Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Philosoraptors in Action

Hello, all!

I'm trying a new experiment today - writing the post for our group as we have discussion!

Let's see how it goes...

After a brief reflection on Monday's peripatetic experiment and the alarming absence of Anthony, a floater joined our group, and we moved into our discussion.

First up was Freud - especially penis envy, the Oedipus complex, and the eponymous Freudian slip. After looking up Freud's "Cat in the Hat," we moved on to talk about the Id, Ego, and "Superego." Then we discussed the influence Freud on A Brave New World and how awesome that book is, as well as George Orwell's 1984.

Next was Nietzsche, whom we decided was a baby-child and a "dick" with a superiority complex (going back to Freud again...). As Jami and Tyler listened to music and discussed Taylor Swift, the other side of the group discussed cats, especially fat ones... no love for Nietzsche here.

Well, we are out of time, so this post shall come to an end.

Ave atque vale my dear Philosoraptors,

Until next time!


  1. Hey folks. I guess I'll play devil's advocate and bring a little Nietzsche love:

    FQ: Which German philosopher is responsible for the idea of "Ubermensch" and the quote "God is dead"? (Answer: Friedrich Nietzsche)

    DQ: After stating that "God is dead," Nietzsche goes on to say that "we have killed him." Many philosophers believe he is arguing that modern society has lost a sense of transcendental purpose. Agree or disagree? What are the implications?

    Lastly, here's an amusing video I mentioned during discussion, featuring some well-known Nietzsche quotes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5GFgulByuM

    Enjoy, fellow Raptors!

  2. Man you guys got Nietzsche all wrong. He's a genius. He is the first philosopher who said "Hey, lets quit bowing down to a god; maybe we are the answer to all these huge problems..."

    1. He's definitely a dick and misogynist, but he had amazing ideas and philosophical breakthroughs so I'm willing to overlook it.

    2. It can be hard sometimes to separate someone's dickish ideas from their good ones.

    3. Maybe not totally overlook the misogyny and all, but I'm definitely not willing to write him off completely on the basis of the ideas I don't agree with. One would be hard-pressed to find anyone with whom they agreed on everything all the time. Thanks for bringing some Nietszche love!

    4. I don't really think we got Nietzsche all wrong. His philosophy was just a product of his overwhelming narcissism and his uber-pessimistic world view. This was my previous commentary on Nietzsche:

      "Oh Nietzsche, you poor, poor soul... your ideas about art and truth, although backwards, are so beautiful, yet you are SO pessimistic... The dichotomy of the Dionysian and the Apollonian is wonderful, but Nietzsche, like I said, got it backwards. The world actually is an Ideal-filled and Truth-inspired garden for us to cultivate. The reason Nietzsche thought it was actually Dionysian was because of what humans turn our world into. God inspires us with sincere search for Truth, but the immorality of the Fall prevents some of us from attaining this Noble goal. This existentialist philosophy is really bringing me down... Why can't Schopenhauer and Nietzsche see that the beauty and power of Music are proofs that credit the true Apollonian nature of the world around us?"

      I feel that existentialism too easily writes off the ideals that exist in this world. Nietzsche is a perfect example of this - instead of seeing the ideals of nature as a metaphysical Truth, he perverted them into "illusions" and made them seem like lies we told each other to get us through the miserableness of our existence. I cannot hold this world view. I have seen and too much love, beauty, compassion, charity, selflessness, support, concord, loyalty, trust, and so many other things that make me confident in the fact that the is a metaphysical natural law that pervades all things, and that law is Truth. Regardless of whether Nietzsche believed in God or a god or not, he couldn't even recognize the most fundamental principle of the natural world as it relates to the human condition. That is why I have to so staunchly reject his philosophy. Yes, he raised interesting questions and objections about the world around us and the nature of existence, but the conclusions he came to were so backwards that I can't appreciate him.

  3. Nietszche may be a "dick" but he has had some good ideas, and one of my all time favorite quote comes from him "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"

    FQ (PB)- Which Cambridge philosopher founded a branch of mathematics, two branches of economics, subjective decision theory , a new theory of truth and a theory of semantics?

    DQ (PB)- Ramsey's view was that you do not need a theory of truth because the concept is redundant; but many people believed the opposite, you do need a theory so that you know what you're talking about. Which concept do you agree with? Why?

    Link to more info on the Redundancy Theory

  4. I went through and existentialist phase, without delving too deeply into Nietzsche (which doesn't make much sense, I know). I was more into Camus, Kafka, Joseph Conrad. I guess more literature then philosophy. I read some of Human, All too Human by Nietzsche though and wondered if his point was just to ruffle feathers and be ironic as filler around a few, actually interesting aphorisms. I obviously didn't consider too deeply.
    And I must add, John, that your second paragraph was very well written.

    FQ (LH pg. 188): Which philosopher used the statement, "The present king of France is bald." as an example to explain his Theory of Descriptions?
    Bertrand Russell

    DQ: Alfred Jules Ayers believed that you couldn't have a meaningful conversation about anything that has no empirical value, such as morals or god. What do you think?

    link to a page on Wittgenstein's Language Game. http://postmoderntherapies.com/word.html

  5. I'm not sure what the score is, but I know I rarely agree 100% with John, like I am now. That second paragraph was in fact beautiful! I do disagree with your comment on the group not participating, because I feel we have very thoughtful discussions. I have just found it's best not to put in my opinion in the group, considering it's very difficult at times. I do hope you all had a wonderful weekend, though!

    FQ: (LH p 183) What philosopher questioned the Christian view of faithfulness to your spouse? Bertrand Russell

    DQ: Ayer attacked the idea that the statement 'God Exists' was neither true nor false, so it was meaningless. It's not true by 'definition' and there is not an experiment to test the 'theory'. Do you believe Ayer's idea or St Anselm's Ontological Argument?

  6. FQ: What neurologist-turned-philosopher was portrayed by Robin Williams in the movie "Awakenings"?
    Oliver Sacks
    AP, ~pg 295

    DQ: What is so fascinating to us about "gurus"? Is it simply that it is easier to have someone tell us what to do, or provide knowing insights, than to think about something and work it out for ourselves? Or is there something deeper in our psyche that pushes us towards these types of people/thinkers?

    Alarming absence. Really? So sorry to have frightened you guys. I'll send out mass emails next time I spend a week in bed. I seem to be fully recovered now, and am ready once again to engage you all on whatever topics remain. Too bad about Nietzsche, I would've enjoyed playing devil's advocate there.

  7. FQ: What mathematician said the concept of truth is redundant? (Frank Ramsey)

    DQ: I remember that Jami and I got into a pretty neat discussion about wether or not you would kill your own child, if god directed you to. so i'd like to hear yalls opinion on that.

    This is a pretty interesting video. not much to do with the current topic, however i find it entertaining.


    1. Believe it or not, Tyler and I are capable of having some pretty deep philosophical discussions while wandering campus. We did in fact disagree on whether or not we would kill our child. Our disagreement really made the other think and therefore was a very successful class. Too bad others don't see our brilliance, Tyler.

  8. FQ: which philosopher believed that anything that is not "empirically verifiable" is essentially useless and meaningless?
    - Alfred Jules Ayer LH pg. 191

    DQ: Ayer made the statement that anything we couldn't prove with visible evidence is useless and meaningless. Do you guys agree that anything we cannot visibly and statistically prove isn't really of use to us in the "real world" and in our day to day lives?

    Oh man, I'm loving all these mathematicians we're talking about lately. I might be a little biased, but I'm enjoying seeing some shared interests with these guys.

    This is a link to a discussion of Russel's Theory of Knowledge and how mathematical logic solves the "problems" of infinity and continuity, and how it allows us to really define space, time, and motion. Also, ignore the title of the website. The article has nothing to do with Marxism.


  9. I'd say that John being a real team player can bring the group lunch in that giant lunchbox. That'd help to promote group interest for sure. I'm thinking i want a ham and turkey sandwhich. White bread, please.

  10. Funny you should mention that, because that is what I had for lunch (well, I had wheat bread, not white). I bring my lunch and eat it at work, so it's all empty now. Sorry!