Philosophy etc. Book Club

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

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]

Originally Posted by Dorkus

Every man must be rational at all times.

Women, though, they're always irrational.

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...]

Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie

Women, though, they're always irrational.

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]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

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]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

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]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

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]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

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)

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]

Originally Posted by cba1067950

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.