Philosophy: What does it take?

[Discordian 6,013]

At least I'm good for something!

 

But seriously. Sorry Steel Accord. I've hijacked your topic long enough.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

 

 

As for individualism, look into the existentialists, such as Camus and Nietzsche. They can get political, but sidestep it if you wish. You might like the American transcendentalists like Thoreau. Oscar Wilde wrote a lot about being true to yourself; he was a consummate bohemian.

 

I will definitely look into those schools of thought. (Already am a fan of Wilde even.) I thank you very much for your recommendation and wisdom. 

 

I may not be a true philosopher yet, but I do feel like you've pointed me in the right direction.

 

Again, I invite you to my posted "Jedi and Sith" thread if you're just in for a fun little thought experiment.

At least I'm good for something!

But seriously. Sorry Steel Accord. I've hijacked your topic long enough.

 

You have? Funny I didn't even notice, this thread is about discerning what it means to be a philosopher and you just seem to be proposing your own theories and thoughts. Same as the rest of us.

 

Your inclusion was fully welcomed.

 

 

I propose the invention of sincere sarcasm, right now. 

 

Isn't that a logical impossibility? One can't have a spherical square. 

[Discordian 6,013]

I will definitely look into those schools of thought. (Already am a fan of Wilde even.) I thank you very much for your recommendation and wisdom. 

 

I may not be a true philosopher yet, but I do feel like you've pointed me in the right direction.

 

Again, I invite you to my posted "Jedi and Sith" thread if you're just in for a fun little thought experiment.

 

 

You have? Funny I didn't even notice, this thread is about discerning what it means to be a philosopher and you just seem to be proposing your own theories and thoughts. Same as the rest of us.

 

Your inclusion was fully welcomed.

 

 

 

 

Isn't that a logical impossibility? One can't have a spherical square.

I often feel bad about the fact that when I come into a topic like this and continuously talk about my points. I feel like a hijacker but if you haven't minded it then all is well.

 

Also, I give you....the spherical square:

 

 

 

 

Okay so it's cheating but whatevs.

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

@@Discordian,@@Steel Accord, @@Nine, I'm really enjoying this conversation! This is a neat little philosophy club we've created!

 

Also, if anyone else has any favorite philosophers, please share! 

[Nine 707]

 

 

Isn't that a logical impossibility? One can't have a spherical square. 

What are you talking about? My room is literally filled with spherical squares.

On an unrelated note, I am visiting earth from a non-Euclidian universe.

 

Anyway, the closest thing I can actually think of is that sometimes I will say something that may or may not be true, but in a way that reflects my opinion of a popular viewpoint regarding the statement itself.

 

For example, I might say something like "Look I'm all for that love and tolerance jazz and I'm sure that gays are lovely people, but they piss off Jesus so .. you know .. HARCHHCHCH [makes noose/hanging gesture]". That's what I'd call sincere sarcasm - subverting an actually good opinion with something clearly lampooned as ridiculous.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

I often feel bad about the fact that when I come into a topic like this and continuously talk about my points. I feel like a hijacker but if you haven't minded it then all is well.

 

Also, I give you....the spherical square:

 

 

 

 

Okay so it's cheating but whatevs.

 

You know, your name and avatar image are very fitting.

 

If Discord had met you, he wouldn't have needed Fluttershy's reformation, he would have already had a friend.

 

Would you mind if I based a character in my fanfic off of you?

@@Discordian,@@Steel Accord, @@Nine, I'm really enjoying this conversation! This is a neat little philosophy club we've created!

 

Also, if anyone else has any favorite philosophers, please share! 

 

Well I've always been a fan of Ayn Rand.

 

. . . . Why do I suddenly feel the slight heat of a laser pointer on my forehead?

 

BOOM

 

In all seriousness though-

 

*dabs off blood with a napkin*

 

-I have based a number of my views on Rand's Objectivism, if not adhering to them strictly.

[Discordian 6,013]

You know, your name and avatar image are very fitting.

 

If Discord had met you, he wouldn't have needed Fluttershy's reformation, he would have already had a friend.

 

Would you mind if I based a character in my fanfic off of you?

I don't mind at all. Just be sure to link it at some point so I can give it a read. I'm not usually one for fanfics (I'm more of a comics guy) but I can't pass up something like this.

 

And thanks. There's a reason Discord remains my favorite character in the series.

 

@@Discordian,@@Steel Accord, @@Nine, I'm really enjoying this conversation! This is a neat little philosophy club we've created!

 

Also, if anyone else has any favorite philosophers, please share!

Kant is one I've seen a few things from. Have you ever heard of the theory of Noumenon and Phenomenon? I've liked this theory before I even knew there was a proper theory about it.

 

It might even give you some insight to the way I think. Whereas most people believe in the Phenomenon, I tend to focus on the Noumenon and then take it to an extreme.

 

I don't claim to fully understand everything about the theory but the basics are pretty cool.

 

There's also a song that lead me to discovering of the theory in the first place.

 

Check it out. Warning: May need a lyrics page in front of you if you don't understand growling vocals very well.

 

One of the reasons I love this band is they often have songs that talk about science and philosophical things. So much

[Nine 707]

Well I've always been a fan of Ayn Rand.

 

Actually I'm pretty sure the main reason why people don't like Ayn Rand is because they have absolutely no idea what she said or wrote about literally anything. I don't think I've ever heard a person say they didn't like Ayn Rand, without immediately citing a reason that was literally the fundamental opposite of what she said.

People are so horribly misinformed about Objectivism, it's fascinating. People know more about quantum gravity than they do about this. It's weird. And they're *so sure* of themselves while they're talking. They're not merely ignorant, they're building a monument to ignorance. People want to hate Rand, and I have never understood why. Her actual philosophy? People are good, reason is superior to violence, values should be privately chosen, not publicly enforced. What is so evil about that that it warrants the unending hate it gets?

Someone please tell me so I'll finally know.

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

@@Steel Accord, I do think she gets a lot of undue hate. Many academics just don't take her seriously. Maybe it's because she wrote novels instead of treatises...?

 

Anyway, while I don't hate her, as a communitarian, I largely don't agree with her. But, I don't think she can be as dismissed as she has been.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

 

 

I don't mind at all. Just be sure to link it at some point so I can give it a read. I'm not usually one for fanfics (I'm more of a comics guy) but I can't pass up something like this. And thanks. There's a reason Discord remains my favorite character in the series.

 

I will link you in time. I'm quite a ways off from writing your character's part you see. At some point, the hero is going to need friends, a team that will be the very image of a rag-tag bunch of misfits!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RagtagBunchOfMisfits

[Discordian 6,013]

I am a patient man. I don't mind a little wait.

 

One of the reasons I love philosophy: It's not so easily defined as some of the "harder" sciences. There's so many shades to even one theory.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

 

 

People are good, reason is superior to violence, values should be privately chosen, not publicly enforced. What is so evil about that that it warrants the unending hate it gets? Someone please tell me so I'll finally know.

 

Well maybe it's exactly the reasons you cited. 

 

I think a good number of people hold that humans are naturally evil and that anyone with power will abuse it, unfailingly. Like it's a law of nature. Of course people abuse power, just as much though, people are also responsible. And I'm much more at peace believing a flawed human who's earned his position is making something I'll use, then a disembodied committee coming together to decide for me, what I'll use. 

@@Steel Accord, I do think she gets a lot of undue hate. Many academics just don't take her seriously. Maybe it's because she wrote novels instead of treatises...?

 

Anyway, while I don't hate her, as a communitarian, I largely don't agree with her. But, I don't think she can be as dismissed as she has been.

 

Well as one who wants to be a writer, maybe that's why I latched on to her in the first place. She expressed her philosophy through her characters.

[Discordian 6,013]

Well maybe it's exactly the reasons you cited. 

 

I think a good number of people hold that humans are naturally evil and that anyone with power will abuse it, unfailingly. Like it's a law of nature. Of course people abuse power, just as much though, people are also responsible. And I'm much more at peace believing a flawed human who's earned his position is making something I'll use, then a disembodied committee coming together to decide for me, what I'll use. 

 

 

Well as one who wants to be a writer, maybe that's why I latched on to her in the first place. She expressed her philosophy through her characters.

I'm unsure if humans are naturally anything unless influenced by those around them. I dunno if it's ever actually been tested though. I've heard of fictional tests about people being raised to think one thing and not the other or to not think one way or the other about a subject but fiction can only get you so far.

 

Knowledge seemingly corrupts us. Without knowledge, we can do nothing. With knowledge we are set on a path. That path usually determines how we view the world. I wonder if it's possible to be given knowledge but not have it sway or color your view of the world at all...

[Nine 707]

I think a good number of people hold that humans are naturally evil and that anyone with power will abuse it, unfailingly.

Yeah well now we arrive at the crux of the issue. The loud, ignorant criticisms leveled at Rand have always sounded more to me like a confession than a rebuttal.

I guess if I were to refine my question, it'd be why do people hold that humans are naturally evil? Humans are naturally human. It's what Rand calls the metaphysically given. We can IMAGINE everyone holding hands under a rainbow and giving away everything they don't need to people who do, but that fantasy isn't concordant with reality for NUMEROUS, VERY GOOD REASONS. And when people wake up in reality again, they're disappointed because they're comparing it to an imaginary standard. Compared to utopia, yeah, everything sucks. And then somehow people make the jump to believing that building utopia is as simple as holding everyone up at gunpoint and demanding they do it.

People .. are weird like that. Really weird.

As for abuse of power, if people knew a little more about game theory, this criticism would probably dry up as well. In essence, in any system where cheating is more profitable after cost than co-operating, expect people to cheat. Ethics is defined more by what works than anything, so when people try like hell to link morality to sacrifice and then wonder why they don't get enough buy-in to make it work, *I* stand there wondering how they could be so clueless. Set up a system that encourages the whole world to cheat it, then wonder why the whole world is cheating it? Every communist regime there ever was has had secret police to root out dissidence and betrayal of the social order. Families are encouraged to report members for breaching the party ideals. It's insane. Literally insane .. to expect people to consistently do what is NOT in their best interest. Then more so to label reason as evil for doing it.

If that's why people don't like Rand (and it seems to me that it pretty much is) then I don't feel unwarranted dismissing them with a rude gesture. 

 

 

 

I'm unsure if humans are naturally anything unless influenced by those around them.

Rand said people are born tabula rasa - a blank slate. I tend to agree.

 

 

 

I wonder if it's possible to be given knowledge but not have it sway or color your view of the world at all...

 

Now that IS an interesting thought. Sometimes I've felt like I've approached this point ..

Edited March 30, 2014 by Nine

[Discordian 6,013]

Yeah well now we arrive at the crux of the issue. The loud, ignorant criticisms leveled at Rand have always sounded more to me like a confession than a rebuttal.

I guess if I were to refine my question, it'd be why do people hold that humans are naturally evil? Humans are naturally human. It's what Rand calls the metaphysically given. We can IMAGINE everyone holding hands under a rainbow and giving away everything they don't need to people who do, but that fantasy isn't concordant with reality for NUMEROUS, VERY GOOD REASONS. And when people wake up in reality again, they're disappointed because they're comparing it to an imaginary standard. Compared to utopia, yeah, everything sucks. And then somehow people make the jump to believing that building utopia is as simple as holding everyone up at gunpoint and demanding they do it.

People .. are weird like that. Really weird.

As for abuse of power, if people knew a little more about game theory, this criticism would probably dry up as well. In essence, in any system where cheating is more profitable after cost than co-operating, expect people to cheat. Ethics is defined more by what works than anything, so when people try like hell to link morality to sacrifice and then wonder why they don't get enough buy-in to make it work, *I* stand there wondering how they could be so clueless. Set up a system that encourages the whole world to cheat it, then wonder why the whole world is cheating it? Every communist regime there ever was has had secret police to root out dissidence and betrayal of the social order. Families are encouraged to report members for breaching the party ideals. It's insane. Literally insane .. to expect people to consistently do what is NOT in their best interest. Then more so to label reason as evil for doing it.

If that's why people don't like Rand (and it seems to me that it pretty much is) then I don't feel unwarranted dismissing them with a rude gesture. 

 

 

 

Rand said people are born tabula rasa - a blank slate. I tend to agree.

 

 

 

 

Now that IS an interesting thought. Sometimes I've felt like I've approached this point ..

So that's where the "man is a blank slate" idea came from. It certainly makes sense considering the sheer variety of people in the world but at the same time it's something that would be hard to explicitly prove. From day one we are influenced by the faces and emotions of those around us. It's these few moments that could define our entire view on the world unless there is a massive change at some point in our futures.

 

So then...is the blank slate "emotionless" (to put it simply, VERY simply lol) or is it simply that initial experience in the world? Do the things we hear in the womb affect any of that? I think it's been proven that people do hear things before birth though on what level is probably unknowable.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Discordian

[Steel Accord 6,658]

@@Discordian,

 

What you are talking about sounds a little like Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene. He deposited that ideas spread and mutate just like living organisms, with human expression as how they are transferred.

 

Grunt from Mass Effect, was grown in a vat by his creator. All the knowledge he has was fed directly to him, this extends from basic things like talking, to extensive combat training, to exhaustive history of the Krogan people, especially the lineages that were distilled into his genetic makeup.

 

However, when you release him from his tank, he doesn't seem to have much of an opinion of his creator or his clan.

 

"I'm trained, I know things . . . but the tank . . . . Okeer couldn't implant connection . . . . his words are hollow."

 

This may be an indication that knowledge doesn't effect opinion if it's devoid of context. Because Grunt's entire life was planted directly in his head, he doesn't have any actual reality to form opinions of it. He knows about his race's enemies and the past atrocities committed by and against them, but he personally feels no enmity toward anyone; just a natural krogan belligerence.

 

This is later supported when he actually does start forming opinions of his own, and he's almost giddy with the novelty of it.

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

r@@Nine, This does appear to be the truth. It is certainly the story of humanity in history!

 

I've been trying to reconcile my beliefs in a strong humanistic individualism with a "Greater Good" focus. I'm not talking about approaches like communism, but something else...

 

I should just write a summary and put it here sometime.

Edited March 30, 2014 by OmniaVincitEquorum

[Discordian 6,013]

@@Discordian,

 

What you are talking about sounds a little like Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene. He deposited that ideas spread and mutate just like living organisms, with human expression as how they are transferred.

 

Grunt from Mass Effect, was grown in a vat by his creator. All the knowledge he has was fed directly to him, this extends from basic things like talking, to extensive combat training, to exhaustive history of the Krogan people, especially the lineages that were distilled into his genetic makeup.

 

However, when you release him from his tank, he doesn't seem to have much of an opinion of his creator or his clan.

 

"I'm trained, I know things . . . but the tank . . . . Okeer couldn't implant connection . . . . his words are hollow."

 

This may be an indication that knowledge doesn't effect opinion if it's devoid of context. Because Grunt's entire life was planted directly in his head, he doesn't have any actual reality to form opinions of it. He knows about his race's enemies and the past atrocities committed by and against them, but he personally feels no enmity toward anyone; just a natural krogan belligerence.

 

This is later supported when he actually does start forming opinions of his own, and he's almost giddy with the novelty of it.

The Mass Effect series really seems to take video games to a whole new level of awesome in making a connection between sci-fi and reality. I've never played the games myself but I've seen numerous talks about the science in the games and whether they are true to life or at least possible. I remember a few weeks ago one of the world's leading physicists was talking about the possibility of some of the things in the series from invisibility to barriers. A surprising amount of them were actually deemed plausible, if not possible within the next hundred years at least.

 

I really do need to play these games. :okiedokielokie:

r@@Nine, 

This does appear to be the truth. It is certainly the story of humanity in history!

 

I've been trying to reconcile my beliefs in a strong humanistic individualism with a "Greater Good" focus. I'm not talking about approaches like communism, but something else...

 

I should just write a summary and put it here sometime.

"The Greater Good" often makes me think "Most problems are simple, it's humans that make them difficult"

 

Not sure if that even remotely applies but the fact that there is a difference between "good" and "greater good" in the first places seems like an unnecessary, albeit very real, complication.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Discordian

[Nine 707]

 

So that's where the "man is a blank slate" idea came from. It certainly makes sense considering the sheer variety of people in the world but at the same time it's something that would be hard to explicitly prove. From day one we are influenced by the faces and emotions of those around us. It's these few moments that could define our entire view on the world unless there is a massive change at some point in our futures.

So then...is the blank slate "emotionless" (to put it simply, VERY simply lol) or is it simply that initial experience in the world? Does the things we hear in the womb affect any of that? I think it's been proven that people do hear things before birth though on what level is probably unknowable.

The tabula rasa idea is older than Rand, but she endorses it. Her view of people is that at birth they're a fresh install, and that the elemental framework of values begins with perceptions of pleasure and pain, and that the root values these produce (like wanting to live, being the simplest of them all) are basically good, but that all the things we learn culturally could be swapped out completely.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about approaches like communism, but something else

Personally, this is where I get off the philosophy bus and get on the economics bus. There are way, way, way, WAY, WAY too many people who approach the subject of normative behavior with ideas that require universal adherence. The fact is, all people need to have is something of value to enough other people that they can cooperate peacefully. The rules to best set up an arena like this are well known already. All people need, I think, is to understand the key economic principles that demonstrate the truth of those rules.

It's a shame we can't teach 100-level economics courses to kindergartners, because I think we could wipe out stupidity in a single generation with this one move.

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

@@Nine, I see where you're coming from. For me, I think one of the pillars of a good society is a reverence for all knowledge, including economics. I think books should be prized possessions for everyone. The greatest "sin" should be destroying knowledge, and depriving people of the freedom of thought.

 

Far too many collectivists jump to coercion as a means of control. In an educated populace, coercion is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

r@@Nine, This does appear to be the truth. It is certainly the story of humanity in history!

 

I've been trying to reconcile my beliefs in a strong humanistic individualism with a "Greater Good" focus. I'm not talking about approaches like communism, but something else...

 

I should just write a summary and put it here sometime.

Well if you are talking about actual application, it's tricky, but I think it can be done.

 

The first stipulation though that should be made is that the society lived in is one where you can "opt-in." Rather than the assumed social contact that we are assigned at birth by most polities, your system would have all citizens choose at the age of consent whether they beleive inand wish to be a part of the community.

 

Already that solves many moral problems because every "citizen" already has agreed to surrender whatever amount of liberty, however little, your ruling body requires.

 

From there it's just a matter of letting people do as they wish and draw their own conclusions.

It's a shame we can't teach 100-level economics courses to kindergartners, because I think we could wipe out stupidity in a single generation with this one move.

Well I'm certain you could try, but if Schoolhouse Rock failed to teach me times tables, I doubt that level of economics would stick with them past the duration of the class.

[Nine 707]

Far too many collectivists jump to coercion as a means of control. In an educated populace, coercion is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive.

Agreed. I don't have anything more to add to that.

 

So I'll go back and flesh out my opinion of how we raise our kids. From what I've seen (and what I remember), as kids we're taught that we should be good, and good is what our teachers and parents say it is. We should be nice because it's good. We should share because it's good. And we should want to be good, because good is good.

It's all very .. arbitrary and circular.

Only later on in life are we introduced to the idea that we should actually have personal motivations for our behavior, and that it's not all driven by floating morality. But by then, we've already cemented in this early notion that moral behavior and purposeful behavior aren't necessarily connected.

I think this ruins people for life. It teaches kids that morality is frequently the enemy of personal gain, and that we have to make a choice between victimizing or being victims. It makes morality often impracticable when defending personal values that we aren't taught the basis for, and that conditional rejection of morality turns into the endorsement of violence and dictatorship, when people conclude that there isn't a moral way to solve every problem. And none of it's true. It's *all* bullshit.

 

 

 

I doubt that level of economics would stick with them past the duration of the class.

 

Heh .. yeah I know. Just a fanciful thought.

What I actually think is discussed above; that kids shouldn't be taught to be good "just because", but that we should teach them that good things are good because they benefit you. Parents shy away from this because they fear selfishness, but I think that's because people think selfishness is bad, and it's not. Not necessarily anyway.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Nine

[Steel Accord 6,658]

@@Nine,

 

Far too many collectivists jump to coercion as a means of control. In an educated populace, coercion is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive.

Would you call yourself a form of collectivist, my latin speaking *padding padding padding * friend? If so, what specific form?

[Discordian 6,013]

And this is where I'm gonna start fading out of this conversation.

 

Because you guys use really big words. I'm pretty dumb so until I have researched the meaning of such words and groups I won't be able to take part in the conversation. But I'll always be right around the corner, waiting to pounce.... :okiedokielokie:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Steel Accord 6,658]

Agreed. I don't have anything more to add to that.

 

So I'll go back and flesh out my opinion of how we raise our kids. From what I've seen (and what I remember), as kids we're taught that we should be good, and good is what our teachers and parents say it is. We should be nice because it's good. We should share because it's good. And we should want to be good, because good is good.

It's all very .. arbitrary and circular.

Only later on in life are we introduced to the idea that we should actually have personal motivations for our behavior, and that it's not all driven by floating morality. But by then, we've already cemented in this early notion that moral behavior and purposeful behavior aren't necessarily connected.

I think this ruins people for life. It teaches kids that morality is frequently the enemy of personal gain, and that we have to make a choice between victimizing or being victims. It makes morality often impracticable when defending personal values that we aren't taught the basis for, and that conditional rejection of morality turns into the endorsement of violence and dictatorship, when people conclude that there isn't a moral way to solve every problem. And none of it's true. It's *all* bullshit.

 

Heh .. yeah I know. Just a fanciful thought.

What I actually think is discussed above; that kids shouldn't be taught to be good "just because", but that we should teach them that good things are good because they benefit you. Parents shy away from this because they fear selfishness, but I think that's because people think selfishness is bad, and it's not. Not necessarily anyway.

I absolutely agree.

 

What happened to "follow your dreams"?

 

Two of our beloved ponies embody this lesson beautifully; Rarity and Rainbow Dash.

 

The former is an entrepreneur for Luna's sake! And never are her motivations treated as bad, but her methods, and that's really what matters. (Or at least from a deotological position.)

 

My point being that wrongdoing on the path to achieving your dreams undermines both your integrity as well as the ultimate point of having the dream in the first place.

 

Both Rainbow and Rarity have struggled with this exact obstacle many times. Whether it's taking a dubious short-cut for a short term gain or sacrificing your honor to obtain your end goal.

And this is where I'm gonna start fading out of this conversation.

 

Because you guys use really big words. I'm pretty dumb so until I have researched the meaning of such words and groups I won't be able to take part in the conversation. But I'll always be right around the corner, waiting to pounce.... :okiedokielokie:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh come on!

 

I literally padded out one of my last posts, I'm not that smart!

 

Of course, if you have to go, by all means, don't let us keep you.