It is perplexing, how Stephen says philosopher do not offer an ethic and moral project, but the proceeds with mentioning Spinoza, who's entire philosophy IS an offer of a way of living one's life with reason and thus freeing oneself from the bondage of emotions and passions.
I believe this is what Fry alludes to when he says Kant “Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. Sapere Aude! Have the courage to use your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment...”
I love Big Think and I admire Stephen Fry a great deal. His love and mastery of language, his fine and entertaining acting, and his amazingly brilliant critical thinking skills. A wonderful role model for anyone!
Buddhism is being nice. Ha-ha. Just if you believe that, just read 70 verses on emptiness by Nagarjuna. It's pure ontology, exquisite dialectics and sharp logic. And that's 150 ad.
@Kat D. The answer that I find most pertinent is that Philosophy not only serves to recount the origin of various disciplines (e.g. politics, science, language), but also helps to develop ways by which one can make the connection between them. It serves as an exercise of the mind and promotes critical thought. Therein lies the importance.
The pre-socratics certainly did concern themselves with how to live life. Half the extant quotations are moral precepts. Aristotle wrote on ethics (2 books IIRC). Only when logic was seen as a way to ultimate truth higher than and independent of experience did 'how one should live' recede as a topic. This reached its apotheosis in Aquinas, Decartes, Spinoza et al, was questioned by Kant and shattered by Russell. The moral question may be all that is left of philosophy - not metaphysics...
Rick Roderick says that the post modern problem is not in finding people who disagree with your philosophy but in finding people who have any point of view at all.
A truth which has been reenforced with modern physics. Therefore you are fundamentally one with everyone and everything. So being generous to others creates happiness within yourself.
I think the field of philosophy has evolved into science. Science utilizes both rationalism and empiricism. Your specific paradigm is your rationality, and your evidence is empirical.
Update: Logic Pro 10 came out today!!! It's called Logic Pro X! I remembered this conversation and thought i'd give you a heads up incase you didn't know! Been checking out it's new features. Better looking and concise interface, Flex Pitch (A pitch changing system like Flex Time was for timing and tempo), New macro controls for easy use (Called "Smart Controls"), new Synths, revised older plug-ins like Electric Piano and Organ, New Midi FX... Oh man... Geek mode! :P
'Philosophy' can refer to the set of beliefs a certain 'philosopher' has. To be a 'philosopher', you can't just have a set of beliefs, though; you have to have a particular state of mind; be curious about reality; ask questions; dig into the fundamental nature of things [knowledge, reality and existence]. That kind of thinking and questioning is the human pattern of thought and broader term 'philosophy'. Of which logic and reasoning are fundamental parts; not contradictory concepts.
The point of philosophy isn't to solely philosophize. Philosophy provides us not just with a critical thought based upon objective evidence, but with intuitions as well. Philosophy in itself is a tool by which we can better understand ourselves, and possibly begin the initial steps towards a more harmonious state of being within the existence already allocated for us. But it would be contrary to the ideals of philosophy to believe that its an absolute truth or that truth can only be found in it.
I don't think he is saying it is pointless. I think that he is simply saying what philosophy is really for. Philosophy is about figuring out how to think for yourself. By bringing deep interesting and complicated or even simple questions to your mind. So you can figure yourself out. He was only saying that people don't see that aspect and importance that is in it. They look for answers elsewhere, they don't want to figure things out for themselves.
Philosophy is a way of living one's life or seeing the world, from a certain perspective.That perspective can be given a name or title. Logic is structured reasoning. And reason (more specifically, reasoning) is the way human beings analyze or think.
It just sounds like he's only read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy... Or at least he was very heavily influenced by Russell's understanding, and not by much else.
Maybe, but it looks like he's at least tried to read Kant and Hegel, if you take his word seriously. Being able to tackle both of those thinkers fairly is a hard enough task in itself.
It is a bit of both. Reason within reason is relevant in illustrating a need for a subtle rational understanding of reason. It is a rational recognition of reason being a truth, but not an absolute truth that will answer and explain the all-being of everything. To simply put it reason is not the soup, but it is a spicy ingredient to the soup. By itself it will never make the soup on its own.
“Love of wisdom” Greek translation: philosophy. The genesis of philosophy came from our unalienable Rights. See the book titled: “Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights.”
@Kaalec That is the funny thing, he is not well educated, institutional educated any way, he is just well read. He said in another bigthink video that he is "addicted" to reading. He has read everything literature, poetry to science. Magnificent human being.
“Feelings are not supposed to be logical. Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions.” David Borenstein if fry could learn that he wouldnt be depressed all the time
(2a)^2 - 4ab = a^2 - 2ab + b^2, a = b (a - b)4a = (a - b)^2 4a = a - b The results indicates division by zero, in this context (classical algebra), is an invalid operation.
Fry is a man that understands philosophy beyond the work of philosophers. He points out that real philosophy requires a lot of work, to discover the aspects of existence.
For the record: he doesn't say Buddhism is just about been nice and such; he simply makes the statement that people tend to misinterpret what Philosophy is, and that it is a common mistake to compare Philosophy to a religion or belief.
@korpscomacho Kant was concerned mainly with metaphysics, the laws governing our world, not really an individual's guide to the everyday business of living.
'Reason is no more than a set of rules developed by the race; it takes no account of anything beyond sensory impressions.There is no possible escape from the vicious circle that we can register only the behavior of our own instrument.' - Master Therion
I heard him right, he stated, "there is no socratic, nietzschian, or Kantian way to live your life" which is untrue as there is a Kantian way to live your life, which is called Kantian ethics (a deontological position). His point still remains valid in the since that most philosophers don't create ethical theories, he was just wrong in stating that Kant was one of them. I really like his point about how people confuse virtues with ethics, they are not the same.
@DoctorSess I totally agree. I believe that in order for one to begin to understand the Great Mystery, one must be all inclusive and dismiss nothing. Only if you have all the pieces can you put the puzzle together.
You know that how? From a single interview with a stupid question? What were you expecting, for him to recount and dispute philosophical ideas and to posit his own treatise on ethics, the nature of reality and epistemology? No, we got a general answer from a person with a prodigious resource of general knowledge. He isn't trying to come across as a philosopher, he comes across as well read and he is obviously knowledgeable about these subjects.
Ethics, or how to live one's life, is a major part of most of the major philosophers' works. Socrates and Nietzsche were extremely concerned with how to live one's life. I'm not sure why Stephen Fry thinks they weren't...
Most important mathematicians were philosophers up until about 60 years ago. Logic, as an area of study, was invented by Aristotle and improved upon by Frege (both philosophers). Leibniz, a philosopher, invented calculus. And 'reasoning' generally is both the best and most privileged tool of any philosopher, and is one of the oldest topics for study in all Western philosophy.
i did. indivisibility by zero is a consequent of the axioms and definitions. it is a theorem which can be shown to follow from the axioms. but this does not prove the axioms: if A, then B/ B therefore A is an invalid argument.
Cognitive, conscious processes. Biological, neurological, chemical processes. Yes, philosophy revolves around questions; intellectual inquiry towards true doctrines (rather than faith, which glorifies false doctrines and fears intellectual inquiry away from them).
What he fails to realize is that to "live life asking an enormous amount of questions" is a philosophy in itself. Philosophy speaks to the principles of that which is.
Nicely summarized towards the end, esp. 2:55 onward where he distinguishes between the so called "Eastern philosophy" of Buddhism and real intellectual quest for logic and handwork !
That's mostly a critique of philosophers that hide their ideas behind dense or obscure styles, or are easy to misinterpret - rather needlessly - like Hegel, who almost deliberately make their ideas hard to understand when they often shouldn't need to (I'm not saying Hegel has no value at all, just that his real value is hard to properly assess... I reserve similar criticism to thinkers like Heidegger). Read Schopenhauer, he knew how to present deep ideas that could be immediately grasped and built upon in one's life through just one read-through.
I agree with Mr. Fry in that Bertrand Russel's history of western philosophy is well worth the read (or listen) if you're unfamiliar. Locke has hugely impacted upon our culture
If all someone who calls themselves a "Philosopher" has is questions without answers they are not a Philosopher. The greatest Philosopher who has ever lived is on this planet right now with you. He goes by Stefbot on youtube.
I would agree that reading actual philosophy is better than a celebrity's opinion about it is better, but this is a good portal for younger people, or those who've not encountered philosophy yet, to gain an interest. We should celebrate there's a popular public figure, besides Will Self, who endorses philosophy. And he's upper-middle class.
We know it is a self evident truth because of the results in arithmetic and classical algebra. What if, however, A and B are unequal to an additive neutral element and are a part of an abstract multiplicative group that yields A Δ B = 0 of the group (1 A, B, C, D, E, and 0)
logic, reasoning, mathematics, etc support philosophical believes. Things can be broken down to what we know is true. I is not open for interpretation or speculation. By the way, how does a mathematician and philosopher work together?
Your comparison to fractals is brilliant. simple truths can result in very complex realities. A philosopher searches and tries truths. I feel your pain in the aspect of how people treat logical thinking.
Stephen Fry was correct that today the global culture is ultimately sloppy in terms of philosophy and that hard work is scoffed at instead of revered as an economic principle. He was also correct to credit Aristotle for inventing logic. Unfortunately he failed to mention the most significant philosopher since Aristotle: Ayn Rand and her objectivist principles who solidified the objectivity of metaphysics, perfectly defined reason, and explained the nature of concepts...
@TheFaustianMan He said not all of em do, he likes those who don't. The ones who don't tell you what to do etc. the ones who just give you the option to consider their words and reflect if they apply to you. And if you even WANT to do something with it. He hates the rigid path, he wants freedom and the ability to deviate and the possibility to put together your own way of life.
@hugotuga100 You've reacted to this as if it was meant to be an educational video on philosophy. He was asked to give a list of philosophers, that's why he did that. Stephen Fry isn't the average TV celebrity, he reads about all sorts of interesting things.
It's amazing how much people think Stephen Fry knows about philosophy, but its actually staggering how much he doesn't know, nor seems to understand particularly well.
I quite disagree with the statement that philosophers don't offer ethical codes to live by. Perhaps not as rigid as a code, but they explore ethical situations and values, and do indeed often provide conclusions of their own on the importance of certain concepts.
The idea that Aristotle's influence on the Medieval mind was "pernicious" is unfortunate. I think it was more the Augustinian/Platonic/Christian influence on the Middle Ages that was pernicious; the cold reasoning of Aristotle, reintroduced towards the end of the Middle Ages, was mostly responsible for the rebirth of logic, science, secularism, empirical inquiry and everything else that came with the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
@1thousandways Are you trying to say something like this? P1: Words do not have the definition of numbers. P2: Logic uses words (language) as if they have the definition of numbers. C: Logic misuses language.
I don't understand why your post was marked as spam?! The reason to not initiate force against another person is that it is immoral, just like slavery. You can use force to defend yourself. These are morals to live by. Try watching the video again. It seems to me that you didn't quite get it.
I'm not sure I would agree the Philosophers don't have a specific philosophy, or codes to live by... Kant developed Kantian Ethics and Socrates also had a philosophy that we should question everything. It is true that philosophers raise more questions than they answer, but I think that is the point of philosophy. It is translated as the 'love of wisdom'. I personally believe that wisdom, in a philosophical context, is the search for those answers, as opposed to obtaining the answers themselves.
I watched it again, and, until the last bit, I agree with you. What aggravated me was the way that he implied that there wasn't any rigourous philosophy in non-dualist traditions- I think there is. I think that Nargajuna, Sankara, and others, used logic to point to the limits of logic, in a similar way to Godel, but not obviously in such a rigourous way, entirely using symbolic logic - but then, most arguments of most Western philosophers are in normal language.
@dejkola Your English is ok ... I can understand what you mean I think. If logic is idealistic does that mean that precision and definition are ideals? If that is so, WHY are precision and definition ideals.
@tronikelesch philosophy, in particular analytic philosophy, is an exercise in critical thinking and conceptual clarity, rather than a series of metaphors, analogies and allegories. I think he is referring to analytic philosophy which is probably what he was taught in Cambridge. This might also be the reason why the he ignores the real title of Russell's book.
I actually agree that some people sympathetic to Eastern thought probably do imply that 'proper spirituality' is distinct from 'proper philosophy' - and I think that's irritating as well - it presupposes that hard questions are intractable, rather than very challenging. It's not just an assumption of 'new-agers' though, I think it's an underlying assumption of many different camps. Fry seemed to be doing the same thing, which was especially inconsistent as he was bigging up Kant.
I wouldn't be bold enough to call Stephen Fry a fool, but have never seen him as a person of great wisdom and cleverness. This is the kind of image he likes to project though ; intelligence and smarts, as a posture, it that makes sense. There is sincerity, but much vanity too. We are all guilty of this to some degree but he often tries to utilise this to prove his point on matters and social issues as more valid. It is for this reason that I don't think him worth serious consideration.
He is not just attempting to project intelligence; he is actually extremely intelligent.I saw him on an episode of university challenge back in 1980 and he is extraordinarily bright, if anything I feel he attempts to hide his intelligence nowadays so that others don't feel intimidated.
Although I disagree with fry that philosophers haven't tried to give us imperatives to act in such and such ways, I do observe the same thing as he does with the way people confuse the expression of their point of view with a philosophy. I was always taught that philosophy is about good argumentation.
He's an Atheist, and the issue in that debate was with the church and there practices, not the metaphysical claims they make. Pretty sure he says in the debate that he'd like to come back in ten years and argue the opposite.
@Nykytyne2 ... Yes I am, although I take your point. However, what you have done here is used sentences in a highly definite way. There's two points here: Firstly; there is more meaning in using language naturally, the way I did in my original comment (why would you want to uglify language by beating it into mathematical shapes - you don't want to see geometrically perfect leaves on trees do you?). Secondly words don't have the same definition (as opposed to indefinition) as sentences.
Buddhism is built off of a logical, methodical approach to happiness. The Mahayana branch, specifically, deals almost entirely with the truth of experience. It is a philosophy built off of the truth we can gain from experience. It is rather ignorant to brush off Buddhism as spiritual nonsense. It does not blindly preach kindness and generosity. It preaches these things because through much intellectual trial, it became clear that there cannot be any true separation in our reality.
Anyone read,er,what was it,Moabs Washpot was it? His autobiography.He was strange as a kid,quite the thief and serial liar. Not knocking him,this world neeeds more people like Stephen and I love his command of the English language and makes me wish i'd done better in latin and was grounded in the classics.
@Atheisophy Which shows that you didn't read my comments- I said that he mentioned that Philosophers do not offer Ethical codes or tell you how to live your life- 'generally'- which is false, and can be proven so with a short visit to any library. He provides Socrates, Kant, and Neitzche as an example, which I have shown is completely off the mark, there is a 'Socratic way of living', as there is a 'Neitschen way of living' and, from what the others are saying of Kant, a 'Kantian way of living.'
Based on this video (and some comments he's made elsewhere) I'd say that he probably knows enough to realize that he really doesn't understand any of the philosophers he mentions. He's done some really entertaining work, but I'm not impressed with him as an intellect. He has the ability to play characters who are quite intelligent and I think that he just carries that over to interviews and speeches so that he can give the impression of being fairly clever.
He seemed to suggest that philosophy that dealt with morality wasn't rigorous - at least in reference to Buddhism, and I don't know why. I don't know much about Kant, but, from what I do know, the logical arguments for moral precepts, that Buddhism gives, seem more coherent to me than the ones that Kant gives - as do its related metaphysics. I think Fry miscast Eastern thought as dualism - when it isn't - or at least not in the way we think of dualism.
What does it mean to think, and how is it done? I believe Philosophy revolves around, Who, What, When, Where, Why, & How. What do you guys have to say about that?
I think a set of believes should be supported by scientific evidence. It all leads back to axioms that are supported by their respective disciplines. Human thought, however, will not be understood until scientist know exactly how the mind functions and the physics of consciousness. We can only talk about is on the surface.
@tpstrat14 A good thing is also to question their conclusions, as for Matthew 4 like you would ask "where do you know from that your conclusion is right ? i could interpret that sentence in a way where it means... etc. etc. forces him to come up with a reason on why his interpretation is true. And usually the defend with "i just know it or feel it" and thats where you know its time to stop. They dont want to argue, they want to believe.
One can't help but feel that Plato, Kant and Locke might be a little surprised to learn that they had said nothing about how to live one's life - and having possibly been the first to coin the phrase "the good life" Socrates might be a triffled miffed to hear he had said little about ethics.
Nicely put. Well thank you for enlightening me. That is a very good point, I suppose Science cannot prove absolutely EVERYTHING down to the last detail, but it can explain about 95% of it, only question I can think of at the moment is, " What catalyzed the Big Bang? " and if that is an invalid question, " What created the universe? "
@SentinelConvergence no no I totally agree and think its a loss that so few people do. A willingness to understand is not bullshit, it is one of the greatest and most driving features of mankind. Anyway thanks for replying to my comments, its interesting to talk to someone else who is in pursuit of such questions. I think we would be better off as a species for so many reasons if more of us considered them.
@longfenglim Your comments about the named philosophers are perfectly correct. However, it's the "...at least the ones I admire..." comment that I was referring to. From what he says, it looks like Fry is in the tradition of British analytical philosophy, the same one I was taught: A.J. Ayer, Russell, Wittgenstein, R.M. Hare etc etc. When I was taught moral philosophy, for example, I was taught that the job of moral philosophy was not to make moral pronouncements, but to analyze moral concepts.
@yogawiki "if you just want to feel good- might I suggest therapy?", you base this on what exactly? It should be obvious that I am referring to your rooting for Indian philosophy, as if it were some type of world-cup event. I thought approaching philosophy by the philosopher rather then the idea was bad enough, so I guess you have actually managed to widen my horizon. Dialectic is the one of the most basic concepts, I guess explaning it is also meant to be insulting?
@SentinelConvergence - the concept of an objective morality is something I find fascinating, just starting 2nd year of a degree myself, not in philosophy but in classics so I'm studying Plato and Socrates almost exclusively. It does seem to me though that with the existence of an absolute truth, it follows that there must also be an objective morality.
Philosophy is a MASSIVELY interesting topic on which to converse and I am unfortunate because I cannot do this with my own father. My dad is a Christian who won't talk about any absolute truths without bringing up the bible. I talk about the purpose of consciousness and he talks about Matthew 4. I talk about the meaning of love, he talks about John 6. It cuts off the conversation. Maybe I should be more open minded and listen to what he's saying instead of which God he's attributing it to...
In our age we don't care about philosophy, many people are stuck to one ideology or just science in general.
I like the way he starts talking about how people get bored by long and propper rigorous reasoning, and the vignette starts.
It is perplexing, how Stephen says philosopher do not offer an ethic and moral project, but the proceeds with mentioning Spinoza, who's entire philosophy IS an offer of a way of living one's life with reason and thus freeing oneself from the bondage of emotions and passions.
I believe this is what Fry alludes to when he says Kant
“Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. Sapere Aude! Have the courage to use your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment...”
I love Big Think and I admire Stephen Fry a great deal. His love and mastery of language, his fine and entertaining acting, and his amazingly brilliant critical thinking skills. A wonderful role model for anyone!
agree. I could listen to him all day.
Buddhism is being nice. Ha-ha.
Just if you believe that, just read 70 verses on emptiness by Nagarjuna.
It's pure ontology, exquisite dialectics and sharp logic. And that's 150 ad.
And the metaphysics, all complete and profound.
@@SDSen I will look into that.
Simplicity from Kant?
Only for those that continued on with Schopenhauer... I jest, but I think I also have a slight point.
Wait doesn't Kant give exactly that, a simple way address ethics? "Treat others as an end not as a means."
KANT didn't offer ethical codes and standards?
@Kat D. The answer that I find most pertinent is that Philosophy not only serves to recount the origin of various disciplines (e.g. politics, science, language), but also helps to develop ways by which one can make the connection between them. It serves as an exercise of the mind and promotes critical thought. Therein lies the importance.
Nature has mastered the art and science of simplicity to such an extent that we are prone to over-complicate it processes and intention.
The pre-socratics certainly did concern themselves with how to live life. Half the extant quotations are moral precepts. Aristotle wrote on ethics (2 books IIRC). Only when logic was seen as a way to ultimate truth higher than and independent of experience did 'how one should live' recede as a topic. This reached its apotheosis in Aquinas, Decartes, Spinoza et al, was questioned by Kant and shattered by Russell. The moral question may be all that is left of philosophy - not metaphysics...
Mr Fry is a very intelligent, realistic, and WISE person who means well.
RESPECTttttttttttttttttttt.
Rick Roderick says that the post modern problem is not in finding people who disagree with your philosophy but in finding people who have any point of view at all.
I typed logic vs reason expecting to find something about DAWs for music production and now I’m down a philosophical rabbit hole
A truth which has been reenforced with modern physics. Therefore you are fundamentally one with everyone and everything. So being generous to others creates happiness within yourself.
The example of the salmon was brilliant !!!! The complexity of understanding philosophy is so broad.
I think the field of philosophy has evolved into science. Science utilizes both rationalism and empiricism. Your specific paradigm is your rationality, and your evidence is empirical.
Update: Logic Pro 10 came out today!!!
It's called Logic Pro X!
I remembered this conversation and thought i'd give you a heads up incase you didn't know!
Been checking out it's new features.
Better looking and concise interface, Flex Pitch (A pitch changing system like Flex Time was for timing and tempo), New macro controls for easy use (Called "Smart Controls"), new Synths, revised older plug-ins like Electric Piano and Organ, New Midi FX...
Oh man... Geek mode! :P
'Philosophy' can refer to the set of beliefs a certain 'philosopher' has. To be a 'philosopher', you can't just have a set of beliefs, though; you have to have a particular state of mind; be curious about reality; ask questions; dig into the fundamental nature of things [knowledge, reality and existence].
That kind of thinking and questioning is the human pattern of thought and broader term 'philosophy'. Of which logic and reasoning are fundamental parts; not contradictory concepts.
The point of philosophy isn't to solely philosophize. Philosophy provides us not just with a critical thought based upon objective evidence, but with intuitions as well. Philosophy in itself is a tool by which we can better understand ourselves, and possibly begin the initial steps towards a more harmonious state of being within the existence already allocated for us. But it would be contrary to the ideals of philosophy to believe that its an absolute truth or that truth can only be found in it.
I don't think he is saying it is pointless. I think that he is simply saying what philosophy is really for. Philosophy is about figuring out how to think for yourself. By bringing deep interesting and complicated or even simple questions to your mind. So you can figure yourself out. He was only saying that people don't see that aspect and importance that is in it. They look for answers elsewhere, they don't want to figure things out for themselves.
Philosophy is a way of living one's life or seeing the world, from a certain perspective.That perspective can be given a name or title. Logic is structured reasoning. And reason (more specifically, reasoning) is the way human beings analyze or think.
It just sounds like he's only read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy... Or at least he was very heavily influenced by Russell's understanding, and not by much else.
Maybe, but it looks like he's at least tried to read Kant and Hegel, if you take his word seriously. Being able to tackle both of those thinkers fairly is a hard enough task in itself.
Brilliant! I agree it takes hard work to understand, to review and explain to others to where they can understand.
Don't fade out Stephen Fry in the middle of a sentence. Thankyou.
It is a bit of both. Reason within reason is relevant in illustrating a need for a subtle rational understanding of reason. It is a rational recognition of reason being a truth, but not an absolute truth that will answer and explain the all-being of everything. To simply put it reason is not the soup, but it is a spicy ingredient to the soup. By itself it will never make the soup on its own.
“Love of wisdom” Greek translation: philosophy. The genesis of philosophy came from our unalienable Rights. See the book titled: “Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights.”
@Kaalec That is the funny thing, he is not well educated, institutional educated any way, he is just well read. He said in another bigthink video that he is "addicted" to reading.
He has read everything literature, poetry to science. Magnificent human being.
“Feelings are not supposed to be logical. Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions.” David Borenstein
if fry could learn that he wouldnt be depressed all the time
(2a)^2 - 4ab = a^2 - 2ab + b^2, a = b
(a - b)4a = (a - b)^2
4a = a - b
The results indicates division by zero, in this context (classical algebra), is an invalid operation.
Fry is a man that understands philosophy beyond the work of philosophers. He points out that real philosophy requires a lot of work, to discover the aspects of existence.
bvssvni he doesn't understand philosophy at all
love is an accident, every emotion is an accident, you are an accident, beauty, joy, love, hate, anger, passion, all and accident
For the record: he doesn't say Buddhism is just about been nice and such; he simply makes the statement that people tend to misinterpret what Philosophy is, and that it is a common mistake to compare Philosophy to a religion or belief.
"If you think thats good enough" Why did they cut Stephen Fry short?
@korpscomacho Kant was concerned mainly with metaphysics, the laws governing our world, not really an individual's guide to the everyday business of living.
'Reason is no more than a set of rules developed by the race; it takes no account of anything beyond sensory impressions.There is no possible escape from the vicious circle that we can register only the behavior of our own instrument.' - Master Therion
I don’t agree with Fry on much but fantastically put abt the importance of being thorough!
I heard him right, he stated, "there is no socratic, nietzschian, or Kantian way to live your life" which is untrue as there is a Kantian way to live your life, which is called Kantian ethics (a deontological position). His point still remains valid in the since that most philosophers don't create ethical theories, he was just wrong in stating that Kant was one of them. I really like his point about how people confuse virtues with ethics, they are not the same.
@DoctorSess I totally agree. I believe that in order for one to begin to understand the Great Mystery, one must be all inclusive and dismiss nothing. Only if you have all the pieces can you put the puzzle together.
I believe he is referring to this book -- A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell.
You know that how? From a single interview with a stupid question? What were you expecting, for him to recount and dispute philosophical ideas and to posit his own treatise on ethics, the nature of reality and epistemology? No, we got a general answer from a person with a prodigious resource of general knowledge. He isn't trying to come across as a philosopher, he comes across as well read and he is obviously knowledgeable about these subjects.
Ethics, or how to live one's life, is a major part of most of the major philosophers' works. Socrates and Nietzsche were extremely concerned with how to live one's life. I'm not sure why Stephen Fry thinks they weren't...
William Rupp also trains of thought such as Stoicism!
William Rupp Immanuel Kant as well.
Most important mathematicians were philosophers up until about 60 years ago. Logic, as an area of study, was invented by Aristotle and improved upon by Frege (both philosophers). Leibniz, a philosopher, invented calculus. And 'reasoning' generally is both the best and most privileged tool of any philosopher, and is one of the oldest topics for study in all Western philosophy.
@longfenglim actually he did quality it by saying "at least the ones I admire". He is in the British tradition of analytical philosophy.
i did. indivisibility by zero is a consequent of the axioms and definitions. it is a theorem which can be shown to follow from the axioms. but this does not prove the axioms: if A, then B/ B therefore A is an invalid argument.
Cognitive, conscious processes.
Biological, neurological, chemical processes.
Yes, philosophy revolves around questions; intellectual inquiry towards true doctrines (rather than faith, which glorifies false doctrines and fears intellectual inquiry away from them).
What he fails to realize is that to "live life asking an enormous amount of questions" is a philosophy in itself. Philosophy speaks to the principles of that which is.
Nicely summarized towards the end, esp. 2:55 onward where he distinguishes between the so called "Eastern philosophy" of Buddhism and real intellectual quest for logic and handwork !
that's not the point .
+degi3333 Which is ?
MIHIR SEMWAL have you ever looked into eastern philosophy or buddhism or are you just calling them "so called" philosophies to be an elitist?
"It's like clutching a Salmon."
Wonderful!
That's mostly a critique of philosophers that hide their ideas behind dense or obscure styles, or are easy to misinterpret - rather needlessly - like Hegel, who almost deliberately make their ideas hard to understand when they often shouldn't need to (I'm not saying Hegel has no value at all, just that his real value is hard to properly assess... I reserve similar criticism to thinkers like Heidegger). Read Schopenhauer, he knew how to present deep ideas that could be immediately grasped and built upon in one's life through just one read-through.
I agree with Mr. Fry in that Bertrand Russel's history of western philosophy is well worth the read (or listen) if you're unfamiliar. Locke has hugely impacted upon our culture
serendiptychild "Locke was a fine philosopher." Great, so what did he say?
Garundi P. McGrundy You want spoilers? ^^
serendiptychild I won't ask, "What spoilers?" Too philosophical.
Garundi P. McGrundy Touche
serendiptychild its terrible when it comes to the history of philosophy. Its infamously incorrect about a few philosophers, especially Nietzsche
If all someone who calls themselves a "Philosopher" has is questions without answers they are not a Philosopher.
The greatest Philosopher who has ever lived is on this planet right now with you. He goes by Stefbot on youtube.
I would agree that reading actual philosophy is better than a celebrity's opinion about it is better, but this is a good portal for younger people, or those who've not encountered philosophy yet, to gain an interest. We should celebrate there's a popular public figure, besides Will Self, who endorses philosophy. And he's upper-middle class.
We know it is a self evident truth because of the results in arithmetic and classical algebra. What if, however, A and B are unequal to an additive neutral element and are a part of an abstract multiplicative group that yields A Δ B = 0 of the group (1 A, B, C, D, E, and 0)
logic, reasoning, mathematics, etc support philosophical believes. Things can be broken down to what we know is true. I is not open for interpretation or speculation. By the way, how does a mathematician and philosopher work together?
Oh, yes. Dear Stephen embodies my world view about pretty much everything.
Your comparison to fractals is brilliant. simple truths can result in very complex realities. A philosopher searches and tries truths. I feel your pain in the aspect of how people treat logical thinking.
I think the flavour of Kant's ideas are objective, not subjective. But I havent read nearly as much of him as you obviously have. I concede the point.
Stephen Fry was correct that today the global culture is ultimately sloppy in terms of philosophy and that hard work is scoffed at instead of revered as an economic principle. He was also correct to credit Aristotle for inventing logic. Unfortunately he failed to mention the most significant philosopher since Aristotle: Ayn Rand and her objectivist principles who solidified the objectivity of metaphysics, perfectly defined reason, and explained the nature of concepts...
@TheFaustianMan He said not all of em do, he likes those who don't. The ones who don't tell you what to do etc. the ones who just give you the option to consider their words and reflect if they apply to you. And if you even WANT to do something with it. He hates the rigid path, he wants freedom and the ability to deviate and the possibility to put together your own way of life.
@hugotuga100 You've reacted to this as if it was meant to be an educational video on philosophy. He was asked to give a list of philosophers, that's why he did that. Stephen Fry isn't the average TV celebrity, he reads about all sorts of interesting things.
It's amazing how much people think Stephen Fry knows about philosophy, but its actually staggering how much he doesn't know, nor seems to understand particularly well.
'Philosophy a really important dimension....in our age we tend to be rather sloppy about it'
because of the field axioms - division being defined as the inverse of multiplication etc.
I quite disagree with the statement that philosophers don't offer ethical codes to live by. Perhaps not as rigid as a code, but they explore ethical situations and values, and do indeed often provide conclusions of their own on the importance of certain concepts.
The idea that Aristotle's influence on the Medieval mind was "pernicious" is unfortunate. I think it was more the Augustinian/Platonic/Christian influence on the Middle Ages that was pernicious; the cold reasoning of Aristotle, reintroduced towards the end of the Middle Ages, was mostly responsible for the rebirth of logic, science, secularism, empirical inquiry and everything else that came with the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
@1thousandways Are you trying to say something like this?
P1: Words do not have the definition of numbers.
P2: Logic uses words (language) as if they have the definition of numbers.
C: Logic misuses language.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you then saying that they're highest importance is the internal/thought organisation they offer us?
I don't understand why your post was marked as spam?!
The reason to not initiate force against another person is that it is immoral, just like slavery.
You can use force to defend yourself. These are morals to live by. Try watching the video again. It seems to me that you didn't quite get it.
I'm not sure I would agree the Philosophers don't have a specific philosophy, or codes to live by... Kant developed Kantian Ethics and Socrates also had a philosophy that we should question everything. It is true that philosophers raise more questions than they answer, but I think that is the point of philosophy. It is translated as the 'love of wisdom'. I personally believe that wisdom, in a philosophical context, is the search for those answers, as opposed to obtaining the answers themselves.
I watched it again, and, until the last bit, I agree with you. What aggravated me was the way that he implied that there wasn't any rigourous philosophy in non-dualist traditions- I think there is. I think that Nargajuna, Sankara, and others, used logic to point to the limits of logic, in a similar way to Godel, but not obviously in such a rigourous way, entirely using symbolic logic - but then, most arguments of most Western philosophers are in normal language.
He is talking about philosophy that is rigorous that people can use to guide there lives. If you know of any please let me know.
@dejkola Your English is ok ... I can understand what you mean I think. If logic is idealistic does that mean that precision and definition are ideals? If that is so, WHY are precision and definition ideals.
@tronikelesch philosophy, in particular analytic philosophy, is an exercise in critical thinking and conceptual clarity, rather than a series of metaphors, analogies and allegories. I think he is referring to analytic philosophy which is probably what he was taught in Cambridge. This might also be the reason why the he ignores the real title of Russell's book.
I actually agree that some people sympathetic to Eastern thought probably do imply that 'proper spirituality' is distinct from 'proper philosophy' - and I think that's irritating as well - it presupposes that hard questions are intractable, rather than very challenging. It's not just an assumption of 'new-agers' though, I think it's an underlying assumption of many different camps. Fry seemed to be doing the same thing, which was especially inconsistent as he was bigging up Kant.
I wouldn't be bold enough to call Stephen Fry a fool, but have never seen him as a person of great wisdom and cleverness. This is the kind of image he likes to project though ; intelligence and smarts, as a posture, it that makes sense.
There is sincerity, but much vanity too. We are all guilty of this to some degree but he often tries to utilise this to prove his point on matters and social issues as more valid.
It is for this reason that I don't think him worth serious consideration.
He is not just attempting to project intelligence; he is actually extremely intelligent.I saw him on an episode of university challenge back in 1980 and he is extraordinarily bright, if anything I feel he attempts to hide his intelligence nowadays so that others don't feel intimidated.
Agreed. His show 'Q.I.' is virtually just him masturbating his own ego with pre-researched information.
"Did you knowwww!?---"
I agree
Totally agree, most people just seem smitten with the persona he carries about
questioning and finding your own answers is a philosopher, love for knowledge is philosophy :D
Although I disagree with fry that philosophers haven't tried to give us imperatives to act in such and such ways, I do observe the same thing as he does with the way people confuse the expression of their point of view with a philosophy. I was always taught that philosophy is about good argumentation.
He's an Atheist, and the issue in that debate was with the church and there practices, not the metaphysical claims they make. Pretty sure he says in the debate that he'd like to come back in ten years and argue the opposite.
@Nykytyne2 ... Yes I am, although I take your point. However, what you have done here is used sentences in a highly definite way. There's two points here: Firstly; there is more meaning in using language naturally, the way I did in my original comment (why would you want to uglify language by beating it into mathematical shapes - you don't want to see geometrically perfect leaves on trees do you?). Secondly words don't have the same definition (as opposed to indefinition) as sentences.
Buddhism is built off of a logical, methodical approach to happiness. The Mahayana branch, specifically, deals almost entirely with the truth of experience. It is a philosophy built off of the truth we can gain from experience. It is rather ignorant to brush off Buddhism as spiritual nonsense. It does not blindly preach kindness and generosity. It preaches these things because through much intellectual trial, it became clear that there cannot be any true separation in our reality.
Anyone read,er,what was it,Moabs Washpot was it?
His autobiography.He was strange as a kid,quite the thief and serial liar.
Not knocking him,this world neeeds more people like Stephen and I love his command of the English language and makes me wish i'd done better in latin and was grounded in the classics.
@indirectapproach: If you knew anything about Stephen Fry, you would know that he is a very intelligent individual indeed.
@Atheisophy Which shows that you didn't read my comments- I said that he mentioned that Philosophers do not offer Ethical codes or tell you how to live your life- 'generally'- which is false, and can be proven so with a short visit to any library. He provides Socrates, Kant, and Neitzche as an example, which I have shown is completely off the mark, there is a 'Socratic way of living', as there is a 'Neitschen way of living' and, from what the others are saying of Kant, a 'Kantian way of living.'
Based on this video (and some comments he's made elsewhere) I'd say that he probably knows enough to realize that he really doesn't understand any of the philosophers he mentions. He's done some really entertaining work, but I'm not impressed with him as an intellect. He has the ability to play characters who are quite intelligent and I think that he just carries that over to interviews and speeches so that he can give the impression of being fairly clever.
The way in which you spoke implied that only after a life has been lived it can be examined. Was that not the case?
The trick to philosophy is understanding it without buying it.
He seemed to suggest that philosophy that dealt with morality wasn't rigorous - at least in reference to Buddhism, and I don't know why. I don't know much about Kant, but, from what I do know, the logical arguments for moral precepts, that Buddhism gives, seem more coherent to me than the ones that Kant gives - as do its related metaphysics.
I think Fry miscast Eastern thought as dualism - when it isn't - or at least not in the way we think of dualism.
What does it mean to think, and how is it done? I believe Philosophy revolves around, Who, What, When, Where, Why, & How. What do you guys have to say about that?
I think a set of believes should be supported by scientific evidence. It all leads back to axioms that are supported by their respective disciplines. Human thought, however, will not be understood until scientist know exactly how the mind functions and the physics of consciousness. We can only talk about is on the surface.
The most brilliant man alive
@tpstrat14 A good thing is also to question their conclusions, as for Matthew 4 like you would ask "where do you know from that your conclusion is right ? i could interpret that sentence in a way where it means... etc. etc. forces him to come up with a reason on why his interpretation is true. And usually the defend with "i just know it or feel it" and thats where you know its time to stop. They dont want to argue, they want to believe.
One can't help but feel that Plato, Kant and Locke might be a little surprised to learn that they had said nothing about how to live one's life - and having possibly been the first to coin the phrase "the good life" Socrates might be a triffled miffed to hear he had said little about ethics.
Nicely put. Well thank you for enlightening me. That is a very good point, I suppose Science cannot prove absolutely EVERYTHING down to the last detail, but it can explain about 95% of it, only question I can think of at the moment is, " What catalyzed the Big Bang? " and if that is an invalid question, " What created the universe? "
@SentinelConvergence no no I totally agree and think its a loss that so few people do. A willingness to understand is not bullshit, it is one of the greatest and most driving features of mankind. Anyway thanks for replying to my comments, its interesting to talk to someone else who is in pursuit of such questions. I think we would be better off as a species for so many reasons if more of us considered them.
@longfenglim Your comments about the named philosophers are perfectly correct. However, it's the "...at least the ones I admire..." comment that I was referring to. From what he says, it looks like Fry is in the tradition of British analytical philosophy, the same one I was taught: A.J. Ayer, Russell, Wittgenstein, R.M. Hare etc etc. When I was taught moral philosophy, for example, I was taught that the job of moral philosophy was not to make moral pronouncements, but to analyze moral concepts.
@yogawiki "if you just want to feel good- might I suggest therapy?", you base this on what exactly?
It should be obvious that I am referring to your rooting for Indian philosophy, as if it were some type of world-cup event. I thought approaching philosophy by the philosopher rather then the idea was bad enough, so I guess you have actually managed to widen my horizon. Dialectic is the one of the most basic concepts, I guess explaning it is also meant to be insulting?
@SentinelConvergence - the concept of an objective morality is something I find fascinating, just starting 2nd year of a degree myself, not in philosophy but in classics so I'm studying Plato and Socrates almost exclusively. It does seem to me though that with the existence of an absolute truth, it follows that there must also be an objective morality.
Philosophy is a MASSIVELY interesting topic on which to converse and I am unfortunate because I cannot do this with my own father. My dad is a Christian who won't talk about any absolute truths without bringing up the bible. I talk about the purpose of consciousness and he talks about Matthew 4. I talk about the meaning of love, he talks about John 6. It cuts off the conversation. Maybe I should be more open minded and listen to what he's saying instead of which God he's attributing it to...
are'nt all these stephen fry vid's in one place?