OK, kidding.

Even though some of the ways she looks at things is wacky, Ayn Rand rocked my world.

So did our good buddy Karl. Made me look at Capitalism in a new light.

Ironically enough, really enjoyed Virginia Woolf's diatribes about inequality.

OK, I'm taking a nap now.

 

[addictionary]

Jesus for His crucifixion and ressurection...... affirming the eternal nature of life and the soul and the value of repentance over escapism and irresponsibility. . . . should I go on???? Yes, yes. . . . yes.

The John Birch Society for elucidating the persons and methods of turning the American Revolution into the Final Solution David Rockefeller is proud of achieving. . . . .in his own convoluted mind.

Moses for going up on Mt. Sinai and conversing with God. . . . thereby bringing back to humanity a small inkling of what reality lies beyond our perception and knowledge. . . . .

About one hundred modern psychiatrists who've been undoing Freud piecemeal, realizing that he was a drugged up fraud who made up his "reason" allegedly behind human actions. . . .

and who the hell can even be serious believing in a "post capitalist world"????? Statist/Marxist/ whateverists will always, forever and forever, be using their philosophical rhetoric to mesmerize stupid people into giving away their freedom and material possessions. . . . forever regenerating the upper ruling class of tyrants that has forever ruled mankind. . . . with their concentration of money and control of resources.

and likewise it didn't take a Herakleitios to know that things change and will go on changing. Some monkey swinging in the jungle a million years ago knew that.

Give these people some credit bro. If Ancient Greek philosophers hadn't written down those thoughts and if the Romans did not imitate their culture and philosophy, and if the European societies had not gone through the Dark Age to face the facts about religion as a social constitution, and afterwards if the Renaissance had not happened by re-animating the philosophy and culture of the Ancient Greeks, and if that didn't lead to Europe widening their minds and finding new social systems, productivity boost etc., and if the colonialism had not emerge in that time's Europe to colonialize North America when ****ting all their convicts and outlaws to that place, then you might be the grandson of a murderer or a thief from England whose words would be hard to comprehend when speaking fast -or simply wouldn't even exist.

 

[addictionary]

Meh. Here's the only philosophy you need to know.

Live Long, and Prosper.









OK, kidding.

Even though some of the ways she looks at things is wacky, Ayn Rand rocked my world.

So did our good buddy Karl. Made me look at Capitalism in a new light.

Ironically enough, really enjoyed Virginia Woolf's diatribes about inequality.

OK, I'm taking a nap now.

 

[scootsy]

next six weeks are on the history of analytic philosophy. starting with frege, then russell, moore, wittgenstein and i think ending with the vienna circle, carnap and quine.

 

[scootsy]

****ttttt.... didn't understand this before, but frege's logical notation smashed the ontological argument AND descartes solution to the mind-body problem: two of the most-famous philosophical ideas of the last 1,000 years.

 

[Siro]

****ttttt.... didn't understand this before, but frege's logical notation smashed the ontological argument AND descartes solution to the mind-body problem: two of the most-famous philosophical ideas of the last 1,000 years.

The Cartesian theater is a very simplistic and unconvincing concept, and the mind-body duality is just about the worst thing about Descartes' philosophy. So it's no surprise that it was easily dismissed from objective natural philosophy once modern scientific thought began to mature.

 

[scootsy]

The Cartesian theater is a very simplistic and unconvincing concept, and the mind-body duality is just about the worst thing about Descartes' philosophy. So it's no surprise that it was easily dismissed from objective natural philosophy once modern scientific thought began to mature.

understood, but this revelation came more from the misunderstanding of the predicate. in quantificational logic it goes like this:

(∃x) Tx
∴ (∃x) Tx

(sorry subscripts aren't working) this is to say, there exists some x and that x participates in the concept of thinking (i.e. I think). but the problem is that existence is not a predicate. descartes uses thinking as the predicate in the original proposition, but existence is a quantifier and not a predicate and therefore cannot be used as such in the conclusion. so when he moves to the conclusion and once again has only moved to, there exists some x and that x participates in the concept of thinking (i.e. therefore, I am) cannot be properly drawn. the same works for the anselm's ontological argument.

God is all good things.
Existence is good.
Therefore God exists.

Existence is being used as a predicate when it can only be used as a quantifier.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

****ttttt.... didn't understand this before, but frege's logical notation smashed the ontological argument AND descartes solution to the mind-body problem: two of the most-famous philosophical ideas of the last 1,000 years.

Unfortunately, most of western civilization in general still accepts a subject-predicate ontology. While it is undeniably convenient in everyday language to speak of the world as a collection of static things that have certain properties, this worldview has had a lot of negative consequences, particularly because it obscures the constitutive interrelatedness of the things we call "beings." There is nothing that "exists by itself and does not need anything else to exist." This is a big part of why I like Whitehead's process philosophy. Process thinkers see becoming/process as primary, and substance/being as a secondary phenomenon which is abstracted from becoming. For instance, in this way of thinking it is not the case that I am one and the same person throughout my life, that I have an essential core that is me, and that any changes in my personality or physical body are "accidental." Instead, we would say that I am a different person every moment, and the person I think of as "myself" is simply the abstract sum of these moments. Change is primary and being is secondary. When you accept this idea and fully flesh out the implications, the world makes a lot more sense.

 

[Siro]

Unfortunately, most of western civilization in general still accepts a subject-predicate ontology. While it is undeniably convenient in everyday language to speak of the world as a collection of static things that have certain properties, this worldview has had a lot of negative consequences, particularly because it obscures the constitutive interrelatedness of the things we call "beings." There is nothing that "exists by itself and does not need anything else to exist." This is a big part of why I like Whitehead's process philosophy. Process thinkers see becoming/process as primary, and substance/being as a secondary phenomenon which is abstracted from becoming. For instance, in this way of thinking it is not the case that I am one and the same person throughout my life, that I have an essential core that is me, and that any changes in my personality or physical body are "accidental." Instead, we would say that I am a different person every moment, and the person I think of as "myself" is simply the abstract sum of these moments. Change is primary and being is secondary. When you accept this idea and fully flesh out the implications, the world makes a lot more sense.

Beautifully put. It's amazing how pervasive that is in general society. You hear it in every misunderstanding of biological evolution (but when did monkeys turn to men?). You see all the time in pop-philosophy (is <blank> making us less human?). I'm thinking it's the 'default' paradigm with which people understand the world around them (not just a Western thing), and that process oriented understanding requires breaking the natural inclination.

 

[PearlWatson]

Everyone understands the concept of a continuum you freaking eggheads.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Beautifully put. It's amazing how pervasive that is in general society. You hear it in every misunderstanding of biological evolution (but when did monkeys turn to men?). You see all the time in pop-philosophy (is <blank> making us less human?). I'm thinking it's the 'default' paradigm with which people understand the world around them (not just a Western thing), and that process oriented understanding requires breaking the natural inclination.

Exactly. In fact, the examples you give nicely illustrate one of the fallacies which Whitehead was most adamant about combating, what he called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness

But again as you say, we almost can't help speaking about things this way. It is simply too convenient for everyday discourse, no matter the fact that it makes no sense at all in modern physics. It is no wonder that so much of philosophy in the last hundred years has focused on language problems.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

This falls in the "self-promotional" category, but I was commissioned to re-write the Wikipedia article for John B. Cobb:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Cobb

Basically he's the foremost living thinker in process philosophy, the school of thought associated with philosopher/mathematician Alfred North Whitehead. I'm currently doing my PhD in Process Studies at Claremont Lincoln University, and I'm working at the Center for Process Studies in Claremont, which is the leading Whitehead-related institution in the world. Clearly, I'm invested in this stuff. It was decided that the staff at the Center needed to take some time to update Wikipedia articles on some key process-related people and subjects, and this article is the first product of that decision.

Anyway, thought I'd post the finished article in case anyone was interested. Cobb's a pretty remarkable guy. And of course, as it's a Wikipedia article, feel free to make edits or corrections, I'm not perfect. I will probably be going back in a few weeks and making more small changes myself.