User talk:Egregious

Philosophy Discussion

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)

I'm often skeptical about philosophical progress, because I believe in absolute truth; which requires an eternal baseline that isnt deviated from. But, I believe in every era and culture, that absolute must be interpreted in relevant ways to combat false or flawed philosophies and lifestyles, and using old writings will help, but not complete, that job. Just as the shift to Aristotle's philosophy required Aquinas, so must every major shift require an interpreter. Though, because I believe humanity is fatally and basely flawed, all of our interpretations of the absolute truths will probably have some kind of flaw, though the absolutes themselves dont. Thus we must have continuation of new philosophical thought, because the interpretations we have now are flawed. Maybe, like you, I'm a bit jaded, but I cant accept where any philosophy sets itself right now. There are flaws everywhere which must be perfected, to try and achieve that top of the pyramid which, because we are flawed, we can never reach but, also because of those flaws, we must try to reach. And I'm well aware that was very much a run-on sentence. ;) A human triangle is a bad analogy. Lets say a human pyramid for real: 3-d. Life is 3-d, why shouldnt allegory be? Yes, philosophy is a tangled mess. But it comes to a single focal point, and has an order. Unfortunately, there is only one possible construction which will truly hold it all together. We have the box cover of the puzzle, and all the pieces. Now we just have to put it together. All the old writers tried, and maybe got the outline, or pieces here and there, but I dont believe we have it all figured out, or ever will.

I've read some Chesterton, not as much as I'd like to though. The Man Who Was Thursday is actually one of my favorites(favorite being Orthodoxy, then probably Napoleon of Notting Hill). He's... interesting. Definitely a fun one to read, lol.

Philosophy isnt my calling either, but I do have a passing interest in it. I enjoy it, but I couldnt handle being immersed in it on a really regular and frequent basis. Vellos 00:30, 12 August 2006 (CEST)

Normally, I wouldn't do this, but when I saw that Vellos was here... well, let's just say that we can't stay away from each other.

I have very little philosophy training or exprience, however, I can say without a doubt, (but based on one Introduction to Philosophy class) that I have very little patience for Plato, and that I prefer Aristotle. (We didn't get very far... mostly the Big Three of the ancient world: Soophocles, Plato, and Aristotle :) ) So, to say that we can't do something, or that some inherent flaws make the whole structure impossible is rather... disturbing to me. Besides, how else will you expose the flaws besides actually using/exercising things? (Sorry if I burst into your discussion uninvited) ~ Marc J. 02:50, 12 August 2006 (CEST)

I'm not saying we cant know the truth, but seeing as we live in a world which we can all agree, I think, is pretty bad, clearly no philosophy works. Now, I believe there is a true one, but its difficult to interpret. Seeing as its thousands of years old, written in three different languages, and even once fully translated is difficult to understand. But thats just my personal beliefs. ;) But the simple fact of the matter is that I dont even believe we'll ever get the perfect interpretation of even that abolsute truth I believe in, because we are flawed. We may get pieces right, but I dont think a full and complete true philosophy is gonna happen.

lol, yeah, we do seem to hang around each other, Marc. So, whoi's the stalker and who's the stalkee? lolVellos 03:50, 12 August 2006 (CEST)

Given our innate flaws (I swear there's a hint of Calvin there) expecting perfection would be expecting a miracle . . .

Even so, I suppose that should not stop people trying. In this life we're doomed to be imperfect, yet that is not meant to stop us desiring and trying to be as little flawed as possible. I try not to lie, even though I know I probably will. Kinda bizarre, but I suppose that's where 'by grace alone' comes into it.

Heh, I always used to think that if there were sins of omission (not doing the right thing) and commission (actively doing the wrong thing), there should be virtues of omission and commission as well . . . not being a cannibal would be a good example of a virtue of omission that most people possess.--Egregious 11:57, 12 August 2006 (CEST)

This discussion is very interesting. Wouldn't usually expect a philosophy discussion on the BM wiki, but still.

If you don't mind me throwing my opinion in for what it's worth, isn't the whole of philosophy based upon the opinions of different people on what should be done and what shouldn't? As no-one can even prove their own existence (a different argument that I always found intruiging), defining the world's imperfections is a futile task. Everyone will work towards their own goals, ascending to their perception of what the world should be like (in the worlds perfect form). Many will have different degrees of success.

Your point about lying is a good one. I tried that, it inevitably needed to be refined to a different view, such as don't lie to certain people. It does, however, have knock on effects, making me come to the conclusion that the right thing to do is not always, well, the right thing.

Sorry, I think I've rambled. Does that make any sense? --The1exile 17:52, 12 August 2006 (CEST)

It makes lots of sense. A great deal of philosophy is based upon opinions about what should and should not be done - Ethics. There are some areas which are perhaps completely separate from Ethics, but there's usually a connection. Philosophy of Mind, for example, might seem to be entirely separate from rights and wrongs, but if the claims of Machine-State Functionalism about the mind are correct (the mind is nothing more or less than a very complicated set of automatic machine tables) then that raises some serious questions about humans acting according to right and wrong. Similarly, Epistemology (roughly speaking, the study of what we know and how - if - we know it) might seem distant from ethics, but when we consider applying Meaning Empiricism (roughly speaking, the idea that a concept only has real meaning if it can be linked in some way to actual sense experience) to a concept like 'good' it turns out to be rather relevant to what should and should not be done after all.

'As no-one can even prove their own existence (a different argument that I always found intruiging), defining the world's imperfections is a futile task.' Trouble is, I suspect that sometimes it is necessary to attempt a futile task. I remember reading, I think it was in a letter C. S. Lewis wrote to Tolkein, a comment about that, along the lines of 'If you and I were Norsemen, were at Ragnarok, and perceived that the good side would lose, what would we say? "That's it then, the trolls and giants win. Let us die with Father Odin"'. Granted, everyone might work towards their own goals, but simply because we cannot prove that there are over-reaching goals for everyone in the universe, does not prove the opposite, that there are none. There may be nigh-on seven billion (at least) perceptions of what the world is like, but I happen to believe that some perceptions are closer to the truth than others, even though I do not know that that truth exists.

'It does, however, have knock on effects, making me come to the conclusion that the right thing to do is not always, well, the right thing.' That sounds like a consequentialist approach to ethics, which is, roughly speaking, the idea that actions are made right or wrong by their consequences (usually wieghed up in terms of human happiness or pain in the most common form of consequentialism, Utilitarianism). Therefore, in certain circumstances, an action usually considered abhorrent might be 'the right thing to do' - to kill one man in saving ten, for example.

Opposed to consequentialism are various 'Deontological' theories (strangely not linked to the word 'ontology', but actually to the Greek for 'duty'). Deontological ethical systems usually argue that certain actions are right, and we have a duty to do them whatever the consequences (for a variety of reasons). In an oft-quoted example, if a mad axeman knocked on your door and asked, with a murderous glint in his eye, whether your neighbour was in, it would be (according to a hard-line deontologist) quite wrong to lie ('That guy? He sold the house and moved away last month, without telling me where he was going . . .').

While I sympathise more with (and am more interested in) deontology, I've never been terribly attracted to either system. I might also point out that they are perhaps not as opposed as it might at first seem. A Utilitarian still has a 'duty' to do what's right, according to his or her calculations of happiness and pain. And if you ask a deontologist why we have a duty to do certain things, more often than not it will come round to their consequences . . .

[Also, thankyou to Marc J. and The1exile for teaching me what colons do on talk pages]--Egregious 20:56, 12 August 2006 (CEST)

I cant stand deontology, in its extreme forms, or utilitarianism, in its extreme forms. But, on an earlier point, The1Exile, you mentioned the not being able to prove one's own existence. Well, there must be something. We know there is SOMETHING, because we, well, use your eyes, boy! BUT, we might be, say, the dream of the butterfly on a lotus flower. We cannot prove our personal existence as a person, but we can prove the existence of some kind of thing.

On the other hand, there are certain things that, if we do not accept them based on just a sort of unreasonable faith, we wont get very far with anything, and will be generally unfulfilled. Among those things I would count existence; the validity of logic and math; the truthfullness of empirical evidence... etc. If we, for example, do not accept that BM is real, we will find ourselves slipping into a state where we no longer enjoy BM, and that would SUCK. If we do not believe BM exists, why play BM? Why enjoy BM? How can one enjoy nonexistence? Well, one cannot, hence one cannot enjoy BM.

As such, I'd rather like to state that having a solely rational life rather sucks. And, as CS Lewis illustrates in his fiction story "The Silver Chair", even if I am living in an imaginary world, I vastly prefer it to the real one, and its definately far superior in every way I can think of.

I'm not saying I like deluding myself. I'm just saying that i refuse to accept the type of philosophy which defeats proving any kind of valid point, because that is, as GK Chesterton says, "The eternal serpentine circle of self destructiveness" or "The suicide of thought".

"We know there is SOMETHING, because we, well, use your eyes, boy!". This does by no means prove your existence. Every sense you have, could theoretically be a part of the illusion (going with the idea that everything we do is predetermined) that you do in fact exist. Non-existing is not something we have ever tried therefore we cannot say wheteher it is better or worse, etc...

You know wwehat, it's too late for me to have an argument about an obscure topic. Mauybe tomorrow i will make my point betetr. --The1exile 00:24, 13 August 2006 (CEST)