The purpose of philosophy
A common question that is asked on these boards is, "What is philosophy?" While the answer, "The love of wisdom" may be the definition, it doesn't answer the deeper and more important question of, "What is the purpose of philosophy?"
Is it to find a particular philosopher, quote them as if their words are gospel truth, and worship at their feet? No.
Is it to use complex vocabulary in conversations that can have multiple meanings that can be conflated towards an outcome you want? No.
Is it to assuage our own ego, finding things that justifying what we want, then talking down to others who don't come to our obviously superior intellectual conclusions? No.
Is it to find an ideology to spout at people in hopes of furthering an ethical, political, or cultural viewpoint? No.
Its about one thing, and one thing only: "Thinking in the face of the pressure not to." Philosophy at its base, breaks down the cultural understanding of terms and phrases and shines a direct light on them to say, "But is this rational?" Think of the major questions that philosophy asks:
1. What is good
2. What is knowledge
3. What is mind
4. What is God
5. What is...anything
All of these are typically terms and ideas that we have believed to be a particular way most of our lives, then one day doubted. But the things that are doubted are often taken for granted in one's life and/or culture. You are raised to have a particular outlook towards good, knowledge, mind, God, and multiple other things. But then one day you really ask, "I was told this, but does it really make sense?"
Many people will likely discount your questions. "Why are you questioning what's good? Do you want to justify doing something wrong?" "Why are you asking about God? How dare you question and doubt his righteousness?" "Of course the mind is a soul, why are you such a fool?" "Don't question this law or political idea. To do so is evil, and I don't have to debate with evil."
The reality is that there is often immense pressure to not think about things. For many, thinking about common ideas that hold society together is dangerous. It is 'immoral' to think in the minds of many. Even on these boards, you'll find people who will attempt to restrict what you think because of a philosopher quote or 'you should use this term' to control the outcome of your thought process. Because even many fans of philosophy are uncomfortable actually thinking about things, and merely reuse things they've read about before and liked. Even to them, questioning evolves from 'Lets think about this together" to "This is an assault on my ego, my comfort in thinking a certain way, and I will attack you until you stop it."
Does that mean that philosophy is a fool's enterprise? No, its an ideal that every human being struggles with. We all have a bit of ego, and we all fail at thinking at times. The point is to get back up. Yes, the pressures of the world and yourself may have won today, but there's always the next day. Never stop thinking and never stop questioning even basic assumptions and outlooks. That is what pushes us forward. That is the purpose of philosophy.
Is it to find a particular philosopher, quote them as if their words are gospel truth, and worship at their feet? No.
Is it to use complex vocabulary in conversations that can have multiple meanings that can be conflated towards an outcome you want? No.
Is it to assuage our own ego, finding things that justifying what we want, then talking down to others who don't come to our obviously superior intellectual conclusions? No.
Is it to find an ideology to spout at people in hopes of furthering an ethical, political, or cultural viewpoint? No.
Its about one thing, and one thing only: "Thinking in the face of the pressure not to." Philosophy at its base, breaks down the cultural understanding of terms and phrases and shines a direct light on them to say, "But is this rational?" Think of the major questions that philosophy asks:
1. What is good
2. What is knowledge
3. What is mind
4. What is God
5. What is...anything
All of these are typically terms and ideas that we have believed to be a particular way most of our lives, then one day doubted. But the things that are doubted are often taken for granted in one's life and/or culture. You are raised to have a particular outlook towards good, knowledge, mind, God, and multiple other things. But then one day you really ask, "I was told this, but does it really make sense?"
Many people will likely discount your questions. "Why are you questioning what's good? Do you want to justify doing something wrong?" "Why are you asking about God? How dare you question and doubt his righteousness?" "Of course the mind is a soul, why are you such a fool?" "Don't question this law or political idea. To do so is evil, and I don't have to debate with evil."
The reality is that there is often immense pressure to not think about things. For many, thinking about common ideas that hold society together is dangerous. It is 'immoral' to think in the minds of many. Even on these boards, you'll find people who will attempt to restrict what you think because of a philosopher quote or 'you should use this term' to control the outcome of your thought process. Because even many fans of philosophy are uncomfortable actually thinking about things, and merely reuse things they've read about before and liked. Even to them, questioning evolves from 'Lets think about this together" to "This is an assault on my ego, my comfort in thinking a certain way, and I will attack you until you stop it."
Does that mean that philosophy is a fool's enterprise? No, its an ideal that every human being struggles with. We all have a bit of ego, and we all fail at thinking at times. The point is to get back up. Yes, the pressures of the world and yourself may have won today, but there's always the next day. Never stop thinking and never stop questioning even basic assumptions and outlooks. That is what pushes us forward. That is the purpose of philosophy.
Comments (76)
There are some wonderful books about thinking, and ever since reading Daniel Kahneman's explanation of thinking, I have regretted not fully understanding the process and better forms of thinking. But then I read another book and :gasp: Kahneman's explanation of thinking could be lacking because of a lack of emotions. I think we have been encouraged to be logical and not emotional, but that may not be the best thinking, especially when making judgments about how we should live together.
While I live to have new realizations, I am concerned about the people who appear to be excellent thinkers but who have no joy in doing so. What is up with that? :worry: It is so sad that everyone doesn't enjoy thinking and having new realizations. I think that is why Socrates said what he said.
In so far as 'thinking' helps one to thrive over above one's mere survival, I agree.
I've always thought that the reason why people don't think much (or at least don't seem to) is because they've already figured it all out, are beyond uncertainty and doubt.
Quoting 180 Proof
Exactly.
There is such a thing as idle doubting.
A fair clarification.
For me philosophy goes wrong when it urges upon us a criterion of rationality, a norm for right action, a project of enquiry, that has been arrived at without due consideration for the complexities and frailties of human nature. This insensitivity to how we actually are can take two forms. It can attribute to human nature some unreal power that human nature does not, perhaps could not, possess, alternatively it can pass over, or fail to give proper weight to, something that is integral to us as we are. Philosophy can attribute to human nature some unnaturally abstract faculty that it chooses to call "reason", or "the good will", or it can devalue the place of desire in our lives or it can make light of the intensity of human emotion.
This also explains the trend of anti-intellectualism and anti-philosophy. People who are actually living in constant state of existential anxiety due to the pressures from trying to earn a living cannot add to this same existential anxiety by thinking about it without this somehow hindering them in their efforts to earn a living. Perhaps counterintutively, this can apply to people of any socioeconomic class; living paycheck to paycheck is not limited to the poor, not by far.
Which is why I say that philosophy is and should be the domain of the leisurely elites.
"Thinking in the face of pressure not to" sounds rather like Hemingway ("grace under pressure"). The philosopher as matador, perhaps, fighting an unusually ponderous bull fed on platitudes? Or out hunting the dreaded guardians of the common herd of humanity? Perhaps philosophers in that case would be taking themselves too seriously.
Never stop questioning? Maybe have a reason to question, first.
Okay, good conclusion.
Not all of us will be thinkers. Solitude and thinking is a predisposition. That's why philosophy is always misunderstood. Yes, there is a point of thinking philosophically -- what is reality, what exists in the deepest analysis of the world, the meaning of what we say such claims, beliefs, arguments, and opinions. We want to know the truth and if truth is knowable.
These type of thinking is not an everyday activity that everyone cares for.
True enough: although I suspect purpose may be plural. I doubt it could ever be one thing.
My issue with the ususal definition is: what does love of actually mean, and what is wisdom? The hermeneutics of either of these broad, portentous terms could keep us guessing forever.
Many of us have met enough people who claim a love of wisdom without ever cultivating it for themselves.
But heres another question. Does it matter? When people say they arent interested in philosophy to those who aspire to be, theres a tendency to hold them in mild contempt, or at least to consider them somehow inferior. I suspect, however, that having no interest in philosophy can be a perfectly legitimate way of being. It may simply be dispositional, and I wouldnt want to live in a world where philosophy must appeal to everyone, and those who arent interested are somehow suspect and intrinsically plebeian. That said, there's probably a right way and a wrong way to be disinterested.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Quite. But one might consider: how is it that one comes to the view that anything should be questioned at all? I suspect one needs a skeptical bent to begin with.
And this is a correct philosophical response. One should always feel free to ask 'Why?" and point out problems with assumptions. Perhaps there are good reasons for these approaches, but perhaps not. Nothing should ever be beyond question as long as one is trying to find an that aligns with reality.
Quoting baker
I think a better clarification is 'Some philosophical concepts are for people with niche contexts and/or interests". Philosophy is open for the poorest and most stressed among us. What is examined will be more pertinent to one's situation. "Why am I loyal to this job? Is job loyalty something I should hold over finding another job with a 2$ raise?" Not a complex question, but a re-examining of the situation that one is in and a questioning of the things taken for granted that got you there matter. Will such a person be interested in debating Hume? Almost certainly not. Does the person need to freely think despite the pressures around them not to? Yes.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Of course. But if you have a reason to question, do so despite the pressure around you not to.
Quoting L'éléphant
Correct. Just like not everyone does math or science, or other activities that have reasons for people doing them. Yet we can still evaluate the purpose and value of doing those things properly.
Quoting Tom Storm
A fantastic philosophical response. :)
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't think I ever implied that the purpose of philosophy is to play social status games. I'm also not claiming that everyone should approach or be a philosopher. I'm merely pointing out the purpose. Can you not be a plumber but understand the purpose and value of understanding plumbing? Of course. Does everyone need to understand or partake in plumbing? Of course not.
Do you find that professional philosophers (people who have a formal degree in philosophy and who are payed for producing philosophical texts) are sympathetic to your view expressed above?
Notice how in traditional culture, but also in many situations in modern culture, asking questions is the domain of the person who holds the higher status.
To my point earlier, sometimes you encounter incredibly difficult questions with no apparent answers. That's pressure to stop thinking about it. The philosopher insists on thinking about it anyway.
Quoting J
I think this is a fine assessment. Sometimes the point of asking the question is not to find an answer, but to realize the answer you thought you had wasn't it. Thus it can help you experiment and be willing to try new avenues to solve a problem.
Quoting baker
I cannot speak for professional philosophers. If it helps, I do have a formal degree in philosophy and can speak for me. :)
Quoting baker
True, but philosophy transcends this. To ask questions when there is pressure not to is the point. To be a lowly worm and ask a question of the divine is to understand the value and purpose of philosophy.
I never said you did. :wink: I was simply responding to an argument often made when people start talking about purpose.
Quoting baker
Ive not noticed that. Certainly, in the cultures I know here, people of all status commonly ask difficult questions and are sometimes insolent while doing so. What do you count as a traditional culture?
In Australian culture low status workers habitually question and sometimes harass the management and ruling classes.
:fire:
Quoting Tom Storm
Here in America, we fuckin' precariats need to grow some Aussie balls.
Efforts made to prove that God does or does not exist seem to anger some and provoke bitter responses, it's true, but the unfortunate prevalence of such efforts establishes that any pressure to suppress them has been ineffective.
There is the example of Socrates of course, and whenever and wherever the Abrahamic religions or others similarly intolerant and exclusive hold sway there's very serious pressure applied to repress the question IF it raises other questions related to whether the God favored by the powerful really is God.
I think that the questions mentioned in the OP are so abstract that the claim there is "enormous pressure" not to ask them isn't credible. They lack context--like so much else in philosophy. Imagine enormous pressure being applied to prevent consideration of what it means to know something, or what it means to exist. So I ask for examples of these dangerous questions it's the purpose of philosophy to ask and address.
:chin: That's sophistry, not philosophy. (Plato)
I see what youre saying: what counts as a dangerous question in one country might not be in another. Here in Australia, no one much cares about God or gods. Youre rarely going to find controversy about teaching evolution or privileging science over religious dogma.
But there are enough questions (often with essentialist themes) which seem to provoke antipathy. What is a woman? What is gender? Is taxation theft, or is it the price we pay for civilisation? Is morality objective or just a matter of custom? What is racism? What counts as true? Plenty of wars have been started in pursuit of answers to these sorts of questions.
A little bit of a dive into history can show this. In many totalitarian societies on is not allowed to question the effectiveness of their government. In many religions certain questions can be considered blasphemous or sacrilegious. Cultural questions of 'Should women have the right to vote" have been seen as inconvenient, pointless, and should be silenced. Even in local cultures like family or friends, "Why do we play video games all day?" can be greeted with a "Because they're fun, shut up and press start."
People in general fall into patterns of thought and process, and generally it is inconvenient to question or deviate from these common things. Philosophy is often the discomfort of questioning the things 'we've always done that way', and might be ignored or ridiculed by others for taking the time to do so. And yet this need to question assumptions and processes is how we grow as people. How we find the nicks in our assumed logic and build better foundations of thought going forward.
None of these resemble the questions referred to in the OP. They are, instead, questions which may be asked by most anyone most anywhere, e.g. at a Thanksgiving dinner.
You may very well come from an enlightened family where such questions are common. In many families such questions are off limits, yelled at, and discouraged. It sounds like you have not had a situation in which you've wanted to ask a question that the people around you don't want you to ask. So of course you may not be able to understand that situation.
If you disagree with my examples, do you agree or disagree with my message? If so, why?
My point is these are not uniquely philosophical questions. They're not questions that philosophers, in particular, face "enormous pressure" not to ask.
If it is said the purpose of philosophy is to guide the human intellect in its various pursuits, but it is that intellect by which the predicates of such guide are determined, and indeed even the conception which represents it by the same name, it seems obvious philosophy as such has no purpose, per se.
Philosophy is a doctrine, a prescriptive method, for the non-fallacious cum hoc ergo propter hoc use of human reason alone. It is to reason, a fundamental human condition, purpose belongs, philosophy being merely that by which reason attains toward its purpose.
Or not .its self-complicating.
So much of what we know and do is unstated and unconscious. For instance, we use language fluidly, and so clearly we all 'know' the rules of grammar, but when asked to explain them we are often at a loss. Words too: we 'know' what they mean, as we use them with ease, but we grope for definitions. The same goes for concepts, purposes, ideologies, worldviews.
And so goes the majority of our lives, acting without knowing why, doing without quite knowing what we do. This is the unexamined life. Philosophy remedies this: it can make the implicit explicit, the unconscious conscious.
As we bring the unconscious to light, more often then not, we realize that these implicit beliefs we've carried with us don't really make sense. Then we have the opportunity to replace the unconscious and irrational with the conscious and rational. This is growth, the transition to true adulthood that so many make all too late, or never at all. The conscious cultivation of a worldview which is consonant with the world, rather than an artifact of upbringing.
This is the purpose of philosophy.
I came to TPF as a lay philosopher, rediscovering interests I had set aside due to no longer teaching a high school intro to philosophy class.
When I taught said class, I needed to connect to a discipline I had little experience with. So I read a lot - including back issues of "Philosophy Now". Some of it was beyond me, but I found myself drawn to discussions of AI. Fifteen years later, I find so much of that reading validated by what is happening with AI, and how those readings help me understand the issues today.
Which leads me to ask - what questions of an urgent / topical nature today can be best addressed, or perhaps just effectively addressed, with philosophy? Are there discussions on subjects now that will seem just as urgent in 15 years as discussions of AI have proven to be? I would love to hear some predictions, or be pointed towards urgent current topics in philosophy.
Canadian philosopher Joseph Heath noted on his substack that many of his colleagues seem to be 'sitting out' many fraught contemporary subjects. I imagine a lot of TPFers are closer to Heath than myself in terms of contact with this academic world - is he correct about this?
:100: :fire:
I dont think any question requires philosophy, and certainly not if its to be settled by an educative political process. Seems to me all matters are settled by the ongoing conversations societies have with each other. These are, of course, based on philosophically derived notions, but not in a systematic or deliberate way. And our values will change as the older folk die off and the younger, more progressive types dominate (they in turn will be the conservative fogies of tomorrow).
I have to confess to not caring about AI. Theres a lot of alarmist verbiage written about it. My view is that any reading or tentative understandings of the matter will do nothing to manage or deal with any changes coming.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I'm a big fan of sitting out controversies and pseudo problems. Many either go away or are integrated into culture as the old folk and their values die out.
My apologies on my late reply.
Philosophy will always be needed to dive into linguistic assumptions. Good, evil, God, knowledge, etc. As for the modern day, I see a few. Granted, I could be completely wrong as assessing the important things of today is notoriously difficult, while hindsight is usually 20/20.
Trans gender issues. This was literally made for philosophers to tackle. What are male and female is science, but cultural associations with sex, aka gender, is a goldmine of philosophical discussion.
AI 'life' and mind. AI is going to challenge us to start thinking what a life and a mind are. As it continues to evolve, we're going to find AI that will be remarkably intelligent. Of course, it won't have feelings. Does that mean we treat it as a life, or do are things that cannot feel exempt from fair treatment?
Interpersonal connections in an internet world. We still have much to discuss and think about in regards to internet behavior and human evolution.
Imo, "trans issues" are psychosociological or anthropological much more so than "philosophical".
Ask questions of whom?
And yes, they are insolent: because being of lower status, one isn't supposed to ask questions, at all.
There you go: they harass.
Of course one may very well be cognitively and physically able to ask a question. But whether it will be considered appropriate to do so, in any particular instance, is quite another matter.
Sometimes, the only appropriate place for a particular person to ask about the things that concern them is the privacy of their diary.
It's naive to think that one could talk about just anything with just anyone in just any situation. Even professional philosophers are not keen to discuss just anything with just anyone in just any situation.
People who merely think a lot, to the point of thinking too much, tend to end up in institutions with white padded cells.
While I sympathize with you when it comes to noticing how limited the opportunities for open discussion are --
philosophy comes down to knowing the right time, the right place, and the right people with whom to bring up a particular topic (whether the topic is specifically "philosophical" or not).
And issues of mind are more neuroscience, but that doesn't mean philosophy doesn't have anything to contribute.
Trans has philosophy of mind, ontology, ethics, and rights to say the least. If trans gender is not a philosophical issue, nothing is.
But you are asking them. That's the point.
Quoting baker
Certainly. But you don't let other stop you from asking those questions on your own. And sometimes you get answers that need to be spread to other people bravely and without cowardice.
For me intellectual loneliness is about wanting deep philosophical talks. The idea that "I'm so smart and everyone else isn't," is immature and an ego trap. I talk to people all the time about ideas that they may not be comfortable hearing. I give everyone a chance. I am surprised more than not that most people actually want that, they're just afraid to do it first because they're thinking like the ego trap above.
Well, at lease since Parmenides, "nothing" certainly is a "philosophical issue", we agree on that much.
Ha! Clever reply 180 Proof.
Quoting Philosophim
Das nicht nichtet.
No.
1) Lower-status people = unemployed, homeless, First Nations, gig workers ask tough questions of their bosses, or of police, or other authorities, local government workers, welfare workers, etc.
Insolent = rude e.g., Hey, you fuckin' pig, why dont you do some real work instead of bothering us? You're a fuckin' dog! (Food delivery guy on a bicycle to policeman.)
Quoting baker
Im not sure why you write there you go" as if you believe that you are indirectly 'proving soemthing. Say what you mean.
Thanks for the reply Philosophim. Three points that all seem "made for philosophers to tackle". Am I correct in thinking that philosophers are generally 'sitting trans out' due to the fraught nature of the conversation in universities and other institutions?
The AI issue was a landmark for my personal interest in philosophy. Can you point to anyone doing good work here that I may not know?
Quoting Philosophim
To me this is the top underdiscussed issue. It certainly feels like online norms have been downloaded IRL. That the 'medium is the message' means that this medium (smart tech+social media) spreads a message of 'cognitive dissonance'. That we all live a panopticon, or a "village" with its "cage of norms" as Yascha Mounk put it recently - a village without the "genuine sense of community" brought about by daily face-to-face contact.
https://yaschamounk.substack.com/p/we-all-live-in-a-village-now
I think the medium is the screen, and that each screen makes the view slightly more opaque.
The screen can serve to 'freeze' one image or concept as well. I think the trans issue is an ideal example - it seems to me as if 'best practice' sort of froze around trans affirmation and care around concepts of best practice common in, say, 2012 or whenever the smart phone first became ubiquitous.
The Dutch Model of affirmative care dates back to the 80s, and had some small-scale successes behind it when applied to the most highly motivated trans population seeking out such care in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
But as the client population changed rapidly over the next decade, the model of care seemed to solidify in place? This is just an idea I've been considering, but it also seems to apply to other progressive concepts (like safe-injection sites when the real crisis is largely pill-based, or broad, open-door attitudes towards refugees in an era when the demographic reality of this is much different than originally conceptualized).
(I am not trying to pick on the left - I am simply more familiar with examples in the left-wing context I have long lived in).
How do you see tech impacting social connection?
Quoting Tom Storm
Sorry for the delayed reply!
Yours is a personal choice I can get behind.
Collectively, though, it strikes me that philosophy is MIA in some areas that philosophy seems uniquely suited to address? It certainly feels that philosophy might have more resilience than other disciplines to withstand the sort of attacks we see from the left on social scientists who differ from progressive orthodoxy?
I don't think philosophical thinking can limit the Trump attacks on universities though.
Issue-wise, I am most worried about free speech, as we see both the left and the right using the topic politically, while refusing to commit to principles, and with social media and AI further muddying the waters. Do you or others have recommendations for philosophers on the subject of free speech, in particular that can shed light on free speech in our online world?
And I wonder if philosophy can point to ethical approaches that are more agile and less calculated than consequentialism, yet less rigid than deontology?
It feels to me that there is a growing interest in issues such as these among younger people than there was in my gen X youth. Who should younger, early-interest-in-philosophy types be reading today?
Like I've been saying all along: Speaking up, when one is the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, can have grave consequences for one. Like your food delivery guy above: he's very lucky if he didn't get arrested for saying what he said to a policeman.
I know you didn't ask me, but this is true of conservative or middling philosophers. Only a couple, like Stock and Lawford-Smith publish on the subject. On the other hand, there is plenty of writing about trans issues painted as entirely positive, or somehow a foregone conclusion conceptually, and then discussing things like social implications of hte 'fact of trans' or whatever. No comment on merits, but illustrating that its hard to find one side - but not hard to find the other.
Now comment on merits: Stock's papers are probably the best on the subject, imo.
Like I've been saying all along: it's different here. You would be unlucky to be arrested for that or other behaviours of putative disrespect.
Ive never found a book of philosophy thats assisted me with any real-world issue, to be honest. But philosophy is not my go to. Ive read a bit of Chomsky on power, imperialism and freedom, but Ive mostly preferred novels: Swift, Eliot, Orwell, Bellow, Dickens, Flaubert. Im more interested in culture and have never taken much interest in politics. Apart from this site, and youtube I don't do social media. I think once people become radicalised by their social media bubble, its probably all over.
That, alone, is interesting. I have no formal philosophy background, but perhaps naively came here looking for a new way of looking at current events. "After Virtue" is the one recommendation here that has shaped my understanding of real-world issues today.
Quoting Tom Storm
I'm with you here, and like you, I avoid social media. I don't even have a cell phone. Nice list of novelists, BTW!
Quoting AmadeusD
I always enjoy your comments Amadeus, and welcome input from all. So thanks!
Stock I know from her (excellent) writing at Spiked and Quillette, so not the actual philosophy papers. This may be a dumb question, but can you recommend places to access these without a student / educator membership?
It certainly seems like other countries are ahead of mine, Canada, on critically addressing the radical affirmation approach.
Lawford-Smith has her own website with writings posted, so I'll start there with her.
Quoting AmadeusD
Telling ....
I have no background in philosophy; Im here to see what I might have missed and to find out what others think. This is fascinating in itself. Philosophy is far too complex and fraught a subject for an amateur like me. Ive done plenty of reading in other subjects. I tend to think philosophy is most appealing if youre trying to shore up a belief system, if youre searching for truth or a foundation for morality, or if youre unhappy and looking for consolation. Im a fairly frivolous and cheerful person and more of a simple-minded pragmatist, so those sorts of big themes arent of significant use to me as I go about my business.
I can't speak for all, but I would guess this. The introduction to trans rights was a coordinated effort built off the success of the gay rights movement. Instead of debating from the ground up, it brought from the top down. If you were educated, why wouldn't you support trans rights? Its just like gay rights...right? Kathleen Stock, a philosopher in England, left the position after pressure for her views on trans gender and gender rights.
Early on, you could not even question the issue in many places on the internet. You would be banned for even saying something like, "I don't believe a trans woman is a woman." It was a secular religion and saying anything against it was blasphemy. The life of a philosopher in modern day is hard. Underpaid, untenured, and immense competition for positions as there are far more students than teaching positions. Why risk your livelihood on debating the issue?
Quoting Jeremy Murray
No. I do not keep up on modern philosophy. I'm much more interested in the scientists doing the work and the psychologists doing the analyzing.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Yes, the online world and the real world are completely different. See how many people talk like a$$holes online? They're likely quite polite face to face. The presence of a human being brings a different dynamic than a faceless wall of text.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
The model of affirmation is profitable. Clients will come see you to be told the things they want to hear, and the promise of a magic drug that will fix their problems. Far fewer people want to pay money to be told they need to do work to fix their problems, or that their problem doesn't make them special in an attention seeking way.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
The left and the right both have positive and negative qualities. Each offers different approaches to solving problems, and neither side is right all the time.
Going back to your OP, I increasingly like this definition of the 'purpose' of philosophy.
Quoting Philosophim
Why indeed. I should frame my questioning to reflect just how hard it is to challenge orthodoxy. Personally, I was cancelled for questioning woke dogma, and I was super naive to have failed to recognize my precarity. That was in high school, so the pressure in a university faculty, where the divide between workers with 'institutional power' (tenure, visible woke status) and those just embarking on their careers is much worse.
What is the history of your calling woke a 'secular religion'? I started hearing it referred to that way maybe 3-5 years ago, and the idea has spread - because it is compelling. I certainly agree, after having thought it a superficial take when I first heard it. "Woke Racism" by John McWhorter is the best articulation of this I've found. I've used his term 'the elect' to describe the priestly class since reading him.
The bait-and-switch that allowed the trans movement to claim the same moral status as MLK and early gay rights activists and others seems tactically brilliant, but maybe reflects no 'tactic' at all, rather a natural evolution of thinking in a belief system shared across wealthy campuses and woke institutions globally. McWhorter talks at length about firm wokists that he is friends with, or admires - many people operating in this sphere are true believers, or (more often) moral relativists happy to defer to standpoint epistemology. Their intentions are generally good (if naive, or self-serving, or willfully blind).
Quoting Philosophim
Me too. The divide between disciplines strikes me as another part of the problem though. In our complex world, 'expertise' is in the hands of the specialist, rather than the polymath. I see so many fertile fields left untended. I would love to read philosophical takes on morality, or gender, or liberty that are grounded in anthropology and evolutionary biology, for example.
And philosophy would be a good tonic for some of the ill-considered orthodoxy you often
encounter in the social sciences.
Quoting Philosophim
Absolutely part of the problem, but this doesn't explain why, say, community-based 'safe consumption sites' for addicts still operate with outdated models based on different drugs? (assuming my premise that there may have been an ideological 'freezing' into place once smart phones became ubiquitous)?
Yes. And thank you for questioning in high school. I taught high school math for five years before the attempt to puberty block and transition kids. I never bought the, "We have to let them do this or they'll kill themselves" line, and after doing research on the subject, it truly is tragic. I never would have gone along with it either. Adults can do what they want, but I will never stand by and let a kid be harmed.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I called it a religion before I ever heard the term? Why? I was raised in the Christian religion. I believed that God could talk to me as much as a trans gender person thinks they're the opposite sex. I know exactly what its like to believe in a 'higher power', the emotional trappings that keep you in it, the language that prevents you from seeing the truth of the matter, and the techniques religion uses to keep you there. 100% used by the trans gender activists. I wouldn't say I'm against "woke" per say, and I'm actually not against trans sexual adults making their own life choices. Its the insistence of tying my speech and the denial of sex supremecy over gender that trigger every red flag and emotion I had against religion. It is not only wrong to question if a trans woman "is a woman", it is immoral and blasphemous. Thankfully the trans inquisition has passed but there are still people suffering from the after effects of it today.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Religion is powerful because of its emphasis on morality. Many people view morality as a part of their person and character; a fundamental to their being. If you can convince a person that something immoral, is moral, you bind them tightly to your web. The pursuit of moral virtue in the face of social pressure is also a good means of control over other people. If a person views themselves as sophisticated and moral, why would they dare question the orthodoxy being espoused by their equally intelligent and moral neighbors?
Quoting Jeremy Murray
We may be kindred spirits then. :) I pursued the field early on in hopes of solving the problems of the world. Instead of a creative field I found a very traditional field that was desperately trying to justify its existence by publishing whatever was trendy in its own closed field. Philosophy in its increasing irrelevance did not try to expand to become relevant, but retreated to the comfortable re-examination of its old and failed philosophies. I looked around at my professors while I pursued my master's and realized every single one of them was desperately trying to justify their job.
I left the dust bins of history to actually make a positive difference in the world, and have pursued philosophical writings here and there for my own and maybe someone else's use. But why would I ever join the field as more than a hobby when it shuns people like you and I? I make fantastic money programming now, the respect of my peers for my creative solutions to difficult problems, and a wonderful life of fulfillment. The field will die on its insistence on tradition and fear of creative, relevant progress. Perhaps here at least I can reach normal people and help them solve some of the traditional problems of philosophy that often plague them. Perhaps that's a pipe dream too, but as a hobby it is fulfilling.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I'm not sure here myself. My mother is a nurse, and she understands the 'for-profit' aspect of medicine well. Sometimes you get good people, but there are plenty who go into it purely for the money and prestige. And as we noted earlier, if an institution begins handing down orthodoxy tied to your paycheck, many will assume it is the correct thing to do.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Would you also love to hear how anthropological and biological takes on gender are grounded in philosophical presuppositions? For instance, did you know that Queer theory originated in the genealogical-ethnographic-historical studies of Foucault?
Quoting Philosophim
Did I detect a hint of anti-intelllectualism?
Quoting Philosophim
Before the field can make creative, relevant progress , those who fashion themselves as philosophical thinkers need to make sure they are caught up in its acheivements-to-date.
It has been my observation that the vast majority of those writing philosophy today are recycling philosophical ideas from 150-200 years ago.
I don't see how. Critiques against inflexible thinking that discourages modern day problem solving is not a critique against intellectuals. Intellectuals are curious not only about history, but about furthering the field to the problems of today. Feel free to explain why you think my words are anti-intellectual.
Quoting Joshs
So then you agree with me that philosophy as a whole is woefully out of date and not with the current times? That was pretty much what I covered above.
What I meant was that the full implications of the ideas of thinkers like Kierkegaard, Dilthey, Gadamer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Husserl, Foucault, Deleuze and the later Wittgenstein have yet to be absorbed by many doing philosophy today. The idea of most people today of what it means to be philosophicallly up to date is regressive with respect to the above thinkers. Most are still living in the world envisioned by, at best, certain early 19th century writers and , at worst, much older thinkers. So before we can talk about the need for creative innovations in philosophy we have to make sure we arent reinventing the wheel. You said you work in programming. Do you think many either praising or doom-mongering about current A.I. realize that the philosophical underpinning of todays cutting-edge computer technology can be traced back to the era of Leibnitz?
You critique my specific point with a vague generalization then suggest I'm being anti-intellectual? Since you didn't clarify that part after my response, I'm going to assume you're not holding that view of me anymore.
1. I never said not to study philosophy.
2. If you're implying "most" then you're implying "most professors". Which backs exactly what I said. Most are stuck discussing issues of the 19th century without respect to the needs and problems of modern day.
Quoting Joshs
This should be taken as a matter of course. My point is that philosophy isn't reinventing the wheel, its spinning it in place. Did you see anywhere in my post that implied I was trying to reinvent the wheel? A bit of a passive aggressive straw man on your part.
Quoting Joshs
And if philosophy departments were doing that, then that would be attempting to solve modern day problems with older philosophy. I took an entire graduate semester course on Liebniz from a professor who's sole scholarship was centered around Leibniz. You know what we studied? Liebniz' monad theory. That's right, a dead, outdated, and worthless philosophy. You know why? Because you can't spend a semester on the principle of sufficient reason or best of all possible worlds. They aren't that complicated to begin with, and you don't need to dive too deeply to understand them.
You know what else Liebniz did? Invented calculus. The man was the definition of cutting edge, introducing ideas and moving the needle forward for human success in his day. Liebniz would laugh at a professor wasting time on his old monad theory if he he had the understanding of modern day chemistry and physics we do.
Do you have an actual point of substance to what I initially wrote, or are you just another person bothered that someone is critiquing their experience in academic philosophy? Because it seems like your posts are a weak attempt at trying to invalidate my intelligence instead of my actual points.
If it isnt already, this is a great idea for a thread.
Quick question on this. Who will catch up first - mainstream philosophy, or culture?
Quoting Philosophim
Modern day problems are generated by modern day people. And if most modern day people are moving in a world of ideas produced by cutting edge philosophy of 200 years ago, then it is that older philosophy which defines the very meaning of the modern world, and dealing with those problems requires meeting people where they are at in terms of their worldview. That means beginning from the philosophers they already relate to and moving the needle forward at a pace they can manage. It doesnt mean trying to shove down their throats ideas so far removed from their worldview that they are prompted to respond with a mix of incomprehension and hostility. That is a recipe for political disaster, and in fact it is a large part of the reason MAGA emerged.
Quoting Philosophim
My point is that all scientific theories are expressions of underlying philosophical worldviews, and the cutting edge of todays physics and chemistry is based on philosophical presuppositions harking back more than 150-250 years. Heidegger wrote:
Heidegger wasnt just referring to the general public but to the scientific community as well. So the best way to move the needle forward on our modern chemistry and physics is to introduce those chemists and physicists to the next era of philosophy they are ready to absorb relative to the philosophy they already understand. That means going back to cutting edge philosophy of at least 100 years ago. For instance, Lee Smolen is an example of a physicist who believes his field desperately needs an infusion of newer philosophical ideas. And if you examine which philosophical era he wants the field to transition from (Kantian) and which era he wants it to enter into (post-Hegelian), youll see what I mean.
Btw, nothing Ive read from you suggests to me that your own philosophical perspective has moved significantly beyond Leibnitz. Can you tell me what philosophers you think have gone beyond his thinking and why?
Joshs I think you have an idea in you're head that you're not quite communicating clearly. And it may be that I lack context to understand what you're trying to say here. Can you attempt to clarify a bit with some examples?
If most people are moving in a world of ideas that are 200 years old, then aren't modern day problems really the problems of 200 years ago? And if the world is 100 years behind modern philosophy, doesn't that mean philosophy is 100 years behind where we expect it to be? That would seem to lend credence to my point. Also where did you get the idea of shoving ideas far removed from people's world view when the point is about philosophy being behind and not addressing the current world view? Finally, where did MAGA come from?
Quoting Joshs
Which philosophical presuppositions, and why are they presuppositions?
Quoting Joshs
So taking philosophy and applying it to modern day? I'm not sure if you're responding to my point anymore or you're taking this somewhere else. My original point is that philosophy as an academic study is too focused on its past philosophies without regard to coming up with solutions to modern day problems. This was based on my personal experience as a graduate student, so it is a personal anecdote. Do you have examples of philosophy as an academic institute pushing its students to solve cutting edge problems. Is philosophy at the forefront of science, psychology, ethics, and religion, being read daily by masters of the field and laymen who follow them?
Quoting Philosophim
When I refer to the cutting edge of philosophy of 100 or 200 years ago, I have in mind a tiny handful of thinkers. When you talk about modern day problems, you have in mind the culture as a whole, whereas Im talking about isolated thinkers. Those thinkers typically become known within the larger academic community ( and from there to the wider community) within a short time and their ideas are written about and taught. But Heideggers point stands ( a philosophy is creatively grasped at the earliest 100 years after it arises. We Germans are now precisely beginning to prepare ourselves to grasp Leibniz).
It can take the academic community 100 years or more to effectively understand the radicality of the most important philosophers, even though they have been studying and teaching their work over that period of time. Thats why when you complain about the philosophical community being fixated on the ideas of writers from earlier times I must counter that this is as it should be be as long as the implications of those ideas have yet to be fully appreciated. And buttressing philosophical ideas with the results of the latest sciences is not going to accomplish the modernization of philosophy when those very sciences unknowingly ground themselves in philosophical
presuppositions dating back a century or more.
I said we should be applying those philosophers to modern day problems and trying to solve them. Not that we should be abandoning them. I'm not sure you understood my point.
Quoting Joshs
His quote exists, it does not 'stand'. An opinion of the state of philosophy a century ago in no way necessitates that it was true then or today.
Quoting Joshs
You never answered my request to provide what these presuppositions are. "Presupposition" is a pretty bold claim when we have modern day physics, chemistry, and quantum mechanics with cell phone technology. Are you really claiming that the problems of today can only be answered 100 years from now when every other field is answering them much sooner? Wouldn't that indicate that philosophy needs greater emphasis on modern day problem solving and that perhaps many of its current methods are archaic and not very valuable?
I confess, I'm lending more credence to your point than I think it deserves. If you're excusing philosophy not being able to tackle modern day because its literally two generations behind modern day, that's not a counter to my point, that's an affirmation. But continue because maybe I'm missing something.
As you know, philosophy is divided into distinctly different communities, camps, cultures. What arguments you think deserve credence and what arguments dont is to some extent a function of which of these communities you identify with and which ones you dont. The question of the relation of philosophy and science has been at the center of the cultural wars which reached their peak in the 1990s. On one side of the debate stands those writers who believe the sciences never actually separated themselves off from philosophy, and instead represent elaborations of philosophical worldviews.
On the other side are those who believe that the sciences function independently of philosophy, and that the role of philosophy is merely to clarify and organize the discoveries of scientists. The first group ( Heidegger, Deleuze, Wittgenstein, Husserl, etc) has written much about the naively held philosophical presuppositions of particular sciences. The second group believes it is the job of the sciences to lead the way toward new knowledge, and the job of philosophy to try and keep up. You are apparently unfamiliarity with the arguments of the first group, but my guess is you would probably find that they dont deserve any more credence than mine, which may factor into your negative experience in academic philosophy.
True. I also don't agree with the second point. Modern day issues are not only about science, nor does philosophy have to merely follow in sciences footsteps. But philosophy, if it is to remain a relevant and vibrant force in the world, needs to address modern day problems and issues much more than it does now. At least I can now understand your viewpoint. Hopefully you understand mine.
Beautifully put. That said. You may be surprised just how many modern day problems are self-inflicted. People don't want to listen. They want to do things their way. Higher forms of thinking and logic be damned. Until they get into trouble (or what mostly happens is a less discernible, more insidious misfortune: they simply end up living lives that are a shell of what they could have been, and per the nature of the hedonic treadmill, their mind just adapts to the unfortunate circumstance as if it were the only outcome that could have occurred, living lesser lives and often producing more lives that will likely only follow suit).
In short, you can lead a horse to water but... well, you know the rest. :smile:
Unless it's carefully woven into an action movie with explosions and brutality, even the most pointed and crucial piece of wisdom meticulously crafted for one's situation will likely fall on deaf ears. Not always. But more so than not.
I've found the most effective method to improve the lives of the layperson and get them to make better decisions and ultimately avoid grave misfortune is unfortunately to scare them. The government knows it. That's why they force young drivers to look at gruesome traffic accident photos in traffic school. Why dentists show kids and teens and even adults pictures of rotted mouths. Why they have pretty extreme anti-smoking commercials. Why people warn others they care about (or even any young person around) about the prevalence and lifelong burden of STDs. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.
Usually, you can find pdfs of good papers. I've got a couple of Stocks (and many others). Shoot me your email and I'll send through whatever I have on the topic.
Thanks! And sorry for the delayed response, I continue to battle the black dog.
Did you leave teaching due to the turning tides? I'm not sure I could ever return to the classroom, there is just so much pervasive dogma in schools. It's the taboo around discussion and pushback that I find worst, I can handle bad ideas.
It is tragic, how these often well-intentioned actions amplify falsehoods. Chase Strangio in US vs. Skrmetti acknowledged that there simply is no evidence that puberty blockers reduce suicide, and yet the 'living son / dead daughter' argument persists, badly skewing decision-making. Strangio is a big deal in the movement, so this is a major admission.
Quoting Philosophim
Interesting take from someone raised religious. Wokeness as religion is one of those ideas so compelling it seems to rise up in a variety of ways. BTW, where are you writing from where the inquisition has passed? Here in Canada we just had another academic controversy when the 'father' of evidence based medicine, Dr. Gordon Guyatt, retracted his own paper under pressure from the lobby.
Quoting Philosophim
I know some object to statements like that, but it sure resonates with me. I am a lay philosopher, but proud possessor of three 'woke' degrees (English, Social sciences, Education). What pains me about this is that philosophy could perhaps best resist dogma. Certainly, my areas of study are nearly completely ideologically captured.
Glad you found a better personal path!
Sorry for the late response Joshs, but to answer your questions,
Sure I would.
And yes-ish? I am a lay philosopher, recently interested, but I have come across lots of Foucault in my studies, usually in the field of education. I'm going to go ahead and assume that you have a much more detailed impression of the man and his work. Feel free to help me fill out gaps in knowledge!
But to my understanding, Foucault's was not a complementary approach, but rather a critical stance?
The first time I recall Foucault was in my undergrad sociology of deviance course. I recall strongly objecting to the idea that schizophrenia was a form of 'meaningful discourse' given that my brother had recently been compelled to take his anti-psychotics and had dramatically recovered from his own schizophrenia. He later said that compelled medication 'saved his life'.
Foucault always felt detached from reality to me after that. And he's certainly not 'modern'.
My initial comment, what I would 'love' to see, is modern philosophy interacting with modern evolutionary psychology (among other possibly fruitful academic intersections) to grow new understandings, rather than constant deconstruction and critique.
I guess I feel philosophy is weirdly absent from shaping the discourse today?
I left because I worked more than 40 hours a week in a thankless job. I taught math and constantly told kids to get a good math based degree to make good money. Took my own advice eventually. :)
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I live in Texas where there wasn't much of one. But online was a different story.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Correct. I feel philosophy is uniquely fitted to take this on and yet it has no brave pioneers pushing it to address current events. A large part of this is the field I feel, is set up to stop pioneers and original thinkers. It is ironically a very conservative and traditional field.
Like a good boy scout.
Aww. You remind me of my teachers from earlier phases of my education. They, too, would talk about the importance of questioning. But the further in education I went, the less we were encouraged to ask questions.
And who decides that those answers "need to be spread", if not one's ego?
I was a high school teacher for a few years. It is true that the older you get it seems the less comfortable people are with asking questions. If I had to guess its because questions from children are often simple to answer while questions from adults are not.
Quoting baker
Ego is one motivation for sure. But there are others. Sometimes an idea is put into practice and the outcomes are positive. So the desire is to repeat those positive outcomes. Sometimes its based on a rational conclusion a person has made. Sometimes the spreading is not an insistence, but ensuring the ideas are exposed for others to think and question on.
Then the problems of modernity are aptly dealt with by 200-year-old philosophy. IF they're created by people who's worldview is 200-years old then those people are 'not modern' so neither would their problems.
Me thinks this is simply an incorrect analysis of most people's thinking.