Philosophy Now Forum

Hello Dave, and welcome.

That's a wide range of interests, although I guess they are unified by the broad question of how we should live, both individually and collectively. The recent passing of Philippa Foot has led me to muse on precisely (or, more likely, imprecisely) how much distance we should see between her view of the concept of the ethical as intrinsically having at least some content by virtue of human nature, and the view of humanity as having a distinctive telos, a view the loss of which Alasdair MacIntyre laments in After Virtue.

That was just a random musing late at night (London time). Anyway, I encourage you to join any discussions that take your fancy, and start as many new threads as you like.

I beg your pardon ?

The concept of the ethical has at least some content by virtue of human nature ?

Richard, honestly, by talking like this you discourage simple people from studying philosophy.
And simple people SHOULD study philosophy because having reason is what distinguishes them from animals and they should use their reason in order to feel fulfilled and happy.

duszek wrote:Richard, honestly, by talking like this you discourage simple people from studying philosophy.

I do hope not. I think that the remark makes sense in the context of the reference to Philippa Foot. If beginners do not get it, perhaps they will be inclined to take a look at Foot's work. And that would be a good thing.

duszek wrote:And simple people SHOULD study philosophy because having reason is what distinguishes them from animals and they should use their reason in order to feel fulfilled and happy.

I am not convinced that we should classify some people as simple in a way that would make sense in this context - in order for your argument to work, we would have to count as simple people who did have the intellectual horse-power to do philosophy, and I am not sure that there is a subset of such people who can meaningfully be defined as simple. But I get your drift.

I agree that people may well benefit from studying philosophy, although I would not derive an imperative to study it from that fact. I also agree that reason is one of our most conspicuous and significant distinguishing features, although I am not convinced that a prescription of the kind you offer can be derived solely from that source. (Likewise, I do not entirely buy the corresponding argument in Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 10.) We probably will feel more fulfilled and happy if we use our reason, and this strikes me as a stronger ground for your prescription, although I would follow Aristotle and place the emphasis on fulfilment rather than on happiness in the modern sense of an inner feeling (the sense that does not accurately translate "eudaimonia"). That reflects the fact that I regard utilitarianism, certainly in the Benthamite pushpin version, as a dodgy doctrine. I would also not prescribe philosophy alone. Studying physics, or history, can be just as good an exercise of reason.

I consider myself as simple and I never studied philosophy.
I had to make a fierce effort to understand your sentence consisting of two of´s and a participle.
Have mercy.

Philosophy is necessary for a farmer who does not want to get depressed. He needs to ask himself and to answer the philosphical question: what do I live for ? and more like it.
Why should I act morally ? is another one.
Philippa Foot may have an answer or two to this question. Instead of torturing us with expressions like "some content" you could have called a spade a spade.

Exercise of reason is not enough.
Otherwise people could just do cross-words or differential equations or play chess.

People need answers to big philosophical questions like: what do I live for ? and many more.
That´s why people used to go to church on Sundays. To get some nourishment for the soul.

And this food for the soul is transferred via language, or logos.
Unprocessed by sophisticated Schachtelsätze that are stuffed with relative clauses and participle constructions.

Do you want to make your readers feel miserable, Richard ?
Have mercy.

duszek wrote:Do you want to make your readers feel miserable, Richard?

No, but when one deals with relatively complex ideas, there is a trade-off. We can use few sentences with complex structures, or we can use many sentences with simple structures, including ancillary sentences that show the logical relationships between other sentences. Different people will strike the balance in different places.

I am not sure B. Russell would agree.
If your mind is clear about something, including complex ideas, you can express it simply.
It is the un-clear mind which hides itself behind complicated constructions.

I have no degree in philosophy, but I have a degree in applied linguistics (angewandte Sprachwissenschaft).