Yes, so each individual decides what has value for their life and its limits. — Janus

Society, that accounts for your individual quality, plays a part in the overall calculation of value. This is how we avoid pure egoism/subjectivity, but there is a level at which this breaks down... a horizon we are fast approaching.

They are simply different approaches to different subjects. There is no absolute measure of value by which they could be compared. — Janus

Your life and its limits, this is both the criteria and the measure.

That's hilarious. The Left always think Trump is going down. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if he won the election.

Hmmm. What is it you think you are doing here? — Banno

What exactly do you mean by "it" and "think?"

Not much point in this, is there. — Banno

Are you asking the question, stating your opinion, claiming to "assure" of a fact?

If there is no point, then why make the claim of assurance? Why give your opinion that you struggle to comprehend ("incomprehensible")?

You mentioned something about "not claiming" and truth existence, beyond this, an ability that you possess to impart assurance regarding the non-claims of another. I would like to know how this works?

Much of what is on this thread is incomprehensible. — Banno

But what then is comprehensible? Does one perceive it thus or does one make it so? Is what is comprehensible, "fully" comprehensible, or merely a characterization of what is comprehensible?

I assure you that Davidson is not claiming that truth does not exist. — Banno

How do you impart this assurance? In what sense do you assure? In what sense is Davidson not claiming, partially or fully? I suspect you must be speaking of an "obvious fact?"

"Is it certain that to the word communication corresponds a concept that is
unique, univocal, rigorously controllable, and transmittable: in a word, communicable?
Thus, in accordance with a strange figure of discourse, one must first of
all ask oneself whether or not the word or signifier "communication" communicates
a determinate content, an identifiable meaning, or a describable value." Derrida, Limited Inc

This Derrida did not start, but he presses deep into the game. In the analytical form the absolute is repeatedly smuggled in to shore up the authority of the critique. Nevertheless, how can the critique defend itself from this same shadow? Here is a problem you often create (unconsciously no doubt) and find yourself perplexed by as you proceed deeper into the analysis from this very premise, but never seem to identify, because identity in this sense does something to the game. What shall we do with it? Pretense against this negation seems to be the answer, which can only mean, that pretense against the form itself cannot be condemned. Do you not comprehend that this is a psychological preference, as opposed to a logical calculation?

Saying that someone has to remain in your life otherwise they are selfish implies that you believe others have a duty to suffer much to prevent relatively little suffering on your part which is the epitome of selfishness as far as I'm concerned. — khaled

Stated clearly. This is the other side of the coin which is never perceived.

Davidson's project failed. — creativesoul

Where has philosophy then succeeded?

that character is higher than intellect. — Antony Nickles

This is assuredly true because knowledge must be governed by something. Adorno was confronted with this question, the question of the meaning and purpose of philosophy, and he answered it better than anyone has ever answered it. He said the point of thought (and I am here paraphrasing his position, drawing it out to its broadest conclusion) was to assert itself into the social sphere to prevent atrocities from afflicting the species. This is also why Adorno rightly claimed that the horror of Auschwitz could never be embellished too much. Think about this, really pause for a moment and think about it.

Why would Adorno say this? Because he knew it was a good way to prevent it from reoccurring, a conditioning against violence. Philosophy is the opposite of physical force, and as such, in order to insure its own valuable being in the world, in order to prevent that which causes so much regression in the species, it is necessary for philosophy to ascent to responsibility. In so doing it must seek to protect the foundations that enable it to exist, it must seek to expand these foundations to the farthest reaches of the species.

There is a point to philosophy and it is not abstraction for the sake of abstraction, those who venture thus fail to comprehend the tool of thought as well as the context in which they exist.

Strong points, hopefully this populist experiment in political anger is about to come to its end, and hopefully it will take the entire Republican party down with it. These have been brutal American years, full of suffering for so many people.

I do not believe that the spineless Republicans are willing to continue feigning support of Trump if he loses by a wide margin. Rather, I suspect that there are many who would be more than willing to abandon his ship as it's sinking. — creativesoul

I hope this analysis is correct. Lots of emotional people ready to pounce, they want a fight so they can express and therefore relieve some of their anger. The story will be that Trump lost because of the most massive voter fraud in history, therefore he didn't really lose, and must stand up against this fraud to save American democracy. This is how narcissists roll.

I would suggest a philosophical experiment to bring an end to this thread. Let us contrast this paper of Davidson with these aphorisms by Gracian. It is important to note that Gracian represents all the things Analytical Philosophers have railed against on this thread, generality and a lack of logical rigor applied to grammatical and linguistic structures. Gracian tries to impart wisdom with words, Davidson tries to criticize the structure of words. I am making a revolutionary claim, that humans are wasting their lives and energy on sophistical forms, and that these forms are not needed to obtain knowledge or achieve quality in life. In fact, these forms often serve to detract from both knowledge and quality. What I find most interesting is the objector who wants to claim that this appraoch is invalid, 'that this is not a proper way to approach the subject of knowledge or value.' And yet, here we are doing it, here we are contrasting two forms, here we are deriving imparted knowledge from Gracian's form. The question is why should one give their life over to Davidson's form, why can't one just proceed along the path of Gracian?

What I am most interested to hear from readers is what they got out of reading Davidson contrasted with Gracian? What specific value did you derive from Davidson? What specific value did you derive from Gracian? Did you think Davidson's paper was a waste of time, did you think Gracian's aphorisms were a waste of time? Would you read Davidson's paper again, would you read Gracian's aphorisms again? Do you want to read more of Davidson, do you want to read more of Gracian?

I suppose there are those who will claim that the issue of value cannot be settled this way, in one sense I admit they are correct, because value cannot always be immediately perceived, in another sense they are wrong, because life is short and it must choose between forms, and one of the ways it must do this is in terms of relevance.

We have a major problem here in American. 1) Trump will not accept loss. 2) The Republicans will join him in this stance. 3) The Justice Department will back this any way it can. 4) His storm troopers will rush into the streets with their guns to protest. Maybe someone can add more to this grim picture?

So you've not read a word of e.g. Peirce, Popper, Quine, Sellars or Wittgenstein? Or understood them. — 180 Proof

Not sure why you assume that only those who agree with these thinkers would have been the one's to comprehend them? I have had this fallacious argument served to me many times by theists. But further, this is just another red herring. The conversation here is not a comparison of reading lists, this thread is about the social value of Analytical Philosophy.

So e.g. 'modal logic' and 'reflective equilibrium' and 'nonreductive physicalism' ... are instances of "mere subjectivity"? — 180 Proof

This is a red herring. The counter of subjectivity arises from the claim that one cannot define "importance," that the idea of value is entirely subjective, and hence the argument against the Analytical position fails. This is what I'm countering, the claim that philosophy is merely a preference and that one cannot ask the question of its value. You will not find me here discussing the objectivity of modal logic, reflective equilibrium or nonreductive physicalism. You are free to make any case you wish.

But as I think you agree, this question should not be considered transactionally, but in the wider context of the value of learning. — SophistiCat

There are already fields in the social sciences that do this much better than philosophy. If you are here rehashing the argument that has already been attempted, that is, Analytical Philosophy imparts the ability to think. I have already raised valid objections to this claim, critical thinking does this much more efficiently. Further, thought in and of itself doesn't contain value, just like physical strength in and of itself doesn't contain value, it is only when the strong man puts his strength to some social use that it obtains value beyond subjectivity. One can make a strong machine only to let it rot in rust. As for my argument against subjectivity I have addressed it here:

'My claim is that philosophers have to do better than mere subjectivity, otherwise their entire program turns to dust. If one is just playing an aesthetic game, and they claim that's what it is, then they have already refuted themselves. There is no valid request for a formal refutation or argument after this, one can simply dismiss it on hedonistic terms. One can even characterize it however they want, as long as it brings value to them.'

But I want to stress that value here does not have to be a measurable material value. — SophistiCat

What? How did you arrive at this rule? Who allowed you to make it?

Philosophy is negation pure and simple, the value it has to offer comes through this negation. Philosophy can do no better than to strike out against its own irrelevance and abstraction for the sake of negating itself in order to hammer itself back in the direction of being. Philosophy must regulate itself if it would ever achieve the status of intelligence.

I think it would be worth the time to have a listen: In Defense of the Polemicist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsvKyCvCBi8

It's been reported to me that JerseyFlight has been harassing other posters with PMs. If you've been on the receiving end of one of these, kindly let me know. — StreetlightX

I like to keep these kind of things private, only because they don't belong on the threads, but you have accused me here in public, no doubt, because you could not make your case and are exceedingly annoyed that I got the best of Banno, so much so that you deleted our exchange and threatened to ban me if I posted on the Davidson thread again. Is this what philosophical objectivity looks like? Is this what psychological maturity looks like? This is what dogmatism and elitism look like, it is the way of tyranny to censor. And it is exactly what happens when you challenge the people who claim to be "the adults in the room." Strange, all you Analytical advocates stand here denying the very elitism in which your community exists, and by which you proceed.

By "harassment" you are referring to my my letter to Philosophim, here it is in its entirety:

I have not quite figured out how to deal with your own special brand of moral authoritarianism. I give you credit in that it's exceedingly effective, but out of all the people I have discoursed with on this thread you are to me the most loathsome and underhanded. You do not seek to make progress through reason, but through negative characterizations, your ad hominems (and that's what they are) are so subtly put together that they come across as a form of intelligence, and yet they are totally lacking in rational engagement. It is good for me to [be] subjected to them, though I do not like them, because it forces me to figure out how to deal with them. I have met many theists whose entire polemical program is exactly what you repeatedly practice on this thread. I find it contemptible and believe I will figure it out. There is only power in being a one-trick-pony if the trick continues to work.

I think I know what lies behind it, I could be wrong, but I have a theory. Do you like pornography?

If I had posted this on the threads I think it would have been out of line, but as a private conversation I don't see how it can be called harassment? (And keep in mind we are having the conversation here because you attempted to slander me to this entire community). If Philosophim had asked me to stop contacting him and I had ignored his request, this would no doubt be a form of harassment. Further, I am specifically talking about his ad hominem style and am telling him that I will figure out how to rationally counter his underhanded fallacies. The reason I asked him if he likes pornography, which I am quite fond of, is because I suspect him to very much be a moralist. In other words, he is so threatened by liberal culture that he even considers the question of pornography to be a form of harassment. As far as not liking him, I am entitled to it, but I don't let this interject into the argument. Where he is a moralist you may consider me the very opposite: I like to moralize against the moralizers. I'm not sure that there is a type in our species that is more dangerous.

I think what the appropriate thing to do would have been for Philosophim to contact me himself and express his concerns, but he did not do this, because like you, he's after censorship. His way is underhanded it is not direct. Some people are far too emotive to be involved in moderation, in their hands it becomes a form of tyranny.

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

I have been talking about philosophy, specifically philosophical form and method, what you have raised is a red herring or an equivocation, but even so we can ask relevant questions. Was Russell wise to forsake Analytical Philosophy to engage in political activity? Clearly he thought this activity had value -- in contrast to what, mere theory? Do these examples rebuke the Analytical Philosophers on this forum or validate their program? (Please keep in mind my objection is not that Analytical Philosophers are arm chair theorists, but that their philosophical emphasis is lacking in value).

Then why are you insisting that your own subjectivity has any philosophical value? — Philosophim

This is not my argument.

I am going to assume that you must see this. — Philosophim

I do not subscribe to your characterization of this conversation.

What was wrong with the definitions I provided? (I have little interest in how you see the situation, my interest is in your reason).

Could you expand your apprehention of law as ideology? — Number2018

It's a concept that a power-class can make use of in order to control society. Law gives a class the ability to use violence.

The premiss of this thread, as I pointed out earlier, is to treat philosophy like a competition between teams; like it was a game of football. The argument itself trivialises philosophy. — Banno

Not all philosophical forms are of equal value. As a philosopher wouldn't you want to know that you were practicing a form of language and analysis that had the maximum potential of relevance? Why not?

To a person who cares about such things, analytic philosophy might provide some use to them as a tool. — Philosophim

See the point about subjectivity I made above.

I feel bad sometimes for studying philosophy. Other fields are focusing on actual problems like how to stop COVID or how to help countries with serious economic problems while philosophers shut them selves off from the outside world to go play in their own heads or provide extensive commentary on a long dead philosopher that no one cares to read and often requires a second language to fully understand. It sometimes makes talking with them about contemporary issues extremely frustrating as facts and evidence clash their a priori presuppositions. Every once in a while though the old armchair philosopher will come down from his ivory tower and become strong proponents for a cause, if not lead the charge themselves like Peter Singer. — BitconnectCarlos

This is exactly the question, what does thought tell us we should do? How should philosophy be used? The reason you are able to arrive at these conclusions about philosophy is because the philosophical enterprise has been focused on idealism. In Marx a split occurred, philosophy was brought back down to earth, rescued from the games and error of the supernatural idealists. There have been lots of philosophers who labor in the realm of relevant theory, as opposed to abstract idealism. (Of course, even this is objectionable, but at least the emphasis is relevant).

I agree with what you're saying. My claim is that philosophers have to do better than mere subjectivity, otherwise their entire program turns to dust. If one is just playing an aesthetic game, and they claim that's what it is, then they have already refuted themselves. There is no valid request for a formal refutation or argument after this, one can simply dismiss it on hedonistic terms. One can even characterize it however they want, as long as it brings value to them.

In general it is other fields, not philosophy, that have more direct social relevance to general human life. — Janus

I have a very different view of philosophy, knowing it to be thought. But to answer you from the basis of your own premise: then what does philosophy tell you about Analytical Philosophy? Here you have already affirmed a distinction of value.

Says the dude whose only 'evidence' has been some second hand quotes and word garble — StreetlightX

I wonder, are other people buying your line of reason, that is, that the quotes I provided are invalid? You did not refute my position, you didn't even have the conversation, you simply dismissed my argument with ad hominems as you are doing now. The presumption seems to be that I need to do more in order to refute Analytical Philosophy's presumption of value. I flat out deny it, this presumption bears the burden of its own proof, and further, it doesn't stack up very well against other forms of communication. The social sciences, where all the progress in society has been made, don't make use of Analytical Philosophy. One might be infatuated with it, but it's doubtful that an Analytical Philosopher would ever advise their child to pursue this path professionally. One cannot even approach society through this eccentric communication. The question remains: what are Analytical Philosophers doing, where do their word games lead? Not a single person on this thread has even used the Analytical Method to defend the Analytical Method. Some people require a great deal of sophistication before they will ascent to a simple premise. Is this really a sign of intelligence? I don't think it is, and everyone had better figure it out because the mortal clock is ticking. Should you spend your life reading Davidson or Perry? This is a decision, as philosophers, we all must make over and over again.

Currently this thread is no longer discussing philosophy. It is an opinion pissing contest. Several people have remarked that you do not have the evidence to attribute the entirety of analytic philosophy as useless to society. — Philosophim

Quite the contrary, the presumption of value has not been sustained.

Since you want to thrust yourself into the fight: what exactly was wrong with the definitions I provided?

I suggested an evidential contrast between Davidson's content and Perry's content.

It's for us, though - students of philosophy - to dialectically apply e.g. conceptual analysis and discursive hermeneutics to knowledge practices and/or our experiences. That is how we translate 'idealist' methods into 'materialist' critiques (and vice versa), turning Hegel on his head so to speak (à la Feuerbach or Peirce or Adorno). Don't blame the (master's) tools or the tool-makers for not showing us (the precariat) how to use them. — 180 Proof

I have no problem with conceptual analysis, in Analytical Philosophy this analysis has gone off on a tangent. It has yet to be demarcated that Analytical Philosophy is in fact a form of bourgeois philosophy. (Live long enough and you will be able to view it as a school of thought). It is a revival of idealism in the most tragic sense of the term, here tragic is a reference to its emphasis, which is not the world, not even concepts that matter to reality, just the attributes of concepts.

Relevance to what? — Janus

Existence, the concrete and contingent life we live on this infinitesimal rock.

Any idea I brought home from school they would always jump to the opposite side of the case. I found this really annoying, until I realized that they were teaching me how to think. — Hippyhead

Psychological and philosophical maturity consciously strive to bypass this game by making use of 1) intellectual standards and 2) practicing a sense of self that is not merely reactionary.

There is obviously much more to say here, but these are the basic principles. Further, I do not view philosophy as a game, if it's working properly it is desperately trying to get its hands around life. Those who approach it as a game are refuted by life itself. Thought is the only mediator man has to stand between himself and the dumb forces of nature -- including his own impulsivity.

The idea that any of these ecologies are defined by certain essences or uniform techniques or whathaveyou is just stupid: the kind of thing you tell an idiot child to get them to shut up while the adults are working. — StreetlightX

This is an incredibly weak and emotional argument. Further, it is elitist: "while the adults are working." This validates everything I have been saying about Analytical Philosophy. You guys presume that you are doing the most important thing and that you are engaged in real philosophical work. This has not been substantiated but merely presumed. At which point is this elitist branch humbled? The social sciences have been making progress without Analytical Philosophy! In fact, this method would only get in the way. Should I read Davidson or choose to devote my time and energy to Perry? My claim is that this is not a subjective consideration. I do not deny Analytical Philosophers the aesthetic right to play their analytical games, but what I do deny is its presumption of elitism and relevance.

Apples and oranges - yeah, both are fruit - should not be compared, or one reduced to the other, if intellectual clarity in philosophizing via avoiding nonsense, etc, is what (I assume) you're after. — 180 Proof

That depends on what we are trying to do with our criticism? Not all criticism is of equal value. When philosophy begins talking about the attributes of concepts, and I would encourage you to think about this deeply, it is falling back in on itself in a kind of negative negation.

Let's not kid ourselves that Republicans care about much other than ideological loyalty. — Baden

There you have it, the antithesis of justice. For anyone who seriously wants to look into this topic in depth (law as ideology) there are some superb Marxist resources on it. Marxism is a comprehensive analysis of society and its ideals, one doesn't have to be a Marxist to benefit from its analysis. PM if you want a link. :smile:

A book I'd highly recommend is Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death. — petrichor

I second this. :up:

Well, the answer depends on what you want. — Banno

Not so. That's pure subjectivity, you might as well be a hedonist. It depends on what's important!

I could go on about this, but I won't do it in this thread because it would derail your idealistic chess game. I just wanted to make a swift point that was being blinded out of the analysis. There are questions that are more important than the ones you are asking here.

I think that this is key in actually understanding the issues that malapropism raise — creativesoul

My simple question is, how much time should I spend on this? How important is it? Are there other things that warrant a better use of my time?

I recognize this way of writing. There is an effort, even here in a work written for non-philosophers, to be quite precise in distinguishing the several different questions that may come to mind in talking about price gouging. Sandel intends to be rigorous, precise, careful. He's not talking about language and logic, but justice, and he is doing so in a way that owes much to the sort of care you can see at work in Austin's treatment of speech acts. — Srap Tasmaner

What? Even if what you're saying is accurate in terms of Sandel... (so very strange you're making it sound like Sandel is contingent on Austin)... you're trying to argue that logical precision is credited to Analytical Philosophy. Then what did we have in the world before this school came into existence? Further, nearly all of the branches within the social sciences do not use Analytical Philosophy, their procedures are scientific, observation, and they also make use of reason, but not because Analytical Philosophy imparted this ability to culture. Even more so, the social sciences are conscious of their methodological procedures, and here one does not find a discourse on the value of Analytical Philosophy. Look up any textbook on Sociology, Psychology, Biology, you will not find Analytical Philosophy, but you will find the scientific method.

While Analytical Philosophy is critique, the kind of critique it is pulls humans away from the world and locks them in a web of idealist abstraction. You have a good mind, you could have spent it helping children develop their ability to speak, cognitive communication studies, instead of analyzing the ideals of language, you actually could have made progress in language theory, like so many people are now doing and have been doing. Perry is trying to figure how to fix humans that have missed vital stages in their development, what you are doing is analyzing grammatical and linguistic structures because it tickles your intellectual fancy.

I think a serious problem in philosophical discourse is that individuals feel like their intelligence is being attacked when their belief is being attacked. In my experience Analytical Philosophers are exceedingly intelligent, most especially in terms of comprehension. I would think all of the people I have had extended discourse with on this Forum are smarter than me, but that doesn't mean their program is one of relevance or that their beliefs are accurate. We all have to continually challenge our beliefs in this sense. I think there's a good rule here, where there is pain and psychological defensiveness, that's usually the direction we need to go.

It's the common sense of grown-ups. — Srap Tasmaner

Asserting that your view is "grown-up" is like an exercise in self-justification. One merely needs to go to your thread of Plato to see your Analytical Philosophical style. There is nothing controversial here. Further, I have been very specific. These conversations began with my criticism of Davidson. If there is no general category of Analytical Philosophy then why does the category exist, more importantly, on what basis do you make a complaint against philosophical style, "anti-intellectualism" and the like, which you have done to me several times? Can you not see that a great deal of your objections amount to form and style? In other words, if philosophers don't want to analyze things in terms of the linguistic logical structure, then you should be content with this and simply validate it as an alternative approach. But this is not what you do, you authoritate that it is both wrong and invalid and constitutes a violation of philosophical authenticity. This is the presumption that motivates your authoritarian rebukes.