The organization could be doing a lot better if it were a religious organization with a focus on giving compassionate care, instead of a hierarchy of power and legalities and rules. And leave the volunteers free to do what needs to be done. Being American used to mean being our own authority and being trusted to do the right thing but today's bureaucracy has changed all that. — Athena

My analysis is not that this is 'Prussian', or maybe it is Americanized Prussianism. Such emphasis on 'targets', 'rules' and feedback is often linked to New Public Management thinking. See this Wiki ;) link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Public_Management

NPM Public services should be ran like a company and be as efficient as possible, To do that managers needed control over the company and organization and control over the individual within it. As a management philosophy it was pioneered in anglo saxon countries and is not part and parcel of any modern German model, though it is introduced there too. However, I wonder if the Germans can be blamed for that, in general it is considered an outgrowth of the Thatcher / Reagan years.

Here is an article about NPM in Australia, though I did not read it, it did seem to be a lot like you described. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1440783309346477?journalCode=josb

Ohhh I did not intend to be disrespectful, but I see now why it seemed that way. I apologize. We had discussions before and you also pointed me to some of the links, which I indeed watched. I think they are interesting and insightful, I watched them with pleasure, but I also think you know enough about them. You have seen what there at least it seems to me and I think that when delving into the subject of the philosophy behind it, it would be better to actually read them. Wiki will not teach you anything new I think because you have that material already at your fingertips. When commenting on Nietzsche I think it is really preferable to read him yourself and I actually think you will truly enjoy. Again, I meant no disrespect.

Neitzche — Athena

Nietzsche!!! :D

The post does not say much. Nietzsche might be popular in the US but only in some circles, literary criticism, as a progenitor post modernism maybe. Nietzsche is abused, used, held as a conservative and a revolutionary. But anyway, I think Nietzsche would be on your side in this debate. He abhorred mediocrity and 'herd spirit'. He admired the ancient thinkers just like you do. He abhorred democratization in the sense of populism because it made men ripe for tyrants. Nietzsche does not seem to be your target. I would recommend you to study him. Take your eyes from wikipedia and videos about the Prussian education system, and read Nietzsche. I thin you will find it wonderful.

I also do not think bureaucracy is a European disease. The US have their own fair share. Fordism, Taylorism... We are not living in the 19th century anymore, however if you want to understand it correctly, study the 19th century and study Germany, because it was the German golden age. If Germany is your enemy you have to get to know him and know the US as well. Nazism was only one side of the German coin...

What is the content of that bill? Waiting until 8th grade or something before talking about homosexuality? Well, that is simple, because it arbitrarily stigmatizes one kind of sexual identity. Not wanting to discriminate against being gay does not mean you want to make children transsexual. If I am against a bill that would state that we do not discuss dog ownership until 8th grade, do I actively want to put dogs in every household? Of course not.

I would say not as much, at least they are not transing kids and such. — M777

Are people transing kids?!? Who has been teaching you about the world?

Shooting a gun causes little more than moving a piece of lead... I do not see how that is relevant. Speech is an act, words are not actors and neither are bullets. Those who shoot the bullets are actors and those who speak the words are too. And yes, words can sometimes instigate crimes. Your view is slightly outlandish, though I like the bravado with which you present it. Anyway, take care all.

Then it’s their stupidity that led them to do it, not the words of someone else. — NOS4A2

That is legally not quite sound. If I persuade someone to kill another human being I am held accountable for instigation, or maybe conspiracy. Words do things NOS we know that since Austin...

Bashing Hegel as an idealist is the Analytic way to dismiss him without taking him seriously. The analytic school simply refuses to treat history as a real thing because it was a science based philosophy. — Jackson

I am not bashing him.... as many on this forum know I am a keen admirer of his thought. Indeed the analytical school lacks a historic eye. Not my problem.

So, Hegel is not saying its materiality is meaningless. — Jackson

No he is not.

You should start reading Hegel and quit pontificating. — Jackson

Well I at least do you the curtesy of trying to explain my point of view without using one liners. I really wonder what your problem with me is here. You complain of personal attacks, but you yourself seem rather uncouth as well. I read Hegel by the way.

Consciousness is always consciousness of real objects and events. Your reading of this passage is not accurate. — Jackson

In the passage he states that the consciousness of that real object (no disagreement there) is making the experience, not the material quality of the object itself. At least that is how I read it. I have no reason to think it is not an accurate reading.

In his Philosophy of Art and Philosophy of Right, Hegel gives specific analyses of art and politics. He describes actual paintings in great detail and says their physicality gives the idea (thought) in sensuous form. — Jackson

Exactly, the thought in sensuous form, that is what the physical is. So it relates the material to something in thought.

Hegel gives detailed explanations of historical changes in actual governments and how that change takes place. — Jackson

Yes of course, politics and law are part of objective spirit... What lies below these changes are ideological changes. For instance the emergence of Roman law in order to objectify relations between people (if I remember correctly these sections in the Pheno).

I am not saying that for Hegel objects, or governments, or people, are not real, not at all. That is not what Hegel's idealism is about. You, like many others on this forum actually, use a sloganified form of Berkeleyan idealism as 'idealism'. Hegel's version is far more sophisticated than that and avoids some of its pitfalls.

That person is who I mean. Just saying, using him is not a good way to have a discussion with me. — Jackson

I did not use him, I just said I concurred. I am not going to refer to 'he who may not be mentioned', just because you got annoyed with him....

Proof is right I think Jackson
— Tobias

Just so you know, anyone who writes personal attacks is off my list. — Jackson

I do not understand... was that a personal attack on my part? I did think Proof was right, and the section he quoted is apt, but that is not a personal attack no? It was in any case not intended as one.

Can that statement be confirmed or falsified? Is it really what science does? Relgion seems to do the same. — Hillary

I do not understand. What statement needs falsification? That science creates a map of what the world is like? Well, that statement is itself too imprecise, but with modifications it can be falsified. We could scientists what they think they are doing for instance. Religion usually does not just describe but also ascribes a certain telos to the world, it has a normative dimension that science in general lacks. Or was that not what you were after?

Which is a philosophical statement about science. — Hillary

Yes it is.

Science once was part of philosophy and vice versa. Look at 19th century physicists. Or at Aristotle. What caused the division? — Hillary

Specialization I think. Maybe also the emancipation of both science and philosophy, in different ways, out of religious dogma. I think it is more of a history of science / hist of phil question or a sociology of science question than a natural scientific or philosophical one. I am not sure though.

Well, if this is what philosophy does, it becomes even clearer to me that it's impossible for science and philosophy to collaborate... What do you think? — Skalidris

No, not at all. I think it is a good division of labour. Sciences maps what the world is like and philosophy brings to the fore the categorizations and assumptions that the map has implicitly and often subconsciously accepted.

I have no problem if someone doesn't have an opinion, but he could have said so from the beginning. Instead, he just explained how my point of view did not fit in his philosophical one... (and I'm not a philosophy student so that was even more irrelevant). If you want more details, my question was whether he thinks there are other causes than psychological ones for Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (yeah I know, weird topic). And he spent his time telling me how we cannot separate the mind and the body. — Skalidris

Yes, what he did was bring to the fore an assumption made in the question, perhaps the body and mind being separate. Indeed mind body dualism is considered extremely problematic from a philosophical point of view. The reason is that we would have to account for something non-material and establish a link between the material and mental stuff, so it is not just his philosophical scheme, mind boy dualism is by many considered to be untenable. What he did (possibly, I wasn't there of course) was show you how this assumption, which is deeply problematic, was made in your argument.

What would be the "better questions"? Questions that challenge the logic of the concepts? Okay fine, but what if I want to start from scientific concepts? How does that make it "wrong"? What makes philosophical concepts stronger than scientific ones in your opinion? — Skalidris

Better questions are more examine questions, questions of which the asker knows what kind of philosophical baggage they carry with themselves. You can still ask the question of course, but now with knowledge of the things you would have to accept as well when you think this is a meaningful question. (On the question itself I have no opinion, I do not even understand it because I do not know the subject, but that is beside the point)

Okay fine, but what if I want to start from scientific concepts? — Skalidris

Well, you can of course, but you will run into problems because you have unwittingly accepted a whole lot of assumptions that they carry around with them.

What makes philosophical concepts stronger than scientific ones in your opinion? — Skalidris

I do not think philosophical concepts are 'stronger' than scientific ones, they concern different things.

For instance the scientist wants to do an experiment. He wants to examine whether X emerges under laboratory conditions Y. He talks to a philosopher and she asks her, ok what are your criteria to say indeed X emerged? How can you be sure that X emerged due to conditions Y and not some hitherto unknown condition? Can you in fact know, or is there always a possibility of error? Perhaps there is, how can you minimise it? If there still is, when would you be confident that indeed Y caused X to emerge etc. Philosophy questions, it does not give answers but puts those on the spot that would like to provide an answer. Both are meaningful, but different.

It lead to a lot of side talking, where he explained to me how my questions were "wrong", how we could not see it the way I see it. And, to be honest this is the kind of behaviour that makes quite upset, as I wouldn't want to see philosophy as some kind of religion with rules where only certain opinions are accepted because they do not contradict other philosophical concepts. — Skalidris

I can relate to your experience. I have been a student once too and it happened to me as well. It makes one feel annoyed maybe, but on closer inspection... wasn't he doing what philosophy ought to do? He wasn't giving you a religion with rules and dogma, on the contrary! He used his expertise to pick apart your questions into questions than can be answered and those that cannot be. The ones who could not be, perhaps because they included hidden assumptions, or were 'loaded', or simply contradictory were discarded. On the questions that were left.... he had no opinion. Of course not, because probably they were questions best left to science and he is no scientist. In one of my classes (not in uni but at a private course) a student exclaimed "are we getting any answers!". I answered "no, only better questions".

Of course asking better questions leads to better answers and it may also lead to insight in social behaviour, or in the perception works, or in relation to freedom of the will or whatever, but that is essentially the philosophical discipline. It cuts the dead wood from the branches of knowledge.

We will talk again after you have presented something of interest on the subject at hand.

I can assure you that I'm not interested in trolling. It's interesting that you selected the figurative or metaphorical imagery of jogging because some people are crippled in the real world and not everyone is capable of the same cognitive feats. I wish I knew what mental gymnastics lead you to conclude that I was seeking a free philosophy teacher because I doubt that you have anything to teach me. — Average

What makes you doubt that? You are basically asking questions all the time, so you seek answers, no? I guess you are thinking of yourself as some sort of modern day Socrates, but dream on. You are basically just being lazy. I can see that in the wording of your post. The argument you presented in unsound. You might still need a philosophy teacher even though you doubt that I have anything to teach you. The 'because' you use does not lead to a valid inference. You are not being average, you performing below par.

What exactly is meant by "it's own opposition"? How can a definition oppose itself? It's all very alien to me. I wish you would provide an example or some description of a purely hypothetical scenario in which this occurs. — Average

I am sorry but I wish you would do the mental jogging yourself. I am not a free philosophy teacher. Read up on it and try to understand what I write if you feel like it of course. I think you are just trolling actually.

What is a "Contradiction"? In other words what is it's nature or essence? When does a "Contradiction" occur? — Average

Well, it is Hegel's idea that every definition runs into problems as it engenders its own opposition when taken to the extreme, so any definition will immediately incur an objection. Quite Wittgensteinian come to think of it... :gasp: So I cannot give a definition, best i to show how it works. The beginning of the Science of Logic by Hegel gives an apt account. When we consider the concept of 'being' (Sein) and claim for instance that that is the object of first philosophy, and we try to define it, than it shows that in fact the concept is empty. It is as empty as its conceptual opposite, nothing (Nichts). So thinking in terms of being is immediately faced with nothing, because conceptually they are the same thing and not the same thing. We need the concept of 'becoming' to resolve this contradiction (or maybe 'antonomy' is a better word). Now becoming, if considered in the extreme also engenders its opposite because if there is only 'becoming' there is not really anything that 'becomes', to consider becoming you need some sense of a fixed point right, something that becomes something else. We find the concept of 'something' and so on and so on, three volumes of the Logik long...

I've studied a lot of his work and see that nowhere. Please cite something by Hegel. — Jackson

Well I found the section Proof quoted quite convincing. Funny thing is I thought about just that section when I read the discussion, though I would have no idea anymore where to find it I am grateful to 180 for locating it.

If you read what I wrote you also see that I do not think Hegel holds the world to be ideal in any Berkeleyan sense. So maybe what you refer to as realism and I as idealism are not far off. I find this quibbling over words quite uninteresting. In the section quoted I think Hegel states so too. He finds the question whether he is an idealist rather trite it seems to me. If you follow his train of thought in that section he says that every possible philosophy is idealist in the sense that it concerns our idea of the world, whether we have an idea of the world as material or as ideal. I think it makes eminent sense and is by no means a very far fetched claim so I wonder why you would find it so discomforting.
My Hegel interpretation by the way is formed by Wather Jaeschke, a German scholar and Robert Pippin's book... Hegel's Idealism ;)

edit:

"86. Inasmuch as the new true object issues from it, this dialectical movement which consciousness exercises on itself and which
affects both its knowledge and its object, is precisely what is
called experience [Eifahrung]. " — Jackson

Actually I think you just cited something rather idealist. There is only experience, but experience results from the dialectical movement of consciousness. It is not the experience with the world, i.e. the real impinging on our idea of it, that causes an experience, experience happens when the mind shifts and starts considering things differently. Of course that shift is caused perhaps by sense data about the world, but experience only happens when it is mentally processed. That is what I mean when I said in my first post that Hegel seems to prioritize the mental. (It is dialectical so again, I think such prioiritzations are not what it is about, but even so, from the very section you cited you may argue that Hegel prioritzes the mental over the material).

We are done. — Jackson

Proof is right I think Jackson, ultimately Hegel holds that what we can consider as 'world' is ideal. You are right in a way too though (in true dialectical form :wink: ) because of the caricature that is often made of idealism, as if it would mean that things are somehow unreal. That is not what it means in Hegel's quote above though.. What it means is that our metaphysical beliefs, the core of what we hold to be our world, is inescapably a thought construction, dependent on the concepts we have of it, the manifold of relationships to which we stand towards it. If there is anything real, he says, anything that is infinite, it is that we perceive the world in a mediated way, mediated by the elaborate theories, constructions, normative determinations, we have of it. So philosophy has to be idealist because it examines the concepts by which we think of the world, not the world as it is in its materiality, that will be the domain of physics or other sciences.

What he does here is play Kant, but making Kan historical, showing that the mediating concepts do not come out of nowhere but are historically constructed. The process of its construction can be discerned, that is the dialectic. So Hegel is an idealist, just not one taken in the everyday hack interpretation of idealism, as if the world is not real. That is something entirely different.

The Pheno serves as a pre-study to the logic. what appears in the Phenomenology? Spirit. What is spirit, I think it is rationality perceiving (or experiencing) itself. What it perceives is the way it relates to the world, namely in a dialectical fashion. When we know that, we can begin to examine the concepts proper. That is done in the 'Logik'. In the Pheno he shows that we cannot make sense of experience other than dialectically. That is a necessary beginning for metaphysics which is the object in the Logik.

At least that is how I conceive of it.

In this conception, Hegel as the progenitor of the mediating concept, grasped in its historicity, makes him a forerunner of social constructivism, discourse theory and those branches of thought that feel that instead of the real, we need to study they way it comes to be perceived as real.

Marx wrongly thought Hegel was an idealist, but nonetheless used his concept of necessary contradictions in history. Thus, capitalism had contradictions that would lead to socialism. — Jackson

I’m interested in learning more about this subject and the different interpretations people have of it. Is it pure sophistry or does it contain some truth? I understand that this is probably a controversial subject. I’m not really an expert when it comes to materialist dialectics so I won’t try to offer a defense of any political doctrine or function as some sort of apologist for different historical figures. — Average

Hegel was an idealist in the sense that Hegel's though essentially deals with the conceptual and the conceptual apparatus we have of the world essentially determines what happens to it. It is complicated though because in the Phenomenology of Spirit, the idea moves because of the subject an his worldly praxis. However Hegel is at least widely perceived to put the ideational before the practical. Anyway, He does give a lot of credit to our theoretical determination of the world.

The idea moves in a certain way, it moves dialectically, meaning that a certain theory or worldview runs into contradictions and will engender opposition, leading to a new theory which manages to make sense of this earlier contradiction.

Marx puts Hegel on his head or radicalizes Hegel, depending one the way you look at it. In any case Marx is adamant in saying that economic relations of power determine our worldview. He does keep the dialectical movement though in the sense that he thinks economic power relations tend to engender opposition as well, just like Hegel assumed with ideas and theory. A certain distribution will be 'negated', by this opposition who will fight for a different division of economic power. whereas in Hegel the clash is ideal, one concept being contested by another, in Marx it is practical, so, revolutionary.

It is therefore incorrect to say dia-mat is a political doctrine, it is more of a view of the world. It is a theory, actually, a certain model of the way the world could work.

As a physicist, I can say something about it. — Hillary

I am sure you can actually, in the whole post you did :smile: The funny thing is I have no idea whether it is correct or even what you are saying. That is by no means a fault of yours, just that understanding the whole language of physics requires a proper initiation and study. It is like that with many subjects of course, including philosophy actually, although it might be less specialized than theoretical physics. Like jgill I thank you too for the summary, I can just not make any constructive comments as I still do not know what it is about. I do thank you for taking your time and comments on the paper. @jgill maybe I misunderstood, I thought you gave him as an example of someone providing a really spectacular new theory out of nowhere.

Really? Come on why not? Free will is a topic that interests me also a lot and some science data about that debate I found them extremely interesting (especially neurologist data). Enlightening? Hmm.. Maybe not much indeed. But some things science says about it are really interesting and fascinating. — dimosthenis9

I am not saying they are not interesting or fascinating, or enlightening. I did not find what I was looking, but maybe we were looking for different things :) I by no means would wish to discredit neurology or anything.

Well his style didn't seem insulting here. At least to me. But since you mention the "independent thinker" I guess you are talking about his other thread also, which as to be honest didn't follow it as to see the way he expressed there.
He seems like a honest debater, who seeks answers. But as I mentioned didn't read his other thread as to have a general opinion. — dimosthenis9

Well yeah, maybe I am biased by the other thread. If he is an honest debater he will take it to heart, present his thesis better and with less bravado than in the other thread. Everyone who is an honest debater will get an honest response... :)

Well I don't like to pretend like Robin Hood of TPF who defend others but I guess he reminded me of myself when I first arrived here.
I was also really surprised how offending some members were and how insulting also. Couldn't use any arguments at all but only clever-ish lines and insults. And I remember thinking "wtf?! If I wanted these kind of shit I would have make a fb or twitter account!". — dimosthenis9

Yeah, and that is why I liked you standing up for him. We all need defenders, this time I am playing the role of the role of the prosecutor but I value a good defense. You did stay on though... what made you stay even if you felt you were being treated harshly or unfairly?

I have read other posts of you in various threads and your opinions are really interesting. Neither you seem like the person who would play the "wise teacher" role who has all the answers(like some other members do). So I was kind of surprised that you came so harsh on him. But well I don't know, if he did used that "me, me, me" tone in the other thread, it is annoying indeed. — dimosthenis9

The 'me me me' was an inference of mine and maybe unfair, that is possible, though I am not sure yet. I do think that a bit of tough love cannot harm. In Dutch we have a figure of speech, he who hits the ball should expect it to come back. I do not have anything personal against Skalidris. I do not have all the answers... I usually do pounce upon the people that claim they do... Eventually Skalidris will go back, reformulate, rework and resubmit and he will become stronger. I am against using velvet gloves, but you and he should rest assured this is nothing personal. A truly wise person sees the wisdom in the ideas of others, only then might he supersede them.

Here is An Example on this very forum. — jgill

I am curious how did things turn out with him? I googled him and could not find much. I found a site in which he was quoted and it was said that he attracted praise from a noteworthy prof. It also said that the article was retracted... Also some connection to a company called bioresolve...

I could not make much out of it exactly, but I am genuinely curious. It would not surprise me though if he was a really great (or good) mind. That has to do with his style on the forum. He provides an abstract and adds that it has been rewritten after some discussions with people on this forum, giving credit where it is due. He asks for feedback and discussion, which is good form. Compare that with some others here who just say: "everyone should work as they do in physics!" or: "I am a genius, I really really am! And Newton? Pha! no genius at all!". When I read such phrases I know I am not dealing with someone who is 'compos mentis'. About the content of Alexandre's article I cannot say anything as the mathematics and physics are over my head.

I think his general point is that philosophy should have as a general starting point science facts.
Of course science doesn't have all the answers for everything. But we should have huge respect to it . And it is the best "method" we have as humans to verify these "answers". — dimosthenis9

I like your post Demosthenis and that you stand up for Skalidris. I think on the face of it there would be a lot of disagreement between us, on the forum. However, in principle we agree on many things. I would not say "philosophy should have as its starting point scientific facts" as some of the philosophical questions on what criteria could something count as a fact, how are facts isolated from other facts, what does it mean for something to be a fact etc. I come from a continental tradition and you seem much ore analytical to me, though I could be wrong of course. The only thing on which I read both science and philosophy is the debate on free will. I did not find the scientific stuff very interesting or enlightening, but do love P.F. Strawson's article, even though I disagree with him on some accounts. (I do read a lot of social science though, but in this thread science seems equivocated with natural science).

However on many of the basic premises we would agree. Of course a philosopher should take science into account. There is no better way to explain the workings of the world than those discovered by science. For instance take 'behavioural economics'. If we would like to ask whether it is right to nudge people, an ethical question, we need to know how nudging works. We need to know the behaviorist model underlying it. So in our basic premises, should we rely on science to tell us how the world works, yes absolutely. Should we have great respect for it, a resounding yes!

The reason I am harsh on Skalidris is that his point is rather trivial, in your translation I tend to agree with it as well to a large extent, but the style in which it is presented is insulting. 'All these philo profs have gotten it all wrong, they are not wise, instead we should be 'independent thinker' (essentially like me! me! me!). Indeed, you just arrived here so blow a little less hard! I feel it is an insult to people who have learned a great deal more than he did. This is just my explanation for my own behaviour, that said I really do appreciate you defending him.

Again, can you please read my OP? I said science based: chemistry, biology and physics. — Skalidris

No you said scientific based concepts and you provided those three as an example. Little did I know you think there are only three sciences in the world.

I read your OP. You are asking everyone to read your OP and accusing them of not reading well. when your readers do not know what you are on about, probably the writing sucks.

You didn't understand what I meant, and I don't think you want to. — Skalidris

I do not think you yourself understand what you mean and I do not think you are able to.

Well that's what philosophy of science does, not everything in philosophy is about that. — Skalidris

No, philosophy of science philosophically investigates the concepts through which science works, it examines the methodology of science, it examines perhaps how scientific theories emerge, but it does not use scientific concepts to examine themselves.

Not many. Newton, Galilei, Einstein, Bohr, Bohm, Smolin, Strominger, etc. to name a few all worked quite independently and were trendsetters. — Hillary

Yes and what are the odds that we see Hillary up there? You know how many physicists there are in the world who dream of one day becoming Newton?

Besides the syntactically wrong sentence, your assessment is wrong. How do you know? Statistics? Don't make me laugh... — Hillary

I really do not need statistics for that assessment. Reading your posts is enough.

"Dear mother of gods..." And your reading comprehension, I gave an example and took it from there. This is not necessarily my opinion.

No, I want to create something else that is restricted to scientific theories as the basis of the reasoning, not the scientific method. Did everyone miss the part where I said I don't want to replace philosophy? That I'm only comparing the topics these two would have in common? — Skalidris

You want to create 'big pictures' based on scientific theory. Well go ahead study cultural sociology, or macro economics or big history. They are already there as branches of the sciences. You think philosophy comes up with 'big pictures', but only some philosophy like some science does so. And even those do not improve with the use of 'scientific theories'. Philosophy examines the building blocks of such theories for instance their conceptual aparatus and the paradigm in which they are articulated and how their claims to truth are assessed. Why would you want to use the object of enquiry to examine the object of enquiry? Seems very circular.

And let's say those philosophies that do offer big systems of thought, like Hegel's, The emergence of science is a moment in men's becoming self aware. That can never be refuted or proven by scientific theory, the picture is actually too big.

Look what I found on Quora. An excerpt:

If you mean someone who will come up with a revolutionary theory, I am not sure there will be one. The first requirement is NOT to work in a large group. Large groups need funding, and funding does not go to people playing in left field, and worse, large groups require group think.

A telltale...(is that the right expression?) — Hillary

How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do?
If I count the odds than my assessment is that you dream of coming up with one but will not do so. What indications do you have for thinking you will come up with a revolutionary theory? If you use Quora as a source I have even less high hopes.

It could be that the sixth realized the hallucination. I feel like the sixth. — Hillary

yes but how likely is it really that you are? That is what you have to wonder about. You might feel like A, but if you hear B all the time, you might be B, no?

That depends on the people involved. — Hillary

Seems odd....Some people are more prone to hallucination than others, sure, but the chance of having 5 prone is smaller than one prone.

I think you do understand this rather simple logic, but you do not want to. You do not want to because that would involve critical self reflection and you would have to face the possibility that you yourself might be hallucinating. You do not want to face that possibility just yet. You will though, in time.

Yes, it is possible, but so can some individual be hallucinating. What is more likely, 5 knowledgeable people hallucinating altogether or 1?

The point is, that these exactly could be wrong. — Hillary

They could be. But because they went through rigorous peer review the chance is lower than your average garden variety theory thought up by whoever.

so that the bases of the discipline are experiments, which, in my opinion, is a more objective window to the world than any other tools. The first consequence of this is that it would exclude a lot of topics that can’t be related to sciences with logic. For example, there is no concept in sciences which can help discuss the existence of God, so this matter would be ignored, and maybe left out for philosophy. It would question things like the human behaviour in a broader picture than psychology, the mind, life, the nature of ethics, space, infinity, logic, … — Skalidris

The interesting thing is that in the previous thread you argued for the independent thinker. However here, what you really seem to want is to limit philosophy to the scientific method, restricting the independency of philosophy. You want to do that because in your view the experimental method yields more'objective' insights. You implicitly value third person description higher. However, we might well lose some registers of thought when we embrace this approach. Thinking through such implications is a matter of philosophical enquiry. Such an implicit value judgment has also ethical implications because the scientific method is not neutral. When we elevate its findings to the level of truth beyond what experiments actually prove, but base our 'bigger picture' on it you reduce the world to that which can be experimentally understood in a laboratory setting. You also neglect the fact that such a jump requires a lot of interpretation but how that is done remains unclear.

Your plea for independence in fact comes down to a plea for reductionism and dependence, limiting rather than expanding our avenues of thought. It does not come as a surprise because such absolutist proposals when thought through tend to revert into their opposite. I recommend the dialectical philosophical method ;).

In summary you just said "I don't know how to respond but your opinion is wrong and I've got better things to do", thanks, very useful... We can feel the years of practice in the art of rhetoric here! — Skalidris

I have given you all I could give. Indeed I do not know how to respond to you. You have an opinion, an unwavering one, so what can I do?

You missed my whole point where I say I don't do philosophy, don't want to and never will, at least not as you define it, and not as it is defined in academia. — Skalidris

You indeed do not and will never do. You will be a philosopher of your own definition in the depth of your thoughts, speaking to yourself in your own private language.

There you go, I never tried to be good in philosophy. — Skalidris

Which you have made abundantly clear here.

Again, hey I don't want to follow the rules of philosophy, that's the whole point of the topic of the independent thinking. This whole questioning was about if we could come up with a better way to think about abstract topics.

You and Tobias seem to be so obsessed with philosophy and aren't able to see other possibilities that it starts to look like a religion. — Skalidris

And you have given us nothing.... You are talking about rules you do not want to follow, but do not tell us what they are except that silly philo profs follow them. You want to break a lance for independent thought, but you have given us no original argument whatsoever. You want a better way of thinking about abstract topics, but have given us no example of such a better way.

Now you accuse me and Jackson of being obsessed with philosophy and not seeing other possibilities, treating it like a religion, however where did I tell you what to do? I have taken your claims to task and gave you a chance to expand on your thoughts and display your alternative. You have only muttered something about that there should be experiments.

And before there was a community, there must have been one or several person having the same idea and then gather together. I never said the independent mind wouldn't try to find like-minded people to create a community. But if the whole method of the previous discipline is trash, yes, the independent mind alone beats the whole community in my opinion. — Skalidris

In your wonderful, unreasoned, unsubstantiated, detached from the world, entirely independently found opinion. Well, since it is unwavering I wonder why you asked in the first place. I will now go do some serious work and leave you with your opinion.

Okay good, then why not try to create an actual method? :p Why not try to produce actual knowledge? Why would we have a discipline in academia that's "slapdash"? — Skalidris

Because there will not be one method to rule them all. It depends on the questions asked. Indeed also methods are a result of communal thinking and not one guy on a philosophyforum. That philosophy does not have sharply delineated methods might be problematic or it may not be. There is discussion about it in the community of philosophers.

And I would add it needs to be based on experiments to some extend, if possible, but that's just my rational/scientific side speaking. — Skalidris

Ohh golly the man thinks we should do experiments. Well I better pack up and go then since I am a discourse analyst. Well Hillary now you see what happens when somebody who thinks he is a scientist does philosophy. It leads to unsubstantiated spouting of opinion...

Um what? I don't even know how to answer to that, you're basically saying the strongest minds are in the past and not in the future, how does that even make sense? Why couldn't there be someone with a stronger mind (whatever that means)? — Skalidris

No I am telling you they work in unison, probably in a network of equally strong minds, probably now attending a serious philosophy conference.

Because it's been shown many times in history. A scientific mind could challenge the logic of the whole ecclesiastic community. — Skalidris

They had the power of a whole scientific community behind them. The Ptolemaic cosmology was basically archaic.

This has nothing to do with the question at hand.

What... Okay try and say that to a philosopher that's been publishing in academia for a long time. There is literally a course about the philosophical method in the bachelor of philosophy... — Skalidris

Well, there are different philosophical methods, or better, standards on how to write a philosophy article as @Jackson pointed out. One can for instance employ discourse analysis, or phenomenology, or an analytic kind of logic chopping to a certain philosophical problem. I am not saying there is no methodology whatsoever, I am saying that there is not one methodology. Indeed methods wise, philosophy is rather slapdash compared to the sciences.

Okay then anyone who's thinking about a philosophical topic is a philosopher... Yeah don't think so. — Skalidris

No, you do it with a certain rigor an you place yourself within a certain philosophical debate. You elucidate your terms, you examine the presuppositions held in the debate and scrutinize them. None of that can be done when you are not well versed in the subject. I have never heard of 'the philosophic method' but that does not mean anything goes. Presenting a false dilemma... so unphilosophical.

Let us say someone has been reading Hume's Treatise on his own for a month. He presents his ideas to another philosopher and is told Hume rejects that interpretation on page 126. So a month wasted. — Jackson

Indeed!

Every philosophy is one's own. — Hillary

Huh? You are confusing 'a philosophy', a popular, but meaningless usage of the term, with 'philosophy', a certain discipline relating to questioning fundamental assumptions about the way the world is again.

There is no independent true philosophy hanging around somewhere with objective standards of what good philosophy is. — Hillary

No, there is not, but you are aware that this sentence is not related to the one just before it are you?

The fact that you're hopelessly confused that philosophy is about arguing makes this seriously clear. — Hillary

You sentence does not even make sense syntactically. Anyhow, no I do not think philosophy is about arguing. I do think that philosophers should present their ideas an open them up to criticism. Though you are by all means free not to and keep it as 'your philosophy'. Bandying it about on a phil forum is maybe not such a good idea... but hey, suit yourself.

That depends on the chemistry. If she points at the chemistry of patterns in spike potentials and the chemistry involve in firing motor neurons, their relation and the chemistry of motion and perception, added with the chemistry of emotions, memory trails, and the happenings in a mushroomed brain, she wins. — Hillary

Wins what? A philosophical argument? Not at all. This just shows you are pretty hopeless at philosophy.

Every physicist has his/her (unconscious) philosophy on nature. — Hillary

Philosophy is different from the currently popular but vapid 'having my own philosophy'. It is just a fancy word for 'opinion' in this case.

But it wouldn't be the same discipline... And if they spent all their time thinking about a problematic, I don't see how they would have less practice, it just wouldn't be the same practice, but still about the same topic. This is why my question was "would they be wiser", and not "would they be better in philosophy"... Do you honestly think there is only one way to discuss these topics that are discussed in philosophy? And that the method in academia is the best way? If so, maybe tell me why you think it is so good, and why you think we could not come up with a better way. — Skalidris

Philosophy structures thinking. When they start doing philosophy they will do it philosophically. Philosophy also does not have one methodology, generally it refers to asking questions. Would they be wiser? Why would they? Just because someone starts from a different discipline?

We cannot come up with a better way because minds stronger than ours have. Why do you think one loner has the brainpower to challenge a whole community? Besides, the philosophic method' does not exist. If I see what they generally have in common is that they challenge presuppositions and assumptions and they make some logical or dialectical deductions. If a scientist would start asking philosopical questions he would be doing philosophy as philosophy is mostly defined by the questions asked than by the method employed.

But who do you have to question the most in order to be critical? Yourself... — Skalidris

No, you question others and open yourself up to questions by others, otherwise it is just navel staring.

Yes, I agree, but you don't need philosophy for that. — Skalidris

Nor did I say you did, what I dispute is the proficiency of the independent thinker...

I'm asking your opinion, not your prediction. Why would it be bollocks? — Skalidris

Well, in my opinion they would probably produce less good philosophy. They have at their disposal the philosophical works, but not the training in philosophy. That is not to say that they will invariably produce bollocks. Many of those scientists are very intelligent people and might well produce worthwhile philosophy. As good as well known philosophers? Probably not because they simply lack practice in the field.

Okay, how about philosophy of mind and metaphysics? Better? The way you name it doesn't matter, a lot of philosophers studied the human behaviour (Nietzsche for example). But yes, using these terms, I already made other categories that suggest a broader understanding of the world. I basically mean any topic that can be discussed in philosophy with the philosophical method. And to me, human behaviour can, and it wouldn't be the same as in psychology. — Skalidris

I do not think Nietzsche studied human behaviour but that is beside the point, agreed. Ok, metaphysics. Well what would happen if someone well versed in metaphysics would write her thoughts on a metaphysical subject, let's say the problem of (personal) identity and compare it with someone versed in chemisty but not metaphysics. Well, my bet is that the person versed in metaphysics will write something more interesting than the chemist. She will just give me a lot of chemistry stuff.

Does that mean no one should start doing it? — Skalidris

Of course you can if one needs a hobby. However what comes out of it in terms of things interesting and novel to read is probably little. They will get the science wrong, or the philosophy, or the practical side of things.

But yes you said it, no scientists are skilled to be philosophers if they haven't studied it, that's exactly my point, they would then be independent from it. But does that mean they can't discuss abstract concepts that are also discussed in philosophy? Does that mean they can't be critical? Do you think you can't learn to be critical by yourself? — Skalidris

They can, but they would have a much harder time of it. Indeed I think you cannot learn to be critical by yourself. I think it is much more fruitful to be critical in discussions with others, with whom you can spar and grapple an who will take down your argument. You can learn how to play soccer by yourself but it is much better and easier to learn while playing soccer with others.

No, no, I'm not saying they aren't wise. Maybe I did not understand what you meant in your previous post, but I was just specifying that you can do science without philosophy, except if you take a very vague definition of philosophy, which could basically mean that everyone is a philosopher. — Skalidris

No. The fact that you can do science without philosophy does not imply that everyone is a philosopher. How does that argument run? Maybe we are talking past each other now...

Your question was who would be wiser, the independent thinker or the philosopher. I am not saying that one needs philosophy to do science... You can do it very well without doing philosophy, though it might help if you have learned a thing or two about it, but the other way around is equally true.... What I do contend it that being 'independent' is no advantage, not for doing science neither for philosophy.

I have no idea why he didn't. I have no idea about physics, so what you say here is right over my head. The question whether Einstein did everything by himself is a biographical question. That can be answered in principle by me, but I simply do not know. There are geniuses, maybe he was one, but my hunch is that you will find many contact points with other intellectuals. Or, he is one of those exceedingly rare exceptions which indeed do exist, but their existence is no reason to extrapolate from this a rule saying that 'independent thinkers' (whatever those may be) are wiser (whatever that might mean) than academic philosophers.