Very clever

That is not true, language is a societal phenomenon, sight is a natural phenomenon.
— Merkwurdichliebe
More anthropomorphism.

A societal phenomenon is a natural phenomenon for some particular species. Language doesn't make us separate from nature. It is just a more complex form of communication between organisms. — Harry Hindu

More complex form of thought/belief... Communication(shared meaning) is one manifestation thereof.

And he called me unclear.
— S

But that's what we do. — Banno

What would happen if we didn't? Will we have solved half of the problem?

You seem like a charitable interlocutor. We should converse more often.

There is a motivation there. It's just a reactive, rather than creative one. It's taking something that's already there and using it, in order to define oneself against some clearly demarcated, monolithic tradition of Hocus Pocus. — csalisbury

But, 'the philosophy of idealism' is a placeholder: it names, at best, a space or place where such a motivation might be found. Like: "it's East of here".

But, 'the philosophy of idealism' is a placeholder: it names, at best, a space or place where such a motivation might be found. Like: "it's East of here". — StreetlightX

Arguing against it would be the motivation in that case, obviously.

What is it? Which 'philosophy of idealism'? Just the one? It's meaningless.

What is it? Which 'philosophy of idealism'? Just the one? It's meaningless. — StreetlightX

Just idealism. The general understanding of that position. I'm not speaking French, am I?

Meaningless how? In what sense? :brow:

I dunno. How useful is it to ask an idealist about mind independent properties or objects? You kinda need to implode the position to make a convincing rebuttal IMO.

I dunno. How useful is it to ask an idealist about mind independent properties or objects? You kinda need to implode the position to make a convincing rebuttal IMO. — fdrake

Convincing to whom? And what are the consequences in the bigger picture?

I say they can have their internal consistency, but who has the greater plausibility? When it comes down to it, isn't the truth more important than consistency? Bertrand Russell made the point in his History of Western Philosophy that a philosophy can be entirely consistent, yet entirely false.

Convincing to whom? And what are the consequences in the bigger picture? — S

Convincing to the idealist (or correlationist). If you adopt that perspective, you're not going to find your way of using the word 'objective' convincing, even if you're pointing out something which is obvious. Typically people arguing from that perspective find mind-dependence of everything (or a qualified Kant-derived substitution-of-the-concept-of-the-thing for every thing) just as obvious as you find its falsehood. They're just going to say, if they're sufficiently developed idealists anyway, whatever you say is question begging because you 'smuggle in' the mind-independence with the concept of objectivity without demonstrating that the concept has any scope or application.

Convincing to the idealist (or correlationist). If you adopt that perspective, you're not going to find your way of using the word 'objective' convincing, even if you're pointing out something which is obvious. Typically people arguing from that perspective find mind-dependence of everything (or a qualified Kant-derived substitution-of-the-concept-of-the-thing for every thing) just as obvious as you find its falsehood. They're just going to say, if they're sufficiently developed idealists anyway, whatever you say is question begging because you 'smuggle in' the mind-independence with the concept of objectivity without demonstrating that the concept has any scope or application. — fdrake

There's no way out of that. We'd just have to agree to disagree. Although we wouldn't be on par, because realism is more plausible whether they accept it or not. They're going against their own interests if they care about the truth.

If this doesn't matter, then why aren't we all solipsists? It's not impossible that Jupiter would cease to exist if we all ceased to exist, but who actually believes that? And even if they do, so what? What does that say about them?

If this doesn't matter, then why aren't we all solipsists? — S

Well, there is something performatively solipsistic in arguing against people on your own terms, knowing they won't argue on those terms.

(Though solipsistic isn't really the right word. You're not arguing with them. You're arguing against them, for someone else.That's a rabbit hole worth going down, imo. Who is your implied audience? I think that's a personal meditation everyone ought to do every now and then.)

Well, there is something performatively solipsistic in arguing against people on your own terms, knowing they won't argue on those terms.

(Though solipsistic isn't really the right word. You're not arguing with them. You're arguing against them, for someone else. That's a rabbit hole worth going down, imo. Who is your implied audience?) — csalisbury

Well, you are, in part. The readership. I'm not speaking to myself, and I'm not being solipsistic. If they won't argue on those terms then the argument becomes about why they should. It becomes a sort of meta-argument. This isn't that unusual: it happened in the discussion on morality, for example. And I'm not arguing against them because I'm arguing for someone else, I'm arguing against them because I'm arguing in favour of the truth, as I see it, and for no other reason.

I reject your spin on this.

And I'm not arguing against them because I'm arguing for someone else, I'm arguing against them because I'm arguing in favour of the truth, as I see it, and for no other reason. — S

The truth will take care of itself though. As you know, being a realist, a truth is indifferent to whether someone knows it.

Plus also, people are wrong about all sorts of truths. Why aren't you arguing about those other ones?

'Arguing in favor of the truth,' then, isn't an explanation of why are you're arguing against idealists, or the way in which you're doing so.

The truth will take care of itself though. As you know, being a realist, a truth is indifferent to whether someone knows it.

Plus also, people are wrong about all sorts of truths. Why aren't you arguing about those other ones?

'Arguing in favor of the truth,' then, isn't an explanation of why are you're arguing against idealists, or the way in which you're doing so. — csalisbury

Your conclusion doesn't follow. I accept your first and second paragraph, yet that doesn't make any difference, and the answer to your question is simply that it wouldn't be appropriate in the context of a debate between realism and idealism to argue over other matters, but I do so elsewhere. Just look around. I do this often, and on many varying topics. You'll hopefully notice that I'm boring enough to argue in favour of the truth, plain and simple. You know, murder is wrong, Earth isn't flat, I have a body, one plus one equals two, Paris is the capital of France, and so on.

I don't like it when people treat philosophy as a sort of contest for who can be the most quirky or obscure. I want to bring philosophy down to earth.

I'm not disputing that you're arguing in favor of the truth. Everyone is, or believes themselves to be, if they're ingenuously engaged in philosophical debate. What I'm saying is that that isn't a motivation. You do, it's true, argue about other things. But - I'm making assumptions here - you don't spend time studying weather patterns and arguing on meterology forums. Of the set of truths, there is only a subset that you're interested in - as is the case for anyone. You have to be motivated to pick out certain things to argue about, in favor of the truth.

And there has to be something you're trying to achieve in those arguments. Maybe you want them to agree with you (why?). Maybe you're trying to achieve a certain emotional state. Maybe you're playing a role to be witnessed by someone else. Maybe you're trying to work out your own thoughts in the matter. Maybe you think that argument in and of itself is therapeutic and works out conceptual knots which are troubling you.

What I'm asking is why Idealism, and what are you trying to achieve?

My suspicion is that there is a an element of jousting in public for the sake of a certain banner, or lord. That's something I've done, a lot, throughout my life, so maybe I'm projecting, but the way you talk about truth seems to mirror that, as though arguing in favor of something, truth, is itself a motivation.

It's all of that and more. It irks me that people advocate what seems to me to be so wrong, and I am driven to correct it, even if I am destined never to convince anyone. It seems even worse when I'm familiar with the reasoning which leads them astray, and know it to be deceptive. I can understand on some level how people can fall for it if they don't have their wits about them. I think maybe some people do it to be clever, for the, "Aha! But...", moment. But, like I said, I just want to push the boring truth. It seems more noble. More right.

I don't know. Maybe it's a sort of madness when you think about it. Maybe I should just be silent.

It irks me that people advocate what seems to me to be so wrong, and I am driven to correct it, even if I am destined never to convince anyone — S

Yeah, I feel you. That might be my primary motivation for posting too, if I'm honest, only different things irritate us. I feel like it's a way of externalizing self-frustration. Like, the more obstinate the parts of you that frustrate you are, the more you seek out obstinate opponents. Which is why it's not really that satisfying if someone agrees with you, because now the opponents gone, and you still have the self-frustration. I guess that's well beyond the scope of this thread though.

Yeah, I feel you. That might be my primary motivation for posting too, if I'm honest, only different things irritate us. I feel like it's a way of externalizing self-frustration. Like, the more obstinate the parts of you that frustrate you are, the more you seek out obstinate opponents. Which is why it's not really that satisfying if someone agrees with you, because now the opponents gone, and you still have the self-frustration. I guess that's well beyond the scope of this thread though. — csalisbury

See, this seems very productive and insightful to me. And yet we see some people fighting against this sort of discussion, against taking a psychological angle.

I think I've become passionate about psychology in a similar way to how I became passionate about logic. These seem like really valuable tools.

See, this seems very productive to me. And yet we see people fighting against this sort of discussion, against taking a psychological angle. — S

I guess psychological approaches can go two ways. You can use them to undermine people's arguments, as a below the belt punch, for the sake of victory. Or you can genuinely feel that there is some kind of block that is beyond the argument itself, and the only way through it is to address is it to talk at that level.

It sounds like you're referring to a recent discussion on here, which I've missed, so I'm not sure what was going on there. The tricky thing is the two approaches can look a lot like each other, so it's not always clear what's going on. It's definitely an approach I take a lot, and I think it really can be productive, but honestly sometimes I'm not sure what my motivations are, and which of the two approaches I'm using. Multiply that times five, if I'm posting after having hit the bars.

I guess psychological approaches can go two ways. You can use them to undermine people's arguments, as a below the belt punch, for the sake of victory. Or you can genuinely feel that there is some kind of block that is beyond the argument itself, and the only way through it is to address is it to talk at that level.

It sounds like you're referring to a recent discussion on here, which I've missed, so I'm not sure what was going on there. The tricky thing is the two approaches can look a lot like each other, so it's not always clear what's going on. It's definitely an approach I take a lot, and I think it really can be productive, but honestly sometimes I'm not sure what my motivations are, and which of the two approaches I'm using. Multiply that times five, if I'm posting after having hit the bars. — csalisbury

I think that that discussion probably really only meant to be a criticism of weaponising psychology. We all do that both here and elswhere to some extent, even those arrogant and deluded enough to think of themselves as innocent, whilst thinking of someone like me as a villain. I think that the author of that discussion maybe confused frankness for malice. That happens to me a lot, because I'm very blunt, and funnily enough some people react emotionally to that. Whoops.

I think that discussion probably really only meant to be a criticism of weaponising psychology. We all do that here to some extent, even those arrogant and deluded enough to think of themselves as innocent, whilst thinking of someone like me as a villain. I think that the author of that discussion confused frankness for malice. That happens to me a lot, because I'm very blunt, and funnily enough some people react emotionally to that. — S

I have a close friend who had a similar complaint. His style was to be blunt, and it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. (But also, he's tall and good-looking, and, in his teens and early 20s, it rubbed a lot of women the right way. So it took him a while to become actually concerned about the fact that a lot people thought he was a dick.)

There's a hairs-breadth between being frank and being an asshole. It's no good to be deferential to good taste, just to make sure the boat isn't being rocked, but it's also no good to just be like : you're wrong, I'm right, what are you gonna do about it?

Because an emotional reaction isn't a deficiency in a person (I'm differentiating here between genuine reactions and performative outrage. Another duo, where each looks confusingly like the other.) Emotional reactions are a fact, and to act as though they shouldn't be taken into account when talking is to replace the world one's in with an imaginative ideal world and to blame others for not being in accordance with that imaginary ideal.

(this is the 'good, reasonable' part of me speaking from a soapbox. I'm as guilty as anyone. But it's something I try, poorly, to keep in mind.)

This is kind of where I'm coming from with my bluntness:

A Cynic practices shamelessness or impudence (Αναιδεια) and defaces the nomos of society; the laws, customs, and social conventions which people take for granted. — Wikipedia

I value truth, and I value speaking it. I try not to let the nomos of a society get in the way of that. I likewise value humour.

None of this meant that a Cynic would retreat from society. Cynics were in fact to live in the full glare of the public's gaze and be quite indifferent in the face of any insults which might result from their unconventional behaviour.

He's a troll! A toxic fool! Let's lynch him! :lol:

Alright, but to be blunt, that wiki description also applies perfectly to some like Andy Dick, say, who is just an asshole.

I think there's a false dichotomy going on. There's a difference between only saying things so long as they accord with the nomos, or doxa and saying things impudently.

Now, I'm not opposed to impudence in general, tho I think there's good and bad ways of doing it. But the point of impudence and shamelessness is to evoke an emotional, rather than reasoned, reaction. If you don't want that, then deliver those non-nomos insights in a different form.

Alright, but to be blunt, that wiki description also applies perfectly to some like Andy Dick, say, who is just an asshole.

I think there's a false dichotomy going on. There's a difference between only saying things so long as they accord with the nomos, or doxa and saying things impudently.

Now, I'm not opposed to impudence in general, tho I think there's good and bad ways of doing it. But the point of impudence and shamelessness is to evoke an emotional, rather than reasoned, reaction. If you don't want that, then deliver those non-nomos insights in a different form. — csalisbury

Well, that's the question: is someone just being an asshole, or are they just being honest or funny in a way which might cause some people to react by thinking, "Argh! He's such an asshole!"? That's another one of those tricky distinctions, I'd say. Those with a more conventional manner of thinking and a more conventional set of values might have more of a proclivity to knee-jerk towards the, "He's just being an asshole".

Restraint seems to be a value in political correctness - "Gasp! You can't say that! No! You can't do that!" - but I question such a value. Sometimes I just think, "No, fuck that".

One who is blunt but clearly offers a modicum of respect for others, despite the differences in world-views tends to be thought an asshole or a dick much less than one who is blunt and has little to no respect for another's person.

Assholes and dicks have little to no respect/value for others. One can be blunt without being a asshole or a dick.

One who is blunt by clearly offers a modicum of respect for others, despite the differences in world-views tends to be thought an asshole or a dick much less than one who is blunt and clearly has little to no respect for another's person. — creativesoul

That's just it, though: I suspect we'd disagree over what's respectful, or what's more respectful, and what counts as an example and what doesn't.

I say that it's more respectful to try to get someone to realise that they're a crackpot, if you think their crackpottery is against their own best interest. And bluntness is one way of trying to break through to someone which can be quite effective. Although with some people, there's just no breaking through.

Proper critique first requires understanding that which is being critiqued.

Restraint seems to be a value in political correctness - "Gasp! You can't say that! No! You can't do that!" - but I question such a value. Sometimes I just think, "No, fuck that". — S

A little tangential, but I think it's essentially related.

One thing I've noticed in contemporary discussion is a kind a dialectic, where someone argues against something, only to become its mirror image.

Maybe you don't care about the manichaean culture war and you just do what you've always done, ignoring it. But, at some point, just doing what you've always done, someone lodges an unreasonable, uncharitable complaint. Ah, you think, so this is what people mean by 'political correctness.' I get it now. It's not just about protecting the powerless. At bottom, there's some malevolent, recalcitrant intent, some dissimulating eagerness to punish those who aren't party-loyal.


So maybe you pull a Stephen Fry and say, look, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but this is something I think is harmful. More attacks. Which is infuriating. These people are even more unreasonable than you thought. Fuck them, I'm going to stop even pretending to entertain them. And you're mad, so you start focusing on things they believe, in order to furnish counterexamples.

Frog in boiling water, before you know it your driving force is no longer to defend your values against a misguided, vocal minority.Now your driving force is to show that theyre wrong, by any means. @ssu for example raised a moderate complaint, but was soon pointing to maps of muslim migration, with the same graphic design as war-charts, and asking why wouldn't you call that invasion, doesn't this chart look like one? I've read many of his posts before and he doesn't strike me as someone who would typically be prone to mixing up design choice and fact, but all of a sudden...

What I'm saying is be careful of framing stuff this way. It's easy as hell to justify oneself in terms of what other people are doing.