Anti philosophy

[becomingagodo]

Philosophy is stupid, I mean really stupid. First off semantics are pointless, I mean really pointless. Philosophy has no system of proof, so you can't say anything in it. Contrast that with science and mathematics, where you can say something.

That the point it shallow, structureless. A pointless semantic battle. Even, then trivial. When do you read great philosophical works on Quantum Mechanics? never. Why? because science has surpassed philosophy. Even, then mathematics is the worse place for philosophers.

Godel, Godel proves that things are unknowable. Godel proves that mathematics has limits. Godel proves logic is a failure. Lots of people say Godel, which refers to his incompleteness theorems.

The sad thing is that Godel theorem doesn't really say that. Even then it debatable if it says anything beyond the branch of mathematics called logic. A good example is the continum hypothesis. It is thought to be good case of Godel, however http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis#Arguments_for_and_against_CH
it would be a big jump to say it is unprovable.

Some people thought that Fermat last theorem was unprovable, however it was proven.

The point I trying to make is semantics, mean little to truth. Philosophy is pointless as to get the truth the only way is science or mathematics. However, I guess philosophy is the easy way out.

[tsg]

Philosophy is stupid, I mean really stupid. First off semantics are pointless, I mean really pointless.

Define "semantics" :duck:

[Charlie Monoxide]

Define "semantics" :duck:Dang, beat me to it ....

Charlie (ignore my last post) Monoxide

[Robin]

Philosophy is stupid, I mean really stupid. First off semantics are pointless, I mean really pointless. Philosophy has no system of proof, so you can't say anything in it. Contrast that with science and mathematics, where you can say something.

That the point it shallow, structureless. A pointless semantic battle. Even, then trivial. When do you read great philosophical works on Quantum Mechanics? never. Why? because science has surpassed philosophy. Even, then mathematics is the worse place for philosophers.

Godel, Godel proves that things are unknowable. Godel proves that mathematics has limits. Godel proves logic is a failure. Lots of people say Godel, which refers to his incompleteness theorems.

The sad thing is that Godel theorem doesn't really say that. Even then it debatable if it says anything beyond the branch of mathematics called logic. A good example is the continum hypothesis. It is thought to be good case of Godel, however http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis#Arguments_for_and_against_CH
it would be a big jump to say it is unprovable.

Some people thought that Fermat last theorem was unprovable, however it was proven.

The point I trying to make is semantics, mean little to truth. Philosophy is pointless as to get the truth the only way is science or mathematics. However, I guess philosophy is the easy way out.
It is a big generalisation for you to say that all philosophy is stupid. For example the most powerful person in the world, the President of the United States has his power limited by a document that echoes the conclusions of a bunch of 18th century enlightenment philosophers. Inventing the modern secular democracy - I'd say that was pretty useful.

I would suggest that the philosophy developed around then is just about the most important set of ideas in the history of humanity - more important even than Calculus, Relativity, Natural Selection and Quantum Mechanics.

The philosophy of science was important in the development of science - did Einstein simply waste his time with the Vienna Circle and in his correspondence with Schlick? Was Planck wasting his time critiquing Mach and the Logical Positivist movement?

Does Hawking waste his time lecturing on how the philosophical approach to science affects the practice and even the outcome?

It could be said that the debate on consciousness that raged between Searle, Penrose, Dennett and others kick started modern neuroscientific research into consciousness.

There is much stupidity in Philosophy and there always has been. Derrida, for example, is gibberish pure and simple. But that does not mean that philosophy itself is stupid.

Also note Popper's falsification principle

[becomingagodo]

Define "semantics"
An argument that cannot be proven or disproven.

A good example is a statement that is not mathematical or scientific.

. Inventing the modern secular democracy - I'd say that was pretty useful.
Not really, it proberly developed because of science. You know when you reach a technological standpoint then you can't have a autocracy to rule a country. A good example is the Tsar. They ruled for 300 years, but when modernization and industrilazation happen he was gotten rid off. The same happen in Britian.

I would suggest that the philosophy developed around then is just about the most important set of ideas in the history of humanity - more important even than Calculus, Relativity, Natural Selection and Quantum Mechanics.
Not really, as science creates change. When quantum computers are made then we will see real change.

Einstein simply waste his time with the Vienna Circle and in his correspondence with Schlick?
Einstein, everyone uses him. It debatable where Einstein got his big idea from.

Does Hawking waste his time lecturing on how the philosophical approach to science affects the practice and even the outcome?

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/
Yes when you produce this crap.
http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/Godel-IAS.pdf
Note: This person actual works in the field called mathematical logic.

It could be said that the debate on consciousness that raged between Searle, Penrose, Dennett and others kick started modern neuroscientific research into consciousness.
This is just stupid.

I can just imagine neuroscientist saying I think we should research into consciousness, since it might be improtant.

Saying that I didn't know neuroscientist where idiots. You would think their main goal is to understand human behaviour.

There is much stupidity in Philosophy and there always has been. Derrida, for example, is gibberish pure and simple. But that does not mean that philosophy itself is stupid.
Yeah, it just makes it pointless semantics. Where you can't seperate the trash from the good.

How can you with no way to disprove or prove something.

[SoBitter]

Science and math can "say something" based on what philosophy has proven can be said or not said.

Philosophy, in general, has different systems of proof. Many philosophers have the same ideas of proof for physical matters that scientists have. As for proving non-physical things, who is to say what can be proven or not?

Maybe it bothers you because it deals with non-certainties?

I've never read a great philosophical work on lawn maintenance either, but that doesn't mean that gardening has surpassed philosophy. There are limits to the usefulness of fields overlapping.

[becomingagodo]

Science and math can "say something" based on what philosophy has proven can be said or not said.
Science and maths does not depend on philosophy. Maths depends on logic and science depends on the scientific method.

Many philosophers have the same ideas of proof for physical matters that scientists have. As for proving non-physical things, who is to say what can be proven or not?
That the point, in philosophy you cannot get truth.

Many philosophers have the same ideas of proof for physical matters that scientists have.
Yeah, it called the scientific method, science and philosophy have split since then. However, do you do physical expriments in philosophy? like measure gravity.

Maybe it bothers you because it deals with non-certainties?
If something cannot be proven or disproven then it pointless debating it. As you will never get the truth, maybe you feel fine with blind faith. I don't do blind faith.

I've never read a great philosophical work on lawn maintenance either, but that doesn't mean that gardening has surpassed philosophy.
Thats not the point. The point is that it is not provable or disprovable. So every debate however great it is has no improtant. Unless, you believe that you have a effect on truth. Which, is wrong. However, you believe something it does not change fact and arguments are pointless. Even then the greatest philosophy can't be proven so it just emotion.

[andyandy]

An argument that cannot be proven or disproven.

that's not a good definition of the word "semantic" - semantic is not interchangable with non-falsifiable.

sorry to be semantic ;)

[becomingagodo]

non-falsifiable
Non falsifable is something that cannot be disproven. It doesn't say if something is provable.

So no they can't be change, however my definition still stands.

[the PC apeman]

Logic & epistemology are parts of philosophy. I hope you don't think those things are stupid. If you want to call metaphysics stupid, well, I'm right there with you.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you want to call metaphysics stupid, well, I'm right there with you.
Well, except for all the fun conversations. To assume that metaphysics will some day converge, now that's stoopid.

~~ Paul

[Wolverine]

Philosophy is stupid, I mean really stupid. First off semantics are pointless, I mean really pointless. Philosophy has no system of proof, so you can't say anything in it. Contrast that with science and mathematics, where you can say something.

Didn't classical and natural philosophy yield many key concepts (like empiricism) and provide the basis of what we've ultimately formalized into scientific methodology?

[Silentknight]

...Yeah! What has philosophy ever done for science or the scientific method? After all, everyone know that science about dictating the truth with absolute certainty, yet philosophy cannot get proof. Philosophy ruin everything! :D

[porch]

Thank you, becomingagodo, for your treatise on the nature and scope of knowledge. I'll take it a step further and declare that all math is bunk! Here, I've even got the math to prove it . . .

[Mobyseven]

Science and maths does not depend on philosophy. Maths depends on logic and science depends on the scientific method.

Logic is one of the main branches of philosophy.

The scientific method grew out of specific philosophical schools of thought.

!EPIC FAIL!

[Loss Leader]

Non falsifable is something that cannot be disproven. It doesn't say if something is provable.


Utterly wrong. Non-falsifiable means that there are no set of assumptions (true or untrue) which can change the truth value of a statement except simply declaring the statement to be right or wrong.

If something can be disproven, it certainly can be proven. It's exactly the same in math. If X is knowable, one can prove the value of x and one can prove what the value of x is not. If x is unknowable, it is neither true nor false.

Your complete and utter failure to grasp even the basic language of philosophy leads me to believe you probably shouldn't be making statements about the value thereof.

But that's not your real post. Your real post is this:

1. I do not understand philosophy
2. But I consider myself a genius
3. Therefore, philosophy is worthless.

And your argument is falsifiable.

[Robin]

Not really, it proberly developed because of science. You know when you reach a technological standpoint then you can't have a autocracy to rule a country. A good example is the Tsar. They ruled for 300 years, but when modernization and industrilazation happen he was gotten rid off.
Replaced by another autocracy, I might add.
The same happen in Britian.
Nope, the Tsar was displaced by a revolution and replaced with another autocracy one that was based entirely on the works of two philosophers and that lasted another seventy years.

The monarchy in the British Isles was never displaced, but it's role was gradually changed over the years, the revolutionary ideas of the Enlightenment tempered by the Gradualist philosophy of Burke. Britain entered the 21st century with an unelected upper house and one that still had hereditary members.

There is simply no comparison.

The USA displaced the English monarch in a revolution and replaced him with a free democratic government based on Enlightenment principles.

So you see not only is philosophy important, the right philosophy is important.

And can you tell me when the autocracy in China will succumb, as you say, to the inevitable forces of technology?
Not really, as science creates change. When quantum computers are made then we will see real change.
Yep, every internet transaction will become insecure and systems based on such transactions will become unusable. Industry will have to retool almost overnight resulting in the biggest recession in history.
Einstein, everyone uses him. It debatable where Einstein got his big idea from.
It is not a matter of where he got his big idea from. It is the fact that he and Planck regarded it as important to become involved in and influence the discourse on the philosophy of science since it had real implications about the practice of science. For example he had to disabuse the Positivists of the idea that science could be an algorithmic process from beginning to end.
Yes when you produce this crap.

On what basis do you call it crap?
This is just stupid.

I can just imagine neuroscientist saying I think we should research into consciousness, since it might be improtant.

Saying that I didn't know neuroscientist where idiots. You would think their main goal is to understand human behaviour.
You just refuted your own point. Their main goal was to understand human behaviour. For a long time science concentrated on behaviour and ignored consciousness, many even believed that it was not possible to study consciousness scientifically. But more recently they have started to study consciousness itself.
How can you with no way to disprove or prove something.
I would point out that physics has no way to prove something. Should we abandon that too?

[XBoxWarrior]

1. I do not understand philosophy
2. But I consider myself a genius
3. Therefore, philosophy is worthless.

And your argument is falsifiable.

Yo, where is Pheadrus, when I need him?

[becomingagodo]

I would point out that physics has no way to prove something. Should we abandon that too?
Yes
If you can't prove something then you should abandon it. Mathematics is better then physics anyway.

If something can be disproven, it certainly can be proven
Prove it.
Prove this, This statement is false.

Replaced by another autocracy, I might add.

Communism is the future. Well, it mostly stalin fault. Saying that it is a democracy now, because of the communist.

There is simply no comparison.
Yeah, if you ignore the facts.

Their main goal was to understand human behaviour. For a long time science concentrated on behaviour and ignored consciousness, many even believed that it was not possible to study consciousness scientifically. But more recently they have started to study consciousness itself.
Behaviour does involve consciousness. Again, it was studied years ago. It just now the technology is advanced so they can actually see what the brain is doing.

On what basis do you call it crap?
Using a piece of abstract mathematics about proof and then saying it has physical relevence to the world.

But that's not your real post. Your real post is this:
Nice strawman

If x is unknowable, it is neither true nor false.
Constructivist. Seriously, mathematics is not some made up langauge. And mathematics is not a building block of cubes. Math is real. So something cannot be true or false.

Don't even think about saying Godel. As their is no case that anything in mathematics is not provable. Anyway I have to go to sleep.

[Robin]

Yes
If you can't prove something then you should abandon it. Mathematics is better then physics anyway.
Oh dear, so you do want to abandon physics.
Communism is the future.
Not just becoming a dodo then?

So all philosophies are stupid except for Communism?
Yeah, if you ignore the facts.
What facts am I ignoring?
Using a piece of abstract mathematics about proof and then saying it has physical relevence to the world.
Well, whoever is right, Hawking made a philosophical argument, you critiqued it. So your argument is also philosphical. So by your own argument your critique is stupid. Right?

Or are philosophies all stupid except those of Marx, Engels and becomingadodo?
Don't even think about saying Godel. As their is no case that anything in mathematics is not provable.
So you are saying that Kurt was wrong?
Anyway I have to go to sleep.
Very true, you do have to go to sleep.

[Phaedrus74]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader
1. I do not understand philosophy
2. But I consider myself a genius
3. Therefore, philosophy is worthless.

And your argument is falsifiable.

Yo, where is Pheadrus, when I need him?


You rang, master?

How may I be of service?

With regard to the OP, the ignorance displayed with respect to the history of human enquiry has been pointed out rather adequately by the other contributors.

I edorse Mobyseven's post fully.

!EPIC FAIL!

[Mobyseven]

You rang, master?

How may I be of service?

With regard to the OP, the ignorance displayed with respect to the history of human enquiry has been pointed out rather adequately by the other contributors.

I edorse Mobyseven's post fully.

!EPIC FAIL!

If we were still allowed to kitten threads, I would post this picture. (http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/11/07/epic-fail/) ;)

[Phaedrus74]

If we were still allowed to kitten threads, I would post this picture. (http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/11/07/epic-fail/) ;)

Yeah, that one is brilliant, the look on the cat's face is priceless!

[Jimbo07]

Yes
If you can't prove something then you should abandon it. Mathematics is better then physics anyway...

...Using a piece of abstract mathematics about proof and then saying it has physical relevence to the world.


I don't understand this.

It is either deep enough that I cannot comprehend it, or it is insane, incoherent rambling. :boggled:

[volatile]

Apart from science (which is based in and on philosophy), all of law is based in and on philosophy too. I'm sure he doesn't think law is "stupid".

I think BaD's OP just means "I don't understand philosophy", rather than containing any meaningful content as to the nature of the legitimacy of philosophical enquiry.

[volatile]

Prove it.


"Proof" is a concept that requires a breadth of philosophical axioms.

Can your failure be any more epic?

[Modified]

If x is unknowable, it is neither true nor false.

If your definition of "unknowable" is "unprovable", that is not true. There are meaningful true/false questions in computational theory for which it has been proven that you can't prove the answer false, if false, and you can't prove the answer true, if true. The answer is either true or false, but we will never know which.

[Complexity]

Bago - As usual, you are writing drivel.

Quit talking about things that you know nothing about. In particular, stop talking about mathematics, logic, science, physics, philosophy, and matters other than socks.

Most of what passes for philosophy is garbage. Philosophy itself is not garbage.

Go do your homework and play with your sock after you get help from a doctor.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't understand this.

It is either deep enough that I cannot comprehend it, or it is insane, incoherent rambling. :boggled:
Take the under.

[this charming man]

Is being against philosophy not a philosophic stance?

If it is, by your thinking, your anti-philosophy philosophy is stupid, and I guess you are taking the easy way out.

[Yiab]

First off semantics are pointless, I mean really pointless.

Define "semantics" :duck:

An argument that cannot be proven or disproven.

Semantics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics): refers to aspects of meaning, as expressed in language or other systems of signs.

Semantics (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics): a. the study of meaning
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.

Semantics (http://m-w.com/dictionary/semantics): : the study of meanings: a: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1): semiotic (2): a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth

Semantics (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=semantics&searchmode=none): the study of the relationship between linguistic symbols and their meanings

To put it simply, "semantics" is what words mean, hardly something useless in my opinion. Of course not appreciating semantics, it doesn't surprise me that you don't know what the word "semantics" means.

When do you read great philosophical works on Quantum Mechanics? never. Why? because science has surpassed philosophy. Even, then mathematics is the worse place for philosophers.

Admittedly, I haven't been able to make it very far in this book (http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Flight-Realism-Realism-Interventions/dp/0415223229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200072148&sr=8-1) due to density of material, but it seems quite interesting and it's definitely philosophical rather than scientific.

Godel, Godel proves that things are unknowable. Godel proves that mathematics has limits.

From what I've read, Gödel saw his incompleteness theorem as showing that the first-order formal systems then being considered could not possibly decide every mathematical question, thus demonstrating that math is more than such formal systems.

Godel proves logic is a failure.

No, Gödel proves no such thing. Gödel proves that Hilbert's program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_program) is a failure, but Hilbert's program is far from the entirety of logic.

Lots of people say Godel, which refers to his incompleteness theorems.

Yes, mathematicians and philosophers both often use a person's name to refer to their best-known work (or work relevant to the conversation at hand). What of it?

A good example is the continum hypothesis. It is thought to be good case of Godel, however http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis#Arguments_for_and_against_CH
it would be a big jump to say it is unprovable.

I've never heard the continuum hypothesis referred to as "a good case of Gödel". I would not call it "an exemplar of Gödelian reasoning", since a semantic equivalent of it is not necessarily independent of any given finite set of first-order axioms.

The continuum hypothesis, however, is independent of the axioms of set theory, meaning that unless further axioms are included it can neither be proven nor disproven within the set-theoretic context.

Some people thought that Fermat last theorem was unprovable, however it was proven.

Yes, mathematicians can make incorrect guesses - that's why they're called conjectures.

The difference between Fermat's last theorem and the continuum hypothesis is that the latter question was resolved in 1963 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis#Impossibility_of_proof_and_di sproof_.28in_ZFC.29), whereas the former had to wait until 1994 for resolution.

The continuum hypothesis is not just "yet unproven", it has been proven that the continuum hypothesis can never be proven or disproven within the current context of set theory.

The point I trying to make is semantics, mean little to truth. Philosophy is pointless as to get the truth the only way is science or mathematics. However, I guess philosophy is the easy way out.

Science and mathematics each began as branches of philosophy. Still useful branches of philosophy include (but are not limited to) epistemology, logic, political philosophy, semantics and ethics.

When quantum computers are made then we will see real change.

Quantum computers are already here. Admittedly they're extremely simple at this point, but they're moving quickly. Now where's the "change" you're referring to?
Also, on what are you basing this assertion?

Seriously, mathematics is not some made up langauge. And mathematics is not a building block of cubes.

What? Do you have coherent thoughts behind this jumble of words, or is this just a semi-random jumble of words?

Math is real. So something cannot be true or false.

I am very confused by your statements here.
If math is "real", then presumably mathematical questions all have factual answers, in which case mathematical statements must either be "true" or "false".
Now that that's out of the way, what do you mean by "real" in this context?
If you mean "useful", "intersubjectively verifiable" or "consistent", I agree.
If you mean "part of physical reality" I must also agree, but only while I point out that mathematical concepts are not all instantiated within said physical reality.
If you're talking about Platonic forms, I have to disagree, but considering the entire point of your post was to decry the utility and relevance of philosophy I doubt this is your meaning.

Don't even think about saying Godel. As their is no case that anything in mathematics is not provable. Anyway I have to go to sleep.

Look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_undecidable_in_ZFC).

[Zalbik]

Even then it debatable if it says anything beyond the branch of mathematics called logic.

No, this is not debatable. Godel conclusively proved that for any consistent formal theory that can express a basic arithmetic it is possible to construct a a statement that is true but not provable. This says something about the entire field of mathematics, not just logic.


Don't even think about saying Godel. As their is no case that anything in mathematics is not provable. Anyway I have to go to sleep.
That is incorrect.

The soviet mathematician Matiyasevich proved the following:

"Corresponding to any given axiomatization of number theory, one can explicitly construct a Diophantine equation which has no solutions, but such that this fact cannot be proved within the given axiomatization."

See Wikipedia reference here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matiyasevich%27s_theorem#Matiyasevich.27s_theorem)

[Upchurch]

Before criticizing something, it is always a good idea to make sure you have a reasonable understanding of what it is that you are criticizing. A class or two might help.

[SoBitter]

Yes
If you can't prove something then you should abandon it.

How long should you try before you abandon it?


Math is real. So something cannot be true or false.

Two questions. Is 2-1=1 a mathematical statement? -and- Is that statement true or false?

[CapelDodger]

Science and maths does not depend on philosophy. Maths depends on logic and science depends on the scientific method.

I direct my ire at Modern Philosophy. The useful elements of traditional philosophy budded off in the 18th and 19thCE. The last pure Philospher who had anything useful to say was Mark Twain. Since then, pupkiss. Self-referential semantics in a mutually-validating empty bladder. Often a very comfortable bladder (Oxford, for instamce), but empty nonetheless. Fruitless. Barren. Not worth visiting.

That the point, in philosophy you cannot get truth.

Philosophy demands "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty". Otherwise it's out of work. Philosophy has no clothes, but still demands that we prove it hasn't. In fact, that's pretty much all it does.

You'll get no end of references back to the glory days when Philosophy meant something, but that's not Modern Philosophy. Modern Philosophy is what's left when all nutrients have been extracted. Society will (I fondly hope) get around to expelling it at some point.

[CapelDodger]

To put it simply, "semantics" is what words mean, hardly something useless in my opinion. Of course not appreciating semantics, it doesn't surprise me that you don't know what the word "semantics" means.

Fortunately I do, and "semantics" as engaged in by Modern Philosphy is always reducable to "what do you mean by mean?". Which sums it up.

Admittedly, I haven't been able to make it very far in this book (http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Flight-Realism-Realism-Interventions/dp/0415223229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200072148&sr=8-1) due to density of material, but it seems quite interesting and it's definitely philosophical rather than scientific.

Density of material is how Philosophy conceals its essential nakedness.

(Plenty of meat for semantics in that last proposition, and I expect it to draw Philosophers like flies to a sheep-pile. Oops, gave it away :).)

[CapelDodger]

No, this is not debatable. Godel conclusively proved that for any consistent formal theory that can express a basic arithmetic it is possible to construct a a statement that is true but not provable. This says something about the entire field of mathematics, not just logic.

It does indeed give one pause. Truly a work of genius.

Obviously it didn't emerge in isolation; it was the culmination of a mathematical self-examination that dates back (at least) to Euclid. No wonder mathematics and logic budded off as related useful elements from the more flaccid and pointless elements of Philosophy (which constitute Modern Philosphy, aka the leftovers).

[Angus McPresley]

There's a joke a philosophers... The president of a university called in the chair of his biology department to complain. "Why do you need all this money for supplies and equipment? Can't you be more like the mathematics department? All they need are chalkboards and wastebaskets. Or better still -- like the philosophy department. They don't even need the wastebaskets!"

That, to me, is the problem with philosophy. Not that it's irrelevant, but that it doesn't progress. Nothing seems to ever get thrown out, rejected. Five hundred years from now they'll still be studying Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, etc. even though their ideas are often mutually contradictory.

I disagree with the original poster who segregated philosophy from science, math, etc. I think the discoveries coming from the study of physics, logic, computation, etc. ARE philosophy -- in fact, the scientists are the only ones making any philosophical progress. The philosophers certainly don't seem to be. In fact, they seem to only confuse or misinterpret the new findings whenever they try to incorporate them into their previous prejudices.

[Darth Rotor]

Is being against philosophy not a philosophic stance?

If it is, by your thinking, your anti-philosophy philosophy is stupid, and I guess you are taking the easy way out.
Wait a minute, if philosophy is stupid, anti philosophy would be smart, so his stance, an inherent stupid since it is philosophy, supports something (anti philosophy) inherently smart.

(Something tells me we have a hole or two in the assumptions here, but then, this is BAGboy we are dealing with here, so no surprise.)

I love a paradox in the morning, but not as much as I like bourbon.

@ Robin:

How do you like pig wrestling, in a muddy ditch? ;)

DR

[Mobyseven]

There's a joke a philosophers... The president of a university called in the chair of his biology department to complain. "Why do you need all this money for supplies and equipment? Can't you be more like the mathematics department? All they need are chalkboards and wastebaskets. Or better still -- like the philosophy department. They don't even need the wastebaskets!"

That, to me, is the problem with philosophy. Not that it's irrelevant, but that it doesn't progress. Nothing seems to ever get thrown out, rejected. Five hundred years from now they'll still be studying Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, etc. even though their ideas are often mutually contradictory.

I disagree with the original poster who segregated philosophy from science, math, etc. I think the discoveries coming from the study of physics, logic, computation, etc. ARE philosophy -- in fact, the scientists are the only ones making any philosophical progress. The philosophers certainly don't seem to be. In fact, they seem to only confuse or misinterpret the new findings whenever they try to incorporate them into their previous prejudices.

Not true - philosophy most definitely progresses. From our wonderful vantage point we are able to look back and say, "Hey, that Plato guy was wrong about a dang lot of things!" But if you had lived in ancient Greece you likely wouldn't have been able to tell that he was wrong, or why he was wrong. One of the most important parts of philosophy is looking at different philosophers through the ages and understanding why they wrote what they wrote, as well as understanding the critiques of what they wrote.

That said, there are quite a few people studying philosopy who are complete morons - or in polite talk, "postmodernists". ;) Try not to pay too much attention to them - they'll debate you for hours on the meaning of the word 'debate' and then declare it all irrelevant anyway, before descending into a solipstic bubble of madness.

[Angus McPresley]

Not true - philosophy most definitely progresses. From our wonderful vantage point we are able to look back and say, "Hey, that Plato guy was wrong about a dang lot of things!" But if you had lived in ancient Greece you likely wouldn't have been able to tell that he was wrong, or why he was wrong. One of the most important parts of philosophy is looking at different philosophers through the ages and understanding why they wrote what they wrote, as well as understanding the critiques of what they wrote.


I guarantee, when they teach Plato in modern philosophy classes, and then teach the critiques, there are students in the class who still end up espousing his original opinions. It's all just wanking. It's just a history class, not a rigorous discipline. Things only ever get (eventually) ridiculed as dumb, but nothing ever gets confirmed. There's not a philosophy professor in the world who ever gets up in the first class and states, "Here's what we *know*..." because there isn't anything that they know. If you disagree, then tell me what you think philosophers have discovered. Parapsychology almost has a better record.

I totally agree with your assessment of post-modernists, though.

[my_wan]

"Philosophy is stupid" is a purely philosophical statement. So what you have done here is decide said philosophical statement was important enough a proposition that others should recognize it. Yet the proposition itself claims it lacks importance. LOL.

The very definition of any word in any language requires philosophical components to have meaning. To call something scientific requires understanding these very philosophical limitations (like limitations of proof) that you claim support your proposition. Science deals with observables and their relationships period. As people we all go beyond this philosophically. The proposition "murder is bad" cannot be construed as strictly scientific. Yet such propositions are indispensable to our health, wealth, and happiness. Theist often claim these propositions are God given and lost without faith in God. That's why they fear evolution, atheism, secularism, etc. so much and blame certain groups in various ways for perceived social breakdown.

So not only is philosophy important to language itself it is important to social, economic, and personal freedoms as well. The fact that certain philosophical propositions, such as "Philosophy is stupid", can be stated does not indict the entire field.

[SoBitter]

There's not a philosophy professor in the world who ever gets up in the first class and states, "Here's what we *know*..." because there isn't anything that they know. If you disagree, then tell me what you think philosophers have discovered.

First of all, it would depend on what kind of a philosophy class it was. Some of the people posting in this thread seem to be under the impression that all philosophy classes are like the one survey class they took their sophomore year. There are classes in which what you know and don't know will never be a subject of conversation. There are classes where you are discussing and studying writings on artificial intelligence. Then there are classes where you debate whether it's morally acceptable to eat veal, or how you can determine which piece of art is better than another. You might also have class which only deals with symbolic logic.

What do you mean by discovered, and which area of philosophy do you want this example to come from? I don't think that developing a theory on something is "discovering" it, which is why I'm asking.

It is kind of funny that philosophers have had the same ideas about philosophy that the OP has. Except they used it to spurn new thoughts and theories, rather than writing off the entire field. They actually came up with new ideas, in the 20th century.

[Mobyseven]

I guarantee, when they teach Plato in modern philosophy classes, and then teach the critiques, there are students in the class who still end up espousing his original opinions.

Oh, believe me - I know the type of person you're talking about. Those students haven't understood the material, however - it's not a failing of the subject, it's a failing of the student. There are other students in the class who do understand what is presented, and how it fits into the 'grand scheme of things'. Plato isn't taught because he's right, he's taught because in the 'grand scheme of things' he's incredibly influential. Other philosophers critiqued his ideas, and later philosophers critiqued the critiques. The result isn't absolute knowledge (there are very few areas in which one can have absolute knowledge!) but instead a constant refinement of ideas and opinions.

In my first year logic class there were students who would argue with the lecturer over logical definitions. We aren't talking paradoxes or mistakes - we're talking about people who refuse to acknowledge what a material conditional does because they don't think it should work that way! Dumb students abound in philosophy, but that doesn't make philosophy itself dumb.

It's all just wanking. It's just a history class, not a rigorous discipline. Things only ever get (eventually) ridiculed as dumb, but nothing ever gets confirmed. There's not a philosophy professor in the world who ever gets up in the first class and states, "Here's what we *know*..." because there isn't anything that they know. If you disagree, then tell me what you think philosophers have discovered. Parapsychology almost has a better record.

Logic forms the basis for any argument - be it valid or invalid. Certainly one need not have any knowledge of symbolic logic to form an argument, but symbolic logic makes it easier to express an argument, and also easier to spot flaws and inconsistencies in a position. Logic also forms the basis of mathematics, which is used in everything from supermarket checkouts, to calculus, to quantum mechanics.

Moral and ethical philosophy have given rise to various moral and ethical systems, and have led to various political philosophies - from Plato's 'philosopher kings', to the various forms of democracy, to liberalism, to socialism and communism.

Epistemology, in conjunction with logic, forms the basis of the scientific method that allows us to sort the real from the imaginary. There are also important ethical considerations that require addressing in many areas of scientific research.

Certainly, we do not 'know' anything for certain in philosophy - but such general criticisms of philosophy are identical to the cry we always hear from Creationists and their ilk - "Science doesn't know everything, therefore science is wrong." We may not know the truth (and indeed, not all philosophy is about knowing the truth!), but we are constantly refining our arguments and definitions. Can you really ask for more than that?

I totally agree with your assessment of post-modernists, though.

If we sent all the post-modernists to Alpha-Centauri, there still wouldn't be direct evidence for intelligent life outside of the solar system.

[Henners]

Moral and ethical philosophy have given rise to various moral and ethical systems, and have led to various political philosophies - from Plato's 'philosopher kings', to the various forms of democracy, to liberalism, to socialism and communism.


Cart

Horse

[Mobyseven]

Cart

Horse

I wait with bated breath to see how you're going to justify that claim. Is it honestly your position that, for example, liberalism led to the idea that the rights of the individual should be considered paramount, and not the other way around?

But no. I should wait to see how you justify this incredible reversal of philosophy as we know it - please enlighten me with your surely airtight explanation as to how a conclusion can lead to a premise. I'll be over here waiting with the other people who justify claims rather than making glib remarks about a statement that are the equivalent of shouting at a wall and expecting it to crumble.

[volatile]

I direct my ire at Modern Philosophy. The useful elements of traditional philosophy budded off in the 18th and 19thCE. The last pure Philospher who had anything useful to say was Mark Twain. Since then, pupkiss. Self-referential semantics in a mutually-validating empty bladder. Often a very comfortable bladder (Oxford, for instamce), but empty nonetheless. Fruitless. Barren. Not worth visiting.



Philosophy demands "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty". Otherwise it's out of work. Philosophy has no clothes, but still demands that we prove it hasn't. In fact, that's pretty much all it does.

You'll get no end of references back to the glory days when Philosophy meant something, but that's not Modern Philosophy. Modern Philosophy is what's left when all nutrients have been extracted. Society will (I fondly hope) get around to expelling it at some point.

You're very sadly mistaken. There are very pertinent, enlightening and relevant debates in every field of philosophy. That you haven't read them does not diminish their interest, relevance or importance?

Have you read any Dennett? Strawson? Lakoff? Hell, even those "modern" philosophers you are no doubt directly talking about - Deleuze, Foucault, Heidigger, Benjamin, Butler and Haraway, for example - have their utility, interest and insights...

Read some, then come back. I get the impression that those who decry (post-)modern philosophy just read (or probably even just heard about) Sokal's Intellcutal Impostures and wrote off everything published in the field since 1960 on that basis alone!

[Phaedrus74]

You're very sadly mistaken. There are very pertinent, enlightening and relevant debates in every field of philosophy. That you haven't read them does not diminish their interest, relevance or importance?

Have you read any Dennett? Strawson? Lakoff? Hell, even those "modern" philosophers you are no doubt directly talking about - Deleuze, Foucault, Heidigger, Benjamin, Butler and Haraway, for example - have their utility, interest and insights...

Read some, then come back. I get the impression that those who decry (post-)modern philosophy just read (or probably even just heard about) Sokal's Intellcutal Impostures and wrote off everything published in the field since 1960 on that basis alone!

I find myself in agreement.
A matter of taste is easy to mistake for a matter of fact.

[Henners]

I wait with bated breath to see how you're going to justify that claim. Is it honestly your position that, for example, liberalism led to the idea that the rights of the individual should be considered paramount, and not the other way around?

But no. I should wait to see how you justify this incredible reversal of philosophy as we know it - please enlighten me with your surely airtight explanation as to how a conclusion can lead to a premise. I'll be over here waiting with the other people who justify claims rather than making glib remarks about a statement that are the equivalent of shouting at a wall and expecting it to crumble.

Moral and ethical philosophy have given rise to various moral and ethical systems, and have led to various political philosophies - from Plato's 'philosopher kings', to the various forms of democracy, to liberalism, to socialism and communism.

You know of anyone whose morality derives from philosophy?

For example, "Philosophy tells me that killing is wrong and I should therefore moderate my speed in built-up areas."

Please provide any example of any such person.

Like I said.

Cart

Horse

What you are doing is giving Philosophy the credit for encoding something that was already there before Philosophy came along.

It worked for religion, so give it your best shot.

I hear there's money in it.

[volatile]

What you are doing is giving Philosophy the credit for encoding something that was already there before Philosophy came along.


Might I suggest you do a little reading on the Enlightenment, for example? Or the history of ideas? Sadly, human beings did not, for example, all suddenly develop liberal attitudes (what one might call a liberal "philosophy") overnight.

You're missing the very important and singular influence of philosophers in formulating, disseminating and arguing those ideas before they were common amongst the population.

[Henners]

Might I suggest you do a little reading on the Enlightenment, for example? Or the history of ideas? Sadly, human beings did not, for example, all suddenly develop liberal attitudes (what one might call a liberal "philosophy") overnight.

You're missing the very important and singular influence of philosophers in formulating, disseminating and arguing those ideas before they were common amongst the population.

Might I suggest you try reading up a little on the evolution of morality.

Morality is tens of thousands of years older than philosophy.

Dressing up philosophy in the Emperors Clothes of Morality, just makes it look like a thief.

Oh, actually, that's right. It is.

Cart

Horse

[Mobyseven]

You know of anyone whose morality derives from philosophy?

Yes, in fact, a great many people. But I'm sure that in whatever strawman you're building up you have some definition of 'morality' or 'derives' or 'philosophy' so that your claim will turn out to be a tautology anyway.

Of course, I am a bit curious as to why you're asking me this, as it has nothing to do with the point I made about moral and ethical systems forming the basis for political philosophy...

For example, "Philosophy tells me that killing is wrong and I should therefore moderate my speed in built-up areas."

Well, for example, me. Of course, the way you phrase the whole thing is ridiculous. I believe that I should avoid the unnecessary killing of another human being - this is a moral judgment, and although we can argue until the bovines appear on the horizon over what constitutes 'necessary' and 'unnecessary', for the sake of argument lets say that I consider accidentally hitting someone with my car an unnecessary killing. I would therefore take steps to avoid such an occurance, including but not limited to moderating my speed, not using a cellphone and not operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Positing a world in which there is no legal penalty for any of these things, I would still abstain from them due to my initial moral judgment that unnecessary killing is wrong.

Of course in real life there are legal penalties that apply to people caught speeding, using a cellphone or driving under the influence - but these penalties did not appear from a vacuum, they in turn derive from moral and ethical principles that are enshrined in law.

You can talk about how morality is an evolved trait all you want, but that doesn't tell us anything about what is and isn't moral - it just tells us that there is an artificial construct called 'morality' that arises in some higher order animals.

Please provide any example of any such person.

Me.

Like I said.

Cart

Horse

Your ignorance is absolutely stunning...

What you are doing is giving Philosophy the credit for encoding something that was already there before Philosophy came along.

Woah! Slow down there fellah, that's a mighty big strawman you've got there!

When did I ever say that philosphers invented morality? (Hint: I didn't.) Studying morality and devising different moral systems, yes. But inventing morality - that's a strawman argument of a whole 'nother level you got there!

Fire existed before man, but it took man to invent the gas barbeque with wok side plate and temperature gauge.

[Henners]

How may times do you think you will need to accuse me of inventing strawmen before a real strawman will appear?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Fortunately I do, and "semantics" as engaged in by Modern Philosphy is always reducable to "what do you mean by mean?". Which sums it up.
Are you sure that it hasn't always been that way, but only recently have philosophers realized it and gotten sidetracked on the question of meaning? It's even possible that philosophers ran out of good material 150 years ago and that's why they've gotten sidetracked.


That, to me, is the problem with philosophy. Not that it's irrelevant, but that it doesn't progress. Nothing seems to ever get thrown out, rejected. Five hundred years from now they'll still be studying Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, etc. even though their ideas are often mutually contradictory.
I love the wastebasket joke, but I tell it differently. I like your rendition. I think, though, that a few things have gotten thrown out. Does anyone talk about libertarian free will anymore? Are there many dualists left?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Read some, then come back. I get the impression that those who decry (post-)modern philosophy just read (or probably even just heard about) Sokal's Intellcutal Impostures and wrote off everything published in the field since 1960 on that basis alone!
Well, everything except this:

We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between
linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this
multireferential, multidimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of
scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their
expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded
middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we
criticised previously. A machinic assemblage, through its diverse
components, extracts its consistency by crossing ontological thresholds,
non-linear thresholds of irreversibility, ontological and phylogenetic
thresholds, creative thresholds of heterogenesis and autopoiesis. The notion
of scale needs to be expanded to consider fractal symmetries in ontological
terms.

---Felix Guattari, Chaosmose

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think that when some people (me, for example) say "Philosophy is just a lot of word salad," they actually mean "Metaphysics is just a lot of word salad." This problem arises because the philosophy department still includes a host of interesting subfields that have simply not found their way to other departments. Many of these other subfields have interesting and useful things to offer. Metaphysics, on the other hand, just refuses to recognize that it is an empirical field.

~~ Paul

[volatile]

Well, everything except this:

We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between
linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this
multireferential, multidimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of
scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their
expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded
middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we
criticised previously. A machinic assemblage, through its diverse
components, extracts its consistency by crossing ontological thresholds,
non-linear thresholds of irreversibility, ontological and phylogenetic
thresholds, creative thresholds of heterogenesis and autopoiesis. The notion
of scale needs to be expanded to consider fractal symmetries in ontological
terms.

---Felix Guattari, Chaosmose

Do you want me to pick a random physics or biology paragraph that is similarly loaded with jargon? Do you criticise physicists for using terms like "quantum mechanics" in physics textbooks without resorting to redefining their terms every time they mention them? Or biologists for using terms like "atheroscelerosis"?

All those concepts, from 'machinic assemblage" to "univocality" to "poesis" are the singular subjects of whole chapters and even books of his work prior to this. In context, I'm sure, that paragraph makes perfect sense. All the terms he uses that you so sniffly decry are defined, discussed and dissected elsewhere in his work, and at length.

Philosophy of this type is dense, yes, complex, of course, and difficult, indeed, but it's not meaningless. Just because you don't understand something, does not make it worthless.

[volatile]

For example, a passage from a random physics paper abstract:



Abstract

"We review physics of light pseudoscalars (axions, majorons and familons) and their effects in cosmology. The axions which solve the strong CP problem play important roles in astrophysics and cosmology. The allowed band of the axion scale 108 GeV less, approximate Fa less, approximate 1012 GeV may be the next high energy scale. We discuss the ideas, techniques and phenomenologies leading to this interesting mass scale. Majorons and familons are also discussed. "

This, to me, is just as impenetrable as the Guattari - I have no idea what a majoron is, nor what an "axion scale" is, nor why it is obviously "interesting". But I presume that these are defined elsewhere in the field of particle physics, if not in the paper itself, and that the paper will be comprehensible by the intended audience. Why do you not extend the same courtesy to philosophy?

[Henners]

Philosophy of this type is dense, yes, complex, of course, and difficult, indeed, but it's not meaningless. Just because you don't understand something, does not make it worthless.

Quite.

I believe, however, that these are non issues.

The real issue is whether it produces real, practical, verifiable, and useful results.

(Apart from the claim that it encompasses the scientific method.)

(Which it wants to lay its paws on, in the same way that religion got its paws on morality.)

Please see the closing pages of Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law" for a description of the rapaciousness of philosophers.

[volatile]

Metaphysics, on the other hand, just refuses to recognize that it is an empirical field.

~~ Paul


That's quite a claim. I'd hazard that a great deal of philosophers, even those preoccupied with metaphysics, are materialists these days (at least at my University, anyway). That said, I'd struggle how you'd create a usefully empirical explanation of identity, for example, or a particular ontology.

Whilst most philosophers would agree that all of these things arise from a particular set of material processes (be they in the brain, or a in set of extended pheynotypical properties), such discussions are currently rather fruitless, in that they tell us nothing about what it is like to be in the world or to interact with other people, for example.

Take a random abstract from the current OUP Philosophy range (http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199283019):

"Jesse Prinz argues that recent work in philosophy, neuroscience, and anthropology supports two radical hypotheses about the nature of morality: moral values are based on emotional responses, and these emotional responses are inculcated by culture, not hard-wired through natural selection.

In the first half of the book, Jesse Prinz defends the hypothesis that morality has an emotional foundation. Evidence from brain imaging, social psychology, and psychopathology suggest that, when we judge something to be right or wrong, we are merely expressing our emotions. Prinz argues that these emotions do not track objective features of reality; rather, the rightness and wrongness of an act consists in the fact that people are disposed to have certain emotions towards it. In the second half of the book, he turns to a defence of moral relativism. Moral facts depend on emotional responses, and emotional responses vary from culture to culture. Prinz surveys the anthropological record to establish moral variation, and he draws on cultural history to show how attitudes toward practices such as cannibalism and marriage change over time. He also criticizes evidence from animal behaviour and child development that has been taken to support the claim that moral attitudes are hard-wired by natural selection. Prinz concludes that there is no single true morality, but he also argues that some moral values are better than others; moral progress is possible."

This, like much recent philosophy, draws philosophical conclusions (morality) from empirical data, and this is exactly as it should be. Your accusation seems to assume that metaphysicians think they are developing an alternative to a scientific model of the world, which could not be further from the truth.

Dan Dennett, for example, is both a evolutionary biologist, and a metaphysician of consciousness - and the two are not mutually exclusive, but complementary.

[Ryokan]

Yo, where is Pheadrus, when I need him?

Phaedrus ;)

[volatile]

Quite.

I believe, however, that these are non issues.

Are they?

The real issue is whether it produces real, practical, verifiable, and useful results.Look at the doctrine of human rights, for example, or the shifting attitudes towards homosexuality, or transsexuality, or any number of things. Attitudes and opinions, politics and law, cannot, by definition, be defined empirically, and the trajectory of Western thought and its changing moral and intellectual landscape is entirely predicated on the work of both professional philosophers and the work of "philosophy" done elsewhere. Not only that, as people have already mentioned, look at the fundamentally philosophical underpinnings of science and the scientific method. Remember Popper?

If that isn't "useful" or "practical" in your world, I don't know what is.

[Henners]

Nice one, Volatile.

You have given a perfectly delineated illustration of the rapaciousness of philosophers.

According to you, basic human decency is a branch of philosophy.

The truth is that just because philosphers happen to have grabbed it with their mucky paws, doesn't give them ownership of it.

I return to my point: "The real issue is whether it produces real, practical, verifiable, and useful results."

Stealing the genuine humanitarian work of others (and pretending that is has anything to do with philosophy) doesn't count.

Let me give an example from your last post.

"trajectory of Western thought"

What baloney is this? "Trajectory" implies certain things from the Physics. Are you making the claim that you know where western thought is headed?

Can you make precise predictions based on that trajectory?

Do tell us where Western Thought will be in 2070.

Or are you just marketing baloney?

Incidentally, I do remember Popper. Don't you think it is absolutely incredible that the scientific method was being successfully applied for centuries before he was even born?

How does that work? Tardis philosophy, maybe?

Like I've said: claiming the right to something that was already there before you came along is simple theft. Coming up with something new is a different thing entirely.

[volatile]

Nice one, Volatile.

You have given a perfectly delineated illustration of the rapaciousness of philosophers.

According to you, basic human decency is a branch of philosophy.

You're talking nonsense.

Exactly how widespread was "basic Human decency" before the Enlightenment? Hell, before you answer that question, how about you even try to define what "basic human decency" is without engaging with a philosophical process or invoking philosophical principles. Go on, I'm waiting.

What do think the necessary presuppositions for politics, law and science are? They are philosophy, pure and simple. That you don't like that is hardly philosophy's problem.


The truth is that just because philosphers happen to have grabbed it with their mucky paws, doesn't give them ownership of it.Philosophers have led the debates, and those undertaking the changes have been informed by contemporary philosophical debate. Again, that you don't like that for some semantic reason is hardly philosophy's problem.

I return to my point: "The real issue is whether it produces real, practical, verifiable, and useful results."The vote for women. The Human Rights Act in the UK. The Gender Recognition Bill. Legalised abortion. Empirical science. Jurisprudence. Habeas Corpus.

That lot not "useful" enough for you?

Stealing the genuine humanitarian work of others (and pretending that is has anything to do with philosophy) doesn't count.You're trying to imply that these debates, the "work" these "others" did, wasn't philosophy or informed quite heavily by philosophers. It was. Again, I don't know why this irks you so, but that is not philosophy's problem.

Let me give an example from your last post.

"trajectory of Western thought"

What baloney is this? "Trajectory" implies certain things from the Physics. Are you making the claim that you know where western thought is headed?The word "trajectory" means "the path of a projectile or other moving body through space". Applied to philosophy, it is clear that I meant the path it has taken up until now, not that I was making predicitons about its future development. In fact, this usage is wide-spread enough to be mentioned in the damn dictionary:

"tra·jec·to·ry

The path of a projectile or other moving body through space.
A chosen or taken course: "What died with [the assassinated leaders] was a moral trajectory, a style of aspiration" (Lance Morrow).
Mathematics A curve that cuts all of a given family of curves or surfaces at the same angle."Nice try, though.

Incidentally, I do remember Popper. Don't you think it is absolutely incredible that the scientific method was being successfully applied for centuries before he was even born?The important and fundamentally-transformative notion of falsification transformed the empirical practice of science. It was Popper's theory that led to, for example, the methodology which underpins clinical trials. That you don't want to admit this is not philosophy's problem.

Oh, and this "scientific method" that was being applied before Popper - I guess that had nothing to do with philosophy either?

I'll spell it out, quite slowly - EMPIRICISIM IS A PHILOSOPHY. LOGIC IS A PHILOSOPHY. That you don't want to admit this is not philosophy's problem.

[Phaedrus74]

Are they?

Look at the doctrine of human rights, for example, or the shifting attitudes towards homosexuality, or transsexuality, or any number of things. Attitudes and opinions, politics and law, cannot, by definition, be defined empirically, and the trajectory of Western thought and its changing moral and intellectual landscape is entirely predicated on the work of both professional philosophers and the work of "philosophy" done elsewhere. Not only that, as people have already mentioned, look at the fundamentally philosophical underpinnings of science and the scientific method. Remember Popper?

If that isn't "useful" or "practical" in your world, I don't know what is.

Save your energy, Henners obviously had his mind made up years ago. Nothing you say will change his mind, it's like arguing evolution to a creationist.

For the record, I agree with you that philosophy is useful. From my own experience I can say that the complexity of post-modern texts is significant, but they can definitely add a meaningful layer to some phenomena.

[volatile]

Save your energy, Henners obviously had his mind made up years ago. Nothing you say will change his mind, it's like arguing evolution to a creationist.

I think you may be right. It's a shame, but there you go.

Even arguing that philosophy is pointless is itself a philosophical debate, but I'm sure the irony is lost on poor Henners.

For the record, I agree with you that philosophy is useful. From my own experience I can say that the complexity of post-modern texts is significant, but they can definitely add a meaningful layer to some phenomena.Agreed. I'd never suggest (nor would anyone) that, say, Deleuze's machinic understanding of the world is empirically valid, just that it's a useful model or metaphor for the more fundamental, material processes. It's complex, of course, but not once you know the meaning of the vocabulary used, and are used to the particularities of the language, as it is in any area or specialism (see my physics example above).

I see philosophy actually becoming more useful as the science advances (and Dennett, who I keep mentioning because I've been reading him a lot recently, would probably agree). Think of it this way: even if we accept that our personal morality, for example, is a set of neurochemical interactions in the brain, and even if we know someday exactly the neurochemical reaction that produces, say, liberalism, what use is that to anyone? How does it help anyone understand the world or their role in it?

Philosophy is useful, for me, at least, because it helps make useful sense of the cold, empirical realities. The abortion debate, for example, is necessarily based in the empirical reality of conception and pregnancy, but requires a very detailed and nuanced set of philosophical arguments to make sense of in a broader context. As soon as we start to analyse scientific results and apply them to the "real world", we are engaging with philosophy. It's as simple as that, even in the field of metaphysics.

Medical research centres have ethics committees. If you don't like philosophy, you are, by definition, in favour of their abolition. Would you agree, Henners?

[Henners]

Save your energy, Henners obviously had his mind made up years ago. Nothing you say will change his mind, it's like arguing evolution to a creationist.

...with the critical distinction that I can provide real evidence from reality for my point of view.

By contrast, name calling is the province of children.

[volatile]

...with the critical distinction that I can provide real evidence from reality for my point of view.

By contrast, name calling is the province of children.

Give me an entirely empirical, evidenced-based reading of aesthetics, Henners. Or ethics. Law. Politics.

Go ahead. I'm all ears, and so is the entirety of Western thought.

[Phaedrus74]

...with the critical distinction that I can provide real evidence from reality for my point of view.

By contrast, name calling is the province of children.

Please supply this "evidence" you speak of...

[Henners]

Exactly how widespread was "basic Human decency" before the Enlightenment? Hell, before you answer that question, how about you even try to define what "basic human decency" is without engaging with a philosophical process or invoking philosophical principles. Go on, I'm waiting.


Basic human decency evolved over at least tens of thousands of years.

The fact that you now want to call that philosophy is simply theft.

I agree that human societies outgrew the morality that evolved to be appropriate for smaller groups. But humanity was not rescued from that by philosophy.

The enlightenment was the period during which my friends and neighbours antecedents were shipped across the Atlantic Ocean, and died in their thousands to keep sponging philosophers in the comfort to which their liberal education had brought them.

The prevailing Philosophy during the Enlightenment was what ended the slave trade?

Oh History, how could you be so blind!

I may be talking rubbish, but honestly, I'm an apprentice compared to you.

Philosophy is primarily self-abuse dressed up as progress. In fact, Philosophy is not a leader, but a follower. I will even predict its future trajectory to be a continuation of that. There you are: a testable hypothesis. Not Philosophy, but reality.

Defining absolutley everything as "Philosophy" and the cherrypicking the bits you like is just nonsense.

[Phaedrus74]

Agreed. I'd never suggest (nor would anyone) that, say, Deleuze's machinic understanding of the world is empirically valid, just that it's a useful model or metaphor for the more fundamental, material processes. It's complex, of course, but not once you know the meaning of the vocabulary used, and are used to the particularities of the language, as it is in any area or specialism (see my physics example above).

I see philosophy actually becoming more useful as the science advances (and Dennett, who I keep mentioning because I've been reading him a lot recently, would probably agree). Think of it this way: even if we accept that our personal morality, for example, is a set of neurochemical interactions in the brain, and even if we know someday exactly the neurochemical reaction that produces, say, liberalism, what use is that to anyone? How does it help anyone understand the world or their role in it?

Philosophy is useful, for me, at least, because it helps make useful sense of the cold, empirical realities. The abortion debate, for example, is necessarily based in the empirical reality of conception and pregnancy, but requires a very detailed and nuanced set of philosophical arguments to make sense of in a broader context. As soon as we start to analyse scientific results and apply them to the "real world", we are engaging with philosophy. It's as simple as that, even in the field of metaphysics.


Ethics is definitely a field in which trained philosophers play a distinct role. I do not agree however that empirical realities are cold per se (or colder than non-empirical realities). I once saw a person's sense of self-importance severely challenged once they understood what Foucault's notion of discourse entailed. So philosophical notions aren't (from my experience) colder or warmer than empirical ones, that is definitely a matter how we approach either.

[Henners]

Please supply this "evidence" you speak of...


I will be happy to do so, the very moment that you provide evidence for the personal attack that you made.

Sorry to seem awkward, but I wouldn't want to go out of my way to be considerate to someone who tells lies about other people for no good reason, unless they can provide some evidence to show why their poor behaviour may have been reasonable.

[Henners]

Give me an entirely empirical, evidenced-based reading of aesthetics, Henners. Or ethics. Law. Politics.

Go ahead. I'm all ears, and so is the entirety of Western thought.

Now you seem to be claiming that the entirety of Western Thought is Philosophy!

Is there nothing you think Philosophy doesn't deserve to get its paws on?

I can see the slogan now:

Philosophy doesn't kill people...
People who don't understand Philosophy kill people.

[volatile]

Basic human decency evolved over at least tens of thousands of years.

Are you using "evolved" to mean "biologically evolved"? If you're saying that "decency" is a biological trait, I'd like to see evidence that it is evolved biology that has driven human development.

The fact that you now want to call that philosophy is simply theft.

What drove the development of human ideas? This very development is
philosophy. I'm sorry you want to cherry pick what isn't philosophy, but that's not how it works. Philosophy is a defined field, which encompasses, amongst other things, ethics. The very concept of what is "decency" is a philosophical one.

Sorry to repeat myself, but that you don't like that is not philosophy's fault. It's yours.


I agree that human societies outgrew the morality that evolved to be appropriate for smaller groups. But humanity was not rescued from that by philosophy.

What was it "rescued" by, then? What has been the driver of the development of intellectual thought, morality and ethics? If not philosophy, what?

The enlightenment was the period during which my friends and neighbours antecedents were shipped across the Atlantic Ocean, and died in their thousands to keep sponging philosophers in the comfort to which their liberal education had brought them.

The prevailing Philosophy during the Enlightenment was what ended the slave trade?

Oh History, how could you be so blind!

You'll note, of course, that it was a series of philosophical debate which lead to the end of slavery. These discussions, on what not meant to be human, and on how we treat our fellow men, were necessarily philosophical. Oh History, how could you be so blind!

Defining absolutley everything as "Philosophy" and the cherrypicking the bits you like is just nonsense.

You are cherry-picking the bits of philosophy you personally find useful and, for some reason, putting them beyond its scope. What's the agenda, here? Why does the concept of ethics and "decency" being philosophical ones (or can you give me an empirically-testable hypothesis for "decency"?) bother you so much?

Oh, and any luck on empirically defining aesthetics, yet?

[volatile]

Now you seem to be claiming that the entirety of Western Thought is Philosophy!

Is there nothing you think Philosophy doesn't deserve to get its paws on?

I can see the slogan now:

Philosophy doesn't kill people...
People who don't understand Philosophy kill people.

"Thought", in all it's multifarious forms, is philosophy. Are we having a definitional problem here? :rolleyes:

[Henners]

"Thought", in all it's multifarious forms, is philosophy. Are we having a definitional problem here? :rolleyes:

Let me explain a little logic to you.

The statement: "all thought is philosophy", is a theorem.

According to that theorem, if I think I am Napoleon, that is philosophy.

Hmmmmm.

The converse of that theorem is that "philosophy is thought".

Even if a theorem is true, its converse may be false.

I don't think we're having a definition problem here at all. I think that the problem is related to the fact that the bullcrap around your ideas is very, very deep indeed, and you do not have a canoe, let alone a paddle.

[volatile]

Let me explain a little logic to you.

The statement: "all thought is philosophy", is a theorem.

According to that theorem, if I think I am Napoleon, that is philosophy.

Hmmmmm.

The converse of that theorem is that "philosophy is thought".

Even if a theorem is true, its converse may be false.

I don't think we're having a definition problem here at all. I think that the problem is related to the fact that the bullcrap around your ideas is very, very deep indeed, and you do not have a canoe, let alone a paddle.

"Western Thought" obviously does not mean "anything anyone has ever thought"! The biological process of thinking is a different thing from the products of that process, to which I again refer you to the dictionary, where my usage is the first one given (though 11, its corollary, is also relevant):

thought –noun
1.the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.
2.a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one's thoughts.
3.the act or process of thinking; mental activity: Thought as well as action wearies us.
4.the capacity or faculty of thinking, reasoning, imagining, etc.: All her thought went into her work.
5.a consideration or reflection: Thought of death terrified her.
6.meditation, contemplation, or recollection: deep in thought.
7.intention, design, or purpose, esp. a half-formed or imperfect intention: We had some thought of going.
8.anticipation or expectation: I had no thought of seeing you here. 9.consideration, attention, care, or regard: She took no thought of her appearance.
10.a judgment, opinion, or belief: According to his thought, all violence is evil.
11.the intellectual activity or the ideas, opinions, etc., characteristic of a particular place, class, or time: Greek thought.
12.a very small amount; a touch; bit; trifle: The steak is a thought underdone.

That said, "I am Napolean" is a philosophical statement, though it is not characteristic of the general intellectual activity of the Western World. :)

You don't even know what philosophy is, and you seem to have trouble with the meanings of even basic English words like "thought" and "trajectory"; how can you even begin to criticise it from a position of such ignorance?

[Henners]

Are you using "evolved" to mean "biologically evolved"? If you're saying that "decency" is a biological trait, I'd like to see evidence that it is evolved biology that has driven human development.


Stunning.

Well, of course, I never made any claim to be responsible for your education - though I note that you did take care, yourself, to imply that my own education was lacking, and did so in a disparaging manner, suggesting that my ignorance would be eradicated by reading material that, for some reason, you assumed was unkown to me.

Where exactly do you think that morality may have come from other than being evolved?

You make claims for Philosophy in relation to the slave trade that come across as blatantly, flagrantly moronic.

What, 2000+ years of philosophy, and suddenly slavery is not decent?

Good system that.

I wouldn't use it to service my car or empty my dustbins, though.

[Henners]

"Western Thought" obviously does not mean "anything anyone has ever thought"! The biological process of thinking is a different thing from the products of that process, to which I again refer you to the dictionary, where my usage is the first one given (though 11, its corollary, is also relevant):

thought –noun
1.the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.
2.a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one's thoughts.
3.the act or process of thinking; mental activity: Thought as well as action wearies us.
4.the capacity or faculty of thinking, reasoning, imagining, etc.: All her thought went into her work.
5.a consideration or reflection: Thought of death terrified her.
6.meditation, contemplation, or recollection: deep in thought.
7.intention, design, or purpose, esp. a half-formed or imperfect intention: We had some thought of going.
8.anticipation or expectation: I had no thought of seeing you here. 9.consideration, attention, care, or regard: She took no thought of her appearance.
10.a judgment, opinion, or belief: According to his thought, all violence is evil.
11.the intellectual activity or the ideas, opinions, etc., characteristic of a particular place, class, or time: Greek thought.
12.a very small amount; a touch; bit; trifle: The steak is a thought underdone.

That said, "I am Napolean" is a philosophical statement, though it is not characteristic of the general intellectual activity of the Western World. :)

You don't even know what philosophy is, and you seem to have trouble with the meanings of even basic English words like "thought" and "trajectory"; how can you even begin to criticise it from a position of such ignorance?

and yet:

"Thought", in all it's multifarious forms, is philosophy


Please rearrange these words:

goddamn
make
your
up
mind

[volatile]

Stunning.

Well, of course, I never made any claim to be responsible for your education - though I note that you did take care, yourself, to imply that my own education was lacking, and did so in a disparaging manner, suggesting that my ignorance would be eradicated my reading material that, for some reason, you assumed was unkown to me.

Where exactly do you think that morality may have come from other than being evolved?

You make claims for Philosophy in relation to the slave trade that come across as blatantly, flagrantly moronic.

What, 2000+ years of philosophy, and suddenly slavery is not decent?

Good system that.

I wouldn't use it to service my car or empty my dustbins, though.

I'm confused as to your use of language (and who can blame me?).

Do you mean to say that humans now are biologically more "decent" than those "thousands of years ago? That's the clarification I'm after, and I'd like to see both evidence of that, and it's precursor that there is a biological basis for decency. If that's the case, you seem to be suggesting that there was some genetic trigger that made people stop thinking slaverly was decent, which is obviously absurd.

If, however, you mean "evolved" in the more prosaic sense, then of course I agree with you. I would say that this "evolution" in general decency has been impelled by reasoned discourse as to what is and what isn't decent, ie (a subsection of) philosophy. People (in general) thought that slavery was moral, then some philosophers (and politicians and laymen using the tools of philosophy) came along and made the arguments to the contrary. This is not biological, at least not in the way you seem to be implying.

[volatile]

and yet:


Please rearrange these words:

goddamn
make
your
up
mind

Huh? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Thought, meaning the product of mental activity of an individual or, as I prefaced my original statement with "Western", a group, is philosophy.

I have not changed my mind, or the way I have expressed this. What are you talking about?

[Henners]

I really don't see what's so tricky.

You stated that thought was philosophy.

You then provided a dictionary definition that did not define thought as being philosophy.

I asked you to make up your mind.

Sorry if this seems difficult for you.

I'm really not trying to overcomplicate it.

[Phaedrus74]

I will be happy to do so, the very moment that you provide evidence for the personal attack that you made.

Sorry to seem awkward, but I wouldn't want to go out of my way to be considerate to someone who tells lies about other people for no good reason, unless they can provide some evidence to show why their poor behaviour may have been reasonable.

My remark was not meant to be a personal attack, I am sorry if it came across as such, I realize that I could have made my point more diplomatically.

The argument between volatile and yourself appears to me as a more verbose version of an "Is not! - Is too!" exchange. One of you believes philosophy is useful, and one of you believes philosophy not to be useful. Both your posts seem to be escalating their levels of unreason and from my perspective the debate has devolved into some sort of wrestling match. If this is what you and volatile are after, so be it. Have fun.

[volatile]

I really don't see what's so tricky.

You stated that thought was philosophy.

You then provided a dictionary definition that did not define thought as being philosophy.

I asked you to make up your mind.

Sorry if this seems difficult for you.

I'm really not trying to overcomplicate it.

:headdesk:

Do I need to join the dots for you?

The thesaurus (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/philosophy) gives "thought" and "philosophy" as synonyms, precisely in the context of definitions 1 and 11. The ideas of the West, and their intellectual activities (law, politics, science) sum to their "thought", as the dictionary so helpfully explains.

[Henners]

My remark was not meant to be a personal attack, I am sorry if it came across as such, I realize that I could have made my point more diplomatically.

The argument between volatile and yourself appears to me as a more verbose version of an "Is not! - Is too!" exchange. One of you believes philosophy is useful, and one of you believes philosophy not to be useful. Both your posts seem to be escalating their levels of unreason and from my perspective the debate has devolved into some sort of wrestling match. If this is what you and volatile are after, so be it. Have fun.

Fair enough.

There's a bit more that is/isn't going on, to be fair, though not much.

I'm really not entrenched. I am completely prepared to have my mind changed by just one genuine instance. Hence my feeling that you were categorising me unreasonably.

[volatile]

My remark was not meant to be a personal attack, I am sorry if it came across as such, I realize that I could have made my point more diplomatically.

The argument between volatile and yourself appears to me as a more verbose version of an "Is not! - Is too!" exchange. One of you believes philosophy is useful, and one of you believes philosophy not to be useful. Both your posts seem to be escalating their levels of unreason and from my perspective the debate has devolved into some sort of wrestling match. If this is what you and volatile are after, so be it. Have fun.

It's certainly not what I'm after, though Henners seems intent on deliberately obfuscating the discussion and engaging in pointless semantics to tje detriment of reasoned discourse, which is a shame.

I'm more than happy to carry on our discussion, as it was certainly interesting.

[volatile]

After all this discussion on the meaning of the word "thought", and still no attempt to address the point of the post in which it appeared:

Please, if philosophy is so useless, without resorting to any philosophical device or methodology or axiom give me an entirely empirical, evidenced-based reading of aesthetics, Henners. Or ethics. Law. Politics.

[Henners]

:headdesk:

Do I need to join the dots for you?



If that's your forte, don't let me get in your way.



The thesaurus (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/philosophy) gives "thought" and "philosophy" as synonyms, precisely in the context of definitions 1 and 11. The ideas of the West, and their intellectual activities (law, politics, science) sum to their "thought", as the dictionary so helpfully explains.

Let me get this straight, and to avoid misunderstandings...

You are saying that Philosophy = Thought.

[Henners]

After all this discussion on the meaning of the word "thought", and still no attempt to address the point of the post in which it appeared:

Please, if philosophy is so useless, without resorting to any philosophical device or methodology or axiom give me an entirely empirical, evidenced-based reading of aesthetics, Henners. Or ethics. Law. Politics.

Pay attention, and I'll say it again.

Coming along after the event, and cherrypicking the thoughts in the writings that supposedly brought about that event, while there were contradictory thoughts in other writings is an exercise in bringing about self-fulfilling prophesy via editorial control.

Basically, it's baloney.

Philosophy, the discipline, cannot point to a single achievement over the entire span of recorded history.

Street-sweeping has experienced momentous success by comparison.

[Henners]

It's certainly not what I'm after, though Henners seems intent on deliberately obfuscating the discussion and engaging in pointless semantics to tje detriment of reasoned discourse, which is a shame.

Poor volatile.

There, there.

[Phaedrus74]

Fair enough.

There's a bit more that is/isn't going on, to be fair, though not much.

I'm really not entrenched. I am completely prepared to have my mind changed by just one genuine instance. Hence my feeling that you were categorising me unreasonably.

And again my apologies for that.

As for the genuine instance:

Would you consider the work of Descartes (for instance) useless in it's consequences? Or Hobbes? These are people that have played a role in the birth of the scientific method. Would the scientific method have arisen without (natural) philosophers? I honestly don't know, and it is not something I can check either.

A better genuine instance maybe the work of Frege, most significantly his "Begriffschrift". In this work he lays the foundations of formal logic, something that has been of crucial importance to the development of computers.

Granted, there is a lot of dross in philosophy, but so is there in other academic fields including those taught at the science department. Language, understood as a tool, evolves through debates and can yield important ideas that ultimately benefit (or ruin) our species. If we do not consider all avenues in this respect, even the ones that seem rather silly ("Seriously Mr. Gauss you must be joking! Intersecting parallel lines, what a preposterous idea!") we run the risk of losing out on significant insights.

In the end it's of no consequence what philosophy does, it matters what philosophers (or better: human beings) do.

[Henners]

After all this discussion on the meaning of the word "thought", and still no attempt to address the point of the post in which it appeared:



I beg your pardon.

You stated that thought IS philosophy.

You can retract that silly notion at any point and move on.

I'm not stopping you.

Blaming me for not moving on until this issue is resolved is hardly reasonable.

I didn't bring it up.

You did.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

All those concepts, from 'machinic assemblage" to "univocality" to "poesis" are the singular subjects of whole chapters and even books of his work prior to this. In context, I'm sure, that paragraph makes perfect sense. All the terms he uses that you so sniffly decry are defined, discussed and dissected elsewhere in his work, and at length.
I am sure you are correct. He is probably not simply typing drivel like an 8-year-old with a keyword would do. I agree that the meanings of his words have been debated endlessly. Certainly those dimensions do remove us from the logic of the excluded middle. One can immediately see the depth of his words by continuing to read on in the book, as you can here:

http://www.cultdeadcow.com/archives/2007/07/deleuze_and_guattari.php3

~~ Paul

[Henners]

And again my apologies for that.

As for the genuine instance:

Sorry to be difficult.

One genuine instance.

Just one.

Not list of names, but an instance.

Incidentally, "I think therefore I am", didn't make it through the experiments.

[volatile]

If that's your forte, don't let me get in your way.



Let me get this straight, and to avoid misunderstandings...

You are saying that Philosophy = Thought.

Yes, for definitions of "thought" 1 and 11, as pertaining to definitions of "philosophy" 3, 7 and 8:

phi·los·o·phy

Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.Might I also add that philosophy is also the process (definitions 1, 2, 4 and 6) of investigating, criticising and codifying thought as defined above.

You'll note, for instance, definition 4 in particular, which covers our slavery debate quite neatly.

[Phaedrus74]

Sorry to be difficult.

One genuine instance.

Just one.

Not list of names, but an instance.

Incidentally, "I think therefore I am", didn't make it through the experiments.

Frege -> Formal logic -> Computers

(Obviously I omitted some steps)

[volatile]

I beg your pardon.

You stated that thought IS philosophy.

Although "thinking" is NOT philosophy. Your semantic evasion knows no bounds, does it?

By the way, we've also stalled on potentially the most interesting part of this debate, which was your apparent claim of a biological basis for decency, and the (biological) evolution of the same.

Can we get back to that?


You can retract that silly notion at any point and move on.

I can't retract the English language, unfortunately. Sorry about that.

[the PC apeman]

RE Guattari, I thought the punchline was going to be that it actually came from here:
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That's quite a claim. I'd hazard that a great deal of philosophers, even those preoccupied with metaphysics, are materialists these days (at least at my University, anyway). That said, I'd struggle how you'd create a usefully empirical explanation of identity, for example, or a particular ontology.
I don't know what identity is. I don't know what it means to create an empirical explanation of an ontology. Sounds like I get to make up any old ontological framework and then try to cram reality into it. Sounds backward to me.

An ontology has to explain the world that we see. I daresay that two ontologies that equally well explain the world would turn out to be equivalent.


This, like much recent philosophy, draws philosophical conclusions (morality) from empirical data, and this is exactly as it should be. Your accusation seems to assume that metaphysicians think they are developing an alternative to a scientific model of the world, which could not be further from the truth.
I was talking about metaphysics, not morality. Morality is a fine thing to study, and I'm sure those studying it are paying attention to the real world. I don't get that impression about many metaphysicians. If they were paying attention to the real world, then the Knowledge Argument, for example, would be a giant yawn. Perhaps it has become so.


Dan Dennett, for example, is both a evolutionary biologist, and a metaphysician of consciousness - and the two are not mutually exclusive, but complementary.
And yet he still has to waste his time explaining the Knowledge Argument.

~~ Paul

[volatile]

I am sure you are correct. He is probably not simply typing drivel like an 8-year-old with a keyword would do. I agree that the meanings of his words have been debated endlessly. Certainly those dimensions do remove us from the logic of the excluded middle. One can immediately see the depth of his words by continuing to read on in the book, as you can here:

http://www.cultdeadcow.com/archives/2007/07/deleuze_and_guattari.php3

~~ Paul

I haven't read the whole book, but I have read some of his co-authored stuff with Deleuze. I am not sure what you want from me here - a synthesis of the context of the ideas of a book I haven't read?

You seemed content to pick a jargon-filled paragraph from a particularly densely-written piece of philosophy, wherein each term has hundreds of pages of exegesis behind it, in order to prove some as-yet-unclear point about philosophy. What exactly are you trying to prove by picking a random paragraph from a lifetime's worth of ideas?

[Henners]

Yes, for definitions of "thought" 1 and 11, as pertaining to definitions of "philosophy" 3, 7 and 8:


No, seriously, though.

You are saying that the definitions of thought in the dictionary, and those of philosophy, don't line up at all, but nonetheless, according to you, Thought = Philosophy.

What does Logic equal, in your philosophy?

[Henners]

Although "thinking" is NOT philosophy...

What was that noise?

Oh, of course, goalposts getting dragged through the turf like plouhgshares.

Could you do it again, please. I've got a whole sack of seed potatoes here.

Thought = Philosophy.

Yes or no.

You said Yes.

Then you implied No.

A clarification would help.

[Henners]

By the way, we've also stalled on potentially the most interesting part of this debate, which was your apparent claim of a biological basis for decency, and the (biological) evolution of the same.


It was?

I was under the impression your unsupported claim that philosophy was a useful pursuit compared, say, to sweeping the streets, was the thread topic.

[ntropy]

Checkmate in 5: Science derived from philosophy.

[volatile]

I don't know what identity is. I don't know what it means to create an empirical explanation of an ontology. Sounds like I get to make up any old ontological framework and then try to cram reality into it. Sounds backward to me.

Not at all. Philosophers take material observations (even the metaphysicists do this) and attempt to map onto them a set of coherent analyses that make sense. Whilst philosophers are attempting to explain and clarify the material results of empirical findings, they make no claim on the empirical facts themselves (except to point out that the axioms of reality required for empirical enquiry are themselves philosophical constructs).

An ontology has to explain the world that we see. I daresay that two ontologies that equally well explain the world would turn out to be equivalent.

Quite, and to some extent I agree. Nevertheless, ontological discussions are interpretations of reality, not attempts on the empirical nature or reality itself. They are interpretative.

I was talking about metaphysics, not morality. Morality is a fine thing to study, and I'm sure those studying it are paying attention to the real world. I don't get that impression about many metaphysicians. If they were paying attention to the real world, then the Knowledge Argument, for example, would be a giant yawn. Perhaps it has become so.

And yet he still has to waste his time explaining the Knowledge Argument.

~~ Paul

Not knowing enough about the Knowledge Argument, and being about to rush out, I'll set this aside for the moment (though I will come back to it later, I promise).

I think maybe where your objection lies is that really, why does this matter? Right? Reality is reality is reality, and no amount of pondering will change it, so all discussions of that type are moot. Am I correct?

I agree with you to a certain degree if that is the case, although I differ in two key respects. The first is that I don't think the pursuit of knowledge or inquiry need be utilitarian, that is for some defined "greater good". After all, there is a great deal of empirical science work being done that also has no clear, meaningful or useful function other than the fulfilment of a posed question. In this respect, philosophers sometimes engage in thought experiments purely because it's interesting. The second....

Damn, gotta rush. I'll conclude this thought later.

[Henners]

Checkmate in 5: Science derived from philosophy.

A bogus claim put about by philosophers when they un-ended the board in the face of inevitable defeat by a means of finding out about the real world that actually works.

[Henners]

Frege -> Formal logic -> Computers

(Obviously I omitted some steps)

All the steps, not some.

State the philosophical principle established by philosophical means and define the practical application of it.

[Yiab]

Density of material is how Philosophy conceals its essential nakedness.

(Plenty of meat for semantics in that last proposition, and I expect it to draw Philosophers like flies to a sheep-pile. Oops, gave it away :).)

There's a reason I omitted "metaphysics" and "ontology" from my short list of useful philosophical topics.

The thesaurus (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/philosophy) gives "thought" and "philosophy" as synonyms, precisely in the context of definitions 1 and 11. The ideas of the West, and their intellectual activities (law, politics, science) sum to their "thought", as the dictionary so helpfully explains.

Yes, "thought" is "philosophy" in the same way that "right" is "correct". Please use your terms properly and refrain from identifying terms when not all their definitions agree.

All the steps, not some.

State the philosophical principle established by philosophical means and define the practical application of it.

Frege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frege) developed, through what were at the time purely philosophical means, the formalization of the concept of "number". His work is fundamental in the foundation of what we today call mathematical logic. In a natural way, Cantor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor)'s definition of cardinality melds Frege's work on formalization of "amount". Cantor's work is one of the foundations of the program (exemplified by Hilbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_hilbert)'s Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_program)) to provide a purely formal, symbol-manipulation foundation for all of mathematics - a program in which Frege was one of the first contributors.. The formalization program directed great attention in the mathematical community to the astonishing power of syntax. Understanding of the power of syntax combined with the ideas brought about by Babbage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_babbage)'s Difference Engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine) lead quite directly to the invention of the computer in its early-modern form. Clearly the computer has had a gargantuan and very practical impact on the entire world.

To stretch the connection a little, Frege can be credited as one of the founders of the modern practice of mathematics.

[CapelDodger]

You're very sadly mistaken. There are very pertinent, enlightening and relevant debates in every field of philosophy. That you haven't read them does not diminish their interest, relevance or importance?

What impact do any of them have outside their field? What, in other words, is their relevance?

Have you read any Dennett? Strawson? Lakoff? Hell, even those "modern" philosophers you are no doubt directly talking about - Deleuze, Foucault, Heidigger, Benjamin, Butler and Haraway, for example - have their utility, interest and insights...

Again I would ask, where's the utility?

I grew up in a Philosophy-heavy environment, I've read some of this stuff and discussed it with philosphers, and I saw through it long ago. Masses of jargon, nothing to say. I'm OK with Philosophy's role in the past, but since Mark Twain (probably the greatest philosopher of all time), fuggedaboudit. I've been taking down philosophers since I was thirteen years old.

Read some, then come back. I get the impression that those who decry (post-)modern philosophy just read (or probably even just heard about) Sokal's Intellcutal Impostures and wrote off everything published in the field since 1960 on that basis alone!

Sokal merely confirmed (in a masterly manner) what I already knew. Philosophy has no clothes.

[CapelDodger]

What you are doing is giving Philosophy the credit for encoding something that was already there before Philosophy came along.

It worked for religion, so give it your best shot.

Bingo :).

I hear there's money in it.

Meh, it's a living, but at least there's no work involved, and it comes with loads of unearned intellectual status.

[Phaedrus74]

All the steps, not some.

State the philosophical principle established by philosophical means and define the practical application of it.

No, the burden of proof was yours as per your post (#67)

I distanced myself from the perceived personal attack and I am very curious. Please produce the evidence for the uselessness of philosophy you have.

Also: What Yiab said (post #108)

[CapelDodger]

Are you sure that it hasn't always been that way, but only recently have philosophers realized it and gotten sidetracked on the question of meaning? It's even possible that philosophers ran out of good material 150 years ago and that's why they've gotten sidetracked.

Actually, I regard that as being evident. Mark Twain was an outlier of useful philospophy.

I love the wastebasket joke, but I tell it differently. I like your rendition. I think, though, that a few things have gotten thrown out. Does anyone talk about libertarian free will anymore? Are there many dualists left?

~~ Paul

There a legions of solipsists. Their regular get-togethers are a thing to watch : "Hey, Joe! How have I imagined you being?"


Ther's an anectode concerning a professor who, after giving a lecture on Solipsism, is approached by a very enthused student. "How refreshing," said the professor. "One so seldom meets a fellow solipsist."


Sartre to waiter : "Bring me a coffee without cream."
Waiter : "We're out of cream, sir."
Sartre : "Damn! Bring me a beer then."

[CapelDodger]

Do you want me to pick a random physics or biology paragraph that is similarly loaded with jargon? Do you criticise physicists for using terms like "quantum mechanics" in physics textbooks without resorting to redefining their terms every time they mention them? Or biologists for using terms like "atheroscelerosis"?

"Quantum mechanics" is a well-defined field that explains fundamental things about the physical Universe. Atherosclerosis is a very real problem in the real world and musch effort is (rightly) put into preventing and treating it. This isn't "jargon". It may be beyond your immediate ken, but it's about stuff that matters.

All those concepts, from 'machinic assemblage" to "univocality" to "poesis" are the singular subjects of whole chapters and even books of his work prior to this.

Deeply sad, isn't it? All that effort just to keep talking when there's nothing to be said.

In context, I'm sure, that paragraph makes perfect sense. All the terms he uses that you so sniffly decry are defined, discussed and dissected elsewhere in his work, and at length.

Philosophy of this type is dense, yes, complex, of course, and difficult, indeed, but it's not meaningless. Just because you don't understand something, does not make it worthless.

It's only meaningful within its own context. It just keeps a parody of life ticking over.

[CapelDodger]

Remember Popper?

If that isn't "useful" or "practical" in your world, I don't know what is.

How could one forget Popper? One of the more notorious examples of Philosophical aggrandisement. Terribly important to other philosophers, but not to anybody else. When one looks at the history of science and the practice of science Popper doesn't even show up as a blip. No signal. Nada. Squat. It's as if he never was.

Doesn't that tell you something? Something about self-reference, and self-importance?

[Nogbad]

What a bizarre thread. I take it the OP failed a philosophy class ;)

Philosophy is a discussion, an attempt to pin down the universe we experience. Of course there are disciplines like maths, physics, psychology even anthropology that focus on specific elements but philosophy attempts to encompass the totality. That some of it is utter pish goes without saying but that does not detract from the fact that many of philosophers have written interesting stuff and in their better moments have flashed a small light out into the abyss.

There are also gems like

If a man is alone in a forest is he still wrong? :D

[CapelDodger]

For the record, I agree with you that philosophy is useful. From my own experience I can say that the complexity of post-modern texts is significant, but they can definitely add a meaningful layer to some phenomena.

Are the phaenomena themselves meaningful or useful?

[CapelDodger]

What a bizarre thread. I take it the OP failed a philosophy class ;)

"It's all bollocks" would probably earn one a fail, but that hardly makes it wrong.

Philosophy is a discussion, an attempt to pin down the universe we experience.

The last thing Modern Philosphy wants to do is pin down anything. Like modern management theory it's about identifying "issues", not resolving them. Heck, if you resolve issues you'll only have to identify new ones.

Of course there are disciplines like maths, physics, psychology even anthropology that focus on specific elements but philosophy attempts to encompass the totality.

No, philosophy deals with what science leaves behind, which is such empty issues as "totality".

That some of it is utter pish goes without saying but that does not detract from the fact that many of philosophers have written interesting stuff and in their better moments have flashed a small light out into the abyss.

Not recently, though. They may claim to have, or others may claim it for them (see Popper), but there's no obvious evidence in the real world.

If a man is alone in a forest is he still wrong? :D

The bear don't care :).

[Mobyseven]

How may times do you think you will need to accuse me of inventing strawmen before a real strawman will appear?

See, that's an example of cherry-picking which parts of my post you respond to. I pointed out that you had used a strawman argument - but then I explained why it was a strawman argument, and explained what my position actually is. The fact that you ignored the rest of my post, in which I provided counter-examples and arguments against your position is also highly telling.

[Nogbad]

"It's all bollocks" would probably earn one a fail, but that hardly makes it wrong.



The last thing Modern Philosphy wants to do is pin down anything. Like modern management theory it's about identifying "issues", not resolving them. Heck, if you resolve issues you'll only have to identify new ones.



No, philosophy deals with what science leaves behind, which is such empty issues as "totality".



Not recently, though. They may claim to have, or others may claim it for them (see Popper), but there's no obvious evidence in the real world.



The bear don't care :).

I confess to knowing little about philosophy past J S Mill - well Satre, I have seen a little of his stuff. I wasn't aware that there were many notable modern philosophers. That there might be a few current mummers and ham actors doesn't detract from Hobbes or Descartes etc. There may be an element of crossover between history, political science, theology and what not but philosophy does have a body of work that is worth studying.

That said, recalling my days at Uni, those studying philosophy did lean towards the "complete prick" end of the spectrum but I considered my sample to be small and perhaps unrepresentative.

[Silentknight]

Still, I have to give credit to Modern Philosophy (I admit that maybe that's too general a term) for attempting to undo some of the damage that medieval era theology has done. We're no longer constrained by a strictly Christian worldview, reason does not have to be subservient to faith, and "God" is not a necessary condition for rational thought. I would argue for its utility in this respect, in being one of the available tools for weakening the hold that religiosity has on the majority of people in the world today, but then again I'm certainly not without bias on this issue.

Nor would I disagree with the application of skepticism to the role of Modern Philosophy. One of the reasons for my appreciation of philosophy in the first place is that it has proven to have numerous practical applications in the past, but only when it has been brought down out of the clouds. I'm just not ready to pass such judgment dismissing it all as worthless. Even if the only purpose of something is to provide a clear cut example of what dog crap looks like, at least then I would know not to step in it.

As for the assessment of pomos, agreed. :p

[CapelDodger]

I haven't read the whole book, but I have read some of his co-authored stuff with Deleuze. I am not sure what you want from me here - a synthesis of the context of the ideas of a book I haven't read?

Some exegesis of the quoted extract would be nice, beyond "it's dense".

You seemed content to pick a jargon-filled paragraph from a particularly densely-written piece of philosophy, wherein each term has hundreds of pages of exegesis behind it ...

Exegesis of what? Are you perhaps assuming that there's something real that's actually being interpreted in this dense manner?

... in order to prove some as-yet-unclear point about philosophy.

It demonstrates a very clear point about Philosophy - its bollocks.

What exactly are you trying to prove by picking a random paragraph from a lifetime's worth of ideas?

The waste of a lifetime.

I feel it my moral duty to prevent more lifetimes being wasted. So I do what I can. Can I help it if I love it?

I can even get wasted while I'm doing it :).

[Mobyseven]

The ignorance, it burns!

I can't help but chuckle at the fact that we now have more than one person in the thread arguing that philosophy is useless, and that anything that appears useful was just 'stolen' from somewhere else. Seems to avoid the big question, "If it was stolen from somewhere else, by what method did the people it was stolen from come up with it?"

Saying philosophy is useless is saying that the study of logic, morals, ethics, epistemology and legal theory is useless, just to name a few things. Do the detractors of philosophy in this thread agree that all of the above are useless?

[Mobyseven]

It demonstrates a very clear point about Philosophy - its bollocks.

Pure and utter nonsense - just because one part of philosophy is bollocks does not mean the entire endeavour is bollocks. Your argument can be represented as follows:

Px: x is philosophy.
Bx: x is bollocks.

(∃x)(Px & Bx)
∴ (∀x)(Px ⊃ Bx)

However, a simple analysis shows that this argument is of an invalid form:

(∃x)(Px & Bx) ✓a
~(∀x)(Px ⊃ Bx) ✓ b
Pa & Ba ✓
~(Pb ⊃ Bb) ✓
Pa
Ba
Pb
~Bb
↑

As you can see, the argument is invalid, as a counter-example can be found when Pa, Ba, and Pb are true, but Bb is false - in other words, when object a is both philosophy and bollocks, but object b is philosophy but not bollocks.

As a double ownage, not only did I use philosophy to prove my point, but any counter-argument you make will either require the use of logic, in which case your argument against the usefulness of philosophy serves as an example for the usefulness of philosophy, or you will have to abandon logic, in which case you won't be making any type of sensible point anyway.

[CapelDodger]

I confess to knowing little about philosophy past J S Mill - well Satre, I have seen a little of his stuff. I wasn't aware that there were many notable modern philosophers.

Sartre was fashionable, and right for his time. The French needed something to fall back on when all else had failed miserably, so they fell back on Philosophy (which, if nothing else, is cheap, and France was essentially bankrupt in every other sense). They used to be world-leaders, at least in the fashionable sense. In the wider Western world that whole Left-Bank thing had a cachet that the beatniks (remember them? A sort of proto-hipppy, fashionable in the 50's) couldn't resist. Been there, read that, wasn't impressed. More of the same.

That there might be a few current mummers and ham actors doesn't detract from Hobbes or Descartes etc.

Modern Philosophy, though, with its need for faded glamour, has rather overplayed Hobbes and Descartes (and the rest). I'm not saying they had no influence, but they surfed the waves far more than they made them. My favourite subject is History, and (like Popper with Science) you don't see the influence of these guys at the time. Their significance is mostly assigned retrospectively.

There may be an element of crossover between history, political science, theology and what not but philosophy does have a body of work that is worth studying.

As I say, I'm OK with Philosophy in its historical sense, when it was still useful. Something I object to is living philosophers trying to leech status off its working forebears. Science budded off to get away from this lot.

There were no philosophers behind the Putney Debates, just decent folk with their conception of what was right.

That said, recalling my days at Uni, those studying philosophy did lean towards the "complete prick" end of the spectrum but I considered my sample to be small and perhaps unrepresentative.

You can add my own sample to that :). Not quite as bad as Fine Arts, of course. Jeebus ...

I noticed the deference that was generally extended to philosophy, but I was de-programmed at school. I did what I could to disabuse others. Could I help it if I loved it?

If they were cool anyway, they could take it and come up laughing. The main man was taking Philosophy so he could concentrate on dealing (a business he'd established at school).

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I haven't read the whole book, but I have read some of his co-authored stuff with Deleuze. I am not sure what you want from me here - a synthesis of the context of the ideas of a book I haven't read?
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound as if I wanted anything. I just find his writing amusing.


You seemed content to pick a jargon-filled paragraph from a particularly densely-written piece of philosophy, wherein each term has hundreds of pages of exegesis behind it, in order to prove some as-yet-unclear point about philosophy. What exactly are you trying to prove by picking a random paragraph from a lifetime's worth of ideas?
That it's a damn funny read. Has Guattari come to any conclusions yet?

We have a few folks here on the forum who can understand the physic passage you quoted. Anyone can found out the concrete meaning of those terms by looking them up. Can anyone tell us what Guattari is on about?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Quite, and to some extent I agree. Nevertheless, ontological discussions are interpretations of reality, not attempts on the empirical nature or reality itself. They are interpretative.
I did not know that. I thought they were attempts at modeling the world.


I think maybe where your objection lies is that really, why does this matter? Right? Reality is reality is reality, and no amount of pondering will change it, so all discussions of that type are moot. Am I correct?
Actually, I enjoy discussing metaphysics. I simply don't expect it to get anywhere. But perhaps neither do most philosophers.


I agree with you to a certain degree if that is the case, although I differ in two key respects. The first is that I don't think the pursuit of knowledge or inquiry need be utilitarian, that is for some defined "greater good".
We agree on this point. We can just chat away for the pure enjoyment. Guattari and I would probably have a great time together in a pub.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Saying philosophy is useless is saying that the study of logic, morals, ethics, epistemology and legal theory is useless, just to name a few things. Do the detractors of philosophy in this thread agree that all of the above are useless?
No, all those things you listed are useful. It's metaphysics that's getting nowhere.

Unless, of course, everyone agrees that the Knowledge Argument is flawed. Then my time here will have been worth something. :D

~~ Paul

[CapelDodger]

Pure and utter nonsense - just because one part of philosophy is bollocks does not mean the entire endeavour is bollocks.

Are you equating demonstration with proof?

Your argument can be represented as follows:

Px: x is philosophy.
Bx: x is bollocks.

(∃x)(Px & Bx)
∴ (∀x)(Px ⊃ Bx)


Not terribly well, since those boxes could represent anything. Either you have a font problem or I do. The best I can work out is that you think you've proved that Philosophy cannot be bollocks.

However, a simple analysis shows that this argument is of an invalid form:

(∃x)(Px & Bx) ✓a
~(∀x)(Px ⊃ Bx) ✓ b
Pa & Ba ✓
~(Pb ⊃ Bb) ✓
Pa
Ba
Pb
~Bb
↑

As you can see, the argument is invalid, as a counter-example can be found when Pa, Ba, and Pb are true, but Bb is false - in other words, when object a is both philosophy and bollocks, but object b is philosophy but not bollocks.

And yet Philosophy is still bollocks (by observation). No counter-example is available - one Philosophy, the aforementioned.

As a double ownage, not only did I use philosophy to prove my point, but any counter-argument you make will either require the use of logic, in which case your argument against the usefulness of philosophy serves as an example for the usefulness of philosophy, or you will have to abandon logic, in which case you won't be making any type of sensible point anyway.

Well there's a thing. Mathematics - not part of Modern Philosophy, since it budded off long ago (as all the useful elements of Philosophy have).

So anyway, what's your example of the usefulness of Philosophy? Not anything dredged from the distant past, but something relatively contemporary. And, of course, not self-referential. Something concrete. Something you can point to, without worrying about fonts.

[SoBitter]

Terribly important to other philosophers, but not to anybody else.

This statement makes me wonder what your attitude is towards the arts in general. People could live and function without music, dance, painting, etc. There are most certainly people to whom art has no importance. Does art; therefore, have no importance?

[Nogbad]

Sartre was fashionable, and right for his time. The French needed something to fall back on when all else had failed miserably, so they fell back on Philosophy (which, if nothing else, is cheap, and France was essentially bankrupt in every other sense). They used to be world-leaders, at least in the fashionable sense. In the wider Western world that whole Left-Bank thing had a cachet that the beatniks (remember them? A sort of proto-hipppy, fashionable in the 50's) couldn't resist. Been there, read that, wasn't impressed. More of the same.



Modern Philosophy, though, with its need for faded glamour, has rather overplayed Hobbes and Descartes (and the rest). I'm not saying they had no influence, but they surfed the waves far more than they made them. My favourite subject is History, and (like Popper with Science) you don't see the influence of these guys at the time. Their significance is mostly assigned retrospectively.



As I say, I'm OK with Philosophy in its historical sense, when it was still useful. Something I object to is living philosophers trying to leech status off its working forebears. Science budded off to get away from this lot.

There were no philosophers behind the Putney Debates, just decent folk with their conception of what was right.



You can add my own sample to that :). Not quite as bad as Fine Arts, of course. Jeebus ...

I noticed the deference that was generally extended to philosophy, but I was de-programmed at school. I did what I could to disabuse others. Could I help it if I loved it?

If they were cool anyway, they could take it and come up laughing. The main man was taking Philosophy so he could concentrate on dealing (a business he'd established at school).

Somehow I managed to avoid most of the Fine Arts mob. A couple of the Philosophy students were so pompous they brought the anti-intellectual out in me. I had to go to the Student Union and sit by the Agricultural lads for a while to restore my balance - aiming to leave before they became seriously drunk and violent. In Edinburgh in my day the Young Conservatives and the Agricultural students were nigh interchangeable.

[CapelDodger]

This statement makes me wonder what your attitude is towards the arts in general. People could live and function without music, dance, painting, etc. There are most certainly people to whom art has no importance. Does art; therefore, have no importance?

A perceptive question, While I see an overlap of emptiness between Arts and Philosophy, I by no means see it as the entirety of Arts, whereas I do of Philosophy. Art is real, it's what we do and enjoy in the real world. Even good critics have more substance to them than the best Philosophers. Bad critics are no better, because that's all they've got..

Music, dancing, painting, story-telling - that's what we do, and what woud life be without them? Life without Philosophy would just be lfe as normal - except for Philosophers, of course.

[CapelDodger]

Somehow I managed to avoid most of the Fine Arts mob.

They avoided my mob as well :).

A couple of the Philosophy students were so pompous they brought the anti-intellectual out in me. I had to go to the Student Union and sit by the Agricultural lads for a while to restore my balance - aiming to leave before they became seriously drunk and violent. In Edinburgh in my day the Young Conservatives and the Agricultural students were nigh interchangeable.

No taint of Philosophy there, I imagine. The Rugby Club wouldn't abide it :).

Edinburgh, now there's an enviroment that toughens one up to Philosophy. I suspect your somewhat half-hearted defence is the fading echo of a deliberate perversity. But what do I know?

[Phaedrus74]

Are the phaenomena themselves meaningful or useful?

Irrelevant, the texts showed a way of looking at the world I hadn't thought of before. In other words it exposed some presuppositions I had taken for granted and caused me to be slightly more discerning in my judgements the next time.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Still, I have to give credit to Modern Philosophy (I admit that maybe that's too general a term) for attempting to undo some of the damage that medieval era theology has done. We're no longer constrained by a strictly Christian worldview, reason does not have to be subservient to faith, and "God" is not a necessary condition for rational thought. I would argue for its utility in this respect, in being one of the available tools for weakening the hold that religiosity has on the majority of people in the world today, but then again I'm certainly not without bias on this issue.

Nor would I disagree with the application of skepticism to the role of Modern Philosophy. One of the reasons for my appreciation of philosophy in the first place is that it has proven to have numerous practical applications in the past, but only when it has been brought down out of the clouds. I'm just not ready to pass such judgment dismissing it all as worthless. Even if the only purpose of something is to provide a clear cut example of what dog crap looks like, at least then I would know not to step in it.

As for the assessment of pomos, agreed. :p

I tend to agree with this assessment. I think philosophy – the discipline – was indeed important in unclenching the iron jaws of religious thinking. Or like Hitchens usually proclaims: Philosophy starts where religion ends (or something like that).

I’m not sure what the current situation is, although one often hears that philosophy has stagnated. Perhaps it has, I don’t know, but at least in areas of consciousness research it seems to have some kind of role (at least for now) – maybe Dennett’s theory of consciousness is such an example.

[Henners]

The ignorance, it burns!

Saying philosophy is useless is saying that the study of logic, morals, ethics, epistemology and legal theory is useless, just to name a few things. Do the detractors of philosophy in this thread agree that all of the above are useless?

Well, naturally, if it is your intention to lay claim to the entirety of human knowledge, name it "Philosophy" and assert, thereby, that Philosophy is useful, then you are correct.

Bit of a hollow victory, though, aint it?

Morality evolved. Claiming that Philosophy did anything other than wrongly codify it has no justification in reality.

And that is the problem with Philosophy. As long as it is not required to encounter real reality and do stuff with it, it's hunky dory: a little exercise in mutual rubbing up.

[Nogbad]

Somehow I managed to avoid most of the Fine Arts mob.

They avoided my mob as well :).



No taint of Philosophy there, I imagine. The Rugby Club wouldn't abide it :).

Edinburgh, now there's an enviroment that toughens one up to Philosophy. I suspect your somewhat half-hearted defence is the fading echo of a deliberate perversity. But what do I know?

I was a History student and I enjoyed some of the writings of people like Hobbes and J S Mill - so I am not anti Philosophy per se. I did find my hackles rising when some twonk ruined a perfectly good conversation by confusing obscurity for wisdom and attempting to introduce metaphysics at every conceivable juncture (and even some less conceivable ones). As to deliberate perversity....everyone has to have a hobby.

[Mobyseven]

No, all those things you listed are useful. It's metaphysics that's getting nowhere.

This is me agreeing with you 100%:

* Mobyseven agrees with Paul 100%.

[Mobyseven]

Are you equating demonstration with proof?



Not terribly well, since those boxes could represent anything. Either you have a font problem or I do. The best I can work out is that you think you've proved that Philosophy cannot be bollocks.



And yet Philosophy is still bollocks (by observation). No counter-example is available - one Philosophy, the aforementioned.



Well there's a thing. Mathematics - not part of Modern Philosophy, since it budded off long ago (as all the useful elements of Philosophy have).

So anyway, what's your example of the usefulness of Philosophy? Not anything dredged from the distant past, but something relatively contemporary. And, of course, not self-referential. Something concrete. Something you can point to, without worrying about fonts.

I had been sitting here for well over an hour now compiling together a list of late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers and influential works, complete with links to articles and biographies, when my computer died. The act of compiling the list, however, made me realise something.

You're an absolute idiot if you think that philosophy is useless. On my list was Bertrand Russell, Godel, Paul Grice, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Hilary Putnam, John Rawls, Alan Turing, and a number more. That you can actually claim, with a straight face, that philosophy is useless tells me that you haven't done even the most basic research. The act of compiling the list makes me wonder if you haven't been living in a cave looking at shadows your whole life to actively avoid noticing the effect that these philosophers have had on science, politics, technology and life in general. Yes, I made a Plato joke. Sue me.

To cut a long rant short - pull your head out of your rectum and actually bother to take a look around. If you still don't think philosophy is of any importance, I don't think there's any help for you. Just make sure to tell the ethics committee at any hospital you get admitted to that you don't think they're necessary - I'm sure they could think of all sorts of fun things to do to you.

[Henners]

I had been sitting here for well over an hour now compiling together a list of late nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers and influential works, complete with links to articles and biographies, when my computer died. The act of compiling the list, however, made me realise something.

You're an absolute idiot if you think that philosophy is useless. On my list was Bertrand Russell, Godel, Paul Grice, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Hilary Putnam, John Rawls, Alan Turing, and a number more. That you can actually claim, with a straight face, that philosophy is useless tells me that you haven't done even the most basic research. The act of compiling the list makes me wonder if you haven't been living in a cave looking at shadows your whole life to actively avoid noticing the effect that these philosophers have had on science, politics, technology and life in general. Yes, I made a Plato joke. Sue me.

To cut a long rant short - pull your head out of your rectum and actually bother to take a look around. If you still don't think philosophy is of any importance, I don't think there's any help for you. Just make sure to tell the ethics committee at any hospital you get admitted to that you don't think they're necessary - I'm sure they could think of all sorts of fun things to do to you.

It's a terrible wasted effort to compile a whole list when all you need to do is provide a single counter-example.

I can see this thread getting all the way up to a thousand posts while you continue to bluster and compile lists, and fail, repeatedly and resoundingly to generate a single counter example.

Let me explain how easy it is to do in another discipline, Science, say.

Question: "Name one achievement of Science that made peoples lives better."

Answer: (e.g.) "The discovery of penicillin."


See. Easy.

Now substitute the word "Philosophy" for "Science" in the question, and come up with an answer. Not a horsecrap answer, though. I think we've seen enough of that already.

[Phaedrus74]

Let me explain how easy it is to do in another discipline, Science, say.

Question: "Name one achievement of Science that made peoples lives better."

Answer: (e.g.) "The discovery of penicillin."


See. Easy.

Now substitute the word "Philosophy" for "Science" in the question, and come up with an answer. Not a horsecrap answer, though. I think we've seen enough of that already.

Science taking credit for an accidental discovery? Revisionist history if you ask me.

By the way, I am still waiting for the evidence you said you had regarding the uselessness of philosophy...

[volatile]

We keep giving you examples and you keep either ignoring them, or saying they "don't count" or are "horsecrap", for some weird reason. Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true, Henners.

Question: "Name one achievement of Philosophy that made peoples lives better."

Answer: "Ethics committees."


Question: "Name achievement of Philosophy that made peoples lives better."

Answer: "The European Convention on Human Rights"

Question: "Name one achievement of Philosophy that made peoples lives better."

Answer: "The Gender Recognition Bill"



This feels like a Monty Python sketch! "Well, apart from law, ethics, politics and the scientific method, what has philosophy ever done for us?".

:rolleyes:

[Henners]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus74;3331200]Science taking credit for an accidental discovery? Revisionist history if you ask me.

[QUOTE]

Oh, I know what you mean. 99% perspiration, and the 1% inspiration is just luck.

Sour grapes if you ask me.

[Henners]

We keep giving you examples and you keep either ignoring them, or saying they "don't count", for some weird reason. Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true, Henners.

Question: "Name one achievement of Philosophy that made peoples lives better."

Answer: "Ethics committees."


Question: "Name achievement of Philosophy that made peoples lives better."

Answer: "The European Convention on Human Rights"

Question: "Name one achievement of Philosophy that made peoples lives better."

Answer: "The Gender Recognition Bill"



This feels like a Monty Python sketch! "Well, apart from law, ethics, politics and the scientific method, what has philosophy ever done for us?".

:rolleyes:

Dipping into the pockets non-philosophers and presenting their lose change as though it is your own makes you look crooked.

[volatile]

Dipping into the pockets non-philosophers and presenting their lose change as though it is your own makes you look crooked.

In what way are all those things not philosophy? They are the result of a long series of philosophical development. Is it a coincidence that the Gender Recognition Bill came about after post-structuralism, for example, and not before? Would those decent chaps in the 19th century have conceived of passing a law that allowed "men" to change their birth certificates such that they were legally defined as "women"? Or was the process that lead to the introduction of this piece of legislation directly informed by the philosophies of people like Judith Butler?

Take your penicillin example. Did Flemming develop it for medicinal use, or was it someone else? Was it scientists who sold penicillin as a drug, or was it businessmen? You castigate politicians for putting into general practice the work of philosophers, but do not do the same for businessmen? Double standard, much?

If you can tell me how ethics committees are not philosophers, nor heavily informed by philosophy, I'd be a happy man.

[Phaedrus74]

Science taking credit for an accidental discovery? Revisionist history if you ask me.


Oh, I know what you mean. 99% perspiration, and the 1% inspiration is just luck.

Sour grapes if you ask me.

Well, it seems I was mistaken, penicillin has actually a rather long history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_penicillin



Still waiting on your "evidence" though...

[lupus_in_fabula]

How has scientific paradigms changed without at least some preceding rudimentary philosophical evaluation?

[Father Dagon]

Generally speaking, philosophy goes backwards:Ancient: What is the world made of and how does it work?

Pre-modern: What is the thoughts made of and how does they work?

Modern: Arrglyyh. Nffrgghhh. Graaahh!

[volatile]

Generally speaking, philosophy goes backwards:Ancient: What is the world made of and how does it work?

Pre-modern: What is the thoughts made of and how does they work?

Modern: Arrglyyh. Nffrgghhh. Graaahh!

What was the last work of modern philosophy you read, Dagon?

[Henners]

In what way are all those things not philosophy? By virtue of the fact that they are different from Philosophy. There's really no need to pretend to be obtuse.They are the result of a long series of philosophical development. So?Is it a coincidence that the Gender Recognition Bill came about after post-structuralism, for example, and not before? Are you asking or telling? If you have a point to make, make it.Would those decent chaps in the 19th century have conceived of passing a law that allowed "men" to change their birth certificates such that they were legally defined as "women"? Are you asking or telling? If you have a point to make, make it.Or was the process that lead to the introduction of this piece of legislation directly informed by the philosophies of people like Judith Butler?Are you asking or telling? If you have a point to make, make it.

All I see here is at attempt to create the bogus impression that there may actually be something there, beyond the Emperor's New Clothes.



Take your penicillin example.The point was that real achievements are easy to point to, and I gave the discovery of penicillin as an example. Did Flemming develop it for medicinal use, or was it someone else? Why are you asking, I gave the discovery of penicillin as an example.Was it scientists who sold penicillin as a drug, or was it businessmen? I gave the discovery of penicillin as an exampleYou castigate politicians for putting into general practice the work of philosophers, but do not do the same for businessmen?Point? I gave the discovery of penicillin as an example Double standard, much?
Nice try. You shift the goalposts to frame a false allegation of double standards. Is that an example of Philosophy in action?

Where is your counter-example? Do say. It really shouldn't be difficult to find one, always assuming that there is one, of course.



If you can tell me how ethics committees are not philosophers, nor heavily informed by philosophy, I'd be a happy man.

According to you, surgeons would be philosophers to fit your argument.

You originally stated that the existence of Ethics Committees is an achievement of Philosophy that makes peoples lives better.

Now you are making a separate and different claim.

Sounds like so much bluster.

[hammegk]

A perceptive question, While I see an overlap of emptiness between Arts and Philosophy, I by no means see it as the entirety of Arts, whereas I do of Philosophy. Art is real, it's what we do and enjoy in the real world. Even good critics have more substance to them than the best Philosophers. Bad critics are no better, because that's all they've got..

Music, dancing, painting, story-telling - that's what we do, and what woud life be without them? Life without Philosophy would just be lfe as normal - except for Philosophers, of course.
It's refreshing to see a man like you who has no personal philosophy. :)

[Henners]

How has scientific paradigms changed without at least some preceding rudimentary philosophical evaluation?

So Einstein takes a view of the world whereby he abandons the notions that distance and time are constant for all observers, but that the speed of light is constant, as Maxwell had already established.

He then follows through the consequences of that.

Was he doing Physics or Philosophy, I wonder.

If you want to name any kind of thought "Philosophy", that's fine.

Tell me about the Philosophy of Jennifer Lopez's rear.

[volatile]

By virtue of the fact that they are different from Philosophy. There's really no need to pretend to be obtuse.So?Are you asking or telling? If you have a point to make, make it.Are you asking or telling? If you have a point to make, make it.Are you asking or telling? If you have a point to make, make it.

I'm telling you. The Gender Recognition Bill is the end result of a trajectory (yes, trajectory) that begins with a radical shift in the philosophical understanding of gender which emerged in a particular school of thought (and hey, it was a "post-modern" school of thought that everyone here seems to think is so extraordinarily useless and ineffectual as well, for double points), and ends with legislation that changes peoples lives, for the better.

The point was that real achievements are easy to point to, and I gave the discovery of penicillin as an example.Why are you asking, I gave the discovery of penicillin as an example.I gave the discovery of penicillin as an examplePoint? I gave the discovery of penicillin as an exampleHow did the "discovery" of penicillin, in isolation, help anyone (other than Flemming's career, of course)? It took businessmen to market the product to actually help save people's lives. The analogy with philosophy would be an obvious one were you not so obtuse - all those things I mentioned were philosophical ideas and ideals, developed by philosophers and implemented by politicians. Must I spell everything out to you in such tedious detail?

The Human Rights Act is a real achievement, based on philosophy and the work of philosophers. The Gender Recognition Bill is a real achievement, based on philosophy and the work of philosophers. The entire set of principles upon which the Western legal system is based is a real achievement, based on philosophy and the work of philosophers.

According to you, surgeons would be philosophers to fit your argument. Eh? Ethics committees do not, when they sit, practice surgery. They practice, and the clue in in the name, ethics, which, in case you hadn't noticed, is a branch of philosophy.

[volatile]

So Einstein takes a view of the world whereby he abandons the notions that distance and time are constant for all observers, but that the speed of light is constant, as Maxwell had already established.

He then follows through the consequences of that.

Was he doing Physics or Philosophy, I wonder.

If you want to name any kind of thought "Philosophy", that's fine.

Tell me about the Philosophy of Jennifer Lopez's rear.

"God does not play dice" is a philosophical statement. Cripes!

[Father Dagon]

What was the last work of modern philosophy you read, Dagon?Can't really remember. Must've been protected by some kind of memory lapse. However, I have observed that in ancient time, the philosophers "dabbled" with biology (Aristoteles) and mathematics (Platon.) Today is studying pomo is almost a sure fire guarantee that the students shouldn't get close to a fuse box, a lawn mover or a car jack unless you want a massacre.

Of course these pomos can be level headed in a lot of departments. But that's only learned behaviour before they nuked their common sense. Ergo: A pomo that learnt horseback riding before studying pomo will remain level headed in the stable and on horseback. A pomo that never learnt horseback riding could show up to the stable wearing a three meter long scarf made of light silk that will go stormy ocean for the slightest gust of air and scare the living daylights out of the horses. Far fetched? No, that's what you get when you think that reality is just a convention without any base in the material world (and anyone disagreeing with you is eevil who hasn't seen the light.)

Of course some pomo philosophy has really good points. But they can only be appreciated after the necessary backlash (like Sokal's classical prank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair).) Otherwise we must kowtow to the silly idea that imaginary and irrational numbers are not only the same but equal to some pomos penis.There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out.

– Noam ChomskyGo Noam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern#As_meaningless_and_disingenuous)! Go Noam!

[Henners]

"God does not play dice" is a philosophical statement. Cripes!


You appear to have a very superficial understanding of Einstein's work.

Clue: The Nobel prize he received was not for Philosophy.

I cannot see any way that a quote from Einstein has any bearing whatsoever on the utter uselessness of Philosophy as a contributor to the well-being of humanity.

You only need to come up with a single example to prove me wrong.

Just one.

What's the problem?

Can it really be true that it has no practical value whatsoever?

[lupus_in_fabula]

So Einstein takes a view of the world whereby he abandons the notions that distance and time are constant for all observers, but that the speed of light is constant, as Maxwell had already established.

He then follows through the consequences of that.

Was he doing Physics or Philosophy, I wonder.

If you want to name any kind of thought "Philosophy", that's fine.

Tell me about the Philosophy of Jennifer Lopez's rear.

Ok, fair enough. So physics is out of the question, for now… perhaps we could see if the same applies to the fields of psychology, anthropology and sociology.

I would say that in most such complex fields of inquiry, you have to pose questions that are answerable. This means there has to be some kind of philosophizing as to what questions are more fruitful to ask than others, and why. Like it or not, that part of the process is more or less embedded in what generally is called philosophy.

Bu yes, I agree with you up to a certain point, that point being that philosophers should pay much more attention to science that strictly stay within a philosophical realm (metaphysics being perhaps a good example). But that normative stance – which ironically might be considered somewhat philosophical – does not make me say that philosophy and its historical roots are useless. That’s not the same thing as saying philosophy could be more useful if it were more deeply embedded in science. Hence, as I already mentioned, philosophy and consciousness studies might be one such useful “get-together”. I don’t know how much philosophy by itself (as a pure academic field) has to offer anymore, especially since more and more questions become illuminated by empirical means, but not all of them. Philosophy can help in creating new and better ones – instead of merely coming up with hideous though experiments.

[volatile]

Can't really remember. Must've been protected by some kind of memory lapse. However, I have observed that in ancient time, the philosophers "dabbled" with biology (Aristoteles) and mathematics (Platon.) Today is studying pomo is almost a sure fire guarantee that the students shouldn't get close to a fuse box, a lawn mover or a car jack unless you want a massacre.

Of course these pomos can be level headed in a lot of departments. But that's only learned behaviour before they nuked their common sense. Ergo: A pomo that learnt horseback riding before studying pomo will remain level headed in the stable and on horseback. A pomo that never learnt horseback riding could show up to the stable wearing a three meter long scarf made of light silk that will go stormy ocean for the slightest gust of air and scare the living daylights out of the horses. Far fetched? No, that's what you get when you think that reality is just a convention without any base in the material world (and anyone disagreeing with you is eevil who hasn't seen the light.)

Of course some pomo philosophy has really good points. But they can only be appreciated after the necessary backlash (like Sokal's classical prank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair).) Otherwise we must kowtow to the silly idea that imaginary and irrational numbers are not only the same but equal to some pomos penis.There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out.

– Noam ChomskyGo Noam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern#As_meaningless_and_disingenuous)! Go Noam!

I love Noam as much as the next man (I studied linguistics before studying philosophy), but it's ridiculous to claim that there is no-one who could explain Derrida or Lacan to him! There are plenty of beginner's guides, introductions, study aids and all the rest, and to claim otherwise is mendacious, really. If you want to learn about the ideas of these people, it is of course possible.

Now, you might not agree with the observations each of those philosophers make (such is the nature of philosophy, really!), but they are not just writing any old guttural crap down that comes into their heads, such as you implied with your "Grrrgh" comment above.

As for fixing fuse boxes, I'm sure you're right, but I don't really see the relevance. There are plenty of philosophers who base their philosophies in the empirical sciences - see Lakoff, G. Strawson and Dennett, all of whom I mentioned above.

If you're actually interested in approaching some interesting post-modern philosophy with an open mind, might I suggest Brian Massuimi's "User's Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia". He's certainly someone who can explain to you, or Noam Chomsky, what's going on in Deleuze, for example.

[volatile]

You appear to have a very superficial understanding of Einstein's work.

Clue: The Nobel prize he received was not for Philosophy.

I realise that. But there was a philosophical angle to his work, despite your protestations otherwise. "God does not play dice" indicates that Einstein was thinking about the philosophical implications of his theories.

I cannot see any way that a quote from Einstein has any bearing whatsoever on the utter uselessness of Philosophy as a contributor to the well-being of humanity.

You only need to come up with a single example to prove me wrong.

Just one.How many times?

- Ethics Committees
- The European Convention on Human Rights
- The Gender Recognition Bill
- Juris Prudence
- Habeas Corpus

Hell, see the banner at the top of the page that says "sketpicism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science". Two of those things are philosophy, so if your life is improved by the JREF, your life is improved by philosophy.

What's the problem?That every time I give you an example, you ignore it, maybe?

Can it really be true that it has no practical value whatsoever?No.

[Henners]

That every time I give you an example, you ignore it, maybe?


Maybe you have not been paying attention.

Claiming that the achievements of people whose job is not Philosophy is an achievement of Philosophy is crooked.

I gave a straightforward example from Science, from a real Scientist whose job was a Science job who made a Scientific discovery that has benefitted millions of people.

Unless you can do the same for Philosophy, you should have the grace to admit defeat and stop blustering and go and find something useful to do.

[volatile]

:mad:

Maybe you have not been paying attention.

Claiming that the achievements of people whose job is not Philosophy is an achievement of Philosophy is crooked.

I gave a straightforward example from Science, from a real Scientist whose job was a Science job who made a Scientific discovery that has benefitted millions of people.

Unless you can do the same for Philosophy, you should have the grace to admit defeat and stop blustering and go and find something useful to do.

Are you not reading?

Flemming did not "benefit millions of people". It was the implementation of his work, by businessmen, that did. Was Flemming medicinalising penicillin, and selling it people? Was he pounding the streets, curing the sick, on his own?

Similarly, philosophy. Just because Judith Butler didn't sign the Gender Recognition Bill into law herself, doesn't mean it wasn't an outcome of her (and her peers' and predecessors') philosophy!

That's the third time I've said this, at least.

Let's stick with this one example, for starters. In what way is the Gender Recognition Bill not a result of the shift in the philosophy of gender, triggered by the work of philosophers? I have made the claim, and explained my reasoning. A refutation would be good: if you can, please explain something other than philosophy that led to this fundamental change in thinking on matters of gender.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think people are still failing to distinguish philosophy in toto from ontology/metaphysics.

~~ Paul

[volatile]

I'm not. I think you might be right about some of the others, though.

Oh, and Happy Birthday. :-)

[volatile]

Oh, Paul.By the way, I just did some brief (Wikipedia) reading on the Knowledge Argument. I'd be interested to know your issues with it. It'll be more thought-provoking and interesting than arguing with Henners, at least.

[Henners]

Are you not reading?

Flemming did not "benefit millions of people".

Whoever said he did?

I believe I stated that the discovery of penicillin is what benefitted millions of people.

Let me just check.

Sure, enough, that's what I did say.

I like the way you put the second bit of the sentence in quotes and make up the first bit, and present it as though I'd actually said it.

Nice try.

It was the implementation of his work, by businessmen, that did.

Nit picking. Philosophy at its best.

Was Flemming medicinalising penicillin, and selling it people? Was he pounding the streets, curing the sick, on his own?


Your straw man is a very pretty shade of yellow.


Similarly, philosophy. Just because Judith Butler didn't sign the Gender Recognition Bill into law herself, doesn't mean it wasn't an outcome of her (and her peers' and predecessors') philosophy!

That's the third time I've said this, at least.


Judith Butler discovered that humans come in two sexes? Or what?

See, that's the difference here.

I can point to a specific example (of many). You can't point to a specific example, not having any such.


Let's stick with this one example, for starters. In what way is the Gender Recognition Bill not a result of the shift in the philosophy of gender, triggered by the work of philosophers? I have made the claim, and explained my reasoning. A refutation would be good: if you can, please explain something other than philosophy that led to this fundamental change in thinking on matters of gender.

You go and have your little philosophical discussions with your philosophical friends by all means.

Please don't ask me to participate in a pointless discussion.

Just give a specific example.

I have, for Science, and it was easy. And in a single sentence, too.

Why is it easy for Science and impossible for Philosophy, do you think?

[Henners]

Oh, Paul.By the way, I just did some brief (Wikipedia) reading on the Knowledge Argument. I'd be interested to know your issues with it. It'll be more thought-provoking and interesting than arguing with Henners, at least.

We are arguing?

There was me thinking that I was asking you for even a single example of how philosophy benefits humanity, while you were squirming around, putting words in my mouth, setting up straw men, and evading engagement, anything really, to avoid the whole crowd noticing that the Emperor is in his birthday suit.

[volatile]

Whoever said he did?

I believe I stated that the discovery of penicillin is what benefitted millions of people.

Ah yes. But you also implied that the philosophers who codified and disseminated their ideas, the ideas that formed the basis of all those things I listed, were not "responsible".

"Philosophy" is to "The Human Rights Act" as "the discovery of penicillin" is to "benefiitng millions of people". How hard is this for you to follow, Henners?


Judith Butler discovered that humans come in two sexes? Or what?

Ummm.. quite the opposite, actually. She, and her philosophical contemporaries, pointed out that cock=man and vagina=woman were not appropriate conclusions. The law, some years later, has now been changed to reflect this.

The social construction of gender is a phiosophical idea, disseminated wuite widely by philosophers, that had a direct influence on the lives of those who have taken advantage of the Gender Recognition Bill's provisions. I can't be any clearer than that without drawing you a diagram, frankly.


I can point to a specific example (of many). You can't point to a specific example, not having any such.

- Ethics Committees
- The European Convention on Human Rights
- The Gender Recognition Bill
- Juris Prudence
- Habeas Corpus

Just give a specific example.

- Ethics Committees
- The European Convention on Human Rights
- The Gender Recognition Bill
- Juris Prudence
- Habeas Corpus

I have, for Science, and it was easy. And in a single sentence, too.

Why is it easy for Science and impossible for Philosophy, do you think?

Question: "Name one achievement of Philosophy that made peoples lives better."

Answer: "Juris Prudence"

Might you need that diagram after all?

[volatile]

We are arguing?

There was me thinking that I was asking you for even a single example of how philosophy benefits humanity, while you were squirming around, putting words in my mouth, setting up straw men, and evading engagement, anything really, to avoid the whole crowd noticing that the Emperor is in his birthday suit.

The Gender Recognition Bill.

That's my example, for the umpteenth time. Before post-structuralism, man=cock, woman=vagina (to simplify slightly) was enshrined in law; following it, the law has been changed.

How might the Gender Recognition Bill come to have passed in the British Parliament were it not for the preceeding philosophical re-evaluation of gender?

[volatile]

Hey, if you're really struggling, how about Artificial Intelligence? Before someone starts working on the quest for AI, they need a working definition of what "Intelligent" means, another necessarily epistemological (i.e philosophical) process.

I don't see how you can be so dense, frankly.

[Yiab]

As a double ownage, not only did I use philosophy to prove my point, but any counter-argument you make will either require the use of logic, in which case your argument against the usefulness of philosophy serves as an example for the usefulness of philosophy, or you will have to abandon logic, in which case you won't be making any type of sensible point anyway.

What you used to prove your point would be considered philosophy if it was written 150 years ago, but not today. Today, you quite clearly used mathematics (in particular, elementary quantifier logic).
As a side note, everything I have seen of introductory philosophical logic taught in undergraduate university courses has been introductory mathematical logic presented to be understandable to an audience with little or no mathematical background.

(Yes, I realize logic started as philosophy and moved to join math, but it is fairly clear at this point that modern philosophical logic builds primarily from mathematical logic rather than vice-versa.)

And yet Philosophy is still bollocks (by observation). No counter-example is available - one Philosophy, the aforementioned.
...
So anyway, what's your example of the usefulness of Philosophy? Not anything dredged from the distant past, but something relatively contemporary. And, of course, not self-referential. Something concrete. Something you can point to, without worrying about fonts.

Frege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frege) developed, through what were at the time purely philosophical means, the formalization of the concept of "number". His work is fundamental in the foundation of what we today call mathematical logic. In a natural way, Cantor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor)'s definition of cardinality melds Frege's work on formalization of "amount". Cantor's work is one of the foundations of the program (exemplified by Hilbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_hilbert)'s Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_program)) to provide a purely formal, symbol-manipulation foundation for all of mathematics - a program in which Frege was one of the first contributors.. The formalization program directed great attention in the mathematical community to the astonishing power of syntax. Understanding of the power of syntax combined with the ideas brought about by Babbage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_babbage)'s Difference Engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine) lead quite directly to the invention of the computer in its early-modern form. Clearly the computer has had a gargantuan and very practical impact on the entire world.

To stretch the connection a little, Frege can be credited as one of the founders of the modern practice of mathematics.

Yes, quoting myself is bad form, but seeing as my explanation of this directly useful outcome of pure philosophy has been completely ignored or overlooked by those detractors of philosophy in this thread, I thought it bore restating.

Also, please note that 150 years is not the "distant past" and the utility of this particular brand of philosophy-turned-mathematics has only become apparent in the last 70 or so years (basically since Turing in WWII).

Well there's a thing. Mathematics - not part of Modern Philosophy, since it budded off long ago (as all the useful elements of Philosophy have).

So you acknowledge that there have been useful parts of philosophy?
Whenever philosophy develops something extremely useful, it tends to split from the rest of philosophy and become its own discipline. This does not mean that none of the utility of that discipline can be attributed to philosophy - rather, I would argue that since the origins and method of discovery of that discipline was primarily through philosophical musings, philosophy can gain a notable measure of credit for its spawns' achievements.

In the same way, one could ask "what good did Einstein's mother ever do for physics?"
As far as I know, she made no direct contributions to the body of knowledge of physics, but clearly the world of physics would be poorer without her existence.

I think people are still failing to distinguish philosophy in toto from ontology/metaphysics.

Many are, I agree. It's quite disheartening that some people can't see that ethics falls quite completely into the "philosophy" camp.

Hey, if you're really struggling, how about Artificial Intelligence? Before someone starts working on the quest for AI, they need a working definition of what "Intelligent" means, another necessarily epistemological (i.e philosophical) process.

Actually, nobody really has a working definition of "intelligent" beyond the Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) (which is of dubious use, at best) and yet the quest for AI is well underway.
I agree with your fundamental point, however, with one distinction - I believe that it is the debate about the definition of intelligence that is necessary for the construction of AI, rather than an actual working definition. The debate, however, is also clearly philosophical.

[volatile]

Actually, nobody really has a working definition of "intelligent" beyond the Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) (which is of dubious use, at best) and yet the quest for AI is well underway.
I agree with your fundamental point, however, with one distinction - I believe that it is the debate about the definition of intelligence that is necessary for the construction of AI, rather than an actual working definition. The debate, however, is also clearly philosophical.

You're right, of course. By "working definition", I meant a definition that each AI project is working with - that is, each body working on an AI system needs to pick at least a vague definition in advance of what it is they want their system to be able to do, such that it can be called "intelligent". That these definitions are not consistent between projects only highlights the point I was trying to make.

Thanks for the help. :)

[Henners]

Ah yes. But you also implied that the philosophers who codified and disseminated their ideas, the ideas that formed the basis of all those things I listed, were not "responsible".

I really wish you would treat what I say with some respect and stop trying to reinterpret it to suit yourself.

Trying to give philosophy credit for the achievements of other disciplines is simple theft.

Maybe you can find something under "jurisprudence".

I have already given you a straightforward example from Science which you comprehensively failed to dispute successfully.

A similar Philosophy example has not been produced.

I conclude therefore that none exists.

(And here's me having done Natural Philosophy at Glasgow University, secure in the knowledge that I was doing Physics, not Philosophy.)

[volatile]

A similar Philosophy example has not been produced.

- Ethics Committees
- The European Convention on Human Rights
- The Gender Recognition Bill
- Juris Prudence
- Habeas Corpus

I gave my examples, and explained at least one of them in detail (the Gender Recognition Bill - "Before post-structuralism, man=cock, woman=vagina (to simplify slightly) was enshrined in law; following it, the law has been changed. How might the Gender Recognition Bill come to have passed in the British Parliament were it not for the preceeding philosophical re-evaluation of gender?").

I also explained to you why saying that these were "not the work of philosophers" was both disingenuous and hypocritical, given your penicillin example.

Yiab has also been kind enough to point out, in detail, the passage from Frege to the computer.

Stamping your feet any saying "no examples have been given" over and over again, when you have at least six, is making you look silly.

[Henners]

So you acknowledge that there have been useful parts of philosophy?

You can get labels from Avery.

Using the kind of technology that many people have at home, you could print off a few thousand saying "Philosophy".

Next time you go out, take some with you and stick them on everything you see.

I'm sure that, sooner or later, one will be stuck to something that has an achievement, and your case will be proved.

[Henners]

I also explained to you why saying that these were "not the work of philosophers" was both disingenuous and hypocritical, given your penicillin example.


That fails on so many levels.

English

Accuracy

Truth

It may even be Philosophical baloney, but who can say?

Incidentally, the last time you used a partial quote of mine out of context it was part of an attempt to misrepresent me... and you've done it again.

Once could be a simple error, but now it looks as though it's becoming a habit.

Is there some reason why sticking to the truth is tricky for you?

[volatile]

I've asked several questions, which you have not even attempted to answer. Given that your debate style seems to begin and end at "No it's not", I refuse to respond to any more of your posts until you make a cogent, clear and sensible response to the following:

1) Explain why, given that it enshrines human rights, the European Convention of Human Rights is "not the work of philosophers". If you feel up to it, extend your argument to the other examples suggested, particularly how you think a legal system might function in the absence of philosophical structures and conclusions.

2) Explain how, other than through the philosophical re-evaluation of gender that arose from post-structuralism, the British government could have introduced the Gender Recognition Bill?

[volatile]

Oh, and the other unanswered question, from earlier:

3) Do you mean to say that humans now are biologically more "decent" than those "thousands of years ago? That's the clarification I'm after, and if that is what you're claiming, I'd like to see both evidence of that, and its precursor that there is a biological basis for decency. If that's the case, you seem to be suggesting that there was some genetic trigger that made people stop thinking slavery was decent, which is obviously absurd.

If, however, you mean "evolved" in the more prosaic sense, then of course I agree with you. I would say that this "evolution" in general decency has been impelled by reasoned discourse as to what is and what isn't decent, ie (a subsection of) philosophy. People (in general) thought that slavery was moral, then some philosophers (and politicians and laymen using the tools of philosophy) came along and made the arguments to the contrary. If you mean evolved in this sense, which I think you do, what drove this evolution?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, and Happy Birthday. :-)
Thanks, dude!


Oh, Paul.By the way, I just did some brief (Wikipedia) reading on the Knowledge Argument. I'd be interested to know your issues with it. It'll be more thought-provoking and interesting than arguing with Henners, at least.
Here the latest thread on the matter. We've had at least three over the years.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102378

~~ Paul

[volatile]

Here the latest thread on the matter. We've had at least three over the years.



TVM!

[Mobyseven]

Well, yes yes, but apart from ethics committees, The European Convention on Human Rights, The Gender Recognition Bill, computers, Juris Prudence and Habeas Corpus, what have the Romans Philosophers ever done for us?

[Herzblut]

Well, yes yes, but apart from ethics committees, The European Convention on Human Rights, The Gender Recognition Bill, computers, Juris Prudence and Habeas Corpus, what have the Romans Philosophers ever done for us?
Excellent observation! We should kidnap the wife of a leading philosopher and demand that all philosophers and all their troups students have to leave universities within one week! Otherwise we submit her back in little pieces! This is not negotiable, we refuse to be blackmailed by them!

[slingblade]

Here you go, Henners:

http://www.unbf.ca/arts/Phil/whystudyphilo.html

This answers your question about the benefits of philosophy.

I eagerly await your saying, "No, it doesn't."

[CapelDodger]

It's refreshing to see a man like you who has no personal philosophy. :)

Well, not beyond "Never draw to an inside-straight", anyway. I travel light :).

[Herzblut]

Well, not beyond "Never draw to an inside-straight", anyway.
What about "All depends on the pot odds"?

[CapelDodger]

I was a History student and I enjoyed some of the writings of people like Hobbes and J S Mill - so I am not anti Philosophy per se.

I would add Paine, Kant, and (of course) Adam Smith. I never could get anything out of Nietsche. (God may be dead, but then so is Nietsche.) I was talking about this with a friend of mine today (he has a degree in Philosophy) who reckons the prominence of Wittgenstein demonstrates that Philosophy had run out of steam by then.

I've nothing against Philosophy in its historical context. My position is that the ueful parts budded off (science, mathematics, economics, politics) and what's left is vapid. Metaphysics.

I did find my hackles rising when some twonk ruined a perfectly good conversation by confusing obscurity for wisdom and attempting to introduce metaphysics at every conceivable juncture (and even some less conceivable ones).

I'm with you there. Philosophy has a certain social cachet as a "hard" subject, when in fact Modern Philosophy is deliberately obscure to conceal its own emptiness. The philosophy of Hobbes, Paine, Adam Smith and the rest is accessible. It's meant to be accessible, to systematize ideas and to explain them to a wide audience.

As to deliberate perversity....everyone has to have a hobby.

Devil's Advocate is excellent mental exercise. I've played it a lot myself :).

I spent five years at an Old School, designed to produce Lawyers, Politicians, Imperial Administrators, and (if all else failed) Philosophers. "Sophist" was taken as a compliment. On the principle of "know your opponents' game", I can do that. If someone disses Philosophy because it's "middle-class" or "nerdy" (and not for any of the excellent reasons available) I'll defend it.

I'd have loved to study History, but I was told there's no money in it so I ent for Computer Science instead. Lots of money in that. You also get to cross swords with MBA's, who are the business world's equivalent of Philosophers. Boo-yah!

[CapelDodger]

What about "All depends on the pot odds"?

Complicate your philosophy if you like (and by the way you're welcome over my place any Friday night). I don't.

[CapelDodger]

Here you go, Henners:

http://www.unbf.ca/arts/Phil/whystudyphilo.html

This answers your question about the benefits of philosophy.

I eagerly await your saying, "No, it doesn't."

It explains the benefits of studying Philosophy. It doesn't explain the benefits of doing it. Those I'd be interested in.

"Most philosophers agree that among the great benefits of philosophy is that it challenges us to think critically about our beliefs and to justify them with good arguments"

(A lovely touch of equivocation there : "Most philosophers ...". It's very telling.)

Nobody would argue with that, but a good argument is not obscure. Modern Philosophy could learn something from that. Clarity reflects clear thinking; woolly talk (and obfuscation) reflects woolly thinking.

[CapelDodger]

What you used to prove your point would be considered philosophy if it was written 150 years ago, but not today. Today, you quite clearly used mathematics (in particular, elementary quantifier logic).
As a side note, everything I have seen of introductory philosophical logic taught in undergraduate university courses has been introductory mathematical logic presented to be understandable to an audience with little or no mathematical background.

You've pretty much made my response for me. I actually studied logical calculus and formal languages (also Godel, Von Neumann, Turing, and Chomsky) as part of my Computer Science degree. It's mathematics, not philosophy.

Yes, quoting myself is bad form, but seeing as my explanation of this directly useful outcome of pure philosophy has been completely ignored or overlooked by those detractors of philosophy in this thread, I thought it bore restating.

I've not responded because the work you refer to was done before the Modern Philosophy that I object to. It was very important work. What I don't see is any important work being done today in purely philosophical terms. What I see is self-reference, and self-importance based on just this kind of work, done by others. It can't be re-done, any more than Pluto can be re-discovered. The only way Philosophy staves off redundancy is by inventing work for it to do.

[CapelDodger]

Well, yes yes, but apart from ethics committees, The European Convention on Human Rights, The Gender Recognition Bill, computers, Juris Prudence and Habeas Corpus, what have the Romans Philosophers ever done for us?

What have they done for us recently?

All your examples have developed from work done long ago. Jurisprudence and Habeas Corpus were originally self-defence mechanisms for the powerful against the wannabe-autocrat, drawing on the Greek and Roman Republican tradition. Nobody called in Derrida to help draft the European Convention, or the Gender Recognition Bill. Those seeds were sown in the 17thCE. Computers are not philosophical triumphs, they are technological triumphs of science and mathematics.

Seriously, what has any living philosopher done for us?

[volatile]

Nobody called in Derrida to help draft the European Convention, or the Gender Recognition Bill.

No, but the Bill is very clearly based on the shift in thinking on gender that grew out of post-modern philosophy. It's true that the philosophers didn't draft the bill, but Flemming didn't sell penicillin, either. What the philosophers did (see: Butler) is made the case, disseminated it and lobbied for change. Without a philosophical case having being made as to the mutability of gender, the Gender Recognition Bill could never have been passed; the philosophical process was a necessary precursor to the legislation.

A successful philosopher (or, perhaps, an influential one) changes the way people think. On gender, post-modern philosophy did exactly that. I can't see where else you think this impetus for change came from, or the shift in attitudes towards gender that predicated it.

Before Butler, gender was seen as hardwired. After her and her contemporaries, it is not. That is very clearly, to my mind at least, one to chalk up to philosophy. There are plenty more, but that's the one I'm most familiar with.

Oh, and the other examples were brought up because at least one poster here is maintaining that philosophy has never done anything useful. It's quite clear to anyone who cares to think about it that that isn't the case.

[CapelDodger]

Ummm.. quite the opposite, actually. She, and her philosophical contemporaries, pointed out that cock=man and vagina=woman were not appropriate conclusions.

It's still a useful rule-of-thumb, though.

The law, some years later, has now been changed to reflect this.

Since the rule-of-thumb became too imprecise, and at the behest of Lawyers, not Philosophers. While the two groups have much in common (particularly in their tactics), they are not synonymous. Lawyers are better paid, for one thing, but only if they do some actual work, for another.

The social construction of gender is a phiosophical idea ...

The physical construction is pretty stark, and the social roles of gender reflect tradition and the economic bases of society.

... disseminated wuite widely by philosophers ...

They wish, but they'd get more coverage if they clarified the message.

... that had a direct influence on the lives of those who have taken advantage of the Gender Recognition Bill's provisions.

The people that have taken advantage of it turned to Lawyers in the first place, and in the second, not Philosophers.

I can't be any clearer than that without drawing you a diagram, frankly.

To my mind this is another clear example of Philosophic aggrandisement. Claiming it as your own work when you didn't do it.

[volatile]

It's still a useful rule-of-thumb, though.

It took a set of philosophers to point out that it was not immutable. The explanation of social construction of gender that led to the Bill was philosophical.

Since the rule-of-thumb became too imprecise, and at the behest of Lawyers, not Philosophers. While the two groups have much in common (particularly in their tactics), they are not synonymous. Lawyers are better paid, for one thing, but only if they do some actual work, for another.Lawyers debate the law, they do not create the intellectual or dispositional climate that precedes its enactment. The idea that someone can be a woman but born with a penis began as a philosophical one, not a legal one.

The physical construction is pretty stark, and the social roles of gender reflect tradition and the economic bases of society.That's irrelevant, largely. That there is even a distinction to be made between social and physical is because a specific set of philosophers pointed out there was one. Recently.

They wish, but they'd get more coverage if they clarified the message.How much clearer can they be? The general social attitude to transsexuality in the 21st Century is vastly different than that of the 20th, let alone the 19th. What drove that change? I would argue quite strongly that it is the work of philosophers. If you have an idea of where else the conception of gender has been challenged, and how this has been done without invoking any philosophy, then I'm all ears.

To my mind this is another clear example of Philosophic aggrandisement. Claiming it as your own work when you didn't do it.Philosophers developed an idea. People listened. Government changed the law. What else do they have to do before you'll accept it as "their work"? Form a political party themselves?!

[Yiab]

You can get labels from Avery.

Using the kind of technology that many people have at home, you could print off a few thousand saying "Philosophy".

Next time you go out, take some with you and stick them on everything you see.

I'm sure that, sooner or later, one will be stuck to something that has an achievement, and your case will be proved.

I see. So you're saying that the current, modern division of subjects is strict, clear and correct. Regardless of what something was called when it was first being invented, we must use the modern label because every person, institution or vague blob who undertakes a project can see their goal from the start.

You've pretty much made my response for me. I actually studied logical calculus and formal languages (also Godel, Von Neumann, Turing, and Chomsky) as part of my Computer Science degree. It's mathematics, not philosophy.

I've not responded because the work you refer to was done before the Modern Philosophy that I object to. It was very important work. What I don't see is any important work being done today in purely philosophical terms. What I see is self-reference, and self-importance based on just this kind of work, done by others. It can't be re-done, any more than Pluto can be re-discovered. The only way Philosophy staves off redundancy is by inventing work for it to do.

My point is that it's all very well and good that we can see the applicability of these subjects in hindsight and it's also quite true that they are currently a part of mathematics, but at the time of invention there were no conceived applications, no inkling of the importance they would one day take, and their origins were primarily in "useless" philosophical navel-gazing.

Similarly, "modern philosophy", no matter which eras, subject areas and individuals you include or exclude in that term, no matter how elusive, dense, self-referential and masturbatory the subject matter and literature, you cannot say with certainty that it cannot ever be useful. You can quite easily say that you see no potential uses for it, that its authors and supporters see no potential use for it and that it is mind-bogglingly difficult to even begin to think of a universe in which it might be remotely relevant, but none of that rules out its potential, eventual benefit.

Abstract math as a whole is a prime example of this principle. Many disciplines within math have absolutely no perceptible potential for direct application anywhere outside of equally abstract math, but it is not only worth continuing such research, it is a necessary part of technological advancement. Of course, I am not saying that such abstract math is useless, merely that the path from some areas of pure theory to practical application is so convoluted and complex it is impossible to predict.

If you don't see the similarity between abstract math and philosophy in this sense, ask why university bureaucracies have such difficulty developing relevant measures of productivity in either discipline.
Both disciplines are sandboxes - they are places where exploration, inspiration and play are necessary for advancement and their influence on the outside is, at best, extraordinarily difficult to gauge.

Philosophy is a game with objectives and no rules. Mathematics is a game with rules and no objectives.

[CapelDodger]

No, but the Bill is very clearly based on the shift in thinking on gender that grew out of post-modern philosophy.

The Bill followed the surgical techniques. Modern Philosophy had nothing to do with it. (Don't think you can shuck off the stench of decay by the addition of post. Same corpse, same stench.)

It's true that the philosophers didn't draft the bill, but Flemming didn't sell penicillin, either.

You can't claim he had nothing to do with it, though. Not as much as he's credited with, but not nothing. Whereas I can comfortably claim that Modern Philosophy had nothing to do with it.

What the philosophers did (see: Butler) is made the case, disseminated it and lobbied for change. Without a philosophical case having being made as to the mutability of gender, the Gender Recognition Bill could never have been passed; the philosophical process was a necessary precursor to the legislation.

Bollocks (or not, depending on the surgical procedure involved). The Law caught up with the actuality.

A successful philosopher (or, perhaps, an influential one) changes the way people think. On gender, post-modern philosophy did exactly that. I can't see where else you think this impetus for change came from, or the shift in attitudes towards gender that predicated it.

Nobody thinks any differently about gender because of "post"-modernist philosophy, because nobody understands it.

Oh, and the other examples were brought up because at least one poster here is maintaining that philosophy has never done anything useful. It's quite clear to anyone who cares to think about it that that isn't the case.

Fair enough, and I've tried to make clear that my objection is to Modern Philosophy, not to philosophy in the past, A goodly slice of that was bollocks as well, but that's the only slice that Modern Philosophy is left with.

[slingblade]

It explains the benefits of studying Philosophy. It doesn't explain the benefits of doing it. Those I'd be interested in.



(A lovely touch of equivocation there : "Most philosophers ...". It's very telling.)

Nobody would argue with that, but a good argument is not obscure. Modern Philosophy could learn something from that. Clarity reflects clear thinking; woolly talk (and obfuscation) reflects woolly thinking.

I fail to see what's wrong with it, given the general tone. Would it be better to frame it as an absolute? All philosophers? We know that can't be true.
No philosophers? Again, not true.

If I try to frame arguments in such a way, I'm roundly criticised, and rightly so. There is nothing "everyone" knows, nor with which "everyone" agrees.

At any rate, I disagree that philosophy is stupid, as the OP states, but I can see clearly that most arguments about philosophy certainly are... :cool:

ETA: how can a thing be worthwhile to study...but worthless to practice?

[CapelDodger]

My point is that it's all very well and good that we can see the applicability of these subjects in hindsight and it's also quite true that they are currently a part of mathematics, but at the time of invention there were no conceived applications, no inkling of the importance they would one day take, and their origins were primarily in "useless" philosophical navel-gazing.

They weren't dismissed as unimportant, in fact they were recognised as an important contribution to a tradition of mathematical self-examination that goes back (at least) to Euclid. Godel and Turing contributed to that same tradition. The relevance of Cantor's work was recognised at the time.

Similarly, "modern philosophy", no matter which eras, subject areas and individuals you include or exclude in that term, no matter how elusive, dense, self-referential and masturbatory the subject matter and literature, you cannot say with certainty that it cannot ever be useful.

That's philosophy-speak. I can't prove that ploughing a field in the clouds won't produce a crop, but I'm certain of it. What are the practical problems that Modern Philosophy is even potentially addressing?

You can quite easily say that you see no potential uses for it, that its authors and supporters see no potential use for it and that it is mind-bogglingly difficult to even begin to think of a universe in which it might be remotely relevant, but none of that rules out its potential, eventual benefit.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck. Hand-waving about some previously unrecognised duck-like genus that might actually be a kind of cat gets us nowhere. And, with all due respect, that's what you're engaged in with that.

[CapelDodger]

I fail to see what's wrong with it, given the general tone. Would it be better to frame it as an absolute? All philosophers? We know that can't be true.
No philosophers? Again, not true.

You either get it, or you don't.

Without equivocation, what have you got? Every conclusion shrinks the Philosopher's field of play, so conclusions are anathema to Modern Philosophy. In times past the field was large enough to reach a conclusion and move on to another patch, but no more.

If I try to frame arguments in such a way, I'm roundly criticised, and rightly so. There is nothing "everyone" knows, nor with which "everyone" agrees.

Then apparently you frame arguments in such a way that there can be no conlusion.

At any rate, I disagree that philosophy is stupid, as the OP states, but I can see clearly that most arguments about philosophy certainly are... :cool:

Not mine, though. Or am I wrong?

ETA: how can a thing be worthwhile to study...but worthless to practice?

If you can't work that out for yourself, I can't help you.

[slingblade]

You either get it, or you don't.

That's your opinion. I get it just fine, and that's my opinion. I also notice the false dichotomy inherent in that pithy phrase.

Without equivocation, what have you got? Every conclusion shrinks the Philosopher's field of play, so conclusions are anathema to Modern Philosophy. In times past the field was large enough to reach a conclusion and move on to another patch, but no more.

Equivocation's a fallacy. As a critical thinker, I try to identify and then avoid such in argumentation.


Then apparently you frame arguments in such a way that there can be no conlusion.

Not all arguments necessarily have a conclusion to reach. The subjective far outweighs the objective in human thought, in that it's simply more massive, and the subjective strongly resists being pinned down. In fact, I'd say it's the fluid nature of subjective experience that gives us anything to talk about.

Being right isn't the be-all and end-all of argumentation.


Not mine, though. Or am I wrong?

I wasn't necessarily referring to any one person or argument, as evinced by the fact that I named no names and pointed no specific fingers.


If you can't work that out for yourself, I can't help you.

Heh, I didn't ask for help. I asked for an answer which, apparently, you cannot or will not provide. That's fine. Perhaps someone else will tackle it. Perhaps no one will. In any case, I'll form my own opinion, bearing a willingness to revise in future, depending on the subjective nature of my views, and how life experience alters them.

[volatile]

The Bill followed the surgical techniques. Modern Philosophy had nothing to do with it. (Don't think you can shuck off the stench of decay by the addition of post. Same corpse, same stench.)

This isn't really the thread to discuss the rights or wrongs of the surgery or the diagnosis, so I want to concentrate on what we think gender is, which is a philosophical point. Before philosophy made the case that one's gender was a fundamentally different thing from one's biological sex characteristics, the very idea that the law would allow a "man" to be a "woman" was an anathema, even after surgery.

All the surgery does is change the biology, mechanically. It's philosophy that argues the consequences of this, and its philosophers who made the case that gender is mutable. There's a large difference, otherwise the GRB wouldn't be possible. If you don't philosophically re-appraise gender, an M-F transsexual is just a eunuch. Can you not see the difference?

You can't claim he had nothing to do with it, though. Not as much as he's credited with, but not nothing. Whereas I can comfortably claim that Modern Philosophy had nothing to do with it.Well, you keep saying that. But you're wrong, for the reasons give above. Society's conception of what "gender" means has changed since the post-structuralists pointed out that gender wasn't immutably linked to biological sex characteristics. It seems that you don't dispute that.

How is that not a philosophical shift?


Bollocks (or not, depending on the surgical procedure involved). The Law caught up with the actuality.See above.

Nobody thinks any differently about gender because of "post"-modernist philosophy, because nobody understands it.You keep saying that, but it's not true. I understand the bits I've read, and there are plenty of books by plenty of other people who have understood the bits they've read. That you haven't, it seems, is your own failing, not that of philosophy. What was the last modern philosophy text you read in toto, having approached it with an open mind?

Understanding does not mean agreement, of course, but that might be your sticking point, seeing your discussions with slingblade. You seem to want philosophy to provide objective answers to what are essentially subjective questions, which is of course impossible. To return to the GRB example, the objective reality is that it is possible for men and women to biologically alter their sexual morphology. But how this is to be understood, what this means, and how this is to be dealt with this socially, is a necessarily subjective and philosophical process.

Both you and Henners seem content to deny philosophy its achievements simply because you have some ideological opposition to the label "philosophy". I don't know where that comes from, but it's quite bizarre to watch.

[Henners]

I've asked several questions, which you have not even attempted to answer. Given that your debate style seems to begin and end at "No it's not", I refuse to respond to any more of your posts until you make a cogent, clear and sensible response to the following:
There, there.
1) Explain why, given that it enshrines human rights, the European Convention of Human Rights is "not the work of philosophers". If you feel up to it, extend your argument to the other examples suggested, particularly how you think a legal system might function in the absence of philosophical structures and conclusions.

You seem to be suggesting that human rights only exist because of the work of Philosophers.

Do you really believe that?


2) Explain how, other than through the philosophical re-evaluation of gender that arose from post-structuralism, the British government could have introduced the Gender Recognition Bill?

Because the population of the country, who had not even read the philosophy, demanded it, perhaps.

Oh, and the other unanswered question, from earlier:

3) Do you mean to say that humans now are biologically more "decent" than those "thousands of years ago? That's the clarification I'm after, and if that is what you're claiming, I'd like to see both evidence of that, and its precursor that there is a biological basis for decency. If that's the case, you seem to be suggesting that there was some genetic trigger that made people stop thinking slavery was decent, which is obviously absurd.

There you go putting words in my mouth again.

If I made such a claim, please show me where I did so.

Frankly, unless you think that I am responsible for your education, I'd suggest that you go and do some reading on the subject and stop demanding to be spoon-fed like a baby or an invalid.

You could start off with Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue". (A title that has since turned around and bit its owner quite mercilessly.)



If, however, you mean "evolved" in the more prosaic sense, then of course I agree with you. I would say that this "evolution" in general decency has been impelled by reasoned discourse as to what is and what isn't decent, ie (a subsection of) philosophy. People (in general) thought that slavery was moral, then some philosophers (and politicians and laymen using the tools of philosophy) came along and made the arguments to the contrary. If you mean evolved in this sense, which I think you do, what drove this evolution?

See, that's a perfect illustration of the value of Philosophy. It can make arguments against slavery, having previously, for millennia, made arguments that justified it.

As a practical tool, it is therefore worthless.

[Henners]

- Ethics Committees
- The European Convention on Human Rights
- The Gender Recognition Bill
- Juris Prudence
- Habeas Corpus


Really, you can repeat this with the periodicity of a tolling bell until the cows come home to roost.

Laying claim to the work of medics, politicians, and lawyers - not one of whom would consider themselves philosophers, above being medics, politicians, and lawyers - just makes you appear crooked.

For example, the Gender Recognition Act was passed because the political climate was right. It had diddley squat to do with Philosophy.

[Henners]

Here you go, Henners:

http://www.unbf.ca/arts/Phil/whystudyphilo.html

This answers your question about the benefits of philosophy.

I eagerly await your saying, "No, it doesn't."


CapelDodger is dead right, and I find it extraordinary that slingblade can post a link and claim that it says something other than it does, unless slingblade happens to be a very poor philosopher, indeed.

It's about the benefits of studying Philosophy.

And it is advertising.

I wonder if slingblade believes all the adverts he/she sees.

Naivety in a hammock.

[Henners]

Both you and Henners seem content to deny philosophy its achievements simply because you have some ideological opposition to the label "philosophy". I don't know where that comes from, but it's quite bizarre to watch.

In fact, no-one is denying philosophy its achievements.

What is happening is that you are comprehensively failing to produce any examples of such.

Instead, you are laying claim to any other achievements by - to date - medics, politicians, and lawyers, in an operation that looks suspiciously like daylight robbery.

The slavery example is demonstrably bogus, as I have shown.

As you have run out of legs to stand on, might I recommend that you now fall over gracefully.

[volatile]

You seem to be suggesting that human rights only exist because of the work of Philosophers.

Ummm... are you serious? What is, and what is not, a human right, how these are defined, how their definitions have shifted over time, is philosophy. That humans even have "rights" is a philosophical construct. You've heard of "ethics", right? That is a branch of philosophy.

Give me an empirical, objective definition of a "right", please.


Because the population of the country, who had not even read the philosophy, demanded it, perhaps.There you go putting words in my mouth again.What predicated the change in attitude such that man=cock was no longer an absolute, as it had been previously? The change in thinking on this issue that necessarily preceded any political change was prompted by very detailed discussions by philosophers. The philosophy came first.

If I made such a claim, please show me where I did so.You said:

Basic human decency evolved over at least tens of thousands of years.

I agree that human societies outgrew the morality that evolved to be appropriate for smaller groups.

Dawkins and others have made a compelling case for the biological basis for altruism. But that's not what you were implying. I understood that your case was stronger than this - that decency has evolved in the recent past, such as to be able to account for the changing zeitgeist. If you mean that decency and morality evolved biologically rapidly enough to account for shifting moral positions through the centuries, you need to clarify what the biological basis for decency is, and show what genotypical change has occurred in the recent past that has led to a change in attitudes.

If you actually mean, as I think you do, that decency has developed, then you need to tell me what, other than a process of philosophy, has driven that development.


See, that's a perfect illustration of the value of Philosophy. It can make arguments against slavery, having previously, for millennia, made arguments that justified it.

As a practical tool, it is therefore worthless.Is "science" worthless because it thought for millennia that the sun went round the earth? Further investigation leads to changing attitudes.

[volatile]

Laying claim to the work of medics, politicians, and lawyers - not one of whom would consider themselves philosophers, above being medics, politicians, and lawyers - just makes you appear crooked.



Need I repeat the analogy? "Philosophy" is to "The Human Rights Act" as "the discovery of penicillin" is to "benefiting millions of people".

The philosophy comes before the medics, politicians and lawyers even show up for work. The work of philosophy, and philosophers, is a necessary precondition for these professionals to be able to do their work. Ethics committees, lawyers, Judges and politicians all work within frameworks devised, revised and discussed by philosophers first.

You think lawyers existed before the legal system?

[volatile]

Would you call yourself a skeptic, Henners? You realise that skepticism itself is also a philosophy, developed over a long period of time by, guess who, philosophers. :rolleyes:

[lupus_in_fabula]

For example, the Gender Recognition Act was passed because the political climate was right. It had diddley squat to do with Philosophy.

That's not a very good explanation. I think you’re simplifying too much; you draw your conclusions from a conveniently short hindsight. More so than the “time was right” is to include that “something made it right”. Much of that is due to bringing such discussion into the public arena as well as formalizing it to a particular discourse in the policy-making arena. Categorically denying any role for philosophy in this process is just naïve.

I would also say that philosophical thinking has played an important role in the emergence of sustainable development as a framework for how environmental issues should be dealt with on the actual policy-making arena (at least in the EU). Another similar example is the actual EU Water Framework Directive (integrated river basin management for Europe).

It’s of course easy – but naïve – to look at this as simple political outcome (the time was right argument). But when one really studies the environmental policy making process from a historical point of view – starting from the e.g. the Bruntlandt Commission on Environmental Development (1987) – it becomes pretty clear how the actual policy now is a result of how these issues have been approached and discussed about before, and how this process has changed the formal discourse in the policy making arena. Or to use Porrit’s words – about sustainable development in general: “[…] it is as much a challenge to our philosophy and personal values as to our political and economic systems, requiring as it does a dramatic shift from an ethos of exploitation and domination to one of stewardship and global responsibility.”

[slingblade]

CapelDodger is dead right, and I find it extraordinary that slingblade can post a link and claim that it says something other than it does, unless slingblade happens to be a very poor philosopher, indeed.

Oh, aren't you clever? Yes, one could look at it as an advertisement. One could look at a great deal of opinion as being an advertisement. Does that mean what's written there is false? Misleading? Full of weasel words? Or does it just mean you're lazy and didn't read it at all?

It's about the benefits of studying Philosophy.

So, you want to practice philosophy without having studied it? Noted.

From the link text:

Most philosophers agree that among the great benefits of philosophy is that it challenges us to think critically about our beliefs and to justify them with good arguments.

That's a benefit to both studying and using philosophy. But keep denying there are any benefits to it, regardless of what's presented that refutes your "argument." It makes you look so...what's the word? Obstinate.

And it is advertising.

Really? Is the college having a sale? All memes must go! Six axioms for a dollar!

I wonder if slingblade believes all the adverts he/she sees.

Keep wondering. It will give your brain something to do.

Naivety in a hammock.

Yes, you are, but you can take steps to correct that.



I hate bullies. They can't argue to save their lives.

[Henners]

Ummm... are you serious? What is, and what is not, a human right, how these are defined, how their definitions have shifted over time, is philosophy. That humans even have "rights" is a philosophical construct. You've heard of "ethics", right? That is a branch of philosophy.

Give me an empirical, objective definition of a "right", please.

Theft again.

This time Philosophy is laying claim to "inalienable" rights.

What predicated the change in attitude such that man=cock was no longer an absolute, as it had been previously? The change in thinking on this issue that necessarily preceded any political change was prompted by very detailed discussions by philosophers. The philosophy came first.
In fact, all that changed is that people found themselves in the situation where they were able to make a choice, and did so, and the law changed to accommodate that. Philosophy was nowhere involved.

Dawkins and others have made a compelling case for the biological basis for altruism. But that's not what you were implying. I understood that your case was stronger than this - that decency has evolved in the recent past, such as to be able to account for the changing zeitgeist. If you mean that decency and morality evolved biologically rapidly enough to account for shifting moral positions through the centuries, you need to clarify what the biological basis for decency is, and show what genotypical change has occurred in the recent past that has led to a change in attitudes.
I don't believe that I mentioned the evolution of decency.

Let me just check.

No, I didn't.

What I said was "basic human decency" and "morality". Twist it if you like.

How do you think it benefits the discussion for you to claim that I have said things that I have not said?

Do you realise that it makes you look as though you are losing the argument, being unable to deal with what I have said without editing it into something of your own choosing first?

Do you, incidentally, have any idea how stupid it is to demand that someone show a change to the genotype as evidence?


If you actually mean, as I think you do, that decency has developed, then you need to tell me what, other than a process of philosophy, has driven that development.

Did I say that?

Please point out where.

Shouldn't be beyond your capabilities to do that, should it?

Unless you are just making up wee stories in order to change the subject.



Is "science" worthless because it thought for millennia that the sun went round the earth? Further investigation leads to changing attitudes.

I believe that you may be confusing the concepts of "empirical observations" and "received wisdom."


Would you call yourself a skeptic, Henners? You realise that skepticism itself is also a philosophy, developed over a long period of time by, guess who, philosophers


Sorry, it's really not on to imply that someone who knows nothing of the philosophy of skepticism is doomed to approach reality like an idiot.

You do realise how statements like that make you appear?

The philosophy comes before the medics, politicians and lawyers even show up for work. The work of philosophy, and philosophers, is a necessary precondition for these professionals to be able to do their work. Ethics committees, lawyers, Judges and politicians all work within frameworks devised, revised and discussed by philosophers first.


Just because a bunch of ivory towered useless people show up for work and have little discussions about this and that, in which they resoundingly fail to produce a unanimous consensus - and this exercise is followed by real people in real jobs, making real decisions about real people - does not give the philosophers either ownership or responsibility for the real decision that is made at the end of the process.

In other words, their actual achievement is nil.

Read John Kay's http://www.johnkay.com/political/167 excellent description of avoidance of responsibility at Oxford as an illustration of the manner in which philosophy avoids achieving anything.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Henners, I think that categorical stance is extremely silly. You seem to imply that a philosophical stance, formalized elsewhere by other people, does not impact how a scientist now goes about doing science at all. I don’t see how you can justify that claim. There’s really no reason to be categorical about it.

[Henners]

Oh, aren't you clever? Yes, one could look at it as an advertisement. One could look at a great deal of opinion as being an advertisement. Does that mean what's written there is false? Misleading? Full of weasel words? Or does it just mean you're lazy and didn't read it at all?
Temper.
So, you want to practice philosophy without having studied it? Noted.
Do I? I said that?
That's a benefit to both studying and using philosophy. But keep denying there are any benefits to it, regardless of what's presented that refutes your "argument." It makes you look so...what's the word? Obstinate.
No. Not really. All that happened is that you misrepresented the content of a link that you posted.

If you don't like that fact being pointed out to you, there's an easy remedy:

Try to keep honest.

An apology for misleading the Forum is more appropriate than trying to justify bad behaviour.
Really? Is the college having a sale? All memes must go! Six axioms for a dollar!

Keep wondering. It will give your brain something to do.

Yes, you are, but you can take steps to correct that.

I hate bullies. They can't argue to save their lives.

I'd suggest you add those four comments to the end of your cv and see what effect abusive behaviour like that has on potential employers.

[Henners]

Henners, I think that categorical stance is extremely silly. You seem to imply that a philosophical stance, formalized elsewhere by other people, does not impact how a scientist now goes about doing science at all. I don’t see how you can justify that claim. There’s really no reason to be categorical about it.


Lupus, the things that I imply and the things that I claim are different things.

Please try to avoid conflating the two for, philosophically, that is a schoolboy error.

What I am claiming is that philosophy has no achievements that benefit humanity.

To illustrate how easy it ought to be to come up with an example, I used the discovery of Penicillin in Science.

Now here we are, hundreds (it feels) of posts later, and I'm still waiting for a single genuine example to be provided.

If you think that means that I am taking a categorical stance, that is up to you.

All I'm doing is asking for ANY example.

And none have been presented.

Which, I reckon, probably makes my case pretty well.

[Phaedrus74]

Lupus, the things that I imply and the things that I claim are different things.

Please try to avoid conflating the two for, philosophically, that is a schoolboy error.

What I am claiming is that philosophy has no achievements that benefit humanity.

To illustrate how easy it ought to be to come up with an example, I used the discovery of Penicillin in Science.

Now here we are, hundreds (it feels) of posts later, and I'm still waiting for a single genuine example to be provided.

If you think that means that I am taking a categorical stance, that is up to you.

All I'm doing is asking for ANY example.

And none have been presented.

Which, I reckon, probably makes my case pretty well.

Actually, no. The only thing you did was say "prove me wrong!".

Still waiting on your evidence (post #67) by the way...

[Henners]

Actually, no. The only thing you did was say "prove me wrong!".(1)

Still waiting on your evidence (post #67) by the way...(2)

(1) The recognised method of disproving a statement is to provide a counter example.

Please don't break your heart just because that has been explained already by both me and others.

(2) No need for my evidence, yet. Let's establish the fact that no counter-example exists first.

I keep asking for one.

Why is it so difficult to find even one?

[lupus_in_fabula]

Lupus, the things that I imply and the things that I claim are different things.

Please try to avoid conflating the two for, philosophically, that is a schoolboy error.

What I am claiming is that philosophy has no achievements that benefit humanity.

To illustrate how easy it ought to be to come up with an example, I used the discovery of Penicillin in Science.

Now here we are, hundreds (it feels) of posts later, and I'm still waiting for a single genuine example to be provided.

If you think that means that I am taking a categorical stance, that is up to you.

All I'm doing is asking for ANY example.

And none have been presented.

Which, I reckon, probably makes my case pretty well.

Don’t be silly, you’ve had a plethora of examples already. I don’t see how you claiming them to be theft makes them so.



Let me ask you the following: Are you also implying that a philosophical stance (e.g. neutral monism), formalized elsewhere by other people, does not impact how a scientist now goes about doing science at all (e.g. neuroscience)? Because if that philosophical stance has an impact, even the slightest, and if the outcome of the research is better knowledge about the brain, then… useful… benefit… humanity.

[Phaedrus74]

(1) The recognised method of disproving a statement is to provide a counter example.

Please don't break your heart just because that has been explained already by both me and others.


You continue shifting the burden of proof....


(2) No need for my evidence, yet. Let's establish the fact that no counter-example exists first.

I keep asking for one.

Why is it so difficult to find even one?

But you said you had evidence, present it and be done with this nonsense.
I am seriously starting to doubt the fact that you have any actual evidence, but I remain hopeful.

[slingblade]

You're just a bully, Henners. Nothing special about you or your methods, at all. Even five-year-olds can do what you're doing.

I remain unimpressed.

[Henners]

You continue shifting the burden of proof....


If you truly believe that, Phaedrus, you have not been paying attention.But you said you had evidence, present it and be done with this nonsense.
I am seriously starting to doubt the fact that you have any actual evidence, but I remain hopeful.

I've outlined my position on this. Jumping up and down and demanding, "gimme, gimme, gimme," is unlikely to change that situation.

[Phaedrus74]

If you truly believe that, Phaedrus, you have not been paying attention.

I've outlined my position on this. Jumping up and down and demanding, "gimme, gimme, gimme," is unlikely to change that situation.

Watch out you don't throw your back out with all that heavy shiftin' boy.

Gimme my evidence!

[Henners]

Don’t be silly, you’ve had a plethora of examples already. I don’t see how you claiming them to be theft makes them so.


I did rather more than simply make that claim, but also provided reasons. If you think that the reasons are invalid, then say why.

If you cannot deal with my reasoning, then stating, "I don't see..." is rather pointless, don't you think?




Let me ask you the following: Are you also implying that a philosophical stance (e.g. neutral monism), formalized elsewhere by other people, does not impact how a scientist now goes about doing science at all (e.g. neuroscience)? Because if that philosophical stance has an impact, even the slightest, and if the outcome of the research is better knowledge about the brain, then… useful… benefit… humanity.

What I think is that using philosophy to describe an existing discipline in a manner that is satisfying to philosophers, does not turn the pre-existing discipline into Philosophy.

...however much you want that to be true.

[volatile]

This time Philosophy is laying claim to "inalienable" rights.

Define a "right" without using philosophy. I dare you.

In fact, all that changed is that people found themselves in the situation where they were able to make a choice, and did so, and the law changed to accommodate that. Philosophy was nowhere involved.I don't believe that I mentioned the evolution of decency.

There was no choice to be made until philsophers pointed out that one was possible.The distinction between "man who hashad genital surgery" and "legally-full woman" is one that philosophers made before politicians did.

I don't believe that I mentioned the evolution of decency.

Let me just check.

No, I didn't.

What I said was "basic human decency" and "morality". Twist it if you like.

Are you claiming a difference between "basic human decency" and "decency"? This is a legitimate, non-rhetorical question - what do you mean by "evolved"? It's really important to the discussion I quoted you saying, and I'll do it again,


Basic human decency evolved over at least tens of thousands of years.

I agree that human societies outgrew the morality that evolved to be appropriate for smaller groups.

I've already asked for clarification as to your usage of the word evolved, but you haven't given it. I'll ask again: what do you mean by "evolved"? Biological evolution, or a more prosaic "development"? And, I'll ask again: If you mean "developed", not driven by a biological catalyst, what drove this development, if not philosophy?

"Morality" and "basic decency" is manifestly different today than it was 500 years ago. You agree - it has "evolved". I claim that it is philosophy that has driven this evolution (Lupus implies (s)he shares this view). What is your explanation for the push for this change? What has caused the "evolution of basic human decency"?



Did I say that?

Please point out where.

Shouldn't be beyond your capabilities to do that, should it?

Unless you are just making up wee stories in order to change the subject.

I'm not changing the subject. This is the third time I've asked you this. See above for where you said it - you said "basic human decency has evolved". What drove this development, if not philosophy?


I believe that you may be confusing the concepts of "empirical observations" and "received wisdom."

No, I'm just pointing out to that just because a discipline develops over time, it does not make it worthless, as your allegation that "as a practical tool, it is therefore worthless" claims.

Sorry, it's really not on to imply that someone who knows nothing of the philosophy of skepticism is doomed to approach reality like an idiot.

I just asked you if you were a skeptic. I made no allegations. If you self-identify as a skeptic, which most members of this forum do, then your world-view is informed by a great deal of philosophy. That's all.

Just because a bunch of ivory towered useless people show up for work and have little discussions about this and that, in which they resoundingly fail to produce a unanimous consensus - and this exercise is followed by real people in real jobs, making real decisions about real people - does not give the philosophers either ownership or responsibility for the real decision that is made at the end of the process.

In other words, their actual achievement is nil.

Those people, politicians, lawyers, doctors, social workers and all the rest, are informed by the prior work of philosophy and philosophers. You can keep denying that until you're blue in the face, but you're wrong.

Oh, by the way - Edward Heath and Harold MacMillan both studied Philosophy (as part of combined PPE degrees) before becoming Prime Minster. There are a great deal of other influential people for whom this is true.

[volatile]

Now here we are, hundreds (it feels) of posts later, and I'm still waiting for a single genuine example to be provided.

If all the examples I, Moby and Phaedrus are not enough (and you have scarely defended your position other than in Pythonesque gainsaying), how about Lupus' example of global stewardship? He even provided you with a quote:

"“[…] it is as much a challenge to our philosophy and personal values as to our political and economic systems, requiring as it does a dramatic shift from an ethos of exploitation and domination to one of stewardship and global responsibility.”

Do you disagree with this?

Furthermore, how about this, from the parliamentary proceedings of the House of Commons Science and Technology Commitee. I picked a philosopher's name, Kant, at random. No doubt there are many more examples were I to spend longer than 15 seconds looking. I imagine Hume or Spinoza would also be fruitful:

"Dr MacKellar: There are a number of ways of looking at human dignity. One of the main philosophers behind human dignity is Emmanual Kant. Just to summarise, one of the things he was saying was that human dignity comes from the capacity of persons to look at autonomy, that human persons are rational and that human persons also should not be seen just as a means to an end but as an end in themselves. That is the first way of looking at it."

That is from the official proceedings of the UK government, from the minutes of a committee (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/272/7020503.htm). It is quite, quite clear that the process of formulating law in the UK is DIRECTLY informed by the work of philosopers.

Your refutation?

[volatile]

Here's another, from the House Of Lords Select Committee on Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldselect/ldasdy/86/41014p04.htm

"Professor Saunders: I have volunteered to take that question. I do not agree with the premise, and that, of course, is not my position representing the college, though there has to be a personal response in that I do believe that the main ethical doctrine today's Western Society, I think, is probably best articulated through Kant's concept of respect for persons, though Kant, of course, is respecting a much longer old tradition in the West— we are all aware of that. But I do think that the common good verses autonomy—if the two are in opposition, I think autonomy would win. I think I would have to add that my understanding of a Kantian perspective, to which you would get a far better answer from Lady O'Neill in your own House, would of course be that the Kantian view is that autonomy must be principled, and to be principled there must be some concept of a general moral law that can come from the use of that autonomy. I would acknowledge that in the implementation of this Bill, or indeed in the opposition to this Bill, there is inevitably a tension, if the Bill is not enacted, between some people, and proportionality is all-important, I think, which is an empirical issue. There is a proportionality issue between thwarting the freely expressed wishes of some people against the common good, and I think the proportional issue is morally extremely important. From my perspective, of course, I think it is not of such a scale as to pass the Bill but others will take a different view, and on that the College can have no view."

That is from a debate on legistlative action, and would a direct effect on the lives of the terminally ill on Britain if passed. Note the direct, unequivocal references to Kant and the tradition Kant was working in.

Keep tilting at windmills if it pleases you, but the British government knows the utility of philosophy.

[Henners]

Define a "right" without using philosophy. I dare you.

and?

There was no choice to be made until philsophers pointed out that one was possible.The distinction between "man who hashad genital surgery" and "legally-full woman" is one that philosophers made before politicians did.

Nonsense.

Are you claiming a difference between "basic human decency" and "decency"? This is a legitimate, non-rhetorical question - what do you mean by "evolved"? It's really important to the discussion I quoted you saying, and I'll do it again,

That is correct...and I do so in the light of your straw-man argument concerning the development of later ideas on the subject in which you demanded details of genotype changes, of all things.

I've already asked for clarification as to your usage of the word evolved, but you haven't given it. I'll ask again: what do you mean by "evolved"? Biological evolution, or a more prosaic "development"? And, I'll ask again: If you mean "developed", not driven by a biological catalyst, what drove this development, if not philosophy?

I've already stated that morality evolved over a period of at least tens of thousands of years before philosophy came along, and I gave you a reference on the subject. You figure it out.

"Morality" and "basic decency" is manifestly different today than it was 500 years ago. You agree - it has "evolved". I claim that it is philosophy that has driven this evolution (Lupus implies (s)he shares this view). What is your explanation for the push for this change? What has caused the "evolution of basic human decency"?

You can make all the "claims" you like. People living in societies make allowances, compromises, rules, and enforcement procedures. Philosophy, describing them after the event, does not own them.



I'm not changing the subject. This is the third time I've asked you this. See above for where you said it - you said "basic human decency has evolved". What drove this development, if not philosophy?

Natural selection.


No, I'm just pointing out to that just because a discipline develops over time, it does not make it worthless, as your allegation that "as a practical tool, it is therefore worthless" claims.

That is not the reasoning behind my allegation. You can go back and read it if you are really interested.

I just asked you if you were a skeptic. I made no allegations. If you self-identify as a skeptic, which most members of this forum do, then your world-view is informed by a great deal of philosophy. That's all.

"Informed" implies an information flow. There is none such.

Those people, politicians, lawyers, doctors, social workers and all the rest, are informed by the prior work of philosophy and philosophers. You can keep denying that until you're blue in the face, but you're wrong.
So, a specific example is going to be produced, is it?

Come on.

Do your best.
Oh, by the way - Edward Heath and Harold MacMillan both studied Philosophy (as part of combined PPE degrees) before becoming Prime Minster. There are a great deal of other influential people for whom this is true.

And John Major failed the test for becoming a bus conductor.

Point?

[lupus_in_fabula]

I did rather more than simply make that claim, but also provided reasons. If you think that the reasons are invalid, then say why.

If you cannot deal with my reasoning, then stating, "I don't see..." is rather pointless, don't you think?

What reasons? Equating the field of ethics with “common decency”? Simply stating “that time was right” without saying why the time was right?


What I think is that using philosophy to describe an existing discipline in a manner that is satisfying to philosophers, does not turn the pre-existing discipline into Philosophy.

...however much you want that to be true.

Where do I say it does? Of course the pre-existing discipline in my example is neuroscience.

What I’m implying is that the boundaries between disciplines are not as clear cut as you’d perhaps like to think, especially when we move away from natural sciences and approach humanities in general. But never mind, I’m sure you think they are because they have different names.

[Henners]

...Kant's concept of respect for persons...

See.

Theft.

We see, here, a basic moral principle that enabled human societies to develop and grow over thousands of years being collared and coralled by a Philosopher.

Kant didn't invent it. He only described it.

It had an independent existence before Kant described it.

If Kant had not described it, it would still exist.

The philosophical contribution toward the "concept of respect for persons": 100%.

The philosophical contribution toward "respect for persons": 0%.

[Henners]

What reasons? Equating the field of ethics with “common decency”? Simply stating “that time was right” without saying why the time was right?



If you want to take issue with what I have said, then please have the courtesy to do so without re-wiring it first.




Where do I say it does? Of course the pre-existing discipline in my example is neuroscience.

What I’m implying is that the boundaries between disciplines are not as clear cut as you’d perhaps like to think, especially when we move away from natural sciences and approach humanities in general. But never mind, I’m sure you think they are because they have different names.


And again.

[volatile]

See.

Theft.

We see, here, a basic moral principle that enabled human societies to develop and grow over thousands of years being collared and coralled by a Philosopher.

Kant didn't invent it. He only described it.

It had an independent existence before Kant described it.

If Kant had not described it, it would still exist.

The philosophical contribution toward the "concept of respect for persons": 100%.

The philosophical contribution toward "respect for persons": 0%.

I have just provided you with a direct quote that shows how the work of philosophy has directly influenced the legistlative process of my country. Dr MacKellar and Professor Saunders are both directly informed by Kant in their decision making process; they can't be any more explicit than they are in those quotes.

If you still want to maintain your ignorance in face of this unequivocal evidence, then that's up to you. I'm off down the pub.

[Henners]

That is from the official proceedings of the UK government, from the minutes of a committee (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/272/7020503.htm). It is quite, quite clear that the process of formulating law in the UK is DIRECTLY informed by the work of philosopers.

Your refutation?

Please clarify which of your claimed achievements of Philosophy is supported by this extraneous appeal to authority - or whether there is an additional achievement that you would like to add to the list.

[Henners]

I have just provided you with a direct quote that shows how the work of philosophy has directly influenced the legistlative process of my country.

However, what you are supposed to be doing is providing a specific example of an achievement of Philosophy that has given real benefits to humanity.

I have no idea whether you actually can, or not. What I can say for certain is that watching paint dry would be both faster and more exciting.

Continually obfuscating the issue like this doesn't get you very far.

Out of curiosity, could I please ask what exactly is the point of quoting my message and then not dealing with any single point in it?

[volatile]

Please clarify which of your claimed achievements of Philosophy is supported by this extraneous appeal to authority - or whether there is an additional achievement that you would like to add to the list.

:rolleyes:

[volatile]

However, what you are supposed to be doing is providing a specific example of an achievement of Philosophy that has given real benefits to humanity.

The work of the British parliament, and the debates above on cell research or assisted suicide, have had no effect on anyone? Are you insane?

The politics of my nation, and every nation, actually, is directly informed by philosophy. We've given you numerous examples of philosophicaly-underpinned politics, from the GRB to Ecological Stewardship via Habeas Corpus. If you are to claim that the political system of Great Britian has had no effect on the Britsh people, you might want to reconsider.

[Henners]

:rolleyes:

Again, could I please ask what exactly is the point of quoting my message and then not dealing with it?

[Henners]

The work of the British parliament, and the debates above on cell research or assisted suicide, have had no effect on anyone? Are you insane?

Oh dear me. Your failure to come up with a definitive example seems to be affecting you adversely to the extent of indulging in personal abuse.

You have not been able to point to any actual achievement of Philosophy in this. All you have shown is that some of the discussion was informed by the work of a Philosopher who took the trouble to describe something that had already existed for millennia.

Excuse me for asking (yet again), but is this really the best you can come up with?

[Zalbik]

See.

Theft.

We see, here, a basic moral principle that enabled human societies to develop and grow over thousands of years being collared and coralled by a Philosopher.

Kant didn't invent it. He only described it.

It had an independent existence before Kant described it.

If Kant had not described it, it would still exist.

The philosophical contribution toward the "concept of respect for persons": 100%.

The philosophical contribution toward "respect for persons": 0%.

Exactly! That's just like that stupid natural philosopher Isaac Newton that some ivory tower types go on and on about.

Gravity existed for thousands of years before being collared and coralled by a "Philosopher"

Newton didn't invent it. He only described it.

It had an independent existence before Newton described it.

If Newton had not described it, it would still exist.

The philosophical contribution toward the "concept of gravity": 100%.

The philosophical contribution toward "gravity": 0%


But seriously, one of the things philosophy provides is formal arguments for why certain concepts are valuable / useful, as well as reasoning for defending those concepts.

Exactly as science provides a fomalization of certain natural phenomemon.

Sure these concepts / phenomemon exist independent of their fields of study, but that does not make their fields of study useless.

Should we not argue about such things as ethics? Abortion rights? Euthanasia? How do you propose doing so without utilizing philosophy? Obviously there are some fields of philosophy that are less useful than others, but the same is true of scientific study as well? Should we halt study in those areas?

[volatile]

You: What has philosophy ever done for us?

Me: Ethics Committees

You: But they're surgeons, not philosophers

Me: But they are informed, directly, by philosophy.

You: No they aren't!

Me: Yes they are!

You: No they aren't!

Me: Yes they are. Here's a quote from Dr. Callum MacKellar, a research scientist who both works with the synthesis of genetic antivirals against HIV and is the Director of Research of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, and also a member of an NHS Research Ethics Committee in Edinburgh, explicitly explaining how his ethics and the ethical arguments he makes are directly, unequivocally based in his reading of Emmanuel Kant, a philosopher.

You: Yeah, but what has philosophy ever done for us?

Me: Ethics committees

....ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

I see no point in continuing this discussion, such that it is, if you can't keep up.

[Henners]

Exactly! That's just like that stupid natural philosopher Isaac Newton that some ivory tower types go on and on about.

Gravity existed for thousands of years before being collared and coralled by a "Philosopher"

Newton didn't invent it. He only described it.

It had an independent existence before Newton described it.

If Newton had not described it, it would still exist.

The philosophical contribution toward the "concept of gravity": 100%.

The philosophical contribution toward "gravity": 0%


But seriously, one of the things philosophy provides is formal arguments for why certain concepts are valuable / useful, as well as reasoning for defending those concepts.

Exactly as science provides a fomalization of certain natural phenomemon.

Sure these concepts / phenomemon exist independent of their fields of study, but that does not make their fields of study useless.

Should we not argue about such things as ethics? Abortion rights? Euthanasia? How do you propose doing so without utilizing philosophy? Obviously there are some fields of philosophy that are less useful than others, but the same is true of scientific study as well? Should we halt study in those areas?


You would have to explain why the fact that there exist scientific discoveries that make zero contribution to the well-being of humanity is pertinent to the discussion.

You have stated that ethics cannot be discussed without utilising philosophy.

Why is that?

Here's an ethic: "One good turn deserves another."

I could go on about that for hours without turning to philosophy once, but using only Evolution and Game Theory.

I'm sure a lot of people could.

So, you can discuss Ethics without Philosophy, and quite easily, too.

[Henners]

You: What has philosophy ever done for us?

Me: Ethics Committees

You: But they're surgeons, not philosophers

Me: But they are informed, directly, by philosophy.

You: No they aren't!

You depart into fantasy just around this point. I have already stated that being informed by philosophy does not qualify as BEING philosophy.

So the words you put in my mouth here are your own words, not mine.


Me: Yes they are!

You: No they aren't!
Again, these are your own words, not mine.


Me: Yes they are. Here's a quote from Dr. Callum MacKellar, a research scientist who both works with the synthesis of genetic antivirals against HIV and is the Director of Research of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, and also a member of an NHS Research Ethics Committee in Edinburgh, explicitly explaining how his ethics and the ethical arguments he makes are directly, unequivocally based in his reading of Emmanuel Kant, a philosopher.

You: Yeah, but what has philosophy ever done for us?

Me: Ethics committees

....ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

I see no point in continuing this discussion, such that it is, if you can't keep up.

Remember that post of mine that you quoted and ignored?

You will find my answers to these points in it.

Nice to see them repeated, though, but if you want a discussion rather than a soap box, you will need to listen to what I say, once in a while.

I have already stated that Ethics Committees are not set up by philosophers and neither are they stocked with them. Do you agree or disagree with that? I only ask because you seem to have ignored that point when I made it before, possibly because it is easier for you to pretend it does not exist.

I can quite understand why you would want to leave the discussion. You lost the last leg that you were standing on some way back.

[lupus_in_fabula]

I could go on about that for hours without turning to philosophy once, but using only Evolution and Game Theory.

So, you can discuss Ethics without Philosophy, and quite easily, too.

Well, perhaps... evolutionary theory and game theory has been widely discussed in philosophy, for a long time already (Braithwaite 1954 (and for some similarities to game theory in conjunction with ethics see Hobbes )). For evolutionary ethics see Spencer, Hume (is-ought problem), Huxley… ad infinitum

(Btw, Dawkins seems to be abhorred by the idea of turning the theory of evolution into some kind of moral ideology.)

[volatile]

Why would philosophers run ethics committees? That's like asking Flemming to be a sales rep for Glaxo, or Einstein to man the Shuttle...

Hey, what did Einstein ever do for us? He didn't actually do anything other than come up with ideas that other people stole, by your model.

If you don't accept that philosophy is responsible for the ethical decisions made by ethics committees when the head of one of the biggest ones in the country says it is, then I don't know what more to tell you.

[lupus_in_fabula]

If you don't accept that philosophy is responsible for the ethical decisions made by ethics committees when the head of one of the biggest ones in the country says they are, then I don't know what more to tell you.

Well, there’s this normative illusion of purity, about different disciplines necessary staying within their particular boundaries. Like biochemistry… oh wait, who stole what from whom? Naiveté at its highest form! Seriously, can anyone point out where the exact boundary between philosophy and sociology is?

[lupus_in_fabula]

double post

[CapelDodger]

It took a set of philosophers to point out that it was not immutable. The explanation of social construction of gender that led to the Bill was philosophical.

What I see are the efforts of surgeons, endocrinologists and psychiatrists who created a new situation which the law necessarily had to take account of. If it wasn't for the legal implications of gender-change (in divorce, marriage, pension rights and so on) philosophers could have talked themselves harse to no effect. The people I've known that have been engaged with the matter regard themselves as arguing politics, not philosophy.

Lawyers debate the law, they do not create the intellectual or dispositional climate that precedes its enactment. The idea that someone can be a woman but born with a penis began as a philosophical one, not a legal one.

It began as an experienced fact, which in time came to have physical implications. Lawyers don't just debate existing law, they legislate - check out how many lawyers there are in the House of Commons (or Congress, for that matter).

That's irrelevant, largely. That there is even a distinction to be made between social and physical is because a specific set of philosophers pointed out there was one. Recently.

It was transsexuals themselves who pointed this out.

How much clearer can they be? The general social attitude to transsexuality in the 21st Century is vastly different than that of the 20th, let alone the 19th. What drove that change? I would argue quite strongly that it is the work of philosophers.

So I see, and I would argue not.

If you have an idea of where else the conception of gender has been challenged, and how this has been done without invoking any philosophy, then I'm all ears.

It's been challenged by people demanding respect for themselves. That's not philosophical, that's personal and political. This is why I describe your claim as philosophical aggrandisement. Philosophers didn't get onto it before it was already an issue, pushed by the people it actually concerned.

Philosophers developed an idea.

Playing catch-up.

People listened.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Government changed the law.

True, but that's not evidence that legislators listened to philosophers. Psychiatrists and lawyers, yes, but philosophers?

What else do they have to do before you'll accept it as "their work"? Form a political party themselves?!

They could, but the manifesto would run to dozens of volumes and no voter would be able to understand a word of it. Best give that a miss if you've got anything better to do.

[CapelDodger]

I fail to see what's wrong with it, given the general tone. Would it be better to frame it as an absolute? All philosophers? We know that can't be true.
No philosophers? Again, not true.

If I try to frame arguments in such a way, I'm roundly criticised, and rightly so. There is nothing "everyone" knows, nor with which "everyone" agrees.

There are things that are known. It takes a Philosopher to claim that there aren't, which is why I brought in "equivocation". Sometimes I'm confounded by my own subtlety, but I'll try to keep it in check.

At any rate, I disagree that philosophy is stupid, as the OP states, but I can see clearly that most arguments about philosophy certainly are... :cool:

I've made clear my own difference with the OP; it's the practice of Modern Philosophy and the vapid elements of traditional philosophy that I regard as pointless. Elements such as reduction to solipsism - which is essentially where the "nothing can be proved" argument inexorably leads. (I mostly come across it when pointing out the non-existence of the supernatural.) It's barren, and at the same time smug.

ETA: how can a thing be worthwhile to study...but worthless to practice?

There's much to be learnt from Philosophy, but that work's been done and doesn't need re-doing. Modern Philosophy is gnawing on emptiness; it has to invent its own "issues", or claim some part (after the fact) in things it contributed nothing to.

Surgeons and endocrinologists didn't develop sex-change techniques because philosophers persuaded them it was a valid objective. Philosophers jumped on board later, ever eager for something to be busy at.

[Mobyseven]

Ugh. This thread is pointless. You can't explain the usefulness of philosophy to people who define philosophy as, "That which is useless by definition," and who refuse to change that definition.

CapelDodger made his position clear earlier in the thread - anything that philosophy does that is useful branches off and stops being philosophy. You can't provide a counter-example to that, because he just brushes off any example of useful philosophy you provide as no longer being philosophy. Henners is even worse.

This discussion has become pointless, because both CD and Henners have defined themselves as being right. They have invented strawman definitions of philosophy, declared themselves the arbiters of what is and isn't philosophy, and then asked us to prove them wrong. I'm not going to waste my time anymore. I'm afraid the ignorance might be contagious.

[CapelDodger]

Would you call yourself a skeptic, Henners? You realise that skepticism itself is also a philosophy, developed over a long period of time by, guess who, philosophers. :rolleyes:

Scepticism is a technique, cynicism is a philosophy of sorts.

Have you tried applying scepticism to Modern Philosophy? Stand back and look at it with a sceptical eye. Is the Emperor really as splendidly bedecked as you've been told? Summon up your inner cynic and let it loose on the case.

[CapelDodger]

Ugh. This thread is pointless. You can't explain the usefulness of philosophy to people who define philosophy as, "That which is useless by definition," and who refuse to change that definition.

CapelDodger made his position clear earlier in the thread - anything that philosophy does that is useful branches off and stops being philosophy. You can't provide a counter-example to that, because he just brushes off any example of useful philosophy you provide as no longer being philosophy.

I've done more than that, and your attempt to brush my contribution off is transparent. Philosophy has done fine work in the past, but in the present it's treading water. Claims to the contrary - Popper, for instance - I've addressed, and dismissed for good reason. If you think I don't have good reason, bring your philosophical savvy to bear and argue why.

This discussion has become pointless, because both CD and Henners have defined themselves as being right. They have invented strawman definitions of philosophy, declared themselves the arbiters of what is and isn't philosophy, and then asked us to prove them wrong. I'm not going to waste my time anymore. I'm afraid the ignorance might be contagious.

Now that's the sort of pomposity I associate with Modern Philosophy. I've dissed Popper and the Gender Recognition Bill as examples of Modern Philosphy's utility; not strawmen, but what was served up to me. Do you have a defence, a counter-argument? Or are you going to ponce off claiming the innate intellectual superiority of a Philosopher?

Come on, give us some actual evidence that you're not an educated idiot. Forget Henners, try me. Are you up for it? I am.

[Robin]

Wait @ Robin:

How do you like pig wrestling, in a muddy ditch? ;)

DR
I like it fine, thank you very much.

How did you know I was pig wrestling in a muddy ditch?

[Henners]

Why would philosophers run ethics committees? That's like asking Flemming to be a sales rep for Glaxo, or Einstein to man the Shuttle...Not only do philosophers not run ethics committees, they don't do anything other than offer advice, and you have already given the example of slavery (your example) in which philosophy can justify any point of view you like. You are not making a point here at all

Hey, what did Einstein ever do for us? He didn't actually do anything other than come up with ideas that other people stole, by your model.You clearly have not been reading too carefully if you think that is my model.

If you don't accept that philosophy is responsible for the ethical decisions made by ethics committees when the head of one of the biggest ones in the country says it is, then I don't know what more to tell you.

"Philosophy is responsibe for the ethical decisions made by ethics committees"

... no, seriously, though. Oh my sides.

What more to tell me:

A single instance of a real case where an achievement of Philosophy has provided real benefit to humanity.

[volatile]

Scepticism is a technique, cynicism is a philosophy of sorts.

Errrmmm.... not quite. From Wikipedia - "In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the Skeptikoi, a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they "asserted nothing but only opined" (Liddell and Scott). In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should avoid the postulation of final truths. Turned on itself, skepticism would question that skepticism is a valid perspective at all."

Have you tried applying scepticism to Modern Philosophy? Stand back and look at it with a sceptical eye. Is the Emperor really as splendidly bedecked as you've been told? Summon up your inner cynic and let it loose on the case.Have you read any modern philosophy? I don't quite see what there is to be sceptical about, given that it doesn't even pretend to deal in truths. Most of it is a set of metaphors to help negotiate life - asking that question is like accusing Wordsworth of not being sceptical about the loneliness of clouds, or something.

Now, you might disagree with the veracity of the metaphor, and that's fine, but it's quite different from being sceptical in the way you're implying.

Those bits of it that aren't directly metaphorical in this way work in reverse, by suggesting that some particular facet of life taken as empirical (as in my previous gender example) might actually be more cultural and less "concrete" than otherwise assumed.

Philosophy (even the post-modern kind) is not antithetical to empricisim, materialism, reason or science. What post-modern, post-structuralist philosophy does is question assumptions, pose questions and suggest metaphors for looking at how the world and its many facets function. In essence, like all philosophy really, it debates how the empircal facts of the world impact our individual lives. That was at the core of Sokal's misunderstanding too: whilst the majority of his book is essentially "Look at Kristeva, isn't she bad at maths", that's beside the point. The mathematics she, and others (mis)use is not meant to represent any empirical fact; rather, it's a metaphor.

For example: I teach Deleuzan approaches to art. The Deleuzean extended metaphor is that the world functions as a machine, with everything in it producing and channeling what he calls "flows". In terms of art theory, this is a useful and interesting way of explaining why we feel affected, physically, by looking at a disgusting painting or a grotesque statue, and it's directly opposed to the intellectual discussion of meaning that art history has traditionally dealt with. Now, this does not mean that Deleuze thinks that there really is a metaphysical, spooky force emanating from artworks, nor that he would deny the neurochemcial processes that materially cause these reactions, but it is a far more useful (and, dare I say "elegant") way of talking about are than a nuts-and-bolts discussion of neurochemistry.

Now, that's a simplistic example, but I hope it illustrates my point. This type of philosophy is a guide book, or a lens, really. It's a set of subjective interpretations of objective realities, like all philosophy is. That it makes no empirical claims is not a problem, because it doesn't set out to in the first place.



What was the last post-modern philosophy you actually read? It's better than you remember, I promise.

[volatile]

"Philosophy is responsibe for the ethical decisions made by ethics committees"

... no, seriously, though. Oh my sides.

I like that you've boiled Kant's Critique of Practical Reason down to "advice". I'm guessing you haven't read it... :)

Kant developed and expressed the ideas that have informed the work of ethics committees. That is the job of philosophers. Just as Einstein didn't build the shuttle, Kant didn't give evidence before the HoC Science and Technlogy committee. But their roles are analogous.

Did you not read that set of quotes from above?

I really don't see what you're asking for, if the head of an ethics committee saying very clearly that it is Kantian thought that underpins his opinions and drives the decisions he makes isn't enough.

Philosophy is necessarily subjective. Now, that is not to say it's all nonsense, as they all use objective data from which to develop their subjective opinions, which they then formalise. What do you want? Philosophical consensus? That exists on a large number of issues. Do philosophers agree with everything other philosophers do? Of course not, but neither do scientists.


A single instance of a real case where an achievement of Philosophy has provided real benefit to humanity.

Ethics committees.