M'kay, maybe there is more disagreement after all then.

At risk of committing the error you're after I'm tempted to ask: What is the problem?

I wonder what sort of pretence, exactly, you think philosophy might invite. Like, that we are just pretending that we do not know something, maybe? Sort of like a parlor game rather than something we are asking? — Moliere

No, I wouldn't exactly compare it to a parlour game. Not quite that kind of pretence. It's not so explicit. The problem is a state of mind which leads to questioning what we know or can find out with relative ease. The pretence relates to the tacit invitation to join in. To those of us who aren't so easily caught off guard, it's like a charade: an absurd pretence intended to create a respectable appearance - "Oh no, I'm not engaging in tomfoolery. I'm doing philosophy".

Do you see the problem?

The mistake, as I gather so far, has something to do with the habits of the philosophically inclined, and something to do with how they formulate questions, and in particular their usage of questions of the form "What is [x]?" -- that when the philosophically inclined ask such a question perhaps they are sort of deluding themselves into thinking they do not know what they, in some sense or other, know. Or that they are playing a game of making the obviously false appear true to them, at least for the moment, because they are in some kind of habit whereby they believe they're digging deeper into truths but are actually just chasing their own tail and rehashing what it is they already believe.

That's my closest guess. — Moliere

Couldn't have put it better myself! So, you do see the problem, as I see it.

And I think, if I'm reading you right, your solution is to rephrase questions of the form "What is [x]?" to be more specific, or to reflect on whether or not what you're asking after is actually something easy to answer without anything more deep or profound to it. — Moliere

Bingo!

So, have you never found any philosophical question or topic to be superficial or shallow or having an obvious answer? — Sapientia

No, not really. There are questions asked in the course of investigation into philosophical topics that might be superficial, or shallow, or have obvious answers, and sometimes what philosophers have made of the Big Questions have been Shallow Questions; but the problems themselves seem to me to be deep and difficult (within the parameters of our limited intelligence and knowledge - or maybe that's just my limited intelligence and knowledge ;) ).

It's all very well chucking a philosophical problem in ordinary language philosophy solvent, and I do it myself sometimes. The bluff common sense of a David Stove is also salutary now and then. But really that's no more than clearing the decks for some real philosophical thinking.

I think what it is, is that there's a crucial philosophical distinction, the philosophical distinction par excellence, which has been put numerous ways (apriori/aposteriori, Hume's Fork, Wittgenstein's distinction between "grammar" statements and empirical statements, etc.) but it's actually extremely difficult to pin down in one's mind, it's elusive and of such dizzying abstraction it's hard to keep straight, but it is one of the major philosophical discoveries, and the main tool of philosophical thinking. (The way I think of it is in terms of the difference between the dictionary and the encyclopedia.)

Anyway, it's the difficulty of grasping that distinction, and how it might apply to the Big Questions, that's the hard thing about philosophy.

It's not so hard when you're as wise as me. :grin:

See? We're not so different, you and I. — Sapientia

Of course there may be some similarities; we are both English-speaking humans after all. :joke:

Would you like to add, "What's an idea?", and, "What do atheists have in common?", to the list?

What list would that be?

What list would that be? — Janus

The shit list? Or, alternatively, the list of examples which would include those contained in my opening post. Maybe your list would look different, but I'd include them in mine. Why not?

Thanks for the horrible audio/video! :joke:

OK, they could be added to your original list, but neither they nor the items on your list are unequivocally stupid questions. Because I thought frank was approaching the question of 'what is an idea' from a dismissively skeptical angle, I just wanted to show that his skeptical dismissal is misplaced if you take a deflationary or common-sense stance.

I also think dismissive scepticism is misplaced if you are searching for a deeper answer, because in that dimension, the value does not lie in the answer but in the searching. Of course such searching is not to everyone's taste; it may not appeal, may even seem pointless, to minds that are well-satisfied with common-sense explanations.

Thanks for the horrible audio/video! :joke: — Janus

Right, that's it, you're going on my shitlist. :shade:

OK, they could be added to your original list, but neither they nor the items on your list are unequivocally stupid questions. Because I thought frank was approaching the question of 'what is an idea' from a dismissively skeptical angle, I just wanted to show that his skeptical dismissal is misplaced if you take a deflationary or common-sense stance.

I also think dismissive scepticism is misplaced if you are searching for a deeper answer, because in that dimension, the value does not lie in the answer but in the searching. Of course such searching is not to everyone's taste; it may not appeal, may even seem pointless, to minds that are well-satisfied with common-sense explanations. — Janus

Hmm.

Right, that's it, you're going on my shitlist. :shade: — Sapientia

Nice to know I'm on a list somewhere... :cool:

Hmm. — Sapientia

Ahhhh...

Hmm.
— Sapientia

Ahhhh... — Janus

Tu-whit tu-whoo...

Said the faux-owl cuckoo...

Said the faux-owl cuckoo... — Janus

You're a real hoot. :grin:

And I'm a f-ool to boot... :grin:

A question that is asked fairly often is, "How do I know I am not the only person in existence?" (Or it may be stated, "I am the only person in existence." Or, "How do we know are not just brains floating in a vat?" Or, "We exist in a simulation."

"Is it possible", the questioner wonders, "that I am the only real person? Perhaps I am not only the real person, but actually exist as a a mind floating in space -- imagining the physical world, as well as the interpersonal world." If they really do think they are the only person in existence, why don't they take the next step and recognize themselves. "I am God!"

Some people ask whether their senses are totally deceptive. In fact, there is nothing solid in this world, they suppose. Were we to see the world as it truly is, perhaps we would find ourselves floating in a dark, dry, gray fog of complex force fields which our senses interpret as bright, colorful solids, liquids, and gases with weight and varying degrees of softness. In reality, the world is utterly unlike the world our senses show us.

Less than philosophical questions, or maybe like a lot of philosophical questions, this sort of thing is a mind game. It is a game because even though we can entertain the kind of shivery idea that the real world has no mass, color, etc., or that we are the only person -- might as well be God -- in existence, in fact we do not ever act as if we are the only person in existence, or that our senses are altogether wrong.

At least hopeless questions, like "is there life after death?" have the grounding in reality that we know we are not going to always be alive. Death is real -- we may not think about it much, but every time we see road kill we are reminded, "Oh yes, death is real, isn't it. Splat! and your whole life disappears." Then there are questions about God, gods--NONE of which are answerable. There may be a heaven full of Gods, but as far as we can tell, they don't exist. They can't be proven, or disproven, to exist.

Asking questions that simply can not be answered is a waste of time, it isn't philosophy. More likely it's fear: "I am afraid of dying and afraid of what I might experience after death,." Of course, "you" won't be experiencing anything after death, because... you will be dead, and not available for experiences of any kind. So that's all pointless dithering.

If, for example, theology is a waste of time for you, does it follow that it is a waste of time for all others?

No, no, you just need to look a little deeper. Try again in another ten years.

But don't think too hard! Here, look at this smoke, and at these mirrors. Notice how everything is not as it seems? It's all deep and mysterious and shit.

What if I'm an owl dreaming of a human pretending to be an owl...?

People want to get at the truth. "What is the TRUTH about Israel? Palestine? Who is really entitled to live there? We can just as well ask "What is the truth about Manhattan? Who is really entitled to live there--native Indians who Europeans? Puerto Ricans or Dominicans? Liberians or Mexicans? Rich folk? Poor folk?" What is the truth about Wales? Have the Welsh paid reparations to the earlier occupants of their measly plot of land?"

What is the truth about all the FAIT ACCOMPLI situations around the world? Accept what has happened? Hey, Hong Kong's British lease expired. Bad luck, but that's the way it is. You all had 99 years to get ready. Or demand that something be done about it? Give Hong Kong its freedom?

The Jews are coming! The Jews are coming! So, Palestinian Arabs, this didn't happen over night; you tried to get rid of them and you weren't able. What are we going to do now with you and the Jews?

'What is the truth?" Pontius Pilot asked, sarcastically.

I am sitting on land that belonged to one or several regional Indian tribes in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and the eastern Dakotas, and not all that long ago. They are still here, though much disadvantaged and in much diminished numbers. We white folks took it away from them, pretty much all of it. That is how the west was won. We decided it was our manifest destiny to own the continent and we do.

That is the truth, but it doesn't help knowing the truth. I don't plan on vacating my house and giving it to the Mdewakanton Sioux Tribe or the Ojibwa Tribe. An injustice was done here, starting in the 1805, at the latest, probably quite a bit earlier. It became fait accompli by 1840. Things got worse for the Indians after Minnesota became a state.

The world is full of injustices, stacked up like cord wood going back to the ancient world, and we can not undo our history. It's fait accompli. The damage has been done. The egg has been fried and we can't put it back in the shell. Maybe Israel shouldn't have been founded, but it was, there it is, and in all likelihood, there it is going to stay. It's a battle the Palestinians pretty much lost. There are losers in history, wherever there are winners.

So, questions about truth may be highly philosophical, or legal, or contentious, but the truth is one thing, and what we are remotely willing to to do about it is something else, altogether. Good politics, bad philosophy.

I don't think we can reach a conclusion about which semitic tribe is most entitled to Palestine, and the just leave it at that.

If, for example, theology is a waste of time for you, does it follow that it is a waste of time for all others? — Janus

The practice of religion which guides and comforts isn't a waste of time. Haranguing each other about what god God is like is a total waste of time, even for believers. (Especially when the god God in question has been very shy about revealing details.)

Trying to decide what god God can and can not do is, yes, a total waste of time. For everyone. Just stop it, at once!

Anyone who can read and has half a brain will be able to compare the two and note the difference, — Sapientia

So pretend you have a whole one and compare the definitions in the dictionary.

Why don't you look it up in your Chambers English Dictionary (1998 edition)? — Sapientia

Let's try the new online one instead, although the definition is exactly the same.

pretence or (US) pretense noun 1 the act of pretending. 2 make-believe. 3 an act someone puts on deliberately to mislead. 4 a claim, especially an unjustified one • make no pretence to expert knowledge. 5 show, affectation or ostentation; pretentiousness. 6 (usually pretences) a misleading declaration of intention • won their support under false pretences. 7 show or semblance • abandoned all pretence of fair play.

When is a person who uses "pretence" as you suggest not going to be ostentatious and phony?

pretentious adj 1 pompous, self-important or foolishly grandiose. 2 phoney or affected. 3 showy; ostentatious. pretentiously adverb. pretentiousness noun.

If the people are pretending, they are pretentious. — Sir2u

The second quote above seems to indicate that you do not understand what it means to be pretentious, and are misusing the word when you want to express the meaning, "someone who pretends" — Sapientia

According to the dictionary pretense is the act of pretending, and pretentious. And a pretentious person is obviously a phony or a person pretending to be something he is not.

So if you insist that you are right show the definitions that you are using and how they differ from the ones I use. Or you could concede that you are wrong.

So anyway, go look that up in your Funk and Wagnall.

No and it’s quite obvious that neither did you. — CuddlyHedgehog

Oh but I did. In seventh grade it was part of a story we read. Let me do the sweaty work for you though.

Snake oil,
(medicine) any of various liquids sold as medicine (as by a travelling medicine show) but medically worthless
Communication (written or spoken) intended to deceive

I am sure you will understand now. Deary.

Let me do the sweaty work for you though. — Sir2u

Please don’t. The odour is unbearable.

Please don’t. The odour is unbearable. — CuddlyHedgehog

So that is why you don't use a dictionary, you can't stand the smell of yourself after doing some work.

Can’t stand the smell of sweaty peasants working for me, dear.

Can’t stand the smell of sweaty peasants working for me, dear. — CuddlyHedgehog

Totally pretentious and all aren't we dear. Would you like to come over to the peasants place and have a cup of tea with biscuits, or sandwiches?

I would if I could stand the smell, dear.

Well take a bloody bath before you come them. That should get rid of it.

No matter how many baths I take, you still stink, dear.

No matter how many baths I take, you still stink, dear. — CuddlyHedgehog

Maybe it is the fact that you have your nose sticking in my ass crack so much that you are getting a bad impression of my bodily odors.

Interesting fantasy. Have you spoken to your therapist about it?

Sorry BC I just cannot agree that the attempt to think the nature of the God, absolute, the infinite, the eternal or whatever you want to call it, is a complete waste of time. Much has been said on these matters, none of it definitive, for obvious reasons.

Some people have a taste for the allusive, the evocative, the numinous or simply the arcane and esoteric, in thought and language. They may find it inspiring or even utterly life-changing. As long as it is not mistaken for definitive or empirical knowledge (which leads to fundamentalism) how can you justify saying it is a waste of time, per se?

Perhaps you were just shit-stirring, eh? :razz:

Interesting fantasy. Have you spoken to your therapist about it? — CuddlyHedgehog

Yes, he told me to go to court and get a restriction order against you before you do something regrettable.
I'm gonna work on that tomorrow. So you had better stay away from now on.