Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Who's your favorite philosopher(s)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who's your favorite philosopher(s)? - Page 3

post #31 of 483
12/26/09 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post
It's very difficult to sum up Kant in a few sentences, and I've left out A LOT in that basic summary, entirely missing out his theory of judgements of taste, which for me is the most interesting part.

Yeah of course he was a part of the history of philosophy, his approach was very linked to what was going on in the world of philosophy at the time - a big disagreement. It was very clever what he did fusing the two, and his approach to it did cause a huge change in the focus of philosophy.

By focusing on how the mind works, what our mental faculties are, how we creatively structure the world around us and what experience of the objective we can have set the agenda, as far as I was taught, to the present day. Nietzsche came on from this development, and following Neitzsche, Freud (possibly the most influential philosopher of modern times, in my book anyway). Existentialism also sprung from the branch of thought.

There's some disagreement to that above from another poster, if someone can summarise the post structuralists to me without insulting me, I'd be very interested to learn more.
There's actually more of a direct line from Nietzsche to the postmodernists and poststructuralists than there is from Nietszche to Freud. Nietzsche was concerned, as you might know, with the transvaluation of western values, mainly the negative influence of christianity on western civilization and what he would call "moral" and philosophical development. So if your studies ended at Nietzsche, you are just getting started!

There's plenty of material on the web, so someone with your foundation in philosophy should have a relatively easier time with it than most others. So again, do some reading on post-Kantian philosophy and get a little more up to speed before saying no one has really argued with Kant!
Reply
post #32 of 483
12/26/09 at 2:37pm
userlander,

You said I sounded like I was "pontificating" on something I knew nothing about - I was pointing out I do not know "nothing" about philosophy, and in the same post pointed out I certainly do not know much. I know a fair bit about the small area I studied - continental aesthetics.

EDIT: And if you have a masters degree, then I'd say there is a good chance you know more about the topic or area you studied, than I know about the topic I studied. But unless we studied the same topic, I wouldn't say it means you definitely know more than me.
Reply
post #33 of 483
12/26/09 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post
@ Userlander

Like I said, I don't know everything, I know what I've been taught. So inform me teacher, who in modern philosophy is has argued that we do not apply concepts to sense data in order to structure reality?
The post-structuralists. Who do you think I've been talking about?
Reply
post #34 of 483
12/26/09 at 2:41pm
userlander,

Nietzsche was also about analysing his own mind individually - a progression from Kant analysing the way the human mind worked as a whole - a progression from that was to Freud trying to create rules through which we could analyse individual minds.

That Freud was influenced by Nietzsche is not controversial.

Kant also reversed the role of aesthetics stating they brought us closer to objectivity where Plato said they were a remove from it, this naturally leads to Nietzsche's return to the pre-Socratic method of allegory...
Reply
post #35 of 483
12/26/09 at 2:42pm
This, BTW, is an interesting debate. Both of you seem to fall more into the camp that it is possible to "know" something- and so if you don't "know" it, then you "don't know" it.

Whatever name you call it (and I believe it's been called many different things in history, in both Western and non-Western thought), that's a particular school of thought in itself, no?
Reply
post #36 of 483
12/26/09 at 2:43pm
userlander,
OK elaborate - what is their argument for us not applying concepts to sense data?
Reply
post #37 of 483
12/26/09 at 2:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post
userlander,

Nietzsche was also about analysing his own mind individually - a progression from Kant analysing the way the human mind worked as a whole - a progression from that was to Freud trying to create rules through which we could analyse individual minds.

That Freud was influenced by Nietzsche is not controversial.
Except to the extent that Freud stated he had never read Nietzsche.
Reply
post #38 of 483
12/26/09 at 2:59pm
Freud did repeatedly state this, it was a controversial claim since he uses many of the exact same terms and his work is entirely reliant on the groundwork Nietzsche laid down.

EDIT: As I was taught, it is widely assumed that whether or not Freud did read Nietzsche, there is no doubting the influence of his work on Freud's own.
Reply
post #39 of 483
12/26/09 at 3:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by userlander View Post
There's actually more of a direct line from Nietzsche to the postmodernists and poststructuralists than there is from Nietszche to Freud.
If true, this certainly torpedos the idea that Kant did not lay the ground work for post structuralists, since the link between Kant and Nietzsche is pretty concrete.

Now I've calmed down a bit I'd like to say you're alright userlander. Obviously while I never claim to be an expert, I didn't study philosophy for three years to be told I don't know anything about it, but I probably did overreact to it. I'm glad we're having a calmer conversation now.

What was it Freud said about the ego...
Reply
post #40 of 483
12/26/09 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post
If true, this certainly torpedos the idea that Kant did not lay the ground work for post structuralists, since the link between Kant and Nietzsche is pretty concrete.

Now I've calmed down a bit I'd like to say you're alright userlander. Obviously while I never claim to be an expert, I didn't study philosophy for three years to be told I don't know anything about it, but I probably did overreact to it. I'm glad we're having a calmer conversation now.

What was it Freud said about the ego...
So you (or your ego) was defining itself against userlander all along. Yet this does not necessitate that there be a direct line between you and him, no?

Perhaps the same can be said about Kant and post-Kant. BTW what does a 'direct' line or 'direct' link even mean?
Reply
post #41 of 483
12/26/09 at 3:21pm
There was a direct link between:

userlander saying I knew nothing > my ego > my reaction

Certainly.

As for what this means, I'll get started on the dissertation and report back in three months
Reply
post #42 of 483
12/26/09 at 3:22pm
There you go. The direct link exists, and in that sense you were certainly "post-userlander". But perhaps that wasn't all there was to it, eh?
Reply
post #43 of 483
12/26/09 at 3:25pm
So that makes your comments post-post-userlander, or post-eddie-over-reaction?

Deep stuff
Reply
post #44 of 483
12/26/09 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieE View Post
If true, this certainly torpedos the idea that Kant did not lay the ground work for post structuralists, since the link between Kant and Nietzsche is pretty concrete.

Now I've calmed down a bit I'd like to say you're alright userlander. Obviously while I never claim to be an expert, I didn't study philosophy for three years to be told I don't know anything about it, but I probably did overreact to it. I'm glad we're having a calmer conversation now.

What was it Freud said about the ego...
Well, you undoubtedly know more about Kant than I do. I was mostly objecting to the idea that there have been no challenges to kantian philosophy, which I think you're now starting to get a sense is not exactly the most accurate statement, any links to Nietzsche notwithstanding. Because of course there is a difference between *respecting* earlier philosophers like Kant (and don't forget Schopenhauer ) and *agreeing* with them.
Reply
post #45 of 483
12/26/09 at 3:30pm
Or, according to the logic you previously espoused, that makes me post-userlander, as long as we have proven that he had started a 'sea change' in the logic of this thread. Or, perhaps, it was post-EddieE, since EddieE started the logic that henceforth defined all of us.

Cause and effect is a tricky thing to attribute. Probably would run into the same roadblocks when we try and attribute cause-and-effect to Kant. Although, doesn't mean it's totally wrong either. Just like I am certainly but not only both post-EddieE and post-userlander.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Who's your favorite philosopher(s)?