"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[Whaleboy]

Historically, philosophy has been the search for truth. Relativism denies that there is truth. See my point?

Verres is better at classics than me, so she can tell you with more accuracy, but IIRC, philosophy means roughly "love of wisdom".

Verres is right (sig material.. trust me)

See what I mean?

[The Andy-Man]

Verres is better at classics than me, so she can tell you with more accuracy, but IIRC, philosophy means roughly "love of wisdom"

ie - knowlegde also note in my sig, the stem 'soph' is used there to mean temperence, or self control. which i find interesting.

Also, 'Sophists' were teachers of sorts, though apparantly not particulary wise, either way, if you insist on using the meaning of the word, philosphy really does mean a search for knowladge.

[Whaleboy]

Since when did knowledge mean wisdom?

Its possible to have an anti-knowledge philosophy!! (SATRE!!!! jk)

[Ned]

Originally posted by elijah
Verres is better at classics than me, so she can tell you with more accuracy, but IIRC, philosophy means roughly "love of wisdom".

From Webster's Unabbridged: "a quest for truth through logical reasoning rather than through factual observation."

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
A) Democracy is hardly an ideal

Maybe not to you, but it was an ideal of some. If wehat we have now was an ideal of a person 100 years ago, then it is possible for an ideal to be realised. Ideals can be realised, it's just that someone being an 'idealist' implies more that they don't care about whether soemthign is practical or not. To be a realist, you must have something to aim for too, something to attempt, an ideal if you will, it is just that for a relaist, how achievable it is is important.

And quoting yourself The first sign of 'Poly madness

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Historically, philosophy has been the search for truth. Relativism denies that there is truth. See my point?

And if the subjectivist are right..then they found the truth and thus fulfilled philosophy?

Relativist do not deny that there is truth. They deny the ability to judge based on some absolute objective standard.

[Whaleboy]

philosphy really does mean a search for knowladge

Spelling Nazi is asleep.

Knowledge? You refer to it like a scientist would. You assume canonical knowledge when that is not possible (cosmology itself indicates that!), so only knowledge can be down to the individual and a priori. Individual knowledge and wisdom. I kinda like that!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please do not patronise me. I am perfectly aware of the basics of philosophy you people are so insistent on discussing. However, philosophy is no excuse for inaccurate use of English - a philosopher can unfortunately only work within the restrictions of his lanuage. Quoting scholars does not license you to misuse words under the pretence of having some higher level of reasoning which exempts you from the correct usage of English.

To say that idealism can NEVER be reality is simply being silly. The whole point of idealism is to change the current reality, and the point is that there are plenty of idealists who we have seen much of their ideas implimented. If Locke was around he'd be pleased by the set up of the US Constitution. I think Locke could definetly be called an idealist when he wrote his Two Treatises on Government.

Democracy is hardly an ideal

Bollocks, of course it is an ideal.

Political philosophies are by their very nature realistic.

And can be idealistic as well. For example, Woodrow Wilson's "14 points" were an idealistic political philosophy.

[Verres]

However, i do not think anyone here would say today's society is 'ideal'- therefore proving my point that by its very definition an idealistic principal can never become a reality in that as soon as it does, it is no longer the 'ideal'. At the time, people may have thought democracy was an ideal, but today nobody is 100% satisfied with every aspect of their lives...it is human nature to want what we do not (and cannot) have. Which is why the realisation of ideals immediately stops them from being idealistic.

[Kropotkin]

Ned: I do belive elijah pointed to the original meaning of the word. That's 'love of wisdom'. At least until some genius tells us that this is a missunderstanding of ancient greek.

[GePap]

From my discussion with Asher:

philosohy: 1. orig. love of, or the search for, wisdom and knowledge 2.theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe: included in philosophy are ethics, aesthetics, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, etc. 3. the general principles or laws of a field of knowledge, etc. [the philosophy of economics] 4. a) a particular system of principles for the conduct of life b) a treatise covering such a system 5. a study of human morals, character and behavior 6. mental balance or composure thought of as resulting from the study of philosophy. [OBS] 7. NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.

Bollocks, of course it is an ideal.

No it is not: the ideal is some form of administration in which the public realm takes care of itself and never impunes on the freedom of its member without need for oversight, while at the same time providing security and stability to allow the body politic to grow. People don;t want to vote all the time: time consuming, and democracy is slow too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

therefore proving my point that by its very definition an idealistic principal can never become a reality in that as soon as it does, it is no longer the 'ideal'.

A silly argument. What happens with an 'ideal' becomes the reality? Yes, it is no longer 'ideal', because it has come to pass, BUT you cannot deny that an idealistic principal HAS become reality.

[Verres]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Please do not patronise me. I am perfectly aware of the basics of philosophy you people are so insistent on discussing. However, philosophy is no excuse for inaccurate use of English - a philosopher can unfortunately only work within the restrictions of his lanuage. Quoting scholars does not license you to misuse words under the pretence of having some higher level of reasoning which exempts you from the correct usage of English.

To say that idealism can NEVER be reality is simply being silly.

One more condescending comment like that and i will risk getting banned from this place just for the satisfaction of proving i am not the naive little idiot you take me for.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
(SATRE!!!! jk)

If you want to be a spelling Nazi at least be accurate (Sartre)

[Whaleboy]

Relativist do not deny that there is truth.

True, its not necessary. However, I personally do. Of course, there is truth per context.

Maybe not to you, but it was an ideal of some

Mine matter to me, theirs do not. Idealism is very egocentric! One perceives conflicting idealists as in error, of course, objectively you know otherwise. Your subjective views + your relativism.

Ideals can be realised

No, only interpretations of them can be, and theyre usually messed up.

it's just that someone being an 'idealist' implies more that they don't care about whether soemthign is practical or not. To be a realist, you must have something to aim for too, something to attempt, an ideal if you will, it is just that for a relaist, how achievable it is is important.

Realism is part idealism with knowledge of ones capabilities?

My idealism means I have nothing to aim for. I have no idealistic earthly concerns. Idealism means I'd be quite happy living in a cave with nothing but a guitar and a pen and paper. And pies.