A pity 180 Proof isn't here, he'd be great batting for the Absurdists :P . Feel free to discuss any of the ideas present in this OP. — Agustino

Speaking of which, where is 180 Proof anyway?

I think I can represent an absurdist agnosticism - the uncertainty of God's existence adds an additional absurdity into the equation. It is a recognition of the unlikelihood of God's existence but also that the answer to this is outside the boundaries of human understanding.

Arthur Schopenhauer - Essays and Aphorisms

Søren Kierkegaard - Fear and Trembling

Richard Polt - Heidegger: An Introduction

Robin Le Poidevin - Arguing for Atheism

Emmanuel Levinas - Basic Philosophical Writings

Probably one of the things about philosophy that motivates some people to chastise it as stupid is how nothing seems to be set-in-stone. Now of course this is, in my opinion, one of the greatest assets of philosophy, and it's also just untrue that other disciplines are not the same. But people want facts - and a philosophy department does not provide "facts" all too often unless it's historical. In philosophy, there is almost universal disagreement on key issues and this can be interpreted as a failure of philosophy, when in fact it's simply evidence of the difficulty of these questions.

The next step people might take in their criticism is to not criticize philosophy, per se, but criticize those who practice it. They claim that they have some kind of deficient character or personality that allows them to study something as useless and boring as philosophy, not like those "other folk" who study the "important" stuff like science and maths. This is simply a personal attack and an affirmation of the status quo.

That being said, however, I do believe science should be more integrated into the philosophy departments (and not necessarily vice-versa). Philosophers need to be knowledgeable about science, but scientists do not necessarily need to be knowledgeable about philosophy (it's more like it's optional, or perhaps a one-semester class). Most importantly philosophers need to be influenced by the scientific culture, not to make philosophy "scientistic" but to make scientific philosophy. Both scientism and anti-science perspectives in philosophy come from an inadequate conception of science itself.

In general, though, I would really like to see a general culture in philosophy end, that of isolation. This comes in many forms. One form is the isolation from the sciences, where things are studying away from any empirical information that may actually be relevant to the topic at hand. Certain accounts of dualism in the philosophy of mind, for example, really only are self-coherent, they aren't really defensible in the big picture.

Then there's the almost clique-like nature of philosophical "schools", federations of thinkers with a common tongue and a common hero figure. You're either in the school or you're not, and if you're not then those part of it can walk all over you with their verbose terminology and esoteric vocabulary. It's a power game. And once again this leads to isolation. Part of the problem then is that it is hard to get people interested in this stuff. I still haven't read anything by Hegel and I don't know when I will or if I even will, I just don't have the motivation to because I don't really understand why Hegel is so important to begin with. From my own perspective, it is as if Hegelians (and other schools as well) don't want newcomers, but then they complain how Hegel could be used to solve many issues in contemporary analytic philosophy or science. Like if you think this is true, then it's up to you to spread the good news of Hegelianism, you can't just expect people to voluntarily spend several years studying something that they aren't sure is helpful or not.

There is also the self-imposed isolation of those who pair philosophy with religion. Historically speaking, philosophy was a very valuable tool for religions. It was philosophy in the service of religion, usually theological of sorts. Theology is just the philosophy that maintained its relation to religion during and after the chaotic splits of the Enlightenment. Religion gives philosophy a "big" purpose - to demonstrate the existence of God, to show the right way to live, to comprehend the sacrament or whatever. It's really important and to be a philosopher tied to religion, or just a theologian, makes you part of a tradition of sorts. But it's also very isolationist and therefore basically irrelevant to those who aren't "in" the school. And then those who are part of the group blame those who aren't for not reading their material. Which is entirely hypocritical as they probably don't read the material of other religious groups. It's really their fault for not communicating properly, but they make it seem like it's your fault and that you're guilty for not reading so-and-so's dissertation of the existence of the divine or whatever or misinterpreted what the esoteric circle was saying.

This leads into another isolationist tactic employed, that philosophy somehow has a "monopoly" on the "Big Questions". Philosophers study "the Big Questions" that pervade all existence. Wow.

One last issue related to this is one that I have seen here on the forums and elsewhere. It could be that philosophy attracts this sort of personality, but it seems to be a common-ish conception of philosophy as being life-changing and aristocratic. That by studying philosophy, you become a more "virtuous" person, or just straight up better than other people, is something I've found to be a common sentiment that is also found it other disciplines as well. I've found this sentiment in myself at times, chiefly characterized by a disdain towards newcomers and a preference for philosophy to continue to be "for the few". If philosophy is only studied by a small portion of the population, it automatically gives those who study it a sense of "special-ness" - they know (?) more than other people. They know (?) certain things that others don't, it's special knowledge that cannot be easily explained to others, assuming there is a desire to teach anything at all. Philosophy, then, becomes some kind of way to separate yourself from the "common rabble" and see yourself as superior to them. Heidegger at least tried to start from common experience and especially the countryside folk, but he still ended up using technical jargon and terminology which ultimately made his thinking isolationist.

A consequence of this sort of special snowflake attitude is that those who have it get super protective and anal retentive about their discipline. They want to be special, but if nobody cares about their discipline, they take this as an insult and go on to pine for the solidarity of the mountains or the woods or whatever. Which is just childish in my opinion.

You can see this general snobbish, isolationist attitude in the very language of those who have it. They'll often say "in philosophy..." or "in science" with the intention that this discipline is something you have to get into. It's a verbal "stop sign" - stop!, we don't want your kind here. Stay outside. This is a symptom of an inferiority complex.

The context of the discussion was effective altruism, where you calculate what does the most good for your contribution. If Singer had gotten a job on Wall Street, he would have had more money to give to charity, but he wouldn't have been in the same position to promote the idea behind being an effective altruist. — Marchesk

One of the things consistently brought up by the EA community is the importance of avoiding burn-out. Even if being a top-notch lawyer or engineer or banker would make you a ton of money, if you hate doing it you won't last very long. It's better to pursue a job that pays well enough that you can donate some to charity, that is also a job you enjoy so you can continue to donate to charity.

Damn right you did.

I'm gonna be a bit polemical and harsh in this response, but only because I have some steam to blow off. Dawkins is one of those chaps that just pisses me off. The above quote in the OP from Dawkins strikes me as an example of him trying to show that a secular life is meaningful and worth living, but it comes across as some real im14andthisisdeep crap, aggressive crap at that.

A quote from River Out of Eden, which is an otherwise good description of the sentient condition, shows, when compared with his other claims, just how hypocritical and contradictory his views are:

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

There are good reasons to believe that the universe is indifferent to the injustices occurring, but there are also good reasons for believing the Mr. Dawkins is unable to come to terms with this himself:

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. — Dawkins

Wait, what happened to the fact that some people aren't so well off as Mr. Dawkins? What was that about the suffering per capita being beyond decent comprehension, or how the universe has no value and is pitilessly indifferent?

Like come on, how can you get any more special-snowflakey?

We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. — Dawkins

Yeah, we certainly are ordinary aren't we? ...thanks, I guess? Here Mr. Dawkins seems to think that if we compare ourselves to people who would have been better than we are, but who do not exist, we can affirm our own existences. It's supposed to encourage and motivate us - but it's also kind of insulting. But more importantly, Mr. Dawkins tries to cover his bases by telling us how we aren't special and we aren't as good as those who could have been - but simultaneously tell us how that simply the fact that we are makes us special and important. It's humble-bragging, isn't it?

And had we never been, we wouldn't have been any worse. He can preach and shout about how fan-fucking-tastic it is that we're alive, but as soon as you put his words into practice, it ends up being nothing more than a bit of empty sophistry. A cheap pick-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps that can't survive a basic intro to ethics course that is only taken seriously because he's a scientist and he knows stuff, he knows more than you or I. Say - if we are to cheer and high-five each other for being alive, are we to feel relieved that we were born? Does Mr. Dawkins honestly want us to pity those who never were - does he sincerely believe what he says?



The fact that it was so unimaginably unlikely that any one of us would exist is evidence that our individual and collective existences are a fluke, and not some marvelous achievement that Mr. Dawkins wishes it to be. We didn't exactly do anything to get here, for better or for worse.

Mr. Dawkins seems to want us to tremble at the meaningless indifference the universe has to us, and our general unimportance in the grand scheme of things, but simultaneously also desire that we leap up and sing and parade around reminding ourselves how special we are, simply for being. Like, congratulations, you exist! What an amazing accomplishment! What an incredibly sublime and spiritual achievement! - ack, I can't stand that cheesy "scientific spirituality", the one that chastises those with religious spirituality but then recommends that we binge-watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos, read Mr. Dawkins' many evangelical books, worship our self-image (jack ourselves off to our reflection in the mirror) and constantly remind ourselves how we are special because we are "starstuff" (...just like everything else - tell me more about how "starstuff" is "scientific").

Consider the final sentence in the quotation above:

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

And then pair this with a quotation by Cioran:

"Objection to scientific knowledge: this world doesn't deserve to be known."

Riiiiiiight - so, once again, we have Dawkins (and co.) wanting us to submerge ourselves in the nihilism of the Enlightenment, only to pull us back out by a complete contradiction. The universe is indifferent and indecent - but it's also quite beautiful and spiritual! But remember it actually doesn't give two shits about you and could purge your existence at any time, really. But ya' gotta remember, life is pretty sweet, isn't it? Have you looked through a telescope recently? How privileged we must be to have the opportunity to see a representation of Saturn through our eyes that will later degenerate with cataracts! Remember when the dumb people before thought Saturn was a god? Ahahahahaha how silly of them, hehehe now we know stuff. Wanna know more? Suck my dick and buy my books!

We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred? — Dawkins

How dare anyone think otherwise! How dare anyone not want to be here! How dare anyone wish they didn't have to die! How dare people complain about their suffering! How dare they, dammit! How dare they not agree with me! How dare they threaten my meaning! waaaaaaah!



(cartoons are by David Shrigley, for those interested).

Thank you for sharing that story, I was not aware of it. It is powerful.

Like I said, it was more of a suggestion than a criticism. I don't see these threads going anywhere and it seemed to me that you were getting frustrated with the lack of progress.

Right, but the pessimistic point is that life is not worth living and that there are no reasons to continue it. It seems almost aggressive to demand people justify their existence, especially if you believe they won't be able to.

Yes, it was not meant as a criticism per se but more as a recommendation, that perhaps pessimistic threads should be abandoned because they are not productive in any substantial way.

Procreation brings it into sharp focus. — schopenhauer1

I entirely agree - but what help is this to those who already exist? Might someone be better off not knowing their existential predicament, or at least exacerbating it through critical philosophical analysis? Why expose people to the pessimistic worldview?

The answer, from what I can tell, would be that the knowledge of the human condition, although difficult to bear, is a requirement in order to be a responsible human being. Understanding the predicament we are in can, hypothetically at least, lead to a change in character and expression. We become more compassionate and patient, appreciate the goods in life more and most of all refuse to procreate.

Without any ethical foundation, truth for the sake of truth is irresponsible. If our goal is to convince people to not procreate, then this provides a solid reason to shine light on the structural issues of life. Any other motivation, however, must be primarily self-serving, if only through catharsis or sublimation. I don't think we're doing anyone any benefit by pointing out these features of life for the sake of pointing them out. There needs to be some sort of positive reason or benefit to understanding the human condition that overrides the toll such an understanding has on a person. In the absence of such a reason, it is best that we just don't say anything. Nothing positive will have been accomplished and all we will have done is make the problem worse.

Truth for the sake of truth is said to be noble, but exposing people to pessimism without any additional advice or considerations seems to accomplish very little. Have you considered the ethics of promoting pessimism without prudential care or a substitute method of dealing with life for those who gain nothing and lose a lot from learning about the bleakness of existence?

I ask this because these posts, while certainly not excessive per se, seem to be repetitive cul-de-sacs that have no positive outcome: people leave without their beliefs being substantially changed, and/or now everyone is even more conscious of the collective suffering in the world than they were before. And for what?

I suppose I'm too pessimistic for pessimism.

Make another thread on it, please.

You do realize I made a summary post right after, right?

Personally I believe that depression, so long as it is not a biological issue like a chemical imbalance or whatever, stems from an extreme disappointment or disillusionment with the world. Only optimists get depressed. But then again I think we all have a bit of optimism in our character that cannot be purged.

If men want to dress like women or men want to dress like women, that's their prerogative, but you can't force me to use pronouns that don't match their biological sex. — Thorongil

"Men" and "women" are gender pronouns, not sexual pronouns.

At any rate, you seem to have ignored the question of the OP. The question was not "can people identify differently than their biological sex", it was "is biological sex even an appropriate label in the first place".

So anyway, the basic argument presented is that if we define natural kinds as a family resemblance of entities with similar features, then it is factually correct to label those with similar feature as belonging to a natural kind. If "being male" means "having a penis", then people with a penis are male. Being male is equivalent to having a penis. Natural kinds may not "exist" outside of our conceptual scheme, but "nature" does seem to act "as if" they do through patterns of constraint and inclusion/exclusion.

Ethics only enters the picture if this identity is extended from a factual description to a normative prescription. It is a normative claim to believe that if you are male, you must use your penis in a certain way, or embrace your male identity and identify as a male. The expectation that one identifies with their physical identity is a normative claim that can be criticized.

Because your identity and culture is historical and it's important to learn how this came about.

By it actually making sense, at least somewhat, and being historically important.

Most bad philosophy is tossed out sooner or later. Only the good stuff gets put in the textbooks.

I've been studying it for over 45 years now, and again, I think that a lot of it is stupid. — Terrapin Station

Some philosophy is bad and stupid. Not all philosophy.

Otherwise this just becomes a cherry-pick.

Not necessarily! Perhaps someone has spent a life time studying it and concluded that it, or at least 99% of it, IS stupid. — A Seagull

No, those who have spent a lifetime studying philosophy do not call it stupid. They may see all previous attempts as wrong or misguided, like Kant. But certainly they do not call "philosophy" stupid.

I hardly ever dream. In fact I can't remember the last time I actually had a dream, it's been at least several months. When I do they tend to be uncomfortable or scary.

Although I do have memories of a few dreams that were quite nice. My desires were instantly gratified, I was powerful and perfect. I'm not talking about sexual stuff either. I was just content with myself. I think one of these positive dreams was of me teaching philosophy to students - I did not stutter like I do in real life, I did not get anxious or nervous. I was in my element and the students apparently loved me. It was nice.

Reminds me of the Freudian theory of dreams. Freudian psychoanalysis has a complicated reputation, not altogether positive, and for good reason. In fact his theories were essentially "metaphysical" despite his protests to the contrary. An interesting theory he articulated what that dreams were the method in which the unconscious seeks satisfaction. When we are conscious, we are given these needs and desires that throw us into a state of discomfort - the real world forces us to make choices and relegate resources to accomplish our goals. In a dream, however, we're not dealing with reality. We effectively make reality and because of this we can sometimes have very pleasant dreams in which the desires the unconscious produces are instantly gratified. There are more details, mostly related to time, that aren't entirely dissimilar to the metaphysical speculations of Schopenhauer, but I can't remember them right now.

Freud's meta-psychophysics might not be entirely correct, but it certainly makes it all too evident how the dreams we experience are sometimes better than the reality we live in. It's a metaphysical scheme that, like most metaphysical schemes, tells a story with a moral, which is more important than it actually being factually correct. It makes me wish I did dream more.

Moral imperatives typically are what you shouldn't do. They are constraints on action.

People who tell you that you have a positive duty to do something, that isn't just the converse of a negative constraint, seem to tend to have some sort of agenda.

"Yes, we get it, you think you know more than everyone else - now get your head out of your ass and demonstrate it."

If something does not inflict unnecessary or unjustifiable harm, it cannot be immoral. — VagabondSpectre

Or, as I like to put it, the fundamental ethical articulation of any ethical system is that unnecessary harm or manipulation is wrong. No ifs, ands or buts.

Like Mariner said, don't equivocate between a degree in philosophy and philosophy proper.

Kant argued that when one learns philosophy, one learns the history of philosophical attempts. It is subjective-historical. You are learning how to do philosophy.

The people who call philosophy stupid are the people who haven't put down the time to understand what philosophy is about. That goes with basically any activity in general. If you call something stupid before you even know what it is, you're the one who is just being stupid.

Potayto potahto

A quote by Giacomo Leopardi has always resonated with me:

“Allow it to be reasonable, to kill oneself; allow it to be against reason to resign one’s mind to life: surely it is still a savage and inhumane act. And it ought not to gratify one more, nor should one choose, to be in accord with reason, and a monster, than in tune with nature, and a man.”

Remember how Nietzsche told us not to become monsters?

Leopardi is, in my opinion, a proper moderate between the two extremes of Schopenhauerean asceticism and Nietzschean vitality.

Why should anyone take this hypothesis serious, and ontologize such an abstract cow, anyway...? — jorndoe

Presumably because it offers the best explanation as to why things can be seen as similar or different, which can also be seen as different and "more different".

There's all sorts of issues related to Platonic universals:

Like you said, how do these Forms interact with the stuff around us? This is somewhat similar to the problem Lady Elisabeth pointed out to Descartes regarding the interaction between his two hypothesized substances.

Is there really a Form for everything? Are there Forms for only the "simpler" things that have no necessary parts and seem to be simply adjectives, or should we also see objects and structures and whatnot as having Forms themselves? Here we start to have issues with composition.

Then there's the issue of how things in the world can change but still instantiate a the transcendental Platonic Form.

And of course there's Aristotle's critique of Plato's Forms and his subsequent theory of hylomorphism - the Matter-Form duality, that places universals squarely in the world itself. But then later on there were several Scholastics that denied universals of all stripes, and we call them nominalists. But nominalism has always struggled with a regress problem, and so has Aristotle's immanent universal theory.

Personally I've been reading more into Neo-Platonic metaphysics. It's "based" on Plato but effectively synthesizes a whole bunch of things, including Aristotle and Anaximander. Universals are important to the general theory.

Has your general outlook on life and existence changed after reading the Scriptures? Just curious.

Do you take the scriptures to be reliable?

What made you drift that way?

Are we just scum on a rock? Or does a human bear some cosmic usefulness? — intrapersona

I mean, we produce entropy fairly well, but so do all successful biological systems. It's not exactly the purpose anyone was wanting, though. "You exist to entropify" doesn't really fill the gaping hole of meaninglessness. Wow, I am so glad I exist to poop out entropy. Aren't the stars just beautiful?!

Got me through final exams this semester:

I am passionate about science and devote time to improving my skills in QM and GR, as well as learning more about Thermodynamics. But I do not believe that it reveals 'Truth'. That is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. My interest and participation in science is driven by considerations that are part instrumental and part aesthetic, neither of which relies on a belief that science delivers Truth. — andrewk

Wait, I'm curious, unless you're in a specialized scientific or technological field, how does QM, GR, thermo, etc help you instrumentally?

Part of the aesthetic of learning science, from what I can tell, is that you're learning stuff about the world. Science finds out what is the case, what reality is like. If all it made were models that were somehow useful but were not accurate representations of reality, I wouldn't really be interested in it. It would seem empty and fake.

Groundhog Day, because I'm in it. — Wayfarer

Wait really

Would you agree with the idea that "post-modern" philosophy, in particular, has a bit of a beef with science and has more proponents of scientific skepticism or relativism than those who think science discovers the real?

At any rate, phrases like "x is just a social construct" seem to be commonly found in post-modern thinkers and I wonder why that is or what exactly it means to be a social construct. Can a social construct itself be a social construct?

I would like it if someone provided me with a good example of a post-modern philosophical theory that they dislike and why they dislike it. From my own gauging, it seems like pomo, just like any other thing, is a mixture of good and bad. I do not know that much about pomo, and the general dislike of it from others has put it on the side burner for me, but I also find myself intrigued by the idea that truth is relative, or that metaphysics is bunk, etc.

Probably the issue I have with pomo, just from my opinion, is that it seems sort of disconnected and anti-methodological. It also seems to be overly-skeptical of science. It takes the scientism of today and cashes out with an view on the complete opposite of the spectrum. Which is implausible imo.

Also I never understood how it is possible for truth to be relative, and yet believe this proposition to be true.

Have you seen the Matrix II? Oh wait, it sucked, nevermind.

I was pleasantly surprised with Ex Machina - it's not perfect, but it does tackle some of big questions of philosophy of mind, like Mary's Room, connectionist theories of mind, A.I., and ethics in an age of science. It's one of my favorite recent movies.

Blade Runner is also really good.