What kind of philosophy do you enjoy the most?

[Lurk]

Das racis

I KNOW.

All ants are equal.

I like where the philosophy thread is going.

Do you see where I'm coming from regarding nihilism?

 

[Ren]

Woah. Never apologize for thinking!

A million likes to this!

Never apologise for thinking... but I was joking around with @Wyote of course

 

[Ren]

Do you see where I'm coming from regarding nihilism?

Yes, answering this now!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɪlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɪlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life.g.

Personally, I find that definition a little vague. What is a "reputedly meaningful aspect of life?" It would be interesting to know what is meant by that. Also, the proposition « I am only a nihilist with regard to this aspect of life, but not the other aspects » seems a little self-defeating for nihilism, or at least nihilism watered down so much as to no longer really look like nihilism. Because in order to justify one’s nihilism with regard to the one particular aspect, one will probably have to provide a kind meta-justification (whether moral, epistemological, ontological, etc.) through which, then, the other aspects will also have to be judged. Unless an aspect of life is taken so broadly as to mean knowledge in general, morals, or existence.

But of course, I do see where you’re coming from, and to some extent I agree. There is a thread on Reason vs Violence in which I refer to the difficulty with objectivising the valuation of morality. People do tend to assume too quickly that some moral statements (for instance) are objective, such as "killing an innocent baby is bad". And indeed it would be very tempting to see this statement as an objective proposition of morality. But once we get into the question of proving the statement’s objectivity, we hit a wall. For what objectively constitutes "bad"? The valuation of good and evil is an extremely tricky one, though there have been some pretty noteworthy attempts at turning it into a law, such as Kant’s categorical imperative. And then there have been attempts at subjectivising it completely, such as Nietzsche’s aptly titled Beyond Good and Evil.

However, my "nihilism" only goes so far. I take certain statements to be objectively meaningful and true. I think that for instance, logical truth is objective. People would have a hard time convincing me that the proposition "A bachelor is single" is not a logical truth. For if you take one bachelor who isn’t single, what isn’t true is not the proposition, but that person’s bachelorhood.

If that makes sense. (Also, let me be clear: I do think killing an innocent baby is bad. I'm just not sure the statement can be shown to be true a priori.)

 

[Happy Phantom]

Yes, answering this now!



Personally, I find that definition a little vague. What is a "reputedly meaningful aspect of life?" It would be interesting to know what is meant by that. Also, the proposition « I am only a nihilist with regard to this aspect of life, but not the other aspects » seems a little self-defeating for nihilism, or at least nihilism watered down so much as to no longer really look like nihilism. Because in order to justify one’s nihilism with regard to the one particular aspect, one will probably have to provide a kind meta-justification (whether moral, epistemological, ontological, etc.) through which, then, the other aspects will also have to be judged. Unless an aspect of life is taken so broadly as to mean knowledge in general, morals, or existence.

But of course, I do see where you’re coming from, and to some extent I agree. There is a thread on Reason vs Violence in the philosophy forum in which I discuss the difficulty with objectivising the valuation of morality. People do tend to assume too quickly that some moral statements (for instance) are objective, such as ‘killing an innocent baby is bad’. And indeed it would be very tempting to see this statement as an objective proposition of morality. But once we get into the question of the proof the statement’s objectivity, we hit a wall. For what objectively constitutes ‘bad’? The valuation of good and evil is an extremely tricky one, though there have been some pretty noteworthy attempts at turning it into a law, such as Kant’s categorical imperative. And then there have been attempts at subjectivising it completely, such as Nietzsche’s aptly titled Beyond Good and Evil.

However, my ‘nihilism’ only goes so far. I take certain statements to be objectively meaningful and true. I think that for instance, logical truth is objective. People would have a hard time convincing me that the proposition « A bachelor is single » is not a logical truth. For if you take one bachelor who isn’t single, what isn’t true is not the proposition, but that person’s bachelorhood.

If that makes sense. (Also, let me be clear: I do think killing an innocent baby is bad. I'm just not sure the statement can be shown to be true a priori.)

Have you considered dating an INTP?

 

[Ren]

Have you considered dating an INTP?

But I am yet to come across a female INTP in real life.

 

[Wyote]

isn't an outlook the synthesis of various unvoiced opinions and conclusions?

For sure, which is why I value the output more highly. Sometimes things break for people in the synthesis process

 

[Wyote]

Try to keep up.

 

[Lady Jolanda]

I missed it!

 

[Ren]

So much black and white on this thread!

So much nihilism!

Let's inject some colour back into it.

 

[Happy Phantom]

 

[Wyote]

 

[Happy Phantom]

@Ren you can only choose one. Science or Philosophy. Make it snappy.

 

[Drone]

@Ren you can only choose one. Science or Philosophy. Make it snappy.

Why not both?

 

[Happy Phantom]

 

[Wyote]

 

[Ren]

@Ren you can only choose one. Science or Philosophy. Make it snappy.

Philosophy for sure, but striving for as much logical consistency as possible while retaining a sense of the creative. Such is my ideal approach

Spoiler: Philosophy = addiction

 

[Happy Phantom]

Philosophy for sure, but striving for as much logical consistency as possible while retaining a sense of the creative. Such is my ideal approach

Spoiler: Philosophy = addiction

Darwin’s Tree of Life. Yes that’s Neil with his shoes off. I guess his feet hurt.

Modernizing the Tree of Life.

 

[Drone]

Happy phantom

I would disagree with that picture on all accounts.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom.

It is a field and a way of life always asking questions on the topics of life and existence. Its like being in a room of cats and trying to find the one that you like the most and playing with other cats to see if you like them more. Maybe the cat you play with tomorrow changes you to be a better person. ( sticking with the cat analogy)

Metaphysics is like philosophy but more on trying to start from reality and justify abstract thoughts and being. So looking at the universe and attempting to rationalise our role or purpose.

Theology is easy because it is the philosophy around the "divine" so it's the philosophy of god and religious ideals.

Science is the look at the realistic world and seeking to answer the questions of reality.

As for searching in a dark room with a flash light I disagree because its more exploring the ocean in my eyes we can have a clue of what to look for but most is just bumping into things that raise questions we never knew to ask.

 

[Ren]

Theology is easy because it is the philosophy around the "divine" so it's the philosophy of god and religious ideals.

Theology is easy?

 

[Drone]

Theology is easy?

Not easy to understand but easy to define as a subject or school of thought. In fact I would argue most of philosophy is in favor of "divine" or raging against it.

It is quite difficult to understand the many approaches different races and cultures have toward the same topics. Not only that but also the subtle thought and far reaching implications of its ideas. What is "good" being a great example.