Moderated: The "I DETEST PHILOSOPHY" Thread

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yeah, you still don't get to decide whether or not I do.

However, since you don't get arbitrarily get to decide what words means, it helps to look at what you actually wrote before angrysoba coined the terms "philosophile" and "philosphobe":

Here is your first post in the thread:

Originally Posted by Belz...

I'll weigh in for the OP and say that I don't like philosophy either. Philosophy led us to science because science is better.

It doesn't mean you can't discuss things and have opinions, but claiming it has any significance to reality is worthless.

And you continued to misrepresent philosophy from there:

Originally Posted by Belz...

Musing (which is what philosophy is) doesn't really give us any information about objective reality. It's better than superstition or fantasy, but it's far from the better alternative. It's a fun thing to do, but it's ultimately useless.

Originally Posted by Belz...

And philosophy uses logic to make falsehoods appear true. Ironic.

The difference between philosophy and science is the same as between something that is convincing, and something that is true.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Before rational thought and philosophy, we were pretty much stuck with superstition. It doesn't mean no one thought rationally, but it wasn't an established discipline. Then, enter skepticism. That was a huge improvement because it allowed people to organise and improve ideas. But where philosophy fails is when it tries to derive not methods but answers.

And you even took time out lie about what you--a philosophobe--had said about philosophy:

Originally Posted by Belz...

A philosopher testing something ?

To be fair, philosophy is not useless and I don't think anyone here says it isn't. Neither is anyone saying that philosophy wasn't the original foundation of science. What is being said is that philosophy (thinking) cannot be used to find answer to factual questions, and that being the foundation of science doesn't mean that you should do philosophy in lieu of science or as part of it.

Originally Posted by Belz...

I think this is a major problem in this and similar threads about this subject. No one is saying that ethics or philosophy are useless in any context, but that they do not yield objective answers to factual questions. "Should" questions, when answered, only provide answers that some people will agree with, not answers that can be verified objectively.

What is distinctly lacking before angrysoba's coinage is ANY statement about how much you like philosophy.

Originally Posted by Belz...

That's a silly lie to make, since logic is INCLUDED in my list of stuff that philosophy includes.

No, you didn't.

Originally Posted by Belz...

And here's the source of the problem: the traditional definition of "philosophy" is very vague and broad, so that it encompasses things that have nothing to do with each other (logic and boolean vs other things lumped into philosophy), which is why I suggested upthread that we split the thing in twain, or actually in three: Logic, sophistry, and philosophy proper.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Well, I disagree [that logic is a branch of philosophy] but that's not my mail gripe with the field.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Also indeed. Just to summarize what I think:

- I don't agree that logic is a subset of philosophy.
- I think sophistry shouldn't be called philosophy, and that many cheap thinkers use the term to hide the fact that they are talking nonsense.
- Although useful for many things, philosophy doesn't give useful results directly. It requires empirical testing (science) for that.

Originally Posted by Belz...

There is no confusion. I simply disagree with you that you can shoot down "bad" philosophy with logic. You can spot contradictions and errors, but the only true test of something's worth is, as you said above, if it measures up to reality. And philosophy is incapable of determining that.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Ah, sophistry. I'll repeat myself: if I'd have my say, I'd split the current definition of philosophy into three: logic, philosophy and sophistry. Then we could all agree that logic is a great tool, sophistry is crazy stupid, and we could argue about the use of philosophy proper. The fact that the word includes all three just muddles the whole discussion.

The last is particularly laughable because it is self-contrdictory: it simultaneously excludes logic from and includes logic in philosophy.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

The last is particularly laughable because it is self-contrdictory: it simultaneously excludes logic from and includes logic in philosophy.

If I propose to split philosophy in three components, how can I possibly deny that those components are part of it ?

What's laughable is your chronic inability to understand what other people say because you have a need to ridicule people who engage you in discussion. It's also very funny that you can't imagine that people can change their opinion over the course of debates... which is precisely the point of debates !

This is what's so frustrating with so many posters here. If you don't change your opinion because the evidence was unconvincing, then you just don't understand. If you DO change your opinion, then you're contradicting yourself. There's just no getting through to you.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

There's some low-hanging fruit.

I hope your not referring to my low hanging *****s.

[punshhh]

cough.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

cough.

Your low hanging fruits are fine.

[LashL]

Please, stick to the topic - which is not each other - and cut out the bickering. Be civil, and remember your Membership Agreement. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Posted By:LashL

[Belz...]

Right. So let's agree that we each know what we think better than other people and leave it at that.

Where were we ? Ah, yes. Philosophy at least shouldn't be used to label sophistry. I think we can probably all agree to that, no ?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by marplots

I was unfamiliar with that, but found a summary of his position here: http://www.phc.edu/journalfiles/gilb...0heidegger.pdf (starting on page 5).

I think it's a good example of what was meant in the objection to philosophy generally, but I only say that after reading it and the next section, which is a critique by other philosophers. The critique highlights the failings.

At issue is more than the result though, it's the motivation too. Does Heidegger mean to be obtuse for the purpose of confusing his readers and elevating himself, or is the subject he grapples with simply too difficult to fit well into the language at his disposal?

The combination of Heidegger and the criticisms seems to me to be worthwhile, but I'm not qualified to really dip into the fray, just admire the combat from the audience.

Yes, I think Heidegger is a particular target of the Logical Positivists.

From what I understand, the Vienna Circle used to love nothing more than to pick up a volume of Heidegger, read out a random sentence and pronounce it, "METAPHYSICS!" which was logical positivism for "*****". I can in some way understand why they might think so because Heidegger is difficult to read and he did spawn a lot of "continental philosophy" or post-modern wankery such as Derrida, and on top of that he was himself a stinking Nazi, so I can well understand the hatred and contempt he was afforded by the Logical Positivists.

Nonetheless, I did think that Being and Time had a certain compelling quality to it. I can't really explain what I liked about it but I don't think it was a bad work. It's also something I find difficult to think of as philosophy as I know it. I am very much a believer in the Anglo-American tradition of analytic philosophy, so people like Heidegger are more pseudo-philosophical poets to me, but still interesting.

[jhunter1163]

Thread placed on Moderated status due to continued incivility and bickering.

Posted By:jhunter1163

[mijopaalmc]

The effort to denormativize logic as a part of philosophy is inherently flawed and deliberately misleading because it seeks to divide philosophy-as-currently-conceived into:

1. logic (i.e., a field that has always been part of philosophy)
2. sophistry (i.e., a style of argumentation that is not unique to philosophy)
3. philosophy (i.e., what is left over when [1] and [2] are removed)

Such a division is essentially problematic by there is no single criterion for the the categories into which philosophy is proposed to be divided. In particular, [1] and [2] are ontologically non-equivalent in that [1] is a domain of knowledge that seeks to detemine the truth, validity, and soundness of arguments and [2] is a rhetorical approach to making arguments regardless of their logical evaluation. Thus, [1] and [2] are not mutually exclusive, let alone meaningfully separable, categories into which normative philosophy can be divided, because [1] is by definition a way of defining and identifying [2].

Moreover, the above division is supposedly an effort to address an "overly broad" defintion of "philosophy", but the alleged "overbroadness" ignores the fact that there has been no effort the define "science" except to assert that it produces knowledge of objective reality through empirical falsification of hypotheses. Glossing "science" as above includes activities that usually wouldn't be considered science, such as searching for a misplaced object, yet the posters who claim that a definition of "philosophy" that includes logic is "overly broad" have no similar complaint against the gloss of "science" that they offer.

[Belz...]

Mijo, you're right that logic has pretty much always been seen as part of philosophy, but the whole point of changing a definition is to change what it encompasses.

However, just as I agree that sophistry is seen in every field, so is logic. Of course, with the broad definition of philosophy, it's already difficult to determine exactly what it is and what's part of it, so I don't see a solution to this question in the forseable future and we can let it rest.

The majority of the vitriol leveled against philosophy in this thread is actualy directed at the drivel posing as what you would consider philosophy. So at the very least we should all agree to separate the wheat from the chaff and call the bad stuff bad.

As for the usefulness of philosophy, I maintain that it doesn't give us answers to factual questions, unless you count drawing conclusions from data as philosophy, which I wouldn't.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Mijo, you're right that logic has pretty much always been seen as part of philosophy, but the whole point of changing a definition is to change what it encompasses.

If all you managed to understand from my post was that logic is currently a normative part of philosophy, you missed the bulk of the post

1. that your reclassification of philosophy as logic, philosophy, and sophistry is fundamentally flawed because:
   
   1. Logic and sophistry are not meaningfully separable categories
      • What is considered sophistry follows directly from the ambient logical system
   2. Logic and sophistry are not even the same type of category
      • Logic is a domain of knowledge that seeks to systematize the derivation of conclusions from sets of assumptions through the ambient valid rules of inference
      • Sophistry is a style of argument that depends on rhetoric to convince
   3. An inability to meaningingfully distinguish between logic and sophistry mean that one cannot determine what neither logic nor sophistry, leaving philosophy bereft of the definition that this reclassification was supposed to provide it
   
   
   Originally Posted by Belz...

   However, just as I agree that sophistry is seen in every field, so is logic. Of course, with the broad definition of philosophy, it's already difficult to determine exactly what it is and what's part of it, so I don't see a solution to this question in the forseable future and we can let it rest.
2. Your complaint of "overbroadness" is only applied to philosophy
   • There are activities that produce objective knowledge about the world through empirical investigation that are not science, yet that seems to be the definitive aspect of science

Originally Posted by Belz...

The majority of the vitriol leveled against philosophy in this thread is actualy directed at the drivel posing as what you would consider philosophy. So at the very least we should all agree to separate the wheat from the chaff and call the bad stuff bad.

You have no idea what I would consider philosophy, so I don't see how you can even begin to evaluate what I think of the "drivel posting" (in which I would include your insistence that one cannot be a philosophobe if one does not fear philosophy).

Originally Posted by Belz...

As for the usefulness of philosophy, I maintain that it doesn't give us answers to factual questions, unless you count drawing conclusions from data as philosophy, which I wouldn't.

And I maintain that you haven't given a consistent definition "fact" with which to make a valid determination of that statement. (Cue the cries of "semantics!")

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Logic and sophistry are not even the same type of category

How is that relevant to what I said ? I never claimed they were similar in any way except that they can both be found in various fields.

Quote:

Your complaint of "overbroadness" is only applied to philosophy

Well, yeah. That's the topic of the thread.

Quote:

drivel posting

Drivel POSING as philosophy, Mijo, not "posting".

Quote:

And I maintain that you haven't given a consistent definition "fact"

I didn't think it was needed, and I don't remember someone seriously asking.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Belz...

As for the usefulness of philosophy, I maintain that it doesn't give us answers to factual questions, unless you count drawing conclusions from data as philosophy, which I wouldn't.

OK, but if you remove that, then what's left over? Guessing? Does philosophy = guessing, then? Is it just how we amuse ourselves until we get data?

[Belz...]

Well as I said before, it's also a means to structure thoughts. Logic, critical thinking and skepticism belong to philosophy, and that developed into science, so it can give us tools to reach conclusions and interpret stuff. But by itself it doesn't give us the answers because that would be guesswork. Not sure if I'm being clear, here.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Well as I said before, it's also a means to structure thoughts. Logic, critical thinking and skepticism belong to philosophy, and that developed into science, so it can give us tools to reach conclusions and interpret stuff. But by itself it doesn't give us the answers because that would be guesswork. Not sure if I'm being clear, here.

That would be epistemology, a branch of philosophy. Through philosophy you can work on "how to know". Through science, you work on "knowing". Well, more or less.

I don't work in science. That means that the information I get on a daily basis is only partially scientific, at most. Sometimes I have to decide what's most likely to be true in situations without remarkable scientific knowledge at play, and there's where "how to know" is important.

The JREF forum, in fact, is greatly focused on "how to know". Even how we process the scientific "know" that we don't verify directly requires some justification that, ultimately, relies on some consistently applied principles about "how to know".

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Dani

The JREF forum, in fact, is greatly focused on "how to know". Even how we process the scientific "know" that we don't verify directly requires some justification that, ultimately, relies on some consistently applied principles about "how to know".

State some of these principles please.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by dafydd

State some of these principles please.

Edited by LashL:

Moderated thread.

Epistemology^WP

Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Epistemology [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Belz... has actually listed several epistemological principles:

• (Justification through) logic
• Doubt (i.e., skpeticism)
• Critical thinking

Elaborating on what exactly constitutes the above and how they relate to knowledge is the domain of epistemology.

[h.g.Whiz]

Originally Posted by Piggy

OK, but if you remove that, then what's left over? Guessing? Does philosophy = guessing, then? Is it just how we amuse ourselves until we get data?

You guessed it.

[h.g.Whiz]

The most urgent decisions don't have the luxury of logic.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Edited by LashL:

Moderated thread.

Epistemology^WP

Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Epistemology [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Pages of waffle.

[Humes fork]

After some observation, my view is now that philosophy is vital. This is certainly triggered by the poorly philosophically grounded works of Sam Harris (reall, that guy got an undergraduate degree in philosophy?) and Sam Harris (who seems to be writing a book on it).

They keep on saying "Why can't we use science to bring about human flourishing?". The point is that "human flourishing" is a rather vague concept. Sure we can use science to help bring it about, once we have defined it in a measurable way. But science can't do the defining job. And there are also questions about how we should stake one person's flourishing versus another person's flourishing. Again, something that science can't answer.

Two philosophers that come to mind that should appeal to skeptics are David Hume and Bertrand Russell. And of course, Socrates.

Originally Posted by Dani

That would be epistemology, a branch of philosophy. Through philosophy you can work on "how to know". Through science, you work on "knowing". Well, more or less.

That is my understanding too. Science pursues knowledge, philosophy is (partially at least, because philosophy is so broad) reflection on the nature of knowledge.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

After some observation, my view is now that philosophy is vital. This is certainly triggered by the poorly philosophically grounded works of Sam Harris (reall, that guy got an undergraduate degree in philosophy?) and Sam Harris Michael Shermer (who seems to be writing a book on it).

They keep on saying "Why can't we use science to bring about human flourishing?". The point is that "human flourishing" is a rather vague concept. Sure we can use science to help bring it about, once we have defined it in a measurable way. But science can't do the defining job. And there are also questions about how we should stake one person's flourishing versus another person's flourishing. Again, something that science can't answer.

Two philosophers that come to mind that should appeal to skeptics are David Hume and Bertrand Russell. And of course, Socrates.

You meant Shermer. The problem with "morality" is that it's a loaded term by definition. The concept behind the term varies from person to person, which means that "what is moral"? is a question approached and answered in different ways. Why choose such an ambiguous word to "do science"?

No matter how sound your argument is for your morality, some people will just not buy it. To use an analogy with "philosophy", this is like saying that Hegel is not real philosophy and Bertrand Russell is the real philosophy. It doesn't matter that we think Russell's philosophy is much better than Hegel's and, in fact, it makes all the sense in the world while the other doesn't. Both are philosophy. If you keep defending that idea, you either end up landing in No True Scotland or you clearly express what the hell you mean with "philosophy". The first option is simply wrong. The second one is unproductive since it hinders fluent communication.

Harris and Shermer, when they object to Hume's is/ought problem, they're just saying that "morality" doesn't mean what people mean by "morality", and here's "science" to deliver the true meaning of the word.

All in all, they don't seem to distinguish science and philosophy very well. They underestimate philosophy and then proceed to "prove" some solid rock philosophy in the philosophy arena, doing terrible philosophy. From then on, everything is ok and the whole argument is irrelevant from a pragmatic point of view.

[dafydd]

An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water. — John W. Gardner (1912-2002)

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by dafydd

An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water. — John W. Gardner (1912-2002)

So now you believe Republican?

This is just another example of Republican anti-intellectualism, in addition to their anti-science stance.

[h.g.Whiz]

Originally Posted by dafydd

An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water. — John W. Gardner (1912-2002)

So ideal utility (plumbing) practice perhaps coincides with ideal philosophy (non-detestable)?

[marplots]

I thought it might be worthwhile to mention an example of what I think of as philosophy done well. I wanted something more recent than Socrates or Plato, and thought of Bertrand Russell.

Here is the opening paragraph of his "Problems of Philosophy" from 1912:

Quote:

Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it? This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked. When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy -- for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.

The entire work can be found here: http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html

I like this example because it is accessible and fairly straightforward. If we can't agree that his material is worthwhile, then I wonder what might be?

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by dafydd

An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water. — John W. Gardner (1912-2002)

Why do you only compare excellent plumbers to incompetent philosophers? Why not compare excellent plumbers to excellent philosophers?

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Well as I said before, it's also a means to structure thoughts. Logic, critical thinking and skepticism belong to philosophy, and that developed into science, so it can give us tools to reach conclusions and interpret stuff. But by itself it doesn't give us the answers because that would be guesswork. Not sure if I'm being clear, here.

Well, it's not clear to me, anyway.

If philosophy gives us tools to find answers, but can't determine when those tools have been used correctly, then what use are those tools?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Why do you only compare excellent plumbers to incompetent philosophers? Why not compare excellent plumbers to excellent philosophers?

You didn't notice that it was a quote?

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Piggy

Well, it's not clear to me, anyway.

If philosophy gives us tools to find answers, but can't determine when those tools have been used correctly, then what use are those tools?

Hmm? Why would you think that "can't determine when those tools have been used correctly" in any relevant way fits what he said?

But hey, this sounds like a bit like asking "If a hammer can hammer in a nail, but can't determine whether the nail is hammered in properly, then what use is a hammer?"

Reality gives the concrete answers, though, not the tools. The tools are just a means to an end.

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Hmm? Why would you think that "can't determine when those tools have been used correctly" in any relevant way fits what he said?

But hey, this sounds like a bit like asking "If a hammer can hammer in a nail, but can't determine whether the nail is hammered in properly, then what use is a hammer?"

Reality gives the concrete answers, though, not the tools. The tools are just a means to an end.

OK, so let's have an answer to the question.

If philosophy can't itself determine which philosophical tools work and which don't, then what DOES determine that?