Philosophy Now Forum

My philosophy will note that neither Kant ,nor Schopenhauer,
nor Plato, has made any impact on the lives of the vast majority
of people on the earth.
Likely since they have neither read nor would care to read.
People want sex and money and property and that is it.
Except to say, that they also want understanding,which will
forever be elusive to them.
"Happiness" is the goal.
Unhappiness is the reality.
What will never be achieved, in the lives of the majority,
is the recognition that our illusions are building in us a
reality ,which does not exist.
These illusions are all part of the extractive system and
they are fostered .
For those whose illusions keep them happy we should have nothing
much to say .For those whose illusions are a source of unhappiness we can
only resign ourselves to the understanding that this will never change.
In the end ,far from being pointless, philosophy will dignify itself by revealing
the network of illusions that buffer the human race from the reality that it
is nothing but a genetic drift in the magnitude of time.
Illusions are here to stay, if only because they are a mechanism ,which
makes the world work.
Philosophy is applied incorrectly in the cause of trying to better the world.
And that is often what recreational philosophers, inappropriately ,
attempt to do.
There is a truth that lurks around every corner but that truth records the
folly of humankind . The truth is that truth has never been the main driver of human affairs.
Philosophy must say it how it is and that is the ultimate goal
of philosophy ; to reveal the impediments of will and judgment in human nature.



a Shark May 2013

a Shark wrote:My philosophy will note that neither Kant ,nor Schopenhauer,
nor Plato, has made any impact on the lives of the vast majority
of people on the earth.

That's where you are so wrong and so naïve. Kantianism has inspired generations of people and been deeply in-grained in important figures and an inspiration for later thinkers who in turn inspired others and so on the snowball rolls until our time. Schopenhauer inspired Nietzsche, a person whom have seen direct admiration and inspired people around the world for the tools of the mind he provides. Plato was the origin of it all.

People who come to such conclusions I think doesn't realize the importance of concepts and how those concepts come to influence how we see the world and thereafter act according to our worldview. New ideas allows us to investigate in new ways, gives us tools for creating shared knowledge and understanding, and allows us to develop sophistication and ableness of the mind. You are just confused by them and throw out blank denial in defence, that's my guess.

a Shark wrote:Likely since they have neither read nor would care to read.

If I recall correctly, both Kant and Schopenhauer read a lot, something for which they had to in their time to be recognized for knowing. Plato would have access to material for reading and he probably read a lot as he was a keeper of knowledge and held onto history, Aristotle is much more obvious to have read a lot since he was a great historian, detailing a lot of accounts of political history in his book "Politics".

a Shark wrote:People want sex and money and property and that is it.

So those who actively refrain from such things are not people then?

a Shark wrote:Except to say, that they also want understanding,which will
forever be elusive to them.

And how do you know? Hoping for a lucky guess?

a Shark wrote:"Happiness" is the goal.

If that was the goal then people wouldn't had spent so much time creating misery for themselves. People are complex, not simple, they might do things to make themselves happy, and they might, in their dumbfoundness, spill it all away in a poker-match.

a Shark wrote:Unhappiness is the reality.

Depends upon who you ask. The Dalai Lama is said to be an expert on being happy.

a Shark wrote:What will never be achieved, in the lives of the majority,
is the recognition that our illusions are building in us a
reality ,which does not exist.

Should they bother recognize it? Don't they have other things to do?

a Shark wrote:These illusions are all part of the extractive system and
they are fostered .

What is "the extractive system"?

a Shark wrote:For those whose illusions keep them happy we should have nothing
much to say.

I think there's plenty to say, especially asking questions like "how long will it keep them happy?".

a Shark wrote:For those whose illusions are a source of unhappiness we can
only resign ourselves to the understanding that this will never change.

I fail to understand this. If a person even for just a moment experiences an illusions that causes unhappiness, they are then doomed for life? At what point is the no-return sign?

a Shark wrote:In the end ,far from being pointless, philosophy will dignify itself by revealing
the network of illusions that buffer the human race from the reality that it
is nothing but a genetic drift in the magnitude of time.

And that's supposed to help them? If I lived in the illusion that somebody whom I loved didn't love me then philosophy should tell me that I am "a genetic drift in the magnitude of time"?

a Shark wrote:Illusions are here to stay, if only because they are a mechanism ,which
makes the world work.

I'd hate to loose movies, theatre, songs and the likes yes. I really hope they stay.

a Shark wrote:Philosophy is applied incorrectly in the cause of trying to better the world.
And that is often what recreational philosophers, inappropriately ,
attempt to do.

Recreational philosophers? I've never heard that term before. I didn't even know philosophy was recreative, I've always thought of it as a bit of struggle and wrestling. Are you sure these recreationists are even philosophers at all?

a Shark wrote:There is a truth that lurks around every corner but that truth records the
folly of humankind .

Records? How does a lurking truth record "the folly of humankind"?

a Shark wrote:The truth is that truth has never been the main driver of human affairs.
Philosophy must say it how it is and that is the ultimate goal
of philosophy ; to reveal the impediments of will and judgment in human nature.

Wittgenstein-ing, I will like to call that. Clarification. Well certainly it is a good thing, perhaps we could agree. But, ultimately, it's not very useful to say it. It's like saying mathematics is about patterns. You don't get something useful out of telling people mathematics is the science of patterns. Instead, you'll have to instruct them in the long-running tradition of mathematics that has made it what it is today, then, it can be useful to anyone. Same with philosophy. I prefer saying that philosophy is dually the art and science of frameworking, creating frameworks by which we adhere in arts and science and in that extension our everyday life.

If you think about it makes sense, and it's a much more useful explanation that gives you something to use philosophy for. Although basically and essentially philosophy is the disciplines that makes out its component members: logic, ethics, ontology, epistemology and so forth...

I suspect that most people will see the flaws , misconceptions and errors of your reasoning here.

I could answer each of your replies ,but,if you didnt get the original, you wont get the explanation of the original .

a.shark

You come to a philosophy forum, but when somebody speaks against you, you won't argue with them? What's the point of you being here then?

Are you here just to make proclamations?

Firstly one cannot invoke Nietzsche and his absurd creation of the superman to
reflect on the benefits of the wisdom he conferred on humanity .Much can be also said of Schopenhauer,a pessimist, who thought non involvement was the best way to lead ones life.
What I did mean was that I was suggesting that Kant is not general reading material for the average population and the world can get on fine without him. same for Plato.

What you come up against in your theory of lofty philosophical heroes is the fact that
whilst there is progress in science there is no progress in ethics.
Science creates more and more opportunities to kill our fellow human beings.

The upshot of my essay was that the average person in the street has not read and is not interested in Kant. They are more interested in the latest iplayer or Facebook.

It is time to bury these old frauds and look at philosophy again through a more realistic
lense.

a Shark wrote:Firstly one cannot invoke Nietzsche and his absurd creation of the superman to
reflect on the benefits of the wisdom he conferred on humanity.

Any one of the great philosophers of history cannot be reduced to any single concept as they were all prolific and wrote extensively. It's like reducing Harry Potter to the character Harry Potter when there's so much chewy stuff in the Harry Potter series that is not about him. Also, you cannot reduce written works to concepts, as the work consists of many small sentences that each struggle to reach the hearts and minds of their readers. A book of few such good sentences will not fare well, similarly, Nietzsche was a prolific writer with many words and commentaries that cannot be summarized in any way without reading him.

a Shark wrote:Much can be also said of Schopenhauer,a pessimist, who thought non involvement was the best way to lead ones life.

Many people still do. I don't know too much about Schopenhauer, he hasn't interested me much. In fact, I'm not sure even if I consider him part of the great philosophers of history, only as a precursor to Nietzsche. He was quickly forgotten even briefly after his own time, and during his time he was dwarfed by the vast admirations given to Hegel. Nietzsche was a person who helped revive Schopenhauer and bring him back to life.

a Shark wrote:What I did mean was that I was suggesting that Kant is not general reading material for the average population and the world can get on fine without him. same for Plato.

Aye they can. I haven't read much about either personally, I'm more interested in present philosophy than the past, although I have some knowledge about the past.

a Shark wrote:What you come up against in your theory of lofty philosophical heroes is the fact that
whilst there is progress in science there is no progress in ethics.

That is not true. Progress is slow but it happens surely and even quite apparently if you just read the news. The emergence of applied ethics, environmental ethics and John Rawl's "A Theory of Justice" are key elements of our era and are great progress from the eras of the past. In fact, there has never been a more sprawling era for philosophy than the one we have today. Just because it's not as fast as Moore's law perhaps doesn't mean nothing is happening or that it doesn't have widespread influences. Whatever stance you are taking your assumptions from are clearly poorly grounded and misguided.

a Shark wrote:Science creates more and more opportunities to kill our fellow human beings.

But also how to keep them alive and let them prosper. Where does this monorail of thoughts come from?

a Shark wrote:The upshot of my essay was that the average person in the street has not read and is not interested in Kant. They are more interested in the latest iplayer or Facebook.

Yes they are. But still they adhere to traditions that go back far in time and are deeply grounded in philosophy, and they use those devices among things to discuss philosophical issues of their interest or at least show their political stance from them, including environmentalism, animal rights, feminism, social justice, and so on.

a Shark wrote:It is time to bury these old frauds and look at philosophy again through a more realistic
lense.

And who is to decide what is realistic? Is it you?

So where is the evidence of this John Rawl progress in ethics?
Is it in the return of state torture ?
Is it in the Victorian prisons of the UK described as beneath human dignity
by the European commission ?
Is it on the West Bank ?
Is it in the corruption of UK politicians who claimed expenses illegally.
Is it in the corruption of state allocation of financial resources ?
Was it in the repeal of the Glass Steagal Act ?
Was it in the term "Weapons of mass destruction"
Is it in fractional reserve banking and inappropriate leverage on Wall Street.
Can you find it in any second hand car dealership ?
Is it to be found in the tax declarations of Google and Amazon?
Just where is the evidence of progress in ethics?

What you basically have in such an idea is the mere repackaging of
barbarism .
The truth of the matter is than humans are exploitative
and that has not changed in the evolution of mankind.

We like to think that we are more ethical but that is
the twaddle talk of the Enlightenment and of every liberal humanist .

And may I just tack on here a direct question .
Where in the morality of the justice system do we find
Nietzsche's philosophy that people's wills are not causal, that they do not have free will or choice, and that they are not morally responsible for their actions ?

I am afraid that the law finds each individual accountable and that their actions
are deliberative in the Christian sense and that is why Schopenhauer broke with Nietzsche on account of his Christian views.
So who is right ? and what can you say about the great almighty inheritance
of these philosophers on mainstream life ?
Its sheer bunkum my friend.

a Shark wrote:So where is the evidence of this John Rawl progress in ethics?

It's in a book called "A Theory of Justice" and an essay called "Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical".

a Shark wrote:Is it in the return of state torture ?

Which state? The US and The UK is not the rest of the world. Also, John Rawl is not responsible for the actions he doesn't inspire, only those he does inspire, and of course only responsible for those inspirations that comes from a correct reading of what he meant, as opposed to taking liberties. In the same way that my smartphone is not responsible for me choosing to eat porridge today, John Rawl is not responsible for state torture. I also may note that some people consider state torture ethical in the right circumstances, so there's nothing unethical about it if you have a favourable ethical position.

a Shark wrote:Is it in the Victorian prisons of the UK described as beneath human dignity
by the European commission ?

Again, the prisons in my country, Norway, are like hotels in comparison to most of the world, so I think you are being a bit self-centred here.

a Shark wrote:Is it on the West Bank ?

Human rights activists fight there every day to restore justice. Ethics is not about winning but about attitude.

a Shark wrote:Is it in the corruption of UK politicians who claimed expenses illegally.

Your problem not mine. Depending on what it is, it could be a petty thing also and not worth arguing about.

a Shark wrote:Is it in the corruption of state allocation of financial resources ?

This sentence I don't know what means... please explain?

a Shark wrote:Was it in the repeal of the Glass Steagal Act ?

Never heard of it. Local business again? You seem only to see bad things. Of course you don't see progress! You're innately focused on bad things! The world is complex and good and bad things happens simultaneously all the time, it's very difficult to discern how much of each.

a Shark wrote:Was it in the term "Weapons of mass destruction"

I don't think ethics have much business in the invention of words unless those words are restatements of derogatory words. I guess you mean the actual "weapons of mass destruction" and not the "term"? And if so, then yes, I think ethics may have been part of it, it was the calculation of numbers when it was first constructed, that you could sacrifice Japanese women, children and men to save death-tolls and end the war quicker. I think it was wrong of course, but certainly there are ethical arguments both ways.

a Shark wrote:Is it in fractional reserve banking and inappropriate leverage on Wall Street.

Fractional reserve banking I don't know the history of, not even when it started. If it began before John Rawl's time then it kinda speaks for itself. I don't know what "inappropriate leverage on Wall Street" means.

a Shark wrote:Can you find it in any second hand car dealership ?

Can you find an IPhone there? In philosophy, in logic and conversation ethics, we call this a "Strawman", to take an argument out of its domain and apply it onto a domain where it does not belong and therefore breaks apart. I'm not sure I even know what a second hand car dealership is... is it selling a car after you first initially bought it from a dealer?

a Shark wrote:Is it to be found in the tax declarations of Google and Amazon?

That somebody deals with it is a typical aspect of ethics, and people seem to be trying to find ways to deal with it while still upholding a flexible law system with equal rights and obligations for all people or all corporations.

a Shark wrote:Just where is the evidence of progress in ethics?

I did already hint you that. But if you need more solid facts on the table, then the evidence is in individuals over last few decades, thousands, tens of thousands of them, who have joined cause in various organizations and political parties, in order to fight for emerging movements, emerging causes, characterized by philosophical principles. Animal rights has given laws in Norway that strictly regulates the treatment of animals for food processing and the like, it has also shaped our supermarkets because now you have food that is branded so to advertise that they make food from animals who have had a decent living. This is most evident in eggs and chickens where the term "free moving chickens" has hit the labels, indicating that the chickens were not kept imprisoned but were allowed to move freely in their life-time.

Environmental ethics, as a wide field with many sub-categories, has influenced city-planning so as to create human habitat environments that are more close to nature and with good quality atmospheres. The more typical environmental ethics is however the preservation of forests, the right treatment of vulnerable ecology, the sustainable cultivation of land and so forth. These are the kind of mainstream ideas, and then there are plenty of more obscure smaller groups with all sorts of ideas, few of them have much influence I would think, but some do, like Arne Næss a Norwegian philosopher chained himself to a river to stop the damming of it, known as the Alta controversy in English (English article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_controversy)

Wikipedia wrote:More than one thousand protesters chained themselves to the site when the work started again in January 1981. The police responded with large forces; at one point 10% of all Norwegian police officers were stationed in Alta (during which time they were quartered in a cruise ship). The protesters were forcibly removed by police.

Human Rights has progressed significantly in the last decades. While there's still a lot of bad stuff in the world, it's slowly but surely diminishing, with some sprouts here and then following some world-event. Africa is the typical example, with the emerging of more democracies, more civil society (upholding of law and order) and refining of acts and procedures of conducting business and exercising government authority. A couple of decades ago and you could've conducted business with near unlimited power over your workers and their working conditions and face government support. That kind of behaviour is fading.

Human Rights workers are all over the world and in plenty and sprouting up more all the time standing up for local and regional justice. If you think there's a lot of bad things on the TV then maybe that's a good thing: it shows that people care and are willing to challenge wrongdoers and their power-structures.

a Shark wrote:What you basically have in such an idea is the mere repackaging of
barbarism .

? This one needs explanation.

a Shark wrote:The truth of the matter is than humans are exploitative
and that has not changed in the evolution of mankind.

Well as they say there are good exploits and bad exploits. You can be quite happy while exploited, exploitation just means using for your own gain, and there's nothing wrong with that, like I exploit this tree for wood so that I can warm my hands. And as the airlines tell you: take on your own oxygen mask before you apply one to your neighbour. Or as the Buddhists say (or at least somewhat in that direction): you must fix yourself before you can fix others.

a Shark wrote:We like to think that we are more ethical but that is
the twaddle talk of the Enlightenment and of every liberal humanist .

Well to some people it's unethical not to detonate the atomic bomb over those Japanese children, women and men because it doesn't win them the war (and save American soldiers from dying in fights). Ethics has no monorail pathway, it got many tracks running in parallel.

" Animal rights has given laws in Norway that strictly regulates the treatment of animals for food processing and the like, it has also shaped our supermarkets because now you have food that is branded so to advertise that they make food from animals who have had a decent living. "

Yeah like horses you mean ? branded as beef and sold in supermarkets in Europe.
What you are eating is a horses arse and not rump steak.

Im not interested in what some mongul academic says about liberty and justice -John Rawl is some bourgeois establishment front man, who is as deluded as all the rest
of humanity. And dont try and tell me you understand him because what you
know about justice in this world is like something from a Walt Disney
film. Maybe that old classic "Lassie Come Home".

Ethics is not about attitude ethics is about the implementation of ethical
states and conditions for christ sake !!! durrr.
Since when did an attitude contribute to anything in itself ?

What you need my friend is education.
Education should always come before blathering .

a Shark wrote:And dont try and tell me you understand him because what you
know about justice in this world is like something from a Walt Disney

And you know that how, may I ask? How do you know I've ever been interested in watching movies at all or haven't had a harsh life? You want the world to be a bad place, don't you? And because I dare say against you you will assume all the world's things so that in your imagination you can raise yourself up?

a Shark wrote:Ethics is not about attitude ethics is about the implementation of ethical
states and conditions for christ sake !!! durrr.

Yes it is. I feel I live in a state where many of those implementations are done as well, but not everything is perfect of course, and politics is all about weighing up and down and finding what gives people the most in the end.

a Shark wrote:Since when did an attitude contribute to anything in itself ?

An attitude changes your worldview and your worldview is where you decide action from. Change the attitude of your politicians and you'll have a whole new country emerging from the hands of the politician's power, until the time he is no longer taking part in politics.

a Shark wrote:What you need my friend is education.
Education should always come before blathering .

u-hu... I don't see the link there.

You are not discussing philosophy or philosophers in particular .
You are simply expressing your own opinions about life and, basically ,you
have lived a sheltered life and your education is somewhat extensively limited.
The problem with not having an education is that it limits your reasoning ability;
hence you simply spout a lot of verbiage which no one is interested in.

The problem with having a sheltered life is that you have no broad perspective to
make informed opinions.

You must realize that what you have to say is of no interest to anyone.
Simply because it is superficial uneducated thinking.
You spout more erroneous nonsense than just about anyone on this forum.
I suggest you stop lecturing people who are intellectually miles ahead of you.
You just end up sounding crass.

My opinion of you is that you live in a delusional world in which you think that
your opinions are lofty.
Your opinions are childish and moronic.
Do you really think that someone like me wants to spend his days
exchanging views with a person like you who does not even know what the Glass Steagall Act is ? Who does not know what an extractive society is ?
Who does not know what fractional reserve banking is;who does not know
what leverage means and who thinks that his own prisons are like holiday chalets
and that this has a moral bearing on the slums in the UK?

You cannot think.
Give up and do something else with your time because you
are Fu$&ing away your life in a delusion that what you have to say is
didactic and philosophical.
It isnt ; it is just a load of bollocks.
Dont reply to me again.
Life is too short .

a Shark wrote:You are not discussing philosophy or philosophers in particular .
You are simply expressing your own opinions about life and, basically ,you
have lived a sheltered life and your education is somewhat extensively limited.
The problem with not having an education is that it limits your reasoning ability;
hence you simply spout a lot of verbiage which no one is interested in.

The problem with having a sheltered life is that you have no broad perspective to
make informed opinions.

You must realize that what you have to say is of no interest to anyone.
Simply because it is superficial uneducated thinking.

An awful lot of sentences just to say I'm uneducated. I don't know how to respond to this as you've obviously not seen much of me, I've been here for more than a year. There is no context to what you are saying. I have lived both a sheltered and an unsheltered life. Two times have I lived out on the streets eating food from garbage bins and freezing myself into sleep on park benches in Norway and through Spain and France. I think my education is quite extensive despite its lack of formality. I've travelled many places in the world, met many people. I read a lot and keep myself updated on the affairs of the world and often research on my spare time. Coupled with this I like watching university lectures on my spare time as well, everything from political philosophy, to modern social theory, to human behavioural biology, to software programming to literary theory.

a Shark wrote:You spout more erroneous nonsense than just about anyone on this forum.

And how is it erroneous, might you exemplify this?

a Shark wrote:I suggest you stop lecturing people who are intellectually miles ahead of you.
You just end up sounding crass.

If you are referring to yourself I'm not sure I'll agree that you are intellectually even close to being ahead of me. But you are free to try and find out.

a Shark wrote:My opinion of you is that you live in a delusional world in which you think that
your opinions are lofty.

I don't think my opinions are any particularly lofty compared with anyone else's. I'm not very interested usually in opinions anyways, I like contextual explanation and hard facts. Of course I think sometimes I'm right, that doesn't make me "worthy of admiration", though, it just makes me right (to me, at least).

a Shark wrote:Your opinions are childish and moronic.

Your opinion.

a Shark wrote:Do you really think that someone like me wants to spend his days
exchanging views with a person like you who does not even know what the Glass Steagall Act is ?

I don't see what niche financial history of America has to do with me? I have other things more important for me than that.

a Shark wrote:Who does not know what an extractive society is ?

Me? I still don't know. Closest bet is that it is a wrong use of the term "extractive economy"...?

a Shark wrote:Who does not know what fractional reserve banking is

I know what that is. I haven't considered memorizing its history though.

a Shark wrote:who does not know
what leverage means

Well I could've been excused for not being an English native, but I know what leverage means. I don't know what "inappropriate leverage of Wall Street" means though. You'll have to tell me what leverage you are speaking of, you have to speak in context, and then maybe I can agree or not agree whether it's appropriate or not. As I said, I like hard facts, I don't always like talking in metaphors.

a Shark wrote:and who thinks that his own prisons are like holiday chalets

They are. Murderers and rapists spend most of their days in relatively comfortable beds watching TV and playing computer games or enjoying porn. It's true. It's a kind of softening-policy, an attempt to re-soften people by offering an atmosphere of soft values and gentle nature and high degrees of respect. There are examples of people who out of their own desires (not guilt, but desire) has not wanted to leave prison because it's so nice for them. You can also attend school, get education and even work and make money while you're there, so that when you get out you are the most fit to get into society and function socially.

a Shark wrote:and that this has a moral bearing on the slums in the UK?

I didn't say that. I can only speak for my own country.

a Shark wrote:You cannot think.

If I couldn't then I couldn't be writing to you know.

a Shark wrote:Give up and do something else with your time because you
are Fu$&ing away your life in a delusion that what you have to say is
didactic and philosophical.

Philosophy is my heart and my passion in life. I've been addicted to it and heavy thinking since I was 13-14 years old. I think it's fair to say my philosophical interests have come to stay forever to my death. Working on ideas and concepts is my passion and I spend a lot of time doing it, developing my own philosophy.

a Shark wrote:It isnt ; it is just a load of bollocks.

You don't know what it is, how can you then talk about it?

a Shark wrote:Dont reply to me again.

I can't say I'll adhere to that, but you are free not to give any replies yourself.

a Shark wrote:Life is too short .

Yeah, I've already turned 21 years old, damn, already spent at least a fifth of my life!

What a dick.

a Shark wrote:What a dick.

Sounds like Straw Dog is back...

John K wrote:

a Shark wrote:What a dick.

Sounds like Straw Dog is back...