Basic Philosophical Writings Outside the Subject, a collection of texts, old and new on philosophers, language, and politics. The annual colloquium at Cerisy-la-Salle publishes a volume devoted to him.
Nietzsche August 31, [Note: They will probably be, for the most part, either technical or expansively allusive in character and unapologetically so. Regular readers might choose to skip these, but they are intended to provide background for what I hope will be more popular writing in the main posts of this blog.
The truth is more complex. I think there were two related reasons. First of all, he opposed a complacent, unexamined use of what passed as common knowledge. This was highly problematic in the quickly changing political atmosphere of his time. Socrates also recognized that such complacency in the world of ideas left the people of Athens open to manipulation by demagogues.
In other words, demonstrate that the Sophist tendency is to use words as tools for the achievement of personal goals by using them to manipulate his hearers.
Alasdair MacIntyre says that emotivism entails that there be no distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative relationships. That is to say, in our world, sophistry has returned largely unopposed, though we are not often aware of it.
Back to my narrative: Perhaps he faltered a bit when trying to pin the idea of truth to the transcendent realm of forms. Thus began the arc of Western philosophy, and it apparently continued until the advent of Friedrich Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, Socrates inaugurated a long desert in which Western culture imagined itself bound by truth, but in fact deluded by this claim into a hideous blindness.
I believe that Nietzsche was perceptive in this claim, though not in the way that he intended. And desiring to call a spade a spade, Nietzsche proposed that we go back to acknowledging that rhetorical manipulations are all that we have.
As I suggested, my belief is that Nietzsche perceived that claims to truth by his contemporaries in philosophy really were infected with the complacency that Socrates opposed.
How did this happen?
It was a slow process, but my own biases lean toward pinpointing the nominalist revolution of the fourteenth century as the beginning. This was at a time when the connection between the liturgical life and the university life was considerably weakened. But it does seem here that the first break between words and durable meaning is introduced.
I am not advocating freezing philosophy in one thinker or time period; ironically what Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas offer, if correctly understood, is not a complacent position of authoritative power, but a humble method for uprooting the false and lazy assumptions that steer us from the truth.
And lazy thinking leaves us open yet again to manipulation by potentially unfriendly powers.Johannes Fritsche. and Wilhelm an overview of plato versus nietzsche and the nature of good Pinder.
View Essay - Plato vs. Nietzsche: The Nature of Good Short Essay from ENG at University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley. Plato vs. Nietzsche: The Nature of . Nietzsche’s skeptical attack on the concept of evil has encouraged philosophers to ignore the nature and moral significance of evil and instead focus on the motives people might have .
Immanuel Kant () Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his "Copernican Revolution," that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible [§14, A92/B, note].This introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception.
Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server. All contents are provided by non-affiliated third parties. This is a community managed collection, hosted offshore.
William Lane Craig is a prolific Christian philosopher, apologist, author, and public debater. He is the best debater – on any topic – that I’ve ever heard.
As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with regardbouddhiste.com debating him, atheists have consistently failed to put forward solid arguments, and consistently failed to point out the flaws in Craig’s arguments.