or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2 - Page 65  

post #961 of 21760

Just one reason why I had removed the "Closer" video from Nine Inch nails :P. Awesome song, not so appropriate video for headfi...
 

post #962 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post


As much as I enjoy seeing semi-nude women, you do realize posting videos with exposed breasts is probably not going to fly with the mods, yes? Chalk it up to repressive society.

To be very honest, I'm more interested in the video now than before. Still didn't make me click though. Have too many new (for me) music to try. For one thing, I got me some YMO. Awesomely retro so far.
post #963 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

It's always been part of what I do: ie. translation and focusing on key usage of words in texts, the development of those usages across authors and translations, and theories of meaning specifically in Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine. The main difference is that my focus right now is more on the literary side of things, the specific works and the specific hermeneutics involved in studying them (both in medieval times---such as Aquinas' study of Aristotle and Islamic scholars---and as modern-day exegetes looking back from our current perspective).

 

The biggest difference is that in this new position I would be expected to be less historically focused and more ahistorical. Historicity would still be involved in discussing hermeneutics, but it would be focused less on the actual application and more on the theory of hermeneutics itself as it's developed across different times into the contemporary era. Similarly with linguistics, it wouldn't really involve classical language structures as much, but also more linguistic theory as it's developed through history up to structuralism and post-structuralism in the 20th century.

 

Now that I think about it I don't remember you going into that much detail about exactly what you were usually teaching before so I don't really have much to to base that kind of guess on.

 

I'm probably not in much of a position to help you decide but I hope it all works out for you in the end.

post #964 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post


I've always wondered, and this may sound ignorant. But, what is it exactly a philosopher / researcher in philosophy can do? I imagine one can write interesting articles or books, or something, but that would only earn you enough to go around if you're really talented. And if you study the works of other philosophers, how can that go on for so long? You can criticize it, but what else? But my most burning question of all: does philosophy ever move forward?
You seem like the best person to ask these questions.

 

 

This is a subject of debate in and of itself in philosophy. Ie. What is the nature of philosophy, and what purpose, if any, does it serve?

 

Asking if it moves forward is to implicitly ask if philosophy has a goal that it's moving toward, and the answer to this will vary depending on who you ask obviously. For instance, Hegel thought there was an Absolute Knowledge that the history of thought---not just in philosophy, but every discipline---was working its way toward through a dialectical process of negation and synthesis. In that sense, every idea (even "bad" ones) advances thought forward. A liberation philosopher on the other hand might consider philosophy a fundamental tool to achieving social justice, and so "moving forward" would be coming closer to achieving that aim in their particular country.

 

I'm not so sure philosophy itself moves forward. I think one could reasonably argue that philosophy expands outward. That is to say, I think there are only so many basic "systems" of philosophical thought, most of which were established by the time of the enlightenment thinkers but many of which date back to the time of ancient Greece, and subsequent movements in philosophy are really just different manifestations of these ideas, different "spins" on the same basic, underlying arguments to to speak. So perhaps it's spiraling outward, cyclical in a sense but still gaining slight alterations and modifications. I think the genuine forward movement occurs within the individual, the person's own intellectual journey, as corny as that might sound. The original aim of philosophy in ancient Greece was to achieve happiness, the supposed "good life." It was originally a wholly practical endeavor, not mere intellectual masturbation which people tend to associate with it today. In that sense, I think someone can come to gain a perspective on life---ie. come to learn that life can have meaning---through the philosophical enterprise. But then, I'll remind you that I'm something of a Neo-Platonist, so that's obviously going to color my answer quite a bit. Before that I was pretty much a Lacanian / Zizekian, and as such I felt philosophy had socio-political aims in relation to the individual and his/her psychological processes. In either case, I don't think philosophy itself however is moving to some absolute understanding. 

 

That being said, I think there's still room for refinement, even in understanding the "old" works like those of Plato and Aristotle, whose writings are actually extremely dense and complex. Even today it could be argued that we do not understand them in their full, nuanced entirety. Revised translations and interpretations of subtle points are being made to this day, and often people go back and read them in light of what some other philosopher said about this or that, or in light of new historical or anthropological information about the setting in which the works were written. Or in light of different post-modern critiques, like feminist or psychoanalytic interpretations. That's essentially what constitutes the research of such things in academia. For ancient and medieval philosophy it's mostly exegesis and hermeneutics. You write about why you think this or that interpretation is more valid, why this translation makes more sense, why so-in-so is wrong in his / her interpretation, why Socrates was sexually repressed (okay, so not really so much that). Personally I don't really care for that kind of academic writing so much. I do it because it's a necessity, part of what earns you reputation in your field and what secures tenure. What I really do for a living is, hopefully, allow my students to engage with a style of life that promotes continual contemplation, ie. "the love of wisdom" (the meaning of the word "philosophy"), thereby hopefully enabling at least a few of them to come to appreciate the search for answers to questions like whether that life has a meaning, and at the end of the day whether life itself is worth living.

post #965 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post


 But my most burning question of all: does philosophy ever move forward?
 

 

First of all you have do differentiate philosophy as an art of thinking, expressed in great works of talented philosophers and academic philosophy. These are different beasts.

 

To my opinion philosophy ( love of wisdom) doesn't become more wise in time. It becomes more complicated, expands in width and reminds me more sociology. So it's not a philosophy anymore ( in its original sense) but rather a different discipline. 


Edited by mutabor - 9/21/12 at 3:30pm
post #966 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Long quote (Click to show)
This is a subject of debate in and of itself in philosophy. Ie. What is the nature of philosophy, and what purpose, if any, does it serve?

Asking if it moves forward is to implicitly ask if philosophy has a goal that it's moving toward, and the answer to this will vary depending on who you ask obviously. For instance, Hegel thought there was an Absolute Knowledge that the history of thought---not just in philosophy, but every discipline---was working its way toward through a dialectical process of negation and synthesis. In that sense, every idea (even "bad" ones) advances thought forward. A liberation philosopher on the other hand might consider philosophy a fundamental tool to achieving social justice, and so "moving forward" would be coming closer to achieving that aim in their particular country.

I'm not so sure philosophy itself moves forward. I think one could reasonably argue that philosophy expands outward. That is to say, I think there are only so many basic "systems" of philosophical thought, most of which were established by the time of the enlightenment thinkers but many of which date back to the time of ancient Greece, and subsequent movements in philosophy are really just different manifestations of these ideas, different "spins" on the same basic, underlying arguments to to speak. So perhaps it's spiraling outward, cyclical in a sense but still gaining slight alterations and modifications. I think the genuine forward movement occurs within the individual, the person's own intellectual journey, as corny as that might sound. The original aim of philosophy in ancient Greece was to achieve happiness, the supposed "good life." It was originally a wholly practical endeavor, not mere intellectual masturbation which people tend to associate with it today. In that sense, I think someone can come to gain a perspective on life---ie. come to learn that life can have meaning---through the philosophical enterprise. But then, I'll remind you that I'm something of a Neo-Platonist, so that's obviously going to color my answer quite a bit. Before that I was pretty much a Lacanian / Zizekian, and as such I felt philosophy had socio-political aims in relation to the individual and his/her psychological processes. In either case, I don't think philosophy itself however is moving to some absolute understanding. 

That being said, I think there's still room for refinement, even in understanding the "old" works like those of Plato and Aristotle, whose writings are actually extremely dense and complex. Even today it could be argued that we do not understand them in their full, nuanced entirety. Revised translations and interpretations of subtle points are being made to this day, and often people go back and read them in light of what some other philosopher said about this or that, or in light of new historical or anthropological information about the setting in which the works were written. Or in light of different post-modern critiques, like feminist or psychoanalytic interpretations. That's essentially what constitutes the research of such things in academia. For ancient and medieval philosophy it's mostly exegesis and hermeneutics. You write about why you think this or that interpretation is more valid, why this translation makes more sense, why so-in-so is wrong in his / her interpretation, why Socrates was sexually repressed (okay, so not really so much that). Personally I don't really care for that kind of academic writing so much. I do it because it's a necessity, part of what earns you reputation in your field and what secures tenure. What I really do for a living is, hopefully, allow my students to engage with a style of life that promotes continual contemplation, ie. "the love of wisdom" (the meaning of the word "philosophy"), thereby hopefully enabling at least a few of them to come to appreciate the search for answers to questions like whether that life has a meaning, and at the end of the day whether life itself is worth living.

Thank you for writing that.
I think I can understand why one would be interested in philosophy, but to be honest I'm more of a fan of the logical and proven facts. (those last three words of course having different philosophical definitions and interpretations rolleyes.gif).
post #967 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

First of all you have do differentiate philosophy as an art of thinking, expressed in great works of talented philosophers and academic philosophy. These are different beasts.

 

To my opinion philosophy ( love of wisdom) doesn't become more wise in time. It becomes more complicated, expands in width and reminds me more sociology. So it's not a philosophy anymore ( in its original sense) but rather a different discipline. 

 

For once we seem to be in agreement.

post #968 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post


Thank you for writing that.
I think I can understand why one would be interested in philosophy, but to be honest I'm more of a fan of the logical and proven facts. (those last three words of course having different philosophical definitions and interpretations rolleyes.gif).

 

Logic was discovered by philosophers, and in the West it was advanced by Aristotle and served as the basic foundation of reasoning and science for hundreds of years until symbolic logic was devised. Prior to that, Greek philosophers helped to advance mathematics (Pythagoras was, in fact, a philosopher). Really, the view that philosophy is somehow apposed to proven facts and logic is a wholly modern notion, and for a good portion of history the two were practically indistinguishable from one another.

 

Even in contemporary times, there are branches---philosophy of science, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics---that concern themselves principally with logic and proven facts. If you're curious, I'd point you in the direction of the so-called analytic school of 20th century philosophy and thinkers like Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, G. E. Moore, and their predecessor Frege. These guys helped to advance symbolic logic and set theory. Folks like Chomsky are also important in fields like contemporary linguistics, which is relevant to computer programming and so forth.


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/21/12 at 3:27pm
post #969 of 21760
By the way, did you know that the Dutch word for mathematics ('wiskunde') literally means 'the science of wisdom'? The word for philosophy ('wijsbegeerte') literally means 'the craving of wisdom'.

In that sense a mathematician would be more or less the same as a philosopher. Which is not that far from the truth, if you've ever met a fundamentalist mathematician. For example my professor for Calculus A refuses to write things in the Leibniz notation (e.g. dy/dx vs. y'(x) ) because he thinks it's rubbish. He also is also visibly annoyed when trying to explain limits in an informal way, and insists on the formal definition.

Right now I'm also studying formal mathematical proofs and writing as well as axiomatic mathematics and set theory. That too is very philosophical in my opinion.
It's something I actually love a whole lot more than the more 'applied' mathematics.
Edited by Tilpo - 9/21/12 at 3:30pm
post #970 of 21760
I suspect that if everything people thought about needed to have a practical purpose, there might be a lot of people with very few thoughts - me included.
post #971 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

I suspect that if everything people thought about needed to have a practical purpose, there might be a lot of people with very few thoughts - me included.


lmao. cool.gif

post #972 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post

By the way, did you know that the Dutch word for mathematics ('wiskunde') literally means 'the science of wisdom'? The word for philosophy ('wijsbegeerte') literally means 'the craving of wisdom'.
In that sense a mathematician would be more or less the same as a philosopher. Which is not that far from the truth, if you've ever met a fundamentalist mathematician. For example my professor for Calculus A refuses to write things in the Leibniz notation (e.g. dy/dx vs. y'(x) ) because he thinks it's rubbish. He also is also visibly annoyed when trying to explain limits in an informal way, and insists on the formal definition.

 

Even today there are plenty of mathematicians who are also philosophers, for instance Alain Badiou. He goes so far as to propose mathematics as the basis of ontology.

post #973 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post


Thank you for writing that.
I think I can understand why one would be interested in philosophy, but to be honest I'm more of a fan of the logical and proven facts

 

It reminds me an opinion that mathematicians don't understand literature. And poets are usually hopeless in mathematics.

post #974 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 

For once we seem to be in agreement.

 

How come? basshead.gif


Edited by mutabor - 9/21/12 at 3:52pm
post #975 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

It reminds me an opinion that mathematicians don't understand literature. And poets are usually hopeless in mathematics.

I consider myself a mathematician (or better: mathematician-in-training), and I can definitely understand literature. I just don't care for it myself, since I prefer reading scientific books (in many fields, as long as it's interesting) and manga.

Mathematics requires talent and dedication. But especially the latter. I think this is also one of the reasons many people are scared of mathematics.
I'm not saying other fields don't require these two qualities, but mathematics can seem a whole lot more inaccessible.
Edited by Tilpo - 9/21/12 at 3:54pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2