• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My theoretical framework

D'rok said:
I have a degree in political philosophy. It was useful in getting me into law school. That's about it. Sorry.
Click to expand...
So there is no difference, so far as you are concerned, between a modern democracy and a theocracy or dictatorship?

Do you think the modern democracy just happened by itself, with no philosophical underpinnings? What university did you go to (so that I can advise my kids to avoid it).
 
D'rok said:
I have a degree in political philosophy. It was useful in getting me into law school. That's about it. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Well, there you are, then!

I sit corrected.

<Vanishes in a puff of logic>
 
Robin said:
Why would a Positivist (or indeed even a Materialist) say that there was an "external" material world “outside” your consciousness? That seems a dualist concept. Our consciousness is just a part of everything else

And Comte would disagree with this – why????
Click to expand...

Meh. You are conflating the positivist assertion that all observable phenomena (including social phenomena in Comte's case) can be explained with a single unifying natural theory or "physics", with the solipsist assertion that all is mind.
 
Piggy said:
You must be joking.

What can all this jaw-flap possibly be useful for?

Except to help philosophers kill time, I mean?

I've been waiting for someone (anyone) to show me why philosophy isn't worthless. I'm still suspending judgment because I can't prove that all philosophy must be worthless.
Click to expand...
If you would just as soon live under a Theocracy than a democracy then philosophy is worthless. To you.
 
Robin said:
If you would just as soon live under a Theocracy than a democracy then philosophy is worthless. To you.
Click to expand...

Please don't assume that anything that can be tagged with a word ending -cracy is a philosophy.

Political systems are real-world, boots-on-the-ground phenomena.

Philosophy is the mumbo-jumbo that philosophers spin around such realities.

The Taliban has all sorts of philosophy and theology to justify what's essentially just brute force tyrrany. The philosophy is spin. The guns are real.

The reasons why theocracy is dangerous have nothing to do with any kind of philosophy, and everything to do with actual real-world events.

We could wipe all philosophy off the face of the earth and still have democracy. And you can describe democracy with no reference whatsoever to any philosophy.
 
D'rok said:
Meh. You are conflating the positivist assertion that all observable phenomena (including social phenomena in Comte's case) can be explained with a single unifying natural theory or "physics", with the solipsist assertion that all is mind.
Click to expand...
No, I am clearly doing no such thing, clearly you are just showing a baffling unwillingness to read what I am saying (or what BDZ says).

Where does it say in the OP that "all is mind"? In fact BDZ goes out of his way to state that this is not what he is saying.

Notice you were unable to answer my question - why would Comte have a problem with the statement that that "The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena ".

This statement is quite the opposite of Solipsism which says the ultimate nature of the universe is the phenomena.
 
D'rok

I just had a thought. Your claim only makes sense if you were under the impression that "noumena" meant mind? What do you think noumena means?
 
D'rok said:
Strawman


No. Why?
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean. If political philosophy was influential in the creation of the modern democracy and the modern democracy has value, then surely political philosophy has value.
 
Piggy said:
We could wipe all philosophy off the face of the earth and still have democracy. And you can describe democracy with no reference whatsoever to any philosophy.
Click to expand...

I think these are true statements in this sense:

Most of political philosophy is post-diction - i.e., it attempts to describe what already is and to confabulate reasons for the same. It is essentially harmless in that respect, and I quite enjoy it on those terms. It goes off of the rails when it pretends to be predictive or masquerades as actual wisdom. Clinging to ideas in the face of contradictory facts on the ground is a recipe for calamity, and is an occupational hazard amongst political theorists.
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
Please don't assume that anything that can be tagged with a word ending -cracy is a philosophy.

Political systems are real-world, boots-on-the-ground phenomena.

Philosophy is the mumbo-jumbo that philosophers spin around such realities.

The Taliban has all sorts of philosophy and theology to justify what's essentially just brute force tyrrany. The philosophy is spin. The guns are real.

The reasons why theocracy is dangerous have nothing to do with any kind of philosophy, and everything to do with actual real-world events.

We could wipe all philosophy off the face of the earth and still have democracy. And you can describe democracy with no reference whatsoever to any philosophy.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that democracy just happened? That nobody said "here, this is a good idea"?
 
D'rok said:
I think these are true statements in this sense:

Most of political philosophy is post-diction - i.e., it attempts to describe what already is and to confabulate reasons for the same.
Click to expand...
I would ask you the same as I asked Piggy. Do you think that democracy just happened? That nobody said "here, this is a good idea"?
 
Robin said:
D'rok

I just had a thought. Your claim only makes sense if you were under the impression that "noumena" meant mind? What do you think noumena means?
Click to expand...

Magical mumbo-jumbo. The "thing-in-itself" that we can't quite grasp because of the limits of perception and the categories of understanding that we impose upon the world.

In other words, nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
No, I am clearly doing no such thing, clearly you are just showing a baffling unwillingness to read what I am saying (or what BDZ says).

Where does it say in the OP that "all is mind"? In fact BDZ goes out of his way to state that this is not what he is saying.

Notice you were unable to answer my question - why would Comte have a problem with the statement that that "The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena ".

This statement is quite the opposite of Solipsism which says the ultimate nature of the universe is the phenomena.
Click to expand...

Sorry. My interest in this battle is waning. If you wish to declare victory, I have no objections.
 
Robin said:
Are you saying that democracy just happened? That nobody said "here, this is a good idea"?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that philosophy has no influence on what people do.

But so do religion, irrational fears, fads, feelings of racial superiority, misconceptions about history, and all sorts of other BS.

The fact that it influences human psychology and action does not mean that it is not total BS.

And yes, it is entirely possible for a group of people to decide "Hey, if we're going to live together, how about we agree to do what most folks think we should do when we have to act together and otherwise let folks do what they want" without having to invoke isms.
 
Last edited:
I more-or-less agree with Robin here. What BDZ has just described is materialism, but expressed in the most confusing terms possible.

Your handy BDZ to Reality translation guide:

Noumena = real world.
Phenomena = thoughts.

So by this simple substitution, we get:

Consciousness is made of thoughts, yet it is caused by the real world.

Which is perfectly true.

ETA: Of course, his fourth paragraph contradicts the second, but we have to make allowances.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
That nobody said "here, this is a good idea"?
Click to expand...
By that definition, any notion anyone has about doing anything becomes a philosophy, in which case the word ceases to mean anything beyond "idea about what to do", which is a useless definition.

If I say, "Hey, let's get a pizza -- that'd be good", is that a philosophy?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom