Can a bad person be a philosopher?

[[SS].Invictus]

Originally Posted by sarek

I really wish that philosophy was a route that led exclusively to 'good' thoughts. But philosophy is in essence a-moral, as are all the products of the mind.

You keep the crack-barrel attitude on and I will keep debunking it.

Products = Mind = Amoral = Essence-in-philosophy.

Oh really?

So thus products = Brain = Morals= Essence-in-?

If you don’t know the basics, or haven’t swallowed the history of Philosophy don’t misinform the public on naive per se BS.

Secondly, because everything is a product of thing mind, there is no such thing as "Morals and ethics"?

*Yawns*

Yeah the mind is the alien in here, were it produces non-stop beats, melodies and rhythms amorally.

Duh uh.

But I know, since morality does not exist in nature, thus everything and all of it are by all means amoral.

Last time I checked, morals and ethics came by the mind, language, pathos, society and humans.

I still wonder to my surprise why morality is not "natural"!

No wait, morals and ethics are an illusion! They don’t exist!

I know, our brain/minds emerge this sense, this beautiful illusion, this aphrodisiac divinity.

Hence, again a Martial!

[IntoTheLight]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

In his book, Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy, the author, Emmanuel Faye argues that Martin Heidegger was not a philosopher, and that his works should not be classified under "philosophy" because they were entirely based on National Socialism. Faye argues that Heidegger's work should be classified under "hate speech".

Absurd.

Any person's views on any subject = philosophy.

-ITL-

[Reconstructo]

If thinking about Being itself isn't philosophical, what is?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

To be a good philosopher is to earn some points in the direction of being a good person. Didn't Schopenhauer kick a prostitute downstairs and end paying her bills for the rest of her life? Oh well, he's still a great philosopher.

Not at all...It was his landlady talking with her friend that got on his nerves... And he was cold about it... He wrote in his notes; She is dead and the debt is paid... Which it was...He is another example of the complete inability of so many philosophers to form normal relationships...If they coulld not manage relationships how can anyone believe they understood relationships... And this question is essential to philosophy since the focus is usually on forms, but all of our forms and every form is a form of relationship...Forms are just forms, and to a degree interchangeable; but the relationship is the life of the form and essential... Failed forms kill their relationships...Working forms feed their relationship...Philosophy is not an escape...If you cannot relate you never grasp the truth, and never will know it...

---------- Post added 11-27-2009 at 08:24 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

If thinking about Being itself isn't philosophical, what is?

Everything we do is the subject of philosophy... Socrates said it best, that knowledge is virtue...And yet I would not say it as he seems to have thought it true, that virtue can be learn and taught...Yet people seem to generally understand that they can reach a better existence through knowledge...And people do act as they know, though they usually act without thought on the basis of prejudice, or emotion...An advanced society as a form of relationship demands that people act rationally, and not impulsively on emotion....

[Reconstructo]

Perhaps you are right about Schopenhauer. I stand by my assertion that he's a great philosopher, and the man couldn't stand his own mother.

Socrates fought with his wife, I believe. Isn't there a joke about him learning dialectic from this?

Some would say that Diogenes had problems relating. Some might say this about Nietzsche or Heidegger. Who does and does not "relate" is a matter of interpretation.

I describe my favorite philosophers as creative writers, conceptual artists, purveyors of interpretations. If their product is good, I call them good philosophers.

That being said, I do like to consider a philosopher's biography against his text.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Perhaps you are right about Schopenhauer. I stand by my assertion that he's a great philosopher, and the man couldn't stand his own mother.

Socrates fought with his wife, I believe. Isn't there a joke about him learning dialectic from this?

Some would say that Diogenes had problems relating. Some might say this about Nietzsche or Heidegger. Who does and does not "relate" is a matter of interpretation.

I describe my favorite philosophers as creative writers, conceptual artists, purveyors of interpretations. If their product is good, I call them good philosophers.

That being said, I do like to consider a philosopher's biography against his text.

Hegal and Marx were married, but as with many, it could have been all form and no relationship....

And isn't it funny about Schopenhaur??? His mother went to work for him on her husband because she could see his genius; yet he could not see her love...Reason as a source of knowledge is clearly over rated... Those who cannot feel the truth never know the best part of life...We are what we are, heart and head, and our lives are found balancing these two... Reasonable people are entirely lopsided; so real people look at philosophers as a joke... Me too...I would call myself a moralist and never call myself a philosopher, though I cannot tell the difference... I won't kick myself because I can't spare the feet, and I won't hang a kick me sign on my butt with a name; but I will say that philosophy is about love, and if you can't love you don't get it...

[Reconstructo]

I agree that reason (criticism, analysis) without intuition and passion is ridiculous. Too much of philosophy is an idolatry of word-play. I don't really like the term "philosopher." Hence my moniker. "Wisdom maketh a man's face to shine." Ecclesiastes.

Myth is prior to philosophy. Philosophy is not as reasonable as it supposes.

Regards

[PappasNick]

Originally Posted by Fido

but I will say that philosophy is about love, and if you can't love you don't get it...

Yes, and the love is of wisdom and the desire is to replace opinion with knowledge. That is philosophy.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by IntoTheLight

Any person's views on any subject = philosophy.

My view about Craisins is that they taste really good on my cereal but I wish they didn't have so much sugar.

Is that philosophy?

If you're going to give philosophy a definition as loosey-goosey as this, there is essentially no reason to have the word or concept to begin with.

[Reconstructo]

"Knowledge" is a fine term. I use it in subjects more concrete than philosophy. For abstract philosophy, I like opinion. It keeps me open-minded. Or not.

I agree of Nicholas of Cusa that "all science (knowledge) is conjecture." I also agree with Hegel that the truth is the whole. Any thing we consider in isolation from the whole is an abstraction. I sympathize with holism, but not without a bit of irony.

Nicholas had the humility to suggest a negative theology. Hegel had the audacity to present his version of the whole (his Absolute).

But Hegel's description of the Absolute does not convince me, however impressive and valuable. For the Absolute is always a work in progress. It is always-already subverted. For man is capable of continual redescription of his reality and his descriptions are part of this reality.

Whatever knowledge we have appears to me to be partial, approximate. I like to keep my mind flexible, and avoid any sort of prejudice that might hamper my enjoyment of this little life on planet earth.

I enjoy mysticism as feeling and not as argument. I enjoy myth as myth and not as cosmology. I enjoy critical philosophy as an acid against prejudice. I agree with Keats that negative capability is a virtue. I will wear the term "ironist" --until it bores me.