TSR Philosophy Society (TSR PhilSoc)

Hope everyone is nominating the Philsoc for thread of the year, btw ...

Reply 602

Stupid Donald bloody Davidson. Grrrr!!!

Reply 603

gezzar

wanderer

Hope everyone is nominating the Philsoc for thread of the year, btw ...

i don't qualify to nominate :frown:

Reply 604

Calvin

Stupid Donald bloody Davidson. Grrrr!!!

Analytic philosopher, mind and language, 1917-2003, American. Speaking ill of the dead?

Reply 605

That would be the one. Couldn't write a legible book to save his life.

Reply 606

Socrates

Calvin

That would be the one. Couldn't write a legible book to save his life.

He's American. What did you expect? :p:

Reply 607

Checking for Spies

10

one of my lecturers told me today that A.J Ayer was into sado masochism....that tickled me! :biggrin:

Reply 608

organised_chaos

7

Checking for Spies

one of my lecturers told me today that A.J Ayer was into sado masochism....that tickled me! :biggrin:

My philosophy teacher told me that while he was doing a fellowship down at Cambridge one of the other fellows got kicked out for having high-class prostitutes in his room....how rude...

and also, Bertrand Russell was a swinger.... :eek:

Reply 609

Calvin

That would be the one. Couldn't write a legible book to save his life.

Everyone knows utter incomprehensibility is the clearest sign of a great philosopher.

Reply 610

organised_chaos

My philosophy teacher told me that while he was doing a fellowship down at Cambridge one of the other fellows got kicked out for having high-class prostitutes in his room....how rude...

and also, Bertrand Russell was a swinger.... :eek:

Hmmm... Actually the man you are talking about is still around. He lecture first years in logic. And it wasn't just prostitutes, he was road testing them for a review on his prostitute review website... :rolleyes:

Popper is American, so is Nozick. Both very clear writers. It's not just americans. It's just a subset who were never taught to write decent essays.

Reply 611

Zarathustra

Calvin

Hmmm... Actually the man you are talking about is still around. He lecture first years in logic. And it wasn't just prostitutes, he was road testing them for a review on his prostitute review website... :rolleyes:

It wasn't his website :p:

What is the source of this Ayer revelation?? :eek:

ZarathustraX

PS: Welcome to the new members: marmitebagel, ninetails & foxo

Reply 612

HearTheThunder

Erm, okay. Can someone explain Idealism as basically as possible without throwing in too many convoluting words? Is it that the only thing that exists are ideas and nothing else?? I don't quite get it.. :s:

Reply 613

Have you read 'Three Dialogues Between Philonius and whatshisface' by Berkely. The clearest simplest philosophy book I've ever read and it's the original outline of idealism.

Basically for idealism to be is to be perceived. Existence is only to exist in somebodies mind. There is only one substance and that is 'spirit' which makes up our mind and ideas. Matter is just an idea in the mind not something that exists externally.
Essentially the point is that nothing is mind indepedent except for other minds.
Though some versions differ over the specifics. Berkely thought everything existed continuously because it was perceived by God who peceives all. Others think things disappear when we stop perceiving them. Others think that they are the only mind that exists and that to be is to be perceived by them.
Like most philosophical theories there is a lot of internal disagreement but that's the basic idea. Read 'three dialogues though' even if only the first dialogue. It's only like 20 pages and it is really really clearly written for an old book. Bekely is one of the best philosophical authors in my view.

Reply 614

HearTheThunder

Calvin

Have you read 'Three Dialogues Between Philonius and whatshisface' by Berkely. The clearest simplest philosophy book I've ever read and it's the original outline of idealism.

Basically for idealism to be is to be perceived. Existence is only to exist in somebodies mind. There is only one substance and that is 'spirit' which makes up our mind and ideas. Matter is just an idea in the mind not something that exists externally.
Essentially the point is that nothing is mind indepedent except for other minds.
Though some versions differ over the specifics. Berkely thought everything existed continuously because it was perceived by God who peceives all. Others think things disappear when we stop perceiving them. Others think that they are the only mind that exists and that to be is to be perceived by them.
Like most philosophical theories there is a lot of internal disagreement but that's the basic idea. Read 'three dialogues though' even if only the first dialogue. It's only like 20 pages and it is really really clearly written for an old book. Bekely is one of the best philosophical authors in my view.

Ah yeah we talked about that, and I asked who was perceiving God then :p:

Seems a little weird though, surely it leads to solipsism?

Reply 615

Socrates

That has to be somewhere in the list of teenager dream jobs. Computer games tester. Ice Cream designer. Sweet Shop quality control expert. Professional prostitute reviewer.

That is absolutely hilarious.

Reply 616

Zarathustra

It wasn't his website :p:

What is the source of this Ayer revelation?? :eek:

ZarathustraX

PS: Welcome to the new members: marmitebagel, ninetails & foxo

If it wasn't even his website that's even worse... wait, so can you get paid for being a prostitute tester? That has to be somewhere in the list of teenager dream jobs. Computer games tester. Ice Cream designer. Sweet Shop quality control expert. Professional prostitute reviewer.
--------------

HearTheThunder

Ah yeah we talked about that, and I asked who was perceiving God then :p:

Seems a little weird though, surely it leads to solipsism?

Well God would be peceiving himself. Just like I am perceiving myself supposedly

It can lead to solipsism. But it needn't so long as you accept that minds exists independently of other minds which many idealist do. Berkely can trace them back to God who exists necessarily. Others trace them back to themselves. I perceive myself so I exist. What? Circular? Noooooo. But you might be able to mae it work.
Personally I don't see the problem with solipsism, philosophers get all antsy about it but I think they're just chicken. Need some faith in their convictions.
That being said. Idealism in serious philosophy is normally more complex than this. It's a starting point for taking particular attitudes to many other philosophical theories. So exactly how they answer these sorts of questions will vary for person to person. Often underpinning their other theories to the point at which it just isn't something they concern themselves with anymore.
Others may take certain plausible views to other theories in philosophy which force them into idealism.

It needn't really be a radical view. Berkely I think does very well to show how idealism needn't differ that much from common intuition. After all, how well do any of us really understand the notion of 'existence' as distinct from 'can see or touch it' for instance?

Reply 617

Ice cream designer? And computer games tester is a real job. :p:

Reply 618

Oh I know... still considering that one. But so are all the jobs I mention it would seem :smile:

Ice Cream designer would be an amazing job! Think of all the research...
I've been to the peak district and back today. So I'm going to sleep!
But first, was thinking today about the whole ancient Greek philosophers before Plato.
Heraclitus and "everything changes, there is no stability" VS Parmenides and Zeno with "Change makes no sense, everything is constant"
Why don't we have really big vague debates like that in philosophy anymore, how come it's all techinical fiddly bits? I think I'd enjoy that more, nobody gets all deep and metaphysical anymore
Is it because we have progressed in learning to more detailed questions, or has everything become more sophisticated or have styles changed?
And does anybody think it's one or the other of the two views?

Reply 619