Too many negatives for my mutual understanding, but I think I agree with you. And I at the same time plead guilty as charged. — god must be atheist

Paragraph 2 seems like an interesting idea, but the all the negatives and the possibility of irony I am not sure what the position or positions are here. — Coben

Well, I did use far too many negations in that paragraph. Let me try again.

Let's take as our null hypothesis that value and insight (using the terms provided) are found more within one text than another. This would have to be the case if the poor judgment of a text were due to a lack of understanding or effort.

For this to be the case, it would have to be that the value and insight were somehow in the text (otherwise it would not be right to talk of a particular text having it to get if only I put the effort in).

Leaving aside that I'm a nominalist and would want to know where exactly the insight and value were... We know there is widespread disagreement among epistemic peers about the value and insight in any given text (I've given Russell's view on Hegel, but there are myriad others).

So, if we do trust that study yields discovery of the values and insights (rather than creation of them), then we would have to concur with the conclusions of those who had studied most and thus vacillate wildly depending on whom we are learning from at the time.

If alternatively, we can't trust that study will yield discovery of the values and insights in a text, then we cannot rightly differentiate the dismissal of texts as being empty of both with or without study, as the study clearly yields no further discovery of either.

So we seem caught. We must either conclude that study yields real insight and thus somehow simultaneously agree both with Russell and Heidegger about Hegel, or that it does not, in which case dismissal on hearsay and dismissal post-study are no different.

, I think there are problems with the idea as a whole. That particular ontology. Which is quite different from dismissing philosophers without having read their books. Apart from the issue of category types being conflated in your comparison... — Coben

But there is not, as I see it, an issue of category types being conflated. Continental philosophy (insofar as that term means anything at all, which is limited) is united by some aspect of meta-philosophy. If it weren't, it would not be possible to group them meaningfully at all. It must then be possible to hold that there are serious issues with this meta-philosophical position, in no different a way than you conclude there are problems with the physicalist position.

Moreover, it is not necessary to read, in depth, the philosophers concerned to justify these issues because the issues are not with their positions as expressed in the text, but with the meta-philosophical position that their even beginning writing it implies. I only need know what phenomenology is, for example, to take issue with its premise. I would need to read Husserl in depth if I were to accept the premise, but take issue with some intricate point of it, but not to take issue with the premise itself.

This argument can be taken back as far as need be. At some point, an author simply takes some premise as granted and their work proceeds from there, they do not start from first principles each time. Thus if I have issues with that premise which is taken as given, no amount of reading their work is going to enlighten me further as to their reasoning in that regard.

Earlier in our dialogue you responded that you had made a facetious comment about not having to read these authors to dismiss them. You clarified that you had read the authors in question and/or had some knowledge of their writing. That's different. That's not what I disagreed with. Then when I respond to Janus in agreement about issues related to physicalism, which is not a book, nor the works of a single author, you simply assume I haven't read....

what actually?

A text on physicalism, a particular physicalist author?

despite my never having said that. You react as if my hypocrisy or bias has been shown. Also assuming that I am a fan of continental writers.

I don't think you can batch down continental writers into some single position, not that physicalism has just one form, but it is a vastly less diverse set of positions.

But even if you disagree with that...seriously????

I get so tired of people not conceding poop here. I am not a fan of continental writers, as I said. I don't think I hold the same meta-philosophical position they hold, if they actually have one in common. I don't reject physicalist books that I haven't read, though some scientific ones are too dense for me, but I don't reject these, I feel frustrated with myself. I think there is a lot of great stuff in there that has become part of the knowledge base I have or consider is knowledge anyway. I do think there is a coherency problem with physicalism, which, even if it is a direct parallel with a meta-position held by all continental writers, you were not talking about that meta-position in your original, now we know was a facetious comment, to some degree. We were talking about books by continental writers, not the meta-position.

You assumed a bunch of stuff about me and when it's pointed out that these were incorrect assumptions, you just come back with more stuff.

Had it with ya Isaac. Maybe you have an ax to grind, I dunno. Grind it with others. I'll leave you to them.

when I respond to Janus in agreement about issues related to physicalism, which is not a book, nor the works of a single author, you simply assume I haven't read....

what actually?

A text on physicalism, a particular physicalist author? — Coben

I'm not assuming you haven't read anything. My entire argument is about disagreement among epistemological peers and the consequences of that for the ontological status of values and insight in a text. An argument which you have completely ignored in favour of taking umbrage at some some perceived personal slight.

It matters not one bit whether you have read anything or nothing about physicalism because there exist perfectly intelligent people who have read almost everything there is about physicalism and yet still disagree entirely with it. It therefore follows that disagreeing entirely with it must be a rationally possible position to hold.

Likewise, people who have read virtually everything there is to read on continental philosophy still think it is garbage. Therefore, thinking it is garbage must be a rationally possible position to hold.

I objected, to the line of argument which tries to claim it is not a rationally possible position to hold and must, instead, be born of ignorance.

I think there is a lot of great stuff in there that has become part of the knowledge base I have or consider is knowledge anyway. — Coben

This is exactly the kind of position I keep mistaking with you. I was going to say that this goes back to my argument about piecemeal agreement (that if you do not think everything an author says is of value, it must be possible that nothing an author says is of value). But then, in the light of your recent comment I'm thinking I will be rebuked for assuming some normative or ontological content where you intended none.

The trouble is, if you intended neither then I fail to see the purpose of the comment on a public forum.

I sometimes wonder if people in other forums--like say antinatalist forums, or particular apologetics forums, don't tell each other to head over here and start threads about their pet topics.

Either that I sometimes I wonder if it's not a one or two housebound, over-the-top OCD folks with numerous accounts here. — Terrapin Station

The second part can be belied by different writing styles of authors.

The first part is more like it. I sicked a whole bunch of insane or borderline insane god believers on another site, I think it's called Science chat forum, because they pissed me off hugely by their heavy-handed, elitist, favouritist MODerating. The straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, was when the Chief and Only MODerator announced his resignation and did not resign; instead, created a special thread addressed to me visible by all members what I, personally, must do and say, and other things that I must not do and must not say. I sicked the sickos from another forum on them, but only one or two stuck. The science chat forum is dead anyway, because they over-moderated it and have not been nice about it either. They tell people what to say and how to say it, and if some users don't comply, they get actioned.

This here was a good forum until a few weeks ago, wehn the proliferation of nutty religious posts occured. I swear it was not me who sicked the new wave of the nutty religious on this site, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize this is one of the way some folks strike back. IN other words, it's neither new, nor unique, nor original action of civil strife.

The forums are dynamic places. There is compliance, and there is strife. Civil disobedience. If the taxes are too high (tax = curtailed freedom of speech) then people leave. If moderation is too lax, then it gets overpopulated by soapbox heroes and preaching walnuts.

I can't give any constructive advice to moderators. I discussed it with several other users on other forums, who were so exasperated by the religious, that they were willing (almost, but not quite) to put in their money and effort to open forums where religious talk would be banned.

This is the bane of society, and the bane of forums. Anachronistic, outdated, mindless, logicless submission to religious ideation. The owners are happy to see increases in number of users and in volume of traffic, but they seldom if ever realize that this is the Judas-kiss of death of resonable and reasoned discourse: letting in too many with very storng religious world views.

Only if you were a moron. It doesn't take that long to assimilate the central ideas of any philosopher if you care to make the effort. — Janus

Yes, you're quite right. I am a... moron. No doubt about it.

Yes, you're quite right. I am a... moron. No doubt about it. — god must be atheist

You don't seem a moron to me. You seem young.

You don't seem a moron to me. You seem young. — Wayfarer

Thanks, WF.

It's two out of two in a day's work.

You don't seem a moron to me. You seem young. — Wayfarer

Me on the other hand . . . haha

well, you don't have the excuse of being young.... :razz:

I would say "garbage" is only an assertion of pejorative. In terms of anything "rational", which I assume we are taking to mean some kind of logical or justified argument in relation to content, such an account has nothing. Just calling something "garbage" is not a rational justification for anything. We've for to a detail an argument of how content fails to be rational by some standard.

I would say "garbage" is only an assertion of pejorative. ...Just calling something "garbage" is not a rational justification for anything. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm not sure what an assertion of pejorative means, but if it means that the term used in the assertion is a pejorative one, then yes, The sentence isn't supposed to carry with it an account. I'm not here talking about the justification for the conclusion itself, I'm talking about the justification for holding that belief without thorough investigation of the works concerned. For that I have given a fairly exhaustive argument which, in common with just about every other knee-jerk response I seem to be getting here, you have chosen to not even address.

Just calling something "garbage" is not a rational justification for anything. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'd entirely agree. I haven't made the claim that calling something "garbage" is a rational justification for something.

We've for to a detail an argument of how content fails to be rational by some standard. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not quite sure what this means (maybe a couple of typos?) but assuming the gist is that any assessment has to be accompanied by an account of how the content fails to be rational by some standard. Firstly, my comments at that stage were directed mainly at the partisanship of allowing "physicalism is incoherent", but disputing ""idealism is waffle". In that case neither assertion came along with an account of how the content failed to be rational by some standard. Nonetheless, if we take that claim on it's own...

This whole sub-discussion started when I made a comment about the qualities of theology, idealism and continental philosophy (in general), in relation to a point about why they are popular on boards like this - it's easier to sound impressive in those fields because they're full of obfuscatory waffle and it's very difficult to ever be shown to be wrong because there's no concrete argument in the first place.

I wasn't simply announcing to the world that I thought continental philosophy was garbage without any purpose, I was using my assessment of it within a speculation about something else. It is neither necessary, nor pragmatic to include behind every subsidiary assertion a justificatory account when the assertion is already supported by epistemic peers. If I included the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow as a subsidiary assertion within another unrelated argument, I do not also have to include an account of pragmatic induction to justify it.

I'd need to study philosophy for at least 40 years before the term "continental philosophy" would start to gain any meaning. — god must be atheist

Here's an attempt to condense a 40 year education into one paragraph for you, then:

In the early 20th century, philosophy in the English-speaking world became dominated by a group of philosophers who put very heavy emphasis on logic and empiricism, focusing almost all their philosophy on language and mathematics and leaving everything else either to be the work of the natural sciences or else denounced as utter nonsense. They emphasized philosophy as a professional academic discipline concerned with rigorous logical analysis of concepts. Like-minded philosophers from across continental Europe fled to Britain and America during the build up to WWII. Their way of thinking and its descendants are the Analytic branch of contemporary philosophy that still dominates in the English-speaking world of professional philosophy today (though not so much in other humanities departments). In contrast, all the rest of contemporary philosophy is "Continental", referring to the continent of Europe in juxtaposition to the islands of Britain, and by comparison to the Analytic tradition it focuses more on philosophy as an examination of the lived experience of being a person embodied in the world trying to figure out what to do and why.

All of this is speaking only of the Western philosophical tradition, and doesn't really apply to Eastern or other philosophical traditions at all.

Okay, I'm an atheist, but it seems to me that the quality of discussion on these prolific religious threads falls far short of 'philosophical debate' or even 'coherence' for participants . Even the apocryphal question about 'the number of angels who can dance on the point of a needle', would make better reading than what I have read here ! — fresco

Hey fresco, here's the short answer: in Philosophy, every thing returns back to the unexplained nature of existence.

Why are most philosophical domains preoccupied with reductionist arguments (causation)?

:up:

I've not detected a major pre-occupation with 'prime mover' arguments here. Rather on language games which often focus on 'holy writ', which would have Wittgenstein and Derrida chortling in their graves.

This is perhaps a little short sighted as religious institutions have safe guarded many philosophical ideas and helped perpetuate philosophical thought through the Dark Ages.

Theology is a ripe field for hypothetical discussions that can be extremely interesting. I don’t believe this forum allows for religious preaching though.

Also, keep in mind that it is likely I good idea to allow people easier access to less theological topics. Someone coming here to discuss the proposed existence of god and what that even means may be inclined to jump into ethical discussions and explore epistemic problems and other extensions of the issue into many other branches of philosophy.

Another issue is the stereotypical image of someone who is religious. Not every single person of belief holds to some dogmatic view. A great many religious people are very intelligent and don’t take every piece of scripture as literal rulebook for life.

I’m more opposed to strong anti-theistic attitudes than mild theistic ones. Anyone ‘opposed’ to theism, in terms of ‘anti-theistic’, is coming from an extreme position. This is not to say it is necessarily bad to oppose religions (I am NOT saying that at all), but an ‘anti-theistic’ attitude is actively trying to belittle and shutdown religious dialogue.

So I’d side with the ‘theist’ over the ‘anti-theist’ as stated above. Please note I am not equating ‘anti-‘ with ‘opposed to’. I interpret the first prefix as purposefully destructive and the later as being open to discussion and questioning.

but I think it's because people really do have questions about it, and its a very hard topic to articulate by its very nature. — Wayfarer

At one point I was convinced that there were some proselytizers aboard; I did get some PMs from someone wanting to witness to be but I said no thanks.

Proselytizers scout forums like this and the occasional Jewish forum precisely in order to ply their ware. It's repugnant to me, these fanatical, optimistic, naive carriers of the word think they will convince people on this forum or a jewish forum. Cheeeee rist!!!!!!!

Religion is a critical cultural activity, and has been for quite a long time--far longer than atheism. Longer than philosophy. Longer than agriculture. — Bitter Crank

And yet religion has concealed massive amounts of athiests: all you have to do is look at history and it's easy to conclude that these people didn't follow what they'd been taught as God's laws--not a whit! Especially the popes, who were the greediest, most lustful, power-hungry bastards of them all. They were all acting a part or mouthing the words when appropriate. I say actions speak much louder than words, and these crusaders, conquistadores, pilgrims, etc. weren't fkn christians. They were sociopaths with a mask. Still far too fkn many of them around.

The trouble is, atheist humanism has no conception of why humans are in the universe in the first place. — Wayfarer

I don't agree: we appear to have knowledge of what we are supposed to do on the face of this planet in our corner of the universe. We may not dwell on the universe as much as others, because that's not our focus. One has to make choices about where we focus our energies and actions.

well, that is a lovely sentiment, but it doesn’t rise to the level of a philosophical idea.

This is the bane of society, and the bane of forums. Anachronistic, outdated, mindless, logicless submission to religious ideation. The owners are happy to see increases in number of users and in volume of traffic, but they seldom if ever realize that this is the Judas-kiss of death of resonable and reasoned discourse: letting in too many with very storng religious world views. — god must be atheist

Very interesting. This takes the ban on proselytizers a step further. What do you think we should do? Have a serious discussion about re-organizing the rules and guidelines regarding religion? Stipulate that religious discussion must be firmly anchored in the arguments of philosophers who wrestile with the g_d issue? ???

You are too funny if you think that decisions about how we act and the ideas upon which they are based don't pertain to philosophy. Funny and silly.

hey you’re the one vaping cannabis, ain’t you? :wink: And don’t think I’m being censorious, I used to love to toke. But it tends to put you in la-la land.

Poor quality discussions are my speciality.

However, imagine we always demand the best, most well considered and perfect discussions. How would anyone ever learn? A child doesn't immediately start doing calculus or philosophy. S/he needs to be taught and mistakes are an integral part of learning. — TheMadFool

I think this is a weak analogy--perhaps another one of your specialties. A child learning something for the first time has nothing in common with the process of this forum and the people who have done serious reading and in far more than a Philosophy 101 class.

Irrelevant, immaterial, superfluous and avoidant of my point. If you go on the defensive and go wandering away from the topic, I won't play with you.

Perhaps you could use having your third eye opened a bit...

fair call, I was perhaps being facetious. But I don’t think this is the thread to pursue the discussion - it’’s already a meta-topic, so a meta-discussion about a meta-topic would be just, well, too meta.

Go back and look at the title of the this post. If this is not the place to think about what kinds of discussions and focus we want to see on this forum, I don't know where that place is. la la land, perhaps.

Indeed and I responded like so:

As to the general issue - I have noticed a greater focus on spiritual/religious on this forum, but I think it's because people really do have questions about it, and its a very hard topic to articulate by its very nature. — Wayfarer

Most of what I write here falls under the rubric of spiritual philosophy and related subjects. But I’ve noticed this forum seems far more skewed towards spirituality than away from it, and certainly more so than the forum that it was spawned from.

It’s about ten years since I started posting on forums. My original inspiration was this review which I still thoroughly enjoy every time I revisit it. (Damn, for years that review was publicly available, but it’s gone behind a paywall.)

Fair enough, Wayfarer; in a sense, this place is philosophy for the masses and not so much the place to hammer out our academic, ivory tower positions. These days I'm referring to spirituality as ethics and morals; just trying to walk it like I talk it...