Socrates was put to death for a reason. He was, in essence, systematically demolishing all the cherished beliefs of Athenian society. In other words he was being critical rather than charitable and that didn't go down well with the Athenian populace. — TheMadFool

Yes. But that was politics, not philosophy. :smile:

I'm floating a theory that philosophy, like all optional human activity, is primarily an emotional experience and that the intellectual content of philosophy is more of a cover story. — Hippyhead

Human beings are not rational beings with emotions. We are emotional beings with rationalizations. When someone is first learning philosophy, emotions often guide their actions more than rationality. Many first learn to type big words and start throwing them in your writing to make you look like you fit in with the rest of the group. Sometimes newer philosophers will read others and tend to look for the easy emotional highs.

If they have a mind for self-improvement, they are hopefully learning how to think better. Rationalizations soon start to give way to rationality. They begin to realize they don't have to use a lot of big words, but that simple, clear, and modern day language is often best. Soon they start looking for the greater joy, which is mastering a difficult problem. Not for status or recognition, but for the joy of solving the problem itself.

Being a good philosopher is an ideal good people strive for. Some of us are just starting this journey, while others are near the end. Has anyone ever reached the ideal? Perhaps in the history of mankind someone has, but I doubt it. Still it is better to be the person that strives for the ideal but falls short, then the person who does not strive at all.

Yes. But that was politics, not philosophy. :smile: — Gnomon

:smile: :ok:

Thanks for the interesting post, Hippyhead! :smile: My immediate thought is that if someone is quickly scanning through another's ideas simply to find fault in those ideas, then that person isn't very interested or open to considering those ideas in the first place. Of course it helps to point out contradictions and other flaws in one's thinking, but to effectively do this, you also need to thoughtfully consider how all of the ideas, arguments, etc. relate or don't relate to each other, and why the person might have proposed them. This is not easy to do if you're just briefly glancing at what he or she wrote. In addition, the problem with the ideas might not even be that they are wrong per se, but that they have not been elaborated upon enough or backed up with examples or evidence.

As for my thoughts on the discipline of philosophy in general, I don't believe it is pointless just because people can't agree on everything. It is noble to search for the truth for the sake of understanding it to live a meaningful life, and since our experiences, intelligence, wisdom etc. vary, we will have different views. That doesn't take away from the meaning we find in our own beliefs and why.

My immediate thought is that if someone is quickly scanning through another's ideas simply to find fault in those ideas, then that person isn't very interested or open to considering those ideas in the first place. — AntonioP

Your thought seems pretty accurate. In my view, some significant percentage of the time we aren't even interested in the topics being discussed.

As for my thoughts on the discipline of philosophy in general, I don't believe it is pointless just because people can't agree on everything. It is noble to search for the truth — AntonioP

Can the truth be found in any collection of words and ideas?

I would claim that words and ideas are like your photo on Facebook. The photo has it's practical uses, but it's just a symbol which points to you. The photo is not actually you. It's just a photo. And the photo is a symbol which represents you in a highly imperfect manner, due to the inherent limitations of photography, a 2D symbolic medium attempting to represent a 3D reality.

All philosophies, every last one of them, are like the Facebook photo. They are just highly imperfect symbols which attempt to point to the truth. No philosophy contains the truth because all philosophies are just symbols, and the truth is what's real.

What's philosophy good for then? For understanding it's limits.

Human beings are not rational beings with emotions. We are emotional beings with rationalizations. — Philosophim

Good point! Many philosophers seem to believe that their purpose in life is to find fault in other people's reasoning --- to be the annoying gadfly. But that attitude is a win-lose game, which serves self-interest without contributing to wisdom in general. If the Athenians has actually listened to Socrates' criticisms, they may have learned something valuable --- including, how to give & take criticism with grace, rather than a grudge.

In Architecture school, we had "pin-ups" where our work was publicly criticized by the professor and students. After one particularly harsh critique, by the haughty professor, of a marginal student's work, another student raised his hand and asked, "did he do anything right?" That is a question that we should ask ourselves as we critique other people's rationalizations. Before I point to the "mote" in his eye, I should cast out the "beam" in my own eye. To wit : "What is my motivation?" :smile:

Motivated Reasoning : When Hume says that reason is the slave of passions, he does not say thereby that reason is unimportant. He is saying merely that reason alone does not move one to act. The force that propels one to action is the passion, whether it be love, or anger, or pride, or envy, or fear, or desire.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/389225

Why is that other guy craving the Gotcha Game experience? — Hippyhead

The same reason you post in this forum. To fulfill their need to express their minds.

Many philosophers seem to believe that their purpose in life is to find fault in other people's reasoning --- to be the annoying gadfly. — Gnomon

Personally, I don't seek to be annoying, but that is often how one is experienced if you successfully find fault in other people's reasoning. Just making the attempt can often be welcomed, as the gadfly is providing the group consensus with an opportunity to chant their slogans. But if one is talented at finding fault, popularity will not be one's reward.

I doubt most gadflies are really motivated by a sincere desire to provide a useful service to society. I'm guessing that's mostly a cover story. I suspect there are typically deeper emotional reasons driving the bus, which I don't yet understand clearly enough to articulate in a useful manner.

Well, you shared in this here forum, and I've read it and responded. Now your story lives on with a stranger somewhere far away.

I wish you the best of outcomes; truly, the righteous path is the one paved with honest discussion.

What is the Gotcha Game really all about? — Hippyhead

Me think we should distinguish between two (or more) forms of gotcha! In one case, the argument still stands after the gotcha, which is just a tactical diversion. In another case, the argument may be logically destroyed by the gotcha.

The first case is when the gotcha pounces on a detail of the opposite argument, eg purely semantic or otherwise shallow, and can be addressed by a mere technical tweak to the argument being 'gotchaed'.

The second, quite different case is when someone asserts something that is logically and fundamentally self-contradictory, and another debater points to the logical contradiction with a simple, short sentence, because no more is required.

For instance: A asserts that: 'There is no such thing as the "meaning" of a sentence.' and then B answers: 'What do you mean by that?' A is put in a double bind: either he admits that he means nothing in particular, in which case his assertion can be discarded as mere noise, or he must admit to the existence of some "meaning". But this double bind is of his own making. Because if there no "meaning" to his words, why in hell is he talking in the first place?

I find myself using the second form quite a lot.

I battle with this everyday! The struggle for balance and wanting to simultaneously learn something new and educate others with my opinion and other perspectives.

That said, it seems to me the language 'gotcha' isn't about learning at all but an ego trip or intellectual one-upmanship. Perhaps something more like the 'have you considered' game might prevent a defensive response and encourage an open forum for learning.

As previously mentioned, what is the primary agenda? I almost never want to engage in conversation with anyone trying to prove they are right as it's simply not interesting.

So, what are these emotional agendas? No, I don't mean you of course dear reader, you would never do this, I mean that other guy. Why is that other guy craving the Gotcha Game experience? — Hippyhead

Cuz it makes ya feel like a big dog and pumps the ego, of course, whaddya stup’it?!

Perhaps something more like the 'have you considered' game might prevent a defensive response and encourage an open forum for learning. — Friendly

That's good advice, thank you.

As previously mentioned, what is the primary agenda?

Personally, when I point at logical contradictions, it's often because I feel annoyed at a certain facile nihilist approach to philosophy, which consists in disolving a given object of enquiry or concept in the acid of analytical doubt and not building or proposing any other concept in exchange. This approach I call purely destructive analysis, or 'deconstruction without reconstruction'.

Some have called it "to explain something away". Quine is a case at hand I think. Dennet too.

It's one thing when the something being "explained away", or "deconstructed" is not an a priori necessary for any thought or analysis. For instance, one may usefully deconstruct the concept of "race", and propose instead a more useful or precise alternative, such as "ethnicity". Neither race nor ethnicity are a priori concepts necessary for human thought to happen. One can thus analyse them without contradiction.

But concepts such as "language", "truth", "meaning" or "subjectivity" are not easily analysed, because they found the legitimacy of any philosophical analysis. If a philosophy means nothing, has no pretention to truth, and/or is not using language as a means of expression (and therefore trusting language to 'work' somewhat), then... what sort of philosophy is it?

It's a philosophy that destroys any possibility of doing philosophy. A philosophy sawing the branch on which it sits. Hence the term nihilist is apt. The qualifications of "facile" also is apt because any concept can be deconstructed quite easily. What's hard is to construct something, while to deconstruct it is always the easy part.

When I point at logical contradictions, it's often because I feel annoyed at a certain facile nihilist approach to philosophy, which consists in disolving a given object of enquiry or concept in the acid of analytical doubt and not building or proposing any other concept in exchange. This approach I call purely destructive analysis, or 'deconstruction without reconstruction' — Olivier5

I totally get this, I'm fairly new to this world and still want to retain some humanistic and spiritual depth to my philosophy. Art, music, love, I wont allow those to be broken down I to nihilistic logical arguements!

It's a philosophy that destroys any possibility of doing philosophy. A philosophy sawing the branch on which it sits. — Olivier5

Couldn't agree more!!

I totally get this, I'm fairly new to this world and still want to retain some humanistic and spiritual depth to my philosophy. Art, music, love, I wont allow those to be broken down I to nihilistic logical arguements! — Friendly

Welcome to TPF. We need more life-affirming philosophers me think. :-)

Welcome to TPF. We need more life-affirming philosophers me think. :-) — Olivier5

Thanks! Looking forward to seeing what I can learn.

Looking forward to seeing what I can learn. — Friendly

Learning is illusory, knowledge is nothing.

Just kidding...