• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My theoretical framework

Maybe. I'm not sure that is what he's saying.

But BDZ is being much more forthcoming than usual, so I'm willing to wait for clarification on this.
 
PixyMisa said:
Maybe. I'm not sure that is what he's saying.

But BDZ is being much more forthcoming than usual, so I'm willing to wait for clarification on this.
Click to expand...
The entire confusion appears to rest on second paragraph which sounds solipsistic or Idealistic. The rest of the post sounds Positivist.

BDZ, over to you.
 
D'rok said:
Nope. Attempts to explain what happened and is in the process of happening. Often framed in a certain way with a prosaically political - i.e. beneficial to an interest - desired outcome in mind.

Adieu.
Click to expand...

Lock, for example, died in 1704

Adieu.
 
Robin said:
Lock, for example, died in 1704
Click to expand...

Yup. And his Second Treatise was intimately intertwined with the politics of his day. Also, his State of Nature teaching was a confabulation (as was Hobbes', Rousseau's, Montesquieu's, etc) designed to refute Hobbes' and to promote Locke's own politics.

This statement of mine seems to have caused you the most kerfluffle:

Comte would assert that the ultimate nature of the universe is exactly as we perceive it to be through our senses and as we describe it with our physics.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to rephrase in the interests of diplomacy and of sparing Piggy anymore tedium:

Comte would assert that the ultimate nature of the universe is a silly subject and we might as well behave as if it is exactly as we perceive it to be through our senses and as we describe it with our physics.

Any better for you?
 
Just a brief THANK YOU ALL for now. I will get back with some comments but I sincerely appreciate the time you all took to read my ideas.

(lots of works right now) :)
 
Robin,

Sorry about this one, but democracy arose in ancient Athens as a result of infighting between various aristocrats. It did not spring from political philosophy. It evolved over a long period of time from kingship to tyranny to aristocracy to democracy through a series of steps that had more to do with local fights over power relations in Athens than anything else as far as we can tell. Cleisthenes' reforms weren't based in any political philosophy but rather in his fight for power. The same appears to be true for Pericles' later reforms -- all tied into the development of the Athenian navy.

Republican forms of government took a different course but also went through various stages of development.

In other words, I don't think you chose a good example. Or, perhaps, it should have been rephrased, since I think I know what you meant by it based on your later replies. Political philosophy was critical to the formation of the U.S. government.

Philosophy is still very useful -- including political philosophy -- since it is just a formalized mode of thinking. We engage in it all the time. We're doing so now.
 
Piggy said:
Apes and monkeys form political systems, too. And they do so w/out philosophy.
Click to expand...

From dictionary.com:
phi·los·o·phy /fɪˈlɒsəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fi-los-uh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -phies.
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6. a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.
Click to expand...

Our primates relatives have simple philosophies [in the sense of definitions 5-6] that guide their social interactions -- tho, they may be incapable of seeing them as-such to modify them as readily as we humans can.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
This statement of mine seems to have caused you the most kerfluffle:

...

I'm willing to rephrase in the interests of diplomacy and of sparing Piggy anymore tedium:

Comte would assert that the ultimate nature of the universe is a silly subject and we might as well behave as if it is exactly as we perceive it to be through our senses and as we describe it with our physics.

Any better for you?
Click to expand...
Better? It is perfect. That is just how I understand Comte, and pretty much what I thought I had been saying all along.

And may I point out for Piggy's benefit, reading the Philosophy section of this forum is not, in fact, compulsory.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Robin,

Sorry about this one, but democracy arose in ancient Athens as a result of infighting between various aristocrats.
Click to expand...
But I think that you have missed that I specified the modern democracy which was at the very least highly influenced by the Enlightenment philosophies of the time.
In other words, I don't think you chose a good example. Or, perhaps, it should have been rephrased, since I think I know what you meant by it based on your later replies. Political philosophy was critical to the formation of the U.S. government.
Click to expand...
I am glad that somebody agrees that political philosophy was critical to the formation of the U.S government. The U.S. government critical in the rise of modern democracy, it showed a mostly skeptical world that the concept worked. Imagine if France had been the first modern democracy.
 
AkuManiMani said:
Our primates relatives have simple philosophies [in the sense of definitions 5-6] that guide their social interactions -- tho, they may be incapable of seeing them as-such to modify them as readily as we humans can.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to define it that broadly -- and as an outsider to the field I reckon I have no reason to object -- then I have to concede the point.

And, much as I hate to admit it, some of Robin's arguments regarding the critical role of political philosophy in the minds of specific persons at specific junctures in history are starting to grow on me, especially if I take your lens to it.

What bothers me so much, though, about philosophical discussions is that they always seem to devolve into pointless spats about whether a seraph or cherub can legitimately claim space on this or that ism of a pin. It doesn't take long for turf battles to replace substantive discussion of the real world.

That said, I still believe that the larger perspective needs to be taken into account as well, such as the points made about the evolution of democratic systems in Athens.
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
What bothers me so much, though, about philosophical discussions is that they always seem to devolve into pointless spats about whether a seraph or cherub can legitimately claim space on this or that ism of a pin. It doesn't take long for turf battles to replace substantive discussion of the real world.
Click to expand...
I would have to agree. 99.999% of philosophy revolves around debating questions that don't have answers using language that would be inadequate if they did.
 
I too have overstated the case that political philosophy has no influence. I do this partly for polemical reasons. We shouldn't forget the horrible and monstrous failures that can result from attempts to apply political theories to the real world. I'm talking about communism, fascism, national socialism, etc.

Also, I don't think it's entirely accurate to call America the first modern democracy. Parliamentary democracy has its roots in medieval England and grew organically over the centuries in that country.

The American experiment in republican self-government, however, is perhaps the most explicit example outside of the former U.S.S.R. of a conscious attempt to actualize political philosophical principles.
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
Does this "theory" actually explain anything useful?
Click to expand...

It is a theoretical framework, not a theory. That said, yes, some of the implications can actually explain some things.

Now, your use of " ", I feel, was derogatory. If this is the case, why?
 
Robin said:
Bodhi Dharma Zen

Essentially you have just described the philosophy of science.

Comte and Mach (and Schick, Neurath, Carnap) are sitting up in their graves saying ‘well Duh!”.

Hawking says the same thing all the time. Ernst Mach pointed out that for science the noumena was simply a spurious concept.

And yes, Tricky, it is very useful.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yes. Still, it is interesting to note, that at least in this forum, people in general tend to see what they want to see. I wrote it so it would appear as "typical" woo stuff so we could all spot, on the fly, who doesn't read and who read what she/he wants to read, instead of what is written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom