Anyone into philosophy/ethics/theology?
I’ve only studied technical fields, but I love trying (and typically failing) to engage with philosophical material. One of my old roommates studied philosophy, and we’d stay up late discussing it so I’d get tangential exposure and a good dialogue on ideas (I credit them with helping me “discover” actual theory). Anyway, they’ve been dead for a while now and while every day I wish it weren’t the case, so is my only connection to engaging with philosophical topics.
Anyway - I wanted to pick up more background info of ethical philosophy, and have been wading into Kant (like literally getting started with reviewing overview pages like this: https://iep.utm.edu/kantview ) and the page author’s summary stood out to me:
Kant’s ethics are organized around the notion of a “categorical imperative,” which is a universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone. Kant argued that the moral law is a truth of reason, and hence that all rational creatures are bound by the same moral law. Thus in answer to the question, “What should I do?” Kant replies that we should act rationally, in accordance with a universal moral law.
Kant also argued that his ethical theory requires belief in free will, God, and the immortality of the soul. Although we cannot have knowledge of these things, reflection on the moral law leads to a justified belief in them, which amounts to a kind rational faith. Thus in answer to the question, “What may I hope?” Kant replies that we may hope that our souls are immortal and that there really is a God who designed the world in accordance with principles of justice.
Maybe I’ll have my own understanding when I engage with Kant’s actual writing, but I find the mentioned notion of a “categorical imperative” interesting. I guess when I’ve heard disagreements framed as “philosophical differences”, I never took it literally (ironically), but it seems like differences in worldview stem from a disregard of the
universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone.
and it makes sense then that common ground cannot be found when opposing viewpoints are rooted in incompatible principles. (Assuming that all parties have principles of sorts).
Idk where I’m going with any of this post, but I don’t have anyone to engage in my philosophical dumbassery with, so you’re all the lucky recipients.
Also can one hop around between authors? Or is there a benefit to interacting with older material? I was interested in reading some Kierkegaard, but thought I should go through Kant and Hegel first… but should one go further back to idk… Plato?
I didn't think about this before, but an intro to philosophy textbook written by a Marxist would probably be a great resource for a sort of generalized understanding of the history of philosophy without all the liberal bullshit and hero worshipping. Plus you can just about always get a PDF of textbooks
needless complication
Ah, but Marxists disagree about philosophy. How would we decide (like we’re a unified body lol) what to put in such a text. We are even divided within ourselves on these subjects (dialectics, duh). What is the aim of this introduction? Presumably this is for the reading of non-Marxist texts, but how do we prime people to do such? Do we give them doctrines that they must compare with others to decide their “correctness?” Do we try to teach them how to think? Each question comes with more that are disagreed upon within philosophy, even Marxist. What is the ends we wish to encourage? Marxism is general pragmatic toward the ends of revolution but how should philosophy encourage that? There is a dialectical balance to strike in our actions towards revolution and we must somehow lead people to better their judgments.
Most importantly, who the heck reads textbooks? There are probably already decent Marxist articles on philosophy, with contradictions. I think we should just make sure people read Mao and encourage them to read whatever they feel like it. Under the assumption Freire was right, I guess we philosophy nerds can continue engaging in discussion with other organizers and hope that works?
I know many leftist movements have been harmed by bad ideas but it is hard to know how to promote correct ideas when they change from situation to situation and I’m not omniscient however much I feel like I know about philosophy.
I don’t know why I had to go on this skeptical rant (autism) but I’ll post.
Haha I love textbooks! You can get a massive amount of info all in one place and as long as it's not a shitty book you can usually rely on the info to be relatively accurate. The reason I think an intro textbook is good for studying philosophy is that it will give you a broad look at the topic without an overwhelming amount of detail and typically there is some effort put into the order in which the info is presented, which matters a lot when we're talking about thousands of years and dozens of different philosophers. Like don't only read textbooks by Marxists, but it's not a bad place to start
We also don't have to decide what to put in the text as these books already exist. There are a lot of Marxist academics, especially in philosophy. Obviously there are disagreements and such, but idk what your point is tbh. I'm just saying to find an intro to philosophy book written with dialectical materialism in mind. Even one without a Marxist perspective would be useful to anyone trying to learn about philosophy.
That’s fair. I prefer to read articles or primary sources at random, but I also don’t know what I’d do without random podcasts and videos and honestly where I’d be without some random and very elementary in person classes I once took. Textbooks are a source of info, whoever reads them. Honestly there’s some odd idiosyncratic reasons I don’t want to read textbooks. My ADHD says if I’m learning about something it’s good to make it quick and textbooks aren’t that. My autism says if I want to claim knowledge on philosophical positions it is best to have read the real source material from front to back whether I understand or not, and textbooks are too secondary for a time commitment.
My point is that I think that an “official” Marxist introduction to the very theory that says how to think and how we know things should avoid dogmatism and revisionism, and that’s a hard thing. We don’t want anyone abandoning Marxism to random pointless idealism and we don’t want anyone disregarding Mao because it doesn’t feel right to what they’ve been indoctrinated in. And of course we don’t want anyone treating Marxism as a fixed truth without a real understanding of the counter arguments.
Any text has its perspective and potential to influence. I am just currently in full skepticism I don’t what to believe including if it’s possible to believe mode, tons of contradictory ideas with different sources floating in my head.