Actual Philosophy
HexHammer had a valid point but the thread was locked prematurely.
To some philosophy is a precursor to scientific investigation. In philosophy they came to understand and define truth. A point others seem stuck on, but for some they are able to move beyond that aspect which creates a natural path to science. Science is modern philosophy and philosophy is ancient science. Some do not see a division but see them as a single continuation.
You may not like what HexHammer had to say, or perhaps the disagreement was with how he said it, but he had a valid point. Some philosophers seem to stop along the road and take rest under a shady tree instead of forging ahead into the burning sunlight along a path that pushes closer to truth. That path takes more effort, more time and more dedication and along this path you are more exposed, your beloved views can shed under such harsh light, but for those that love truth it is a sacrifice they are more than willing to make.
Too many modern philosophers too much want to cling to their POV, their subjectivity, their opinions; they want to lay around in the shade of the tree and talk instead of pushing ahead. They don't want to find truth, instead they rather hide away in their minds and in talk.
Anyone who thinks the path of truth does not include a heavy dose of science is kidding themselves. It does not necessarily need to be physics, but it should be some formal science which teaches a person to reason and explore the reality around themselves in a scientific fashion. This also consequently means a deeper understanding of mathematics.
Consider for discussion this conversation in Plato's The Republic:
http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/republic.pdf
To some philosophy is a precursor to scientific investigation. In philosophy they came to understand and define truth. A point others seem stuck on, but for some they are able to move beyond that aspect which creates a natural path to science. Science is modern philosophy and philosophy is ancient science. Some do not see a division but see them as a single continuation.
You may not like what HexHammer had to say, or perhaps the disagreement was with how he said it, but he had a valid point. Some philosophers seem to stop along the road and take rest under a shady tree instead of forging ahead into the burning sunlight along a path that pushes closer to truth. That path takes more effort, more time and more dedication and along this path you are more exposed, your beloved views can shed under such harsh light, but for those that love truth it is a sacrifice they are more than willing to make.
Too many modern philosophers too much want to cling to their POV, their subjectivity, their opinions; they want to lay around in the shade of the tree and talk instead of pushing ahead. They don't want to find truth, instead they rather hide away in their minds and in talk.
Anyone who thinks the path of truth does not include a heavy dose of science is kidding themselves. It does not necessarily need to be physics, but it should be some formal science which teaches a person to reason and explore the reality around themselves in a scientific fashion. This also consequently means a deeper understanding of mathematics.
Consider for discussion this conversation in Plato's The Republic:
Glaucon said: If curiosity makes a philosopher, you will find many a strange
being will have a title to the name. All the lovers of sights have a delight in learning,
and must therefore be included. Musical amateurs, too, are a folk strangely
out of place among philosophers, for they are the last persons in the world
who would come to anything like a philosophical discussion, if they could help,
while they run about at the Dionysiac festivals as if they had let out their ears
to hear every chorus; whether the performance is in town or country–that makes
no difference–they are there. Now are we to maintain that all these and
any who have similar tastes, as well as the professors of quite minor arts, are
philosophers?
Certainly not, I replied; they are only an imitation.
He said: Who then are the true philosophers?
Those, I said, who are lovers of the vision of truth.
That is also good, he said; but I should like to know what you mean?
To another, I replied, I might have a difficulty in explaining; but I am sure that
you will admit a proposition which I am about to make.
What is the proposition?
That since beauty is the opposite of ugliness, they are two?
Certainly.
And inasmuch as they are two, each of them is one?
True again.
And of just and unjust, good and evil, and of every other class, the same remark
holds: taken singly, each of them is one; but from the various combinations of
them with actions and things and with one another, they are seen in all sorts of
lights and appear many?
Very true.
And this is the distinction which I draw between the sight-loving, art-loving,
practical class and those of whom I am speaking, and who are alone worthy of
the name of philosophers.
How do you distinguish them? he said.
The lovers of sounds and sights, I replied, are, as I conceive, fond of fine tones
and colours and forms and all the artificial products that are made out of them,
but their mind is incapable of seeing or loving absolute beauty.
True, he replied.
Few are they who are able to attain to the sight of this.
Very true.
http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/republic.pdf
Comments (117)
"Huizi said to Zhuangzi, 'I have a large tree, which men call the Ailantus. Its trunk swells out to a large size, but is not fit for a carpenter to apply his line to it; its smaller branches are knotted and crooked, so that the disk and square cannot be used on them. Though planted on the wayside, a builder would not turn his head to look at it. Now your words, Sir, are great, but of no use - all unite in putting them away from them.' Zhuangzi replied, 'Have you never seen a wildcat or a weasel? There it lies, crouching and low, till the wanderer approaches; east and west it leaps about, avoiding neither what is high nor what is low, till it is caught in a trap, or dies in a net. Again there is the Yak, so large that it is like a cloud hanging in the sky. It is large indeed, but it cannot catch mice. You, Sir, have a large tree and are troubled because it is of no use - why do you not plant it in a tract where there is nothing else, or in a wide and barren wild? There you might saunter idly by its side, or in the enjoyment of untroubled ease sleep beneath it. Neither bill nor axe would shorten its existence; there would be nothing to injure it. What is there in its uselessness to cause you distress?"
-Zhuangzi, inner chapters, "Enjoyment in Untroubled Ease", 7.
Science and Philosophy can be complementary endeavours.
Scientific conclusions which are not subjected to logical investigation can be just as false as Philosophical conclusions not based on relevant empirical investigation.
The coherence which logical investigation imposes upon Scientific conclusions should serve as an effective guide for further empirical investigation (or lack thereof), and empirical facts should serve as a starting point for pragmatic Philosophical speculation.
I am sorry, but no valid scientific conclusion is void of logical coherence.
Before your post such "trash" was not a part of this thread.
You've taken HexHammer's angry babble and turned into something more coherent and focused. But to be clear, discussions like his will continue to be closed (or deleted) for low quality.
There will never be a cohesive and inclusive model for inquiry. Everyone thinks that their favorite philosopher, or their chosen scientific field, is the be-all-end-all pinnacle of everything, and fuck everything else. Echo-chambers exist throughout the sciences and humanities. One person may doubt another person's self-evident truths. et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. At the end of the day, nothing changes, nobody has learned anything, and we all go home just a little more disappointed in others.
If I had to criticize philosophers and scientists for one thing, it's that they tend to make things into a big narrative, with philosophy or science being the "ultimate" that eclipses any other discipline. Philosophy does, in my opinion, technically hold the cards as the "ultimate", but it's often so impotent and slow-moving that you might as well just give the torch to someone more competent. If science is to be the model for everything and anything (as naturalism wishes it to be), then scientists need to be philosophically literate. Before, we had scientist-philosophers, who really were the model intellectuals, and who held a deep respect for philosophy. Nowadays you just have douchey wannabes spouting racist and sexist hate-speech and pretending it's science, parading around and T-bagging dissenters. Rah-rah, we're the best! Rah-rah!
Very true quote, the ignorant will always get angry attack those who expose their ignorance.
On the contrary you should thank me for trying to step up the philosophical skills amongst these cozy chatters, to evolve humankind from the stone ages to information age.
Some still live in mud huts even in these modern times anno 2018, because they don't have what it takes to evolve, because they have lived in ignorance.
It's Plato's cave all over again, they attacked and killed the dude who went outside and tried to enlighten those still remaining inside.
Something-something persecution complex; disagreement misinterpreted as hostility and transformed into self-righteous ego-inflation.
Boy, aren't you masculine! 8=========D
I'll just leave that there as one example of why he has now been banned. Carry on.
So then you do see them as separate paths?
Do I see philosophy and science as two separate paths? No, absolutely not. Neither one has full hegemony over the field of inquiry. Additionally, I would include religion in the mix.
There is bad science. There is bad religion. There is bad philosophy. In other news, the sky is blue and I hate cucumbers.
So then you are in agreement with HexHammer. There is good and there is bad philosophy.
No one is suggesting "one single model" for anything; however, if your statement is that there is bad philosophy then you must have reasons for thinking that. So then, what are the characteristics of "bad philosophy"?
We are never going to arrive at a satisfactory definition of what good philosophy is, because philosophy is highly individualistic. We can't even agree on what "philosophy" is - you might even disagree that it's individualistic, although it would kinda prove my point.
I think a characteristics of bad philosophy is over generalizations and giving up before before even trying. Always seeking the middle of the road, and speaking in terms so wide they include everyone, because being precise takes actual work.
HexHammer is right, there are a lot of lovers of opinion that masquerade as philosophers, and it is important for these lovers of opinion to maintain that fluid form, with no clear outline, so that they can feel like they belong to all the shapes. And because they never take a solid stance they avoid being put in a position where they may fail; a defense mechanism of the ego.
I have no idea what that means. Was I not suppose to share my thoughts?
None of this means we should accredit the same respect to charlatans as we do scientists, or forgo the use of precision and coherency. All I am saying is that asking what good philosophy is, is akin to Socrates demanding the essence of justice or virtue. We can obviously point to particular instances of good philosophy. But "good philosophy" in the abstract is an impossible concept to flesh out. It might even be malformed.
Philosophy is philosophy. It's up to the individual to determine whether it's any good. I don't think I am "giving up" so much as I am recognizing the impossibility of systematizing something as diverse as philosophy. I'm being historical. One person's good philosophy is another person's shit philosophy. I am espousing a mild form of relativism, or rather, agnosticism. If we agree on something, great. If we disagree on something and can't resolve our disagreement, then we go our own ways and stick to our perspectives. That is what has happened and what will continue to happen. That's how philosophy works.
It's a non-sequitur in general, for the most part, to draw false dichotomies between "real philosophy" and "babble".
Quoting Jeremiah
Quoting Jeremiah
If we ask you who these philosophers are, my guess is that the list you'll provide will feature predominantly philosophers belonging to a single tradition. Since you mentioned "a love of opinion", "maintaining a fluid form" and your preferences for science, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that you'd put a lot of Continentals on that list of "bad philosophers". So in effect, you likely are trying to impose "one single model".
Often, philosophers who maintain a fluid form do so out of a principled positioning against objectivism or some other ~ism. By taking such a narrow stance toward the methodology of philosophy, you restrict the practice, its history and its future.
Then you have that sound middle road flanked by the unrestricted objectivism/realism of AP, and the unrestricted subjectivism/relativism of PoMo.
It is a luxury that modern academia can enjoy I guess. A cultural entertainment. The tab is being picked up by the science dudes anyway.
Notice the emphasis on the passage you have quoted from Plato on aesthetics, beauty and music. Whilst I certainly agree that the Greek heritage is fundamental in the formation of science, modern science, commencing with Galileo, tends to eschew those areas of aesthetic judgement, or rather, relegate them to the domain of the subjective, which is by its lights, what amounts to secondary or derivative. What is primary, in post-Galilean science, is what is able to be quantified. And that is due in large part of Galileo's 'the book of nature being written in mathematics', which he did indeed derive from the dianoia of Plato, via the Platonic revival of Renaissance humanism. But again, the kind of 'holistic' logic that you find in the quote from the Republic, is generally absent from modern science, whereas it was found in pre-modern or medieval conceptions of science.
How can one possibly masquerade or pretend to philosophy? The pretense itself is valid philosophy.
Nietzsche declared 'why do we value truth more than untruth?' Indeed what is Art, only the masquerade of a particular reality. And, perception itself is the personal/private masquerade of existent reality.
'Actual philosophy' is a spectrum. It is a 'scalar' quality, in that it has magnitude alone and not direction.
There is simple philosophy and there is complex philosophy. There is valid philosophy and invalid philosophy. What actualizes a philosophy is that which renders it actual or real, what is 'real' (within the context of existent reality) is true, and what is unreal is not true. However what is not real or untrue within the context of existent reality, may be true outside of existent reality and as such may be metaphysically true.
Therefore 'actual philosophy' is 'real' or 'actual', relative to the amount of reality-truth it contains, or the closer it approximates to metaphysical truth. Temporal persistence of philosophical ideals appears to be the mechanism by which actuality becomes established.
What was once true/real/actual remains true/real/actual today. The truth of 'atomism' persists because it is an actual philosophy. Whereas the philosophy of Amon-Ra remains confined to the glyphs. History, it would appear is the arbiter to the question.
M
Philosophy is philosophy! Stop trying to purify it!
So, philosophy is "highly individualistic" except in cases when you decide someone is "purify it"? Promoting deep immersion into subjectivity then rejecting forms you disagree with is a contradiction.
It is possible for people to be heading in the wrong direction and it also possible for people to be going nowhere. Now if that is their choice and they are not harming anyone I personally don't have a problem with that, but if the goal here is to connect with a unique reality that only intelligent beings, like humans, can experience, then to shy from science can only lessen that experience. For a normal person, perhaps that is fine, but for a philosopher? If someone is not devoted enough that they will become learned in science to deepen this experience, then I have to question their love for truth.
You might as well have said that promoting individualism entails precluding rational argumentation. Trying to "purify" philosophy by filtering out anything that does not pass an idiosyncratic criterion is counter-productive to the individualistic ethic I am advocating.
Just because I advocate individualism doesn't mean I can't criticize individual perspectives that threaten this individualism. My view is that philosophy just is individualistic in virtue of its essence, including philosophies that attempt to impose a systematic order upon it. In fact, I am not "advocating" for individualism in philosophy so much as I believe I am pointing out the reality of philosophical discussion. Theory and abstractions aside, philosophy is an individualistic enterprise, whether we like it or not. One cannot isolate a philosophical question by itself; the particular always brings along the universal. Philosophy is so diverse and so complicated that it is virtually impossible to impose any form of order or system that will not provoke or silence others.
I think, then, that it is true to say that philosophy never was, is or will be one single determinant thing. It means different things to different people with different values who live in different places at different times, speaking different languages and having different experiences. I believe this is true, and that this entails a perspectival interpretation of philosophy. It is a mild form of relativism/agnosticism that some may label as (methodologically) pessimistic: disagreement is inherent, opinions will continue to clash and there is no feasible way of overcoming this epistemological nausea. The Dream of Reason is a sham and got a lot of people killed. Of course, we still argue for things with passion and conviction, but it's naive to think there is any significant efficacy to this. That's how philosophy works - it doesn't.
Stop the meta-narratives, stop the totalizing schemata, stop the imperialism of rationalism. All you are doing is silencing voices that are trying to be heard.
Point taken. I am indeed assuming the existence of an objective quantifiable external reality. Yet to assume otherwise renders the initial question (actual philosophy) redundant
you and l do occupy a shared material reality that both you and I can objectively quantify. If we disagree on the content of that reality we can still find shared points of agreement as to the form of existent reality as it presents itself to our senses which are biologically approximated in that we are of the same species and perceive through the same sensory apparatuses. As such together we can approximate a form upon reality that is subjectively experienced and yet quantifiable if indeed the form of reality is agreed between us and hence not entirely subjective.
This is the modus by which history validates ideas, they are continually examined and the datum or content which persists might reasonably be assumed to have the closet approximation to the real.
I sympathize. (And I'm glad you're back, given your background in mathematics.)
I too have decried what I think of as selecting a philosophical position as you might a breakfast cereal. ("I know this one's supposed to be healthier, but that other one tastes so good!" That sort of thing.) Opinions are boring.
However -- biggish however -- you have to accept the "put up or shut up" challenge. Do the sort of philosophy you aspire to and show it to us. What you're saying in this thread -- what I'm saying in this thread, right now -- is just more opinion.
I think maybe it's necessary to go through a polemical stage to find your allegiances, commit to some methodological principles, etc., but then you have to get on with it.
So you admonish and pontificate, but you can't tell us who these "bad philosophers" are? Seems like you really want us to think you are quite the slayer of strawmen, although why I couldn't fathom.
I feel I have been clear about the nature of lovers of truth and lovers of opinion. However, I have no intention of spending time trying to determine which individuals fit where in those categories.
Then what are your intentions, except perhaps presenting yourself as a "lover of truth" ?
I saw a valuable discussion that was not going to happen because the other thread was closed, and I intended to make it happen. It seems I was successful in that goal.
If so, your goals are easily satisfied. No offence meant.
Some of my goals are very easy to satisfy while others take a lot of work. Although, I am not sure why you'd think I find that offensive.
[s]Quoting Jeremiah
[/s]
Not an opinion? You sure as hell haven't proven us that philosophy requires a love of science over a love of opinion. In fact, you've only shared with us your opinion that this is the case.
I never said philosophy requires a love of science over a love of opinion. I never said anything at all about a love of science, that was your addition.
I drew a distinction between lovers of opinion and lovers of truth. Science is a tool towards the philosophical endeavor.
I also never said we must be void of all opinions, that would be impossible. What I am talking about is placing the self above truth. An over indulgence in the self.
Also, you seem far more bent on proving yourself, than I am. If you wish to be a lover of opinions, as long as it hurts no one, I don't care, go for it.
That you feel the need to point this out, which every single user of the forum knows very well, only lends support to the idea that you are only interested in pointless pontification.
This very thread is a great example of how useless philosophy can be made to appear.
I think Bernard Lonergan nailed it with his formulation of the transcendental conditions for good enquiry in any field:
"Be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, and be responsible."
I can elaborate this in my own words, for example:
Pay attention to every detail of your chosen filed(s) of enquiry, be well-informed about the investigations of others, be governed by reason not by emotion in your judgements, and when you arrive at what you think is a true judgement then act honestly in accordance with that. Of course it could be elaborated in other ways.
Lonergan's formulation is transcendental in the sense that it is independent of culture and true across all disciplines. It hasn't ever changed, and it won't ever change, as Lonergan points out, the formula for good enquiry could never become:
Be inattentive, be unintelligent, be unreasonable, be irresponsible.
You really seem to be offended by this notion of lovers of opinions and lovers of truth. Worry you don't meet my standards?
Perhaps some just move on to science and make contributions that they feel are most important.
Some see the whole thing as the same path.
The very definition of intellectual myopia.
How so?
Is that truth with a capital T or lower case t?
I am sure you believe that distinction is important, however, I don't.
Well, some truths are contextually bound, like ethical claims, which science cannot answer or does not care to answer.
I never said science was suited for every task.
"What is it?"
"Someone on the internet made a broad, general assertion and failed to justify their metaphysical assumptions!"
:brow:
So, why not talk about the 'truths' that science is apt at answering instead of the ambiguity of what kind of 'Truths' it can answer? As everyone seems to think that not all 'truths' can be answered by science.
Let me know when you figure out what truth is.
Yet the only thing I have seen you post in this thread are insults. So I can only assume you don't want me to take you seriously.
Yeah, well, I tend to think science is capable at arriving at facts, not truths.
I agree with that.
So, since you agree with that, then instead of the false equivocation about 'truths' that is being made and befuddled other members, we can maybe deflate the issue and talk about getting the facts straight.
That is not true, but you are just too busy trolling to see it. I am sorry my views offend you.
Science can never gives us truth, as it was never designed for such a task; however, it can give us the tools to narrow our aim closer to the mark. The rest is up to us.
Agreed. Hence, my next logical question, is, 'what are facts'?
I have no confusion of what facts are but I don't really feel like haggling over it. However, I would like to point out that facts are not the only contribution science makes. I am a student of statistics, a science that does not deal out facts. Facts are a result of science, but more importantly science is a method.
But, you confused 'truth' for 'facts' in the OP. If I want to make a valid logical deductive argument, I had better get the facts straight if the issue is about something empirical. Like the fact that Hesperus and Phosphorus are both the evening star.
Quoting Jeremiah
So, what other contribution does science make apart from discovering new facts? Genuinely interested.
Quoting Jeremiah
Not quite following you here.
Quoting Jeremiah
Yes, so if science is a method that optimally derives facts and not truths, unlike philosophy, then why conflate the two?
I did not confuse facts and truth in the OP, and if you check there was a mistype in the post you just quoted; you were just faster on the reply than my ninja edit. Furthermore science is not a method that "optimally derives facts", it is a method for exploring the reality we find ourselves in.
Fine, I won't get into semantic squabbles and just straight out ask you the hard question. Namely, if science is a method at arriving at 'truths' (as you seem to assert), then what method, purpose, or function does philosophy serve? The same thing, or something different?
I clearly said just a few post up: "Science can never gives us truth, as it was never designed for such a task."
In science your aim should never be to find the truth, with such an approach you can lose objectivity. Things like philosophy and religion those are the tools to bridge that gap, science is there merely to inform.
Agreed, so science serves an epistemic purpose, utility, function of informing oneself, when making valid inferences. I don't think I can boil it down anymore than that.
So, what is this 'bridge the gap', which you mention?
That part I don't care about, as it is a pointless argument. What's important is that people put in the effort to become informed.
I think it's pretty important, at least psychologically or not, for many people. This entails, the desire to better educate oneself, which are necessary steps to fulfill your conclusion hereabouts.
Of course it's true. Your OP is nothing but a series of moralising distinctions designed to affirm the vague and trivial notion that an understanding of science is important for philosophy. I mean, look at this crap:
"Some philosophers seem to stop along the road and take rest under a shady tree instead of forging ahead into the burning sunlight along a path that pushes closer to truth. "
"Too many modern philosophers too much want to cling to their POV, their subjectivity, their opinions; they want to lay around in the shade of the tree and talk instead of pushing ahead"...
Exactly who is going to disagree with this? Exactly who is going to say 'oh hey, that's me!'. But of course this is just the kind of cultish bullshit where everyone on 'our' side is 'good' and the 'other' side is 'bad', and of course that you find yourself on the side of the good guys is just a happy accident, how convenient. Self-fellating garbage, half-heartedly disguised.
I disagree, I don't think it is important, and it only leads to people overly using quotation marks. What is important is that people put in the time and effort to actually become informed; beyond that I don't care how they choose to bridge that gap.
I am sorry, but you are clearly nothing but a troll.
But, that gap will always exist, for as long as we can tell.
You seem to be stuck on the distinction between what philosophy actually is and what it is sometimes presented to be. Philosophy is about ideas, ways of categorising and connecting all the 'facts' that science (or simple empirical observation) delivers us. The act of 'doing' philosophy, is the act of presenting one of these ideas to others. Imagine the idea is a new piece of clothing you've designed, you then have three ways to present it;
You can simply make it available in a shop and if people like it, they'll buy it, if not they'll walk out. We presume, in this scenario, that people buy clothes simply on the basis of some gut instinct about what they like based solely on the look of the thing. The fashion designer need do no more than present clothing.
Alternatively we could work on the idea that people have reasons for selecting one piece of clothing over another, but that these reasons remain subjective. In this case a fashion designer might want to 'present' their clothes in the best light depending on the client and open them up to testing. They might allow people to try them on, feel the cloth, compare them to other clothes they like etc. There's still no 'right' or 'wrong', but the clothes have to be tested by the prospective buyer against their own criteria, which means the fashion designer has to make the available for such testing.
Finally there is objective testing. If the clothing in question is an item of fireproof protection which must resist temperatures of 1200C, then the clothing could be subjected to 1200C and should come out unharmed. This is a method available to people who all agree what '1200C' is, what 'unharmed' is and that both can be reliably measured.
You seem to think that philosophy is either type one or type three, either plain opinion which people simply select by preference or objectively testable for its proximity to 'Truth'. In my experience, philosophy is far more often of the second type. Philosophical ideas are tested, but they are tested using the subjective testing methods of the people who are considering adopting the idea. In order to do this, you need discussion, interrogation and critique, but you should not expect any of this to reflect anything other than the personal testing methodology of the one doing the interrogation. They're 'trying on' the idea to see if it suits them.
The purpose of 'actual philosophy' then, probably should be to provide a forum for people to 'try on' ideas using whatever criteria they personally feel marks an idea as one they might like to adopt.
The problem people experience is that such a forum is not as open as it would need to be to function this way. In an ideal world, anyone would be able to 'interrogate' any idea by whatever criteria they prefer their ideas to meet and the owner of that idea (like the fashion designer) simply does their best to answer that interrogation, to present their offering in the best light to that particular client.
Unfortunately this is rarely what happens. People presenting ideas resent the fact that others might dismiss them based on their own criteria. Fashion designers who've spent weeks perfecting the drape of a particular shirt get really pissed off when customers simply say they don't care two figs about the drape and just want to know if it's washable at 60C. Likewise philosophers (or those espousing a particular philosophy) tend to anger quickly when the long and complicated justifications they've constructed by one particular set of criteria are dismissed as irrelevant by someone interrogating their idea by a different set.
The opposite also happens on sites like this. People deliberately interrogate ideas they have no intention of even 'trying on' simply for the intellectual high of being able to shoot anything down if you judge it by standards it was never even designed to be judged by. Anyone can expose the painstakingly designed silk shirt to 1200C and then say 'see, it doesn't even stand up to the standard fire-proofing test'. Likewise someone could put an item of fireproof clothing on a model and metaphorically rip it shreds for it's poor fashion design. This kind of thing makes people feel intellectually superior, a feeling which most people enjoy.
There is no such thing agreed thing as 'Actual Philosophy', there's the presentation and interrogation of ideas by whatever methods the critic and philosopher might agree on, and then there's the game some people play of finding whichever method of interrogation makes any given idea look like meaningless rubbish. Personally, I've indulged in both. Some ideas are important enough to need serious interrogation, but the game is undeniably great fun.
Outstanding post. Also a good, serious piece of philosophy.
Regarding option (2), the subjective test, I'll quote Frank Ramsey for the umpteenth time: too many philosophical disputes have the form
A: "I went to Grantchester yesterday."
B: "No I didn't."
I think it's important to recognize this, but I think there's something else to the role of intuition in philosophy, that thing we use as evidence. It needn't be "purely" subjective, in the sense that a native speaker's sense of their native language isn't purely subjective.
As a native speaker, you have a double position of expertise: on the one hand there's just the breadth of knowledge you have about usage; but your speech also contributes to determining what the norms of speaking this language are. That doesn't quite make your pronouncements on usage infallible, but it does mean you are not exceeding your authority in speaking for the entire speech community.
I think there's something quite similar in philosophy. When discussing Gettier, for instance, a philosopher will be inclined to say, this does or doesn't look like knowledge to me. I don't think such pronouncements are purely subjective, or intended to be the expression of personal taste. The idea is to speak on behalf of your epistemic community, to reflect its norms, which you also participate in shaping. In effect, it's something like "This is what we call 'knowledge', isn't it guys?" And such a statement gets to function both as a reference to a norm and an encouragement to define that norm in this way.
So, subjective, yes, but in a very special way.
Absolutely. If it's not stretching the fashion designer analogy too far, I'd say that what you're describing is the equivalent of something like fit. We all have a similar, not entirely subjective view on whether an item of clothing fits. Something too small or too big is obvious to anyone, and all designers will produce clothing within those parameters. That doesn't mean that 'fit' automatically gains the status of objectivity, it's still too open to opinion at the finer scales, but it's something like objective.
Peter Van Inwagen talks of the agreement of our 'epistemic peers', which I think is similar to what you're describing. What's interesting is that he goes on to warn of the dangers in accepting that proposition. If an idea can be held by any of our epistemic peers, then we are bound (by the same principle we used to raise our subjective opinion to a higher epistemic status) to accept that the idea has some merit. No longer can we claim that the power of agreement amongst our epistemic peers confers a truth-like value to what we think and at the same time dismiss as nonsense an idea sincerely held by a minority of them.
Arguments therefore too often dismiss the concepts, which in the end are all too easily rebuked, and rarely interrogate the sincerity with which the ideas are actually held, which I find more often to be the weak point in many questionable positions.
This is good, and I'm kicking myself for not sticking with your fashion designer metaphor, because it raises the issue of "fashion" in the other sense, changing tastes over time. I remember when I discovered there was such a thing as fashion, in this sense, in philosophy, and I was not exactly shocked but certainly disappointed.
So yes, "Does this fit?" is exactly the question we ask, and we ask it both of ourselves -- it's a feel -- and of others -- "How does it look? Does it look good?" And though we might aspire to a fashion we'd be willing to call "timeless", that doesn't quite mean what it says on the box.
Quoting Pseudonym
This runs deep, and I'd want to pull in Grice here somehow. I'm coming back to this as soon as I have some time. Where does PVI talk about this?
I'm reluctant to admit I hadn't even thought of that, I just used fashion designer as a convenient example of someone wishing to 'sell' a concept, but yes, one of the more subjective of the criteria for judging ideas is how well it fits with the current paradigm (this even extends to science according to Kuhn, but I'm not convinced myself how deep his analysis goes).
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
As in 'Defence of a Dogma', or in the context of the authority of language users you mentioned earlier?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
An article entitled “It Is Wrong, Always, Everywhere, and for Anyone, to Believe Anything, Upon Insufficient Evidence.” In Faith, Freedom, and Rationality, edited by J. Jordan and D. Howard-Snyder, but he expanded on it in an interview I heard with him once a long time back, I'm afraid I can't quite remember exactly who he was speaking to or where. He was talking mainly about the same subject as the paper though, just really warning philosophers that the disagreement of any epistemic peer must be taken as evidence that one's concepts can't be unequivocally held and that on almost every topic in the history of philosophy there is disagreement among epistemic peers. He basically summed up by saying that anyone who thought philosophy was about finding some 'truth' might as well not bother. He's not quite so grumpy in the actual paper, must have caught him on a bad day.
-Martin Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics
I think that should read 'beyond existence' as I believe there's a metaphysical distinction between 'being' and 'existence' which is not generally recognised in modern philosophy.
With respect to the question of evidence - as far as metaphysics is concerned, the questions are such that they are beyond the scope of empirical evidence, as a metaphysical view consists of an attitude towards the meaning or the nature of reality as a whole. A metaphysical attitude doesn't concern the existence or non-existence of a particular thing for which the criterion of empirical evidence is meaningful.
There are two examples of a metaphysical disputes in current science, specifically, the argument around the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum physics, and the argument around whether 'string theory' and the multiverse that it implies amounts to a scientific hypothesis as such. In both cases, something is being posited which is in principle beyond the scope of empirical falsification, leading to arguments about whether either of these ideas are genuinely scientific or not.
More like that. Grice is our great theorist of conversation and how it relates to logic. (His work would also be the model for Lewis's scorekeeping, etc.)
I was surprised neither of us had at first and was eager to admit it!
I have been watching these forums for a very long time, and if you can't see what HexHammer was driving at then you are blind. His delivery method was in poor choice, but that does not mean he was wrong. There are two types here; lovers of opinion and lovers of truth and I know that the only way that will sink in is to give it time.
So what is the difference between opinion and truth when it comes to philosophical propositions? How are you distinguishing the two?
Only if one assumes only scientific truths are true. To me a philosopher is someone who seeks the truth, the means and method are of less importance to the definition than the quest for truth itself. I don't exclude the possibility that valuable truths can be found in art or religion, hence I don't exclude the fields of art and religion from being able to have valuable philosophers within them.
I agree that a certain understanding of science is required, especially mathematics, but I'd like to point out that there is a mathematical compenent to music as well.
There are no such things as "scientific truths". This was already addressed in this thread, I suggest you actually read it.
If you follow truth it heads your path, you seek to follow it. However, if you follow self then you seek to have truth follow you and you may end up trying on "philosophies" like they are going out of fashion.
Lovers of opinions over indulge in authoring their own realities from the self. Lovers of truth want to see beyond self, even if seeing beyond self becomes an impossible task their desire still pushes them towards the impossible and in doing so they become more.
No, sorry didn't get any of that. I mean, I can tell all the words are English but I'm afraid I cannot derive any meaning from them when put together. The best I've got so far is...
Quoting Jeremiah
... People who seek truth are more willing to change their minds than people who don't?
Quoting Jeremiah
... Really struggling with this one. Is there a right amount of indulgence in authoring our own realities? How does one go about authoring a reality from the self? My best guess - lovers of opinion describe the world in terms that complement their descriptions of themselves?
Quoting Jeremiah
... Lovers of truth seek it even if its impossible to find?
Presuming I've translated that right...
I'm certain that the most fashion-conscious teenagers change their minds pretty frequently and willingly to suit the latest trends, I'm not sure I'd single them out as truth-seekers.
I'm also fairly sure that a large number of dedicated scientists nonetheless have a world-view which places science (and by definition scientists) pretty highly. I'm not sure that makes their work little more than opinion.
Finally, do not the religious seek a knowledge of the divine which, for us rational atheists, is impossible to find. I'm not sure that turns them into truth-seekers either.
If there is a difference between truth and opinion, I'm not sure your caricatures have got us any closer to it.
I am OK with that.
And now you are trying to force-feed us your epistemology
Let's take Object-Oriented Ontology.
OOO is a new "school" (perhaps the term is a bit premature) which is 100% pro-science (what world we live in that this syntagm makes senses!?!), is 100% realist, and yet, claims that 1) philosophy and science are not very closely related, 2) philosophy doesn't produce knowledge and 3) a unified theory of everything could not possibly be a "scientific theory", such as "string theory".
While OOO is very "supportive" of scientific inquiries, it doesn't really interest itself with them, holding rather that despite not having a complete scientific image, we can still develop a working and satisfying ontology on the basis of analogy and metaphor.
The dichotomy you try to present serves no purpose, and doesn't reflect the state of the discipline.
You don't have to read my posts, or my threads; that was your choice and in no way did I coerce or force you to do so.
And yet more content-devoid posts.
I don't invest a lot to a response when the opening sentence to the post I am responding to is a hyperbole.
You are clearly very proficient at finding reasons not to engage others.
Not everyone is worth engaging.
Quoting Jeremiah
If it gives us facts, then it gives us truths. :brow:
If you wish to equate facts with truth, go for it; however, a scientific fact merely means the thing in question currently meets the standards to be called a fact. It is a classification and they are never final. They change all the time, and sometimes they are also wrong altogether.
I like to say empirical science is a rigorous extension of ordinary experience. I characterize the various formal and empirical sciences as only some of philosophy's branches. A responsible philosophy aligns itself somehow or other with the project of empirical investigation as well as with formal sciences, but science is only one part of the philosophical activity aimed at cultivating a worldview sufficient to inform the way of life of persons, communities, and civilizations.
Accordingly, I suggest it's an error to speak as if science and philosophy are in opposition. It seems to me they are intimately related affairs.
Firstly:
You merely posted your opionon that there are none before in this thread, That is not adressing, that is pushing your opinion.
Secondly:
You didn't check wether I intended the same as you did when mentioning "scientific truths"
Thirdly:
I stated "Only if one assumes only scientific truths are true.", clearly stating a requirement, wether the requirement is even possible is irrelevant, and thus wether 'scientific truths' exist is irrelevant to the validity of the requirment.
I suggest next to merely reading, you try think abit more on statements made in an attempt to understand what the other person was talking about, rather than dismissing statements based upon the use of a single term you happen not to agree with.