Why Is Philosophy Important?

[RandFan]

Dark Jaguar skillfully uses Wittgenstein's ideas to pare away at silly philosophical questions, an exercise that I think is a little better than "cute" or "interesting". I think I would call it important.

BTW, I'm not certain but I think sometimes Dark Jaguar simply rolls his eyes at me and moves on. If that is true I don't blame him. Some people think I'm too thick to get a point and perhaps I am sometimes. I appreciate those who are patient with me. I think I can say that my many posts here have actually led to some intellectual growth and maybe even some maturity and not simply been an opportunity to stroke my ego and engage in debate.

RandFAn

 

[D'rok]

I don't think one can honestly say that Lenin or even Marxist philsophy was proven wrong.

Perhaps, but what we can say is that attempts to prove Marxist philosophy right have been nothing short of disastrous. The human consequences of these socio-political experiments have been monstrous.

ETA: What I mean by this is that Marx was a determinist - i.e. economic determinism would inevitably result in communism through the impersonal dialectic of history. Attempts to transform his predictions into political reality are the real culprit, but they are really good indicators that Marxism should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps, but what we can say is that attempts to prove Marxist philosophy right have been nothing short of disastrous. The human consequences of these socio-political experiments have been monstrous.

Yes, and I'm not a communist appologist however I think there are some fair points to be made that these attempts have failed, in part, for reasons having nothing to do with communism. FWIW, I do think Communism as envisoned by Marx and Engels is fatally flawed.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

It's a perception thing. You are correct about the definition of table. I can only say that you are failing to see (in this case) the trees for the forest. Clearly you understand that there is both a micro and macro world and to you everything works fine so long as we keep the two separate and clearly define our terms. Tables are tables and atoms are atoms. If I understand you correctly (I beg your forgiveness if I'm wrong) your understanding of the world is purely academic. You see the world based on the rote education you received. That's fine. People don't need to be able to think outside of the box to function in our world. They just need to be able to understand our world as it is explained.

The problem is that much of what we have learned about the universe and our natural world was the result of people seeing beyond the forest. People who could think outside of the box. How many people give a damn about space/time? The vast majority of people clearly never gave it a second thought. The reason that they didn't is because we evolved in a macro world and our brains simply didn't need to deal with notions of the absolute speed of light and Relativity. It took someone like Einstein who was capable of thinking outside of the box to wonder about that. That is what I mean by blinders. Dawkins has a wonderful take on this. He uses the metaphor of a slit in a burka to represent our view of the world. As he says, the universe is not only queerer than we imagine it is queerer than we can imagine. If you have not yet read the God Delusion I highly recommend it. Dawkins gets it.

No, that is not my view. In fact, don't take this the wrong way, but I find the suggestion that that IS my view pretty insulting. Of COURSE I don't just want to learn rote lines from a text book. Of COURSE asking "what would it be like to ride on a beam of light?" and similar questions are eye openers. Asking "when does a table stop being a table?" opens no eyes at all though. I'm not really dividing "micro" from "macro". I'm just saying that a table is not defined by it's parts at an atomic level. It's just a definition of a WORD, a WORD, nothing more. Nothing can be learned by trying to force the word to mean something else and then saying there is a problem with that forced definition.

That was my take on the "falling tree" example also. How utterly ridiculous I thought.

The point isn't whether trees makes vibrations when they fall and no one is there. The point is "what is sound"? Again, your understanding of sound is based on your experience and rote learning of what sound is. You take it for granted that you are capable of both hearing sound and giving meaning to that which you perceive as sound. Sound is actually, by definition, that which we perceive. Without an eardrum to convert the vibrations to a signal and brain to process the signal and give meaning that signal then there really is no sound just vibrations moving through a medium. It's true that we have come to call and have even defined those vibrations as sound but that is not a precise definition. To be precise we should say "sound vibrations". Analog information that is capable of being processed and interpreted as sound. Now, you may say, ah but this is just semantics. No, it's not. It's a fundamental point. Human perception is a wonderful thing that makes it possible for us to derive meaning from simple vipration and not simply a que for us to act. That's what ants do. It's an important distinction that defines human cognition. On the other hand, human perception evolved in our macro world and we are often blind to that which is not macro. Pasteur was one such person who thought beyond the macro world.

Yes yes, I've thought of that answer too. Sorry I didn't elaborate on that. If your definition of sound is "something I can hear" then no it doesn't make a sound, end of story. If your definition is instead, as it is currently defined, completely independent as to whether or not someone hears it and is instead the scientific definition of sound waves (hence why we can speak of ultra and infra sound, which humans can never hear), then yes it does. It's that simple. This really does NOT have anything to do with micro and macro by the way, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. This is not thinking "outside the box", it really is semantics. Your point about how we are truly "aware" of the sensation doesn't seem to factor into the question at all. If you define the word one way, you get a different answer than if you define it another way, but you have to set up a proper definition first. It's basic algebra really. You can't answer the question of "what is x + 5?" until you define x, but (and this is important), the moment you do define it, the answer is pretty much set.

I was watching a show about China and how Mao had collectivized the farms and Deng Xiaoping had reversed Mao because the collectivization was a complete failure. As the narrator said, "in communist systems workers pretended to work and the state pretended to pay them." When Deng allowed the workers to keep their profits productions rose dramatically. They did so because the needs of the individual are important to the individual and the unencumbered individual is capable of so much more than the encumbered one.

Okay...

 

[D'rok]

I think there are some fair points to be made that these attempts have failed, in part, for reasons having nothing to do with communism.

I think that you're probably right about this, but this kind of thing can veer awfully close to a "no true scotsman" fallacy. You could use this argument to say that all incarnations of Marxism so far have not been "true" Marxism or "true" communism. While this may actually be accurate, it opens the door for more experimentation...let's try Marxism again, except this time we'll use the "true" Marxism!

Ultimately, the good thing about proving or disproving the determinists is that we don't have to do anything...all we have to do is sit back and let history do its thing.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Philosophers are important. They act like the conscience of groups of people they represent. They point out perceived philosophical problems in their area of expertise.

 

[CapelDodger]

The point about the table is to understand that a table isn't just a table.

At least a cigar is sometimes just a cigar.

It was a philosopher that first realized that a table wasn't simply a table but instead was composed of smaller units of matter.

Good for him. Really. The problem modern philosophers have is that all that sort of stuff has been long done, so they're left with navel-gazing.

I'm sorry, I think one of the biggest mistakes is to assume that scientific or philosophical inquiry must first have worth.

At least, since we're on such different tracks, we don't collide when I describe it as worthless.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I just thought I'd iron out that I'm aware that the mass of stuff that makes up a table is made up of that stuff. It really is inseparable from the thing I'm calling a table.

That has nothing to do with "when a table stops being a table" though. I think that something far more important to realize is the difference between the word "table" and the thing being called a "table"

 

[hammegk]

Now if you ever grasp that the word "table" in your example is just a metaphor for "reality, whatever that is" ...

 

[CapelDodger]

First off I'm not sure why what you find unenlightening has to do with anything.

It was a modifier, it explains why I'm asking so as not to leave a bare question. That always carries confrontational implications, subconsciously. I'm trying to be conversational. "What's he done for me lately?" was meant to be light-hearted but it's probably too old a catchphrase to work well nowadays.

As it relates to science I'm not sure why practical significance is important. Whatever "practical significance" is. Much of what science studies is without practical application. Since you are a fan of science, as I also am, then I must ask, when did science just become only a search for that which is practically significant?

As I mentioned in my opening statement, my problem is with modern philosophy, post-1900-ish, and that doesn't include science. Science, mathematics and linguistics (which I omitted previously) are among the fields which gained prior independence from Philosophy. Philosophers still quibble about it, but what practical effect does that have? Bugger-all, that's what.

That said there is practical significance. Just because it isn't of significance to you does not render it insignificant.

Forget about me ( as if anyone could), consider everyone. What practical significance does modern philosophy have to anyone?

 

[CapelDodger]

I just thought I'd iron out that I'm aware that the mass of stuff that makes up a table is made up of that stuff. It really is inseparable from the thing I'm calling a table.

That has nothing to do with "when a table stops being a table" though. I think that something far more important to realize is the difference between the word "table" and the thing being called a "table"

This post rather exemplifies Philosophy and its pernicious influence, IMO, for what that's worth. Not the text (though who could ignore such text? There are volumes of pap to be mulched from it) but the circumstances. I've no doubt it does a good job of whatever it's meant for, but you, Dark Jaguar, a rational being, found yourself engaged in such a life-sapping exercise. For reasons which you may, on reflection, find a bit vague. Philosophy is insidious. Cast it out!

 

[CapelDodger]

Philosophers are important. They act like the conscience of groups of people they represent. They point out perceived philosophical problems in their area of expertise.

Bollocks. They're only kept around for cheap meat when times get hard.

 

[l0rca]

Forget about me ( as if anyone could), consider everyone. What practical significance does modern philosophy have to anyone?

I think this is the most specific question to the problem Randy's trying to address, as am I.

We're not claiming philosophy has practical purposes. We're claiming it is the foundation for practical purposes. It's this foundation that is significant and important. It makes our ideas and pursuits justified.

People can be whimsical, and care only for superficial explanations, but that sort of mentality and lack of underlying principles and reasons creates a person without any real way to connect their ideas to reality. Progressions without philosophy is a headless pursuit, and without it, we have no compass to where we're heading.

 

[RandFan]

No, that is not my view. In fact, don't take this the wrong way, but I find the suggestion that that IS my view pretty insulting.

Which is why I asked your forgiveness. I'm not sure how to take it but that's fine. As long as you don't bear a grudge toward me then we are fine but I have to say I'm awfully confused.

Of COURSE I don't just want to learn rote lines from a text book. Of COURSE asking "what would it be like to ride on a beam of light?" and similar questions are eye openers. Asking "when does a table stop being a table?" opens no eyes at all though.

I have no idea why it doesn't. Can you accept that it does for other people?

I'm not really dividing "micro" from "macro". I'm just saying that a table is not defined by it's parts at an atomic level. It's just a definition of a WORD, a WORD, nothing more. Nothing can be learned by trying to force the word to mean something else and then saying there is a problem with that forced definition.

But that's NOT the point. We are not talking about the definition of a word we are talking about the existence of the table.

How did the early philosophers come to see that matter is composed of smaller stuff? How do we get people to think like the early philosophers? Do we simply teach them by rote the concepts? Is there a way we can get people to think beyond the macro world besides telling them that there is both a micro and a macro world or that there are sounds that are beyond our ability to hear or light that is beyond our abilitly to see.

Philosophy, is in part, to get people to think. To question held assumptions. To look at the world in a different way. Perhaps it won't work for you.

IT WORKED FOR ME.

Sorry. It seems that you see the world through your eyes and anything that you don't find valuable you feel must not have any value so you dismiss philosophy.

Yes yes, I've thought of that answer too. Sorry I didn't elaborate on that. If your definition of sound is "something I can hear" then no it doesn't make a sound, end of story. If your definition is instead, as it is currently defined, completely independent as to whether or not someone hears it and is instead the scientific definition of sound waves (hence why we can speak of ultra and infra sound, which humans can never hear), then yes it does. It's that simple.

Dawkins burka again only for sound and not light.

This really does NOT have anything to do with micro and macro by the way, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

?

I'm sorry if I mislead you. I was not trying to say that philosophy is simply an attempt to get people to understand the difference between the micro and macro. Hardly.

This is not thinking "outside the box", it really is semantics.

No. It's not just semantics at all.

Your point about how we are truly "aware" of the sensation doesn't seem to factor into the question at all. If you define the word one way, you get a different answer than if you define it another way, but you have to set up a proper definition first. It's basic algebra really. You can't answer the question of "what is x + 5?" until you define x, but (and this is important), the moment you do define it, the answer is pretty much set.

I'm sorry but I truly don't understand your point. I suspect you and I are not even talking on the same level. I'll concede that I lack the ability to convey my point to you. I appologize. I'll think about it and see if I can't find a better way to communicate the point.

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

I think that you're probably right about this, but this kind of thing can veer awfully close to a "no true scotsman" fallacy. You could use this argument to say that all incarnations of Marxism so far have not been "true" Marxism or "true" communism. While this may actually be accurate, it opens the door for more experimentation...let's try Marxism again, except this time we'll use the "true" Marxism!

Ultimately, the good thing about proving or disproving the determinists is that we don't have to do anything...all we have to do is sit back and let history do its thing.

Good post. Yes, but if a community chose to voluntarily experiment with Marxism I would be the first to say have at it. So long as all of the members did so voluntarily. This was tried in Israel BTW with different levels of success in the Kibbutzim.

I suspect that Communism will always fail because it is fatally flawed but that's just my opinion.

 

[RandFan]

At least a cigar is sometimes just a cigar.

Good for him. Really. The problem modern philosophers have is that all that sort of stuff has been long done, so they're left with navel-gazing.

At least, since we're on such different tracks, we don't collide when I describe it as worthless.

That's fine.

 

[RandFan]

It was a modifier, it explains why I'm asking so as not to leave a bare question. That always carries confrontational implications, subconsciously. I'm trying to be conversational. "What's he done for me lately?" was meant to be light-hearted but it's probably too old a catchphrase to work well nowadays.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, my problem is with modern philosophy, post-1900-ish, and that doesn't include science. Science, mathematics and linguistics (which I omitted previously) are among the fields which gained prior independence from Philosophy. Philosophers still quibble about it, but what practical effect does that have? Bugger-all, that's what.

I don't think this is the sole contribution of philosophers but that's fine. I understand your point. At least you do see the significant contributions of philsophers of the past and I think that is important.

Forget about me ( as if anyone could), consider everyone. What practical significance does modern philosophy have to anyone?

I think a hell of a lot. I've been reading Dennett and I find his insights into religion and the mind outstanding and I know that others like Pinker and Dennett agree (to some degree). My opinion is worthless but these guys seem to carry a bit more weight. I'll see if I can find some quotes from other notable scientists to bolster my contention. James Randi thought Dennett was worthy enough to invite to TAM. I realize that Randi might not be an appropriate authority but his opinion is worth a significant deal to me.

RandFan

 

[Mangafranga]

I'll note that I do not wish to challenge philosophy for philosophy sakes.

I am interested to know what effect philosophy has had on other disciplines. The clearest way I thought of to test this would be to see if any philosophy texts have made it into the reading lists of other disciplines. I don't recall any from my experience, although I successfully used Grice in a linguistics essay. It wouldn't surprise me to find some philosophy in the linguistics subjects if I actually looked and didn't rely on memory. So, anyone had experience of philosophy in non-philosophy subjects?

 

[Tricky]

The formal study of philosophy hasn't had any effect on my career in science. I've never taken a philosophy class. I don't know a single person in my company with a philosophy degree. Perhaps it has some bearing on a curriculum such as Political Science or World History, but those are two more fields with, to be kind, limited marketability.

Maybe it has some application in business or marketing/advertising. That seems like the best bet.

 

[l0rca]

I realize that Randi might not be an appropriate authority but his opinion is worth a significant deal to me.

Why?