I must admit. I never thought I'd meet another human being on this planet other than some turtle neck wearing professor willing to talk about philosophy. I just find Camus to be more life affirming than Nietzsche. Nietzshe makes such a simple epistemological argument. "I said it's right and so it is." At least Decartes could provide mathematical proofs to back up his arguments. It's a huge criticism I have with the moderns. The only moderns I hold in any esteem are Decartes and Kant. I don't know what it is but after 1600 all philosophers stopped being able to do math. Seriously. Pythagoras for example was not only a philosopher but he could obviously provide mathematic proofs of his arguments. Also, for what ever reason, after 1840 it's like philosophy stopped making metaphysical arguments. Kant is like the last modern to make a good metaphysical argument but even he rest a lot of it on morality. After Kant it's only simple epistemological and moral arguments. It's another reasons I can't stand Marx and Rand in equal measure. Both of them only provide the most basic moral arguments. Neither of them really dig into metaphysics or epistemological arguments. Marx kind of defers to Darwin for epistemological arguments and defers science as a whole for metaphysical arguments. Rand doesn't even touch on anything but moral arguments.
Camus and ‘life affirming’ are an odd thing to say in the same sentence.
*laughs in stoic.
The existentialists insisted over and over that they were anti nihilism and then out the other side of their mouth say that life has no inherent value and is an exercise in futility. A ‘torturous existence’, in your words.
I think that too is a fair thing to point out. It's a self refuting argument. This is why I'm so big on metaphysical arguments though. With a metaphysical argument you have to reason out a consistent system of how and why knowledge and morals are the way they are. It sort of weeds out incongruent arguments or else your metaphysical argument won't work.
At the root of any metaphysical axiom is a fundamental article of faith that the whole thing is built on which is why I regard most metaphysics to be dishonest and unproductive
I don't know why faith is such a bad thing. I have faith that my federal tax return will show up in the mail any day now. Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't come eventually. People who invest have faith there is a return but they still hedge. A metaphysical model would not work on anyone's time but it's own.
I think the most decent metaphysical argument would be the argument of hierarchical metaphysics advocated by both Aristotle AND St. Thomas Aquinas. Both of them, despite having at least 1,500 years between them came to the conclusion that there was a hierarchy of metaphysical importance with each step in the hierarchy filled with objects and creatures of an increasing level of epistemological capability and ethical responsibility. The only difference between the arguments being that Aristotle felt the hierarchy was natural and etched into the universe where as Aquinas felt the Christian God was the creator and head of the hierarchy. To me the fact that multiple philosophers agreed on most aspects of this model makes it a compelling metaphysical argument.
Keep in mind that most of the great classical works of antiquity were not in Italy during the time of St. Thomas Aquinas but were being held by Muslim kings during the Islamic Golden Age. So there is very little chance that Aquinas read or copied any of Aristotle's work.
We may disagree about a whole lot but it is interesting to talk philosophy within the context of geopolitics and I appreciate your interest in doing so. The metaphysical thinkers tend to be a bunch of useless navel gazers but Kant has some decent ideas about what the role of the state should be. He tends to be an advocate for authoritarian tyranny over inalienable rights and I don’t fuck with that at all. As for Rand, I read atlas shrugged as a teenager and it struck me as halfway a call for individualism and the other half a four dollar romance novel sold at the checkout line of a supermarket. She’s got some good one liners, I’ll give her that
I must admit. I never thought I'd meet another human being on this planet other than some turtle neck wearing professor willing to talk about philosophy. I just find Camus to be more life affirming than Nietzsche. Nietzshe makes such a simple epistemological argument. "I said it's right and so it is." At least Decartes could provide mathematical proofs to back up his arguments. It's a huge criticism I have with the moderns. The only moderns I hold in any esteem are Decartes and Kant. I don't know what it is but after 1600 all philosophers stopped being able to do math. Seriously. Pythagoras for example was not only a philosopher but he could obviously provide mathematic proofs of his arguments. Also, for what ever reason, after 1840 it's like philosophy stopped making metaphysical arguments. Kant is like the last modern to make a good metaphysical argument but even he rest a lot of it on morality. After Kant it's only simple epistemological and moral arguments. It's another reasons I can't stand Marx and Rand in equal measure. Both of them only provide the most basic moral arguments. Neither of them really dig into metaphysics or epistemological arguments. Marx kind of defers to Darwin for epistemological arguments and defers science as a whole for metaphysical arguments. Rand doesn't even touch on anything but moral arguments.
Camus and ‘life affirming’ are an odd thing to say in the same sentence.
*laughs in stoic.
The existentialists insisted over and over that they were anti nihilism and then out the other side of their mouth say that life has no inherent value and is an exercise in futility. A ‘torturous existence’, in your words.
I think that too is a fair thing to point out. It's a self refuting argument. This is why I'm so big on metaphysical arguments though. With a metaphysical argument you have to reason out a consistent system of how and why knowledge and morals are the way they are. It sort of weeds out incongruent arguments or else your metaphysical argument won't work.
At the root of any metaphysical axiom is a fundamental article of faith that the whole thing is built on which is why I regard most metaphysics to be dishonest and unproductive
I don't know why faith is such a bad thing. I have faith that my federal tax return will show up in the mail any day now. Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't come eventually. People who invest have faith there is a return but they still hedge. A metaphysical model would not work on anyone's time but it's own.
I think the most decent metaphysical argument would be the argument of hierarchical metaphysics advocated by both Aristotle AND St. Thomas Aquinas. Both of them, despite having at least 1,500 years between them came to the conclusion that there was a hierarchy of metaphysical importance with each step in the hierarchy filled with objects and creatures of an increasing level of epistemological capability and ethical responsibility. The only difference between the arguments being that Aristotle felt the hierarchy was natural and etched into the universe where as Aquinas felt the Christian God was the creator and head of the hierarchy. To me the fact that multiple philosophers agreed on most aspects of this model makes it a compelling metaphysical argument.
Keep in mind that most of the great classical works of antiquity were not in Italy during the time of St. Thomas Aquinas but were being held by Muslim kings during the Islamic Golden Age. So there is very little chance that Aquinas read or copied any of Aristotle's work.
We may disagree about a whole lot but it is interesting to talk philosophy within the context of geopolitics and I appreciate your interest in doing so. The metaphysical thinkers tend to be a bunch of useless navel gazers but Kant has some decent ideas about what the role of the state should be. He tends to be an advocate for authoritarian tyranny over inalienable rights and I don’t fuck with that at all. As for Rand, I read atlas shrugged as a teenager and it struck me as halfway a call for individualism and the other half a four dollar romance novel sold at the checkout line of a supermarket. She’s got some good one liners, I’ll give her that