Philosophy Questions

1. What philosophical arch type are you?

2. What is your favorite method of philosophical debate?

3. What is your favorite philosophical debate?

For me, I would say I'm more of a Stoic Philosopher. Actually, the modern theological thinking is based on stoicism. As for my favorite debate type, it would probably be credentials. It was used a lot by Latin Philosophy schools. One would weave together several theories, and point out what things are agreed on and what things are disagreed on.

Therefore, after much explanation, one would arrive at a set of basic truths and a couple basic unknowns. Unfortunately, its very hard to implement, but when it works, it works beautifully. As for my favorite philisophical debate, I can't really say. I would like to here yours though. Some of my favorites involved latin schools though. I know a lot of people like the Socrates vs Thucydides debates. One that really affected me personally though was Cicero vs Brutus.

I had a lot of doubts about the soul, death, and why you should live if you are to only die. Its not exactly the most elequent debate, but I doubt anyone would say it wasn't extremely in depth and thorough.

Priest of Swag:

admin: (Should probably add that I do NOT actually agree with Foucault and am more so on Chomsky's side, but it was a great debate nonetheless and Foucault delivered a far better attack on Chomsky from a critical perspective than anybody)

Priest of Swag: 1. None, I am a pragmatist by nature so I don't subscribe to anything wholeheartedly because it limits one's capacity to act to what one imagines.

2. Lincoln-Douglas debate. Cross-examination is the best period.

3. None in particular. One that does stand out to me in recent years is John Lennox and Peter Atkins.

admin: Strange, I tend to agree with Foucault more so. A few years ago I would of sided with Chomsky. I think Foucault "won" the debate if one can win a debate. Foucault's arguments tended to be more persuasive to me. I see Chomsky to be less of a philosopher but more as a moralist of sorts.

admin: 1. Moat protestant denominations of Christianity are stoic. There was wide interpretation that the stoics were atheist, although most alling themselves with their beliefs. Liberal Chrisitanity, after the third and fourth revivals, taught us that God is the "divine essence" of the world, and the holy spirit was our souls. Jesus was the conduit between them. In addition, heaven and hell are not literal places, but ones movement of soul to god. Like the Stoics taught.

Conservative Christianity believes that God is a man like spirit up in heaven, and the holy spirit is the "Teacher" of god. Heaven and Hell are real places where one can go. Liberal Christianity is by far stoic.

2. "Formal" is not a debate type. There were different styles that philosophy schools taught, which attracted people to their colleges. Socratic and Platonic discourse, for example, was known for going through this cycle........

- Questioning

- Structure of Argument

- (Wait while opposite debater makes his attacks)

- Refute by question

- Draw the final argument structure out, which sometimes leads to steps three through 5 being repeated. I

I like some other philosophers styles though, such as Augustine.

3. No, the Brutus debate was actually real, and yes, there was little actual argument. Cicero and Brutus were in the same inner circle, and the point still remains true. It is one of his most famous writings, and partially the reason why he's so famous. That and his tragic life.

Tophatdoc: Well Chomsky's contribution to philosophy was in the area of philosophy of language, which is a very narrow part of the philosophy of science, which is itself a narrow part of philosophy in general. I think it's only fair to say he did make a contribution though. The position he was advocating in this debate was that human nature is systematized according to pre-defined rules, which I something I agree with. This was not his original theory, but something that he as a philosopher happened to believe. The same is true for his moralizing. Foucault was more persuasive in this debate, we agree there. I agree with Chomsky's side of the argument but certainly not because I agree with Chomsky.

Tophatdoc: 1. Philosophical style is simply your preference when studying. It does not mean you need to follow the format by the book. Stoicism taught us to study how nature works to understand how life does, IE, what is natural is right.

Aristotle's format was to take the supports around the core of a argument, before attacking the core. A wise method to a common mistake.

2. Those were indeed famous, but I was not aware they had a particular style.

3.. ^ Is the above your answer?

Priest of Swag: 1. The problem with that view is that it discounts the idealist influence of Plato et al in the church. Mainstream western theology (a minority among the schools of theological thought though) has certainly become more stoic in the past century or so, but the ultimate purpose of man remains entirely spiritual in most except perhaps Pentecostal type Christian churches.

2. No, it actually is. It split from Oxford type in the mid 19th century. I can probably find you some academic papers on it later.

3. What makes you say it was actually real? Cicero himself pretty clearly composed it in Greek dialogue format, and elsewhere explained that this format was not to be used when recording actual conversations. Compare his style of speaking here to how we know he actually spoke from transcriptions by others, such as during his trial of Verres, to see my point. Cicero is not famous for philosophy at all, aside from some dabbling in ethics, but moreso for his oratory.

admin: I have heard his work in linguistics mentioned but I know little about it, so I won't comment on it. However, I will say that he is allegedly a polarizing figure in the field according to various participants in the field and Steven Pinker.

My agreement with Foucault was decided after the second time I saw this debate all the way through. I had no opinion prior to the debate.

Priest of Swag: 1.No preference in that case.

"Stoicism taught us to study how nature works." ??????????? I can't think of any significant Stoic who was a scientist or attempted such a scientific approach.

2. Lincoln-Douglas is a style of debate. It is practiced by high school students and college students. I participated in the regionals when I was in high school.

3. ?????? I don't know what you are talking about.

I said this:

admin: 1. I have to disagree. Name a Christian denomination, and I've heard it before there. How is what I said not stoic at all? The last revival happened in the early 1900's, and it led to some of the greatest Christian Philosophers since the 100's. They taught exactly what I'm telling you. Yes, Orthodox and some Catholic denominations still believe in literal symbolism, but not most protestant denominations.

2. I'm interested. I was not aware "formal" was a philosophical discourse style.

3. Cicero wrote his books in Latin and in Latin format. He introduces all his books stating he is opposed to Greek writing or Greek style. He said in one of his books that Greek writing is for Greek men. The dialogue with Brutus was real as well. All his books were recorded by his servants. Such as his speech in the forum.

And yes, Cicero is very famous for his philosophy. He argued many new age ideas such as republicanism and the tyranny of emperors. He is widely renowned among many Latin thinkers. His works were some of the most famous in Rome. Even if he were not famous, you can not doubt the sway of his arguments

Tophatdoc: 1. No, the stoics taught that all things can be answered by nature. This is restated in every argument, by every stoic. Marcus Aurellius and Zeno, which I assume you know, repeated constantly that "What is natural can not be wrong". The stoic system of though is to relate all things to how they would work if society was not involved.

For example, ethics, morals, and even greater life can be explained by how it would work without artificial things like laws.

2. Yes, the format is very famous. It was the "style" I was contesting. There was no consistent style between Douglas and Lincoin.

I would be willing to do a moral debate with one of you two. I would argue that it's ok to harm others if you only stand to benefit, with assurance that you wont get caught.

Priest of Swag: 1. But a disbelief in literal symbolism is not a belief in Stoicism. Stoicism's main assertion was of the superiority of action over belief. Western spiritualism has always emphasised the opposite, the triumph of belief over action. For example, it is a belief common to most churches that God can forgive just about every single sin if a person merely repents and asks for forgiveness in prayer. The Bible clearly emphasises that this power derives from conviction as opposed to merely making a great show of faith. Protestantism in particular was founded in opposition, to a great degree, of the imagined materialism of the then-mainstream ideology, so I'm pretty confident I could name any mainstream protestant view and be right. Lutherianism, if you really need one.

3. Cicero certainly was not opposed to Greek style, especially as he was the first Roman to translate many Greek philosophical works into Latin. He noted that outside of Athens the Greeks were poor orators, as they believed in a more laconic style of rhetoric, but he nonetheless clearly liked their works. The piece you refer to is today published as a book, but back then it was actually a letter written to Brutus and starring "Brutus" as Cicero wrote him. A number of things indicate that he probably wrote it himself, not least that it imitates the Greek style of writers like Plato, as opposed to the Roman style more typically used by his scribes for recording his speeches as you mentioned. Again, read his actual recorded style of speech (from any of his trials as an advocate or in the senate) and compare it to this. It was one of his private letters that was discovered by Petrarch, not an actual work he ever intended to have published.

Republicanism was not a new ideal - in fact he plagiarised almost all of the little he said on the topic from Cato. He also never spoke on the tyranny of emporers, though he did argue that excessive use of dictatorial powers was contrary to the mos maiorum, and criticized individuals with such power. In fact his main contribution to philosophy specifically was his views on natural law, that were later built upon by Locke et al, and ethics, which were probably the high point of ethical philosophy in the ancient world. But compared to his ability as a speaker, Cicero's philosophy is nothing. Reading his attacks on Mark Antony, for example, makes it clear why so few dared to be his enemy in his time, and his legacy was certainly felt for a long time afterwards.

Priest of Swag: Sure, send me a challenge

admin: The debate creator errors are back again

Priest of Swag: Again, give me a full error report. What exactly is the message that comes up?

Priest of Swag: 1. My point is the Stoics had no understanding of "nature" because they were not scientists nor did they have the capacity to adequately define what nature is and is not.

Tophatdoc: Nature of man. It wasn't rocket science. Its not literal nature, is it?