Free Minds

In this thread we can discuss modern philosophy from Descartes to Adorno. We can discuss Deconstruction, Modernism, Post-Modernism, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Marxism, Althusserian marxism, Phenomenology, Existentialism, Positivism, Ordinary Language, Idealism, Realism, Anti-Realism, Process-philosophy, Rationalism, Irrationalism, Humanism, Anti-Humanism, Fascism, Communism, Pragmatism, and so on. If you want to discuss individual modern philosophers we can talk about Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, Benedict de Spinoza, John Locke, David Hume, George Berkeley, Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Soren Kierkegaard, John Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Herbert Mead, John Dewey, Friedrich Nietzsche, Gottlob Frege, Karl Marx, Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean Paul Sarte, Albert Camus, Simone de Beavoir, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertand Russell, G.E. Moore, Alfred North Whitehead, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerband, Karl Popper, W.V.O. Quine, Alfred Jules Ayer, John Searle, Sigmund Freud, Carl C. Jung, Albert Einstein, Henri Bergson, Karl Jaspers, Immanuel Levinas, Blanchot, Bataille, Buber, Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Horkheimer, Paul Ricoer, Habermas, Gadamer, Claude Levi-Strass, Lacan, Michael Foucalt, Derrida, Barthes, Deleuze, Muhammad Iqbal, Kahil Jibran, John Langshaw Austin, John Wisdom, Avrum Stroll, and the countless others. We can talk about Analytic philosophy or Continental philosophy. Or perhaps political philosophy or literary theory. Ethics, Ontology, aesthetics, Philosophy of language, Philosophy of Sceince, Hermentics everthing related to modern philosophy. Even ideas not from philosophy but of important relevance to it like the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, linguistics, Quantum phyiscs, the theory of Relativity, neurosceince, anything that can change are view of the world is relavant to philosophy. I hope people will discuss modern philosophy on this thread. It will be fun.

I forgot Empircism.

Peace to all,,

Thats alot of  "isms"  to discuss.

You got that right. But man's restless mind never ceases to imagine, contemplate, and reflect. Thus man's countless reflections result in all of the mentioned dizzing "isms". And all those "isms" mentioned are only the mere surface. Theres much more. But to you IronSky which ism do you think you might like on the basis of mere name. I like Phenomenology, Existentialism, Pragmatism, Process-philosophy, and a countless more. I despise Modernism, but I like Post-Modernism. But there are countless more philosophical systems and if you know any of them mention them, and if you know alot about them lets discuss. Oh did I forget to mention the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory. Sadly Critical Theory can only talk, it cant walk. Note that even dumb and foolish ideologies like Fascism and Nazism are philosophys with there own facinating ideas that are worth the hearing. So lets discuss. Individual philosophers are okay too.

Peace to all,

LHu,  I do read alot and love philosophy, but im afraid I wont be able to have any deep  debates over any particular school of thought,  I did study fascism quite abit before,  and stoicism has alot of principles i like,  other than that, im probably not too well read.

Kurt

Ah Stoicism. Intresting people, the stoics. In modern philosophy Albert Camus is like a stoic but without the principles and philosphical calmness. I find his conception of life as absurdity enlighting. His view of philosophical rebellion intresting. Basicilly a stoic without the light.

Okay I don't know if utilitarianism is up there. I like utilitarianism (it's a bitch to spell though). Utilitarianism is not perfect but a very good ethical theory (is theory the right word?).

Sorry for not including utilitarianism. Even though in theory utilitarianism seems nice theres something about it that just bugs me. Also I would prefer John Staurt Mill's utilitarianism to Jeremy Bentham. Bentham did not take into account the shades of pleasure or happyness. Mill was more reasonable. I like virtue ethics though. Not Aristotle's old one but the modern theory. Meaning Alasdair MacIntyre's virtue ethics. Still utilitarianism is awesome.

String/M Theory along with Many-Worlds theory is somewhat disturbing. I am dead in another universe which is right here. Hitler succeded in conqering the world in another universe which is right here. And dinouasaurs exist in another universe which is right here. The Cophenhagen intrepation is more comfortable. But String/M Theory along with Many-Worlds theory may explain God's justice. Every outcome happened. Thus nobody was fully hurt, since a person may be a loser here, but there a victor. America bombs Japan in 1945, and Japan does the exact same thing to America at the same time. All things that could happen happen. So no real injustice. Its freaky but its a real theory thats taken seriously by sceintists. Also reality is 11 diminsions. Of cource its a theory (actully two String/M Theory and Many-Worlds theory there diffrent but similar, although the more weird one is String/M Theory, and the more disturbing Many-Worlds theory). But they are taken seriously, and many sceintists accept them. There also becoming more popular with physicists. So as weird as they are there's a good chance these two theorys are true. So maybe Hitler died with 6 million Germans, who were being annihilated in a holucast started by jews. Weird.

Have any of you read The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. Changes your view of things.

I like "social constructionism" in sociology. Its facinating, and it explains many social views and practices. But I do not like its leftist bent (I am not a fan of the left). Still its now orthodoxy in sociology and social psychology, with all other approaches being judged with its standard conception.

I don't know if I have any preferences, but I'd like to learn more about "ancient" philosophy...I only hope to reach a point of intellectual capability in evaluating the more challenging of philosophical concepts and theories....so long as it excludes mathematics..God, I hate that subject.  :yuck:

Btw, as for modern philosophy, I like the topic of direct realism.

Ancient philosophy is very facinating. I love Heraclitus's views and also those of the very diffrent Zeno of Elea. When it comes to realism I do not really like it. I do not have any genuine philosophical reasons for this. My thinking is just more oriented towards phenomenological understandings of the external world. In fact I do not accept the subject/object distinction. In this regard I respect Husserl and Brentono's conception of "intentionality". Also I find realism niave. If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis demonstrates anything it demonstrates that common-sense is relative to ones cultural position. On math I agree with you fully. I hate math.

Quote from: L.Hu on December 20, 2008, 01:26:52 AM
Ancient philosophy is very facinating. I love Heraclitus's views and also those of the very diffrent Zeno of Elea. When it comes to realism I do not really like it. I do not have any genuine philosophical reasons for this. My thinking is just more oriented towards phenomenological understandings of the external world. In fact I do not accept the subject/object distinction. In this regard I respect Husserl and Brentono's conception of "intentionality". Also I find realism niave. If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis demonstrates anything it demonstrates that common-sense is relative to ones cultural position. On math I agree with you fully. I hate math.

I almost wasn't sure you were replying my post until you said you hate math haha.

Heraclitus eh...I don't know much about his area of expertise (e.g. metaphysics), but don't you think his philosophical concepts seem almost poetic? Maybe I'm just seeing things...

As for realism, I wouldn't have much to contribute on the subject...just another interesting doctrine to read and ponder on. I hadn't heard of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis before but it seems reasonable enough and I'll definitely consider it.

Yes he (Heraclitus) was influenced by eastern philosophers (thats why he has a mystical quality to his ideas). Are you familar with Zeno of Elea? His ideas were very diffrent. To the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, heres a few links that might explain it better

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4110/whorf.html

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/language/whorf.html

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis

http://cogling.wikia.com/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_Hypothesis

The hypothesis is facinating. Nowadays Chomsky's linguistic theorys are more popular. Still I prefer the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

Quote from: L.Hu on December 20, 2008, 05:57:35 PM
Yes he (Heraclitus) was influenced by eastern philosophers (thats why he has a mystical quality to his ideas). Are you familar with Zeno of Elea? His ideas were very diffrent. To the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, heres a few links that might explain it better

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4110/whorf.html

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/language/whorf.html

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis

http://cogling.wikia.com/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_Hypothesis

The hypothesis is facinating. Nowadays Chomsky's linguistic theorys are more popular. Still I prefer the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

I love Eastern Philosophy! I once randomly chose Avicenna for a report in my philosophy class and was amazed with what I learned about this man and his accomplishments. There was literally too much to cover so I focused on the highlights of his legacy. I think the fact that he was both Muslim and interpreted Islamic elements into (some) of his work made him all the more extraordinary.

I'm not familiar with Zeno of Elea, but I was just reading about him and found this quote amusing: Zeno's paradoxes have puzzled, challenged, influenced, inspired, infuriated, and amused philosophers, mathematicians, physicists and school children for over two millennia.

Thanks for the links! A worthwhile and interesting read. I didn't realize there was a cogling and psychology wiki! Search: Narcissism  >:D lol

"Thanks for the links!"

You welcome! I too admire Avicenna. He was a genius at combining many tendencies into his work. His metaphysics are quite facinating as well. My other favorite Muslim Philosopher is Ibn Arabi. I like his ontology. Besides these two Ibn Khaldun is excellent too.

Is anyone familar with "relativism". I like moral relativism but not the way it is usally thought of as. My version is more moderate and digestable.

My version of moral relativism states that every culture views morality and whats right and wrong diffrently. Thus no eternal moral rule can be found.

I was reading Of Grammatology by Jacques Derrida. His views are truly fascinating. But his writing style is very abstruse. I can say of Derrida, what Hegel, said of Schelling, "All this is a tangled mass of abstractions". But still his views are uniqe and valuable. I now want to read his Writing and Difference.

I find the debate between realists and idealists very important. I think the mind independent/mind dependent world probelm is a pseudo-probelm. The solution, I think, is to replace the old carteisien model of sense data with a more probelm free vision of perception. I think representalism/sense data must be killed. But the alternative then would be direct realism which as common sense based as it is, faces many philosophical problems aswell as attacks from Quantum phyiscs. A second solution which may eliminate the problem is ending the division between subject and object. Heidegger was the first to try, but he simply repleced the human "subject" with Da-Sein. The conclusion of his magnum opus Sein und Zeit was just the traditional dualism of subject and object with newer, and more obscure terms. I think with a new view of perception and a genuine destruction of subject/object dualism (and a genuine replacment of this old dualism), problems like solliphism and idealism will be solved or shown to be pseudo-problems.