I'm genuinely interested to see if anyone here can paraphrase your position correctly.

Thanks for your interest and participation.

@Hippyhead
Could you elaborate a little on your reasoning towards the end? I’m not sure what I should be picking up from the scenario with the gun, and what bearing it has on whether philosophers are well equipped to judge quality content.
It can’t be that the scenario is a counter example to advancement of human welfare, since we could exchange the philosopher with some other person we’d grant as sharing this goal, like an oncologist, maybe a philanthropist, or whatever fits your idea of someone advancing human welfare. None of these people would be better equipped to resolve the situation, but it doesn’t seem like that’s grounds to say that oncology and philanthropy are bad at advancing human welfare.

Could you elaborate a little on your reasoning towards the end? I’m not sure what I should be picking up from the scenario with the gun, and what bearing it has on whether philosophers are well equipped to judge quality content. — Atlas

I apologize for being somewhat mysterious. I'm attempting, however ineptly, to lure readers in to thinking this through for themselves to some degree. And perhaps a little puzzle will make this more entertaining? Not sure, we'll see how this goes.

To address your question, let's try editing the scenario a bit. Let's imagine that you show up for the philosophy club meeting with a gun in your mouth, and the rest of us barely notice and make little to no comment because we want to get on to the topic of the evening, Aristotle's views on something or another. How might a fly on the wall evaluate our ability to do philosophy, if that is defined as the application of disciplined thought to the advancement of human welfare?

BTW, I do grant that nobody including me owns the definition of philosophy. So if someone were to define philosophy as the articulate expression of arcane abstractions which few people are interested in, :-) then I would have to come to a very different evaluation of professional philosophers. I do agree that how one evaluates the professional philosopher's ability to do philosophy depends a great deal on how one defines philosophy.

Back to your question, my claim is that professional philosopher's literally have a gun in their mouth which, generally speaking, they aren't rational enough to focus on. And thus, upon that conclusion, I further reason that they therefore wouldn't be qualified to determine what quality philosophy is, because by my definition, they aren't really doing that themselves.

Imagine that I show up for the philosophy club meeting at your house with a loaded gun in my mouth. You're naturally concerned about this and try to talk to me about the gun. But I roll my eyes at your "hysteria", dismiss your concerns, and keep changing the subject to traditional philosophy topics. — Hippyhead

I think I'd try and turn the gun into a research program, rather than try and persuade you to take it out of your mouth.

I think I'd try and turn the gun into a research program, rather than try and persuade you to take it out of your mouth. — fdrake

Ok, we might research why I have the gun in my mouth, and why my fellow philosophers generally don't wish to discuss the gun, and what such a lack of interest might say about one's ability to reason, and therefore evaluate quality content.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I don't own a gun. Just aiming for a colorful hypothetical, nothing more.

Ok, we might research why I have the gun in my mouth, and why my fellow philosophers generally don't wish to discuss the gun, and what such a lack of interest might say about one's ability to reason, and therefore evaluate quality content. — Hippyhead

I'm still a bit confused how you could contribute to the discussion with a gun in your mouth. It'd make your words a bit muffled, no?

Syllogism = th-ho-gh-thm. Symbolism=th-bo-gh-thm.

They really do sound much the same with a something filling your mouth!

@Hippyhead
Thanks for the thoughtful (and quick!) response.
Yea I recognize that the definition you gave is, let’s say, controversial – I wouldn’t use it to describe my goals when doing philosophy.
However, even granted that definition I think there are issues. Human welfare is a multifaceted thing, and what I was hoping to illustrate when replacing the philosopher with an oncologist was that different people can work at different ends of it. I think that this is very relevant because it seems that, in order for us to swallow this definition of philosophy, we need to grant that human welfare is enhanced by abstract work like theories of truth/meaning/good et cetera (what else would motivate this conception of philosophy?) And if this holds, it’s not obvious why it’s irrational for philosophers to focus on the subject matter of their discipline over other things.

To really secure your argument you’d do well to show that your critique of philosophers don’t end up applying to all people as well, since if it does the conclusion that philosophers are somehow less capable of evaluating quality falls flat.

I'm still a bit confused how you could contribute to the discussion with a gun in your mouth. It'd make your words a bit muffled, no? — fdrake

To make matters worse, my mouth is so big I could probably fit 7 guns in there. :-)

To make matters worse, my mouth is so big I could probably fit 7 guns in there. — Hippyhead

Fortunately I don't have a gun, I just put my fist in my mouth. The empirical method at its finest.

I moved this thread to the Lounge btw.

Yea I recognize that the definition you gave is, let’s say, controversial – I wouldn’t use it to describe my goals when doing philosophy. — Atlas

Yes, it's my definition, not "the" definition, agreed.

I think that this is very relevant because it seems that, in order for us to swallow this definition of philosophy, we need to grant that human welfare is enhanced by abstract work like theories of truth/meaning/good et cetera (what else would motivate this conception of philosophy?)

Yes, human welfare can be enhanced through abstract theories as you suggest, but in order for the value to be extracted don't the theories have to be somehow translated in to practical action? So to edit the scenario again.....

If I have a sophisticated theory about death from which it follows that suicide is a mistake, but I am so focused on articulating my theory that I ignore the gun in your mouth which is in plain view, do I even believe my own theory? Am I rational?

And if this holds, it’s not obvious why it’s irrational for philosophers to focus on the subject matter of their discipline over other things.

If a meeting of philosophers were focused on the subject matter of their discipline, and the building caught on fire, and they failed to leave the building, are they rational?

Fortunately I don't have a gun, I just put my fist in my mouth — fdrake

Myself, I prefer my foot. It's bigger, and fills the cavity in a more efficient manner. Very rational!

Myself, I prefer my foot. It's bigger, and fills the cavity in a more efficient manner. Very rational! — Hippyhead

I can't deduce the distinction between the two (fists, feet). So perhaps they're the same thing.

Ok, so I'm probably creating more problems than I'm solving by being mysterious. Not all experiments are well conceived. So here it is then...

Professional philosophers, amateurs too, seem quite close to being completely uninterested in nuclear weapons, which as you know stand ready to erase modern civilization without warning in just a few minutes. The gun in the philosopher's mouth, which they almost always find too boring to discuss.

My argument is that any intellectual elite who can't or won't focus on an imminent existential threat to the entire civilization is not qualified to make credible determinations about quality philosophy content.
The exception would be that if we define philosophy as having nothing to do with human beings and life in general.

I'm aiming this charge primarily at intellectual elites, and particularly professional philosophers, as it would seem to be their job to focus on big picture topics.

For the average man and woman in the street, I could agree that their primary responsibility is to their children. So if they're working around the clock so they can get their kids in to college, and thus don't have the time or energy for such a large topic, ok, I can see the rational basis for that.

I don't see the argument for why ignoring nuclear weapons is evidence of a professional level understanding of reason.

@Hippyhead
Do you have the same intuition in this scenario?
“If I believe that high-cholesterol food is bad, but I’m so focused on articulating this that I ignore you eating a greasy burger, do I even believe it?”
Of course this scenario differs in one important respect, even if you eat the burger I can convince you to not do so going forward, and while you are unlikely to shoot yourself again, the ill is already done. Perhaps we can fix that with the following:
“If I believe that removing your pinky is bad, but I’m so focused on articulating this that I ignore you chopping off your pinky, do I even believe it?”
Again, there’s not, to me, an obvious contradiction in granting the belief – I might think it’s a bad thing to do, but I have additional beliefs about personal responsibility/agency/etiquette or whatever else might come between my belief and my preventing you from removing your pinky. I don’t share your intuition about rationality and normativity in either of the gun scenarios. Could you develop, in some detail, what you take rationality to be and why?

I don’t think that this changes when we move the question to existential threats. Is it irrational for the oncologist to focus on treating his patients instead of solving the control problem in AI, or any other large-scale existential threats? Philosophers work with theory, sometimes it ends up being useful, and sometimes not – whether it’s irrational, I think, depends on their reasoning for working on this over that; perhaps they think that it’s being solved by others; perhaps they think that it’s unsolvable; perhaps they think that their engagement will make it less likely to be solved; perhaps they’re hard-nosed anti-natalists; perhaps they don’t think there’s a genuine risk; perhaps they think that something like the right theory of truth will help – there’s any number of possibilities, and to accuse them of irrationality without a comprehensive address of those is premature.

I'm genuinely interested to see if anyone here can paraphrase your [Hippyhead] position correctly. — Judaka

Philosophy pros are irrational because they don’t focus enough on existential threats.

The exception would be that if we define philosophy as having nothing to do with human beings and life in general. — Hippyhead

Philosophy pros are irrational because they don’t focus enough on existential threats. — praxis

I'm genuinely interested to see if anyone here can paraphrase your position correctly. — Judaka

I thought it was about the pragmatic distinction between theory and praxis rather than the theoretical one. You know, doing relevant things vs theorising about what things are relevant to do.

According to Hippyhead, philosophy is "the application of disciplined thought to the advancement of human welfare," so that kinda-sorta answers what things are relevant to do and if philosophy pros were to theorize about such things it would kinda-sorta be an indication of irrationality.

For the average man and woman in the street, I could agree that their primary responsibility is to their children. So if they're working around the clock so they can get their kids in to college, and thus don't have the time or energy for such a large topic, ok, I can see the rational basis for that. — Hippyhead

It's rational to work around the clock to fund your children's education, with a gun in your mouth?

Could you develop, in some detail, what you take rationality to be and why? — Atlas

Good question, thanks. The definition of philosophy which I offered above is perhaps a good place to start. "The application of disciplined thought to the advancement of human welfare."

Disciplined thought which has no bearing on human welfare could be labeled rational in the absence of any compelling threat to human welfare. But if the philosophy club meeting hall catches on fire during the meeting, ignoring the fire so as to continue an abstract discussion doesn't seem rational, to me. I doubt it would seem rational to most people.

This point of view is admittedly based on the premise that the purpose of rational thought is to serve the thinkers in some manner. I agree this is an opinion and not a law of nature.

To the degree this principle is ignored it seems we'll see support for professional academic philosophy drying up, because those funding such departments would like to feel they are receiving something in return for their investment. It is often argued that the purpose of such departments is to teach young people how to think, which is indeed a noble cause. But if the teachers can not sustain an interest in a key existential threat to the entire civilization, are they qualified to be teaching young people how to think? That is, are they qualified to pass judgment on quality philosophy content?

and to accuse them of irrationality without a comprehensive address of those is premature. — Atlas

If your house catches on fire while you're writing your next philosophy post, which would be more rational? Continuing to write? Or dealing with the fire? I don't see why we need a comprehensive review when common sense seems sufficient.

I thought it was about the pragmatic distinction between theory and praxis rather than the theoretical one. — fdrake

This thread was inspired by discussion among the mods in the banning thread regarding which posters were producing low quality content. I'm happy to leave that discussion and decisions to the mods. Not my job, not the point of this thread.

I'm not a mod, but a poster, and my job is to make a good faith effort to contribute content which is worth a reader's time. And so in that role I'm attempting to elevate a local management discussion on to a larger stage by evaluating the ability of the philosophy world as a whole to determine what quality content is.

Philosophy pros are irrational because they don’t focus enough on existential threats. — praxis

Perhaps it's helpful to add that it's entirely possible to discuss nuclear weapons in a manner which would be familiar to philosophers. Nuclear weapons arise out of our relationship with knowledge, surely a suitable topic for philosophers, right?

I moved this thread to the Lounge btw. — fdrake

Yes, that's normal behavior here which I've come to expect and accept. No problem, your forum, your rules.

Wouldn’t ethics be most suitable?

Wouldn’t ethics be most suitable? — praxis

I don't understand your question, can you elaborate a bit?

A suitable topic for philosophers to discuss in regards to nuclear weapons.

Well, ok, sure. Is it ethical for those of great privilege, natural ability and advanced education to largely ignore a widely known ever imminent threat to our entire civilization?

I don't object to an ethical conversation, but I wasn't that inclined to head in a moralistic direction. I was more interested in the question of whether philosophers have the ability to think rationally, as I defined that above.

That said, I welcome an approach to the topic from any direction.

Nice attempt, don't feel bad, I said what I said because I don't think anyone had a chance.

First, a thank you to the mods for hiding this thread in the Lounge, thus providing a real world example of my thesis. We continue now with the regularly scheduled programming....

Is it true that, generally speaking, philosophers are largely unable to make a distinction between that which is important, and that which is merely interesting?

How do we determine what is important? Do we accept the well being of the human race as a reasonable standard? The greatest good for the greatest number? Is there some standard unrelated to human beings which we should consider?

If we feel that the potential near instant destruction of everything built over the last 1,000 years is important, who do we expect to speak to that?

Politicians? Well, politicians are typically followers and not leaders. We can be cynical about this, but it isn't such a bad thing really when you consider that we hire politicians to represent our views.

The People? Well, the people are asleep on this subject, and for some pretty understandable reasons. There is a seemingly endless list of problems which generate actual real world victims every single day, and nuclear weapons haven't been used since before almost all of us were born. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Scientists? Well, I used to think this, but then I (finally) realized that scientists are like highly educated car mechanics. We hire them for a specific mechanical job, developing knowledge, and they do the job we're paying them for very well. And, scientists created nuclear weapons in response to instruction from the politicians, so that's where they will point should we raise this subject.

The Media? Well, the media is not a public service, but a business. Their business model is the use of drama to build audience, and thus ad sales revenues. They will show us the Twin Towers falling down 34 billion times because that's dramatic footage which serves their business model. Where is the dramatic footage or story about nuclear weapons? Where is the news?

And so we arrive at philosophers. Why them?

Because the real threat to humanity arises less from nuclear weapons specifically, and more from our relationship with knowledge in general. As example, if we could push a button and immediately get rid of all nuclear weapons, that would be great, but um...

The knowledge explosion would still continue to generate ever more powerful tools at an ever faster pace and such tools will inevitably fall in to the hands of those who are evil, stupid, or perhaps just unlucky. Once this is seen it becomes apparent that the threat to humanity is not really a technical issue so much as it is a philosophical one.

What is our relationship with knowledge? What should it be?

If we ignore all this by say, hiding threads like this in the Lounge :-) and then by default pass the giant ticking time bomb on to our children as their inheritance, can we be said to be rational?