As to the first post, if the moochers are working, then they're not moochers. Was Ayn Rand Plato? I must have missed that. Anyway, I can't believe I have to defend Ayn Rand, but that sounded wrong.
Also Ayn Rand mooched from Immanuel Kant and then called him all sorts of names, probably being too stupid and ugly to realize her debt.
Calling most of the 'philosophies' I had to study in college philosophies will get you nothing but derision from me.
Yeah, you and me both. Goddamn John Rawls Veil of Ignorance "If everyone were complete morons, they'd choose my philosophy over the other leading brands."
I'm glad he's dead. If I find where he's buried I'll defile his grave.
Knock me off Deans List you sonofabitch.......C- my ass.....
Sword_of_Light on
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. "
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't really think you can disqualify a philosophy because it fails to run the world properly. Because that would disqualify alot of philosophy.
But you can disqualify a serious attempt at a worldview if it's myopic and incompetent.
No, you can disqualify a philosophy if it fails to run the world properly if that was its intent. Objectivism as a philosophical 'package' gives us three main things: an ethics, an epistemology, and a prescriptive political order. It's ethics fails, it's epistemology it's really iffy and only really exists to justify the political and ethical parts of the project, and the political mandate is both naive and terribly uninformed.
And you are right. A lot of philosophy is concerned with giving us a theory of everything. Most every significant modern philosopher (since Descartes) has tried to give us a complete account of everything one needs to live - and just about every single one of their positions have failed. There's nothing wrong with that; it's just philosophy.
A lot of philosophy is concerned with giving us a theory of everything. Most every significant modern philosopher (since Descartes) has tried to give us a complete account of everything one needs to live - and just about every single one of their positions have failed. There's nothing wrong with that; it's just philosophy.
Really? I've just the opposite impression from all the philosophy I've read and otherwise encountered. Kant is pretty much the last philosopher I can think of that made a serious attempt at proposing a theory of everything. Plenty of dudes before him also went for it, but I can't think of any afterwards. Certainly most academic philosophy these days is highly compartmentalized; a lot of my profs have had very narrow areas of focus, to the extent that even within a given area (metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, etc.) they've only really been interested in a small number of very specific problems or issues. Even those with broader interests haven't even come close to "theories of everything".
Edit: Oh, I missed the "significant" stipulation you made. Even still, if you look at dudes like Peter Singer or David Chalmers or Saul Kripke, they're all pretty significant in modern philosophy but haven't individually done much to encompass all of its branches. Hell, Edmund Gettier is famous for a single short paper that challenged the tradtional philosophical notion of knowledge that dated back to Plato.
Grid System on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Posts
Also Ayn Rand mooched from Immanuel Kant and then called him all sorts of names, probably being too stupid and ugly to realize her debt.
Yeah, you and me both. Goddamn John Rawls Veil of Ignorance "If everyone were complete morons, they'd choose my philosophy over the other leading brands."
I'm glad he's dead. If I find where he's buried I'll defile his grave.
Knock me off Deans List you sonofabitch.......C- my ass.....
That is all.
No, you can disqualify a philosophy if it fails to run the world properly if that was its intent. Objectivism as a philosophical 'package' gives us three main things: an ethics, an epistemology, and a prescriptive political order. It's ethics fails, it's epistemology it's really iffy and only really exists to justify the political and ethical parts of the project, and the political mandate is both naive and terribly uninformed.
And you are right. A lot of philosophy is concerned with giving us a theory of everything. Most every significant modern philosopher (since Descartes) has tried to give us a complete account of everything one needs to live - and just about every single one of their positions have failed. There's nothing wrong with that; it's just philosophy.
Edit: Oh, I missed the "significant" stipulation you made. Even still, if you look at dudes like Peter Singer or David Chalmers or Saul Kripke, they're all pretty significant in modern philosophy but haven't individually done much to encompass all of its branches. Hell, Edmund Gettier is famous for a single short paper that challenged the tradtional philosophical notion of knowledge that dated back to Plato.