• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My theoretical framework

I hear what y'all are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree, but the thing is, I find that I can do just fine by tossing the entire notion of philosophy right out the window.

The claim that "everyone must have a philosophy" is all well and good, and you can certainly define philosophy that way and have no problem.

But in my book, a word which means everything means nothing.

For me, all philosophy is dispensible, the very notion is dispensible. And the philosophy threads on this forum, and elsewhere, haven't yet given me good reason to change my mind.

So I do without and so far no snags. Things work or they don't. Ideas stack up to experience and evidence or they don't.

Now, you can slap a philosophical label on that if you like. But at the end of the day, we could refrain from manufacturing those labels and get on with things and be none the worse off.

What y'all might refer to as a necessary philosophical framework is the same actual thing to me, but without the label. And when all's said and done, if we can dispense with it, why not dispense with it?

There are some things which, if you ignore them, they do go away.

I think this little bit from the Pythons sums it up nicely.
 
Piggy said:
I hear what y'all are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree, but the thing is, I find that I can do just fine by tossing the entire notion of philosophy right out the window.

The claim that "everyone must have a philosophy" is all well and good, and you can certainly define philosophy that way and have no problem.

But in my book, a word which means everything means nothing.

For me, all philosophy is dispensible, the very notion is dispensible. And the philosophy threads on this forum, and elsewhere, haven't yet given me good reason to change my mind.

So I do without and so far no snags. Things work or they don't. Ideas stack up to experience and evidence or they don't.

Now, you can slap a philosophical label on that if you like. But at the end of the day, we could refrain from manufacturing those labels and get on with things and be none the worse off.

What y'all might refer to as a necessary philosophical framework is the same actual thing to me, but without the label. And when all's said and done, if we can dispense with it, why not dispense with it?

There are some things which, if you ignore them, they do go away.

I think this little bit from the Pythons sums it up nicely.
Click to expand...

ESTJ, man :p
 
Piggy said:
I think he is, too. This is another thing that bothers me about philosophy -- it induces speech impediments.
Click to expand...


I said what i meant, consciousness is the process of the brain, when people describe it as some seperate entity they are wrong. Might as well point to the picture on a TV screen and say it is conscious.

It can make a great behavioral label, but when people go on about consciousness as the pinnacle of creation or irreducible qualia, well, then I say things like consciousness is like calling a car fast.
 
Piggy said:
I hear what y'all are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree, but the thing is, I find that I can do just fine by tossing the entire notion of philosophy right out the window.

The claim that "everyone must have a philosophy" is all well and good, and you can certainly define philosophy that way and have no problem.

But in my book, a word which means everything means nothing.

For me, all philosophy is dispensible, the very notion is dispensible. And the philosophy threads on this forum, and elsewhere, haven't yet given me good reason to change my mind.

So I do without and so far no snags. Things work or they don't. Ideas stack up to experience and evidence or they don't.

Now, you can slap a philosophical label on that if you like. But at the end of the day, we could refrain from manufacturing those labels and get on with things and be none the worse off.

What y'all might refer to as a necessary philosophical framework is the same actual thing to me, but without the label. And when all's said and done, if we can dispense with it, why not dispense with it?

There are some things which, if you ignore them, they do go away.

I think this little bit from the Pythons sums it up nicely.
Click to expand...

Yep. But, I think, part of the reason you hold it in such contempt it because you are so damn good at it. Reasoning, that is, which is what most of us call Philosophy.

Now, individual philosophies -- so much farting in the wind.
 
Dancing David said:
I said what i meant, consciousness is the process of the brain, when people describe it as some seperate entity they are wrong. Might as well point to the picture on a TV screen and say it is conscious.

It can make a great behavioral label, but when people go on about consciousness as the pinnacle of creation or irreducible qualia, well, then I say things like consciousness is like calling a car fast.
Click to expand...

In some cases you did, in other cases you didn't.

What you're saying above is not the same thing you said earlier regarding consciousness, for example.

Saying that something ain't what people think it is is not the same thing as saying it ain't.

We agree on some points and disagree on others, but it took a while to cut thru the verbiage.

I'm reminded of Feynman, who used to tell his students to put the chalk down, turn their back to the board, and explain the significance of the proof in plain English.

A worthwhile exercise.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Yep. But, I think, part of the reason you hold it in such contempt it because you are so damn good at it. Reasoning, that is, which is what most of us call Philosophy.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... I hadn't thought of it that way.

It helps, of course, that you put it in terms that stroke my ego. :D

I tend to be hyper-rational, I know that. Maybe I just have a hard time seeing beyond what is obvious to me.
 
Well, being surrounded by a bunch of goons who don't really understand deconstruction and think it means something more than "If I approach this text with different assumptions I'll get a slightly different reading" would drive me crazy too. In fact it did in college. So, I think I have a good idea where you are coming from. Probably the only reason I'm willing to give it more of a chance is because I've been away from that type of academics longer than you.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Well, being surrounded by a bunch of goons who don't really understand deconstruction and think it means something more than "If I approach this text with different assumptions I'll get a slightly different reading" would drive me crazy too. In fact it did in college. So, I think I have a good idea where you are coming from. Probably the only reason I'm willing to give it more of a chance is because I've been away from that type of academics longer than you.
Click to expand...

So tell me, how long have you been sober?

"My name is Piggy, and I've been non-academic for 8 years."

;)
 
AkuManiMani said:
Its also equally true that if a scientist that is unable to step back and examine his basic conceptual foundations hes nothing more than a technician that follows the insights of others who can. Hes like the chimp that follows the rules of being a chimp without any deep understanding of those rules.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Understanding our underlying assumptions can help us to deal better with any kind of facts we find. Such assumptions are always implicit in our theoretical frameworks, and without philosophy, science would be lost.

Imagine, a set of tools in the hand of someone who is unable to even know what are they for.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Agreed. Understanding our underlying assumptions can help us to deal better with any kind of facts we find. Such assumptions are always implicit in our theoretical frameworks, and without philosophy, science would be lost.

Imagine, a set of tools in the hand of someone who is unable to even know what are they for.
Click to expand...

The scientist's toolkit:

Observe the phenomenon

Ask why it might be so.

Think of a way to test your idea why it might be so.

Test it.

Have other folks critique your test.

Test it again.

Have other folks test it again.

Write down what happened.

Ask if your results match your expectations.

Ask yourself if the results show that you were wrong, that you were right, or if you still don't know.

"Look, Ma! No philosophy!"
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Pure philosophy my friend, but you are simply either naive, or obtuse. Just how many assumptions you have there?

WAKE UP, stop the nonsense.
Click to expand...

It's the former, naive. Naivete is not always a bad thing. It often helps to cut thru the BS. Some of my best students were the ones capable of naive readings of texts (provided they also had done the reading, studied the background, used their dictionaries, etc.).

No assumptions are needed to see that this process works, once you try it.

One only needs assumptions if one is not very good at rejecting obviously flawed alternatives.
 
Piggy said:
The scientist's toolkit:

Observe the phenomenon

[Ask why it might be so.

Think of a way to test your idea why it might be so.

Test it.

Have other folks critique your test.

Test it again.

Have other folks test it again.

Write down what happened.

Ask if your results match your expectations.

Ask yourself if the results show that you were wrong, that you were right, or if you still don't know.

"Look, Ma! No philosophy!"
Click to expand...

I've bolded all the parts which are philosophical in nature, plenty there.
That fact that the philosophical debates around those points have had adequate (but not complete) answers provided for them for a long time, does not meed that philosophy is not necessary, and is really doesn't mean that philosophy is not involved.
 
brodski said:
I've bolded all the parts which are philosophical in nature, plenty there.
That fact that the philosophical debates around those points have had adequate (but not complete) answers provided for them for a long time, does not meed that philosophy is not necessary, and is really doesn't mean that philosophy is not involved.
Click to expand...

Well certainly if y'all want to call that philosophy, I'm not going to argue with you. It's your discipline, after all.

And certainly we can't trace the history of thought and ignore philosophy (or religion, for that matter).

So I got no problem there.

The thing is, much as some of y'all seem loathe to admit it, it is possible to follow practical common-sense, focus on results, do what works and what corresponds with what's known and observed, and get along just fine while completely ignoring any and all references to philosophy.

If y'all want to use that label, you'll get no argument from me.

I just prefer to go ahead and kick the ball.

And when one can, in fact, ignore the entire notion of philosophy and do just fine and get proper results and tell fact from fiction... it should give pause to those who would claim that philosophy is indispensible.
 
I think it comes down to this for me.

I find that philosophy is a game I do not need to play.

I can ignore it and be no worse off, not in any way hindered in anything I should choose to do or explore -- with the single exception of studying philosophy itself.

The same can not be said for science, law, and history, for example. If I am ignorant of these, I have real problems in my life, and obstacles in my way.

That, to me, is the difference.

If y'all say, well, there are philosophical underpinnings to all of those, far be it from me to say you're wrong, as far as you define philosophy.

Based on all this, tho, I'm left to conclude that philosphy is superfluous. And although it has been an activity of our species for ages, who's to say if it has been a help or a hindrance? Would we have eventually hit on the right path to, say, science without it? Probably so.
 
I dunno about that, Piggy. I think it's perfectly possible to live your life ignorant of science (and indeed, many people do). People don't need to know how or why the world works the way it does in order to live within it. I'm sure most people with satnavs in their cars don't understand the importance of the equations of general relativity that allow them to function, but the science is obviously still important.

That doesn't mean science is useless, or superfluous, in a more general sense, does it? I mean, there are plenty of scientific theories that have zero effect on my daily life (and I love science and am generally fairly well informed), but they're not "superfluous".

As brodski pointed out, the practical work of philosophy effects you and the world you live in as much as science does. The long traditions of philosophy of science, ethics, logic and the philosophy of law, and the work being done by philosophers in those same disciplines today, have direct influence on your life. It might not be overt, but it is no more superfluous than the science that invisibly allows your GPS to work, for example.
 
Piggy said:
...snip...

The thing is, much as some of y'all seem loathe to admit it, it is possible to follow practical common-sense, focus on results, do what works and what corresponds with what's known and observed, and get along just fine while completely ignoring any and all references to philosophy.


...snip...
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you do that the philosophers will whip out the label "pragmatist" quicker than you can say "I'd have gotten away with it as well if it wasn't for you pesky philosophers!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom