Freethought & Rationalism Archive

02-28-2002, 03:17 PM

The best philosophical book I have ever read is
"The Atheist's Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland."
by Randal Bradley. It is posted at:
<a href="http://www.philosophicalwasteland.com/HTML%20Book/Complete%20book%20plain%20text.htm" target="_blank">http://www.philosophicalwasteland.com/HTML%20Book/Complete%20book%20plain%20text.htm</a>

-DM- · 02-28-2002, 04:53 PM

[This was moved here from Feedback as being of possible interest to the participants in this forum. --Don--]

svensky · 02-28-2002, 07:31 PM

Having a bit of a leaf scroll through the book. I find his introduction to section 2 where he talks about writing of philosophies becasue they are not to ones taste, to be a some what odd approach ?

Ok I'm a thiest, so perhaps I have some bias here, but chucking a philosophy becasue it doesn't suits ones taste seems like an odd criteria.

After all philosophy is the love and search for wisdom. So taste doesn't really enter into it.

Perhaps it will make sense when i've read some more.

Jason

Malaclypse the Younger · 02-28-2002, 09:53 PM

I'm very impressed with this book. I intend to give the author some money.

Malaclypse the Younger · 02-28-2002, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:
Ok I'm a thiest, so perhaps I have some bias here, but chucking a philosophy becasue it doesn't suits ones taste seems like an odd criteria.

The author is makes the argument that atheism implies that values are non-rational--they exist directly as facts about the subjective nature of each individual.

Therefore, if an author is advocating a value that conflicts with your own, then you can know that his philosophy will not persuade you. This criterion is especially important with regard to value-based philosophies.

It should be noted that my own position regarding theism is that theism is a value. I do not find theism false as a value, only objectionable according to my own values. I argue merely against the position that theism is rational, factual or evidenced.

Additionally, he makes the case that the objectification of values in his critique of Marx (as far as I've read so far) is incoherent with atheism--indeed, from a value-based perspective, atheism is not even entailed by Marxism and represents only Marx's personal bias.

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]

Laurentius · 03-01-2002, 01:43 PM

AVE
Philosophy has lately become a sort of hobby for me, and I am a happy to say that it hasn’t so far produced in me the disappointments that other earthly activities may have. Thus I’ve gladly started reading the book warmly recommended here. And here are several first annotations of mine.

In “Religion and philosophy” it is stated:

Quote:

As religion is a branch of philosophy, there is a huge body of works with methods and approaches unacceptable to atheists.

Is religion a branch of philosophy?

The authors’ complaints on the diachronic must and stylistic obscurity are quite convincing:

Quote:

The whole idea of the great conversation – philosophy that transcends time – is diachronic. Readers and writers have been conditioned to accept theories presented in a historical and comparative perspective. Writer must show where their ideas fit in the scheme of the great conversation and address other philosophers, past and present, who have written on the subject. When a theory is presented in the “philosophically correct” diachronic format, it appears more compelling, even if the allusions and references are not essential to the theory.

Theories expressed in a diachronic style will be accepted as philosophy and receive attention and discussion. Readers who struggle through all the diachronic baggage only to find they disagree with the thesis will still end by respecting the philosopher. Despite the bad ideas, the style confirms the writer is a part of the great conversation and worthy of serious consideration. Simple has become a pejorative term. The philosopher who proposes a simple idea in simple terms may end by being thought a simpleton. As a result, philosophical writing is historically complex, abstruse, diachronic, and, in short, a stylistic wasteland.

I have always thought religious writings unconvincing due to their often metaphorical expression that allows manifold interpretations and blurs the truth they claim to reveal. According to Randal Bradley, philosophy seems to do the same.

I had noticed the phenomenon of the cult of the philosopher before reading it in Randal Bradley’s book:

Quote:

The great conversation’s emphasis on the philosopher rather than the philosophy results in a “cult of the philosopher”.

In science today, it is the theory that matters, not the thinker. Science has its Newtons and Einsteins who are remembered for the vastness of their discoveries but now, with the incredible speed of scientific advance and technological progress, scientists have become nameless. There is little mystique about the scientists themselves. Only their ideas, theories, and discoveries matter. This is healthy. It is not the person which gives a theory credibility, but the ideas. There is no cult of the scientist.

Yeah, this is what philosophy can turn out to be like: the “revelation-bearing word” of a charismatic, supra-gifted preacher, who gathers around his towering figure a sect-like “fan club”. Thus, I am disappointed to remark another resemblance between religion and philosophy.
Should I?
AVE

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-01-2002, 04:29 PM

Laurentius

Quote:

Philosophy has lately become a sort of hobby for me, and I am a happy to say that it hasn’t so far produced in me the disappointments that other earthly activities may have.

I feel the same way.

Quote:

Is religion a branch of philosophy?

Since it's difficult to claim that something isn't a branch of philosophy, I suppose we must take the claims that religion is philosophy at face value.

That doesn't mean we have to consider it good philosophy, though.

Quote:

I had noticed the phenomenon of the cult of the philosopher before reading it in Randal Bradley�s book...

Me too. Another reason I never got a degree in philosophy.

Quote:

Yeah, this is what philosophy can turn out to be like: the “revelation-bearing word” of a charismatic, supra-gifted preacher, who gathers around his towering figure a sect-like “fan club”. Thus, I am disappointed to remark another resemblance between religion and philosophy.
Should I?

Well, it is entirely plausible, I think, to believe that the resemblance of the perceived deficiencies in religion to those in philosophy in general stem from a common human human source; philosophers in general are no more or less human than theologians.

Still, to become discouraged at the failures of the past is entirely diachronic.

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]

Kellys255 · 03-02-2002, 05:04 AM

"...but chucking a philosophy because it doesn't suit one's taste seems like an odd criteria."

From your other posts on this board it seems like that is exactly what you have done.

Kellys255 · 03-02-2002, 05:05 AM

That quote was from Svensky.

svensky · 03-02-2002, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kellys255:
"...but chucking a philosophy because it doesn't suit one's taste seems like an odd criteria."

From your other posts on this board it seems like that is exactly what you have done.

Then you don't know me at all.

Jason

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: svensky ]

02-28-2002, 03:17 PM	#1
Guest Posts: n/a	Philosophical Wasteland The best philosophical book I have ever read is "The Atheist's Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland." by Randal Bradley. It is posted at: <a href="http://www.philosophicalwasteland.com/HTML%20Book/Complete%20book%20plain%20text.htm" target="_blank">http://www.philosophicalwasteland.com/HTML%20Book/Complete%20book%20plain%20text.htm</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-28-2002, 04:53 PM	#2
-DM- Honorary Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: West Coast Posts: 5,714	[This was moved here from Feedback as being of possible interest to the participants in this forum. --Don--]

02-28-2002, 07:31 PM	#3
svensky Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Emerald City, Oz Posts: 130	Having a bit of a leaf scroll through the book. I find his introduction to section 2 where he talks about writing of philosophies becasue they are not to ones taste, to be a some what odd approach ? Ok I'm a thiest, so perhaps I have some bias here, but chucking a philosophy becasue it doesn't suits ones taste seems like an odd criteria. After all philosophy is the love and search for wisdom. So taste doesn't really enter into it. Perhaps it will make sense when i've read some more. Jason

02-28-2002, 09:53 PM	#4
Malaclypse the Younger Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: nowhere Posts: 416	I'm very impressed with this book. I intend to give the author some money.

03-02-2002, 05:04 AM	#8
Kellys255 Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: salem,SC USA Posts: 8	"...but chucking a philosophy because it doesn't suit one's taste seems like an odd criteria." From your other posts on this board it seems like that is exactly what you have done.

03-02-2002, 05:05 AM	#9
Kellys255 Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: salem,SC USA Posts: 8	That quote was from Svensky.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.