Philosophy subsection?

[mewtwo]

would it be possible to get a philosophy subsection where all that would be discussed is philosophy and the like. Any type of philosophy from weather pinkie pie is a Taoist master to weather one has free will? I want a section where that stuff can be discussed without all the talk of chi and prana and the like. thanks

[Marblehead]

I suppose you would understand that I would be in favor of such a sub-forum.

 

It really is at times difficult to talk about philosophy without being interrupted by our mystic friends.

[GrandmasterP]

I'm in.

Good idea.

[doc benway]

Excellent suggestion.

I support it.

[zerostao]

"It really is at times difficult to talk about philosophy without being interrupted by our mystic friends."

if you have a philosophy section without mystics there wont be any Hegel, Heraclitus, Kant, for starters .

and depending if you decide to go with a apophatic or katpahatic you might have to include Lao Tzu on your forbidden list.

 

edit>>but you could sure talk about marx

Edited April 10, 2014 by zerostao

[zerostao]

@mewtwo, does one have free will?

how do you feel about diderot's Jaques the Fatalist 's ("tout ce qui nous arrive de bien et de mal ici-bas était écrit là-haut")

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Actually you cannot leave out the 'mystics' without engaging in arbitrary distinctions. Platonism is the most sustained and rational attack on ancient materialism and also the most sustained and rational defense of things usually called 'mystical'. If philosophy is characterized as sustained rational discourse, then 'mysticism' must be part of any philosophical discussion. And by the way, if you want to talk at all about Chinese cosmology you can't get away from qi, the li/qi cosmology whose earliest surviving literary reference is the Legalist Hanfeizi, possesses a rough equivalence to Aristotelian Hylomorphic cosmology.

 

That said, I think it is a bad idea. it will either die on the vine like the Confucian section, or be the center of long bouts of acrimonious exchanges which will reveal a lot about the posters fundamental ontological commitments, but generate too much smoke and not enough light to be edifying.

[mewtwo]

zeros tao no idea dont speak french

[Apech]

zeros tao no idea dont speak french

 

"everything that happens to us good and evil here below was written above"

[zerostao]

zeros tao no idea dont speak french

well it relates to your question about "do we have free will"

i will crudely parapharse what jaques said repeatedly thruout the journey everything is already written up on high

as he confidently nonchalantly rode his horse talking to his master, and many interruptions and comical events along the way.

but jaques altho and it has been pointed out by later critics , it isnt so much fatalism, but rather determinism,

none-the-less jaques was a man of actions , making his own way.

 

does that help any?

[zerostao]

yes we probably cannot have plato or socrates appear on our philosophy section either. the list will grow larger even.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

 

"everything that happens to us good and evil here below was written above"

Yes, Jacques the Fatalist is about Hermetic doctrine and astrology.

[Apech]

Plotinus, Proclus, ...Pythogoras, ...

 

oh yes lets have philosophy without those old Greek guys.

 

 

... so who are we going to discuss Karl Popper? No thanks.

[zerostao]

pico della mirandola says nyet, he is out

so really cant even consider the renaissance without giovanni

Edited April 10, 2014 by zerostao

[Apech]

Even Descartes filled the ontological gap with God. Spinoza and Leibnitz are doubtful.

[Marblehead]

"It really is at times difficult to talk about philosophy without being interrupted by our mystic friends."

 

if you have a philosophy section without mystics there wont be any Hegel, Heraclitus, Kant, for starters .

Well, I never did like Kant or Hegel anyhow.

[Marblehead]

If philosophy is characterized as sustained rational discourse, then 'mysticism' must be part of any philosophical discussion.

Damn! I sure do miss my "Don't Like" button.

[Marblehead]

"everything that happens to us good and evil here below was written above"

Once again I need my "Don't like" button.

[Marblehead]

Even Descartes filled the ontological gap with God. Spinoza and Leibnitz are doubtful.

But then Nietzsche declared God dead and didn't replace it with anything. He left it up to man to find his own way. (Of course, he offered a lot of his own suggestions.)

[Apech]

But then Nietzsche declared God dead and didn't replace it with anything. He left it up to man to find his own way. (Of course, he offered a lot of his own suggestions.)

 

 

As we mystics say of others ....“The higher we soar, the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly.”

[Marblehead]

As we mystics say of others ....“The higher we soar, the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly.”

But why soar when your feet are supposed to be firmly planted at their roots?

[Apech]

But why soar when your feet are supposed to be firmly planted at their roots?

 

 

Its a soar point.

[Marblehead]

Its a soar point.

Hehehe. Humor will not distract from the fact that we must remain grounded.

[rex]

Can you spot a philosopher in the street? For that matter, can you spot a Tao Bum in the street?

 

Is philosophy a load of irrelevant bollocks? This says otherwise:

 

"The nature of philosophy is, perhaps, best understood when we think of it as spiritual warfare. To be sure, the love of wisdom inspires it, and is the driving power of it; but the wisdom beloved by the philosopher is no accessible mistress waiting for the lover in safe places that are easily found. She is a guarded beauty who abides in her citadel, surrounded by high walls and embattled hosts, and must be won precariously, and kept when won, at the sword's point. Of the two forms of the philospher's warfare, the winning of the beloved and the keeping of her when won, the last is perhaps the most exacting. Knowing himself to be fallible, he lives in a brave uncertainty. To be worthy of his vocation as a lover of wisdom the philosopher must be a man of great courage."

[source: L.P. Jacks & J.A. Stewart in their preface to Howard V. Knox's The Will to be Free.]

 

Put in these terms a subsection would be right up TTBs' street.

 

 

[zerostao]

i agree that the better grounded connection that we have is what enables us to soar to those transcendant mystical moments,

and if we are fully grounded then we are able to bring from those experiences something that we can express and use back on the ground.

of course neitzsche considered kant as the central figure of all of modern philosophy..

and obviously neitzsche is a neoplatonist himself , albeit a post christian one.