Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:In the future books will be dead, there will be no more famous philosophers. Everyone will be a conglomerate of 2 cent opinions. Even the famous ones like PewdiePie's voices will not be heard, PewdiePie will say "FlappyBirds is the worst game ever, don't play it" and the sheep will say "Did you watch PewdiePie last night? He said Flappybirds is a game we must play! Let's play it!"

Who's this PewdiePie?

In the future books will still be books and most will still never have heard of the famous philosophers.

There is no hope, in a couple of decades Oprah, AmazingAtheist and Dr. Oz will be hailed as the greatest philosophers of their time

Only heard of one of these and I doubt she'll be remembered much after her show goes off-air. No-eyed deer who the other two are?

Youtube and TV celebrities. How long in the future will books last?

HexHammer wrote:Neither has any relevance in modern society, as they are severely outdated. Just forget about them.

Haha I'm going to assume you're not serious. Let me know when humans move past problems of despair, identity, self-destructiveness, meaning, power, and faith.

http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?pag ... lang=cy-GB

http://www.sorenkierkegaard.nl/artikele ... reedom.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMugSja2K-U

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Youtube and TV celebrities. How long in the future will books last?

Which type of books?

My guess is that, barring extreme catastrophes, in a thousand years books will still be being written and read by the few who always have read.

Arising_uk wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Youtube and TV celebrities. How long in the future will books last?

Which type of books?

My guess is that, barring extreme catastrophes, in a thousand years books will still be being written and read by the few who always have read.

Will it still be a thing or will books be the future equivalent of DnD parties

David Handeye wrote:

Hi Breath,
I don't agree, selecting what not to do does not necessarily implies acting;
secondly, I could act even knowing what I am doing is not to do.

One of the greatest philosopher of history, Jean Jacques Rousseau, converted to catholicism even knowing he was doing something not to do.

Hi David,

We obviously have a different view of what constitutes an act.

And clearly, Rousseau must have been a torn individual

DesolationRow wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Neither has any relevance in modern society, as they are severely outdated. Just forget about them.

Haha I'm going to assume you're not serious. Let me know when humans move past problems of despair, identity, self-destructiveness, meaning, power, and faith.

http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?pag ... lang=cy-GB

http://www.sorenkierkegaard.nl/artikele ... reedom.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMugSja2K-U

The A2 + B2 = C2 that is thousands of years old, and we use it each and every fucking day.

E=MC2 ..oh yes, we also use this in the nuclear industry.

..so where do we hear about your oudated philosophers?

HexHammer wrote: so where do we hear about your oudated philosophers?

The links above clearly show how they are still eminent. If you would have watched the video, Allan Bloom talks about how their influence is so deep it infiltrates everything from the words we use to the way we describe our relationships with each other and ourselves. They pioneered the process of rigorous introspection which led to the creation of the entire field of psychology. Freud, Jung, and Adler were all descendants of Nietzsche and their methods are used all over the world. Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus are all indebted to to Kierkegaard, and their thoughts are used in politics to define the role of individual freedom. Not to mention religious discourse and sociology where they altered the landscape as well. I have no idea what point you're trying to make juxtaposing them with mathematical formulas. It's apples and oranges. Maybe you don't care for their philosophies, that's fine. But denying their influence and importance is futile.

DesolationRow wrote:

HexHammer wrote: so where do we hear about your oudated philosophers?

The links above clearly show how they are still eminent. If you would have watched the video, Allan Bloom talks about how their influence is so deep it infiltrates everything from the words we use to the way we describe our relationships with each other and ourselves. They pioneered the process of rigorous introspection which led to the creation of the entire field of psychology. Freud, Jung, and Adler were all descendants of Nietzsche and their methods are used all over the world. Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus are all indebted to to Kierkegaard, and their thoughts are used in politics to define the role of individual freedom. Not to mention religious discourse and sociology where they altered the landscape as well. I have no idea what point you're trying to make juxtaposing them with mathematical formulas. It's apples and oranges. Maybe you don't care for their philosophies, that's fine. But denying their influence and importance is futile.

I agree with you. Both Kierkegaard and Nietszche delve into their own guts, with a great deal of honesty. This is not trivial armchair deliberation, it is putting themselves on the edge of a razor. Of course, they can only dig, and express what they find, with the means at their disposal.

Were you and I to delve into our own guts with their honesty, it is hardly likely that we would encounter what they did, given our different history. Hence, the lack of a system from this kind of introspective philosophy. But the lack of an ensuing system is not a fault, it is a discovery.

DesolationRow wrote:

HexHammer wrote: so where do we hear about your oudated philosophers?

The links above clearly show how they are still eminent. If you would have watched the video, Allan Bloom talks about how their influence is so deep it infiltrates everything from the words we use to the way we describe our relationships with each other and ourselves. They pioneered the process of rigorous introspection which led to the creation of the entire field of psychology. Freud, Jung, and Adler were all descendants of Nietzsche and their methods are used all over the world. Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus are all indebted to to Kierkegaard, and their thoughts are used in politics to define the role of individual freedom. Not to mention religious discourse and sociology where they altered the landscape as well. I have no idea what point you're trying to make juxtaposing them with mathematical formulas. It's apples and oranges. Maybe you don't care for their philosophies, that's fine. But denying their influence and importance is futile.

Those links you provided as piss poor and only very naïve and gullible people would believe that they have relevance, well maybe I utterly failed to understand anything, so you can just quote something.

Like I quoted very basic and important sentences, like E=MC2 and A2+B2=C2, so what can u quote? ...NOTHING!!!

Breath wrote:

DesolationRow wrote: The links above clearly show how they are still eminent. If you would have watched the video, Allan Bloom talks about how their influence is so deep it infiltrates everything from the words we use to the way we describe our relationships with each other and ourselves. They pioneered the process of rigorous introspection which led to the creation of the entire field of psychology. Freud, Jung, and Adler were all descendants of Nietzsche and their methods are used all over the world. Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus are all indebted to to Kierkegaard, and their thoughts are used in politics to define the role of individual freedom. Not to mention religious discourse and sociology where they altered the landscape as well. I have no idea what point you're trying to make juxtaposing them with mathematical formulas. It's apples and oranges. Maybe you don't care for their philosophies, that's fine. But denying their influence and importance is futile.

I agree with you. Both Kierkegaard and Nietszche delve into their own guts, with a great deal of honesty. This is not trivial armchair deliberation, it is putting themselves on the edge of a razor. Of course, they can only dig, and express what they find, with the means at their disposal.

Were you and I to delve into our own guts with their honesty, it is hardly likely that we would encounter what they did, given our different history. Hence, the lack of a system from this kind of introspective philosophy. But the lack of an ensuing system is not a fault, it is a discovery.

Yes, that's an excellent point. They were not prescribing a universal cure, rather they developed and matured our understanding of life which lead to entirely new avenues and potentials. The understanding of subjectivity as the more valuable truth is profound. And it becomes even more clear as technology and society continue to evolve and the individual is increasingly swallowed up in the system.

HexHammer wrote:Those links you provided as piss poor and only very naïve and gullible people would believe that they have relevance, well maybe I utterly failed to understand anything, so you can just quote something.

Like I quoted very basic and important sentences, like E=MC2 and A2+B2=C2, so what can u quote? ...NOTHING!!!

Haven't read too much Kierkegaard works, just a heck of a lot secondary source info. And judging from that, the guy, who was the richest kid in Copenhagen but also son of a kind of religios fanatic, had a lot of time do dig into his brains regarding big things and sure had a lot of time to choose between this or that, like dumping the love of his life. Actually, he was well ahead of this time, most people don't even now really have Big Choices, but the number is rising, due to increasing wealth. And he was kind of a religious Sartre. The modern world give you more responsibility to take care of yor life.

And Nietzsche, who I read quite a lot is also on the ok-we-cannot-lean-on-religion-so-what-now track. But from a more positive, curious point of view. He likes the free life and tries to see into the future, tries to find the way to handle things onwards. And the will to power certainly seems not to be out of date. But God in different manifestations seem to be alive and kicking despite more than a century of science since Also Spracht and the Gay Science.

So, the guys seem to explore the brave new world from different pow's. Ok, a lot is history, but on the whole they are still interesting.

DesolationRow wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Those links you provided as piss poor and only very naïve and gullible people would believe that they have relevance, well maybe I utterly failed to understand anything, so you can just quote something.

Like I quoted very basic and important sentences, like E=MC2 and A2+B2=C2, so what can u quote? ...NOTHING!!!

Yearh, I know ..u'r not very bright, and doesn't understand a fucking thing of anything.

What in "outdated" don't you understand? Sure they might have had some relevance long ago, but it's over now, in these modern times we don't use them.

Kirkegaard used such nonsense terms like "objective truth" have you ever heard any define "objective truth" is? ..no? ...because it's a nonsense term only very simple minded people believe in!

DesolationRow wrote: Yes, that's an excellent point. They were not prescribing a universal cure, rather they developed and matured our understanding of life which lead to entirely new avenues and potentials. The understanding of subjectivity as the more valuable truth is profound. And it becomes even more clear as technology and society continue to evolve and the individual is increasingly swallowed up in the system.

My theory is this, the Quantum Truth. The earth is trapped in a Dimensional Flux like the planet Aether.

The moon landing is the point of flux, the pendulum, the fulcrum. If one focuses on it one can choose which dimension to enter, the dimension of science or the dimension of hoax. Sort of like the New Age "you create your own universe" kind of deal.

HexHammer wrote: Yearh, I know ..u'r not very bright, and doesn't understand a fucking thing of anything.

It's funny, K. and N. were both masters of irony. This sentence is dripping with irony.

HexHammer wrote:What in "outdated" don't you understand? Sure they might have had some relevance long ago, but it's over now, in these modern times we don't use them.

You have said, literally nothing, to refute the facts which have been laid out regarding not only their influence, but how they continue to be the focus of extensive commentary in postmodernism, post-structuralism, psychotherapy, sociology, the psychology of religion, as well as literature and the arts.

HexHammer wrote:Kirkegaard used such nonsense terms like "objective truth" have you ever heard any define "objective truth" is? ..no? ...because it's a nonsense term only very simple minded people believe in!

K. was actually a proponent of radical subjective truth. He agreed with you that objective truth was nonsense, and that it couldn't be defined.... You're not helping yourself out.