|
| quote: | Originally posted by pozz
sorry, meant "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. i can quote relevant passages if you like. |
I'm sure Oscar will want to talk about Sam Harris more than I do 
| quote: | Originally posted by pozz
I assume this new book streams from that same approach: Utilitarian calculus. |
Sort of. He agrees he's a consequentialist, but he refuses to be called a utilitarian because (if I recall correctly) of his emphasis on science. That makes his utilitarianism a lot less problematic than Bentham's. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Harris' work (despite my posts in this thread, the books I like easily outnumber the books I don't like). My main criticism regarding this book is that, even though he talks about the wonders of science and reason, he manages to ignore all the discussion that took place before him, probably because no one else hated religion as much as he does (that's the only conclusion I can arrive at after he criticises Mill).
| quote: | Originally posted by pozz
Avoiding all the discussion you just had with EgosXII, the main reason to read Nietzsche is he does not resort to the same tired methods of argument. He studies why a particular system of morality is able to emerge at all rather than argue about which system is the best. For Nietzsche, a type of person will correspond to a type of morality, rather than morality emerging out of reasoned argument. "Reasoned argument" is itself entrenched in particular ways of knowing/thinking as part of a historical process, and so has very little to do with Truth apart from that Truth it envisions itself finding. |
I know his work, and the whole master/slave morality dichotomy. Really 
| quote: | Originally posted by pozz
I remember lurking around and reading somewhere that you've read Hegel. If you've read and know Hegel then why do you care about style? If you are able to navigate his writings effectively then Nietzsche should be child's play. Style isn't an appendage to a work, style is the practice that generates the theory. |
Actually, I read Hegel's most accessible work (Introduction to Philosophy of History). Besides, it's not the difficulty that bothers me (I absolutely love Kierkegaard), but the way he comes to his conclusions and the conclusions themselves. Like I said, it's his project I'm sceptical about (and I admit there's a chance I'm being unfair here).
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
|