Post: #51

(06-20-2013 09:40 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Name some of your favorite classic philosophers.

WIA

i am drawn towards the analytics.

Anyways, from the website: http://www.iep.utm.edu/analytic/

We have a nice compilation for those interested:

#1. Anthologies and General Introductions

Ammerman, Robert (ed.). 1990: Classics of Analytic Philosophy, Indianapolis: Hackett.
Baillie, James (ed.). 2002: Contemporary Analytic Philosophy: Core Readings, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall.
Martinich, A. P. and Sosa, David (eds.). 2001a: Analytic Philosophy: An Anthology, Blackwell Publishers.
Martinich, A. P. and Sosa, David (eds.). 2001b: A Companion to Analytic Philosophy, Blackwell Publishers.
Rorty, Richard (ed.). 1992: The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.


#2. Critical and Historical Accounts of Analytic Philosophy

Ayer, A. J., et al. 1963: The Revolution in Philosophy, London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd.
Ayer, A.J. (ed ) 1982: Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, London: Weidenfield and Nicolson.
Beaney, Michael. 2003: “Analysis,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, URL= < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/>.
Biletzki and Matar (eds.). 1998: The Story of Analytic Philosophy: Plot and Heroes, London and New York: Routledge.
Capaldi, Nicholas. 2000: The Enlightenment Project in the Analytic Conversation, Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Charlton, William. 1991: The Analytic Ambition: An Introduction to Philosophy, Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.
Clarke, D.S. 1997: Philosophy’s Second Revolution: Early and Recent Analytic Philosophy, La Salle: Open Court.
Coffa, J.A. 1991: The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, L. J. 1986: The Dialogue of Reason: An Analysis of Analytical Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Collingwood, R.G. An Essay on Philosophical Method
Corrado, Michael. 1975: The Analytic Tradition in Philosophy: Background and Issues, Chicago: American Library Association.
Dummett, Michael. 1993: Origins of Analytical Philosophy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Garber, Daniel. 2004: “Philosophy and the Scientific Revolution,” in Teaching New Histories of Philosophy, Princeton: Princeton University Center for Human Values.
Glock, Hans-Johann (ed.). 1997: The Rise of Analytic Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Grafton, Anthony. 2004: “A Note from Inside the Teapot,” in Teaching New Histories of Philosophy, Princeton: Princeton University Center for Human Values.
Hanna, Robert. 2001: Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mehta, Ved. 1961: Fly and the Fly Bottle: Encounters with British Intellectuals, New York: Columbia University Press.
Nagel, Ernest. 1936a-b: “Impressions and Appraisals of Analytic Philosophy in Europe,” The Journal of Philosophy vol. 33, no. 1, 5-24 and no. 2, 29-53.
Pap, Arthur. 1949: Elements of Analytic Philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
Preston, Aaron. 2004: “Prolegomena to Any Future History of Analytic Philosophy,” Metaphilosophy, vol. 35, no. 4, 445-465.
Preston, Aaron. 2005a: “Conformism in Analytic Philosophy: On Shaping Philosophical Boundaries and Prejudices,” The Monist, Volume 88, Number 2, April 2005.
Preston, Aaron. 2005b: “Implications of Recent Work on Analytic Philosophy,” The Bertrand Russell Society Quarterly, no. 127 (August 2005), 11-30.
Prosch, Harry. 1964: The Genesis of Twentieth Century Philosophy: The Evolution of Thought from Copernicus to the Present, Garden City: Doubleday and Co., Inc.
Soames, Scott. 2003. Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, 2 vols., Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stroll, Avrum. 2000: Twentieth Century Analytic Philosophy, New York: Columbia University Press.
Warnock, G.J. 1958: English Philosophy Since 1900, London: Oxford University Press.


#4. The 1960s and After: The Era of Eclecticism

Hacking, Ian, 1975: Why Does Language Matter to Philosophy?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kripke, Saul. 1980: Naming and Necessity Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Mundle, C. W. K. 1970: A Critique of Linguistic Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gellner, E. 1959: Words and Things: A Critical Account of Linguistic Philosophy and a Study in Ideology, London: Gollancz.


#5 The Revolution of Moore and Russell: Cambridge Realism and The Linguistic Turn

Primary Sources

Moore, G. E. 1899: “The Nature of Judgment,” Mind 8, 176-93. Reprinted in Moore 1993, 1-19.
Moore, G. E. 1903a: Principia Ethica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, G. E. 1903b: “The Refutation of Idealism” Mind 12, 433-53. Reprinted in Moore 1993, 23-44.
Moore, G. E. 1925: “A Defense of Common Sense” in J. H. Muirhead ed., Contemporary British Philosophy, London: Allen and Unwin, 193-223. Reprinted in Moore 1959, 126-148, and Moore 1993, 106-33.
Moore, G. E. 1939: “Proof of an External World,” Proceedings of the British Academy 25, 273-300. Reprinted in Moore 1993, 147-70.
Moore, G. E. 1942a: “An Autobiography,” in Schilpp ed., 1942, 3-39.
Moore, G. E. 1942b: “A Reply to My Critics,” in Schilpp ed., 1942, 535-677.
Moore, G. E. 1959: Philosophical Papers, London: George Allen and Unwin.
Moore, G. E. 1993: G.E. Moore: Selected Writings, ed. Thomas Baldwin, London: Routledge.
Russell, Bertrand. 1959: My Philosophical Development, London: George Allen and Unwin; New York: Simon and Schuster.

Secondary Sources

Ayer, A.J. (ed ) 1971: Russell and Moore: The Analytical Heritage, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baldwin, T. 1990: G. E. Moore, London: Routledge.
Baldwin, T. 1991: “The Identity Theory of Truth,” Mind, New Series, Vol. 100, No. 1, 35-52.
Bell, David. 1999: “The Revolution of Moore and Russell: A Very British Coup?” in Anthony O’Hear (ed.), German Philosophy Since Kant, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Griffin, Nicholas. 1991: Russell’s Idealist Apprenticeship, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hylton, Peter. 1990: Russell, Idealism, and the Emergence of Analytic Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schilpp, P.A., ed. 1942: The Philosophy of G.E. Moore, Library of Living Philosophers Vol. 4, La Salle: Open Court.


#6 Russell and the Early Wittgenstein: Ideal Language and Logical Atomism

Primary Sources

Frege, Gottlob. 1879: Concept Script, a formal language of pure thought modeled upon that of arithmetic, tr. by S. Bauer-Mengelberg, in J. van Heijenoort (ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.
Frege, Gottlob. 1892: “On Sense and Reference” tr. by M. Black, in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, P. Geach and M. Black (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, 3rd ed., 1980.
Russell, Bertrand. 1905: “On Denoting,” Mind 14: 479-93.
Russell, Bertrand. 1908: “Mathematical Logic as Based on the Theory of Types,” American Journal of Mathematics, 30, 222-262. Reprinted in Russell 1956, 59-102.
Russell, Bertrand. 1914: “On Scientific Method in Philosophy,” in Russell 1918, 97-124.
Russell, Bertrand. 1918-19: “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,” The Monist 28:495-527 and 29:33-63, 190-222, 344-80; reprinted La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1985.
Russell, Bertrand. 1918: Mysticism and Logic: and Other Essays, New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
Russell, Bertrand. 1944a: “My Mental Development,” in Schilpp, ed. 1944, 3-20.
Russell, Bertrand. 1944b: “Reply to Criticisms,” in Schilpp, ed. 1944, 681-741.
Russell, Bertrand. 1946: “The Philosophy of Logical Analysis,” from A History of Western Philosophy, London: Allen and Unwin; New York: Simon and Schuster, 1946; reprinted in Dennon and Egner, eds., 1961, pp. 301-307.
Russell, Bertrand. 1950: “Is Mathematics Purely Linguistic?,” in Russell 1973, pp. 295-306.
Russell, Bertrand. 1956: Logic and Knowledge, Robert Marsh, ed., London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.
Russell, Bertrand. 1959: My Philosophical Development, London: Unwin.
Russell, Bertrand. 1973: Essays in Analysis, Douglas lackey, ed., London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Russell, Bertrand, and Whitehead, Alfred North. 1910-1913: Principia Mathematica 3 vols. London: Cambridge University Press. Second edition 1925.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1922: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, tr. C.K. Ogden. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Secondary Sources

Kenny, Anthony. 2000: Frege: An Introduction to the Founder of Modern Analytic Philosophy, Blackwell Publishers.
Baker, G .P. and Hacker, P.M.S. 1983: “Dummett’s Frege or Through a Looking-Glass Darkly,” Mind, 92, pp. 239-246.
Baker, G .P. and Hacker, P.M.S. 1984: Frege: Logical Excavations, Oxford: Blackwell.
Baker, G .P. and Hacker, P.M.S. 1987: “Dummett’s Dig: Looking-Glass Archaeology,” Philosophical Quarterly, 37, pp. 86-99.
Baker, G .P. and Hacker, P.M.S. 1989: “The Last Ditch,” Philosophical Quarterly, 39, pp. 471-477.
Dummett, Michael. 1991: Frege: Philosophy of Mathematics, London: Duckworth.
Monk, Ray and Palmer, Anthony (eds.). 1996: Bertrand Russell and the Origins of Analytical Philosophy, Bristol: Thoemmes Press.
Reck, Erich (ed.). 2001: From Frege to Wittgenstein: Perspectives on Early analytic philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pears, D.F. 1967: Bertrand Russell and the British Tradition in Philosophy, London: Collins.
Schilpp, P.A. 1944: The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Library of Living Philosophers Vol. 5, La Salle: Open Court.
Schrenmann, R. (ed.) 1967: Bertrand Russell: Philosopher of the Century, London: Allen and Unwin.
Tait, William (ed). 1997: Early Analytic Philosophy: Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein; Essays in Honor of Leonard Linsky, Chicago: Open Court.


#7Logical Positivism, the Vienna Circle, and Quine

Primary Sources

Ayer, A.J. 1936: Language, Truth and Logic, London: Gollantz; second edition 1946; reprinted New York: Dover, 1952.
Carnap, Rudolf. 1928: The Logical Structure of the World. English trans. published by Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
Carnap, Rudolf. 1934: “On the Character of Philosophical Problems,” tr. W.M. Malisoff, in Rorty (ed.) 1967, 54-62.
Hempel, Carl. 1950: “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4:41-63; reprinted in Ayer (ed.) 1959.
Quine, W. V. “Truth by Convention.” In O.H. Lee (ed.), Philosophical Essays for A.N. Whitehead, New York: Longmans, 1936; reprinted in Ways of Paradox: New York: Random House, 1966.
Quine, W. V. 1951: “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Philosophical Review 60(1951):20-43.
Quine, W. V. Word and Object. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1960.
Quine, W. V. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.

Secondary Sources

Ayer, A.J. (ed ) 1959: Logical Positivism, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1959.
Schilpp, P.A. 1963: The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. 11, La Salle: Open Court.
Schilpp, P.A. The Philosophy of W.V. Quine, Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. 18, La Salle: Open Court.
Schilpp, P.A. 1992: The Philosophy of A. J. Ayer, Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. 21, La Salle: Open Court.
Sarkar, Sahotra (ed.) 1996: Science and Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: Basic Works of Logical Empiricism, 6 vols., New York & London: Garland Publishing.

#8 The Later Wittgenstein, et al.: Ordinary-Language Philosophy

Primary Sources

Austin, J.L. 1962: How to Do Things with Words, New York: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J.L. 1962: Sense and Sensibilia, London: Oxford University Press.
Grice, Paul. 1989: Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949: The Concept of Mind, New York: Barnes and Noble.
Ryle, Gilbert. 1953: Dilemmas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strawson, Peter. 1950: “On Referring” Mind, 59: 320-344.
Strawson, Peter and Grice, H. P. 1956: “In Defense of a Dogma,” Philosophical Review, 65: 141-58; reprinted in Grice 1989.
Wisdom, John. 1931: Interpretation and Analysis in Relation to Bentham’s Theory of Definition,London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner &Co.
Wisdom, John. 1952: Other Minds, Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953: Philosophical Investigations, tr. G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

Secondary Sources

Canfield, J.V. (ed) 1986: The Philosophy of Wittgenstein, New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Hacker, P.M.S. 1986: Insight and Illusion: Themes in the Philosophy of Wittgenstein, Oxford: Clarendon.
Kripke, Saul. 1982: Wittgenstein On Rules and Private Language, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Urmson, J. O. 1956: Philosophical Analysis: Its Development Between the Two World Wars, London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Post: #52

(06-21-2013 12:53 AM)cardguy Wrote:  The only philosopher I like is Daniel Dennett.

Sounds like you know way more about philosophy than me, but as an amateur fan I like Nietzsche because of his emphasis on assiduous, passionate, prolonged action in the world dedicated to some kind of internally directed transcendental ( don't know if I'm using word right) achievement.

Did he say something like "whole civilizations exist to give birth to one Beethoven."?

I just love the idea of the mad scientist/composer/writer in his basement/garrett, with a new vision for the world in his mind, working like a maniac to bring it to life.

I think it's because action towards an end seems to be much more interesting to me than verbal, logical discussion of the actions of others.

Did Wittgenstein say something like the writing he did was the smaller part of his philosophy, and the actions he took the greater part?

Aren't you exaggerating, perhaps to make a point, that Nietzche couldn't pass first year philosophy?

Post: #53

Yet to read through this thread as I have work to do, but I'm currently reading this book (free on Kindle) - it seems a good start for guys that want an intro.

The Problems of Philosophy
'Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?' Philosophy is the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we might deal with them in ordinary life, but critically, after analysing how and why the questions arise and clarifying the assumptions and concepts on which they are based. This classic work, first published in 1912, has never been supplanted as an approachable introduction to the theory of philosophical enquiry. It gives Russell's views on such subjects as the distinction between appearance and reality, the existence and nature of matter, idealism, knowledge by acquaintance and by description, induction, and the limits and value of philosophical knowledge. This edition includes an introduction by John Skorupski contextualizing Russell's work, and a guide to further reading.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Problems-of-Ph...994&sr=8-1

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #54

The Problems of Philosophy by Russell, as mentioned above ^, is either adored or ridiculed.
It is, i think, a decent introduction to philosophy. Some people just aren't concerned by the difference between appearance and reality, between reality and actuality, so on and so on.
To some the process of waking up and reflecting on the meta and minutiae of everything is never something they will do. To others it is the only cause worth pursuing.

I bang. I want to bang. I know how to bang. Sure, who gives a shit?
Surely the only question is why?
To bust a nut for the sake of busting a nut? That doesn't stand up to any clear logic.

And even then too often there isn't an adequate, or accurate, distinguishment between the why and the how of a matter. Anyway, the Ashes are on and Agar just fell on 98. Shame.

Post: #55

(07-11-2013 09:05 AM)Mersault Wrote:  Anyway, the Ashes are on and Agar just fell on 98. Shame.

Number 11 on debut looks like he's going to top score for the match. Could ask for a worse entry to the international scene. Hopefully he nabs a couple of wickets this innings

Post: #56

(07-11-2013 09:17 AM)Architekt Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 09:05 AM)Mersault Wrote:  Anyway, the Ashes are on and Agar just fell on 98. Shame.

Number 11 on debut looks like he's going to top score for the match. Could ask for a worse entry to the international scene. Hopefully he nabs a couple of wickets this innings

Trott just trapped in front. 11-2. Looks like the convicts are going to take this one

''we all shagged Matilda, we all shagged Matilda''

Post: #57

I did philosophy at University. But I stopped going to lectures after about a month. Leading to being a first year drop out with a (no doubt) damaged liver.

So - I am totally self-taught when it comes to philosophy. Which is fine by me since I love reading.

Anyway - I am currently reading a recent book by Colin Mcginn which sets out his vision as to what sort of activity philosophy is.

When I am finished with the book (which is brilliant by the way) - I will report back, and cover some other areas of interest as well.

Mcginn is an interesting writer. He had an autobiography out awhile ago which seemed to sell quite well. And he is famous for holding the position that all the fundamental questions of philosophy are too difficult for humans to ever solve. It is a simple idea - but he wrote a whole book explaining it.

Despite the simplicity of the idea - it really did need a whole book to set out in detail his vision. Which is strange now that I think about it since the position is simply that humans are too thick to ever make progress with the classic philosophical questions.

I am going to have to re-read that book again. The book ('The Problems Of Philosophy' which by conincidence is the same title - but different author - of the book mentioned above) is an expansion of the following paper:

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/cours...sophy.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_c...losophy%29

Post: #58

@ cardguy. philosophy of the mind is fun stuff.

are you familiar with Jerry Fodor works? especially "Psychosemantics"?

@Mersault and Architekt....i have only this video to add.

Yes, they are chanting "you're gonna get your fucking heads kicked in"




I wish they make cricket as sexy as rugby:

Post: #59

(07-11-2013 01:08 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  I wish they make cricket as sexy as rugby:

Seen any IPL T/20? Some of the cheerleaders they got ain't half bad

Post: #60

Will check out the Jerry Fodor work. Thanks!

I never used to be interested in Philosophy of Mind. But now I find it really interesting since the work in this area is so inventive and clever. It is like watching a chess game and hearing the players explain the thinking behind their moves.

Post: #61

Really enjoying the Colin Mcginn book.

Tried searching for his email address - since I have some points I want to make about his book (which is on metaphilosophy).

Anyway - just found out that he has being engulfed in a scandal at his university which has led to his resigning his post as professor.

The 'ins and outs' of it are pretty complex - and seem similar to that portrayed in the film 'Oleanna' by David Mamet.

It seems he was working closely with a female student. Indeed - they were working on a 'genius' project - in which the professor would try and cultivate new creative ideas by challenging social taboos and trying to approach the subject of philosophy in a new way. This involved analysing phrases like 'hand job' which has evolved from being an innocent description of manual labour. To a sexual description (which it has being from the 1970's onwards).

Along the way - they were analysing how we distinguish 'hand jobs' from 'brain jobs' since most jobs make use of the brain and the hand.

Seems things may have gotten a bit out of hand between them. Such that when they fell out - the girl decided to try and bring him down on the basis of the emails he has had sent to her months earlier.

Colin Mcginn has a blog which he posts on most days. So you can get his side of things. He has posted alot on this since it kicked off about a month ago.

http://mcginn.philospot.com/

And this link gives an overview of the whole case:

http://educationandliberty.com/2013/06/0...tionships/

What is interesting though. Is that the whole academic community is now analysing the 'ins and outs' of this to see what was appropriate and what was not. Since the boundaries between a famous male professor and a female student are difficult to draw - without somebody claiming that one person is in a position to abuse the other. But it is pretty subjective and very similar to the debates that David Mamet raises in his film 'Oleanna'.

Anyway - I am a big fan of Colin Mcginn. And apparently - in future he will have more time to write books. Which is a good thing.

Also - and this is lost in the coverage. Mcginn was investigated for sexual harrassment. And was found not guilty on any of these issues. Instead they bought him down for failing to disclose that he had become close to a female graduate student. Even though they had never had sex. The whole issue is incredibly vague and subjective. And it seems that such a charge can be thrown at anyone when a student kicks up enough fuss.

I only find it interesting because it involves one of my favourite philosophers - and is a real reminder of one of David Mamet's most famous works.

Also - it is a reminder that when you stay something versus when something is recorded on paper (or in an email) it always seems to be more damning. I would recommend everyone at work to never email anything which is not 100% professional. There is something about emails that makes people feel they have found 'the smoking gun', should they ever decide to come after you about your alledged behaviour.

What can be passed off as a joke in conversation - looks incredibly damning when it is unearther from a hard-drive as a record of something you did a year earlier. Which to me is a little unfair - but it is what it is.

As for the Colin Mcginn case. The tagline to the film 'Oleanna' sums it up...

Whatever side you take, you're wrong.

Post: #62

I have mentioned this poster before. But was just reminded of it again today...

For those interested in philosophy - it might make interesting reading since it will help sharpen up your critical thinking skills.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/assets/...herRes.jpg

Post: #63

Here is one of my favourite metaphysical thought experiments. It is rare you find a thought experiment as simple and as powerful as this one.

I love ingenuity - but it is surprisingly rare in philosophy. So this piece of thinking really stands out for me.

http://bigi.org.uk/blog/2007/12/17/leibn...-universe/

Post: #64

This is a nice book for those looking for a totally new way of thinking about life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games

Post: #65

My favourite philosophical thought experiment is actually from the world of physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Post: #66

(06-22-2013 02:01 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Just came across this joke.

Quote:So, the chair of the physics department goes to the Dean to ask for $1 million for a piece of equipment. The Dean complains:

"Why can't you folks be like my mathematicians? All they need is a pencil, paper, and a wastebasket? Or why can't you be like my philosophers? All they need is a pencil and paper!"

Wittgentein's view:
A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.
As quoted in "A View from the Asylum" in Philosophical Investigations from the Sanctity of the Press (2004), by Henry Dribble, p. 87

Post: #67

(07-11-2013 12:27 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I did philosophy at University. But I stopped going to lectures after about a month. Leading to being a first year drop out with a (no doubt) damaged liver.

So - I am totally self-taught when it comes to philosophy. Which is fine by me since I love reading.

Anyway - I am currently reading a recent book by Colin Mcginn which sets out his vision as to what sort of activity philosophy is.

When I am finished with the book (which is brilliant by the way) - I will report back, and cover some other areas of interest as well.

Mcginn is an interesting writer. He had an autobiography out awhile ago which seemed to sell quite well. And he is famous for holding the position that all the fundamental questions of philosophy are too difficult for humans to ever solve. It is a simple idea - but he wrote a whole book explaining it.

Despite the simplicity of the idea - it really did need a whole book to set out in detail his vision. Which is strange now that I think about it since the position is simply that humans are too thick to ever make progress with the classic philosophical questions.

This reminds me of this W'stein quote:

my work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one.

I also see philosophy as action in the world rather than word creation, writing. I don't understand verbal philosophy well. I feel happier playing a guitar, I love (philo) that knowledge (sophy) more.

Post: #68

(07-17-2013 02:25 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Here is one of my favourite metaphysical thought experiments. It is rare you find a thought experiment as simple and as powerful as this one.

I love ingenuity - but it is surprisingly rare in philosophy. So this piece of thinking really stands out for me.

http://bigi.org.uk/blog/2007/12/17/leibn...-universe/

i did a quick read of it. It strikes me as set theory. A =[x] ; B = [Y]; X= Y; Therefore A= B. yeah. okay.

Some of these "puzzles" are simply due to imprecision in languages. or abuse of languages. sameness is not necessarily oneness.

A more interesting social interpretation is to talk about CLONES. Since clones are exactly identical all the way...well, neural pathways will start to differentiate with different memories, etc...anyways,

IF YOU KILL YOUR CLONE(S) IS IT MURDER? If you kill yourself it isnt murder....however, if you kill your clone(or identical twin) is it murder? The answer will be yes...even though if you kill yourself, it isnt murder.

You are exactly the same as your clone(or twin.)

A SIDENOTE: Are you familiar with the concept of QUALIA in philosophy?

What is the taste of milk? what is the colour yellow? describe and quantify it.

anyways, back to two spheres are one, of mr. gottfried leibnitz....

Are two identical spheres one or not?

...Is the cup half-empty or half-full?

these are "puzzles" due to the imprecision of language. This is why i like the analytics in philosophy. It dealt with and eliminate these "puzzles".

Take the half-full vs half-empty.

Condition A: Half full means that the cup was full(at 100% of water)..then we drain the cup to 50% water. correct?

Condition B: Half empty means that the Cup was at empty(at 100% of emptiness) then we fill the cup to 50%(with water.)

Mathematically, if something is said to be half or 1/2...that presupposes that 1/2 +1/2 = 1(100%). otherwise, the very meaning of 1/2 loses its meaning. correct?

Now. that means that if something is half we should be able to add the two halves together and get back 100%.

So, consider condition A: we add two half fulls together and of course, get a 100%= we get a cup full of water....

however, we go to condition B: and we add two half empty together, we will not get 100% empty. we will still get 1/2 empty.(because empty has no corporeal existence: 1/2 empty...1/3empty...2empty = empty...EMPTINESS cannot displace the 50% water the way 50% water can displace emptiness....so, we are still stuck with a 1/2 empty cup regardless of how much emptiness you add to the cup. It is like saying 1/2 of 0 or 2/3 of 0 or 3 of 0 . ALL equal to zero. So, for condition B: 1/2 of 0 + 1/2 of 0 = 0. because zero cannot fillout the cup and empty the water. the way water can push out emptiness or 1/2 empty.

So, the cup is never half empty, the cup is always half-full. that is the only way it can fulfill the mathematical expression 1/2 + 1/2 = 1.

This is the problem with existential qualifiers. It is due to imprecision of language. also existential quantifiers. the empty set. it is also why heidegger didnt know he cant erect a philosophy by asking "why is there something rather than nothing?"

Same shite with clouds. this is what i mean: 1+1 =2. correct? okay...so then one cloud + one cloud = should be equal to......2...no! it is still equal to one cloud. since we are not delving into the discrete particulates of the cloud...we are merely looking at the shape of the cloud to determine either it is one or two.

Again, these "puzzles" are a result of abuse of the imprecision of language.

This is why i like philosophy of language. they uproot and destroy these "puzzles" with tight logic structures.

respectfully,

Post: #69

I am familiar with Qualia. It is strange but my favourite philosopher, Daniel Dennett, is against the use of the concept of Qualia. It is a little hard to follow what he means on this issue - since it is easy to misunderstand.

But it seems he feels the concept of Qualia is too difficult to define since all the standard definitons can be overturned with the use of clever thought experiments.

Quote: According to Dennett, there are no properties that meet the standard conception of qualia (that is, properties of experience that are intrinsic, ineffable, directly and/or immediately introspectible, and private).

He reaches this conclusion by consideration of numerous thought experiments that are designed to tease out the alleged confusions inherent in our concept of qualia.

For example, consider two coffee drinkers, Chase and Sanborn. Both discover one day that they no longer like the Maxwell House coffee they’ve long enjoyed. Chase claims: “Even though the coffee still tastes the same to me, I now no longer like that taste.” In contrast, Sanborn claims: “The coffee now tastes different to me, and I don’t like the new taste.”

But, asks Dennett, how do they know this? Perhaps Chase’s taste receptors have changed so gradually that he hasn’t noticed a change in taste; that is, perhaps he’s really in the situation that Sanborn purports to be in. Or perhaps Sanborn’s standards have changed so gradually that he hasn’t noticed that he now employs different criteria in evaluating the coffee; that is, perhaps he’s really in the situation that Chase purports to be in.

There seems no first-personal way for Chase and Sanborn to settle the matter, calling into question the idea that they have any kind of direct or special access to private properties of their experience.

We might try to devise some behavioral tests to detect the difference, but if we could do so, that would suggest that qualia could be defined relationally, in reference to behavior, and this would call into question the idea that they are intrinsic.

Thus, concludes Dennett, our conception of qualia is so confused that it would be “tactically obtuse” to try to salvage the notion; rather, we should just admit that “there simply are no qualia at all.”

To be honest I am still a little confused by Dennett's position and would love to ask him about it. It seems to me he is picking holes in the concept of Qualia so that he can protect his position as a supporter of Artificial Intelligence.

As such his motivation is not so much because of his problems with the concept of Qualia but so that he can shore up his flanks from attack from those who are sceptical of the possiblity of Artificial Intelligence.

But I may be wrong. It is the one area of Dennett's work I still haven't come to a settled conclusion on.

But in doing so - I wonder if he is throwing out a concept which is true in order to help his pos

Post: #70

Emile Cioran
Friedrich Nietzsche
Seneca
Otto Weininger
Carlo Michelstaedter
Heraclitus and the Pre-Socratics
Martin Heidegger

Post: #71

(07-19-2013 05:17 PM)cardguy Wrote:  This is a nice book for those looking for a totally new way of thinking about life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games

@cardguy. Infinite vs infinite games.

I havent read the book...but from reading the wiki entry...these are my thoughts.

The concept of the infinite is basically, limitless. never ending.

axiomatic assumption : we can have the infinitely smaller or the infinitely larger against a finite frame of reference.

1.1. Lets designate Infinitely smaller as -{inf}

1.2. Let us designate infinitely larger as + {inf}.

1.3. Let us designate the finite frame of reference as A.

2.0. That means that -Inf is infinitely smaller than A and +Inf is infinitely larger than A.

From the finite frame of reference A....-Inf is receding smaller and smaller ad infinitum...which means that the finite frame A is actually increasing infinitely larger and larger in relations to -Inf. Since -Inf is receding infinitely smaller and smaller from A; ergo A is getting larger and larger from -Inf.

This means that the finite A is not actually finite from -Inf point of view, quite the opposite: Finite A is actually getting Infinitely bigger/larger. Hence, from -Inf point of view, finite A is actually infinitely bigger and bigger. Finite A is actually a + Inf.

However, from 1.2 and 2.0, isnt finite A infinitely smaller than +Inf since +inf is infinitely greater than finite A?

Which means that from another vantage point of +Inf, then finite A = -Inf. Since +Inf is infinitely larger than finite A, ergo, finite A is infinitely smaller than +Inf. Finite A is -Inf.

So, finite A is at once finite A, but also -Inf...and also +Inf....depending on the relativistically point of reference. This is inherent in the very definition of the concept of infinity.

We are God, God is us? There is a God of God? God is not God?

Finite games = Infinite games?

Another imprecision in language problem? i dont know...i havent read the book....but these are my thoughts on finite and infinite from reading the wiki entry.

thanks, sir. mr. cardguy. please, keep them coming.

Post: #72

@ CARDGUY on boltzmann's brain.

Hehehe. we have to study that lad's equation in thermodynamics class, you know.

Anyways, ON THE ISSUE OF BOLTZMANN'S brain. I actually like it on an intuitive level. i have always felt that is the way the stock market is = that the stock market is inherently entropic entity...however, there are periods when order or pattern evolve out this entropic chaos for some brief period of time...

those are the times that it is possible to make money in the stock market.

That is my intuitive belief about the stock market. I dont subscribe to the efficient market hypothesis....

Anyways, for those interest in the stock market, i posted a list of books that i have personally found to helped me in trading the stock market.

Hope is of good use to somebody.
.


@UBIETZA.

I am only familiar with nietzsche and emile cioran, heraclitus/pre-socrates/martin heidegger in your list. The other philosophers, i am not familiar with them. When i have leisure time, i will look into them.

I randomly came across emile cioran while reading "Some Blind Alleys:A Letter". it was written by emile cioran. Damn. Those romanian existentialists, especially the ones that aligned themselves with the iron guards members, those people are something else.

Misanthropic doesnt even begin to capture them.

If you like emile cioran, you may like Eugene Ionesco.

Emile cioran mother once remarked, if i recall correctly, that if she knew he would be this misanthropic/depressing, she would have aborted him! hahahahahaha

Post: #73

About the stock market. I would recommend the following book by John Allen Paulos:

http://www.amazon.com/Mathematician-Play...0465054811

As a mathematician himself he discusses some of the interesting mathematical patterns and behaviours which can pop up randomly in the stock market. One of them being to do with cyclical chains (which was discovered by the philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce).

I found that discussion very interesting since it is an unusal mathematical principle which I had only ever seen discussed before in the context of card tricks (one of my hobbies is studying magic).

Post: #74

(07-21-2013 07:08 AM)Ubietza Wrote:  Emile Cioran
Friedrich Nietzsche
Seneca
<b>Otto Weininger</b>
Carlo Michelstaedter
Heraclitus and the Pre-Socratics
Martin Heidegger

I was wondering if anyone on this forum has ever read Weininger's 'Sex and Character'. I know plenty of people here have read Schopenhauer's infamous essay about females but has anyone went through Weininger's book? Outside of his discussions about women, I found he had some pretty interesting things to say about the nature of genius and given that his main thesis deals with women, he managed to relate his discussion on genius to the female gender - namely that there can never be a female genius.

Post: #75

(07-21-2013 09:22 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(07-21-2013 07:08 AM)Ubietza Wrote:  Emile Cioran
Friedrich Nietzsche
Seneca
<b>Otto Weininger</b>
Carlo Michelstaedter
Heraclitus and the Pre-Socratics
Martin Heidegger

I was wondering if anyone on this forum has ever read Weininger's 'Sex and Character'. I know plenty of people here have read Schopenhauer's infamous essay about females but has anyone went through Weininger's book? Outside of his discussions about women, I found he had some pretty interesting things to say about the nature of genius and given that his main thesis deals with women, he managed to relate his discussion on genius to the female gender - namely that there can never be a female genius.

He's spot-on with his womanology and everything he's said about jews.