@benbobhenbob First of all what knowledge was there to be found? You are yet to describe a particular. "...in the tone the movie was trying to express: the examined life" why you thought it was necessary to add this statement is beyond me. The tone of the movie provided you with knowledge? Really? What kind? Perhaps KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUCKING TONE. What else could a "tone" provide? Also, "the examined life" is a cliche saying to people acquainted with philosophy (a.k.a. me). Cont...
@benbobhenbob Now, cliche does not entail meaningless but, in this instance, it does. Do you want to know what real philosophy is like? Pick up a book by Hume, Kant, Frege, Carnap, Russell, and the list can go on. Philosophy is not this poetic bullshit that these pseudo-intellectuals spew.
@udooling I was actually directed to this movie for my philosophy capstone. You were the one that made claim the claim there was nothing to be learned. I asserted there was - namely what it is like to live an examined life just like Socrates supposed we should in the Apology 38a. I don't understand why you think it was meaningless when the point of the movie was the practical application of philosophy to life. Philosophy may not be poetry, but it's not viscous scholasticism either.
@benbobhenbob Philosophy is like mathematics or science, there is a right way to conduct it, and a wrong way. This documentary is a wrong way to conduct philosophy. Practical? How is knowledge of Heidegger's "nothing" practical. There cannot be a practical use for something that is not true, nor even meaningful. Socrates valued skepticism, not random inferences of metaphysical nonsense.
@benbobhenbob The analysis of language, logic, mathematics and science is the right way to conduct philosophy. We must take philosophy as an activity right along side science. We should discuss ontology (what there is), epistemology (what we know), and logic. There are many fundamental problems facing philosophers today, but Heidegger's "nothing" is not one of them. Metaphysics was pondered by people in the 18th century. The only people who still practice Metaphysics are pseudo-intellectuals.
@udooling Can you explain why Metaphysics is a pseudo-intellectual pursuit? From the way I see it the debate on free will, determinism, other worlds, the nature of being (your Ontology), mathematics, philosophy of mind, and modality are all worthwhile areas of study that are grounded in Metaphysics.
@benbobhenbob Rudolph Carnap's "The Elimination of Metaphysics Through the Logical Analysis of Language" should be sufficient to prove my opinion. Also, Quine's "On What There is" is a good essay to second the destruction of most metaphysics. When we case aside our notion that philosophy must provide foundations, then we can easily see that question on "being" are meaningless pseudo questions; meaning, there cannot be a conceivable answer to such questions.
@udooling LOL @ logical positivism, that shit is irrelevant in todays world. It is, as John Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." Even A. J. Ayer said "I suppose the most important [defect]...was that nearly all of it was false." You can live in 1918 all you want but that doesn't mean the rest of us have too.
@almanacofsleep Who said anything about logical positivism? I suggested Quine. Quine is who killed Logical Positivism. 1918? Where did you get this number? That is when Russell's Logical Atomism was prominent. The meaninglessness of most Metaphysics is still held by most holists. A quick Google will not teach you philosophy. Read some philosophy, then present an argument. Better yet, give me an argument as to why these questions are fruitful or meaningful.
@almanacofsleep Actually, if you read any of my former comments, you would have picked up on my naturalism. I basically spelled out Quine's Web of Belief in one comment.
@udooling the pretenses of logical positivism are doomed from the start, if you look at their premises. both their conception of language and the centrality of science are based on a vague form of empiricism as a prior theoretical foundation which is not exempt from critique.
as for quine, his exaltation of science is little more than a fetish. his "naturalized epistemology" is a logical clusterfuck.
foundations are always assumed and theoretical first philosophy rears it's ugly head.
@fede2 1) I am not a positivist. 2) I am not an advocate of first philosophy, neither is Quine. "Vague form of Empiricism"? I am pretty sure analytic philosophy has become almost entirely pragmatic, the argument for the "centrality of science" is on pragmatic grounds. Do you not understand what "first philosophy" means? Also, can you try to express yourself clearly, rather than hiding behind a second rate metaphorical style of writing?
@udooling 1) you cited carnaps book. that's what i was responding to. the empiricism i was referring to pertains exclusively to that. not the entire analytic tradition.
2)i know and i know. i am. you missunderstood there.
"I am pretty sure analytic philosophy has become almost entirely pragmatic, the argument for the 'centrality of science' is on pragmatic grounds."
i realize that and i agree that it's the case. i just think it's a weak justification for science.
@fede2 my overall point is that the pretenses of getting rid of foundationalism (or first philosophy) as i see it has always lead to a logical dead end.
"Also, can you try to express yourself clearly, rather than hiding behind a second rate metaphorical style of writing?"
meaning? what is so unintelligeble about the way i write?
@fede2 Logical dead end? Adopting pragmatism was motivated by the fact that first philosophy produces "logical dead end[s]". Metaphysics begs questions that are interesting to ask, but impossible to answer. What kind of realism would you advocate for that has the predictive and fruitful power of pragmatism? I love the idea of Realism, I just it impractical and limited. The ad hom I threw at you at the end was because your first message came off a bit smug.
@udooling whatever the attacks on foundationalism, the alternatives adopted created problems of their own. pragmatism may have specific aspirations but when it adopts a theory or hypothesis for no other reason than because "it works", it doesn't elude certain logical demands, such as a question begging (the "multiverse theory" comes to my mind in this respect.).
@fede2 there are certain basic truths that cannot be avoided. "something is real", "i am aware/consciouss". this alone provides some ground for more theoretical edification. it's true that you can continue to ask "what does 'real' mean?" and so on. but that doesn't deny the primal truth in itself. as far as i'm concerned, that is a limit of language, rather than philosophy and not the other way around. this is why i continue to revindicate foundationalism.
@fede2 just one more thing: i apologize if i came off as smug. it wasn't my intention. also, sorry for the successive comments. i don't usually use up more than one because i know it's annoying as hell.
@fede2 Well you do raise some good points, but in what median other than language can philosophy be conveyed? If there is another alternative, then I would love to entertain that median. However, language is a median that we use to convey ideas. If there is an intended concept to be conveyed, then there is a set of premises that can convey that concept. I believe talks of consciousness and epistemology can be answered in modern analytic philosophy, I just dont think definite answers can be given
@udooling "However, language is a median that we use to convey ideas. If there is an intended concept to be conveyed, then there is a set of premises that can convey that concept."
well, this is pretty much what i mean. the existence of considerations prior to language and science. i don't see how analytic philosophy can adequately take care of this since it employs those very things. i agree, though, that definitive answers cannot be given.
It's like trying to breakdance in 1975, YOU CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE!
ThingsWeSaidToday 5 days ago
Turtles, turtles all the way down.
Pangolinx1 6 days ago
Amg dood thhis iz so enlightening
hotfudgemoney 1 month ago
Does anyone know what song is playing during the opening of the film?
FNsMadman 1 month ago
I like this...but I suspect that these folks have never really lifted a finger to help anyone outside of themselves before
yanikv 2 months ago
@yanikv They help by contributing to society's growth of knowledge.
FNsMadman 1 month ago
@FNsMadman Not these philosophers. Hahaha there is no knowledge to be obtained from these people.
udooling 1 month ago
@udooling Whatever do you mean? There was plenty of knowledge that I saw, especially in the tone the movie was trying to express: the examined life.
benbobhenbob 1 month ago
@benbobhenbob You do realize that entire message was boarding on meaningless right?
udooling 1 month ago
@udooling lolcats no, please do explain.
benbobhenbob 1 month ago
@benbobhenbob First of all what knowledge was there to be found? You are yet to describe a particular. "...in the tone the movie was trying to express: the examined life" why you thought it was necessary to add this statement is beyond me. The tone of the movie provided you with knowledge? Really? What kind? Perhaps KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUCKING TONE. What else could a "tone" provide? Also, "the examined life" is a cliche saying to people acquainted with philosophy (a.k.a. me). Cont...
udooling 1 month ago
@benbobhenbob Now, cliche does not entail meaningless but, in this instance, it does. Do you want to know what real philosophy is like? Pick up a book by Hume, Kant, Frege, Carnap, Russell, and the list can go on. Philosophy is not this poetic bullshit that these pseudo-intellectuals spew.
udooling 1 month ago
@udooling I was actually directed to this movie for my philosophy capstone. You were the one that made claim the claim there was nothing to be learned. I asserted there was - namely what it is like to live an examined life just like Socrates supposed we should in the Apology 38a. I don't understand why you think it was meaningless when the point of the movie was the practical application of philosophy to life. Philosophy may not be poetry, but it's not viscous scholasticism either.
benbobhenbob 1 month ago
@benbobhenbob Philosophy is like mathematics or science, there is a right way to conduct it, and a wrong way. This documentary is a wrong way to conduct philosophy. Practical? How is knowledge of Heidegger's "nothing" practical. There cannot be a practical use for something that is not true, nor even meaningful. Socrates valued skepticism, not random inferences of metaphysical nonsense.
udooling 1 month ago
@udooling So what do you think the right way is?
benbobhenbob 1 month ago
@benbobhenbob The analysis of language, logic, mathematics and science is the right way to conduct philosophy. We must take philosophy as an activity right along side science. We should discuss ontology (what there is), epistemology (what we know), and logic. There are many fundamental problems facing philosophers today, but Heidegger's "nothing" is not one of them. Metaphysics was pondered by people in the 18th century. The only people who still practice Metaphysics are pseudo-intellectuals.
udooling 1 month ago
@udooling Can you explain why Metaphysics is a pseudo-intellectual pursuit? From the way I see it the debate on free will, determinism, other worlds, the nature of being (your Ontology), mathematics, philosophy of mind, and modality are all worthwhile areas of study that are grounded in Metaphysics.
benbobhenbob 1 month ago
@benbobhenbob Rudolph Carnap's "The Elimination of Metaphysics Through the Logical Analysis of Language" should be sufficient to prove my opinion. Also, Quine's "On What There is" is a good essay to second the destruction of most metaphysics. When we case aside our notion that philosophy must provide foundations, then we can easily see that question on "being" are meaningless pseudo questions; meaning, there cannot be a conceivable answer to such questions.
udooling 1 month ago
@udooling LOL @ logical positivism, that shit is irrelevant in todays world. It is, as John Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." Even A. J. Ayer said "I suppose the most important [defect]...was that nearly all of it was false." You can live in 1918 all you want but that doesn't mean the rest of us have too.
almanacofsleep 2 days ago
@almanacofsleep Who said anything about logical positivism? I suggested Quine. Quine is who killed Logical Positivism. 1918? Where did you get this number? That is when Russell's Logical Atomism was prominent. The meaninglessness of most Metaphysics is still held by most holists. A quick Google will not teach you philosophy. Read some philosophy, then present an argument. Better yet, give me an argument as to why these questions are fruitful or meaningful.
udooling 1 day ago
@almanacofsleep Actually, if you read any of my former comments, you would have picked up on my naturalism. I basically spelled out Quine's Web of Belief in one comment.
udooling 1 day ago
@udooling the pretenses of logical positivism are doomed from the start, if you look at their premises. both their conception of language and the centrality of science are based on a vague form of empiricism as a prior theoretical foundation which is not exempt from critique.
as for quine, his exaltation of science is little more than a fetish. his "naturalized epistemology" is a logical clusterfuck.
foundations are always assumed and theoretical first philosophy rears it's ugly head.
fede2 7 hours ago
@fede2 1) I am not a positivist. 2) I am not an advocate of first philosophy, neither is Quine. "Vague form of Empiricism"? I am pretty sure analytic philosophy has become almost entirely pragmatic, the argument for the "centrality of science" is on pragmatic grounds. Do you not understand what "first philosophy" means? Also, can you try to express yourself clearly, rather than hiding behind a second rate metaphorical style of writing?
udooling 7 hours ago
@udooling 1) you cited carnaps book. that's what i was responding to. the empiricism i was referring to pertains exclusively to that. not the entire analytic tradition.
2)i know and i know. i am. you missunderstood there.
"I am pretty sure analytic philosophy has become almost entirely pragmatic, the argument for the 'centrality of science' is on pragmatic grounds."
i realize that and i agree that it's the case. i just think it's a weak justification for science.
cont...
fede2 6 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fede2 my overall point is that the pretenses of getting rid of foundationalism (or first philosophy) as i see it has always lead to a logical dead end.
"Also, can you try to express yourself clearly, rather than hiding behind a second rate metaphorical style of writing?"
meaning? what is so unintelligeble about the way i write?
fede2 6 hours ago
@fede2 Logical dead end? Adopting pragmatism was motivated by the fact that first philosophy produces "logical dead end[s]". Metaphysics begs questions that are interesting to ask, but impossible to answer. What kind of realism would you advocate for that has the predictive and fruitful power of pragmatism? I love the idea of Realism, I just it impractical and limited. The ad hom I threw at you at the end was because your first message came off a bit smug.
udooling 5 hours ago
@udooling whatever the attacks on foundationalism, the alternatives adopted created problems of their own. pragmatism may have specific aspirations but when it adopts a theory or hypothesis for no other reason than because "it works", it doesn't elude certain logical demands, such as a question begging (the "multiverse theory" comes to my mind in this respect.).
continued...
fede2 4 hours ago
@fede2 there are certain basic truths that cannot be avoided. "something is real", "i am aware/consciouss". this alone provides some ground for more theoretical edification. it's true that you can continue to ask "what does 'real' mean?" and so on. but that doesn't deny the primal truth in itself. as far as i'm concerned, that is a limit of language, rather than philosophy and not the other way around. this is why i continue to revindicate foundationalism.
fede2 4 hours ago
@fede2 just one more thing: i apologize if i came off as smug. it wasn't my intention. also, sorry for the successive comments. i don't usually use up more than one because i know it's annoying as hell.
fede2 3 hours ago
@fede2 Well you do raise some good points, but in what median other than language can philosophy be conveyed? If there is another alternative, then I would love to entertain that median. However, language is a median that we use to convey ideas. If there is an intended concept to be conveyed, then there is a set of premises that can convey that concept. I believe talks of consciousness and epistemology can be answered in modern analytic philosophy, I just dont think definite answers can be given
udooling 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@udooling "However, language is a median that we use to convey ideas. If there is an intended concept to be conveyed, then there is a set of premises that can convey that concept."
well, this is pretty much what i mean. the existence of considerations prior to language and science. i don't see how analytic philosophy can adequately take care of this since it employs those very things. i agree, though, that definitive answers cannot be given.
fede2 3 hours ago
Thank you for the upload! :)
crimsonsamuraiftw 3 months ago