The popularity of a philosophy: does it matter?

[jay gw]

Philosophy

The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
The general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group.

Popular

Appealing to a majority of people.
Accepted by or prevalent among the people in general.

By philosophy I mean the noun describing a set of ideas, not the verb describing a process.

What's the relationship between the acceptance of a philosophy and it's authority/power or influence over a community? Is the truth of a system confirmed by it's acceptance? Why or why not?

Also -- why does a person subscribe to one particular philosophy over another?

 

[c4ts]

I only voted to see where the poll would lead, but it wasn't all that amusing.

 

[FireGarden]

I would have thought that being perceived as true helps a philosophy to become more popular.

That's the way things are on planet X, anyhow.

 

[jay gw]

I would have thought that being perceived as true helps a philosophy to become more popular.

Which one comes first?

 

[c4ts]

Really, the purpose of philosophy isn't just to get others to see it as true. That's one of the reasons why Plato's Socrates criticized the sophists. Whether or not it is widely accepted had nothing to do with whether or not it is true, so the opinions of those who think it is true on account of popularity are worthless.

 

[FireGarden]

Which one comes first?

The chicken? er no! The egg!

Here's an anecdote.
I remember flicking through an encyclopedia, the "L" section, when suddenly I saw "Lasers". I was flabbergasted. This was 1977, I had seen Star Wars. It had never occured to me that a beam of light could actually punch its way through concrete. In real life, that is. But when I saw it in the encyclopedia, it straight away became believable.

Of course, I was seven at the time. And that's how I learnt one "fact". I'm pretty sure that I didn't acquire my philosophy/outlook on life all in one go. And quite frankly, I can't imagine what it's like to convert to a ready made philosophy all in one go; lock, stock and barrel.

I used to believe in UFOs, which weren't in the encyclopedia -- though I do remember some scholarly sounding paperbacks! And it's not really any single thing that made me give up belief in ETs visiting Earth. I suppose that I just slowly acquired other points of view -- including criticisms of various UFO stories and the like. Eventually doubt became more reasonable than belief.

Not really an answer to your question. But there it is.

 

[jay gw]

Whether or not it is widely accepted had nothing to do with whether or not it is true, so the opinions of those who think it is true on account of popularity are worthless.

So there's an objective measure for the truthfulness of a philosophy? What is it?

 

[ReFLeX]

The question isn't whether the popular philosophy is more correct, the question is whether it is perceived to be more correct, which I think is necessarily true. People aren't robots. Assuming people watch two equally compelling lectures by one ugly person and one attractive person, they are more likely to agree with the lecture content of the latter. That's just psychology. This isn't even really a philosophy question.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Assuming people watch two equally compelling lectures by one ugly person and one attractive person, they are more likely to agree with the lecture content of the latter. That's just psychology.

I'd have assumed they were more likely to agree with the ugly one, because they'd have been too busy admiring the attractive one to pay attention to the speech.

 

[ReFLeX]

I'd have assumed they were more likely to agree with the ugly one, because they'd have been too busy admiring the attractive one to pay attention to the speech.

All they really need to remember is which person argued for which position.
HENRY KISSINGER: "Pro-life."
RACHEL MCADAMS: "Death to fetuses."
AUDIENCE: "Abortions for everyone!"

 

[TragicMonkey]

All they really need to remember is which person argued for which position.
HENRY KISSINGER: "Pro-life."
RACHEL MCADAMS: "Death to fetuses."
AUDIENCE: "Abortions for everyone!"

KANG: Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

 

[Kopji]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jay gw

...What's the relationship between the acceptance of a philosophy and it's authority/power or influence over a community?

---

Beauty is subjective but we often find a common ground in our appreciation of great examples. A philosophy's beauty is in the message it conveys, and the coherence of the message is a measure of how 'true' it is. To use 'true' this way is more like the meaning of 'true' like making a straight beam of wood or shooting an arrow and hitting the bullseye on a target. Somehow we discover 'wisdom' rather than just knowing a collection of facts and rules for living.

Maybe people gather around a philosophy in the same way we travel to an art museum or famous garden.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jay gw

...Is the truth of a system confirmed by it's acceptance? Why or why not?

---

So I would say 'yes' in the 'true' sense I mentioned above. Some art we collectively judge worthy of great honor and some we do not. Different gardens may be great for different reasons, or emphasize specific qualities. Not everyone appreciates the same things but that does not detract from them.

'No' in an outward sense of objective application to everyday life. Ultimately beauty is a matter of personal taste created and nurtured by many things.

Something that I see as a great wrong of religious thought is the notion that there is only one Truth. This would be equally true of philosophical thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jay gw

...Also -- why does a person subscribe to one particular philosophy over another?

---

Well not everyone does. But I suspect it is a combination of culture, education, and life experience.