Beginning of some special moments: speech Cornel 18:54 speech Simon 24:35 speech Cornel 32:00 speech Astra 34:46 'shit' speech Simon 37:20 "Ayn Rand question" 1:01:20 "rhetoric question" 1:05:50 "Apocalyptic question" 1:22:37 "the trap in context question" 1:29:13 Very interesting...
Philosophy means love of wisdom. As long as we love wisdom, we love philosophy no matter what we choose to call it. IMO it is a lack of understanding basic fundamentals of philosophy like the Brain In A Vat and the Cogito Ergo Sum that has lead to a society that values answers we can't confirm or deny(science) more than questions(philosophy). We're like the people asking deep thought what the answer to life, the universe, and everything. We have an answer, but we're not closer to the question.
We are our own teachers. If the man cannot stand for the man they say; the man and his vision falls apart. Words are as whole as a hole can be. Philosophy isn't a practice. It's the very key to connecting everything and everyone through how we choose to apply our experience and awareness. This world is not as solid is it appears to be, but you can make the best of what you do become aware of. Clouded judgment is the farthest judgment any one is capable of attaining..
Moderator: "Can you bear to read a philosopher who can't write well?" Cornel West: "Oh, sure! I mentioned John Dewey. I love Dewey, but he's no William James." This is so true. Dewey is such an interesting thinker, but his writing style is as dull and difficult as Kant's.
"Never forget that justice is what love looks like in public". Rationalism - "If we already admit that “peace” is the presence of “justice”, than we can associate love with peace for any environment that is peaceful is lovable to live in. Therefore, justice is associated with love by way of peace".
Philosophy is a love of wisdom. Wisdom is a product of experience. “It is good to have an end to journey toward; but it is the journey that matters, in the end” Ursula K. LeGuin
..."like a tale told by an idiot ....full of sound and fury and signifying nothing" (Macbeth). Shakespeare's lines pretty much sum up this discussion too. Good cure for insomnia though.
DR. Conel West "You can't lead the people if you don't love the people. You can't save the people if you don't serve the people". Rationalism - You can only lead that which you understand. You can only serve that which you love, and you can only save that which you value. I’d love to understand how to lead so I can save.
Cornell West makes some good points about the state of our society today. However, West falls victim to having his head sort of in the clouds and being overly idealistic. He has this optimism that doesn't seem to take into account that the cruel and greedy may always "win". Simon Critchley by far I think made the best points, talking about how philosophy is often the result of disappointment like the questioning of religion.
The basis of philosophy is the exploration of ethics, i.e., how we, as a social species that has a healthy capacity for complex abstract thought as well as greatly developed imagination and complex memory skills decides to interact, given the vast individual differences in all abilities and skills among us all. Obviously it's extremely very relevant. We base all social rules and morays on ethics, though we do so very poorly.
@Kinkseraph "Reality doesn't exist objectively" I was talking about analytical philosophy. It strives more than any other endeavor, I believe, besides logic, to be objective. It's applied logic as it would relate to sentient beings. "because books can be inaccurate" Socrates definitely thought so, as did most of the Ancients. They're not dialectical. But, from today's standpoint, there's so many books that they are in fact contributive to the dialogue that is philosophy..
@danielacheson I definitely see your point and certainly agree to some extent. Being and living is definitely all we do, but when we are introduced to concepts of ethics and morals and we begin to witness mass injustices around the world and negative manipulation and control being abused we can't just be. It is our responsibility to live; happily. Not just live mindlessly like animals (this statement introduces other huge side-tracked discussions).
There has to be a better way to secure the free thinking spirits of new thinkers. It is vital for our future development, for too often new arising minds have brought fourth new conceptual ideas on life that connects the missing dot. Once these missing dots are connected they in turn transient new ideas to matured philosophical minds to develop more meaningful answers to concepts that have been pending development.
@danielacheson We have the brain capacity, as humans, to be conscious of consciousness while animals don't. Even though in the animal world there is death and sadness, there is very few injustices, if any. Their system is sustainable while ours, because of the lack of philosophy in order to dictate what is just and unjust, still has an incredibly large amount of injustices happening. I see the most important human responsibility besides living is do allow others to live fairly,just as we are.
we as a society would do good to start teaching philosophy as a core subject to our kids, to think logically, and critically analyze information. if people think rationally they wont be buying stupid miracle cures and wasting time in fruitless endeavors, they will be better problem solvers and innovators also i liked the black guy
It was asked, "What is the difference between truth and wisdom?" to which some trite old platitude was offered as an answer (a mark against academia - it stifles new effort - of which much is needed today); so I'd like to offer an immediate original observation: wisdom is in the application of truth. (which reminds me of an observation I had on stupidity - it is not the lack of knowledge (as smart-asses would have you believe), but what you do with it...
Philosophy is the love of wisdom. The love of something is implicitly important, thus philosophy matters. I think the question here is whether or not Wisdom matters.
Tbh I wouldn't say philosophy doesn't matter I would simply say philosophy doesn't matter to a lot of individuals in America. What I mean by this is that philosophy is still important it's just that people don't see the value in it. Americans who have a high level of critical thinking skills are a rare sight because so much focus on stem. 50 years from now philosophy will be mainstream again I would say since Americans will realize the value of being intelligent and having critical thinking skills. Creativity and understanding skills will be through the roof. But for now philosophy has a value that isn't noticed simply be cause it's hidden.
+Mike Watkins Agreed. I only wish more people would do such deep and close reading. It's literally the "secret" to great understanding and to really "swallow" and be changed by literature you read, not just skim/gloss over it like we all do with so much of the information/media we encounter today (although I think we're so overwhelmed by media/information that it only makes sense that we've learned to tune almost everything out/read so superficially).
@danielacheson very similar to what you said, evolution is what it is. It is all we know and forward is the only direction to go, might as well make it useful! Maybe informally it may sound unimportant or humorous but evolution simply the passing of time and our (all living things) adaptation and choices made while flowing with time, as time doesn't stop.
Philosophy is good for raising questions but the process of raising questions is very different from the process of answering them. But hopefully one learns philosophy and raises the questions for oneself then spends years and years going round and round until eventually getting so sick of the process one gives up and finds the truth right there the whole time. But one has to start the search before giving it up.
Philosophy is (just to play the 'is' game) at the core of every person, and it is referenced when making every little decision in life. That fact that these philosophers cannot even come to a common definition of philosophy illustrates how lost philosophy is (if you ask people what philosophy is, they have no clue, and they look at you like you are entering the realm of the irrelevant). This sheds light on why most people's 'core philosophies' are masses of confusion and haphazard grab-bags trite platitudes, which in no way substitute for a good core philosophy (one worthy of becoming the first 'world philosophy'). Philosophers have failed us by hiding in the history of philosophy (largely obsolete now) or by marginalizing it by applying it to specific circumstances (to the exclusion of all others, such as 'the philosophy of business') - answering questions far down the pyramid of important questions to ask. (what is the supreme question at the pinnacle of the pyramid of philosophical questions? The question, "Why bother?") I do have sympathy for the panel here - for talking and thinking do not go together, at all. Observation - I do pity the philosophers on the panel - for philosophers are people who like to hear themselves think, not talk. Cornel West is an exception - he is also an artist.
A.RMZ A new observation derived from this panel - an academic philosopher is more akin to a sports announcer than an athlete. So let's play, and leave the announcers to the color commentary and post-game analysis.
Philos...not good 4 anything....bcoz..we want wisdom...passion..n ...love..of...wisdom. Well philosophy is da only proof that it doesn't offer us any wisdom but yet its da passion of....wisdom. So I respect that. But. That is only one part of the whole.
I think she is a journalist, she surely speaks like one. I don't really know because I fast forward to the beginning of the discussion and didn't heard the presentations. My bad... XD
She is wrong about thinking philosophy cannot help with the issues of climate change. Traditional Ecological Knowledge/Wisdom proves my point. Look it up.
Is the challenge of creating a sustainable and just civilization a challenge to philosophy? Is it a moral challenge? An analysis of the failure of our economy to properly value natural wealth (so that it is squandered rather than conserved) shows that wealth that can be claimed equally by all is exploited primarily by those who have more resources and more maneuverability with which to put themselves into a better position from which to enjoy a free ride on the Commons. (Economic externalities benefit the haves more than the have-nots.) A proper valuing of natural resources would mean that industries that pollute or that take resources would be paying fees for the decline they cause in the value of natural resources. Fee proceeds would go to all the people and/or to public programs that the people want to support. A changed paradigm that respects and embodies *public* as well as *private* property rights would mean an end to extreme poverty AND a potentially sustainable society. (If fees charged for causing environmental impacts are set high enough, industries will have sufficient incentive to reduce those impacts.) In a democratic society, the appropriate fee would be a fee high enough so that most people believe it is high enough and the harmful activity that is the object of control is not being practiced to excess. In other words, most people would say, in response to a random poll, that there is not too much carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere; there is not too-rapid depletion of this or that resource; etc. A sustainable and just civilization requires that we exercise our moral sense: gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2008/12/sustainable-and-just-civilization.html
Personally, the search for wisdom is mainly useful for evolutionary purposes! Plain and simple! Without the ever lasting quest for knowledge we would never truly evolve as a species and a biologically connected system that we are! I still have a hard time understanding how anyone can live an unexamined life. Reason is motivation.
On a new birth of philosophy from the ashes of materialism Materialism is the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. This doctrine in its modern form seems to have originated from the secular philosophers of the Enlightenment, and from the writings of Voltaire and others seems to have become established in western thinking together with the secularization of society and its opposition to the power of the Church. The critical turn of thinking appears to have been due to an incompleteness in the metaphysics of Descartes. Descartes, for all of his originality and brilliance, overlooked the integration of mind and body, as noted by Leibniz, by dividing reality into two completely distinct realms, one of extension (the body) and one of mind, which is non-extended. This worked out well in practice, by accomodating Newton's new mechanics, since his mechanics only apparently dealt with the physical world, and freed science from dealing with mind (and divinity) by simply ignoring it. Today,with the advent of quantum mechanics, we know that this is not true, for quanta are mental, not physical, since they are not independently in spacetime. In materialistic thinking, the mind is a product of the brain and controlled by it. This however cannot explain intentional acts, which originate in mind. It also allows materialistic thinkers to ignore concepts such as the soul or divinity, giving justification for secularism, and opening up the possibility of dialectical materialism. Leibniz pointed out that matter, since causality must be mental and not physical (since there are no such physical entities as momentum, for example) must have some mental correspondent. Leibniz called this mental correspondent the monad. An example of a monad is a quantum. Another serious problem with materialism is that physical entities in spacetime are contingent, meaning that they are not permanent and fixed, as Bertrand Russell thought they were in his theory of descriptions. They are thus poor, ephemeral referents, since they both move and continually change. An example of a possible correction to materialism is given below, although obviously others might be able to do better. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The three levels of reality in platonic physics FIRSTNESS -FIRST PERSON (I) -Mind- The One, the Monarch- this is the topdown, cybernetic realm of Plato's Mind. It is in fact life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless - with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT. Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain, not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin. SECONDNESS - SECOND PERSON (YOU RIGHT HERE) Relational. Mental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many. In this, the WHAT separates from Mind and becomes a HERE. Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here." On the other hand, Meinong referred to such mental objects as “sosein”. Being as. Some of these objects, such as ideas, or mathematics, are not monads, since they have no corresponding physical bodies. Our personal minds (small m) are made up of intentional objects (Secondnesses). Similarly, Russell did not accept the importance of Mind and its cybernetic, topdown control by thought of all knowledge into two forms: a) Public or descriptive knowledge, of Mind, and b) Personal knowledge, expiences of individual minds (small m), which is knowledge by acquaintance. Both of these forms are inherent in Leibniz's metaphysics. Thus Russell's analytic philosophy only treats of a) the larger, public knowledge of Mind, while all of our individual contents of mind (small m) are type b), personal knowledge, experiential knowledge, knowledge byacquaintance. In contrast, both Brentano and Meinong, no doubt because they were psychologists, were more interested in and studied b) rather than a). The objects of b) are objects of personal intention, as is all thought. So Secondness might be said to consists of two two types of mental objects, i) nonmonadic intendeds and ii) monads. According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees. There are of three gradations of life in these, according to Leibniz: a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical ( Eg, a fundamental particle). b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect. c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities. Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then apperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be though gt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind. The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets, mental capacities. Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of Mind on the individual mind, IMHO a gross shortcoming. Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process. In a sense, the binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of self or mind proves, along with the need for a PEH. This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such apperceptions. Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence, intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind. If these are to be immediate and/or original, it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than indirectly through separate although bound parts of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become convinced of this. Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period, within the context of one's memory and universal memory, for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its complex bindings seem hopelessly indirect and subject to confusion. THIRDNESS - THIRD PERSON (IT OVER THERE) Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective, a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN., In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its public expression in some appropriate form. 3. Conclusions This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition. It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom. -- Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
@Kinkseraph Why wouldn't philosophy be shared? It's objective -- unless you're an existentialist. But, if that's the case, would you doubt that existentialist ideas are objective truths, if not the content?
@bboydee PS. Totally agree with ur comment on time. And talking about being conscious of consciousness i mean the intricate levels of our ability to rationalize among other incredible skills we posses in our brain.
I researched a bit. If you need help being argumenttive and peesuavsuve which is a need as a trial lawyer then philosophy is needed. But if your like me and competed in debate for years and did well in it and developed those skills then political science. Or I read it's good to major in both assuming you have time
Stephen Hawking Failed to Study Philosophy for the Meaning of Life this clip demonstrate that philosophy matters in where Stephen Hawking tries to take the most valuble theory of philosophy for physics- philosophy of mind... because the mind belongs to philosophy, and for all that Hawking does to justify his expertise to take over studies on the mind, he fails to even come close on how to relate his discipline over the mind.
I don't intentend to sound disrespectful, but its so ironic, that a philosopher actually implies, that democracy is only defined by havong a vote with two possible options...
I have been a natural born Philosopher all my life and to sit a listen to what i just listen to - I don't know - These were accadamian ammazoids - I'll go back and listen to the rest of it if possible? They are calling for substance in philosophy how about one good jolt or hit of philosophy can and does "defrag" 10,000 or 100,000 years of sociopath cultural implants that we have to deal with day in and day out - philosophy has to deal with the damage organized religion has done to us - (to say the least) - philosophy is the vessel that has carried us thru "the valley of the shadow of death" many times on this Globe - and we have to listen to that idiot tell us "Philosophy has no value" I am listening to these people talk on this doc. and i don't know? I want to be fare but so far m m m - I'll listen to the rest of it now because if i don't do it now I'll never do it -
People sometimes relate wisdom to philosophy. Wisdom is commonly attributed to relatable experiences. If you want to study the idea of 'wisdom' and how it is perceived, you can enter human behaviourism and the social sciences (with logix and empiricism). If you take a philosophical approach, you'd end up in your fantasy land, varying with the fantasy land of other philosophers.
If philosophy is the love of wisdom, then I fail to see the wisdom in a representational profligacy so hopelessly detached from the leverage of any practical activity.
+Sibel Corabatir ~ I agree, and one of the panel makes a similar point at 28:40 : "...for many of us, who hark back to Plato, what drew certainly me to philosophy is the Platonic dialogues, which are themselves a form of poetry..." My first appreciation of the philosophy of Nietzsche came from listening to Joy Division as a teenager. So when Plato exiles the poets - in spite of his own dialectic feeling like choreography - I see both tyrant and hypocrite. In hindsight, the reason I was enamored by Plato for so long was because I had not made the connection between his muzzling the poets and my religion's disdain for 'worldly music'.
well i think is clear who makes better money, the sophists (lawyers, marketers) lol So why don't we use what we learn in philosophy and apply to some useful way?
If thinking logically is so important, then why doesn't it guarantee a persuaded audience, or a happy life? I think a true philosopher realizes that logic isn't as important as appears, and that knowledge of how the world works is what makes you get ahead in life.
@ 0:52:14 Always nice to see, once again, some american philosopher's jingoism in action... "french, fru-fru philosophy" [and everyone laughs!]. I don't know if French philosophers are to blame. I would tend to think that all the "postmo" way of talking actually generated itself with the reception -and poor imitation- of French thinkers in american academy. What happens there that all subversive thought loses its edge? Think about Freud's fate in america for God's sake.
If you want to relate with a concept with true logic (such as nothingness etc.), the key is always in mathematics / science. Philosophical theories vary, as you see, different people have a different fantasy land.
Absolutely ... it just shows how poor and one sided the Anglo-Saxon philosophy is in most cases. Most thinks I read about for instance critical theory from Americans who thought of themselves as "critical theorists" was just so embarrassing ...
i don't thing the words "major" and "minor we're even associated with universities or schools during the times of the greatest philosophers lol. Also the greatest philosophers like Socrates from what I know actully did study philosophy and were able to become celebrities by mastering it. This is common sense though I'm not even in philosophy and just graduated highschool
Lol if it wasnt for socrates the people would still be explaining everything from myths. There would be no Plato(social studies) Aristotle/Descartes/Newton/(botany physics, LOGIC, mathematics,) no literature or literary criticism(senneca,crito, Heidegger, albert camus), no musical notes(pythagoras). social sciences (Coyte, Parsons, Spinoza, Hegel, Marx, Heidegger). Man, im so disappointed with these educated, well-revered people in this discussion. And this Is this even something to be discussed? 102 philosophical questions are left to be answered, think of the disciplines we can acquire
When your values suck, everything else will suck. Look at the art, the music, the print, the dance... the science, the religion, philosophy the whole thing is shit, and rotten to the core. Hence our state of existence on the back of our eternally loving and nurturing mother.
I feel like political science and all the arts have some value it's just not ovbious. Like I look at political science and see it as worthless for law but there's got to be some value in it. I just don't see it.
Marx was wrong again - everyone has 'a' philosophy at their core, which is referenced when making every little decision during the day (above the purely animal) and in life. So philosophy matters, by default. The problem is the quality of the philosophies; and they generally suck, being, for most people, haphazard grab-bags of trite platitudes, which is a pale shadow of a good core philosophy (one worthy of being the first 'world philosophy').
And you are doing good philosophy by just insinuating something he might had said? Sorry, but Socrates wouldn´t had reacted in this way, but would had asked a intelligent question. Maybe you should be careful. I don´t know how you see it, but the relativistic talk with which they begin (not Prof. Gottlieb) is just ... so stupid. They talk that philosophy has now aim, no utility but then claim it cancels out doxa/pure opinion and educates people. WTF? Nice performative self-contradiction. ^^
Beginning of some special moments:
speech Cornel 18:54
speech Simon 24:35
speech Cornel 32:00
speech Astra 34:46
'shit' speech Simon 37:20
"Ayn Rand question" 1:01:20
"rhetoric question" 1:05:50
"Apocalyptic question" 1:22:37
"the trap in context question" 1:29:13
Very interesting...
I love how Cornell West talks.
because females are 'tactile' creatures...? (that's my guess)
*SwaggyUnicorn*. Sweetheart me too l admire Cornel's way of articulating themes together
Cornel West is amazing! He explained very well the philosophical questions which we all raise.
Cornel is incredible.
He is true person.
Cornell West actually makes me cry :D
Philosophy means love of wisdom. As long as we love wisdom, we love philosophy no matter what we choose to call it. IMO it is a lack of understanding basic fundamentals of philosophy like the Brain In A Vat and the Cogito Ergo Sum that has lead to a society that values answers we can't confirm or deny(science) more than questions(philosophy). We're like the people asking deep thought what the answer to life, the universe, and everything. We have an answer, but we're not closer to the question.
Cornel West kills it, he is gets me so amped.
Cornel West is a connoisseur of philosophy.
We are our own teachers.
If the man cannot stand for the man they say; the man and his vision falls apart.
Words are as whole as a hole can be.
Philosophy isn't a practice. It's the very key to connecting everything and everyone through how we choose to apply our experience and awareness.
This world is not as solid is it appears to be, but you can make the best of what you do become aware of.
Clouded judgment is the farthest judgment any one is capable of attaining..
I love Brother West's delivery.
Moderator: "Can you bear to read a philosopher who can't write well?"
Cornel West: "Oh, sure! I mentioned John Dewey. I love Dewey, but he's no William James."
This is so true. Dewey is such an interesting thinker, but his writing style is as dull and difficult as Kant's.
intellectual honesty vs humbleness
I LOVE philosophy.
"Never forget that justice is what love looks like in public".
Rationalism - "If we already admit that “peace” is the presence of “justice”, than we can associate love with peace for any environment that is peaceful is lovable to live in. Therefore, justice is associated with love by way of peace".
Philosophy is a love of wisdom. Wisdom is a product of experience. “It is good to have an end to journey toward; but it is the journey that matters, in the end” Ursula K. LeGuin
Brilliant discussion. All is not lost...
..."like a tale told by an idiot ....full of sound and fury and signifying nothing" (Macbeth). Shakespeare's lines pretty much sum up this discussion too. Good cure for insomnia though.
I love Dr. West.
DR. Conel West "You can't lead the people if you don't love the people. You can't save the people if you don't serve the people".
Rationalism - You can only lead that which you understand. You can only serve that which you love, and you can only save that which you value. I’d love to understand how to lead so I can save.
an absurd question - itself requiring a philosophical response - if philosophy ever mattered it always matters/
Cornell West makes some good points about the state of our society today. However, West falls victim to having his head sort of in the clouds and being overly idealistic. He has this optimism that doesn't seem to take into account that the cruel and greedy may always "win". Simon Critchley by far I think made the best points, talking about how philosophy is often the result of disappointment like the questioning of religion.
The basis of philosophy is the exploration of ethics, i.e., how we, as a social species that has a healthy capacity for complex abstract thought as well as greatly developed imagination and complex memory skills decides to interact, given the vast individual differences in all abilities and skills among us all. Obviously it's extremely very relevant. We base all social rules and morays on ethics, though we do so very poorly.
Corneal knows philosophy like a preacher knows the bible lol. He knows the pages and everything amazing.
@Kinkseraph "Reality doesn't exist objectively"
I was talking about analytical philosophy. It strives more than any other endeavor, I believe, besides logic, to be objective. It's applied logic as it would relate to sentient beings.
"because books can be inaccurate"
Socrates definitely thought so, as did most of the Ancients. They're not dialectical. But, from today's standpoint, there's so many books that they are in fact contributive to the dialogue that is philosophy..
@danielacheson I definitely see your point and certainly agree to some extent. Being and living is definitely all we do, but when we are introduced to concepts of ethics and morals and we begin to witness mass injustices around the world and negative manipulation and control being abused we can't just be. It is our responsibility to live; happily. Not just live mindlessly like animals (this statement introduces other huge side-tracked discussions).
Thank you Cornell
There has to be a better way to secure the free thinking spirits of new thinkers. It is vital for our future development, for too often new arising minds have brought fourth new conceptual ideas on life that connects the missing dot. Once these missing dots are connected they in turn transient new ideas to matured philosophical minds to develop more meaningful answers to concepts that have been pending development.
this is AWESOME. thanks for the upload!!
@danielacheson We have the brain capacity, as humans, to be conscious of consciousness while animals don't. Even though in the animal world there is death and sadness, there is very few injustices, if any. Their system is sustainable while ours, because of the lack of philosophy in order to dictate what is just and unjust, still has an incredibly large amount of injustices happening. I see the most important human responsibility besides living is do allow others to live fairly,just as we are.
we as a society would do good to start teaching philosophy as a core subject to our kids, to think logically, and critically analyze information.
if people think rationally they wont be buying stupid miracle cures and wasting time in fruitless endeavors, they will be better problem solvers and innovators
also i liked the black guy
charlesdarwin321
His name is Cornel West.
What matters is /how/ you manifest what you 'do' become aware of.
I watched the whole thing; the most exciting moment is at 13:54, when Prof Crichley demonstrates the material nature of reality.
This was a great discussion thanks for sharing
It was asked, "What is the difference between truth and wisdom?" to which some trite old platitude was offered as an answer (a mark against academia - it stifles new effort - of which much is needed today); so I'd like to offer an immediate original observation: wisdom is in the application of truth. (which reminds me of an observation I had on stupidity - it is not the lack of knowledge (as smart-asses would have you believe), but what you do with it...
If there's a debate about it, then it probably matters
Philosophy is the love of wisdom. The love of something is implicitly important, thus philosophy matters.
I think the question here is whether or not Wisdom matters.
Tbh I wouldn't say philosophy doesn't matter I would simply say philosophy doesn't matter to a lot of individuals in America. What I mean by this is that philosophy is still important it's just that people don't see the value in it. Americans who have a high level of critical thinking skills are a rare sight because so much focus on stem. 50 years from now philosophy will be mainstream again I would say since Americans will realize the value of being intelligent and having critical thinking skills. Creativity and understanding skills will be through the roof. But for now philosophy has a value that isn't noticed simply be cause it's hidden.
+Mike Watkins Agreed. I only wish more people would do such deep and close reading. It's literally the "secret" to great understanding and to really "swallow" and be changed by literature you read, not just skim/gloss over it like we all do with so much of the information/media we encounter today (although I think we're so overwhelmed by media/information that it only makes sense that we've learned to tune almost everything out/read so superficially).
@danielacheson very similar to what you said, evolution is what it is. It is all we know and forward is the only direction to go, might as well make it useful! Maybe informally it may sound unimportant or humorous but evolution simply the passing of time and our (all living things) adaptation and choices made while flowing with time, as time doesn't stop.
@ThermalHD Yeah, when he talked he made philosophy really come to life. He's someone that's hard to dislike whether you agree with him or not. :)
Philosophy is good for raising questions but the process of raising questions is very different from the process of answering them. But hopefully one learns philosophy and raises the questions for oneself then spends years and years going round and round until eventually getting so sick of the process one gives up and finds the truth right there the whole time. But one has to start the search before giving it up.
somebody breathing hard
Philosophy is (just to play the 'is' game) at the core of every person, and it is referenced when making every little decision in life. That fact that these philosophers cannot even come to a common definition of philosophy illustrates how lost philosophy is (if you ask people what philosophy is, they have no clue, and they look at you like you are entering the realm of the irrelevant). This sheds light on why most people's 'core philosophies' are masses of confusion and haphazard grab-bags trite platitudes, which in no way substitute for a good core philosophy (one worthy of becoming the first 'world philosophy'). Philosophers have failed us by hiding in the history of philosophy (largely obsolete now) or by marginalizing it by applying it to specific circumstances (to the exclusion of all others, such as 'the philosophy of business') - answering questions far down the pyramid of important questions to ask. (what is the supreme question at the pinnacle of the pyramid of philosophical questions? The question, "Why bother?")
I do have sympathy for the panel here - for talking and thinking do not go together, at all.
Observation - I do pity the philosophers on the panel - for philosophers are people who like to hear themselves think, not talk. Cornel West is an exception - he is also an artist.
A.RMZ
A new observation derived from this panel - an academic philosopher is more akin to a sports announcer than an athlete. So let's play, and leave the announcers to the color commentary and post-game analysis.
Philos...not good 4 anything....bcoz..we want wisdom...passion..n ...love..of...wisdom. Well philosophy is da only proof that it doesn't offer us any wisdom but yet its da passion of....wisdom. So I respect that. But. That is only one part of the whole.
Philosophy always matters!!!!
I think she is a journalist, she surely speaks like one. I don't really know because I fast forward to the beginning of the discussion and didn't heard the presentations. My bad... XD
Only bad thing is the moderator loudly breathing in the mic.
She is wrong about thinking philosophy cannot help with the issues of climate change. Traditional Ecological Knowledge/Wisdom proves my point. Look it up.
Cornell IS the shit...!
Is the challenge of creating a sustainable and just civilization a challenge to philosophy? Is it a moral challenge?
An analysis of the failure of our economy to properly value natural wealth (so that it is squandered rather than conserved) shows that wealth that can be claimed equally by all is exploited primarily by those who have more resources and more maneuverability with which to put themselves into a better position from which to enjoy a free ride on the Commons. (Economic externalities benefit the haves more than the have-nots.)
A proper valuing of natural resources would mean that industries that pollute or that take resources would be paying fees for the decline they cause in the value of natural resources. Fee proceeds would go to all the people and/or to public programs that the people want to support.
A changed paradigm that respects and embodies *public* as well as *private* property rights would mean an end to extreme poverty AND a potentially sustainable society. (If fees charged for causing environmental impacts are set high enough, industries will have sufficient incentive to reduce those impacts.) In a democratic society, the appropriate fee would be a fee high enough so that most people believe it is high enough and the harmful activity that is the object of control is not being practiced to excess. In other words, most people would say, in response to a random poll, that there is not too much carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere; there is not too-rapid depletion of this or that resource; etc.
A sustainable and just civilization requires that we exercise our moral sense:
gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2008/12/sustainable-and-just-civilization.html
Personally, the search for wisdom is mainly useful for evolutionary purposes! Plain and simple! Without the ever lasting quest for knowledge we would never truly evolve as a species and a biologically connected system that we are! I still have a hard time understanding how anyone can live an unexamined life. Reason is motivation.
On a new birth of philosophy from the ashes of materialism
Materialism is the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
This doctrine in its modern form seems to have originated from the secular philosophers of the
Enlightenment, and from the writings of Voltaire and others seems to have become established
in western thinking together with the secularization of society and its opposition to the power of the
Church.
The critical turn of thinking appears to have been due to an incompleteness in the metaphysics of
Descartes. Descartes, for all of his originality and brilliance, overlooked the integration of mind and body, as noted by Leibniz, by dividing reality into two completely distinct realms, one of extension (the body) and one of mind, which is non-extended. This worked out well in practice, by accomodating Newton's new mechanics, since his mechanics only apparently dealt with the physical world, and freed science from dealing with mind (and divinity) by simply ignoring it. Today,with the advent of quantum mechanics, we know that this is not true, for quanta are mental, not physical, since they are not independently in spacetime.
In materialistic thinking, the mind is a product of the brain and controlled by it. This however cannot explain intentional acts, which originate in mind. It also allows materialistic thinkers to ignore concepts such as the soul or divinity, giving justification for secularism, and opening up the possibility of dialectical materialism.
Leibniz pointed out that matter, since causality must be mental and not physical (since there are
no such physical entities as momentum, for example) must have some mental correspondent.
Leibniz called this mental correspondent the monad. An example of a monad is a quantum.
Another serious problem with materialism is that physical entities in spacetime are contingent,
meaning that they are not permanent and fixed, as Bertrand Russell thought they were
in his theory of descriptions. They are thus poor, ephemeral referents, since they both
move and continually change.
An example of a possible correction to materialism is given below, although obviously
others might be able to do better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The three levels of reality in platonic physics
FIRSTNESS -FIRST PERSON (I) -Mind- The One, the Monarch- this is the topdown, cybernetic realm of Plato's Mind. It is in fact life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless - with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT. Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain, not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin.
SECONDNESS - SECOND PERSON (YOU RIGHT HERE) Relational. Mental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many. In this, the WHAT separates from Mind and becomes a HERE. Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here." On the other hand, Meinong referred to such mental objects as “sosein”. Being as. Some of these objects, such as ideas, or mathematics, are not monads, since they have no corresponding physical bodies.
Our personal minds (small m) are made up of intentional objects (Secondnesses).
Similarly, Russell did not accept the importance of Mind and its cybernetic, topdown control
by thought of all knowledge into two forms:
a) Public or descriptive knowledge, of Mind, and
b) Personal knowledge, expiences of individual minds (small m), which is knowledge by acquaintance.
Both of these forms are inherent in Leibniz's metaphysics.
Thus Russell's analytic philosophy only treats of a) the larger, public knowledge of Mind, while all of our individual contents of mind (small m) are type b), personal knowledge, experiential knowledge, knowledge byacquaintance.
In contrast, both Brentano and Meinong, no doubt because they were psychologists, were more interested in and studied b) rather than a). The objects of b) are objects of personal intention, as is all thought. So Secondness might be said to consists of two two types of mental objects, i) nonmonadic intendeds and ii) monads.
According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees. There are of three gradations of life in these, according to Leibniz:
a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical ( Eg, a fundamental particle).
b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect.
c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities. Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then apperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be though
gt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind.
The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets, mental capacities. Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of Mind on the individual mind, IMHO a gross shortcoming.
Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process. In a sense, the binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of self or mind proves, along with the need for a PEH.
This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such apperceptions.
Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence, intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind. If these are to be immediate and/or original, it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than indirectly through separate although bound parts of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become convinced of this.
Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period, within the context of one's memory and universal memory, for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its complex bindings seem hopelessly indirect and subject to confusion.
THIRDNESS - THIRD PERSON (IT OVER THERE) Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective, a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN., In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its public expression in some appropriate form.
3. Conclusions
This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition. It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom.
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
Roger Clough
good god, this is RUclips.
S/O to csusm philosophy 110 class haha
+Oscar Reyes Who do you have tho?
Tim Mosteller
+Oscar Reyes same aha
+Oscar Reyes me too
Short answer: Yes.
@Kinkseraph Why wouldn't philosophy be shared? It's objective -- unless you're an existentialist. But, if that's the case, would you doubt that existentialist ideas are objective truths, if not the content?
@bboydee PS. Totally agree with ur comment on time. And talking about being conscious of consciousness i mean the intricate levels of our ability to rationalize among other incredible skills we posses in our brain.
P4C ( philosophy for children) is the way to teach and learn about philosophy and authenticity!
Like Edward Witten, Henry James, H.L. Mencken, or Norman Borlaug?
Which major teaches and gives you more skills ? Philosophy or political science ?
Plan to attend law school
I researched a bit. If you need help being argumenttive and peesuavsuve which is a need as a trial lawyer then philosophy is needed. But if your like me and competed in debate for years and did well in it and developed those skills then political science. Or I read it's good to major in both assuming you have time
not unless something better comes along to replace it
West is such a character.
Stephen Hawking Failed to Study Philosophy for the Meaning of Life
this clip demonstrate that philosophy matters in where Stephen Hawking tries to take the most valuble theory of philosophy for physics- philosophy of mind... because the mind belongs to philosophy, and for all that Hawking does to justify his expertise to take over studies on the mind, he fails to even come close on how to relate his discipline over the mind.
I don't intentend to sound disrespectful, but its so ironic, that a philosopher actually implies, that democracy is only defined by havong a vote with two possible options...
I have been a natural born Philosopher all my life and to sit a listen to what i just listen to - I don't know - These were accadamian ammazoids - I'll go back and listen to the rest of it if possible?
They are calling for substance in philosophy how about one good jolt or hit of philosophy can and does "defrag" 10,000 or 100,000 years of sociopath cultural implants that we have to deal with day in and day out -
philosophy has to deal with the damage organized religion has done to us - (to say the least) -
philosophy is the vessel that has carried us thru "the valley of the shadow of death" many times on this Globe - and we have to listen to that idiot tell us "Philosophy has no value"
I am listening to these people talk on this doc. and i don't know? I want to be fare but so far m m m - I'll listen to the rest of it now because if i don't do it now I'll never do it -
Sem tradução para o portugues...
:(
wouldnt the idea that philosophy is bad be also a philosophical position?
reachforacreech yes, ethics
People sometimes relate wisdom to philosophy.
Wisdom is commonly attributed to relatable experiences.
If you want to study the idea of 'wisdom' and how it is perceived, you can enter human behaviourism and the social sciences (with logix and empiricism).
If you take a philosophical approach, you'd end up in your fantasy land, varying with the fantasy land of other philosophers.
There are some great philosophers up there... Just a little dull lol Where is Alan Watts when you need him?
Does philosophy stll matter? Not in a society driven by want. The best things in life are not things, my friends.
@ThermalHD Yeah he's a very interesting guy
If philosophy is the love of wisdom, then I fail to see the wisdom in a representational profligacy so hopelessly detached from the leverage of any practical activity.
LOL! And to think some people believe that philosophers use impenetrable and unintelligible language! modvs1 can hold his own in that area.
When people ask me why I have chosen to study philosophy my response is what else?
"philosophy is an art" that seems true to me, too! Philosophy DOES still matter, because human beings cannot live without arts...
+Sibel Corabatir ~ I agree, and one of the panel makes a similar point at 28:40 : "...for many of us, who hark back to Plato, what drew certainly me to philosophy is the Platonic dialogues, which are themselves a form of poetry..."
My first appreciation of the philosophy of Nietzsche came from listening to Joy Division as a teenager. So when Plato exiles the poets - in spite of his own dialectic feeling like choreography - I see both tyrant and hypocrite.
In hindsight, the reason I was enamored by Plato for so long was because I had not made the connection between his muzzling the poets and my religion's disdain for 'worldly music'.
jesus christ this doesn't start until 12 minutes in
There is nothing wrong with teaching Ayn Rand. I've been teaching white supremacists for a long time. LMAO!!! You go West!
wait, my mistake... 15 minutes in
Philosophy is no belief in god but an understanding of nature. Dale Al Mundo
The woman is a defeatist.
NOW, that is all.
well i think is clear who makes better money, the sophists (lawyers, marketers) lol So why don't we use what we learn in philosophy and apply to some useful way?
If thinking logically is so important, then why doesn't it guarantee a persuaded audience, or a happy life? I think a true philosopher realizes that logic isn't as important as appears, and that knowledge of how the world works is what makes you get ahead in life.
Astra and Simon represent everything wrong with modern philosophy. It's a fun activity to do but it has no use. what the fuck??
Daisaku Ikeda
Cornel West. CORNEL. WEST.
@ 0:52:14 Always nice to see, once again, some american philosopher's jingoism in action... "french, fru-fru philosophy" [and everyone laughs!]. I don't know if French philosophers are to blame. I would tend to think that all the "postmo" way of talking actually generated itself with the reception -and poor imitation- of French thinkers in american academy. What happens there that all subversive thought loses its edge? Think about Freud's fate in america for God's sake.
If you want to relate with a concept with true logic (such as nothingness etc.), the key is always in mathematics / science.
Philosophical theories vary, as you see, different people have a different fantasy land.
The guy on the far left is the only interesting individual.
Now, that is all.
Is this a joke?! Search for wisdom is good for nothing? How about gaining a better insight and judgement? How about internal happiness?
Absolutely ... it just shows how poor and one sided the Anglo-Saxon philosophy is in most cases. Most thinks I read about for instance critical theory from Americans who thought of themselves as "critical theorists" was just so embarrassing ...
Philosophy should cross lines with psychology and be practical, not a mental circle jerk of word salads and ego pumping.
The greatest philosophers never majored in philosophy.
you're obviously not familiar with the field
i don't thing the words "major" and "minor we're even associated with universities or schools during the times of the greatest philosophers lol. Also the greatest philosophers like Socrates from what I know actully did study philosophy and were able to become celebrities by mastering it. This is common sense though I'm not even in philosophy and just graduated highschool
Lol if it wasnt for socrates the people would still be explaining everything from myths. There would be no Plato(social studies)
Aristotle/Descartes/Newton/(botany physics, LOGIC, mathematics,) no literature or literary criticism(senneca,crito, Heidegger, albert camus), no musical notes(pythagoras). social sciences (Coyte, Parsons, Spinoza, Hegel, Marx, Heidegger). Man, im so disappointed with these educated, well-revered people in this discussion. And this Is this even something to be discussed? 102 philosophical questions are left to be answered, think of the disciplines we can acquire
When your values suck, everything else will suck. Look at the art, the music, the print, the dance... the science, the religion, philosophy the whole thing is shit, and rotten to the core. Hence our state of existence on the back of our eternally loving and nurturing mother.
The guy on the far right is ignorant.
That is all.
no it doesnt
+MrP86 impeccable argument you raise
Kevano Ullio thanks.
I feel like political science and all the arts have some value it's just not ovbious. Like I look at political science and see it as worthless for law but there's got to be some value in it. I just don't see it.
He literally said thanks. 😂😂
@Ioganstone LOL
Analytical philosophers are painfully absent in his discussion, a large part of philosophical thought is dismissed
Relationship of philosophy and study of real life is as masturbation and sexual love. Marx
I'd say "'thinking about' masturbating" and "actually having sex"!
Marx was wrong again - everyone has 'a' philosophy at their core, which is referenced when making every little decision during the day (above the purely animal) and in life. So philosophy matters, by default. The problem is the quality of the philosophies; and they generally suck, being, for most people, haphazard grab-bags of trite platitudes, which is a pale shadow of a good core philosophy (one worthy of being the first 'world philosophy').
🌽 is something else
And you are doing good philosophy by just insinuating something he might had said? Sorry, but Socrates wouldn´t had reacted in this way, but would had asked a intelligent question. Maybe you should be careful. I don´t know how you see it, but the relativistic talk with which they begin (not Prof. Gottlieb) is just ... so stupid. They talk that philosophy has now aim, no utility but then claim it cancels out doxa/pure opinion and educates people. WTF? Nice performative self-contradiction. ^^
this videos so "long" that its "hard" to watch
listennining to these guys for one hour, I kind of became convinced that Phylosophy doesn't matter.
@Everett345 hahahahaha