You're right when you say that information must be taken from a definitive foundation when expressing thought on any subject matter.
The crux of philosophy is not to shy away from allowing past ideas to be 'updated' or redefined so with that said you can only deal with absolutes with given respect to the reference of the time that you're in.
I am surprised that he lays down as some mind of a priority the acceptance of causality, necessity, etc. But are these not the problems of philosophy? That's consigning to much to premise and sparing argument from it's functions.
This "only" applies to analytical and pre-modern system philosophy but not post-structuralism and therefore leaves out the essential, namely that there is no essential.
Your philosophical "first" I do deny. I agree with "philosophy is pragmatic. I am too lazy to use logical operators.
Nearly not enough skepticism and relativism in your voice, when you recite your principles you want to accomplish a common understanding in, this is how Descartes felt when beginning to write.
Warning: Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" is a great general overview of that tradition, but his treatment - where his personal views seep into the text - are often bullshit. His treatment of Spinoza, and to a lesser extent, Nietzsche, in that book are at times banal.
I'm just not sure about the underlying message in your video; which seems to be that unless people have read what you think they should have read, they can't have anything philosophically valid to say.
No. He said, unless you have read these types of books, you will have a lesser understanding. But the reality is that these books are the more convenient ways of learning these things.
Academic philosophy seems very intimidating to most people. The words alone seem like an impenetrable barrier. It feels like one is being beaten around the head with a brick while one is defenseless - just because of the mere words. I think that's why it triggers antagonism. It's like saying to someone, "Unless you memorize the Oxford English Dictionary you may not participate in the discussion". Unfortunately, this is where Western academic philosophy has led us.
pointlesspoint - this isn't what I meant to say - I explained that this was how I became familliar with the subject matter and others may find such information useful as samuel points out.
Kevin - indeed; academic philosophy is intimidating. Of course, I wasn't suggesting people need to understand ALL the jargon to engage in debate. But knowledge of the terminology certainly helps on these subjects. This was just a quick "how to get to grips with" vid
Fair enough. I think it's also reasonable to suggest that intelligent people can learn new terms (to them) as they go along, and can then take part to some degree.
I'm sure you can see how the title of this video was partly responsible for my need to 'prod' you with my initial comment. (My way of pushing for more clarity re your attitude.)
It is very difficult to get to grips with the majority of contemporary philosophical debates without occasionally looking up the terminology from time to time. As such, I found it useful to use a dictionary and would encourage others to do the same.
Woah - it is not a terrible book for a good understanding of the history and context of the discussion.
The reason I didn't recommend Russell's Problems of Philosophy is because it is Russell's own philosophy and not a summary of historical issues..it is a good book though
Yeah fair enough - I didn't say I didn't value your opinion Sir. I know it is not the most critically acclaimed book going, but it certainly provided me with a good reference point when I started, what introductory books do you recommend? I will add them to the sidebar.
My problem with Bertrand's book is that it could turn people off on certain philosophers because of his misrepresentations of them. I don't know of any good intro books except for Ancient Greek. I just read the books written by the philosophers. Sometimes I'll read a Cambridge intro to that particular philosopher or another book. For someone like Wittgenstein, Duty of Genius is good. For someone like Nietzsche, Kaufmann's Nietzsche is good.
Hmm admittedly the book is not without it's flaws - Russell of course hated Nietzsche..I don't know any other book that covers as much scope of western philosophy as that.
Personally, I am very partial to Rob Solomon's Nietzsche.
Why assume that philosophy can account for anything in the external world? Why assume that logic has this privileged access? The alternative is that our experience is virtual rather than real, something which keeps logic intact, and fits well with modern philosophy of science. Metaphysics should have as agnostic a foundation as science when it comes to reality. The only truths we need to assume possible to attain are virtual ones.
Isn't philosophy simply various pragmatic studies of language? Isn't it all about, what can I get away with when I say something? Western philosophy is really much too centered in the written word.
Did you know that the Austrailian aboriginies communicate in visual images? When one talks to you he shows you his mental images. You can see what he has seen.
Verbal communication is the lowest. So, in America some years ago someone said, what is the question that all philosophers are asking?..
Ah I love Chalmers anthology. I had that one for Philosophy of Mind class. That book is excellent.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
You're right when you say that information must be taken from a definitive foundation when expressing thought on any subject matter.
The crux of philosophy is not to shy away from allowing past ideas to be 'updated' or redefined so with that said you can only deal with absolutes with given respect to the reference of the time that you're in.
episkeuo 1 year ago
I am surprised that he lays down as some mind of a priority the acceptance of causality, necessity, etc. But are these not the problems of philosophy? That's consigning to much to premise and sparing argument from it's functions.
ranhilio 1 year ago
scribd (dot) com/nb812
DreamsofMajesty 1 year ago
8:02 Is that what you think what philosophy is? Can you please simplify your definition.
Check my youtube video as well:
watch?v=hMwAOrur60k
fair7deal 2 years ago
This "only" applies to analytical and pre-modern system philosophy but not post-structuralism and therefore leaves out the essential, namely that there is no essential.
Your philosophical "first" I do deny. I agree with "philosophy is pragmatic. I am too lazy to use logical operators.
Nearly not enough skepticism and relativism in your voice, when you recite your principles you want to accomplish a common understanding in, this is how Descartes felt when beginning to write.
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
I like the recommendation to use a philosophy dictionary, I think that in a lot of cases the vocabulary has been a big obstacle for me.
VideogameAnswerMan 2 years ago
Warning: Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" is a great general overview of that tradition, but his treatment - where his personal views seep into the text - are often bullshit. His treatment of Spinoza, and to a lesser extent, Nietzsche, in that book are at times banal.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago 3
Cool, thank you very much.
samuelmichaud 2 years ago
great video and certainly a good primer, even for those of us acquainted with the subject matter
granvilleguy 2 years ago
The educated ego...so very dumb.
ThePointlessPoint 2 years ago
I'm sorry do you have something valuable to contribute?
LordImmolation 2 years ago
If I had made an inane compliment would you have questioned that?
ThePointlessPoint 2 years ago
Probably not, those people are not challenging me for no apparent reason.
Certain people have found this video valuable, you just felt like trolling.
LordImmolation 2 years ago
I'm just not sure about the underlying message in your video; which seems to be that unless people have read what you think they should have read, they can't have anything philosophically valid to say.
ThePointlessPoint 2 years ago
No. He said, unless you have read these types of books, you will have a lesser understanding. But the reality is that these books are the more convenient ways of learning these things.
samuelmichaud 2 years ago
Academic philosophy seems very intimidating to most people. The words alone seem like an impenetrable barrier. It feels like one is being beaten around the head with a brick while one is defenseless - just because of the mere words. I think that's why it triggers antagonism. It's like saying to someone, "Unless you memorize the Oxford English Dictionary you may not participate in the discussion". Unfortunately, this is where Western academic philosophy has led us.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
I partially agree with all of you here:
pointlesspoint - this isn't what I meant to say - I explained that this was how I became familliar with the subject matter and others may find such information useful as samuel points out.
Kevin - indeed; academic philosophy is intimidating. Of course, I wasn't suggesting people need to understand ALL the jargon to engage in debate. But knowledge of the terminology certainly helps on these subjects. This was just a quick "how to get to grips with" vid
LordImmolation 2 years ago
Fair enough. I think it's also reasonable to suggest that intelligent people can learn new terms (to them) as they go along, and can then take part to some degree.
I'm sure you can see how the title of this video was partly responsible for my need to 'prod' you with my initial comment. (My way of pushing for more clarity re your attitude.)
Thanks.
I look forward to learning more.
ThePointlessPoint 2 years ago
I don't know about learning terms as you go along, I mean that is true to an extent, but I would have been lost without that little book!
The title was not suppose to be derogatory; just perhaps a little tongue in cheek...like the "....for dummies" books series.
LordImmolation 2 years ago
Well, I'm certainly learning more about you.
Psychology eh? How wonderfully apt.
"I don't know about learning terms as you go along"
In a very real sense, we can ONLY learn as we go along...can we not?
"true to an extent" is all some of us need.
Lay on, MacDuff...
ThePointlessPoint 2 years ago
Yeah ok, lazy locutions lead to confusion.
Let me rephrase;
It is very difficult to get to grips with the majority of contemporary philosophical debates without occasionally looking up the terminology from time to time. As such, I found it useful to use a dictionary and would encourage others to do the same.
LordImmolation 2 years ago
Bertrand Russell's book is garbage. He wrote it in a hurry. It's a very biased book.
PursuitOfReality 2 years ago
The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell is good for new philosophy readers. Not all is bad with him. Just that horrible book.
PursuitOfReality 2 years ago
Woah - it is not a terrible book for a good understanding of the history and context of the discussion.
The reason I didn't recommend Russell's Problems of Philosophy is because it is Russell's own philosophy and not a summary of historical issues..it is a good book though
LordImmolation 2 years ago
Hmm, I suggest taking a look at the review section of the book in wiki if you don't value my opinion.
PursuitOfReality 2 years ago
It's not good for a good understanding of the history of philosophy. Russell rushed it and it shows.
PursuitOfReality 2 years ago
Yeah fair enough - I didn't say I didn't value your opinion Sir. I know it is not the most critically acclaimed book going, but it certainly provided me with a good reference point when I started, what introductory books do you recommend? I will add them to the sidebar.
LordImmolation 2 years ago
My problem with Bertrand's book is that it could turn people off on certain philosophers because of his misrepresentations of them. I don't know of any good intro books except for Ancient Greek. I just read the books written by the philosophers. Sometimes I'll read a Cambridge intro to that particular philosopher or another book. For someone like Wittgenstein, Duty of Genius is good. For someone like Nietzsche, Kaufmann's Nietzsche is good.
PursuitOfReality 2 years ago
I didn't start off with an intro book. But the philosophers I read got me to read other philosophers.
PursuitOfReality 2 years ago
Hmm admittedly the book is not without it's flaws - Russell of course hated Nietzsche..I don't know any other book that covers as much scope of western philosophy as that.
Personally, I am very partial to Rob Solomon's Nietzsche.
LordImmolation 2 years ago
I've only studied philosophy a little bit. Some books and one class. thanks for posting the links to the books on the side.
HaleyMary 2 years ago
i haven't study philosophy and i dont know if i can by default or anything..
all im saying do i have some ground of philosophy?
all my examples in my blog,, i have a link in my channel can you answer if i have or if it is a delusion that i have..
pe3er 2 years ago
Why assume that philosophy can account for anything in the external world? Why assume that logic has this privileged access? The alternative is that our experience is virtual rather than real, something which keeps logic intact, and fits well with modern philosophy of science. Metaphysics should have as agnostic a foundation as science when it comes to reality. The only truths we need to assume possible to attain are virtual ones.
demrings 2 years ago
Anthony Flew, David Chalmers
JTravisRolko 2 years ago
Added it to the side bar! :) - Kyle
LordImmolation 2 years ago
Isn't philosophy simply various pragmatic studies of language? Isn't it all about, what can I get away with when I say something? Western philosophy is really much too centered in the written word.
Did you know that the Austrailian aboriginies communicate in visual images? When one talks to you he shows you his mental images. You can see what he has seen.
Verbal communication is the lowest. So, in America some years ago someone said, what is the question that all philosophers are asking?..
theosophers 2 years ago
Do you want fries with that?
theosophers 2 years ago
The first thing we need to do before we do philosophy is make sure our shirts are sufficiently unbuttoned.
urbanelf 2 years ago
Maybe next time, I will pop open a few more buttons just for you ;)
LordImmolation 2 years ago