Pet peeves about philosophy

[Myriad]

Past Myriad on what philosophy is useful for.

The relation between philosophy and culture is similar to that between science and technology. Almost no one needs to do science to live their lives today; you can be, and the vast majority of people are, passive consumers of technology instead.

You can... [likewise] be a passive consumer of the culture (or subculture) you find yourself in....

If, however, you want to criticize or change culture, and want to do so on some basis other than your own arbitrary opinion, you have to practice philosophy. That doesn't necessarily mean originating new philosophical principles; applying an informed preference for some previously established philosophical system, based on knowledge of that system and the available alternatives and what cultures those systems have influenced, will suffice.

 

[ahhell]

I think therefor I am. Don't buy it, never made sense to me. Why can't thinking be an illusion?

 

[arthwollipot]

I think therefor I am. Don't buy it, never made sense to me. Why can't thinking be an illusion?

The subjectiveness of thinking is the only thing you can be really sure exists.

 

[EHocking]

I think therefor I am. Don't buy it, never made sense to me. Why can't thinking be an illusion?

Perhaps it is you that is the illusion?

Well, that’s what I think, anyway.

 

[theprestige]

I think therefor I am. Don't buy it, never made sense to me. Why can't thinking be an illusion?

The nature of your existence is subordinate to the fact of your existence. An illusion that exists satisfies the statement.

 

[arthwollipot]

Perhaps it is you that is the illusion?

You might be an illusion. I cannot be.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

When I first encountered this school of philosophy, I didn't know what to make of it. At first I thought that maybe these people were just much smarter than me in the way that people who know how to write papers about quantum mechanics or string theory or cutting edge mathematics are much smarter than me. Later on I came to a different conclusion: writing in a way that is difficult for others to understand isn't necessarily a sign of intelligence. Maybe they don't want you to understand; it's enough for them if you merely end up thinking that they are smarter than you. It's enough for them if they get to be a tenured professor at a prestigious university with all of the social status that goes along with that.

Postmodernism is even dumber than what theprestige said. Even the name comes from the original assumption that you can divide the culture in pre-modern, modern, and post-modern based on access to literature and its influence on culture. Where post-modern times basically are dominated by tropes and comparing stuff to some novel. Kinda like when someone argues based on thinking he's in the Matrix movies. And basing further works on that, like when Lucas based SW on Kurosawa movies. Basically what we'd call model collapse or the Habsburg problem for AI, except applied to culture.

Which is hilariously stupid for anyone with any knowledge of history or anthropology. Humans always did that. There are no demarcation lines. In fact even the most primitive tribes base their model of the world on stories they were told around a camp fire. Or if we massively skip forward, that's how ancient and classical era myth-making worked: you'd take someone else's story and put a spin on it. Even the story structure in the classical era was based on Homer, which was actually taught in schools. Even the gospels follow that structure.

So basically, yeah, you're right, it's what happens when some people try to sound profound by spewing nonsense.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Everybody thinking the trolley problem is interesting.

I would say it could be, if one were to put actual serious thought into it and all the ramifications. Unfortunately, everyone, including neuroscientists like Sam Harris seem to go about in the most oversimplified way imaginable. You have omniscience (you somehow just know that the driver is dead or the brakes failed), you are somehow qualified to know it won't derail the tram and cause even more problems (as actually happened recently when a trainspotter flipped pulled the lever for content,) in one version you know that one fat guy can actually stop a 10 ton powered vehicle, you know that no other tram is coming on the other line or the isn't under construction 1km down the line, etc.

And more importantly it ignores even the utilitarianism it's supposed to be based on. E.g., whether it would cause even more unhappiness society wide if any random person could literally throw anyone else under the bus, just like that. What if the next guy who does that has less omniscience, or picks based on who he likes less? So it's a bit like asking one how the double slit experiment works, but they have to ignore quantum mechanics.

So yeah, it could be an interesting thing to study. It could, but it's just used as an exercise to sound smart.

 

[theprestige]

I would say it could be, if one were to put actual serious thought into it and all the ramifications. Unfortunately, everyone, including neuroscientists like Sam Harris seem to go about in the most oversimplified way imaginable. You have omniscience (you somehow just know that the driver is dead or the brakes failed), you are somehow qualified to know it won't derail the tram and cause even more problems (as actually happened recently when a trainspotter flipped pulled the lever for content,) in one version you know that one fat guy can actually stop a 10 ton powered vehicle, you know that no other tram is coming on the other line or the isn't under construction 1km down the line, etc.

And more importantly it ignores even the utilitarianism it's supposed to be based on. E.g., whether it would cause even more unhappiness society wide if any random person could literally throw anyone else under the bus, just like that. What if the next guy who does that has less omniscience, or picks based on who he likes less? So it's a bit like asking one how the double slit experiment works, but they have to ignore quantum mechanics.

So yeah, it could be an interesting thing to study. It could, but it's just used as an exercise to sound smart.

What I keep coming back to is that we've solved the ethical dilemma of the trolley problem. It turns out that in the real world, when push comes to shove, it all depends on what you're trying to do, how you're going about it, and who's in the way.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

What I keep coming back to is that we've solved the ethical dilemma of the trolley problem. It turns out that in the real world, when push comes to shove, it all depends on what you're trying to do, how you're going about it, and who's in the way.

Among other things, yes.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What we learned from any philosophical dilemma is: it's never just the presented options
-and-
the trick is to anticipate the possibility of a difficult situation and set up ways to deal with it effectively.

And if it is only for British Navy setting up rules on how to proceed when cannibalism becomes necessary so that some will survive.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Pretty much.

 

[acbytesla]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Practical questions of applicable morality in society are interesting, for obvious reasons. The toy problem that philosophers like to noodle on is not. Every practical problem of moral trade-offs in society can be contemplated and solved for some arbitrary moral guideline, without ever invoking or even knowing about the trolley problem. But here you are.

In fact, most toy problems that philosophers like to noodle on are far less interesting than philosophers would have you believe.

I don't disagree with you. But I do think there is a good point that pretty much everyone misses.

That is, sometimes there isn't a good answer or that one answer is necessarily better than others.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The goal needs to be to amplify the effects from good ideas and mitigate the harm bad ones can do.
Seeking the perfect answer/solution is, at best, paralyzing; more often, it leads to bad ideas that look good at first glance.

Because we don't know all the consequences we should aim for reversibility in all our actions.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Postmodernism is even dumber than what theprestige said. Even the name comes from the original assumption that you can divide the culture in pre-modern, modern, and post-modern... Which is hilariously stupid for anyone with any knowledge of history or anthropology. Humans always did that. There are no demarcation lines.

This is hilariously wrong. Of course can we can divide it, and there are demarcation lines. We should know, we put them there. A large part of science - possibly the largest part by far - is laying down demarcation lines.

Postmodernism

Postmodernism encompasses a variety of artistic, cultural, and philosophical movements. It emerged in the mid-20th century as a skeptical response to modernism, emphasizing the instability of meaning, rejection of universal truths, and critique of grand narratives. While its definition varies across disciplines, it commonly involves skepticism toward established norms, blending of styles, and attention to the socially constructed nature of knowledge and reality.

No, Humans didn't always do it. Postmodernism couldn't exist with modernism before it. Modernism and post-modernism are tied to their respective time periods by the cultures of their times, which are not a mere repeat of what humans 'always' did.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You can put demarcation lines everywhere you wish. I could put a demarcation line down the middle of the balcony and say that one is the "old" part and one is the "new side". Even if both were built at the same time. It doesn't mean it's factual or meaningful to anyone else just because someone put that demarcation line

 

[Roger Ramjets]

You can put demarcation lines everywhere you wish.

Certainly. But the line wouldn't be valid unless there was something to mark.

I could put a demarcation line down the middle of the balcony and say that one is the "old" part and one is the "new side". Even if both were built at the same time. It doesn't mean it's factual or meaningful to anyone else just because someone put that demarcation line

That wouldn't be 'factual or meaningful' because both parts are the same,, which makes it very different from modernism and and post-modernism.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Certainly. But the line wouldn't be valid unless there was something to mark.

Which is my point.

That wouldn't be 'factual or meaningful' because both parts are the same,, which makes it very different from modernism and and post-modernism.

Which is exactly what I disagree with.

 

[Manopolus]

Oh, I thought you were going to start whining about philosophers constantly mentioning every other philosopher that ever lived, making philosophy completely incomprehensible to the casual reader that didn't read all that other crap. Even Philosophers whine about that.

But no, you're just being silly.