Philosophy is becoming rather irritating.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Crcata, Apr 8, 2016.

?

Do you prefer Common Sense or Philosophy?

  1. Common Sense

  2. Philosophy

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I occasionally find MR annoying too, but I like him and respect his intelligence.

    In particular, I agree with what MR wrote in post #36. Crcata has backed away from his initial double-barreled attack on philosophy in favor of attacks on philosophy that he considers 'extreme'. He has yet to provide any concrete examples of what it is that he objects to, or any reason why the rest of us should agree with him about it. MR was right to point that out and to ask him to clarify it. Unfortunately post #37 wasn't very helpful in that regard.

    I still get the impression that Crcata is emoting rather than thinking. Of course if he was thinking he'd be philosophizing, doing what he condemns.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Crcata Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Yazata
    I have not "backed away" from anything. I have already stated what my stance is on the subject and clarified what my initial post was actually directed to. Your failure to comprehend this is not at all my fault anymore. My point is what it has always been from the very beginning, that philosophy taken to ridiculous extremes is stupid and serves no purpose. But please, bring up how thats not what my initial post said, so that I can continue to re-iterate what I have done multiple times now. Perhaps eventually you will let it go.

    My intention wasn't to come here and "make you agree with me", so why you would hold me to that standard is...well I'll leave it there. I simply came here to hear what others have to say. On that note though, how have you or anyone proven me wrong? How have you proven that philosophy taken to extremes IS useful? Because what you have done so far in terms of saying "every time you think you philosophize, therefore I'm right", which doesn't help your case, despite you thinking its an "I WIN" button.

    I did in fact clarify my stance in response to MR, it is not my fault that he, and apparently you as well, purposefully refuse to apply these critical thinking skills you pretend to have to understanding what I am saying in the context of which I am saying it. The context clues are there, I can't help it if you cannot put them together. It is also not my fault that our language doesn't size up to the task of explaining EXACTLY what I think "extreme" means when you refuse to apply even an ounce of common sense or use any deductive reasoning to understanding. This is something that amateur philosophers love to do, you crutch on how easy it is to pretend you dont understand what someone else is saying knowing that it is impossible to cover any and all aspects, scenarios, possibilities, variables, etc when it comes to defining it.

    My point has been very clear. I would also like to take a second to point out that despite you being better at hiding it, your responses, ideas, philosophies, actions, etc are no less emotionally driven than myself. We are emotional creatures and to pretend otherwise is to deny all the evidence that is in your face. So you can pretend that you are some exceptional person capable of separating emotion from thought but we all know you aren't. I mean...why else would you pretend to not understand a simple word such as "extreme"? Answer: Because I hurt your feelings.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Crcata Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    I would also like to to say, that its almost funny (if it wasn't so stupid) that one of the arguments that I pointed out in my initial post (the demanding impossibly specific definitions to words knowing it can't be done) was brought up and attempted to be used just a few posts in. It's like clockwork, these arguments are as predictable as they are meaningless.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Given what you say here I am inclined to think you are confusing specific argument of semantics within a non-philosophical debate with philosophy in general.
    In a philosophical debate, for example, the issue of subjectivity and objectivity might be quite important. In a layman's chat then common sense can be sufficient, if somewhat dull.
    To decry the use of one entirely when all you seem to have issue with is unnecessary pedantry (at least unnecessary within the context of the discussion you wish to have) seems somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction. In its place common sense is sufficient, but likewise philosophy has its place. If you don't want to discuss deeper philosophical issues with someone then just tell them.

    Furthermore, arguing solely with what you deem "common sense" might lead to missing important distinctions that the other person wishes to make. If you cut them off for pedantry or semantics or simply for bringing in philosophy when there is a genuine point to be made then you are at best left with superficial discussion.
    And if "common-sense" is all you have recourse to then, since it should be "common" there should be little if any disagreement and thus no discussion at all. Discussion is borne from disagreement, otherwise it is simply speaking for the sake of it. And to understand the root of that disagreement is to delve into the realms of the land you seem not to want to visit.

    Of course someone can try to play the "intellectual" card by trying to delve into philosophy simply to sound superior to those that don't wish to delve. But that is not the fault or weakness of philosophy but of those you are having the discussion with. Further, they may actually be raising something not to sound superior but because it is actually relevant to the discussion.

    As for someone playing devil's advocate, that is often a good way of exploring your own position on a matter, but a good devils advocate will have a good understanding of the contrary position they are taking, otherwise they might simply raise strawmen and be of no use in helping identify weaknesses in your own argument. But again, not the fault of philosophy but of the individual.
     
    Dywyddyr likes this.
  8. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Of course you did. In your first post you wrote:

    That looks like an attack on philosophy in in general, in its entirety. Then you sought to qualify what you wrote, admitting that it needs to be taken "with a grain of salt":

    As Magical Realist astutely pointed out, that raises the question of how you would characterize the distinction between philosophy that's acceptable to you, and philosophy that you consider 'extreme'.

    So far about all you've done is complain about people who disagree with you about right and wrong and announced your belief that they just won't accept "common sense", which apparently means your personal opinions on ethical matters. Of course if your opinions and intuitions really were common to everyone else, then nobody would disagree with you in the first place, would they?

    What are those "ridiculous extremes" in your opinion? When people disagree about things that both of them believe are obvious 'common sense', how do you think that those disagreements should be resolved? Is a resolution even possible?

    Usually when people express their opinions, they intend their opinions to be persuasive. They hope to convince their readers that they are right. If you don't care about that, then why did you start this thread? Just to express your angry frustrated emotions concerning philosophy and at people who think philosophically? (I hope that you are something more than a troll.)

    Recall how I defined philosophy "I would define philosophy as conceptual clarification and investigation into the basic underlying intellectual methods and assumptions in all other aspects of life (from mathematics through physical science to art, religion and ethics)."

    Examining the ideas being implicitly assumed and the methods that are being employed in any area of thought would seem to me to be a valuable pursuit. Do you disagree?

    I think that you probably do, and seemingly think that some of your own "common sense" beliefs should just be accepted by everyone else as infallible and inviolate givens. To question them is apparently something "extreme" in your eyes, something that you condemn as "stupid".
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2016
  9. Crcata Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Well once again I will point out exactly how you are wrong on your first couple of points, although I am sure you will ignore it anyways.

    I did not "back away" from anything, I clarified later in the thread exactly what the point of my original post was, you can purposefully ignore that (as you are doing) but it doesn't change the reality that I have not changed from my initial stance that extremes of philosophy is where the issue lies. But please, tell me again how my initial post didnt say that properly so that I can once again point this out. I will do it as many times as is necessary. You not being able to understand, is not equal to something not being true. So there, you are objectively wrong, accept it and move on.

    It appeared to be an attack on philosophy in general up until the point where I clarified that it was only on the extremes of philosophy. Once again, just because you refuse to let it go does not equal a solid argument on your part. My point has absolutely been a valid one.

    I have not related MY opinion to common sense, I have related opinions that are vastly universal to common sense. HUGE distinction. Your lack of capability of understanding it, once again does not equal to it not being true.

    I came here to hear what people have to say. I already stated that. But I will repeat myself as many times as it takes for you to understand. (should only be once but its ok)

    ******Above this line I answered your questions directly and with plenty of clarity. Please apply your critical thinking skills and study them for a moment if you feel the need to ask them again. There really should not be a reason to.**********

    I agree with your definition because despite your lack of being able to find the distinction that I have very well stated between my opinion and universal opinions = common sense, I absolutely agree with it. I agree with investigating science, ethics, everything! What I dont agree with is hindering progess by getting "stuck" so to speak on things that dont need long periods of investigating. There is a such thing as stupid questions.

    For example. The term "well being" when put into certain context does not and should not need massive amounts of defining. An entire discussion can be halted completely because of this, and the impossibility of ever defining it further.
    Or, "murder for the sake of murder", is a very universal wrong. To discuss any further is a waste of time.

    Even in this very thread you have MR and you doing exactly this. You take a word (extreme) and ask for an impossibly specific definition and when one is obviously unable to be given (key word impossibly) you jump to a misguided belief that you have a valid argument, and completely halt any more forward progress. This is done, all the time. And this is exactly why scientists say "they dont have time for that", because they have a world of unknown out there and they want to explore it, not get hung up on the word "unknown". This is why philosophy isn't taken seriously.

    Once again, despite already pointing it out I will re-iterate, I do not want people to be robots. I do not think my opinion justifies common sense. I do not hate philosophy in general despite my initial post giving that impression and have clarified that my issue is with the extremes of it.

    You keep throwing around that I am "emoting", but I think at this point your hypocrisy is showing. How many times have I had to answer your questions? Why is it that I continuously answer your questions and you refuse to acknowledge the answers? Most likely because your feelings got hurt and you want to do your best to be difficult. Look past it, apply some common sense to the definition of the words I'm using in the context that I am using them and you may actually be able to move forward in the discussion.
     
  10. Crcata Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    I'm not arguing solely what I deem common sense, I'm arguing things that are universal as being common sense. I really need you guys to pay attention lol.

    So keeping the new definition of common sense I just provided now re-read everything that I have typed and I think you will have a much better understanding of what I am saying. There is no way those whom claim to have an affinity for critically thinking could truly struggle this hard with such a simple distinction.

    Your points about it being the individuals issue, and not philosophy in general is a good one and something I can agree with.

    So Sarus after reviewing what I have said (if you do) with my definition. Then look at what MR and Yazata have done in this very thread. They have asked me to give impossibly specific to words, words that are important to my argument, knowing that it is objectively impossible to give a satisfactory definition. They thereby discredit the argument and give their own, which their same strategy could be applied to, except that they would see it as some sort of victory and justification of that kind of extreme philosophy.

    Meanwhile science is exploring and discovering new things, making actual progress, improving our world, (in some cases making it worse to) and actually having applicable and practical knowledge. All this is happening while philosophers get stuck on definitions of words that other intellectuals and scientists understood and moved on with.

    The idea of questioning is perfectly fine. The idea of investigating is perfectly fine. What isn't perfectly fine is refusal to accept answers and hindering forward progress because you can't come to terms with a definitive meaning of words. And whats scary is some people actually take pride in that LOL.
     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    I think it's a reasonable request that if you're knocking philosophical questioning in only it's extreme instances, that we get a handle on what you mean by "extreme" and figure out why "extreme questioning" suddenly makes questioning morally wrong or stupid. I'm not asking for a definition of the word "extreme". I'm asking you to clarify your own use of that word since it seems for you the one characteristic that suddenly makes philosophy idiotic and stupid. It all seems so subjective to me and a generalization based entirely on your emotional encounter with someone who debated your ethics of not killing someone for the sake of killing them. Like I said, you don't have to disparage all philosophical inquiry based on this one instance of someone pissing you off. You can just say, "This is my moral conclusion on the matter" and leave it at that.
     
  12. Crcata Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    @MR
    I have explained what I mean by using the word extreme!!! I have even given examples to put it into context!! lolol.

    My "emotional encounter" wasn't just one time, it happens almost every time I back someone into a corner using reason,logic, and evidence to support my opinion. You can dismiss my opinion as emotional if you want, but it absolutely makes sense as well, even if you arent capable of understanding it.
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Then your entire argument seems moot: if the common sense regarding the matter is universal then there would be no discussion. It is perhaps because people see nuances, subtle variations that they wish to explore in the otherwise blanket universal agreement that they ask for clarification on what certain words mean.
    Further, given that the internet does bring people together from around the globe, it is not always a given that the word used by one is understood as intended. We have had a disagreement recently about what "logic" meant in the question raised, as there appears to be a difference between how it is oft used in the US (and thus the context of the questions) and in the UK.
    It now seems quite clear that what you are saying is that if people agree (i.e. on a point of universal common sense - and they must agree for it to be truly universal) then there is no need to raise matters of semantics, or to argue philosophy simply to appear superior.

    This is not going to be argued against by anyone here - if indeed the "common sense" that you hold is indeed universal, and if you are only applying it to such matters of universal common sense.
    The arguments / disagreements / discussion arise because, being a philosophy forum in which you raised your post, people are want to examine the nuances, where "common sense" is tested and probed until it breaks down to subjective viewpoints.
    I'm glad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    To be honest, if you're using words that you can't give a reasonable definition as to the meaning you intended by their use, should you be using them? You must have some idea as to what you meant by those words? Perhaps they are just checking that your intention is the same as their understanding. Afterall, you ask someone how much money they would need to be "rich" and you'll likely get a different answer each time.
    Indeed, but since when is philosophy aiming to do what science does - we have science for that. Contrasting them in such a manner is as of much use as questioning why there is competitive sport, since "science is exploring and discovering new things..." and I don't see that in a football game.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Again, if you are simply referring to common sense that is truly universal, then there is no disagreement. But unless people are sure about what your words mean, how can they know the view you claim to be universal common sense is the one they are inferring from your words? Hence they might question them.
     
  14. Crcata Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Not sure how to seperate quotes the way you do so forgive my lack of organization.

    Here we go again with the semantical arguments.

    If 99.9 percent of a population can agree on something, would you not agree that it is then universal? EVEN THOUGH there is a .01 percent whom question it? If 1 million people agree stabbing yourself causes pain but one person states he doesn't is it then not good enough of a consensus to be called universal? There is 0 absolutes in this universe (I think lol) so if you are holding universal to the standard that it cant have even 1 person argue against it then that's where we have a disconnect. Just because someone argues against it doesn't mean its not a universally accepted entity.

    I am giving a very accurate and reasonable description and even providing examples to put into context of how I mean to use the word extreme. But this is exactly where my argument comes from. There is no word that any of us could use that could not be questioned as to the exact meaning of the word, to the point that it could no longer be questioned anymore. Therefore we could never actually even address the context and actual meaning of the argument itself. It is for this reason that philosophical debate doesn't work in these extremes and is exactly why it is objectively useless in the context of finding answers or providing any useful information to the general public or otherwise. Now if people want to do it anyways despite its futility then that is an acceptable answer, why not just say "we enjoy doing it anyways, despite it being a futile of actually coming to any acceptable conclusion"?

    Your point about the football game is kind of funny. But if the aim of philosophy isn't discovery....of some type then I would have to argue it is useless.

    I mean, this thread is proving exactly the point I have been trying to make. We could literally argue for years and never even come to the conclusion as to what the definitions of words are, much less actually discover any deeper truth or address any deeper issues. Thus why the rest of the word, intellectual and otherwise, cannot take this seriously.
     
  15. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Click 'reply' down on the lower right side of the post you want to reply to. That will copy the entire post onto your writing surface.

    Then write 'quote' surrounded by square brackets '[ and ]' in front of whatever bit of that text you want to quote, and '/quote' surrounded by the same square brackets at the end of the string of text that you want to quote.

    That way you can chop the other person's text into shorter bits and reply to each point the other person makes.
     
  16. Crcata Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Awesome thanks. I'll try that in the future.
     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    If one person disagreed with it then, by definition, it is not universally accepted.
    But that aside, my argument stands whether the position is universally accepted or not: all it takes is for the person you're discussing with to also agree and you have no discussion. But if that person does not agree - for one reason or another, whether it be a nuance or at a gross level - then you have discussion.
    But you seem to be only considering those cases where people agree.
    If the position you're holding is dependent upon what is meant by "extreme" then I would suggest it does need to be clarified. It could be that those asking for the clarification are merely posturing, but that would be for you to judge.
    It can work and does work, but it needs focus on the issue being addressed so as not to be sidetracked by other considerations.
    It is rarely futile, I find. Science doesn't help me discover who I am as a person. It helps me discover things about the material world around us, sure. But to understand myself? Philosophy does that for me. Science can tell me which synapses are firing, and what area of the brain may be working when I do things, but it is philosophy that helps me know who I am, know how I think, helps me refine my assumptions/beliefs etc.
    Much like football.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    But philosophy does lead to discovery: not discovery that is repeatable for everyone in the way that science does, but it can help us discover things about ourselves and others, why we think what we do, why others don't. And I don't mean simply learn that others don't agree, but what the root cause of that disagreement is. What they discover about themselves might not be applicable to another. For example I know I am a materialist, but I know others are not, but I can try to understand their viewpoints (while not agreeing with them) to help me better communicate with them. I have a brother who is religious. We shared the same education, he's (otherwise) intelligent, but we are fundamentally different in the way we think about things... we have fairly significant philosophical differences. I for one like investigating those differences.
    Yet here you are, finding something out about the way people operate, what possibly drives people, what might drive their disagreement with you (or at least inability to initially agree) etc. And all that without discovering any "deeper truth or addressing any deeper issue".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It is true, though, that any discussion can be rendered impotent without rigour - but you might need to consider the difference between what is discourse on philosophy and what is debating tactics of sidetracking, obfuscating, equivocating and all the other things people do to obscure inability to give a straight answer.
    One thing I heard about the difference between science and philosophy, though (paraphrased):
    - Science is the understanding of reality; Philosophy is the understanding of why we otherwise disagree.
    And to some it is as valuable to know why we disagree on subjective matters as it is agree on reality.
    Or something like that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
  19. Crcata Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Then according to you there is no such thing as "universal" because there is nothing that is 100 percent that way. But here is where common sense and critical thinking should kick in and you should understand what I mean by universal when being used in the context of which I am using it, and not get hung up on some technicality of a word. I think you know what I mean so I wont bother defining and giving examples again. If you dont, then you need to brush up on your critical thinking skills. Another example of why we are still "here" in the argument, and not "into the meat" of an argument. Happens all the time in philosophy.

    Once again, I have already clarified what I meant by extreme as good as it can be clarified. To go any further into its clarification is futile, because there is always going to be a way to question its meaning. I have already pointed this out multiple times but will continue to do so as many times as it takes to break through this wall.

    So what I am getting out of what you are saying is an admittance of very limited usefulness in philosophy. An acceptable answer as far as I'm concerned. We have made progress.
     
  20. Crcata Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Nice label, and attempt to deflect the actual point.

    Drop a hammer on your foot, tell me it doesn't hurt. Common sense should say that it would, but I think it's clear that your agenda triumphs reason and logic.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,602
    I don't believe my foot feels pain because most everybody believes that is what happens. I believe it based on my own firsthand experience. Do you see the difference?
     
  22. Crcata Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    But yet you are aware that you will feel pain before dropping it, because it is common sense that a heavy object dropping on your foot does that. Do you see the point?

    Or are you not aware that dropping heavy objects on your foot creates a painful sensation? Do you really need to test it for yourself before coming to that conclusion?

    Common sense exists even if some dont have it, or choose to ignore it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2016
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Perhaps, but is that where you'd like to take the discussion?
    Because philosophy is generally about nuance it is quite important that the matter is understood in the same way by everyone from the outset. It behooves the one raising the matter initially to be as precise as possible. The devil can be in the detail, within the technicality of the word and specific meaning intended.
    Or maybe you need to simply be more accurate in your language? Not everyone will take the words you say as you intended them. That is nothing to do with lack of critical thinking but possibly of cultural differences. Surely it behooves the one raising the issue, assuming they have the critical thinking skills you espouse, to think critically about all the ways their words may be taken, and use words that minimise risk of misunderstanding. This is especially true if the nuances might be important to the discussion.
    What "meat" are you envisioning getting into? The one where everyone agrees with you?
    Perhaps you should tell the people that are raising that specific question then, rather than me.
    For you perhaps it is of very limited usefulness, just as a game of football is of very limited use to someone who dislikes the game. Personally I find it very useful, in a different way to science of course, but nonetheless useful. Perhaps you just need to accept that you don't find it useful and move on?
     

Share This Page