A few things then...vindonnusJanuary 20 2011, 04:59:40 UTC
What I'm asserting is that there is no spirit outside of our physical selves. This is where I differ from Dr. Szasz. This is probably the most extreme physical-ist stance possible as it implies that most, if not all, "problems" of the psyche can be solved with physical means. This doesn't mean that we have the tools to do this, or that we will ever have the tools to do this, but, rather, that this could be done (physically/empirically) if the tools could be made.
In terms of value questions, well, I believe that any problem, by definition, has some real solution(s). My sense of things in philosophy is, in essence, whatever you select ("whatever floats your boat") is what works (as long as it is internally consistent). However, this doesn't necessarily point to a real solution, because for anything to be real it has to be subject to shared observation. This stance goes hand-in-hand with my personal ethic/rule of thumb that "right makes mighty." Sort of an inversion of the old "might makes right" idea. It can be noted that this works with history as well... it's usually the "good guys" that write the history books, after all. I'll note, as well, that to this mindset there is no "wrong" philosophy (per se), only wrong actions that lead to poor results, empirically speaking, when viewed from the person attempting to obtain said results.
In essence, what I'm saying is this: Having the wrong philosophy/world view (for you) can cause problems, however, the philosophy itself is not the problem, but, rather, the problem is one of the fit between yourself and the philosophy in question, which is, again, not a real problem because the philosophical fit is not subject to outside observation, even if its effects are. Again, this is a stance very much like the one taken by Dr. Szasz on disease simply adjusted and expanded.
In terms of value questions, well, I believe that any problem, by definition, has some real solution(s). My sense of things in philosophy is, in essence, whatever you select ("whatever floats your boat") is what works (as long as it is internally consistent). However, this doesn't necessarily point to a real solution, because for anything to be real it has to be subject to shared observation. This stance goes hand-in-hand with my personal ethic/rule of thumb that "right makes mighty." Sort of an inversion of the old "might makes right" idea. It can be noted that this works with history as well... it's usually the "good guys" that write the history books, after all. I'll note, as well, that to this mindset there is no "wrong" philosophy (per se), only wrong actions that lead to poor results, empirically speaking, when viewed from the person attempting to obtain said results.
In essence, what I'm saying is this: Having the wrong philosophy/world view (for you) can cause problems, however, the philosophy itself is not the problem, but, rather, the problem is one of the fit between yourself and the philosophy in question, which is, again, not a real problem because the philosophical fit is not subject to outside observation, even if its effects are. Again, this is a stance very much like the one taken by Dr. Szasz on disease simply adjusted and expanded.
Reply
Leave a comment