Philosophy: books and discussion

[MartinParish]

I have to say my favorite philosopher (assuming you agree he should be categorized as such) was always Karl Marx with the Communist Manifesto. Strong on fire and rhetoric, weak on details...my kind of philosophy. (Reminds me of a great Napoleon Bonaparte quote: "A good constitution should be short and obscure.")

Are philosophers from past ages still relevant today? I think that's a really great question. To some degree, advances in science and our understanding of the natural world have probably made certain questions that philosophers argued for centuries virtually irrelevant; consciousness, for example, is now generally recognized to be an emergent property of the brain that has its origins in biochemistry, so the old philosophical debate over the nature of consciousness is now a moot point. Whether the philosophy of past ages remains relevant also depends on the philosopher - in some cases more so than in others. Seneca is one of the ones worth keeping IMHO, together with the other Stoics like Marcus Aurelius; unlike Plato, who spent most of his time worrying about abstract questions that seem trivial or unimportant to us today, the Stoics recognized one of the basic problems that we all face in life - how to react when circumstances are beyond your control(which may be much of the time).

Ultimately, though, I think a few of the great philosophers of the past may be worth reading regardless of whether they remain relevant or not. Reading their work can be a great way to connect with someone who, centuries apart from you though they may have been, faced some of the same kinds of problems that we all face in life and came up with their own unique solutions - a little chapter of the human experience that enriches our understanding of what it means to be human in this strange and often lonely little world.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by MartinParish

Ultimately, though, I think a few of the great philosophers of the past may be worth reading regardless of whether they remain relevant or not. Reading their work can be a great way to connect with someone who, centuries apart from you though they may have been, faced some of the same kinds of problems that we all face in life and came up with their own unique solutions - a little chapter of the human experience that enriches our understanding of what it means to be human in this strange and often lonely little world.

I recenty watched a YouTube video about Descartes; about 4 minutes into the final section, Bernard Williams reaches similar conclusions about why it was worth spending 20 years studying Descartes, even though there was a lot wrong with what Descartes was saying.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by MartinParish

I have to say my favorite philosopher (assuming you agree he should be categorized as such) was always Karl Marx with the Communist Manifesto. Strong on fire and rhetoric, weak on details...my kind of philosophy. (Reminds me of a great Napoleon Bonaparte quote: "A good constitution should be short and obscure.")

Are philosophers from past ages still relevant today? I think that's a really great question. To some degree, advances in science and our understanding of the natural world have probably made certain questions that philosophers argued for centuries virtually irrelevant; consciousness, for example, is now generally recognized to be an emergent property of the brain that has its origins in biochemistry, so the old philosophical debate over the nature of consciousness is now a moot point. Whether the philosophy of past ages remains relevant also depends on the philosopher - in some cases more so than in others. Seneca is one of the ones worth keeping IMHO, together with the other Stoics like Marcus Aurelius; unlike Plato, who spent most of his time worrying about abstract questions that seem trivial or unimportant to us today, the Stoics recognized one of the basic problems that we all face in life - how to react when circumstances are beyond your control(which may be much of the time).

Ultimately, though, I think a few of the great philosophers of the past may be worth reading regardless of whether they remain relevant or not. Reading their work can be a great way to connect with someone who, centuries apart from you though they may have been, faced some of the same kinds of problems that we all face in life and came up with their own unique solutions - a little chapter of the human experience that enriches our understanding of what it means to be human in this strange and often lonely little world.

Great post. Very well stated. I do not agree with your opinion on Plato, but this is like discussing of the merits and demerits of Bourgogne versus Bordeaux. virtually irrelevant (I like the expression and I declare it mine from this instant)

I often reread Aristotle chapter on virtues and vices in the second book of rhetoric. (we have it here on MR by the way, together with a wonderful contribution by our lawyer Tom). It is amazing how in large part it applies very well to my relatives, colleagues and neighbors and, if I consider only the vices, to myself.

The other day I learned a good one by De Gaulle. "All the French have at least one privilege to defend. It is this that gives them the passion for equality". or words to that effect.

[TimMason]

Perhaps it would be possible to distinguish between social knowledge, which is *out there* in encyclopaedias, data banks, log tables and so on, and personal knowledge. (The former always begins as the latter, and is then encoded for more general use).

The relationship between personal knowledge and thought is, I would have imagined, intimate. Seen from this angle, thought would be the process by which knowledge is rearranged to deal with new data. If you think of personal knowledge as arranged in networks - something like Hannibal Lecter's memory palace - then thought occurs when you need to shift the objects around to make room for a new item.

Sometimes the rearrangement is fairly minor: we shift a couple of books around so as to slip a new acquisition into its alphabetically designated place. Sometimes it's more radical: a new book put the whole of your present classificationn into question.

Of course, the library may resist: there's a finite number of shelves and only so many ways you can divide the space. Similarly, the brain may have some semblance of organization built into it. It may be, as the neo-phrenologists have it, that the child is born with a number of discrete faculties, as Howard Gardner insists. We have a language faculty, a maths faculty, a kinetic faculty and so on - the numbers vary. It may also be that there are ways of thinking - as TGS suggested - that are so deeply embedded that we do not even consciously summon them or recognize that they are there most of the time.

If so, it is perhaps these faculties, and the ways of thinking that allow us to catch a glimpse of Aristotle's thought through the translation, through the differences in time, through the robe that the church has wrapped him in, and through our own education and experience.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

This doesn't refer directly to your question to Beppe, but I couldn't resist inserting this as an interesting aside to your reference to Pandora's Box. I have always heard the tale told with Hope being the one thing left to humanity that makes all the evils in the box bearable. Nietzsche, however, had an interesting contrary take to my understanding, which seems to have been more in line with the story's original meaning:

.....Precisely because of its ability to keep the unfortunate in continual suspense, the Greeks considered hope the evil of evils, the truly insidious evil: it remained behind in the barrel of evils.
..........— Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900), German philosopher. The Antichrist (1888), translated by Walter Kaufmann.

We have two saying about hope. Hope is the last to die. And, until there is life there is hope. Both with a Christian tint.

I went to my Robert Graves The Greek Myths, Complete Edition Penguin of 1992. (the 3rd I had to buy, thanks to different friends, but do not worry I have many of their books stacked away safely, then with ebooks it's easier),
who got Pandora's from Hesiod. He has it in the Atlas and Prometeus story.

Pandora was the revenge on Prometeus by Zeus for having stolen a glowing charcoal, hidden in the hollow of a giant fennel-stalk. In fact my wild fennels have gone to seed and they are as tall as 8 feet.

So Zeus ordered Hephaesus to make a clay woman, and the four Winds to breath life into her, and all the goddesses of Olympus to adorn her. Pandora was the most beautifull woman ever created. Zeus sent her as a gift to Epimetheus (Prometheus brother) who, warned by his brother refused her. Then the torments of Prometheus. Then Epimetheus, alarmed by his brother's fate, marries her. Zeus had made her as foolish, mischievous and idle as she was beautiful. And she opened the jar. In the jar Prometheus had imprisoned all the Spites (ugly winged things) that might plague mankind: such as Old Age (that one I do not understand what it is), Labour, Sickness, Insanity, Vice , and Passion. Those flew out in a cloud and attacked the race of mortals. Delusive Hope, that was also shut in the jar, discouraged them by her lies from a general suicide.

So this is Hesiod through Graves and resumed by yours truly
I am glad that this gave me the occasion of opening Graves book. I have it in ebook also, but I must admit that turning pages is still very pleasant.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by beppe

We have two saying about hope. Hope is the last to die. And, until there is life there is hope. Both with a Christian tint.

I like a quote from the film 'Clockwise'; after enduring a series of mishaps the main character says "It's not the despair, Laura. I can stand the despair. It's the hope!"

[beppe]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Perhaps it would be possible to distinguish between social knowledge, which is *out there* in encyclopaedias, data banks, log tables and so on, and personal knowledge. (The former always begins as the latter, and is then encoded for more general use).

The relationship between personal knowledge and thought is, I would have imagined, intimate. Seen from this angle, thought would be the process by which knowledge is rearranged to deal with new data. If you think of personal knowledge as arranged in networks - something like Hannibal Lecter's memory palace - then thought occurs when you need to shift the objects around to make room for a new item.

Sometimes the rearrangement is fairly minor: we shift a couple of books around so as to slip a new acquisition into its alphabetically designated place. Sometimes it's more radical: a new book put the whole of your present classificationn into question.

Of course, the library may resist: there's a finite number of shelves and only so many ways you can divide the space. Similarly, the brain may have some semblance of organization built into it. It may be, as the neo-phrenologists have it, that the child is born with a number of discrete faculties, as Howard Gardner insists. We have a language faculty, a maths faculty, a kinetic faculty and so on - the numbers vary. It may also be that there are ways of thinking - as TGS suggested - that are so deeply embedded that we do not even consciously summon them or recognize that they are there most of the time.

If so, it is perhaps these faculties, and the ways of thinking that allow us to catch a glimpse of Aristotle's thought through the translation, through the differences in time, through the robe that the church has wrapped him in, and through our own education and experience.

Tim, I am afraid that it might be a little more complex that making two piles one marked personal and the other social.

When I instruct one of my "coworkers" to keep his mouth shut about something we are doing, I tell him knowledge is power. Where do you put that kind of knowledge, let's say corporate knowledge? in the social? Not on my dead body, you do not.

Without being so graphical, imagine that in a negotiation one party has some inside knowledge on the other party rationale. This gives to one party a huge advantage over the other (power). How do you classify that kind of knowledge? Important, useful, may be noble and very high, it depends on the negotiation and the parties involved.

I can follow better the second part of your post, where you apply the metaphor of rearranging books to the acquisition of new stuff and the problems of incorporating it.

One old construct, that is more and more in fashion in the so called soft sciences to update knowledge with new data, is the Bayesian approach. In this you have some preexisting information that you use to infer some conclusions. So the actual knowledge is made of a) the inference mechanism, it is sometime called likelihood, b) the preexisting information, c) the fresh information you just used to infer the conclusion d). When something new comes again in your hands you update the preexisting information with the previous conclusions and use the new information to infer new conclusions. Easily iterable. Excellent pages on this on Stanford Enciclopedia.

The third part of your post about the readability of classics, I have hard time to follow, therefore I skip it. No offence.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I like a quote from the film 'Clockwise'; after enduring a series of mishaps the main character says "It's not the despair, Laura. I can stand the despair. It's the hope!"

Oh I did not see it. I adore John Cleese. You sparrow you are a smart one. I was the first one to say Hawk. Right?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by MartinParish

I have to say my favorite philosopher (assuming you agree he should be categorized as such) was always Karl Marx with the Communist Manifesto. Strong on fire and rhetoric, weak on details...my kind of philosophy. (Reminds me of a great Napoleon Bonaparte quote: "A good constitution should be short and obscure.")

Are philosophers from past ages still relevant today? I think that's a really great question. To some degree, advances in science and our understanding of the natural world have probably made certain questions that philosophers argued for centuries virtually irrelevant; consciousness, for example, is now generally recognized to be an emergent property of the brain that has its origins in biochemistry, so the old philosophical debate over the nature of consciousness is now a moot point. Whether the philosophy of past ages remains relevant also depends on the philosopher - in some cases more so than in others. Seneca is one of the ones worth keeping IMHO, together with the other Stoics like Marcus Aurelius; unlike Plato, who spent most of his time worrying about abstract questions that seem trivial or unimportant to us today, the Stoics recognized one of the basic problems that we all face in life - how to react when circumstances are beyond your control(which may be much of the time).

Ultimately, though, I think a few of the great philosophers of the past may be worth reading regardless of whether they remain relevant or not. Reading their work can be a great way to connect with someone who, centuries apart from you though they may have been, faced some of the same kinds of problems that we all face in life and came up with their own unique solutions - a little chapter of the human experience that enriches our understanding of what it means to be human in this strange and often lonely little world.

I think the philosophers of the past are well worth reading, especially as regards their ethical arguments. The science of the ancients may have been shaky, but what they said on how to treat other human beings remains worthy of consideration.

As to Marx and his system, I think of what G.K. Chesterton said about Christianity in What's Wrong with the World (1910): "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried." In like manner, Marx certainly didn't envision leaders like Stalin when he formulated his system, and most certainly have his ideas not produced the worker's utopia for which he hoped. Perhaps the truth is that people aren't so constructed so as to make communism viable. In any case, what remains of value in Marx is his critique of capitalism. Had it not been for the deplorable conditions under which factory workers labored in the early 20th century, and the great disparity in wealth between the robber barons and the common man; the communist message would have never managed to gain a foothold. As the earning differences today between the workers and the CEOs—the haves and the have-nots—are even greater than they were 100 years ago, I fear modern society may in for an even greater upheaval when some charismatic leader comes along offering a new remedy to the present state of affairs.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by beppe

Great post. Very well stated. I do not agree with your opinion on Plato, but this is like discussing of the merits and demerits of Bourgogne versus Bordeaux. virtually irrelevant (I like the expression and I declare it mine from this instant)

I often reread Aristotle chapter on virtues and vices in the second book of rhetoric. (we have it here on MR by the way, together with a wonderful contribution by our lawyer Tom). It is amazing how in large part it applies very well to my relatives, colleagues and neighbors and, if I consider only the vices, to myself.

The other day I learned a good one by De Gaulle. "All the French have at least one privilege to defend. It is this that gives them the passion for equality". or words to that effect.

I agree with what you say of the value of reading Aristotle's Ethics. It's been a while for me. Perhaps it's time for a re-read.

[TimMason]

Tim, I am afraid that it might be a little more complex that making two piles one marked personal and the other social.

I am a simple-minded fellow.

When I instruct one of my "coworkers" to keep his mouth shut about something we are doing, I tell him knowledge is power. Where do you put that kind of knowledge, let's say corporate knowledge? in the social? Not on my dead body, you do not.

Why-ever not? Most knowledge is restricted in its circulation. But once it is shared between two humans, it is social. (Picks up body and hauls it into the wings).

As for the last bit, it's a return to the question of translatability. I'm skeptical.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Attempts to argue that some animals possess something like human culture - patterns of behaviour that are not built-in, that are passed on from one generation to the next, and that differ from one group to another within the same species - are interesting. Similar observations have been made for several kinds of monkey and several of the great apes, one of the most common being the observation that termite fishing with a twig seems to be passed on from mother to infant.

However, in all these cases the mode of transmission appears to be unintentional: the adult does not set out to teach the infant, who simply picks up the behaviour by imitation. Human children also use imitation, but it accounts for a very reduced set of rather rudimentary routines. For humans, such routines may lie at the base of much of our practical culture, but it doesn't account for it at anything beyond the simplest level.

I'm still catching up with the thread, but I had to react to this. I cannot agree with it. How do children learn language, if not by imitation? Imitation, together with experimentation, is the most basic process learning is based on. Children spend a good portion of their time imitating adults (someone mentioned a little girl speaking to her doll with her mother's voice), and it's a vital part of learning.

[TimMason]

How do children learn language, if not by imitation?

Language is made anew by each generation. Pinker and other Chomskyans claim that most of language is already there, and is at most triggered by what children hear. They argue that children never hear enough instances to be able to construct the language in the way they do. They call this the 'poverty of stimulus argument'.

The reference to the little girl using her mother's voice was mine. I was thinking of Vygotsky. But the little girl uses her mother's voice in a back and forth conversation between several different characters - herself as child, her doll, her mother - to create something new. She doesn't just repeat what she has already heard; if she did, we'd find it rather strange.

but I suppose I'm arguing with myself : here's something I wrote about this some ten years ago.

[WT Sharpe]

I suspect that this post figures into the current discussion somehow.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Why-ever not? Most knowledge is restricted in its circulation. But once it is shared between two humans, it is social. (Picks up body and hauls it into the wings).

And when it is shared between two corporations it becomes corporal. Good!

And between two computers computeral!

when it is not shared between two humans who cares!