Philosophy Answers 07:

+
> Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
> On 2Jan07 sokrates asks: Is Western Philosophy a
> Failure? Even though I enjoy and teach philosophy, I
> cannot help but wonder whether western theoretical
> thought is a colossal failure. No system of thought
> in the West seems to pass any truth test
> (correspondence, coherence or pragmatism). The
> western systems are untenable and impractical.
> Plato's Forms are metaphysically incoherent, Kant's
> distinctions between noumena and phenomena are
> examples of major question begging. And Nietzsche's
> thought is shot through with holes. I have yet to find
> a philosophical system in the West that bears up
> under analytical scrutiny. What do you think?
.
cybrwurm answers:
Well, sokrates, I think it's a bit premature to summarily
conclude that Western Philosophy as a whole is "a
colossal failure". This is because Philosophy, like
civilization itself, is still in its infancy. Because of this,
it is somewhat silly to look for perfection in Philosophy,
and then to dismiss it outright because you fail to find
it. In truth, a perfect philosophy may never be achieved
as long as human beings themselves remain imperfect.
Moreover, Sophia has yet to really stand upon Her own
two feet with strength and nobility.
.
Consider Her brief biography as a whole: Philosophy
was born into a world dominated by myths, fears, and
superstitions, and yet somehow managed to invent logic
and science. Soon after this, however, Sophia was made
to act the role of Theology's whore; which could only
have a detrimental effect upon the philosophical
enterprise. For most of Her career, then, She was a
slave; and yet somehow progress was still made (albeit
very slowly). And then, after Descartes, She was able
to regain most of Her stolen independence; and then
philosophers multiplied like mushrooms after a rain-
storm.
.
But then the academics boldly seized Philosophy,
claimed Her as their own, and promptly turned Her
into Science's whore. And that's where we are today!
Therefore, and considering all the abuse that has been
heaped upon the Fair Lady's head over the centuries, I
think that Sophia has acquitted Herself very well indeed.
And once She has been freed from the shackles and
chains of a blind, arrogant, and narrow-minded Science,
She will do remarkable things. In truth, Sophia's full
potential has yet to be realized.
.
> [snipsome] Maybe we should analyze it as one might
> study a cadaver. It is an object of interest from which
> many things can be learned, maybe even some things
> of benefit.
.
Well, sokrates, these statements tell me all I need
to know. The problem is NOT within Philosophy; the
problem is within *you*. Specifically with your attitude.
Philosophy is NOT dead; although the scientific and
analytical academics have certainly done their very best
to kill Sophia by sucking any signs of life right out of
Her. They kill Her slowly by centimeters and inches, and
then berate Her for looking like a cadaver. And never for
a moment will they take responsibility for the evil that
they have committed. No indeed, they would much
rather blame Her for what *they* have done to Her! ...
"an object of interest", you say? "analyze it", you say?
... Analyze this --> [insert extremely rude gesture here]
.
> But we do well to avoid treating western philosophy
> as a living entity, one that can provide ethico-
> metaphysical guidance or enlightenment.
.
Really? Why, sokrates, that's just the sort of statement
I would expect to hear from a thoughtless and brutal
*scientist* who would joyfully kill off the last surviving
member of a unique and astonishing species just so that
he could then *analyze* its internal organs in order to
discover 'what makes it tick'! As for myself, I do indeed
see Philosophy as "a living entity, one that can provide
ethico-metaphysical guidance or enlightenment". I see
Sophia as a large and flourishing garden that holds and
nourishes a wide variety of flowers and plants: roses,
tulips, lemons, apples, peanuts, and yes, the occasional
weed or three.
.
And no philosopher is ever *completely* dead so long as
there is at least one living human mind able to read his
writings with some small measure of understanding. If
human immortality exists anywhere in this sad world, it
is only within the warm bosom of loving Sophia. Treat
Her like the Lady She is, you arrogant baboon, and THEN
you'll see that there is still some life and value in the
old girl after all ... *Maybe!* ... There's an old saying in
computer science that applies equally well to Philosophy:
garbage in, garbage out.
.
P.S. "The goal of Philosophy is not to know the world,
 but rather to put men on the right path." -- Heraclitus
x

+
> Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
.
> On 7Jan07 amazon asks:  Let's say that you could
> only have one book for as long as you live, what
> would it be? I'm not sure what mine would be.
.
cybrwurm answers:
.
My one great lifelong book is:
.
'A History of Western Philosophy' by Bertrand Russell
.
... and for the same reasons that dryest flame gave! ...
.
Russell's History is a book that has a great deal of vigour
and staying power, AND, like all great books, it bears
up well under constant and determined re-reading.
.
Yes, it is indeed 'the philosopher's bible'! :D
.
Source > dryest flame: "the holy quran - every time you
read it you understand something new or know a new
issues so its very interesting for me"
x

+
> Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
> On 14Feb07 i am the dream u r the dreamer asks:
> In your own words, describe what you think is
> a philosopher?
.
wurm answers: Actually, there are two main types of
philosophers here in the great post-modern world of
the 21st century. Firstly, there are those who belong
to the exclusive and rarefied guild of scientific-
philosophers. These are the professional and academic
men and women who are commonly and traditionally
understood to be philosophers, as such. This is
primarily because they get paid to teach and write
about philosophical subjects, and generally deal with
topics relating more or less directly to philosophy.
Socrates would call them Sophists, and so would I.
.
Secondly, there are the *other* types of philosophers
who are philosophers because they either have the
nerve to call themselves such, or who produce writings
that are somewhat (or even a lot) philosophical in
nature. Camus, Dostoevsky, and R.W.Emerson would fall
into this latter category. As would many others,
including Socrates; although technically he was a
speaker, not a writer (fortunately Plato did his
writing for him, else he would be little more than a
forgotten ancient Greek name today). Some philosophers
who could fall into the previous other-type are men
such as Nietzsche and C.S. Peirce (d.1914). Now Peirce
is a particularly interesting case, both for his
relative recentness (pardon my canadian), and because
he was (among other things) a first-class logician.
.
Anyway, this brief outline could hardly claim to be
complete without mentioning yet another class of
"other" philosophers; namely, the "unrecognized" type,
which would include many "everyday" people who either
"practice" and/or study philosophy. This would of
course include philosophy students (official and
otherwise), casual readers who occasionally "dabble"
in reading philosophical-type literature, people who
consider themselves particularly rational and/or
logical in their general thinking and/or behavior,
and perhaps even those who participate in the various
philosophy forums on the Net (even the philosophy
section of yahoo-answers :) !
.
Oddly enough I think that this "unrecognized" group
is (perhaps) the largest in terms of numbers *AND*
influence. This may seem somewhat illogical, but this
is not the case, for this latter type can even include
some brilliant writers who produce first-class
philosophical literature, and yet are virtually
ignored by almost everyone. A good recent example of
this type of philosopher is Colin Wilson, whose books
and essays on philosophy (chiefly existentialism) are
not only of outstanding excellence in themselves, but
are also highly accessible (ie. understandable) by the
general reader ... and not many philosophers (past or
present) can boast of *that*! :D In fact, I venture
to suggest that Wilson is easily among the top ten
philosophers of the twentieth century (although I may
well be the only one who dares make such an outrageous
proposition).
.
Yes, it's true that there are many different kinds of
philosophers, both big and small; but it's also true
that we philosophers are all one family, brothers
and sisters of the spirit, not the blood, and we are
greatly outnumbered by these so-called "religious"
people (ie. Bronze-Age retros). They have the numbers,
the power, and the will to be fascists even as
regards freedom-loving Philosophy. The professional
philosophers are perfectly content with this
unacceptable and tragic status-quo, and will do
nothing to change it. But Sophia is NOT content to
just "leave it so". And neither am I. I'm doing my
part. Now it's time for you to do yours. Philosophy
isn't a game; hell, it isn't even a profession really
(unless you *want* to be a Sophist). What it is ...
is a Way of Life. Get with the program, my friends.
Philosophy is, above all else, about applying Reason
to *all* aspects of the human condition . . .
Philosophy lives!
x

+
>> Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
>> On 20Feb07 bima b asks: What is the most
>> important [thing] in life? guess what?
.
wurm say: The most important thing in life is what I
call the problem and/or purpose of human life. And
what this basically all boils down to is this strange
matter of the quality of consciousness; or, to put
it another way, the question of insight or vision:
'
"... the moment of great insight in which the purpose
of all life is seen. Ultimately, this is the only
thing worth achieving. Yeats called life 'a vast
preparation for something that never happens',
and yet one minute of such vision could turn all
preparation into achievement" (from 'Religion and
the Rebel' by C.Wilson).
.
So how does one "prepare", you ask? ... Start here:
.
Q: What is the purpose of life?
.
A: The purpose of life is to find your meaning and
value *within* the context of your life as a whole.
.
Q: How do we find meaning and value in life?
.
A: There are many ways to find meaning and value in
life. One popular way is to build them into your life
by just living active and meaningful lives based on
decisions and actions that we normally do in the
course of our daily lives.
.
Q: Are there other sources of meaning and value?
.
A: Insofar as "Systems of Thought & Action" (such
as various religions and/or philosophies, etc) are
incorporated into regular daily life, they can indeed
be a reliable fount of meaning and value; as well
as other things, 4X: nice thoughts of certainty and
reassurance, etc, and sundry other 'warm and fuzzy
feelings'. :)
.
Q: So all religions and philosophies are basically
equal then and now?
.
A: Not at all. Everything can be weighed and analyzed
and criticized and judged ... by many and various
standards of carefully calibrated measuring
instruments (and other more or less random utilities)
... heh. Indeed, Philosophy is well known for
criticizing Her own systems of thought. Check it out!
x

+
Yahoo! Answers  > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy
.
> On 26Feb07 TermiteChokinOnASplint asks: I'm trying
> to find a purpose to be here ...? Life seems to be
> all about survival. I need something to make me want
> to keep going. What do you do when your in need of
> emotional fulfilment? I just feel like I have no
> purpose; I need to do something productive with my
> life, but I have no idea where to begin ...
.
wurm say: Hey TC, wuts up? I like your question; it
sounds like you're being serious here, so I'll give
you a serious answer. First off, you're quite right:
Life IS about survival. Think of it as your primary
job in life. But life is more than just your job.
You need a purpose too; something that you can look
forward to doing or accomplishing. Of course, there
are many things you can do to that end. It mostly
depends on your personal tastes and abilities. If you
like to think and write *and* help people, I would
suggest that you take up the study of philosophy in a
serious way. Become a philosopher! :) I don't mean in
the formal and academic sense either; I mean a *real*
philosopher who can talk to all kinds of people, most
of whom will have no idea that your main purpose in
life is to go around injecting everybody you meet
with a healthy dose of philosophical reasoning! There
is a serious shortage of such people, and the World
badly needs them; even if most people know it not.
Take up the most noble cause, & fight the good fight.
Become one of Sophia's worthy champions!
x

+
> Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
> On 26Apr07 tiggstah asks: Religion vs Philosophy?
> i read this question and answer on polls, i agreed with
> it feverantly, what do you think, the question was...
> is there a differance between philosophy and religion?
> the answer was... philosophy was made and followed
> by those who think. religion was made by those who
> think and followed by those that do not. my kudos to
> the person that gave that answer.
> i agree, what do you think??
.
I tend to agree with Nathan D and some of the others,
except that philosophy is NOT "the opiate", nor is it only
for the individual. here is the chief difference between
religion and philosophy: Religion carries a sense of the
sacred, of cosmic-meaning to everything, of assurance (ie.
salvation) through faith. Philosophy also carries a sense
of cosmic-meaning and assurance, but through reason
and wisdom, rather than faith. The difference is crucial
and vital! Moreover, philosophy is no less other-oriented
than religion is. It is, and always was, a collaborative
enterprise. And thanks to the Net, philosophy has truly
become a "universal concern" at last. --> Philosophy of
the people, by the people, for the people! This very
forum proves the truth of this claim. -- wurm ;>
x

+
> Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
> On 28Apr07 EnergicO asks: question about philosophy
> in Greece!? I am a new college teacher (im at my first
> class) and i got to answer this question to explain the
> answer to my students there it is: By referring to the
> various stages of the appearance of philosophy in
> Greece and to the greek gods, what is the use of the
> reason in this search for the truth?
.
wurm: If i'm understanding you correctly, friend, this *is*
an important question. for it was the ancient-greeks that
first applied reason to the ancient mythical texts (their
sacred scriptures, if you will), Homer, Hesiod, and the
like. the earliest philosophers, in other words, were the
world's first textual-critics! they were able to distinguish
between fantasy and reality (somewhat), and even dared
to criticize the gods for their immoral behaviors.
.
Accordingly, these early pioneers were the world's first
rationalists and atheists (although those two particular
terms are not really appropriate to the world as it was
3000 years ago). Anyway, a perhaps even more relevant
detail is that the "search for truth" is NOT a greek
invention. rather, it was the even more ancient culture of
the two-lands (ie. egypt) that developed the concept of
Ma'at, which is the pursuit or search of truth and justice.
in this sense, all men and women should devote them-
selves to manifesting or living a ma'at-filled life.
.
This concept was the greatest achievement of the ancient
wisdom, and it quickly found its way to the north shores
of the great-sea, where it eventually resulted in the likes
of Herodotus, Heraclitus, Thucydides, Socrates, and all
the others who helped to create History and Philosophy
as ongoing concerns. yes, they were the pioneers of
reason, the patron saints of sophia, the only shining
lights in a world plunged deep within the primordial
darkness of myth-soaked minds!
.
 ... much like today! :D
x

+
> Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
> On 2May07 TYF asks: What philosopher strove to live
without any possessions but a cup, and later discarded his
cup too? Stoic? I heard about a philosopher... maybe his
name was Stoic or Cynic... who tried to eliminate all
material posessions. He had nothing but a shelter made
of pottery and a cup. Then one day, he saw a child drink
water using his hands, and threw away the cup as well.
And clothes. Apparently his fellow Greeks insisted he
wear clothes. Did he try to forgo clothes at any time.
.
I tend to agree with Don M. But there were several prominent
men with the name 'Diogenes' in the ancient world; including
three philosophers and one historian (ie. Diogenes Laertius).
The earliest philosopher was Diogenes Apolloniates who
believed that air was the primal force, and origin of all things,
and was thus endowed with consciousness. Of the other two,
one was a cynic and the other a stoic, so that might support
our guess that diogenes is the guy you're looking for. My
money is on the cynic, Diogenes of Sinope, who died in
323bce, and who also happens to be one of my favorite all-
time philosophers. This is because he was one of the most
outrageous philosophers ever. He was a begger who made a virtue
out of poverty, and was a relentless critic of social values
and institutions. The ancient greeks called him 'diogenes the
dog' because the philosopher often praised the virtues of the
dog, and taught that people would do well to study the ways
and virtues of our canine companions. Diogenes was one of
the weirdest, but also one of the sanest, philosophers of all
time.
x

---

textman

*