Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Philosophy Thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Brent View Post
    I'm still going with the F-word as the most powerful word.
    Phonetically, it's a fantastic word. So is the c-word. It's always bummed me that the British use it so freely but it's so frowned up in this country.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paranoidmoonduck View Post
      I would say that it is precisely their "gooey and fluid" nature that makes them so useful. They are words that are supremely capable of communicating a whole range of things based on their context. So long as people take the time to establish that context in their communication, so as to avoid confusion, they are some of the most powerful words in the English language.
      Exactly. Rhetorical force is a value of language that is ultimately more important than their propositional truth values.

      by BoneKrusher
      <DG> how metal unseen
      <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Unseen View Post
        Exactly. Rhetorical force is a value of language that is ultimately more important than their propositional truth values.
        as a student of rhetoric, I'll say this: you can know jack ****, but if you sound convincing enough, you can always win an argument.

        Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Brent View Post
          as a student of rhetoric, I'll say this: you can know jack ****, but if you sound convincing enough, you can always win an argument.
          ****, my secret is out.




          2 C 5:6-8 Jakob Murphy aka themaninblack

          Comment


          • Originally posted by CJSchneider View Post
            ****, my secret is out.
            oh I am totally guilty of that. I often sound like I know what I am talking about, even if I dont try.

            Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

            Comment


            • It would be folly for me to try and iterate exactly why I like some people and dislike others.
              That is the way I feel about some athletes. There are a couple in the AFL(Aussie Rules), that I should like as players, they play how I feel it should be played, are not dirty and the like, but because of the way their head's look, I can not like them as players. It isn't even an ugly thing, I just don't like the way their heads look.

              I am the same with Kobe Bryant in the NBA, his ferret like face makes me dislike him, but it isn't the actual appearance it is what that ferret like face stands for, which goes beyond the aesthetics.


              Props to BK on the sig!

              Comment


              • oh I am totally guilty of that. I often sound like I know what I am talking about, even if I dont try.
                That is the thin red line where confidence and arrogance begin to blur is it not... A line that I tend to tread very closely and feel is very important to cross every so often.


                Props to BK on the sig!

                Comment


                • THIS THREAD MUST NOT DIE.

                  so I'm reading the Nicomachean Ethics and just got done with the translator's philosophical introduction. Pretty ******* dense, but here's some stuff the translator covered that Aristotle Himself will cover in the actual book that would be good for discussion here.

                  1) One of Aristotle's main points is that many of the excellences we seek are moderation between two extremes: courage is between recklessness and cowardice, etc. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomac...he_Golden_Mean. Does this make sense to you? Do you see deficiencies in this?

                  2) Maybe the better discussion: Aristotle defined the greatest good for humans as happiness. The word in Greek is eudaimonia, which doesn't really mean happiness in English. It's a more objective sense of happiness, sometimes called "flourishing." It's like an appreciable state of contentment and excellence in various areas of life through various excellences practiced via reason, and these excellences are often between excess and lack. Just because you're happy doesn't mean you're having eudaimonia - a glutton may be happy when eating, but not having eudaimonia, because according to the golden mean concept, you could be excessive. This means that pleasure is not the chief good, because you could be having pleasure and not having eudaimonia. Aristotle argues that pleasure is not the chief good because pleasure is not a good itself but a sign that something is good. Also, just because something is pleasurable doesn't mean that it is a good, because it could be unethical or unvirtuous. You can get pleasure from gossiping, but that's not a sign it is good because of other reasons.

                  I left out alot and probably explained it badly, but I think there's a pretty common philosophical question here: is pleasure the highest good? Meaning, is hedonism essentially correct?

                  by BoneKrusher
                  <DG> how metal unseen
                  <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

                  Comment


                  • buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuump

                    by BoneKrusher
                    <DG> how metal unseen
                    <TheUnseen> Drunken Canadian Bastard: There's an APS for that

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Unseen View Post
                      so I'm reading the Nicomachean Ethics and just got done with the translator's philosophical introduction. Pretty ******* dense, but here's some stuff the translator covered that Aristotle Himself will cover in the actual book that would be good for discussion here.

                      1) One of Aristotle's main points is that many of the excellences we seek are moderation between two extremes: courage is between recklessness and cowardice, etc. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomac...he_Golden_Mean. Does this make sense to you? Do you see deficiencies in this?
                      How Buddhist...

                      2) Maybe the better discussion: Aristotle defined the greatest good for humans as happiness. The word in Greek is eudaimonia, which doesn't really mean happiness in English. It's a more objective sense of happiness, sometimes called "flourishing." It's like an appreciable state of contentment and excellence in various areas of life through various excellences practiced via reason, and these excellences are often between excess and lack. Just because you're happy doesn't mean you're having eudaimonia - a glutton may be happy when eating, but not having eudaimonia, because according to the golden mean concept, you could be excessive. This means that pleasure is not the chief good, because you could be having pleasure and not having eudaimonia. Aristotle argues that pleasure is not the chief good because pleasure is not a good itself but a sign that something is good. Also, just because something is pleasurable doesn't mean that it is a good, because it could be unethical or unvirtuous. You can get pleasure from gossiping, but that's not a sign it is good because of other reasons.

                      I left out alot and probably explained it badly, but I think there's a pretty common philosophical question here: is pleasure the highest good? Meaning, is hedonism essentially correct?
                      It's tough to answer the question without knowing the considered scale of the good. So long as one admits that no human has enough foresight to consider all the social ramifications of their actions and, indeed, that their foresight is generally limited even far shorter of that standard for the sake of expediency, one has a problem of scale. Who and what a person considers outside of themselves when considering good will vary greatly and therefore will vary their standards for the term itself.

                      One could say that this is another example of that Golden Mean; that the balance lies somewhere between selfishness and altruism, but for me that is a vague answer to a pretty specific question.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by steve buscemi View Post
                        "Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention."

                        Sounds like atheism to me?
                        Sounds like Deism to me, Steve. Read Epicurus in the context of his own time, not as the people who revived him during the Renaissance interpreted him.

                        What do the vikings and marijuana have in common? Every time you put them in a bowl
                        they get smoked.

                        2010-2011 Super Bowl Champions
                        Hint:Not the Bears.

                        Comment


                        • Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by zachsaints52 View Post
                            Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?
                            So long as we are unable to imprison concepts, the physical human is still responsible for their actions. I'm not suggesting the law shouldn't recognize mitigating circumstances, but acts of desperation or passion are still acted by the subject. It's not the most empathetic perspective, but don't any other way to maintain the system.

                            Originally posted by Titletown
                            Sounds like Deism to me, Steve. Read Epicurus in the context of his own time, not as the people who revived him during the Renaissance interpreted him.
                            Even St. Aquinas never really argued for stuff like divine intervention, instead invoking God as the first step in a rather Newton-esque series of events. That said, from what I remember of Epicurus is that he firstly believed that the basis of reality (his conceptual atoms, different from our actual atoms) sought no result and were themselves random and chaotic. Certainly, if he was religious, it was a very different kind of religion than that which was prevalent around him.
                            Last edited by Paranoidmoonduck; 01-28-2010, 02:09 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by zachsaints52 View Post
                              Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?
                              Your prof is a jackass. :D

                              Originally posted by Paranoidmoonduck View Post
                              Certainly, if he was religious, it was a very different kind of religion than that which was prevalent around him.
                              Yeah, deism.

                              What do the vikings and marijuana have in common? Every time you put them in a bowl
                              they get smoked.

                              2010-2011 Super Bowl Champions
                              Hint:Not the Bears.

                              Comment


                              • Wait, was you professor saying that was a morally legitimate defense or that the legal argument has been made? If he said the former, then yeah, he's a jackass.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information