I am back from my break. I’ve encountered a book summarising philosophy. And I’ve read a couple of books on Derrida and Baulliard.
Correct me if I got anyone of the author’s principles wrong.
Derrida - deconstruction - see things from another person’s perspective.
Baulliard - signifier, signified - need to understand hidden meanings.
Plato - republic - man is a social animal
Foucault - knowledge is power
Descrates - I think, therefore I am - what is thought?
Nietzsche - modern day sophist
existence preceeds essence - we have free will
essence preceeds existence - determinism
Hegel - thesis vs antithesis will lead us to the ultimate truth - not if thesis vs antithesis becomes a circle.
Wittgenstein - our thoughts are language, our thoughts are restricted to the boundaries of language.
The above notions are the obvious, anyone can understand that. Is philosophy merely restating the obvious? How can we understand something outside our structure? How do we see like a bat?
At this point, I ask. Does the life of a chicken have any more meaning to that of a frog? If not, does a philosopher’s life have any more meaning to that of the common man?
Not a bad summery of philosophy that you gave. I’ll have to read Foucault…he sounds interesting. Nilhilism is just to hopeless (in the “depressing” sense) of a concept for me to agree with. DesCartes is my man, since he seems to take the more practical approach to things. Nietasche—well, I’ve literally read like everyone of his books—I can understand a bit of what he says (well sort of—I mean, who really can? ), and I still don’t see too much practicality in him.
Abstract is good, but not if you lose sight of practicality.
In Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall” one character explains that he is studying speed reading and managed to get through “War and Peace” in fifteen minutes. “It’s about Russia,” he said. To boil down philosophers to a semi-coherent single sentence each may be as misleading.
There is a little more to philosophy than the “bottom line” or sound bite for each thinker. In fact, that’s the least interesting part of the subject. What is important is HOW they get to their conclusions and WHY they needed to do so.
May I also, in agreement with Friedrich, point out that its the down-in-the trenches application of each of those philosophers or ideas that is the important thing. Grabbing general principles to use as a torch before you descend into the dark cave of some philosophical work is fine (hell I do it all the time), but it’s never any substitute for actually reading the work, especially since the texts themselves usually explode any categorization Like that.
You know why Metaphysics is so popular? Because it doesn’t concern “why”, but “what”. The meaning of life- is like asking “why”. You’ll never get an undeniable anwser to “why”.
That is where the place for “Christian philosophy” lies. There is an anwser for “why” for them - to please God or something like that. Yet, they could never have the anwser to a “why” in particular: why did God create the world?
I’m not asking, because there is no God for me. “Umber sterzen leiber Vater wohenm” - Schiller, An Die Freud. What’s really there? Space, as now we know after having invented the electro-telescope.
The above notions are the obvious, anyone can understand that. Is philosophy merely restating the obvious? How can we understand something outside our structure? How do we see like a bat?
I would say that these notions are obvious to those who know what you’re talking about, such as, everyone here currently talking about it. However, I would be hesitant to say that one could just walk onto the street, walk up to someone and start discussing hegel, one of the most notoriously difficult philosophers there ever was. Trust me, I’ve tried…if I could do that, then I wouldn’t be here.
Philosophers always have the habit of being thorough and restating what e xactly they are responding against. I believe that no philosophy is done without context–i.e. everyone has their historocity
By expanding the structure, when and if possible
Metaphor, then maybe genetic engineering
At this point, I ask. Does the life of a chicken have any more meaning to that of a frog? If not, does a philosopher’s life have any more meaning to that of the common man?
I don’t understand this comparison. the first compares two different animals, and the other compares to different men of the same species. Can not a man be a common man and have a philosopher’s life?
I am very interested on what people have to say about this…
You can be a common man… Take it easy, mate, I mean, you can have sex while being a philosophier.
But, there is something that you don’t want to do anymore, after learned some philosophy, while other “common men” still do it everyday.
This is exactly the reason why I talked about how much reason is optimally wanted. Too little, not a philosophier anymore; too much, many interests are lost.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves! Philosophy is the way the world is, not the way we see it… Philosophy is recognized because it is something no one can see without understanding. Of course it is obvious! but only to the trained mind… A true philosopher would not summarize others revelations as merely pointless! How would you feel if someone could know all you believe in with a single word? The likes of Socrates roll in their graves…
One upon a time, a great philosopher was dying. A loyal maid, who have accompanied him for many, many years was by by his bed side.
The philosopher felt indebted to the maid because the extraordinarily loyal service she had shown to him over the years, so he granted her a wish.
The maid said something along the lines of “You are the keeper of knowledge, I am just a maid, I know nothing.”
The philosopher replied, and said “No, you have not missed out much.”
), and I still don’t see too much practicality in him.