Fire Arrow on 15/1/2024 at 19:44
I wrote a big high-effort reply which just got blanked when I tried to post it. I'll try writing it again, but it might not be as high effort.
Quote Posted by Anarchic Fox
Ugh. Ugh ugh
ugh. :eww:
Kant is worthwhile, but introduces more terminology than anyone has the time for. Heidegger is Nazi bullshit. Hegel is proto-Nazi bullshit. Schopenhauer is bullshit, but at least it isn't Nazi bullshit. Nietzsche's good, at least... provided you ignore "The Will to Power," which his sister and her awful husband assembled into Nazi, you guessed it, bullshit.
I think this may be an area where we have differences of opinion. I don't think there's much connection between Nazism and Heidegger's actual philosophy; I think he was more of an opportunist, as exemplified by his behaviour after the Second World War. He insinuated that Sartre's interpretation of Being and Time was wrong, as a way of getting back into public life. Arguably worse, from a certain perspective.
Hegel wasn't an anti-Semite, but I'm pretty sure Schopenhauer was an anti-Semite. Also the actual Nazi Carl Schmitt had a very negative view of Hegel. I think the attribution of totalitarianism to Hegel is more accurately applied to Fichte (if you read "Hegel's Ethical Thought" by Wood, this becomes clear).
I've gone back and forth on Nietzsche's relationship to Nazism. I came to the conclusion that although he wasn't an anti-Semite, his positive view of cruelty and negative view of Socrates, makes his attitude a precursor.
Quote:
Right. You're talking to some with a doctorate in physics and half a bachelor's degree in philosophy. Time for a lesson.
The theory of "early quantum mechanics," as it used to be called, was developed by Planck, Einstein (yes, really) and Bohr. The latter two were English. Edit: Bohr was Danish.
Quantum mechanics developed in Germany not because its physicists had some advantage in philosophy, but because de Broglie, a German, had the key insight, and his advisor Schopenhauer was able to give that insight a foundation. De Broglie and Schopenhauer were German, but like all the best physicists fled the country. I'm not going to credit Germany with anything conducive to the study of physics when its best physicists fled. (Heisenberg, the sole Nazi of the bunch, had a version of quantum mechanics strictly inferior to Schopenhauer's, and indeed one of the early advances in quantum mechanics was when Schopenhauer proved that his wave mechanics encompassed Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.)
The single greatest physicist of the era was Enrico Fermi, Italian. He was both a great theoretician
and a great experimentalist, a fact which is true of only a half-dozen physicists throughout history. And unlike them, he was also a great
engineer, from which follows most of the best Fermi stories. Meanwhile, among the advances of the next generation of physicists, on the theory side the two most important were the Dirac equation and Feynman's path integral formalism. They were English and American, respectively.
Fair enough. I'll readily concede you know better than me. Further, I'll actually say its a relief to have my perspective challenged, I was getting a bit overwhelmed by it, so thank you.
Quote:
English language philosophy, which in this era is to say analytic philosophy, should be disregarded in its grandiose overarching theories, but is immensely valuable in its particulars. Like psychoanalysis. Russell was both a great mathematician and a great philosopher, and his emphasis on how disregarding quantification (in the logic sense) leads to error is invaluable... and he's about a sixth of analytic philosophy all by himself. Wittgenstein is another sixth, and he was an English immigrant. Austin, though neglected for decades, was another English sixth of analytic philosophy. (Carnap and his school, Austrian, were a sixth, and the final third were Quine and the Americans. I'm not weighing in latecomers like Kripke and Putnam.) Austin, in particular, does not neglect subjectivity.
Didn't know that about Austin. I've heard good things about Putnam and Roderick Chisholm.
I oscillate between German and English philosophy. The main thing I worry about is that if we don't use mutually intelligible terms, we may end up reinventing the wheel.
Quote:
That's going too far. There are good ones. It's rather that they, like most hospital MDs, are overburdened. In a mental hospital, each MD is expected to evaluate and diagnose
dozens of different people weekly, relying on reports from staff. It's not a reasonable burden.
That's cutting public spending for you (though I don't want to get into a heated economic debate in this forum so soon).
Quote:
No, what does it mean?
Epistemic justice is the vein of normative epistemology (in my opinion), like there are correct and incorrect ways of 'knowing' just as ethics could be said to be concerned with correct and incorrect ways of 'acting'. 'Normative epistemology' is generally called 'virtue epistemology' (I only used the term 'normative' to give a better sense of the concept). Epistemic justice more specifically is concerned with whether ideas are given a fair trial. So for example, in Aristotle's Biology there was an account of a cephalopod that changed colour, and for centuries scientists thought it was just a tall tale from antiquity; it turned out that it did exist.
I don't know if other people put 'virtue epistemology' and 'epistemic justice' into the same column, like I do.
Quote:
The title raises my hackles, since my ethical system is a virtue one. (It's the Ultima influence.)
Never heard that expression before, had to look it up.
After Virtue is more to do with the failure of other ethical systems to take hold after Thomism. MacIntyre is contrasting more modern ethical systems such as Kant's and Mill's, with Aristotle and Aquinas, finding the modern theories inadequate. He's actually one of main modern writers on virtue ethics.
How does Ultima relate to virtue ethics? Sounds interesting...
Quote:
What's psychodynamics, then? :angel:
Emperor's new clothes psychoanalysis! No, although it has it's roots in Freud, it's more evidence/practice-based than 'scholastic'. I think I probably wrote about it somewhere before, but I can't remember. It's one of those things I talk about over and over again, if I'm not careful.
Basically, it's like the inverse of CBT, emotions precede thought rather than thought preceding emotions.
Edit: And here I am talking about philosophy even though the last post I wrote I said I wasn't here to discuss philosophy. Sorry about that.
Kamlorn on 15/1/2024 at 23:02
Quote Posted by Fire Arrow
Basically, it's like the inverse of CBT, emotions precede thought rather than thought preceding emotions.
Sorry for interrupting, but the same idea crossed my mind one day. Remember! It was a question to me, something like 'why are you even worried about this so much'? He started to explain something to me, probably to calm me down, but I did't listen to what he said. I was really worried! And other one (now I understand he was the smart one), just told me to sit down and handed me a glass of water. It calmed down.
And it dawned on me! EMOTIONS DONT THINK! It's pointless to persuade your feelings! Welp, maybe not so pointless: Dostoevsky, in my opinion, is a wonderful example of such persuading of emotions, which always ends in failure. But it's useless. So the second one, who just gave me a glass of water, knew something. Emotions and thoughts belongs to completly different domains. It's so obvious yet so many people dont understand it.
Fire Arrow on 15/1/2024 at 23:39
Quote Posted by Kamlorn
Sorry for interrupting, but the same idea crossed my mind one day. Remember! It was a question to me, something like 'why are you even worried about this so much'? He started to explain something to me, probably to calm me down, but I did't listen to what he said. I was really worried! And other one (now I understand he was the smart one), just told me to sit down and handed me a glass of water. It calmed down.
Very true. This the dynamic I have with my father, he always tells me my concerns aren't worth taking seriously and it has never calmed me down once. It's more important to be be around people who share your experiences. (Like Alcoholics Anonymous; what use would the advice of a life-long teetotaller be?)
Quote:
And it dawned on me! EMOTIONS DONT THINK! It's pointless to persuade your feelings! Welp, maybe not so pointless: Dostoevsky, in my opinion, is a wonderful example of such persuading of emotions, which always ends in failure. But it's useless. So the second one, who just gave me a glass of water, knew something. Emotions and thoughts belongs to completly different domains. It's so obvious yet so many people dont understand it.
I listened to a radio play of Crime and Punishment once, probably one of the most profound things I've ever come across. I have a lot of admiration and respect for Dostoevsky. Also, when I was having my mental breakdown, I took to watching film adaptations of "The Idiot"; very moving, I think it helped me a lot.
