The Limitations of Philosophy and Argumentation
Some of the arguments in this forum, and many philosophical arguments have the following format
1. Define terms (pretty much arbitrarily, most of the time)
2. Use logic (of varying quality)
3. Establish (potentially already preconceived) conclusion
(4. Influence basically nothing thereby, accept in extraneous circumstances)
I don’t think this method is completely useless. But I do think that the question at stake is whether or not this method is completely useless. It seems like it could be.
Anytime you define terms, you are already establishing the goal posts for the argument, most of the consequential discussion probably takes place in that step, which I think is often regarded as merely the opening formalities of a discussion.
Any time you ask the question
Is A, B?
And you get to define A or B, then you can probably make a strong argument for… anything!
Also, notice that asking “is A, B?” is literally only categorisation. It is merely a linguistic exercise. Languages are made-up agreements, for the purpose of referencing observations and interpersonal communication. They were not designed to robustly articulate phenomena, merely to point to them for a pragmatic end. Words in languages are like sign posts, and yet too often, we regard them as destinations in themselves!
Here are examples of questions that I think have very, very little meaning or interest, because of what I have outlined above.
Is God existent?
Is morality objective?
Is [insert literally anything] true?
Is [insert literally anything] moral?
Is life/ humanity inherently good/ bad?
Is the method of argumentation which follows the “is A, B?” format completely useless?
Oops.
(Actually that last one has meaning and interest, just… because, I don’t know. It just does. Little hiccup there.)
Rather than arguing about classifications and terms, unless it is done with as much precision as to be scientific, (and even then, the utility of the discussion is necessarily limited due to its specificity) I think all (or most) philosophical discussion should revolve around the attempted articulation (and perhaps even creation) of values and experiences. I think that this is pretty much what is undertaken when we try to define anything anyway. As such, communication generally, and not argumentation specifically, is paramount to the contemplation of higher things.
To demonstrate, here are some attempts at questions/ observations I think do have substantial interest.
What is generally understood, and what do I specifically understand, by the concept of God, and why?
What phenomena is morality trying to comprehend/ address? Is it possible to comprehend/ address these phenomena in other/ better ways?
What are the differences between my worldview and others’? Are these differences reconcilable? How or why not?
What is the furthest extent of the capacities/ limitations of humanity?
What are the capacities/ limitations of argumentation/ philosophy? Is there anything else that can exceed these capacities/ limitations?
Anyway, hopefully my point is sort of getting across. What do you think?
1. Define terms (pretty much arbitrarily, most of the time)
2. Use logic (of varying quality)
3. Establish (potentially already preconceived) conclusion
(4. Influence basically nothing thereby, accept in extraneous circumstances)
I don’t think this method is completely useless. But I do think that the question at stake is whether or not this method is completely useless. It seems like it could be.
Anytime you define terms, you are already establishing the goal posts for the argument, most of the consequential discussion probably takes place in that step, which I think is often regarded as merely the opening formalities of a discussion.
Any time you ask the question
Is A, B?
And you get to define A or B, then you can probably make a strong argument for… anything!
Also, notice that asking “is A, B?” is literally only categorisation. It is merely a linguistic exercise. Languages are made-up agreements, for the purpose of referencing observations and interpersonal communication. They were not designed to robustly articulate phenomena, merely to point to them for a pragmatic end. Words in languages are like sign posts, and yet too often, we regard them as destinations in themselves!
Here are examples of questions that I think have very, very little meaning or interest, because of what I have outlined above.
Is God existent?
Is morality objective?
Is [insert literally anything] true?
Is [insert literally anything] moral?
Is life/ humanity inherently good/ bad?
Is the method of argumentation which follows the “is A, B?” format completely useless?
Oops.
(Actually that last one has meaning and interest, just… because, I don’t know. It just does. Little hiccup there.)
Rather than arguing about classifications and terms, unless it is done with as much precision as to be scientific, (and even then, the utility of the discussion is necessarily limited due to its specificity) I think all (or most) philosophical discussion should revolve around the attempted articulation (and perhaps even creation) of values and experiences. I think that this is pretty much what is undertaken when we try to define anything anyway. As such, communication generally, and not argumentation specifically, is paramount to the contemplation of higher things.
To demonstrate, here are some attempts at questions/ observations I think do have substantial interest.
What is generally understood, and what do I specifically understand, by the concept of God, and why?
What phenomena is morality trying to comprehend/ address? Is it possible to comprehend/ address these phenomena in other/ better ways?
What are the differences between my worldview and others’? Are these differences reconcilable? How or why not?
What is the furthest extent of the capacities/ limitations of humanity?
What are the capacities/ limitations of argumentation/ philosophy? Is there anything else that can exceed these capacities/ limitations?
Anyway, hopefully my point is sort of getting across. What do you think?
Comments (81)
1. X is true. (Here is what I think.)
2. Here is why X is true. (Reasons.)
3. Some say X is false, here is why they are wrong.
Posting someone's text without explaining how it is evidence for your argument..
Posting a link to something and saying, read this.
To the best of human knowledge (at the present time) "God" ,as he is defined by Abrahamic religions, does not exist. Why this is would require a very lengthy discussion which is a bit beyond this thread but if need an explanation I suggest creating another thread to address this issue.
Quoting SatmBopd
"Morality" as well as "good/evil" are just mental projection we create in order to rationalize why we do certain actions instead of others. In a nutshell, it is merely a tool we use in order to help us survive an beyond that it really doesn't have meaning.
Quoting SatmBopd
You have your religious beliefs or system of beliefs and other people have theirs. If you can understand other peoples system of beliefs (religious or otherwise) as well as they understand them then they are somewhat reconcilable. How you go about this is a bit up to you.
Quoting SatmBopd
One can understand the current limitations of humanity to some degree, but it is pretty much a given that we can not answer what the limitations of humanity either hundreds or thousands of years from now since we don't know what technology or information will be available to human beings at that time. When one is presented with issues which require knowledge that is not available all one can do is simply understand that such questions do not have answers.
Quoting SatmBopd
I don't know much about Post-Modern philosophy, but I think this is a question that is brought up in such discussions. I can't say that you will find the answers you seek if you study such a subject but it is the only things I can think of at the moment.
After reading your questions the only question I have is what is it that you seek to achieve or learn by asking them? For me I'm kind of curious as to whether you are someone that has studied philosophy for some time and has now decided to try to check out the peripheral aspects of it or whether you are someone new and just desire to try and jump into the deep end.
In a way the questions you are not that different then other more simple philosophical questions other than one must be able to shift from one paradigm or narrative with ease in order to be able to be comfortable with the possible answers when trying to address such things.
Thinking about philosophy in terms of questions with many possible answers, and those answers as ways of thinking and ways of living, may prove more fruitful than focusing on arguments and definitions.
It is both, no?
A well-thought-out and clearly expressed argument I find myself disagreeing with, at least in part.
Quoting SatmBopd
Agree with this.
Quoting SatmBopd
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is where we disagree. I have said many times that the major problem with many, perhaps most, discussions here on the forum is the failure to define terms. People assume they know what words mean and that others have the same understanding. Then there is a long, convoluted, pointless argument with different people talking about different things as if they are the same. Prime example - consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, self-consciousness, awareness, attention, thinking, cognition, introspection, reasoning, rationalization.
When I start a discussion, I want to talk about the specific thing I have in mind. I want other people to be using the terms I use in the same way I am. I don't want long arguments about what words mean, unless that is the specific point of the discussion.
Yes, you raise a very good point here. But I think it speaks to a larger, seldom talked about problem. If I agree to use the definitions you are using, I already have to just accept (probably without fully understanding) that element of your worldview. Or if both of us make some communicative sacrifice to agree upon a definition that is popular, or another philosopher articualtes well, then we are already taking for granted the substantial claim that these definitions are the best, or most relavent ones.
I think the problem of interpersonal communication, particularly of abstract concepts is still an unsolved one. Even nuanced and agreed upon definitions don't solve it. The defninitions we priveldege already speaks to our values and interpritations, this is why I think it would be useful to find a way to discuss these values and interpretiations directly, or at least more honestly (bearing in mind that we will proably still have to use words with potentially varying definitions to do this, hence, the cyclical nature and difficulty of the problem).
But I do agree with you, that failing to awknoledge differing definitions at all just leads to random arguments about nothing. And if one person stubbornly insists on their definition and the other person subbornly insists on a different one, that conversation is probably going nowhere, haha.
I have found that very few on this site understand the significance of the concept of worldview for ascertaining truth in philosophy and science, which is why so many cling to predicate logic , true-false statements and belief in transparent definition of terms, as if that were an obvious starting point rather than a never fully realizable end goal of discussion.
What I am trying (and proably? failing) to achive with this agrument, and those proposed questions is to investigate which things are being taken for granted, and which of the things which are taken for granted shouldn't be.
(I am (sort of?) new to philosophy, a few university courses, a few books (mostly Nietzsche) and many YouTube lecutrues of my own interest, primarily concerning post-modernism, existentialism, and gereral histroy/ overview of (mostly western) philosophy).
No, it'a booth! :snicker:
The problem with philosophy is Agrippa's trilemma!
And again in the 20th and 21st centuries philosophy takes a step in the right direction, problematizing concepts like rationality and knowledge.
When I set out the terms of discussion in the OP, I often, generally, have very specific things I want to talk about. You may notice that I try to ride herd on my own discussions to keep them on the track I intended. When I am participating in someone else's discussion, I try, usually if not always successfully, to follow the terms they've set out. If someone doesn't want to talk about things in the terms I do, they can go to another discussion or start one of their own.
I've found that the best discussions, either my own or someone else's, have the terms of the discussion well laid out, including definitions of terms if those are likely to be confused.
Exactly. "Are we talking about the same thing?"
This is acceptable if another poster is asking for supporting works.
My pet peeve: Someone posting swathes of paragraphs, a lengthy, well-formatted explanation or whatnot, but just missing key ideas.
Using works that have been discussed/published before is key to a discussion so we don't re-invent ideas (like re-inventing the wheel when there are already loads of literature about the subject).
I don't think I understand the kind of discussion you're talking about. Have you seen any like that here on the forum as an example?
Life ain't easy! Everyone figures that out sooner or later.
Instead of a discussion in the format
1. Is A, B?
2. A is/ is not B because X, Y, Z.
3. Back and forth debate about this
Where definitions must be provided for A, B, and probably many elements of X, Y, Z.
How about something like this:
1. These are my values/ belifs/ current goals/ current understanding (may be very specific to the topic)
2. Here is my detailed defense of them/ articuation of the problem/ question
3. Invitation for the other party to pick apart 2, and even 1.
4. Respond to 3 only to help 3 more effectively pick apart 2, and even 1, attempting to minimise misunderstanding
Now that I think about it... (I think?) this is (sort of?) the format that my last two forum posts (before this one) take? I do ussually learn something from making those posts because I try to make it clear what I currently think, and try to outline the specifc areas of questions that I have, and what I don't know. There are ussually several helpful responses.
I know that's pretty biased, just prasing my own posts, but I'm sure similar things are done elsewhere... I think its (sort of) similar to the scientific meothod?
1. I present what I think
2. Here is my attempt to expand/ refine it
Instead of
1. Here are the definitions, lets agree upon those for some reason
2. Here is the logic/ arguments, as applied to those defninitions
That second meothod just seems a little bit more arbitrary to me. Sort of thinking through this on the fly haha, idk if that helps
I disagree with some of what you say, but I don't know that we are all that far apart. I just think that defining terms at the start is an important part of the process. Case in point - metaphysics, especially epistemology. It's at the center of what I understand about the world and I have very specific opinions about what's important and how it should work. Unfortunately, just about everyone has different and often conflicting opinions about what metaphysics is. Most discussions end up in endless disagreements about definitions. In discussions I start, I am careful to explain what it means to me, what I think about it, and how I want the discussion to proceed. Otherwise I'll never get to talk about the issues that are important to me.
I start discussions to learn things. To test my ideas. To make sure I can express my thoughts effectively. If I don't set the rules out carefully, I won't get what I'm after.
I've found that the most fruitful discussions on TPF circle around one or more of this quartet
A. suppose idea X ...
B. presuppositions for idea X ...
C. implications from idea X ...
D. negation of idea X ...
wherein conceptual definitions, arguments, citations are auxiliary to clarifying (fallacies, inconsistencies, biases, conflating suppositions with propositions / ideas with facts, etc) idea X and NOT "PROVING" the truth-value of X. This occurs very infrequently, I think, because most discussions begin with implicit dogma or an agenda rationalized by pet arguments and cherry-picked examples that some P is "the truth" or, non-philosophically, "how the world / reality is" from which then the threads degenerate at length.
:fire: You should be a billionaire!
Yes, I too agree that 180 Proof is a modern day version of Socrates. :grin:
Quoting SatmBopd
What else one would try to establish with this action? Although I would use the description "frame of reference" --indicating an area one should move in-- instead of "goal posts" --indicating the edge of a discussion area and the target/point/position one wants to create or achieve, which has nothing to do with defining terms.
Then, what's the meaning of "already"? Why, should this action be postponed for later? :smile:
Quoting SatmBopd
I can't see what does the definition of terms have to do with the creation of an argument, much less "for anything".
As I said above, the definition of terms provide a frame of reference in which a discussion can take place. Because if you are talking about A and I assume that you are talking about B, our communication will most probably fail. And, in a discussion, the more such assumptions take place, the more the whole discussion will tend to lead to nowhere, but rather go round and round and eventually dissolve without any conclusion.
And this is indeed what can constitute limitations for philosophy and argumentation: lack of definitions, not defining terms as you try to point out.
***
Note about definitions:
They don't have necessarily to be strict or standard. They can be presented as loose descriptions, examples. etc. Whatever will do as long as it appeals to common sense and/or agreement. That is, they must refer to commonly and widely accepted data. Personal, biased or otherwise twisted definitions or descriptions will have a limited application, if any. That's why dictionaries and encyclopedias are created.
Yes, it seems pretty straightforward. Defining terms starts at beginning to make sure people are using the words the same way.
Right.
:snicker:
Say I am arguing for free will, AND I get to define free will. I can make a definition for free will which is easy to argue for.
I think we would learn more about free will, if we forgot (for the time being) about whether it existed or not, and deeply picked apart the thing to which all the definitions imperfectly (or so I would argue) try to point. As soon as a definition is agreed upon, yes, our discussion can progrees better, which is importnat, but if a discussion progresses, which is nevertheless about something completly vapid and pointless, then the members of the discussion have wasted their time!
Consider this proscess:
1. There is a "thing" in the universe which a human experiences and it inspires the creation of a "concept" which the human terms "free will"
2. "Free will" is then refered to on a consistant basis and articuations of the "concept" inspire more humans to think about the "concept" and NOT the "thing". Because all of the linguistic definitions, and articulations of "free will" are only robust labels (just as "free will" itself is only a label), none of them are the original "thing"
3. Since all discussion only revolves around the definitions and articuations of the "concept", the "thing" is never understood. All discussions therefore, even if frutiful, are only fruitful in service of the "concepts" which are ultimately empty labels for the "thing".
The strongest argument against this (that I can think of) is that when a "concept" is artucatied with a definition, such that the definition bears enough similarity to the "thing", then a fruitful discusssion can still take place, AND we have many such definitions.
I would agree with this counter argument, in part, but insist upon pushing it further. The proposition that "we have many such definitions" needs demonstration. Such demonstration cannot take place if we only have discussions which begin with quickly refering to agreed upon definitions. I think an entire discussion is wanting, about the "thing" and wheather the "concepts" and definitions which we use to discuss it in fact bear enough similarity.
If we did this, even once in a while, we would probably clear up a few deeply rooted misunderstandings, no?
(another way to put my whole argument [i think], is that we may need to understand and surpass postmodernism before we can continue doing philosophy).
All that's happenning these days in philosophy is the spirits of people who don't know they're dead and lying at the bottom of the ocean in the wreckage are still going about their lives as if the ship of philosophy never sank, as if they're not dead but alive or those who've realized this rather unfortunate state of affairs are conducting salvage operations in and around the sunken ship. No, not rescue missions; everyone on board perished, they just don't know it.
:snicker:
What is it that philosophy can and cannot do?
Argument -
What is the goal of argumentation?
It cannot cook!
Quoting Fooloso4
To find a good reason to get into a fist fight!
:snicker:
Quoting SatmBopd
Why create a definition? There are standard definitions around. Again, this is what dictionaries are for.
Quoting SatmBopd
Can't get this. In order to learn more about dogs, we should forget (for the time being) that they exist? What then are we going to talk about? Makes no sense.
Quoting SatmBopd
What is that "thing"? Shouldn't it be described? There's a thing that inspires humans, which they call "love". So what?
Quoting SatmBopd
"Articuations of the 'concept' inspire more humans to think about the 'concept' and NOT the 'thing'". What is the "thing"? From Oxford LEXICO: A concept (in philosophy) is "an idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate), and thus plays a part in the use of reason or language. (Any other standard definition will do.) So, when you think of a concept, you connect it and you refer to the object/entity it belongs to. This is all. Now, each person in a discussion may have a different application in mind for, knowledge about and experience regarding that concept, but they should all talking about the same thing. If, e.g., we are talking about the feeling of "being in love" and I never had an experience with that, I still undestand what we are talking about; only it's not so "real" to me.
Quoting SatmBopd
Not necessarily. As I already said, the definitions just offer a frame reference. After that, the discussion may follow any course one can imagine.
Coming to your example of free will: Oxford LEXCICO defines it as: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." (Any other standard definition will do.) Now, there are a lot of people who do not believe that such a thing actually exists. That's OK. Note everyone has to agree that something exists. It's enough that they are all taking about the same thing, after having it defined it in a standard, a generally accepted way. Let's say we define God as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of everything, a supreme, etc. You may believe that such an entity exists and I not. It's OK. We are still in communication and undestanding between each other.
Definitions of terms --explicit or silent-- are essential in a discussion, philosophical or other !
:chin:
Philosophy cannot say (describe) the unsayable and therefore cannot discursively reason about (reason's) unreason; it can, however, make explicit – problematize – this horizon.
Many regard problematizing as the problem with philosophy. As if, if they were of any worth they would solve problems. A case could be made that this is what Modern Philosophy set out to do.
Instead of solving problems Wittgenstein attempts to dissolve them. I will leave open for the moment the extent to which he succeeded.
What problems do you see Wittgenstein dissolving?
He regards philosophical problems to arise from linguistic confusion. By clearing up the language he shows the way out of the fly-bottle.
"Grammar" gets to be a bit abstract with Wittgenstein. Though he may skirt the charge off linguistic idealism--reality is language--he sometimes treats language as a fundamental reality.
“Beware lest there be anyone who robs you by means of his philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the elementary principles of the world, and not after Christ” -Paul, in Colossians 2
Do you want to read about ancient Greek ideas, or do you want to go to Heaven? If you weren't an ape-worshiping atheist, you would see that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. God has shown us that the apes can never truly be free. It's not like the philosophical ideas presented in the Bible have ever been proven not to be the word of God. If you start questioning why everything exists, it won't be long before you are convicted and poisoned with hemlock. Just think of all the people who have died while using philosophy.
The more you trust in Christ, the less you will be robbed in vain by these elementary principals of worldly men.
:rofl:
Best post today.
I wasn't aware that W had shown the way out of theism or matters connected with higher consciousness. Thoughts? Did he not just 'fly over' them?
:chin:
Either x vouches for itself or some other y vouches for x.
If the former, circulus in probando.
If the latter, who/what vouches for y? Infinite regress.
Challenge: Avoid both horns of the dilemma!
The solution: An infallible independent guarantor aka God!
1. God is infallible.
2. The Bible is God's word
Ergo
3. The Bible is true
No circulus in probando; no infinite regress
Nice. Instead of the cave, we have the sunken ship. One analogy is used to dissolve another.
I like thinking of W's 'grammar' in terms of norms (as featured in Robert Brandom's work). The tacitly 'proper' way to use words, among those who are therefore 'our' people, tends to be mistaken for some deep law of reality.
We might also say that he gave us new problems to think about.
Hope this isn't too much of a tangent, but this reminds me of something I read in Brandom recently. (If anyone has studied his work, it'd be fun to discuss.)
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/a-spirit-of-trust-a-reading-of-hegels-phenomenology/
Just an analogy I found apt. Nothing else to it. Like Richard Dawkins oft repeats: there are tens of thousands of religions, they can't all be right for they contradict each other. At most there's only one true religion; the million dollar question: Who got it right? The Hindus? The Christians? The aborigines? Who, damn it, who?!
In a passage that has often been overlooked he says:
Elsewhere he says:
His concern is with "possibilities of phenomena" (PI 90). The possibilities of phenomena are not determined by either the facts of nature or of mind, but by our concepts. Much of Wittgenstein's work was an attempt to free us from the ways of representing things that hold us captive. This is an attempt to understand the grounds on which an alternative to science can be established.
What is important about the concept of God, what God means, is a matter of how the concept is used. How the concept is used means not only how it is used within the context of one's life but also how the concept of God can be used to change one's life.
The paradox that Wittgenstein could not resolve is that in order to be saved one needs the certainty of faith, but such faith comes about only through redemption. To be saved requires that one must first be saved.
I want to address this again in a way that might be clearer. He did not address the question of God as a matter of fact, but rather, conceptually. He did not attempt to confirm or deny the existence of God. His concern is with how the concept of God can play a role in our lives.
He says that the way to solve the problems of life is to change the way you live, but he seems to question man's ability to do this on his own. He calls on faith to bring about this change. Philosophy, it would seem, is incapable of bringing this about:
His attitude is on the one hand pragmatic, but on the other, from his early to his late work there is a desire for transcendence.
Quoting Fooloso4
One could read later W as a potential ally of theism in some way, right?
Is there any way of conceptualizing transcendence outside of the tropes of idealism, higher consciousness, contemplative traditions or god/s?
As Wittgenstein is using the term 'concept' he does not mean a rational construct, but rather, pictures of how things are. Such concepts do not provide a rational explanation, but rather, present ways of seeing things. Rational or scientific concepts stand in the way.
The expression "It is God's will" is taken to be an acknowledgement that we cannot know why things as they are. To posit a rational God you acts according to reason is to misunderstand this. It is also an acknowledgement that we are not in control.
Quoting Tom Storm
In some ways both the earlier and later Wittgenstein are allies of theism, but in a way that is in line with what I pointed to in a previous post about "possibilities of phenomena". What he is doing clearing the ground to open up a way of looking at things. Tractarian silence is just such an opening up. But he is not an ally in the sense of providing arguments to demonstrate the existence of God.
Quoting Tom Storm
If by conceptualizing transcendence you mean a rational concept, then this is what Wittgenstein is struggling against. He retains a sense of mystery, wonder, and awe of life.
Dogs are a little different than free will. Namely dogs are physical entities in the real world. Free will, so far as I know is not. Instead, for people to even talk about free will at all, for there to be definitions in the first place, abrtract, mental construction had to take place. This abstract, mental construction created the definitions, which (standardised in a dictionary or not) are only (at best) the second and not the primary or most interesting aspect in the prospect of creating/ understanding free will.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
One aspect of my argument here, though I do think I am only imperfectly conveying my argument in fragments (so thank you for helping me think this through), is essentially that all descriptions are nessisarily imperfect, since language is a serious of approximations and symbols. Unless you know of a way to perfectly describe love, free will, and litterely every other conceivable phoenomonon such that EVERY single concivablre aspect of the phenomonon (or "thing" as I so lazily put it) is adequatley and accurately articulated, while also (ideally) being simple enough to efficentily communicate to others for the purpose of discussion.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Okay, this is interesting. I will have to think this through. I am still very sceptical that a concept such as free will, is as uneversally experienced as falling in love (falling in love is itself not a universal experience in my estimation.... remember that the greeks had 8 different words for what we call love, right? So if you try to define the english word "love" you would never fully understand the concept, because it is a historical, linguistic fact that the concept can be very inticately broken down. Probably even further than the greeks did). Nonetheless, I do have to grant that discussions and definitions do have the capacity to refer actual experiences.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Totally fair. I just might want to have a discussion about whether there isn't a better frame of reference to start from than "God as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of everything, a supreme, etc.". If we only talk about THAT idea of God in our discussion, even if we decide to say it does NOT exist, we are still engaging with a discussion about a specific conception of a phenomenon, which has a distinct cultural/ historical origin (so it is NOT universal) when we might genuinely be having more fruitful discusissions by examining the origin of THAT conception of God, and comparing it to OTHER possible definitions/ conceptions, instead of just taking the one definition for granted and either negating it, or not negating it.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Pre-philosophy like, pre-socratic? Maybe it is unconventional, but I am somewhat sympathetic to, or at least curious about Fredrich Nietzsche's praise of pre-socratic philosophy, and of (I think a measured and specific kind of) mytholigical thinking in The Birth of Tragedy. There is a beauty and power in the Dionysean spirit that is stifled by excessive rationality, blah, blah, blah.
But there are already definitions. Why must construction take place at all? This was my point from day one.
I can't see what is your purpose. To forget about dictionaries and encyclopedias and build definitions from scratch? And then what? Even if we construct an ideal definition of free will that is accepted by most --because by everyone, it is certainly impossible-- we would have consumed our discussion to creating such a definition. And then we woukd have to do the same for every other concept that will appear in the discussion. And that would turn us into lexicographers, without actual subjects to talk about!
Quoting SatmBopd
You are very welcome! :smile:
***
BTW, I don't know if you have realized that we have gone astray from the topic, which is not about definitions but "The Limitations of Philosophy and Argumentation"! :smile:
Construction took place in the beginning, that's why there are defninitions. That consticution was probably imperfect.. I think these definitions are limited in their capacity to illumitate truth... at least directly. Meanwhile all of our existing definitions in dictionaries and such, are still useful, obviosuly, for the purpose of communication. I guess I just think it should be understood that the definitions and words we use help us communicate with eachother, and work through problems, but they do not really give us anything like truth.
Language is still a useful construction, I don't think we should get rid of it, or re-start it. Just that if we want to understand truth, expand our intellectual capacities, (which maybe we don't, I guess) then we cannot (or at least, certainly don't have to) exclusively rely on discussions which are taking pre-existing intellectual capcities and linguistic/ argumentative traditions for granted.
Practically, this means things like: asking what we mean by a particular definition of God and why, and how it compares to similar concepts and ideas, rather than: does (insert definition of God) exist.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
True, but I still think I learned something haha
:up: But I get tired of hearing of 'that of which we cannot speak' as shorthand for 'shuddup already!' in response to bringing up anything deemed vaguely spiritual.
I notice this footnote in Thomas Nagel's essay, Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament:
Thank you, yes that's more or less what I thought.
Quoting Fooloso4
Thanks for your clarifications. Useful. Seems to me when push comes to shove most thinking people end up holding on some notion of the ineffable.
That's the key word or concept! Ne quid nimis. Easy to say, hard to do!
OK. So, what's the conclusion? What should we do?
What we see is not simply a matter of passive receptivity. The making of images, both mental and visual, is a way of seeing. The images on the wall of Plato's cave and Wittgenstein's "seeing as" or conceptual seeing, are a combination of something given and something imagined.
The play of images in Plato is more than it seems to be. Like two mirrors facing each other there is an endless reflection of reflections within which the reader plays a part. The use of images is one reason why Plato was interested in Geometry. It is also one reason why he often resorts to myths, both those that existed and those he created.
The dichotomy of seeing and saying continued from the beginning to the end of Wittgenstein's writings. The creative expression of language expands upon his earlier understanding of language as propositional, and both what is seen or pictured, including the frame, moves from the transcendent to the more mundane.
The way I see it: if a person defines both terms, and ask one of these questions on this forum, they probably want to challenge the logic behind it. If you define a category X and a category Y, and if you're trying to figure out how these categories are connected to each other (completely included, partially,...), it could be interesting to ask people their opinion. They might point out something in your X category that makes it impossible to be related to Y, and you might not have thought about it.
Even if you wouldn't define X as they define it, it could still be productive for both parties to debate using one's point of view.
Quoting SatmBopd
This would be ideal but do you really think it's realistic? Can you really tell why you believe in something? Most of the time, the way you reached a specific opinion has a lot of unconscious steps, so how could you go back and explain how you got there? What if you're wrong? What if you think you got there because of X reasons, while it's actually not at all because of that? That would make it even more confusing for others. And they couldn't prove you wrong, because only you could answer that. Do you know what I mean?
I do think you made me realise the possibility that "concepts" can point to "things", even if conepts do not acdequately encapsulate things by themsleves. It is something that I will have to consider if I want to continue down this post-modern favoured line of thinking.
Quoting Skalidris
It's my opinion, but I do think that if it is unrealistic to have more prescise discussions about beliefs, but also ideal, then we should be sure that it is impossible before abandoning the project.
Good luck! :smile:
I just thought of something else. Do you think someone who spends a lot of time understanding people will be able to grasp one's opinion better? You talked about exposing believes and goals, but then don't people need to have knowledge in psychology as well? Don't we need a strong basis about how our goals and believes interact with our opinions to be able to make use of it?
Because someone might be good at detecting flaws in logic but clueless about these things, right?
Philosophy isn't for an answer but to critically analyze assumptions and givens.
Critically analyzing givens often take the form of "What is commonly held as good, might not be". For example, it is commonly held that procreation is good or at least not good or bad. I think there is strong evidence it is not good full stop.
It can help you develop a worldview.. how things operate, what to focus on.. Thus, if procreation is bad, what are the implications of this.. What is it about life that makes procreation prohibitive. What does it tell us of ethics.
Argumentation is thus going to involve people that challenge your views. This leads to a dialectic that can make the original view come into question or strengthen it because now the objection has been met with an even stronger defense that bolsters the view that much more. The power of dialectic is the possibility of exploring all the potentials for flaws and all the rebuttals to those purported flaws revealing that they perhaps weren't flaws but simply objections based on misunderstanding, prejudice, or ignorance. Sometimes arguments can reveal people arguing out of bad faith. They have no desire to get to a resolution, just trolling. Ad hom and red herrings will be indicative of this. General snarkiness generally precludes a free flowing dialectic.
There is also the trend to view quick quips as good philosophy. Economy of words is advisable, but they don't take the place of careful argumentation. You can only get away with quick quips a few times before the style reveals not much thought behind the attempt at being clever. It is often couched as "too cool for school" but may be hiding a lack of any interesting thoughts on a particular subject. You can only fool people for a short time with the quip-only responses.
That's an observation about folk psychology (i.e. cognitive bias), not about a reasoned 'ethical position' or 'existential commitment'.
Yeah I don’t need to go into every argument I’ve ever made.
[quote=schopenhauer1]For example, it is commonly held that procreation is good or at least not good or bad. I think there is strong evidence it is not good full stop[/quote]
so there's no need to address any but this (re-quoted) representative example.
I was simply stating philosophy often questions what is often taken for granted as just true because it is long held belief. Argument from tradition or authority. But long held assumptions should be questioned. Socrates and justice or beauty or good.
Unexamined tradition = procreation is good, necessary, or acceptable
Examined analysis = procreation maybe not so good
Surely; however, my point is that cognitive / psychological biases (e.g. procreative – survival – instincts) are biological facts, not "assumptions", and thereby questioning whether or not they are "good" is unwarranted. Rather, how our biology is used is either good (more helpful) or bad (more harmful) for (to) ourselves and others of our kind. There is not any "assumed" dogma – philosophical or religious – such as "natalism" which rationally warrants critique such as "anti-natalism".
Rule 1: To argue, one must know necessity.
Rule 2: To refute, one must know possibility.
So, one should never define the tesms one uses?
I believe that you are referring to those who give arbitrary definitions, tailor-made to their argumentation and position, as you mentioned in the argumentation process a lot of people commonly use here, about which I agree.
But you cannot generalize the phenomenon and just discard --or even worse, be against-- the very important action of defining terms. It's a huge mistake!
The disastrous consequences from the lack of definitions are already very visible. Don't make the situation worse, please!
No... I mostly just think that anytime you define terms, you should be aware that you are establishing the goalposts for the argument, and awlodge the context that is therefore established for the conversation. I do not mean to say, (and if I have then I am wrong) that we should not define terms, just that in so doing, we should awknoledge the game we are playing.
From what I remember of this post (I made it a while ago now) I was mostly concerned about constructing arguments in the form "is A, B?" and the limitations of insight that kind of argument entails, where defining terms is prettmy much the only interesting part of the discussion.
Like given the question "Does God exist?", far from thinking we should not define our terms, I think that defining our terms is basically the only interesting thing to do. "What is God? And what does it mean to exist?" That's the whole discussion. So I guess I thought it would just be more honest, and rigourous if the whole discussion... basically revolved around defining terms? Looking at those more underling questions... instead of quickly defining terms and then just moving on.
But yeah if anyone got out of this that they should not define terms that would be a problem, and so maybe I should have worded it more carefully.
You keep repeating this, as if it is something one shouldn't do. So I maybe get it wrong. Maybe you mean that one puts a subject. together with his argments, positions, etc., in a framework or context, in or from which he is viewing it and discussing (about) it. Which is very good and I have stressed this point in a few occasions as something desirable or even necessary, even if it is implied/understood or explained/indicated by one's examples and descriptions in general, and not experessed directly and explicitly. So, I hope you mean samething like that too. :smile:
Quoting SatmBopd
This is a very good example, at least as I see it. Asking "Does God exist?", without explaining what one means by the word "God" is totally useless. It's actually an empty question. Beacause it immediately raises a (counter) questions like "What God?", "What kind of God?" etc.
The concept and nature of God is different in major religions --Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.-- as well in minor ones. Also, God means a different thing to different people.
But this is inot so important as that when this question is seen from another aspect: People imagine/create/conceive of a concept that they call "God", they are used to it, it becomes part of their lives, etc. and after some time they start asking if this concept exists! It's quite stupid, isn't it?
I'm imagining a dragon, with wings and a huge mouth from which flames come out and all that. It looks so real that it becomes part of my existence, mainly in my mind, but I also have indications that it actually exists somewhere in the external world. Then I become so used to it that after some time I forget that I have created it myself, with my imagination. Then, I start asking "Does my dragon exist?"
Quoting SatmBopd
Yes, I believe it should. In fact, I was thinging myself to launch a discussion on a simple topic like "How important is the definition of terms?" Simple, and yet quite debatable from what I have gathered in my experience with TPF, since almost a year ago. There are a lot who are even against dictionaries and encyclopedias. Can't get it. Where else one can resort to find and undestand e.g. what does the term "teleological" mean or be sure about what it means? Well, believe it or not. A lot --if not most-- of people are satisfied with what they thing terms like this mean and keep on with their reading or discussion!
And this is one of the main reasons people become unintelligent.
So, yes, maybe you could have worded the problem differently ... But I'm glad --and relieved! :smile:-- that you were actually meaning what you are saying here!
1. Deductive (certainty) [philosophers' favorite]
2. Inductive (probability) [comes in handy]
3. Abductive (falsifiable only) [science, explanations in general]
Each has its very own specific Achilles' heel. Google for details.