"Is Man Just Another Animal?" Professor Steve Jones says...

[beesonthewhatnow]

It must be great to be so easily surprised. The world must seem a cornucopia of novelty. Every day a new revelation -- or maybe several of them. I picture you wandering about in a permanent state of childlike awe. Is it a bit scary sometimes though?

I never fail to be surprised by the amount of bollocks some people can come out with, that's for certain.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The second is the Hegelian dialectic: thesis + antithesis > synthesis.

I thought that was Johann Fichte. [My thanks to gorski for introducing me to that individual's work.]

 

[Knotted]

Marx and Engels both had a profound and direct knowledge of Hegel.

Engels did see himself as inverting Hegel, but Marx did not. And the quote about turning Hegel on his head was responsible for the disastrous misconception that Marx was a metaphysical materialist, as well as the misreading of Hegel as idealist.

As for Marx and materialism, I've alway thought this was decisive:

Feuerbach’s great achievement is:

(1) The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned;

(2) The establishment of true materialism and of real science, by making the social relationship of “man to man” the basic principle of the theory;

(3) His opposing to the negation of the negation, which claims to be the absolute positive, the self-supporting positive, positively based on itself.

Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General, Marx, 1844

 

[gorski]

Note the year, oh wise K. Note the change after his study of Hegel and "national economy" of his day. Note his self-criticism.

X, you pompous twit, you should have at least some humility if you are not well versed in something you're "discussing". Some people...

LBJ, there are also various interpretations of Hegel's dialectics, from an "open", two-step earlier version, to a more "closed", three-step one, at various stages of his development. Moreover, there are even various versions of (pre-Prussian state influenced) "Philosophy of Right", some of which are similarly "more loose" and then some more "strict/authoritarian/closed", with a much greater emphasis on the sovereign etc. These things are complex and are always in dispute. Indeed, it is important to state, as Phil is trying, what one uses as a vehicle/tool/method...

What almost all interpreters agree on is his strict and careful deduction of notions that come out of it, as opposed to, say, Heidegger, where they "slide" too easily, so to speak...

 

[maomao]

X, you pompous twit, you should have at least some humility if you are not well versed in something you're "discussing". Some people...

Well you should have some fucking humility when discussing just about anything then you disgraceful pompous shit bag. Just cause your mate's turned up doesn't mean anyone's forgotten what an obnoxious cunt you've been.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes he did; but you didn't. That's why I'm asking you, and not him.

I'm also asking another question, that I haven't seen you address: do you agree with Phil that the basis for human exceptionalism is the possession by humans of an immortal soul?

gorski

On this thread, we've engaged in a dialogue. I've attempted to respond fairly to you, and you have done the same in responding to me. I respect you for that.

This is why I'm somewhat surprised that you have avoided answering this post of mine.

I'm genuinely curious about your position: do you believe that humans have immortal souls, and if you do, what do you believe a 'soul', to be? Do you agree with phildwyer that the possession of an immortal soul is the basis of human exceptionalism?

 

[gorski]

Well you should have some fucking humility when discussing just about anything then you disgraceful pompous shit bag. Just cause your mate's turned up doesn't mean anyone's forgotten what an obnoxious cunt you've been.

Ha! Humility is my point to him, you moron!

And just because you are an aggressive, witless arse I should be silent when I am attacked groundlessly, eh? Idiot!

Check out, in your endless fairness and wisdom, the carefully proven points of me NOT starting the BS you mention but RESPONDING, i.e. DEFENDING myself, whereby arseholes like you come in, contribute nothing and only attack the person. So FUCK YOU!!!

Phil see this? You still think attacks like this are from "all right" guys?

 

[gorski]

gorski

On this thread, we've engaged in a dialogue. I've attempted to respond fairly to you, and you have done the same in responding to me. I respect you for that.

This is why I'm somewhat surprised that you have avoided answering this post of mine.

I'm genuinely curious about your position: do you believe that humans have immortal souls, and if you do, what do you believe a 'soul', to be? Do you agree with phildwyer that the possession of an immortal soul is the basis of human exceptionalism?

Thank you, Johnny, for not succumbing to herd mentality and not doing the easiest thing in the book, not thinking, jumping on the bandwagon, giving in to the worse in us, some of which is freely on display in this thread, too!!!

I have avoided answering directly because I do not want to spoil Phil's game, as it were. I can see where he is going with this, since I understand the issues - but I respect he has a different approach to me.

In a way, I already responded to your Q - if you remember the "synonyms" bit above (God/Absolute/Reason/Spirit/Absolute Spirit/(his) Philosophy/etc.)? I would respond in my own way, perhaps qualify it somewhat but let's leave some space for Phil, shall we?

I will, of course, answer fully, when I am no longer pre-empting his drive to the end-game...

A clue - as you know, but - to everyone else: everyday, commonsensical use of such a notion (soul) is not the way to enter the debate, of course.

 

[mojo pixy]

My snark about Wittgenstein did have a point. Anyone in 2017 who wants to argue for a soul should beforehand cast their mind over Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and other 20th century work. I was snarking over the fact that in the huge impressive list of philosophical reading you posted, there was nothing save Heidegger that I'd call up-to-date philosophy.

Which, given that you're arguing for a soul, probably shouldn't be a big surprise.

 

[gorski]

Developments from Kant to Hegel and then from Marx onwards not being relevant today?

Aristotle also?

Ahem...

P.S. Habermas, for instance, takes serious issue with such interpretations, stating we are still living in Modernity, ergo...???

 

[mojo pixy]

Some old ideas stay relevant, others do not. New ideas arise formed out of the cultural echoes of older ideas. Sometimes relevance is merely a matter of viewpoint or identity. But ideas continue to evolve and be criticize and modified, thinking did not end when Hegel died.

And none of this stops us from being animals, animals that reason.

 

[gorski]

Who said thinking died when Hegel died? Would I say that developments from Marx onwards are relevant if I did? But equally, if one thinks that Aristotle is irrelevant just because he wrote what he had to say almost 2500 years ago... oh, well...

Animals can't reason.That much is certain. There is nothing behind a hungry python eye...

Whomever tries to "reason" with a lion or a bear or a shark etc. etc. as in "Wait, I'll get you much more meat if you let me live, beef, the best, pork, whatever you want, just let me go back, I'll feed you for the rest of your life, I am your gold fish..." and whatnot - is a goner...

And in any other sense of the word - "reasoning" is not something you can do with animals.

 

[bimble]

This is so silly.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Some old ideas stay relevant, others do not... ideas continue to evolve and be criticize and modified

Kinda like science really

 

[Saul Goodman]

very few poos in movies or books at all tbf

You're not watching the right movies

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My snark about Wittgenstein did have a point. Anyone in 2017 who wants to argue for a soul should beforehand cast their mind over Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and other 20th century work. I was snarking over the fact that in the huge impressive list of philosophical reading you posted, there was nothing save Heidegger that I'd call up-to-date philosophy.

Which, given that you're arguing for a soul, probably shouldn't be a big surprise.

My snark about Roger Hargreaves had a point, too. You'll find more sense in the Mr Men series than you will in the dense waffling of many a moral philosopher.

One of the most poisonous things of all about the gorski/dwyer position is the idea that the professional philosopher has some kind of special insight the rest of us are missing. It's bollocks.

 

[mojo pixy]

if one thinks that Aristotle is irrelevant just because he wrote what he had to say almost 2500 years ago..

All of Aristotle? Of course not all is now irrelevant. But all still relevant? Absolutely not. It's not all or nothing, to a reasonable person.

Animals can't reason.That much is certain. There is nothing behind a hungry python eye...

This is infantile, no point in posting it at all.

Whomever tries to "reason" with a lion or a bear or a shark etc. etc. as in "Wait, I'll get you much more meat if you let me live, beef, the best, pork, whatever you want, just let me go back, I'll feed you for the rest of your life, I am your gold fish..." and whatnot - is a goner...

And in any other sense of the word - "reasoning" is not something you can do with animals.

...any other sense of the word? You mean the word reasoning? So you mean that in no way at all can another species be reasoned with, only through human reason conveyed in a human language. There are no other ways of trying to reason with another species. No understanding that other animals may not share human reason but have their own we should learn about, maybe because we can. Human reason is the only kind of reason that shall be called reason.

Am I getting your position right?

 

[mojo pixy]

You're not watching the right movies

No I think I am, thanks though

 

[gorski]

Hegel's dialectic is arbitrary, absurd and useless.

Now, that judgement in itself is arbitrary, absurd and useless.

Here, maybe this helps (not that one must agree with everything here, needless to say):

McTaggart - Studies in the Hegelian Dialectic

A Commentary on Hegel's Logic by John McTaggart 1910

Watch out for punctuation, which is wanting...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Now, that judgement in itself is arbitrary, absurd and useless.

Here, maybe this helps (not that one must agree with everything here, needless to say):

McTaggart - Studies in the Hegelian Dialectic

A Commentary on Hegel's Logic by John McTaggart 1910

Watch out for punctuation, which is wanting...

Typical gorski. Doesn't explain why, just provides links.

Gimme a worked example of Hegel's dialectic in action along with a commentary on the value it brings.

 

[gorski]

Mojo, as per usual - evasive when cornered, slippery and... oh, well, suit yourself...

"Animals can't reason.That much is certain. There is nothing behind a hungry python eye..."

So, you say: "This is infantile, no point in posting it at all."

This is IT. Powerless but closed minded. Echh...

 

[gorski]

LBJ, explain to me Quantum Theory in 5 words.

 

[mojo pixy]

and? what about the rest of my post?

 

[twentythreedom]

Now, that judgement in itself is arbitrary, absurd and useless.

You're arbitrary, absurd and useless. And a dick.

 

[bimble]

There's some sort of funny to be found here at least, in the fact that gorski can't actually do reasoning.

 

[mojo pixy]

''Simple Question?''

''Hey, let me tell you about Quantum Theory instead!''

 

[gorski]

HAHAHAAAA!!! Well, I'll give you this: you can make me chuckle occasionally... comedians...

 

[TruXta]

LBJ, explain to me Quantum Theory in 5 words.

Explain quantum mechanics in five words

 

[gorski]

Oh, I can see some others have a "proxy"...

 

[mojo pixy]