I'm going to make a philosophy lecture at a topic of my preference

I'm going to make a philosophy lecture at a topic of my preference.
Suggestions?

Whose preference is it really if you need the ideas and assurances of the Veeky Forums mob?

major differences between eastern and western philosophy

I ain't need them. I was like: "let's see if they can think somethin interesting"

The backwoods affectation is not endearing. I wouldn't hope for the philosophy of macdonalds to leave your incapable hands unblemished, let alone the work of an actual thinker. Learn before lecturing, boy.

Was Socrates being forthright or ironic when he said at the end of Meno that virtue cannot be taught or learned, but is rather conceived by some sort of divine inspiration?

Dispensation. Socrates is always dissembling to some extent, but I think he actually believed this. I think of it in terms of Kierkegaard's leap of faith into a certain way of life. No matter how many times you see someone do something ostensibly courageous, there are lots of people who would say: "well that's foolhardy", or "he's doing it for fame and money", or "yeah cool, but in that situation I would have found a reason not to do it." It's only through something extra, a willingness to perceive the loftiness of the human spirit and the objective existence of virtuous activity, that you will see virtue in others. Moreover, it's only by inhabiting this way of seeing and making a habit of living it out that you will be able to be virtuous. Just as before you could not see the courageous action of the other except in alterior terms, similarly you cannot live virtuously and act virtuously until you've taken a leap into the headspace where virtue shows up as real. Some might say you can will yourself into this head space. Others might say that it's inextricably linked with the divine, and being able to see in that way is a kind of divine dispensation.

Ontologic implications of Wittgenstein's Tractatus and their correlations with Heidegger's Sein und Zeit

Heidegger's babble is not welcome at multiple universities

The truth of William Lane Craig

Muslim threat to western culture

White people are depressed and Jewish psychologists have failed them.

It always amazes how so many words can be spent on literal bullshit

>make a philosophy lecture at a topic of my preference
no one talks like this

Being. Its my go-to.

The inscrutability of prepositions.

"How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Human Nature".

This is genuinely excellent.

Seconding this

Behold, the art of academic writing.

Bullshit in that it's not what Socrates meant? Or bullshit in that it's an inadequate reading of Socrates

Bullshit in that doesn't say anything

*it doesn't

Find five random people and ask them about living virtuously. They'll look vacantly past you and mouth breathe. How can virtue, which is to the ancients so central to the fundamental, objective nature of man, be more or less invisible to people or the contemporary world?

Because we dont believe in it. Just as you don't see gods influence in the world without faith, you don't see virtuous activity AS virtuous without a kind of faith too. Maybe this "faith" is a matter of willing oneself to see and act a certain way, or maybe one can see that way only through the help of god.

Keep in mind that Socrates requires meno to "trust" in the existence of the forms (ie a higher objective Truth) and to buy into anamnesis and the souls immortality early on. Trusting in the existence of a higher truth as a prerequisite to virtuous thought and activity sounds a lot like a kind of faith to me.

You have any ideas of your own on this matter user?

>inb4 lazy one liner about how it's all even more bullshit

I assume five random people would say something about God when asked about virtue.

Are you this user?
>Reason is an unassailable citadel with unshakable walls.

Because it's a dumb concept that's subjectively defined. is even more pertinent, virtues are seen as coming from God and being desired in that they help one praise God, so they've been subsumed by Christianity rather than virtue having value as a standalone ideology

Apart from your first paragraph, it is actually even more bullshit

I don't dispute that you can look at philosophy meta philosophically, and step outside many meaning structures (like western "reason") and evaluate them according to alternative epistemologies and shit. What I'm saying is that you can also still see the word according to some of the old meaning structures, like anceit virtue, for example. But it takes a kind of leap of faith to get from our modern nihilism into that mode.

Virtue is a dumb concept that's subjectively defined (how fascinating!) and virtues are now seen as coming from god (what does that mean? They mimic god's behaviour?) and exist for the sake of praising god?

Sounds like you've really thought this through. I appreciate that you're doubling down on the hur dur everything is bullshit angle, with a dash of "everything is subjectively defined". Philosophically rigorous and illuminating!

Nice non-response. In Christianity, virtues are elements of humanity that are put in humans so that humans may praise God, so they come from God.

Where did you hear this? This is not true in catholic theology.

It is true though , probably more so in Catholic theology than any other, except maybe that of protestants

So what do you think virtue is? A spook? And is that what you think Socrates meant in the meno? That virtue is a gift given by God insofar as god placed virtues in humans so that they could praise him? And what do you mean by "placed"? Are they temperaments/habits of the soul that incline one towards virtuous activity?

So what did you pick to speak about OP?

Of course virtue is a spook. Socrates wasn't Christian so he likely thought of virtue as something that humans can inherently attain
Most Christians would say its easier to act non-virtuously than virtuous due to human nature, the tendrils of satan, falling from God, or whatever nonsense they've made up. So, they can be seen as being part of the soul but they don't incline one towards virtuous activity unless one chooses to study the word and praise God, at which point by doing so one will be better at studying the word and praising God, then you can study the word and praise God more, and so on and so on

the jew

There'd be no Aristotle in West Europe if the Muslims didn't preserve his texts and then conquer Andalusia, reintroducing the West's biggest philosopher to Christianity.

I'd be willing to make that trade given the way things stand today.

>the philosophy of macdonalds
What did he mean by this

An in depth analysis of Sean Goonan's masterpiece: The Foundation for Exploration

wrong board gtfo

natural rights

Spooky