Philosophy etc. Book Club

[theapportioner]

I've had the little idea of starting such a club for a while now, but never could muster the enthusiasm to gather the people. Anyway, I know more people online who would be interested in this, than people currently living near me, so this seems like the way to go. Maybe we could do it once a month - pick a book by consensus, and open a thread on it on a predetermined date. Anyone interested?

Anyway, here's some ideas for stuff to read. If anything piques your interest, lemme know. Also, suggest your own stuff.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Thomas Kuhn
Beyond Good and Evil - Friedrich Nietszche
Our Posthuman Future - Francis Fukuyama
How to Do Things with Words - JL Austin
Simulacra and Simulation - Jean Baudrillard
The Blank Slate - Steven Pinker
Consilience - EO Wilson
Three Dialogues - George Berkeley

[The One and Only...]

Take a break from the postmodernism, existentialism, and subjective idealism. It might do you some good.

[Jeanette X]

Why don't YOU take a break from the fucking libertarianism and economics?

[theapportioner]

Um, hello? I wouldn't exactly lump Pinker, Wilson, Austin etc. in these categories.

[Brandon]

Take a break from the postmodernism, existentialism, and subjective idealism. It might do you some good.
You shouldn't be so quick to criticize existentialism--not every existentialist was a French socialist. Nietzsche's theories, as a matter of fact, influenced Ayn Rand and are pretty close to your own.

I'd reccommend:

Twilight of the Idols - Friedrich Nietzsche
The Myth of Sisphyus and Other Essays - Albert Camus
The Rebel - Albert Camus
Being and Nothingness - Jean-Paul Sartre

[The One and Only...]

I disagree heavily with Rand on many areas, and I do accept some postmodern beliefs. I just I have a very huge disliking of the term simulacra.

Besides, I have to fill the role of the pompous ass here, right?

[theapportioner]

I like Camus a lot. Have you read The Stranger? Great book.

[Miss Modular]

Speaking of Camus, I'll suggest Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex.

[theapportioner]

I personally have major issues with Baudrillard. That said, he has his insightful moments. Many of the others (Fukuyama, Berkeley, Wilson notably) I have problems with too. I thought the works suggested might interest others, and be interesting to talk about.

[Brandon]

I've read pretty much everything of Camus'. He's one of my all-time favorites.

[The One and Only...]

I dislike Camus. Not that it would suprise any of you, considering that I'm anti-existentialist and anti-leftist.

[Anonymous]

can you tell us again what you are, stand for, and are a product of?

[Brandon]

I dislike Camus. Not that it would suprise any of you, considering that I'm anti-existentialist and anti-leftist.
Yes, yes, because he had socialist tendencies (a concern for human rights, imagine that!), we have to scrap his philosophy altogether, even though the majority of his works were on subjects that had nothing to do with politics.

I find it so bizarre that libertarians are almost universally opposed to liberals for economic issues, when conservatives in the modern era have been so gung-ho about attempting to control a culture's "morality" and influence private lifestyles.

[theapportioner]

You shouldn't be so quick to criticize existentialism--not every existentialist was a French socialist. Nietzsche's theories, as a matter of fact, influenced Ayn Rand and are pretty close to your own.


Yeah, and there is Xian existentialism. I've always enjoyed Kierkegaard.

[The One and Only...]

I scrap his philosophy because he is existentialist. I find no reason to assume that I exist, and therefore, that I should be the starting point for a philosophy.

And I love abstractions to much to be one.

Unlike existentialists, I don't believe that morality is subjective - I believe it is nonexistant. I also find "existence preceeds essense" to be without basis, and thus I strongly believe in human nature.

Of course, I do embrace individuality, but I find existentialists to be very harsh towards individualism in its political sense.

[Brandon]

I scrap his philosophy because he is existentialist. I find no reason to assume that I exist, and therefore, that I should be the starting point for a philosophy.

And I love abstractions to much to be one.

Unlike existentialists, I don't believe that morality is subjective - I believe it is nonexistant.

Of course, I do embrace individuality, but I find existentialists to be very harsh towards individualism in its political sense.
Everything you just said above flies in the face of your previous posts. You're just a smug, contrarian prick.

[The One and Only...]

How so, Artificial?

[Brandon]

You find "no reason" to believe that you exist, despite holding the libertarian/objectivist view that you are an end in and of yourself.

You claim that morality doesn't exist, even as a concept.

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU BELIEVE, ANYWAY? What do you believe besides that you enjoy pissing people off on the I-Mockery message boards and displaying your own cerebral narcissism?

[The One and Only...]

You find "no reason" to believe that you exist, despite holding the libertarian/objectivist view that you are an end in and of yourself.

Perhaps I should clarify. I do find reason to believe that I exist. I don't think that I know I exist. There is a far cry between a belief and knowledge.

You should recognize that there is a huge difference between practical assumptions from which we must operate and true, absolute knowledge.

It should be recognize what is implied by the belief that man is an end in himself. It simply denies that he is a means to anything else - which I do not believe would be contradicted even if a God presides in the supernatural.

I do believe morality exists as a concept. But I think that it is a paradoxical concept, and therefore cannot logically exist. Just because one claims there is right and wrong does not mean that there is right and wrong. Of course, the concept of morality is not very well defined anyway, but I digress...

Put simply, I am like Hume, only radically rationalist rather than empiricist. In addition, I am willing to accept certain things without actually knowing if they are true for the purpose of practicality - because if I don't, the very concept of logic becomes quite... asinine, no?

That would be the basics. To get more specific, I believe that there are no basic truths which are accepted without any reason. Rather, every "axiom" is the result of an overwhelmingly probable inductive argument that occurs within the subconscious mind. For example, consider the assumption that only existing things affect other existing things. Why do we assume this? Well, have you ever seen a nonexisting thing affect an existing thing? Obviously not.

That is not to say that I believe knowledge itself is impossible, because arguments can be made from reason alone just by the very definitions of words. For example, one can say with certainty that reason is reasonable. Why? Because it must be, since it is nothing more than an abstraction created in such a manner that it does not change. There is no reification here. It is but a product of the mind, in its attempts to comprehend.

By now you may have noticed two things: 1) That I believe logic can be applied on the subconscious level, and 2) That for a rationalist, I sure do rely on experience. The first thing is true, but that opens up a huge can of worms that I do not wish to get into right now. The second, however, deals with my assertion of experience as an ongoing set of inductive arguments - for, clearly, the inductive argument is the only argument that can be made towards the material world, and therefore cannot possibly allow for certain, absolute knowledge.

[Brandon]

Fine. Super. Good for you. You are a very smart young man. We prostrate ourselves before your knowledge.

So before this thread gets even more off-topic, why don't you tell the nice people what your book suggestions are?

[The One and Only...]

Book suggestions? Sorry, I just read articles that explain the stances of the various positions and the reasons for them and look for various criticisms to be sure that they haven't already been raised.

I guess the book I would suggest is titled, if I recall, An Introduction to Philosophy. I don't recall the author, though.

[AChimp]

He can't post a list of books, because he's too busy finding more big words to dislike. He's a big ball of dislike. Like Diogenes after a bender, except someone filled his toga with itching powder.

[Brandon]

Book suggestions? Sorry, I just read articles that explain the stances of the various positions and the reasons for them and look for various criticisms to be sure that they haven't already been raised.

I guess the book I would suggest is titled, if I recall, An Introduction to Philosophy. I don't recall the author, though.
I KNEW IT! I FUCKING KNEW IT! You just try to get a working knowledge of theories so you can either:

A) Show everyone how smart you are.

or

B) Poke holes in them to piss people off.

[The One and Only...]

I just find reading a lot of books on philosophy to be exhausting, you know? After the points have been outlined, and sufficient reasonings behind them, it becomes trivial (kinda like philosophy itself).

Anyway, I can do other things with the time I saved. Some things I might give a whole book because it requires it to actually understand the stance, not the least of which because there are so many of them. Philosophy just does not lend itself in that manner to me.

[The One and Only...]

I KNEW IT! I FUCKING KNEW IT! You just try to get a working knowledge of theories so you can either:

A) Show everyone how smart you are.

or

B) Poke holes in them to piss people off.

A working knowledge? I must ask what could possibly make you presume that one needs to read entire volumes on intelligent discourse in order to understand it?

Believe me - if you have some enlightening comments with which you can bash my stances or defend yourself by reading these books, go ahead. I imagine that you do not.

Your conclusions are incorrect. I gather such knowledge for my own enjoyment, and do not read overly exstensive works on the subject because the time spent doing that could be more productively spent looking at other theories.

Satisified, or must I somehow redeem myself for my blasphemies? >:

[Brandon]

Your conclusions are incorrect. I gather such knowledge for my own enjoyment, and do not read overly exstensive works on the subject because the time spent doing that could be more productively spent looking at other theories.
Well, the thing is: you've only read superficial articles on most theories, it seems, yet you expound on each of them as if you were an expert. That kind of behavior is very typical of cerebral narcissists.

Satisified, or must I somehow redeem myself for my blasphemies?
Nah, you don't need to do that. Although some of the others might like it.

[theapportioner]

C'mon people, suggest! I read a bunch of existentialism for a class this summer so I'm not so inclined to do it again, but anything else...

[Miss Modular]

How about Sade? He's sick, but worth exploring. I've been dying to read The Sadeian Woman for some time. Maybe Justine and Juliette (the books that The Sadeian Woman explores) too.

[The One and Only...]

Well, the thing is: you've only read superficial articles on most theories, it seems, yet you expound on each of them as if you were an expert. That kind of behavior is very typical of cerebral narcissists.

Superficial? How do you know what depth the articles I have read go into the positions?

I know what I am talking about.

[Brandon]

I know what I am talking about.
I'm sure you do, oh learned one.

[The One and Only...]

Are you even going to criticize my beliefs, or what?

[sloth]

I tend to stick to friendly allegories, as pure philosophical discourse is bit weighty for me. i'm guessing you've read them already, but i really enjoyed rhinoceros by eugene ionesco and no exit by sartre. i'm currently ploughing through twilight of the idols and the antichrist. thought they might clarify thus spake zarathustra a bit, but i'd still be at a loss to precisely explain what nietzsche's philosophy is if someone asked me.

[Brandon]

Are you even going to criticize my beliefs, or what?
Why bother? To let you launch into another long piece of intellectual masturbation? You clearly don't listen to what anyone but yourself is saying.. you only look for things to criticize or refute. How the hell does one argue against radical doubt, anyway? It's clear you're going to reject any empirical arguments--you've even rejected the Cartesian cogito, a purely rational notion.

So I'll save my breath.

You're such a narcissist it's sickening. Obviously you'd take a radical, doubting, rationalist position--that way you'll never be wrong, because nobody will ever be right, and you can go on feeling a reverse omniscience.

[theapportioner]

Reading summaries online usually won't expose you to the nuanced arguments that philosophers craft to support their positions and challenge others'. They just tell you the conclusions. You are then in a poor position to challenge others' ideas because 1) you may be misunderstanding them or 2) they may have already refuted your position in the text. Sure some things drag on, but philosophers generally don't write lenghty treatises to torture us.

[theapportioner]

Anyway, looks like people want to read Nietszche. Anyone down for "Beyond Good and Evil"?

[Brandon]

Beyond Good and Evil is good.

[theapportioner]

Wouldn't mind reading "On the Genealogy of Morals" either.

[Brandon]

Also a good one. Twilight of the Idols offers a pretty comprehensive summary of his philosophy in general.

[Brandon]

As an afterthought, OAO, you've placed far too much faith in logic.

I don't believe logic to be unquestionable "truth," nor do I have any difficulty in accepting paradoxes. It isn't anything more than a form of rhetoric--a use of consistent guidelines to analyze information, and, like mathematics, it's a purely human concept for relating to our world.

[theapportioner]

I've only been back here for a few days, but from what I've seen, he could use some extensive work in that area, too.

[The One and Only...]

You accept paradoxes? That doesn't make any sense. There is a difference between being nonrational and irrational.

Whether or not logic is a human concept is irrelevant. As you pointed out, math is too, but math can still be applied in useful manners.

Logic does not need to be applied to our world. Consider its application to abstractions.

[Brandon]

You accept paradoxes? That doesn't make any sense. There is a difference between being nonrational and irrational.
Did I mention that I have no problem being irrational, either?

Whether or not logic is a human concept is irrelevant. As you pointed out, math is too, but math can still be applied in useful manners.
I don't find it irrelevant at all. As a human concept, it can't exist independently. Therefore, I find it absurd to say that humans should be slaves of logic.

[The One and Only...]

Did I mention that I have no problem being irrational, either?

Then what is the point of this discussion? You can believe whatever you choose to believe, however incorrect you are.

I don't find it irrelevant at all. As a human concept, it can't exist independently. Therefore, I find it absurd to say that humans should be slaves of logic.

I believe correct reasoning exists outside of humanity's perceptions of reason.

[Brandon]

Blindly following "reason" and rejecting the "irrational" is a dangerous formula in my opinion. Why? Because when examined with rules of logic, life itself is an illogical, absurd enterprise. We struggle to live knowing that we will one day die. Under these conditions, suicide and murder become legitimate, and we rob ourselves of enjoyment.

"Logic to the point of death," Camus called it.

I am an existentialist. I, myself, am the starting point. HUMANITY is the starting point. Ideologies that threaten or devalue the will to live must be disposed of. Ideologies that promote the will to live are to be promoted. Logic is useful, but once you enshrine it as a deity, you threaten life.

Nietzsche's criticism of Socrates:
The most blinding daylight; rationality at any price; life, bright, cold, cautious, conscious, without instinct, in opposition to the instincts--all this too was a mere disease, another disease, and by no means a return to "virtue," to "health," to happiness. To have to fight the instincts--that is the formula of decadence: as long as life is ascending, happiness equals instinct.

[theapportioner]

Not to mention, logical positivism as a philosophical school is sooo fucking dead.

[theapportioner]

Brandon, any Existentialist you favor more than others?

[Brandon]

Brandon, any Existentialist you favor more than others?
Camus and Nietzsche are my personal favorites.. I haven't read enough of Kierkegaard.

[theapportioner]

Kierkegaard's great, although I personally can't relate with the kind of existential crisis he has. Interesting because he's also quite the Kantian, IMO.

[The One and Only...]

Blindly following "reason" and rejecting the "irrational" is a dangerous formula in my opinion. Why? Because when examined with rules of logic, life itself is an illogical, absurd enterprise. We struggle to live knowing that we will one day die. Under these conditions, suicide and murder become legitimate, and we rob ourselves of enjoyment.

You completely misunderstand me. Logic is but a tool used to meet specific ends. But to me, philosophy's own end is the pursuit of truth; and truth, by its very nature, cannot be irrational. Why pursue this truth? I find it entertaining. But will it actually change anything? Probably not, and this is why it has been pointed out that philosophy is perhaps the most trivial of all pursuits.

It is important to make the distinction between nonrationality and irrationality. A nonrational thing is something which is not deduceded from reason. An irrational thing is something which directly opposes reason and therefore cannot be. Take, for example, belief in God. That would be nonrational, rather than irrational.

Your analogy is flawed, because, of course, you treat logic as if it were something more than a means. Logic cannot be an end in itself; logic must have some goal laid out for its application. I cannot even concieve logic being otherwise.

I am an existentialist. I, myself, am the starting point. HUMANITY is the starting point. Ideologies that threaten or devalue the will to live must be disposed of. Ideologies that promote the will to live are to be promoted. Logic is useful, but once you enshrine it as a deity, you threaten life.

First of all, are you a humanist or an existentialist? An existentialist would say "a man is the starting point of all things," while a humanist would say "man is the starting point of all things."

I do not enshrine means as a diety. I simply apply it rigorously in order to find the ends which I seek; in philosophy, truth; in life, happiness. Logic is the most efficient way to meet these ends, and hence why it becomes so important.

[MLE]

shut up

[Brandon]

You completely misunderstand me. Logic is but a tool used to meet specific ends. But to me, philosophy's own end is the pursuit of truth; and truth, by its very nature, cannot be irrational. Why pursue this truth? I find it entertaining. But will it actually change anything? Probably not, and this is why it has been pointed out that philosophy is perhaps the most trivial of all pursuits.
Philosophy to me has always been a search for understanding of my own existence, rather than a quest for verifiable "truth," but I guess everyone has different reasons. In my opinion, unless trying to know something "for sure" improves the conditions of my life, it's a worthless exercise.

It is important to make the distinction between nonrationality and irrationality. A nonrational thing is something which is not deduceded from reason. An irrational thing is something which directly opposes reason and therefore cannot be. Take, for example, belief in God. That would be nonrational, rather than irrational.
Life itself directly opposes reason, since to live when one must die is utterly absurd. But life exists, does it not?

Your analogy is flawed, because, of course, you treat logic as if it were something more than a means. Logic cannot be an end in itself; logic must have some goal laid out for its application. I cannot even concieve logic being otherwise.
I never once said that *I* conceive of logic as an end in itself. My attack was on people who have made it so in their own lives, such as Socrates, who felt that man must be rational at any price.

First of all, are you a humanist or an existentialist? An existentialist would say "a man is the starting point of all things," while a humanist would say "man is the starting point of all things."
I'm both. And yes, it is possible to say that the individual is the starting point while maintaining that human interest should be the primary consideration in philosophy.

I do not enshrine means as a diety. I simply apply it rigorously in order to find the ends which I seek; in philosophy, truth; in life, happiness. Logic is the most efficient way to meet these ends, and hence why it becomes so important.
So to you, knowing the "truth" will automatically make you happy, even if it is just limited to theoretical ideas that can be rationally proven?

[Helm]

I'd like to be part of this. Let's hope this time Clasp sticks to the idea. Please let's not read Beyond Good and Evil or anything else by said author whose name I never could spell without looking it up. Nietdjfsfdhghche as the romantic that he is has a tendency to write poetry instead of philosophy so it hurts my brain too much.

Philosophical positivism was a great idea and the fact that as a movement it is not fashionable does little to change how urgent it is that philosophy rids itself of all that superfuous tripe.

[theapportioner]

Suggest anything? I'd love to discuss LP (logical positivism) and things related to it (ordinary language philosophy, pragmatism, etc.) but thought these areas might be too esoteric for most people here.

[Helm]

seeing your other analytic/synthetic thread I'd say Carnap (Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung) would make for good discussing. It's also pretty basic into positivism so we can work our way towards neopositivism and bordering philosophies etc.

But we could always fuck around with Nietchfcdgewe.

[theapportioner]

Hey Brandon --

What do you think of Tom Nagel's criticism of Camus's Existentialism? Basically argues that Camus's elevation of the philosophical problem of suicide suggests that he is taking a too-serious attitude towards life. This flys in the face of the idea that life is absurd and inconsequential.

Helm --

As far as LP goes, there's always Ayer and Carnap. And before them, Russell and Moore. Wittgenstein's "Tractatus" is a formidable work so it's not exactly the best place to start. Maybe something by Bertrand Russell?

[theapportioner]

Whoops. Yeah Carnap sounds okay to me. Anyone else interested?

[Brandon]

Hey Brandon --

What do you think of Tom Nagel's criticism of Camus's Existentialism? Basically argues that Camus's elevation of the philosophical problem of suicide suggests that he is taking a too-serious attitude towards life. This flys in the face of the idea that life is absurd and inconsequential.
Existentialism acknowledges that while life is, by default, meaningless (in the cosmic sense), it is anything but meaningless to the living beings themselves. Camus saw no problem with this assertion. Existentialism is, after all, highly subjective.

[theapportioner]

Not to say that the question isn't serious (it is), but Camus's answer to the question of an individual life's absurdity is what Nagel takes aim at. Nagel suggests taking a more ironic, amused attitude, if I recall.

[Brandon]

Not to say that the question isn't serious (it is), but Camus's answer to the question of an individual life's absurdity is what Nagel takes aim at. Nagel suggests taking a more ironic, amused attitude, if I recall.
I agree that that's a valid solution, too. I think Camus was more concerned with answering the heavily dramatic, depressive types who would rationalize suicide--so he answered in dramatic terms.

I haven't read enough of Nagel, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how he and Camus' beliefs about what makes life absurd can't be reconciled. Nagel claimed that the subjective importance we place on our endeavours clashes with the objective futility of them, rendering life ridiculous. I don't understand how that isn't compatible with the idea that death will ultimately render our labors futile.

At any rate, both seem to draw the same conclusions, though their approach to handling the Absurd is a little different.

[Brandon]

Apportioner, do you know if I could find a copy of the Nagel article "the Absurd" anywhere online?

[Perndog]

I just read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Good stuff.

Oh, and Anton LaVey. :flamebait

[theapportioner]

Dunno about online sources, but I have a photocopied text of it somewhere in my room. If I can find it, I'd be happy to snail mail it to you.

[The_Rorschach]

Wiener. :)

[Protoclown]

One thing is clear to me after reading this thread. One Size Fits All is a GIANT FUCKING DORK.

[The One and Only...]

Philosophy to me has always been a search for understanding of my own existence, rather than a quest for verifiable "truth," but I guess everyone has different reasons. In my opinion, unless trying to know something "for sure" improves the conditions of my life, it's a worthless exercise.

Understanding existence is only one aspect of philosophy.

Life itself directly opposes reason, since to live when one must die is utterly absurd. But life exists, does it not?

It is not absurd just because you say it is. Life exists because it is possible for it to exist. That is not absurd.

I never once said that *I* conceive of logic as an end in itself. My attack was on people who have made it so in their own lives, such as Socrates, who felt that man must be rational at any price.

Every man must be rational at all times. You are using reason right now. Don't you get it? Socrates never claimed that rationality was the end. That would be a logical absurdity itself. It's simply that reason is the best, if not only, way to meet the set end, and therefore we should strive to be rational.

So to you, knowing the "truth" will automatically make you happy, even if it is just limited to theoretical ideas that can be rationally proven?

I am a very curious person.

[Anonymous]

Every man must be rational at all times.

Women, though, they're always irrational.:lol

Seriously, though, you can be irrational or rational whenever you want.

I am a very curious person.

And yet nearly every article you post is from the Cato Institute. Very curious, indeed.

[The One and Only...]

Women, though, they're always irrational.:lol

Seriously, though, you can be irrational or rational whenever you want.

The funny thing is, some feminists rejected rationality as inherently masculine, and felt that a greater role was necessary for emotions and intuition.

In any case, we should always try to be rational.

And yet nearly every article you post is from the Cato Institute. Very curious, indeed.

The Cato Institute is simply the biggest collection of libertarian articles on the web, and often the most respectable. Considering I'm a libertarian, where would you expect me to find the articles that I post? I don't see you posting from the Heritage Foundation, now do I?

[Anonymous]

In any case, we should always try to be rational.

There. Much better.

The Cato Institute is simply the biggest collection of libertarian articles on the web, and often the most respectable. Considering I'm a libertarian, where would you expect me to find the articles that I post? I don't see you posting from the Heritage Foundation, now do I?

How wonderfully condescending of you, young man. Unfortunately, I haven't been posting article after article from a single website, and then said that I was "very curious," so it doesn't work on the same level.

I merely meant that you should go look for other libertarian websites to link to. While Cato may be the biggest, that doesn't necessarily mean that it has every article that uses highly suspect scientific analyses to reach questionable conclusions. You might find a never before seen article on some other libertarian website.

On a related note, it seems like nearly everyone who reads this board has had the opportunity to point out three things about you:

1. You're a whiny young man with almost no real world experience.
2. You're an arrogant prick.

Seems it's my turn now. Quit being such a uppity tot.

[Brandon]

In any case, we should always try to be rational.
Why? You take it as such a fucking given.

OAO: "I WILL WIELD MY SUPERIOR LOGIC LIKE THE HAMMER OF THOR, TAKING REVENGE ON ALL THOSE STUPID JERKS WHO CALLED ME A WEINER!"

"Oh, they'll pay. How they will pay."

[Perndog]

Rationality is overrated. It may be important to be rational most of the time, but some of the most interesting and enlightening experiences I had were when I made irrational choices.

[Brandon]

It is not absurd just because you say it is. Life exists because it is possible for it to exist. That is not absurd.
I gave reasons as to why life is absurd:

1) Death renders our earthly strivings insignificant. (Camus' theory)

2) In the grand cosmic sense, our lives and strivings are insignificant already, yet we take them quite seriously. The discrepancy creates an absurd situation. (Nagel's theory)

Every man must be rational at all times. You are using reason right now. Don't you get it? Socrates never claimed that rationality was the end. That would be a logical absurdity itself. It's simply that reason is the best, if not only, way to meet the set end, and therefore we should strive to be rational.
And what "set end" is that, praytell?

[Perndog]

I'm having fun and I might live forever; therefore life is not absurd. (Perndog's theory)

[Brandon]

I'm done with this argument. It's bound to go on forever, and I think I just might start supporting positions I despise for the pleasure of contradicting that pompous fuckhead.

SO. BOOK CLUB. Any more ideas?

[cba1067950]

It is not absurd just because you say it is. Life exists because it is possible for it to exist. That is not absurd.
I gave reasons as to why life is absurd:

1) Death renders our earthly strivings insignificant. (Camus' theory)

2) In the grand cosmic sense, our lives and strivings are insignificant already, yet we take them quite seriously. The discrepancy creates an absurd situation. (Nagel's theory)

Every man must be rational at all times. You are using reason right now. Don't you get it? Socrates never claimed that rationality was the end. That would be a logical absurdity itself. It's simply that reason is the best, if not only, way to meet the set end, and therefore we should strive to be rational.
And what "set end" is that, praytell?

I know you said you were done with the arguement but I have a question. Sorry... :(

By saying it's important to discard logic when it doesn't suit your survival you're being logical. Is there something I'm missing in your arguement or is that a true statement?

[Brandon]

I know you said you were done with the arguement but I have a question. Sorry... :(

By saying it's important to discard logic when it doesn't suit your survival you're being logical. Is there something I'm missing in your arguement or is that a true statement?
I wasn't necessarily saying that logic is in itself a bad thing--it's merely a tool. I was more concerned with the danger of devaluing any behavior that couldn't be labeled as "rational" or (even worse) making rules of logic more important than human interest.

[cba1067950]

Yes and I totally agree but isn't that a logical outlook on life? I may be mixing logic and rationality or there may be some variation in ideals or something. I don't know...

I only ask because someone told me of a quote a while back stating that the only way to refute logic is to use logic which made sense to me.

[The One and Only...]

1) Death renders our earthly strivings insignificant. (Camus' theory)

How so? As long as our goal was to enjoy our life, the earthly strivings which benefitted us were not insignificant.

Futhermore, how does Camus know what happens to us after death?

2) In the grand cosmic sense, our lives and strivings are insignificant already, yet we take them quite seriously. The discrepancy creates an absurd situation. (Nagel's theory)

A far better case can be made to show how looking at the grand scheme of things in such a manner is itself absurd - for, after all, what does it matter to us?

Even Kant's test of morality could defeat that objection.

And what "set end" is that, praytell?

That would be relative to each person, would it not?

This is why we have so many problems in our world. Some think equality should be the end. Others feel that freedom should be the end. Some think that our own pleasure should be the end. Yet, none of these can be proven logically.

Tell me, what is your definition of logic, anyway?

[Brandon]

Yes and I totally agree but isn't that a logical outlook on life? I may be mixing logic and rationality or there may be some variation in ideals or something. I don't know...

I only ask because someone told me of a quote a while back stating that the only way to refute logic is to use logic which made sense to me.
I suppose you're right. I apologize for getting off-track in this thread, and I've been talking out of my ass a few times.

I guess what I've been trying to say is.. don't count on a life of strict, cold, rational behavior to give you a feeling of meaning or happiness. Reason is important, yes, but you shouldn't be logical to the point of absurdity. The nonrational elements of ourselves are usually the most enjoyable: our passions, our senses of humor, etc. They enrich our lives.

It's okay to be goofy. It's okay to give concessions to the instincts. We should use reason to temper our passions--to keep them from becoming destructive--rather than trying to eliminate them completely. That's not exactly a new idea, but it often becomes lost amidst all of our modern intellecutalizing.

EDIT: Oh, and OAO? We're done here. I just don't want to keep arguing with you, because lord knows you can go on forever.

[The One and Only...]

And you called my beliefs similar to Nietzche's...

[Brandon]

And you called my beliefs similar to Nietzche's...
What the hell do you mean by that, anyway? I called them similar to Rand's, who was influenced by Nietzsche. But that was when I assumed you were an objectivist.

[Miss Modular]

Not to interrupt the spat that's going on, but for you Existentialist enthusiasts out there:

What existential essay/book/what have you (best) explains the idea of "The Void"?

[Brandon]

Not to interrupt the spat that's going on, but for you Existentialist enthusiasts out there:

What existential essay/book/what have you (best) explains the idea of "The Void"?
If you're willing to read Sartre's massive Being and Nothingness, it does a good job of explaining "the void."

[Brandon]

I'd like to address something here in regard to Camus.

Nagel criticizes his work on a very narrow basis, assuming that the negation of death was his only rationale for calling life "absurd." Nagel then goes on to say that the discrepancy between the subjective importance we place on life clashes with the objective unimportance of it. The thing is? Camus never denied that this was so. He called life absurd on many levels, the most basic of which being that...

Man is a rational being who desires unity and meaning from a universe that is passive, silent, and elusive.

He dealt with the idea of death's negation primarily in The Myth of Sisyphus because it was a reflection on suicide. Some philosophers of the day were taking suicide to be a "solution" to the absurd, when Camus claimed it was just the logical opposite--it was acceptance at the extreme.

Camus was not a systematic philosopher inent on being "right"--he was much more concerned with finding a mindset by which someone could live a fulfilling life without despair. He writes to those who have already rejected divinity and accepted the Absurd as a rule of life.

[theapportioner]

Anyhoo, looks like noone is offering any more suggestions so we might as well go ahead and pick a book. Nietszche seems like the popular choice, and I'm down with that. I could also go for some Logical Positivism stuff, but if more people want Nietszche then we can hold that as the 2nd book. As for what to read specifically, anything that's not too obscure is fine by me. My prefs are for "Beyond Good and Evil" and "Genealogy of Morals" but I'm pretty open, and if someone's read these two and would like to read something else, that's cool.

How about we set a date, maybe Feb 7 or so? Obviously, if you want to chime in before then of course you can.

[The One and Only...]

And so, the onward march toward flavor-of-the-month nihilism within the intelligentsia continues...

[theapportioner]

Well, someone's gotta counter all the so-called science economics bullshit that's being thrown around these days...

[Brandon]

And so, the onward march toward flavor-of-the-month nihilism within the intelligentsia continues...
Seriously, fuck off. You don't have to do the book club if you don't want to, fatty.

[theapportioner]

Ppl still interested? Gimme an 'aye' is y'are. Might as well pick a book out to start things off - Nietszche's "Beyond Good and Evil". Due by Feb. 15. How does that sound????

[Helm]

Yes. I'm interested. Okay, let's with the overrated mad romantic . I'll download an english version of the book (my greek might create problems with quoting) and give it a second look.

[The One and Only...]

A question for Camus:

If there are no values, what is the value in revolt?

[Triad-Brother Choi]

Nietszche's "Beyond Good and Evil"
Is this (http://users.compaqnet.be/cn127103/Nietzsche_beyond_good_and_evil/) the right text? I'm just asking because I don't want to spend the next fourteen days failing to comprehend the wrong book.

[Brandon]

A question for Camus:

If there are no values, what is the value in revolt?
He only claimed that there were no objective values, twit. When he praises revolt, it's intended to be nothing more than one man's theory on how to effectively counter despair in the face of the Absurd.

Oh, and you can read Beyond Good and Evil for free online here (http://www.publicappeal.org/library/nietzsche/Nietzsche_beyond_good_and_evil/index.htm).

[The One and Only...]

Then why does he critique other people's values?

[Brandon]

Then why does he critique other people's values?
He's writing from a purely subjective standpoint and he acknowledges his own bias. Also, he's writing to a very narrow audience: those who, like him, are atheistic and refuse to make a leap of faith into the mystical. You can't read Camus as an objective, systematic philosopher who approaches problems as a "right or wrong" proposition.

The intentions of his writings are to:

A) find a way out of nihilism and despair
B) affirm human life in the here and now
C) deal with the Absurd without resorting to spirituality or attempting to "transcend" it

[The One and Only...]

I've read some Camus, and he seems to affirm that revolt has an objective meaning from the way he writes. He does not say that "I think revolt...", he says "Revolt...". Get what I'm saying?

[Triad-Brother Choi]

Nice wordplay. ;)

But if you actually understood what Brandon is trying to tell you, you'd realise that Camus has a very specific audience in mind for his writing, & that in this case "I think revolt..." & "Revolt..." are the same. :p

[Brandon]

I've read some Camus, and he seems to affirm that revolt has an objective meaning from the way he writes. He does not say that "I think revolt...", he says "Revolt...". Get what I'm saying?
He writes that way for practical purposes only after he's forewarned against the bias in his introductions. Have you actually read the primary sources? In the Myth of Sisyphus:

But it is useful at the same time to note that the absurd, hitherto taken as a conclusion, is considered in this essay as the starting-point. In this sense it may be said that there is something provisional in my commentary: one cannot prejudge the position it entails. There will be found here merely the description, in the pure state, of an intellectual malady. No metaphysic, no belief is involved in it for the moment. These are the limits and the only bias of this book. Certain personal experiences urge me to make this clear.
And as Triad and I pointed out, he's not writing to everyone.

[Perndog]

Any debatable statement with a definite subject ("Revolt...") is interpreted as a statement of opinion ("I think revolt...") so we use definite subjects to save space and add clarity. The first thing an English professor will tell you to do is to drop the words "I think" from your essays. You should be taking that class in a few years now.

[Helm]

Triad: yes, that is the text. Save for the silly song at the end. We're not discussing the song. We're definately not discussing the song.

[Triad-Brother Choi]

Song?


I fear I may be the butt of a joke, but I'm unclear as to what 'song' you refer. :/

[Helm]

http://users.compaqnet.be/cn127103/Nietzsche_beyond_good_and_evil/bge-epode.htm

Nietchgrhgjkege being the total art fag that he is, finishes off Beyond good and Evil with a poem of his. And it sucks. And we're not discussing it. Ever.

[theapportioner]

I haven't even started reading it yet!!

[Helm]

Give it another 30 days then? I haven't finished rereading either.

[Triad-Brother Choi]

I am in the middle, & quite perplexed. An extension would be most auspicious.

Thank You.

[theapportioner]

An extension's fine. Maybe like the end of February?

[Helm]

Right.

[Triad-Brother Choi]

I take the silence from everyone as a sign that you've all done as much reading as I have for this. Namely none. Which is a shame as I certainly launched myself at the text at first with much verve & interest.

Your Triad Friend,
Choi.

[Helm]

I read the whole thing again. :(

[Zhukov]

I was planning to read it, and pretend I knew what I was doing.

Couldn't be stuffed though.

The last couple of posts in this thread are a real hoot.

[The_Rorschach]

Yeah but Helm, Niezche works were all written originally in German. I mean, not everyone can be a Louis Silverstien.

[Helm]

Through The Sumer fields I ride
My Beacon of Silver Light
A fertile Crescent
The Bearer of Plague

Under iron rule (of)
Patriarchs of christ
I refuse their poison
Crucifix Will Fall

For Centuries they?ll Crawl

Parched with the search for wisdom
Drowned in their holy lies
The Dusk of theology
Never dawns to man

Bread of the cult of the dead
Wine of the cult of the dead
In the court prepared

Crescentian...

Tear down the sun from heavens
Set Ablaze Our Mercury Hearts
A Satanic Millenium
The Era of...

Rend their robes Asunder
Bombard the temples
Leave Not stone upon stone
Like A Scythe We Will Reap!!!

And rejoice Crescentian Night

[theapportioner]

I kinda got sidetracked with a ton of work at lab, but I'm almost finished. Might as well get something started.

What, IYO, is Nietszche's rationale for criticizing utilitarianism as a moral theory? How is it different from classical morality? Thoughts?

[The_Rorschach]

Oooh oooh oooh! I'm going to get an Einstein quote from home before I respond to this one. I actually know the answer for once!

[Helm]

Practicality should not be the determining factor of morality, since morality determines action, not the other way around. Comes first Hm... Whether said action is 'practical' or not should not be a determining factor. In that utilitarianism suggests the opposite (well, generally speaking. it does consider practicality a decisive factor nonetheless), Nietszcgsdhe found much to be disgusted at, understandably. Utilitarianism has right what proves beneficial for the majority. Utilitarianism thinks the best what is best for the most. And we have nietscxdgfdhwe who stresses how the difficult stuff in life (pain, uncomfortableness) are very important in making life something worth living. Pain is sort of a failsafe for any philosophy or knowledge, in testing. Sort of a no pain no gain thing.

Nietscdghne's own morality is based on moral abstraction. His 'virtues' are detached from circumstance and do not fail to apply if they're too difficult or too painful or whatever. In that I completely agree with him since I consider awareness and undertsanding to be more important that wellbeing.

In the other hand, a society fails to achieve the basic educational foundation so as to be aware if it's not at least generally content, materially... but I doubt nitesfsdgfhche cared at all for how his morality were to be applied massively.