Ask a Philosopher!

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I have always believed that philosophy is largely devoid of practical application, but recently have gotten into it on the insistence of a friend. He recommended I read on political philosophy, because he thought I had that kind of mentality. I have already read The Apology of Socrates, Crito, and The Prince, by Machiavelli.

Right now, I'm reading Republic, by Plato, and while I am only halfway through it, I am already unimpressed. Plato, through his mouthpiece Socrates, advocates what can only be described as a totalitarian state in which every citizens surrenders his rights for the benefit of state, but with none for himself. Plato's retort is that he is doing this for the benefit of all as a whole, but then does a poor job of explaining how this State would be so much more beneficial than what had already existed in his time. He's even worse at explaining what makes a "true" philosopher over a fake one, which would put a big dent into his selection of leadership in the guardians. About the only aspect I can agree is that each person should do the job best suited to him, but even there, he falls short of explaining how this will be selected in his State.

My opinion is that too much philosophy is too preoccupied with consideration without testing, and ends up rambling on about nonsense. The only exceptions seem those who least believe themselves philosophers, such as Machiavelli and Hobbes.

 

[shortguy]

If your concern is that philosophy isn't practical, then you probably won't get what you're looking for by reading 2,500 years old stuff. People have done a lot of good thinking since then.

 

[Elta]

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Is this supposed to mean something? It looks like a fairly random string of words.

 

[GoodGame]

I think we need a discussion on the philosophy of language, or maybe logos

 

[Fifty]

I think we need a discussion on the philosophy of language, or maybe logos

To be honest I haven't much of a clue what logos is supposed to amount to.

 

[Agent327]

Given the different interpretations to logos, that's hardly surprising; perhaps Plotinus could give some short explanation?

But how about elaborating on the philosophy of language? (BTW, glad to see your back over here.)

 

[Plotinus]

I have always believed that philosophy is largely devoid of practical application, but recently have gotten into it on the insistence of a friend. He recommended I read on political philosophy, because he thought I had that kind of mentality. I have already read The Apology of Socrates, Crito, and The Prince, by Machiavelli.

Right now, I'm reading Republic, by Plato, and while I am only halfway through it, I am already unimpressed. Plato, through his mouthpiece Socrates, advocates what can only be described as a totalitarian state in which every citizens surrenders his rights for the benefit of state, but with none for himself. Plato's retort is that he is doing this for the benefit of all as a whole, but then does a poor job of explaining how this State would be so much more beneficial than what had already existed in his time. He's even worse at explaining what makes a "true" philosopher over a fake one, which would put a big dent into his selection of leadership in the guardians. About the only aspect I can agree is that each person should do the job best suited to him, but even there, he falls short of explaining how this will be selected in his State.

My opinion is that too much philosophy is too preoccupied with consideration without testing, and ends up rambling on about nonsense. The only exceptions seem those who least believe themselves philosophers, such as Machiavelli and Hobbes.

With Plato, you shouldn't assume that he necessarily endorses the views or arguments expressed by his characters - in at least some of his works he uses deliberately bad arguments to make a rhetorical point. I think his real political views are to be found in the Laws rather than the Republic. However, of course you're going to think that philosophy is about nonsensical rambling rather than rigorous testing if you're only looking at ancient or Renaissance works. You wouldn't try to find out about medicine or astronomy by reading Galen or Ptolemy, presumably. Philosophy as it is done today is far more rigorous and scientific. I can't recommend any books on political philosophy as I don't know anything about it - although I suppose Isaiah Berlin would be a good place to start - but if you want practicality, try starting with Peter Singer's Practical ethics.

Part of the problem, however, is that modern philosophy is so specialised and academic that it's no more intelligible to the general reader than the average scientific paper; but at least most people have some sense of what science is, whereas the inaccessibility of philosophy, and the common misuses of the word, means that most people don't have much concept of what philosophy is.

Given the different interpretations to logos, that's hardly surprising; perhaps Plotinus could give some short explanation?

My small pocket Greek dictionary defines logos like this:

a saying, speaking, speech, mode of speaking; eloquence, discourse; conversation, talk; word, expression; assertion; principle, maxim; proverb; oracle; promise; order, command; proposal; condition, agreement; stipulation, decision; pretext; fable, news, story, report, legend; prose-writing, history, book, essay, oration; affair, incident; thought, reason, reckoning, computation, reflection, deliberation, account, consideration, opinion; cause, end; argument, demonstration; meaning, value; proportion; Christ.

I think that pretty much sums it up. One of the difficulties of Greek is that most words have lots of definitions (and, conversely, for every definition there are lots of words), making it a very slippery language, although this is an extreme example. Moreover, logos is one of those Greek words that certain pretentious writers like to use in place of perfectly decent English ones (another culprit is praxis), hence concepts such as "logocentrism" in post-structuralism. Since the Greek word can mean virtually anything, not much is gained by employing it in this way except a patina of scholarliness.

 

[The Imp]

What are your views on Ethical and Psychological Hedonism?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

With Plato, you shouldn't assume that he necessarily endorses the views or arguments expressed by his characters - in at least some of his works he uses deliberately bad arguments to make a rhetorical point. I think his real political views are to be found in the Laws rather than the Republic.

How is that supposed to redeem the value of the book?

However, of course you're going to think that philosophy is about nonsensical rambling rather than rigorous testing if you're only looking at ancient or Renaissance works.

No bias there.

You wouldn't try to find out about medicine or astronomy by reading Galen or Ptolemy, presumably.

Perhaps then you'd like to explain that to this guy. Then let me know why Yale university is into the business of rambling.

Philosophy as it is done today is far more rigorous and scientific. I can't recommend any books on political philosophy as I don't know anything about it - although I suppose Isaiah Berlin would be a good place to start - but if you want practicality, try starting with Peter Singer's Practical ethics.

I'm not interested in getting moralized.

Part of the problem, however, is that modern philosophy is so specialised and academic that it's no more intelligible to the general reader than the average scientific paper; but at least most people have some sense of what science is, whereas the inaccessibility of philosophy, and the common misuses of the word, means that most people don't have much concept of what philosophy is.

There it is, the ultimate cop-out. Us laymen are just too stupid to understand this fancy philosophy, except where it is nothing but ancient ramblings.

 

[GoodGame]

There it is, the ultimate cop-out. Us laymen are just too stupid to understand this fancy philosophy, except where it is nothing but ancient ramblings.

But really it's kind of the same with anything, Molecular Biology, Quantum Mechanics, etc.. The fields become so specialized that it's really not easy to break into them without years of studying. I don't see that as a cop-out, but simple fact that the modern world is highly specialized.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

But really it's kind of the same with anything, Molecular Biology, Quantum Mechanics, etc.. The fields become so specialized that it's really not easy to break into them without years of studying. I don't see that as a cop-out, but simple fact that the modern world is highly specialized.

Speak for yourself.

 

[GoodGame]

Speak for yourself.

I do, so what's your point? That some people are Mensa grade, with 10 PH'Ds?

 

[lovett]

I'm not interested in getting moralized.

That you're asking for practical uses of philosophy but not interested in considering morality, that there is pretty contradictory.

 

[Agent327]

Part of the problem, however, is that modern philosophy is so specialised and academic that it's no more intelligible to the general reader than the average scientific paper; but at least most people have some sense of what science is, whereas the inaccessibility of philosophy, and the common misuses of the word, means that most people don't have much concept of what philosophy is.

While Fifty has mentioned something similar I find this highly unsatisfactory as an answer: scientific disciplines should be able to explain to the general reader what they are about and generally succeed - to a certain extent - in doing so. Why should (modern) philosophy be an exception to this rule? And if it is, how can one complain that people don't understand or properly appreciate (modern) philosophy?

 

[Plotinus]

How is that supposed to redeem the value of the book?

It's not. I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't assume that everything that the fictional character Socrates says in Plato's Republic is what Plato himself, the author, endorses.

No bias there.

I don't know why you say that. What I said is true. Ancient and Renaissance works aren't as rigorous as modern analytic works, just as (say) the science of those times was less rigorous than modern science.

Perhaps then you'd like to explain that to this guy. Then let me know why Yale university is into the business of rambling.

That is a class in the history of political philosophy. Of course it's going to start with Plato and go on from there, because it is supposed to give people an in-depth survey of the history of the field. But the impression you gave is that you wanted to see the practical application of philosophy. I would say that the way to do that is to start not with the ancient beginnings of political philosophy (if it's political philosophy you want to find out about) but with its modern forms, because those would be (a) more rigorous, and (b) easier to sympathise with from a modern viewpoint.

I'm not interested in getting moralized.

I don't know what "getting moralised" means, but whatever it is, I doubt it'll happen from reading about ethics. You said you wanted to see practical philosophy. Ethics is the most practical field of philosophy. Singer does applied ethics, which means you take a philosophically rigorous ethical theory (in his case, a version of utilitarianism) and you apply it to practical situations in a rational and consistent way. I don't really understand what you object to about that.

There it is, the ultimate cop-out. Us laymen are just too stupid to understand this fancy philosophy, except where it is nothing but ancient ramblings.

It's not about stupidity, it's about jargon. It's simply a fact that most people wouldn't understand an academic paper in a subject other than their own, not because they lack the intelligence but because such things are written for other specialists who are familiar with the language and the concepts.

Now I would say that if you really want to get an overview of political philosophy, and understand what it does and how, and what political philosophers say and why, and whether it has any practical value after all - you should read just that, an overview of the subject. There must be introductions to the subject, probably aimed at undergraduates or that sort of level. I think that would give a much better idea of the state of the field than starting with Plato and working your way laboriously forward. Just as, if you wanted to learn about physics, you would read an overview of the modern state of the field, not start with Newton.

While Fifty has mentioned something similar I find this highly unsatisfactory as an answer: scientific disciplines should be able to explain to the general reader what they are about and generally succeed - to a certain extent - in doing so. Why should (modern) philosophy be an exception to this rule? And if it is, how can one complain that people don't understand or properly appreciate (modern) philosophy?

Well, perhaps I was too quick to say that - as I just indicated, there are introductions to the various philosophical fields which should be more intelligible. What annoys me is when people read some Plato or Descartes and think that's philosophy, without taking the time to understand the contemporary state of the field. My point was that this is understandable, given that contemporary philosophy is much harder to read than the old stuff for the reasons given above. But that doesn't mean that there aren't good summaries of what is going on in contemporary philosophy, although they may not be so widely available outside university libraries, unfortunately.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I do, so what's your point? That some people are Mensa grade, with 10 PH'Ds?

No, that you overestimate the intelligence required to understand these things (mine is 126, so not Mensa material). I am versed in all of the above fields that you mentioned, and I did not require 10 PhDs to get there. They are eminently understandable to anyone curious enough to learn them. The same is surely true of modern philosophy. I don't have the same in-depth understanding of a subject as much as a PhD, but I am not interested in that level of detail.

That you're asking for practical uses of philosophy but not interested in considering morality, that there is pretty contradictory.

I don't consider morality to be practical, but rather an excuse for a particular behavior.

I don't know why you say that. What I said is true. Ancient and Renaissance works aren't as rigorous as modern analytic works, just as (say) the science of those times was less rigorous than modern science.

Considering that there are no tests of validity of any of the philosophical viewpoints of any time period, I find that rather biased.

That is a class in the history of political philosophy. Of course it's going to start with Plato and go on from there, because it is supposed to give people an in-depth survey of the history of the field. But the impression you gave is that you wanted to see the practical application of philosophy. I would say that the way to do that is to start not with the ancient beginnings of political philosophy (if it's political philosophy you want to find out about) but with its modern forms, because those would be (a) more rigorous, and (b) easier to sympathise with from a modern viewpoint.

I'll get there. What I find dubious is your claim that there's nothing in ancient philosophy that's of any practical value. If that were true, no one would be teaching it outside of historical value. You will never find a medical school classroom mentioning Galen, nor an astronomy classroom mentioning Ptolemy, except as a historical mention. Those things are just not taught because they're irrelevant. So if ancient philosophy is so irrelevant, I find it dubious that such irrelevance is still taught with so much vigor. So someone must still think ancient philosophy is practical. Not me, nor you, but someone. Just like someone still thinks that Sigmund Freud has any practical value to psychology, and he's still taught.

I don't know what "getting moralised" means, but whatever it is, I doubt it'll happen from reading about ethics. You said you wanted to see practical philosophy. Ethics is the most practical field of philosophy. Singer does applied ethics, which means you take a philosophically rigorous ethical theory (in his case, a version of utilitarianism) and you apply it to practical situations in a rational and consistent way. I don't really understand what you object to about that.

He can go on about that all he likes, but I find no value in "ethics". To me, it's just an excuse to moralize.

It's not about stupidity, it's about jargon. It's simply a fact that most people wouldn't understand an academic paper in a subject other than their own, not because they lack the intelligence but because such things are written for other specialists who are familiar with the language and the concepts.

Like I don't have access to a dictionary or the internet.

Now I would say that if you really want to get an overview of political philosophy, and understand what it does and how, and what political philosophers say and why, and whether it has any practical value after all - you should read just that, an overview of the subject.

Are you through condescending?

 

[Plotinus]

Considering that there are no tests of validity of any of the philosophical viewpoints of any time period, I find that rather biased.

What an odd thing to say. Of course there are tests of validity, although it's not viewpoints that have validity, it's arguments (a valid argument is one where the premises and the denial of the conclusion form an inconsistent set).

But equally of course, contemporary analytic philosophy is far more rigorous than anything in antiquity or the Renaissance, because conceptual analytic tools are far more advanced. And if you doubt that, just pick up any contemporary philosophical journal and open a page at random: you will find far more rigorous and clear arguments than anything in Plato.

And I don't say that out of bias, I say it out of experience.

I'll get there. What I find dubious is your claim that there's nothing in ancient philosophy that's of any practical value. If that were true, no one would be teaching it outside of historical value. You will never find a medical school classroom mentioning Galen, nor an astronomy classroom mentioning Ptolemy, except as a historical mention. Those things are just not taught because they're irrelevant. So if ancient philosophy is so irrelevant, I find it dubious that such irrelevance is still taught with so much vigor. So someone must still think ancient philosophy is practical. Not me, nor you, but someone. Just like someone still thinks that Sigmund Freud has any practical value to psychology, and he's still taught.

But I didn't say that nothing in ancient philosophy has any practical value. I said that it has less practical value than its equivalent in modern philosophy, and also that it has less analytical rigor. Moreover, in philosophy things are often studied for reasons other than historical and practical value. Most philosophy doesn't have any practical value at all, but it is still studied for its theoretical value. Most people who study (say) Plato do so either as an exercise in historical interpretation or because they find the ideas intrinsically valuable or interesting, not because of any practical value that they may or may not have.

He can go on about that all he likes, but I find no value in "ethics". To me, it's just an excuse to moralize.

I don't understand this. What do you mean by "moralize"? I'm afraid it sounds to me like you've never read any philosophical ethics at all and are just pre-judging what you think it might be like.

Ethics is the most practical subject there is - it's about how we should live, and indeed what "should" means in the first place, and what we mean by "right" and "wrong". If you believe that the attempt to think rationally about this subject is valueless and "just an excuse to moralize" then you should provide evidence for such an anti-rational viewpoint.

Like I don't have access to a dictionary or the internet.

Well great then. In that case you can go and read some contemporary authors and see how they compare to Plato. Then perhaps you can provide evidence for your claim that -

My opinion is that too much philosophy is too preoccupied with consideration without testing, and ends up rambling on about nonsense.

- which is a pretty premature conclusion to come to given that, by your own admission, you've only read Plato, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. It may be true of them, but that doesn't warrant supposing that it's generally true.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

What an odd thing to say. Of course there are tests of validity, although it's not viewpoints that have validity, it's arguments (a valid argument is one where the premises and the denial of the conclusion form an inconsistent set).

And they've been doing that since antiquity. That's the problem, and my contention, with the matter. For every sound argument you think you've made, there will always be another ready to destroy it. Because as long as it's just about argument, there will always be a better argument somewhere else. It may sound like a great argument at the time, though.

But equally of course, contemporary analytic philosophy is far more rigorous than anything in antiquity or the Renaissance, because conceptual analytic tools are far more advanced. And if you doubt that, just pick up any contemporary philosophical journal and open a page at random: you will find far more rigorous and clear arguments than anything in Plato.

That's what every philosopher believes of his time.

...Most philosophy doesn't have any practical value at all, but it is still studied for its theoretical value...

I'm glad we can agree.

I don't understand this. What do you mean by "moralize"? I'm afraid it sounds to me like you've never read any philosophical ethics at all and are just pre-judging what you think it might be like.

Let me put it this way: I have no interest in sermons, least of all about conditions that have no basis in reality or choices that never occur outside of imagination.

Ethics is the most practical subject there is - it's about how we should live, and indeed what "should" means in the first place, and what we mean by "right" and "wrong". If you believe that the attempt to think rationally about this subject is valueless and "just an excuse to moralize" then you should provide evidence for such an anti-rational viewpoint.

The way I view it, it's an idle exercise, because what's right for one's life is determined by practical considerations, not lofty goals. And gaining ethical advantage at the expense of material advantage will yield only destruction (and it's nearly impossible to get both ethical and material advantage at the same time). I don't like it, but that's how the world is.

- which is a pretty premature conclusion to come to given that, by your own admission, you've only read Plato, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. It may be true of them, but that doesn't warrant supposing that it's generally true.

I'm not completely convinced of that. As I pointed out, Machiavelli was one author whose ideas held great value, even though, as you said, The Prince was not representative of his real views. I've also read "The Black Swan" which can be taken as a work of philosophy, and it had great appeal and reason to me. I believe that someone is making sense out there but that this must be a decided minority, because everyone else seems to be trying to overwhelm people with words-- like you.

 

[Agent327]

Well, perhaps I was too quick to say that - as I just indicated, there are introductions to the various philosophical fields which should be more intelligible. What annoys me is when people read some Plato or Descartes and think that's philosophy, without taking the time to understand the contemporary state of the field. My point was that this is understandable, given that contemporary philosophy is much harder to read than the old stuff for the reasons given above. But that doesn't mean that there aren't good summaries of what is going on in contemporary philosophy, although they may not be so widely available outside university libraries, unfortunately.

I appreciate that - as well as your patience with Nanocyborgasm, BTW -, but I'd like to add that the internet also seems to come in handy if people are really interested in philosophy. For instance, I found this introductory course reference (What is philosophy?: http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/whystudy.htm), as well as several book references simply by googling "introduction modern philosophy".