Is philosophy always like this?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian's thread on the Newcomb problem has me wondering: Is philosophy always like that? Does it just swirl around in a muddy vortex of wordplay, with participants commenting on each other's papers with no hope of making any real progress? Has it been like this for thousands of years? Are we heading toward a final theory, where suddenly everyone will agree on the difficult questions? Or is it really what it seems: a giant masturbatory exercise in poorly-defined futility?

Just wondering.

~~ Paul

 

[The idea]

Does it just swirl around in a muddy vortex of wordplay, with participants commenting on each other's papers with no hope of making any real progress?

Yes, that is typical. Keep in mind that determinism is a philosophical position and you might be cautious about making a committment to it!

 

[Suddenly]

Ian's thread on the Newcomb problem has me wondering: Is philosophy always like that? Does it just swirl around in a muddy vortex of wordplay, with participants commenting on each other's papers with no hope of making any real progress? Has it been like this for thousands of years? Are we heading toward a final theory, where suddenly everyone will agree on the difficult questions? Or is it really what it seems: a giant masturbatory exercise in poorly-defined futility?

Just wondering.

~~ Paul

Only when done poorly and repeatedly by those who will never admit they are wrong about anything. Philosophy allows some serious escape hatches that allows one to salvage poorly thought out positions. So, people being what they are, much philosophy does degrade rather quickly into word games and rhetorical nonsense.

However, there are interesting questions and arguments in philosophy that point to larger truths. At least it seemed that way back in college when I was usually half-lit and getting a degree in the stuff.

Problems like the one in Ian's post never prove anything, rather they just illustrate problems with certain ways of looking at things, a means to illustrate concepts. When they are mislabeled as proof the degeneration begins, as that position will be defended just as any position can be defended through word games and other rhetorical tricks.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I agree with that. I think that philosophical debate is the journey, not the destination, if I may be so cheesily cliche. The purpose is to get you to think about why you think what you think, and not necessarily about the topic itself. Some people miss this, and just simply cling to what they think, forgetting why. They are called 'conservatives'.

Kidding!

College and other higher learning centers are supposed to get you to think critically, but of course there are those who use them to get a degree in mass communication, the second most useless degree there is after English.

In my experience, the best thinkers question everything reflexively, including themselves. (Why did I say that? Do I really support the premise behind it? ....Yes, I believe I do.)

They are also patient, witty, sarcastic and cynical, and like horrible puns.

 

[El Greco]

I don't think I have seen many philosophers changing their opinion on an abstract matter or idea after a debate. They may change excruciatingly slowly after they encounter the works of an unknown to them (and preferably dead) philosopher. The more they read, the less likely they adopt new positions.

Or is it really what it seems: a giant masturbatory exercise in poorly-defined futility?

I wouldn't describe philosophy per se with these words since everyone has his personal philosophy, thought and shaped in different degrees. But if we are talking about philosophical talk and debates, then I would say your description is felicitous. Just pick any thread in the philosophy and religion section where people are trying to convince other people for 3000 or so posts and near the end of the thread both groups retain their original opinions. "Masturbatory" is a good word to describe this. Then, they will start another thread with the same subject and stances as unbudgeable as ever.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Suddenly :

Only when done poorly and repeatedly by those who will never admit they are wrong about anything.

Yep. There is very little philosophy on this site. Instead, lots of people won't get past the very first stages of the debate because they are not willing to admit they are wrong about anything. This goes for both sides of many of the 'debates'.

The problem is that if you are too pyschologically attached to your current position, whatever it is, then anything which challenges it looks like a threat instead of an opportunity to make progress. What happens at this site is less like philosophy and more like trench warfare.

 

[Yahweh]

Ian's thread on the Newcomb problem has me wondering: Is philosophy always like that? Does it just swirl around in a muddy vortex of wordplay, with participants commenting on each other's papers with no hope of making any real progress?

Only for those who suck (<--- Best adjective ever!) at it...

 

[Correa Neto]

My problem with some philosophy texts is that they waste pages to express what could be said with a few sentences.

"Masturbatory" is indeed a term I once use to describe the writing style of some of these texts, after some beers while at a pub talk. I´ve been told that due to my "obtuse technical and scientific background", I am just used to "arid, barren, utilitarian language".

 

[toad]

I must confess to having only recently dropped in here but I have to wonder. For me the question is always "why". Why this, that and everything. Isn't that really the point of all of what we do with philosophy, science, and even the questionable psychology? Why? Why everything? That's what I want to know. And no, it's not necessarily about the "true" (if you can imagine that) answer. It is about the questioning. Well, for me that's the reasoning anyway. But I've been known to be insane.

 

[BillyJoe]

For me it's to try to understand points of view different from my own. But usually the language they use is so confused that I can never figure out where they have gone wrong. I suppose my views could change one day but it is unlikely because none of them are actually wrong and it would be silly to go downhill from my position on top of the mountain.

 

[whitefork]

Re: Re: Is philosophy always like this?

Only for those who suck (<--- Best adjective ever!) at it...

Verb, actually.

Geoff is correct. There are few formal arguments presented here, and the argument is one of the main tools of the game, if not the only one. I'd go further and say that many of us do not respond to argument with counter argument or example with counterexample, but too frequently resort to rhetoric or wordplay.

When both sides agree to play by the same rules, you have grounds for evaluating the quality of the debate. This place is not the Academy. It might not even be the agora. There's too much background noise. Eliminate that, and you may have something resembling a dialogue. Read the Gorgias or Protagoras and give it the same attention you would to something by a physicist writing for the educated public.

At least you'll know some of the standards by which these things are judged. Then you can reject them.

 

[Gregor]

After reading "The History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell, I concluded that philosophy's role died in about 1260.

From 500 BCE on philosophy appeared to have two tracts (i) describing the natural world and (ii) describing transcendental topics. On the first tract, philosophy was the foundations for science, but philosophy slowly stopped describing the natural world when science took over (1260 - Roger Bacon lobbies for science).

As to the second tract, since the same "why" questions have been asked for 2,500 years with no satisfactory answers, I question the point of a debate on "free will."

 

[Soapy Sam]

Paul- Yes.

Dorian-"They are also patient, witty, sarcastic and cynical, and like horrible puns." Give an example of ways in which philosophers are like horrible puns. Make the example self referential. Try to get Godel in it. Discuss.

 

[whitefork]

Maybe we can take an operative approach and say that philosophy deals with questions of a certain nature that have not yet been resolved. Newton and Descartes called themselves philosophers, as did Russell and Whitehead. Was Godel a philosopher, logician, mathematician, or a bit of each?

Once the question has been answered (formal undecidability, or universal gravitation, for example), it ceases to be philosophical and instead becomes physical or mathematical. But Godel is still shelved with the philosophers, isn't he?

 

[metacristi]

geoff

The problem is that if you are too pyschologically attached to your current position, whatever it is, then anything which challenges it looks like a threat instead of an opportunity to make progress. What happens at this site is less like philosophy and more like trench warfare.

I fully agree with you...However not the 'trench war' in itself is the real problem since there is a higher authority even in philosophy: logic and the logic of discourse...We must never forget that the main goal of philosophy is not to give exhaustive answers,this is the task of science,but to find out what are we entitled to consider plausible (of course taking in account also scientific knowledge):'one cannot become a philosopher without some previous knowledge but neither sure knowledge transform someone in a philosopher' said Kant (paraphrased) once.Adding here the fact that antagonist approaches are one of the motors of progress in generaI I find the 'fights' of philosophers necessary.After all words do not kill.It is even possible a place for such antagonistic approaches under the umbrella of logic.This is what philosophers seek.If the rules imposed by the logic and the logic of discourse are respected there is nothing wrong with such fights.But only if they are respected...

 

[calladus]

I´ve been told that due to my "obtuse technical and scientific background", I am just used to "arid, barren, utilitarian language".

Dang, and I thought it was just me!

I have this serious problem with philosophy in that the terms that I am used to using daily, in concrete and meaningful ways, are redefined to mean something else!! And then they are used in further ways that are more confusing.

I understand logical fallacies, I can construct an argument that follows Boolean Logic, but I propose that what trained philosophers speak is nothing more than hogwash, with a few gems thrown in for when you get bored.

Still, I made an 'A' in my philosophy class. But maybe this proves my point, 'cause I'm not really sure my own work made any sense!

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ian's thread on the Newcomb problem has me wondering: Is philosophy always like that? Does it just swirl around in a muddy vortex of wordplay, with participants commenting on each other's papers with no hope of making any real progress? Has it been like this for thousands of years? Are we heading toward a final theory, where suddenly everyone will agree on the difficult questions? Or is it really what it seems: a giant masturbatory exercise in poorly-defined futility?

Just wondering.

~~ Paul

It sounds like you're blaming language more than philosophy.

Keep in mind that science, etc., and other things you cherish all have some philosophical base.

In my mind, sometimes talking about things is more important than finding answers. You know, quality and not quantity, or the quest itself and not the destination, or the quest is the destination... or something.

 

[c4ts]

There is very little philosophy in this particular forum, most of it being interpreted as support for some sort of religious argument, which doesn't work very well once you get to the argument. There have been a few discussions of free will that bordered on the profound, but those were in the days of Franko, and he hijacked them mercilessly. What I see is that little can be gained intellectually from the perspective that philosophy asks questions that have no answers, because if you truly believe there are no answers, then you will have no questions, so you learn nothing. It is better to ask your own questions, and seek the truth yourself as the philosophers have done. You may not find what you are looking for, but at least you won't be living in a box.

 

[Dorian Gray]

-"They are also patient, witty, sarcastic and cynical, and like horrible puns." Give an example of ways in which philosophers are like horrible puns. Make the example self referential. Try to get Godel in it. Discuss

OOPS, I meant to write "..... , and they like horrible puns".

But since you asked, I will take a crack at answering your request:

Being a philosopher, I am like a horrible pun in that usually only a few people will understand or get me, and even after understanding, they may groan upon hearing me. If this doesn't fulfill your request, Godel life.

 

[Andonyx]

My problem with some philosophy texts is that they waste pages to express what could be said with a few sentences.

"Masturbatory" is indeed a term I once use to describe the writing style of some of these texts, after some beers while at a pub talk. I´ve been told that due to my "obtuse technical and scientific background", I am just used to "arid, barren, utilitarian language".

Yes and no.

I agree wholeheartedly that someone just starting to explore the historical philosophers has to wade through quite a bit of unecessary effluvium.

To give an example, wether you agree or not with his conclusions, Nietzsche has a huge impact on Western philosophy. But those who agree unmitigated with his philosophies suffer what I call "first year philosophy student syndrome." These are the people who haven't gotten to the part yet that mentions that most of his well known works were dictated to his sub-par intelligence sister, and recorded poorly while he was rambling incoherently in later stages of syphillis. There are actually a lot of very provocative ideas hidden in the midst of his madness but it takes a really stalwart scholar to sift through it.

Or you can do what I did and read the annotated and translated versions of his work in a halfway decent western philosophy survey text. Because reading Nietzsche unfiltered....surely that is the way to madness.

But it doesn't matter if it's Socrates, Kierkegaard, or Lacan, you have to differentiate between the angry reactionary thought that was a product of the politics of the era, and the timeless observations of the nature of human experience to take away something valuable.

In a way it's just like popular art; you have to suffer (and give grants to....yes I support the NEA) a thousand boneheads, but it's worth it for the one truly talented person who's able to make you say, "Yeah! I get it now!"