• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe

Philosophers of Today

rangrz said:
It's not that I don't grasp them, it's that I find them trivial, patently absurd, or frankly incorrect.
Click to expand...

Do you feel the same of Advaita Vedanta and Zen or do you just not like the person delivering the message? Or do you just find the concept of non-duality in itself absurd? Of course you are allowed to believe whatever you want, but the ideas Watts was spreading are thousands of years old and have been practiced and taught throughout the East by both the sages in India and the monks in China and Japan.

Do you think the sages such as Sri Ramana Maharsi and Nisargadatta Maharaj were liars or simply delusional? This goes for the Zen masters as well. If these idea's are so trivial, absurd, or even frankly incorrect how do you account for all the people during the entire duration of recorded history who have came to the same conclusions?
 
Mmm, Dennet's comments on the deepity "Love is just a word" is rather immature. He definitely must be aware of the distinction between language/metalanguage in logic. Ironically, he actually implicitly ridicules what our clever analytic academic philosophers spend their time on.
 
Last edited:
rangrz i know that you are more of the material world type as opposed to the spiritual. but watts is neither. his views are clear, concise and easily observable in everyday existence. you are babbling on about these things that he is not, and then retort with some stupid link. if you think mindfulness and living with truth and knowledge is "gobbledygook," you need to spend a little less time in your own little world, and little more time with an open mind.

"when you get the message, hang up the phone" is a standard watts quote that could make sense to an 8th grader. if you find that to be "incoherent and patently absurd" than i, sir, find you to be shallow and pedantic.
 
Last edited:
rangrz said:
You're significantly lacking in intellectual capacity. Watts posits a large body of deepitys and incoherent nonsense.
Click to expand...

oh yeah, i had to laugh at the fact that you use the phrase "significantly lacking in intellectual capacity" to describe ignorance or whatever. it doesnt make you look very smart, and imo it makes you look like a cocksucker..
 
Psyduck said:
Mmm, Dennet's comments on the deepity "Love is just a word" is rather immature. He definitely must be aware of the distinction between language/metalanguage in logic. Ironically, he actually implicitly ridicules what our clever analytic academic philosophers spend their time on.
Click to expand...

Though he his undoubtedly of the post-analytic school, I do not think that Dennett would characterize himself as a 'clever analytic academic philosopher.'

bmxxx said:
PA, can I ask which specific application of her ideas, or which specific ideas themselves, you find most troubling, and why?
Click to expand...

Sure, though I'd still prefer that you made another thread dedicated to the topic. Before I commence the deluge of discontent, I'll have you keep this caveat in mind: I do not care about Ayn Rand. In my estimation, she is of roughly comparable relevance as a 'philosopher' as Perez Hilton, Tyler Perry, or Gene Ray. Also, in a similar vein to a post you made above, you should know enough about my worldview by now to make an educated guess about which qualities of Rand's 'philosophy' I find most repugnant. But, without further ado:

1) Her exaltation of meritocratic ideals are morally disgusting to the point of emesis.

2) Her conflation of genius, power, wealth, and human worth would be almost humorous if it weren't so utterly (and, to borrow from Wallace, unattractively unaware that it is utterly) debauched and infuriating.

3) As I'm sure you're aware, her advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism is offensive to me on multiple levels (see above), and from what I've seen of her work, is not presented in a manner that is sufficiently technical or systematic to warrant consideration from anyone who actually gives a shit. Rand, was not, after all, a scholar of any sort (economic, literary, sociological, political-scientific, you name it), so it's no surprise that the actual delivery of her 'ideas' is laughably simplistic, lacking in nuance, and has been poorly received by those who make their respective livings working in the aforementioned fields to which Ayn Rand dedicated a tremendous quantity of effort in her career as a hack writer.

4) Her bizarrely simplistic approach to a wide variety of pressing and serious social problems is troubling enough to warrant mention - while she is thoroughly systematic in her advocacy of her warped social ideals, she appears to have been the first 'Wikipedia philosopher,' latching on to particular '-isms' and using them as first principles without qualification. Straight from the horse's mouth:

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

Metaphysics Objective Reality
Epistemology Reason
Ethics Self-interest
Politics Capitalism
Click to expand...


From where I'm sitting, it seems plain that if you'd like to be a 'philosopher of our time,' you should not be capable of articulating your positions in terms of a clever little assortment of staccato slogans and catch-phrases, indexed by the philosophical fields/disciplines to which they belong. This is an unintentionally comical, undergraduate sociology student's approach to 'philosophy.' Before you accuse of me of snobbery, cf. another, eminently non-snobbish philosopher's take on this notion:

A single proposition isn't a theory, it's a slogan; and what some philosophers do isn't theorizing, it's slogan-honing.
What is this labor for? What confusion would be dissipated, what advances in outlook would be created, by
success in this endeavor? Do you really need something to print on your T-shirt?
Click to expand...

This list could go on and on, but who has the time? If you want another (negative) take on the subject of Rand's perspective on political economy, read this arguably generous assessment of her bloated 'masterpiece.' For even further reading, see here, here, and here.
 
Last edited:
The only real philosophical question worth asking is whether you're going to kill yourself or not.

"I am. Or I can not be."

Camus was pretty spot-on there.

Sentience is a bitch ain't it?
 
Thou said:
The only real philosophical question worth asking is whether you're going to kill yourself or not.

"I am. Or I can not be."

Camus was pretty spot-on there.

Sentience is a bitch ain't it?
Click to expand...

heh, i thought that was a quote from some jim carey movie ;PP
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As someone who studies philosophy I would consider Alvin Plantinga, W. V. O. Quine, Peter Vardy, P. F. Strason, William Lane Craig, Hillary Putnam, Carl Hempel and, to some extent, Stephen Law (Perhaps a little bias as I have him as a lecturer xD) as the most notable philosophers of the last couple of decades. But it really depends on your definition of 'modern' really - If we're going for all of contemporary philosophy you'll obviously have people like Ludwig Wittgenstein and A. J. Ayer, amongst others, included.
 
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
 
^ lol
but in truth amongst philosophers associated with continental philosophy there are emperors and gods of goobledygook which would make Derrida look terse and formal (as unlikely as it might sound)
 
rangrz said:
gobbledygook
Click to expand...

I hate to be the one to call you out on this particular in-congruency and it's nothing personal;

But.

For someone who prides himself on his logistical mind and intelligence that's the second time you've used a superfluous word not even close to being considered proper English, without really backing up your claim. You just kind throw out "oh he's so full of shit and trite etc." without giving reasons and comparative details.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wishing you'd tell us why you're right (or in this case believe so, true philosophers know there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'). You're obviously an intelligent person, I just want more words from you is all. :)
 
There's my concept of right and your concept of wrong and vice versa. Maybe I should have 'I' instead of 'true philosophers' which would have been more accurate I'll give you that and apologize for the error.

There's no absolutes in morality. Philosophy isn't science, however much the two want to get in bed with each other. They're just after answers to the same questions, hardly in league.

This is my view, you can disrespect it and call it bullshit, I wasn't trying to proffer it as truth therfore I made the correction in the first line of this post. I'm not editing the original because it would take our exchange out of context, even though I know everyone is going to respond to that one and skim over this one and I'll have to repeat this.

I respect your viewpoint, so please don't call mine bullshit. I don't care, it's just petty I think.
 
Sam Harris and the other writers of the new atheism movement are my current reads. I can't say they are contributing anything new to philosophy, but there seems to be a shift happening in regard to critical thought towards religion.
 
I dont like Sam Harris as I detected certain falsehoods he knew or should have known about in his work.

Namely when he says its ok to torture terrorists to save others lives and that proof that it is moral is that if it was say our children being saved then most people would choose to torture the terrorist but that does not allow for the fact that people can choose to do bad things to protect their children but the things they do are still bad. He doesnt hint at this or seem to grasp this at all but I cannot see how he could miss it. Otherwise we wouldnt have (theoretically) objective sentencing by judges we would instead have the offenders punished by the victims to a subjective extent for a subjective hurt. I could easily see victims choosing to say blind people chop off body parts so on but doesnt mean its moral.

To take Harris thing further what if the man was innocent not a terrorist but torturing him would save your little daughter. Many if not most (including me) would do the torture. But they shouldnt. What if its one innocent man tortured to death to save the lives of 10 innocent children. Still morally wrong to torture or kill the one even if you might do it. It would be immoral. Many people might choose to do the immoral thing and live with their choice for the benefit to others or their children but that stll doesnt change the nature of the act.

I was reading Harris happily until this then gave up when he refused to delve any deeper than saying it is fine to torture people for information which is plain wrong and also plain doesnt work.
 
Comrade Kane said:
Namely when he says its ok to torture terrorists to save others lives and that proof that it is moral is that if it was say our children being saved then most people would choose to torture the terrorist but that does not allow for the fact that people can choose to do bad things to protect their children but the things they do are still bad. He doesnt hint at this or seem to grasp this at all but I cannot see how he could miss it. Otherwise we wouldnt have (theoretically) objective sentencing by judges we would instead have the offenders punished by the victims to a subjective extent for a subjective hurt.

I was reading Harris happily until this then gave up when he refused to delve any deeper than saying it is fine to torture people for information which is plain wrong and also plain doesnt work.
Click to expand...

I detect a certain unfamiliarity with utilitarian ethical literature. [Not that I'm some huge fan of Sam Harris or anything]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top