Can anyone tell me how you can detect something that's unconscious? Doesn't this cognitive bias theory has the same problem as psychoanalysis, that's it's not falsifiable? — Skalidris

Your question is a broad one. How can we identify with certainty whether someone's beliefs are influenced by an unconscious perspective that comes from (let's say) personal trauma or a family of origin value system? Don't think we can.

I'm not sure I understand how you are connecting cognitive bias theory with critical thinking. In what sense are you proposing they are connected?

I've not determined whether philosophy is useful (to me). I think it's good Streetlight put this quote here. He's clearly familiar with the discourse which is something I cannot claim. I am unable to make any sense of the three paragraphs posted, or even understand the comments about them. Pretty sure this is on me for not taking much interest in philosophy in the first place. This is content that requires time/commitment and aptitude.

:up:

and point out that more interesting than the observation of patterns is the question of what we might do about them. Physics doesn't answer ethical questions. — Banno

Does this mean that a physicalist metaphysics can't easily entertain morality but a supernatural/religious metaphysics in theory can?

Indeed. A number of physicalists I've heard describe themselves as naturalists - are there any advantages or disadvantages of adopting this word?

Materialism: There a patterns in the world. Now there's a T-shirt. :wink: All we need now is some further spring cleaning from phenomenology to tell us that such perceived regularities say nothing about an external world but are indicative of an infinite regress of relations located within communities of shared values which hold no possibility of foundational justification. In which case we end up with Materialism:
:razz:

Thanks. All very interesting. I watched this and some others already. I wonder what it was like for Derrida to inhabit the quotidian world with the potential burden of all those complex ideas. I feel thankful to be shallow, poorly read but generally phlegmatic, if uninspired.

Thanks. Isn't this one of several performative self-refutations aimed at D?

The uncanny moment in Derrida’s criticism, the vacant place around which all his work is organized, is the formulation of this non-existence of the ground out of which the whole textual structure seems to rise…

I'm not sure if this is meant as a compliment or a snipe.

Then perhaps it will be understood that the value of truth (and all those values associated with it) is never contested or destroyed in my writings, but only reinscribed in more powerful, larger, more stratified contexts. And that within interpretive contexts (that is, within relations of force that are always differential-for example, socio-political-institutional-but even beyond these determinations) that are relatively stable, sometimes apparently almost unshakeable, it should be possible to invoke rules of competence, criteria of discussion and of consensus, good faith, lucidity, rigor, criticism, and pedagogy.” — Joshs

This is a key quote, thanks. Is it beyond the scope of this thread to provide a small example of this in action?

...'reniscribe in more powerful, larger more stratified context' potentially could lead to a charge of hijacking meaning or reinterpretation. The idea of 'good faith' and evoking such rules of competence sounds fascinating - any chance of some elucidation?

However, (a) I'm not going to rip apart the discussion by deleting a bunch of posts that have received replies — Jamal

I have no issue with this.

karl stone

I'm leaving your posts here because they've received some good replies, but I'm warning you: they are off-topic, evangelical, and plainly transphobic. Any more of those posts will be deleted, and you might also be banned. — Jamal

Thanks Jamal. I would prefer this thread not to get bogged down in yet another culture war rehash. Some interesting replies, you're right, but I would like to read more about how morality is understood through various post-modern thinkers.

I am curious how we can contextualize Derrida and his reading of Western metaphysics. As a non-philosopher I'm interested to enhance my understanding of what Derrida believed he was primarily working towards. (I get that this is a blunt and perhaps reductive question) Was he essentially trying to reevaluate traditional Western values, build a new ethical process?

Curious too:
What did Derrida's approach say about nihilism?
What was Derrida's conceptualization of Platonic idealism?

contrary to Peterson and other conservatives, CRT, BLM and cancel culture in general is not a postmodern movement. It is a form of moralistic finger-pointing arising of of Marxism and related thought, which postmodern philosophers do not support. — Joshs

Yep.

Second, postmodern ideas don’t reject truth, they recognize that truth requires human beings to construct constructs , and those constructs are incomplete and can always be re-construed in better and more humane ways. — Joshs

This is an interesting way of describing it. Cheers. I can see how the complexity of the ideas and the fact that sacred cows are questioned can trigger some people like Peterson - even if he is just ripping off Stephen Hick's ideas in a desultory way.

It seems to me that 'postmodern' often functions in political contexts and outside nerdier circles as a synonym for secular or modern. — igjugarjuk

Yes, it almost doesn't matter any more what the word refers to since it is now often used much like 'communism' was in the 1950's, as a smear and often as part of a thoroughgoing conspiracy theory about values subversion.

But for the purposes of this thread I think @Joshs has pointed the way for further discussions.

What do you think ? Is materialism right ? Is idealism right ? Is it some mix of the two ? Can we even settle the question ? Is materialism a good explanation for patterns in different experiences ? — Hello Human

It makes little practical difference to my life which one is true. Idealism is a big subject with variations and a long history in Western thought, Plato being the most famous of the early exponents - the history of the Christian tradition is famously steeped in Neo-Platonism. Then there's the German idealists. Today there is new support for idealism mainly because versions of materialism or physicalism have been understood to be vulnerable or false. Idealism is where people sometimes end up following speculative interpretations of QM - some have concluded that matter only comes into existence when it is observed (Kastrup).

If idealism is true, it does not mean there are god/s. It might be argued, as per Schopenhauer, that the world or representation is what Will (mind) looks like when seen from a certain point of view. We are all dissociated instantiations of that Will or cosmic consciousness - which is not a metacognitive entity and largely instinctive. It's all pretty fun stuff.

Skepticism is skepticism towards knowledge. This is actually what we throw doubt at whenever we are skeptical about a claim. — L'éléphant

Indeed, but it is not just knowledge; we are skeptical in relation to certain knowledge. But I guess a precondition of skepticism is a notion of practice or certainty which needs examination.

So far, the only criticisms I've encountered when it comes to postmodernism is that --they're hard to understand! lol. Then spend more time with it until one understands what the fuck they're talking about. — L'éléphant

'Hard to understand' for some may be a euphemism for 'beyond comprehension'. I suspect that for many people, no amount of time will ever produce meaningful assimilation of the work. In these instances, learning complex philosophy might be like trying to teach card tricks to a dog. And then there's the question who has the time?

"The rich lady can cut in front of me in the waiting line in the grocery store, I must let her do so, because I am inferior, and in this world, might makes right, and there is no point in resisting this system."

Where is the ethical advantage in thinking this way? — baker

I'm not sure I understand the nuances of your point about 'thinking this way'. Do you mean being aware of this? And what is the connection to being a weakling?

No one really cuts in front of others in grocery lines here unless they are just rude. Usually this can be settled with some words - social status is almost never an issue here but size might be.

I'm not sure if self-awareness connects to awareness of socially constructed status, unless some holds a specific value system.

But perhaps you also mean that rich people get privileges others don't get. I'm still not sure how this relates to self-awareness being for weaklings. And what exactly a weakling is? Do you mean that only those with no power practice self-refection because they are weak?

I'm reading London Fields by Martin Amis. Would recommend. — Baden

Love his essays, dislike his fiction. Did enjoy Night Train a kind of parodic noir recently which most people dismiss.

This has been a very useful thread. :clap:

In the early 1970's it was common to teach critical thinking. It seems that concept was dropped. — Jackson

Wasn't here in the 1970's - it was more of a 1990's idea and continues depending upon the school.

I'm interested in having a conversation and hearing perspectives about the purpose of education in society. — Paulm12

I wonder if this is possible without a conversation about the purpose of society.

Agree.

Joshs: skepticism insists on the validity of the factually experienced world, and finds in it nothing of reason or its ideas.

You: In that sense Derrida is not a skeptic because I don't think he believes in the validity of the factually experienced world — L'éléphant

The preconditions of skepticism are that there has to be an objective or 'true' world to be skeptical of?

Word of God survived the test of time.
laws that humans make do not survive the test of time, human laws are constantly changing. — SpaceDweller

Actually this is pretty obviously false. Theist's moral actions (and what they imagine to be the word of god) has changed over the centuries, from enthusiastic killing of heathen and witches and advocating slavery, to more tolerant positions with the passing of time.

It's clear that theists have no objective basis to their beliefs. There is no word of god outside of interpretation. Believers simply hold subjective personal preferences about what they think god/s want. The very act of deciding upon which version of god is true is subjective, or an accident of birth. Depending what street you grow up on you are are either a Catholic or Jew; Sunni or Shia, Mormon or Baptist.

If we take mere Christianity as one example of personal preference morality, we know that believers do not agree about God's will. They hold very different views on capital punishment; abortion, gun ownership, homosexuality, climate change, drug law reform, euthanasia, the role of women, trans rights, etc, etc.

And in most cases theists will argue that their personal preferences about what god/s moral views are correct. Which is how we arrive at the moral quagmire of Christian ethics, wherein some hate fags and others fly the rainbow flag of diversity. And they all think their interpretation of scripture or god is accurate.

How's about a left-wing extremism/populism? — M777

What makes you think I don't consider them cunts too?

It seems like either one of these would be consistent with the absolute presuppositions I listed. Or was that your point? — Clarky

Kind of but that also that philosophical naturalism is too extreme and a lot of folk think all scientists presuppose this too.

Item 5 on my list - "The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times"

If by "unsure" you mean you're not sure it's true, of course you're not. There's no way you could be. But if it's not true, and if we can't at least act as if it were, we can't do science. — Clarky

Well it depends upon what you mean by all times, and what you mean by universe. I'm not a big science guy, but I guess my point would be if you mean 'in the known universe and since what we call the 'big bang'' then yes. I don't know what might be true outside of the known universe or outside of time as we know it. Sounds like this is a job for a physicist: Tom out...

Great OP and a good start. I am unsure about 5.

Not sure if this helps but generally the physicalists I know call themselves methodological naturalists as opposed to philosophical naturalists. From RationalWiki:

"... this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism — the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim, while the latter makes the philosophical — essentially atheistic — claim that only natural causes exist."

a simple question of 'what is a woman?
— M777

It's only a simple question if you have no concern at all for persons with gender dysphoria (et al) trying to make sense of their complicated feelings.

In short, if you're a fucking asshole - it's a simple question. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's interesting how a philosophy forum can sometimes nourish low-brow, Right wing populism.

It's a classic in Chinese philosophy and religion. — Wayfarer

It looks to be literature resting on a metaphysical base. Like the Gathas of Zarathustra or The Bible.

Yes, I believe we could be. I sought philosophers for their take on almost anything -- how to live your life, reality, the world, cosmic, etc. — L'éléphant

Has philosophy helped or changed you in any way? How?

Where is thread? What's the title? — L'éléphant

under what situation would we abandon philosophy? — Tom Storm

I'm saying it would make a good thread.

I just think your critique is of a higher level than the original article -- the original article felt like the normal sorts of things I hear when people say Derrida is bad. And maybe that works for some, but for me it didn't. — Moliere

I tend to take the view @Joshs has already hinted at. Derrida is poorly understood and therefore derided. A cartoon Derrida is readily available. Ditto postmodernism. I also think for the Derrida cognoscenti, the right reading may be elusive. This is super complex, nuanced writing accessible to only the dedicated and bright, with time on their hands. Ideally academics. None of those things describe my situation, so I have opted out of Derrida and have not noticed the gap. :razz:

mostly in comparative literature departments. — Jackson

Yes, here in Australia too I suspect and in film theory.

Who are these "some?" — Jackson

Well Joshs says D is a continuing reference point and he's an academic out of Chicago.

Derrida is still cited with frequency by some it seems.

To what extent is Deconstruction still practiced in philosophy?

And oh yeah, when I read that, I literally thought of abandoning philosophy because I didn't want a pessimist view of the world. — L'éléphant

Interesting. In relation to pessimism, I'm not sure we can 'choose' such an outlook. Can we become pessimists by reading books? I did read some Dan Brown a few years ago and it did almost have that effect, it was so astoundingly awful.

There is almost a thread in what you have said - under what situation would we abandon philosophy?

Ok. So it's a cryptic reference to Plato?

Did you guys know that to philosophize is to start dying? This was credited to some philosopher. — L'éléphant

As I understand it, it's Michel de Montaigne: "To philosophize is to learn how to die."

I've always been struck by the quote although I am not sure I know what it means. It sounds romantic.

What do you think? Give examples as to why or why not you believe in either possibility. — Outlander

I don't think you can demonstrate that nothing further or new is possible.