In reading many threads in these forums, I constantly here references to many great philosophers, however, many arguments just consist of these philosophers. In my idea of philosophy, one should be able to talk about a variety of topics and not just philosophers. I want to discuss the ideas of justice, morality, ethics, and history without 80% of it being references to other philosophers. After all, when these other philosophers we speak of (Plato for example) were in the process of developing their famous ideas, did they refer to people constantly? I think not. Continuing with the allegory to Plato (haha), in his famous work: The Republic, I did not see constant references to others, and I would like to have dicussions on these matters like they did. So, if anyone is interested in this, let me know and I will set up a thread so that we can talk about these issues (or countless others) with just our own ideas and reasoning and not simply stating others’ and arguing dogmatic points of view that will never come to an agreement or solution (after all that is not what philosophy is about). Thank You.
Considering how many philosophers have existed since the begining of our species. I would say that it is difficult to come up with an original philosophy. Most people find that the philosophies they come up with have already been recorded in history. I’ve come up with several philosophies myself only to find I wasn’t the first to think in that way! Regardless its still fun to talk about philosophy.
Whatismore why bother using your own words when you can cut and paste someone else’s?
By which I mean that most arguments that most people can imagine have already been written and written well, therefore one may as well take advantage of them.
You may notices that philosophers write very book bigs, or at least, very big compared to our forum posts (although we do have an essay section for those that wanna).
Dropping names is just shorthand for expressing what you mean, and crediting your sources.
demosthenes8907,
I seek the same as you, though I’ve got to wonder what board you’re reading. Surely historical references are made, but it’s been my experience the great majority of posts are, more or less, original in nature. To Szpak’s point as well, there’s a good chance even if and when one posts ‘original’ material, there will be someone to relate their comments to something someone else has said, if only because they’re preexposed to the idea. That’s not something you can really work around.
I completely understand what you are saying daybreak, and I do not see a problem in using peoples names as a shorthand way to express what you mean, however, in my experience in these forums, I have just seen too much so-called “name dropping” and not enough actual discussion, that’s all.
I tend to agree with daybreak here - most collections of philosophers, offline or online, have alot more ‘name dropping’ in the academic sense than ILP. ILP is sometimes refreshingly/frustratinly devoid of such counsel.
Also bear in mind that certain topics cannot be properly examined without also examining certain philosophers - not without reinventing wheels.
Keep in mind that posting references to other philosophers is not only a good thing, but it is also the right thing to do. Philosophy is, in its way, a science, and by that it is also necessarily dynamic in its nature. All the same, every philosophical system was born as a reaction to a previous system. So, even though, philosophy is a deeply intimate activity, because it fathoms the most inner areas of the spirit, it is also strongly linked to its predecesors. This is why it is compulsory for one, when approaching a subject and attempting to discuss upon it, that he should prefix a listing of opinions that are already in use, so that the discussion is a thorough one and progress can be made.
I do not share the view that all there was to say has already been mostly said, considering this as a sign of mental frailty. I reckon that as long as new people are born, so will new ideas. But we must build on a foundation that has been already laid for us, ant that is why we must study incessantly all our lives, but also try to think everything by ourselves.
A pure philosophy (Phenomenology) must have as its modus operandi the distinction between the mental phenomenon (metaphor and concept) and the existential act (mathematical and objective event), and this is only possible from the first-person Cartesian based experience structured by the Kantian a priori principles for cognition, although not yet does a language exist to describe it thanks to Quantum Mechanics and Relativity for fucking up time and space as we knew it. Philosophy today is merely a dichotomy between the semantic “truth” and the existential “truth,” or ontological, if you prefer. This is poppy-cock, as we have seen through deconstructionism and post-modernism, because it confuses necessary truth (reality) with contingent truth (logos), finally turning upon itself.
How’s that for name dropping? Come on, everybody likes Kant and Husserl.
I believe that was a reasonable argument from detrop
deleted
Doc’s right… but so long as we move through time, we will always see original thinkers.
The question is - with the advancement of technologies, and discovery of new things and concepts, does it become easier, or harder to come up with truly original philosophy?
I argued? Where?
How did I fare?
If you really think about it, nothing is truelly original because all philosophies are responding to something and therefore a degree of the thematic content is already established.
It might be said that a philosopher coin a word or two, but remember that the meaning of the word would contain within it the differance (did I get that right, SIATD?) of other words. So essentially it comes down to this. A truelly new idea must come from without all existing ideas if it is to be original, and with it there must also be a new language.
When one thing is said…many things are said…and this always precedes the original context which a philosopher is credited to have created in his current theory.
This is true. Although if you look at it in layers… the top layer is original, even if the foundation is built on the difference of pre-existing theories. That’s why I asked my original question about it being easier or harder.
So what about art then? There is a philosophy to art, and without the confines of words, we might find some real progress after all… I wonder how this could play into the metaphor theory in cog sci… .hmm
There might be a way to organize human metaphors into a system of archetypes, much like Jung did, and find recurring patterns of pathos in the various stages of human development. I think Freud had some decent insights as well regarding this matter.
I believe that there are a set of ‘root-characters’ in the psyche of the human being that has evolved through our progress in language, originating in the myths of Greek culture and through the manifestation of drama did these personality-symbols result.
In that historical period was the first fusion of politics and aesthetics. Politcal ideologies were represented in drama and discourse- specifically sophistry and rhetoric. The combining forces in the sociological formation of ethical types and ‘personalities’ were the behavioral exhibitions as described by the metaphor- which were likened to divine acts, as if a human being were ‘acting-out’ a puppet show hosted by the Gods. The idea of the Daimon, I think, resulted from this. Perhaps these were the first actual ‘cognitive sciences’ in civilization.
That’s far out, dude.
So, as it has it, philosophy is pretty much just a mirror of our own spirit, something intimately personal, deriving from our experiences and inner activity ? Therefore, is philosophy human ?
Or are humans philosophical ? I gather that the fine weavery of philosophy rotates around pretty much the same things, the subtle essence that make up unitary Ideas. Some things may be the extravagant rezult of our excentricity, but real Philosophy is (or should be) more of an insight into these noumens, in order for us to disentangle the intricate way in which we are confronted with them. Justice, Beauty, Truth, they are all out there, waiting for us to get close to them and to rise up to their expectations.
Metaphysics is king.