• Protagoras
    331
    @Joshs

    But the bottom line is the myth of rationality is still adhered to.

    Any philosophers claiming intuition or beliefs are primary yet?
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    I'm saying that a lot of what is called compassion and those go around talking about it and signalling its values are hypocrites.Protagoras

    I think that's true but it has little bearing on whether compassion is valuable or not. Fake anything or hypocrisy is bad. Genuine compassion is not bad. Was N talking about fake compassion? I don't think so. Josh's may have an interesting perspective on this.

    I can't imagine looking around the world and determining that we need less compassion.
  • Ross
    142
    [reply="Protagoras;[/b]
    How does one distinguish proper philosophy from just a whole lot of ideas. There must be a right and a wrong way of doing philosophy. A series of Ideas are not the same as philosophy.
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Tom Storm
    Of course real compassion is a tremendous virtue.

    Nietzsche was talking about compassion being in reality a form of asserting power over the recipient.

    However,he didn't discount a different type of compassion between elites born of strength.

    Nietzsches ideas on normal compassion havent had any overall effect in the real world.

    Folks will always use it to make the world run smoother and to keep bonds between people.

    But genuine compassion is very rare.
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Ross Campbell

    Well,academic philosophy sticks to appeals to authority and dialectic reason.

    Myself,I think a person's intuition and desire is the criteria.
  • Joshs
    5.2k
    But the bottom line is the myth of rationality is still adhered to.

    Any philosophers claiming intuition or beliefs are primary yet?
    Protagoras

    Husserl made intuition ( the primal impression ) fundamental. Heidegger defined truth as disclosure. What he meant was that what appears in every single
    moment of experience is truth. He rejected the idea of truth as correctness
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    Of course real compassion is a tremendous virtue.

    Nietzsche was talking about compassion being in reality a form of asserting power over the recipient.

    However,he didn't discount a different type of compassion between elites born of strength.

    Nietzsches ideas on normal compassion havent had any overall effect in the real world.

    Folks will always use it to make the world run smoother and to keep bonds between people.

    But genuine compassion is very rare.
    Protagoras

    There are many readings of Nietzsche; who knows?

    Compassion is not so unusual - the version I prefer is that experienced quietly by ordinary folk as they go about their daily business, never having heard of Nietzsche.
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Joshs

    Did they both reject platos justified true belief?

    Are you saying that both say truth is subjective?

    If so,are there some subjectivities better than others?

    In other words,why should I agree with the majority of heideggers or husserls philosophy?
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Tom Storm
    I think nietzsches writings are clear enough to not have the numerous interpretations that academia like to churn out.

    I agree partly with your version. I just think it rare for it to be genuine.
  • Gregory
    4.6k


    Heidegger was saying that we don't see truth with a God eye view. As with treating people, one should go with one's gut in each situation
  • Gregory
    4.6k
    Christianity gave West the idea that we are all one mystical body being showed mercy by God. However, karma applies perfectly to all good and bad acts. There is no room for mercy pushing aside justice in the name of pity disguised as love
  • Joshs
    5.2k
    Did they both reject platos justified true belief?Protagoras

    Here’s a very partial list of philosophers who reject platos justified true belief:

    george Kelly
    Derrida
    Heidegger
    Husserl
    Gene Gendlin
    Merleau-Ponty
    Nancy
    Zahavi
    Gallagher
    Ratcliffe
    T. Fuchs
    Varela
    Thompson
    Noe
    Lyotard
    Piaget
    Deleuze
    Protevi
    Massumi
    Foucault
    William Connolly
    Manuel Delanda
    Bernard Stiegler
    Bennington
    Joseph Rouse
    John Shotter
    Ken Gergen
    Jan Slaby
    Arthur Fine
    Gadamer
    Rorty
    LaClau
    Colombetti
    William James
    John Dewey
    G H Meade
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Gregory

    Well the gods eye view has always been nonsense,so of heidegger says that,I agree.

    Does heidegger say go with your gut?
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Joshs
    OK. But whats their criteria for truth?
    They are philosophers so how do they try to explain or argue for their ideas? Or are they just asserting them or?

    Any anytical philosophers who reject justified belief?
  • Joshs
    5.2k
    I know Rorty does, but he probably got booted out of the club for that. What about Putnam, Sellers or Davidson? Maybe even Quine?
  • Valentinus
    1.6k

    Nietzsche's psychology is flawed in many aspects as if I'm not mistaken, it's not based on empirical observation or evidence and it's unfortunate that his ideas have acquired almost cult like status and great influence since his death, not least amongst the Nazis and other right wing value systems who shared his contempt for the virtues of pity and compassion regarding them as weaknesses which inhibit the "strong" individual,Ross Campbell

    The empirical observation is parallel to the method of La Rochefoucauld, who noticed that many expressions of selflessness were actually outbreaks of self-love.

    Whatever Nietzsche considered the best political system, it was not based upon the nationalistic sense of identity displayed by the forerunners to the Nazis. In later works, the criticism of all things "German" became more pronounced.

    So he laughed at the notion of the "good European" in some places and appealed to the idea in other places. He was either nuts or had a sense of humor that delighted in his inconsistencies. Maybe both things were true. I am not writing this as an apology.
  • Joshs
    5.2k
    Well the gods eye view has always been nonsense,so of heidegger says that,I agree.Protagoras

    What’s the difference between the god’s eye view and justified true belief?
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Joshs
    I'm not conversant with those 3. Did they reject?

    But the main thing is what's their criteria for truth?

    And that's one of my points,half the philosophy world would kick out folks who don't follow plato.

    And I'm yet to be shown those continentals explicitly reject reason.
  • Joshs
    5.2k
    “Rorty wishes to undermine modern philosophers' conception of philosophy and its place in culture, as did his philosophical heroes, Dewey, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein. Yet his argument owes most to Sellars attack on the 'myth of the given' and to Quine's attack on the analytic/synthetic, necessary/contingent, a priorila posteriori distinc- tions. Their joint insight (suitably purified by Rorty) that is truth, justifica- tion, and knowledge are nothing 'more than what Dewey caled "war- ranted assertability" ... what our peers will, ceteris paribus, let us get away with saying (176). Rorty labels this insight 'epistemological behaviourism.
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Joshs
    I agree with dewey.

    But a lot of those guys still believe in science.

    Rory may be an exception

    But making a truth out of "no truths" or everything is a narrative is once again epistemic behaviourism.

    None of these guys has escaped the bottle of philosophy or has a genuine criterion for truth.
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    The empirical observation is parallel to the method of La Rochefoucauld, who noticed that many expressions of selflessness were actually outbreaks of self-love.Valentinus

    There's no question that this is true. But this unfortunate fact is misused by people constantly to drown out the idea that there may also be (as there should be) genuine compassion or empathy for people who are struggling to survive.
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Tom Storm:up: For your above post to valentinus.
  • skyblack
    545
    Christianity gave West the idea that we are all one mystical body being showed mercy by God. However, karma applies perfectly to all good and bad acts. There is no room for mercy pushing aside justice in the name of pity disguised as loveGregory

    Nonsense. That's your idea of what Christanity gave. An incorrect and prejudicial idea like the one i had commented/corrected here

    Now you are introducing another idea, the idea of karma, which is borrowed from Hinduism. Then admit to all the principles of Hinduisim.

    Make up your mind. This kind of picking and choosing to build a shoddy blanket isn't a credit to reason or logic.This is not the way of the bear, but that of a weasel.

    This is what happens when you deny a system of checks and balances, which one may hypothetically and loosely call God. The denial can occur because of many reasons. But some of the most common is a reaction to life experiences, and the allurement of no accountability. The latter is a very tempting proposition to many. They are now free (at least they think they are) to do as they like, rape, pillage, cruelty, violence etc. Or, if circumstances do not permit the prior then they will attempt to do that in other ways, like economically, socially, in business etc. So the bottom line incentive is an absence of accountability. One knows not many have examined this deeply, but this is so simple even a caveman/woman can see it. This isn't rocket science.

    So for such people whose life is based on a lack of accountability, to say they will be self-accountable as in kindness and justice, ts laughable. Just some thoughts in simple language. No response sought or required. carry on with your beleifs.
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    None of these guys has escaped the bottle of philosophy or has a genuine criterion for truth.Protagoras

    Rorty says that we know how to justify ideas, we just don't know anything about capital T truth - this being a remnant of Greek philosophy and monotheism. We are clever animals for whom language is a tool to manage our environment. We cannot access The Truth.
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Tom Storm
    But saying we cannot access truth is still positing the myth of the Gods eye view.

    How does Rory justify ideas.

    Why the allergy to the word truth?
  • Joshs
    5.2k
    Why the allergy to the word truth?Protagoras

    Maybe this will help. Rorty explains why the notion of truth needs to be jettisoned.

    http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica/article/download/696/668/
  • Protagoras
    331
    @Joshs
    With respect joshs. Why can't you explain in your own words.

    The word truth is used fine in my life and many others.
    We know what we mean in normal language.

    Why do Rorty and these kinds of philosophers want to dictate how people speak?
  • Valentinus
    1.6k

    Is the "unfortunate fact" something that is a problem for all discussions of morality?
    If so, Nietzsche's approach either brings that factor into view or made a mess of the issue.
    Nobody likes a mess.
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    But saying we cannot access truth is still positing the myth of the Gods eye view.

    How does Rory justify ideas.

    Why the allergy to the word truth?
    Protagoras

    You need to dig deeper. It is not truth that is the problem - hence Rorty's view that justification is achievable in a range of areas. He is saying The Truth (as in a foundational truth) is a myth. As per God or transcendent purpose. However we can know if an idea works or not and can clarify language.

    I am not a Rorty scholar so someone else can take it further if they wish. Rorty often seems to be disliked for his 'postmodern relativism'.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.