Gresham's Law in Philosophy?

@kennethamy,

I think the only thing driving away people who may have otherwise been decent at philosophy is how esoteric most of it has become. The analytics have made philosophy probably one of the most inaccessible fields of study today.

I believe it was Rick Roderick who made the joke that if the right 12 people went down in a plane crash the journal of Philosophy would cease to exist.

@amist,

amist;144980 wrote:

I think the only thing driving people who may have otherwise been decent at philosophy is how esoteric most of it has become. The analytics have made philosophy probably one of the most inaccessible fields of study today.

I believe it was Rick Roderick who made the joke that if the right 12 people went down in a plane crash the journal of Philosophy would cease to exist.

Lmfao o niiiiiiiice. Yea it's the elitism and stuff. Completely agree, philosophy is not an exludable field.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;140350 wrote:

I have been wondering lately whether something analogous to Gresham's Law also applies in philosophy: Bad philosophy drives out good (philosophy).

good sound philosophy will always win , no matter the odds

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;140350 wrote:

I have been wondering lately whether something analogous to Gresham's Law also applies in philosophy: Bad philosophy drives out good (philosophy).

[CENTER]Nope. There is no bad / good philosopy. How you distinguish good / bad wisdom. There is a way Philosophers communicate sometime which makes it possible to learn and even change your point of view with pleasure.

With science it's different. There certainly is a lot of re-pulsively bad science around, so much that Philosophy (hard core) must react to it spreading. People can not understand Statistics p/e.

Scholing is important. Basic cultural development. Why Humanity started farming in the first place?

Dhr. Pepijn S.H. Sweep
ud East Turnips:lol:

[/CENTER]

@Pepijn Sweep,

Well i stand by my point, philosophy is that with with bad intentions(counter-progressive).

Quote:

Why Humanity started farming in the first place?

That was'nt a good thing haha.

@Ascendere,

Ascendere;145178 wrote:

Well i stand by my point, philosophy is that with with bad intentions(counter-progressive).

That was'nt a good thing haha.

@Ascendere,

Ascendere;145178 wrote:

Well i stand by my point, philosophy is that with with bad intentions(counter-progressive).

So the first item for our catalog of bad philosophic intentions is being counter-progressive?

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;145228 wrote:

So the first item for our catalog of bad philosophic intentions is being counter-progressive?

Haha i havent formaly done this, but perhaps I should. Yes let that be the 1st, followed by maybe the establishment of power. i.e To try to convince the public of something in order to perpetuate or attain the power of a certain person or group.

Quote:

the most nutricious grains diminished with 70% over the years.

Grains aren't very healthy. If you look at the fossil records, right around the time man started eating more grains, we got shorter and had weaker bones. Also around the time we started to culivate grains is when the typical health problems of modern man started arising.

@Ascendere,

Ascendere;145247 wrote:

Haha i havent formaly done this, but perhaps I should. Yes let that be the 1st, followed by maybe the establishment of power. i.e To try to convince the public of something in order to perpetuate or attain the power of a certain person or group.

Concerning power, that's what court philosophers would do, no?

Would a philosopher ever try to establish himself in a position of political/economic power through nefarious means? Machiavelli seems to think so.

I think we should come up with the formal list of bad philosophy practices/motivations. Maybe it's worth a separate thread.

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;145252 wrote:

Concerning power, that's what court philosophers would do, no?

Would a philosopher ever try to establish himself in a position of political/economic power through nefarious means? Machiavelli seems to think so.

I think we should come up with the formal list of bad philosophy practices/motivations. Maybe it's worth a separate thread.

Yea tht's why im not trying to do it here. I might post it up later. But yes thats what court philosophers do. That's also what Aquinas did.

@Ascendere,

Ascendere;145257 wrote:

Yea tht's why im not trying to do it here. I might post it up later. But yes thats what court philosophers do. That's also what Aquinas did.

Please do post something, a list, or the start of a list. I - and others, I suspect - would appreciate that.

Can you say more about what Aquinas did? I don't know much about him.

@PappasNick,

PappasNick;145260 wrote:

Please do post something, a list, or the start of a list. I - and others, I suspect - would appreciate that.

Can you say more about what Aquinas did? I don't know much about him.

Well Aquinas not just a philosopher, he was a preist. So he would naturaly advocate religion alot. I'm workin on the list ehich should be up tomorrow.

@north,

north;145026 wrote:

good sound philosophy will always win , no matter the odds

Then why is it that so many people are suckered by fallacious arguments? You don't seriously believe that everyone gets philosophical answers right before they die, do you?

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 11:14 PM ----------

Pepijn Sweep;145096 wrote:

Nope. There is no bad / good philosopy. How you distinguish good / bad wisdom. ...

Not all philosophers have wisdom. Many of them get quite a few things wrong, and then lead others astray with their falsehoods. This is particularly true when the philosopher is a persuasive writer, or when the philosopher tells people what they want to be told. An example of this is William James in his essay "The Will to Believe". You can find out why it is crap by reading the book you can find via:

The Ethics Of Belief

But it is still quite popular, because what he says is what most people want to be told. And he has a certain folksy charm to his writing style that is appealing to some.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;145389 wrote:

Then why is it that so many people are suckered by fallacious arguments? You don't seriously believe that everyone gets philosophical answers right before they die, do you?

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 11:14 PM ----------

Not all philosophers have wisdom. Many of them get quite a few things wrong, and then lead others astray with their falsehoods. This is particularly true when the philosopher is a persuasive writer, or when the philosopher tells people what they want to be told. An example of this is William James in his essay "The Will to Believe". You can find out why it is crap by reading the book you can find via:

The Ethics Of Belief

But it is still quite popular, because what he says is what most people want to be told. And he has a certain folksy charm to his writing style that is appealing to some.

I think you are really too tough on James. He wrote a lot better than did his brother, Henry who is an acclaimed novelist. And, besides, only the greatest philosophers make the greatest mistakes, and James made terrific mistakes. We ought to be grateful to him, since he taught us a lot by making those mistakes. (I would say the same about Descartes and Berkeley). You should appreciate what we have.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;145429 wrote:

I think you are really too tough on James. He wrote a lot better than did his brother, Henry who is an acclaimed novelist. And, besides, only the greatest philosophers make the greatest mistakes, and James made terrific mistakes. We ought to be grateful to him, since he taught us a lot by making those mistakes. (I would say the same about Descartes and Berkeley). You should appreciate what we have.

My comment was specifically about James' essay "The Will to Believe", not about him or his philosophy generally. That essay is terribly bad, full of fallacies and muddled thinking. If you doubt this, read the essay by Burger in the book for which I have already provided a link, as he or she points out many glaring errors in that essay. "The Will to Believe" is a great example of bad philosophy driving out good philosophy. I think it is virtually impossible to be too tough on "The Will to Believe", which is worse than merely worthless, as it has deceived many people. It would not be easy to write a worse essay than that. Its high level of sophistry is not something that most writers can match.

When one is wrong, being a "good writer" is a vice, not a virtue, because it leads more people astray. And in this case, it is telling people what most of them want to be told, so that they can feel that there is a philosophical justification for maintaining their unthinking prejudices.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;145570 wrote:

My comment was specifically about James' essay "The Will to Believe", not about him or his philosophy generally. That essay is terribly bad, full of fallacies and muddled thinking. If you doubt this, read the essay by Burger in the book for which I have already provided a link, as he or she points out many glaring errors in that essay. "The Will to Believe" is a great example of bad philosophy driving out good philosophy. I think it is virtually impossible to be too tough on "The Will to Believe", which is worse than merely worthless, as it has deceived many people. It would not be easy to write a worse essay than that. Its high level of sophistry is not something that most writers can match.

But many writers can surpass. But yes, I agree with you that the essay lacks precision. James himself commented that he ought to have called the essay, "The Right to Believe". That might have reduced the expectations.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;145572 wrote:

But many writers can surpass. But yes, I agree with you that the essay lacks precision. James himself commented that he ought to have called the essay, "The Right to Believe". That might have reduced the expectations.

It does not simply lack precision. If that was the worst thing that could be said of it, I would never have mentioned it in this thread. It is promoting falsehoods with fallacies. It is promoting bigotry as if it were tolerance. The change in title, though it would be more descriptive of what the essay is about, would not fundamentally alter the dreadfulness of the essay. Frankly, I think the essay is so bad that it would have been better if James had never been born.

You may say, there are more unintelligible essays that are "worse" than this essay. Although they would be worse in that way, overall, it would not necessarily make them worse. When one is wrong, being a "good writer" is a vice, not a virtue, because it leads more people astray. And in this case, it is telling people what most of them want to be told, so that they can feel that there is a philosophical justification for maintaining their unthinking prejudices. So because of James, countless people rest satisfied with their foolish beliefs, that lead them to foolish actions, which unfortunately for the rest of us, affects us. James cannot be detested enough for writing that essay.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;145570 wrote:

My comment was specifically about James' essay "The Will to Believe", not about him or his philosophy generally. That essay is terribly bad, full of fallacies and muddled thinking. If you doubt this, read the essay by Burger in the book for which I have already provided a link, as he or she points out many glaring errors in that essay. "The Will to Believe" is a great example of bad philosophy driving out good philosophy. I think it is virtually impossible to be too tough on "The Will to Believe", which is worse than merely worthless, as it has deceived many people. It would not be easy to write a worse essay than that. Its high level of sophistry is not something that most writers can match.

When one is wrong, being a "good writer" is a vice, not a virtue, because it leads more people astray. And in this case, it is telling people what most of them want to be told, so that they can feel that there is a philosophical justification for maintaining their unthinking prejudices.

Regarding the marked sentence. I doubt that, but first tell me what you meant exactly. Did you mean that in all cases where the author is wrong about the matter, it is bad if he is a good writer? Think of Darwin. The aforementioned sentence implies that it is a vice that Darwin was a good writer about the things he got wrong. Do you agree with that? If you want specifics I would have to look it up. Otherwise you may think of Newton instead whose theory of physics is wrong but very useful.

@Emil,

Emil;145589 wrote:

Regarding the marked sentence. I doubt that, but first tell me what you meant exactly. Did you mean that in all cases where the author is wrong about the matter, it is bad if he is a good writer? Think of Darwin. The aforementioned sentence implies that it is a vice that Darwin was a good writer about the things he got wrong. Do you agree with that? If you want specifics I would have to look it up. Otherwise you may think of Newton instead whose theory of physics is wrong but very useful.

You did not mark a sentence, but from the context, it seems that you meant to mark:

[INDENT][INDENT]When one is wrong, being a "good writer" is a vice, not a virtue, because it leads more people astray.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

I think that insofar as one is wrong, it is bad to be eloquent and persuasive. Of course, there may be something wrong in a work that has much that is right about it, and then it is good to be eloquent and persuasive about what is right.

In the particular example at issue ("The Will to Believe"), there is so little that is right about it that we can say that it simply would have been better if James had been less eloquent and persuasive in it. But in the examples of Newton and Darwin that you have in mind, there is something fundamentally right about what they were doing that makes their eloquence and persuasiveness overall a good thing, even though they were wrong in some aspects.

In other words, insofar as someone is right, it is good if one is eloquent and persuasive, and insofar as someone is wrong, it is bad if one is eloquent and persuasive. If judging a work as a whole, then it will depend upon the amount and type of correctness and incorrectness, whether it is better or worse, overall, for the work to be eloquent and persuasive.

@kennethamy,

You can guess from my objectivism that i think the starter of this post may be on to something. it apears that what premiates modern popular philosophy is anti-realism and post modernism. philosophy is deemed deep by people precisly because it makes no sense and sounds cool and like that movie the matrix these days. they hear things like reality is dependent on prespective and they either hear solipism or perspectivialism and think wow thats cool.but they fail to realize how this damages ethics and politics beyond repair and makes objective knowledge either a waste of time or impossible.

good philosophy is that which puts reason and objective reality first and puts life and individualism above the rest. bad philosophy is that which intends to turn persons into lunatics or invalids by convincing them that they have no mind, either no body or that they are only a body of meat(marxists metaphysics) that faith and feelings are the only true routes to knowledge,etc.

Philosophy Forum

Gresham's Law in Philosophy?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know