Interesting proposals and points, but all of them are mainly focused on national issues and how to convince American working-class families.

I wonder if foreign policy is relevant to those eventual voters and motivates them to vote for one or the other. — javi2541997

That's a good point. I didn't mention it because I'm not sure any foreign policy position would have much impact on an election here.

Palestine's sovereignty. I guess Democrats are pro-Palestine, but I don't know if it is an important matter amongst the voters — javi2541997

I think Palestinian sovereignty is the right thing, but it is a fraught issue here in the US and it's not clear to me who it helps. Both Jewish and Arabic voters tend to vote Democratic. One or the other is going to be pissed off no matter what you do.

European Union. Democrats see us as friends or pals, at least. Republicans are clearly against us, and they flirt with Russia. Maybe it could motivate the voters that their leader prefers European values—we are not perfect. I know. I know.—rather than Putin's old-school hating style of everything and everyone. — javi2541997

I'm sure Putin is happy with the election. Trump has made his lack of support for Europe and NATO clear. Again, I don't think this would be a major factor in whom Americans would vote for.

UK. Republicans seem to flirt with Brexit and isolating them even more. This is a terrible idea, and the Western world should be united, not chopped into chunks. A person who believes in a united world should vote Democrat. — javi2541997

I think both Democrats and Republicans are moving in an isolationist direction, probably Trump more than Biden. An example - Biden's policy focusing on manufacturing jobs here in the US. All and all, I think globalization has been bad for American workers, but, again, I'm not sure who is helped or hurt politically.

But there would be a notable improvement in the quality of search results. — Banno

I certainly recognize that philosophers attempt to address everything and anything that was, is, will be, actually or potentially, in reality and in illusion, for all persons and other things, be they mindless or omniscient Gods or somethings else; and philosophy incorporates logic (math and language), poetry (aphorism), fiction (thought experiments), physical objects and theoretical impossibilities, and more in order to do its work. — Fire Ologist

This is a good summary. I think I’ll save it and use it in all the various future discussions of what philosophy is. Don’t worry I’ll give you credit when I do.

This would be a good OP idea. Philosophy as practice, and perhaps praxis. When I try to explain to friends why I do phil., I usually wind up talking in those terms, but not with much clarity. — J

I have put this idea out there in previous discussions. The way I phrased it is that philosophy is a way of becoming more self-aware about how we think, how our minds work. I've never gotten much of a response to the idea. I'd be interested in a discussion, but I doubt many people would participate constructively. I think it would just devolve into another "what is philosophy" thread.

But philosophy, as also zen, is a practiced discipline, a way of looking, more than a theory in a book. — unenlightened

Funny you should mention that. After I wrote the post you responded to, I realized that what philosophy is for me is a practice, like meditation or exercise. — T Clark

I'm surprised how hard thinking about philosophy as a practice, my practice, has struck me. I've been dancing around the idea for a while, but I never put it in those words. It changes things, makes it more three dimensional.

A shame. I was hoping that it would be something to do with the software thinking "A -> not-A, A, ⊨ not-A" invalid. — Banno

If the search function started refusing to process low quality philosophy, most of us here on the forum would be in trouble. Not you and me of course.

I'm not expecting an answer. — Banno

I would expect it is the Coriolis force. The program was probably written in the northern hemisphere.

Hey carful there, we are in danger of reaching an understanding if not Gob forbid, agreement! — unenlightened

I'm sure we must have agreed on something in the past 7 years.

No. No it isn't. It is a speculative slur, at this point. Bob is right. — AmadeusD

Alas, if only denial made it true. As far as I can tell, you and Bob don’t even care if it is.

But philosophy, as also zen, is a practiced discipline, a way of looking, more than a theory in a book. Burn all the books and start again fresh. That's what we do here at pf, apart from burning all the books. — unenlightened

Funny you should mention that. After I wrote the post you responded to, I realized that what philosophy is for me is a practice, like meditation or exercise.

I started a thread once - "You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher." I had to cajole Jamal to move it out of the Lounge and back to the main page where I'd originally placed it.

A Zen Koan
The Zen master Mu-nan had only one successor. His name was Shoju. — unenlightened

So, am I Mu-nan or Shoiu?

Well, on one view critiques of philosophy along the lines that it is "useless," might be taken as a complement. It is among the few pursuits that is rightfully "pursued for its own sake, making it "higher" in another sense. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don’t find philosophy useless at all. I use it all the time.

Are you saying that that evidence, that I expounded, is enough to convict someone of sexual assault??? — Bob Ross

I don't know and you don't know whether he would have been convicted. You didn't "expound" any evidence at all. You just waved around vague allegations. Did you read anything about the trial outside of the NY Post? Fact is, you don't care whether or not he did it. My hypocrisy accusation stands.

I'm done.

The evidence wasn't not very solid: — Bob Ross

I don’t think you have any good reason to say that. Face facts - You support a man who treats women like shit, including sexual assault. The man who’s been chosen to lead this country, the country that is so much better than all the other countries in the world, that is so superior and morally advanced that it should export its values to other, inferior countries.

I don’t generally hold it against people who support Donald Trump, but the hypocrisy here is awful.

I honestly don't think he would get convicted of rape nor sexual abuse in criminal court given that evidence. — Bob Ross

I can't be certain, but I think there was a good chance he would have been convicted. It wasn't taken up as a criminal matter because it happened in the 1990s, if I remember correctly, and the statute of limitations had run out. Let's face facts, calling him a rapist is an accurate description.

I didn't realize he was actually convicted in court, and got off of a rape charge on a technicality. — Bob Ross

Note - it was a civil, not a criminal, court. He wasn't found legally guilty, he was found liable and had to pay money.

Three stages of self - Damasio — Gnomon

Thanks for the link. Note that the figure you provided is not Damasio's, it's one of the other figures from the linked article.

True, and I recanted that claim to Fooloso4: Trump is definitely a sex offender. There's too much evidence to support this for me to overlook. — Bob Ross

Sorry. I missed your change of mind.

my primary argument is against setting philosophy up as some sort of pinnacle of human inquiry. I don't see it as all that special. For me, it is an exercise in self-awareness - more a practice than a study.
— T Clark

This is the question of the first part of the OP, and your answer may well be true. What we want to know, I think, is whether phil.'s lack of specialness is because a) the Q recursion isn't special to phil. at all, or b) this kind of recursive argumentation is indeed merely a gotcha! generated by a type of formalism we can look at and understand. — J

To start, could you run "Q recursion" by me again. I looked at all the examples in this thread and it's still not clear. Are you talking about "This statement is false?" Or, maybe, I like cake and I know I like cake and I know I know I like cake? Or maybe what @Leontiskos has been talking about, e.g. I say "Philosophy requires a conscious mind" and he says "'Philosophy does not require a conscious mind' is a valid philosophical statement."

I love philosophy. I just don't think it should be approached with reverence. At bottom, my understanding of the world is based on my own experience. It's reasonable to call me a pragmatist. My interest in science and my career in engineering have had a big influence on that. Philosophy is meant to be useful. It isn't a game, although it's fun to play. Well, maybe it is a game, but it's a useful game.

The final thing I find interesting about these quoted responses is that they all shy away from the idea that phil. is distinguished by its subject matter. — J

Hmm... I hadn't thought about that. Is philosophy distinguished by its subject matter? I'll have to think about it.

It would help if you could give some concrete examples of highfalutin language in philosophy. — Joshs

I was specifically talking about the language being used in this thread about the nature of philosophy, e.g. "Is philosophy the highest discourse." It's true, I am a fan of ordinary language philosophy (OLP), which, now that I think about it, is sort of a high-falutin way of saying plain, everyday speech. Maybe I'll start a thread "High-falutin philosophical language," but they'd probably put it in the Lounge. By the way, it appears that the correct spelling is "high-falutin," - one "l", although whether it should be a single word, two words, or a hyphenated word is unclear.

Many of my favorite philosophers (Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida) have been accused of writing in an obscurantist style. It has been suggested that this is a deliberate strategy to attract a cult-like following of initiates into what appears to outsiders as a secret society. — Joshs

No, I wasn't thinking about that at all. I do admit I have little patience for unnecessarily difficult language. Supposedly Einstein said that if you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't really understand it. II know that if I can't put an idea in my own words, I don't understand it. Now that I think about it, I don't think the ideas we bounce around in philosophy need to be all that nuanced and subtle. Clearly you don't agree with that.

more precise than the engineering vocabulary associated with your profession. — Joshs

Hey! Don't you dis engineering.

FWIW, this simple diagram is from Research Gate*1, and not directly related to Damasio or Seth. It does show Mind & Body as separate categories (boxes) within the general concept of subjective Self. — Gnomon

I don't know about Seth, but Damasio's model of the self is based on specific anatomical structures and neurological and mental processes. It's not that I think the model you've shown is wrong, but it is not comparable.

By high-fallutin do you mean technically complicated language, such as that used by educated professionals? Or do you mean bullshit masquerading as insight? — Tom Storm

There's no reason it can't be both. In this particular case I think "bullshit masquerading as insight" is probably a bit strong. How about gilding the lily.

"You are presupposing a conscious mind, but I deny a conscious mind." So has this person stopped doing philosophy? Nope, in fact they haven't. The philosophy goes on. — Leontiskos

We're in a circle. We can keep this up all day long with no hope of reaching a conclusion.

The move from philosophical to scientific language is toward a thinner, more conventionalized and less synthetic account of the same or similar phenomena (Nietzsche vs Freud, Merleau-Ponty vs embodied cogntivism). — Joshs

I'm not sure. I'll have to think about that.

I would add that empirical concepts are in their own way ‘high-fallutin’. But what does this mean? — Joshs

As I noted, for me, high-fallutin language grasps for an exalted level of significance, which I reject.

I do take the hard problem seriously, and (unlike T Clark) I would not use either of their accounts to argue against that. Seth says he's interested in the 'real' problem of consciousness, not the hard problem. — GrahamJ

I wasn't presenting Damasio's work as the correct view on consciousness, I was using it as an example of a type of description. I asked

So, how, if at all, does this type of description fit into this discussion? — T Clark

Do you guys prefer to read a lot of books at the same time? Or do you prefer to focus on one, finish it, and then move on to the next. I'm trying to do the latter because it lets me immerse myself a bit more, but I have my moments of weakness! — Jafar

I tend to read fiction one book at a time, but non-fiction; generally science, sometimes philosophy; I often read in episodes. If I really want to read a book that is slow going or takes contemplation, I'll read 20 pages a day and then let it sit while I read other things. That way I'm less likely to get discouraged and it lets my thinking about the book percolate while I'm not paying attention.

To start, before I get more specific, I agree with just about everything you've said. And I'll add this - my primary argument is against setting philosophy up as some sort of pinnacle of human inquiry. I don't see it as all that special. For me, it is an exercise in self-awareness - more a practice than a study.

In my view, philosophy in its most general sense refers to a mode of discourse melding comprehensiveness, unity, and explicitness. — Joshs

I like this. I used to say that metaphysics is the set of phenomenological rules we reason, argue, by. Although I still think that's a good way of thinking about it, most people don't look at it that way, so I've taken a different approach.

So a psychologist can become more philosophical, more ‘meta’, by moving from cognitive psychology to philosophy of mind. Does this mean that philosophy is a branch of psychology? No, because there are many philosophers who define psychology as an empirical discipline, the scientific study of mental phenomena in all its guises and levels of focus ( cognition, emotion, sociality, biological ecology, neuroscience, genetics, etc). — Joshs

I even agree with most of this, all but the "no" part. Yes, I overstated my case for rhetorical purposes by calling philosophy a branch of psychology, but that doesn't mean that isn't a defensible way of looking at it. Maybe you can see from the things I've said - I come at philosophy from a psychological point of view, i.e. why I do it, what I use it for. As I said previously - self-awareness. My discussion with @Leontiskos started when I questioned his statement that philosophy has no presuppositions. At that point, I started thinking about what the underlying assumptions of philosophy might be. The ones I came up with were psychological. The example I used was the assumption, what Collingwood calls an "absolute presupposition," that there is a conscious mind. You can't have philosophy without a conscious mind, which is a psychological entity.

Those philosophers who don’t consider their mode of inquiry as belonging to psychology, who believe that disciplines like philosophy of mind (and writers like Daniel Dennett) ‘psychologize’ philosophy, argue that psychology forces us to confuse the primordial underpinnings of being and existence with the contingent results of a science. They may argue psychological concepts like ‘mental’ , ‘physical’ , ‘value’ and belief’ are confused derivatives of more fundamental truths that no longer belong to psychology, but are instead ontologically prior to it. — Joshs

A couple of thoughts about this. It seems to me that the confusion of primordial underpinnings with science mostly come about by philosophers, including us, who come up with philosophical positions which aren't consistent with what we know from observation, including science. One prime example of this is the whole hard problem of consciousness. Some say that it is a problem that will never, can never, be resolved by a scientific approach. When I describe to them the kind of work psychologists, including cognitive scientists, are doing, they dismiss it out of hand.

Also, you point out that some say "psychological concepts like ‘mental’ , ‘physical’ , ‘value’ and belief’ are confused derivatives of more fundamental truths." I would put it differently. I think I can make the case that philosophical concepts like "truth," "ontology," "objective reality," and "morality," are high-falutin, often confusing, ways of talking about human thinking and experience.

I'll say here at the end what I said at the beginning, my main argument is against the arrogance of holding philosophy up as more important than it is.

You may be right. Would you say he's reductionist wrt consciousness? — frank

He's a cognitive scientist, and he is primarily interested in the neurological and structural aspects of mental processes, including consciousness. I often use him to make my case against the "hard problem." Does that make him a reductionist?

The post you quote does not say what you think it does. — Leontiskos

Pretty lame argument, and irrelevant to my position. We should probably leave it there since we seem to be descending into disagreeableness.

As I noted, psychology is the study of minds.
— T Clark

No, you didn't. And if you want to say something like that then I would ask you what philosophy of mind studies. I don't think your arguments are very clear at all, and part of the proof is that you think you said things that you haven't said. — Leontiskos

Oops.

I think it is reasonable to say that philosophy is the study of thought, beliefs, knowledge, value, which are mental phenomena - the structure and process of the conscious mind. As such, it is a branch of psychology. — T Clark

Also, are you arguing that there is not a philosophy of mind and a psychology of mind? Given my position, why would that be a contradiction?

Solipsism would be but one example of a philosophical position which denies the claim that there are independent minds, and therefore that there is any such thing as the field of psychology. — Leontiskos

As I noted, psychology is the study of minds. You need a mind to think and you need to think to generate a philosophical position such as solipsism. And I didn't say anything about independent minds. I'm serious about my argument, but I can see we'll just go back and forth on this. As far as I can see, philosophy can't step outside the box of psychology.

And to be fair, I don't care a lot about this argument. It just bothers me when people want to claim that philosophy is somehow more than it really is. Philosophy is wonderful, but all it is is thinking about stuff.

Are you saying that philosophy is different because everything is on the table - open to questioning? I'm skeptical of that, but I'll have to think about it more. — T Clark

Yep, pretty much. — Leontiskos

Ok, let's try this out. Back in the OP, @J wrote:

Suppose some surly neo-Freudian interrupts me at the point where I assert that “there’s nowhere else to go.” Nonsense, he says. “I’ll give you a psychological-slash-reductive explanation of why philosophers do what they do, and this explanation will have nothing to do with ‛ideas’ or ‛reasoning,’ and everything to do with culturally determined modes of expression mixed with individual depth psychology.” Ah, but I can reply, “Indeed? And what is your justification for asserting that such an explanation is true?” — J

I didn't say anything at the time, but this argument seems faulty to me. It begs the question. It judges psychology by philosophical standards and finds it lacking, which is irrelevant.

I think it is reasonable to say that philosophy is the study of thought, beliefs, knowledge, value, which are mental phenomena - the structure and process of the conscious mind. As such, it is a branch of psychology. Anything you claim as the province of philosophy can be trumped by a psychological interpretation. The overarching absolute presupposition of philosophy is that there is a mind which is knowable.

unless he's a behaviorist — frank

I don't think there's any way Damasio could be described as a behaviorist. He's about as anti-behaviorist as I can imagine. He explicates what is going on inside the black box of behaviorism.

In philosophy there are no such unallowed criticisms. In philosophy there are no such presuppositions. — Leontiskos

Are you saying that philosophy is different because everything is on the table - open to questioning? I'm skeptical of that, but I'll have to think about it more.

I think Damasio would be across or orthogonal to Davidson, Chalmers, and Wittgenstein. — frank

Do you think Damasio's description is consistent, or possibly consistent, with each of the three views you described in the OP?

Philosophy could be called highest because it is without presuppositions. — Leontiskos

I haven't been participating in this discussion, but I read this and was curious. What exactly do you mean? The philosophical definitions of "presupposition" I find use as an example something fairly trivial like this - The question "Have you seen John's new car" has the presupposition that John has a new car. In "An Essay on Metaphysics" Collingwood says that for every question there is at least one presupposition. Collingwood also talks about "absolute presuppositions" which are the underlying, often unrecognized, assumptions that are the foundation of a way of looking at the world. Is this what you're talking about?

If so, I still don't understand how this is applicable to philosophy.

No Man Is an Island

No man is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.

Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee. — John Donne

Because I am involved in mankind.

The rest of the text is written by me. — javi2541997

I've said this before - I'm glad you are posting more of your own writings here.

This is hilarious; outstanding; comical and funny. — javi2541997

Where is this from? I have never heard the phrase "Spanish practices" before.

We are far apart; it is indeed a miracle when two men of distinct schools of thought join to kindle under the fire of a united friendship. Friendship is divine, but it necessitates a spirit to eliminate distance. — Abdul

I said in my previous post that I'd come back reread you post. It took me a while, but here I am.

The sentiment expressed in the text from your post I quoted is common, but I've never understood it. I feel like I am swimming in a sea filled with other people swimming and I'm at home there. I don't feel the separation you describe. What that tells me is that whatever isolation there is is in the isolated person. It's unnecessary. It's not part of our human nature.