On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

Yes yes, I know your opinions about philosophy, but how would I know philosophy when I saw it? 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.

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:

---

On the other hand, there is a very real evil consequent on ascribing a supernatural origin to the received maxims of morality. That origin consecrates the whole of them, and protects them from being discussed or criticized. So that if among the moral doctrines received as a part of religion, there be any which are imperfect---which were either erroneous from the first, or not properly limited and guarded in the expression, or which, unexceptionable once, are no longer suited to the changes that have taken place in human relations (and it is my firm belief that in so-called christian morality, instances of all these kinds are to be found) these doctrines are considered equally binding on the conscience with the noblest, most permanent and most universal precepts of Christ. Wherever morality is supposed to be of supernatural origin, morality is stereotyped; as law is, for the same reason, among believers in the Koran.

---

Without knowing who wrote this, how would I know if it was theology or philosophy or economics? I think you have put an OK case up against useless philosophy. 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.

It's out there crash, I've read it. Let me keep this simple. I gave you a quote. When I look at that quote, how can I tell if it is philosophy, economics or theology? When you can generalize your answer so that it can be used for a variety of quotes, essays and books, you've probably given a good enough definition. A definition must include all the properties that philosophy has that no other field has so that it can be uniquely (or at least almost uniquely) identified based on it.If you aren't sure how defining words works, you could always look it up. It isn't really all that difficult.

I don't think everything is philosophy - so let's stick with my position not what you think others believe. So your definition of philosophy is 'something useless that asks questions that sound interesting to sexy co-eds, and isn't economics or theology'. I of course agree, that whatever that field is you are describing is useless by definition. That isn't very interesting though. It's one of the worst definitions I've ever heard. If you'd compose one for yourself rather than have your opponents attempt to construct one out of your posts we might have something a little saner. I don't care about good from bad since I haven't even been able to use your definitions to identify whether or not something is philosophy yet. If philosophy isn't everything (my position), what is it? So there is no defining feature of philosophy other than it 'doesn't have the properties of all other fields'? I do understand that, but I still don't know what the subject you are talking about is. I know what you call it, but I can't identify it in a lineup.If I were to say 'all people have a certain collection of basic human rights' - I would call that a philosophical position. However - it is not useless, it could be used as the basis a social system we both think is pretty good. So, according to you, it isn't a philosophical position. Yet we can't prove it is true, so it is useless.'Rape is bad because it harms the victim', once again a philosophical argument according to my understanding of the term (it is about morality) - but you would argue it isn't philosophy (the statement isn't useless).'The theory of evolution is almost definitely true because it coheres with all the facts, and corresponds with reality when we go looking for more facts.' I'd say that is a philosophical position since it is attempting to explain how we know something to be almost certainly true. It isn't useless, so according to you it isn't philosophy.My position on philosophy is probably true in my opinion because it coheres with all of the facts (every source I've looked at, including the few I have posted here) and what the practitioners themselves claim to be do be doing (as well as my perception of reading what they are doing). I know what your position on philosophy is - 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'.

Definitions by listing properties something does not have are not particularly helpful in knowing what something is. Are you suggesting that if something is not theology or economics and has no rigour then it is philosophy, is a good definition of something? If that's the best you can muster, then as I said, we really are at a dead end over this. So - does the quote I provided earlier meet this standard? Does it fail to meet the rigour of whatever field it is part of? What field is it part of? So science has discarded falsifiability and the coherence theory of truth? First I had heard of it. OK, so I'm going to pick out everything that isn't philosophy so that I can deduce what philosophy is. I go to the first field - is it philosophy or not? How do I tell? I look at it, is it a field within a field? Yes, but so are many of the other fields around me. OK, does it apply the rigour of the field it belongs to? Yes. OK, it isn't philosophy.In my view, you'd be left with nothing except crank fields within fields, pseudoscience and holocaust deniers and the like. Is this philosophy in your eyes? Certainly people like Dan Dennett and Pat Churchland will have left the room had they represented their particular fields. Would we have John Stuart Mill, if he were representing utilitarianism? So - the idea of defining human liberties or rights doesn't come until after we've written them into a constitution? No, crashfrog that's backwards. People have to have the idea of Freedom of Speech, argue why it should be part of a society and try to influence the lawmakers to put it in.Thomas Paine significantly influenced the revolutionaries in America, he himself was influenced by Locke. Locke argued that men have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. That probably sounds familiar to you, these ideas are essential before a constitution is written that encapsulates them into law - and like it or not, it was political philosophers, engaging in apparently useless discourse, that influenced future generations of politicians to change the way their field had previously operated. For the better, I might add. Of course the statement doesn't protect human liberties (no idea can protect anything) - but putting forth a strong argument in favour of it, of appealing to others to see the truths of it and explain why they are truths, and to explain what the foundations of that reasoning were...this is the stuff that enables the way we do things to change; convincing people that a need for change exists in the way something is being done is important pursuit in a world filled with arrogant violent apes who like to gain alpha male status. No, I have no problem with what trash is. Trash is the stuff that in my opinion I no longer want in my house. Philosophy is something that exists independent of our opinions of it, unlike trash. Trash is defined by our opinions of it, philosophy is not.

Erm, because trash is defined by our opinions of it, philosophy is not. Did you not read me the first time?

I will not deny that there are many differing opinions on the nature of philosophy, but a general agreement can be made as to some broad strokes that positively define it. On the other hand, what you call trash, I might call an antique. Trash is entirely contingent on opinion, philosophy is not.I can further show that your argument leads to an obvious absurdity. If a a definition of a mental endeavour is more contingent on opinion - then the definition of reason cannot be made. And yet I can identify a quick and easy positive definition at wiki: Reasoning is the mental (cognitive) process of looking for reasons for beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings.It isn't all encompassing, but it gives us a base point for discussion at least.Maths is also a mental endeavour, is the definition of mathematics contingent on opinion? Sure - there may be some disagreement over the exact definition, but positive discriminatory definitions are possible. We are talking about a definition of something not the thing itself. They are different things.

Well, if you can't define what you are criticizing so that I can see if I agree with you or not, we can't go any further in the discussion. I think that the attempt to discriminate truth from fiction is philosophy, for example. You have called that 'rigour'. It is basic definitional problems like this that have caused problems in the debate and I thought the best way to go would be to post a good solid definition of what we think philosophy is. I'm glad you are content. I do not feel, however, that they are definitions that can be used to know philosophy when one sees it. I think that this kind of definition is important before we can agree whether philosophy is useless or not. Simply defining it as useless simply skips past the debate part and declares itself the winner. I agree. I'd rather we could just both post a concise and simple understanding of the topic that we are defending or deriding so that we can see why the other side chooses to take the position they do so that we can hopefully come to a mutual understanding and the discussion can move forward.Since neither of us wants to go round and around here, shall we just call it quits?

Perhaps a philosophy of science thread is in order; we could then explore this in more depth. It has been a rather wonderful journey. Thanks for kickstarting it Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Telling true propositions from false ones is something we should all want to do. The first thing we need to do is work out our

Metaphysics

What is the nature of reality. On this forum we have basically two schools of metaphysics in play. If you were not aware of this, it might be important to consider it now. We don't see much in the way of radical scepticism here, but it does crop up from time to time.Radical ScepticismEverything is an illusion ala the Matrix or similar. If so - why bother to discuss it?Dualistic idealismThe idea (heh) that there are ideals that exist in some 'higher realm' and that what we experience here is but shadows of that realm. This was Plato's devising, but it remains central to religion. We normally see this position advocated in terms of an ideal justice or ideal morality.MaterialismWhat we can sense or detect is real. Energy/matter etc etc. This is the stone kicking position that most posters here have. It seems so obvious to so many people today, that it seems crazy that people even argued over it...but this forum is essentially built upon the argument so...whaddya gonna do?From these metaphysical positions (none of which can be proved) we can try and derive our

Epistemology

How do we know if something is true or false? The radical sceptics simply dismiss it is as basically impossible so the fun begins with the idealists. Inherent toIdealist philosophyis the idea that we remember or have some other 'sense' of ideal forms. Thus: I don't know what ideal justice is, but I'll know it when I see it. I don't know what right or wrong is, but I'll know it when I see it. We see this argued here mostly in the form of having some kind of 'godsense'.
The problem with this concept is that the 'sense' or idea of what the truth is has primacy over actual sensual experience. If we hold to the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old, and our experience of the world (ie evidence) tells us otherwise, our experience is considered less worthy than the ideal knowledge imbued upon us by godsense (or to us via authority and revelation, and 'known' to be true via intuition). Thus, idealists tend to favour rationalism over empiricism. They might accept the conclusions of empiricism, only until there is a clash with their ideals.
This makes it essentially a faith-based position - however it comes to problems when we consider the axiom that minds are able to make error or hold erroneous ideas (otherwise we'd always hold to the same ideas...). There are probably ways out of this, but like any position that is ultimately faith-based, the gymnastics are mostly not worth the time to perform.So, what's better?The Materialist epistemologyAs you can see, I'm being very general here, but the point is that materialists hold the opposite opinion about ideas vs evidence. To them, evidence wins in any conflict. If you have an idea (hypothesis) that does not correspond with, or is contradicted by, the evidence - the idea loses and should be tossed out. Rationalism is important (to develop a hypothesis), but empiricism has primacy.We cannot prove which epistemology is right, or even which is better. However, philosophy as a field has moved away from the primacy of ideas and that has been left for religion to cling to. They still teach idealism and radical scepticism as well as the arguments for them. However, the field of modern philosophy is primarily about materialist empiricism in one way or another. The methodologies may not end up as rigorous as the methodology that came out of natural philosophy, but the world of inanimate matter (for the most part) is more predictable than the world of society or people. It is no surprise that it is more difficult to come to consensus in a field where the objects of study are sentient (sometimes irrational) beings as opposed to a field where the objects of study basically behave in a logical, predictable and essentially rational way. Until you dig really deep that is...Most people don't need to delve into the intricacies of their metaphysical world view and the arguments that were put forward to try and convince others that it is the best to engage in debate. At EvC, from time to time, we see a metaphysical argument. An argument where the evidence doesn't matter - if it contradicts certain ideas it must be wrong (or its interpretation or whatever) - is a metaphysical argument.You don't have to get into it, if you think it is all sophistry and nonsense, but the evidence of my senses indicates that people around here do enjoy getting into it. The final point I would make is that rigour can be defined in a much better way: sticking to an epistemology. Rigour has been defined as the ability to tell true things from false things. Epistemology is the study of how we can tell true things from false things. If you pick one epistemology and stick to it in your philosophical discussions...you have rigour. In some areas of human experience it actually gets very hard to develop a way of determining truth from falsity, because they are studying an area in which their subjects are not always consistent. When you study something that is consistent (such as nature), you can be sure that you have a better idea of truth and falsity. You might say this gives you an increased rigour - but that isn't a fault of a philosophical field of study, that's just because the nature of the thing being studied - we have to simply accept more grey areas and do our best.If you find people not sticking to their own epistemology you can (and philosophers do) point that out as a major, probably fatal, flaw in their thinking.

That's quite the contrary to my position. Just to avoid confusion I tried to sum it up in Message 261, where I said:

quote:

---

Rigour has been defined as the ability to tell true things from false things. Epistemology is the study of how we can tell true things from false things. If you pick one epistemology and stick to it in your philosophical discussions...you have rigour.

---

I did concede there is no meta-rigour, no rigour of rigours. There is a consensus opinion regarding the best epistemology, with some quibbles over details, as per normal. There are some people that reject the consensus and go off into some radical scepticism dream world. Like with science, most philosophers ignore this - some argue against it. Like with science the cranks can always find someone who will publish (even if it is themselves).Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I saw it, but it doesn't apply. You have defined rigour as, essentially picking one field of epistemology and sticking to it rigorously. Rigour, by it's very nature then, cannot apply to picking one field of epistemology. There is a consensus on the best epistemology to rigorously stick to, and its the epistemology you and I agree with. Subsets that don't conform to our epistemology, and thus you would conclude they aren't rigorous since you are hung up on the idea that it is only by clinging to the epistemology of your choice can rigour exist. I think that as long as you stick to your epistemology you are being rigorous (as I understand you to mean when you define the term), even if I think you are otherwise in error.A philosopher may divert from being rigorous, and his works are criticized, they lose what support they may have and the argument is confined to history. Sometimes, bad ideas stick around, no matter how many times they are adequately refuted. This is true in science too, but that doesn't mean it isn't a rigorous pursuit. Anyone in science that diverts from rigour is criticized and the ideas are confined to history, but sometimes bad ideas stick around no matter the refutations thrown at them. No - it is not admitted, I am trying to say that the first sentence quoted is essentially meaningless. Rigour is something that is defined within a philosophy, not without. Rigour is as much a requirement in philosophy as it is science. It is not compulsory, but if you aren't rigorous you will be criticized and your work rejected.The big difference is that natural philosophy enjoys the luxury of having a subject matter that is deterministic (basically),logical and often it is observable, so it is much easier to tell a true model from a false one. This isn't so easy if you are talking about morality, for instance - however you can tell if a moral system is inconsistent or contradictory and thus reject it. People who try and apply dualism to philosophy of the mind are generally dismissed - whether 'crank' is used specifically I can't say, but the idea of a Cartesian theatre of the mind is generally derided.

Right - and epistemology is the study of how we can reliably distinguish between truth and fiction. Thus any concept of rigour must emerge from epistemology. No it isn't, I won't accuse you of strawmanning me, or misrepresenting me. I simply say that you don't understand me if that is what you think I am saying. And they are basically derided by the consensus in philosophy of mind. Your link states:

quote:

---

Criticisms of dualism have been very successful in modern science, and few if any neuroscientists would consider taking such a position...Nevertheless, there remains a practice, invisible but widespread in the social and biological sciences, in which a logic of dualism persists, and where an assumption of dualism can be demonstrated. This error is illustrated in the following example:

​

...
If neuroscientists have adopted materialism over dualism, why does dualism persist in modern biological science?

---

Pretty much what I said really - dualism gets heavily criticised. Says wiki: While Nagel is sometimes categorized as a dualist for these sorts of remarks, he is more precisely categorized as an anti-reductionist. Says wiki: Jackson used the knowledge argument, as well as other arguments, to establish a sort of dualism, according to which certain mental states, especially qualitative ones, are non-physical. The view that Jackson urged was a modest version of epiphenomenalism”the view that certain mental states are non-physical and, although caused to come into existence by physical events, do not then cause any changes in the physical world. wiki says: After the publication of this paper, more than twenty papers in response were published in the Journal of Consciousness StudiesHardly a collection of out and out Cartesian Theatre believers - and where it can be reduced to such a state - they get criticised. Committing fraud and outspoken racism is hardly the same ball park as an unpopular view that gets widely criticised. Heck - if every scientist that had their work criticized was stripped of their position - there'd be none left.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I didn't make that argument. And children have credulity - so they aren't all that good at it.Nevertheless - since epistemology is the study of knowing truths from fictions, and rigour is the ability to tell truth from fiction - it follows that rigour is epistemological in its nature. Rigour is a matter of epistemology. You don't need to know that you have an epistemology, or what one is, or the arguments for or against it in order to be using an system of epistemology. Likewise you don't need to know what a brain is to use it. You raised one yourself - 20 critical arguments against the position. A professor of philosophy might hold unorthodox views, like a professor of science might. That doesn't stop them being excellent educators of the subject, and it doesn't mean that all of their work is criticised. Yes, but there is significant difference in degree. One is an unpopular view that many many people hold a strong opinion on so people distanced themselves from him to distance themselves from his opinions which interest many people -the other is a view that is unpopular within a field. I haven't ignored western religion. I'm fairly sure my earlier large post covered this very issue. You want cake and to eat it. On the one hand, you say that religion is philosophy and you deny that science is. Philosophers basically separated themselves from religion a long time ago - they let them at those old arguments - criticising them in their works from time to time. Science continues to be supported. Anti-science continues to be supported. That's humans for you. Yes I believe I have discussed the blessed position of science in its studies...and how its subject matter allows for more certainty. And yet...their positions cannot be proven and people still hold positions that the majority have rejected. What can you do but criticise them? But since science is a methodology that derives from particular philosophy - that's obvious. In 100 years time there will still be people who are religious and believe in miracles. It sucks, but I fail to see how this means anything interesting with regards to the topic.To me you continue to just say: In this subset field that studies very predictable and logical things, there is more certainty between its practitioners than the rest of the field which tends to study things which are much less predictable (if at all) and often illogical in appearance.I'm just trying to get you to understand my position since you seemed to have completely got it wrong. Do you think you can at least understand my position before the thread ends?

Not at all. We've obviously had ways of telling truth from fiction before philosophy sprung up and matured. They were really shit. We're superstitious by nature - we have a tendency to defer to an alpha male figure (authority) (that is we are credulous), and we have a tendency to see unseen hands at work in mundane events. Without training (school for example), we tend to be very bad at understanding the world. We can think pretty damn well when it comes to simple stuff - but we are prone to error when dealing with anything untrivial - without having been trained in a discipline. Yeah, fuck academic freedom. Anybody disagrees with the consensus and we fire them. That's what we should be doing after all. It's so obvious now that you mention it. It surely is the best way to advance knowledge. Anybody proposing a new idea that doesn't get accepted within x amount of months - and still holds onto that idea themselves - should be fired immediately. Actually, we should half bury them and throw fist sized stones at them...just to make sure they won't be having any more ideas.That's presumably why Micheal Behe doesn't hold a professorship in a science. Oh...wait...but...oh. That's not what I'm arguing - you really don't get my position yet do you? I'm arguing that some fields study things where patterns and predictions are easier, that different epistemology is required for other studies and the grey areas are sometimes larger than in other areas where the grey areas are very small.Unfortunately grey areas do exist, even in natural philosophy and the conclusions reached with its associated methodology.You are now defining rigorous, not as the ability to tell false models from true models, but as the degree of certainty one can have in that. In that case you are saying nothing more impressive than philosophy isn't the same thing as science.Really crash, not all things that are part of being human can be studied with the same kind of precision as we can do when we study science. If that is your sole problem with philosophy you could have just said that. It isn't a problem for philosophy, it's a problem for being human, and it is a problem that philosophy attempts to solve as best as is possible for irrational illogical behaving killer apes to solve. And if science and religion are two different things - so is philosophy and religion.However, I hold that science is a methodology stemming from materialistic philosophy concerned with the natural world and that contemplation is a methodology stemming from idealistic philosophy concerning itself with morality. I came into the discussion with the following definition: I still hold that position and haven't wavered. I've just tried explaining it in a variety of different ways to help you understand my position. Perhaps I should have just repeated myself over and over again with the same words - but the evidence of my senses indicated that this was not a productive or pragmatic approach.I hoped to clear a few things up before the thread was over because you still seemed hopelessly unaware of what my position was, but I see that I just confused you further. If that is the case, nevermind...I'lll see you in another thread where we may find ourselves arguing against the metaphysics or epistemology of a creationist and I'll quietly chuckle at the irony. I don't hold out any hope of changing your mind, unfortunately. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.