It's worth noting that, through the mouth of Socrates, Plato pleads that philosophers are different from lawyers because they have as much time as they want to talk.

This shows that (i) there was some debate, or public perception, that philosophers were using lawyers' methods, such that the philosophers themselves needed to address this perception, or likely were even confused themselves about what the difference is; and (ii) the answer was precisely that philosophy was lawyering freed of material constraints (which also, though, defeats its purpose and possibly its effectiveness). Lawyering can work on a witness – it's not clear that reality is a 'witness' that can be cross-examined in this way, but that's basically what the Socratic method tries to do (in early Socratic dialogues, the witness is confused – is it reality, or is it the interlocutor?).

I also suspect that the very idea of a syllogism, or any kind of deductive argument set out in premises that implies a conclusion, has its roots in courtroom procedure. People noticed in getting people to make statements, that multiple statements, due to their natural semantics, had commitment relations to each other, and noticed that if you said one thing, you then had to say another, on pain of contradiction. This then became a model of reasoning. — Snakes Alive

In one platonic dialogue, with Socrates as mouthpiece, rhetoric is praised, and in another it is diminished, what are we to make of this? And in another, Socrates seems to be well informed of lawyers methods, as he enlists them, one by one, to his interlocutor, but then goes his own way. So it seems more likely that Socrates/Plato were into "knowing thy enemy", into espionage, or as collectors of thoughts, so that to be more effective into deflecting attacks, for their own ends of course. So maybe philosophy was born out of necessity, in a reaction against the action and need for "lawyering" everything, which is why it resembles it so much, as in "to defeat your enemy you have to fight him in his own battlefield". And the invocation of this fictitious witness you mention, on behalf of Socrates/Plato, was to show the illusion of the lawyer. But then philosophy witnessed its own defeat, as the lawyers won, and philosophy was, with the death of them, assimilated into lawyering.

Yeah, philosophy is closely related to rhetoric and sophistry. It's not even really clear that there is a clear distinction between the three – the idea that there is comes from a public relations campaign on the part of early philosophers, but the public (perhaps rightly) never saw it that way in Athens, and thought of the philosophers as sophists and rhetoricians. — Snakes Alive

I have no idea what the public thoughts of philosophers in ancient Athens were, but most likely there was a mixed opinion, if any at all, I bet some were even clueless of their existence. Like a material in abscence of a magnetic field.

It's a kind of conversational play plus cognitive loop that was discovered due to the litigious nature of Greek society and the idea that one defended oneself by talking. This got transposed to the world, so that anything could be defended against, or questioned, by talking about it. It comes from the sophistical notion that one can 'talk about anything.' Roughly, the idea is that the techniques of the courtroom get transferred to the world, so that it is 'questioned' or 'put on trial.' This results in the quasi-magical belief that anything can be learned about by interrogating it in a conversation. — Snakes Alive

Rhetoric, you mean, or even sophistry, but both in a neutral way? Is this an epistemological position you are putting forward here, as in the limits of knowledge, or, I don't know, the limits of talking with regards to learning, I do not understand. Or are you just criticising philosophical methods?

We are judging all the time, by being both judge and jury, executioner maybe as well, hell, we could say that human is the being that makes value judgements, so that to discriminate ourselves from other species that do not do that, at least not so much, not so sophisticated and complicated judging.

As Detective Rust put it:

Look, as sentient meat, however illusory our identities are, we craft those identities by making value judgments: everybody judges, all the time. Now, you got a problem with that... You're livin' wrong. — Rust

So, according to the above, our identites are shaped by our value judgments. But it is not at all clear how each of us judges. Modern psychology speaks of the subconscious, that there is something there, unbeknown to us, that drives us, which implies that we are judging and acting without knowing the real reason why. And so, an introspection is needed, psychological, if nothing else, to find out how this shaping took place. Huh, like true detectives that we are, as truth seekers, I don't think we have a choice.

A folk tradition is highly particular to a certain civilizational circumstance, that's all. There is nothing derogatory about the term. — Snakes Alive

Right, cause StreetlightX made me think it in terms of peasants and peasantry, in a diminishing way that is. And then we could say stuff like, philosophers are floggin a dead horse, or milking a dead cow even, so that to be, u know, to be in line with the rustic environment. But we cannot say these things now.

The reason it's important for phil. is because it often imagines itself to be something else (concerned with 'general inquiry,' and so on, which is untrue). So it's a substantive fact about what the discipline really is (something different from what it imagines itself to be). — Snakes Alive

So if it's not that (the general inquiry), what is it then?

If asked to give an answer as to what philosophy is, and what it studies, those in the folk tradition will give answers provided by that very tradition (the 'believer' can only argue from within). But those answers will not be the same as the answers given by those outside of it, who don't need to adhere to that tradition's idiosyncratic cultural boundaries. — Snakes Alive

Ah, the power of tradition, folk or otherwise, is pretty strong, and overly underestimated, I think, the power it exerts, that takes hold of us, habits are hard to change, like they say.

Derogatively you mean? Folk used as in "peasant"?

For sure. I feel like this is the source of the infamous arrogance of philosophers. I think it applies to a lot of types, but philosophers can be some of the worse offenders. At its simplest, its a devaluation of those around you combined with an over-valuation of the thing you're into. And then valuing or devaluing others depending on how well they can do the thing you're into. Again, I think this applies to all sorts of things, but I also think its true people into philosophy often do this more intensely (myself included, though I hope I'm getting better.) — csalisbury

Yes, I think that philosophers have made an art out of devaluating others, especially ethical philosophers. But if they are so arrogant and offending, would that justify us to repay them with their own medicine?

I do think Snakes Alive's characterization of philosophy as a folk tradition is helpful, in this respect, because it helps brings everything down to earth. — csalisbury

Ah, it's been days since his last appearance, maybe he was eaten alive by snakes?? But I am still not sure what he means by "folk tradition", why doesn't he just say "tradition", what are these little folkers doing there?

I'd been drinking the last time we talked — csalisbury

Well, I am drinking most of the time, especially when engaging in conversation, so I'm really ok with that. :cheers:

Looking back, I was surly and projecting — csalisbury

Really, I wouldn't have noticed!

I'm an attention-seeker myself, so I'm probably more likely to diagnose others with the same. Still, even if I use philosophy as way of getting attention, I genuinely enjoy reading difficult texts alone, working them out., putting thoughts in order. So there's the attention-seeking aspect, and the material itself. The material can be used to get attention, but its almost like one subself using the work of another subself, the way a wheeler and dealer will leap on the work of a creative for his own gain. I guess that's the same with all things, and the relative weight of either part depends on the individual in question. — csalisbury

I think that the magnitude of the attention-seeking is important, normal people normally seek attention from their surroundings - the poeple they interact with -, whereas philoshophers seek attention from the whole, which is normal, if you think of it, since philosophy, traditionally speaking, has to do with the whole: philosophers do not speak to normal or common people, but to this notion of the whole. Whoever undestands this, is on the same page with them, whoever not, is considered inadequate or simply not ready yet.

I would still say that the thing of doing philosophy is something different than the pursuit of wisdom, though they may both be tributaries of something upstream. As has been said on this thread, there's a strong litigious element to much of philosophy. I also think there's a strong public-wrestling aspect to it. You see that even today in the most dry and academic of philosophy. There's an strong agonistic aspect that I think might be more central than the widsom-seeking aspect. Still, I don't necessarily think most philosophers are disingenuous in the sense they claim to do one thing, while secretly knowing what they're really doing. Analagously : a lot of finance guys probably really do believe the hayek-derived approbation of the freemarket and that allows them to do one thing, in real life, while telling themselves a story that explains themselves to themselves in agreeable terms. — csalisbury

Well maybe philosophers are so cunning that they managed to cun themseleves, being storytellers and all.

But yeah, let us entertain that thought, that philosophers are no truth seekers, no wisdom seekers either, that truth and wisdom are in fact myths promulgated by them, because in essence what they really are is attention seekers, what say you sally?

Yes, well Arthur was always upset, upset with something, a hard man to please, I wouldn't have invited him for supper, that's for sure. But do you think he suffered from an attention deficit disorder?

But this brings us back on topic, because I think that philosophy, as it has been developed, perceives everything to be rational or logical, and fails to see the ... how to call it, the irrational aspect. Most probably this is why Schopenhauer was so pissed with Hegel! :)

A new situation? What do you mean? I guess there is always a new situation, you can't step into the same river twice, like they say. But I don't think that there is a "right thing", there are just different perspectives, interpretations, or 'wills', that try to be rational about stuff, that strive to rationalize and justify their own, their behaviours, each on its own right. But in the core, everything is pretty irrational, or mystical, I believe, there can be no rational dispute over foundational attitudes or stances or worldviews, since they are ulta rationem.

sure, Schopenhauer it sounds like. What do you understand by 'will'? — csalisbury

By 'will', we normally think of what we want to do, but I think it is what we think is right, right to do, right in an absolute sense. When we are absolutely certain that a course of action, or thinking, was the correct one and could not be otherwise. But when we ponder on the same situation and think otherwise, then this conflict of wills becomes evident.

But philosophically speaking, a lot of philosophers take the I to be a representation of the will, or Will, and to be one and only. And so there is this notion of "my will", pointing to something definite, if not quite. But of course, if there is a multiplicity of I's or Will's, then it makes no sense to talk that way.

Yeah well, look on the bright side, you'll never be alone! :smile: But you could trick it, and as a diversion, could try doing all those things that you find contemptible or even despicable, all those that common people do, I mean.

There is this thing called the 'I', as in an I for an I, for long thought to be one and in unity with itself. But then came Nietzsche and said that this I is not a simple, but a multiplicity of things. Anway, what do those untimely meditations of yours have to say?

I think this survives in the way 'western civilization' in general seems to simply value talking, even to no end. There is some bizarre idea that no matter what is being discussed, and no matter to what end, discussion is a kind of good in of itself. We're always 'having conversations,' and 'democracy' is sacrosanct even beyond any material benefits it might provide or fail to provide. — Snakes Alive

I think that 'western civilization' has its roots on Aristotle, after all aristotelianism has dominated most of the world for some 2k years, and we are still under its influence. Talking, as well, as in "in the beginning was the word". Most probably because this is what discriminates us as a species from those poor hairy things, the animals, unable to speak their minds, to communicate, unlike us. Logos, having been exalted to .. dunno where, to the heavens, we take great pride in it. Maybe it's all that, pride. What do you think.

And sure, it's a hybrid, and has elements of mystery cults, ancient cosmological speculation, hucksterism, and primitive mathematics thrown in (these are all around today in some form under the umbrella of 'philosophy'). But there is a central thread, so I claim, which is what really drives it and causes it to survive. That thread runs through the rise of litigation, to the development of rhetoric, to sophistry, to the Socratic method (where it roughly stops developing). — Snakes Alive

Pride or not, the Socratic method has been dead for quite a long time, when was the last time it was practised?

Hawking says time is an entity that turns into space however
— Gregory

Actually the metaphor is that, as a point on a closed surface like a sphere, or the earth, is never itself a boundary in any unique sense, meaning that you can keep on walking past it when you get to it, so time has no end or beginning point. If we think of time - or anything - as linear, then ends and beginnings can make sense. But not in terms of closed surfaces. Nothing to do with sky or anything turning into anything else. This Hawking's metaphor as described in his book. — tim wood

According to Hegel, it is the other way round: it is space that turns into time:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/324093

The truth of space is time, and thus space becomes time; the transition to time is not made subjectively by us, but made by space itself. In pictorial thought, space and time are taken to be quite separate: we have space and also time; philosophy fights against this 'also'. — hegel

It seems that for Hegel, space is more fundamental than time, as in "at first there was space". The subjective movement of space, its negation, procures time.

Well I have to say I like the metaphor of philosophy as a dance. Extending the metaphor Life is a dance.

Some dances are more enjoyable than others, some lives are more enjoyable than others. A good philosophy is then one that enables one to have an enjoyable life. Ultimately a philosophy is personal, it has very little to do with truth or statements, they are only useful if one wants to communicate one's philosophy. — A Seagull

Yes of course, philosophy has little to do with statements, true or false, but if one sees it that way, then they are statesmen, and not philosophers.

What sais google on statesman? "A statesman or stateswoman is usually a politician, diplomat or other notable public figure who has had a long and respected career at the national or international level". Ah yes, we should not forget about stateswomen, or we could just say statespersons - as political correctness requires it. Anyway, that sort of race of people seek acknowledgement, the more the merrier, they are also self-proclaimed truth and wisdom seekers. What do they have to do with dancers, that only want to put on a good show?

Believe! (and maybe watch a movie) — Gregory

what movie? :chin:

OK, well what makes a good dance? — A Seagull

Seeing what makes a good philosophy, well this I think is extremely difficult to do by itself, but seeing what makes a good dance, that's a lot easier. Thus by answering the latter, I believe we would be one step closer to answering the former. So what is it that characterizes a good dance, what is essential to it? I guess you need rythm; rhyme and reason. Assuming of course that some dances are better than others. But what do you think?

What makes for a good philosophy? — A Seagull

Philosophy is like dancing. So asking what makes a good philosophy, is like asking what makes a good dance.

Yes, and so we have all these preachers-teachers in philosophy, being upset, that want us to do be just like them, and not to harbour our baby, saying that we are too young or reckless. But we are going to have it anyway, won't we? Who listens to the old generation anyway?

The ascetic ideal is certainly central to (certain varieties of) religion. Not so much to philosophy. — Snakes Alive

Certainly, in religions, there are all kind of preachers. What I am saying is that in philosophy also, there are too, only that they are disguised as teachers. That, in essence, they preach, and not teach, as what they want people to believe. And that Nietzsche was among the first that unveiled their ruse.

But this idea is a representation of the so-called ascetic ideal, as it has been anayled by Nietzsche et al. Let us do a google search for "ascetic ideal" and see what gives.

Ah there,

https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/genealogyofmorals/section8/
https://medium.com/@JoJoBonetto/what-is-the-meaning-of-ascetic-ideals-5110e4832cec

and others as well, and there is of course the original work from the man himself.

I don't think that inquiring about concrete questions in life has much of anything to do with philosophy.

And philosophy is an academic discipline, and always has been. Philosophers founded the actual Academy. So that distinction is not viable / historically ignorant. — Snakes Alive

Read a philosopher? You're thinking like an academic. If you want to know how to live, you must enquire into the question. That enquiry just is the practice of philosophy. Reading other philosophers may or may not help. Much of written philosophy consists in over-intellectualizing fairly simple questions. — Janus

As detailed by Socrates in the platonic dialogue "Phaedo",

Philosophy itself is, in fact, a kind of “training for dying”.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/phaedo/#SH3a

To have pure knowledge, therefore, philosophers must escape from the influence of the body as much as is possible in this life.

So, philosophical life, according to Socrates, consists in separating the body from the soul, the latter being close to, if not one, with truth. And hence, for a philosopher, academic pursuits and topics, are but a side quest, or rather a means to an end, the end and main quest being death.

We should not see time for the age of the universe as something real, what would that time be anyway? In the theory of relativity, used by cosmologists to calculate the age of the universe, there is no "real", neither a privileged or absolute time, since in this theory, time flows differently in every part of space, depending on the amount of mass there, so what time to calculate overall and how ?? Does not make sense!

Because we're adding disparate things. But when cosmologists calculate the so-called age of the universe, they refer to cosmological time, which is the time that appears to us to have passed if we go back in time, using the equations of general relativity theory. Meaning cosmological time = apparent/phenomenal time ≠ real time.

And the universe they refer to, is not the real universe, but the observable or again we can say the phenomenal, what appears to us to be the universe. The internet is full of articles that do not make this distinction, there is no difference between the observable/phenomenal and the real universe, so laymen think they are the same.

On one hand, the columnists are right, because you can't talk about the real universe, so they would have nothing to say, on the other, they don't make the distinction, maybe because they themselves don't know, or because they think the public already knows about it, or maybe for other reasons - to have a job and something to say - I don't know, however not for sensible reasons, but rather for psychological ones. And so there is this global misunderstanding. I imagine that as long as it is limited to the immature public, it does not matter, but if the misunderstanding grows into the scientific community, then there is most probably a problem.

And again, the Big Bang, then, is the "reason" that appears to us to have been the beginning of the observable universe, if, from its apparent current expansion, you run back in time, contracting it, finding that all this was limited to a very small area of ​​low density. Cosmologists, however, do not say that the Big Bang started spontaneously, basically they say nothing about its original state, but catch it shortly after it "bursts". But whatever it is, the Big Bang theory refers to the observable/phenomenal universe and not to the real one, for which noone can speak.

The real universe is just like god, no one can talk about them, do not be confused that religions talk about god all the time, purely psychological their reasons are, or maybe poetical, however not logical.

In all, appearances can be deceiving, especially from behind.



(For the philosophical literate, viz Wittgenstein - the tractatus)

Well, if we all die due to this coronavirus pandemic, then I think this question will at last be settled! :cool:

I think that Nietzsche's filosophy is nicely expounded in the film "Dark City", one can watch there an ubermensch in action.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118929/

Anyway, seeing that you are a Lovecraft fan, I suggest you watch "In the mouth of madness", if you haven't already that is, I think you'll like it.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113409/

Nietzsche's I meant, but now that I think of it, since N. was writing for all and none, it could equally mean None. :smile:

I managed to read the whole of your OP, wasn't easy, I must tell you, you need to improve your english mate, if you want to reach out to people, presentation is everything. As for content, you discriminate between good hate and bad hate, healthy and unhealthy; seeing hate as one, just hate, will make your overman fall back on N. overman, I think. As for accuracy, you could look for a pro, a gun for hire.

You mean he wanted to destroy what other people once believed, instead of expressing his own opinion accurately? — Rystiya

This is not what I meant, but to answer your question, you cannot create unless you destroy, with accuracy playing second fiddle, one cannot be a great creator without being a great destroyer.

What's to say of him, in other parts, he speaks differently of women. Maybe in his works, one can find every possible thought expressed, I doubt he had any convictions, but was immersed in contradictions, being their king. An explorer of thoughts was he, trying to sell contradictory remarks to the highest bidder, without there being any buyers though. A chameleon changing his colours, a liar and a thief, a knave, of all trades, robbing people of their peace of mind, well he was finally thrown off the sinking ship, as was his karma, ha!

Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly. — Nietzsche

:grin:

Dunno why, maybe because there is no bait, or maybe because they are disinterested in this sort of bait, eg some cheese, which is nevertheless mouldy. Anyway, this is getting off-topic so I'll stop here.

Well, I didn't quote you as saying “reason” — DingoJones

haha, true, true, I guess you are off the hook then.

Those things you mentioned may be missing from philosophy, but wouldnt that mean philosophy never lived at all rather died? — DingoJones

Yeah, it might mean that as well, either that it was never born - so how can it die??! - or that it was born, lived a little, and then died, like those infants with various conditions, not living much, or living on borrowed time, not having the chance to amount to anything in life, like they were just born to die.

Also, there is no reason philosophy cannot be applied to those things is there? So are you talking about the limits philosophy, or philosophers? — DingoJones

What limit, the sky's the limit, like they say. And yes, I see no reason why philosophy cannot be applied to those things, as you say. But of course philosophers will bite and won't bite.

ha, you are very perceptive, although I said indication, not reason. Anyway, a rather good reason for philosophy being dead is the complete lack of music in works of philosophy, now this is a very good reason, indeed. Humour, maybe we can do without, but music, as well as poetry, we cannot.

Oh, in many ways, I reckon. Take humour for example. Why is there so little on this topic? On the metaphysics of humour I mean, its ontology, where are they, what is humour and in what ways is it triggered? (philosophically speaking) But if you look at ethics, you will find a vast amount of works. Its like philosophy is at odds with humour and laughter, taking itself toooo seriously in this cosmic joke we are living.

If philosophers spent the same amount of time writing about the philosophy of humour as they did about ethics, then I think we would be much better off. Yet another indication that philosophy is dead.