Difference between revisions of "User talk:Egregious"
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
lol, ya know, I'm really starting to like you. You're right that all philosophies are at least somewhat derivitive. Even if the Christian claims are true(which, for the record, I believe they are), Christ's theology was somewhat derivitive. He often agreed with his contemporary Jewish teachers(such as Gamiliel, sp?) on various matters, though he always had something to add. My point was that, instead of, say, taking the ideas of all the philosophers and sticking them together, we should stand on the shoulders of the giants, reaching new heights. If modern philosophy consist of nothing more than recycled past ideas, its an awfully weak thing. If past ideas and traditions are all we have, we have very little. Does that mean past ideas are less true? No, they may well be true. But knowing what we do about them, we can surely surpass them, growing more towards the point they expressed. To effectively stand on the shoulders of another person, even a giant, one must form a human pyramid, and all pyramids come to a point. ;) And now my love of Chesterton has revealed itself! lol [[User:Vellos|Vellos]] 21:51, 11 August 2006 (CEST) | lol, ya know, I'm really starting to like you. You're right that all philosophies are at least somewhat derivitive. Even if the Christian claims are true(which, for the record, I believe they are), Christ's theology was somewhat derivitive. He often agreed with his contemporary Jewish teachers(such as Gamiliel, sp?) on various matters, though he always had something to add. My point was that, instead of, say, taking the ideas of all the philosophers and sticking them together, we should stand on the shoulders of the giants, reaching new heights. If modern philosophy consist of nothing more than recycled past ideas, its an awfully weak thing. If past ideas and traditions are all we have, we have very little. Does that mean past ideas are less true? No, they may well be true. But knowing what we do about them, we can surely surpass them, growing more towards the point they expressed. To effectively stand on the shoulders of another person, even a giant, one must form a human pyramid, and all pyramids come to a point. ;) And now my love of Chesterton has revealed itself! lol [[User:Vellos|Vellos]] 21:51, 11 August 2006 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [Have you read ''The Man Who Was Thursday''? It's the only Chesterton I've read properly ('though I've heard ''Orthodoxy'' is pretty good) - and I read it because of ''Deus Ex'' - the one time my gaming has helped my reading - but I did think it was rather good. So many books, so little time . . .] | ||
| + | |||
| + | I suppose I'm sceptical about the idea of philosophical progress for four reasons: | ||
| + | * I'm sceptical about most things because I've been infected because I studied Hume for a year. (One of my Philosophy teachers was a Catholic Humean - now ''that's'' paradigm theft!) | ||
| + | * I'm British, and middle class. | ||
| + | * My choice in music runs towards The Jam and The Clash, both of whom impart a somewhat jaded view of the world (''I first felt a fist, and then a kick/I could now smell their breath/They smelt of pubs and Wormwood Scrubs/And too many right wing meetings'') | ||
| + | * I do not consider myself a child of the Enlightenment (despite studying Hume, and liking Kant), but rather a child of the Augustan age (primarily, in order of importance, Christ, Virgil,and Horace). As such I do not subscribe to Enlightenment ideas about human progress, but rather Ancient/Miltonic ideas about human regress. (I fear there even may be a touch of Calvin in there somewhere.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | So I suppose my instinct is to say that, yes, modern philosophy is an awfully weak thing. Which is perhaps a little harsh. I do not wish to denigrate the efforts of modern minds, or indeed my own small efforts (and they are small), but I see human thought not as a pyramid (kind of a Foundationalist structure) but as a web (Coherentism ftw!). A web in which it is easy to become too deeply entangled, especially as I do not see philosophy as my first calling. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ultimately it's easier to make a blase mame-dropping comment about Kant than to offer some constructive analysis.--[[User:Egregious|Egregious]] 22:43, 11 August 2006 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 22:43, 11 August 2006
With all due respect, does it matter what Kant would say? He was a great thinker, but if our personal philosophies are derivitive from great thinkers and dont consist of our own personal exegesis and thought, then they arent that much. Its easy to develop an amazing command of language and go read the great thinkers and take their ideas. What is amazing is taking the great thinkers, and building on their shoulders. lol, sry, for the rant, but its rare I find another person interested in this sort of thing. My friends just give me weird looks when I get on my rants. ;) Vellos 17:28, 10 August 2006 (CEST)
I personally find it difficult to believe that personal philosophy can be anything but derivative (ex nihilo nihil fit); the best that can be managed is to avoid becoming so dependant on one particular thinker that we adopt his or her mistakes entirely [with some exceptions: for example, if the Nicene claims about Jesus' identity are correct then Christians are justified in becoming entirely dependant on his thought - although not in ignoring all other ideas].
Besides, Kant's name carries more weight than mine.
It doesn't really matter what Kant would say about Vatticus' cult. Many things matter a great deal more; one of the myriad of possible examples would be this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4777561.stm or even this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4780745.stm --Egregious 17:56, 10 August 2006 (CEST)
lol, ya know, I'm really starting to like you. You're right that all philosophies are at least somewhat derivitive. Even if the Christian claims are true(which, for the record, I believe they are), Christ's theology was somewhat derivitive. He often agreed with his contemporary Jewish teachers(such as Gamiliel, sp?) on various matters, though he always had something to add. My point was that, instead of, say, taking the ideas of all the philosophers and sticking them together, we should stand on the shoulders of the giants, reaching new heights. If modern philosophy consist of nothing more than recycled past ideas, its an awfully weak thing. If past ideas and traditions are all we have, we have very little. Does that mean past ideas are less true? No, they may well be true. But knowing what we do about them, we can surely surpass them, growing more towards the point they expressed. To effectively stand on the shoulders of another person, even a giant, one must form a human pyramid, and all pyramids come to a point. ;) And now my love of Chesterton has revealed itself! lol Vellos 21:51, 11 August 2006 (CEST)
[Have you read The Man Who Was Thursday? It's the only Chesterton I've read properly ('though I've heard Orthodoxy is pretty good) - and I read it because of Deus Ex - the one time my gaming has helped my reading - but I did think it was rather good. So many books, so little time . . .]
I suppose I'm sceptical about the idea of philosophical progress for four reasons:
- I'm sceptical about most things because I've been infected because I studied Hume for a year. (One of my Philosophy teachers was a Catholic Humean - now that's paradigm theft!)
- I'm British, and middle class.
- My choice in music runs towards The Jam and The Clash, both of whom impart a somewhat jaded view of the world (I first felt a fist, and then a kick/I could now smell their breath/They smelt of pubs and Wormwood Scrubs/And too many right wing meetings)
- I do not consider myself a child of the Enlightenment (despite studying Hume, and liking Kant), but rather a child of the Augustan age (primarily, in order of importance, Christ, Virgil,and Horace). As such I do not subscribe to Enlightenment ideas about human progress, but rather Ancient/Miltonic ideas about human regress. (I fear there even may be a touch of Calvin in there somewhere.)
So I suppose my instinct is to say that, yes, modern philosophy is an awfully weak thing. Which is perhaps a little harsh. I do not wish to denigrate the efforts of modern minds, or indeed my own small efforts (and they are small), but I see human thought not as a pyramid (kind of a Foundationalist structure) but as a web (Coherentism ftw!). A web in which it is easy to become too deeply entangled, especially as I do not see philosophy as my first calling.
Ultimately it's easier to make a blase mame-dropping comment about Kant than to offer some constructive analysis.--Egregious 22:43, 11 August 2006 (CEST)
