• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why Is Philosophy Important?

Ichneumonwasp said:
Do they? I wasn't aware of that. The San certainly do not seem to me to have "primitive undeveloped ethics". Their ethical system seems to fit their material situation, just as Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics serves as a wonderful primer on how to be a good Athenian gentleman and Bentham's Utilitarianism fits the needs of the industrious Englishman. The San seem, at least to me, to make fairly sophisticated ethical judgments about sharing within their group, again as a consequence of their material situation. They actually have much more free time than we do, much more time for reflection and thought.

I never claimed that ethical thought is the product of genetics or, at least, completely determined by genetics. What I claimed is that ethical thought can not be viewed as the result of pure reason or calculation. It is inherently tied to emotion. We cannot separate the two. What we inherited as ethics -- propensities to certain ways of thinking about how to interact with each other -- provide much more than an ability to live like animals in the bush. Those propensities allow us to be human -- to live in communities, work together, etc. That is what we inherited. None of it is hard-wired; I don't think anyone claims that. What we seem to have inherited is a general purpose problem solving brain that attacks problems from several different angles. That is one of the reasons why we can't seem to arrive at any final ethics that we can all agree upon. We are endowed with modules for solving problems based on utility and modules for solving problems based on duty/responsibility/deontology. We solve the problem, apply a rationalization, and call it ethics.
Click to expand...

Don't cohesive societies of people develop ethical systems that are largely agreed upon by the members? I doubt that a large number of humans will agree 100% on much. Why should there be any more agreement than that? That we don't understand ethics very well is clear, just as we don't understand the human mind or lot's of other things which we have to deal with daily.
 
l0rca said:
I think this is the most specific question to the problem Randy's trying to address, as am I.

We're not claiming philosophy has practical purposes. We're claiming it is the foundation for practical purposes. It's this foundation that is significant and important. It makes our ideas and pursuits justified.
Click to expand...
That's a claim I would dispute with modern philosophy. It adds nothing, and hasn't done for a century, perhaps more. Philosophy most certainly does not justify our ideas and pursuits, and philosophers who think it does should get over themselves.

People can be whimsical, and care only for superficial explanations, but that sort of mentality and lack of underlying principles and reasons creates a person without any real way to connect their ideas to reality. Progressions without philosophy is a headless pursuit, and without it, we have no compass to where we're heading.
Click to expand...
People were connecting their ideas to reality long before philosophy, they used imagination, common sense, experience and advice (in varying amounts depending on the job in hand). The Philosophy of the Wheel followed the wheel. Attachment to family at the expense of non-family did not wait on Philosophy's go-ahead.

With Philosophy, do we have any great compass of "where we're heading", except the grave individually? History and anthropology can tell us a great deal more, but seriously hedged with caveats. There's no direction to the human race, as in some sort of directed program to achieve an end, at any sizeable scale. What, then, can Philosophy analyse to divine our future? I suppose it could deconstruct it, but nobody would notice unless it was pointed out.
 
Tricky said:
The formal study of philosophy hasn't had any effect on my career in science. I've never taken a philosophy class. I don't know a single person in my company with a philosophy degree. Perhaps it has some bearing on a curriculum such as Political Science or World History, but those are two more fields with, to be kind, limited marketability.

Maybe it has some application in business or marketing/advertising. That seems like the best bet.
Click to expand...
I was taught some philosophy at school, tangentially to other subjects mostly. My first school was Classics-oriented, so I got the Greeks. The family moved so I took my senior years, or "sixth-form", elsewhere and took classes in Modern Philosophy during General Studies. (That was for boys who weren't in the Combined Cadet Force, which was stamping around in the quad at the time. Just to get five minutes a month firing a Bren-gun. I could see the attraction, but it wasn't enough for me.) My teacher there was very cynical about the subject, and anyway we mostly discussed sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. As you do.

Philosophy lives on its reputation, to my mind. In reality it's a paper tiger. The emperor surely is naked, however fast he manipulates the ostrich-feather fans.

Someone brought up Chomsky earlier, and I studied some of his work in Formal Languages - which he more-or-less founded. It's mathematics, not philosophy. It's also practical if writing compilers is your thing. Not so much if getting a handle on how human languages really work is your thing, but hey. Who knew?
 
RandFan said:
I think a hell of a lot. I've been reading Dennett and I find his insights into religion and the mind outstanding and I know that others like Pinker and Dennett agree (to some degree). My opinion is worthless but these guys seem to carry a bit more weight. I'll see if I can find some quotes from other notable scientists to bolster my contention. James Randi thought Dennett was worthy enough to invite to TAM. I realize that Randi might not be an appropriate authority but his opinion is worth a significant deal to me.

RandFan
Click to expand...
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.
 
dlacone said:
Yah...it is basically semantics. Carry on.

Three cheers for Python!
Click to expand...
What have the Philosophers ever done for us? Eh?

I think we're on pretty common ground. I chose 1900CE as safely beyond the nit-picking ground that Philosophy tends towards. Also I wanted to encompass Mark Twain, who's my favourite philosopher.
 
CapelDodger said:
What have the Philosophers ever done for us? Eh?

I think we're on pretty common ground. I chose 1900CE as safely beyond the nit-picking ground that Philosophy tends towards. Also I wanted to encompass Mark Twain, who's my favourite philosopher.
Click to expand...
At least you do seem to understand Twain was a philosopher ... as are you. :)

What have you done for yourself, lately?
 
Dogdoctor said:
The inherited ethics we have allow us to live like animals in the bush. We need to apply out minds to rise above our animal base.
Click to expand...
I intend to apply my mind to maintaining my animal base as long as possible. In a spirit of partnership, given that my animal base takes almost no account of the less-than-urgent future and who am I to say that's wrong? Objectively?
 
I am not afraid to dabble in philosophy. But, for me, it is merely a recreational activity for the mind. A sort-of playground, where you can play with any ideas you want, even those that have no scientific merit, what-so-ever. Of course, it is important to acknowledge which parts of your ideas are merely philosophical, when communicating to others, so they won't misunderstand you.

For me it is kind-of like playing with Star Wars action figures: If you were following the continuity of the Star Wars canon, you know that it is impossible for Darth Maul and Luke Skywalker to battle each other, since Maul died long before Luke was born. But, when you are playing with action figures, that does not matter! You can invent any story you want to: You can even have Luke Skywalker engaging Darth Maul in battle!

Following the SW canon, strictly, is analogous to science. Developing an anything-goes "Infinite Possibilities" storyline is analogous to philosophy.

For this reason, it is utterly important not to take your philosophies too seriously!!!
(And also, for this reason, I have not philosophized much on this forum. I tend to stick with science, when I am here.)
 
Wowbagger said:
I am not afraid to dabble in philosophy. But, for me, it is merely a recreational activity for the mind. A sort-of playground, where you can play with any ideas you want, even those that have no scientific merit, what-so-ever.
Click to expand...
I started playing what I now know as stunt-logic at school, and it's excellent mind-and-mouth exercise. And, of course, great fun.

The schools I went to in my teens were essentially designed to produce lawyers and politicians, so stunt-logic was in the air you breathed. Debating Societies at every level, where you were told the question and which side you were to take. To be called a Sophist was to be complimented. I learnt a great deal from the experience, and never joined a Debating Society. Never thought of becoming a lawyer either, and that was a mistake.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Do they? I wasn't aware of that. The San certainly do not seem to me to have "primitive undeveloped ethics". Their ethical system seems to fit their material situation, just as Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics serves as a wonderful primer on how to be a good Athenian gentleman and Bentham's Utilitarianism fits the needs of the industrious Englishman.
Click to expand...
Drop Bentham. That was a flailing shot at a moving target. The Athenian model was moving, but it still had inertia and a long history. The San never started moving. In the wider scheme of things, that could turn out to be a good call.


The San seem, at least to me, to make fairly sophisticated ethical judgments about sharing within their group, again as a consequence of their material situation. They actually have much more free time than we do, much more time for reflection and thought.
Click to expand...
They also know each other much more intimately than most modern people are used to. There are no strangers, or those that do appear are celebrities for rather more than 15 minutes.

That was one damn' fine post, Ichneumonwasp.
 
Dogdoctor said:
Don't cohesive societies of people develop ethical systems that are largely agreed upon by the members? I doubt that a large number of humans will agree 100% on much. Why should there be any more agreement than that? That we don't understand ethics very well is clear, just as we don't understand the human mind or lot's of other things which we have to deal with daily.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, of course. I was referring, however, to research that has examined the ways that we make ethical decisions within already set ethical paradigms and the responsible brain areas. While it will always be true that different people have differing opinions, it seems also to be true that most individuals do not use one set pattern to answer ethical questions. There are always exceptions, of course. There are some folks who are absolute utilitarians and others that are completely committed to a duty based system and yet others who are committed to virtue ethics. But most of us seem to use more than one strategy when answering ethical questions. We seem built with different modules to solve different problems. That is seemingly why we have general problem solving brains -- we don't rely on a single mode of thought or a single strategy but can pick and choose from a variety. I think that is what makes us so flexible. It is also probably why most approaches at artificial intelligence haven't worked. That and the fact that all the AI out there leaves out motivation and emotion which are critical to our way of thinking.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Well, yes, of course. I was referring, however, to research that has examined the ways that we make ethical decisions within already set ethical paradigms and the responsible brain areas. While it will always be true that different people have differing opinions, it seems also to be true that most individuals do not use one set pattern to answer ethical questions. There are always exceptions, of course. There are some folks who are absolute utilitarians and others that are completely committed to a duty based system and yet others who are committed to virtue ethics. But most of us seem to use more than one strategy when answering ethical questions. We seem built with different modules to solve different problems. That is seemingly why we have general problem solving brains -- we don't rely on a single mode of thought or a single strategy but can pick and choose from a variety. I think that is what makes us so flexible. It is also probably why most approaches at artificial intelligence haven't worked. That and the fact that all the AI out there leaves out motivation and emotion which are critical to our way of thinking.
Click to expand...

All of that is quite interesting however it seems to me that the method used to arrive at an ethical choice is not so important as the effect of that choice and that in looking at that (the effect) will lead to a better understanding of the what ethics is rather than looking at the method used to arrive at it. By the way you wouldn't happen to have any recommended sources of information I can go educate myself with about those ideas do you? I am very interested in these ideas and what is known.
 
Dogdoctor said:
Don't cohesive societies of people develop ethical systems that are largely agreed upon by the members? I doubt that a large number of humans will agree 100% on much. Why should there be any more agreement than that? That we don't understand ethics very well is clear, just as we don't understand the human mind or lot's of other things which we have to deal with daily.
Click to expand...
Ask not of cohesive societies, but of uncohesive societies. Nobody likes them, do they?

Cohesion doesn't require 100% or anything like that, it requires a general sense of what's right and what just got to be put up with and where push definitely comes to shove. Or not. The upshot has to be practical, otherwise it metaphorically takes the drop that Saddam took in a real sense.
 
Hmm, that's going to take some digging on my part for some of it.

As to the modular forms of thinking and the importance of emotion in thought, that is farily widespread now in the neurological literature (really the functional neuroimaging literature since Neurology proper doesn't much concern itself with this stuff). Probably the most accessible stuff is by Antonio Damasio - he's written several books including Descartes' Error, Looking for Spinoza, and the last one whose title escapes me at the moment. Stephen Pinker covers some of the same material especially as it relates to ethics in How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate. Marvin Minsky has written fairly extensively about modular thinking especially as it relates to AI, as has Jerry Fodor. Fodor doesn't agree with some of Pinker's ideas, hence his The Mind Doesn't Work That Way, which is also quite good.

I'll try to locate some of the original research dealing with ethical decision making since I primarily read about it in secondary sources like Discover Magazine and Scientific American.

And thank you, Capel Dodger, that was very kind.
 
DogDoctor said:
it seems to me that the method used to arrive at an ethical choice is not so important as the effect of that choice and that in looking at that (the effect) will lead to a better understanding of the what ethics is rather than looking at the method used to arrive at it.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Some of that is confusing even in ethics proper. For a consequentialist framework what you say is entirely correct. But the consequences are completely unimportant to deontology where all that matters is the proper way of thinking toward duty, etc. The fact that we find consequences so very important, however, is one of the big problems with trying to follow Kant's ethical system to the letter. Ethical Imeratives are all nice and good until the Nazis come a knockin'.

I think the scientific study of ethics might help us to understand all of this a bit. It will never be ethics, which is what you are really saying, and with that I completely agree.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I don't know. Some of that is confusing even in ethics proper. For a consequentialist framework what you say is entirely correct. But the consequences are completely unimportant to deontology where all that matters is the proper way of thinking toward duty, etc. The fact that we find consequences so very important, however, is one of the big problems with trying to follow Kant's ethical system to the letter. Ethical Imeratives are all nice and good until the Nazis come a knockin'.

I think the scientific study of ethics might help us to understand all of this a bit. It will never be ethics, which is what you are really saying, and with that I completely agree.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that you admit and so do I that genetics are responsible for part of what ethics is. 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. 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom