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
A common, although perhaps inaccurate, definition of insanity is repeating the same actions, but expecting different results — Pinprick
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.Isn't that stupidity? Not insanity. — wiyte
Of?Beating a man to death for wearing a rival football team's attire is a better descript. — wiyte
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
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.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
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
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
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
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
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
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.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
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.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
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
Yes, but there are other ways in which logic fails. Consider the irrationality inherent in quantum physics for example. — 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. — Coben
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
I agreeI can agree with this, but the issue is that mistakes will still be made, regardless of how skilled you become. — 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.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
Logic without intuition, for example, can do very little. Just shuffle symbols, perhaps play checkers.This leads me to think that logic, as well as whatever other philosophical methods, are the wrong tools for the job — 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.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
Individuals may break out of that box. — Coben
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.I might also add: since it is always the individual that practices philosophy — Merkwurdichliebe
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? — Merkwurdichliebe
immersed in the minds of others. Immersed!. We don't have pure, separate minds. — Coben
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.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
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.Thoughts are private, when one thinks, the actual thinking travels no further than the mind doing the thinking. — Merkwurdichliebe
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
Logic without intuition, for example, can do very little. Just shuffle symbols, perhaps play checkers. — Coben
I am able to apply the rules of logic with 100% efficiency...about 5% of the time. — Frank Apisa
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.