Somehow lately I've become more interested & astonished about.... is, than how things should be.
I'm reading philosophy.
I'm reading philosophy.
Philosophy
- Thread starter pace
- Start date
Sin of Man
Logic + Reason = Atheist
Very interesting for you I'm sure pace.
Did you have an actual point of philosophy you wanted to discuss, or was this just a general announcement?
Did you have an actual point of philosophy you wanted to discuss, or was this just a general announcement?
Upvote
0
Rather than name this or that philosopher you should read (there will be several), I will make a more general recommendation: try to get Frederick Copleston's History of Western Philosophy. If memory serves, Copleston was a Jesuit scholar, and over the course of several years he produced a massive, multi-volume work that is still highly regarded.
It's true, Copleston's history was intended for use in seminaries, but, in fairness to him, he is upfront about his biases (his deep interest in Aristotle and Aquinas is evident). He generally treats philosophers he is not particularly sympathetic to with evenhandedness and high standards of scholarship, something I can't say about some other authors I've read who tried to tackle the history of philosophy. His lengthy discussions of Plato, Aristotle and the various schools in Greece and Rome that sprung up in their wake are some of the best writings that I know of for those subjects.
It's true, Copleston's history was intended for use in seminaries, but, in fairness to him, he is upfront about his biases (his deep interest in Aristotle and Aquinas is evident). He generally treats philosophers he is not particularly sympathetic to with evenhandedness and high standards of scholarship, something I can't say about some other authors I've read who tried to tackle the history of philosophy. His lengthy discussions of Plato, Aristotle and the various schools in Greece and Rome that sprung up in their wake are some of the best writings that I know of for those subjects.
Upvote
0
Actually I had in mind some sentences from him. Yes, I like him too..
David Hume (1711-1776) :
" In any moral system I've so far met, I've always noticed this: The author arguments a while normally, and concludes that there is a God, or another acting in human affairs. But suddenly (later in he text) I'm supprised to find - instead of the ordinary connections of saying 'is' and 'is not' - that statements are connected to a 'should' or a 'should not'. This change has been payed little attention to, but is nonetherless utterly important. Because since this 'should' or 'should not' express one or another new relation or statement, it's necessary that one makes notice of it and explain it. And at the same time it's important that there is given a reason why something that seems so thruly incomprehensible, namely how this new relation (x should y) can be deducted from other thing that's completely different from it. But since authors don't seem to go by this carefull-rule I allow myself recomending it to the readers. And I'm convised that this little awareness will [throw coal] over all the normal moral systems, and lets face it that the distinction between the moral garbage and the valuable are neither based only on relation between (outer) objects, or understood though reason or intellect. "
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,733
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
You could try Ayn Rand. I also find the philosophies of the ancient Greeks to be fascinating. 
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Evangelion
<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
It was Bertrand Russell who wrote the History of Western Philosophy.
Coplestone (who once defeated Russell in a radio debate on the subject of morality) wrote the multi-volume History of Philosophy.
Coplestone (who once defeated Russell in a radio debate on the subject of morality) wrote the multi-volume History of Philosophy.
Upvote
0
Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677) :
" Going through this area of science with the same art of non-prejustice as in maths, I've tried not to laugh og human actions, not complain about them, neither despise them, but understand them. I have thus looked upon all human emotions - love, hate, anger, envy, ambition, compassion and other state of minds - not as error of the human nature, but as qualities, which suits it as well as warmth cold, storm, thunder and such suits the nature of air. Let it be that they are uncomfortable, necessary they are; and they have their certain reasons, of which we seak to understand their nature, and the mind is happy about the truth it gazes upon, just like with those things that are experienced comfortably by the senses."
" Those affections we have to fight with, is seen by philosophers as human errors that has futher leaded to destrucions. Therefore they usually laugh at them, cry over them, blame them, or worse with even bigger hypocricy, to despise them. Therefore they namely think they have done something highworthy, to have reached the top of wisdom - when they on all fronts praise the human nature which it is nowhere to be found, while they continue confidently talking down upon it how it really is. They take humans, not as they are, but how they would like to have them. And thus it has been that they have mostly written satire instead of ethics, and never made a decent thesis; always one who have to be counted as illusory or one which you could only have translated to reality in utopias or in the golden age of poets - where they are needed the least. When one with all usable sciences, and the most with thesis(theories), think theory and practice is opposidly different(antagonism), they you also hold sway that the theoretican and philosophican should be the least usable in governing a state "
" Going through this area of science with the same art of non-prejustice as in maths, I've tried not to laugh og human actions, not complain about them, neither despise them, but understand them. I have thus looked upon all human emotions - love, hate, anger, envy, ambition, compassion and other state of minds - not as error of the human nature, but as qualities, which suits it as well as warmth cold, storm, thunder and such suits the nature of air. Let it be that they are uncomfortable, necessary they are; and they have their certain reasons, of which we seak to understand their nature, and the mind is happy about the truth it gazes upon, just like with those things that are experienced comfortably by the senses."
" Those affections we have to fight with, is seen by philosophers as human errors that has futher leaded to destrucions. Therefore they usually laugh at them, cry over them, blame them, or worse with even bigger hypocricy, to despise them. Therefore they namely think they have done something highworthy, to have reached the top of wisdom - when they on all fronts praise the human nature which it is nowhere to be found, while they continue confidently talking down upon it how it really is. They take humans, not as they are, but how they would like to have them. And thus it has been that they have mostly written satire instead of ethics, and never made a decent thesis; always one who have to be counted as illusory or one which you could only have translated to reality in utopias or in the golden age of poets - where they are needed the least. When one with all usable sciences, and the most with thesis(theories), think theory and practice is opposidly different(antagonism), they you also hold sway that the theoretican and philosophican should be the least usable in governing a state "
Upvote
0
Evangelion
<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
You're welcome, Doubting Thomas.
I only remember it because:
I only remember it because:
- I've read Russell's biography (and studied his philosophy at uni.)
- I've read a collection of Russell's essays (including "Why I am no longer a Christian" and the radio debate with Coplestone.)
- I used to have a copy of his History of Western Philosophy, but lost it when I moved interstate more than 6 years ago!
Upvote
0
Personally I'm just finished with Arne Næss History of Philosophy, twas pretty heavy, but yes, extremely interesting.
My moms boyfriend likes the logical empirists. Husserl, Carnap, etc.
My moms boyfriend likes the logical empirists. Husserl, Carnap, etc.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I mostly agree with this guy for what I've read, he explains some things very well, got a book by him too named: "The philosophy of evil" :
I've just discovered this guy some months ago, and look very much forward to read his whole book soon.
Lars Fr. H. Svendsen, philosopher and primor-amanuensis in philosophy at the University in Bergen, Norway
Svendsens depressions.
The evil are always "the others".
He says the timing for his book was depressingly timing and thinks about the action of terror in USA.
"It's facinating to watch CNN and realize how shady the rhetorics of evil in media is. The american defenceminister, Powell, says that the terrorists represensts "pure absolute evil", while the terrorists responds that "the USA is satan". It's an insane rhetoric. I don't think that people act evil just because they are americans or muslims.
It represents a antiquated explenation that a enemy is possessed, or depraved by an evil, demonic and supernatural force. For me that would be to explain away the evil act"
- You mean that all evil has the ability to do both good and evil ?
" Yes, the empirism shows this. It's no other explanation on the evil in the world that the most of the evil is done by normal nice people.
It's normal to be evil, but we refuse describing uself as evil.
The evil is always "the others" "
Don't need Satan.
" We don't need the imagination of evil. The nezists deathcamps was the realization of a hell on earth. The SS-officers did something evil in that faith that they worked for a good cause, like the terrorists.
They are convised that it's moraly allowed, and commanded to do some evil, because they are fighting something negative. These invidualists think over good and evil, but choose wrong. This is called instrumental evil." says Lars, he is also busy with the dumb-evil, which concludes individs act without thinking they are doing niether good or evil.
" The problem with people is their surplus of agression, but their lack of reflection. Last Monday I was with Hydro(norwegian oil company) and kept a lecture about dumb tradespeople, and they agreed to pretty much everything I said. I just demand some reflection around the target.
I don't want to deny people to earn money. But profit can only be justified being a goal if it creates good."
Humanly sewer.
" The individs group-loyalty often strenghten the lack of reflection around what they are doing. Own oppinions can often become something illoyal and suspect in a group. It became explicit clear in the firstprinsip which every german soldier had to swear to. They shouldn't just put their own personal interests to the comunity, but also their "personal oppinions"
But how did it go with the SS-officers after the war?
They was normal family fathers which enjoyed a late night with the family when they had just came home from the deathcamps where they had beaten and badgered prisoners on the most explicit. How can this be ?
- Amazingly few took this stuff emotionall inwards. It's understandable.
How is it you take inwards that you're a pig. It's important to underline that it was guards who behaved decent. At the same time being a prisoner was equal to being good. Many prisoners overdone the guards in being horrible.
- I've been through a lot of stuff about humanly sewer behavior- After a while I just got pretty depressed working on the subject. But I have taken out the explecited descriptions of evil, because it easily builds up our own picture of evil like something unfamiliar/unknown. A motive with me has been showing the depressingly potential that each one of us has the ability to do the most insane stuff."
I've just discovered this guy some months ago, and look very much forward to read his whole book soon.
Lars Fr. H. Svendsen, philosopher and primor-amanuensis in philosophy at the University in Bergen, Norway
Svendsens depressions.
The evil are always "the others".
He says the timing for his book was depressingly timing and thinks about the action of terror in USA.
"It's facinating to watch CNN and realize how shady the rhetorics of evil in media is. The american defenceminister, Powell, says that the terrorists represensts "pure absolute evil", while the terrorists responds that "the USA is satan". It's an insane rhetoric. I don't think that people act evil just because they are americans or muslims.
It represents a antiquated explenation that a enemy is possessed, or depraved by an evil, demonic and supernatural force. For me that would be to explain away the evil act"
- You mean that all evil has the ability to do both good and evil ?
" Yes, the empirism shows this. It's no other explanation on the evil in the world that the most of the evil is done by normal nice people.
It's normal to be evil, but we refuse describing uself as evil.
The evil is always "the others" "
Don't need Satan.
" We don't need the imagination of evil. The nezists deathcamps was the realization of a hell on earth. The SS-officers did something evil in that faith that they worked for a good cause, like the terrorists.
They are convised that it's moraly allowed, and commanded to do some evil, because they are fighting something negative. These invidualists think over good and evil, but choose wrong. This is called instrumental evil." says Lars, he is also busy with the dumb-evil, which concludes individs act without thinking they are doing niether good or evil.
" The problem with people is their surplus of agression, but their lack of reflection. Last Monday I was with Hydro(norwegian oil company) and kept a lecture about dumb tradespeople, and they agreed to pretty much everything I said. I just demand some reflection around the target.
I don't want to deny people to earn money. But profit can only be justified being a goal if it creates good."
Humanly sewer.
" The individs group-loyalty often strenghten the lack of reflection around what they are doing. Own oppinions can often become something illoyal and suspect in a group. It became explicit clear in the firstprinsip which every german soldier had to swear to. They shouldn't just put their own personal interests to the comunity, but also their "personal oppinions"
But how did it go with the SS-officers after the war?
They was normal family fathers which enjoyed a late night with the family when they had just came home from the deathcamps where they had beaten and badgered prisoners on the most explicit. How can this be ?
- Amazingly few took this stuff emotionall inwards. It's understandable.
How is it you take inwards that you're a pig. It's important to underline that it was guards who behaved decent. At the same time being a prisoner was equal to being good. Many prisoners overdone the guards in being horrible.
- I've been through a lot of stuff about humanly sewer behavior- After a while I just got pretty depressed working on the subject. But I have taken out the explecited descriptions of evil, because it easily builds up our own picture of evil like something unfamiliar/unknown. A motive with me has been showing the depressingly potential that each one of us has the ability to do the most insane stuff."
Upvote
0
Have you read Moore and Russell, pace? If so, the next step is Wittgenstein.
If you've already read Wittgenstein, pardon my presumption. If you haven't, you're in for an extremely interesting experience.
If you've already read Wittgenstein, pardon my presumption. If you haven't, you're in for an extremely interesting experience.
Upvote
0
There is another passage in his book on "The philosophy of evil" where he recites a letter by Dietrich Bonhoeffer words from prison in Germany right before Germany was capitulated in WW2
In his letter there is a passage named "About stupidity" which he(and me ) finds special and good, which is in his chapter on "the dumb/stupid-evil":
"Stupidity is a more dangerous an enemy for the good than evil.
You can protest aganst the evil, it can be put to open, in emergency hindered by force, the evil carries always the sound of it's own destruction, because it leaves at least unpleasantness in humans.
Against dumbness on the other hand we are defenceless.
There you cannot acomplish anything either with protests or force; arguments doesn't help; actions which speaks against the already given oppinions just doesn't get to be believed - in such cases the dumb even get opposed/critic -, and if they aren't so easily looked away from, they can just be thrown away as one-time incidents. Also the dumb, opposed to the evil, fully happy with himself; yes, he even is dangerous because he so easily get annoyed and goes to attack. Thus you have to be more carefull with the stupid than the evil one. We shall never try and convinse the stupid one with arguments, it's pointless and dangerous.
If we are going to contra the stupidity, we have to understand how it works. This much is for sure that it's not primarely a intelectual, but human defect. It exists intelectually remarkably well equipped people which are stupid, and intelectually speking slow people who is everything BUT stupid. This we realize in our own amazement in certain cituation. The impression that stupidity is an inborn weakness isn't really that strong as it's people which is being MADE stupid in certain situations, or other words, reduction to a state of stupidity. And we'll see people who live for themself lonely, show this defect more seldom than people in groups which has need or is already in comeradship.
Stupidity seems thus more of an sociologic problem than psycological.
It is specially a result of how certain historic circumstances works on humans, a psycological phenomena which leads other outersituations.
If we look closer, it shows every strong, outer forcedoing of politic or religious kind beats a big part of humans with stupidity. Yes, it almost seems like an sociological-psycological law. Ones power needs the others stupidity. It take place such not that certain human abilites - ie. the intelectual - falls or fades away, but the imminent impresion the powerdoing does on certain people, steals them their own inner independence., and they give - more or less uncounscious - up to find a independence in the situations they meet. That the stupid often is stubborn, mustn't lead us to believe he is intependent. One notices already in conversations with him, that it's not him personally we have to deal with, but slagons and paroles etc. which obselutely has taken over him. He is possesed, blinded, mistreated in his whole being.
Made to an willess instrument on that way he is capable of doing all sorts of evil, and at the same time cannot recognize evil. Herein lies the danger of develish abuse, which can break down the human race forever"
In his letter there is a passage named "About stupidity" which he(and me ) finds special and good, which is in his chapter on "the dumb/stupid-evil":
"Stupidity is a more dangerous an enemy for the good than evil.
You can protest aganst the evil, it can be put to open, in emergency hindered by force, the evil carries always the sound of it's own destruction, because it leaves at least unpleasantness in humans.
Against dumbness on the other hand we are defenceless.
There you cannot acomplish anything either with protests or force; arguments doesn't help; actions which speaks against the already given oppinions just doesn't get to be believed - in such cases the dumb even get opposed/critic -, and if they aren't so easily looked away from, they can just be thrown away as one-time incidents. Also the dumb, opposed to the evil, fully happy with himself; yes, he even is dangerous because he so easily get annoyed and goes to attack. Thus you have to be more carefull with the stupid than the evil one. We shall never try and convinse the stupid one with arguments, it's pointless and dangerous.
If we are going to contra the stupidity, we have to understand how it works. This much is for sure that it's not primarely a intelectual, but human defect. It exists intelectually remarkably well equipped people which are stupid, and intelectually speking slow people who is everything BUT stupid. This we realize in our own amazement in certain cituation. The impression that stupidity is an inborn weakness isn't really that strong as it's people which is being MADE stupid in certain situations, or other words, reduction to a state of stupidity. And we'll see people who live for themself lonely, show this defect more seldom than people in groups which has need or is already in comeradship.
Stupidity seems thus more of an sociologic problem than psycological.
It is specially a result of how certain historic circumstances works on humans, a psycological phenomena which leads other outersituations.
If we look closer, it shows every strong, outer forcedoing of politic or religious kind beats a big part of humans with stupidity. Yes, it almost seems like an sociological-psycological law. Ones power needs the others stupidity. It take place such not that certain human abilites - ie. the intelectual - falls or fades away, but the imminent impresion the powerdoing does on certain people, steals them their own inner independence., and they give - more or less uncounscious - up to find a independence in the situations they meet. That the stupid often is stubborn, mustn't lead us to believe he is intependent. One notices already in conversations with him, that it's not him personally we have to deal with, but slagons and paroles etc. which obselutely has taken over him. He is possesed, blinded, mistreated in his whole being.
Made to an willess instrument on that way he is capable of doing all sorts of evil, and at the same time cannot recognize evil. Herein lies the danger of develish abuse, which can break down the human race forever"
Upvote
0
Evangelion
<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Wittengenstein was brilliant. He made Russell look like a brain dead toddler. He solved the problems that Russell had merely succeeded in rewording.
I found Russell's philosophy generally shallow, and his morality quite inconsistent. He was a lonely, insecure old man with too many hang-ups.
I found Russell's philosophy generally shallow, and his morality quite inconsistent. He was a lonely, insecure old man with too many hang-ups.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
His last words in this book also has some very nice passages imo:
Last words(summary):
The evil is not primarely a theoretical problem, but a practical problem.
Though uncountable theoretic blindtracks shuts down the elementaric insight: Evil doesn't primarely belongs to theology, in nature or societysciences, barely in philosophy, but in a concrete moral and politic area. We cannot understand and fight evil as long as we realize it as something abstract and unfamiliar.
In theology, closer: theodiée, one try and save the imagianation of a God, an allmighty God, but this rescue try happens almost without exception on the expense on the acnowledgement of the reality of evil, easily with that everything is "really" good, or is transformed to something good, in a divine perspective - and this is to explain away the reality of evil. We shall not reconcile with the evil, but try doing something about it. It's partly why I mean all theodicées are of the evil, because they in height can contribute to such an reconcilement.
The real question isn't "What is the evil?" but "How do we do evil?"
The answer is that we does it because of several reasons. A human can have several different motifs for doing evil. But it doesn't do evil 'because' it's evil, and this form of evil, the demonic evil, should turned down as a myth. Meanwhile it's the demonic evil who often represents the nature of evil. The problem with looking at demonic evil as the essential evil is that then the evil becomes unfamiliar/unknown for us - it's really not how we realize ourself anyhow. The problem with the focus on the demonic evil is not theoretic, but practical, because it shuts out our own insight in what potential each and one of us has for doing evil.
Sometimes, we do the evil, well known that we are doing evil, because doing so helps us subjectivly. The instrumentally evil has understood what is evil and good, but choose to put away the good because of consideration of self. This instrumental evil is only a part of the evil actions we do though. We also have idealistic and stupidity evil, were a actor either is motivated by an conviction of objectiv good, or doesn't reflect upon good or evil at all. Nobody is beyond evil.
We have all done evil in the mentioned categories, even if we haven't acnowlidged these actions as evil. The most of us has done evil in small terms, but each one of us could have done it in big terms. The evil isn't just 'the others', but also 'us' .
The human kinds biggest problem isn't that much an overflow of agression as it is an lack of reflection. This lack leads us to join in the most insane abuses on the next guy/girl. The egoism lies the reasons for far less murders and abuses than the unreflected, nonsubjectivly devotion to an 'higher' cause. And the indifference demands even more victims - not the least to people that isn't close to us. The indifference doesn't just show in acts of violence and so on, but equal terms into the fact that 1.2 billion people lives in utter poordom, and that millions of people dies of hunger each year.
The evil isn't a superior problem, but uncounted concrete problems - situations where we are put to the test as free, reflected and acting entities. I started this book by stating it's easier to do evil than good.
The final question is really just what we choose to 'do'.
Last words(summary):
The evil is not primarely a theoretical problem, but a practical problem.
Though uncountable theoretic blindtracks shuts down the elementaric insight: Evil doesn't primarely belongs to theology, in nature or societysciences, barely in philosophy, but in a concrete moral and politic area. We cannot understand and fight evil as long as we realize it as something abstract and unfamiliar.
In theology, closer: theodiée, one try and save the imagianation of a God, an allmighty God, but this rescue try happens almost without exception on the expense on the acnowledgement of the reality of evil, easily with that everything is "really" good, or is transformed to something good, in a divine perspective - and this is to explain away the reality of evil. We shall not reconcile with the evil, but try doing something about it. It's partly why I mean all theodicées are of the evil, because they in height can contribute to such an reconcilement.
The real question isn't "What is the evil?" but "How do we do evil?"
The answer is that we does it because of several reasons. A human can have several different motifs for doing evil. But it doesn't do evil 'because' it's evil, and this form of evil, the demonic evil, should turned down as a myth. Meanwhile it's the demonic evil who often represents the nature of evil. The problem with looking at demonic evil as the essential evil is that then the evil becomes unfamiliar/unknown for us - it's really not how we realize ourself anyhow. The problem with the focus on the demonic evil is not theoretic, but practical, because it shuts out our own insight in what potential each and one of us has for doing evil.
Sometimes, we do the evil, well known that we are doing evil, because doing so helps us subjectivly. The instrumentally evil has understood what is evil and good, but choose to put away the good because of consideration of self. This instrumental evil is only a part of the evil actions we do though. We also have idealistic and stupidity evil, were a actor either is motivated by an conviction of objectiv good, or doesn't reflect upon good or evil at all. Nobody is beyond evil.
We have all done evil in the mentioned categories, even if we haven't acnowlidged these actions as evil. The most of us has done evil in small terms, but each one of us could have done it in big terms. The evil isn't just 'the others', but also 'us' .
The human kinds biggest problem isn't that much an overflow of agression as it is an lack of reflection. This lack leads us to join in the most insane abuses on the next guy/girl. The egoism lies the reasons for far less murders and abuses than the unreflected, nonsubjectivly devotion to an 'higher' cause. And the indifference demands even more victims - not the least to people that isn't close to us. The indifference doesn't just show in acts of violence and so on, but equal terms into the fact that 1.2 billion people lives in utter poordom, and that millions of people dies of hunger each year.
The evil isn't a superior problem, but uncounted concrete problems - situations where we are put to the test as free, reflected and acting entities. I started this book by stating it's easier to do evil than good.
The final question is really just what we choose to 'do'.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
