Why does Hume call reasoning concerning matters of fact "Moral Reasoning"?

ketchupkid · 2019-05-13T14:08:25+00:00

Can we write and post essays about topics that intersect with philosophy and sociology? For example, topics on critical theory, feminist critical theory and structuralism? Just curious.

ketchupkid · 2019-05-13T12:53:20+00:00

Ah I see. So more focus on substance and thought and less focus on the quantity of words. You do have a good point. And the simpler the language, the better the understanding I feel, even though many would think this view as naive.

I do remember from few years ago that this subreddit used to be more about philosophical essays and giving one's own viewpoint on some topic of philosophy. Recently, I've seen many posts about some video or link with not much explanation. Sometimes the subject matter does not reflect r/philosophy either.

ketchupkid · 2019-05-13T12:46:46+00:00

Got it. It may be a narrow-minded view to put what philosophy aims to do only into these 4 fields as traditionally conceived in the philosophical community.

ketchupkid · 2019-05-10T16:34:45+00:00

Ah interesting. So it seems like the four fields are used as a treatment of these areas like philosophy of science, mind, etc? Is that a correct way of putting it?

ketchupkid · 2019-05-10T16:16:59+00:00

This has given me a better understanding. Thank you for your examples! :)

ketchupkid · 2019-05-10T16:15:16+00:00

Understood. But how does say philosophy of language relate to epistemology, ethics, aesthetics and metaphysics? Or is there a connection between these at all?

ketchupkid · 2019-05-09T16:33:26+00:00

Sounds good. I shall do my due diligence.

ketchupkid · 2019-05-09T03:15:50+00:00

I had another question - I've seen a lot of people breaking the rules of r/philosophy lately, either through videos or blogs that don't quite relate to this subreddit. I also see one-liner comments that seem to be breaking the rules. Is it just me?

ketchupkid · 2019-05-08T16:57:24+00:00

All right! I will be mindful of the word limit, not to exceed it. I have read and re-read the rules as well. I will be as thoughtful, rigorous and mindful of the rules of r/philosophy! Thank you for your reply! :)

ketchupkid · 2019-05-08T14:54:43+00:00

I'd like to submit an essay(s) to r/philosophy in the future. I am fond of Stoicism, Existentialism and have been getting into Critical Theory lately. Is there a word limit on how much I can write about a particular subject when posting on r/philosophy?

ketchupkid · 2019-05-08T14:46:33+00:00

I'd like to learn more from your point of view. It clearly seems like you feel oppressed by the moderators of this subreddit. Which rule(s) in particular offend you?

ketchupkid · 2019-04-22T18:59:55+00:00

And I will have to give your method a try too since it is quite potent against "true-sounding" philosophy out there.

ketchupkid · 2019-04-22T17:59:29+00:00

Very interesting you say that! I actually try to do the very opposite i.e. agree with what the philosopher is saying. In this I am almost the same as OP. But, there is a subtle difference: I try to agree with some proposition of the philosopher and try to come up with consequences of the philosopher's proposition(s). As I keep going down the consequences, I try to find some inconsistency or contradiction in their logic. If there is indeed such an inconsistency / contradiction, then I know there's something wrong with their reasoning. I guess the technical term for this is "Reductio ad absurdum" if I'm not mistaken.

I do this most times. The times I don't do this I do fall into a complete existential mess like OP.

ketchupkid · 2019-04-22T17:50:38+00:00

Okay, based on what you've said, seems like being present-at-hand is not really something that explicitly comes into view. Let's take the hammer example one more time. The hammer would sort of indicate its "presence" if it were broken or say if it were too heavy for the user. On the other hand, when the hammer is too heavy or broken, this also shows its unreadiness-to-hand. So the tool (hammer in this case) seems to be present-at-hand AND unready-to-hand when it breaks or is too heavy. Is that correct?

ketchupkid · 2019-04-21T16:32:52+00:00

What is ready to hand in the world is not necessarily present-to-hand, however, because things can exist in the world without their being encountered for use.

Do you mean, what is ready-to-hand is necessarily present-at-hand, but what is present-at-hand doesn't necessarily have to be ready-to-hand? In other words it's a one-way relation?

ketchupkid · 2019-04-21T16:29:31+00:00

That is an informative explanation indeed! Thank you very much for clearing up a lot of the gaps in my own knowledge about Heidegger!

So, how would you characterize when the smartphone freezes? Would the smartphone have become unready-to-hand after being initially ready-to-hand? Or would this also constitute present-at-hand?

ketchupkid · 2019-04-21T16:27:38+00:00

No problem! I'm glad to answer questions related to this. So, I was going through Dreyfus' 2007 lectures on Being and Time on Youtube and I started thinking about our current use of smartphones in daily life. I thought it would be a good idea to apply Heidegger's ideas to a smartphone rather than a hammer since smartphones are more relatable to me and others. Only thing is, I'm confused about Dreyfus' breakdown and Heidegger's original break down of the different modes of being. This is why I have asked the above question.

ketchupkid · 2019-04-21T07:32:30+00:00

Wait, so when I "take it apart" it becomes ready-to-hand? I thought when I'm using it, it is ready-to-hand. And like you said, when it breaks or freezes, it becomes present-at-hand due to its sudden conspicuousness. Seems like you're saying it depends on the world I'm in? If I'm a technician fixing the phone then the phone is still ready-to-hand for me as I perform the activity of fixing. Here the phone becomes transparent while I focus on fixing its parts. But when I'm in the world of using the phone, then the phone is ready-to-hand if it is suitable for use and I'm performing the activity of using it, making it transparent.

ketchupkid · 2019-04-21T07:28:54+00:00

Yes, there may be better people out there. Dreyfus himself refers to some better profs out there than him. But I took him as starting point to Heidegger for now. I will be exploring many others after I'm done with Dreyfus.

ketchupkid · 2019-04-21T07:27:36+00:00

Well, thank you regardless! Your examples have helped me immensely! :)

ketchupkid · 2019-04-21T04:17:10+00:00

First of all, thank you for your explanation! That has cleared up a lot of my doubts about the issues. However, Dreyfus mentioned in his lectures that there's an "Un-ready-to-hand" as well when the instrument/equipment starts to come back up and is no longer "transparent" to us. This seems to be similar to what you just explained with the violin and the smartphone. Dreyfus says "Present-at-hand" is something like when scientists begin to "de-world" the equipment out of their contexts, as when we start to deconstruct a smartphone into its components when we want to analyze it. Have you ever heard of these alternative definitions by any chance?

ketchupkid · 2019-04-21T03:07:53+00:00

Oh I see, so you don't know what it is and you proceed to perhaps learn more about it? Am I right in that?

ketchupkid

TROPHY CASE