Anyone for philosophy free of politics and religion?

Post Reply New Topic

I would argue that the works of Henry Thoreau are fitting for an Asperger's mind.

I haven't seen much philisophy, and while I enjoy a good political argument, I'm not in the mood at the moment.

I'd write more but would like to establish interest first.

I've always enjoyed Walden, as an individual retreat it holds fascination for my mind.

He seems to be a noticer and a deep thinker, who prefers solitude and peace. Working those beans, exploring the pond, etc.

Not to mention there are several members here, myself incuded, who use quotations of his as signatures.

Politics and religion are about the only things that give philosophy any substance.

There is the question of self.

Also that of being, if you care to get metaphysical.

Philosophy is about asking questions to understand the real nature of things and of existence. Because of that philosphy is entirely flexible, adaptable, and open to new thoughts and ideas.

Religion and politics are nothing to do with the true nature of things. They are both constructs of the human mind that try to impose a false reality rather than study a true reality with an open mind.




From what I remember of it (I read it a long time ago and before I knew anything about AS) I think Nausea by Satre is a book that identifies with AS.

"Anyone for philosophy free of politics and religion?"

Ah, the tough questions first, eh?

Difficult, because in tackling the broad philosophical questions religion is going to offer a candidate answer, as personal faith, even leaving aside organised ones giving cohesion to (or fracturing) communities.

And politics, because as soon as two individuals with different philosophies meet, their negotiation of mutual existence and relationship is embryonic politics.
("You're not like me so I'm going to kill you" is a philosophico-political stance)

Now, if you mean "without assuming any particular political or religious stance is right or priveleged", we may have a chance.

Has any personquestioned the statement,
i think, therefor i am!









I remember being utterly fascinated with philosophy, when i was a younger lad. i also vaguely remember being enthralled by Sarte. Time to go buy and consume a dozen books, just to refresh my mind. To be fair, half will be Sarte, the other HDT.

I cannot speak to him, since i admit limited knowledge of his work. Is he more than an environmentalist?

I wonder how much progress pure philosophy has made. E.g. on the nature of existance, meaning of life, and etc. I am hardly an expert (or even well read) on this area, but it seems to me that since the time of the great thinkers very little progress has been made.

I do hope to be proven wrong of course.

As for Cognito ergo sum (huh????), well actually I do know of one way to disprove that.

[quote="Larval"]I wonder how much progress pure philosophy has made...
quote]

Much of it, called "progress", has involved each genration of philosophers spotting and pointing out where their predecessors went wrong, only to suffer the same fate themselves. There's plenty out there that's thought provoking, nonetheless. And it's got drastically weirder in the last hundred years.


"Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!"

While Socrates insisted that the unexamined life was not worth living, it has been noted that the life too closely examined may not be livable.
Or, if you prefer, "Philosophy screws you up."

It's too late for me, but you can still save yourself...

Oops, the nature of the topic led to tangents off my original subject, but that's just as well I suppose.

I'm actually not really into philosphy per se, but have come across some interesting works in my wanderings

No Sarte, although now I'm curious.

Two works of interest then:

Jocques the Fatalist- Diderot
Ecce Homo- Neitzsche

The Diderot is a fantastic black comedy into the mind.
The Neitzsche a fantastic view into a very different mind.

"Ecce Homo" is his autobiography and features chapter titles like "why I am so wise".

As for Walden, it's more than enviroment, the entire first 1/3 of the book (maybe not quite) is a discussion on modern economics, and quite interesting. It's a refutation of capitalism, but not in a political way (my pov). It's more of a philosophical argument against non-tangibles like money.

It would be easy to argue that he is political, but to stop the first point and allow movement to the second I shall say this.

It's not marxist, to be marxist requires a community, a common good.

HDT's revolution is a personal one, an internal one, a different viewpoint. I believe it's a sensory one, to experience the world around you as it is without cultural filters. This is why I believe it's a philosophical work, not political in any way. (politics and culture clearly being different)

It's also why I think I like it so much.

Yes. That might lead one to the counter proposition:

Anyone for religion free of politics and philosophy?

What do you have in religion when you take away all the politics and philosophy? Only spirituality. No churches arguing over supremacy. No theological disagreements. No enforcement of doctrine. Only a quest for a personal experience of the Originator of all this, all that...

Not likely, but fun to think about.

Ok Hermit,

i got a $25 Barnes and Nobel gift card last night, any suggestions on which HDT work to purchase.


Heres my plan. i will spend about $24 and save the other buck for a couple of years.

When i try to use it they will deny me due to its expiration.

Then i will ask the manager how good money expires. he will inform me about bookkeeping nonsense. To which i will reply, "your free moneycompounded over two year earning interrest, more than pays its share of the machine you have doing your book keeping."

Yes, i will. I do these things purposely. It is my little contribution to the next generation.


Which HDT book?

Great minds talk about ideas. Average minds talk about events. Mediocre minds talk about people. - Eleanor Roosevelt

"I think, therefore I am" or "I doubt, therefore I am" has only opened up unanswerable questions. Which isn't all bad in itself because the exercise of thinking and wondering is food for the mind-- unless one comes to a nihilistic conclusion and resolves there's no point to anything and therefore does nothing.

But philosophy so rarely answers anything definitive except that the whole of philosophy is a statement-- a reflection on human nature. There are more answers in philosophy about the nature of a human being who questions his own existence, but it doesn't answer whether he exists or not, or even why he exists. It gets him to ponder and exercise his cognitive boundaries. And his conclusions offer him information about his own self.

I sometimes see philosophy as an artful exercise. Something which can be beautiful or ugly and offer insight into each of us. But as for answering the universe around us, or even dilemmas of the corporeal body vs. the mind (or spirit), it holds no answers. Only more unanswerable questions.

As for politics and religion, these, too, are constructs and reflections of ourselves. They can offer guidance, but never answers. Therefore, they must be treated with caution and reverance because we give them the potential to destroy.

As for the separation of all three, I don't find the idea one to entertain. They are interwoven due to the simple fact that they are, all three, conceived in the human mind. And despite its many factions and divisions, the mind is too much a gestalt to remove or rescind any one part of it. All of these inventions of cognitive fancy are products of unlying mechanisms and functions, quite a few which, I have no doubt, lead to the creation of philosophy, religion, and politics. To remove one without removing the other two (politics perhaps a little less so, since it deals also with interaction and not just the single self) is very hard for me to conceive...

Has Cogito ergo sum been questioned? Yes, Decartes got a lot of criticism for that argument already during his lifetime (but he wasn't the first to make that assessment in philosophy). I don't think it's very hard to question it by simply looking at the relevance of relation. All we can say really is that something seems to think so it seems that someone or something exists, but that could be a manifestation coming from anything: what am "I" in contrast to that? am I even separated at all or is it all part of what should be termed me? does my cognitive process consist of signals coming from across the universe by many separate entities/inert units or do I have a free will? if not, then is there anything left to term "I"?
You could argue that this only questions "who" am I, not "am I", but "I" is a meaningless definition without its relation to "not I", since definition as a concept means differing from something else. I don't really like this refutation myself because it doesn't really seem to criticise the concept itself but simply blurs it a bit, but that's the way it is with much in philosophy where nothing is certain at all. =)

I have, and I found it to be total BS. There are lots of people that don't think, but still are.

I'm not at all a philosophy buff but there's been plenty of succeeding philosphers who have questioned Descartes. Some who have even questioned the existence of the self. I'm sure other members on WP can mention the names. As I said, I haven't studied philosophy nor its terms more than a semester's worth of class.

But to Descartes, he felt he had proven the self, the outside world (including the body), and God. Apparently only the first one is given much credence. Simply because none of us can definitively prove anything exists outside of our minds.

But then again, we have no proof of our own minds other than experience and perception.