I don't understand this acronym.2.3 LNC ... — 180 Proof
Basically how should the social endeavor of finding and spreading knowledge be "governed" so to speak. E.g. should everyone pursue knowledge entirely on their own and keep their findings secret, or should some elite subset of the population do all the knowledge-finding and everyone else should just believe what they tell them to, or should some elite subset of the population do all the knowledge-finding and keep it to themselves and only selectively let some people in on it, or should everyone pursue knowledge on entirely their own and share their findings with everyone else, or something else?Probably doesn't answer the question because I don't grok what you're asking. Maybe reformulate? — 180 Proof
I am not too sure what you mean by 'meaning' — A Seagull
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's mind without another's guidance. Sapere Aude! Dare to Know! Have the courage to use your own understanding is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment.
~Kant
I notice that you skipped a few questions, the latter half of the Metaphilosophy section: Subjects, Institutes, and Importance of Philosophy. Were you planning on revisiting those later, or just don't feel like you have anything to say on them that wasn't covered already? — Pfhorrest
Philosophy is the thing outside or on existing borders of "usefull" categories/views.Metaphilosophy
The Meaning of Philosophy
What defines philosophy and demarcates it from other fields? — Pfhorrest
Philosophy tries to enable the expaning of borders or creating of new categories. This is mainly done by clarifing unclear concepts by creating models that aproximate roughly what is being talked about.The Objects of Philosophy
What is philosophy aiming for, by what criteria would we judge success or at least progress in philosophical endeavors? — Pfhorrest
Creative thinking that consists of a sufficient degree of critical thinking and rigor.The Method of Philosophy
How is philosophy to be done? — Pfhorrest
Whatever faculties enable the creative and critical thinking. Further one could add containing a certain productive element that consists either of theory builiding or precise and usefull criticism.The Subjects of Philosophy
What are the faculties that enable someone to do philosophy, to be a philosopher? — Pfhorrest
Whoever wishs to do so. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest a specific way of relating to others. In general one might constrain it artificially by limiting based on max number due to philosophers being not short term productive for society and thus demanding a certain wealth of a society. However I think this is done rather automatically.The Institutes of Philosophy
Who is to do philosophy and how should they relate to each other and others, socially speaking? — Pfhorrest
It improves the long term development of civilizations. Like science it does not produce instant results and instead shifts the results to the future. One can imagine it this way we need food now/being active harvesting ect but improve overall foodproduction by allowing one member to be passive and think about food harvesting.The Importance of Philosophy
Why do philosophy in the first place, what does it matter? — Pfhorrest
Such claims try to express patterns or rather metapatterns that are sufficiently accurate and therefore applieable over a long time.Philosophy of Knowledge and Reality
The Meaning of Reality
What do descriptive claims, that attempt to say what is real, even mean? — Pfhorrest
Mathematical claims are claims over a specific abstracted attribute of reality that uses at least some sets. In math itself they are relational statements over properties of the abstracted attribute. Due to math containing of general relational statements these statements can be used more or less fitting to "real" sets.Bonus question:
What do mathematical claims, about numbers and geometric shapes and such, mean, and how do they relate to descriptive claims about reaity? — Pfhorrest
Long term apropriate usability of the descriptiv claim. Therefore showing to be more or less apropriate. To make this a bit clearer compare it to science where a theory that lasts very long due to no one being able to find a better theory somehow shows a certain accuracy of the theory. Obviously it is not a purley time duration based (or only if you consider a new improved theory to be able to include all events explained by the previous theory + more). I excluded the range due to a theory or concept being possibly very stable locally. Not to overextend here but I think afterall the overall symbolsystem needs to fullfill this. There range matters but the issue is more complex.The Objects of Reality
What are the criteria by which to judge descriptive claims, or what is it that makes something real? — Pfhorrest
I am not convinced that we are able to applie those criteria at all. I rather hold the view that they playout over time. However I think that one can approximate it by considering consistency rigorosity, adaptivness, falsifieability and other simular estimators however they are highly dependant on the topic at hand.The Methods of Knowledge
How are we to apply those criteria and decide on what to believe, what descriptive claims to agree with? — Pfhorrest
The Subjects of Reality
What is the nature of the mind, inasmuch as that means the capacity for believing and making such judgements about what to believe? — Pfhorrest
A proper educational system should be learning based and not knowledgebased (learn how to learn). How to best teach that should be left to experts. How they socially relate is not very important. However students should also get to know based on the learning what a proper authority is and what not and how to assign justified authority to people. F.e. someone who repeatedly shows to have deep knowledge in a field should therefore be justifieably be seen as authority in said field however not necessary in others. While someone just claiming authoritie should be questioned to investigate it properly.The Institutes of Knowledge
What is the proper educational system, or who should be making those descriptive judgements and how should they relate to each other and others, socially speaking? — Pfhorrest
I think people are per default interessted in educating especially young people. As I mentioned before the brain and it's creativity is a function of age aswell. F.e. A new born child has very few believes that are not stable(pretty new) so it per default wants to enrich it's mind with believes (thats why children are curious) however old people maybe have believes that are not uptodate but served them well over their entire life and thus are not likley to just "throw them out" for new beliefs where they do not know the worth.Bonus question: How do we get people to care about education and knowledge and reality to begin with? — Pfhorrest
As mentioned above the succesrate is the important factor. However it is not as clear cut with truth as one might think. Imagine having poisones(eat=death) mushrooms and healthy mushrooms. In general the best case would be that we could distinguish exactly everytime we see a mushroom. F.e. All red mushrooms are poisones. However if this is not possible snd we accept that we make errord it might be beneficial to exclude healthy red mushrooms since the risk is not worth it. Furthermore lets assume we could always clearly find out how poisones a mushroom is but for red healthy ones we would have to invest a lot of time and brainpower into it. Both last mentioned cases illustrate that a less truthfull approach can be more beneficial due to minimizing risk or effort( where effort of finding out is higher the reward of eating the healthy mushroom and we could do other things in the same time) furthermore there might be addinional time constraints.The Importance of Knowledge
Why does is matter what is real or not, true or false, in the first place? — Pfhorrest
They are largescale statements about the best set of relationships to optimize a society. F.e. A society that kills all of it's infants wont propagate.Philosophy of Justice and Morality
The Meaning of Morality
What do prescriptive claims, that attempt to say what is moral, even mean? — Pfhorrest
Aestetic claims can either be viewed to represent a simularity regarding the combinig structure of creative/conservative and therefore are pleasing. (take the image of humans having a frequency and aesthetic objects having an own frequencies simular to the human one or one that has a special relationship to our frequency)Bonus question: What do aesthetic claims, about beauty and comedy and tragedy and such, mean, and how do they relate to prescriptive claims about morality? — Pfhorrest
As I mentioned above the optimization of society. However this is a bit more to it. F.e. The subject at hand using morals is relevant to the appropriate framework based on the dimension it is looking at it. For example i consider the individual morality that is most beneficial to use a Kantian one. (Threat other humans as if they have inherent value) else one might up killing people for personal cain resulting in trauma. However if at a higher position f.e. as a military leader it quickly can become utilitarian if it is a given that people will die it is beneficial to minimize human cost and therefore giving orders that sactifice someone to save many (violating a kantian approach) however this applies only to non personal actions. In the daily interactions the military leader should still try to use a kantian view. Further the utilitarian domain should also be limited to a certain degree such that saving a individual or spending a large sum of money should always be decided in favor of the individual at that level. However at a higher level goverments would for example limit the ammount of money the miltary gets and thus enacting a broader utilitarian framework on said individuals life.The Objects of Morality
What are the criteria by which to judge prescriptive claims, or what makes something moral? — Pfhorrest
What specific claims to agree with should be up to society and it's configuration to determine. However in general it is a optimization problem where we want to maximize the overall well being while simulatinously maximizing the individual well being of worst cases.The Methods of Justice
How are we to apply those criteria and decide on what to intend, what prescriptive claims to agree with? — Pfhorrest
I think the result is a result of culture and it's influence on the individual as well as inherent factor in individulas that ranges over a certain distribution. This is relevant due to it influencing what one wills at the first place. The will and it's strength also depends on the specific case and how one vies oneself (on what side of the maximization problem do I see myself).The Subjects of Morality
What is the nature of the will, inasmuch as that means the capacity for intending and making such judgements about what to intend? — Pfhorrest
A democracy, a combination of the public will and reflective processes in form of checks am balances that consider a broader framework then the voter might consider. They should relate to each other via discussion and a certain form of procedure to guarantee a safeguarding of both parts of the discussion (the active part/will of the people and the passive part/reflective mechanisms)The Institutes of Justice
What is the proper governmental system, or who should be making those prescriptive judgements and how should they relate to each other and others, socially speaking? — Pfhorrest
The caring about said points is given by default, since they are influences on each individuals life. Furthermore culture and education certainly influences these aspects. However simular to the case of the philosopher and scientist it shouldn't be viewed as every member of society needing to have a to strong intrest in governance. Else we get a to big overhead of passive elements in society. The handling of this is already build in to democracy where few people get chosen to focus on the passive aspects more strongly. Creating amore specialized and proper working system.Bonus question: How do we get people to care about governance and justice and morality to begin with? — Pfhorrest
The idea is that it is necessary for a certain ammount of trust/cooperation in a system wich overall increases the succesrate in a system if not overdone.The Importance of Justice
Why does is matter what is moral or not, good or bad, in the first place? — Pfhorrest
The meaning of life is taking local process oriented actions. Like the saying that the way is the goal.Bonus question:
What is the meaning of life? — Pfhorrest
I don't think anyone would claim that such things are in short supply in this day and age, but some apparently believe that we are somehow unable to synthesize meaning from these for ourselves. The claim is that we need to be chained to a being (ultimate authority), usually referred to as the great chain of being. The enlightenment freed us from these chains. — praxis
The Subjects of Philosophy
What are the faculties that enable someone to do philosophy, to be a philosopher? — Pfhorrest
The Institutes of Philosophy
Who is to do philosophy and how should they relate to each other and others, socially speaking? — Pfhorrest
The Importance of Philosophy
Why do philosophy in the first place, what does it matter? — Pfhorrest
The Meaning of Philosophy
What defines philosophy and demarcates it from other fields? — Pfhorrest
Philosophy of Justice and Morality
The Meaning of Morality
What do prescriptive claims, that attempt to say what is moral, even mean? — Pfhorrest
Bonus question: What do aesthetic claims, about beauty and comedy and tragedy and such, mean, and how do they relate to prescriptive claims about morality? — Pfhorrest
The Objects of Morality
What are the criteria by which to judge prescriptive claims, or what makes something moral? — Pfhorrest
The Methods of Justice
How are we to apply those criteria and decide on what to intend, what prescriptive claims to agree with? — Pfhorrest
The Subjects of Morality
What is the nature of the will, inasmuch as that means the capacity for intending and making such judgements about what to intend? — Pfhorrest
The Institutes of Justice
What is the proper governmental system, or who should be making those prescriptive judgements and how should they relate to each other and others, socially speaking? — Pfhorrest
Bonus question: How do we get people to care about governance and justice and morality to begin with? — Pfhorrest
The Importance of Justice
Why does is matter what is moral or not, good or bad, in the first place? — Pfhorrest
Bonus question:
What is the meaning of life? — Pfhorrest
The Objects of Philosophy
What is philosophy aiming for, by what criteria would we judge success or at least progress in philosophical endeavors? — Pfhorrest
The Method of Philosophy
How is philosophy to be done? — Pfhorrest
And lastly I'd argue that, properly speaking, [philosophy] differs from religion in that it is critical, anti-fideistic, taking nothing as unquestionable. But it's also properly speaking anti-nihilistic, allowing free investigation of things with uncertain grounding rather than shutting all such discourse down as groundless and impossible from the outset. I would argue that both fideism and nihilism are rather "phobosophy", the fear of wisdom — Pfhorrest
I would argue that both fideism and nihilism are rather "phobosophy", the fear of wisdom. — Pfhorrest
[ ... ] 'fear and hatred of the supernatural' - something like 'theophobia', which is strongly evidenced by many posters on this forum, most often for reasons that they themselves are not fully conscious of. (I'm looking at you, 180 ;-) ) — Wayfarer
I meant I liked the way the contents of the link are laid out. — I like sushi
The Subjects of Philosophy
What are the faculties that enable someone to do philosophy, to be a philosopher? — Pfhorrest
Philosophy is the love of wisdom, where by "love of" I mean attraction toward, or pursuit of; and by "wisdom" I mean the ability to discern truth from falsehood and good from bad, or at least the ability to discern superior from inferior answers to questions about either reality or morality. — Pfhorrest
I'm happy to hear that, that's exactly what I hoped for. :-)I’m enjoying this thread - I have used the questions to try and order my own thoughts, — Possibility
I look forward to seeing them when you feel they're worth sharing; meanwhile, discussion is great too.but my answers are perhaps too lengthy and disjointed at this stage, so I’m going to try and offer some discussion instead. — Possibility
I think this definition invites a limited view of wisdom. What we discern as ‘falsehood’ or ‘bad’, ‘unreal’ or ‘immoral’ is as much a part of wisdom as what is ‘good’ or ‘real’. Determining how to effectively integrate predictions, imagination and ‘immoral’ thoughts or intentions as useful information is, in my view, as important to the pursuit of wisdom as reality or morality. I don’t think it’s as dichotomous as discerning truth from falsehood or ‘good’ from ‘bad’, but rather the capacity to structure and restructure our conceptual systems to integrate ALL information about the world, not just in relation to reality or morality, but in order to more completely understand ourselves and the universe. — Possibility
2.3 LNC ...
— 180 Proof
I don't understand this acronym. — Pfhorrest
↪180 Proof
You're obviously being brief and concise in your responses to the OP, as well as expressing your own values and beliefs to some extent. In this section of moral philosophy, you focus on harm, and neglect other moral dimensions such as fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. I was wondering if they were not mentioned for the sake of brevity ... — praxis
... or perhaps because you reason that care/harm trumps all other dimensions. If the latter is the case, would you share that reasoning? — praxis
Law of Non-Contradiction. :wink: — 180 Proof
I mean them to span both metaethics and normative ethics, but to have a generally metaethical framing, because I hold that normative ethics should be dissolved into metaethics on the one hand (which is all philosophy should be concerned with) and applied ethics on the other (which should be developed into a whole suite of contingent, a posteriori ethical sciences). But questions like the criteria for judging moral claims and the methods for applying that judgement are meant to yield what is effectively a normative ethical theory (e.g. if your criterion is maximizing pleasure and your method is just do whatever's descriptively most likely to do that, you end up a utilitarian; if your criterion is universalizability consistent with will and your method is always treating everyone as a means rather than an ends or something along those lines, you're a Kantian deontologist).the questions in the OP seem to have a more metaethical focus or I took them that way. — 180 Proof
I’m just interested in hearing what other individual people’s complete philosophical systems are, phrased as answers to the same set of questions for comparison. — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.