The Charade
What is faith? What is education? What is the purpose of education? What is scientism? What is a philosophical question? What is common sense? What is Google?
Help! I've suddenly forgotten everything I know, and I'm powerless to do anything about it.
Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? Is there something about it which opens up for debate that which we already know? Is everything really a matter of personal opinion?
Help! I've suddenly forgotten everything I know, and I'm powerless to do anything about it.
Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? Is there something about it which opens up for debate that which we already know? Is everything really a matter of personal opinion?
Comments (133)
... That's what you get for asking too many questions at once (j/k). :grin:
Are you kidding? Try philosophizing with the Dunning Kruger crowd on Facebook. Better yet, don't.
I think how good you see it as, or how useful you find it, really depends on how you use the forum in pursuit of the hobby. In that regard it's a reliable place to find someone who disagrees with you on something to discuss interminably and hysterically. But also a less reliable place to have an in depth discussion with on any philosophical doctrine or problem. Except maybe Wittgenstein or Heidegger, considering how many fans of each are here. Some knowledge of the former helps with understanding lots of the attitudes present here towards philosophy - which is ironic in itself I suppose.
As a platform for developing your own ideas, I find that I've learned more discussing something in a context here rather than my usual discussion with my own post it notes in books. Not that there's going to be too much of an increase in quality from my schizoid ramblings in the margins.
Also happy April Fools.
If there's a charade, then there must be a reality behind the joke, eh?
So how should we apprehend the reality?
All of that is too vague, though. There's an assumption of what reality is that we all make, when we say we think there's a reality. What's yours? See, this is where those questions come in that you're tired of. I could ask "what does 'cloud your vision' mean?" "What is 'reality'?" "What is 'sense'?" But I won't ask those questions; instead, as I asked above, what's the assumption you're making about reality?
What assumption do you think I'm making about reality? I know that there's a reality behind the example questions I raised, and I know that the reality is such as I could describe it. I know English, and so do you. I have at least a basic level of common sense knowledge, and so do you. I have access to search engines and so do you. So, what's the problem?
It's a simple act of reflection. What am I assuming? It's very useful. I don't think you're making any one particular assumption, and that's why I was inviting you to reflect on that. You would know, and I wouldn't.
Are you not interested in finding out what your assumptions are?
But for now, I'll be watching some television, then going to bed, then going to work. So the charade will have to go on without me, at least until I return.
*shrug* I'm not trying to set an agenda.
And when educated philosophers do come here they get armchaired by twits, :chin:
Demonstrably we don't think we're that bad. We don't shut up.
Hey, ND, we need a little leadership around here.
edited for brevity.
This is pretty self-indulgent. Also a bit disingenuous. If what you say is true, you have been as pretentious as the rest of us. Suddenly acting as if the questions we are asking each other have any point. If they don't, then there's no reason for us to be here. Maybe that's a good idea. As for me, I've gotten a lot from the forum, intellectually and emotionally. My understanding and confidence in my ideas is better because I've had to face those who may not agree with me.
Is that a philosophical question, an ironical question or do you really want to know? It seems to me that if you think that we would know the answer then you also should know it. We all have dictionaries and google so why are you asking us?
Quoting Sapientia
How do you know that everyone knows this? Is it just because you say you know it that it has to be true?
Quoting Sapientia
What do you think?
You can sense the coyness when a professor says, "What? I have no way of knowing that I'm not dreaming right now..." which is fine, but he doesn't doubt for a moment that he's awake.
Every question already has an answer but really just seeks validation. most ask questions with an answer in mind but seek validation for the equation.
Quoting Sapientia
We wouldn't ask about something which we were sure unless we sought to define the strengths and weaknesses of said thing. Quoting Sapientia
No. Somethings unknown to fact are open to interpretation. Sanity isn't a matter of perception it's a matter of reality. Reality is determined by provable facts. Facts proven outside of the mind and in the physical realm or the intellectual realm by a predetermined set of values.
Don't look to me for that.
Edited for longevity: and why edit for brevity?
Yeah, well, maybe, maybe not. :rofl:
Interested in agreement or disagreement, and why.
Quoting Sir2u
You appear to have mistaken a question for an assertion, and you haven't attempted to answer it, or any of my questions for that matter.
Quoting Sir2u
No, silly.
Quoting Sir2u
Don't change the subject. I asked that question because I'm interested in what others think.
How could you know that every question already has an answer?
Quoting Sid
Not sure I understand. I understand the asking of a question like, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of faith?", more than I understand the asking of a question like, "What is faith?". I don't think that they're equivalent in meaning, and if they were, why not express it as the former, so as to avoid the kind of misunderstandings you'd get with the latter?
Quoting Sid
I agree. That last question, especially, was more of a rhetorical question.
Oh. It's just that it looked to me like you were trying to turn the tables and make it about me.
A more recent US president now renowned about something to do with head underneath tables can be famously paraphrased as asking, “What is is?” This can be a very philosophical question, for what is is is still a matter of debate, and can get to the core of many a philosophical issue … but it wasn’t within the context in which he posed the question. His so asking in the context he asked was a good example of a charade. :yum:
Oh, I thought it was out of tune with the other comments. Not that being out of tune is unfamiliar territory.
What it amounted to was this:
It seems like many OPs are questions about the obvious, which a brief search would provide answers to. Or they are questions that have both a standard answer and an infinity of answers, like "What is God?" "What happens after death" -- like, how the hell would anyone know?
Some of the OP's come from educated specialists and are usually not very interesting -- to me. Some come from (just guessing) young guys just out (or maybe still in) high school who had a brain storm and need to drain the runoff.
Now, which OPs turn into interesting discussions and which fizzle at birth is hard to predict. I have a great track record of topics which roll off the table and collect dust in the corner, so it's always a mystery to me how people devise topics that go on for pages. Probably they don't devise the topics, they are just in tune with the zeitgeist of TPF.
I use the site for social and intellectual stimulation. I am not very interested in finding out what THE TRUTH is. My guess is that THE TRUTH is probably not all that interesting, and anyway, we probably have already tripped over it several times.
Yeah actually I think that does sometimes happen. It's because the topics are so abstract and difficult that it's easy to either make mistakes without knowing it, or to bamboozle oneself or others.
Here's something I've learned about philosophy after about 35 or so years of amateur study: it's always deeper than you think, and you probably won't really understand the main philosophical problems until you've been at them for at least a decade. That's because to really understand the problems you have to have spent some time inhabiting all the various proposed solutions, and thinking they're true, and that just takes time, to cycle round the various positions like that.
It takes time to understand the problems of philosophy in the 101 sense, and then it takes time to get out of the habit of latching on to whatever seems right to you first time, and instead deeply checking out all the main answers, even the ones you don't like. Then you have a deeper understanding of the problems, and then your next round of going through the answers, you start to get a clearer picture of your own opinion, and precisely where it might differ from the known answers.
Eventually you chisel out your own position.
But it's easy to bloviate before then, before you've really understood the problems deeply enough, and come to rash conclusions; and it's tempting to give the impression to others that you're more certain than you actually are from your position.
Is that not at least possible?
How far down the rabbit hole [i]are[/I] you?
The opposite has happened to me here.
I offer you my condolences.
What're features of good approaches then?
I think it's good to start with what we know. So, instead of asking, "What is faith?", first consider that we already bloody know.
Can you give an example of what it would look like to start with what we already bloody know and then do good philosophy to it?
I could use the earlier example of the topic of the strengths and weaknesses of faith, as opposed to asking what faith is. That's at least better philosophy, if not necessarily good philosophy.
Understood.
If you have such a superior grasp of the common-sense understanding of what reality is and you are self-satisfied with it, then why do you bother with philosophy, or philosophers, at all?
So, you aver that you do have a superior grasp of the common-sense understanding of life, but that it is not sufficient, and your aim is to gain a complete grasp of it and become well-satisfied with it?
If so, and if philosophers ask stupid questions that erroneously abnegate the glorious common-sense understanding that you are trying to attain a complete grasp of, then perhaps you are wasting your precious time in their company? (BTW, do you think my last sentence was a statement or a question?)
You never did strike me as one with a real interest in philosophical questions. Not you're not intelligent or articulate, your posts are generally both. But I think that the asking of deep questions actually gets on your nerves, doesn't it? Isn't' that what you're saying?
No. You can see what I said, and that wasn't it. The word "aver" - interesting choice, by the way - is synonymous with "assert". If you had've used the word "suggest", then you'd still be wrong, but less offtrack. I [i]averred[/I] that superior doesn't equate to sufficient, not that I have a superior grasp.
Stop asking me time-wasting loaded questions, please.
And here's another one. It's almost as though that was coordinated.
Anyone else? I know, I'll join in myself.
Sapientia, you have such effrontery! You think you're so wise, don't you? How dare you be critical of a certain approach to philosophy?! You're basically just taking a big dump on the entirety of philosophy, and everything I hold dear in life, aren't you? I bite my thumb at you!
It is you who is wrong here. I wasn't wrong, because I was asking a question, not asserting anything
(although I might have been suggesting something :wink:)
Quoting Sapientia
That said, taken together these two sentences do seem to strongly suggest that you do believe you have a superior understanding of the common-sense view of reality, but that you are not completely satisfied with it since, although it is superior, it is not sufficient.
Many of your posts, your generally dismissive tone, your choice of avatar and indeed the content of this very OP would seem to strongly support the inference that this seemingly strong suggestion is not in fact an illusion.
Yes, and don't forget that I'm known for my seriousness. I have never been one for playfulness or comic irony.
:snicker:
Quoting Wayfarer
Face it, you only piped up in here to get personal and disrupt the discussion.
That's true.
Simulations maybe... :joke:
Lots of things are possible. The question is which is most likely, and best supported by the evidence.
One has to be on guard against various ways of going astray of course, but that's partly why we engage in dialogue, to make sure we aren't going crazy :)
What could I possibly disagree with or agree with, you did not make a statement but asked a question. Oh, the question mark is missing.
Quoting Sapientia
No, I did not confuse a question for a statement, that seems to be unique to you. Your question contains the phrase "that which we already know" which itself is a statement.
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
I have not changed the subject. I too asked that question because I'm interested in what others think.
But to answer your original question and avoid further miss understanding, yes I think some people become pretentious. These people are usually the ones that post things like "Yes, I think you have that about right", "Oh you beat me to it, I was just going to post the same thing", " I could not have expressed that better myself" or sometimes just refuse to give a straight answer. I am sure you have noticed those people.
What would you consider a well thought out, wise question? Is there any that you would like to ask?
when we use a can of worms for thread.
But that's evasive. The question is about what's possible, given that what you said excluded the possibility of exception; and it's specifically about what you said, rather than lots of things. The key word was "always". Are you standing by what you said or are you conceding? Was it an exaggeration, perhaps?
Quoting gurugeorge
Yes, one does. But, ideally, should that be the main purpose of philosophy? To be used and abused as a means of reassurance? Or is there a greater purpose to be found?
Not sure about the exact words but it went something like this I think.
If you have the last post on a thread, does it mean that you have said something so profound that none can refute you or that no one feels like answering anymore bloody stupid questions?
And here we have the pretence that my question was, "Do some people become pretentious?". Or perhaps it's just a misunderstanding. Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception.
It's curious that some responders have chosen to answer their own questions instead of my own. The above is an example, as are the responses by those who acted as though I had asked, "How do I come across to you?", or, "What's your opinion of my personality?".
This is counterproductive if the intention is to dispute anything that I've said or raised. But, more than that, it serves as a demonstration that the instigation of philosophical discussion, or what is perhaps better described as meta-philosophical discussion in this case, does indeed attract a kind of pretence.
Oh, I wouldn’t wanna come out in a rash conclusion.
I don't see the point to this.
Pretentiousness, noun, The quality of being pretentious (behaving or speaking in such a manner as to create a false appearance of great importance or worth). Syn. ostentatiousness
Pretentious, adjective, Making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction. Syn. ostentatious
Quoting Sapientia
Nothing strange about that, especially on a philosophy forum. It is like talking to yourself, you should always get the answers you want to hear.
Put some snake oil on it then.
Now there's a surprise.
I don't see how you could possibly be surprised that people don't understand what you mean.
So you do not consider me to be in the category of people? Bloody charming.
Quoting Sapientia
Do a poll to find out if anyone understood what you meant.
The only thing I got from what you said is that you used the wrong word "pretence" when you should have used "self-deception".
And as I said, I did not see the point of it. Was it supposed to have been in some way explanatory of something?
Bloody charming.
Most of us understood, dear.
No it's not, it directly addresses your "what if?"s.
You'd have to give me a reason to think one of your "what if?"s is true, for me to climb down from an "always."
However, that said:-
Quoting Sapientia
No, it was a figure of speech - or an admonition, perhaps. Obviously "always" terminates at when you do actually start to understand the problems in a deep way, which as i said probably takes about 10 years or so (at any rate, probably more years than it takes to get a doctorate in Philosophy ;) ),.
When you ask, really ask, about a thing you "know" it gives you the chance to understand why, and how you have come to know it, and opening up the debate to others has the possibility to unpack that knowledge, to revise it, build upon it or even dismiss it utterly.
I think philosophy can invite a sort of pretence -- but I don't know I'd say that said pretence is unique to philosophy. I think that simple questions like the one's you use as examples can be asked earnestly. I'd say there are times that what I thought I knew appears, for whatever reason at that time, to be something I don't know -- and so I ask something along the lines of...
Quoting Sapientia
... which is not to say that said question is necessarily profound. Sometimes the reason I might ask such a question is something as simple and boring as self-deception or confusion.
but not always.
I'm not sure I follow why you're asking if everything is a matter of personal opinion, though. If it were, wouldn't the simple questions have whatever answer we wish, after all? It seems to me that in asking a question that seems a bit silly -- if we are asking earnestly -- we are hoping for something more than mere personal opinion, even if the answer doesn't quite reach the demands of knowledge.
Congratulations, here is a :clap: :clap: :clap: or 2 for you. But I doubt that you have considered everything about what was said.
Quoting Sapientia
Was the first question, to which I eventually replied.
Quoting Sir2u
The reply I received was
Quoting Sapientia
What I do not understand was why he was saying that there was pretence about what his question was.
If there is something about philosophy that attracts pretence, then the question must be about the people pretending. The forum cannot pretend, neither can the words in the posts.
If the people are pretending, they are pretentious.
There is nothing complicated about that.
How does his reply make sense?
People that have some philosophical knowledge might want to learn more and ask questions to do so, I would not call them pretentious.
People that have little knowledge but think they know a lot might find an opportunity here to show off, they would be the ones that are averse to answering straight forward questions and often don't ask their own questions for fear of look ridiculous. They would definitely be pretentious in my book.
Did you look up the meaning of snake oil? :cool:
Very cute! Original? Or source?
And I imagine you would even less want to come out in a conclusive rash, or even worse a concluding rash?
Yes, I think it's more of the case that pretentious people can invite themselves to do philosophy, or art, or write poetry, or compose music, or....
It just popped into my head as I was getting ready to leave so I wrote it down thinking that it might make sense to someone.
It is open to interpretation to one and all, even if it is not exactly philosophical content. Or is it?
Quoting Sir2u
It raises the question as to whether the metaphoric suggestiveness of allusion that characterizes good poetry is necessarily philosophical. On a preliminary consideration I would be inclined to say 'yes'.
Then perhaps I misunderstood. When you said that it's always deeper than you think, I took you to be suggesting that there [i]can be[/I] no exception, that it's inevitable.
But, even if you're only saying that there [I]is[/I] no exception, don't you think that that's ironically hasty? How have you reached that conclusion? How could that be justified?
So, have you never found any philosophical question or topic to be superficial or shallow or having an obvious answer? I would find that odd and hard to believe. As for me, I've given some examples in the opening post. I don't rule out the possibility that I might have overlooked some deeper significance, or something more worthwhile in examining, but... :brow: ...well, you know what my evaluation is. Instead of asking what scientism is, I would have just googled it and found a satisfactory answer that way. So that's one (arguable) counterexample for you.
Quoting gurugeorge
I don't believe that. It might be true in some cases, but only in [i]some[/I] cases, and [i]not[/I] in others. You certainly can't put a number on it like that. That's the same mistake that Aristotle made, and that Peter Hitchens made on his recent appearance on Question time. It's generally true, or likely, that it takes time to attain deep understanding, but there can be a significant difference in the time that that takes.
The other point I'd make is that it would be hasty to assume that any "deep" understanding would be along the lines of what you yourself have concluded on any particular issue. It might be radically different from it.
That's a pretty good reply, in contrast to some pretty awful replies that this discussion has attracted. You know who you are, so take note.
I can sort of relate to what I'm critical of here. I'm certainly not suggesting that I've never been guilty of it myself. It's just that, with hindsight, I look back at it differently. We experience these moments of realisation from time to time, and they don't always cast things in a good light - or at least they shouldn't, otherwise I'd think that there's something wrong with you: a chronic case of naivety, perhaps.
I once - "famously" :joke: - asked, "What is an apple?". Although, even then, there was part of me that thought, "Do we really not know?", and that's quite a forceful impression. It's a question I think we - those of us with a philosophical bent - could do with asking ourselves more often.
That last question about personal opinion was, as I've already noted, rhetorical in nature. I would answer in the negative, and I would strongly discourage that approach or way of thinking, as well as those which don't quite fit the description, but which I'd judge as coming too close to that kind of thinking.
Quoting Sir2u
Anyone who can read and has half a brain will be able to compare the two and note the difference, whether that's the difference between my question and your misunderstanding of it, or the difference between the meaning of "pretence" and "pretentious", or the difference between the meaning of "pretentious" and your apparent misunderstanding of it. Why don't you look it up in your Chambers English Dictionary (1998 edition)?
The second quote above seems to indicate that you do not understand what it means to be pretentious, and are misusing the word when you want to express the meaning, "someone who pretends", which, if that were the meaning, would make that quote true by definition. Or, alternatively, you [i]do[/I] understand, but it's a [i]non sequitur[/I], since it doesn't follow that someone who pretends is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed, which is what the word actually means.
Honestly, it would be less embarrassing to admit that you got it wrong than to stubbornly persist that you're right.
No and it’s quite obvious that neither did you.
Quoting Janus
Quoting Janus
See? We're not so different, you and I.
Would you like to add, "What's an idea?", and, "What do atheists have in common?", to the list?
I think I'd just say that it's part of the practice of philosophy to route out our own ignorance -- so even when a question ends up being a bit silly, it's actually in line with what I'd still consider good philosophy. We're just identifying yet another time where we're making some sort of mistake. (since we'll never actually be free of intellectual mistakes)
And then there are the times when I'd say that when something may look silly on its surface it actually ends up interesting. "What is Google?" actually struck me that way -- on its surface its sort of silly, but understanding the ins and outs of an algorithm is actually kind of interesting.
Or, to use a classic question, "What is the meaning of being?" inspired some really great philosophy.
Not that I'd say every time you or I happen to ask seemingly simple questions we'd be able to then write good philosophy :D.
But I think I can dig the gist of what you're on about here -- or at least this is how I'd put it, while uncertain that you'd agree with this phrasing -- that sometimes the problem isn't what we're asking for, but rather the very question we are asking.
Yes, it is, if you find that kind of thing interesting. Of course, that wasn't a genuine example, but an example of my smartasrsery. And it can still be answered plainly, without need of going into all of that detail. Google is a search engine. If the question was, "What is Google at the most basic or fundamental level?", then I'd find that more interesting, as well as more worthwhile philosophically.
Quoting Moliere
Indeed, I don't agree with the phrasing. The way I see it, it can be both the very question [I]and[/I] what we're asking for. But acknowledging at least [i]part[/I] of the problem is a start.
M'kay, maybe there is more disagreement after all then.
At risk of committing the error you're after I'm tempted to ask: What is the problem?
I wonder what sort of pretence, exactly, you think philosophy might invite. Like, that we are just pretending that we do not know something, maybe? Sort of like a parlor game rather than something we are asking?
The mistake, as I gather so far, has something to do with the habits of the philosophically inclined, and something to do with how they formulate questions, and in particular their usage of questions of the form "What is [x]?" -- that when the philosophically inclined ask such a question perhaps they are sort of deluding themselves into thinking they do not know what they, in some sense or other, know. Or that they are playing a game of making the obviously false appear true to them, at least for the moment, because they are in some kind of habit whereby they believe they're digging deeper into truths but are actually just chasing their own tail and rehashing what it is they already believe.
That's my closest guess.
And I think, if I'm reading you right, your solution is to rephrase questions of the form "What is [x]?" to be more specific, or to reflect on whether or not what you're asking after is actually something easy to answer without anything more deep or profound to it.
No, I wouldn't exactly compare it to a parlour game. Not quite that kind of pretence. It's not so explicit. The problem is a state of mind which leads to questioning what we know or can find out with relative ease. The pretence relates to the tacit invitation to join in. To those of us who aren't so easily caught off guard, it's like a charade: an absurd pretence intended to create a respectable appearance - "Oh no, I'm not engaging in tomfoolery. I'm [I]doing philosophy[/I]".
Do you see the problem?
Quoting Moliere
Couldn't have put it better myself! So, you do see the problem, as I see it.
Quoting Moliere
Bingo!
No, not really. There are questions asked in the course of investigation into philosophical topics that might be superficial, or shallow, or have obvious answers, and sometimes what philosophers have made of the Big Questions have been Shallow Questions; but the problems themselves seem to me to be deep and difficult (within the parameters of our limited intelligence and knowledge - or maybe that's just my limited intelligence and knowledge ;) ).
It's all very well chucking a philosophical problem in ordinary language philosophy solvent, and I do it myself sometimes. The bluff common sense of a David Stove is also salutary now and then. But really that's no more than clearing the decks for some real philosophical thinking.
I think what it is, is that there's a crucial philosophical distinction, the philosophical distinction par excellence, which has been put numerous ways (apriori/aposteriori, Hume's Fork, Wittgenstein's distinction between "grammar" statements and empirical statements, etc.) but it's actually extremely difficult to pin down in one's mind, it's elusive and of such dizzying abstraction it's hard to keep straight, but it is one of the major philosophical discoveries, and the main tool of philosophical thinking. (The way I think of it is in terms of the difference between the dictionary and the encyclopedia.)
Anyway, it's the difficulty of grasping that distinction, and how it might apply to the Big Questions, that's the hard thing about philosophy.
Of course there may be some similarities; we are both English-speaking humans after all. :joke:
What list would that be?
The shit list? Or, alternatively, the list of examples which would include those contained in my opening post. Maybe your list would look different, but I'd include them in mine. Why not?
Thanks for the horrible audio/video! :joke:
OK, they could be added to your original list, but neither they nor the items on your list are unequivocally stupid questions. Because I thought frank was approaching the question of 'what is an idea' from a dismissively skeptical angle, I just wanted to show that his skeptical dismissal is misplaced if you take a deflationary or common-sense stance.
I also think dismissive scepticism is misplaced if you are searching for a deeper answer, because in that dimension, the value does not lie in the answer but in the searching. Of course such searching is not to everyone's taste; it may not appeal, may even seem pointless, to minds that are well-satisfied with common-sense explanations.
Right, that's it, you're going on my shitlist. :shade:
Quoting Janus
Hmm.
Nice to know I'm on a list somewhere... :cool:
Quoting Sapientia
Ahhhh...
Tu-whit tu-whoo...
Said the faux-owl cuckoo...
You're a real hoot. :grin:
"Is it possible", the questioner wonders, "that I am the only real person? Perhaps I am not only the real person, but actually exist as a a mind floating in space -- imagining the physical world, as well as the interpersonal world." If they really do think they are the only person in existence, why don't they take the next step and recognize themselves. "I am God!"
Some people ask whether their senses are totally deceptive. In fact, there is nothing solid in this world, they suppose. Were we to see the world as it truly is, perhaps we would find ourselves floating in a dark, dry, gray fog of complex force fields which our senses interpret as bright, colorful solids, liquids, and gases with weight and varying degrees of softness. In reality, the world is utterly unlike the world our senses show us.
Less than philosophical questions, or maybe like a lot of philosophical questions, this sort of thing is a mind game. It is a game because even though we can entertain the kind of shivery idea that the real world has no mass, color, etc., or that we are the only person -- might as well be God -- in existence, in fact we do not ever act as if we are the only person in existence, or that our senses are altogether wrong.
At least hopeless questions, like "is there life after death?" have the grounding in reality that we know we are not going to always be alive. Death is real -- we may not think about it much, but every time we see road kill we are reminded, "Oh yes, death is real, isn't it. Splat! and your whole life disappears." Then there are questions about God, gods--NONE of which are answerable. There may be a heaven full of Gods, but as far as we can tell, they don't exist. They can't be proven, or disproven, to exist.
Asking questions that simply can not be answered is a waste of time, it isn't philosophy. More likely it's fear: "I am afraid of dying and afraid of what I might experience after death,." Of course, "you" won't be experiencing anything after death, because... you will be dead, and not available for experiences of any kind. So that's all pointless dithering.
If, for example, theology is a waste of time for you, does it follow that it is a waste of time for all others?
But don't think too hard! Here, look at this smoke, and at these mirrors. Notice how everything is not as it seems? It's all deep and mysterious and shit.
What if I'm an owl dreaming of a human pretending to be an owl...?
What is the truth about all the FAIT ACCOMPLI situations around the world? Accept what has happened? Hey, Hong Kong's British lease expired. Bad luck, but that's the way it is. You all had 99 years to get ready. Or demand that something be done about it? Give Hong Kong its freedom?
The Jews are coming! The Jews are coming! So, Palestinian Arabs, this didn't happen over night; you tried to get rid of them and you weren't able. What are we going to do now with you and the Jews?
'What is the truth?" Pontius Pilot asked, sarcastically.
I am sitting on land that belonged to one or several regional Indian tribes in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and the eastern Dakotas, and not all that long ago. They are still here, though much disadvantaged and in much diminished numbers. We white folks took it away from them, pretty much all of it. That is how the west was won. We decided it was our manifest destiny to own the continent and we do.
That is the truth, but it doesn't help knowing the truth. I don't plan on vacating my house and giving it to the Mdewakanton Sioux Tribe or the Ojibwa Tribe. An injustice was done here, starting in the 1805, at the latest, probably quite a bit earlier. It became fait accompli by 1840. Things got worse for the Indians after Minnesota became a state.
The world is full of injustices, stacked up like cord wood going back to the ancient world, and we can not undo our history. It's fait accompli. The damage has been done. The egg has been fried and we can't put it back in the shell. Maybe Israel shouldn't have been founded, but it was, there it is, and in all likelihood, there it is going to stay. It's a battle the Palestinians pretty much lost. There are losers in history, wherever there are winners.
So, questions about truth may be highly philosophical, or legal, or contentious, but the truth is one thing, and what we are remotely willing to to do about it is something else, altogether. Good politics, bad philosophy.
I don't think we can reach a conclusion about which semitic tribe is most entitled to Palestine, and the just leave it at that.
The practice of religion which guides and comforts isn't a waste of time. Haranguing each other about what god God is like is a total waste of time, even for believers. (Especially when the god God in question has been very shy about revealing details.)
Trying to decide what god God can and can not do is, yes, a total waste of time. For everyone. Just stop it, at once!
So pretend you have a whole one and compare the definitions in the dictionary.
Quoting Sapientia
Let's try the new online one instead, although the definition is exactly the same.
pretence or (US) pretense noun 1 the act of pretending. 2 make-believe. 3 an act someone puts on deliberately to mislead. 4 a claim, especially an unjustified one • make no pretence to expert knowledge. 5 show, affectation or ostentation; pretentiousness. 6 (usually pretences) a misleading declaration of intention • won their support under false pretences. 7 show or semblance • abandoned all pretence of fair play.
When is a person who uses "pretence" as you suggest not going to be ostentatious and phony?
pretentious adj 1 pompous, self-important or foolishly grandiose. 2 phoney or affected. 3 showy; ostentatious. pretentiously adverb. pretentiousness noun.
[quote=Sir2u]If the people are pretending, they are pretentious.[/quote]
Quoting Sapientia
According to the dictionary pretense is the act of pretending, and pretentious. And a pretentious person is obviously a phony or a person pretending to be something he is not.
So if you insist that you are right show the definitions that you are using and how they differ from the ones I use. Or you could concede that you are wrong.
So anyway, go look that up in your Funk and Wagnall.
Oh but I did. In seventh grade it was part of a story we read. Let me do the sweaty work for you though.
Snake oil,
(medicine) any of various liquids sold as medicine (as by a travelling medicine show) but medically worthless
Communication (written or spoken) intended to deceive
I am sure you will understand now. Deary.
Please don’t. The odour is unbearable.
So that is why you don't use a dictionary, you can't stand the smell of yourself after doing some work.
Totally pretentious and all aren't we dear. Would you like to come over to the peasants place and have a cup of tea with biscuits, or sandwiches?
Maybe it is the fact that you have your nose sticking in my ass crack so much that you are getting a bad impression of my bodily odors.
Sorry BC I just cannot agree that the attempt to think the nature of the God, absolute, the infinite, the eternal or whatever you want to call it, is a complete waste of time. Much has been said on these matters, none of it definitive, for obvious reasons.
Some people have a taste for the allusive, the evocative, the numinous or simply the arcane and esoteric, in thought and language. They may find it inspiring or even utterly life-changing. As long as it is not mistaken for definitive or empirical knowledge (which leads to fundamentalism) how can you justify saying it is a waste of time, per se?
Perhaps you were just shit-stirring, eh? :razz:
Yes, he told me to go to court and get a restriction order against you before you do something regrettable.
I'm gonna work on that tomorrow. So you had better stay away from now on.
It would have been more sensible for you to have picked definition number one for each word. That would have been more likely to be a correct interpretation, and, funnily enough, that's what I meant, as I've made clear. But instead, you jumped in with your own interpretation, stubbornly stuck by it, and even went so far as to cherry-pick out of less common usage to back it up.
But all of this is beside the point, since [i]my[/I] meaning is what matters, [i]not[/I] yours, since I asked the question. And my meaning has been clarified, so there should be no further misunderstanding from you about what is meant from that point onwards.
My question was not about whether philosophy attracts pompous, self-important, foolishly grandiose, affected, showy or ostentatious people. If you claim that that'd be an unintended consequence of an affirmative answer to what I [I]am[/I] asking, then okay, but even if you're right, that wasn't the focus of my question.
I've elaborated on the meaning of my question, and what I was getting at, and others have understood it - some of them surprisingly well. But with you, it seems to be a problem. Why is that, I wonder?
Thinking about the nature of God is essentially a creative activity which brought God into existence. As a creative activity, making God real is an essential part of religious practice. The believer thinks God into being God. Man creates God.
God has a reality in the minds of his creators. There is no objectively existing being to discuss. It is like arguing over the objective abilities of Gandalf, Frodo, Elrond, or Lady Galadriel in LOTR. They, being fictional characters, have no objective abilities at all since they are only characters in a story. As such, they are wonderful characters, just not real.
Quoting Janus
There is nothing wrong with a taste for the allusive, the evocative, the numinous, or the arcane or esoteric; it just does not lead to anything life-changing. A few experiences are life-changing, but any one would be hard pressed to predict which experiences are going to do that.
Quoting Janus
What, Moi? Remuer un pot de merde? How could you say such a thing about me! :cry:
Like reduce poor little you to tears?
Stop it. You want to behave like kids, go somewhere else.
Yes, I figured out that was the gist of your responses :)
As a rule, though, I think I'd disagree. I'd go to Heidegger to do so -- heck, one could argue that Being in Time just is a circle where Heidegger is clarifying what he already believes to be the case, chasing his own tale, but I'd still say it's good philosophy.
But before saying much more I'll just wait and see in what capacity you mean your solution.
Are you trying to tell me that the meaning of words is based up the position on the scale of common usage. That sounds silly.
A word that means something still means the same no matter where it is in a dictionary. And how did you figure out that they are placed in order of common usage?
Quoting Sapientia
Sensible to whom? You. Just because that fits your way of thinking does not make the only way of thinking.
Quoting Sapientia
And here we get to the point. How is one supposed to know your meaning? How is one supposed to know what you expect for an answer? As you so often say, words have many meanings, how does anyone know which meaning you are using? Or should we go by the top ten chart?
All you did in your post was to do what you are bitching about in it. Stack up a bunch of questions. You later claim that you would expect people to post questions that required some thinking, that would be of interest to you.
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Is a no no.
Quoting Sapientia
Is the correct way.
So do you think a question, like the one below, that solicits a yes or no answer falls into the first or second category?
Quoting Sapientia
Should your question not be something like;
What is it about philosophy that invites or attracts a sort of pretence?
That at least gives people the idea that you want more than a yes or no.
But because as you say, words have many meanings, would it not also have been requires of you to give a reasonable insight to what exactly you are think so that people would know what to respond to? And so as to avoid the kind of misunderstandings you'd get with the original question?
Quoting Sapientia
Funny how when I use a certain interpretation of a sentence you quickly say that I have it wrong. That you do not mean the word as pretentious, but when others interpret it the same way
Quoting T Clark
Quoting Janus
you laugh it off
Quoting Sapientia
or ignore it.
Quoting Sapientia
That is a shame, it might have made for an interesting discussion.
Quoting Sapientia
Nice side step there. But the fact still remains that you did not specify your focus. You just did a question dump.
Quoting Sapientia
After the fact, I would have thought you did not approve of people doing things like that.
But it seems that on page 5 some people still don't know what you are talking about.
Quoting Moliere
Quoting Sapientia
Could it possibly be because I am not up to the level of your high and mighty attitude.
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
:wink:
Sorry, it is just that I was having so much with with the cuddly little guy I forgot to be serious. Maybe it was the influence the thread had on me. :pray: Forgiveness please. :smile:
Yes, that does sound silly. It's a silly interpretation. Anyone can do that. It's easy. Look:
"Are you trying to tell me that common usage has nothing whatsoever to do with the way in which we use words?"
At least, I hope that that's not an accurate suggestion about your stance, because it would be remarkably naive.
Quoting Sir2u
Research. I actually found a book about the history of Chambers Dictionary which I was able to access online, and it said what I told you: that recent editions abide by the usage principle in their ordering.
Quoting Sir2u
No, not sensible to whom. Just sensible.
Quoting Sir2u
:lol:
Really?
Quoting Sir2u
That isn't something I often say, actually. I don't know where you're getting that from. And please don't waste your time hunting around for quotes. The key word is "often".
Quoting Sir2u
That's a hilarious misunderstanding. No, I'm not being critical of people asking a bunch of [i]rhetorical[/I] questions like those in my opening post in order to make the very point that I'm making. I'm being critical of the asking of those questions, [i]as worded[/I] and [i]with sincerity[/I].
Quoting Sir2u
It shouldn't be replaced with that question, because that would be an example of begging the question. And, although I could have added, "And why?", I'm pretty sure that people already had that idea. Just look at the replies.
Anyway, can't be bothered with the rest of your post. Sorry, not sorry.
Are you sure that God is real only in the human imagination? It is often said that God is not an objective, in the sense of empirical, being. Is the category of the objectively real exhausted by what is empirically encounter-able?
Quoting Bitter Crank
When I speak of life-changing experiences I don't mean to refer to events that merely change the course of one's life; I am speaking of events which alter the whole orientation of one's being. Love can do that; but I doubt that mere love of a fellow human, or one's community, or nation, can; it takes a love of what is greater than, transcendent of, one's own being, to bring that transformation about.
Most of us do not have life-changing experiences on the order of the Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. Usually we have small-scale experiences that lack the voltage to remake our whole orientation toward life.
I am not at all certain that had I a choice, I would choose a road-to-Damascus type experience. It was good for Saul/Paul, but there would be no guarantees about the kind of metanoia one would experience. It might be an unmitigated disaster.
Love is good bet. Love is an unplanned disruption.We can not choose to desire; one can't choose to fall in love. It just happens, (or it doesn't). We can change ourselves through learning, practice, persistent effort, working toward a worthy goal, but this won't have that ZAP! experience you spoke of. We can keep ourselves open to new experiences, and maybe something surprising and worthwhile will com of that.
That is bloody stupid. And has nothing at all to do with what I said. Why don't you stop trying so hard to put people down and give an answer to a question that should be easy for you to do.
Quoting Sapientia
Oh dear, and you did not think that I might be interested in having the link to it. Wait, I think I already know your answer, "google it yourself". But I already did that and I failed to find it. So please try to be nice and share.
Quoting Sapientia
I brought my umbrella to work today, does that seem sensible to you. But then you are probably going to say that it would depend on why I did it. If was it raining then yes it would be sensible, if not then probably not sensible.
So to whom would it be sensible to if not everyone has all of the facts. Things making sense or not do depend on facts don't they?
Quoting Sapientia
Sad when all you can do to hide your inadequacies is try to put people down. Someone asks you a serious question and you don't even try to be polite about not answering. But that is part of your style also, so I guess we will have to put up with it as long as you are here.
Quoting Sapientia
I have no need for searching, you just told us that you have used that phrase, just not "often". So you do know that words have more than one meaning, therefore you should take the time to explain which meaning you are using so as to avoid the posibility of misunderstanding.
Quoting Sapientia
So you are critical of people asking those types of questions with that style of wording and you don't consider them worthy of your notice or reply. But you do expect others to pay attention to your admittedly rhetorical questions and give proper answers.
rhetorical questions A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered
Quoting Sapientia
begging the question
Assume the truth of something, especially the very thing to be proved
avoid a difficult point
invite a follow up question or point
Which of these definitions of begging the question are you using, for the sake clarity.
If you are using the first definition then it makes no difference because the post makes it clear that you think philosophy attracts pretense. you would not be influencing anyone with the question.
If you are using the second definition, what is the situation you are trying to avoid.
If you are using the third then you would want to ask the question because that is your stated purpose of the post.
Quoting Sapientia
Is "pretty sure" the same as being sure. I do not think that they are quite the same, and if it was my OP I would try to be sure that people understood what I was asking and that I do expect answers to my rhetorical questions.
Most people do not respond to rhetorical questions
rhetorical question A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered
Quoting Sapientia
Now why is that not a surprise? Actually I never imagined that you even try to answer the rest of it. It is not your style.
So OK, just answer one more question.
How did you ever manage to get pretence to mean self deception?
I started a thread on this same subject at the old place about 8 years ago. But I was honest enough to actually say what I thought.
It was called "A big, long winded rant on "The Pretentiousness of Philosophers". I think that the OP was about 1000 words. There was quite a bit of serious discussion contained in the thread. Unfortunately I am blocked from viewing it so I cannot make a copy.
I think that you see yourself as some sort of modern Socrates, Always trying to provoke people into thinking and reasoning. I cannot remember the source, I think it was from Plato, where Socrates described himself as a fly continually irritating a half dead horse or something like that. The horse was ancient Athens and he considered it his god given job to provoke the people into thought. He too was well known for never giving answers to the questions he posed. And he only got invited to one drink for his services to the state even though he thought that he deserved a free meal every day for life.
Do you have any examples of disastrous metanoia in mind?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, I think that's the key: experiential openness.