|
||||||||
|
Title: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Jan 2nd, 2008, 2:54am [smiley=wiseman.gif][smiley=zenmaster.gif] [smiley=thinking.gif] All are welcome to partake... If you are going to jump in (the fray), though, just beware... I suspect [smiley=hmmmm.gif] that this is going to be a heavily academic environment... This conversation began toward the bottom of the following page: http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi?board=58;action=display;num=1037240341;start=25. I started this thread so as to cease our hijacking of that, our "G.T.K.Y.G. - Book Club" thread. on 09/03/07 at 19:05:56, T-Rave wrote:
Background Teaser - Thomas and Aristotle meet Confucius and Laozi (and HHDL and, most remarkably, JPII) Title - Ontology versus Self-cultivation Subtitle - What it means to be human considered Ontologically or in terms of the Philosophy of Being or the Philosophy of Truth versus what it means to be human considered in terms of the Philosophy of Self-cultivation or the Philosophy of Action Recently, someone asked me what (I thought) the difference between Philosophy and Psychology or Psychiatry was. My lay response was that, while the two camps often wrestle with issues in the same ballpark, Psychology/Psychiatry looks out at others, patients or a sample populace, for the answers to its questions, whereas, in Philosophy one confronts the issues by confronting oneself. This is why, I like to think, psychologists and psychiatrists can't treat themselves. Psychiatrists need to lie on the couches of other psychiatrists to get their heads screwed on straight. As a psychologist's/psychiatrist's "objective" techniques and theories are made to apply to others, they do not lend themselves to being turned back on oneself. An analogy, it would be like trying to apply the theories of Economics to your personal finances. In this sense, this got me to thinking, in the spirit of (Father Pritzl's speech at CUA's '05 graduation ceremony that I heard about and) Epictetus's "be a philosopher or one of the mob" from the Enchiridion, there are basically two fields of study, Philosophy and everything else, "externals" in the words of Epictetus. As I thought more about this, however, I came to think that this is more so the case with Eastern Philosophy than Western thought. This is because in the Western brand of Philosophy we tend to systematize, and, even though the philosopher may begin by confronting things via self-reflection, it ends up becoming about the system, i.e., we've got ourselves an external object to focus on and, moreover, divert our attention. Yet, a misunderstanding about Eastern Philosophy pervades, that it is ultimately merely about self-help and, thus, that it lacks (philosophical) depth. VERY wrong, as I hope shines through in what follows... (Continued in next post...) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Club Post by StegRock on Jan 2nd, 2008, 3:19am Now, without any more ado, I want to address some specifics of your post, and then do some general philosophizing. As for your post, first and foremost, I want to say that much of what you wrote confirms my insistence that Aristotle, Thomas and that particular line are overall a better source of resonance for Eastern thought than Plato and that particular line, including Nietzsche. (Personally, I think the two of us, T, could carve out a nice professional niche for ourselves in the future doing collaborative work much the way Drs. Roger Ames and David Hall have made a HUGE splash bridging Classical Chinese Philosophy and American Pragmatism, which I think is a nice appetizer but not a delectable entree. That is if you are willing to come over to the Eastern side of the ball a little bit.) Now, for a few pointed critical reflections... While I agree that ethics, per se, is a philosophical, not a religious matter... at all as I see it, I think "on the ground" in the West it is. We philosophers doing our philosophizing is one thing, but for the people on the ground God and their religion has ALL to do with their morals and ethics. The "problem of belief", I think, is the greatest (philosophical) challenge of our time. To expedite what I'm getting at, I am going to insert an academic section of a recent statement of purpose that I wrote... [offtopic]In general, in terms of content, my interest is in cross-traditional comparative philosophy. More specifically, I am interested in building the bridge between East and West from Classical Chinese Thought, especially Confucius, and, secondarily, Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy, particularly the praxis of the present Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, to the Phenomenological Personalism of Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II. In terms of subject matter, the philosophical problem in which I am interested is the problem of belief. The gaps between each of the aforementioned philosophies are great in distance and precarious and will require no small effort to span. Engaging Classical Chinese thought from any Christian perspective, moreover, in light of the scrutiny with which many of today's scholars look upon the early Jesuit interpretations of the Classics, is a tall order. This too is the case with drawing comparisons between the historically contentious philosophies of China and Tibet, especially considering the ongoing negative political circumstances. Also, it is no theological secret that Catholicism and Buddhism have contrasting metaphysical bases. Yet, in all three philosophical paradigms, explicitly in Confucius and Wojtyla and matter-of-factly in Gyatso, I witness the same response to the problem of belief, one that provides a refreshing alternative to the (now) dead-end proposals of secularists. I envision a project title along the lines of "The Suspension of Metaphysics: A Response Gleaned from Confucius, Wojtyla and Gyatso to the Secular 'Solution' to the Problem of Belief". The fundamental thesis runs as follows. Belief systems, understood as ontological and metaphysical beliefs transformed from an epistemological and existential coping device into pragmatic grounds of action and being in the world, i.e. from our way of coping with the unknown into dictating how we act, are what get us off common humanistic, socioethical ground. The proposed secular solution that has pervaded has been the elimination of belief systems, and with this response secularists have advanced the discussion and truly gained the philosophical upper hand on metaphysicians and religious believers in this debate as I see it. However, this solution changes neither the pervasiveness of (traditional) religions nor the reality that religious believers exist. Put another way, while belief may be able to be theoretically dismissed or eliminated, believers (in the real world, double entendre intended) cannot be. However, without belief systems, what are we to do with all of these beliefs? Moreover, what is even the point of believing? A suggested way around all this is a redefinition of religion in terms of a human- or earth-centered, immanental religiousness, leading to an elimination of metaphysics and ultimately even of belief itself. Besides obviously begging the question, such further suggestions do nothing to advance the discussion. They just bring it to a head. This line of thinking calls for the victory of one side at the expense of the other, and, thus, we are left with a very contentious situation. I believe, however, that metaphysicians have a response that advances the discussion, one that, in fact, picks up where the secularists had admirably left off with the suggestion of an elimination of belief systems. Moreover, it is one that religious believers have an incentive to, not just advance, but pursue. It is not just the "give in", "cop out" move so en vogue nowadays of trading metaphysics in for phenomenology when it comes to (religious) belief, which, incidentally, has fueled the popularity of Zen but not necessarily for the right reasons. It is a solution that can be gleaned from, of all philosophers, Confucius, notably at Analects 6.22 and 11.12. It is a notion developed in the philosophy of Roman Catholic Phenomenological Personalism and appears latent in the dynamism of the two truths of Buddhism, especially as philosophically treated in the Prasangika Madhyamaka context of Tibet. It is the "suspension (not elimination) of Metaphysics", moving in the direction of "the suspension of belief(s)".[/offtopic] Moving right along... Your take on Heraclitus is very Copelstonian, which, of course, isn't necessarily a bad thing as I think you know that I hold Copelston and his voluminous History of Philosophy in extremely high regard. However, while I agree with the take that Heraclitus isn't a total aberration from his tradition being a philosopher of change, I don't think the takes of Nietzsche and others can be totally dismissed. Heraclitus was, relatively speaking, particularly attentive to the phenomena of change. To the degree that he wasn't could be attributed, again, to the, albeit at the time nascent, tradition. In any event, your take is really just Copelston's, and Copelston, despite my admiration for him, has his Christian Jesuit slant on things. I don't like your continued use of the word "instantiate" after you made the switch from "behind" to "within". If human nature is the one "behind" the many, the word "instantiate" is apropos. Christmas cookies "instantiate" the form of the cookie-cutter. They don't "extend" it. Instantiation implies a disconnect. However, if human nature is the one "within" the many, you've got to move to a word like "extend". I think the opening sentence of your sixth paragraph should read, "I would say, to open another can of worms, that unless you search for the one (the form or nature) that lies within the many particular things that extend it, you aren't doing philosophy." Offspring "extend" a bloodline. They don't "instantiate" it. Extension implies connection. In this sense, if human nature is something within us, each and every human "extends", not "instantiates", human nature, and, as you can surmise, there are all kinds of philosophical ramifications of such a distinction, which you did not attend to when you made the switch in terms. One obvious one is that the existence of human nature would be reliant on the existence of, at least, one human being. Knowing your philosophical area(s) of interest and religious background, I wonder if this is a position you want to tacitly accept. But, that is just the tip of the iceberg. We don't want to get into the "analytical metaphysics" of the matter. I know I don't. [smiley=yikes.gif] ... [smiley=laugh.gif] One other picky point, I would prefer this following sentence of yours to read like this: "For example, to even come up with the word 'humankind' implies a(n at least latent or unconscious) degree of understanding of what it means to be human..." Point being, I don't think absolute understanding is required for language formation. This is not the trivial point it may seem to be. Some western philosophers of language hold language formation to a very (I think, unreasonably) high standard. Even for someone coming from your position, I don't think you even think that a thorough understanding of the form or nature of a thing is necessary to adequately establish the similarities between particulars of a given thing for the purpose of language. A general or basic understanding should suffice. For me, I don't even need that much (in the context of the Western philosophical tradition, think of me as a Wittgensteinian in this respect), but, anyway, you get my small point. Finally, while I see whence you are coming as regards Aristotelian ethics, my terming it a "virtue ethics" is surely a position I wouldn't have a hard time finding support for (Alasdair MacIntyre quickly comes to mind), and the "agent-oriented" and "rationalistic" addenda aren't too hard to make a case for, as well. In fact, as you pointed out, that the virtuous man is himself the standard of virtue, that's basically what I meant by "agent-oriented", i.e. that the agent defines virtue as opposed to virtue's/virtues' defining the agent. And, to the degree that anything Aristotle philosophized about could be coined rationalistic to one degree or another, vis-a-vis emotions-based, I think it's generally fair enough to term his ethics as rationalistic. In addition, virtue ethics tends toward a rationalistic approach, whereas, say, value ethics tends to look more toward emotivity. But, this is not a hill I'm willing to die on (Sokolowski quote ;)), T. You're much more an Aristotle guy than me. (Continued in next post...) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Club Post by StegRock on Jan 2nd, 2008, 3:21am For some general points... First, I was surprised by your shift from "behind" to "within". How "Eastern" of you! [smiley=bow.gif] ... ;) I didn't expect it from you. Don't get me wrong. It is not an unimportant shift philosophically. It absolutely is. I maintain, though, (as you will see more and more below) that the shift from "behind" to "within" in the Western tradition is... come say come sa. Whether it's "behind" or "within", whatever it is, God, human nature, etc., it gets universally objectified, added as yet another object of analysis, and in that sense, I find it to be a fairly superficial transition. Of course, all new cans of worms get opened. For example, with such a shift regarding God, you end up with the philosophical problems of pantheism. Again, don't get me wrong. I think there is a way around this. I think Wojtyla got around it brilliantly with his phenomenological personalism. But, "behind", "within", "around the corner from", "across the street from", whatever, in the western context... It's all about the One. In the East, it's more about the many. Let's get closer to the heart of the discussion, though. "What it means to be human" can be taken, on the one hand, ontologically, in terms of the Philosophy of Truth, in an Aristotelian or Thomistic way, or, on the other, in terms of the Philosophy of Self-cultivation (perhaps, in a sense, this latter mode could be termed Axiology, but I don't want to have to make that argument now; it's specifically irrelevant to this discussion), in a Confucian or Daoist way. Each of these ways of taking "what it means to be human" leads us down very different paths, however. In Aristotelian fashion, we can break the human down into its constituent properties and ontic parts, but we cannot spin a human into existence and have yet to find the trope, "human nature". I digress... This is where, specifically, the (Tibetan) Mahayana Madhyamaka Prasangika Buddhist Philosophy of Sunyata, Emptiness or No-thingness or of the Two Truths or Realities could be helpful. "What it means to be human" basically = "what is a human". In very short (probably a gross oversimplification), to exist, to be is good. If we find out "what is" objectively speaking, including, most importantly, "what" we "are", we'll know what's good, moreover, for us. In a Classical Chinese philosophic sensibility, discovering "what it means to be human" does not require the idea of a human nature as we treat it in the western tradition. In fact, it's putting unnecessary distance between us and what it means to be human, with which we have a natural, immediate connection, namely ourselves. In other words, the Classical Chinese philosopher would say, "Don't look for some allegedly extant human nature. Rather, just look in the mirror." "What it means to be human" or, as you put it, "human nature", isn't what we should be searching for. Rather, we, as humans, should just be seeking the answer to the question what does it mean to be human. "What it means to be human" does NOT need to be found, per se. "What it means to be human" is just the noun form of the question "what does it mean to be human", and, as a noun, it becomes a thing, an object to be analyzed or, moreover, a subject that exists, subject to predication. But, by doing this we've dodged the initial question "what does it mean to be human", the start of the answer to which is, quite literally, staring us in the face. In fact, as you've presented it, "what it means to be human" = "human nature", which I think you've done accurately in terms of the traditional western philosophical paradigm, I seriously wonder if "human nature" isn't just a reification of "what it means to be human". Yikes! So, where does the rubber meet the road on all this philosopho-babble? You wrote, "To deal only with the many instances is to never rise above the level of the particular,... (to never arrive at knowledge of 'human nature'/'humankind' or 'justice' or 'virtue')." My response, not that you would disagree, would be, "To deal only with the one form is to never get beyond the universal, to never arrive at knowledge of 'Socrates', 'Jim-Bob', 'President Bush', 'the Supreme Court', and 'returning the wallet you found to its rightful owner... just as you found it'." But, the point isn't just to flip it around nor to say that one is "superior" to the other (although I think one is). After all, what you said doesn't deny what I've just stated. The point is rather one of perspective and subjectivity. One can only know human nature (whatever that is) qua object, but that is not the case with, say, Jim-Bob. I can only know Jim-Bob qua object, but Jim-Bob can know Jim-Bob qua subject as well. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not going to go on to suggest some kind of aperspectivism here. I'm just saying that human nature (whatever that is) can only be known in one manner, objectively, while knowledge of persons can be accessed in two ways, objectively and (more importantly) subjectively. I would assert a Wojtylian, Confucian, Daoist, Buddhist, Personalist brand of intersubjectivity, a (Husserlian) phenomenological intersubjectivity. In any event, to answer the question you posed directly, what I mean by the "many in front of the One" is what I've explained above, in short, I suppose, a philosophical paradigm grounded in particularity instead of universality, which is incomprehensible and anathema to your run-of-the-mill Philosophy scholar in the West. For some reason, I don't think it totally is to you, though, T. So, where does that get us? Well, first off, we can now see that the work of finding the virtue (in both senses of the word, I suppose) of human beings (and being human) and improving oneself and, thus, the human species (at least, insofar as my improvement is an improvement to the set, "human beings"), ethically, psychologically, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, or otherwise, is done fundamentally differently in the two traditions. Furthermore, it's not that the Eastern tradition is just a subjectivism leading or tantamount to relativism, no less some mere Shirley McClain crap. It is that in the Eastern tradition the work of finding "what it means to be human" and then improving oneself and the human condition based on those findings is not done by, say, two humans both looking outward at some human nature and discussing objectively (in both senses of the word), but rather by those two humans respectively exploring and reflecting inwardly and deeply and, then, after insights on what it means to be human are achieved, sharing those two independent experiences and observations with each other. Furthermore, this "Eastern" way of going about the project of trying to find and live and improve in accordance with what it means to be human has an epistemological advantage. To play off the Western philosophic sensibility of achieving certitude, clear and distinct knowledge, it can certainly be strongly argued that there is no thing that one can have more (direct) knowledge of than oneself as, again, we can know ourselves in two ways, qua object and qua subject, whereas, we can only know externals qua object (regardless of what some scholars who have misunderstood Zhuangzi have said). In any event, this is a philosophically substantial, not at all trivial, difference in approach. To boot, if as you say is the case, that human nature is something within us, the answer to the question "what does it mean to be human" is right under your nose, and this Eastern self-cultivation approach of going within first and then sharing what you've discovered within with others is the best way of tackling the problem as you pose it, i.e., go within and find that "human nature" that's there. There is no reason to detour into contemplation without. Now, I'm not saying that Western thought does no delving within. I'm just saying that, even as you present it, it tends to get stuck on the outside, like on an issue like human nature. The self-reflection seems to give way to the term-defining and system-making as if x, y or z philosopher figured it out, and now our job is to figure out his words. Meanwhile, the deep self-reflection has to be the basis of any philosophical outlook. It is the foundation for the defining of terms, not the other way around. Words don't create things, save the begetting of more words. On the contrary, out of things come words. Additionally, words require more words. This circumstance doesn't lend itself to the clarity and distinctness so distinctively sought after in the western philosophical tradition. In fact, as words don't capture reality, human communication is doomed to imprecision. We don't communicate in (a state of)/with certainty. We communicate in (a state of)/with ambiguity, one of the great philosophical realizations Eastern thinking leads you to. At any rate, you don't define human (being or nature) to better understand what it means or even is to be human. You, whatever you are, just live the examined life, keenly and honestly observing and examining yourself and your actions. That's the rub with Philosophy vis-a-vis other disciplines and fields of study. It requires that everybody start out on his or her own at square one. You don't just "build upon the tradition", which is the mode of the day in the study of Western thought and, incidentally, I think is why the Western philosophical tradition and understanding of Philosophy has gone quite awry and even gotten quite whacky (when you consider most of the post-modern stuff, including, might I say, Analytical Metaphysics). You embark on the journey alone and along the way receive help and inspiration from the others who have gone before you (hopefully in this same manner) and learn from their mistakes. Suffice it to say that the Philosophy of Self-cultivation we can now see lacks nothing in terms of philosophical sophistication. In any event, it is in the sense explicated above that I propose that self-cultivation is the bottom line of Philosophy and that the mission is how to act in better accord with whatever it is that I am, that I can safely guess you also are, without in the process getting caught up in figuring out "what" it specifically is that I am and all of the hair-splitting defining of terms and chasing of tails (quite literally) because "what" I am isn't of as much import as, whatever I am, I am capable of self-reflection, i.e. knowing myself as both subject and object. Self-knowledge is the greatest kind and richest source of knowledge available to us. To wit, "Know thyself" is proclaimed by both Socrates and Laozi, arguably the fathers of Western and Eastern Philosophy, respectively. But, self-knowledge is also the most difficult to attain because it requires absolute honesty. It's easy to "judge" (in all senses) others and the external world. Judging ourselves and our actions is, at least at the outset of the journey, not usually such an easy pill to swallow. But, if you are going to be a philosopher and not just a philosophical laborer, you are going to have to swallow it, the pill,... your pride. That is why there are an abundance of Philosophy scholars and so few philosophers. Well, I've got to pack it in for now. [smiley=tired.gif] What's being left on the table of this discussion on my part are, at least: a hashing out of the difference between a "human" and a "person", how the philosophical studies of the two differ, and which one is more significant in a discussion about ethics; the problem of subject-object dualism, not just in and of itself, but insofar as it is, I allege, stunting the growth of Phenomenology in Western Philosophy; the problem of the historical preference of logos to pathos in the West in relation to our willingness to entertain the Chinese idea that ethics is about appropriateness, values and roles, which is less of a cerebral venture than an ethics based on principles/laws, virtues and authority. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Jan 8th, 2008, 12:52am As regards this original thesis of mine that spawned this whole discussion between T-Rave and me,... on 07/25/07 at 23:27:11, StegRock wrote:
on 08/27/07 at 02:10:22, StegRock wrote:
...based on current reading I'm doing, Robert Fogelin's Walking the Tightrope of Reason, the following came to mind. In the Eastern philosophical sensibility, the famous quote mistakenly attributed to Fyodor Dostoevsky by Jean-Paul Sartre, supposedly appearing in The Brothers Karamazov, "If God does not exist, everything is permissible," is just flat-out ridiculous. It wouldn't even be philosophically entertained. To wit, my (Korean) wife thinks it is laughable. She thinks it is absurd that such a quote would even be given any attention (no less in academic Philosophy). We in the West definitely do, though, give it attention that is. As she vigorously puts it, we have morals because we are human, not because there is a God. Whether or not it is the case across the board, our propensity in the West to connect religion and morality is definitely something that differentiates Eastern and Western Philosophy. Anyway,... back to where we were... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Jan 9th, 2008, 4:57am I'm sorry, T, all, for the deluge... I'm on a roll here... It's just that all these puzzle pieces I've collected over the last four years of being back in academia are fitting together, all of a sudden coming together in my mind. Here we go again,... this time... To extend this a little further with some very relevant personal "academic" experience, with a few of our colleagues back at CUA, of particular note Patrick and Tom (from up in the Religious Studies and Philosophy Library), but also with Vincent, John and Jeff as well, I had conversations, which would serve at "proof in the pudding" meta-conversations to this one. Though I, at the time, wasn't consciously connecting it with that quote above, they were forwarding that very position, unwittingly on their parts as well, I'm sure. And, (ask Patrick yourself) we couldn't make any headway. The words seemed to come out in the same language, but we weren't making sense to each other, as if we were in fact speaking different languages. Amidst the discussion, here is the concrete example we were working with... A little girl (for whatever reason) who is a maestro pianist... I'm saying to them (Patrick and Tom in this instance) how, God aside, I would never think to take a hammer to the girl's fingers. Before letting me continue, they would ask, "But, why not?" I would press on, arguing that I simply wouldn't want to take the gift of her music away from her or, furthermore, the world. And, mind you, I am no fan of classical music, so I am speaking from a neutral standpoint. They would ask, "What would hold you back," as if I needed the threat of going to hell or God's wrath hanging over my head to do the right thing. I went as far as to give them my "freedom to"/"freedom from" spiel (which we've heard here before)... on 02/19/05 at 00:45:28, StegRock wrote:
on 02/20/05 at 17:34:11, StegRock wrote:
on 02/28/05 at 15:45:13, StegRock wrote:
on 06/14/06 at 19:55:38, StegRock wrote:
I would point out to them that with "freedom from" as a guiding "principle" you are both the subject and the object of the preposition "from" and that the logically necessary implication is that to secure your "freedom from" you have to do your part to fulfill others' (as the object of the preposition "from" of other "subjects"). They would persist, "What does it ultimately matter if there is no God?" A la my wife's reaction to the erroneously credited Dostoevskian quote above, the absurdity of the position along with their jejune persistence made me speechless and, in turn, my incredulity made them speechless. Live wires were flying out of ears and noses along with puffs of smoke. We were in full meltdown like a bunch of robots stuck, saying, "Does not compute! System shutting down." At the proverbial end of the day, they were astounded that I wasn't speaking their language, and I, at first, was in utter disbelief that they did not understand mine. Thing is, I do have, at least, an understanding of whence they were coming (after all, I grew up in the same tradition), but I came to realize that they were not processing my words in the least, not even trying to. The presumed playing field,... game board,... was set. It was theirs. It was a checkerboard (in my estimation). I had unfortunately brought my chess pieces... Frankly speaking, this is what I witness happens all too often when Western thought "meets" Eastern philosophy. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Mar 17th, 2008, 1:02am (This post is in particular response to my post above of January 8th.) I stumbled upon this VERY supportive... [smiley=bow.gif] nugget while perusing D.C. Lau's "Introduction" to his translation of the Mencius... As per what I've written above, I wouldn't express this in quite the way Lau does, but the point is surely well-taken... by this "crusader"... ;) "One great difference between moral philosophers in the Chinese tradition and those in the Western tradition is that the latter do not look upon it as their concern to help people to become sages while the former assume that that is their main concern. Western philosophers deal only with the problem of what morality is. They leave the problem of how to make people better to religious teachers. In China, however, there has never been a strong tradition of religious teaching, and the problem has always fallen within the province of the philosopher." |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Apr 24th, 2008, 4:09am In the window of my office I have a little "Philosophy Corner". Philosophy quotes and questions and stuff... Some food for thought for the community. They appreciate it and few have even taken on some reading recommendations. After a number of people suggested I post a "selected readings" list, I finally did. But, of course, I just couldn't do it half-ass. It ended up being a "project", something I'll probably find more useful someday when I'm teaching. Anyway, it's pretty cool, so I thought I'd share it here. I'll link this in to the "Book Club" thread, where in some sense it probably fits in better. But, still, I thought here was the better place for the main post. Well, enjoy checking it out... At least, it's neat... http://www.internetstitute.com/Stevo'sSelectedReadings.htm. I've got three people here at Sans Souci hammering away on "Step 1". :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Club Post by StegRock on May 20th, 2008, 6:49am on 01/02/08 at 03:21:00, StegRock wrote:
Just an illustration of how far western philosophy has gotten away from a philosophy of self-knowledge, self-cultivation, and self-authorship... which has spurred on the production of all this self-help crap that is devoid of virtually all rigor,... which belies the very effort it takes to climb the mountain of self-knowledge and know thyself, no less cultivate and author thyself. I came across these beauts perusing the Amazon.com reviews of Bertrand Russell's The Conquest of Happiness... "Self-help with a touch of philosophy..." "I have to admit I was a bit disapointed with this book, expecting more in depth analysis of happiness and its causes. Although a great self-help book, it is not much of philosophy." These are two separate reviews. Anyway, that last sentence says it all... [smiley=no.gif] If there is any hope of moral recovery (in the West, in America), we've got to be willing to take on the task of putting the philosophical meat on the apparent platitudinous bare bones of the "bottom-up" phenomenology of person-making in terms of self-cultivation, subjectivity and action, and community-building in terms of intersubjective participation. [smiley=shrug.gif] Wojtyla and fellas writing in his vain like John Crosby do this, and in the East it is generally prevalent given their traditional emphasis on particularity over universality. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on May 20th, 2008, 6:13pm [offtopic]Philosophy does trickle down. And, Philosophy run amuck, absent of grounding in self-reflection, that hard look in the mirror, especially when combined with a "self-absorbed" "freedom to" mindset, is what predicates a thin-skinned populace that avoids accepting responsibility, no less blame or criticism even of the constructive variety, at every turn.[/offtopic] |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Jun 30th, 2008, 4:43am Heya, T! Vis-a-vis our conversation earlier today, there were a couple things I thought about and wanted to expound upon,... hopefully pithily... As "traditional" Theravadan Buddhism is to "traditional" western, Jesuit accounts of classical Daoism, in terms of top-down metaphysical/cosmological and ethical intertwinement, Zen Buddhism is to Amesian, humanistic interpretations of classical Daoism, in terms of a bottom-up phenomenological, aesthetic, acosmological/anti-metaphysical ethical sensibility. Neither is consistent with my move of a "suspension of Metaphysics". In the former, ethics and metaphysics/cosmology are taken to be inextricable; in the latter, there is no metaphysics/cosmology to suspend. So, it is hard to interpret Laozi (and/or Zhuangzi) in a way workable in my set-up. The philosophers must first (more or less) forward this idea of a "suspension of Metaphysics", as I call it, in the direction of a proactive (non-Porphyryian, i.e. not reactive, or non-Cartesian, i.e. not preemptive nor radical) "suspension of belief(s)" and, then, in that specific context provide the grist for a phenomenological program of self-cultivation, personal development and community-building through interrelational action. The cash-value is that, with belief systems eliminated, i.e. beliefs suspended, we, and not our beliefs, become accountable for our actions. Another way of putting it, without belief systems, i.e. beliefs underlying our actions, persons, not beliefs, are subject to ethical scrutiny; the ethical burden falls on the shoulders of persons, not beliefs; persons, not their beliefs, are responsible for their actions. These Muslims are responsible for jihad, not "Islam". This should all be rather commonsensical, but, also, seemingly easier said than done... because, I contend, the philosophical meat has not been put on the commonsense bones of it all, making it more than just platitudinous. This puts us all back on common socio-ethical ground and, furthermore, makes room for, nay, restores the sanctity of our beliefs, of our believing. Belief can go from being the guide, even ground of our actions to (re)assuming its proper function of being how we deal, even cope with the unknown. Now,... rolling our sleeves back up and getting back to the tough task of philosophical inquiry,... if this analysis and proposal of a phenomenological program of self-cultivation, personal development and community-building through interrelational action underlain by a suspension of Metaphysics in the direction of a suspension of belief(s) is found to be sound and practicable, then, and only then, with a validated philosophical program can we work backwards from valuable metaphysically/cosmologically-based programs of self-cultivation, personal development and community-building, like that of, say, Laozi and Zhuangzi or the later Stoics, to suspending the metaphysical/cosmological beliefs. The point is that it first needs to be established that a program of self-cultivation, personal development and community-building based on a suspension of metaphysics and even of belief(s) works. I seek to establish this via Confucius (Classical Confucianism), Wojtyla (Roman Catholic Phenomenological Personalism) and Gyatso (Mahayana Madhyamaka Prasangika Tibetan Buddhism), the three philosophers/philosophies that I have found to one degree or another forward and develop this idea of a suspension of metaphysics and, then, also an accordant phenomenological program of self-cultivation, personal development and community-building within that suspension paradigm. Mind you, the phenomenological programs of self-cultivation, personal development and community-building of Laozi and Zhuangzi or Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, just to name a few, are magnificent. But, after establishing the suspension of metaphysics and belief(s) with Confucius, Wojtyla and Gyatso, to bring in the self-cultivation, personal development and community-building programs of, say, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, would be haphazard as there is no evidence that they even hinted at such an idea of suspending metaphysics, no less belief(s) itself (themselves). However, once the "suspension/phenomenological person-making" circuit is satisfactorily completed by Confucius, Wojtyla and/or Gyatso (I believe all three), then, working backwards, the door is open to other programs of self-cultivation, personal development and community-building for which the metaphysics/cosmology of which can be suspended. It's just that the project cannot be validated by them. Self-help and person-making is not enough, and, for that matter, neither is just suspending metaphysics. Though, not that the former is not a philosophically tough row to hoe, the latter represents the more philosophically intricate side of the ball that, moreover, provides the philosophical foundation for the whole ball of wax. Not to entirely dismiss the greater depth, but without the suspension move, it's really just beefed-up Dr. Phil. In very short, once this is shown to work (with Confucius, Wojtyla and Gyatso), it can then be applied (to Laozi and Zhuangzi or Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, and so on). |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Sep 20th, 2008, 3:03am Holy epiphany,... [smiley=batman.gif] My problem of belief/phenomenology of the person philosophy collides with my economic sensibilities... in a way that, moreover, is somewhat pertinent in the here and now. Those of you who are regulars around here are probaby not unaware of my, though SURELY not socialist or Communist, but anti-capitalist, especially the Americano brand thereof, sensibilities. I'm going to go down that path, but in a way that is effective vis-a-vis recent goings on here... The following sensibility is what I've been trying to impress on folks here. It has NOTHING to do with donations (although generosity probably is a residual effect) and all to do with self-reflection. This philosophy sadly met with its most recent failure with a group of chaps here on "the Gridiron". Without further ado,... on to the philosophy... Most short-sighted, small-minded people (Americans) canNOT see, even well beyond their own lives, how, without the incentive provided by competition, competition seen merely as against others mind you, humans can remain economically organized, no less progess technologically, and they surely don't see how it is even fathomable for capitalism to be overcome. Of course, it is agreed that a reversion to prior systems, like bartering, is surely absurd. My somewhat beloved Marx couldn't get the job done here. He had to posit humans' spontaneous urge to create, a noble move but part of an overall failed philosophy which ultimately could only culminate in violent revolution. And, while the observations and insights of Thomas More, another fav of mine, that capitalism has to run its course I think are right on, he really, LITERALLY gave us NOwhere to go (pun intended) with his thinking. Now, on the terms of Classical Chinese Philosophy writ large, but I'm going to say mainly Confucius, Mencius, Xunzi and Laozi; Buddhism writ large, but my emphasis would be on the Buddha, Gotama Siddhartha, and the present-day Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, and ultimately in the precise terms of the late Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla, with the experiences of "horizontal transcendence" and "vertical transcendence" in mind, let's consider the following... [smiley=wiseman.gif] [smiley=zenmaster.gif] Once it is realized that the greatest competition lies withIN oneself, and NOT outside oneself, can capitalism be overcome! You self-reflect and improve yourself, which means not just in your understanding and your reflectively asking yourself, "Is this who I want to become," (vertical transcendence), but also in your interrelational actions (horizontal transcendence). This is the way of personal authorship. The world (still) progresses then (by definition), but instead of by people pushing each other, by people first and foremost pushing themselves. The world (still) improves but by persons' improving themselves absolutely rather than merely relatively. Granted, the greater improvement may shift from technology to morality, but is this a bad thing? However, it's not like there won't be technological progress. That self-reflection and personal improvement, if it is truly authentic, is applied wholistically, i.e. to all aspects of one's life, including one's profession. Heck, I even think, and I don't think it's totally unreasonable, that technology would progress even better under this model than the present one, where companies have to concern themselves not just with the task at hand, but also with maintaining the perception that they are ahead of the competition and all the BS,... eh-hem,... extraneous time and effort that goes with that. In any event, hasn't technology's outrunning our ethics been identified in many quarters as a problem? Furthermore, this is the way of authentic individuality, and copy-catting would be less en vogue. Your personal improvement and progress is not merely relative, but genuinely coming from within. A world, progressing mind you, of people competing with themselves rather than with each other, that's the next step. And, it simply begins with individuals,... YOU,... not a revolution. The truly evolved/evolving person is the one whose greatest competition is internal within oneself, not external against others. Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that personal improvement through self-reflection is totally non-existent. But, as the silly self-help books of today and their miserable failure testify, a) it is the most difficult task set before humans despite the "sell" and consequent perception that it's as easy as 1-2-3; b) it is typically looked upon as mainly, if not solely, applicable just to one's personal life as if that's any different than the rest of life, and what's striven for is some sort of inner peace after you've "found yourself", and c) it takes a backseat societally to victory in competition, i.e. to defining personal achievement in terms of the success of others. This call is simply for a shift in emphasis from improvement and progress based on competing with others to improvement and progress based on competing with oneself. This is all not to mention, mind you, that pushing oneself seems to be cognitively prior to the understanding than pushing someone else. In other words, how can you push someone else when you don't have a clue about how to push yourself? Or, you can only push someone else to the degree that you know how to push yourself. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by T-Rave on Sep 27th, 2008, 3:59pm Due to the enormous output of the Steg in response to my post, my own response will have to be done in segments. So here is the first part of my response. First, regarding Heraclitus and my supposed "Coplestonian" take on Heraclitus . . . I've never read Copleston's interpretation of Heraclitus: most of my thoughts on Heraclitus are taken from Heraclitus’ texts themselves and from the Kirk, Raven, and Schofield commentary, which constitutes the most up-to-date, most scholarly, and most authoritative interpretation of the pre-Socratics. Furthermore, it just seems so clear and obvious to me that for Heraclitus it's the One, the Logos, that is all-important, and that change is ultimately illusory. You said: "In Aristotelian fashion, we can break the human down into its constituent properties and ontic parts, but we cannot spin a human into existence and have yet to find the trope, "human nature". I digress... This is where, specifically, the (Tibetan) Mahayana Madhyamaka Prasangika Buddhist Philosophy of Sunyata, Emptiness or No-thingness or of the Two Truths or Realities could be helpful. "What it means to be human" basically = "what is a human". In very short (probably a gross oversimplification), to exist, to be is good. If we find out "what is" objectively speaking, including, most importantly, "what" we "are", we'll know what's good, moreover, for us." I'm a little surprised - this last part of Buddhist insight is very much what the Aristotelian and Platonic tradition has to say: being is good, to be is to be good, insofar as one is. Our goodness consists in being most truly what we are, i.e., in being perfect. The good for man - the human good - is discoverable, from human reason, only by discovering what man is, or, as you said "what we 'are'." This is standard Aristotelian and Platonic moral philosophy. You worry, and understandably so, about the reification of "what it means to be human." You may already know that such reification is foreign to the Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophical tradition, and foreign to most medieval philosophy as well. What is generally called "human nature" is an intrinsic principle of each human being, of the many human beings, a principle that because it is common (the same) in each of us can be abstracted via thought and contemplated as distinct from the many, many characteristics that are NOT common to us. We can think about human nature as abstracted from human beings, i.e., without considering the characteristics that are unique to each individual. Furthermore, this abstract consideration is possible WITHOUT reifying human nature, for this abstract consideration of human nature does not constitute an ontological separation of human nature from the individual but rather a consideration of human nature that prescinds from individual characteristics. This is a point that Thomas belabors in his Commentary on Boethius's De Trinitate. You said: "So, where does the rubber meet the road on all this philosopho-babble? You wrote, "To deal only with the many instances is to never rise above the level of the particular,... (to never arrive at knowledge of 'human nature'/'humankind' or 'justice' or 'virtue')." My response, not that you would disagree, would be, "To deal only with the one form is to never get beyond the universal, to never arrive at knowledge of 'Socrates', 'Jim-Bob', 'President Bush', 'the Supreme Court', and 'returning the wallet you found to its rightful owner... just as you found it'." I would agree in one respect and disagree in another with your response. The Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition (or, as I like to call it, the "Thomistotelian" tradition) affirms that knowing the one form of a species - here, human nature - is the only knowledge we can have relative to individuals. By knowing that the essence of man is in his rational animality I therefore and immediately know each and every human (the "many") as such, i.e., as rational animals. By definition, however, knowledge is of what is universal - knowledge of individuals, of particulars as such, is impossible, by definition. Aristotle and Thomas affirm that because knowledge is certain and necessary - what is known is unchanging and certain - individuals qua individual are not proper objects of knowledge, for the respect in which they are individuals of a species - their characteristics - are changing qualities, quantities, etc. and therefore not objects of knowledge. In short, we can be acquainted with individuals qua individuals, but we cannot know Jim-Bob and Socrates qua individuals. We can only know them as sharing a common form/nature/essence, for this common form/nature/essence is a possible object of knowledge, whereas their individual characteristics and even their personhood are not, because they are unique to each individual. More to come . . . |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Sep 27th, 2008, 10:42pm Ravenous,... very quick point of clarification,... you wrote (correctly so) that I wrote... on 09/27/08 at 15:59:15, T-Rave wrote:
Your response then was... Quote:
The above is NOT a Buddhist insight, and that is why you were RIGHTFULLY surprised, T. I was juxtaposing, as a counterexample of sorts, the Buddhist philosophy of Sunyata/Emptiness with what I was representing as the mission of abstracting and describing the trope/false reification "human nature". The point was that that is so NOT a Buddhist thing to do and, hence, my point was to offer up a helpful foil. But, brother, I was not clear at all where my digression ended. [smiley=no.gif] Ultimately, I was just stating the Aristotelian(/Platonic) position. So, that is why it sounded like I was. ;D SORRY for the confusion, Rave... [smiley=doh.gif] ... :-[ In any case, GREAT stuff... Continue, my friend! [smiley=zenmaster.gif] |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Sep 28th, 2008, 12:59pm [offtopic]Heya, Ravenous T.! Hows about that mention of Catholic [smiley=priest.gif] University by Chris Mortensen during Sunday NFL Countdown this morning??? [smiley=booya.gif] I guess the Cardinals practiced there this week as they, with two consecutive far east coast games on the schedule, stayed on the east coast. Mort did say it was "Catholic University in Virginia," though. :-/ But, hey, we still gotta take it! [smiley=yes.gif] ... [smiley=thumbsup.gif][/offtopic] |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Nov 13th, 2008, 3:07pm Spinning yet again off of these two prior posts of mine,... more food for thought... [smiley=pizza.gif] on 03/17/08 at 01:02:30, StegRock wrote:
on 07/25/07 at 23:27:11, StegRock wrote:
Consider the difference (in sensibility) between The Ten Commandments (of Judaism and Christianity) and The Noble Eightfold Path (of Theravada Buddhism), or even the Four Platonic Virtues and the Five Confucian Virtues... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by T-Rave on Nov 14th, 2008, 12:51am See my latest post on the politics thread for discussion of a related point: given the traditional grounding of ethics on religion (at least in Protestantism; in Catholicism this isn't quite the case), the separation of religion from public life and governance leads to a lack of moral compass in public life. However, perhaps morality/ethics is at the very HEART of the concerns of government (political society). Perhaps government is fundamentally concerned with ethics, and perhaps basic ethical action is possible apart from any one religion, a la Aristotle. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Nov 16th, 2008, 1:23am Moving this part of the discussion (from the "Politics" thread) over here... on 11/07/08 at 23:57:33, StegRock wrote:
[offtopic]4) Always consider others' "freedom from"... YOU! [/offtopic] |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Dec 9th, 2008, 6:22pm Just riffin' philosophical here... [smiley=guitar.gif] about how I became (more) attracted to Eastern [smiley=zenmaster.gif] thought (than Western [smiley=wiseman.gif] philosophy)... Whether it was Epimenides's famous paradox (most pithily represented as "I am a liar") or the famous proclamation of Harvey Danger's "Flagpole Sitta" ("I'm not sick, but I'm not well"), I, instinctively, intuitively or, perhaps, out of sheer [smiley=shammy.gif] luck of [smiley=dunce.gif] stupidity, knew that... This was a problem with words, not reality! Worse yet, I totally didn't see a problem with the "conundrum" [smiley=lost.gif] of the square-circle. I always thought to myself, "Uhhhhhhh,... sir... That's just a square with rounded edges or a circle with two opposite sides bowed out." The only thing that puzzled me was all the puzzlement. I mean... I was and still am inclined to think it is because I'm stupid and somehow not "getting it",... but then, because of it's prima facie plausibility, I wonder if it's not the other way around. Zeno's paradox, worse yet, is a problem with math and logic, which is even farther away from reality than language, and, moreover, mathematical and logical realism, which Kurt Gödel actually put in the effort [smiley=shovel.gif] to put to rest [smiley=RIP.gif] on its own terms. I take it that language, in it's relative lack of systemization and constriction, captures reality infinitely better than mathematics and logic despite the "findings" (as if they've found anything) of the egghead [smiley=egghead.gif] "Rubik's cube-fixated" [smiley=nerd.gif] ANALytical metaPHYSICIANS. Mind you, that said, language itself doesn't come close to mirroring reality. And, anything "grue" or that deals with "triangularity" and "three-sidedness" is just taking language out into logical La-la Land. Analytical metaphysics is intellectualism run amuck and so wrongheaded... that any ANALytical metaPHYSICIAN reading this right now is perilously teetering between understanding and not understanding what I just predicated of their field and hopelessly and helplessly in search of the trope for wrongheadedness and, worse yet, intellectualism-run-amuck. Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all anti-analytic, anti-math or anti-logic, quite the contrary. Speaking specifically for logic, it's just that it is just a tool, particularly of the profession of Philosophy, but ultimately for people in general (though it's not being usefully brought to the people because of the numbskullery of its usage in areas such as analytical metaphysics). Logic and mathematics are tools precisely insofar as they are of the human mind and not things as they are. Paradoxes are useful in a weight-room-for-the-mind kind of way and insofar as they tell us something very important about languge, and hella fun, for sure, like jokes and riddles,... but that's it. I never got lost in "Plato's beard". Hence, my preference for the Chan Buddhist koan and the insights of Nagarjuna and Zhuangzi to the paradox of Greek and modern western analytic philosophy. I am also inclined to think that this paradoxical, analytically metaphysical mumbo-jumbo is why folks in the West have historically largely eschewed western philosophy in favor of religion [note, Ravenous T., that the gap in that last sentence is to include, in particular, Aristotle, Aquinas and Ockham, who the ANALytical metaPHYSICIANS, i.e. schmucks, can't handle (in both senses)]. Now, of course, religion is getting largely eschewed... because of its lack of philosophical underpinning (fusion of faith and reason, a la, Sokolowski, or, as I would contend, reason-enabled suspension of belief?). On the other hand, the same is not happening with Buddhist religiosity because it doesn't have the same problem. Moving right along... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Jun 5th, 2009, 6:41pm [offtopic]Heya, T... I've been meaning to share this with you... Thinking about technical matters here this afternoon (as relates to "the Gridiron") reminded me... Have you checked out [smiley=checkin.gif] this CUA goodie, http://www.lib.cua.edu/rat/SPT--About.php? Scroll down to the acknowledgements at the bottom of the page! [smiley=awwgee.gif] You may remember... This is the project I was a part of even for almost a year after I left D.C. for Hawaii. I'm VERY proud of this... [smiley=swollenhead.gif] It's surely an upgrade to research at CUA and sort of a nice little feather in my cap, ;D BUT, MOREOVER, this is a vision Kevin (great guy, [smiley=yes.gif] by the way) had for some time, and I helped him get it off the ground and, ultimately, long after I was gone, finish it off with new team members and make it a reality. GREAT stuff![/offtopic] |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Jun 9th, 2009, 4:26pm on 06/05/09 at 18:41:28, StegRock wrote:
T, I also wanted to mention that we had (at least) two PHILOSOPHY guys on this project (I don't know about after I left). Jonathan Krause, who was one of our colleagues, as you can see, is acknowledged, as well. He did tremendous work on the content side! [smiley=yes.gif] He and I were the first two on the project, actually. He was the first content [smiley=howtoput.gif] compiler, and I was the first web [smiley=steg.gif] guy. Philosophers [smiley=wiseman.gif] [smiley=zenmaster.gif] making a difference! [smiley=woohoo.gif] |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Philosophy Corner Post by StegRock on Sep 4th, 2015, 4:00am 'Tis been a LOOOOONG time since this old thread has been posted to... One of my students shared this with me. I had to share it with you all (Travistotle should really get a kick out of it). It is classic. Only warning, there are explicit lyrics. Other than that, though, enjoy! It is entertaining, clever, lyrically genius, hilarious AND academically on-point... BEGIN! [smiley=wiseman.gif] vs. [smiley=zenmaster.gif] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_RO-jL-90 |
||||||||
|
Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.1! YaBB © 2000-2002, Xnull. All Rights Reserved. |