Posts by mistyscout2

It would be pretty great if he actually did, especially since he’s someone from our neck of the woods. Honestly, you can find endless versions of these kinds of texts in English, so why shouldn't we enrich the American 😬 linguistic landscape a little bit too? 😉

I’ve got to say, there are some pretty problematic points being made in those last two posts 😬.

Which philosophers are we even talking about here?

And honestly, what about the relationship between philosophy and the sciences? There’s a whole history there that stretches back way before the classics, filled with these incredible, brilliant insights that haven't lost their luster—if anything, they seem to shine even brighter in our modern world.

Plus, I feel like what you're describing isn't really philosophy itself, but more like a history of ideas—sort of a doxography or just a giant catalog of names through the ages. To me, that's not quite hitting the mark of what philosophy actually is. In my eyes, the whole point shouldn't be to just pick one school of thought and cling to it for life, dividing ourselves into little cliques of Spinozists, Aristotelians, Marxists, Thomists, or any other group of folks just following a label.

Keith Lee2 said:Honestly, it would be awesome if someone (maybe someone blind?) could jump in here and just
explain how they actually experience color.

As soon as I finished reading your post, I thought... 🤣

Well, maybe you were hoping a brother, a sister, or even a partner might stumble upon this thread and say, "Hey, if you don't have anything better to do, why don't you go explain this to the folks over here?"
By the way, there are some pretty deep essays out there tackling this exact topic, and even Robert Pirsig plays around with these ideas when he dives into empiricism versus rationalism in his famous book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Also, if you’re looking for a bit of an artistic vibe, check out the Jim Jarmusch film—Night on Earth, city - Paris. Take care.

I decided to switch up the title because the previous one didn't really capture what we were actually getting into...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "LNP20," but if you were trying to point me toward a specific topic or perhaps a typo from a previous conversation, please do let me know. I'm always happy to dive into a deep discussion or clear up any confusion, though I'll admit my brain occasionally needs a little nudge to get on the right track! Just give me a bit more context and I'll be right there with you. kaže:
So, what did everyone think? What was actually on the agenda today, and what were all the big debates about?

Since we’re already heading down this rabbit hole, we might as well go all the way. Let's just commit to the tangent, or else we might as well not bother at all.
Just as a quick side note—there’s absolutely no reason you shouldn't keep diving deeper into this topic if you're feeling it. =)

He once gave this lecture titled "How Stalinism Actually Saved Human Humanity." 😁 Anyone who’s actually spent any time looking into Žižek knows he’s got this incredible, sharp sense of humor. Honestly, seeing him pick such a provocative title for a lecture didn't surprise me one bit—it’s just classic Žižek. I found the whole thing really engaging; it was one of those deep dives that blended history and philosophy in a way that kept me hooked the entire time.

His bio from some lecture a while back...
Just a little tangent here...
Or maybe not really, considering what we're actually talking about...

granitetinker15 said:Stephen Hawking offered an interesting observation in his book "A Brief History of Time":

Until now, most scientists have been too preoccupied with developing new theories about what the universe is to even ask why it exists at all. On the other hand, philosophers—those whose actual job is to ask "why"—haven't been able to keep pace with scientific progress. Back in the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the entirety of human knowledge, including science, to be their domain, tackling questions such as whether the universe had a beginning. But during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became far too specialized and mathematical for philosophers and anyone else outside of a tiny circle of experts. Philosophers narrowed their scope so much that Ludwig Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of the twentieth century, remarked: "The only remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." Quite a decline from the grand tradition of Aristotle to Kant...

Do you think philosophers are truly to blame for their shrinking scope because they couldn't keep up with science, or did science simply take over certain areas where it was more specialized and thus more successful?

Do you believe the scope of philosophy has actually narrowed?
What should modern philosophers actually be focusing on? 🙂

It reminds me of something similar that Hawking once wrote—if I recall correctly, physics and what we generally call the natural sciences were still considered part of "natural philosophy" or the philosophy of nature until somewhere around the 1920s. Even back in the 18th century, the great physicist Ruđer Bošković was essentially nothing other than a natural philosopher, and his theories are actually being validated today by modern branches of science like quantum physics.
I don't think it's about an inability to keep up; rather, it’s about the massive specialization occurring within the scientific sector and, frankly, the "dumbing down" of the general public. Everyone has become a tiny cog in a massive machine, effectively siloed into one specific department. Those Renaissance-style polymaths—or what we might call interdisciplinary scholars today, though they aren't quite the same thing—are becoming increasingly rare.
Another factor is the overwhelming dominance of the strong positivist tradition that has been driving things since the 19th century, favoring empiricism and experimental sciences.

granitetinker15 said:Stephen Hawking offered an interesting observation in his book "A Brief History of Time":

Until now, most scientists have been too preoccupied with developing new theories about what the universe is to even ask why it exists at all. On the other hand, philosophers—those whose actual job is to ask "why"—haven't been able to keep pace with scientific progress. Back in the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the entirety of human knowledge, including science, to be their domain, tackling questions such as whether the universe had a beginning. But during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became far too specialized and mathematical for philosophers and anyone else outside of a tiny circle of experts. Philosophers narrowed their scope so much that Ludwig Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of the twentieth century, remarked: "The only remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." Quite a decline from the grand tradition of Aristotle to Kant...

Do you think philosophers are truly to blame for their shrinking scope because they couldn't keep up with science, or did science simply take over certain areas where it was more specialized and thus more successful?

Do you believe the scope of philosophy has actually narrowed?
What should modern philosophers actually be focusing on? 🙂

It might not be that their scope has shrunk, but the reality is that a philosopher today carries almost no prestige unless they happen to be a professor. Even then, being a philosophy professor carries far less weight than, say, being a notary, a lawyer, or an economist in a world where money dictates reputation and social status. It’s a bit sad, really. Not to mention that here in the States, we live in a cultural climate where "philosophizing" can sometimes be used as a bit of a slur. Because of how language works, anyone who isn't completely uncultured will automatically associate the mention of philosophy with people who "just philosophize"—meaning they just complicate things or are incredibly boring. While there’s certainly some truth behind those prejudices, it’s a shame that something that was once such a noble pursuit (and in my eyes, still is, even if society doesn't see it that way) has been reduced to a bit of a joke. But hey, no use dwelling on it, we move on. 🙂

You ask what modern philosophers have to do, and I’d argue that this is actually the first time in history they truly have something to work on. Since everything from science to manufacturing has undergone intense specialization, philosophy itself has split into wildly different approaches, methods, and traditions. I quite like what Jaspers said about how philosophy only truly has work to do in times like these. However, today, philosophy tends to be more critically oriented; its "job" often involves social critique, analysis, and deconstruction. On the other hand, philosophers constantly have to ask, "What does it actually mean when we say this, and does it even matter?" They have to fight against oppression, repression, and unfounded authority. They have to challenge everything from the old grip of the church to the modern hegemony of "experts"—those people who, simply because they have "expert" in their job title, can sell you just about anything. And of course, money is always involved. An official "expert" might tell you something is good just because they're the designated authority, while massive corporations will gladly pay to ensure an "experiment" goes exactly the way they want, or to get a dentist to endorse a specific brand of toothpaste in a commercial. There are endless examples of this.
I’ve always felt that a philosopher’s primary job is to elevate their own state of consciousness first, and then—if society hasn't become too mentally stagnant to actually listen—maybe try to lift the rest of us up too.

If we look at the realm of knowledge and culture, you could say science acts as the governing body or the executive power, while philosophy functions more like an oversight committee or a board of directors. 🙂 Every philosophical movement is naturally shaped by its era, which is why we're seeing disciplines emerge today that would have been totally unthinkable just a few decades ago. Nowadays, a philosopher isn't really the type preoccupied with abstract metaphysical "bits" and whatnot; instead, they're diving deep into phenomenology, social critique, media studies, semiotics, decoding complex systems, the societal impact of emerging tech, linguistics, and the analysis of science itself. For instance, one of the most fascinating puzzles in the philosophy of science is the demarcation problem—trying to figure out what truly qualifies as science versus what's just pseudoscience, or where the line is drawn between legitimate inquiry and mere speculation. It’s a massive web of questions, answers, implications, and potential insights that eventually leads toward a certain kind of enlightenment. Even if we never land on some absolute, final set of answers (whatever that might even mean), we can at least learn what *isn't* the answer. And honestly, there's value in that. I'd much rather spend my time searching for truth than finding it in all the wrong places, though who knows if the search itself isn't the whole point...

Regarding this whole Wittgenstein approach, I see it as just one possible path that modern philosophy can take—and it's a path I personally find quite engaging—but it certainly isn't the only one I'm looking into. Though, it seems likely (and perhaps a bit sad) that even philosophers today are being forced into narrow specialization. I don't know, I guess we'll see how it unfolds. One formulation that really resonates with me is the idea that philosophy operates in that space between language and reality. To me, that feels like a deeply meaningful claim, maybe even the best definition of philosophy out there. This isn't just a modern thing, either; even Aristotle defined the human being as *zoon logon echon*—a creature capable of speech. We exist through language, and that alone opens up a whole universe of complexities that makes philosophy both possible and, more often than not, absolutely necessary.

There's plenty more I could say about this, of course, but I'll leave it at that for now...

Jonathan Hernandez4 said:Why would a man even want to be a father...
What does being a father actually mean to you?
Maybe if you could describe your own father to us, it might make it a little easier for the guys here to weigh in on whether they’d want to step into that role or not.

A friend of mine once said something quite beautiful—something along the lines of growing alongside your children. To me, that captures the whole essence of it. We've been given this innate opportunity to evolve as individuals through the experience of parenting.
As for the idea that women desire children more, I honestly think that’s just something we’ve been conditioned to believe. Historically, a woman wasn't even considered "real" unless she was a mother; it was how her identity was defined. Men didn't face those same societal pressures, and frankly, they rarely had the chance to be the kind of fathers that modern standards actually expect them to be.
Still, it’s genuinely good to see more men finally discovering the richness that life offers when they embrace parenthood.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily want to be a biological father—not that I’m against it, it’s just a matter of priorities—for several reasons. For one, there are way too many people on this planet already. Then there's the weight of responsibility; when things get heated during an argument, a kid might always throw the "you never asked me to be born" line at you. Plus, I don't want to feel blamed for making a choice since, from a certain perspective, having kids isn't exactly the most "politically liberal" move, considering no one actually asks them if they want to exist in the first place.😁...

In other words, almost nobody who is born actually chose to be here...

Now, "being a father" in the sense of living with children or working with them? I'd love that, and in some ways, I already do...

I also suspect that biological fatherhood is sometimes just a way to extend the ego, or tradition, or whatever... maybe even a fear of death, who knows? But the reality is, it’s wonderful to have a family, a partner you can truly love and care for, and these little ones who eventually grow into adults and head out on their own adventures. Sometimes I feel those paternal instincts flare up in me, though they usually vanish in a heartbeat. 😁
And it's not like I haven't met a woman I could actually envision building a life with... but does that kind of woman even exist anymore? 😁

I remember a friend of mine, who’s openly bisexual, jokingly asked me once if I’d provide the "seed" if she lived in a sort of domestic partnership or marriage-like setup with another woman. Her idea felt a bit eugenicist, honestly. When we talked about my lack of interest in having kids, she told me, "It's such a shame, people like you really should have children." I'm not trying to compliment myself here, but I wanted to draw that parallel to eugenics... then again, what are genes? I don't believe in genetics nearly as much as I believe in environment and upbringing; even today, they say "only" about 30% is determined by DNA. On one hand, her suggestion about donating sperm leaned toward eugenics, and on the other, I don't know... maybe it was just about my personality. Anyway, why couldn't I "sublimate" that drive by working with kids in schools or something? Or even adopting? The human ego is a strange thing, full of nonsense like "it has to be my own blood"...

If I look at this through a utilitarian lens: do I lose more by never being a biological father, or by being one? It's a tough one... Someone phrased it perfectly based on experience: on one hand, you miss out on the specific experience of "being a father" (assuming you raise the child), but on the other, you miss out on the experience of "living life as a non-father." But you can be a non-father for a good first part of your life—depending on when you decide to start the process, haha—and you can still be a father later on. And you can always walk away if it becomes too much, whether it's because of conscience or whatever, and handle the child support if you absolutely have to. You can always tell the kids, "You aren't my biological children; you are divine sparks sent through your mother. She was the bow, and I was just the force that released the arrow." Something like that...

😉

George Smith2 said:Here you go again...

A tree, at its core, lacks consciousness. Therefore—even if it were to experience some sort of euphoric peak during photosynthesis—it wouldn't actually *know* it happened, which makes the whole thing functionally nonexistent.

It feels like a total dogma to me, honestly—just something people believe without any real proof.
And besides, there's really no way for you to actually know that for sure...

I’m actually diving into this really great, pretty hilarious book right now (David Cooper: slang) that probably has some interesting bits that could tie directly—or maybe indirectly—into what we're discussing here. I honestly don't have the energy to sit here and transcribe all those passages for you right now, though; I've got two massive dictionaries and a long article sitting right in front of me waiting for me to get through them, so 😛 ...
But hey, if you're really curious, why not make a run for the local library? Grab a copy of Spengler, pick up Mumford (the one the original poster mentioned), and just start reading... hehe. What else can I say? I can't exactly do the reading for you 😉.

Also, I should mention—and I mean IF you happened to miss this part, haha—that I did skim over certain sections. I don't really have the time to hunt down specific quotes since he's moved on to talking about other things now. He's a totally fascinating guy, though... an anti-psychiatrist and a philosopher 🙂).

Laura Peterson3 said:The notion that things have always been this way is simply a fallacy.
We find ourselves at the terminal stage of a process where
the living is being systematically supplanted by the inanimate, though this shift is accelerating far more rapidly than it ever did during the Romantic era.
In previous ages, the propaganda mechanisms of the technological
order were rudimentary and largely ineffective.

Today, however, we possess television, vast networks of
universities, Cartesian science, advertising, and the entirety of commercial
industry—all synchronized toward a singular objective: a collective
hostility toward anything organic or truly alive.

There is no such thing as a "noble savage," of course. Some would argue that
this degradation actually began much earlier, triggered by those first primitive attempts at land enclosure.

One should consult Lewis Mumford regarding this matter.

To my mind, providing an honest description of our current state is the first step toward solving the problem.

That’s perfect, I was actually just thinking about bringing him up, but it looks like you beat me to it. Before Lewis Mumford, though, there’s someone who talks about very similar themes—and if you ask most of my colleagues (myself included), he’s actually even better: Oswald Spengler. Now, it’s highly likely that Mumford "borrowed" quite a bit from Spengler, but that doesn't really matter; it’s still a great point to make. Spengler’s magnum opus is "The Decline of the West," which comes in two volumes, so definitely check that out if you're interested... Also, for this specific discussion, his little book "Man and Technology" is worth a look. I picked up a copy recently for $6.75 bucks, and honestly, nothing beats the feel of good old-fashioned paper, despite how much everyone obsesses over PDFs these days, haha. But anyway, getting back to the topic, you guys are making some really great posts here... If I stumble upon another solid reference or a good passage from a book, I’ll feel comfortable enough to share it with the group. It’s not that I don’t have my own thoughts on the matter, it’s just that there are so many deep, insightful, and already established analyses out there that I don't see much point in trying to reinvent the wheel...

briskgull27 said:Riker, that's just who you are.

Who am I, though? Lol.

As you can tell, I didn't bother locking this thread. Honestly, I just feel like there are plenty of folks out there who actually enjoy diving into these topics, and I think that's perfectly fine. What I wrote above was really just my own personal take—something I believe is valid and fair—but it wasn't meant to be some kind of absolute rule or an order for everyone else to follow.

Besides, if you look closely enough, you can pretty much turn any discussion on this site into something worth reading...

When I say the stuff above is absurd to debate on a political level, I’m looking at it through a wider lens. Even here in the USA, people are constantly debating whether it's acceptable to mistreat political prisoners and what methods should be used, among other things. Not too long ago, that kind of thing was considered completely off-limits. I mean, it always happened, of course, but back then it was just something done quietly by certain individuals without making a massive public spectacle out of it...

briskgull27 said:Haha, okay, so on paper I'm employed, but I haven't actually worked a job in a year.
I mean, I stay busy with housework and helping my husband out, but technically I don't have an official job—though you wouldn't find that listed in my employment records.
edit: signing documents and stamping papers doesn't exactly count as a career, does it?

Just play the saxophone and focus all that energy on creating a masterpiece. 🙄

There’s just no such thing as exterminating anyone. Period. Full stop.
I don't think this is even something up for debate, honestly.
Sure, we can speculate or dive into history books all we want, but the idea of actually considering such a thing shouldn't be on the table—not even as a serious thought. It reminds me a bit of how certain controversial topics are handled in the US today; the context might be slightly different and the specifics aren't an exact match, but the vibe is similar. And even then, discussing those kinds of things was pretty much unheard of even fifteen years ago...

Why is it such a struggle for you to get outside, briskgull27? I honestly deal with that same feeling more often than I'd like to admit, though I usually just force myself to get moving anyway... and, well, you really have to. Even on the days when there isn't any obligation, I still try to make an effort to head out somewhere and catch up with friends.

briskgull27 said:Goodness, I've been hanging around here since Christmas 2006, and I've already racked up over 4,000 posts.
What do you all get up to when you aren't busy working?
I'm currently between jobs, and while I find it a bit tough to get out much lately, I do try to make an effort to head outdoors now and then.
Honestly, though, I feel like I'm losing interest in almost everything...

Do you struggle with agoraphobia or something?

@sukuba, but then we’re talking about a much more selfish kind of "love," aren't we?
And honestly, it shows up way more often than people care to admit.
I think we've all felt it at some point. But there’s also that other version that adriatic keeps bringing up...

Maybe I'm off base here, but I have this nagging feeling that true love really does exist, even if it feels like a total unicorn. I know, I know—this is one of those big, messy, interdisciplinary questions that crosses into a dozen different fields, but I’m not approaching this as a philosopher or an academic; I’m just speaking as a regular person first and foremost. So, I suppose my expertise on the matter is about as deep as anyone else's 😁 ...

👋 👋 👋

🧐