I'm not sure how much credit to give him. I suspect a lot of people realized this, but reacted simply by not studying philosophy, rather than becoming philosophy professors. How did things get this way? Can something people have spent thousands of years studying really be a waste of time? Those are interesting questions. In fact, some of the most interesting questions you can ask about philosophy. The most valuable way to approach the current philosophical tradition may be neither to get lost in pointless speculations like berkeley, nor to shut them down like wittgenstein, but to study it as an example of reason gone wrong.
Immanuel Kant, the history guide - main
2 outside of math there's a limit to how far you can push words; in fact, it would not be a bad definition of math to call it the study of terms that have precise meanings. Everyday words are inherently imprecise. They work well enough in everyday life that you don't notice. Words seem to work, just as Newtonian physics seems. But you can always make them break if you push them far enough. I business would say that this has been, unfortunately for philosophy, the central fact of philosophy. Most philosophical debates are not merely afflicted by but driven by confusions over words. Do we have free will? Depends what you mean by "free." do abstract ideas exist? Depends what you mean by "exist." Wittgenstein is popularly credited with the idea that most philosophical controversies are due to confusions over language.
You could conceivably lose half your brain and live. Which means your brain could conceivably be split into two halves and each transplanted into different bodies. Imagine waking up after such an operation. You have to book imagine being two people. The real lesson here is that the concepts we use in everyday life are fuzzy, and break down if pushed too hard. Even a concept as dear to us. It took me a while to grasp this, but when I did it was fairly sudden, like someone in the nineteenth century grasping evolution and realizing the story of creation they'd been told as a child was all wrong.
I don't know if I learned anything from them. 1, it does seem to me very important to be able to flip ideas around in one's head: to see when two ideas don't fully cover the space of possibilities, or when one idea is the same as another but with a couple things changed. But did studying logic teach me the importance of thinking this way, or make me any better at it? There are things i know I learned from studying philosophy. The most dramatic I learned immediately, in the first semester of freshman year, in a class taught by sydney shoemaker. I learned that I don't exist. I am (and you are) a collection of cells that lurches around driven by various forces, and calls itself. But there's no central, indivisible thing that your identity goes with.
The, pillars of, unbelief—
I think i data see now what went wrong with philosophy, and how we might fix. Words, i did end up being a philosophy major for most of college. It didn't work out as I'd hoped. I didn't learn any magical truths compared to which everything else was mere domain knowledge. I do at least know now why i didn't.
Philosophy doesn't really have a subject matter in the way math or history or most other university subjects. There is no core of knowledge one must master. The closest you come to that is a knowledge of what various individual philosophers have said about different topics over the years. Few were sufficiently correct that people have forgotten who discovered what they discovered. Formal logic has some subject matter. I took several classes in logic.
The summer before senior year I took some college classes. I learned a lot in the calculus class, but I didn't learn much in Philosophy 101. And yet my plan to study philosophy remained intact. It was my fault I hadn't learned anything. I hadn't read the books we were assigned carefully enough. Principles of Human Knowledge another shot in college.
Anything so admired and so difficult to read must have something in it, if one could only figure out what. Twenty-six years later, i still don't understand Berkeley. I have a nice edition of his collected works. Will i ever read it? The difference between then and now is that now i understand why. Berkeley is probably not worth trying to understand.
The, fallacies of Egoism and Altruism, and the
All the people majoring in other things would just end up with a bunch of domain knowledge. I would be learning what was really what. I'd tried to read a few philosophy books. Not recent ones; you wouldn't find those in our high school library. But I tried to read Plato and Aristotle. I doubt I believed i understood them, but they write sounded like they were talking about something important. I assumed I'd learn what in college.
What lies behind that? Maybe the modesty, and the true honest nature of Albrecht Dürer. September 2007, in high school I decided I was going to study philosophy in college. I had several motives, some more honorable than others. One of the less honorable was to shock people. College was regarded as william job training where i grew up, so studying philosophy seemed an impressively impractical thing. Sort of like slashing holes in your clothes or putting a safety pin through your ear, which were other forms of impressive impracticality then just coming into fashion. But I had some more honest motives as well. I thought studying philosophy would be a shortcut straight to wisdom.
all his might, and was never tired of considering the works and the methods of celebrated painters, and learning from them all that commended itself to him. We cannot really understand the artists personality unless we immerse ourselves in the study of his art, life and times. And this is the purpose of this site, to offer an in-depth look at Dürers art and his life. Biography is provided both in a short version, and in detail. And we will look at his works, engravings, paintings, and drawings, trying to discover the artists deepest thoughts, as it is said that, if you want to learn anything of his mind, search for it in his pictures. That would be the only way to discover Dürer. Apparently, none of his literary works would reveal any insight into his real heart, everything is written with cold, laconic precision. Was it really cold?
In the short 16th Century, the city was the chief centre of the german artistic life. The revival of the classical spirit of Antiquity inspired the new, original conceptions in art. The movement influenced the art more than the literature, with engravings, woodcuts, and paintings reflecting the new thinking. The study of Dürers works requires more imaginative effort than the works of the Italian Renaissance artists. In a typical German fashion, his art sometimes disregards the outward beauty of form, with the main intent of revealing the inner life. The art is subordinated to the revelation of the real, the inward, which latter was the subject of investigation for German philosophers like kant and Schopenhauer. And, like in the case of early german painters, the expression of the inner, emotional life, remained the ideal of Dürer. A true humanist of the time, he has an impressive contribution to literature, and according to his friend Camerarius, dürer was a master of natural sciences and mathematics.
Immanuel Kant stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy )
Albrecht Dürer was not only the greatest artist of the northern Renaissance, but also a unique personality, his genius coexisting with a pure, noble character. Indeed, looking at his self portraits, we discover the handsome man he was, with his face reflecting the purity of his soul and his intelligence. Self-Portrait, 1498 - detail, museo del Prado, madrid, his contemporaries were impressed by his physical appearance, and his mental and moral qualities, which were no less remarkable. Camerarius writes that such were the sweetness and charm of his language that listeners were always sorry when with he had finished speaking. Philipp Melanchthon, writing after his friend death, said that his art, great as it was, was his least merit, as in his eyes, Albrecht the Christian was worth even more than the artist. Among all the artists investigating the classical in search of new principles of art, Albrecht Dürer stands supreme. He studied the art principles, made rigorous theoretical observations, meticulously recorded the results of his investigations, and then he gave the resulting written instructions to his contemporaries.