Philosophy: Easy to Suicidal interpretations

[W_L]

Since I saw some people did not have a good understanding of philosophy or the terms from the discussion on war in the soapbox, I guess we need a Philosophy 101.

 

As the title suggest, Philosophy can range from a very simple to complex subject depending on interpretations. I have studied it, but I understand various philosophical points due to my knowledge of history: American, Asian, and European (I want to study Africa later on, too ). So in essence, I have a historical point of view, when talking about philosophy. That is why I am adherent to Hegelian Thesis.

 

As Asian and Eastern philosophies are intermix with various spiritual studies, I have an understanding of source Taoism, Buddhism, a few forms of Hinduism (there are many schools of hinduism), a bit on Jainism, Mohism (Basically, Eastern Empiricism), and various schools of legal, ideological, and cultural philosophies. Certain eastern philosophies are not moralistically based; though, eastern adherents have chosen to make them moral as religious practices, i.e. Buddhism is not really a religion under the original ideas, but certain groups made it a religion in the far east and the western world sees it as a religion. Daoism is the same way; luckily, the western world has not tried to create shrines for Laozi.

 

As to the basis of philosophy: I don't want to pin them down to categories, because some believe in post structuralism as a philsophy arguing against categorization. However, if I do not organize them; other people will not understand it.

 

So I will try what I know best, an historic first step to philosophy by introducing concepts and discussing them one at a time:

 

Absolutism (Oddly I started with an "A" philosophy, don't kill me for being semantically categorical)- One of the earliest philosophical thought. Basically, it believes that everything has meaning and everything is the way it is by its nature.

 

This is a simple way of describing Absolutism, but it works with how the view goes with concepts of absolute constructs.

 

Example:

 

A rock is a rock.

 

The early idea of absolutism created the concepts of religion and divine absolutes to explain everyday phenomenon and meanings. It is particularly interesting to think about how this philosophy is still affecting the world with defined notions of morality and human societal beliefs.

 

Some descendant philsophies with applications from philosophy: Legalism (Eastern philosophy for government) and Moral absolutism (Western/Middle Eastern philosophy for ethics)

[Daisy]

As to the basis of philosophy: I don't want to pin them down to categories, because some believe in post structuralism as a philsophy arguing against categorization. However, if I do not organize them; other people will not understand it.

 

So I will try what I know best, an historic first step to philosophy by introducing concepts and discussing them on at a time:

 

Absolutism (Oddly I started with an "A" philosophy, don't kill me for being semantically categorical)- One of the earliest philosophical thought. Basically, it believes that everything has meaning and everything is the way it is by its nature.

 

This is a simple way of describing Absolutism, but it works with how the view goes with concepts of absolute constructs.

 

Example:

 

A rock is a rock.

 

The early idea of absolutism created the concepts of religion and divine absolutes to explain everyday phenomenon and meanings. It is particularly interesting to think about how this philosophy is still affecting the world with defined notions of morality and human societal beliefs.

 

Some descendant philsophies with applications from philosophy: Legalism (Eastern philosophy for government) and Moral absolutism (Western/Middle Eastern philosophy for ethics)

 

there are different ways of approaching the post-structuralist ideas on categorisation. One being you will see the progression through time of different 'categories' of thought (so not saying don't categorise as such). and secondly what you are saying about absolutism. err, I'm Still not explaining myself well . I'm thinking I need to refresh myself on my 101 of post-s or at least unfuddle my brain.

 

but good topic

Edited May 15, 2009 by Smarties

[W_L]

there are different ways of approaching the post-structuralist ideas on categorisation. One being you will see the progression through time of different 'categories' of thought (so not saying don't categorise as such). and secondly what you are saying about absolutism. err, I'm Still not explaining myself well . I'm thinking I need to refresh myself on my 101 of post-s or at least unfuddle my brain.

 

but good topic

 

It's actually why I chose a progression method through history as it is how I work with subjects like philosophy through history.

 

As to absolutism, interpreting it in a post structural way will be very difficult if not alien to the concept of post-structuralism, which has moved so far removed from that concept.

[Daisy]

It's actually why I chose a progression method through history as it is how I work with subjects like philosophy through history.

 

As to absolutism, interpreting it in a post structural way will be very difficult if not alien to the concept of post-structuralism, which has moved so far removed from that concept.

 

---you say it has moved on, but an essential part of it is explaining what is wrong with the old ways of thinking and the effects that those 'old' ways of thinking still have on people and things and politics today. it is very much that those sorts of thinking are a default for people, in a ever recurring fashion that must be resisted and re-thought. subverted etc.

[W_L]

---you say it has moved on, but an essential part of it is explaining what is wrong with the old ways of thinking and the effects that those 'old' ways of thinking still have on people and things and politics today. it is very much that those sorts of thinking are a default for people, in a ever recurring fashion that must be resisted and re-thought. subverted etc.

 

True, I can agree to that. Part of the synthesizing portion of Hegel's thesis means that every new idea has portions of the old one embedded within. However, absolutism has been synthesize a lot before reaching your philosophy, so the original idea is pretty much diluted.

 

I am not into 19th century philosophy yet; we are still on absolutism.

 

I wonder about the idea of absolutes in today's world, too; some of our beliefs in absolutes are cognitive and others are non-cognitive. In the past, people had a belief in the absolute as a functional way of explanation.

[Daisy]

True, I can agree to that. Part of the synthesizing portion of Hegel's thesis means that every new idea has portions of the old one embedded within. However, absolutism has been synthesize a lot before reaching your philosophy, so the original idea is pretty much diluted.

 

I am not into 19th century philosophy yet; we are still on absolutism.

 

I wonder about the idea of absolutes in today's world, too; some of our beliefs in absolutes are cognitive and others are non-cognitive. In the past, people had a belief in the absolute as a functional way of explanation.

 

Ok , I will let you move on and then at the end chip-in . lets see if you can see patterns in them.

[JamesSavik]

wake me when we get to objectivism

[W_L]

Now, absolutism is a big subject, does no one want to ask questions or make an observation on it? Interpreting it from post structuralism is very difficult, but questions on its nature are interesting.

 

Mythology like why does the river only flow one way or another was made with figures like Hercules, Gilgamesh, the yellow emperor of China, and other noted figures. It was an interesting idea that had long term ramifications for all the other philosophies that followed it.

 

This highlights a dimension of absolute knowledge.

 

Then, you have the societal dimensions. Societies were built on absolutes like the idea such as absolute law, absolute place in society (caste systems and other limitations), and absolute obligations to a state.

 

I will move on to the next stage, which is very large in each section from western to eastern philosophy dealing with and altering absolutism.

[Daisy]

Now, absolutism is a big subject, does no one want to ask questions or make an observation on it? Interpreting it from post structuralism is very difficult, but questions on its nature are interesting.

 

Mythology like why does the river only flow one way or another was made with figures like Hercules, Gilgamesh, the yellow emperor of China, and other noted figures. It was an interesting idea that had long term ramifications for all the other philosophies that followed it.

 

This highlights a dimension of absolute knowledge.

 

Then, you have the societal dimensions. Societies were built on absolutes like the idea such as absolute law, absolute place in society (caste systems and other limitations), and absolute obligations to a state.

 

I will move on to the next stage, which is very large in each section from western to eastern philosophy dealing with and altering absolutism.

 

Ok, I'll play. How do they derive what something's 'meaning' is and what something's nature is?

btw what do you mean about the mythology, how was that actually played out with the concepts?

[W_L]

Ok, I'll play. How do they derive what something's 'meaning' is and what something's nature is?

btw what do you mean about the mythology, how was that actually played out with the concepts?

 

Absolutism has a set of ideas of how things "are" as an absolute. Don't even apply relativism, the concept would not come into play until much later.

 

Some one in authority like a chieftain or a high priest would say "The Sun God shines today" and everyone accepted that as a fact. Nature would be what they say it is as "the rock is a rock". This idea was before Socrates and Plato, so nature by such definition is applied absolutely.

 

Mythology is used as points of explanation of natural phenomenon like the landmarks of the Aegean with stories about Hercules, the flow of the Yellow river in China with the Yellow Emperor, and Gilgamesh in ancient Babylon explaining certain peculiarities on nature.

 

Modern observers need to frame their thoughts to absolutes in order to understand the philosophy, which is very difficult as I said ealier after three thousand years of discourse. One reason why I would suggest all philosophers if they truly want to be multi-dimensional philosophers to study history before going into philosophy. History teaches you a basic skill of framing without going insane at how they think?

 

I know you said post structuralism is very critical of history framing, but I think, since post structuralism, as it uses the idea of comparative origins, is a descendant philosophy of Hegelian philosophy; my point is part of your point. Framing is necessary in order to create a historical background to identify thoughts.

[JamesSavik]

Ok, I'll play. How do they derive what something's 'meaning' is and what something's nature is?

btw what do you mean about the mythology, how was that actually played out with the concepts?

 

If you look at what the philosophers at the time were doing, you would see that most of it is derived from their culture and myths/religions.

 

The myths of a people explained their world like Vulcan's Hammer and thunder or the universe as the Ever-tree in Norse mythology.

 

A person is not immune from these myths and symbols and we have seen many examples of advances in science and thought being opposed by popular and religious leaders. Copernicus, Newton, Jenner all faced the ire of the "church", then the arbiter of truth and very pissed off when anyone came up with a truth that they couldn't explain or attribute to Jebus

 

It has been the pattern for eons that a vitki/truth-seeker/man of knowlege has to look beyond the myths/legends/superstition and religious dogma to

• View the universe objectively
  
• Understand that truth is not static
  
• Understand that nature reveals herself slowly, if at all
  
• with all due respect to Plato, Aristotle and the Pope, there is still a lot of worthwhile things to learn learn about science and nature
  

[Daisy]

Absolutism has a set of ideas of how things "are" as an absolute. Don't even apply relativism, the concept would not come into play until much later.

 

Some one in authority like a chieftain or a high priest would say "The Sun God shines today" and everyone accepted that as a fact. Nature would be what they say it is as "the rock is a rock". This idea was before Socrates and Plato, so nature by such definition is applied absolutely.

 

Mythology is used as points of explanation of natural phenomenon like the landmarks of the Aegean with stories about Hercules, the flow of the Yellow river in China with the Yellow Emperor, and Gilgamesh in ancient Babylon explaining certain peculiarities on nature.

 

Modern observers need to frame their thoughts to absolutes in order to understand the philosophy, which is very difficult as I said ealier after three thousand years of discourse. One reason why I would suggest all philosophers if they truly want to be multi-dimensional philosophers to study history before going into philosophy. History teaches you a basic skill of framing without going insane at how they think?

 

I know you said post structuralism is very critical of history framing, but I think, since post structuralism, as it uses the idea of comparative origins, is a descendant philosophy of Hegelian philosophy; my point is part of your point. Framing is necessary in order to create a historical background to identify thoughts.

 

Deleuze does talk about Hegel. but he err- doesn't like him . problems with 'dialectics'. Forget what I said about history categories - I'm messing up (really don't know what has happened to my understanding this week). Deleuze doesn't see things in terms of categories but movement. I wasn't really referring to using it as a way of comparing periods, but at times you will get dominate ways of thinking of that period, and it being observable how those dominate blocks well dominate others, restrict etc. what he really doesn't like is the idea of a transcendental - which means your thought/philosophy has to stop and I suppose be subservient to whatever it is - certain ideas, categories, Descartes cogito, truths (which rise up in different periods). that is very clear in absolutism. but, as also seeing history as a genealogy as in the Foucauldian way looking at how concepts or people or society have developed by tracing power and its effects - and to do that of course you need to look at different periods and the way they thought.

 

what I was asking really was how they decided what something was. so as simple as a high priest would say this is so. I was wondering if there was criteria for it. what qualities they were looking for to say something was something. or whether it was just arbitrary. or if it was just about naming something and not going any further than that. but then if they had myths to explain things...

-I'm completely forgetting my own history of philosophy and what is connected with what, but I am sure it will come back.

(edit: james, yeah, I agree about the myths - sorry I had this page open for ages before posting).

 

--but back to deleuze, I don't feel very competent discussing it now. for some reason all of my knowledge seems to have dropped out of my head and I'm confusing myself. But I will brush up again, I can't believe this has happened - I'm normally the most passionate person on it. It gives me the excuse to study it wholly again, definitely.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Smarties

[W_L]

I can see why: the dialectic was made by Kant, Fichte, and Hegel respectively in their endeavor to create rational philosophical ideas. There point would be countered if their notion for rationalism is eliminated as Deleuze from the writing I found seems to be pointing towards. Eliminating rationalism from their constructs of the dialectic, would not invalidate the dialectic though, since Deleuze is proving the dialectic right now.

 

To be honest, Hegel used another set of words Abstract (Thesis), Negative (anti-thesis), and Concrete (Synthesis), but the principles he developed would become the antithetical model.

 

Deleuze's ideas are pretty out there; he favors a very Nietzschean concept of philosophy, which is part of his philosophical post structural basis. Nietzsche is used to substitute Kantian rationalism with a moving doctrine against sustainable reason.

 

Under a Deleuzean system, absolutes would become completely obsolete, but Deleuzean principles of singularity for individuals and moving ideals for society would in turn create an abstract absolute, aka he's instinctively creating a Hegelian/Kantian Absolute Idealist notion.

 

Every form of relativism with a claim to relative views has some elements from the ancestral absolutism philosophy. It just to what degree, no one ever abandons an idea completely.

[Daisy]

I can see why: the dialectic was made by Kant, Fichte, and Hegel respectively in their endeavor to create rational philosophical ideas. There point would be countered if their notion for rationalism is eliminated as Deleuze from the writing I found seems to be pointing towards. Eliminating rationalism from their constructs of the dialectic, would not invalidate the dialectic though, since Deleuze is proving the dialectic right now.

 

To be honest, Hegel used another set of words Abstract (Thesis), Negative (anti-thesis), and Concrete (Synthesis), but the principles he developed would become the antithetical model.

 

Deleuze's ideas are pretty out there; he favors a very Nietzschean concept of philosophy, which is part of his philosophical post structural basis. Nietzsche is used to substitute Kantian rationalism with a moving doctrine against sustainable reason.

 

Under a Deleuzean system, absolutes would become completely obsolete, but Deleuzean principles of singularity for individuals and moving ideals for society would in turn create an abstract absolute, aka he's instinctively creating a Hegelian/Kantian Absolute Idealist notion.

 

Every form of relativism with a claim to relative views has some elements from the ancestral absolutism philosophy. It just to what degree, no one ever abandons an idea completely.

 

it is about escaping the dialectic, not that it is not there (well...). again i say it is not relativism, but for now my ability to demonstrate that has left me. I see this discussion going into the complicated and with fancy terms that no-one else is going to understand again .

 

and I'm going to leave the complicated going through as to why deleuze dislikes dialectics for another time when I have re-read my notes:

 

but for now I will leave you with a quote I love from Dialogues II. A Conversation: What is it? What is it for?

"It is very hard to 'explain oneself' - an interview, a dialogue, a conversation. Most of the time, when someone asks me a question, even one which relates to me, I see that, strictly, I don't have anything to say. Questions are invented, like anything else. If you aren't allowed to invent your own questions, with elements from all over the place, from never mind where, if people 'pose' them to you, you haven't much to say. The art of constructing a problem is very important: you invent a problem, a problem-position, before finding a solution. None of this happens in an interview, a conversation, a discussion. Even reflection, whether it's alone, or between two or more, is not enough. Above all, not reflection. Objections are even worse. Every time someone puts an objection to me, I want to say: 'OK, OK, let's go on to something else'. Objections have never contributed anything. It's the same when I am asked a general question. The aim is not to answer questions, it's to get out, to get out of it. Many people think that it is only by going back over the question that it's possible to get out of it. 'What is the position with philosophy? Is it dead? Are we going beyond it?' It's very trying. They won't stop returning to the question in order to get out of it. But getting out never happens like that. Movement always happens behind the thinkers back, or in the moment when he blinks. Getting out is already achieved, or else it never will be. Questions are generally aimed at a future (or a past). The future of women, the future of the revolution, the future of philosophy, etc. But during this time, while you turn in circles among these questions, there are becomings which are silently at work, which are almost imperceptible. We think too much in terms of history, whether personal or universal. becomings belong to geography, there are orientations, directions, entries and exits. There is a woman-becoming which is not the same as women, their past and future, and it is essential that women enter this becoming to get out of their past and their future, their history. There is a revolutionary-becoming which is not the same as the future of the revolution, and which does not necessarily happen through the militants. There is a philosophy-becoming which has nothing to do with the history of philosophy and which happens through those whom the history of philosophy does not manage to classify."

 

I love that chapter, I haven't read it in ages. There are so many other quotes I would like to give you.

ok one more "One must multiply the sides, break every circle in favour of polygons".

Edited May 16, 2009 by Smarties

[W_L]

You know Deleuze wrote an interpretation of Nietzsche; I realized his name now as I bought the book long, ago. I wrote a paper for my Psycho-analysis class on the connection of Freudian "Death of the Father figure" idea in psychology with Nietzschean interpretations of the "Death of God" idea.

 

It's quite fascinating how closely related the two theories are.

 

I actually like Nietzsche's ideas of surpassing the normative reality, but I would counter the concept of Deleuze's interpretation against history as in itself a view of historical bias. The problem with modern anti-rationalist thinkers; they use too many logical paradoxes aka the circular logic paradigm in order to make the point.

 

If he was not objecting to the established discourse of historical interpretation, then he would not have created the new post structuralist school of thought.

 

He said "objection has never contributed anything", I would disagree and say his entire concept is based around a grand objection that has spawned a new school of thought. While he may dislike the dialectic of rationalism; it is the dialectic that made Post structuralism.

 

--------------------------

 

Now we should go back to philosophy 101:

 

After Absolutism was held in esteem for thousands of years by human beings, we move forward to several branches of philosophy:

 

Knowledge, Metaphysics, Ethics, Aesthetics, Politics, Linguistics, and Logic.

 

Each branch had developed in their own independent way another idea on explaining things instead of simply absolutism. This change occurred after 2,000 BCE among the established civilizations.

 

While each separate new philosophy was developed to create alternatives, several thoughts linked these early philosophies: placement of ideas, predicates, and conditions.

 

Buckle your seat belts, because after this point there is no more easy answers.

[Daisy]

You know Deleuze wrote an interpretation of Nietzsche; I realized his name now as I bought the book long, ago. I wrote a paper for my Psycho-analysis class on the connection of Freudian "Death of the Father figure" idea in psychology with Nietzschean interpretations of the "Death of God" idea.

 

It's quite fascinating how closely related the two theories are.

 

I actually like Nietzsche's ideas of surpassing the normative reality, but I would counter the concept of Deleuze's interpretation against history as in itself a view of historical bias. The problem with modern anti-rationalist thinkers; they use too many logical paradoxes aka the circular logic paradigm in order to make the point.

 

If he was not objecting to the established discourse of historical interpretation, then he would not have created the new post structuralist school of thought.

 

He said "objection has never contributed anything", I would disagree and say his entire concept is based around a grand objection that has spawned a new school of thought. While he may dislike the dialectic of rationalism; it is the dialectic that made Post structuralism.

 

--------------------------

 

Yeah, I knew he'd written a book on him. he's written on quite a few people.

 

and also it is then our fault - the new "school" for turning it into such a thing, not his. He like Derrida refused to take positions in universities preferring to be lose. and that is a criticism that people in the new movement remind themselves of, and those who forget that then have a problem. It is difficult because it seems that it is our nature to do that sort of thing - but again if you read his stuff on machines, abstractions, lines etc then that is also integral to his concepts - the 'capture', and constant process of 'territorialisation' and 'deterritorialisation'. his concepts pretty much revolve around that.

 

--in terms of the objection. he is referring to being trapped by something. I would also say that often with his words you have to kind of take them carefully. but, as I said, he is about creating new concepts and mixing, so for him the idea of being tied to something is frustrating because he wants to get on to that creating business and feels restricted by the tools that are being given to him or even the arena he is allowed to work in. I don't really think that he dislikes all objection, but he is certainly making a point there. my reason for that is because his becoming concept is about everytime you encounter something you change I suppose - and so even if that is an objection then it is something to work with. but he would prefer to be free to explore something new instead, or at least new connections. innovation . as for him objecting, then I agree, but I am sure he would possibly see it as just sliding by.

 

- i would point out that Deleuze ridicules Freud frequently in his works.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Smarties

[W_L]

The next phase of philosophy is understanding the dynamics and functions:

 

early Ethics

------------------

 

For early ethical development, the Babylonian Empire had begun the process to interpret the absolutes as a measure of law and organization for society around 1760 BCE through codified laws like Hammurabi code (Laws of retribution). These developments in Babylon will be repeated in the Hundred schools of thought within China during the spring and autumn period one thousand years later, which included the interpretative absolute rules of legalism. Ancient India also developed various forms of legal standards that formed the basis of ethics either in a moral or philosophical level.

 

The Babylonian legal and ethical directive will enter Western culture through Greek contemplations on the matter of ethics.

 

The importance of legalism (I will use the name to describe this belief in absolute principle for law) became the first elements of our current beliefs in justice.

 

The idea is central to ethics; for the first time many civilization developed codes of law and created the first ideas of right and wrong from these laws. While the absolute laws were arbitrary and based on the authority i.e. kings, chiefs, and high figures, it began the process of ethical development.

 

Here is a real world allegory in a smaller sense: your parents will set up a set of rules for you to follow as children, if you do not then you will be punished.

 

------------

 

Knowledge and Logic:

 

Knowledge and logic are uniquely linked by how they meet each other in understanding the subject and object.

 

During the early debates of absolute philosophy, it would be these areas that began the issues of absolute observation. In ancient China, Mohism developed the idea of empirical thinking. The idea is basically that all reality should be based on experiences through sight, smell, touch, and the physical presence.

 

In logic, this idea in ancient China's Mohist philosophy translates to the concept of inference through the physical presence. Thus, it dispels the idea of supernatural concoction, but it still holds the possibility of supernatural beings such as ghosts and God/Gods. Almost like an early form of deism.

 

Knowledge in ancient China is based on which school of thought you ascribe to; Mohism and certain areas of Daoism incorporate knowledge as components to knowledge acquisition through the inference on nature and experience. Later Daoist developed the early chemical sciences in China through this method of experience and experimentation with nature.

 

Ancient Indian philosophy based on the Vedic tradition believed in the concept of unitary and absolute interpretation. It calls for the idea of universal truth. Several Indian philosophers stressed the truth as a matter of order and natural development.

 

For Logic, the ancient Indian Vedic tradition is complex in its understanding of nature and order. The gaining of knowledge is achieved by four means: perception, inference, comparison, and testimony. While knowledge can be gained differently

 

By this idea, logic is intricately linked to knowledge or Epistemology in India and China for the Far east.

 

-----------------

 

(If you are wondering, why I did not mention Socrates or Greece. I need you to wait for the development of these ideas first in far east and middle-east as they preceded Greece by two centuries. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle created even more complex dimensions of thought in their interpretation of the absolute.)