Plato addressed this problem from two directions. The need for dialectic as demonstrated in the middle books of The Republic shows that it is the incongruity of different ideas that can help us search beyond sets of assumptions that exclude each other by default.

The Cratylus shows how the use of language is a pattern of contingency where meaning is not given through looking for a word's definition.

No it’s not a problem the guy on the forum was just spouting nonsense.

Even by his own points he wasn’t right as I showed. This was from the metaphysics sub forum which apparently to some means they can just preach whatever spiritual nonsense they want without logic or argument and people need to just accept it.

We aren’t talking about the incongruity of different ideas but more just knowing what we are talking about. If you can’t define the terms and what they mean then it’s not two ideas it’s just folks talking past each other

A lot of what people call philosophy is undoubtedly useless. On this forum it is mainly a practice in rhetoric.

Arguing semantics can devolve a discussion. I generally view philosophy as a means to explore and understand language rather than as something to elicit ‘truth’. This is not exactly useless to be fair but I think the use falls far shorter than what many have in mind.

I don’t think that’s what the OP had in mind.

You might be right but the rules and methods of argument are vital to civil rights today where the rhetoric is important and terms matter A LOT.

Insofar as philosophy is suppositional and critical, it is not propositional or theoretical (e.g. science, history). So when did the praxis of personal reflection called-into-question by interpersonal dialectic become "pointless"?

I don’t know, ask that dude in the quote

I generally view philosophy as a means to explore and understand language rather than as something to elicit ‘truth’. — I like sushi

:up: Sounds about right.

I don’t know, ask that dude in the quote — Darkneos

That dude in the quote isn't interested in questions, or answers. That dude in the quote is content to be discontented.

2. If we do define our terms, by making distinctions between the two, then we still end in absurdity as belief and style contradict and anything can go from that conversation.

This only occurs if we do not then try to apply those beliefs to reality. Philosophy does indeed end up pointless if we make up a bunch of definitions then logic those made up definitions into made up conclusions. The best philosophers in history understood this, as they were usually mathematicians or scientists as well. Philosophy must be married to reality if it is to be useful.

This is a major point I make here if people are interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context

so if it just stays in this obscure realm of “what if”?

Philosophim so if it just stays in this obscure realm of “what if”? — Darkneos

Yes, philosophy that stays in the realm of "What if" without any way to test it or apply it is ultimately useless beyond entertainment.

On the question of definition, there is a problem that if you insist on a clear definition of terms as the beginning, you are quite likely to end up arguing about the definition and never getting to the substantial issue. Yet it is also true that disgreements can often be resolved or at least clarified by clarifying terms. So definitions can be useful. At the beginning of a discussion, they can serve as axioms, to be questioned later or on another occasion. During a discussion, they can be useful as a way of resolving merely linguistic issues. But they need to be treated as useful rather than necessary.

well if we are using two definitions then we’ll be arguing past each other. I would argue it is necessary because there are slippery folks out there who don’t clarify their position to hide behind the shield of being “taken of of context” or “misinterpreted” (cough Jordan Peterson cough).

↪Ludwig V well if we are using two definitions then we’ll be arguing past each other. I would argue it is necessary because there are slippery folks out there who don’t clarify their position to hide behind the shield of being “taken of of context” or “misinterpreted” — Darkneos

I would argue one of the fundamentals of proper philosophical discussion is clear and unambiguous definitions. Clear definitions lead to clear arguments, and clear points of contention and debate.

well if we are using two definitions then we’ll be arguing past each other. I would argue it is necessary because there are slippery folks out there who don’t clarify their position to hide behind the shield of being “taken of of context” or “misinterpreted” (cough Jordan Peterson cough). — Darkneos

I would argue one of the fundamentals of proper philosophical discussion is clear and unambiguous definitions. Clear definitions lead to clear arguments, and clear points of contention and debate. — Philosophim

Both of you are right, in principle. But in practice, it seems to me better to wait until specific and relevant differences about the definition of terms emerge. The search for a definition in the abstract can throw up irrelevant issues; resolving them is a waste of time.

You say that but if you take a look at my discussion with them in the threads where I replied it seemed like there wasn't any point to what they say. They're just asserting things and then when questioned attempt to refute me by saying what I am saying is a contradiction or paradox, even though every criticism could apply to them.

Like, to give an example (beware migraines): https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652101#p652101

If all meaning is assigned, then meaning is relative (right in one context and wrong in another) thus the points you make are just opinionated assertions from other points of view.

Dude is literally arguing against philosophy, meaning, and logic. Bear in mind this applies to HIS STUFF TOO!!!

Additionally from the same page:

As to the futility, if I practice philosophy it is futile. If I do not practice philosophy then I am practicing a philosophy of no philosophy and a contradiction occurs. I am simply pointing to the nature of contradiction in things, as well as absurdity, to practice 'unlearning' things.

As to point 2.

1. If we define terms we make distinctions.
2. If we make distinctions we make things which stand apart (otherwise there would be no distinction as there would be no comparison).
3. If we make things which stand apart then we make contradictions (as contradictions are that which stand apart, i.e. an opposition).
4. If we make things which contradict then it does not matter what results as the premises are grounded in contradiction.

Now as to a more precise explanation. If 'belief' and 'style' contradict then there is a continual opposition between the two, there is no way to present a unified argument where both work together (for if both worked together then in effect they would be "one" and creating the distinction between them would be pointless). If neither work together, i.e. are not 'one', then a continual string of opposing arguments and definitions follow and whatever results is grounded in opposition. If opposition is the end result, or just the form and manner of the continuum of arguments/definitions which follow from them, then anything can be justified including the observation that there can be a contradiction to the contradiction of 'belief' and 'style' (i.e. to oppose opposition).

What we have here is the unholy union of several styles of philosophy that are tricky on their own but dangerous junk when mixed.

(1) The oracular style. Nietzsche could pull this off, but probably no one since. Open to a torrent of obvious criticism, and only young people like Nietzsche's final period best.

(2) The discourse by tendentious definition or gloss. This is Heidegger's trademark. If you're not used to it, it seems like he's just making shit up. But he does have reasons, and his method is to burrow into those simple tendentious phrases and allow them to open up into something that by the end is usually both convincing and enlightening, or at least thought-provoking. (Derrida turns this into argument by innuendo, which is not as cool.)

(3) Logical persuasion, the typical informal argumentation of philosophy since forever.

Putting all of these together is sort of the do-it-yourself kit for new agey charlatans. The style must be pompous, tendentious without acknowledging it, and give the appearance of being logical. (Examples are, you know, everywhere. Pick any page of the likes of Aleister Crowley or David Hawkins or any other flavor of pseudo-philosophy.)

Needless to say, there is no method here. There is no logic, no real argument, no side-door into phenomenology like in Heidegger, there is just performance. It sounds to the speaker like philosophy, like wisdom, or at least like a text from a wisdom tradition -- but those texts were the product of living cultures; this stuff tends to lead to believers creating practices and lifestyles to go with the text, which is all backwards.

Do not be taken in. It's all a fraud, even if the speaker is fooling himself too. Just pass on by.

So it truly is all bullshit then? I'm just asking for clarity. Let's just say I have a terrible track record when it comes to falling to crazy shit (hell I fell for the Illuminati conspiracy theory).

Did you have a look through the threads? I'm just wondering. I had a feeling in the back of my mind that it was just bullshit but for some reason there is a part of me that think's it's right and some secret wisdom.

Did you have a look through the threads? — Darkneos

No. Life is short.

Don't think of this sort of writing as an attempt at communication at all. Like a lot of bullshit, it's an attempt to assert dominance. I'm sorry you've been taken in before. Stick around here. Hardly any of that sort of social engineering. This site is much saner and safer than the rest of the internet.

Yeah I've noticed that. The forum is part of a magazine that seems vetted but unfortunately the forum itself is not moderated, which explains a lot.

I'm just a little worried that the damage might be done.

You say that but if you take a look at my discussion with them in the threads where I replied it seemed like there wasn't any point to what they say. They're just asserting things and then when questioned attempt to refute me by saying what I am saying is a contradiction or paradox, even though every criticism could apply to them. — Darkneos

I recognize the problem. But would insisting on a definition help? Wouldn't those people ignore you anyway? One could try it, of course.

Part of the problem here is the difference between the intellectual structure of debate and debating in practice. A definition is needed as part of the intellectual structure of debate, but is not necessary in practice. In practice, all that's needed is agreement - not even a comprehensive agreement, but an agreement for present purposes.

From this message:-

I am simply pointing to the nature of contradiction in things, as well as absurdity, to practice 'unlearning' things.

There's an unstated programme behind this. For me, it is an example how careless generalization, not paying attention to complications, can generate ideas that I can't follow. (I'm being quite restrained here.)

This site is much saner and safer than the rest of the internet. — Srap Tasmaner

Quite so.

unfortunately the forum itself is not moderated, — Darkneos

This site is moderated. I wouldn't join anything that wasn't. There's a code of conduct (somewhere - I'm afraid I can't remember where). You can find out who the moderators are if you go to the members page (button in the banner at the top. and look for the "staff" button). If you get into trouble, you can send them a private message. There's a thread called "Bannings" where you can see something of what's going on.

Forgive me if you know all this already. But it seems possible that you don't.

It is true that this site has a very hospitable policy. The thing is, there's a dilemma here. It's about what philosophy is or should be. In one sense, philosophy is for everyone; everyone is involved with philosophy even if they aren't aware of it. If one restricts philosophy (for example, to what's academically respectable) one limits it and neglects much of its influence. That seems a bad idea to me.

By its nature, philosophy (in some sense) cannot exclude crazy ideas - for example, the brain in a vat, the evil demon and so on. It is better to at least try to confront them (gently, because it is easy to provoke a row, which is almost always counter-productive or frightens people away). There are no quick wins, though, because one of the tests is whether people are capable of admitting they are wrong, or at least taking a new idea seriously.

One learns who will actually discuss ideas and who simply wants to sound off and gather "followers".

I'm just a little worried that the damage might be done. — Darkneos

Yes, damage can be done. That can't be helped; it's in the nature of the enterprise. Philosophy seems like a safe space and in many ways it is - specially behind an avatar (I call it a pen-name). But, like a virus, it has its dangers. There's a kind of insulation needed, so that one doesn't end up obsessed with the evil demon or the absurdity or meaninglessness of life. I hesitate to say, not taking things too seriously, but it's like that.

only young people like Nietzsche's final period best — Srap Tasmaner

Which writings would you place within Nietzsche’s final period?

unfortunately the forum itself is not moderated,
— Darkneos

This site is moderated — Ludwig V

I believe @Darkneous was talking about
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
which, however, is also moderated.

Oh! My mistake. Apologies.

I was thinking of Twilight of the Idols and Ecce Homo.

It's not important.

Only reason I posted was because there isn't really one thing in what @Darkneos posted that marks it as fake philosophy; the elements there, even the style, have all found use in serious work. (One element typical of the new age style missing here is the sort of talismanic use of numbers, four types of this, seven steps to reach that, five stages of whatever -- and again, that's not in itself indefensible, but its role in these texts is to convey authority.)

It's surprisingly difficult to draw a line that would put serious or valuable philosophy on one side and BS on the other. Which is interesting. Our little demarcation problem.

It says it is but it's really not, and there's some users on there who know it.

There's more than a couple who just want the place to be an audience for their own views, and if you try to call them on their stuff they accuse you of not being certain or everything just being an opinion if meaning is relative in order to deflect.

Case in point with that Eodn whatever user I kept asking what was the point of any of the threads or reasoning and never got an answer. They just want an audience not a discussion.

Unfortunately I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to call them on the BS.

You know I didn't realize that at first but a lot of his threads did have 4 7 and 10 of this or that.

And if you weren't restrained?