Philosophy is Role Play

@Reconstructo,

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;108650] 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. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;108476]

We want to impose our notion of heroism on the tribe, and any version of reality has this notion of heroism as its kernel.

[/QUOTE]

The Shadow of that status seeking behavior we call competition is the fear of losing. This is the fear of being dismissed and cast away or considered useless by the rest of the tribe. The pariah is the Shadow of the hero.

Through competition we prove our relative worth compared to the rest of the tribe. I know a lot of people who compete, but only enough to be sure that they will not be voted off the proverbial island. They have no apparent desire to be the hero and capture the flag. For people such as this, steering clear of ostracism and exclusion from the tribe is a stronger motivator than the will to be heroic.

Seeking to remain accepted but not necessarily to become exceptional is possibly more representative of human nature than the heroic spirit.

However, I think that there are some, including many philosophers, who tend to be of the genuinely heroic type and genuinely want to be exceptional if not in the eyes of others then at least in their own eyes.

One last thing, status seeking and also its Shadow, ostracism avoidance, are necessarily related to social activity. What about hermits? Do hermits seek status? I'm thinking of a Nietzsche quote: "To live alone one must be an animal or a god, says Aristotle. There is yet a third case: one must be both - a philosopher."

@Reconstructo,

Excellent post. But Nietzsche was born posthumously. By that I meant he sure wanted his books read. And they are great books. I think it was a terrible disappointment for him to be ignored. He had that brief taste of notoriety, and was then just ignored. That is until he was too out-of-it to enjoy his fame.

Good post, by the way. The Shadow is an excellent concept. You have a point. The Shadow type lines up behind the flag-carrier. Zeroes behind ones. But not zeroes in a cruel sense. It's as if one's were fertilizing phallus and zeroes were eggs.

@Reconstructo,

"What? You search? You would multiply yourself by ten, by a hundred? You seek followers? Seek zeros!" - Fred Nietzsche

(This is one of the many quotes that make me not like Nietzsche. I don't want to be one of his zeroes! So, I must assert my independence. If I ever agree with Nietzsche it is purely coincidental and whenever I quote Nietzsche I am being ironic.)

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108650 wrote:

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.

Thanks for the reply. I would only say that as I see it philosophers can be non-competitive, both as philosophers and as human beings, without believing their non-competitiveness to be a virtue. And whatever virtues they do have can be modest.

@Reconstructo,

In many way, philosophy is putting on different masks and seeing the world from different points of view as Nietzsche would suggest and practiced himself (e.g. Zarathustra)

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;108867 wrote:

In many way, philosophy is putting on different masks and seeing the world from different points of view as Nietzsche would suggest and practiced himself (e.g. Zarathustra)

Some philosophy may be like that. But not the philosophy practiced by Socrates, or Aristotle, or Descartes, or Russell, or Quine, or Wittgenstein, or...or....

In fact, I am not sure who you mean except for N. Maybe.

@Reconstructo,

Socrates totally put on "masks." It is really only a figurative way of seeing things from different perspectives. Working through the dialectical method is just this practice. Hell, reading others' work and considering it is a putting on a mask of sorts. All it is is seeing thing from different perspectives of one's own. Nietzsche just took this to the extreme.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;108882 wrote:

Socrates totally put on "masks." It is really only a figurative way of seeing things from different perspectives. Working through the dialectical method is just this practice. Hell, reading others' work and considering it is a putting on a mask of sorts. All it is is seeing thing from different perspectives of one's own. Nietzsche just took this to the extreme.

I thought that Socrates was focused on "following the argument wherever she leads". That he may have taken on different ways of doing this to try to elicit responses from his interlocutors is not essential to his philosophy. They were only means to the end. The same is true of all serious philosophers I know about. Quine for instance did not take on different perspective; nor did G.E. Moore. I think you are making N. a kind of exemplar of a philosopher.

@Reconstructo,

As far as I know, we get Socrates from Plato and Xenophon (I hope this is right. Long time since...), but I'm not an expert. Both of these writers present him differently.

Even if a philosopher wears the single mask of his relatively stable persona, that for me is still role-play. Plato defined himself against the sophists. His character Socrates defined himself as a gadfly. Imagine them in a movie. Very much mask. But the mask metaphor can be deceptive. It's not that they didn't believe what they said. It's that they are all idiosyncratic manifestations of the intellectual hero. And I think its this heroism at the root of it all.

Nietzsche was a sniffer out of motives, and saw (ironically) the will-to-power behind it all. This will make anyone an ironist. Once the will-to-truth is suspect, we start to question why it is that some beliefs appeal to us more than others. So Nietzsche was quite the storm of possibilities. It is impossible for an ironist to be systematic. He is always deconstructing himself.

@Reconstructo,

So many choices. Do I..
1. chop logic
2. go mystic
3. oppose anyone and everyone
4. understand anyone and everyone
5. make distinctions
6. transcend distinctions (unity-in-difference)
7. attack God
8. defend God
9. redefine God
10. attack the status quo
11. defend the status quo
12. pretend humility
13. pretend arrogance
14. bring in the non western religion
15. invent some new religion
16. reduce religion to biology
17. reduce biology to religion
18. reduce philosophy to lies
19. play the clown about it all
20. play the ignorance which is supposed to be wisdom
21. make a thread that tries to show that philosophy is role-play -- this being one more role to play

@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"?

Logic is not simply some sort of art form you believe it is. Logic transcends our convention, and has a very close relationship with the world. We discover with inference and those who have mastered logic, I think, have a greater understanding of all things intellectual. I'd wager you don't even realize how logic guides you, how you use it inadvertently with each passing move. This is most likely because you do not have an accurate understanding of what logic is.

As a friend of mine articulates, "Logic is not the way it is because we think it ought to be that way. Logic necessarily is the way that it is. Logic is the absence of all normative thinking. Logical systems do not "follow from" anything."

Here's another friend,

"Logic is not a body of doctrine, but a mirror-image of the world. Logic is transcendental."

- Ludwig Wittgenstein

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;111384 wrote:

So many choices. Do I..
1. chop logic
2. go mystic
3. oppose anyone and everyone
4. understand anyone and everyone
5. make distinctions
6. transcend distinctions (unity-in-difference)
7. attack God
8. defend God
9. redefine God
10. attack the status quo
11. defend the status quo
12. pretend humility
13. pretend arrogance
14. bring in the non western religion
15. invent some new religion
16. reduce religion to biology
17. reduce biology to religion
18. reduce philosophy to lies
19. play the clown about it all
20. play the ignorance which is supposed to be wisdom
21. make a thread that tries to show that philosophy is role-play -- this being one more role to play

How does it matter?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;111393 wrote:

Logic is not simply some sort of art form you believe it is. Logic transcends our convention, and has a very close relationship with the world.

Which Logic is that?

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

It appears that the Art of Logic has many Forms. Which one transcends our convention? Do they all?

And do they all have a close relationship with the world? Help me decide, because I don't want to waste my time with one that doesn't!

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;111400 wrote:

How does it matter?

Whether it matters or not is up to you. It's your life, of course. That it matters to me is obvious. Whether I should indulge an insincere question is not so obvious.

---------- Post added 12-15-2009 at 12:48 AM ----------

Zetherin;111393 wrote:

"Logic is not a body of doctrine, but a mirror-image of the world. Logic is transcendental."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein

That's a good quote. I relate to that sort of logic, as it seems to trace to logos. But as soon as logic becomes broad enough to aspire to the transcendental, it's no longer just logic. Logic without metaphor is a castrate. But Wittgenstein in his later career was honest enough to see the limitations of his early career.

As far as the terms are generally used, rhetoric is superior to logic. But if we are going to associate logic with logos again, including a holistic vision of the potential of language, I'll come back over to the logic side of the church.

But as long as logic is associated with a puerile reduction of human lingual experience, I'll stay over here with the sophists, who weren't afraid of metaphors or women (Sophia).

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;111432 wrote:

Which Logic is that?

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

It appears that the Art of Logic has many Forms. Which one transcends our convention? Do they all?

And do they all have a close relationship with the world? Help me decide, because I don't want to waste my time with one that doesn't!

Anything that distinguishes between truth and falsity. But, I am not familiar with many of the types of logic you have posted. The kind of logic I was speaking about evaluates syllogisms with inference, and is a study of correct reasoning. I'll begin researching the ones I have never heard of and get back to you.*

But, if the word holds true in all of these cases (which it may not; the term may loosely be thrown, or have a different connotation), and is as I said in my last post, then yes, all.

Logic, itself, has nothing to do with convention. It just is. It is a grave mistake to believe that we conjure logical truths as a result of normative means. Do not mistake the logical semantics we use in language, the formal tools we use, with the conclusions we discover. Logic has nothing to do with opinion, we do not choose for something to be true or false, and just because we agree on methods to evaluate the world around us, it does not follow that those truths we discover do not have a close connection with the world around us. In other words, truths exist independent of our convention.

*EDIT: Yes. All of these evaluate reasoning and forms.

As an aside, it seems overly popular these days to reject anything as being true outside of our convention. It seems difficult for some to seperate reality from our subsequent experience of reality. The hold strong subjectivism and normative thinking have on some people is astounding - it amounts to some sort of harsh skepticism, where things are doubted for no good reason, and everything is assumed to be a result of norms. I don't understand this rejection of discovery. "It is because we say it is", is an epidemic of philosophical proportions.

@Reconstructo,

Philosophy as role-play, as conceptual poetry, as myth-making---these are all possible aspects since philosophy is after all a human endeavor and is an attempt to explain the human world and the human being, both of which contains these aspects as well.

But philosophy is also something different than these masks and has developed at great cost its own techniques, rules, and procedures in its unique attempt to provide articulate and universal answers to the questions it frames. To achieve universal meaning, it employs argumentation, exposition, definition, distinctions, and logic all of which are designed to appeal to that which is (seemingly) common to everyone: reason.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;111494 wrote:

Do not mistake the logical semantics we use in language, the formal tools we use, with the conclusions we discover. Logic has nothing to do with opinion, we do not choose for something to be true or false, and just because we agree on methods to evaluate the world around us, it does not follow that those truths we discover do not have a close connection with the world around us. In other words, truths exist independent of our convention.

Would you mind proving this, logically? And do you have a refutation for antecedent skepticism?

I think at some point, the entire structure is grounded upon animal faith. I do think that the limits of language are the limits of thought. But is language capable of delineating its own limits? Or does its metaphorical nature support the notion of "the impossibility of closure"?

How many philosophers have dreamed of achieving this closure? Wittgenstein thought for awhile he provided it with his Tractatus. Hegel too, in his own way. Is closure another god-substitute for atheists? Another prop for self-esteem and authority?

---------- Post added 12-15-2009 at 08:24 PM ----------

jgweed;111520 wrote:

But philosophy is also something different than these masks and has developed at great cost its own techniques, rules, and procedures in its unique attempt to provide articulate and universal answers to the questions it frames. To achieve universal meaning, it employs argumentation, exposition, definition, distinctions, and logic all of which are designed to appeal to that which is (seemingly) common to everyone: reason.

I don't deny this. But "reason" can be endlessly defined. It traces back to logos. So yes, we all have language, and we use it as a tool in the pursuit of that which we value. But man is apparently evolved from much simpler organisms. Values presumably precede thought of any kind. This does support the notion of reason as subordinate to life.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;111494 wrote:

As an aside, it seems overly popular these days to reject anything as being true outside of our convention. It seems difficult for some to seperate reality from our subsequent experience of reality. The hold strong subjectivism and normative thinking have on some people is astounding - it amounts to some sort of harsh skepticism, where things are doubted for no good reason, and everything is assumed to be a result of norms. I don't understand this rejection of discovery. "It is because we say it is", is an epidemic of philosophical proportions.

It is the surrender to the non-rational. It has been something that has been coming for a long time, starting with the undermining of science (the center of rationality) by Thomas Kuhn, and Feyerabend. It is no longer surprising that the scientists of the East Anglia University saw nothing wrong in fudging numbers, and even making up statistics, to support their preconceptions of what is true about climate change.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;111633 wrote:

It is the surrender to the non-rational. It has been something that has been coming for a long time, starting with the undermining of science (the center of rationality) by Thomas Kuhn, and Feyerabend. It is no longer surprising that the scientists of the East Anglia University saw nothing wrong in fudging numbers, and even making up statistics, to support their preconceptions of what is true about climate change.

It's an extension of the rational, and a continuation of the Enlightenment, or was the Enlightenment supposed to become a body of dogma? The word "rational" functions for some as an idol. Define your terms. What do you think rationality is if not debate by means of persuasion rather than violence? You can call your persuasion "logic." Many do. But the values that move us are something else. And persuasion is the tool of these values. Logic is just an ideal method of persuasion.

Any science worthy of the name will continue to criticize its methodology. Yesterday's revolutionaries are today's reactionaries.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;111638 wrote:

It's an extension of the rational, and a continuation of the Enlightenment, or was the Enlightenment supposed to become a body of dogma? The word "rational" functions for some as an idol. Define your terms. What do you think rationality is if not debate by means of persuasion rather than violence? You can call your persuasion "logic." Many do. But the values that move us are something else. And persuasion is the tool of these values. Logic is just an ideal method of persuasion.

Any science worthy of the name will continue to criticize its methodology. Yesterday's revolutionaries are today's reactionaries.

Fudging numbers, and making up statistics, is not criticizing methodology.

Philosophy Forum

Philosophy is Role Play

Quick Links

My Account

able2know