Why Is Philosophy Important?

[RandFan]

What I've read of Dennett I find unexceptional. Jefferson and Mark Twain probably made and expressed all the necessary insights into religion to nourish an active mind, and they are two amongst many. When it comes to the mind, the really hard question of consciousness, Dennett does no more to span the chasm than Pinker does. Or anybody else. Science can inform me about my emotions, anthropology and biology can inform me about why I feel them, and why I have my desires. Often conflicting ones. What nobody's informing me about is how my very distinct impression of existence, at this moment, behind and between my eyes, riding the oh-so-physical endocrine surf, can be explained in the same terms as everything else can be. Philosophy's doing no better than religion.

Thanks, like I said, you are entitled to an opinion and I'm willing to respect it. I don't agree and I don't find anything you have said compelling but that's fine. Thanks.

RandFan.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This genetics is obviously not related to a thinking process (you admit that people use all kinds of processes to get to the answers) but a doing process and recognizing the effects of that.

Genetics is in large part responsible for all of our thinking processes. Those processes are not hard-wired obviously, but still. Part of my point was to highlight the difficulty in separating what is and what is not genetic. The original formulation of the brain is genetic + surrounding environment (local amongst the neurons and the milieu of the womb). Even here it is almost impossible to separate what is genetic heritage and what is not. One clear example is the formation of the dorsal/ventral neuraxis in early brain development where we need both bone morhogenic factor and sonic hedgehog for proper differentiation. The way things play out depends critically on how much of each is present and how far they penetrate into the developing tissue. I have recently begun to think that all distinctions between nature and nurture are simply arbitraty and not very enlightening. It's all just stuff that we don't understand very well working in an environment which is part of all the stuff. We need to make distinctions when it comes to trying to manipulate the genome, but I'm not sure in the big scheme of things that such distinctions really matter. Gentic stuff, environmental stuff. Ultimately it's all just stuff.

It's about making things better for ourselves by making things better for others. It involves recognizing that things are better as a result of certain behaviors then adopting these into our philosophies. So we don't all have the capacity to recognize that things are better or worse with certain behaviors and that is why we disagree and use different rationalizations for it. I care little what philosophic methods people use to evaluate ethics since they are just as clueless as everyone else. It's a natural phenomena and philosophy is just a stop gap to use till we understand better.

OK

 

[hammegk]

It's a pleasure to read an interesting discussion under the auspices of the philosophy of science.

Re the San and ethics; my google-fu fails me. Any hints on how to find something on that topic?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Here's a quickie reference without much depth: !Kung San

You might need to put in !Kung as well as San in doing a search, I don't know. Most of what I know of their ethics comes from ethnographic research that I read in college. I saw some of this info repeated and discussed under a different light in Pinker's Blank Slate. This is one where a library trip would probably be necessary since I don't know if there are any ethnographic studies available on line. I'll see if I have any of my old collections downstairs and try to give you a title. I'm not sure I kept all that stuff though.

*edit*

Sorry, I don't seem to have kept any of my old anthropolgy literature. I did run across an old copy of Colin Turnbull's The Forest People which concerns not the San but another "primitive" group of pygmies. His The Human Cycle also covers ethical concerns from more of a comparative anthropolgical viewpoint, though it is really more concerned with how different groups (including the West) deal with life cycle issues. I have never read his The Mountain People but understand that group is very strange, and not what we would typically call ethical -- this based on an entirely different material culture.

One of the books I left out up above concerning the basics of ethics from a "scientific" point of view is Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil, another very good read.

*edit edit*

Dang, I can't even find my copy of Blank Slate. I must have lent it out, which means I can get it by Tuesday and cite his references. I looked on Amazon for the ethnography collection we used in college but couldn't find it. There are, however, several independent sources looking at !Kung society.

Dogdoctor, please don't think that I'm arguing against intellectual change because I certainly do not think that way. We clearly change our ethical ideas over time. I'm not as certain that these changes represent improvements or if they reflect changes in our material life. We end slavery when we don't absolutely need it. We had always found ethical justifications for it previously. I think Singer's ideas concerning animals are suspect since we are on the brink of having the ability to grow meat independent of animals. So I don't think that "primitive" tribes have "primitive" ethical ideas. I think they have ethical ideas fitting their material circumstance. Just like us.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Thanks for the references. I have read the Shermer book. I will see what I can find out of those references. Thanks again

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks, like I said, you are entitled to an opinion and I'm willing to respect it. I don't agree and I don't find anything you have said compelling but that's fine. Thanks.

RandFan.

I live in the fond hope that I might one one day persuade one person of something not entirely trivial. Holding my own is satisfaction enough to be going on with .

 

[RandFan]

I live in the fond hope that I might one one day persuade one person of something not entirely trivial. Holding my own is satisfaction enough to be going on with .

Cool. To be fair I was the one who started the thread so perhaps the onus was on me to be compelling.

RandFan

 

[CapelDodger]

Cool. To be fair I was the one who started the thread so perhaps the onus was on me to be compelling.

RandFan

There's no need for a thread to lead to a decision. I've enjoyed setting out my stall after you set out yours, other folk have chimed in, I think it's been quite productive.

I still 'ates Philosophers, though .

 

[RandFan]

There's no need for a thread to lead to a decision. I've enjoyed setting out my stall after you set out yours, other folk have chimed in, I think it's been quite productive.

I still 'ates Philosophers, though .

Some day my friend you will learn to drink water from an empty glass.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Which is why I asked your forgiveness. I'm not sure how to take it but that's fine. As long as you don't bear a grudge toward me then we are fine but I have to say I'm awfully confused.

Sorry, no grudges are felt at all. It's just that a lot of people like to use the "you're just closed minded" argument to defend all manner of silly propositions, and it brought up memories of those encounters. The utter lack of evidence to justify their views, or an explanation as to what some are even talking about, doesn't factor into it. It's all about my lack of an "open mind".

I have no idea why it doesn't. Can you accept that it does for other people?

If the point of the exercise isn't to show that there's some unsolvable problem, IF the entire point is just to illustrate that something can be looked at in different ways, then it can do that job. Every time I'm asked such questions though, that does not seem to be the point at all. The questions are asked with this egotistical reverence, as though it is THE question, something that "tears apart presumptions" or has THE ANSWER or is UNANSWERABLE and proves some inane philosophical mumbo jumbo that's sure to follow.

Just look at the question in... question. The guy doesn't ask, "what is the table made of?" and then go down level by level from there, as I would expect if this was an illustration. No, he asks "when does it stop being a table?". That question doesn't really illustrate anything. He just stated that it IS made of atoms, not the thing you were talking about, illustration asking the question of WHAT it is made of and going from there. That's the difference I'm talking about, and the difference between asking legitimate questions and, as others have said, pointless navel gazing.

But that's NOT the point. We are not talking about the definition of a word we are talking about the existence of the table.

What aspect of the table is being called into question here? See above. The only purpose I can see from what you've said is a good one to have, but this question fails at it.

How did the early philosophers come to see that matter is composed of smaller stuff? How do we get people to think like the early philosophers? Do we simply teach them by rote the concepts? Is there a way we can get people to think beyond the macro world besides telling them that there is both a micro and a macro world or that there are sounds that are beyond our ability to hear or light that is beyond our abilitly to see.

That's a great point, and I agree with all of that. What I disagree is that EVERY philosophical question serves this well. Some of it is just pointless stupidity, and I think that the table query is one of those. A question like "what is the table made of?" or "how can I find out?" has a realistic answer. Even a question like "is the table made out of anything?" has some actual meaning to it. The question "if I remove an atom at a time, when does it stop being a table?" has no scientific merit. There is not a quality of "tableness" somewhere out there. It's just a table. It can stop being a table whenever you want it to if you just redefine it. What I find much MORE interesting is that concept of "atoms" you were talking about. Now there's something that has some actual inquiry to it. It can actually go somewhere.

Note that I'm not talking about practical use here. I'm perfectly fine with impractical things, so long as it isn't just meaningless talk that is disguised as meaningful. Hot air, if you will.

Philosophy, is in part, to get people to think. To question held assumptions. To look at the world in a different way. Perhaps it won't work for you.

IT WORKED FOR ME.

Sorry. It seems that you see the world through your eyes and anything that you don't find valuable you feel must not have any value so you dismiss philosophy.

That's not my view at all. I apologize if it seemed that way. Again, the question "when does it stop being a table?" is about as meaningful to me as "is pluto a planet?". It's a semantics question and nothing more. I can't gain insight. It reveals nothing to me (which I find valuable in and of itself, and that's why I enjoy logic games, for example). This isn't logic, it's just nonsense. As meaningful as "deavearlkejlkfda".

The problem is that I think I gave the wrong impression. You seem to think I deride any search for knowledge that won't get me money or something, like some "the man" stereotype that's fun to see as "the enemy". Like I'm some fat cat going "harumph!" talking about profits. Maybe such silly caricatures actually exist somewhere, but that's not me. I can enjoy knowledge for it's own sake, and as I said, I find philosophy "interesting", but a LOT of it seems to be nothing even close to actual logical discussion and just seems like mindless babbling that pretends to have meaning. What possible knowledge or insights can I get from that, aside from the knowledge that some people like to know how many angles can dance on the head of a pin?