Philosophy discussion

Hi Glen --

Thanks for your posts, and especially your book recommendations. Besides actual philosophy books, much of the ordinary literature we have is interesting for its philosophical content. The mention of Dostoyevsky reminded me of that. It would be a good thread topic, too.

Plato's Republic is good, but I agree about the philosopher-kings. If we had them today in place of politicians, I'm convinced the world would be better governed. But the the way Plato proposes developing them has disaster written all over it. I hope the planet can find at least a few ready-made, or with at least some proficiency in critical thinking. By the way, I read about a year ago that Meditations by Marcus Aurelius was the fifth best-selling book in China.

I haven't yet read Russell's The History of Western Philosophy because of its length and scope, but I have it on my to-read list. I did read The Prince. Of course you know that Machiavelli's ideas have been given a political afterlife by Leo Strauss, who argues against the Enlightenment and has influenced politics in the United States so greatly in recent years.


A question. In "Howards End " one of the characters believes she is more attached to a place rather than people. I'm sure I know people that have this feeling. Can you recommend a good book on this subject?

I wonder if there's a name for this feeling. If I understand it correctly, I think in fact I can recommend such a book: Austerlitz by W.G. Sebald. I just read and reviewed it, and it might be what you're looking for. It's an excellent piece of writing.


He and his colleagues always drew straws to determine who had to teach the engineers philosophy.

You don't know how I laughed when I read this. It reminds me of the Rationalists who sought absolute certainties in a contingent universe. And what were they? Mathematicians! I've noticed engineers are hard on philosophy, and it must be an innate desire for absolute answers such as what math yields. But I didn't know they had become that insufferable!

You might at some point want to add the philosophy books you like to the bookshelf, which has been growing lately, thanks to Douglas. Meanwhile, start or join any thread topics you like, and welcome to the group.

Hello everyone,

My interest in philosophy comenced a few years ago, in the troubling years of puberty. I'm sure you are all familiar with it; the existentialist crisis. For a while, I became obessesed with the idea of identity (my own in particular). I sporadically read stuff on the internet, (blogs, articles, wikipedia,...) desperately searching for answers. Of course, life being the riddle that it is, and human knowledge being flawed, I didn't find (or couldn't?) find definitive answers.
Though that did not matter. I had tasted the sweet cake that is philosophy, and longed for another slice.

Somewhere I typed something about puberty, one could argue with me being only (merely) 17 that I'm still in that fase. I do not concur. Though, this subject is of no importance.

To this day (26th of may!) I'm 'still' interested in the subject. Occasionally reading books by grand philosophers (Nietzsche most recently) and such. What I do more commonly, is to philosophize myself, my reason for joining this groupe. I'm thinking it would be a pleasant experience sharing with you all my views. What they are, I will not reveal just of yet. I would not want to give out anything, and get my ass handed to me in a debate of course!

Do believe my when I say I'm excited about this and am ready to participate in the numerous debates.

On a (rather small) side note: I'm not a native English speaker or writer (or listener!). Though I am of the humble opinion that my English is rather good, sufficient enough to communicate subjects of deeper thought, I do occasionaly make spelling errors. Do not worry, hugely erroneous spelled words will be scarce, I might once or twice, forget a vowel or lettres. In advance, I ask your forgiveness!

Hello Chiel --

It's good that you're already interested in philosophy at your age, because, like English, it's something you get better at over time. It's hard to find good Internet discussions of many subjects. I find that strange; the Internet can be the perfect medium in which to talk about philosophy because even normally reserved people can "test" their opinions among each other.


... it would be a pleasant experience sharing with you all my views. / ... I'm excited about this and am ready to participate in the numerous debates.

Well this is exactly the group to do just that! You can add comments to the discussions or you can start a thread topic of your own.

What they are, I will not reveal just of yet. I would not want to give out anything, and get my ass handed to me in a debate of course!

I don't think that will happen. Different posters have different levels of knowledge about the subject, but philosophical discussions tend to be a matter of jointly seeking solid ground. What in philosophy is called "argumentation" isn't the same thing as a debate, because debating tests rhetorical expertise, while philosophy aims more at objectivity.


So if you have an idea or opinion you want to test or try out, this is the place for it. Feel free to join in, and welcome to the group.

Hello all!

I have always pondered the question that philosophy attempts to answer, since I remember. I was brought up in the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, where I was taught all about the great thinkers. At this point I am just sucking up all the knowledge I can and beginning to develop some of my own theories.

I hope you all can help teach me!!

Hi Davis --

Thanks for posting your introduction. I've always thought of Unitarian Universalists as the congregation most attuned to philosophical aspects of religion, and I really wish my own religious upbringing had been more like yours! Welcome to the group, and join the discussions whenever you like.

Hello everyone!

As someone with an interest in science I'm especially fascinated by epistemology. The greatest problem of all seems to me to be that of the human mind. It provides us with our only access to the physical world, but at the same time it's our greatest obstacle to understanding said world. All sensory information is filtered through it and is changed in imperceptible ways. How can we possibly "escape" the mind to know the world as it is?

Looking forward to participating in disussions here!

Hi Rebecca --

I was just reading a book by Thomas Nagel, Mortal Questions, that talks about the mind. He sums up the problem: There is no objective way to describe experiences. If physical states can’t describe mental states and vice versa, does the gap between mind and body mean we live in two worlds? Nagel doesn’t think the problem is that serious, so he asks us to look carefully at our language and concepts when we talk about the mind. Perhaps that's where the problem lies.

I think that if the mind provides only imperfect access to the physical world, the question comes up as to what “perfect” access would be. It would be God’s view, no? But is a God’s-eye standard of knowledge suitable for man, or are we simply importing religion into philosophy under another name?

The question touches on the difference between absolute knowledge and contingent knowledge. Science discovers only contingent truths. But scientific facts are still powerful explanations, the only accounts of the world we can really count on.

It is fascinating how sensory information is filtered in the brain. The senses provide us with perceptions, but the brain then has to build concepts from them; this is where mistakes can happen.

Further, we now know how much sensory input the brain ignores, and we know that other creatures have different sensory inputs. Bats detect their environment through echolocation. What if humans had echolocation ability as well? What would we be like then? How would that change our consciousness?

Welcome to the group, Rebecca. Epistemology is a broad subject and there's so much in it to talk about.

Thanks for sharing interesting views. I'll definitely look up Thomas Nagel's book.

<
Are you saying that in addition to the faulty link between mind and matter there is also an obstacle in our very nature that keep us from grasping things the way they really are? It's a rather depressing point of view, assuming there really exists a real world out there. But I guess it would explain why philosophy, as opposed to the natural sciences, has so far failed to give any certain answers.

Hi Rebecca --

Are you saying that in addition to the faulty link between mind and matter there is also an obstacle in our very nature that keep us from grasping things the way they really are?

I don't think the dichotomy between mind and matter is best described as faulty. The question is more whether one can be described in terms of the other. Possibly not, but then we have to ask: Is that really a problem?

Being humans, there is surely something preventing us from seeing the way things really are. It's our point of view. We don't perceive things the way they really are, but instead we pick up their "phenomenal" appearance in our world. Whether this is an obstacle, or to what extent it is, is one of the hottest topics in philosophy right now.

But I guess it would explain why philosophy, as opposed to the natural sciences, has so far failed to give any certain answers.

This is an interesting topic for the epistemology thread. It would involve talking about objective and subjective states of thinking. An epistemology that allows us to discuss private experiences, for example, is an intriguing idea.

This thread is fine for your post, Patrice, but I haven't yet read Don Quixote. Has anyone read it?

Yes, I read it a few years ago.

I think "Don Quixote" has lots of philosophy in it even though many think of it as a satire on chivalry. It is one of those pieces of literature than can be interpreted in so many ways. It has an important place in literature as it was written in the early 1600's.

It covers more than just Artistotle and Plato. e.g.

"we must take time as it comes, and our lot as it falls"

Fortune " she neither sees what she does, nor knows who she raises, nor whom she casts down"

" we did not know our happiness till we had lost it"

'make it thy business to know thyself, which is the most difficult lesson in the world."

" be a father to virtue, but a father-in-law to vice"

'the more eminently virtue shines , the more it is exposed to the persecution of envy"

" the pen is the tongue of the mind"

" our greatest foes, and whom we must chiefly combat are within"

Not always too serious

Women- "not to love when we love them, to love when we love them not"

"he said there was but one good woman in the world, and his advise was, that every married man should think his own wife was she, as being the only way to live contented"


I enjoyed the character of Sancho Panza more than that of Don Quixote. I think the author Cervantes was well read and included many of the philosophical statements of different intellectuals through the most unlikely comic figure of Sancho Panza. It gave a different bite or context to statements we have read or heard elsewhere. Maybe Cervantes wanted to make sure the reader got the point (like Dickens did sometimes). Maybe he was saying something similar to Emerson

"There is a certain wisdom of humanity
Which is common to the greatest man with the lowest,
The learned and studious of thought
Have no monopoly of wisdom."

from the book "The Tao of Emerson"

In my opinion, the book is too long and a bit redundant but worth reading. I can't believe how often Don Quixote or Sancho Panza are mentioned in other pieces of literature.

The author poked fun at a lot of things but he also used the novel? to make you think about ethics and the meaning of life.

The author is definitely questioning things throughout the book. The character, Don Quixote, had definitely lost his sense of reality. I think Cervantes was making fun of the pretentiousness in the culture of his day. That's a very broad scope for a story.

Only Cervantes knows what the most important theme or themes he wanted the reader to understand. I think your statements are all valid. We all have our own personal perspective and get different insights from the same book. I'm inclined to use "can" rather than "must" be questioned and "may not be what they seem". "We all put trust in our senses but we can be fooled and should be open minded." I'm inclined to be less bold than you even if I am opinionated. Your statement " Appearance does not equal reality" sits well with me.

I think the author wanted the reader to assess his own perspective of reality. I don't think the book had a single theme. It is a book the uses comedy to make us think.

Hey everyone,
I'm 35, a musician, and an avid reader of philosophy. I do not read philosophy for any pedagogical reasons or to impress my neighbors, I am simply a student of life.

I am fairly new to goodreads and like Tyler explains in his second post, philosophy is best done with other people. The internet has proved to be a most useful tool in this for there are not as many fans of philosophy as baseball. I do not have favorite philosophers but rather favorite arguments and positions on certain problems and inquiries.

I am not professionally trained from a university, I was far to influenced by Thoreau and Lao Tsu in my early years to commit to college, and so dropped out after the second year. I'm glad I did because of my willingness to approach problems of philosophy from multiple angles rather than one paradigm of thought. I favor no philosophical movement because they all move me, from post-modernism to empiricism. I have always been into ontology and epistemology.

As I mentioned I am a musician and I play a host of instruments. I mention this because the time I spent learning kept me from studying major works of philosophy in a coherent fashion, but I read as an accompaniment, mainly because the focus I put into playing, and the emergent qualities making and writing music gave me, were an insight into something greater than normal perceptions allow for. The path I have taken has been in response to my interactions with immediate life circumstances rather than a well plotted course of philosophical study.

Favorite books or philosophers include:
John Locke
Immanuel Kant
The Upanishads
Bertrand Russell
Tao Te Ching
Dostoevsky
Plato
St. Thomas Aquinas
Voltaire
Hagel
Structure of Scientific Revolutions

I love knowledge. I want to know what it is and how we come to it. I love to experience it like a piece of music.

Nice to meet everyone.

BTW it so happens I am audio booking Don Quixote at the moment, I'm on chapter 25. Another Aristotle nod in the book was "One swallow does not make a summer". I'm actually not enjoying as much. It is very enlightening and insightful, but far to long winded.

Hi Brian –

Welcome to the group. As you mentioned, I like the Internet as a venue for philosophy, and it's hard to say exactly why. Possibly it’s that the technology provides an otherwise unobtainable balance between detachment and immediacy that makes it such an effective tool.

I do not have favorite philosophers but rather favorite arguments and positions on certain problems and inquiries.

I agree. I also wonder if it’s necessary to stay within one particular school of thought to answer every question that comes up. A decidedly existential line of reasoning might be the best approach to one problem, and logical positivism might provide the most efficient way of handling another. So is this eclectic use of arguments by the same person fatally inconsistent? I used to think so; now I’m not so sure.

I am not professionally trained from a university ...

In many cases, it’s difficult to distinguish between a liberal arts education and a technical one, even within philosophy. So many university degrees nowadays are specialized to the point that they are actually technical school programs with a few core courses thrown in. One can now get a college degree in homeland security, but would that person be getting a well rounded education? Learning is lifelong, and competency at isn’t something necessarily taught in school. We all know people who excelled in their studies, then never read another thing after graduating.

From your list, John Locke and Plato are Kuhn are authors I’ve read. In the future I’d like to read more Plato, Voltaire for my amusement, and Hegel if I dare.

If you don’t see a topic you want to discuss already posted, feel free to start a new thread. I hope you enjoy this group and again, welcome.

Okay, Tyler - I'm here now also. Don't expect much of anything of me other than short posts and simple questions.

Hi Angus --

The members here talk about all kinds of matters, from simple and basic to complex and bewildering. I hope the topics are either broad enough, on the one hand, or narrow enough, on the other, to be useful to everyone who wants to find out more about philosophy.
You can start a thread if you don't see one you like. Welcome to the group.

Hello everybody!

My name is John, I'm from The Netherlands. I'm very much interested in philosophy. The fun thing about it is that you can find philosophical meaning in just about every book, film or other medium you can find. Whether you agree with it or not is another matter of course, but for me it's always a sort of a challenge to find deeper meaning in seemingly spiritless or unintelligent stories.

I have read many articles and books by the better known philosophers like Plato, Descartes, Kant and Russell. I don't favour any particular in person, but I do favour the views of some more than others (naturally). I'm a big fan of the views of Epicurus and the school of Epicureanism.

I'm looking forward to participate in the group and talk to fellow philosophers!

Hello John –

The group has people from several countries, and I believe you have some fellow Netherlanders as members here, too.

Philosophy, as you mentioned, is such an integrating force in thought that it really does add or elicit meaning from almost any thing or endeavor. Especially in the case of books, philosophy adds so much context that I can’t imagine reading certain literature without knowing something about some philosophical idea or other.

It seems the trends in philosophy are usually more interesting than the personalities, and different philosophers often pursue similar lines of thinking. Epicureanism is a topic that hasn’t been taken up yet, and I expect enough members are interested enough to start a new discussion of it. In fact, if I recall, weren’t the charred scrolls from that private library in Pompeii recently found to have been commentaries on Epicureanism?

It’s always good to have new members; be sure to add your opinion to any topic you see that you like – and if you don’t see one you like, you can start your own. We’re glad to have your participation, and welcome to the group!

Hello all,

Honesty, I can't believe I am contemplating studying Philosophy at the graduate level. It began as a minor to support my creative writing . . .

But, that da**!! Aeschylus. Ever since The Oresteia, it seems that I've been on a hermeneutical path, painfully, slowly, "peeling back" different "texts." Oh, that word!

With a pseudo-focus in Rhetoric, Douglas' work invites interest. But, of course, like many here in the group, I have quite a list of books to read.

Balancing literature, philosophy, and drama is wonderful and daunting at the same time. Not to mention, with Plato, Russell, Wittgenstein, etc., a path to Logic and Mathematics.

Here's a book suggestion for Glen re: that idea of "intangible place:" David Abram's The Spell of the Sensous.

I do have some major "holes" to fill, of course. In addition to the Pre-Socratic and classical philosophers, I have a background with the Post-Structural / Post-Modern stuff which, at times, I must admit . . . bores me. Save Peirce. Even though there's not much to "dance" to, there. Only his "qualisign" allows for that. But, he does make it fundamental to his "First Triadic."

Plotinus is a GREAT bridge between East and West--there's almost a little snicker here: "hee, hee, before Christ, Augustine, and Anselm . . . hee, hee."

Consistent with a focus on Rhetoric (NOT sophistical) and the classicists, I am more for "conversation" rather than "discussion." Hence, although I will definitely visit the group here, I may not post too often.

I wish I could answer some of the questions to the lead message; but, I'm still discovering.

--R.A.

R.a. wrote: "Hello all,

Honesty, I can't believe I am contemplating studying Philosophy at the graduate level. It began as a minor to support my creative writing . . .

But, that da**!! Aeschylus. Ever s..."

R.a. wrote: "Hello all,

Honesty, I can't believe I am contemplating studying Philosophy at the graduate level. It began as a minor to support my creative writing . . .

But, that da**!! Aeschylus. Ever s..."

Thanks for the recommendation.

Glen

Sure! Abram's book provides great relief. Although he gives a suggestion (No spoilers), and I agree and applaud it, I don't know if it will be enough.

Hmmmm.

Hello fellow studiers of philosophy!
My name is Iamjustice, or Justice for short.

I am kind of obssesed with philosophical theories on justice, (hence the name), and society. I am also interested in new age and theological and religious philosophy. My interest was spiked by famous female philosophers, specifically Hepatia.

Iamjustified wrote: "My interest was spiked by famous female philosophers, specifically Hepatia."

Hi Justice.

Not familiar with Hepatia, tell me about her.

Well, Hypatia was not specifically a philosopher. She was also a brilliant scientist and mathematician. She lived in ancient egytian times, around 400BC. She mainly taught, studied and expanded on the teachings of Plotinus and Iamblichus.
Plotinus taught that there is an ultimate reality which is beyond the reach of thought or language. The object of life was to aim at this ultimate reality which could never be precisely described. Plotinus stressed that people did not have the mental capacity to fully understand both the ultimate reality itself or the consequences of its existence.
Iamblichus distinguished further levels of reality in a hierarchy of levels beneath the ultimate reality. There was a level of reality corresponding to every distinct thought of which the human mind was capable. Hypatia taught these philosophical ideas with a greater scientific emphasis than earlier followers of Neoplatonism. She is described by all commentators as a charismatic teacher.

I find these ponderings rather interesting an appealing to my curiosities

Hi all,

Philosophy has been an intriguing subject for me till date.

First, I found it to be a curious fruit that fuels talks, debates, and discussion. Then, as I started climbing age-ladder, I became more curious and started reading books - Advaita Sidhantha (the theory of one and oneness) first to show off my opponents how well versed I was. Then, as time went off, I bled and I bled over the theories and antitheories, thesis and antithesis and synthesis (though most of them were obscure and unimpartable knowledge for me).

Now, as time is passing by, like the greeks said democracy, democracy, democracy, I now say philosphy, philosophy, and Philosophy.

But I think most of the time, Philosophy is misunderstood as against science or as just a passing trade for people who like to do nothing (not as in the philosophical sense). This fact, I would like to change as best as I can. Because, if it was not for philosophy of trade or philosophy of war or philosophy of god, we would not be having a conversatoin like this because there would not have been a civilization itself. It was the philosophy, though unintentionally, that steered mankind or womankind through its ups and downs till this moment.

Thanks and regards,

hello!

Iamjustified wrote: "Well, Hypatia was not specifically a philosopher. She was also a brilliant scientist and mathematician. She lived in ancient egytian times, around 400BC. She mainly taught, studied and expanded on ..."

Its good to find new names in the philosophy world. However, did you mean 400BCE rather than BC? Plotinus was from the 3rd century bce is why I asked.

I have been thinking about the epistemic conditions for men and women. I thought maybe women are privileged to a certain foundation of knowledge from men because of the radical difference in sexual drive. While our brains may be able to process data the same our input is biased by our sexual drive. This may allow for women to ascertain things with greater clarity. The other possibility is Western thought has been so dominated by the male paradigm of epistemology that women simply can not be heard because of the non conventional approach to knowledge.

Of course I wouldn't have been able to draw this distinction 100 years ago because of a male centered paradigm of knowledge, I simply wouldn't have seen it either. The 20th century has opened up philosophy even wider if this is the case.

Just to be sure, I'm not trying to say women are different thinkers then men, just that men and women perceive the input differently because our passions bias the data.

Hi IAJ --

Welcome to the group.

I am kind of obssesed with philosophical theories on justice, (hence the name), and society. ..."

Ideas about justice (and morality or ethics in general) and about society form evaluative branches of philosophy, and I'd like to hear more about your "obsession" in future posts! I've recently read a couple of good books on the philosophy behind social organization, and I hope to read more about moral reasoning in the future. How did you become interested in these subjects?

Hi Zealot --

Welcome to the group; I hope you enjoy the discussions.

It was the philosophy, though unintentionally, that steered mankind or womankind through its ups and downs till this moment...

One question that often comes up is whether humans can live without philosophy. I agree with you here. I think everyone is guided by some philosophy, no matter how well they understand it.


Philosophy is misunderstood as against science or as just a passing trade for people who like to do nothing (not as in the philosophical sense).

Philosophy is a kind of thinking about thinking itself, so it may be misunderstood because, in its own way, it's really more important than the sciences and arts.

Philosophy is misunderstood as against science or as just a passing trade for people who like to do nothing (not as in the philosophical sense)./

Philosophy is a kind of thinking about thinking itself, so it may be misunderstood because, in its own way, it's really more important than the sciences and arts./

I find that fact that the sciences were part of philosophy absolutely captivating. In conversation (as opposed to "discourse"), that may be an interesting point: that the sciences used to be called "Natural Philosophy."

We can look at mathematics, too.

Now, despite the "break" from the (social) sciences, philosophy remains, I believe, a fundamental discipline, and still provides a great base from which to further investigation into these various other fields.

Excuse my error: Hypatia awas born in 370 AD.

And, to adress your comment Tyler, here is an example:

Plato in the Republic treats justice as an overarching virtue of individuals (and of societies), meaning that almost every issue he (or we) would regard as ethical comes in under the notion of justice.

Would it be correct to state that every problem mankind has had is some how connected to the idea of justice?

Its interesting to think about. :)

Hello all -

My name is Jason and I've been on Goodreads for a month or two. As an avid reader of history I'm an active member on the History bookclub here at Goodreads. That said, I've always been interested in philosophy but have never really had the opportunity to pursue it. I thought this group would be a good way to learn about it and expand my horizons a bit. I work for an investment company and am also interested in economics, investments, finance, and of course history. I'm looking forward to working with all of you.

Jason

Hi JP --

Welcome to our group. We talk about philosophy at all levels, and several of the threads are great for readers just starting to explore the subject. The group hasn't yet begun talking deeply about how philosophy ties in with economics, and I hope you'll be able to give your input when it does.

You can post on any thread, and if you don't see the topic you want to talk about, by all means start a thread on it. Again, welcome.

Thanks Tyler -

I'm looking forward to you discussions. I also wanted to mention something the group might like. Yale has an Open Course initiative that is really fantastic: http://oyc.yale.edu/political-science.... This one is on Political Philosophy and it's really good. Just thought I'd mention it.

Thanks -- the online "open courses" that have been popping up on the Internet are a real value, giving ordinary fans of philosophy as much access to good instruction as the best students have.

Hello everyone, I've just joined Goodreads, and found myself here while adding books that I've read. I've always been interested in philosophy, as far back as I can remember, honestly. My MA is in philosophy, actually, and I'm in a Ph.d. program at the moment dealing pretty heavily in it, though it's not technically the focus. It's a fine line. Anyway, I'm glad to have found a group of people who are interested in the same thing.

Although I don't want to stir up trouble, did someone really have issue with BC vs. BCE up above? I ask because it was questioned, but the correction to AD wasn't questioned with CE.....

Hi Phil, welcome to the group. I hope you can bring what you've learned in your courses to bear on some of the discussions here.


... did someone really have issue with BC vs. BCE up above? I ask because it was questioned, but the correction to AD wasn't questioned with CE....

Which should be correct? I'm not familiar with Hypathia (I think that's who it refers to), so I don't know.

Tyler wrote: "Hi Phil, welcome to the group. I hope you can bring what you've learned in your courses to bear on some of the discussions here.


... did someone really have issue with BC vs. BCE up above? I ..."

Well, I would say BC and AD, but I'm certainly prejudiced as a Christian theist. Essentially they are both correct, but BCE (before the common era) and CE (common era) is an attempt to remove the Christian influence of BC (before Christ) and AD (anno domini).

Meh, even if there was a law, I'd still probably use BC and AD, but I'd never question someone's usage.

I only asked about it since the correction of BC to BCE struck me as inflammatory.

Oh, I see. I thought there was a BC/AD problem in the dating.

I myself don't have any opinion one way or the other. It seems like a bit of political correctness to come up with a new description for exactly the same system. But I think (I'm not sure about this) Muslims and other non-Christians use the same calendar for historical discussions, so it may be intended to make the dating system more user-friendly. It's an interesting observation.

Tyler wrote: "Oh, I see. I thought there was a BC/AD problem in the dating.

I myself don't have any opinion one way or the other. It seems like a bit of political correctness to come up with a new descriptio..."

Well, non-Western cultures certainly have their own calendars, and use the Gregorian to the extent they are westernized or interact with the west...and if one has issue with BC/AD on religious or cultural grounds, why accept BCE/CE as a simple renaming of the numbering system that still grounds itself in Western culture and Christianity?

We have a de facto standard, and to change the names, or insist on their change, is surely insufficient if someone has an issue with what the system is based on. It seems overly PC to me, at least, and a facade on top of that.

Sure, I like one better than the other, but also, I see no way to truly avoid some sort of presupposition or preemption without using an entirely new dating system, and that (probably) won't happen.

Though, I wonder what influence it would have, as I think the average western individual tends to think of BC/BCE as 'truly ancient', which doesn't necessarily line up at all when looking at the history of non-western cultures....and hey, we've segued into philosophy of history, haha. Opinion(s)?

One of the reasons scholars use BCE is to distinguish between the actual date and that which we use commonly. Even in seminary, we often used BCE, especially concerning the period between the testaments. If one wishes to use it to maintain independence from God, then so be it also.

...if one has issue with BC/AD on religious or cultural grounds, why accept BCE/CE as a simple renaming of the numbering system that still grounds itself in Western culture and Christianity?

One does have to wonder. If I had my way, we'd change the dating system to something like BP/AP (before/after Plato) because that would seem more logical, at least for Western history. Or if not Plato, there seem to be lots of more sensible break points, such as the date of the first use of bronze, the first permanent structure, the first known king or something like that.

I recently started a learning module from the Open University on Philosophy and it got me thinking. While they barely scratch the surface, the module focus is on Isaiah Berlin's discussion of negative and positive liberty (or freedom). I read the entry for negative and positive liberty online from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and it was very informative. I thought we might have a go at this topic.

Not sure where to post, and since my interests tend to lean toward political philosophy I'm wondering if a section for that already exists in the group. Please let me know.

To start though, I'll pose a question. What is the limit of freedom? For example, Berlin describes negative freedom as "freedom from interference" while he describes positive freedom as "freedom to act". In other words, "external" freedom vs. "internal" or moral freedom. But at what point does my freedom to act (my positive freedom) impinge on your freedom from interference (your negative freedom)? The example they give on the OU is that if Country A invades Country B in order to save an oppressed people, but the the oppressed people don't want to be saved. What then is freedom and what is its limit?

Hi Everyone --

To respond to JP's post I've added a new folder titled "Politics and Philosophy." Because politics is an evaluative branch of philosophy, I hope we'll all find many important topics to take up under this new heading.

JP -- I've copied your post to the new folder to begin a discussion on it.

Hi everyone, My name is Keely. I've been on Goodreads for years now, and mainly use the site to keep track of my thoughts, opinions, favorite and most-loathed books, and my intended reading list. For me, it's been a rather introspective process, which has made me feel variously surprised, flattered, amused, and invaded by all my 'friends', followers, and commentators.

I've tried getting into the communities here and there (and even started one of my own), but in the end, I've found myself unable to maintain a connection; but today, my friend Hans invited me to join this group, and now I'm looking forward to participating.

My interest in philosophy began in the half-recalled depths of my youth. I was raised without any specific religious or moral background, and so, from an early age, used a primitive kind of rational philosophy to dissect and comprehend the world around me.

I've come through many phases, continually refining my philosophies, and they have begun to coalesce into something whole and fundamental, though whether this is the result of a more cogent philosophy or a hardening mind I won't presume to conject.

Like a dog, I have answered to many names, among them atheist, materialist, utilitarian, progressive, libertine, Dionysian, master moralist, and realist, in addition to other, less flattering epithets.

I find Nietzsche to be a riotous joy and I despair to ever comprehend the surviving influence of Aquinas in the wake of Newtonian physics.

Hi Keely --

Welcome to the group. I hope you enjoy posting, and if you don't see a discussion topic you like, you can always start a new one.


I've come through many phases, continually refining my philosophies [...:] I have answered to many names, among them atheist, materialist, utilitarian, progressive, libertine, Dionysian, master moralist, and realist [...:]

I think this is the case for many fans of philosophy. Ayn Rand's Objectivism seemed unassailable when I first read it; then came logical positivism; then utilitarinaism; egalitarianism seems to warrant a closer look; anarchy is a difficult proposal to refute; and should we try to develop whole moral systems, or concentrate on the ethical development of single individuals? There are so many ideas.

No single philosophical system seems able to stand on its on for very long before someone comes along with some pretty sound criticism of it. Yet at a minimum, the pursuit of philosophy does effectively alert people to what doesn't work and what not to do.



I find Nietzsche to be a riotous joy and I despair to ever comprehend the surviving influence of Aquinas in the wake of Newtonian physics.

This is a phenomenon I'd like to learn more about myself. Some ideas become ingrained in philosophy and taught in school as part of the historical development of the subject.

Aquinas helps lay the ground for the philosophy of religion, so I'd guess that this is his current significance. But the puzzle you mention may ultimately go as far back as Plato and Aristotle. Nietzsche is a philosopher I'd like to read more of.

Welcome again to the group, and don't feel shy about posting your ideas here.

Thanks you for welcoming me. I haven't proven shy so far, but I will endeavor not to trod too heavily either, lest I scuff the boots of my fellow armchair philosophers.

Tyler wrote: "No single philosophical system seems able to stand on its on for very long..."

In addition, no philosophy is ever quite whole or unified, there are always scraps and threads one can pick up, and end up fundamentally disagreeing with others who ostensibly share your -ism. -isms never fit exactly, which is why I hoped that, by declaring a number of them in series, I could give some sense of both my position and direction, which a sole point could not indicate; a Heisenberg cloud of thought, if you will.

I know Aquinas is fundamental and historical, which is why I group him with Aristotle, from whom he drew so much inspiration. Both struggled with physics and elemental theory, and neither one landed very close to the mark.

I think I find it most unusual that, while debunked scientific methods tend to fall by the wayside, this is less true for philosophies, despite the fact that philosophy is the progenitor of the sciences, and in my experience, remains the heart of scientific exploration.

After hearing a great deal of praise for Aquinas from intelligent Christian apologists, I tried to tackle him, myself, but found that every proof he made showed some fundamental misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

I soon found I wasn't alone in this observation, as there are many well-written examinations of this fact, here's one I've just found for example.

I've yet to meet an Aquinas enthusiast who can account for his Aristotelian discrepancies.

Hum, introductions are so important and yet so fragile; I certainly hope I don't blow it.

Hello, nice to be here. Philosophy is a new obsession for me. I took an Intro class last semester and found it to be so much more than I had ever imagined. I'm even changing to a double major English and Philosophy; I'm that dedicated. But I have a lot to learn and often academia leans toward a certain mind set; you know Aristotle, Aristotle, Aristotle. I'm kind of kidding; I did try to do some reading over the summer and really it wasn't pretty. Blood and tears and hair pulling. Can I just skip all the classics and read Nietzsche and Wittgenstein instead? Not that I don't want to study the Classics, I do love Heraclitus and Avicenna.

Anyway, there is so much to read and talk and think about. It's all so exciting. I;m looking forward to it all.

Hi Jamie --

I know of no way to skip the classics in the standard cirriculum, but I do feel the pull of the later philosophers much more strongly as well. I'd say stick with it until you can get to the later courses. Meanwhile, welcome to the group. You can join any discussion or start a thread on one if it hasn't been discussed yet.

Tyler wrote: "So ... how did you become interested in philosophy and its many children? Are you new to the subject? What part of philosophy do you like best? Which topics do you want to find out more about?
..."

From the time I took an Intro to Phil. course at University, I've been deeply interested in Philosophy. Are there any Bakunin threads here? I'm also interested in Existentialism.