Ok, I should put in some effort. Isn't the whole point? I mean, philosophers are well known for doing nothing, and some outright say that they are really doing nothing or the car isn't going anywhere or that they should get real jobs. But, not to be too harsh on this construed straw man that I am doing right now, philosophy serves some purpose.

But, that's not the same as saying that there's no point in doing philosophy. There's a difference here that I'm trying to point out between pragmatism and something like existentialism. The two don't get along well, as the existentialist tells the pragmatists something and the other replies to go see someone who has authority on the matter.

OK, now I'm just plain bullshitting. Yet, we do that a lot in philosophy. It goes on round the clock and sometimes turns into some pop-psychology trivia or profundity.

To nail, the dam point is for me to ask, when does a philosopher have authority over... well, pretty much anything philosophical?

Haven't we been tunneling and digging and heaving at these problems that others disregard, outright call bullshit, or in the worst cases end up as psychological fluff?

I think the issue as I see it. Anyone else sees it from some different perspective? I for one see it as a paradox. Once someone calls themselves a "philosopher", they've violated the no-appeal to authoritarian rule, that ought to govern any liberal art science.

Ehh, if anyone has been following my ramblings if not on a benzodiazepine high, then if you are sincere and honest with yourself (can I get a show of hands on who are actually like that?) then what are you trying to accomplish here?

I know my purpose. It's just to wallow around here as this is a safe and special place on the internet, unlike no other which needs to be highlighted and exclaimed from every mountaintop. Nobody really likes me doing it; but, I do it regardless. Much of what I write is shit, and will never change your life in the positive or negative.

Thats a dismal outlook but I don’t blame you. I’m an undergraduate philosophy major (currently) and I get a lot of “jokes” about my useless degree, what am I going to do with my life, ect. One time in a viscious argument someone once told me “I don’t know shit thats why I’m in philosophy”. Of course, the individual was in a jealous rage at the time, but it still struck home. I think a lot of (us) philosophy majors have become so acclimatized with this assumption that we joke about it ourselves and devalue it. I love philosophy. Philosophy has saved my life. I don’t think philosophy is about “auhority” over knowledge like in the other disciplines like science ect. its not about being right. its about asking question, about pursuing truth, about saving lives and see life-in many different ways.

I’m an undergraduate philosophy major (currently) and I get a lot of “jokes” about my useless degree, what am I going to do with my life, ect. One time in a viscious argument someone once told me “I don’t know shit thats why I’m in philosophy”. — Grre

I would call it a vicious stigma to be honest.

I think a lot of (us) philosophy majors have become so acclimatized with this assumption that we joke about it ourselves and devalue it. — Grre

Now, that's where dangerous psychologizing of the subject can occur. Just in my opinion.

Philosophy has saved my life. I don’t think philosophy is about “auhority” over knowledge like in the other disciplines like science ect. its not about being right. its about asking question, about pursuing truth, about saving lives and see life-in many different ways. — Grre

Keep up the awesome job, despite what you or others might think.

I have a love-hate relationship with Wittgenstein. On the one end, he impressed me immensely in my short life yet. On the other, he has spewed such (I may be wrong here) vile infelicity? towards the very subject, he was studying.

He sure stirred the pot a lot.

To nail, the dam point is for me to ask, when does a philosopher have authority over... well, pretty much anything philosophical? — Wallows

When they’re dead. When they’re dead it is then for the rest of us to sort out what is of use to us or not without them making additional footnotes in order to scrape together the vague resemblance of “meaning” to what has been thoroughly torn to shreds by the analysis and critique of others.

To view any particular philosopher as possessing absolute understanding of anything is to not understand the point of the philosophers endless quest. Whatever a human does it is never unsurpassed.

Maybe we assume the birth of philosophical investigations - in the ancient world of Greece - in completely the wrong manner. “Philosophy” may well have died at the hands of Plato and Aristotle rather than being assumed to have been born via them. Much like the mythical death of Christos brought into the world the hellish work of religious institutional power in its wake; basically the conception of the god figure as mask the devil produced to entice the vices of humans!

Philosophy is against knowledge and its pursuit whilst the church is the household of the antichrist. Both viciously feed on the part-rotten, and luckily still twitching, cadaver of their slain opponents. As the mostly passive observers of this vivisection we can only hope for something as violent as Frankenstein’s Monster to arise reanimated and full of recrimination in order to usher us out of the lifeless shadows cast by the killers “prescientific man” and “creative freedom”.

Pragmatism is its own counterfactual stupidity. A hoodwinking of humanity’s creative eye and nascent faculties directed at “direction” itself - meaning exploration in the light of ignorance (ignorance the best moral attribute of humanity that we’re able to conceptual frame).

When they’re dead. When they’re dead it is then for the rest of us to sort out what is of use to us or not without them making additional footnotes in order to scrape together the vague resemblance of “meaning” to what has been thoroughly torn to shreds by the analysis and critique of others. — I like sushi

Yeah, you get my drift. But, here wait for it... it's Whitehead with his claim that the (majority) of Western philosophy is footnotes to Plato... Now, how do you even respond to that?

Pragmatism is its own counterfactual stupidity. A hoodwinking of humanity’s creative eye and nascent faculties directed at “direction” itself - meaning exploration in the light of ignorance (ignorance the best moral attribute of humanity that we’re able to conceptual frame). — I like sushi

Then I take it you're not a fan of pragmatism. But, it's one of those books you read when things are going well, not when it's angsty or catastrophic or imploding, eh?

Then I take it you're not a fan of pragmatism. — Wallows

I’m not a fan of any philosophical perspective stretched and warped over every question of being in some hideous malformation pronounced as “knowledge” merely by being wedded to absolutism.

Or in more plain language ... it depends ;)

Progress in the technical sense is enormous but in the ethical sense we are almost at the level of the Middle Ages.

Explain please.

I'm inclined to agree, but you might have to convince me.

I am sorry but I am not in a position to answer you due to censorship, as my posts are deleted without any rational reason. See you in a democratic forum. I suspend my account.

How is progress made? When something happens for the better.

How to measure it? You need a specific example and an operand definition of progress.

Perhaps you can expand then?

When they’re dead.

Unfortunately, philosophers don't get the same kind of credibility that other artists get when they die.

What disgusts me the most about the whole ordeal is that we study the works of various philosophers (whether their values suck or not), but if we ask ourselves which of these philosophers' ideals we actually use, the answer is none or Karl Marx (lol).

Don't get me wrong, none of them were 100% right about anything, it seems. People have their own extremes about certain things, but there are great paths that make very much sense to our Existence that we should already have adopted and should be carried out.

The way I see it is that Societies feel as if they cannot thrive off of these kinds of Spiritual ponderings. They have to keep the People fearful, focused on fueling endless and unnecessary wars, feeding greedy people who can already more than eat, etc. If we encouraged these kinds of conversations and Lifestyles, we surely would be living in a better time period as Eudaimonia would be carrying our Societies into true Success so we can continue on with the development of our species in a Peaceful manner.

It's an optimistic point of view, but a realistic one.

In my opinion, the only progress that can be made in philosophy is personal progress. The discipline itself changes over time, but does not progress. At the present time a form of pluralism is prevalent - with some looking to the ancients and others to science or religion or literature or non-western thought, and so on. Some are historically oriented - the movement and/or situatedness of thought and others problem oriented - ethics, epistemology, metaphysics. Of course none of these approaches necessarily excludes others.

In line with the notion of personal progress is the idea that philosophy is about self-knowledge, a theme we find in Plato as well as more recently in Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and others. Some, however, deny that philosophy has anything to do with the self but rather with timeless or objective truth or a view from nowhere.

My own orientation is zetetic skepticism - inquiry driven by knowledge of our ignorance. Progress in this sense is not a matter of replacing ignorance with knowledge or wisdom in some absolute sense, but with phronesis or practical wisdom. It is a matter of determining how best to live in light of our ignorance of what is best. In the absence of knowledge, one is guided by what seems to be best. But what seems to be best may not be what is best, and so, one is always willing to examine and revise his or her opinions. This is a Socratic attitude, but it may also be expressed in terms from another time and place, the Daodejing - "practice extreme tenuousness"

Progress in the technical sense is enormous but in the ethical sense we are almost at the level of the Middle Ages. — MrSpock

Leaving out the nitpicking, this is analogous to the notion that humanity is too far ahead of its time. Consider how the more technologically advanced we become, the more problems seem to emerge. This is antithetical to what should be the case: that technology should be solving problems. At this point we should have seen major improvements in the human condition, but there is a disparity between our level of wisdom and our level of technology. We have never seen any significantly concentrated effort by humanity to figure out how to best use technology (an ethical question), only the blind marching forward of technological progress. Essentially we are toddlers with loaded guns.

I'm going to take an example that keeps on popping up in my mind, a la Plato, Marx, and others that progress has been made when the Holli Poli has been changed in some fundamental way.

Plato lays out his plan for how society or the Holii Poli ought to be governed in his Republic. Marx in his Kapital, while as per @Fooloso4, other philosophers take a more inward look.

What do others think?

It is a matter of determining how best to live in light of our ignorance of what is best. In the absence of knowledge, one is guided by what seems to be best. But what seems to be best may not be what is best, and so, one is always willing to examine and revise his or her opinions. This is a Socratic attitude, but it may also be expressed in terms from another time and place, the Daodejing - "practice extreme tenuousness" — Fooloso4

What is it to practise 'extreme tenuousness' ?
Do you have a reference ?

What is it to practise 'extreme tenuousness' ? — Amity

You know... voluntary discomfort, cynic ethos, and the like?

if you are sincere and honest with yourself (can I get a show of hands on who are actually like that?) then what are you trying to accomplish here? — Wallows

Sincere and honest with ourselves? Such people are as rare as rocking-horse sh*t! :wink: My own best attempt at honesty says I'm here to enjoy myself, and maybe to learn something. It's even possible someone might learn something from me too, although it might only be tolerance. :wink:

I'm going to take an example that keeps on popping up in my mind, a la Plato, Marx, and others that progress has been made when the Holli Poli has been changed in some fundamental way. — Wallows

I do not think of this as philosophical progress. It should not be forgotten that the social/political/theological changes brought about by Plato is due to belief in his noble lies. In the case of Marx, it was ideological, or, as some would have it, messianic. Although, thanks largely to Enlightenment thinkers we enjoy a great deal of freedom and autonomy, that condition is precarious. It is entirely possible that the future may bring an age of repression and brutality unmatched in history. Freedom and autonomy can be a curse as well as a blessing as people struggle to find their identity and way.

I do not see progress having been made in the state of the art of philosophy. There is good reason why there has been a resurgence of interest in the ancients.

What is it to practise 'extreme tenuousness' ?
Do you have a reference ? — Amity

Daodejing, Chapter 16. Depending on which translation you are using it may say something slightly or significantly different. Tenuousness is an openness, a lack of insistence. It is to allow things to show themselves as they are rather than imposing some conceptual scheme or structure on them. It is the opposite of attempting to have things conform to one's will.

In line with this, I would not push the comparison with Socrates too far, but if we are aware of our ignorance then we do not insist that things are or should be according to our desires and understanding.

I do not see progress having been made in the state of the art of philosophy. There is good reason why there has been a resurgence of interest in the ancients. — Fooloso4

But, what about Wittgenstein? Don't you think he made his fair share of contribution to the state of philosophy?

I could just as easily argue that having “guns” makes us grow up quickly and take ethical questions more seriously given than missteps could potentially wipe us off the planet. The threat of our potentially immoral attitudes are more of a mortal threat. The price of ethical misdemeanors in the past wouldn’t lead to species death, whilst today this looming presence forces us into maturity - if we’re not up to it we’re not up to it. Given that we’re, to quote the squire Concord of Monty Python fame, “not quite dead yet” I’d say we could be doing a helluva lot worse considering the scrapes we’ve gotten into over the millennia and beyond!

Technology doesn’t change our ethical stance it merely magnifies what we are, where we are and where we can potentially go. It’s not like we can simply stop scientific/technological advances, but I’d agree that politically such issues are really started to become entangled in how we think about society and what society is, will be, and cannot become in the future.

I don’t fear the unknown to the point of petrification, but I certainly wouldn’t blame others for doing so and thank them for their needed concern as a reminder of possible pitfalls.

But, what about Wittgenstein? Don't you think he made his fair share of contribution to the state of philosophy? — Wallows

Yes, I do think he made a contribution, but the question is about progress.

Some remarks from Wittgenstein's Culture and Value:

‘I read: “philosophers are no nearer to the meaning of ‘Reality’ than Plato got … ” What a singular situation. How singular then that Plato has been able to get even as far as he did! Or that we could get no further afterwards! Was it because Plato was so clever?’

Philosophy hasn't made any progress? -- If somebody scratches the spot where he has an itch, do we have to see some progress? Isn't it genuine scratching otherwise, or genuine itching? And can't this reaction to an irritation continue in the same way for a long time before a cure for the itching is discovered?

Our civilization is characterized by the word ‘progress’. Progress is its form rather than making progress one of its features. Typically it constructs. It is occupied with building an ever more complicated structure. ‘And even clarity is only sought as a means to this end,not as an end in itself. For me on the contrary clarity,perspicuity are valuable in themselves. I am not interested in constructing a building, so much as in having a perspicuous view of the foundations of typical buildings.’

Tenuousness is an openness, a lack of insistence. It is to allow things to show themselves as they are rather than imposing some conceptual scheme or structure on them. It is the opposite of attempting to have things conform to one's will. — Fooloso4

I think this sounds too passive for general societal or philosophical progress but perhaps in a personal particular sense it has its place. Like knowing when to stop arguing the toss about abstract concepts.

I do not see progress having been made in the state of the art of philosophy. There is good reason why there has been a resurgence of interest in the ancients.
— Fooloso4

But, what about Wittgenstein? Don't you think he made his fair share of contribution to the state of philosophy? — Wallows

Wallows, if we consider philosophical progress in personal terms e.g. as improvement in one's state of being or doing, then what did Wittgenstein do for you ?

How would this compare to the wisdom of the ancients in aiding self understanding and promoting a better way of living ?

How do you measure any progress - when do you realise it is happening/has happened ?

if we are aware of our ignorance then we do not insist that things are or should be according to our desires and understanding — Fooloso4

Why not ?
Ah, does the key lie in not insisting as in not being dogmatic or stubborn or absolute in a single perhaps obsessive desire to get one's own way ? Because without knowledge of facts, or other perspectives, it might not be the best way...

You're asking me quite a difficult question. I'll get back to you later on this.

You're asking me quite a difficult question. I'll get back to you later on this. — Wallows

I know. I am not sure I could quantify my own progress according to my reading of a single philosopher.
Perhaps it might be that it is in the very fact that we have read the book ?
Even if our understanding has been less than perfect ?

Is there too much reliance on this feat of reading the challenging.
I wonder sometimes at this need to chew a book to death...
Or the other extreme - to purchase it to lie gathering dust...
Guilty as charged :smile:
But looking forward to Wittgenstein's Culture and Value.
I don't think I would necessarily want to discuss it here.But it seems to have value...

But it seems to have value... — Amity

Getting back to you on your question...

So I think "value" and "progress" have been conflated with one another as of late in human history. I don't think there's any value in viewing things as only having value if progress is promoted. So, does that condemn us to some sort of dogmatism? I don't know.

When is a philosopher justified in their assumptions about (human) nature? We have science for the nature part that is going along full steam ahead. See, this little pig has its own issues when anyone from the fild of philosophy says something profound, deep, almost orgasmic about human nature. Yet, here we are some 2000 years after we crucified our own version of Jesus or that one person who poitinted this fact out.

How far have we come since him?
If progress has been made in some regards, then how do we measure it?
Talking the Wittgensteinian turn, are all the answers to philosophy, really psychological and therefore immeasurable and therefore quietism? — Wallows

This is really a very common reaction. It's more or less the same problem that Nietzsche himself opined: we have an un-fillable hole inside ourselves, an insatiable vortex into which all boons are consumed; never ending...

To bring this into context, consider that no matter how many problems we solve as individuals or as a society, there will always be problems which remain, and we're more than likely to create new problems along the way. In short, we can never possibly run out of problems.

But since the enlightenment era, people have more or less assumed that by logic and reasoning and science and technology, we can perfect ourselves and perfect society; that we may reach a kind of paradise where the menu is all meaningful, and where problems are a distant memory. This is based on really poor assumptions, namely that human desire is in fact satiable (it is to a degree,but one plateau is just next week's floor or minimum expectation).

If we look at the relative quality of life that we have the opportunity to lead, it's objectively filled with more interesting and delightful comforts than our distant and primitive past. A few hundred years ago women were dying left and right during child birth, and go back a bit farther, and babies start dying so frequently that we didn't even bother naming them until their first "name-day". Society is way bigger now, and we've got fundamentally bigger problems, but the average individual still tends to fare better as the result of our societal progress.

Fundamentally, I think, human nature is diverse, and is capable of diverging from one ideal standard or way of doing things. We're rolling a hell of a lot of dice in modernity, and that's not without risk, but the rewards so far would be indescribably amazing in the eyes of our ancestors.