The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:47 am

Ecmandu wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:The biggest consent violation of all is being conceived because from that single event comes the totality of ones existence
But most do not commit suicide so presumably had no problem with their consent being violated on that specific occasion

This is where your theory of consent violation fundamentally fails and why it therefore cannot be accepted
For had our parents never violated our consent like this we would not experience any suffering in existence


Birth is neutral. Consent comes later. Saying that all births are consent violations is like saying the leading cause of death is birth - birth is also the leading cause of life.

Consent violation is binary and most suicidal people live against their will because they don’t have a desirable method available to them.

Consent violation is ultimately, however, binary for this reason... if you believe that minor ones are acceptable (which ranges a lot between people), then you have accepted consent violation wholesale.

People don’t accept consent violations, they just have different things that violate their consent. Just because what violates most people’s consent doesn’t violate yours, does not mean, like you, that they accepted the “consent violation”. Just because they didn’t stab themselves in the heart with a spoon doesn’t mean they aren’t having their consent violated, in fact, if that’s their only option, they’re having their life consent violated AND their suicide consent violated as well.

The axiom still holds. Nobody likes their consent violated. I know for a fact that you don’t. I know for a fact that it’s binary for you.


I wanted to add more to this. The reason you’re not going to be successful with your type of argument is because your brain has less life experience (your ignorant comments about suicide) and is more narcissistic.

I say narcissistic because you’d consider it “extreme” consent violation for YOU if YOU were chained up in a basement for a few decades. BUT!! It’s not an extreme consent violation for YOU that this is actually happening to OTHERS right NOW.

You are not in a position to teach in this conversation...

Ask and learn.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9289
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:54 am

Consent violations are an inevitable consequence of existence for all living things
And because they are inevitable there is nothing one can do but just accept them

Consent violations occur because the Universe is in part deterministic so things will happen that are beyond our control
The only way that consent violations could not occur is where free will was absolute and no one imposed on anyone else

Some consent violations can be tempered with a reward so that the violation is not seen as being as bad as it is
Other times the consent violation may be so small or common that it is not actually seen as a consent violation

It is most definitely on a spectrum because not all bad things are equally bad because some are obviously worse than others
To say they are equally bad is like saying all crimes are equally bad and that punishment for them should therefore be equal
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1213
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:11 am

To me consent violation only applies to things that I am experiencing and not anyone else
If someone is chained up in a basement there is nothing I can do about that unfortunately

But you claim to be an empath and so what are you Ecmandu doing about all of those poor souls chained up in basements everywhere
Arguing with random strangers on the internet is not helping them at all but as an empath should you not be helping them right now

Their consent violation is not bothering you too much because like me you cannot see them and so cannot help them
You cannot help the whole world no matter how empathic you are as you can only help a very small number of people
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1213
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby MagsJ » Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:56 am

surreptitious75 wrote:To me consent violation only applies to things that I am experiencing and not anyone else
If someone is chained up in a basement there is nothing I can do about that unfortunately

But you claim to be an empath and so what are you Ecmandu doing about all of those poor souls chained up in basements everywhere
Arguing with random strangers on the internet is not helping them at all but as an empath should you not be helping them right now

Their consent violation is not bothering you too much because like me you cannot see them and so cannot help them
You cannot help the whole world no matter how empathic you are as you can only help a very small number of people

These holidays are hard on all, and so I wish All a good night.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 19124
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:42 am

Ecmandu wrote:I want to focus, to some degree here, the philosophical parasite that iambiguous is.

Everyone knows that they don’t want their consent violated. This is a moral given.

Iambiguous speaks of “existential contraptions” without defining himself out of them, which CONTRADICTS his reason for posting ... a contradiction he is using to fit in with females and makes trying to get laid.

Iambiguous is a dickhead. Pure and simple. Not a philosopher.

Iambiguous definitely has a problem where he had dug his own deep-shit-hole and prefer to wallow in it with his defensive 'contraptions,' existential, intellectual, etc.

My suggestion to you is to take the helicopter view and see from that top view without being emotional engaging in it, else, you will be caught in a ruminating cycle of being splashed with his shit and mud continually.

To end philosophy will require faith.
The purpose of philosophy is to open up philosophy-proper.

BertrandRussell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true,
but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;


Thus philosophy-proper is eternally an open-ended quest.
Not necessary must be the right question, even the wrong questions are welcome because if one keep question one's wrong questions and answers, one will strive towards improving one's knowledge continuously.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2768
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby MagsJ » Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:49 am

One cannot blame one’s viewpoint, on another’s dilemma! ergo.. we, and he. No!
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 19124
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:02 pm

Surreptitious!

- It is not a level of determinism that causes consent violation. Existence could be totally determined and violate no ones consent.

- The idea that you’re the only one who can violate your consent is absurd. I don’t even know why you’re arguing that.

- If consent can be violated in any instance, it can be violated in every instance. If I see someone flash me a peace sign, I know in that instant that the whole world is seriously shitty. Minor for me? No, because, I can abstract the implications.

- Consent violation happens for two reasons:
1.) zero sum scenarios
2.) negative non zero sum scenarios

What am I doing to fix it?

Two things:

1.) I’m teaching people how to construct better zero sum scenarios in this world

2.) I’m constructing positive non zero sum realities in the form of hyperdimensional mirror realities

- you have a very narcissistic proximity problem (it’s very common) if your mother were chained in a basement and you knew it, but knew you couldn’t find her... you’d roil in agony your entire life. If it’s some child from Slovakia— you don’t give a shit. You don’t feel it at all.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9289
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:26 am

Philosophy in the sense of debating and understanding arguments is indeed a useless loop, it takes a gigantic effort of power and intelligence to rise above that veil and attain power over ones mind. When this is accomplished, one is able to see through all arguments into the intention behind it, and from there on it is impossible to get stuck in the loop. Intention is not abstract.

One key to successfully battling Iambiguous would be to discern his intention. Few people have managed this on this site.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:36 am

I thought the point to philosophy was to discover what is wisest to do. Perhaps the wisest thing to do is endlessly debate what is wisest to do. But that would make it a religion.

How could this conundrum be resolved without first resolving what is wisest to do? And then do it.

Isn't every religion merely an attempt to follow what is wise (not necessarily what is true)?
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:43 am

obsrvr524 wrote:I thought the point to philosophy was to discover what is wisest to do.

I don't believe that it is - this only became the case with Socrates, who said that it is wisest to not exist.
Christianity came as a result of this. (not of only this - but this element was required)

I would say that wisdom does not allow generalization and universalization, so that to philosophize about what in general is wisest is necessarily folly.

Perhaps the wisest thing to do is endlessly debate what is wisest to do. But that would make it a religion.

Religion involves no debate about what is wisest, it rather involves some debate about how to interpret some holy text which are presumed to have arisen from absolute wisdom.

Philosophy as debating about what is wisest; Socrates through Kant, is even more fruitless though.

How could this conundrum be resolved without first resolving what is wisest to do? And then do it.

But, wisest in what circumstance?
Wisest with respect to what kind of aim?

The farthest post Socratic philosophers got was to establish that it is wisest to have no aims at all.

Isn't every religion merely an attempt to follow what is wise (not necessarily what is true)?

At least an attempt to avoid divine punishment. I guess one could call this wise.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Dec 28, 2019 1:00 am

I thought the very word philosophy meant "the love of wisdom".
The Origins and Branches of Philosophy wrote: The rather vague definition 'love of wisdom' comes from the origin and etymology of the Greek word 'philosophy': philo ("love") and sophia ("wisdom").

But looking up English dictionaries today, they conflate "love of truth, knowledge, or science" with "philosophy".

I smell a political linguistic rat in the works.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2019 1:03 am

I think maters are solved when one realizes that Sophia is not a word referring to right or wrong action, nor to right and wrong in general.

Wisdom, in as far as it is a translation of Sophia, is not a judgement about what one must do, but rather a realization of what one is. If I am to put it succinctly and incompletely.
By such a realization one has, obviously turned into something different from what one was before it.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby promethean75 » Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:11 am

I thought the point to philosophy was to discover what is wisest to do.


that would be the (one of the) points of language in general and not something exclusive to 'philosophy'. you could even completely ignore the greek etymological roots of the word and you'd still be doing it. deciding what is 'wise', i mean. but there's a nice ring to your phrase there because it kinda mystifies this business about 'doing wise things' and leads one to believe it can't be done without at least a partial review of western philosophy. what comes next is a very subtle division of language so subtle you can't really draw a clear line there; there is ordinary language and then highly technical philosophical language. and part of the nature of this latter kind of language is that it creates its own conceptual problems and often leads one into thinking the question they had when they originally 'approached' philosophy is actually much more complex then it really is. a nigga just wants to do the 'right' thing and next thing you know, he's trippin on shit like 'virtue' and 'principle' and 'imperative' and 'noble'. then he's like 'wtf!' and he doesn't know what to do.

think of philosophy (in general) as a kind of a priori constructed language built off morphemes that utilizes the rules of grammar and logic to function. and by doing so, it doesn't necessarily have to be representational to make sense. that's what gets everyone hooked; because there is syntactical and semantic cogency, they believe they are saying something about the world... while in fact they're saying something about other words that aren't reducible to semantic primes, for instance. this is largely the business of philosophy and why i called it an apriori constructed language. a purely representational language would already exist in the natural sciences and in Wittgenstein's 'use-meaning' theory, which allows for the ambiguity of language in most circumstances.

but really 'philosophy' lies in a kind of limbo between ordinary language and pure nonsense, and it is the duty of the field of linguistics to investigate this netherworld and report back to us immediately with its findings.

philosophers are no longer fashionable, man. today the thing to be is a linguistic/analytical thinker. but i mean you can't just 'do this'. like you have to go through it (philosophy) and hope by the time your 30 or so you can get out of it with your head still intact.

lol i'm suddenly reminded of max eastman: 'hegelism is like a mental disease; you can't know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it'.

you could almost substitute 'philosophy' for 'hegelism' and you wouldn't miss a beat.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2163
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:46 am

promethean75 wrote:
I thought the point to philosophy was to discover what is wisest to do.


that would be the (one of the) points of language in general and not something exclusive to 'philosophy'. you could even completely ignore the greek etymological roots of the word and you'd still be doing it. deciding what is 'wise', i mean. but there's a nice ring to your phrase there because it kinda mystifies this business about 'doing wise things' and leads one to believe it can't be done without at least a partial review of western philosophy. what comes next is a very subtle division of language so subtle you can't really draw a clear line there; there is ordinary language and then highly technical philosophical language. and part of the nature of this latter kind of language is that it creates its own conceptual problems and often leads one into thinking the question they had when they originally 'approached' philosophy is actually much more complex then it really is. a nigga just wants to do the 'right' thing and next thing you know, he's trippin on shit like 'virtue' and 'principle' and 'imperative' and 'noble'. then he's like 'wtf!' and he doesn't know what to do.

think of philosophy (in general) as a kind of a priori constructed language built off morphemes that utilizes the rules of grammar and logic to function. and by doing so, it doesn't necessarily have to be representational to make sense. that's what gets everyone hooked; because there is syntactical and semantic cogency, they believe they are saying something about the world... while in fact they're saying something about other words that aren't reducible to semantic primes, for instance. this is largely the business of philosophy and why i called it an apriori constructed language. a purely representational language would already exist in the natural sciences and in Wittgenstein's 'use-meaning' theory, which allows for the ambiguity of language in most circumstances.

but really 'philosophy' lies in a kind of limbo between ordinary language and pure nonsense, and it is the duty of the field of linguistics to investigate this netherworld and report back to us immediately with its findings.

philosophers are no longer fashionable, man. today the thing to be is a linguistic/analytical thinker. but i mean you can't just 'do this'. like you have to go through it (philosophy) and hope by the time your 30 or so you can get out of it with your head still intact.

lol i'm suddenly reminded of max eastman: 'hegelism is like a mental disease; you can't know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it'.

you could almost substitute 'philosophy' for 'hegelism' and you wouldn't miss a beat.
You have a skewed view of 'what is philosophy' as restricted to academic philosophy which is actually a bastardized form of philosophy-proper.

The term 'philosophy' is well recognized all over the world, i.e. Western, Greek, Eastern, Middle Eastern and every where. Therefore to understand what is the root of 'philosophy' as recognized all over the world, we need to survey and research into their meanings to the people who used the term 'philosophy' in their respective environment.

While the term 'philosophy' is generally refer to 'love of wisdom,' I believe this is driven by an inherent faculty [of higher order or meta-order] within the brain/mind of humans just like the faculty of the intellect, logic, rationality, reason, emotions, morality and other notable function of the brain/mind.

The faculty of philosophy [in the brain] within the human psyche is the inherent overriding drive for progress and continual improvements using its relevant tools to optimize the well-being of the individual[s], groups and therefrom humanity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2768
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby promethean75 » Sat Dec 28, 2019 5:26 pm

yes well my hostility toward philosophy - which is relatively new and something that began only a few years ago - evolved out of a combination of several things which materialized all at once. a few of these things were a deeper understanding of Hume, Wittgenstein and Derrida, an introduction to rosa lichtenstein's work (example: http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_o ... Twelve.htm), and a new political perspective about the history and use of 'philosophy' not just as some personal intellectual inquiry into the 'meaning of life' any individual might engage in, but rather a systemic superstructure of concepts and ideas built around certain initiatives that are hundreds if not thousands of years old... and these ideas define what can be done in 'philosophy'. the deck was stacked, so to speak. the axial age of philosophy didn't just appear unconditionally; social, material and economic circumstances were already set, around which these new ideas would be formed. hence, those who developed philosophy were already biased and, whether consciously or not, did not ask questions with honest disinterest. plato and aristotle are glaring examples of philosophers who interpreted the world in a way that was suitable for justifying already existing political power structures... therefore their ideas are for the purpose of defending and rationalizing those structures.

as you can see i have a very strong penchant for marxist, analytical an post-structural approaches to modern philosophy as it is still practiced. most of it is built off of axioms that are fundamentally unprovable assumptions. this is why i conveniently called it an a priori constructed language earlier. but not just random assumptions, as it were, but assumptions made by philosophers who were already trying to lay a groundwork for defending their own status-quo (at the time). in fact, there's only one 'rationalist' in continental philosophy that i wouldn't 'call out' for bullshit, and that's Spinoza.

but sure, folks still do 'philosophy' when they ask the usual questions - what's meaning and purpose and right, etc., etc. it's only when they become acquainted with and fall under the spell of philosophers who were neither empiricists or nihilists, that they become enchanted by so much quotidian gobbledygook.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2163
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2019 5:38 pm

Prometheans got something of a point, at least he is right where it concerns the trash he has read, all that is completely pointless.

Evidence of the lack of need for philosophy for a society is Rome. They just killed everyone else and took their stuff, and had no philosophers except Seneca, whose philosophy is basically that one doesn't need to make things more complicated than they are.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby Meno_ » Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:12 pm

However , without the presumption of philosophy , the hypothetical foundation of science would not have developed.

There would not be an end to philosophy if there was no beginning.

Lets say if the biblical interpretation of genesis were to hold true, then the interval between beginnings.and endings would gain no.meaning, through the process of and that would be a sine quo non of life.

Without that process, the markers of which would signify the development , consciousness Itself would not have developed.

So , philosophy is the signification of the process of Life It's Self.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:19 pm

Meno_ wrote:However , without the presumption of philosophy , the hypothetical foundation of science would not have developed.

This was Presocratic philosophy, Socrates took philosophy into the ego for it to wither away and become a trivial non-thing.
Francis Bacon turns out to agree with me on that, he, the founder of scientific method, called Plato and Aristotle empty rhetoricians basically, but owed much debt to those who came before.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9456
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:26 pm

prom wrote
it's only when they become acquainted with and fall under the spell of philosophers who were neither empiricists or nihilists, that they become enchanted by so much quotidian gobbledygook.

Nihilistic philosophers are a good thing?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

Postby promethean75 » Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:38 pm

Mmhm. We wish to precipitate a profound crisis by exposing all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos (I totally stole that. Sounded so good I had to use it).

"Nihilism is not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" - N

And we ain't the passive Eastern or french existential nihilists, either. Those are the ones who think everything should perish. We're more like the German or Russian kind. When destruction becomes a creative act, like your boy bakunin once said.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2163
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]

cron