Philosophy, the Maligned
If there is any field of study more maligned than philosophy, I do not know of it. Often derided as navel-gazing or nihilistic, it is dismissed as irrelevant before anything akin to a fair hearing. In fact, the open derision has become so prevalent, that is goes almost entirely unnoticed now.
Want an example? Check out how this forum presents religion and philosophy - as if they are the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. actually. Philosophy is inquiry; religion is the suppression of inquiry in favour of Truth. Religion is philosophy gone terribly, terribly astray. Bookstores do this too, completely oblivious to the grave, counterproductive injustice being done.
Unbounded Inquiry
Here's the "problem." Philosophy is unbounded inquiry.
This is terrifying to most, because it means that their precious sacred cows will be brought under the scope of inquiry as well, something most find intolerable - mainly because much of the time, those sacred cows don't bear up to even cursory, casual inspection. And, make no mistake, many of the, what I like to call, "new age skeptics" I have encountered are not immune to this. The open derision for philosophy expressed by many so-called skeptics represents precisely the same dogmatic fear as that laboured under by fanatics of all other stripes. Not my sacred cow! Not MY sacred cow, dammit!
Some "skeptics" would even go so far as to suggest, even attempt to require, that we limit the scope of skeptical inquiry! LOL - Not bloody likely!
I have likened deriding all philosophies as fluffy metaphysics to deriding all astronomy as fluffy astrology or all medicine as fluffy Chi-manipulation. Because, you know, all astronomers are really astrologers. All doctors are really homeopaths. There is nothing at all else in it. Does anyone hear the error when stated that way? Obviously, I do not think all doctors are homeopaths or that all astronomers are astologers and, of course, I do not think that all philosophers are fluffy navel-gazers. It doesn't take much to avoid making that error, but it takes more than most, it seems, can muster. Including some on these boards.
And then there are some (logical some, meaning at least one) who use the tools of inquiry for less than honest purposes - like an egotistical, catastrophic, irrational need to "win" "arguments" rather than learn anything. Not naming names...
This is where the scientific become, (shall we call it "scientistic?") dogmatic. At that point, science becomes religion, because it then becomes a self-affirmation machine. And that is just as dangerous as the madness that dragged humanity into the dark ages for all those centuries, and for precisely the same reason.
If we can take the writing of Sextus Empiricus to be accurate, Pyrrho (any skeptics ever hear of a guy named Pyrrho?) taught us about some of the barriers that make knowledge effectively impossible. Between the is-ought barrier and sense-inaccuracy issues, absolute knowledge is a fleeting illusion. This, really, is not as frightening as it seems. We can do perfectly well wthout the kind of absolute knowledge most seem to think we need. In fact, history suggests, we are whole orders of magnitude better off when we point and snicker and Knowledge and get on with the business of learning. Humanity did try it the other way for 13 hundred plus years and did nothing, but stagnate. Imagine where we'd be today, if only.... but I digress.
While some of the tropes are dated and some are seemingly mistaken (limitiations of the time in which they were developed), many still stand the test of time despite, concerted, focussed, determined, incredible, even fanatical efforts to disprove or negate them (usually by means of willful denial - I won't accept that and you can't make me, so nyah!)
A Student of Philosophy
Yes, I studied philosophy. Logic, epistemology and analytic ethics, actually. In my studies of philosophy, I learned two things:
(1) A healthy respect for philosophy as inquiry. That it is unbounded makes it no less valuable. In fact, that is what provides it with its power - incredible power, which, unfortunately, can be vigorously wielded dishonestly and disingenuously. Abuse of philosophy to attempt to attempt to establish Truths runs rampant. Searching for truth is not the same thing as propping up a Truth. Yes, young Padawan, there is a difference.
(2) A healthy disrespect for individual "philosophies." Philosophies are, to be as trite as humanly possible, a-dime-a-dozen. To think that one represents the Truth is the most profound of egotisms. Yes, I am referring to any given religion.
This is why I say philosophies are tools, not truths. A "philosophy" that thinks it's found Truth is the most profound of failures. The grey matter seizes up, shrivels and petrifies. All growth and progress is over. All that's left is the long wait for the body to die.
This is the source of one of the most shall we say "entertaining" ironies I have encountered in my life. Everyone hates philosophy, because it doesn't affirm what they want affirmed. They love the power of critique (most often equivocating critique with criticism, argument with bickering), but are careful to never apply it to their own sacred cows. Some even go so far as to openly declare some things not to be questioned. And there's where I, personally, must part company with Shermer. One can be skeptical of skepticism without falling into contradiction if one is not so ridiculous as to equate doubt with denial.
The religious, in particular, are especially amusing, in a catastrophically tragic sort of way. While they declare philosophy meaningless and derision-worthy, they actually live for the one True, particular philosophy. I have been told that philosophy is "stupid," to which I usually reply, "Then why are you a slave to a philosophy?" I'm not sure if the expression that follows if puzzlement, amusement, exasperation, or hatred. Maybe all of the above.
Unbounded Stupidity
Now, I have been gently chiding some skeptics in this little piece, but for the dogmatic types out there who may think that I am thereby supporting you, please do permit me to disabuse you of that misconception. Remember that part about wielding philosophical tools dishonestly and disingenuously? An interwoven web of nonsense is not a philosophy if all it does is self-affirm. Internal consistency (at least superficial internal consistency) is easily contrived. That is simply not enough to be honest philosophical work.
Remember that dime-a-dozen snippet? Anyone can create a web-work of self-affirming ideas. That is neither profound, nor particularly difficult. "Perfect concepts" (concepts stipulated so that they "explain" everything, including contradictions) are the same. Ideas not subject to any kind of external verification or refutation proliferate like maggots and are just as insidious. Here's a couple of "perfect concepts" that often escape unnoticed and are taken as given in the popular culture: God and Self-Interest (was at least one of these controversial - oh dear!)
Now why did I write this disclaimer? Once, long ago, I wrote a post on these forums about human efficacy. Someone promptly tried to claim my post in the name of religion, apparently completely missing the point. Perfect flyby. I figured appropriate precautions were necessary.
A lifetime of learning to you all....
..oh, and "Win Powerball!!!"
If there is any field of study more maligned than philosophy, I do not know of it. Often derided as navel-gazing or nihilistic, it is dismissed as irrelevant before anything akin to a fair hearing. In fact, the open derision has become so prevalent, that is goes almost entirely unnoticed now.
Want an example? Check out how this forum presents religion and philosophy - as if they are the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. actually. Philosophy is inquiry; religion is the suppression of inquiry in favour of Truth. Religion is philosophy gone terribly, terribly astray. Bookstores do this too, completely oblivious to the grave, counterproductive injustice being done.
Unbounded Inquiry
Here's the "problem." Philosophy is unbounded inquiry.
This is terrifying to most, because it means that their precious sacred cows will be brought under the scope of inquiry as well, something most find intolerable - mainly because much of the time, those sacred cows don't bear up to even cursory, casual inspection. And, make no mistake, many of the, what I like to call, "new age skeptics" I have encountered are not immune to this. The open derision for philosophy expressed by many so-called skeptics represents precisely the same dogmatic fear as that laboured under by fanatics of all other stripes. Not my sacred cow! Not MY sacred cow, dammit!
Some "skeptics" would even go so far as to suggest, even attempt to require, that we limit the scope of skeptical inquiry! LOL - Not bloody likely!
I have likened deriding all philosophies as fluffy metaphysics to deriding all astronomy as fluffy astrology or all medicine as fluffy Chi-manipulation. Because, you know, all astronomers are really astrologers. All doctors are really homeopaths. There is nothing at all else in it. Does anyone hear the error when stated that way? Obviously, I do not think all doctors are homeopaths or that all astronomers are astologers and, of course, I do not think that all philosophers are fluffy navel-gazers. It doesn't take much to avoid making that error, but it takes more than most, it seems, can muster. Including some on these boards.
And then there are some (logical some, meaning at least one) who use the tools of inquiry for less than honest purposes - like an egotistical, catastrophic, irrational need to "win" "arguments" rather than learn anything. Not naming names...
This is where the scientific become, (shall we call it "scientistic?") dogmatic. At that point, science becomes religion, because it then becomes a self-affirmation machine. And that is just as dangerous as the madness that dragged humanity into the dark ages for all those centuries, and for precisely the same reason.
If we can take the writing of Sextus Empiricus to be accurate, Pyrrho (any skeptics ever hear of a guy named Pyrrho?) taught us about some of the barriers that make knowledge effectively impossible. Between the is-ought barrier and sense-inaccuracy issues, absolute knowledge is a fleeting illusion. This, really, is not as frightening as it seems. We can do perfectly well wthout the kind of absolute knowledge most seem to think we need. In fact, history suggests, we are whole orders of magnitude better off when we point and snicker and Knowledge and get on with the business of learning. Humanity did try it the other way for 13 hundred plus years and did nothing, but stagnate. Imagine where we'd be today, if only.... but I digress.
While some of the tropes are dated and some are seemingly mistaken (limitiations of the time in which they were developed), many still stand the test of time despite, concerted, focussed, determined, incredible, even fanatical efforts to disprove or negate them (usually by means of willful denial - I won't accept that and you can't make me, so nyah!)
A Student of Philosophy
Yes, I studied philosophy. Logic, epistemology and analytic ethics, actually. In my studies of philosophy, I learned two things:
(1) A healthy respect for philosophy as inquiry. That it is unbounded makes it no less valuable. In fact, that is what provides it with its power - incredible power, which, unfortunately, can be vigorously wielded dishonestly and disingenuously. Abuse of philosophy to attempt to attempt to establish Truths runs rampant. Searching for truth is not the same thing as propping up a Truth. Yes, young Padawan, there is a difference.
(2) A healthy disrespect for individual "philosophies." Philosophies are, to be as trite as humanly possible, a-dime-a-dozen. To think that one represents the Truth is the most profound of egotisms. Yes, I am referring to any given religion.
This is why I say philosophies are tools, not truths. A "philosophy" that thinks it's found Truth is the most profound of failures. The grey matter seizes up, shrivels and petrifies. All growth and progress is over. All that's left is the long wait for the body to die.
This is the source of one of the most shall we say "entertaining" ironies I have encountered in my life. Everyone hates philosophy, because it doesn't affirm what they want affirmed. They love the power of critique (most often equivocating critique with criticism, argument with bickering), but are careful to never apply it to their own sacred cows. Some even go so far as to openly declare some things not to be questioned. And there's where I, personally, must part company with Shermer. One can be skeptical of skepticism without falling into contradiction if one is not so ridiculous as to equate doubt with denial.
The religious, in particular, are especially amusing, in a catastrophically tragic sort of way. While they declare philosophy meaningless and derision-worthy, they actually live for the one True, particular philosophy. I have been told that philosophy is "stupid," to which I usually reply, "Then why are you a slave to a philosophy?" I'm not sure if the expression that follows if puzzlement, amusement, exasperation, or hatred. Maybe all of the above.
Unbounded Stupidity
Now, I have been gently chiding some skeptics in this little piece, but for the dogmatic types out there who may think that I am thereby supporting you, please do permit me to disabuse you of that misconception. Remember that part about wielding philosophical tools dishonestly and disingenuously? An interwoven web of nonsense is not a philosophy if all it does is self-affirm. Internal consistency (at least superficial internal consistency) is easily contrived. That is simply not enough to be honest philosophical work.
Remember that dime-a-dozen snippet? Anyone can create a web-work of self-affirming ideas. That is neither profound, nor particularly difficult. "Perfect concepts" (concepts stipulated so that they "explain" everything, including contradictions) are the same. Ideas not subject to any kind of external verification or refutation proliferate like maggots and are just as insidious. Here's a couple of "perfect concepts" that often escape unnoticed and are taken as given in the popular culture: God and Self-Interest (was at least one of these controversial - oh dear!)
Now why did I write this disclaimer? Once, long ago, I wrote a post on these forums about human efficacy. Someone promptly tried to claim my post in the name of religion, apparently completely missing the point. Perfect flyby. I figured appropriate precautions were necessary.
A lifetime of learning to you all....
..oh, and "Win Powerball!!!"
