Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Rickman says you’re not the only one.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/86/Havi ... _With_Kant

Kant reasoned without a true understanding of what ethics are in regard to nature.schopenhour did the exact same thing .this understanding leads to a nilisism without ethics.when in fact these two nilism and ethics are one in the same thing.

jackles wrote:Kant reasoned without a true understanding of what ethics are in regard to nature.schopenhour did the exact same thing .this understanding leads to a nilisism without ethics.when in fact these two nilism and ethics are one in the same thing.

Jackles, Kantian ethics is the antithesis of nihilism. Kantian ethics is universal and authoritative because of human reason. Nihilism in relation to ethics says that terms such as right or wrong don't really have any meaning at all.

Nihlism in no event terms is correct.but in event terms it nihlism equals ethics.the ethics of nonidentity in the event.event identity equals conditional ethics.in other words nihlism =god without event or good without event.the event makes ethics non nihlistic.

yet getting Kant wrong is something a surprising number of eminent philosophers do,

Then the problem is Kant's, and if he can not be understood even by the experts, he should not be considered an expert himself.

It doesn't matter if we don't understand the technical talk of the electrical engineer, because the engineer can give us the benefit of his work in the form of the light bulb and the light switch etc, interfaces that are easy for us access.

The philosopher has only words, so if the words aren't clear, the philosopher has failed.

I would go farther to say the philosopher has also failed if his words are accessible only by the experts. Who cares if some small number of PHDs have some advanced philosophic understanding? What use is that to the rest of us?

So much of philosophy seems like little more than an elaborate form of wanking for hopelessly over educated nerds.

Nihlism = kant .is that correct

jackles wrote:Nihlism = kant .is that correct

No, it's not.

Felasco wrote:

yet getting Kant wrong is something a surprising number of eminent philosophers do,

Then the problem is Kant's, and if he can not be understood even by the experts, he should not be considered an expert himself. ...

Or the thoughts he proposed are just hard to grasp and given he was thinking up new concepts that is not surprising.

It doesn't matter if we don't understand the technical talk of the electrical engineer, because the engineer can give us the benefit of his work in the form of the light bulb and the light switch etc, interfaces that are easy for us access.

The philosopher has only words, so if the words aren't clear, the philosopher has failed.

And yet when one does, Marx, everyone gets in a tizz, go figure.

I would go farther to say the philosopher has also failed if his words are accessible only by the experts. Who cares if some small number of PHDs have some advanced philosophic understanding? What use is that to the rest of us?

You want a guru to follow not a philosopher.

So much of philosophy seems like little more than an elaborate form of wanking for hopelessly over educated nerds.

Like Maths and many other subjects philosophy has specialisms that appear pointless to the lay-man but then they are not written for him. That you think there is such a thing as 'over-educated' places you clearly.

Or the thoughts he proposed are just hard to grasp and given he was thinking up new concepts that is not surprising.

If he can't communicate these new concepts to experts in the field, he has failed, whatever the value of his concepts may be.

I might come up with the cure for cancer, but if I can't tell anybody else what the cure is, my discovery is worthless.

Personally, I think a great many philosopher types seem to have little interest in clear writing, as it is the obscurity of their language which elevates them above the rest of us. Lawyers and many other fields do the same thing, create a special private language to exclude others, so that they will be perceived as "those in the know" etc.

Felasco wrote:If he can't communicate these new concepts to experts in the field, he has failed, whatever the value of his concepts may be. ...

But he did communicate them and many understood what he was saying. That not all did is a reflection of the history of philosophy, specifically the split between anglo-american and continental philosophy. Its like saying all biologists should understand the physicists.

I might come up with the cure for cancer, but if I can't tell anybody else what the cure is, my discovery is worthless.

He did tell those who could understand, hence the huge conversation it entailed. Would a paediatrician understand what the oncologist said?

Personally, I think a great many philosopher types seem to have little interest in clear writing, as it is the obscurity of their language which elevates them above the rest of us. Lawyers and many other fields do the same thing, create a special private language to exclude others, so that they will be perceived as "those in the know" etc.

Since you've read bugger all of the 'philosopher types' you have nothing to judge this by but hearsay and your cultural box. Try reading Kant and you will find him very clear in his language. What is hard is that you have to follow his train of thought to the end as he's a German and the way they think is difficult to cope with in translated English.

Your insecurity and paranoia is showing as no one creates a special private language, i.e. jargon, to exclude others, its so that precision is achieved within the field and confusion avoided, this is especially so with lawyers. That others can't be arsed, or have no need, to learn it is their choice. Next you'll be saying the physicists should write in Janet and John language.

golden rule = nihilism...

duty to nothing? must be an analytic a posterori proposition...

Manny should have gone back to sleep

-Imp