Which philosophies do you oppose most?

[KCfromNC]

I'll add one from epistemology : the idea that faith can be used to generate knowledge or truth.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'll add one from epistemology : the idea that faith can be used to generate knowledge or truth.

are you a denotologist when it comes to faith, the act is 'bad in itself' without reference to consequences? Something like a neokantian who thinks it is an offence against the rational dignity of the moral or intellectual will? : )

 

[Resha Caner]

So in your own words... Ethics politics metaphysics epistemology etc

I'm not sure I can neatly fit them into the proper category, but the "isms" that I most oppose are:

1) Pluralism (which seems to go hand in hand with relativism)
2) Minimalism (which seems to go hand in hand with extreme skepticism)
3) Physicalism (which seems to go hand in hand with scientism)

 

[LionofJudahDK]

Fascism is yet another.


eudaimonia,

Mark

True.
However, very few people are in the business of whitewashing fascism, and the socialist-branch ideology known as "Nazism", which has superficial similarities with fascism, so it made more sense to point out the ideologies that people DO tend to whitewash.

 

[Crandaddy]

So you're "deontologist"?

No, I subscribe to virtue ethics and natural law theory a la traditional Catholicism (more or less).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

^^

What, a Thomist? Do you enjoy pork pies too (he - Thomas Aquinas - had a reputation for being a of large build IIRC).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm not sure I can neatly fit them into the proper category, but the "isms" that I most oppose are:

1) Pluralism (which seems to go hand in hand with relativism)
2) Minimalism (which seems to go hand in hand with extreme skepticism)
3) Physicalism (which seems to go hand in hand with scientism)

What about Erasmus, he was opposed to Lutheranism IIRC, believing in the rationality of religion as opposed to more fidistic (sola fides) trends. Do you see attempts to justify faith rationally as hopeless in the last analysis?

 

[LionofJudahDK]

What about Erasmus, he was opposed to Lutheranism IIRC, believing in the rationality of religion as opposed to more fidistic (sola fides) trends. Do you see attempts to justify faith rationally as hopeless in the last analysis?

No one is opposed to reason. The disagreement between Luther and Erasmus (as between Luther and Calvin), is whether our reason is magisterial or ministerial.

Basically, the question is:
Is reason above Scripture (Calvin) or below it (Luther)?

As Rev. Fisk (look him up on YouTube if you don't know him) said so eloquently about the Lutheran view of Scripture/reason:

"Where we can understand it [Scripture, ed.], we do. Where we can't, we say "Blessed be the Lord, He has spoken" "

 

[Resha Caner]

No one is opposed to reason. The disagreement between Luther and Erasmus (as between Luther and Calvin), is whether our reason is magisterial or ministerial.

Basically, the question is:
Is reason above Scripture (Calvin) or below it (Luther)?

I always enjoy an elegantly concise reply.

 

[Crandaddy]

^^

What, a Thomist? Do you enjoy pork pies too (he - Thomas Aquinas - had a reputation for being a of large build IIRC).

Aquinas is reputed to have been rather heavyset and introverted, and for these reasons he was mocked as a “dumb ox” by his peers as a young scholar. To this his teacher, St. Albert the Great, supposedly replied, “I tell you, this 'dumb ox' will bellow so loud that his bellowing will fill the whole world.”

But I might be more of a Scotist than a Thomist. I'm more favorably inclined toward plurality, rather than unicity, of substantial forms in individual supposits. I also like Scotus's formal distinction and univocity of being concepts. Scotist formal distinctions are arguably incompatible with the Thomist tradition, and the “being” predicable of creatures is held to be only analogically predicable of God therein.

 

[Nooj]

> Ethics

Moral realism.

> politics

I don't know enough to say.

> metaphysics

Essentialism.

> epistemology

Don't know enough to say.

 

[mandyangel]

I don't like feminism very much.

 

[Elioenai26]

So in your own words... Ethics politics metaphysics epistemology etc

I oppose most of all, any and all philosophies which through critical examination are found to be false and or untenable via the presence of internal inconsistencies/contradictions and non-correspondence to truth.

 

[Elioenai26]

I'll add one from epistemology : the idea that faith can be used to generate knowledge or truth.

I am opposed to this as well.

 

[Elioenai26]

Ethics: Any ethics that puts "others above self", e.g. altruism/self-sacrifice, utilitarianism, and similar evil doctrines. (Note: I'm not saying that kindness or generosity are wrong, or that one should sacrifice others to self.)

eudaimonia,

Mark

You oppose as evil, the idea of self-sacrifice and "putting others above self"?!?

Am I understanding you aright?

 

[Eudaimonist]

You oppose as evil, the idea of self-sacrifice and "putting others above self"?!?

Am I understanding you aright?

I don't know if you understand me correctly or not.

As I wrote, I'm not saying that it is wrong to have a benevolent regard for others. I believe that kindness and generosity are virtues, in wise moderation.

And moderation is the key issue. Moderation implies that it is possible for there to exist a vice of excess. The excess means forgetting your own good and living only for the good of others, which is self-destructive and therefore evil.

Getting back to kindness and generosity (among other virtues of benevolence), they are good for oneself when practiced to the right degree, for the right people, in the right situations, etc. We are social beings, not lone wolves, by nature. But it is possible to go too far, and that one shouldn't do.

And, as I had also said, one should not sacrifice others to self. That ignores our social nature, and perhaps also our rational/creative nature, and is just as self-destructive, perhaps even more so. That is the vice of deficiency.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't know if you understand me correctly or not.

This was your statement:

Ethics: Any ethics that puts "others above self", e.g. altruism/self-sacrifice, utilitarianism, and similar evil doctrines. (Note: I'm not saying that kindness or generosity are wrong, or that one should sacrifice others to self.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

You maintain that altruism/self-sacrifice are evil doctrines. You then say later on that:

As I wrote, I'm not saying that it is wrong to have a benevolent regard for others. I believe that kindness and generosity are virtues, in wise moderation.

In one post, you say that altruism is an evil doctrine, in the next you say that being kind and generous and having a benevolent regard for others which are fruits of altruism, is right and virtuous?

And moderation is the key issue. Moderation implies that it is possible for there to exist a vice of excess. The excess means forgetting your own good and living only for the good of others, which is self-destructive and therefore evil.

In the above statement you have painted a caricature of altruism, for altruism is not putting others before yourself at the expense of one's self as you claim it is. Rather, altruism simply states that in putting others before yourself, far from engaging in self-destruction, one paradoxically finds the greatest fulfillment and satisfaction in knowing they have contributed not only to the welfare of the individual, but to their society as a whole, via the individual.

Getting back to kindness and generosity (among other virtues of benevolence), they are good for oneself when practiced to the right degree, for the right people, in the right situations, etc. We are social beings, not lone wolves, by nature. But it is possible to go too far, and that one shouldn't do.

To illustrate why the above is simply wrong:

If one were to ask the parents of the children who were protected and delivered alive by the selfless teachers and first responders at the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, I am certain that they would be grateful beyond words that the teachers and first responders were selfless in their actions. They are seen as heroes.

If the teachers and first responders acted according to your views and abandoned the children and fled in a selfish act of self-preservation, which you maintain they would be justified in doing, they would not be labeled as being "moderate" or "wise". No no no, they would have been labeled as selfish cowards, and rightly so.

Therefore it is seen that your idea of moderation would be subject to the individual. In your world, the teacher who protected the defenseless little children by using her body as a shield would be no different than the teacher who rationalizes in her mind that she should jump out of the window while helpless and crying children are gunned down in a hail of gunfire because to stay would not be "moderate". In your world, a person could justifiably see "moderacy" as being more valuble than a precious human life.

And, as I had also said, one should not sacrifice others to self. That ignores our social nature, and perhaps also our rational/creative nature, and is just as self-destructive, perhaps even more so. That is the vice of deficiency.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I hope you have comprehended the untenability of your views as summed up in your quote above. It is a cowardly, selfish, egotistical view and I am glad that most people do not agree with you.

I can only speak for myself, but I would not want you or anyone who even remotely thinks like you to be anywhere near my child, especially in the time of an emergency where lives are at stake.

-May all things praise Him-

 

[Eudaimonist]

In one post, you say that altruism is an evil doctrine, in the next you say that being kind and generous and having a benevolent regard for others which are fruits of altruism, is right and virtuous?

There you go! You don't understand me. I don't see moderate kindness or generosity as altruistic in the self-sacrificing sense.

In the above statement you have painted a caricature of altruism, for altruism is not putting others before yourself at the expense of one's self as you claim it is. Rather, altruism simply states that in putting others before yourself, far from engaging in self-destruction, one paradoxically finds the greatest fulfillment and satisfaction in knowing they have contributed not only to the welfare of the individual, but to their society as a whole, via the individual.

That's your particular understanding of altruism, and not necessarily my target. It's difficult to pin down exactly what "altruism" is, because there are variations on what that word means.

I am not opposed to non-sacrificial acts of benevolence, which incidentally is NOT putting "others before self". Since it is non-sacrificial, one is retaining the ethical importance of self.

To illustrate why the above is simply wrong:

LOL! You are jumping the gun. Wait until you understand me properly before declaring my views "simply wrong".

If one were to ask the parents of the children who were protected and delivered alive by the selfless teachers and first responders at the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, I am certain that they would be grateful beyond words that the teachers and first responders were selfless in their actions. They are seen as heroes.

If the teachers and first responders acted according to your views and abandoned the children and fled in a selfish act of self-preservation, which you maintain they would be justified in doing, they would not be labeled as being "moderate" or "wise". No no no, they would have been labeled as selfish cowards, and rightly so.

And this a misunderstanding of my views. I might praise the teacher.

I'm not viewing this issue on some simple dimension of "survival". I'm not a survivalist, but an advocate of flourishing. There are situations, perhaps rare, in which risking or even giving up one's life might be the right thing to do, and it would be a sacrifice to act the coward.

I hope you have comprehended the untenability of your views as summed up in your quote above. It is a cowardly, selfish, egotistical view and I am glad that most people do not agree with you.

I have comprehended your lack of comprehension of my views. I DID WARN YOU!

I can only speak for myself, but I would not want you or anyone who even remotely thinks like you to be anywhere near my child, especially in the time of an emergency where lives are at stake.

Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I oppose most of all, any and all philosophies which through critical examination are found to be false and or untenable via the presence of internal inconsistencies/contradictions and non-correspondence to truth.

Mathematics - Godels theorem?

 

[Elioenai26]

Mathematics - Godels theorem?

What about Godel's theorems?