Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy is Role Play

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» Philosophy is Role Play

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players..."

I think that logic (non-formal) is merely persuasion, some of it more persuasive than the rest.

I think that man is a status -seeking primate and that man wants status more than truth. I think man only wants truth for two reasons. 1. In the pragmatic sense, to feed breed and fight, etc. 2. As a pseudo-religious myth, as a claim to status.

I think that many of those who pride themselves on their rigorous connection to "objective" reality do so as a form of unconscious heroic role-play. They are the altar boys of truth, ever so much closer to their God than those who live on faith. (I think we live on persuasion - which is not, by any means, the opposite of faith.

But much of religion is a similar form of status-seeking role-play/ bluff.

And this post itself is confessedly just that. Elitism is inescapable. Just ask those who sneer at elitism.
:sarcastic:
Discuss?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;107221 wrote:

"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players..."

I think that logic (non-formal) is merely persuasion, some of it more persuasive than the rest.

I think that man is a status -seeking primate and that man wants status more than truth. I think man only wants truth for two reasons. 1. In the pragmatic sense, to feed breed and fight, etc. 2. As a pseudo-religious myth, as a claim to status.

I think that many of those who pride themselves on their rigorous connection to "objective" reality do so as a form of unconscious heroic role-play. They are the altar boys of truth, ever so much closer to their God than those who live on faith. (I think we live on persuasion - which is not, by any means, the opposite of faith.

But much of religion is a similar form of status-seeking role-play/ bluff.

And this post itself is confessedly just that. Elitism is inescapable. Just ask those who sneer at elitism.
:sarcastic:
Discuss?

It would be certainly nice if good arguments persuaded. Unfortunately, people are not as rational as that. Bad arguments often persuade, and good arguments often fail to persuade. Alas!

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;107221 wrote:

... I think that man is a status -seeking primate and that man wants status more than truth. I think man only wants truth for two reasons. 1. In the pragmatic sense, to feed breed and fight, etc. 2. As a pseudo-religious myth, as a claim to status..."

You're probably correct to an extent. On the other hand, I've always found guessing at others' motives to be problematic at best (one mind, trapt in their own bias, guessing on the intent of another's that cannot be fully known). One thing struck me in your expressions, though...

Reconstructo;107221 wrote:

I think that many of those who pride themselves on their rigorous connection to "objective" reality do so...

Does anybody really believe that they have such a rigorous connection to objective reality any more? Is there anyone reading this that would stand and admit, "Yes! All that I perceive is what objectively IS"? It seems to me beyond dispute that although there is usually an objective basis for all that we experience, in that objective reality; because of what we are, none of our perceptions should be taken as absolute.

Good thread though - I love the concept metaphilosophy.

Thanks

@Khethil,

Khethil;107289 wrote:

Is there anyone reading this that would stand and admit, "Yes! All that I perceive is what objectively IS"?
Good thread though - I love the concept metaphilosophy.

Thanks

Of course not, unless that person believes he is infallible, and can never err.

There are several philosophical journals that have the name, "metaphilosophy". It just means, "about philosophy".

@kennethamy,

My attack is focused on what I call the scientistic type. Blind and arrogant in regards to the value of religion and art, unconsciously dressed up in the robes of the priest themselves. One could describe me as a neo-pragmatist. I have no beef with reality or common sense, only with the prejudices of those declare themselves the enemies of prejudice.

Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;107349 wrote:

My attack is focused on what I call the scientistic type. Blind and arrogant in regards to the value of religion and art, unconsciously dressed up in the robes of the priest themselves. One could describe me as a neo-pragmatist. I have no beef with reality or common sense, only with the prejudices of those declare themselves the enemies of prejudice.

How can one step the 'scientistic types' out of the their 'priestly robes'? How can they be shown the value of religion or art? How does one begin to approach this problem? Must the scientistic types be offered another role to play than that of 'scientistic priest'?

@PappasNick,

This general theme runs through the forum often, and every time I feel like saying, heck yeah! There are so many things about behavior, socio-politics, psychology, mysticism, language etc... that are just not conventionally logical. I have issues with people trying to put square pegs in round holes.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;107705 wrote:

This general theme runs through the forum often, and every time I feel like saying, heck yeah! There are so many things about behavior, socio-politics, psychology, mysticism, language etc... that are just not conventionally logical. I have issues with people trying to put square pegs in round holes.

What does "conventionally logical" mean? Have you an example or two?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;107713 wrote:

What does "conventionally logical" mean? Have you an example or two?

Logic is just rife with conventions. What do you think a syllogism is if not a convention?

Logic is predicated on propositions, although some have proposed that it's all about predication.

My favorite philosopher, Jose Ortega y Gasset, says that logic, like mathematics, should be considered to be a branch of poetry, only with stricter rules.

What is the Forum if not a convention? Isn't that "coventionally logical"?

@longknowledge,

Ken:
would you rather I had said formal, scientistic, institutional, endemically assumed, popular? Conventional, that which is indoctrinated by popular convention. That which is esteemed highly as the epitome of reason but rarely expressed in behavior.

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;107725 wrote:

Logic is just rife with conventions. What do you think a syllogism is if not a convention?

Logic is predicated on propositions, although some have proposed that it's all about predication.

My favorite philosopher, Jose Ortega y Gasset, says that logic, like mathematics, should be considered to be a branch of poetry, only with stricter rules.

What is the Forum if not a convention? Isn't that "coventionally logical"?

I don't know what you mean by saying that the syllogism is a convention, and I don't know what it means to say that something is "conventionally logical" either. What has propositions to do with it?

Yes, I am aware that Ortega is your favorite philosopher. Why should logic be considered a branch of poetry? I didn't know poetry had branches anyway?

By the way, I wonder how much Ortega knew about logic, or in the philosophy of logic. I was not aware he was trained in logic. Were you?

@Reconstructo,

Self-satisfaction. Consciousness of a lack. Assimilation of the lack, by means of study. Repeat. <---This is how the scientistic can become the scientific.

For the few that don't get it: logic isn't bad, but a mind is limited who doesn't see the gulf between a precise mechanistic system (logic) and the nebulous organic system of human life -- which is to a great degree metaphorical.

I can't take any system of logic seriously that does not take the logos seriously by treating it as if it were math. It's a tragic-comic absurdity for anyone to play the
"voice of logic" who has not considered the logos.

On the same foot, it seems childishly naive to seperate motive from epistemology. Some mistake their idolization of Truth as the will-to-truth, but I suggest that the will-to-truth is a secondary motive. But I find the phrase "will to power" imperfect. I prefer to say "will to play the hero." And this heroism can take many forms, some apparently the opposite of others. We must infer the archetype from its contingent manifestations.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;107773 wrote:

I don't know what you mean by saying that the syllogism is a convention, and I don't know what it means to say that something is "conventionally logical" either. What has propositions to do with it?

Haven't you heard of Propositional Logic?

Quote:

By the way, I wonder how much Ortega knew about logic, or in the philosophy of logic. I was not aware he was trained in logic.

Ortega not only was trained in Logic but he invented a new type of Logic called Vital or Historical Logic. Unfortunately, it was lost during the Spanish-American War, when he went into exile in Germany!

Quote:

Were you?

I am self-trained in Combinatory Logic, Default Logic, Deontic Logic, Deviant Logic, Dynamic Logic, Epistemic Logic, Erotetic Logic, Formal Logic, Free Logic, Higher-Order Logic, Infinitary Logic, Informal Logic, Intensional Logic, Many-Valued Logic, Mathematical Logic, Modal Logic, Non-Monotonic Logic, Ordinal Logic, Pluralitive Logic, hsiloP gicoL, Predicate Logic, Quantum Logic, Relational Logic, Second-Order Logic, Symbolic Logic, Tense Logic, Terminist Logic and Three-Valued Logic (See Many-Valued Logic). Oops! Well, those are the ones listed in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 509-510. It seems "illogical" that there's no "Monotonic Logic," nor an article on "Logic" by itself, and they left out "Common Sense." That would be too "conventional" I guess.

Which "branch" of Logic were you trained in?

Quote:

Yes, I am aware that Ortega is your favorite philosopher.

You should be by now.

Quote:

Why should logic be considered a branch of poetry?

Logic, and Mathematics as well, can both be considered branches of poetry because they are both fictional but follow certain rules. Other types of fiction, such as Novels and Plays are too "unruly" to be considered branches of poetry.

Quote:

I didn't know poetry had branches anyway?

aanst aants aasnt aastn aatns aatsn
anast anats ansat ansta antas antsa
asant asatn asnat asnta astan astna
atans atasn atnas atnsa atsan atsna
naast naats nasat nasta natas natsa
nsaat nsata nstaa saant saatn sanat
santa satan satna snaat snata staan
stana stnaa taans taasn tanas tansa
tnaas tnasa tnsaa tsaan tsana tsnaa

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!
　

@Reconstructo,

This thread, with our witting or unwitting participation, is attempting to "prove" itself.

@Reconstructo,

We're on a role!

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;108235 wrote:

Which "branch" of Logic were you trained in?

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!
　

Just plain old logic.

@Reconstructo,

What is the task of philosophy? A person's answer to this question will almost always coincide with what it is they think that they themselves are good for. And this is not an accusation, for to accuse a human of narcissism is as silly as accusing him of hunger. Of course a status seeking predator will seek a symbolic connection to power.

But the world is a collision of opinions, and we tear one another down. So a person is motivated to adjust their ideal of virtue according to the idea of their idiosyncratic strengths. You could call it a dialectic of self-concept and self-ideal. Both are often edited, though not usually in a drastic way.

The goal is a sense of power, transcendence, status, etc. The goal is to be a superior ape -- and this sometimes means a negation of all that is more obviously ape.

The great philosophers are inventors of conceptual power tools. Kant used his jackhammer on the traditional meta-physicians, for instance. And yet all he really offered were suggestions, persuasions. They are not "true" until we call them "true." In the same way, a bible-thumper lives in a world created by a personal god. As individual humans we can believe all we want that our conceptual image of reality is the "right" one. But we are usually not content with this. We want to impose our notion of heroism on the tribe, and any version of reality has this notion of heroism as its kernel.

All roads lead to the exceptional human being. Is he righteous? Is he a rationalist or an empiricist? A realist or a nominalist? Is he analytic or a synthesizer? A bleeding heart of a ruthless neo-cortex? Is he inspired or thorough? Is he a philosopher or a poet? Does he claim to be both? Neither? Does he pride himself on humility? Does he pride himself on his pride? Does he go in more for gravitas or irony? Ia he dirty jeans or Brooks Brothers? Etc. Etc. Somehow he is faster, stronger, wiser, nicer, sharper, honester, slicker, richer, poorer, purer, complexer, etc. etc. etc.

What virtue(s) is an individual parading? While subtly is considered a effective in such matters, it is still a parade -- and the opposite of a dirty secret. In general, philosophers are as noisy about their virtues as fundamentalist preachers. They are simply more sophisticated.

This is all an application of know thyself, eh?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108476 wrote:

The goal is to be a superior ape -- and this sometimes means a negation of all that is more obviously ape.

What of the possibility that philosophy is a non-competitive endeavor? What does holding such a view say about a person in the light of what you have articulated?

@Reconstructo,

I like Bertrand Russell's definition:

Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts that it raises; is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling our certainty, as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect- Bertrand Russell

Philosophy is rational speculation. The key terms being both "rational" and "speculation". Philosophy is not restricted to formal logic, analysis of language or speculations which can be verified (logical positivism) or falsified (science).

@PappasNick,

Prothero:
Good post. Philosophy as Role Play is only one of my conceptions of philosophy. Philosophy as Conceptual Poetry (which I consider a better description) is a neglected thread. Philosophy needs to remember that science in its arrogance doesn't need it much. I want philosophy to stick closer to its conceptual role, its ability to open minds, to redescribe man and his concerns in completely novel ways. I want philosophy to enlarge experience.

PappasNick:

You ask a good question. Indeed, if I were not at peace with my own selfishness. ambition, etc. then I would not be comfortable with such a view.

It was actually a study of my own narcissism, as well as the narcissism of others, that led me to my theory of role-play.

For me, neither selfishness nor narcissism have a negative connotation. My selfishness is good when it is compatible with the selfishness of others. In the same way my narcissism is good when it is sublimated into creativity, for instance. As I role-play the writer, I offer words.

It's not that philosophy is competitive (although it often is) but rather that humanity is competitive. But sometimes it's a competition to see who can be least competitive.
The flag to be captured varies, but there is always a flag to be captured. There is always a virtue to incarnate. Find me a man without some claim on virtue. Oh there he is right now. He said he's the only man alive who doesn't seek virtue of some sort. But this is his virtue.

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» Philosophy is Role Play

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Philosophy is Role Play

Quick Links

My Account

able2know