There are so many choices.

For those who don’t want to read a long post: Kant is my favourite philosopher.

I was very aware of Immanuel Kant from the moment I became interested in philosophy, although he stood in the background for two years. I learned about him through studying Sartre and Nietzsche, then I borrowed an introduction to his philosophy from the library. Needless to say, I didn’t get very far through the book and what I read of it was fairly incomprehensible to me -- thank God, I later learned that the book was very inaccurate -- but I got a sense from the book that it contained something very important and that I would have to tackle Kant’s philosophy sooner or later.

Kant went on the backburner for quite awhile, as I became acquainted with his predecessors: Plato, Descartes, the empiricists, etc. Then one Christmas I got a collection of ethical treatises and among them is Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. I asked for it on a whim, really, and didn’t expect myself to spend much time reading it; at the time, I was interested in Henry Sedgwick and G.E. Moore. However, I began flipping through it and something drew me in. I fell in love with both the Aristotelian style of the prose (philosophy should and was considered literary, but this changed in the 20th century; in the 19th, if you read Shakespeare, then you read Schopenhauer too) and the form of reasoning.

I quickly got hold of a copy of Kant’s Prolegomena and then, a little later, an edition of his first critique, the Critique of Pure Reason. I really struggled through them, became obsessed with them, and would do nothing but read and reread passages for days on end (still to this day come periods when all I want to do is read Kant). One day, a light bulb went on in my head and I suddenly got “it”. My whole worldview and conception of philosophy changed almost instantly.

I think that Kant really struggled with the greatest problems of philosophy, gave some very clear and important insights into them, and offered some very original and superb answers as well as initiating a whole new way of thinking within philosophy (the critical and transcendental). Two very simple examples, first the refutation of epistemological solipsism through showing that awareness of our own existence is determined by and presupposes objects outside us. This continues to be the most popular means of criticizing epistemological solipsism to this day, a famous example being Wittgenstein’s private language argument, in which he argues that language cannot make sense unless there exists more than one speaking subject. The second example is questioning an assumption taken as so certain that no one even thought of questioning it - that synthetic a priori judgments are possible - showing how essential such judgments are to philosophy, and then providing an answer to how they are possible that Kant is quite right in calling nothing short of a Copernican revolution.

With Kant, the notion of the utterance becomes central to philosophy. All philosophers have to ask what is presupposed in uttering anything whatsoever, and what the nature of the utterance limits within knowledge. Husserl recognizes this when he tries to distinguish between intentionality and what intentionality is about, as does Heidegger when he realizes that if Kant is right, then he cannot reject the subject-object dichotomy and talk about the pre-conscious stage of Dasein without contradicting himself and presupposing the very thing he has denounced (there are two very long books on Kant by Heidegger, one of which is really the second part of Being and Time).

For those who don’t want to read a long post: Kant is my favourite philosopher.

I was very aware of Immanuel Kant from the moment I became interested in philosophy, although he stood in the background for two years. I learned about him through studying Sartre and Nietzsche, then I borrowed an introduction to his philosophy from the library. Needless to say, I didn’t get very far through the book and what I read of it was fairly incomprehensible to me -- thank God, I later learned that the book was very inaccurate -- but I got a sense from the book that it contained something very important and that I would have to tackle Kant’s philosophy sooner or later.

Kant went on the backburner for quite awhile, as I became acquainted with his predecessors: Plato, Descartes, the empiricists, etc. Then one Christmas I got a collection of ethical treatises and among them is Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. I asked for it on a whim, really, and didn’t expect myself to spend much time reading it; at the time, I was interested in Henry Sedgwick and G.E. Moore. However, I began flipping through it and something drew me in. I fell in love with both the Aristotelian style of the prose (philosophy should and was considered literary, but this changed in the 20th century; in the 19th, if you read Shakespeare, then you read Schopenhauer too) and the form of reasoning.

I quickly got hold of a copy of Kant’s Prolegomena and then, a little later, an edition of his first critique, the Critique of Pure Reason. I really struggled through them, became obsessed with them, and would do nothing but read and reread passages for days on end (still to this day come periods when all I want to do is read Kant). One day, a light bulb went on in my head and I suddenly got “it”. My whole worldview and conception of philosophy changed almost instantly.

I think that Kant really struggled with the greatest problems of philosophy, gave some very clear and important insights into them, and offered some very original and superb answers as well as initiating a whole new way of thinking within philosophy (the critical and transcendental). Two very simple examples, first the refutation of epistemological solipsism through showing that awareness of our own existence is determined by and presupposes objects outside us. This continues to be the most popular means of criticizing epistemological solipsism to this day, a famous example being Wittgenstein’s private language argument, in which he argues that language cannot make sense unless there exists more than one speaking subject. The second example is questioning an assumption taken as so certain that no one even thought of questioning it - that synthetic a priori judgments are possible - showing how essential such judgments are to philosophy, and then providing an answer to how they are possible that Kant is quite right in calling nothing short of a Copernican revolution.

With Kant, the notion of the utterance becomes central to philosophy. All philosophers have to ask what is presupposed in uttering anything whatsoever, and what the nature of the utterance limits within knowledge. Husserl recognizes this when he tries to distinguish between intentionality and what intentionality is about, as does Heidegger when he realizes that if Kant is right, then he cannot reject the subject-object dichotomy and talk about the pre-conscious stage of Dasein without contradicting himself and presupposing the very thing he has denounced (there are two very long books on Kant by Heidegger, one of which is really the second part of Being and Time).

yeah I like kant too. I found, form my limited study of his work on ethics, that his standards are entirely over the top. He's got the right idea though.

I like nietzche; reading his stuff really made me reconsider some of the behavior I engaged in in my life.

I never could get heavy into philsophy. Mostly it strikes me as something to do for those who have no compunction concerning technological improvement and instead believe that torturing the mind with questions that don't always have answers will make us all happier and healthier.

Yeah, I'm gonna be obvious and say Kant. Nietzsche is the nicest to read though.

between ayn rand and Machiavelli.

Albert Camus. Fuck nihilists.

Ayn Rand.

Kant is teh Devil :P

Most of the philosophy I had read seemed... compartmentalized. As in, a philosopher would seem to take a few assumptions out of thin air, apply some logic, and call the conclusion philosophy, with little regard to how it was all supposed to work as a whole. Rand (to my still learning perspective), seems to have broken EVERYTHING down to the three essential assumptions (A is A, Axiom of Existence, Axiom of Consciousness) and then asked two questions: What is a human, and what should a human do? All the rest of it follows rationally from those three assumptions, and verifiable observations about reality.

Basically, I think that most philosophers work in Java and just assume the binary/assembly is there. Rand started at binary, and built up to Java.

Also, more personally, I first read Atlas Shrugged full of contempt for the ugly woman who championed being selfish. A hundred pages in, I hadn't found anything that didn't make sense, and I was thrilled about something as banal as a fucking railroad. I had to admit that she had me from the moment Francisco slapped Dagney for even suggesting that she act stupid to be popular.

Maybe Soren Kierkegaard due to his notion of the Knight of Faith. I also liked Nietzsche especially when he mentioned about the eternal recurrence and Amor Fati.

Kant is teh Devil :P

I would rather be the devil than capitalist scum that uses "self-evidence" to indoctrinate the naive.

I would rather be the devil than capitalist scum that uses "self-evidence" to indoctrinate the naive.

My initial response may have been a bit mean, so I'm changing it.

I intended that comment as a tongue-in-cheek way to politely state my disagreement. I thought that by this point "teh" was nearly universally seen as being used in an ironic or joking manner, and that the use of the ":P" was an indication of benign ribbing.

If you'd like to switch to a less douchbaggy response, please do.

Euda is a fucking moron.

I definitely have to go with Nietzsche. It is something that I must have read about 4 years ago now and still affects my mind quite clearly. (The Viking/Penguin Portable Nietzsche is a wonderful resource, and Kaufman translations are the best.) There was something clearly constructive throughout his work, as though each book of aphorisms was nothing but a collection of individual observations about life and the human condition just like science. Then, with Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra, he weaved them together into a singular unified theory. It covers all aspects of human life. Ayn Rand? She basically co-opted elements of Nietzsche and re-released it in baby form. It just radically redefined my concept of acting and being.

That year, I read the Bhagavad Gita, several of the Upanishads, and the Dhammapada, as well as plenty of occult grimoires (Key of Solomon and the Book of the Law most prominently). Great year for reading.

Schopenhauer. Buddhism's influence on his thinking gave him a sort of spiritual fatalism and clarity of thought that is quite inspiring. His unrelenting individualism provides a healthy counter to the revolting collective tendencies of European philosophy. His misogyny was informed, not ignorant. Last, but not least, he hated Hegel.

"Should you ever intend to dull the wits of a young man and to incapacitate his brains for any kind of thought whatever, then you cannot do better than to give him Hegel to read. For these monstrous accumulations of words that annul and contradict one another drive the mind into tormenting itself with vain attempts to think anything whatever in connection with them, until finally it collapses from sheer exhaustion. Thus any ability to think is so thoroughly destroyed that the young man will ultimately mistake empty and hollow verbiage for real thought. A guardian fearing that his ward might become too intelligent for his schemes might prevent this misfortune by innocently suggesting the reading of Hegel."

Kant is teh Devil

Have you ever actually read Kant? Or are you just jumping on Ayn Rand's bandwagon?

It's just kind of ironic that you would decry both Kant and presumption in the same breath considering that the main purpose of transcendental critique is to rescue philosophy by determining a priori necessary principles on which it can safely rest.

Have you ever actually read Kant?

Not only did I question that when I read his post, but I questioned his knowledge of philosophy in general for two reasons. The first is that I could see no distinction between Rand’s philosophy and those he dismisses for making presumptions. On the contrary, Rand is clearly presupposing a whole “mode of thought” - Aristotelian in nature - that has been called into question, for example, by Hegelians, Heideggarians and Wittgensteinians. A basic knowledge of the history of philosophy would make this as plain as the nose on your face.

The second reason is that if he has studied, say, even the seventeenth-century philosophers - whose means of philosophizing, BTW, is very similar to Rand’s: take something “self-evident” and then use that to logically deduce a human nature that is aligned with your political affiliations - he would surely realize that just about all traditional philosophers are trying to work toward apodictic knowledge of the binary system that makes everything tick, considering metaphysics deals with the first principles of the world, ontology the basic categories every thing can be subsumed under and transcendens (things that stand outside the categories, such as truth and being, if you’re an Aristotelian), and epistemology the nature of knowledge.

If you'd like to switch to a less douchbaggy response, please do.

I meant what I said, though, I consider Rand to be a cultist.

Maybe Soren Kierkegaard due to his notion of the Knight of Faith. I also liked Nietzsche especially when he mentioned about the eternal recurrence and Amor Fati.

been reading some kierkegaard recently, love his stuff.
my favorite is slavoj zizek, been reading his book welcome to the desert of the real recently, he's pretty modern, into the whole post-modernist thing, not like focault though. he's in line with an evolution of lacan, and deconstructionists, i highly recommend him if you havent heard of him yet.

Albert Camus. Fuck nihilists.

Nihilists fuck you : ). I always think Camus' stuff on life should always be a, if not the, starting point for getting into philosophy.

I really don't have a favorite philosopher. They all seem too limited or too extreme to me. It's like we need a grand unifying theory (like in physics) to connect several philosophical viewpoints and reconcile them somewhat to each other.

Stupid impotent western people, my favourite philosophers are Birch and Lark.
Why 1: With skin so tremble crinkle crunch in such Octobers it makes my nostrils squeal.
Why 2. Ascending over field and thoroughfare their wings spread bare are more than fair accoutrements.

Stupid impotent western people, my favourite philosophers are Birch and Lark.
Why 1: With skin so tremble crinkle crunch in such Octobers it makes my nostrils squeal.
Why 2. Ascending over field and thoroughfare their wings spread bare are more than fair accoutrements.
That right there, is one post so full of fail. Even the reason for editing full of fail.

o i'm sorry. can you help me mr. "I named myself after a bunch of twats and am a fucking simpleton who can't even wipe my own arse so its all maggoty now"?

I've always been fond of Lieh Tzu and Herbert Read.

Nietzsche and Ayn Rand.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Does Carl Sagan count?

Carl Sagan did tend to fall into philosophizing often in his books. Not to say that is bad; his philosophies are wonderful and truly inspirational. I consider his words to be akin to an atheist's Sermon on the Mount. Wonderful stuff.

I felt I should also add James Carse, who isn't quite as well-known. He wrote a book called Finite and Infinite Games in the late 80s (I think; either that or that's just my edition) that is a wonderful application of game theory to existential philosophy. It works wonderfully against Nietzschean understandings of Apollonian and Dionysian minds and is fantastically applicable to almost every facet of everyday life. I highly recommend it.

http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/0345341848

Now, it gets commented on frequently as not as nuanced or particular as things like Heidegger or Hegel or other more pronouncedly scholastic philosophers, but I think that adds to its power; it transfigures something important and impactful into terms that are easily understood by almost anybody. If nothing else, it works as a fine introduction to the ideas of existentialism to someone not familiar with them.

My favorite philosopher would have to be Rudolf Steiner because of his thorough methodology and enlightening insights into Spiritual Science.

Nietzsche and Ayn Rand.

complete lack of objective truth.... or your life depends on your objectivity?

can't make up your mind(heart)? lol

my phavorite filosopher is a man named dana who always wore a cowboy hat and said: today is the first day of the rest of your life


sorry i'm baked again

I enjoy philosophers who simply go out of their way to fuck up the unquestioned social structure of thought and reason (Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Hume, Schopenhauer). However, I still love reading Descartes, Plato, Kant and others who worked to uphold such beliefs (God, truth, justice)...Although Socrates pisses me off I still enjoy reading about his ideas

Ayn Rand, only one that makes sense.

Ayn Rand, only one that makes sense.

ayn rand makes too much sense is a world that doesn't make any

abandon her "philosophy" (her coping mechanism disguised as rampant intellectualism)

Give me a decent reason to.

Had any of those famous philosophers post here on totse, you'd call them a TROLL in a heart beat....philosophically speaking...

Give me a decent reason to.

Search: Humanistic Ethics


It makes much, much, much more sense.

The answer is not selfishness (rand), selflessness (jesus? I don't know), the answer is SELF-INTEREST

check out Man For Himself by Erich Fromm, completely changed my view on almost everything

Search: Humanistic Ethics


It makes much, much, much more sense.

The answer is not selfishness (rand), selflessness (jesus? I don't know), the answer is SELF-INTEREST

check out Man For Himself by Erich Fromm, completely changed my view on almost everything


Rand herself defines selfishness as merely self-interest. I fail to see how you didn't pick up on that.

Rand herself defines selfishness as merely self-interest. I fail to see how you didn't pick up on that.

I didn't, I just don't agree. Altruism is not a bad thing if done within the correct way. Rational selfishness is focused solely on making the individual life better and the group benefit is a by product, not intended. Humanistic self-interest looks to intentionally improve humanity by improving the self.

There is a difference.

I didn't, I just don't agree. Altruism is not a bad thing if done within the correct way. Rational selfishness is focused solely on making the individual life better and the group benefit is a by product, not intended. Humanistic self-interest looks to intentionally improve humanity by improving the self.

There is a difference.

What do intentions matter if the end result is the same? This idea seems entirely superfluous. Altruism ultimately leads to socialism, through which we all become enslaved to each other and regardless of our "intentions" we are all ultimately worse off. I see the difference but I don't understand how it makes any difference whatsoever. Please elaborate. I'm not trying to create a flame fest in this thread, I just really do not see where you are coming from.

What do intentions matter if the end result is the same? This idea seems entirely superfluous. Altruism ultimately leads to socialism, through which we all become enslaved to each other and regardless of our "intentions" we are all ultimately worse off. I see the difference but I don't understand how it makes any difference whatsoever. Please elaborate. I'm not trying to create a flame fest in this thread, I just really do not see where you are coming from.

oh shit

you're already a randbot

fuck

oh shit

you're already a randbot

fuck

If my argument is that flawed, why don't you rebut it?

If my argument is that flawed, why don't you rebut it?

wisdom isn't communicable, i'm afraid

but, if you insist,

What do intentions matter if the end result is the same? This idea seems entirely superfluous.

intentions do matter, and rand would agree with me

Altruism ultimately leads to socialism, through which we all become enslaved to each other and regardless of our "intentions" we are all ultimately worse off.

happiness is one of those things that will never get smaller no matter how many times you share it. your enemy isn't altruism, it's people too afraid to stop being selfish

I see the difference but I don't understand how it makes any difference whatsoever. Please elaborate. I'm not trying to create a flame fest in this thread, I just really do not see where you are coming from.

your lack of understanding is consistent with other randbots

Too many popular philosophers adhere to the belief that diversity breeds contempt and that in their own minds is the key to a species uniform in their own ideals of satisfaction.
Fuck that for a laugh. Ayn Rand was a fucking psychopath.

wisdom isn't communicable, i'm afraid

but, if you insist,



intentions do matter, and rand would agree with me



happiness is one of those things that will never get smaller no matter how many times you share it. your enemy isn't altruism, it's people too afraid to stop being selfish



your lack of understanding is consistent with other randbots

First of all, it's not randism it's objectivism and for all you know I'm playing devil's advocate so there's no need to get angry. And I was merely pointing out what does it matter if you call it self-interest or selfishness if it achieves the same end? Why play with words for no purpose?

First of all, it's not randism it's objectivism and for all you know I'm playing devil's advocate so there's no need to get angry. And I was merely pointing out what does it matter if you call it self-interest or selfishness if it achieves the same end? Why play with words for no purpose?

it's actually Objectivism with a capital o, if you wanna be accurate

wait so you realized that arguing whether something is self-interest or selfishness is just semantics..... and then you correct the name of your philosophy... as if that isn't semantics?

What do intentions matter if the end result is the same? This idea seems entirely superfluous. Altruism ultimately leads to socialism, through which we all become enslaved to each other and regardless of our "intentions" we are all ultimately worse off. I see the difference but I don't understand how it makes any difference whatsoever. Please elaborate. I'm not trying to create a flame fest in this thread, I just really do not see where you are coming from.

Because self-interest and selfishness don't lead to the same result. Maybe in theory, but not in practice. What we have now is selfishness and obviously you can see how well thats working out...

Euda is a fucking moron.

I beg to differ.


To contribute to the thread, I haven't really read much philisophy... although I have met many people that tell me that I one day will be one. I have a very deep thinking pattern. This Ayn Rand sounds very interesting, I'll check him/her out.

I haven't really read much philisophy... although I have met many people that tell me that I one day will be one. I have a very deep thinking pattern. This Ayn Rand sounds very interesting, I'll check him/her out.

I bow before you, enlightened one.

Marx, Aristotle, Næss, Spinoza and Wittgenstein.

A bit contradictory, but I find Marx' political ideas, combined with Næss and Spinoza's ideas of the relationship Humanity-Nature very useful and interesting. Wittgenstein and Aristotle is more of aesthetic value to me.

I've had some fun reading Schopenhauer too, but he seems a bit fucked up. I've read Objectivist propaganda to a certain extent, but so far there's not much sense being made. Looks like all Objectivists are just mad misanthropes who've turned into pacifists, and I do indeed hate both misanthropy and pacifism.

I've read Objectivist propaganda to a certain extent, but so far there's not much sense being made. Looks like all Objectivists are just mad misanthropes who've turned into pacifists, and I do indeed hate both misanthropy and pacifism.

exactly. i've noticed that rand caters to lonely teenage boys looking for justification of their elitism and social ineptitude.

exactly. i've noticed that rand caters to lonely teenage boys looking for justification of their elitism and social ineptitude.

Very true. I've never ever read anything Objectivist written by a girl. Apart from Rand herself, obviously. A striking number of them are students of science as well. I know the type, over-theoretically social misfits who have learned to hate the world, and needs a completely logical system to fit this hate into.

You guys are really too much. Maybe if you spent the time to actually read Atlas Shrugged or her book on Capitalism, you would have a better idea of what you are talking about.

You guys are really too much. Maybe if you spent the time to actually read Atlas Shrugged or her book on Capitalism, you would have a better idea of what you are talking about.

is reading the fountainhead, the virtue of selfishness, and 400 pages of atlas shrugged enough to get an idea? lol

exactly. i've noticed that rand caters to lonely teenage boys looking for justification of their elitism and social ineptitude.

This. She pretends like miserable isolation can be happiness.....

The idea is balance

Golden ratio? Humanism? Love of self and others? No? So you're just going to be a hermit?

"Man is a social animal"- Spinoza


........whatever....

Have you ever actually read Kant? Or are you just jumping on Ayn Rand's bandwagon?

It's just kind of ironic that you would decry both Kant and presumption in the same breath considering that the main purpose of transcendental critique is to rescue philosophy by determining a priori necessary principles on which it can safely rest.

I have read Kant, though not all of him. Critique of Pure Reason, Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals, and a third I do not recall the name of. He, more than any other philosopher I have read, reminds me of the quote "Whoever knows he is deep strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity". (Though, having to look that up for the quote, I see it's Nietzsche. He was probably referring specifically to Kant.) I found him absolutely painful, pages of obscure proofs of his main idea followed by pages of clear and precise hammering of a single detail. He also came off as overwhelmingly myopic. I'm not going to knock the guy for not being well traveled, but I got the impression that it never even occurred to him that someone might try to apply his Categorical Imperative from anything other than the perspective of an 18th century German Protestant. And yes, I have struggled first-hand with the quandary of how anyone can possibly be moral in Kant's world, as even a desire to perform one's duty disqualifies one from fulfilling it.

But, in terms of why I state that Kant is the Devil, far, far moreso than Rand's antipathy, more than the issues from my own reading, was the love and adulation a very, very incompetent professor at "one of the top five philosophy departments in the Western world" heaped on Kant.

And I guess I should have been more clear. When I was talking about presumption, I was thinking of Utilitarianism. I freely acknowledge the possibility that Mill or someone else got down to the nitty-gritty in some paper I haven't read, but from what I have it seems that good is defined as Utility, and any questions about that are referred back to that definition.

This. She pretends like miserable isolation can be happiness.....

The idea is balance

Golden ratio? Humanism? Love of self and others? No? So you're just going to be a hermit?

"Man is a social animal"- Spinoza


........whatever....

How social do you think you'd be if you were expected to pick up the tab every night? If I cover drinks for a friend who is broke, it's because I choose to, not because he has any right to demand it of me. I am going to do a poor job of explaining this, but social interaction is, and should be a trade. Both I and the person I interact with socially should both benefit from the interaction, you should both enjoy each other's company. If not, why the hell are you being social? Would you hang out with someone you couldn't stand?

It's not "miserable isolation", it's not deluding yourself that social relationships that harm your quality of life are still desirable because it's "being social".

How social do you think you'd be if you were expected to pick up the tab every night? If I cover drinks for a friend who is broke, it's because I choose to, not because he has any right to demand it of me.

Can you not be social and refuse altruistic behavior at the same time? I won't lend money out to a friend who I know already owes me money or won't pay me back...It doesn't mean we can't be friends or social.


Would you hang out with someone you couldn't stand?

Did I ever say you should? Rand puts emphasis on social isolation saying the rest of the world is entirely worthless to the indivdual because the only way to trully be yourself if by being by yourself....

She misses the problem, the problem isn't other people, the problem is being yourself around other people, the problem lies within, internally, not externally. Being yourself and an individual makes you popular and well liked because you are you for yourself and not a interchangeable conformist, friends, relationships and love all come from non confomrity...Rand believes happiness only comes from isolation. No, happiness comes from others while BEING YOURSELF.


It's not "miserable isolation", it's not deluding yourself that social relationships that harm your quality of life are still desirable because it's "being social".


There are millions of interesting valuable people to be friends with who don't detract anything from the individual, in fact they BETTER the individual. Learning comes from interaction, not isolation...Even if all you do is read Rand your still learning FROM Rand, isolation from the person, not the ideas.

Learn to value people for ideas in person and not just in books (if that makes sense)....I like Rand, I just think she misconstrues the method, but she has the right idea and I respect her for that...She just needs to know that the best happiness is self-acceptance validated further by others, don't rely on the later, but recognize the benefits.

How social do you think you'd be if you were expected to pick up the tab every night? If I cover drinks for a friend who is broke, it's because I choose to, not because he has any right to demand it of me.

Can you not be social and refuse altruistic behavior at the same time? I won't lend money out to a friend who I know already owes me money or won't pay me back...It doesn't mean we can't be friends or social.


Would you hang out with someone you couldn't stand?

Did I ever say you should? Rand puts emphasis on social isolation saying the rest of the world is entirely worthless to the indivdual because the only way to truly be yourself if by being by yourself....

She misses the problem, the problem isn't other people, the problem is being yourself around other people, the problem lies within, internally, not externally. Being yourself and an individual makes you popular and well liked because you are you for yourself and not a interchangeable conformist, friends, relationships and love all come from non conformity...Rand believes happiness only comes from isolation. No, happiness comes from others while BEING YOURSELF.


It's not "miserable isolation", it's not deluding yourself that social relationships that harm your quality of life are still desirable because it's "being social".


There are millions of interesting valuable people to be friends with who don't detract anything from the individual, in fact they BETTER the individual. Learning comes from interaction, not isolation...Even if all you do is read Rand your still learning FROM Rand, isolation from the person, not the ideas.

Learn to value people for ideas in person and not just in books (if that makes sense)....I like Rand, I just think she misconstrues the method, but she has the right idea and I respect her for that...She just needs to know that the best happiness is self-acceptance validated further by others, don't rely on the later, but recognize the benefits.

He, more than any other philosopher I have read, reminds me of the quote "Whoever knows he is deep strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity".

Let us assume that Nietzsche’s aphorism is true for a moment. Now, it does not follow that because a philosophical treatise is obscure that the philosopher who wrote it wanted it to be impenetrable. On the contrary, he could very well have tried his best to make the treatise intelligible. Just because you strive for clarity, it does not necessarily follow that you will achieve clarity.

I believe that there is ample evidence that Kant strove to be as clear as possible. For instance, he realized that readers could easily get lost in the first critique and lose sight of the main insights and arguments. That is why he wrote a short companion piece called “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics” that brings to light and illuminates said main insights and arguments. No one would go out of their way to write such a guide to their magnum opus if they intended for it to be impenetrable.

Furthermore, in the preface to the first edition of the first critique, Kant discusses logical clarity and aesthetic clarity to explain why he provides no examples or concrete illustrations in the book, namely, because he believed that they would divert attention from the arguments and make the book an unmanageable size. Here is a clear indication that Kant desired to make his work clear and understood.

As for why, say, the first critique is hard to understand, I would say that there are three reasons. The first is that Kant is a self-professed “poor writer”, although I personally love his style and consequently the style of the German Idealists too. The second reason is that Kant uses a terminology that will not be immediately familiar to just about all readers, and as a result, it can take some getting use to.

The third and most important reason is the difficulty and profoundness of the ideas contained within the first critique. Let us not forget that Kant struggled with these ideas for ten years before he put them to paper. You would have to be pretty confident to believe that you can comprehend them with ease. What is more, you would have to be very foolish to dismiss something as nonsense simply because you cannot understand it or the wording appears obscurant on first examination. This is a prejudice that only seems to be directed toward philosophy. No one expects the theory of relativity or high-level mathematics -- which, by the way, both require an initiation into a terminology before they can be understood and discussed -- to be easy to grasp, yet if a philosophical essay is not instantly comprehensible, it is dismissed as nonsense masquerading as edification under a veil of large words.

I'm not going to knock the guy for not being well traveled, but I got the impression that it never even occurred to him that someone might try to apply his Categorical Imperative from anything other than the perspective of an 18th century German Protestant.

Kant certainly never physically left Königsberg, but he read vastly about other cultures and places, so much so, that he was knowledgeable enough to give lectures on anthropology for twenty-five years. Moreover, he wrote treatises on the philosophy of history. Most people do not know this though, because they only pay attention to the three critiques and the Groundwork.

But, in terms of why I state that Kant is the Devil, far, far moreso than Rand's antipathy, more than the issues from my own reading, was the love and adulation a very, very incompetent professor at "one of the top five philosophy departments in the Western world" heaped on Kant.

If the main reason you loathe Kant is that someone you dislike and consider an idiot loved him, then that is a terrible reason. I cannot see why someone should treat Beethoven with contempt because he is adored by a musically illiterate person who perhaps likes to pound out Moonlight Sonata on an out of tune piano from time to time.

And I guess I should have been more clear. When I was talking about presumption, I was thinking of Utilitarianism. I freely acknowledge the possibility that Mill or someone else got down to the nitty-gritty in some paper I haven't read, but from what I have it seems that good is defined as Utility, and any questions about that are referred back to that definition.

Well talking about utilitarians is very different to talking about philosophers in general. Anyway, utilitarians are a minority in ethics. They only seem prevalent because we are in a utilitarian culture, i.e. the Anglo-Saxon culture. But among all ethicists in general there have been debates about the definition and definability of good since Plato.

Hare_Geist: Meh, I didn't respond to you before because it seemed pointless, and continuing to discuss the point certainly would be, as I "just don't understand"/am a cultist. So, instead, feel like recommending either a good translation that'll address the terminology issue, or a book/paper on Kant's philosophy written by someone competant with the English language?

Zizek and Russel. Zizek's prose and socio-cultural insight is amazing and I frequently use Russel's ideas on empiricism, which are amazing in that he shone new light on a topic thought long to be exhausted. Rand gives me the lolz, especially when you read her speaking about practical matters, like whether or not to support Nixon after Watergate (surprise, surprise:rolleyes:). For those Randites out there, yes I've read her; Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal as a bet with Surah here and Ayn Rand Answers for personal interest (and as I said, lolz). If you're going to get into her then skip Atlas Shrugged (or perhaps read the last few chapters, everything else is boring allegory) and go straight for the non-fiction. With enough of an intro you should be comfortable with what you read.

EDIT: Also I really enjoy the philosophy presented in the Tao Te Ching largely because of its aesthetic value. I imagine it would be amazing on acid. It has been claimed that Lao Tzu wrote it but that hasn't been verified. At the same time, Ibn al-Haytham can even be seen as the first scientist, predating Baconianism by 800 years!:eek: Though of course I disagree with his theological conclusions, his scientific methodologies were a clear breakthrough at the time.

Hare_Geist: Meh, I didn't respond to you before because it seemed pointless, and continuing to discuss the point certainly would be, as I "just don't understand"/am a cultist. So, instead, feel like recommending either a good translation that'll address the terminology issue, or a book/paper on Kant's philosophy written by someone competant with the English language?

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20306/kant_materials/prolegomena1.htm

Don't mean to speak for Geist, but that's probably what he'd say.

Has anyone read the Weigelt/Muller translation? I like it.

You can read Kemp Smith here: http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/

Has anyone read the Weigelt/Muller translation? I like it.

My favourite translation is the one Pluhar made for Hackett. But the volume is really large and bulky, as well as inundated with loads of notes, so I was pleasantly surprised a few months ago when I discovered the new translation by Weigelt, because the volume was so portable and easy to hold. As for the translation itself, I think Weigelt and Muller did a really good job and made the text as readable as it can be in English. It is great for the beginner or anyone wanting to read Kant for fun or while they are travelling, but if you want to seriously study the critique, I think that you have to eventually use a much more academic translation, i.e. the Pluhar translation.

So, instead, feel like recommending either a good translation that'll address the terminology issue, or a book/paper on Kant's philosophy written by someone competant with the English language?

Try the Weigelt translation. Also, check this (http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html) out, but don’t trust it completely.

I Hate Philosophy. it is useless, and meaningless, and were it beautiful, it would instead be called art.

the few pieces of philosophy that i enjoy i enjoy because their beauty is validation of their meaningfulness.

So my favorite philosopher is Solomon, for the writing of Ecclesiastes, which is beautiful and true. but with few exception, no philosophy derived from a philosopher is worth a fucking damn. take your philosophy from your own observations if you are dull, and if you are not dull, then take them from artists and achievers.

rand... a fool... nieztche... a blockhead... marx, plato, aristotle, virtually all of them manage to ramble over their opinions and observations without creating a single thing, without revealing a single truth, without contributing anything to anyone but merely providing intellectual masturbation material to people looking for the right thing for the wrong reasons in the wrong places. pornography for the intellect - fake self stimulation using the imagination for unimaginative purposes.

marx, plato, aristotle, virtually all of them manage to ramble over their opinions and observations without creating a single thing, without revealing a single truth, without contributing anything to anyone but merely providing intellectual masturbation material to people looking for the right thing for the wrong reasons in the wrong places. pornography for the intellect - fake self stimulation using the imagination for unimaginative purposes.

If that's your interpretation of those three, you should really read them over again. Marx is far from intellectual masturbation, he strikes me as very down to earth and real.

I do agree on Ecclesiastes, much of it is very beatutiful poetry, but it stops right there for me. I haven't found much truth in the Bible, to be honest.

Edit: danzig is right, philosophy is for cunts.

Edit: danzig is right, philosophy is for cunts.



Love of Knowledge is for cunts?


Locke? Life, liberty and happiness? The only reason you can say that is because people like Locke told YOU about it. Piss off. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Stagnation is nihilism.

Locke wasn't just a political philosopher btw, he was a genuine classical empiricist.

philosophy is hilarious..... i could spend my entire life thinking about it until i die.... but then what? i like debating philosophy but honestly, what you do is more important than what you think

what you do is more important than what you think


Well, I think before I do.

All philosophy does is teach you how to think critically and analytically in difficult esoteric ways. When you apply that level of thought to basic stuff in the real world problems become much much easier.

Philosophy is why we have religion and politics. Marx, Hobbes, Locke, they were all philosophers. To act like philosophy has little or no impact is to be ignorant.

Where do you think Christianity derived alot of its ideas from? Platonism....(Plato) You don't think he had an impact?


By thinking and writing you can change EVERYTHING...See, there was this book called the Communist Manifesto written by a PHILOSOPHER named Karl Marx...Maybe you've heard of it?


Yeah, what did that do :rolleyes:

Well, I think before I do.

All philosophy does is teach you how to think critically and analytically in difficult esoteric ways. When you apply that level of thought to basic stuff in the real world problems become much much easier. Philosophy is why we have religion and politics. Marx, Hobbes, Locke, they were all philosophers. To act like philosophy has little or no impact is to be ignorant.

Where do you think Christianity derived alot of its ideas from? Platonism....(Plato) You don't think he had an impact?


By thinking and writing you can change EVERYTHING...See, there was this book called the Communist Manifesto written by a PHILOSOPHER named Karl Marx...Maybe you've heard of it?


Yeah, what did that do :rolleyes:

okay... so your point is that philosophy is responsible for failed economic systems, oppressive religions, and your annoying, cocky posts? you're not really helping your case lol

i never argued that philosophy isn't important. but the only thing that makes philosophy important is how and when it is enacted. you even admitted that writing about philosophy is necessary for it to be influential and useful.

of course people think before they act. but do you really need to read critique of pure reason to go grocery shopping or do other "basic stuff?" does the communist manifesto solve your problems with your girlfriend?

once a wise man calls himself a philosopher, he has left the path of knowledge.

our "philosophy" ought not be taken from the decrepit fools that call themselves philosophers, but from the christs and ceasers and washingtons and luthers and jeffersons.

artists preach wisdom with beauty; conquerors and achievers with action; saints with holiness.

philosophers preach wisdom only so far as they can be examples of folly, because they have not the wisdom to be beautiful, to achieve, or to be holy.

okay... so your point is that philosophy is responsible for failed economic systems, oppressive religions, and your annoying, cocky posts? you're not really helping your case lol



Fuck you. PEOPLE fuck up institutions, not the other way around. Ideas never ruined anything, only the people who carried them out.


Besides what predicates EVERYTHING in the world today? Those institutions. You said philosophy had no use, I proved you wrong. It literally founded intellectual culture. Of course you see no point in that.


I like how you spun that to you fucking little prick. Yes, democracy has only been a bad thing :rolleyes: The only reason you have a right to disagree with me is because of people like Locke.


Why don't you just kill yourself for the better of humanity.

And you know what? Philosophy does teach you how to act with your girlfriend, it explains how to act virtuous, if you don't think acting virtuous holds any value than you're just being a dick because you don't want to admit your wrong...

of course people think before they act. but do you really need to read critique of pure reason to go grocery shopping or do other "basic stuff?" does the communist manifesto solve your problems with your girlfriend?

This is one of the signal most ignorant things I have ever heard.


The world will be a better place when you die

It would seem to me that you (Mr. Kitty) are too caught up in what you believe to be right and wrong to have any grasp on what a love of wisdom might bring to life.

Edit: Its single, not signal.
And on another note All philosophy does is teach you how to think critically and analytically in difficult esoteric ways.
This to me is one of the single most ignorant things I have ever read.

This is one of the signal most ignorant things I have ever heard.

The world will be a better place when you die

signal? i think you mean "single." it's usually more effective to call people ignorant when you use words correctly. lmao

Fuck you. PEOPLE fuck up institutions, not the other way around. Ideas never ruined anything, only the people who carried them out.

so finally you're admitting that action is the only thing that can change anything? thanks for agreeing with me, jackass.

so finally you're admitting that action is the only thing that can change anything? thanks for agreeing with me, jackass.

The question is which action. That's what ethics are for.

Nobody wants to insult chemistry, lawl :)

does the communist manifesto solve your problems with your girlfriend?

Many times, it has at least been giving people food on the table, giving them time for their girlfriends. Books don't solve problems, but books show us how to solve them.

Philosophy doesn't save lives. It saves minds.

signal? i think you mean "single." it's usually more effective to call people ignorant when you use words correctly. lmao


so finally you're admitting that action is the only thing that can change anything? thanks for agreeing with me, jackass.



Philosophy is simply the study of knowledge. Every aspect of civilization can in one way or another be traced back to it. If you think all that matters is how to go to the grocery store (as you stated earlier) than there is nothing I, or anyone else can do to help you.

Philosophy is simply the study of knowledge. Every aspect of civilization can in one way or another be traced back to it. If you think all that matters is how to go to the grocery store (as you stated earlier) than there is nothing I, or anyone else can do to help you.

where did i say that going to the grocery store is the only thing that matters to me? you started talking about "basic stuff" and i just mentioned that reading kant is not necessary for petty, basic stuff i.e. going to the grocery store.....

and what makes you think i would ever want your help for anything? lol

reading kant is not necessary for petty, basic stuff i.e. going to the grocery store.....



Some of us would like to do more than the "basic, petty stuff". You obviously don't.

And Whatever, thats fine, its your own opinion. I don't really care if you don't want to be an intelligent person but that doesn't mean you should bash philosophy just because you don't understand it.

Some of us would like to do more than the "basic, petty stuff". You obviously don't.

what have you done that is so much more productive and influential than the average person's "basic stuff?" how has your philosophy influenced you to work for noble humanitarian causes or achieve great feats of innovation? what have you done that is so amazing with your philosophy?

And Whatever, thats fine, its your own opinion. I don't really care if you don't want to be an intelligent person but that doesn't mean you should bash philosophy just because you don't understand it.

the biggest problem i have with "philosophers" like you is that your conceit and elitist attitude prevent you from ever finding any truth. i very well could be more intelligent than you, and just because i disagree with your narrow beliefs doesn't make me inferior to you in any way. how's that for a philosophy, you arrogant twat?

what have you done that is so much more productive and influential than the average person's "basic stuff?"

Got into a good college, changed my thought, action and what I wanted to do with my life. Had I not ever been interested in philosophy I probably would have gone to a big state school got drunk all the time, found the highest paying job I could, get married, retire and then die. Without question philosophy made me reevaluate my goals in life and made me start caring about something past hedonistic pleasure. There are so many people I know who went to college simply because it was thing to do (very smart people at that). I would have done the same had I not found philosophy.

the biggest problem i have with "philosophers" like you is that your conceit and elitist attitude prevent you from ever finding any truth.

You don't know anything about me and I'm certainly not elitist, I just have a low tolerance for closed minded people. All I essentially said was people who lack an open mind lack intelligence. If you think philosophy lacks pragmatic purpose simply because it can't help you with girl troubles (I think it can actually) than you clearly lack an open mind and your intelligence is useless. You could make an argument that Ann Coulter is more "intelligent" than I am but b/c she 's so close minded it wouldn't be very effective.



i very well could be more intelligent than you, and just because i disagree with your narrow beliefs doesn't make me inferior to you in any way. how's that for a philosophy, you arrogant twat?


My narrow belief is philosophy is extremely influential and important? Can you please explain that? It doesn't make any sense.


okay... so your point is that philosophy is responsible for failed economic systems, oppressive religions, and your annoying, cocky posts? you're not really helping your case lol


Here you admit philosophy helped create those institutions. I never said they were perfect, I simply said it had more point than thinking. You even say "it is responsible for ...." meaning it had more point than thought. You're wrong, you admitted it. You lose the whole argument b.c. that was all it was ever about. You said (right below) that all philosophy was good for was debating. Clearly that isn't the case, as you later say. You can't contradict yourself and be right. It only shows you're wrong and you didn't want to admit it.


philosophy is hilarious..... i could spend my entire life thinking about it until i die.... but then what? i like debating philosophy but honestly, what you do is more important than what you think

Well if what you do is predicated by Society (unless you live in the woods alone) which was founded by philosophy...Than I would say its of equal importance, actually more important because society is the effect and philosophy is the cause...

Granted, anthropologically speaking, people just came into groups first but the rules and laws which we follow in those groups (which define our action) were created by philosophers and philosophy. "don't murder" must philosophically justified before people follow agree to follow it (just because its easy to do so doesn't mean it skipped the process)


does the communist manifesto solve your problems with your girlfriend?

Neither does math, math must not be important either :rolleyes:

No, but it did causes hundreds of world revolutions...Which is more important?



Weird, it seems you're narrow minded...Please, if I'm wrong, and I'M narrow minded than show me how. Because all I said was you were underestimating philosophy, it has more purpose than debating...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Applied_philosophy

Got into a good college, changed my thought, action and what I wanted to do with my life. Had I not ever been interested in philosophy I probably would have gone to a big state school got drunk all the time, found the highest paying job I could, get married, retire and then die. Without question philosophy made me reevaluate my goals in life and made me start caring about something past hedonistic pleasure. There are so many people I know who went to college simply because it was thing to do (very smart people at that). I would have done the same had I not found philosophy.

so your philosophy made you choose to go to college... how has your philosophy helped anyone else? has your philosophy led you to work for any humanitarian causes or achieve anything the normal person couldn't? because if that's the greatest achievement your philosophy has produced, then it really is trivial and selfish. i'm probably going to a more prestigious and selective college than you, and i attribute that to my work ethic and intelligence--not anything written by kant or marx. lol

You don't know anything about me and I'm certainly not elitist, I just have a low tolerance for closed minded people. All I essentially said was people who lack an open mind lack intelligence. If you think philosophy lacks pragmatic purpose simply because it can't help you with girl troubles (I think it can actually) than you clearly lack an open mind and your intelligence is useless. You could make an argument that Ann Coulter is more "intelligent" than I am but b/c she 's so close minded it wouldn't be very effective.

My narrow belief is philosophy is extremely influential and important? Can you please explain that? It doesn't make any sense.

you think that because i don't see value in philosophy without action that i am automatically dumb. you think i'm dumb because i disagree with you. how is that not close minded?

Here you admit philosophy helped create those institutions. I never said they were perfect, I simply said it had more point than thinking. You even say "it is responsible for ...." meaning it had more point than thought. You're wrong, you admitted it. You lose the whole argument b.c. that was all it was ever about. You said (right below) that all philosophy was good for was debating. Clearly that isn't the case, as you later say. You can't contradict yourself and be right. It only shows you're wrong and you didn't want to admit it.

i never said philosophy is good for just debating. if your reading comprehension skills were up to par, you'd notice that i believe that philosophy can be very influential, but only as long as it is accompanied with action. philosophy without action is worthless; as danzig said, it's mental masturbation. maybe your philosophy "made you go to college," but at least i'm making a difference in the world by volunteering, tutoring, and committing to other causes that transcend my desire to go to college, you selfish prick. i don't even need to subscribe to a philosophy to do that either.

Well if what you do is predicated by Society (unless you live in the woods alone) which was founded by philosophy...Than I would say its of equal importance, actually more important because society is the effect and philosophy is the cause...

Granted, anthropologically speaking, people just came into groups first but the rules and laws which we follow in those groups (which define our action) were created by philosophers and philosophy. "don't murder" must philosophically justified before people follow agree to follow it (just because its easy to do so doesn't mean it skipped the process)

blah blah blah blah blah...

Neither does math, math must not be important either :rolleyes:

math has infinitely more practical uses in our society today than philosophy alone does.

No, but it did causes hundreds of world revolutions...Which is more important?

"no, but it did causes" ...? your syntax is hilariously poor. i don't believe you're nearly as smart as you claim to be.

the philosophy isn't what's important here, but the people who created the revolutions are. sure, i agree that philosophy may influence people's thoughts, but it is the people's actions that create revolutions. you can spend your whole life reading and debating obscure philosophy, but what are YOU going to DO about it? probably nothing special. but keeping reading about philosophy on wikipedia, because your superior intellect is clearly contributing to and influencing society. :rolleyes:

Weird, it seems you're narrow minded...Please, if I'm wrong, and I'M narrow minded than show me how. Because all I said was you were underestimating philosophy, it has more purpose than debating...

okay whatever dude!

Stuff


This is my point:

Philosophy in one form or another was and still is the foundation for every society, group, culture and organization. Every institution has a philosophy. Philosophy defines how and why we act, it is therefore the most important thing you can learn.



Do you agree, yes or no?


I'm doing this because I didn't feel like replying to your comments about how much more of a humanitarian you are than me and because I made a typing error I'm a moron.

This is my point:

Philosophy in one form or another was and still is the foundation for every society, group, culture and organization. Every institution has a philosophy. Philosophy defines how and why we act, it is therefore the most important thing you can learn.



Do you agree, yes or no?

kind of.

it's not the most important thing we can learn just because it defines how and why we act. psychology, history, sociology, biology, political science, anthropology, literature, statistics, theology, chemistry, advertising, marketing, and nearly every other field of study is a unique attempt to define how and why we act in certain ways. philosophy has the potential to be one of the most important things we learn because, in my opinion, it can provide us with ethical foundations from which we should base our actions off of.

I'm doing this because I didn't feel like replying to your comments about how much more of a humanitarian you are than me and because I made a typing error I'm a moron.

okay.

this is my point:

philosophy is worthless without action.

kind of.

it's not the most important thing we can learn just because it defines how and why we act. psychology, history, sociology, biology, political science, anthropology, literature, statistics, theology, chemistry, advertising, marketing, and nearly every other field of study is a unique attempt to define how and why we act in certain ways. philosophy has the potential to be one of the most important things we learn because, in my opinion, it can provide us with ethical foundations from which we should base our actions off of.


But those fields all stem off from philosophy...Freud even says "We have sailed into the harbor of Schopenhauer"...The idea of Atoms came from Democratis (presocratic philosopher), theology is derived from metaphysics, literature and philosophy are the same more of less, political science is attributed to political philosophers (Marx, Locke, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Moore)....

They all came from and were founded on philosophy. I'm not making this up nor is it my opinion, look it up. Find where "life liberty and happiness" comes from. Or where this idea of "another world" comes from in theology or where the idea of atoms was first proposed....Philosophy is the foundation of knowledge (i.e. love of knowledge)...Its the best subject because it is the general make up of every specified field, philosophy is the study of everything...Hawking even quotes Kant in "A brief History of Time"....All those fields are merely philosophy specialized into different categories...Science is just reduced philosophy...Along with everything else....

Philosophy is just the study of knowledge ...It has to be the very foundation by definition....

okay.

this is my point:

philosophy is worthless without action.


Yes and my point is that action is worthless without philosophy...Do you understand what I'm saying?


Things in and of themselves (even ideas) are insufficient outside of theory, you can't have a political revolution with just action and you can't have it with just philosophy. This was all I was trying to say....

Life is a synthesis between action and thought. You can't say I'm against philosophy because I'm for action because action is predicated by philosophy....Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. Malcolm X all derived there ideas in one way or another from the philosophy of civil disobedience (passive resistance) ...


Thought predicates action and action validates thought. You can't support one without the other.

Of course philosophy isolated is pointless but you can't isolate thought from action so you created a false dilemma...I probably should have explained myself better in the first post.

Although I may not be saying what you said, just realize that agreeing with me here doesn't mean your in contradiction with yourself...Meaning disregard any reluctance to change opinions because my idea is not opposed to yours, it simply elaborates on it...

philosophy without action is worthless;



So is everything, a physics is worthless unless you use action to apply it, your incredible urge to do good is useless without action (the numerous humanitarian life saving things you have done)