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

Philosophers of Today

Shrooms00087 said:
You can still be familiar with utilitarian literature and still disagree...
Click to expand...

Of course you can. But to disagree with someone whose point is perhaps unclear to you can be a grave mistake indeed. There exists a real and significant difference between informed dissent and knee-jerk hostility.
 
P A said:
Of course you can. But to disagree with someone whose point is perhaps unclear to you can be a grave mistake indeed. There exists a real and significant difference between informed dissent and knee-jerk hostility.
Click to expand...

I like this observation. It's very true. I have a nasty habit of knee-jerk hostility, usually while drunk. :\
 
There are always problems, mate.

Otherwise we wouldn't have to question existence IE philosophy.

If everything were peachy-keen we wouldn't doubt ANYTHING. I gaurantee you that my friend.

But drunk me didn't understand quite A FEW THINGS long ago and never will.

That's why I'm going through withdrawal - for the greater good.

It's painful.
 
Included in the following are some of the philosophers that come to mind when (just now at least) I think about living or recently living philosophers that have been important to elaborating on my thoughts:

Derek Parfit - Identity (esp. split brain argument)
Thomas Nagel - Philosophy of Mind
Douglas Hofstadter - Artificial Intelligence
Jürgen Habermas - Pragmatism and Morality
Imre Lakatos - Science (dead but very relevant)
David Chalmers - Panexperientialism (done the most to invigorate it lately)
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I started a thread and forgot about it.

I could have worded this thread a bit more clearly. Yes, I know notable is a subjective term and that philosophy isn't just some class that is subject to certain categories. Rather, I just wanted to see peoples opinions and thus far I'm pleased;)

Whats wrong with Alan Watts? I know sometimes he can get away sounding profound just because of his voice and some things he says may seem intellectually hollow, but keep in mind Alan Watts is about simplicity and in some ways disregards the intellect completely. I've learned a great deal from him and I'd consider him a modern day philosopher.

Oh, I know we are all philosophers at heart and all thats neccessary is the faculty of wonder:)


And thanks everyone for your input. I'm going to be looking into all the suggestions that were offered.
 
higherconciousness said:
Sorry, I started a thread and forgot about it.

I could have worded this thread a bit more clearly. Yes, I know notable is a subjective term and that philosophy isn't just some class that is subject to certain categories. Rather, I just wanted to see peoples opinions and thus far I'm pleased;)

Whats wrong with Alan Watts? I know sometimes he can get away sounding profound just because of his voice and some things he says may seem intellectually hollow, but keep in mind Alan Watts is about simplicity and in some ways disregards the intellect completely. I've learned a great deal from him and I'd consider him a modern day philosopher.

Oh, I know we are all philosophers at heart and all thats neccessary is the faculty of wonder:)


And thanks everyone for your input. I'm going to be looking into all the suggestions that were offered.
Click to expand...

Is a philosopher merely someone on the path towards nirvana or am I grasping at straws(if there are straws there? for the grasping).

I add my thanks to you all also as it gives me much to study/feel on my quest for nothingness.
 
^That was a bit out of context. I was referring to a statement made about Alan Watts above and was regarding spirituality more so than philosophy. Besides that, why can't those two statements alone be relevant to philosophy in general?
 
Chomsky. He is still alive, and he has some good thoughts about how greedy and fucked up the united states is.
 
Yeah, I'd say Chomsky is definitely a contemporary philosopher. I actually just started reading Noam's Hegemony or Survival.

David Bohm, a theoretical physicist, is someone to take a look at. I believe he worked with Einstein at Princeton. One of his more well known projects was the Holonomic model of the brain. He has a few novels pertaining mainly to the philosophy of the mind. I think he might be dead though.
 
Last edited:
Derek Parfit - Identity (esp. split brain argument)
Thomas Nagel - Philosophy of Mind
Douglas Hofstadter - Artificial Intelligence (also an effective antidote to Kurzweil's nonsense, see "rapture of the nerds")
Jürgen Habermas - Pragmatism and Morality
Imre Lakatos - Science (dead but very relevant)
David Chalmers - Panexperientialism (done the most to invigorate it lately)
 
bmxxx said:
1- if you pay into the welfare state it is only fair to collect your money back


Oh and she didn't tell poor ppl to starve. Championing productivity, and being against state-forced redistribution of wealth, /= wishing ill on unproductive ppl.


4- no, it was not nearly so simple, but generally speaking yes, a person who contributes to society is held in higher regards than someone who takes from society. You may disagree with that, but it's childish to be so hyperbolic. I like stuff- whether food, cars, healthcare, whatever - so not only am i capitalist (as such systems increase total utility better than other systems), but I see an ethical component to production (or lack thereof) too. I do not think it is "right" or "just as valid" for someone to try and slide through life w/ as little effort as possible and trying to gain as much as possible from society, while contributing as little as they can. I see how it is very easy to say "rand wants to see the poor burn" and stuff like that, but in reality rand was against ppl who advocated for / facilitated what she considered to, basically, be theft (state-sanctioned redistribution, "at the barrel of a gun"<ie as force is the state's final argument>)


also, drawing the conclusion that she "wouldn't give a dying child a sip of water" shows how misunderstood the ideas are. SHE would, but she was a rabid advocate against THE STATE having the powers to redistribute citizens' wealth. Being against the state having such rights does NOT mean you think helping others is wrong; perhaps the distinction is too subtle for some but i promise you it is there lol.
Click to expand...



Considering the strength of the correlation between poverty and extreme levels of human suffering, a correlation so strong that we might as well say that there is a causal link between poverty and human suffering, stating that wealth should not be distributed, in any way shape or form, between the wealthy and the impoverished is equivalent to saying that poor people deserve to suffer (and die).

Then stating that in order to be wealthy, one must be productive, or that if one is wealthy, he/she is productive (and therefore a positive influence on society), and that if one is not wealthy, he/she is not productive (and is therefore a drain on society), is entirely false in its own right. Regardless, the idea that one cannot choose to be both unproductive and free from suffering seems morally unjustifiable as well. One's level of production and contribution to society as a whole should not determine the level of suffering they, and their families (as the case is with the institution of family, one's level of income determines their children's levels of income), endures.
 
705680988.jpg
 
srsly dude, by the logic you're using in that post, then pretty much 99.9999% of the human experience pre-argricultural age = suffering. i'm very sorry for you if you think that.
 
bmxxx said:
srsly dude, by the logic you're using in that post, then pretty much 99.9999% of the human experience pre-argricultural age = suffering. i'm very sorry for you if you think that.
Click to expand...


No, you simply do not understand global poverty. And if a comparison can be made between the extremely poor and pre-agrarian society, then it still differs in the fact that the suffering that arises out of these conditions is today entirely preventable.
 
Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.


Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.

1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day).
Click to expand...

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty

How can you reasonably expect people to just "get past" that? As I said, you do not fully understand global poverty. I would go as far as to say that you have no concept of global poverty whatsoever. There is no "getting past" it unless some large structural changes occur in an effected region, and these changes are rarely, if ever, brought about by the impoverished themselves, but rather by others who see opportunity around them, and only then, any mitigation of suffering they may experience due to said development of the region exists purely as an unintended consequence. It is only fairly recently that we have collectively become aware enough of this consequence to use it as a rationalization for the exploitation of the affected individuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top