Philosophy 101

[Fifty]

Which is, quite absurd. Like person couldn't think with his own brains but have to lend the brains of real philosophers to ever come to conclusions about anything. Almost like using imaginery copy&paste from a source to refute point logically.

Philosophy is a professional discipline done by professionals. I already said that I think it is fine and dandy for non-philosophers to discuss philosophy, but they should do so knowing the superficiality of their insight. What happens when non-philosophers discuss philosophy is akin to what happens when people who've only read A Brief History of Time and The Elegant Universe talk about physics.

The only time I appeal to authority is in response to claims among non-philosophers that they have a clue about mainstream philosophy or can comment upon it/critique it reliably. So when somebody says that postmodernism is important in philosophy, I'm going to want to see some opinions of real philosophers who say so, because as far as I've read, philosophers consider Post-Modernism completely irrelevant at everything but the fringes of their discipline. Post-Modernism is only considered important among non-philosophers because of its wide, sweeping definition and a superficial understanding among non-philosophers of current philosophical issues.

The only difference between what you and I are doing is that I'm not so deluded as to think that I can comment on and critique philosophy in any meaningful way. Its fun as an exercise to talk philosophy with fellow non-philosophers, but it is important to acknowledge that nothing we say has any particular merit. Now you might say "well if everything we say is so without merit than it would be easy for anybody to find its flaws". I don't think that's true for what should be abundantly obvious reasons.

Just as It would be silly of me to claim knowledge of some controversial issue in Chemistry without being a chemist, it is silly for a non-philosopher to claim any ability to comment reliably on philosophical issues. We can still discuss philosophy, but it must be with the qualification that we either a.) acknowledge that what we are saying has no real merit, or b.) make extensive use of appeals to authority.

 

[C~G]

No, imho logic is an police-agent, you have to follow his orders but he doesn 't show you the way (not a kind policeman)

You misunderstood me.
In order to follow his orders you have to first know what laws it follows by highlighting them using itself as agent.
This is where most thinkers fail and that's why we need criticism from others, we are blind to the mistakes of our own logic. But before someone can logically and succesfully determine the point of our thinking we have to first talk the same language. And since it's about human communication, most of the time, it fails.
But then again I consider reasoning to be as subjective as emotions.

If you say 2 + 2 = 5, and i criticize you for that, does that harm? I'm not playing games (like you say you do], i'm trying to clear thing up.

Ahem.
I haven't said you Asperger play games. In fact I find your language being very precise until thus far.
Read this about "cut&paste"-tactics in philosophical debates and you might understand what I mean:

Like person couldn't think with his own brains but have to lend the brains of real philosophers to ever come to conclusions about anything. Almost like using imaginery copy&paste from a source to refute point logically.

That's why "most" philosophical debates are empty rhetorics and only momentarily can shed light to original subject. Either it becomes yet another study of history of philosophy from A to Z or turns into metaphysical gibberish using even quite often formal logic language as a tool. If someone's really into them, go ahead, I rather play it more down to earth.

You can't be both. If you are a pride man, then you can't be humble to others except playing it.

There seems to be missing something from my sentence, I apologize.

More pride you have for yourself, more humble you can and you must try to be towards others and universum in general.

Being and thriving to be something are too different things in my book.
If you have strenght (pride) you will have more freedom to use it in occasions for the purpose of being humble.
Does this make any sense to you?

Just like even though we have to understand the futility of finding answers to many philosophical questions we still have to thrive for it since it's essential for our being, it's absurd practice like life in general is but we have to do it since there's simply nothing else.

Also same considerations must be when talking about your own philosophical theory. You must have pride towards your own theory but ready to be humble towards other theories. Nobody knows who's right until the fat lady sings and even after that it's doubtful in the discipline of philosophy.

Philosophy is a professional discipline done by professionals.

a.) acknowledge that what we are saying has no real merit, or b.) make extensive use of appeals to authority.

Really? I cannot disagree more.

I guess I cannot think no more without the help of experts.

 

[Endovior]

For the record, I'm aware of the vast body of work done in Quantum Physics. However, I disagree with it's interpretation. As it is currently impossible to track the positions of electrons with current equipment, it is experimentally useful to instead consider them as a waveform instead. However, it should not be forgotten that they are, in fact, particles. At any point in time, they have a definite position and existence, and whether or not the specifics are known by a human observer is irrelevant. To claim otherwise leads to ridiculous absurdities like cats which are simultaneously alive and dead.

*Yawns*

Beyond that, it's late, and I have a class to attend tomorrow morning. I'll respond to more tomorrow.

 

[angeleyes]

But before someone can logically and succesfully determine the point of our thinking we have to first talk the same language. And since it's about human communication, most of the time, it fails.

This reminds me of a man asking Bertrand Russel why we not first exactly define our words (language), Russell answering: "Then we have nothing more to talk about"...

 

[C~G]

This reminds me of a man asking Bertrand Russel why we not first exactly define our words (language), Russell answering: "Then we have nothing more to talk about"...

Yeah, it's little bit like returning to the source of quietness. Since more often than not, reviewing certain subject's content philosophically creates just more content to review.

 

[Good Sauce]

I was going to say something, and thought better of it. It's just a waste of time. Nothing said here will have any effect on anyone who reads it. It's all just intelectual masturbation.

(Yet I took the time to post now, and a few times before! Hypocrite? Certainly!)

 

[C~G]

It's all just intelectual masturbation.

Most of the things people do are some sort of self-gratification anyway.

If someone has something to say, share opinion or example mock my opinions, fire away.

I don't regret things that I have done but those things that I haven't done.

 

[CartesianFart]

Philosophy is a professional discipline done by professionals. I already said that I think it is fine and dandy for non-philosophers to discuss philosophy

Give me an example of a non-philosopher that can discuss philosophy.

The only time I appeal to authority is in response to claims among non-philosophers that they have a clue about mainstream philosophy or can comment upon it/critique it reliably. So when somebody says that postmodernism is important in philosophy, I'm going to want to see some opinions of real philosophers who say so, because as far as I've read, philosophers consider Post-Modernism completely irrelevant at everything but the fringes of their discipline. Post-Modernism is only considered important among non-philosophers because of its wide, sweeping definition and a superficial understanding among non-philosophers of current philosophical issues.

What is mainstream philosophy?Is it an conventional wisdom of such that only a esoteric group can understand?If there is an special group,where can i find these individuals?Why do we have to seperate Postmodernism as an independant movement from the philosophical movement?Can't philosophy of today be under the culture of postmodernity?

The only difference between what you and I are doing is that I'm not so deluded as to think that I can comment on and critique philosophy in any meaningful way. Its fun as an exercise to talk philosophy with fellow non-philosophers, but it is important to acknowledge that nothing we say has any particular merit. Now you might say "well if everything we say is so without merit than it would be easy for anybody to find its flaws". I don't think that's true for what should be abundantly obvious reasons.

Sounds like to me you are under the spell of the "Postmodern Condition,"as something to mirror your own doubt that any criteria of knowledge(whether it be philosophy or other subjects) that a person claims to have, have no merit.

We can still discuss philosophy, but it must be with the qualification that we either a.) acknowledge that what we are saying has no real merit, or b.) make extensive use of appeals to authority.

If we (a)have no real merit of what we say or how to explain things,then (b) how can we really know how to understand other already established philosophers that are considered an authority of the subject?

Additionally, I hope when you say "linguistic analysis" you aren't talking about the analytic school,

Yes,the movement started by Russell somewhat with the inspiration of Gottlob Frege.

]which is pretty much dead in the wake of naturalism and quietism.

Who killed it?Tell me how they did it then.

 

[angeleyes]

imo Philosophy is not an objective science. As soon as a part of it will become objective, than it splits from philosophy and becomes an independent science. This way Philosophy stays subjective. Therefore everybody may do his/her say, even the least educated. And imo you can learn from everybody.

Further i would encourage everybody to use his own words, and avoid name-dropping.

 

[CartesianFart]

I have been reading Bill3000 comments and refrained of making an argument against it for about a day and now just can't stop but to attack it anyway by questioning his motives on why such self-defeatism.

Why does this thread exist? Has anyone responding even taken a philosophy course?

Why is this relevent to suppose that a person who studies philosophy in a University is either better than one who is not taught by some professor who teaches on how to think what philosophy is?

Philosophy is far more than simply "deep questions" - it's not something that a mere amateur can hope to have a rigorous answer of. It's like having a science thread with people who don't know science outside of pop science (e.g. the dumb layman's interpretations which tend to be misleading and are not true answers.)

The activity of science and philosophy can be the same in literature or oratorial form.All it does is to produce a theoretical narrative.In the labratory,the activity of science is what constitute the difference of the activity of philosophy.

Mind you, I'm an amateur as well; though my point still stands.
However, if people posting in this thread prove me wrong, then my complaint will subside. I don't mean to insult anyone here - just explain that pop philosophy (and pop science) is at least, pointless, and at most, harmful.

What is pop fill in the blank means?

The problem i see amongst other fellow posters is one of self-confidence,not to say that we must be on guard to not be too much of an egoist to the point where any position that we argue,it must be something of a life and death issue.

 

[Endovior]

I totally disagree with the idea that one needs to study philosophy to be a philosopher. Philosophy is most useful as a set of principles, by which you make decisions on how to run your life. As such, it's not something that a bunch of academics should get together and decide... it's a choice to be made independently by everyone for themselves. You may find the ideas of others to be useful in this regard, but by no means accept what anyone says on blind faith. Think things through. Make a decision for yorself. What others tell you is no substitute for the judgement of your own mind.

There have been comments about how Objectivism is a "questionable school of thought". I would suggest that there is nothing "questionable" about it. The only "question" is one of popularity. The great philosophers are only 'great' because many people agree with them. But the fact that many people agree with someone, does not make them right. So long as a philosophy is consistent and not hypocritical, there is no fault that can be found with it on it's own grounds. As such, professional instruction has nothing to do with the validity of a philosophy.

 

[QES]

I wander off to do things in what I precieve as reality and come back to this thread to discover a most interesting series of converasations has gone on.
As it is, i Oft forget of this little thread, because I spend most of my time in the FfH forums here.
Then i remember "oh yeah" and come here fully expecting to continue the discussion on objectivism, and discover that the amount of people here has grown substantially, I'm quite thrilled.

As it is, i've not read all of the posts yet, and should do so to clearly discuss whatever is at hand, something I shall do shortly. But for now, I will simply say I admire you all for having these conversations and flexing the mental muscles we need to stay fit.

I was going to post my thoughts but thought better of it. Instead I shall listen and interject with questions. I think questions serve us all better than any guess at answers. Also, logical fallacies can be more precisely shown via questions.

-Qes

EDIT: I'm curious about each Person's level of affinity with the Philosophical Discaplines? I'll give the following level of scholarship, and I would like to know what everyone is, so that I have a point of referance to learn from and contexts in which to place things:

<Amateur> - Have Read Some books once, or "deep" conversations with friends
<Enthusiastic Amateur> - Love philsophical discussions, read many books, and seek other sources of material
<Scholarly Amateur> - Have taken one or two classes at an undergraduate level in Philosophy
<BA in Liberal Arts Field> - Have a Minor or many classes at an undergraduate level in philosophy
<BA in Philosophy itself>
<MA in Philosophy field>
<PhD in a Philosophical Field>
<Multiple Philosophical PhDs>

I have earned a <BA in Philosophy> and will soon (when money works) pursue a PhD program, or MA program (leading to the PhD when it works).

 

[Endovior]

By your ranking system, I'm a Scholarly Amateur.

 

[angeleyes]

Wow, this is exactly the opposite what i wanted and since QES started the thread i'll stop posting here

 

[Bill3000]

CartesianFart, QES, and others: I feel like I have to apologize for changing the topic here. I think it would be more appropriate if I would start a different topic on amateurism in forums of public discussion, and leave philosophy for this thread. I will start one later today - unfortuanatly, I have work to do at the moment, but rest assured I will start it. The thread will be more general, too, as it is not a problem that is just in philosophy, but academic subjects (including theology and politics) in general.

 

[QES]

What? I have most enjoyed EVERYTHING i have read?
Please do not take the "ranking" system as a deterant!?
Quite the contrary, I have learned facinating things from people who know nothing of philsophy over the myriad known arguments of many of the greatest minds. In fact, being an amateur can often illuminate certain aspects of a theory or thought that would be relegated to shortsightedness from a professional.

IF ANYTHING I want MORE amateurs. Because the fresh perspectives provide insight. Also, its easy to see what is indoctrined at different stages of philosophical development. Please please PLEASE do not be frightened by my request for information - I only wish it so that I might better understand where people are coming from in their stage of development. It makes things clearer and is not intended to be a ranking system of value.

This is not a "Mine is bigger than yours" contest, QUITE the opposite. It is a method for us all to better know ourselves and surroundings.
I would hate to think that the little thread i started, and am VERY pleased with its growth and level of discourse would suddenly disentegrate if I ask for context. Please CONTINUE posting, it is nigh impossible to threadjack - so keep trying!
-Qes

Edit: Asperger please keep posting, ive most enjoyed your responces and thoughts. Everyone is entitled to have them, please continue! Theology and Politics are very philsoophical discussions, please feel free to post them here.
Bill3000, while i disagree with much of what you say, the line of thinking it has generated in me has been most fruitful, please continue to post about what you wish here!

EDIT2: Also, please remember the above isnt a ranking system, so much as a level of affinity to the topics at hand. It's not an assesment of value or judgement of opinions, merely a generalized understanding of the particular pension a person may or may not have for philsophical discourse.

 

[C~G]

- I only wish it so that I might better understand where people are coming from in their stage of development.

That is almost frightening thought.
Stage of development?
Is that freudian slip-up or your actual thought?
Wouldn't better term be "state of mind"?

This sounds like caste system to determine in what cycle of reincarnation people are so others can see how enlightened they are.

Reminds me of occasion when black belter asked about people's belt colour before getting his butt kicked around by someone who didn't even have one. His error since he never had recognised that someone could actually learn to fight without the help of his school and it's ranking system.

It makes things clearer and is not intended to be a ranking system of value.

Only things needed to be illuminated are the views of people, not views about people.

[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless--a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors.
- Daniel Dennett

This opinion quite perfectly also describes my "state of mind" or "stage of development" as well.

 

[QES]

<grumbles>

Look, I mean not to insult anyone, nor demean, that is not the intent at all of my request. If you feel threatened or defensive about expressing one's affinity or exposure level, then please do not feel the necessity to do so.

I see it like the Car talk guys on NPR weekends. They're masters of their craft, but they learn things from callers ALL the time. They've had a near constant exposure to what they do, and dwell amung cars and mechanics for most of their time. Thereby lending them a certain contextual basis for their sets of opinions - this is not to say their infalable, or that other interesting ideas dont arise. They in fact, champion the amateur auto mechanic quite a bit, and advise professional help when its clear that damage may be done to the car in question. Even then, they sometimes advocate tinkering because it is a process.

I said "Stage of development" because everything develops over time. This is not to say a later stage is superior to an earlier stage, but instead simply suggests that there is a difference in contexts. A 4 year old is different than a 40 year old, is different than an 80 year old for systems of context. Is one persons life expereiances more valueable than another? I'm making no such claim. But the perspectives of a 4 year old can be equally enlightening as an 80 year olds, but for VERY different reasons. I seek to understand not only the opinion and types of thought an individual has, but the context that they have them in as well.

I listen to an imaginative 4 year olds explanation of why oceans are blue, and the pragmatist 40 year olds, and the wisened 80 year olds. Each have valid statements for variying reasons - but I want to know that they are 4, 40 and 80 so that i understand how those ideas are formed.

Please, If i say I dont mean to insult, do not THINK i mean to insult. I just want context.
-Qes

EDIT: If you want another way to look at it - think about it like "How much time would you invest in philsophy?" Because truly, the above system can be all inclusive for intersets such as this. How invested do you get? How much do you love a thing? etc. Its actually a statement of preferance - not a logistical heirarchy.

EDIT2: Again, this isnt a competition of brainmatter. This is a discussion. This isnt about "kicking each other's asses" or a "whos is bigger contest" or "who is smarter or more informed" It is SIMPLY Context.

 

[Bill3000]

wrong thread ><

 

[C~G]

It is SIMPLY Context.

If you start to define context about someone's opinion based into their background you probably have to ask quite soon about their age, occupation, country and religion etc. alongside with number of questions about how much daddy and mummy loved them when they were young.

The amount of time someone has spend to philosophy or what degree someone has doesn't have anything to do with discussion itself when comparing to those factors that could affect the context much more profoundly considering philosophy.

Of course if you are asking out of curiosity about how much people in general have studied philosophy then it's fine as long as it doesn't interrupt the actual discussion about some subject. Unless of course someone wants to work as authority about the subject as I have noted some people to do. In such cases I usually just start to yawn and move away from the discussion.

But if you ask me, I have been interested about philosophy since I was young child.
That's enough info in this context for everyone.
I don't consider it much since I have still desire to learn more and that what counts in philosophy and in life in general.
Not how much you have learned thus far but how much you are willing to learn still more.