Crap... um, I'm dyslexic? Ok, I spell worse than my my 9yo. and you're luck I don't say "your lucky".
I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
- Maldon007
- Posts: 396
- Joined: June 18th, 2012, 3:57 am
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
In terms of potential depth, I believe Kantian Philosophy has the deepest pools of knowledge for one to dive in.
- SimpleGuy
- Posts: 338
- Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
Materialism at least seems to be a source of inspiration of many scientific disciplines.
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
In terms of potential depth, I believe Kantian Philosophy has the deepest pools of knowledge for one to dive in."
Hear, hear. Kant is the foundation for me.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
Protagoras is one that stuck out for me. Where do you want us to start?
Hereandnow -
Agreed. Kant is monumental to the whole analytic tradition of philosophy. I am guessing the OP is looking at the real grass roots of philosophy though.
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
The presocratics get interesting as they culminate in Plato. I never new how interesting until Kant, because he showed me the exit door from mundane thinking about the world. I have limited patience for Plato and I suppose that is my fault.Those dialogues do present issues, and most who write about them take things far beyond what Socrates said. But as far as the presocratics go, it is always the war between Parmenides and Heraclitus, the former denying being to the world of change, the latter professing the world to be nothing but.Burning Ghost:
I do find the pre-Socratics interesting, as well as the general development of early Greek education.
Protagoras is one that stuck out for me. Where do you want us to start?
Hereandnow -
Agreed. Kant is monumental to the whole analytic tradition of philosophy. I am guessing the OP is looking at the real grass roots of philosophy though.
Stepping into Kant's world, one realizes that becoming-in-the-world is the world-as-idea, that is, idealism. And the Being in question, the stuff that is suspect, is ideal stuff of experience. This is a Heraclitean shift, for where Plato and Heraclitus took physical stuff int he usual way, the way everyday things around us, Kant put those things in the perceiver's contribution end of what goes into a thing. Kant made the radical move that turned the world inside out, literally. For the out was now the in. (And it's not that there was nothing like this before Kant. He made the grand statement so compellingly). To this day, this issue about, if you will, the out and in of things, all things, is, I would argue, THE central question in metaphysics, epsitemology (though I would have research a dissertation on this to be truly in the know on what is going on).
Do, the presocratics? Parmenides and Heraclitus. the others, Anaximander, Anaximodes , Pythagoras, (sp?) I have paid little to no attention to.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
As seems like a growing trend, I have no idea what you're talking about? I am guessing you've put the historical roles of Kant and Plato in reverse by accident?
Protagoras was not really a "Presocratic", he was a Sophist (THE Sophist.) I kind of view the Sophists as the first linguists. They quickly overwhelmed by the beginnings of the mathematisatoin of language IMO.
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
Eduk:
Wouldn't consciousness come before value? I'm just saying that without consciousness then value is meaningless?
Consciousness qua consciousness is a bore. I mean, not just to me and my interests,I mean it begs the question: why ask about this? This question why? is the instrument that takes inquiry to bare upon all things that justify concern. They all empty, if you will, into value. consider: You want to study consciousness. Why? To get to the root of the matter of our awareness in the world. But why does this matter motivate you in the first place? Well, it's important! Important to know, to understand the grounding of who and what we are. But this dismisses the question: Why is THIS important?
This kind of reasoning applies all that can be brought up for analysis. They all come down to the issue of the value something has, and value questions have their own problem that is exactly like this. You know, I value paying my parking tickets because I don't want a ticket; I don't want a ticket because I don't want to pay a fine (and it is good for keeping up the confidence in social institutions like this, etc); And paying a fine takes away income that could be used for this or that........it all comes down eventually to more basic questions. Questions like, I want to have money to buy things and I want to buy them because they are gratifying!
And here, the end is reached, as it is always reached for any and all justifications of engagement: What do you mean by gratification?
So why not consciousness? The sole purpose of answering these goes to need, want, gratification, avoiding pain and trouble; and these possess the single most profound thing there is (that may, granted, presuppose consciousness and other things): the mmmm's and ouches, and joyful exuberances, and terrible sufferings, and serenities, and blisses and yes, the fascination of understanding consciuosness, on and on. Value is behind every word I type here, every thought that rises to consciousness is literally nothing at all, nil, without the interest that motivates it, the mild excitement of getting the thought right, and so on.
All things are IN value. This I can easily defend. Value is why we do anything, and why anything is at all (another that can be defended though with more work); but more important is, philosophically, the ontology of these: Value is IN the Being of the world; it is the world's most salient feature by parsecs, and it is there, in the givens, regardless of the way what is given is taken up in interpretative systems, value is truly foundational, like consciousness.
The question of our being here has never been, why is there something rather than nothing? It is, why are we born suffer and celebrate? The closer our thoughts are to givens like this, the more profound being here is.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
- Maldon007
- Posts: 396
- Joined: June 18th, 2012, 3:57 am
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
Hereandnow, I liked that, good stuff.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
- Maldon007
- Posts: 396
- Joined: June 18th, 2012, 3:57 am
Re: I am only here to talk about deep philosophy
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023