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

[The Midnight]

I find this video really helpful in bridging the Eastern religion and the Western religion

The interesting bit to me starts at 29min - 34.45min.

To me true selflessness - is not simply to be rid of all of one's desire and to cease suffering, but it is to have love for all beings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv0RFMQgh10

 

[One Brow]

What I'm saying is that the big bang may well be true. But it doesn't propose that the universe popped into existence out of nothing (unless I misunderstand the theory).

Actually, it's a little closer to "popped into existence out of nothing" then 'explosion of pre-existing matter'. One way of explaining this is that all the mass in the universe balanced out by the force of gravity, so the net energy of the universe is zero.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I noticed that many Christians like to pride themselves on being simple, even when they really aren't. Why is that?

It is hard to elaborate because I'm not sure I understand it. There is a tendency for some Christians to associate humbleness with simplicity. Like Babe using the word "sophistry" to describe the work of Marx. That's a Platonic concept that stems from Plato's impulse to characterize certain philosophies as an attempt to muck up simple truths by complicating the meaning of their concepts (Plato is the father of modern religion). It is probably part of why so many Christians express hostility toward the "intellectual elites".

For one, I don't know what you mean by intelligence, or how you're measuring it. And I'm certainly not associating complexity with the use of big words (but then again, that whole paragraph was to attack me). And those quotes are using the word to mean completely different things. But the mere fact you felt the need to post them suggests you DO understand what I'm talking about. You find a certain appeal in simplicity. Not the kind of simplicity that Einstein is talking about (the one about sticking to the fewest assumption), or the one they teach you in writing class (concision, in my arrogant vocab), but the type that relates to meekness or humbleness. Why does that appeal to you?

First of all, what do you mean by intelligence, or how you are measuring it? You brought it up. The mere fact that I posted those quotes shows only that I being a Christian decided to take up the other side of the argument you are presenting, and is in no way an indication of what my personal take is on simplicity. Also you have not explained well enough what you mean by simplicity, so how would anyone know which quotes are in line with what you are thinking and which ones are not? Notice the question before the quotes, you still have not answered which quotes are in line with what you are thinking, if any.

If you want an answer to the question, why don't you use that concision you are so fond of to phrase the question in such a way that you are direct and exact and there is no misunderstanding about what you are asking. Define what you think simplicity is, define what you think humility is, and explain why you think there is a disconnect between the two and why you think you see a contradiction in Christians that you see as focused on simplicity and yet seeing it as humility.

Vague questions get all sorts of responses.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Bill and Ted

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

PS: Half of the reason why I made this thread is so I could hear you guys talk about certain philosophers, mention their ideas so I can pursue some of their works further when the time arises.



I truly know so, so little regarding philosophy, and I have an insatiable longing to know more.

Quit while you are behind. For the love of everything that is sacred don't become a philosophy nerd.

 

[addictionary]

Durkheim for his interest in suicide, Mills for summarizing the way American state power works, Berkeley (I might be wrong) for accepting the existence beyond perception and knowledge, Freud for emphasizing the reason behind most of our actions, Horkheimer and Adorno for making us acknowledge the emptied concepts of our post capitalist world, Herakleitos for suggesting the eternal existence of change.

Might come up with some more later.

 

[babe]

Durkheim for his interest in suicide, Mills for summarizing the way American state power works, Berkeley (I might be wrong) for accepting the existence beyond perception and knowledge, Freud for emphasizing the reason behind most of our actions, Horkheimer and Adorno for making us acknowledge the emptied concepts of our post capitalist world, Herakleitos for suggesting the eternal existence of change.

Might come up with some more later.

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.

 

[babe]

Actually, it's a little closer to "popped into existence out of nothing" then 'explosion of pre-existing matter'. One way of explaining this is that all the mass in the universe balanced out by the force of gravity, so the net energy of the universe is zero.

Actually, even the Big Bang theory has to postulate a continuity of physical laws which have always been in existence.

The Mormon "Prophet" Joseph Smith, grandly entertaining the frontier folk of almost two centuries ago in the midwestern woods and plains, in all their ignorant glory, said "the elements are eternal,and cannot be created or made", refuting the common Christian notion of God creating the universe out of nothing by a speaking the command for things to just "Exist".

It might be a useful exercise to start with the axiom of a universe with a net energy of zero, I suppose. But I'd speculate right off if that's the case, there could be no creation of "matter" and/or "energy" unless there is a God who can just "say so" somehow. . . . . which I think is just nonsense. Even Moe knows that. It raises the question of what that God would be in the first place, and is clearly a circular argument with trivial solutions. . . i.e. . . . . no meaningful results.

How would gravity be "balanced out" by "force of gravity" when gravity is itself a property of matter?

nah, Joseph Smith is a greater cosmologist. There might be something like "Big Bangs" going off, but they come from a continuing existence of everything.

 

[One Brow]

Actually, even the Big Bang theory has to postulate a continuity of physical laws which have always been in existence.

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

 

[Hekate]

I have just read La Nausée(Nausea) by Sartre and it was very interesting. Existentialism may be what fits me better. I would really like to hear your opinions about Sartre and existentialism.

 

[The Midnight]

I have just read La Nausée(Nausea) by Sartre and it was very interesting. Existentialism may be what fits me better. I would really like to hear your opinions about Sartre and existentialism.

From Wiki:

Many critics argue Sartre's philosophy is contradictory. Specifically, they argue that Sartre makes metaphysical arguments despite his claiming that his philosophical views ignore metaphysics. Herbert Marcuse criticized Being and Nothingness (1943) by Jean-Paul Sartre for projecting anxiety and meaninglessness onto the nature of existence itself: "Insofar as Existentialism is a philosophical doctrine, it remains an idealistic doctrine: it hypostatizes specific historical conditions of human existence into ontological and metaphysical characteristics. Existentialism thus becomes part of the very ideology which it attacks, and its radicalism is illusory".

In Letter on Humanism, Heidegger criticized Sartre's existentialism:

Existentialism says existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which, from Plato's time on, has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it, he stays with metaphysics, in oblivion of the truth of Being.

 

[Siro]

I have just read La Nausée(Nausea) by Sartre and it was very interesting. Existentialism may be what fits me better. I would really like to hear your opinions about Sartre and existentialism.

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.