Societas Via Romana - Discussion Archives

Salvete omnes,


A small question (as usual ): Which philosophy do you absolutely reject and why?

I feel some interesting discussions coming ,



Locatus

Hmm... tough question.

I think most philosophers have said things which I can agree with. I really can't think of any philosopher who's said nothing I can't agree with. But speaking mildly, I disagree with most of the nature philosophers and Pythagoras on scientific basis, and disagree with Plato on his political views which I think are both impractical and totalitarian.

Scorpio

I reject any philosophy that posits a hostile dichotomy between body and soul; that labels the body, matter and this earthly life as "fallen" or degenerate; that construes the point of life as a means of freeing the noble soul from the evil body, usually by means of some soteriological agent.

I aslo reject any philosophy that is essentially pacifist in conception.

Romulus Iulius Ursus

Salvete,

I suppose the only philosohical concepts that I reject out of hand are those that are often formulated by new agers. But I suppose they might fall under religious ideas rather than philosophical ideas. Very well, one that I really disagree with is (Only half-joking)

"We can make a difference."

This pessimist signing off is...
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

Valete,


Let me answer my own question.

I've seen I'm evolving. Things that I rejected some time ago now seem acceptable to me; but here are some things I still don't believe.

1. Philosphies that claim they can prove there is/are (a) god(s). I hate it when they try to prove something without facts. e.g. I enraged myself when reading Sartre.
2. Philosophies claiming a kind of destiny. We all are destined to do this or that. Disgusting! They give Humans 0% of free will
3. Philosophies that say that all what we do is our personal, free will. Not right either. This philosophies encourage people to become selfish and self-centered.
(this is becoming a quite long list , but who knows me will not be surprised )
4. Pholosophies that encourage the people to believe in the duality of body and soul; often with a very negative view on the earth. It is right here, right now we live, and nothing on this planet is bad; we can make it worse although.
5. Philosophies that claim that people are good and peaceful. History has proven they ain't.

I believe that you only can be human when you don't behave as a human anymore, i.e. solidarity. And it is easier to fight than to talk, what is proven every day, and the last months more than ever.


Valete,



Locatus

Salvete

There is one philosopher I can't stand, really: Wittgenstein.

I must admit that he must have been of importance, especially in linguistics, but to me, his writings are a puzlle... there is no system or thesis to be found, it seems like a collection of loose thoughts.

A philosopher I admire very much, is Immanuel Kant. His perceptions about the origin of knowledge,and above all, the way we think impressed me very much. An interesting idea is the following : the acceptance of individual freedom, which was conditio sine qua non, if one considers that he is following a philosophy he could just as well not follow...

Off course I should also mention David Hume, for Kant's philosophy was a reaction on Hume...

There are others, like Mencius and Confucius... but I will restrain my ramblings for now

I don't especially like Kant. His ideas on function and perception are very insightful, but his concept of morality ("because we have to") smacks of dogmatism.

I *do* like Wittgenstein. It's not because he didn't invent a system according to the old tradition, that it makes him a bad philosopher...

Scorpio