Not insane. Just very talkative. :smile:

Probably YES.

But in a nice way.

It seems that NOTHING is going to be resolved in a philosophical discussion, but the conversation can often get interesting on tangents.

Take the beginning of that last sentence, for instance.

Nothing is going to be resolved:

What is really being said there? Are we saying the discussion is futile...or are we suggesting that we can resolve the issue of "nothingness?"

Sorta like..."There's nothing to be afraid of."

Is that an attempt to allay fear or is it calling attention to the ultimate, unavoidable danger.

We can have insane thoughts when dealing with volatile information such as 'before the big bang'. Harmony can be found in all legitimate theories, that sometimes insanity is a stepping stone to greater sanity, or it is just that.

I'm not saying this insanity is good, but we shouldn't repent all insanity, but to rather guide the insane and analyse strange theories.

A common, although perhaps inaccurate, definition of insanity is repeating the same actions, but expecting different results. If that is true, then wouldn’t philosophers certainly qualify as insane? If there is any consensus among philosophers, it’s that no single philosopher got everything right. We seemingly argue continuously with each other with usually no one really coming out ahead in any objective sense. Yet, we continue on using the same methods (logic, reason, and intuition) all the while expecting different results (getting everything right).

Now, I have my doubts that we are even capable of pursuing knowledge, or wisdom, any other way, unless you fancy revelation or divine inspiration as better methods. That being said, is it possible that we are doomed to always get it partially wrong? — Pinprick

yes we are all doomed to always get it partially wrong.

A common, although perhaps inaccurate, definition of insanity is repeating the same actions, but expecting different results — Pinprick

Of course repeating the same actions in order to, over time, get different results could be a definition of 'to practice'. And practicing leads to all sorts of skills.

Isn't that stupidity? Not insanity.

Beating a man to death for wearing a rival football team's attire is a better descript.

There are environments where you can go insane.

I wouldn't rule out insanity, I'd rule out stupidity.

I like it when the lion roars, truthfully thinking that it is more powerful than another because of it.

If it comes down to being either "insanity" or "stupidity"...keep in mind that insanity is sometimes cured!

Isn't that stupidity? Not insanity. — wiyte

Do mean you the guy I was responding to should have written 'stupidity' instead of 'insanity'? For whatever it's worth, I've seen both versions a few times. Either way, there are plenty of good reasons to repeat actions even if the first results of these actions are under par.

Beating a man to death for wearing a rival football team's attire is a better descript. — wiyte

Of?

Yeah.

insanity.

insanity. — wiyte

God it, yeah.

A common, although perhaps inaccurate, definition of insanity is repeating the same actions, but expecting different results. If that is true, then wouldn’t philosophers certainly qualify as insane? If there is any consensus among philosophers, it’s that no single philosopher got everything right. We seemingly argue continuously with each other with usually no one really coming out ahead in any objective sense. Yet, we continue on using the same methods (logic, reason, and intuition) all the while expecting different results (getting everything right).

Now, I have my doubts that we are even capable of pursuing knowledge, or wisdom, any other way, unless you fancy revelation or divine inspiration as better methods.[/u] That being said, is it possible that we are doomed to always get it partially wrong? — Pinprick

I'm inclined to agree with you but I haven't quite figured out where exactly the problem lies - is it with the subject (philosophical questions) or the method (logic) or perhaps both are culpable for the quagmire philosophy is in?

Logic seems to have proved its utility and efficacy in a multitude of arenas; math is worth mentioning since it's become a must if you want to make anything a science; by this I mean that logic has proven its value as a good enough method for truth-finding purposes.

So, the problem likely originates in philosophy itself. As an example, let's take god. It's quite obvious that god's existence hasn't be proven. However the concept of god was probably born from an intuition about an explanation for the world we inhabit. By intuition I mean to imply something not given the adequate amount of thought - a rough idea, so to speak. Also take a look at morality - the basic notion of good and bad precedes formal philosophy and logic. It too is basically an intuition and didn't receive formal treatment until much later. The examples of philosophical questions I mentioned above arose from intuitions, understood herein as vague notions. Isn't it then inevitable that when subjected to the rigor of logic, they should fail to yield clear-cut answers to vital questions? Could it be that much of philosophy today is about tackling vague notions of days past with the precision tool of logic with predictable results - confusion. I don't know if Wittgenstein is relevant here.

A common, although perhaps inaccurate, definition of insanity is repeating the same actions, but expecting different results. If that is true, then wouldn’t philosophers certainly qualify as insane? If there is any consensus among philosophers, it’s that no single philosopher got everything right. We seemingly argue continuously with each other with usually no one really coming out ahead in any objective sense. Yet, we continue on using the same methods (logic, reason, and intuition) all the while expecting different results (getting everything right).

Now, I have my doubts that we are even capable of pursuing knowledge, or wisdom, any other way, unless you fancy revelation or divine inspiration as better methods. That being said, is it possible that we are doomed to always get it partially wrong? — Pinprick

Empirical scientists never "get it all right". Neither do mathematicians. Neither do painters or musicians, lawyers or politicians, ballplayers or mail carriers. Neither does anyone.

Philosophers are no different from other intelligent animals in this regard. We're all fated to live with ignorance, error, and confusion, along with knowledge, correctness, and insight. We're all fated to fail as well as to succeed. That doesn't mean we don't learn anything or develop skills along the way. And it surely doesn't mean every judgment and every perspective is equally wrongheaded in every regard.

To me it seems mistaken to suggest that the task of philosophy is "to get it all right".

I say philosophical activity is like physical activity: In the first place, animals like us can't abstain from such activity, it happens whether we want it or not. In the second place, we can be more or less ignorant about the fact that it happens and about how it happens, and more or less ignorant about the consequences of its happening one way or another. Once we've caught a whiff of the process, we can take it up more or less responsibly or we can neglect it. Either way we reap the fruit of our action. We become philosophically fit or unfit somewhat as we become physically fit or unfit. The consequences of such habits are not only personal, but also interpersonal, cultural, and political.

Of course repeating the same actions in order to, over time, get different results could be a definition of 'to practice'. And practicing leads to all sorts of skills. — Coben

That makes sense, but I’m not sure that there is a good way to tell if your skills are improving or not. I guess making fewer mistakes could be a marker for improvement, but does making fewer mistakes get you closer to the truth? My way of thinking is that if you look at the 2,000 plus years humans have been using philosophical methods you realize that our methods inevitably lead to flawed results. It’s like we are continually trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. We desperately need a different peg, but none can be found, so we just continue shoving.

I'm inclined to agree with you but I haven't quite figured out where exactly the problem lies - is it with the subject (philosophical questions) or the method (logic) or perhaps both are culpable for the quagmire philosophy is in? — TheMadFool

I’d question that the problem lies in being human. We’ve evolved to think in certain ways about certain things. Perhaps there are ways of thinking that simply aren’t available to us? We only have five senses, but perhaps there could be other modalities through which we could view the world that would provide a different perspective, or insight, into the way we think? I don’t think there’s any way of knowing if these other modalities could exist, but perhaps they’re possible?

Logic seems to have proved its utility and efficacy in a multitude of arenas; math is worth mentioning since it's become a must if you want to make anything a science; by this I mean that logic has proven its value as a good enough method for truth-finding purposes. — TheMadFool

Yes, but there are other ways in which logic fails. Consider the irrationality inherent in quantum physics for example.

Could it be that much of philosophy today is about tackling vague notions of days past with the precision tool of logic with predictable results - confusion. I don't know if Wittgenstein is relevant here. — TheMadFool

I’d say a lot of it is that, but even the new ideas and theories that spring up from time to time seem to be flawed in some way.

Empirical scientists never "get it all right". Neither do mathematicians. Neither do painters or musicians, lawyers or politicians, ballplayers or mail carriers. Neither does anyone. — Cabbage Farmer

Right, not all the time, but what exactly has philosophy gotten right at all? Is there any subject that philosophy has solved completely? Math has solved arithmetic (how to add, subtract, etc.). Science, by its very nature, will always stand on the cutting edge of discovery and the unknown, but it at least has a very good understanding of the rudimentary levels of physics, biology, etc. Where has philosophy succeeded? How do you know if someone is philosophically fit or unfit?

What is the authentic knowledge, I mean, the completely right knowledge? The knowledge of what it is. What it is is only known by that who can have an immediate experience of it. We, the human beings, cannot have that kind of experience of what it is because we are sensitively limited. The only thing we can do is suppose how it is what it is. A supposition is a possibility. We should approach to the best posibility of how it is what it is.

That makes sense, but I’m not sure that there is a good way to tell if your skills are improving or not. I guess making fewer mistakes could be a marker for improvement, but does making fewer mistakes get you closer to the truth? — Pinprick

You would be fooled less, in the context of a philosophical discussion. Being fooled less - by your own poor arguments, by the poor arguments of others, by noticing fallacies, by noticing where semantic assumptions are taking place (as a few examples) - you would be less likely to be convinced of things that are false. That is closer to the truth or less far from the truth, at the very least.

My way of thinking is that if you look at the 2,000 plus years humans have been using philosophical methods you realize that our methods inevitably lead to flawed results. It’s like we are continually trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. We desperately need a different peg, but none can be found, so we just continue shoving. — Pinprick

Well, for me this bird's eye view is a very hard one to demonstrate or counter. However from my in situ view, my own practice doing philosophy had led to my noticing when arguments are sound or not to a much greater degree. This keeps me from being misled. Which keeps me from being led into falsehood.

And i would guess, though now we are into guessing, that philosophers today would have much more correct ideas about what is the case, than philosophers from long ago. Of course they are aided in this from other fields, but it also includes their own long work through the generations.

but perhaps there could be other modalities through which we could view the world that would provide a different perspective, or insight, into the way we think? I don’t think there’s any way of knowing if these other modalities could exist, but perhaps they’re possible? — Pinprick

Well, considering that philosophical problems are problems precisely because of poor logic, don't you think you're holding the wrong end of the stick? For instance, had it been a philosopher who first thought of god, he would've immediately trashed the idea because it's inconsistent and there would be no philosophy of religion. I'm telling you, some, if not most, philosophical problems are of this nature. It's something like a chess grandmaster, the philosopher, trying to make sense of a 4 year old child's, pseudothinker's, chess moves: there's simply no logic to the child's gameplay.

Yes, but there are other ways in which logic fails. Consider the irrationality inherent in quantum physics for example. — Pinprick

I know nothing of quantum physics, so, can't comment.

You would be fooled less, in the context of a philosophical discussion. Being fooled less - by your own poor arguments, by the poor arguments of others, by noticing fallacies, by noticing where semantic assumptions are taking place (as a few examples) - you would be less likely to be convinced of things that are false. That is closer to the truth or less far from the truth, at the very least. — Coben

I can agree with this, but the issue is that mistakes will still be made, regardless of how skilled you become. I would say even if you had an AI that was capable of applying the rules of logic with 100% efficiency it would still be incapable of solving many philosophical problems. This leads me to think that logic, as well as whatever other philosophical methods, are the wrong tools for the job. Or I guess another way of putting it is that some philosophical problems are unsolvable, in that they can never be completely resolved, at least not by using philosophical methods.

And i would guess, though now we are into guessing, that philosophers today would have much more correct ideas about what is the case, than philosophers from long ago. — Coben

Maybe. I think today’s philosophers can rule out several theories in various fields as a result of science, but it seems to me like the big questions in philosophy are still unanswered.

I can agree with this, but the issue is that mistakes will still be made, regardless of how skilled you become. — Pinprick

I agree

I would say even if you had an AI that was capable of applying the rules of logic with 100% efficiency it would still be incapable of solving many philosophical problems — Pinprick

I have no idea what an AI would be like as a philosopher. Symbolic logic can be programmed but applying that to reality - iow semantics, and understanding the world, all the content of useful deduction, for example - is a whole nother ball of wax. It seems to me how the damn this is programmed, 'raised', what sensory systems and information gathering systems it has and the personality that is 'grown' could make for just about anything including a psychopath AI that concludes we are like a mould on bread it wants to eat.

This leads me to think that logic, as well as whatever other philosophical methods, are the wrong tools for the job — Pinprick

Logic without intuition, for example, can do very little. Just shuffle symbols, perhaps play checkers.

Maybe. I think today’s philosophers can rule out several theories in various fields as a result of science, but it seems to me like the big questions in philosophy are still unanswered. — Pinprick

Welll, philosophy in general is very words on a page focused. And the one we tend to know is very middle class academic, bow down to science, Western with a lot of assumptions that fit all that. It's a subculture with a lot of pressure on it. And that pressure distorts and limits it, just as pressures distort and limit other subcultures. In general that is. Individuals may break out of that box.

Individuals may break out of that box. — Coben

I might say, only the individual is capable of breaking out of that box, and philosophy is an essential and invaluable tool for helping one achieve that. I might also add: since it is always the individual that practices philosophy (whether solitary or amongst company) philosophy has its greatest value for the individual.

When it comes to philosophizing with each other, we still philosophize as individuals, and all debate can be simply be regarded as an attempt at validation (of one's views) by consensus. Unfortunately, most philosophy in the present day is argumentum ad populum, and that seems like fun to me.

I might also add: since it is always the individual that practices philosophy — Merkwurdichliebe

It's a very social field and one is immersed in the other philosophers, as one must be. And there are very strong currents in philosophy. You can't just go off and think. Or you can, but you will likely just reinvent the wheel - since one has absorbed via culture and language all sorts of philosophical assumptions- if one is lucky. One is more likely to reinvent something vastly less useful than the philosophical wheel.

since one has absorbed via culture and language all sorts of philosophical assumptions- if one is lucky. One is more likely to reinvent something vastly less useful than the philosophical wheel. — Coben

And is it not still the individual who does it all, and to the individual for who it is most valuable, regardless whether that one is reinventing the wheel or merely studying the historic tradition? And who else should it be useful to?

It is very evident that the philosophical wheel has proved to be extremely inadequate in cultivating a healthy society at any place or any time, and has gradually mutated into a muddle of nonsense for people like you and I to play with. It is quite obvious that the philosophic tradition has little to no beneficial value for the collective, other than instilling cultish tendencies in the individual. I suspect that there are very few individuals out there, speaking in the strictest sense, and extemporaneously of course.

But I do mostly agree with you.

And is it not still the individual who does it all, and to the individual for who it is most valuable, regardless whether that one is reinventing the wheel or merely studying the historic tradition? And who else should it be useful to? — Merkwurdichliebe

useful to? well to that person and potentially others, depending on that individuals goals. But what I meant was that individuals are both separate from and immersed in the minds of others. Immersed!. We don't have pure, separate minds.

immersed in the minds of others. Immersed!. We don't have pure, separate minds. — Coben

Well, I'm more than willing to hear how that works out. I always assumed that telepathy was fiction, and that the thought that I experience is confined to my mind alone. Furthermore, how is it that my mind can exist within the mind of another, and still continue to remain my mind?

And even if we are talking about individual minds relating to each other through a collective experience, I cannot fathom how they could relate to each other directly, say through immersion. Thoughts are private, when one thinks, the actual thinking travels no further than the mind doing the thinking. If one is to express thought externally, it can only be accomplished indirectly, via a medium of communication ... I certainly have a hard time equating thought and communication.

Well, I'm more than willing to hear how that works out. I always assumed that telepathy was fiction, and that the thought that I experience is confined to my mind alone. Furthermore, how is it that my mind can exist within the mind of another, and still continue to remain my mind? — Merkwurdichliebe

Setting aside the issue of telepathy for now, you use language right, when you think. That language has, for example, dead metaphors THROUGHOUT which are ideas from other minds. You have introjected assumptions from parents, teachers, peers, media. Your mind has been influenced by the minds of the books you've read, the movies you've seen and so on. This was pouring into you well before you ever started questioning memes and further even the ways you question and what you question also flowed into you. Cultural biases, and subcultural biases and all the aimed at your unconscious ideas in advertising, films, politics. Sure, you can go off into a cave and avoid all this....now. But you carry with you the thoughts and tools and heurististics of other minds. And this also involves threats within that culture about what not to think and what the ideal is like and so on that will affect how you begin to look at the memes you have. Cognitive dissonence avoidence, denial, confirmation bias in introspection and a host of other factors also trot into that cave also. You are a social mammal with a culture, even when alone.

Thoughts are private, when one thinks, the actual thinking travels no further than the mind doing the thinking. — Merkwurdichliebe

One you start 'thinking for yourself' it's already a fait accompli. Sure, we can unravel stuff, but if you haven't noticed that you parents' thoughts and ideas in media and language based assumptions are still having a powerful set of effect in your mind now, then the great challenge hasn't even begun.

You mind is whatever you identify with 'in there' is immersed and made up of ideas and contructs and metaphors and assumptions made by other people that poured into you - much of it as subtext and subliminal - and to whatever extend to read social media, newspapers, watch films, it is still pouring into you. Even if communication and thoughts were not, somehow, part of a flow of mind, all of that is affecteding your mind and made up its construction as you grew up and also affected whatever tools, goals, abillity to notice you bring to questioning various parts of this.

If you think you are an island, well, you're like those human-made islands in Dubai.

I would say even if you had an AI that was capable of applying the rules of logic with 100% efficiency it would still be incapable of solving many philosophical problems. — Pinprick

As an aside to this general discussion, but with some relevance, I am proud to know that I am able to apply the rules of logic with 100% efficiency...about 5% of the time.

I tend to believe a lot of us, beyond philosophy, are insane, and our image of sanity is wrong.

As said prior, insane is not, as a rawity, completely negliable, you can be comfortablely or intellectually insane.

I like to capture a good thought with insanity about it for some time, sometimes, during my thought process.

Logic without intuition, for example, can do very little. Just shuffle symbols, perhaps play checkers. — Coben

I can agree that logic is more useful with intuition, but even their combination, along with whatever other philosophical methods you want to add, aren’t good enough to fully resolve much of anything. There are legitimate competing theories in every branch of philosophy with highly regarded and respected philosophers supporting each theory. And this is how it has always been, and I’m suggesting, always will be, precisely because philosophical methods are not capable of resolving philosophical questions like “what is the meaning of life,” “why is there something rather than nothing,” “what is the good life,” “what is beauty,” etc.

I am able to apply the rules of logic with 100% efficiency...about 5% of the time. — Frank Apisa

Lol, I agree. :rofl:

Lots of things can be resolved, perhaps the big questions cannot. But all this is a long way from 'insanity'. Further I think some of the big questions can be resolved for individual thinkers. IOW they can find a position that makes their life work better for them in the context of their values. Beyond that once they choose certain axioms, philosophy can help them draw conclusions and develop positions that work for them. I feel pretty good about what I have arrived at for me in relation to three out of four of those questions you cited. I can't convince everyone else what they should believe, but perhaps that is not possible or necessary. It's not something I feel any pressure from myself to manage. As far as why the something rather than nothing issue, I think the question itself provides a kind of critique of certain assumptions. It seems rather binary to me. We cannot resolve conflicts around big issues so doing philosophy is insane. To me it seems like some humbler goals and a sense of a spectrum of possible use is a healthier attitude about philosophy.

From a mathematician's perspective, many, if not most, philosophical issues lack closure and are endlessly debated - sometimes with very fuzzy definitions to begin with - and thus not really satisfying. However, philosophers seem to be very intelligent and, from many posts on this thread, usually impressively literate and knowledgeable. Especially those engaged in discussions about set theory and its parallel universe in computer science. I continue to learn things about these subjects by trying to follow discussions.

Definitely not insane.