Does anything exist?

[MarkCorrigan]

Again until one of the Philosophy Fanclub can describe the difference between good and bad philosophy (or the difference between philosophy and just yelling at squirrels in the park) without:

- Invoking tone and style, not intellectual context
- "It's philosophy because a philosopher said so..."
- Just vaguely referring to philosophy as a concept's reputation and pedigree

then concede that there really isn't a point here.

Easily. For one example, anyone who attempts to invoke philosophy while ignoring scientific fact (all disclaimers about science and fact apply) then they are indulging in bad philosophy no matter how many degrees they hold nor how flowery their prose.

Hobbes and Locke, for example, are good philosophers because even if you disagree with them they have intellectual content to discuss. There are reasons for their thinking that they put forward and can be discussed. Jabba, to quote an example you yourself used, just whined on an on about nothing and attempted to gaslight his critics because his "philosophy" was entirely hollow wish fulfilment nonsense and he knew that.

I'm sure there are some bad philosophers that a great many people would defend as being meaningful. I wouldn't. That doesn't mean I would rail against the very notion of philosophy. You're just throwing a tantrum.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Well one because I don't want to and don't have to ******* justify why to you or anyone else.

And two for the exact reason I don't ignore conspiracy theories, religious dogma, pseudoscience, and other forms of woo. Standing by watching the intellectual bar get lowered more and more is not something I do.

Then quote someone (other than our self admitted mentally ill interlocutor who noone else is agreeing with) and I will acknowledge that this is indeed a bad thing. You're literally still attempting to condemn an entire orchard based on some bad apples without acknowledging that the orchard has produced good cider routinely. Yet you're still willing to condemn it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Then quote someone (other than our self admitted mentally ill interlocutor who noone else is agreeing with) and I will acknowledge that this is indeed a bad thing. You're literally still attempting to condemn an entire orchard based on some bad apples without acknowledging that the orchard has produced good cider routinely. Yet you're still willing to condemn it.

1. Why doesn't the mentally ill interlocuter count? Isn't he... *dramatic pause* DOING A TYPE OF PHILOSOPHY!?

2. No. I will not be a Sealioned to. The "You can't say that about philosophy because what you are doing is a type of philosophy" has been used enough for me to not sit here and entertain a demand for an example to be spoonfeed to someone. Don't start at a fringe reset.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

1. Why doesn't the mentally ill interlocuter count? Isn't he... *dramatic pause* DOING A TYPE OF PHILOSOPHY!?

2. No. I will not be a Sealioned to. The "You can't say that about philosophy because what you are doing is a type of philosophy" has been used enough for me to not sit here and entertain a demand for an example to be spoonfeed to someone. Don't start at a fringe reset.

1. No. He's doing his usual talking about nonsense without heed to any research on the matters he is so blithely insisting he knows about. He's allowed to do that, and people like myself are allowed to call it exactly what it is. Nonsense.

Why are you so desperate for me to fit into the mould of what you think I'm saying rather than actually reading what I'm saying? Oh right, because then you would have to address the fact that you're posturing and dismissing entire schools of thought on the basis that you don't like it. How silly of me.



2. What are you on about? You aren't doing philosophy either, you're just throwing a hissy fit because someone isn't agreeing that "Philosophy is teh badz". Mostly because it's not true.

As I have repeatedly said, even if you are completely correct in characterising the discussion so far, why does that somehow make your blanket condemnation of philosophy any less of a petulant tantrum against something you don't like based entirely on your say so?
Why is all philosophy bad Joe? Not why is this thread bad, or why is calling everything philosophy bad (which I agree with you on, note. No, not everything is philosophy even if you dress it up with flowery language and deep sounding rhetoric. ) but why is all philosophy bad? That's your claim, I want you to support it.

 

[Belz...]

But that's akin to saying that all drugs are medicines just because all medicines are drugs. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, and it's patently obvious that's what you're doing.

I don't think it's obvious, patently or not. Where's the baby in there? I mean, philosophy can be fun and interesting, but the question is: is it useful?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I don't think it's obvious, patently or not. Where's the baby in there? I mean, philosophy can be fun and interesting, but the question is: is it useful?

I would argue that yes, it is.

ETA: To be specific, one can use philosophy or philosophical debate to utilise and train critical thinking, to sharpen rhetoric and debating, and it can provide insight on a lot of "soft" subjects science can't touch because there is no objective right answer. For example literary analysis and critique.

Is it as important as science? No, not in the least. Is it able to provide concrete answers to objective questions? Probably not, although I would argue that political philosophy in particular can be useful in determining where a state should move to improve both itself and the world in general, and I'm sure there are other practical applications.

Even if it isn't 100% definitely useful, throwing a fit over people discussing philosophy is unwarranted and pre-emptively shuts down any discussion that could lead to useful information or real results.

Again, I don't think all philosophy is useful or even worthwhile. People pontificating on the hard problem of consciousness despite the advances and results coming from neurobiology are just using empty rhetoric to pontificate meaninglessly on things they clearly don't understand. In fact I'll go even further. I will discount an entire branch of philosophy as a pointless waste of time. Solipsism is the single most empty waste of time anyone has ever conceived of. It leads to no knowledge because it can't possibily do so. It is a philosophical dead end in the same way the theories of Lamarck were a scientific dead end. That said, just because solipsism is pointless circle jerking does not mean I will condemn all philosophy. THAT is what I object to in what Joe is saying.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I mean, philosophy can be fun and interesting, but the question is: is it useful?

I would also like an answer to this, with the caveat that any of the below are are not an answer.

1. Taking for science, rationality, or anything else by calling it, even obliquely, and "type" of philosophy. I want an answer that's pure philosophy and can't be defined as something else.

2. "Well philosophy is what asks the questions in the first place..."

 

[Belz...]

2. If this grinds your gears so much why don't you just...go away?

What a ******* stupid question. For the same reason we don't "go away" for UFOs or Bigfoot or Homeopathy or 9/11 conspiracy theories or Christianity. Because bad thinking and bad ideas must be challenged.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I would argue that yes, it is.

Okay. You could have actually answered the question in the same space it took you to go "Hmmm.... yes I could answer that question."

 

[Belz...]

Easily. For one example, anyone who attempts to invoke philosophy while ignoring scientific fact (all disclaimers about science and fact apply) then they are indulging in bad philosophy no matter how many degrees they hold nor how flowery their prose.

In other words, we should use science. So why do we need philosophy at all?

I would argue that yes, it is.

That's very nice, but could you support that claim?

 

[JoeMorgue]

And that's what I'm talking about when I say in modern usage "Philosophy" isn't anything but a persona. It's not a epistemology, it's not a discipline, it's not set of intellectual standards.

It's a character sheet. An affect of some "Wise Old Man on the Mountain."

When you're asked "Could you answer that" and you give some Mathematician Answer skit of "Hmmm... yes I could answer that" you are playing role in some play going on in your head, not having a serious discussion.

When I was in grade school and asked my teacher if I could go to the bathroom and she said "Oh I don't know. Can you? Hardy hard har" she was just "doing philosophy" I guess.

Again exactly what Jabba did for 5 years. Jabba was an absolute master philosopher by every definition.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

What a ******* stupid question. For the same reason we don't "go away" for UFOs or Bigfoot or Homeopathy or 9/11 conspiracy theories or Christianity. Because bad thinking and bad ideas must be challenged.

That's fair. I apologise for my ill conceived and thoughtless question.

ETA (again): To what you just added to your post Joe? Nonsense. Jabba was a self important fantasist who attempted to use the language of philosophy to bolster his personal vendetta against sceptics in general, and by the end JayUtah in particular and perpetuate his bunk musings based solely on his own personal wishes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba was a self important fantasist who attempted to use the language of philosophy to bolster his personal vendetta against sceptics in general, and by the end JayUtah in particular and perpetuate his bunk musings based solely on his own personal wishes.

Yes he was.

You keep tripping over the point but never quite catching it.

He was playing a role in his head. Exactly as you were with your inane "Yes I could that answer that question" response.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Yes he was.

You keep tripping over the point but never quite catching it.

He was playing a role in his head. Exactly as you were with your inane "Yes I could that answer that question" response.

But I expanded upon my response. You must have seen it by now.

Also I didn't say "Yes I could answer that question" but "Yes, I believe it is useful". There is a difference there, even if you are likely to state that it is a distinction without a difference.

I did want to expand upon my point but at the time was actually doing some work and to be honest probably should not have been commenting on this thread at all. That isn't an excuse, it is my own fault that I provided an incomplete answer to the question Belz... asked and I own that. It is an issue I find myself in far more often that I should and I would like to apologise to you both for putting out a response that didn't actually answer anything instead of waiting until I could write more fully.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But I expanded upon my response. You must have seen it by now.

Yes but you had to do your little skit first. Why?

Why is being allergic just answering a question so important to the Philosophy Fan club?

Again but like I said this is not a discipline, it's a persona.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Answered above. It was due to a specific time pressure, not posturing, but I can understand why it would come across as a "skit" and it is entirely on me.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But even stepping back from all this I'm not seeing a defense of philosophy here, I'm seeing a defense of the idea of philosophy, and philosophy never get clearly defined.

And when that happens there's always an ulterior motive.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Answered above. It was due to a specific time pressure, not posturing, but I can understand why it would come across as a "skit" and it is entirely on me.

Uh-huh sure. This is twice now you done the "Philosophy Skit Routine" and then apologized for it.

I get a very sneaking suspension that you're going to keep doing it and then apologizing for it instead.... ya know just not doing it.

Because when people choose "Philosopher" on their internal character selection screen, they become deathly allergic to just getting to a point and staying there.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I also see we've reached the point in every Defense of Philosophy discussion where people will dump paragraphs into the discussion telling me what philosophy isn't, but when I ask them yet again to meaningfully tell me what they think it is they suddenly look at their watch and remember they left the stove on and run out of them room.

 

[Thermal]

I don't think it's obvious, patently or not. Where's the baby in there? I mean, philosophy can be fun and interesting, but the question is: is it useful?

Of course it is. You have a political philosophy, philosophies of self-defense and personal conduct, etc.

Philosophy is 'working out the right way of thinking'. If you restrict it to 'but do I *really* have hands?' kind of questioning, then yeah, you will have little patience or use for it. Renaming it as 'science' when it works for you doesn't really change what it is.