On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

The knives and forks do come out when one serves a turkey, yes.The biggest problem in your post (among many) is self-invalidation. If this statement is true, this statement is BS.It's a fatal self-contradiction.You declared philosophy irrelevant and philosophical questions a waste of time. Yet here are some of the questions you intend to address:

What is the nature of valid knowledge?
Which kind of knowledge is most useful?
What constitutes relevance?
What is most important to human beings?

All of these questions are philosophical questions.You acknowledge as much in the title of your thread. You propose a discussion of 'the philosophy of philosophy.'A philosophy of philosophy is, of course, philosophy.You also quote a 'philosopher of science' in support of your argument. A philosophy of science is, likewise, philosophy.Not that I have a problem with that. Philosophy is fine with me. Or at least it was--until I met one Mr Quetzal on EvC Forum, who kindly informed me of the following: Thanks to this deep-thinking exposé of the worldwide philosophy scam, I now know that philosophical questions are BS.This leads me to the logical conclusion that Quetzal, as a philosopher himself, is likewise 'foisting' BS onto the public. I now know the appropriate response to him is 'suspicion, to say the least.' I now know the questions he addresses are unlikely to have 'any relevance whatsoever.'The post thus stands invalidated. Death by suicide.Logically, two avenues exist for salvaging the OP.

1. Admit that some philosophical discussions have merit.

​

This option preserves your attack at the expense of your thesis. You discard the original thesis: 'All philosophical questions are BS'. You replace it with a new thesis: 'Some philosophies are BS but mine is not.' You may now proceed with your attack, showing why others' answers to these questions are so bad and your answers so much better. Readers will weigh what you say and make their own decisions.

​

This is, of course, what all philosophers do.

​

2. Declare your opening post BS, the discussion BS, ask that the thread be closed, and walk off.

​

This option preserves your thesis at the expense of your attack. Abandoning the project shows you really do believe philosophical discussions to be a waste of time. The action follows logically from the belief.

Your call, Socrates._______________________Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

Not at all, Mr Frog. I merely did the work of a logician. The philosophy was provided by the author of the OP. He clearly labelled it as such.Too bad the author ruled philosophy worthless in the same breath. Otherwise a discussion might be worth having.A discussion took place in Athens once, interestingly enough, about the very question the OP raises: how best to acquire valid knowledge. Plato argued that it was best to start investigations with universals and work down to particulars. Aristotle argued that it was best to start investigations with particulars and work up to universals.Most readers will recognize the Platonic view as characteristic of idealistic thinking. They will recognize the Aristotelian view as the beginning of the scientific method.Into this fray walks the author of our OP, who declares simultaneously that (1) Aristotle is correct, (2) Aristotle is BS, (3) questions like this are worth discussing, (4) questions like this are pointless.The result is a matter-antimatter reaction. A self-obliterating post.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Ah, but you are having a philosophical discussion, iceage. Specifically, you are discussing Hume's critique of prevailing ideas about metaphysics.You have not fully registered the import of the OP. Quetzal has already declared Hume, and anything you say about him, BS. Hume is a philosopher. The OP says this puts him in that worldwide class of 'thieves' who answer 'irrelevant' questions like 'What constitutes valid knowledge?' We are not to trust such people. They are only soaking the rest of us for the riches we throw at the world's philosophy majors.I have no problem with your bringing up Hume. In any discussion of empiricism it would be disappointing if someone didn't bring up his ideas. But for your comments to address the OP you must first convince its author that (1) questions of this kind matter and (2) the ideas of philosophers like Hume matter. Both of these premises, which you take as givens, were explicitly denied in the OP. Yes, it is a bit more precise to say one is allergic to 'peanuts' rather than 'food.'That's a big shift in focus. You are saying that philosophy in general is not suspect at all (as we were told in the OP). The culprit is just 'divinity' or 'school metaphysics.' This sounds reasonable. But the OP, unfortunately for the cause of reason, says something else. It declares, a priori, all consideration of philosophical questions worthless. That would include your own discussion of Hume.Does Quetzal agree to your reworking of his argument? It would be a good idea, but I haven't seen him do this. Agreeing with you would represent Option 1 in Message 46 above: withdrawal of his original thesis, acceptance of philosophical discussions as valid, promotion of a new thesis. But until he does that, your reworking of the argument represents a misrepresentation of his views. He has already declared invalid the kind of discussion you offer. You will likewise have to take that up with the author of the OP. The 'philosophy of science' was brought up there, in a post that otherwise assumed 'philosophy' and 'science' to be irreconcilable opposites. I am content to observe merely this: the existence of the former should have provided a clue-by-four to the author about the inadvisability of making sweeping dismissals based on the latter.Science and philosophy are both applications of reason and observation to areas of human inquiry. The existence of thinkers like Hume attests to this. You present us with a philosopher who was familiar with and endorsed empirical methods of investigation. And Hume is hardly alone in this respect. Philosophers since the end of the Middle Ages (and quite a few before) have factored empiricism into the equation. All philosophers in modern times are obliged to discuss the implications of science in addressing the nature and limits of human knowledge.I am glad to see you offering an education in this relationship for those who, for whatever reason, missed the memo. I wish you well._____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Me, too. It's an eminently worthwhile question to ask, in any field.

How do you know?

Because I asserted nothing of the sort, Mr Frog. That is reason enough not to defend it.I nowhere said that certain questions are 'best handled' by philosophy. I said certain questions are philosophy.To entertain such questions is thus to have a philosophical discussion.

My statement indeed. Which proves the point: ______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html, brev.

Noted. You imply here that 'hard data' and 'truth' matter to you.Why?

Would you be willing, iceage, to write an OP for a new thread? I think it would be great if you started as you did above, using precise terms and quoting Hume. We could then discuss the (necessarily philosophical) question I think Quetzal wanted to explore: the role of empiricism in epistomology.It would be nice to see that idea take wing. This thread is serving a different, and sadder, need. It has become a primer for bird watchers who don't think they do any of that high-falutin' ornithology stuff.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I asked why 'hard data' and 'truth' matter. It would not pull the thread off-topic. What it would do is contradict your statement that you disdain philosophy.But you have already done that, so we're good. You say you are 'happy' to address the question of why data and truth matter.Philosophy deals with, among other things, the question of why data and truth matter. It deals with the question of what they are.So as soon as you say you are happy and willing to discuss this question, you show you do not disdain philosophy at all. You enjoy it.Welcome to the Acropolis, Mr Philo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You already have, Ben. With an angry outburst.And an odd one. Why so much anger at discovering you are actually happy to discuss philosophy?Relax. Believe it or not, there are worse discoveries one can make. On the contrary: achieving understanding and communication is exactly what I was working toward. And I have some solid achievements to show for it.We both discovered, for example, that we share a common interest. We like to discuss philosophical questions, such as the nature of truth and the role of hard data in finding it.We also both learned that this discovery infuriates you rather than delights you.We have communication. We have progress toward understanding.Not bad for one exchange. Some people wave white flags, some say 'uncle,' some throw a towel, and some say 'sophistry.' Regardless: thanks for the medal.My purpose, though, was not to make you feel beaten. It was to show you something. Just something I thought you would find interesting. And I am happy to listen on that basis. As I say, I enjoy philosophical discussions.Maybe even as much as you do. Sharing thoughts about the acquisition of knowledge with others who are interested in how it works... that's the essence of a philosophical discussion, really. You did say that. But what infuriates you is learning that you like it.You thought you understood what philosophy was and you imagined yourself as standing somehow beyond it. You are learning that you didn't, and you don't.You have made some emotional investments in the idea of Ben as a philosophy hater. To have that picture altered is clearly stressful for you.My advice is to pull those investments. They're far out of proportion to what the picture is worth. No thinking person is a philosophy hater. They dislike some ideas, but they never hate all philosophy across the board. They do too much of it. But that's what a good philosophical discussion does.Few philosophical questions are ever settled finally as 'right/wrong,' 'correct/incorrect.' The questions tend to endure. People who discuss these questions know this. They just explore, seek as much clarity as they can, and compare notes. They arrive at personal syntheses that suit them and share ideas. They let others ask questions and test their reasoning in order to allow others to--how did you put it?--'facilitate making your own decisions about yourself.'You have here provided us with an excellent description of philosophy in action.I am glad you enjoy discussions of that sort. I do, too. I respect you enough to believe you are not made of sugar candy, despite your efforts to get us to think so. Imposing a gag rule after claiming martyr status is not the stuff of which communication--which you say you value--is made.Anyway, you opened your post by saying 'feel free to be an annoyance.' It seems I already have your express permission to participate in this discussion regardless of your feelings about anything I say.If you don't want replies, don't post. If you want the last word, earn it.________________Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : tinkering.

A PhD in any field makes a person a Doctor of Philosophy.Highest level. Top of the mountain.So nice to see you and Java reaching agreement.

There now, nator. You'll feel better after it's done.Imagine the relief you will feel at the commencement ceremony, when the newly minted PhD honoree proudly processes into the hall wearing a hood lined in blue--the colour of philosophy.Imagine the thrill you will feel when you see the same hue draped around the shoulders of all those other PhD giants in all those other fields of human endeavour: the sciences, the arts, the humanities.Imagine the joy you will feel when the newly minted PhD graduate joins a community of scholars who represent that vast array of fields, to work alongside them in adding to and sharing that great body of human knowledge of which the sciences are a part.Imagine the pride you will feel on that day when you look to the wall and see it gleaming in the light--that evidence of Everest conquered, that document of intellectual achievement that asks--no, demands--respect from all the world:

Doctor of Philosophy

__________________Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

I'd like to see crashfrog address these fields, too, anglagard. It's a reasonable request.He's already started down the road of making rulings. He may as well finish it.

I'm glad you shared this. It is certainly true that philosophy has generated empirically verifiable answers. It's just that, as soon as the answers can be verified in this way, they no longer belong to philosophy. It's no one's fault. It's true by definition.The idea of atoms and the idea of a round earth are both ideas that belong to ancient Greek philosophy. The people who came up with these ideas didn't imagine they were doing science. Science had yet to be invented. They were doing philosophy. But answers they are, and they have stuck.Philosophy's business is contemplation. As such, philosophy serves as an incubator for hypotheses. Here conjectures are born, tested, and refined. And here they remain, until new developments propel them elsewhere.Another misconception exists. Because philosophy specializes in 'unanswerable' questions (more precisely, because the answers it offers remain hypotheses), people often think every idea offered in philosophy is equally valid and that all ideas exist in a perpetual state of stalemate.Not so. Ideas get introduced and they get tested. The application of logic is ruthless. Some ideas gain ground. Some lose.You have already commented on the rising and falling fortunes of Aristotelian and Platonic models.We find another example in the literature of the late Middle Ages (the nascent period for science). There one encounters a lot of discussion of substances. It was a hot topic. This concern with substances has left its mark on the Nicene Creed and other period documents.The philosophical concern with substances falls off, though, after the Renaissance. Research replaced conjecture. The ancient hypothesis of atoms was confirmed and refined. Among philosophers the discussion shifted toward epistomology: how do we know? Throughout the scientific age this has continued to be a subject of great interest. It's as hot a topic today as ever.Philosophy is an incubator for hypotheses. It is useful because hypotheses are useful. And it is useful because, even in the absence of conclusive data, hypotheses may be tested by logic and observation and refined through discussion.There were things Aquinas said that, later, no one could. Discussion over time--and the application of logic, straight--led to progress.It's important to note, though, that not every useful hypothesis philosophy generates passes in time into the realm of natural science. This is because philosophy deals with much more than just natural phenomena. Some of its ideas bear fruit elsewhere.Aristotle, for example, contemplated form. He liked to think about the shapes of things. He suspected that many forms exist that, because of their scale or their medium, we do not discern readily with the human eye. He wanted to make some progress toward describing these things.Theatre was very popular in Athens. Aristotle, being a fan himself, decided to describe the form of plays. He noticed that some plays had a very powerful and satisfying effect on audiences while others--as eloquently scripted and performed as the first--left the audience frustrated and feeling a bit cheated. He described the forms of each. He noted certain common features shared by satisfying plays that, when missing from a play, prompt feelings of disappointment.Today this subject belongs to the field of aesthetic theory. Every time you sit in the cinema and feel tempted to throw popcorn at the screen over the way the story ended, it's a safe bet that the mistake is one Aristotle warned against.Aristotle was equally interested in describing what form the earth had. He noted the evidence, applied logic, and decided it was round. He even ventured an estimate of its size. (He called its circumference at twice the size it really is. Not bad for a guy in a Bronze Age town filled with flat-earthers.) Today, of course, the subject belongs to geology. But Aristotle wasn't doing science. Science did not exist. His business was contemplation. For him, contemplating the shape of the earth was no different that contemplating the shape of a good play. These were just two of the many things that people who enjoy thinking find worthwhile to think about.____________Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

And right, which is the most annoying thing of all.Sorry. That just comes with our PhDs. _______Edited by Archer Opterix, : ongoing quest for perfect annoyance.