Self-introduction

George · Post by **George** » December 27th, 2015, 5:04 pm

Hello everyone!

I have joined this forum because I recently became interested in philosophy, especially existentialism. I am currently reading a number of books of philosophy, including Existentialism by John Macquarrie and History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell – as well as Way to Wisdom, a translation by Ralph Manheim of a series of radio lectures given in 1950 by Karl Jaspers, my favourite philosopher.

Hopefully I will have something good to share with everyone here.

Cheers!

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » December 28th, 2015, 7:48 am

Many welcomes George

Your reading matter coincides largely with my own interests. In particular I like Karl Jaspers's theory of the Axial Age.

I do hope that it won't be long before you can post and receive replies. I wish there was a way to fast track promising people through the moderation process.

George · Post by **George** » January 5th, 2016, 3:05 pm

Thank you, Belinda.

Pillface · Post by **Pillface** » January 10th, 2016, 5:56 pm

Hi George,

I too have started reading and posting to this forum. I joined a couple of years ago when wanting to connect to philosophically-minded people but other aspects of my life came in and covered this over.

It seems, for some reason, Jaspers has quite a following in this forum. My philosophy path started about 10 years ago when I started listening to various podcasts but I haven't heard of Karl Jaspers. I've just read about him on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. His socio-political emphasis reminds me of Michel Foucault who I have read a fair bit about after hearing that his History of Madness was published into English in 2006. Foucault paved the foundations of the physio/psycho/social model of contemporary psychiatry. I notice that Jaspers was a psychiatrist. One of the most sensible and inspiring phychiatrists I have heard is Anthony Daniels aka Theodore Dalrymple.

Getting back to existentialism, I haven't really looked into that in much detail but it is seems to be based on the premise that existence precedes essence.

One podcast that I have been listening to for many years is called The History of Philosophy without any gaps by Peter Adamson. It's currently in the middle ages and Thomas Aquinas in particular. Apparently Aquinas and other theologians talked at great length about grace. Some said grace is given to every person but is not discovered by everyone. Others said that this waters down the potency of grace and claim that people come into existance as a clean slate and acquire grace. Grace is only a part of the discussion of the Trinity which goes back to early Christianity and the schisms over dualism vs monism. That leads to Descartes which leads on to essence and existence, i.e. existentialism.

They way out of this rather circuitous situation, I feel, is through relativitism which leads to skepticism. I class myself a bit of a skeptic.

Pillface

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » January 12th, 2016, 6:50 am

Scepticism is very very good ! It would be a poorer, meaner more ignorant world without it. Descartes's wicked demon should hold pride of place at school assemblies where he would agree just fine with Jesus, although probably not with Christ.

You say that relativism leads to skepticism . That's true. I gather you're American and therefore probably reared with Anglo-American empirical tradition. What I was wondering is whether or not there is any scope for scepticism in the Continental, rationalist tradition. There should be, given that Descartes himself invented it, and he was a rationalist. However Descartes was not a relativist. So I am puzzled and confused.

I've also heard that the idea of the two traditions, the Continental rationalist and the Anglo-American empiricist,is held nowadays to be a useless dichotomy .

Pillface · Post by **Pillface** » January 13th, 2016, 6:10 am

Thanks Belinda for your reply.

I'm Australian but still will still agree that I have been reared in the empirical tradition (thinking Baconian).

Yes, there is scope for skepticism in the non-analytic schools. Descartes based true knowledge on reason and considered the experiential world delusional. Descartes may not have been a relativist but he knew he was right some of the time. Relativists think they are right all the time. Skeptics don't believe anybody is ever right.

Yes, the Continental/Analytic boundary can me fuzzy.

Pillface