Lots of things are possible. The question is which is most likely, and best supported by the evidence. — gurugeorge

But that's evasive. The question is about what's possible, given that what you said excluded the possibility of exception; and it's specifically about what you said, rather than lots of things. The key word was "always". Are you standing by what you said or are you conceding? Was it an exaggeration, perhaps?

One has to be on guard against various ways of going astray of course, but that's partly why we engage in dialogue, to make sure we aren't going crazy :) — gurugeorge

Yes, one does. But, ideally, should that be the main purpose of philosophy? To be used and abused as a means of reassurance? Or is there a greater purpose to be found?

Does anyone remember the thread at the old place that asked about the last post.

Not sure about the exact words but it went something like this I think.

If you have the last post on a thread, does it mean that you have said something so profound that none can refute you or that no one feels like answering anymore bloody stupid questions?

But to answer your original question and avoid further miss understanding, yes I think some people become pretentious. — Sir2u

And here we have the pretence that my question was, "Do some people become pretentious?". Or perhaps it's just a misunderstanding. Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception.

It's curious that some responders have chosen to answer their own questions instead of my own. The above is an example, as are the responses by those who acted as though I had asked, "How do I come across to you?", or, "What's your opinion of my personality?".

This is counterproductive if the intention is to dispute anything that I've said or raised. But, more than that, it serves as a demonstration that the instigation of philosophical discussion, or what is perhaps better described as meta-philosophical discussion in this case, does indeed attract a kind of pretence.

But it's easy to bloviate before then, before you've really understood the problems deeply enough, and come to rash conclusions — gurugeorge

Oh, I wouldn’t wanna come out in a rash conclusion.

And here we have the pretence that my question was, "Do some people become pretentious?". Or perhaps it's just a misunderstanding. Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception. — Sapientia

I don't see the point to this.
Pretentiousness, noun, The quality of being pretentious (behaving or speaking in such a manner as to create a false appearance of great importance or worth). Syn. ostentatiousness

Pretentious, adjective, Making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction. Syn. ostentatious

It's curious that some responders have chosen to answer their own questions instead of my own. — Sapientia

Nothing strange about that, especially on a philosophy forum. It is like talking to yourself, you should always get the answers you want to hear.

Oh, I wouldn’t wanna come out in a rash conclusion. — CuddlyHedgehog

Put some snake oil on it then.

I don't see the point to this. — Sir2u

Now there's a surprise.

Now there's a surprise. — Sapientia

I don't see how you could possibly be surprised that people don't understand what you mean.

Not people. You, in particular. I am confident that there are others with the ability to see what you do not.

Not people. You. — Sapientia

So you do not consider me to be in the category of people? Bloody charming.

I am confident that there are others with the ability to see what you do not. — Sapientia

Do a poll to find out if anyone understood what you meant.
The only thing I got from what you said is that you used the wrong word "pretence" when you should have used "self-deception".
And as I said, I did not see the point of it. Was it supposed to have been in some way explanatory of something?

Put some snake oil on it then — Sir2u

Bloody charming.

Do a poll to find out if anyone understood what you meant. — Sir2u

Most of us understood, dear.

But that's evasive. — Sapientia

No it's not, it directly addresses your "what if?"s.

You'd have to give me a reason to think one of your "what if?"s is true, for me to climb down from an "always."

However, that said:-

Was it an exaggeration, perhaps? — Sapientia

No, it was a figure of speech - or an admonition, perhaps. Obviously "always" terminates at when you do actually start to understand the problems in a deep way, which as i said probably takes about 10 years or so (at any rate, probably more years than it takes to get a doctorate in Philosophy ;) ),.

Is everything really a matter of personal opinion? — Sapientia

When you ask, really ask, about a thing you "know" it gives you the chance to understand why, and how you have come to know it, and opening up the debate to others has the possibility to unpack that knowledge, to revise it, build upon it or even dismiss it utterly.

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? Is there something about it which opens up for debate that which we already know? Is everything really a matter of personal opinion? — Sapientia

I think philosophy can invite a sort of pretence -- but I don't know I'd say that said pretence is unique to philosophy. I think that simple questions like the one's you use as examples can be asked earnestly. I'd say there are times that what I thought I knew appears, for whatever reason at that time, to be something I don't know -- and so I ask something along the lines of...

What is faith? What is education? What is the purpose of education? What is scientism? What is a philosophical question? What is common sense? What is Google? — Sapientia

... which is not to say that said question is necessarily profound. Sometimes the reason I might ask such a question is something as simple and boring as self-deception or confusion.

but not always.

I'm not sure I follow why you're asking if everything is a matter of personal opinion, though. If it were, wouldn't the simple questions have whatever answer we wish, after all? It seems to me that in asking a question that seems a bit silly -- if we are asking earnestly -- we are hoping for something more than mere personal opinion, even if the answer doesn't quite reach the demands of knowledge.

Most of us understood, dear. — CuddlyHedgehog

Congratulations, here is a :clap: :clap: :clap: or 2 for you. But I doubt that you have considered everything about what was said.

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? — Sapientia

Was the first question, to which I eventually replied.

But to answer your original question and avoid further miss understanding, yes I think some people become pretentious. — Sir2u

The reply I received was

And here we have the pretence that my question was, "Do some people become pretentious?". — Sapientia

What I do not understand was why he was saying that there was pretence about what his question was.

If there is something about philosophy that attracts pretence, then the question must be about the people pretending. The forum cannot pretend, neither can the words in the posts.

If the people are pretending, they are pretentious.

There is nothing complicated about that.

How does his reply make sense?

People that have some philosophical knowledge might want to learn more and ask questions to do so, I would not call them pretentious.

People that have little knowledge but think they know a lot might find an opportunity here to show off, they would be the ones that are averse to answering straight forward questions and often don't ask their own questions for fear of look ridiculous. They would definitely be pretentious in my book.

Bloody charming. — CuddlyHedgehog

Did you look up the meaning of snake oil? :cool:

Oh what blankets on our bed
when we use a can of worms for thread. — Sir2u

Very cute! Original? Or source?

Oh, I wouldn’t wanna come out in a rash conclusion. — CuddlyHedgehog

And I imagine you would even less want to come out in a conclusive rash, or even worse a concluding rash?

I think philosophy can invite a sort of pretence -- but I don't know I'd say that said pretence is unique to philosophy. — Moliere

Yes, I think it's more of the case that pretentious people can invite themselves to do philosophy, or art, or write poetry, or compose music, or....

Very cute! Original? Or source? — Janus

It just popped into my head as I was getting ready to leave so I wrote it down thinking that it might make sense to someone.
It is open to interpretation to one and all, even if it is not exactly philosophical content. Or is it?

:cool:

even if it is not exactly philosophical content. Or is it? — Sir2u

It raises the question as to whether the metaphoric suggestiveness of allusion that characterizes good poetry is necessarily philosophical. On a preliminary consideration I would be inclined to say 'yes'.

No it's not, it directly addresses your "what if?"s.

You'd have to give me a reason to think one of your "what if?"s is true, for me to climb down from an "always." — gurugeorge

Then perhaps I misunderstood. When you said that it's always deeper than you think, I took you to be suggesting that there can be no exception, that it's inevitable.

But, even if you're only saying that there is no exception, don't you think that that's ironically hasty? How have you reached that conclusion? How could that be justified?

So, have you never found any philosophical question or topic to be superficial or shallow or having an obvious answer? I would find that odd and hard to believe. As for me, I've given some examples in the opening post. I don't rule out the possibility that I might have overlooked some deeper significance, or something more worthwhile in examining, but... :brow: ...well, you know what my evaluation is. Instead of asking what scientism is, I would have just googled it and found a satisfactory answer that way. So that's one (arguable) counterexample for you.

No, it was a figure of speech - or an admonition, perhaps. Obviously "always" terminates at when you do actually start to understand the problems in a deep way, which as i said probably takes about 10 years or so (at any rate, probably more years than it takes to get a doctorate in Philosophy ;) ),. — gurugeorge

I don't believe that. It might be true in some cases, but only in some cases, and not in others. You certainly can't put a number on it like that. That's the same mistake that Aristotle made, and that Peter Hitchens made on his recent appearance on Question time. It's generally true, or likely, that it takes time to attain deep understanding, but there can be a significant difference in the time that that takes.

The other point I'd make is that it would be hasty to assume that any "deep" understanding would be along the lines of what you yourself have concluded on any particular issue. It might be radically different from it.

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? Is there something about it which opens up for debate that which we already know? Is everything really a matter of personal opinion?
— Sapientia

I think philosophy can invite a sort of pretence -- but I don't know I'd say that said pretence is unique to philosophy. I think that simple questions like the one's you use as examples can be asked earnestly. I'd say there are times that what I thought I knew appears, for whatever reason at that time, to be something I don't know -- and so I ask something along the lines of...

What is faith? What is education? What is the purpose of education? What is scientism? What is a philosophical question? What is common sense? What is Google?
— Sapientia

... which is not to say that said question is necessarily profound. Sometimes the reason I might ask such a question is something as simple and boring as self-deception or confusion.

but not always.

I'm not sure I follow why you're asking if everything is a matter of personal opinion, though. If it were, wouldn't the simple questions have whatever answer we wish, after all? It seems to me that in asking a question that seems a bit silly -- if we are asking earnestly -- we are hoping for something more than mere personal opinion, even if the answer doesn't quite reach the demands of knowledge. — Moliere

That's a pretty good reply, in contrast to some pretty awful replies that this discussion has attracted. You know who you are, so take note.

I can sort of relate to what I'm critical of here. I'm certainly not suggesting that I've never been guilty of it myself. It's just that, with hindsight, I look back at it differently. We experience these moments of realisation from time to time, and they don't always cast things in a good light - or at least they shouldn't, otherwise I'd think that there's something wrong with you: a chronic case of naivety, perhaps.

I once - "famously" :joke: - asked, "What is an apple?". Although, even then, there was part of me that thought, "Do we really not know?", and that's quite a forceful impression. It's a question I think we - those of us with a philosophical bent - could do with asking ourselves more often.

That last question about personal opinion was, as I've already noted, rhetorical in nature. I would answer in the negative, and I would strongly discourage that approach or way of thinking, as well as those which don't quite fit the description, but which I'd judge as coming too close to that kind of thinking.

What I do not understand was why he was saying that there was pretence about what his question was. — Sir2u

If the people are pretending, they are pretentious. — Sir2u

Anyone who can read and has half a brain will be able to compare the two and note the difference, whether that's the difference between my question and your misunderstanding of it, or the difference between the meaning of "pretence" and "pretentious", or the difference between the meaning of "pretentious" and your apparent misunderstanding of it. Why don't you look it up in your Chambers English Dictionary (1998 edition)?

The second quote above seems to indicate that you do not understand what it means to be pretentious, and are misusing the word when you want to express the meaning, "someone who pretends", which, if that were the meaning, would make that quote true by definition. Or, alternatively, you do understand, but it's a non sequitur, since it doesn't follow that someone who pretends is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed, which is what the word actually means.

Honestly, it would be less embarrassing to admit that you got it wrong than to stubbornly persist that you're right.

Did you look up the meaning of snake oil? — Sir2u

No and it’s quite obvious that neither did you.

From a different discussion:

Are you seriously suggesting you don't know what an idea is? — Janus

If you know how to use the word then you know what you are talking about. It seems to me that you are asking what an idea *really* is in some imagined ultimate or metaphysical sense. We don't need to know that to know that two atheists share in common the rejection of the idea of God, whatever the idea might *ultimately* consist in. — Janus

See? We're not so different, you and I.

Would you like to add, "What's an idea?", and, "What do atheists have in common?", to the list?

I can sort of relate to what I'm critical of here. I'm certainly not suggesting that I've never been guilty of it myself. It's just that, with hindsight, I look back at it differently. We experience these moments of realisation from time to time, and they don't always cast things in a good light - or at least they shouldn't, otherwise I'd think that there's something wrong with you: a chronic case of naivety, perhaps.

I once - "famously" :joke: - asked, "What is an apple?". Although, even then, there was part of me that thought, "Do we really not know?", and that's quite a forceful impression. It's a question I think we - those of us with a philosophical bent - could do with asking ourselves more often. — Sapientia

I think I'd just say that it's part of the practice of philosophy to route out our own ignorance -- so even when a question ends up being a bit silly, it's actually in line with what I'd still consider good philosophy. We're just identifying yet another time where we're making some sort of mistake. (since we'll never actually be free of intellectual mistakes)

And then there are the times when I'd say that when something may look silly on its surface it actually ends up interesting. "What is Google?" actually struck me that way -- on its surface its sort of silly, but understanding the ins and outs of an algorithm is actually kind of interesting.

Or, to use a classic question, "What is the meaning of being?" inspired some really great philosophy.

Not that I'd say every time you or I happen to ask seemingly simple questions we'd be able to then write good philosophy :D.


But I think I can dig the gist of what you're on about here -- or at least this is how I'd put it, while uncertain that you'd agree with this phrasing -- that sometimes the problem isn't what we're asking for, but rather the very question we are asking.

And then there are the times when I'd say that when something may look silly on its surface it actually ends up interesting. "What is Google?" actually struck me that way -- on its surface its sort of silly, but understanding the ins and outs of an algorithm is actually kind of interesting. — Moliere

Yes, it is, if you find that kind of thing interesting. Of course, that wasn't a genuine example, but an example of my smartasrsery. And it can still be answered plainly, without need of going into all of that detail. Google is a search engine. If the question was, "What is Google at the most basic or fundamental level?", then I'd find that more interesting, as well as more worthwhile philosophically.

But I think I can dig the gist of what you're on about here -- or at least this is how I'd put it, while uncertain that you'd agree with this phrasing -- that sometimes the problem isn't what we're asking for, but rather the very question we are asking. — Moliere

Indeed, I don't agree with the phrasing. The way I see it, it can be both the very question and what we're asking for. But acknowledging at least part of the problem is a start.

Indeed, I don't agree with the phrasing. The way I see it, it can be both the very question and what we're asking for. But acknowledging at least part of the problem is a start. — Sapientia

M'kay, maybe there is more disagreement after all then.

At risk of committing the error you're after I'm tempted to ask: What is the problem?

I wonder what sort of pretence, exactly, you think philosophy might invite. Like, that we are just pretending that we do not know something, maybe? Sort of like a parlor game rather than something we are asking?

The mistake, as I gather so far, has something to do with the habits of the philosophically inclined, and something to do with how they formulate questions, and in particular their usage of questions of the form "What is [x]?" -- that when the philosophically inclined ask such a question perhaps they are sort of deluding themselves into thinking they do not know what they, in some sense or other, know. Or that they are playing a game of making the obviously false appear true to them, at least for the moment, because they are in some kind of habit whereby they believe they're digging deeper into truths but are actually just chasing their own tail and rehashing what it is they already believe.

That's my closest guess.

And I think, if I'm reading you right, your solution is to rephrase questions of the form "What is [x]?" to be more specific, or to reflect on whether or not what you're asking after is actually something easy to answer without anything more deep or profound to it.