Your Philosopher of Choice is ...

[Samsa]

It was, to the classical french and the ancient greeks (it's hard to figure out if it's more classical or more ancient).

The modern lexicographers have it a little differently. They say it is "the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom."

I'm not looking to play semantics. But the definition you stated above seems to me quite different from this one you gave earlier:

Fundamentally, philosophy is metacognition, a sort of figuring out how and why we figure stuf out the way we do.

The OAD defines metacognition as "awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes" which is rather different from systematic study of truth, reality, existence, etc., which (prior to Descartes at least) means extra-mental reality. Thought processes are mental reality... Now, I could see how metacognition could be PART of philosophy; but to say that philosophy is FUNDAMENTALLY metacognition would be to take side with the post-Cartesians.

And regardless of what the lexicographers say, the etymologists still say philosophy = philosophia = love of wisdom.

 

[nyx]

...only about your beautiful baby.

Oooh. We're gonna have to take this outside. I'll meet you in the parking lot at high noon...



I thank you, Doran, for the compliment. And my baby thanks you. If that's your baby in the picture, he/she is adorable as well. Look at those cheeks!!

 

[nyx]

On the opposing views of human nature, I'd say both are true to different degrees in different people. Some trend more sharply to one end of the spectrum or the other, but each of us has the potential to go either way.

Just another pair of copper-clad Lincolns slipped onto the collection-plate...

I agree that people in today's society can go one way or the other--social creatures or violent loners, but what Hobbes and Locke were debating was how humans exist in the state of nature--a perfect world, which Locke, at least, truly believed existed at one time. Under the influence of our environment now, we make choices to act a certain way. But in a state of nature, in a utopia, how would we act? Would we be misanthropes who band together because we are forced to for survival or would we be people who seek out the company of others because we want to? That said, I don't know the answers to those questions because I can't imagine that state of nature. I'm too influenced by my environment.

On a related note, one reason I am interested in Gadamer's works are because of his dicussions on how environment and history are so integral to the people that we end up being. And then how we are so integral to the environment around us. We shape it, as it shapes us.

 

[Harp]

Religion has more to do with belief, which does not require systematic examination.
Fast

Philosophy examines Morality, Truth, Natural Science, and Theology; of which
Theology; being the more impenetrable and mysterious, is the most pursued
and contested field.

 

[nyx]

Philosophy examines Morality, Truth, Natural Science, and Theology; of which
Theology; being the more impenetrable and mysterious, is the most pursued
and contested field.

I used to teach English Composition at the local university. I cautioned my students about writing papers on certain topics, because a) it's very hard to argue a topic like capital punishment in 6-8 pages and b) sometimes the most contentious topics are based on faith. How can you argue something like faith? The whole point of faith is to believe without knowing for sure. As a Catholic, I believe that the death penalty is wrong because my faith tells me that taking a human life is wrong (and this is just MY belief; I'm not trying to argue with anyone else's). If I had to convince someone else that my faith was the right one, I don't know how I would do it. Arguing about the existance of God and/or an afterlife seems moot, as you are supposed to believe without any sure proof. It's one reason why I'm not as interested in theology compared to other aspects of philosophy.

And to reiterate, I'm not trying to start a debate on which faith is right. Just throwing out my own view on theology.

 

[52Styleline]

Red Green

 

[Harp]

I used to teach English Composition at the local university. I cautioned my students about writing papers on certain topics, because a) it's very hard to argue a topic like capital punishment in 6-8 pages and b) sometimes the most contentious topics are based on faith. How can you argue something like faith? The whole point of faith is to believe without knowing for sure. As a Catholic, I believe that the death penalty is wrong because my faith tells me that taking a human life is wrong (and this is just MY belief; I'm not trying to argue with anyone else's). If I had to convince someone else that my faith was the right one, I don't know how I would do it. Arguing about the existance of God and/or an afterlife seems moot, as you are supposed to believe without any sure proof. It's one reason why I'm not as interested in theology compared to other aspects of philosophy.

And to reiterate, I'm not trying to start a debate on which faith is right. Just throwing out my own view on theology.

Post referenced was response to another member's remark, and not aimed
at your past post or your personal belief(s); as regards to philosophical
pursuit of Theology; something that has been considered past several thousand years and more.

 

[Harp]

Personal Comment:

Will recuse any further comment in this thread.

 

[nyx]

Post referenced was response to another member's remark, and not aimed
at your past post or your personal belief(s); as regards to philosophical
pursuit of Theology; something that has been considered past several thousand years and more.

I know your post wasn't aimed at me. I was just throwing my opinion into the mix! And I know theology has been pursued for a very long. I was just pointing out that I, personally, don't feel it can be argued. That doesn't mean the rest of you can't argue it till the cows come home!

Don't stop posting in the thread because of my comments. That will make me very sad. I thought this was just a friendly discussion where we throw out ideas. I wasn't taking anything personal. I hope you weren't! :eusa_doh:

 

[Dr Doran]

I agree that people in today's society can go one way or the other--social creatures or violent loners, but what Hobbes and Locke were debating was how humans exist in the state of nature--a perfect world, which Locke, at least, truly believed existed at one time. Under the influence of our environment now, we make choices to act a certain way. But in a state of nature, in a utopia, how would we act? Would we be misanthropes who band together because we are forced to for survival or would we be people who seek out the company of others because we want to? That said, I don't know the answers to those questions because I can't imagine that state of nature. I'm too influenced by my environment..

I am sure we are all having fun here and no one is taking things too personally. As to these arguments: here are my 2c. I am not a philosopher, but a PhD student in Ancient History, so I have a perspective that may be a little weird, and I have never read Gadamer (recommendations on where to start are always welcome); please forgive me.

You say you are too influenced by your environment to make this judgment call about human nature, but you are forgetting another "environmental factor": there is and has always been a fairly permanent environment of competition for resources and sexual partners for all (non-parthenogenic) life and for all time. This long-term environment trumps anything else.

A utopia may come and go, but to ignore the longer prehistory of life on earth is like those postmodernists who overemphasize the socially constructed aspects of reality while forgetting that the universe has existed much longer than human attempts to describe it in language, much longer than a species has existed that is arrogant enough to make statements like "the world is composed of words" when it has been composed of rocks, dirt, and water for much, much longer than words -- a PURELY human confection -- have existed.

This set of ideas ignores biology, evolution, instincts, all of which (unless we take Kropotkin a bit too seriously) have exerted a constant pressure on our evolution and even on our ability to think. Even as a Catholic you must agree with evolution; after Darwin's publication in 1859 of The Origin of Species, the Catholics were the FIRST Christian church to declare that evolution does not conflict with Catholic teaching (I wrote a paper on this when I was an undergrad). A million years of hominid evolution and millions before that of mammalian life has bred us to have certain instincts. We also have testosterone. Short of surgically altering people, this will always cause conflict.

Another thing being ignored is history. A utopia can only be short-lived. Someone inevitably takes over and enslaves the long-softened population. A utopian life, since it cannot be other than short-lived, cannot make a lasting impression on human instincts. A highly controlled one like the Eloi had in Time Machine, in which the morlocks are allowing them to live in order to harvest a few at night, represents a decline: the Eloi were helpless. It is the struggle, whether against nature (preferable) or other men (inevitable) that sharpens us.

 

[Samsa]

Arguing about the existance of God and/or an afterlife seems moot, as you are supposed to believe without any sure proof. It's one reason why I'm not as interested in theology compared to other aspects of philosophy.

Of course, Catholic doctrine states that God's existence can be known through reason alone.

 

[Dr Doran]

Of course, Catholic doctrine states that God's existence can be known through reason alone.

Even back when I was a Roman Catholic, I found this to be rather ... umm ... not great.

The part in Confessions of Augustine where he gives the reason for accepting Christian doctrine has always struck me as antithetical to actual reasoning. He essentially says that since there are things that we believe (such as the existence of places we have never seen, wars before our birth, and that our parents are indeed our parents) therefore there is a category of things it is acceptable to believe without evidence and therefore he might as well believe what the Christians assert. This line of reasoning is breathtakingly anti-rational.
Then we have the medieval argument (several people gave it) that God is "that which nothing greater can be imagined" and since existence is greater than non-existence therefore he exists. Unless I have an ESSENTIAL element of the equation wrong, this is sheer quackery.
Most Catholics I know (including my beloved wife) do not resort to the argument that God's existence can be known by reason alone. They instead assert that they feel the presence of God and that is how they know it (God) exists. So it is a sensory form of evidence.

 

[nyx]

I am sure we are all having fun here and no one is taking things too personally. As to these arguments: here are my 2c. I am not a philosopher, but a PhD student in Ancient History, so I have a perspective that may be a little weird, and I have never read Gadamer (recommendations on where to start are always welcome); please forgive me.

You say you are too influenced by your environment to make this judgment call about human nature, but you are forgetting another "environmental factor": there is and has always been a fairly permanent environment of competition for resources and sexual partners for all (non-parthenogenic) life and for all time. This long-term environment trumps anything else.

A utopia may come and go, but to ignore the longer prehistory of life on earth is like those postmodernists who overemphasize the socially constructed aspects of reality while forgetting that the universe has existed much longer than human attempts to describe it in language, much longer than a species has existed that is arrogant enough to make statements like "the world is composed of words" when it has been composed of rocks, dirt, and water for much, much longer than words -- a PURELY human confection -- have existed.

This set of ideas ignores biology, evolution, instincts, all of which (unless we take Kropotkin a bit too seriously) have exerted a constant pressure on our evolution and even on our ability to think. Even as a Catholic you must agree with evolution; after Darwin's publication in 1859 of The Origin of Species, the Catholics were the FIRST Christian church to declare that evolution does not conflict with Catholic teaching (I wrote a paper on this when I was an undergrad). A million years of hominid evolution and millions before that of mammalian life has bred us to have certain instincts. We also have testosterone. Short of surgically altering people, this will always cause conflict.

Another thing being ignored is history. A utopia can only be short-lived. Someone inevitably takes over and enslaves the long-softened population. A utopian life, since it cannot be other than short-lived, cannot make a lasting impression on human instincts. A highly controlled one like the Eloi had in Time Machine, in which the morlocks are allowing them to live in order to harvest a few at night, represents a decline: the Eloi were helpless. It is the struggle, whether against nature (preferable) or other men (inevitable) that sharpens us.

I'm actually having enormous fun

So, (and pardon if I misunderstood), what I hear you saying is that you agree with Hobbes' view that man exists in a state of conflict? We thrive on struggle, and so only coexist for necessity's sake? Also, I think I hear you saying that my version of "environment" is not taking into account genetics and evolution? Is that correct?

Firstly, I do believe in evolution. No arguments from me on that one. As for the idea of humans in a state of nature, I was just using Hobbes and Locke as examples in my second (or third) post. I don't know if I'd personally agree with either of them. Unfortunately, in terms of evolution, both died long before Darwin, so he was not an influence on their philosophies. I am curious to know if he would have been.

As for Gadamer, his views are related to what I've just said. His seminal work is called Truth and Methods (start and end there if you want to read him). He refers to something he bases on the horizon. When we see the horizon, we see it as a line in the sky. But of course, it is not. It is a vantage point that changes, depending on where we stand. So too do humans comprehend their worlds--from a certain vantage point. Here's a quote that describes the horizon: "The totality of all that can be realized or thought about by a person at a given time in history and in a particular culture." Since Hobbes and Locke were unaware of evolution, they could only provide philosophy on what they knew. As we learn and grow, our horizon continually changes, providing a new vantage point for comprehension.

Even today, when we look at philosophers in the last century--despite the prominence of Darwin, his works were not accepted for a long time. And even now, the discoveries of the influence that our genetics has upon our chemical makeup grow every day. Our scientists are constantly learning. And I admit, I know little about these things, but what I've read and experienced. So, when I originally said that I could not make a judgement on human nature because I was influenced by my environment, I mean that from my vantage point or horizon at this time, my life is too full of other things to be able to see or imagine a utopia. In other words, my life is too imperfect to imagine a perfect world

Finally, in response to your issue with philosophers who think of the world in terms of words, even though the earth has been around for millions of years, humans see what is around them in reference to themselves. Without language, you would be unable to even express the influence that the pre-historic world has upon you. You would be a creature of urges and instincts. For many philosophers, language makes us human.

 

[nyx]

Even back when I was a Roman Catholic, I found this to be rather ... umm ... not great.

The part in Confessions of Augustine where he gives the reason for accepting Christian doctrine has always struck me as antithetical to actual reasoning. He essentially says that since there are things that we believe (such as the existence of places we have never seen, wars before our birth, and that our parents are indeed our parents) therefore there is a category of things it is acceptable to believe without evidence and therefore he might as well believe what the Christians assert. This line of reasoning is breathtakingly anti-rational.
Then we have the medieval argument (several people gave it) that God is "that which nothing greater can be imagined" and since existence is greater than non-existence therefore he exists. Unless I have an ESSENTIAL element of the equation wrong, this is sheer quackery.
Most Catholics I know (including my beloved wife) do not resort to the argument that God's existence can be known by reason alone. They instead assert that they feel the presence of God and that is how they know it (God) exists. So it is a sensory form of evidence.

Aye. What he said...

Honestly, in terms of Augustine's arguments, I agree with you wholeheartedly. He has at least 3 reasoning flaws in that. I quote them below:

1) Irrelevant conclusion or non sequitur: Two statements are made in sequence, as if one followed from the other, or the two were directly connected; but there is no relation or connection between them, logical or otherwise.
2) Appeal to widespread belief: The author claims as evidence for the truth of an idea the fact that many people believe in it now, or allegedly believed in it in the past.
3) Failure to assert: The sentences appear to be saying something, but close examination reveals that the statements are self-canceling or self-negating.

Personally, I don't "feel" the presence of God. Sometimes I question and doubt--maybe I've read too much philosophy . But other times I'm sure he's there when I see my son, or it's a beautiful day, or I've had a fantastic cup of coffee.

In response to Samsa, I give you the story of Doubting Thomas, Book of John 20:

27 Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

To me, faith is believing without knowing for sure. I don't remember learning that reason could give you faith in my 10 years of catholic school. But I don't remember much these days

 

[Diamondback]

I would also say that man's nature of conflict starts within himself; and that those two poles would still exist even in a utopia, the whole Id-versus-Superego thing.

 

[Samsa]

Even back when I was a Roman Catholic, I found this to be rather ... umm ... not great.

The part in Confessions of Augustine where he gives the reason for accepting Christian doctrine has always struck me as antithetical to actual reasoning. He essentially says that since there are things that we believe (such as the existence of places we have never seen, wars before our birth, and that our parents are indeed our parents) therefore there is a category of things it is acceptable to believe without evidence and therefore he might as well believe what the Christians assert. This line of reasoning is breathtakingly anti-rational.
Then we have the medieval argument (several people gave it) that God is "that which nothing greater can be imagined" and since existence is greater than non-existence therefore he exists. Unless I have an ESSENTIAL element of the equation wrong, this is sheer quackery.
Most Catholics I know (including my beloved wife) do not resort to the argument that God's existence can be known by reason alone. They instead assert that they feel the presence of God and that is how they know it (God) exists. So it is a sensory form of evidence.

Yes, I would certainly take issues with the various forms of reasoning that your post exposes. My exposure to the idea that God can be known through reason alone comes from the Thomists, specifically Aquinas's "five ways" (i.e., God as first cause, etc.) and Aristotle's similar reasoning (i.e. the impossibility of infinite regress in the chain of causation). This is not to be confused with mere physical causality (as Mr. Dawkins seems to do in his book "The God Delusion") but rather metaphysical causality.

 

[Dr Doran]

"Exposes"? Oh well.

Interesting. I'll take a look.

 

[Samsa]

"Exposes"? Oh well.

Interesting. I'll take a look.

Perhaps "exposes" was not the best word choice. I merely meant that I agree with your take on Augustine's reasoning.