Philosophy, the Maligned

[Mobyseven]

Dglas, I do have one question. Does philosophy have to be done by philosophers?

I'm not Dglas (obviously), but I'd say that philosophy is one of those areas that overlaps a lot with other areas of study and work. If, for example, you are involved in cloning research, you are engaged in science, but at the same time will probably have to deal with a number of complex ethical issues. Your opinion on the matter may be based solely upon the arguments of others, in which case philosophy is informing your opinion, but I probably wouldn't say you're doing philosophy, or your position may be a new position, either a novel innovation one, or one that draws heavily on a number of different ethical arguments to create a new, possibly improved argument, in which case I'd say you're doing philosophy. Whether or not such a person would label themselves a philosopher is, in my opinion, up to them - they would primarily probably identify as a scientist (biologist/other specialty) first.

All just my opinion of course.

 

[athon]

I, personally, am a philosophy student who thinks that there is a fair bit of crap in philosophy. I notice, however, that many, many people focus on those parts as though they are representative of philosophy as a whole. The comparison to declaring all medicine useless because homeopathy is bunk is quite apt, and it bugs me no end when people rag on about 'philosophy' as though the entire discipline is useless.

Ditto this.

Philosophy is incredibly useful. I'd argue it is essential for people to investigate, especially (in some form) for young kids. There is an outstanding education movement in Australia called 'Philosophy for Children' (P4C) which our own skeptic Kiless is involved with. It is doing some amazing work in developing the thinking of children.

The PR issue is that people feel philosophy is akin to adolescent mental masturbation over whether we're really an atom on a giant's back (or something). Metaphysics seems to dominate, when IMO it is the most useless of all philosophies.

Put simply, philosophy is a form of metacognition. It is thinking about thinking; asking ourselves why it is we create the models we do and to what purpose they serve.

Without asking such questions, we're being somewhat dogmatic. If it means we have to tolerate metaphysics and religion in with the mix, then so be it. So long as discussion remains and we always keep in mind the purpose of philosophical discourse, it will be for the better.

Athon

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As Mobyseven and Athon have said, the issue is with philosophy in general vs. metaphysics in particular. Lots of good stuff in philosophy. I'm not so sure about metaphysics.

Some people go so far as to say that metaphysics does not have anything to do with reality; it's an exercise in logic. If that is the case, then I really think there's been enough time to reach some logical conclusions that discard certain metaphysics and keep others. And yet we are still discussing solipsism, epiphenomenalism, and dualism. I suppose there are a few bizarre ontologies that have been discarded or fallen out of favor: Can anyone name one?

Don't get me wrong, I love discussing metaphysics. And I'm not much of a philosopher. But I don't think I'm discussing something that is about to reach a definitive conclusion about the way the world is.

~~ Paul

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

Enjoyed your post.

Philosophy suffers from the same shortcoming as any other human undertaking, nicely paraphrased in Sturgeon's Law. (Or perhaps Sturgeon's Revelation.)

The good bits are very good, the rest so much dross.

As to unbounded inquiry, that's a process. Bounding is a requirement when you want to address applicibility of any strain of thought, be it philosophical or otherwise.

I think Kant's remarks on the limits of reason support that requirement.

DR

 

[hammegk]

OK, I've lost all respect for you now.

No, not Mmmkay by a long shot. If you make such an insulting claim about somebody either back it up with a quote or apologise for the misrepresentation. Silly evasions like this just backfire on you.

Mmmkay?

... Again: Where have I, or Dennett, or indeed anyone said that?

Statements and words carry connotations. The materialists are very careful with their actual words, yet cannot control what those words suggest.

I see nothing from Dennett, or Pixy, that provides anything more than standard materialist boilerplate. You are of course free to randomly or determinately assert otherwise.

Put simply, philosophy is a form of metacognition. It is thinking about thinking; asking ourselves why it is we create the models we do and to what purpose they serve.

Reasonable words, yet lacking the key ingredient. Philosophy should be the attempt to understand all implications, and logical corollaries, of one's axioms and note they are just that: axioms and not subject to complete validation.

Thanks for providing an example of the problem there.

You don't need me to do that.

 

[dglas]

Dglas, I do have one question. Does philosophy have to be done by philosophers?

I think I answered this is a response to Qayak:

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
To be a philosopher these days, one must have a background in science and mathematics, you can't get this knowledge from reading science articles in the local newspaper or by having to have your knowledge approved by some higher but less knowledgable authority like a pope, a rabbi or a minister.

I'm afraid I cannot subscribe to this. Aside from being an obvious deference to authority, which is the bane of free inquiry (and the source of a logical fallacy to boot), I have to assume that the means of being a rational thinker are available to anyone and everyone who cares to use them honestly and rigorously. Otherwise, all this talk is without purpose. It is merely the exchange of one arcane authority for another. I like to think it's a little more than that. Why do so many fall to despair like this?

In any event, don't take my word for it (of course). Instead, consider the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority" and that Appeal to Authority is deemed a logical fallacy. So, I will appeal to authority that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

All flippancy aside, the quality of the work is what determines the quality of the work, in any work.

That said, there are some small (power of understatement) advantages to actually having done some rigorous studies that provide some background, context, a sense of the history of the endeavor and what has come before. There are shoulders to stand on, the height has some benefits...

 

[Hokulele]

I think I answered this is a response to Qayak:

In any event, don't take my word for it (of course). Instead, consider the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority" and that Appeal to Authority is deemed a logical fallacy. So, I will appeal to authority that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

All flippancy aside, the quality of the work is what determines the quality of the work, in any work.

No, no, flippancy is good, and I do see your point with this.

That said, there are some small (power of understatement) advantages to actually having done some rigorous studies that provide some background, context, a sense of the history of the endeavor and what has come before. There are shoulders to stand on, the height has some benefits...

With this mind and going back to the OP, I would then argue that religion can be seen as philosophy, as well as vice versa. I would refine your argument to state that the trouble isn't with philosophical tools being applied to religion (as it does happen all the time), but with restricting philosophical tools to religion, as you seem to be arguing against in the opening of your OP. Rather than saying the this sub-forum should not be called Religion and Philosophy, I would say various sub-fora should be Religion and Philosophy, Business and Philosophy, Science (etc.) and Philosophy, Politics and Religion, and Humor and Philosophy.

 

[Loss Leader]

Philosophy, the Maligned

No idea what you're talking about but good luck with it.

 

[dglas]

As Mobyseven and Athon have said, the issue is with philosophy in general vs. metaphysics in particular. Lots of good stuff in philosophy. I'm not so sure about metaphysics.

Some people go so far as to say that metaphysics does not have anything to do with reality; it's an exercise in logic. If that is the case, then I really think there's been enough time to reach some logical conclusions that discard certain metaphysics and keep others. And yet we are still discussing solipsism, epiphenomenalism, and dualism. I suppose there are a few bizarre ontologies that have been discarded or fallen out of favor: Can anyone name one?

Don't get me wrong, I love discussing metaphysics. And I'm not much of a philosopher. But I don't think I'm discussing something that is about to reach a definitive conclusion about the way the world is.

~~ Paul

Here is the the difficulty with logic. Logic "uses" terms like true and false, but it is not at all concerned with truth or falsity at all, really. It is concerned with establishing rules of inference that allow one to get from assumed axioms (first premises) to deduced conclusions. Logic itself does not dictate the axioms and therefore is intended to have no content. (Whether there is hidden content or not is a subject for another day.) Truth or falsity is a supervening property/quality we ascribe to arguments which is unsupported by logic. Logic only answers the question: " Was this conclusion validly deduced from these premises?" That's all.

We gots to get Mr. Spock out of our collective heads.

In this sense, every single logical argument, and this will seem immediately obvious to skeptics, can be read as a conditional. Let's take the classic categorical syllogism:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Two ideas are expressed here that are not deduced logically. They are assumed. It is from these assumptions and the common terms between them that we are able to derive the conclusion. Let's (loosely) rewrite it this way:

If
{
"All men are mortal" & "Socrates is a man"
}
Return "Socrates is mortal";

Please forgive me the pseudo-scripting conceit...

The history of philosophy is rife with the error of thinking conclusions somehow represented "new" knowledge, provided "new" information - some content beyond that inherent in the premises. The dream was that given a very few axioms, we could correctly, through logic, deduce all of reality. This was a long-term stellar failure.

Logic NEVER proves something true. It proves an argument VALID. This means that given the "proper" axiom set, anything can be "proven" logically. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Truth values are a conceit we have supervened onto logic in an attempt to layer this symbolic, pseudo-mathematical structure on reality.

You should see some of the fun some philosophers have had trying to build a moral (deontic) logic using "obligation" connectors as operators. It is very instructive to consider the very idea of doing so for a moment.

Which tells us what logic really is. It is an attempt to apply mathematics to language using language operators, because mathematics is the best thing we ever developed and the whole history of human knowledge has been an attempt to emulate it.

And there are difficulties...

Not the least of which is...

"Win Powerball!!!"

 

[dglas]

I suspect you credit me with way too much in the way of insight...



I (now) ain't saying it's necessarily a flaw in your thinking... it may well be mine (or lack thereof)

I simply got bogged down by what I inferred as being an inconsistency:

V


As I don't want to derail this thread any further, please feel free to respond as you see fit

This is not a derail at all. You are doing me a service.

This is all about the meta-object relationship.
Just as one can use English (meta-language) to speak about any language (object language), one can use philosophy (meta-study) to examine particular systems of ideas (philosophies). Perhaps I should have capitalized philosophy and left philosophies in lower case...

Philosophy is more a "method" of inquiry, whereas philosophies are constructed realms of ideas.

Natural discourse is rife with equivocations. Sorting through them is a necessary, though painstaking, endeavor. There are traps every step of the way. Here's a good example for you, try describing something you have done in non-volitional language. Or, and I did this for some years, try removing normative terms from your language. That's a hoot and a half.

Thank you again, for helping me to clarify.



Win Powerball!!! if and only if win powerball!!!

 

[dglas]

No, no, flippancy is good, and I do see your point with this.




With this mind and going back to the OP, I would then argue that religion can be seen as philosophy, as well as vice versa. I would refine your argument to state that the trouble isn't with philosophical tools being applied to religion (as it does happen all the time), but with restricting philosophical tools to religion, as you seem to be arguing against in the opening of your OP. Rather than saying the this sub-forum should not be called Religion and Philosophy, I would say various sub-fora should be Religion and Philosophy, Business and Philosophy, Science (etc.) and Philosophy, Politics and Religion, and Humor and Philosophy.

Yes, both you and Six7s picked up on this immediately. I have a tendency to think of "philosophies" as being the subject matter of "philosophy" (a meta-study) much like particular formulas are the study of mathematics, I suppose, or the way particular fossils are the study of archaeology. Now that I see the difficulties in expressing myself clearly this is causing me, perhaps I need to revise the way I say it.

And yes, I also have a tendency to think of all areas of study as being subsets of philosophy. Busted! Hopefully, this doesn't cause too much error. I shall keep a watchful eye on that.

In my view, religion is a particular (and peculiar) sort of type of philosophical construct, one which uses terms and ideas which are indefensible, but have become commonplace by means of pure repetition, indoctrination, and use of physical violence. We have, sadly, permitted ourselves to be defined in terms of them as if they are intrinsic to our natures. And many of them are intensely hurtful (like original sin, say).

I think we probably agree on what you have written - it is more a question of whether one sees religion as something that falls within the scope of any inquiry at all. I do.

I would suggest it would be helpful to clearly distinguish between philosophy and religion because all too often the type of methods (more than methods, actually, the difference between accepting limits to the scope of inquiry or not) used are radically different (I would suggest contradictory) in kind and to equate the two does a terrible disservice to philosophy, relegating it to the realm of vague, fluffy metaphysics.

And vague, fluffy metaphysics doesn't even help us...

"Win Powerball!!!"

 

[dglas]

No idea what you're talking about but good luck with it.

Doh!

It's a role-playing game, like "Vampire, the Masquerade," or "Werewolf, the Apocolyse." or "Toy Poodle, the Scampering."

Get in line with the program, mister!

And while you're at it...

"Win Powerball!!!"

 

[dglas]

Enjoyed your post.

Philosophy suffers from the same shortcoming as any other human undertaking, nicely paraphrased in Sturgeon's Law. (Or perhaps Sturgeon's Revelation.)

The good bits are very good, the rest so much dross.

Why, thank you.

As to unbounded inquiry, that's a process. Bounding is a requirement when you want to address applicibility of any strain of thought, be it philosophical or otherwise.

I think Kant's remarks on the limits of reason support that requirement.

DR

Of course, but the possibility of moving beyond the boundaries is a necessary prerequisite of expanding the scope of inquiry, and philosophy is mere religion if the scope of inquiry is hogtied by mere affirmation. So, yes working within boundaries is essential, but being able to move beyond them is essential as well. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express this.

Hmmm. I've read the Critique of Pure Reason, but I must admit, I can't quote it verbatim. Big book! BIG BOOK!! It was a just a few years ago. Epic fail, I know. If you would be so kind as to provide a more precise reference, it would be helpful.

It might even show me how to...

"Win Powerball!!!"

 

[cyborg]

Logic NEVER proves something true. It proves an argument VALID. This means that given the "proper" axiom set, anything can be "proven" logically. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Truth values are a conceit we have supervened onto logic in an attempt to layer this symbolic, pseudo-mathematical structure on reality.

This is not news to logicians. Replace the F's with T's and vice-versa and the world is inverted instantly.

The point, of course, is to always remember that id one is trying to synthesise a logic to describe a world "truthfully" then one does not impose a logic onto a the world - it imposes one on you.

The history of philosophy is rife with the error of thinking conclusions somehow represented "new" knowledge, provided "new" information - some content beyond that inherent in the premises. The dream was that given a very few axioms, we could correctly, through logic, deduce all of reality. This was a long-term stellar failure.

Whilst all the "truth" of numbers may be "just there" in the natural numbers it is finding them and using them that is the tricky part.

Can't use what you don't know and you don't know unless you can either test or build it.

 

[six7s]

We gots to get Mr. Spock out of our collective heads.

Indeed

I humbly suggest that, instead of a 'procedural' approach, a more 'object oriented' style might be more rewarding

import philosophy.waffle.*;
import reality.util.*;
import salt.pinch.*;

public class WaffleEndlessly extends Logic implements NavelGazing 
{
	String mortal = "Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 46,400,000 for mortal";
	
	if (("All men are mortal") && ("Socrates is a man")) 
		{
			SocratesIsMortal = true;
		}
	catch (Exception e) 
		{
			e.getSomeFreshAir();
		}
}

 

[cyborg]

Indeed

I humbly suggest that, instead of a 'procedural' approach, a more 'object oriented' style might be more rewarding

I've optimised your code!

import philosophy.waffle.*;
import reality.util.*;
import salt.pinch.*;

public class WaffleEndlessly extends Logic implements NavelGazing 
{
	String mortal = "Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 46,400,000 for mortal";
	
	SocratesIsMortal = true;

}

 

[dglas]

Indeed

I humbly suggest that, instead of a 'procedural' approach, a more 'object oriented' style might be more rewarding

import philosophy.waffle.*;
import reality.util.*;
import salt.pinch.*;

public class WaffleEndlessly extends Logic implements NavelGazing 
{
	String mortal = "Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 46,400,000 for mortal";
	
	if (("All men are mortal") && ("Socrates is a man")) 
		{
			SocratesIsMortal = true;
		}
	catch (Exception e) 
		{
			e.getSomeFreshAir();
		}
}

LOL. I sit corrrected.

Mmmm. Fresh air. Food even. Time to forage.



object oPowerball;
effect eWin!!!;

ApplyEffectToObject (oPowerball, eWin!!!);

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If religion is not philosophy, why is it that every philosophical discussion with major societal impact has religions at the table? Why does religion get a place at the table when discussing stem cell research, abortion, cloning . . .

Nominated.

 

[Robin]

Statements and words carry connotations. The materialists are very careful with their actual words, yet cannot control what those words suggest.

I see nothing from Dennett, or Pixy, that provides anything more than standard materialist boilerplate. You are of course free to randomly or determinately assert otherwise.

Your accusation was one of assuming Materialism was true. When challenged to back it up you respond with vague, waffly stuff like this.

Again, either back up your assertion with quotes or withdraw.

 

[Robin]

Ironically for those making a joke about expressing formal logic as computer code, it is formal logic that provided the basis for mid and high level computer languages in the first place.

Formal logic underlies mathematics (maths could not exist, for example, without the concept of a proof) and mathematics underlies physics.

So while you might consider formal logic to be navel gazing and endlessly waffling and so on, I think it is pretty useful that I am able to get into a jet plane and fly half way around the word in a really short time.