So now I ask you, may the good philosophy devote itself to identifying and clarifying consistent/inconsistent and coherent/incoherent relations internal to systems/models?
— Fire Ologist
Yes. Though it needn't. — J
Or is there more to it that can still be rigorous and can be the work of philosophers?
— Fire Ologist
Yes. — J
So can we set out an argument that making any comparison requires some sort of "absolute"? — Banno
This reminds me of the Aristotle's practical syllogism, which is supposed to give a structure that applies to all actions whatever. In a way, it does, in the sense that you can shoe-horn actions into the formula. The same applies to Aristotle's syllogism, which was thought, for a long time, to give the structure of all arguments. What in fact happened was that arguments were shoe-horned into that structure, which was not particularly helpful. What tells you that the betting structure applies to all actions? The fact that you can shoe-horn things into the structure is not enough.The betting structure shows gives us a way of understanding what a belief and preference amount to, using just behaviour. — Banno
I'm interested in the limitation. Can you give me an example of an inappropriate use? Do you mean that in the inappropriate uses, better does not entail worst and best?Better entails worst and best, in itself, by definition, in every appropriate use. We need that to be the case, to use “better” at all. — Fire Ologist
"Consistent" and "Coherent" only apply to a number of elements that relate to each other - that is, to a system. "Inconsistent" and "incoherent" mean "not systematic".So good philosophy can completely forego the devotion to “ identifying and clarifying consistent/inconsistent and coherent/incoherent relations internal to systems/models”? — Fire Ologist
Better entails worst and best, in itself, by definition, in every appropriate use. We need that to be the case, to use “better” at all.
— Fire Ologist
I'm interested in the limitation. Can you give me an example of an inappropriate use? Do you mean that in the inappropriate uses, better does not entail worst and best? — Ludwig V
I'll help. I think your intuition is along these lines:
1. Making any comparison requires a standard.
2. That standard must be fixed
3. That fixed standard must be independent on the things being compared
4. to be both fixed and independent is to be absolute
5. hence any comparison requires an absolute standard
Something like that?
Can you see why this is incorrect? — Banno
Mere assertion. — Banno
To call something misleading is to say it leads somewhere—but crucially, somewhere we didn’t intend, or that doesn’t fulfill the function we took ourselves to be engaging in. That’s not the same as saying there is a metaphysical end-point we ought to be led to; rather, it’s to say that a particular use diverts us from how the practice normally works or what it aims at internally. — Banno
I think the Williamson essay is itself a good example, though I suppose some would dispute its rigor.
Or for a broader example, Thomas Nagel's work is my ideal of how philosophy can be remain rigorous and also ask questions that go beyond clarifying what is consistent or coherent within a given model. There are certainly others. — J
One thing to notice: The requirement to "completely forego the devotion to . . . " is surely too rigid, and also tendentious. By putting it in terms of "devotion," you're already building a rhetorical case against it, aren't you? Couldn't we just talk about "a type of philosophy that doesn't primarily concern itself with . . ." ? — J
What a mess.
Ok, what you assert is true.
Then there's not much point in continuing this conversation, is there. — Banno
You changed “relegated” to “devoted”. — Fire Ologist
Bottom line to me, philosophy must concern itself with consistency and coherence of language and argument - that is logical validity. But philosophy must also concern itself with the world and the persons in it and their existential/metaphysical questions - that is where soundness of arguments is measured. — Fire Ologist
So… that’s it then. — Fire Ologist
Isn’t this thread about more precision, so “doesn’t primarily concern” doesn’t seem rigorous and begs further details about what is the primary concern and how secondary or tertiary is the less concerning. — Fire Ologist
I think this contradicts you saying “though it need not.” — Fire Ologist
This isn’t an argument. It’s just why I bother to seek something valuable by talking with other people. — Fire Ologist
I'm suggesting that it's more accurate to talk about a type of philosophy -- Nagel's, perhaps -- which avails itself when necessary of all the rigorous, analytic tools, but is aiming to discuss topics that lie beyond analysis as such. — J
whether we find ourselves already doing philosophy, and must start instead from where we are. — Banno
I love it. That’s philosophy to me. Analysis, but not just analysis of analysis, but also analysis of living in the world or “topics that lie beyond analysis as such”. I’m good with that. — Fire Ologist
To "lie beyond analysis" in this sense doesn't relieve us of the responsibility of making sense. — J
Did it just click? — Banno
must start instead from where we are.
Hence the relevance of Ramsey, who shows us a way to start from indifference. — Banno
we find ourselves already doing philosophy — Banno
I can't really "disagree" with something that is so unclear. — Banno
And to do so, introduce the fixed “start”. We identify an absolute... — Fire Ologist
Something to hang the door from. — Banno
Another mere assertion.Stipulations are functional, temporary versions of absolutes. — Fire Ologist
Is it? Then whence paraconsistent logic, Dialetheism, Many-Valued Logics, Intuitionistic Logic, Non-Reflexive Logics...The LNC is an absolute. — Fire Ologist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.