Currently enjoying Schopenhauer and Bachelard.

Regina wrote:I'm admittedly not much interested in the infinite perfection of nature. But perhaps I should start looking for it. Can I find it in the HI Virus? Or the ordinary tapeworm? The cancer cells that killed or ravaged family members, friends and colleagues?

I speak of infinite and perfect in a metaphysical sense, not a moral sense. You are referring to the problem of evil, which is an old criticism of the God of theism. A clarification of the early modern philosophy that goes into this notion of Nature as Infinite behind Goethe's thought may help?: The Great Chain of Being

UtilityMonster wrote:

Chrisw wrote:

UtilityMonster wrote:but the point, which I think was a brilliant one, was that nature only has value in so far as it contributes to the wellbeing of sentient beings.

Now that's a controversial idea if ever I heard one...

It sounds trite...

Not to me. It sounds extremely contentious.

but there are a number of environmentalists who don't understand that a certain amount of environmental degradation in exchange for more growth is often a worthy tradeoff.

What does your utilitarianism say about population size? Does more happy people simply mean more happiness (and so is a good thing) or is it all about average happiness and large populations are not necessary? If it's the latter then we ought to be working to reduce or at least limit the human population so we can enjoy the fruits of economic progress without destroying our environment.

Moreover, people have ridiculous ideas that biodiversity is just so important (I think it is simply because of the enjoyment it gives human, along with a few potential medical innovations it can assist in).

I agree that obsession with biodiversity can go too far. People care much more about preserving tigers and pandas than rare beetles and snails. And why shouldn't public policy reflect that?

But valuing nature for itself doesn't have to mean valuing all nature equally (save the smallpox virus!). People want to save tigers. It will make people happy if tigers are saved. But it doesn't follow that the reason people want to save tigers is human happiness. And the number of tigers is so small that their feelings would barely register on any utilitarian calculus and would be outweighed by all the sentient animals they kill.

UtilityMonster wrote:One guy wrote a column for The Stone (NYT) and said we should wipe out any carnivorous species in nature if the consequences would not be exploding prey population that ultimately ends up getting wiped out anyway. You could argue this is pointless since almost all carnivores limit a prey population, but the point, which I think wa a brilliant one, was that nature only has value in so far as it contributes to the wellbeing of sentient beings. There is not some "mother nature" that we must protect for its own sake.
A critical point, I think. Wish I could remember his name...

It wasn't perchance Andrew Luke was it? The argument sounds rather like the one in the article on page 6-7 of this 1995 copy of Vegan magazine.

The Doctor wrote:

Regina wrote:I'm admittedly not much interested in the infinite perfection of nature. But perhaps I should start looking for it. Can I find it in the HI Virus? Or the ordinary tapeworm? The cancer cells that killed or ravaged family members, friends and colleagues?

I speak of infinite and perfect in a metaphysical sense, not a moral sense. You are referring to the problem of evil, which is an old criticism of the God of theism. A clarification of the early modern philosophy that goes into this notion of Nature as Infinite behind Goethe's thought may help?: The Great Chain of Being

Nope, I was not referring at all to the problem of evil. Nature is not evil, nor is it "perfect". I simply refer to aspects of nature that are dangerous to certain entities that are part of it. Humans, for example.

The Doctor wrote:I don't find Ayn Rand worthy of being called a philosopher... It's kind of like calling an astrologer an astro-physicist.

I disagree. Philosophy isn't exact science.

I don't read many works of old philosophers anymore, I like progressing. In a couple of centuries, today's philosophers will be revered more than the current philosophers of that century. Just as it always went: everything is trending, as is fashion.

Sasha Helena wrote:

The Doctor wrote:I don't find Ayn Rand worthy of being called a philosopher... It's kind of like calling an astrologer an astro-physicist.

I disagree. Philosophy isn't exact science.

I don't read many works of old philosophers anymore, I like progressing. In a couple of centuries, today's philosophers will be revered more than the current philosophers of that century. Just as it always went: everything is trending, as is fashion.

Getting slightly off-topic, not everything is trending. Art, for example.

My favorite is me. I seem be the only one who got things right. I would say more but modesty prevents me.

DrWho wrote:My favorite is me. I seem be the only one who got things right. I would say more but modesty prevents me.

Some humans have their moments. Particularly the ones who realize that all faith is irrational and start thinking for themselves.

The Doctor wrote:

DrWho wrote:My favorite is me. I seem be the only one who got things right. I would say more but modesty prevents me.

Some humans have their moments. Particularly the ones who realize that all faith is irrational and start thinking for themselves.

You almost got it right. All rationality is faith-based is the correct formulation.

The Doctor versus DrWho... a battle of Timelords or a Clone War? Well, The Doctor gets it right here. Thinking is nobler than trusting. It's more interesting, anyway. I find that I can cogitate without having to trust that I'm cogitating or hold faith in the "ultimate validity" of reasoning. Treat the usefulness of reasoning as a hypothesis, if you will, and perform ongoing experiments. Faith is an optional extra, cherished by some. DrWho falls over attempting to prove too much, once again; he's bold enough to make hopelessly sweeping statements on behalf of "all rationality"; and what can he fall back on to win his argument if all else fails? Faith: just trust him, or not.

Matthew Shute wrote:The Doctor versus DrWho... a battle of Timelords or a Clone War? Well, The Doctor gets it right here. Thinking is nobler than trusting. It's more interesting, anyway. I find that I can cogitate without having to trust that I'm cogitating or hold faith in the "ultimate validity" of reasoning. Treat the usefulness of reasoning as a hypothesis, if you will, and perform ongoing experiments. Faith is an optional extra, cherished by some. DrWho falls over attempting to prove too much, once again; he's bold enough to make hopelessly sweeping statements on behalf of "all rationality"; and what can he fall back on to win his argument if all else fails? Faith: just trust him, or not.

I'm not convinced that you understand my position, but this thread is not the place to discuss it.

John Stuart Mill ftw

Right now I'm reading a lot of Heidegger and Derrida so by extension I am also reading a lot of Hegel, Husserl, Kant, Levinas and Nietzsche. At the moment I am very inclined towards Derrida.

Tennant, Davison, Smith. So many really.

Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Heidegger, and numerous others.

I dont really have a favorite philosopher, Im more interested in topics but if I had to choose a few I would go with Hume, Socrates (in the early dialouges) Wittgenstein, Russell, Hilbert, Quine, Peirce, Rorty, Pat Churchland and the Pre Socratics. I have not read an actual philosophy book in a long time however.

Got to live Žižek. Really..

Also enjoyed Pierre Hadot re-read recently.


---
Dave W
http://dispirited.org
---

I meant 'love'...


---
Dave W
http://dispirited.org
---