• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The purpose of philosophy in the digital age.

Obsidius

Chumped.
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
318
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
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.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
625
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).
 

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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? :)
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
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.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
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.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
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.
 

Obsidius

Chumped.
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
318
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
This is a book worthy (actually multiple books) topic.

Without going on an essay-style ramble I'll conclude that I believe it to play a very important part in breaking us out of the hall of mirrors effect that comes with easily accessible knowlege, made easier by digital advancement. This ease allows us to pull a fact up in order to impress and/or advance status, either socially or otherwise, in some fashion, but it leaves us malnourished because of an intense rationalisation and an (ironically) irrational need to have set definition in an entropic universe. And the knowledge is used less and less for any kind understanding, instead it is a blunt instrument for beating and defensiveness kicks in, a loss of learning from a better argument or a sudden revelation.

We reach out and grasp at reality in order to bring it in line with certainty, as everything measured appears also categorically predicable, hence the basal assumptions of the scientific method.

This is very useful for us; the man perceives an obstacle so he removes it, he looks at something to nurture so he dotes upon it. The very act of perception changes the reality, not just because of different perspectives but because the approach one takes in what area of reality that is apprehended also changes the actions you take and the manipulations of that reality.
In the digital age the explicit becomes more and more powerful as people obsess over the recordings of daily events and life, seeking definition at every angle in order to bring into certainty the uncertain.
Advancement, however, cannot come without an openness to uncertainty; leading towards a will to engage with what is unknown.

From the enquiry of the uncertain arose philsophical questioning and from that arose scientific examination. But more recently we have moved into an exasperation with what is more implicit an 'Other' of reality that refuses categorisation. Individuality is diminished because of this, after all (for example) no friendship is more unique than another when reduced to composite parts.
But does having the parts always make a perfect jigsaw?

It certainly makes a jigsaw in our understanding and this has important value for allowing us to understand what we know about the parts, which can add to an understanding of the whole. We cannot, however, understand from the 'right' distance (of both parts and whole) while only focusing on certain parts, just as an understanding of a neurone can add to our understanding of the brain but which without a conception of 'brain' and 'mind' is meaningless.

Talking of brains I'll leave this with a quote before I get too long winded:

To some people the brain is a thing, and a particular kind of thing, a machine; which is only to say that it is something we understand from the bottom up and which exists for a purpose we recognise. To others it is something the nature of which is unique, which we can understand, therefore, only by a degree of not-knowing which opens the mind to whatever is, and whose purpose is not so easily determined. In other words, we should expect that some people will be confident that they know precisely what sort of thing the brain is, while others may know 'precious little' about that.
- Iain Mcgilchrist
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
How do you "fail" psychoanalysis?

In psychoanalysis with Dr Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, had a father fixation on Dr Freud.

Quite rightly Dr Freud resisted the counter-transference and sought to analyse the father fixation of Carl Jung.

Carl Jung resisted the analysis to such an extent he attacked Dr Freud and left psychoanalysis without completing his training as a Psychoanalyst. And so failed the purpose of his psychoanalysis with Dr Freud, and so failed his psychoanalysis.

However Carl Jung took with him his father fixation, and having fallen out with Dr Freud, Carl Jung transferred his father fixation from Dr Freud to the Fuhrer.

And so having failed as a Psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, became a disciple of the Fuhrer, and after the Fuhrer's defeat, Carl Jung became a guru of the New Age.

Carl Jung also kept a diary, called The Red Book, which revealed Jung's florid psychosis. The disciples of Jung kept The Red Book in a locked safe for more than 70 years, in order to deceive us about Carl Jung's mental state.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
In psychoanalysis with Dr Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, had a father fixation on Dr Freud.

Quite rightly Dr Freud resisted the counter-transference and sought to analyse the father fixation of Carl Jung.

Carl Jung resisted the analysis to such an extent he attacked Dr Freud and left psychoanalysis without completing his training as a Psychoanalyst. And so failed the purpose of his psychoanalysis with Dr Freud and so failed his psychoanalysis.

However Carl Jung took with him his father fixation, and having fallen out with Dr Freud, Carl Jung transferred his father fixation from Dr Freud to the Fuhrer.

Afraid I'm going to have to ask the source of your wild conjecture there good buddy ;)
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Afraid I'm going to have to ask the source of your wild conjecture there good buddy ;)

We have at our fingertips the best research tool ever invented in Google. I've used it, so can you.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
We have at our fingertips the best research tool ever invented in Google. I've used it, so can you.

Google's really great and confirming any opinions you key into it.

Anyway, you choosing to say google it is you choosing to say the conversation's over.

Which is fine as it wasnt exactly a thrill a minute.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Google's really great and confirming any opinions you key into it.

Anyway, you choosing to say google it is you choosing to say the conversation's over.

Which is fine as it wasnt exactly a thrill a minute.

For a long time you have been antagonistic towards me. This is psychologically significant.

You are quite intelligent and well read enough to rationalise your antagonism, but you might do better by analysing your antagonism.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
For a long time you have been antagonistic towards me. This is psychologically significant.

You are quite intelligent and well read enough to rationalise your antagonism, but you might do better by analysing your antagonism.

I'm not antagonistic, although I can understand how you'd like to dismiss my posts that way.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I'm not antagonistic, although I can understand how you'd like to dismiss my posts that way.

Of course I understand your posts and appreciate your intelligence and your learning, and I also tune in to your emotional channel. This is a site devoted to psychology so perhaps you might like to explore your emotions.
 
Top