I don't object to an ethical conversation, but I wasn't that inclined to head in a moralistic direction. I was more interested in the question of whether philosophers have the ability to think rationally, as I defined that above. — Hippyhead

I think your confusion centers around the blurry vision you seem to have between morality and rationality, generally speaking.

Other than that, I don’t see why you hesitate to inform us what our relationship with knowledge should be. I can’t speak for anyone else but I for one am fully prepared to have my mind blown.

I think your confusion centers around the blurry vision you seem to have between morality and rationality, generally speaking. — praxis

I didn't bring up the subject of morality, and was attempting to side step it, as such directions often lead to unproductive conflicts. But, I'm agreeable to discuss morality if that is what interests you. If you lead such a discussion I will join.

If you merely snark, I will ignore. Yes, this thread in now in the lounge, but I didn't put it here.

As discussed above, it really does depend on what one's definition of philosophy is.

If one believes that the purpose of philosophy is to serve human beings, then philosophical activity which almost entirely ignores what is arguably one of the most dangerous threats to human beings is fairly labeled not very rational.

If on the other hand one believes that philosophy has some purpose other than service to human beings, then philosophical activity would have to be measured against how well it is serving that purpose.

I didn't bring up the subject of morality, and was attempting to side step it, as such directions often lead to unproductive conflicts. — Hippyhead

You have a prescription for what our relationship with knowledge should be. What is that and why do you believe it would be efficacious in preventing a nuclear holocaust or other man-made existential threat?

If on the other hand one believes that philosophy has some purpose other than service to human beings, then philosophical activity would have to be measured against how well it is serving that purpose. — Hippyhead

I'd say that philosophical activity generally promotes wisdom and that's how it is "service to human beings." Not sure how evidence could be gathered to support this belief.

You have a prescription for what our relationship with knowledge should be — praxis

This is an understandable statement given what you know about me, but to be more precise I have a vision of what our relationship with knowledge should not be, that is, simplistic and childlike. That part is pretty easy, so even I can see and say it.

What our relationship with knowledge should be is rather more difficult. Which is presumably why we have professional philosophers. I would like them to play this role, I would like them to be far more qualified to address this all important subject than I am, but I fear that may not be the case. And I have that fear because I don't see them addressing a very easily understood, easily shared, dramatically dangerous example of where a simplistic and childlike relationship with knowledge can take us.

I'd say that philosophical activity generally promotes wisdom and that's how it is "service to human beings." — praxis

I'd say that philosophical activity attempts to promote wisdom. I don't doubt that it succeeds in some cases, but when leading practitioners of the art can't seem to focus on a double barrel shotgun aimed right at their face, it seems reasonable to question at least the profession, and perhaps the medium itself.

Anyway, my prescription for our relationship with knowledge is that our best minds should be laser focused on it in a hurry, or they should at the least admit they can't, and find other jobs.

If you'd like to share any thoughts you have on this subject, please do. I'm only dominating the microphone because I can't find many others to share it. If you are a mod (sorry, can't remember) and would like to help to fix that, I would welcome the assistance.

I don't see them [philosopher pros] addressing a very easily understood, easily shared, dramatically dangerous example of where a simplistic and childlike relationship with knowledge can take us. — Hippyhead

Right, so what's there to philosophize about?

If I understand you correctly, you essentially believe that 'knowledge' is dangerous. If that's your belief then the most straightforward action to take is knowledge regulation, similar in principle to the regulation of firearms or nuclear weapons.

Campaigning for knowledge regulation may not be the best career move for an aspiring philosopher, or the best use of their time.

Right, so what's there to philosophize about? — praxis

I don't understand your question here. Expand a bit?

If I understand you correctly, you essentially believe that 'knowledge' is dangerous. — praxis

It's more complicated than that. Knowledge is also very beneficial. If it was just dangerous it would be far easier to manage. What I see as dangerous is a simplistic "more is better" relationship with knowledge. That was a rational paradigm for a very long time, but it has been made outdated in our time by an ever accelerating knowledge explosion.

Food is beneficial. Food is essential. But eating as much as one can as fast as one can is not.

If that's your belief then the most straightforward action to take is knowledge regulation, similar in principle to the regulation of firearms or nuclear weapons. — praxis

I was a nuclear weapons activist for awhile, but I let it go when I came to the realization that nothing meaningful is going to happen on that front until after the next detonation. Reason is simply not enough, pain is going to be necessary. That's probably true for our relationship with knowledge more generally as well.

Knowledge regulation seems a logical direction to head, but there is very little interest currently, and plenty of out right opposition. It's worse than that really, most people don't take the threat seriously enough to bother to object to any proposed solution.

So writing on this subject may be pointless. Posting on this forum certainly is. But, that's all I know how to do, so... At least when I'm writing I can enjoy the illusion of doing something constructive.

At this point, I think a glass of wine is in order. :-) On to that! See ya tomorrow.

Right, so what's there to philosophize about?
— praxis

I don't understand your question here. Expand a bit? — Hippyhead

You wrote:

Food is beneficial. Food is essential. But eating as much as one can as fast as one can is not.

This is quite simple and straightforward, as you've said, so what use is a philosophy pro in this or a similar case?

At this point, I think a glass of wine is in order.

Enjoy!

My argument is that this is pretty much exactly the situation professional philosophers are in — Hippyhead

Perhaps a "professional philosopher" would comment on this. Heloooo out there . . . do any such members exist? Please speak up. :meh:

This is quite simple and straightforward, as you've said, so what use is a philosophy pro in this or a similar case? — praxis

Well, such pros, and we amateurs too, could perhaps turn our attention to questions like...

- Is it true that a "more is better" relationship with knowledge is outdated and dangerous?

- What does our general lack of interest in nuclear weapons tell us about our relationship with the generations of our ancestors who built the civilization we enjoy, our descendants who might enjoy it as we do, and each other?

- Is it possible to manage the pace at which knowledge is generated by human beings?

- If not, what is the most likely outcome of human beings acquiring ever more power at an ever faster pace?

And so on.

To answer your question another way...

Philosophy pros can lend their cultural authority, such as it is, to a process of elevating such discussions to a level where ever more people will pay attention to them.

Which reminds me, I have a question for you too.

Whatta I gotta do to break this thread out of Lounge jail? :-)

Perhaps a "professional philosopher" would comment on this — jgill

That would be great, good suggestion. Do we even know if there are any working or retired academics on the forum, and who they might be?

I've attempted to get this conversation going on quite a few philosophy and science blogs and forums, and not much has come of it. Brief summary, the more credentials someone has it seems the less likely they are to engage this topic.

Example, I spent months every day on a leading academic philosophy group blog which has been publishing multiple articles a week from their members (mostly PhDs, and some undergrads) for years. Last time I checked, they had a single page about nuclear weapons, and that existed only because the exasperated editor published it to shut me up. Nice people, with no clue, imho.

However, I don't claim to be well read, and I would sincerely like to be wrong about this. If there is a secret club of philosophy academics somewhere who has been working on this issue for years, happy to learn about it.

Here's a key obstacle, as I understand it.

The "more is better" relationship with knowledge has been working great for at least hundreds of years, and continues to deliver more glorious benefits than our ancestors could have even imagined. This is what we're up against should we wish to point to the dangers inherit in such a relationship.

Whatta I gotta do to break this thread out of Lounge jail? — Hippyhead

If you’re as serious as you claim to be I suggest that you start a new topic, arguing that the “more is better" relationship with knowledge is outdated and dangerous. That would be a good place to start, I think, and if done well could generate a good amount of interest. By done well I mean constructing an OP following a guideline such as this:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op

If you’re as serious as you claim to be I suggest that you start a new topic, arguing that the “more is better" relationship with knowledge is outdated and dangerous. That would be a good place to start, I think, and if done well could generate a good amount of interest. — praxis

Been there, done that already.

And, I'm doing it again, right here, right now. If you want more, move the thread. If you want less, do nothing. I'm agreeable either way.

If you’re as serious as you claim to be I suggest that you start a new topic, arguing that the “more is better" relationship with knowledge is outdated and dangerous. That would be a good place to start, I think, and if done well could generate a good amount of interest.
— praxis

Been there, done that already.

And, I'm doing it again, right here, right now. — Hippyhead

In fact, you are not, and this significantly relates to the issue that you've brought up in this topic. I believe that any of the current moderators (I'm not a moderator, by the way) could write a strong OP argument that is consistent with the guidelines that I've pointed out. It appears that you could not, and your failure to produce one SCREAMS the point that their tossing your topic to the lounge dustbin in entirely justified.

and this significantly relates to the issue that you've brought up in this topic. — praxis

Yes, I know that, which is why I brought it up. You're trying to lecture me, when I've already demonstrated that my understanding of these particular issues exceeds yours by a wide margin. But, you at least tried to participate, so thanks for that much.

(I'm not a moderator, by the way) — praxis

My apologies, I could have sworn that just yesterday I read something that indicated that you are a mod, or perhaps were. In any case, thanks for setting the record straight.

It appears that you could not, and your failure to produce one SCREAMS the point that their tossing your topic to the lounge dustbin in entirely justified. — praxis

Honestly, what a total load of complete nonsense. You've contributed very little to this thread, and now you want to lecture me as if you know the subject well enough to be my teacher. If you and the mods are such geniuses, where are YOUR threads on these all important subjects? They don't exist.

Never mind. Thanks for playing, and let's just forget this thread, complete waste of time.

Yes, I know that, which is why I brought it up. You're trying to lecture me, when I've already demonstrated that my understanding of these particular issues exceeds yours by a wide margin. — Hippyhead

There are several issues that you're trying to juggle, but the heart of it seems to be about forum moderation. The only practical way to deal with that is to raise the level of your contributions. You can whine, moan, and rationalize til the cows come home but it won't help.

There's also the fact that you've been deliberately obfuscating from the start. Your OP concludes with the following.

If you can't figure it out, I will continue... — Hippyhead

Silly, and yet you claim to be serious. I honestly can't tell if you're goofing or serious.