Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 216 of 307 (432706)
11-07-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Modulous
11-07-2007 2:49 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2007 2:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Modulous, posted 11-08-2007 10:41 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 218 of 307 (432826)
11-08-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Modulous
11-08-2007 10:41 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Modulous, posted 11-08-2007 10:41 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Modulous, posted 11-08-2007 3:26 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 221 by Jon, posted 11-08-2007 4:56 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 220 of 307 (432837)
11-08-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Modulous
11-08-2007 3:26 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Modulous, posted 11-08-2007 3:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Modulous, posted 11-08-2007 5:10 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 222 of 307 (432853)
11-08-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Jon
11-08-2007 4:56 PM


Re: Invented Realities.... tsk tsk tsk
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Jon, posted 11-08-2007 4:56 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Jon, posted 11-08-2007 10:27 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 224 of 307 (432858)
11-08-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Modulous
11-08-2007 5:10 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Modulous, posted 11-08-2007 5:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 2:23 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 226 of 307 (432899)
11-08-2007 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Jon
11-08-2007 10:27 PM


Re: Invented Realities.... tsk tsk tsk
Delightfully disingenuous as always, Jon. Pop back in when you can answer the questions I've put to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Jon, posted 11-08-2007 10:27 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Jon, posted 11-09-2007 12:29 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 229 of 307 (432953)
11-09-2007 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Jon
11-09-2007 12:29 AM


Re: Invented Realities.... tsk tsk tsk
Which were...?
"Where's the rigor", for one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Jon, posted 11-09-2007 12:29 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Jon, posted 11-09-2007 10:18 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 230 of 307 (432954)
11-09-2007 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Modulous
11-09-2007 2:23 AM


When I look at that quote, how can I tell if it is philosophy, economics or theology?
Probably only by exclusion of economics and theology. Philosophy's total lack of rigor makes it essentially impossible to definitively say that something is not philosophy. And, indeed, plenty on this thread have argued that you can't ever say that something is not philosophy, because philosophy is essentially everything.
You want me to define "philosophy" in some way that would allow you to distinguish philosophy from non-philosophy, or good philosophy from bad; but my whole point is that in a field with no rigor, you can't do that. If philosophy is everything there's no such thing as non-philosophy. In a field with no rigor there's no telling the good philosophy from the bad.
A definition must include all the properties that philosophy has that no other field has
I don't believe philosophy has any property that another field lacks. I believe that philosophy lacks the properties of all other fields.
That's why I've described it as a dumpster, as a dumping ground. Philosophy is where ideas go when they're of no merit to their original fields. It's the great wastebin of thought.
How could you not understand that, yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 2:23 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 10:30 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 233 of 307 (432972)
11-09-2007 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Jon
11-09-2007 10:18 AM


Re: Invented Realities.... tsk tsk tsk
Dene rigour, and I'll see what I can do
Wow. Pretty sure I did that, sometime back in the previous 230 posts.
Would it be possible for you to stop being dishonest for, like, one whole post maybe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Jon, posted 11-09-2007 10:18 AM Jon has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 234 of 307 (432975)
11-09-2007 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Modulous
11-09-2007 10:30 AM


If philosophy isn't everything (my position), what is it?
What was wrong with the definition by exclusion I referred to, earlier? If you're simply going to ignore my every attempt to answer your question, this discussion isn't going to proceed anywhere.
So there is no defining feature of philosophy other than it 'doesn't have the properties of all other fields'?
That's part of the problem; without rigor, there's no way to distinguish between philosophy and non-philosophy except to say that everything that is a part of another field - meets the rigor of that field - is not philosophy, and "philosophy" is simply what is left over.
Again, that's why I've been describing it as a "dumpster". That's the word that best approximates the idea of a repository for all that which is discarded by other fields.
I know what you call it, but I can't identify it in a lineup.
Identify it by exclusion. It's what's left over when everything that isn't philosophy has left the room.
However - it is not useless, it could be used as the basis a social system we both think is pretty good.
It couldn't be the basis for anything. A constitution might provide the basis for a system of civil law and enforcement that protects what we define as "human liberties", but the effort to draft such a document would be the bailiwick of the field of law, not philosophy.
It's a nice statement that might appeal to both of us, but the statement by itself has no power to protect any human's liberties.
I just do not recognize what you mean when you say 'philosophy' beyond 'something I don't like that isn't some other things I don't like'.
Do you have a similar problem recognizing where the trash is in your house, if exclusionary definitions are invalid to you? Like, when you have to take it out, do you wander around aimlessly thinking to yourself "I know I have to take the trash out, but what is trash? I only know what it is not; it is not the things I want to keep in the house. But unless I know what trash is, how can I recognize it to take it out?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 10:30 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 1:27 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 236 of 307 (432994)
11-09-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Modulous
11-09-2007 1:27 PM


Trash is the stuff that in my opinion I no longer want in my house.
Sure, you've told me what it isn't, but what is trash?
Why is it any better for you to define "trash" as "what's left over when we take away everything that I want to keep" but it's somehow invalid to define philosophy as "what's left over when we take away all the fields of human knowledge with rigor?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 1:27 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 1:58 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 238 of 307 (433019)
11-09-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Modulous
11-09-2007 1:58 PM


Erm, because trash is defined by our opinions of it, philosophy is not.
Surely philosophy, being a mental human endeavor, is even more contingent on opinion than the trashness of trash would be. I mean, trash is a physical thing, particularly to the guys who come around to haul it away.
The idea that philosophy is less contingent on opinion than physical materials is a non-starter on its face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 1:58 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 5:50 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 240 of 307 (433048)
11-09-2007 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Modulous
11-09-2007 5:50 PM


I'm sorry, Mod, I just can't split hairs the way you want me to. I just don't have the talent for philosophy.
It's ridiculous to suggest that we need to define "philosophy" anyway; there's certainly been no ambiguity throughout this thread about exactly what is being discussed. Everybody knows what we're talking about when we say "philosophy."
I'm content with the definitions I've supplied throughout this thread. I remain puzzled as to why Jon continues to act like the 230 posts or so in this thread simply don't exist.
But a discussion about what words mean couldn't possibly be less interesting to me.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 5:50 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 6:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 245 of 307 (433294)
11-11-2007 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Silent H
11-10-2007 11:54 PM


Re: Not too late for philosophy?
Also--- for everyone that hates philosophy and thinks it impractical--- does that mean there's something oxymoronic in obtaining a PhD in the physical sciences?
Hi!
243 posts before yours.
They're not just about the weather.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Silent H, posted 11-10-2007 11:54 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Silent H, posted 11-11-2007 2:53 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 247 of 307 (433412)
11-11-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Silent H
11-11-2007 2:53 PM


Re: Not too late for philosophy?
However it seemed to me the whole debate boiled down to you and Q (and others that were not as prolific in writing) holding some personal definition of philosophy, which does not square with history or modern practice.
Definitions are pretty much irrelevant, it seems to me. We're all talking about the same thing; philosophy as practiced by the people who practice it, philosophers.
But assuming your original statement was correct, if all modern universities continue to bestow degrees with a title using the original medieval meaning, doesn't that by definition argue that the medieval meaning is still relevant and accepted?
Why would it - by "definition" or by any other means - argue that? They still graduate wearing mortarboard hats and robes, right? Is it because that's a "relevant and accepted" mode for formal dress, or is that perhaps because academia is a highly traditional place?
And how do you explain the fact that its entirely possible to get a PhD without ever doing a whit of philosophy, as so many PhD graduates have been able to do?
Of course, one answer to that is "everything is philosophy", but that's a specious argument as I've already proved. If everything is philosophy than nothing is; philosophy is just an unneeded synonym for "thinking."
Is there a reason why we shouldn't use the definition of philosophy as Archer, Mod, et al. have set out, which simply limits your and Q's criticisms (which I would agree with) to sections of philosophy rather than the whole?
You still don't get it, yet. Even if my criticism is only true about a section of philosophy, it's still true about the whole. Philosophy lacks rigor because it can't distinguish true models from false ones. Even if some portions of philosophy can do that, if other portions can't, it's irrelevant. If testable models are held in the same esteem as untestable ones - i.e. it's all "philosophy" - then philosophy as a whole lacks rigor.
Look, if you piss in soup, it doesn't matter that the piss is only 10% of the soup. You've still ruined the soup. It might as well be 100% piss for as much as you're going to be able to serve it to anybody.
If philosophy includes both rigorous and non-rigorous schools, then philosophy as a whole cannot be said to have rigor. To fail to distinguish between schools with rigor and schools without is the exact same thing as not distinguishing between truth and fiction, and therefore, philosophy has no rigor. One non-rigorous apple spoils the bunch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Silent H, posted 11-11-2007 2:53 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Jon, posted 11-11-2007 10:30 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 255 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2007 4:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024