User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 39

  1. #21
    Chumped. Obsidius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont agree with you that that was the enlightenment's goal, I think that's what someone who has bought the post-modernists version of the enlightenment would think though, or perhaps someone who has tried to adapt Nietzsche's ideas about christianity and civilisation and apply them equally to science and reason.

    Nihilism would be the conclusion reached by someone who believed that there was no objective truth, to be discerned by science or anything else, hence the whole point of nihilism.

    There's some existentialists or french philosophers who think that there is no objective truth, to be discerned by science or anything else, Camus or Sartre, that's an affirmation of nihilism not as a response to anything but just an objective reality.

    Camus saw philosophy as a consolation, life was absurd, meaningless but you'd be a douche to go with that, his philosophy was hedonism with a small h and probably a lot of altruism too when you read his novels, the upbeat ones, or his book about suicide and that guy from myth pushing the rock up a hill for eternity.

    Sartre was a little different, and I think a douche, but some of his followers or respondents, like in his book on existentialism and humanism, thought that the conclusions he'd reached meant you would either embrace religion or philosophy as a consolation. That IS a utilitarian approach.

    I think a lot of that's a lot of half-educated bullshit, as is post-modernism and most of the reaction to the enlightenment, as I understand it the enlightenment was about discoverable truth within a tradition challenged by renewed skepticism, and not an outright rejection of tradition in favour of a modernist project or modernity. The skepticism came from discoveries like refraction of light, if you cant trust your own eyes what can you trust? The discoverable truth about finding more reliable or evidence based conclusions than had served to date.

    It had some blindspots and in the course of over turning prejudices it left some intact or reinforced others, though to err is human, the reactions against it as villainy or utopianism is over done, its all intellectual cantor and half baked, the hard sciences laugh at the drivel produced by the post-modernists in the social science theatre, there's a couple of great books on that. There's also some not so great books from the social science scene and their eventual conclusions about something called critical realism which I think is the post- post- post- modernism.

    For me the enlightenment is not the end of history, its not something to react against perpetually, its not the end or beginning of philosophy or religion either, they serve the purposes they always have and they always will, its not purely utilitarian, its not as a consolation because consolation isnt required, whether the cosmos is meaningless or not and whether that meaningless is brought into sharp focus by the enlightenment or the enlightenment's failure (ie post-modern criticism).
    I'm not exactly talking about the enlightenment's values itself, as they were held by a handful of academics and were usually well justified, rather their values as interpreted by the modern every-man. It is of course not the end of philosophy or meaning, I don't intend to be so dramatic, rather it proposes that the ultimate and absolute truth is that of cold and objective observation. The conclusion that the truth has nothing to do with us, and therefore nihilism, is a consequent of the antecedent of objectivity. I love science, and I think that from a utilitarian perspective it is unrivalled in its ability to mend the ailments of the human race physically; I'm merely suggesting that perhaps philosophy is needed to supplement the nihilistic conclusion one may derive from its objectivity.
    Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man.

  2. #22
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    19,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forever View Post
    Like Jung's work.
    It is important to keep in mind that Carl Jung failed his psychoanalysis with Dr Sigmund Freud. And as a result of failing to become a qualified Psychoanalyst, he became a religious guru in the New Age Movement.

    And like many religious gurus Carl Jung sexually abused his female patients. And he transferred his father fixation from Freud to the Fuhrer. And as a result he took his orders from Reichmarshall Hermann Goering.

    And Carl Jung also suffered from a psychosis as evidenced in his diary called The Red Book.

    And the New Age followers of Carl Jung hide his diary, The Red Book in a locked safe for 70 years, so we wouldn't discover our New Age guru was psychotic.

    Interestingly Carl Jung was an astrologer, so it is no surprise to discover that mbti has the same truth value as astrology.

  3. #23

    Default

    I think perhaps the best purpose to philosophy is examining our underlying unspoken assumptions. Also, it can be useful in training the mind to be able to perceive from many vantage points at once. The main goal however in my opinion is to train the brain to perceive from the vantage point of an outside observer (ie an objective observer).
    "Ce que nous connaissons est peu de chose, ce que nous ignorons est immense."

  4. #24
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    NiFi
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEI4 Ni
    Posts
    9,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    It is important to keep in mind that Carl Jung failed his psychoanalysis with Dr Sigmund Freud. And as a result of failing to become a qualified Psychoanalyst, he became a religious guru in the New Age Movement.

    And like many religious gurus Carl Jung sexually abused his female patients. And he transferred his father fixation from Freud to the Fuhrer. And as a result he took his orders from Reichmarshall Hermann Goering.

    And Carl Jung also suffered from a psychosis as evidenced in his diary called The Red Book.

    And the New Age followers of Carl Jung hide his diary, The Red Book in a locked safe for 70 years, so we wouldn't discover our New Age guru was psychotic.

    Interestingly Carl Jung was an astrologer, so it is no surprise to discover that mbti has the same truth value as astrology.
    Source?
    Likes Lark liked this post

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    29,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Obsidius View Post
    I was awake at 3am that morning, and made a fair few spelling mistakes that I had to correct, that was one of them which I obviously didn't correct. Interesting to see how much you think you can derive from a single grammatical error though, also incredibly presumptuous and unfounded in reality, might I add. In fact, this is the poor man's "U mad bro?".
    I know what you meant to say but the "poor man's" is not the correct framing, you remind me of another poster Danseen, or something like that, a lot of real strong emoting informing attempts at super articulate posting, I dont know maybe you got a thesaurus which you are running each of your posts through.

    Anyway, I hope you're enjoying the site, I dont see any value in continuing to post in response to anything you're writing. Maybe when your less angried up.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    29,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Obsidius View Post
    I'm not exactly talking about the enlightenment's values itself, as they were held by a handful of academics and were usually well justified, rather their values as interpreted by the modern every-man. It is of course not the end of philosophy or meaning, I don't intend to be so dramatic, rather it proposes that the ultimate and absolute truth is that of cold and objective observation. The conclusion that the truth has nothing to do with us, and therefore nihilism, is a consequent of the antecedent of objectivity. I love science, and I think that from a utilitarian perspective it is unrivalled in its ability to mend the ailments of the human race physically; I'm merely suggesting that perhaps philosophy is needed to supplement the nihilistic conclusion one may derive from its objectivity.
    I think this post is rambling and I'm not sure if you have a full grasp of the different things you are talking about.

    It reminds me of a book someone linked to the site ages ago which was on huge long protracted and uninteresting far right rant, cant remember the title, it made about as much sense as these posts.

    I dont think that objectivity results in any sort of nihilistic conclusion, I dont think the enlightenment is what you describe it to be, whether you are talking about academics (I dont see that as a failing of the enlightenment either) or not, neither do I think that philosophy's only value is as a utilitarian consolation.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    29,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Listening View Post
    I think perhaps the best purpose to philosophy is examining our underlying unspoken assumptions. Also, it can be useful in training the mind to be able to perceive from many vantage points at once. The main goal however in my opinion is to train the brain to perceive from the vantage point of an outside observer (ie an objective observer).
    I think its got developmental pluses too, kind of like the martial arts in training mind and body.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    29,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    It is important to keep in mind that Carl Jung failed his psychoanalysis with Dr Sigmund Freud
    How do you "fail" psychoanalysis?

  9. #29
    Chumped. Obsidius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think this post is rambling and I'm not sure if you have a full grasp of the different things you are talking about.

    It reminds me of a book someone linked to the site ages ago which was on huge long protracted and uninteresting far right rant, cant remember the title, it made about as much sense as these posts.

    I dont think that objectivity results in any sort of nihilistic conclusion, I dont think the enlightenment is what you describe it to be, whether you are talking about academics (I dont see that as a failing of the enlightenment either) or not, neither do I think that philosophy's only value is as a utilitarian consolation.
    You can think that all you want, unfortunately what I usually do which is passionately and fervently describe what I see quickly in my mind in a way which is difficult to understand. Happens a lot when I don't proof read. However you didn't even attempt to rebut the key argument so I'll ignore the rest of this, apologies for wasting your time, I'm afraid I can't simplify what I said any further for ease of understanding.

    Edit: Actually maybe a way I can say it is this. Much of what science focuses on is out of pure curiosity, and doesn't actually fulfil me as a person. For example, someone could tell me the chemical composites lying within every day objects, and I simply wouldn't care, it doesn't concern me. I'd bet that most people feel the same way. Perhaps we can agree that philosophy or religion (the former being the more regimented) gives us a way to interpret purpose where it otherwise wouldn't find a rational basis. Perhaps the limit of scientific and enlightenment-esque reductionism (which precisely what I was referring to when it comes to lack of subjective meaning) ignores what we need to feel complete.
    Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    29,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Obsidius View Post
    You can think that all you want,.
    Grand.

    I will.
    Likes Obsidius liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. What do you think the purpose of philosophy or spirituality is?
    By Lark in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-19-2015, 10:17 PM
  2. The digital age and memory loss..
    By King sns in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-11-2011, 11:22 AM
  3. Parenting Philosophies/The Role of Children In Society
    By Charmed Justice in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 11-19-2009, 10:51 PM
  4. The purpose of pain?
    By Martoon in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-03-2009, 09:47 PM

Tags for this Thread

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