dagblog - Comments for "EPISTOMOLOGY VS. NIHILISM"

THAT'S THE LINK ALL

Richard Day — Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:18:13 +0000

THAT'S THE LINK ALL RIGHT!

Thank you.

Alas we are stuck in this new twitter age; we have short attention spans; we seek immediate results.

I swear that articles found on the web are getting shorter and shorter. my curiosity can be tweaked by some headline and after a click I just find a series of tweets. There is no article!

Oh well...

Is this The Onion subway

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:32:29 +0000

In reply to EPISTOMOLOGY VS. NIHILISM

Is this The Onion subway worker story link you referred to?: http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-80-of-subway-track-repairmen-run-over-each,32929/

I majored in philosophy in college and enjoyed most of my classes in it. My experience was that on hearing that someone was a "philo" major, fellow students seemed typically to have 1 of 2 basic reactions:

1. This person must be really deep.

2. This person must be a total naval gazer/space cadet, with no common sense or practical ability to function amidst humans.

Of course, these two possibilities may not be mutually exclusive.

I like Kierkegaard's

Richard Day — Wed, 03 Jul 2013 01:11:38 +0000

In reply to I like Kierkegaard's

I like Kierkegaard's definition of freedom as having the ability to do things.

That statement is monumental!

What is 'me' and what is 'them'.

Moat, your comment takes us to other planes or planets?

I am afraid, or at least I used to be. When you are numb, there is less fear. hahahaha

At the risk of minimizing your comment I hereby render unto Moat the Dayly Comment of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site; given to all of you from all of me.

AND I MEAN IT!

I like Kierkegaard's

moat — Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:24:54 +0000

In reply to EPISTOMOLOGY VS. NIHILISM

I like Kierkegaard's definition of freedom as having the ability to do things. The approach doesn't blow off other ways to talk about freedom that are grounded in ideas of determinism or oppression. The idea doesn't attempt to explain why aspirations are achieved or don't pan out.

But the idea does touch upon how we balance obligation with desire and ties what we can actually do to limits we impose upon ourselves in combination with restrictions that are imposed by others. Whether I can play piano or plant a garden is not just about "me" or those other annoying people.

In other words, there is a relationship between what we select for ourselves and what binds us otherwise that is worthy of our notice and respect. It might not be inappropriate to feel afraid when thinking about it.

Whether it is appropriate or not, the connection scares the hell out of me.

One size never fits all; and

Richard Day — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 20:01:16 +0000

In reply to I was a philosophy T/A at the

One size never fits all; and that even applies to tube sox!

I promised myself not to do it but I am spending a couple hours a day checking into the murder trial that seems to be preempting all the rest of the news on cable.

It just goes on and on and on.

The purpose?

Well the purpose is simply to delve into the minutiae of a ten minute event in order to define the concept of 'self-defense'!

It just occurred to me that if the defendant had died, Martin would be claiming self-defense.

Nice citation. My passions

Richard Day — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 19:54:55 +0000

In reply to "... without going deeply

Nice citation.

My passions will always keep me from standing in the shoes of Gohmert or Hume I guess.

I was a philosophy T/A at the

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 18:44:00 +0000

In reply to EPISTOMOLOGY VS. NIHILISM

I was a philosophy T/A at the University of Pittsburgh--which requires philosophy for all undergrads. I used to teach Plato's forms by asking students to define a chair. I gave them the full Socratic method, entertaining the various criteria they proposed before poking each one full of holes. Some students went for physical description, but there are chairs that don't look like chairs and objects that look like chairs but aren't. Others went for function, but there are objects we use for sitting that aren't chairs and chairs that no one sits on.

It was always my favorite class to teach. I well remember the deliciously puzzled looks of some students when they realized that they couldn't articulate what a chair was--and also the eye-rolling of other students who couldn't see the point.

Fwiw, I think professional philosophers often take the wrong lesson from this exercise. Most assume that every concept in the human mind can be articulated with enough work and hard thinking, though heavy concepts like freedom may be very difficult and defy even the most brilliant thinkers.

But they're wrong. Fully defining most concepts, even mundane ones, is not just hard. It's impossible. I would challenge anyone, even Plato himself, to define a chair in a way that permits no exceptions. That's because human understanding is not limited to logic or even language.

In other words, we can never hope to fully articulate what we mean by freedom--or any other significant idea. But that's not to say that we can't make a lot of progress and expand our understanding by trying.

PS For the record, Mr. Rogers and his puppets creep me out.

"... without going deeply

EmmaZahn — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:43:19 +0000

In reply to EPISTOMOLOGY VS. NIHILISM

"... without going deeply into the philosophy of Spinoza or Aquinas or Augustine or Nietzsche or a hundred other 'philosophers' (which I welcome you all to cite, and I really mean you all) I have come to the conclusion that we all do not know what in the hell we are talking about!"

Spinoza:

I have laboured carefully, not to mock, lament, or execrate, but to understand human actions; and to this end I have looked upon passions, such as love, hatred, anger, envy, ambition, pity, and the other perturbations of the mind, not in the light of vices of human nature, but as properties, just as pertinent to it, as are heat, cold, storm, thunder, and the like to the nature of the atmosphere, which phenomena, though inconvenient, are yet necessary, and have fixed causes, by means of which we endeavour to understand their nature, and the mind has just as much pleasure in viewing them aright, as in knowing such things as flatter the senses....

Tractatus Politicus as translated by A. H. Gosset (1883) Full text online