Is philosophy dead?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Those were interesting times, probably more intellectually rigorous than what we find today.
But, that negative perception of today’s world may be due to the influence of the media, which presents a very limited and skewed picture of what is out there.
The Glagolitic Mass perhaps refelcts the prevalent existential attitude of those times, a state of disorientation and confusion stemming from the view that reality is meaningless and absurd.
I can’t deny that maybe it’s just me who’s confused. The piece is considered a work of art and it is good, though not on my favourites playlist.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Do you agree with Kant?
Click to expand...
If I was a lawyer or professional philosopher then I would probably agree that the rule is too vague, in that it assumes that what others want is what I want, and so would not stand up in court.

But that’s going by the letter rather than the spirit, and I’d say the spirit of the rule is fine.
 
Aloysium said:
Those were interesting times, probably more intellectually rigorous than what we find today.
But, that negative perception of today’s world may be due to the influence of the media, which presents a very limited and skewed picture of what is out there.
The Glagolitic Mass perhaps refelcts the prevalent existential attitude of those times, a state of disorientation and confusion stemming from the view that reality is meaningless and absurd.
I can’t deny that maybe it’s just me who’s confused. The piece is considered a work of art and it is good, though not on my favourites playlist.
Click to expand...
I bracket it with Stravinsky’s Rite Of Spring for its full-on in-your-face lack of compromise.

Sort of punk classical. 😃
 
40.png
inocente:
If I was a lawyer or professional philosopher then I would probably agree that the rule is too vague, in that it assumes that what others want is what I want, and so would not stand up in court.
Click to expand...
I’ve never understood why the Golden Rule is favored over the more obvious “Treat others as they want to be treated”. That rule has shortcomings as well, but they aren’t as glaring as the Golden Rule’s.

I suppose the Golden Rule trumps my rule when you have no information about what others may want, but that leads me to question why you would be making moral decisions concerning the lives of people whose preferences are unfamiliar to you.
 
inocente said:
If I was a lawyer or professional philosopher then I would probably agree that the rule is too vague, in that it assumes that what others want is what I want, and so would not stand up in court.

But that’s going by the letter rather than the spirit, and I’d say the spirit of the rule is fine.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Golden Rule is vague at all. What your issue seems to be is that some people would not operate by that rule. So what? There are many rules to operate by. What Jesus offers us is a positive rule (and surely the best rule to assume) for being kind to others. If others don’t want our kindness, that’s their business. We can always shake the dust of their town from our sandals. 😉
 
Oreoracle said:
I’ve never understood why the Golden Rule is favored over the more obvious “Treat others as they want to be treated”. That rule has shortcomings as well, but they aren’t as glaring as the Golden Rule’s.

I suppose the Golden Rule trumps my rule when you have no information about what others may want, but that leads me to question why you would be making moral decisions concerning the lives of people whose preferences are unfamiliar to you.
Click to expand...
Not sure your rule is any better. Wouldn’t it mean that if inocente wants to be treated to all your money and worldly goods, you’d have to comply? 😃
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I don’t think the Golden Rule is vague at all. What your issue seems to be is that some people would not operate by that rule.
Click to expand...
That’s a prime example of the vagueness of the rule.

I interpret the rule to mean that inocente wants Charlemagne to read what inocente actually wrote, while Charlemagne seems to interpret it to mean Charlemagne should put words into inocente’s mouth.

Kant is proven correct, done and dusted, QED. 👍
 
I believe the assumption is that the person following the Golden Rule is a moral person who would do what is best for himself.
It clearly doesn’t work otherwise, but that’s not the issue with the rule, which is meant to help the person achieve righteousness
You see people doing unto others what the other wants in dysfunctional families, where it is called enabling.
Whether the action is meant for the benefit of oneself or the other, it should be based on charity.
 
Aloysium said:
I believe the assumption is that the person following the Golden Rule is a moral person who would do what is best for himself.
It clearly doesn’t work otherwise, but that’s not the issue with the rule, which is meant to help the person achieve righteousness
You see people doing unto others what the other wants in dysfunctional families, where it is called enabling.
Whether the action is meant for the benefit of oneself or the other, it should be based on charity.
Click to expand...
Could not have said it better myself! 👍
 
Aloysium said:
I believe the assumption is that the person following the Golden Rule is a moral person who would do what is best for himself.
It clearly doesn’t work otherwise, but that’s not the issue with the rule, which is meant to help the person achieve righteousness
You see people doing unto others what the other wants in dysfunctional families, where it is called enabling.
Whether the action is meant for the benefit of oneself or the other, it should be based on charity.
Click to expand...
As I said “If I was a lawyer or professional philosopher then I would probably agree that the rule is too vague, in that it assumes that what others want is what I want, and so would not stand up in court”.

For a lawyer or a professional philosopher, any rule which makes unstated assumptions is, by definition, vague.
 
inocente said:
As I said “If I was a lawyer or professional philosopher then I would probably agree that the rule is too vague, in that it assumes that what others want is what I want, and so would not stand up in court”.

For a lawyer or a professional philosopher, any rule which makes unstated assumptions is, by definition, vague.
Click to expand...
Was Jesus talking to lawyers and philosophers, or was he talking to all of us?

Do you, a Baptist, think he was being vague when Jesus stated the Golden Rule?

Is there another rule you wish he had stated, one better and less vague than the Golden Rule?

What would that rule be? :confused:
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Was Jesus talking to lawyers and philosophers, or was he talking to all of us?

Do you, a Baptist, think he was being vague when Jesus stated the Golden Rule?

Is there another rule you wish he had stated, one better and less vague than the Golden Rule?

What would that rule be? :confused:
Click to expand...
I think the rule should be that you read what I wrote rather than what you imagine I could have written. 😉
 
inocente said:
. . . For a lawyer or a professional philosopher, any rule which makes unstated assumptions is, by definition, vague.
Click to expand...
Matt 23:39-40 ". . . ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Click to expand...
1 Cor 13:1-13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. . . Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. . . For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Click to expand...
Like the Pharasees and Sadducees, certain people don’t want to get it and search loop holes. It does not mean there is anything wrong with the rule.
 
inocente said:
Not sure your rule is any better. Wouldn’t it mean that if inocente wants to be treated to all your money and worldly goods, you’d have to comply? 😃
Click to expand...
Naively it would seem so, but then I would have no resources with which to please others. So to maximize everyone’s happiness, it’s best to be conservative with my resources.
 
Oreoracle said:
. . . to maximize everyone’s happiness, it’s best to be conservative with my resources.
Click to expand...
It is a huge assumption, not borne out by what one observes, that getting what they want, brings people happiness. Happiest are those who thankfully accept what they have.
 
Aloysium said:
It is a huge assumption, not borne out by what one observes, that getting what they want, brings people happiness. Happiest are those who thankfully accept what they have.
Click to expand...
I think you’re under the impression that I’m speaking of rampant hedonism. I interpret “resources” quite broadly. The freedom to pursue one’s ambitions, education, a network of friends and family, etc., are all resources.
 
Tomdstone said:
Not always. There exist people who accept their suffering and their cross in life, but they are not all that happy about it.
Click to expand...
Life is sometimes too hard.
One can be thankful for ones blessings regardless, and hopeful that what will ultimately come, will be good. There is more peace when one has done one’s best.
We pray that we will have the strength and courage to endure our trials if our burdens cannot be made lighter and that we will find joy in the eternal love of God.
 
Tomdstone said:
Not always. There exist people who accept their suffering and their cross in life, but they are not all that happy about it.
Click to expand...
When suffering is accepted as deserved or inevitable, one is made whole and happiness follows. Happiness cannot be defined as dancing in the streets or wallowing in creature comforts. Happiness is being at peace with oneself and with God and his creatures. There are many who live in the lap of luxury who are not happy, but really miserable, so miserable they cannot even know how miserable they are. They too are suffering, but they are not at peace with themselves, their fellow creatures, and God because they chose pleasure, not holiness, as their aim in life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top