Is Philosophy Dangerous?
gue_barium
Posts: 5,515
I got to thinking about this question this morning, so eventually googled it. I think this writer has some interesting things to say on the matter.
Is philosophy dangerous?
Is philosophy dangerous to it's practitioner? I feel that it is, and yet I hold that it is the business of every person. One of the dangers of a quest for philosophy is that it involves giving up or questioning all the values and constructs of society. There is considerable structure that using an existing philosophy (or religions, as perverted philosophies) provides -- emotional needs, a lifestyle, etc, and these structures are already generally at least accomidated, if not aided, by governments and institutions. If, for example, I were to desire a park in which I could be free of distractions where pen and paper are provided, perhaps with a rock garden, I would need to do it myself, whereas if there were a philosophy around that advocated such intitutions, I could take advantage of an economy of scale. Philosophy judges sanity by the dominant viewpoints (how could it not? This is not a criticism), with a result that many philosophies promote insanity, by its standards. A good philosopher creates a new path for life, but commoners generally only accord respect according to size of a philosophy, not its justifications. A philosopher is someone who steps outside the city walls of the dominant culture, hoping to start a town of their own, vulnerable to the elements and outcasts. Is it possible to fall into a kind of 'hard' insanity, or become something that could not respect itself? Depending on what values are held, and how strongly, it is very possible that philosophy would not be enheartening. For some people, realigning their values may be difficult, and so they could not be happy as philosophers. 'Hard' insanity seems possible to me, although I doubt it could be found without at least some amount of willingness by the thinker.
http://junior.apk.net/~qc/mind/rp/phil/dangers_philosophy.html
Is philosophy dangerous?
Is philosophy dangerous to it's practitioner? I feel that it is, and yet I hold that it is the business of every person. One of the dangers of a quest for philosophy is that it involves giving up or questioning all the values and constructs of society. There is considerable structure that using an existing philosophy (or religions, as perverted philosophies) provides -- emotional needs, a lifestyle, etc, and these structures are already generally at least accomidated, if not aided, by governments and institutions. If, for example, I were to desire a park in which I could be free of distractions where pen and paper are provided, perhaps with a rock garden, I would need to do it myself, whereas if there were a philosophy around that advocated such intitutions, I could take advantage of an economy of scale. Philosophy judges sanity by the dominant viewpoints (how could it not? This is not a criticism), with a result that many philosophies promote insanity, by its standards. A good philosopher creates a new path for life, but commoners generally only accord respect according to size of a philosophy, not its justifications. A philosopher is someone who steps outside the city walls of the dominant culture, hoping to start a town of their own, vulnerable to the elements and outcasts. Is it possible to fall into a kind of 'hard' insanity, or become something that could not respect itself? Depending on what values are held, and how strongly, it is very possible that philosophy would not be enheartening. For some people, realigning their values may be difficult, and so they could not be happy as philosophers. 'Hard' insanity seems possible to me, although I doubt it could be found without at least some amount of willingness by the thinker.
http://junior.apk.net/~qc/mind/rp/phil/dangers_philosophy.html
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
there you are.
- brain of c
It's good to step outside of society and re-evaluate it. Else we live on in insane ways.
So, in a nutshell, new philosophy isn't dangerous to anyone but those in control. It's the necessity of those in control, to stay in control, by telling you that new ideas are harmful to the wellbeing of all.
How could an episteme of hard insanity be achieved, without being formulated using language, the product of our social being? In order to deconstruct any sense of reality, we would have to abandon the symbols and myths we use to formulate our sense of self, community, culture, heritage, traditions and boundaries. We'd have to deprogramme ourselves from language. But wouldn't we just end up creating a new language to construct our hard insanity, which keeps us at as much a remove from this state as language keeps us from our present, objective, extra-linguistic reality?
I have no idea what you are talking about Fins, but you oppose the idea "philosophy is dangerous" and that's cool with me
Ah, well, Ahnimus, you have to read some philosophy of language: try some Derrida, or Julia Kristeva!
Aw man, so much reading!
I'll have to admit, philosophy of language doesn't sound that interesting to me, but maybe I'll get to it sometime.
I put reading on the backburner while I play with my new Wii.
Your new wii? Did you have an extension to it, or something? A sort of Ron Jeremy model, or were you going for the Clinton crook ...
...oh, wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ....
Sorry...
I was actually looking for a rumble pack, but I had to settle for the Nintendo Wii remote.
I just rented Big Brain Academy though, so my brain won't be going to waste completely.
You make my brain hurt, but l love the pain! Keep writing.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Antonyms are words that mean opposite or even contradictory things. “Open” and “shut” are antonyms, as are “up” and “down.” What interests me this evening is auto-antonyms, words that mean the opposite of themselves, such as “sanction,” meaning both approve and disapprove. All three terms in my title, “religion,” “science,” and “philosophy,” are auto-antonyms, having both routine and reflective (i.e., non-routine) meanings. How are we to tell which is which? Religion first. On the one hand, religion is ritual. Notice the number of church groups that have gathered and provided for the evacuees from the ravages of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. These are faith-based initiatives, done from stated religious principles. Whatever we say about religion, it will be useful to remember these kinds of organizations and activities. At the same time, however, who has not noticed the bombings and killings from abortion clinics to the World Trade Center to the streets of Baghdad? These, too, are faith-based initiatives. So how can we know what is meant and is not meant when the word religion is used...
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Are you a linguist? I took one course of logic and philosophy of language, I think this problem was mentioned. But since it was a minor course, and introduction it wasn't very throrough.
We did talk about metalanguage and metatheory, but I really don't know if this is relevant.
naděje umírá poslední
I've a couple of degrees in literature, and I'm very preoccupied with language, ideology and point of view. A lot of structuralist and post-structuralist literary theory requires a good understanding of linguistics: not only the lexis and syntax of speech, but the grammar of narrative and its ideological implications.
Feminist debate has been caught up in this problem of developing a new language, outside of what it calls the symbolic order of male language. Why male language? Well, the psychologist Julia Kristeva developed on Lacan's ideas and promoted this belief: children are born pre-gendered. They might have biological sex, but gender is a sociological construct. They communicate with their mothers through cuddling, cooing, babbling, making baby noises etc. The intervention of the father - supposedly around the same time as a child's first Oedipal crisis - is what severs the child's oneness with the mother, and it is the father who introduces language into the child's world. It is language that structures and formulates "reality", and identity (including that of gender). The world of symbols to construct (or misrepresent) reality is called the Symbolic Order by feminists.
Feminists often argue: well, how can a woman find her own reality and subvert the language of patriarchal oppression/gender norms? Some militants have argued, invent a new language. "The master's tools will never tear down the master's house", they reckon. Other, more theoretical feminists say, no, how can you hope to change society when you deny language and position yourself outside it? You marginalise yourselves and only reinforce the masculinist binary of the rational male vs the irrational female. Kristeva, and poets such as Helene Cixous, say, no, subvert the structures of language from within. Make the rigid lexis and syntax of male prose more fluid, like a mirror of biological processes. Through poetry you can mimic the experience of the sound and physical swell of a female orgasm, as a counter to the oppressive thrust of phallocentric language.
Whether you see this as a bit flighty and pretentious or not, this idea has been enormously influential not only in feminism but in post-colonial theory. (Don't forget, the Orient is often constructed as an Otherly, irrational female in colonial literature.) This whole idea of the inherent instability of language and its inability to denote a single, authoritative meaning has been around at least as long as Nietzsche (who arguably made that final break from language into insanity in 1889). Feminists and post-colonial theorists, also remembering the Marxian adage that social being determines consciousness (and language), and not the other way around, pick on the attempts by white male hegemony in the eighteenth and nineteenth century to construct social order through educational, legislative and cultural texts and disrupt them from within, using a sophisticated array of technical linguistic devices I won't rail off here.
i can assure you in my house it was me, the mother, that introduced language into ALL my children's lives.
and as for oedipus complexes and all that bullshit. well... that's exactly what i think it is...bullshit.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Er, because?
cause i disagree with freud.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Er, why?
god i love when you get verbose fins.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I was just about to comment on this post til I saw Fins and Cate take a different turn.
I'll just sit here and smoke a cigar til it comes to pass.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You've got it the wrong way. You have to kill the father first.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
whatever. so long as someone is dead and someone else is fucked, it matters not to me.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i agree, to be scared of philosophy is pathetic. Philosophy is a form of rebellion
Lots of things are dangerous, but not necessarily fearful. Driving to work, for instance.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Having said that I'm more than happy to keep reading what Fins has to say here. It's very interesting.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Knowingly or unknowingly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_the_Oedipus_complex
yes.
According to the interpretation of the Oedipus complex by Hélène Deutsch the girl doesn’t blame her mother for her lack of a penis but the father. Therefore she stops to identify with the father and the masculine personality. The relation with the father gets a libidinous meaning which results in fantasies about being raped.
oh for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:
never in my entire life have i ever wanted a penis.(you know what i mean). nor subsequently have i ever blamed my mother or my father for my lack of one.
don't ever make the mistake of thinking i'm a feminist fins.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Geez I don't know cate
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift