You always hear people say that philosophy makes no progress and that the same philosophical problems which were already preoccupying the Greeks are still troubling us today. But people who say that do not understand the reason why it has to be so. The reason is that our language has remained the same and always introduces us to the same questions.... I read ‘philosophers are no nearer to the meaning of ‘‘reality’’ than Plato got’. What an extraordinary thing! How remarkable that Plato could get so far! Or that we have not been able to get any further! Was it because Plato was so clever? (MS 213/424)

-Wittgenstein

Are people bad at philosophy? — Marchesk

How would you decide that people were either "good" or "bad" at philosophy? Would one look for "progress"?

Are people bad at literature? Literature has made little "progress" beyond the achievements of the first surviving works we have (just my opinion). Greek tragedy is pretty good (ref: the Oresteia), and Greek comedy is pretty funny (Lysistrata, for example). Some of the Psalms date back 3000 years and are still in daily use. We have lost most of the ancient literature; only a fragment remains. The quantity of literature we have since 1400 is much, much larger -- because we haven't lost much of it, yet. Is it "better" because there is more of it?

Then, nobody is good at everything. Some people are great poets and lousy physicians. Some people are great at making money but bad at ethics. Some individuals were on the right track in science over the last few millennia, but they were frequently one-off insightful geniuses. It took us a long time to accumulate enough insight into biology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc. to ignite the scientific revolution.

What we are really not good at is overcoming our biological and mental limitations. We don't seem to be able to plan for the long run--50 to 100 months, let alone 50, 100, or 1000 years into the future. We don't seem to be able to perceive the desperate straits we get ourselves into until about 15 minutes after it is too late.

No, we're great at philosophy, and a dozen other fields. Sadly, it may not save us.

How would you decide that people were either "good" or "bad" at philosophy? — Bitter Crank

The mistakes they make when philosophizing.

Would one look for "progress"? — Bitter Crank

Ability to correct our mistakes over time.

Are people bad at literature? Literature has made little "progress" beyond the achievements of the first surviving works we have (just my opinion). — Bitter Crank

Is literature a field that progresses? I don't think it's the goal of writing to advance the field. It's like asking whether art progresses. New forms are introduced, and people may or may not value the new over the old, but there isn't an objective criteria for what counts as progress. Maybe the accumulation of works could be considered a sort of progress?

If philosophy is an art form, then okay, progress doesn't matter. Landru from the old forum argued that philosophy isn't about resolving issues, it's about generating new discourse, or something along those lines.

But then again, philosophy does utilize logic to make arguments. If it's more of a math or science, then we would expect progress. The question of free will should have been put to rest by now, for example. Dennett would claim that surely there is an answer to the problem of free will within all permutations of 50 pages of writing or less.

The reason is that our language has remained the same and always introduces us to the same questions... — darthbarracuda

Reminds me of NY Times article on Wittgenstein's philosophy. The author wasn't sure whether Witty was right or not, but he thought professional philosophers should give his arguments more consideration than they have.

Much philosophy is the record of the human predelection for posing engaging questions, speculations, arguments, and counterarguments that seem to be important, and even profound, but which as often as not are muddled confusions, and sometimes even unintelligible nonsense.

Rational thought is very difficult for humans to sustain, let alone express coherently, even for short intervals (as this or virtually any other forum or Comment section on the internet evidences.)

So, humans are not bad at philosophy--they are terrible at philosophy.

Most people just skip the effort altogether. And, as discussion sessions even at professional philosophy conventions attest, there is virtually unanimous agreement among those who try to do philosophy, that there remains much muddled confusion and unintelligible nonsense.

First of all, what would it mean for everyone to be bad at philosophy? It would mean that even our most celebrated philosophers make fundamental mistakes, and — Marchesk

I think the Wittgenstein answer would start here. Is to say that 'everyone is bad at philosophy' meaningful? How is it meaningful? To what or whom are you comparing 'everyone'? - This 'what or whom' needs to be better at philosophy than us. And who is doing the comparing? This 'who' needs to be independent of 'everyone' and accepted as capable of judgment.

.

But we're able to determine progress in math or the sciences. The who is the human race. Our collective effort at philosophizing, with professional philosophers representing our best effort. But anyone can contribute.

Rational thought is very difficult for humans to sustain, let alone express coherently, even for short intervals (as this or virtually any other forum or Comment section on the internet evidences.) — Brainglitch

So philosophy is harder than math or physics.

My personal observation on forum philosophizing is that any thread on any topic of good length will involved a lot of shifting terms and adjusting the initial argument to the point that by the end of the thread, it's impossible to tell what was resolved by the effort, although it can be educational.

he thought professional philosophers should give his arguments more consideration than they have. — Marchesk

If they gave them any more, nobody would study anything but Wittgenstein.

Jesus.

My first post in months, and the first response is a complete non seq.

Which, I might note, supports my assertion that rational thought is very difficult for humans to sustain even for short intervals.

Which, I might note, supports my assertion that rational thought is very difficult for humans to sustain even for short intervals. — Brainglitch

I'm asking whether rational though qua philosophy is harder than in fields like math or physics, which people generally acknowledge to be challenging subjects.

Is philosophy difficult in a way that those sorts of fields are not, seeing as how progress is made in them?

And, as discussion sessions even at professional philosophy conventions attest, there is virtually unanimous agreement among those who try to do philosophy, that there remains much muddled confusion and unintelligible nonsense. — Brainglitch

So professional philosophers do agree with the contention that humans aren't very good at it?

It seems to me that they don't even think very many other philosophers are very good at it.

I don't know if philosophy is harder than physics or math.

Not clear to me what the metric for such a comparison would be.

Not clear to me what the metric for such a comparison would be. — Brainglitch

That you don't hear mathematicians and physicists saying that kind of thing about the entire field that Witty was quoted above as saying, and that although they may not respect a certain physicist or mathematician, and their particular field of study, they don't think the entire field is a confused muddle that is still grappling with the same issues the Ancient Greeks were.

And if you asked a group of mathematicians or physicists whether a currently difficult, unresolved problem will be solved at some point in the future, they are likely to say yes, and express optimism that humanity can solve such challenges.

The mistakes they make when philosophizing. — Marchesk

Some philosophers are praised by one group and excoriated by another. Some people think some philosophers are RIGHT and others think the same philosopher is NOT EVEN WRONG. So, when you say "mistakes they make" are we to suppose they make glaring errors that even their admirers would call mistakes?

Ability to correct our mistakes over time. — Marchesk

Correct 'old mistakes' or catch and correct 'new mistakes'? Haven't the old mistakes been pretty well identified and corrected? Or not? If not, what the hell has philosophy been doing for the past 2500 years? If philosophy had progressed, wouldn't the number and gravity of new mistakes be quite minor by this time?

Is literature a field that progresses? I don't think it's the goal of writing to advance the field. It's like asking whether art progresses. New forms are introduced, and people may or may not value the new over the old, but there isn't an objective criteria for what counts as progress. Maybe the accumulation of works could be considered a sort of progress?

If philosophy is an art form, then okay, progress doesn't matter. — Marchesk

Some people think that literature is a field that progresses. I'm not one of them. Successful literature changes with and satisfies the readers of the author's time, and if its very successful, it satisfies centuries afterward--Dante, Boccaccio, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, et al. What pleases people in literature doesn't "progress" it changes, and of course some people's standards are higher than others. Some people like trashy bodice ripper romances, others like a novel by Henry James or Dickens.

Some people think philosophy is a complete waste of time, let alone it being able to progress.

Once upon a time, but not recently, philosophy was the hot zone of human thought. The various fields which philosophy spawned (like physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) over time became the new and current hot spots.

To what extent can one live a full, productive, intellectually rich life without studying philosophy beyond knowing something about its classic works? Had philosophy "progressed" wouldn't it still be the keystone of human thought? It isn't. New "arches" have been built above the ancient arch, and new keystones are holding up these much larger arches.

Sure, physics and math can demonstrate more progress and more promise, but this does not imply that philosophy is harder.

Perhaps philosophy can't demonstrate such progress because it's just wasting its time asking questions that can't be answered, or that don't even make sense in the first place. And, of course, there's the fact that physics was spun off of "natural philosophy." That is, it was philosophy until enough people figured out a way to pose and actually answer certain categories of questions, largely leaving the meta speculations behind for the philosophers to amuse themselves with.

Progress, eh. Every day, in every way, we're getting better and better. Or possibly not.

Philosophy is the rock against which progress is measured. Oh, you know how it all works? You know what you're here for? You know how to live? You know who you are? At last. Really? Well done.

Philosophy is not exactly a collective correction and accumulation of a body of knowledge and belief like science; it consists more in an individual inquiry into how to live well or what to believe. What would you expect of philosophy that it has not delivered? Haven't the "big questions" and ever-new variations on them been adequately expressed and re-expressed?

Since it is a logical fact that for every answer to a philosophical question there is its dialectical counterpart; why would you be surprised that there are still no definitive answers in philosophy? Isn't the purpose of philosophy on the broad scale to achieve a better understanding of the questions and to discover new variations and connections between them and even new questions? Do you think philosophy has really failed to do that?

On the other hand, what if the very best that is possible in philosophy has already been achieved by Spinoza, say, or Kant, or Hegel? How would you know? You might believe the best was achieved by Spinoza, but won't it always be possible that I could disagree with you, just as I might disagree with you that Mozart's music is greater than Bach's or Beethoven's, or Miles Davis'.

I think this whole idea of TGW's that humans are bad at philosophy, that a great philosopher like Kant, for example, really just believed stupid things, is itself a very stupid, facile, even childishly petulant response, that consists essentially in wanting to believe that without making any genuine contribution or effort one could raise oneself to a level above those who are generally considered to be the greats.

I think this whole idea of TGW's that humans are bad at philosophy, that a great philosopher like Kant, for example, really just believed stupid things, is itself a very stupid, facile, even childishly petulant response, that consists essentially in wanting to believe that without making any genuine contribution or effort one could raise oneself to a level above those who are generally considered to be the greats. — John

I believe the example of Kant making a fundamental mistake was that we can and do get outside our conceptual schemas to check them against the world, even merely in our interactions with one another. Or if you prefer Davidson's critique, conceptual schemas are an incoherent notion.

But not everyone agrees, which seems to be a big problem in philosophy: the lack of agreement over what constitutes a good or bad argument, outside of an accepted logical proof.

You might believe the best was achieved by Spinoza, but won't it always be possible that I could disagree with you, just as I might disagree with you that Mozart's music is greater than Bach's or Beethoven's, or Miles Davis'. — John

If philosophy is an artform like literature or music instead of math or science.

We're way better than chimps at it... probably...

So, you believe that we can and do understand the world in ways that are completely free from any conceptualization whatsoever?

And why would you expect everyone to agree since, presumably, different people have different life experiences? Do you imagine that, if it was great, philosophy's greatness would consist in bringing everyone to exactly the same view of, and set of beliefs about, the world?

Yeah, well I happen to believe that philosophy is more an art than a science; although it obviously has elements of the latter.

So, you believe that we can and do understand the world in ways that are completely free from any conceptualization whatsoever? — John

No. It all depends on what is meant by being trapped inside our conceptual schemes. But then that leads down the paved road of endless semantic dispute.

So maybe we would need to get clear what Kant and others of a similar mind mean, and what people using Kant to make such arguments mean.

I've taken it to mean that we can't check our concepts against the world (or how others think), and thus revise them accordingly. Which seems patently false.

Are people bad at philosophy? This would included professional philosophers as well as the rest of us.

First of all, what would it mean for everyone to be bad at philosophy? — Marchesk

The funny thing here is that there's a sense in which answering the question is to participate in the activity of philosophy. Only a sense -- I could see approaching the question in a manner which is a-philosophical; perhaps sociological, as a for instance. But it's worth noting here because if we answer in either direction that answer will sort of confirm itself, in a way. Yes, we are bad at philosophy -- look at how we answer the question. No, we are not bad at philosophy -- the same. The answer is recursive to the topic being asked about.

I'd take out the 'everyone' here and ask -- what would it mean for anyone to be bad at philosophy? Can we point to one act of bad philosophy? What about several bad acts of philosophy? Then it's just a matter of checking 'everyone' in some fashion.

Sophistry comes to mind here as the sort of arch-enemy of philosophy. We may appear to be philosophical, but we are only using the same tools of philosophy in a bad way -- to teach the well-to-do how to do well in court and congress so that they continue to pay our wages. (though said criticism came from one whose wages were not a concern due to already being aristocratic, it should be noted)

Then poor reasoning also comes to mind. It's not so much the specifics of our beliefs and arguments, but rather the 'form' of arguments which we propose do not hold up to rational scrutiny -- they are rhetorical ploys or make basic errors in reasoning.


I think it also comes down to the way we look at philosophy, too -- not just what counts as good or bad philosophy, but what counts as philosophy at all. Sophistry comes to mind here, too, but I've already touched on that. The institutions of philosophy, at least, change as do the particular focuses and concerns. And with that change in focus it seems that philosophy's goals change. Some have sought to improve upon the soul of the leaders of society, others to cure the soul of its ailments, others to change society at large, others to gain understanding or wisdom for themselves, others to build a science out of the classical philosophical questions, others to preserve what is naturally human in the face of a society which threatens that...

Goals are an easy way to determine good or bad, in general. Or, generally speaking rather. But with philosophy this isn't quite right. Debating, or considering, or at least thinking about the various goals and their methods and conclusions is itself the philosophical project. Or, even phrasing it like this seems to poison the well -- is philosophy even a project? Or is it just an inclination which humans have, like art and religion?

I think we are bad at reasoning. I think this has been empirically demonstrated, at least for our culture (as most empirical studies on reasoning are performed on bribed/coerced undergraduates ;) ). But I'm uncertain that I'd say this means we are bad at philosophy, per se. I think we can be bad at philosophy -- that's not what I mean. I don't mean to make philosophy something which can't be judged. It can be. But the very judgment is an act of philosophy, and it seems to me that philosophy, while very much concerned for reason and argument, is more than reason and argument.

If this is so, why is the human race poor at philosophizing?

I dunno. :D

hTen poor reasoning also comes to mind. It's not so much the specifics of our beliefs and arguments, but rather the 'form' of arguments which we propose do not hold up to rational scrutiny -- they are rhetorical ploys or make basic errors in reasoning. — Moliere

Definitely this would be a sign that we're bad at it, particularly if professional philosophers fall prey to the same poor reasoning.

Kant said: "Thoughts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind."

I take this to mean that intuitions ('Intuitions' for Kant means 'sensings') without conceptual shape are 'invisible' to us. This means that our experience of the world is ineluctably conceptually shaped. That is what it would mean to say that Kant thinks we cannot 'get outside our conceptual schemas', although I doubt he ever expressed it exactly like that. ( Well he obviously didn't, if only because he wrote in German).