U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2016, 08:08 AM
 
53 posts, read 17,517 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements

Reality is to repeatedly reference famous philosophers (Plato, Adam Smith, Descartes, Hegel), but what if "any homo sapien" wanted to become a philosopher?
Should all talk on Earth just consist of philosophy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2016, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,367 posts, read 1,624,949 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by shellytrokan View Post
Reality is to repeatedly reference famous philosophers (Plato, Adam Smith, Descartes, Hegel), but what if "any homo sapien" wanted to become a philosopher?
Should all talk on Earth just consist of philosophy?
If any homo sapien wanted to become a philosopher, they can. If everyone on earth wanted to be a philosopher, then I guess all talk would tend to generally go to philosophy. there is room on Earth for many topics though.

As 'homo sapien' means 'knowledgeable man' then each homo sapien has the capacity for more than one topic - even though they may prefer a particular topic - like philosophy, or race cars, or ice cream, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2016, 06:57 PM
 
53 posts, read 17,517 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConeyGirl52 View Post
If any homo sapien wanted to become a philosopher, they can. If everyone on earth wanted to be a philosopher, then I guess all talk would tend to generally go to philosophy. there is room on Earth for many topics though.

As 'homo sapien' means 'knowledgeable man' then each homo sapien has the capacity for more than one topic - even though they may prefer a particular topic - like philosophy, or race cars, or ice cream, etc.


I would have to agree, insofar as being a philosopher just casually, but I think what I really mean is in terms of being a Plato, or a Descartes or Hegel.


Philosophy in of itself includes being self-destructive; the logical conclusion of philosophy can mean being anti the very things that philosophy needs. This is the problem I'm trying to address.
If philosophy inherently demands that not everyone becomes a Plato, or a person who is known as a philosopher (because such a reality requires the inability of nations and capitalism), isn't it then error for any philosopher to be about attacking the nation, or capitalism?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2016, 08:59 AM
 
25,740 posts, read 25,262,595 times
Reputation: 24328
No, certainly not. One of humanity's greatest strengths has been its diversity. That, plus our ingenuity, is what has spread us across the globe, allowed us to live in virtually any environment, and so far, survive more than one large-scale disaster that should have caused our extinction.

There's no way "every" Homo sapiens (there's an S, by the way, even if it's singular, as this is our species name) should concentrate on just one portion of life, be it spiritual, intellectual, philosophical, physical, inventive, mechanical or whatever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2016, 09:24 AM
 
53 posts, read 17,517 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
No, certainly not. One of humanity's greatest strengths has been its diversity. That, plus our ingenuity, is what has spread us across the globe, allowed us to live in virtually any environment, and so far, survive more than one large-scale disaster that should have caused our extinction.

There's no way "every" Homo sapiens (there's an S, by the way, even if it's singular, as this is our species name) should concentrate on just one portion of life, be it spiritual, intellectual, philosophical, physical, inventive, mechanical or whatever.
That makes sense. But if it's a certainty, that people across the world have to fulfil different functions, how are people to know who should do one something as opposed to another something - especially when considering that the same person might want to do the same something as someone else?






And there's also the inherent problem of philosophy: is it right for anyone to philosophise against a status quo, when in fact the existence of a philosopher needs that very status quo?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2016, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Whittier
3,007 posts, read 5,082,172 times
Reputation: 3033
Quote:
Originally Posted by shellytrokan View Post
Reality is to repeatedly reference famous philosophers (Plato, Adam Smith, Descartes, Hegel), but what if "any homo sapien" wanted to become a philosopher?
Should all talk on Earth just consist of philosophy?
Let's break this down: "Reality is to repeatedly reference famous philosophers (Plato, Adam Smith, Descartes, Hegel)"

Some people's reality consists of referencing famous philosophers.

"but what if "any homo sapien" wanted to become a philosopher?"

They can.

"Should all talk on Earth just consist of philosophy?"

Of course not. It should be a part of people's lives as much as Art, Science and Math.


-------

Then I read something like this that sounds like you do have formal education...with a few caveats:

"I would have to agree, insofar as being a philosopher just casually, but I think what I really mean is in terms of being a Plato, or a Descartes or Hegel."

Everyone can't be that smart or influential. There are plenty of smart working philosophers working today, but only a few alive today that have been influential. Churchhill, Zizek, Dennett, et al. Just like there are famous NBA players, but only one Michael Jordan.

"Philosophy in of itself includes being self-destructive;"

Ok, I can agree with this.

"the logical conclusion of philosophy can mean being anti the very things that philosophy needs."

I don't think there is a logical conclusion of philosophy. And I don't necessarily agree in this "anti" premise, insofar as it still isn't clearly defined.

"This is the problem I'm trying to address.
If philosophy inherently demands that not everyone becomes a Plato, or a person who is known as a philosopher (because such a reality requires the inability of nations and capitalism), isn't it then error for any philosopher to be about attacking the nation, or capitalism?"

This is where it all falls apart. There are just too many false deductions, assumptions to even be remotely true or arguable.

I don't think philosophy inherently demands anything. Especially becoming or not becoming Plato.

"inability of nations and capitalism?" What does that even mean? The only corollary I could muster is that of labor and leisure, given that most philosophers had the luxury of being a philosopher.

"isn't it then error for any philosopher to be about attacking the nation, or capitalism?" What? I guess if you're a political philosopher you can critique any system you want.


---------

If you're talking about the logical ends of a specific subject; that depends on human will and notions of being "the best."

These are all loaded terms. What I think you are trying to say in the least convoluted way possible is:

There is philosophy.

The goal of philosophy (or any pursuit) is to be the "best." (or not the best???? But let's leave this out of it for now)

Therefore if we are human and Plato is the best philosopher; we should all strive to be Plato.

And in one way that makes sense. If we are to do something, we should do it to the best of our ability; however we are finite beings with finite skills and innate talents. And although we should try to do our best, sometimes there is a threshold we cannot pass, due to lack of resources, talent, time, and or other obstacles.

----

Ironically your posts are just this. I'm/we're trying WAY to hard to decipher whatever it is you're saying and in "reality" it shouldn't be this difficult.

Even a radical like Nietzsche made sense, defined his concepts and was able to be studied...until he eventually went crazy...so there's that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2016, 11:51 AM
 
53 posts, read 17,517 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
Let's break this down: "Reality is to repeatedly reference famous philosophers (Plato, Adam Smith, Descartes, Hegel)"

Some people's reality consists of referencing famous philosophers.

"but what if "any homo sapien" wanted to become a philosopher?"

They can.

"Should all talk on Earth just consist of philosophy?"

Of course not. It should be a part of people's lives as much as Art, Science and Math.


-------

Then I read something like this that sounds like you do have formal education...with a few caveats:

"I would have to agree, insofar as being a philosopher just casually, but I think what I really mean is in terms of being a Plato, or a Descartes or Hegel."

Everyone can't be that smart or influential. There are plenty of smart working philosophers working today, but only a few alive today that have been influential. Churchhill, Zizek, Dennett, et al. Just like there are famous NBA players, but only one Michael Jordan.

"Philosophy in of itself includes being self-destructive;"

Ok, I can agree with this.

"the logical conclusion of philosophy can mean being anti the very things that philosophy needs."

I don't think there is a logical conclusion of philosophy. And I don't necessarily agree in this "anti" premise, insofar as it still isn't clearly defined.

"This is the problem I'm trying to address.
If philosophy inherently demands that not everyone becomes a Plato, or a person who is known as a philosopher (because such a reality requires the inability of nations and capitalism), isn't it then error for any philosopher to be about attacking the nation, or capitalism?"

This is where it all falls apart. There are just too many false deductions, assumptions to even be remotely true or arguable.

I don't think philosophy inherently demands anything. Especially becoming or not becoming Plato.

"inability of nations and capitalism?" What does that even mean? The only corollary I could muster is that of labor and leisure, given that most philosophers had the luxury of being a philosopher.

"isn't it then error for any philosopher to be about attacking the nation, or capitalism?" What? I guess if you're a political philosopher you can critique any system you want.


---------

If you're talking about the logical ends of a specific subject; that depends on human will and notions of being "the best."

These are all loaded terms. What I think you are trying to say in the least convoluted way possible is:

There is philosophy.

The goal of philosophy (or any pursuit) is to be the "best." (or not the best???? But let's leave this out of it for now)

Therefore if we are human and Plato is the best philosopher; we should all strive to be Plato.

And in one way that makes sense. If we are to do something, we should do it to the best of our ability; however we are finite beings with finite skills and innate talents. And although we should try to do our best, sometimes there is a threshold we cannot pass, due to lack of resources, talent, time, and or other obstacles.

----

Ironically your posts are just this. I'm/we're trying WAY to hard to decipher whatever it is you're saying and in "reality" it shouldn't be this difficult.

Even a radical like Nietzsche made sense, defined his concepts and was able to be studied...until he eventually went crazy...so there's that.




If the UN should say that everyone is the Universe, but doing so gets in the way of philosophy, is philosophy or the UN telling everyone they're the Universe correct?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2016, 12:19 PM
 
25,740 posts, read 25,262,595 times
Reputation: 24328
Quote:
Originally Posted by shellytrokan View Post
That makes sense. But if it's a certainty, that people across the world have to fulfil different functions, how are people to know who should do one something as opposed to another something - especially when considering that the same person might want to do the same something as someone else?






And there's also the inherent problem of philosophy: is it right for anyone to philosophise against a status quo, when in fact the existence of a philosopher needs that very status quo?
We don't actually know, and it's not a question of knowing; rather, it's biology. We have evolved to have this much variety within our ranks. People are born either more capable in certain arenas, or with the desire to become more capable in certain arenas (which will naturally differ from one person to the next), or with certain hindrances that make us turn from one potential occupation to another (for example, a person with spina bifida may not become a ballet dancer as she'd love to be, but instead, becomes a mathematician, a counselor, an administrative assistant, a whatever).

As for whether it's "right," status quo is a bit of a myth itself, really. We all talk about it and how we don't want to be it, but everyone's definition of "the typical person" and "what's acceptable" will vary. Sure, anyone will speak out against one thing or another in any given society. Is this "wrong"? No, it's how change happens and given that our environment and circumstances constantly change, so too must we. "The existence of a philosopher needs that very status quo..." No it doesn't. Define "that" status quo, anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2016, 12:32 PM
 
53 posts, read 17,517 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
We don't actually know, and it's not a question of knowing; rather, it's biology. We have evolved to have this much variety within our ranks. People are born either more capable in certain arenas, or with the desire to become more capable in certain arenas (which will naturally differ from one person to the next), or with certain hindrances that make us turn from one potential occupation to another (for example, a person with spina bifida may not become a ballet dancer as she'd love to be, but instead, becomes a mathematician, a counselor, an administrative assistant, a whatever).

As for whether it's "right," status quo is a bit of a myth itself, really. We all talk about it and how we don't want to be it, but everyone's definition of "the typical person" and "what's acceptable" will vary. Sure, anyone will speak out against one thing or another in any given society. Is this "wrong"? No, it's how change happens and given that our environment and circumstances constantly change, so too must we. "The existence of a philosopher needs that very status quo..." No it doesn't. Define "that" status quo, anyway.


Philosophy can be defined as a reaction to reality, and so if one believes in this definition there's the idea of inherent error because the reaction to something needs the something to exist in the first place: in light of this, I simply think the solution is for the UN to state to billions of people that every one of them is the Universe, or the end credits of a movie, or that their body is the same as the history of a planet or galaxy, because even if those things aren't true or can't be proven reality would nevertheless be changed for the better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2016, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Whittier
3,007 posts, read 5,082,172 times
Reputation: 3033
Quote:
Originally Posted by shellytrokan View Post
If the UN should say that everyone is the Universe, but doing so gets in the way of philosophy, is philosophy or the UN telling everyone they're the Universe correct?
No and yes to everything. No wait, anti that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:50 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top