The philosophy thread!!!!

[HumanePain]

It is vindicating for me to read that Nietzsche differentiates in Will to Power: Critique of Highest Values... between Jesus (who he does not condemn but actually compliments) and the church he condemns vehemently. He also feels the same way about Paul as I, that Paul was the one who corrupted Jesus attempted "primitive Christianity" by adding ritual, symbolism etc.

[Elystan]

Originally Posted by burningplain

I saw this thread and decided to pop over and ask what do people think of Richard Dawkins?

Conceited git

[burningplain]

Originally Posted by Elystan

Conceited git

Yes, that's my agreement. He had the potential to be a serious threat to the theist world. However instead of actually attacking arguments directly in the god delusion, he creates a series of strawman arguments and uses tautologies repeatedly.

I'm a theist personally. I find Dawkins' attempt at attacking theism laughable in its sheer propsterousness.

So... the matters of philosophy. Are "ideals" a good thing or a bad thing?

[Alan]

Ugh, god, your questions are so sophomoric and conceited (you see, I am using the word properly) that I can't take them seriously.

[burningplain]

Originally Posted by Alan

Ugh, god, your questions are so sophomoric and conceited (you see, I am using the word properly) that I can't take them seriously.

My questions are conceited? Please do tell. I am intrigued. And which word would you be referring to when you term proper usage?

Fine allow me to rephrase. Where do you stand on the point of "sublime values" and to which ones do you ascribe?

[Grausamkeit]

I believe Alan's a philosophy major.....good luck.

[Elystan]

Originally Posted by burningplain

Yes, that's my agreement. He had the potential to be a serious threat to the theist world. However instead of actually attacking arguments directly in the god delusion, he creates a series of strawman arguments and uses tautologies repeatedly.

I'm a theist personally. I find Dawkins' attempt at attacking theism laughable in its sheer propsterousness.

So... the matters of philosophy. Are "ideals" a good thing or a bad thing?

I just find it to be in poor taste.

Theist? You're going to need to be more specific, Dawkins may have taken the, you know, weak agnostic position or whatever, but his book was an attack specifically on Christianity. He even puts disclaimers about, you know, Einstein and pantheism and such in the preface. I hope you didn't feel threatened by that.

[burningplain]

Fine allow me to be more specific, I am a former Christian who is now a Polytheist.

As I stated, he uses tautologies and straw man arguments, barely addressing arguments such as intelligent design, or creationism in general. His attacks on Christianity are lack any form of subtlety or balance. Instead of constructing well considered, balanced argument against Christianity, he rants about its flaws and fails to address its strengths. In short, having read "The God Delusion" Dawkins comes across as just another anti-Christianity fanatic with an axe to grind.
I'm not Christian and I disagree with key areas of the belief system. But I can see that as well as causing grief and pain, it has brought hope and joy to billions over the 2 or so millennia it has existed.

[Alan]

So? He does not care about hope. He's a fucking scientist; what he cares about is religion's effects on scientific progress, and he addresses every single point in regards to religion as an obstacle for progress.
Tell me what straw men he makes in the God Delusion.

And by the way, just because I'm addressing your bullshit doesn't mean I stopped considering you an idiot. There are few things I hate more than the dipshits who see a potential conversation about philosophy and make it into a mere and mediocre talk about religion.

[burningplain]

Originally Posted by Alan

So? He does not care about hope. He's a fucking scientist; what he cares about is religion's effects on scientific progress, and he addresses every single point in regards to religion as an obstacle for progress.
Tell me what straw men he makes in the God Delusion.

And by the way, just because I'm addressing your bullshit doesn't mean I stopped considering you an idiot. There are few things I hate more than the dipshits who see a potential conversation about philosophy and make it into a mere and mediocre talk about religion.

Condescension much? I did not insult you on a personal level, but if you wish resort to such base tactics then it is you, and not I, whom are guilty of failing to carry out a proper discussion. Such attacks on a person demonstrate a flaw in your argument somewhere. I asked your reasoning because I was genuinely curious. Hitting me on the "You're an idiot because you don't have my level of knowledge in a given area" would greatly weaken the strength of your argument in any forum of which I am aware. So please, refrain from the personal insults. It is rude to me and demeans your skills in the art of verbal combat.

I've been trying to also bring up the concept of "Sublime ideals" but hey, Apparently people are so obsessed with my comments on Dawkins that its all they want to discuss.... people which appear to include yourself, so yeah; you can take that bit about dip shits and shove it, because you could have ignored my position on Dawkins (which I'd have been fine by the way), and had a discussion on Sublime Ideals. But you, by your own volition, decided to continue to further this argument on religion.

Now I shall make my closing remarks on this and let that be the end of the matter.

What I am trying to point out is that he accuses those who believe in the existence of a higher power of being delusional (the title alone screams that). Then completely fails to address the issue. Instead tripping on a series of rants about how science has been hindered by religion. The irony of his "religion is stupid because it fails to address the arguments of science." And then doing the exact same thing is not lost upon me.

Also to ignore hope is to ignore one of the very corner stones of science, completely ignoring its historical and current power. Scientists HOPE, that by their research, understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe will be uncovered.

As for specific examples, off the top of my head I remember him basically ignoring key principles of the concept of intelligent design as I understood it whilst he attacked it.

It has been quite sometime since I read it and on grounds of its breaking no new ground in any way from what I could see, I do not intend to read it again any time soon as I found it a singularly unenlightening experience.

*breathes deeply and calms self* Now since comments on Dawkins seem to have started a heated argument and which have devolved to attacking opponents on a personal level. Let us start on a different topic.

I propose that the sublime ideal known as "beauty" is counter productive for the development of equality in terms of gender relations. (Philosophy right there, happy Alan?)

[Alan]

Originally Posted by burningplain

Condescension much? I did not insult you on a personal level, but if you wish resort to such base tactics then it is you, and not I, whom are guilty of failing to carry out a proper discussion.

I don't think you know what 'condescension' means.
I was completely straight, rude, and as you say, base. That's almost the exact opposite of condescension.
But you, with your "I CAN be civil unlike you" passive-aggressiveness... that's pretty much the dictionary definition of condescension.

Such attacks on a person demonstrate a flaw in your argument somewhere.

Not if I'm openly and unashamedly being crass. I just like being like this, you dumbfuck. I don't need to be educated to be right. Etiquette just masks the lack of substance in an argument, and rhetoric is emphasized over content.

I asked your reasoning because I was genuinely curious. Hitting me on the "You're an idiot because you don't have my level of knowledge in a given area" would greatly weaken the strength of your argument in any forum of which I am aware. So please, refrain from the personal insults. It is rude to me and demeans your skills in the art of verbal combat.

I will apologize for bashing you for my own personal pet peeve. I am sure you understand my side, being a philosophy graduate, it's fucking infuriating that every time someone establishes a 'philosophy' conversation, either they just talk about metaphysics as a fancy synonym for philosophy, or they vomit pop-culture 'philosophy' as an elaborate form of dick-waving and get all butt hurt when I explain why I can't take them seriously.
That said, even as I apologize for bashing you for my pet peeve, you still fall under that category, so I only explain my sentiment, I will not apologize for my attitude.

What I am trying to point out is that he accuses those who believe in the existence of a higher power of being delusional (the title alone screams that). Then completely fails to address the issue. Instead tripping on a series of rants about how science has been hindered by religion. The irony of his "religion is stupid because it fails to address the arguments of science." And then doing the exact same thing is not lost upon me.

The delusion of religion is the emphasis on nonexisting values over immanent values founded on empirical discovery. He addresses that alright. You're just trying to read more into it than what he openly expresses as his goals for the book.

[quote]Also to ignore hope is to ignore one of the very corner stones of science, completely ignoring its historical and current power. Scientists HOPE, that by their research, understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe will be uncovered.[/quote[ And that hope has nothing to do with the scientific approach. So no, it's not a cornerstone of science. It's a cornerstone of humankind to have hope in something, but guess what, people also had hope in fascism and Stalinism; doesn't make it acceptable.
And no, this is not Godwin's Law. I'm not talking about Hitler, I'm talking about the very real psychoanalysis research on the sublimation of willpower in the name of security. Religion pacifies the victim as much as Vargas and Stalin pacified the proletariat. Hope is not a valid measure for allowing something.

As for specific examples, off the top of my head I remember him basically ignoring key principles of the concept of intelligent design as I understood it whilst he attacked it.

You will have to be more specific because I read his book while attending a Christian high school and on the year I took apologetics and he addressed every single issue brought up by a Christian philosophy graduate.

I propose that the sublime ideal known as "beauty" is counter productive for the development of equality in terms of gender relations. (Philosophy right there, happy Alan?)

That's not philosophy. Philosophy wouldn't assume a definition of 'beauty' without explaining what it is, as if beauty is invariably the same to all and thus malignant to gender relations.
Since Kant, philosophy generally understands that if a concept is seen as harmful, then the understanding of the concept is what is wrong and not the concept as a platonic idea that exists independently of our perception of it.
See what I mean with sophomoric?
At least it's a better issue than talking about uninspired theology, but it's still a sophomoric question, and I have a reason for believing it has more to do with you trying to flaunt your intellect than a genuine inquiry.

[burningplain]

Okay, now that you've layed it out I see where you come from on the grounds of sophomoric, as for our opinions on Dawkins let us agree to differ.
Though I will point out that ultimately science is based on principles that are uncertain, particularly when approached from a mathematical perspective. To take the laws of science as infallible is foolish, as they are constantly changing. After all it has just been proven that matter can travel faster than the speed of light, so we've just blown one of the corner stones of Einstein's theories of the universe into oblivion.
I have to say when you brought Fascism and Stalinism into the argument I nearly exploded, however reading further I understand where you come from. Yet my point is that the search for knowledge is driven by the hope that such knowledge can be found and the hope that such knowledge will some how benefit the human race.

As for flaunting my intellect, is this not a place where intellect may be pitted against intellect? I apologise if it came across as such it was not the intent.

As you wish me to define beauty I shall define it as beauty which revolves around physical beauty.

I am of the personal opinion that society's view of beauty (which is predominantly leaning towards the physical aspect) is counter productive for continued development of the human race.

I believe this because from what I have seen and experienced the emphasis on beauty of a physical variety has lead to a number of people being completely ignored and marginalised by society because they are "ugly" and yet these people, have are beautiful in terms of "mind".

Is that a little less sophomore? Or am I missing something else. I should point out that by preference I ascribe to science as a degree, so my grasp of philosophical debate is a little bit on the weak side.

[Elystan]

Yeah forget this mere mediocre discussion of religion, show us what real philosophy majors discourse on.

[burningplain]

Elystan, I'm studying Forensic Science, not philosophy, philosophy is more a hobby for me.