Profile overview for CorpseofTonioKroger.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

2 submissions to Philosophy

1 submissions to Anticom

This user has so far shared a total of 0 links, started a total of 3 discussions and submitted a total of 4 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 0 and downvoted 0 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 1 and downvoted 0 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

Why the world needs philosophy, Goddamn it, submitted: 1/21/2017 11:45:12 AM, 28 points (+31|-3)

Hegel is not Marx is Not Hegel Damnit, submitted: 2/2/2017 3:42:01 PM, 5 points (+5|-0)

sorcerer supreme soros?, submitted: 2/6/2017 4:46:00 PM, -2 points (+1|-3)

5 lowest rated submissions:

sorcerer supreme soros?, submitted: 2/6/2017 4:46:00 PM, -2 points (+1|-3)

Hegel is not Marx is Not Hegel Damnit, submitted: 2/2/2017 3:42:01 PM, 5 points (+5|-0)

Why the world needs philosophy, Goddamn it, submitted: 1/21/2017 11:45:12 AM, 28 points (+31|-3)

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

Why the world needs philosophy, Goddamn it submitted by CorpseofTonioKroger to Philosophy

CorpseofTonioKroger 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago

Philosophy as a way of thinking studies of what makes a coherent argument and how to develop a logical rational conclusion. Basic to this is an effort to make distinctions and clearly define the terms that constitute the argument. Ideology was initially conceived as a science of ideas based on facts and reality. Initially, ideology was conceived by the French ideologues of the latter 18th century as a scientific study of ideas, their nature, source, function, connection and use. This was a politically neutral effort to extend the developing scientific methodology to the study of ideas and knowledge. It developed as a reaction to the then dominant rationalist theory of innate or a priori ideas as taught by Leibniz and Descartes, among many others. The rationalist theory postulated a set of innate ideas which did not originate from experience. Ideology in this sense was scientific because it examined the world as it appeared to the senses and developed ideas from the data revealed by those senses. These sense data were the facts from which ideas originated.

Ideology later took on the meaning of a justification for a political program. Ideology in this sense consists of a set of beliefs about the way things ought to be that justify social arrangements. Ideologies can be narrow, to justify a particular course of action like a just war, nationalism, or racism, for example. Or they can be comprehensive political philosophies like communism, liberalism, conservatism, or universal Christianity that promise a future utopia. They can be sincere, honest efforts of high moral purpose and intellectual integrity based on facts and clear logic, or they can be deceptive, false, or biased views designed to reinforce the status quo or justify an oppressive regime. Philosophies and ideologies in this sense become destructive rationalizations that only serve the interests of the ruling groups, usually at the expense of the rest of the people.

This is an elementary exercise in philosophical thinking. It consists of clarifying the definitions of terms, and making distinctions between different kinds of philosophies and ideologies. By doing this we can gain a better view of philosophy itself, see that it does enable one to generate and follow coherent arguments, to more clearly examine the elements and logic of any view, and intelligently decide which ideologies we can agree with, which we don't and why. Philosophy is thus an essential study for any educated public which seeks to analyze and discuss things rationally, especially to debunk any "soapbox ideology" masquerading as responsible social philosophy. So, yes we need physicists, everybody could benefit from a better understanding of physics, but we also need philosophers, without whom we would not even have physics.

r/philosophy: I am Samantha Brennan, philosopher at Western University. AMA anything about normative ethics and feminist ethics. - 536 comments | 310 removed submitted by Dr_No to MeanwhileOnReddit

CorpseofTonioKroger 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

I hear that newcomers to internet boards and forums are often offended by the responses and comments they get in regard to their posts. This is a failure to understand internet culture and language. One of philosophy's main concerns, especially American (AKA analytic) philosophy, is the analysis of language, it's use and meaning, especially meaning. It's common sense as well that in order to know what one is talking about one has to know the meaning of the worlds used. So philosophy spends a lot of time analyzing the meaning of words. For example, when I first started posting VOAT I got an "OP is a faggot" comment. This initially confused me, so I asked a long time veteran of internet culture what the commentator meant. Turns out that one of the meanings is that the original poster, that's me, the person who started the thread, is really into his topic and seems to know it well. Another meaning is that of a direct challenge to the position I've stated. It's a call to debate. Along this line a translation might go "you've been so mind fucked by a conventional ideology that you can't see past it, you're just an unthinking mouthpiece for some authority, so think, defend yourself, let's get some real debate going here".

That this meaning has come to be in internet culture should come as no surprise, especially to anyone of a philosophical bent. Language changes, it evolves, words and phrases take on new meanings. Faggot used to mean a bundle of sticks. It has been used to be an insulting term for a woman. Later it referred anyone hired into military service especially to make up a quota. Still later it referred in British public school slang to an underclassman who was made basically a slave to an upperclassman, with undertones of a sexual nature. And of course lately it refers to male homosexuals. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot. Note to newbies: to get a full dose of internet language, check out the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry for "faggot" (or any other term for that matter) https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Faggot#Faggotry_fails.

Anybody who's suffered through America's higher education system has probably been frustrated by the lack of any sort of debate or discussion in their classes. Things got so bad for me that I would often throw out some dubious comment or outright stupidity just to get a rise out of people and start some discussion. The phrase "OP is a faggot" is, in the context of internet forums, just such a tactic. If newbies would take some time to learn the current internet culture and language they would be pleased that someone wants to debate or discuss whit them whatever post elicited the faggot comment. So anyone who gets shocked and butthurt at responses to their posts should take a deep breath, step back and consider that maybe they are misunderstanding what is being said. In the spirit of true philosophy, examine your assumptions, questions meanings, respond in a spirit of tolerance, curiosity, and a true desire to communicate with the other people out there. You may learn something.

deleted by user submitted by hicoleri to Philosophy

CorpseofTonioKroger 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

On the other hand, there are some alternative theories which explain feelings more than just an acquired habit. Feelings are emotions, love, hate, jealousy, despair, ambition, vanity, self loathing, joy, sadness, anger, rage, sexual desire, discomfort, satiation, and so on. Doesn't everybody know when the has a feeling and what it is, where it comes from, how to deal with it, what it leads to, and so on? Apparently not, and i suppose it's easy to understand why. There are different attitudes to feelings, and some of these attitudes are pervasive and extremely powerful. The romantic movement introduced, or reemphasized depending on your desire for accuracy (but there is no final accuracy about the Romantic movement), the idea of the primacy of the feeling, willing, creative individual over any other criterion of value. There is no law but the individual's own creative will. Tied in with this is the idea that people are naturally good, and that society distorts and corrupts that natural goodness. This idea figures large in such contemporary ideas as those encompassed by the slogans: follow your bliss, if it feels good do it, love is the answer, we are a hyper power we create reality, and follow your dream.

Then there is an opposing view, made famous by Hobbes, Freud, and numerous conservatives, which has it that people are more irrational than not, are driven by negative emotions, such as aggression, fear, vanity, and sex, and that people's desires are unlimited. If people are not ordered and controlled by a strong authority, there will be a war of everyone against everyone which will result in the total destruction of civilization. There is lots of evidence for the second view. Think about all the wars we have, the mass murders, torture murders, psycho rapists, cannibals, human trafficking, child abuse, and on and on.

Evidence for the former view is largely individual. Everybody thinks they are, for the most part, decent people who are just trying to get along and, if they're lucky, have some success and be happy. Normal people have negative emotions, certainly, but they're not all the time slavering at the bit to murder their next door neighbors and have sex with their children. Indeed they find the very thought disgusting, and many of them would loudly call for the perpetrator's execution, probably by torture. They may envy their neighbor's wealth, but they don't always break into his house and steal all his stuff. But these extreme, and over simplified, views have generally been touted when the other view has gotten too prominent. Society does seem to oscillate between periods of freedom and authoritarianism. Too much freedom can result in destructive chaos, and too much authoritarian control stifles everything human and often ends in mass murder. Some middle ground is needed. The two positions I've mentioned depend on a specific view of human nature. Some hold that human nature is basically good, the other that it is basically bad. What do you think?

3 lowest rated comments:

deleted by user submitted by hicoleri to Philosophy

CorpseofTonioKroger 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

On the other hand, there are some alternative theories which explain feelings more than just an acquired habit. Feelings are emotions, love, hate, jealousy, despair, ambition, vanity, self loathing, joy, sadness, anger, rage, sexual desire, discomfort, satiation, and so on. Doesn't everybody know when the has a feeling and what it is, where it comes from, how to deal with it, what it leads to, and so on? Apparently not, and i suppose it's easy to understand why. There are different attitudes to feelings, and some of these attitudes are pervasive and extremely powerful. The romantic movement introduced, or reemphasized depending on your desire for accuracy (but there is no final accuracy about the Romantic movement), the idea of the primacy of the feeling, willing, creative individual over any other criterion of value. There is no law but the individual's own creative will. Tied in with this is the idea that people are naturally good, and that society distorts and corrupts that natural goodness. This idea figures large in such contemporary ideas as those encompassed by the slogans: follow your bliss, if it feels good do it, love is the answer, we are a hyper power we create reality, and follow your dream.

Then there is an opposing view, made famous by Hobbes, Freud, and numerous conservatives, which has it that people are more irrational than not, are driven by negative emotions, such as aggression, fear, vanity, and sex, and that people's desires are unlimited. If people are not ordered and controlled by a strong authority, there will be a war of everyone against everyone which will result in the total destruction of civilization. There is lots of evidence for the second view. Think about all the wars we have, the mass murders, torture murders, psycho rapists, cannibals, human trafficking, child abuse, and on and on.

Evidence for the former view is largely individual. Everybody thinks they are, for the most part, decent people who are just trying to get along and, if they're lucky, have some success and be happy. Normal people have negative emotions, certainly, but they're not all the time slavering at the bit to murder their next door neighbors and have sex with their children. Indeed they find the very thought disgusting, and many of them would loudly call for the perpetrator's execution, probably by torture. They may envy their neighbor's wealth, but they don't always break into his house and steal all his stuff. But these extreme, and over simplified, views have generally been touted when the other view has gotten too prominent. Society does seem to oscillate between periods of freedom and authoritarianism. Too much freedom can result in destructive chaos, and too much authoritarian control stifles everything human and often ends in mass murder. Some middle ground is needed. The two positions I've mentioned depend on a specific view of human nature. Some hold that human nature is basically good, the other that it is basically bad. What do you think?

Why the world needs philosophy, Goddamn it submitted by CorpseofTonioKroger to Philosophy

CorpseofTonioKroger 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

Philosophy is not the only thing in the world, and not the only way to think about things. I do think that philosophy, as a way of thinking, can shed light on any subject, and can help anybody get a clearer and better organized view of any particular subject. The difference between religion and philosophy, roughly speaking, is that philosophy appeals to one's logical reason, whereas religion appeals to the heart, to hope, and to faith in a divine authority. Religions deal with some of the same questions philosophy does, but from a different perspective. Religion deals with questions about ultimate meaning; what is the purpose of life, why is there suffering, is there anything after death? Answers to these questions give people comfort and provide guidance about how to live, how certain things should be done. But there are many religions. Which one should one choose? They are not all the same, they appeal to different authorities and enjoin different actions in the world. How to decide? Many people who are born into a particular religion may only be faced with this question if their traditional religion does not satisfy them somehow. Then they face a crisis of faith. Religions have ways of helping people resolve these crises, from inquisitorial witch burning to appeals to scripture, prayer and priestly counsels. For some these work, but any method that doesn't rely on pure force (believe this way or we will kill you) has to be persuasive somehow. Persuasion, again, can appeal to the heart, to scripture, or to logic. But in any case some form of argument, some attempt to show how a religious solution "makes sense" or "is right" takes place. Here is where philosophy can help. By providing different ways of thinking about religious concepts and how they fit together one can analyze the nature and source of the problem. One may discover a lack or inadequacy in the doctrine, or in one's ideas, and how to adjust these to resolve the problem.

However, just as there are many religions, there are many philosophies and many styles of philosophical thinking. And there are many different kinds of people. Some are more prone to thinking logically and analytically, for some appeals to the heart, or to authority have more persuasive power. For some fortunate souls who have had no problems in life this is all irrelevant. But for the rest of us philosophy can provide ways of thinking about life that can lead to a more satisfying life, or at least a better understood one. In religion, as in life generally, no single answer or system can fully satisfy everyone. But I do think that exposure to different religions, and different ways of thinking about religion can expand and deepen anyone's experience of whatever faith they subscribe to, or to a more satisfying religious belief.

r/philosophy: I am Samantha Brennan, philosopher at Western University. AMA anything about normative ethics and feminist ethics. - 536 comments | 310 removed submitted by Dr_No to MeanwhileOnReddit

CorpseofTonioKroger 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

I hear that newcomers to internet boards and forums are often offended by the responses and comments they get in regard to their posts. This is a failure to understand internet culture and language. One of philosophy's main concerns, especially American (AKA analytic) philosophy, is the analysis of language, it's use and meaning, especially meaning. It's common sense as well that in order to know what one is talking about one has to know the meaning of the worlds used. So philosophy spends a lot of time analyzing the meaning of words. For example, when I first started posting VOAT I got an "OP is a faggot" comment. This initially confused me, so I asked a long time veteran of internet culture what the commentator meant. Turns out that one of the meanings is that the original poster, that's me, the person who started the thread, is really into his topic and seems to know it well. Another meaning is that of a direct challenge to the position I've stated. It's a call to debate. Along this line a translation might go "you've been so mind fucked by a conventional ideology that you can't see past it, you're just an unthinking mouthpiece for some authority, so think, defend yourself, let's get some real debate going here".

That this meaning has come to be in internet culture should come as no surprise, especially to anyone of a philosophical bent. Language changes, it evolves, words and phrases take on new meanings. Faggot used to mean a bundle of sticks. It has been used to be an insulting term for a woman. Later it referred anyone hired into military service especially to make up a quota. Still later it referred in British public school slang to an underclassman who was made basically a slave to an upperclassman, with undertones of a sexual nature. And of course lately it refers to male homosexuals. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot. Note to newbies: to get a full dose of internet language, check out the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry for "faggot" (or any other term for that matter) https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Faggot#Faggotry_fails.

Anybody who's suffered through America's higher education system has probably been frustrated by the lack of any sort of debate or discussion in their classes. Things got so bad for me that I would often throw out some dubious comment or outright stupidity just to get a rise out of people and start some discussion. The phrase "OP is a faggot" is, in the context of internet forums, just such a tactic. If newbies would take some time to learn the current internet culture and language they would be pleased that someone wants to debate or discuss whit them whatever post elicited the faggot comment. So anyone who gets shocked and butthurt at responses to their posts should take a deep breath, step back and consider that maybe they are misunderstanding what is being said. In the spirit of true philosophy, examine your assumptions, questions meanings, respond in a spirit of tolerance, curiosity, and a true desire to communicate with the other people out there. You may learn something.