October 18, 2004
supposing that truth is a woman
— well, now, is there not some foundation for suspecting that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, have not known how to handle women? That the gruesome earnestness, the left handed obtrusiveness, with which they have usually approached truth have been unskilled and unseemly methods for prejudicing a woman in their favor?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
just a little bit of nieztsche’s insanity and rhetoric to bide the day
October 18th, 2004 at 6:55 pm
I think that makes perfect sense. Case in point: Look at Slick Willie – lovely with the ladies, bad with the truth. Second proof: Look at ________ [insert philosopher name here] – lovely with truth, bad with the ladies. OK so I don’t know enough about the biographies of philosophers to evaluate the second condition with experiential evidence. But it seems to me that theoretically speaking: (a) Philosophers ARE dogmatists in a way (did that statement rub you the wrong way? *tee-hee*) because they believe wholeheartedly in something that cannot be touched or proven, except in the airy fairy world of theory… don’t they? I mean, don’t they believe in truth? They aren’t scientists. Scientists make hypotheses. Scientists create a framework for understanding what we experience of the world in order that we may successfully manipulate it through application. But they don’t claim to have uncovered Truth. They just hypothesize based on observation. But philosophers… i.e., Davids… seem to believe in objectivity. Yes, you have to BELIEVE in objectivity. Prove it to me that reality exists and IS a certain way. I dare you. You can’t, for you are a subjectivity. And I am a subjectivity. And just because we agree doesn’t mean we are right. It means simply that we due to our shared methods of perceiving reality (i.e., human methods, sight, sound, taste, touch, smell), we are able to establish a shared reality. But there’s no way of proving that other beings with different faculties might perceive it differently. Or that there isn’t something wrong with ALL human perception. (Personally, I suspect that there is…) So, my point is, someone who believes definitively that there are objective truths out there that can be uncovered and deciphered through logic – which is what a philosopher believes, right? – makes him or her a dogmatist of sorts, a dogmatist of logic. Right? (Don’t break up with me because I said that please!) (b) Dogmatic people tend to get caught up in whatever it is they’re dogmatic about, yes? And this, if they are not hypocritical, can lead them to live the dogma, which in turn affects their personal life. For example, religious dogmatists apply their religion to their personal life, making them behave in ways that other people – who do not share their dogma – do not understand. In fact, very religious people often choose to spend the rest of their lives only with people of the same religion. Perhaps this same thing applies to philosophers… How? I dunno… I’m not one. Hey… Why am I arguing this point, anyway? I have no complaints–I think you’re doing fine… 😉
October 18th, 2004 at 6:56 pm
If truth were a woman, wouldn’t she lie?
October 18th, 2004 at 9:15 pm
deleted
October 18th, 2004 at 9:27 pm
[quote:caa1d008c3=”sophia_de_philo”] I think that makes perfect sense. Case in point: Look at Slick Willie – lovely with the ladies, bad with the truth. Second proof: Look at ________ [insert philosopher name here] – lovely with truth, bad with the ladies. [/quote:caa1d008c3] This is completely absurd… whether or not someone has a “way” with the ladies doesn’t mean that they are in fact knowledgeable about truth. A completely absurd interpretation of Nietzsche’s point, but i also believe it was Nietzsche’s intention to cut philosopher’s down. [quote:caa1d008c3=”sophia_de_philo”] OK so I don’t know enough about the biographies of philosophers to evaluate the second condition with experiential evidence. But it seems to me that theoretically speaking: [/quote:caa1d008c3] Hah, you are right and yet this idea is going to tear apart your later argument. You don’t know enough about philosopher’s lives to make such generalizations. [quote:caa1d008c3=”sophia_de_philo”](a) Philosophers ARE dogmatists in a way (did that statement rub you the wrong way? *tee-hee*) because they believe wholeheartedly in something that cannot be touched or proven, except in the airy fairy world of theory… don’t they? I mean, don’t they believe in truth? They aren’t scientists. Scientists make hypotheses. Scientists create a framework for understanding what we experience of the world in order that we may successfully manipulate it through application. But they don’t claim to have uncovered Truth. They just hypothesize based on observation. But philosophers… i.e., Davids… seem to believe in objectivity. Yes, you have to BELIEVE in objectivity. Prove it to me that reality exists and IS a certain way. I dare you. You can’t, for you are a subjectivity. And I am a subjectivity. And just because we agree doesn’t mean we are right. It means simply that we due to our shared methods of perceiving reality (i.e., human methods, sight, sound, taste, touch, smell), we are able to establish a shared reality. But there’s no way of proving that other beings with different faculties might perceive it differently. Or that there isn’t something wrong with ALL human perception. (Personally, I suspect that there is…) So, my point is, someone who believes definitively that there are objective truths out there that can be uncovered and deciphered through logic – which is what a philosopher believes, right? – makes him or her a dogmatist of sorts, a dogmatist of logic. Right? [/quote:caa1d008c3] First point. This is all working off of assumptions that are false. Your statement that all philosophers believe in objectivity is horse shit. It is a controversial issue at hand. In fact there is a whole school of study called skepticism that adopts the notion that there are no object facts simply subjective notions. You?re confusing my beliefs for the beliefs of the whole. Just because i adopt the object notions of reality does not in fact mean philosopher’s in general adopt these same notions. Second point. You?re wrong again thinking that philosophers are dogmatic. Dogmatism is a trait or property of being human. Philosophers have the potential to be dogmatic just like any other set of individuals in the world that deals with belief structure. In fact i would argue they are just as likely to be dogmatic as your much touted scientists. In fact i could state statistics and physics professors, (Dr. Meriwether in particular.) that state that new ideas that shake the foundation of physics are usually ignored till the younger minds in the organization adopt and work with said ideas. Only when the younger minds adopt the ideologies and the older minds die/retire can monumental change occur. Third point and particularly self-concerning. I’m not dogmatic. I use the tools i have. I’m too young to be dogmatic. I’ve changed my opinions about reality about as much as you changed your novel. I began studying physics, moved from there to being a platonic fiend (trey remembers this i believe), then i adopted Descartes as my newly found savior, and only recently have i began viewing Kant’s arguments as the most sound. Baby, (in a very demeaning voice) you don’t even know enough about me to make such accusations…. so just hush your pretty little head and face forward. P.S. Meant as a joke btw. [quote:caa1d008c3=”sophia_de_philo”](Don’t break up with me because I said that please!) [/quote:caa1d008c3] Of course I wouldn’t, but I will set you straight. [quote:caa1d008c3=”sophia_de_philo”](b) Dogmatic people tend to get caught up in whatever it is they’re dogmatic about, yes? And this, if they are not hypocritical, can lead them to live the dogma, which in turn affects their personal life. For example, religious dogmatists apply their religion to their personal life, making them behave in ways that other people – who do not share their dogma – do not understand. In fact, very religious people often choose to spend the rest of their lives only with people of the same religion. Perhaps this same thing applies to philosophers… How? I dunno… I’m not one. Hey… Why am I arguing this point, anyway? I have no complaints–I think you’re doing fine… [/quote:caa1d008c3] This is all wrong. Let us begin by assuming dogmatism to actually be defined by adopting the method in real life. Philosopher’s are about the most hypocritical set of humans on earth. I will show you just how little you know about this subject by giving you three distinct philosophers who fail to adopt their views in their own lives. Kant: He argued for the categorical imperative. In fact he claimed that you should perform every action such that the action you perform concedes with a universal law, or maxim. This is useful for making moral decisions. Take the statement ?Should i shoot this person-or not?? and apply previous maxim or universal law in existence to it. The said question and naturally you could argue that the moral universal law is that you not shoot that person. If everyone shot someone then everyone would be dead ultimately ending yours and others lives. Now let us examine Kant’s life. He was a billiards shark for most of his life and used the funds obtained from cheating people on a regular basis to actually get his education and support his publishing career. He is also known for filing a lawsuit against a shipping industry for their survival techniques. Apparently he also imported/exported materials later in his life. He actually sued a ship’s crew for destruction of his material. In fact the destruction of the material is what saved the ship’s crew’s life. They were caught in the middle of the ocean without a breeze and therefore was “becalmed”. They were running out of food so they broke into the hull to eat the shipment of nuts that Kant had ordered. Is it moral to punish someone for acting out of survival? It is moral to make your living off of cheating people? Now let us look at Nietzsche. Nietzsche prides himself on arguing and preaching for using the philosophical hammer to destroy unneeded ideas. He actually talks of society as dealing with the intelligent and the morally strong. In fact he argues that the ubermensche’s goal is to live and be a leader for the other herds. He professes that you must enact the eternal recurrence for every decision. Now Nietzsche is in effect known to live a very ascetic life and minimized contact with others. He also is documented in a diary of his as having severe problems using the eternal recurrence. He couldn’t use his own doctrine in his own life, yet he professes to everyone else that they should. Other then being a weak individual in reality and adopting hypocritical stances his philosophy also reeks with hypocrisy. At one point he denies the value of language, saying that it leads to vagueness and a failure to understand. Morality might not be arbitrary, but our interpretation of morality is arbitrary. So in the end he denies every book he wrote because HE IS USING LANGUAGE! Which is what made all the philosopher’s before him fail. So why does he succeed? Why is his philosophy exempt from his own arguments? They aren’t. Briefly because I?m tired of typing, Sartre is very similar in this ideology. He professed that authenticate being was necessary for a full life. He was against being for someone else. Yet he wrote his book in a cafe. He is well known for doing more talking then actual writing. He was a performance artist. He was also known for enacting egregious arguments for the sake of talking. My point? Philosophers are human and have the same percentage chance of falling to all the problems that other humans fall to. Dogmatism might exist in philosophy but it does not exist any more readily here as it does in any other study of living. Ok I?m done chastising you.
October 18th, 2004 at 9:33 pm
About the statement itself, everything is wrong with that statement. It has some validity with the assumption of the philosopher’s who are dogmatic about ideologies but the statement itself is a horrible charicterization of philosophers. In fact to so horribly commit the fallacy of attacking the character of the individuals outside of attacking the arguements it is just an incorrect statement. Philosophers have not always been dogmatic, nor will they ever be. In fact skepticism is a school of thought that is indoctrinated in the very study of epistemology, which is the study of knowledge. The skeptic’s brain in a vat problem is very relevant to epistemology. In fact people argue that there can be no progress unless we answer that question. Horrible statement… bad nietzsche bad…. go to your room.
October 19th, 2004 at 5:22 pm
Um… my comment was intended to be teasing and amusing. Note the question marks after the following assumptions… [quote:6bf4448ccb]Philosophers ARE dogmatists in a way (did that statement rub you the wrong way? *tee-hee*) because they believe wholeheartedly in something that cannot be touched or proven, except in the airy fairy world of theory… don’t they? I mean, don’t they believe in truth?[/quote:6bf4448ccb] I knew I wasn’t sure. And then I went so far as to say… [quote:6bf4448ccb] But philosophers… i.e., Davids… seem to believe in objectivity.[/quote:6bf4448ccb] It would be terribly foolish of me to assume that Davids are representative of philosophers as a whole… I was teasing… Mental note: Philosophers, i.e. Davids, not only believe in truth–they’re mean, too… Mean mean mean… Your meanness proves Nietzsche right!!!! 😛