This forum is much less of a ‘cult’ than many academic philosophy departments.

What you’re referring to is ‘meta-philosophy’, one’s attitude towards what philosophy ought to encompass, what kinds of questions and assumptions it ought to consider and include.

Perhaps the reason there’s a sense of friction or controversy, is because in asking meta-philosophical questions, we’re exposing deep assumptions that each participant makes about what is considered normal or real. And that engenders controversy, at least in part, because of the collision of multiple perspectives - something which is obviously precipitated by the Internet, but is also a conspicuous feature of modern culture.

Consider that up until very recently - by that, I mean a couple of hundred years - one’s culture was homogenous, only the learned knew languages, and there was a corpus or shared pool of accepted wisdom, which set the boundaries of what was acceptable to think. Back in the day, heretics were dealt with very firmly. And actually, the word ‘heretic’ is derived from ‘opinion’ or ‘view’. Now everyone is a heretic to someone else! ‘Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold’.

Academic philosophy has its own way of throttling down the chaos of competing claims of what is real or normal. It recognises and validates a particular set of such guiding assumptions, even though within those guidelines it allows for a wide range of opinion. But within it there are some views beyond the pale; these are then characterised as fringe or essentially ostracised. Also the professional practice of philosophy is extremely exacting, in that recognition by peers and a record of successful publication is made a very difficult things to achieve. And I suppose that is as it should be, but throughout there are ways of ensuring that the overall consensus is maintained.

Here on a public forum the only controls are moderation, and people are free to write as they wish, which they plainly do.

(By the way, Dawkins is by no stretch a philosopher, and the fact that Dennett is considered one, is an indication of the decadence of the subject in my view.)

Are you talking about philosophy in general or this forum: On the forum, would-be philosophers just wanna have fun. Self-definition as recreation. God will not have his will made manifest by cowards.

Also, I've learned a lot here about the value of philosophy, consciousness, science, reason, civility, and the value of philosophy. And I haven't met anyone here I don't like and respect.

In the academy they manufacture consent with well-placed smirks blown out of proportion by the authority of their offices. The further you get from their towers, the less incentive there is for anyone to revere the chuckles of professors or toe the lines marked out by those pretentious gestures. — Cabbage Farmer

As I see it, the "deep" philosophy transcends mere institutions. For me philosophy is almost the essence of being human. If the academy "hardens" so that it excludes what might criticize it, that's not much of a surprise. Institutions are constituted by exclusion, one might say. It's like the church regulating talk of God.

What else could they be for if not to stamp "genuine" on some philosophy or theology? In theory, for "pure" teaching and learning. But the medium is the message. Grades must be made so that careers can be obtained. It'sbusiness. Inauthentic whatnot is always going to haunt it.

On the bright side, we can and even must "wrestle with the angel" personally. The institutional stamp of approval or the participation of employees of those institutions means about as much as you think it does. The "people" who aren't already wrestling with the angel aren't going to hear what the wise professor has to say. And the people who are truly wrestling with the angel will take the professor as one more wrestler, whose job, admittedly, provides certain advantages and resources.

By the way, Dawkins is by no stretch a philosopher, — Wayfarer

He is a wonderful science writer for sure. But I think he might possibly have a somewhat negative attitude towards philosophy that has unfortunately spilled over from his (justifiable IMO) disdain for organized religion. In one of his books - probably "The Magic of Reality" , he states that to ask the existential question "why is there something?" is a fatuous exercise, mainly because there is so much stuff actually existing to wonder at here and now. Maybe that question simply doesn't generate the frissance in his mind that it does with many.

As I see it, the "deep" philosophy transcends mere institutions. For me philosophy is almost the essence of being human. — t0m

Yes.

he states that to ask the existential question "why is there something?" is a fatuous exercise, mainly because there is so much stuff actually existing to wonder at here and now. Maybe that question simply doesn't generate the frissance in his mind that it does with many. — Jake Tarragon

He's not the only scientist to dismiss this question, either. Tyson did so at the end of an otherwise very likable interview. I think they can't help associating it with religion. Any hint of mystery is suspicious. "We must know. We will know. "

Also funny that Dawkins would talk about all the fascinating entities that are here to non-fatously wonder at. As if "why is there something rather than nothing" didn't include every such entity. He can't really mean wonder at the existence of such objects. He must mean wonder at their structure or their way of existing. But the philosopher is amazed that they exist in the first place. The "how" is admittedly a more practical and objective concern, and that's probably why he shifts toward the how.

The "how" is admittedly a more practical and objective concern, and that's probably why he shifts toward the how. — t0m

I actually read an interesting stab at a scientific-ish explanation of the "why" in the letters page of New Scientist recently. The writer proposed that as zero-ness is only one of an infinite number of possibilities (certainly with regard to different numbers as an analogy to different universes), we should expect non zero-ness.

To me this gets zero-ness wrong, though. Because it presupposes a potential that includes the potential for zero-ness. It's not the "true zero-ness" IMO that is being worked with there. It presupposes a physical-probabilistic framework. But the "deep" version of "why is there something?" is asking about this or any other basic framework itself. One can always ask why is this particular X the primordial framework?

It's not the "true zero-ness" IMO that is being worked with there. — t0m

Yes I know what you mean, even though I have never tried to express that thought in words as you have done above. Isn't it strange that such thoughts exist in me (others too?) quite well formed, but somewhat independent of language? Mathematics can be like that too, I find. Maybe mathematics holds the key to everything!

Yes, it is strange. I actually work with lots of math. I think it's great, but I personally wouldn't say it holds the keys to everything. What it does do, for me, is make terribly clear how different philosophy and math really are. When we work in language we have a "fog" of meaning. We are never done figuring out not only what the other person meant but what we ourselves meant.

On the other hand, math, especially the finite/discrete kind in computation, is as cruel and as exact as an eternal machine. Nothing could be less ambiguous or more certain. The philosophy of math is doubtful and foggy compared to the discrete-finite center of math. It is less certain than that which it might want to justify or ground.

In math, a person can get something figured out permanently. In philosophy IMO we are always going back over the past and re-reading it. Nothing is fixed. But I love philosophy for being "fully human" like this, which is why I spend my free time with it --as opposed to doing more math than my job requires.

What is the purpose and what are the boundaries of our philosophical conversation? What sort of cult are we here? — Cabbage Farmer

We used to invite professors to the old philosophy forum I spent time around in. It was a great way at gearing the audience (informed) towards posting some prominent questions in regards to some philosophical thought experiments. I wish we could revive something like that here if possible.

In one of [Dawkin's] books - probably "The Magic of Reality", he states that to ask the existential question "why is there something?" is a fatuous exercise, mainly because there is so much stuff actually existing to wonder at here and now. — Jake Tarragon

One gets the distinct impression that Dawkins can't conceive of anything more wonderful than Darwin's Tangled Bank. That is the acme of human achievement, the towering pinnacle of civilization.

Dawkins’ narrowmindedness, his unshakeable belief that the entire history of human intellectual achievement was just a prelude to the codification of scientific inquiry, leads him to dismiss the insights offered not only by theology, but philosophy, history and art as well.

To him, the humanities are expendable window-dressing, and the consciousness and emotions of his fellow human beings are byproducts of natural selection that frequently hobble his pursuit and dissemination of cold, hard facts. His orientation toward the world is the product of a classic category mistake, but because he’s nestled inside it so snugly he perceives complex concepts outside of his understanding as meaningless dribble. If he can’t see it, then it doesn’t exist, and anyone trying to describe it to him is delusional and possibly dangerous.

Richard Dawkins, what on earth happened to you?

We used to invite professors to the old philosophy forum I spent time around in. — Posty McPostface

One of the philosophers on Aeon actually commented on thread I wrote about one of his articles.

It's not the "true zero-ness" IMO that is being worked with there. — t0m

Perhaps "true zeroness" is unobtainable in the sense that any exact point on the number line is unobtainable materially. I feel that such a transposition of the existential problem of physical "true zeroness" into a consideration of the infinitely continuous number line still leaves something to be in awe of, while at least some satisfaction is also derivable because the conceptual problem has been reduced to a more straightforward, more tangible statement about the number line. Psychological satisfaction is surely the goal of "deep philosophy", even if we should always retain a modicum of skeptism? After all, it psychological feelings that generate the deep questions, IMO.

Richard Dawkins, what on earth happened to you? — Wayfarer

Dawkins can certainly be too evangelical in his rationalism, and also blundered by dismissing "milder" sexual harassment (I think he admitted that in the end) but I find that article to be rather empty of anything besides anti-rational and pro-theology rhetoric and false descriptions of Dawkins' opinions.

I find that article to be rather empty of anything besides anti-rational and pro-theology rhetoric and false descriptions of Dawkins opinions. — Jake Tarragon

I agree. It's a hit piece. It's as easy to caricature Dawkins as it is to caricature religion and its adherents. His doing the latter doesn't justify his critics doing the former.

he states that to ask the existential question "why is there something?" is a fatuous exercise — Jake Tarragon

Which reveals him as a philistine.

This forum is much less of a ‘cult’ than many academic philosophy departments. — Wayfarer

I agree. Our community reflects a wider range of philosophical biases than any philosophy department I'm aware of.

I think that's for the best. I hope this sentiment was clear enough in my initial remark.

What you’re referring to is ‘meta-philosophy’, one’s attitude towards what philosophy ought to encompass, what kinds of questions and assumptions it ought to consider and include.

Perhaps the reason there’s a sense of friction or controversy, is because in asking meta-philosophical questions, we’re exposing deep assumptions that each participant makes about what is considered normal or real. And that engenders controversy, at least in part, because of the collision of multiple perspectives - something which is obviously precipitated by the Internet, but is also a conspicuous feature of modern culture.

Consider that up until very recently - by that, I mean a couple of hundred years - one’s culture was homogenous, only the learned knew languages, and there was a corpus or shared pool of accepted wisdom, which set the boundaries of what was acceptable to think. Back in the day, heretics were dealt with very firmly. And actually, the word ‘heretic’ is derived from ‘opinion’ or ‘view’. Now everyone is a heretic to someone else! ‘Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold’.

Academic philosophy has its own way of throttling down the chaos of competing claims of what is real or normal. It recognises and validates a particular set of such guiding assumptions, even though within those guidelines it allows for a wide range of opinion. But within it there are some views beyond the pale; these are then characterised as fringe or essentially ostracised. Also the professional practice of philosophy is extremely exacting, in that recognition by peers and a record of successful publication is made a very difficult things to achieve. And I suppose that is as it should be, but throughout there are ways of ensuring that the overall consensus is maintained. — Wayfarer

What does it mean to use the prefix "meta-" that way? It seems to me that conversations about the purpose and character of philosophy can be philosophical conversations, and arguably should be central to the practice of philosophical discourse.

I agree that persistent disputes about what counts as "appropriate" philosophical conversation tend to implicate controversial framing assumptions. Divergent attitudes toward these assumptions indicate distinct philosophical conversations and distinct discursive communities. Many who philosophize feel much is at stake in their conversations about reality, truth, meaning, value, and so on.

Diversity of opinion has always been a feature of cosmopolitan culture, say in ancient Alexandria, or anywhere that diverse streams of culture have collected in the same pool. The internet has decentralized media and communication in our time. In some respects our global cosmopolitan conversation perhaps more closely resembles conversations in the ancient agora than conversations in the more tightly controlled communication environments of the West in the mid 20th-century or the middle ages.

I suggest it's in the interest of the professors to adapt their manner of engaging in discourses accordingly.

Here on a public forum the only controls are moderation, and people are free to write as they wish, which they plainly do. — Wayfarer

People are free to write as they wish, and the moderators are obliged to moderate in keeping with their own interpretations of the forum's guidelines. Which means that sometimes people who wrote what they wished get censored or banned; and then sometimes people complain about the ruling.

Hence this conversation about the boundaries of our discourse.

I raise the question of the relevance of current academic norms for our community standards, largely because many of the complaints raised against posters who write what they wish, sound to me like complaints that those posters have strayed too far beyond current academic norms.

It's not clear to me that running afoul of academic norms is sufficient reason for censorship in our community, and I wouldn't support such a policy. Neither is it clear to me that current academic norms are entirely irrelevant to our community standards, and I wouldn't support that policy either.

It's a mystery to me. What explicit guidelines do the moderators employ?

(By the way, Dawkins is by no stretch a philosopher, and the fact that Dennett is considered one, is an indication of the decadence of the subject in my view.) — Wayfarer

Dawkins is a scientist and public intellectual who has sought to fill the void left open by professional philosophers. Intellectuals like Dawkins have to pick up the slack in the public discourse left drooping by the neglect of professors in the humanities.

Dennett perhaps marginalizes himself by pursuing a multidisciplinary discourse and by engaging in popular conversations. I'm not sure what you mean to suggest that he's no philosopher. He's a gifted student of Ryle's. You and I might disagree with their points of view, but that's no reason to say they're not philosophers. What's gained by that sort of flippant prejudice?

Perhaps you have your own ways of throttling competing claims.

Are you talking about philosophy in general or this forum — T Clark

I'm talking about philosophy in general, philosophy in the academy, and philosophy in this forum.

It's not clear to me that running afoul of academic norms is sufficient reason for censorship in our community, and I wouldn't support such a policy. Neither is it clear to me that current academic norms are entirely irrelevant to our community standards, and I wouldn't support that policy either. — Cabbage Farmer

That's about where we are. Clearly we allow posts and OPs that question or do not adhere to academic orthodoxy, but academic norms are also clearly relevant here. There is a lot of space between those two poles in which to maneuver, it's true, and that may result in some uncertainty, but no set of guidelines of reasonable length is going to explicitly and unambiguously cover every moderating context anyway. The feedback forum comes into play here in helping both to clarify and guide our decisions as does our own mod forum and discussions like this one, which are welcome.

As I see it, the "deep" philosophy transcends mere institutions. For me philosophy is almost the essence of being human. If the academy "hardens" so that it excludes what might criticize it, that's not much of a surprise. Institutions are constituted by exclusion, one might say. It's like the church regulating talk of God. — t0m

"Constituted by exclusion", now there's a turn of phrase.

I might call a speaker's discourse more "inclusive" if it's arranged to account for a greater diversity of views. Of course you don't need to believe all the views you take into account, you only need to engage them, or to position your discourse with respect to them.

I wouldn't require that a philosophy department hire every sort of charlatan before I counted it "inclusive". But I think it's irresponsible for philosophy departments to neglect engagement with the populace, even by way of the discourse of charlatans. The English department at Harvard offers a course on writing TV pilots with a focus on serial comedy. Philosophy departments should train students in an analogous way, to make speeches relevant to wide popular audiences. I expect there's already a shift along those lines, and that's a trend I would encourage.

What else could they be for if not to stamp "genuine" on some philosophy or theology? In theory, for "pure" teaching and learning. But the medium is the message. Grades must be made so that careers can be obtained. It'sbusiness. Inauthentic whatnot is always going to haunt it.

On the bright side, we can and even must "wrestle with the angel" personally. The institutional stamp of approval or the participation of employees of those institutions means about as much as you think it does. The "people" who aren't already wrestling with the angel aren't going to hear what the wise professor has to say. And the people who are truly wrestling with the angel will take the professor as one more wrestler, whose job, admittedly, provides certain advantages and resources. — t0m

Why do institutions take the trouble to legitimize some discourses and delegitimize others?

I don't think it's just "business", and I don't think it's just a scramble for privilege and esteem. It seems to me that many of the people who influence or seek to influence institutions, and many of the people who work within organizations constrained by profit motives and institutional norms, believe that hearts and minds are at stake, that the order and direction of our society is at stake, that the future of humanity is at stake.

Some of those people are paid speakers, professors and pundits, who imagine their speeches make a small contribution to the general trend; and some of them acknowledge a sense of obligation to make that contribution to the best of their ability.

So we comment here on ways in which they might best discharge their duty.

I don't think it's just "business", and I don't think it's just a scramble for privilege and esteem. — Cabbage Farmer

I do. I observe that academics is a business onto itself and it's designed around what can be taught in a classroom. Philosophy can only be learned outside of a classroom by experiencing and observing life as it unfolds. This is something that can be discussed post-graduation, but by this time the academics are so ingrained that people are unwilling for unable to change the habit. Philosophy takes lots of work and time as the ancients practiced it.

I wouldn't require that a philosophy department hire every sort of charlatan before I counted it "inclusive". But I think it's irresponsible for philosophy departments to neglect engagement with the populace, even by way of the discourse of charlatans. — Cabbage Farmer

I would like to put this a bit more strongly. I would require that a philosophy department not hire charlatans. To translate this to our community, any post or thread that is not removed gains the status of being deemed at least worthy of consideration by the community. What we as a community refuse to give house room to, is more definitive of who we are and what we stand for than anything we do consent to argue about.

Paradise island is surrounded by shark-infested waters. But we need a few wild boars in the jungle to keep things interesting. Just don't break Piggy's glasses. (I'm regretting this metaphor already.)

We used to invite professors to the old philosophy forum I spent time around in. It was a great way at gearing the audience (informed) towards posting some prominent questions in regards to some philosophical thought experiments. I wish we could revive something like that here if possible. — Posty McPostface

I recall seeing two or three such exchanges on the previous site.

I'm sure the unruly way we carry on in these spaces is a prima facie deterrent to the participation of prominent experts and anxious adjuncts alike. But it's not hard to imagine a custom in keeping with which an expert could lead by example, engage the whole group, then delegate most of his responsibility in the conversation to a couple of his students, as Gorgias passes off conversation with Socrates to hot-headed Polus and clear-thinking Callicles.

Professors could encourage or require their students to participate in public spaces like this one. Departments could institute rotations whereby professors take turns directing departmental engagement with the online community in free and open online spaces.

If it's happening already, I haven't caught wind of it. It seems the academics prefer to perform in spaces they control. That's squandered opportunity, as I've suggested, especially if conversations in these open spaces are among those the professors most sorely need to rehearse. Their withdrawal arguably diminishes rather than preserves the authority of their institution.

What does it mean to use the prefix "meta-" that way? — Cabbage Farmer

'Meta-philosophy' refers to your 'philosophy about philosophy' - what are the proper bounds of the subject, the domain of discourse, if you like.

I'm not sure what you mean to suggest that [Dennett is] no philosopher. — Cabbage Farmer

Dennett is an 'eliminative materialist'. His strongest statement of this radical position appears in his book 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. This book argues that the 'acid' of the idea of natural selection 'dissolves' traditional ideas about the nature of freedom and the meaning of human life. One of the casualties of his criticism is, in fact, the subject of philosophy itself, as understood and practiced by its advocates from the time of Plato forward. Dennett wishes to show that humans are not really agents in any meaningful sense, and that the mind itself is an illusion, generated by and explicable in terms of the activities of organic molecules. So what I mean is that he deploys the techniques and rhetorical skills of philosophy to argue against the very possibility of what has always been understood as 'philosophy'; he's literally an anti-philosopher. (It is of note that one of his earlier books, 'Consciousness Explained', has been satirically titled 'Consciousness Ignored' by his many critics including John Searle and Thomas Nagel.)

Dennett wishes to show that humans are not really agents in any meaningful sense, and that the mind itself is an illusion, generated by and explicable in terms of the activities of organic molecules. — Wayfarer

Emotionally I don't care whether that is true or not. It makes no difference to *my* life whether it is true or not. Simples!

Intellectually, I am uncertain about it.

Perhaps I should have posted this in this discussion instead of over there.

Much - if not all - of what goes on in these forums is mere knots in language that can be readily straightened out; understanding psychoceramics is important because some crackpots get elected.

'Meta-philosophy' refers to your 'philosophy about philosophy'... — Wayfarer

Perfectly clear and makes sense.

naming stuff gives the illusion of understanding it.

The map is not the territory.

Psychological satisfaction is surely the goal of "deep philosophy", even if we should always retain a modicum of skeptism? After all, it psychological feelings that generate the deep questions, IMO. — Jake Tarragon

Very much agree. Kojeve's Hegel uses "satisfaction" as the criterion for wisdom. The wise-man can give a satisfying account of himself. The dialectic comes to rest with this satisfaction. This is also pragmatism's notion of inquiry. It's a response to malfunction, pain, resistance to flow. If we have our basic position ironed out (happy with who we generally are, etc.), then we can indulge in creative play.