4 ms·

Not a problem, I'm here all night. Hit me up if you need the ontological question of substance answering too: it's materialism. For real though, what are you s

Not a problem, I'm here all night. Hit me up if you need the ontological question of substance answering too: it's materialism. For real though, what are you supposed to do with a moral system that requires you to adhere to rules regardless of outcome? Where the founder literally said you should aid a murderer because lying is wrong? That's so stupid. You can only derive such a system from religious belief where the rules are a manifestation of a higher power, as Kant did.

nonrandomstring 5y ago
> what are you supposed to do with a moral system that requires you to adhere to rules regardless of outcome? Study it. Explore its edges. Knock it down. Rebuild it. See how it works where your other "models" don't. Incorporate it. Synthesise it. Philosophy does not give answers for the confused, and it doesn't provide comfort for the anxious. For those go to mathematics and religion. I can feel you are a keen student of philosophy, and would do nothing to discourage that. On the contrary, the spirit is admirable. But you are not a Jedi yet. :) It is a common error for engineers approaching philosophy to pick up pieces and treat them as tools, like physics models, and to look for the "right" one for a "job". I urge you to play with them as toys a little more. I am glad to see we've sparked a cool discussion.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  I believe there are two routes you can go with philosophy: you can simply explore ideas within the fields you're interested in, or you can use it to guide your actions. Different fields are more or less practically applicable; ethics is somewhat useful, where something like Descartian radical doubt is a purely theoretical exercise. I do enjoy playing around with some ideas, but my primary interest is getting use-value (you could say utility, even!) out of them. Mill used utility to guide his actions and was, for his era, a very progressive and humanist individual. My interests skew towards practical ideas in ethics, epistemology and ontology, philosophy of science, sociology & political theory etc. Just wanting to play with and consider ideas is valid, but it's not the only use of philosophy.
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    > but my primary interest is getting use-value (you could say utility, even!) That will come. I am trying to think of an example/metaphor of the Gestalt way that philosophy (and the pursuit of the other learning you mention) obliquely and surprisingly pops into your life as a massive benefit. Never, personally though, have I been seized by a "bare idea" and then gone off and applied it to some utility (except maybe as a short-lived cognitive behavioural experiment on myself). Perhaps it's similar to how playing musical scales, painting bowls of fruit, or playing chess, one day makes you a decent performer, painter or strategist. > Just wanting to play with and consider ideas is valid At another extreme, only wanting to play, without even the end of self-improvement in mind would be, as Nietzsche put it - an idle museum of ideas for loafers in the garden of knowledge. Definitely not a good use of time unless your only aim is to stave off nihilism for one more day. So a middle path to tread... respects
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      You don't need to explain the benefit of a general philosophical education, friend - I have a few areas that I've learned about because I think they approach truth, while not being directly applicable. My ontological perspective is made up of a mix of Deleuze, Whitehead, Zen and cybernetics, for instance - it sits in the background guiding my perspective while not being 'a tool' as such. Agreed on the middle path; an education in the liberal arts can contribute to general development and actualisation.

nonrandomstring 5y ago

> what are you supposed to do with a moral system that requires you to adhere to rules regardless of outcome? Study it. Explore its edges. Knock it down. Rebuild it. See how it works where your other "models" don't. Incorporate it. Synthesise it. Philosophy does not give answers for the confused, and it doesn't provide comfort for the anxious. For those go to mathematics and religion. I can feel you are a keen student of philosophy, and would do nothing to discourage that. On the contrary, the spirit is admirable. But you are not a Jedi yet. :) It is a common error for engineers approaching philosophy to pick up pieces and treat them as tools, like physics models, and to look for the "right" one for a "job". I urge you to play with them as toys a little more. I am glad to see we've sparked a cool discussion.

beaconstudios 5y ago
I believe there are two routes you can go with philosophy: you can simply explore ideas within the fields you're interested in, or you can use it to guide your actions. Different fields are more or less practically applicable; ethics is somewhat useful, where something like Descartian radical doubt is a purely theoretical exercise. I do enjoy playing around with some ideas, but my primary interest is getting use-value (you could say utility, even!) out of them. Mill used utility to guide his actions and was, for his era, a very progressive and humanist individual. My interests skew towards practical ideas in ethics, epistemology and ontology, philosophy of science, sociology & political theory etc. Just wanting to play with and consider ideas is valid, but it's not the only use of philosophy.
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  > but my primary interest is getting use-value (you could say utility, even!) That will come. I am trying to think of an example/metaphor of the Gestalt way that philosophy (and the pursuit of the other learning you mention) obliquely and surprisingly pops into your life as a massive benefit. Never, personally though, have I been seized by a "bare idea" and then gone off and applied it to some utility (except maybe as a short-lived cognitive behavioural experiment on myself). Perhaps it's similar to how playing musical scales, painting bowls of fruit, or playing chess, one day makes you a decent performer, painter or strategist. > Just wanting to play with and consider ideas is valid At another extreme, only wanting to play, without even the end of self-improvement in mind would be, as Nietzsche put it - an idle museum of ideas for loafers in the garden of knowledge. Definitely not a good use of time unless your only aim is to stave off nihilism for one more day. So a middle path to tread... respects
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    You don't need to explain the benefit of a general philosophical education, friend - I have a few areas that I've learned about because I think they approach truth, while not being directly applicable. My ontological perspective is made up of a mix of Deleuze, Whitehead, Zen and cybernetics, for instance - it sits in the background guiding my perspective while not being 'a tool' as such. Agreed on the middle path; an education in the liberal arts can contribute to general development and actualisation.