What is the worst idea in philosophy?

[Throg]

Why are some of these 'worst' ideas so common and popular?

I think that they are superficially attractive and plausible, like the idea of corn gods controlling the corn etc. fit into what humans can understand, but when you examine them critically they fall apart.

The weird thing is that so many people just accept these ideas without examining them, or so it appears.

I should also like to nominate Cartesian Dualism


What harm has come from this idea?

Cartesian dualism posits that our bodies (including our brains) are controlled by a non-physical entity (essentially the real us) which is unbound by any physical law. As such it would be worth of nomination purely on the basis that it is a fine example of an unfalsifiable paranormal theory. It is an unparsimonious theory, failing the Occam' razor test many times over. It would also appear to be, given Descarte's obvious displays of intelligence elsewhere, to be an example of wishful thinking - the most pernicious form of self -delusion. Finally, though not exhaustively, by virtue of Descarte's name, it is a theory which is largely supported and popularised on the basis of an appeal to authority. All in all, it is a powerful and pervasive example of the perpetuation of irrational thought and is there really anything more harmful in philosophy?



Edited, because the crucial "I should like to nominate Cartesian dualism" phrase did not appear in the quote for some reason.

 

[Throg]

Arguably, you are correct. Why I've nominated Communism in particular is because it utterly ignores human nature. How could a government made of people possibly work if it ignores the nature of that which it would govern?

Being the "worst" idea for government doesn't make any of the other ideas "good".

I wonder if you would clarify what exactly it is in the nature of the governed which is necessarily ignored by a Communist government as opposed to any totalitarian state. I would guess that you mean something like greed but the problem with guesses is that they are wrong just about as often as they are right.

In any case, you might want to consider whether the particular aspect of human nature to which you refer is/has been ignored/supressed in other systems of government (I would suggest that greed, for instance, has been just as unavailable for expression for the majority of those under most systems of government which have existed as under Communism, e.g. under Feudalism, a system of government that whethered longer than democracy has so far).

You might also want to consider whether it is even possible to have a system of government which can allow the expression of the totality of human nature or whether it is necessary that we give some aspects of human nature primacy over others. Even in a capitalistic democracy, for instance we do not allow greed or the drive to self-determination full reign but limit them in accord with our more altruistic nature and, perhaps, something like justice.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I wonder if you would clarify what exactly it is in the nature of the governed which is necessarily ignored by a Communist government as opposed to any totalitarian state. I would guess that you mean something like greed but the problem with guesses is that they are wrong just about as often as they are right.

In any case, you might want to consider whether the particular aspect of human nature to which you refer is/has been ignored/supressed in other systems of government (I would suggest that greed, for instance, has been just as unavailable for expression for the majority of those under most systems of government which have existed as under Communism, e.g. under Feudalism, a system of government that whethered longer than democracy has so far).

You might also want to consider whether it is even possible to have a system of government which can allow the expression of the totality of human nature or whether it is necessary that we give some aspects of human nature primacy over others. Even in a capitalistic democracy, for instance we do not allow greed or the drive to self-determination full reign but limit them in accord with our more altruistic nature and, perhaps, something like justice.

Good questions. I think what is implied is that we are, essentially, predators, and in capitalism one have to be a good one to survive and even to get above other humans. That, also, draws a clear line to distinguish leaders from followers and alphas from the rest.

But. I do believe there are another ways to accomplish that "part" of our "nature". One that involves power not in the sense of control of other humans or natural resources, but ideas. Respect not because of fear but admiration.

Oh well. I despise our economical based society and current politics. That people have to pay to eat when enough food exist for every human alive, and that one have to be rich in order to pay medical care, which should be free.

 

[Dancing David]

BDZ!

Good call. The idea that humans are predators is a fallacy, we have sharp teeth ready to rend flesh and great mighty claws for tearing up that flesh We are equpped just like other predators.

Taphonomy, the study of old bones, shows that our ancient ancestors were most like scavengers who smashed bones for the marrow and harvested the hides and sinews after the real predators had killed and eaten thier share of the kill.

man the mighty fruit and berry eater who kills very small animals (just like chimps) and harvests the remanis of other kills after the jackals have done with them.

 

[Z]

Predator? Scavenger?? I prefer the term, "Opportunity Capitalist".

 

[Throg]

Good questions. I think what is implied is that we are, essentially, predators, and in capitalism one have to be a good one to survive and even to get above other humans. That, also, draws a clear line to distinguish leaders from followers and alphas from the rest.

Interesting. As Dancing David points out our ancestors were probably not primarily predators. Even if we were allow that there is a predatory aspect to our nature, this would presumably be relevant to our relationships with our prey rather than the other predators within our pack. I think your implicit analogy to communities of primates, if I interpret your reference to "alphas and the rest" correctly. I can certainly see a resemblence to the principles of capitalism and a conflict with the principles of communism. Fortunately, the actual implementation of communism seems to have favoured very strongly identifiable alphas with all the appropriate rights over the rest of the community. So that's okey then.

But. I do believe there are another ways to accomplish that "part" of our "nature". One that involves power not in the sense of control of other humans or natural resources, but ideas. Respect not because of fear but admiration.

I'd like to think you are right. I'd like to. Perhaps a future discussion?

Oh well. I despise our economical based society and current politics. That people have to pay to eat when enough food exist for every human alive, and that one have to be rich in order to pay medical care, which should be free.

Can't argue with that (not honestly, anyway) but given that philosophical communism seems to be incompatible with our nature and sino/soviet communism turned out even worse than capitalism where does that leave us? Is capitalism, like democracy, the best of a bad bunch? Should that be a new thread? Should it be the same thread as the one where you try to convince me of your optimistic view of the flexibility of our natures? Should I stop asking questions now? I'm new here, give me a break.

 

[RandFan]

Good call. The idea that humans are predators is a fallacy, we have sharp teeth ready to rend flesh and great mighty claws for tearing up that flesh We are equpped just like other predators.

Taphonomy, the study of old bones, shows that our ancient ancestors were most like scavengers who smashed bones for the marrow and harvested the hides and sinews after the real predators had killed and eaten thier share of the kill.

man the mighty fruit and berry eater who kills very small animals (just like chimps) and harvests the remanis of other kills after the jackals have done with them.

Our eyes face forward like other predators and not side to side like many other non-predators. I don't claim that we are necessarily predators or non-predators. We are generalists capable of existing on both plant and animals. I think the notion that we have to be one or the other is a false dichotomy.

Further it is demonstrable that Humans advanced beyond simple hunter gatherers and became de-facto predators. Arrowheads and other evidence on nearly every corner of the globe proves this. So why the argument at all? Can we only be defined by our earliest of ancestors? That's silly.

Yes, man, the mighty hunter who long before civilization and the age of reason chipped rock flakes, fashioned the flakes to poles and used strategy to hunt animals much larger, faster and stronger than himself thus enabling him to spread to every major continent including the arctic (Women included).

Please tell me of another herbivore or non-predator that has done this. Don't dismiss us so easily.

 

[RandFan]

I wonder if you would clarify what exactly it is in the nature of the governed which is necessarily ignored by a Communist government as opposed to any totalitarian state. I would guess that you mean something like greed but the problem with guesses is that they are wrong just about as often as they are right.

Human behavior is complex. There are many variables that must be overcome including greed, a sense of fair play and all of the other factors that motivate humans to respond in a way that will produce an overall benefit to society.

Capitalism provides the greatest motivation to those who are able to provide the most to society. Theoretical Communism or systems that employee socialism or some variant in the hopes of becoming Communism is limited in its ability to motivate enough people to overcome the inefficiencies of social systems and to remove the natural desires of many humans to excel beyond the norm.

While East Germans continued to crank out the same car using the same methods decade after decade the west was ever coming up with more efficient means of productions. They did this because the west hired the best and brightest and motivated them with money to find better ways to do things. Entrepreneurs were motivated to come up with new inventions and services so they could become wealthy. Human nature, Capitalism exploits it, Communism ignores it, at lest some of its most productive aspects.

Further, a strong central government is required to re-educate and/or to weed out those who do not embrace Communism and who will work to stop or change the government. This saps precious resources and marginalizes some of the finest minds (see Soviet Refusniks and Mao's great leap forward). This strong central government is supposed to become redundant and fade away. The problem is that power corrupts and strong central governments corrupt easier than most. Human nature you see.

 

[Iacchus]

Cartesian dualism posits that our bodies (including our brains) are controlled by a non-physical entity (essentially the real us) which is unbound by any physical law. As such it would be worth of nomination purely on the basis that it is a fine example of an unfalsifiable paranormal theory. It is an unparsimonious theory, failing the Occam' razor test many times over. It would also appear to be, given Descarte's obvious displays of intelligence elsewhere, to be an example of wishful thinking - the most pernicious form of self -delusion. Finally, though not exhaustively, by virtue of Descarte's name, it is a theory which is largely supported and popularised on the basis of an appeal to authority. All in all, it is a powerful and pervasive example of the perpetuation of irrational thought and is there really anything more harmful in philosophy?



Edited, because the crucial "I should like to nominate Cartesian dualism" phrase did not appear in the quote for some reason.

Yet if we are "our bodies," how do you explain how our personality, the "essential us," disappears when we die? Obviously a person's personality cannot be identified by a dead corpse. To suggest that someone just flipped the switch, is to suggest nothing of the life which was once there. Where is the evidence, aside from a dead corpse? Why is it that a murder mystery that involves a certain "John Doe," cannot be solved by a dead corpse alone? What happened to John? Why can't he speak? Simply because John is not there.

 

[Throg]

Yet if we are "our bodies," how do you explain how our personality, the "essential us," disappears when we die? Obviously a person's personality cannot be identified by a dead corpse. To suggest that someone just flipped the switch, is to suggest nothing of the life which was once there. Where is the evidence, aside from a dead corpse? Why is it that a murder mystery that involves a certain "John Doe," cannot be solved by a dead corpse alone? What happened to John? Why can't he speak? Simply because John is not there.

John is not there because neither his body nor his brain function to produce the behaviours from which we infer that John has a personality. When my computer breaks down, "Half-Life 2"* ceases to be there but I do not take this as evidence that it's existence was any more than a function of my broken computer nor do I imagine that "Half-Life 2" has gone somewhere else.


*A computer game. I'm sure you know that but I would feel rude not making the information available just in case.

 

[Iacchus]

John is not there because neither his body nor his brain function to produce the behaviours from which we infer that John has a personality. When my computer breaks down, "Half-Life 2"* ceases to be there but I do not take this as evidence that it's existence was any more than a function of my broken computer nor do I imagine that "Half-Life 2" has gone somewhere else.


*A computer game. I'm sure you know that but I would feel rude not making the information available just in case.

That still doesn't tell us about the life which was experienced, because John's not there to tell us about it. Does this tell you that John is nothing more than just his body? No, in fact it doesn't. Of what dimension does the experience of John reside then? The closest we could come to that would be to ask where John goes when he sleeps or, let's say he's in a coma? He's obviously not available to us at that time. In fact he must be in a similar state represented by death. So, where has John gone? Well, come to find out John is alive and well and fully participating in this other reality known as the dream state ... a reality which (without a doubt), is wholly experiential unto itself. Doesn't that sound just the least bit strange? By the way, where do computers go when they "sleep?"

 

[Mercutio]

Yet if we are "our bodies," how do you explain how our personality, the "essential us," disappears when we die? Obviously a person's personality cannot be identified by a dead corpse. To suggest that someone just flipped the switch, is to suggest nothing of the life which was once there. Where is the evidence, aside from a dead corpse? Why is it that a murder mystery that involves a certain "John Doe," cannot be solved by a dead corpse alone? What happened to John? Why can't he speak? Simply because John is not there.

Appropriate post in a "worst idea in philosophy" thread.

Our "personality" is our behavior. When we die, we quit behaving. The "bad idea" of dualism is what leads to questions like yours....which presupposes there was a "something" to dissapear in the first place.

 

[Iacchus]

Appropriate post in a "worst idea in philosophy" thread.

Our "personality" is our behavior. When we die, we quit behaving. The "bad idea" of dualism is what leads to questions like yours....which presupposes there was a "something" to dissapear in the first place.

You don't think you're being just the least bit "circular?" Our personality is our behavior huh? Which of course says nothing of "who" is doing the experiencing.

 

[Mercutio]

You don't think you're being just the least bit "circular?" Our personality is our behavior huh? Which of course says nothing of "who" is doing the experiencing.

No, Iacchus. "Circular" would be if you were to claim that our behavior was caused by our personality, when in fact we infer personality from the behavior we observe. It is a very simple concept. And the "who" is, of course, the person who is behaving. That physical person. Do you understand the criticisms you are trying to make?

It is much simpler than you think, Iacchus. It is only an unanswerable question when you presuppose the illogical position of duality.

 

[gnome]

How about Milton Freeman and
Free markets lead to democracy.

I would say it's a little backwards, but there's a truth in it. A relatively free market is generally more prosperous than a command economy such as Soviet Russia, and so has a greater tendency to endure. So you might imagine an economic natural selection at work which can cause an evolution towards democracy.

I don't take it so far as to say that the more lassiez-faire, the better. It seems clear to me that there is an advantage, if not a need, to tackle various market problems rather than waiting for them to sort themselves out automatically.

 

[gnome]

Back to the OP, I think the worst idea in theology is the idea of blasphemy. That an all-powerful being could be hurt by someone's words is silly and contradictory--which is perhaps the idea, a good contradiction in your basic premise can allow you to construct a logical basis for any proposition you choose.

Additionally, that looking at the universe's mysteries, if one's speculation is different than another's, that somehow it's offensive, is a terrible idea also.

 

[Iacchus]

No, Iacchus. "Circular" would be if you were to claim that our behavior was caused by our personality, when in fact we infer personality from the behavior we observe. It is a very simple concept. And the "who" is, of course, the person who is behaving. That physical person. Do you understand the criticisms you are trying to make?

Then why don't dead corpses "behave" like real people? Where did the "personality" of that corpse go? Why is it no longer capable of "experiencing" that which is associated with its being alive? Indeed, if the fuse were to blow and my lights were to go out, does that mean the electricity is no longer there? Not at all, it simply means the fuse is no longer conducting it.

It is much simpler than you think, Iacchus. It is only an unanswerable question when you presuppose the illogical position of duality.

And no, it's not an unanswerable question. What it all boils down to really, is what you would rather promote? Externalized behavior? Or, that which is genuine and alive?

 

[Iacchus]

Back to the OP, I think the worst idea in theology is the idea of blasphemy. That an all-powerful being could be hurt by someone's words is silly and contradictory--which is perhaps the idea, a good contradiction in your basic premise can allow you to construct a logical basis for any proposition you choose.

Yet, if by committing a blasphemy, in order to contradict the nature of something "good," which therefore causes others to suffer, it must not be that "good" of a thing.

 

[Mercutio]

Then why don't dead corpses "behave" like real people? Where did the "personality" of that corpse go? Why is it no longer capable of "experiencing" that which is associated with its being alive? Indeed, if the fuse were to blow and my lights were to go out, does that mean the electricity is no longer there? Not at all, it simply means the fuse is no longer conducting it.

Your analogy presupposes your worldview of brain as "consciousness energy receiver"--a view with not a shred of evidence for it. The only energy involved in this is metabolic. You need a biology book nearly as much as Kumar does.

And no, it's not an unanswerable question. What it all boils down to really, is what you would rather promote? Externalized behavior? Or, that which is genuine and alive?

Oh, then you have already answered the question of how the immaterial "mind" influences a material body? Would you care to share that?

 

[gnome]

Yet, if by committing a blasphemy, in order to contradict the nature of something "good," which therefore causes others to suffer, it must not be that "good" of a thing.

How can words contradict something's nature? I mean... in the sense that I'm denying something, that is me contradicting, but it's not a contradiction in the logical sense. Me saying "the sky is green" doesn't make the sky any less blue.

I think you may be equivocating on the meaning of "contradiction". Or I may just have misunderstood you.