It's not at all clear what you're asking. — StreetlightX

So, returning to the question posed in the OP. What purpose does philosophy have or whether it can answer its own questions? You responded by saying:

I don't think it's clear that there is 'a' purpose of philosophy although it certainly has been put to uses — StreetlightX

But, then you say:

I don't see why philosophy 'ought' to have a 'use', which has the brass tang of an ugly utilitarian approach to a subject which I think ought to exceed all such considerations. — StreetlightX

My question in my previous post is in regards to whether we are being charitable or sincere in regards to a field of study that is all about what ought to be done or living a good life. If you think that philosophy ought not to have any use apart from standing as some independent 'entity' of some sorts, which you elaborate in your first post, then I'm baffled by what I think as some inconsistency or gap in my understanding of what philosophy is.

Does that make sense now?

I'll leave the non sequiturs aside.

Fine.

Would it be uncharitable to say that philosophy has already served its purpose? All the unrealized potential that people had, driven by wonder, curiosity, and the like, have been realized throughout the span of more than two millennia in the form of all the various fields that have sprung up from philosophy.

In other words, what more does philosophy have to offer, or am I being uncharitable now?

Because meaning is use. We're not talking about Platonic forms, are we?

I don't think it's clear that there is 'a' purpose of philosophy although it certainly has been put to uses. — StreetlightX

If you don't mind me asking, what use does philosophy have? I understand that from (Western) philosophy sprang about all various and different fields, and there's some phenomenon over on Wikipedia where if one digs deep enough almost all topics end up leading to philosophy. Again, using the backdrop of my previous thread on Reason and Emotions, I feel as though philosophy has a personal use for me. For example, I use it as a template to understand the world. But, my world isn't the same as yours. My use of philosophy is motivated by desires and emotions, not 'pure reason'. They say philosophy begins in wonder, and I don't think it can be put in any other way, shape, or form that would get the point across clearer.

And moreover I think there's an autonomy of philosophy that ought to be upheld, one that affirms it's absolute indifference to any 'use'. — StreetlightX

This is questionable because philosophy ought to have a use, be it moral, ethical, or pragmatic.

So I think there's something deeply impersonal about philosophy, and while it's entirely possible to use it as a psychological crutch or whathave you, there's nothing about it that necessitates that use. — StreetlightX

I find this hard to understand. At one end of the spectrum philosophy is the mother of all other fields, yet at the other it is also the least representative of anything objective or out there in the world. What does that say about philosophy? I'm not quite certain.

That said, there's nothing quite like wonder at that which exhibits indifference, and some of the strongest feelings are aroused precisely by incomprehension. — StreetlightX

Quite the contrary. Philosophy is not indifferent like say mathematics or physics is. It's unique in its appeal to human emotions to make sense of ethical statements and the like. On, the other hand there is analytic philosophy, which you might have in mind here instead of continental philosophy. Yes, there is a divide between the two (a rather pretentious one if you ask me); but, both originate from the same emotions driving people to want to deepen their understanding about the world, etc.

I'm just going to ramble here.

I have read Wittgenstein many times, and think his metaphor of throwing away the ladder once climbed upon is apt here. Namely, that we do philosophy because we feel disenfranchised in some way in regards to the hand that life has dealt us. Plato, whom I regard as one of the greatest philosophers, would not have been so great had his best friend and father figure not been put to trial and eventually his death. The Stoics would not have been known to this day had they not felt anxious or even depressed about what is or isn't under their control.

I'm not going to name any names; but, a very large population that inhabits this forum and the previous old PF have had emotional issues. I can somewhat confidently say that philosophy has been a coping mechanism. However, I'm at a point where, as the fly stuck in a bottle, I have come to the realization that I feel like a hamster stuck in a wheel.

To try and answer my own question, philosophy has allowed me to appreciate things much more than usual and not take things for granted. So, hence my aesthetic appreciation of arguments, the Platonic forms, and logic, which I still struggle to understand. A large portion of my interest in philosophy is an undying sense of curiosity and wonder about 'things', the world, and other people. This is to highlight the positive aspect of philosophy instead of the pessimism and absurdism I have encountered to a great deal in my dealings with philosophy.

Perhaps, that is then the purpose of philosophy. To appreciate everything around you and not just dwell on the unhappiness and sadness that happens in this world. Of course one can dwell on such matters and write about it; but, for how long can one obsess over injustice or unhappiness? Perhaps I'm being in my own way somewhat selfish here; but, the over examined life is or would be an unsatisfying one to go through.

One prominent quote that stands out in my mind is that philosophy is one step behind religion. That is to say, that philosophy is the stepping stone towards embracing religion or the "mystical".

I'll leave it at that.

Having read through Schopenhaurs aphorisms many times and isolating myself in the past as he would have prescribed, that there is a great deal of truth in what he might call the tyranny of trite and boring human interactions. Yet, to indulge in his philosophy is in some sense a narcissistic urge that is created by the rampant misogynistic tendencies of his philosophy. I find that human interaction is good and useful instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater per Schoppies narcissistic or individualistic philosophy. One does need therapy after indulging too much in his philosophy, or to put the point more clearly, no person lives on an island isolated from everyone else.

I think this is spot on. Note that the thinker must be "moved," which involves at the very least the emotion of caring about what is true or reasonable. — NKBJ

Yes, although it sounds like rationality has no will or intentionality of its own. I find this troublesome; but, even Kant mentioned that what is good originates from the good will or 'volition'.

Note also the word "appropriately," as in, emotions should keep the thinker in check, but also not take over and lead the thinker astray. — NKBJ

I seem to be of the other angle in that people need to get out of their comfort zone and feel emotions such as empathy and a feeling of care for another. Philosophers on the other hand seem to be isolated in their assumptions about human nature and go on and on about reason and its place with respect to emotions. Some middle ground is needed between the two and most people seem to find it. However, in this day and age, everyone seems to live in their own "bubble" or sphere of interest and have no concern about the welfare of others apart from their own self-interest.

I would argue that emotions merely help us assess what is truly reasonable. — NKBJ

This is a typical no true Scotsman fallacy phrased in good will. What is 'truly reasonable'?

Deciding between the black or brown shoes may be ultimately a choice of taste, but when I go hiking today, I will leave my slippers at home even though I may "like" them more than my boots. — NKBJ

Yet, reason seems to be instrumental here. One could go in slippers if one so desires. Again, the Humean saying of reason being the slave to desire or the passions.

Man and woman I suppose.

You must be a fan of Hegel then. Because that be dialects in a nutshell. Heh.

If only that were true in the realm of economics and other domains of human thought. Science is uniquely exempt from the formalities of customs and conventions.

But, but... Plato and them religious types that all copied his argument! How does one address the authoritarians?

The truth has been spoken!

Feels like a party in here.

Festivities yay!

Yeah, I still think ever since my father taught me about the Platonic forms, that is when my philosophical endeavors started and ended at the same time. Go figure.

Edit: Although, Wittgenstien saved me from that conundrum...

I can see some truth to your version of solipsism. I've always wondered about the paradox of holding solipsism as a propositional attitude true and false with respect to the world. One of those dead ends of philosophy that I find intriguing...

The feels are real today.

To idiotize the answer it seems to be justified true belief. That seems like it makes things more complicated than necessary? Who decides these things after all?

Isn't that called "emotional reasoning" in CBT? A "cognitive distortion" otherwise.

I think Greg already used the phrase I would. Accumulated (hand picked) knowledge. This implies some metaphysics about how do you go about "hand.picking" knowledge.

Then we're in the same boat. My propositional attitude about my lack of certainty is the same as yours, hence we understand what we're dialectically going on about hereabouts.

It all seems like a conceptual leap to me. Kind of like climbing a ladder and them throwing it away once done with.

But, yes, when someone is mature you tend to apprehend the situation bona fide.

Though, I wouldn't throw away the ladder. It might still have it's use. Haha.

I don't think you can be wise and immature at the same time. Or can you?

I don't know. But, I think, your making sense here. 'I think' being the performative utterance.

Thankfully, everyone here, regardless of whether they realize it, are making emotionally charged rational arguments. Or maybe not thankfully. It would probably be better if this was more widely acknowledged.

Reason needs a home, and home needs to a reason to exist. — Noble Dust

Yes, the ambiguity as to whether 'thankfully' or not is due to me not knowing what your beetle looks like. Or to put it another way, the lights are on; but, is anyone at home? Words only convey their meaning through their use, and since not everyone obeys the same rules of the game at play, then we are left with a constant sense of ambiguity about the speaker's intention until asked about in some manner or form (sometimes things need to be shown).

I would like to also add, that, what I call a false dichotomy between emotions and reason runs very deep and is even ingrained in linguistic analysis. The law of excluded middle seems to be rife when talking about the two.

I am interested, if possible, if a new method of talking about how reason and emotions operate together in a complementary fashion, can be formulated? Much like how psychology and science are two different fields with little overlap.

Reason is supposed to transcend human nature. — jastopher

I have recently been an adherent of the Humean saying that reason is a slave to the (human) passions. I'm not saying that reason cannot stand on a higher ground than emotions, but rather that the two cannot be spoken in isolation from one another.

Your taking this quite seriously. What's the prize?

Many posters did take it seriously though. — Erik

My take is that moderation in that regards is pertinent. I was just posting yesterday in a thread about the philosophy of 'farts', so go figure.

Lot of noise over a topic nobody took that seriously. Gotta remind myself this is the internet's after all.

:point:

Oh, so it's metaphysics time, again. Sorry, don't have much to offer in that regard.

Do androids dream of electric sheep, is a question that keeps on bothering me when I see your posts with that avatar. Hehe.

I read chapter 5, and some of chapter 8, as prescribed. I can't say really much to the points raised in those chapters about 'machine intelligence' or 'artificial intelligence'. The whole issue seems to revolve around a known unknown, or what makes the machine tick? Does it have intentionality, if not, then what then makes it 'intelligent'? Is it purposeful behavior, then again, does it have intentionality?

Kind of circular if you ask me.

Will do!

Well, we like to identify with leaders or other people or significant others, yet, we can never be them.

In the context of AI, which I think we're still talking about, my desire is that we be able to relate to it, which you seem to deny on principle (which isn't entirely clear to me or some sharp dichotomy between the two). If we could relate to it, and it relate to us, then confusion and misunderstanding could possibly be avoided, at mostly our detriment.

If a lion could speak we would not understand it.

It's apophatic; I know it's possible because I feel it's lack. — Noble Dust

Yeah, there was one Jesus, one Buddha, and one Mohammed. They can't be replicated or even imitated. We do strive towards their image though, in our own way.

To each their own?

OK, now I sound nihilistic or solipsistic. :roll:

You don't really give me much to reply to here; but, I'll give it a shot. AI, comparatively makes no sense to us. Nor will it ever really make sense to us, because of the fundamental nature that it will have, which I don't even have any idea what it might look like.

My take on the matter is that we ought to create AI in our image, as God did us comparatively to Him. Namely, the only form of AI that I would acknowledge as 'true' is one equipped with a brain in silicone or whatever substrate that AI will exist in. To be more precise, if we can replicate our brain, with all the human emotions that we have in silicone, then that will be as close to our image as possible. It might even 'relate' to us or feel empathy or reciprocate kindness with good deeds also.

There are some real issues with this conception of AI though. Maybe it would be too dangerous to have AI also possess human emotions also, like anger, psychopathy, and rage, greed, malice, and so on.

I think it's a material conditional.

The presupposition is empirical otherwise.

What do you mean by that?

EDIT: So, AI is just a term denoting the ultimate creation of humanity. What's not to romanticise about it?

I put it in that fallacious wording, seemingly, because we have not yet erased the dichotomy between technology and human nature. But, the way things are shaping up, we might just become in some manner or form a Borg-like entity in the not too distant future. As it stands, though, humans still operate slow and timidly comparatively to computers and a potentially vastly superior coming of age, AI.

To adapt, if one so wants to, we will have to converge with that coming reality of superintelligence and all that jazz that we hear about what computers can do better than us.

Obviously, not everyone is interested in converging with AI...

Yes, how else do you explain increases in economic output, productivity gains, and efficiency improvements in the process of production?