Philosophy is becoming rather irritating.

Well Paddoboy I take that as a great compliment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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).

It's often said by critics that while science conducts experiments and questions the world itself, philosophers just spin webs of imagination in their own heads. But that isn't really true. The subject matter that the philosophers question is what other people (including most notably, scientists) are doing in the course of their activities. The subject matter in the philosophy of science isn't so much physical reality itself as it is the methods and reasoning that scientists use to come to grips with physical reality, and what that kind of reasoning actually tells us about the reality that science seeks to model. Ethics in its philosophical sense isn't casting moral judgements, it's the examination of the reasons that people have for casting the moral judgements that they do.

In other words, philosophy is a 'meta-' inquiry about how human beings interact with their environment and with life.

That's pretty insulting.

What is "common sense"? What do you think it is accomplishing? How is it doing those things 'better'?

But why do you think that you already know the answer? How did you learn it? What would your response be to somebody who thinks that they know the answer too, and their answer is radically different than yours? How do you imagine that dispute could be settled?

I think that you are operating from a false premise there, that philosophers don't answer questions. They often do. The thing that seems to frustrate you is that the answers typically suggest even more questions. Perhaps you are seeking some absolutely certain foundation about which no more questions need be asked and from which everything else can be constructed, and resenting philosophers because not only have they failed to provide you with such a thing, they tend to undercut and cast doubt on any that are proposed.

You're assuming a whole bunch of things there. The idea that science posses a 'method', the suggestion that this method is singular and the idea that this method somehow allows scientists to "determine a truth" (whatever that means).

You are practicing philosophy of a crude sort simply by starting this thread, without even being aware that you are doing it. Philosophy is part of the human condition, it's unavoidable. So you seem to be calling for everyone to do it unconsciously and instinctively, instead of thoughtfully and explicitly.

I can't agree with that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It isn't just France, it's spreading world-wide. Here in America it's the literature departments that are introducing it. In many universities, the literature department has become kind of an alternative philosophy department, where literary criticism has expanded to become cultural criticism in general. Britain actually has 'Cultural Studies' programs in its universities that host the same thing. The names they throw around, besides the inevitable Heidegger, Nietzsche and the Frankfort School, are typically a blizzard of always changing trendy French theorists. (Derrida was big a while back, I have no idea who is currently topping the charts)

I'm guessing that Crcata lives somewhere where that kind of 'philosophy' has taken hold. From reading his posts I don't think that he has had a lot of academic exposure to philosophy, but I'm guessing that whatever exposure to philosophy he's had on the street was largely philosophy of this highly moralistic and highly alienated 'post-modern' variety.

He compares that to science which has an intellectual clarity and precision which he likes. And he concludes that philosophy is bullshit. In a way, I wouldn't blame him if he's doing that. I tend to agree.

But I don't think that kind of view is fair to the history of philosophy, or to the 'analytical' philosophy still prevalent in the English-speaking world and in Scandinavia I guess.

Interestingly, there's an underground of philosophers these days in France that practice Anglophone-style analytical philosophy and publish in the English-language journals. Probably most of the philosophy of science in France is practiced in the analytical mode and addresses the same philosophical issues that British, American and Australian philosophers address. It isn't all existentialist-style cafe-philosophy practiced by literary figures under clouds of cigarette smoke.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re last sentence, you read my mind! Derrida, Foucault et. al.

 

IOW, you claim to engage in the very intellectual activity which you're bashing in general. Thanks for biting the whole works. Especially when a "lure-cliche" can sometimes just garner nibble results when it comes to exposing yet another proposal of self-conflict and misconception-heavy gibberish.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Er, whut?

What is a "lure-cliche"?

And what does it mean to say it can "garner nibble results". Is "nibble" being used as an adjective here? To mean what?

And what do you mean by a "proposal of self-conflict"? Who is making such a proposal and what does it mean?

Can you translate all this into normal, comprehensible English?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well it was!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Unlike some of our pure philosophical friends and the unrealistic stand they have taken, your own comments were far more prudent and applicable.

 

??? You don't believe the OP contains some proposal prescribing against philosophical activity? Is that the problem, or something else? "Self-conflict" probably should have been clarified or expressed as "a proposal in conflict with itself".

??? "Cliche" isn't synonymous enough with "common theme"? I would expect the associations of "lure", "nibble", and "biting" in a certain figurative context would be well known to most. But perhaps some outdoor sports have become unfamiliar in this sheltered era.

 

My hovercraft is full of eels.

 

Philosophy ; in the end ; questions ; hence irritating in a good way ; is forces those indoctrinated with common thinking ; therefore common thought ; to actually think and question ; what the common knows.

 

An anti-intellectual movement can't even promote itself or prescribe negatively against its "enemy" without stepping its foot back into the tools, elements, and activities of the very thing it detests. Now it could dispense "treasured gems" of the commonsense folk world that lack a critical provenance like "Because I say so" and "Because it is obvious" and the classic "I have a big stick for beating the population into agreement with me". But this is hopefully too enlightened an era for the arbitrary barking to impress people for long and the last is an outright admission of knuckle-dragging, brute persuasion rather than argument.

Philosophical undertakings indeed involve the questioning and studying of human-invented systems and our documentations and representational approaches to whichever non-artificial items, objects, etc. But philosophy subsumes a variety of schools of thought which have outputted some of those very constructs and "oughts" which it re-visits and refines / contributes to further. Philosophical activity (in whatever setting, genre, enterprise, or context it occurs) works from or can be viewed itself as the general level of ideation and consistency that is "prior in rank" (both hierarchically and historically) to the specific limited-in-scope systems, schemes, ideologies, and methodologies which that "first" stratum of systematic reasoning and creative formulation has outputted over time. [Including giving formal description to "arrangements" that fell in unplanned-fashion from developing social interactions and situations.]

 

@CC
I understand you likely resent my strong opinions, but I have already mentioned that it is the extremes that bother me, not philosophy in general. My OP did not clarify this for reasons I have already stated.

And I wasn't really admitting to engaging in the thing that I am bashing, seeing as I am bashing the "extremes" of philosophy more so than philosophy itself, make the distinction. Again, although my initial post did not represent this well, I have since clarified it and there is no excuse as to not understand that at this point in the thread.

The argument that "philosophy is in everything you do" does not in anyway justify it being used in such ridiculous ways and used as ridiculous arguments such I have previously mentioned. It is here...pressed to the extremes that philosophy completely loses any credibility with me. I completely am fine with the idea of thinking for yourself and not being "indoctrintated" and the basic idea of philosophy. But when simple, very universal terms and beliefs are questioned for no apparent reason other than to be difficult, OR to avoid losing an argument because reason and logic have failed you so you turn to some philosophical or semantical argument of "I'm not wrong because nothing is certain" is where I take issue.

Why do I take issue with this? Because we live in a world where we have a society, and in this society we have to play nice with other people, whom have other culters, beliefs, customes, etc. In order to do that we have to have a set of ground rules that we can agree upon and methods of enforcing those rules. We also have to have people with applicable skill sets, and knowledge that can be applied in practical ways to help us live and thrive. Philosophy, or just the idea of critically thinking, plays its part in us thriving. But when stupid people with no applicable skills or knowledge in various fields attempt to falsify various issues beliefs or topics that they have no real experience or knowledge of, not with reason or logic, but because the rest of us are sheep and they apparently are the enlightened thinkers, it serves to annoy. In addition to annoy, it really seems to serve no purpose other than strain relations, and HINDER progress rather than expedite it.

Yazata
I'm sure you dont mean any harm or annoyance by your post, so forgive me if I come off as annoyed. But, let me explain.

If we are to have any chance at a reasonable talk here, you HAVE to be able to have the deductive skills or common sense to know what I mean when I use the word "truth", specifically when I use it in the context of this thread and that particular statement. These types of requests in arguments that I have had in the past, where universal statements or words are asked to be defined...using words that they then ask to define...using words..(you get the point) is at the top of my list when it comes to how to drive me up the wall lol. (I'm truly not trying to bash you though). And yes, I do absolutely believe that the scientific method is able to come as close to the truth as humanly possible (in most circumstances) to provide a truth that we can then apply in the "real world" in a practical way. IE. Determining how to cure sicknesses and what not.

I may have come off as insulting, and if it does not apply to you then dont be offended, but there are absolutely people whom that insult fits perfectly for and although I do try to advocate friendliness in talks/debates/in general when I can, I have passed reached my point of tolerance for those people.

Common Sense is something that is obviously only applicable in the broadest of ways, but it is in these ways that are, what appears to be PURPOSEFULLY ignored.

How do I know the answer? Well in that particular sense I meant essentially at its most ridiculous, right and wrong, good and bad is determined by the individual. Thinking about it any further doesn't really serve a purpose. That doesn't mean that we dont come together and make rules as a society that ultimately determine what is right or wrong, and how we enforce it, just that there are many issues that we already know are strictly opinion and no further thought will ever change that.

And I have to agree with you if I am being honest with myself, I do want truths, that are definitive. But that is an overly simplistic way to sum up my motives. I just dont have the time at the moment to continue further into that.

I want to end this post on a good note however, and say that I do like your definition, as well as many others here. My irritation made me inaccurately portray my true feelings on the subject in my initial post and I hope I have since clarified my position on the subject and hope it is not as unreasonable to you guys as some in my past has made it out to be.

Also, this forum seems really good so far. Alot of good talks going on...and alot of arguments that start at A and end at 3...LOL. I have seen a few threads where people are arguing about completely different things and dont even realize it. Ill try to avoid those threads, but overall I am genuinely impressed and perhaps this forum will help me sort some things out in my own head lol.

 

Also I pretty much agree completely with this.

 

You keep referring to this "extreme" use of questioning and philosophical thinking as if there is a well known limit that must not be trangressed. Who decides when there has been enough questioning of our common sense judgments? Why are people who push inquiry into such soul-searching reflections to be deemed "stupid"? Does it bother you to question your own assumptions about what is right or wrong? Why? Don't you want to reason out your own reasons for doing things? Remember that in any case you have the right to decide when there has been enough introspection and it is time to act or to reach a conclusion. You are always free to do that.

 

Magical Realist
There absolutely is...or should be, well known limits not to be transgressed. IE, killing each other for the sake of killing, is wrong. Yes, you could add your own details into this blanket statement to try and find a grey area, as most do. But that statement is universal and to argue against it is...stupid. I could go on with dozens of examples but there is not enough time in the world for me to cover every single possible scenario or topic to determine if something falls into that category. Apply common sense that many claim doesn't exist, and I think you will have at least an idea of what other examples I would deem fitting of the word "extreme".

I dont know how many times I have to stress that I don't mind "reasoning out my own reasons for doing things", that its the extremes that bother me. And you are currently being an example of what drives me nuts lol. How the hell do I define "extreme" to you in a way that would be acceptable? The short answer I think is its impossible, because our language just doesn't fit philosophical debate to that extreme. I could define it to you, and you would come up with a scenarios and exceptions as if that completely falsifies any definition I give you. Or, ask me to then define the words im using to define extreme...and so on so forth. We simply cant have a talk if you can't deduce what I mean when I say "extreme".

 

Seems to me "extreme" in your case is whatever pushes your patience past it's breaking point. That's a difficult moral standard to objectify for everyone else. Why not just say--I've decided for myself that this is the right or wrong thing to do? Why do you need to moralize your own personal intolerance for opposing ethical views?

 

Well you are objectively wrong if that is what you think my stance is.

I've given an example of what I would deem as extreme, and it is not an unreasonable standard. In fact it is something that is almost completely universal. If you can't, or most likely refuse to understand that for the sake of argument. Then we probably have little more to discuss.

 

I think the relevant observation to make to you at this point is: "Do not adjust your set".

Anyone who finds Magic Realist annoying can't be all bad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!