(Part 2) Best philosophy books according to redditors
We found 4,750 Reddit comments discussing the best philosophy books. We ranked the 2,100 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
I think you will learn the most by reading five textbooks, such as A History of Philosophy, volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; or something like Metaphysics: The Fundamentals, The Fundamentals of Ethics, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, and An Introduction to Political Philosophy.
If what you have in mind is more of a "Great Books" program to get your feet wet with some classic works that are not too difficult, you could do a lot worse than:
Conservative Republican Ideology:
Conservatism seeks a neo-feudal society with a "natural" hierarchy of authority determined by the inheritance of wealth amongst those "proven" to be strong (not theoretical ideals guaranteeing everyone equal rights), along with a small government with a fierce military power to maintain the order and protect the property of the wealthy, superior class. It is the epitome of a pessimistic mentality formed by peoples faithful, anti-rational commitment to traditional institutions and their hierarchy of authority and obedience.
Conservatism emphasizes authority over individual liberty or equality, and duty over rights. It is pessimistic in its philosophy of human nature, believing it is unalterably ignorant, weak, corruptible and selfish. Hence, acting according to this assumption is not a vice but the virtue of being a “realist”; contrarily, vice is held to exist in those “idealist” who hold an optimistic philosophy and believe the world can be improved and that such human qualities can be checked. Correspondingly, a nearly universal quality of conservatives is an instinctive fear of change and a disposition for habitual (not creative or thoughtful) action. And from this conjunction follows a harsh skepticism of abstract, intellectual reasoning.
Truth is believed to exist solely within the revelations they inherit from their traditions. Beyond that, the world is understood to be mysteriously complex and beyond any individuals further understanding. Thus, says conservatism, it is not possible that anyone could rationally produce any principles that would improve upon tradition and the operation of societies “natural” order. Any attempt to do so by the radical intellectual is rebuked as arrogant and regarded as offensively corrosive to our very existence.
​
Once one understands this, the actions of Trump and the Republican party make much more sense. And so does the need to openly combat their political blitzkrieg on Western liberal democracy.
​
Sources:
I'm not sure how much my words will be of use for you, as I am myself not yet Catholic (I'm currently going through RCIA). However, I can relate with regard to a lack of Catholic friends. I'm an immigrant from India who was raised in a Hindu family; most of my friends are Indian and nominally Hindu. I've had only a couple of Christian friends in my life and never a Catholic friend. Reading and researching through books, articles, podcasts, videos, etc. have led me to the faith.
Oftentimes, in defending the faith, I have debated my family, my friends, and others close to me. It became clear to me that I needed a systematic plan if I was going to do this with any shred of ability. Here's mine. Perhaps it will be of use to you or somebody else who clicks on your post because they can relate.
In summary, I'd recommend reading the following books in this order:
God Bless and take care.
I'm not /u/hungrystegosaurus, but here are a few personal suggestions:
Philosophy on the whole -- Copleston is the standard and for good reason
Early Greek philosophy -- Nietzsche has a relatively accessible and worthwhile overview on many Greek sages that I found to be a supremely helpful, though controversial, introduction
Plato -- Very, very tough to recommend any good introduction to his work taken holistically, but I'll go out on a limb and recommend something Straussian, which is a little tough for a first-timer but grounds Platonic philosophy in living moral and political issues OP is likely more familiar with. Shorter dialogues like the Meno and the Apology might also be worth checking out
Aristotle -- Forget the abstruse metaphysics; stick with the ethics. The Cambridge intro is adequate
Renaissance / Enlightenment philosophy -- Not my primary interest, but rather than plunging into Kant, try something like the Novum Organum by Bacon, which is an admirably clear laying-out of the Enlightenment project, written without impenetrable jargon and in a digestible aphoristic style
Nietzsche -- Most anything by Kaufmann will do, but this is a nice piece
Heidegger -- Richard Polt's introduction
Existentialism in general -- Not a written reference, but this video lecture series by Solomon, an excellent UT philosophy professor, makes for a nice companion
Contemporary philosophy -- /u/ReallyNicole, one of this subreddit's moderators, would be able to offer a ton of great introductory material. She's sort of a pro at linking to articles
This is barely scratching the surface, but scratching the surface is more than enough. If OP can get through even half of this material in a year or two's time, he'll be well on his way to developing his philosophical faculties and familiarity.
To recommend motherfucking Being and Time or the Critique of Pure Reason (without supplemental aids, no less) to a 17-year-old novice is so egregiously, maddeningly, ball-shrivelingly stupid and such wholly, purely, offensively bad advice that I honestly wouldn't mind seeing /u/JamieHugo permanently banned from this subreddit for corrupting the youth.
George Orwell: 1984. Essential to understanding the Totalitarian Left, and ideas that have now entered our language and are becoming more relevant by the day, such as doublethink, thoughtcrime, and newspeak.
Donald J. Boudreaux: The Essential Hayek. (also Hayek's original works, eg The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty, but they are much more expensive. This is a good introduction to the Austrian School of economics).
Carroll Quigley: Tragedy & Hope: a history of the world in our time.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf
> One of these persistent questions is typical of the twentieth century rather than of earlier times: Can our way of life survive? Is our civilization doomed to vanish, as did that of the Incas, the Sumerians, and the Romans? From Giovanni Battista Vico in the early eighteenth century to Oswald Spengler in the early twentieth century and Arnold J Toynbee in our own day, men have been puzzling over the problem of whether civilizations have a life cycle and follow a similar pattern of change. from this discussion emerged a fairly general agreement that men live in separately organized societies, each with its own distinct culture; that some of these societies, having writing and city life, exist on a higher level of culture than the rest, and should be called by the different term "civilizations"; and that these civilizations tend to pass through a common pattern of experience.
Carroll Quigley: The Evolution of Civilizations. http://www.archive.org/stream/CarrollQuigley-TheEvolutionOfCivilizations-AnIntroductionTo/CarrollQuigley-TheEvolutionOfCivilizations-AnIntroductionToHistoricalAnalysis1979#page/n1/mode/2up
> In this perceptive look at the factors behind the rise and fall of civilizations, Professor Quigley seeks to establish the analytical tools necessary for understanding history. He examines the application of scientific method to the social sciences, then establishes his historical hypotheses. He poses a division of culture into six levels, from the more abstract to the more concrete—intellectual, religious, social, political, economic, and military—and he identifies seven stages of historical change for all civilizations: mixture, gestation, expansion, conflict, universal empire, decay, and invasion.
J.C. Unwin: Sex and Culture
https://archive.org/details/b20442580
> With care-free open-mindedness I decided to test, by a reference to human records, a somewhat startling conjecture that had been made by analytical psychologists. This suggestion was that if the social regulations forbid direct satisfaction of the sexual impulses the emotional conflict is expressed in another way, and that what we call 'civilization' has always been built up by compulsory sacrifices in the gratification of innate desires.
Sir John Glubb: The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
> d) The stages of the rise and fall of great nations seem to be:
>The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
> The Age of Conquests
>The Age of Commerce
>The Age of Affluence
>The Age of Intellect
>The Age of Decadence.
>(e) Decadence is marked by:
>Defensiveness
>Pessimism
>Materialism
>Frivolity
>An influx of foreigners
>The Welfare State
>A weakening of religion.
>(f) Decadence is due to:
>Too long a period of wealth and power
>Selfishness
>Love of money
>The loss of a sense of duty.
>(g) The life histories of great states are amazingly similar, and are due to internal factors.
E. Belfort Bax: The Fraud of Feminism. http://www.angryharry.com/FraudOfFeminism.htm (written in 1913, it clearly shows that there was no 'golden age' of feminism, and that feminists can never be satisfied).
> Though women have been conceded all the rights of men, their privileges as females have remained untouched, while the sentimental "pull" they have over men, and the favouritism shown them in the courts, civil and criminal, often in flagrant violation of elementary justice, continues as before. The result of their position on juries, as evinced in certain trials, has rather confirmed the remarks made in Chapter II. anent [concerning] hysteria than otherwise. The sex-bias of men in favour of women and the love of the advanced woman towards her sex-self show no sign of abatement.
And two recent important works in political philosophy that are therefore not available for free.
John Rawls. A Theory of Justice. A seminal book providing an alternative to Utilitarianism. "Rawls's "Theory of Justice" is widely and justly regarded as this century's most important work of political philosophy. "
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0674000781/
T.M. Scanlon. What We Owe to Each Other. Following on from Rawls' insights, and applying them more broadly than only to justice, to what underpins a society working together. "What do we owe to each other? What obligations of honesty, respect, trust and consideration exist between people?"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/067400423X/
Finally
Jonathan Haidt: Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Haidt shows that there are at least 6 foundations of what people see as social good. Of these, the Left see 'Caring' as the good, almost to the exclusion of everything else. Libertarians see 'Liberty' as the good, almost to the exclusion of everything else. Conservatives are fairly evenly balanced across the 6, and have the easiest time understanding the perspective of the others as a result. See also http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUM4akzLGE. You might know Haidt from this talk: http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com/the-myth-of-equality/jonathan-haidt-coddling-u-strengthening-u/
I've always enjoyed this confrontational quote by playwright Bouke Oldenhof, from David Winner's curious-yet-delightful book Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football:
> "Did you ever go to Auschwitz? It is very interesting: every country has its own barracks where it tells its own history. If you want to hear all the lies a nation tells about itself, you should go there: Holland is the most tolerant nation - we have a long history of tolerance; Austria was the first victim of the Nazis; Yugoslavia liberated itself; Poland won the Second World War; and only the Germans are honest. All lies!"
I mean, this was the literal point of the OP's linked article.
>There is no real solution to the problem of political ignorance, unless we are willing to break with democratic politics. [...] In my recent book Against Democracy, I discuss how we might experiment with epistocracy — where political power is widespread, as in a democracy, but votes are in some way weighted according to basic political knowledge.
The book itself came out in April 19, 2016 https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0691169446
However, the Vox interview was last month. So, the readers of /r/EverythingScience would be better off either reading the book or at least the synopsis/reviews? Sociologists/political scientists are scientists. This book won the
>Winner of the 2017 PROSE Award in Government & Politics, Association of American Publishers
>One of Bloomberg's Best Books of 2016
>One of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles for 2016
Whatever that means.
https://www.amazon.com/Conservatism-Invitation-Tradition-Roger-Scruton/dp/1250170567
This came out pretty recently. It's an overview of the history. It's not nearly as comprehensive as a class would be but it's pretty interesting.
I'd actually recommend watching through the documentary in the link above as a halfway decent introduction to the main themes relevant to studying Nietzsche in an easily digestible format.
As far as books go, afaik most philosophy courses on Nietzsche start out with Beyond Good and Evil. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is his self-designated magnum opus, though I recommend having some background knowledge of its context before attempting to scale it. My personal favorite, Gay Science, is a wonderfully thought-provoking and entertaining read.
There are also plenty of good commentaries and biographies around. A classic would be Walter Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. It's a bit old, but I wouldn't hold that against it. Kaufmann can of course be accused of revisionism, but his influence in presenting some of the first analyses encompassing Nietzsche's entire work as well as rehabilitating his academic respectability post-WW2 is seminal. Some others over here might have hints on more current biographies worth checking out. Also, most translations of Nietzsche's original works have decent commentaries with them, I'd look out for RJ Hollingdale's and Kaufmann's versions in particular.
Good luck with your pursuit of philosophy :)
Edit: typo (or two)
It sounds to me like somebody's been attemptin' some philosophy on the side. 😜
But seriously, I'd recommend reading some good philosophy to help wrap your mind around these questions - what it is to be has been around since Descartes, if not earlier. I'm reading Feser's Philosophy of Mind and it deals directly with that question.
As to other advice, pray even louder when all you can pray is, "WHY?" And perhaps think about how no matter what, you must exist, or you couldn't be doubting that you exist, because who'd be doing the doubting?
Philosophically Catholics (should) hold that AI is not possible; that intelligence is an aspect of a rational soul, and so the only way to have a true "thinking machine" is either to somehow have a human or angel soul therein (think cyborg or demon-possessed object).
Feser's Philosophy of Mind goes much deeper into it.
Now, of course, none of this prevents sci-fi stories about AI (some of RA Lafferty's are great), but it does mean that true AI is not possible without an immortal soul (because of the universals, basically).
What We Owe To Each Other
For Nietzsche, or for life in general?
I'll assume the first one. Read these in the order given:
Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist, Walter Kaufman.
Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche
On the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche
Beyond Good & Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche
I would highly recommend getting the Kaufman translations. Thus Spake Zarathustra is collected in The Portable Nietzsche and Genealogy of Morals is collected together with Ecce Homo. Once you've read the ones I've listed, you'll already have his other important books if you want to read them. I'd read the Kaufman book first for two reasons: Understanding Nietzsche life and times helps to contextualize his philosophy, and Kaufman is terrific biographer, plus Kaufman gives a thorough overview of Nietzsche's ideas. And sometime it really helps to have a map of the territory before you plunge into the abyss. Nietzsche can be very challenging, especially to the 21st century reader.
People are too selfish to live in a libertarian society with volunteerism.
Socialism doesn't need to use violence, because everyone shares voluntarily.
(aka http://www.amazon.com/Why-Not-Socialism-G-Cohen/dp/0691143617)
A great companion piece is Democracy for Realists by Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels.
They demonstrate that voters―even those who are well informed and politically engaged―mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues. They also show that voters adjust their policy views and even their perceptions of basic matters of fact to match those loyalties. When parties are roughly evenly matched, elections often turn on irrelevant or misleading considerations such as economic spurts or downturns beyond the incumbents' control; the outcomes are essentially random. Thus, voters do not control the course of public policy, even indirectly.
Two modern and more "moderate" books, considering that your brother goes to DSA meetings:
"Why not Socialism?" by G.A. Cohen
"Why Marx was right" by Terry Eagleton
And two firecrackers, one marxian, one anarchist:
"The Communist Manifesto" by Marx/Engels
"The Conquest of Bread" by Kropotkin
Before you go and buy any of this stuff for a dozen bucks or so, consider that they are all available online, "Manifesto" and "Conquest" even legally.
There's a book with the same title as Chidi's lecture, What We Owe To Each Other. I've always been of the mindset that we are here for each other. When a friend lost his house and cats to fire, something truly devastating to him, he had a breakdown about how he could possibly move forward. If everything can be taken from you in a moment, what's the fucking point?
The point is to be there for each other. The point is that we're not really here for any reason. We just are. And that's okay. Make the most of it. Make someone smile. Do any small thing. It could mean nothing to anyone. And it could mean everything to just one.
Give a little love.
The Book
It seems to me that Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist is the English work most likely to have been translated into Greek. It's worth reading though a little dated, and is pretty easy to understand in English.
Orwell was literally killing your types in the spanish civil war, you WANT a 1984 style society, yet you accuse others of It, that is doublethink.
For anyone that still thinks the speech of stalinists, fascists and nazis should be respected:https://www.amazon.com.br/Open-Society-Its-Enemies/dp/0691158134
I'm going to skip over a lot of the specific examples you've presented because a) in the American context I don't think they are an accurate representation and b) in the comparative context I'm woefully ignorant. But in general I think you should check out Stealth Democracy by Hibbing and Theiss-Morris. It's central finding is that Americans claim to be small-d democratic but they underestimate how difficult governing actually is. They think the fact that things don't magically get done to match their preferences must be due to the incompetence/corruption of the elected representatives and so tend to favor empowering technocrats and businessmen instead of "career politicians."
You also seem to be overestimating how ideological the average person is. To be frank, most people don't think much about concepts like "democracy" and couldn't give you a particularly precise definition. So they're happy to say that they support democracy while also not having a clear view of what that entails (or, as a friend of mine likes to say: "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.") On this point you may want to check out Neither Liberal nor Conservative by Kinder and Kalmoe. Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartels is another good read.
Conservative Republican Ideology:
Conservatism seeks a neo-feudal society with a "natural" hierarchy of authority determined by the inheritance of wealth amongst those "proven" to be strong (not theoretical ideals guaranteeing everyone equal rights), along with a small government with a fierce military power to maintain the order and protect the property of the wealthy, superior class. It is the epitome of a pessimistic mentality formed by peoples faithful, anti-rational commitment to traditional institutions and their hierarchy of authority and obedience.
Conservatism emphasizes authority over individual liberty or equality, and duty over rights. It is pessimistic in its philosophy of human nature, believing it is unalterably ignorant, weak, corruptible and selfish. Hence, acting according to this assumption is not a vice but the virtue of being a “realist”; contrarily, vice is held to exist in those “idealist” who hold an optimistic philosophy and believe the world can be improved and that such human qualities can be checked. Correspondingly, a nearly universal quality of conservatives is an instinctive fear of change and a disposition for habitual (not creative or thoughtful) action. And from this conjunction follows a harsh skepticism of abstract, intellectual reasoning.
Truth is believed to exist solely within the revelations they inherit from their traditions. Beyond that, the world is understood to be mysteriously complex and beyond any individuals further understanding. Thus, says conservatism, it is not possible that anyone could rationally produce any principles that would improve upon tradition and the operation of societies “natural” order. Any attempt to do so by the radical intellectual is rebuked as arrogant and regarded as offensively corrosive to our very existence.
Once one understands this, the actions of Trump and the Republican party make much more sense. And so does the need to openly combat their political blitzkrieg on Western liberal democracy.
Sources:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/
Scruton, Roger "Conservatism: An Introduction to the Great Tradition"
Heywood, Andrew "Political Ideologies: An Introduction"
Conservatism by nature is an obsolete ideology.
There's a lot of reasons, for one I would recommend you read Chomsky's Requiem for the American Dream, which is summarised quite well here: https://billmoyers.com/story/noam-chomskys-requiem-american-dream/
There's a lot there, but the essential takeaway is that power tends to concentrate itself via both hard and soft influences. Democratic states, by their nature, are open to these influences, and eventually money and power become concentrated to the point that those democratic institutions will become infiltrated and coopted by capitalism. In fact he makes the point that usually the adoption of regulation is either initiated or supported by big industry, because they know they can use regulation to stifle competition. Once you know that, then the case for regulated capital becomes weaker.
Capitalism by its nature tends to infiltrate every avenue for influence and money making eventually. Look at social media for example, with people's opinions, personal photos, lifestyle choices, all being infiltrated by capitalism and given a price. What's the cost to us? Well, it can be impossible to know when someone makes a post whether it's a genuine personal expression or whether they've been paid for it. You see this in the huge number of comments calling "fake" on just about everything. There are a lot of false positives, but on some level they know they're being lied to constantly.
So I don't condone a regulated capitalist market, and I don't condone unrestrained capitalism. What do? Well, Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. I personally don't know enough to say where I stand on this stuff, but all the proposed solutions fall broadly under the term "leftism". It's worth mentioning that liberal democratic capitalism is pretty much in the centre in this way of viewing politics, so most corporate democrats would be considered centre or even centre-right from this perspective.
Also if you look at Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky, it makes a very good case for why all your ideas on socialism are going to be heavily influenced by capitalist propaganda. An example of capitalist propaganda in action is to look at the way mainstream media are covering Bernie Sanders - they are clamouring to cast him as a non-serious candidate, even if they're not aware of it. There's an interview of Chomsky where he makes this point about the media operating through a filter, and the interviewer asks if he's suggesting that they are self-censoring right now. Chomsky's response is, "No, I'm suggesting that if you didn't hold views favourable to the establishment, then you wouldn't be sitting here interviewing me," or words to that effect.
If you want to know more, I'd recommend this video on Why Criticise Capitalism? Also these playlists on Why Capitalism Sucks and How Anarchism Works. But it's important not to get all your education from youtube, so a book I'm currently reading that comes well-recommended is Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher. I'll warn you though - most leftist reading is dense and heavy and kind of difficult. That's why I think /r/BreadTube is a good intro to the whole anti-capitalist perspective.
Of course.
Aquinas
The Last Superstition
His blog (check out his latest blog post, actually, and read (or listen to) his speech)
Philosophy of Mind - not directly related to religious belief, but gives background to understand some of the inconsistencies in an atheistic worldview
The book on Amazon has a preview, and it's probably enough for you to get where he's going to go for the rest of the book lol.
Two books that you should read:
The Super-rich Shall Inherit the Earth
and
Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
After eading both books, there is very little chance you will still hold those opinions if you are a logical person. You will enjoy them both anyway, very good books.
It depends on what you want to get out of it. If you want a clear, intro-level overview of the subject, check out Shafer-Landau's Fundamental's of Ethics. It's a fantastic place to start, and it is the book I recommend if you really want to understand the subject and plan to read outside the context of a class.
If you want primary texts, I suggest that you get the book's companion, The Ethical Life.
If you want a textbook that is a little shorter and more engaging, check out Rachels' The Elements of Moral Philosophy.
If you want an introduction that's informative and fun to read but less informative than the Rachels or the Shafer-Landau, check out Sandel's Justice. You can also watch his Justice lectures online. This book, as opposed to the other two, is written for a popular audience.
A lot of philosophers think something like Pruss's rendition of the Leibnizian cosmological argument is the most likely to be successful. You can see Pruss discuss it here at considerable length and depth. The basic logical structure is something like:
P1 is PSR, which Pruss defends in that article. He also gave it a book length treatment. The BCCF of P2 stands for big conjunctive contingent fact, which is just a conjunction of all the contingent facts. The BCCF is contingent because all the conjuncts are contingent, and so any / all of the conjuncts could have failed to exist, so the BCCF could have failed to exist. P4 should be intuitive. Either the explanation of P3 is necessary or contingent. Say it's contingent. This means the explanation of the BCCF is itself a conjunct of the BCCF, in which case the BCCF explains itself. But nothing contingent can explain itself, otherwise it would be necessary. So the explanation of the BCCF must be necessary, not contingent.
Most of the debate will be about whether or not PSR is true, and that's what Pruss focuses most of his argumentation on as well. You could also debate what exactly the necessary being the argument concludes with is. Pruss gives a few reasons in that paper to think it's the God of classical theism.
> I want an answer unique to you
Okay!
> What gives you such strong conviction that what you believe is true?
The same reason you said your mother loved you. It feels right and makes the most sense. It could be she doesn't actually exist outside of your mind. (This cannot be proven wrong objectively. You have to believe it without objective evidence.) Or it could be that she has no free will and loves you no more than a robot who was programed to think and act like it loves you loves you. (Again, you cannot objectively prove your mother has any free will to actually love.)
There are more examples I can give but the point is: at the end of the day, you cannot know your mother is an actual person that actually loves you (beyond just determinism forcing her to act and think so like a robot) without exercising some faith in the Heb. 1:1 sense. (You much choose to believe some things that cannot objectively be proven. Like Solipsism is wrong. For you they are "obvious" but same for me.)
With that said, my two reasons are: 1. It makes the most sense intellectually and 2. It feels right (as if I am receiving spiritual assurances.)
First: Let me start out with noting: though most philosophers are atheist, most philosophers of religion are theists. My point is only, the intellectual case for God and religion must be quite strong if those that study it professionally using the methods of the secular academic world emerge theists. If anyone tells you there is no rational basis for God and religion have obviously not studied the issue in any actual depth.
Want some examples? Well you can start with the argument from contingency + principle of sufficient reason. Even atheists have admitted Pruss has made a formidable case with this argument here. Or you can go the The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics and show the universe is more rational and coherent than you have any right to believe assuming random and purposeless. The NY Times have a lay version here. Or there is the observation that evolution optimises on survivability not truth. (And we know the two are different) This would imply, if there is nothing more than brute, random evolution producing brains, there is no reason to think our brains find truth in what is actually true, only in what it takes to survive. Thus, any "rational" conclusion we ever make, we need to be suspicious actually has anything to do with actual truth. (IE... lack of something like God forces you to admit you might be completely irrational pertaining to any and all your beliefs.)
There are more, and said right they are stronger that I presented, but I am writing a book! So will provide more if you ask.
Second: It feels right. I feel the spirit when I pray. (Just like you feel "love" when your mother hugs you. They both may be no more that chemicals fooling you what is actual, but you trust in at least one is real while trust both are.) I feel the spirit when I read the scriptures. I feel the spirit when I keep the commandments. Like Alma 32 says, when I nourish the seeds of the gospel, I see them grow. I see how the gospel blesses myself and my family. I, etc... So, by this second method I also know it.
So, just like you believe your mother is an actual person who actually loves you (something you must believe without objective proof) because it makes the most sense and feels right I likewise believe there is an actual God who actually loves me because it makes the most sense and also very much feels right (the spirit).
Michael Della Rocca defends the PSR, as already mentioned. Alex Pruss also defends the PSR, both at book length and in more informal fashion at his blog.
Both men are theists, and Pruss has also blogged about the problem of evil, although I don't believe he's defended the premise that this is the best possible world (just check the "problem of evil" tab on the side of his blog to find out more).
In no particular order:
Sorry I got tired of making links. I’m on my phone.
>
>
>Anybody who claims to have the winning formula for winning moderate, independent or undecided voters is making things up. Perhaps more centrist policies will appeal to some voters in each of these categories — but so will more extreme policies.12
>
>And come election day, these potential swing voters may not ultimately care all that much about policy. They don’t tend to identify themselves based on ideology, and they don’t follow politics all that closely. They’re more likely to decide based on whatever random events happen at the last minute (like, say, a letter from the FBI director). These are even harder to measure and generalize about. (The good news for pundits and campaigns is that they leave even more room for open speculation and political fortune-telling.)
>
>But OK, one final point needs clarification here — maybe we’re being too literal: Maybe what pundits are really getting at when they talk about appealing to “moderates,” “independents” or undecided voters is the “middle-est” middle of the electorate — in terms of vote choice, partisanship and ideology. Maybe they’re talking about people who identify as moderate, independent and are still undecided on 2020 — the part of the Venn diagram above where all three circles overlap.
>
>First, this is a really small group — only 2.4 percent of the electorate falls in all three buckets. And even this super small middle of the middle is … you guessed it … all over the ideological map. Rare as these voters are, anybody who talks about winning over undecided, independent, moderate voters should first address the question: which undecided, independent, moderate voters?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brilliant-Orange-Neurotic-Genius-Football/dp/0747553106
Brilliant Orange by the famous Dutch team of the 70s. Haven't read it but it's really popular among the football community. I know I'll read it first chance I get.
Ding ding ding. Welcome to the wacky wonderful world of epistemology. Let Robert Audi be your guide.
I haven't read Subahibi, so I'm just going to take your question as "how do I get into philosophy."
Philosophy is one of the most diverse fields that we currently have. Philosophy is more than just pondering the meaning of life, it also is about uncovering the mindsets on discoveries and how people came about the knowledge we have today. You should start more simple over diving into people's work like Nietzsche so you can get the full picture on why they say what they say.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, metaphysics is the study of existence (not to be confused with existentialism, which is even more meta and theoretical), Aesthetics is the study of art, Ethics is the study of morality, and there are philosophies of politics, mind, body, religion, and all sorts.
I would shy away from direct writings from philosophers, as contemporary books are the literal collection of all of their knowledge presented in an easier to digest way.
Maybe try Robert Audi's or Michael William's introduction. They come at issues from somewhat different angles, but both are quite good.
>Idk what that link says, it's not opening
https://www.amazon.it/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0691169446
>My identity doesn't define me or anyone
That's what Identity is
>Acting like because I'm brown in inherently less privileged than some white trash is bullshit
No one argued that, luckily
>Americans don't like to be defined by their identity, and doing so is a lite form of racism and bigotry.
http://journalist.wsj.com
Than Americans need to stop voting exclusively on identity
Four Views on Free Will by John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas is an excellent broad survey of the debate, and is a great introduction to the main ideas of the topic.
Contrapoints
PhilosophyTube
Hbomberguy
Shaun
Three Arrows
NonCompete
Timbah on Toast
Ben Burgis
Current Affairs
Zero Books on Youtube
Zero Squared
Mark Fisher
David Harvey
Rick Roderick
Richard Wolff
A brilliant buddy of mine loves this book: https://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-Questions-Aristotelian-Principles/dp/1587318083
>Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #14,292 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
9 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political
25 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political
145 in Kindle Store > Whispersync for Voice > Politics & Social Sciences
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26
I think it was higher up there when it came out.
Or when the cucks started buying it
> My ire stems chiefly from the way that this then paints us into a corner where we act like there's no better system and we've reached the end of human progress.
Have you read Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher? I imagine it'd be right up your alley.
If you're interested in Harris's take on it in particular, I suggest looking at this blog post, and also follow the links to some philosophers' reviews of his book, The Moral Landscape. I'm glad Harris responded to his critics, though I don't think he rebutted the most important criticisms.
If you're interested in the underlying question about how ethics might be rationally derived, you could work your way through the SEP page on Kant's Moral Philosophy and investigate others from there. It's pretty dense though! Sidgwick's book that I mentioned above is good and very relevant if you want to trace through the history of these ideas.
If you want to skip to more recent discussion, Simon Blackburn has two books on the topic: Being Good is very accessible and meant to introduce the topics to non-philosophers; Ruling Passions is more technical but IIRC, Chapters 5 and 6 are very relevant to this exact debate and reasonably approachable.
I was 34. Yeah, pretty late by /r/atheism standards. ex-hindu.
Had my doubts about certain parts of Hinduism and I was vocal about it too, confronting friends about it. But, I carried out lot of rituals none the less and did believe for the most part. I was god believing Hindu.
When I was 34, I distinctly remember the day I came to the final conclusion that there was no God, not just Hindu but the claims of any of the big religions, Christianity, Islam etc. of existence of God were false. I celebrated that day by eating a Wendy's burger. As a Hindu, I would not have eaten beef. Told wife on the same day. She remains Hindu but respects my decision.
Shaking off some of the remaining superstitions took some time e.g. the rings, chains that I took to be good luck charms. But in about 4-5 months I was free off it all. I use to park in a certain direction. Not any more. Lot more of parking space has opened up for me now. :-) Lot more of life has opened up as well. I couldn't be happier.
I rationalize my actions and try to hold myself to a higher moral standard. Any graduate level ethics course can teach you much more about morality than any of the religions. Thinking that there has been no progress on this front or that religion has monopoly on morality is just not correct any more. This is a pretty good book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Being-Good-Short-Introduction-Ethics/dp/0192853775/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_4
It'll probably get deleted so I'm saving this for posterity, but don't worry, I don't care if it's a troll or just someone really that disillusioned, this only took 2 minutes to write:
>White privileged male owning a company, living in a 2 story house and owning an expensive phone... Need more clues honey? :) It's obvious he and his family voted for the idiot.
You've just described the worst case of racial / social profiling I've ever heard, not to mention some Olympic level assumptions. This is the ignorance on display when brown people get searched for bombs at the airport for wearing a turban (a non-Muslim Sikh symbol of their devotion to peace, no less). This is every story about a poor black youth legitimately scared for his life, gunned down "just to be safe" by a redneck cop.
Your comment is everything wrong with America. Voting doesn't change you. Only how you treat other people. You're so sucked into the red vs blue nonsense, the us vs them mentality, you're both working towards your own destruction. You don't even give a fuck what the issues are any more or what the actual best outcome for America would be. It's just about the hate now. Both sides, of every fight, are filled with people so fervently wanting to avoid any kind of personal responsibility and feel vindicated that their own actions and kneejerk viewpoints are "right" that they block out any semblance of critical thought, any meagre flirtation with logical reasoning, of changing your own minds based on the reality of the situation.
Political trolls and other people currently surfing that wave of anxiety, depression and self-loathing that should be directed towards improving their own lives and becoming better people, it seems are only getting far too angry and stressed out by political waffle, allowing them to internalise their own turmoil and place the blame and direct their anger firmly towards those who think even the slightest bit out of line with themselves on the arbitrary scale of politics.
I highly recommend you read "What We Owe Each Other" by American philosopher T.M Scanlon, followed closely by a dig into Me vs We and Us vs Them. I mean the list on that article focused on business leadership styles basically outlines exactly what the American political landscape has achieved over the last 10 years and specifically outlines almost everything wrong with your comment:
Once war has been undertaken, no peace is made by pretending there is no war.
Socialism/Communism
A People's History of the World
Main Currents of Marxism
The Socialist System
The Age of... (1, 2, 3, 4)
Marx for our Times
Essential Works of Socialism
Soviet Century
Self-Governing Socialism (Vols 1-2)
The Meaning of Marxism
The "S" Word (not that good in my opinion)
Of the People, by the People
Why Not Socialism
Socialism Betrayed
Democracy at Work
Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA (again didn't like it very much)
The Socialist Party of America (absolute must read)
The American Socialist Movement
Socialism: Past and Future (very good book)
It Didn't Happen Here
Eugene V. Debs
The Enigma of Capital
Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism
A Companion to Marx's Capital (great book)
After Capitalism: Economic Democracy in Action
Capitalism
The Conservative Nanny State
The United States Since 1980
The End of Loser Liberalism
Capitalism and it's Economics (must read)
Economics: A New Introduction (must read)
U.S. Capitalist Development Since 1776 (must read)
Kicking Away the Ladder
23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism
Traders, Guns and Money
Corporation Nation
Debunking Economics
How Rich Countries Got Rich
Super Imperialism
The Bubble and Beyond
Finance Capitalism and it's Discontents
Trade, Development and Foreign Debt
America's Protectionist Takeoff
How the Economy was Lost
Labor and Monopoly Capital
We Are Better Than This
Ancap/Libertarian
Spontaneous Order (disagree with it but found it interesting)
Man, State and Economy
The Machinery of Freedom
Currently Reading
This is the Zodiac Speaking (highly recommend)
There's been a lot of discussion in political philosophy about how resources, power, and money (capital) ought to be distributed in a just society. Any good introduction to political philosophy will give you a chapter or two discussing Rawls' theory of justice and how we ought to apply it. Most interpretations of the theory lend themselves to more socialist ways of doing things (details will vary). Jonathan Wolff's An Introduction to Political Philosophy does just that. The chapter about just distribution also gives a very brief look at Marx. He also talks about Rousseau's views on the existence of private property. Rousseau was influential to early socialist movements but he was also from the 1700s so he might not be of interest to you.
I'd also recommend The Communist Manifesto. Although you clearly want something more modern, this is a very short book and is super digestible and pithy. Straight to the point and it's a good place to start if you wanted to learn about Marx.
But here's a list of more modern books that I want to read soon on this topic in no particular order:
Since you say you're a "thoroughly indoctrinated capitalist", I'm sure you'll do this anyway but I just thought I'd say that it's always good to read critically. Make sure to go out of your way to find responses to the arguments made in any of these books. If you did find what Rawls had to say interesting, for example, you should also look at the stuff that Robert Nozick has written in Anarchy, State and Utopia which is a direct response to the Rawlsian theory of justice where he claims that people have intrinsic rights to ownership and that whether or not the distribution of resources is just has nothing to do with who has what but is more to do with whether the means by which they acquired them is just.
Also, I'd like to help with recommending books that will teach you how to be "good" at philosophy. Think you could explain what you mean?
As it stands, the only way to get "good" at it is probably to just make sure you take plenty of notes explaining the arguments made and look at them through a critical lens. Even when you agree with an argument, it's good to know how one could challenge it if your values or underlying intuitions are different.
​
Left is best.
​
This reminded me of an idea posited in Democracy for Realists which suggests that voters (and, in turn, the post-election polled electorate) do not react to positive and negative developments in the way we might think they should.
That is to say, when a drought or some other natural disaster happens, we would expect that people form an opinion of the responsible politicos based on the effectiveness of their response to the disaster. Did they see it coming? Did they try to prepare? Did they respond immediately? Did they respond effectively? And so on.
What the work tried to present was evidence that, instead, people will form a negative opinion based on the fact that the disaster happened in the first place! It didn't matter how the state responded - just the mere existence of the disaster was enough to generate a negative outlook from the electorate.
It is, in a way, scary, because it suggests that there was no way out of the "Yolanda funds" meme. A typhoon erased an entire city off the map, ergo the government sucks.
To bring this back towards the present, it would certainly be interesting to see if the President's approval ratings take another hit in April ... because there may well be a correlation with the fact that earthquakes happened.
Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Don't Produce Responsive Government: A sober look at why our government is seemingly dysfunctional and many of the common myths and bad assumptions that people use to analyze politics.
https://smile.amazon.com/Four-Views-Free-Martin-Fischer/dp/1405134860
I think Searl's book was titled "Minds, Brains, and Science" and one of his papers was called "Minds, Brains, and Computers", otherwise I agree with this list completely, adding in David Chalmers' "Consciousness and its Place in Nature" as well.
The Chalmers compilation Burnage mentions below contains most of these essays, and a few others that are also very good.
OP, this is the collection mentioned.
The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer-Landau. Note it's a two volume edition in which one book is the theory with exercises and the other is an anthology of excerpts from ethical texts. https://www.amazon.ca/Fundamentals-Ethics-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199997233
Hands down best intro to ethics I ever had.
At least for Anarchists or other left-libertarians it should also be important to actually read up on some basic or even fundamental ethical texts given most political views and arguments are fundamentally rooted in morality (unless you're a orthodox Marxist or Monarchist). I'm sadly not familiar enough with applied ethics to link collections of arguments for specific ethical problems, but it's very important to know what broad system you're using to evaluate what's right or wrong to not contradict yourself.
At least a few very old texts will also be available for free somewhere on the internet like The Anarchist Library.
Some good intro books:
Some foundational texts and contemporary authors of every main view within normative ethics:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
There are lots of introductions to epistemology, as a quick search on Amazon indicates:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=epistemology&sprefix=epist%2Cstripbooks
I haven't read most of them, but based on the authors and publishers, I expect these to be solid surveys:
http://www.amazon.com/Epistemology-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions-Philosophy/dp/041587923X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416622594&sr=1-1&keywords=epistemology
http://www.amazon.com/Epistemology-Richard-Feldman/dp/0133416453/ref=pd_sim_b_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=1NPT7RZ11R84R4WD6B1T
Popper's ideas are of the practical kind, regarding scientific inquiry. It is not epistemology in the traditional sense. For example, would you say that your empirically based idea X is knowledge? If you say yes, how do you know that tomorrow you won't discard it for an idea that fits the criteria even better, even if today you don't think anything could possibly fit the criteria better than your current idea? Many ideas that fit the criteria are eventually discarded not because a detail or a few in them can be improved, but because they turn out to be completely false (look at the history of physics, for example). Such epistemology is practically useful, however, it says nothing about epistemic justification.
There are a lot of theories in epistemology. Read the 'epistemology' entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Find a book about epistemology, such as this
> Contingent things need explanations for their existence by the definition of contingent. It doesn't need to be deduced since "needing an explanation for its existence" is the definition of contingent. It's just a tautology to say that contingent things require explanations for their existence, like "all bachelors are unmarried"
No, it isn't. You're wrong about this.
To be 'contingent', in philosophy, is simply to be not necessary. Is it a controversial question whether all contingent (i.e. non-necessary) things have an explanation for their existence. That's why the Principle of Sufficient Reason is so controversial.
If you want some quick examples, start with a look at Alexander Pruss's book. I'm pretty sure it's the best-regarded work on the PSR and cosmological arguments from contingency. His whole book is dedicated to defending the principle that "necessarily, every contingently true proposition has an explanation". He doesn't just shrug and say it's a tautology. He spends 110 pages considering objections to the PSR, and then 221 more pages trying to justify the PSR.
Or take the SEP article linked above. It briefly discusses an interpretation of Descartes, where he holds that God's willing of the eternal truths is an unexplained contingency. Is Descartes simply contradicting himself? No, he's saying some contingent truths have no explanation.
Or take the SEP article on the cosmological argument. Here it sketches a version of the argument from contingency. It has a separate premise for "This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence", and correctly notes that this premise "invokes a version of the Principle of Causation or the Principle of Sufficient Reason". It then notes that the premise is challenged by Russell and Hume:
>Interpreting the contingent being in premise 1 as the universe, Bertrand Russell denies that the universe needs an explanation; it just is. Russell, following Hume (1980), contends that since we derive the concept of cause from our observation of particular things, we cannot ask about the cause of something like the universe that we cannot experience. The universe is “just there, and that's all” (Russell, 175).
Can we respond to this view by blithely citing the definition of 'contingent' and accusing Russell of denying a tautology? Of course not. After all, it's simply not part of the definition of 'contingent' that something contingent has an explanation.
Glad to see an interest in the philosophy of worldview comparison (what I like to call "phil. of religion"). As arguments for the existence of God, moral arguments have made up one of the significant research programs in the field of Natural Theology.
Like the cosmological argument, philosophers refer to a family of arguments intended to establish theologically significant conclusions united under the indicated common theme (in this case, morality) when referring to "the moral argument". There is no single moral argument, it can be said. Appeals to conscience go quite a ways back (John Henry Newman, Kant), but I think you would get a lot out of Robert M. Adam's formulation and defense of various appeals to conscience he makes in addition to his theory of normative ethics which many now take as a clear option outside of the so called "Euthyphro Dillemma".
Here are some lecture notes by Alvin Plantinga which roughly sketch out a few of such arguments a few pages down I won't give any synopsis beyond that because it's a reality far too often ignored that there are many moral arguments which independently argue from moral intuition to various conclusions.
I'll commend you some resources which I think will be helpful in pursuing an informed opinion regarding them:
Proponents:
The Moral Argument, a long essay (combining two shorter essays) explicating two relatively independent arguments appealing to moral intuition by Mark D. Linville. These two essays are some of the best I've read on the subject, the first regarding what he calls The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism wherein he argues for the inconsistency of naturalism and the belief in moral truth, the second dedicated to establishing a theistic foundation for moral truth by refuting all other salient moral theories in contemporary analytic philosophy. Linville has emerged as one of the moral argument's most prominent defenders, and uses much of his essay to attempt to answer its main lines of objection.
J.P. Moreland--whom I mention particularly because his book may be more approachable.
(try not to spend too much time going to apologetics popularizers for your assessment of theistic arguments, though. They can help lay some of the groundwork, but you'll get a lot more out of your study if you work your way up towards the prominent defenders and opponents of theism today.)
The Moral Argument, a shorter essay mainly concerning only one moral argument which infers from moral truth a morally perfect God like that of Western (Christian) Monotheism.
Opponents:
J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism
Antony Flew--really any of his books
Graham Oppy--his latest book Arguing About God's devotes some portion to the moral arguments. He intends to spend more time on this subject in a later publication.
A "neutral"-ish essay
In recent years, the philosophy of religion has become one of the most prolific fields in philosophy. With the arguments and their responses becoming more creative and interesting today, I think you would find these edifying:
In Two Dozen Or So Theistic Arguments: The Plantinga Project, scheduled to come out later this year from Oxford U Press, several independent moral arguments will be developed in detail.
Alexander Pruss (forthcoming Necessary Being), mathematician and analytic philosopher whose work on the cosmological argument has made him one of its most prominent defenders. (see also his book The Principle of Sufficient Reason and Dr. Robert Koon's Epistomological Foundations for the Cosmological Argument)
Graham Oppy is co-authroring a book on the contemporary objections to theistic moral arguments. Being one of the imminent atheist philosophers of religion today, it will definitely be worth the read.
For a completely different perspective, Edward Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God will also come out later this year. I mention him because he represents one of many theistic philosophers who don't find the moral arguments all that important. It's worth noting that the arguments for theism are meant to "stack up"--as is standard practice in science. If a hypothesis can explain 24+ problems, that's significant evidence in its favor, so theist philosophers today tend to defend their arguments as being part of a collective case for theism.
Further resources on arguments for and against the existence of God, as orthodoxly conceived
Hey! These are good questions and if I am understanding you correctly, they are questions that are very relevant to contemporary analytic philosophy.
Let's first try and clarify the problem: does Aquinas, by endorsing a specific cause and effect theory of causation, endorse determinism about human creatures? Is this compatible with Catholicism? Or even Christian theism for that matter?
I read Aquinas as a compatibilist; he thinks that determinism is compatible with free will. So it seems you are correct in thinking that he finds determinism to be true, but also that free will is real and that it is compatible with the former.
The problem is seen in contemporary philosophy with two premier philosophers in Peter van Inwagen (an Anglican) and Alexander Pruss (Catholic). van Inwagen, so it seems, is a libertarian concerning free will and so is Pruss. There is this idea called the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) which says that every contingent thing must have a reason, ground, or cause for its existence. But if this is true, like Pruss thinks (he uses it skillfully to defend a contingency argument), how can there be libertarian free will? Doesn't the PSR, if true, rule out all contingency in the world? It seems we cannot say a choice is free if it is not contingent. van Inwagen thinks precisely this case and thinks it is worrisome for the theist and thus he rejects it; Pruss disagrees.
Pruss wrote a fantastic book where he argues that the PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason) is true.
If you want a fantastic book about free will, God and evil I would recommend these two books: this book by Alvin Plantinga (which I think should be read by every Christian--it's that important) and this book.
If anything, modern philosophers argue that we owe kindness to those around us. This is a good book about it.
Its been some years since I studied Nietzsche with any real application, so I should be clear that I'm really just giving a quick summary of Kaufmann's work on Nietzsche, primarily from his annotations in the aforementioned volumes, as well as Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Kaufmann was a very key part in rescuing Nietzsche's legacy from the Nazis, which was first tarnished by his sister, and then my editors like Alfred Bäumler, whose annotated edition was one of the most widely read in the interwar years, and also was an avowed Nazi. At Nuremberg, it was noted:
>[Nietzsche's] vision of the masses being governed without constraints by rules presaged the Nazi regime. Nietzsche believed in the supreme race and the primacy of Germany in which he saw a young soul and inexhaustible reserves.
And that was certainly the image cultivated about Nietzsche, which the Nazi party latched onto, but I would also point back to the unpublished line above, which is only one of many you can find where he has quite the opposite to say in regards to the German spirit.
Take what he had to say on the Slavs compared to the Germans:
>The Poles I consider the most gifted and gallant among the Slavic peoples; and the giftedness of the Slavs seems greater to me than that of the Germans.
Much of the discussion that Kaufmann covers in Nietzsche about this (the entire 10th chapter, "The Master Race", is devoted mostly to race and Nazism) comes down to perception of race in Nietzsche's writings, and specifically the concept of 'master race', which of course tied in well with the Nazi's own philosophical underpinnings (although it should be noted Nietzsche [seemed to] fit their philosophy, and was not the source of it). But, as Kaufmann points out, Nietzsche writes against nationalism, advocates the 'mixed race' marriages, and is generally quite praiseful of the Jews in this regards, "just as useful and desirable an ingredient as any other national remnant". He certainly had views on race that we would find troubling, but far from being the hateful, racial supremacy of Nazism, it was really more an advocacy of many different races, each with their various characteristics, coming together, intermingling, and leading to his hope of the "European Man" (So... yeah, he wasn't exactly not racist either, just not in anywhere near the same context as Nazism).
To quote Kaufmann, "It would be cumbersome and pointless to adduce endless examples from Nazi works on Nietzsche to refute them each time by referring to the context of Nietzsche's remarks", but nevertheless, Nazi scholars of Nietzsche, such as Max Oehler or Bäumler, often had to do some serious mental gymnastics to excuse or rationalize the anti-German, pro-Jewish, anti-Nationalist, anti-anti-Semitism (an 'obscenity' in Nietzsche's words), which were numerous, and generally done through taking them out of context, or else subtle editing.
So I hope that gives you a little glimpse, but if this is a topic that interests you, I really would recommend you track down a copy of Kaufmann's book, as just reading it will be much better than me trying to make out my indecipherable margin notes that are nearly a decade old! (Amazon has a "look inside", so see if you can get some samples of Chapter 10) The sum of it is that Nietzsche's philosophy often can be troubling, and there is plenty to his that simply can't be excused. He is controversial in his own right, even without the association with Nazism, but that association is very much an unfortunate one that shouldn't be taken as representative of his works, and post-WWII scholars have really worked hard to destroy.
Edit: Minor clean up
No, I don't think it is. When you start reading any academic discussions about different voting systems then very, very rarely does one see a particular system being described as 'more democratic'. This is because when you start digging into the mathematical mechanics of voting theory, you find that there are paradoxes and inconsistencies within all of them which can lead to perverse results, as documented in arrows' impossibility theorem. Hence, most discussions tend to revolve around the particular political dynamics generated by different systems and whether they encourage stability, deliberation, direct accountability, entrenchment of parties and so on. There are compromises and trade-offs and no one system is inherently better. Fundamentally the discussion we're having around our voting system in this country (and especially on reddit) is pretty facile, as it never gets beyond looking at numer of and distribution of votes to thinking about what sort of dynamics different systems would introduce.
They're going through a bout of electoral reform anxiety in Canda right now, and there's some interesting [commentary] (http://induecourse.ca/trump-and-electoral-reform-connecting-the-dots/) coming from various academics and commentators.
To be honest the weight placed on elections is probably too much anyway. There's minimal evidence that any one type produces significantly better policy, and there's mountains of evidence that people are terrible at voting in the way that most democratic theories (including the one which implicitly underlies the idea that PR is some kind of ideal) need them to. The evidence for that claim is in this book, which is excellent reading if you're an insomniac. Review and summary here.
Insofar as your question is about voters being mostly ignorant about the issue they are supposed to vote about, that's an established and well-known observation in political science, as far as I know.
See Somin's Democracy and Political Ignorance, for instance. Another book in a similar vain would be The myth of the rational voter by Brian Caplan.
Both are associated with George Mason University, so you may not like what you read there. I know, it wasn't fun to read Caplan's book.
However, his basic explanation of rational irrationality can also be found in the works of Dan Kahan, including better evidence.
The problem has also been noted by others, see Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartels.
As far as the book recommendations go, it would be good if you could qualify what kind of books you're interested in (e.g. philosophy, psychology, history, science, etc.).
Books I recommend:
Psychology (or: On Human Nature)
The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime
Thinking, Fast and Slow (my personal favorite)
The Undiscovered Self
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
History
Strategy: A History
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism
Economics
Economics in One Lesson
Basic Economics
Politics
Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government
As always, the list of books to read is too long, so I'll stop here.
I recommended it as an example of how to use data when discussing policy not that the OP agree to the politics of the podcast.
Politicians in general speak in platitudes, some like Yang cite data as part of their stump speech so it would be useful to look at.
Everyone gets to have their own opinion but not their own facts.
Other authors/books to check out if you want a more quantitative approach to politics:
Okay, yeah was just wondering so I could compile a list. I've read a few.
These are probably books you'd find more interesting:
Behind the curtain
Tor! The Story of German football
Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football (especially good for learning more about the culture within the Netherlands).
Feel free to PM for any others or questions you may have, I feel these are the main ones that come to mind but perhaps you've read them?
Good post, only have time to read the 13 points and opening paragraph right now but will finish later. Reminds me of when I read Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition, it's good to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
We can change our desires and tendencies, but we will change them according to our current ones which include desire to change them in the first place. Moreover, our current desires are based on our previous desires which are based on even older desires. Ultimately, if we follow causation of each desire, we will end at factors upon which we had no control.
I assume, those factors which are beyond our control are what Einstein referenced when he paraphrased Schopenhauer.
In a previous thread you mentioned Sam Harris as a person who piqued your interest in free will debate. Even though I am a layman, I came to conclusion that Sam unknowingly or even worse knowingly left out many important questions (of which Frankfurt cases are most significant) unanswered in his book and speeches. I strongly encourage you to read proper positions on free will debate. My suggestion is book called 'Four Views on Free Will'. I also recommend Derk Pereboom's lectures if you gravitate toward position similar to hard determinism.
First, I'd like to say I really like your argument. There's a lot of great points here that I think that average person never considers, and they are all the worse for it. This kind of discussion should be something that every educated, informed people should consider in order to truly get at the roots of their own values.
We have a few base assumptions here. Many of which I imagine we'll have lots of overlap in agreement. But some I don't think we will. I'd like to go over them to see where you might find a reason to change your view.
Base assumption #1: "rights" exist.
We're stripping away to some core concepts here. So we need to be very clear on what is a right. Obviously this is not a right as guaranteed by any government as you excluded practical legislation as a goal of this discussion. You're obviously not arguing for any legal rights here, and I agree with that. I hate most forms of eugenics (I'm Jewish by blood (not practice), so my family has a history with it).
What is a right then? I would very much like to here how you outline what a "right" is, before I outline some of what I consider to be core concepts of "rights".
Base assumption #2: morality exists.
This one was kind of funny to me. For this statement:
> It is immoral to force a conscious entity into existence
to be true, you're essentially declaring all of human existence as immoral. Sure, individuals might not take that immoral leap into parenthood, but the species as a whole must reproduce to exist. And to reproduce requires creating consciousnesses that previously didn't exist. We can't obtain consent from beings that don't exist yet.
And since morality only exists because we invented the concept, then you're basically condemning our existence to be perpetually immoral (that's the part I found funny. Not wrong, just funny, because we can't be immoral without existing, but we can't be moral by existing, according to your statement).
I don't think there's anything explicitly wrong about that, but it just seems like a rather useless distinction. It's like defining two colors and then saying "but there's only 1 color in existence". What was the point of defining both colors if only one exists? What's the point of defining our existence as immoral if we literally cannot escape that immorality of existence.
I also don't like absolutes. I think we like to define our world in absolutes, and since reality resists simplicity, those absolutes end up being really unhelpful and destructive. For example: All [this group of people] like [something]. It's rarely helpful and just makes the person saying it look dumb. (There's a great book that has been helping me see the world differently that I highly recommend called Finite and Infinite Games. There's also a free pdf if you just google it.)
My point for bringing this up is that I think it would be better stated to say: All existance of conscious entities start immoral, as they could not consent to being created, but can become moral through the value of their existence.
I don't think all conscious beings are inherently immoral, at least not forever. I see your point that you can't consent to being born, but that doesn't mean you can't retroactively consent. This kind of consent cannot and should not exist in other moral choices (for example, rape cannot be retroactively given consent, nor can that consent be retroactively removed). But I think the unique nature of consciousness could allow for my interpretation.
Base assumption #3: the importance of naturally occurring forces on morality.
This one gets people tripped up all the time, but I don't think you're entirely tripped up on it. The classic (shitty) argument involving the extreme side of things is the banana argument seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
It's also known as The Watchmaker Analogy. It is where significance or importance is placed upon the natural state of something. People have misused this argument for their own ends in all sorts of arguments. This banana fits my hand, therefore it was designed to fit my hand, therefore God exists.
We're, obviously, biologically designed to make babies. But does the fact that making babies is naturally occurring mean it's moral? You seem to have taken the side of a definitive "no". Most people would probably say "yes", also definitively.
Again, I hate absolutes. I think we can find some morality in baby making, and we can find some immorality. You've definitely hit upon the immorality of baby making very clearly, and again, I want to applaud you for that, because I think this should be a more common discussion. But I don't think this one aspect of reproduction (the lack of consent from the consciousness being created) completely overwhelms all of the other aspects of reproduction. Not all of human existence is suffering. All human existence has suffering (I mean, we literally come into this world crying from the pain of taking our first breath), but most of human existence has joy too (I won't say "all" because I'm sure there's plenty of singleton cases we could point out where the human's existence was essentially nothing but pain and suffering. Some diseases really suck.).
And I only point to the continued improvement of human comfort as a sign that humanity can find joy, and prefers it to suffering. The quality of most human lives has improved greatly over the last few hundred years. Plenty new types of suffering has occurred, but I don't think you'd find any sane person that would prefer to live before the industrial revolution.
We strive for a better life. For ourselves. Sometimes for others. But we've found value in living because we have a desire to live longer than before. And in greater numbers. I propose that our strive for improvement shows two things:
This, to me, is a non-explicit form of consent to existence. While I agree with you that we cannot consent before we exist, and to be brought into existence is inherently without our consent, I propose that the consent can be earned through use of our existence.
Your question is flawed. There is no end. A good perspective on this can be found in a great tiny book, "Finite and Infinite Games".
A finite game exists to achieve some sort of end. Getting DJT elected was a finite game, and next election, we'll play a repeated version of that same game. An infinite game exists for the purpose that we keep playing the game. MAGA! is an infinite game--we MAGA! so that we can continue to MAGA!
An infinite game can contain other infinite games and finite games. By its nature a finite game cannot contain an infinite game.
The SJW "movement" is an infinite game of increasingly stratified and divided population groups claiming victimhood status and unearned social superiority from other groups. The SJW infinite game will employ numerous finite games such as "every pet a 'service animal'", "Never question my pronouns", you get the picture. Those are battles launched in order to continue a war on human unity that's sole purpose is to continue and deepen the wounds of that war.
A child's first words are adorable.
My son just told me no for the first time.
Are all first words adorable?
I'm sorry the class is ending, but that opens up room for new classes that may be equally awesome!
An item for you.
You can actually see that chapter if you go to the amazon page and click the cover to use amazon's "look inside" feature which shows some preview pages, and then search for the keyword "plumber" to find the page where that excerpt came from. This page is in the "Limits of Deductive Reasoning" section of the chapter titled "What Is An Argument?", and that's the last section before the next chapter, titled "Correlation and Causation"...
there is nothing in the rest of the first chapter that gives any explanation of the difference between objecting to the logic and objecting to the premisesedit: my bad, in the next chapter I see he does actually have a section called "the difference between 'logical' and 'true'" where he explains how a syllogism can be logically sound even if its premises are false, though from the sections available in preview it doesn't look like he revisits the plumber example to show how it applies to that one.> Near future: Stef releases a book titled "The Art of the Argument".
I literally thought this was a joke when you wrote it yesterday, I actually laughed.
Then, this just got released today:
What are the fucking chances?
you beat me to it: https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26/ref=sr_1_2/139-9559165-2243958?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504113574&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27%3AStefan+Molyneux
Check out Stefan Molyneux's new book
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26/
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26/
It's been out for a couple of days now, he went on all the shows to promote it, I'm surprised you missed it.
Might as well weigh in on what you should focus on specifically, as one of those philosophically-inclined theists. As for why you should-- given that atheism and theism are both within the field of philosophy, it'd be good to at least have a clear view of the evidence for both sides. I'll be giving books that support theism, since I don't know many that do so for atheism-- something by JL Mackie might help?
Before even engaging in the philosophy backing theism, it'd be good to get some background knowledge.
Intro to Logic
Metaphysics
Given that, you can familiarize yourself with some books on classical theism, attacks on naturalism/physicalism/materialism, and specifically attacks on materialism of the mind.
The Last Superstition
Aquinas
Philosophy of the Mind
All three of those are by the Catholic philosopher, Edward Feser. I usually argue for theism, or against materialism, based on his books.
I had a comment in here giving a reason for he post, though that's not an explanation.
> Note: may not be the best place to post, but I needed to post somewhere in order to link it in Dr. Feser's open thread today, which he only does a couple of times each year. I've been working through his books since early this year, and developing this concept map as I progress.
By way of explanation, this is a work in progress to visualize the relationships between the concepts brought to bear in the philosophical advances of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. Beginning for the fundamental argument for the necessary reality of the distinction between actuality and potentiality, the concept map walks through the conceptual divisions of act and potency. Notably, the divisions of act arrive at a core conception of God as Pure Actuality, Being Itself, utterly devoid of any potentiality or passivity. This is not a proof of God, but rather simply serves to define God's role as the First and Unmoved Mover and Sustainer of all things.
The divisions of act and potency expand to the right of the map, where you see how actuality and potentiality come together as Form and Matter to produce concrete, material things.
Branching off of from the soul (here defined as the substantial form of a living substance), there is a section which details the powers or capacities of the different levels of living substances, which are hierarchically related, with respect to the corporeal order.
For now, the section on the Four Causes is placed on its own, as I still haven't decided where best to tie it in, since many topics make use of this principle. Particularly, Final Causation (defined as the end, goal, purpose, directedness or teleology of a thing) is essential to understanding the concept of objective goodness, which carries into the section on ethics (which, in this view, amounts to an understanding of the directedness of the will).
Also included, but not yet connected as well as it could be, is a section on the divine attributes, along with a brief explanation of how we can know them.
There is much more that can be included. As mentioned elsewhere, this was posted here so that I could link to the WIP. I had hoped that I could catch Edward Feser's attention in the comments of his open thread, which he posted on his blog site yesterday, and which he does only a couple times per year. This concept map is the result of my learning from his books:
I am still working my way through this last one, and when done I intend also to read:
> não vejo alguma alternativa melhor que o capitalismo
Ninguém vê. Não pode sonhar com algo diferente do capitalismo.
Thanks so much!
As for what to read, it really depends on what you're interested in but I always recommend the classics when it comes to anything to do with the left first.
However, if you'd like something more modern and lighter here are some of my recent favorites:
Take your time, don’t be too worrried about needing to have all your opinions in order and arguments to back them up. Ethics and morality is a complicated subject, and if you study it in depth your opinions are going to evolve over time through life experience and discovering nuanced ways of thinking about tough questions. For an intro I highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Being-Good-Short-Introduction-Ethics/dp/0192853775#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1524704107598
Again dont worry about making decisions about what you think and why. Just read from a variety of sources, have engaging conversations (not arguments) with other people who find the topic challenging, and keep an open mind as you continue to grow and learn. People have spent whole careers wrestling with these questions, there’s no rush!
> Not beyond philosophy of science and picking up the occasional book (Singer, Nieztche, some Eastern oriented stuff) and a decent amount of political philosophy.
Ah, OK. You should maybe consider reading Think, an introduction to philosophy by Simon Blackburn. It's a good read, but more importantly, it's short and accessible.
If you want something more focused on ethics, I suggest Blackburn again with Being Good. Also short and accessible.
> The claim that 2 + 2 = 4 seems much more concrete than the claim that 'killing is bad.'
I would agree ("2 + 2 = 4" is a priori, the other is most likely a posteriori), but I am not arguing that killing is bad, I was just demonstrating that something relatively uncontroversial, like "killing is wrong", cannot be applied in a world where ethics is just subjective.
> Can one choose to just not care about right/wrong?
Sure - what one does is separate from the discussion of theory. One could believe 2 + 2 = 60 even! :D
> instead choosing to focus on the result of such behavior and how it ultimately harms oneself.
Sounds a lot like utilitarianism :-) You should read up on ethical theory - I think you would enjoy it.
Personally I skipped around quite a bit, because some books cover certain topics better than others. However this particular book is pretty short and sweet, but gives you a great solid intro tot he topic (which I find absolutely fascinating).
Edit: I really think you should read the intro, which is available to view. It's very engaging.
"Health is the slowest possible rate at which you can die."
You should read a little bit. Simon Blackburn has an interesting chapter on death in Being Good. Basically: humans enjoy lots of things that nevertheless end, and imagining a world where they don't end doesn't make them better, it makes them worse. Life is not much different.
First off I think a good place to start is to try to isolate atleast some questions that strike you as particularly interesting. Simply starting at random in the midst of the endless mounds of philosophy done in the analytic style is a horrible and frustrating endeavour(speaking from experience).
That being said, two really good introductury anthologies that helped me alot are: Chalmer's The Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. It contains key essays by key thinkers in the field as well as some really helpful considerations by Chalmers who attempts to tie the different schools together and show similarities and differences.
And Martinich's The Philosophy of Language which contains a big chunk of classical and semi-contemporary essays in the subject. Both are a great place to start if you want to go directly to the source and read the actual essays as opposed to secondary litterature.
Seeing as you are already familiar with Husserl and the earlier phenomenology I think going through philosophy of language can be a good idea. As Frege was a central character in Husserls earlier writings, it sets an interesting background to some of the differences in interpretation we find in the early analytic philosophers who were, like Husserl, inspired by Frege but came to radically different conclusions and interpretations.
Morris has written a really neat introductory book called An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language that goes well with Martinich's anthology.
Hope this helps!
edit: spelling, links
Readings on Metaethics
Defenses of God/Christianity
Many of the people listed above have done interviews and talks if you're not inclined to read an entire book.
Let me know if this does/doesn't help or if I should narrow the list.
I don't think that is an especially good definition, since epistemology and metaphysics are separate areas. Though 'first principles of knowing' could refer to questions like "what is truth?" or how the world gives beliefs content, which would be metaphysics. To motivate my point, check out the table of contents of these standard textbooks:
Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction
Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction
You'll note that your first three topics all appear in the former book and not in the latter.
It seems to me that your comments encompass wide range of topics but i think the problem of truth and meaning is at the center. Of course there is a huge literature about these topics but for a start Nietzsche's On Truth and Lie in An Extra Moral Sense can work as a thought provoking piece.
If you are into more scientific type of literature Maturana and Varela's Tree of Knowledge offers a theory of cognition which basically argues that all experience and knowledge are self-referential and constructed relative to the organisation and history of living systems.
In English speaking philosophy William James and Whitehead's different versions of empiricism are good places to look. In continental philosophy Foucault's writings on truth/knowledge can be helpful to put the concept in context of a more sociological perspective.
Edit note: The philosophical field which focus on these issues is called epistemology, some secondary and introductory type of books can work. For example Robert Audi's [Epistemology] (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Epistemology-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions-Philosophy/dp/041587923X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373061172&sr=1-2&keywords=epistemology).
> This is seriously one of the weakest objection I've ever heard against the PSR. What does this even mean? Of course God is not obligated to create our universe or any anything for that matter. How does this affect the PSR? There is no explanation other than the 'because'.
It shows that the PSR is self refuting because even a god cannot satisfy it. To put it into a more logical form:
r/https://bit.ly/2wJRxaL
Please feel free to refute that.
> Next: the brute fact response. This still leaves our most basic thirst about understanding reality unquenched. The universe is contingent; there is no way around even when involving science, math, etc--whatever. If it is possible for it to not exist, it is contingent.
Our thirst is technically irrelevant, since we can thirst for things like the color of jealousy, which obviously has no answer. What matters is part of logic. Regarding the possibility of the universe not existing, that assumes it is logically possible that the universe not exist. But so too is god. It is not logically necessary that the god theists believe in exist because other conceptions of god are possible. Why does god timelessly and eternally exist with desire X rather than desire Y, when neither desire X or Y are logically necessary or logically impossible?
Logical necessity cannot explain this scenario. There is no way to show in principle why god had to timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create our particular universe, and not one just slightly different, or even radically different, or no universe at all. The theist would have to show that it was logically necessary for god to desire to create our universe in order to avoid eventually coming to a brute fact. He can try and say "It's because god wanted a relationship with us," but that wouldn't answer the question at all. Why did god want a relationship with us? Is that logically necessary? Could god exist without wanting a relationship with anyone? And still, even if god wanted a relationship, why did he have to desire this particular universe? There are an infinitude of logically possible universes god could have desired that would allow him to have a relationship with someone else that for no reason god didn't timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create. A theist can also try to argue that "our universe is the best of all possible worlds, and therefore god had to desire it." But this claim is absurd on its face. I can think of a world with just one more instance of goodness or happiness, and I've easily just thought of a world that's better.
The theist is going to have to eventually come to a brute fact when seriously entertaining answers to these questions. Once he acknowledges that there is no logically necessary reason god had to timelessly and eternally exist with the desire to create our particular universe, and that god could have timelessly and eternally existed with a different desire, he's in exactly the same problem he claims the atheist is in when he says the universe is contingent and could have been otherwise, and therefore cannot explain itself. Hence, even positing a god doesn't allow you to avoid brute facts. There is no way to answer these questions, even in principle, with something logically necessary.
> God, on the other hand, is an entirely different kettle of fish; if God exists, he must exist necessarily. Merely saying it is a brute fact does not get around this; it's getting at that the universe is not contingent. Some think that there could be an infinite chain of causes to get us here. Maybe so. But how does this help? The chain is still contingent.
Nope. If god with eternal contingent (non-necessary) desire X exists, there cannot in principle be a logically necessary reason why that god exists, since a god with another non-necessary desire is just as possible. Hence god is just as contingent as the universe, lest you want to resort to special pleading.
>This is more of the New Atheism that is pure sophistry. 'Simple Logic'. Yikes. There are good objections to the PSR; this is obviously not one of them.
Not at all. This is serious logic showing how even you cannot answer the basic questions of why does god timelessly and eternally exist with desire X rather than desire Y, when neither desire X or Y are logically necessary or logically impossible? The only possible answer must be contingent, since a necessary one is off the table.
>I am not a Catholic but here is a very sophisticated defense of the PSR. Pruss is a Catholic. Pruss is brilliant here as well.
>
>Timothy O'Connor has my favorite book on the topic here
It is impossible to defend the PSR and all attempts to claim otherwise depend on false arguments from consequence.
I just mean they're not stipulating PSR to be an axiom such that it is taken to be self-evident (in the sense that it can be assumed without argument). Philosophers that defend the cosmological argument usually aim a significant portion of their argumentation toward justifying the PSR. Pruss, for example, wrote an entire book defending it.
The hell I can't.
I know how to do philosophy, I don't need your advice.
People spend entire books defending views such as the one above. Do you really think I'm going to spend hours on reddit outlining such a position?
If you want a fully fledged answer you should read books or articles, or at the least ask for sources.
One plausible view that centers around the concept of rational agency is Scanlon's contractualism:
SEP article
What We Owe to Each Other
Moral Dimensions
The book is Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist by Walter Kaufmann. It basically resurrected Nietzsche in academia.
If you are interested in learning philosophy then, ostensibly, you already have some big questions floating around up there. Ask yourself what interests you. Language? Ethics? Epistemology? I would first familiarize myself with some basics here and here but then from there, you should just start digging in.
Now, some authors will be inaccessible if you don't have a firm grasp of the historical tradition of philosophy cough Heidegger cough but you can do just fine with others.
Plato is fine to start with but if you really want to be captivated and excited, you have to start with Nietzsche. He is implicitly answering philosophers like Plato and Descartes but again, as long as you have a rudimentary understanding of them, it's doable. You can do more detailed analysis later.
Nietzsche's writing is full of passion and sets out to undermine every assumption behind Western philosophy. He tackles morality, epistemology, language, aesthetics, and just about everything else. He'll motivate you to get into the rest of tradition so that you have a more contextual understanding of where is he writing from.
I recommend:
Kaufman's Nietzsche
and
Beyond Good and Evil
I don't where you can find it, but his essay, On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense is fantastic, if not just for the first few paragraphs.
my phone auto put the umlauts...
firstly, i am interpreting the words ubermensch & untermensch in the nietzsche- en ideal, so i if am off then my bad.
anyway, i describe Bean as an untermensch because, like you said, he was not a leader. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra specifically states "I love the untermensch who built the home of the ubermensch.. etc" (something like that, i do not have the book in front of me) implying that the untermensch is the follower of the uber, even if he has a larger intellectual faculty.
furthermore, in walter Kaufman's Portrait of Nietzsche, he elaborates that the niezsche- en ubermensche is one who is completely in control of his emotions (Julius Caesar was listed as an example)
basically, i am insinuating that Bean is not an ubermensch because he is distincly not in control of his passions (which NIetzsche lists as a chief quality of the over human) and is under ender, primarily because ender
> combined humanities desire for power (Peter) and empathy (Valentine) together, and therefore represented all of us
Also, you Bean doesnt have followers because he is too ubermenschen, its because he is not in control of he passions and emotion, and has too much to weigh in.
(If i am totally off then feel free to point it out, i am but a high schooler)
feel free to point out any of my mistakes or any misinterpretations
Walter Kaufman was renowned as a scholar and translator of Nietzsche. He was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet.
Thanks
Cohen's Why not socialism? and some of the literature around it have been getting press lately.
No, I'd say the article is exactly in line with your thinking:
> In short, the reason people are mostly ignorant and biased about politics is that the incentives are all wrong. Democracies make it so that no individual voters’ votes (or political beliefs) make a difference. As a result, no individual is punished for being ignorant or irrational, and no individual is rewarded for becoming informed and rational. Democracies incentivizes us to be “dumb”.
Changing the incentives is changing the system and that's what is needed.
See Against Democracy:
> Given this grim picture, Brennan argues that a new system of government--epistocracy, the rule of the knowledgeable--may be better than democracy, and that it's time to experiment and find out.
He earned his Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Arizona, and is Associate Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University.
He is the author of several books Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know and blogs at bleedingheartlibertarians.com
His new book, Against Democracy critically examines the merits and demerits of democracy and makes a case for epistocracy, "the rule of the knowledgeable".
Podcast interview http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs-176-jason-brennan-on-against-democracy.html
I haven't read either of these (seen them recommended elsewhere), but they seem to touch on this subject:
Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government
From description:
>They demonstrate that voters―even those who are well informed and politically engaged―mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues. They also show that voters adjust their policy views and even their perceptions of basic matters of fact to match those loyalties. When parties are roughly evenly matched, elections often turn on irrelevant or misleading considerations such as economic spurts or downturns beyond the incumbents' control; the outcomes are essentially random. Thus, voters do not control the course of public policy, even indirectly.
The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies
From description:
>Caplan argues that voters continually elect politicians who either share their biases or else pretend to, resulting in bad policies winning again and again by popular demand...Caplan contends that democracy fails precisely because it does what voters want. Through an analysis of Americans' voting behavior and opinions on a range of economic issues, he makes the convincing case that noneconomists suffer from four prevailing biases: they underestimate the wisdom of the market mechanism, distrust foreigners, undervalue the benefits of conserving labor, and pessimistically believe the economy is going from bad to worse.
No idea what the solution is though.
I assume it is The Damned United which the movie was based on?
You might also enjoy Walking on Water, Clough The Autobiography and I personally look forward to this, Nobody Ever Says Thank You.
> Any suggestions of other soccer related books is appreciated as well.
Would highly recommend Fever Pitch, Miracle of Castel di Sangro, Inverting the Pyramid, Brilliant Orange and Behind the Curtains.
Yo leí el famoso inverting the pyramid, si no te jode leer en inglés (es lo que más se consigue en internet) te recomiendo: Brillant Orange y why england lose. Bien bien táctico leí hace poco attacking soccer y está bueno, aunque a algunas de las ideas se les notan los años.
Not a website but, depending on what you mean by 'cultural', you may be interested to read Brilliant Orange by David Winner.
It draws connections between Dutch culture (including visual art, architecture, and urban planning) and the football philosophy that developed in the Netherlands in the second half of the 20th century. It's not an academic piece, and there's lots of football anecdotes in case it sounds too dry or academic. It really is a wonderful book: ambitious in scope, but accessible. Can't recommend it highly enough.
This is the book "Brilliant Orange" I was referring to. For anyone with an interest in Dutch football, I'd suggest giving it a read. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brilliant-Orange-Neurotic-Genius-Football/dp/0747553106
I'm halfway through A Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football right now. I'm absolutely loving it!
> much of 'conservative' thought is founded in an unwillingness to contribute ANY money/privilege/power to better the whole of society. That is to say, it is founded in a libertarian fantasy that individuals pursing their own self-interest, without any interference from the state, will lead to greater flourishing for the whole of society.
You seem to be conflating conservatism and libertarianism. Conservatives are generally open to reforms that would better society, provided they are done conservatively.
> This manifests most concretely in an aversion to ... disruption of existing social hierarchies.
The very definition of conservatism is aversion to such disruptions. That's not a drawback of conservatism, it's a feature. Indeed, it's the central feature.
> To me this is an intellectually ignorant view of society, (so much so that it makes me wonder if it is even held in good-faith), as it completely ignores the impact that the pursuit of self-interest has on others, or the existence of societally constructed hierarchies that privilege some individuals over others.
Actually it is a more realistic view of society, as it regards hierarchies as inevitable. Furthermore, conservative ethics includes reasoning about authority, as it is obvious someone must be in charge; whereas progressive ethics tends to only consider harm.
Have you read either of these recent books?
https://www.amazon.com/Conservatism-Invitation-Tradition-Roger-Scruton/dp/1250170567/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=conservatism&qid=1562695659&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Sensibility-George-F-Will/dp/0316480932/ref=zg_bs_5571265011_11?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=3J41NQTHAKT706YBGNQZ
I like this order too. In addition, he recently put out a short book that is meant to be an invitation to conservatism in general. Here are links for convenience.
four views on free will. good book if you're interested in free will. each author has an article arguing for their position, and another responding to the other three articles. all four authors are leading writers on free will
I'd recommend Finite and Infinite Games.
A great general 'how-to' on being a good gamer.
"A finite player plays to be powerful; an infinite player plays with strength."
“No one can play a game alone. One cannot be human by oneself."
“Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries.”
Carse gets a bit hippy-dippy but is still chock full of compact truisms that will stick with you and help mold a better gaming outlook.
I mean, do what feels right to you. But I'd always advise against pushing anymore.There is no point.
Once you know you're both not there to learn, you're antagonizing without purpose, or you're doing it with purpose (malice).
Last year a mentor of mine gave me this book, http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713, and it changed the way I look at these conversations. I don't always follow the right path, but it helped me see that conversations exist on a field that we set. If you have a debate with someone and you're both playing with the same rules, like trying to find the best policy to solve a problem, then things go well.
But if one of you has a different set of rules, like, defend a belief I know is true against this attack. Then the game falls apart. Imagine playing basketball against someone playing football. You wouldn't "win" or "loose" because neither of you are playing the same game. He might score a touchdown while you're shooting over and over again, and you might both be keeping your own score, but you're not playing a game together... and it'd look foolish to any bystandard.
This is what a conversation like the one you're recounting sounds like.
And, what's worse, if he's playing a game in which the rules include " attack the other person" and at some point you get frustrated and join in attacking him, now you're both playing the same game of just being mean to each other.
Anyways,
take care.
I do. The book was Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft. I found it valuable because it's a comprehensive treatment of informal logic as presented by Aristotle, suitable for use in an undergraduate classroom, with practice exercises for each chapter and answers in the back of the book. The idea that stands out in my mind most sharply from that book was a throwaway observation Kreeft made at one point -- that the ends do justify the means because means are useless if they have no end, but good ends do not justify evil means. I was still in the process of trying to formulate my basic stance on moral issues at the time, so that idea hit me with a force that was almost physical. (Not sure why that particular idea should stand out so much more than the others, but it does.)
I used to identify completely with the positions presented in that book, but I've found plenty to argue with in the intervening time -- particularly on the subject of the theory of mind. If you decide to read it, it's important to remember that Kreeft has organized that book as a presentation of Aristotle's works on logic, so some of its positions can be painfully simplistic in light of subsequent research. (The example I'm thinking of is an early chapter section on the properties of the mind, which takes a naïve position that the mind actually goes to the places it imagines and changes size to encompass the things it imagines. Embodiment and phenomenology offer much better solutions than that.) That said, I think it's still the most valuable book of informal logic on the market, even if it needs to be taken cum grano salis.
http://www.amazon.com/Being-Good-Short-Introduction-Ethics/dp/0192853775
The declaration of human rights is universal across all cultures...
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
You're in dangerous territory. I'm not a fan of moral relativism myself. While I certainly don't have all the answers, I can't see the actions of the demons as ever being good. I'd rather not say that from one "species" point of view enslavement, torture, murder, etc. of beings capable of higher order thinking, autonomy, and morality is "good". If we go down taht road, then there is no good and evil, only good and evil relative to a certain culture. My intuition is that that understand of good and evil is inherently flawed and misses the point of what I understand good and evil to be.
Sounds to me like your interest in moral philosophy has been piqued. If you're into reading non-fiction, grab a book or two.
This one might be good, though I haven't read it (I know of Blackburn)
This was one of my introductions to moral philosophy and I think it covers things well. Find a used copy or your local library might have a copy.
> I would really like to start reading some real philosophy, but find a lot of philosophical jargon to be very confusing (For example, I still don't exactly understand what a priori is supposed to mean)
You might benefit from spending some time with a philosophical dictionary. These are books that list a bunch of philosophical terms, with each of them given a definition and a few paragraphs or pages of explanation by a philosopher who specializes in that field. So, for example, the entry on "a priori" would be written by an epistemologist who has published on a priori knowledge.
> I was wondering if there was like an "Ethics for Dummies" out there.
Yes, there are a bunch of books like that.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=introduction+to+ethics
Here's one that has a good reputation:
https://www.amazon.com/Being-Good-Short-Introduction-Ethics/dp/0192853775/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1493839865&sr=8-7&keywords=introduction+to+ethics
Are causal readers discouraged from reading introductory ethics texts because there is the vocabulary used by ethicists? Do you know that using this language discourages the causal reader?
I mean to say, some sort of vocabulary is necessary to get enough specificity, and many philosophers that write introductory texts use the traditional vocabulary after introducing how they will use these terms.
Take, for example, Simon Blackburn's Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics. It uses most of these terms that Harris thinks are incredibly boring, but it's a huge seller and highly rated by both professional philosophers and the public press (you can't say that about Harris's books).
Here, play with these for a while. Or pick up a book on ethics. Not that I think either will change your mind. If you start from the premise that any answer you come up to must be the obvious one, then you'll never be disappointed or conflicted.
Chalmers has also published a pretty accessible anthology of classic readings in the Philosophy of Mind.
https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Mind-Classical-Contemporary-Readings/dp/019514581X
This is more of an AcademicPhilosophy-style response, I suspect, but I would suggest checking out:
Metaphysics: An Anthology (Sosa and Kim)
Epistemology: An Anthology (Sosa and Kim)
Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings (Chalmers)
Philosophy of Language (Martinich)
Actually, a good primer might be Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy
I don't know what else to say to you, other than Rand should have stuck to political philosophy.
Here's some reading. I keep this one in my office.
Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings
https://www.amazon.com/dp/019514581X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XAWmDbZSHZDYB
This what you're after. I can link a PDF if you need.
I really enjoyed Dennett's Consciousness Explained. Chalmers' The Conscious Mind presents another popular view which, if I recall correctly, opposes Dennett's views. I'm slowly getting into work's by Steven Pinker.
Probably a general Philosophy of Mind reader would also benefit you just to get a good idea of the different views and topics out there within the discipline. I cannot remember which one I read years ago, although if I read one today I'd pick Chalmers' Philosophy of Mind or Kim's Philosophy of Mind.
I've had luck in saving a couple hundred per term buying on Amazon. Look up the book you need (I usually go to the bookstore and photograph them on my phone to make sure I get the right one) and have a look at the new/used copies.
For example, I saved about $20 buying a new copy of Chalmers: Philosophy of Mind on Amazon with shipping as opposed to the Book Store. Sometimes there are larger savings or more minisculesavings, but they can add up.
As for timing, when ordering online, I've learned to do it at least couple weeks in advance in case it is late. Last year a couple of my books were a week (or more) late and it really put me behind in my readings which were adding up. Needless to say I've learned my lesson and have already acquired all of my books as they were available in the book store and online.
I think that if the person reports it was her duty so save other soldiers, it's not really a classical case of altruism. So in that case I agree. But that's unique to the reported reason of someone handling out of "duty" rather than "empathy".
On an act being egoistic as soon as some pleasure is derived, allow me to quote these nicely written paragraphs from this book.
> The egoist might respond: if you are doing what you really want, aren’t
you thereby self-interested? It is important to see that the answer may well
be no. For all we know, some of us deeply want to help other people. When
we manage to offer such help, we are doing what we really want to do. Yet
what we really want to do is to benefit someone else, not ourselves.
Now, if people get what they really want, they may be better off as a
result. (But they might not: think of the anorexic or the drug addict. Or
think of the cases of disappointment discussed in chapter 4.) Yet the fact
that a person gains from her action does not prove that her motives were
egoistic [1]. The person who really wants to help the homeless, and volunteers
at a soup kitchen or shelter, may certainly derive pleasure from her efforts.
But this doesn’t show that pleasure was her aim. Her aim may have been to
help those in need. And because her aim was achieved, she thereby
received pleasure.
> As a general matter, when you discover that your deepest desires have
been satisfied, you often feel quite pleased. But that does not mean that your ultimate aim is to get such pleasure. That’s what needs to be shown; we can’t just assume it in trying to figure out whether our motives are
always self-interested.
I also think describing altruistic behavior as epigenetically, deterministically or evolutionarily is as useful as describing love as an influx of dopamine and oxytocine. It's scientifically nice but also kind of restricting in understanding humans.
[1] If I reward you with a cookie for taking the shortest path to work, and you enjoy that reward, that does not prove you took the shortest path to work because of my reward--you would have taken it anyway and under what I understand to be your conception of human behavior there is no accounting for this possibility.
I just finished reading this book.
And I'm 100 pages into this book.
The first says:
> Morality is the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason - to do what there are the best reasons for doing - while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision. Moral Philosophy is the study of what morality is and what it requires of us. There is no simple definition of morality. But there is a “minimum conception” of morality - a core that any moral theory should accept. What do we know about the nature of Morality?
>1. Moral Judgments must be backed by good reasons.
>2. Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual's interests.
The second book compares morality to art. While all art is subjective, people still practice and study art and become knowledgeable. It would be foolish to think we couldn't learn something from those who devote much time and energy to the subject. In the same way, we can learn about morality.
just teach them this book: https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Ethics-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199997233
> I'm fine with you or someone else saying, "based on this and this definition for an objectively good movie, I find X movie to be objectively good" what I am not fine with, is if someone just says "Y is an objectively good/bad movie" without context. This would be a miscomunication as the person who said that uses a different defeinition than most others.
Yes, one needs to be clear on the conception of beauty being used.
>I couldn't disagree further
On what grounds? I encourage you to read up on epistemology - the field that specializes on knowledge, reason, evidence, and the like. Robert Audi's introduction to the field is good!
Pruss has: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521184398
> What constitutes an permissible objection (e.g. is a poor person asking for welfare justifiable?) and how does one determine its weight? How does one account for the number of people with objections?
Your answers can be found here.
> Defining murder as tautologically wrong isn't a particularly compelling answer to the question.
That part wasn't me answering the question, but pointing out a problem with the way it was asked.
You mean:
>There's a book with the same title as Chidi's lecture, What We Owe To Each Other. I've always been of the mindset that we are here for each other. When a friend lost his house and cats to fire, something truly devastating to him, he had a breakdown about how he could possibly move forward. If everything can be taken from you in a moment, what's the forking point?
>
>The point is to be there for each other. The point is that we're not really here for any reason. We just are. And that's okay. Make the most of it. Make someone smile. Do any small thing. It could mean nothing to anyone. And it could mean everything to just one.
>
>Give a little love.
>
>The Book
One book that is popular to help understand Nietzsche is Walter Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. It usually comes up on this subreddit when people look for secondary texts on Nietzsche.
One dis-recommendation I would make is Nietzsche: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Tanner. The Oxford University Press "A Very Short Introduction" series is usually excellent, but I was not impressed with this particular title. It was the first book on Nietzsche that I read and frankly I found it pretty useless.
https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Philosopher-Psychologist-Walter-Kaufmann/dp/0691019835
Honestly, the hardest part of him is where to start. Ask five people and you'll get six answers.
But as a general recommendation, stick primarily to Walter Kaufmann's books, and you can't go wrong. He was one of the leading scholars on the school of his thought, and I find his translations of Nietzsche to capture the dramatic emphasis of his prose the best.
For a brief introduction I'd start with his Biography by Kaufmann, this is useful for understanding the time in which he lived, the philosophical climate, and debunking myths about him, followed by Basic Writings, and then The Portable Nietzsche which contains his more complex works, Twilight and Zarathustra. Each of these contain complete texts, as well as discussion and expositions to give them more context, and are extremely helpful in understanding the work.
Also, If you're a materialist already, an Atheist or an agnostic, start with The Antichrist and you'll fall in love with him in the first pages. Its a summary of his view on Christian morality, and it doesn't hold back at all, a quick read at about a hundred or so pages. If you want an appetizer, peruse The Will To Power, his book of aphorisms, to whet your palate (this is also where most of the romance quotes live). These were my introductions, and I never looked back.
Although I can't think of any free articles or videos off the top of my head, this is a nice, short book that covers a lot of what you have questions about. Cohen is an amazingly clear writer, and while it is certainly not comprehensive, it will give you a good overview of the issues, and some further places to start looking for these answers.
Broke
Woke
A lot of social justice type courses today aren't really academic so I wouldn't put too much faith in them, they mostly revolve around arts and crafts projects, watching movies etc.
Some books to consider:
The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages
The German Historicist Tradition
Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders - The Golden Age - The Breakdown
The Open Society and Its Enemies: Plato, Hegel, Marx
Add Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies to the neoliberal reading list.
Edit: It's probably one of the top five most important liberal texts of the second half of the twentieth century and clearly situates liberalism against both varieties of illiberal Hegelianism (fascism and marxism).
An academic book in the same era and vein is Popper's The Open Society and It's Enemies. Specifically the volume on Marx.
I wish Popper was alive today so he could write another volume on Economic Libertarianism and the Tea Party.
If you guys want an example that will really bring out the importance of philosophy in relation to politics (especially in light of this US election season), please take a look at this brand new book by Prof. Jason Brennan (political philosophy prof at Georgetown). It's very accessible even to lay readers, so no worries if you haven't studied philosophy before!
Jason Brennan, Against Democracy (Princeton University Press: 2016). Read the first chapter here for free to see if you like it: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10843.pdf
It will really challenge your assumptions about democracy and a lot of other political institutions and structures you may take for granted.
If you want a general introduction to political philosophy, see this really easy short video series (super engaging) with Brennan, starting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE5HCB5kdRg
____
Some other book suggestions:
Oh man, I cannot recommend The Problem of Political Authority, by Michael Huemer enough. Here's a video on the first part of the book for an overview, but you really have to read the book to see how thorough he is. The first part of the book talks about the ethics of why government is not particularly morally justified. The second part really carefully reasons out how and why a stateless society could not just function, but thrive.
Voter irrationality is a big deal. Huemer also has this paper on why it's a good thing the average person is not more influential. Then Bryan Caplan has an excellent book that really delves into the political economy of voter irrationality. I've listened to it on audible, and though the reader is pretty dry, it's a very detailed explanation of just how much astray voters are. You can top off this category with Jason Brennan's Against Democracy.
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Democracy-Jason-Brennan/dp/0691162603
Not to be a stickler, but you could easily argue that abstaining from voting is as sensible as going vegan, since it's all about supporting the status quo of a system that's based on unscientific nonsense. I've taken quiet an interest in democracy the past few years and the more I learn about it, the dumber it seems, kinda like animal agriculture.
If you're curious about the subject I'd highly recommend both Against Elections and Against Democracy. Democracy For Realists is pretty enlightening so far as well, but I'm not done with it yet.
I don't share your view because of the same concerns raised so far. In any way, it's and interesting topic. Have you heard about this book? I think he's making a similar suggestion to yours (epistocracy, the rule of the knowledgeable). I haven't had time yet to give it a deeper view though.
Another thing I've heard about recently and found interesting is the following implementation of direct democracy. Suppose there is a public decision coming up. Instead of letting everyone vote, 10000 people are selected randomly from the population. These people are divided into small groups and send on several weekends to workshops in the countryside, where they inform themselves about and discuss the issue. It is important that both sides (of the matter the referendum is about ) are present and able to explains their view in depth. After this process the 10000 sampled people make a vote and that's the final decision.
Il filosofo Jason Brennan ha scritto un libro, Against Democracy, in cui esprime la sua critica al suffragio universale. Ti invito a leggerlo perché è molto interessante e offre vari spunti di riflessione.
Yup. The consensus is that voters pick a winning personality and then warp their views to match. Witness the flip Trump supports did on immigration.
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0691178240
While I don't know any good general primers, there's a very nice book by Achen and Bartles about the effects of elections that's designed to be reasonably accessible to all readers. (except for some of the statistics stuff)
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0691178240
​
You could find a copy in your local library probably.
Even without a double major, you could look up the textbooks used by the poli sci classes and buy a used one, or maybe they have a borrowable one in the library.
Your college may allow people to audit classes (show up and listen, but don't get any credit/grade or necessarily do any of the work). auditing a few polisci classes would work then.
Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football and Those Feet: A Sensual History of English Football by David Winner were both very well-written and enjoyable reads.
I personally didn't care very much for Franklin Foer's How Football Explains The World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization, just found it to be a bit glib in its characterization of the game in different parts of the world, and somewhat reductive in its treatment of specific clubs and their supporters.
Also, I haven't read Soccernomics myself, but have heard/read many rave reviews so that's probably a good bet as many ITT have already mentioned it.
This is a really good book by a conservative about their ideology on their own terms. I suggest you read it to get a better understanding of their thought process.
Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition
Another good read is The Reactionary Mind
Came here to second Sir Roger Scruton.
Watch Why Beauty Matters (BBC special, on YouTube I believe) to get an idea of Scruton's general flavour.
Conservatism: An Invitation to The Great Tradition
Culture Counts (rereleased Sept 2018)
Both the above books are very worthwhile reads.
http://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Great-Debates-Philosophy/dp/1405134860
If one decides to perform an action in advance, and then performs that action, was it not a self-determined action? He was determined to slap the person in advance, but it was still a choice he made given many alternative options. Furthermore, is free will simply the freedom of action, or is it also the freedom of self-determination? I would argue that free will gives us the freedom to form ourselves into the people we wish to be, not just to perform the actions we wish to perform. He may have shaped himself into the type person that would slap an opponent instead of debating. Since this sub is about existentialist philosophy, you will probably find more people here agree with the idea of shaping ourselves into the people we wish to be.
>(or as Steven Pinker puts its a ghost inside your body pushing all the buttons)
Ah, another reference to a "pop intellectual" who isn't an expert in philosophy or free will. I've seen Sam Harris, Robert Salpolski, and now Steven Pinker as the defenders of hard determinism. It tends to be neuroscientists and psychologists in the popular science community. Why hasn't anyone mentioned a professional philosopher that shares their deterministic views; one who can provide a solid philosophical foundation for such beliefs? It may be because the majority of professional philosophers either believe free will is compatible with a deterministic universe, or that there is free will and it is incompatible with determinism.
>Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.
If you're interested in learning more about the justifications and challenges for free will, I recommend reading Elbow Room by Daniel Dennet and Four Views on Free Will. I can guarantee you'll learn more about free will from those two books than you will by listening to Steven Pinker.
If you're interested in learning more about the debate surrounding free will, causal determinism, moral responsibility, etc. I recommend reading the following book:
https://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Free-Martin-Fischer/dp/1405134860
​
It's an excellent introduction to the issues surrounding Free Will and it gives equal time and space to the various stances, and also allows the four authors to respond to each other's arguments. On a personal note, Fischer was one of my philosophy professors in college and I still consider him a mentor years later.
> gishgallop me
"Bro you gave me so many alternatives to my stemlord hyperdeterminism wtf gish gallop"
Amazing take
> mutually exclusive
If you read the first 10 pages of Tse's book he literally says that Robert Kane's model of Ultimate Responsiblity and Self Forming Actions are compatible with his criterial causation model, so no, they aren't mutually exclusive, he explains a different physical method of it occurring though the primary requirements for both forms of free will are the same.
> I'll start challenging them one by one.
Or you could just... read a fucking book :)
Harris's doesn't count btw.
> Pretending that Kane's position is not ridiculous is the opposite of being serious about the conversation.
I guess if i only read one page critiques and none of Kane's responses or none of the alternative formulations and explanations done by Mele like you did this conversation, then sure, I can see that being your take.
Whatever brother, I'll let you go back to complaining about Jordan Peterson and incels, you really are doing God's work, or just work once you finish that little endeavor of yours.
> A FINITE GAME is defined as KNOWN PLAYERS, FIXED RULES, and AN AGREED UPON OBJECTIVE TO WIN; like a football/soccer match.
The rules are fixed, the objective is fixed, and the players are known. You could argue the last point and say the players aren't known in pubs due to smurfing, multiple accounts, and shit like that - but for the sake of argument consider competitive leagues where the players are absolutely known.
The rules frequently change (patches) but during each point the rules are static. Other games update and change rules in sports and e-sports. The objective has never once changed in the history of the game (which is true of almost all games) in Dota it is to destroy the enemy ancient while yours is still alive.
I googled your term to see what in the fuck you're on about with infinite games because I've never heard of that concept in relation to game theory and came up with only one possible source for the term and idea: Finite and Infinite Games by James P Carse. https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713
James' book goes on to list examples and elaborate on what in the fuck an infinite game is. In his own words an infinite game is something without an end - something without a clear objective and that other players can join with ever changing rules. This is a kind of metaphor for life and human relationships. He uses motherhood as an example.
You trying to call Dota an infinite game under this definition is cute, but a complete troll. You argue there are always more Dota games, but that is true of any active sport or game. That logic would imply every single game is infinite which is wrong by the authors own definitions. Claiming that because Dota's rules change it is infinite is equally misrepresented and wrong because they never ever change mid game. Nearly all sports and games have rule changes over time which means that using your own logic any game that has had one rule change is infinite which is wrong again.
If you're not trolling you might have some substance abuse problems (legally obtained or otherwise) or some mental health complications (diagnosed or not). I don't mean that to be an insult either - just an observation that could be helpful but almost certainly won't due to the nature of... lots of things.
Two thoughts.
> I don't care who wins either, as long as the game takes place.
Are you James Carse? (His book is a must-read.)
> I could be content picking up litter along the highway too, but it would only be because I gave up on life altogether.
This whole subject reminds me of this talk by Mr. Money Moustache. (aka Peter Adeney.) The sooner you can get rich enough that you don't have to work, the more your work becomes meaningful.
The part at the end of the talk where you compares "work done for love" versus "scammy work" really struck a deep chord with me. The word he pulls out is "authenticity". This guy has it really figured out.
If your values connect to your work, you get meaning from it.
read finite and infinite games
I'm just a beginner but Peter Kreeft's book on Socratic Logic is very good. I've learned a lot from this introductory book. He's very effective at communicating rather complex concepts with simple language. There are also a plethora of exercises in the book at the end of every section.
https://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-Questions-Aristotelian-Principles/dp/1587318083
I doubt feeling guys read these but whatever, nowhere do any of these guys say libertarian. It's all in the process my friend.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Traditional-Logic-Classical-Contemporary/dp/1419616714
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1587318083/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_2/188-1086745-9869315?ie=UTF8&refRID=MPZFCGDQ73B3E0CACX46
https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-as-Science-Large-Print/dp/1478335475
People seems to be interested these days in symbolic logic, which in fact is believed to be superior. Nevertheless, I feel that Socratic Logic is the method preferable when trying to ascertain truth. I recommend Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft edition 3.1.
Another field I would recommend is the study of the Stoic philosophers. There is much wisdom that is quite apt for our day and our journey through life. I recommend this site as a launching point into the subject.
>What man can you show me who places any value on his time, who reckons the worth of each day, who understands that he is dying daily?" Seneca The Younger (Letter I: On Saving Time in Moral Letters to Lucius).
>The general idea seems to be that reason is incompatible with a purely physical explanation of the mind, but there is absolutely no support given for this, just a bunch of bizarre analogies and handwaving.
Any materialist philosopher would agree with him that this is one of the thorniest, if not insurmountable, problems with materialism. It might be better to read a book on philosophy of mind. I'm reading this now.
Consciousness is related to intentionality because intentionality means "aboutness."
You could also watch this short video from David Chalmers, and otherwise naturalistic atheist philosopher who has gone dualist because of the problems with materialism.
thought the sarcasm in my post was obvious - sorry!
edit: i recommend this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Capitalist-Realism-There-Alternative-Books/dp/1846943175
> I think capitalism is deeply flawed but it's the best option we have available.
Unfortunately, so much of this sentiment stems from our inability to choose something else. Capitalism's supporters love to sing the praises of "consumer choice," but we're never given the choice to accept or decline capitalism itself. It's a contradiction; if it's true that more choices improve the product or the quality of our lives, shouldn't we also be given the choice to opt out of capitalism?
It's said that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. And I believe that. You can't just switch away from capitalism the same way you'd switch from iPhone to Android.
I recommend the book Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher. It's a great in-depth examination of how all-encompassing the idea of capitalism has become and what we might be able to do about it. It gave me a lot to think about. (And if you can't buy it, get it from your local library!)
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalist-Realism-There-Alternative-Books/dp/1846943175/
This is a total mischaracterization of socialism. There are anti-authoritarian forms of socialism, which are what the vast majority of socialists advocate for. Sorry but I'm not going to debunk every point in this novel on the INFJ subreddit of all places.
EDIT: The position you're arguing from is called "Capitalist Realism," the notion that Capitalism is a natural outgrowth of human nature and the only truly viable economic model. This view is deeply ahistorical.
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalist-Realism-There-No-Alternative/dp/1846943175/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=capitalist+realism&qid=1570814527&sr=8-1
Books:
#ACCELERATE
Inventing the Future (Left Accelerationism)
Libidinal Economy (Lyotard)
Anti-Oedipuis: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Deleuze and Guattari)
Capitalist Realism (Fisher)
K-Punk(Fisher, a newly released anthology)
Articles:
This is the best introduction I've come across
The MAP (Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics)
This article from The Guardian
I see you've ignored Sun Tzu then? There's a reason I included him when pontificating on Mark Twain.
The point being that one does not need a formal education in an institute you consider reputable (if at all) to contribute to philosophy. If someone engages in this as their profession or hobby of choice then they could be considered a philosopher.
It's not symantics, it's literally the definition. You yourself earlier admitted ;
"It's fair to call him an amateur philosopher."
Which wouldn't be quite correct, given:
Amateur
[ˈamədər, ˈaməˌtər, ˈaməCHər]
NOUN
a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid basis.
He is paid for his philosophy via donations, ad revenue by people that find value in it. Likewise his book which is currently on Amazon as the #1 best seller in political philosophy. [1]
So he would be a 'Professional" philosopher...now you may not find much value in what he says or disagree with some things ( I do too, after all) but that doesn't make him an amateur.
And why would I defend Stephan from other people's arguments or other arguments aside from "He's not a philosopher"?
My original argument was only ever:
>Well spoken and a voice for radio (which he does do) he has some interesting points that are often eloquently spoken. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he does cover some very interesting topics.
-----------
So then if we can agree with him being a professional philosipher, I'd have no problem leaving it at that. But if you want to make another argument as to what he's contributed of value, or move the goalposts a bit to question whether or not he's "worthy" of being considered a philosipher based on his contributions IE asking me to defend them, we could agree on that shifting of goalposts.
Okay entweder willst oder kannst du es nicht verstehen, ich habe meine Argumente jedenfalls ebenso verständlich ausgeführt. Im Übrigen habe ich dich mit dem größten Respekt behandelt und finde es schade, dass du das anders siehst. Überheblich war ich zu keinem Zeitpunkt.
Vermutlich werden wir uns nur darauf einigen können, dass wir uns nicht einigen können. Ich kann dir aber gerne weiterführende Literatur empfehlen, falls du an ernsthafter Kapitalismuskritik interessiert sein solltest (1, 2, 3). Ganz nebenbei muss man keinen Gegenvorschlag parat haben, um eine Sache kritisieren zu können/dürfen. Ich glaube genauso wenig an Sozialismus oder Kommunismus (was einem ja quasi sofort unterstellt wird, wenn man den Kapitalismus kritisiert).
Philosophy. Seriously.
Considering how far away we are from a concrete answer this is as good a place to start as any. not discounting the considerable advances that have been made, just pointing out that there is a lot of disagreement at a very basic level of even the definition of the conciousness problem.
This is the primer I used for a class in college by Chalmers
And here's one that critiques some of those arguments by Searle
(these might be a little dated. anyone else have more current suggestions?)
Still looking for a PDF of https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Ethics-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199997233
Shafer-Landau, R. (2015). The fundamentals of ethics (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN-10: 0199997233 | ISBN-13: 978-0199997237
Paypal, $3.
I'll make the pitch for Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. I felt totally lost trying to read Nietzsche at first. With a basis from this book on which I could THEN approach his works, I have really been able to go through all of them.
\>A summary of why liberalism trends towards fascism and not progressivism?
​
It's not the dumbest thing I've ever read on reddit, but it's pretty damn close.
​
Here is a good book for you.
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Society-Its-Enemies-One/dp/0691158134
​
Now go the fuck away and learn something.
Read what you wrote again and notice all the generalizations you made, all the stereotypes and judgements and realize that is EXACTLY the kind of thing you're adamant about fighting against.
Also, what you're doing is called historicism. If you're truly interested in a discussion about why it's toxic and how it leads to horrible outcomes check this book out sometime. It's online free someplaces.
"The Open Society and Its Enemies" https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691158134/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_e1YKzbN5FPJEQ
If anyone has the authority to speak about Nazis and the destruction they caused it would be someone who lived through it.
Respecting the right of freedom of speech and open debate and discussion, while at the same time urging caution with recklessly judging an entire group of individuals under the umbrella of one belief is anything but racist.
>We can govern ourselves quite effectively.
That's a pretty bold assertion. Do you have any examples of places larger than a town who function well via strictly direct democracy?
>We don't need the middleman of the politician. Only the rich want politicians to push their selfish agenda.
I think that everyone wants "politicians to push their selfish agenda", but most wouldn't class their agenda as "selfish" in their own eyes. "the rich" do have more resources to work the system though, but a direct democracy would likely make that advantage even worse. In a system where we just make all collective decisions directly, the ability to shape public opinion is paramount, and it's people with resources who can take advantage of that best.
>Why don't you give us some examples where these referendums haven't worked out well.
Hmm, In recent months Brexit leaps to mind as does Columbia's referendum on a peace deal with FARC to end their 50 year insurgency. Heck, I suspect that were a referendum held in the US as to whether to leave the UN, that it'd possibly pass...though it'd be a objectively terrible idea.
Anyway, more generally, there's a reasonable bit of research as into how voters make decisions and it's not really all that rosy. For instance, on a quick search, here's a study of AUS voters and how referendums on constitutional matters were considered
This highlights some core issues with voting in general that have gotten notice of late. A decent book on how it appears that people actually vote and the issues with prevailing theories is "Democracy for Realists". I've found it enlightening, though somewhat depressing, reading.
People collectively aren't the rational, informed electorate that we'd like to have and "more democracy" isn't always a good answer to political problems. Many policy issues are nuanced and require delicate balancing of interests and aren't easily broken down into simply digested bullet points. Referendums can be useful on clear, straightforward decisions where the details are fairly simple and the costs/benefits are fairly clear.
People have day jobs and generally aren't inclined to spend the resources necessary to really get properly informed on matters of policy well enough to make solid decisions. Presumably simplifying this to voting on representatives/parties who support policy slates to make the detail decisions should make that cost less, and voters don't even do that well per the evidence that we have.
edit clean up and I added some direct responses to a couple of other questions/assertions.
hmnnn. i love fantasy as a genre. and self help.
one of my favorite books is Finite and Infinite Games.
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713
I try not to watch anything violent or scary these days. I'm actually just getting back into gaming, and I'm always searching for a new non-violent playstation game to indulge in.
This may not be exactly what you're asking for and its merits as a serious philosophical text are questionable but it's a really wonderful little book:
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713/
https://www.amazon.com/Human-Nature-new-Preface-Revised/dp/0674016386
https://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-Fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350
https://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/1501264338
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Society-Its-Enemies/dp/0691158134
Here's a start. All these were instrumental in dismantling communist ideology.