Philosophy etc. Book Club

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

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...]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

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]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

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]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

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]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

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...]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

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:

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

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]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

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...]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

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