Taught by the famous philosophers.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

I attended a lecture by John Searle once, shook the guy's hand even.

Cool. The "Chinese Room Argument" is always fun.

But, yeah, casually meeting a "great name" is usually disappointing. I think you'd have to actually be a student of his.

I haven't met philosophical personalities, but I've met others ... Dr. Paul Maier (Prof of Ancient History who serves as the Bible believing counterpoint whenever ABC News promotes their liberal view of Christianity), and Dr. John Atanasoff (inventor of the digital computer).

It's like you're expecting them to acknowledge there's something special about you, but they never do, and then you're disappointed. It's a bit childish, really.

So, once I make my fortune, maybe I'll go back to school as a philosophy student.

[Victor Eremita]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

It's like you're expecting them to acknowledge there's something special about you, but they never do, and then you're disappointed. It's a bit childish, really.

Haha, that's one take on it; another take is that, I'm in his class, I should be learning something awe-inspiring, earth-shattering, learning from the man himself. Then you find out Professor Kant has limited office hours, and his TA does all the marking.

[johncee]

[quote=Victor Eremita;20540]Looking at three or four "greatest philosophers" books, a handful of contemporary philosophers have made it into a book that also includes Plato, Aristotle, Descartes and Kant.


" Was there a sense of history being made in the room; like if you were a pupil being lectured by Kant or Hegel?"

How can there be a sense of history being made if you disagree with the objective truth???

[Victor Eremita]

Me? I don't disagree with objective truth.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

Me? I don't disagree with objective truth.

Disagreement with the idea of objective truth is a good place to start philosophy and agreement with the idea of objective truth is a good place to end philosophy. For objective truth to exist, we would have to have been created, along with truth, as a metaphysical phenomenon. And this 'self evident' truth we have in our contitution, that all men are created equal. But now we have better evidence of the equality of man than our faith in a creator, which most found inconvenient, and easy to ignore. To have objective truth we must begin with faith. Each stands together or falls together. Acting upon what we can see rather than know, the life of humanity is the best judge of truth. If it is false, it kills us and makes us miserable to boot. Even metaphysical truth, and objective truth can do no more than make us miserable when false. It is not that human beings individually judge truth, as we do, that gives it power. Humanity in every sense of the word suffers what is false, and benefits from truth, and the myopia of people has little to do with that cosmic judgement.

[Fido]

[quote=johncee;21598]

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

Looking at three or four "greatest philosophers" books, a handful of contemporary philosophers have made it into a book that also includes Plato, Aristotle, Descartes and Kant.


" Was there a sense of history being made in the room; like if you were a pupil being lectured by Kant or Hegel?"

How can there be a sense of history being made if you disagree with the objective truth???

If history is the story of the Class Struggle as Marx might have you believe; it is also the story of the struggle between true and false. As with the question of morality: Is there an objective morality? Hardly; but it tends toward a universal because of general acceptance that we consider as objective fact. Is their an objective truth to be found in history? Well not exactly, or people would not make the same mistakes repeatedly. There is no break between history and prehistory unless one considers that in all of prehistory people were building societies and relationships that were strong enough to resist other forces of nature and humanity, while history, with its classes, its injustice, its luxury, and indolence, and slavery was often interrupted by war or revolution or invasion in spite of superior philosophy, science, and technology. If there were an objective truth to be found by searching, then it would have saved advanced societies which had most of the time to look for them. Instead, history has seen many civilizations buried. It is primitive societies trading on the currency of honor and justice that have swept the mighty from their thrones. Is it possible that primitive societies know a truth they cannot speak?

[Victor Eremita]

Originally Posted by Fido

Disagreement with the idea of objective truth is a good place to start philosophy and agreement with the idea of objective truth is a good place to end philosophy.

Wow... grossly off-topic, but to respond, I would say objective and subjective truths are both important for philosophy. I agree that subjective truths are important for us as living human beings. But without objective truth, how would one distingiush between madness and truth?

Let's open a new topic on this, and get back on topic in this thread: has anyone been lectured by or had a world famous philosopher as your professor? How did you feel about it?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

Wow... grossly off-topic

I don't know. If the topic is who have you been taught by, it seems the unasked question, and a natural corralary would be what did you learn. Every philosopher who has taught me had to be famous enough to be in print before I could learn a thing. I mean, I haven't had class one, and I am not sure that I ever will, and yet I see people making statements in regard to their knowledge, or what they think they know. Surely if they have had some liberal education, even in philosophy, they might see some flaws or perhaps rethink the thought without offense? Given the limited number of people on the forum, and the limited number of famous philosophers, and even what a difficult bar fame is to reach from the tracks of the wise; how likely a mark is that to meet, of being at the feet of the greats? I really don't know.
Maybe going off topic is my way of compensating for the fact that I will never be able to declare: See! I is edjifide. And when you are not educated, you must always wonder what you may have missed no matter how much you have learned, because education is systematic, and you are given the system with the education. And very often the system serves a valuable purpose. Perhaps the problem is this: When I see a statement of fact, or what I take as such, I ask if it is true, compared to what I know, or think I know. I usually cannot constrain myself from following with a question or a comment. Sorry. I wished I had learned to spell.

[Fido]

This is sooo easy. We know madness by the damage it does, and we know truth by the good it does. And these are both subjective definitions. For example, the mad and the truthful may seem little different. The mad very often tell the truth, and seldom consider themselves mad. And the truthful would not bother to tell the truth and seek it if all about them were not madness.

Not I. My father may have been the smartest man I have ever been lectured by, and he is famous too, but not for his lectures, but for driving the first rivit in the brdge. He knew how to drive them straight and tight.

[johncee]

[quote=Fido;21607]

Originally Posted by johncee

"Is their an objective truth to be found in history? Well not exactly, or people would not make the same mistakes repeatedly. . If there were an objective truth to be found by searching, then it would have saved advanced societies which had most of the time to look for them. Instead, history has seen many civilizations buried. It is primitive societies trading on the currency of honor and justice that have swept the mighty from their thrones. Is it possible that primitive societies know a truth they cannot speak?

This is not an unknown and abstract argurement for primitive society often put forward by reactionaries. 'Backwards to the future' is the motto which is consistent with those who deny objective truth such as the 'posties.' For example, one group who advance a similar argurement forward is the Taliban.
The writer asserts "primitive societies" got the upper hand but what primitive societies? It was not the US red Indians nor the Australian aboriginals for the right wing governments carried out genocidal massacres in various forms to grab their land and stop any future claims. Nor the Incas. It was not in Africa either with tens of millions slaughtered since 1870 for colonial plunder including mineral resources, land, and the many millions of chattel slaves for the forceful export of cheap slave labor. Who they regarded as their colonial possessions. Then there are todays multi-nationals who exploit workers and treat them as modern slaves with no rights.
Marx also mentioned: "The history of all hitherto existing society was a history of class struggle." AND "In a word oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, now hidden now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

" If there were an objective truth to be found by searching, then it would have saved advanced societies which had most of the time to look for them." Here the writer uses an old reactionary trick where the real relations are inverted. You take out of the equation the filthy role the media owned by billionaires has played in creating climates of fear, superstition, lies and propaganda in keeping the old order going. For instance, all the lies told about the Iraqi war to steal the oil and bomb the Iraqis calling that "democratic." By the way one objective truth "is that the first casualty of war is the truth."