Ask a Philosopher

[Neverwonagame3]

Angst- I have struggled to respond because your thought seems like gibberish to me.

lovett- Any argument to prove those claims depends on at least one of said claims. As a result, said arguments are circular.

 

[Angst]

Angst- I have struggled to respond because your thought seems like gibberish to me.

It is gibberish for you to realize there are other ways to think than to think rationally? I'm not sure how you can struggle with that. You just asked me about concepts I were unaware of. Due to this I assumed you knew at least as much as I did. But realizing that there are other modes of thinking than rationalism is not very advanced philosophy. Is that your issue?

edit: OK that was pretty rudely said. I asked whether you were able to grasp nonrational thinking.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

The way I understand it, there is only rational thinking and thinking with no grounding in reality whatsoever- i.e. making things up or emotivism which comes to the same thing. Since you clearly have some other means, I assumed I didn't understand you.

 

[Angst]

The way I understand it, there is only rational thinking and thinking with no grounding in reality whatsoever- i.e. making things up or emotivism which comes to the same thing. Since you clearly have some other means, I assumed I didn't understand you.

The way you understand it is quite inaccurate. I'm not sure whether this is your issue with your understanding of rationalism, but: one of the big problems with the clause "rational" is that it has become a great 'pop' word if you want your points to sound smart. Therefore it's often misused in journalism and politics as an empty plusword without actual philosophical meaning. ("This policy is rational, therefore it is good" "You are irrational, therefore I'm right") It's often nonsense, being a synonyme to 'good', leading, at times, to embarassing truisms. For this debate I really couldn't care less about stupid monickers the media borrow from philosophy to make-pretend, but within a philosophical discourse you have to use philosophical tools, not pluswords.

Rational thinking binds itself to the mind, to logic, to syllogisms. To ration. Not to the world, actually, not as it shows itself to us; rational thought can be done independent of experience. Mathematics is a rationalist tool, for example. It has no grounding in reality whatsoever, but is used to parse reality. Same with logic and your cruel demon guy. What you provide is a critique of rational objectivity. Not an experience of truth which to some philosophies is all that is relevant. Denouncing all philosophical methods on the grounds of one is a kinda bad thing.

There are plenty of thought structures and argumentative methods that exist beyond rationalism. Science, for example, while prevalently borrowing from rationalist constructs, relies heavily on positivism in order to function at all, which is an empirist reality model. There's of course also the often disdained emotion, which you yourself denied upfront in your premise, which is really sad. Emotion is a big part of being. I myself like phenomenology and that method of thinking does not concern itself with monolithic truths, but rather morphological structures that can be approximated but never really known.

A simplistic (and shorter) reply could be that traditionally Western philosophy has had two schools opposing each other, empirism and rationalism, which wasn't really attempted unified until Kant. So there's two modes of thought and most of the big ones are in either schools. EDIT OK not most, but many.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

I admit I've made a mistake in defining rationality. But with regard to the skeptical question, none of your proposed alternative approaches work.

-Empiricism assumes the existence of the world, which is exactly what is at question
-Emotion has no correlation with reality. Believing it does is the same, effectively, as religious faith.
-Phenemonology's attempt to answer skepticism, if I remember correctly, tries to demonstrate humans are incapable of being skeptics rather than demonstrating skepticism is wrong.

 

[Angst]

I admit I've made a mistake in defining rationality. But with regard to the skeptical question, none of your proposed alternative approaches work.

-Empiricism assumes the existence of the world, which is exactly what is at question
-Emotion has no correlation with reality. Believing it does is the same, effectively, as religious faith.
-Phenemonology's attempt to answer skepticism, if I remember correctly, tries to demonstrate humans are incapable of being skeptics rather than demonstrating skepticism is wrong.

I'm unsure about your latest argument. What is it you talk about? I don't even understand how phenomenology would care about skepticism.

And are you arguing for skepticism or against logic? Note that neither empiricism, nor emotion, nor phenomenology requires total certainty in order to function. Skepticism is also fundamentally a position of objectivity; if one does not strive for total objectivity, one would not need to abandon philosophy for the sake of the skeptic.

Also, emotion does indeed have correlation in reality, moreso than rationalism. It's just usually ignored due to being very inorderly, unstable and uncertain.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

I'm going to revise my approach. We seem to be having cultural problems here to the extent I would expect even Eastern and Western philosophers not to. Seems I underestimated the difficulties...

I am arguing for skepticism, and thus against logic- both, in effect. I remembered an old phenomenological argument, not well enough to describe, but well enough to remember I adapted the Isolation Objection to Coherentism to refute it.

A posistion without objectivity is one with no correlation with reality. I also don't see how philosophy can do anything whatsoever without objectivity.

Finally, any approach rooted in probabilities instead of total certainty assumes the validity of probability as a method. How is this to be established?

 

[Angst]

I'm going to revise my approach. We seem to be having cultural problems here to the extent I would expect even Eastern and Western philosophers not to. Seems I underestimated the difficulties...

Ha, I'm just a nut.

I am arguing for skepticism, and thus against logic- both, in effect.

Your form of skepticism is a rationalist position since it devalues everything experienced as uncertain, that is, potentially illusionary (ie it devalues empiry). There are some skepticisms that also devalues logic (maths for example) as being potentially illusionary, this goes back to Descartes. You seem to want to abide to that. In that case, however, it is still a rationalist position as it works within a rationalist framework, denouncing empiry before working with 'the proper issue', the evil demon's logic. Even if you're criticizing certainty of truth and rationalism itself with such a method, you're actually working within a rationalist framework.

I remembered an old phenomenological argument, not well enough to describe, but well enough to remember I adapted the Isolation Objection to Coherentism to refute it.

I have to admit I have no idea what you're talking about here.

A posistion without objectivity is one with no correlation with reality. I also don't see how philosophy can do anything whatsoever without objectivity.

But reality isn't objective, is it? Rationalists would say it is - but many empiricists would highlight reality as experienced, therefore subjective. Which in turn, for phenomenology, builds onto and takes from an intersubjectivity that constitutes our understanding of reality. So...

Finally, any approach rooted in probabilities instead of total certainty assumes the validity of probability as a method. How is this to be established?

... That you then require total certainty of truth - without improbability or uncertainty in the experienced - is a rationalist position of certainty. It invokes the idea of an objective world, which may or may not be attainable through logical analysis, depending on the amount of skepticism you abide to. The thing is, you're saying all that is real is rational and objective (a rationalist position), and then you say that even a logical way of thinking can be questioned by referring to the evil demon. But that criticism only works if your metholodical framework requires total objectivity and undoubtable logic. Which aren't really goals for the phenomenologist to attain.

Do you know about the phenomenological concepts of ideal and morphological structures? Because I really want to bring them in, as they underline the fundamental difference between scientific (also, indirectly, logical) epistemology and phenomenological epistemology. But if I just told you about those structures without presenting it this way, I'm sure you'd interpret them wrongly. This is not your fault, it is because I'm really bad at being clear and English is my second language.

 

[lovett]

lovett: People assume that they are sane, that their memories have some correlation with reality, that their senses have some correlation with reality, and that inductive rules of probability work. All these are epistemically unjustified assumptions.

lovett- Any argument to prove those claims depends on at least one of said claims. As a result, said arguments are circular.

I suppose the argument you are putting forward is this:

• P1: For any assumption, P, one is epistemically justified in believing P only if one has a non-circular argument that proves P.
• P2: We have no non-circular arguments for the assumptions {[I am sane], [My memories are accurate], [induction is reliable]}.
• Therefore: No one is epistemically justified in believing {[I am sane], [My memories are accurate], [induction is reliable]}.

I think both premises are probably false. However, P1 is really driving the problem. P1 is almost certainly false, for it is self-defeating. It is acceptable to use P1 as a premise in this argument only if we are epistemically justified in believing P1. However, we have no non-circular argument for P1. Therefore it is not acceptable to use P1 as a premise in this argument if P1 is true. Therefore, if P1 is true, P1 is not an acceptable premise and the argument you put forward -being unacceptable- should be rejected. This gives us not the slightest reason to endorse the conclusion.

Read any good books on causality?

Jonathan Schaffer's work on causality (not in book form) is excellent. If you're looking for a book, James Woodward's (2003) is good, albeit not introductory. If you're looking for something introductory, or for an overview, pick up the Oxford Handbook of Causation.

 

[Angst]

Also, NWAG3, I think it's good that lovett answers questions about logic and rationality (that is, the discourse that the evil demon is a problem to). So if you have any specific questions about that framework of thought, I find it plenty good that he answers it. Also he ups me in clarity and majors in philosophy, not like me who rather uses it in applied form (therefore necessiating lesser clarity from my side in daily tasks).

(edit after typing this i just realized it's a weird post, also because we've already done the above naturally for a while. but still, well, we should continue doing this? yea. we should.)

 

[Mouthwash]

1. Does the scientific method (observations, hypotheses, falsification, etc.) count as philosophical doctrine?

2. I had an important question here, but I can't remember it. Oh well. I'll come back when I do.

3. Why are so many philosophers whackjobs (Steve Best, Michael Neumann, William Dembski)? In area of study like economics or anthropology you don't see as high a number of people carrying lunatic opinions as philosophers. It seems like 70% of the time when I find an educated nut, he's a philosopher. Do you think philosophy enables people to rationalize stuff more easily, or does it just embolden the already existing lunatics?

 

[Tahuti]

Why are so many philosophers whackjobs (Steve Best, Michael Neumann, William Dembski)? In area of study like economics or anthropology you don't see as high a number of people carrying lunatic opinions as philosophers. It seems like 70% of the time when I find an educated nut, he's a philosopher. Do you think philosophy enables people to rationalize stuff more easily, or does it just embolden the already existing lunatics?

Philosophy has by its very nature no consensus and no pre-determined dogma's anyone must agree with to be regarded as legitimate philosopher. So there will be greater variety of opinions among philosophers than practically other field, thus increasing the amount of total whackjobs as well.

I personally do think media researchers, economists, econometricians and psychologists have an ever greater proportion of total nuts among them than philosophers, because they have to subscribe to BS in order to be regarded as valid media researcher, economist or psychologist.

 

[Angst]

1. Does the scientific method (observations, hypotheses, falsification, etc.) count as philosophical doctrine?

Scientism is a specific epistemology of which the scientific method is means of acquiring information. I'd say 'yes'.

 

[Mouthwash]

Philosophy has by its very nature no consensus and no pre-determined dogma's anyone must agree with to be regarded as legitimate philosopher. So there will be greater variety of opinions among philosophers than practically other field, thus increasing the amount of total whackjobs as well.

Well, there is mild consensus in philosophy... just look at the meta-survey.

 

[Tahuti]

Scientism is a specific epistemology of which the scientific method is means of acquiring information. I'd say 'yes'.

You bascially smeared the scientific method by putting it together with scientism! Rather, scientism is the belief that the insights of natural sciences can be applied in the study of society, economics, etc. Piece of BS of course, since it doesn't hold any empirical scrutiny by just randomly applying mathematics when dealing with humans and thus it often leads to totally bunk causations where none exist.

That does not mean I support POMO's or Critical Theorists or other nonsense talkers, for they essentially want to have an excuse to forgo any empirical look at anything. Rather, I'm thinking that we must accept that we are currently very ignorant of human society and that any method of looking at it, either by replicating natural sciences or by questioning the validity of empiricism, is bound to make us even more ignorant in that respect.

 

[Angst]

You bascially smeared the scientific method by putting it together with scientism! Rather, scientism is the belief that the insights of natural sciences can be applied in the study of society, economics, etc. Piece of BS of course, since it doesn't hold any empirical scrutiny by just randomly applying mathematics when dealing with humans and thus it often leads to totally bunk causations where none exist.

That does not mean I support POMO's or Critical Theorists or other nonsense talkers, for they essentially want to have an excuse to forgo any empirical look at anything. Rather, I'm thinking that we must accept that we are currently very ignorant of human society and that any method of looking at it, either by replicating natural sciences or by questioning the validity of empiricism, is bound to make us even more ignorant in that respect.

Sorry I specifically wanted to talk about scientific epistemology, which I was unsure whether to call "scientific method" in English.

Don't hate on postmodernism though.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, the problem of postmodernism that it basically evades the question, namely, what consists valid epistemology? The pseudo-answer of the postmodernists is that there is none and then never give arguments why, despite writing massive tomes. (Please correct me if I oversimplify) Even if this would be the case, they still cannot figure out why it would matter. Physics can move on with or without postmodernism. So can any other scientific discipline.

Are you aware that - as weird as it might sound - postmodernism is actually derived from neoplatonism? Postmodernism was originally a term of a movement in the arts that emphasised self-awareness of that particular piece of art. Philip K. Dick (yes, that one) was inspired by Neoplatonism and incorporated neoplatonist themes such as planes of existence in his novels and he was subsequently referred to as a Postmodernist writer. Jean Beaudrillard later called his views Postmodernism (in homage to the art movement) and adopted explicitly identified Philip K. Dick as a forerunner. I seriously doubt Philip Dick would have agreed with that, however.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wait, what? "Philip K. Dick like neoplatonism, this postmodernist liked Philip K. Dick, thus, postmodernism is neo-neoplatonism"? How does that follow?

 

[Tahuti]

The ideas Philip K. Dick borrowed from Neoplatonism were exactly those that were appropriated by the Postmodernists. I wouldn't have mentioned it if wasn't the case.

 

[Angst]

Well, the problem of postmodernism that it basically evades the question, namely, what consists valid epistemology? The pseudo-answer of the postmodernists is that there is none and then never give arguments why, despite writing massive tomes. (Please correct me if I oversimplify) Even if this would be the case, they still cannot figure out why it would matter. Physics can move on with or without postmodernism. So can any other scientific discipline.

I'm not sure at all what your problem is. (edit lol this sounded really grumpy. sorry for that.) Why are you even caring to mention physics? I'm aware that a number of renowned postmodernists have often used pseudoscience and critiqued science on dumb grounds. And I agree it is a problem, but mostly because it's dumb they can be so obsessed going against science. The postmodernists provide excellent tools for understanding the humanities (of which philosophy falls within). Online debates on postmodernism I've encountered usually succumb to the obnoxious and embarassing overtly defensive kneejerks of the natural sciences. Please don't be that guy; ignore the crappy postmodernism, embrace the good postmodernism. Or, if you don't concern yourself with the humanities, ignore postmodernism altogether.

Are you aware that - as weird as it might sound - postmodernism is actually derived from neoplatonism? Postmodernism was originally a term of a movement in the arts that emphasised self-awareness of that particular piece of art. Philip K. Dick (yes, that one) was inspired by Neoplatonism and incorporated neoplatonist themes such as planes of existence in his novels and he was subsequently referred to as a Postmodernist writer. Jean Beaudrillard later called his views Postmodernism (in homage to the art movement) and adopted explicitly identified Philip K. Dick as a forerunner. I seriously doubt Philip Dick would have agreed with that, however.

Is this a fun fact or is it a critique?

Also, be wary that postmodernism is not 'one thing'. Its supposed authors are very diffuse and often don't identify with the tradition at all.