"Ex-favourite"?!

[Eth]

  Now the philosopher which I preferr is Bertrand Russell.  The Big Questions about ontology and such seem to go in circles to me, but Russell can get down to the nitty-gritty of a particular subject and really make a good case.  Take "In Praise of Idleness," (now there's a philosophy for me!) wherein Lord Russell sets up the situation with this: During WWII, while huge proportions of the populations of Britiain and America were involved in the nonproductive action of fighting the Axis, industrial production, governance, etc., everything you need to keep a modern society going, continued uninterrupted.  This suggests that, in peacetime, far too many people are involved in completely unnecessary work.  Busting their asses, and yet doing no one any good.  Russell then advocates that people stop doing so much useless work and sit down and write anti-Christian diatribes or something. 

  "Mmmmm...  Milky Way bars are delicious."  -Stealth Advertising Eth

  I suspect (having read only summaries) that Hume, of the major Western philosophers, fits most into my idea of the nature of being.  There is no soul, we are simply a convenient collection of thoughts, emotions, and animate meat.  Where we begin or end is arbitrary, like the surface of the sun or the boundary between "Earth" and "space."  Rather Buddhist, Hume.  I really have no excuse; Hume's books make Adam Smith's look like the unabridged dictionary in comparison. 

  I rarely have to resort to abebooks or its ilk, as I work at the largest new and used bookstore in the world.  I'm at the center of the web; everything comes to me if I am patient.  I think I've ordered one book over the internet in the last six years, and that was only because it was an absurdly good deal (8 bucks for a book which routinely sells for over $100 on eBay and has never, to my knowledge, found its way to my store). 

  Wow, this post is going all over the place randomly.  There is no organization; there is no theme; there are excessive semicolons. 

  On of Aristotle's biggest contributions, as I understand it, was to logic.  We still use the syllogism to this day.  In my logic class recently, we used an alternate logical model developed by Stephen Toulmin, which I found interesting.  It seems to be a bit more useful in some circumstances. 

  As the intellectual descendant of a bunch of revolutionaries, I certainly find Socrates's views on obedience to the state to be rather alien, but he expresses his philosophy (or Plato expresses whomever's philosophy) with sufficient clarity that I can at least understand the reason he stayed in Athens and drank the hemlock.  I'm seriously considering getting a framed print of David's Death of Socrates for my home.  It's quasi-messianic theme appeals to me, for some reason. 

  Er, on more thing.  What was it?  Actually two more things: Homer and Animal Crossing. 

  Homer.  I kept looking at the classics.  Thucydides?  Herotodus?  Finally, I realized that I should start with the Foundation!  Homer.  So here I am.  Haven't read Ovid, don't really know much about him except what was in Eyes Wide Shut (the lecherous Hungarian talks to Nichole Kidman about Ovid a bit). 

  Animal Crossing.  My efforts appear to be bearing fruit.  Pecan, the cute chipmunk chick, has responded to my blandishments.  I've taken to sending her fashionable clothing in the mail, and her manner has become far less teasing and more overall positive.  And! on Valentine's Day she sent me a very nice card, where she called me "LoveBilly" (my character's name is Billy), said I was her favorite person, and sent me a rather nice couch!  So, clothes work, gentlemen, even on virtual chipmunk-women! 

[Sedodes]

Very roughly, Smith said we understand the actions and motivations of others according to a (sub)conscious process whereby we imagine ourselves in their position, or their position as we imagine it. I don't see what this has to do with economics, frankly. He talks about the very basic mechanics of how we perform ethical calculations.

Ahhh, yes, let's quantify philosophical outlooks in a few sentenses... truly, we'll adequately express the beliefs that people spent years of their lives attempting to detail and express.

I tell you what, go read the Theory of Moral Sentiments, it's not that long and may even be on the internet somewhere, then come back and we'll discuss it. Stop trying to play the expert game all the time!

And you have the audacity to chide ME for being unecessarily "vitrolic" (in the same thread, no less).  I forgot how thoroughly you played the hypocrite.  Congratulations, you had me fooled for a few days with all your talk of how people change.

I'll tell YOU what, attend a macroeconomics class and open your mind instead of just your mouth.  It's not a very difficult subject, and if you actually listen to whats being said instead of merely what you agree with (which seems to be the source of your base philosophical grasp) then maybe you'd see beyond your own ego and understand what I'm talking about.  ASocratic isn't a word, but it would certainly apply to you if it were.


Eth,

I'm only topically aware of Russell.  Any suggestions as far as reading to better familiarize myself?

Hume actually kicked off my interest in Bohm and subsequently my interest in Quantum Thoery.

Obedience to the state is based on the idea of a state which operates in the best interest of the people.  Something rather alien to Americans born after the 1930's.  Of, by, and for the people what?

You know what works better than ANY material gift for winning a woman's heart?  Eye contact.  While I doubt that standing your character in front of your chipmunk mistress is going to have her going ga-ga over you, perhaps giving a few more minutes of face-to-face time to your wife will award you with activities other than video games.  And that goes to all of you without wives as well... just don't spend stalker-amounts of time doing it until AFTER you've said, "I love you."

[Viropher]

Now, now, calm down. I didn't mean the "go and read etc." thing in the tone you seem to have taken it in. The expert game remark was unfortunately placed, reading the quote it does strike me that it affects the tone of the previous sentence in a very disagreeable manner, I'm sorry about that.
   That was very cheap about me only understanding things I agree with - honestly, man, keep it above the belt. Trying to criticise me for just briefly summarising Smith was very cheap, too, I felt - why would I go into it in extreme depth when I gave sufficient detail to illustrate my point? Good grief, man, it's all a bit beside the point, isn't it? I'll reiterate my point - Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations, yes, but this doesn't strike me as any reason at all to treat his philosophical work with suspicion. Do you agree? I'd certainly be dubious of how morally discerning lovers of business are as a rule, but this prejudice in itself (which is what of course you were appealing to when you described it as "disturbing" to respect Smith's philosophical work) is hardly grounds to dismiss his other work. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable here.
    I get the impression that you like argument (not entirely, of course) for its own sake. I said one thing, "stop trying to play the expert game", and one thing alone which could be seen as inflammatory. I genuinely meant that you should read TMS, I'd love to discuss it. If I had re-read my post I would have reworded it so that there was no danger of being misunderstood.
    Now, now. Should I say you over-reacted to my "expert" remark? I didn't mean it in a very harsh way, certainly, but I don't want to start bickering with you and trying to say who can accuse who of hypocricy in increasingly complicated ways. I truly think it's fair to say there is a definite theme of boastfulness to your posts (as no doubt there is in mine), and it was to this I was alluding. Your "hypocrite" remark was extremely vitriolic indeed, incidentally, I found it extremely off-putting.

I found Hume's "bundle of perceptions" theory leaves nothing to actually hold (i.e. experience) experiences, nothing to tie them together, the extent that it seemed untenable. He said every word or idea (ha) that refers to a non-physical thing is an illusion, a phallacy, and should be erased from the English language, something I also find problematic. I've forgotten a lot, though, although I'd be happy to try and find my notes on him, it could well be a laugh. I think there was probably something awkward about his take on personal identity, too, (beyond the "bundle" stuff, I think) although I can't remember what he said any more. Like I said, the notes, the notes!

PS As for Aristotle, it's his Ethica Nichomanthia (sp?!) that I find really interesting - logic, as a subject, is something I find painfully tedious. Virtue Ethics is, I think, both the best and the worst of the main ethical codes "on offer" in philosophy for the same reason; its vagueness. Just as Kantianism (robotic, inhumane) and Utilitarianism (despotism of the majority) fall down in attempting to be strict guides to ethical conduct and thereby making them unavoidably problematic in real life, virtue ethics is infinitely more practical but technically not entirely defensible.

[Eth]

Ahhh, yes, let's quantify philosophical outlooks in a few sentenses... truly, we'll adequately express the beliefs that people spent years of their lives attempting to detail and express.

  Cheap shot.  This is really beneath you, Sedodes.   

I'll tell YOU what, attend a macroeconomics class and open your mind instead of just your mouth. 

  Gah, I think I took one back in my Antioch days.  One of the stupidest classes EVER.  I mean, it was okay, as far as it went, but that is only so far.  The problem with economics, like so many social sciences refined during the nineteenth century, is that it tries to apply the rigorous predictive methods of the hard sciences to something very, very soft: human behavior.  It really stems, in large part, from the opinion widely espoused during the Enlightenment that man was a "rational animal."  This is, in my experience, simply untrue.  While man is capable, on occasion, of behaving rationally, it's very often that he behaves irrationally. 

  But back to Economics.  Its predictive powers (say, w/r/t stock prices) are extremely weak.  The textbook assigned in my class (Lester Thurow's The Future of Capitalism) was a fucking mess.  It had no footnotes, references, nada!  It was just this guy pontificating, expecting his readers to trust his reputation as a world class economist while he makes claim after claim.  We were all pretty disgusted with Mr. Thurow, you can bet, as many of us had background in the hard sciences and even some of the social sciences.  In addition to Philosophy, I run the Sociology section at work, and I've never seen such a load of bull as that Thurow book.  Is my experience representative?  Dunno.  But I won't be bothering with economics any time soon, you may believe. 

I'm only topically aware of Russell.  Any suggestions as far as reading to better familiarize myself?

  Well, my favorites were In Praise of Idleness and Why I am Not a Christian.  These are relatively light and amusing, the latter especially, as it grabs various Christian practices and mercilessly dissects them.  He has a pretty good History of Western Philosophy, which is one of the better treatments of the overall panorama of western thought.  He also did some important mathematical works which are of no interest to me, but are considered to be a major accomplishment for him (and his co-author, Alfred North Whitehead): The Principia Mathematica

You know what works better than ANY material gift for winning a woman's heart?  Eye contact.  While I doubt that standing your character in front of your chipmunk mistress is going to have her going ga-ga over you, perhaps giving a few more minutes of face-to-face time to your wife will award you with activities other than video games. 

  Now just what are you implying?     Video games are one of my wife's and my common interests.  Ahhh, I remember, soon after we'd met, having her sit in my lap, wearing my huge '70's headphones, playing Dark Forces on my computer.  Anyway, yeah, I'm not too into material gift-giving, either, but I guess if you're interested in a certain kind of woman, it might be a good idea.  I'll stick to the gamer chicks, though.   

I found Hume's "bundle of perceptions" theory leaves nothing to actually hold (i.e. experience) experiences, nothing to tie them together, the extent that it seemed untenable.

  Is it possible that the thing that holds experiences together is nothing more than a linguistic construct, though?  It's very difficult, I find, to discuss this topic in English.  Sometimes I think I should learn Japanese or something; I have a feeling it has this concept built into it. 

He said every word or idea (ha) that refers to a non-physical thing is an illusion, a phallacy, and should be erased from the English language, something I also find problematic.

  Well, that may be taking materialist philosophy to the extreme.  At the very least, one should leave some words for the discussion of theories and such.  Not for me, though, I like to have a lot of meaning less words available to me.  They're essential to the human experience, irrational though it may be! 

I've forgotten a lot, though, although I'd be happy to try and find my notes on him, it could well be a laugh. I think there was probably something awkward about his take on personal identity, too, (beyond the "bundle" stuff, I think) although I can't remember what he said any more.

  Yeah, that might be fun.  I'll try to read one of his shorter Enquiries during my lunch break today. 

[Sedodes]

Oh dear, after reading Eth's post I forgot almost entirely what I was going to write to Viropher, and after trying to remember I also forgot almost entirely what I was going to write to Eth.  And I really lack the motivation or interest to go over the posts again, so here's what I remember...

Viropher, to and extent yes, I do enjoy arguing for the sake of argument -- but for a purpose.  I believe that conflict and competition brings forth the best in people, as is evidenced by wars generally driving scientific breakthgroughs.

Eth, a good economics class is much more "fluid" than you seem to believe.  Essentially, it shows you the if-then relationship of things and teaches you merely to recognize patterns and economic indicators.  While human beings may not be entirely rational, their irrationality does in fact react certain ways in certain situations, and a good economist can predict and/or manipulate with a great deal of accuracy what the market is going to do.  If the predictive powers of economics as a science are so "extremely weak" as you suggest, then fiat money and the federal reserve system wouldn't exist.

Of all the economics classes I've taken, none ever had a book for the students to read.  Admittedly, this really hindered those who took poor notes, but it leads to a LOT of student discussion and down-to-earth examples.

[Eth]

PS As for Aristotle, it's his Ethica Nichomanthia (sp?!) that I find really interesting - logic, as a subject, is something I find painfully tedious. Virtue Ethics is, I think, both the best and the worst of the main ethical codes "on offer" in philosophy for the same reason; its vagueness. Just as Kantianism (robotic, inhumane) and Utilitarianism (despotism of the majority) fall down in attempting to be strict guides to ethical conduct and thereby making them unavoidably problematic in real life, virtue ethics is infinitely more practical but technically not entirely defensible.

  I think I'll probably start with the Poetics, as my future career will be that of a dramatist.  That seminal piece of theatrical criticism could be interesting.  I have been taking an interest in ethics, though.  I've completely outgrown my sceptical philosophy but I haven't found anything more...  practical.

Eth, a good economics class is much more "fluid" than you seem to believe.  Essentially, it shows you the if-then relationship of things and teaches you merely to recognize patterns and economic indicators.  While human beings may not be entirely rational, their irrationality does in fact react certain ways in certain situations, and a good economist can predict and/or manipulate with a great deal of accuracy what the market is going to do.  If the predictive powers of economics as a science are so "extremely weak" as you suggest, then fiat money and the federal reserve system wouldn't exist.

Of all the economics classes I've taken, none ever had a book for the students to read.  Admittedly, this really hindered those who took poor notes, but it leads to a LOT of student discussion and down-to-earth examples.

  You know, thinking back on it, I recall having quite a lot of stimulating and sensible discussion in the class.  The book just stuck in my mind because I live in the Land of Books these days, and I see that stupid book, like, every month, and it annoys me.

[Lukipela]

Now there's a question, albeit a fairly childish one... I wonder when all the people who come here get up in their respective time zones? I only have "work" in the afternoons, so I get up at a leisurely ten in the morning, though this earns me looks of scorn in the house. We have dogs, you see, who have trained my parents to wake up at six thirty every day.

I get up 7.20 finnish time, in school/work at 8.15

As a side comment, this would be an awesome topic (Sedodes and Vir debating again!!) had you not both turned out be complete wusses and so amazing polite and reasonable. I'm seriously worried that you've been cloned and replaced.

[Sedodes]

We were always very reasonable and polite.  We were just more acidic, condescending, and stubborn.

But I'm glad to see you agree with me, Lukipela 

I suppose Vir and I succumbed to the pressure of social Darwinism... evolve or perish... our respective environmental changes seem to favour a more laid back outlook.  I have no doubt that deep down we both still have the same pig-headed arrogance which caused such volitility in the past, but for whatever reason it's just no longer worth it to grind our wits against each other.  Truly Vir and I are capable of understanding each-other's points and see that they have their respective validities, so why bother arguing over what we both denote as either sarcasm or opinions?

As for me, I've learned one key thing:  The internet can go fuck itself.  I've got a wonderful woman whom I intend to marry in roughly a year and a half -- and with her I can have both intellectually stimulating conversations and physically stimulating sex.  Unil the internet can provide the latter, it's playing second fiddle.

[Lukipela]

Unil the internet can provide the latter, it's playing second fiddle.

lol u want to cybur?