|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lastrova
Joined: 30 Dec 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox is right. Love is outside the boundaries of any human made morality. Although we might have to accept it subjectively, it's pretty clear that the emotion exists in the animal world. However, love as one individual understands it, as opposed to another, needs to be clearly defined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
| 'The only thing left for philosophers is the analysis of language' What a downstep from the great days of Kant and aristotle! - Hawking quoting another philosopher of the modern day who says modern science fills in the gaps that philosophers don't, because they aren't smart enough anymore. |
You mean as opposed to science becoming much more specialised as to require people known as scientists? The state of science now needs far more than gentleman amateurs. The point I had taken up earlier was that given philosophy, even from ancient Greek times, was the seed from which science grew, it seemed arrogant and philistinic to so casually dismiss it.
Philosophy can applied to numerous disciplines depending on what branch. Moral philosophy can be applied to loads of stuff, although I recall the main lesson from studying the various systems was that they're all flawed. It still raises questions that are important, otherwise people will discover so many things but have no idea how to use them wisely, perhaps just going blindly along with something like "It can be done, therefore it should be done." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lastrova
Joined: 30 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophy will never die. As long as people question, whether it be about paradigm shifts in science, ethics, artificial intelligence, the human condition, philosophy will always maintain an essential place. However, I must admit that more and more academic philosophy has become quite recondite and self-referential. But then, everything is becoming increasingly "professionalized." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kurtz
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Location: ples bilong me
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
| Kurtz wrote: |
| Philosophers are only good talkers, in practical terms, they are a waste of space. |
Hmm, I believe what we term science was once called "Natural Philosophy", you might also find the first few chapters of Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" illuminating. Seems like typical Dave's philistinism dismissing philosophising out of hand so casually.
On the other hand, if you were trolling, carry on!  |
Who? What? Where? How? I'm still waiting for some answers.
At least the Buddhist scriptures have something you can use practically, even though meditating in a cave for 20 years seems a little hard in which to find myself.
Names change, "natural philosophy" may have been the origins of science but what a bastardised version it was; unless things are proven from empirical data, I'm not too impressed.
In the modern era, philosophers have had their day, time to move over and let the scientists do their thing, and philosophy graduates to contemplate their unemployment status; as mentioned though, people will always think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Illysook wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Illysook wrote: |
| morality is all about lovd..mahybe -loving them more that we do ourselves. |
Morality is not about love. |
If you love your neighbor as your self, you will not steal from your neighbor, you won't rape your neighbor, you won't murder your neighbor you are going to pay your neighbor a fair wage when he works for you. These are all moral issues.
|
The two Great Commandments in concert are the source of the *virtues*. Morality is different, a lesser and dependent thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lastrova wrote: |
| Fox is right. Love is outside the boundaries of any human made morality. Although we might have to accept it subjectively, it's pretty clear that the emotion exists in the animal world. However, love as one individual understands it, as opposed to another, needs to be clearly defined. |
Love in Christ's sense is hard to define, but it surely doesn't refer to anything of which animals (as opposed to men) are capable. One suspects it has something to do with getting past the whole "one individual . . . as opposed to another" thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
double post.
Last edited by chellovek on Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kurtz wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| Kurtz wrote: |
| Philosophers are only good talkers, in practical terms, they are a waste of space. |
Hmm, I believe what we term science was once called "Natural Philosophy", you might also find the first few chapters of Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" illuminating. Seems like typical Dave's philistinism dismissing philosophising out of hand so casually.
On the other hand, if you were trolling, carry on! |
Who? What? Where? How? I'm still waiting for some answers.
At least the Buddhist scriptures have something you can use practically, even though meditating in a cave for 20 years seems a little hard in which to find myself.
Names change, "natural philosophy" may have been the origins of science but what a bastardised version it was; unless things are proven from empirical data, I'm not too impressed.
In the modern era, philosophers have had their day, time to move over and let the scientists do their thing, and philosophy graduates to contemplate their unemployment status; as mentioned though, people will always think. |
You seem to be viewing philosophy as some kind of 'job'. It's an approach to life, questioning, thinking and all that as mentioned in an above post. "Love of wisdom" as it apparently translates from Greek. Do you not think Buddhism is a philosophy? In which case you've answered your own question about the use of philosophy, at least in one part.
As for names, I'm not about to dredge up the history of philosophy for you, I've given you one lead to start you off, you can follow or ignore as you wish.
You also seem to only view the value of learning in terms what direct and immediate visible benefits it has. This is...rather...Dave's-ish. I'd say that if people in general were more philosophical, there'd likely be far fewer problems in our rather unphilosophical society. Or are you referring more to the formal study of philosophy?
However, again, if you're engaging in a bit of troll-ish fun then take it with only light-heartedly. I enjoy a good bit of trolling from time to time as much as the next person  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lastrova
Joined: 30 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
Love in Christ's sense is hard to define, but it surely doesn't refer to anything of which animals (as opposed to men) are capable. One suspects it has something to do with getting past the whole "one individual . . . as opposed to another" thing. |
I don't know how much you know about natural history, but here is one example: mother elephants mourning the death of a child, even mourning the death of a relative, and piling sticks on top of them as a form of passing. That certainly is subjective, but the intent is clear. However, if love is defined in only romantic terms, we could look to bower birds or emporer penguins for some sense of feeling. Compassionate love is also not that rare in the animal kingdom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lastrova wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
Love in Christ's sense is hard to define, but it surely doesn't refer to anything of which animals (as opposed to men) are capable. One suspects it has something to do with getting past the whole "one individual . . . as opposed to another" thing. |
I don't know how much you know about natural history, but here is one example: mother elephants mourning the death of a child, even mourning the death of a relative, and piling sticks on top of them as a form of passing. That certainly is subjective, but the intent is clear. However, if love is defined in only romantic terms, we could look to bower birds or emporer penguins for some sense of feeling. Compassionate love is also not that rare in the animal kingdom. |
It doesn't refer to any of those phenomena. Keep in mind that this discussion was instigated more or less by Illysook quoting Christ (or more accurately, quoting Matthew quoting Christ): I'm speaking within that context. Whatever elephants and penguins are doing it isn't what Christ wanted from men. I believe 'love', in Christ's sense of it, has more to do with overcoming the 'ego' through identification with God (as in the first Great Commandment) and with His creation (as in the second). Ego refers to passions, like aggression and lust, and even to sentiments like compassion and romantic love. Perhaps this isn't the discussion you want to have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lastrova
Joined: 30 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
It doesn't refer to any of those phenomena. Keep in mind that this discussion was instigated more or less by Illysook quoting Christ (or more accurately, quoting Matthew quoting Christ): I'm speaking within that context. Whatever elephants and penguins are doing it isn't what Christ wanted from men. I believe 'love', in Christ's sense of it, has more to do with overcoming the 'ego' through identification with God (as in the first Great Commandment) and with His creation (as in the second). Ego refers to passions, like aggression and lust, and even to sentiments like compassion and romantic love. Perhaps this isn't the discussion you want to have? |
I see. Well, as you can see from my words, my view of love has little to do with one limited human's perspective--wise as it is. I'm quite familiar with Agape, but love is so much greater than that. And no, although I have studied plenty of philosophy of religion, this theological point of view doesn't interest me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lastrova wrote: |
| I see. Well, as you can see from my words, my view of love has little to do with one limited human's perspective--wise as it is. |
I hope you're not trying to bait me.
| Lastrova wrote: |
| I'm quite familiar with Agape, but love is so much greater than that. |
An impressive claim. This sounds like a golden chance for you to expound some deep thoughts on the nature of love. Care to step up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Illysook
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Lastrova wrote: |
| I see. Well, as you can see from my words, my view of love has little to do with one limited human's perspective--wise as it is. |
I hope you're not trying to bait me.
| Lastrova wrote: |
| I'm quite familiar with Agape, but love is so much greater than that. |
An impressive claim. This sounds like a golden chance for you to expound some deep thoughts on the nature of love. Care to step up? |
He's tried to a few times now. First he said that it was just an emotion and now he describes it as so much bigger than either the concept of Agape, or the concept of love as defined by Jesus Christ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lastrova
Joined: 30 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keep in mind, when I think of Agape, I compare it to something as illusory as a floating pineapple. It has little bearing on reality. It's about as meaningful as the impact of a supernova millions of light years away. Therefore, is the emotion of love greater than a floating pineapple? Infinitely. Whereever and whenever it happens to arise.
However, the original Greek definition of agape is perfectly acceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Illysook
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lastrova wrote: |
| Fox is right. Love is outside the boundaries of any human made morality. Although we might have to accept it subjectively, it's pretty clear that the emotion exists in the animal world. However, love as one individual understands it, as opposed to another, needs to be clearly defined. |
But is morality a human created construct? It has occured accross cultures that have had absolutely no knowlege of one another and whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist, you have to see the advantages of human beings having morals. Live is just better when we don't sleep with one another's mates and/or kill one another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
