quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions Was. I've put that silliness behind me.

You're going to do something usful with your life now?




I'm either going to add Philosophy as a second major or a minor, myself.

What have you switched to?

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

I graduated a couple years back, with a Phil. major.

Looking back I wish I had gone for CS or CS + math.

Philosophy is mostly a bunch of impressive-sounding puffery with precious little intellectual content. That's my take anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions I graduated a couple years back, with a Phil. major. Looking back I wish I had gone for CS or CS + math.

Ahh. I was going to say, I thought you had graduated

Philosophy is always interesting, at least!

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

Couldn't sleep last night so I started re-reading Moby Dick. Been a while since I last read it...I love the way Melville writes. so good

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions I graduated a couple years back, with a Phil. major. Looking back I wish I had gone for CS or CS + math. Philosophy is mostly a bunch of impressive-sounding puffery with precious little intellectual content. That's my take anyway.

are you JBJ?

depends what type of philosophy you're doing really, and what you expect to get out of it. If you want to get a 'real job', then its not particularly helpful in areas outside academia, but this is more to do with social valuation of philosophy imo... I wouldn't consider it empty of intellectual content at all, but again, it depends where you're looking, and what your approach to it is...

If you don't want to stay in academia its silly to do just philosophy (hence politics/phil double for me), but at the same time I think that philosophy should be mandatory for any student at university. Teaches you basic critical thinking, which god knows everyone needs a bit more of

___________________
-Everything I Say is a Lie-

Watching Brief: Reflections on Human Rights, Law and Justice- Julian Burnside


Very interesting so far considering Australia hasn't progressed on their stance/treatment of asylum seekers.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII are you JBJ? depends what type of philosophy you're doing really, and what you expect to get out of it. If you want to get a 'real job', then its not particularly helpful in areas outside academia, but this is more to do with social valuation of philosophy imo... I wouldn't consider it empty of intellectual content at all, but again, it depends where you're looking, and what your approach to it is...

I once read that big companies hire philosophers quite regularly (applied ethicists, for example).

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII If you don't want to stay in academia its silly to do just philosophy (hence politics/phil double for me), but at the same time I think that philosophy should be mandatory for any student at university. Teaches you basic critical thinking, which god knows everyone needs a bit more of

I couldn't agree more with you.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII yeah but its not as simple as that, and suggesting it is IS the misreading, which is what I was saying

You (two) are cheating

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII I know you realised this, but blaming Nietzsche for people being too dumb to read him 'properly' is a bit silly

Indeed, but maybe this is one of the few dogmas I hold: if you want to explore new ways of thinking, you should always strive for clarity. Even though I'm well aware of how similar a fate Nietzsche shares with some of the people who have influenced the most (such as William James), at least in their case a misreading of their work makes them look empty (I'm the first to complain about Harris' misinterpretation of pragmatism because he takes everyone to be like a stereotyped version of Rorty), in Nietzsche's case it has the consistent tendency to be catastrophic.

I admit this argument is weak, not at all convincing, and a result of some pseudo-philosophical prejudices, as I think it would be too pretentious to even call myself anything close to a philosopher. But, as a scientist, I really think that's a terrible way to put forth one's thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII also, the nazis didn't use Nietzsche's work- he was expressly anti-nationalistic throughout his works: What they used is a VERSION of the will to power which his sister compiled from random sections of his diaries which he didn't want published, into a fascistic text... They never read any 'real' nietzsche as far as I'm concerned, reading only his sister's fascist tendencies.

Yeah, I know the backstory, his sister marrying an anti-Semitic loony who went all the way to Paraguay to help form a new Deutschland... and then failing epically

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I once read that big companies hire philosophers quite regularly (applied ethicists, for example). I couldn't agree more with you. You (two) are cheating Indeed, but maybe this is one of the few dogmas I hold: if you want to explore new ways of thinking, you should always strive for clarity. Even though I'm well aware of how similar a fate Nietzsche shares with some of the people who have influenced the most (such as William James), at least in their case a misreading of their work makes them look empty (I'm the first to complain about Harris' misinterpretation of pragmatism because he takes everyone to be like a stereotyped version of Rorty), in Nietzsche's case it has the consistent tendency to be catastrophic. I admit this argument is weak, not at all convincing, and a result of some pseudo-philosophical prejudices, as I think it would be too pretentious to even call myself anything close to a philosopher. But, as a scientist, I really think that's a terrible way to put forth one's thoughts. Yeah, I know the backstory, his sister marrying an anti-Semitic loony who went all the way to Paraguay to help form a new Deutschland... and then failing epically

HA! I didn't know that about paraguay, that's ridiculous! His sister was one crazy bitch- Nietzsche didn't leave the books to her, pretty sure she sued, or some other way managed to get them back from the guy he left them to, then messed it up all good & proper :l

I agree he can be misread, but as I said, its the readers fault, not his. This is especially true for Nietzsche because he didn't intend the plebs to get what he was saying. He was an elitist, and his works were written for people who were capable of understanding what he was 'really' saying... He wasn't trying to make himself understood, 1: since scientific/rational understanding is bereft of meaning, and 2: because he thought wasting words on the plebs was idiotic- One of my lecturers said it well: Nietzsche doesn't explain, he POINTS... Truth is beyond words, beyond rational systems; speaking about it destroys it (you'll love this Lira ); so he can't speak about it- He can only hedge around the issue, and if you as the reader are capable you can figure out what he's pointing at... This is why his method is MOSTLY destructive- Denying all polar theses (free will/determinism, idealism/scientific mechanism, and of course: Good & Evil etc), instead of constructive: (X is Good, and Y is how to find it)...

I completely get what you're saying, but in Nietzsche's case its simply beside the point. If you understand what he was trying to do, you wouldn't think he had done it badly
I appreciate that he's not overly accesible, but that's just the point!

anyway, this is exactly why the analytics hate continentals. Russel etc love saying the type of 'unclear' philosophy is 'poetry', or 'literature', and not philosophy (as i said to you the other day he levelled this against Bergson who had a semi-Nietzschean view of consciousness). But it depends what you think life is about : if it can be boiled down to systems we can talk about, or whether experience is more than that...

Sorry bout the rambling too Lira; I did an essay fairly similar to this not long ago so I have a lot of built up BS in my brain, and think you MIGHT be interested... Feel free to disregard all anyway

___________________
-Everything I Say is a Lie-

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII are you JBJ?

Slow Egos is slow

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Slow Egos is slow

true that

___________________
-Everything I Say is a Lie-

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII HA! I didn't know that about paraguay, that's ridiculous! His sister was one crazy bitch- Nietzsche didn't leave the books to her, pretty sure she sued, or some other way managed to get them back from the guy he left them to, then messed it up all good & proper :l

Read about it, the story is priceless!

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII I agree he can be misread, but as I said, its the readers fault, not his. This is especially true for Nietzsche because he didn't intend the plebs to get what he was saying. He was an elitist, and his works were written for people who were capable of understanding what he was 'really' saying...

Yeah, I remember he wasn't the most democratic person in history of humanity

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII He wasn't trying to make himself understood, 1: since scientific/rational understanding is bereft of meaning, and 2: because he thought wasting words on the plebs was idiotic- One of my lecturers said it well: Nietzsche doesn't explain, he POINTS... Truth is beyond words, beyond rational systems; speaking about it destroys it (you'll love this Lira )

"Speak and destroy"? I totally love it

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII so he can't speak about it- He can only hedge around the issue, and if you as the reader are capable you can figure out what he's pointing at... This is why his method is MOSTLY destructive- Denying all polar theses (free will/determinism, idealism/scientific mechanism, and of course: Good & Evil etc), instead of constructive: (X is Good, and Y is how to find it)...

Hmm....

*strokes chin*

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII I completely get what you're saying, but in Nietzsche's case its simply beside the point. If you understand what he was trying to do, you wouldn't think he had done it badly

I often try defend authors using the "blenders are not fans" argument: I can't complain an author doesn't do what he's not aiming for, the same way it's unfair to complain a blender can't cool down a room with its blades.

I'm not saying Nietzsche failed to do what he meant to (if it sounded like it, I apologise for being myself unclear). It's his project that I'm sceptical about... and maybe unfairly, as you say.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII anyway, this is exactly why the analytics hate continentals. Russel etc love saying the type of 'unclear' philosophy is 'poetry', or 'literature', and not philosophy (as i said to you the other day he levelled this against Bergson who had a semi-Nietzschean view of consciousness). But it depends what you think life is about : if it can be boiled down to systems we can talk about, or whether experience is more than that...

I do have some sympathy regarding continental philosophy because even though, as far as I know, Quine and the late Wittgenstein brought analytic philosophy to its knees and post-modernism imploded the continental tradition, Quine and Wittgenstein had fairly interesting views on language that weren't necessarily a disaster - however, Derrida's take on Saussure, which seems to have fuelled much of the post-modern critique of the continental tradition, was based on a misconception of Saussure's ideas (as a linguist, I'm much confident I know what Saussure was talking about)... so it was, in the end, extremely unfair.

Probably the appropriation of post-Nietzschean concepts by Derrida is one of the reasons for my anti-Nietzschean tendencies, but like I said before, I'm prepared to say this judgement is perhaps unfounded.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII Sorry bout the rambling too Lira; I did an essay fairly similar to this not long ago so I have a lot of built up BS in my brain, and think you MIGHT be interested... Feel free to disregard all anyway

I demand a PDF!

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]