Personal Blogs

New comment

It could be you are not simple or stupid enough for this kind of philosophy.  Are you struggling because you think about the consequences of the philosophers' arguments in a real world context?  I'm possibly projecting onto you my own weakness, which was to fail to grasp that these philosophers live in a little theoretical and artificial bubble all of their own in which they can test their ideas without being too taxed by the complexity of reality.

For example, the Fire of London lynch mob case: the consequentialist approving the hanging of an innocent man to pacify the people.  There was a scary real world analogue in my mind of the second Gulf War which had me screaming at the text book about how it was too narrow-minded and short-minded an idea to be utilitarianist.  Or, to bring it up to date, Trump blaming Little Rocket Man for the world's ills and suggesting taking him out to make the American people happy is a logical thing to do.  It's best not to try to apply it to the real world, that's not what this sort of philosophy is for.  It's about the methods, not their real world application.  But it is interesting to see there is an argument that a proposal to nuke North Korea does have a philosophical argument to back it up.

Once you are beyond Bentham & Mill and the confusing and conflicting umpteen sorts of utilitarianism, you get onto Kant who is nice and simple.  You can't beat a good maxim, that's what I always say, and so should everyone else.  (My only philosophy joke.)  Kant and my mother would have got on just fine, provided he lived up to his own standards.  And I skipped Chapter 4, other than the violinist thought experiment.  I could not detach myself sufficiently from the material to read it impassionately.

New comment

Hi Simon,

You are right, i have had a bad tma score before on another module..

Because i have the terrible habit of writing about theories by trying to put them into a normative position. According to the feedback, some ideas cannot ever be normative. 

That's why i struggle with philosophy and philosophy struggles with me.

What is the point of endless debate? Regardless of how logically correct or sound an argument is, if it does not help to resolve anything then where is the point of it.

From your advice, i look forward to Kant, his maxim sounds like a philosopher actually aiming towards a normative position. After 3 blocks of unresolved arguements, Kant and his maxim sounds like a welcome change.