History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedPhilosophical Traditions

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
TURKOGLU_ View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 27-May-2006
Location: Kazakhstan
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TURKOGLU_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Philosophical Traditions
    Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 10:17

I am pretty ignorant about Philosophy.Dear brother Kotumeyil could you enlighten me regarding different Philosophical traditions of the world.I would also be pleased to hear the view of all members of ae on Philosophical traditions of their country and Major Philosophers their nation has produced.

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 13:48
At the moment, I believe, there are only two major philosophical traditions in the whole world.
 
These are Modernism and Postmodernism, though I believe a few Existentialists survive in the literary world and the odd Analytical Philosopher is defying medical science and refusing to die.
 
Modernism has been around since Descartes and journeyed through many manifestations, from Rationalism, British Impiricism, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Lukacs and the Frankfurt School in the 60's where it seems to have ground to a halt.
 
Postmodernism was born in the 60's out of Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and Deconstruction. Foucalt, Derrida, Baudrillard and Lyotard to name a few.
 
Modernism was also known as the enlightenment, it is at heart is a project to find truth and it's political side examines how the powers that be hide people from the truth.
 
Postmodernism doesn't believe there is any truth, or anyone in control, or anyone intelligent enough to count as the powers that be. A modernist would say we were alienated.  A postmodernist would accuse the modernist of being a nihilist for believing this.


Edited by Paul - 02-Jun-2006 at 13:51
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
TURKOGLU_ View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 27-May-2006
Location: Kazakhstan
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TURKOGLU_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 07:06
Thanx for the reply Mr.Paul .Which school of Philosophy is more popular in Thailand.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 08:23
In Thailand at uni they read postmodernism, nowadays. Foucalt rules humanities departments.
 
 


Edited by Paul - 03-Jun-2006 at 08:33
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
TURKOGLU_ View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 27-May-2006
Location: Kazakhstan
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TURKOGLU_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 09:26
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

In Thailand at uni they read postmodernism, nowadays. Foucalt rules humanities departments.
 
 
 
Thanx a lot for the link Mr.Paul.I think none of these movements originated in Thailand.Why is postmodernism popular in Thailand?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 07:29
 
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

 
Modernism was also known as the enlightenment, ...
 
Whereas postmodernism is known as the 'endarkenment'....
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 05-Jun-2006 at 07:29
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 19:58
There is no correct answer in post-modernism, everything must be examined over and over again from every angle, every "truth" must be questioned and its perspective taken into account. Nothing is taken at face-value, simply being in the flock and being a follower is not advised, finding out how people get to conclusions there reasons and then wether you agree with it is more important.    
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Odin View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Odin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 20:39
I loathe Post-Modernism with every fiber of my being. As a scientist I find the notion that there is no such thing as truth to be rubbish.
"Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now."

-Arnold J. Toynbee
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 05:00
Originally posted by Odin Odin wrote:

I loathe Post-Modernism with every fiber of my being. As a scientist I find the notion that there is no such thing as truth to be rubbish.
 
That's why I wrote:
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

 
Modernism was also known as the enlightenment, ...
 
Whereas postmodernism is known as the 'endarkenment'....
 
 
I'm rather proud of that coinage.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 08:39
Originally posted by Odin Odin wrote:

I loathe Post-Modernism with every fiber of my being. As a scientist I find the notion that there is no such thing as truth to be rubbish.
 
Post modernism doesn't deny there's a truth, in fact it acknowledges there's more truth today than there's ever been in history.
 
In fact every for single thing in existance you can imagine there are at least a thousand truths around, all of them contradictary to one another.
 

Postmodernisn isn't interested in any of these truths, it's interested in analysing the mechanisms and justifications believers of one of these truths use to say theirs is the correct one and all others wrong.
 
So of course scientist don't like postmodernism, because postmodernism says to scientists; Prove it... That is not prove your truths using your methodology, but prove your methodolgy itself.
 
When a religious group finds a truth, they prove it using their methodology, revelation from god, scripture so on. Proving something with your own methodolgy is invalid, so you have to prove the methodology itself. Prove scripture, prove God.
 
Scientists believe they are in a special privilaged position that they should simply say "we're scientists" and be believed unquestioningly and be exempt from the scrutiny of methodology placed on other groups.
 
Postmodernists say to scientists when they find a truth, prove your methodolgy. Don't prove your truth using logic, impiricism and rationality, that's like a bible basher using god and scripture. Prove logic, rationalism and impiricism themselves, and show these are not simply mystical beliefs.
 
 
 
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 16:22
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Originally posted by Odin Odin wrote:

I loathe Post-Modernism with every fiber of my being. As a scientist I find the notion that there is no such thing as truth to be rubbish.
 
Post modernism doesn't deny there's a truth, in fact it acknowledges there's more truth today than there's ever been in history.
 
In fact every for single thing in existance you can imagine there are at least a thousand truths around, all of them contradictary to one another.
 

Postmodernisn isn't interested in any of these truths, it's interested in analysing the mechanisms and justifications believers of one of these truths use to say theirs is the correct one and all others wrong.
 
So of course scientist don't like postmodernism, because postmodernism says to scientists; Prove it... That is not prove your truths using your methodology, but prove your methodolgy itself.
 
When a religious group finds a truth, they prove it using their methodology, revelation from god, scripture so on. Proving something with your own methodolgy is invalid, so you have to prove the methodology itself. Prove scripture, prove God.
 
Scientists believe they are in a special privilaged position that they should simply say "we're scientists" and be believed unquestioningly and be exempt from the scrutiny of methodology placed on other groups.
 
Postmodernists say to scientists when they find a truth, prove your methodolgy. Don't prove your truth using logic, impiricism and rationality, that's like a bible basher using god and scripture. Prove logic, rationalism and impiricism themselves, and show these are not simply mystical beliefs.
  
 
Which is exactly the kind of comment that justifies the term endarkenment. Of course lapplying ogic, rationalism and empiricism to study of the world is expressing a belief. So? Check your Hume.
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 17:24
So science, at bottom, is a faith?
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 06:09
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

So science, at bottom, is a faith?
 
That has the feel of a categorical mistake. Saying 'science is a faith' is like saying 'anthropology is a faith' or 'evolution is a faith' or 'Manchester United is a faith' or 'Beethoven's 5th is yellow'. The predicate doesn't match the subject.
 
People may (or, indeed, may not) have faith in the scientific method, to the extent that they trust it to provide ways of predicting how the physical world will behave. The more it shows that it can do that, the stronger the faith will be, but, yes, that remains, at bottom, a faith. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 10:27
Post-modernism is fantastic! it counters the whole ideals of dogmatic thought and asks people to question EVERYTHING and realise that the truth for one person will not be the truth for another, so instead of accepting the truth examine the truth and arrive at a conclusion on which truth is most logical.

The real test of any religious scholors, scientists, athiest scholors etc would be to get recognition by post-modernists as they are the hardest group to please

That has the feel of a categorical mistake. Saying 'science is a faith' is like 'evolution is a faith' or 'Manchester United is a faith'

It is a faith to some, they worship and live by its dogmatic rules, why are there fantatical supporters of Man U? why are their fanatic athiest followers of Darwinism?

They have a faith in it. Darwinism is a theory not "absolute unquestionable truth", to accept it as the only truth is to have faith in it.
    

Edited by Bulldog - 24-Jul-2006 at 10:31
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 12:36
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

So science, at bottom, is a faith?
 
That has the feel of a categorical mistake. Saying 'science is a faith' is like saying 'anthropology is a faith' or 'evolution is a faith' or 'Manchester United is a faith' or 'Beethoven's 5th is yellow'. The predicate doesn't match the subject.
 
People may (or, indeed, may not) have faith in the scientific method, to the extent that they trust it to provide ways of predicting how the physical world will behave. The more it shows that it can do that, the stronger the faith will be, but, yes, that remains, at bottom, a faith. 
 
 
So unelightenment is not asking enough questions,
enlightenment asking the just the right amount of questions
and endarkenment asking too many questions.
 
bit of a prima donna this science bizness
 
I wonder if goldilocks and the three bears is a scientific fable.
 


Edited by Paul - 24-Jul-2006 at 13:24
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 06:56
 
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

So science, at bottom, is a faith?
 
That has the feel of a categorical mistake. Saying 'science is a faith' is like saying 'anthropology is a faith' or 'evolution is a faith' or 'Manchester United is a faith' or 'Beethoven's 5th is yellow'. The predicate doesn't match the subject.
 
People may (or, indeed, may not) have faith in the scientific method, to the extent that they trust it to provide ways of predicting how the physical world will behave. The more it shows that it can do that, the stronger the faith will be, but, yes, that remains, at bottom, a faith. 
 
 
So unelightenment is not asking enough questions,
enlightenment asking the just the right amount of questions
and endarkenment asking too many questions.
 
Not bad. I need to think about it though. After that I may impress people with it as an aphorism.
Quote
 
bit of a prima donna this science bizness
 
I wonder if goldilocks and the three bears is a scientific fable.
 
 
?
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 09:23
Well goldilocks tried mummy bear's religion and found it too soft, then she tried daddy bear's postmodernism and found it too hard. So finally she tried baby bear's science and found it just right.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Red Russian View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 132
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Red Russian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 17:15
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Well goldilocks tried mummy bear's religion and found it too soft, then she tried daddy bear's postmodernism and found it too hard. So finally she tried baby bear's science and found it just right.

    
I love the analogy! You seem to have a way with words paul. For some reason many of your post are enlightening and funny at the same time!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 13:55
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Well goldilocks tried mummy bear's religion and found it too soft, then she tried daddy bear's postmodernism and found it too hard. So finally she tried baby bear's science and found it just right.
 
Got it.
 
You're on a roll.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Odin View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Odin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 00:00
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Originally posted by Odin Odin wrote:

I loathe Post-Modernism with every fiber of my being. As a scientist I find the notion that there is no such thing as truth to be rubbish.
 
Post modernism doesn't deny there's a truth, in fact it acknowledges there's more truth today than there's ever been in history.
 
In fact every for single thing in existance you can imagine there are at least a thousand truths around, all of them contradictary to one another.
 

Postmodernisn isn't interested in any of these truths, it's interested in analysing the mechanisms and justifications believers of one of these truths use to say theirs is the correct one and all others wrong.
 
So of course scientist don't like postmodernism, because postmodernism says to scientists; Prove it... That is not prove your truths using your methodology, but prove your methodolgy itself.
 
When a religious group finds a truth, they prove it using their methodology, revelation from god, scripture so on. Proving something with your own methodolgy is invalid, so you have to prove the methodology itself. Prove scripture, prove God.
 
Scientists believe they are in a special privilaged position that they should simply say "we're scientists" and be believed unquestioningly and be exempt from the scrutiny of methodology placed on other groups.
 
Postmodernists say to scientists when they find a truth, prove your methodolgy. Don't prove your truth using logic, impiricism and rationality, that's like a bible basher using god and scripture. Prove logic, rationalism and impiricism themselves, and show these are not simply mystical beliefs.
 
Your just using gobbly-gok (use of gobbly-gok is standard issue for you guys) to say there is no truth without actually saying it directly. The scientific method isn't comparable to religion. Religion is about blind faith in dogma, the scierntific method is a process of trial and error of competing educated guesses. It makes the least number of assumptions without going to the reductio ad absurdum that is postmodernism
 
To paraphrase Richard Dawkins: If you are on an airplane flying at 35,000 feet you better have faith in have engineers who use information gathered using thescientific method, if you go into a nose dive no amount of prayer to your god will help you.


Edited by Odin - 29-Jul-2006 at 00:07
"Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now."

-Arnold J. Toynbee
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.