/r/HistoryofIdeas

Photograph via snooOG

Welcome to the subreddit for the study of the history of ideas, including the histories of philosophy, of literature and the arts, of the natural and social sciences, of religion, and of political thought!


Welcome to the subreddit for the study of the history of ideas, including the histories of philosophy, of literature and the arts, of the natural and social sciences, of religion, and of political thought!


Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas.

Lord Acton

A History Network Member

Also a proud member of the DepthHub



Participate in the discussions!


/r/HistoryofIdeas

48,322 Subscribers

0

Three-worldism

Three-worldism is a new philosophy that I created in 2023 and 2024. Three-worldism is about metaphysics, consciousness, and ethics. To create three-worldism I used rational-intuitive thinking that combines reason and intuition. Three-worldism is based on the experiences of most people throughout history unlike other philosophies that are based on ideas. The problem with modern philosophy is that it rejects the experiences of most people. Modern philosophy only accepts what scientists and philosophers have to say, which is a small group of people.

https://www.lulu.com/shop/john-pie/three-worldism/ebook/product-gj8grwr.html?page=1&pageSize=4

0 Comments
2024/11/03
21:20 UTC

2

Plato’s Euthyphro, on Holiness — An online live reading & discussion group, every Saturday starting November 2, open to everyone

0 Comments
2024/11/01
13:56 UTC

6

The Terminator at 40: How Arnold Schwarzenegger Became an Icon

For the 40th anniversary of The Terminator, this piece dives into the fascinating backstory of the film’s making and the auspicious partnership between James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger that cemented both as icons. Four decades on, The Terminator remains a thrilling, relevant, and celebrated film.

“Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson were among those offered the Terminator part, but they refused. O.J. Simpson was also considered for the role, but James Cameron amusingly couldn’t picture Simpson as a convincing killer.”

https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/the-terminator-at-40-how-arnold-schwarzenegger

1 Comment
2024/10/29
16:03 UTC

23

In 1940 a Republican member of the Harvard economics dept Visiting Committee tried to cancel a reappointment of Paul Sweezy for five years to be followed by a competitive tenure review because Sweezy's Keynesian fiscal writings proved he was an enemy of capitalism.

2 Comments
2024/10/26
15:23 UTC

0

Hayek’s Seminar “Equality and Justice” U of Chicago (1950-51) https://www.irwincollier.com/chicago-hayeks-seminar-equality-and-justice-1950-51/

2 Comments
2024/10/22
07:53 UTC

0

How Socratic were the Stoics?

0 Comments
2024/10/18
00:08 UTC

3

Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince (1532) — An online reading group discussion on Thursday October 17, open to everyone

0 Comments
2024/10/13
06:52 UTC

2

Is justice entirely subjective?

In our second episode on C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' we went a bit further into Lewis' notions of universal morality and justice. Lewis discusses his history as an atheist and believing the universe to be cruel and unjust - but ultimately came up against the question of what did unjust mean without a god who was good running the show, so to speak.

This is related to a post I made last week, but I am still butting up against this idea and I think there is something to it. If justice is purely subjective (simply based on the societal norms at play), then something like slavery was once just and is now unjust. I am not on board with this.

Taking it from a different angle, there are ideas of 'natural rights' bestowed upon you by the universe, and so it is unjust to strip someone of those - but this is getting dangerously close to the idea of a god (or at least an objective standard) as a source of justice.

What do you think?

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?...Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning. (CS Lewis - Mere Christianity)

Links to the podcast, if you're interested
Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-30-2-lord-liar-or-lunatic/id1691736489?i=1000671621469

Youtube - https://youtu.be/X4gYpaJjwl0?si=Mks2_RkfIC0iH_y3

11 Comments
2024/10/09
02:58 UTC

0

Truth is the answer

0 Comments
2024/10/08
16:59 UTC

1

Arthur Schopenhauer’s "On Women" (1890) — An online philosophy group discussion on Thursday October 10, open to everyone

0 Comments
2024/10/05
03:46 UTC

1

Dante's The Divine Comedy, Part 2: Purgatorio — An online discussion group starting Sunday October 20, open to everyone

0 Comments
2024/10/02
01:06 UTC

2

Exposing Jehovah's Witness Shunning: True Crime New Zealand

0 Comments
2024/10/01
17:34 UTC

2

Is morality truly universal?

For the podcast that I run, we started reading C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". In it, he develops a rational argument for christian belief. A major portion of his opening argument states that morality is universally understood - suggesting that all people around the world, regardless of culture, have essentially the same notions of 'right' and 'wrong'. He goes on to argue that this can be seen in the morality of selflessness - suggesting that an ethic of selflessness is universal.

I would go so far as to say that a sense of morality is universal - but I am not sure if the suggestion that all people have the same morality, more or less, is defensible. Further, I completely disagree on the selfishness point. I would argue that a morality of selflessness is certainly not universal (look to any libertarian or objectivist philosophy).

What do you think?

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. (Lewis, Mere Christianity)

If you are interested, here are links to the episode:
Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-30-1-the-lion-the-witch-and-the-christian/id1691736489?i=1000670896154

Youtube - https://youtu.be/hIWj-lk2lpk?si=PaiZbHuHnlMompmN

1 Comment
2024/09/30
17:45 UTC

Back To Top