What do philosophers believe?

[phiwum]

I love it when threads degrade to the point where most posts are merely indirect ways of saying, "I don't like you" and continue to converge on the point where that is its only content. All threads get to that point eventually.

Actually, I don't love it... much. I'm outta here.

I certainly am not merely saying I don't like Senex. I don't have any opinion about him outside of this thread. In this thread, he made a silly claim and has doubled down to avoid acknowledging the silliness.

I haven't been wild about the way he's treated me, including an egregious (but non-abusive) ad hominem and other petty comments about the quality of my education, but I've sure seen worse.

So, no, in all honesty, my primary dispute with him is that he made a silly argument about the competence of philosophers. I'll grant that I haven't been tender and sensitive in my rebuttals, but I'm fairly tired of the embarrassing anti-intellectual streak we see so often here.

 

[Manopolus]

I certainly am not merely saying I don't like Senex. I don't have any opinion about him outside of this thread. In this thread, he made a silly claim and has doubled down to avoid acknowledging the silliness.

I haven't been wild about the way he's treated me, including an egregious (but non-abusive) ad hominem and other petty comments about the quality of my education, but I've sure seen worse.

So, no, in all honesty, my primary dispute with him is that he made a silly argument about the competence of philosophers. I'll grant that I haven't been tender and sensitive in my rebuttals, but I'm fairly tired of the embarrassing anti-intellectual streak we see so often here.

Perhaps I should amend it to "I don't like your attitude and/or behavior" then. Either way, it's where threads become dead to me, although I am aware that other people go on for pages of this sort of stuff. There's a point of divergence where it is no longer about the question at hand and rather about complaining about each other's behavior. It happens in pretty much every thread.

 

[Manopolus]

Don't get me wrong, I do see the irony in the fact that I am doing exactly what I am complaining about.

 

[phiwum]

Perhaps I should amend it to "I don't like your attitude and/or behavior" then. Either way, it's where threads become dead to me, although I am aware that other people go on for pages of this sort of stuff. There's a point of divergence where it is no longer about the question at hand and rather about complaining about each other's behavior. It happens in pretty much every thread.

I apologize if I've contributed to a hostile atmosphere. It wasn't my intention, but sometimes things do get under my skin.

 

[abaddon]

I apologize if I've contributed to a hostile atmosphere. It wasn't my intention, but sometimes things do get under my skin.

"contributed to a hostile atmosphere" well that is rich. You have not only contributed to it, you have actively cultivated it. Many of your posts have been worthy of report, being outright insults. I have not so reported myself. Others may have, I cannot tell.

Why con't you take your useless philosophy and review those posts that you have slapped up here and realise the offensive and aggressive nature of them. Or is introspection not on your philosophical agenda?

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is a subject that frequently goes badly on these forums. One of the last threads on the value of philosophy is still on moderated status. This topic seems exhausted and derailed by trolling.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248308&highlight=Philosophy

 

[phiwum]

"contributed to a hostile atmosphere" well that is rich. You have not only contributed to it, you have actively cultivated it. Many of your posts have been worthy of report, being outright insults. I have not so reported myself. Others may have, I cannot tell.

Why con't you take your useless philosophy and review those posts that you have slapped up here and realise the offensive and aggressive nature of them. Or is introspection not on your philosophical agenda?

If I have a short fuse on this group, it is because of the ridiculous anti-philosophical stance of many members, and when I see a stupid argument about philosophy, posted by someone who clearly knows nothing of the subject, yes, I'll point out the arrogance and ignorance on display.

There are, of course, many good criticisms of philosophy. I don't think that claims that philosophy is useless or is very bad at settling issues are obviously wrong. And, of course, if one doesn't like doing philosophy, then he shouldn't do it.

What I will call out as abysmal failures of argumentation are drive-by accusations that philosophers, say, believe everything and nothing, without any citations or references to support the claim. This betrays nothing but a prejudice against the discipline, and such uninformed nonsense should not be a respected part of a skeptics' forum.

Philosophy is not for everyone. I have no objection to anyone disliking philosophy or questioning just how useful it is. But if you're going to make claims about what philosophy is like or what philosophers say, it would be swell if you first found out what philosophy is like or what philosophers say. Be prepared to defend your provocative claims or else give them up as uninformed opinions.

 

[phiwum]

This is a subject that frequently goes badly on these forums. One of the last threads on the value of philosophy is still on moderated status. This topic seems exhausted and derailed by trolling.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248308&highlight=Philosophy

This thread actually had a good start, with decent discussions.

 

[tsig]

If I have a short fuse on this group, it is because of the ridiculous anti-philosophical stance of many members, and when I see a stupid argument about philosophy, posted by someone who clearly knows nothing of the subject, yes, I'll point out the arrogance and ignorance on display.

There are, of course, many good criticisms of philosophy. I don't think that claims that philosophy is useless or is very bad at settling issues are obviously wrong. And, of course, if one doesn't like doing philosophy, then he shouldn't do it.

What I will call out as abysmal failures of argumentation are drive-by accusations that philosophers, say, believe everything and nothing, without any citations or references to support the claim. This betrays nothing but a prejudice against the discipline, and such uninformed nonsense should not be a respected part of a skeptics' forum.

Philosophy is not for everyone. I have no objection to anyone disliking philosophy or questioning just how useful it is. But if you're going to make claims about what philosophy is like or what philosophers say, it would be swell if you first found out what philosophy is like or what philosophers say. Be prepared to defend your provocative claims or else give them up as uninformed opinions.

We have to study those sophisticated philosophical arguments before we can even discuss philosophy?

Just like we have to study those sophisticated theological arguments before we're qualified to discuss religion?

 

[abaddon]

If I have a short fuse on this group, it is because of the ridiculous anti-philosophical stance of many members, and when I see a stupid argument about philosophy, posted by someone who clearly knows nothing of the subject, yes, I'll point out the arrogance and ignorance on display.

Perfectly fine by me, I'm simply observing that sometimes you get close to the edge of the MA. Sideroxylon is correct in his observation that such discussions often descend into an internet brawl with yellow cards dealt left, right and center. Once I personally get a hint of that, my urge to participate rapidly dwindles. I want no hand, act or part in such neither as reporter nor as reportee. As far as I am concerned, we strongly disagree and that's perfectly fine. The world would be a most odd place if everyone agreed. That's also perfectly fine. IMHO, I suspect you are getting dragged into the heated end of the pool. It is for this very reason that I strictly limit my posts in such discussions because I would also be right down the heated end were I not cautious.

There are, of course, many good criticisms of philosophy. I don't think that claims that philosophy is useless or is very bad at settling issues are obviously wrong. And, of course, if one doesn't like doing philosophy, then he shouldn't do it.

I don't discard philosophy per se. There are plenty of useful thought, ideas and inspiration to emerge from it over the centuries to this very day and hopefully into the future. My issue is that there is an awful lot of dreck that comes with it, absolute navel gazing pseudo-meaningful dreck. I think you know this. And I think you also know that I do not dismiss all of it either.

What I will call out as abysmal failures of argumentation are drive-by accusations that philosophers, say, believe everything and nothing, without any citations or references to support the claim. This betrays nothing but a prejudice against the discipline, and such uninformed nonsense should not be a respected part of a skeptics' forum.

Pardon my hyperbole. Just as you get a little heated in response, I get a little hyperbolic in response. It is the same reaction, just differently expressed.

Philosophy is not for everyone. I have no objection to anyone disliking philosophy or questioning just how useful it is. But if you're going to make claims about what philosophy is like or what philosophers say, it would be swell if you first found out what philosophy is like or what philosophers say. Be prepared to defend your provocative claims or else give them up as uninformed opinions.

I could provide you with a very good exemplar of a philosopher of science so far off the deep end it would make your head spin. The MA precludes me from doing so.

Bottom line here is that although you and I may disagree and even get a little heated, I have no desire for either of us to acquire infractions over it.

 

[phiwum]

We have to study those sophisticated philosophical arguments before we can even discuss philosophy?

Just like we have to study those sophisticated theological arguments before we're qualified to discuss religion?

If you are going to claim that philosophers believe both everything and nothing, then you should have some evidence for this claim.

Good luck getting that evidence without learning what philosophers say.

Honestly, how is this even the least bit controversial?

 

[phiwum]

Perfectly fine by me, I'm simply observing that sometimes you get close to the edge of the MA. Sideroxylon is correct in his observation that such discussions often descend into an internet brawl with yellow cards dealt left, right and center. Once I personally get a hint of that, my urge to participate rapidly dwindles. I want no hand, act or part in such neither as reporter nor as reportee. As far as I am concerned, we strongly disagree and that's perfectly fine. The world would be a most odd place if everyone agreed. That's also perfectly fine. IMHO, I suspect you are getting dragged into the heated end of the pool. It is for this very reason that I strictly limit my posts in such discussions because I would also be right down the heated end were I not cautious.

I don't discard philosophy per se. There are plenty of useful thought, ideas and inspiration to emerge from it over the centuries to this very day and hopefully into the future. My issue is that there is an awful lot of dreck that comes with it, absolute navel gazing pseudo-meaningful dreck. I think you know this. And I think you also know that I do not dismiss all of it either.

Pardon my hyperbole. Just as you get a little heated in response, I get a little hyperbolic in response. It is the same reaction, just differently expressed.

Fair enough.

I could provide you with a very good exemplar of a philosopher of science so far off the deep end it would make your head spin. The MA precludes me from doing so.

Bottom line here is that although you and I may disagree and even get a little heated, I have no desire for either of us to acquire infractions over it.

There are idiots doing any subject. Almost all analytic philosophers of science think that the Continental comments on science are embarrassing, for instance. But I'm sure there are also some analytic philosophers of science that say things that are just plain silly from my perspective, too.

I don't know anyone in the world who claims that every philosopher is equally insightful. There are some incompetent philosophers, of course, just as there are some incompetent scientists and even mathematicians.

 

[Leumas]

...
I don't know anyone in the world who claims that every philosopher is equally insightful. There are some incompetent philosophers, of course, just as there are some incompetent scientists and even mathematicians.

The difference is that the incompetent scientists and mathematicians can be demonstrated to be so and ridiculed by EVERYONE as fools.

With incompetent philosophers the more incompetent they are the less they can be demonstrated to be so because they can always say that their "philosophy" is just as valid as other's and have many fools hail them as the wisest of philosophers.

Take for example William Lane Craig... he is a vile detestable man, incompetent as a human being let alone an incompetent philosopher... yet his preposterous sophistry and laughable illogic and vomitus philodeusy still are peddled off as legitimate philosophy and he is hailed by theists and Christian "philosophers" as one of the finest of philosophers.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Shall we take this discussion of the value of philosophy to the moderated thread linked earlier?

 

[phiwum]

The difference is that the incompetent scientists and mathematicians can be demonstrated to be so and ridiculed by EVERYONE as fools.

With incompetent philosophers the more incompetent they are the less they can be demonstrated to be so because they can always say that their "philosophy" is just as valid as other's and have many fools hail them as the wisest of philosophers.

Take for example William Lane Craig... he is a vile detestable man, incompetent as a human being let alone an incompetent philosopher... yet his preposterous sophistry and laughable illogic and vomitus philodeusy still are peddled off as legitimate philosophy and he is hailed by theists and Christian "philosophers" as one of the finest of philosophers.

In all honesty, Leumas, you have a point. It is easier to objectively identify the incompetence of a mathematician than a philosopher. (Scientists are probably somewhere in between.)

You exaggerate this problem, however, when you say that the most incompetent can easily attain the highest levels. Certainly, some analytic philosophers thought Derrida was an extraordinarily bad philosopher, but that by itself shows that (assuming Derrida was so incompetent) such persons are never uncontroversially hailed. (Your claim that philosophers get by on such arguments as, "my philosophy is just as valid," shows that you don't know philosophy.)

Finally, I don't know why you think that philosophers generally or even philosophers of religion consider Craig as particularly notable and insightful. Maybe this is the case. Can you show it? Is he notable in philosophical circles, or just in theological circles?

You shouldn't confuse philosophical theology with philosophy as it's practiced in most academic settings. Of course, you have this skewed notion that philosophers are mostly concerned with convincing people that God exists, so you grossly exaggerate the connection between theology and traditional academic philosophy.

ETA: In my own field, it is not so hard to distinguish clear, analytic thinking from incompetence. Perhaps Continental philosophers will disagree, but I think that it's legitimately harder there. In logic in particular, there is little difference with mathematics, depending on the topic.

 

[phiwum]

Shall we take this discussion of the value of philosophy to the moderated thread linked earlier?

Leumas is, as usual, a bit blustery, perhaps too caffeinated, but his initial point (before discussion of Christianity inevitably took over) is correct and worth mentioning, if a bit off topic in this thread.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Leumas is, as usual, a bit blustery, perhaps too caffeinated, but his initial point (before discussion of Christianity inevitably took over) is correct and worth mentioning, if a bit off topic in this thread.

The being off topic is the main reason I suggested it.

 

[Fudbucker]

The difference is that the incompetent scientists and mathematicians can be demonstrated to be so and ridiculed by EVERYONE as fools.

With incompetent philosophers the more incompetent they are the less they can be demonstrated to be so because they can always say that their "philosophy" is just as valid as other's and have many fools hail them as the wisest of philosophers.

Take for example William Lane Craig... he is a vile detestable man, incompetent as a human being let alone an incompetent philosopher... yet his preposterous sophistry and laughable illogic and vomitus philodeusy still are peddled off as legitimate philosophy and he is hailed by theists and Christian "philosophers" as one of the finest of philosophers.

One thing I always liked about Craig is he was right about the implications of cosmic fine-tuning. There are only two rational explanations for the precise measured values of the physicals constants: either someone did the fine-tuning (i.e., god, which is what Craig argued), or there are a lot of universes and we just happened to get luck.

Unfortunately, for Craig, Inflation Theory became ascendant (and solves the fine-tuning problem rather nicely).

 

[tsig]

One thing I always liked about Craig is he was right about the implications of cosmic fine-tuning. There are only two rational explanations for the precise measured values of the physicals constants: either someone did the fine-tuning (i.e., god, which is what Craig argued), or there are a lot of universes and we just happened to get luck.

Unfortunately, for Craig, Inflation Theory became ascendant (and solves the fine-tuning problem rather nicely).

Then this god created the whole universe just for us?

 

[phiwum]

Then this god created the whole universe just for us?

That wouldn't follow, you know. You seem to presume that we are the only species God cares about, and that doesn't follow from Craig's argument (as presented by Fudbucker, at least -- I don't know the argument myself).

Of course, many Christians do believe that humans have a special importance to God and that perhaps this whole universe was created just for humans. But that doesn't seem to be a consequence of the stated argument.