August 04, 2005

• He was gozzy, but he was great.
• ♪♫ Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable ...
• Yoo hoo! Mein Kampf in 30 minutes! Hot damn!
• Stop Kanting around!
• This is actually a valuable resource. I feel more substantial already. Thanks pete!
• I'll second that. This is a great way of dabbling into the works of philosophers that I've always been interested in, but never had the time to delve into. ))) for ya pete
• Man, this would have made my Master's soooooo much easier. Damn internets, not showing up earlier...
• Mine too! Shee-yat! You are me! Where's my goddam choccy milk?
• I gots it right here, baby... *pats self*
• I was mildly surprised to see Thoreau on the list, astonished to see de Sade, and flabbergasted to see Clausewitz: but at the first sight of Hitler my eyebrows flew off my head and went into orbit. Hitler a philosopher!!! He helped shape our world alright, but with tanks, not his (ach!) philosophy. Handy apart from that...
• As long as the thread has been Godwinned, i posit a thought: didn't the tanks come from the . . erm . . philosophy? as in "A system of values by which one lives"?
• Is your name not Bruce?! Mind if we call you Bruce just to keep it clear?
• And is also in charge of the sheep dip!
• This here's a wattle, the emblem of our land. Ye can stick it in a bottle, ye can hold in in yer hand!
• Best. Post. Ever. I'm gonna get me some philosophisin'.
• Vote for the philosopher you'd like to see squashed here I have an old philosophy professor I'd still vote to see squashed. Or shut up in a cave. In the dark. Or something.
• I was disappointed at the omission of J. Krishnamurti. Of course, he never referred to himself as a philospher but his ideas sum up to be a cogent world view and insightful understanding of the human condition. I suspect many folks see the name and think guru/religious wackjob/flowers in the airport kinda guy, which he was most definitely not! In fact now that I think about it, he's most deserving of an FPP (when I get the time).
• Of course, he never referred to himself as a philospher but his ideas sum up to be a cogent world view and insightful understanding of the human condition. Amen! Welcome to the Philosophy department of the University of Walamaloo. I would now like to ask Koko to close the meeting with a prayer!
• Are you saying that Krishnamurti may secretly be a Gumbie?
• "It's hot enough to boil a monkey's bum in 'ere yer majesty" he said, and she smiled quietly to herself! can't believe it took this long for me to get there
• OK, be dismissive. You guys are too hifalutin for the likes of us pee-ons.
• In the faint hope of engendering some meaningful discussion on topic, I have a coupla questions. For anyone here-does philosphy have a demonstrable practical value or is it merely intellectual wankery? What particular philosphies or philosphers have influenced the Monkeys here?
• dammmit! philosophers or philosophers. I'm not an idiot- I just post like I am.
• sheesh! I even screwed up the correction. Obviously: philosophies or philosophers I am an idiot after all. /smacks self on head
• Did you mean like "love of knowledge"? What possible use could that have?
• For anyone here-does philosphy have a demonstrable practical value or is it merely intellectual wankery? posted by kamus at 06:30AM UTC on August 05, 2005 Having argued with my roommate, and been seriously trashed, I can honestly say that the study of philosophy hones your thinking skills in ways few other text-based disciplines do. We are both grad students in the same year, but her logic and rhetoric skills are far in advanced of mine. And she can analyse arguments with much more precision than I can. I regret not taking philosophy in undergrad. Also, apparently philosophy undergrads have some of the highest hiring rates. But then again, in Ontario, average arts undergrads have better hiring rates than Engineering.
• Oh - my roommate is a Ph.D. student in philosophy. Probably would have helped if I had mentioned that.
• How can you Godwin a post which was about Hitler in the first place? It's pre-Godwinned, isn't it? I don't think the tanks came from his philosophical endeavours: he didn't have any philosophy in the proper sense of the word. To shelve him alongside Plato and Hume is an appallingly misplaced piece of flattery of a man who was no intellectual and the arch-enemy of free thought. I can see why people want to read "Mein Kampf", but the idea that you should read it because it is one of the world's great pieces of philosophy... but there go my eyebrows again. Kamus, why should we only do things which have a demonstrable practical value? (Heh! You can't answer without doing some philosophy.) The best things in life are gratuitous.
• Did you mean like "love of knowledge"? What possible use could that have? I'm not dissing love of knowledge- I'm interested in additional concrete applications of philosophy to life, if any. Jb's example was the kind of thing I had in mind. I'm surprised about the hiring rate of philosphy grads. I would have guessed the opposite.
• does philosphy have a demonstrable practical value or is it merely intellectual wankery? Everything you possess is because of philosophy. Every single science started as a philosphy first. Biology first started as philosophy of physical life. As ideas inside biology became more accepted, it crossed the boundary from philosophy to science. The same goes for Astronomy, Math, Geology, Physics, any science you can name; each are the result of philosphy. That computer screen in front of you? It's the product of a hundred philosopher's efforts in Math and Logic, another hundred philosopher's efforts in Electricity, and another hundred in Physics. Everything you believe is because of philosophy. The Declaration of Independnce? It's the product of someone's philosophy. World War II, along with every other war ever fought? Each are the product of someone's philosophy. The bible in your hotel room or the flier in your windshield wiper? They're the product of someone's philosophy. Every action you take is from philosophy. Many actions you take are because of your agreement with somone's philosophies. Other of your actions are because of your disagreement with someone's philosophies. The rest of your actions stem from your own philosophies. The limits of concrete application of philosophy extend not only to the limits of imagination, but beyond. Philosophy has shaped the entire world that you have and ever will experience. There nothing that has more of a demonstratable practical value. Disclaimer: I'm in the process of changing my degree plan to philosophy right now. Some may say that makes me biased, though that really depends on your outlook.
• Monkeyfilter: does it have a demonstrable practical value or is it merely intellectual wankery?
• Excellent, Mr. Knickerbocker- thanks!
• The short answer is that doing philosophy kept me in school and out of the general population for a good long time, and for that we're all thankful. The long answer is that it develops your mind as nothing else. It's both a history of human thought, and the activity of human thought. As such, it's not the laid-back pie-in-the-sky wankery a lot of people assume it to be. It's tough. You have to retrain your mind in order to approach things logically, systematically and analytically. Once you've accomplished that, which is no small task, that training can be applied to any field whatsoever. At the same time, you're learning about the course of human events through the historical side of philosophy -- revisiting history by way of how people approached their world, rather than by what they did. That in turn reveals much about how we exist today. As for personal influences, I'm big on the Existentialists -- Sartre, Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, etc., together with the Pre-Socratics (esp. Heraclitus), and assorted Taoists (Chuang Tzu, foremost). But for any serious student of philosophy, no matter where they sit on the spectrum, the King will always be Socrates. But it's not quite correct to say that one has only one set of influences -- you take something from each one you come across. It's like a piece of gum that you just keep adding new gum to. I started on this wad back in '91, and I'm not stopping anytime soon.
• OK, be dismissive. You guys are too hifalutin for the likes of us pee-ons *doffs hat in shame at irreverent attitude* But I loves the philosophy! I took an undergrad course in it and enjoyed absolutely every minute. Outside that I've read Schopenhauer, Nietzche, Mill ,Plato, tried to get through some Kant but couldn't make it, and a slew of others. What's the use of philosophy? It's about ideas, thinking and truth. Favourite philosopher: Hands down --- Bertrand Russell. Check out his essay An outline of intellectual rubbish . It's a tour of goofy ideas and irrationality. It's also one of the best written philosophical essays I've ever read.
• Those'r all cricketers! sorry How can you Godwin a post which was about Hitler in the first place? Au contraire! (heh. that was fun.) The post was about the site which has all the edited philosophizin' on it. And while I don't think of Hitler as a philosopher (and was surprised as well to se him there), I think you could make the case that as everyone has a philosophy, and that his particular "system of thought based on the investigation of nature and knowledge" led him to one of history's most important' periods, specifically regarding western thought. *pokes at Plegmund with stem-end of pipe* ermnh?! ernnh. *puff*
• Why is it so smoky in here? *cough* *cough* Here's a philosopher missing from the list: Jesus. The Big C himself.
• good point - but can you imagine condensing the New Testament? Or . . the relevant parts? At least Plato made it easy. "These here my books - y'alls can cut 'em up if'n y'want."
• Jesus never wrote anything down. Paul would be a better choice as a Christian philosopher.
• How about cut and pasting all the stuff that goes "And Jesus said...." for a start?
• Thanks for the Russell link, StoryBored!
• Where's the Wu Tang Clan?
• To expand a bit on Knickerbocker's comment, philosophy not only shapes your beliefs in the functionalist sense, but the study of the subject can show you why you believe the things you do. And it can (and should) change your mind from time to time on issues that affect, say, the way you vote. In my case, it has made me more tolerant of people who come to conclusions that don't match mine if they can demonstrate they've made an honest effort to search for the truth. At the same time, I'm a harsher critic of people who happen to agree with me, but do so blindly, for reasons they don't know or understand. But I don't like condensed versions of important works. Sometimes they're acceptable and occasionally necessary, but most condensed versions of the Republic, for example, are poor substitutues for the complete text, leading people to incorrect conclusions about what was meant. Just try arguing with someone who hasn't read the whole thing about whether or not the Republic was or is meant as a blueprint for the ideal state. Depending on what that person has read, he or she might not even see that this is an arguable point. The tougher and denser the philosophy, there is an increasing temptation to read a condensed version, but these are the books that are most importantly read in their entirety. Like Kant.
• Jesus never wrote anything down. Paul would be a better choice as a Christian philosopher. Nonsense. We call Socrates a philosopher, don't we?
• Paul : Jesus :: Plato : Socrates We acknowledge Socrates as a philosopher, but all we know of his work is attributed to Plato, regardless of who is the original source of the idea. It could be that every single word from Socrates mouth in the Republic is actually from Socrates own mouth, and many believe this is the case, but we still call it Plato's Republic. In the same way, we can acknowledge Jesus as a philosopher, but we should atribute the work to the guy we know is responsible for it, regardless of our suspicions that Jesus contributed.
• Smo: I think we attribute most things to Plato, actually. Kamus: I'm fond of this quote, in reference to not just economists but subtly or not-so-subtly influential academics in general: "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt of intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler a few years back." Lots of these were required reading in our freshman year seminar of college. I never regretted reading them, surely, I just wish I would have had more context for them at the time. The more I learn, the more utterly astounding it is to me how much our worldview has changed over the past 1000 years. Ideas may be vague, indirect, and infinitely complex, but in terms of some abstract scale of brute power, I would rank them in the same bracket as gravity and subatomic forces, maybe even above.
• The philosophy relating to the examined life is believed by just about everyone to belong to Socrates himself. This includes the Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito. The ideas therein are rarely attributed to Plato by philosophers, or even laypeople, even if his name graces the cover of the books. The Republic is an exception because it appears to be such a digression from Socrates's ideas and many philosophers believe it to be Plato's ideas at work. Which is to say that it doesn't matter who wrote down the ideas, but rather who came up with them. You might disqualify Jesus on other grounds, but because he neglected to write down his thoughts? Not very persuasive.
• Interesting answers-thank you. I'm still curious if there are certain philosophers who have had a particular personal impact on anyone reading this thread. I confess that my knowledge of philosophy is quite lacking aside from Socrates/Plato, a little Nietzsche, Huxley and Sartre. I have never read Kant, Wittgennstein, Schopenhauer or most of the others listed on the site. Thanks to the link, I can now fill in the gaps a bit. (thanks Petebest)
• I can't count all the ways I've been influenced by various philosophers. There are simply too many. One example that immediately springs to mind is Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. It's a defense of libertarianism written in the 70s, mostly as a response to John Rawls's hugely influential Theory of Justice. I disagree with Nozick on most of his arguments, but one argument in particular basically shut the door on my becoming an egalitarian socialist. Incidentally, Anarchy, State, and Utopia is not only full of brilliant ideas, but it's beautifully written as well. Many left leaning philosophy/political theory students dislike reading it because it's so difficult to say why, exactly, Nozick is wrong; these people, in my opinion, are better suited to politics because they miss the point of philosophy. But that's just one book of many.
• *coughs irritably* Jesus isn't a philosopher. Philosophers present arguments as an aid to the pursuit of understanding. Jesus never offered a discussion or presented his reasoning: he knew everything already, we just had to listen and believe him. It's not quite true that everything we know about Socrates comes from Plato: Xenophon gives another account of him, less subtle but perhaps a truer portrait. He's also used as a character by Aristophanes, though that seems to be just a caricature of a 'typical' Greek philosopher. jb's friend is right that doing philosophy is likely to improve your reasoning and debating skills: but it's also true that painting will make you look at things more carefully and improve your manual dexterity. Those aren't the real justifications for the activities. We do philosophy because we want answers to questions like: what is there? How do we know? What should we do? Hitler was not a great painter, either, incidentally.
• As an addendum to my earlier comment, there are right wingers who like Nozick because he confirms their biases in a philosophically respectable way. They, too, miss the point. On preview: I wondered if someone would make the case that Jesus should not be considered a philosopher. I tend to lean that way myself, but I thought rocket's argument wasn't valid.
• Smo, I still don't see why you think we should change the way we recognize philosphers for this one case. At best, your argument still says that we should put Paul's name on the cover, and then verbally aknowledge that Jesus may be responsible for some of his ideas. kamus, my biggest influences would probably be Zeno, Cantor, Russell, and R.A. Wilson. Plegmund, I've wanted to see The Clouds made into a movie for a while, even though I disagree with just about every sentiment the author has.
• jb's friend is right that doing philosophy is likely to improve your reasoning and debating skills: but it's also true that painting will make you look at things more carefully and improve your manual dexterity. Those aren't the real justifications for the activities. We do philosophy because we want answers to questions like: what is there? How do we know? What should we do? This is most definitely true, but kamus asked about applications of philosophy, presumably outside of philosophy itself. I was telling the sort of thing I would tell the overly anxious parents of a student taking philosophy. The skills, like painting, are transferrable to many different pursuits. I did take art history and sculpture in high school, and it really did broaden my appreciation of art and design, towards the moderns (I already had a taste for the archaic).
• Jesus isn't a philosopher. Speaking strictly from the definition given by dictionary.com: phi·los·o·phy n. pl. phi·los·o·phies 1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline. 2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. 3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume. 4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. 5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology. 6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. 7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising. 8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life. I'd say that pretty much anyone who truthfully investigates the nature of reality in any form is a philosopher. Maybe not an author and perhaps not great - but still a philosopher. *hands out philosopher hats to the thread audience*
• Thanks for the Russell link Your welcome, islander! And here is Russell's classic essay: Why I am not a Christian. A hoot to read. Also, going along with the current discussion, he asks: Jesus vs Socrates, who wins? His amusing answer: You remember what happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever' . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.
• Incidentally, Anarchy, State, and Utopia is not only full of brilliant ideas, but it's beautifully written as well. I will put it on my reading list. I'm biased but if someone thinks well, they should make an attempt to write well...
• Why don't we get author's hats too, petebest? We wrote these comments, didn't we? I think to be called a philosopher normally implies a special commitment or achievement; but in addition, case 2 in your definition correctly excludes those who use empirical methods, ie scientists (I think it really needs another clause to exclude mathematicians). I'm completly mystified by the reference to advertising in case 7, though.
• Agreed, Mr. Plegmund. And yes, I don't know why they reference advertising either. A philosophy of architecture is probably what they meant. /kicks advertisers
• I rather like this mad site, even if things are abridged. Really, who wants to read Kant or Wittgenstein uncut? Think it would benefit from being less Western-centric -- the inclusion of Nagarjuna and Confucious and so.
• =and so on.
• *gratefully accepts hat* *hat falls over eyes* *whistles in darkness* And now for something completely the same: A philosopher with an unknown number of buttocks
• i think the argument used against hitler's inclusion could perhaps be applied to machiavelli, who appears on the list. i do rate the prince as an important book, but i don't think it's philosophy; it's closer to pol. sci or pol. theory.
• I wasn't saying that Jesus wasn't a philosopher, only that Paul had more influence on Christian thought than Jesus did.
• Loved the Russell quote, and I think I actually learned something from this thread from the rest of you. Thanks