Is "Comfort" a dirty word in Philosophy?
I often hear accusations that people don't want to engage or accept something because of reasons of comfort, but why is that such a bad thing? I mean if a belief or idea brings someone comfort and help and it doesn't impact anyone else then why is accusing them of wanting to be comfortable a counterpoint in an argument? I say this because often I see many impasses in philosophical conversations and "comfort" feels like a slur almost.
Comments (38)
The word "comfort", and its derivatives (comfortable, uncomfortable, discomfort) have been enjoying an increase in popularity during the last 40 years. (information source: Google Ngram produces stats on the use of words in print over the last 220 years.)
Here's the frequency history for "uncomfortable":
"Comfort" and the other 3 derivatives have similar frequency histories. I've noticed the increased use of "comfort" and derivatives. I haven't yet starting loathing the term, or begun wishing to kick the "comfortable" user in the teeth, but... it's only a matter of time.
Why? Don't know. The popularity of words varies over time.
If I am correct OP, I think the reason for that derision is the implication that in taking comfort in an idea, you are engaging in wishful thinking, saying something you would like to be true, to the neglect of whether something actually is true or not.
I am writing at 3am, unable to sleep as often, and I think that comfort is fine if you have it but I am not sure that it is a real goal in philosophy.
If anything, I envy you because whatever way I have of thinking about the world of all things I have never felt 'comfort', especially when I adhered to religious beliefs. I remember the stress of being told that my ideas verged onto the new age and were dangerous, especially my interest in Carl Jung. He is not a philosophy in the strict sense but he encapsulates a lot of philosophy.
I wrestle with ideas, but I am not saying that I do not enjoy books but I am not sure that the term comfort is the right word. Life is too precarious and the word comfort stresses ease where in fact I often feel more in a battlefield and the ideas are tools or weapons against inner demons and monsters.
But maybe my inner life and daily experience has a more aggressive plot than yours. I could envy you if you find comfort in philosophy but that would be pointless as I don't know anything about you and envy is an unproductive emotion.
What would say that in a way you are lucky if you find comfort in philosophy because if anything I find it a necessity and it often leads me to seewhat I would rather not see, but I will say no more and I don't want to overdo the tortured artist/ philosophy act because it has been overdone and is in itself a glamour seeking stance.
Perhaps if you can construct a philosophy which leads to comfort it might cheer up the misery of so much doom and gloom of being tangled up in knots and tangles. I don't wish to be a doom and gloom philosopher and if nothing else I like Dosteovsky's wish to transmute evil into good. Even in the darkness, we may rise to the heights of ecstasy. If anything I have never found comforts but extreme lows and some highs but rarely much time for plateaus in between. In other words, little rest.
It is a bad thing because 'comfort' is unreasoned. Philosophy is a practice of reason (among other things), and positions are meant to be held to account on the basis of their theoretical commitments and entitlements. 'Comfort' is, as it were, pathological - it does not belong to the order of reason - and is not open to critique. Consequently it is philosophically useless.
I think the context matters but if an individual has their well-thought-out, fact-based assertions dismissed due to an emotional reason such as finding someone finding it preferable to simply continuing believing whatever is convenient, it is going to be poorly thought of from an intellectual standpoint.
Which none of us are, human beings have many moments of misfortune and imperfections in our interactions with others. There is simply no way to cruise life morally in this world without inflicting doubt on yourself and challenging yourself to be a better person using rational reflection. And it’s going to take effort, not comfort.
And yeah, that includes comfortable religious beliefs. If you want to train that rational muscle, you have to be consistent and honest.
Well the problem I have with challenging beliefs is that you end up with something like solipsism as a result. I mean at what point do you stop? What merit is there in being rational if I have no ground to stand on? I understand that some views like homosexuality being immoral need to be confronted, but not everyone is like that. The universe is vast and scary, there doesn't seem to be any real reason for us to be here or even continue existing. What harm is there in beliefs that offer comfort and solace in an indifferent reality? Also better person? That depends on what someone means by "better". Why is challenging yourself an improvement? According to whom? Isn't morality more or less what people say it is and not because there is any inherent good to it?
But doesn't philosophy have to start with axioms, statements that cannot be proven? What high ground does one have to chide others for their unreasonable beliefs when a philosopher is ultimately no different?
I just think if no one else is being harmed then it doesn't matter what folks believe. They don't need to challenge themselves if they are doing fine.
Honestly the replies remind me of Death from Discworld and his take on it (well Terry Pratchett).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi1atm2HkS8
There is a difference between challenging beliefs as in rejecting them all until they can be proven from the ground up -- which, as you say, inevitably leads to solipsism and other nihilistic views, because there is no "ground" -- and challenging beliefs as in being open to the possibility that they might be wrong, and being responsive to evidence that suggests they are.
I have an essay against the former called Against Cynicism that touches on the difference, as well as an essay for the latter (rather, against its opposite) called Against Fideism.
The former essay is dependent upon another called Against Nihilism that I think might help assuage some of your concerns about solipsism. They're all part of my general philosophy of Commensurablism that I think (hope) could be helpful for you.
On the general topic of comfort, I think you might also enjoy the Optimism section of my essay On the Meaning of Life.
I hope some of those can bring you some comfort.
Fine and dandy, but this is a philosophy forum, not a drum circle.
I have laid out my point though. I only really got into philosophy because it was deemed to be "smart" and "good" to challenge one's views, despite that fact that in doing so it resulted in misery. A running trend I see in some philosophy majors is regret in having their assumptions challenged. I mean not everyone pulls away from solipsism so easily. Though people who say it's true are wrong as it can never be known.
Your essay against nihilism is rather weak, same with solipsism. Moral nihilism I would argue is true as there isn't an objective standard for it. Doesn't mean have no morality or meaning, but recognizing there isn't a capital T version of it.
It was mentioned earlier that I use practical skepticism and recognize when it goes too far, but then again who decides what is "too far" or practical.
The number of people who adhere to solipsism are pretty close to non-existent, there is no such risk. People apply skepticism all the time in healthy ways, I don't know what your problem is about this frankly.
Better is not objective though even with assumptions. I mean why assume X is better than Y? I wouldn't argue that society would be better if people were not homophobia because that wouldn't be a true statement. It would be true to say it would be different but not better. Even better chess or be a better scientists are subjective claims that aren't grounded in solid "hard" rules.
All this is the result of challenging your assumptions, at some point there is nothing left and you have to rely on illogical leaps of faith to get out.
Chess players who win choose certain moves that are "better" and we objectively evaluate that to be the case from the fact that such players can win the game.
You're looking for a requirement to deem certain claims to be evaluated as true that doesn't need to be there. Performances in Chess games are a real thing, and they can be evaluated using logical reasoning.
It's not a matter of skepticism being taken too far on any kind of linear axis, it's about there being two different senses of "skepticism", where you can (and should) do one of them 100% and the other 0% at the same time without contradiction.
There's skepticism as in being open to the possibility of your opinions being wrong, and accepting evidence to the contrary if it should happen to come up. This is something you should always do 100%. Always be open to new evidence, always be willing to question your opinions. I call this "criticism" to distinguish it.
Then there's skepticism as in rejecting every opinion out of hand just because there isn't good enough reason to force you to accept it, to prove that it is correct beyond any shadow of a doubt. This is something you should 0% never do, because if you're consistent about it, it will lead you straight to nihilism, solipsism, etc. I call this "cynicism" to distinguish it.
If you're critical but not cynical, that means you're open to tentatively believing in things just because they seem right to you, without being able to conclusively prove them right beyond all doubt, and yet also completely willing to throw those beliefs out if you should come across evidence to the contrary of them, and on the lookout for evidence that would be contrary to them.
That means you're free to believe comforting things (and should, for your own well-being), until you should see reason to reject them. And then you should find the next most comforting thing that might still be the case, and believe that until there is reason to reject it. (While meanwhile, also acting so as to minimize the chances of the least-comforting things coming true.)
The problem I have is the extreme end, where you really get challenged. Where what you thought to be certain and obvious turns out to not be so. I'm still trying to process that I can't prove or determine if anything outside my thoughts exists. The external world is something I took for granted until philosophy challenged that. That would be an example of where challenging your assumptions is a bad thing and where I fail to see the merit of doing so. Even challenging how I know things (or how do you know you know). Please enlighten to my the merit of tearing asunder my certainty of others and external reality.
In my experience a lie can also avoid disaster and give peace of mind to troubled folks. Refusing to be comforted and erring on the side of caution in my experience tends to pan out poorly.
I can understand that skepticism of some things has merit, but from what I gathered it's far removed from the practice of the skeptics of old who doubted pretty much everything and in some instances held no beliefs (Pyrrhonism).
You can look at the current president as an example of how doubt is a slippery slope, people are losing faith in the institutions that run this country because of one guy. He might as well be the definition of solipsism because he certainly doesn't live in our reality, but that emboldens others and with fake news on top of that doubt is everywhere and reality is what you want it to be. Doubt is indeed a slippery slope and the more you practice it the more you begin to unknowingly doubt things that are fundamental to your sanity. Although this is speaking from personal experience and from some philosophy majors I spoke to in my school (and professors).
Give me an instance of it and I'll switch sides.
Quoting Darkneos
:up:
Quoting Darkneos
The problem is that an "argument" is the opposite of something that "doesn't impact anyone else".
Think about why we make the case for skepticism in the first place. Skepticism in one own's moral judgment is grounded in the observation of cases of fallible human beings all around us, no one is perfect and we have emotional biases. Skepticism in science is grounded in an abundance of history of once established scientific truths that have been overridden by new evidence or better theories. (or its corollary, the trust we have in scientific theories to the extent we have them is because of its successes, in its predictions in experiment and its applications in technology)
What could skepticism that everything we observe and know about the world is fake possibly be grounded in? Doubt has to be based on something, we can't just doubt things just for doubt's sake.
That's perfectly in keeping with what I'm talking about. If some crazy conspiracy theory seems unlikely to you, you're free to believe to the contrary of it, without being able to prove the contrary of it. But if you should come across actual proof that it is true, then you should accept that proof and modify your beliefs accordingly.
Likewise, logical deductions are proof you can see for yourself; scientific consensus can usually tell a much more tractable story of why it's held and how you can check for yourself if you cared to; political predictions, usually less so; etc. Those are all degrees of how much something seems like it to you, and so how inclined you are to believe that way instead of to the contrary. Wherever you fall on any of those issues, you're free (as in, not epistemically wrong) to believe however seems likely to be correct to you, without having to conclusively prove that your position is right and everyone else is wrong; so long as you're also open to accepting evidence that you are wrong.
Besides the optical illusions, the fact that our senses don't perceive all reality, dreams, the effects of psychotropic substances on our perceptions, the rubber hand illusion when it comes to selfhood, do I need to continue? I mean the senses have been a subject of doubt for as long as philosophy has existed, likely with the Allegory of the Cave. Most people who espouse solipsism say "how can you prove otherwise".
You see my point?
Your train of thought shouldn't continue because it is extreme. Try applying your reasoning arguing for radical skepticism to milder cases of skepticism and see if it works, and it clearly doesn't. That scientists make mistakes doesn't mean the whole scientific field is bunk and astrology might be equally true. That a friend that you know has told a lie to you before, being put under suspect to lower moral character, doesn't mean you should be open to the fact he might turn into Hitler the next week. Those aren't grounds for skepticism, the comparison between the pair examples are only superficially similar.
I heard it mentioned that any branch of knowledge is based on faith, faith that our observations are true observations and that we aren't being misled by some evil deity or whatever you want to call it. Like I quoted before, we cannot confirm or determine whether anything beyond our thoughts actually exists.
This is more than just a friend telling one lie, and astrology has no evidence to support it. There is plenty of evidence to show how imperfect our senses are. Even the philosophers of old knew this and began to question whether what we see or experience is really "there". In the end one can never know.
I'm talking about actual doable skepticism, and I gave several examples of how rational grounding relates to smaller cases, reread my posts above. The point was to show that what you're doing is not actual justifiable skepticism, but just getting from A to speculation Z without any plausible connection. Making up any possible alternate scenario that one can formulate in words is not a case for skepticism, neither in the radical skepticism that you're promoting or the common familiar types of skepticism that all of us observe and agree upon.
In regards to the friend lying it's not unreasonable to be open to the fact they might turn into Hitler next week. It's unlikely to occur but it could happen. It also would make you doubt their words in the future because they did it once. Scientists are also human and therefor prone to the same errors and lapses in judgment that the rest of us are so why should they be trusted? Why should I trust their observations when one cannot prove they have observations, etc?
I think trying to draw a line between justified and radical is just splitting hairs. It's all skepticism, the question of where to stop speaks more to the comfort level of the person not the topic.
Yeah I have no idea how you're operating in your everyday life then. Your philosophical disposition is either completely contrary to how you actually use skepticism (or that of anyone) or your life is completely messed up. I say pay attention to how skepticism is practically used (it’s the one we know of and works to improve judgment) and examine the rational basis for it. Imagination is not the same as basis for skepticism.
If you wanted to be reasonable in your skepticism you would have to admit that you don't know if other people are conscious, it's just a hope that you aren't alone. I mean you can only verify your own experience right? Sounds like your version of reasonable skepticism is wishful thinking.
I divided the two into different categories of skepticism out of nominal convenience. I can easily reword this into saying I think there's one type of skepticism, one that makes sense because it serves a purpose, yours isn't really functionally working skepticism.
This went around in circles repetitively so this is my last comment.