excessive — SatmBopd
A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, fo it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably. (PI 115).
I think I summed up my position vis-а-vis philosophy when I said: Philosophy ought really to be written only as a form of poetry. (CV 28)
Do not forget that a poem, although it is composed in the language of information, is not used in the language-game of giving information. (Zettel)
Here are examples of questions that I think have very, very little meaning or interest, because of what I have outlined above.
Is God existent?
Is morality objective?
Is [insert literally anything] true?
Is [insert literally anything] moral?
Is life/ humanity inherently good/ bad? — SatmBopd
What is generally understood, and what do I specifically understand, by the concept of God, and why? — SatmBopd
This would be ideal but do you really think it's realistic? — Skalidris
That's an observation about folk psychology (i.e. cognitive bias), not about a reasoned 'ethical position' or 'existential commitment'.For example, it is commonly held that procreation is good or at least not good or bad. I think there is strong evidence it is not good full stop. — schopenhauer1
so there's no need to address any but this (re-quoted) representative example.For example, it is commonly held that procreation is good or at least not good or bad. I think there is strong evidence it is not good full stop — schopenhauer1
Surely; however, my point is that cognitive / psychological biases (e.g. procreative – survival – instincts) are biological facts, not "assumptions", and thereby questioning whether or not they are "good" is unwarranted. Rather, how our biology is used is either good (more helpful) or bad (more harmful) for (to) ourselves and others of our kind. There is not any "assumed" dogma – philosophical or religious – such as "natalism" which rationally warrants critique such as "anti-natalism".But long held assumptions should be questioned. — schopenhauer1
So, one should never define the tesms one uses?Anytime you define terms, you are already establishing the goal posts for the argument, — SatmBopd
No... I mostly just think that anytime you define terms, you should be aware that you are establishing the goalposts for the argument, and awlodge the context that is therefore established for the conversation. I do not mean to say, (and if I have then I am wrong) that we should not define terms, just that in so doing, we should awknoledge the game we are playing.So, one should never define the tesms one uses? — Alkis Piskas
You keep repeating this, as if it is something one shouldn't do. So I maybe get it wrong. Maybe you mean that one puts a subject. together with his argments, positions, etc., in a framework or context, in or from which he is viewing it and discussing (about) it. Which is very good and I have stressed this point in a few occasions as something desirable or even necessary, even if it is implied/understood or explained/indicated by one's examples and descriptions in general, and not experessed directly and explicitly. So, I hope you mean samething like that too. :smile:anytime you define terms, you should be aware that you are establishing the goalposts for the argument, — SatmBopd
This is a very good example, at least as I see it. Asking "Does God exist?", without explaining what one means by the word "God" is totally useless. It's actually an empty question. Beacause it immediately raises a (counter) questions like "What God?", "What kind of God?" etc.Like given the question "Does God exist?", far from thinking we should not define our terms, I think that defining our terms is basically the only interesting thing to do. "What is God? And what does it mean to exist?" — SatmBopd
Yes, I believe it should. In fact, I was thinging myself to launch a discussion on a simple topic like "How important is the definition of terms?" Simple, and yet quite debatable from what I have gathered in my experience with TPF, since almost a year ago. There are a lot who are even against dictionaries and encyclopedias. Can't get it. Where else one can resort to find and undestand e.g. what does the term "teleological" mean or be sure about what it means? Well, believe it or not. A lot --if not most-- of people are satisfied with what they thing terms like this mean and keep on with their reading or discussion!So I guess I thought it would just be more honest, and rigourous if the whole discussion... basically revolved around defining terms? — SatmBopd
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.