Teach me some philsosophy, please.

[GrowingSmaller]

A lot of the topics on boards like these are done to death (like the problem of evil, epistemology of religion and free will). But they are places where I seem to learn most philosophy as for me books seem to be easily forgotten if not applied to debate. In any case if you are looking for motivation and are secularist I heard that most advanced philosophy students tend to be non-theistic so what better way to probably deconvert me than by teaching me philsosophy? Anything except logic will do. No ironic remarks please.

 

[Gracchus]

A lot of the topics on boards like these are done to death (like the problem of evil, epistemology of religion and free will). But they are places where I seem to learn most philosophy as for me books seem to be easily forgotten if not applied to debate. In any case if you are looking for motivation and are secularist I heard that most advanced philosophy students tend to be non-theistic so what better way to probably deconvert me than by teaching me philsosophy? Anything except logic will do. No ironic remarks please.

Anything except logic? No ironic remarks?

 

[quatona]

In any case if you are looking for motivation and are secularist I heard that most advanced philosophy students tend to be non-theistic so what better way to probably deconvert me than by teaching me philsosophy?

You are longing to be deconverted? Why?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Why?

Why anything?




(I thought I might just get the ball rolling.)

 

[bricklayer]

A lot of the topics on boards like these are done to death (like the problem of evil, epistemology of religion and free will). But they are places where I seem to learn most philosophy as for me books seem to be easily forgotten if not applied to debate. In any case if you are looking for motivation and are secularist I heard that most advanced philosophy students tend to be non-theistic so what better way to probably deconvert me than by teaching me philsosophy? Anything except logic will do. No ironic remarks please.

existence is
existence is existence
existence is not non-existence
either existence or non-existence
non-existence cannot produce existence
contingent existence is dependent upon necessary existence
contingent existence cannot transcend necessary existence
necessary existence cannot produce necessary existence

 

[Mling]

Anything except logic? No ironic remarks?

Seriously, i think the universe just imploded.

OP, asking for philosophy without logic is like asking somebody to teach you to read without using letters, word or grammar.

 

[Eudaimonist]

GrowingSmaller, you will go to the Dagobah system. The Dagobah system...


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Seriously, i think the universe just imploded.

OP, asking for philosophy without logic is like asking somebody to teach you to read without using letters, word or grammar.

What I mean iss that I do not want to learn any symbolic logic, like predicate logis or modal logic. Then again, I could try and at least learn a bit.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You are longing to be deconverted? Why?

I am not longing to be deconverted, but that seems to be the wish of some posters here who would challenge religious epistemology. But I have debated that to death so I would like something new.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

GrowingSmaller, you will go to the Dagobah system. The Dagobah system...


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes I am training in the force, even though it is probably regarded as occultism by by the RCC.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

non-existence cannot produce existence

Why not? Because nothingness cannot act, having no properties?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why anything?




(I thought I might just get the ball rolling.)

"Why something rather than nothing?" has also been done to death. But if there are any main schools of thought I would like to know their names? I can think of creationism, quantum field theory, "eternalism", absurdism.

 

[quatona]

I am not longing to be deconverted, but that seems to be the wish of some posters here who would challenge religious epistemology.

Personally, I guess I would challenge "religious epistemology" for the mere fact that it works from heavy premises (just like "atheist epistemology" would, btw.).

But I have debated that to death so I would like something new.

I have offered "radical constructivism" before - but as far as I remember you were not exactly impressed.

 

[bricklayer]

Why not? Because nothingness cannot act, having no properties?

You ask about the love of thinking, so I will answer you this way.

All reasoning (ontological sequencing of ideas) is presuppositional.
All attempts to explicitly deny presuppositional reasoning implicitly affirms it.

That said, there are widely accepted first-principles or "first presuppositions".
These are the most widely accepted:
existence
identity
non-contradiction
exclusion
causality
necessity
contingency
existential- causality, necessity and contingency

There are more, but they are pretty much like colors, the further you get from the basics the more it is of a blend of the previously established.

Another reason I love thinking about thinking is the nature of truth.
The correspondence of truth (truth is that which corresponds to its predicate) is as beautiful to me as presuppostitonal reasoning.
Any attempt to explicitly deny the correspondence of truth implicitly affirms it.

Don't get me started.

 

[variant]

I am not longing to be deconverted, but that seems to be the wish of some posters here who would challenge religious epistemology. But I have debated that to death so I would like something new.

Religious epistemology died a slow death in serious circles centuries ago, as people turned away from such ideas for explanations of the world.

That is what Nietzsche was talking about when he said:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

Serious people have abandoned it for centuries now, the people you encounter here are essentially beating a dead horse or trying to revive one.

What would you like to learn about philosophy though?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have offered "radical constructivism" before - but as far as I remember you were not exactly impressed.

Ok teach me constructivism. IIRC it is that scientific theories are constructs that are not necessarily true. As for your version of it, go ahead, but I would like to learn mainstream ideas rather than opinions of "unknown" individuals.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What would you like to learn about philosophy though?

I would like to brush up on coherentism for starters. IIRC its the idea that beliefs are justified by their coherence with others, rather than foundational beliefs being basic and justifying others. But I have not come across many examples of coherentism in practice.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Religious epistemology died a slow death in serious circles centuries ago, as people turned away from such ideas for explanations of the world.

There were two main types, natural theology (like the ontological, cosmological and design argument) and revealed theology either through scripture or revelatory experience. Is that right? Natural theology was themore philosophical, but since the advent of science such abstractions have been overtaken by a more concrete experimental based knowledge, right? The only contemporary argument I know of is Plantinga's modal argument for a necessary being. Are there any others I may not have heard of?

Serious people have abandoned it for centuries now, the people you encounter here are essentially beating a dead horse or trying to revive one.

What abut Kierkegaard or the 20th C existentialists? Kierkegaard said Christianity "crucified the intellect" (or something similar) because it was irrational to believe in it. What about the likes of Rosenzweig, Buber, Barth, Jaspers etc? How do they stand in relation to epistemology, or philosophy in general (rather than theology)? Were they more concerned with experience rather than attempts at proof of God?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I read some Heidegger where he went on about God or gods, but I have been told he was not a real theist but was using theism as a way of experiencing the "Being" question, similar to the way in which he advocated poetey or poetic thinking.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Also I would like to know about Spinoza's work on the emotions which I think came in the latter part of Ethics. I had to abandon that read after about 15 pages as it became ever more complex.