-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Academic philosophy and its pitfalls...
- Thread starter pennywise
- Start date
PhorIndicator
Bluelighter
Pennywise... lol I've stopped acknowleding your posts.
Ebola - I understand what you mean about littwittgenstein's definition of "nonsense." You could be right - that is probably what she meant. However, I still don't see it changing the point I am trying to make. What about psychology? Psychology can be shown, but not seen. The concept of inifinite, along with a multitude of other mathematical concepts, can be shown, but not seen.
And my references to philosophy of law and businesses were not attempting to explain philosophy of law or business. I was just trying to demonstrate how a philosophy is necessary to almost any kind of practice.... for example a business incorporates a philosophy to maximize their profits - or, in some cases, maybe they don't. Maybe their aim is something else - but whatever their aim is, they still have a philosophy they use to achieve the goal or aim they are striving for.
Same type of thing i meant with philosophy of law - without a philosophy of law, there would not be any rhyme or reason or method behind any "law" we created. We could just say its against the law to have sex and that its not against the law to kill people... see what i sayin? There must be a philosophy behind something to justify it and validate it
I was not advocating Hobbes or necessarily agreeing with him. Although i do agree with some of the things he said.
But I do not understand why you think Hobbes absurd... The U.S. is one big social contract. Its citizens agree to abide by a certain group of laws and rules and regulations so that they may live in relative peace... You, specifically, are participating in this social contract as we speak. The social contract Hobbes was talking about was an invisible one, something we automatically agree to in order avoid outright chaos.
The social contract basically is an invisible agreement stating that a person will give up certain "freedoms" (like killing other people, to use a drastic example) in exchange for relative peace.
Ebola - I understand what you mean about littwittgenstein's definition of "nonsense." You could be right - that is probably what she meant. However, I still don't see it changing the point I am trying to make. What about psychology? Psychology can be shown, but not seen. The concept of inifinite, along with a multitude of other mathematical concepts, can be shown, but not seen.
And my references to philosophy of law and businesses were not attempting to explain philosophy of law or business. I was just trying to demonstrate how a philosophy is necessary to almost any kind of practice.... for example a business incorporates a philosophy to maximize their profits - or, in some cases, maybe they don't. Maybe their aim is something else - but whatever their aim is, they still have a philosophy they use to achieve the goal or aim they are striving for.
Same type of thing i meant with philosophy of law - without a philosophy of law, there would not be any rhyme or reason or method behind any "law" we created. We could just say its against the law to have sex and that its not against the law to kill people... see what i sayin? There must be a philosophy behind something to justify it and validate it
I was not advocating Hobbes or necessarily agreeing with him. Although i do agree with some of the things he said.
But I do not understand why you think Hobbes absurd... The U.S. is one big social contract. Its citizens agree to abide by a certain group of laws and rules and regulations so that they may live in relative peace... You, specifically, are participating in this social contract as we speak. The social contract Hobbes was talking about was an invisible one, something we automatically agree to in order avoid outright chaos.
The social contract basically is an invisible agreement stating that a person will give up certain "freedoms" (like killing other people, to use a drastic example) in exchange for relative peace.
Last edited:
pennywise
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 5,207
and this contract wouldnt exist unless hobbes thought of it? It didnt exist before him? Its an interpretation of life, just as i said. Hobbes didnt have a damn thing to do with it.
david hume responds to hobbes (pretty convincingly imo) as to why the claims he makes in leviathan are absurd.
david hume responds to hobbes (pretty convincingly imo) as to why the claims he makes in leviathan are absurd.
PhorIndicator
Bluelighter
lol.. k.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
>>Ebola - I understand what you mean about littwittgenstein's definition of "nonsense." You could be right - that is probably what she meant. However, I still don't see it changing the point I am trying to make. What about psychology? Psychology can be shown, but not seen. The concept of inifinite, along with a multitude of other mathematical concepts, can be shown, but not seen.>>
Why do you think the body of psychological knowledge can be shown but not said (you mean that rather than seen, right?)? How is it like metaphysics?
>>And my references to philosophy of law and businesses were not attempting to explain philosophy of law or business. I was just trying to demonstrate how a philosophy is necessary to almost any kind of practice.... for example a business incorporates a philosophy to maximize their profits - or, in some cases, maybe they don't. Maybe their aim is something else - but whatever their aim is, they still have a philosophy they use to achieve the goal or aim they are striving for. >>
But what I'm wondering is the aim behind the philosophy employed. Is it hollow rhetoric used to justify what should be reprehensible? Often-times...
>>Same type of thing i meant with philosophy of law - without a philosophy of law, there would not be any rhyme or reason or method behind any "law" we created. We could just say its against the law to have sex and that its not against the law to kill people... see what i sayin? There must be a philosophy behind something to justify it and validate it>>
*cough*sodomy laws*cough*.
Still, I get what you mean. My criticism was peripheral to your actual point.
>>But I do not understand why you think Hobbes absurd... The U.S. is one big social contract. Its citizens agree to abide by a certain group of laws and rules and regulations so that they may live in relative peace... You, specifically, are participating in this social contract as we speak. The social contract Hobbes was talking about was an invisible one, something we automatically agree to in order avoid outright chaos.
The social contract basically is an invisible agreement stating that a person will give up certain "freedoms" (like killing other people, to use a drastic example) in exchange for relative peace.
>>
I don't think this "social contract" is similar enough to other contracts for such terminology to be at all useful. First, did I enter into the social contract freely? No. I happened to be born in a particular locale ruled by a particular group. Secondly, if the other party is not making good on thier end of the agreement (which the state most clearly is not), is the contract immediately nullified? No, I have to overthrow the state. Usually, when two people make a contractual agreement, you don't have to kill someone to nullify the agreement.
In short, I do not agree with the social contract, but I still have a gun to my head.
ebola
Why do you think the body of psychological knowledge can be shown but not said (you mean that rather than seen, right?)? How is it like metaphysics?
>>And my references to philosophy of law and businesses were not attempting to explain philosophy of law or business. I was just trying to demonstrate how a philosophy is necessary to almost any kind of practice.... for example a business incorporates a philosophy to maximize their profits - or, in some cases, maybe they don't. Maybe their aim is something else - but whatever their aim is, they still have a philosophy they use to achieve the goal or aim they are striving for. >>
But what I'm wondering is the aim behind the philosophy employed. Is it hollow rhetoric used to justify what should be reprehensible? Often-times...
>>Same type of thing i meant with philosophy of law - without a philosophy of law, there would not be any rhyme or reason or method behind any "law" we created. We could just say its against the law to have sex and that its not against the law to kill people... see what i sayin? There must be a philosophy behind something to justify it and validate it>>
*cough*sodomy laws*cough*.
Still, I get what you mean. My criticism was peripheral to your actual point.
>>But I do not understand why you think Hobbes absurd... The U.S. is one big social contract. Its citizens agree to abide by a certain group of laws and rules and regulations so that they may live in relative peace... You, specifically, are participating in this social contract as we speak. The social contract Hobbes was talking about was an invisible one, something we automatically agree to in order avoid outright chaos.
The social contract basically is an invisible agreement stating that a person will give up certain "freedoms" (like killing other people, to use a drastic example) in exchange for relative peace.
>>
I don't think this "social contract" is similar enough to other contracts for such terminology to be at all useful. First, did I enter into the social contract freely? No. I happened to be born in a particular locale ruled by a particular group. Secondly, if the other party is not making good on thier end of the agreement (which the state most clearly is not), is the contract immediately nullified? No, I have to overthrow the state. Usually, when two people make a contractual agreement, you don't have to kill someone to nullify the agreement.
In short, I do not agree with the social contract, but I still have a gun to my head.
ebola