What's the point of philosophy?

[DMB]

I like music, but when it comes to philosophy I am the equivalent of tone deaf. From time to time I try to read philosophers and usually give up in sheer exasperation. So would someone please explain what philosophy is for?

[Notta]

I wonder if a dislike of philosophy is related to a mind that likes to think in absolutes.

I have always loved maths & sciences. I absolutely LOATHE philosophy. I also have a difficult time embracing psychology.

I've wondered if its a left brain / right brain type of function. I know people who are artists, writers, and philosophers who love to talk about things like this all night, while I'm much more interested in knowing what new things have been discovered and finding out how mechanical things work. I also know I am very strongly left-brained -- most of my test scores point to me having a brain more similar to a male than a female. Every time I do this test (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml), I score as a male. It may also be why I have very few female friends -- and those who are, are more likely to be in the sciences or in fields traditionally dominated by men.

[nygreenguy]

I like music, but when it comes to philosophy I am the equivalent of tone deaf. From time to time I try to read philosophers and usually give up in sheer exasperation. So would someone please explain what philosophy is for?

For me, its always been about learning how to think. Its like the cheesy statement "Its not the destination, but the journey". Philosophy is one big thinking exercise IMHO.


Notta, I scored a zero on the test. I ranked pretty high in male and female categories. Looks like Im internally conflicted.

[Jobar]

I had an unofficial minor in philosophy at Ga. Tech; my major was physics. I got into philosophy mainly because I was wonderfully lucky in the first philosophy professor I ever had; Dr. Jon J. Johnston, of the University of London. A deeply wise man; I took every course he offered for nearly two years.

Philosophy is the search for the deepest meanings- the 'whats' and 'whys'. (Physics, and science in general, is more about the 'hows' and 'wheres' and 'whens'.)

I've found that the study of semantics helps one understand philosophy more clearly; knowing how language affects our thoughts (and vice versa) allows one to stay 'real' when considering questions at the very highest levels of abstraction.

Just as there are mathematical formalisms which have no 'real' use or consequence, there are schools of philosophy which are so abstract that there's no clear way of determining their 'truth'. (Although, like abstract mathematics, it's not impossible for abstract philosophies to become useful; the universe is stranger than we imagine, may indeed be stranger than we *can* imagine- but it's also possible that we may become able to understand the universe in ways we have not yet imagined.)

[DMB]

There are individual philosophers who make a lot of sense to me. But the subject as a whole often seems to me to approach mental masturbation.

[Pendaric]

I like thinking about stuff, and understanding things. That's basically what philosophy is about.

[Christina]

There are individual philosophers who make a lot of sense to me. But the subject as a whole often seems to me to approach mental masturbation.

Me too, mostly. It may be part of my personal situation but I don't want to think about how I think too much. For me it's like looking into endlessly reflecting mirrors and examining each for distortions. It's not fun.

I know I'm going to piss off someone with this, but trying to get things done with people who are philosophically minded about everything is one of the most frustrating things in the world to me. I just want to scream "FFS stop talking and do something now!" It seems to me that for them, the point IS the discussion and not the actions that are supposed to theoretically result from it while for me it's to get something done as effectively and efficiently as possible with the least amount of handwaving and wandering off on rabbit trails. I think that to some extent I'm always like that. I tend to use whatever intelligence and knowledge that I have to do things with as opposed to accumulating a lot of information or pondering humanity in interesting ways, and almost everything that I know how to do comes from direct experience. Sometimes I'm a bit intimidated by the deep thinkers but it's just not me. At least not since I stopped doing acid.

[Ray Moscow]

I think it's important in that a lot of things that are of interest to many intelligent people are not yet explorable with science or maths. That's where philosophy comes in.

[DMB]

I did read a bit of mathematical philosophy when I was an undergraduate, but I've forgotten it all now.

[Christina]

What is really interesting to me are the discussions that wander back and forth between science and philosophy about whether or not there is a mind that is separate or more than the sum of the parts of our brain chemistry. Having seen my personality and abilities change radically based on different meds or the lack of them I'm stuck in the 'no' camp, it's fascinating to me to hear knowledgeable people discuss it.

[DMB]

What is really interesting to me are the discussions that wander back and forth between science and philosophy about whether or not there is a mind that is separate or more than the sum of the parts of our brain chemistry. Having seen my personality and abilities change radically based on different meds or the lack of them I'm stuck in the 'no' camp, it's fascinating to me to hear knowledgeable people discuss it.

I would rather listen to scientists on this than philosophers.

[Christina]

Well, I already know that the scientists will say that there is nothing else but I like to read the counter-arguments too, if only to think about why I disagree. It's not a discussion that I can participate in because all I have is personal experience to go by but that's why it's interesting to me. I've gradually had to come to accept that my perceptions or the style of them and thinking processes aren't necessary all lined up in the same order or operating in a typical way (not that I usually mind), and there's a certain amount of "hmm...I wonder how the natives think" thing going on with me sometimes. For the most part though, most of the philosophy posts come down to tl;dr for me.

David had a quote as his sig on the Hub that said something about a centipede thinking about how it walks and ending up in a ditch waving it's legs around. It's like that.

[Jobar]

We get the most enjoyment, and the most use, out of philosophy when we're young adults, I think. At least that was so for me.

Occasionally I still come across new ideas which strike me as *new*. But that happens less and less. In a way that's sort of sad, and in a different way it's satisfying to have a fairly deep and accurate understanding of all I see.

I still enjoy arguing over contrasting worldviews; that's what keeps me posting on discussion boards.

Speaking of contrasting world views, what do you all think about inviting gamera here? I know he's a pain in the ass quite often, but I do find his postmodernist viewpoint interesting at times.

[David B]

We get the most enjoyment, and the most use, out of philosophy when we're young adults, I think. At least that was so for me.

Occasionally I still come across new ideas which strike me as *new*. But that happens less and less. In a way that's sort of sad, and in a different way it's satisfying to have a fairly deep and accurate understanding of all I see.

I still enjoy arguing over contrasting worldviews; that's what keeps me posting on discussion boards.

Speaking of contrasting world views, what do you all think about inviting gamera here? I know he's a pain in the ass quite often, but I do find his postmodernist viewpoint interesting at times.

I think gamera sometimes posts quite sensibly, outside his bees in bonnet of post modernism, and his own idiosyncratic version of religion.

He'd give a bit of diversity, though.

And for Christina

'The centipede was happy, quite
Until a toad, in fun
Said 'Pray, which leg goes after which?'
This moved his mind to such a pitch
He lay distracted in a ditch
considering how to run'

I think that's verbatim, but if not, it's close enough for the gist.

I wonder if it is a memory of reading Alan Watts in my youth. Or R D Laing?

David

[Danhalen]

The point of philosophy, for me, is to make sure my thought process is coherent. I also like to see if I can justify what I believe or even understand an opposing set of justifications to my own beliefs.

It's also the only thing that is going to get me my degree (too late to change majors now).

[Christina]

Thanks, David. I love it. I just googled it and FamousQuotes (http://www.famousquotes.com/show.php?_id=1019958) attributes it to someone named Mrs. Edmund Craster (d. 1874) .

[Eudaimonist]

I like music, but when it comes to philosophy I am the equivalent of tone deaf. From time to time I try to read philosophers and usually give up in sheer exasperation. So would someone please explain what philosophy is for?

Philosophy means "love of wisdom". The point of philosophy is wisdom.

Unfortunately, most modern philosophy makes for dry reading. I recommend you start with Plato's Dialogs to see how philosophy really took off.

Philosophy used to be a spiritual discipline -- a way of life and of seeing oneself in the world. You were supposed to live your philosophical path.

Now, it seems to be this academic exercise where you write papers, and other people write rebuttals, and you write rebuttals to the rebuttals, etc. It has turned into a chess game people play through the centuries. I think the Greek Philosophers would shake their heads sadly if they were to learn of this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ray Moscow]

Yeah, start with Plato. As they say, all philosophy is a footnote to Plato.

ETA: Also, Will Durant's philosophy books are a lot of fun.

[Brother Daniel]

I have always loved maths & sciences. I absolutely LOATHE philosophy.
That very nearly strikes me as self-contradictory.

Philosophy is about figuring stuff out. Some of it is science. Some of it is math. Some of it is neither. But you simply can't do math or science without doing some philosophy along the way. (You can't even argue against the usefulness of philosophy without using philosophy to get there!)

In math, we manipulate symbols. The symbols stand for things that have certain properties. Usually, the meanings are clear and precise, though occasionally there is a bit of fuzziness.

And when we speak non-mathematically, we're doing much the same thing. We're still using words, which are another kind of symbols. Unfortunately, a lot of fuzziness can creep into our words, and this fuzziness can get us into trouble whenever we're talking about politics or religion or even science. Philosophy is what allows us to unpack our words in the same way that mathematicians unpack their own peculiar symbols.

It seems to me that people who "hate philosophy" usually have a very impoverished view of what philosophy is.

[Ray Moscow]

Durant (in his The Mansions of Philosophy) blames Descartes for the shitty, boring state of much of modern philosophy. Descartes divorced mind from matter in an attempt to save mind/soul. Durant argued that we need to heal that nonexistent split and get philosophy back to a central and interesting position in human discourse.

[DMB]

I have dipped into quite a few philosophers over the years, but have found many of them repellent, including Plato. I do love Hume, however, and a few others. I don't in principle object to philosophical thinking, but I do rather object to philosophy as an academic subject.

[Brother Daniel]

but I do rather object to philosophy as an academic subject.
Why?

[Garrett]

Yeah, start with Plato. As they say, all philosophy is a footnote to Plato.

I don't agree. That would be studying the history of philosophy. I think you'd have to already be interested before you'd enjoy doing that.

I think being exposed to ancient philosophy without being interested in the subject is part of the reason some people think the subject is goofy.

I remember pre-calculus in college. I was fascinated by the class, because it was relevant to my major (comp sci). But there were kids there with no interest in math, and they thought the subject was a waste of time with no practical application.

Philosophy definitely has practical applications. Even science needs guidance.

I like Wikipedia's description:

Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, justice, validity, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.[3] The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of wisdom".
Surely that isn't pointless! People who see no use for philosophy will still have opinions on those subjects. Philosophy is using critical thinking on the big questions.

Branches of philosophy include
Metaphysics Study of Existence
Epistemology Study of Knowledge
Ethics Study of Action
Politics Study of Force
Esthetics Study of Art

If a person isn't interested in understanding those things, of course philosophy seems pointless.

[Eudaimonist]

Durant (in his The Mansions of Philosophy) blames Descartes for the shitty, boring state of much of modern philosophy. Descartes divorced mind from matter in an attempt to save mind/soul. Durant argued that we need to heal that nonexistent split and get philosophy back to a central and interesting position in human discourse.

I tend to agree. Hm, I should read that book.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ray Moscow]

I don't agree. That would be studying the history of philosophy. I think you'd have to already be interested before you'd enjoy doing that.

I think being exposed to ancient philosophy without being interested in the subject is part of the reason some people think the subject is goofy.

I remember pre-calculus in college. I was fascinated by the class, because it was relevant to my major (comp sci). But there were kids there with no interest in math, and they thought the subject was a waste of time with no practical application.

Philosophy definitely has practical applications. Even science needs guidance.

I like Wikipedia's description:


Surely that isn't pointless! People who see no use for philosophy will still have opinions on those subjects. Philosophy is using critical thinking on the big questions.

Branches of philosophy include
Metaphysics Study of Existence
Epistemology Study of Knowledge
Ethics Study of Action
Politics Study of Force
Esthetics Study of Art

If a person isn't interested in understanding those things, of course philosophy seems pointless.

But that's just Aristotle, who took up where his teacher Plato left off.

And Plato's dialogues are just fun and interesting for their own sake, without trying to extract philosophic principles from them. But of course if they seem boring, it's fine to move on to something that's more interesting.

[DMB]

Why?

Any academic discourse seems to me to be mainly about referring to philosophers I don't want to read, rather than getting to grips with the ideas themselves.

Nowadays, historians manage to discuss history without always referring back to Macaulay.

[Ray Moscow]

That's a fair enough criticism.

One book that I found really interesting and relevant was Alain De Botton's The Consolations of Philosophy (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Consolations-Philosophy-Alain-Botton/dp/0140276610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236095020&sr=1-1). It does review the problems faced by some historical philosophers, but he uses their examples to show the relevance of their solutions to the same problems today.

(If you've read much philosophy, this might be too much repeat for you, but I liked it.)

[Brother Daniel]

Any academic discourse seems to me to be mainly about referring to philosophers I don't want to read, rather than getting to grips with the ideas themselves.
So when you say you "object to philosophy as an academic subject", you're not objecting in principle to the academic study of philosophy, you're only objecting to how it is often done in practice. Is that right?

[DMB]

So when you say you "object to philosophy as an academic subject", you're not objecting in principle to the academic study of philosophy, you're only objecting to how it is often done in practice. Is that right?

Yes.

ETA I can happily read people like Daniel Dennett, Mary Warnock and A.C. Grayling, because they get down to business and what I think of as "Applied Philosophy".

[Barbarian]

It seems to me that people who "hate philosophy" usually have a very impoverished view of what philosophy is.Since it is customary - and justifiably so - to disregard the opinions of the ill-informed, this means that you just declared philosophy to be immune from wholesale criticism, since anyone doing so is very likely an ignoramus whose opinion on the matter does not hold any weight. We could still criticize, say, the positivist movement, but not the entire endeavour as such.

Besides, last time I heard that argument, it argued for the inner beauty and truth of Christianity, and claimed that atheists are simply ignorant of the Bible, that's why they are not Christians. Seriously.

Where's the sad head-shaking smiley when you need it?

[BWE]

For me, its always been about learning how to think. Its like the cheesy statement "Its not the destination, but the journey". Philosophy is one big thinking exercise IMHO.


Notta, I scored a zero on the test. I ranked pretty high in male and female categories. Looks like Im internally conflicted.

I ranked 25 toward male but I'm worried now. I apparently recognize emotion and don't particularly care. Note my empathy score. This might actually be accurate. I am attentive and compassionate and not particularly concerned with moment by moment feelings. Is that an autism thing or something? My wife jokes about it, but I've never basically failed an empathy test before.


This task tested your ability to identify the angle of a line by matching it with its twin. This is a spatial task, which looks at how you picture space.
Your score: 18 out of 20
Average score for men: 15.1 out of 20
Average score for women: 13.3 out of 20

Spot the difference

This task tested your ability to identify which objects changed position. You lost points, if you incorrectly identified objects.
Your score: 50%
Average score for men: 39%
Average score for women: 46%

Left thumb on top: This suggests the right half of your brain is dominant. Some studies theorise that as a right brain dominant person, you may excel in visual, spatial and intuitive processes.

here:
Empathising
Your empathy score is: 4 out of 20
Average score for men: 7.9 out of 20
Average score for women: 10.6 out of 20

Systemising
Your systemising score is: 17 out of 20
Average score for men: 12.5 out of 20
Average score for women: 8.0 out of 20

Eyes
This task tested your ability to judge people's emotions.
Your score: 8 out of 10
Average score for men: 6.6 out of 10
Average score for women: 6.6 out of 10

Fingers
We asked you to measure your ring and index fingers. Your ratios came to:
Right Hand: 0.9
Left Hand: 0.94

Average ratio for men: 0.982
Average ratio for women: 0.991

Faces
This task looked at how you rate the attractiveness of a series of faces. The images you looked at were digitally altered to create slight differences in masculinity.

Your choices suggest you prefer more feminine faces.

3D shapes
This task tested your ability to mentally rotate 3D shapes.

Your score: 10 out of 12
Average score for men: 8.2 out of 12
Average score for women: 7.1 out of 12

Words
This task looked at your verbal fluency.

Your score: you associated 8 word(s) with grey and you named 9 word(s) that mean happy. We are assuming that all the words you entered are correct.
Average score for men: 11.4 words total
Average score for women: 12.4 words total

[Brother Daniel]

Since it is customary - and justifiably so - to disregard the opinions of the ill-informed, this means that you just declared philosophy to be immune from wholesale criticism, since anyone doing so is very likely an ignoramus whose opinion on the matter does not hold any weight. We could still criticize, say, the positivist movement, but not the entire endeavour as such.
My use of the word "usually" admitted the possibility of exceptions, and my use of the phrase "it seems to me" admitted the possibility that I'm simply wrong. :)

My real reason for declaring philosophy to be immune from wholesale criticism is simply that any critique of philosophy (or of anything, for that matter) would itself be an example of philosophy. Any good critique of philosophy would be an example of good philosophy, which would then defeat itself, and not be so good after all.
Besides, last time I heard that argument, it argued for the inner beauty and truth of Christianity, and claimed that atheists are simply ignorant of the Bible, that's why they are not Christians. Seriously.

Where's the sad head-shaking smiley when you need it?
Surely, a statement of the form "people who don't like X are ignorant of X" is the sort of thing whose truth value could vary with X; there is nothing inherent in the form of the statement that determines its truth value. It's not a valid argument, and indeed it was not intended as an argument at all. I was simply giving my impression of the matter. Do you disagree?

[Barbarian]

Let me explain myself, then.

My contact with philosophy took place almost completely on Internet discussion boards and the experience is freakish and disappointing. My principal purpose of coming to such boards used to be the dream of getting feedback on some ideas I had concerning the mind and such, but all I got was a spectacle of e-penis show-offs and babbling straight out of a postmodernist text generator (with some googled quotes from dead men added for variety). The worst part, reminding me of the worst times of my life, was the ganging up, people reassuring each other that I spoke pure gibberish, while they gave no hint that they understood what I said, but that did not matter and did not help me to make them think; you are right in a group of people if they agree that you are right, and in no other case. BTW I can link to the threads in question (well, not all of them; some are in hidden fora), if you think I pulled a Bishadi on them.

That kind of ganging up did not happen when I went totally unorthodox about the twin paradox or when I announced my support for the 'natural selection is random' position, and I don't think I said anything radical like that in Philosophy fora. So the culprit is not the Internet, it's the philosophy. I think we can safely judge the discipline based on the disciples, and so far philosophy buffs showed to be a bunch who are in it for the conflict, for the chance of dominance displays and the thrill of being condescending to others. So my position naturally became "Fuck you, philosophy". By now, I have all but stopped posting about my favorite topics, because they are interpreted as attempts to do philosophy = dominance displays, and am met with similar attitudes, while originally I was only looking for feedback. And when I still decide to post in a philosophy forum, I fuck it all up because I am too stressed out to compose my text in a clear and understandable manner, so lately I produce genuinely incomprehensible posts.

Bottom line, don't be surprised if I read your words the way I do; it has very little, if anything, to do with you personally. To me, philosophy is the kind of activity going on in Philosophy fora of discussion boards, aiming to prove that the other guy is an idiot, not trying to discuss the topic; if there is some sort of Real Philosophy, I'd like to know how likely it is that this Real Philosophy is not reflected in Discussion Board Philosophy? Not very likely, in my opinion.

[Brother Daniel]

Ouch.

You're no Bishadi. I know that without having to follow your links.

There's one thing I'm skeptical of: your claim to produce genuinely incomprehensible posts. You write well, from what I've seen.
To me, philosophy is the kind of activity going on in Philosophy fora of discussion boards, aiming to prove that the other guy is an idiot, not trying to discuss the topic; if there is some sort of Real Philosophy, I'd like to know how likely it is that this Real Philosophy is not reflected in Discussion Board Philosophy? Not very likely, in my opinion.
But ... what if those dick-flappers had seriously engaged with your ideas, instead of flapping their dicks? What if they had had civilized conversations with you? Was that scenario impossible a priori? I don't think so. Surely, we can imagine this alternate history, and label the activity of the imaginary conversations as "real philosophy".

At worst, you've observed an unfortunate cultural characteristic of the set of people who identify themselves as being interested in philosophy.

(Maybe that's why I also tend to avoid philosophy threads on discussion boards.)

[BWE]

I deal with that by assuming most people are asshats to begin with. That way I don't need to get upset. :)

[Jobar]

Durant (in his The Mansions of Philosophy) blames Descartes for the shitty, boring state of much of modern philosophy. Descartes divorced mind from matter in an attempt to save mind/soul. Durant argued that we need to heal that nonexistent split and get philosophy back to a central and interesting position in human discourse.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert Pirsig, makes the same point. (As it happens, that novel was the 'textbook' for the very first philosophy class I ever took!)

Pirsig's book also opened my eyes to the idea of dualistic vs. monistic philosophies; Descartes' philosophy is dualistic, as are many others. Indeed, dualism is built into Western society and languages; the matter/spirit duality is probably the most basic one. It's very hard for us Westerners to conceive of the philosophical unification of opposites; to understand that even concepts which seem totally immiscible, like matter and energy, are aspects of a singular reality.

My studies in physics helped me to better understand monistic philosophy, and my studies in monistic philosophy helped me better understand physics.

[Eudaimonist]

I think we can safely judge the discipline based on the disciples, and so far philosophy buffs showed to be a bunch who are in it for the conflict, for the chance of dominance displays and the thrill of being condescending to others.

I don't think you can rightly judge all philosophers, or philosophy itself, by what some internet-narcissists do.

Unfortunately, some people who are drawn to become "intellectuals" are narcissists who are probably making up from being bullied as children by becoming bullies themselves. Such people will especially be drawn to internet forums because that gives them a platform on which to bully others.

When I read professional philosophy, I don't see this. The essays are extremely polite. Why? Because your career as a philosopher depends on getting other people to read your essays and critique them. If you offend other philosophers, you can't get them to cooperate. Tit for tat.

Anyway, it's unfortunate that you've had some bad experiences with philosophy-buffs. I have found, at times, some very nice and interesting intellectuals. Hopefully you will too, if you decide to look again.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Rie]

:cool:I think my first BATTLE towards a philosophical victory and at the age of 7, just a vague feeling of contentment. you see, we kids had a middle of the road cricket team andgirls weren't alowwed to join ,nah nah nah! but i put my hands on my hips and said the devastating words..."Why NOT?". there was a lot of muttering and none of the boys could think of an answer, so I was made backstop. Victory!
Philosophy has to make you feel whole and right, as right as the trees and the night stars. Whatever is your philosophy is your deepest contentment and feeling that there is some SENSE in the world you know, be it a 7 yr.
olds's world or an old lady's world.
Later, as the curved balls come and you bleed, your philosophy of the rightness of things is challenged and some give up and get cynical... and make cynicism their philosophy.
But I felt things too strongly and loved my world too much and my music to ever be cynical...... So, I am an uncynical true believer in the eternal rightness of things.... which doe no t mean I don't flinch at the haters and the liars and their philosophies, whatever those beliefs of theirs can be called or can they be called a philosophy of life, born of hatred and fear?

[Quizalufagus]

I have dipped into quite a few philosophers over the years, but have found many of them repellent, including Plato.

What did you find repellent about Plato?

Any academic discourse seems to me to be mainly about referring to philosophers I don't want to read, rather than getting to grips with the ideas themselves.

To be fair, you probably cannot understand what a modern philosopher is saying without reading all that stuff he refers to. It isn't as if you can pick up a modern philosophy paper and understand it without any background. You need years of specialized training to be able to understand contemporary research in philosophy, just like you need years of training to be able to understand contemporary research in math or physics or whatever subject.

[dug_down_deep]

There are individual philosophers who make a lot of sense to me. But the subject as a whole often seems to me to approach mental masturbation.
What isn't?

[dug_down_deep]

This thread is philosophy. It's shotgun philosophy, but it's philosophy.

[Jobar]

I put my hands on my hips and said the devastating words..."Why NOT?"

Many years ago, when my brother was taking an introductory philosophy course in college, on the first quiz the professor asked some extremely general questions. One of those questions was simply "Why?"

My brother answered that the question was too general to answer in the time available to take the test, and the prof found that acceptable. But one of my brother's friends responded as you did- "Why not?" That answer got the professor's praise, and most of a class period was spent discussing it.

[lpetrich]

This thread reminds me of Richard Carrier vs. Academic Philosophy (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=3760), in which RC made these arguments:

Philosophers have no method of telling whether they have the right answer.
Philosophers are not as good as scientists at explaining what their work is good for.
Philosophers are antiquarians all too often, and they should try to make progress, as scientists do.
Philosophers should be more willing to reject crackpottery and more willing to do peer review.

In hopes of making philosophy seem more relevant, RC has written a book, Sense and Goodness without God, in which he addresses a wide range of philosophical issues. He writes for the interested amateur, and he may disappoint philosophical antiquarians by not discussing how his ideas relate to those of notable philosophers of past centuries.

I've been meaning to review it, but I got bogged down.

[dug_down_deep]

A lot of important questions have no predetermined method for telling whether or not the answer is right, and such a method would likely be deemed artificially limiting and mostly arbitrary anyway, since the method must be under as much scrutiny as the issue itself. Sometimes figuring out that you can't really find the answer is the outcome that prepares you best for living in the real world and making intelligent decisions.

[Preno]

This thread reminds me of Richard Carrier vs. Academic Philosophy (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=3760), in which RC made these arguments:

Philosophers have no method of telling whether they have the right answer.
Philosophers are not as good as scientists at explaining what their work is good for.
Philosophers are antiquarians all too often, and they should try to make progress, as scientists do.
Philosophers should be more willing to reject crackpottery and more willing to do peer review.

In hopes of making philosophy seem more relevant, RC has written a book, Sense and Goodness without God, in which he addresses a wide range of philosophical issues. He writes for the interested amateur, and he may disappoint philosophical antiquarians by not discussing how his ideas relate to those of notable philosophers of past centuries.I'm not sure what's supposed to be so special about Richard Carrier's book. There are plenty of philosophical books for "the interested amateur" out there (even though I'd argue that the best thing the truly interested amateur can do is simply pick up an ordinary philosophical book on a topic he finds interesting).

[Quizalufagus]

There is also some fairly serious philosophy that is accessible to amateurs, though you have to know where to look for it. Dennett and Searle both write fairly accessible stuff IMO.

Also, this stuff about philosophers' being antiquarian is pretty ridiculous. There is a point to talking about all that old philosophy, even if Carrier and his fans missed it.

[dug_down_deep]

It's a sophomoric complaint, really. Nobody seems bothered that we still study Newton or Darwin.

[Yahzi]

So would someone please explain what philosophy is for?
Philosophy is the spirit of inquiry.

A science is what a philosophical topic becomes when its well enough understood to make predictions.

[Berthold]

It started out, after all, with anything that's not law, or medicine, or theology. ;)

[Quizalufagus]

It's a sophomoric complaint, really. Nobody seems bothered that we still study Newton or Darwin.

No one is bothered that quantum field theory is inaccessible or irrelevant to the common man's life, either. For whatever reason, many people think philosophy should be fundamnetally different from other technical disciplines.

[Eudaimonist]

It's a sophomoric complaint, really. Nobody seems bothered that we still study Newton or Darwin.

No one is bothered that quantum field theory is inaccessible or irrelevant to the common man's life, either. For whatever reason, many people think philosophy should be fundamnetally different from other technical disciplines.

It should be, at least if we are talking about the branches of ethics and politics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Quizalufagus]

As egalitarians and democrats we all might hope that philosophy is different from the other academic disciplines, but it's not. Though it may offend our egalitarian ideology, the central issues in ethics and political philosophy are sufficiently technical that the man on the street has no more hope of understanding them than he has of understanding quantum field theory.

[Yahzi]

Though it may offend our egalitarian ideology, the central issues in ethics and political philosophy are sufficiently technical that the man on the street has no more hope of understanding them than he has of understanding quantum field theory.
The QM physicist has a requirement to explain his research in a way that the "man on the street" can understand it. If he does not, then the man in the street is not going to fund his research. Worse, he is not going to pay attention to it, or change his behavior when the science says he should. Philosophy is in the same boat.

If you can't explain what you mean to a layperson, then you don't really understand what you are talking about. Lay people understand this principle and rightly ignore people who cannot progress past technical mumbo-jumbo. (Well, some lay people. Sadly not most.)

Now of course you can't explain all the details: but you can put things in terms that anyone can understand. The theory of Relativity is the perfect example. When it was first announced, someone famously proclaimed there were only 3 people in the world who understood it. Now it's routinely taught to grad students, and even high school students understand it well enough to grasp the effects of time dilation.

Obscurity is not proof of knowledge. It is the opposite. If you can't relate your subject matter to other subjects with analogy, then you don't understand your subject matter that well.

[Preno]

If you can't explain what you mean to a layperson, then you don't really understand what you are talking about. Lay people understand this principle and rightly ignore people who cannot progress past technical mumbo-jumbo. (Well, some lay people. Sadly not most.)Lmao. You must be one of those people who read the Elegant Universe or whatever and believe that they understand (at least the essence of) string theory.

Don't you find it the least bit amusing that you, a person with presumably zero knowledge of QFT, think you're qualified to tell, say, an active researcher that he doesn't really understand it because he can't explain it simply enough for you to understand?
Now of course you can't explain all the details: but you can put things in terms that anyone can understand.Yeah, except the maths isn't the "details", the maths is the meat of the subject.

[Quizalufagus]

Now of course you can't explain all the details: but you can put things in terms that anyone can understand.

In philosophy, omitting the details usually entails omitting everything. Philosophy is all about subtleties.

Yeah, except the maths isn't the "details", the maths is the meat of the subject.

I wonder if he thinks mathematicians ought to be able to explain advanced mathematics to the layperson as well.

[Rie]

If philosophising is puzzling about the meaning of things in this unfortunately best of all possible worlds, then I've been a philosopher probably since I first squinted at my baby feet and wondered about them, then naturally sucked them and found them delightful ... and so it went with me, for good and baaad things i've always wanted to work it out in my brain. But I know someone who talks philosophically and goes on and on and murder is still a not done thing. ...For some people it's a soap box stance.

[Yahzi]

I wonder if he thinks mathematicians ought to be able to explain advanced mathematics to the layperson as well.
I repeat: if you cannot describe your subject by analogy, then you don't understand your subject well enough for non-experts to be bothered with.

I routinely explain philosophical concepts to people who don't have philosophy degrees. I can even explain the basics of physics. Does that make these people ready to do active work in philosophy or physics? No, of course not. But it does allow them to understand the relevance of the topic.

Let me put it another way: If you can't explain why your topic is relevant to the man in the street, then it isn't.

[Yahzi]

Don't you find it the least bit amusing that you, a person with presumably zero knowledge of QFT,
Do you have a degree in QFT? If not, how do you go about determining how much knowledge I have of QFT? If you do have a degree, please point to the statement that justified your determination. Finally, how did you determine that not having a working PHD in QFT translates to zero knowledge?

Why, you don't determine it: you simply presume it.

I believe we've seen all of your argument we need to see. Those with a philosophical education will already understand why; if anybody else wants clarification, I'd be happy to supply it.

[Preno]

Don't you find it the least bit amusing that you, a person with presumably zero knowledge of QFT,
Do you have a degree in QFT? If not, how do you go about determining how much knowledge I have of QFT? If you do have a degree, please point to the statement that justified your determination. Finally, how did you determine that not having a working PHD in QFT translates to zero knowledge?Are you insane?

Most people have no or very little knowledge of QFT. Therefore, absent any particular reason to the contrary, I'm assuming you do, too. What sort of idiotic "counter-argument" was that supposed to be? If you do have substantial knowledge of QFT, say so. If not, well, my assumption was right, wasn't it?

[dug_down_deep]

I think Yahzi's pretty close to the truth on philosophy, though. If you can't bring an ethical issue back to the sphere of common understanding, then your technical work is fruitless. Ethics lives among laymen.

[Quizalufagus]

I wonder if he thinks mathematicians ought to be able to explain advanced mathematics to the layperson as well.
I repeat: if you cannot describe your subject by analogy, then you don't understand your subject well enough for non-experts to be bothered with.

I routinely explain philosophical concepts to people who don't have philosophy degrees. I can even explain the basics of physics. Does that make these people ready to do active work in philosophy or physics? No, of course not. But it does allow them to understand the relevance of the topic.

Let me put it another way: If you can't explain why your topic is relevant to the man in the street, then it isn't.

You seem to be shifting the goal posts. Your original claim was ostensibly that all technical ideas ought to be explainable to laypeople, if only by analogy. Now you seem to be claiming that the relevance of technical ideas ought to be explainable to laypeople. Which is it?

I think both claims are false, by the way. I'll give you a counterexample: There is an extremely important theorem from algebra called the Hilbert Nullstellensatz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_Nullstellensatz). Numerous mathematicians understand this theorem very well, but it is very unlikely that any of them could give a layperson an explanation of the theorem or its relevance (except in the most trivial sense; e.g., by saying that it helps us understand geometry). The Hilbert Nullstellensatz is simply too technical to explain to a layperson.

I think Yahzi's pretty close to the truth on philosophy, though. If you can't bring an ethical issue back to the sphere of common understanding, then your technical work is fruitless. Ethics lives among laymen.

How so? There is a lot of work going on in formal ethics right now, and some of it is good philosophy. However, I don't think that the man on the street has a prayer of understanding it. Why should that make formal ethics fruitless? Is it not valuable to those who can understand it?

Also, you don't think that all philosophy should be amenable to popular explanation, do you? It seems a bit absurd to think that the everyman should be able to understand contemporary research in logic, for example.

[dug_down_deep]

I think Yahzi's pretty close to the truth on philosophy, though. If you can't bring an ethical issue back to the sphere of common understanding, then your technical work is fruitless. Ethics lives among laymen.

How so? There is a lot of work going on in formal ethics right now, and some of it is good philosophy. However, I don't think that the man on the street has a prayer of understanding it. Why should that make formal ethics fruitless? Is it not valuable to those who can understand it?
Honestly, I'm at a loss to provide an example to work with, due to my lack of awareness of the current work in formal ethics. Could you point to something as an example that I could analyze?

I am suggesting that is true because ethics is concerned with conscious interaction between human beings, and that such action is justified by appealing to shared beliefs, and that those beliefs are generally culturally grounded, and that the cultural sphere is the layman's sphere, not the sphere of mathemagical manipulations. Or something like that.

Also, you don't think that all philosophy should be amenable to popular explanation, do you? It seems a bit absurd to think that the everyman should be able to understand contemporary research in logic, for example.
No. Clearly there's a value in advanced logic that is not dependent on people understanding it - it takes us to the moon and so forth. But with ethics? I can understand why a specialist might need to know, for example, why a certain medication should be administered while another should not, or why a certain rule of litigation should be adhered to, or whatever, but aren't such specifics grounded in fundamental values and beliefs anyhow?

And what if they're proceeding from a basic error at the fundamental level? No matter how complicated they may be, it doesn't preclude them from being utterly fucked up. And how do we know if they're fucked up, other than to place them into the fundamental context and see if they're fucked up? Isn't the 'peer review' of ethics in a society to act on them and see if you're considered an asshole?

[Yahzi]

You seem to be shifting the goal posts. Your original claim was ostensibly that all technical ideas ought to be explainable to laypeople, if only by analogy. Now you seem to be claiming that the relevance of technical ideas ought to be explainable to laypeople. Which is it?
Both.

There is a lot of work going on in formal ethics right now, and some of it is good philosophy. However, I don't think that the man on the street has a prayer of understanding it. Why should that make formal ethics fruitless? Is it not valuable to those who can understand it?
This is a perfect example. I cannot imagine anything more useless than a theory of ethics that is unexplainable to the very people who use, live by, and need those ethics.

Why in dog's name would anybody give two cents for a theory of ethics that people can't actually use? If its only value is to provide tenure, then no, it's not actually valuable.

Also, you don't think that all philosophy should be amenable to popular explanation, do you? It seems a bit absurd to think that the everyman should be able to understand contemporary research in logic, for example.
I would love to explain it to you, but I'm afraid my theories are simply too technical for persons unversed in the extremely intricate details of Yahzi philosophy to understand. After you've studied 100 volumes of Yahzi's books and gotten a PHD in Yahziology, then we can discuss it. Until then you'll just have to take my word on it, because I'm an expert.

It was nice chatting with you, though.

[Yahzi]

[Are you insane?
Does this board have any standards on posting? I mean, at what point do blatant insults become unacceptable?

In answer to your question - pretending for the moment that such a question deserves an answer - no, I am not insane, but you are presumptuous. You prefer to make assumptions first and ask questions later - but only, of course, if those assumptions benefit your argument.

If not, well, my assumption was right, wasn't it?
"I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him."
~Abraham Lincoln

[Yahzi]

Clearly there's a value in advanced logic that is not dependent on people understanding it - it takes us to the moon and so forth.
We got to the moon with engineers. I work with engineers. Trust me when I tell you that if you can explain something to an engineer, you can explain it to anyone.

:D

[Preno]

[Are you insane?
Does this board have any standards on posting? I mean, at what point do blatant insults become unacceptable?

In answer to your question - pretending for the moment that such a question deserves an answer - no, I am not insane, but you are presumptuous. You prefer to make assumptions first and ask questions later - but only, of course, if those assumptions benefit your argument.IOW, no, despite your ambivalent posturing, you do not have any significant grasp of QFT. I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to avoid either admitting or denying that.

[Christina]

I would love to explain it to you, but I'm afraid my theories are simply too technical for persons unversed in the extremely intricate details of Yahzi philosophy to understand. After you've studied 100 volumes of Yahzi's books and gotten a PHD in Yahziology, then we can discuss it. Until then you'll just have to take my word on it, because I'm an expert.

It was nice chatting with you, though.

:rolling:

[Sidhe747]

This thread is the point.

[Sidhe747]

[Are you insane?
Does this board have any standards on posting? I mean, at what point do blatant insults become unacceptable?

In answer to your question - pretending for the moment that such a question deserves an answer - no, I am not insane, but you are presumptuous. You prefer to make assumptions first and ask questions later - but only, of course, if those assumptions benefit your argument.IOW, no, despite your ambivalent posturing, you do not have any significant grasp of QFT. I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to avoid either admitting or denying that.

What is QFT anyway?

Oh nm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

[Yahzi]

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to avoid either admitting or denying that.
Because it's irrelevant. My knowledge of QFT has nothing to do with this conversation, and your dogged insistence on ferreting it out demonstrates that you have long since ceased to discuss anything and are merely seeking a victory.

Since it's Christmas, I'll give you a present. My knowledge of QFT is what one derives from sources such as Scientific American. There you go. Happy now? Let's all clap for Preno! (clap, clap)

Of course, I realize you and Quiz probably consider SciAm to be a complete waste of time. Why even bother pretending to educate the proles? It will just make them unhappy with their station in life.

I need my rolly-eyes icon back! How do you people expect me to post without rolly-eyes?

[Preno]

Great. Well, now that you've gotten over your inexplicable but amusingly transparent embarassment about having little familiarity with QFT, can you answer the original question (which, you know, you could have simply done straightaway without this - as you yourself admit - irrelevant derail that you spawned):
Don't you find it the least bit amusing that you, a person with presumably zero knowledge of QFT, think you're qualified to tell, say, an active researcher that he doesn't really understand it because he can't explain it simply enough for you to understand?

[Sidhe747]

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to avoid either admitting or denying that.
Because it's irrelevant. My knowledge of QFT has nothing to do with this conversation, and your dogged insistence on ferreting it out demonstrates that you have long since ceased to discuss anything and are merely seeking a victory.

Since it's Christmas, I'll give you a present. My knowledge of QFT is what one derives from sources such as Scientific American. There you go. Happy now? Let's all clap for Preno! (clap, clap)

Of course, I realize you and Quiz probably consider SciAm to be a complete waste of time. Why even bother pretending to educate the proles? It will just make them unhappy with their station in life.

I need my rolly-eyes icon back! How do you people expect me to post without rolly-eyes?

I have a Theory of Everything myself? :evil:

Go on run something past me I bet I can unify it with my theory.

Call it S-Theory after me.

Or QFT Theory, QUOTED FOR TRUTH THEORY.

[Quizalufagus]

Honestly, I'm at a loss to provide an example to work with, due to my lack of awareness of the current work in formal ethics. Could you point to something as an example that I could analyze?

No examples off the top of my head (ethics isn't really one of my interests). I think the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ethics) gets across my point, though.

I am suggesting that is true because ethics is concerned with conscious interaction between human beings, and that such action is justified by appealing to shared beliefs, and that those beliefs are generally culturally grounded, and that the cultural sphere is the layman's sphere, not the sphere of mathemagical manipulations. Or something like that.

But laymen needn't be experts on ethics just because they are, in some sense, the object of study. Social scientists study culture, economies, and minds--all of which relate to the lives of laymen as directly as ethics--but you don't think that cultural anthropology, economics, and psychology need necessarily be accessible to a lay audience, do you? Why should it be any different with ethics?

And what if they're proceeding from a basic error at the fundamental level? No matter how complicated they may be, it doesn't preclude them from being utterly fucked up. And how do we know if they're fucked up, other than to place them into the fundamental context and see if they're fucked up? Isn't the 'peer review' of ethics in a society to act on them and see if you're considered an asshole?

Society may deem you an asshole even when you are taking the only ethical course of action, or it may deem you a saint despite your being a monster.

[Quizalufagus]

This is a perfect example. I cannot imagine anything more useless than a theory of ethics that is unexplainable to the very people who use, live by, and need those ethics.

Why in dog's name would anybody give two cents for a theory of ethics that people can't actually use? If its only value is to provide tenure, then no, it's not actually valuable.

Who said that people cannot use formal ethics? What I said is that the man on the street hasn't a prayer of being able to understand formal ethics, not that it is useless. Many of the people who understand it find it very useful.

I would love to explain it to you, but I'm afraid my theories are simply too technical for persons unversed in the extremely intricate details of Yahzi philosophy to understand. After you've studied 100 volumes of Yahzi's books and gotten a PHD in Yahziology, then we can discuss it. Until then you'll just have to take my word on it, because I'm an expert.

It was nice chatting with you, though.

:dunno: Have you been able to find an explanation of the Hilbert Nullstellensatz that a layperson might understand? If not, I think I've made my point.

[dug_down_deep]

But laymen needn't be experts on ethics just because they are, in some sense, the object of study. Social scientists study culture, economies, and minds--all of which relate to the lives of laymen as directly as ethics--but you don't think that cultural anthropology, economics, and psychology need necessarily be accessible to a lay audience, do you? Why should it be any different with ethics?
It's not about the technical work being accessible, it's about the work being fruitful, and if it is to be fruitful it must be introduced into the culture in a way that can be understood by the people who are needed to make decisions and act based upon the outcome of the work. To a great degree, economics is like ethics in this regard, and to a perhaps lesser degree, psychology is. How do you see anything valuable being done in ethics without making people understand it in some way?

Society may deem you an asshole even when you are taking the only ethical course of action, or it may deem you a saint despite your being a monster.
To the hornets, the man with the can of Raid is a monster on the scale of Satan. To the dog that has happened across the hornets' nest in late Fall, that man is his savior. You imply some objective standard, but where do we locate that rule book? Our conscience micrometers are calibrated by checking them against our culturally-grounded values.

[Sidhe747]

It is about accessibility or as the OP says what is it worth to the mortal?

The point of philosophy = 0?

It is a blunt pencil without words, and a blunt pencil without being language and accessible.

[muidiri]

I wonder if he thinks mathematicians ought to be able to explain advanced mathematics to the layperson as well.
Maybe not the details... but mathematicians ought to be able to explain the concepts and the big picture.

I'm an actuary. A huge amount of the work I do is very technical and takes a lot of specialized knowledge. But all that knowledge is worthless if I can't communicate the gist and the implications to people without that specialized knowledge.

I can't guarantee that you'll be able to sit down and do calculus immediately from my explanation. But if I can't at least explain the concepts behind a riemann sum and the tangent to a curve, I should have my degree yanked out from under me.

[muidiri]

I've sort of got a love-hate relationship with philosophy. I'll be honest here - I have almost no desire to read any philosophy text. They're boring, and dry, and I read for fun. But I really like discussing concepts and ideas; I think that the underlying beliefs we hold about "how things ought to work" are extremely important in how we shape our societies, and I think they're central to understanding other people.

I tend to shy away from philosophy forums for the reasons already given - I get tired of being directed to do homework and read so-and-so's book before being qualified to discuss some abstract concept. I want to learn about some of this stuff, and I want to exercise my brain. But I want to do it interactively. I don't want to hear what so-and-so said on this topic - I want to hear what you have to say on the topic.

I think most of the concepts in philosophy are probably pretty important. I think most of the books written on the topic are probably pretty unimportant. I want to talk about the concepts. I don't want to talk about the authors. :dunno:

[Sidhe747]

Philosophy is about loving thinking and reason.

[muidiri]

Philosophy is about loving thinking and reason.

True... but it's also about expanding and clarifying how we think and reason. Loving it is great, but without some application it loses meaning.

[Quizalufagus]

It's not about the technical work being accessible, it's about the work being fruitful, and if it is to be fruitful it must be introduced into the culture in a way that can be understood by the people who are needed to make decisions and act based upon the outcome of the work. To a great degree, economics is like ethics in this regard, and to a perhaps lesser degree, psychology is. How do you see anything valuable being done in ethics without making people understand it in some way?

Well, I don't really think it makes sense to use the word 'valuable' without qualification. Valuable to who? Ethics is about living rightly and living well. An ethical theory needn't help everyone do so, it is enough for it to help someone do so.

Anyway, by social convention we are all bound by a number of ethical principles that very few people understand: the law. If you grant that the law is sufficiently technical that the man on the street cannot understand it, then why should you think that more abstract ethics is different? After all, the law is an ethical system that we have agreed to make conventional, no?

Maybe not the details... but mathematicians ought to be able to explain the concepts and the big picture.

I'm an actuary. A huge amount of the work I do is very technical and takes a lot of specialized knowledge. But all that knowledge is worthless if I can't communicate the gist and the implications to people without that specialized knowledge.

I can't guarantee that you'll be able to sit down and do calculus immediately from my explanation. But if I can't at least explain the concepts behind a riemann sum and the tangent to a curve, I should have my degree yanked out from under me.

But how would you explain Galois Theory, modular lattices, or coproducts to a person who knows no mathematics? These aren't details, they're the big picture. And they are nowhere near as concrete as calculus.

[muidiri]

Well, I don't really think it makes sense to use the word 'valuable' without qualification. Valuable to who? Ethics is about living rightly and living well. An ethical theory needn't help everyone do so, it is enough for it to help someone do so.

Anyway, by social convention we are all bound by a number of ethical principles that very few people understand: the law. If you grant that the law is sufficiently technical that the man on the street cannot understand it, then why should you think that more abstract ethics is different? After all, the law is an ethical system that we have agreed to make conventional, no?
I disagree - the reasons for those laws, the reasons for those ethical precepts are quite understandable to nearly everyone. Just becuase the reasons aren't always given doesn't mean they're not understandable. Do you know why you're supposed to turn on your signal to merge? Do you know why a right turn on red isn't allowable when there are double right turn lanes? Just because nobody has told it to you doesn't mean that the reasons aren't understandable.

And ethics should absolutely be generally understandable to everyone. You don't tell just a child "Don't lie" - you tell them why it's important not to lie. If only a few people understand the reasons for ethics, then we're pretty well doomed. You need buy-in from the vast majority for an ethical rule to be implementable in the long run. If only a very few people live ethically, and the majority do not... you've got something close to anarchy (not anarchism, for you semantic folks out there ;)).

I;ll give you this much: the concepts involved must be understandable to those who are affected by them. There are some technical laws that not everyone needs to understand... because they are never affected by them. But when they are affected, they need to be understandable.

Maybe not the details... but mathematicians ought to be able to explain the concepts and the big picture.

I'm an actuary. A huge amount of the work I do is very technical and takes a lot of specialized knowledge. But all that knowledge is worthless if I can't communicate the gist and the implications to people without that specialized knowledge.

I can't guarantee that you'll be able to sit down and do calculus immediately from my explanation. But if I can't at least explain the concepts behind a riemann sum and the tangent to a curve, I should have my degree yanked out from under me.

But how would you explain Galois Theory, modular lattices, or coproducts to a person who knows no mathematics? These aren't details, they're the big picture. And they are nowhere near as concrete as calculus.
I would have to look them up, as I've forgotten them. But I'm willing to bet that I could get the general idea across to a layperson. If I can't, then my knowledge of it is pretty severely limited in use, and of value to only a few people. "How to" isn't necessarily important to a general guy, but "why" and "what" should be generally explainable.

[Quizalufagus]

I disagree - the reasons for those laws, the reasons for those ethical precepts are quite understandable to nearly everyone. Just becuase the reasons aren't always given doesn't mean they're not understandable. Do you know why you're supposed to turn on your signal to merge? Do you know why a right turn on red isn't allowable when there are double right turn lanes? Just because nobody has told it to you doesn't mean that the reasons aren't understandable.

I'm not talking about stuff like traffic laws, though. What I had in mind were technical legal issues--such as topics in civil procedure. These issues are, in some sense, part of our collectively accepted ethical code, but no one but lawyers understands them.

And ethics should absolutely be generally understandable to everyone. You don't tell just a child "Don't lie" - you tell them why it's important not to lie. If only a few people understand the reasons for ethics, then we're pretty well doomed. You need buy-in from the vast majority for an ethical rule to be implementable in the long run. If only a very few people live ethically, and the majority do not... you've got something close to anarchy (not anarchism, for you semantic folks out there ;)).

No, you wouldn't have anarchy--you would just have lots of unethical behavior. In any case, I don't see any compelling reason to believe that every issue in ethics can be understood by the man on the street. Why couldn't it be that the knowledge of how to live well and how to live rightly are simply beyond the average person?

I would have to look them up, as I've forgotten them. But I'm willing to bet that I could get the general idea across to a layperson. If I can't, then my knowledge of it is pretty severely limited in use, and of value to only a few people. "How to" isn't necessarily important to a general guy, but "why" and "what" should be generally explainable.

I'm willing to bet you couldn't get the general idea across. I couldn't. But if you think you can, I invite you to refresh yourself on one of those topics and try to give an explanation that a lay audience might understand.

[muidiri]

I disagree - the reasons for those laws, the reasons for those ethical precepts are quite understandable to nearly everyone. Just becuase the reasons aren't always given doesn't mean they're not understandable. Do you know why you're supposed to turn on your signal to merge? Do you know why a right turn on red isn't allowable when there are double right turn lanes? Just because nobody has told it to you doesn't mean that the reasons aren't understandable.

I'm not talking about stuff like traffic laws, though. What I had in mind were technical legal issues--such as topics in civil procedure. These issues are, in some sense, part of our collectively accepted ethical code, but no one but lawyers understands them.
If a lawyer is representing a client, and the client asked "why" in regard to those laws, shouldn't the lawyer be able to give an explanation beyond "just because"?

I would have to look them up, as I've forgotten them. But I'm willing to bet that I could get the general idea across to a layperson. If I can't, then my knowledge of it is pretty severely limited in use, and of value to only a few people. "How to" isn't necessarily important to a general guy, but "why" and "what" should be generally explainable.

I'm willing to bet you couldn't get the general idea across. I couldn't. But if you think you can, I invite you to refresh yourself on one of those topics and try to give an explanation that a lay audience might understand.[/QUOTE]
I don't have time right now, and I'm not certain I ever learned any of those specifically. If you're interested, however, you could consider reading some of the many, many posts I've made explaining actuarial concepts to laypeople right here on this board. They're very complex mathematically and conceptually... but I seem to do a fairly good job getting the ideas across ;).

[dug_down_deep]

Well, I don't really think it makes sense to use the word 'valuable' without qualification. Valuable to who? Ethics is about living rightly and living well. An ethical theory needn't help everyone do so, it is enough for it to help someone do so.
What matters is the scope of the ethical problem being analyzed. Whoever needs to understand it should understand it. Every situation will be different. So I understand your point, but as a generalization, it is equally valid to conclude that it is enough for an ethical theory to help a great number of someones do so.

Anyway, by social convention we are all bound by a number of ethical principles that very few people understand: the law. If you grant that the law is sufficiently technical that the man on the street cannot understand it, then why should you think that more abstract ethics is different? After all, the law is an ethical system that we have agreed to make conventional, no?
Yes, I mentioned the law earlier. And I agreed that it is a good example of where some specialized knowledge is needed for lawyers and judges to do their jobs. But still, the law must be grounded in some fundamental principles that the average person understands. Especially if one grants that one reason for having legal codes is to persuade people to abide by them. I'm not saying that all the technical aspects of any sort of ethical system or analysis need to be understood by all - I understand fully that they do not. But without some broadly communicable explanation for ethical mandates, you're simply not going to get people to follow them, which is the goal.

[Quizalufagus]

If a lawyer is representing a client, and the client asked "why" in regard to those laws, shouldn't the lawyer be able to give an explanation beyond "just because"?

I'm not talking about shouldn't. I'm talking about can't. You are welcome to have some kind of moral conviction that all complex, technical subjects (or an impressionistic version thereof) ought to be intelligible to the average person. That is certainly the reaction any egalitarian democrat is inclined to have. However, the fact of the matter is that there are lots of very technical subjects that cannot be understood (even metaphorically!) by anyone except for a few experts.

I don't have time right now, and I'm not certain I ever learned any of those specifically. If you're interested, however, you could consider reading some of the many, many posts I've made explaining actuarial concepts to laypeople right here on this board. They're very complex mathematically and conceptually... but I seem to do a fairly good job getting the ideas across ;).

I don't think actuarial topics (or statistical concepts in general) are all that conceptually abstract, so it doesn't surprise me that they can be explained to a lay audience fairly readily. It's not the same situation with the topics I've mentioned, though.

[Quizalufagus]

What matters is the scope of the ethical problem being analyzed. Whoever needs to understand it should understand it. Every situation will be different. So I understand your point, but as a generalization, it is equally valid to conclude that it is enough for an ethical theory to help a great number of someones do so.

Enough in what sense? I think I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Couldn't you imagine a world in which the right way to leave was a secret bit of knowledge, known only a few people or perhaps only to one person? What I don't understand is why some think ethics must necessarily be a populist subject.

Yes, I mentioned the law earlier. And I agreed that it is a good example of where some specialized knowledge is needed for lawyers and judges to do their jobs. But still, the law must be grounded in some fundamental principles that the average person understands. Especially if one grants that one reason for having legal codes is to persuade people to abide by them. I'm not saying that all the technical aspects of any sort of ethical system or analysis need to be understood by all - I understand fully that they do not. But without some broadly communicable explanation for ethical mandates, you're simply not going to get people to follow them, which is the goal.

Yeah, I agree that there is necessarily some collection of fundamental values that are broadly understood. I find the notion that most people do not understand the implications of said values to be very plausible, though.

[muidiri]

If a lawyer is representing a client, and the client asked "why" in regard to those laws, shouldn't the lawyer be able to give an explanation beyond "just because"?

I'm not talking about shouldn't. I'm talking about can't. You are welcome to have some kind of moral conviction that all complex, technical subjects (or an impressionistic version thereof) ought to be intelligible to the average person. That is certainly the reaction any egalitarian democrat is inclined to have. However, the fact of the matter is that there are lots of very technical subjects that cannot be understood (even metaphorically!) by anyone except for a few experts.
Are you assuming that I'm an "egalitarian democrat"? This might be the first time I've been called one of those...

I don't have time right now, and I'm not certain I ever learned any of those specifically. If you're interested, however, you could consider reading some of the many, many posts I've made explaining actuarial concepts to laypeople right here on this board. They're very complex mathematically and conceptually... but I seem to do a fairly good job getting the ideas across ;).

I don't think actuarial topics (or statistical concepts in general) are all that conceptually abstract, so it doesn't surprise me that they can be explained to a lay audience fairly readily. It's not the same situation with the topics I've mentioned, though.
And it's your belief that philosophy and ethics are topics that are NOT explainable to the layperson, at least in general terms? I'm rather of the opinion that actuarial science is considerably more technical than ethics. Formal Logic, with notation, might fall into the realm of "technical", but only if you insist that the notation be explained. Ethics, however, is a pretty fundamental part of life, and if the majority of it to "too complex" for the average person to understand... then I'd say society is doomed :(.

[dug_down_deep]

What matters is the scope of the ethical problem being analyzed. Whoever needs to understand it should understand it. Every situation will be different. So I understand your point, but as a generalization, it is equally valid to conclude that it is enough for an ethical theory to help a great number of someones do so.

Enough in what sense? I think I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Couldn't you imagine a world in which the right way to leave was a secret bit of knowledge, known only a few people or perhaps only to one person? What I don't understand is why some think ethics must necessarily be a populist subject.
It would be basically unethical to keep that information to one's self, don't you think? My point is the same as muidiri's, that the justification for the ethical standard needs to be known by those who are compelled to act under it. It's a populist subject because ethical judgments are made by everyone. Not everyone is practicing law or medicine or rocket science.

Yeah, I agree that there is necessarily some collection of fundamental values that are broadly understood. I find the notion that most people do not understand the implications of said values to be very plausible, though.
And this is not good.

[Yahzi]

I don't think actuarial topics (or statistical concepts in general) are all that conceptually abstract, so it doesn't surprise me that they can be explained to a lay audience fairly readily. It's not the same situation with the topics I've mentioned, though.
Is there anything to your argument other than intellectual bigotry?

I stand by my original claim: If you cannot communicate your subject in a way an ordinary person can understand it, you do not understand your subject as well as you think you do.

This does not mean that lay people will be able to do productive work in your technical field. But it does mean that they can understand it, if you and they are willing to work hard enough at shared understanding.

[kensai77]

"Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence. The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. This view serves as a base, a frame of reference, for all his actions, mental or physical, psychological or existential. This view tells him the nature of the universe with which he has to deal (metaphysics); the means by which he is to deal with it, i.e., the means of acquiring knowledge (epistemology); the standards by which he is to choose his goals and values, in regard to his own life and character (ethics)—and in regard to society (politics); the means of concretizing this view is given to him by esthetics.

As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation—or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown."

-Ayn Rand

[dug_down_deep]

Tis but thy name that is my enemy.
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.

-Shakespeare

[Quizalufagus]

Are you assuming that I'm an "egalitarian democrat"? This might be the first time I've been called one of those...

I'm assuming you grew up in (and share in the moral tradition of) a generally egalitarian, democratic society, at any rate.

And it's your belief that philosophy and ethics are topics that are NOT explainable to the layperson, at least in general terms? I'm rather of the opinion that actuarial science is considerably more technical than ethics. Formal Logic, with notation, might fall into the realm of "technical", but only if you insist that the notation be explained. Ethics, however, is a pretty fundamental part of life, and if the majority of it to "too complex" for the average person to understand... then I'd say society is doomed :(.

I think big pieces of contemporary philosophy are completely inaccessible without an appropriate background, yes. I'd actually expect big pieces of actuarial science to be similarly inaccessible (certainly measure-theoretic probability and the resulting statistical framework is hard to grasp without any prior knowledge), but I'll agree to take your word for it if you want to suggest that any part of actuarial science can be explained (at least approximately) to a layperson. The point is that in some cases the big picture of a topic (and not just its details) cannot be explained to a layperson.

[Quizalufagus]

Is there anything to your argument other than intellectual bigotry?

I stand by my original claim: If you cannot communicate your subject in a way an ordinary person can understand it, you do not understand your subject as well as you think you do.

This does not mean that lay people will be able to do productive work in your technical field. But it does mean that they can understand it, if you and they are willing to work hard enough at shared understanding.

Can you refute any of my counterexamples to your claim or not?

[muidiri]

Are you assuming that I'm an "egalitarian democrat"? This might be the first time I've been called one of those...

I'm assuming you grew up in (and share in the moral tradition of) a generally egalitarian, democratic society, at any rate.
Oh. Ok - yes, that's pretty much true. I don't really see why that's germane to whether or not I think that any topic should be generally explainable to a layperson.

And it's your belief that philosophy and ethics are topics that are NOT explainable to the layperson, at least in general terms? I'm rather of the opinion that actuarial science is considerably more technical than ethics. Formal Logic, with notation, might fall into the realm of "technical", but only if you insist that the notation be explained. Ethics, however, is a pretty fundamental part of life, and if the majority of it to "too complex" for the average person to understand... then I'd say society is doomed :(.

I think big pieces of contemporary philosophy are completely inaccessible without an appropriate background, yes. I'd actually expect big pieces of actuarial science to be similarly inaccessible (certainly measure-theoretic probability and the resulting statistical framework is hard to grasp without any prior knowledge), but I'll agree to take your word for it if you want to suggest that any part of actuarial science can be explained (at least approximately) to a layperson. The point is that in some cases the big picture of a topic (and not just its details) cannot be explained to a layperson.
Hmm. I disagree. I'm kind of of the opinion that if Discovery Channel can do a pretty decent job explaining the concepts of string theory, quantum mechanics, and how the LHC works... just about any topic, no matter how complex, can be explained in essence to a layperson. I fail to see how philosophy is that much more complex than the LHC ;).

[Yahzi]

Can you refute any of my counterexamples to your claim or not?
If you grant that the law is sufficiently technical that the man on the street cannot understand it,
I don't grant that, and no lawyer I've ever known would grant it.

For dog's sake, lawyers explain the law to juries all the time. There is no entity on this green Earth with less wit than a jury of your peers.

You've already dissed the entire field of actuarial science.

Your remaining examples seem to be solely mathematical. And the only person here smart enough to understand them seems to be you.

How... very... convieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenet...

[Preno]

I think part of the problem here is that you only "see" those parts of science and maths which people have actually tried to present to the average person. It is in a very literal sense impossible to even explain the "essence" of, say, PCF theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCF_theory) or étale cohomology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tale_cohomology) to people who haven't devoted an extensive amount of time to studying maths. You first have to have solid and extensive foundations to be even able to grasp those concepts. In fact, I think you'd have a hard time explaining those concepts even to mathematicians who specialize in other areas. Assuming a priori that specialists should be able to explain "the essence of" those concepts to laymen is just insane.

[Quizalufagus]

Can you refute any of my counterexamples to your claim or not?
If you grant that the law is sufficiently technical that the man on the street cannot understand it,
I don't grant that, and no lawyer I've ever known would grant it.

For dog's sake, lawyers explain the law to juries all the time. There is no entity on this green Earth with less wit than a jury of your peers.

I wasn't talking to you. That comment was directed at Doug.

You've already dissed the entire field of actuarial science.

I did no such thing. Surely you do not conflate abstruseness with value.

Your remaining examples seem to be solely mathematical.

Naturally. I'm a layman when it comes to most other fields, so I'm surely not familiar enough with other fields to give examples of topics that a lay audience cannot understand.

Does that mean you cannot refute my counterexamples, by the way?

And the only person here smart enough to understand them seems to be you.

It has nothing to do with being smart, and everything to do with one's background. Also, I'm sure Preno understands the mathematical topics I alluded to.

[Quizalufagus]

I think part of the problem here is that you only "see" those parts of science and maths which people have actually tried to present to the average person. It is in a very literal sense impossible to even explain the "essence" of, say, PCF theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCF_theory) or étale cohomology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tale_cohomology) to people who haven't devoted an extensive amount of time to studying maths. You first have to have solid and extensive foundations to be even able to grasp those concepts. In fact, I think you'd have a hard time explaining those concepts even to mathematicians who specialize in other areas. Assuming a priori that specialists should be able to explain "the essence of" those concepts to laymen is just insane.

That's a good point. Genuinely inaccessible topics tend to be invisible precisely because they cannot be described to non-specialists.

[Yahzi]

Does that mean you cannot refute my counterexamples, by the way?
I could.. but unfortunately, the refutation requires a very technical philosophical discussion, which it appears (forgive me for presuming) that you are not equipped to pursue (correct me if you hold any advanced degrees in philosophy).

Indeed, one could almost say that the proof of the explainability of any concept is so inaccessible to the lay philosopher as to be invisible.

[Yahzi]

PCF in a single sentence:

"The exponent function is misleading when used to measure the collection of sub-sets of a singular cardinal." - Menachem Kojam
http://at.yorku.ca/p/a/b/b/04.aim/1.htm

Translation into English: PCF theory explains why there aren't as many subsets of a singular cardinal as you might expect.

Now of course that requires explaining subsets and singular cardinals, or why anyone would care about calculating the number of subsets of such creatures, but I think I've done enough of your homework for you.

[Preno]

Yes, that's the purpose of it, not the idea (also, it's meaningless in the absence of an explanation of what a singular cardinal is). It's like if you explained how an airplane works by saying it flies through the air.

[muidiri]

Quiz & Preno - you're conflating the details of application and/or derivation with the concept of a topic.

PFC isn't a concept in and of itself, and it isn't a branch of mathematics - it is the detail and the application of the concepts of cardinality and (if I understand the very brief bit of research I did) set theory.

To parallel: You claim is akin to claiming that a layperson can't understand the mathematics that govern one of the magnets on the LHC... therefore the LHC is inaccessible to laypeople in concept :rolleyes:

Nobody has claimed that every minute detail is accessible to laymen - what we've said is that the big picture and the basic concept of a topic should be explainable to the average person - specifically in regards to ethics and philosophy.

So let me be even more clear, and perhaps we can put this to rest: I don't expect that every single axiom or theory of ethics should be understandable to someone without any background int he topic. I do, however, expect that the big picture and the concept behind the conclusions of ethics had better be explainable.

Laypeople don't need to understand the mathematical derivation of the big bang, and what led to it. That doesn't need to be explainable. We do need scientists to be able to explain conceptually what the big bang is, and what it means to our understanding of the universe. Discovery Channel seems to do a fine job of that... as well as explaining the concepts involved in string theory and M-theory.

Are you going to claim that ethics is significantly more complex than M-Theory?

[Matty]

I think gamera sometimes posts quite sensibly,

hhahahahahahaha.
oh fuck wait, you were serious, lol. :)

[muidiri]

I think gamera sometimes posts quite sensibly,

hhahahahahahaha.
oh fuck wait, you were serious, lol. :)

Well.... as long as the topic of discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, science, economics, or religion... his posts can be sensible ;).

[The Barefoot Bum]

Philosophy is the construction and analysis of bullshit; skill in philosophy consists of hiding the bullshit. Philosophy without bullshit is science and common sense.

[Jobar]

Philosophy is the construction and analysis of bullshit; skill in philosophy consists of hiding the bullshit. Philosophy without bullshit is science and common sense.

While I don't for a second deny that there's plenty of bullshit to be found in philosophy, I think it's harsh to say it's *nothing but* bullshit. I mean, there's a lot to be learned from ethical and political philosophy, and semantics (which I consider to be the philosophy of language) can teach us to communicate far more effectively. Even science and common sense can be seen as practical applications of philosophy.

Sure, there are sorts of navel gazing which won't ever result in any tangible or intellectual benefits to humanity. Ah, but sometimes we find concrete benefit in the most astoundingly abstract thoughts; just as with mathematics, it's very hard to predict where pipe dreams might one day connect up to hardheaded reality.

[The Barefoot Bum]

I think it's harsh to say it's *nothing but* bullshit.

I think it's harsh too; I have no aversion to harshness.

Of course, one could define "philosophy" broadly to include all thinking about thinking, or even all abstract thought, and I wouldn't deny the value of "meta-cognition" or abstract thought in general.

But philosophy as practiced by people who call themselves professional philosophers? 100% bullshit, except when they (such as Dennett) talk about stuff just as well described by people who call themselves professional scientists, or thoughts available to any intellectually honest person with ordinary common sense.

[The Barefoot Bum]

In other words, if either a scientist or an ordinary person with ordinary intelligence and common sense couldn't have come up with the thought, it's bullshit.

Philosophers didn't themselves didn't invent with the scientific method: it was invented -- over the strenuous and still prevalent objections of philosophers -- by people who ditched philosophy and just tried to understand the universe by looking at it.

[David B]

Do you mean all Philosophy, Barefoot Bum, or just modern academic philosophy?

What about David Hume, for instance?

David

[premjan]

My impression is that philosophers tend more to interpolation - i.e. analysis / explanations / filling in the gaps rather than extrapolation, innovation etc. which are more associated with science and technology. IOW a philosopher is more likely to speculate about the true nature of mind rather than invent a thinking machine.

[dug_down_deep]

Philosophy is bullshit is philosophy. It's also bullshit.

[The Barefoot Bum]

"Philosophy is bullshit is philosophy. It's also bullshit," is philosophy. And it's also bullshit. :D

[David B]

"Philosophy is bullshit is philosophy. It's also bullshit," is philosophy. And it's also bullshit. :D

And so, ad infinitum:D

David

[David B]

My impression is that philosophers tend more to interpolation - i.e. analysis / explanations / filling in the gaps rather than extrapolation, innovation etc. which are more associated with science and technology. IOW a philosopher is more likely to speculate about the true nature of mind rather than invent a thinking machine.

But what has actually told us what we know about the nature of mind is observation and experiment, on the one hand, and arriving at tentative unifying theories (like the theory of evolution) that give some explanatory power to how mind has developed.

IIRC, all philosophy came up with about mind is that you can't make mind out of matter, and so insisted on dualism.

David

[The Barefoot Bum]

Do you mean all Philosophy, Barefoot Bum, or just modern academic philosophy?

Mostly professional academic philosophy, but there are any number of amateur bullshit artists.

When was the last time an academic philosopher said something profound that couldn't have been said by an ordinary person using his or her common sense? That's a sincere question: I read a lot, and I haven't found anything, but I can't read everything.

What about David Hume, for instance?

Hume was intellectually honest (rare for his day... rare for any day), and had good common sense. His contributions to "philosophy", however, are mostly negative (i.e. religion is bullshit, which doesn't require a genius to figure out). He missed a chance to even accurately describe the scientific method that Galileo and Newton pioneered.

[The Barefoot Bum]

"Philosophy is bullshit is philosophy. It's also bullshit," is philosophy. And it's also bullshit. :D

And so, ad infinitum:D

David

Philosophers just can't get enough of paradoxes of infinite regression that would bore even a mathematician to tears.

[The Barefoot Bum]

IIRC, all philosophy came up with about mind is that you can't make mind out of matter, and so insisted on dualism.

Indeed: a garden-variety fallacy of composition that would embarrass a clever twelve-year-old.

[David B]

Do you mean all Philosophy, Barefoot Bum, or just modern academic philosophy?

Mostly professional academic philosophy, but there are any number of amateur bullshit artists.

When was the last time an academic philosopher said something profound that couldn't have been said by an ordinary person using his or her common sense? That's a sincere question: I read a lot, and I haven't found anything, but I can't read everything.

What about David Hume, for instance?

Hume was intellectually honest (rare for his day... rare for any day), and had good common sense. His contributions to "philosophy", however, are mostly negative (i.e. religion is bullshit, which doesn't require a genius to figure out). He missed a chance to even accurately describe the scientific method that Galileo and Newton pioneered.

I find Hofstadter's strange loopery intriguing, but whether he would be described as an academic philosopher is open to question.

Other than that, I agree with you.

David

[The Barefoot Bum]

I find Hofstadter's strange loopery intriguing, but whether he would be described as an academic philosopher is open to question.

I love Hofstadter. I would call him a brilliant philosopher: he slings the bullshit with style, verve and immense skill. (Just because I think philosophy is bullshit doesn't mean I don't like it. I just don't take it very seriously.)

[munnki]

It seems that most of the texts that adorn my bookshelves are in the category of philosophy so I should have an answer for what 'the point' of philosophy is. In order to do that I'd have to understand what all of those texts have in common. Is it that they all sit within a similar tradition? Is it that the authors called themselves philosophers? Is it that the authors were called philosophers? Were the authors consciously writing within the field of philosophy? If one thought about it enough it could become absurdly difficult just to define what philosophy, taken as some kind of unified field, actually is?

I've noticed some grumbles about contemporary philosophers above but even if you took those as a tiny subset of what this beast called philosophy is you'd find staggering differences between them and the things they are concerned with. I'd be hard pressed to find any common ground between say Heidegger and Foucault but they are both called philosophers. I'd equally struggle to find much common ground between Derrida and Zizek but I often hear the adjective philosopher applied to them.

The problem just gets worse as you go back in time. Is it really possible to draw a consistent line through all of these historical people known as philosophers and come up with a notion of progression or harmony in definition? You can, in the sense that you can construct such a thing if you wish... leaving aside those problematic areas - the repetitions of old ideas or the degeneration of better ideas, it's possible to consider the field anachronistically, diachronistically, or as a series of historical epiphanies, as the history of ideas or as the history of dialogue... or as a waste of time... Does the fact that Kant was familiar with Plato or Socrates mean that the Critique of Pure Reason is in any way philosophical in the sense that the Republic or the Apologia are? Does the fact that Nietzsche was German mean that there are any common grounds between his philosophy and that of Hegel or Marx? And what the hell would Marx and Nietzsche have in common anyway - but both are called philosophers?

I'm not going to entirely surrender. I enjoy reading philosophy because I think philosophers have an important place in the history of ideas. Whether they are describing already existing ideas or constructing new ones. I enjoy the abstraction that philosophy can be capable of and that good philosophers can be capable of. But even that doesn't cover it... I love reading the historical analyses of Foucault, for example, in his Discipline and Punish or his Histories of Sexuality...but I find it a totally different experience to read a text by Horkheimer or Marcuse...

As to defining what philosophy is... I'm sure there's a good definition in wikipedia... but I doubt if it's comprehensive. Some things come to mind... the analysis or interrogation of ideas, attempts to describe modes of thinking (social and individual), descriptions of the history of ideas... It's difficult... perhaps one of you can do better...

[The Barefoot Bum]

Math, Physics and Philosophy (http://consc.net/misc/mpp-joke.html): Dean, to the physics department. "Why do I always have to give you guys so much money, for laboratories and expensive equipment and stuff. Why couldn't you be like the math department - all they need is money for pencils, paper and waste-paper baskets. Or even better, like the philosophy department. All they need are pencils and paper."

[DMB]

I am driven to ask you, munnki, what do you think the philosophy books in your collection are for? Apart from giving you enjoyment while you read, and the same might be said of Fanny Hill for some other people, do they have a higher purpose?

As you must be aware, I am something of a sceptic when it comes to philosophy. I quite like practical, applied philosophy, the sort of thing produced by, say, Mary Warnock or A.C. Grayling. I think that can be useful onsorting out RL ethical questions. In these cases you still need to make our own decisions, but the philosopher has done a lot of the groundwork for you, and so you don't need to reinvent the wheel.

[The Barefoot Bum]

I quite like practical, applied philosophy, the sort of thing produced by, say, Mary Warnock or A.C. Grayling. I think that can be useful onsorting out RL ethical questions. In these cases you still need to make our own decisions, but the philosopher has done a lot of the groundwork for you, and so you don't need to reinvent the wheel.

To borrow a quip from economics, ethical philosophers have successfully resolved 11,279 of the last four ethical dilemmas.

[DMB]

I quite like practical, applied philosophy, the sort of thing produced by, say, Mary Warnock or A.C. Grayling. I think that can be useful onsorting out RL ethical questions. In these cases you still need to make our own decisions, but the philosopher has done a lot of the groundwork for you, and so you don't need to reinvent the wheel.

To borrow a quip from economics, ethical philosophers have successfully resolved 11,279 of the last four ethical dilemmas.

BB, I am definitely not suggesting that we take on board their solutions. IMO they are no more qualified than I am to reach conclusions. But when I say they have done the groundwork, I mean that they have thought round the subject and mapped out the principal arguments. I think that can be a useful function.

[munnki]

I am driven to ask you, munnki, what do you think the philosophy books in your collection are for? Apart from giving you enjoyment while you read, and the same might be said of Fanny Hill for some other people, do they have a higher purpose?

As you must be aware, I am something of a sceptic when it comes to philosophy. I quite like practical, applied philosophy, the sort of thing produced by, say, Mary Warnock or A.C. Grayling. I think that can be useful onsorting out RL ethical questions. In these cases you still need to make our own decisions, but the philosopher has done a lot of the groundwork for you, and so you don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Crikey... that's an extremely difficult question to answer, the reasons for which are outlined in my above post - i.e. what in Christ's name makes a philosophical text a philosophical text in the first place? And what happens when we read fiction anyway... do we all read it with the same ends in mind and for the same purposes? This will seem like a very wanky answer but could the purpose of the text be determined by the application of the reader (i.e. what the reader 'does' with it) - I don't know - that hardly seems complete. What I'll do is... I'll try to pick three texts which I have 'used' or which have been 'used' in different ways and try to tackle that... My intention will not be to convince yourself in any way... but more to explore the notion that the function of reading philosophy is the equivalent function to reading fiction (and what... interestingly then of historical texts, of scienific texts..and so on...). I need to think more deeply about this... Ironically, your question is posed in some ways by Derrida in his Grammatology... a text which the Anglo-Saxons seem to innately hate... Let me think about this one...

[premjan]

Philosophy can shed light, but sometimes serves rather to obscure - this is when it should be avoided.

[munnki]

I am driven to ask you....what do you think the philosophy books in your collection are for?

As you must be aware, I am something of a skeptic when it comes to philosophy. I quite like practical, applied philosophy, the sort of thing produced by, say, Mary Warnock or A.C. Grayling...

I've given this some thought and the more I've thought about it, the stranger a question it seems. The history of philosophy has always seemed to me to be utterly interlinked with the history of science. The scientific method itelf, to me, could not have been proposed by anybody but a philosopher and the discipline of thought that lies behind important objective discovery is the same as the one held by the great philosopher.

But no... you say. Well... I tried to think of three texts that I thought were important, and important in a different way to Fanny Hill or A Tale of Two Cities or similiar... but it seemed to me that there were many texts that have taken on profoundly more significance than them and which we call philosophical texts. It's almost hard to choose... but if I limited myself to three then I could do no worse than picking The Republic (Plato), The Rights of Man (Paine)and Communist Manifesto (Marx).

To me, the profound effect these texts have had on human beings and human history is obvious. From ideas about what a state should look like, to ideas about what a human being is and how they should relate to each other, through ideas about... well... it's obvious...

Now, as to why I enjoy reading philosophy. It depends on the text. The reasons why I enjoy reading Foucault are very different to the reasons I enjoy reading Machiavelli etc... I can try to outline some of them but there are, I'm sure, many... For me reading philosophy gives me access to the history of ideas, to history itself, to different modes of thinking, to the reasons for categories, the language of human behaviour.... philosophers will talk about the ideas that underlie the investigations taking place in other fields. Now, we may not like them, agree with them, understand them or think them worth understanding... but this is what is sometimes attempted...

So, if we accept this hugely generalized beast called philosophy and are prepared to dump Plato, Horkheimer, Satre, Machiavelli, Marx and Derrida onto the same shelf and talk about them as some kind of unity of category. Then we may not enjoy reading the authors within the category, we might sometimes disagree about who belongs within or without the category, but it would be unlikely that we'd dismiss the importance of those within the category altogether. Wouldn't it? And if we would... I'd quite like to hear why...

[DMB]

The three texts you cite all fall into the category of political philosophy, which seems pretty specialised and a bit more practical than some other sorts. (Incidentally, please give credit to Engels for the Communist Manifesto). This category shades into political agitation.

Similarly (as you might suppose) I have read some mathematical philosophy, but it's hard to draw a line between that and mathematics in some cases.

It would be very easy to decide to call any thoughtful, argumentative book "philosophy". But in that case, how can "philosophy" be a meaningful category?

Perhaps that is part of the trouble in this thread. Pilosophy may throw its net too wide and claim too much.

I am currently reading Richard Dawkins's book The Greatest Show on Earth. Now it so happens that one of my main reasons for reading Dawkins is not so much originality as clarity of expression and exposition. But this particular book is one long argument: an attempt to refute creationism and promote evolution. Does its argumentative nature automatically make it philosophy?

ETA: The only Machiavelli I have read is The Prince. I am somewhat surprised if it is classified as "philosophy". A long time ago it was part of my job to write technical manuals, explaining how to do things and sometimes setting exercises to lead readers gently into practical competence. The Prince has always seemed to me to be a manuel -- a how-to-do-it sort of book. If that's philosophy, why isn't one of my computer manuals?

[The Barefoot Bum]

The scientific method itelf, to me, could not have been proposed by anybody but a philosopher and the discipline of thought that lies behind important objective discovery is the same as the one held by the great philosopher.

First, the best understanding of the scientific method is revealed not by reading philosophers, but rather by reading scientists. We don't get even a half-assed description of the scientific method until Popper, more than 200 years after its invention by scientists. And Popper's description is indeed half-assed (better than no-assed), he draws some patently ridiculous conclusions, and he doesn't understand statistics.

More importantly, even what's good in Popper does not require a specifically philosophical education or training: it merely requires common sense, straightforward logic and ordinary intelligence. I would argue too that the bullshit and labyrinthine and turgid writing in LSD and C&R is a direct result of Popper's philosophical training. In short, LSD and C&R are good despite being philosophy, not because of it.

I tried to think of three texts that I thought were important... The Republic (Plato), The Rights of Man (Paine)and Communist Manifesto (Marx).

To me, the profound effect these texts have had on human beings and human history is obvious. From ideas about what a state should look like, to ideas about what a human being is and how they should relate to each other, through ideas about... well... it's obvious...

You should beware the obvious.

The controversy is not whether there have been important works that people have labeled as "philosophy". (Or if it is, I'm going back to sleep: that's a not even a controversy.) It's already granted (at least by me) that if you define philosophy broadly enough you can include much that's of value. We can, for example, define philosophy as every work of intellectual value; the value of philosophy thus becomes obviously tautological.

I've proposed an alternative definition: if an profound or important idea, novel in some way, could not have been thought, expressed and justified by a scientist or person of ordinary intelligence then it would count as philosophy. In a similar sense, it does not seem plausible that someone who was not a scientist or who did not have a specifically scientific education could have thought, expressed and justified the idea that DNA was a double helix or the idea that species evolve by heritable variation and natural selection; these innovations thus would count as specifically scientific works.

What, if anything, would count as a specifically philosophical work, and not a work that was ex post labeled as "philosophy" because it happened to be important?

I'm an actual communist, and I'm skeptical of including The Communist Manifesto as a specifically philosophical work. It contains no argument or justification at all (you have to look elsewhere in Marx and Engels for their actual justifications), and Marx and Engels are (where they're good) economists and social scientists and (where they're bad) engage in evidence-free speculation, usually wrong.

I would be more inclined to call The Republic a specifically philosophical work. It's impact on history is debatable: so far as I know, there has been no actual society that even vaguely resembles Plato's Republic. (Also, Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion had a profound impact on history, yet I doubt anyone would hold these works up as exemplars of philosophical value.) The intrinsic value of The Republic is limited: its core ideas outdated and Utopian even in Plato's own time, its argumentation specious and poor, its style turgid and prolix.

The Rights of Man is probably your strongest case: It's philosophical at least in the sense that it sets down abstract principles and tries to justify them with argument. Although many of Paine's arguments are invalid, they are at least not inept. But it is not at all clear that Paine is anything but an intellectually honest ordinary person of considerable intelligence (and a good general education, rare for his time), and not himself specifically a philosopher.

But again, I have to reiterate: It's not very interesting to observe there are works of intellectual value to justify "philosophy" or its specific study; in just the same sense one can enjoy a good novel without specifically studying literature or literary criticism. We need something more to justify the intellectual genre as a genre.

[munnki]

Hi.. right... I realise I should never use expressions like 'it's obvious' as they can seem quite patronizing and this was not my intent. I would like to give a better and longer answer but lunch with relatives calls and posting tends to take me quite some time. So forgive me, if my answer is also brief here. I'll not do a Fermat... I will post more when I have the leisure to, later. However, some brief thoughts...

Both the postings above underline the problem of category. While I did, to a certain extent, pick those texts, I was not being disingenuous when I said I could pick many from the category of 'philosophy' and could see a level of importance and influence to them. Furthermore, the problem of category (which I addressed in my first posting) is not a trivial one. Let's take the Frankfurt School philosophers as an example (Adorno, Benjamin, Marcuse, Horkheimer et al) - their work is a mish-mash of social theory, philosophy, psychology, musical history, scientific commentary, travel writing... - and, I declare, I find it difficult to put them easily within any given category. However, they have been put by some level of shared consent into the category of philosophers and, I would argue, are of considerable merit in the histories of 20th century philosophy, social theory, psychology and etc... This is, of course, debatable... My point, I suppose, is that there exists some agreement in these statements existing outside of my own personal preferences.

The comment on Mein Kampf, Protocols and Republic... Well, you're right to say we don't have any state that resembles Plato's Republic. But I would argue that all of those texts could be called philosophical as well as they can others (the word doesn't imply 'good' or 'moral' or..etc... but the texts do outline a set of beliefs - however, nauseous it might be...).... the Republic inspired many debates on what a state should or could be like and therefore can be regarded as influential and important in the history of ideas. It can indeed also be regarded as formative to that extend (so, indeed, can texts like Leviathan etc...) (Regarding Comm Man - I left out Engels as shorthand... I'm sure you can depend that I knew he co-wrote the C.Man)

Regarding Popper (and again, I apologise for the speed of this response and its untidiness), I was thinking of Bacon when I made that comment but also I think the problem of category raises its head. There are greys between the world of philosophy and the world of science - if one sees them or attempts to see them as wholly separate beasts. We could consider the range of things that a 'scientist' is... Newton would be a good example... alchemist, theist, natural philosopher, physicist, mysticist... etc... or consider that the ancients saw no difference between the philosopher and the 'scientist' in many cases. What might have differentiated them was the willingness to or the ability to test their propositions. But you cannot test ideas which are simply modes of thinking about things (the Hegelian dialectic or dialectical materialism - these are modes of thinking about things - not testable propositions)....

Sorry about the fudginess of this... I don't think we are all saying entirely different things... perhaps we need to define philosophy as a category more firmly or pick a range of texts which we mean to call pointless and we can discuss them further or it further...

I'll post more later (lunch with relatives...)

[The Barefoot Bum]

Hi.. right... I realise I should never use expressions like 'it's obvious' as they can seem quite patronizing and this was not my intent.

I didn't read it as patronizing, so it's all good. I just have a general principle that if something seems obvious, that's a red flag in itself: Our unexamined assumptions and hasty conclusions often seem obvious.

Both the postings above underline the problem of category.

Indeed. I think our task here is not to come to the correct conclusion, but to make sure we're asking the right question, and I'm not sure we're even asking the same question.

The question, "What exactly is philosophy?" doesn't seem like the right question either. As you've noted, the category is too broad to admit any definite answer.

Perhaps a better question is: is the sort of thing that people do who call themselves professional philosophers in the early 21st century (or at some other specific time) a particularly valuable activity? Entertainment value aside, do we ordinary people have anything particularly interesting or important to learn from them? Or are they off in their own little world: if they can continue to convince university administrators to fund them, good for them, but what do I personally care?

Perhaps another better question is: should we ordinary people learn to think and write in the same manner as professional philosophers? Again, I mean this in the same sense as: is it valuable to learn (to the degree that we have the time and talent) to think and act scientifically, i.e. like professional scientists?

Perhaps yet another better question is: is the "philosophical canon" (as defined by professional philosophers) worth studying as a genre? (I'll grant that the canon does contain some works of considerable intellectual value.) I mean this in the same sense as whether it's worth studying literature or literary criticism as a genre, as opposed to simply enjoying good novels.

I would answer all of these questions in the negative: What professional philosophers do -- and have ever done -- is itself not particularly valuable, nor is understanding and emulating what they do particularly valuable. All the really good stuff in the philosophical canon has been imported from people who would not self-identify as professional philosophers. Nobody's wrong all the time, and I suppose even a professional philosopher can stumble across a good idea from time to time, but beyond ordinary logic and critical thought (not the exclusive province of philosophy and that seem honored by the philosophy profession more in the breach than the observance) they have little to offer methodologically. Likewise, the study of the philosophical canon as a genre doesn't seem worthwhile, except for purely subjective entertainment value, in the sense that studying and understanding science and what scientists do is not only entertaining, but of substantial material value.

[DMB]

Some interesting questions here, BB.

I have to admit that while in youth I felt some sense of obligation to try to inform myself about just about anything that other people thought merited serious discussion, at my current age I certainly hear Time's winged chariot hurrying near. I therefore don't feel that I have to try to fill the lacunae in my self-education. I must admit to never having even attempted to read works by whole rafts of "philosophers". I may have read about them, but that's hardly the same thing. I am open to being persuaded that it's worth my expending some of my limited time on a particular work or author. But it's got to be a pretty good write-up!

For example, what would struggling through Derrida add to my life, munnki? I did once read a few pages and gave up in frustration. This may well expose my intellectual shortcomings (since you know me IRL a bit, you may have a very accurate view of what they are :)). I must admit that I adored Impostures Intellectuelles, which may damn me irrevocably in your eyes.

[The Barefoot Bum]

In my not in the tiniest bit humble opinion, reading about philosophy -- especially reading about the canon -- is better and more informative than reading the canon itself. It's better to read about philosophical canon for much the same reason as it's better to read about science: a good popularizer can put the very fragmented individual scientific papers in an overall context, and 99% of the work of actual scientists consists of persuading other scientists that they're correct; we ordinary people can take this underlying process more-or-less for granted (although we should understand at a high level how scientists persuade each other). Also, most of the work in the philosophical canon is written in a miserably poor style. (Nietzsche, Machiavelli being notable exceptions; Plato's style isn't too bad, especially early on; most of what's survived are his popularizations of philosophy.)

In the case of both contemporary and canonical philosophy, you can take for granted that either their arguments are fallacious or they're talking about science or mathematics -- if you want to read about science or mathematics, read about science or mathematics, not philosophy. Every now and again, a philosopher will say something intelligent or perspicacious about science or maths, but they're just applying logic, critical thinking and common sense to the work of scientists, which you could do yourself from studying the science, not learning philosophy.

[The Barefoot Bum]

I recommend Derrida for Beginners to learn more about his career and work.

Derrida's main project was to make the most perverted and pathological use of the conventions (such as they are) of analytical philosophy. Being a genius -- and the conventions of analytical philosophy being easily perverted, lacking an evidentiary foundation -- he was quite successful. He also did some social commentary and "straight" analysis, which is intelligent and perspicacious, but he didn't write anything there that was beyond the range of any intelligent, observant person.

[Christina]

This is very interesting and for the most part I completely agree with BB. I say 'for the most part' because I've read very few of the books that have been mentioned and only the political philosophy interested me when I was very involved in those things. I don't feel that I can speak to it from a very informed position but it seems incredibly arrogant to me for anyone to assume that they have developed superior critical thinking skills based on reading what others have written. I agree that most people can come to the same conclusions with a bit of common sense and self-evaluation but at the same time I can't be certain how much of my thinking has been influenced at least second hand by some of those writers. I have the same problem trying to determine how my values were influenced by my Catholic upbringing.

[Preno]

When was the last time an academic philosopher said something profound that couldn't have been said by an ordinary person using his or her common sense? That's a sincere question: I read a lot, and I haven't found anything, but I can't read everything.Well, what does that mean? Obviously, an intelligent person can, given enough time and determination, should be able to follow every or almost every meaningful philosophical argument. Same goes for any other field of knowledge, though. Specialists are ordinary people with training and time and determination. Equally obviously, people who specialize in a particular field of knowledge will discover things that others upon a cursory reflection wouldn't. So I'm not really sure what your problem with philosophy is.
I've proposed an alternative definition: if an profound or important idea, novel in some way, could not have been thought, expressed and justified by a scientist or person of ordinary intelligence then it would count as philosophy.It's perfectly obvious that if you redefine "philosophy", you can make any number of ludicrous claims about it, especially if you qualify them in various ways ("they have little to offer methodologically").

Frankly, it seems to me that people who make grandiose claims about philosophy being bullshit just read bad philosophy (and, in all likelihood, are just full of themselves). I dare anyone who read, say, Quine, Davidson, Sellars or Dummett to claim that they write either bullshit or obvious common-sensical truths.

Post-modernism and similar trends appear to be largely bullshit. On the other hand, while I've read plenty of books and papers that were just plain wrong, I have yet to read a work in the analytical philosophy of language that could accurately be called bullshit.


eta: I'm also at a loss as to why you bother to read what you consider to be bullshit? I mean, I don't think philosophy is bullshit, and I still haven't read Plato (because I've never really been interested enough to see what he has to say), so I don't really understand why someone who does consider philosophy to be bullshit would bother reading it (other than, you know, to be able to say that he has)?

[DMB]

I can tell you why I read Plato. It was because of the huge numbers of cultural references to him. He was obviously considered important by very many educated people and I was curious to know why. I only read the Republic and that was enough for me to decide that he was a proto-fascist whom I found repulsive. If I were a philosophy student I might feel obliged to read more. But as a private reader I can choose what I want to read and there has to be some small element of reward or satisfaction to be had from the reading.

OTW if I am going to read stuff from the ancient Greeks I prefer literature like the Iliad or the plays of the great dramatists. I did try reading some Aristotle but found it pretty boring, so I gave up. I am sure I have written enough in this post to have condemned myself as an irredeemable flippertigibbet, but I don't care about that either. Oh, and to damn myself further, I don't know ancient Greek and so have to read in translation. No hope for me, Preno. :D

[munnki]

Lawdy... why the appeals to authority in any case? If one enjoys and is satisfied reading texts that happen to fall into the category of philosophy then great, if not, one shouldn't be forced to. This has no bearing on intellectual ability or any other innate faculty - it is merely a case of preference. Nor could one make the case that reading texts in what is called philosophy increase any kind of innate ability - critical thinking etc... - at least not in a firmly convincing way. I do however think that being exposed to other ways of thinking about things can have a positive impact on a person - however, one doesn't need to read texts within that category to do so necessarily. It's about celebrating difference.

I don't particularly enjoy reading many kinds of texts which could be labelled as scientific. Many texts in the field known as biology, previously known as natural philosophy, I find dull. However, that some texts within that field are hugely important and influential, I don't doubt. I just don't dig them myself. I have, not unusually, read The Voyage of the Beagle, The Origin of Species and some of the canonical texts within the field - but my knowledge of the area, and indeed of evolutionary theory in general... doesn't extend far beyond the above texts and other 'pop' guides by authors like Gould and Dawkins. It's a question of what one digs... I don't doubt the importance of biology, natural philosophy... call it what you will.

Saying that, I do, as outlined above, enjoy reading many texts which fall into the (somewhat spurious) category of philosophy. In fact, I would say... that almost all of my reading falls into either that category or that of another ambiguous category - history. Why? Well.. at the ultimate level - fuck knows. I jus' likes em - I guess. At some particular levels I can trace out the kinds of authors I enjoy and perhaps come up with some reasons why. Particular texts I have enjoyed from the last hundred years would include:

Selections from Bertrand Russell (his opus is huge but he repeats himself often)
Minima Moralia - Theodor Adorno
One-Dimensional Man - Herbert Marcuse
The Eclipse of Reason - Maxim Horkheimer
Selections from Walter Benjamin (his essays rather than any one keywork)
Discipline and Punish, The History of Sexuality I-III, The Archeology of Knowledge - Michel Foucault
Selections from Slavoj Zizek

There are many more... and I hope preno doesn't pound me if some of these guys happen to fall under that oft repeated curseword 'post-modern'. I enjoy them, I enjoy reading their points-of-view. I also think that those points of view provide alternative ways for people to both think about things and act on those things. Now, is that different from how people read fiction - perhaps not. Is that important - I'm not sure. I don't think these are questions with yes/no answers.

As to Derrida... I found reading him somewhat laborious - and I wouldn't dream of telling somebody else that they should or must read him. I have a certain level of respect for him - but, hey, that's me. I also would recommend that if anybody has read about the authors above and is put off by what they have read about them - then, fuck it, don't read them. But don't pwn them either... or, at least, don't do so on my account.

I don't know what else to say....

[lpetrich]

I think that part of the problem here is a problem of definition.

What qualifies as "philosophy"?

Consider that science used to be called "natural philosophy", and that some of the efforts of philosophers of previous centuries could be called science or at least proto-science.

So is any part of "philosophy" that gets intellectually rigorous and well-defined stop being called "philosophy"?

[DMB]

Yes. I just wanted to emphasise to munnki that "natural philosophy" wasn't just biology; it was all of science. Isaac Newton's great book on celestial mechanics (written in dog Latin) was called Philosphiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (the mathematical principles of natural philosophy).

[munnki]

Yes. I just wanted to emphasise to munnki that "natural philosophy" wasn't just biology; it was all of science. Isaac Newton's great book on celestial mechanics (written in dog Latin) was called Philosphiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (the mathematical principles of natural philosophy).

Well, yes, biology being a subset of the field science would also have been known as 'natural philosophy'.

So is any part of "philosophy" that gets intellectually rigorous and well-defined stop being called "philosophy"?

'well-defined and rigorous' or 'testable'? Works which are analytic without being testable can be well-defined and rigorous, can they not? Or am I misunderstanding.
Do you mean that works stop being philosophical when they become this and start to become scientific? If so, please explain...

[munnki]

No, I'm not entirely correct there - natural history - may have been a better choice. It depends on what period: (see below)


Natural philosophy was the term describing a field of study whose usage preceded our current term natural science (from scientia in Latin, which means "knowledge") when the subject of that knowledge or study was "the workings of nature". Natural philosophy pertains to the work of analysis and synthesis of common experience and argumentation attempting to explain or describe nature, while the term science in the 16th century and prior was also used, and used exclusively, as a synonym for knowledge or study. The term "science", as in "natural science", gained the meaning of science in the modern sense when knowledge acquisition through experiments (special experiences) regulated by the scientific method became its own specialized branch of study over and above natural philosophy. Jacopo Zabarella was the first person appointed as a professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Padua.

In the 14th and 15th centuries, natural philosophy referred to what is now called physical science. From the mid-19th century, when it became increasingly unusual for scientists to contribute to both physics and chemistry, it just meant physics, and is still used in that sense in degree titles at the University of Oxford. Natural philosophy was distinguished from the other pre-cursor of modern science, natural history, in that the former involved reasoning and explanations about nature (and after Galileo, quantitative reasoning), whereas the latter was essentially qualitative and descriptive.

[DMB]

Yes. Oxford is great for holding on to earlier terminolgy, and of course, in London we have the great Natural History Museum, scene of many an unbelievers' meetup.

[The Barefoot Bum]

PZ Myers says, Philosophers, sweet as they may be, are most definitely not the "arbiters" of the cognitive structure of science. They are more like interested spectators, running alongside the locomotive of science, playing catch-up in order to figure out what it is doing, and occasionally shouting words of advice to the engineer, who might sometimes nod in interested agreement but is more likely to shrug and ignore the wacky academics with all the longwinded discourses. Personally, I think the philosophy of science is interesting stuff, and can surprise me with insights, but science is a much more pragmatic operation that doesn't do a lot of self-reflection.

-- Nicholas Wade flails at the philosophy of science (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/nicholas_wade_flails_at_the_ph.php)

[munnki]

PZ Myers says, Philosophers, sweet as they may be, are most definitely not the "arbiters" of the cognitive structure of science. They are more like interested spectators, running alongside the locomotive of science, playing catch-up in order to figure out what it is doing, and occasionally shouting words of advice to the engineer, who might sometimes nod in interested agreement but is more likely to shrug and ignore the wacky academics with all the longwinded discourses. Personally, I think the philosophy of science is interesting stuff, and can surprise me with insights, but science is a much more pragmatic operation that doesn't do a lot of self-reflection.

-- Nicholas Wade flails at the philosophy of science (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/nicholas_wade_flails_at_the_ph.php)

He may well say that. But I'm not sure if I agree with him. He is one of many voices.

[dug_down_deep]

That's hilarious, that not doing "a lot of self-reflection" is seen somehow as a score of science over philosophy. Fucking retarded. Cooks don't do a lot of engine maintenance either. Silly mechanics.

[The Barefoot Bum]

He may well say that.

He actually does say that. That's why I source my quotations.

[The Barefoot Bum]

That's hilarious, that not doing "a lot of self-reflection" is seen somehow as a score of science over philosophy. Fucking retarded. Cooks don't do a lot of engine maintenance either. Silly mechanics.

Why should self-reflection must be seen as obviously valuable, or its deprecation "hilarious"? That we can do science without self-reflection argues that self-reflection is not necessary; it's still an open question whether it's any more valuable for our intellectual development than staring into a mirror is valuable for our artistic development.

And do you mean to imply that scientists are no more socially valuable or useful to our intellectual development than cooks or auto mechanics?

[dug_down_deep]

Why should self-reflection must be seen as obviously valuable, or its deprecation "hilarious"? That we can do science without self-reflection argues that self-reflection is not necessary; it's still an open question whether it's any more valuable for our intellectual development than staring into a mirror is valuable for our artistic development.
Staring in a mirror can be immensely valuable for artistic development. Have you never seen any great self-portraits?

But my point is that even if self-reflection is not valuable to science (and I doubt that taking the observer into account can be divorced from any serious study of consciousness), that does not mean it is not valuable per se, nor that philosophy with or without it is not valuable. Apples, meet oranges.

And do you mean to imply that scientists are no more socially valuable or useful than cooks or auto mechanics to our intellectual development?
No. Not sure how you got that.

Although cooks are arguably the most valuable craftspeople/artisans in any society.

[munnki]

We could say, and this is, again, far from complete - that a type of scientist looks at a given field of data and makes conclusions through experimentation from that field of data. However, and again, this is incomplete, we could say that a type of philosopher is asking why the scientist is looking at this sort of data in the first place and why society is seeking these kind of results over other results. Now, a certain kind of person might well say i) that's not an interesting question ii) he/she just is iii) this is an unknowable question iv) this is trivial ...etc... But I might say, speculatively, that asking why scientists are doing the kind of work they are doing and why society is seeking certain kinds of results in certain fields are questions which lend themselves and have lent themselves to philosophy. Again, this is an incomplete definition of a philosopher, but it does seem to match certain kinds of philosophical texts I have read...

Foucault, for example, was particularly concerned with how certain categories arose in the field of medicine and in how medical research changed over a given period. Those are some of the questions posed in Birth of The Clinic, for example. Marcuse, in One-Dimensional Man, or Baudrillard, in The System of Objects, are concerned with the effects and desires man experiences within industrial and post-industrial modern societies - why we buy the types of products we buy - why we have the sorts of science we have - and so forth. This type of speculative curiosity about human behavior stretches back far into the past of philsophy and can also be connected with the larger philosophical themes of the times whether they be Idealist, Marxian, Empiricist, etc...

Now, we may disagree with individual philosophers, or individual schools of philosophy - this is almost the point of those philosophies and it is their nature, being speculative. However, I think there's a strong case for those questions and concerns being hugely interesting and important. And, if we wish to deny their importance, then I think it can be demonstrated that there have been and will always be a school of people who find asking and examining human behaviour and ideas in a larger context an interesting and worthwhile endeavour. Again, it's not a numbers game. But I might ask, if people find those questions uninteresting, why? And I certainly hope the answer is not because at the end of the pursuit a 'proof' will not emerge nor a set of 'facts' - this is not the point of this game.

I sometimes think, and this is particularly true of the 'post-modern' philosophers, that people tend to focus on the more elaborate, controversial or seemingly strange things philosophers have to say (and I must emphasize the word seemingly) and use those sound-bites or quotes to dismiss them or to criticize them. The point of philosophy, it seems to me, is to examine ideologies and behaviours - to question systems and to examine them (I quite like the post-modern phrase 'interrogate' in this context) so that we are encouraged to reflect on our own ideas and motives - on the reasons why we do certain things in certain ways and on the reasons why we think about certain things in certain ways. It is to not 'just to do' but it is to question why the doing is taking place. Again, this is perhaps a poor and incomplete definition, and maybe ripe for attacking. There are also fields of science that deal with some of these questions - sometimes with great success. But when I think about some of the concerns of contemporary philosophy (and that's some, certainly not all), I say to myself "that's an interesting area for reflection and consideration" - and sometimes, "it hadn't occurred to me to think about X thing in that way". To me, that is a joyful experience and makes the journey of reading philosophers and philosophies an exciting one. And that is not to say I don't find certain philosophers either too difficult, too odd, full of s£$t or simply dull... but again, that's the point... I don't dismiss all of them or the field because I find some of its members to be of that fashion...

[DMB]

Munnki, I am sure that as a teacher you have often suffered from the irritating saying
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach
I suspect there are plenty of scientists who would adapt it to something along the lines of
Those who can do science, do; those who can't, philosophise about it

I am intrigued by the fact that you have previously mentioned that you don't much like reading about science even though you apparently enjoy philosophical discussions (or should they rather be charcaterised as sociological discussions?) about science.

I am going to suggest that you read a scientist on science, one of the great scientists of the 20th century, Peter Medawar. As well as being a great scientist, he was a great humanist (in most senses of the word). I briefly met him before he died and knew his wife/widow somewhat better.

You might enjoy The limits of science and his autobiogaphy, Memoirs of a thinking radish.

[munnki]

The thing is a saying like
Those who can do science, do; those who can't, philosophise about it.

carries the implication that all philosophers wanted to be scientists first. This is, I think, indisputably - a false claim. The fact is that the two have different functions. Now, there may be some philosophers who wanted to be scientists but failed, there may be some who were also scientists and better at it... but there are certainly philosophers who wanted to be philosophers. So I would replace that saying with - the far less loaded:

Some people are scientists, some people are philosophers.

Also, given that I teach English... what does that imply - that I would prefer to be a writer. Now, I'll surrender to this extent... I'd certainly rather be a well-paid writer... but that would require me writing horseshit like The Lost Symbol or Harry Potter.... Truth be told there are times when I'd prefer to be teaching adults and doing more academic work... but that would still be teaching....

If you scrutinize what I said above I don't particularly care for deep reading about biology... the truth is I don't have the academic grounding to understand the things which I do read in that field. I read more in the fields of physics and mathematics as I do have the grounding to understand texts that I read in that field. My degree was in mathematics and language so those are the areas I can competently read more advanced academic works in...

[DMB]

It was only a joke. I have great respect for your intellectual abilities.

[munnki]

It was only a joke. I have great respect for your intellectual abilities.

:p My bad... Although I wasn't entirely serious above either. I'd give my left t£$ticle to have written The Da Vinci Code or the Harry Potter series. They may not be high art but damn Rowling and Brown cashed in... I'm sure it takes a lot of skill to write page-turning fiction (even if the writers will never be talked about as being part of a movement or ....).

[David B]

It was only a joke. I have great respect for your intellectual abilities.

:p My bad... Although I wasn't entirely serious above either. I'd give my left t£$ticle to have written The Da Vinci Code or the Harry Potter series. They may not be high art but damn Rowling and Brown cashed in... I'm sure it takes a lot of skill to write page-turning fiction (even if the writers will never be talked about as being part of a movement or ....).

There is a case to be made for Jeffey Archer actually being a movement all by himself.

A bowel movement.

David

[DMB]

It was only a joke. I have great respect for your intellectual abilities.

:p My bad... Although I wasn't entirely serious above either. I'd give my left t£$ticle to have written The Da Vinci Code or the Harry Potter series. They may not be high art but damn Rowling and Brown cashed in... I'm sure it takes a lot of skill to write page-turning fiction (even if the writers will never be talked about as being part of a movement or ....).

There is a case to be made for Jeffey Archer actually being a movement all by himself.

A bowel movement.

David

:notworthy:

[Jobar]

It seems that the best science avoids self-reflection. Science is organized pragmatism, and when done right focuses entirely on the concrete.

Philosophy, OTOH, is all about self-reflection, self-analysis, self-reference. Ideas about ideas about ideas; abstraction is its forte.

Zen is all about the cultivation of the state of no-mind; don't think, do. It's about letting the non-verbal parts of the brain take over, and deal with the non-verbal world.

It's interesting to consider where and how and when our minds, so facile and subtle in the use of words and abstractions, apply that verbal knowledge to the non-verbal world. I sometimes think that science might be viewed as Zen philosophy; the art of applying abstract, verbal knowledge to the concrete, non-verbal world.

[Quizalufagus]

PZ Myers says, Philosophers, sweet as they may be, are most definitely not the "arbiters" of the cognitive structure of science. They are more like interested spectators, running alongside the locomotive of science, playing catch-up in order to figure out what it is doing, and occasionally shouting words of advice to the engineer, who might sometimes nod in interested agreement but is more likely to shrug and ignore the wacky academics with all the longwinded discourses. Personally, I think the philosophy of science is interesting stuff, and can surprise me with insights, but science is a much more pragmatic operation that doesn't do a lot of self-reflection.

-- Nicholas Wade flails at the philosophy of science (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/nicholas_wade_flails_at_the_ph.php)

Who are the arbiters of the cognitive structure of science if not philosophers of science? If Myers is right about science's being unreflective, then scientists certainly aren't equipped to do the job. So who is best equipped to understand--in full generality--what science is and how it works?

I actually agree with Myers on science's being unreflective. In my experience, most scientists--while they are quite good at what they do--are completely clueless about how science works in broad terms. They simply don't think about it. They don't need to. That's what epistemologists are for.

[DMB]

But the interesting ones are the scientists who do reflect about science. Of course, their reflections aren't likely to be much like those of non-scientists.

[munnki]

You know, it's not without a certain amount of irony that I recall what Socrates said in his defense in the Apologia. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the text but it speaks to the notion that scientists don't generally reflect on the 'bigger picture' of what they are doing (although I'm not sure if that's true). You'll recall that Socrates was on trial for his life on the charge of 'corrupting the young' of Athens and that Plato was, apparently, recording the speech he made in his defense before he was convicted. Socrates says that a companion of his had gone to see the oracle at Delphi and asked her if there was anybody wiser than Socrates. She replied that there was not and this was a source, so he says, of some confusion to Socrates who didn't believe he was in any way wise. So he set out to find somebody wiser than him.


And I said to myself, Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear! - for I must tell you the truth - the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some inferior men were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the "Herculean" labors, as I may call them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle irrefutable. When I left the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them - thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to speak of this, but still I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. That showed me in an instant that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. And the poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving myself to be superior to them for the same reason that I was superior to the politicians.

At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom - therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and the oracle that I was better off as I was.

This investigation has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies, and I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others



Forgive the translation - it's an open version of the text and somewhat old-fashioned - I don't have the time to render the text into English myself. It's also worth bearing in mind just how old this text is - almost 2,500 years old. Socrates goes on to explain that he believes the nature of wisdom is the realization of ignorance - 'I am wise because I realize how little I know.'

Of course, he lost his case, and was sentenced to death. It's not hard to imagine that quite a number of people found him to be a 'bit of a pain in the arse'. Encouraged to flee by his friends, he chose to remain, arguing that it would be a betrayal if he did not submit to the laws of the city he had spent so long in. Shortly afterwards, he drank hemlock in the company of friends and died.

I'm not saying I agree with Socrates. It's just interesting to think about what he said.

[DMB]

Nature, and Nature's laws, lay hid in Night.
God said, Let Newton be! and all was light

Alexander Pope



"I don't know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

Isaac Newton

Newton, although he had some funny ideas by modern standards, is generally held to be one of the greatest scientists of all time. Do you see parallels with Socrates?

[munnki]

Apples and oranges. Very different people with very different historical functions. It's possible to trace a line from Socrates to Newton if one uses some slightly old fashioned ideas of the "Western Tradition" and so forth. I think it would be difficult to compare them just so. What are the criteria for comparison?

[DMB]

Self examination?

Of course, in neither case do we know the motivation. Newton may have wished to appear modest and acknowledging of his ignorance while really thinking otherwise.

We know even less about Socrates, since everything is filtered by Plato who may have had all sorts of motives we know nothing about.

The point I am trying to make is that conventionally Socrates=Great Philosopher and Newton=Great Scientist and yet they both apparently have no problem about admitting ignorance rather than claiming all-embracing wisdom. I wish you would read Medawar too. He is a very engaging and thoughtful Great Scientist.

[Jobar]

"The more one travels, the less one knows."
-Tao Te Ching

Like Socrates and Newton, Lao Tzu seems to think that seeking after wisdom demonstrates the vastness of what one *doesn't* know.

[munnki]

True... I never thought of it that way... And, yes, the history may be somewhat misleading but it is interesting to note that Socrates did not set down any of his own ideas although texts of other sophists (almost all lost to us) were commonly available in the agora and that Newton had to be strongly encouraged to publish the principia. But then wasn't Newton a total shit to Hooke... I don't recall all the details of that - but didn't he destroy/lay claim to much of his work?

[Quizalufagus]

But the interesting ones are the scientists who do reflect about science. Of course, their reflections aren't likely to be much like those of non-scientists.

How so? Why are scientists who reflect on science more interesting (or insightful?) than others who do? I have never read reflections on science more insightful than Quine's, and it's not for a lack of reading scientists.

[DMB]

Quiz, are you pre-emptively writing off any possible value in scientists' views of what they are doing. Do you perhaps think they have no business to have such views?

Even if you don't personally find them interesting, it doesn't follow that everyone else will share your evaluation.

[Quizalufagus]

Quiz, are you pre-emptively writing off any possible value in scientists' views of what they are doing. Do you perhaps think they have no business to have such views?

No. On the contrary, there are many scientists who have done very good work in the philosophy of science (Ernst Mach comes to mind as one I've found very insightful).

Even if you don't personally find them interesting, it doesn't follow that everyone else will share your evaluation.

Well, I don't think it is really a matter of interest. What I am suggesting is that many scientists entertain a philosophy of science that is simply wrong, and that, in any event, scientists don't have an advantage over anyone else in understanding broad ontological and epistemic issues in science. I don't think that's a surprising state of affairs; expecting a scientist to understand the finer points of said issues is like expecting a a fighter pilot to understand the finer points of aeronautical engineering. Being a scientist and being a philosopher of science require rather different skill sets, just like being a fighter pilot and being an aeronautical engineer require different skill sets.

Of course, that's not to say that scientists cannot have a good grasp of the big picture epistemic and ontological issues in science. As I said before, some of them have an excellent grasp of these points. But one shouldn't assume that scientists are particularly knowledgeable about said issues just because they are scientists.

[David B]

I'd rather be treated by a doctor than by someone who studies the philosophy of medicine, personally.

David

[Quizalufagus]

Yes, that's my point.

[DMB]

You have yet to persuade me that philosophers have a grasp of the epistemic and entological issues of science just because they claim to. The analogy with pilots and engineers is a false one. Engineers design planes. Philosophers don't design science. Science (and its methods and protocols) has been developed by scientists, rather than philosophers.

The position of philosophers with regard to science strikes me as being rather like that of theologians with regard to the existence of god. They stand on the sidelines and tell me that I can't disbelieve in the Christian god because I haven't grasped its ineffability. Or perhaps their position is like that of a sports commentator, who suggests knowledgably that Perkins should have done X rather than Y, when all the time he wouldn't last five minutes out there on the field himself.

I suggest that scientists would continue doing effective science and criticising one another if all the philosophers of science gave up tomorrow.

[Quizalufagus]

You have yet to persuade me that philosophers have a grasp of the epistemic and entological issues of science just because they claim to.

Well, I certainly haven't claimed that philosophers grasp the epistemic and ontological issues in science because they claim to. That would be a pretty stupid thesis. What I have claimed is that the philosophy of science sheds considerable light on said issues. I'm not sure how to convince you of such a broad thesis, other than to point to the numerous results and concepts from the philosophy of science that do shed light on the nature of science (e.g., the Quine-Duhem Thesis, the notion of falsifiability).

If you grant that logic and mathematics are sciences, then I can give you numerous examples of ideas and lines of scientific research that originated in entirely philosophical projects (and even if you don't think logic and mathematics are sciences, then these should at least convince you that practical results that are important outside of philosophy). The modern definition of the natural numbers first appeared in a book about philosophy. Modality, the most important concept in contemporary symbolic logic, originated in the philosophical work of Clarence Irving Lewis. Along the same lines, the relational semantics--the most important semantic tool in modern logic--was developed in philosophical research.

For further examples of valuable insights originating in philosophy, I echo Preno in referring to the work of Quine, Donaldson, Sellers, and Dummett.

The analogy with pilots and engineers is a false one. Engineers design planes. Philosophers don't design science.

But I wasn't suggesting that philosophers design science. I was pointing out how closely related fields can differ greatly in terms of what skills they demand, just like science and the philosophy of science do.

Science (and its methods and protocols) has been developed by scientists, rather than philosophers.

I disagree. First of all, science wasn't really developed by anyone, at least not in any purposeful sense. Secondly, philosophers have obviously had a very strong influence on the methods of science (or at least on how we conceptualize the methods of science). The pervasiveness of Popper's ideas is proof of that.

The position of philosophers with regard to science strikes me as being rather like that of theologians with regard to the existence of god. They stand on the sidelines and tell me that I can't disbelieve in the Christian god because I haven't grasped its ineffability.

Who here has said anything of the sort?

[The Barefoot Bum]

I actually agree with Myers on science's being unreflective. In my experience, most scientists--while they are quite good at what they do--are completely clueless about how science works in broad terms. They simply don't think about it. They don't need to. That's what epistemologists are for.

The phrase "most scientists... are completely clueless about how science works in broad terms," is ambiguous. Assuming as you say that scientists are indeed quite good at what they do, and assuming that by definition science is what scientists do, either scientists must have some clue about how science works in broad terms, or it must be the case that how science works in broad terms is irrelevant to how science works.

I'm not at all convinced, however, that philosophers -- even philosophers as friendly to science as Popper or Quine -- understand or even care about how science actually works.

Consider Quine's Word and Object. In this work, Quine carefully examines the hypothetical epistemic project of "radical translation." (which can stand in trivially for the scientific method.) He concludes that any translation, (even the "translation" performed during conversations between native speakers of a single language) is necessarily indeterminate. All well and good: even a relatively "unreflective" scientist could tell you as much.

Quine's analysis of radical translation is precise and detailed: he succinctly and correctly rebuts the logical positivist or naive empiricist position that fundamental ontological truths can be formally derived from observation. And indeed a survey of Quine's work, notably Word and Object, Ontological Relativism and Two Dogmas of Empiricism, shows that Quine is chiefly concerned with analyzing, criticizing and finally rejecting Naive Empiricism. And good for him.

But there are two problems. The first is that once he's rejected Naive Empiricism, he doesn't really go anywhere interesting, at least not with the rigor and detail he devotes to the analysis of Naive Empiricism. Yes, translation (and science) is "pragmatic" and "uncertain", but what really does distinguish a good translation from a poor one? What distinguishes a good scientific theory from a bad one? Quine does not apply the anywhere near the depth and precision to an analysis of what science is that he applies to the analysis of one thing science is not.

The second problem is that Naive Empiricism had already been rejected by scientists almost a century before Quine. Darwin himself explicitly rejects Naive Empiricism, saying (among other things): In scientific investigations, it is permitted to invent any hypothesis and, if it explains various large and independent classes of facts, it rises to the rank of a well-grounded theory.

About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorize; and I well remember someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!

Consider also Karl Popper. Good for him, he gets falsifiability right. But again he is late to the party. Falsifiability is a key component of statistical hypothesis testing, the development of which precedes Popper. Even Arthur Conan Doyle, an author of fiction, grasps the key concept of falsifiability: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Consider too all that Popper gets wrong. He wants, at least in the ideal case, a single experiment to falsify a hypothesis; our reliance on multiple experiments is, in Popper's view, an inessential consequence of our inefficiency. But we must always rely on multiple experiments even in principle, because it is impossible for a single experiment to rest squarely on a single hypothesis. (And the whole idea completely falls apart when we consider quantum mechanics, which (at least presently) holds probabilism as an ineluctable ontological property of the universe.) And he gets scientific probabilism completely wrong: the relevant probability space cannot be (as Carnap proved) the space of possible statements of truth.

Also consider that the concept of "justified true belief" is still a popular epistemic concept among professional academic philosophers, despite the concept being rendered not even wrong by actual scientific work. Consider professional academic philosophers' present near-obsession with apparent paradoxes of transfinite logic, recursion and self-reference, issues that have long been laid to rest by professional mathematicians.

Myers does not say in the quotation that scientists are completely un-self-reflective; he says that scientists don't do a lot of self-reflection. Assuming he's correct, and assuming that scientists really are good at doing science, we can conclude that they don't need to do a lot of self-reflection; the value of self reflection must at least be separately justified.

[The Barefoot Bum]

And let me say again: I am not saying that it's impossible for any philosopher to ever have a good idea. I'm not saying that -- whatever philosophy is or is not -- it's wrong or bad to enjoy reading or writing philosophy (in the same sense that I would say it is bad to enjoy religion and theology). I'm simply saying that, whatever it is that philosophers do, it doesn't seem like very much use to those of us who don't do whatever it is that philosophers do.

[The Barefoot Bum]

If you want to understand metaphysics, you're far better off reading mathematicians.

If you want to understand ontology and epistemology, you're far better off reading scientists.

If you want to understand ethics, you're far better off reading lawyers, judges, legal scholars and even politicians.

If you want to understand psychology, you're a little better off reading scientists, and you're far better off reading fiction.

If you want to understand politics and social organization, you're far better off reading politicians, economists and political activists.

I do not think it is possible to gain competence and understanding in any area of practical utility by reading only philosophers, and I believe it is not only possible to gain competence and understanding in these areas without reading any philosophy at all, but also that one can exclude philosophy without any loss of efficiency or depth of understanding.

The problem with philosophy is that there are no "wastebaskets". Philosophers -- being human beings hooked into a society -- come up with a lot of good ideas more or less on their own, but they also come up with an enormously larger number of bad ideas. The people in practical disciplines who come up with good ideas and separate them from the bad ideas could have, I suspect, come up with the good ideas on their own, without any help from the philosophers.

[munnki]

Bum, and I ask out of genuine curiosity, you say you are a communist and, I assume, given the intelligence of your posts that you have given your own position some serious thought and reflection. What writers, philosophers, etc... inspired that position? In your posts you have mentioned some people (admittedly in other fields) whose work I haven't read. I'm wondering if there are particular authors, theoreticians, ... whom you particularly enjoy or who have inspired you? I often want to describe myself as a communist/Marxian...etc.. but I lack a solid conviction in any particular political philosophy. I find it easier sometimes to note what I am against than what I am for.

[dug_down_deep]

I like sweeping generalizations like the ones being made in this thread to support a basically unstated thesis. It probably looks like philosophy is dumb if you're doing dumb philosophy. This is about as important a discussion as who was a better captain, Kirk or Picard. (The answer is Picard, but I wouldn't imagine that I was doing something pithy by saying so.)

[Yahzi]

Edit: Too late I see the "self-banned" tag. So what follows can have no relevance; it is, ironically, the utter waste of time that the Bum was complaining about. :D


Why should self-reflection must be seen as obviously valuable, or its deprecation "hilarious"? That we can do science without self-reflection argues that self-reflection is not necessary;
I guess I don't know what you mean by "self-reflection."

I would have thought that studying the process by which one does studies would qualify. Or that examining the biases inherent in one's own position, and attempting to design studies to block the effect of those biases, would count.

As for your wholesale condemnation of philosophy, I would like to point out that all physics is bunk because Newton employed his physics first and foremost to turn lead into gold. This is the same argument you've used to ignore the contributions of people like Hume while condemning the stupidity of Derrida.

Just because some or even most texts in philosophy are crap does not mean philosophy is crap. It merely means philosophy has a high cost to produce, which is not in and of itself a fatal objection. You must also show that the product was not worth the cost.

Perhaps your position is that everything anyone has ever said about ethics, beauty, or epistemology is a complete waste of time. Not only would this be false, but it would evidence the same bias as a cook complaining that everything ever said about particle physics is a complete waste of time.

[Yahzi]

If you want to understand ethics, you're far better off reading lawyers, judges, legal scholars and even politicians.
So, in your opinion, the best way to arrive at an independent, objective, truthful ethics is to study the writings of people whose entire professional existence is dedicated to defending the status quo, whatever it happens to be.

I do not think it is possible to gain competence and understanding in any area of practical utility by reading only philosophers,
It's not supposed to be.

If you thought philosophy was a course in a practical discipline, then of course you were disappointed by it.

You seem unaware of the maxim that once a question begats of practical answers, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes a discipline of science.

Where do you think all those sciences came from? Are you so certain there are no new disciplines of science to be found that you can shut down the engine of inquiry that gave birth to the ones we have?

The problem with philosophy is that there are no "wastebaskets". Philosophers -- being human beings hooked into a society -- come up with a lot of good ideas more or less on their own, but they also come up with an enormously larger number of bad ideas. The people in practical disciplines who come up with good ideas and separate them from the bad ideas could have, I suspect, come up with the good ideas on their own, without any help from the philosophers.
There are, in fact, wastebaskets in philosophy. No one teaches Plato's Forms as a valid theory. They teach it as a historical introduction.

Having invalidated your only evidence, I would presume that invalidates the rest of your claims, but that would require us to rely on the work of philosophers of logic.

As for your revisionist claim that people could have invented X without being influenced by what they and everyone else recognized as a valuable influence, I will let Newton speak: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." He wasn't just talking about his fellow physicists, since arguably there weren't any physicists until Newton.

[larkin31]

I like music, but when it comes to philosophy I am the equivalent of tone deaf. From time to time I try to read philosophers and usually give up in sheer exasperation. So would someone please explain what philosophy is for?
Philosophy is thinking about thinking. If that intrigues you, go for it. If not, stay away.

[David B]

Who said this?:D

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

Richard Feynmann

David

[Febble]

I like music, but when it comes to philosophy I am the equivalent of tone deaf. From time to time I try to read philosophers and usually give up in sheer exasperation. So would someone please explain what philosophy is for?
Philosophy is thinking about thinking. If that intrigues you, go for it. If not, stay away.

I like thinking about thinking. But I still don't quite see the point of philosophy.

[larkin31]

I like music, but when it comes to philosophy I am the equivalent of tone deaf. From time to time I try to read philosophers and usually give up in sheer exasperation. So would someone please explain what philosophy is for?
Philosophy is thinking about thinking. If that intrigues you, go for it. If not, stay away.

I like thinking about thinking. But I still don't quite see the point of philosophy.

Is it the older stuff that you have not much use for?

[Febble]

I like music, but when it comes to philosophy I am the equivalent of tone deaf. From time to time I try to read philosophers and usually give up in sheer exasperation. So would someone please explain what philosophy is for?
Philosophy is thinking about thinking. If that intrigues you, go for it. If not, stay away.

I like thinking about thinking. But I still don't quite see the point of philosophy.

Is it the older stuff that you have not much use for?

Well, I like Dennett, but then he's half way to being a cognitive scientist.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

What's the point of philosophy?

Well it's definition is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."

I think it, along with the proper study of ideas, is a worthwhile endeavour.

[Rie]

I thought that philosophy meant a love of sophistry? Hey, there will always be inquiring minds and thank the powers that be for that

[rog]

Owing largely to the influence of Plato and Aristotle, philosophy came to be regarded as distinct from sophistry, the latter being regarded as specious and rhetorical, a practical discipline. Thus, by the time of the Roman Empire, a sophist was simply a teacher of rhetoric and a popular public speaker.

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism

[Quizalufagus]

Who said this?:D

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

Richard Feynmann

David

So you think philosophy of science is tremendously useful to scientists then?

[Ozymandias]

Well, I like Dennett, but then he's half way to being a cognitive scientist.

For me, Dennett is exactly the sort of pseudo-philosopher that I don't like. I find him very semantic and evasive, twisting definitions to suit his ends and evading questions he doesn't want to answer.

[stealthsparx]

For me, I think that philosophy is disciplne concerned with how to cultivate a general perspective on all that reality consists of....in this respect, philosophy can be perceived as the end result or summation of what ones obtains after they study and reflect on the various areas of learning and use that knowledge as a method to cultivate their own worldview about life..philosphy forces is to integrate all of our facts of reality to arrive at a totalistic picture of life...for this reason the study of philosophy can be very liberating.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

For me, I think that philosophy is discipline concerned with how to cultivate a general perspective on all that reality consists of....in this respect, philosophy can be perceived as the end result or summation of what ones obtains after they study and reflect on the various areas of learning and use that knowledge as a method to cultivate their own world-view about life... philosophy forces us to integrate all of our facts of reality to arrive at a totalistic picture of life...for this reason the study of philosophy can be very liberating.

[my highlight] I would disagree here on the "totalistic" (is that a word?) perspective, as not everything can be known, but that shouldn't stop us asking the questions to try. It's often said of philosophy that it teaches us not what to think, but how to think. I would also argue that it doesn't "force" us, but instructs us.

As I posted earlier, the definition of philosophy is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."

And here's another quote which points towards how thinking enriches us, teaches us how to be discerning, and prevents us from thinking in a glib, superficial and monochrome (i.e. George W Bush) manner:

"The difference between ignorant and educated people is that the latter know more facts. But that has nothing to do with whether they are stupid or intelligent. The difference between stupid and intelligent people - and this is true whether or not they are well-educated - is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations - in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward."

-- Neal Stephenson, from Diamond Age

[Full Tilt Boogie]

And as for the Human Condition, I often find this quote inspirational:


homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto - I am a human being: I regard nothing of human concern as foreign to my interests


--Publius Terentius Afer [Terence] - 195/185–159 BC, a comedic playwright & author of the Roman Republic.

[stealthsparx]

Appreciate the slight correction Full Tilt.:) Totalistic is a word, but its the wrong word for what i was trying to write. But if one were to take a brief glance at what i wrote, they can conclude that what was meant by that word was another way of saying complete...I was trying to have some fun with my vocabulary..

But on another note, its quite simple, (to put it generous) to find a definition of a word that has already been established by linguist whose job it is to come up with the meaning of words..But its much more harder to apply independent, creative, and original thinking to come up with ones own definition which in fact might enlarge our current conception of what the word means..How else are we to evolve as humans, if not by using our own independent agency to contribute to our preexisting concepts of learning and not always rely on authority figures to think for us..In fact, my own definition of philosophy does not say anything different about your definition of philosophy, (or rather i say the standard definition of philosophy cause surely it isn't yours), but enhances it..

You mention philosophy as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.." And I added to it by stating that philosophy is concerned with how to cultivate a general perspective of all that reality consist of..knowledge and existence are both found in reality..Everything in reality can be further analyzed and placed into a specified domain of study, which is what we have today in our schools...I can not mention what i believe about life and everything in it without including facts that have already been discovered and gathered from different fields of study...Examples of science are always used to support a philosophical position..

And those quotes were good..a shame they didn't come from your own mind..lol

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Appreciate the slight correction Full Tilt.:) Totalistic is a word, but its the wrong word for what i was trying to write. But if one were to take a brief glance at what i wrote, they can conclude that what was meant by that word was another way of saying complete...I was trying to have some fun with my vocabulary..

But on another note, its quite simple, (to put it generous) to find a definition of a word that has already been established by linguist whose job it is to come up with the meaning of words..But its much more harder to apply independent, creative, and original thinking to come up with ones own definition which in fact might enlarge our current conception of what the word means..How else are we to evolve as humans, if not by using our own independent agency to contribute to our preexisting concepts of learning and not always rely on authority figures to think for us..In fact, my own definition of philosophy does not say anything different about your definition of philosophy, (or rather i say the standard definition of philosophy cause surely it isn't yours), but enhances it..

You mention philosophy as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.." And I added to it by stating that philosophy is concerned with how to cultivate a general perspective of all that reality consist of..knowledge and existence are both found in reality..Everything in reality can be further analyzed and placed into a specified domain of study, which is what we have today in our schools...I can not mention what i believe about life and everything in it without including facts that have already been discovered and gathered from different fields of study...Examples of science are always used to support a philosophical position..

And those quotes were good..a shame they didn't come from your own mind..lol

I think if you've accepted philosophy as the sole preserve of "reality", or have begun pigeon-holing it into "domains", or that "examples of science are always used to support a philosophical position", then, with respect, you've missed the point of philosophy. I would also question the teaching methods of your alma mater.

[stealthsparx]

If I "missed the point of philosophy" all depends on if one has an intellectually conservative or liberal outlook on life..As I liberal, I have an impulse to question anything in its current order to verify its moral legitimacy by the standards i create by my own existence, so that I may have a role in authenticating my own existence without the oppressive insinuations of tradition guiding me along this effort..

Its perfectly plausible to come up with a philosophy of philosophy, which is what "I" did here..My liberal ideas dont seem to square with your conservative outlook and thats ok. I think in part its also my fault for not doing a better job in clarifying myself, which seems to be giving you a hard time in forming accurate assessment of my position. No need in revisiting the matter now.

The rightful role of any institution of higher learning is to make certain that individuals before they leave that institution have the critical thinking capacities to think for themselves so that when they immerse themselves in the real world, they can have a better chance of not only understanding it, but reforming it all for the better..The liberal progressive tendencies of the enlightenment period from which we get our most noblest thinking minds was established by this very fact and is the bedrock by which everyone receives their education..

[Full Tilt Boogie]

If I "missed the point of philosophy" all depends on if one has an intellectually conservative or liberal outlook on life...

One's appreciation of philosophy should not be determined by one's politics: as if you allow it be so, it is polluted by it. If one allows one's appreciation and understanding of philosophy to be tainted by one's personal politics, to the point where you lose impartiality, and only appreciate that philosophy which agrees with your politics, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes dogma - e.g. Ayn Rand

As I liberal, I have an impulse to question anything in its current order to verify its moral legitimacy by the standards I create by my own existence, so that I may have a role in authenticating my own existence without the oppressive insinuations of tradition guiding me along this effort..

Morals are individual and, depending on the circumstances in which the individual finds themselves, can be elastic. And if you can point us to any school of philosophy which either instructs or demands that we "authenticate our own existence", I'd be very interested to see it.

And as for traditions: philosophy itself is both based in, and is the discussion of various traditions of thinking - so neither you, nor anyone else, need feel "oppressed" by it - you don't even need to accept or reject a philosophical proposition, merely understand it, and its precepts and application. How can the proper study of ideas and thinking be oppressive? [notwithstanding the fact that any proper study of philosophy requires that you understand "traditional morality", absolutism and relativism]

Its perfectly plausible to come up with a philosophy of philosophy, which is what "I" did here..My liberal ideas dont seem to square with your conservative outlook and thats ok. I think in part its also my fault for not doing a better job in clarifying myself, which seems to be giving you a hard time in forming accurate assessment of my position. No need in revisiting the matter now.

Sorry, but you can't have learnt or understood much about philosophy if you've made such a schoolboy error: you're assumption that just because I've either disagreed with, or corrected you, that I am, ipso facto, a "conservative". It's called false dichotomy - you'll should have leant it in your first year at university, when you did reason, logic and rationale 101. Disagreement in philosophy is not just permitted, it's positive encouraged; however without the non sequiturs, black and white absolutes and casual pigeon-holing you seem to want to impose in it.

The rightful role of any institution of higher learning is to make certain that individuals before they leave that institution have the critical thinking capacities to think for themselves so that when they immerse themselves in the real world, they can have a better chance of not only understanding it, but reforming it all for the better....

Sorry? :confused: From which textbook or school of 'thought' have you pilfered this line? And I think we can agree that anyone leaving school will be immersed in the world, like it or not, whether or not they leave with any honed ability in critical thinking. And which school of philosophy teaches that one should seek to "reform it [the world] for the better"?

The liberal progressive tendencies of the enlightenment period from which we get our most noblest thinking minds was established by this very fact and is the bedrock by which everyone receives their education..

I see you've been reading the CliffsNotes, add-two-sugars-and-stir, rinse, repeat version.

"Liberal Progressive" is a term used almost exclusively in the US; and a pseudo-political term, at that; and one coined only in the last 50 years or so in that country - it does not lend itself to philosophy, nor The Enlightenment.

[stealthsparx]

Wow...look at you Full Tilt..:) I apologize if im taking you away from your busy schedule over there..:)Theres a part of me that doesn't even believe that you yourself believe in what you wrote up there..You seem to be placing everything i wrote in an improper context to suit your own purposes while developing these red herring arguments..Now I have warrant to believe that its not my need of clarification thats the problem, but a slight little grip of your ego that has you seeking to preserve any semblance of repute that you might have established in this forum...But dont think i do not appreciate what u wrote even though it did very little to sway me from my previous objections. But I have to get going to work now, but will respond alittle later on..ok Full Tilt..have a lovely day..hope the weather is lovely in the UK..

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Wow...look at you Full Tilt..:) I apologize if im taking you away from your busy schedule over there..:)Theres a part of me that doesn't even believe that you yourself believe in what you wrote up there..You seem to be placing everything i wrote in an improper context to suit your own purposes while developing these red herring arguments..Now I have warrant to believe that its not my need of clarification thats the problem, but a slight little grip of your ego that has you seeking to preserve any semblance of repute that you might have established in this forum...But dont think i do not appreciate what u wrote even though it did very little to sway me from my previous objections. But I have to get going to work now, but will respond alittle later on..ok Full Tilt..have a lovely day..hope the weather is lovely in the UK..

Weather here's glorious, thanks - we're just about to have a barbecue and house party here.

NB: If, during what passes for your education in philosophy, you're not prepared to meet or countenance the counterpoints of others - or perhaps concede that they not only have merit, but change your own preconceptions (of which, on the above evidence, you appear to have many), then you're in the wrong subject and I suggest you take up Macramé instead.

Either way, good luck.

[stealthsparx]

Hopefully if you get to know me full tilt, you will become aware that I am a very sincere person and would never deny myself from the rewards of being corrected or accepting the merits of another persons point of view...allow me to explain why in this case I think there isnt any reason to do either.

You say I have many preconceptions, but the truth is,it is never wise to assume that one has preconceived notions about a topic without fully comprehending the backgroud of a persons thinking nor the context in which what is being presented falls under...as thinkers with two distinct backgrounds we have to allow a certain degree in interpretative flexibility if we are ever to understand each other..on to my first objection..

when I mentioned that I was a liberal thinker why would u ever think that I was involving my political views into my pbilosophy...the content in which I refered to being a liberal was in a interpretively flexibile sense or as one able to expand the range of ones thinking in my many directions..such is the goal when one studies "liberal arts" in school...or even is considered to have a liberal personality because he or she has an open mind to things...your intellectual conservatism has nothing to do with politics but a strident manner of thinking that basically uses socities teaching as your foundation of thought without first inquiring if the intellectual materials on which you base your foundation are themselves made out of enduring substance..

Thats basically what I mean by authenticating ones existence...having the know to distinguish for oneself what beliefs, customs, ideas, and so forth of society are really valid upon inspection which will allow for the flowering of individual potential..now morality can not be in no way be relativistic because certain acts are completely repulsive in every society(i.e. Killing of children, rape, killing of innocents people)...so your second objection does not stand..

Great thinkers from the Frankfort school of thought such as Theodor adorno, from marxist school of thoight Antonio Gramsci, From princetion sheldon wolin, dr. cornel west, john dewey, Ralph waldo emerson, and many others have all made enormous contibutions in there own way to the value of the liberation of the individual

I think I said enough for now even though this is all from my phone so this is a rough draft....more to say but im at work...glad to here your enjoying yourself with your family..

[David B]

Needles have points.

Never seen one or felt one on philosophy.

David

[stealthsparx]

But if I accept what I say to be true David, that in itself is a point..isnt it not?

[Full Tilt Boogie]

But if I accept what I say to be true David, that in itself is a point..isnt it not?

First year Phil student. 101 material.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Hopefully if you get to know me full tilt, you will become aware that I am a very sincere person and would never deny myself from the rewards of being corrected or accepting the merits of another persons point of view...allow me to explain why in this case I think there isnt any reason to do either.

So, in philosophical terms, what's known as 'filler' or 'padding', leading up to the point where you admit that you're not prepared to change your mind in the face of valid counterpoint. OK. That informs everything you say from this point onwards.

NB: reading ahead, you using SMS/text-speak to illustrate your point will do you no favours; either here, or when you eventually come to write your thesis [assuming you do]. The party iPod here's just kicked on to ABBA Live, so I intend to be gentle with you from here on in.

You say I have many preconceptions, but the truth is, it is never wise to assume that one has preconceived notions about a topic without fully comprehending the backgroud of a persons thinking nor the context in which what is being presented falls under...

And that was very nearly a sentence. At this stage in your life, you have no surety of idea what THE truth is. If you have, please share it.

To you, on current evidence, it's still an ideal, or something which your teachers inform you is an absolute. All I can say is, read more, lots - it will illustrate the voodoo from the actual. And, in philosophical terms, it'll teach you the worthwhile writers/theorists from the "I just wanna say..." merchants. In other words, mere opinion is not philosophy.

... as thinkers with two distinct backgrounds we have to allow a certain degree in interpretative flexibility if we are ever to understand each other..on to my first objection..

Err... before we get on to "interpretative flexibility" (something I'm happy to discuss, but feel it's yet another CliffsNotes tag you've picked-up), would you mind explaining how we might be "thinkers with two distinct backgrounds"? What do you know about me, and how could you possibly know about my 'background' - over above mere guesswork and conjecture?

You see where I'm going with this? You seem to be happy to make a raft of assumptions about things which you patently know nothing about and then making a full set of prognostications about them. That is not what philosophy's about.

... when I mentioned that I was a liberal thinker, why would u ever think that I was involving my political views into my pbilosophy...

Possibly because you yourself said this:

If I "missed the point of philosophy" all depends on if one has an intellectually conservative or liberal outlook on life...

So I suggest we try and have a good memory - because I'm invariably plagued with one which borders on the photographic - not that reading your own words back to you here requires it.

... the content in which I refereed to being a liberal was in a interpretively flexible sense or as one able to expand the range of ones thinking in my many directions...

Or, in other words, "as I see fit and determine the meaning to be". OK. Not very philosophical. But let's continue.

... such is the goal when one studies "liberal arts" in school...or even is considered to have a liberal personality because he or she has an open mind to things...your intellectual conservatism has nothing to do with politics but a strident manner of thinking that basically uses socities teaching as your foundation of thought without first inquiring if the intellectual materials on which you base your foundation are themselves made out of enduring substance..

Alas: lots of polysyllabics in that, and not a lot of substance.

You nailed it right there - "liberal arts" is not philosophy - indeed, nothing and nowhere even approaching it. Let me guess, it was just one of your "minors", right? And, contrary to your self-acclaimed "liberal" sensitivities, it is not a prerequisite to have a 'liberal' disposition to have an "open mind". If you're still having those contractual mental battles, then you're failing your philosophy course, wholesale.

Thats basically what I mean by authenticating ones existence...having the know to distinguish for oneself what beliefs, customs, ideas, and so forth of society are really valid upon inspection which will allow for the flowering of individual potential..

And you feel genuinely qualified to adjudicate on this? Stunning.

... now morality can not be in no way be relativistic because certain acts are completely repulsive in every society(i.e. Killing of children, rape, killing of innocents people)...so your second objection does not stand..

With respect, spelling, punctuation and meaning are always going to be allies when you write something allegedly profound - alas, the above met none of the that criteria. Clue: have a point and make it count.

Great thinkers from the Frankfort school of thought such as Theodor adorno, from marxist school of thoight Antonio Gramsci, From princetion sheldon wolin, dr. cornel west, john dewey, Ralph waldo emerson, and many others have all made enormous contibutions in there own way to the value of the liberation of the individual

OK, so when I asked: "And if you can point us to any school of philosophy which either instructs or demands that we "authenticate our own existence", I'd be very interested to see it." - you cannot - you've clearly come up short. Hint: there's a reason I ask these questions. Advice: don't go into bat without knowing the the game you're playing.

I think I said enough for now even though this is all from my phone so this is a rough draft....more to say but im at work...glad to here your enjoying yourself with your family..

My gig's still going on - I've just finished a plate of assorted niceties - the question is, can you bother to take philosophy seriously enough to answer questions other than from your 'phone'?

[stealthsparx]

lol..And here I am thinking your a serious philosopher, when in truth, your admirable penchant for humor far exceeds your capacity for legitimate philosophical criticism.:)..I find it quite interesting how your mind gravitates towards the superfluous trivialities and insignificant details of my writings as if to make a calculated effort to evade the substance of the issue..The irony is that your criticisms only betray your own contradiction..You say I make assumptions about who you are, but in truth some of your comments are nothing but assumptions on me..Such as making the bogus assertion that I steal my concepts from Cliffnotes..And you know this for sure?

You say I dont know you, after having studied forensic psychology, through your writing I've come to know you quite well..Your inclination to favor technical formalisms as a method of criticism confirms my previous assessment of your traditionally conservative pattern of thought...And this might be due to your own inability to having spend a lifetime of studying philosophy while not yet satisfactorily arriving at a philosophy which you can call your own..Can you even answer the question, Who you are? Can you even strip your thought from that heavy load of social conditioning and form an idea completely original? Can you allow your dependent conscious to not hide behind the veil of social legitimacy? Why do you rely on social authority to appropriate your own existence when you are an embodiment of the highest good?

You mention that I should "know my game before i go up to bat" but at least I am in the game and not watching on the sidelines observing and speculating on how others play the game..Its ironic that you have a penchant for philosophy yet your ability to infer what a person means in his writing appears a bit myopic. Wait, since your manner of criticism is already predicable let me guess what are you gonna do, cut and paste more of my quotes, give them your half fast interpretation, with unsupported assertions, all without postulating your own thought out perspective or philosophy so that others can not criticize it. This tactic of cutting and pasting my quotes can be perceived as another one of your evasive tactics so that i might not do the same to you..:)

I mentioned "liberal arts" only to prove that the word liberal can be applied in different ways, other than the exclusive domain of politics, which your quote from Rand inaccurately misrepresented and reveals a immaturely fatal mistake in your knowledge if you aspire to be a intellectual...I'm not surprised cause such is the typical expectation I now receive from your spurious writings...You had previously mentioned that I pigeon-hole my philosophy, but on the contrary I allow my philosophy to grow wings and soar freely to unimaginable heights, feasting on the habitation of nature..While you have yet to reveal what you believe, but only offer gross misrepresentations and unsupported assertions..

[stealthsparx]

By the way, Im not the kind of guy that takes myself too seriously..I hope your the same cause I say my remarks in good fun..:D

[Full Tilt Boogie]

lol..And here I am thinking your a serious philosopher, when in truth, your admirable penchant for humor far exceeds your capacity for legitimate philosophical criticism.:)..I find it quite interesting how your mind gravitates towards the superfluous trivialities and insignificant details of my writings as if to make a calculated effort to evade the substance of the issue..The irony is that your criticisms only betray your own contradiction..You say I make assumptions about who you are, but in truth some of your comments are nothing but assumptions on me..Such as making the bogus assertion that I steal my concepts from Cliffnotes..And you know this for sure?

You say I dont know you, after having studied forensic psychology, through your writing I've come to know you quite well..Your inclination to favor technical formalisms as a method of criticism confirms my previous assessment of your traditionally conservative pattern of thought...And this might be due to your own inability to having spend a lifetime of studying philosophy while not yet satisfactorily arriving at a philosophy which you can call your own..Can you even answer the question, Who you are? Can you even strip your thought from that heavy load of social conditioning and form an idea completely original? Can you allow your dependent conscious to not hide behind the veil of social legitimacy? Why do you rely on social authority to appropriate your own existence when you are an embodiment of the highest good?

You mention that I should "know my game before i go up to bat" but at least I am in the game and not watching on the sidelines observing and speculating on how others play the game..Its ironic that you have a penchant for philosophy yet your ability to infer what a person means in his writing appears a bit myopic. Wait, since your manner of criticism is already predicable let me guess what are you gonna do, cut and paste more of my quotes, give them your half fast interpretation, with unsupported assertions, all without postulating your own thought out perspective or philosophy so that others can not criticize it. This tactic of cutting and pasting my quotes can be perceived as another one of your evasive tactics so that i might not do the same to you..:)

I mentioned "liberal arts" only to prove that the word liberal can be applied in different ways, other than the exclusive domain of politics, which your quote from Rand inaccurately misrepresented and reveals a immaturely fatal mistake in your knowledge if you aspire to be a intellectual...I'm not surprised cause such is the typical expectation I now receive from your spurious writings...You had previously mentioned that I pigeon-hole my philosophy, but on the contrary I allow my philosophy to grow wings and soar freely to unimaginable heights, feasting on the habitation of nature..While you have yet to reveal what you believe, but only offer gross misrepresentations and unsupported assertions..

By the way, Im not the kind of guy that takes myself too seriously..I hope your the same cause I say my remarks in good fun..:D

And yet, as the above evidence illustrates, you don't take criticism well and refuses to answer questions.

You're a dime-a-dozen mate.

[stealthsparx]

Lol..what r u talking about...u call that being serious...lol...guess I overwhelm u..sorry for writing so much..lol

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Lol..what r u talking about...u call that being serious...lol...guess I overwhelm u..sorry for writing so much..lol

Just as a courtesy, and for credibility reasons, there's an expectation in philosophical discussions that you don't use the SMS-text speak of a 12 year old school girl.

LOL, OMG, LAMO, etc.

If you've a serious counterpoint, then let's hear it.

[stealthsparx]

Cant help it...i have a light heart and its not weighed down by superfluous regimented social correctness....you should know why by now...i happened to think your funny...so I use that speech so u can know im laughin as I read your remarks..which greatl amuse me in a good way of course..

[stealthsparx]

What question did I forget to answer

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Cant help it...i have a light heart and its not weighed down by superfluous regimented social correctness....you should know why by now...i happened to think your funny...so I use that speech so u can know im laughin as I read your remarks..which greatl amuse me in a good way of course..

I'm sure all philosophers had a similar point of view - however it never prevented them from delivering whatever they had to say in a manner that was legible, grammatically correct and readable to all. The above post looks like it's been written by someone who's been drinking.

Goes to credibility.

[stealthsparx]

Got your point..now let ask you..Do you think that writers from all backgrounds do not have their books or essays proof read beforw being published...some of the best authors have done disasterly poor in grammer and spelling.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Got your point..now let ask you..Do you think that writers from all backgrounds do not have their books or essays proof read beforw being published...some of the best authors have done disasterly poor in grammer and spelling.

In the days of the great philosophers, there were no proof-readers. It's a latter day publishing convenience. Which still doesn't excuse your performance.

You need to check the number of typo's in the above post alone mate, it's embarrassing.

[stealthsparx]

Are you a philosopher? If not, how far along did u get in school and what major?

[stealthsparx]

Most of it is not my fault though...its this touchscreen keyboard

[David B]

Don't worry about FTB, stealth.

He gets hanged up on stuff like spelling and grammar:evil:

David

[stealthsparx]

you got it David..Thanks

[Rome]

"Philosophy" literally means "the love of wisdom," so I should think wisdom has something to do with its purpose. :cool:

As a field, it really has no point other than to organize and assign a vocabulary to concepts and musings dating back to ancient times.

[stealthsparx]

If what u say is true, your definition of philosophy itself stands meaningless, because it itself is a point that doesnt entail a process of assigning and organizing a vocabulary to concepts..

Concepts in the abstract may not have pratical application, but other concepts specifically are created for the instruction and formulation of a vision, which are created to inspire a movement..such is the case with marxism, democracy, federalism, pragmatism, ect...a school of thought has an intended purpose to not only to teach, but to influence people to conform to a vision..

[Full Tilt Boogie]

If what u say is true, your definition of philosophy itself stands meaningless, because it itself is a point that doesnt entail a process of assigning and organizing a vocabulary to concepts..

And as a exercise in pointless circumlocution, that ranks highly.

Concepts in the abstract may not have pratical application, but other concepts specifically are created for the instruction and formulation of a vision, which are created to inspire a movement..such is the case with marxism, democracy, federalism, pragmatism, ect...a school of thought has an intended purpose to not only to teach, but to influence people to conform to a vision..

Stunning.

[tal1962]

IMO the purpose is to establish clear thoughts, reason, logical and clear concepts minus confusions. Most problems arise from unclear concepts, confusions, fetishisms like religion, as well as spurious egos.