Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 307 (430476)
10-25-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by subbie
10-25-2007 3:52 PM


Re: A few thoughts, in no particular order
Hi subbie. Thanks for your reply.
But you seem to be dismissing the importance of these things for all people. The way you describe things, it makes it sound as if you believe that philosophers are the only ones considering these questions while non-philosopher types are sitting on the sidelines, cheering on one side or the other. However, I believe that most people spend at least some time contemplating these questions in one fashion or another. Perhaps many of them do so in the context of religious worship. Quite often, people make vital, life altering decisions based on the answers they come up with in these deliberations. Thus, I dispute your claim that the importance of these questions is "unevidenced." The evidence of their importance is found in the fact that people think they are important enough to consider them.
On the other hand, you have merely reiterated what I (and Jaderis particularly) have stated: the importance of those specific "life-changing" questions depends entirely on the subjective weight individuals - or possibly a given society - place on them. In essence, you appear to be agreeing with me that there is no extrinsic value to either the questions or the answers. There is, as I have admitted above, certainly a subjective value and relevancy to them. Indeed, as you stated, "Quite often, people make vital, life altering decisions based on the answers they come up with in these deliberations." Someone else, on the other hand, may undertake the same deliberations, and likely come up with a completely different answer or answers. Since that is the case, pretending that there is some inherent value or universal relevance to either the questions or the answers appears specious.
This is especially the case with the subset of philosphers who base their musings on revealed religion. These folks are at best interpreting, or at worst simply regurgitating Answers (with a capital "A") from their particular holy texts. Then, of course, they turn about and tell their fellow-believers what those answers are. In other words, telling people what is important to believe. The fact that much of this belief bears no relationship to reality should be a red flag at the very least. I contend that all philosophers, metaphysicians, etc, seek to do the same. The primary difference is that non-religious ones are forced to attempt to persuade people to their viewpoint. Religious ones get to dictate.
First, the very fact that people can be persuaded of the rightness of another's position on say a matter of morality shows me that these matters are not "purely and wholly subjective."
Heh. What you've just described is pure subjectivity. Someone can persuade someone else to accept their private interpretation. If there was some extrinsic, universal "rightness" to be discovered, then all those people you claim "consider them at length" wouldn't have to be persuaded. They may differ on the details, but would pretty much be coming up with the same answers. Since they don't (obviously), then the answers are practically by definition subjective ones. And the fact that you may not be able to persuade someone - see the loooooong history of mutually contradictory philosophies humans have invented over the centuries - all of which purport to be examing the same questions...
Contrast this with "questions and subsequent answers dreamed of by philosophers/religious." While I wholeheartedly agree that these things are influenced by culture and society, you go too far in declaring that they are dependent on culture and society. Were you correct, everyone in a particular culture and society would agree on these matters.
Perhaps, for clarity, I should have used the phrase, "dependent upon and/or constrained by" instead of just "dependent". What constitutes moral behavior is quite clearly socio-culturally dependent. The relative value placed on human life, the individual's role/purpose, even the reason for existence itself is determined in large measure by the society in which the individual moves and interacts. Even how the question(s) are framed - or for that matter what questions are asked - changes from culture to culture and era to era.
As far as everyone being in complete agreement, I don't think this necessarily follows. Undoubtedly in the aggregate, except for relatively rare semi-egalitarian societies such as the modern West, most individual members of a culture or society perforce agree with the overall views of that society. They may differ on the details, perhaps, but in the main "purpose", "morality", etc, are value-laden cultural affects which most members of a society will ascribe to. In other words, most people are quite content to be told what to think. Religions and their adherents are a clear example.
Given that the most that we can say is that these questions are culturally and societally influenced, the obvious responsive question is, "So what?" That different cultures and societies have come to different conclusions does not prevent the questions from being important. Nor does it prevent the questions from being discussed, opinions exchanged, and positions modified on the basis of the exchanges. (my bold)
In other words, since the entire issue is subjective, philosophers are wasting their time attempting to define answers. As I said. How do you even know the questions being thus subjectively discussed ARE important? And how relevant are the answers?
You seek to condemn philosophy for its inability to do something that it doesn't intend to do (except for certain situations that I will address in another post). Philosophy (mostly) isn't concerned with empirical truth. But to criticize it on that basis makes as much sense as criticizing science for not answering value questions. The ToE doesn't tell us that it's wrong or right to eat our young. It simply says that in certain cases, that behavior will occur in nature. Science didn't tell Truman to drop atomic bombs on Japan, it only said that if he wanted to, he could. Instead, it takes philosophy to answer these questions, and many others of great important to a great many people.
I disagree. The very question that prompted this thread refutes your contention inre what philosophy/religion/etc claim to do. Repeating:
quote:
But are you willing to throw out the whole of philosophy and religion, which examine the nature of life and existence, because they are not as "true" as a fossil or a rock? (bold mine)
Philosophy quite clearly claims to be a way of knowledge that seeks to attain "truth" (both big and little "T" truth). I contend that it simply doesn't achieve this, and in fact, cannot. Philosophy as a discipline only develops abstractions that have little or no relationship to the world. It surely cannot answer the great questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything, because it is not based in reality, only subjectivity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by subbie, posted 10-25-2007 3:52 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by subbie, posted 10-26-2007 12:50 AM Quetzal has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 307 (430485)
10-25-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hyroglyphx
10-25-2007 10:55 AM


LindaLou
quote:
He stated to LindaLou (why is she inactive, btw?)
She quit.
Couldn't abide the bright light of inquiry when it shone upon her own irrational beliefs, as opposed to on others'.
She didn't understand that we don't oppose Creationism because we don't like Creationism, per se.
We oppose Creationism because it is unscientific, yet its proponents want it to be treated as scientific.
Therefore, anything that similarly abuses science will get the same treatment.
Truly, I just don't understand how someone can compartmentalize their mind like that. The cognitive dissonance must be incredibly uncomfortable.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-25-2007 10:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 307 (430486)
10-25-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Quetzal
10-25-2007 9:00 AM


Do you think murder should be against the law?
However, the metaphysical/philosophical/religious conception of objective morality isn't, because it does not exist in reality.
I can think of many philosophies and philosophers that do not assert such a thing as 'objective morality'”Relativism, for example.
So, like any good philosopher () with nothing substantive to say,
Do social philosophers have nothing to say? Do the people who argue for equal rights have nothing substantive to say?
I can tell you, the herding of Jewish people into gas chambers may have no objective placing in morality”I agree”, but to claim that people who discuss these issues have nothing substantive to say is to clearly dismiss the immense impact and importance their conclusions have had on everyone.
Pity you feel this way.
If there was some extrinsic, universal "rightness" to be discovered, then all those people you claim "consider them at length" wouldn't have to be persuaded.
S'pose we could say the same about the creationism/evolution debate Not.
In other words, since the entire issue is subjective, philosophers are wasting their time attempting to define answers. As I said.
Not all philosophers try to 'dene answers'. As I said.
How do you even know the questions being thus subjectively discussed ARE important? And how relevant are the answers?
Will the answers determine if Jon writes his name in cursive or print? Unimportant and irrelevant.
Will the answers determine that 6 million humans are to be burned alive? Important and relevant.
Philosophy quite clearly claims to be a way of knowledge that seeks to attain "truth" (both big and little "T" truth).
Absolute. 100%. Misrepresentation. Of. Your. Opponent's. Views.
Sad.
Philosophy as a discipline only develops abstractions that have little or no relationship to the world.
Read up on my post; pay attention to the relationship philosophy has had in determining the fate of 6 million innocent people.
[Philosophy] is not based in reality, only subjectivity.
So is Life.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Quetzal, posted 10-25-2007 9:00 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 10-26-2007 8:58 AM Jon has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 307 (430500)
10-25-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Quetzal
10-25-2007 9:40 AM


Re: The Philosophy of the anti-philosopher: A lesson in futility
philosophy as a way of knowing is at best impractical and at worst vacuous since it has limited or no point of conjunction with the "real world". "Consign it to the flames", says Hume, because if we wish to understand the world in which we live, it (philosophy, metaphysics, religion, etc) can provide no concrete answers - or even, I contend, valid questions.
But this is a presupposition, no? How can only scientific or mathematical questions be valid, only to then go on and make an unscientific statement, and still remain coherent within the framework of which it was framed?
I understood Hume's point well. But surely you or Hume couldn't be serious that philosophical questions have nothing valid, or are completely vacuous since we derive much meaning from them. What great conclusion are you going to come to about love without it? What great conclusion about morality are you going to come to without it? Or better yet, what great conclusion will you come to by studying the entrails of a gopher?
Sure, now we know the inner workings of a gopher. At the end of the day, you want to say, "so what?" Which is more critical: Understanding love and morality or the intestinal track of a gopher? Before you answer, don't misunderstand me to mean that science and mathematics are of no value. They are of immense value in their own right. But downplaying philosophy will bring you no greater answers.
I'm not clear why you think that my use of a quote from a philosopher is inappropriate when I'm commenting on philosophy. Hume was, after all, contending that philosophy is a dead-end game.
If its a dead-end game, he wouldn't have needed to postulate the question from a philosophical assumption.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 10-25-2007 9:40 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2007 11:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 31 by Quetzal, posted 10-26-2007 9:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 20 of 307 (430543)
10-25-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Hyroglyphx
10-25-2007 7:20 PM


Assumption?
nemesis writes:
If its a dead-end game, he wouldn't have needed to postulate the question from a philosophical assumption.
Hume wasn't making an assumption. He was speaking with evidence behind him. From his early 18th century viewpoint, he could see very well that the observations and calculations of people like Copernicus, Galileo and Newton had greatly advanced knowledge, and that truths could be arrived at by means of science.
Then he could look around him and see that the philosopher/theologicans had come up with no truths about the universe at all. (If you disagree with that, do list some truths that they had discovered).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-25-2007 7:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-25-2007 11:55 PM bluegenes has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 307 (430548)
10-25-2007 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by bluegenes
10-25-2007 11:17 PM


Re: Assumption?
Hume wasn't making an assumption. He was speaking with evidence behind him.
Try and follow the train of logic here to look for inconsistencies:
David Hume said
"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
This statement is completely contradictory because it is exactly what he said we should avoid, committing such sophistry to the flames. His statement was neither mathematical, scientific, or empirical. What should we do with such abstract reasoning?-- toss it then to the flames for it is but sophistry and illusion.
The very sword he wields to deny philosophy is the very weapon that decapitates him, because you can't deny it without asserting it, and you can't assert it without denying it. IOW, he failed his own test, and fell in to his own trap.
From his early 18th century viewpoint, he could see very well that the observations and calculations of people like Copernicus, Galileo and Newton had greatly advanced knowledge, and that truths could be arrived at by means of science.
Okay.... and?.... Science is a perfectly valid field. My issue with him is that he claims that philosophy is not-- and this, coming from a philosopher, no less. Don't you find that terribly ironic?
Then he could look around him and see that the philosopher/theologicans had come up with no truths about the universe at all.
Oh, gee, I don't know.... How about truth itself! Does the word or concept of "truth" even factor in to some mathematical equation or scientific theorem?
If Hume simply said that philosophy is ultimately subjective, there would not be any controversy. That much is quite obvious. But he didn't. He decided to say that it was totally worthless. It isn't. If it was then forums, including this one, would not mean a thing. Otherwise what you are really saying is that your opinion doesn't matter. But if didn't matter to you, then why are you here?
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2007 11:17 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by bluegenes, posted 10-26-2007 12:53 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 35 by iceage, posted 10-26-2007 11:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 22 of 307 (430555)
10-26-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hyroglyphx
10-25-2007 10:55 AM


Re: the philosophy of science
He stated to LindaLou (why is she inactive, btw?) that science is the "ONLY" thing that has ever produced any reason and meaning. He then goes on to say that since morals are viewed as subject and arbitrary that are meaningless. In other words, they are sophistry. Is then my (or Jon's) assumption all that silly?
But calling something sophistry or meaningless and saying that something is morally wrong are two entirely different things.
Besides, he didn't say that they were entirely meaningless, just not as important as some people make them out to be and irrelevant when applied to all of humanity. He went on to say that the questions (and especially the answers) were subjective and then agreed with me that they were important on an individual level.
Again, the question posed by Jon took Quetzal's statements out of context and then you just made up a whole different dimension to what he was saying (but tried to cover yourself by saying it was "tacit").
That's the oft-repeated cry I hear, but it sort of glibly overlooks some basic fundamental principles that everyone is subjected to. That morality has been assigned to you via the law. You, Quetzal, me, Jon, and everyone at EvC is subject to the law of the land which has derived from a moral framework. Is that really sophistry? Is that really of no great importance? When a man is standing over you with a gun in hand, will you be considering the lack of empricism? Will you be thinking about equations or biological theories?
Questions of law and the philosophical questions introduced by Quetzal are not one and the same. I am bound by the law in the U.S. because I choose to live here and some of the laws are indeed derived from a moral framework (although there are many that should not be), but the law has not "assigned" to me my personal morality. It is highly possible that I think that murder is wrong because I grew up being told that murder is wrong and because my society deems murder to be wrong and that affected my thoughts, but I have also pondered the question for myself and my reasons for thinking murder is wrong probably differ from others' reasons to some degree and are probably the same as others to some degree.
And BTW, if a man was standing over me with a gun, no, I would not be thinking about equations and biology, but neither would I be pondering the meaning of life or why some people are "bad" while others are "good." I would be looking for a way out of the situation.
Is the lack of consensus, all of which pervades science as well, the determining factor of importance? The lack of consensus seems like a side step to avoid the obvious pitfalls of a world devoid of philosophical notions.
No, the lack of concensus tells me that it is up to me to decide what is right and what is wrong. Like I said, the questions are important, but the answers can only be my own regardless of if I seem to "adopt" some of my answers from other people. I still choose to adopt those answers, deciding for myself if I agree or not and I am free to change my mind. I just disagree with the assumption implied by many philosophers and theologians that they have all the answers figured out already and that they apply to everyone, everywhere.
More to the point concerning this: Scientific theories have at their base, some philosophical assumptions attached to them. In order to formulate some theoretical basis for this and that, one must first have in mind some kind of philosophical assumption that goads on the investigation for an concrete answer.
That is partly correct. Some assumptions (philosophical or otherwise) have to be made in order to form a hypothesis. The thing about science, though, is that if the evidence doesn't support the assumption then the assumption is tossed out. The same cannot be said for metaphysics...it is all unprovable so anything goes and you guys can argue until the cows come home but you will no closer to finding the truth. At least, not in a way that can be determined in this life.
I just entertained the idea of philosophical assumptions in science, but after thinking on it I would like to ask you now to provide an example of such an assumption. Care to?

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-25-2007 10:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-26-2007 12:49 AM Jaderis has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 307 (430561)
10-26-2007 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jaderis
10-26-2007 12:26 AM


Re: the philosophy of science
I just entertained the idea of philosophical assumptions in science, but after thinking on it I would like to ask you now to provide an example of such an assumption. Care to?
I'm getting ready to get some sleep, so I will only address this one aspect for now.
I think nothing obviates what I'm referring to more succinctly than this ad hoc, completely invented on-the-fly response Larni made, to which Skeptical swallowed-- hook, line, and sinker without the least bit of empirical corroboration. The only assurance he apparently needs is if it sounds plausible to him. Yet, it is a philosophical assumption, not empirical fact.
http://EvC Forum: The fallacy of Prophecy? -->EvC Forum: The fallacy of Prophecy?
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jaderis, posted 10-26-2007 12:26 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jaderis, posted 10-26-2007 1:10 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 24 of 307 (430562)
10-26-2007 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Quetzal
10-25-2007 5:41 PM


Re: A few thoughts, in no particular order
Someone else, on the other hand, may undertake the same deliberations, and likely come up with a completely different answer or answers. Since that is the case, pretending that there is some inherent value or universal relevance to either the questions or the answers appears specious.
Please explain why the fact that different people ask different questions, or come up with different answers to the same question, means that the questions or answers have no inherent value, because I don't see that that follows.
Each of them has different inherent value to those who consider them. You seem to place a great deal of emphasis on the fact that these questions and answers are not universal. I'm not sure that none of them are universal. However, even if we assume that none of them are universal, so what? Why do you assign value only to those things that can be universally empirically demonstrated?
You know, an implicit assumption in your calculus is the idea that value can be found in philosophy only to the extent that it provides universally accepted principals. Might I suggest to you that value can be found in philosophy quite independent of whether it ever produces universally accepted principals?
...except for relatively rare semi-egalitarian societies such as the modern West,...
Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
I would argue that "semi-egalitarian societies" are the fruits that are now blossoming from the seeds sown by the philosophers of the 18th century. Perhaps the ideas of liberty and equality are now in the process of becoming universally accepted.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Quetzal, posted 10-25-2007 5:41 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jaderis, posted 10-26-2007 1:29 AM subbie has not replied
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 10-26-2007 10:08 AM subbie has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 25 of 307 (430564)
10-26-2007 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
10-25-2007 11:55 PM


Re: Assumption?
nemesis writes:
This statement is completely contradictory because it is exactly what he said we should avoid, committing such sophistry to the flames. His statement was neither mathematical, scientific, or empirical. What should we do with such abstract reasoning?-- toss it then to the flames for it is but sophistry and illusion.
His statement is based on the empirical evidence that truths are discovered by science. So it is not contradictory.
Okay.... and?.... Science is a perfectly valid field. My issue with him is that he claims that philosophy is not-- and this, coming from a philosopher, no less. Don't you find that terribly ironic?
Hume was not a philosopher who wanted to do away with all philosophy. What he wanted to throw into the fire was philosophy that did not have any respect for empirical evidence. Stuff that people just made up in their heads. He wanted to do away with the 18th century equivalent of the kind of mumbo-jumbo that your friend Ravi comes out with, which is why Ravi doesn't like him.
How would Ravi make a living if he had to present evidence for his waffle?
I repeat, Hume was basing that statement on very, very strong evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-25-2007 11:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-26-2007 10:22 PM bluegenes has replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 26 of 307 (430569)
10-26-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
10-26-2007 12:49 AM


Re: the philosophy of science
I think nothing obviates what I'm referring to more succinctly than this ad hoc, completely invented on-the-fly response Larni made, to which Skeptical swallowed it hook, line, and sinker without the least bit of empirical corroboration. The only assurance he apparently needs is if it sounds plausible to him. Yet, it is a philosophical assumption, not empirical fact.
What does anything Larni said have to do with philosophical assumptions made in science? And how does Spektical's response play into it?
(I admit that when I posed the question I was thinking more along the lines of "hard science" and not psychology, sociology, etc, which I should have made clear. I also admit that alot of philosophical assumptions are made in these two (and related) fields. I am slightly skeptical of a lot of the "answers" posed by psychology and sociology for this reason in particular. Meaning that some of the "answers" provided do not and cannot apply to everyone. Not all, but some, and that may very well change for me as the fields progress and more hard evidence is accumulated.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-26-2007 12:49 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 10-26-2007 6:12 AM Jaderis has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 27 of 307 (430572)
10-26-2007 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by subbie
10-26-2007 12:50 AM


Re: A few thoughts, in no particular order
You know, an implicit assumption in your calculus is the idea that value can be found in philosophy only to the extent that it provides universally accepted principals. Might I suggest to you that value can be found in philosophy quite independent of whether it ever produces universally accepted principals?
I don't think you need to suggest it because I think he already agrees with you. He even stated in the OP that the questions have subjective value. The problem stems from the assumption on the part of philosophers that they can ever find "truth." A truth by definition implies universality. Something that simply is true.
What he was trying to say is that only science, so far, has been able to provide any kind of "truth" which is objective. Any of the "truths" discovered in philosophy, theology or any other kind of metaphysics are all completely subjective, therefore the questions and the answers do not have any inherent value. The validity, even the existence, of the questions and answers comes from the person asking and answering them.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by subbie, posted 10-26-2007 12:50 AM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Woodsy, posted 10-26-2007 7:24 AM Jaderis has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 307 (430590)
10-26-2007 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jaderis
10-26-2007 1:10 AM


psychology
quote:
I also admit that alot of philosophical assumptions are made in these two (and related) fields. I am slightly skeptical of a lot of the "answers" posed by psychology and sociology for this reason in particular. Meaning that some of the "answers" provided do not and cannot apply to everyone. Not all, but some, and that may very well change for me as the fields progress and more hard evidence is accumulated.
I'd just like to point out that the field of Psychology is huge, and contains a range of "hardness", as it were.
On one end of the spectrum, you have very soft areas like many of the Social Psych and areas and at the other end, you have Neuropsychology and Cognitive Neuroscience.
Believe me, people in the harder branches of Psychology have a fair bit of disdain for some of the mushy stuff that passes for science in the soft areas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jaderis, posted 10-26-2007 1:10 AM Jaderis has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 29 of 307 (430592)
10-26-2007 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jaderis
10-26-2007 1:29 AM


Re: A few thoughts, in no particular order
This reminds me of the story of the physicist and the metaphysicist; I don't recall who originated it.
A physicist and a metaphysicist each have an idea.
The physicist goes to the laboratory and through much labour tests his idea. He finds the idea to be in error, discards it, and carries on.
The metaphysicist, however, has no laboratory and no means of testing his idea. He never can tell whether his idea is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jaderis, posted 10-26-2007 1:29 AM Jaderis has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 307 (430597)
10-26-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jon
10-25-2007 6:31 PM


Re: Do you think murder should be against the law?
I can think of many philosophies and philosophers that do not assert such a thing as 'objective morality'”Relativism, for example.
Right, as can I. I never said there weren't. However, the point remains that philosophers in general make truth claims about the world that have little to do with reality. With the exception of those schools which are based more or less loosely on empiricism, naturally.
can tell you, the herding of Jewish people into gas chambers may have no objective placing in morality”I agree”, but to claim that people who discuss these issues have nothing substantive to say is to clearly dismiss the immense impact and importance their conclusions have had on everyone.
Pity you feel this way.
Ah yes, when in doubt, devolve into ad hominem. Two points:
1) I think you may be confusing ideology with philosophy. Whereas philosophy underlies ideology, my understanding is that the latter is an attempt to operationalize the former. Although this is a gross oversimplification, Marx for instance was a "pure" philosopher. Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest of that gang were ideologues who attempted to implement in the real world the theoretical philosophy of Marx (with some additions). It is entirely possible to be both, of course. Mao was both a philosopher and an ideologue. I would posit that few ideologies have been successfully implemented without serious modification and/or consequences primarily because they are based on something that has no relation to reality. There are exceptions, of course. Can you think of any?
2) As to the rest of your post, I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. When you are through attempting to portray me as a Holocaust denier, someone who considers the Holocaust irrelevant, or even (since I don't know how far you were willing to push this accusation), supporter, and are willing to actually address the substance of the thread: Is philosophy/religion/metaphysics a valid "way of knowing" about (from the OP) "...the nature of life and existence...", then we can continue.
Edited by Quetzal, : Weird unintended smiley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 10-25-2007 6:31 PM Jon has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024