Boris Johnson's Philosophy fun-time. Part:1

Re: Boris Johnson's Philosophy fun-time. Part:1

Postby Boris Johnson » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:46 am

Hume has a blind spot for existential thought

lol so?

metaphysics,

Actually, he doesn't. I don't think you've read him. I'd read his stuff on time, its shitty. But it is there.

philosophy of being, and so on and so forth.

Lol philosophy of being, that's distinct from existentialism how exactly?

Consider this bizarre statement: "Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no Being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction" (Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion). He more or less waves away Leibniz's eternal question and transforms philosophy proper into economics 101.

Its only bizarre because you've taken it wildly out of context. FFS economics? He's talking about one of the ontological proofs of god :/ In a dialogue in which that is one of the main characters shticks.



I wuv science, squire. And if I happen to use big words, it's because I want to be specific. What I am attempting to open up is a different path. Scientific method is not yet part of our natural experience, both regarding aesthetics and higher (i.e., not merely dutiful or conventional) morality (Dewey). That is why I wish to maintain an openness toward all that falls outside of your authoritative objectivity.

Then I suggest you don't use such nebulous words and compound terms.

for example, authoritive objectivity? wut?

If we both agree on the human being as Aristotle's political man, acting collectively rather than individually, then wouldn't that constant activity (politics), large or small, overthrow any lasting notion of an objective morality?

Why should it?

How does Quine apply here?

Your the one who brought pragmatism up. Quine is a big deal in pragmatism, so is Sellars.

If your going to call yourself a pragmatist I suggest you go and look into the two dogma's of empiricism and the myth of the given.

This is the source of a lot of my confusion, your not really advocating pragmatism, your advocating rorty's Neopragmatism. Which yeah.. is very continental. And which...yeah.. has a lot of 4 srs problems with sitting nice with science.

Apparently, whoever ventures into the writings of Hegel, Nietzsche, and/or Heidegger is considered to be violating the Anglo-American canon. Avoiding these three--in other words, avoiding the question of history, being, and nothingness--is something I consider a weakness. Rorty had the courage to abandon this academic omertà.

Lol anglo american. I'd suggest you look into it more. Protip: the German speaking peoples are a lot less lolwut these days. Also eyeties.

No go. Putnam is objecting to you. And the Archimedian point is the ghost you summoned while stating: "the fact we are social animals and some how certain moral outlooks are 'selected for'. Then there may in fact be some ground to consider morality in some important way as objective."

Oh lawrd.

Where am I making a normative universal statement predicated on a natural fact?

How? It's a mutilation according to which you remove all moral (value-thinking) ratiocination from the cogito (human subject).

Oh lawrd. Again, with the nebulous terms.

Basically though, what your saying here is 'WE CAN'T OBJECTIVELY UNDERSTAND MORALS AS WE ARE MORAL THINKING BEINGS. YOU CANT SEPERATE THE TWO'

You might as well say "'WE CAN'T OBJECTIVELY UNDERSTAND OUR ABILITY TO PERCEIVE AS WE ARE PERCERING THINKING BEINGS. YOU CANT SEPARATE THE TWO".

Better tell that to all the people working on the neurological basis of perception. silly neurologists wasting there time.

I reject any distinction predicated on the moral being some special realm of human inquiry. So far this dialectic (when its intelligible) has simply consisted of you firing back that distinction at me over and over, begging the question, over and over. As it apparently its just oh so special to you.

Ok the, let me put ti this way, you can stop begging the question, if you can provide independent reasons to believe in this distinction's verisimilitude. Go.
LORD PROTECTOR of |~**~| The Bro Clique |~**~|™

Bojo wrote:...the Tory party - the funkiest, most jiving party on Earth - is where it's happening.
User avatar
Boris Johnson
Governor
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:55 am
Location: City Hall The Queens Walk, City of London
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 190 times
Political Leaning: Slightly Conservative

Re: Boris Johnson's Philosophy fun-time. Part:1

Postby Zeugma » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:01 am

Boris Johnson wrote:
Hume has a blind spot for existential thought
lol so?
Existential thought, in the sense that it regards asking how morality functions among individuals and in society, would be rather useful when taking on the questions raised in the OP.

metaphysics,
Actually, he doesn't. I don't think you've read him. I'd read his stuff on time, its shitty. But it is there.
Hume is quite frankly anti-metaphysical. There was a time and place for his greatness, but I fail to see it here.

philosophy of being, and so on and so forth.
Lol philosophy of being, that's distinct from existentialism how exactly?
Was the Johnson asleep in class? Essence before existence--you know, Platonism and its offspring--was rather fanciful once upon a time.

Consider this bizarre statement: "Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no Being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction" (Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion). He more or less waves away Leibniz's eternal question and transforms philosophy proper into economics 101.
Its only bizarre because you've taken it wildly out of context. FFS economics? He's talking about one of the ontological proofs of god :/ In a dialogue in which that is one of the main characters shticks.
The context was and is absolutely clear. Hume made Leibniz's eternal question irrelevant by simply rewriting the law of contradiction. Bede Rundle, in Why there is Something rather than Nothing (2004), even went so far as to call Hume's remark "lame."

I wuv science, squire. And if I happen to use big words, it's because I want to be specific. What I am attempting to open up is a different path. Scientific method is not yet part of our natural experience, both regarding aesthetics and higher (i.e., not merely dutiful or conventional) morality (Dewey). That is why I wish to maintain an openness toward all that falls outside of your authoritative objectivity.
Then I suggest you don't use such nebulous words and compound terms.
I am being specific. You are the one who allows no room for different ways to think morally. Here you simply ignored what I stated.

But I'll put it differently, going back to my initial remarks. On the one hand, we have reason and the understanding of what is moral; these are differentiated as categories. On the other, we have the actual content, which is inherited and culture-specific (the stupid, nonsensical, primitive stuff). And, in short, the Hegelian dialectic is best understood as the movement cancelling out the previous material and elevating the individual above it (Aufhebung).

And if we have no forward movement/progression, according to which we cancel out our moral content, then morality is static, as you seem to suggest, or perhaps even a mere byproduct of biology.

for example, authoritive objectivity? wut?
It implies that you are attempting to disqualify your opponent's points by appealing to authority. In this case, bizarrely, it is the authority of natural science in the field of morality.

If we both agree on the human being as Aristotle's political animal, acting collectively rather than individually, then wouldn't that constant activity (politics), large or small, overthrow any lasting notion of an objective morality?
Why should it?
Because the political animal coalesces in order to subdue his opponents. It is a nonstop activity that reflects the moral attitude of a collective at large. It also influences the moral content in the collective at large, which is interchanged with that of oppositional forces.

No go. Putnam is objecting to you. And the Archimedian point is the ghost you summoned while stating: "the fact we are social animals and some how certain moral outlooks are 'selected for'. Then there may in fact be some ground to consider morality in some important way as objective."
... Where am I making a normative universal statement predicated on a natural fact?
Natural selection, squire (underlined).

How? It's a mutilation according to which you remove all moral (value-thinking) ratiocination from the cogito.
... Better tell that to all the people working on the neurological basis of perception. silly neurologists wasting there time.
You dodged the question. You have presented morality, as stated above and in the OP, as something beyond value-thinking. Would you care to elaborate on how that comes to be?
User avatar
Zeugma
Mayor
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:18 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 22 times
Political Leaning: Progressive

Re: Boris Johnson's Philosophy fun-time. Part:1

Postby Revenant » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:19 am

Zeugma wrote:Existential thought, in the sense that it regards asking how morality functions among individuals and in society, would be rather useful when taking on the questions raised in the OP.


Existential thought is about as useful as my Saturday morning poo.
Image

These users thanked the author Revenant for the post:
Boris Johnson
User avatar
Revenant
Senator
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:19 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 115 times
Political Leaning: Conservative

Re: Boris Johnson's Philosophy fun-time. Part:1

Postby Zeugma » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:58 am

Revenant wrote:
Zeugma wrote:Existential thought, in the sense that it regards asking how morality functions among individuals and in society, would be rather useful when taking on the questions raised in the OP.
Existential thought is about as useful as my Saturday morning poo.
Existential thought is a broad term for the attempt to reverse Platonism in its various forms. And declaring it as equal to or beneath the droppings of a country club Republican might actually be a way to elevate it from its current status. It nevertheless shows that you have engaged in the act of value-thinking, which the Boris has so far failed to recognize.

Instead, he appears to be stuck in Bizarro world, where Platonic/Pythagorean numerology meets social Darwinism.
User avatar
Zeugma
Mayor
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:18 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 22 times
Political Leaning: Progressive

Re: Boris Johnson's Philosophy fun-time. Part:1

Postby Revenant » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:15 pm

Zeugma wrote:
Revenant wrote:
Zeugma wrote:Existential thought, in the sense that it regards asking how morality functions among individuals and in society, would be rather useful when taking on the questions raised in the OP.
Existential thought is about as useful as my Saturday morning poo.
Existential thought is a broad term for the attempt to reverse Platonism in its various forms.


But Plato was a boss. He made cool toys too. You could make all sorts of shapes with his stuff.

And declaring it as equal to or beneath the droppings of a country club Republican might actually be a way to elevate it from its current status.


My poos are quite legendary.

It nevertheless shows that you have engaged in the act of value-thinking


Pretty sure Boris goes to the bathroom too. Haven't you read that book Everybody Poops? You should. It's better than Hegel.
Image
User avatar
Revenant
Senator
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:19 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 115 times
Political Leaning: Conservative

Re: Boris Johnson's Philosophy fun-time. Part:1

Postby Zeugma » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:31 pm

Revenant wrote:
Zeugma wrote:
Revenant wrote:
Zeugma wrote:Existential thought, in the sense that it regards asking how morality functions among individuals and in society, would be rather useful when taking on the questions raised in the OP.
Existential thought is about as useful as my Saturday morning poo.
Existential thought is a broad term for the attempt to reverse Platonism in its various forms.
But Plato was a boss. He made cool toys too. You could make all sorts of shapes with his stuff.
But Plato is all dialectics and utopianism (communism, even), numbers and whatnot aside. Although country club Republicans tend to favor Aristotle and Aquinas, whereas the procession of thought from Plato to Hegel usually appears on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

And declaring it as equal to or beneath the droppings of a country club Republican might actually be a way to elevate it from its current status.
My poos are quite legendary.
But isn't that an esoteric evaluation (N. N. fecit)? If so, it would place you in the Hegelian camp.

Pretty sure Boris goes to the bathroom too. Haven't you read that book Everybody Poops? You should. It's better than Hegel.
Hegel is ascetic reading. And the only thing I ever posted in support of him was that "Hume is a bit off the radar [subject-wise]. Think Hegel, rather." The point was to introduce a third domain to Boris's strict dichotomy--or diet--of subjective and objective categories. (And I'm still waiting for him to return his droppings.)
User avatar
Zeugma
Mayor
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:18 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 22 times
Political Leaning: Progressive

Re: Boris Johnson's Philosophy fun-time. Part:1

Postby Boris Johnson » Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:35 pm

Image
LORD PROTECTOR of |~**~| The Bro Clique |~**~|™

Bojo wrote:...the Tory party - the funkiest, most jiving party on Earth - is where it's happening.
User avatar
Boris Johnson
Governor
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:55 am
Location: City Hall The Queens Walk, City of London
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 190 times
Political Leaning: Slightly Conservative

Tut Tut

Postby Zeugma » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:45 am

Ha! You're looking to reduce the entirety of moral evaluation to neurological impulses and natural selection, turning humans into passive automatons, and you wonder whether or not I am jesting.
User avatar
Zeugma
Mayor
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:18 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 22 times
Political Leaning: Progressive

Re: Boris Johnson's Philosophy fun-time. Part:1

Postby Boris Johnson » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:03 am

No but seriously the way your argument is shifting every so slightly every time mine gains purchase on what your saying, is a little bit suspect.
LORD PROTECTOR of |~**~| The Bro Clique |~**~|™

Bojo wrote:...the Tory party - the funkiest, most jiving party on Earth - is where it's happening.
User avatar
Boris Johnson
Governor
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:55 am
Location: City Hall The Queens Walk, City of London
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 190 times
Political Leaning: Slightly Conservative

Whiggish

Postby Zeugma » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:49 pm

Then let's make use of an example: our beloved Westboro Baptist Church, a group so extreme that they've even managed to alienate neo-Nazis and Klansmen.

The reaction from our part is that the WBC's morals are, to put it mildly, out of tune with the mainstream. Their values clash with ours as they represent ghosts of the past, ingrained mores that we (Western civilization) have both cancelled out and elevated ourselves above--or at least so we thought. What they make plain, by simply stating their values, is the discordant nature of the progressive (the right) and the reactionary (the wrong) turning points of history. They make us realize how fragile our social order is, and that its edification requires constant political strife. And feel free to replace gay rights with interracial marriage, the civil-rights movement, slavery, or any other formerly controversial topic. For as the political animal finds ever new possibilities for struggle, for cancelling out more of that dreadful content we find hiding in our cultural mores, he will always find opposition.

But in your view this would simply have to do with neurological impulses and natural selection separating the peripheral group (WBC) from the mainstream. Where's history? Where's progress? Where's the political animal and the collective?
User avatar
Zeugma
Mayor
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:18 am
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 22 times
Political Leaning: Progressive

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest