Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Where modern philosophy went wrong...

Sociobiology and Reason have as much to do with one another as you and honest, serious, systematic interest in Philosophy, K... :D :D :D

Will come back to this after 8th Sept, when I have to hand in my MA thesis...

Provisionally, as you know, A8, I would say that Reason has been short-changed when put together with "instrumental". That ["I.R."] is a "wooden iron" type of notion, which then opens up all sorts of shitty foisting possibilities to the jolly interpreters... I reckon they do not understand Reason at all, reducing it to mere Understanding!!! On purpose or not is another matter... But not really "on", as it were...

I say they cannot state anything of this sort without resorting to Reason itself! So, the Q is: is it possible to state something like that at all, as they would need a "higher instance" than Reason to attempt it. And that's foolish, to say the least, for anyone who knows anything about Philosophy, in a critical manner... That is to say, for all of those capable of not falling for the fashionable nonsense...

C ya... ;) :)
 
gorski said:
I say they cannot state anything of this sort without resorting to Reason itself! So, the Q is: is it possible to state something like that at all, as they would need a "higher instance" then Reason to attempt it. And that's foolish, to say the least, for anyone who knows anything about Philosophy, in a critical manner... That is to say, for all of those capable of not falling for the fashionable nonsense...
Click to expand...

Isn't that answering the question, "how can they rationally affirm their choice of themselves?" rather than the question, "how does a claim of reason or a commitment to an ideal or goal become part of the fabric of some form of life?"
 
There's a funny film called 'I am curious yellow' (and 'green' as well I think). Kind of naive but it's a fascinating insight into 60's Sweden and the social cohesion that they had at that time. Now mostly known for the occasional bit of shagging sadly, which might have been shocking at the time but seems hardly worth commenting on these days.
 
gorski said:
Ask the Swedes!!!!:cool:
Click to expand...

Yeah, once they stopped sterilising the disabled in the 1970s, model society.

How much did physical environment and religion play a part in that tho? Physical hardship engenders very strong communities - they aren't socialist, but out mid west USA there are very strong communities with histories of supporting each other, but that don't translate up into state based support systems. Swedish society had that kind of 'common commitment' long before people started writing about socialism simply because it was the only way to survive - an example of what I think BA is talking about earlier...
 
Heh, WTF are you on about?

Sure, no one is perfect - but how much more shit in the world was caused by the Anglo-Americans?

Ids that the kind of "debate" we are fostering now? What kind of a level is that, going to the future with your back turned to it, all the time, just looking into the past?!?

Or by the "natural determinants" - what has been achieved by the Eskimos, then?

What rubbish!!!
 
Dude, it doesn't matter. Anything I say will be written off as rubbish or conservative, and whatever you say is a beacon of light in the anglo-saxon phillistinic darkness. Not that it is, but that's how you see it.
 
:DYou mean, you still can't think of anything even vaguely "clever" to what I posted, as a challenge to your "challenge"?:p:p:D
 
No, I simply can't be arsed to debate with someone for whom anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, stupid or needs to read the texts more, your stock responses to anyone disagreeing with you at any level.
 
Btw does "instrumental reason" even exist? We can talk about some explicit piece of reasoning being instrumental, but is the actual reasoning instrumental?

That sounds obscure, but if you consider that we can talk about our reasoning in retrospect, then you can see that we can have all sorts of accounts of our reasoning depending on the question being asked. It is not as if we are studying an object. There are no categories of reasoning - although there are perfectly sensible characterisations of reasoning.
 
You know I'm right on this, Kyzer, somewhere deep down, dontcha...? ;):D

Yes, K, good Q!!!:cool:

There is a serious, well articulated and deep difference in Philosophy, as developed in Classical German Philosophy, in particular, between Understanding/Verstand, then maybe something in the middle, like Phronesis [in Ancient Greek tradition] - maybe we can call it Common Sense/Bon Sense/Sensusus Communis/zdrava pamet and Reason/Vernunft, as the ultimate instance, indeed.

What does not help is the specific English "tradition" of, by and large, uncritical instance of "Common Sense" being touted as the ultimate in Human Critical capacities, whereas in the European tradition that role belongs to Reason.

Many a misunderstanding stems from there, especially with the English, generally speaking, [not in every single instance, as we know even from this forum], having a dismissive attitude towards Philosophy, frequently equating it with "sophistry" ["he is being philosophical" about something or other]. Moreover, everything is "philosophy" or "has" philosophy, like philosophy of cosmetics, cooking, fashion and whatnot...

Not knowing the "other" tradition, not having read enough, certainly isn't helping...
 
nosos said:
Do you mean is it instrumental in a phenomenological sense?
Click to expand...

Is there any other sense? To explore what 'reason' or 'rationality' are we have to be doing phenomenology, surely? This isn't a scientific investigation (and we should strip phenomenology of all its scientific pretences).
 
Gorski, I used to think along similar lines. I like to think that elsewhere in the world things are better. I'm not so sure these days, but I will concede that the English tend to be superficial, empirical types. But don't forget they also tend to be dreary moralists and its always disapoints me that you - coming from SFRY - don't pick up on this aspect.

But really we are talking about intellectuals - a very small proportion of any population. And I think if I spent enough time around French intellectuals, say, I'd begin to find them nauseating as well. I suspect I wouldn't have to spend that much time, either!

Some of the things you say actually make my opinion of the English go up. Philosophy is sophistry. Not a bad attitude in its own right. What's wrong with it is that it is blind to the real problems that lead to philosophical sophistry.

However all this is talking in very general and vague terms. To make these prejudices into a theory is what philosophical sophistry is all about.
 
A wee bit of cleansing before the day begins, then...

Knotted said:
Gorski, I used to think along similar lines.
Click to expand...

And now you grew up? Ooo, you poor babyyyy...:D

Knotted said:
I like to think that elsewhere in the world things are better. I'm not so sure these days, but I will concede that the English tend to be superficial, empirical types. But don't forget they also tend to be dreary moralists and its always disapoints me that you - coming from SFRY - don't pick up on this aspect.
Click to expand...

Me 3! And it is! Just got back from Sweden. Take my word for it! Minus the cold in the winter - and allegedly it's long. Brrrr. I really don't stand such cold...:(

Oh but I do: the thing is I was in Sweden for a very short time...

And if you meant the English: sure, they are also petty moralists! it's just that the basis is different and has to do with the market...

Knotted said:
But really we are talking about intellectuals - a very small proportion of any population. And I think if I spent enough time around French intellectuals, say, I'd begin to find them nauseating as well. I suspect I wouldn't have to spend that much time, either!
Click to expand...

In France, like here, you have an adversarial model going strong - so it's all about power, dontchaknow... Well, for most of them. And it tends to be quite superficial, too - precisely because of it!

Knotted said:
Some of the things you say actually make my opinion of the English go up. Philosophy is sophistry. Not a bad attitude in its own right. What's wrong with it is that it is blind to the real problems that lead to philosophical sophistry.
Click to expand...

See, for your self-esteem and spite every nation needs someone not afraid of telling it like it is... On the other hand, it does speak of the nation in Q...

Philosophy IS sophistry? Poor, poor troll.:rolleyes: Back to your room!!!!:D

Oh, yeah, you take those kids outta the "real world", shove them onto campuses, isolation and all that, then shove all kinda nonsense into their heads... Bleurghhh!!! My English patients... ermmm, sorry, acquaintances and friends who studied it - gave it up, precisely because it was empty and meaninglesss, disconnected and so on...

Knotted said:
However all this is talking in very general and vague terms. To make these prejudices into a theory is what philosophical sophistry is all about.
Click to expand...

ROOOOOOMMMMMM, I SAID!!!!!! :D
 
Also, all this Wissenschaftslehre stuff, with capitalised names for aspects of the Ego - Reason, Understanding etc. Its just not reasonable to expect people to be familiar with it, regardless of their nationality. Its a dead philosophy 200 year old philosophy, studied by only a handful of people.
 
gorski said:
And now you grew up? Ooo, you poor babyyyy...:D
Click to expand...

Believe me, if you knew what I was like then you wouldn't call what I say now 'trolling'. You haven't seen anything yet. I can do prejudice far better than you.
 
gorski said:
And if you meant the English: sure, they are also petty moralists! it's just that the basis is different and has to do with the market...
Click to expand...

Absolutely not! Its the exact reverse. Its the pretence that morality is transcendental over the real economic life. Ironically enough, its exactly what you do. Its exactly what Habermas does. Petty English moralism is contagious.
 
gorski said:
Rubbish, on all counts!:p

Here's a bitta substance, a bitta "real life" for ya:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=262579

:D
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Habermas - "During the leaden months prior to the outbreak of the war in Iraq, a morally obscene division of labour provoked strong emotions. The large-scale logistical operation of ceaseless military preparation and the hectic activity of humanitarian aid organisations meshed together as precisely as the teeth of a gear."

As if the Iraqi's biggest concern was the simpering "strong emotions" of Westerners. Who cares if it is "morally obscene"?

Let's not forget Habermas was in favour of this "moral obscenity" when it came to bombing the crap out of your country. Its only the fact that Iraqis are winning that this sort of simpering turn around is so popular. A moralist is a hypocrit.

Once upon a time I would have lambasted this as nauseating English moralism. Of course I would have been wrong. Sadly its not confined to the English.
 
Habermas:
"But the "new hybrid of humanitarian selflessness and the logic of imperialist power politics" (Ulrich Beck) has a strong tradition in the US. Among the motives for Wilson to enter the First World War, and for Roosevelt to enter the Second, was also an orientation to ideals that are strongly embedded in the pragmatist tradition. It is due to this fact that we, the nation that was defeated in 1945, were freed at the same time. Seen from this very American, i.e. national, perspective of a normative power politics, it must appear plausible that the fight against Yugoslavia has to be seen through, in a straightforward way without compromises and even, if necessary, with the help of ground forces, without regards to all further complications."
http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/011habermas.htm

Curious how back then the combination of imperialist power politics and humanitarian intervention didn't seem so obscene. Habermas is a wanker of the first order.
 
Garbage! All of it!

Firstly, you MUST quote properly, in the context, if you are to be taken seriously! This is utter garbage, what you just did! It was but a moment in his deliberation... nothing more! And it was turning away from Iraq, to address the EU itself, hardly a thing to object to!

Morality ought to be the basis of politics. Either that or Machiavelli. The Q is - what kind of principles etc.?

As for ex-YU: the ins and outs are debatable but at least one thing isn't - the domino theory effect was looming over the region. To my mind it was the lesser of evils.

I was a strong critic of how it was done etc. Sure, some war crimes on the US side etc. But what was the alternative? The usual British "keep out of", wait and see? Some "good" it did in Bosnia and Croatia before that...

So, right now you are the hypocrite and utterly confused and muddled!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cloo
Are our 'productivity' metrics all wrong?
Replies
6
Views
253
mentalchik
mentalchik
Fez909
Where to start with the Situationists?
2
Replies
43
Views
971
Fez909
Fez909
U
What about a democratic system based on meritocracy where you must earn your right to vote?
2 3
Replies
64
Views
2K
NoXion
NoXion
Cloo
Where to start with bell hooks?
Replies
6
Views
504
GarveyLives
G
RubyToogood
WW2 German propaganda leaflets
Replies
24
Views
523
spitfire
spitfire
Back
Top Bottom