Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Politics & Philosophy

Expand Messages
  • louise
    It s all useless without alchemy. Transformation: this is what western science omits. Catastrophe. Or, at least, the continuing failure to explain
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      It's all useless without alchemy. Transformation: this is
      what 'western' science omits. Catastrophe. Or, at least, the
      continuing failure to explain catastrophe. Or anything else. Our
      contemporary science describes everything and explains nothing.
      Keep sex out of philosophy, and politics might stand more of a
      chance.

      Louise
      ... seeing by the light of the moon ...

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Siobhan" <bravegnoobee@y...>
      wrote:
      >
      > "Philosophical doctrine seldom rigorously implies a single
      political
      > position. The phenomenological school of philosophy spawned
      > contradictory political allegiances. Heidegger marched through
      > phenomenology into fascism. In the first half of his career,
      Sartre
      > used phenomenology to maintain individualism and freedom. In the
      last
      > half of his career, Sartre used phenomenology to sponsor
      collectivism
      > and Stalinism. Merleau-Ponty spoke in favor of freedom but
      supported
      > collectivism and terrorism. The political position a philosopher
      > adopts is not necessarily a logical deduction from fundamental
      > philosophy, but an arbitrarily chosen value.
      >
      > When we see a philosopher, such as Merleau-Ponty, deduce
      materialism
      > and socialism from his apparently nonpolitical philosophy of
      > knowledge, we may rightly be suspicious that it is actually his
      > politics that shapes his philosophy." - Postelate
      >
      > The above suggest that politics precede philosophy, and it seems
      > likely. I don't know how easy it is to separate politics from
      > philosophy and determine cause and effect, but it's fair and
      > reasonable to say that many good people can disagree. Then again,
      > when have `good', `sensible' or `reasonable' ever had any traffic
      > with `truth' or `reality'. I think `science' has been trying to
      knock
      > some sense into what passes for `truth' for at least a century
      now.
      > Neither (philosophy or politics) can open the door to further
      > understanding without the key of science, and science can't fit
      into
      > the lock until it finds the right door.
      >
      > Siobhan
    • Nolan Hatley
      Siobhan, Yeah, so what does this have to do with calling people with different beliefs of yours, blockheads? Nolan
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Siobhan,

        Yeah, so what does this have to do with calling people with different
        beliefs of yours, blockheads?

        Nolan


        >From: "Siobhan" <bravegnoobee@...>
        >Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        >To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [existlist] Politics & Philosophy
        >Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:25:45 -0000
        >
        >
        >"Philosophical doctrine seldom rigorously implies a single political
        >position. The phenomenological school of philosophy spawned
        >contradictory political allegiances. Heidegger marched through
        >phenomenology into fascism. In the first half of his career, Sartre
        >used phenomenology to maintain individualism and freedom. In the last
        >half of his career, Sartre used phenomenology to sponsor collectivism
        >and Stalinism. Merleau-Ponty spoke in favor of freedom but supported
        >collectivism and terrorism. The political position a philosopher
        >adopts is not necessarily a logical deduction from fundamental
        >philosophy, but an arbitrarily chosen value.
        >
        >When we see a philosopher, such as Merleau-Ponty, deduce materialism
        >and socialism from his apparently nonpolitical philosophy of
        >knowledge, we may rightly be suspicious that it is actually his
        >politics that shapes his philosophy." - Postelate
        >
        >The above suggest that politics precede philosophy, and it seems
        >likely. I don't know how easy it is to separate politics from
        >philosophy and determine cause and effect, but it's fair and
        >reasonable to say that many good people can disagree. Then again,
        >when have `good', `sensible' or `reasonable' ever had any traffic
        >with `truth' or `reality'. I think `science' has been trying to knock
        >some sense into what passes for `truth' for at least a century now.
        >Neither (philosophy or politics) can open the door to further
        >understanding without the key of science, and science can't fit into
        >the lock until it finds the right door.
        >
        >Siobhan
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.