You can always start a thread dealing with a subject that interests you.

You may simply be out of luck in that there's too few people engaged in leisurely analysis.

Take Pinker for example, his whole thing is that "everything is fine". His message is precisely meant for people who don't want to analyze or think too hard about anything and want to be comforted by the idea that "the real smart analysis", such as Pinker provides, concludes with laissez-faire everything is fine and dandy.

Congruent to this state of affairs, fans of Pinker don't generally engage in analysis to defend Pinker but just restate statistics that Pinker likes to state, such as "so and so amount of people out of poverty!!" Pinker is designed (whether "intelligently" by the man Pinker or then a broader media-evolutionary process) for popular consumption of people who support the status quo; things feel good for them right now and it's nice to think things are good for people generally speaking.

However, on any closer inspection by people who like rigour and analysis, Pinker's entire proposition simply falls apart.

First, whenever someone talks about progress, this simply begs the question "progress to where?" We need a moral theory in order to evaluate progress and weigh different statistics against each other.

The obvious and immediate criticism of Pinker is ecologically. If the progress he espouses is at the cost of ecosystems, necessary for long term prosperity and/or valuable in themselves, that issue must be addressed. If Pinker puts up a graph of poverty reduction and an ecologist puts up a graph of biodiversity loss, Pinker requires some moral framework to even make the claim things are going in the right direction. Which, as far as I know, Pinker never provides a moral framework in which it's even possible to compare different numbers in different graphs.

Point being, fans of Pinker don't concern themselves with defending or filling in Pinker's view of the world; the whole point is to support a laissez-faire, everything is fine attitude, and so no need to think about it further. Anyone serious about philosophy is going to immediately point out Pinker does not even have a moral framework in which "the good" can be asserted and any sort of comparative analysis with other values can be carried out.

There's ecological value (that Pinker's economic system that does all the great stuff he point to depends on, and if the system isn't sustainable then you also need a framework in which short term gains can be weighed against long term costs in the same metric) but there's also plenty of other moral and political decisions. For example, if prosperity in China leads to Chinese domination of the planet and spreading Chinese technological social control systems (great firewall, social credit, etc.) is therefore Chinese prosperity a good thing (even assuming it's ecologically sound)? If Nazi Germany had a poverty problem and then Hitler solved that poverty problem, seems to me Pinker's framework would view that as an absolutely amazing achievement of mankind right up until 1939, perhaps even 1943. Obviously China is not literally Nazi Germany, so is it's government "bad enough" or "good enough" or "benign enough" to support one conclusion over another is not easy to do, but would have to be resolved for Pinker's argument to be simply step 1 of plausible soundness.

However, even assuming "liberal democratic values" (which we can obviously question how great they are in reality, such as a genocide our liberal democracies are carrying out right now and China is not); what if, even assuming China is "bad" for liberal democratic values in China, nevertheless helps Africa and other poor nations develop in exactly the way Pinker wants, and just so happens that is and would be in a liberal democratic way outside of China? Can we weigh the "freedom" of the Chinese against the "freedom" of Africans? So even on Pinker's preferred metrics of evaluation, different scenarios can be elaborated with different pros and cons and Pinker's framework has no way of resolving them. Ultimately, all these critiques are answered with just "optimism" and the whole exercise is starting with an optimistic attitude, putting together statistics optimistically with an optimistic interpretation, and then being optimistic that potential for bad will be resolved by fellow optimistic people.

Pinker's place in the social discourse is simply serving as the counter-contrarian to everything. If someone starts analyzing an issue that really does seem governments are going to need do something about to avoid bad things happening, Pinker can be relied on to state that it's not a problem, and if it is it's not a big problem, and if it was it's not a problem anyone should really worry about, and if they should it can't be compared with all sorts of other things that are going absolutely swimmingly.

Therefore, Pinker resists "casual analysis"; either you repeat what Pinker says completely oblivious to all the moral, political, ecological, statistical collection and analysis methods, qualitative, issues Pinker never addresses, or then even the smallest analysis immediately starts to encounter questions and problems that just lead to more questions and problems, which is not a leisurely task to get through, and you just end up in those debates of those issues which Pinker ignores, and the whole point of Pinker's proposition is to encourage ignoring those issues; but if those issues aren't ignored, then in those "actual debates about stuff", Pinker's work becomes purely ornamental to the discussion.

Try the Lounge maybe?

Better still read someone like Alain de Botton? He is a pretty pleasant read and explores topics with graceful prose allowing the reader to become as involved with the text as they wish to.

'Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' is another moodier book that might interest you.

Wouldn't hurt to just post about a topic that interests you and make clear what it is you are trying to get out of the thread.

Should we go on to talk about Pinker? I have never read any of his recent books, but have heard him talk about them with others.

I have a feeling it is this sort of analysis that the OP is not looking for :D I think what you say is a little harsh. When people give a sweeping analysis of the human race it is necessarily going to remain fairly large grained. I think what often riles people is that in their immediate surroundings they only see and hear terrible woes rather than see the huge leaps that have been made in different locations and across larger periods of time.

What charitable analysis could you make of Pinker's views on something? I am assuming you are talking about Angel and Demons thing he wrote?

Pinker was just an example. Read Enlightenment now. Just any kind of books not written for academy or wannabe academy. I’ve read throug stuff like S und Z and Tractatus and such has affected my view of the world all right, but what I really search for is to read easier books, and discuss them in a friendly manner. Not to win the Nobel prize in Philosophy but to enrich oneself and others in a generally intellectual manner. And have a pleasant moment doing that.

Factfulness by Rosling, The Open Society and its Enemies by Popper, bur preferrably newly released books like that.

Am I the only person alive that want to read something and discuss it leisurely rather than in search of the Truth and in order to display superior intelligence?

Am I the only person alive that want to read something and discuss it leisurely rather than in search of the Truth and in order to display superior intelligence? — Ansiktsburk

:D no!

No matter what I read I tend to jump down the rabbit hole. I am more likley to read pop-science or pop-history than pop-philosophy tbh. I did make a start on The Matter of Things, which was written for both the causal reader and experts alike. It is not short though and I doubt I will find time to finish it.

If you have a specific suggestion? I wouldn't mind reading something else by Botton as I found his style nice and relaxed so I imagine that could work? I would honestly welcome a little side project as it may help me chill between researching less inviting texts!

Try Reddit, OP.

Laidback = "Not stupid" = Elementary level.

It's why you're not a rocket scientist or nuclear engineer. You're barking up trees whose fruits would (rightfully) kill you. Stop trying to grandstand. Some people are great. You're not. No amount of force you can apply will ever change this fact. Just turn on HBO or Netflix and live your life. You'll love it. I promise.

Just turn on HBO or Netflix and live your life. You'll love it. I promise. — Outlander

This forum is just another version of HBO/Reddit/Youtube. You'll love it. I promise.

We do reading groups, though most of us that do them like the difficult texts. (At least I know I do -- the reading group helps me keep on task)

In terms of attitude, though -- going into reading the text with interest rather than judging it stupid or absurd, or going into philosophy with the attitude that we aren't here to prove that we're the smartest in the room -- that's basically what we do here, or aspire towards at least.

So, sure, you could find that here: Start a thread on a book and see if anyone wants to read along with you.

↪boethius I have a feeling it is this sort of analysis that the OP is not looking for :D I think what you say is a little harsh. When people give a sweeping analysis of the human race it is necessarily going to remain fairly large grained. I think what often riles people is that in their immediate surroundings they only see and hear terrible woes rather than see the huge leaps that have been made in different locations and across larger periods of time. — I like sushi

Exactly the point I'm trying to make. If you keep it leisurely it won't be analysis, if it is analysis it will quickly become non-leisurely.

And yes, obviously the basic proposition of "progress" can be defended; there's clearly many changes over history, maybe that's progress. However, it's obviously a difficult task, is my basic point, which Pinker doesn't come close to accomplishing or even develop the tools to accomplish in any remotely "philosophically satisfying" way.

My goal was to show that if we "got into Pink" the critique would many and sharp, then hose critiques need to be responded to (either referring to Pinker or then just getting into those issues, reformulating progress in an Apinker fashion), and then will keep going, and is not a leisurely exercise.

The people who like both Pinker and leisure generally won't want to debate anything, maybe just repeat choice stats and quotes, is my basic contention.

Obviously we could debate Pinker's claim and whether some actual moral, political, statistical analytical framework could support it, but the debate will just immediately get into those issues, become more and more complicated, refer to more and more material, going in an overall non-leisurely direction.

Basic point being that analysis is a process of critical scrutiny, so the people interested in it generally want to really get to the bottom of things.

Basic point being that analysis is a process of critical scrutiny, so the people interested in it generally want to really get to the bottom of things — boethius

Not only that, but when we compare difficult philosophical texts like Heidegger’s Being and Time with work aimed at a more popular audience, the latter will be of necessity be written in a more direct and less ambiguous style. There is pressure from the readership for the author to be polemical and hammer home some clear and likely controversial points. Writers like Dennett, Pinker and Dawkins are anything if not polemical and controversial. I’ve participated in many philosophy discussion groups, and the rule of thumb is that the more the material is aimed at a popular audience, the more likely it is to encourage polarized, oppositional forms of debate.

If you want humility and open-mindedness , you’re more likely to find it in a discussion of Heidegger, where no one is quite sure what he is getting at .

If you want humility and open-mindedness , you’re more likely to find it in a discussion of Heidegger, where no one is quite sure what he is getting at. — Joshs

:smirk:

On this forum (…) I have a very hard time finding (…) intellectually informed people discussing Philosophy leisurely… — Ansiktsburk

One of the biggest gripes of philosophers is that folks like to cherry-pick what they write. I admit to it in this case, but I also found a reason: as a rule, intellectually informed people don’t discuss leisurely.

Yes. That reminds me of La Rochefoucauld saying that education is a second self-love.

... like.... after masturbation?

Try the Lounge maybe?

Better still read someone like Alain de Botton? He is a pretty pleasant read and explores topics with graceful prose allowing the reader to become as involved with the text as they wish to.

'Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' is another moodier book that might interest you.

Wouldn't hurt to just post about a topic that interests you and make clear what it is you are trying to get out of the thread. — I like sushi

@Ansiktsburk I second this suggestion.

Botton and associated authors fit what you describe. They're accessible to a general audience and think about philosophical things like what you seem to want.

Start a thread on one of these sorts of authors and see whose interested -- I bet you'll get participation.

The "first" self-love referred to by the Duke is how much we do in the name of helping (or hurting) others that is actually self-serving. The idea of a second version is that we fiercely defend what we have bothered to learn.

You can always start a thread dealing with a subject that interests you. — Janus

I think the above advice sounds best. The issue may be that some people will slag off the popular thinkers as lightweights, shills and media whores. And maybe you'll even generate the kind of bitterly polarized debate that has come to characterize political discussions today.

Is that to be found here or elsewhere? — Ansiktsburk

Yes, here you can find them. If you don't find it here, I think that either you haven't spent enough time here to find those conversations that engage with the idea of leisurely discussions; or that you have found and read them but not understood the sentiments or tone behind them.

The "first" self-love referred to by the Duke is how much we do in the name of helping (or hurting) others that is actually self-serving. — Paine

Well that's a shame. I thought for a moment there may finally be a quote that really captures my methodological approach to things in my formative years, but, alas, I will have to keep looking.

Not only that, but when we compare difficult philosophical texts like Heidegger’s Being and Time with work aimed at a more popular audience, the latter will be of necessity be written in a more direct and less ambiguous style. There is pressure from the readership for the author to be polemical and hammer home some clear and likely controversial points. Writers like Dennett, Pinker and Dawkins are anything if not polemical and controversial. I’ve participated in many philosophy discussion groups, and the rule of thumb is that the more the material is aimed at a popular audience, the more likely it is to encourage polarized, oppositional forms of debate. — Joshs

Agreed, definitely also a good point to consider.

It's also a consequence, I would argue, of not having a sufficient framework, not to speak of an actual theory, in which critical questions can even be potentially resolved, the only option becomes to dict and contradict back and forth at each other.

Engaging in more complete analysis it becomes possible to at least agree on the structure and soundness of the arguments of different proponents, even if the validity is disagreed.

The dividing line I would argue is that "actual philosophy" understands the problems of moral assertions, whereas in regular discourse there's a few (always moving and never mutually coherent) "virtue anchors" that are taken for granted and people try to attach their argument to whatever their preference is and mostly what is "most virtuous" in society at any given time. Pro-life vs. pro-choice being a typical example of how this process plays out.

If I tie myself to one virtue anchor and you to another, then all we can do is shout back and forth at each other at a distance and never approach one another nor ever see things from the other's point of view.

To bring back to Pinker as an example, he anchors his argument mainly in the virtue that more immediate indicators of consumption and health outcomes is an unquestioned good thing, and so from this perspective any other "virtue anchor", such as biodiversity, is just shouted down as secondary and coming from just mean people really.

The Duke's influence on Kant doesn’t have much exposure, assuming there was any, but what you wrote sounds a lot like some of the foundational aspects of the second Critique.

I know Kant took a couple French Enlightenment thinkers quite seriously, so there is precedent.

Interesting you brought him up, regardless.

The Duke's influence on Kant doesn’t have much exposure, assuming there was any — Mww

"Whenever any man of sound mind and reason living in a world of lies and deception comes across a 'gatekeeper', one immediately barges through, preferably running them over, eager to see what secrets and treasures lie beyond the veil of ignorance the weak and transient attempt to keep from the eyes and ears of average men."

Old quote. That I may have just made up right now. Take it as you will.

Not sure how to take it, but….thanks?

I know Kant took a couple French Enlightenment thinkers quite seriously, so there is precedence. — Mww

That reminds me of my favorite passage in Critique of Practical Reason where Kant distinguishes respect for others from reactions to a person's character:

A man can also be an object of love, fear, or admiration even to astonishment and yet not be an object of respect. His jocular humor, his courage and strength, and his power of rank may inspire me with such feelings though inner respect for his is still lacking. Fontanelle says, "I bow to a great man, but my mind does not bow." I can add: to a humble plain man, in whom I perceive righteousness in a higher degree than I am conscious of in myself, my mind bows whether I choose or not, however high I carry my head that he may not forget my superior position. Why? His example holds a law before me which strikes down my self-conceit when I compare my own conduct with it; that it is a law which can be obeyed, and consequently is one that can actually be put into practice is proved to my eyes by the act. — Critique of Practical Reason, translated by Lewis White Beck page 77

Bernard Le Bovier, sieur de Fontenelle was the intellectual grandfather of Voltaire, Rousseau and company.

I am not sure that François would agree with the talk of law and he is skeptical toward expressions of humility but there is the following maxim:

230.—Nothing is so infectious as example, and we never do great good or evil without producing the like. We imitate good actions by emulation, and bad ones by the evil of our nature, which shame imprisons until example liberates. — François VI, duc de la Rochfoucauld

:up: :lol:

The more things change the more they stay the same, re: translator’s intro, “…. how precarious Court favour then was….”, in juxtaposition to today’s White House.

Mid-1600’s, a numbered series of sentences; early 1900’s, a number series of paragraphs, neither of which satisfy the want of systemic philosophical theory. Which is fine of course, no set-in-stone way to do philosophy. Personal preference kinda thing.

Maybe he was more the anthropological moralist than metaphysical philosopher anyway.

I wasn’t familiar with the Duke, so thanks for the chance to check him out.

isn't this whole forum armchair philosophers? The main problem here is everyone is stuck on Platonism. Which makes for that boring pretentious armchair philosophy of metaphysicians. You know, the ones that like to consider the "brain in a vat," without rolling their eyes at such a weak thought experiment. Epistemological philosophy is practiced by those peacocks who like to hide their peacock feathers from view while they call that their pride.

You're gonna have to make what you want in life.

Tbh I have had a similar problem. Most places that discuss philosophy are full of bots, spam and bad faith; then you have places like this forum which is nice and I do enjoy, but sometimes seems to expect an uncommonly high level of formal knowledge on the subject. I just like to think about deep things and talk about it with smart, open minded people; I don't want to read math journals, ethical treatises and philosophy books in the original French. Sadly there isn't really a place for people like us, as communities inevitably trend towards one or the other in time.

It's why you're not a rocket scientist or nuclear engineer. You're barking up trees whose fruits would (rightfully) kill you. Stop trying to grandstand. Some people are great. You're not. No amount of force you can apply will ever change this fact. Just turn on HBO or Netflix and live your life. You'll love it. I promise. — Outlander

This bloke has 2,7k posts here... suppose he's the little sunshine of this forum.

This bloke has 1,7k posts here... suppose he's the little sunshine of this forum. — Ansiktsburk

Oh relax. A little tough love never hurt anyone. You want to be criticized by your peers who wish you to succeed, before those who'd see you fail do so themselves.

Men drink. Men make mistakes. I am no different. You see truth that is relevant to you, you respect it. You see a lie, or that which is not relevant, you avoid it. Surely you're an adult capable of understanding the difference between the two. I suppose that was my fault for assuming.

You made a casual thread and you got a casual response. This is quite how the world works. Is it not?

Just so you don't think it was anything personal, I'll have you know not 3 hours ago I purchased a book written by a new member, one @Pieter R van Wyk off an online marketplace (Amazon) for 17.36 USD. It shall be here Wednesday. While I'm questionable as to whether it will be as great as I contend it may, judging by some very critical comments here it may instead only reveal the mind and mannerisms of a confused soul. Either way, I have a morbid sense of valuation so I will likely enjoy it regardless of what I find. That should tell you all you need to know about me.

So lighten up, while you still can. Or so the song goes. :smile:

In no shortness of irony, you'll find I made a thread expressing similar desire! See, we have more in common than you might think. Small world. no? :sweat: