Philosophy Now Forum

1. I don't think of universities as dehumanising organisations.
2. I don't believe membership of a university means or entails working for it.

I'd be interested to hear why you believe differently, rantal/urban.

So far you have not managed to make any clear point, or indeed, to back up any of the strange things you have said. What is your point (if it isn't just to have us all chasing our tails trying to guess what you have in mind)?

mickthinks wrote:So far you have not managed to make any clear point, or indeed, to back up any of the strange things you have said. What is your point (if it isn't just to have us all chasing our tails trying to guess what you have in mind)?

Please relax, just because I present in, what is to you, a novel manner, that is not a reason to suppose that this is not a serious matter, in fact, it is an extreamely serous matter.

Nor is the manner of presentation trivial but indeed there is a good reason for it

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:... in fact, it is an extreamely serous matter.

LOL I doubt it.

... there is a good reason for [the manner of presentation]
I doubt that too.

All the best, Mick

mickthinks wrote:

rantal wrote:... in fact, it is an extreamely serous matter.

I doubt it.

... there is a good reason for [the manner of presentation]
I doubt that too.

All the best, Mick

You're free to doubt but that says more about you than this discussion

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:This cage is the cage that is freely chosen by so many freemen, to work for the company, the corperation or any other dehumanising organisation ...

You some kind of hippy?

But if this is causeing a problem then ask; would ye be taught ethics by men shielded from the harshness and challenges of life?

What, like vegetarians? If you are referring to university academics then they don't teach Ethics and Morals in the sense of telling you what your ethics and morals should be, not done this since Hume I guess, they teach you about what Ethical systems have been proposed so far. No organization can shield one from all the harshness and challenges of life, academics face moral and ethical decisions just like the rest of us.

Arising_uk wrote:

rantal wrote:This cage is the cage that is freely chosen by so many freemen, to work for the company, the corperation or any other dehumanising organisation ...

You some kind of hippy?

No

But if this is causeing a problem then ask; would ye be taught ethics by men shielded from the harshness and challenges of life?

What, like vegetarians?

Are you suggesting that vegetarians are in some way shielded from the harshness and challenges of life? That seems a bizarre claim to me

If you are referring to university academics then they don't teach Ethics and Morals in the sense of telling you what your ethics and morals should be, not done this since Hume I guess, they teach you about what Ethical systems have been proposed so far. No organization can shield one from all the harshness and challenges of life, academics face moral and ethical decisions just like the rest of us.

No, I think many organisations shield individuals from the consequences of and responsibility for their actions

all the best, rantal

My problem with the high profile philosopher in the example is that the status they have achieved can affect their freedom of thought. i.e. Someone who has reached the dizzy heights in their profession is going to find difficulty in proposing ideas wildly at odds with "common sense" but nevertheless valid in fear of ridicule and loss of status.

In my limited time studying I have perceived philosophy as the ability to see beyond what is accepted, to ask the unthinkable, to challenge the acceptable and to separate ego from the process of developing ideas. A true philosopher holds nothing sacred but searches for the cracks and distortions in all, even their own ideas or they create new ideas and new questions which can be uncomfortable to existing thought. People like this may become popular and even create a following but will not be readily accepted by the establishment.

So my answer is No.

.




...um, you sound like a philosopher.




.

How would you know? Given that you haven't read any.

richardtod wrote:My problem with the high profile philosopher in the example is that the status they have achieved can affect their freedom of thought. i.e. Someone who has reached the dizzy heights in their profession is going to find difficulty in proposing ideas wildly at odds with "common sense" but nevertheless valid in fear of ridicule and loss of status.

By "common sense" I presume you mean something like 'accepted wisdom' within the profession concerned richard. As such I can see that in some subjects, e.g. Physics say, that if a physicist believed it was all pixies and fairy dust that makes things go around she/he may be open to ridicule and as such not promote their idea. The thing is that in most subjects you can have all the wild ideas you like, you've just got to prove them and this holds doubly so for Philosophy as going against 'accepted wisdom' is pretty much the grail for philosophers and its easier for them as all they have to do is make it logically watertight. It still may not be accepted but it'll be respected. Take an example from our very own Philosophy Now magazine, Professor Joel Marks, a full blown academic Kantian moral philosopher has recently recanted his position and taken an amoralist stance. He didn't seem in fear of ridicule and loss of status, because, I think, he knows that Philosophy is about being able to logically defend ones beliefs.

In my limited time studying I have perceived philosophy as the ability to see beyond what is accepted, to ask the unthinkable, to challenge the acceptable and to separate ego from the process of developing ideas. A true philosopher holds nothing sacred but searches for the cracks and distortions in all, even their own ideas or they create new ideas and new questions which can be uncomfortable to existing thought. People like this may become popular and even create a following but will not be readily accepted by the establishment.

So whilst i agree with much of your perception I think you miss that if this is the case then the establishment, if by this you mean the academic institution that they work in, will readily accept them warts an' all.

So my answer is No.

Hopefully you may think more of the academic philosopher now.

rantal wrote:No

Sounds like it.

Are you suggesting that vegetarians are in some way shielded from the harshness and challenges of life? That seems a bizarre claim to me

No more bizarre than the claim that the academic philosopher is in such a condition with respect to ethics and morals.

No, I think many organisations shield individuals from the consequences of and responsibility for their actions/i]

Lets use one of your favs, can you give a concrete example of this with respect to the academic philosopher?

Arising_uk wrote:How would you know? Given that you haven't read any.

Hyperbole

all the best, rantal