|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Not as a reply to your sophistry, but as further evidence to substantiate a position that some have asked me to defend:
Not so. Human knowledge is not isolated boxes, but a woven fabric. Threads cross, provide mutual support, run parallel. One thread leads to another. All of the fabric is connected. Behind all areas of study lies philosophy. nator showed us how all roads lead to philosophy in academia. So it is that in back of all specialized knowledge lies philosophy. To hold any belief system, to have a set of priorities, is to have a philosophy. To examine any belief system is to engage in philosophy. All thinking people do these things. It's not that everything is philosophy; Isn't it? You don't seem so sure about that. If everything is philosophy, then nothing is. If all human thought constitutes a form of philosophy, then all you've done is create an unneeded synonym for "thinking."
And when you do other things well, it still recognizes you as a Doctor of Philosophy. Funny, but the existence of my friends with JD and MD degrees would seem to prove you wrong about the universality of philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3627 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Archer says:
It's not that everything is philosophy; Crashfrog quotes this, then takes exception this way:
If everything is philosophy, (sigh) _______ Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yeah. ..and evolution is just a theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Since things seem to be stalling fast I was trying to find a way to summarize my position, and why philosophy is not to be scorned and why it was not 'nothing more than a dumpster for questions that sound interesting to sexy sophomore co-eds but cannot, in all likelihood, be answered in any confident fashion [and]...for wags who like the sound of their own voices far too well to muzzle them with the rigorous requirements of science.'.
I managed at least to get a cautious acceptance that some fields are rigorous and I hoped that would put rest the idea that philosophy was 'refuted', and that those fields that are considered most rigorous represents the current consensus of the field of western philosophy. Still, I wanted a good summary of what I think philosophy is - crashfrog has certainly described various properties he believes philosophy has but I haven't seen a coherent simple definition of what philosophy is. Maybe I missed it, but I've put several different angles out there, and then I went to answers.com. I found this, which expressed it better than I have been able:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crashfrog quotes this, then takes exception this way:
Right, because you were contradicting yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
crashfrog has certainly described various properties he believes philosophy has but I haven't seen a coherent simple definition of what philosophy is. It seems to me that I've been supplying definitions throughout. You quoted two of them in this post alone. I gather that you find them wrong, in some way, but to assert that I haven't defined anything at all seems wrong on its face.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It seems to me that I've been supplying definitions throughout. You quoted two of them in this post alone. I gather that you find them wrong, in some way, but to assert that I haven't defined anything at all seems wrong on its face. It's not that I thought they were wrong crashfrog and it is not that I thought you hadn't defined philosophy in some sense of the word, it's that that I thought they were not simple coherent definitions in the sense I was providing, but instead were disparaging remarks about a subject. As I conceded, in the section you quoted you have 'described various properties he believes philosophy has' but I don't think these give any understanding of what philosophy is, just what your opinion of what philosophy is.. If you'd like, you've not expanded on it sufficiently: If a sexy co-ed finds a question interesting, does that make it philosophy? Does it just have to be one sexy co-ed, or a consensus of sexy co-eds. Who gets to decide if they are sexy or not? It seems like a silly definition. Can we get something more concrete? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As I conceded, in the section you quoted you have 'described various properties he believes philosophy has' but I don't think these give any understanding of what philosophy is, just what your opinion of what philosophy is. A spade has to be called a spade. In my view, which I have defended, philosophy is a field which, lacking rigor but possessing much cachet, becomes a dumping ground for nonsense questions that make the asker look like someone intelligent. Any definition that doesn't proceed from that understanding, in my view, is describing something other than philosophy. For instance, if I defined "philosophy" as "a large, extinct flightless bird originally native to the island of Mauritius", then clearly we have reason to dismiss my definition regardless of its clarity and concision - much as I have reason to reject yours. A definition cannot give understanding unless it accurately describes what it claims to define. Any definition of philosophy that does not refer to how useless and pointless it is as a field is similarly inaccurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
A spade has to be called a spade. In my view, which I have defended, philosophy is a field which, lacking rigor but possessing much cachet, becomes a dumping ground for nonsense questions that make the asker look like someone intelligent. Yes yes, I know your opinions about philosophy, but how would I know philosophy when I saw it?
A definition cannot give understanding unless it accurately describes what it claims to define. Any definition of philosophy that does not refer to how useless and pointless it is as a field is similarly inaccurate. This does not have to be the case. One can define philosophy, and then explain how from that definition it is useless. You've just started at describing it as useless, and then tried to argue that it is useless. The problem I find myself in is that I do not know what it is that you are describing as useless. You have given it a word 'philosophy', but you haven't actually defined it, just dismissed it as useless and unrigorous. The debate is at its final dead end if you cannot explain what philosophy actually is in your mind, not just describe what you think of philosophy. I know what your opinions on philosophy are and they don't need repeating. If I was to pick up something by Russell or Hume, how would I be able to say "That was a philosophical position or question?" I don't want you to describe some qualities that you think the field possesses, but rather I'm asking for the cognitive tool you use for discriminating between what is philosophy and what is not. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yes yes, I know your opinions about philosophy, but how would I know philosophy when I saw it? The smell? You'd look for a field where people said much, meant nothing, and seemed to be all the better regarded for it, but didn't call themselves "theologians" or "economists," but rather, "philosophers." Philosophy is what philosophers are doing when they're not doing anything useful.
You've just started at describing it as useless, and then tried to argue that it is useless. I think that after 220 posts I've made a pretty good argument for considering philosophy useless, and again, I'm not by any means the only person who thinks so. I don't know a single scientist, for instance, who sees any merit in philosophy, for all that philosophers try to take credit for the scientific method.
The debate is at its final dead end if you cannot explain what philosophy actually is in your mind, not just describe what you think of philosophy. You're not making any sense. What else could philosophy be in my mind except for what my mind thinks of it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Any definition that doesn't proceed from that understanding, in my view, is describing something other than philosophy. So, if anyone shows you something currently regarded as philosophy which is not "a field which, lacking rigor but possessing much cachet, becomes a dumping ground for nonsense questions that make the asker look like someone intelligent;" Your reply will merely be that it cannot be philosophy, and instead, all you'll include into your category of philosophy are those things which already t the denition you've given them, and then you'll use those to defend your point. Let's diagram that, shall we?
(Examine X) | v Does X=0? -No-> X = non-Philosophy | Yes | v X = Philosophy The obvious problem here, of course, is that you are trying to mould your reality around your denitions, instead of trying to extract your denitions from your reality. It's similar to how Creationists interpret evidence to t their presuppositions that the Bible is inherent, instead of concluding whether the Bible is inherent based on the evidence. A more honest (and non-Crashfroggian) method should be something like:
(Examine P) | v What is P? -0-> Some P are 0 | 1 | v Some P are 1 This way, you'll come to the proper conclusion that some philosophy is good, and that others is utter rubbish. In other words, you'll come to a conclusion that is more tting of your reality, and then you won't have to make one up any more”your reality, that is. Also, I'd like to know how it was you came to this denition. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So, if anyone shows you something currently regarded as philosophy which is not "a field which, lacking rigor but possessing much cachet, becomes a dumping ground for nonsense questions that make the asker look like someone intelligent;" Your reply will merely be that it cannot be philosophy, and instead, all you'll include into your category of philosophy are those things which already t the denition you've given them, and then you'll use those to defend your point. Uh, no, that doesn't sound like what I wrote, at all. See, this is what makes me think you're not here to read for comprehension; you're here to interpret my remarks in the most rebutable way possible, regardless of my intent.
The obvious problem here, of course, is that you are trying to mould your reality around your denitions, instead of trying to extract your denitions from your reality. The obvious problem here is that you're molding your replies around what you wish I had said, instead of what I actually did. By all means, try to defend philosophy; but see if you can do it in the context of 220 previous posts on the subject and without being as disingenuous as you've been in the past. Can you do that for me?
Also, I'd like to know how it was you came to this denition. Observation of the dishonesty of those who defend philosophy, like the dishonesty you've been displaying in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You'd look for a field where people said much, meant nothing, and seemed to be all the better regarded for it, but didn't call themselves "theologians" or "economists," but rather, "philosophers." Philosophy is what philosophers are doing when they're not doing anything useful. Then we are not talking about the same field. One might be saying much and meaning nothing and engaging in philosophy. But I feel that one can say plenty with meaning and also engage in philosophy. However, I feel your idea of looking for people who call themselves philosophers as a means to determining if they are engaging in philosophy or some other useless field you don't like is highly unsatisfying. If I didn't know who the person was making a statement, how would I know if they were a philosopher or if they were engaging in philosophy rather than talking about economics or theology?
quote: Without knowing who wrote this, how would I know if it was theology or philosophy or economics?
I think that after 220 posts I've made a pretty good argument for considering philosophy useless, and again, I'm not by any means the only person who thinks so. I think you have put an OK case up against useless philosophy.
You're not making any sense. What else could philosophy be in my mind except for what my mind thinks of it? Let me try again. I don't want your opinion on your perceived flaws of the field, I want to know what the field actually is that you feel has no merit. Don't tell me its useless that it has no rigour that it is whatever philosophers do etc etc. Tell me what 'it' actually is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Then we are not talking about the same field. I wish that the one you were talking about existed. I honestly do. But it is not philosophy as practiced.
I don't want your opinion on your perceived flaws of the field, I want to know what the field actually is that you feel has no merit. Don't tell me its useless that it has no rigour that it is whatever philosophers do etc etc. Again, I don't understand. If the field has no merit, it is because of its flaws. You're asking for something, and then you're telling me not to tell you that thing. How am I supposed to make heads or tails of that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So in summary, your position's merely been pulled from your ass?
Toadboy writes: In my view, which I have defended, philosophy is a field which, lacking rigor but possessing much cachet, becomes a dumping ground for nonsense questions that make the asker look like someone intelligent.... Any definition that doesn't proceed from that understanding, in my view, is describing something other than philosophy. Jon writes:
Uh, no, that doesn't sound like what I wrote, at all. So, if anyone shows you something currently regarded as philosophy which is not "a field which, lacking rigor but possessing much cachet, becomes a dumping ground for nonsense questions that make the asker look like someone intelligent;" Your reply will merely be that it cannot be philosophy... Did you even read what you wrote? What I wrote?
but see if you can do it in the context of 220 previous posts on the subject and without being as disingenuous as you've been in the past. Your position, like the Creos, always breaks down to name-calling and accusing your opponents of being stupid. What does that say about your position? What does that say about you?
Observation of the dishonesty of those who defend philosophy, like the dishonesty you've been displaying in this thread. Every eld's got its dishonest folk. If you discounted everything just because there were a few dishonest folk in the eld, you'd be listening to speaker reverb and complaining about those blasted economists. Jon
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024