 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 387 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614103 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've considered starting reading philosophy. Is it enjoyable, or just something you read to become enlightened / feel smarter / be able to namedrop famous philosophers? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm leaving this thread because Drunkan Mastah should soon be on his way! :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im sure you are suited with that attitude, young man. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've considered starting reading novels. Is it enjoyable, or just something you read to become enlightened / feel smarter / be able to namedrop famous novelists? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
life sucked, and then someone invented philosophy. it has since then been read by people who think life suck. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you wouldn't enjoy them |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
beats reading messageboards i finished my first novel on the computer screen, i don't really want to do it again |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm sincerely curious, I just wondered if people read it mostly for their own enjoyment, or to achieve something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i thought this trhead was about reading novels, that's how short my attentionspan has gotten |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i suppose it's a bitch to read, but so can novels be, it's all relative |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I read Madame Bovary on a computer screen and I didn't really mind. At least your hands are free and, I don't know, you can stuff your face or touch yourself. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Philosophy is so broad-- there's the why are we here stuff, but you know aesthetics, ethics, etc etc etc. I like reading it because it's interesting to me to learn about how other people think. As for name dropping, it's not really like you're going to get much of an opportunity for it, I don't think. You probably won't find yourself talking to a woman at a bar and finding a great opportunity to allude to Walter Benjamin, for example. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i wouldn't say it's exactly enjoyment, more an opportunity to explore the triggers of my curiosity. most of it is incredibly boring to me. i would like to be smarter, but i'd resist feeling smarter. i want to resist/reject the desire to impress people with namedrops. you won't fool anyone but the fools. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
every philosophy student i've ever met has been an utter cunt, FACT. that said i don't mean to cast aspersions, as long as you don't get into daily mescaline and floor-length leather coats you'll be ok i guess |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hahah! Right, I'll take your seat, then! When it comes to philosophy, you can read it any way you'd like. Many philosophers also wrote dramatic and lyrical works, so you could go at it from that angle. To me, it seems like there are a few (very) general distinctions between people and reasons for reading philosophy, even within philosophy as academic discipline. You have the masturbatory "I just want to play" people (usually logicians and consequence ethicists) who do it solely for their own sake. Then there are those who try to do something useful with what they like doing (where I am.. at least i try). Then you have the generic 40-year old lady who has decided her life was "stuck" or something who reads philosophy to "find herself." More often than not, they end up just memorising phrases that will look good on greeting cards. They'll also sometimes try to adopt it as a way of living. If they ever come as far as signing up for a course in philosophy, they're immediately disappointed that we're not all floating around in some sort of purple haze, gabbing on about beauty and the good life, and they often resent the view of philosophy as science. The name-droppers are a plentiful race. They know names and certain central tenets, and they're not afraid to use them. If you poke them slightly, the air goes out, and you find that they've only read the foreword (or, at least, they haven't gone deeper into the text than what the foreword tells them to). There are many intermediate positions, of course, but they aren't as remarkable. What I would recommend if you're only going to do it for yourself (and not at uni), is that you figure out what subjects you're interested in and then you ask someone who knows something about it what philosophers you should look into. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So, what are some good works to start with? We call those 40-year old women wine-and-scarf ladies. They are usually to be found at art galleries and artsy cafés, wearing colourful ponchos and huge earrings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh fuck. he's here. hide. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I personally think that philosophy, for the purpose of philosophy, is pretty stupid. I'm sure people will misinterpret what I mean here and call me an idiot for the countless time on this message board. What I mean really is, say you have a rock and some philosophy student comes over and says "Is that rock really a rock?" Uhh, yeah it's a rock. Why waste time thinking about it? Why waste time thinking about whether or not a sound is produced if a tree falls in the woods? However, more meaningful philosophical questions, such as "What is the meaning of life" do seem to have more purpose. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Philosophy is not just something you can just care about or don't -- we all have philosophies of our own or, if we're unlucky or careless, are led by other people's philosophies. Today we have different sciences and ways of living than before but we still haven't figured 'it' out, if there even is any 'it' to figure. Depends what one wants from life, philosophy can lead to all kinds of directions -- but it's almost always an antidote to the BS floating about. Today we also have the chance of comparing thinkers of different cultures with our own. Let's just say there are WORSE things to do with your life. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Even stuff like, how do I feel about the Boston Tea Party, how do I feel about Rosa Parks? Was it Plato who believed that all changes to the system need to happen within the system. Is civil disobedience in a democracy an acceptable part of the system? If not why do we celebrate these historic figures, and if so why doesn't the nice police officer accept my right to dissent if I light up a joint right in front of him because I firmly believe in legalization. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
philosophy makes life more interesting |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Depends on what you're interested in, basically. The first philosophy book I read, and the book that got me interested, was Aristotle's Ethics (The nichomachean ethics (Den nikomakiske etikk)). You could also try Søren Kierkegaard - Begrepet Angest. Nietzsche is also always entertaining. You could have a look at "On truth and lie in an extra-moral sense" to see if you enjoy it. It's a short article, and shouldn't be too hard to find on-line somewhere. These are just generally good, but if you could say something about what kind of philosophy you'd be interested in, I could probably recommend something more suitable... ethics, mind, science, phenomenology, existentialist, social, political, logic, aesthetic, language, metaphysics, etc. There are more specific versions of each as well, of course, so I'll stop before you get choice paralysis. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There are two ways to look at that. On the one hand, there are those guys who ask the question with little or no other motivation than being either annoying or "philosophical." On the other hand, the questions could be asked to determine if people actually know what a rock is. It's like when certain phrases catch on, and suddenly everyone's using that phrase without knowing what they're talking about. There's a particularly nice and absurd example of this in Norway at the moment... It's something called "kultureliten" (the cultural elite). In newspaper-articles and just basically all over, they're blamed for either this or that, but generally for every bad thing that happens in politics. However, if you look at the actual usage of the word, and try to determine what its referents is, first of all, you'll find that it doesn't refer to anyone at all.. or, rather, it's a vague idea of someone at a coffee shop somewhere scheming and plotting and deciding all the things in society. It's a creature that's both hairy and bald and short and tall. In other words, it's a next to meaningless word, but one that still carries with it a certain power because everyone seems to think they know what it's referring to. Kind of like social capital, which is just thrown into any debate about society when you want the debate to crumble into people standing in each their corner performing monologues that are never heard by anyone else. There's also the simpler argument that being habituated into the usage of the word stone means that you actually don't know what a stone is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's a difference between philosophy as science and philosophy as your personal outlook on life. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's definetely a cultural elite in this country, but it's considered very tactless to say you're part of it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
russell defines philosophy as the no-mans-land between theology and science. i'm kind of with him on that one but the great thing about philosophy is you can have a philosophy of science and religion and a philosophy of philosophy. it's endless, limitless, always looping and changing. i feel philosophy at the heart of the human condition. like the spark in the soul in the flash of the pan of life. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But do you actually know what it means, who they are, what, exactly, they are doing? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well they're the reptillian overlords of course the ones who live beneath the surface of the earth |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
They mostly talk to, discuss with, and fight eachother instead of doing anything productive |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Haha, yeah, that's the general idea. They're also pretty good at drinking coffee and controlling Manuela Ramin-Osmundsen. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Is that rock really a rock?" The way that's phrased implies metaphysical realism - that there's a universal "rockness" or essence du rock that exists and of which all instantiated rocks partake. Is that what you think? How about greenness - is there an essence of green that all green things share? How about fiveness - is there an essence of five shared by all groups of five things? Or even four hundred and thirty eightness? Or are rock, green and five simply labels we apply to things? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh, that sounds like what they call liberals in the US. They have fangs and want to teach your children how not to get pregnant. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Is that cock really a cock?" A philosophical porno in seven parts. Featuring Jeanna Licorice as The Female Janitor Carla Bromide as Girl #1 Hoots Toots as Girl #2 and Peter North as Theodor W. Adorno |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hahah, yeah, I remember seeing something on cnn or fox or something where someone accused someone of being a liberal, but I didn't really understand what it was he was accusing him of; in my naïveté, I thought he was accusing him of being a liberalist, but then it just didn't add up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
something about Bologna something about the reptilians something about Plato /fin |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if you've never read philosophy maybe you should try starting with sophies world or something like that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sophie's world is good for kids, girls and adult men - i've been all three: heartily recommended |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Is the books on philosophy you are reading actually in your hand in the real world or are they simply a figment of your imagination created by your brain? If the thoughts creating your idea of a book are made by your brain does that make your mind (not your brain) as much of a creation as the book you are reading and so one and so forth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
never piss into the wind... i live my life by that rule. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Peter North as Theodor W. Adorno uh did you ladies order some socialism sorry it's late, how can I make it up to you |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Those questions apply to the reliability of our perception. How close does our perception of the world sync up with what's "really there." Lingering around those questions will make you matrix paranoid. Matter and energy have measurable properties. The rock is called a rock because it is like other rocks. They share like properties. Grass & limes are green because they reflect light in similar ways. Grass, limes, spinach, etc. all do share the property of greenness because they are green. Yes its objectivity, its realness, does not come from one source, but that doesn't mean its not real. Its realness comes from the relationship between the matter, energy, and their properties. Green could not be green if any piece were missing. The event and someone to observe the event make green, and it is real. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Look at it this way. When you use photoshop, do you think about the 1s and 0s in the machine clicking away or do you think about the image you are working on in the environment you interface with. And because the environment, photoshop, is supported by 1s and 0s that are not immediately observable, does that mean photoshop isn't real? Of course not any user can pull up photoshop, read the manual and get similar results. It has testable objectivity if I crop a photo to 4x6 it will always be 4x6. You can measure it with the ruler, which gets back to my other point that 4x6 relies on the ruler, and photoshop, and the user, and countless other variables to exist as 4x6. Look at it like a network in that way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Peter North as Theodor W. Adorno uh did you ladies order some socialism sorry it's late, how can I make it up to you LOL |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've considered starting reading philosophy. WOW! Anyway, I advise against it whole-heartedly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm on the bare tail-end of my philosophy ba (just got my thesis left to write this quarter) and this is what i have to say about it: |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No.. no, I'm pretty sure he shouldn't. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hahah! Female Janitor: "Well, Teddy, I was just cleaning up around here, maybe you can help me out a bit? Just bend over and pick up that trash there in the corner." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What is a rock? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A rock is typically composed of various other properties, like hardness, roundness, minerals, colors and so forth. The funny thing is many rocks don't look the same at all, they vary wildly, yet they are still all rocks. So they share typically the core properties that science has defined. It's pretty easy to define things in the macroscopic world, you just find a word for it, and describe it with various other words, and then when someone says 'human' we think about a face, consciousness, body, skin, bones, blood, and all the other macroscopic stuff in a human. That is typically how you answer your question. But on a 'deeper' level of reasoning, one could argue that there is no rock by itself. The rock is a composition of properties, all of which can be abstracted from each other. A mineral isn't necessarily a rock, brown isn't necessarily on a rock, hardness doesn't mean it's a rock either. Nor does roundness. An apple as well, is green, round, hard, sour, none of which is exclusive to the apple. It is in this way that it is easy to think that the whole universe is just one large abstraction of basic properties, and that emergence creates deeper abstractions, but this unfortunately leads to infinite regress, so I'm a bit lost there. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A rock is a temporal instantiation of the - the archetype of rockness. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
