Philosophy

[loadsoftrophies]

Depends on whether you like him or not

 

She's a bloke?!? I'm standing him up now.

[TheFlatIron]

You failed philosophy.

 

That's a helpful reply.

[WaltonRed]

I dont like it for the plain reason its all words and no action.

[Spy Bee]

'Before-than and later-than relations can adequately account for time. All notions of A-theory time (past, present, future) can be reduced to tenseless B-theory:

 

instead of saying I am now (tensed) hungry, consider:

 

at time t at location x,y,z. person 1 is (tenselessly) hungry

 

 

therefore time is an illusion (at least the *flow* of time is an illusion), so your sentiment of what came before the big bang is possibly a daft question.

 

Can you make that understandable?

[Spy Bee]

Double post

[TheFlatIron]

Can you make that understandable?

 

 

 

think of a series of events A, B, C

 

lets say event A is you sitting, event B is you standing and event C is you walking

 

we can describe the series of events in one of two ways; tensed and tenseless.

 

tensed:

 

at event A, event A is present, events B and C are future

 

at event B, event A is past, event B is present, event C is future

 

at event C, events A and B are past, event C is future

 

 

this is our usual way of thinking about time.

 

 

tenseless

 

at time t1, event A is before event B and event B is before event C

 

at time t2, event A is before event B and event B is before event C

 

at any time tn, event A is before event B and event B is before event C

 

 

tensed terms have been removed from our account of time, all that is left is tenseless terms and fixed permanent relations.

 

 

the argument goes that all time can be accounted for in this tenseless way. this means that all tensed statements can be rewritten as tenseless statements.

 

consider: i am hungry (am is tensed here, meaning i am presently hungry)

 

this can be rewritten as: at time t1 person A is hungry (is here is tenseless, like the 'is' in 'is before than')

 

 

this is the tenseless theory of time, it is designed to be compatitble with JE Mactaggart's famous 'The Unreality of Time' paper in which he claims that tensed time relies on an inconsistency and therefore time is not real.

[Paul]

think of a series of events A, B, C

 

lets say event A is you sitting, event B is you standing and event C is you walking

 

we can describe the series of events in one of two ways; tensed and tenseless.

 

tensed:

 

at event A, event A is present, events B and C are future

 

at event B, event A is past, event B is present, event C is future

 

at event C, events A and B are past, event C is future

 

 

this is our usual way of thinking about time.

 

 

tenseless

 

at time t1, event A is before event B and event B is before event C

 

at time t2, event A is before event B and event B is before event C

 

at any time tn, event A is before event B and event B is before event C

 

 

tensed terms have been removed from our account of time, all that is left is tenseless terms and fixed permanent relations.

 

 

the argument goes that all time can be accounted for in this tenseless way. this means that all tensed statements can be rewritten as tenseless statements.

 

consider: i am hungry (am is tensed here, meaning i am presently hungry)

 

this can be rewritten as: at time t1 person A is hungry (is here is tenseless, like the 'is' in 'is before than')

 

 

this is the tenseless theory of time, it is designed to be compatitble with JE Mactaggart's famous 'The Unreality of Time' paper in which he claims that tensed time relies on an inconsistency and therefore time is not real.

 

Best response ever to a request for clarification. TheFlatIron, you are ace (but only at time t1).

[Spy Bee]

Interesting, if entirely theoretical.

 

How much do you have to study physics and the science surrounding philosophy? The concept of string theory, quantum physics etc? I've only recently got into it, but I think it's fascinating.

 

This is an interesting article on time - Are we missing a dimension of time? - Telegraph

[madstock]

I was quite interested in the political philosophy of Rousseau but it's not a subject that I relish. In fact, I'm on here now rather than writing an essay on it.

 

Rousseau is Philosophical Aceness - if he is your bag, have a look at some of Denis Diderot's stuff.

 

I find the recurring themes in philosophy fascinating, and am currently revisiting some Epicureanism in the form of Lucretius (who was an amazingly talented poet if nothing else).

[Josef Svejk]

What kind of political philosophy mate? Any good book recommendations?

 

Sorry, be forewarned: I've been out on the booze since I last posted.

 

But I'm generally interested in left-wing political thought. I teach anarchism, Marxism, social ecology, etc.

 

I wouldn't know what to recommend. Depends what you're interested in. But if you want a couple of really good, solid, accessible (but in no way patronizing) introductions to the field, I recommend Jonathan Wolff Amazon.co.uk: An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Jonathan Wolff: Books and David Miller Amazon.co.uk: Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): David Miller: Books.

 

For a top notch anthology of basic writings, go for Rosen and Wolff []Amazon.co.uk: Political Thought (Oxford Readers): Michael Rosen, Jonathan Wolff: Books.

 

If you want something more specific, let me know.

[Josef Svejk]

Josef Svejk (great moniker), are you familiar with the thoughts of Mikhail Bakhtin, cause I'm currently writing an literature essay based on some of his ideas? Mainly the potential usage of the "cronotop" term on modern post-colonial texts.

 

Sorry to say that, though I'm fairly well informed on Marxist philosophy, Bakhtin is not a strong point. I wrote a book on my hero Bakunin, and a few people used to mix the two up. I've been asked questions like, "Why did Marx and Bakhtin fall out in the 1860s?" and the like. But for Bakhtin himself, you'll have to look elsewhere.

[Hazel Motes]

Sorry to say that, though I'm fairly well informed on Marxist philosophy, Bakhtin is not a strong point. I wrote a book on my hero Bakunin, and a few people used to mix the two up. I've been asked questions like, "Why did Marx and Bakhtin fall out in the 1860s?" and the like. But for Bakhtin himself, you'll have to look elsewhere.

 

At the moment I'm trying to work my way through The Dialogic Imagination, Rabelais and His World and Art and Answerability. I like his way of putting theories through but it's very hard to draw up the lines for their usage - he tends to vary a lot in phrases and terms. The idea is to form a scheme for explaining the collapse of cyclic time and the over-take of industrializations linear thought in post-colonial Norrland (northern Sweden) during the early 1900, as it's presented in contemporary literature - with the concepts of dialogism, heteroglossia, and chronotope. Unfortunately, my study is written in Swedish and mainly focuses on psychological effects.

 

I wouldn't agree on Bakhtin being a Marxist though - there's of course large pieces of Marxist materialism in his books but I sense something more spiritual, especially emphasized in the importance of an individual's potentially infinite capability, worth, and the hidden soul.

 

You've written a book on Bakunin? I might have read it. During my time as a editor for the magazine Subaltern (it's title is actually taken from Hasek's Svejk and meant to describe the good soldier with a subversive agenda) I wrote a piece on sins and confessions with Nietzsche, Bakunin and a Swedish cultural figure called Eric Hermelin as examples. Had a hard time getting hold of James Guillaume and Daniel Guérin's books on Bakunin and anarchism, but it was well worth it.

[Monkeywool]

I was quite interested in the political philosophy of Rousseau but it's not a subject that I relish. In fact, I'm on here now rather than writing an essay on it.

 

Just put:

 

Rousseau was a tit.

 

Over and over again.

[madstock]

Just put:

 

Rousseau was a tit.

 

Over and over again.

 

A clever tit though, who would have been one of those really irksome people who is able to succeed in any career they choose; he was a really talented musician (who invented his own method of notation), an author, autobiographer and responsible for a lot of socialist thought, not to mention a a major figure in Romanticism.

 

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they."

[Stu Monty]

For all that we might think things have been left to slip a bit, the GF is still one hell of a place.

 

Learn something new everyday? Try learn dozens of new things every day.

[Section_31]

For all that we might think things have been left to slip a bit, the GF is still one hell of a place.

 

Learn something new everyday? Try learn dozens of new things every day.

 

Aye.

 

IMO the world should be governed by the GF, Borg-style.

[kop]

It's true, until it's not true anymore but taken over by something even more true. That's the future, and was the past, and is the only sensible way forward. Use your fathers knowledge as fact, and formulate and create better facts from it, figurative speaking. Without philosophy we would not have sience.

 

That's my opinion by the way, not a fact.

[melons]

Right you clever bastards, i have an essay due in tomorrow for political philosophy as mentioned on another thread, I'm blagging for an extension as i've been i'll for weeks and turned up to one of these lessons last week rough as the sea in 50mph winds. The lecturer seemed to take pity on me then so i'm hoping for more of the same.

 

Anyway, the title is...

 

With reference to examples, discuss the impact of their views of the nature of women on the theories of a range of political thinkers.

 

It's on about the negative and positive liberty referring to the declaration of human rights and UN declaration of human rights apparently.

 

I'm going to get buggered up the arse on this one. I'm only after a 40% so if you can help, please don't confuse me anymore then this thread already has?

[Ezekiel 25:17]

I have no place on this thread.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I have no place on this thread.

 

I do. However, I'm really lazy. I just won't bother.

[melons]

I have no place on this thread.

 

Neither do i. I'm thinking of getting drunk and seeing if it makes more sense.

 

I do. However, I'm really lazy. I just won't bother.

 

THE FUCK?

 

get your fingers typing some stuff that i can copy, blag off as my own and ensures me a passable grade of around 42%.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

THE FUCK?

 

get your fingers typing some stuff that i can copy, blag off as my own and ensures me a passable grade of around 42%.

 

What course are you doing and where?

 

Women's suffrage is positive liberty, so you'll probably want to make that your base. I assume you're doing Rousseau and Berlin et al?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Numero Veinticinco

[melons]

What course are you doing and where?

 

Women's suffrage is positive liberty, so you'll probably want to make that your base. I assume you're doing Rousseau and Berlin et al?

 

Who, you what?

 

BA social science. It was supposed to be a history module but it was changed over Christmas.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Who, you what?

 

Well, who are you leaning about at the moment. In your materials, what examples are they giving you.

 

Rousseau and Iasiah Berlin, as well as others like Hobbes and Locke, are both prominent in this area. Are you brushing over social contract theory or just women's rights in relation to positive liberty and the Dec. of human rights?

 

You said 'With reference to examples' - it is hard to reference the examples they've given without seeing or knowing what examples they've given.

[kingkenny78]

I have no place on this thread.

Me neither. I'd help if I could.

But I don't think. Therefore I am not.