Rolling Philosophy

Haha, who would think that profs of ethics *would* behave any more ethically? I mean, maybe I'm tainted from being taught ethics by an amoralist, but man, the point is to question ethics, not to suddenly turn into a good Samaritan. Or maybe I'm just far too interested in meta-ethics.

Also, I'm not sure that that study can possibly be sound. I mean, how do you measure the morality of charitable donation? There are very compelling reasons to believe that (at least a large proportion of) charity is morally reprehensible in itself.

Real amoralists are probably few and far between though, I think the mainstream position even among moral skeptics or error theorists (including me) is that we still can & should treat each other decently.

xp reprehensible's a pretty strong word! study's just a bit of fun let's be cool, anyway.

I think the mainstream position even among moral skeptics or error theorists (including me) is that we still can & should treat each other decently

i think even being vague&superficial to the point of meaninglessness like this is more likely to spark debate than build consensus

i think you mistook my casual remark for a detailed moral argument.

it was a class on analytic ethics that comprehensively turned me to the dark side of continental mentalism. Dire debate after dire debate on consequentialism vs deontology wrt particular situations felt like a huge exercise in skirting the actual question of ethics, so in my dissatisfaction with the entire field I instead turned to the super concrete world of um thinking about the excessive infinite ethical relation to the other and such.

the point is to question ethics

yeah, this i think and from that link imo the most interesting questions are

How should we act under empirical uncertainty – in particular should we follow expected utility even when it comes to tiny probabilities of huge amounts of value? (Relevant to extinction risk)

All other things being equal, should we prioritise the prevention of wrongs over the alleviation of naturally caused suffering? (Relevant to abortion, animal suffering)

Given that we aren’t ever going to be certain in answers to the above questions, how should we take into account uncertainty about these moral issues in our decision-making? (Relevant to: global poverty, abortion, animal suffering, extinction risk)

first we must start with the face to face encounter

There are very compelling reasons to believe that (at least a large proportion of) charity is morally reprehensible in itself.

reasons such as

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/08/no-theory-x-in-shining-armour.html

well, that sounds compelling to me

If I have to accept something, I accept the repugnant conclusion.

How about accepting that all theories are inadequate? I recently discovered Bernard Williams who "believes that ethical thinking cannot be systematised without intolerable distortions and losses, because to systematise is, inevitably, to streamline our ethical thinking in a reductionist style"

Suppose for example that I, an officer of a wrecked ship, take the hard decision to actively prevent further castaways from climbing onto my already dangerously overcrowded lifeboat. Afterwards, I am tormented when I remember how I smashed the spare oar repeatedly over the heads and hands of desperate, drowning people. Yet what I did certainly brought it about that as many people as possible were saved from the shipwreck, so that a utilitarian would say that I brought about the best consequences, and anyone might agree that I found the only practicable way of avoiding a dramatically worse outcome. Moreover, as a Kantian might point out, there was nothing unfair or malicious about what I did in using the minimum force necessary to repel further boarders: my aim, since I could not save every life, was to save those who by no choice of mine just happened to be in the lifeboat already; this was an aim that I properly had, given my role as a ship's officer; and it was absolutely not my intention to kill or (perhaps) even to injure anyone.

So what will typical advocates of the morality system have to say to me afterwards about my dreadful sense of regret? If they are—as perhaps they had better not be—totally consistent and totally honest with me, what they will have to say is simply “Don't give it a second thought; you did what morality required, so your deep anguish about it is irrational.” And that, surely, cannot be the right thing for anyone to say. My anguish is not irrational but entirely justified. Moreover, it is justified simply as an ex post facto response to what I did: it does not for instance depend for its propriety upon the suggestion—a characteristic one, for many modern moral theorists—that there is prospective value for the future in my being the kind of person who will have such reactions.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/williams-bernard/

lol utilitarians

BUZZZZZZZ snark penalty, deducted 0.5 utils.

i'm going to allow it

otm

I like the snappy way I put it, in an argument with a utilitarianbro some time ago: "the ethical field does not permit of closure"

god, utilitarian bros

1) does anyone know if there's a "preferred" version of Hegel's Phenomenology? the top results on amazon all seem pretty old. im surprised there's not some new-ish edition with a sexy cover that will make me look cool when i read it.

2) i have been craving a big and ambitious intellectual history, confined mostly to western philosophy. any favorites? the bigger and more general the better. wacky overreaching thesis = still better.

Uh, so, what you're looking for... is a history of Western Philosophy?

if it's something a little more than a "survey" then sure!

(don't want to be too specific, just curious what people might suggest...)

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/author/default.asp?aid=851

Blumenberg! yes, perfect.

So, um, something like this?

i wish I could find Blumenberg's "Legitimacy of the Modern World" for a decent price. been looking forever.

and yes emil.y i think Russell's book definitely fits (though unfortunately I've read it--maybe wouldn't hurt to read it again...).

not read this but it was a big deal when it came out

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pDxGPgAACAAJ&dq=from+dawn+to+decadence&source=bl&ots=Xq_5KFH-eJ&sig=MlbASFaqU2yDVqUrY8eeoxK1xPM&hl=en

Ha, sorry ryan, that's why I was umming and ahhing in my posts, I kind of thought it was a bit obvious, but I couldn't gauge if you'd overlooked it.

this is p cool but it's not 'philosophy' really

http://books.google.com/books/about/A_History_of_Civilizations.html?id=im_HHEpf-msC

Maybe this fits the bill: All or Nothing, by Paul Franks. I read some of it years ago - it's a study of the development of German Idealism.

ah both of those look really cool.

one of my favorites is John Deely's "Four Ages of Understanding." it's probably pretty obscure, and definitely idiosyncratic, but i loved it's ambition and depth and it's great fun to read. it's the size of a dictionary though.

A. W. Moore's new book sounds like it could have wide appeal too: http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Modern-Metaphysics-Philosophy/dp/0521851114

Not that I'll ever read it.

that looks awesome but jeez that cover. not sexy at all :-/

Coffa's To the Vienna Station is a fab survey of the origins of analytic philosophy.

on Hegel, isn't it just better to read Charles Taylor's book?

i'm pretty sure this is the "preferred" phenomenology, or at least the version that was assigned to me in grad school:
http://www.amazon.com/Phenomenology-Spirit-G-W-Hegel/dp/0198245971

that's the preferred phenomenology, yes, but there's going to be a new translation, by terry pinkard, released in the near future, and it's currently available online - http://web.mac.com/titpaul/Site/Phenomenology_of_Spirit_page.html (or is it? that's not loading for me at the moment.) it's likely to become the new standard version, and is definitely a much easier read than the current translation, but unfortunately i think that ease of comprehension is sacrificing some of the actual detail of the argumentation. and beyond that there were some pretty glaring mistakes too, we'll see what becomes of them in the published version.

curious to see if a new translation will finally help me understand the anatomy stuff

since we're here, i'll note that over the last few days i was at a major uk european philosophy conference (let's call it s3p f3p). my paper went p well, the overall standard of papers was ~alright~ i guess (i don't think they're hugely discriminating when it comes to accepting people), but the talk of the town was the absolutely mental paper given by alph0nso l1ngis (probably best known for his levinas and merleau-ponty translations, now rather old) - clad in a hawaiian shirt he, in near darkness, his paper lit with a handheld headlamp, delivered, in a rapid and rhythmic vincent price voice, a talk on subjectivity via lingerie, parrots, mirrors, babies... all over a soundtrack of chill koto vibes.

on the topic of the big overarching all-encompassing history of ideas thing, that'd be really interesting if someone could do it properly and well but i can't imagine doing it properly and well in under ten volumes. speaking of hegel, i think his lectures on the history of philosophy, up to and including his contemporaries, are really interesting and some of his most readable stuff. illuminating re his own project for those reasons too, especially when read alongside something like the phenomenology, which is really a huge engagement with the entirety of western thought without ever naming anyone he's talking about.

what was your paper on? (if you don't mind me asking)

it was on john cage and deleuze-guattari, a bit of a sketch of their shared projects wrt the relation between immanence and structure and so on.

reading anthony kenny's "rise of modern philosophy" atm -- it's surprisingly enjoyable but i don't have much to compare it with

ryan, this is some good stuff too:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Romantic-Conception-Life-Foundations/dp/0226712117

oh dang i think i need to read that one first.

merdeyeux: that sounds pretty rad. let us/me know if you publish it!

german idealism / romanticism is pretty well covered for those big surveys. frederick beiser's is good too - http://www.amazon.com/German-Idealism-Struggle-Subjectivism-1781-1801/dp/0674027175/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347060273&sr=1-2&keywords=frederick+beiser on 20th century french stuff vincent descombes is good - http://www.amazon.com/Modern-French-Philosophy-Vincent-Descombes/dp/0521296722/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347060396&sr=1-1&keywords=descombes

will do, ryan!

go hard or go home

http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173297467l/269724.jpg

the braudel is great but not philosophy

btw ryan are you planning on reading the phenomenology on your own? if so i'd definitely recommend reading a secondary text or two alongside it. in terms of big important readings hyppolite and heidegger are very good, for super detailed analysis there's a book by someone yovel that's just an extensively annotated version of the preface, and there's h.s. harris's 'hegel's ladder', a maaaaaassive nearly passage-by-passage analysis of the entire book.

yep im reading it on my own, for "fun." I've read some Hegel before, but as I understand it the Phenomenology is a different beast altogether, so i'll definitely check out those secondary texts. very much looking forward to it, though I'm sure it'll take me a long time.

i wish I could find Blumenberg's "Legitimacy of the Modern World" for a decent price. been looking forever.

I got a copy on Amazon UK for £28, which seems OK