http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/opinion/if-philosophy-wont-diversify-lets-call-it-what-it-really-is.html?_r=1
what do u think /lit/?
>>8026492
Complete and utter nonsense.
By the way, The Stone in general is a haven for pseudo-philosophy. Avoid.
Trash.
Academics are trash though, so it's not surprising. They think they are forward thinkers for embracing the death of european culture, it's basically the world against european thought.
>Current year.
>He can not study the metaphysical implications of goodpussy.
Diversity please!
> let's call it what it really is...
A real discipline.
Phil is the one lib degree that hasn't capitulated to the sjw crap and it's a black eye on the movement because Phil is the only lib degree with a modicum of respectability (perhaps along with history; which has been far more gutted)
There is also an odd irony in that philosophy is responsible for many of the ideas and terms being used indiscriminately but these Pseudos
>>8026648
History is fucked, you unironically see professors put Guns, Germs and Steel on the syllabus.
>>8026648
History:
>white people are evil and everything we think they did that is good is actually evil
>POCs are good and anything evil they did is because of white people and also they have bigger penises
ITT: STEM majors who think "Western" philosophy is super scientifical and True
lol at all these pseuds calling others pseuds.
come on guys, we're on 4chan - who are we trying to impress? have a modicum of self-awareness anons
anyway the article is pretty shallow and unnecessary. just bc those schools of thought aren't huddled under the bridge of philosophy doesn't prevent others from studying them. with the current pc movement they'll probably be better off staying under their cultural studies department than the philosophy department anyways
>>8026690
The only class available for my Freshman multicultural requirement (cause I'm a lazy fuck who waited to the last week to register) was "Hispano-Arab literature and film" which contained no films or literature and was just a 15-week propaganda circlejerk about >muh convivencia
I got an A, because there was nothing to learn and I learned it well
>>8026699
Next time, do some research before you troll. Your post is too off-the-wall.
>>8026724
My point is that there is no demarcation that separates so-called western from so-called non-western philosophies. Where do you draw the line? I would honestly love to know.
What are the criteria by which a philosophical text is judged to be part of one tradition and not part of another? Logic? Falsifiability? If that's the case, then Confucius should be right at the top of any philosophy student's reading list, and Hegel is out for sure.
But that's not the case. The analytic apologists, who are basically arguing for the continued ghettoization of their already impoverished field, are saying that somehow everyone from Plato to Damascius, from Sextus Empiricus to Roger Bacon to Hegel to Sartre to Wittgenstein forms a sort of pristine monolith that shall not be touched by the filthy hands of Cheng Xuanying or Nagarjuna.
This whole thing is just the sublimated continuation of Christian polemics. We have the gospel and they don't. QED.
>>8026745
Holy shit, you're making it worse. Stop.
>>8026745
>My point is that there is no demarcation that separates so-called western from so-called non-western philosophies.
Geography would be the easiest demarcation. Special exceptions could be made for philosophers that heavily draw upon philosophies outside their geographical area. I don't see the problem here other disciplines organize themselves this way e.g. history, music, cultural studies.
You know what the problem is here? There is no criteria whatsoever, those people have this vague feeling that something is missing from their education, and that different cultures might have concepts and methods approaching questions of knowledge, metaphysics and what not that might fill that gap, so they try to 'diversificate', in an attempt to cover up the fact that the problem is not Philosophy or History or whatever but their own mediocrity.
>>8026774
That's sort of what the article is calling for. If you're going to just do European philosophy, then that's fine, but you should acknowledge that it is regional.
Whereas the general academic tenor these days - and I'm really only familiar with the anglophone analytic context - is that they aren't doing "European philosophy" as opposed to "Chinese philosophy," but that they are doing "real philosophy" as opposed to ______ (mysticism, obfuscation, fuzzy thinking, what have you).
So to draw a geographical border, as they do in history, would be to simultaneously legitimize world philosophy, to which our lettered friends here at 4chan would react with cries of SJW and cuckery.
This is fucking stupid. I didn't expect any better from a Jew York Times piece.
And I'm Latin American.
>>8026745
>what are dialectics
>what is geography
>what is continuous discourse
You've made up a problem where there wasn't one. If the Chinese and Maya didn't write on a particular problem, that has nothing to do with the answer to said problem, and those Chinese and Maya who are alive today are free to read what's been written on that problem regardless of the race of the men who wrote it. If you think anyone but the most abject retards think there's such a thing as a gospel in philosophy, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
What a wonderful time to be alive, or so you'd think.
>>8026799
Hey Uncle Tom, catch any runaway slaves lately?
>jew york tymes
>>8026806
Actually, Uncle Tom was a pretty good guy who fought slavery. You just didn't read the book and fell for the meme created by the theatre piece.
And there's no such thing as "Latin American Philosophy". Remember, this guy is not arguing that in Academic philosophy people do not pay attention to what is being produced in LA (in logic this is particularly false). Rather, he is arguing that there is some kind of tradition rooted in this continent. He's doing nothing more than perpetrating 'good savage' thinking.
Any department of philosophy that has not been dominated by continentals would scoff at this article.
>>8026801
So you're saying that the categories relevant to contemporary philosophical discourse are simply absent from Chinese philosophy?
Dialectics, for example, are non-existent in Chinese philosophy? This is simply not true. It wasn't even true in the classical period of Chinese philosophy, and it certainly wasn't true after Buddhist fertilization.
The project of integrating a wider swath of world thinkers has already begun in other countries - it's been going on in China throughout the 20th century - look up Mou Zongsan for a great example of a mutually informative Hegel-Neoconfucianism. And in Japan the Kyoto school has been active since the 1940's, fusing existentialism, enlightenment and romantic discourses with zen and esoteric Buddhist philosophy.
The argument that Indian or Chinese philosophy don't have content germane to contemporary philosophical issues can only be made from a place of total ignorance.
>>8026799
Decolonize yr mind, ese
Alternative degree programs require both interested students and qualified faculty. For the latter, maybe both, you need alternative degree programs to be established. But oh no, if the discipline in the countries we're choosing to focus on doesn't change over night they're morally reprehensible.
>>8026837
Serious academic philosophy takes place with topics and concepts that have mostly only been advanced in the last 150 years. The kind of "philosophy" you and the article are talking about is basically a sideshow regardless of where it's from.
>>8026820
how's that juicy white cock taste in your mouth?
>>8026794
I think the students that go on to seriously study philosophy would be able to navigate the field. Those simply named 'philosophy' departments would be categorized as the anglophone analytic to everyone aware of the ambiguity.
>our lettered friends here at 4chan would react with cries of SJW and cuckery.
I doubt anyone engaged in restructuring Western philosophy sees any relevant content here.
>>8026878
>I doubt anyone engaged in restructuring Western philosophy sees any relevant content here.
And who the fuck is that? University administrators scrambling for SJW good boy points? The philosophy professors I know are basically autistic geniuses who work on logic and language problems all day. They don't care about restructuring shit because the way it is right now actually advances human knowledge. Keep the stuff you're talking about to like freshman seminars and the history department.
>>8026867
Your appeal to the authority of this imaginary construct "Serious academic philosophy" leaves me wanting.
Even in my own department you can't find two professors who agree what constitute "serious academic philosophy." I don't see how you could possibly presume such a thing exists beyond departmental, state, or national borders.
And this is sort of the crux. One anon posted above that it's a crisis of criteria. There are no criteria anymore. The cat's out of the bag. And as much as contemporary analytic departments play at being science, they'll just be further and further relegated into the all-for-decoration underfunded realm of literary studies.
By saying "sure, we'll read Lacan, but Laozi? Please!" It's basically an attempt to hold on to the last shred of self respect that philosophy departments still have. But the self respect is illusory, and anyone outside of philosophy shed it years ago.
>>8026837
Your post is cringe-porn.
>>8026492
>the West wins
>the world tries to rematch us through guilt
Maybe you guys can try to become relevant, but it looks like only Asians want to do that while the rest want to be professional complainers.
>>8026902
Uh oh, did someone get a B on his freshman intro to philosophy class?
Serious academic philosophy is the set of things professors are working on. They have arrived at these problems and topics over generations of mentorship and collaboration, not some kneejerk decision to be as white as possible. It's not an "appeal to authority" to point out that this organic process doesn't have thousands of professors analyzing Laozi right this minute.
It's not a matter of having criteria that need working on. Our expanding knowledge of the world has raised new questions, and so people try to approach answers to those.
It's telling that you think academics all study old books and are having some sort of low-key blacklist at the library. Research rarely looks like that.
>>8026902
>By saying "sure, we'll read Lacan, but Laozi? Please!" It's basically an attempt to hold on to the last shred of self respect that philosophy departments still have.
You are clinically retarded. Neither Lacan nor Laozi is a philosopher and neither addresses philosophical issues, and this is why they are not cited by contemporary philosophers.
>>8026902
>Even in my own department you can't find two professors who agree what constitute "serious academic philosophy."
Where do you go to school - Arkansas community college?
>>8026895
Jay Garfield and Bryan Van Norden and probably others. I dunno google the article and see what comes up. This would be a nominal change for greater specificity, so it wouldn't impact current research or methodology. It wouldn't greatly impact pedagogy only adding context to students.
Is anyone here an actual philosophy student?
I've taken classes on Yoga and Buddhism and the Kyoto School and Muslim philosophers as well as analytic and continental and ancient greeks and romans and medievals and modernists. And that's just in undergrad. I could study under a specialist in any of these subjects in grad school. Maybe I go to a liberal school.
>>8026690
This. My US hist was just a whole semester of my teacher telling me how bad white people are.
>>8026914
>>8026927
>>8026930
>>8026936
Lol. Ad hominem aside, I'm enjoying this conversation. Thanks anons.
>>8026927
I really like your view of philosophy as this thing that is moving forward and searching after truth. I wish I could see the world through your eyes.
>>8026930
I was using Lacan as an example of how low the standards actually are in Western philosophy. If you read Lacan or Derrida (both of which are admittedly passe now - though Deleuze is still hot, and arguably equally obfuscating) then how can you make a case for keeping anything out of academia?
But you guys really shouldn't listen to me. I'm just a jaded grad student who is only now coming to a full understanding of the rapaciousness of contemporary neoliberal academia. Everyone's a fucking marxist, and it's all about filling the overflowing coffers of these ridiculous institutions.
>>8026956
Jay Garfield is the same dumbfuck who praised DFW's undergraduate philosophy work.
>>8026972
>I was using Lacan as an example of how low the standards actually are in Western philosophy.
Are you fucking trolling? Lacan is NOT studied in Western philosophy.
>If you read Lacan or Derrida (both of which are admittedly passe now - though Deleuze is still hot, and arguably equally obfuscating) then how can you make a case for keeping anything out of academia?
We DON'T read Lacan or Derrida or Deleuze in philosophy departments. That's the fucking point, retard. Maybe they are read in junk fields like "Cultural Studies" along with Laozi and whoever-the-fuck.
You seriously have no clue what you are talking about.
>>8026917
Funs, germs and steel. Cargo btfo
>>8027014
So who is read in philosophy departments? Rush Limbaugh?
>>8027051
Are you fucking retarded?
>>8027051
(-380) Plato: "Republic"
(-340) Aristotle: "Nicomachean Ethics"
(400) Augustine: "Confessions"
(1274) Aquinas: "Summa Theologica"
(1620) Bacon: "Novum Organum"
(1641) Descartes: "Meditations on First Philosophy"
(1651) Hobbes: "Leviathan"
(1677) Spinoza: "Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order"
(1689) Locke: "Two Treatises of Government"
(1690) Locke: "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding"
(1704) Leibniz: "New Essays on Human Understanding"
(1710) Berkeley: "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge"
(1739) Hume: "A Treatise of Human Nature"
(1748) Hume: "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"
(1762) Rousseau: "The Social Contract"
(1781) Kant: "Critique of Pure Reason"
(1785) Kant: "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals"
(1818) Schopenhauer: "The World as Will and Representation"
(1859) Mill: "On Liberty"
(1863) Mill: "Utilitarianism"
(1874) Sidgwick: "The Methods of Ethics"
(1884) Frege: "The Foundations of Arithmetic"
(1886) Nietzsche: "Beyond Good and Evil"
(1887) Nietzsche: "On the Genealogy of Morality"
(1890) James: "The Principles of Psychology"
(1892) Frege: "On Sense and Reference"
(1899) Peirce: "Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce"
(1903) Moore: "Principia Ethica"
(1907) James: "Pragmatism"
(1919) Russell: "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy"
(1922) Wittgenstein: "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus"
(1928) Carnap: "The Logical Structure of the World"
(1934) Popper: "The Logic of Scientific Discovery"
(1936) Ayer: "Language, Truth and Logic"
(1949) Ryle: "The Concept of Mind"
(1953) Wittgenstein: "Philosophical Investigations"
(1955) Goodman: "Fact, Fiction, and Forecast"
(1960) Quine: "Word and Object"
(1962) Kuhn: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
(1962) Austin: "How to Do Things with Words"
(1963) Popper: "Conjectures and Refutations"
(1965) Hempel: "Aspects of Scientific Explanation"
(1971) Rawls: "A Theory of Justice"
(1972) Kripke: "Naming and Necessity"
(1974) Nozick: "Anarchy, State and Utopia"
(1975) Fodor: "The Language of Thought"
(1975) Putnam: "Mind, Language and Reality"
(1979) Nagel: "Mortal Questions"
(1979) Rorty: "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature"
(1980) Davidson: "Essays on Actions and Events"
(1981) Putnam: "Reason, Truth, and History"
(1981) Dretske: "Knowledge and the Flow of Information"
(1981) Nozick: "Philosophical Explanations"
(1982) Evans: "Varieties of Reference"
(1983) Lewis: "Philosophical Papers"
(1983) Searle: "Intentionality"
(1984) Parfit: "Reasons and Persons"
(1984) MacIntyre: "After Virtue"
(1985) Williams: "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy"
(1986) Nagel: "The View From Nowhere"
(1986) Goldman: "Epistemology and Cognition"
(1993) Singer: "Practical Ethics"
(2000) Williamson: "Knowledge and Its Limits"
(2008) Quine: "Quintessence"
>>8027051
http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1211
>>8027064
Wow, that's WAY too few Ancient and Medieval thinkers and WAY too many Enlightenment/Age of Reason ones.
Christ, nobody actually needs to read Berkley. Swap him out for Basil the Great or Duns Scotus.
>>8027064
>(400) Augustine: "Confessions"
Stopped reading right there, try picking something actually relevant to late ancient philosophy instead.
>>8026781
What they think is missing from their education isn't "vague", they just lack the balls to say it outright, so they defer to other cultures, not as examples to follow on, but as authorities to obey.
>>8027064
This is more like history of thought. A lot of these names are not engaged with anymore.
>>8027064
horrible
>>8027079
>Wow, that's WAY too few Ancient and Medieval thinkers
WRONG - precisely the opposite, in fact. I front-loaded the list with earlier philosophers since it is meant to be a historical survey. In reality, very few philosophers read anyone who published before around 1945. Even fewer read anyone born earlier than Gottlob Frege. Occasionally, someone will briefly cite Aristotle or Hume for historical context, but that's about it.
>>8027081
Nobody actually reads anyone before Frege. But they should be vaguely familiar with their positions.
>>8027108
This is why modern philosophy is a joke.
Philosophy major from earlier here.
Ya'll niggas be tripping.
I have had professors who wrote books and articles about eastern thinkers and continental figures (yes, Lacan) just as often as professors who wrote exclusively on analytic topics and shit's not rare.
Leiter weighs in:
Anglophone departments aren't "Departments of European and American Philosophy"...and I'm sure at least Professor Van Norden knows that all too well. Huge stretches of European philosophy--from Hegel to the present, say, or in the 12th through 14th-centuries--are also neglected in many of the top 50 PhD programs. Most of the top 50 PhD programs do not have any faculty teaching American philosophy of the 19th-century. What unites the curricula at these programs is not a commitment to "European and American philosophy" but a commitment to a style of doing philosophy, that derives from some British philosophers, some Continental European ones, and some American ones (it's also a style that is increasingly popular in parts of Asia, by the way)--and it's a style whose leading practitioners now include Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and African-Americans. I empathize with the desires of Professors Garfield and van Norden to see their fields less neglected--I'd like to see my own fields less neglected too! But playing the "diversity card" in this context is a dangerous game to play, that will lead to changes in the field that I'm quite sure Prof. Van Norden won't welcome (I know Prof. Garfield less well, so can offer no opinion about how he might view the ramifications).
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2016/05/anglophone-departments-arent-departments-of-european-and-american-philosophy.html
>>8026492
That article is mostly preening and posturing, but I will agree that Eastern philosophy ought to be taught more in philosophy departments, as its tradition is very rich and very relevant, not just to score diversity points.
>>8027121
You must go to a shitty community college.
>>8027128
Nice name calling, that's the logic you are learning?
>>8027122
>Leiter weighs in
Of course he does he always does.
>inb4 you get sued.
>>8027120
You're gonna hate STEM then.
>>8027120
You're a joke. They don't read Isaac Newton or Archimedes in the physics department, and they shouldn't read loads of historical philosophers in the philosophy department. The goal of philosophy education is to get people to engage in philosophical problem-solving, not to read the history of the field.
>>8027131
It's not name-calling, it's a rational assessment. Sorry, but nobody studies nonsense-peddlers like Lacan in top philosophy departments.
>>8027143
>The goal of philosophy education is to get people to engage in philosophical problem-solving, not to read the history of the field.
>>8027149
You can study under Zizek if you want to at EGS. I'm pretty sure Ecole Normale has similar programs.
>>8027143
Philosophy is not physics, is not an empirical science with a given 'object' before it. Jesus, this discussion is pointless, just fuck it.
>>8027156
European Graduate School isn't even *ranked* in philosophy. Try again.
>>8027161
Your posts are certainly pointless, given that you are utterly clueless about philosophy.
>>8027161
>modern physics
>valid
>>8027190
HAHAHAH I'm off to bed, you've won, congrats.
>>8027173
>"muh rankings"
And yet one most people think of contemporary philosophers they think of Slavoj Zizek and Thich Nhat Hanh instead of Graham Priest and Saul Kripke (or whoever the fuck you're circle-jerking). Funny how that works, eh? Maybe one day you'll see outside your insular clique.
You guys...
Yes, this article is SJW cuck bullshit but there is nothing wrong with working non-western philosophy into the curriculum, provided it is still good philosophy. I majored in philosophy and I think the only time I learned about non-western philosophy was a class I took on Nagarjuna. Really interesting class and it was enriching to see certain ideas tackled from a totally different perspective and philosophical tradition.
Why wouldn't you want your phil department to offer you access to a wider variety of content and ideas? That goes against the whole idea of what it is to be a philosopher and have an interest in philosophy, imo.
>>8027140
It's why I quit the field, yes.
>>8027143
>The goal of philosophy education is to get people to engage in philosophical problem-solving, not to read the history of the field.
No it's not, there you go projecting your own philosophy onto the whole of philosophy like the stupid teenager you are.
>They don't read Isaac Newton or Archimedes in the physics department
Because empiricism is one of the biggest jokes in the whole of philosophy.
STEM spergs would cease to exist if they had to take relevant history courses to get anywhere in the field.
In addition, it would teach the limitations of the field to the spergs and maybe show them how wonderful things like alchemy and astrology were before pop culture digested them.
The only 'good' physics course I've ever taken was an extended course taken in grade 11 and 12, taught by somebody with actual passion and experience, and is taught as a historical progression from Newtonian physics to Quantum Mechanics, relating modern theories to Newtonian and pre-Newtonian theories and recognizing the hubris of the field.
I double-majored in Physics and Engineering in university; you know what each and every course was?
>here's what you do, if you want it explained read the textbook, you have a test monday (and it was always monday)
And this is a Top 5 university, nationally; arguably the best for engineering.
And what did this lead to? Misery in university, misery working in the field and dealing with STEM spergs who only care about money.
>>8027149
>nobody reads 'thing i dont like' in 'thing i like'
This is what rationalists actually believe.
>>8027190
Stop posting already, you've done this before and aren't as subtle as you seem to think.
>>8027201
This kills the classist.
>>8027201
Making shit up isn't helping your case, son.
>>8027143
Ain't reading all those dead fuckers a philosophical problem on itself?
>>8027208
Maybe some day you will get your wish and every field will become a sub-branch of the history department. Until then, stop confusing your fantasy with reality. The reality is that the reading list I posted is an accurate representation of the field for those who want a historical survey. For those who just want to succeed in philosophy, you can pretty much skip anything written before 1945.
>>8027208
>>nobody reads 'thing i dont like' in 'thing i like'
>This is what rationalists actually believe.
Are you fucking retarded? It's not about "what I like" - it's about what is actually taught and studied in the top philosophy departments. The curriculum does NOT include Lacan or any of your obscurantist buddies.
>>8026518
All they talk about is the philosophy of diversity and post-colonialism. Half the articles are just politics, not even philosophy.
>>8027228
>For those who just want to succeed in philosophy, you can pretty much skip anything written before 1945.
Are you just a troll or severely ignorant and confusing 'modern philosophy' with 'good philosophy'?
>>8027239
Wow so rational.
>it's about what is actually taught and studied in the top philosophy departments.
Yes Mr. Logic and Reason this totally means that their curriculum is good. It's not a cash grab or anything.
Tumblr would be more appreciative of your mindset--I suggest migrating there.
>>8027208
>quit STEM because it wasn't dependent enough on muh Greeks
You're making us humanities students look pretty bad.
>>8027250
Yep, it's just a tool to promote Simon Critchley's political agenda. Zero philosophical content.
>>8027257
>Are you just a troll or severely ignorant and confusing 'modern philosophy' with 'good philosophy'?
What in the fuck are you talking about? First of all, modern philosophy = Descartes, Hume, etc. And you are the one droning on about "good philosophy" - not me. I am simply describing philosophy as it actually exists. It includes the figures mentioned in the list I posted. It does not include Lacan. What you personally think about that situation is irrelevant.
>>8027257
I'm not surprised that you think Tumblr represents the height of "logic and reason".
Moron.
>>8027276
You seem to have problems with being too literal. Are you perhaps autistic?
>>8027281
Says the dumbfuck who derailed the thread with his irrelevant personal musings about why philosophy isn't fun anymore.
>>8027284
I'm actually a different person but your inability to understand how anonymity works on 4chan does seem to confirm my hypothesis.
>>8027287
Yeah, expertise at 4chan means you can't be autistic. Good thinking.
>>8027285
>Except that isn't as it exists, that's how you envision it--as an intellectually-bankrupt liberal-analytic circlejerk.
Nope, that's how it exists in the top departments of philosophy internationally. Sorry if it's not to your taste.
Philosophy, and it's central study Epistemology, deal with the search for Truth and Wisdom.
There is no Diversity in Truth. Truth is singular.
What kind of magical thinking tools believe "Everyone should be allowed to say they're correct. Induction, Deduction, Reason, Empiricism and Axioms are interfering with people's feeeeelings!"
What a load of crap.
There is nothing wrong with "can you fucking prove it"... it's not racist or prejudice; it's fair and reasonable.
>Europeans came up with a good idea first
>Therefore it's prejudice
^ Philosophically, that doesn't work out.
>>8027314
What?
>>8026492
>The vast majority of philosophy departments in the United States offer courses only on philosophy derived from Europe and the English-speaking world.
The vast majority of English philosophy departments descended from the European tradition deal with philosophy in the European tradition, especially the English stuff?
wow that is so surprising and problematic
>Given the importance of non-European traditions in both the history of world philosophy and in the contemporary world,
IE not in the European philosophic tradition
>and given the increasing numbers of students in our colleges and universities from non-European backgrounds,
they didn't have to come here and study our philosophy, thanks
>this is astonishing.
I can't see why
>>8026927
>Our expanding knowledge of the world
stopped reading there
Without the west, you would have no philosophy, and without philosophy, there would be no west. To try to poison one of the world's greatest intellectual traditions for the sake of a critical branch of that selfsame tradition (who invented multiculturalism? Who invented the very tools that failed peoples are using to try to disembowel the cultures and traditions of the world that they've been so graciously allowed to exist in?) that's been seized upon by resentful losers is fucking wretched.
"Native American Philosophy!" What a fucking joke. Keep the ossuary of the primitives in the domain of history, or in religious studies.
If real philosophers have things they want to take from other cultures, they will. Just like how 99% of the world wears T-shirts. I wonder why they do that? Hint: it's not because they passed fucking diversity initiatives.
>>8027520
>Without the west, you would have no philosophy
i hope you're kidding
>>8027547
Yeah, I was joking. I mean who can forget Ooga Booga, and his seminal oral classic: "My wife is infested with evil spirits and should be beaten to death?"
>>8027345
>hurr durr everything I need to know about the world I learned from the Bible and Aquinas
Advances in science and technology raise new problems in philosophy. Yes, advances in science means we have more knowledge than we did previously, or are at least nearer to acquiring or clarifying existing knowledge.
>>8027520
The West didn't invent philosophy. The 'Western' philosophical tradition starts in the Near East.
>>8027565
just like plato's classic "heaven is filled with beautiful geometric shapes and i also hope you have a gaggle of teenage boys on hand for me to sodomize"?
>>8027581
That almost sounded like it was important, but it really wasn't. Nobody denies what you said. It's fully a part of the tradition referred to for the sake of brevity as the "western tradition" because it's been based in Europe for a really long time.
>>8027520
>I have never heard of the Hundred Schools in China
>>8027581
Philosophy as we know it began with Thales.
>>8027572
>yes, advances in science means we have more knowledge than we did previously,
no lol, science leads to no knowledge
Nothing does
>>8027641
>The previous comment said 'without the west'. This is false because the people that started it weren't 'the west' they were 'the near east'.
Wrong. They were Greek.
>>8027649
Some were some were not.
>>8027612
>He was from the near east.
Nope. Thales was Greek.
>>8027650
No. The Greeks were the first philosophers that we have records of.
>>8027641
Miletus was a Greek hood though. Western civ extended further east than it does now at various points in history.
>>8027520
>>8027565
>"Native American Philosophy!" What a fucking joke. Keep the ossuary of the primitives in the domain of history, or in religious studies.
>Yeah, I was joking. I mean who can forget Ooga Booga, and his seminal oral classic: "My wife is infested with evil spirits and should be beaten to death?"
desu I kekked way too hard
>>8027099
>(-380) Plato: "Republic"
>(-340) Aristotle: "Nicomachean Ethics"
>(1641) Descartes: "Meditations on First Philosophy"
>(1651) Hobbes: "Leviathan"
>(1677) Spinoza: "Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order"
>(1689) Locke: "Two Treatises of Government"
>(1690) Locke: "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding"
>(1704) Leibniz: "New Essays on Human Understanding"
>(1710) Berkeley: "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge"
>(1739) Hume: "A Treatise of Human Nature"
>(1748) Hume: "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"
>(1762) Rousseau: "The Social Contract"
>(1781) Kant: "Critique of Pure Reason"
>(1785) Kant: "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals"
>(1818) Schopenhauer: "The World as Will and Representation"
>(1859) Mill: "On Liberty"
>(1863) Mill: "Utilitarianism"
>(1884) Frege: "The Foundations of Arithmetic"
>(1886) Nietzsche: "Beyond Good and Evil"
>(1887) Nietzsche: "On the Genealogy of Morality"
>(1890) James: "The Principles of Psychology"
>(1892) Frege: "On Sense and Reference"
>(1899) Peirce: "Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce"
>(1903) Moore: "Principia Ethica"
>(1907) James: "Pragmatism"
>(1919) Russell: "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy"
>(1934) Popper: "The Logic of Scientific Discovery"
>(1936) Ayer: "Language, Truth and Logic"
>(1949) Ryle: "The Concept of Mind"
>(1953) Wittgenstein: "Philosophical Investigations"
>(1960) Quine: "Word and Object"
>(1962) Kuhn: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
>(1963) Popper: "Conjectures and Refutations"
>(1971) Rawls: "A Theory of Justice"
>(1975) Putnam: "Mind, Language and Reality"
>(1979) Nagel: "Mortal Questions"
>(1979) Rorty: "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature"
>(1980) Davidson: "Essays on Actions and Events"
>(1981) Putnam: "Reason, Truth, and History"
>(1983) Searle: "Intentionality"
>(1984) Parfit: "Reasons and Persons"
>(1984) MacIntyre: "After Virtue"
>(1986) Nagel: "The View From Nowhere"
>(1993) Singer: "Practical Ethics"
>(2008) Quine: "Quintessence"
do any of you actually read the course introduction section on your syllabi? it should contain a brief explanation what the course is about and the what the purpose for the texts is.
i strongly suggest those still in college to do this when they begin their next course. or if you are questioning "why are we reading this old junk?" then refer back to the syllabi and find out. or you can, you know, reach out to your professor and ask.
remember that college is not high school version 2. community college perhaps, but not universities. you will not be spoonfed what needs to be learned.
>>8027572
>Yes, advances in science means we have more knowledge
>we have more
No, advances in science mean some people have certain knowledge they otherwise wouldn't have
>>8029615
Which is then published, shared and the philosophy-relevant problems brought to the attention of philosophers. Obviously philosophy departments aren't in on it every time someone learns something new about fruit fly eyes.
>>8026867
What about serious academic chinese philosophy? There's a whole world over there, in the orient.
>>8029694
In universities they do the same shit we do in western universities. Kinda like how China doesn't have some separate kind of physics or chemistry.
You know Hitler was memeing when he talked about "Jewish physics, right?
Does this mean Imperialism won completely?
I've been thinking about this. The calls for 'diversity' seem to imply that white, male, European and, to a lesser extent, English-speaking, are the 'defaults' of humanity. Is it wrong to say that this is exactly what Western Imperialism wanted all along? These are no longer various segments of the totality of Humanity. They are simply Humanity. 'Other' skin colors and languages and cultural norms are various kinds of sprinkles on the 'regular' human being.
It's like food, which is often the most apparent aspect of the emerging 'world culture.' Meat and potatoes? That's boring. Currywurst? Now you've got some of that ethnic flavor! But consider the actual substance of the dish. Those boring old white male European sausages and fried potatoes are what you chew on, what provide you nourishment, what you see on the plate. The curry powder is a minor and, ultimately, insubstantial constituent. Sure, it's what makes currywurst "curry"wurst, but it hasn't really served to make something totally new. It's simply a variety of the white, male, and European.
Don't take this to say that I think Europe invented Humanity. Far from it. I am saying that these cries for 'diversification' amount to new dipping sauces for my fries. When they talk about "seeing things from a new perspective," they don't mean the seemingly countless and original perspectives brought about by formerly isolated cultures adapting to a new world identity. They don't mean the totality of historical human thought. They mean the old, white, male, and European written by a fresh flavor. We don't want Chinese or Mayan or Bantu. We want a Brown Hegel.
>>8026745
this is such a disgusting post holy shit
>sublimated continuation of Christian polemics. We have the gospel and they don't
holy fuck kill yourself
>>8026972
that's not an ad hom you absolute loser fuck
>>8026972
>neoliberal
>marxist
>>8027297
Fucking This.
/thread
>>8029777
>invent everything worth inventing
>create the best art, best literature, best philosophy, best science, best laws, best civilization, best everything
>be the best at literally everything
>chill out for a while
>get bored
>conquer basicaIIy entire world in the span of a few generations
>draw pictures of yourself standing astride continents
>rename brown people's entire homelands after your fat bitch queen
>import all the good stuff god accidentally put on the continents of lesser peoples, turn them into factories to produce it
>chill out for a while, content to have defeated space and time
>get bored again
>try having some massive planet-spanning internecine wars
>develop ability to destroy entire world because why not
>finally get bored of even that
>need to devise a new way to fuck with inferior races
>decide to invite them into our homes, let them shit all over the walls, condescend to them and patronize them
>even tolerate them becoming whiny and spoiled and feeling entitled to it
>even tolerate their insults and pathetic admonishments that they are entitled to our homes and we don't deserve them
>lift our inferiors onto our shoulders for a goof, the view ruined by the knowledge that they only have it at the sufferance of the giant who is lifting them
>give everything to them when it is precisely not having things handed to you that makes you strong some day, permanently othering them
>remain the eternal Same
>remain kings of the universe
>stiII run their homelands as slave factories for mass producing baseball hats and tampons
>>8032805
10 000 words = 1 picture
>>8027297
>Truth is singular
But that's wrong.
>>8026801
>he doesn't know what ideology is, or, worse, knowingly denies it
there's only one abject retard here
>>8026492
>that pic
>a Roman, an Arab and a Greek
>hurrr no diversity!
It's not like the west is the only place that ever produced such thing as philosophy.
Just looks at the chinese or the Japanese.
They were capable of making such things.
>>8027108
>In reality, very few philosophers read anyone who published before around 1945.
don't call yourself philosophers, you're just philosophical workers
>>8026961
I'm a philosophy student undergrad. The only module I have done outside of the western analytic tradition was an analytical look at Buddhist philosophy.
I don't really see any problem with focusing on western philosophy at a western university, each school of thought trains its students in that school and then the students either develop the main ideas or reject them. This is how philosophy works, I'd rather spend my time learning more about the western tradition than randomly learning some South American stuff for no reason but muh diversity
Eastern philosophy is a fucking joke, but it's not like Western is much better. Did you know the majority of philosophy professors are moral realists? It's barely-disguised religion.
>>8033900
>thinking it's a fact that torturing innocent people is wrong is a religious belief.
yeah, okay. maybe one day you'll grow out of high school nihilism.
>>8033974
>t. anglo
>>8033974
>appeal to consequences
Literally the dumbest of all fallacies.
>>8034066
What are you talking about? Maybe you need the argument made more explicit. Here.
It's a moral fact that torturing innocent people for fun is wrong.
Therefore there is a moral fact.
Therefore moral realism is true.
>>8034155
lmao
>>8034155
Your argument is question-begging, you assume the existence of moral realism in your premises.
>>8034186
Do you deny that torturing innocent people for fun is wrong?
>>8034199
Whether I agree with it or not does not mean that the premise is shown to be true. You're just assuming the existence of moral realism to be true in your premises without giving any other argument in support of it.
>>8034199
Very rarely are people tortured for fun, usually the torturer has some ideological end in his mind, whether for saving the country, money or whatever. The torturer always think that, however much what he's doing is bad, he is doing what is 'best'.
>>8034205
Okay, then you don't have to accept the conclusion of the argument. Fine with me. Out of curiosity, are you a psychopath? Or does it seem wrong to you but you just think this is illusory?
>>8034216
>The torturer always think that, however much what he's doing is bad, he is doing what is 'best'
Probably false, but irrelevant. Unless you're denying that it's even possible that someone could torture for fun. But it seems you implicit allow that it can and even occaisionally does happen ('very rarely'). All I'm claiming is that when it does, it's wrong. Or were it to happen, it would be wrong.
>>8034210
I'm not trying to convince people who don't accept that torturing innocents for fun is wrong. Something that basic is probably not the sort of thing that there's going to be non-question begging arguments for or against. See above. But if you accept that it is, as I'm guessing you do, then I'm not begging the question against you with the argument.
>>8034252
How did you discover the moral fact that torturing innocents is wrong? Did you make the observation using some tool? Or did you use your senses? Did the moral fact make a sound, perhaps? Or did you see it?
>>8034216
You have obviously never tormented anyone in your entire life.
>>8034482
To be honest, I don't have a great theory of how I've come to know all sorts of things. For example, how do I know that there's a table here, or that the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago, or that there are other minds, or that if I threw my computer in the air it wouldn't hover unsupported, or that modus ponens is valid, or that various mathematical axioms are true and proofs work?
There are various theories of how we come to know what we do about various specific things. But none of them are without problems. And it's pretty much out of the question that a simple `you just observe it using some tool or use your senses' epistemology is going to work in general, or even for simple empirical knowledge. Anyway, how did you discover that your senses are reliable--did the reliability make a sound?
Nevertheless, I don't doubt any of things, and certainly I don't have any reason to think they're false, just because I don't have a fully worked out epistemology. Similarly with the wrongness of torturing innocents.
Now if someone has some evidence (perhaps from an observation with a tool?) that it's not wrong to torture innocents, I'm all ears. But until then, I don't see why I shouldn't believe it, since it seems to me pretty obviously true, perhaps as obviously true that there are other minds or that the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago.
>>8034499
I know they are not sociopath who feel 'good' about torture, I'm just saying how the conception of what is 'wrong' can be flexed one way or another. Torturing IS wrong, I'm not arguing otherwise.
>>8034559
I think you are clearly right and that there is no debate (or if there is it is trivial) about whether torturing an innocent for fun is right or wrong.
The more interesting question is why it is right or wrong, which ethic do you subscribe to?
>>8034591
Do you mean what first-order ethical theory do I believe is true? I don't really know. I usually lean towards some sort of consequentialism, but one with a pretty inclusive, and in some sense agent-relative, theory of the good. Perhaps of a satisficing form.
As for the foundational account of why it's wrong to bring about bad outcomes when you have much better alternatives, again I don't know. I suppose some sort of act-based teleological view is what I'd pick if I had to guess. One thing I want to think about is how these sorts of views fit with ways of thinking about what it takes to be a moral agent. I can see considerations starting from there leading me down the path to a universalizability-based foundational theory.
(For a good book for thinking about these sorts of questions, I really recommend Kagan's Normative Ethics).
In metaethics, I think robust realist views are most plausible, followed by certain realist-ish constructivist theories.
Can't be bothered to read the whole thread but Confucius is basically Aristotle's virtue ethics and it's a sad sad thing that he isn't put into dialogue with the western canon more.
It's not about SJW-ism you dipshits, it's about ignoring 90% of thought out there. It's just a sign of close-mindedness not to pay attention to Indian, Chinese, Arab and Persian philosophy.
That being said, "philosophy" admittedly is a western concept, but still I think a lot can be gained to 'diversify' (even though you reddit-tier fedora's despise that term) philosophy departments by paying attention to thinkers outside of Europe.
>>8033813
You = complete and utter moron. Stop posting.
>>8034670
>but Confucius is basically Aristotle's virtue ethics and it's a sad sad thing that he isn't put into dialogue with the western canon more
Confucius doesn't give arguments. He just states dogma. That's why 'The Analects' is not philosophy.
>>8033900
>it's not like Western is much better. Did you know the majority of philosophy professors are moral realists?
That's like saying "the majority of philosophy professors are left-handed". Completely irrelevant. If you think philosophy has anything to do with indoctrinating people to adopt certain positions, you have no idea what philosophy is.
>>8026492
Well, like absolutely everything else that exists, philosophy is racist. I'm shocked such an opinion would come from someone in academia.
When I was an undergrad in math, I had a class about how racist it is. I also had the pleasure of learning how the noble Japanese did mathematics for spiritual enlightenment while whites used it exclusively for war/imperialism.
>>8034670
Go fuck yourself, cuck.
>>8034774
Practically a 21st Century Burke here, folks.
>>8034709
you're not a philosopher kid and neither is your university professor
>>8027520
this guy.
you should write a column
>>8027520
that's what's up
>>8034670
>Can't be bothered to read the whole thread but Confucius is basically Aristotle's virtue ethics
r u retarded?
confucious it's basically - do the rituals and all will be good, oh and also the power is given by the heaven
>>8034559
>Now if someone has some evidence (perhaps from an observation with a tool?) that it's not wrong to torture innocents, I'm all ears. But until then, I don't see why I shouldn't believe it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
>>8032805
Hegel called it first. Also, quality post.
>>8035032
So do you not think it's wrong to torture innocents for fun?
And you think that believing that it is is akin to believing in Russell's teapot?
It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the skeptic here, given that the wrongness of torturing innocents seems obviously true to pretty much everyone but psychopaths. It's closer to mathematics than to Russell's teapot.
Again, not saying that it's totally impossible that it's false, but personally I'd want a very good reason to doubt that I know it, something much more than incompatibility crude empiricism, which I see basically no reason to believe, and lots of reasons against.
>>8035247
incompatibility *with* crude empiricism
>>8026492
>what do u think /lit/?
White liberals need to stop thinking they're helping us by burying the bar.
>>8026650
Can confirm, in my first year of history we were told to read GGS.
If anything, I advice to read Violence and Social Orders, institutions being key seems much more logical than the idea that geography etc pre-determines everything.
>>8035643
Can people please stop using multiple sets of scare quotes when they're being sarcastic?
It's giving me a headache.
>>8035953
""-"" """.."""
>>8035247
The popularity of a belief is irrelevant to its truth.
>>8036157
I agree. (Well, maybe I wouldn't put it so strongly--widespread belief is probably at least correlated with truth. But I agree that whatever evidence it provides is at best very defeasible.) I don't believe it's wrong just because everyone else does. But we have to start somewhere, anon. The very same goes for belief in an external world. It should be open to revision, but I've seen no reason given to revise it.
And again, do you not think torturing innocents for fun is wrong?
>>8036157
nah. morality is localized democracy. hell, even reality is what the group says it is. you wouldn't be in the corner asking the schizophrenic about the object/subject dichotomy. in practical terms many of the philosophical questions are conveniently sewn up by the populace.
>>8036693
sure it's wrong. that's the utility monster question isn't it? i wonder if the utility monster relies on a hedonistic conclusion mebbe?
>>8036723
>that's the utility monster question isn't it? i wonder if the utility monster relies on a hedonistic conclusion mebbe?
Don't really follow this, but I don't think it has anything directly to do with the utilitarianism or hedonism. The question is more: is anything at all wrong? The torture example is just supposed to be a clear case of something that is.
>>8036754
yep. its wrong because i have arbitrarily chosen it to be.
>>8026745
If you had read Doubt: A History, you would know of the various materialist and logician schools of India. There is plenty of non-religious philosophy to be found in the East, but white people keep pushing Buddhism.
>>8026794
Lad: you simply cannot do Eastern philosophy by itself. For your degree to have any value, the major must be 90% Western
>>8027064
Where are the women philosophers?
>>8027604
>100 schoole
>not 1 is worth preserving
Topkek
>>8027208
>Because empiricism is one of the biggest jokes in the whole of philosophy.
*tips menorah*
>>8027276
>First of all, modern philosophy = Descartes, Hume, etc
In this context "modern" philosophy refers to 20th century to the present.
>>8029777
Why is yours the best post in here?
>>8036693
>And again, do you not think torturing innocents for fun is wrong?
I think that's a meaningless sentence.
>>8026547
>Academics are trash though
Anon convinced me.
Such a strong argument
wow
>>8037031
Mediterranean Africa and the Levant are part of western civ in my opinion. I don't think it necessarily means white people things. The concept of "white people" as a group is pretty new and doesn't really make much sense when you start going back in time.
>>8026492
eastern philosophy is just mumbo jumbo^2 Schopenhauer is as east as I will go
>>8037048
Really? That's odd. Seems like a perfectly meaningful sentence to me, one that any competent speaker of English would understand.
Do you have some evidence that it's meaningless?
>>8026650
>History is fucked, you unironically see professors put Guns, Germs and Steel on the syllabus.
Yeah, because geography ruins the idea of Manifest Destiny.
>>8037356
But "There is an invisible, etc., teapot orbiting the sun" isn't meaningless. It's just clearly false but very hard to conclusively disprove.
>>8026492
I've only met one philosophy major that I can remember, but he told me it wasn't hard. He also believed in chemtrails.
Philosophy has a lot to offer, but it's a fucked up set of disciplines in several ways. Calling a philosophy class "Western philosophy" might help, but it wouldn't do much.
>>8037369
You missed the point. The issue is that you can't make a claim, assume it's true, and then shift the burden of disproof on the opposite party.
>>8037438
I wasn't trying to convince anyone who doesn't already accept that torturing is wrong of anything. I suspect that most people here do accept that torturing is wrong, though, so it's not as if my little argument above is one that many people here can dismiss because they don't accept the first premise.
But just because I'm not trying to convince anyone of that first premise doesn't mean it's not open to argument. Indeed, I'd be very interested if someone gave me some good reason to doubt it (since then I'd no longer have an argument for moral realism, and would probably stop believing that moral realism is true). It seems that some attempts have been made here at doing that,
though not, I have to say, with much success (or originality, for that matter).
>>8037502
U don't make ANY sense m8 lol r u a troll??? Just the standard /b/ tard bs i didn't expect from lit
>>8032805
That's true. Nobody has managed to 'take' from the West. They have only managed to beg, to demand, to shame, to convince. It's a matter of Western governments relenting, as opposed to kowtowing. There will be no sacking of Rome, only a series of enclaves created to quarantine the suicide bombings and gang shootings. Which was the true conquest, a small patch of squalor or the overthrowing of an empire?
And as you said, they take the handouts and dig themselves deeper into eternal indebtedness and financial, spiritual, and cultural inferiority / subservience. Africa, for instance, still doesn't have anything other than debt and an endless demand for foreign aid. They couldn't stop if they wanted to. Regardless of if they consider a renewed aid agreement to be a bit of political genius or a zoo animal being fed his regular meal, the fact is the deal was already signed before any meetings took place. They HAD to indebt themselves further.
>>8035010
He professed following the rituals because repeated action leads to virtue, just like aristotle says in Nicomachean Ethics...
Confucius was about way more than just bare rituals, he has all this stuff about cultivating the grain of compassion that every man has inside him and basically 'growing' that plant through repeated action.
>the power is given by the heaven
you clearly have no clue what the fuck you're talking about
>>8026492
>Asian Studies, African Studies or Latin American Studies
Into the trash it goes!
>Part of the problem is the perception that philosophy departments are nothing but temples to the achievement of males of European descent. Our recommendation is straightforward: Those who are comfortable with that perception should confirm it in good faith and defend it honestly; if they cannot do so, we urge them to diversify their faculty and their curriculum.
No, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
>Clearly, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with philosophy written by males of European descent
But it is.
> We hope that American philosophy departments will someday teach Confucius as routinely as they now teach Kant We hope that American philosophy departments will someday teach Confucius as routinely as they now teach Kant.
Yeah, the token chinese. No Lord Shang or Han Fei or Mongzi or anyone else.
>Frantz Fanon (1925-1961), Kwazi Wiredu (1931- ), Lame Deer (1903-1976) and Maria Lugones will be as familiar to our students as their equally profound colleagues in the contemporary philosophical canon.
Sartre peddled Fanon's ideas. Suddenly Pol Pot.
>>8027081
But Augustinus was a no fun allowed sandnigger. An early Fanon. Diversity!
>>8037791
>Frantz Fanon (1925-1961), Kwazi Wiredu (1931- ), Lame Deer (1903-1976) and Maria Lugones will be as familiar to our students as their equally profound colleagues in the contemporary philosophical canon.
>two communists, a literally who from africa, and a rodeo clown-turned-tribal shaman
>profound
I'm sorry I just can't take this kind of rhetoric seriously. It seems disingenuous, they can't really be this retarded, can they?
>>8037881
Fun pic, but Fanon's worship of violence was nothing but western enlightment philosophy. If you know how to solve peoples' problems, what's stopping you from using violence?
>>8027064
This was bad when it was posted a week ago and it's bad now.
>>8037894
I'll be the first to admit that 90% of problems in the West are our of our own making, a perfect example of this is communism. I'm ignoring /pol/ish beliefs about who is to blame, of course.
White people gave people like Fanon the ideological tools to drum up violence and rebellion in the colonies, not to mention write articles like the one in the OP.
It's a sad irony that if it weren't for introduction of western medicine, technology, and infrastructure to North Africa, Fanon's parents may never have met, been conceived, or even survived their infancy.
China used to be a far less populous country before Mao forced western medicine down China's throat and stopped them from grinding up so many tiger bones. They went from about 300 million to over a billion in less than a hundred years, and it's all white people's fault.
White people really are to blame for everything, but not in the way brownies and liberals think. We should have left these people to their own devices and found a less invasive way of plundering them.
>>8038026
What do you mean it's "bad"? The point is that it's accurate.
This is "I don't understand philosophy and am therefore angered by it" the thread.
There's a reason the United States and a majority of the West (even though much of Europe practiced continental philosophy for many years) currently focus more on analytic philosophy - because it actually holds some esteem in the logical world.
>>8038470
Regardless of tradition, Philosophy is not to be 'accepted' or understood by the common population, a bit of bafflement and bitterness about some things revealed by it are inevitable.
>>8038470
But logic and reality aren't the same. Logic is true if the conclusion follows the premises. But the premises may be wrong.
>>8040175
Were you dropped on your head?
>>8026650
>Guns, Germs and Steel.
More like Farms, Farms and Farms.
Fuck that book.
>>8040179
No. Logic is just a tool. Populism, by the way, grows from the gap between logic and reality.
P1: Doritos is all the food you need.
P2: Mountain Dew is all the drink you need.
And from that, here's three conclusions:
Only eating and drinking Doritos and Mountain Dew...
C1: ...is everything you need.
C2: ...will grant you immortality.
C3: ...is unhealty.
C1 follows the logic, but neither C2 nor C3. They can only be saved by adding one or more premises.
>>8040188
Holy fuck, you really are clinically retard. Neither C1 nor C2 nor C3 follows from the premises.
By the way, and argument is called 'valid' iff it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. An argument is called 'sound' iff it is valid and the premises are true. Your original statement "Logic is true if the conclusion follows the premises" is nonsensical gibberish. Logic is not a statement, so it cannot be true or false.
>>8040196
>ad homniem
>because muh logik isn't foolproofz
*tips fedora*
>>8034155
Prove that it's wrong m8.
You don't think Europe tried this before? Last time, edgy atheism ended with eugenics, the world wars and the holocaust. If you don't ground your morals in something, the collective "common sense morals based on available science" will lead humanity into stupid.
>>8040258
Nice post hoc argument. The carnage of WW1, - blessed by the churches, mind you - was the result of not knowing what to do with the firepower. And regarding purges of the unclean, religion doesn't need bad science for that.
And don't get me started on Vatican 1. The infallibility of the pope is a recent invention. But having one infallible leader? Yeah, that really gave a template for Lenin, Stalin and Hitler...
>>8040258
Moral realism is so dependant on political ideology it's strange anyone who's ever read any philosophy would accept it, especially someone in the analytical tradition.
After all, you set up axioms and work from there, but this in no way has one outside what boils down muh feels. It's a view which enables all kinds of wrongs while also giving the believer a way to take moral high ground. So basically humanists and vegans.
meantime people already begin to poke the idea that the traditional way of the african tribal life is precious and should be revived
>Kirinyaga—Koriba kills a newborn child because traditional beliefs dictate that it is a demon. He must then convince Maintenance, the people who maintain the environment and regulate the orbit of the planetoid Kirinyaga, not to interfere with their traditions, no matter how much they dislike them.
>>8040262
>Nice post hoc argument. The carnage of WW1, - blessed by the churches, mind you
I don't remember it being blessed. I don't think anyone does, unless we mean blessing soldiers.
->was the result of not knowing what to do with the firepower.
Colonial tension and assassination of Austrian emperor also tend to be factors.
>And regarding purges of the unclean, religion doesn't need bad science for that.
Bad science needs bad science for that.
>And don't get me started on Vatican 1.
Please, do.
>The infallibility of the pope is a recent invention.
Dates to around 900 years ago, but has been formulated as a dogma some 150 years ago.
>But having one infallible leader? Yeah, that really gave a template for Lenin, Stalin and Hitler...
The pope isn't exactly an infallible leader. Papal infallibility means speaking ex cathedra when establishing or reaffirming an existing one cannot be wrong.
>>8034760
>Japanese
>Noble
>used math for spiritual enlightenment
Every day I thank God that one of the first things I read in the various Japanese history courses I took was that book where they used Zen Buddhism to justify mass murder.
>>8026492
One of my old Philo profs co-wrote that article. The whole 'let's call it what it really is' schtick is a dub way to frame the argument, but I agree with him on the whole. I read a metric fuck ton of Buddhist/Asian philosophy under him and it's pretty fucking neato, I definitely think that liberal arts would do well to adopt at least some of it into their curricula.
>>8038470
>Analytical Philosophy
Keep your math class out of my philosophy class, thanks.
>>8040276
>I don't remember it being blessed. I don't think anyone does, unless we mean blessing soldiers.
The Church could have protested against it, excomunnicated the political leaders and generals, and offered no frontline chaplains.
They didn't. Therefore The Church is complicit in the slaughter.
>Colonial tension and assassination of Austrian emperor also tend to be factors.
Nice evasion. What colonial tension in Europe? They simply didn't know what to do with the hardware.
>Bad science needs bad science for that.
So it's always science's fault when religious people do wrong?
>Dates to around 900 years ago, but has been formulated as a dogma some 150 years ago.
Some time before totalitarianism was founded. Nah, that's just a coincidence...
>The pope isn't exactly an infallible leader. Papal infallibility means speaking ex cathedra when establishing or reaffirming an existing one cannot be wrong.
So he can with a handwave blow away any theological debate? How convenient! Totally not proto-totaliatarianism.
>>8040303
>used Zen Buddhism to justify mass murder
Reminds me of this: http://friesian com/divebomb htm
>>8040351
>>Analytical Philosophy
>Keep your math class out of my philosophy class, thanks.
Top kek! XD
>>8037703
>He professed following the rituals because repeated action leads to virtue
brush your teeth every day, be a good girl
>you clearly have no clue what the fuck you're talking about
mandate of heaven
>>8040258
see
>>8034252
>>8037502
>You don't think Europe tried this before?
What are you talking about? Are you blaming the world wars and the holocaust on belief in moral realism? That's a new one.
As for Divine Command Theory (which almost always goes along with moral realism...), I don't see how it's better off in 'grounding or morals in something' than various secular realist theories (indeed I suspect it's significantly worse). Prove God commands us not to torture innocents. And do you think that if he had commanded us to torture innocents, it would have been wrong not to?
>>8040265
>After all, you set up axioms and work from there, but this in no way has one outside what boils down muh feels.
What?
>It's a view which enables all kinds of wrongs
All kinds of wrongs? Okay, take whatever thing you think is wrong and plug it into that argument above.
>>8034155
Do you think that it's not a good argument for moral realism? Why not?
>>8040265
>It's a view which enables all kinds of wrongs
Do you even know how fucking self-contradictory your post is? Un-fucking-believable.
Analytic philosophy is for people who lack the intelligence to go into a proper STEM field but want to be like those cool smart STEM guys who take all their women and cuck them.
>>8040508
It's also for those who cannot into proper humanities, like Carl Sagan.
> College English class final oral evaluations
> Do a powerpoint presentation about a cultural artifact and link it with a critical approach and a field of the humanities
> Some girls turn
> Dyed hair, tatoos, big thick glasses and slightly revealing dress
> Her PP is about homophobia in the bible, and her field is Philosophy
> She uses Queer theory
> It's written Gueer theory on her PP
> She pronounces it as Gear, not a typo
> Literally Gear theory
> Makes no argument as to why homophobia is wrong
> Her English is terrible
> Says she wants to go into Philosophy
> Says Philosophy makes you open minded
> Says if everyone read Philosophy homophobia would no longer exist and everyone would be happy
> Mfw when I'm forced to listen to this and take notes
> Mfw when this girl will literally get a masters or something in Phil
> Mfw when she will probably end up brainwashing college kids with her nonsense
> Mfw when she hasn't actually read anything actually philosophical and probably never will outside required reading.
Philosophy is going to die. Pack it up boys.
>>8040765
why are you assuming that she got a good grade?
>>8040768
I don't.
>We therefore suggest that any department that regularly offers courses only on Western philosophy should rename itself “Department of European and American Philosophy.” This simple change would make the domain and mission of these departments clear, and would signal their true intellectual commitments to students and colleagues. We see no justification for resisting this minor rebranding (though we welcome opposing views in the comments section to this article), particularly for those who endorse, implicitly or explicitly, this Eurocentric orientation.
I really don't care about the issue either way and think anyone who does is a chump, but it would be fucking hilarious if a bunch of departments actually did this just to be like, OK, there you go, now fuck off.
>>8040765
>Do a powerpoint presentation about a cultural artifact and link it with a critical approach and a field of the humanities
>Makes no argument as to why homophobia is wrong
Doesn't seem called for, and is quite arguably tacitly discouraged, by the brief.
>>8040821
The presentation is meant to be neutral.
She clearly implied some stuff.
>>8040765
> Says if everyone read Philosophy homophobia would no longer exist
true to some degree imo
sexism on the other hand would skyrocket
>>8040840
>The presentation is meant to be neutral.
So why is her compliance with the brief part of your criticism?
School of Resentment, baka desu yo.
>>8040276
The Vatican supported WW1.
Austria desperately wanted to go to war, and the Vatican owed a lot of money to Austria. Austria was some sort of political patron to the Pope. The Vatican also hated the Orthodox, eg Serbs and Russians, and wanted to reduce their influence in the Balkans. The Austrians wanted to invade Serbia before the Archduke was killed. Nobody in Austria liked the Archduke because, irony of ironies, he was against going to war with Serbia. It was a convenient excuse.
It's not something the Catholic church likes to talk about but it's on the books.
>>8041577
Yes, such violent barbarians those Christfags are. Not enlightened brights like us, right m'lady?
>>8041582
>It's a christian gets triggered by historical facts post!
>>8041612
>heresy
>historical facts
Ah yes, logic and reason soundly showing the Church what's what.
Why not have a little faith? What could it hurt?
>>8041582
Nice straw man! The Failtholic Childfiddlers are constantly yapping about how baaad atheists, heretics and pagans are.
But whenever they are over-proved that they have been complicit in the same crimes they accuse other people of (read: everyone else), it's all CIDF all over the place.
Even funnier is when the fartholics try to peddle the idea that the church is intellectual. Just look at the story of literacy in Europe. The protestant countries has a good track record. But when you go to the deep mehtholic south, it gets worse and worse.
Sancta simplicitas - because it's easier to impress illiterate peasant kids with your magical tomes.
>>8034155
>It's a moral fact that torturing innocent people for fun is wrong.
Why? Muh feels?
>>8040262
Please don't lie online, thank you!
>>8040376
>totalitarianism is bad because i don't like it
>>8041612
>facts
Pure ideology.
>>8041631
>Childfiddlers
Oh, you're just an illiterate; and you think you can talk about literacy!
>>8041643
>Catholic who likes torture and totalitarianism
Par for the course, really.
>>8041620
lmao you should trip
>>8041643
>facts
Okay:
Vatican, 24 July 1914 - Secret
Pope approves of strong measures by Austria against Serbia and in case of war with Russia does not regard Russian and French army highly. Cardinal State Secretary [Merry del Val] also hopes that Austria will this time persevere. . . the current constellation threatens Austria's existence. This also testifies to the Curia's great fear of Pan-Slavism.
-Otto von Ritter [Bavarian minister to the Vatican] to Hertling [Bavarian prime minister]
Source: The Origins of the First World War: Diplomatic and military documents, ed Annika Mombauer.
p.315
Catholicism is literally 90% traditional bullshit that the church came up with thousands of years ago to keep the population subjugated.
Catholicism needs to die for the sake of the Christian world, because it extrapolates scripture to the nth degree and does a piss poor job of representing the faith.
>>8041722
>implying that as the voice of God on Earth, the Pope isn't just and moral in all his decisions
Enjoy hell, heretic.
It seems every American university is a SJW ridden shithole. Every piece of news from them just gets more and more ridiculous.
They need a good Soviet style purge. A good rounding up.
Glad I'm not American.
>>8041752
>I'm really glad I don't attend a university where groundbreaking advances in technology and scholarship are a daily occurrence because there are SJW around
Your priorities are a little funky.
>>8041682
>no argument
Seculars, everybody.
>>8041812
The Pope, head of the Church and mouthpiece of God on Earth, sold out all of Europe because he had some debts to an earthly king. Please tell me all about how that's just a big misunderstanding and it's totally fine that he encouraged the loss of seventeen-million lives.
>>8041830
>no argument
You have to argue, from a secular stance, why any of that is bad.
>>8041682
>Par for the course, really.
It isn't torture and totalitarianism when the church does it.
Or as the saying goes: "When father gets wasted, it's right."
