4 ms·
I started a course in philosophy during my first year of university. I studied CS (in the UK, where you don't typically go far outside your major) but I'd alway
by IsaacL 10y ago
I started a course in philosophy during my first year of university. I studied CS (in the UK, where you don't typically go far outside your major) but I'd always been curious about the humanities and thought it worthwhile to learn about all fields of knowledge. I'd also read about philosophy for laymen books as a teenager.
In the first lecture, I remember being surprised at how rational and logical the lecturer was. However, in the second lecture, we started getting into the details of different theories of meta-ethics. I was interested in the topic, but the presentation was exactly as you describe, focused on hairsplitting the viewpoints of everyone who'd debated the question previously.
In the last few years I was inspired to start analysing my own ideas and began studying philosophy in my own time. I now know my undergraduate experience was typical of analytical philosophy, which dominates the English-speaking academic world. Unlike continental philosophers, they believe that there's an objective reality and that our thoughts should be logically consistent. However, they also have accumulated a pile of logical puzzles (Frege cases, Gettier problems, the Raven paradox, etc) which imply that language does not straightforwardly refer to reality, that certain knowledge is impossible, and so on. This skepticism is (imo) at the root of the "debaters paradise" you observed.
Anyone looking for an alternative should give Objectivism a serious study. It has such a bad reputation in academic circles that I dismissed it for a long time, but when I finally got around to reading serious Objectivist non-fiction, I found it held together much better with my view of reality. It's basically a version of Aristotelianism, with some of the mystical implications removed. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is the book to read if you want to dive in at the deep end).
- kefka 10y agoObjectivism: the OO of philosophy. Or, LaVeyan Satanism without the occult element.
- hartator 10y agoSimilar studies and experience, I also think that Objectivism is one of the strongest philosophies. It's kind of ironic that we have to talk about Objectivism without naming the main author for politic reasons.
- pmoriarty 10y agoAnyone interested in Objectivism should read Nietzsche: the philosopher that Ayn Rand did a very poor job of trying to copy. I kind of hesitate to mention them in the same sentence, however, as Nietzsche would have probably hated Rand and the Objectivists. Even Rand herself hated Objectivists. There are long rants from her about them in her interviews. But that still doesn't change the fact that Nietzsche was a big influence on Rand.
- IsaacL 10y agoIt sounds like you're parroting things you've heard second-hand. I was heavily into Nietzsche in my late teens and early 20s, before discovering Rand. He definitely influenced her in her early years, but by the time she came to write down her own ideas she'd rejected pretty much all of his ideas. She was an Aristotelian. > Even Rand herself hated Objectivists. This is not remotely true. In her later years, she concluded that the organised Objectivist movement had been a mistake, but she still hoped for an informal movement of intellectuals to follow her philosophy.
- pmoriarty 10y agoAyn Rand definitely moved away from Nietzsche (as they are very different), but I think it's hard to deny his influence on her. Some parallels, particularly her idea of the ubermensch, are very Nietzschean (though again, the actual definition of the two differ markedly). To really understand where she's coming from, and where she's getting her ideas (which are often better and more deeply explored elsewhere) you have to read other philosophy. Nietzsche is one, perhaps Aristotle is another. As for my allegation of Rand's hate for Objectivists, it looks like I misremembered. It was actually Libertarians who Rand despised, not Objectivists.[1] [1] - http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/ayn-rand-q-on-a-on-libertarianism.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/ayn-rand-q-on-a-on-...
- IsaacL 10y agoYou are talking from ignorance. She doesn't have an "idea of the Ubermensch" - she esteems honest ordinary men highly, and condemns modern elites. What is Nietzsche's solution to the problem of universals? What does he say about the is-ought problem? What does he say about capitalism and individual rights? All of these things are discussed in Rand, none are discussed in Nietzsche, who rejects reason, logic and universal truths. Sure, read other philosophy, but to really really understand where she's coming from, you have to read her, and not confidently spout second-hand misinformation.