Pointlessness of philosophy
You struck a very interesting point in your statement. I don't think you did it on purpose or you may have done it intuitively without consciously knowing.
This is an example of the futility of philosophy and why philosophy should only be practiced for fun or mental exercise;
1. If we do not define our terms we end in absurdity as anything can equate thus creating an indefinite unity.
2. If we do define our terms, by making distinctions between the two, then we still end in absurdity as belief and style contradict and anything can go from that conversation.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=40076&start=30
The context is on the page but nevertheless I found it odd to say that on a literal forum for philosophy for a magazine about it.
For point one I dont think not defining terms means anything is anything, I just think that you wont really be able to have a conversation if you dont agree on what it is stuff means. You could be talking about the same thing and not know it because you havent agreed on terms.
As for the second point its not anything can go from the conversation, generally defining terms makes the conversation go one way or at least it can head somewhere. Its also why some folks dont want to define what they mean so they can hide in ambiguity.
But again this is undercut by the reality that everything in our society is pretty much because of philosophy in some capacity or another. Though from what I gather on their post history on the cite theyre more a religious type and not using logic for their reasoning but just asserting things without backing them up and then weaseling out with the limits of logic. Logic is limited yes but in my experience people who say that just dont want to have to defend their positions from criticism.
Comments (64)
Plato addressed this problem from two directions. The need for dialectic as demonstrated in the middle books of The Republic shows that it is the incongruity of different ideas that can help us search beyond sets of assumptions that exclude each other by default.
The Cratylus shows how the use of language is a pattern of contingency where meaning is not given through looking for a word's definition.
Even by his own points he wasnt right as I showed. This was from the metaphysics sub forum which apparently to some means they can just preach whatever spiritual nonsense they want without logic or argument and people need to just accept it.
We arent talking about the incongruity of different ideas but more just knowing what we are talking about. If you cant define the terms and what they mean then its not two ideas its just folks talking past each other
Arguing semantics can devolve a discussion. I generally view philosophy as a means to explore and understand language rather than as something to elicit truth. This is not exactly useless to be fair but I think the use falls far shorter than what many have in mind.
You might be right but the rules and methods of argument are vital to civil rights today where the rhetoric is important and terms matter A LOT.
:up: Sounds about right.
That dude in the quote isn't interested in questions, or answers. That dude in the quote is content to be discontented.
This only occurs if we do not then try to apply those beliefs to reality. Philosophy does indeed end up pointless if we make up a bunch of definitions then logic those made up definitions into made up conclusions. The best philosophers in history understood this, as they were usually mathematicians or scientists as well. Philosophy must be married to reality if it is to be useful.
This is a major point I make here if people are interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context
Yes, philosophy that stays in the realm of "What if" without any way to test it or apply it is ultimately useless beyond entertainment.
On the question of definition, there is a problem that if you insist on a clear definition of terms as the beginning, you are quite likely to end up arguing about the definition and never getting to the substantial issue. Yet it is also true that disgreements can often be resolved or at least clarified by clarifying terms. So definitions can be useful. At the beginning of a discussion, they can serve as axioms, to be questioned later or on another occasion. During a discussion, they can be useful as a way of resolving merely linguistic issues. But they need to be treated as useful rather than necessary.
I would argue one of the fundamentals of proper philosophical discussion is clear and unambiguous definitions. Clear definitions lead to clear arguments, and clear points of contention and debate.
Quoting Philosophim
Both of you are right, in principle. But in practice, it seems to me better to wait until specific and relevant differences about the definition of terms emerge. The search for a definition in the abstract can throw up irrelevant issues; resolving them is a waste of time.
Dude is literally arguing against philosophy, meaning, and logic. Bear in mind this applies to HIS STUFF TOO!!!
Additionally from the same page:
What we have here is the unholy union of several styles of philosophy that are tricky on their own but dangerous junk when mixed.
(1) The oracular style. Nietzsche could pull this off, but probably no one since. Open to a torrent of obvious criticism, and only young people like Nietzsche's final period best.
(2) The discourse by tendentious definition or gloss. This is Heidegger's trademark. If you're not used to it, it seems like he's just making shit up. But he does have reasons, and his method is to burrow into those simple tendentious phrases and allow them to open up into something that by the end is usually both convincing and enlightening, or at least thought-provoking. (Derrida turns this into argument by innuendo, which is not as cool.)
(3) Logical persuasion, the typical informal argumentation of philosophy since forever.
Putting all of these together is sort of the do-it-yourself kit for new agey charlatans. The style must be pompous, tendentious without acknowledging it, and give the appearance of being logical. (Examples are, you know, everywhere. Pick any page of the likes of Aleister Crowley or David Hawkins or any other flavor of pseudo-philosophy.)
Needless to say, there is no method here. There is no logic, no real argument, no side-door into phenomenology like in Heidegger, there is just performance. It sounds to the speaker like philosophy, like wisdom, or at least like a text from a wisdom tradition -- but those texts were the product of living cultures; this stuff tends to lead to believers creating practices and lifestyles to go with the text, which is all backwards.
Do not be taken in. It's all a fraud, even if the speaker is fooling himself too. Just pass on by.
Did you have a look through the threads? I'm just wondering. I had a feeling in the back of my mind that it was just bullshit but for some reason there is a part of me that think's it's right and some secret wisdom.
No. Life is short.
Don't think of this sort of writing as an attempt at communication at all. Like a lot of bullshit, it's an attempt to assert dominance. I'm sorry you've been taken in before. Stick around here. Hardly any of that sort of social engineering. This site is much saner and safer than the rest of the internet.
I'm just a little worried that the damage might be done.
I recognize the problem. But would insisting on a definition help? Wouldn't those people ignore you anyway? One could try it, of course.
Part of the problem here is the difference between the intellectual structure of debate and debating in practice. A definition is needed as part of the intellectual structure of debate, but is not necessary in practice. In practice, all that's needed is agreement - not even a comprehensive agreement, but an agreement for present purposes.
From this message:-
There's an unstated programme behind this. For me, it is an example how careless generalization, not paying attention to complications, can generate ideas that I can't follow. (I'm being quite restrained here.)
Quite so.
Quoting Darkneos
This site is moderated. I wouldn't join anything that wasn't. There's a code of conduct (somewhere - I'm afraid I can't remember where). You can find out who the moderators are if you go to the members page (button in the banner at the top. and look for the "staff" button). If you get into trouble, you can send them a private message. There's a thread called "Bannings" where you can see something of what's going on.
Forgive me if you know all this already. But it seems possible that you don't.
It is true that this site has a very hospitable policy. The thing is, there's a dilemma here. It's about what philosophy is or should be. In one sense, philosophy is for everyone; everyone is involved with philosophy even if they aren't aware of it. If one restricts philosophy (for example, to what's academically respectable) one limits it and neglects much of its influence. That seems a bad idea to me.
By its nature, philosophy (in some sense) cannot exclude crazy ideas - for example, the brain in a vat, the evil demon and so on. It is better to at least try to confront them (gently, because it is easy to provoke a row, which is almost always counter-productive or frightens people away). There are no quick wins, though, because one of the tests is whether people are capable of admitting they are wrong, or at least taking a new idea seriously.
One learns who will actually discuss ideas and who simply wants to sound off and gather "followers".
Quoting Darkneos
Yes, damage can be done. That can't be helped; it's in the nature of the enterprise. Philosophy seems like a safe space and in many ways it is - specially behind an avatar (I call it a pen-name). But, like a virus, it has its dangers. There's a kind of insulation needed, so that one doesn't end up obsessed with the evil demon or the absurdity or meaninglessness of life. I hesitate to say, not taking things too seriously, but it's like that.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Which writings would you place within Nietzsches final period?
Quoting Ludwig V
I believe @Darkneous was talking about
which, however, is also moderated.
Oh! My mistake. Apologies.
It's not important.
Only reason I posted was because there isn't really one thing in what @Darkneos posted that marks it as fake philosophy; the elements there, even the style, have all found use in serious work. (One element typical of the new age style missing here is the sort of talismanic use of numbers, four types of this, seven steps to reach that, five stages of whatever -- and again, that's not in itself indefensible, but its role in these texts is to convey authority.)
It's surprisingly difficult to draw a line that would put serious or valuable philosophy on one side and BS on the other. Which is interesting. Our little demarcation problem.
There's more than a couple who just want the place to be an audience for their own views, and if you try to call them on their stuff they accuse you of not being certain or everything just being an opinion if meaning is relative in order to deflect.
Case in point with that Eodn whatever user I kept asking what was the point of any of the threads or reasoning and never got an answer. They just want an audience not a discussion.
Unfortunately I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to call them on the BS.
I followed the link and read some of the posts. I picked out:- "In modern science ultimate reality is thought of as a place of no things, in other words, unmanifested energy, while apparent reality is a place of things/objects. Objects, however, are manifest energies, but I suspect they are dependent on the effects of energy on the biological subject's body. Seeing as we cannot escape our subjective consciousness, however, to date it is impossible to know."
I understand now much better what you were talking about. I should have done that in the first place.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
That's the trouble with philosophy. It tips over quite easily and one can go over the edge and down a rabbit hole without realizing what's happened. Philosophy requires self-criticism, which is a difficult art at the best of times.
Quoting Darkneos
I don't know how well versed you are in philosophy, but I think the problem is in the Dao De Jing. It is very appealing, but it is not really philosophy as we understand it - nor is it meant to be. It is better to think of it as poetry or rhetoric designed to promote a state of mind or attitude. And there's all the cross-cultural issues as well.
One might as well try to apply conceptual analysis to the "Jabberwocky" - though actually, there's an interesting point about nonsense and meaninglessness to be drawn from it. (It kind of escapes the distinction - never forget that Dodgson was a logician and so must have known what he was doing. (Nonsense was a thing at the time - compare Lear. I think that people wanted to escape from the age in which they lived.))
You ( ) got sucked into the trap. The ability to spot the trap and resist being sucked in is what I meant by "insulated". I claim some ability to do that, from bitter experience. That's why I restrained myself. You asked Quoting Darkneos. The answer is, I've forgotten, and would rather not know.
If you don't want to listen to someone who just wants an audience, the best response is to walk away (or disappear in this medium). If enough people do that, they'll either go elsewhere or try something different.
Philosophy should be hospitable, but if it is a philosophical environment, philosophy's rules apply.
Perhaps we should be thinking about the time before definitions are in place. Except, how can we say anything at all - even articulate a definition - without some definitions, or at least mutual understanding, in place. Perhaps all we can say is that dialogue has to start with a mutual willingness to engage.
Such a question is BS to some because they just live whereas for others it is intrinsic to their being. Some people question things and others do not.
So to call meaning a bunch of BS is kinda silly. There are large swathes within the philosophical field that good numbers of people would not bother with where others choose to loiter. In some sense it is a bit like saying ALL science is BS in truth there are areas within scientific interest that are more readily useful than others seem to be.
You may notice that to a chemist chemistry is everything yet to a biologist biology is everything. Biased of preferences is a human condition. I am more or less for doing away with distinctions when they inhibit exploration.
Apparently if meaning is subjective then everything means nothing and nothing is right or wrong. No sense in arguing or doing anything.
Pretty sure the dude is mentally ill. Even philosophies like Buddhism distinguish between conventional and ultimate reality.
Or
Which again sounds like Buddhism but thats getting stuck at the ultimate reality and ignoring the conventional truth of reality. Or rather committing the mistake that thinking that something being conditional means its not real or doesnt exist.
That's true and it is true also that it is still a live question for us. Whether the difference in context makes a difference is an interesting question. Also, does it follow from the primacy of that question millennia ago that it must be the primary question still? Or perhaps it may be primary for some people and not for others. Come to think of it, what makes it the primary question?
Quoting I like sushi
I like the pragmatism about this. But does it follow that when distinctions encourage or even enable exploration, you are in favour? For example, I can distinguish between questions that I know the answer to and those that I don't know the answer to. Arguable, that distinction enables me to explore. Really, quite useful.
Quoting Darkneos
You're right. One might say that there is more than one reality, or that there is more than one level of reality, or that what is real depends on context, or that reality is subjective. I always want to insist that "real" is an adjective that distinguishes from "unreal" in all its many varieties. Either alternate is meaningless with a noun - what is it that is real or unreal? To put it another way "reality" is not an object or entity, but a property of objects and entities. I'll stop now, because it is very hard to capture the everyday use of the concept.
The idea that everything "just is" and nothing is very important is very helpful if you are anxious or confused and unhappy about it. I've taken refuge there myself from time to time. But if meaning is subjective, no-one else has to pay any attention.
You see how quickly his own logic falls apart which is why I think he's mentally ill.
Though TBH the whole forum is full of nuts, case in point:
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652788#p652788
Which sounds like nonduality, but a horribly flawed version of it. Nevermind that that is not how the self works, that's more like a soul.
It's like I said, these people want an audience, not a discussion.
Context matters. The further we abstract ideas and thoughts from experience the less tangible they become. Specialisation is useless if such specialisation lives in its own terminological frame wholly separate - or rather seemingly so - from more mundane matters.
Categorisation is a symptom of a particular pedagogy that, given the practical evidence, seems less than optimal and more or less a mere force of habit. Finland is a prime example of how general problems are more fully understood and tackled by students in multiple ways effectively rather than simply looking through one myopic lens.
I think it's more like just not doing anything since everything is just subjective then nothing is right or wrong and everything just "is". It seems more like a cop out to avoid criticism. If there is no objective meaning and everything is subjective then you can't say I'm wrong.
Which is kinda childish IMO.
I can say you are wrong and provide reasons if I wish to. We can then go back and forth for a while eventually we can agree upon definitions and how they are used in certain contexts. If we cannot agree on terms then we will miss the spot.
In general our terms are universal enough to allow for meaningful conversations. Sometimes misuse, or alternative uses, will slip by unnoticed.
When it comes to terms like objective used in a colloquial sense we have little trouble understanding what is meant. In fields such as epistemology, sciences or fictional stories the term shifts to suit the medium.
Paradigm shifts will disrupt communication as we have to foster new ways to explicate new ideas/experiences.
I will also mention that right and wrong are prime examples of terms that have universality in one context but not in another. 1+1=4 is wrong, yet when it comes to ethics what is or is not wrong can yo-yo back and forth within an individual perspective when new items come to our attention.
If we both see a dog in the street and one of us says look at that dog we know what is meant. Objectivity in this sense in an object of understanding.
If you ask what are you doing tomorrow? No one will fail to understand. What they can fail to understand are subtle inferences and reasons for asking/stating certain things.
Yes, I can see that. But I wouldn't move to a diagnosis of mental illness. Until they have been through some training, people are really not very good at logic. I have observed people who are clearly mentally ill whose logic is impeccable.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes. That observation underpins the popularity of multi-disciplinary teams to pursue a project - particulatly a practical project. But the decision is a pragmatic one.
Quoting I like sushi
I take it that you are identifying various reasons for communication failure, but not saying that there's always some hindrance to communication. That makes sense. Now all we have to do is to spot the hindrances when they apply and find a way round them. I would only add that it takes two to do that.
But what is going on with the person I mentioned in that they are using this to avoid criticisms of their points while also trying to use the same framework of meaning that even ENABLES them to argue their point.
Like I was saying before, they just want an audience for their views not a discussion.
I get that feeling from time to time and if it's known, that's different. But the attribution isn't just coming from a post.
It is possible that I'm a bit sensitive about mental illness. But I do mind that it gets thrown about in a casual way that bothers me. People don't talk about cancer in the same way, do they? I worry that there's a lack of recognition that mental illness is really illness.
I know because I was the same, though not to that degree. The posts I would ask about stuff would just be me repeating the same thing again and again even though people either weren't bothered by it or understood and didn't care.
I think you might find it worthwhile to develop some understanding of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) and related "personality disorders". It might help you recognize the pattern more clearly, as well as give you insight into how to deal with it.
I hadn't looked at the link before I said that. That just struck me as possibly of relevance based on what you had said. I've read some of that thread now, and what I see is someone who knows enough science to probably keep some people off balance, but someone with a skin deep understanding of science that he uses to play the social status games that he likes to play on that forum.
That guy(?) is gaslighting, and gaslighting is pretty strongly associated with narcissism. (Consider Donald Trump.)
Though what did you mean by skin deep though?
That's true, although the pedant in me hesitates over "everyone". But it seems that recognition of spectra of mental illness is quite widespread and accepted. Indeed, there seem to be fashions in this. ADHD, personality disorder, autism and Asperger's are all examples.
I'm inclined to generalize (which is always dangerous) and say that it is often useful to see mental illnesses (insofar as they can be defined) as over-development of one or another personality trait which is not abnormal.
I have two "buts".
1. That applies to certain "physical" conditions as well. For example, it is perfectly normal to carry some fat store. But obesity is a clinical condition. Yet it is not more than an over-development of something that is normal. Addictions are similar. Cancers are different, but not dissimilar. Apparently, all of us develop cancerous cells; they are usually dealt with by our immune system. The ones that become dangerous have escaped that process. And so on.
2. It is easy to forget that there are examples of conditions that used to be thought of as mental illness (or even moral turpitude) have turned out to be the result of physical issues. Indeed, don't we think that, in the end, there will be a physical basis for most mental illness?
Quoting Darkneos
Yes, but as someone who has not been trained in any scientific subject, I have to be a bit more complicated about that. Scientists also have a tendency to lecture the rest of us on topics that they have no special knowledge of; it's very difficult to challenge them in the security of their specialisms. Yet, scientific knowledge has consequences and surely the rest of us need to have a say about that.
I'm not saying that you are wrong. (My own bugbear is the misuse of relativity theory.) But it seems to me that there is bound to be a contested area when it comes to the significance (and even, in some sense, the interpretation) of scientific theory. (It's a special case of the problem of specializations as silos. Specialization is very powerful, but has its problems.)
Well, to be fair, there is an enormous amount of study involved in becoming conversant in sciences, and we are all born ignorant and are going to die only somewhat less ignorant. So it doesn't make sense to me to expect anyone to know everything. Why does it matter so much to you, what the people on that forum think?
Quoting Darkneos
Superficial.
It is far from unusual to encounter philosophy focused people with a superficial understanding of sciences. Many learn little about sciences beyond what they find useful for rhetoric in support of their philosophical views. Such superficial views are what I refer to as skin deep.
Though Im also doubtful of their logic. It seems like only a few people there understand how it works. Like one person I was talking to saying:
Never mind that not only the logic doesnt follow but also doesnt demonstrate there is a mind or that the mind is responsible for whats going on.
Well, that's a point of view and it may be valid in some cases. But I think it is a bit unfair as a generalization. Presumably you accept that the science that can only be done in a community and a culture. The community may ignore ideas that turn out to be worth pursuing and may be mistaken, but there's no help for that.
In our culture, if you want to do serious work (as opposed to armchair speculation), you need to be recognized by the community and funded by someone. What's the point in having a brilliant idea if the community doesn't recognize it and no-one will fund the research that would prove it? You can sit on the side-lines and complain - perhaps rightly - or find some work that you can do. It's not ideal, but it is the way things are.
In short, compromise is not necessarily selling out. It is the price you pay for the support of your community - and you can't do serious work without that.
Philosophers can be much more independent than scientists. But it has to develop in the culture that the philosopher lives in and that will set the starting-point and although in theory philosophers can work in total isolation, I can't really imagine such reflection amounting to more than musings. To do serious philosophy (even for fun) without resources (books, etc.) and a community is not possible.
Philosophy only works with a delicate balance between disagreement (about issues) and agreement (about how to discuss them). With people who don't understand that, the only solution may be to walk away, unless one decides to take on a difficult (and often quite boring) negotiation.
It's not ideal, but it's the only game in town - unless you are very lucky or able to compromise.
I wrestle with this as well.
Like in these threads for example:
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=40294
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652138#p652138
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652127#p652127
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652119#p652119