Philosophy Who Needs It


Recommended Posts

GS:

If I missed it in this thread, did you define philosophy, as to what it is, versus what it is not yet?

I would also not use current academia and their departmental categorizations as representative of anything.

Aristotle spoke about arte and techne. I think there is a lot of science, psychology and a hole bunch of disciplines in "art". Cabinetry would be a techne to Aristotle. it is also art.

Adam

In all honesty, who gives a shit what Aristotle said? Is Aristotle here now? Does Aristotle have to live in this world? Does he have to make decisions about stem cell research, abortion, drug abuse, poverty, starvation, nuclear power etc., etc. If you think that doctrine produced a couple thousand years ago when man knew almost nothing about this world compared to now is useful for us then be my guest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, if Rand made fun of other philosophers, it was probably not because they practiced philosophy per se, it was that their philosophies were not rational or adherent to anything concrete. She had good reason to poke fun at people trying to logically construct knowledge from totally irrational premises. They were philosophers who themselves were inconsistent according to the definitions of philosophy (or at least, that's how she might have seen it).

On what grounds do you come to the conclusion that Rand's philosophy was any better than Kant's or Spinoza's or anybody else's? There is no mechanism in philosophy to select one over the other as opposed to in science, where there is a mechanism in place. You can't simply say "his is not rational but hers is". Well, you can say that, but it doesn't carry any weight. In the most general sense, 'rational' simply means providing some explanation for something. I could say that the bolt of lightning came from the angry gods or a could say it was result of a huge potential difference between the clouds and the earth and both are examples of man's ability to rationalize but one explanation is "better" than the other because it involves measuring something and sharing those measurements with others etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting take on 'rationality' from wikipedia (emphasis mine);

It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) and experts, that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

It is quite evident from modern cognitive science and neuroscience, studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a complete psychopath with a massively damaged amygdala. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference.

In other words, it is impossible for a human to be totally rational and this is where science comes in. Everything we experience has a subjective aspect to it and in order to minimize this we rely on observations of others. Thus objectivity arises from a consensus among different subjects. To say something is objective is to say that virtually all subjective views agree. You can try to your heart's content to be totally objective but you can't really be sure until it's verified by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, it is impossible for a human to be totally rational and this is where science comes in. Everything we experience has a subjective aspect to it and in order to minimize this we rely on observations of others. Thus objectivity arises from a consensus among different subjects. To say something is objective is to say that virtually all subjective views agree. You can try to your heart's content to be totally objective but you can't really be sure until it's verified by others.

This is why scientific protocol demands experimental corroberation of hypotheses. Not only do experiments have to support hypotheses but experiments made by independent parties, preferably those who do not have an emotional investment in the correctness of the hypothesis have to further support the hypotheses. Experiment, replication and experiment by varying designs are required before an hypothesis is accepted and even then the hypothesis is accepted provisionally. Why? Because conditions under which the hypothesis fails may yet be discovered. Look what happened with Newton's law of gravitation. It was falsified by the anomalous precession the the perihelion of Mercury. Newton formulated his laws by studying motions of the planets far out from the sun. He did not have the technical means to study the motion of Mercury which is much closer to a massive body.

In later years, anomalous precession (i.e. non-Newtonion precession) was found in all the planets and our moon as far out as Jupiter.

None is these rigorous safeguards are to be found in philosophy, which is why philosophy is not a reliable guide to true thinking about the physical world. That is why natural science jettisoned philosophy over two hundred years ago.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None is these rigorous safeguards are to be found in philosophy...

Bob,

This is not accurate. It only pertains to the musings of authors who write about philosophy and are called philosophers. There are others who present safeguards anyone can verify.

Michael

For example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting take on 'rationality' from wikipedia (emphasis mine);

It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) and experts, that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

It is quite evident from modern cognitive science and neuroscience, studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a complete psychopath with a massively damaged amygdala. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference.

In other words, it is impossible for a human to be totally rational and this is where science comes in. Everything we experience has a subjective aspect to it and in order to minimize this we rely on observations of others. Thus objectivity arises from a consensus among different subjects. To say something is objective is to say that virtually all subjective views agree. You can try to your heart's content to be totally objective but you can't really be sure until it's verified by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting take on 'rationality' from wikipedia (emphasis mine);

It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) and experts, that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

It is quite evident from modern cognitive science and neuroscience, studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a complete psychopath with a massively damaged amygdala. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference.

In other words, it is impossible for a human to be totally rational and this is where science comes in. Everything we experience has a subjective aspect to it and in order to minimize this we rely on observations of others. Thus objectivity arises from a consensus among different subjects. To say something is objective is to say that virtually all subjective views agree. You can try to your heart's content to be totally objective but you can't really be sure until it's verified by others.

I see objectivity as the continuing search for truth and a recognition of how hard that can be. I don't see truth verified by a subjective consensus. I do see subjectivity as also a search for truth if it is used that way. If you want to truly know something or find out something or achieve something you'll use what seems helpful in your endeavor. A lot of verification simply comes from what works, as in technology. Learning things has a lot to do with bumping into them.

I understand my statement is much too simple as far as objectivity/subjectivity is concerned, but I'm too short of time.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None is these rigorous safeguards are to be found in philosophy...

Bob,

This is not accurate. It only pertains to the musings of authors who write about philosophy and are called philosophers. There are others who present safeguards anyone can verify.

Michael

Like Aristotle in his -Physics-? Heavier bodies fall faster than lighter bodies? Or women have fewer teeth and ribs than men? The interesting thing is this could have been falsified 2300 years ago, but post-Ionian Greek philosophers were not inclined to check out their theories by empirical means. Most philosophical theories are not empirically falsifiable and most philosophers are disinclined to check out their theories (even when possible) experimentally with careful cross checks and replication of results.

Another way of putting it: In philosophy departments there are many blackboards but few wastebaskets.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see objectivity as the continuing search for truth and a recognition of how hard that can be. I don't see truth verified by a subjective consensus. I do see subjectivity as also a search for truth if it is used that way. If you want to truly know something or find out something or achieve something you'll use what seems helpful in your endeavor. A lot of verification simply comes from what works, as in technology. Learning things has a lot to do with bumping into them.

I understand my statement is much too simple as far as objectivity/subjectivity is concerned, but I'm too short of time.

--Brant

I see what you are saying, but i would use the word 'relations' instead of 'truth'. It often happens that one person discovers/formulates a relation for the first time, perhaps like E=mc^2. It turns out that this relation is structurally similar to known facts but when it was first formulated this was not known. So in a sense it was "true" but no one knew it was "true" until it was verified later. So can something be "true" without anyone knowing it? Ah, now there's a deep philosophical question :) I think this goes in the chicken and egg category, ie. knowledge and verification of knowledge are inseparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None is these rigorous safeguards are to be found in philosophy...

Bob,

This is not accurate. It only pertains to the musings of authors who write about philosophy and are called philosophers. There are others who present safeguards anyone can verify.

Michael

For example?

GS,

We can start with the very basics.

First, observe that you exist. Then verify by asking a butt-load of other folks if you exist.

Anyone can perform this test.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

We can start with the very basics.

First, observe that you exist. Then verify by asking a butt-load of other folks if you exist.

Anyone can perform this test.

:)

Michael

Yes, let's start with the basics, do you know anyone who claims that they don't exist? Are you serious? Do you know how silly this sounds?

Edited by general semanticist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

I am serious.

Good humored, but serious.

Philosophical fundamentals are very simple and very easy to verify. That's why you can build solid concepts on them.

If you think this is silly, why do you argue so much against it?

Michael

PS - Some religions and philosophies claim we don't really exist, that we are only illusions, yada yada yada. These lay the groundwork for something that exists so much it won't go away with such rhetorical crap. In fact, it grows in this bed of verbal/conceptual manure: political power in the hands of an evil person. Then comes the bloodshed.

Of course, the argument falls apart when you run the test I mentioned. You know, the one you think is silly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think that philosophies that claim we don't exist or are illusions etc. are dangerous? I'll tell what I think is dangerous - philosophies that claim there is good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, etc. This leads to bloodshed. 2-valued aristotelian logic applied to real life is a recipe for disaster. I don't see any mechanism in Objectivism that would stop bloodshed other than a doctrine of "non initiation of force" (NIOF). The problem is that when force IS initiated you are free to retaliate all you want and so violence continues until everyone subscribes to Objectivism. Well, that would work with ANY doctrine - there will be no violence as long as no one starts any. Duh! If we want to make the world peaceful and productive we need a system that has a mechanism for diffusing violence and guess what, general semantics is such a system. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there will be no violence as long as no one starts any.

Az die bobbe hat baytzim, geveyn solst mein zede.

And if my grandmother had balls, she would be my grandfather.

The fact is that people, for a number of reasons, initiate force and violence. What are we supposed to do? Let them get away with it?

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him, and shit down his severed neck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him, and shit down his severed neck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I know your views on violence. It's too bad because we agree on a good number of other things but not this. I am no pacifist but I certainly do not believe in any "eye for an eye" bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think that philosophies that claim we don't exist or are illusions etc. are dangerous? I'll tell what I think is dangerous - philosophies that claim there is good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, etc. This leads to bloodshed. 2-valued aristotelian logic applied to real life is a recipe for disaster. I don't see any mechanism in Objectivism that would stop bloodshed other than a doctrine of "non initiation of force" (NIOF). The problem is that when force IS initiated you are free to retaliate all you want and so violence continues until everyone subscribes to Objectivism. Well, that would work with ANY doctrine - there will be no violence as long as no one starts any. Duh! If we want to make the world peaceful and productive we need a system that has a mechanism for diffusing violence and guess what, general semantics is such a system. smile.gif

IOF = bad

NIOF = good

Where's the BS in this? You cannot have your philosophy and eat it too. How do you get these ideas out of GS?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him, and shit down his severed neck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I know your views on violence. It's too bad because we agree on a good number of other things but not this. I am no pacifist but I certainly do not believe in any "eye for an eye" bullshit.

Not violence (as such) but vengence. Vengence is justice in action.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him, and shit down his severed neck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I know your views on violence. It's too bad because we agree on a good number of other things but not this. I am no pacifist but I certainly do not believe in any "eye for an eye" bullshit.

Not violence (as such) but vengence. Vengence is justice in action.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Vengeance is idiotic in most cases. I'm only into it to the extent I'm willing to give up my life for it out of a capital grievance knowing I might literally die or be badly damaged psychologically. Since you value it so much, work on the spelling before proceeding further.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=1t6485991' post='82063']

IOF = bad

NIOF = good

Where's the BS in this? You cannot have your philosophy and eat it too. How do you get these ideas out of GS?

--Brant

Fair enough. In general semantics 2-valued logic is viewed as unsuitable in most cases, except in mathematics, where it is universally applicable. This means that there exists a continuum between polar opposites like good/evil, christian/non-christian, patriot/traitor, etc. etc. It's the old story formalized, life is not black and white, it's full of grey areas. Also in GS it is emphasized that things change over time and so what might be the case one day is not another day. So IOF might be bad in most circumstances, but not all. (See my signature) Probably many Objectivists will say this smells of moral relativism but morality is not an issue addressed in GS - it addresses sanity. In GS it is believed that if you address sanity then morality will look after itself because sane people will not go around murdering each other. It is actually a theory of sanity and, AFAIK, the only one ever produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=1t6485991' post='82063']

IOF = bad

NIOF = good

Where's the BS in this? You cannot have your philosophy and eat it too. How do you get these ideas out of GS?

--Brant

Fair enough. In general semantics 2-valued logic is viewed as unsuitable in most cases, except in mathematics, where it is universally applicable. This means that there exists a continuum between polar opposites like good/evil, christian/non-christian, patriot/traitor, etc. etc. It's the old story formalized, life is not black and white, it's full of grey areas. Also in GS it is emphasized that things change over time and so what might be the case one day is not another day. So IOF might be bad in most circumstances, but not all. (See my signature) Probably many Objectivists will say this smells of moral relativism but morality is not an issue addressed in GS - it addresses sanity. In GS it is believed that if you address sanity then morality will look after itself because sane people will not go around murdering each other. It is actually a theory of sanity and, AFAIK, the only one ever produced.

It sounds like equivocation to me. Either something is wrong or it is right. If wrong we can still have degrees of wrong. That's mitigation. This must have something to do with Chris Sciabarra's dialectics evaluation of Rand's intellectual roots.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like equivocation to me. Either something is wrong or it is right. If wrong we can still have degrees of wrong.

That is not consistent. As soon as you allow a third value (right/wrong/maybe) then you are no longer operating in 2-valued system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If General Semantics teaches that murdering innocent children is not evil because good and evil do not exist, I certainly want no part of that philosophy.

I'll stay with my silly certainty based on silly demonstrations that any silly person can see any silly old time, with 100% silly old accuracy...

This kind of fuzzy moral thinking is what allowed Hitler to get away with his atrocities. If the Germans had thought murdering innocent children was the pure rotten evil it is under all circumstances, they would not have let him get away with it.

But they didn't think that and they did let him get away with it.

(All right, let's say Mao to give Adolf a rest...)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like equivocation to me. Either something is wrong or it is right. If wrong we can still have degrees of wrong.

That is not consistent. As soon as you allow a third value (right/wrong/maybe) then you are no longer operating in 2-valued system.

But it's you putting the "maybe" into the equation, not me, not Rand, not common jurisprudence.

--Brant

let the punishment fit the crtime!

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