The truth is massively overrated.
— Isaac — Metaphysician Undercover

isn't this a "banal one-liner" in the exact sense you were lamenting Isaac?

isn't this a "banal one-liner" in the exact sense you were lamenting Isaac? — Pantagruel

Yes, probably. I'm not lamenting the entire existence of banal one-liners, I'm just explaining how some of them in certain contexts seem out of place in the sorts of discussions we might reasonably want to encourage.

If there's something you desperately want to discuss without interruption, do it by PM.

↪Isaac If there's something you desperately want to discuss without interruption, do it by PM. — frank

This has also worked for me.

I guess the dream is to discover an island of sanity in the chaos of online attitudes. A subset of energetic minds that have already digested a lot of interesting books in a lot of interesting areas. Novel and substantial perspectives. Instead there seems to be almost exclusively polemics, punctuated by quite a bit of dark and off-colour humour. Maybe something I'd expect in a satirical movie, but not in a thread of any serious philosophical intention.

Then again, it is the internet. Such is the lot of all serious thought in the online world. What can you do? The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and there seems to be no shortage of greasy commentaries.

I guess the dream is to discover an island of sanity in the chaos of online attitudes. A subset of energetic minds that have already digested a lot of interesting books in a lot of interesting areas. — Pantagruel

I know. I was talking to a woman about a really fascinating book she found at a used bookstore called 'The Weight of Ink.' We talked about it for a while and she asked me what I'm reading. I said it was a book about the science of consciousness.

Crickets.

There's a little higher chance of finding someone here to discuss things with. A little?

The truth is massively overrated.
— Isaac

So you're one of them then. When the evidence points to the truth of something other than what you believe, you dismiss the truth as "massively overrated". — Metaphysician Undercover

The Physics of Metaphysics

1. Facts are solidified opinions.
2. Facts weaken under extreme heat and pressure.
3. Truth is elastic.

The premise of this thread stinks of elitism and fallacy of authority. If I was to take this perspective to the most logical conclusion, I would have to be published in an academic journal or university press book in order for my thoughts to be taken seriously. That is ludicrous when philosophy should be able to be exercised by anyone and everyone.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good book club and analysis of other's works, but to pretend that because someone published something in a journal or book form, or because someone is a professor of philosophy, this confers expert philosophizing ability is going too far.

I think @Baden was doing a better service by providing examples to raise up the level of writing and analysis of those who have their own thoughts. This to me seems more beneficial than simply retreating to being a glorified academic book club. That all being said, I think the best thing to come from this thread is to put in a section for book/journal analysis. That would be great. But this "holier than thou" commentary is elitism masquerading as reform.

Firstly, I don't see what's elitist about wanting to have a section where matters are taken a bit more seriously. We have already split off 'the lounge' in recognition of the fact that some conversations are less serious than others. Ideally, we'd just judge the more serious conversations on their merits, but, that being too subjective, anchoring the discussion to an academic paper which participants will be expected to have read is a more objective way of separating these types of discussion out. I'm not trying to denigrate other types of conversation. I'm just saying that, for me, it would be nice to have a conversation that was more heavily moderated in favour of the more serious approach.

Secondly, I think you're confusing the notion that "philosophy should be able to be exercised by anyone and everyone" with the posts I was being derogatory toward. Philosophy, if taken seriously, is quite hard, it's not, in my opinion, just 'reckoning some stuff'. This means that a) you'd be crazy not to read at least a summary of what people before you have already thought on the matter, b) it's very unlikely that you'll be so confidently right about any of it as to make the kind of 'you're wrong' single line pronouncements I'm referring to, and c) anything you do think is likely to need to stand on the shoulders of others as explaining the whole thing from first principles would require a book, not a 150 word post.

Given the above, I find it very unlikely that serious philosophy could be done in few short posts without reference to previous work. That's not to say that a jolly good chat can't be had that doesn't do that, but that there is a categorical difference there.

I think that in a general philosophy discussion in which anyone of any education level is welcome to participate, those with more education should just expect to have to explain things for those who don’t already know all of the background. Explaining things you already know in a clear and concise way is an important part of solidifying your own understanding of that material so this is beneficial to the “teacher” just as it is for the “student”.

Conversely though, those with less knowledge on a subject than others in the discussion should refrain from pontificating authoritatively about their unfounded opinions, and instead ask questions that might lead in the direction of the answers they think are right (or at least away from those they think ate wrong) in a Socratic way. The great thing about the Socratic method is you don’t have to just pretend to know nothing to use it: you can actually know nothing and still contribute to learning between both yourself and your interlocutors just by asking insightful questions.

I think that's very well said. What I was trying (but I think ultimately failing) to come up with was a way of separating out a category of discussion where posts which don't fit that mould would be be removed (to some other category).

There seems to be a reluctance to be too heavy handed in moderating posts for quality, tone etc. forum-wide, and I'm just going to accept that the moderation team have good reasons for that related to their vision of what this place should be. So I think, if there is a way, it would have to be by category and it would have to be moderated by the people involved (politely reminding the offending poster that this is not the right category for that type of post). I suppose, post hoc, I'm wanting to see what interest there would be in such an approach because without a significant portion of the community willing to police it, such a category would never work.

Secondly, I think you're confusing the notion that "philosophy should be able to be exercised by anyone and everyone" with the posts I was being derogatory toward. Philosophy, if taken seriously, is quite hard, it's not, in my opinion, just 'reckoning some stuff'. This means that a) you'd be crazy not to read at least a summary of what people before you have already thought on the matter, b) it's very unlikely that you'll be so confidently right about any of it as to make the kind of 'you're wrong' single line pronouncements I'm referring to, and c) anything you do think is likely to need to stand on the shoulders of others as explaining the whole thing from first principles would require a book, not a 150 word post. — Isaac

Before answering you specifically, I'd like to add that I have a problem with academic philosophy in general. To me, academic economics and philosophy programs are the most egregious versions of elitist. Much of economics is so desperately trying to be a "harder" science because they use statistical econometrics or mathematical models, and thus believes that they are more than a social science. Often "laws" of economics are taken as more seriously than what they are, etc. Also, older forms of thinking in that department don't want to be misconstrued as psychological or philosophical-based, and thus also dig themselves deeper in the rabbit-hole of preserving economics as some more "real" descriptivist social science as opposed to the rest which is less amenable to math. That is my take on how I encounter this department anyways. Anecdotally, the economic students were usually business-oriented and just seemed to accept that if economics said "law of this or that" it must be a real law that is "proven" rather than an accepted methodology. The "curtain" isn't really pulled back until grad school that these laws are essentially just that- accepted methodologies, one of many to be used and arranged.

Philosophy has a similar problem to economics as an academic program in trying to justify itself as "legitimate" content. However, it has a more uphill climb and in a more basic way. Where economics has a more-or-less agreed upon methodology as to how to analyze data (or the fact that it even has data to look at), philosophy has to define what it actually is that it is trying to do. Universities seem to have approached it in various ways. There is the historical approach where one learns the development of thoughts over time- Ancient Philosophy, Medieval, Eastern Philosophy, Enlightenment Philosophy, 19th century Philosophy, 20th century Philosophy, etc. Then there is the "category" approach where certain "basic" categories are thought of as required areas of knowledge in the "field". Metaphysics/Epistemology, Ethics, Aesthetics, Symbolic Logic, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Math, Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, etc.. There are movements: Existentialism, Logical Positivism, Analytic Philosophy, Marxism, Postmodernism, Critical, Frankfurt School, Pragmatism. Then there are niche philosophy topics one can break down from there. But it is kind of a hodgepodge and coordinated much more locally by department heads and committees.

So philosophy is not so cut-and-dry as to what is agreed upon as basic concepts, other than perhaps historical understanding of concepts and perhaps categories like metaphysics, ethics, and symbolic logic. But unlike some other topics, philosophy is on shaky ground as far as what counts as legitimate "philosophizing". It has always been an open field. If you were to tell me professors of philosophy are more "wise" I'd laugh my ass off. We are now at the level of how thought thinks of itself. We are at the definitions of things like "What is existence", "What is real", "What is consciousness", "What is right action?" Things like that. There is no cut-and-dry data on this. Actually, in true philosophical spirit, you can even argue if data itself is even called for, because again, it's an open field! You are at the level of existence and thought thinking of its own thinking. There is no right or wrong! Science has available evidence in repeated experiments and technology that comes from it. Not so in philosophy. There isn't even a defined methodology as in other social sciences (like the always striving-to-be-more-than economics department!).

Now I agree with you, it is good to be informed as to the "telephone game" of historical thought. But this makes philosophy an exegesis exercise only. It is not teaching thinking critically in its own right. If you think philosophy should just be about engaging previous thinkers on issues, then you are not getting a full view of philosophy. Rather, if Socrates was right, that it is about examining life, it should be about thought process and examining givens. The best philosophers not only studied great thinkers, but blazed their own path. They had their own unique thoughts and patterns of thinking. The biggs

So, if you want to put your money where your mouth is, when you engage someone, and want them to be more historically-engaged, give them a reference or passage to read from a philosopher that pertains to the subject at hand. If you yourself are not able or willing to do that, then perhaps you are just complaining to complain. You have to be willing to do what you are asking of others. Perhaps balance out people's own "crazy" ideas by providing relevant articles from other philosophers and then ask them to compare their own thoughts to that author's ideas. That is a good midway point between simple exegesis of someone else's thoughts, and being creative and thinking for oneself. If you are simply always analyzing someone else's work, you are not philosophizing, but being a book club participant.

As to you specific points:

a) Yeah I agree, you should read about topics at hand by others. When discussing antinatalism or philosophical pessimism, the main proponents are David Benatar (and authors critical to him) and Schopenhauer. I have read people like Joshua Foa Dienstag, Julio Cabrera, Zapffe, Mainlander, Hartmann, sources from newspapers, popular articles, and all sorts of places. I agree and disagree in various places. However, the most interesting part is critically examining my own thoughts by having to defend them. Its tiring, but the dialectic is the main part that is enriching. I've brought these authors up over time on this forum, but I would never let them speak for me or only use quotes to defend any argument. That is insane.

b) There is no right and wrong! There is agree or disagree! You can be "wrong" about what a previous thinker thought, but you are not "wrong" on whether this or that ethical argument is good or bad. You can have arguments that "better" or "worse" reasoning, but even that is subjective. I'd say that this is not known until the dialectic process is played out. You don't know if someone's argument is bad until they fully develop their reasoning. If at the end, their reasoning fails to hold up, even to themselves, then you can say that the argument was not fully thought out, and thus not very good. Or you can say that the argument needs more details as it cannot overcome certain objections.

c) If you want to use prior thinkers, that's great, but if you ONLY use prior thinkers, you are a hack. There is no originality. Let's take someone like Kripke. He's always thrown around as a modern "great" in philosophy and logic. He is definitely drawing on the debates of Russell and Frege and later on Wittgenstein. However, though he is informed, his thoughts are original to all of them. I see nowhere in his lecture notes pages and pages of exegesis, but rather original thinking. Taking the concepts and moving with it.

Now don't get me wrong. I love history. I think people should be more informed on historical thinking. In fact, I think the hard sciences and math should be taught in a historical approach, not separating the thinkers from their end results (the mathematical or scientific concepts we now have). However, philosophy is not just about understanding other people's thoughts. It's about being able to examine the world using one's own ideas and applying it using relevant methods at hand. Other people's thoughts should be a jumping off point, not an end to themselves when it comes to philosophy.

I'll add @Pfhorrest @frank @Metaphysician Undercover@god must be atheist@Pantagruel @fdrake

Philosophy, if taken seriously, is quite hard, it's not, in my opinion, just 'reckoning some stuff'. This means that a) you'd be crazy not to read at least a summary of what people before you have already thought on the matter, — Isaac

Yes, you might want to weigh in on my Lounge thread "What constitutes Philosophy?" I think it is valuable to occasionally re-establish a fundamental lexicon, so to speak.

I was of the same opinion as Schopenhauer regarding academic philosophy,

To me, academic economics and philosophy programs are the most egregious versions of elitist. — schopenhauer1

and thought that it would somehow hinder my ability to freely explore my own ideas. Practically speaking though, I could have been paid to read and write about all the books I have had to squeeze into my free time in the last thirty years. Biggest mistake of my life.

I was of the same opinion as Schopenhauer regarding academic philosophy, and thought that it would somehow hinder my ability to freely explore my own ideas. — Pantagruel

Please read my own opinion on the matter. I am NOT against reading historical thinkers or "academic" philosophy!

Added quote to my post for clarity.

Added quote to my post for clarity. — Pantagruel

Isn't this an example of taking one passage out of context. If you read the whole thing, I then go into what I mean by that, and it isn't simply saying "don't read other thinkers or academic philosophy at all".

Not at all. I concurred with your estimation of academic philosophy at the time, with the ensuing results for myself. I didn't attribute any more to you than what you said. I don't think I implied it either.

Not at all. I concurred with your estimation of academic philosophy at the time, with the ensuing results for myself. I didn't attribute any more to you than what you said. I don't think I implied it either. — Pantagruel

Ok, I wasn't quite sure what you meant by biggest mistake of our life. Can you elaborate?

I wish I had stuck with the Philosophy program. Would, could, should.

Oh gotcha. Well, if you read my passage, you can see what I am trying to get at with it. I'm glad if others find it satisfying, though. I always thought academic philosophy students were the most arrogant. I always appreciated the few engineers forced to be in there to round out their major requirements.. They seemed to be less of a show-off types. Again, that is completely anecdotal. I always gravitated towards straight-up history or other subjects as the other students were less blowhard types, and the content was less escoteric. Escoteric thinkers, thinking they are superior to others in their escoteric thinking in some hard and fast "academic" way bothers me.

I think all branches of knowledge ultimately must inter-validate. It is up to 'practical thinkers' (who pursue something as an avocation) to keep academics grounded. And sometimes to introduce novelty.

I think all branches of knowledge ultimately must inter-validate. It is up to 'practical thinkers' (who pursue something as an avocation) to keep academics grounded. And sometimes to introduce novelty. — Pantagruel

I would agree with you in most other fields, but not so much philosophy being that there is no "cut-and-dry" concepts that must be "validated". It is not grounded at all. It is escoteric built on escoteric wanting to be taken seriously as more concrete. I am fine with that, if it is recognized for what it is, and not more. I think philosophical thinking is the root of all other branches of knowledge really, so I am not opposed to philosophy, just opposed that there is a "hard and fast" philosophy.

It's about being able to examine the world using one's own ideas and applying it using relevant methods at hand. Other people's thoughts should be a jumping off point, not an end to themselves when it comes to philosophy — schopenhauer1

Nice! Personally, I kind of liken it to writing music. When an artist say's my influences are...that generally means that one takes a lot of relevant information and internalizes it making it their own. That, as apposed to simply regurgitating someone else's information all the time.

Everyone has unique perspectives and experiences to share. While certain things don't need to be overthought to be effective, there are absolutely truly novel ideas that can come from being willing to think outside the box as it were.

The premise of this thread stinks of elitism and fallacy of authority. — schopenhauer1

With a little generosity, Isaac and others are just frustrated that they arent having higher quality conversations and they want the ability to police their own threads.

It would be easy enough to set up a second philosophy forum for that purpose.

I agree with what you wrote, though I’m not sure why you @ed me at the end?

With a little generosity, Isaac and others are just frustrated that they arent having higher quality conversations and they want the ability to police their own threads. — frank

That's really all it is. It seems to have got blown up into a debate about the qualities of academics in social sciences and philosophy and I don't quite know how.



I have some sympathy for what you're saying, with a few caveats, but I don't want to get into that. All my suggestion ever amounted to was a means of policing a slightly higher standard of discussion using the need to have read and engaged with a text as a filtering mechanism.

I'm not implying that philosophy without a text is pointless, it represents the vast majority of my comments here. I've just become weary of the type of predictable, hubristic omniscience, or failure to grasp the issues that seems (to me) to drown out some otherwise really interesting potential discussions. I thought I had an idea of a way I (and anyone else feeling that way) could just filter that out from time to time and focus on something. Academic texts were just a tool to help with that. Not an arbitrary tool (hence my argument as to why I think anyone taking the matter seriously shouldn't have any trouble sticking to the restriction), but just a tool nonetheless.

You are at the level of existence and thought thinking of its own thinking. There is no right or wrong! Science has available evidence in repeated experiments and technology that comes from it. Not so in philosophy. There isn't even a defined methodology as in other social sciences (like the always striving-to-be-more-than economics department!). — schopenhauer1

I’d say fundamentally there is such a thing as right or wrong, true or false, but uncovering it is not a straightforward process, I liken it to one big adventure, one big enigma, one big puzzle, one big maze we find ourselves in and that we try to solve to see what’s hidden beyond, that’s how I see philosophy. I believe there is a solution to the puzzle, we just haven’t solved it yet, we’re trying all kinds of approaches, we manage to solve one small part and then we get stuck, so we go back and try other ways, other paths, sometimes we put different parts together and they fit perfectly, but they don’t fit with the rest so we keep trying, and the more we solve the more we see, the clearer we see, and I believe that the clearer we see the more mind-boggling it will be.

Philosophy is an important tool to get there, but it’s not the only tool, it must not be focused on thought alone, disconnected from everything else, it must take into account everything else, piece by piece and then everything together. Even practicing a sport or an art or a trade can be seen as a piece of the puzzle, because as we get better at these activities we discover ourselves, we discover how some subset of the world behaves and reacts to what we do, and then some people become able to do amazing things, things that seem like miracles, for instance the guy who climbed the nearly 1km high vertical face of El Capitan without a rope, or the things we have achieved with technology, these things seem like magic to people who do not understand how they work. And so I believe that as we solve the puzzle further we will be able to see, do, and create things that we would consider today as magic, as miracles, and the truth will be way more amazing and mind-boggling than we can imagine now.

Any other possible guests in the horizon?