Haha good responses. I like Kant’s ethics and his non-consequential ideas. I also like Nietzsche’s work a lot. I love his whole will to power idea, I love his “get out there and take what you want” attitude. Yes, I realize these 2 philosophers are pretty much polar opposites, but that doesn’t mean I can’t respect them both.
In fact, I just wrote a huge paper on consequential vs. non-consequential ethics. My professor wanted us to contrast Utilitarianism w/ Kantianism. I see how these two ethical theories are different, but I honestly think that both can work simultaneously. Life isn’t a vacuum, there usually isn’t ONE WAY ONLY to think about things. I mean to say that in any given situation I can think about things through a Utilitarian perspective WHiLE also thinking through a Kantian perspective. I don’t know if that makes any sense, lol, I’ve been busy/sleep deprived all week, but yeah, I’m glad to see other people dig philosophy![/quote]
I wholly respect the idea of being influence by two fields of thought that are labeled contrasting. I personally think truth lies within paradox.
if there would be a “truth” in paradox, if that even has some meaning, it would be that there is no Truth or is no Meaning in anything (which Neitzsche would support). A paradox is inexplicable–its something that does not work with the logic of the human mind, since it disobeys the rules of logic. Thus what is to be taken from paradox is that perhaps the subject projects all meaning. As for some “hidden meaning” or “hidden truth” in paradox, that’s pseudo-philosophy. [/quote]
Is that right? lol
This is the one of the possible downsides of studying too much philosophy. You begin to think if somebody else hasn’t thought of it already it cannot be thought of. You stop thinking for yourself and become a perpetual regurgitation machine. It’s a shame.
The use of the term pseudo-philosophy is a manifestation of this and supports the above paragraph. Philosophy(simply put) is thought; to say something is pseudo-philosophy is oxymoronical. It shows that you reject thought that you have not read in a text book already. You don’t think for yourself. [/quote]
How much is too much philosophy? And it would be a faulty assumption to think that if someone uses the term “pseudo-philosophy” then he believes that if somebody else hasn’t thought of it already it cannot be thought of, because it does not necessarily follow. There’s a lot of “you’s” in your post, and i’m not sure if they are general “you’s” or you have reduced this discussion into mere ad hominem attacks.
Psuedo-philosophy is short hand for saying thinking without logic, or shear imagination, or emotional thinking. There must be a distinction between that and actual philosophy, or else the discipline would be no discipline at all…anything would go and philosophy would be a laughing stock. In fact many in the general populace think you can “just say/argue anything in philosophy.” this is not the case. There must be the limit of logic or the whole field deteriorates into a masturbatory exercise.
The “Hidden Truth” i reference is the stuff of pseudo-science and psuedo-philosophy. The sort of hidden truth i’m referring to is the sensationalist kind. It’s not based on thought and logic, but rather emotion. It’s not philosophy.
Is that right? lol[/quote]
i made an argument, i didn’t spout out “truth”