User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 52

  1. #21
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    In a vernacular sence. And rhetorics deffinately isn't just about that. Well, not the way I learned it anyway, wich is the ancient form... Rhetorics in a more modern form seems to have lost it's wild hairs, something wich I strongly deplore. Most modern rhetoricians would agree with you, though.
    BTW, I don't want to leave a wrong impression. I don't employ hardcore rhetorics when actually doing philosophy. Just style, form and layout.
    Well rhetoric in literature could then be used for quality expression, this is where we could see the beauty in language. But I think we better still keep that stuff away from science and philosophy anyways. I suspect that the ancient form of rhetoric has rescinded in the present era because a much higher premium has been placed on clarity of exposition than there has been before. So no Hegels or Heideggers will be getting their ideas out to the market in the near future, thank God!

  2. #22
    Member Beyonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Like I said, I hold the complete opposite. It's like knowing the left- and righthand path of these things. And it takes both hands to swim.
    "I determined nothing."
    -Sceptical expression

  3. #23
    Senior Member Bushranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Philosophy is a label for anything that involves questions and an intent to find useful answers to those questions.

    Science is what natural philosophy became when it grew up.

    Metaphysics is what happens when you cease to care about useful answers.

    The purpose of modern philosophy should be:
    • to help people better understand themselves and others
    • to help people find meaning and/or purpose
    • tackle questions that fall outside of empirical reducibility
    • discredit philosophy that doesn't care about useful answers
    I'll get you my pretty, and your little hermit crab too!

  4. #24
    Senior Member Bushranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Well rhetoric in literature could then be used for quality expression, this is where we could see the beauty in language. But I think we better still keep that stuff away from science and philosophy anyways. I suspect that the ancient form of rhetoric has rescinded in the present era because a much higher premium has been placed on clarity of exposition than there has been before. So no Hegels or Heideggers will be getting their ideas out to the market in the near future, thank God!
    Rhetoric (or at least an understanding of it) still has a place in interpersonal communications as it can be used to reduce conflict as well as to incite it. If people were better trained to recognise it then ignorance and manipulation would be smaller problems that they are now.
    I do agree that it should be eliminated from important discussion as much as possible. There have been times that it has held back human thought for decades, perhaps centuries.
    I'll get you my pretty, and your little hermit crab too!

  5. #25
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushranger View Post
    Rhetoric (or at least an understanding of it) still has a place in interpersonal communications as it can be used to reduce conflict as well as to incite it. If people were better trained to recognise it then ignorance and manipulation would be smaller problems that they are now.
    I do agree that it should be eliminated from important discussion as much as possible. There have been times that it has held back human thought for decades, perhaps centuries.
    Are you familiar with the catastrophe of 19th century German Idealism?

  6. #26
    Senior Member Bushranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Are you familiar with the catastrophe of 19th century German Idealism?
    Which catastrophe are you referring to?
    I'll get you my pretty, and your little hermit crab too!

  7. #27
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushranger View Post
    Which catastrophe are you referring to?
    That of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. Those were some serious crimes against the German language, many assert that this in turn allowed for them to debauch logic also. Figures, they would make ridiculous conclusions about their cases and assert that their arguments were impeccably logical and their readers would much rather take that in on trust than go back through that rebarbative prose.

    This is what Schopenhauer had to say about that matter...

    "Moreover, such a man will not always be explaining anew what has already been explained once, as Kant does, for example, and other main concepts. Generally such a man will not incessantly repeat himself, and yet, in every new presentation of an idea that has already occured a hundred times, leave it again in precisely the same obscure passages. On the contrary he will express his meaning once distinctly, thoroughly and exhaustively, and leave it at that. But the greatest disadvantage of Kant's occassionally obscure exposition is that it acted as an example inducing one to imitate its defects. In fact it was misinterpreted as a pernicious authorization. What was senseless and without meaning at once took refuge in obscure exposition and language. Fichte was the first to grasp and make use of this privelege; Schelling at best equalled him in this, and a host of hungry scribblers without intellect or honesty soon surpassed them both. But the greatest effrontery in serving up sheer nonsense, in scrabbling together senseless and maddening webs of words, such as had previously been heard only in madhouses, finally appeared in Hegel. It became the instrument of the most ponderous and general mystification that has ever existed, with a result that will seem incredible to posterity and be a lasting monument of German stupidity."

  8. #28
    Senior Member Bushranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Don't know much about it, but will add it to my "to be researched" list.

    From my perspective the tragedy of rhetoric is that many took the view that a convincing argument is better than an accurate one.

    The question that interests me here is whether Hegel et al. where dishonest, stupid, or guilty of self deception. I haven't read any of them so I can't make any judgements.
    I'll get you my pretty, and your little hermit crab too!

  9. #29
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushranger View Post
    Don't know much about it, but will add it to my "to be researched" list.

    From my perspective the tragedy of rhetoric is that many took the view that a convincing argument is better than an accurate one.

    The question that interests me here is whether Hegel et al. where dishonest, stupid, or guilty of self deception. I haven't read any of them so I can't make any judgements.
    Schopenhauer thought that Hegel was a charlatan: did not have much legitimate philosophical skill or talent and only wrote with such high-sounding bombast to conceal that. You'd need to have extensive knowledge of philosophy to pull the trick off, so there was something there, but not much.I doubt this is true, it is probably the case that he got lost in his head and suffered from a genuine difficulty to express himself. He was our type, as we INTPs know how easily it is to get stuck up there with your hyperactive Ti. And how difficult it is for us to talk to ordinary people and at times to have our ideas understood.

  10. #30
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushranger View Post
    Philosophy is a label for anything that involves questions and an intent to find useful answers to those questions.
    This I would argue is not quite correct. I find that the best philosophy is not one which aims to provide answers at all, as such are limited to those constrictions which were employed when the answer was produced, but rather it provides questions which lead to insights into life and the human experience of it. With questions, good ones, they can be applied to several situations and some can be applied with almost total disregard for the circumstances.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushranger View Post
    The purpose of modern philosophy should be:
    • to help people better understand themselves and others
    • to help people find meaning and/or purpose
    • tackle questions that fall outside of empirical reducibility
    • discredit philosophy that doesn't care about useful answers
    I note you do not include in this list anything regarding truth. That I would agree upon. The search for truth is one task similar to a dgo chasing it's tail. Once you catch it, you can only nibble at the itch before you lose it again and resume circling yourself endlessly.

    On the point of 'discredit philosophy that doesn't care about useful answers', does this point intend to target those philosophies which are frowned upon, those which seem not to provide answers which fit within our current understanding? If so then I'd suggest that this is the opposite of philosophy. If philosophy were concerned with use then it would not study things such as "I think, therefore I am" as it is completely irrelevant to the human experience. Why you are is not as important as what you do and what you are. Such things reduce humans to ineffective goo when thought upon too much.

    What I would consider to be a true philosopher is someone who would not disregard the words of the village idiot less he miss some nugget of wisdom. Even the most innaccurate and biased piece of writing or quote can hold wisdom, it is the job of the philosopher to find that wisdom, not to judge the source.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-31-2015, 07:31 PM
  2. What is Your Philosophy?
    By COLORATURA in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-20-2014, 02:02 PM
  3. What is your philosophy on God?
    By RaptorWizard in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 09-30-2013, 10:29 PM
  4. P: What is your philosophy of life?
    By lightsun in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-28-2011, 01:12 AM
  5. Of what use is philosophy?
    By Xander in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 06-03-2011, 08:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO