philosophy.

iandoig · Post by **iandoig** » 12 Feb 2009 12:19

is anyone else into philosophy? ive been studying it since i was born and im 21 now (almost 22). and im wondering what other people have THOUGHT.

Nitrox · Post by **Nitrox** » 12 Feb 2009 12:33

I went through a phase in when I was like...16-18 where I was convinced I was God
haha, I know that sounds horrible

But my reasoning was quite simple!
I know I'm here, right? I think therefore I am blah blah
But...how do I know you're here? Or anyone else is for that matter? I can't think for you, how do I know I have not invented you or some such

Later it turned to what if I'm just crazy? Then I just dropped the whole thing

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 12 Feb 2009 13:34

I studied a bit of philosophy for a while and came to the conclusion that it's largely a waste of time and that science is the only method that is any good for answering questions with any faith in the accuracy. I think Francis Crick - one of the co-discoverers of DNA, and one of the 20th C greatest scientists says it best;

Francis Crick wrote:We have a series of jokes about philosophers which I don't have to give. Essentially philosophers often ask good questions, but they have no techniques for getting the answers. Therefore we can ask what progress have they made? A lot of problems which were once regarded as philosophical, such as what is an atom, are now regarded as part of physics. Some people have argued that the main purpose of a philosopher is to deal with the unsolved problems, but the problems eventually get solved, and they get solved in a scientific way. If you ask how many cases in the past has a philosopher been successful at solving a problem, as far as we can say there are no such cases

- Conversations on Consciousness with Susan Blackmore, Oxford University Press 2005, pg 74.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 12 Feb 2009 13:37

Nitrox wrote:I went through a phase in when I was like...16-18 where I was convinced I was God
haha, I know that sounds horrible

But my reasoning was quite simple!
I know I'm here, right? I think therefore I am blah blah
But...how do I know you're here? Or anyone else is for that matter? I can't think for you, how do I know I have not invented you or some such

Later it turned to what if I'm just crazy? Then I just dropped the whole thing

This is called solipsism. It's based on faulty logic of thinking that the world world is maths. If you can't prove that something is true, such as other people's existence, in no way is that evidence that other people don't exist. Instead you should always accept the null hypothesis - that is that the world is exactly as it appears, unless you have a reason to believe otherwise. There's lots of evidence that the world exists outside of ourselves and no evidence that it doesn't, so the only rational position to take is that the world exists outside of ourselves. Of course we may need to change that position if new evidence comes up, as we should re-evaluate all our positions in the face of new evidence.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 12 Feb 2009 17:19

I studied a bit of philosophy for a while and came to the conclusion that it's largely a waste of time and that science is the only method that is any good for answering questions with any faith in the accuracy

I think the "largely" is key as it would be foolish to entirely dismiss the potential for philosphy to be useful. Also I think the final line of the Crick quote exposes the weakeness in any argument suggesting philosophy is useless. A quantative measure of the number of problems science has solved relative to the number of problems philosophy has solved is a poor way to mesure the relative importance of their contribution to knowledge and their importance to people seeking knowledge.

Many ethical problems resist the sort of exploration that can be used to understand the nature of matter and the laws of the universe. While a scientific analysis of causes and effects is an essential part of solving these ethical problems in the real world, the way we interpret the data is informed by philosphical concerns such as how to measure relative good. I think the first part of what Crick says is spot on, science is a far better technique for getting answers, but in many instances philosophy is essential for deciding the relative importance of the questions.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 12 Feb 2009 17:37

But what are the achievements of philosophy? You imply that many ethical problems can only be answered by philosophy. How has philosophy done with that? What ethical problems have philosophers actually answered to the degree that we can say there is an answer to those questions?

I think the thing to remember too is that people can answer many ethical questions without any kind of philosophical training. People can easily construct logical and rational positions without philosophy. Things like compassion and empathy are not created by philosophy at all. The question really needs to be - what is the difference in behaviour between people with philosophical educations and those without? Does studying philosophy (and thus philosophy) actually have a significant impact on behaviour?

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 13 Feb 2009 14:26

Do I really imply that? I certainly didn't intend to:

While a scientific analysis of causes and effects is an essential part of solving these ethical problems in the real world

Anytime you are deciding what is an acceptable amount of sacrifice (be it inflicting pain, discomfort, or inconvinince, or be it spending money and resources) in order to persue an outcome there is an implicit judgement on the amount of "good" that outcome represents. This is invariably informed by a scientific prediction of the results and effects of those results, but it is also necessarily informed by philosophical questions as to what constitutes good and how relative good can be measured. People can make these decisions without formal philosophical training, but that's not to say they aren't philosophical questions and that they aren't employing philosophical approaches.

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 13 Feb 2009 16:29

Good points Dyalan.

One point - the conceptualization of 'the nature of things' is often a starting point for future scientific research.

Aristotlean logic is one of the great, useful tools generated by philosophy.

On kind of a side note I think everyone should read Notes From Underground by Dostoevsky. I have the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation, and I recommend it.

Perhaps asking for a practical outcome of philosophy in order to justify philosophy misses the point entirely.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Feb 2009 17:19

Ok I think we have an issue with our definitions of philosophy. If by philosophy you merely mean thinking about things, then yes, philosophy is important. If instead you specifically mean paying attention to the work of people called "philosophers" like Kant, Plato, Camus, Sartre etc. and the worth of formally studying their opinions and the "philosophy" that you study in school and university then I think that's something different entirely and something that has achieved very little.

You don't need any of that stuff to do science, to answer ethical questions or form opinions about the world.

Frank Sinatra wrote:Perhaps asking for a practical outcome of philosophy in order to justify philosophy misses the point entirely.

What is the point?

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 13 Feb 2009 18:04

Jeremy wrote:What is the point?

Indeed.

Glib answers aside, isn't that the question we often find ourselves asking? Does science, or math, or any "practical" field of study answer that question?

Don't we desire unanswerable questions?

What I'm trying to say is, we are human beings, and we are complicated and emotional and difficult. We're of course described by empirical methods, we are part of the natural world, but that doesn't fully satisfy us (at least, not all of us). I'm going to go ahead and pull a quote from Notes From Underground

[After an allegorical discussion of 'scientific man'...]
"But these are all golden dreams. Oh, tell me, who first announced, who was the first to proclaim that man does dirty because he doesn't know his real interests, and that were he to be enlightened, were his eyes to be opened to his real, normal interests, man would immediately stop doing dirty, would immediately become good and noble, because, being enlightened and understanding his real profit, he would see his real profit precisely in the good, and its common knowledge that no man can act knowingly against his own profit, consequently, out of necessity, so to speak, he would start doing good? Oh, the babe! oh, the pure, innocent child! and when was it, to begin with, in all these thousands of years, that man acted solely for his own profit? What is to be done with the millions of facts testifying to how people knowingly, that is, fully understanding their real profit, would put it in second place and throw themselves onto another path, a risk, a perchance, not compelled by anyone or anything, but precisely as if they simply did not want the designated path, and stubbornly, willfully pushed off onto another one, difficult, absurd, searching for it all but in the dark. So, then, this stubbornness and willfulness were really more agreeable to them than any profit... Profit! What is profit? And will you take it upon yourself to define with perfect exactitude precisely what man's profit consists in? And what if it so happens that on occasion man's profit not only may but precisely must consist in sometimes wishing what is bad for himself, and not what is profitable?"

In other words, paraphrasing another section that I can't find right now: if you tell a person that they are just a set of characteristics, drawn up on a chart, that they are essentially the equation 2x2, they will defy you. They will show you how 2x2=5, and 6, and 9.

What I'm saying is, human nature is more than a reconciliation of various facts. We have to make room for non-empirical, non-practical approaches to understanding ourselves. We will lose part of ourselves by attempting to understand ourselves only through empirical results.

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 13 Feb 2009 18:15

Double post, sorry. Had to collect my thoughts for a second.

An interesting side note is Dostoevsky is actually arguing that the philosophy of the Western Enlightenment is pointless! So you may be thinking "this passage only supports what I'm saying." Oh, that paradoxical rascal.

Studying Dostoevsky as a philosopher was a valuable, eye-opening experience for me. Reading these things, these ideas that I sort of felt in my own life but could never really express, helped me feel like I understood myself better than I had previously. And that here is something I am feeling, and someone else had felt and expressed, so perhaps there's some element of human nature that is connecting all of us... even as Dostoevsky tells a story of intense alienation...

So I don't know what answers it provides. But the value is not contained in the answer.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 14 Feb 2009 11:10

If by philosophy you merely mean thinking about things, then yes, philosophy is important. If instead you specifically mean paying attention to the work of people called "philosophers" like Kant, Plato, Camus, Sartre etc. and the worth of formally studying their opinions and the "philosophy" that you study in school and university then I think that's something different

In the words of Nas, "Don't body yourself"

Philosopher's challenge the everyman to consider the things he normally wouldn't. Thus, philosophers play a roll in spurring us to "merely" think "about things" and thus accomplish their goal.

I would agree that their has been something of an over-emphasis on these men in academia, but they're still worth studying if only to get a glimpse into he thought of particuliar societies ect ect ad nauseum

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 14 Feb 2009 14:39

I read some occasionally, did a subject at school. Not trying to 'achieve' anything but it's something I enjoy. Might as well ask me what I 'achieve' by playing footbag or taking a walk in the park?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 14 Feb 2009 17:30

I don't understand what your point is Jamie. People find all kinds of things amusing. In the 17th Century an amusing form of public entertainment in some European countries was to deep fry live cats and apparently it caused great mirth to watch them squirm around when they were dropped into boiling oil.

That is perhaps a poor example, but it's really a question of priorities and limited resources.

I'm going to avoid debates about hidden intentions and deconstruction of philosophers. If you read the work of philosophers they are usually arguing that a particular opinion is true. They may argue the case that if we were immortal life would have no purpose, or that our ability to think proves that we exist. So I think we can look at these works and say that the purpose of those works is to convince the readers of the view expressed. Do the succeed?

Purpose and "point" aren't terms you can apply generally - they need to be placed in a specific context to be meaningful. They are essentially two dimensional terms and if you use them in a three dimensional world then they don't work at all.

So my question wasn't "what is the point of philosophy" it was in response to this;

Perhaps asking for a practical outcome of philosophy in order to justify philosophy misses the point entirely

And it was - what is that point then - because how can we know we've missed it if we don't know what we were aiming for?

Glib answers aside, isn't that the question we often find ourselves asking? Does science, or math, or any "practical" field of study answer that question?

Science probably can answer the question of "what is the point of philosophy" - and I think a lot of progress is being made on this through psychology (see Haidt, Dennett (who I guess is a philosopher, but works a lot with science), Hauser, etc.). If you're saying that the question we often find ourselves asking is just what you quoted without the context I asked it in, then no, nothing can answer it - science can't, maths can't and philosophy certainly can't. That's because the question gives no information about what you're asking. It's a grammatically correct sentence that actually is just nonsense. Tell how that question could possibly be answered, if you had all the knowledge in the universe. What does the question mean? It's just a waste of time that can be interpreted however the answerer desires and leads to an infinite amount of useless answers.

superdum · Post by **superdum** » 14 Feb 2009 18:13

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 14 Feb 2009 20:25

I guess I should've known better than to encourage you to think outside of the constraints you've chosen to place on yourself.

Please, keeping regurtitating the same thing in response to every post.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 14 Feb 2009 20:39

There are too many adults who fail to apply elementary reasoning skills to their own lives, and a greater emphasis on philosophy in public education could go a long way to a better formed public opinion. There's no reason that primary school kids shouldn't be fooling with truth tables, learning how to negate statements, etc.

I agree completely that current research in philosophy is an absurd circle jerk, but what do you want, it's an academic field. I doubt they're substantially less productive than most other arts programs.

... did they eat the cats?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 14 Feb 2009 22:57

Frank_Sinatra wrote:I guess I should've known better than to encourage you to think outside of the constraints you've chosen to place on yourself.

Please, keeping regurtitating the same thing in response to every post.

That's a meaningless response that contributes nothing to the discussion. Is that what learning philosophy teaches you, or did you respond in such a manner despite studying Dostoevsky?

Colin wrote:There are too many adults who fail to apply elementary reasoning skills to their own lives, and a greater emphasis on philosophy in public education could go a long way to a better formed public opinion. There's no reason that primary school kids shouldn't be fooling with truth tables, learning how to negate statements, etc.

I agree somewhat from this. Certainly I think critical and rational thinking skills could really be improved among many people. Is learning such skills necessarily part of philosophy though? To be successful in most fields you need an ability to think critically and clearly. Philosophy doesn't have a monopoly on thinking.

I also concede that it's easy for me to dismiss philosophy having studied it, and possibly already gained the most significant benefits from it (critical thinking), and then to say it offers nobody anything when perhaps I just can't see it offering me anything more. I don't know, we can only speculate about issues like that.

I agree completely that current research in philosophy is an absurd circle jerk, but what do you want, it's an academic field. I doubt they're substantially less productive than most other arts programs.

Yep, but I think it's ok to criticise the thing that is being discussed when there are other things that you also could criticise. There are certainly far worse things than philosophy, but that's not what this topic is about.

... did they eat the cats?

I don't think so. I think they were burnt. I'm not even sure if it was oil or just over a flame to be honest. The details are immaterial, but I think there's a Steven Pinker essay about it somewhere on the internet (actually about violence, but he mentions the story at the start).

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 15 Feb 2009 06:58

Jeremy wrote:
Frank_Sinatra wrote:I guess I should've known better than to encourage you to think outside of the constraints you've chosen to place on yourself.

Please, keeping regurtitating the same thing in response to every post.
That's a meaningless response that contributes nothing to the discussion. Is that what learning philosophy teaches you, or did you respond in such a manner despite studying Dostoevsky?

You're such an ass. I'm done.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 15 Feb 2009 10:19

Is learning such skills necessarily part of philosophy though?

Yes, absolutely. Of course philosophy doesn't have a monopoly on thinking, but when the subject matter is "thinking", then you are studying philosophy.

Yep, but I think it's ok to criticise the thing that is being discussed when there are other things that you also could criticise. There are certainly far worse things than philosophy, but that's not what this topic is about.

Sure, point taken. But remember that we aren't trying to decide whether we'd all be philosophers in utopia - we're trying to decide if it's a worthwhile endeavour here and now. How it stacks up on the big ol list of 'things we do' is, I believe, relevant.

To accept that you're wrong and move on happily and productively is among the most difficult, rare, and important skills someone can possess. Comprehensive, historical study of philosophy will have someone jump all over the map in terms of what he's certain of, and goes a long way to develop that skill. Maybe better than anything else?

I think we're better served by adults who spent age 15-25 idolizing people like Nietzsche, Russell, or whoever else than by adults who spent the same years idolizing the Insane Clown Posse, any particular political party, or current pop thinkers like Opera, Dawkins, or that New Earth guy with the impossible name. Keeping current is so polarizing, and opinions really aren't for kids - but idealisms are.

I wish I'd spent more of my youth trying to get into the heads of undeniably brilliant people, and trying to effectively communicate what's in my own head.