excessive — SatmBopd

That's the key word or concept! Ne quid nimis. Easy to say, hard to do!

OK. So, what's the conclusion? What should we do?

Some of the limitations of philosophy are the result of questionable assumptions about what philosophy is and does. There is more to philosophy than rational discourse. The imagination was of central importance to Plato and Wittgenstein as well.

What we see is not simply a matter of passive receptivity. The making of images, both mental and visual, is a way of seeing. The images on the wall of Plato's cave and Wittgenstein's "seeing as" or conceptual seeing, are a combination of something given and something imagined.

The play of images in Plato is more than it seems to be. Like two mirrors facing each other there is an endless reflection of reflections within which the reader plays a part. The use of images is one reason why Plato was interested in Geometry. It is also one reason why he often resorts to myths, both those that existed and those he created.

The dichotomy of seeing and saying continued from the beginning to the end of Wittgenstein's writings. The creative expression of language expands upon his earlier understanding of language as propositional, and both what is seen or pictured, including the frame, moves from the transcendent to the more mundane.

A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, fo it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably. (PI 115).

I think I summed up my position vis-а-vis philosophy when I said: Philosophy ought really to be written only as a form of poetry. (CV 28)

Do not forget that a poem, although it is composed in the language of information, is not used in the language-game of giving information. (Zettel)

:up:

Here are examples of questions that I think have very, very little meaning or interest, because of what I have outlined above.

Is God existent?
Is morality objective?
Is [insert literally anything] true?
Is [insert literally anything] moral?
Is life/ humanity inherently good/ bad? — SatmBopd

The way I see it: if a person defines both terms, and ask one of these questions on this forum, they probably want to challenge the logic behind it. If you define a category X and a category Y, and if you're trying to figure out how these categories are connected to each other (completely included, partially,...), it could be interesting to ask people their opinion. They might point out something in your X category that makes it impossible to be related to Y, and you might not have thought about it.
Even if you wouldn't define X as they define it, it could still be productive for both parties to debate using one's point of view.

What is generally understood, and what do I specifically understand, by the concept of God, and why? — SatmBopd

This would be ideal but do you really think it's realistic? Can you really tell why you believe in something? Most of the time, the way you reached a specific opinion has a lot of unconscious steps, so how could you go back and explain how you got there? What if you're wrong? What if you think you got there because of X reasons, while it's actually not at all because of that? That would make it even more confusing for others. And they couldn't prove you wrong, because only you could answer that. Do you know what I mean?

idk lol. Maybe depends on how much of what I said you agree with.

I do think you made me realise the possibility that "concepts" can point to "things", even if conepts do not acdequately encapsulate things by themsleves. It is something that I will have to consider if I want to continue down this post-modern favoured line of thinking.

Interesting points.

This would be ideal but do you really think it's realistic? — Skalidris

It's my opinion, but I do think that if it is unrealistic to have more prescise discussions about beliefs, but also ideal, then we should be sure that it is impossible before abandoning the project.

Good luck! :smile:

I just thought of something else. Do you think someone who spends a lot of time understanding people will be able to grasp one's opinion better? You talked about exposing believes and goals, but then don't people need to have knowledge in psychology as well? Don't we need a strong basis about how our goals and believes interact with our opinions to be able to make use of it?

Because someone might be good at detecting flaws in logic but clueless about these things, right?

Philosophy isn't for an answer but to critically analyze assumptions and givens.
Critically analyzing givens often take the form of "What is commonly held as good, might not be". For example, it is commonly held that procreation is good or at least not good or bad. I think there is strong evidence it is not good full stop.

It can help you develop a worldview.. how things operate, what to focus on.. Thus, if procreation is bad, what are the implications of this.. What is it about life that makes procreation prohibitive. What does it tell us of ethics.

Argumentation is thus going to involve people that challenge your views. This leads to a dialectic that can make the original view come into question or strengthen it because now the objection has been met with an even stronger defense that bolsters the view that much more. The power of dialectic is the possibility of exploring all the potentials for flaws and all the rebuttals to those purported flaws revealing that they perhaps weren't flaws but simply objections based on misunderstanding, prejudice, or ignorance. Sometimes arguments can reveal people arguing out of bad faith. They have no desire to get to a resolution, just trolling. Ad hom and red herrings will be indicative of this. General snarkiness generally precludes a free flowing dialectic.

There is also the trend to view quick quips as good philosophy. Economy of words is advisable, but they don't take the place of careful argumentation. You can only get away with quick quips a few times before the style reveals not much thought behind the attempt at being clever. It is often couched as "too cool for school" but may be hiding a lack of any interesting thoughts on a particular subject. You can only fool people for a short time with the quip-only responses.

For example, it is commonly held that procreation is good or at least not good or bad. I think there is strong evidence it is not good full stop. — schopenhauer1

That's an observation about folk psychology (i.e. cognitive bias), not about a reasoned 'ethical position' or 'existential commitment'.

Yeah I don’t need to go into every argument I’ve ever made.

Well, they're all variations on

For example, it is commonly held that procreation is good or at least not good or bad. I think there is strong evidence it is not good full stop — schopenhauer1

so there's no need to address any but this (re-quoted) representative example.

I was simply stating philosophy often questions what is often taken for granted as just true because it is long held belief. Argument from tradition or authority. But long held assumptions should be questioned. Socrates and justice or beauty or good.

Unexamined tradition = procreation is good, necessary, or acceptable
Examined analysis = procreation maybe not so good

But long held assumptions should be questioned. — schopenhauer1

Surely; however, my point is that cognitive / psychological biases (e.g. procreative – survival – instincts) are biological facts, not "assumptions", and thereby questioning whether or not they are "good" is unwarranted. Rather, how our biology is used is either good (more helpful) or bad (more harmful) for (to) ourselves and others of our kind. There is not any "assumed" dogma – philosophical or religious – such as "natalism" which rationally warrants critique such as "anti-natalism".

The metaphysics of logic

Rule 1: To argue, one must know necessity.

Rule 2: To refute, one must know possibility.

Anytime you define terms, you are already establishing the goal posts for the argument, — SatmBopd

So, one should never define the tesms one uses?

I believe that you are referring to those who give arbitrary definitions, tailor-made to their argumentation and position, as you mentioned in the argumentation process a lot of people commonly use here, about which I agree.

But you cannot generalize the phenomenon and just discard --or even worse, be against-- the very important action of defining terms. It's a huge mistake!

The disastrous consequences from the lack of definitions are already very visible. Don't make the situation worse, please!

So, one should never define the tesms one uses? — Alkis Piskas

No... I mostly just think that anytime you define terms, you should be aware that you are establishing the goalposts for the argument, and awlodge the context that is therefore established for the conversation. I do not mean to say, (and if I have then I am wrong) that we should not define terms, just that in so doing, we should awknoledge the game we are playing.

From what I remember of this post (I made it a while ago now) I was mostly concerned about constructing arguments in the form "is A, B?" and the limitations of insight that kind of argument entails, where defining terms is prettmy much the only interesting part of the discussion.

Like given the question "Does God exist?", far from thinking we should not define our terms, I think that defining our terms is basically the only interesting thing to do. "What is God? And what does it mean to exist?" That's the whole discussion. So I guess I thought it would just be more honest, and rigourous if the whole discussion... basically revolved around defining terms? Looking at those more underling questions... instead of quickly defining terms and then just moving on.

But yeah if anyone got out of this that they should not define terms that would be a problem, and so maybe I should have worded it more carefully.

anytime you define terms, you should be aware that you are establishing the goalposts for the argument, — SatmBopd

You keep repeating this, as if it is something one shouldn't do. So I maybe get it wrong. Maybe you mean that one puts a subject. together with his argments, positions, etc., in a framework or context, in or from which he is viewing it and discussing (about) it. Which is very good and I have stressed this point in a few occasions as something desirable or even necessary, even if it is implied/understood or explained/indicated by one's examples and descriptions in general, and not experessed directly and explicitly. So, I hope you mean samething like that too. :smile:

Like given the question "Does God exist?", far from thinking we should not define our terms, I think that defining our terms is basically the only interesting thing to do. "What is God? And what does it mean to exist?" — SatmBopd

This is a very good example, at least as I see it. Asking "Does God exist?", without explaining what one means by the word "God" is totally useless. It's actually an empty question. Beacause it immediately raises a (counter) questions like "What God?", "What kind of God?" etc.
The concept and nature of God is different in major religions --Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.-- as well in minor ones. Also, God means a different thing to different people.

But this is inot so important as that when this question is seen from another aspect: People imagine/create/conceive of a concept that they call "God", they are used to it, it becomes part of their lives, etc. and after some time they start asking if this concept exists! It's quite stupid, isn't it?
I'm imagining a dragon, with wings and a huge mouth from which flames come out and all that. It looks so real that it becomes part of my existence, mainly in my mind, but I also have indications that it actually exists somewhere in the external world. Then I become so used to it that after some time I forget that I have created it myself, with my imagination. Then, I start asking "Does my dragon exist?"

So I guess I thought it would just be more honest, and rigourous if the whole discussion... basically revolved around defining terms? — SatmBopd

Yes, I believe it should. In fact, I was thinging myself to launch a discussion on a simple topic like "How important is the definition of terms?" Simple, and yet quite debatable from what I have gathered in my experience with TPF, since almost a year ago. There are a lot who are even against dictionaries and encyclopedias. Can't get it. Where else one can resort to find and undestand e.g. what does the term "teleological" mean or be sure about what it means? Well, believe it or not. A lot --if not most-- of people are satisfied with what they thing terms like this mean and keep on with their reading or discussion!
And this is one of the main reasons people become unintelligent.

So, yes, maybe you could have worded the problem differently ... But I'm glad --and relieved! :smile:-- that you were actually meaning what you are saying here!

At its worst philosophy is a self-contained solipsist game. You define your terms, your rules - and your logic doesn't need to be flawed at all, and still nothing you argue has much value or any value. You just win your solitaire.

Different strains of logic (argumentation)

1. Deductive (certainty) [philosophers' favorite]

2. Inductive (probability) [comes in handy]

3. Abductive (falsifiable only) [science, explanations in general]

Each has its very own specific Achilles' heel. Google for details.