After Hours

General discussion


I don't dislike philosophy

By john.a.wills ·
Tags: Off Topic
article root

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Philosophy means different things

by john.a.wills In reply to I don't dislike philosoph ...

We can talk about the philosophy of a firm or a group of people or an individual person, but this is not the best use of the word. Perhaps there "spirituality" would be better.

As an intellectual or academic discipline, philosophy seems to me to have 4 main parts. First comes what Nietzche in "Beyond Good and Evil" calls the Prolegomenon to Philosophy, viz. the discussion why we want knowledge; perhaps we think that the truth will make us free, but for all we know the truth will kill us, so why do we seek truth?

Next comes a very wide field of investigation covering the greatest part of what we commonly think of as the discipline of philosophy. This is the mathesis universalis or scientia scientiarum, including logic and metaphysics (i.e. meta-natural-science) and metamathematics (perhaps). This can be approached in various ways. Many of us here are probably at least vaguely acquainted with Boolos and Jeffrey's "Computability and Logic"; other approaches are to start with the use of words, as Ogden and Richards do in "The Meaning of Meaning". The existentialists and phenomenologists and so forth have their own approaches. I have in other threads been trying to do something in the way of conceptual analysis, influenced by Ogden and Richards, among others.

The scientia scientiarum leads on to the "special sciences", for each of which there is a kind of philosophical introduction, often to be found in the introduction to a book on one of the special sciences.

Fourthly, there is one special science, ethics or morality, which is usually lumped in with philosophy.

In the discussion of gay marriage I have mainly been trying to get the words right, combating the twin evils of homophobia and homosexualism. In the ethics of the matter, which NickNielsen and Palmetto have perhaps jumped into too quickly, we need repeatedly to go back to the mathesis universalis to ensure that we are not unwittingly tripping over words. For as long as we are pretty sure our words are right, we can progress in ethics, where we judge first of all our own desired or actual deeds and then, as appropriate, those of others and our appropriate actions concerning the deeds of others.

Anyone want to go on from there?

Collapse -

You're tripping over your words

by AV . In reply to Philosophy means differen ...

John, I really have a problem following this discussion when you are talking about the "mathesis universalis" and "scientia scientiarum" and "The Meaning of Meaning", etc. Why can't you just quote yourself and do it in plain English. Whatever you are trying to say is lost in a sea of intellectual curiosities.

This thread originally was about Obama's comments that homosexuals should have the right to marriage equality under the law. I think they should too and I'm not going to judge what they do in the bedroom. I don't think anyone else should either and that it should be private. What do you think? Maybe I missed your previous comments, but it looks to me like you are over intellectualizing something that comes down to yes or no.

Maybe this is a new discussion in a way and I'm totally offbase, but, honestly I'm not sure where this discussion is going in regards to gay marriage.


Collapse -

I think it's just a case of the

by Deadly Ernest In reply to You're tripping over your ...

typical thread drift being taken off into a thread of it's own.

Collapse -


by AnsuGisalas In reply to I think it's just a case ...

Somehow it seems... wrong... to take a perfectly good Off Topic spin and turn it into a topic of its own in a thread of its own.
Or is that just me getting things backwards again? :^0

Collapse -

depends on what's backwards for you, since your arse usually

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Yeah...

precedes you into the room, doesn't it?

Collapse -

It's a blessing

by AnsuGisalas In reply to depends on what's backwar ...

I have become one with the arse

Collapse -

I have two working parts,

by CharlieSpencer In reply to It's a blessing

my mouth and my arse, and they're completely interchangeable.

Collapse -

Ethics and Morals

by dogknees In reply to I don't dislike philosoph ...

Are not the same thing. The difference is critical to the discussion and is often overlooked.

My understanding is that Morals are beliefs you hold that cannot be logically derived from other beliefs. Ethics are the beliefs that can be deduced logically from your moral and other beliefs. This is as described to me by a philosophy professor some years ago and confirms by others since.

Personally I have little interest in Morals but lot in Ethics, though I'm very interested in digging out peoples "real" moral beliefs and looking at whether their stated ethical beliefs are actually a logical result of those moral beliefs. Of course few of us (if any) can fully meet this standard, but that doesn't mean it's not acceptable to ask the questions or to expect people to discuss what they really believe or rather, how they justify their actions with those beliefs.

Funny how a lot don't agree though. I wonder what beliefs are behind that and whether those people would admit to them?

Collapse -

One of the best ways to describe ethics and morals I've come across is:

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Ethics and Morals

Ethics is what you call how you evaluate, behave, and regard your interactions with others, and is seen by others and evaluated as such.

Morals is what you call how you evaluate, behave, and regard your own actions by yourself, and are usually only seen by you. In short, the standards you hold yourself up to.

Mores are a set of socially accepted rules for interaction with others in your society. Often the laws align with the mores, but that's not so common today.

The real fun starts when people start thinking their morals or mores are the ones all should live by.

Collapse -

By that definition

by AnsuGisalas In reply to One of the best ways to d ...

double morality is actually simply having a morality more loose than one's part in the ethics of others.
Is ethics like bruises then? The impact of the judgment of others? Or the expectation or perception of the judgment of others, perhaps?

Related Discussions

Related Forums