Comments

  • Cool Wittgenstein facts?
    No rush, Q. To be honest, I was testing to see if you were genuinely interested in his philosophy, rather than just in his life. When I was younger I would read biographies of great thinkers, including Wittgenstein, and at the time I think I assumed I wouldn't be able to tackle their actual philosophy itself. In then end I realized the biographies don't really give you much.
  • Cool Wittgenstein facts?
    What do you think of the Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough?
  • Cool Wittgenstein facts?
    Most of them felt quite lonely and I suppose they couldn't find someone to fill that hole. It reverberates strongly in Ludwig Wittgenstein's writings and personality.Question

    And yet, when you read those remarks on Frazer that Nils Loc posted, what comes across is a lively kind of fellow-feeling--a sympathy for human beings and a passionate defence of their practices, rather than any anguished estrangement from people. And reading just a page or so of it reminds you why the thought of philosophers interests us so much more than their lives.
  • Real-time Debating
    I'd certainly like to see debates. I'm not sure about the real-time thing, but if the participants were to agree on those rules, then sure.
  • Political Spectrum Test
    Okay. I don't know the questions or how you answered, so I can't judge for myself at present. But if you're in favour of absolute freedom of speech, then, by implication, you're in favour of causing needless harm. For example, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.Sapientia

    Incidentally, this is one of our many disagreements.
  • Political Spectrum Test
    values which you'd deem to be sexist or whatever, despite the fact that they would apply equally to men and women (such as chastity for both)Agustino

    Talk about a straw man. If those values do equally apply to men and women, then how can they be sexist? Why do you think I would hold such an irrational position?
  • Political Spectrum Test
    This reveals their deep rooted world view on nature, which is contrasted by conservatives, who are much more wary of nature and its dark aspectsEmptyheady

    Notice how this is pretty much the opposite of the traditional understanding of these political positions. For conservatives, the status quo, e.g., class hierarchies or disparities in the treatment of men and women, is defended partly on the basis of its supposed naturalness, whereas leftists--at least in the old days--either point out that these things are social and amenable to change, or else deny that we must respect what is natural.

    The confusion here is probably partly down to your American libertarian understanding of conservatism. In any case, it's one reason why I see much of the green movement and today's Left as conservative.

    I'm a Leftist and I positively love cooling towers.
  • Political Spectrum Test
    There's not actually many people who think for themselves, and who actually have their own views on things, not determined by what others encourage them to think.Agustino

    And that is precisely what universities ought to be encouraging: independence of mind and the free play of ideas. But that's not what's happening now. I'm at risk of agreeing with you here.
  • Political Spectrum Test
    I don't recall agreeing with you in that debate. I remember you as one of my main adversaries, hence why I called you a petit bourgeois reactionary lickspittle or whatever.
  • Political Spectrum Test
    So me, you and Crank are on the same page.Sapientia

    Interestingly, though, I seem to disagree with you and BC as much as agree.
  • Political Spectrum Test
    Last time I did it I was about the same as you for the first two tests, maybe a bit more libertarian.

    I got bored with the other one.
  • Why I think God exists.
    I think the difference is that the objects of science are described or defined entirely in terms of their measurable properties, via their effects. But to say that the cause of religious practices is the supreme being and creator of the universe, etc., is to go far beyond the evidence, i.e., beyond the effects.
  • Why I think God exists.
    I'm still on the right track here.TheMadFool

    You're not, because in saying that God has measurable effects you're assuming that God exists, so the argument begs the question. Others have pointed this out.
  • Nietzsche - subject and action
    One thing is the problem of ancestrality (not that Schopenhauer uses that term):

    Thus we see, on the one hand, the existence of the whole world necessarily dependent on the first knowing being, however imperfect it be; on the other hand, this first knowing animal just as necessarily wholly dependent on the long chain of causes and effects which has preceded it, and in which it itself appear as a small link. These two contradictory views, to each of which we are lead with equal necessity, might certainly be called an antinomy in our faculty of knowledge. — Schopenhauer, WWR

    I don't know if that's the kind of thing Mongrel had in mind, or whether it's relevant to your conversation, but it strikes me as quite paradoxical.
  • The Shoutbox
    This has become Agustino's rantbox.
  • Philosophyforums.com refugees
    Up North, perhaps.Sapientia

    There be dragons.