philosophy

Life continues   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged philosophy on by

The first quarter of the 21st century has ended. Statistically, I’m unlikely to see the end of the second quarter. This makes me think about the end of my life. As far as I know, I don’t have any conditions that will kill me in the near term, but I’ve probably got just a couple of decades left at most. How should I look at the unpleasant topic of death?

“When I die, the world ends.” That’s one way to think about it: that nothing matters after you’re dead. It’s bleak but tidy. However, people make out wills, think about how the people they love will get along, and so forth. We think about the future beyond our lifetimes. Science fiction writers and fans think about what the world will be like centuries or even eons in the future and hope it will be a good one. People risk their lives to promote a cause. What happens after we’re dead matters to us.
(more…)

Ayn Rand’s ethics in today’s world

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged ethics philosophy on by

Many people characterize Ayn Rand’s ethical philosophy as based in acquisition as the primary goal. This is a gross misreading that says more about the people who view it that way than about her philosophy.

In John Galt’s long speech in Atlas Shrugged, which expresses her philosophy in the context of the story, she lists seven virtues: “rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.” “Getting rich” or any equivalent isn’t in the list. Productiveness can lead to wealth, but getting rich without it is inconsistent with her standards.
(more…)

The misuse of fallacies

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language philosophy reason on by

Recognizing logical fallacies is important when evaluating claims and arguments. At the same time, it’s important to recognize when someone misidentifies or misapplies a fallacy. People can claim to knock down valid claims by saying they commit a fallacy, when actually there’s no fallacy.

Take the “slippery slope” fallacy. Some slopes really are slippery. You have to evaluate a claim that X will lead to Y by the specifics, not just the formal structure. A trivia quiz I recently saw offered something like this as a supposed example of the fallacy: “If I give you an extra day to complete the assignment, I’d have to give it to anyone else who asks.” The quiz’s author was probably thinking something like, “The teacher can give special favors to some students and not others, so it’s fallacious to make that claim.” That assumes that consistent and fair treatment count for nothing.
(more…)

The “Paradox of Tolerance” swindle 1

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship liberty philosophy on by

“Paradox of Tolerance” is a favorite slogan of censorship advocates. Most often they drop the words in a discussion without elaboration to give the impression they’ve said something profound. Some will mention its connection to Karl Popper. Few will cite his words, since they’re actually opposed to censorship.

The words in question are from a footnote in The Open Society and Its Enemies. The footnote is a bit unclear; Popper was adding a passing thought, not a polished commentary. Here are the words:
(more…)

Book discussion: The Open Society and Its Enemies (1: Plato) 1

This entry was posted in Book discussion and tagged books history philosophy on by

A lot of people have never read Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies, yet they energetically cite one ambiguous note from it about the “paradox of tolerance” to enlist him as an advocate of censorship. I’m not going to waste more words on those idiots, but rather will comment on the substance of what he wrote.

It’s fashionable to say that what “dead white people” wrote doesn’t matter, but the philosophy of past centuries has shaped where we are today. The effects of European philosophy aren’t limited to white people.

The Open Society and Its Enemies is a two-volume work. The first, which I’ll cover here, is about Plato. The second is subtitled “Hegel and Marx.” While no one follows Plato’s ideas in their original form, his vision of an authoritarian, collectivist state is still highly influential. Some look to his Republic (which is anything but a republic in the modern sense) as an ideal of social stability. The idea of the “philosopher-king” still sounds noble to some. The idea that “justice” means whatever serves the state keeps coming back. The battle for freedom is still largely a battle against Plato. Brave New World, which I wrote about a few weeks ago, is an updated, technologically advanced version of the Republic.
(more…)