Philosophy - What Is It?

The Autonomist ^ | March, 2003 | Reginald Firehammer

[Zon]

So your post was just to discredit yourself?

[edsheppa]

Discredit? How?

[laotzu]

Being able to state what is right, & wrong, is opinion.

Being able to state why something is right, or wrong, is philosophy.

[Zon]

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

I like that. Here's an 800 pound gorilla: doing the same thing and expecting a different result; voting for the lesser of two "evils" despite that evil always begets evil.

[Zon]

The premise you didn't think about.

[Hank Kerchief]

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.

Well, you can be thankful for that.

One gets just as much experience from good judgement as bad, with a lot less trouble. If your quip were true, one would be advised to make mistakes on purpose. Doesn't seem right somehow.

Hank

[edsheppa]

I prefer to take my ideas with less drivel. You don't actually find this article provocative do you?

[Hank Kerchief]

Life's too short to accept liberal arguments blindly, or try to see what kind of lame stuff follows the initial lame argument.

Wow, you sure misread that post. It appears on The Autonomist. The Autonomist makes conservatives look like socialist. There couldn't be a site more in opposition to statism and collectivism.

You must have missed this footnote:

"Whenever the absurdity and nihilistic horrors of war are pointed out, those making the observations are subject to the ubiquitous accusation of being pacifists. On the one hand, every sane person ought to be a, "pacifist," meaning, they ought despise and reject war as both irrational and evil. Those who call themselves, "pacifists," however, usually hold the equally irrational view, that, "peace," can be achieved by never putting up a fight.

"The moment the barbarian and uncivilized know you do not intend to defend yourself against them, they will attack with all the ferocity of which they are capable. And here is the greatest absurdity of war. As a compromise with those who believe the way to combat evil is to do nothing, men have made "rules" by which they will fight wars. These "rules" are intended to make war, "humane."

"The barbarians and uncivilized are never constrained by such rules. They have no interest in being, "humane." The rules only serve as limits on those who are defending themselves, and the absudity of this is, since they are fighting those who have declared by their aggression, they are not interested in human values and deserve nothing but the most inhumane and vicious defense possible, any "rules" that limit the defenders must work in favor of the aggressors and inhumanity."

Hank

[asformeandformyhouse]

It is the rational-volitional nature of man that requires everything we do as human beings to be done by conscious choice.

He's right! When I saw how long this was I chose not to finish reading it.

[Hank Kerchief]

I suppose I have enough philosophy to enjoy my life...

Yes you do, since the purpose of your life is your enjoyment of it.

Enjoyed your response and have comments to make, but have to go out now. Ping you later.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Being able to state why something is right, or wrong, is philosophy.

Well, at least its logical, and logic is the handmaid of philosophy, so to speak. Your getting better.

Hank

[gorush]

"One gets just as much experience from good judgement as bad, with a lot less trouble. If your quip were true, one would be advised to make mistakes on purpose. Doesn't seem right somehow."

Human youngsters require a longer period of time to achieve adulthood than any other species. It seems to me that our tendancies while young lead to a substantial number of bad decisions...I know it's true in my own case...and it also explains the fact that the vast majority of these anti-war demonstrators are young...hell, I voted fo Democrats when I was young, for which I am eternally ashamed. But it just shows to go ya.

My original statement was, as you correctly identified, mostly a quip.

[f.Christian]

This is used in engineering a lot !

"There are three kinds of people ... "

... # 1 --- they (( Bush // Blair )) make (( good )) things happen (( KNOW )) * * !

... # 2 --- they (( liberals )) DON'T KNOW * * what happened (( make bad things happen )) ! !

... # 3 --- they (( canadians // french // LOSERS // HATERS // germans )) will never know what happened ! ! !


... * * ... changes // additions !

[x]

One reason for wars is that people view themselves as members of groups with radically differing views on what rights are, what society's rules are, and how disputes should be resolved. The US has been successful in building a society where such conflicts are kept under control (though we did have our own Revolution and Civil War, so we're not immune to such struggles), but in the world it's harder to achieve that kind of agreement about the basics. Even if groups do become more alike, they may find themselves struggling for the same things, and that fuels conflict between them that may lead to violence or war.

Another reason why groups fight has to do with the unreliability of title to land and resources. Our group of radical individualists may want land for farming and mining, so it contracts with someone who is willing to sell it, a tribal chief, for example. But that property may not actually belong to that chief. It may be hard to find out just who it does belong to (though it probably doesn't belong to our society of individualists, if they are new to the area). Is the property vested in a group, or in individuals? And which individuals? So there is much potential for conflict.

Both of these problems remain today and would remain under Objectivism.

[Hank Kerchief]

many who think themselves pro freedom are really statists.

Oh yes. And, if you told them they were statists, they wouldn't know what you were talking about.

Hank

[P.O.E.]

The real question is "Why is Philosophy?"

Actually, I'm just self-bumping for a later read.

[Hank Kerchief]

I really did appreciate your post, by the way, so feel you deserve a little more considerate response.

The fallacy, as far as I can tell is employing a faulty rhetorical device to drive a dialogue, i.e. 'false pretense'.

Usually the word fallacy is reserved for a mistake made within the context of a logical arguent. Since this article was not making an argument but answering a specific question, that is, "what is philosophy," how could the rhetorical introduction to that answer be a fallacy. Even if you totally disagree with the introductory thesis (which says, "rhetorically," "the world generally exhibits bahavior which is both irrational and self-desructive and the cause of that inexplicable behavior is the absence of sound philosophy"), how would that contradict the discription of the nature of philosophy that follows. Even if you believe the world is a perfectly sane place and the behavior of all its denizens are perfectly rational and there is no need for philosophy at all, that would not make the description of philosophy itself different in any way.

I may be mistaken about this, but I believe you had the impression the author was arguing against war in the sense the usual pacifist does, and that impression misled you somewhat about where the article was going. I can understand how you got the impression, and I too would have been put off by it, if my original impression had been what I believe yours was.

I suspect, if we really understood each other's essential principles, we would not really be in disagreement on this, or at least not very much disagreement. I do admire your strong sense of contempt for the illogical and for liberals (which are usually the same thing), even if we disagree on everything else.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

prime the pump and comment on a few observations

Looks like it's been done for me.

Hank

[tpaine]

Arthur Koestler on beng surrounded by idiots:

The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion.

[Hank Kerchief]

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.

I essentially agree with this, and your general view about what the radical individualist seeks, in terms of justice, and life in general.

I do not agree "The vast majority of people respect themselves, their real nature and their fellow man...." I think the vast majority of people really believe they have a right to and expect to get more than they can produce or earn by their own effort, and will readily elect those to office who promise them, not the freedom to live their lives as they see fit, but to be insured security and prosperity, no matter how much of mess they make of their lives.

You are apparently an individualist, I suspect self-sufficient, and honest, and no doubt only want to "be left alone," and are willing to accept the responsiblity for your own choices. But you are in the minority. Most people are not only willing to give up some (or even all) of their liberty for security, but willing to force that policy on everyone else, especially the self-sufficient, because it is the self-sufficient the government is going to have to confiscate the wealth from it intends to redistribute to those that voted them in.

In principle we agree. It's about the actual state of people and society we have different viewpoints on.

Hank