Another Chapter in the Profiles in Courage

[submissivedave]

Sorry Larry my man for twisting your original topic ... LOL

Badboy: Well, the dude was "Emperor of modern China" so I guess many virgin girls had to lick his ass. Its a long ancient Chinese tradition where the Emperor had unlimited access to chicks. It has also been revealed that a certain Ming Emperor had more then 80,000 chicks at his disposal. Sometimes, I wished I was the Emperor having that many pussies, feet, and toes to lick !!!

Larry: NO NO NO man ...... I'd rather be licking ..... hmmmmm ...... let me see who was hot back then in his time ......... OK, how about Eva Braun ??? Hitler's lover ... she looked kind of bubbly ... should be a good fuck ...... Now, cheating on Hitler's lover ..... that's courage !!!!!!!

 

[Wired For Sound]

Natural Rights Theory is Ground in our Nature NOT Christianity

This is getting interesting and I respect your position.

However, "the natural rights of man" is indeed a very Western thing since maybe say ... the French Revolution? I would guess. Yet, if I undertood what I read properly, I would have to say that the philosophical/religious foundation of "natural rights of man" has indeed been derived from Christianity. Why would I say this? Because in Christian mythology, it is believed that God placed man on earth to do his own thing with his free will. Anyway, to make long story short ... along comes a dude name St. Ausgtine and writes some stuff noting the "progress of man" being closer to god by learning about our environemnt and going to school and hence the old universities had close links to the churches. In fact, universities were runned by the clergy and churches. So, the more you learn and know, the closer to god one is. Okay, pause that for a sec ....

Sorry, this is completely false. I think you are getting your Christian Fathers mixed up. It most definitely couldn't have been St. Augustine. St Augustine was a neo-Platonist, (his mentor: Plotinus 205-270) this world was of little concern, the focus was the afterlife. As Arthur Koestler put it in Sleepwalkers, and I paraphrase, St Augustine viewed this world as the slum district of the universe. These universities you mentioned were, most emphatically, not about studying nature. Augustinian theory reverborated throughout what is known in the West as the Dark Ages. The reason they're referred to as the Dark Ages is that progress in a variety of fields, including science, came to a stand still. In fact, much of the knowledge of the world, human sciences, etc, discovered by the Greeks and Romans, prior to the dark ages were lost (and the books literally destroyed) once Augustine's influence became all the rage.

Then along comes Hegel who really believes in progress. He states that the end goal of human history (as noted in his "Philosophy of History") is freedom and that this freedom has three stages: the Oriental stage, the Greek stage and lastly and finally the Germanic stage.

Hegel's dialectical Historicism was very Statist in it's orientation. He believed that War and the State thrusted humanity forward through history so that the Absolute spirit would reveal himself, too himself, and be aware of his own identity. He was, most emphatically, not an advocate of natural rights theory. As in the above case: The opposite is true. Hegel believed that the individual was to sacrifice himself to the will of the State who had their real self interest at heart.

Hegel's ideas (which were also a highly esoteric philosophical defense of Christianity) were highly influential on the development of the German State. And on the development of Karl Marx's thought who attended the University of Berlin and was a member of Young Hegelians. Hegel was definely an enemy of liberty. I could say alot more about Hegel.

.

If we look at this collectively, Augstine who is highly influential using Aristilian logic and the Christian faith has basically molded the character of Western civilization. And if we add Hegel ... it only strengthens the Christian belief that man is in fact "perfectable" and that humans actually "progress". These are the foundations which lead up to the belief in "the natural rights of man" ...... meaning that we believe there is something inherent in mankind, that we have the intellect to do our own thing ...

Again, this clearly means that natural rights is grounded in Christian mythology

Sorry, totally wrong again:

Natural rights theory didn't get off the ground until the 17th/18th century. Discourse on rights theory coincided with the Scientific revolution. The 18th century gave birth to the Age of Reason, or what's called The Enlightenment, the Christian religion was clearly on the defensive. There was a split between revealed theology and what was called natural theology. Natural theology gave rise to extremely liberal forms of Protestantism. The focus was not on the supernatural but on man qua man. Shouldn't *natural* be a clue to something? The philosophical discussions were on man's nature. This was a return to the Classics, such as Aristotle, and his emphasis on our ability to reason. And this is the grounding for natural rights theory.

More later.

 

[submissivedave]

I am sorry Wired, but being a neo-Platonist means being a student of Plato and not Plotinus. Plato and Plotinus are two totally different people. Additionally, you are right when you said Augustine was a student of Plato, but he used Aristilitan logic to prove the existence of God. Where he used Plato's thoughts were when Augustine tried to explain the metaphysical stuff and other things concerning art, morality, and things which are more then meets the eye, more like "ideas" like the Kingdom of God.

And yes, what you told me about Hegel and Marx are totally correct. But every, and I mean everyone who is familiar with Hegel knows that Hegel believed that the end goal of human history is freedom. If you read more about Hegel such as "Phenomenology of Spirit" and "Philosophy of the Right" and "History of Philosophy" you will understand him more. Yes, Hegel was "political" in his philosophy, and yes, the state would be an instrument in achieving this freedom ... but its not that simple. Just read the damn stuff and you will realize Hegel is a freedom fighter as well as a champion of liberty.

And lastly yes, natural rights did not get off ground until the 18th century like you stated. But, have you thought about the "idea" and "spirit" (if you really knew anything about Hegel, you would know what I mean when I put "idea" and "spirit" in quotations)behind it? And it is this original idea I am trying to address.

And please, don't tell me things I already know about who's philosophy is about what and who went to what school. Please address the issue instead of tell me a shallow and inaccurate, false depiction of these highly complex philosophies which are impossible to sum up in a few sentences. For instance, what you say about Hegel is partially correct. But, if you read Hegel more, you will then realize your conclusion of Hegel is totally inaccurate.

But of course, the funny thing about philosophy is the way you can interprut it. Some say Plato was a democrat while some say he was a fascist. At the same time, some say Rousseau was the father of fascism and on the other hand, some would argue he is the founder of social democracy.

If you really want to learn about Western philosophy and philosophy as a whole, I suggest you start with some basics beginning with Plato, Aristotle, then Augustine, Machiavelli and of course Nietzsche. But of course, if you want to know more about Western civilization, you got to understand Christianity and ancient Greece.

Like a guy name Whitehead said, the whole of Western philosophy are only footnotes on Plato. You can not understand the ideas Western philosophy is build on until you know its foundation, which is Plato.

It is quite obvious you are only throwing people's names around which you know little about. This is very unfair to the philosopher himself and does not do justice to their works.

I mean, from the moment I read your "neo-Platonism" is Plotinus reply ... I immediately lost interest in our discussion. Nonetheless, because I respect you and your time in your reply, I have out of my respect for you, forwarded this reply.

As you can probably tell, you have made me loose interest in our discussion.

I will reply to your posts no more.

Anyhow, I thank you for your time and effort in trying to learn philosophy, its a good start.

 

[Wired For Sound]

Submissivedave's dishonest view of Philosophy

I am sorry Wired, but being a neo-Platonist means being a student of Plato and not Plotinus. Plato and Plotinus are two totally different people. Additionally, you are right when you said Augustine was a student of Plato, but he used Aristilitan logic to prove the existence of God. Where he used Plato's thoughts were when Augustine tried to explain the metaphysical stuff and other things concerning art, morality, and things which are more then meets the eye, more like "ideas" like the Kingdom of God.

Plato and Plotinus are different people, yeah, so what? Augustine got his understanding of Plato through Plotinus. Do you like splitting hairs?

And it's good to see that you've dropped your lie that St. Augustine had a this-worldly perspective. You wouldn't be able to find any evidence for that view, in fact, the exact opposite is true. Well, so much for your intellectual honesty.

And yes, what you told me about Hegel and Marx are totally correct. But every, and I mean everyone who is familiar with Hegel knows that Hegel believed that the end goal of human history is freedom. If you read more about Hegel such as "Phenomenology of Spirit" and "Philosophy of the Right" and "History of Philosophy" you will understand him more. Yes, Hegel was "political" in his philosophy, and yes, the state would be an instrument in achieving this freedom ... but its not that simple. Just read the damn stuff and you will realize Hegel is a freedom fighter as well as a champion of liberty.

You agree that Marx was influenced by Hegel. Yeah, and we all know how Marxism lead to "Freedom" (tongue in cheek). Marx influenced Lenin as well as other many other Communists in the 20th century. How is it that Hegel was a "champion of liberty" when he was a major intellectual influence on both ( what was called Left/Right Hegealianism) Communist and Fascist Totalitarianism? I suggest others to read Karl Popper's "Open Society and It's Enemies" for a brilliant analysis on Hegel's influence on modern totalitarianism.

And please, don't tell me things I already know about who's philosophy is about what and who went to what school. Please address the issue instead of tell me a shallow and inaccurate, false depiction of these highly complex philosophies which are impossible to sum up in a few sentences. For instance, what you say about Hegel is partially correct. But, if you read Hegel more, you will then realize your conclusion of Hegel is totally inaccurate.

I can't top your shallow and inaccurate depictions, at that you win hands down. Hegel is like Kant, he's esoteric. I've read many of the books you mentioned and read many Histories of Philosophy on these philosophes as well. If I was inaccurate you could name someone who implimented Hegel's theories that demonstrated for all to see that Hegel was indeed a champion of liberty. But you can't, and it's a sick joke to say Hegel advocated Freedom as the Hegelian influenced Nazis exterminated 6 million Jews. And that's not to mention the 75-100 million dead as a result of implimenting Communism.

But of course, the funny thing about philosophy is the way you can interprut it. Some say Plato was a democrat while some say he was a fascist. At the same time, some say Rousseau was the father of fascism and on the other hand, some would argue he is the founder of social democracy.

The concepts of the "General Will" and " The Grand Legislator" are the blue prints for Totalitarianism; it all depends if the intellectuals and leaders will take Rousseau's ideas seriously. The Pol Pot regime did and was educated on Rousseuian thought in France: The bloody result, the killing fields of Cambodia.

It is quite obvious you are only throwing people's names around which you know little about. This is very unfair to the philosopher himself and does not do justice to their works.

LOL, you've proved that about yourself. I'm very confident that if someone wants to study the philosophers in question they will see who is right. You're just intellectually dishonest; and it's obvious to someone like me that has studied the material. I've been studying philosophy for about 15 years now.

I will reply to your posts no more.

Fine. Good bye. While you're away you may think about taking philosophy seriously. It is not a conceptual playpen for adults . Ideas have real effects in the real world. It is true that these philosophers have complex ideas, but that doesn't mean that they're sooooo complex that they can't be understood by the intelligent careful reader. There is a saying that goes: Complexity is the first refuge of the scoudrel. Yes, that's submissivedave, alright. This is becoming all too common on Terb.

 

[submissivedave]

HAHAHAHA Wired, you've been studying philosophy for 15 years"? I am glad you caught my error about Neo-Platonism and Plotinus. You are right, Plotinus was the founder of Neo-Platonism ...

Nonetheless, I am quite sure Augustine was a student of Plato and not Plotinus as you have noted (although Augustine borrowed from Plotinus, Augustine was a Platonic at heart).

Furthermore, its just that the way you answered reinforced my assumption of your limited understanding of the relationship of the ideas and how they've come about. Obviously, you do not know your material well enough to catch my "error" (about Neo-Platonism and Plotinus).

Furthermore, I did not say anything about Augustine being concernd with the "this-worldly". How the hell can I "lie" about it? Don't put words in my mouth please ...

Again, if you are familiar with your material and Hegel, there are the Left-Hegelians and there are the Right-Hegelians as you have noted but, their attitude and approach are totally different. Additionally, if you did not know, Marx once said that he was "not a Marxist" because he did not like the things people were doing in his name at that time ...

Again, yes, the "General Will" and the "Legislateur" could be interpreted in two ways ... blueprint for "totalarianism" or a true form of grassroots democracy. Obviously, you have chosen to lean towards the former.

I remember before that you were in support of spreading the gospel of superior Western culture to inferior peoples. Yet, you hardly know the essence of "Western Civ." How can you like or dislike it and spread it, if you don't even know what its about?

PS - you noted earlier that you did not like postmodern shit ... but Popper has been labelled a postmodern dude ... are you not contradicting yourself?

Confucius once said: "When you know something, admit that you know it. And when you don't know it, admit that you don't know it. That is knowledge."

I just don't know what to say ...

"I'm very confident that if someone wants to study the philosophers in question they will see who is right. You're just intellectually dishonest; and it's obvious to someone like me that has studied the material. I've been studying philosophy for about 15 years now."

AND


"Fine. Good bye. While you're away you may think about taking philosophy seriously. It is not a conceptual playpen for adults . Ideas have real effects in the real world. It is true that these philosophers have complex ideas, but that doesn't mean that they're sooooo complex that they can't be understood by the intelligent careful reader. There is a saying that goes: Complexity is the first refuge of the scoudrel. Yes, that's submissivedave, alright. This is becoming all too common on Terb."

According to the above quotes, are you saying you understand everything you read?

Heidegger wrote three volume on Nietzsche and some other stuff on "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and he, Heidegger confessed in his conclusions that he did not totally understood what Nietzsche was saying.

Now, being the little wimpy submissive boy that I am ...... I would never admit that I would totally understand a piece that I've read. For one thing, I have been reading Nietzsche and have read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" many many times and still I am scratching my balls off trying to understand what the fuck he's talking about.

By the way, when you read this stuff, do you read the primary sources or the secondary sources? There is nothing wrong with either one, but, sometimes its better to get it directly from the source. But, if it is too hard to understand, secondary sources can be useful ... Nonetheless, secondary sources and its commentary could do more harm then good sometimes ...

Lastly, we may not agree with each other, but I do have respect for you for pursuing philosophy. Its not something people in this money based society indulge in. Philosophy is a dying "interest" in our "modern" society.

Socrates had more similarities with Wang Yangming then Socrates had with the Greeks or Wang Yangming did with the Ming Chinese.

Thank you ...

 

[Liminal]

Wired, this is quite simply, moronic

A quote from your latest supercilious hyperbole:

"The Pol Pot regime did and was educated on Rousseuian thought in France: The bloody result, the killing fields of Cambodia."

What a hoot!

Really? The regime?

What constitutes membership in this regime?

What constitutes an education in Rousseuian thought? (reading a book?...taking a course?)

How do you know what role this played in regime member's thoughts or decision making process?

What other schools of thought contributed to the "regime's (LOL)" understanding?

How can you attribute responsibility for actions to a historical figure and not the actors?

How do you know that Rousseuian thought was responsible for what occurred in Cambodia?

How were you able to dismiss other factors?

Once you've answered these questions, we can begin to examine your logical fallacies, how rigorously you examine your own writings, and your knowledge of history.

Honestly, Wired, I've never seen anyone hang themselves out to blow in the wind like this. This quote speaks volumes about your understanding of sources, logic, historical record, and your own understanding of human experience.

I hope this time you are up to the challenge.

 

[Liminal]

Plotinus the mentor of St. Augustine????

Another Wired hooter:

"St Augustine was a neo-Platonist, (his mentor: Plotinus 205-270)"

Got news for you Wired. Plotinus was dead for over 70 years before St. Augustine was born.

It's kind of hard to have a dead person as your mentor.

 

[CyberGoth]

yawn... does anyone remember world war two? thats what war is like, its messy and intense and smells bad and people get hurt and killed in almost every way conceivable.

i think the iraq war went incredibly cleanly and smoothly compared to what we were expecting to actually happen.

and now the big problem is to ensure that all those pesky nasty little ethnic and religious tensions dont flare up into a regional civil war that spreads.

I miss the cold war, the world was way more stable.

 

[submissivedave]

CyberGoth ... yupe, almost everyone I know was surprised how fast, quick and easy and smooth the war went. Its like there was no resistence by the Iraqi army. Its just weird ...

Your thing about the religion thing is interesting. When the Americans leave, it is probable that Iraq would end up like Pakistan, India and Bangledesh ... its a sad thing, but people in those areas are so religious that they don't really care about anything else ...

But, I am not saying that US "occupation" is a good thing though ...

I really think the Iraqis should start things from the grassroots and build things up with their own hands and with no foreign help ...

 

[Liminal]

Wired, I'll give you your first hint at fallacies:

Your latest post is rife with non-sequiters. The question for you is which form? Can you find them?

I'll give you a chance to edit your post and remove them first. This will prove A, that you care about your own credibility, and B, that you have the skills, as claimed, to recognize them.

Good luck Waldo

 

[Wired For Sound]

Submissivedave

[PS - you noted earlier that you did not like postmodern shit ... but Popper has been labelled a postmodern dude ... are you not contradicting yourself?

No, not at all. I've read Philosopher David Stove's critique of Popper's epistemology and he makes some very good points . I was referring to Popper's book: "The Open Society and it's Enemies". This book stands on it's own.

Confucius once said: "When you know something, admit that you know it. And when you don't know it, admit that you don't know it. That is knowledge."

I very much agree. There's alot of things I don't know about, but philosophy I know, so what's your point? My wisdom and knowledge trumps your unprincipled understanding of philosophy.

Heidegger wrote three volume on Nietzsche and some other stuff on "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and he, Heidegger confessed in his conclusions that he did not totally understood what Nietzsche was saying.

Many people believe that the more incoherent their prose is the more profound they are. The exact opposite is true. If a thinker is worth reading it's because they're attempting to be understood. When you're reading a philosophe who never attempts to define his terms and gives loose definitions (if that) you're most certainly reading a shyster. Post Modernist "Philosopher" Derrida uses this same weak argument about not being understood even against other philosophers.

http://reason.com/0002/fe.ef.reality.shtml

Now, being the little wimpy submissive boy that I am ...... I would never admit that I would totally understand a piece that I've read. For one thing, I have been reading Nietzsche and have read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" many many times and still I am scratching my balls off trying to understand what the fuck he's talking about.

What a sense of efficacy you must feel while studying philosophy. It's true, some philosophers communicate their ideas better than others. But, lots of times it's the philosopher that is at fault when he fails to clearly communicate his ideas. Why? Because his, or her, thinking is most likely divorced from reality.

Consider this thought from Hegel: Being + Nothing = Becoming.
Abstract stuff. Hegel is a very compilcated philosopher, but don't mistake complicated with having anything to do with reality. The above formula leads you into what can only be called castle building in the sky. Philosopher David Stove also critiques Hegel in "The Plato Cult" (as he does Popper) it's quite funny actually.

To answer your question, I read both primary and secondary sources.

I've had many conversations with philosophers I respect. For example: I spoke with John Hospers, in person, about Kant's epistemology. I explained to him my understanding of Kant, in my own words, and he agreed that I had the gist of what was getting at.

For the benefit of others, just a few book I suggest you read to start you off:

WT Jone's: "A History of Western Philosophy". This book is a magnificent achievement from a great mind. He compares and contrasts Aristotles and Jesus's ethical theories, and does the same for other thinkers. Quotes thinkers, such as St Augustine, at length. It's a great book.

If want a book that just focuses on individual thinkers, Fredrick Copleston's "A History of Philosophy" will give you a really good working knowledge of the thinkers effecting the course of history.

 

[Wired For Sound]

Who is this Mental Midget?

Another Wired hooter:

"St Augustine was a neo-Platonist, (his mentor: Plotinus 205-270)"

Got news for you Wired. Plotinus was dead for over 70 years before St. Augustine was born.

It's kind of hard to have a dead person as your mentor.

Why don't you argue with submissivedave, and F off!

A mentor: is " a wise and trusted councelor or teacher" (do their thoughts in books count?)

and submissivedave writes: " Nonetheless, I am quite sure Augustine was a student of Plato and not Plotinus.." And how long was Plato dead before St. Augustine was born?

I have to wonder why you are so interested in attacking me.

 

[submissivedave]

OK now, Wired, we are getting somewhere without the previous hostility. Like i said before, I had respect for you because you indulge in philosophy not something people now a days are too into simply beause "it does not make money". People would rather get an MBA then an MA simply because an MBA is a money making degree. From your attitude and passion for philosophy I would assume you would prefer the MA over the MBA. Of course, if you choose the latter ... then I guess I would never reply to you again, really .... LOL !!!

But, yet, I still got to disagree with you on many things though ... I in fact like Darrida. Did you go see him in person at U of T when he came? I did not go because I could not afford the tickets which were $80 per ticket per day and the session lasted for three days ...

What you do not like about Darrida is actually what he is most famous for ...

Yupe ... I agree with you. Coppleston's "History of Philosophy" series is the best in the field. The only drawback about the series is that the dude was a Jesuit and the series was originally meant for his theology students to understand God better. Nonetheless, it is some fine ass, objective scholarship ...

Ah ... again for some reason I can see you and I can't really "mix" because I freaking love Nietzsche. To me he is "the end of philosophy". Fuck ... I have been so into him that I am trying to collect all the stuff he has written. Another thing is I love German dudes for some reason. Fuck ... when I first read Hegel, Shopenhauer and Nietzsche, its like a had an orgasm in my mind ...

For some reason I like Plato more then Aristotle because Plato has some "mystical" shit to him like "the Cave". Aristotle is too boring for me because I hate the way he argues and I freaking hate logic.

Another branch of philosohy that I hate is Anglo-American philosophy. Fuck ... I can't stand Bertrand Russell. But I like Wittgenstein though ... but, I do like Anglo-American political philosophy ...

For me, real philosophy comes from the mainland ... continental Europe and mainland Asia ...

As of now, I am into German and East Asian thought. If we have any interest that overlap maybe we can share some stuff ...

Please feel free to PM me ... I am glad to find another fellow on an escort board that's into philosophy ... (kinda weird though)

Peace and respect ...

SD

 

[Liminal]

Try again, Wired.

Someone who is dead is not a mentor. A mentor is a particular role played in a current relationship between two people. Mentoring requires the active participation of two parties.

For Plotinus to be a mentor to St. Augustine, it must be possible to know the future and project yourself into it. Tell me Wired, how did Plotinus, who was dead, know St. Augustine? How did they meet and how did Plotinus play his mentoring role.

For what you propose to be true, Plotinus would have to defy death and somehow exist in St. Augustine's time. Plotinus must have met with and counseled him. What's your proof of this idiotic position?

Is this what 15 years of philosophical study had armed you with? Can't you think through the implications of your defenses?

Now, on the other hand, you asked me why I don't get after Subdave for saying that St. Augustine was a student of Plato when Plato had been dead for such a long time.

Well, ( I must admit, this is like explaining something to a high school student) a student is simply one who is studying. And one can study anything. In Subdave's case, he made the claim that St. Augustine studied Plato. There is nothing inherently impossible in that claim as yours was. Subdave was measured and accurate in his use of language. Yours was overstated, illogical, and thoughtless.

For someone who talks about the primacy of Western Culture, you have not mastered one if its pillars - language. You require much work on your knowledge of words, definitions, and structure.

You are incessantly inaccurate and overstate the simplest of points. It's hyperbole. The work of a Poseur.

And when are you going to stop giving out references to other people and explain yourself. I noticed that in your last response to Subdave you included five references to secondary sources. When are you going to learn to stand on your own two feet?

Start by answering for yourself here:

For example, the Pol Pot howler?

Or how about the Hegel = Marx = Lenin =Communism = Hegel bit of amateur hour logic?

 

[submissivedave]

Yes, Liminal made a good point ...

Hegel does not equal Marx does not equal Lenin does not equal Communism.

This kind of logic and train of argument is extremely idiotic ...

For instance, does:

Hinduism = Buddhism (Hinayana/Mahayana) = Zen ???

It does not ... Zen is a "reaction" to Buddhism and Buddhism was a "reaction" to Hinduism ... Zen does not equal Hinduism ...