Philosophy for beginners?

[littlebabyjesus]

existentialism isn't just about god you pillock it was a whole movement arising from the crisis of modernism, and hence it's massive revival after the second world war.

First, don't call me a pillock.

What you refer to as 'the crisis of modernism' is not a matter for philosophy as I understand it.

 

[revol68]

This is where you need to explain to me what the problem might be. I cannot explain an absence of problem – there's nothing to explain.

Your solution is essentially a determinism that replaces God's plan, however snce you know this is simply speculative shite of fuck all use to anyone you agree free will is a fine working assumption. Then when the problems arising from this assumption as experienced by real concrete individuals are put to you, you simply drop back to saying free will is an illusion.

 

[revol68]

First, don't call me a pillock.

What you refer to as 'the crisis of modernism' is not a matter for philosophy as I understand it.

Please explain how so?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Your solution is essentially a determinism that replaces God's plan, however snce you know this is simply speculative shite of fuck all use to anyone you agree free will is a fine working assumption. Then when the problems arising from this assumption as experienced by real concrete individuals are put to you, you simply drop back to saying free will is an illusion.

What you are talking of is more akin to theology than philosophy. There is nothing I can do to make you feel happier about a situation that clearly I'm less troubled by than you. The question of free will has not been 'solved' satisfactorily by anyone. I've already said where I believe a deeper understanding of it might come from (not resolution, just deeper understanding).

As for how the individual should relate to society, the answer to that question does not simply come from philosophy since it involves empirical considerations. As such, the existentialism that you speak of is something broader than a philosophical position. It is also a political one. This is fine, but it is not what I was talking about.

 

[revol68]

What you are talking of is more akin to theology than philosophy. There is nothing I can do to make you feel happier about a situation that clearly I'm less troubled by than you. The question of free will has not been 'solved' satisfactorily by anyone. I've already said where I believe a deeper understanding of it might come from (not resolution, just deeper understanding).

As for how the individual should relate to society, the answer to that question does not simply come from philosophy since it involves empirical considerations. As such, the existentialism that you speak of is something broader than a philosophical position. It is also a political one. This is fine, but it is not what I was talking about.

Sorry what existentialism doesn't focus on how the individual lives and relates to society? It is the very basis of existentialism.

And again your way of side stepping the problem of 'free will' (whoch you agree is a necessary working assumption) is to speculate on a grand determinism that essentially makes such petty matters as to how individuals relate to and live in an absurd world redundant. you have simply resurrected God in the form of a view from above the universe.

 

[cesare]

What you are talking of is more akin to theology than philosophy. There is nothing I can do to make you feel happier about a situation that clearly I'm less troubled by than you. The question of free will has not been 'solved' satisfactorily by anyone. I've already said where I believe a deeper understanding of it might come from (not resolution, just deeper understanding).

As for how the individual should relate to society, the answer to that question does not simply come from philosophy since it involves empirical considerations. As such, the existentialism that you speak of is something broader than a philosophical position. It is also a political one. This is fine, but it is not what I was talking about.

I'd say it was more akin to metaphysics.

 

[revol68]

I'd say it was more akin to metaphysics.

the shit littlebabyjesus is spouting or existentialism?

 

[cesare]

the shit littlebabyjesus is spouting or existentialism?

He said that what you were talking about was more akin to theology (I'm guessing he picked up on the "God's plan" remark) whereas I thought it was more akin to metaphysics (that unknowable stuff).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry what existentialism doesn't focus on how the individual lives and relates to society? It is the very basis of existentialism.

The basis of existentialism, for me, is the realisation that all that we can know is our experience plus the realisation (I would say it should in fact be called a belief/assumption) that we have free will. It then takes this realisation out into the world and, well I don't know what it does then. I've always thought of ethics as a bit of a woolly appendage to philosophy.

For the most part, once I get to this stage, I don't look at the situation from that point of view at all. I find, very often, that an outside-in perspective that looks at biology, evolution and history can provide excellent insights into the question of how an individual should act within a society. Politically, individual freedom except where it impinges on the freedoms of others, in which case, a settlement – a social contract – will need to be negotiated. Collective provision where possible without impinging on freedom (and I do not mean the economic 'freedom' to take a larger share of the pie for yourself here – that's already disqualified as it impinges on the freedom of others to have their share), mutual aid as the very best way for us to get along.

I don't need the existentialist's point of view to reach these conclusions. There are other routes to them.

That was my point really, at the beginning, that existentialism was something to get out of your system. It is a dead end. It does not lead to useful answers to these questions. It leads to the Outsider. It leads to Raskolnikov. It leads to despair among some. But its philosophical underpinnings are (almost) sound, and it is a good way to discard the garbage of superstition and irrationality.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He said that what you were talking about was more akin to theology (I'm guessing he picked up on the "God's plan" remark) whereas I thought it was more akin to metaphysics (that unknowable stuff).

No. I was referring to the idea that I could provide resolution to others who are troubled by something that does not trouble me. I can't directly. Indirectly, I may be able to show them another perspective. Dunno. I'm not an evangelist in that sense.

 

[cesare]

No. I was referring to the idea that I could provide resolution to others who are troubled by something that does not trouble me. I can't directly. Indirectly, I may be able to show them another perspective. Dunno. I'm not an evangelist in that sense.

Why liken what revol said to theology?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why theology?

Because it felt like I was being asked to provide something akin to spiritual reassurance – but in the absence of a metaphysical transcendence to appeal to, I cannot.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Anyway, I was going to bed an hour ago.

Goodnight.

 

[cesare]

Because it felt like I was being asked to provide something akin to spiritual reassurance – but in the absence of a metaphysical transcendence to appeal to, I cannot.

Your solution is essentially a determinism that replaces God's plan, however snce you know this is simply speculative shite of fuck all use to anyone you agree free will is a fine working assumption. Then when the problems arising from this assumption as experienced by real concrete individuals are put to you, you simply drop back to saying free will is an illusion.

Can't see where spiritual reassurance arises here.

 

[cesare]

Anyway, I was going to bed an hour ago.

Goodnight.

Goodnight!

 

[revol68]

The basis of existentialism, for me, is the realisation that all that we can know is our experience plus the realisation (I would say it should in fact be called a belief/assumption) that we have free will. It then takes this realisation out into the world and, well I don't know what it does then. I've always thought of ethics as a bit of a woolly appendage to philosophy.

For the most part, once I get to this stage, I don't look at the situation from that point of view at all. I find, very often, that an outside-in perspective that looks at biology, evolution and history can provide excellent insights into the question of how an individual should act within a society. Politically, individual freedom except where it impinges on the freedoms of others, in which case, a settlement – a social contract – will need to be negotiated. Collective provision where possible without impinging on freedom (and I do not mean the economic 'freedom' to take a larger share of the pie for yourself here – that's already disqualified as it impinges on the freedom of others to have their share), mutual aid as the very best way for us to get along.

I don't need the existentialist's point of view to reach these conclusions. There are other routes to them.

That was my point really, at the beginning, that existentialism was something to get out of your system. It is a dead end. It does not lead to useful answers to these questions. It leads to the Outsider. It leads to Raskolnikov. It leads to despair among some. But its philosophical underpinnings are (almost) sound, and it is a good way to discard the garbage of superstition and irrationality.

You can look at history, evolution or whatever but they aren't going to tell you how you should relate to the world, that is the fundamental truth of existentialism. This is why existentialism is still relevant to a world where people seek ultimate meanings and direction in all sorts of shit, from God, to new age paganism, gaia or in more materialist ways in the likes of evolutionary psychology. If existentialism leads to despair then so be it, afterall what sort of cretin would hold banal happiness as purpose of life especially in a world where it more oftne than not requires idiocy if not outright lying to yourself.

Amazing that you describe ethics as a wooly appendage to philosophy yet think speculative crap about determinism and time contraction isn't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Alright, still here!

I may have misunderstood, but where he spoke of 'the problems arising for concrete individuals' was the bit I thought was asking for reassurance. I may have got that wrong.

 

[revol68]

Can't see where spiritual reassurance arises here.

He keeps moving back and forth from accepting free will as a working assumption, then when faced with the issues existnetialism examines he seeks to sidestep them by arguing that free will is an illusion of determinism and as such existentialist questions are futile.

This determinism is the absolute which of course is the secular residue of God's plan.

 

[revol68]

Because it felt like I was being asked to provide something akin to spiritual reassurance – but in the absence of a metaphysical transcendence to appeal to, I cannot.

Sorry how on earth does asking how your abstract guff begins to address the key questions arising from existentialism equal me asking for spiritual reassurance?

The fact that you assume that to look for answers to these questions is to look for some transcendetal grounding suggests you really haven't grapsed the most basic point of existentialism, namely how do we define truth, beauty, freedom and morality without recourse to such higher authorities than man.

 

[cesare]

Alright, still here!

I may have misunderstood, but where he spoke of 'the problems arising for concrete individuals' was the bit I thought was asking for reassurance. I may have got that wrong.

Well problems arising might be spiritual ones, but I doubt that's what revol was getting at

(Now, if I'd said it, you could have headed off down that route )

 

[cesare]

He keeps moving back and forth from accepting free will as a working assumption, then when faced with the issues existnetialism examines he seeks to sidestep them by arguing that free will is an illusion of determinism and as such existentialist questions are futile.

This determinism is the absolute which of course is the secular residue of God's plan.

I see it more as an example of that separation point between science and philosophy that rejoins again in metaphysics and quantum science

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You can look at history, evolution or whatever but they aren't going to tell you how you should relate to the world

Amazing that you describe ethics as a wooly appendage to philosophy yet think speculative crap about determinism and time contraction isn't.

What this kind of perspective can do is show you how you could relate to the world. You then choose the way you judge to be best. As I said earlier, the way in which I make value judgements is not entirely transparent to me – but I don't have any particular problem with that. And, importantly, existentialism has nothing to say on the matter either.



As to your second paragraph, where what I said was speculative, I clearly indicated as such. My comments regarding the absence of any supporting evidence for the concept of free will and the nature of time contraction were not speculative at all. Relativity has been demonstrated experimentally to be true. And it is a theory that, if it is true, has certain very concrete consequences. That there is no supporting evidence for the concept of free will; that, further, there is currently no way to incorporate it into our physical understanding of the universe, is also not speculation at all. It is simply a statement of truth about current understanding. (Free will also hasn't been disproved – the harsh truth is that, as a concept, it has not been found to be useful when explaining how things work using scientific method.)

I'm afraid I'm going to patronise you a little here. Please do not pass such disparaging comments over matters that you do not understand. Show a little humility, please. None of us knows everything.

 

[revol68]

I see it more as an example of that separation point between science and philosophy that rejoins again in metaphysics and quantum science

I call it a load speculative wank dressed up in the terminology of misunderstood quantum physics.

 

[cesare]

I call it a load speculative wank dressed up in the terminology of misunderstood quantum physics.

But to be fair, you're not a great lover of abstract thought are you?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I call it a load speculative wank dressed up in the terminology of misunderstood quantum physics.

No, you guess that this is what it is. Because you don't have the first idea about relativity, which is the theory that this depends on, not quantum physics.

You are now simply being offensive. You dismiss what I say but you don't understand it. And you don't try to understand it because you have dismissed it. How can you learn anything with that attitude?

 

[cesare]

No, you guess that this is what it is. Because you don't have the first idea about relativity, which is the theory that this depends on, not quantum physics.

You are now simply being offensive. You dismiss what I say but you don't understand it. And you don't try to understand it because you have dismissed it. How can you learn anything with that attitude?

Scientist!

 

[revol68]

What this kind of perspective can do is show you how you could relate to the world. You then choose the way you judge to be best. As I said earlier, the way in which I make value judgements is not entirely transparent to me – but I don't have any particular problem with that. And, importantly, existentialism has nothing to say on the matter either.



As to your second paragraph, where what I said was speculative, I clearly indicated as such. My comments regarding the absence of any supporting evidence for the concept of free will and the nature of time contraction were not speculative at all. Relativity has been demonstrated experimentally to be true. And it is a theory that, if it is true, has certain very concrete consequences. That there is no supporting evidence for the concept of free will; that, further, there is currently no way to incorporate it into our physical understanding of the universe, is also not speculation at all. It is simply a statement of truth about current understanding. (Free will also hasn't been disproved – the harsh truth is that, as a concept, it has not been found to be useful when explaining how things work using scientific method.)

I'm afraid I'm going to patronise you a little here. Please do not pass such disparaging comments over matters that you do not understand. Show a little humility, please. None of us knows everything.

What has relativity got to do with any of this, again it seems you are doing the all too common fallacy of employing very precise techical definitions of concepts in a very loose allegorcial matter.

As for free will not being useful scientifically, well yes thinking of atoms having free will certainly isn't very clever, but seeling to understand human societies without placing free will somewhere is also futile, especially as it is the defining feature of human experience.

I don't particularly worry if free will is an illusion anymore than I worry that reality is an illusion shat out of Descartes demons arse, because the simple fact is that what I am referring to when using the term reality is still referring to the same thing.

Knowledge refers to experience not essence, to paraphrase Sartre.

 

[revol68]

But to be fair, you're not a great lover of abstract thought are you?

i like abstract thougt I hate nonsense passing itself off for the profound.

 

[cesare]

Knowledge refers to experience not essence, to paraphrase Sartre.

Has anyone experienced a black hole?

 

[revol68]

No, you guess that this is what it is. Because you don't have the first idea about relativity, which is the theory that this depends on, not quantum physics.

You are now simply being offensive. You dismiss what I say but you don't understand it. And you don't try to understand it because you have dismissed it. How can you learn anything with that attitude?

So tell me how the very technical definition of relativity has ground breaking repurcussions on the human experience of free will. Because I have never heard any serious physicist make such pronouncements, infact I just read Sokal's beyond the Hoax where he spends much of it tearing strips off people seeking to bolster their shitty crackpot philosophising by appropriating the highly technical language of physics and mathmatics.

I really don't see how relativity has any different effect on our understanding of human consciousness than old school mechanics.