Talk:Philosophical movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
If it's not explicitly philosophical then it doesn't belong on this page. Otherwise, we could put every political movement out there.
- anti-globalization movement - moral, political and ethical and not explicitly philosophical, but sharing certain key ethics and an ontology
I don't think this is true. In fact, many postmodernist philosophies claim that you can't objectively set quantitiative values on relationships between things.
-
- Today philosophical movements are often expressed in a political economy that purports to set new quantitative values on relationships between things. This reflects a consensus in the philosophy of mathematics that mathematics is, for everyday purposes, often the most neutral point of view.
It's exactly this claim of the postmodernists that "you can't objectively set quantitiative values on relationships between things" that lead the anti-globalization movement to reject all forms of global measurement. This is definitely a philosophical (or theological) movement, if only for its localism. It's sort of the fusion of minarchy and anarchism with the basic assumptions of postmodernim. I guess I said it was "not explicitly philosophical" because it has no shared metaphysics beyond its foundation ontology which is all pretty much defined tacitly and by resistance. Not because philosophical claims are never made for it, nor by it. 24
So, if you re-read what you just wrote with that in mind, you may notice that you have contradicted yourself somewhat - first you discount the anti-globals on the grounds of not satisfying the conventional requirements of a philosophy, then you admit that by the standards of certain philosophers, notably body philosophers, those standards are irrelevant or dangerous - that philosophy as understood prior to the philosophy of action was simply an attempt to usurp a God-like neutral point of view. Which one may see in action here a lot... 24
I think you can't discount both political economy and body philosophy as movements - what's left? Only philosophy with no relevance to action or body? What use is that? 24
- 24, google hasn't heard of "body philosophy", nor has our resident (or former resident) philosopher, who, whether he disagreed with a particular position or not, would certainly acknowledge its recognition amongst other philosophers if it was so recognised. As far as we can tell, the term "body philosophy" is your own invention and is thus outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Robert Merkel
[edit] Citations please
This article is in bad need of some references to keep it from being WP:OR -- noosphere 10:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's really weird to include the Renaissance as a philosophical movement--what philosophers were involved in this movement and what were their distinctive doctrines or methods or arguments? The same goes for Modernism. I have no idea what this "philosophical movement" is supposed to be. Even the Enlightenment was more of a general intellectual movement than a philosophical movement (unless you think that Hume, Rousseau, Kant, and d'Holbach are part of a philosophical movement the way Carnap, Schlick, and Neurath are). Scottish Enlightenment sure, because at least there's a clear and distinctive approach to ethics found in Hutcheson, Hume, and Smith. But seriously: the Renaissance? Modernism? What is this article talking about? --4.240.72.98
I totally agree about the Renaissance, which is a historical period. It was a period that gave rise to many movements in art, philosophy, literature, etc. But it certainly not a philosophical movement.--Trnj2000 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No! No! No! Everything today is empiricism. When we say, "That doesn't make sense," what do we mean? We mean empirical evidence doesn't support the statement. The most wonderous thing about the triumph of empiricism is that it is all a fraud, for empirical thought has no more credibility due its machinations than does witchcraft or animism. The givens-premisses are all false.
Mathematics is a mere toy, too small to define even the smallest parcel in the Universe and so massively too large too lend and credibility to the incantations and games matheticians play with it.
Yes, science broadly defined has demonstratable triumphs, BUT!, so didn't witchcraft and animism. By isolating and fixating on the triumphs of paper-theories, modern man has ignored the real world entirely.
The path is found thus: Humans are very stupid, and essentially gullible fools. The cogito is the only triumph in modern philosophy worth mentioning prior to the discovery of the moral imperative sought by Kant and denied by Nietzsche.
The moral imperative is derived directly from the cogito. I think, therefore, I am. I cherish my life. There are apparently others alive and more to come. I will surely die someday. I should therefore live a (moral) life that detracts nothing from the experience of all those who might follow.
http://geocities.com/donaldwrobertson/index.html An Illustrated Philosophy Primer for Young Readers Enjoy. Don Robertson10-06
