Philosophy Who Needs It


Recommended Posts

I just listened to this talk that Rand gave and one thing struck me right away. She makes a point of belittling a number of philosophers and yet she seems unaware that she is preaching another philosophy herself. Why is her's right and everyone else's wrong? Philosophy does not not have a built-in means of choosing one "theory" over another like science does so I don't understand where her apparent feelings of superiority over other philosophers come from. She also refers to philosophy as a science several times so appears confused about what science actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just listened to this talk that Rand gave and one thing struck me right away. She makes a point of belittling a number of philosophers and yet she seems unaware that she is preaching another philosophy herself. Why is her's right and everyone else's wrong? Philosophy does not not have a built-in means of choosing one "theory" over another like science does so I don't understand where her apparent feelings of superiority over other philosophers come from. She also refers to philosophy as a science several times so appears confused about what science actually is.

Hmmm, sounds like you've been reading too much Korzybski, and not enough Rand.

Are you saying that there is no way to prove, or at least provide evidence in support of, a particular philosophy? No way to prove Adam Smith over Karl Marx? Or Aristotle over Plato? You think its just a matter of subjective personal preference? One philosophy is as good as another?

Rand is definitely aware that she is advocating a philosophy, Objectivism, and says so, repeatedly. Practically everywhere. Every book. Every article. Please take a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The science of Philosophy has as its subject matter the relation of the mind to reality, its method is epistemology in general and logic in particular; since everyone has the same reality as their frame of reference and the same method they should (if everyone was equally objective and honest) come to the same conclusion. Like Aristotle she thought every branch of learning had its own axioms, for Philosophy there are 3: Identity, Existence and Consciousness ("There is an existent I am conscious of which I must identify).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that there is no way to prove, or at least provide evidence in support of, a particular philosophy?

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying.

No way to prove Adam Smith over Karl Marx? Or Aristotle over Plato? You think its just a matter of subjective personal preference? One philosophy is as good as another?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'good' but 'prove' is meaningless in philosophy, in fact, it is meaningless in science too. The only place 'proof' has any meaning is in mathematics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The science of Philosophy has as its subject matter the relation of the mind to reality,....

I feel sorry for you that you are suffering under the illusion that philosophy is a science in any way, shape, or form. Without any form of experimentation it is just a bunch of floating abstractions, to coin a term I have seen here quite often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by 'good' but 'prove' is meaningless in philosophy, in fact, it is meaningless in science too. The only place 'proof' has any meaning is in mathematics.

Also logic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The science of Philosophy has as its subject matter the relation of the mind to reality, its method is epistemology in general and logic in particular; since everyone has the same reality as their frame of reference and the same method they should (if everyone was equally objective and honest) come to the same conclusion. Like Aristotle she thought every branch of learning had its own axioms, for Philosophy there are 3: Identity, Existence and Consciousness ("There is an existent I am conscious of which I must identify).

the relation of the mind to reality--then that reduces philosophy to a subtopic of psychology.

since everyone has the same reality as their frame of reference and the same method they should (if everyone was equally objective and honest) come to the same conclusion.--Since, in general, people who study and write in philosophy, from Thales on forward, have been objective and honest, yet not come to the same conclusion, you've obviously gone off course already.

Jeff S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

In your formulation, does proof (which is the result of a mental operation) have any relationship with reality at all?

Michael

All valid modes of inference are truth preserving, so any argument based on true premises will yield true conclusions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Psychology is a branch of science, which is essentially a branch of philosophy.

Saying that philosophy is a subtopic of psychology is like saying that tree is derived from apple. This is ass-backwards priority-wise in the hierarchy of the construction of the concept.

Bob,

That particular explanation actually sounds circular and severed from reality.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Psychology is a branch of science, which is essentially a branch of philosophy.

Saying that philosophy is a subtopic of psychology is like saying that tree is derived from apple. This is ass-backwards priority-wise in the hierarchy of the construction of the concept.

Bob,

That particular explanation actually sounds circular and severed from reality.

Michael

Michael--that's why I was criticizing David's formulation. I think it's too simple a definition.

Here's what I would say:

Philosophy is the study of reality, both as it is perceived by the human mind and as the human mind interacts with it.

Metaphysics would be covered by the first part, ethics by the second part, and epistemology (and science) would be covered by both.

Do you think that would work?

Jeff S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychology is a branch of science, which is essentially a branch of philosophy.

I cannot for the life of me understand how you can imagine that science is a branch of philosophy, even with the qualifier 'essentially'. You must not have studied any science in your life if you believe this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Psychology is a branch of science, which is essentially a branch of philosophy.

Saying that philosophy is a subtopic of psychology is like saying that tree is derived from apple. This is ass-backwards priority-wise in the hierarchy of the construction of the concept.

Bob,

That particular explanation actually sounds circular and severed from reality.

Michael

Michael--that's why I was criticizing David's formulation. I think it's too simple a definition.

Here's what I would say:

Philosophy is the study of reality, both as it is perceived by the human mind and as the human mind interacts with it.

Metaphysics would be covered by the first part, ethics by the second part, and epistemology (and science) would be covered by both.

Do you think that would work?

Philosophy is mostly a study of (other) philosophy. Objectivism is the study of nothing. Science, hard and soft, is the study of reality. Psychology and philosophy are an integrated total in a human being so neither derives from either. That's not how they are studied or generally thought of of course. While we can refer to sociology--no matter how crappy--psychology, anthropology/archeology even economics and such as soft sciences (not really science) that's not true of academic philosophy which I suspect is mostly nattering gibberish. Gibberish or not, there is no room there for scientific pretension. The only road to that today is hand in hand with psychology via effective psychotherapy.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

In your formulation, does proof (which is the result of a mental operation) have any relationship with reality at all?

Michael

Here is an example of a simple proof in mathematics. We define a linear function as one that can be put in the form y=mx+b, where m and b are constants. Now let's prove that 3x+4y=5 is a linear function.;

4y=5-3x

y=5/4 - 3/4x

y=-3/4x+5/4

There, we have proved it with m=-3/4 and b=5/4. Now I'm not sure what you mean by a 'relationship with reality', how about the reality that I proved it was a linear function?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by 'good' but 'prove' is meaningless in philosophy, in fact, it is meaningless in science too. The only place 'proof' has any meaning is in mathematics.

That's my understanding if by "proof" you mean "a proof." I don't think a "solution" in math is the same thing as a "proof."

--Brant

a true math illiterate--I can prove it: poof! (I mean proof!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff:

Certainly worth discussing. This is from Aristotle's Posterior Analytic, does this fit your model?

The kinds of question we ask are as many as the kinds of things which we know. They are in fact four:-(1) whether the connexion of an attribute with a thing is a fact, (2) what is the reason of the connexion, (3) whether a thing exists, (4) What is the nature of the thing. Thus, when our question concerns a complex of thing and attribute and we ask whether the thing is thus or otherwise qualified-whether, e. g. the sun suffers eclipse or not-then we are asking as to the fact of a connexion. That our inquiry ceases with the discovery that the sun does suffer eclipse is an indication of this; and if we know from the start that the sun suffers eclipse, we do not inquire whether it does so or not. On the other hand, when we know the fact we ask the reason; as, for example, when we know that the sun is being eclipsed and that an earthquake is in progress, it is the reason of eclipse or earthquake into which we inquire.

Where a complex is concerned, then, those are the two questions we ask; but for some objects of inquiry we have a different kind of question to ask, such as whether there is or is not a centaur or a God. (By 'is or is not' I mean 'is or is not, without further qualification'; as opposed to 'is or is not [e. g.] white'.) On the other hand, when we have ascertained the thing's existence, we inquire as to its nature, asking, for instance, 'what, then, is God?' or 'what is man?'.

I have had a long running argument with behavioralists who deny that Aristotle had a psychology which I argue was subsumed in his Rhetoric. Moreover, I maintained that his audience analysis that they claimed was missing from his works because that is a scientifically new measuring tool that was not available to him. I argued that the Greek concept of common sense was audience analysis and shared by the participants who were accorded citizenship.

Interesting post.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff:

Certainly worth discussing. This is from Aristotle's Posterior Analytic, does this fit your model?

The kinds of question we ask are as many as the kinds of things which we know. They are in fact four:-(1) whether the connexion of an attribute with a thing is a fact, (2) what is the reason of the connexion, (3) whether a thing exists, (4) What is the nature of the thing. Thus, when our question concerns a complex of thing and attribute and we ask whether the thing is thus or otherwise qualified-whether, e. g. the sun suffers eclipse or not-then we are asking as to the fact of a connexion. That our inquiry ceases with the discovery that the sun does suffer eclipse is an indication of this; and if we know from the start that the sun suffers eclipse, we do not inquire whether it does so or not. On the other hand, when we know the fact we ask the reason; as, for example, when we know that the sun is being eclipsed and that an earthquake is in progress, it is the reason of eclipse or earthquake into which we inquire.

Where a complex is concerned, then, those are the two questions we ask; but for some objects of inquiry we have a different kind of question to ask, such as whether there is or is not a centaur or a God. (By 'is or is not' I mean 'is or is not, without further qualification'; as opposed to 'is or is not [e. g.] white'.) On the other hand, when we have ascertained the thing's existence, we inquire as to its nature, asking, for instance, 'what, then, is God?' or 'what is man?'.

I have had a long running argument with behavioralists who deny that Aristotle had a psychology which I argue was subsumed in his Rhetoric. Moreover, I maintained that his audience analysis that they claimed was missing from his works because that is a scientifically new measuring tool that was not available to him. I argued that the Greek concept of common sense was audience analysis and shared by the participants who were accorded citizenship.

Interesting post.

Adam

Aargh! Quoting Aristotle at midnight! Head won't work--can not compute...

Seriously, I think the first three of his fourfold division would equate to modern science, and the fourth to philosophy--but depending on what the "thing" under consideration is, it might be philosophy--depends on whether it's a physical existent or a concept of some sort. Beyond that, I had better not say anything; in all honesty, Aristotle and late hours are not a good fit for me. I have to do him when I've had a good night's sleep.

After my other post, I thought of looking up how Rand defined the term "philosophy", via the Ayn Rand Lexicon, and there is not really anything in her definition that I would object to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my understanding if by "proof" you mean "a proof." I don't think a "solution" in math is the same thing as a "proof."

--Brant

a true math illiterate--I can prove it: poof! (I mean proof!)

I agree, a solution is not the same as a proof. Proofs are strictly about the structural integrity of the symbolic system itself and have nothing to do with what the symbols represent. To say that some physical process can be represented by some mathematical relationship is what a scientist does and this cannot be "proved", only confirmed - a much weaker term. Analyzing multitudes of relationships is what a mathematician does and he engages in proofs about said relations - regardless of what they might be used to represent by a scientist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychology is a branch of science, which is essentially a branch of philosophy.

I cannot for the life of me understand...

GS,

Come on, you can do it! Give it the old college try!

You must not have studied any science in your life if you believe this.

If you can say that after participating on this forum for as long as you have, you must not retain things well in memory.

Go for it, GS. I believe in you! Try harder!

I can even suggest some supplements to take to help improve memory.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear a great deal about identifying the "facts of reality" here well here is one you should identify - philosophy is not science. Look around and you will see it. Look at the faculties at universities, for example, philosophy is in the Arts faculty, not the Science faculty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my understanding if by "proof" you mean "a proof." I don't think a "solution" in math is the same thing as a "proof."

--Brant

a true math illiterate--I can prove it: poof! (I mean proof!)

I agree, a solution is not the same as a proof. Proofs are strictly about the structural integrity of the symbolic system itself and have nothing to do with what the symbols represent. To say that some physical process can be represented by some mathematical relationship is what a scientist does and this cannot be "proved", only confirmed - a much weaker term. Analyzing multitudes of relationships is what a mathematician does and he engages in proofs about said relations - regardless of what they might be used to represent by a scientist.

Then a math proof is somewhat what double checking is in arithmetic. Of course then a proof is in a sense a solution too, but a solution of a proof, not a problem, except coincidentally as in 1+2+3=6 is the solution and 3+2+1=6 is the proof or, in this case, vice versa if the problem is 3+2+1=?

I think I would have done better in math in high school with better teachers, but my mind isn't structured for math since I went a different way with my interests as far back as I can remember. If I had my education to do over knowing what I do now, assuming I could set it all up, I'd have done a little better with math, but much better with another language or two. My Mother started a pre-school here in Tucson for my supposed benefit 60 years ago. The primary purpose of this school was "socialization." What you can say about it best is it was better than anything else in Tucson at the time--the metro area has 20 times more people now--and it's still in business as a kind of coop doing exactly what it has always done. I still cringe remembering the learning vacuum I experienced, the sheer waste of time. I made good use of some of that time, but I couldn't expose myself to the sounds of Spanish or French, etc. The stupidest thing was nap time. I was never tired and never slept. I thought the teacher needed surcease from the kids. I needed a Montessori-type school.

Grade school was little better. I never went to a really good school or had an excellent teacher.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

I'm not going to debate this since you do not use hierarchical construction of fundamental knowledge in concepts, but I think you should study a bit of history.

Michael

In all fairness, at one time, science was not distinguishable from philosophy, but that was a long time ago. It's time to update your concepts, they are very different now and that hierarchy no longer applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philosophy is science only in the sense that metaphysics and epistemology are its axiomatic foundations. These can be pulled into science itself and, qua philosophy, forgotten. Thus you can have the religious nuttiness of Newton, maybe the greatest scientist ever.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now