Does anything exist?

[Jimbo07]

What does that have to do with academic papers? For ****'s sake.

It's just that academic papers, teaching, tutoring, etc. are working philosophy. Arguments on the internet are not. However, from your last paragraph, I think I'm comfortable leaving this particular point behind (see bolded).

You're diluting your definitions to uselessness. Homeopathic philosophy, as it were. "Spurring reflection" is one of the vaguest things I've ever read.

I haven't put forward one definition. Some of them (the schools example) seem to be a bit vague, and include lists of "such as," to try to constrain it.

It's a request to demonstrate a claim that philosophy has utility beyond the entertainment value. Someone else's claim.

Disciplined thinking has value beyond entertainment. ETA: Disciplined thinking on things like ethics may help inform other disciplines like law and political studies.

No, it was a "no". I misread your reply originally.

Fair 'nuff.

If it has it as its core, then critical thinking doesn't stem from philosophy as you implied. So my comment on that stands.

That doesn't follow. Which came first, philosophy or critical thinking? When did hominids start having thoughts we would recognize? Disciplines have always splintered from other disciplines. So it goes. Critical thinking and philosophy don't necessarily exist independently of each other.

You said "Rather than checking a dictionary definition, go to something like the Harvard philosophy department homepage. ".

Philosophy as defined by non-dictionary sources like, say Wiki and such, talk about a more narrow list of topics philosophy is used for, but whenever that doesn't suit the philosophiles here, suddenly philosophy is any "good" type of thinking. That doesn't wash.

So, as I suspected, you're not arguing against working philosophy, you're arguing against some of the baloney that gets posted here. It's not to say that an actual philosopher couldn't write baloney, but I've seen baloney in multiple disciplines. What happens in these forums are mostly entertainment... at least, they are for me. However, a bit of learning can accompany being entertained. That's why I come back to these forums, specifically.

 

[Belz...]

It's just that academic papers, teaching, tutoring, etc. are working philosophy.

Ok let's work with that: how are they "working" philosophy?

Disciplined thinking has value beyond entertainment.

Yes, but the definition of philosophy isn't "discipline thinking".

That doesn't follow.

Of course it follows. It's axiomatic. So it's not philosophical.

So, as I suspected, you're not arguing against working philosophy, you're arguing against some of the baloney that gets posted here.

Right. But so far no working philosophy has been posted here. Every thread on this topic ends up the same.

 

[Jimbo07]

Ok let's work with that: how are they "working" philosophy?

Oh. We're talking at cross-purposes. I don't mean they work in that they're a machine which delivers a pre-determined output. I mean the day-to-day work that is done. Publishing a paper is work. Teaching is work. I'm not sure that there are many publishing or teaching professors or even tutoring grad students here.

Yes, but the definition of philosophy isn't "discipline thinking".

No. But they're intrinsically linked. It's one way of thinking about it, I suppose, though. I'd suggest renaming departments to Department of Generalist Disciplined Academic Thinking .

Of course it follows. It's axiomatic. So it's not philosophical.

It's not necessarily axiomatic. At the very least, it's an axiom that would have to stand up to scrutiny. Checking axioms would certainly be philosophical.

Right. But so far no working philosophy has been posted here. Every thread on this topic ends up the same.

You mean, no philosophy that spits out a better working description of physical reality than the natural sciences? Yes, but then, those working in it would not accept it as such, either. See that? Two definitions of working. You're using it in the sense of producing a functional model. I'm using it in the sense of the everyday drudgery of typing at a computer, getting chalk on one's fingers, having coffee... those sorts of things.

 

[Belz...]

I don't mean they work in that they're a machine which delivers a pre-determined output.

It's not everyday that I see someone strawman himself multiple times. No one thought you meant that, Jim. So you can stop making this ridiculous point.

Publishing a paper is work. Teaching is work. I'm not sure that there are many publishing or teaching professors or even tutoring grad students here.

That's worth nothing to me. I can teach Star Wars but it doesn't mean Star Wars has real-world utility.

No. But they're intrinsically linked.

Sure, but critical thinking doesn't stem from philosophy. Since you agree with that, my point stands.

You mean, no philosophy that spits out a better working description of physical reality than the natural sciences?

Maybe if you went with what I actually write rather than trying to discern a hidden meaning, our conversation would be easier.

No, I mean exactly what I wrote: so far people in these threads have not demonstrated its utility.

You're using it in sense of producing a functional model.

I never said anything of the sort. Stop strawmanning the discussion.

 

[Jimbo07]

It's not everyday that I see someone strawman himself multiple times. No one thought you meant that, Jim. So you can stop making this ridiculous point.

Now I literally don't understand. In my very next sentences, I laid out exactly what I meant when I'm referring to "working." I even said that I'm willing to leave this point behind, but in the very next post, you asked.

Ok let's work with that: how are they "working" philosophy?

So, I answered very directly what I meant by "working." I don't see much room for misinterpretation. "Publishing a paper is work," can't be that controversial, can it?

That's worth nothing to me. I can teach Star Wars but it doesn't mean Star Wars has real-world utility.

Ok. YMMV, I guess.

Sure, but critical thinking doesn't stem from philosophy.

I don't know, myself. However, I suspect that this may be factually incorrect:

The intellectual roots of critical thinking are as ancient as its etymology, traceable, ultimately, to the teaching practice and vision of Socrates 2,500 years ago

Since you agree with that, my point stands.

Maybe not. See above. It sure seems intimately related to philosophy, if not strictly cause-and-effect.

Maybe if you went with what I actually write rather than trying to discern a hidden meaning, our conversation would be easier.

I keep quoting you directly. I'm not looking for the hidden meaning, I'm just trying to understand the meaning.

No, I mean exactly what I wrote: so far people in these threads have not demonstrated its utility.

So... the point is... people post stupid stuff here?

I've offered my defence of philosophy, again:
- The value of philosophy is contained within its practice, not in a predetermined outcome

I never said anything of the sort. Stop strawmanning the discussion.

...and I accused you earlier of constructing a strawman. Maybe we should both just stop accusing each other of such?

 

[Belz...]

Now I literally don't understand. In my very next sentences, I laid out exactly what I meant when I'm referring to "working." I even said that I'm willing to leave this point behind, but in the very next post, you asked.

That's not what I was responding to. It's your repeated references to a machine-like production of immediate results.

Ok. YMMV, I guess.

Not really, no. The point is that you can discuss things with people without that thing having any utility. It's called entertainment.

The intellectual roots of critical thinking are as ancient as its etymology, traceable, ultimately, to the teaching practice and vision of Socrates 2,500 years ago

It seems you can't decide whether critical thinking is a product of philosophy or whether it's a necessary condition to it.

I've offered my defence of philosophy, again:
- The value of philosophy is contained within its practice, not in a predetermined outcome

That's like saying that the roadtrip is the fun part, not the destination. But that's still entertainment.

 

[theprestige]

No, I mean exactly what I wrote: so far people in these threads have not demonstrated its utility.

Fret no more! I have demonstrated the utility of philosophy in the latter part of this post.

You're welcome.

 

[theprestige]

The point is that you can discuss things with people without that thing having any utility. It's called entertainment.

Entertainment has utility though.

 

[Thermal]

Fret no more! I have demonstrated the utility of philosophy in the latter part of this post.

You're welcome.

That's where I was going with asking if they acknowledged having a personal political philosophy or philosophy of self defense. Most acknowledge them, and the rubber hits the road real fast.

 

[Belz...]

Entertainment has utility though.

Only if you broaden the definition of "utility" to homeopathic concentrations, but then that's par for the course here.

 

[Belz...]

Fret no more! I have demonstrated the utility of philosophy in the latter part of this post.

You're welcome.

That's actually not a bad answer, as it not only has some utility but also fits within the narrower definition of philosophy.

 

[Jimbo07]

It seems you can't decide whether critical thinking is a product of philosophy or whether it's a necessary condition to it.

You're right. I can't. I don't know if that's due to a gap in my knowledge, or not. It feels like a chicken-and-egg question. It's almost like there's a past definition of philosophy, which encompasses every human intellectual pursuit, and a more modern one which defers to other disciplines for other things.

That's like saying that the roadtrip is the fun part, not the destination. But that's still entertainment.

You saying "that's still entertainment," seems pejorative. It's like you're spoiling for a fight. Intellectual exercise (and philosophy - does one beget the other? Is one contained as a subset of the other?) cannot be constrained to mere entertainment.

I mean, even in your roadtrip example, there are benefits beyond "entertainment." What about the bonds you form with the others? What about new ideas and places you may be exposed to? Even the entertainment value can relieve (or produce) stress!

 

[Belz...]

You saying "that's still entertainment," seems pejorative.

That's your addition. There's nothing pejorative about it. In fact given how much time I spend on entertainment that'd be quite hypocriticla of me. But entertainment, while it can have value -- anything can -- doesn't have utility. Pretty much by definition.

 

[Jimbo07]

That's your addition. There's nothing pejorative about it. In fact given how much time I spend on entertainment that'd be quite hypocriticla of me. But entertainment, while it can have value -- anything can -- doesn't have utility. Pretty much by definition.

Oi!

We're down to: value does not equal utility?

theprestige has given an example. Pretty much any question of rights or ethics falls squarely into the realm of philosophy. Another:

There is inherent value (utility?) in considering to what extent one's individual economic freedoms intersect with one's responsibility to society in the midst of, say, a pandemic. Beyond getting drunk one night and ranting about the government, it may be of some benefit to the rest us for academics to take a much more disciplined look at the conflicting factors.

 

[theprestige]

Only if you broaden the definition of "utility" to homeopathic concentrations, but then that's par for the course here.

I'm pretty sure a certain amount of entertainment is necessary for humans to thrive. All work and no play, etc.

 

[Jimbo07]

I'm pretty sure a certain amount of entertainment is necessary for humans to thrive. All work and no play, etc.

Tangibly! Stress kills.

 

[theprestige]

That's actually not a bad answer, as it not only has some utility but also fits within the narrower definition of philosophy.

Of course it's not a bad answer. It's a ******* perfect answer. It's an obvious answer, and honestly I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it sooner. I'm also looking around at all of you and wondering how far we've had our collective head up our collective ass about philosophy, that none of us thought of it sooner.

As Jimbo07 says, any question of rights or ethics is a philosophical question. Thus any debate about public policy is ultimately a practical application of philosophy. You want to abolish slavery? You're doing philosophy. You're pro-abortion? You're doing philosophy. You're deciding how the law should distinguish between murder and other kinds of killing? You're doing philosophy. You're making a case for peaceful protests? Philosophy. You're making a case for a progressive tax? Philosophy. You're deciding whether to tip your deliverator, and how much? Philosophy. We do practical applications of philosophy all day, every day.

Even JoeMorgue's curmudgeonly schtick of actively and gratuitously refusing to engage is a practical application of philosophy. At least, I assume it serves some practical purpose for him. Entertainment, probably.

The only reason I can think of, why none of us noticed any of this sooner, is that it's hard to realize you're wet, when swimming in water is all you've ever known.

 

[theprestige]

Heh, even Belz's demand for evidence of utility is ultimately a philosophical demand. He can't even argue against the utility of philosophy without doing philosophy. I wonder which is the better option, at this point? To conclude that his argument is useless? Or to conclude that philosophy is useful?

 

[Belz...]

We're down to: value does not equal utility?

That sounds obvious to me. My Funko Pop figures have value to me, as in they are fun and cute. But they have no utility. I can't hammer nails, or learn anything, or perform any sort of useful work with them. "Value" is a broad term of what you like or find important. "Utility" is a narrower term.

theprestige has given an example. Pretty much any question of rights or ethics falls squarely into the realm of philosophy.

Yeah, but then that's the definition of philosophy that _I_ was supporting, so it's no surprise that I find it to be a good example.

 

[theprestige]

That sounds obvious to me. My Funko Pop figures have value to me, as in they are fun and cute. But they have no utility. I can't hammer nails, or learn anything, or perform any sort of useful work with them. "Value" is a broad term of what you like or find important. "Utility" is a narrower term.

I think you're making it too narrow to have any utility. For example, you dismiss the useful work that entertainment does in helping humans to thrive.