Just look at his face I see kindness, love and modesty. All those good qualities make him wiser.

Shelly Kagan is a first-rate moral philosopher.

Shelly Kagan is one of my best role model.

Great philosopher! Greetings from Europe...

I love Kagan

The dude is a legend 🙏

@paulfrank4551

4 жыл бұрын

He is from Skokie like me, that makes him even more awesome.

Ayn Rand was my segue into philosophy. I give her credit for that. In fact, I was an ardent and vociferous proponent of objectivism. Due to the fact I wanted to secure objectivism as the ideal philosophical system, and not simply become a Randian "cognitive second-hander", I read the philosophers that she disparaged. Plato, Hume, Kant, Hegel and Marx come to mind. By the time I got through them, I began to see major problems with her ideas, most of which were merely polemics and rather clumsy in terms of their vulnerability to critique. Later I shifted towards psychoanalysis which I practice today. In retrospect I realize that the majority of what Ayn Rand wrote, especially her angry and moralizing polemics, were clear presentations of the Kleinian paranoid/schizoid position, and a degree of neurosis and paranoia about various "Big Others" that are best described in Lacanian terms. Considering the trauma of her childhood and social development occurring in Stalinist Russia, one can only feel compassion for her. I still admire her and respect her, but reject the majority of her ideas, especially laissez faire capitalism.

this kid's hair

existentialism ontology postmodernism

çökmüşün be şeli

Yeah, great philosopher, no doubt. His lectures on "Death" are legendary. However, in answering the question "is dead bad for you"?, he argues that it is not so, because when dead comes you dont exists. This is misses the question. Dead is bad for us, since the IDEA of deprivation and non-existence accompanies most of us during our entire life. Therefore, we have to live with this anxiety and discomfort - and such a mental state cannot be "good for us".

@MofoWoW

5 ай бұрын

I think you may be misremembering his position. He does, in fact, argue that death is bad for us. Indeed, he argues that it is bad for us because it deprives us of the good things in life that we would’ve gotten had we not died when we did. So his explanation for why death is a bad thing is somewhat similar to yours. Except, he would claim that even if we didn’t live with anxiety and discomfort at the IDEA of deprivation, death would still be a bad thing.

Ayn Rand? Not Marxism or Nazism, but Ayn Rand. Kagan BLOWS!

@jameshicks7125

Жыл бұрын

Are you still a teenager?

All philosophy does is ask questions that science answer

@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578

3 жыл бұрын

Not true at all. Science presupposes logical (philosophical) and mathematical truths, so to argue for these things using science would be arguing in a circle. Science is a wonderful tool, but it can’t answer everything. That’s why we have philosophy.

@andreiparaschiv9915

3 жыл бұрын

@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578 And let me add this: even if we assume that there is nothing problematic about logic and mathematics (so far they have proven themselves kind of perfect and immutable, so it's probably the safest assumption humans have ever made), many philosophical questions still cannot be answered by science. There are people, like the physicist Lawrence Krauss, who claim that science can give answers to ethical questions by measuring states of affairs, variables and outcomes and mathematically deciding which one is the best one. But what does „the best one” mean? How does one quantify, measure and order values and goals without already presupposing some general, absolute criterion that is agreed upon by all humans? What if I simply don't agree with your criterion? Claiming that science can answer philosophical questions is pure Scientism, which, ironically, is a dogmatic, heavily metaphysical view. Science is just a tool. Don't get me wrong, it's an amazing and incredibly powerful tool that has helped us a lot with understanding the world. But it is just a tool, meaning that it only answers the questions that we decide to make it answer, and it only makes sense when contextualised, interpreted and given meaning. Otherwise, its ”answers” are just some numbers, abstract and sterile.