World's worst philosopher

[syo]

Jesters and madmen are uniquely able to show us truth, since they flip the script of social order.

Nietzsche's work is all wrong. That makes him a clown. And of course he was demented because of his own stupidity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nietzsche's work is all wrong. That makes him a clown. And of course he was demented because of his own stupidity.

No, it is neither right or wrong. It is a perspective and from your perspective it makes him a clown. Unless you are actually strongly objective and rational.

 

[syo]

No, it is neither right or wrong. It is a perspective and from your perspective it makes him a clown. Unless you are actually strongly objective and rational.

There is no perspective. Have you read his theories??? The man was clueless. One stupidity after the other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no perspective. Have you read his theories??? The man was clueless. One stupidity after the other.

You really have to learn the fact value distinction and how negative and positive work as a minimum.
There is more of course and we always end at this one: If there are justified true beliefs and if so, how does that work?

 

[syo]

You really have to learn the fact value distinction and how negative and positive work as a minimum.
There is more of course and we always end at this one: If there are justified true beliefs and if so, how does that work?

I don't understand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand.

You are using values as if they are facts. I am a madman like Nietzsche and you treat it as being a value as for the worth of in the end a human.

 

[syo]

You are using values as if they are facts. I am a madman like Nietzsche and you treat it as being a value as for the worth of in the end a human.

Still I don't understand, but if I offended you, I am sorry. I never said you are a madman.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still I don't understand, but if I offended you, I am sorry. I never said you are a madman.

Well, you did, you just didn't know it, but I don't mind that. The problem is that you in the end you use your emotions and you don't seem to know that. That is not a problem unless you claim you don't do it. That is all.

 

[Ella S.]

Jordan Peterson.

Has anyone here tried to read his books? I'm thinking "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief" is one of the worst philosophical texts I have ever read. It comes across as thoroughly confused.

The absolute worst book on philosophy that I have seen is "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, who "solves" ethics by declaring his own as axiomatic.

My personal philosophical hero is Pierre-Simon Laplace, who had a large hand in formalizing the foundations of modern Bayesian epistemology.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Jordan Peterson.

Has anyone here tried to read his books? I'm thinking "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief" is one of the worst philosophical texts I have ever read. It comes across as thoroughly confused.

The absolute worst book on philosophy that I have seen is "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, who "solves" ethics by declaring his own as axiomatic.

My personal philosophical hero is Pierre-Simon Laplace, who had a large hand in formalizing the foundations of modern Bayesian epistemology.

I have a copy of Maps of Meaning but I'm loathe to delve into it, and some other books I have - just too lazy with regards rewards versus effort.

Read his 12 whatsits though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have a copy of Maps of Meaning but I'm loathe to delve into it, and some other books I have - just too lazy with regards rewards versus effort.

Read his 12 whatsits though.

In general don't learn specific philosophers. Learn the different claims of how to do the world and learn to compare those.

 

[Revoltingest]

SOCRATES.

There is nothing good with. By far horrible.

What about Majicthise & Vromfondel?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What about Majicthise & Vromfondel?

Well, they are representatives of in practice reductio ad absurdum just like Ayn Rand here:
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."
—Ayn Rand Lexicon

Philosophy is as much about the reasonable as the absurd and learn to spot both.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, they are representatives of in practice reductio ad absurdum just like Ayn Rand here:
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."
—Ayn Rand Lexicon

Philosophy is as much about the reasonable as the absurd and learn to spot both.

Are you a Vogon?

 

[Mock Turtle]

In general don't learn specific philosophers. Learn the different claims of how to do the world and learn to compare those.

Well it's always worth a look as to what most of the more prominent philosophers in history have contributed (or not), but I still seem to have gotten more from Russell than any other - with more an interest than study being involved. Peterson is bright enough but perhaps should stick to psychology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you a Vogon?

No, I like to tease you. Even the absurd can have positive value, but that is not a fact. Nor is it a fact that the absurd is meaningless in all cases.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well it's always worth a look as to what most of the more prominent philosophers in history have contributed (or not), but I still seem to have gotten more from Russell than any other - with more an interest than study being involved. Peterson is bright enough but perhaps should stick to psychology.

Take this one from Russell:
"None of our beliefs are quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error. The methods of increasing the degree of truth in our beliefs are well known; they consist in hearing all sides, trying to ascertain all the relevant facts, controlling our own bias by discussion with people who have the opposite bias, and cultivating a readiness to discard any hypothesis which has proved inadequate. These methods are practised in science, and have built up the body of scientific knowledge. Every man of science whose outlook is truly scientific is ready to admit that what passes for scientific knowledge at the moment is sure to require correction with the progress of discovery; nevertheless, it is near enough to the truth to serve for most practical purposes, though not for all. In science, where alone something approximating to genuine knowledge is to be found, men's attitude is tentative and full of doubt."

That is correct, but not complete for all of the everyday world. So if you get away with the idea that you can use that on all aspects of the everyday life, then you haven't doubted that even knowledge and truth can have a limit.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Take this one from Russell:
"None of our beliefs are quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error. The methods of increasing the degree of truth in our beliefs are well known; they consist in hearing all sides, trying to ascertain all the relevant facts, controlling our own bias by discussion with people who have the opposite bias, and cultivating a readiness to discard any hypothesis which has proved inadequate. These methods are practised in science, and have built up the body of scientific knowledge. Every man of science whose outlook is truly scientific is ready to admit that what passes for scientific knowledge at the moment is sure to require correction with the progress of discovery; nevertheless, it is near enough to the truth to serve for most practical purposes, though not for all. In science, where alone something approximating to genuine knowledge is to be found, men's attitude is tentative and full of doubt."

That is correct, but not complete for all of the everyday world. So if you get away with the idea that you can use that on all aspects of the everyday life, then you haven't doubted that even knowledge and truth can have a limit.

Well I don't assume anything, but the above is better than what most probably do as a means to ascertain any truth or as to reflecting reality. I read quite a bit of Russell in my youth so it will have been long forgotten now, even if such dealt with the more profound issues, which it probably didn't.

 

[Augustus]

SOCRATES.

There is nothing good with. By far horrible.

Hegel.

Impossible to understand, and whenever you do it's a load of bollocks.

I definitely think Kant and Foucault are worse.

Yeah, he's a right Kant...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I don't assume anything, but the above is better than what most probably do as a means to ascertain any truth or as to reflecting reality. I read quite a bit of Russell in my youth so it will have been long forgotten now, even if such dealt with the more profound issues, which it probably didn't.

Okay, since this is philosophy, then you have to learn to doubt what reality is as much as what truth and knowledge is.