What is philosophy?

[aelf]

Your superficial 'comment' was sufficient clue to your 'well-readness'.

Okay. Ever gotten flak for your pretentiousness?

I'm referring you back to the links in post #136; they provide ample information if someone is really interested in Kolakowski's work and views.

Why don't you do everyone a favour and sum it up, if there's any more to be said? After all, as has always been stressed, the point of posting is for discussion, not to simply provide links to click on. If the argument proves interesting, I'll look at the links when I have the time.

Regarding Kolakowski's personal views on Marxism: as you might have understood from the obituary, he was a professor of philosophy at the university of Warsaw until disillusioned by the practice of Marxism-Leninism; I believe it was this experience which prompted him to dedicate a serious study to the development of this worldview/philosophy, known ironically as Marxism-Senilism. His key thesis, as you noted, is that Stalinism is not contrary to original Marxism at all, but rather the logical conclusion of ideas already prevalent in early Marxist thought. This may be disputable; Marx himself - and subsequent social-democratism - was moving towards a more democratic direction. (It is perhaps little known that the father of Communism was himself a member of the German Social-Democratic Party.) Nonetheless, the theory of Marxism, while reportedly ending up with some kind of utopian democracy, assigns a central rôle to the, supposedly temporary, dictatorship of the proletariat.

First of all, Marxism-Leninism =/= Marxism. It's a particular school of Marxism. To complicate matters further, Marx himself said that he was not a Marxist. It's a large and controversial field of political philosophy. To apply observations on Marxism-Leninism on Marxism, therefore, is rather disingenuous. That is not a "superficial" comment.

Unfortunately, Marx himself did not put much thought in how such a dictatorship might turn out, practically speaking. Lenin, on the other hand, saw the Communist Party, being, in his view, the spearhead of the revolution (he had little regard for the revolutionary qualities of Russia's proletariat in this respect, part of which was indeed industrial, but the overwhelming majority of which were rural workers). As it turned out, this "temporary" dictatorship easily turned into a permanent one; in light of Lenin's personal and theoretic views on the matter, this can indeed be seen as a logical conclusion - just as logical as the social-democratic direction. Both social-democracy and communism have their roots primarily - though not exclusively - in Marxism. Having myself also not read Kolakowski's three part work on the Main Currents of Marxism, I cannot vouch if this is indeed in short the analysis Kolakowski gives of the development of Marxism after Marx, but as you can see, his position is indeed defendable.

How so? I'm questioning the statement "the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism". It doesn't seem defendable for the obvious reason I have pointed out.

Maybe he didn't say that?

 

[Agent327]

Why don't you do everyone a favour and sum it up, if there's any more to be said? After all, as has always been stressed, the point of posting is for discussion, not to simply provide links to click on. If the argument proves interesting, I'll look at the links when I have the time.

Well, obviously you haven't checked any of the links provided in post #36; however, you seem to have plenty of time to repeat your comments. Nevertheless, I'll respond.

First of all, Marxism-Leninism =/= Marxism. It's a particular school of Marxism. To complicate matters further, Marx himself said that he was not a Marxist. It's a large and controversial field of political philosophy. To apply observations on Marxism-Leninism on Marxism, therefore, is rather disingenuous. That is not a "superficial" comment.

I'd say that's rather obvious - and in that sense indeed superficial. "Marx himself said he was not a Marxist": that's precisely what I explained, but it's also quite irrelevant. As might have been obvious from the mere title of Kolakowski's "Main Currents of Marxism (1976), in which he traces the history and decline of Marxist thought from its origins in Christianity and German Romanticism through Marx, Engels, the Russian Revolution, and what he calls the “breakdown” in the middle of the twentieth century", Kolakowski certainly does not consider Marxism equal to Marxism-Leninism.

How so? I'm questioning the statement "the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism". It doesn't seem defendable for the obvious reason I have pointed out.

If you are referring to "Sounds like he's more emotional than logical on this issue", than I would indeed consider this a superficial comment. But to take you up on that - as I fully agree with Kolakowski's conclusion -, Marx never gave any serious thought about how this transition from capitalism to utopian worker's paradise would practically come into effect. (As said, Marx himself was not a Marxist in practice, but rather a social-democrat.) Lenin however did, as I explained. That the dictatorship of the proletariat (lead by the Communist avant-garde, i.e. Lenin cum suis) might be easier to establish than to transform once again was proved in the practive of the 'real existing Socialism' (i.e. the USSR). The hatred borne by Lenin in particular towards all enemies of the people - in practive this meant all enemies of the Party or the state - was translated into an oppresive regime that failed on its own accord to be able to transform itself into anything else. Once the Party had established its supremacy it was never going to give it away - unless by force (either external or internal). As concerns Stalin's atrocities: he merely set forth the noble work entaminated by Lenin. Could it have gone any other way? Doubtful, given the premises Lenin c.s. were working from.

I'll leave it at that, as all this is basically common knowledge by now - or could be to anyone interested in the subject. The virtue of Kolakowski was to describe the Communist system/philosophy from the inside out; it goes without saying that his analysis was not appreciated by the powers that be. In this sense he was indeed the first philosopher to demythologize Communism.

 

[aelf]

Well, obviously you haven't checked any of the links provided in post #36; however, you seem to have plenty of time to repeat your comments. Nevertheless, I'll respond.

I do care to repeat what is plain and true sometimes. It took me a few minutes.

I'd say that's rather obvious - and in that sense indeed superficial. "Marx himself said he was not a Marxist": that's precisely what I explained, but it's also quite irrelevant. As might have been obvious from the mere title of Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism (1976), in which he traces the history and decline of Marxist thought from its origins in Christianity and German Romanticism through Marx, Engels, the Russian Revolution, and what he calls the “breakdown” in the middle of the twentieth century", Kolakowski certainly does not consider Marxism equal to Marxism-Leninism.

I don't know how this proves that my comment was superficial. This paragraph says nothing to justify the assertion that the conclusion is sound for Marxism as a whole.

If you are referring to "Sounds like he's more emotional than logical on this issue", than I would indeed consider this a superficial comment.

It's not. He lived through Stalinism. He's bound to be affected personally by it. I don't think I'm a wholly objective person, since I've had my own experiences and have thus developed prejudices in some matters.

But to take you up on that - as I fully agree with Kolakowski's conclusion -, Marx never gave any serious thought about how this transition from capitalism to utopian worker's paradise would practically come into effect. (As said, Marx himself was not a Marxist in practice, but rather a social-democrat.) Lenin however did, as I explained. That the dictatorship of the proletariat (lead by the Communist avant-garde, i.e. Lenin cum suis) might be easier to establish than to transform once again was proved in the practive of the 'real existing Socialism' (i.e. the USSR). The hatred borne by Lenin in particular towards all enemies of the people - in practive this meant all enemies of the Party or the state - was translated into an oppresive regime that failed on its own accord to be able to transform itself into anything else. Once the Party had established its supremacy it was never going to give it away - unless by force (either external or internal). As concerns Stalin's atrocities: he merely set forth the noble work entaminated by Lenin. Could it have gone any other way? Doubtful, given the premises Lenin c.s. were working from.

I'm sorry, but the fact that Marx never created a concrete blueprint for the goal he has in mind does not imply that Leninism is its true successor and hence that the merits of the former can be judged through the failings of the latter. That's like saying the failings of the USA today is the logical conclusion of the Founding Fathers' principles. In another more sophisticated word, bullcrap.

I'll leave it at that, as all this is basically common knowledge by now - or could be to anyone interested in the subject. The virtue of Kolakowski was to describe the Communist system/philosophy from the inside out; it goes without saying that his analysis was not appreciated by the powers that be. In this sense he was indeed the first philosopher to demythologize Communism.

Great, so you declare that this is common sense and that's that. Is your thread actually meant for any discussion? If not, it can be closed, you know.

 

[Fifty]

What is philosophy?

Not what has been going on in this thread... thats for sure!

 

[Agent327]

Feel free to contribute anything resembling philosophy; it's an open thread, as you can see.

I don't know how this proves that my comment was superficial. This paragraph says nothing to justify the assertion that the conclusion is sound for Marxism as a whole.

Partial quotes usually prove nothing, no.

It's not. He lived through Stalinism. He's bound to be affected personally by it. I don't think I'm a wholly objective person, since I've had my own experiences and have thus developed prejudices in some matters.

I'm not argueing Kolakowski would be unaffected by his experiences. Experience can be valuable though. By the way, judgement based upon experience does not constitute prejudice, on the contrary.

I'm sorry, but the fact that Marx never created a concrete blueprint for the goal he has in mind does not imply that Leninism is its true successor and hence that the merits of the former can be judged through the failings of the latter. That's like saying the failings of the USA today is the logical conclusion of the Founding Fathers' principles. In another more sophisticated word, bullcrap.

'Bullcrap', as you say, might be to state "Logical? Sounds like he's more emotional than logical on this issue" based on "He argued that the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism."; I would use another word, though. That is a quote from a BBC obituary; how you can conclude from it that Kolakowski "sounds" more emotional than logical is beyond me. One may not agree with that conclusion, but without having taken into account Kolakowski's arguements, I would indeed consider that a rather superficial comment. I've made some effort in trying to explain how the actual argument might run and provided links for those really interested in Kolakowski's ideas. As said, I'll leave it at that - unless some new issue pops up, obviously.


EDIT: I've noticed a typo in post #136.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Philosophy is an activity in a form of isolation. It is an excersise by concentrating on the intellectual components of the mind to foster what are percieved to be a new way of thinking about subject matters that are entirely different than the conventional norm of everday people. Philosophy is love neither dictated by the heart per se, nor it is an act of giving birth, but something of a reformalization of old philosophical concepts that can in fact be changed by the person who is expressing it in a different way, depending upon of course the circumstances in which they are used.

 

[aelf]

I'm not argueing Kolakowski would be unaffected by his experiences. Experience can be valuable though. By the way, judgement based upon experience does not constitue prejudice, on the contrary.

Of course it does not. But experience also gives rise to prejudice. We all exist within our contexts. It's useless to hope that we're totally objective, even though it does happen from time to time.

'Bullcrap', as you say, might be to state "Logical? Sounds like he's more emotional than logical on this issue" based on "He argued that the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism."; I would use another word, though. That is a quote from a BBC obituary; how you can conclude from it that Kolakowski "sounds" more emotional than logical is beyond me. One may not agree with that conclusion, but without having taken into account Kolakowski's arguements, I would indeed consider that a rather superficial comment. I've made some effort in trying to explain how the actual argument might run and provided links for those really interested in Kolakowski's ideas. As said, I'll leave it at that - unless some new issue pops up, obviously.

And yet you still haven't justified that statement. Oh, well. I take it as a stupid one then.

 

[Agent327]

Philosophy is an activity in a form of isolation. It is an excersise by concentrating on the intellectual components of the mind to foster what are percieved to be a new way of thinking about subject matters that are entirely different than the conventional norm of everday people. Philosophy is love neither dictated by the heart per se, nor it is an act of giving birth, but something of a reformalization of old philosophical concepts that can in fact be changed by the person who is expressing it in a different way, depending upon of course the circumstances in which they are used.

Your first statement seems contradictory to those that follow. Actually, I'd say that philosophy is not an activity in a form of isolation at all; ever since the birth of philosphy it thrives on communication rather than isolation. While thinking may be conducted in some form of isolation, this can never be absolute - nor should it be, in my opinion.

Of course it does not. But experience also gives rise to prejudice. We all exist within our contexts. It's useless to hope that we're totally objective, even though it does happen from time to time.

Quite true.

And yet you still haven't justified that statement. Oh, well. I take it as a stupid one then.

First off, as it was a quote from an obituary, "that statement" (He argued that the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism.) was not mine, but rather a summarization of Kolakowski's. Secondly, I provided an example as to how this argument might actually run. Thirdly, upon analysis of the historical development of Marxism, it seems to me a valid conclusion based upon actual events as well as the theories put forward by Lenin. Fourthly, I've provided several links for further reading if one's interested in Kolakowski's actual work. And finally, I'd argue that the practice of Stalinism wasn't the only logical conclusion of Marxism - as even Marx himself moved into quite another direction - albeit based upon his personal experience instead of a reassessment of his own theories. Now, you may not agree with these statements, but it is not my task to justify an obituary comment. And once again, your conclusion seems totally unjustified, as you do not provide an alternative or improvement upon the original statement. I would indeed rather qualify it as prejudice without regard of experience.

 

[aelf]

First off, as it was a quote from an obituary, "that statement"(He argued that the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism.) was not mine, but rather a summarization of Kolakowski's.

I didn't say it was yours.

Secondly, I provided an example as to how this argument might actually run. Thirdly, upon analysis of the historical development of Marxism, it seems to me a valid conclusion based upon actual events as well as the theories put forward by Lenin.

Given some assumptions, sure, it might be valid. But in the real world it's certainly not sound. So I guess that's what it is - fantasy.

Fourthly, I've provided several links for further reading if one's interested in Kolakowski's actual work.

I did ask you to sum it up. Remember, a discussion forum, not a click-my-link forum.

And finally, I'd argue that the practice of Stalinism wasn't the only logical conclusion of Marxism - as even Marx himself moved into quite another direction - albeit based upon his personal experience instead of a reassessment of his own theories. Now, you may not agree with these statements, but it is not my task to justify an obituary comment. And once again, your conclusion seems totally unjustified, as you do not provide an alternative or improvement upon the original statement. I would indeed rather qualify it as prejudice without regard of experience.

What? Why would I need to provide an improvement to the statement to say that it's wrong?

And imagine that someone tells you that the moon is made of green cheese, you say it's wrong because it's obvious and the person replies, "Have you read these links I gave you about it? If not, you're prejudiced without regard of experience."

 

[Agent327]

Ah, the "green cheese" argument... If you can't be bothered either to follow up links or to provide a proper argument, what's the point in even responding to your comments? Your 'conclusion' "that the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism" is "more emotional than logical" seems to me just as unjustified and superficial as that it is just 'fantasy', as you say. I've provided several arguments why it would not be that, but you continue to ignore any argument, focusing instead on irrelevant detail. It seems to me that your comments are more emotional than logical than either Kolakowski's views or my own. They certainly do not constitute a view nor do they provide any insight in the matter. Now, if you have any other comments on any other topic, I'll be glad to respond.

 

[aelf]

Ah, the "green cheese" argument... If you can't be bothered either to follow up links or to provide a proper argument, what's the point in even responding to your comments? Your 'conclusion' "[/FONT][/SIZE]that the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism" is "more emotional than logical" seems to me just as unjustified and superficial as that it is just 'fantasy', as you say. I've provided several arguments why it would not be that, but you continue to ignore any argument, focusing instead on irrelevant detail. It seems to me that your comments are more emotional than logical than either Kolakowski's views or my own. They certainly do not constitute a view nor do they provide any insight in the matter. Now, if you have any other comments on any other topic, I'll be glad to respond.

But despite my apparent ignorance, you're unable to debunk a very simple argument about why that statement is wrong (i.e. that it's a hopeless generalisation of Marxist political philosophy; that it's stupid to treat Leninism as a gestalt through which judgement on the whole Marxist movement could be passed).

I think it's clear what the reality is.

 

[Agent327]

Indeed. I do not see why "He argued that the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism." is wrong or a hopeless generalisation of Marxist political philosophy, as you say. Since you do not provide any argument supporting this, nor for your qualifications of this statement other than that it 'sounds' more emotional than logical or a 'fantasy', it seems to me nothing more than superficial comment. That 'it's stupid to treat Leninism as a gestalt through which judgement on the whole Marxist movement could be passed' I don't even know how to comment on. That may be true or false, but either way does not have any relation with either Kolakowski's work (which treats Marxism as a whole) or the statement in question.

 

[aelf]

Indeed. I do not see why "He argued that the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism." is wrong or a hopeless generalisation of Marxist political philosophy, as you say. Since you do not provide any argument supporting this, nor for your qualifications of this statement other than that it 'sounds' more emotional than logical or a 'fantasy', it seems to me nothing more than superficial comment. That 'it's stupid to treat Leninism as a gestalt through which judgement on the whole Marxist movement could be passed' I don't even know how to comment on. That may be true or false, but either way does not have any relation with either Kolakowski's work (which treats Marxism as a whole) or the statement in question.

But I have precisely made my case on this clearly and simply. I see that with no good response on hand, you simply resort to calling a valid objection "irrelevant" and try to impress on people your sophistication v.s. my ignorance.

Honestly, it's not surprising at all.

 

[Agent327]

But I have precisely made my case on this clearly and simply.

So you say. So kindly point me to where it says why Kolakowski "argued that the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism" is 'emotional rather than logical" and why it is a 'fantasy'?

I see that with no good response on hand, you simply resort to calling a valid objection "irrelevant" and try to impress on people your sophistication v.s. my ignorance.

Honestly, it's not surprising at all.

Whereas I have provide several possible arguments as to why the statement might indeed be true - whether sophisticated or not, valid or not - I'm still waiting for your explanation.

Actually, if I may diverge a little, this whole 'argument' reminds me of a rather famous Monty Python sketch wherein a man enters an office 'to have an argument'. The civil servant then proveeds simply to respond to everything the man says with 'Yes' or 'No'. Exasperated the man exclaims: "This isn't an argument!" and the obvious reply: "Yes, it is." - No, it isn't! etc.

While on the subject of Marxism/Communism, I remember the other day seeing Communism described as 'anarchist' (I believe it was on the Ask a red thread). Now, I have seen plenty of adjectives attached to Communism, but anarchist wasn't one of them. There may indeed be a, remotely, common heritage for both views, but in practice the two seem radically to exclude one another - and I'm fully aware that there are different strands of anarchism. There once was a strand named anarcho-syndicalism, I believe, which gathered a bit of a following in Spain and France notably. Historically as well as theoretically however Marxism has little regard for the concept of freedom, which ranks rather high in anarchism (though I must add that there were occasions were anarchists and communists worked together) and both ofcourse have their roots in pre-marxist socialism.

 

[aelf]

So you say. So kindly point me to where it says why Kolakowski "argued that the cruelties of Stalinism were not an aberration, but the logical conclusion of Marxism" is 'emotional rather than logical" and why it is a 'fantasy'?

Because, assuming he did argue for it, so far all I have seen in defense of that conclusion is that it is based on informed observations on the nature of Leninism. And I have already pointed out why such premises do not lead to the conclusion that the cruelty of Stalinism is the logical result of Marxism, unless one assumes that Leninism and Marxism can somehow be equated. And that assumption or premise is clearly false.

This seems fairly plain logic to me. In violating it, I think one would qualify as being illogical, hence my suggestion that perhaps emotions have had their influence.

Whereas I have provide several possible arguments as to why the statement might indeed be true - whether sophisticated or not, valid or not - I'm still waiting for your explanation.

I have only seen one argument, and I have pointed out why it's wrong - once again above.

Actually, if I may diverge a little, this whole 'argument' reminds me of a rather famous Monty Python sketch wherein a man enters an office 'to have an argument'. The civil servant then proveeds simply to respond to everything the man says with 'Yes' or 'No'. Exasperated the man exclaims: "This isn't an argument!" and the obvious reply: "Yes, it is." - No, it isn't! etc.

Hohoho.

While on the subject of Marxism/Communism, I remember the other day seeing Communism described as 'anarchist' (I believe it was on the Ask a red thread). Now, I have seen plenty of adjectives attached to Communism, but anarchist wasn't one of them. There may indeed be a, remotely, common heritage for both views, but in practice the two seem radically to exclude one another - and I'm fully aware that there are different strands of anarchism. There once was a strand named anarcho-syndicalism, I believe, which gathered a bit of a following in Spain and France notably. Historically as well as theoretically however Marxism has little regard for the concept of freedom, which ranks rather high in anarchism (though I must add that there were occasions were anarchists and communists worked together) and both ofcourse have their roots in pre-marxist socialism.

I don't understand what you're talking about. How can Marxism not emphasize freedom when it always criticizes bourgeois freedom as inadequate?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Not what has been going on in this thread... thats for sure!

As long as it is centered around that hack Kolakowski, you have a good point.

Because, assuming he did argue for it, so far all I have seen in defense of that conclusion is that it is based on informed observations on the nature of Leninism. And I have already pointed out why such premises do not lead to the conclusion that the cruelty of Stalinism is the logical result of Marxism, unless one assumes that Leninism and Marxism can somehow be equated. And that assumption or premise is clearly false.

This seems fairly plain logic to me. In violating it, I think one would qualify as being illogical, hence my suggestion that perhaps emotions have had their influence.



I have only seen one argument, and I have pointed out why it's wrong - once again above.



Hohoho.



I don't understand what you're talking about. How can Marxism not emphasize freedom when it always criticizes bourgeois freedom as inadequate?

You are doing famously, but you shouldn't bother too much about this.
If the gentleman you are debating had read the book he recommends, he would (given that he is a philosopher), discovered that Kolakowski's understanding of Marx leaves more than a bit to be desired. Occasionaly when perusing it, one gets the feeling of being here on OT.

 

[Agent327]

Because, assuming he did argue for it, so far all I have seen in defense of that conclusion is that it is based on informed observations on the nature of Leninism. And I have already pointed out why such premises do not lead to the conclusion that the cruelty of Stalinism is the logical result of Marxism, unless one assumes that Leninism and Marxism can somehow be equated. And that assumption or premise is clearly false.

This seems fairly plain logic to me. In violating it, I think one would qualify as being illogical, hence my suggestion that perhaps emotions have had their influence.

Unlike your allegation suggests I haven't mentioned "informed observations on the nature of Leninism"; Kolakowski's s Main Currents of Marxism ( 3 vols., 1978) is a standard textbook.Which makes any conclusion based such remarks null and void.

I have only seen one argument, and I have pointed out why it's wrong - once again above.

Your counting ability is flawd. I cannot help that. You have "pointed out" nothing but your opinion, to which you're entitled obviously. I'm still waiting for a valid argument.

I don't understand what you're talking about. How can Marxism not emphasize freedom when it always criticizes bourgeois freedom as inadequate?

That seems rather obvious to me: unlike liberalism Marxism emphasizes equality over freedom. I'm well aware of Marxist criticism on "bourgeois" freedom; however, up til this date Marxism nor any of its subsequent schools have substituted anything for it that even comes remotely close. Hence: Historically as well as theoretically ... Marxism has little regard for the concept of freedom.

As long as it is centered around that hack Kolakowski, you have a good point.


You are doing famously, but you shouldn't bother too much about this.
If the gentleman you are debating had read the book he recommends, he would (given that he is a philosopher), discovered that Kolakowski's understanding of Marx leaves more than a bit to be desired. Occasionaly when perusing it, one gets the feeling of being here on OT.

More 'personal observations' I see - without a single argument to support these. It seems my opponents have as much understanding of Marx as of philosophy.

 

[Fifty]

I'm no longer quite so busy/stressed, so here we go:

Fifty, I am curious to know, what significant (meaningful or influential or paradigm changing) contribution do you feel philosophy has made to western culture in the past 50 years? (serious question)

It must be an answer to some question on which there was little or no agreement 50 yrs ago but which through the activity of professional philosophers has reach an answer that is generally agreed upon by all or at least 99% of rational educated people.

Some general remarks:

First, one great reason why you don't see progress in philosophy the way you do in, say, neuroscience is that philosophical questions are by definition the sort that are somewhat intractable.

Another reason why you don't see progress in philosophy is that the standards for a correct answer are higher than any field I'm aware of. The only field that comes close is pure math, but even there a number of philosophically contentious assumptions are built in (which is why the philosophy of math & the philosophy of logic are interesting subjects)

Another reason why progress in philosophy is not as obvious as in, say, physics, is that a lot of the progress in philosophy is negative. That is, we know what ISN'T true or what ISN'T a good argument for some view. This may seem like it is hardly progress at all, but I don't think so. My understanding is that we don't have a true theory of physics, for instance, but that doesn't stop physics from being massively and obviously important.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, both of you (judging from past experience) fall into the camp of people who have no idea what it means for a debate to "boil down to semantics" in the pejorative sense of that term. As such, a lot of philosophy seems like "word games" to you two, because you just don't get what it is for a debate to be just word games in the sense that would make the debate silly or unnecessary or unproductive. What is in fact just really careful conceptual analysis, arguments for and against propositions, etc., you both see as "just language games". Perhaps because neither of your respective fields generally uses the level of logical rigor that is needed to make progress in analytic philosophy. So when I tried to show Mark how Kripke's work on identity helps show that mental states can't just be physical states of the brain, he decided in the end that it was "just language games" in some pejorative sense. I still don't get what he meant.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm no longer quite so busy/stressed, so here we go:

Some general remarks:

First, one great reason why you don't see progress in philosophy the way you do in, say, neuroscience is that philosophical questions are by definition the sort that are somewhat intractable.

Another reason why you don't see progress in philosophy is that the standards for a correct answer are higher than any field I'm aware of. The only field that comes close is pure math, but even there a number of philosophically contentious assumptions are built in (which is why the philosophy of math & the philosophy of logic are interesting subjects)

Another reason why progress in philosophy is not as obvious as in, say, physics, is that a lot of the progress in philosophy is negative. That is, we know what ISN'T true or what ISN'T a good argument for some view. This may seem like it is hardly progress at all, but I don't think so. My understanding is that we don't have a true theory of physics, for instance, but that doesn't stop physics from being massively and obviously important.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, both of you (judging from past experience) fall into the camp of people who have no idea what it means for a debate to "boil down to semantics" in the pejorative sense of that term. As such, a lot of philosophy seems like "word games" to you two, because you just don't get what it is for a debate to be just word games in the sense that would make the debate silly or unnecessary or unproductive. What is in fact just really careful conceptual analysis, arguments for and against propositions, etc., you both see as "just language games". Perhaps because neither of your respective fields generally uses the level of logical rigor that is needed to make progress in analytic philosophy. So when I tried to show Mark how Kripke's work on identity helps show that mental states can't just be physical states of the brain, he decided in the end that it was "just language games" in some pejorative sense. I still don't get what he meant.

Thank you. The bit about philosophy mostly identifying what isn't true is the most interesting and worth pondering a bit. I would have to agree with your last paragraph about my total lack of experience in philosophy or strenuous philosophical discussion. That biases me against it in general. blah blah blah.

Its inaccessibility (because of jargon and rules etc) and its lack of demonstrated value outside of its field, make it very hard to get excited about. Why play a game where the price of entry is steep and which has no payoff? If there is a payoff, what is it?

It seems to me that philosophy hides behind itself to keep out the riff raff and to maintain its "clubby" nature. Philosophy needs better marketing if it wants to gain respect from those who cannot see its value.

 

[Agent327]

I don't believe that philosophy in general has a "lack of demonstrated value outside of its field" - although this may be true for some areas or subdisciplines, it seems a bit too much of a generalisation. But perhaps Fifty disagrees.

...So when I tried to show Mark how Kripke's work on identity helps show that mental states can't just be physical states of the brain...

Could you possibly expand on that? I am quite curious.