Korean Job Discussion Forums

jajdude · Joined: 18 Jan 2003

Aren't we all philosophers? But who really wants to be one? To think too much is to be... (Shakespeare or Socrates here).

The only one I have ever respected was Krishnamurti. He sounded real. I have no doubt he lived like he said. Such intelligence is too rare. Thus we suffer.

Only that one in a million I suppose is able to see above all our foolishness.

EFLtrainer · Joined: 04 May 2005

SPINOZA · Joined: 10 Jun 2005 Location: $eoul

Hatred of Philosophy is common amongst Right wing American males. It's a shame because the United States has produced some of the best philosophers of the 20th century - Quine and Carnap in particular, in my view.

You don't think the following questions are important?

1. What are ethical properties? Are they psychological states only, or objective states of affairs?

2. Can humans have objective knowledge?

3. Is meaning metaphysical? If so, does it presuppose the existence of a metaphysical realm - a non-physical realm of true propositions - akin to that advocated by Plato?

4. Are truths/facts thought-dependent states of affairs?

5. Do we experience the world or mind? Both, I think. So to what extent are our minds, our concepts, our perception barriers to the way things really are, or are they bridges? (if you'll the metaphor - a good philosopher really oughtn't use metaphors)

6. What would happen if you went back in time and killed your grandfather?

7. Why are "a = a" and "a = b" different in meaning, given that they both refer to the same object?

8. Do we have totally free will, or are our choices genetically pre-determined to some extent? If I look at a menu and see a choice of chicken, pork or beef, I'll probably choose beef, done medium rare. Is it a truly free choice?

9. Is consciousness reducible to physical - biochemical - phenomena? Are mind and matter totally distinct?

The problem with philosophy is that it's needlessly difficult. Take Kant, take Nietzsche....both make terribly difficult reading, but beneath all the verbiage is a thought as crystal clear as a diamond. Also, too much modern philosophy has become esoteric, turgid, useless dross.

flotsam · Joined: 28 Mar 2006

coolsage · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:06 pm Post subject:

Ayn Rand was a bigoted hack, Krishnamurti was the real deal, and in a world dominated by Bush and others of his ilk, philosophy ( the love of wisdom) has been degraded. I, however, still cling to esoteric thoughts. This, for example: If our knees were on the backs of our legs, like birds, what would a chair look like? I hear the groans already.

cdninkorea · Joined: 27 Jan 2006 Location: Seoul

Ayn Rand is my favourite philosopher.

That being said, I don't agree with everything she said, but why does that mean you should reject the entire Objectivist movement? No one (legitimately) rejects Utilitarianism as a whole because Jeremy Bentham and James Mill wrote that there can be no quality of pleasure, because John Stuart Mill argued quite convincingly otherwise.
You can be a Utiltarian and disagree with certain aspects of any or even all of its thinkers. I'm an Objectivist, but I don't agree with everything its founder had to say.

But why do the few absurd things she wrote cause people to reject her writing wholesale? No one rejects Aristotle's book on logic because he supported slavery. Why treat Rand any differently?

SPINOZA · Joined: 10 Jun 2005 Location: $eoul

flotsam · Joined: 28 Mar 2006

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Delirium's Brother · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:56 pm Post subject:

Delirium's Brother · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject:

ChopChaeJoe · Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Location: Seoul

Stinkin' philosophers, all that thinkin' about stuff. I can dig what Ayn has to say about the idiodcy of belief in god. i don't know if she's right about that though -- and you don't know either! (militant agnostic here) Kierkergaard at least made the point of explaining the lonliness of holding onto christian faith in a world in which it's been disproved countless times.

Derrida and his postmodern ilk just return us to the radical skepticism of Descartes.

And Hegal with the whole idea that everything is simply an unfolding and coming to itself again, god rediscovering its creation.... if that's so, why the need to explain it?

Nietzsche is a fabulous writer, but a little bit... I dock him points for his clones Ayn Rand and SF author Heinstein.

Actually, all of these guys and dolls are just so hopeless, aren't they?

MacIntyre is the only one with something both relevant and useful to say.

Aristotle knew that he didn't have all the answers, that there was no perfection to be had. But if we ignore that and pretend that there is something perfect, at least we can approach it in a mathematical limits sense.