hey guys i know this is slightly late but i'm interested setting up a philosophy meet-up come october/november 2012 if one doesn't already exist. if not, a teh tarik session in oct/nov would be great

Go read up and discuss here.

i did my degree in philosophy in lyon, france and i will be returning back home come oct/nov. the reason why i would like to set up a philo meet-up so that we may explore certain themes together, read up, discuss, etc.

That's not going to be helpful. Anyone can just read up and talk all they want about it.

Live your life with the understanding of philosophy which you have learned, and prepare to answer the question:

"Will you shape your life, and will your life shape you? Accept your fate and be happy? Or defy it and be glorious?

deadlocks,

you seem certain that meeting up and discussing philosophical themes won't be useful. in the end, philosophy is the "love of wisdom" and as long as you have that, it is the end that matters, not the means, as said by kant. ultimately, it is your choice and your own will to refuse my proposition and i can't change that.

as sartre puts it, you have free will and decision making implies a value judgement on a thing or an action, i.e., water will have value to a thirsty man in a desert but not so much to a man in a café. after all, he has a choice between all the beverages and he might see more value in a cup of tea rather than water. similarly, if the man is suicidal, he will not see water or food as having value at all!

having said that, is there at the very end, an intrinsic value in water, food or life, independent of the subject?

just like the above, i guess to you, my proposition has no value. but does it have an intrinsic value i wonder?

anyway, your question : "Will you shape your life, and will your life shape you? Accept your fate and be happy? Or defy it and be glorious?"

your questions compose of existential and moral philosophy. questions wrestled by philosophers of old like plato, aristotle up to kant and its culminating point in sartre and heidegger. philosophy being a study, it is formalised and contains on its own a specialised jargon by which i have restructured your questions into "philosophy speak" to ease your hermeneutical research in philosophical texts.

the questions posed by them are :

1. "why is there something instead of nothing?"
2. "what is being?"
3. "what is the "thing in itself" (essence) of being?"
4. "is everything determined or does free will exist?"
5. "if free will exists, what is the meaning/value of our actions?"
6. "how to live a virtuous life?"
7. "how do i behave? according to my desires or the universal law of nature (deontic)?"

i'm afraid due to the lengths at which i will have to write to explain them all along with time constraints, you should do the reading and research on your own.

to start with, u can start by reading about the difference of opinion between "idealism and materialism" and later on sartre and the philosophers i have mentioned. from there you will get a semblance of an answer to your question.

as for meeting up face-to-face, i had the impression that a "human contact" was what you were looking for. but now i agree with you that there is no need for both of us to do just that. however, i will continue to find someone that i may discuss philosophical themes with.

have a good day deadlocks.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Jul 14 2012, 12:18 AM

Nope you don't understand. I was preventing you the dangers of hedonism which comes from your newly discovered knowledge.

https://www.coursera.org/course/introphil

the above is a free online introductory course to philosophy that'll begin in january 2013.

sign up, participate and you'll get a certificate in the end

Thanks.

Nope you don't understand. I was preventing you the dangers of hedonism which comes from your newly discovered knowledge.

[/quote]


deadlocks,

i find this reply unsatisfactory. what is your definition of being a hedonist?

please note what Montaigne said, "Philosophy makes those who are devoted to her, happy and cheerful."

is it then wrong to be a hedonist?

in philosophy, you always need to explain what is the object in question. that means explaining all the different views and opinions that are associated with the object in question.

personally speaking, from your reply to my proposition, it wasn't implied in any way that you were trying to prevent me from the "dangers of hedonism". but whatever. i don't know what is true (i'm no mindreader) so i choose not to decide / pursue it further (see scepticism).

p.s : concerning the link, you're welcome. good luck with the course.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Aug 2 2012, 09:26 PM

Nope you don't understand. I was preventing you the dangers of hedonism which comes from your newly discovered knowledge.


When hedonism exhibits another form of instant gratification, then yes, it is dangerous.

Notice that you are contradicting what philosophy wants you to do. You take references from others by quoting them. I write my own quotes.

And I like being a walking uncyclopedia, trying to resist every chance of applying agitation propaganda on anyone I see whom deserves it.

And thanks again for the link.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Aug 8 2012, 09:40 PM

so what is philosophy then to you my dear deadlocks?

from how you explained the workings of philosophy, we shouldn't reference any source to back up our argument. if you do this in university, you'll fail your first semester exams.

it's funny that you like philosophy if you think you can solve philosophical problems without reading other's approach to them. if that is the love for wisdom and knowledge, then i can only assume it is only the love for your own.

but okay, maybe you're coming up with a brand new philosophical system that burns all thousands of years of tradition and for that reason, there will be no need to reference anything.

wow really if you accomplish that, you could very well be the first malaysian recipient for a nobel prize in literature! i can't wait... malaysia boleh!

edit : reading philosophy provides a certain disposition to a person to question everything, including his own beliefs and proceed to put them to the test (see Descartes, sorry). can you comfortably say you weren't being dogmatic in your replies? If one does not have any "doubt" or enquiry but see the apex being his own perfect being, i suppose reading An Idiot's Guide to Being a Dictator would make more sense.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Aug 10 2012, 02:16 AM

I'm sure both of us are exposed to a few quotes and some philosophical figures. And you were right about questioning. What you didn't realize was that they can be misconstrued in various ways, hence the best philosophy is indeed one individual's own personal experience of his/her existentialism. Once you got out of "reading materials" and start living like a life as a philosopher as your own, you will understand. And until you start being original, you will never stop quoting references with tendencies equivalent to a ceremonious, ritualistic parrot (yes, all they do is learn the words and repeat them), and will only view within the perspective of the ones you adore, not the ones you own. And this is why I say you are but a victim to hedonism, because you do not understand of the instant gratification you take each time you absorb a philosophy from others.

In addition, your response on "Malaysia Boleh" shows how immature you are when it comes to the political environment in our country, and shows you have not transcended the need for nationalistic (and probably racial) pride, and perhaps this is really how I knew that you, and philosophy, are still merely as a nodding acquaintance to each other.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Aug 10 2012, 07:58 AM

haha i laugh as i read your reply.

indeed it is pointless for us to meet up as u mentioned before.

i say this because you are in love with your own self. you potray yourself as a sage, walking a lonely road to whatever truth you're looking for. you my friend should start living life.

btw, your comments about the political environment is incoherent.

race, culture, customs are all but relative. what i cherish are universal values.

anyway, you have shown your true colours so whatever and enjoy your "philosophy" or whatever it is.

kthnxbai

Hmm, I have ignored this post long enough. Let's read this again.

Few points which you do not understand:

1) You were wrong about sages being lonely. You clearly do not know that they are great philosophers right now in the midst of this country living normal lives.

2) If what you cherish are universal values, you should possess at least awareness of the ignorance of the slogan you have uttered, "Malaysia Boleh". How is one exclaiming "Malaysia Boleh", when he should be saying "Mankind Boleh", if you are truly indeed universal?

If you have truly found your true colours, trust me when I said you have finally realized yours as well. How would you react, with PRIDE, or with HUMILITY?

Refreshing discussion. My short definition of philosophy is the search for meaning. I have never studied philosophy, but I can say that I may have had more than may share of existential angst. I have recently been questioning the apparent lack of questioning in this country. I say apparent because I'm not sure if this is the reality or I may be completely wrong and this maybe some illusion that afflicts my view. In any case, my search lead me to this thread.

Where does one go to find the "native" Malaysian philosopher? where does one find the Nietzsche of Malaysia? Does one look for him among the political elite? or the university academics? Is he malay, chinese or indian? What are the philosophical basis that underlie life in Malaysia? Who formulated them? who imported them? Or maybe the question should be what is the spirit of Malaysia? the ghost that animates this country?

Please forgive my naive questions. I'm only trying to say that I think it is healthy to question because for man, to understand the meaning behind the form is perhaps more important than the form itself.

Almost everyone is a qualified "philosopher" due to his/her own experiences. You'll just have to find people who are rather chatty about it, and stereotypically speaking, the closest match you can find are those currently in Malaysia who have certain amount of Western values in them.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but without details of the kind of private school you speak of we really can't say much about that story of yours. To be sure, there are a lot of shady, dodgy, or not very well run private, 'international' schools out there, and they may be profitable for many reasons, one being the attraction of parents who prioritise English-medium learning for their children given the unpredictability in public education policy, the other being the considerable wealth and influence of the owners/operators of such schools. I think most schools hire principals for their experience and ability, while the average graduate who hasn't even left school for longer than 12 months will hardly be able to demonstrate adequate quantities of either.

I'm not saying your friend is merely an average graduate. He/she may be an exceptional individual for all we know. But the reality is that there are a lot of people around the world doing Arts-type degrees (International Relations, Politics, Sociology, Languages, Asian/Oriental Studies, History, and Philosophy which is relatively rare) and most of them are not destined for huge corporate jobs. They are more likely to venture into politics and government, NGOs, journalism etc. Of course some may be qualified for banking jobs, and we have all heard the stories of investment bankers with Philosophy and Sociology degrees. I have also known people with upper-management jobs in banks who studied languages. But note that the school they graduate from is usually quite exceptional.

The backgrounds of those holding/having/who had top jobs who are not self-made (e.g. Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Roman Abramovich, Henry Ford, JP Morgan) is quite clear - they usually have practical or 'applicable' degrees (applicable here refers to those not traditionally seen as practical, but which can have commercial/professional applications and which are in demand, such as Mathematics and Physics). Most of them have some background in Business, Commerce, Economics, Finance, Accounting, Management, Engineering, Mathematics etc.

Now, if we talk about practicality and the Malaysian mentality, it's not easy to change what is in place. Preferences for Commerce or Quantitative degree-holders may be in policies. Many 'Business' graduates are hard enough to train once employed, so management may not want to take a chance with Arts graduates, who have every possibility of knowing less about Commerce, Banking and Finance than 'Business' graduates.

It is a good thing to have a passion for the subject you study.

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask how my friend with the Art degree made it? You call it "exceptional" but all you're really saying that my friend simply got "lucky". Furthermore, this are his own words:

"During his interview for the job, none of them believed that he is MERELY holding an Art Degree. This is because when pulled out right, an Art degree gives you a philosophical advantage, not just the love of wisdom and enlightenment through art, but the WISDOM of the WORLD to the DEGREE that you are WORTH THE RISK."

Call my friend a genius if you want to, but his explanation is simple. The reason those with Art degree couldn't get anywhere in comparison with other degrees is because they just couldn't understand the meaning what an Art degree will bring them.

Oh yeah, my friend does not have any managerial experience before becoming the Vice-Principal of the international school I was talking about. defeating other applicants with their so-called experience...which were OUTDATED.

Yes, there are such things as OUT-DATED experience. There are no 10 years of experience. There is only ONE year of experience multiplied by 10 times, which is the very same 1 year of experience.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Oct 28 2012, 11:26 AM

wow this thread is up again. let's see, mr. deadlocks the self proclaimed sage. i have 3 individual responses to your points.

1. so who are these people that you claim to be great philosophers? from what u wrote, it is assumed that u know them.
2. relativity is a universal value no? look at the theory of relativity that reigns the universe. when i said what i cherish are universal values, that means, each and ever culture has an equal amount of importance and therefore non should proclaim itself a master culture. i guess, i have to spell everything out for u as u think talking about philosophy is pointless. just look at your previous writings (your take on philosophy) and you will see.
3. on the face of things, u will have seen that you should ask yourself the question concerning pride and humility. u don't seek the truth and it has been shown in your previous writings. what u want is recognition (as a sage, philosopher, etc), and that, i'm afraid i don't think i can give. you are but a sham and a proud man.

---

Added on November 7, 2012, 5:27 pmhey guys i created a group on facebook calledPhilosophy Discussion (Malaysia) Philosophy Discussion (Malaysia)

feel free to join and discuss!

hopefully one day we'll get a sufficient amount of people to organise socials and the like.

thanks!

---

Added on November 8, 2012, 1:05 pmhey CBM,

those are interesting questions that you asked and most of them interspersed into various topics under the heading of philosophy. i will not be answering them, but instead restructure your questions, and hopefully narrow down the key areas for you to concentrate your focus.

based on your questions, i think we could ask :

firstly, what is philosophy and who does it? is it based on reason/logos? according to descartes, reason is well distributed in the world, meaning everyone has them and thus philosophy is open to all. this leads me to the second question.

who or what is a philosopher? what are the criteria/conditions to qualify oneself to be a philosopher? is it based on material possessions? reason? does one have to be formally trained, meaning formally, instrumentally applied reason?

lastly, the big one concerning malaysia, i will try my best to explain and not use too much academic terms (it's tedious sorry) so bear with me.

malaysia being a country and itself being run by a government, requires us to think of political philosophy. politics is claimed to the mother of all sciences. but as philosophy does, it questions, so why is politics the mother of all science? first, we should first decouple the two, politics and philosophy, philosophy being the substance and politics being the adjective.

if philosophy is to an extent based on reason and it's end goal is the Truth (disputable), we shall seek to apply the same to politics. furthermore, i shall proceed by asking what is the essence of city/country.

what is politics? its roots date back to greece, polis being the city, it is the art or science of running the city. according to plato, politics is the quest for as you have mentioned above about forms or platonic forms. forms being absolutes, i.e., good, beauty, justice, they are the "goal" which all things strive to be. it is an ideal, an idea.

this applies to the city as per plato, where it is ordered to the "end goal" in the form/idea of "justice". this made plato ask then, what is the best government regime, democracy, aristocracy, etc that best allow the idea of justice to reign through the city.

in the middle ages, you have your st. augustine who said the city is guided by god. therefore, the "form" there was God. now, in modern times, we have marx who spoke about historical materialism. he was inspired by hegel (phenomenology of the spirit) and thought the city is driven or pushed to amass wealth and that our relation of production (social classes, domination, alienation, etc) is supported by a superstructure (religion, laws, political institutions, morals,etc) of a certain place and time. politics according to marx is thus a way of maintaining a certain "relation of production", be it feudalism, slavery, capitalism, socialism, etc. any desire for a change is done by action relying on theory.

marx's link to hegel is his historical dialectics. according to hegel, everything changes according to the triadic thesis, antithesis and synthesis and nothing is ever static just like time, it flows constantly. to give a rough example, thesis (industrial revolution, laissez faire), antitheses (socialist movement, improve working conditions for the masses) and your synthesis (social democracy). history and time doesn't stop and hegel's triadic hypothesis claims to help us understand how things, as he said "all that exists is reasonable", meaning there is a reason for an existing thing/reality. a future reality IS as it will be, according to our act or omission at the present.

on the other hand we have aristotle and his political philosophy which is intertwined with ethics. his take is interesting as as an individual, our "ethics" through constant practice of virtues has the end goal of "happiness" or "the good life". having mentioned that politics involves a city/country and within it community/communities. politics play the role in harnessing the collective to reach the common goal (happiness) via agreeing on a common good.

going back to the question - is politics the mother of all science? for me personally i think the act and purpose of politics as a manner of exercising power. if i am correct, i cite foucault who says "power is everywhere" even in our own houses. power affects us and we are made to behave a certain way. it is seen via the urbanism of a city, architecture of buildings, our laws and custom, our education, etc (see marx's superstructure). power in general is all encompassing and it dominates our everyday lives, be it mundane or otherwise through various techniques derived from a broad range of areas of study.

power is said by foucault to be oppressive, we are suppressed by it, and we repress ourselves due to these suppressions (psychology). stretching your imagination, Politics (with a capital P) has therefore the capacity of power to change not only life out in public but down to people's private intimate lives.

so there u go, a very short summary before delving in to your question.

so what is the spirit that animates malaysia? what is its purpose? is it material goods or happiness, justice, god? does material goods bring happiness (for all)? is it possible for one to achieve happiness without material goods? what is the role of the government? what is the role of the citizen and the idea of citizenship? what are its rights and obligations? these are yet another bunch of standalone questions that may help u.

anyway, this reminds me of the famous maxim of socrates "know thyself". i guess that's what philosophy is, it helps us question and decipher our realities/illusions and hopefully come to an answer or solution. then again, this solution should be questioned and so on and so forth. philosophy never stops questioning.

anyway whoever is interested please join Philosophy Discussion (Malaysia) so that we may be able to discuss topical, profane, etc philosophical issues in the future!

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Nov 8 2012, 05:27 PM

No one is proclaiming that they are the sages which you were referring to, should you are able to read my posts carefully. I was merely pointing out your tendency to "parrot" philosophical quotes, instead of bringing one up from your own.

As for the points you have numbered, allow me to courteously go through them one at a time:

1) Yes, I know them. But neither do they self-proclaim as the sages to be, for they understand pretty well of the quote, "I know that I know nothing", and I'm sure you knew where that come from.

2) You obviously did not understand when I said that you were utterly ignorant from using a slogan such as "Malaysia Boleh". I will not remind of you of the political situations in Malaysia to make this relevant, for that will be out of topic. Nevertheless, like I said, if you TRULY cherish UNIVERSAL values, then slogans like "Malaysia Boleh", or "USA Boleh: should be the last thing you will speak of, because I view those with universal values as those who has transcended nationalistic and racial pride. To utter "Malaysia Boleh" doesn't cut it.

3) Again, I don't know how you came up to the conclusion that I desire reputation, when I am merely pointing out the apparent tantrums you have thrown in defence when you are clearly agitated when I call you a "hedonistic parrot".

Look at your replies again. The tones have changed drastically in comparison to when we first started talking about philosophy in this thread. I have been maintaining my demeanour and composure so far while posting, and it is you who begin to sound defensive.

But then again, who wouldn't be offended when he has graduated/studied philosophy, only to be told that he is nothing but a "parrot" of used, recycled philosophical ideas?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Nov 28 2012, 07:59 PM