This archived discussion is "read only" due to the absence of an active Feature Writer/moderator for this topic.
» pink101 - A Sampler
.-- posted by pink101
» RLSharp - A Sampler
In response to A Sampler posted by pink101:Well, philosophy itself, as you call it, is undergraduate insofar as the main writers are things undergraduates study. However, there are a lot of philosophers working in current areas of interest. There are a lot getting involved in the debate over the war, or the environment, and such. Also, political philosophy is still very strong, and many of our political views (and our politicians) are influenced by various philosophers.
Isaiah Berlin, whom we talked about in the other thread, only died a few years back. John Rawls has been writing about justice theory and has a lot of followers.
Heidegger is a special case, because he noticed a decline in philosophy. He wasn't calling on us to be like Plato in our views, but to be like him in our approach. He wants us to really be intellectually honest. Instead, we have a tendency to push our agendas. In other words, we don't question our own views, we question everyone else's. That's against the spirit of philosophy.
-- posted by RLSharp
» pink101 - View Of Life
In response to A Sampler posted by RLSharp:-- posted by pink101
» RLSharp - View Of Life
In response to View Of Life posted by pink101:It's a fine line. I would say your view of life is not really a philosophy, unless you can back it up in some way. Philosophy is not just opinion; it is reasoned argument. Now the reasons may be flawed, even wrong. But what separates philosophy from views of life is the attempt to prove it, to defend it through actual argumentation.
So, a statement that you think family is important is not really a philosophy, except in the very loose, casual sense of the term. To be an actual philosophy, you would need reasons and arguments about why family is important.
Defending what we think is true is good, especially if we take that defense seriously. In other words, if we really want to know whether we are right, then that sort of defense is a good thing. If we are just screaming at someone who doesn't agree with us, that's not so good, or at least not philosophical. Plato believed in a dialectic, in arguing in order to reach understanding. But for that to work there needs to be some openess to the truth.
-- posted by RLSharp
» pink101 - View Of Life
In response to View Of Life posted by RLSharp:-- posted by pink101
» RLSharp - View Of Life
In response to View Of Life posted by pink101:I'm a big fan of the Republic and Plato's ideas on this, so I'd be happy to read it. You can send it to bacchusapoll@yahoo.com (my yahoo account...based on Nietzsche's writings, if you are curious) or post it. You might want to post it either way, so you can get more feedback on it.
-- posted by RLSharp
-- posted by pink101
» pink101 - View Of Life
In response to View Of Life posted by RLSharp:This address, bacchusapoll@yahoo.com . doesn't work.
-- posted by pink101
» pink101 - View Of Life
In response to View Of Life posted by RLSharp:This address, acchusapoll@yahoo.com, doesn't work.
-- posted by pink101
» RLSharp - View Of Life
In response to View Of Life posted by pink101:My bad. I left an o off the end. It should be bacchusapollo@yahoo.com. Sorry about that.
-- posted by RLSharp
This archived discussion is "read only" due to the absence of an active Feature Writer/moderator for this topic.
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.