Philosophy attempting to make things intelligible or does it have no boundaries on what position is reached or defended? — Andrew4Handel

Of course it has no boundaries. Where would they come from, philosophy, no? Also I find thee list odd. why is private property any less extreme then the idea of not having private property?

why is private property any less extreme then the idea of not having private property? — Tobias

It is extreme to go against the current wide spread acceptance of private property.

By extreme I did not mean incorrect but making claims that would challenge norms or suggest we need to change our views or action radically.

Of course it has no boundaries. Where would they come from, philosophy, no? — Tobias

The boundaries would be required to make sense.

I think nihilism makes the meaning of philosophy fail. We accept certain meanings to communicate.

It is extreme to go against the current wide spread acceptance of private property. — Andrew4Handel

Why? Once it was extreme going against the widely held belief in God or witches... Once it was considered extreme to think that homosexuality should not be outlawed....

By extreme I did not mean incorrect but making claims that would challenge norms or suggest we need to change our views or action radically. — Andrew4Handel

By that light indeed, many philosophical positions are extreme or lead to extreme consequences. Peter Singer's utilitarianism comes to mind or Nozick's proviso in his libertarianism.

\

I think nihilism makes the meaning of philosophy fail. We accept certain meanings to communicate. — Andrew4Handel

Is there anyone that really held such a view? I think certain philosophical positions are incoherent. I do not think they are 'extreme', just incoherent.

Why? Once it was extreme going against the widely held belief in God or witches... Once it was considered extreme to think that homosexuality should not be outlawed — Tobias

The consequences of outlawing private property is more extreme than decriminalising homosexuality and witchcraft.
I included Property being theft with anarchy and the general breakdown of social norms. IT could be described a form of nihilism about unscientific claims.

Is there anyone that really held such a view? I think certain philosophical positions are incoherent. I do not think they are 'extreme', just incoherent. — Tobias

I think what makes a position is extreme is when it is enacted. People experience philosophical nihilism and a breakdown of personal meaning which I have done myself in the past.

I think even people who know nothing about academic philosophical terms could reach a nihilistic conclusion.
They might mistakenly commit suicide haven come to a false conclusion about reality.

I think communism was a big mistake that lead to mass oppression and mass murder even if its principles initially seemed reasonable.

I think we sometime have an extreme position or conclusion but supress it because we realise we have to keep up a pretence of shared values for security.

Do you consider any philosophical position extreme and with disturbing or bizarre consequence? — Andrew4Handel

Not really because no matter what the position people seem to hold, as soon as they leave the keyboard or the class room, they mostly enter the quotidian world of realism, cause and effect, common sense, and ordinary moral agreements.

I think certain philosophical positions are incoherent. I do not think they are 'extreme', just incoherent. — Tobias

:up:

Do you consider any philosophical position extreme and with disturbing or bizarre consequence?

Some positions fitting this description might be. [ ... ] — Andrew4Handel

These are caricatures (as you express them) or coubterfactual thought-experiments, not "extremes".

Not really because no matter what the position people seem to hold, as soon as they leave the keyboard or the class room, they mostly enter the quotidian world of realism, cause and effect, common sense, and ordinary moral agreements. — Tom Storm

That makes philosophy seem a bit like a game where people hold positions for fun or out of curiosity.

I have actually lived as a nihilist (I won't go into details)

I feel like philosophy is restrained by people downplaying the level of disagreement and the strength of a position.

As a moral nihilist (currently not permanently, hopefully) I think saying that Genocide or slavery is wrong is meaningless. It may be that as with tsunamis and the rest of nature extreme brutality and harm is just a feature of nature which is neither good nor bad It means moral values are personal preferences, sentiments, and emotions but that nothing "wrong" has ever happened and that we probably cannot justify prisons or punishments and telling people how they ought to behave.

no matter what the position people seem to hold, as soon as they leave the keyboard or the class room, they mostly enter the quotidian world of realism, cause and effect, common sense, and ordinary moral agreements. — Tom Storm

I must have the wrong map, then.

More often than not “extreme” is used to dismiss a philosophy on the premise that it is too far outside a certain consensus, which is mostly an appeal to tradition or the populace. Any thinker worth a straw ought to be able to entertain a philosophy without accepting it, and do so on its merits rather than its proximity to mainstream opinion. Lastly, philosophies do not have consequences. So philosophy ought to have no boundaries on what position is reached or defended.

That makes philosophy seem a bit like a game where people hold positions for fun or out of curiosity. — Andrew4Handel

I think people often hold views on subjects that make little difference to how they life. And no, I am not saying that beliefs don't have an affect. Most nihilists I've known have mortgages, send their kids to good schools, tend to their garden and are fond of food. Just saying....

I must have the wrong map, then. — Joshs

Maybe. But at least you have a map. All I got was a pare of flip flops. :razz:

As a moral nihilist (currently not permanently, hopefully) I think saying that Genocide or slavery is wrong is meaningless. — Andrew4Handel

But I think it is likely you would not feel comfortable or want to gun down children even if you were allowed. We're a social species, we have empathy, we are part of a culture of agreements and values and options which intellectual positions don't readily override.

:up: :up:

Most nihilists I've known have mortgages, send their kids to good schools, tend to their garden and are fond of food. Just saying.. — Tom Storm

But that doesn't apply to me. I have always been philosophically minded and responded with actions to my beliefs because I need to be motivated by good reasons or reasoning per se.

But I think it is likely you would not feel comfortable or want to gun down children even if you were allowed. We're a social species, we have empathy, we are part of a culture of agreements and values and options which intellectual positions don't readily override. — Tom Storm

I don't have a desire to gun down children but the Nazis did. Atrocities happen because someone humans wanted to do them. It would be great if we had good moral intuitions but humans display a wide range of behaviour from self sacrifice and kindness to extreme brutality.

Laws as in the proposed laws of physics can be unbreakable but moral opinions are easily overridden or disagreed with.

But that doesn't apply to me. — Andrew4Handel

As I said 'most' not all.

Personally, I've never been overly hung up on reasoning. I base most of my choices on what feels right and don't overthink or ruminate. I like not having a plan and am content to play ball with all my inherited and encultured values, strengths and flaws.

I don't have a desire to gun down children but the Nazis did. Atrocities happen because someone humans wanted to do them. — Andrew4Handel

Sure and you'll note that Nazi's were obsessed with morality and purity and thought they were doing good. Much of their thinking inherited from the Christian anti-Semitism of Martin Luther.

Do you consider any philosophical position extreme and with disturbing or bizarre consequence? — Andrew4Handel

Yes, and no.
Yes to the first half: I consider some philosophical positions extreme, some absurd, some outlandish and some just wrong. That's an opinion, nothing more.
No to the second: I do not think a philosophy has disturbing or bizarre consequences. They're just thought-experiments, the dance of one human mind with its ideas.

If a philosopher formulates a theological or political policy on which to organize a society, it's still only a proposal. When a powerful enough faction subscribes to the philosophy and takes up the policy as its agenda, only then does it have consequences.
Given human nature, they're nearly all bizarre.

solipsism used to bother me. But then I learned to live with the fact that the sensed universe has just as much chance to be the actual case as solipsism.

God worship and dogmatism bothers me. Anything that places beliefs above the boundaries of acceptable logic and and any belief that is illogical really bothers me.

Purposelessness of existence is okay by me... cera cera, laissez faire, take it easy baby, menage troix, fait vous jeux, let it be. Rien de va plus. Vada veia ciap. Vada veia ku. Pint'e dama. Pn'otos. Ja hcem kohach cheum s tobou. Himmeldonnerwetter.

Moral skepticism does not exist. There is a clear and wonderful non-religious explanation to morality and ethics. It is clear why it exists, how it works, and what it does. I explained it and got no critical comments on it on this site. People really don't like new ideas.

:smirk:

:blush:

God worship and dogmatism bothers me. — god must be atheist

I grew up with a lot of hell and damnation and The sect I grew up in tends to believe most people are going to hell and most Christians are not true Christians.

But the belief in hell is widespread and I find it shocking, brutal and inhumane, frightening etc.

I don't think it or religion per se are positions reached through philosophy but they are extreme positions that people don't seem to appreciate how extreme they are.

To hold an extreme position in philosophy may just mean it is far away from positions held by society or other people.

Moral skepticism does not exist. — god must be atheist

Do you mean most people have moral attitudes and opinions? I would agree with that.

What I have a problem with is the notion of moral facts or moral truths.

We probably have to act as if morality were real though. We can be agnostic about moral truths and maybe just have a no harm principle.

I have actually lived as a nihilist (I won't go into details) — Andrew4Handel

As a moral nihilist (currently not permanently, hopefully) I think saying that Genocide or slavery is wrong is meaningless. It may be that as with tsunamis and the rest of nature extreme brutality and harm is just a feature of nature which is neither good nor bad It means moral values are personal preferences, sentiments, and emotions but that nothing "wrong" has ever happened and that we probably cannot justify prisons or punishments and telling people how they ought to behave. — Andrew4Handel

Agreed. With moral nihilism you can still have values, but with absolute nihilism nothing matters. That's a dangerous view.

Not really because no matter what the position people seem to hold, as soon as they leave the keyboard or the class room, they mostly enter the quotidian world of realism, cause and effect, common sense, and ordinary moral agreements. — Tom Storm

I agree in a sense, it is literally quotidian. It happens with regularity and the anomolies are rare by comparison. But the everyday is really weird. I mean, really weird. There's something rather than nothing. We have internal experiences. People get big puffy less mobile and expressive lips from surgery and most people do not treat this as odd. Time seems to speed up as we age. There are very plastic seeming people with dull eyes and others with so much life seething in there. If you really pay attention to realism, it's weird. If you busy yourself with errands and distractions or have to, well, we're used to it and it's also a bit disturbing.

But the everyday is really weird. I mean, really weird. There's something rather than nothing. We have internal experiences. — Bylaw

They don't strike me as weird as they reflect lived experience. But I understand philosophers may find them weird.

People get big puffy less mobile and expressive lips from surgery and most people do not treat this as odd. Time seems to speed up as we age — Bylaw

Yes, this is odd.

If you really pay attention to realism, it's weird. — Bylaw

No question. I would not say realism is 'true' (I dislike this word) but I would say we are mostly compelled to live as though it were real.

They don't strike me as weird as they reflect lived experience. But I understand philosophers may find them weird. — Tom Storm

I found them weird long before I got interested in philosophy.

No question. I would not say realism is 'true' (I dislike this word) but I would say we are mostly compelled to live as though it were real. — Tom Storm

I'm not arguing it's not real, even, but I often think it isn't what it seems like or, perhaps better put, if I pay attention it doesn't even seem like what it seems like. I just think it's weird. I do realize that weird should be in contrast with some kind of norm, but...it all seems very weird to me.

Do you consider any philosophical position extreme and with disturbing or bizarre consequence? — Andrew4Handel

Yes, albeit with a small example, namely, stuff that some people actually do take seriously, which is philosophical pessimism or even untenable positions like solipsism...

My concern is the resulting incoherence of philosophical pessimism with stuff like the increase in living standards, which it so frequently criticizes with people like Marx. Or the incoherence of solipsism, which just doesn't make sense.

And, it goes without saying that some philosophers are mad.

You left out the most extreme...

0. Analysis: doggedly tearing all the others into pieces.

All I got was a pare of flip flops — Tom Storm

I feel you, brother: "Killing me softly with your thong".

0. Analysis: doggedly tearing all the others into pieces. — Banno

Anal Isis: the Egyptian Goddess of trying to breath life into excrement.

:grin: The definitive criticism of Austin: putting the anal back into analytic.

All true. And yet analytic method is ubiquitous.

Also I find thee list odd. — Tobias

As do I. A vague distaste for "extreme philosophy" being something for real men to get into, balls deep.

As if the point were to get it wrong in the loudest way possible.

All true. And yet analytic method is ubiquitous. — Banno

That's true, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, phenomenology and even PoMo are also full of it
(analysis that is :wink: ); but analysis, like shit, comes in many forms: it all depends on one's diet.

Do you mean most people have moral attitudes and opinions? I would agree with that. — Andrew4Handel

Dear Andrew, since you asked, I would like to offer for your reading pleasure two pieces I wrote, identical in topic, different writing styles. (Difference is that one is short and terse, the other goes into explanations deeper and more detailed.)

Some people read these papers, and they attacked it in ridiculously incongruent bases. They either never read the paper but just scanned it or read only parts of it. One person kept on disagreeing with some items on a list, and he did not see that I put the list together of what I disagree with too.

It was hopeless.

If you like, read the two articles. They talk about precisely the same topic, in the precisely identical opinion, but one is wordy, the other one is condensed.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper