You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Applied Ethics: Universal Health Care
Again, I know you don't want to actually listen to the video, but I discuss the reasoning behind all these claims there. And no one is saying there is no "value" in human "norms", we are asking WHERE those norms came from, who they represent, and to what degree--if any--they should even be called "norms".
Also, and I cannot stress this enough, there are NO morals in legal arguments per se. Until that is fully understood, round and round we go.
Problem is, unless we are clear and what is meant by "philosophy", using it remains problematic at best. And the claim is NOT that we can ever "know" absolutely, quite the opposite. Rather, insofar as we are always already cut off from such knowledge, how do we "use" reason--philosophy to some degree--in how we determine issues such as right/wrong.
Bottom line, simply wanting to "use" something does not imply an actual understanding of what is being "used". Right?
Since "reason" (and philosophy) will ALWAYS be dependent upon perspective, worldview, beliefs, socialization, etc and it can NEVER result in complete certainty, the best we can do (in my opinion) is provide everyone a "voice", educate where possible and agree to be bound by majority opinion (even if we personally think it errs) and "wing it" while ever correcting.
Until/unless we don't need external rule (rule ourselves) the only reasonable option is rule by a majority (largely because what's the option: rule of the many by the one (or few)? No thanks, give me the plebes any day).
Right. Wanting to use something does not imply understanding that something. Just as you don't need to understand (all of) geometry to square your doorframe using the pythagorean theorem.
Philosophy is a method, closer to science than a general worldview. In fact, that is perhaps one of the biggest mistakes made in terms of understanding what philosophy can/cannot "do". And "reason" understood as something closer to the mathematical--which appears to have NOTHING to do with worldviews--also undermines the attempt to make all things relative.
That said, if all things ARE relative, including 2+2=4, then all things goes, Nietzsche wins, and only the weak desire silly things such as peace, caring, etc.
Again, this is the theme that runs throughout my courses, and is the main "reason" one cannot simply listen/watch one video, one must hear the entire "story".
And Pythagoreanism aside, I ain't gonna hire some dumbass to square a door frame either. Moreover, "squaring" is yet another mathematical phenomenon that challenges desires to limit "reason" to a mere worldview.
One's USE of reason is necessarily constrained by worldview as it is simply method as well.
Perfect reason :-) if applied to/with flawed premises results in flawed conclusions (even if, like a stopped clock, they happen to be correct once in awhile).
I don't think all things ARE relative, ESPECIALLY 2+2=4. If there IS truth, then it is true REGARDLESS of perspective. (that does not mean what we CALL (think of as) "truth" actually IS, however :-)
I have not watched ALL the videos but many.
I prefer to be my own dumbass rather than hire one, I am pretty good at it :-).
Again, reason itself is not a worldview but necessarily operates within the bounds of one's . . . preconceptions (premises, whether recognized/acknowledged as such or not) and thus dependent upon one's philosophy of life or "worldview" (for want of a better word and long, lengthy, usually useless semantic discussion).
In my (possibly sole) opinion.
If philosophy is simply a worldview, which I would argue it is not, then 2+2=4 is a worldview as well. Now I might be willing to grant that equivocation, but it carries with it some gnarly/nasty consequences; which I feel most people simply overlook.
Paging Friedrich Nietzsche . . .
I would also argue that it is not simply (solely) a worldview, especially in the technical sense of the word. But that is not the only sense of the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy
You must remember that WE (you and I) are not IN a philosophy classroom - the whole world is our stage and we (one could logically assume) are trying to impact IT, not just academics/children.
I think if we were to, as precisely as possible/practicable, define it, we would not be TOO far off - with the exception/understanding that our INTERNAL understanding will always be colored by our philosophies (whoopsie, I meant to say "by our perspective/worldview/goals/culture/etc" :-).
BUT, even IF one is attempting to philosophize in technical sense I DO argue that it will be ALWAYS, necessarily be colored by their "philosophy of life" (or worldview if you prefer).
Humans IMO, have no choice. As objective as we TRY (if we even recognize and attempt it which is a horse of a 'nuther color) to be, our perceptions are always subjective - bent, feld, spindled and mutilated - by our . . . circumstances.
Fine, as long as we apply that standard to ANY human endeavor, including 2+2=4. Which is exactly what the first "philosophers" were pointing out. And "philosophy of life" is perhaps the single worst sense of philosophy possible; just saying. Though that is coming from a person that has actually read the early philosophers in their original language, before all things became subjective.
And as I tell my students, when dealing with philosophical terms, throw those stupid dictionaries out the window; they are worthless.