My idea of existentialism is mostly based on Sartre. I'd classify Nietzsche as a wildcard, but that's only based on my reading of The Gay Science.
Out of a full reading of the Western Canon, I think, in the end, I'd feel generally more well-rounded and confident to join the fight. There will come a point sooner or later when centrists will need to advance their positions in direct, earnest debate, and being able to pull examples and stories from the entirety of Western history from memory will become absolutely invaluable. While centrism will definitely need their own Russell Kirks and Herbert Crolys (intellectuals who can bring careful and reasoned response), I see myself as the William F. Buckley of centrism: someone who can bring the battle right to the forefront in an entertaining, cohesive and convincing manner. I'm definitely nowhere near that level yet, even with a MPA, PoliSci BA, and years of employment in public sector finance. On Sep 4, 8:23 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Comments in BF in text > > message dated 9/4/2011 [email protected] writes: > > Yeah, those are the guys. Existentialists belong to that class also. > To return to the question, who do you classify as Existentialists ? > I know full well that Nietzsche was a student of Spinoza, for example, > but to consider him a Rationalist seems to be a stretch. Maybe you > could explain when you have some free time. > > I recently started a full reading of the Western canon. I figure a > chronological reading of all the formative texts in the Western > culture will give me a better understanding of how our understanding > of the world developed as it did. I finished Homer and Aeschylus, and > I'm currently on Sophocles. Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza are on > most encompassing lists, as are Sartre and Neitzsche, so I'm expecting > to learn something by reading the formative works that existed in the > same or immediately prior timeframe. Hard to decide whether the > rationalists were pushing religious apologetics or if they were forced > by the church to develop their worldview as they did. > Not a bad idea, at some point, to also look into the non-Western canon. > Essentially this means Asia, but you also get something along the lines > of pre-Socratic thinking by reading such things as Native American oratory, > essentially records of tribal leasers' statements at treaty meetings, and > so forth. > > (Anyway, I find it all to be crap, as Descartes' formative claim, > "cogito ergo sum" is false. If you've already eliminated every > experience and object from consideration, then there are no ideas or > concepts to think of, resulting in no thought.) > That's one way to think about his method. Another way is to see the > utility value > of philosophical subtraction, viz, eliminating all non-essential > possibilities > before allowing yourself to arrive at a conclusion. You hardly have to > accept his conclusion about a thinking essence being the ultimate Archimedean > point. > After all, a cogito has a beginning and will have an earthly end, and > questions > about origins and destiny also are a necessary part of the mix > > Reflecting about it, this is an extension of Ockham's razor, seeking the > simplest and most elegant solutions available. And that seems self > evidently > valuable and valid. You know, what is non-essential to a proof or > conclusion ? > > When you eliminate all the extraneous stuff only then can you get to > what is really important. > > So far, I'd heavily recommend reading Aeschylus' Promethius Bound. > Mythological, yes, but definitely gives you an idea of the > appreciation that the Greeks had for technological advancement. I wish > Americans would appreciate tech advancement, instead of shunning the > resulting interconnectedness. The Greeks would have killed for our > leisure. > > Agreed. > But there are additional considerations. Like language. Of course, even > there > you can find uses for math, but mostly linguistics is about all kinds of > "soft" phenomena, since words are often more like silly putty than like > pieces of granite. Then there are fields like Process Theology, which is > based on an understanding of biological systems. Also the whole subject > of narration, viz, story telling. Hence Sartre's and Camus' novels, > Dostoevsky's epic fiction, and the like. There's also a good deal of > story telling in Kierkegaard. And what about "popular philosophy"? > > The great value of a book by Camus or Dostoevsky is that almost anyone > can read a novel and get the gist of the philosophy. Hence, while I have > little use for her stuff, the appeal of Ayn Rand. What would a totally > different kind of novel be like which started from Radical Centrist > assumptions and values ? > > Guess what I'm asking is what are your objectives ? What would you > like to accomplish through your study of philosophy ? > > Billy > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > On Sep 4, 5:42 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Mike : > > Guess this is what you are talking about-- > > > PHIL 13: Modern Philosophy: Continental Rationalism > > > A study of early modern philosophy in the Continental rationalist > > tradition of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Focus is > on the major > > works of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, with some attention to > responses > > from their contemporaries (e.g., Arnauld, Gassendi, Mersenne). Central > > themes include substance, matter, mind, the laws of nature, space and > time, God, > > truth, necessity and contingency. DARTMOUTH > > > ( Presumably this course gets into modern day interpreters of this > > philosophy ) > > > ----- > > > Hmmm. Tell you the truth, I have not paid much attention to this school > of > > thought since studying > > Des Cartes quite a few years ago. Would be a good idea to get into > Spinoza > > and Leibniz, but > > this has never been a high priority. Still, to construct a new > philosophy, > > "Radical Centrist Realism" > > we might call it, at some point it would be a good idea to revisit the > > rationalists. Why, after all, > > are our working assumptions valid and the political assumptions of our > > competitors > > not valid ? If we recommend political policy, what truth tests are > crucial > > in formulating > > such policy ? And so forth. > > > Who more interests me these days is Hume, however, for all kinds of > > reasons. I have > > been collecting materials toward a study of his philosophy and have a > > pretty decent > > file now. I'm especially interested in his utopian political system > since, > > after all, if we cannot > > know --with certainty-- that the realm of experience allows > prediction, > > then on > > what basis can a "Good" political society be constructed ? And much else > > that > > follows from the whole Humean outlook. > > > Billy > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > message dated 9/4/2011 2:16:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > > [email protected] writes: > > > My response to your points about math and existentialism are the same: > > there's an unaccountable aspect to continental rationalism that comes > > forth every few years. To combat it requires knowledge of logic and > > mathematics, as the philosophical systems eschew empiricism in favor > > of an internal consistency. > > > Then again, rationalism vs. empiricism ends up being a personal > > preference. It is unsettling how accurately mathematics can address > > how things work. > > > On Sep 3, 2:29 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > See my comments in BF, below > > > Billy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > message dated 9/2/2011 9:08:15 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > [email protected] writes: > > > > Random thing I was thinking about: > > > > In the era of Plato and Aristotle, philosophy encompassed (among its > > > many topics) rhetoric, law, aesthetics, psychology, the natural > > > sciences and mathematics. Philosophers were the learned individuals > > > in society who genuinely loved knowledge. With the maturation and > > > professionalization of the sciences, philosophy has increasingly > > > splintered itself away into a husk containing mostly metaphysics and > > > an obsession with word definitions and symbols. With Pragmatism's > > > rejection of even metaphysical vagueries and Karl Popper's objection > > > to the infinite definition dilemma toward the beginning and middle of > > > the 20th century, philosophy became the discipline of nothing. This > > > discipline became a series of rules of action, as if mankind was to > > > descend into a land of automatons, reacting in predictable patterns to > > > predictable stimuli. Naturally, the existentialists decided to one-up > > > the pragmatists by removing even rules, and entirely disconnect > > > philosophy from objective reality. > > > > I think you are making a connection that isn't there. Existentialists > > > were disconnected from objective reality ? ? ? Who do you consider > > > to have been Existentialists ? In my book, actually in the books of > > > classes > > > I took in the subject as a philosophy many years ago, the list > includes > > > Kierkegaard, Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, etc, and not just > > > theoreticians like Heidegger and, to a lesser extent, Jaspers. > > > > For K, C, S, N, and D, how on earth can anyone say they were > > disconnected > > > from reality ? Well, Nietzsche in his last few years, but > otherwise ? > > > > There were other philosophies that also were anything but > disconnected > > > from reality, > > > like Futurism / Futurismo. Plus, still current, Philosophy of > History. > > > Yes, this > > > is an entire field with a rather extensive literature. And, of > course, > > > there > > > is Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Science, and specialities > like > > > Buddhist Philosophy ( I had an independent studies course in the > > subject > > > ). > > > > Are we to say that philosophy is now solely the exploration of > > > logically consistent viewpoints of life? Is it the glue that holds > > > everything together? If so, how can a modern individual call him/ > > > herself a "philosopher" without attempting to reclaim science and > > > seeking to understand everything? Can a philosopher legitimately be > > > crappy at math and science and still claim some level of > philosophical > > > legitimacy? > > > > Your point about science is well taken. I'm not so sure about math, > > > however. > > > OK, you need some math, and the more the better, at least usually. > > > But I have some real doubts. > > > > A friend recently became a doctor of forestry. To reach his goal he > > needed > > > to take a series of classes in higher math. But what in the world for > ? > > > He would have been far better off with other classes, seems to me, > > > in geography, history of public forests, and even such things as > > > communications as it relates to getting the message out to > > > others via advertising, film, TV, and etc. > > > > Forestry isn't philosophy but the same principle applies. > > > Which does a philosopher need more ? OK, it depends on the kind > > > of philosophy, but for most kinds it would make far better sense to > > > take classes in marketing strategies, or game theory, or literature. > > > > If philosophy loses the study of logic to professionalization, I > think > > > continued philosophy is as good as dead. Honestly, what else is left > > > for philosophy? > > > > Seems to me that we need a philosophy of Radical Centrism. Not sure > > exactly > > > what this would comprise, but it would necessarily include systems > > theory, > > > social psychology or equivalents, political philosophy, and so forth, > > > > -- > > > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > > > <[email protected]> > > > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > > > Radical Centrism website and blog:http://RadicalCentrism.org > > > -- > > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > > [email protected]_ > (mailto:[email protected]) > > > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > > Radical Centrism website and blog:http://RadicalCentrism.org > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog:http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
