The Greatest Thinker Of The Millennium

[Florestan]

in my view, to study philosophy now (except as a historian) is like going to university to study alchemy.

my view is that true wisdom is attained when you realize how irrelevant that stuff is to the actual universe we actually live in.

I have no problem accepting your view as long as it remains only that. But you seem to imply that this view of yours is a kind of universal standard by which the views of all other people should be judged. Evidently, Andy, David, Drogulus and me disagree strongly in respect to the value and relevance of philosophy. Does this make us some sort of relics, some sort of antiquated and delusional alchemists (BTW, your understanding of alchemy is very superficial; try read some Jung and Eliade on this fascinating subject) who cling to old and long debunked prejudices, as you seem to mean?

[Florestan]

The evil machinations of the lovers of ignorance are not in the past, they are active now, and they are very dangerous.

Could you please elaborate?

[nut-job]

I have no problem accepting your view as long as it remains only that. But you seem to imply that this view of yours is a kind of universal standard by which the views of all other people should be judged. Evidently, Andy, David, Drogulus and me disagree strongly in respect to the value and relevance of philosophy. Does this make us some sort of relics, some sort of antiquated and delusional alchemists (BTW, your understanding of alchemy is very superficial; try read some Jung and Eliade on this fascinating subject) who cling to old and long debunked prejudices, as you seem to mean?

I see, it is quite natural that when I say "in my view" you assume that I am actually specifying a universal standard.

Odd that you could determine that my understanding of alchemy is superficial, although I made no supstantial statement regarding alchemy.  I can only conclude you are a philosopher, in the pejorative sense of the word.

There is nearly as great a gap between Anglo-American Philosophy rooted in empiricism and that rather mystical mish-mash of ideas known as Continental Philosophy.

Ooops, I missed that remark earlier.  The empiricists I almost view as scientists.  I also have a high regard for Bertrand Russell.  Odd that in science when a theory is proved wrong it is not taught anymore, whereas in philosophy students study philosophies that are utterly and demonstrably wrong.

[Florestan]

IOdd that you could determine that my understanding of alchemy is superficial, although I made no supstantial statement regarding alchemy. 

Really? You can't even remember your own posts.

I tend to think of them as being similar to the alchemists, who produced no correct knowledge, but were valuable as precursors to chemists.

If you think the goal of the alchemists was to produce "correct knowledge" and they  failed, but somehow in the process ushered in chemistry, then your understanding of alchemy is indeed not superficial, it is non-existent.

I can only conclude you're clueless about alchemy, your pretention to knowledge notwithstanding. But I look forward to reading your future uninformed posts, a good laugh is always welcome.

[Haffner]

I also have a high regard for Bertrand Russell.

Well, that definitely tells us alot. Thank you.

[nut-job]

Your using it as a sort of
If you think the goal of the alchemists was to produce "correct knowledge" and they  failed, but somehow in the process ushered in chemistry, then your understanding of alchemy is indeed not superficial, it is non-existent.

I can only conclude you're clueless about alchemy, your pretention to knowledge notwithstanding. But I look forward to reading your future uninformed posts, a good laugh is always welcome.

This is the sum total of my comment on alchemy:

But in my view, to study philosophy now (except as a historian) is like going to university to study alchemy.

I'd be interested to know how you used that as the basis for determining my level of understanding of the subject of alchemy.

[Haffner]

Really? You can't even remember your own posts.


I can only conclude you're clueless about philosophy (and many other subjects as well) your pretention to knowledge notwithstanding. But I look forward to reading your future uninformed posts, a good laugh is always welcome.

Im not sure whether Florestan might be a little harsh here...or simply stating reality. I think I'm going to try and be a little more patient: nut-job, it's best if you read a little more, some of your statements are indicative of a person whom hasn't overcome the "indignant/passionate-to-a-fault" phase of philosophical study and debate. Once you get past the indignation, you'll learn much more and seem more informed. Believe me, I've been there. I used to think the world revolved around Nietzsche/Kierkegaard/Hegel/Sartre/Husserl. Once I ditched that attitude and studied the Greeks, Hinduism...yes, even Analytical Philosophy, I ended up seeing the flaws in the "Continental Trip" I was on (as well as the flaws in the other schools of thought mentioned). However, the most delicious part is the fact that I ended up getting even more out of the philosophy I liked when I went back to it (the aforementioned Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche...Sartre and Husserl were just byproducts of those thinkers for the most part. Just my opinion).

I'm writing this because I think you have a really good brain, and I believe you'll thank me for this later. I am hoping I don't come across as smug, as I meant this post to be in a kind, not generous or self-serving, way. If you see it as smug and/or condescending, it's only because you want to see me that way, which is also indicative of a closed mind. I'm trusting you won't.

[Florestan]

This is the sum total of my comment on alchemy:

No, it's not. As I showed in my previous post, you wrote this as well:

I tend to think of them as being similar to the alchemists, who produced no correct knowledge, but were valuable as precursors to chemists.

[nut-job]

I'm writing this because I think you have a really good brain, and I believe you'll thank me for this later. I am hoping I don't come across as smug, as I meant this post to be in a kind, not generous or self-serving, way. If you see it as smug and/or condescending, it's only because you want to see me that way, which is also indicative of a closed mind. I'm trusting you won't.

You do sound smug, but that doesn't bother me.  As I have mentioned in a prior post, I have read a lot of philosophy in my misspent youth, a lot of it was required for my liberal arts undergraduate degree, a lot I read for my own edification.  I leave that territory behind with some knowledge of it.  I still have my thumb-worn copies of "The Rebel," "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Republic" but there are too many vistas ahead for me to consider returning.

[nut-job]

No, it's not. As I showed in my previous post, you wrote this as well:

Ok, I forgot that one.  Do you claim that alchemy was right, or do you claim that it was not a precursor to chemistry?

[DavidRoss]

If you are referring to me, I could legitimately object to being labeled ignorant, having read and studied a fair spectrum of philosophers, including Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Machiavelli, Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Sartre, Hegel.  I remember being fascinated at the time, but I guess my view is that true wisdom is attained when you realize how irrelevant that stuff is to the universe we actually live in.

I don't think I had you specifically in mind when I made that statement, but your previous comments about Philosophy per se indicate that--although you may have read Aristotle et al--you haven't grasped what Philosophy is about, since you tarred the entire discipline as speculative balderdash--an assessment which itself illustrates the shoddy thinking you protest.

As for your comment about wisdom, I certainly agree that it is not likely to be found in the writings of Hegel and his kind.  Wisdom is much too simple for such intellectuals to grasp.  However, those trapped in adolescent adulation of the intellect usually seem required to pursue it to the limits of their understanding before realizing how self-reflexively vacuous it necessarily is.  

[nut-job]

As for your comment about wisdom, I certainly agree that it is not likely to be found in the writings of Hegel and his kind.  Wisdom is much too simple for such intellectuals to grasp.  However, those trapped in adolescent adulation of the intellect usually seem required to pursue it to the limits of their understanding before realizing how self-reflexively vacuous it necessarily is.  

Finally we agree.

[Florestan]

Do you claim that alchemy was right

Right about what?

or do you claim that it was not a precursor to chemistry?

It was only accidentally and unintentionally so.

[Florestan]

II certainly agree that it is not likely to be found in the writings of Hegel and his kind.  Wisdom is much too simple for such intellectuals to grasp.  

I don't think anybody here made a case for Hegel's being right. The whole controversy started from this post:

There's a guy at Ford who invented in intermittent windshield wiper mechanism.  He did more for humanity than those three [i.e., Hegel, Schopenhauer and Jung] combined.

to which Andy replied that reading the three had an enormously positive impact on his life, to the point of changing it for better, and asserted his belief that this might be the case with some other people as well, thus stressing that the importance and relevance of philosophies is not to be found in their being right or wrong, but in their impact on an individual's life. That's how I understood it, at least, and that's what I defend as well.

Just as in another thread someone compares a three-minute long song with a half-an-hour long symphony in order to prove the a priori idea that pop music is inferior to classical music, in this thread it seems that some people compare Hegel with scientific textbooks or Schopenhauer with windshield wipers in order to prove the a priori idea that philosophy is useless because not science-and-technology oriented. Apples and oranges in both cases...

[nut-job]

Right about what?

Right about anything?  It was based on an essentially incorrect theory of the nature of matter, it allowed its practitioners to develop some simple chemical processes, which worked for an entirely different reason than they thought.  I understand alchemy is associated with a mystical philosophy which you probably value very highly, which "is not even wrong" as the physicists say.

[Florestan]

Right about anything?  It was based on an essentially incorrect theory of the nature of matter, it allowed its practitioners to develop some simple chemical processes, which worked for an entirely different reason than they thought.  I understand alchemy is associated with a mystical philosophy which you probably value very highly, which "is not even wrong" as the physicists say.

It is exactly these misconceptions about the nature and scope of alchemy that I correctly diagnosed from your previous posts and which were addressed, in a brilliant manner, by Jung and Eliade among others. I reiterate my recommendation to read them, but I don't expect you will. After all, you don't have any need for philosophers' stone, do you?

[Renfield]

I am always intrigued by how both advocates and detractors of philosophy instinctively split it into all sorts of sub-sections, as if it were a pizza with more than one topping, and the respective onions/anchovies of the opposition must be expunged along with the dough they sit on.

Of course, it might be I who am taking an unnecessarily (perhaps altogether unwarranted) holistic view. But the psychologist part of me still wonders if this might not be because straw-men are easier to argue against.


It is also interesting to see the old spectre of "intricacy covers lack of content" is as present as ever.

And I say this even as someone whose greatest philosophical interest is in formal logic. Does not analytic methodology include the skill of making sense of statements, no matter their complexity - necessary or otherwise? I'd think it does, but of course I do not know.


Regardless, I will leave this thread to the opinions of its other participants, as I do think there is a time and place for everything.

[Haffner]

I still have my thumb-worn copies of "The Rebel," "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Republic" but there are too many vistas ahead for me to consider returning.

Well, those are three books...

You do sound smug.

You're just bringing what I predicted earlier to fruition. You want to see me that way, even when I pointedly state that I didn't mean it that way.

It's your problem. I personally hope you'll learn sooner than later.

By the way, I believe in you.

[Haffner]

 Wisdom is much too simple for such intellectuals to grasp.  However, those trapped in adolescent adulation of the intellect usually seem required to pursue it to the limits of their understanding before realizing how self-reflexively vacuous it necessarily is.  

This tells us something about your own, personal philosophy (this isn't a condemnation or approval, as you probably guessed).

[drogulus]

Ooops, I missed that remark earlier.  The empiricists I almost view as scientists.  I also have a high regard for Bertrand Russell.  Odd that in science when a theory is proved wrong it is not taught anymore, whereas in philosophy students study philosophies that are utterly and demonstrably wrong.

     Since little in philosophy is verifiable, it can't be judged by the standards that prevail in science. The best of philosophy is that which supports and accommodates natural philosophy, that is, science. That means that the rule-based activity the philosopher engages in should have as it's principle goal explaining why it's sound practice to verify claims the way that scientists do. No wonder many scientists find nothing in philosophy. What is there to find is what they are doing already.

     The philosopher makes rules instead of discoveries. Discoveries are verified, and rules are used. What the empiricists and pragmatists are saying is that the verifications the scientists use are their own justification. Many other philosophical trends take the view that some other higher form of guarantee must underwrite these claims or they lack legitimacy. A god or Absolute Form must make things true or everything will fall into chaos or won't exist. Radical pragmatists like Rorty (though they don't see this) are covert absolutists whose relativism about truth is just a variant of "There's a god so I won't eat my baby". Naturally they look askance at any view, like that common among scientists, that things run on their own without authorities butting in.