What would you say that you're trying to accomplish in all of that? What is/what are the end goal(s)? — Terrapin Station

For me the point is to move on to more exciting philosophy, more suspicious and literary stuff. I know I'm not doing science via philosophy. It's not that I'm not after truth of some kind. It's just that I don't think the kind of truth I'm after is the output of a traditional kind of argument. The philosophers I like offer visions of human existence as a whole. While these visions need some plausibility and coherence to have worth for me, their value is concentrated in this or that individual proposition. They have their power as entire personalities. Call it poetry, sophistry, religion, nonsense, dada, mysticism. Call it the genre of creative writing that is never done figuring out what it is. All of that's fine. But let it be (for me anyway) more life relevant. It doesn't have to change my flat tire, but it should make me feel something and inform my sense of who I want to be.

If you ask me why do I nevertheless argue the point? It give me an opportunity to find metaphors like little ships in a bottle. I get to elaborate and sharpen a critique of traditional epistemology learned from others. This critique is not on its own the point. It is integrated in wider visions (Hegelian dialectic, Nietzsche's portrait of Christ in the The Antichrist, Wittgenstein's grasp of the inexplicability of the world as a whole). I'd rather be talking about Hegel's big ideas , for instance. But the negative-critical mode (as I'm sure you can relate) has its charms. I do want to stress that no offense is intended.

God bless you, macrosoft. You said it, bub! — Noah Te Stroete

Thanks!

For me the point is to move on to more exciting philosophy . . . — macrosoft

Just quoting a bit of the first line there so that you know what post I'm referring to. I appreciate the answer there--that helps give some insight into differences. I was sincerely asking you, not in a critical way, because I was getting the impression that you want philosophy to more or less serve as a tool for some other end, but I wasn't sure what end.

As you know I see philosophy as somewhere between an alternate methodological approach to what the sciences are doing and a critical thiking tool (critical thinking being a large part of its methodological approach). I have a lot of interest in the sciences qua the sciences, and at various points when I was in high school, first at university, etc., I seriously considered majoring in astrophysics, archaeology, marine biology or earth sciences (the latter with at least one eye to possibly pursuing a career as a park ranger--I love hiking/backpacking, I love national parks, etc.--I would have enjoyed a career where I spent most of my time in national parks), so I definitely have a disposition towards that stuff (even though I'm also a musician and I do some other art, too).

In philosophy, ontology and philosophy of science were two of my big focuses. I did a lot of logic, too. On the other hand, I also put extra time into aesthetics--because of my music/art background, but probably unsurprisingly, an overarching philosophical obsession for me is a critical approach to logical argumentation, though moreso informal logical argumentation than formal.

Philosophically, I'm not really driven by a notion of any "big mysteries." G.E. Moore once said that a significant part of the attraction to philosophy for him was the "curious things" that philosophers tended to say--where the idea was more or less that they were saying things that seemed fit for a loony bin, and it piqued his curiosity why they'd say such things. I feel very much the same way. The "big mysteries" for me tend to be "What in the world is so and so talking about and why (is he/she saying it that way)?"

I certainly have plenty of interest in epistemology, too, and I have some interest in human behavior qua human behavior--particularly from anthropological and sociological angles (again, probably unsurprisingly enough), as well as a bit from historical angles, though historically moreso with respect to other stuff I'm interested in than something like political history.

In some ways, though, although I'm not at all a misanthrope, I'm not that philosophically interested in humanity qua humanity. I'm someone who finds the phrase "the human condition" annoying. I don't want artworks to be primarily about "the human condition" either. When it comes to fiction, I like fantastical stuff, humorous stuff, surreal stuff, etc. The more "straight drama"/realist drama and soap-opera like something is, usually the less interested I am in it. Outside of that, I also hate our politics (in terms of day to day politics, the sorts of political systems we've created, etc.). I hate people moralizing (in the negative sense a la being highly judgmental/self-righteous/etc.)--though also partially because I don't agree with a lot of conventional moral views. I typically get annoyed watching the news, because of the way it reflects the things that people care about and just how they care about it, both of which I often disagree with.

So that might give some insight into the different frameworks we're coming from, the different interests we have, etc.

I appreciate the answer there--that helps give some insight into differences. I was sincerely asking you, not in a critical way, because I was getting the impression that you want philosophy to more or less serve as a tool for some other end, but I wasn't sure what end. — Terrapin Station

I appreciate your answer, too. I just like to say that it's a personal tool. I'm an apolitical being, more or less. I take this world as it comes. Just sayin' that I'm aware that these matters are personal. At this moment we've actually switched into my mode of philosophy (offered as an example of what is not 'artificial.' We are looking at motives. We are clarifying what it all means to us.

I love national parks, etc.--I would have enjoyed a career where I spent most of my time in national parks), — Terrapin Station

I can relate to that. I like those open spaces, the animals, the green. Nothing like hiking up a trial.

In philosophy, ontology and philosophy of science were two of my big focuses. I did a lot of logic, too. On the other hand, I also put extra time into aesthetics--because of my music/art background, but probably unsurprisingly, an overarching philosophical obsession for me is a critical approach to logical argumentation, though moreso informal logical argumentation than formal. — Terrapin Station

Maybe I'm not as much into argumentation because I write/read proofs at work. And I'll be coding most of the next few days. That informs my sense of just how informal arguments in English are. I like philosophy of science, or at least I got drawn in by Popper for awhile. I'm also interested in the explication of explanation. I'd say that it's deduction from postulated necessity. We just project this necessity, sometimes mistakenly, and with no (deductive) proof of the uniformity nature. Fascinating.

Philosophically, I'm not really driven by a notion of any "big mysteries." G.E. Moore once said that a significant part of the attraction to philosophy for him was the "curious things" that philosophers tended to say--where the idea was more or less that they were saying things that seemed fit for a loony bin, and it piqued his curiosity why they'd say such things. I feel very much the same way. The "big mysteries" for me tend to be "What in the world is so and so talking about and why (is he/she saying it that way)?" — Terrapin Station

That's probably why we've tended to clash. For me philosophy is conceptual rock'n'roll. Where we might agree is that philosophers say lots of ridiculous things. But for me (and to be clear this isn't my understanding of you) is a parody of strict logic. The terms are utterly vague. I think I have more tolerance of contextualized vagueness than you, given my theory of meaning. So what I have in mind is some of the weird posts that appear here from time to time. 5 line proofs of god or ultimate nihilism or whatever. It does strike me as word math that hasn't really bother to explore its mind for what it really means to say. The words are just grabbed like super-charged crystals.

As far as big mysteries go, I do have one I'm attached to. And that is the simple mystery that this world exists in the first place. But it's not exactly a mystery. I don't think it makes sense to seek a ground for the whole. Explanation relates objects (projected necessity). Any purported global explanation is itself one more part of the whole to be explained.

In some ways, though, although I'm not at all a misanthrope, I'm not that philosophically interested in humanity qua humanity. I'm someone who finds the phrase "the human condition" annoying. I don't want artworks to be primarily about "the human condition" either. When it comes to fiction, I like fantastical stuff, humorous stuff, surreal stuff, etc. The more "straight drama"/realist drama and soap-opera like something is, usually the less interested I am in it. Outside of that, I also hate our politics (in terms of day to day politics, the sorts of political systems we've created, etc.). I hate people moralizing (in the negative sense a la being highly judgmental/self-righteous/etc.)--though also partially because I don't agree with a lot of conventional moral views. I typically get annoyed watching the news, because of the way it reflects the things that people care about and just how they care about it, both of which I often disagree with. — Terrapin Station

I think I get my formal or non-human aesthetic kicks from math. I love a good TV show. So maybe I'm a humanities guy who works with all the formalism I need in my diet. You seem more into nature and perhaps abstract art. I've read my share of art theory (manifesos of movements), and I very much like abstract art, experimental music, etc. Though I think it does have much of its force in its ideology. Nevertheless, I put the human face at the center of everything. That's my god, the lit up human face and what it says. Biology is the science I would now be most interested in --which never fit well with the math path and was therefore neglected. Cellular automata are a fascinating middle-ground between the mechanical and biological in terms of visual form. Wolfram's Rule 30. In one of my fantasy lives that I'll never get around to, I'd be an abstract artist heavy on the beauty of visualized math.

On politics I think we agree. Self-righteousness just turns me off. Only seeing one side, etc. I have my preferences, but I just see the terrible complexity of the human political situation. And then there's just something that bothers me about dissolving into chants.

So that might give some insight into the different frameworks we're coming from, the different interests we have, etc. — Terrapin Station

Thanks. I enjoyed it.

You have a rather broad definition of ad hom if you think tone is a part of ad hom. Only if you take it personally I guess. But then you could just also be overly sensitive, in which case it is more about you and not about definitions at all.

Anyone who has studied anything can easily see that. — hks

But then you could just also be overly sensitive — hks

These are good examples of employing references to a person in lieu of addressing their arguments or requests on their own grounds.

They are also examples of arguing on the basis of authority in so far as the removal of such authority from your interlocutor dispenses with their claims without having to do so oneself. This quality is exemplified by the following:

I don't need to give it my best shot. Aquinas has already done so. Have you heard of him perhaps? — hks

Look, I don't want fill up these pages with meta-dialogue. I will say no more about this.
Have the last word, if it pleases you.

Peace out.