¤ milky moon ¤

Yes! (No!), Yeeeees! (Noooooo!); Either/Or. (Hey, that's funny.)

This is where we, you--and I--will discuss what Alfie was asked, once, "What's it all about?"

The subject has been discussed recently in another thread and the next entries below are copied from there and serve as a beginning.

-------Edit01---------------------

I removed the restriction against using a particular internet source.

[...]

It was nearly 25-years ago that I first heard and read claims that anthropogenic global warming was not correct. It was then that I began to entertain this possibility. At that time, I did not have an interest in the subject but did have an interest in what I'll summarize with the phrase "critical analysis", which has been a continuous theme in my life since that time.

Take the expression, "Opinions are like assholes--everyone has one." During the beginning of the period I mention, I committed to read, in English and multiple translations, Friedrich Nietzsche, where I learned of the Ephectics and "intellectual conscience" and became focused on not what my opinions were but how I could decide any particular thing. My default position on anything--that wasn't urgent--was, "I don't know", followed by, "By what means can I decide _____?"

[--Diogenes Laertius, Proem. XI (16), says: ‘Philosophers were generally divided into two classes,--the dogmatics, who spoke of things as they might be comprehended; and the ephectics, who refused to define anything, and disputed so as to make the understanding of them impossible.’ The word ‘ephectic’ is derived from the verb ἐπέχω, ‘to hold back,’ and was used by the philosophers to whom it is applied as a title because they claimed to hold back their judgment, being unable to reach a conclusion. (See footnote 387 here)--]

I knew that some people had bad opinions, that some had good opinions accidentally and that some had good opinions through research. I strove to have--at the very least--examined opinions and no opinion whenever my intellectual conscience told me that I did not have enough information--or, when I did not know how to decide. (This was one of the main themes when I posted here early this decade.)

I found this exercise in determining how to decide something very instructive!--particularly when someone presented me with an assertion or claim of fact, but always when I had the urge to adopt some opinion or was asked to give my opinion.

[...]

[...]

How is study of philosophy going?

(_^_)

Byron wrote:Study's kind of nonexistent at the moment- I graduated last year, and since then I've just been floating around and trying to figure out what to do next. [...]

[...]

A few years ago, I decided to join a Philosophical forum, or two, or three...possibly four. Not consequitively, but serially: I may have been banned by one or two, but on one a guy committed suicide a short time after I began posting in my previously, uh...insensitive manner. I don't wish to discuss this now. (I saved the posts...)

About a year and half ago, I joined a Christian forum called "Evolution Fairytale" by way of a facebook reference.

The debate was, and still is, of a super-high caliber. (I was debating 'Evolution', origin of the Universe, God's existence and so on.)

Whenever I landed in one of these places, I would announce that I don't and won't entertain any content from Wook-eePee-dia. I've stuck to that and you've provided positive reinforcement in that regard. I thank you, Byron. (lol)

When I lived in the heart of la-la land--I don't mean Hollywood--I shared a house with, that is, "played house" with a Philosophy major enrolled at Smith College. This would be central Massachusetts, USA. (La-la land? The town where I worked made the cover of Time magazine in the mid-90s as a "lesbian haven", the heart of the "Five-college area". I knew people who went to nude parties at Hampshire College.)

Tell me about your neglected education. I hesitate to add, here, that my philosophical paramour went on to become a partner in a software company and is wealthy now. We split when she went to graduate school in Ohio.

What did you learn about "philosophy"?

[...]

Byron wrote:A lot... The compulsory capstone subject was entirely metaphilosophical- philosophy of philosophy- so I'm not sure which aspects of it would be particularly engaging or worthy of discussion. It was interesting to learn about philosophy's traditional rejection of the 'feminine', and how it's unfortunately still the most male-dominated area of the humanities today; and that many of its interests have been somewhat subsumed by modern science, while postmodern deconstructionism has seen a shift towards subjectivity and temporality in certain strands of thought; and the continued relevance of areas like political philosophy, philosophy of language and applied ethics for societies today.

Have you heard of Noam Chomsky? He's my favourite philosopher at the moment- an amazing contemporary academic who's done some really good work in political activism and raising awareness of media agendas and corporate influence. Peter Singer is great as well; I'm going to see him speak next month.

How about you, did you study? Has your interest in critical analysis led to any rewarding insights?

[...]

Thanks Byron! You made me run down to my book stack for the title of a book on philosophy of science I read but it wasn't there--though I did find my Dictionary of Philosophy. I have read philosophy of mathematics, science and, probably, some others of this type that I can't recall at the moment.

...

I have heard and read--years ago--some Chomsky and I read this about Singer after reading your post.

You should have--I hope--infered my penchant for what you wrote as, "philosophy of philosophy", in my post above, marked '10 Jul 2015, 06:11'.

I am very interested in political philosophy and I believe that is where and what all the "fighting" is about.

What do I mean?

I mean the fighting amongst the dominant Nations in the past several Centuries--the European or "Western" societies. What is wrong--if you pardon the word--with Peter Singer's focus is that it is akin to addressing the bad rash you have on various parts of your body while the cause is something in your blood: You might apply some medical lotion but the rash breaks-out elsewhere and the underlying cause becomes resistant to the medicine.

What is required of this perspective is a proper knowledge of history, particulary from 19th Century to present-day. The two massive, awful upheavals known as the first and second "world wars" and the subsequent, resultant "cold war" period must be assessed and understood in order to evaluate the current state of the world. The role of scientific discovery can not be ignored in any assessment.

One of Nietzsche's themes--he addressed many subjects--was the condition of European society. He wrote while the great ideological struggles were forming, simmering and festering. This is very important if one is to understand what he attempted to warn us about. It is his diagnosis and description of the ills of the state of Western society--intellectual, spiritual, philosophical--and the direction in which it was moving which I found valuable for an analysis of the current state of the world. (There are other benefits I found to reading his works, but will discuss those later: I have acquired valuable insight.)

You should infer that measuring the "maleness" of any of this does not take one very far--unless, of course, you're examining the plight of women and Christians under Sharia Law in many parts of the world as I type these words.

I think, Byron, that you were on the right bus when you chose Philosophy, but you need to determine whether you've strayed onto some back-road or cul-de-sac.

--------Edit----------

I've begun, here, in this post, some foundation to how I've arrived at a position, or stance, on these serious subjects.

---------Edit01-----------------------

Removed superfluous reference to another post and corrected my reference to "my post above".

[...]

Thanks Byron! You made me run down to my book stack for the title of a book on philosophy of science I read but it wasn't there--though I did find my Dictionary of Philosophy. I have read philosophy of mathematics, science and, probably, some others of this type that I can't recall at the moment.

...

I have heard and read--years ago--some Chomsky and I read this about Singer after reading your post.

You should have--I hope--infered my penchant for what you wrote as, "philosophy of philosophy", in my post above, marked '10 Jul 2015, 06:11'.

I am very interested in political philosophy and I believe that is where and what all the "fighting" is about.

What do I mean?

I mean the fighting amongst the dominant Nations in the past several Centuries--the European or "Western" societies. What is wrong--if you pardon the word--with Peter Singer's focus is that it is akin to addressing the bad rash you have on various parts of your body while the cause is something in your blood: You might apply some medical lotion but the rash breaks-out elsewhere and the underlying cause becomes resistant to the medicine.

What is required of this perspective is a proper knowledge of history, particulary from 19th Century to present-day. The two massive, awful upheavals known as the first and second "world wars" and the subsequent, resultant "cold war" period must be assessed and understood in order to evaluate the current state of the world. The role of scientific discovery can not be ignored in any assessment.

One of Nietzsche's themes--he addressed many subjects--was the condition of European society. He wrote while the great ideological struggles were forming, simmering and festering. This is very important if one is to understand what he attempted to warn us about. It is his diagnosis and description of the ills of the state of Western society--intellectual, spiritual, philosophical--and the direction in which it was moving which I found valuable for an analysis of the current state of the world. (There are other benefits I found to reading his works, but will discuss those later: I have acquired valuable insight.)

You should infer that measuring the "maleness" of any of this does not take one very far--unless, of course, you're examining the plight of women and Christians under Sharia Law in many parts of the world as I type these words.

I think, Byron, that you were on the right bus when you chose Philosophy, but you need to determine whether you've strayed onto some back-road or cul-de-sac.

--------Edit[01]----------

I've begun, here, in this post, some foundation to how I've arrived at a position, or stance, on these serious subjects.

---------Edit02-----------------------

Removed superfluous reference to another post and corrected my reference to "my post above".

r-enter-ested wrote:... You should infer that measuring the "maleness" of any of this does not take one very far ...

I should clarify.

Note that I didn't write, "...does not take you very far ..." as you, Byron, may have gotten quite far in determining the "maleness" of "any of this".

I meant very far toward answers to difficult questions. (Note that I didn't write, "truth", after "toward...".) One assumes that the reality ("final answer") is the same without regard to the seeker's genitalia.

Have you read Foucault? History of Sexuality, Discipline & Punish, etc. His work was heavily influenced by Nietzsche (but considerably better, in my opinion).

If you've read in the philosophy of science, how about Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, which is basically the founding text of postmodernism in the humanities? Or Bruno Latour's Laboratory Life - an anthropology of the production of scientific knowledge.

Jordan~ wrote:Have you read Foucault? ...

If you've read in the philosophy of science, how about Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, which is basically the founding text of postmodernism in the humanities? Or Bruno Latour's Laboratory Life - an anthropology of the production of scientific knowledge.

While I have heard of Foucault, I have not heard of the others.

I think Lyotard's book might be of some interest and I will attempt to borrow this from the local library.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm curious about the possible meaning of such a word as "postmodernism": I know that I have read the meaning of the word at some time but dismissed it as something to be tackled at another time. It seems that now is the time.

Allan Bloom had much to say about the direction and state of the humanities.

Thanks again.

Latour's worth checking out too, if you can get past his infuriating writing style. He's a big name in contemporary history and philosophy of science, as one of the foremost founding figures of the Science and Technology Studies school, from which position he developed Actor-Network Theory, which is now something of a craze in the social sciences.

Jordan~ wrote:Latour's worth checking out too, if you can get past his infuriating writing style. He's a big name in contemporary history and philosophy of science, as one of the foremost founding figures of the Science and Technology Studies school, from which position he developed Actor-Network Theory, which is now something of a craze in the social sciences.

Yes, you did introduce me to Actor-Network Theory, which I thank you for that.

I have requested a copy of Lyotard's book from a public library and here is their confirmation, sans graphics and location:

Your request for The postmodern condition : a
report on knowledge / Jean-François Lyotard ;
translation from the French by Geoff
Bennington and Brian Massumi ; foreword by
Fredric Jameson. (sic) was successful.

As this is the Philosophy thread and I'm concerned about critical analysis and Ephectics, I'll ask, does this constitute proof that I requested the book?

No.

If we assume that the above is true, then we must acknowledge that we should be reading the original French, but we are not and acknowledge the possibility of translation-error. We will ignore this potential problem so that we can proceed.

Translations from French are usually fine. Translations from German are another matter, because a less talented translator will render the book incredibly dull.

Jordan~ wrote:Translations from French are usually fine. Translations from German are another matter, because a less talented translator will render the book incredibly dull.

No, no, no, no.

It's the meaning of the concepts that is of concern. If you ever want to blow your mind, then read a second translation of a book. I did this with a few of Nietzsche's works.

r-enter-ested wrote:

Jordan~ wrote:Translations from French are usually fine. Translations from German are another matter, because a less talented translator will render the book incredibly dull.

No, no, no, no.

It's the meaning of the concepts that is of concern. If you ever want to blow your mind, then read a second translation of a book. I did this with a few of Nietzsche's works.

That too. I have done that - I've read two different translations of Durkheim's Elementary Forms of the Religious Life; in both cases, they were mostly (forgiveable) nonsense, but the more recent translation was much more readable.

Jordan~ wrote:

r-enter-ested wrote:

Jordan~ wrote:Translations from French are usually fine. Translations from German are another matter, because a less talented translator will render the book incredibly dull.

... the concepts that is of concern. If you ever want to blow your mind, then read a second translation of a book. I did this with a few of Nietzsche's works.

That too. I have done that - I've read two different translations of Durkheim's Elementary Forms of the Religious Life; in both cases, they were mostly (forgiveable)[sic] nonsense, but the more recent translation was much more readable.

I did leave out the part where the concepts are very valuable to you, eh?

---------Edit01-----------------------------

Did you your mind get blown over the difference in translation of an important concept, or two?

r-enter-ested wrote:...
I have requested a copy of Lyotard's book from a public library ...

I have the book and have started...

Jordan~, I thought I should give you a report of my "progress" with The Postmodern Condition.

Long, slow effort. (I wanted to use 'slog' but could not find it used as a noun.)

I, first, decided which, if any, of the sections preceeding the numbered content to read: In this book, the Forward and Introduction.

I rejected the Forward and accepted the Introduction.

I have stopped, stalled, started again and stalled, and, finally, "finished" the short Instroduction. I equivocate 'finished' as I can't claim to comprehend what I read.

I can report that my long-held aversion to the term "postmodern" has, so far, been reinforced: This does not bode well as we must provide names for our concepts. You should not infer that I imply that a bad name invalidates the theory it has been assigned to represent.

Some long time-ago--but don't remember where--I found my first support for this aversion when I read, "post-postmodern". A similar, potential problem waits for the use of 'modern', if you comprehend so far.

I have some commentary about other terms in the Introduction, but will compose another post.

Lyotard explains what he means by "modern", and consequently what "postmodern", means in the book. The introduction is not particularly clear, indeed, but I found that by the time I finished the book I knew what he was on about. The most difficult section, as I recall, is in the middle, when he's talking about two modes of the legitimation of knowledge.