Disrespect of philosophy

@UnMechanics,

I think philosophers themselves have a little to do with it. They are often so insular and self-referential that philosophy can become not only exclusionary but off-putting as well.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I think philosophers themselves have a little to do with it. They are often so insular and self-referential that philosophy can become not only exclusionary but off-putting as well.

I agree wholeheartedly, I've had a hard time getting any teachers to debate me and prove their worth beyond their memorization and class manipulation skills.

The Abolitionist Society :: View topic - Abstract human beings (Philosophers)

I wish everyone who purported to be a philosopher was willing to put their personal theories and axioms on the line for all to debate.

@Aedes,

Aedes;42165 wrote:

There were a lot of 16th and 17th century scientists in Europe (and hundreds of years earlier in Islamic lands) who were already practicing empirical science. It's only British Empiricism that decided to make an epistemological discourse out of it.

I mean Vesalius, Harvey, Newton, Hooke, Boyle all did quite well for themselves, all being among the towering giants in the birth of science. Only Francis Bacon (of the empiricists) was a contemporary of some of the later ones, and while he was hugely influential, it was mainly on later generations.

Quite so. On the other hand, one can make the same argument about every area of philosophy; that is, people were practicing logic, ethical behavior, metaphysical contemplation, aesthetic appreciation, etc. long before anybody ever categorized or formalized principles about them.

In some ways philosophy is a communication discipline where, as human understanding has progressed, some worked to convert understandings into principles, terms, and procedures that could be communicated throughout the populace. With terms defined and certain principles agreed upon, we are better able to discuss and explore possibilities.

Empiricism seems just such an endeavor. We can see, for instance, that the "scientific method" was a codification distilled from the best achievements and insights, even if the practical work of research had been going on for centuries.

I suppose it isn't quite accurate to say the British Empiricists "invented" science, yet it also doesn't seem correct to deny their role in systemizing and making more accessible to the public what naturally empirical minds had much earlier intuited was the way. It is sort of like how a natural athlete can intuitively move correctly, but coaches (some of whom can't move nearly as well themselves) study the principles of movement, formulate (or study) principles of proper movement, and then are able to teach many, many more people (especially those of less gifted athletically) how to move properly.

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

Quite so. On the other hand, one can make the same argument about every area of philosophy; that is, people were practicing logic, ethical behavior, metaphysical contemplation, aesthetic appreciation, etc. long before anybody ever categorized or formalized principles about them.

thank you, I had a professor try to tell me that our ability to have values stems from our epistemology

- I guess you get what you pay for at the state colleges...

@Abolitionist,

Abolitionist;42250 wrote:

thank you, I had a professor try to tell me that our ability to have values stems from our epistemology

- I guess you get what you pay for at the state colleges...

Hmmmmmmm. I don't know exactly what he meant, but I can see a way to interpret him that I could agree with.

If we forget about the formal discipline of philosophy (i.e., specifically the discipline of epistemology) and just say that what we value is based on what we know, then I think your professor has a point.

For example, decades ago what I valued as sources of happiness are very different than what I value today. I attribute my change in values to what I've discovered over the years trying to get happiness from my earlier ideas. It didn't work, while other things did. So now what I value is based on what I know.

I have this theory that everybody is trying to feel good, it's our nature. It's just that we have a lot of weird ideas about what will make us feel good. People are out there trying out all kinds of stuff, from drugs and getting rich to blowing themselves up in the name of God. How much of it makes them really feel good? Well, the state of the world suggests that we've not figured it out yet.

If we really "knew" what achieves lasting happiness and contentment, that would be one hell of an epistemology, and something we'd likely value with all our hearts.

@UnMechanics,

Epistemology is the way we look at the world. Unfortunately it is culturally determined therefore relative.

@goethe10,

goethe10 wrote:

Epistemology is the way we look at the world. Unfortunately it is culturally determined therefore relative.

Not so. True epistemology has to do with how we know if we know (versus merely "thinking" we know). So far, the only two confirmed types of knowing are achieved through tautologies and direct experience.

We "know" a tautology is true because the truth of it is contained in the logic of the statement: if all x's are purple, then that particular x must be purple.

We "know" through experience reflects what is true (as, for example, when applied in empirical observation) because anyone in the world can repeat our steps and experience the same thing.

Some culture might decree we ignore these understandings about knowing, but that doesn't change the realities of epistemology. The way I would put then is that actual knowing, and therefore epistemology, is absolute, not relative; however, what people decide to accept can very much be determined by cultural norms.

@UnMechanics,

Kant asked the question:"Can synthetic propositions be known apriori?" But we would not ask the same question today. We would maybe ask:"Are the propositions of logic and math necessarily true or true by convention only?". It would be a matter of language not psychology! The limits of our language are the limits of our world and all propositions are stated linguistically. We are all spiders caught in the web of language. There are as many webs as the various spiders that weave them. We create our own worlds by the language that we use. A lot of webs resemble one and other and some not so much. Epistemology is a relative thing.

@goethe10,

goethe10;44582 wrote:

Kant asked the question:"Can synthetic propositions be known apriori?" But we would not ask the same question today. We would maybe ask:"Are the propositions of logic and math necessarily true or true by convention only?". It would be a matter of language not psychology! The limits of our language are the limits of our world and all propositions are stated linguistically. We are all spiders caught in the web of language. There are as many webs as the various spiders that weave them. We create our own worlds by the language that we use. A lot of webs resemble one and other and some not so much. Epistemology is a relative thing.

Gobbledygook! Are you talking about how we KNOW things occur, or are you talking about how we communicate about them?

It doesn't matter what linguistic limitations we must suffer, either we know or we don't. I might know, but be unable to communicate that I do. Does that mean I don't know, or does it mean that I can't explain how it is that I know?

The "limits of our language is the limits of our world" is the silliest idea ever imagined by philosophers. It's like mathematicians saying nothing is true unless they can represent it with math, or poets demanding all truths be able to be expressed poetically. Why should we listen to such narrow specialists who look at little else but their own disciplines, and then demand we all conform to their self-absorbed views?

Look, just think about this from your own life. Don't you "know" (and trust) best what you have personally experienced? Experience has long demonstrated that through it is the only way anyone really knows. Yet people still flop about speculating on silly crap that dead philosophers (Wittgenstein, et al) never could prove worked.

Experience and know, that's it and nothing more.

@UnMechanics,

I suppose we all have our experience! It is how we interpret experience is what we call knowledge. We are all artists and paint the world in our own image. Who is to judge what is the "true" image of the world?

@goethe10,

goethe10;44631 wrote:

I suppose we all have our experience! It is how we interpret experience is what we call knowledge. We are all artists and paint the world in our own image. Who is to judge what is the "true" image of the world?

You are quite right (in what you say above), but now you have changed the subject. I thought we were talking about epistemology, and here you are talking about interpretation.

Knowing is achieving some degree of certainty. Let's consider a simple example. I claim I know how to extract perfect espresso every time using my methods and espresso machine. How can we find out if I really know, or if I merely "think" I know?

This is why science, the practical application of experientialistic epistemology, has proven to be so valuable. We can test my claim of knowledge by having me pull enough espresso shots on my machine and using my methods, until I've done it consistently enough to establish certainty.

We could instead, as philosophers used to do in the old days, sit around and argue the logic of my methods and the technology I rely on for years without ever deciding anything for certain; but only the observation (i.e., experience) of what I claim is true give us confidence to say "I know."

Yes, you are correct to say someone could put a spin on my test results and interpret my perfect shot of reddish crema as God's hand in things, while someone else might come along to argue with that to say the coffee is mad (i.e., that is why it is red). If so, is what we know compromised?

NO! That's because what we actually know is not dependent on such interpretations. What we actually know is, if we roast certain types of beans medium, if we grind them to a certain fineness, if we press them in a basket with x amount of pressure, if we ensure the espresso machine works at pressure x, if we make sure the water temperature is 195, etc. (i.e., all variable are set to standards) . . . then reddish-brown foamy stuff emerges from the filter holder that stimulates the taste buds in a certain way.

We can put any interpretation or spin on that we want to, but that is a different issue from what we ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED. So I say what we actually experienced is what we know (i.e., procedures and machinery consistently yielding reddish-brown stuff with a certain taste), nothing more or less.

Getting back to if epistemology is relative or not, I don't see how one can believe so and not go insane. It would mean nothing can ever be known, or that what is really and truly known varies from culture to culture.

If anything can be known, then it is achieved through some procedure of consciousness, and that "procedure" is simply to experience. How can I "know" if an ocean is 15 miles west of here? There is only one way I can know, and that is to drive 15 miles west. To save time we do trust others who've made the drive and observed, but why should we trust claims about things where absolutely no one has made the drive, or about someone's claim of a drive that no one else can make to verify?

I'm not saying that absolute knowing can be attained by consciousness, but I am saying that whatever degree of certainty is possible by consciousness is achieved via personal, direct experience of whatever aspect of reality we wish to "know."

@UnMechanics,

"Getting back to if epistemology is relative or not, I don't see how one can believe so and not go insane. It would mean nothing can ever be known, or that what is really and truly known varies from culture to culture. "

If you are arguing that science is practical then I wholeheartedly agree. It works! Yes, old Kant said things in themselves can never be known. That is why he made the leap from pure to practical reason. And Kant is the father of epistemology. Values do very from culture to culture not to mention from individual to individual. Except for a manner of speaking I do not know of anything that is "truly known". There are as many epistemes as there are people in the world.

@UnMechanics,

I saw a coffee mug that said "Don't argue with me, I'm a philosopher"

Anyone that insults a philosopher better be ready for some intellectual smack down.

If they are the kind of people that argue but don't listen to the other side don't waste your time just walk away.

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

Hmmmmmmm. I don't know exactly what he meant, but I can see a way to interpret him that I could agree with.

If we forget about the formal discipline of philosophy (i.e., specifically the discipline of epistemology) and just say that what we value is based on what we know, then I think your professor has a point.

For example, decades ago what I valued as sources of happiness are very different than what I value today. I attribute my change in values to what I've discovered over the years trying to get happiness from my earlier ideas. It didn't work, while other things did. So now what I value is based on what I know.

I have this theory that everybody is trying to feel good, it's our nature. It's just that we have a lot of weird ideas about what will make us feel good. People are out there trying out all kinds of stuff, from drugs and getting rich to blowing themselves up in the name of God. How much of it makes them really feel good? Well, the state of the world suggests that we've not figured it out yet.

If we really "knew" what achieves lasting happiness and contentment, that would be one hell of an epistemology, and something we'd likely value with all our hearts.

why do we have epistemology and create the distinctions that we do?

because of our values

core values stay the same while objectives or means to fulfill those values change with our understanding and capabilities

only in the literary form (different words)
are ethics and epistemology distinct

----------------

on a different note, I think philosophy has become too disempowering and that's why many don't think it's valuable

it should focus more on critical thinking skills, and ways to accomplish one's values

than on historical figures and paradigms

@Abolitionist,

Abolitionist wrote:

on a different note, I think philosophy has become too disempowering and that's why many don't think it's valuable. It should focus more on critical thinking skills, and ways to accomplish one's values

Philosophy is useless without a means to communicate itself. Journal articles, books, and symposia pretty much stay within academia. If you want philosophy to influence something other than philosophers, then you need communication skills.

That's why philosophy exerts its influence via popular culture, or through scientists, or through politicians, or through artists, or through religious figures, etc. It does not exert influence just by virtue of having good ideas.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Philosophy is useless without a means to communicate itself. Journal articles, books, and symposia pretty much stay within academia. If you want philosophy to influence something other than philosophers, then you need communication skills.

That's why philosophy exerts its influence via popular culture, or through scientists, or through politicians, or through artists, or through religious figures, etc. It does not exert influence just by virtue of having good ideas.

Though to be fair, good ideas tend to get out by themselves, even if they have to resort to being stolen.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Philosophy is useless without a means to communicate itself. Journal articles, books, and symposia pretty much stay within academia. If you want philosophy to influence something other than philosophers, then you need communication skills.

That's why philosophy exerts its influence via popular culture, or through scientists, or through politicians, or through artists, or through religious figures, etc. It does not exert influence just by virtue of having good ideas.

yes, people respond to what they feel is empowering

many don't like philosophy because it makes them feel bad

and they are ruled by their attributional errors so will support something that their cultural authority figures tell them to

(or whatever they use neuro linguistic programming to make them believe)

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7;45678 wrote:

good ideas tend to get out by themselves

They get out somehow, but it's usually by incorporation into mass media outlets.

Abolitionist;45683 wrote:

yes, people respond to what they feel is empowering

many don't like philosophy because it makes them feel bad

I'm not so sure about this. I think people don't like philosophy because it's 1) inaccessible and 2) doesn't convey to laypeople what it's important for. You need to surmount these two in order for it to make one feel bad.

And trust me that laypeople are extremely philosophical unto themselves -- I see people in times of great stress, and they do ponder abstract and eternal questions. So I think people are "primed" to receive philosophical ideas if delivered in the right way.

@Abolitionist,

Abolitionist wrote:

on a different note, I think philosophy has become too disempowering and that's why many don't think it's valuable

it should focus more on critical thinking skills, and ways to accomplish one's values

than on historical figures and paradigms

I think you hit on the main reason why most people shun philosophy. By focusing on historical philosophers and paradigms it appears to be impractical. Much like its close cousin history, philosophy appears to many to be little more than trivial. In other words, most people do not care about who said what, when they said it, and what they said.

On the other hand, philosophy a very useful tool, because both logic and ethics are necessary in modern society. I believe the world has so many problems today, because logic is not used enough, and most people's ethics do not stretch beyond their friends and family. By not using logic, and by not using deliberation to decide what to do or not to do, much of society is left to rely on chance and luck.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

They get out somehow, but it's usually by incorporation into mass media outlets.

Plato would be pissed...

Philosophy Forum

Disrespect of philosophy

Quick Links

My Account

able2know