Greetings

[rimen]

Greetings one and all

I did study some philosophy at uni, but it was as a secondary subject to 'Comparative Religion'. Comparative Religion introduced me to Foucault and Wittgenstein, while Philosophy introduced me to the classical Greeks & Hume. I may have covered other greater minds outpourings, but to be honest a lot of it just seemed unconvincing, overly confusing or contrived. So all these years latter I am trying to find out just what I found unconvincing, overly confusing or contrived about these great minds outpourings.
It will probably take me a few lifetimes, but I may have them to spare, and this forum may help me use a few less or more depending upon circumstances. This is the reason that I eventually guessed the correct colours in the anti-bot question and joined this forum.

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, rimen

Gaining understanding does come slowly, doesn't it. Like you, I'm still working on it.

My main concern is the state of society. I think we can do better - when enough people put their minds to it. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I'd like to see a start.

Fred Gohlke

[rimen]

Hi

Thanks for the greeting, personally I think that the state & society is doing the best it can. that may not be to my liking, the geoshperes benefit or human progress, but it is the very best it can do. However all we can continue to do is 'educate, activate & liberate' and maybe in someone's lifetime our very best is just a bit better.

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, rimen

To your observation that "... the state & society is doing the best it can", I'd add, "with the tools we've given it." The 'educate, activate & liberate' trilogy offers a decent place to start doing better, provided the focus of each is to improve those tools.

Of course, improving the tools society uses to govern itself is a massive task. In recent years, I've come to wonder if that task wasn't complicated by Plato. He created an unhealthy perspective by dividing 'the people' into three classes: Lovers of money, lovers of honor, and lovers of knowledge.

The attempt to group people in classes fails to account for the diversity in human attitudes and the effect of maturation on individuals. By dividing his Utopian society into three classes, Plato implies the classes are mutually exclusive. He does not recognize (or fails to acknowledge) that ...

• 1) Individuals may be members of multiple classes, although in varying degrees, and
  
  2) the extent to which an individual can be said to be a member of any class can vary during the individual's lifetime.

Human qualities are distributed throughout society, but we have no idea in what town, down which street, in which house, is the touch of brilliance that will help us improve the human condition. That touch of brilliance is out there, among the people, probably in multiple places, and possibly smothered by the demands of the existence of those blessed with it. We would do well to devise a practical means of finding those individuals.

Fred Gohlke

[chaz wyman]

Greetings one and all

I did study some philosophy at uni, but it was as a secondary subject to 'Comparative Religion'. Comparative Religion introduced me to Foucault and Wittgenstein, while Philosophy introduced me to the classical Greeks & Hume. I may have covered other greater minds outpourings, but to be honest a lot of it just seemed unconvincing, overly confusing or contrived. So all these years latter I am trying to find out just what I found unconvincing, overly confusing or contrived about these great minds outpourings.
It will probably take me a few lifetimes, but I may have them to spare, and this forum may help me use a few less or more depending upon circumstances. This is the reason that I eventually guessed the correct colours in the anti-bot question and joined this forum.

Hi, it seems a sad state of affairs when you have to go to the religious studies department to get a taste of 20thC philosophy. Where did you study? Did they not have a Continental Philosophy or an Analytical Philosophy course?

Part of the problem with finding philosophy confusing is not being able to break in at some easy or starting point. All the greats start their careers bank in the middle of a long argument that has been going on for centuries. At some point you find yourself asking - why has Hume said that, why is he so concerned to say X or Y - sometimes seemingly obvious other times obscure. It is because he is refuting an assumption held by, say Hobbes, that has been around for 100 years already and is currently in need of challenge but which has already been superseded by others. Even the earliest are part of a long continuum of thinking.

Anyway good luck.

[chaz wyman]

Good Morning, rimen

Gaining understanding does come slowly, doesn't it. Like you, I'm still working on it.

My main concern is the state of society. I think we can do better - when enough people put their minds to it. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I'd like to see a start.

Fred Gohlke

I think it is fair to say that this aim has been going on since the dawn of civilisation, but it has been overtaken by those that have wanted to improve their own situation at the expense of society. Those with the means to think useful thoughts have also had the means to start thinking about themselves first. It is always easy to dress such ideas for improvement of the person in the clothes of improvement of society. This is achieved by presenting sectional class interests as universal.

One must be aware of such things presented everyday. eg. We cannot restrict wage rises to executives because they will leave the country to find work elsewhere - why is this argument not also applied to nurses? Because it is the class of executives that controls the agenda of the media, and pays themselves the increases in salary for the rich.

[Fred Gohlke]

chaz wyman wrote:
I think it is fair to say that this aim has been going on since the dawn of civilisation, but it has been overtaken by those that have wanted to improve their own situation at the expense of society. Those with the means to think useful thoughts have also had the means to start thinking about themselves first.

That's true. The pursuit of self-interest is a universal human trait. Up to this point, we've allowed it free rein and tolerated its excesses. We need to harness it.

Fred Gohlke