The Philosophers' Thread

[Axl Van Sixx]

This seemed as natural a place as any to include a thread devoted to philosophers and philosophy. Who are your favourite philosophers? It probably goes without saying that I've got a soft spot for Karl Marx, but I also find myself an admirer of Hegel, Kant, and Aristotle.

 

[HisMagicTrick]

I'm mostly interested in the views of Friedrich Nietzsche. He's the philosopher I read most about. I mean, he seemed like a sexist pig but he's still probably my favourite philosopher.

Plus, I really like his quotes. A few of my favourites are:

'Perhaps I know best why it is man alone who laughs; he alone suffers so deeply that he had to invent laughter.'

'A pair of powerful spectacles has sometimes sufficed to cure a person in love.'

'Faith: Not wanting to know what is true.'

 

[childeroland]

I'm mostly interested in philosophy of mind--searle (my fav right now), chalmers, austin, heidegger, james, rorty, dennett, robinson etc.

given the physicalist domination right now, that quote about faith is pretty apt, though i'm finding the belief that quantum complexity is enough to explain qualia to be just as faith-based as, i suppose, dualism or chalmer's curious attempt at monism. thoughts?

 

[Hobgoblin]

I enjoyed Plato's Republic and John Stewart Mill's On Liberty when I was an undergrad. I havent re-read them in a while. Political philosophy isnt for everyone but I like these guys.

 

[Xeno-noesis]

I've dabbled in a little bit of everything so far, searching for that thing I have not yet found. That philosopher, writer, or thought that will make you say "this is the one".

Nietzsche has been very interesting and has been the closest to my thoughts. I understand that Schopenhauer is another great source in that vein. I'm a very patient person so I'm not rushing into either and I do not want their opinions to create my sole view.

Currently I'm on a Humanist kick, having just started "Meditations For The Humanist" by A.C. Grayling. I'm really enjoying it's compact format. The other book I have open is "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" by Shunryu Suzuki. It's not necessarily a frustrating read but is very deliberate. It's short but the way it sticks with you...it's hard to describe. It endures beyond the words and pages.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I enjoyed reading Evil: A Primer. I havent picked it up in a while but it was interesting.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Regarding Nietzsche, I used to be a huge fan of his in university. This was the period in my life where I was convinced that rationality and reason could ultimately shape human behaviour for the better on its own; you might call it an 18th century Enlightenment view. The funny thing is, I don't even think Nietzsche had that much to do with those thoughts, because his philosophy is unique for being very artistic, and often contradictory, as a means of challenging the reader, rather than based on some view of the primacy of human reason.

I would argue Nietzsche placed premium value on the individual. Isn't that what his concept of the Superman was all about? As I understand it, the Superman is a person who refuses to live by morality imposed by others - such as the "slave morality" of Christianity - but instead lives according to his own moral code. Perhaps somebody who knows Nietzsche well can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that's the idea.

In that case, while Nietzsche may have appealed to me when I was younger for that focus on the individual, as I've matured and read more politically I've started to feel that his focus on the individual is really not that different from someone like Ayn Rand, and maybe just as destructive. The fact is, although many intellectuals like to imagine themselves as isolated geniuses, in reality "no man is an island". Whatever our individual inclinations, we all need to work together for society to function.

I think I still have a bit of a tendency to romanticize Nietzsche, because he was such a genuinely creative soul and his philosophy still has incredible worth today, I just don't agree with all of it. I wrote a song about him (with the self-explanatory title "Nietzsche") back in 2007. The lyrics are a mix of elements of his philosophy and just my general thoughts at the time.

I never got it till I walked off alone
And thought to understand it
I needed some time and some space to get out on my own
Rationality for this debate
You've got a mind weak with rage but no reason to hate
Probably pray to the god of death and destruction

Born a free man, you grow up in chains
A slave to your master
Maybe you've got some free will that just can't be tamed
Rhyme and reason are one and the same
Think that it's you, no one else is to blame
Son of the past, but you'd rather be a bastard

Disintegrating what's inside your head
Who even listened before you were dead?
Now I find a new state of mind to say
Nietzsche was the preacher
Nietzsche was the preacher
Nietzsche was the preacher of individuality
(Individuality)

So many people want to rule the world
I just wanna rule mine
Might don't make right, you need to listen to the words
Imagination has the power to heal
If you think hard enough, you might change what is real
Nobody dies when the weapon is your mind

Breaking free from the confines of old
From blind faith in whatever you're told
The will to fight your annihilation
Nietzsche was the preacher
Nietzsche was the preacher
Nietzsche was the preacher of individuality
(Individuality)

Sometimes I feel like it's all in vain
Think I might go crazy
People are dying as we worship money and fame
The pack mentality controls us all
We need the solitary mind to stand tall
The power of reason is palpable, you'll see

Nietzsche was the preacher
Nietzsche was the preacher
Nietzsche was the preacher of individuality
(Individuality)

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I'm mostly interested in philosophy of mind--searle (my fav right now), chalmers, austin, heidegger, james, rorty, dennett, robinson etc.

given the physicalist domination right now, that quote about faith is pretty apt, though i'm finding the belief that quantum complexity is enough to explain qualia to be just as faith-based as, i suppose, dualism or chalmer's curious attempt at monism. thoughts?

I had to spend a few minutes on Wikipedia to even begin to answer this question.

Personally, I'm a philosophical materialist, so I'm more inclined to physicalism anyway when it comes to the philosophy of mind. But I don't know enough about the subject to properly answer your question. What exactly does quantum complexity have to do with qualia - that is, subjective consciousness?

 

[childeroland]

The basic idea seems to be that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon arising from the brain's complexity--that since mental states and brain states seem to be identical, and thus that there is no mind separate from the physical brain, then the seeming causal interaction between mind and body is only an illusion that comes from the indeterministic physical processes of the brain at the quantum level. But my objection is that if the physical processes that govern the brain are indeterministic (which people seem to say when they simply can't quantify them), how can we be so sure they would give rise to subjective consciousness.

 

[E-Man]

Jean-Paul Sartre is the man. I took a philosophy class recently and really dug his views a lot. I already knew a bit about about Nietzsche and Socrates. I only know a little about those guys. I need to buy their writings. I keep saying I'm going to do it, but just don't for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure I can get them really cheap if I'm actively looking.

 

[Art_of_Crime]

Dogen
Bodhidharma
Bruce Lee (yes the martial artist, he was also a brilliant philosopher)
Lao Tzu
Musashi

 

[childeroland]

Dogen
Bodhidharma
Bruce Lee (yes the martial artist, he was also a brilliant philosopher)
Lao Tzu
Musashi

Is there a translation of the Book of Five Rings you'd especially recommend? Shambhala has a great translation of The Art of War--would you recommend theirs?

 

[Art_of_Crime]

Is there a translation of the Book of Five Rings you'd especially recommend? Shambhala has a great translation of The Art of War--would you recommend theirs?

I found that one to be decent.

As for the book of 5 rings all the copies I have found seem to be ok, they may not be the exact words of Musashi, but they seem to all have the same understanding. If I come across a really good one I'll let you know.

 

[childeroland]

Thanks

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

The basic idea seems to be that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon arising from the brain's complexity--that since mental states and brain states seem to be identical, and thus that there is no mind separate from the physical brain, then the seeming causal interaction between mind and body is only an illusion that comes from the indeterministic physical processes of the brain at the quantum level. But my objection is that if the physical processes that govern the brain are indeterministic (which people seem to say when they simply can't quantify them), how can we be so sure they would give rise to subjective consciousness.

I think it all comes down to the fact that we still don't understand everything about how the brain works. But that's what science is all about: continually increasing your knowledge so that hopefully one day you can explain all those things. A lot of religious fundamentalists will seize on any gap in scientific knowledge and assert that what we don't know can be explained by a default answer- "God". This is similar to that.

Ultimately, we know that the physical processes of the brain affect the way people think, because scientists have observed this in patients over many years and made detailed studies. But when it comes to your fundamental question, IMO it always goes back to Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." Each of us is certain we at least have our own subjective consciousness; it's just a matter of figuring out how our brain circuitry works so we can explain the nuts and bolts mechanics of human thought in a more concrete fashion.

 

[childeroland]

Descartes would have had a fit, though I wonder if, per the non-reductive physicalists (supervenience adherents, some monists, etc), mental properties really could be non-reducible to neurobiological properties. It's too early to say for sure, but I admit that non-reducibility seems to be a special kind of pleading, and it is interesting that mental states very much appear to be type-identical to specific neurobiological states. (Though there remains the possibility that mental properties may supervene on so many physical realizations that they may not be reducible to the physical after all, and that question still isn't settled yet, I don't believe. Though reducibility may turn out to be more interesting if it means that eventually we could map mental states simply by mapping their correlative brain states--and it may be passe to speak of them separately as correlative--and manipulate them as physical entities!) What would that mean as physical theories are further refined by new discoveries--maybe even working out an explanation for mentality--particularly if/when they get beyond current quantum mechanics?

 

[childeroland]

I should add that most scientists still don't think quantum states in the brain would remain coherent before becoming useful for neural processing. So things like entanglement and superposition seem out the window, which leaves classical physics to explain the connection (or gap) between neuronal processes and qualia.