Philosophy Now Forum

Just joined, haven't even checked out any boards or threads yet. I'd been using philosophyforums.com a lot, under this same name, but that site had a major crash and it's still pretty messed up, so Hogrider (not sure if he goes by the same name here) recommended checking this board out.

Anyway, a bit about myself: Born in the 60s. I've got degrees in both philosophy and music theory/composition. Music is my career.

My favorite philosophers include Bertrand Russell, David Hume, WVO Quine, Donald Davidson, Robert Nozick, Hans Reichenbach, Achille Varzi, John Searle, Paul Feyerabend, Plato . . . but there's really no one I agree with even 50% of the time. Heck, Plato I disagree with the vast majority of the time; I just like his writing a lot, including that I'm a big fan of the Socratic method.

I tend to be a skeptic, and I tend to have more or a pragmatic disposition with some logical positivist tendencies (though by no means am I a "party line" logical positivist). My views are such that analytics tend to see my views as unfavorably pomo-like and continentalists tend to see me as unfavorably analytic and ridiculously dismissive of continentalism stylistically--I really, really hate the style of writing/communication propagated by Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre, etc. Needless to say I'm very well-liked. (haha)

Some basic views that are important to me: In general I''m a naive realist, as well as a physicalist, but I also stress subjectivism on many things (including common things like ethics and aesthetics, but also more controversial things like truth and meaning). I'm also a relativist and a nominalist. I don't buy that there are any extramental abstracts, and I'm an antirealist on things like mathematics and physical laws because of that. I'm a hardcore atheist (though I don't tend to bring it up unless other folks are talking about it and I can't find something better to discuss--I'm really more apathetic towards religion; it doesn't seem worth wasting time on to me), but I'm also very skeptical of many of the received views in the sciences. I don't mind being an iconoclast--I won't go along with anything just to fit in (at least not when it doesn't involved getting paid or something like that). And I don't at all mind saying that something doesn't make any sense to me, that I don't understand something, etc., at which point I expect folks to try to explain whatever it is so that it makes sense to me. I have a lot of unusual views re ethics, political philosophy, and so on.

Terrapin Station wrote:I'd been using philosophyforums.com a lot, under this same name, but that site had a major crash and it's still pretty messed up,

This place is better, people aren't as obsessed with philosophy here.

so Hogrider (not sure if he goes by the same name here) recommended checking this board out.

He goes by the name of Hobbes' Choice here but just ask for Mr. Grumpy.

My favorite philosophers include Bertrand Russell, David Hume, WVO Quine, Donald Davidson, Robert Nozick, Hans Reichenbach, Achille Varzi, John Searle, Paul Feyerabend, Plato . . .

I hope you won't be one of those who is always quoting dead people.

there's really no one I agree with

Me neither, it makes for much livelier discussion.

continentalists tend to see me as unfavorably analytic and ridiculous

Don't worry about it, the majority of posts here are ridiculous, your's won't stand out unduly.

I don't mind being an iconoclast

Even though it doesn't end in "ist"?

And I don't at all mind saying that something doesn't make any sense to me,

Good, because you'll find yourself doing it rather a lot.

at which point I expect folks to try to explain whatever it is so that it makes sense to me.

I see your also an optimist.

I have a lot of unusual views

That's just what this place needs: More unusual views. I warn you now, you'll be up against some very stiff competition.

Welcome aboard, Terrapin.

Terrapin Station wrote:Just joined, haven't even checked out any boards or threads yet. I'd been using philosophyforums.com a lot, under this same name, but that site had a major crash and it's still pretty messed up, so Hogrider (not sure if he goes by the same name here) recommended checking this board out.

Anyway, a bit about myself: Born in the 60s. I've got degrees in both philosophy and music theory/composition. Music is my career.

My favorite philosophers include Bertrand Russell, David Hume, WVO Quine, Donald Davidson, Robert Nozick, Hans Reichenbach, Achille Varzi, John Searle, Paul Feyerabend, Plato . . . but there's really no one I agree with even 50% of the time. Heck, Plato I disagree with the vast majority of the time; I just like his writing a lot, including that I'm a big fan of the Socratic method.

I tend to be a skeptic, and I tend to have more or a pragmatic disposition with some logical positivist tendencies (though by no means am I a "party line" logical positivist). My views are such that analytics tend to see my views as unfavorably pomo-like and continentalists tend to see me as unfavorably analytic and ridiculously dismissive of continentalism stylistically--I really, really hate the style of writing/communication propagated by Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre, etc. Needless to say I'm very well-liked. (haha)

Some basic views that are important to me: In general I''m a naive realist, as well as a physicalist, but I also stress subjectivism on many things (including common things like ethics and aesthetics, but also more controversial things like truth and meaning). I'm also a relativist and a nominalist. I don't buy that there are any extramental abstracts, and I'm an antirealist on things like mathematics and physical laws because of that. I'm a hardcore atheist (though I don't tend to bring it up unless other folks are talking about it and I can't find something better to discuss--I'm really more apathetic towards religion; it doesn't seem worth wasting time on to me), but I'm also very skeptical of many of the received views in the sciences. I don't mind being an iconoclast--I won't go along with anything just to fit in (at least not when it doesn't involved getting paid or something like that). And I don't at all mind saying that something doesn't make any sense to me, that I don't understand something, etc., at which point I expect folks to try to explain whatever it is so that it makes sense to me. I have a lot of unusual views re ethics, political philosophy, and so on.

Hog Rider is Hobbe's Choice here.

PhilX

I like the sound of you Terrapin Station for you seem to be a freethinker not afraid to be iconoclastic
when you feel the need to. You also appear to be very knowledgeable and know what you are talking
about and I therefore hope that your stay here will be long and productive. So welcome to the forum

Hi Terrapin Station,

I like a lot your replies, so I went at least (and at last) to welcome you. For a guy who doesn't like writing, you made an exception!

Terrapin Station wrote:Just joined, haven't even checked out any boards or threads yet. I'd been using philosophyforums.com a lot, under this same name, but that site had a major crash and it's still pretty messed up, so Hogrider (not sure if he goes by the same name here) recommended checking this board out.

Anyway, a bit about myself: Born in the 60s. I've got degrees in both philosophy and music theory/composition. Music is my career.

So music is your main domain, and philosophy is the second. I have a question; as I am in Switzerland, I am not wholly aware about universities levels in England or in the United State. A degree should be literally the transition level from undergraduate (as swiss "propedeutical" years, or french "prepa") to graduate, but is it the case?
In Switzerland, the end of the two first years (famous as being the most difficult) is not even celebrated - were this with a kind of a title. The situation in France is a little better: the one who ends his "prepa" begins tests for a university or another, so that if he does well, he benefits a large choice.
So, if I understand well, you accomplished 2 years in philosophy? And if you did the same in music, is that to say that it was equivalent to "2 x 1 year" each in philosophy and in music, or did you 2 years in philosophy, and then 2 in music?

I am asking this, because I am not aware, and because I won't treat you as being too amateurish, due to an error in estimation from me.

-In my case, I failed the first year of physics, mainly due to Army duty. But I had secondary (chosen) courses in philosophy, which I succeed pretty well.

Terrapin Station wrote:My favorite philosophers include Bertrand Russell, David Hume, WVO Quine, Donald Davidson, Robert Nozick, Hans Reichenbach, Achille Varzi, John Searle, Paul Feyerabend, Plato . . . but there's really no one I agree with even 50% of the time. Heck, Plato I disagree with the vast majority of the time; I just like his writing a lot, including that I'm a big fan of the Socratic method.

I heard of Russel, Hume, Reichenbach (except if I mistake this name with an electrician in our locality), Plato (of course) - not the others.

-When you write "socratic method", do you mean the maieutics, (which proceeds mainly in asking from general to particular)?

Terrapin Station wrote:I tend to be a skeptic,

what is always a good thing, in philosophy

Terrapin Station wrote:and I tend to have more or a pragmatic disposition with some logical positivist tendencies (though by no means am I a "party line" logical positivist). My views are such that analytics tend to see my views as unfavorably pomo-like and continentalists tend to see me as unfavorably analytic and ridiculously dismissive of continentalism stylistically--I really, really hate the style of writing/communication propagated by Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre, etc. Needless to say I'm very well-liked. (haha)

-I agree about the first; I HATE Hegel. To make believe that there only to ways in thinking, moreover making the people schizophrenic (according to me).

Terrapin Station wrote:Some basic views that are important to me: In general I''m a naive realist, as well as a physicalist, but I also stress subjectivism on many things (including common things like ethics and aesthetics, but also more controversial things like truth and meaning). I'm also a relativist and a nominalist. I don't buy that there are any extramental abstracts,

-That is not really what you wrote to me, about "false yields to true" - but maybe you adopted another point of view for the moment of your explanation, in which case you adopted nothing less than an extramental abstract in such. Am I false?

Terrapin Station wrote:and I'm an antirealist on things like mathematics and physical laws because of that.

-I guess the physicists will like you a lot...

Terrapin Station wrote:I'm a hardcore atheist (though I don't tend to bring it up unless other folks are talking about it and I can't find something better to discuss--I'm really more apathetic towards religion; it doesn't seem worth wasting time on to me),

-Mmm... I'm pretty well amused when I see that a religious doctrine is a synonym for a priori nonsense, but that if such doctrine is qualified as being philosophical, people run back in a sprint to know more.

Terrapin Station wrote:but I'm also very skeptical of many of the received views in the sciences. I don't mind being an iconoclast--I won't go along with anything just to fit in

-If I do a shortcut, you don't trust your tradition since your parents (or their...) taught them to you, but you trust more school knowledges since unknowns taught them to you?

Terrapin Station wrote:(at least not when it doesn't involved getting paid or something like that). And I don't at all mind saying that something doesn't make any sense to me, that I don't understand something, etc.,

-Notice that he second expression is preferable... Maybe, if you are clever as it is most probably the case, had you not often the occasion to do it in class, but the best mean is to point you where you did not understood, and why.

Terrapin Station wrote:at which point I expect folks to try to explain whatever it is so that it makes sense to me. I have a lot of unusual views re ethics, political philosophy, and so on.

-A last question:
Why "Terrapin Station" and why a crow for avatar? -I am near to consider the same for crows as the american Indians. In fact, I have more than ideas about them, but experiences that confirm the first. But as these experience are what they are, are they subjective, and maybe not to include in a philosophy forum, (against paranoid phenomenon, or anything like that).

Welcome to you.

(Probability for TS to answer even "Thanks" between 2 days and 1 week: about 50%. Present half for justification of what I point out; the other half absent, because he prefers to intervene in making any foundation tremble than to construct any somewhat truth himself. I understand better the way in getting "certitudes" or "guaranteed ways" for an atheist: only a calculation to seem higher than his contemporaries.)
(Discharge for him: Music is another monastery, hungry for time)

Who bet that he will even acknowledge within 1 week?

I like your stance, it's very direct. Myself I would not give such a long introduction though. What are some of your unusual views about ethics? I'm curious.

Beauty wrote:I like your stance, it's very direct. Myself I would not give such a long introduction though. What are some of your unusual views about ethics? I'm curious.

An example of an unusual ethical view I hold: I do not consider any strictly "psychological harm" to be unethical, and I certainly wouldn't have any legislation against it.