Philosophy - What Is It?

The Autonomist ^ | March, 2003 | Reginald Firehammer

[Hank Kerchief]

This is a very big post, but it is a very big subject.

I have personally found it odd that very little that is posted in this philosophy category has anything to do with philosophy. This will be a little different, I hope.

Hank

[Maedhros]

self bump for later

[freedom9]

read later bump

[DannyTN]

"We are not only surrounded by idiots, but very deadly ones. How can this be? What is nature of the disease that has driven the world mad?"

Seems Mr. Firehammer has started to realize the fallen nature of man. If and when he accepts that reality and realizes that it is not going to change, then perhaps, he will realize the necessity of making sure that we are the strongest, best armed with the best intelligence.

But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him.

[PeterPrinciple]

so...............prime the pump and comment on a few observations you have about this article.

[MWS]

self bump for later

[reflecting]

Those who have managed to live their lives with no direct involvement in war, live very successsful, satisfying, and usually, long lives.

Those who have managed to live their lives with no direct involvement in war have done so because a zone of security has been provided for them.

[FourtySeven]

Mr. Firehammer makes an excellent case for a need in our society to broaden our horizons past intellectually enriching media, such as Joe Millionare, and biting witicisms like "All Muslims worship a false moon god". However, like DannyTN said, he does seem to ultimately fail in his grasp of the very nature of "man's insanity", which is our inherrently evil nature.

This is why we must "arm to the teeth", in this world, because there ARE "barbarians". Also, there always WILL be "barbarians", because not everyone even has the DESIRE to aspire to philisophical "greatness", much less is so able. There will always be a need for arms and arms races, until Jesus Himself returns, or until the world ends as its engulfed by the sun in approximately 5 billion years (depending on your belief system, which, as a Christian, I believe the former)

This will always be the case; our own history proves this.

However, this article is a very good read. Thanks for sharing Hank!

[Hank Kerchief]

Those who have managed to live their lives with no direct involvement in war have done so because a zone of security has been provided for them.

For most, I suppose, that is true. There is always a small minority, however, who never count on anything being, "provided," and understand what they enjoy in this world must be provided by their own effort. These provide there own, "zone of security," and in all situations.

Hank

[x]

Long article. Three quick points:

1) When something seems to be ridiculous or absurd, yet persists and can't be gotten rid of, it's a sign that there are deeper things at work that keep it alive, so calling war "ridiculous" or "absurd" is a superficial judgement.

2) Randians have been out in front in supporting this war. A society of radical individualists will at times take up arms to defend themselves -- or even to extend their power -- just like other political units. I think this is an indication of one of the problems of Rand's philosophy. "We" are always against "them" curbing our freedom, but when the state is no longer "them" but "us" much more power is allowed to it, just like in other political philosophies.

3) We all do need philosophy, but there's a difference between "a philosophy," which may be a fixed creed or belief, and "philosophy" which looks like endless questioning and doubting. Some people have been crippled by the skepticism inherent in philosophizing. Others who have been strengthened by their philosophy are quite "unphilosophical" in their dogmatism. It maybe that the cure for all the ails of philosophy is more, or better, philosophy -- a philosophy that uses our doubts to overcome doubt -- but that looks like a lifetime endeavor.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Death and destruction is the only purpose of war.

This is so wrong, I can't even get into the rest of it.
Historically wars have had many reasons, and often there are as many purposes as participants.
As a person with a B.A. in Philosophy, nothing is more wrenching than someone positing a fallacy and then going on to prove a point. Right or wrong.

[Hank Kerchief]

Death and destruction is the only purpose of war.

This is so wrong, I can't even get into the rest of it.

There certainly is no end to the justifications, those who prefer to break things than make things, have used to make their war's purpose a good one. Nevertheless, if nothing is destroyed and no one is killed, it could hardly be called war.

The first part of this article is somewhat rhetorical, which I suppose might escape "a person with a B.A. in Philosophy." So, what is the fallacy exactly, in your opinion?

I suppose the writer might have said, "death and destruction are the only methods of war," instead of purpose, but in the actual execution of any war, the point is to destroy things and to kill people. Of course there is always some other objective the destroying and killing are meant to accomplish, but no matter what supposed ultimate purpose of a war is, if there is no destruction and killing, it will not be achieved. At least those who engage in wars believe this, else they would not engage in them.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

When something seems to be ridiculous or absurd, yet persists and can't be gotten rid of, it's a sign that there are deeper things at work that keep it alive, so calling war "ridiculous" or "absurd" is a superficial judgement.

Poverty, famine, and disease dominated most of the world and most cultures for most of history and the only, "deeper things," at work were ignorance, superstition, and oppression. The first 150 years of this country wiped them all out with their reverse, free minds and free enterprise.

A society of radical individualists will at times take up arms to defend themselves -- or even to extend their power

They cannot be both, whatever they claim to be. The only power, "radical indivdualists," are interested in is, "economic," (i.e. the power to produce value) which is in direct conflict with "political" power (i.e. the power to initiate coercive force). Those who fight for power are the aggressors, those who fight to defend themselves, seek only to be "left alone." When both parties to a fight seek power, it is just a battle between thugs, and the outcome does not matter much.

We all do need philosophy, but there's a difference between "a philosophy," which may be a fixed creed or belief, and "philosophy"...

This agrees with footnote #9 in the article. (You may not have gotten that far since the article is so long and I know you only had time to glance at it.)

9. The very fact that there are different "philosophies," is evidence that there is not yet philosophy. There are no different, "mathematics," or "chemistries," only mathematics and chemistry. While different contributors to these fields are frequently mentioned together with those aspects of chemistry or mathematics which they contributed, the contributions are always advances in the body of those sciences already established. The various so called contributions of philosophers are never additions to an established body of philosophy, because they all cover the same ground and contradict each other. Their only contribution is to the body of confusion which now stands in the way of anyone truly seeking to understand philosophical truth....

...and this:

We must not equate Objectivism with philosophy. It is undoubtedly the best single source of philosophy available, but it does contain errors and is incomplete. It is a place to begin, and provides a good base for a continued search for philosophical truth.

That search is the responsibility of every individual....

Hank

[Zon]

Good article. Your posts at 12 and 13 are also good. I'm not much into philosophy per se. I suppose I have enough philosophy to enjoy my life as do I have enough mathematics to live happily.

It seems to me that a radical individualist almost without thinking about it upholds the non-aggression principle -- do not initiate force, fraud or threat of force against another person or their property. It also occurs to me that a radical individualist would be satisfied with justice delivered for wrong doing when it amounts to the following:

The person that thinks they've been harmed takes the person that supposedly harmed them to court and does their best to convince an impartial jury that they have been harmed by the defendant with the intent of gaining restitution for their loss, pain and suffering.

The invisible hand of the free market will encompass the best science and ideas to enhance the individual's happiness and well being as he goes about his work and that work is his best he or she puts forth to serve society. If and when another person harms them they may chose to take it to court before an impartial jury.

The vast majority of people respect themselves, their real nature and their fellow man enough to not even entertain the idea of initiating force, threat of force or fraud against another person or their property. That is enough philosophy for the vast majority of people to live happily, if -- if  -- they are left alone to go about their business as they see fit

Most unfortunate, despite abiding the non-aggression principle the vast majority of people are not left alone to go about their business as they see fit. Instead, they are bounced around from one irrational social engineering concept or idea to another -- most often bounced around by force, threat of force or fraud.

When "X" number of people become aware that they already are well enough equipped to live happily with increased well being and prosperity and, that it is not themselves but people that get paid to tell them how they need to live or how they must live because it's supposedly best for society (politicians and bureaucrats top the list) that is holding them back by violating the non-aggression principle, the parasitical elite will quickly lose their ability to wield coercive power and fraud and either reeducate or be left in the dust as the vast majority of people rapidly increase their own well being to live happily benefiting society in the process.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

The first part of this article is somewhat rhetorical, which I suppose might escape "a person with a B.A. in Philosophy." So, what is the fallacy exactly, in your opinion?

I realize that it's rhetorical. That does not mean it's a good way to start out a paper. In fact, it's usually a bad way. Regardless of the point you may be trying to make, the rhetorical argument gets more notice than any subsequent arguments.

I suppose the writer might have said, "death and destruction are the only methods of war," instead of purpose, but in the actual execution of any war, the point is to destroy things and to kill people.

The point is to subjugate the will of the others. (I think Nietzsche may have written a book or two on the subject.) "Death and destruction" are methods or actions, as you point out. By and large they are rarely ends unto themselves. In fact, that's a tacitly liberal statement, IMHO. So, yes, they (death/destruction/destroying/killing) are methods qua actions, they are not (should not be) 'the point' or the ends themselves.

Of course there is always some other objective the destroying and killing are meant to accomplish, but no matter what supposed ultimate purpose of a war is, if there is no destruction and killing, it will not be achieved. At least those who engage in wars believe this, else they would not engage in them.

Like it or not, sometimes you have wars with little or no killing (see 'Cold War'). Sometimes the mere threat of war is enough (see 'Liberation of Panama from Columbia'). This does not mean it is always the case. A loaded gun does wonders in terms of ends without necessarily employing the means implied.
As for the beliefs of those who participate, this cannot be distilled down to one or a series of views that offer any type of complete picture. For some, death and destruction are the ends, for others, it's the idea of doing well with your team, for some, ideals like patriotism or liberation are all they need.
Hopefully our men and women are fighting for some of the latter reasons.

The fallacy, as far as I can tell is employing a faulty rhetorical device to drive a dialogue, i.e. 'false pretense'. If my BS sniffer goes off in paragraph 2, I really don't care if you have the greatest insights in the world going off in para 3. Life's too short to accept liberal arguments blindly, or try to see what kind of lame stuff follows the initial lame argument.

Now, that wasn't too tough for you to follow was it?

[galt-jw]

GREAT POST. most of the tribe here could really benefit from understanding just WHAT their philosophy is.

many who think themselves pro freedom are really statists.

[edsheppa]

Too much drivel to be worthwhile reading.

[laotzu]

Philosophy...my favorite subject. (laotzu & philosophy go way back....back to that turn-coat, lieing bastard Confucious!!)

Philosophy is a personal search for an understanding of truth. It is a quest that must be engaged and experienced; not memorized or transplanted. It is, by definition, very challenging....and provides great simplification.

Philosophy is a luxury allowed by living a secure existance.

Philosophy is a task of ingesting volumes of information, which ultimately teach that the answer was not a matter of learning at all....but a matter of realizing that which you knew all along.

Philosophy is not being able to see the forest for the trees; as truth is everywhere and does not hide.

Philosophy is the false promise of finding a great truth. There are no great truths. Truth has always been right there beside you all the time, and will always have a sense of familiarty to it.(hence, no 'great' truths)

Philosphy is the discipline of not ignoring the 800 pound gorilla(truth) sitting beside you.

[gorush]

Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement. I don't know to whom this can be attributed, but it is not me.