Why Is Philosophy Important?

[RandFan]

Every so often someone comes on the forum to make the claim that philosophy is nothing more than navel gazing. I can only respond that if this is your take on philosophy then you really don't even know what philosophy is.

Let's start of with the question, "why is philosophy important?"

Understand that the question and any arguments in support of any answer are philosophical. So, to even explore whether or not philosophy is important is to engage in philosophy.

Let's ask another question, why do humans engage in scientific inquiry? Why do humans seek to understand the natural world? I submit that any answer to that question will always, inevitably, lead to a philosophical one. You might answer, "to better our lives." Ok, why do we want to better our lives? You could answer, "because we evolved to want to better our lives". Fine, that is a scientific answer but it doesn't really tell us why it just tells us the mechanism as to how we came to "want". If that satisfies you then fine but it isn't very scientific to suggest there is no reason to explore further.

We are not robots. We are not computers. Humans want, and it can be argued, need to try and understand existence. Many of us want to explore every facet of that existence and in doing so we discover many insights into what it means to be human.

Why do we seek to understand distant planets orbiting distant stars? Is it not as philosophical as it is scientific (ignoring for a moment that science is a branch of philosophy)?

Finally, art (aesthetics), ethics (morality, law) and politics are all branches of philosophy. I suppose there exists scientists who don't care about art or politics but I don't see how they can escape politics and more importantly I can't think of any but sociopaths who truly do not care about ethics.

I don't think many, if any, of us can truly escape philosophy. We might treat it with scorn and contempt but we engage in it often when we don't even realize it.

That's my take. My ego is not too big to have my ideas picked apart. Please, have at it. :)

[supercorgi]

OK, I'm one of those who find philosophy boring. But it seems to me that you're extending the definition of philosophy beyond classical philosophy. By that definition, I can see that it has value. I value science because it seeks to discover what is. Knowledge, just for knowledge's sake is valuable. Extending our understanding of the physical world is valuable. I'm not saying that extending our understanding of the world of ideas is valueless, it just doesn't interest me because nothing concrete can be discovered - it's all supposition and thought. I've never really understood Plato's Cave allegory - maybe I haven't studied enough philosophy, maybe I'm just too shallow to understand. :D

Either way, I'd rather study scientific activity and discoveries than contemplate abstracts.

[RandFan]

OK, I'm one of those who find philosophy boring.That's fine but I'm not sure what you mean by that especially in light of your next statement.

But it seems to me that you're extending the definition of philosophy beyond classical philosophy. By that definition, I can see that it has value. To be fair, and perhaps precise, the definition of philosophy is somewhat controversial. I would disagree and say that my definition is in fact the classical one but that's fine. Instead of quibbling over definitions of the term "classical philosophy" I propose we stick with "academic philosophy".

Academic philosophy, wiki

Philosophy, in this sense, is the discipline whose subject matter is the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality, whose goal is to discover the absolutely fundamental reason of everything it investigates, and whose method is rational enquiry, or enquiry guided by the canons of rationality. If you find that "academic philosophy" is of value then we probably don't have any disagreement.

I value science because it seeks to discover what is.How does this differ from what you view as philosophy in your opinion?

Knowledge, just for knowledge's sake is valuable. Extending our understanding of the physical world is valuable. I'm not saying that extending our understanding of the world of ideas is valueless, it just doesn't interest me because nothing concrete can be discovered - it's all supposition and thought. I've never really understood Plato's Cave allegory - maybe I haven't studied enough philosophy, maybe I'm just too shallow to understand. :D

Either way, I'd rather study scientific activity and discoveries than contemplate abstracts. I would have to say that philosophy most certainly is not just the study of abstracts though to be sure much of it is abstract. I have an idea of what you mean but I would like to make certain. In his famous thought experiment, Einstein tried to imagine what it was like to ride on a beam of light. This was a purely abstract experiment. Do you think that this process limited in some way Einstein's theory?

I'm curious, are you familiar with the philosophy professor Daniel Dennett?

Thanks for the response BTW.

[CapelDodger]

I have a very low opinion of modern philosophy. (And I do know what philosophy is, I had a classical education to start with.) My contention is that Philosophy had produced everything useful it was going to by 1900. By then Science and Mathematics had budded-off as fields in themselves. What we end up with is sophistry, sopilpsism and navel-gazing - and all of it very self-congratulatory.

[ImaginalDisc]

I have a very low opinion of modern philosophy. (And I do know what philosophy is, I had a classical education to start with.) My contention is that Philosophy had produced everything useful it was going to by 1900. By then Science and Mathematics had budded-off as fields in themselves. What we end up with is sophistry, sopilpsism and navel-gazing - and all of it very self-congratulatory.

Two word rebuttal: Karl Popper

His principle of falsifiability has greatly influenced the continuously developing scientfic method.

[RandFan]

I have a very low opinion of modern philosophy. (And I do know what philosophy is, I had a classical education to start with.) My contention is that Philosophy had produced everything useful it was going to by 1900. By then Science and Mathematics had budded-off as fields in themselves. What we end up with is sophistry, sopilpsism and navel-gazing - and all of it very self-congratulatory. Hey, one person's opinion is as good as any other.

Thanks

[RandFan]

Two word rebuttal: Karl Popper

His principle of falsifiability has greatly influenced the continuously developing scientfic method. Two more, Daniel Dennett.

[Dark Jaguar]

This thread's title made me think of this site:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/

And reading that site is partially what led me to my current view of it. It logically finds out some very basic and somewhat obvious stuff, and I'd be lying if I said that it didn't interest me reading a long arse explanation of why things are what they are. However, when a philosopher starts extending all this to say "it is an absolute moral truth that we MUST behave this way or we are illogical animals", you start to lose me. In every case, I read the "basics" of some philosophy and it all works out fine, but the second they extend it to try and "prove" this or that ethical, aesthetical, or political viewpoint as "the only rational choice ever'd", I start picking it apart, seeing problems with it, and noting above all that there are vast differences and no popular consensus on ANY of that. What reason do I have to listen to any of it?

For example, that particular site goes on about how everyone, no matter how illogically they act, MUST always be allowed to do as they will save when it endangers others. I can agree with that but only to a point. That point is children. The logical extension is that children should also be allowed to hurt themselves and should never be obstructed from, say, putting their hand on a hot burner because it defies their will and they aren't hurting anyone else. At the very least, it means that's poorly thought out. At most, it says that our moral sense is primarily beastial anyway, driven by evolution, and it's just fine if we decide to not worry about "internal logical consistency".

So yeah, I consider philosophy "cute", and in areas of pure rational thought, sure it can offer some answers. Unfortunately, it over extends itself. Science may not be able to answer the questions of morality or aesthetics, but from what I've seen, neither can philosophy. I'd say logic itself fails in those regards. It's really just a mental programming.

[RandFan]

This thread's title made me think of this site:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/

And reading that site is partially what led me to my current view of it. It logically finds out some very basic and somewhat obvious stuff, and I'd be lying if I said that it didn't interest me reading a long arse explanation of why things are what they are. However, when a philosopher starts extending all this to say "it is an absolute moral truth that we MUST behave this way or we are illogical animals", you start to lose me. In every case, I read the "basics" of some philosophy and it all works out fine, but the second they extend it to try and "prove" this or that ethical, aesthetical, or political viewpoint as "the only rational choice ever'd", I start picking it apart, seeing problems with it, and noting above all that there are vast differences and no popular consensus on ANY of that. What reason do I have to listen to any of it?

For example, that particular site goes on about how everyone, no matter how illogically they act, MUST always be allowed to do as they will save when it endangers others. I can agree with that but only to a point. That point is children. The logical extension is that children should also be allowed to hurt themselves and should never be obstructed from, say, putting their hand on a hot burner because it defies their will and they aren't hurting anyone else. At the very least, it means that's poorly thought out. At most, it says that our moral sense is primarily beastial anyway, driven by evolution, and it's just fine if we decide to not worry about "internal logical consistency".

So yeah, I consider philosophy "cute", and in areas of pure rational thought, sure it can offer some answers. Unfortunately, it over extends itself. Science may not be able to answer the questions of morality or aesthetics, but from what I've seen, neither can philosophy. I'd say logic itself fails in those regards. It's really just a mental programming.Great link. Thanks. Good post BTW.

[Dark Jaguar]

Basically I'm saying that the most we can say is why we behave the way we do or find certain things moral or beautiful. The universe doesn't seem to have any absolute "how it SHOULD be" answers though.

I must agree that if philosophy is defined as "world view", it is very nearly inescapable. I say "nearly" because I escape it during dreamless sleep and eventually in death :D.

[ImaginalDisc]

Two more, Daniel Dennett.

Dennet's great, but Popper's had an unquestionably strong influence on the methodology of science.

[Cosmo]

This thread's title made me think of this site:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/

I had no idea "aesthetics" can also be spelled "esthetics". Seems to be much less-widely used.

I'll need to give the site a closer look, but at the very bottom of the home page lies this gem:

The content of this website is primarily based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.

I admit I need to brush up on Objectivism, but I was under the impression it was mostly a load of garbage. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Responses_to_Objectivis t_philosophy) seems to agree:

Most academic philosophers have long considered Objectivism to be a pop philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_philosophy) and unworthy of their attention. For example, David Sidorsky, professor of philosophy at Columbia University, characterizes Rand's work as "outside the mainstream of philosophical works," and more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy, which explains in part why it isn't more widely taught.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#_note-8) In recent years, however, there are signs that this is beginning to change, with the publication of several academic books on Rand and the creation of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#_note-9) That said, there are only two Objectivist philosophers, Tara Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Smith) and James Lennox (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Lennox&action=edit) holding tenured positions at one of the top fifteen leading American philosophy departments (University of Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas) at Austin and University of Pittsburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pittsburgh)).[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#_note-10) Some academics have concluded that some of its central claims are demonstrably false.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#_note-11) Others have argued that even if specific Objectivist claims are correct, Objectivist arguments are fallacious. For example, Robert Nozick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick), a prominent libertarian philosopher, largely agreed with Rand on political issues but did not find her argument for ethical naturalism persuasive.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#_note-12)

[CapelDodger]

Two word rebuttal: Karl Popper

His principle of falsifiability has greatly influenced the continuously developing scientfic method.
No it hasn't. His work has no practical application. The idea of falsifiability goes back to sceptic Greeks, Popper does rewords it - a common exercise in modern philosophy. He dismisses induction, which underlies most of modern science (and all of technology). I don't think many scientists pay Popper much attention these days, although philosophers may well do.

[RandFan]

I had no idea "aesthetics" can also be spelled "esthetics". Seems to be much less-widely used.

I'll need to give the site a closer look, but at the very bottom of the home page lies this gem:

I admit I need to brush up on Objectivism, but I was under the impression it was mostly a load of garbage. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Responses_to_Objectivis t_philosophy) seems to agree:Rand certainly lacks the rigor to justify her views as academic philosophy. I think that misses the point though. Rand is valued more in her insights into human behavior. I see Rand more as a Dostoevsky or Orwell. Perhaps a mirror to Lenin except Lenin wrote essays and Rand, like Dostoevsky and Orwell wrote fiction. I don't at all think that it is a load of garbage.

[CapelDodger]

Two more, Daniel Dennett.
What's he ever done for me?

[RandFan]

No it hasn't. His work has no practical application. The idea of falsifiability goes back to sceptic Greeks, Popper does rewords it - a common exercise in modern philosophy. He dismisses induction, which underlies most of modern science (and all of technology). I don't think many scientists pay Popper much attention these days, although philosophers may well do. Capel, it's nice that you have opinions and are willing to share but I hope you understand that opinions are not argument and yours are not at all persuasive. Further, I don't think Popper's point was to dismiss induction but merely to deal with Hume's problem of Induction and to illustrate the difference between induction and deduction.

Among his contributions to philosophy is his answer to David Hume's Problem of Induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction). Hume stated that just because the sun has risen every day for as long as anyone can remember, doesn't mean that there is any rational reason to believe it will come up tomorrow. There is no rational way to prove that a pattern will continue on just because it has before.

Popper's reply is characteristic, and ties in with his criterion of falsifiability. He states that while there is no way to prove that the sun will come up, we can theorize that it will. If it does not come up, then it will be disproven, but since right now it seems to be consistent with our theory, the theory is not disproven. Thus, Popper's demarcation between science and non-science serves as an answer to an old logical problem as well.

[ImaginalDisc]

No it hasn't. His work has no practical application. The idea of falsifiability goes back to sceptic Greeks, Popper does rewords it - a common exercise in modern philosophy. He dismisses induction, which underlies most of modern science (and all of technology). I don't think many scientists pay Popper much attention these days, although philosophers may well do.

His work helped to reshape scientific inquiry. Of course it drew on earlier philosophers.

[RandFan]

What's he ever done for me?? Odd, what has most science done for you? I find this a bit arrogant. When did your self centered needs become the demarcation of value?

[supercorgi]

I'm curious, are you familiar with the philosophy professor Daniel Dennett?

Thanks for the response BTW.

I admit, I haven't read much of modern philosophy. I need to read some Dennett and maybe some others (can you suggest some?). My view is mainly anthropolgical. I observe what cultures do, how they adapt. How their philosophies fit thier lives. To me it seems that much of classical philosophy deals with ideals, with memes, and not always the real world. In different cultures there are certainly memes, what Jung and Cambell, labeled as archetypes. These are lasting and form the ideals of a culture.

[CapelDodger]

? Odd, what has most science done for you? I find this a bit arrogant. When did your self centered needs become the demarcation of value?
To put it another way, what's he ever produced that's of any practical significance? I've read some of his writing on the mind and I found it completely unenlightening.

[Tricky]

I think one must distinguish between philosophy, as in the way you decide what to believe, and philosophy, as in boring classes that study what a bunch of old wankers had to say about the nature of reality.

[CapelDodger]

His work helped to reshape scientific inquiry.
How so? Where in the recent history of science does this reshaping start to show up? As far as I can see science continues to progress in just the same way it has done for the last couple of centuries.

[Tricky]

How so? Where in the recent history of science does this reshaping start to show up? As far as I can see science continues to progress in just the same way it has done for the last couple of centuries.
I agree. The philosophy of science is probably the only philosophy that is self evident. While idealism and dualism and solipsism and all those other "isms" require a lot of thought and introspection, the philosophy of "evidencism" (to coin a phrase) is obvious even in lower animals. It is nothing more than "learning from experience". Popper didn't invent that.

[Cosmo]

This thread's title made me think of this site:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/

The more I read this site, the more I find its title to be misleading. The footnote at the bottom of the home page (The content of this website is primarily based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.) really means what it says. This site is essentially an endorsement of and an argument for Objectivism. Perhaps nowhere is this clearer than in the "Misbegotten Notions" subsection, which criticizes other philosophical theories and attempts to defend Objectivism. Altruism, Environmentalism, Vegetarianism (?), and Determinism, among others, are all criticized. This website is far more concerned with the importance of Objectivism than of philosophy.

On another note, Randfan, I've just realized that my criticism of Objectivism (or, at least, of this website) may be at odds with your beliefs if your username is at all indicative of them. I want to be quite clear, then, that I do not mean to offend and I apologize if I have.

[Dark Jaguar]

I may have quoted this before, but I recall the creator of "8-bit Theater" saying something along the lines of "I had to deal with this stuff all the time. I recall a professor saying "Take this table. Remove one atom at a time. When does it stop being a table?". I said "When it falls over"." A lot of the stuff philosophers go on about aren't real problems. All it shows is that our language is "fuzzy" on certain details. A table is one of those raised surfaces you can put things on with lots of room under it. You can lop off as much as you need but it really only stops being a table when it can't do that. When does a hill become a mountain? I think they made a silly movie about that once. It's meaningless where that dividing line is, like deciding if Pluto is a planet. The two words were arbitrary to begin with. The dividing line can be likewise arbitrary. And, here's a thinker, why can't the two definitions overlap? Like, in this zone both hill and mountain are accurate terms to use.

However, sometimes some very clear stuff is basically finally laid out. I see no problem with someone ironing out what the difference between science and just making random assumptions is. It's helpful at least in telling the difference between endeavors of worth and those that are useless.

I will say this. Rand is an example of problems I have with a lot of philosophy. Her "Since we exist as creatures, we should live and that's a moral desire". I have no idea how she gets from one to the next. So what if we are one way? That's where she jumps from the "A is A" train to the "A SHOULD BE A and never try to be B" train. The latter seems a silly thing to say (things become other things all the time), but that's basically what Rand is trying to state. It's close to a form of fatalism if you ask me. Also, there's that one thing where she basically begs the question as to whether or not we should even bother valuing our own happiness.

Don't get me wrong, I do value my own happiness, and I want to live, but to say that it's a moral imperative by virtue of the very fact that we exist, well, I don't see the logical connection. Seems a non-sequiter to me.

[Dark Jaguar]

I think I'll also take the time to retract my statement of "cute" in describing philosophy. I'll relabel it as "interesting". Some of it is pretty interesting, and I have to say I do enjoy occasionally just mucking around with logic for it's own sake. I'm just saying a lot of the conclusions are misbegotten and rather silly. Some, not so much.

Here's another strike against at least some philosophical arguments. A lot of arguments I seem to hear are "well empiricism lies on the axiomatic assumption that evidence leads to truth", or something like that. But, is that really an assumption at all? Seems to me that that very "assumption" isn't so much assumed as it is shown to BE true by our successful use of observation to predict certain things. Absolute truth? Maybe not, but we get close.

In fact all labels of some part of empirical observation, or insightful conclusions based on those observations (as used in, say, engineering) don't actually seem to be assumed so much as borne out by evidence in and of themselves.

[RandFan]

To put it another way, what's he ever produced that's of any practical significance? I've read some of his writing on the mind and I found it completely unenlightening.First off I'm not sure why what you find unenlightening has to do with anything. Like I said, I can respect your opinion but it is not of much importance to me and I'm not sure why it should be of importance to anyone else?

As it relates to science I'm not sure why practical significance is important. Whatever "practical significance" is. Much of what science studies is without practical application. Since you are a fan of science, as I also am, then I must ask, when did science just become only a search for that which is practically significant?

That said there is practical significance. Just because it isn't of significance to you does not render it insignificant. Some people think the study of the sex life of butterflies silly and without significance. That doesn't make it so. Pinker and Dawkins don't think Dennett insignificant. Why is your opinion more important than theirs? For that matter, why is it more important than mine? Look, I don't really care if you find philosophy insignificant. I can only tell you why it is significant to me.

In other words I really don't understand your criteria for significance.

[RandFan]

I may have quoted this before, but I recall the creator of "8-bit Theater" saying something along the lines of "I had to deal with this stuff all the time. I recall a professor saying "Take this table. Remove one atom at a time. When does it stop being a table?". I said "When it falls over"." A lot of the stuff philosophers go on about aren't real problems. All it shows is that our language is "fuzzy" on certain details. A table is one of those raised surfaces you can put things on with lots of room under it. You can lop off as much as you need but it really only stops being a table when it can't do that. When does a hill become a mountain? I think they made a silly movie about that once. It's meaningless where that dividing line is, like deciding if Pluto is a planet. The two words were arbitrary to begin with. The dividing line can be likewise arbitrary. And, here's a thinker, why can't the two definitions overlap? Like, in this zone both hill and mountain are accurate terms to use. Based on this quote I would have to say that you miss the point of philosophy. The point about the table is to understand that a table isn't just a table. It was a philosopher that first realized that a table wasn't simply a table but instead was composed of smaller units of matter. The point about the table is to get us to step outside of our macro world and view the micro or view the universe from a different perspective. Your instructor wasn't trying to get you to find a demarcation. He was trying to get you to take your blinders off and change your perspective.

However, sometimes some very clear stuff is basically finally laid out. I see no problem with someone ironing out what the difference between science and just making random assumptions is. It's helpful at least in telling the difference between endeavors of worth and those that are useless.I'm sorry, I think one of the biggest mistakes is to assume that scientific or philosophical inquiry must first have worth. Pursuit of knowledge is its own reward and I think we would be poor indeed to only seek to learn that which we first can justify as worthy.

I will say this. Rand is an example of problems I have with a lot of philosophy. Her "Since we exist as creatures, we should live and that's a moral desire". I have no idea how she gets from one to the next. So what if we are one way? That's where she jumps from the "A is A" train to the "A SHOULD BE A and never try to be B" train. The latter seems a silly thing to say (things become other things all the time), but that's basically what Rand is trying to state. It's close to a form of fatalism if you ask me. Also, there's that one thing where she basically begs the question as to whether or not we should even bother valuing our own happiness. You are judging Ann by just a couple of propositions. I suppose that we could do the same with Tesla. He had some spurious ideas. That would be ad hominem though. Tesla's bad ideas don't invalidate his good ones. I don't get the desire to completely dismiss philosophical inquiry based solely on cherry picked examples?

[RandFan]

The more I read this site, the more I find its title to be misleading. The footnote at the bottom of the home page (The content of this website is primarily based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.) really means what it says. This site is essentially an endorsement of and an argument for Objectivism. Perhaps nowhere is this clearer than in the "Misbegotten Notions" subsection, which criticizes other philosophical theories and attempts to defend Objectivism. Altruism, Environmentalism, Vegetarianism (?), and Determinism, among others, are all criticized. This website is far more concerned with the importance of Objectivism than of philosophy.

On another note, Randfan, I've just realized that my criticism of Objectivism (or, at least, of this website) may be at odds with your beliefs if your username is at all indicative of them. I want to be quite clear, then, that I do not mean to offend and I apologize if I have. Hey Cosmo, I've never been an objectivist and I find objectivism to be woo. I admire Rand for many reasons that I have to keep explaining so I guess I'll have to start a small web page to explain myself. I like to find insights to human behavior and human understanding. I find it fascinating. Rand was a compeling woman in a time when women were not so easily compelling. I think she offered some insights into human behavior that were counter to the paradigms of the time. She contributed to our thinking and considerations of human social dynamics much the same way that Dostoevsky, Orwell and Lenin did if for no other reason than she got us to consider her arguments. She was influential.

[Dogdoctor]

My 2 cents about philosophy. Philosophy is the glue that holds all your thoughts together or the framework that you place your pictures of the world around you on. You learn about things and these create thoughts/images that help you to deal with (hopefully by understanding it) the world. Each little bit of data is separate and as such has less meaning but held together by your philosophy, you have a somewhat cohesive interlocking picture of the world. This is why religion works so well for some people because it provides all the right shapes (it's malleable) to hold everything together. In my thoughts religion is a philosophy. It works just like other philosophies. Some people will have religion holding one portion of their world picture and some other philosophy holding other parts of their world picture with varying amounts of integration between the two parts . Some people may have lots of different parts held together by lots of different philosophies creating a patchwork view of the world so they have many conflicting thoughts. These frameworks (philosophies) are built up over time starting from when you are very young and in response to your experiences and your understanding of them. So everyone has a philosophy developed to some degree.
The importance has only to do with how well it allows you to achieve your goals.

[Tricky]

I may have quoted this before, but I recall the creator of "8-bit Theater" saying something along the lines of "I had to deal with this stuff all the time. I recall a professor saying "Take this table. Remove one atom at a time. When does it stop being a table?". I said "When it falls over"." A lot of the stuff philosophers go on about aren't real problems. All it shows is that our language is "fuzzy" on certain details. A table is one of those raised surfaces you can put things on with lots of room under it. You can lop off as much as you need but it really only stops being a table when it can't do that. When does a hill become a mountain? I think they made a silly movie about that once. It's meaningless where that dividing line is, like deciding if Pluto is a planet. The two words were arbitrary to begin with. The dividing line can be likewise arbitrary. And, here's a thinker, why can't the two definitions overlap? Like, in this zone both hill and mountain are accurate terms to use.
Nominated!

Man, I spend so much time here trying to illustrate this principle of "overlapping definitions". This does it so beautifully.

[Dark Jaguar]

Based on this quote I would have to say that you miss the point of philosophy. The point about the table is to understand that a table isn't just a table. It was a philosopher that first realized that a table wasn't simply a table but instead was composed of smaller units of matter. The point about the table is to get us to step outside of our macro world and view the micro or view the universe from a different perspective. Your instructor wasn't trying to get you to find a demarcation. He was trying to get you to take your blinders off and change your perspective.

I was actually quoting someone else as regarding that professor. I wasn't the one that took that class. The point is that the table may be composed of smaller units of matter, but that's not what we are calling a "table". We're calling that thing you put things on. What it's made of is irrelevant. It could be made of dark matter or programmed into a game for all I care, so it doesn't matter how much is removed so long as it still fits the definition. What blinders need to be removed here? Nothing is enlightened by asking that sort of question, because a table isn't defined as "this amount of atoms". A table is a macroscopic definition for a macroscopic idea. Microscopic doesn't even play into it. That's incidental.

I'm sorry, I think one of the biggest mistakes is to assume that scientific or philosophical inquiry must first have worth. Pursuit of knowledge is its own reward and I think we would be poor indeed to only seek to learn that which we first can justify as worthy.I think others here asking about worth sort of muddied the waters. That's not really my position. I'm just saying that it doesn't seem like a lot of it is uncovering ANY truth whatsoever, whether it would be of value or not. That table exercise is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. It gives me no great understanding of anything except that the professor doesn't know what the concept of a "definition" is. It's not some super specific thing that must include all sub-parts. It's really just a vague thing. If it can do what a table does, it's a table. When it can't do that, it isn't. That guy's answer of "when it falls down" is the best answer I've ever heard for such a philosophical question. Reminds me of the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" question. My answer? Yes, it does. If you define sound as vibrations, as sound is defined in this age, then it makes a sound. If that's labeled as just an assumption because you can't prove it, I might as well say you can't prove the tree or the forest was even there to begin with, making the question pointless.


You are judging Ann by just a couple of propositions. I suppose that we could do the same with Tesla. He had some spurious ideas. That would be ad hominem though. Tesla's bad ideas don't invalidate his good ones. I don't get the desire to completely dismiss philosophical inquiry based solely on cherry picked examples?

Yeah, you're right. I'm only familiar with the things I've read she said though, and I'm judging those on their own merits. If she's said other things that were of great insight, then I'll judge them on their own merits. What sort of observations about human behavior did she make?

[Dark Jaguar]

Nominated!

Man, I spend so much time here trying to illustrate this principle of "overlapping definitions". This does it so beautifully.

Thanks, though I think the best way to illustrate it would be via a diagram. Draw two circles next to some height marker and in the middle, the two circles overlap. One is the red "mountain" circle and the other is the blue "hill" circle. Just pick whatever point works for you for the entry point to "rough territory".

Actually, my idea is kinda flawed. Notice no one asks something like "where does hot become cold?" because that's just understood to be subjective and just having a temperature gauge works fine? Well, you could just put all raised land on a graph with the bottom being "more hill-like" and the top being "more mountain-like". There would be no dividing line at all, just a gradual slope from more of one trait to more of another. That is probably the most accurate way to explain the fuzzy nature of a lot of definitions.

[Cosmo]

Fair enough, RandFan. Thanks for clearing that up. :)

[l0rca]

Two more, Daniel Dennett.

Two more, Noam Chomsky.

*runs before the politics notice*

(I'll come into this topic a bit more heavily later on.)

[l0rca]

Dark Jaguar, the philosophy you explain and find interesting seems to be conflating older philosophy with the more modern, skewing the image of it as mostly older, and judging from there.

It's true that most philosophy is poor in comparision to our current understanding of things, but this is because the philosophies of the past outnumber the philosophies of today. Most philosophers of today consider these past ideas a keen history lesson, and good exercises for lateral thinking, but we all acknowledge that they don't stand ground.

Philosophy these days is more interested in justifications for the inheritance and incorporation of knowledge and linguistics. It's been said, though I can't readily produce the source, that today's philosophy's only lone battle is on linguistics; something science can't produce evidence for -- these things have simply been lost in time, and only reasoning is really left to explain it. Still, today's philosophy provides the axioms and justified processes science uses to establish and build upon itself. Falsifiability can not be mentioned enough. Neither can the three philosophers Ranfan, the other guy, and I have mentioned.

[El Greco]

I think that most people live perfectly good lives without philosophy. If, on the other hand, you argue that everybody has a worldview and so can't really escape philosophy, then I'd reply that saying that "philosophy is important" bears no more weight than saying "love is important" - a moot point. Besides, philosophy is one of those futile non-exact sciences where my opinion can very well bear the same weight as that of any famous philosopher.

[l0rca]

"philosophy is important" bears no more weight than saying "love is important"

The fact that faculties of philosophizing and love are inert in humans do not make make them equal, and loafing reasoning as an attribute of "humans" on the whole is a misunderstanding of a species as complex as ours. In general, our species can reason, and in general, they can love, but the range and of these characteristics differ in everyone.

I can also argue that both love and philosophy are not moot, and are powerful aspects of the human race, one which emotionally binds and aids in our social structure, and the other helping us build and create.

Besides, philosophy is one of those futile non-exact sciences where my opinion can very well bear the same weight as that of any famous philosopher.

Logic is both a science and a philosophy, and it is pretty much as exacting as you get in human experience.

And what you mean by "bear weight" largely depends on what you consider valuable when it comes to reasoning and opinion. If we're looking at backing evidence, logical consistency, and application in our experience of reality, philosophies can be judged, and we can get pretty objective in picking which ones are relatively superior. We can always say that "all philosophies are equal because there is no truism when it comes to what is most valuable in judgment and objectivity," but this advances only nihilism. It is better instead not to look for objective truths, but for what progresses us.

I've always said that we should stop looking at things from a perspective of what is "right or wrong," and start valuing things on progression and destruction, which are real-world concepts, based not on abstraction, but obvious things in the universe.

[RandFan]

I was actually quoting someone else as regarding that professor. I wasn't the one that took that class. The point is that the table may be composed of smaller units of matter, but that's not what we are calling a "table". We're calling that thing you put things on. What it's made of is irrelevant. It could be made of dark matter or programmed into a game for all I care, so it doesn't matter how much is removed so long as it still fits the definition. What blinders need to be removed here? Nothing is enlightened by asking that sort of question, because a table isn't defined as "this amount of atoms". A table is a macroscopic definition for a macroscopic idea. Microscopic doesn't even play into it. That's incidental. It's a perception thing. You are correct about the definition of table. I can only say that you are failing to see (in this case) the trees for the forest. Clearly you understand that there is both a micro and macro world and to you everything works fine so long as we keep the two separate and clearly define our terms. Tables are tables and atoms are atoms. If I understand you correctly (I beg your forgiveness if I'm wrong) your understanding of the world is purely academic. You see the world based on the rote education you received. That's fine. People don't need to be able to think outside of the box to function in our world. They just need to be able to understand our world as it is explained.

The problem is that much of what we have learned about the universe and our natural world was the result of people seeing beyond the forest. People who could think outside of the box. How many people give a damn about space/time? The vast majority of people clearly never gave it a second thought. The reason that they didn't is because we evolved in a macro world and our brains simply didn't need to deal with notions of the absolute speed of light and Relativity. It took someone like Einstein who was capable of thinking outside of the box to wonder about that. That is what I mean by blinders. Dawkins has a wonderful take on this. He uses the metaphor of a slit in a burka to represent our view of the world. As he says, the universe is not only queerer than we imagine it is queerer than we can imagine. If you have not yet read the God Delusion I highly recommend it. Dawkins gets it.

I think others here asking about worth sort of muddied the waters. That's not really my position. I'm just saying that it doesn't seem like a lot of it is uncovering ANY truth whatsoever, whether it would be of value or not. That table exercise is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. It gives me no great understanding of anything except that the professor doesn't know what the concept of a "definition" is. It's not some super specific thing that must include all sub-parts. It's really just a vague thing. If it can do what a table does, it's a table. When it can't do that, it isn't. That guy's answer of "when it falls down" is the best answer I've ever heard for such a philosophical question. Reminds me of the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" question. My answer? Yes, it does. If you define sound as vibrations, as sound is defined in this age, then it makes a sound. If that's labeled as just an assumption because you can't prove it, I might as well say you can't prove the tree or the forest was even there to begin with, making the question pointless.That was my take on the "falling tree" example also. How utterly ridiculous I thought.

The point isn't whether trees makes vibrations when they fall and no one is there. The point is "what is sound"? Again, your understanding of sound is based on your experience and rote learning of what sound is. You take it for granted that you are capable of both hearing sound and giving meaning to that which you perceive as sound. Sound is actually, by definition, that which we perceive. Without an eardrum to convert the vibrations to a signal and brain to process the signal and give meaning that signal then there really is no sound just vibrations moving through a medium. It's true that we have come to call and have even defined those vibrations as sound but that is not a precise definition. To be precise we should say "sound vibrations". Analog information that is capable of being processed and interpreted as sound. Now, you may say, ah but this is just semantics. No, it's not. It's a fundamental point. Human perception is a wonderful thing that makes it possible for us to derive meaning from simple vipration and not simply a que for us to act. That's what ants do. It's an important distinction that defines human cognition. On the other hand, human perception evolved in our macro world and we are often blind to that which is not macro. Pasteur was one such person who thought beyond the macro world.

Yeah, you're right. I'm only familiar with the things I've read she said though, and I'm judging those on their own merits. If she's said other things that were of great insight, then I'll judge them on their own merits. What sort of observations about human behavior did she make?I was watching a show about China and how Mao had collectivized the farms and Deng Xiaoping had reversed Mao because the collectivization was a complete failure. As the narrator said, "in communist systems workers pretended to work and the state pretended to pay them." When Deng allowed the workers to keep their profits productions rose dramatically. They did so because the needs of the individual are important to the individual and the unencumbered individual is capable of so much more than the encumbered one.

[RandFan]

Rand was a compeling woman in a time when women were not so easily compelling. This makes me flinch (and I'm not just talking about the typo). What I meant was that society made it difficult for women to have a voice so that they could be compelling. My apologies if anyone took it differently.

[RandFan]

I think that most people live perfectly good lives without philosophy. Of course and most people live perfectly good lives without astronomy.

If, on the other hand, you argue that everybody has a worldview and so can't really escape philosophy, then I'd reply that saying that "philosophy is important" bears no more weight than saying "love is important" - a moot point. Besides, philosophy is one of those futile non-exact sciences where my opinion can very well bear the same weight as that of any famous philosopher. But clearly some philosophies are better than others. The philosophies of Lenin have been so far found to be failures. The philosophy of Rand has been demonstrated to lack rigor. Not all philosophies are equal. Philosophies have evolved. Modern moral and legal philosophies are orders of magnitude ahead of those of the middle ages. The writers of the US Constitution were able to look at the philosophies of the Greeks, Romans, British and others to devise a better philosophy for society. They opted to forgo a monarchy. Not because hard science dictated that a representative Democracy was better but because rigorous philosophy dictated that it was.

[l0rca]

Of course and most people live perfectly good lives without astronomy.

But clearly some philosophies are better than others. The philosophies of Lenin have been so far found to be failures. The philosophy of Rand has been demonstrated to lack rigor. Not all philosophies are equal. Philosophies have evolved. Modern moral and legal philosophies are orders of magnitude ahead of those of the middle ages. The writers of the US Constitution were able to look at the philosophies of the Greeks, Romans, British and others to devise a better philosophy for society. They opted to forgo a monarchy. Not because hard science dictated that a representative Democracy was better but because rigorous philosophy dictated that it was.

In other words, "im in ur forumz, stealing ur arguments"

[l0rca]

The writers of the US Constitution were able to look at the philosophies of the Greeks, Romans, British and others to devise a better philosophy for society. They opted to forgo a monarchy. Not because hard science dictated that a representative Democracy was better but because rigorous philosophy dictated that it was.

I'm skeptical of the totality of this statement. Do you have any sources or reading material you can provide?

[RandFan]

In other words, "im in ur forumz, stealing ur arguments" I'm confused. I'm sorry. Are you saying that our two posts overlap? If so I hadn't read your post until after I responded.

[l0rca]

No, I'm just saying I can handle it. I also prefer my approach. :P

[RandFan]

I'm skeptical of the totality of this statement. Do you have any sources or reading material you can provide? I'm not sure I understand. I'm guessing that you would agree that the founding fathers did not come up with the constitution in a vacuum and that they were educated men who had studied both ancient and modern civilizations.

If so and your objection is to my use of the term rigorous philosophy then I confess that I'm falling back on something my professor told me. I'll have to look further into the matter. I'll withdraw it unless your objection lies elsewhere. On second thought I'll withdraw it anyway.

RandFan

[RandFan]

No, I'm just saying I can handle it. I also prefer my approach. :P That's cool. :)

[l0rca]

If so and your objection is to my use of the term rigorous philosophy then I confess that I'm falling back on something my professor told me. I'll have to look further into the matter. I'll withdraw it unless your objection lies elsewhere. On second thought I'll withdraw it anyway.


That's what I was on about. You see, the idea for a veto, and checks and balances to form a way to counteract ideas in government actually came from the Iroquois. White people were fond of this idea, but real revolution in the Spanish government at the time was an unreasonable expectation. The new world was a logical place to give it a shot. The American leaders, obviously erudite, probably adopted it.

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/iroquioi/iroquoishist.htm

That's why Montezuma was killed by his people. It was decided he represented the white conquerors instead of the will of his own.

[EGarrett]

Isn't our entire economic system derived from philosophy on human behavior?

Philosophy leads to lots of practical applications. When you think for thinking's sake, you never know where you might end up or what you might discover.

[El Greco]

Of course and most people live perfectly good lives without astronomy.

In the future though this is very probable to change. Not to mention that astronomy alredy helps other sciences like meteorology.

But clearly some philosophies are better than others. The philosophies of Lenin have been so far found to be failures. The philosophy of Rand has been demonstrated to lack rigor. Not all philosophies are equal. Philosophies have evolved. Modern moral and legal philosophies are orders of magnitude ahead of those of the middle ages. The writers of the US Constitution were able to look at the philosophies of the Greeks, Romans, British and others to devise a better philosophy for society. They opted to forgo a monarchy. Not because hard science dictated that a representative Democracy was better but because rigorous philosophy dictated that it was.

I think that it is pure logic and social conventions what sets the rules and the laws of modern societies. As it was in ancient civilizations as well. It is the society and the necessities of each time that set the background for the philosophers and not the other way around. Democracy certainly did not evolve from the minds of philosophers; it evolved because it was a form of goverment that brings more balance in societies, and this was learned the hard way, through revolutions and wars.

If every philosophical text would somehow vanish and erase from our memories, and if all philosophy schools would close down tomorrow, I doubt our civilization would be affected much. We'd still be able to read history and we'd still be able to use reason and logic to govern our societies.

Furthermore, I don't see how any philosophy graduate helps the world other than perpetuating the teaching of philosophy.

One more thing: The more we learn about the world, the less space there is for philosophers. Lenin and Marx couldn't have the same appeal today. In fact, no political philosophy can have any significant appeal today. Simply because the economic science and statistics have advanced a lot and we are better able to see where certain systems of government would bring us in the future.

[RandFan]

I think that it is pure logic and social conventions what sets the rules and the laws of modern societies. As it was in ancient civilizations as well. It is the society and the necessities of each time that set the background for the philosophers and not the other way around.

Democracy certainly did not evolve from the minds of philosophers; it evolved because it was a form of goverment that brings more balance in societies, and this was learned the hard way, through revolutions and wars.

If every philosophical text would somehow vanish and erase from our memories, and if all philosophy schools would close down tomorrow, I doubt our civilization would be affected much. We'd still be able to read history and we'd still be able to use reason and logic to govern our societies.

Furthermore, I don't see how any philosophy graduate helps the world other than perpetuating the teaching of philosophy. One of us has a real bizarre understanding of philosophy. I'll concede that it could be me. Boy, do I have egg on my face if that is true. We are going to need a replacement for the degree of Ph.D.

What exactly is it that you think philosophy is and how do you divorce it from reason and logic?

One more thing: The more we learn about the world, the less space there is for philosophers. Lenin and Marx couldn't have the same appeal today. In fact, no political philosophy can have any significant appeal today. Simply because the economic science and statistics have advanced a lot and we are better able to see where certain systems of government would bring us in the future. So you believe that economics and politics are hard sciences? I'm not so sure. In any event, if you are right we can get rid of our political parties since they each represent competing philosophies. I'm curious, scientifically, which ideas are correct?

[El Greco]

One of us has a real bizarre understanding of philosophy. I'll concede that it could be me. Boy, do I have egg on my face if that is true. We are going to need a replacement for the degree of Ph.D.

What exactly is it that you think philosophy is and how do you divorce it from reason and logic?

Let's not get into the definition of philosophy for now. Let me just reverse the question: Do you think that reason and logic can't exist without philosophy ? Because in that case there's not much to argue and we revert back to what I called "a moot point". If I have never read philosophy in my life, does this mean I'm unable to reason and think logically ? Or, to put it in another way, are all skeptics philosophers ?

So you believe that economics and politics are hard sciences? I'm not so sure. In any event, if you are right we can get rid of our political parties since they each represent competing philosophies. I'm curious, scientifically, which ideas are correct?

They are not exact sciences, but they are much more exact than what they used to be. Ideas are not adequate by themselves these days. "Socialism" may be a nice word but you have to present some well-thought out and feasible plans to persuade people that it will work.

[RandFan]

Let's not get into the definition of philosophy for now. Let me just reverse the question: Do you think that reason and logic can't exist without philosophy ? Of course. The problem is that once you apply logic and reason to how we should live our lives or structure our societies you have veered into philosophy whether you like it or not.

Because in that case there's not much to argue and we revert back to what I called "a moot point". If we all viewed the world in the same way and had the same ideas as to how we should interact then I would agree that it is a moot point. The problem is that art, ethics, politics, etc are not hard sciences and there are many competing notions about what is correct.

If I have never read philosophy in my life, does this mean I'm unable to reason and think logically ? Or, to put it in another way, are all skeptics philosophers ? Sadly they are not rigorous ones and that is the problem, IMO. I wish they were philosophers or at least had a rudimentary understanding of philosophy. Philosophy, in part, is to rigorously question held beliefs and assumptions.

They are not exact sciences, but they are much more exact than what they used to be. Ideas are not adequate by themselves these days. "Socialism" may be a nice word but you have to present some well-thought out and feasible plans to persuade people that it will work. You will forgive me but I think you make a great argument in favor of politics and ethics being philosophy. I'm not sure why you think well thought out and feasible plans are antithetical to philosophy.

[l0rca]

Greco, I don't know why you ignored me for Randfan, since I insisted on him that I argue this instead. So now I'll comment on what I think.


Of course. The problem is that once you apply logic and reason to how we should live our lives or structure our societies you have veered into philosophy whether you like it or not.


Randy's right. If you call philosophy anything else, you're redefining it. You can't not confront the very definition of philosophy here, that's very stupid for obvious reasons, and it seems that's what you're doing. Further, philosophy defines what reason is, and philosophy created logic. Both the art of reasoning and logic owe their strengths and intellectual integrity to philosophy. In fact, so does math and science. And religion.


Because in that case there's not much to argue and we revert back to what I called "a moot point".

I trashed this idea in my reply in about five minutes after you posted it. If you're not going to even try to refute my points on it, then at least don't become an ideologue.


They are not exact sciences, but they are much more exact than what they used to be. Ideas are not adequate by themselves these days. "Socialism" may be a nice word but you have to present some well-thought out and feasible plans to persuade people that it will work.

Anyone who has been following modern science would give you a funny look for this. Modern philosophy has taken a back seat to reasoning and prediction in the world, and I already explained -along with others- what directions philosophy is heading in.


If I have never read philosophy in my life, does this mean I'm unable to reason and think logically ? Or, to put it in another way, are all skeptics philosophers ?

The rules of logic can be learned outside of a philosophical setting, just like science and religion can. Instead, what never reading philosophy in your life seems to make you lack, is a strong understanding or appreciation of it. Frankly, I'm surprised a person who openly admits to never reading philosophy would come into a thread about philosophy, and try to argue against it. You're clearly outside your area of education.

[RandFan]

Greco, I don't know why you ignored me for Randfan, since I insisted on him that I argue this instead. So now I'll comment on what I think.:) My ego is not too big to step aside but I think I have something to say on the subject. Besides, it's good for me to debate to find the weakneses of my own arguments. But I do think Greco should respond to you.

[l0rca]

I welcome you to defend yourself. I think it rude of him to not reply to me, and I don't hold anything against you. But perhaps in a way his ignoring was a compliment.

I usually don't disagree with your arguments Randy, but every now and then I'd prefer you argue things with a bit less wit and facetiousness, and a bit more logic. But I think many of the inane arguments we find here have drove us both somewhat bitter.

[El Greco]

Greco, I don't know why you ignored me for Randfan, since I insisted on him that I argue this instead. So now I'll comment on what I think.

Sorry, I honestly didn't see your post. (ETA: The reason being that I directly clicked on the last post and this was RandFan's reply on the second page). But after reading your replies here, I don't exactly regret it. Eg:

I trashed this idea in my reply in about five minutes after you posted it. If you're not going to even try to refute my points on it, then at least don't become an ideologue.

Frankly, I'm surprised a person who openly admits to never reading philosophy would come into a thread about philosophy, and try to argue against it. You're clearly outside your area of education.

Seems like philosophy hasn't helped you much. Did I say that I have not read philosophy, or was it a hypothetical situation I presented ? Exercise for home.

And furthermore, I'll save you the trouble of being surprised again: Since apparently you don't consider me a worthy debater, then I'll let you talk with other, more up to your level posters.

[l0rca]

LOL?

Thanks.

[El Greco]

Of course. The problem is that once you apply logic and reason to how we should live our lives or structure our societies you have veered into philosophy whether you like it or not.

So what you are basically saying is that if you think logically about anything of a certain magnitude, then it's philosophy. Well, I'm glad we didn't venture into the definition of philosophy then.

Let me ask you something else: If someone who "applies logic and reason to how we should live our lives or structure our societies" can't avoid philosophy "whether he likes it or not", then why start a thread "why is philosophy important" ? Isn't it like asking "why is thinking important" ?

If we all viewed the world in the same way and had the same ideas as to how we should interact then I would agree that it is a moot point. The problem is that art, ethics, politics, etc are not hard sciences and there are many competing notions about what is correct.

And those competing notions are competing philosophies ? You said before that Lenin's philosophy was clearly wrong. Was there any way to prove that logically at the time ? Because if there was, what was the need for philosophy ? We could have just used logic and reason to prove him wrong.

Sadly they are not rigorous ones and that is the problem, IMO. I wish they were philosophers or at least had a rudimentary understanding of philosophy. Philosophy, in part, is to rigorously question held beliefs and assumptions.

So "rigorous skepticism" = "philosophy" ? Is that what you're saying ?

You will forgive me but I think you make a great argument in favor of politics and ethics being philosophy. I'm not sure why you think well thought out and feasible plans are antithetical to philosophy.

I never said that philosophy is antithetical to reason, logic and well thought-out plans. You seem to call philosophy the "rational thinking about something great". I'm not going to discuss the definition again, but let me present once more a hypothetical situation: Say I'm someone who hasn't studied or read any philosophy, but I have a degree in economics and history and am also a "rigorous skeptic". How exactly will my lack of philosophical education affect my political or social thinking ?

[hammegk]

So what you are basically saying is that if you think logically about anything of a certain magnitude, then it's philosophy. Well, I'm glad we didn't venture into the definition of philosophy then.
One can see why you prefer to avoid it, philosopher.

Using 'you' in the generic sense, you may be self-taught in the school of life, but philosopher you are, and your answers to questions philosophers continue to ponder could in no way be separated from who and what you are. And should you not like who and what you are, you will use philosophic reasoning to make changes.

Just my 2cts ...

[El Greco]

One can see why you prefer to avoid it, philosopher.

Can s/he ?

Using 'you' in the generic sense, you may be self-taught in the school of life, but philosopher you are, and your answers to questions philosophers continue to ponder could in no way be separated from who and what you are. And should you not like who and what you are, you will use philosophic reasoning to make changes.

Just my 2cts ...

In that case, if that's what you think, I refer you to the paragraph right after the one you quoted.

[El Greco]

LOL?

Thanks.

You are welcome. When someone uses phrases like "I trashed your argument" (even if he has really done so), it's a sure sign that any discussion with him will be futile.

[hammegk]

In that case, if that's what you think, I refer you to the paragraph right after the one you quoted.
I read it, and considered it prior to my response ... philosopher. :)

[jimlintott]

Off the cuff I would say philosophy isn't important but then I started thinking about it.

I do have a philosophy about philosophy though. That is that anyone who studies and reads philosophy should avoid doing it. Their brain is polluted and they'll just regurgitate what they read.

That's my philosophy and I'm sticking to it but you can have it if you want.

[El Greco]

I read it, and considered it prior to my response ... philosopher. :)

Ok, then we have the phenomenon that some of you think I'm a philosopher, others think I shouldn't even be posting here and perhaps still others think I'm just a bad philosopher :D

[D'rok]

Long time lurker, first time poster. Sorry if this is a little off the current trajectory of the thread – I had to wait until my registration was accepted in order to post.

My $0.02 on the importance of philosophy question:

I can only comment on my particular area of study – political philosophy. I’ve recently become more or less completely disillusioned with the whole field. Encountering Hegel and Kojeve did me in. Those two stretched credulity to the breaking point. I genuinely believe that all that nonsense about the end of history is really just describing the end of philosophy as a useful tool of political enquiry. Teleological determinism and claims for absolute knowledge have a dangerous tendency to get vomited forth as real-world political projects with all the accompanying slaughter and other atrocities. I’m not convinced that the essential insights of the ancients (Plato, Aristotle, etc) have been greatly improved upon by all the sectarian warfare of the post-enlightenment thinkers.

IMHO, Aristotle began and ended political philosophy by classifying us as Zoon Politicon. Not much more can coherently be said. I don’t think it is possible for us to do anything other than form communities, make laws, and squabble amongst ourselves about our various delusions. Questions about the best regime are now more appropriately the province of the methodologists and statisticians – these are better tools of public policy than philosophy is. I started my studies with exactly the opposite premise, and it has been a painful struggle to come to this conclusion. I’m open to changing my mind – can anyone suggest any useful contemporary political philosophy?

To use a really weak analogy, I see the history of political philosophy as mirroring the history of Jazz in the 20th century. Louis Armstrong, King Oliver, etc are equivalent to the ancient Greeks – essential innovations and a certain simple purity. Subsequent artists elaborated successfully on the originals – Basie, Ellington, through Miles, Coltrane, Monk, etc. – mirrored perhaps by the enlightenment thinkers. It all came to an incoherent crashing halt with the free-jazz types like Ornette Coleman and Cecil Taylor – mirrored by the German determinists and nihilists. The limits of expression were reached. Jazz has changed from a vital, important and innovative art form to essentially museum music. (Note: I am a jazz-trained musician). Now you have Wynton Marsalis types who advocate a return to the purity of the originators (Leo Strauss), and various advocates of various periods of the music’s history; nothing really new or relevant is being produced. Ditto for political philosophy.

I think that Cicero really had it right when he said that philosophy “sharpens a little and seems to tickle the minds of boys, so that they can learn greater things more easily”

As usual, all this is just opinion – take it for what it’s worth.

Cheers.

P.S. Perhaps there is still hope for other areas of philosophical enquiry?

[El Greco]

I’m not convinced that the essential insights of the ancients (Plato, Aristotle, etc) have been greatly improved upon by all the sectarian warfare of the post-enlightenment thinkers.

Let me add here that we have conveniently labeled as "great" those ancients that better fit with our current socio-political status.

Anyway, since I don't really disagree with many of RandFan's points, and since it seems to me that it all boils down to the definition of philosophy (which would be pointless to discuss since "great philosophers" themselves have defined it in completely different ways), then perhaps it would be more interesting to focus on this: Is study of philosophy and texts of past philosophers necessary so that one can be a "philosopher" or "rigorous critical thinker" ?

[hammegk]

...
As usual, all this is just opinion – take it for what it’s worth.
Seems like a workable philosophy to me ... ;)


P.S. Perhaps there is still hope for other areas of philosophical enquiry?
What area isn't? :)


Welcome to the fray. :D

[D'rok]

Let me add here that we have conveniently labeled as "great" those ancients that better fit with our current socio-political status.

Well, it is more or less inevitable that we would privilege the philosophical roots of our version of modernity. I don't think I classified the Greeks as "great" anywhere, however.

Western political philosophy is concerned with describing/prescribing itself, not other cultures, so it makes sense to talk about our own progenitors.

[D'rok]

Welcome to the fray. :D

Thanks!

[D'rok]

Is study of philosophy and texts of past philosophers necessary so that one can be a "philosopher" or "rigorous critical thinker" ?

Necessary, no. Helpful, yes. No sense re-inventing the wheel or starting from scratch when others have likely already covered the same ground.

[Ichneumonwasp]

But clearly some philosophies are better than others. The philosophies of Lenin have been so far found to be failures. The philosophy of Rand has been demonstrated to lack rigor. Not all philosophies are equal. Philosophies have evolved. Modern moral and legal philosophies are orders of magnitude ahead of those of the middle ages. The writers of the US Constitution were able to look at the philosophies of the Greeks, Romans, British and others to devise a better philosophy for society. They opted to forgo a monarchy. Not because hard science dictated that a representative Democracy was better but because rigorous philosophy dictated that it was.

I think that pretty well sums up the importance of philosophy. Its importance rests in paring away bad ideas.

Dark Jaguar skillfully uses Wittgenstein's ideas to pare away at silly philosophical questions, an exercise that I think is a little better than "cute" or "interesting". I think I would call it important.

We can all be as cynical as we like about "philosophy", but we are all constantly engaged in it. It is not philosophy that we hate but certain philosophies (and sometimes philosophers when they join the Nazi party).

[RandFan]

Let me ask you something else: If someone who "applies logic and reason to how we should live our lives or structure our societies" can't avoid philosophy "whether he likes it or not", then why start a thread "why is philosophy important" ? Isn't it like asking "why is thinking important" ?If people ridiculed thinking then yes.

And those competing notions are competing philosophies ? You said before that Lenin's philosophy was clearly wrong. No I didn't. I said "The philosophies of Lenin have been so far found to be failures." First let me state that I misspoke. I meant the philosophies of Marx and Engels and not Lenin. I apologize for any confusion. FWIW, I think Marx, Engels and Lenin had some very important things to say and contribute to politics and economic theory. I hope that they are never taught as simply something that failed. That would be a huge mistake in my mind.

Was there any way to prove that logically at the time ? Because if there was, what was the need for philosophy ? We could have just used logic and reason to prove him wrong. ? "Prove him wrong"? How would one "prove him wrong"? I don't understand. What do you mean by "prove him wrong"? FWIW, Lenin never had the opportunity to institute his doctrines. After his death Stalin was successful in his power struggle with Trotsky whose views were closer to that of Lenin. I don't think one can honestly say that Lenin or even Marxist philsophy was proven wrong. I stand by original statement with the change from Lenin to Marx and Engels.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not pro-communist at all. I just don't see such philosophies as "wrong" and I see little to be gained by such rhetoric. I would think such a label would be propaganda and not the result of rigorous philosophical analysis and would have no place in political and economic philosophy.

So "rigorous skepticism" = "philosophy" ? Is that what you're saying ?No, I'm saying rigorous logic is a part of philosophy.

I never said that philosophy is antithetical to reason, logic and well thought-out plans. You seem to call philosophy the "rational thinking about something great". I'm not going to discuss the definition again, but let me present once more a hypothetical situation: Say I'm someone who hasn't studied or read any philosophy, but I have a degree in economics and history and am also a "rigorous skeptic". How exactly will my lack of philosophical education affect my political or social thinking ? A philosophical education could give you far more tools for the job and reduce your learning curve should you decide to involve yourself with politics.

A person doesn't need a degree in business to open a business. It can help though. Often times a person will learn by the seat of their pants what is taught in school. A formal education can assist a person and help that person avoid pitfalls.

When I sold my house I made a lot of dumb mistakes that cost me a lot of money. I wish I would have used a Realtor and benefited by their knowledge. It certainly wasn't necessary though.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Oh, and dlaclone, I'm not really a regular here, but welcome. I very much enjoyed your longer post above.

[jimlintott]

Is study of philosophy and texts of past philosophers necessary so that one can be a "philosopher" or "rigorous critical thinker" ?According to my own philosophy you cannot be a philosopher if you have studied it. I also think that 'rigorous critical thinker' is an indiviual trait like athletic ability. Some people have it others don't.

Necessary, no. Helpful, yes. No sense re-inventing the wheel or starting from scratch when others have likely already covered the same ground.That's the problem. It will stagnate unless the ground is covered fresh each time. It is necessary to reinvent the wheel until we are convinced that we keep getting the same wheel each time.

[D'rok]

Not because hard science dictated that a representative Democracy was better but because rigorous philosophy dictated that it was.

Not sure I agree with this. Rigorous philosophy tended to consider democracy as one of the worst, if not the worst, forms of govt. This is especially true of the Greeks, but it flows all the way to Hobbes and beyond. You can probably make a logical case for representative democracy flowing from classical liberals like Locke, but he was focused on property rights and religious toleration - not democracy. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

[RandFan]

I think that pretty well sums up the importance of philosophy. Its importance rests in paring away bad ideas.

Dark Jaguar skillfully uses Wittgenstein's ideas to pare away at silly philosophical questions, an exercise that I think is a little better than "cute" or "interesting". I think I would call it important. Fair enough, so long as we don't throw the baby out with the bath water though I'm not personally convinced that they are silly questions but I don't believe that such questions are the only way to achieve the goals that they, the questions, exist for.

We can all be as cynical as we like about "philosophy", but we are all constantly engaged in it. It is not philosophy that we hate but certain philosophies (and sometimes philosophers when they join the Nazi party).Yes, well said.

[RandFan]

Not sure I agree with this. Rigorous philosophy tended to consider democracy as one of the worst, if not the worst, forms of govt. This is especially true of the Greeks, but it flows all the way to Hobbes and beyond. You can probably make a logical case for representative democracy flowing from classical liberals like Locke, but he was focused on property rights and religious toleration - not democracy. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Thanks, welcome to the forum BTW.

No, you are correct. I have since withdrawn this statement.

[D'rok]

Oh, and dlaclone, I'm not really a regular here, but welcome. I very much enjoyed your longer post above.

Thanks Ichneumonwasp

[D'rok]

That's the problem. It will stagnate unless the ground is covered fresh each time. It is necessary to reinvent the wheel until we are convinced that we keep getting the same wheel each time.

I didn't mean to suggest that the conclusions of previous thinkers should be accepted blindly, but I think that it is a good idea to have a grasp of what has come before if you are going to engage the same questions.

[RandFan]

Dark Jaguar skillfully uses Wittgenstein's ideas to pare away at silly philosophical questions, an exercise that I think is a little better than "cute" or "interesting". I think I would call it important. BTW, I'm not certain but I think sometimes Dark Jaguar simply rolls his eyes at me and moves on. If that is true I don't blame him. Some people think I'm too thick to get a point and perhaps I am sometimes. I appreciate those who are patient with me. I think I can say that my many posts here have actually led to some intellectual growth and maybe even some maturity and not simply been an opportunity to stroke my ego and engage in debate.

RandFAn

[D'rok]

I don't think one can honestly say that Lenin or even Marxist philsophy was proven wrong.

Perhaps, but what we can say is that attempts to prove Marxist philosophy right have been nothing short of disastrous. The human consequences of these socio-political experiments have been monstrous.

ETA: What I mean by this is that Marx was a determinist - i.e. economic determinism would inevitably result in communism through the impersonal dialectic of history. Attempts to transform his predictions into political reality are the real culprit, but they are really good indicators that Marxism should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

[RandFan]

Perhaps, but what we can say is that attempts to prove Marxist philosophy right have been nothing short of disastrous. The human consequences of these socio-political experiments have been monstrous. Yes, and I'm not a communist appologist however I think there are some fair points to be made that these attempts have failed, in part, for reasons having nothing to do with communism. FWIW, I do think Communism as envisoned by Marx and Engels is fatally flawed.

[Dark Jaguar]

It's a perception thing. You are correct about the definition of table. I can only say that you are failing to see (in this case) the trees for the forest. Clearly you understand that there is both a micro and macro world and to you everything works fine so long as we keep the two separate and clearly define our terms. Tables are tables and atoms are atoms. If I understand you correctly (I beg your forgiveness if I'm wrong) your understanding of the world is purely academic. You see the world based on the rote education you received. That's fine. People don't need to be able to think outside of the box to function in our world. They just need to be able to understand our world as it is explained.

The problem is that much of what we have learned about the universe and our natural world was the result of people seeing beyond the forest. People who could think outside of the box. How many people give a damn about space/time? The vast majority of people clearly never gave it a second thought. The reason that they didn't is because we evolved in a macro world and our brains simply didn't need to deal with notions of the absolute speed of light and Relativity. It took someone like Einstein who was capable of thinking outside of the box to wonder about that. That is what I mean by blinders. Dawkins has a wonderful take on this. He uses the metaphor of a slit in a burka to represent our view of the world. As he says, the universe is not only queerer than we imagine it is queerer than we can imagine. If you have not yet read the God Delusion I highly recommend it. Dawkins gets it.

No, that is not my view. In fact, don't take this the wrong way, but I find the suggestion that that IS my view pretty insulting. Of COURSE I don't just want to learn rote lines from a text book. Of COURSE asking "what would it be like to ride on a beam of light?" and similar questions are eye openers. Asking "when does a table stop being a table?" opens no eyes at all though. I'm not really dividing "micro" from "macro". I'm just saying that a table is not defined by it's parts at an atomic level. It's just a definition of a WORD, a WORD, nothing more. Nothing can be learned by trying to force the word to mean something else and then saying there is a problem with that forced definition.


That was my take on the "falling tree" example also. How utterly ridiculous I thought.

The point isn't whether trees makes vibrations when they fall and no one is there. The point is "what is sound"? Again, your understanding of sound is based on your experience and rote learning of what sound is. You take it for granted that you are capable of both hearing sound and giving meaning to that which you perceive as sound. Sound is actually, by definition, that which we perceive. Without an eardrum to convert the vibrations to a signal and brain to process the signal and give meaning that signal then there really is no sound just vibrations moving through a medium. It's true that we have come to call and have even defined those vibrations as sound but that is not a precise definition. To be precise we should say "sound vibrations". Analog information that is capable of being processed and interpreted as sound. Now, you may say, ah but this is just semantics. No, it's not. It's a fundamental point. Human perception is a wonderful thing that makes it possible for us to derive meaning from simple vipration and not simply a que for us to act. That's what ants do. It's an important distinction that defines human cognition. On the other hand, human perception evolved in our macro world and we are often blind to that which is not macro. Pasteur was one such person who thought beyond the macro world.

Yes yes, I've thought of that answer too. Sorry I didn't elaborate on that. If your definition of sound is "something I can hear" then no it doesn't make a sound, end of story. If your definition is instead, as it is currently defined, completely independent as to whether or not someone hears it and is instead the scientific definition of sound waves (hence why we can speak of ultra and infra sound, which humans can never hear), then yes it does. It's that simple. This really does NOT have anything to do with micro and macro by the way, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. This is not thinking "outside the box", it really is semantics. Your point about how we are truly "aware" of the sensation doesn't seem to factor into the question at all. If you define the word one way, you get a different answer than if you define it another way, but you have to set up a proper definition first. It's basic algebra really. You can't answer the question of "what is x + 5?" until you define x, but (and this is important), the moment you do define it, the answer is pretty much set.


I was watching a show about China and how Mao had collectivized the farms and Deng Xiaoping had reversed Mao because the collectivization was a complete failure. As the narrator said, "in communist systems workers pretended to work and the state pretended to pay them." When Deng allowed the workers to keep their profits productions rose dramatically. They did so because the needs of the individual are important to the individual and the unencumbered individual is capable of so much more than the encumbered one.

Okay...

[D'rok]

I think there are some fair points to be made that these attempts have failed, in part, for reasons having nothing to do with communism.

I think that you're probably right about this, but this kind of thing can veer awfully close to a "no true scotsman" fallacy. You could use this argument to say that all incarnations of Marxism so far have not been "true" Marxism or "true" communism. While this may actually be accurate, it opens the door for more experimentation...let's try Marxism again, except this time we'll use the "true" Marxism!

Ultimately, the good thing about proving or disproving the determinists is that we don't have to do anything...all we have to do is sit back and let history do its thing.

[Dogdoctor]

Philosophers are important. They act like the conscience of groups of people they represent. They point out perceived philosophical problems in their area of expertise.

[CapelDodger]

The point about the table is to understand that a table isn't just a table.
At least a cigar is sometimes just a cigar.

It was a philosopher that first realized that a table wasn't simply a table but instead was composed of smaller units of matter.
Good for him. Really. The problem modern philosophers have is that all that sort of stuff has been long done, so they're left with navel-gazing.

I'm sorry, I think one of the biggest mistakes is to assume that scientific or philosophical inquiry must first have worth.
At least, since we're on such different tracks, we don't collide when I describe it as worthless.

[Dark Jaguar]

I just thought I'd iron out that I'm aware that the mass of stuff that makes up a table is made up of that stuff. It really is inseparable from the thing I'm calling a table.

That has nothing to do with "when a table stops being a table" though. I think that something far more important to realize is the difference between the word "table" and the thing being called a "table"

[hammegk]

Now if you ever grasp that the word "table" in your example is just a metaphor for "reality, whatever that is" ...

[CapelDodger]

First off I'm not sure why what you find unenlightening has to do with anything.
It was a modifier, it explains why I'm asking so as not to leave a bare question. That always carries confrontational implications, subconsciously. I'm trying to be conversational. "What's he done for me lately?" was meant to be light-hearted but it's probably too old a catchphrase to work well nowadays.

As it relates to science I'm not sure why practical significance is important. Whatever "practical significance" is. Much of what science studies is without practical application. Since you are a fan of science, as I also am, then I must ask, when did science just become only a search for that which is practically significant?
As I mentioned in my opening statement, my problem is with modern philosophy, post-1900-ish, and that doesn't include science. Science, mathematics and linguistics (which I omitted previously) are among the fields which gained prior independence from Philosophy. Philosophers still quibble about it, but what practical effect does that have? Bugger-all, that's what.

That said there is practical significance. Just because it isn't of significance to you does not render it insignificant.
Forget about me ( as if anyone could), consider everyone. What practical significance does modern philosophy have to anyone?

[CapelDodger]

I just thought I'd iron out that I'm aware that the mass of stuff that makes up a table is made up of that stuff. It really is inseparable from the thing I'm calling a table.

That has nothing to do with "when a table stops being a table" though. I think that something far more important to realize is the difference between the word "table" and the thing being called a "table"
This post rather exemplifies Philosophy and its pernicious influence, IMO, for what that's worth. Not the text (though who could ignore such text? There are volumes of pap to be mulched from it) but the circumstances. I've no doubt it does a good job of whatever it's meant for, but you, Dark Jaguar, a rational being, found yourself engaged in such a life-sapping exercise. For reasons which you may, on reflection, find a bit vague. Philosophy is insidious. Cast it out!

[CapelDodger]

Philosophers are important. They act like the conscience of groups of people they represent. They point out perceived philosophical problems in their area of expertise.
Bollocks. They're only kept around for cheap meat when times get hard.

[l0rca]

Forget about me ( as if anyone could), consider everyone. What practical significance does modern philosophy have to anyone?

I think this is the most specific question to the problem Randy's trying to address, as am I.

We're not claiming philosophy has practical purposes. We're claiming it is the foundation for practical purposes. It's this foundation that is significant and important. It makes our ideas and pursuits justified.

People can be whimsical, and care only for superficial explanations, but that sort of mentality and lack of underlying principles and reasons creates a person without any real way to connect their ideas to reality. Progressions without philosophy is a headless pursuit, and without it, we have no compass to where we're heading.

[RandFan]

No, that is not my view. In fact, don't take this the wrong way, but I find the suggestion that that IS my view pretty insulting.Which is why I asked your forgiveness. I'm not sure how to take it but that's fine. As long as you don't bear a grudge toward me then we are fine but I have to say I'm awfully confused.

Of COURSE I don't just want to learn rote lines from a text book. Of COURSE asking "what would it be like to ride on a beam of light?" and similar questions are eye openers. Asking "when does a table stop being a table?" opens no eyes at all though. I have no idea why it doesn't. Can you accept that it does for other people?

I'm not really dividing "micro" from "macro". I'm just saying that a table is not defined by it's parts at an atomic level. It's just a definition of a WORD, a WORD, nothing more. Nothing can be learned by trying to force the word to mean something else and then saying there is a problem with that forced definition. But that's NOT the point. We are not talking about the definition of a word we are talking about the existence of the table.

How did the early philosophers come to see that matter is composed of smaller stuff? How do we get people to think like the early philosophers? Do we simply teach them by rote the concepts? Is there a way we can get people to think beyond the macro world besides telling them that there is both a micro and a macro world or that there are sounds that are beyond our ability to hear or light that is beyond our abilitly to see.

Philosophy, is in part, to get people to think. To question held assumptions. To look at the world in a different way. Perhaps it won't work for you.

IT WORKED FOR ME.

Sorry. It seems that you see the world through your eyes and anything that you don't find valuable you feel must not have any value so you dismiss philosophy.

Yes yes, I've thought of that answer too. Sorry I didn't elaborate on that. If your definition of sound is "something I can hear" then no it doesn't make a sound, end of story. If your definition is instead, as it is currently defined, completely independent as to whether or not someone hears it and is instead the scientific definition of sound waves (hence why we can speak of ultra and infra sound, which humans can never hear), then yes it does. It's that simple. Dawkins burka again only for sound and not light.

This really does NOT have anything to do with micro and macro by the way, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. ?

I'm sorry if I mislead you. I was not trying to say that philosophy is simply an attempt to get people to understand the difference between the micro and macro. Hardly.

This is not thinking "outside the box", it really is semantics.No. It's not just semantics at all.

Your point about how we are truly "aware" of the sensation doesn't seem to factor into the question at all. If you define the word one way, you get a different answer than if you define it another way, but you have to set up a proper definition first. It's basic algebra really. You can't answer the question of "what is x + 5?" until you define x, but (and this is important), the moment you do define it, the answer is pretty much set.I'm sorry but I truly don't understand your point. I suspect you and I are not even talking on the same level. I'll concede that I lack the ability to convey my point to you. I appologize. I'll think about it and see if I can't find a better way to communicate the point.

RandFan

[RandFan]

I think that you're probably right about this, but this kind of thing can veer awfully close to a "no true scotsman" fallacy. You could use this argument to say that all incarnations of Marxism so far have not been "true" Marxism or "true" communism. While this may actually be accurate, it opens the door for more experimentation...let's try Marxism again, except this time we'll use the "true" Marxism!

Ultimately, the good thing about proving or disproving the determinists is that we don't have to do anything...all we have to do is sit back and let history do its thing.Good post. Yes, but if a community chose to voluntarily experiment with Marxism I would be the first to say have at it. So long as all of the members did so voluntarily. This was tried in Israel BTW with different levels of success in the Kibbutzim.

I suspect that Communism will always fail because it is fatally flawed but that's just my opinion.

[RandFan]

At least a cigar is sometimes just a cigar.

Good for him. Really. The problem modern philosophers have is that all that sort of stuff has been long done, so they're left with navel-gazing.

At least, since we're on such different tracks, we don't collide when I describe it as worthless. That's fine.

[RandFan]

It was a modifier, it explains why I'm asking so as not to leave a bare question. That always carries confrontational implications, subconsciously. I'm trying to be conversational. "What's he done for me lately?" was meant to be light-hearted but it's probably too old a catchphrase to work well nowadays.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, my problem is with modern philosophy, post-1900-ish, and that doesn't include science. Science, mathematics and linguistics (which I omitted previously) are among the fields which gained prior independence from Philosophy. Philosophers still quibble about it, but what practical effect does that have? Bugger-all, that's what. I don't think this is the sole contribution of philosophers but that's fine. I understand your point. At least you do see the significant contributions of philsophers of the past and I think that is important.

Forget about me ( as if anyone could), consider everyone. What practical significance does modern philosophy have to anyone?I think a hell of a lot. I've been reading Dennett and I find his insights into religion and the mind outstanding and I know that others like Pinker and Dennett agree (to some degree). My opinion is worthless but these guys seem to carry a bit more weight. I'll see if I can find some quotes from other notable scientists to bolster my contention. James Randi thought Dennett was worthy enough to invite to TAM. I realize that Randi might not be an appropriate authority but his opinion is worth a significant deal to me.

RandFan

[Mangafranga]

I'll note that I do not wish to challenge philosophy for philosophy sakes.

I am interested to know what effect philosophy has had on other disciplines. The clearest way I thought of to test this would be to see if any philosophy texts have made it into the reading lists of other disciplines. I don't recall any from my experience, although I successfully used Grice in a linguistics essay. It wouldn't surprise me to find some philosophy in the linguistics subjects if I actually looked and didn't rely on memory. So, anyone had experience of philosophy in non-philosophy subjects?

[Tricky]

The formal study of philosophy hasn't had any effect on my career in science. I've never taken a philosophy class. I don't know a single person in my company with a philosophy degree. Perhaps it has some bearing on a curriculum such as Political Science or World History, but those are two more fields with, to be kind, limited marketability.

Maybe it has some application in business or marketing/advertising. That seems like the best bet.

[l0rca]

I realize that Randi might not be an appropriate authority but his opinion is worth a significant deal to me.

Why?

[l0rca]

I think a hell of a lot. I've been reading Dennett and I find his insights into religion and the mind outstanding and I know that others like Pinker and Dennett agree (to some degree).

That these are wonderful do not make them practical on their own. The science that comes from these ideas may be practical, but these ideas can't be immediately used in society.

[D'rok]

The formal study of philosophy hasn't had any effect on my career in science.

That is a remarkable statement. I understand that you are referring to the fact that you have not taken a class from the philosophy department, and that taking such a class is not required to be a successful scientist. But I would suggest, in all seriousness, that the formal study of philosophy has had a profound effect on your career in science...it is the very thing that has made that career possible. Science is natural philosophy. The distinction between science and metaphysics is, historically speaking, relatively recent.

Having said that, I am firmly of the opinion that metaphysics is no longer a useful means of enquiry into the nature of reality - be it political, social, cosmological or whatever. As a scientist you are inheriting the intellectual mantel of philosophy and are a producer of the closest thing we can have to accurate knowledge about our condition.

[D'rok]

I have a very low opinion of modern philosophy. (And I do know what philosophy is, I had a classical education to start with.) My contention is that Philosophy had produced everything useful it was going to by 1900. By then Science and Mathematics had budded-off as fields in themselves. What we end up with is sophistry, sopilpsism and navel-gazing - and all of it very self-congratulatory.

Somehow I missed this post first time 'round. From a political philosophy perspective, I have to say that I completely agree. I would probably sound the death knell even earlier than 1900.

What about philosophy of the mind? Is neuroscience advanced enough that philosophy is no longer relevant?

ETA: My answer to my own question is that neuroscience has no need of philosophy, but I'm curious as to what other people think.

[l0rca]

(Why am I always ignored? Do I have some sort of reputation I don't know about?)

[Tricky]

That is a remarkable statement. I understand that you are referring to the fact that you have not taken a class from the philosophy department, and that taking such a class is not required to be a successful scientist. But I would suggest, in all seriousness, that the formal study of philosophy has had a profound effect on your career in science...it is the very thing that has made that career possible. Science is natural philosophy. The distinction between science and metaphysics is, historically speaking, relatively recent.
And I would say that informally absorbing the scientific method is not a formal study in philosophy. It requires learning no history, philosophical jargon or even formal logic (another thing I've never taken a class in). Yes, I know science is a philosophy (and a method) , but it has never been taught to me that way.

If it weren't for Monty Python, I wouldn't have even know the names of any philosophers until I started posting here.

But this is mere semantics.

[RandFan]

Why?Because he is a critical thinker who has given his life to finding truth and exposing frauds. That carries some weight with me.

[RandFan]

That these are wonderful do not make them practical on their own. The science that comes from these ideas may be practical, but these ideas can't be immediately used in society.Fair point.

[RandFan]

(Why am I always ignored? Do I have some sort of reputation I don't know about?)Beats the hell out of me. Perhaps you are making more sense. Perhaps I'm an easier target.

[D'rok]

Progressions without philosophy is a headless pursuit, and without it, we have no compass to where we're heading.

Can you provide a specific example? I'm not convinced that philosophy is necessary as a compass for progress. Ethics maybe, but I'll assert that our ethical/empathetic natures are enough and that we don't need particular philosophical systems of ethics.

[D'rok]

And I would say that informally absorbing the scientific method is not a formal study in philosophy. It requires learning no history, philosophical jargon or even formal logic (another thing I've never taken a class in). Yes, I know science is a philosophy (and a method) , but it has never been taught to me that way.

If it weren't for Monty Python, I wouldn't have even know the names of any philosophers until I started posting here.

But this is mere semantics.

Yah...it is basically semantics. Carry on.

Three cheers for Python!

[RandFan]

And I would say that informally absorbing the scientific method is not a formal study in philosophy. It requires learning no history, philosophical jargon or even formal logic (another thing I've never taken a class in). Yes, I know science is a philosophy (and a method) , but it has never been taught to me that way.Marconi wasn't a scientist. Many successful business people have never taken courses in business, some have never even finished high school for that matter. A scientist needn't take science courses. An engineer needn't study engineering. Etc., etc. I really don't understand your point.

ETA: The work of one discipline often compliments the work of another. A geophysicist need not study astronomy to benifit from it. Why do we teach science to kids who will grow up to manage businesses? It's not necassary. Perhaps it makes them more rounded in their understanding of the natural world. Ya think?

[Dogdoctor]

Can you provide a specific example? I'm not convinced that philosophy is necessary as a compass for progress. Ethics maybe, but I'll assert that our ethical/empathetic natures are enough and that we don't need particular philosophical systems of ethics.

The inherited ethics we have allow us to live like animals in the bush. We need to apply out minds to rise above our animal base.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The inherited ethics we have allow us to live like animals in the bush. We need to apply out minds to rise above our animal base.

Our inherited ethics comprise a large part of what we call our mind. I assume you mean that we must apply reason. But there is no way clear way to separate reason from emotion or to separate reason from any of our ethical behavior. When we act ethically we do so because we decide to act in a particular way arising from our inheritance.

This issue arises in debates about philosophy of mind frequently, when allowed to do so. Reason without emotion = the functioning of a computer. Reason with emotion = the valuation schemes that drive our minds. Emotion and motivation (based on emotion) constitute value. Without value (what we find important) ethics would not be possible.

[Ichneumonwasp]

BTW, I'm not certain but I think sometimes Dark Jaguar simply rolls his eyes at me and moves on. If that is true I don't blame him. Some people think I'm too thick to get a point and perhaps I am sometimes. I appreciate those who are patient with me. I think I can say that my many posts here have actually led to some intellectual growth and maybe even some maturity and not simply been an opportunity to stroke my ego and engage in debate.


Truthfully, the only impression I have ever formed of the persona behind your posts is of a very smart and very good person. Whatever else you may want to think of yourself you are clearly kind and try to keep a level head, which I find extremely commendable. Keep doing what you're doing. We're all in the same boat trying to figure out what the meaning of it all is (or, rather, trying to construct the meaning of it all).

Too thick? Nah. Definitely not my impression. We all have blocks to certain ways of thinking, all of us. That is why forums such as this are so important. No one has an exclusive claim on truth. Truth arises best, from what I have seen, through conversation and debate.

[RandFan]

Truthfully, the only impression I have ever formed of the persona behind your posts is of a very smart and very good person. Whatever else you may want to think of yourself you are clearly kind and try to keep a level head, which I find extremely commendable. Keep doing what you're doing. We're all in the same boat trying to figure out what the meaning of it all is (or, rather, trying to construct the meaning of it all).

Too thick? Nah. Definitely not my impression. We all have blocks to certain ways of thinking, all of us. That is why forums such as this are so important. No one has an exclusive claim on truth. Truth arises best, from what I have seen, through conversation and debate.Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.

[SirPhilip]

Basically I'm saying that the most we can say is why we behave the way we do or find certain things moral or beautiful. The universe doesn't seem to have any absolute "how it SHOULD be" answers though. It sure does: the transformation of stuff into useless heat. Which brings us to the virtues of rough sex, explosions and guns, and a kind of biothermodynamic equilibrium: government. You see, the universe wants us all to be happy and not bored. When a man also rises to political power and nukes several cities, he is said to have attained oneness with the universe.

I must agree that if philosophy is defined as "world view", it is very nearly inescapable. I say "nearly" because I escape it during dreamless sleep and eventually in death :D. Surely any reasonable man wants to be again catapulted into the world system for more fun!

[Dogdoctor]

Our inherited ethics comprise a large part of what we call our mind. I assume you mean that we must apply reason. But there is no way clear way to separate reason from emotion or to separate reason from any of our ethical behavior. When we act ethically we do so because we decide to act in a particular way arising from our inheritance.

This issue arises in debates about philosophy of mind frequently, when allowed to do so. Reason without emotion = the functioning of a computer. Reason with emotion = the valuation schemes that drive our minds. Emotion and motivation (based on emotion) constitute value. Without value (what we find important) ethics would not be possible.

Baloney just study primitive tribes.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I have. Your point being, what? Virtually all of what I said is based on study of "primitive" peoples.

[Dogdoctor]

I have. Your point being, what? Virtually all of what I said is based on study of "primitive" peoples.

Primitive tribe have primitive undeveloped ethics. Only when you have seperated man from the need to survive can he give much thought to ethics. Then ethical thought is obviously not a product of genetics but the propensity for it may be.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Primitive tribe have primitive undeveloped ethics. Only when you have seperated man from the need to survive can he give much thought to ethics. Then ethical thought is obviously not a product of genetics but the propensity for it may be.

Do they? I wasn't aware of that. The San certainly do not seem to me to have "primitive undeveloped ethics". Their ethical system seems to fit their material situation, just as Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics serves as a wonderful primer on how to be a good Athenian gentleman and Bentham's Utilitarianism fits the needs of the industrious Englishman. The San seem, at least to me, to make fairly sophisticated ethical judgments about sharing within their group, again as a consequence of their material situation. They actually have much more free time than we do, much more time for reflection and thought.

I never claimed that ethical thought is the product of genetics or, at least, completely determined by genetics. What I claimed is that ethical thought can not be viewed as the result of pure reason or calculation. It is inherently tied to emotion. We cannot separate the two. What we inherited as ethics -- propensities to certain ways of thinking about how to interact with each other -- provide much more than an ability to live like animals in the bush. Those propensities allow us to be human -- to live in communities, work together, etc. That is what we inherited. None of it is hard-wired; I don't think anyone claims that. What we seem to have inherited is a general purpose problem solving brain that attacks problems from several different angles. That is one of the reasons why we can't seem to arrive at any final ethics that we can all agree upon. We are endowed with modules for solving problems based on utility and modules for solving problems based on duty/responsibility/deontology. We solve the problem, apply a rationalization, and call it ethics.

[Dogdoctor]

Do they? I wasn't aware of that. The San certainly do not seem to me to have "primitive undeveloped ethics". Their ethical system seems to fit their material situation, just as Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics serves as a wonderful primer on how to be a good Athenian gentleman and Bentham's Utilitarianism fits the needs of the industrious Englishman. The San seem, at least to me, to make fairly sophisticated ethical judgments about sharing within their group, again as a consequence of their material situation. They actually have much more free time than we do, much more time for reflection and thought.

I never claimed that ethical thought is the product of genetics or, at least, completely determined by genetics. What I claimed is that ethical thought can not be viewed as the result of pure reason or calculation. It is inherently tied to emotion. We cannot separate the two. What we inherited as ethics -- propensities to certain ways of thinking about how to interact with each other -- provide much more than an ability to live like animals in the bush. Those propensities allow us to be human -- to live in communities, work together, etc. That is what we inherited. None of it is hard-wired; I don't think anyone claims that. What we seem to have inherited is a general purpose problem solving brain that attacks problems from several different angles. That is one of the reasons why we can't seem to arrive at any final ethics that we can all agree upon. We are endowed with modules for solving problems based on utility and modules for solving problems based on duty/responsibility/deontology. We solve the problem, apply a rationalization, and call it ethics.

Don't cohesive societies of people develop ethical systems that are largely agreed upon by the members? I doubt that a large number of humans will agree 100% on much. Why should there be any more agreement than that? That we don't understand ethics very well is clear, just as we don't understand the human mind or lot's of other things which we have to deal with daily.

[CapelDodger]

I think this is the most specific question to the problem Randy's trying to address, as am I.

We're not claiming philosophy has practical purposes. We're claiming it is the foundation for practical purposes. It's this foundation that is significant and important. It makes our ideas and pursuits justified.
That's a claim I would dispute with modern philosophy. It adds nothing, and hasn't done for a century, perhaps more. Philosophy most certainly does not justify our ideas and pursuits, and philosophers who think it does should get over themselves.

People can be whimsical, and care only for superficial explanations, but that sort of mentality and lack of underlying principles and reasons creates a person without any real way to connect their ideas to reality. Progressions without philosophy is a headless pursuit, and without it, we have no compass to where we're heading.
People were connecting their ideas to reality long before philosophy, they used imagination, common sense, experience and advice (in varying amounts depending on the job in hand). The Philosophy of the Wheel followed the wheel. Attachment to family at the expense of non-family did not wait on Philosophy's go-ahead.

With Philosophy, do we have any great compass of "where we're heading", except the grave individually? History and anthropology can tell us a great deal more, but seriously hedged with caveats. There's no direction to the human race, as in some sort of directed program to achieve an end, at any sizeable scale. What, then, can Philosophy analyse to divine our future? I suppose it could deconstruct it, but nobody would notice unless it was pointed out.

[CapelDodger]

The formal study of philosophy hasn't had any effect on my career in science. I've never taken a philosophy class. I don't know a single person in my company with a philosophy degree. Perhaps it has some bearing on a curriculum such as Political Science or World History, but those are two more fields with, to be kind, limited marketability.

Maybe it has some application in business or marketing/advertising. That seems like the best bet.
I was taught some philosophy at school, tangentially to other subjects mostly. My first school was Classics-oriented, so I got the Greeks. The family moved so I took my senior years, or "sixth-form", elsewhere and took classes in Modern Philosophy during General Studies. (That was for boys who weren't in the Combined Cadet Force, which was stamping around in the quad at the time. Just to get five minutes a month firing a Bren-gun. I could see the attraction, but it wasn't enough for me.) My teacher there was very cynical about the subject, and anyway we mostly discussed sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. As you do.

Philosophy lives on its reputation, to my mind. In reality it's a paper tiger. The emperor surely is naked, however fast he manipulates the ostrich-feather fans.

Someone brought up Chomsky earlier, and I studied some of his work in Formal Languages - which he more-or-less founded. It's mathematics, not philosophy. It's also practical if writing compilers is your thing. Not so much if getting a handle on how human languages really work is your thing, but hey. Who knew?

[CapelDodger]

I think a hell of a lot. I've been reading Dennett and I find his insights into religion and the mind outstanding and I know that others like Pinker and Dennett agree (to some degree). My opinion is worthless but these guys seem to carry a bit more weight. I'll see if I can find some quotes from other notable scientists to bolster my contention. James Randi thought Dennett was worthy enough to invite to TAM. I realize that Randi might not be an appropriate authority but his opinion is worth a significant deal to me.

RandFan
What I've read of Dennett I find unexceptional. Jefferson and Mark Twain probably made and expressed all the necessary insights into religion to nourish an active mind, and they are two amongst many. When it comes to the mind, the really hard question of consciousness, Dennett does no more to span the chasm than Pinker does. Or anybody else. Science can inform me about my emotions, anthropology and biology can inform me about why I feel them, and why I have my desires. Often conflicting ones. What nobody's informing me about is how my very distinct impression of existence, at this moment, behind and between my eyes, riding the oh-so-physical endocrine surf, can be explained in the same terms as everything else can be. Philosophy's doing no better than religion.

[CapelDodger]

Yah...it is basically semantics. Carry on.

Three cheers for Python!
What have the Philosophers ever done for us? Eh?

I think we're on pretty common ground. I chose 1900CE as safely beyond the nit-picking ground that Philosophy tends towards. Also I wanted to encompass Mark Twain, who's my favourite philosopher.

[hammegk]

What have the Philosophers ever done for us? Eh?

I think we're on pretty common ground. I chose 1900CE as safely beyond the nit-picking ground that Philosophy tends towards. Also I wanted to encompass Mark Twain, who's my favourite philosopher.
At least you do seem to understand Twain was a philosopher ... as are you. :)

What have you done for yourself, lately?

[CapelDodger]

The inherited ethics we have allow us to live like animals in the bush. We need to apply out minds to rise above our animal base.
I intend to apply my mind to maintaining my animal base as long as possible. In a spirit of partnership, given that my animal base takes almost no account of the less-than-urgent future and who am I to say that's wrong? Objectively?

[Wowbagger]

I am not afraid to dabble in philosophy. But, for me, it is merely a recreational activity for the mind. A sort-of playground, where you can play with any ideas you want, even those that have no scientific merit, what-so-ever. Of course, it is important to acknowledge which parts of your ideas are merely philosophical, when communicating to others, so they won't misunderstand you.

For me it is kind-of like playing with Star Wars action figures: If you were following the continuity of the Star Wars canon, you know that it is impossible for Darth Maul and Luke Skywalker to battle each other, since Maul died long before Luke was born. But, when you are playing with action figures, that does not matter! You can invent any story you want to: You can even have Luke Skywalker engaging Darth Maul in battle!

Following the SW canon, strictly, is analogous to science. Developing an anything-goes "Infinite Possibilities" storyline is analogous to philosophy.

For this reason, it is utterly important not to take your philosophies too seriously!!!
(And also, for this reason, I have not philosophized much on this forum. I tend to stick with science, when I am here.)

[CapelDodger]

What have you done for yourself, lately?
I got another vat of beer on to brew this morning. No fun in itself, and done mostly for me.

I live a simple life.

[hammegk]

Good philosophy. So did Thoreau.

[CapelDodger]

I am not afraid to dabble in philosophy. But, for me, it is merely a recreational activity for the mind. A sort-of playground, where you can play with any ideas you want, even those that have no scientific merit, what-so-ever.
I started playing what I now know as stunt-logic at school, and it's excellent mind-and-mouth exercise. And, of course, great fun.

The schools I went to in my teens were essentially designed to produce lawyers and politicians, so stunt-logic was in the air you breathed. Debating Societies at every level, where you were told the question and which side you were to take. To be called a Sophist was to be complimented. I learnt a great deal from the experience, and never joined a Debating Society. Never thought of becoming a lawyer either, and that was a mistake.

[CapelDodger]

Do they? I wasn't aware of that. The San certainly do not seem to me to have "primitive undeveloped ethics". Their ethical system seems to fit their material situation, just as Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics serves as a wonderful primer on how to be a good Athenian gentleman and Bentham's Utilitarianism fits the needs of the industrious Englishman.
Drop Bentham. That was a flailing shot at a moving target. The Athenian model was moving, but it still had inertia and a long history. The San never started moving. In the wider scheme of things, that could turn out to be a good call.


The San seem, at least to me, to make fairly sophisticated ethical judgments about sharing within their group, again as a consequence of their material situation. They actually have much more free time than we do, much more time for reflection and thought.
They also know each other much more intimately than most modern people are used to. There are no strangers, or those that do appear are celebrities for rather more than 15 minutes.

That was one damn' fine post, Ichneumonwasp.

[CapelDodger]

Good philosophy.
It's not a philosophy, it's what I do.

So did Thoreau.
Thoreau's dead. I'm not. So much for philosophy.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Don't cohesive societies of people develop ethical systems that are largely agreed upon by the members? I doubt that a large number of humans will agree 100% on much. Why should there be any more agreement than that? That we don't understand ethics very well is clear, just as we don't understand the human mind or lot's of other things which we have to deal with daily.

Well, yes, of course. I was referring, however, to research that has examined the ways that we make ethical decisions within already set ethical paradigms and the responsible brain areas. While it will always be true that different people have differing opinions, it seems also to be true that most individuals do not use one set pattern to answer ethical questions. There are always exceptions, of course. There are some folks who are absolute utilitarians and others that are completely committed to a duty based system and yet others who are committed to virtue ethics. But most of us seem to use more than one strategy when answering ethical questions. We seem built with different modules to solve different problems. That is seemingly why we have general problem solving brains -- we don't rely on a single mode of thought or a single strategy but can pick and choose from a variety. I think that is what makes us so flexible. It is also probably why most approaches at artificial intelligence haven't worked. That and the fact that all the AI out there leaves out motivation and emotion which are critical to our way of thinking.

[Dogdoctor]

Well, yes, of course. I was referring, however, to research that has examined the ways that we make ethical decisions within already set ethical paradigms and the responsible brain areas. While it will always be true that different people have differing opinions, it seems also to be true that most individuals do not use one set pattern to answer ethical questions. There are always exceptions, of course. There are some folks who are absolute utilitarians and others that are completely committed to a duty based system and yet others who are committed to virtue ethics. But most of us seem to use more than one strategy when answering ethical questions. We seem built with different modules to solve different problems. That is seemingly why we have general problem solving brains -- we don't rely on a single mode of thought or a single strategy but can pick and choose from a variety. I think that is what makes us so flexible. It is also probably why most approaches at artificial intelligence haven't worked. That and the fact that all the AI out there leaves out motivation and emotion which are critical to our way of thinking.

All of that is quite interesting however it seems to me that the method used to arrive at an ethical choice is not so important as the effect of that choice and that in looking at that (the effect) will lead to a better understanding of the what ethics is rather than looking at the method used to arrive at it. By the way you wouldn't happen to have any recommended sources of information I can go educate myself with about those ideas do you? I am very interested in these ideas and what is known.

[CapelDodger]

Don't cohesive societies of people develop ethical systems that are largely agreed upon by the members? I doubt that a large number of humans will agree 100% on much. Why should there be any more agreement than that? That we don't understand ethics very well is clear, just as we don't understand the human mind or lot's of other things which we have to deal with daily.
Ask not of cohesive societies, but of uncohesive societies. Nobody likes them, do they?

Cohesion doesn't require 100% or anything like that, it requires a general sense of what's right and what just got to be put up with and where push definitely comes to shove. Or not. The upshot has to be practical, otherwise it metaphorically takes the drop that Saddam took in a real sense.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hmm, that's going to take some digging on my part for some of it.

As to the modular forms of thinking and the importance of emotion in thought, that is farily widespread now in the neurological literature (really the functional neuroimaging literature since Neurology proper doesn't much concern itself with this stuff). Probably the most accessible stuff is by Antonio Damasio - he's written several books including Descartes' Error, Looking for Spinoza, and the last one whose title escapes me at the moment. Stephen Pinker covers some of the same material especially as it relates to ethics in How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate. Marvin Minsky has written fairly extensively about modular thinking especially as it relates to AI, as has Jerry Fodor. Fodor doesn't agree with some of Pinker's ideas, hence his The Mind Doesn't Work That Way, which is also quite good.

I'll try to locate some of the original research dealing with ethical decision making since I primarily read about it in secondary sources like Discover Magazine and Scientific American.

And thank you, Capel Dodger, that was very kind.

[Ichneumonwasp]

it seems to me that the method used to arrive at an ethical choice is not so important as the effect of that choice and that in looking at that (the effect) will lead to a better understanding of the what ethics is rather than looking at the method used to arrive at it.

I don't know. Some of that is confusing even in ethics proper. For a consequentialist framework what you say is entirely correct. But the consequences are completely unimportant to deontology where all that matters is the proper way of thinking toward duty, etc. The fact that we find consequences so very important, however, is one of the big problems with trying to follow Kant's ethical system to the letter. Ethical Imeratives are all nice and good until the Nazis come a knockin'.

I think the scientific study of ethics might help us to understand all of this a bit. It will never be ethics, which is what you are really saying, and with that I completely agree.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Here's one investigation into the "ethical brain" http://brainethics.wordpress.com/2005/11/03/ethical-decision-making-a-new-review/

And here is a report that mentions the original Science article that I read about in other sources: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/1022/

I hope that helps.

[Dogdoctor]

I don't know. Some of that is confusing even in ethics proper. For a consequentialist framework what you say is entirely correct. But the consequences are completely unimportant to deontology where all that matters is the proper way of thinking toward duty, etc. The fact that we find consequences so very important, however, is one of the big problems with trying to follow Kant's ethical system to the letter. Ethical Imeratives are all nice and good until the Nazis come a knockin'.

I think the scientific study of ethics might help us to understand all of this a bit. It will never be ethics, which is what you are really saying, and with that I completely agree.

What I am saying is that you admit and so do I that genetics are responsible for part of what ethics is. This genetics is obviously not related to a thinking process (you admit that people use all kinds of processes to get to the answers) but a doing process and recognizing the effects of that. It's about making things better for ourselves by making things better for others. It involves recognizing that things are better as a result of certain behaviors then adopting these into our philosophies. So we don't all have the capacity to recognize that things are better or worse with certain behaviors and that is why we disagree and use different rationalizations for it. I care little what philosophic methods people use to evaluate ethics since they are just as clueless as everyone else. It's a natural phenomena and philosophy is just a stop gap to use till we understand better.

[RandFan]

What I've read of Dennett I find unexceptional. Jefferson and Mark Twain probably made and expressed all the necessary insights into religion to nourish an active mind, and they are two amongst many. When it comes to the mind, the really hard question of consciousness, Dennett does no more to span the chasm than Pinker does. Or anybody else. Science can inform me about my emotions, anthropology and biology can inform me about why I feel them, and why I have my desires. Often conflicting ones. What nobody's informing me about is how my very distinct impression of existence, at this moment, behind and between my eyes, riding the oh-so-physical endocrine surf, can be explained in the same terms as everything else can be. Philosophy's doing no better than religion.Thanks, like I said, you are entitled to an opinion and I'm willing to respect it. I don't agree and I don't find anything you have said compelling but that's fine. Thanks.

RandFan.

[Ichneumonwasp]

This genetics is obviously not related to a thinking process (you admit that people use all kinds of processes to get to the answers) but a doing process and recognizing the effects of that.


Genetics is in large part responsible for all of our thinking processes. Those processes are not hard-wired obviously, but still. Part of my point was to highlight the difficulty in separating what is and what is not genetic. The original formulation of the brain is genetic + surrounding environment (local amongst the neurons and the milieu of the womb). Even here it is almost impossible to separate what is genetic heritage and what is not. One clear example is the formation of the dorsal/ventral neuraxis in early brain development where we need both bone morhogenic factor and sonic hedgehog for proper differentiation. The way things play out depends critically on how much of each is present and how far they penetrate into the developing tissue. I have recently begun to think that all distinctions between nature and nurture are simply arbitraty and not very enlightening. It's all just stuff that we don't understand very well working in an environment which is part of all the stuff. We need to make distinctions when it comes to trying to manipulate the genome, but I'm not sure in the big scheme of things that such distinctions really matter. Gentic stuff, environmental stuff. Ultimately it's all just stuff.


It's about making things better for ourselves by making things better for others. It involves recognizing that things are better as a result of certain behaviors then adopting these into our philosophies. So we don't all have the capacity to recognize that things are better or worse with certain behaviors and that is why we disagree and use different rationalizations for it. I care little what philosophic methods people use to evaluate ethics since they are just as clueless as everyone else. It's a natural phenomena and philosophy is just a stop gap to use till we understand better.

OK

[hammegk]

It's a pleasure to read an interesting discussion under the auspices of the philosophy of science.

Re the San and ethics; my google-fu fails me. Any hints on how to find something on that topic?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Here's a quickie reference without much depth: !Kung San (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:R9BO2oQ_QGAJ:human-nature.com/ep/downloads/ep0236.pdf+san+!kung+ethics&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=17)

You might need to put in !Kung as well as San in doing a search, I don't know. Most of what I know of their ethics comes from ethnographic research that I read in college. I saw some of this info repeated and discussed under a different light in Pinker's Blank Slate. This is one where a library trip would probably be necessary since I don't know if there are any ethnographic studies available on line. I'll see if I have any of my old collections downstairs and try to give you a title. I'm not sure I kept all that stuff though.

*edit*

Sorry, I don't seem to have kept any of my old anthropolgy literature. I did run across an old copy of Colin Turnbull's The Forest People which concerns not the San but another "primitive" group of pygmies. His The Human Cycle also covers ethical concerns from more of a comparative anthropolgical viewpoint, though it is really more concerned with how different groups (including the West) deal with life cycle issues. I have never read his The Mountain People but understand that group is very strange, and not what we would typically call ethical -- this based on an entirely different material culture.

One of the books I left out up above concerning the basics of ethics from a "scientific" point of view is Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil, another very good read.

*edit edit*

Dang, I can't even find my copy of Blank Slate. I must have lent it out, which means I can get it by Tuesday and cite his references. I looked on Amazon for the ethnography collection we used in college but couldn't find it. There are, however, several independent sources looking at !Kung society.

Dogdoctor, please don't think that I'm arguing against intellectual change because I certainly do not think that way. We clearly change our ethical ideas over time. I'm not as certain that these changes represent improvements or if they reflect changes in our material life. We end slavery when we don't absolutely need it. We had always found ethical justifications for it previously. I think Singer's ideas concerning animals are suspect since we are on the brink of having the ability to grow meat independent of animals. So I don't think that "primitive" tribes have "primitive" ethical ideas. I think they have ethical ideas fitting their material circumstance. Just like us.

[Dogdoctor]

Thanks for the references. I have read the Shermer book. I will see what I can find out of those references. Thanks again

[CapelDodger]

Thanks, like I said, you are entitled to an opinion and I'm willing to respect it. I don't agree and I don't find anything you have said compelling but that's fine. Thanks.

RandFan.
I live in the fond hope that I might one one day persuade one person of something not entirely trivial. Holding my own is satisfaction enough to be going on with :) .

[RandFan]

I live in the fond hope that I might one one day persuade one person of something not entirely trivial. Holding my own is satisfaction enough to be going on with :) .Cool. To be fair I was the one who started the thread so perhaps the onus was on me to be compelling.

RandFan

[CapelDodger]

Cool. To be fair I was the one who started the thread so perhaps the onus was on me to be compelling.

RandFan
There's no need for a thread to lead to a decision. I've enjoyed setting out my stall after you set out yours, other folk have chimed in, I think it's been quite productive.

I still 'ates Philosophers, though :mad: .

[RandFan]

There's no need for a thread to lead to a decision. I've enjoyed setting out my stall after you set out yours, other folk have chimed in, I think it's been quite productive.

I still 'ates Philosophers, though :mad: . Some day my friend you will learn to drink water from an empty glass. ;)

[Dark Jaguar]

Which is why I asked your forgiveness. I'm not sure how to take it but that's fine. As long as you don't bear a grudge toward me then we are fine but I have to say I'm awfully confused.

Sorry, no grudges are felt at all. It's just that a lot of people like to use the "you're just closed minded" argument to defend all manner of silly propositions, and it brought up memories of those encounters. The utter lack of evidence to justify their views, or an explanation as to what some are even talking about, doesn't factor into it. It's all about my lack of an "open mind".

I have no idea why it doesn't. Can you accept that it does for other people?

If the point of the exercise isn't to show that there's some unsolvable problem, IF the entire point is just to illustrate that something can be looked at in different ways, then it can do that job. Every time I'm asked such questions though, that does not seem to be the point at all. The questions are asked with this egotistical reverence, as though it is THE question, something that "tears apart presumptions" or has THE ANSWER or is UNANSWERABLE and proves some inane philosophical mumbo jumbo that's sure to follow.

Just look at the question in... question. The guy doesn't ask, "what is the table made of?" and then go down level by level from there, as I would expect if this was an illustration. No, he asks "when does it stop being a table?". That question doesn't really illustrate anything. He just stated that it IS made of atoms, not the thing you were talking about, illustration asking the question of WHAT it is made of and going from there. That's the difference I'm talking about, and the difference between asking legitimate questions and, as others have said, pointless navel gazing.

But that's NOT the point. We are not talking about the definition of a word we are talking about the existence of the table.

What aspect of the table is being called into question here? See above. The only purpose I can see from what you've said is a good one to have, but this question fails at it.

How did the early philosophers come to see that matter is composed of smaller stuff? How do we get people to think like the early philosophers? Do we simply teach them by rote the concepts? Is there a way we can get people to think beyond the macro world besides telling them that there is both a micro and a macro world or that there are sounds that are beyond our ability to hear or light that is beyond our abilitly to see.

That's a great point, and I agree with all of that. What I disagree is that EVERY philosophical question serves this well. Some of it is just pointless stupidity, and I think that the table query is one of those. A question like "what is the table made of?" or "how can I find out?" has a realistic answer. Even a question like "is the table made out of anything?" has some actual meaning to it. The question "if I remove an atom at a time, when does it stop being a table?" has no scientific merit. There is not a quality of "tableness" somewhere out there. It's just a table. It can stop being a table whenever you want it to if you just redefine it. What I find much MORE interesting is that concept of "atoms" you were talking about. Now there's something that has some actual inquiry to it. It can actually go somewhere.

Note that I'm not talking about practical use here. I'm perfectly fine with impractical things, so long as it isn't just meaningless talk that is disguised as meaningful. Hot air, if you will.

Philosophy, is in part, to get people to think. To question held assumptions. To look at the world in a different way. Perhaps it won't work for you.

IT WORKED FOR ME.

Sorry. It seems that you see the world through your eyes and anything that you don't find valuable you feel must not have any value so you dismiss philosophy.

That's not my view at all. I apologize if it seemed that way. Again, the question "when does it stop being a table?" is about as meaningful to me as "is pluto a planet?". It's a semantics question and nothing more. I can't gain insight. It reveals nothing to me (which I find valuable in and of itself, and that's why I enjoy logic games, for example). This isn't logic, it's just nonsense. As meaningful as "deavearlkejlkfda".

The problem is that I think I gave the wrong impression. You seem to think I deride any search for knowledge that won't get me money or something, like some "the man" stereotype that's fun to see as "the enemy". Like I'm some fat cat going "harumph!" talking about profits. Maybe such silly caricatures actually exist somewhere, but that's not me. I can enjoy knowledge for it's own sake, and as I said, I find philosophy "interesting", but a LOT of it seems to be nothing even close to actual logical discussion and just seems like mindless babbling that pretends to have meaning. What possible knowledge or insights can I get from that, aside from the knowledge that some people like to know how many angles can dance on the head of a pin?