[r-enter-ested]

Yes! (No!), Yeeeees! (Noooooo!); Either/Or. (Hey, that's funny.)

This is where we, you--and I--will discuss what Alfie , once, "What's it all about?"

The has been discussed recently in and the next entries below are copied from there and serve as a beginning.

-------Edit01---------------------

I removed the restriction against using a particular internet source.

[r-enter-ested]

[]

It was nearly 25-years ago that I first heard and read claims that anthropogenic global warming was not correct. It was then that I began to entertain this possibility. At that time, I did not have an interest in the subject but did have an interest in what I'll summarize with the phrase "critical analysis", which has been a continuous theme in my life since that time.

Take the expression, "Opinions are like assholes--everyone has one." During the beginning of the period I mention, I committed to read, in English and multiple translations, Friedrich Nietzsche, where I learned of the and "" and became focused on not what my opinions were but how I could decide any particular thing. My default position on anything--that wasn't urgent--was, "I don't know", followed by, "By what means can I decide _____?"

[--Diogenes Laertius, Proem. XI (16), says: ‘Philosophers were generally divided into two classes,--the dogmatics, who spoke of things as they might be comprehended; and the ephectics, who refused to define anything, and disputed so as to make the understanding of them impossible.’ The word ‘ephectic’ is derived from the verb ἐπέχω, ‘to hold back,’ and was used by the philosophers to whom it is applied as a title because they claimed to hold back their judgment, being unable to reach a conclusion. (See footnote 387 )--]

I knew that some people had bad opinions, that some had good opinions accidentally and that some had good opinions through research. I strove to have--at the very least--examined opinions and no opinion whenever my intellectual conscience told me that I did not have enough information--or, when I did not know how to decide. (This was one of the main themes when I posted here early this decade.)

I found this exercise in determining how to decide something very instructive!--particularly when someone presented me with an assertion or claim of fact, but always when I had the urge to adopt some opinion or was asked to give my opinion.

[...]

[r-enter-ested]

[]

How is study of philosophy going?

[r-enter-ested]

[r-enter-ested]

[]

A few years ago, I decided to join a Philosophical forum, or two, or three...possibly four. Not consequitively, but serially: I may have been banned by one or two, but on one a guy committed suicide a short time after I began posting in my previously, uh...insensitive manner. I don't wish to discuss this now. (I saved the posts...)

About a year and half ago, I joined a Christian forum called "" by way of a facebook reference.

The debate was, and still is, of a super-high caliber. (I was debating 'Evolution', origin of the Universe, God's existence and so on.)

Whenever I landed in one of these places, I would announce that I don't and won't entertain any content from Wook-eePee-dia. I've stuck to that and you've provided positive reinforcement in that regard. I thank you, Byron. (lol)

When I lived in the heart of la-la land--I don't mean Hollywood--I shared a house with, that is, "played house" with a Philosophy major enrolled at Smith College. This would be central Massachusetts, USA. (La-la land? The town where I worked made the cover of Time magazine in the mid-90s as a "lesbian haven", the heart of the "Five-college area". I knew people who went to nude parties at Hampshire College.)

Tell me about your neglected education. I hesitate to add, here, that my philosophical paramour went on to become a partner in a software company and is wealthy now. We split when she went to graduate school in Ohio.

What did you learn about "philosophy"?

[r-enter-ested]

[r-enter-ested]

[]

Thanks Byron! You made me run down to my book stack for the title of a book on philosophy of science I read but it wasn't there--though I did find my Dictionary of Philosophy. I have read philosophy of mathematics, science and, probably, some others of this type that I can't recall at the moment.

...

I have heard and read--years ago--some Chomsky and I read about Singer after reading your post.

You should have--I hope--infered my penchant for what you wrote as, "philosophy of philosophy", in above, marked '10 Jul 2015, 06:11'.

I am very interested in political philosophy and I believe that is where and what all the "fighting" is about.

What do I mean?

I mean the fighting amongst the dominant Nations in the past several Centuries--the European or "Western" societies. What is wrong--if you pardon the word--with Peter Singer's focus is that it is akin to addressing the bad rash you have on various parts of your body while the cause is something in your blood: You might apply some medical lotion but the rash breaks-out elsewhere and the underlying cause becomes resistant to the medicine.

What is required of this perspective is a proper knowledge of history, particulary from 19th Century to present-day. The two massive, awful upheavals known as the first and second "world wars" and the subsequent, resultant "cold war" period must be assessed and understood in order to evaluate the current state of the world. The role of scientific discovery can not be ignored in any assessment.

One of Nietzsche's themes--he addressed many subjects--was the condition of European society. He wrote while the great ideological struggles were forming, simmering and festering. This is very important if one is to understand what he attempted to warn us about. It is his diagnosis and description of the ills of the state of Western society--intellectual, spiritual, philosophical--and the direction in which it was moving which I found valuable for an analysis of the current state of the world. (There are other benefits I found to reading his works, but will discuss those later: I have acquired valuable insight.)

You should infer that measuring the "maleness" of any of this does not take one very far--unless, of course, you're examining the plight of women and Christians under Sharia Law in many parts of the world as I type these words.

I think, Byron, that you were on the right bus when you chose Philosophy, but you need to determine whether you've strayed onto some back-road or cul-de-sac.

--------Edit----------

I've begun, here, in this post, some foundation to how I've arrived at a position, or stance, on these serious subjects.

---------Edit01-----------------------

Removed superfluous reference to another post and corrected my reference to "my post above".

[r-enter-ested]

[]

Thanks Byron! You made me run down to my book stack for the title of a book on philosophy of science I read but it wasn't there--though I did find my Dictionary of Philosophy. I have read philosophy of mathematics, science and, probably, some others of this type that I can't recall at the moment.

...

I have heard and read--years ago--some Chomsky and I read about Singer after reading your post.

You should have--I hope--infered my penchant for what you wrote as, "philosophy of philosophy", in above, marked '10 Jul 2015, 06:11'.

I am very interested in political philosophy and I believe that is where and what all the "fighting" is about.

What do I mean?

I mean the fighting amongst the dominant Nations in the past several Centuries--the European or "Western" societies. What is wrong--if you pardon the word--with Peter Singer's focus is that it is akin to addressing the bad rash you have on various parts of your body while the cause is something in your blood: You might apply some medical lotion but the rash breaks-out elsewhere and the underlying cause becomes resistant to the medicine.

What is required of this perspective is a proper knowledge of history, particulary from 19th Century to present-day. The two massive, awful upheavals known as the first and second "world wars" and the subsequent, resultant "cold war" period must be assessed and understood in order to evaluate the current state of the world. The role of scientific discovery can not be ignored in any assessment.

One of Nietzsche's themes--he addressed many subjects--was the condition of European society. He wrote while the great ideological struggles were forming, simmering and festering. This is very important if one is to understand what he attempted to warn us about. It is his diagnosis and description of the ills of the state of Western society--intellectual, spiritual, philosophical--and the direction in which it was moving which I found valuable for an analysis of the current state of the world. (There are other benefits I found to reading his works, but will discuss those later: I have acquired valuable insight.)

You should infer that measuring the "maleness" of any of this does not take one very far--unless, of course, you're examining the plight of women and Christians under Sharia Law in many parts of the world as I type these words.

I think, Byron, that you were on the right bus when you chose Philosophy, but you need to determine whether you've strayed onto some back-road or cul-de-sac.

--------Edit[01]----------

I've begun, here, in this post, some foundation to how I've arrived at a position, or stance, on these serious subjects.

---------Edit02-----------------------

Removed superfluous reference to another post and corrected my reference to "my post above".

[r-enter-ested]

[Jordan~]

Have you read Foucault? History of Sexuality, Discipline & Punish, etc. His work was heavily influenced by Nietzsche (but considerably better, in my opinion).

If you've read in the philosophy of science, how about Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, which is basically the founding text of postmodernism in the humanities? Or Bruno Latour's Laboratory Life - an anthropology of the production of scientific knowledge.

[r-enter-ested]

[Jordan~]

Latour's worth checking out too, if you can get past his infuriating writing style. He's a big name in contemporary history and philosophy of science, as one of the foremost founding figures of the Science and Technology Studies school, from which position he developed Actor-Network Theory, which is now something of a craze in the social sciences.

[r-enter-ested]

[Jordan~]

Translations from French are usually fine. Translations from German are another matter, because a less talented translator will render the book incredibly dull.

[r-enter-ested]

[Jordan~]

[r-enter-ested]

[r-enter-ested]

[r-enter-ested]

Jordan, I thought I should give you a report of my "progress" with The Postmodern Condition.

Long, slow effort. (I wanted to use 'slog' but could not find it used as a noun.)

I, first, decided which, if any, of the sections preceeding the numbered content to read: In this book, the Forward and Introduction.

I rejected the Forward and accepted the Introduction.

I have stopped, stalled, started again and stalled, and, finally, "finished" the short Instroduction. I equivocate 'finished' as I can't claim to comprehend what I read.

I can report that my long-held aversion to the term "postmodern" has, so far, been reinforced: This does not bode well as we must provide names for our concepts. You should not infer that I imply that a bad name invalidates the theory it has been assigned to represent.

Some long time-ago--but don't remember where--I found my first support for this aversion when I read, "post-postmodern". A similar, potential problem waits for the use of 'modern', if you comprehend so far.

I have some commentary about other terms in the Introduction, but will compose another post.

[Jordan~]

Lyotard explains what he means by "modern", and consequently what "postmodern", means in the book. The introduction is not particularly clear, indeed, but I found that by the time I finished the book I knew what he was on about. The most difficult section, as I recall, is in the middle, when he's talking about two modes of the legitimation of knowledge.