Defusing subjectivism

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

When does one becomes a philosopher?

After one has acquired a degree from a reputable University, of course. :shifty:

@Zetherin,

Wittgenstein is the major influence to my disdain toward certain kinds of philosophizing. If I notice any of the following I become suspicious and spiteful (in varying degrees); I'm not wholly indiscriminate with my animosity:

Platonicity
Grandiose Existentialism (High school existentialist) -- "What's the meaning of it all?"
Embellishing and speculative metaphysics
Vulgar Postmodernism
Vulgar relativism
Armchair philosophizing
Antagonism to proper philosophizing
Philosophy as a matter of history (so-and-so says as if authoritative (no personal reflection on it, nothing substantive from one's own mouth))
Philosophy as a matter of anthropology
Philosophizing under the Scientific (Method)
Implicit or explicit grotesque abuses of logical grammar
Game Show Ethics
Flagrant poetics as philosophy

I could explain them all, and this list certainly is not exhaustive. This, though, for the most part, is what I consider "grab-assing." But to immediately address "armchair philosophizing": I mean a particular thing by this, which is the strict sense in which the logical positivists and Kant meant. "Armchair philosophizing" under their view was any kind of philosophizing that shamelessly flouted the (weak) verification principle in making (obviously) empirical statements a priori. So, propositions like "Everybody's subconscious determines who they will love." This is obviously an empirical proposition. Its truth-conditions, whether it has any (given that "subconscious" needs real definition), surely cannot be known a priori.

@nerdfiles,

I can't say that I would be aware if I had engaged in any of those.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I can't say that I would be aware if I had engaged in any of those.

Yeah, I know...I better watch my step more carefully from now on. Don't want to be accused of IMPROPER philosophizing.

:sarcastic:

@rhinogrey,

rhinogrey wrote:

Yeah, I know...I better watch my step more carefully from now on. Don't want to be accused of IMPROPERphilosophizing.

:sarcastic:

Meh, there were so many qualifiers in that list that I tend to be both suspicious and spiteful.

@nerdfiles,

So nerdfiles list essentially says that the only philosophy worth anything is analytic philosophy. In other words, philosophy is reduced to essentially a pointless game that attempts to remove critical thinking from the context from which it arose.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

So nerdfiles list essentially says that the only philosophy worth anything is analytic philosophy. In other words, philosophy is reduced to essentially a pointless game that attempts to remove critical thinking from the context from which it arose.

Yea, I wasn't too happy to see that list either. I think that I know where he's coming from for most of those items. But it feels sooooo judgmental, so aloof and damning.

I really believe that the more philosophy's methods, precepts, concepts and structure are disseminated among us 'common folk', the more it can do for all of us. From what I've seen, those who assume an air of elite aristocracy rarely have the perspective and experience to justify such an assumption. I don't know that's what's going on here, but it 'feels' like it

Thanks

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

Wittgenstein is the major influence to my disdain toward certain kinds of philosophizing.

Wittgenstein was exacting and he was brilliant. He wasn't disdainful.

nerdfiles wrote:

If I notice any of the following I become suspicious and spiteful (in varying degrees)

The sheer hubris and arrogance of this statement and the ensuing list is far more sophomoric than you can possibly recognize. The BEST of philosophy builds bridges and comes to common understandings, partly via a recognition of our chronic questions. The WORST of philosophy is disdainful of dissent, is disdainful of common thought, and needs to be "right".

[quote]Platonicity[/quote]One of the most literary, accessible, and interesting of all philosophers, including to people with a limited background. His philosophy is also not very technical. Maybe Plato was overly dogmatized via the church, but his eternal appeal and thought-provoking ideas continue to be worthy.
[quote]Grandiose Existentialism (High school existentialist) -- "What's the meaning of it all?"[/quote]Funny how the major global influence on modern existentialism was the period encompassing the first and second world wars, including genocide and atomic weaponry. In a world with a nuclear arms race and industrial gas chambers, in which we recoil with horror at the things we humans can do to each other, the question "What's the meaning of it all?" is perhaps the central question of our time.
[quote]Embellishing and speculative metaphysics[/quote]Wittgenstein did some damage to metaphysics, as have many other 20th century philosophers. But that makes metaphysical questions all the more interesting to discuss.
[quote]Vulgar Postmodernism[/quote]Wittgenstein was a vulgar modernist, so I can see why you'd disdain vulgar postmodernists. You also fail to acknowledge that postmodernism is as much a type of cultural self-awareness (as manifest through arts and literature) as it is a philosophy.
[quote]Vulgar relativism[/quote]What do we have if not our own perspective? We can certainly argue against an "anarchic" take on it, but if you're going to fundamentally take on vulgar realism, then you yourself are going to be guilty of embellishing metaphysics.
[quote]Armchair philosophizing[/quote]That's the type of philosophy that 99.9999% of the world engages in, as does 99.9998% of this forum.
[quote]Antagonism to proper philosophizing[/quote]Maybe we should philosophize about the term "proper".
[quote]Philosophy as a matter of history
Philosophy as a matter of anthropology
Philosophizing under the Scientific (Method)
Implicit or explicit grotesque abuses of logical grammar
Game Show Ethics
Flagrant poetics as philosophy[/quote]Philosophy occupies a lot of contexts -- historical, anthropological, etc. If you disdain them all, then you miss the point of what role philosophy has actually played in humanity. I mean what is philosophy worth without context? In fact, it's sort of a nihilism unto itself to slice away humanity from philosophy, only leaving you and Ludwig left behind -- i.e. everything else is not only bereft of meaning but worthy of your spite.

nerdfiles wrote:

But to immediately address "armchair philosophizing": I mean a particular thing by this, which is the strict sense in which the logical positivists and Kant meant. "Armchair philosophizing" under their view was any kind of philosophizing that shamelessly flouted the (weak) verification principle in making (obviously) empirical statements a priori.

Yet that is the ROOT of all philosophy. We are all armchair philosophers first and a systematic philosopher second. You may consider this statement to be an empirical statement a priori, but it's easy to take for granted (or demonstrate).

Kant is hardly the one to criticize armchair philosophy when he thought he could understand the world while barely knowing another human being in his entire life. What did he know of humanity? What justifies his -- or your -- disdain for amateur philosophy, or imprecise use of (what turns out to be) a technical lexicon?

You need to take fewer philosophy courses and go join the Peace Corps or something.

@Aedes,

Quote:

That's the type of philosophy that 99.9999% of the world engages in, as does 99.9998% of this forum.

HA! I win I'm the 0.0000001% I sawed all the arms off mah chairs!

@nerdfiles,

You added two extra significant figures -- you're way off the bell curve :p

@Aedes,

that just makes me more unique, one of the few philosophers practical enough to bipass all that messing reading and thinking and skipping straight to the title.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles;56272 wrote:

It cannot even yield the conclusion that we are more solidly justified in having factual beliefs than moral ones;

Under the premise of subjectivism, would such justification not be subjective?

nerdfiles;56272 wrote:

or on more objective ground in pursuing a factual question than pursuing a moral one; or objectively justified in seeking the truth about anything; or in trying to find scientific explanations of phenomena rather than resting content with superstition.

That's the point subjectivists make though isn't it? Subjectivism doesn't claim that it's on more objective ground for ___, because it doesn't take a objective stance in such matters. This statement just seems to be an affirmation towards the opposed view.

nerdfiles;56272 wrote:

For all it gave us was that factual and scientific beliefs were objective; that we should seek factual or scientific beliefs is not itself a factual or scientific belief.

I don't see at all where this quote "defuses" subjectivism.

@Persona phil,

Subjectivism is just the nihilistic stage after shedding dualism.

It's just another symptom of bruised egos, similar to New Age mysticism.

"My ideas are not true. Therefore, no truth exists."

Philosophy Forum

Defusing subjectivism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know