Can we figure things out purely with reason

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, don't start throwing around names, Dre. Calling someone a "typical person" generally means they don't have an interesting personality, have not accomplished anything, etc.

Maybe I am typical in your eyes. But I'm the only person I know who likes pokemon, magic the gathering, hardcore rap, and the 3 major american sports. Not to mention debating in an online forum. And I'm proud of my individuality. So I don't like the word typical.

 

[Dre89]

What's funny is that not liking being labelled "typical" is actually pretty typical.

Besides, you're using a pretty limited scope if you think true individuality is achievied merely by an unmatched assortment of interests (which by the way, probably has been matched by plenty of other people).

You're the one who turned my comment into an insult. Saying a person reflects the culture and thinking of their times is not an insult, it is a neutral statement. You were just offended by it, because like many other people in our culture, you like to perceive yourself as different.

 

[KrazyGlue]

As do you. There's probably plenty of people just like you, Dre. And describing someone as "typical" generally does have a negative connotation; it's not just my opinion. I don't know why you think you know so much about everyone in this room. You seem to think you understand who we are and what we think. Maybe it's the fact that you make massive assumptions about everyone here that irks me. I'm sorry if that's not what you intend, but that's the way you sound.

 

[Dre89]

You're acting as if I don't want to be labelled typical....

I honestly don't care whether people think I'm typical or not. I don't try to be deliberatly different to everyone else. Besides, just trying to do that makes you like alot of people anyway.

Again, being labelled as reflective of the current times is only perceived as offensive by those who deliberately try to be otherwise than the currnet culture, which in that attempt, makes them like alot of other people anyway.

Massive assumptions? All I'm going off is the views you guys expressed in this hall. All I said was that the majority of people here exhibit typically modern views, views that began, and are prominent in modern philosophy. That's not assumptions, that's inferred from your arguments. Again only someone who is deliberately trying to rebell against the norm will be offended by that tag.

What you attempted to claim as individuality is just individuality of interests (which probably has been matched by plenty of other people anyway). By your logic I could say I'm an individual simply because in soccer I volley with my left foot and take free kciks with my right. That's not inidividuality, that's (somehwat limited) individuality within soccer.

True individuality is far more fundamental to the person than just interests. The most fundamental thing to a person is thinking. A true individual has original thinking on the most fundamental levels. We may have different interests, but on the most fundamental levels, we may think alike, and just like most other people, meaning we're not individuals, even if no one else shares the same assortment of interests as we do.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Again, being labelled as reflective of the current times is only perceived as offensive by those who deliberately try to be otherwise than the currnet culture, which in that attempt, makes them like alot of other people anyway.

Really? Because I find it offensive, yet I don't deliberately try to be different.

Massive assumptions? All I'm going off is the views you guys expressed in this hall. All I said was that the majority of people here exhibit typically modern views, views that began, and are prominent in modern philosophy. That's not assumptions, that's inferred from your arguments. Again only someone who is deliberately trying to rebell against the norm is will be offended by that tag.

Yes, it's a massive assumption to call us "typical modern people" just based off our opinions on two debates (homosexuality, science vs. philosophy). That's such a small percentage of the debates here.

What you attempted to claim as individuality is just individuality of interests (which probably has been matched by plenty of other people anyway). By your logic I could say I'm an individual simply because in soccer volley with my left foot and take free kciks with my right. That's not inidividuality, that's (somehwat limited) individuality within soccer.

True individuality is far more fundamental to the person than just interests. The most fundamental thing to a person is thinking. A true individual has original thinking on the most fundamental levels. We may have different interests, but on the most fundamental levels, we may think alike, and just like most other people, meaning we're not indivuals, even if no one else shares the same assortment of interests as we do.

Fine then (what I said was just an example, by the way). Then why do you label us as "typical" simply based on our thoughts on such a limited range of debates?

 

[Dre89]

All that I said was thought your thoughts were reflective of the current trends.

Secondly, one's thinking is what defines how individual they are. Now if your thinking reflects the prominent trend of the time, then I doubt your thinking is going to be that fundamentally original compared to everyone else's.

I don't understand why you find it so offensive to be labelled as reflective of the current trend...

 

[KrazyGlue]

Perhaps if you had said we were "reflective of the current trends" it wouldn't have been offensive. But saying that is a lot different than saying "typical modern people", which is what you said before. So I apologize for being offended, but I don't like when people over the internet make generalizations about everyone's thoughts based off of so few debates.

 

[Reaver197]

I certainly can tell you, Dre, a majority of people in even the Western world are not atheists, hardly the case at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religions_of_American_adults

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe#Religion

Do you try to base any of your assertions on fact? Or do you just say whatever you feel like might be true that appeals to how you feel it should be?

Also, I find it very revealing that you seem to shy away from "modern" views, despite clearly demonstrated benefits that have come about from Enlightenment ideals: the scientific approach and political liberalism. Those were probably more helpful and beneficial to global society than any other philosophy\ ideology in human history.

 

[Dre89]

Of course a modern person would think EP has been the best era.

Secondly, I got my stuff from the Cambridge Campanion to Atheism, which said most westerncountries, aside from America, are predominantly atheist.

Thirdly, it's not even contested what the current fads in modern thought are. It's called modern philosophy for a reason.

All I said is that the majority of people here think in a way which suggests influence from these current trends in thought.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Secondly, I got my stuff from the Cambridge Campanion to Atheism, which said most westerncountries, aside from America, are predominantly atheist.

From one of reaver's links:

The Eurobarometer Poll 2005 found that, on average, 52% of the citizens of EU member states state that they believe in a god, 27% believe there is some sort of spirit or life Force while 18% do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god or Life Force, and 3% declined to answer.

Only 18-21% of the EU is atheist.

 

[Reaver197]

What you might be thinking of, Dre, is that most of the member states of the EU have a majority of their respective populations that says they reject the notion of there being a god (there is some wiggling room in calling them "atheists" depending whether we're operating on the strict definition of an atheist, with lack of a belief in god, or whether we're talking about someone who rejects all supernatural/religious claims).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe

However, the overall population of Europe, the majority believe in a god, and have accompanying religious beliefs.

Throw in the Americas, and you get even more of a majority for the religious.

So, even a claim that the majority of the Western world, which holds arguably the most secular ideals, are atheist is erroneous. But that is not what you even claimed. You were talking about the majority of "modern people" (whatever the heck that's supposed to specifically mean). Even accounting for Asia's difference in how they define and deal with religion, any way you slice it, that general claim is just patently false. I wish I could say otherwise, but your claims are just not substantiated in any meaningful way, as they tend not to be.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Of course a modern person would think EP has been the best era.

Do I sense a patronising attitude?

Secondly, I got my stuff from the Cambridge Campanion to Atheism, which said most westerncountries, aside from America, are predominantly atheist.

Thirdly, it's not even contested what the current fads in modern thought are. It's called modern philosophy for a reason.

All I said is that the majority of people here think in a way which suggests influence from these current trends in thought.

I'd love if you could provide us with some links. It would be great. I want to see the source for myself, because it's going to take a lot of rebutting to discredit Reaver's claims.

However, it is true that in China the rate of religion is much lower. It's more like a third of the population above 16, as of 2007. Source. And China makes up the around 1/6 of the world's population, but it isn't a Western Country.

And if you want to have a look at the world statistics, as of 2005 for the world, here is the graph:

So I don't think that Atheism is in the majority in the world or the western world. However, there are some countries that have a large number of atheists. Some of these include, Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, Japan and the Czech Republic However, these don't make up the majority of the Western World.

 

[Dre89]

It wasn't condescending. Of course someone with a modern frame of thought is going to praise that which influenced his frame of thought.

I do have it as a PDF file, so I can post it later when I'm on my computer.

But this is still not the point. That doesn't change that the majority of you reflect the current trends in thought. It's not even contested nowadays that the majority of modern philosophy is analytic and materialistic.

Alot of the views here still express influence of modern thought, that's all my point was.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It wasn't condescending. Of course someone with a modern frame of thought is going to praise that which influenced his frame of thought.

Okay...

I do have it as a PDF file, so I can post it later when I'm on my computer.

Brilliant, I'd love to see the actual statistic, and how the went about getting it.

But this is still not the point. That doesn't change that the majority of you reflect the current trends in thought. It's not even contested nowadays that the majority of modern philosophy is analytic and materialistic.

Oh I see, we don't represent the majority of people, but we may be indicative of them, in some sense. That's what you're trying to say? If it is, it makes a lot more sense.

 

[Dre89]

Put it this way.

Suppose everyone traditionally was pro MK. Then recently a new line of thought came in that was against MK, that slowly became more and more prominent, you guys would be anti MKs.

What you reflect is the current fad sweeping through, which isn't meant as a negative statement.

 

[Reaver197]

I get what you're saying. I'm just correcting your usage of "current" and "prominent", cause it's not really all that accurate to apply those terms to the ideologies we're ostensibly representing, especially in the very general way you're applying to the overall global populace.

Also the idea of there being a singular "modern thought" or philosophy seems a gross and erroneous oversimplification to me. I also wouldn't call the Enlightenment all that modern, though it has and continues to play a heavy role in current society (so I guess you could call it modern in that respect), but there have been other political and philosophical movements and ideologies that were espoused centuries after the Enlightenment Period. Do they not count as modern?

Overall, your usage of those words is contradictory to history and statistics, so I don't know what basis you're even using them on. That's what I'm trying to get at.

I would approve of the word "effective" though...

: P

 

[Dre89]

Modern Philosophy is concerned with the 17th and 18th centuries mostly.

Then you have contemporary philosophy, which comes after that.

The entire body of philosophers is not united in thought, but all eras are characterised by prominent trends.

 

[Reaver197]

If you were using "modern" to denote the period designated as being "Modern Philosophy", then you should've just made that clear in the first place. However, you were using "modern" and "current" in reference to general people and the global populace.

Knowing the wide range of human opinions, I would be very surprised indeed if all philosophers thought alike. Kind of stating the obvious there.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to clarify in that post otherwise.

Edit: On a somewhat related note, Dre, I was wondering, if I were to try and read up on philosophy, whom and what books would you recommend? Figured I might try reading some, and despite the hard time I give for the most part, I think you're the person to ask around here.

 

[Dre89]

I'm probably not the best person to ask but I'll try my best-

Firstly, it depends on how much time you want to commit to it.

I've heard "A History of Philosophy" (I think that what it's called, or something similar like that) by Bertrand Russell be recommended for people in your position, but I also heard it's pretty baised and opinionated (Russell was known to be pretty arrogant from what I understand).

I generally like starting off with textbooks. Good textbooks, will sum things up nicely, compare opposing views, and most importantly will reference primary sources.

If you're looking for something specific, like say theism, I have PDF files of Cambridge Companions to pretty much every notable philosopher or philosophical discussion (for example I have the CCs to Theism and Atheism, I know the atheism one is a pretty good read). So I can send you them if you'd like.

But you need to specify what you're interested in first, because philosophy is so vast, it's unlikely that you'll get one book that will cover everything comprehensively.

 

[Sucumbio]

I do make a conscious effort not to be guided by it, for cultures are only temporary.

I sit here trying to think of a pithy remark, but alas it eludes me. You've left me speechless with this.

 

[Dre89]

What's so bad about that remark.

I said I know I'm not immune to cultural influence, I'm just trying to minimise it as much as possible.

What's so bad about that?

 

[Sucumbio]

it was the way you made it sound "because cultures are only temporary" lol it's a strange way to justify being a non-conformist is all.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

@The opening As we use logic to debate topics even IF you can solve somethings with out reason you could not reasonably argue finding things unreasonably in an reasonable based debate. I am not arguing it is not impossible to find things with out reason but what I am saying is that it is impossible to argue the un-necessity of reason in finding the thing in question in a debating format in which one "wins" by forming a reasonable argument. I hope I am making sense, I can't wait to start using my own computer again.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

@The opening As we use logic to debate topics even IF you can solve somethings with out reason you could not reasonably argue finding things unreasonably in an reasonable based debate. I am not arguing it is not impossible to find things with out reason but what I am saying is that it is impossible to argue the un-necessity of reason in finding the thing in question in a debating format in which one "wins" by forming a reasonable argument. I hope I am making sense, I can't wait to start using my own computer again.

We're not arguing about whether reason works, we were arguing about reason by itself, in a vacuum, unassisted, can lead to valid conclusions about the world around us.

Reason works, or at least we reason it does, but most would argue that by itself, it doesn't do very much.

 

[Dre89]

it was the way you made it sound "because cultures are only temporary" lol it's a strange way to justify being a non-conformist is all.

I wouldn't call myself a non conformist, they generally deliberately rebel against the culture, wheras I don't care whether the culture agrees with me or nit.

The remark about the temporal nature of cultures was to highlight they aren't valid sources for deducing morality.

 

[Sucumbio]

The remark about the temporal nature of cultures was to highlight they aren't valid sources for deducing morality.

"I am persuaded that a coldly-thought-out and independent verdict upon a fashion in clothes, or manners, or literature, or politics, or religion, or any other matter that is projected into the field of our notice and interest, is a most rare thing -- if it has indeed ever existed." -Mark Twain, Corn-pone Opinions

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

We're not arguing about whether reason works, we were arguing about reason by itself, in a vacuum, unassisted, can lead to valid conclusions about the world around us.

Reason works, or at least we reason it does, but most would argue that by itself, it doesn't do very much.

I agree reasoning works I was trying to point out how hard it is to argue that reason is not the only tool in a reason structured debate. I see what you where saying and I did misunderstand the opening, my apologies.

 

[Reaver197]

I'm probably not the best person to ask but I'll try my best-

Firstly, it depends on how much time you want to commit to it.

I've heard "A History of Philosophy" (I think that what it's called, or something similar like that) by Bertrand Russell be recommended for people in your position, but I also heard it's pretty baised and opinionated (Russell was known to be pretty arrogant from what I understand).

I generally like starting off with textbooks. Good textbooks, will sum things up nicely, compare opposing views, and most importantly will reference primary sources.

If you're looking for something specific, like say theism, I have PDF files of Cambridge Companions to pretty much every notable philosopher or philosophical discussion (for example I have the CCs to Theism and Atheism, I know the atheism one is a pretty good read). So I can send you them if you'd like.

But you need to specify what you're interested in first, because philosophy is so vast, it's unlikely that you'll get one book that will cover everything comprehensively.

Those PDFs sound awesome, though I don't know how quickly I'll be able to get through them. Better than not having them though.

Yeah, I've heard about Bertrand Russell's book. Don't know anything about the guy personally other than his work on mathematics and some of his book titles. It seems like being opinionated and arrogant might be par for the course, though, when it comes to philosophers, ha ha.

The only thing specific that I've started reading so far is this Dialogues and Natural History of Religion by David Hume, something that was recommended and lent to me by a friend.

Though, I remember hilariously reading passages of Heidegger out of context one time. All I can say is that I hope that his writing style is not representative of most philosophers, lol.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I agree reasoning works I was trying to point out how hard it is to argue that reason is not the only tool in a reason structured debate. I see what you where saying and I did misunderstand the opening, my apologies.

It's okay, I suppose. But, it should be noted that as many of us stated earlier, reason in a vacuum doesn't work. It's easy to argue this actually. All you need to do is throw around some hypotheticals.