Kepler
Cornell Big Red
The Trolley Problem just climbed out of your head and into the driver's seat.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
So the two-year old with the "solution", is the kid's name Snidely Whiplash?
And his "solution" does seem to be the most equitable.
So the two-year old with the "solution", is the kid's name Snidely Whiplash?
And his "solution" does seem to be the most equitable.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
Reviving the Philosophy thread for an interesting discussion of Nominalism, my favorite problem in philosophy.
Previously on Nominalism:
It's the question of whether "universals" exist. For example, all we ever see in nature are particular things -- this pine tree and that oak tree. So, where'd the idea of "tree" come from and does "treeness" really exist in the world? "Realists" (a much abused term but in this case we're talking about the Medieval scholastic) say yes, "treeness" is a thing with reality in the world. "Nominalists" say treeness is just a useful concept, a name, we arbitrarily use. The middle people, "Conceptualists," say that universals are not things in the "real" world (by which they mean the world of things that have extension in space) but they are real in the way that things in our heads are real.
Nominalism is the bette noire of Catholic intellectuals in particular because its promulgation by philosophical monks in the Middle Ages (Peter Abelard being the star of the show, William of Okham as in the Razor being another important figure) is generally blamed for the separation of philosophy from theology by the former's adoption of logical methods. From this, if you're a Thomist, comes skepticism and eventually, I dunno, bikinis.
This seems to be a less hamfisted analysis of the whole deal, albeit still from a doctrinaire Catholic perspective, meaning, if you don't get the scriptural answer then your logic is bad, not the scripture. Catholic High Philosophy always has this feeling of casuistry to it if you are a hard-headed rationalist (they don't like rationalism, either, because stuff like the Trinity doesn't go well if you start using reason on it -- you are, after all, supposed to Believe first and then, if possible, Understand, and not the other way round).
It sucks that Bob Gray's gone; he'd have eaten this like crack. Old Pio would have liked it, too. I have hopes for joe as a substitute interlocutor, but if there's anybody else who wants to talk about angels on the head of a pin, welcome!
Reviving the Philosophy thread for an interesting discussion of Nominalism, my favorite problem in philosophy.
Previously on Nominalism:
It's the question of whether "universals" exist. For example, all we ever see in nature are particular things -- this pine tree and that oak tree. So, where'd the idea of "tree" come from and does "treeness" really exist in the world? "Realists" (a much abused term but in this case we're talking about the Medieval scholastic) say yes, "treeness" is a thing with reality in the world. "Nominalists" say treeness is just a useful concept, a name, we arbitrarily use. The middle people, "Conceptualists," say that universals are not things in the "real" world (by which they mean the world of things that have extension in space) but they are real in the way that things in our heads are real.
Nominalism is the bette noire of Catholic intellectuals in particular because its promulgation by philosophical monks in the Middle Ages (Peter Abelard being the star of the show, William of Okham as in the Razor being another important figure) is generally blamed for the separation of philosophy from theology by the former's adoption of logical methods. From this, if you're a Thomist, comes skepticism and eventually, I dunno, bikinis.
This seems to be a less hamfisted analysis of the whole deal, albeit still from a doctrinaire Catholic perspective, meaning, if you don't get the scriptural answer then your logic is bad, not the scripture. Catholic High Philosophy always has this feeling of casuistry to it if you are a hard-headed rationalist (they don't like rationalism, either, because stuff like the Trinity doesn't go well if you start using reason on it -- you are, after all, supposed to Believe first and then, if possible, Understand, and not the other way round).
It sucks that Bob Gray's gone; he'd have eaten this like crack. Old Pio would have liked it, too. I have hopes for joe as a substitute interlocutor, but if there's anybody else who wants to talk about angels on the head of a pin, welcome!
Last edited:
Re: Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
Thanks for putting this out there. I'd guess that most of us struggled at some point in our youth with the likes of Aquinas and, due to lack of horsepower, time, appetite, educational foundation, or some combination of those, experienced limited success. Now, years later, it's a pitiful struggle. But at least your comments on what we "see" in nature evoked thoughts about Wordsworth's Intimations Ode. It's off point, I know, but your post prompted me to read it again, so thx.
Thanks for putting this out there. I'd guess that most of us struggled at some point in our youth with the likes of Aquinas and, due to lack of horsepower, time, appetite, educational foundation, or some combination of those, experienced limited success. Now, years later, it's a pitiful struggle. But at least your comments on what we "see" in nature evoked thoughts about Wordsworth's Intimations Ode. It's off point, I know, but your post prompted me to read it again, so thx.
busterman62
I got a pocket full of kryptonite
Re: Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
Bibo ergo sum
Bibo ergo sum
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
Doc: Your file says you've got a degree from NYU. What in?
Dalton: Philosophy.
Doc: Any particular discipline?
Dalton: No. Not really. Man's search for faith. That sort of chit.
Doc: Come up with any answers?
Dalton: Not too many.
Doc: Your file says you've got a degree from NYU. What in?
Dalton: Philosophy.
Doc: Any particular discipline?
Dalton: No. Not really. Man's search for faith. That sort of chit.
Doc: Come up with any answers?
Dalton: Not too many.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
Charlotte: I majored in philosophy.
Bob: There's a good buck in that racket.
Charlotte: I majored in philosophy.
Bob: There's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
Probably a lesson here about public funding of the arts....which has been no doubt lost to history.
"But, in the end, the cash strapped French government inadvertently managed to fund one of the great mathematicians and greatest philosophers of the age, the latter of which, at least, likely would have been forgotten to history if not for his vast wealth that allowed his brilliant mind free rein to write on whatever he wished without having to worry too much about money, public opinion, or the ire of the elite."
Probably a lesson here about public funding of the arts....which has been no doubt lost to history.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
Well, the lottery is a tax on the stupid, so they got that part right anyway.
Well, the lottery is a tax on the stupid, so they got that part right anyway.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
Good website for videos.
Good website for videos.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: Philosophy 1: Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel
I envision a YT rabbit hole in my very near future. Thanks for sharing.
I envision a YT rabbit hole in my very near future. Thanks for sharing.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
I am reading The Golden Bough (I recommend it, it's a hoot) and a passage got me started on a new theoretical understanding of a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Bear with me, I've given it all of 10 minutes thought.
In the book, Frazer distinguishes between two kinds of magical rituals: propitiatory and sympathetic:
In a propitiatory ritual, you are doing something to earn the good will of the spirit or deity. The relation structure is slave / master, where the slave's only recourse is to please the master either to get something desired or more likely to avoid something feared. The classic propitiatory ritual is the sacrifice.
In a sympathetic ritual, you are trying to create a macro effect by imitating it at a micro level. The relation structure is man in the world / spirit in the world. Man has a will but limited power, so he uses his will to fashion a miniature which is then invested magically with an effective connection to the actual world, typically through a spirit. The classic sympathetic ritual is the fetish, like voodoo.
Frazer talks about how different communities are animated by either propitiatory or sympathetic magic -- there is a fairly clean split between the two and while there can be overlap they really don't play well together.
So, here is my theory: they don't mix well because they represent two basically different kinds of human thinking, and the liberal/conservative split in more developed societies is a direct carry over.
Propitiatory magic posits a powerful, menacing, personified master which you must please. This is conservative thinking. It expresses itself in hierarchies and violence. It is extremely intolerant of heterogeneity because that is a threat. It is an essentially fearful. Conservatives typically vilify opponents by declaring they are either sheep or dictators because those characteristics are its obsession. The coin of the conservative realm is dominance: how to get it among humans and how to bribe it among gods.
Sympathetic magic posits abstract symbolic linkages between human ideas (stuff in our head) and the natural world of things (stuff outside our head, including our own bodies). This is liberal thinking. It expresses itself in abstract forces and manifestations. There is nothing "up there" to anger so it doesn't punish deviance, but it cares about motive and presentation because what you do becomes the world we all have to live in. Liberals typically vilify opponents as insufficiently good, smart, or wise because those characteristics are its obsession. The coin of the liberal realm is emulation: we must literally be the change we want to see in the world.
Note: both of these forms of thinking are magical and irrational. They are both intolerant as well as objectively mistaken, albeit in very different ways.
I think it's worth exploring.
In the book, Frazer distinguishes between two kinds of magical rituals: propitiatory and sympathetic:
In a propitiatory ritual, you are doing something to earn the good will of the spirit or deity. The relation structure is slave / master, where the slave's only recourse is to please the master either to get something desired or more likely to avoid something feared. The classic propitiatory ritual is the sacrifice.
In a sympathetic ritual, you are trying to create a macro effect by imitating it at a micro level. The relation structure is man in the world / spirit in the world. Man has a will but limited power, so he uses his will to fashion a miniature which is then invested magically with an effective connection to the actual world, typically through a spirit. The classic sympathetic ritual is the fetish, like voodoo.
Frazer talks about how different communities are animated by either propitiatory or sympathetic magic -- there is a fairly clean split between the two and while there can be overlap they really don't play well together.
So, here is my theory: they don't mix well because they represent two basically different kinds of human thinking, and the liberal/conservative split in more developed societies is a direct carry over.
Propitiatory magic posits a powerful, menacing, personified master which you must please. This is conservative thinking. It expresses itself in hierarchies and violence. It is extremely intolerant of heterogeneity because that is a threat. It is an essentially fearful. Conservatives typically vilify opponents by declaring they are either sheep or dictators because those characteristics are its obsession. The coin of the conservative realm is dominance: how to get it among humans and how to bribe it among gods.
Sympathetic magic posits abstract symbolic linkages between human ideas (stuff in our head) and the natural world of things (stuff outside our head, including our own bodies). This is liberal thinking. It expresses itself in abstract forces and manifestations. There is nothing "up there" to anger so it doesn't punish deviance, but it cares about motive and presentation because what you do becomes the world we all have to live in. Liberals typically vilify opponents as insufficiently good, smart, or wise because those characteristics are its obsession. The coin of the liberal realm is emulation: we must literally be the change we want to see in the world.
Note: both of these forms of thinking are magical and irrational. They are both intolerant as well as objectively mistaken, albeit in very different ways.
I think it's worth exploring.
Last edited: