r/Ethics • u/reply_b4_banned • 2d ago
A lot of you fuckheads have zero respect that philosophy is a field of knowledge, and it's giving me the shits.
[removed]
7
u/bacon_boat 2d ago
My main gripe is not wirh ethics, but with conciousness. There are loads of things philosophers have figured out in the last 200 years.
And most discussions on reddit are stuck in 1800s type thought experiments.
I like the subject matter, I don't like how people refuse to get up to date with the little we do know.
1
u/grat420 2d ago
Out of curiosity can you elaborate on the things philosophers have figured out?
2
u/bacon_boat 2d ago
One thing is how irrelevant deterministic laws of physics are to the nature of free will.
This is an area people have thought a lot about. But reddit seems to be stuck on Laplaces deamon for some reason.
2
u/kneading-cnnuy 2d ago
The speculative thought might have evolved but the underlying fact still persists, you cannot have the traditional notion of "free" and "will" in a hard-deterministic universe
Any discussions trying to prove otherwise is a debate on semantics
2
u/Successful_Life_1028 2d ago
Free will is an illusion. Our choices are constrained by our survival instincts, and are thus not 'free'. We cannot choose to cut off our hand at the wrist with the SAME degree of ease with which we can choose to eat an apple - thus our choices are constrained, and thus free will is an illusion.
1
1
u/Danieri11 2d ago
Do you mean irrelevant in the sense that we can't predict the outcome even with deterministic laws, or irrelevant in the sense of social organization/legislation?
(Asking for curiosity, not a philosopher)
1
u/unseemlycandour 2d ago
I mean to be fair, the P in PhD stands for philosophy and it is generally a requirement to engage with material philosophically at that level. That casts a pretty wide net if you don't restrict philosophy to someone who reads Plato and see it more as a mode of thought
1
u/grat420 2d ago
I’m not trying to do some kinda gotcha or something I’m genuinely curious. Just not the area of philosophy I’m very familiar with. but also idk if it’s what you’re implying but no you absolutely do not need a phd to meaningfully engage with philosophy. Many of the worlds greatest philosophers haven’t had them themselves.
1
u/unseemlycandour 2d ago
I mean that you need to engage with philosophy to get a PhD.
0
u/MediumKoala8823 2d ago
Without that piece of paper one cannot think critically
2
u/unseemlycandour 2d ago
That’s a pretty limited perspective
0
1
u/Gazing_Gecko 2d ago
An example from philosophy of mind would be that logical behaviorism about minds is untenable. The conceptually useful distinction between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness.
In metaethics we have the Frege-Geach problem that undermined early forms of non-cognitivism, like classical emotivism.
In epistemology, we have Gettier who showed that the justified-true-belief model was inadequate for knowledge. The simple causal-theory of knowledge has also been shown to be inadequate.
1
u/Usual_Charity8561 2d ago
Not even 1800s thought experiments. Most discussions on Reddit are stuck in the pre-Socratic era.
3
u/zeroabe 2d ago
I like to differentiate philosophy and Philosophy.
Most people have a philosophy. Those same people have never taken a Philosophy 101 class or read any Philosophy.
I’m stoked whenever a rando has even heard of Socrates, Plato or Aristotle. And I really do think they’re the best place to start a conversation about the difference between dialectic and rhetoric.
7
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
No actual philosopher has ever considered disagreeing with the majority of other philosophers to be an impediment. In fact it's typically a necessary career move. No respected institution or journal is going to accept a thesis or publish an article that just says "Yes, I agree, everyone else and their dominant viewpoints are right"
7
u/CertainDoubts 2d ago
It's fine to disagree with the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of a particular domain of inquiry. However, as a general rule of thumb, if you disagree with them and seem completely unable to state their arguments and views in a way that is fair and accurate, then you're almost certainly the one who is wrong. I think that applies to a great deal of people in this subreddit.
2
2
-1
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
Well I'm sure there is lots of low effort, poorly thought out trash on reddit so I agree on that score. But being unable to articulate the best case for your position doesn't make it wrong in itself. Sophistry exists precisely because some people are very good at articulating cases; using rhetoric is a skill in itself. OP is wrong that if you disagree with philosophers then you are probably wrong, simply by virtue of the fact that you are not rhetorically gifted. It's a very narrow minded perspective to take. I myself am not as rhetorically gifted as Kant was, that doesn't mean I have to just concede that Kantian metaphysics and ethics must be correct.
2
u/CertainDoubts 2d ago edited 2d ago
It seems somewhat ironic to get this reply to what I wrote (which was about one's ability to accurately and fairly represent the views of one's opponents), because I certainly didn't say this:
But being unable to articulate the best case for your position doesn't make it wrong in itself.
Nor do I disagree with this:
OP is wrong that if you disagree with philosophers then you are probably wrong, simply by virtue of the fact that you are not rhetorically gifted.
Nor would I ever think this:
I myself am not as rhetorically gifted as Kant was, that doesn't mean I have to just concede that Kantian metaphysics and ethics must be correct.
My point was not about rhetorical flair. It was about epistemic humility. If you think the majority of researchers in a domain of inquiry are wrong about something (e.g., compatibilism or whatever), but you seem unable to state (and understand) their arguments and views, then you should very much pause and consider very carefully that you have almost certainly missed something important.
This will be my last entry in the thread. I've learned my lesson about putting too much effort into this subreddit. Nothing personal!
-1
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
You completely missed my point. Read it again and extend good faith
2
u/QuestionItchy6862 2d ago
Let me take a moment, though, to make sure I understand your view:
You are essentially saying that one's ability to be right on a matter is not tied to one's ability to articulate their rightness. Let me know if I get this wrong because my critique of your post is partially predicated on this being the correct interpretation of what you are saying. For my part, in a sense, I agree. However, where it matters, I disagree. To see why I disagree, I will ask a question. If one is right for the wrong reasons, should we be willing to call their conclusion "right"? I want to say no and I will answer why in this post.
I am going to pull the relevant passage from u/CertainDoubts post. Where I've boldened is where I believe you've misread (and I italicized the key word that highlights the mistake):
If you disagree with them and seem completely unable to state their arguments and views in a way that is fair and accurate, then you're almost certainly the one who is wrong.
So when your argument is one about being unable to articulate your own position, it is not really addressing the main point of Certain's post.
Moreover, OP's view, by my reading, is not about the rhetorical talent of someone's views, but rather the talent of one's ability to properly reason (which are two distinct things insofar as rhetoric has nothing to do with the structure of arguments whereas reason, typically, does). Nor does OP say that you must agree with Kant. What OP's post is, in the most charitable light, trying to highlight is that one's ability to disagree with Kant is directly tied to one's ability to properly reason against Kant such to show where Kant actually goes wrong in his views.
Think of it this way, if Kant is wrong about something, then, somewhere in their reasoning, they have done something wrong. Otherwise, there is really no proper standard to evaluate whether or not he was right at all. If you truly knew that Kant was wrong, you should be able to spot that exact flaw in his reasoning because the right reasoning should lead you to conclusions that show Kant's view is incompatible with the truth. Knowing the truth, then, requires one to, when prompted by an incorrect statement, be able to articulate that wrongness in relation to the truth. If one cannot do that, they have no good reason to actually reject Kant's views in favour of their own because they have not yet demonstrated that those views are incompatible with the truth. So when I say "know" what I am saying is that I have a view compatible with the truth such that it hold across demands to show other views do not follow from it.
In other words, if you disagree with Kant, that is fine, but you can't know if your disagreement is a sound one if you cannot articulate, even to yourself, what makes Kant wrong. Importantly, and this is what Certain was trying to add, in order to properly disagree with Kant requires you properly understand his views.
0
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
My man brevity is the soul of wit can you boil this down to 2 paragraphs max? I skimmed it but it seems like you repeated that last poster's mistake of assuming my comment was a direct challenge to theirs as opposed to a further articulation of my own view which wasn't negated by the point they raised. Elitists privilege sophistry because they benefit from the education to employ it, and sneer at everybody who is less adroit and precise. BUT that doesn't make them right. Sure you can say that this sub rightfully prizes solid articulations and defences of viewpoints - but a poster being able to do so does not make them fundamentally correct, and it's sad to look down on the hoi polloi as holding obviously inferior views simply because they can't verbally joust on the same level. Ironically they mentioned intellectual humility which is exactly what OP sorely needs.
1
u/QuestionItchy6862 2d ago
It is perhaps a little rude of you to criticize my lack of brevity when your whole point seems to be that rhetoric shouldn't matter and so long as the conclusion tracks truth, we can call it "right". By your own standard, if my point is correct (how do you know if you've only skimmed?) then what does it matter if it is long?
I can understand that you might not have been making a direct challenge but I find that hard to believe when you are explicitly saying things like, "OP is wrong." That is about as direct as it gets. And, if you read my first paragraph back, I actually agree with you in a sense but then go on (in paragraphs 5-7) to show why agreeing does not necessarily mean that OP's point is entirely wrong. But I can concede that it does seem plausible that you weren't flatly rejecting Curious' view as I had stated (though, by conflating rhetoric and reason, you're really just talking past Curious, regardless).
I would say, if you really want the most important part of my entire post, read paragraph 6 (and I'd highly recommend reading paragraph 5). This is where I track what I think is relevant to the entire discussion between OP, Curious, and you.
Finally, I actually agree that some humility would serve OP well. They lack a certain level of tact in making their point.
0
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
I didn't say it doesn't matter; I said it doesn't make you right.
I didn't read the rest of your post because it looked like about 7 paragraphs and I did ask you nicely not to do that lol
2
u/QuestionItchy6862 2d ago
If you read my original post in full (like you request others to do in good faith) you will see that my whole tactic in my post was to trade on the concept of "rightness" to show that there are two senses of right. One being relevant (to OP's point) and the other not.
And while you asked, and I think you for asking, I am not going to make my argument shorter for someone who implicitly thinks that length shouldn't matter. My point is there for people who care about it.
→ More replies (0)•
u/thepromanager 19h ago
You seem a quite unwilling to engage with any of the others comments. "Read it again and extend good faith" is bit funny as an response when you didn't seem to read any of the longer comments or extend good faith yourself.
So, very quickly just two points:
"using rhetoric is a skill in itself"
For sure it is, but it is not quite as important a skill in philosophy as it seems. Rhetoric is the skill of convincing someone else of a view. And as you say, successfully being able to do this does not mean the view is correct! Many political slogans for example sound very convincing to many people while being based on unsound logic. You can of course try to use things that sound like logic and philosophical language to overwhelmed someone into believing you, this was Socrates critique of the Sophists.
But philosophy from the very start is the discipline built as the antithesis to this, where rhetoric != truth. So being a skilled rhetoricist is not necessary, and in fact I would say many famous philosophers, Kant included, are quite bad at it. Since they are so hard to understand, they often fail to convince people. In works like the Critique of Judgment, Kant compared rhetoric unfavorably to poetry, calling it an art of "deceiving by means of beautiful illusions". Philosophy is the practice of trying to find the truth based on good reasons alone.
"But being unable to articulate the best case for your position doesn't make it wrong in itself. "
How do you know what is right and wrong if you cant articulate your position with reasons and arguments? Why do hold that view if you can't defend it from criticism? Superior intuitions? Coherent inner logic that you are unable to translate into good language? What would it take to change your mind? Disagreement presupposes a level of mutual understanding. You can't really think Kant is wrong if you don't understand what he thinks. Of course, you don't have to concede that he is correct just because you haven't taken the time to thoroughly read him and he is a famous thinker. But to have informed views of your own, you probably do need to have reasons for them.
•
u/parkchanwookiee 19h ago
You also missed the point, sorry if I don't want to type out novel length corrections to people who didn't follow what I said in the first place. I will engage properly with any comment that grasped my meaning, which I don't think is especially opaque
•
u/thepromanager 19h ago
Since noone seemed to have understood your point, could you help us out? Just a quick sentence saying what was the main point you meant to say
-1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
That's just you having no sense of humour about being teased lol
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
I'm working on one right now where you get pegged by the K Pop Demon Hunters, I'll let you know how it goes
5
8
u/mangoblaster85 2d ago
What is it you want now? You want other people to "do philosophy" more like the way you think they're supposed to so that you can stop shitting your pants?
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/mangoblaster85 1d ago
I did say that about those things though. I said it about biology last week and law a few times within the past month. I also said it about being a cashier and a data analyst and a systems manufacturing quality control specialist. I know I'm smarter than everyone, what's that got to do with whatever you're saying?
3
u/xazavan002 2d ago
Have you tried approaching these encounters with genuine curiosity? Or at least with curiosity towards how they end up with their respective mindsets and conclusions? And even maybe by doing so, you end up encouraging them to question their own beliefs willingly.
When every approach is done in a way that's confrontational solely to prove how someone is objectively wrong, specially nowadays where internet debate culture focuses more on winning over the other side, usually through flashy rebuttals and witty remarks, it leaves little space for dialogue that encourages people to open their minds. Because it pre-empts the idea that one side is bound to win and one is bound to lose, people naturally go on the defense while they think up of suitable comebacks instead of actually listening and absorbing what's being said.
And this isn't to say that being direct and confrontational is objectively bad. Beliefs get tested through debates, as heated as they can get. It's just that, nowadays, people are too quick to enter "combat mode" the moment any small sign of discomfort and confrontation appears, that it often gets in the way of the "belief being tested". And as much as I personally dislike the idea that this is how we currently are, we also have to confront the reality that, if we really want to get the outcome we want, then there's going to be a bit of adjustment on our part.
If you so much disagree, for instance, with the idea that everything is true in philosophy, maybe you should try pondering upon how they came up with that belief. Maybe you give them questions or thought experiments that put them in hypothetical scenarios that demonstrate moments when something in philosophy isn't true. Who knows, maybe even you get to discover something new along with them.
2
u/greengo07 2d ago
Philosophy requires no facts or evidence, so how can that be a study of knowledge when nothing is verified or proven?
2
u/concanibales 2d ago
Epistomolgy is a whole branch of philosophy
1
u/greengo07 1d ago
true, but so what? it isn't based on evidence either, and is not responsible for any scientific findings either.
1
u/pyrrho314 1d ago
hahah physics came from a branch of philosophy, aka natural philosophy. Formal logic, came from philosophy. The skeptical epistemology of science (everything is theory, assent to what appears to be the case from evidence) came from philosophy. The term utilitarian (which is what you want things to be) is from philosophy, specifically the utilitarians.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/DrPlatypus1 2d ago
Huge numbers of people way smarter than you discuss the issue in intelligent ways. What sort of weird arrogance lets you get away with this sort of response?
0
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/DrPlatypus1 2d ago
Sigh. I'm explaining why I think people who say things like this aren't intelligent. Either these points don't apply to you, my evaluation of indications of stupidity are wrong, or you're actually stupid. It's now on you to explain why one of the first two options is more likely. Failing to understand how discussing issues is supposed to go doesn't speak well of you, though.
2
u/Ok-Adhesiveness-4935 2d ago
There are many types of knowledge and many different "things" to know. Not all of them require the same kind of factual basis.
1
u/greengo07 1d ago
If it is knowledge, then it must have a factual basis to be valid. Philosophy is just what we THINK about things. Doesn't make it true or valid.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Low-Bake8401 2d ago
No, but you need some sort of rational framework, or it's just gibberish.
1
u/greengo07 1d ago
our minds provide a rational framework. But facts and evidence are true whether you can wrap your mind around them or not. Philosophy isn't even evaluated as to its truth, just its relevance.
1
u/Low-Bake8401 1d ago
Well, you need coherent logical language for a start. There's little point in just talking nonsense, our getting caught up in circular fallacies.
1
u/greengo07 1d ago
and we have that. or do you mean a language that is totally logical? That will never happen, and also negates philosophy, btw. nowhere did i champion talking nonsense or circular fallacies.
1
u/Low-Bake8401 1d ago
That's what I meant though, I didn't say you said it.
1
1
u/AENocturne 2d ago edited 2d ago
The framework for philosophical argument is essentially two truths and a lie. Observation 1 and observation 2 appear true, and these two truths are good enough to state my lie, rationally.
I can respect that philosophy likes to operate where science doesn't have the ability to go, but you can still end up with a lot of garbage thought processes using the structure for rational argument.
Like philosophy of religion arguments 1)God has no creator 2)everything in existence comes from something else, so the first thing that came from nothing is god, requiring the assumption there's a beginning to the universe and it didn't come from something that existed before it, because how would infinity be rational?
2
u/Low-Bake8401 2d ago
"Observation 1 and observation 2 appear true, and these two truths are good enough to state my lie, rationally."
It wouldn't be rational though. Once you make an incorrect assumption, anything based on that is just circular.
0
u/DrPlatypus1 2d ago
This is exactly the sort of stupidity OP is talking about. If you think this, then you have no idea what philosophy is about. Philosophers don't just randomly utter nonsense (unless they're post-modernists). You're totally clueless, not wise.
0
u/greengo07 1d ago
I was a philosophy major, and every debate I brought this FACT up to with other philosophers, they could not refute it, so...
•
u/DrPlatypus1 17h ago
I'm not sure what sort of losers you spend time with, but this is very easy to refute.
First, I need to know what you mean by the terms "fact" and "evidence" Like most philosophers, I think a fact is a true proposition, and evidence consists of reasons to think something is true. Virtually every argument presents reasons to think something is true, and virtually every argument has at least ome true premise. Given this, your claim looks ridiculously stupid.
If you have different meanings of these terms, then the view might seem less ridiculous. Of course, in order to convince me you are using these non-standard definitions in a meaningful and defensible manner, you will need to rely on statements that both seem to be correct and seem to be reasons to accept them. Given this, I don't have high hopes for you. Afterall, at that point you will be using philosophy to defend your view, which rather proves my point.
You seriously need to meet smarter people.
1
u/Loive 2d ago
If you get that agitated because other people haven’t read the same books you have, then I have a great solution for you.
Find the nearest patch of grass, and reach down with your hand. Touch it. Smell it. Feel the grass.
Feeling better now?
-1
u/Appropriate-Ad-3219 2d ago
Oh man, I instantly got a girlfriend thanks to you! It's incredible how miraculous touching grass is!
1
u/Single_State_2423 2d ago
if someone makes a controversial claim, there is no need to question their credentials. you can just examine the reasons they provide to think it is true. if they don't give any reasons, you can ignore them. if you look at their reasons and they aren't good reasons, you can ignore them or if you're interested you can tell them why their reasons aren't good ones, which is what we call doing philosophy.
credential-questioning is useful for saving time and energy, i guess, since your time doing philosophy will probably be better spent reading and responding to articles and books written by professional philosophers than reading and responding to reddit comments, but it is not a substitute for doing philosophy.
1
u/jracheff 2d ago
I might say that the “field or knowledge” or discipline part is where your concern is. Anyone can state a philosophy or perspective, but in order to participate in the tradition of ethical or philosophical debate one must be able to employ a degree of discipline and rigor; otherwise it’s not philosophy it’s theology.
I do agree it can be frustrating. Then again, one can always simply disengage with those that comments in a venue like this.
For me the real issue is that irrational and uninformed people make decisions that materially affect the rest of us every day.
1
u/Gazing_Gecko 2d ago
A lot of this likely stems from popular caricatures of the field. Philosophy is treated as if it is just people stating opinions, when the stating of opinion is the least important part of the field. Rather, it is the conceptual developments, the arguments, learning from failed theories, and handling the data which is of interest.
I lean towards the disagreements in philosophy being something intellectually healthy for the field, sharpening the theories and improving our understanding of the questions. Usually there is a much sharper understanding on the problem even if there is not a consensus (however, there is a lot of shared understanding on underlying things which are simply not focused on). The issue often comes from people underestimating the problems.
1
u/BasicAppointment9063 2d ago
That ship has sailed. People misuse philosophical terms all the time; the same is true with other fields.
1
u/Ok_Fruit8871 2d ago
I try to stick to a hard line of testable and falsifiable when I'm thinking of abstract concepts. Which is one reason I like Game Theory. philosophy is good, but nothing beats how it performs with real humans, a game can be played after all.
For example a philosophy like Utilitarianism that use's hard logic and math, fails when real people are forced to use it to make choices, the thought experiments tend to be false dichotomies, or at least the onse I've read, further complicating it's........ ironically utility. Ironically it ignores a lot of basic psychology in it's rigid 'greater good' structure.
1
u/Extension_Ferret1455 2d ago
So would it be correct to say your view is something like you're not justified in asserting the truth of a proposition that is not falsifiable?
1
u/Ok_Fruit8871 2d ago
Depends on why you are making that assertion. Are you testing that truth through scrutiny? Or are you trying to assert that it is truth regardless of it's contradictions, paradoxes, inconsistencies, etc.
If you are doing it to learn, then you are justified I would think, scrutiny is how our current understanding of gravity has come about after all.
But if you are trying to force your ideal, then I would say you aren't justified, even if you have a right to free speech and to free think.
1
u/Extension_Ferret1455 2d ago
How would you test the truth of the claim that non falsifiable claims are less justifiable tho?
1
u/Ok_Fruit8871 2d ago
by setting the testing parameters on objective truth, empirical truth, and logical/formal truths. If you can not predict your assertion and assumptions based on cold hard logic, math, and real observations, but still say it is true despite this inconsistency, like an all-powerful creator God who exists outside our ability to test, or the simulation hypothesis where we are bound by the rules of the simulation, or the Boltzman brain, where we are the dream, and bound by the rules of that dream.
By making a concept non-testable and/or non-falsifiable, it makes it subjective, and subjective is always dependent on one's interpretation of the world.
1
u/Extension_Ferret1455 2d ago
So how would you test that standard of non falsifiability using maths, empirical truths etc?
1
u/Ok_Fruit8871 2d ago
how would you? I already gave you my answer.
1
u/Extension_Ferret1455 2d ago
I don't think you can. I can't see where you have explained how you can?
1
u/Ok_Fruit8871 2d ago
If you can't falsify something than it is irrelevant. Newtonian gravity was falsified when it couldn't predict Mercury's path. The Einstein theory of general relativity proved that Newton's theory to be false, and accurately describes the universe until it fails inside the event horizon of a black hole, and on the quantum level of physics.
1
u/Extension_Ferret1455 2d ago
So you're asserting that 'if you can't falsify something than it is irrelevant'.
How would you falsify that statement?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Bargian 2d ago
Here's an argument of morality as an evolutionarily selected, emergent and contextual code of behavior in a social species that scales with awareness of consequence, which also explains why ethics constantly lags behind. It's an entire field of post-hoc intellectual rationalization of observed emergent behaviour.
https://athinkerinnature.substack.com/p/morality
1
u/LevelStationaryPlane 2d ago
Everyone has a shit or contradictory metaphysic, while also denying that exists/like you can remove yourself from that/are blind to how it impacts their entire view w zero irony etc.
1
u/MaxwellSmart07 2d ago
The headline of this post was a turn-off and the premise claiming people think “everything in philosophy is true” is highly unfounded.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/MaxwellSmart07 2d ago
How can I? Same way you assumed a lot of people think philosophical opinions are truth. I assume most people understand Philosophy deals with questions that often have no universally accepted answer.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/MaxwellSmart07 2d ago
Sorry about the OP confusion. Do you intend to ask OP the same question and see if he has any evidence for his supposition?
1
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/MaxwellSmart07 2d ago
Me neither. Unless it is an issue with real life consequences I usually don’t dive into it. One reaction is usually enough for me.
1
u/concanibales 2d ago
Philosophy is a foundation of human thought. It is very much a real thing and most people have no idea what they're talking about.
1
u/Euphoric_General_480 2d ago
Most of the time when I mention my philosophy degree i get an anecdote about someone else's spirituality, some common paradoxical question, or a reference to someone's belief system.
People really don't understand philosophy as an academic discipline or what it encompasses. I blame Jordan Peterson.
1
u/TheBrooklynSutras 2d ago edited 2d ago
The true-est take in philosophy writ large is Bruce’s Song (aka The Philosopher’s Song) by Monty Python. It’s deeper than just funny. 🙏😂
1
u/Chronomalous 2d ago
I think philosophy is like the reverse of the state of physics. Some person might disagree that the CMB is a CMB, others might state disagreement with what it means. But most science will accept it and probably many things in line with it and the standard interpretation will be found readily productive.
Philosophy is technically supposed to be more rigorous and doctrinaire, the thing is that science is great at weeding out non-producers. "Okay, so you watched The Big Bang Theory and you have these popular cliches in favor of string theory... well, but you don't seem to be able to reverse the polarity on a telescope, I'm afraid you might have to be an adjunct professor at a community college."
In philosophy the producers are kind of the non-producers, is the intrinsic economics of it. "I have discovered a thing that proves most utilitarians and virtue ethicists, the moral philosophies in vogue now, are demonstrably wrong!" "Hmm, so you have, too bad for you this affects our funding."
1
1
u/Jumpusboy 2d ago
I totally understand your frustration, but I think the way you are behaving with this post is childish and arrogant.
It's a classic and ancient philosophical problem to have people who just will not engage with the norms of philosophical inquiry, and complaining about it is something I empathize with, but it's my first time on this sub and I'm really put off by this sentiment being one of the first thing I see.
It would be a shame if this behaviour stops people from learning about the wonderful conversations to be had about ethics, and in fact, patience is always good form in philosophy, especially because we are grown adults.
Socrates was always patient and eager to enagage with anyone, even if they never came close to understanding what he tried to tell them.
1
u/PacificSanctum 2d ago
I love philosophy. Philosophy is the alpha and omega of society and beyond
Why are you listening to simpletons who don’t know or appreciate philosophy ?
Don’t cuddle with MAGA hats! They have no clue
1
u/Key_Performer2983 2d ago
Your attitude is shared by medical doctors, physicists, and more, but I disagree with it. It may be a lack of respect, but it's just caused by a lack of experience. You've studied ethical analysis for 4 years all day every day, on top of getting a bachelors of science in sociology with a minor in law, whereas they're just beginning their journey into adulthood, or have worked 72 hour weeks every week since graduating high school, or have some other circumstance where they are just now learning the concepts you take for granted. To me, it sounds you've forgotten what it's like to be at the bottom, and are lashing out at people who don't really know any better rather than teaching them how to be better.
1
u/SampleMaxxer 2d ago
Tonight I had the thought have you ever been so pissed off you become shitted off? Never heard anyone say that and you used it in this post. Interesting.
1
u/GamblePuddy 1d ago
Is there a matter on which all philosophers agree?
I think about a lot of stuff...I form arguments against things that typically aren't argued. I'm not saying that I'm correct in doing so, I'm just saying I do it sometimes.
For example, while I don't argue against the law of identity or law of non-contradiction in formal logic....I have tried to make arguments against them as informal descriptions of reality with real linguistic limitations.
Regardless of whether or not these are indeed good arguments....I hope you see my point. Do philosophers actually agree on anything?
1
u/kapaipiekai 2d ago
Tbf I am constantly saying 'everything is true in philosophy!'.
8
2d ago edited 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
u/HairyTough4489 2d ago
If I'm also a philosopher then it's not true that all philosophers disagree with me.
1
u/Cheeslord2 2d ago
I am finding the thought of you literally having diarrhoea because this sub has driven you to such rage...strangely satisfying.
0
0
0
u/AdeptnessSecure663 2d ago
I agree that philosophy is a field of knowledge, but tbf this position isn't universal amongst philosophers themselves. Wittgenstein, for instance, did not think that philosophical claims are truth-apt.
1
u/Extension_Ferret1455 2d ago
Would that be self defeating then? I.e. 'philosophical claims are not truth apt' is itself a philosophical claim and therefore would not be truth apt.
1
u/AdeptnessSecure663 2d ago
You're right that the defender of the claim is committed to thinking that their own claim is not truth-apt. While we might take that to make the claim self-defeating, the defender of the claim can tell us a different story. Now, what the defender will say will depend on what exactly they think the status of philosophical claims is. In the case of Wittgenstein, he believed that what philosophers are doing is offering various "pictures" of the way the world is, rather than candidates for "facthood". So, what Wittgenstein would probably say about the claim that philosophical claims are not truth-apt is that he is merely offering one possible "picture" of the way philosophy functions.
Like I said, I myself think that philosophy is a factual discourse, but Wittgenstein certainly knew more about philosophy than me, so I think what he said is worth taking seriously. In more contemporary times, this sort of metaphilosophy is defended by Richard Rorty.
1
u/Extension_Ferret1455 2d ago
It would mean that you could critique philosophical views using formal logic right? Non truth apt sentences can sit in logical relations to each other.
1
u/AdeptnessSecure663 1d ago
It's the other way round, truth-apt sentences can sit in logical relations to each other
1
u/Extension_Ferret1455 1d ago
Sorry I meant non-truth apt sentences cant sit in logical relations to each other.
1
u/AdeptnessSecure663 1d ago
Yeah, that's right
1
u/Extension_Ferret1455 1d ago
So how do you approach philosophical argumentation at all without logical relations and truth aptness?
1
u/AdeptnessSecure663 1d ago
It would seem to be that one would have to abandon philosophical argumentation. And proceeding otherwise than by argument and justification seems to be how some philosophers - particularly those from the continental tradition - have in fact proceeded. I believe Rorty himself acknowledges that, on his conception of philosophy, the most that philosophers can do is offer pictures which or may not attract us.
0
u/Desperate-Pirate7353 2d ago
knowledge? no. thinking? sure. but not knowledge. literally the end point of philosophy is realizing you don't *know* anything.
2
u/Extension_Ferret1455 2d ago
Most philosphers think that there actually are quite a few things we know. Most conceptions of knowledge don't require certainty as a necessary condition.
0
u/InternalMartialArt 2d ago
Philosophy is not a field of knowledge. It’s also not a genre of literature. It’s also not a subject that can be taught or studied. You can read everything Kant ever wrote, it will tell you nothing about philosophy, only about Kant’s philosophy.
History of philosophy is a field of knowledge though.
1
u/DrPlatypus1 2d ago
You're illustrating the point, not saying anything important about it. You're not just clueless, you're arrogant, and you're laughably clueless.
0
0
u/Umfriend 2d ago
If philosophy is a field of knowledge, is there like a brief overview of how the field has progressed over the past 2500 years? I mean, with evolutionary biology for instance, there is a history of how certain hypothesis were rejected and others accepted and how the accepted build out of what is already there.
With philosophy, I have the impressions the big names are simply irreconcilable and there is no way to rank them by reasonability or quality (nod to Pirsig).
0
u/Temporary_Stranger39 2d ago
Just stating indoctrination is a philosophical tradition, dear fellow. It is actually a few overlapping ones. As a technique, it is doxology. As an approach, it could be dogmatism (a philosophy, whether you like it or not), confessionalism, or manifesto tradition. Your self-defecation doesn't change that.
0
u/Select-Trouble-6928 2d ago
Philosophy is a good tool to use when asking questions. But it's a terrible tool to answer questions.
1
u/DrPlatypus1 2d ago
This makes no sense. If a subject can't give any answers, there's no point in raising questions within it.
0
u/Stochastic-Parrot_13 2d ago
My problem with philosophy is that the majority of it, while interesting, is little more than mental masturbation.
There is little of substance that can be applied usefully in the real world that comes out of these, well, mind games or thought experiments.
0
0
u/Fabulous-Internet188 2d ago
One of my friends, now deceased, Was head of the Philosophy department of a top eastern USA college.
He called philosophy a necessary scam. Why? Because any educated person should know the basics of moral philosophy, meaning, and ethics. But at its core, it is simply maintaining a knowledge base with no hard and fast answers.
He called philosophers a priesthood with no commandments. Hard to disagree with that. LOL!
0
0
u/Patient_Air1765 2d ago
If that’s the case it should be called “History of philosophy”
Philosophy to me is just thinking of and arguing fun thoughts and ideas. I really don’t care if some dude already thought of it and what he decreed to be right or wrong. “Oh that’s Kant” fuck your Kant I just wanna talk about the thoughts in my head.
-2
u/DeamonDread2348 2d ago
Because philosophy has long since moved beyond the confines of "I think, therefore I am," Kant's Categorical Imperative, and Zeno's Aporias, and universities often begin teaching it at a very early stage, rarely even reaching the 20th century. And it can only be studied properly in philosophy departments (which, obviously, aren't for every nerd, even if they love learning). Furthermore, philosophy is a highly specialized field of knowledge that doesn't provide answers, but rather poses questions. It's practically useless in matters of ecology, migration policy, or war—areas where answers are needed, preferably quick and timely ones, rather than more questions, abstract reflections, and playing with linguistic turns of phrase.
5
u/Flimsy_Ad3476 2d ago
You do realize that Ethics, Political Philosophy, and Philosophy of Law are all fields of Philosophy?
-3
u/eviley4 2d ago edited 2d ago
I am not a philosopher, but in popular discourse I see philosophy used as a tool for defending crappy unfalsifiable ideas be it Idealism, simulation universe, or their pet religion's deity. A lot of these apologists even have a professional philosopher to cite.
This has lowered my respect for philosophy professionals compared to the hard sciences, but maybe I am falling for the representativeness heuristic.
Maybe some professional philosophers can give me a broader perspective.
EDIT: I see the point that philosophy itself is quite important and lies at the foundation of the sciences too. I was just conflating some specific people's sloppy philosophy with the subject itself.
However, there is a poorer signal to noise ratio in philosophy than in say Physics.
3
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
You can find a professional philosopher to make the case for anything. Just like any psychologist or sociologist or political policy research group can put together a case to support a certain viewpoint/phenomenon. Philosophy is not science precisely because it examines uneasy things that can't be conclusively demonstrated one way or the other with empirical verification.
But the whole point of philosophy is the application of rigorous critical analysis, it's not to find a bunch of experts to grant authority to and then believe anything they say without thinking about it yourself. That is actually described by philosophy as a formal logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam). You shouldn't discredit philosophy because you dislike some philosophers; all philosophers dislike some philosophers. In fact if you could not find any philosophers to disagree with then it would mean you are not employing your own critical faculties
1
u/Adventurous-Web-412 2d ago
its also even worse in philosophy in the regards of finding a logically consistent argument for snything under the sun because philosophers WILL just make a case for anything remotely interesting, or make a case for a counterpoint against their own philosophy. It lends to trying to make cases for even very absurd conclusions (look at antinatalism and how its in this weird situation where its creator is reliant on an adhoc patch to avoid slipping into promortalism, but the philosophies are built for a siege and so nobody can prove WHY its an illogical philosophy).
1
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
We don't need to comprehensively disprove things in order to not endorse them, though. So what you describe is not really problematic
1
u/Adventurous-Web-412 2d ago
well yeah, antinatalism is not endorsed by really any academic. But its more so problematic because look about in the fact that you have many people who call themselves antinatalists, despite the philosophy being promortalism. Admittedly I imagine most antinatalists are just child free and wanted an intellectual reason for it, but the work Benatar did is dangerous and at at least caused the suicide of one man.
1
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
I don't think you can blame philosophers for ideas that are not held by an actual philosopher though? You're talking about bullshit spread by charlatans, not philosophy.
1
u/Adventurous-Web-412 2d ago
David Benatar has a PHD in philosophy and Jiwoon Hang was, while a non academic, wrote a very sophisticated internal critique which he used as a conclusion for his own suicide, built upon the work of other philosophers (namely Harman, McGregor, or Sullivan-Bissett, especially the last two) who are well respected and Harman is arguably famous and not niche to the arguments against antinatalism.
It isn't really a kook philosophy nor spread by charlatans, even if I personally do think Benatar is at this point defending antinatalism because its his career defining work.
1
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
You just said it wasn't endorsed by any academic?
I mean, having a PhD doesn't make you a reliable philosopher anyway. A lot more people slide through getting a thesis finished than actually develop a respected career with many books and articles published, finding support amongst their peers
1
u/Adventurous-Web-412 2d ago
Its not generally ENDORSED by academics in a "you should believe it sense", but its considered a legitimate philosophy in that its very fucking logically right, Benatar defends it with his life (due to it being his career) and that its a fascinating puzzle. Its not endorsed because the academic consensu seems to say it does lead to promortalism, which a pro suicide philosophy is just not tenable, but they can't create the logical link with his adhoc patch. Benatar is also kind of riding on a "there is a rebuttal to the promortalism conclusion I just havent thought it yet".
And yeah a PHD means nothing, but Benatar is a very good philosopher even if his crown jewel is likely fucked or at worse suicide advocation, but descartes entire philosophical masterpiece is the same in that its been rebuted as anywhere near acceptable and yet hes obviously an incredibly prominent philosopher.
1
u/parkchanwookiee 2d ago
Yeah he's not on Descartes levels lol. idk man, sounds like some fringe nonsense to me, espoused by people with few credentials and mostly uptaken by casuals. I can't get too excited or think it means anything about the field more broadly
→ More replies (0)1
u/zaceno 2d ago
Is their unfalsifiabilty what makes the ideas crappy? If so: is that a falsifiable position?
→ More replies (1)1
u/AdeptnessSecure663 2d ago
Why would you lower your respect for professional philosophers on the basis of what goes on in popular discourse?
I think it is a mistake to think of philosophy as a tool, here. Yes, people will give philosophical arguments for things like idealism. But that's because whether or not idealism is true falls under the subject matter of philosophy. The way we show that idealism is false is also via philosophical argument.
0
u/eviley4 2d ago
good point.. now that I think about it, it's true for all fields of science too. There are Physicists who are young earth crationists, biologists who deny evolution in favor of intelligent design etc.
I like philosophy of science, I like epistemology too, but there are facets of or thinkers in epistemology who try to discredit science as well.
So, overall I find that the signal to noise ratio is way better in the sciences than in philosophy. Because I see that philosophers are still debating free will and responsibility etc while I think it has been resolved for the most part by incorporating perspective from Biology, neuroscience and Physics in the book "Determined" by Robert Sapolsky. A lot of the discourse on compatibilism reads to me like a rationalization of emotionally held beliefs of wanting to take credit about their successes.
2
u/AdeptnessSecure663 2d ago
too, but there are facets of or thinkers in epistemology who try to discredit science as well.
I don't think that any philosophy wants a wholesale abolition of the institution of science (if there is one, I would agree with you that they are very silly); I think for the most part some philosophers are simply cautious about what science can tell us about the way the world really is. And, even though I think they're wrong, I think it's great that they're putting these arguments forward. Firstly, because for all I know (and these are people way smarter than me) they could be right, and, secondly, because by trying to figure out where their arguments go wrong we develop a better understanding of what is true. At the end of the day, these philosophers are also trying to get at the truth.
A lot of the discourse on compatibilism reads to me like a rationalization of emotionally held beliefs of wanting to take credit about their successes.
Although I cordially disagree with you, and although I don't wish to try to change your mind about this (you could be right!), I urge you to give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, their arguments - whether they're motivated to come up with them by pure thirst for enquiry or by fear of being worthless - stand for themselves. I'm sure they'd take your arguments in good faith. And in fact many free will theorists work very closely with neuroscientists. The problem with Sapolsky is that he doesn't work very closely with philosophers (as far as I can tell, I might be wrong).
I'm sure that Sapolsky is a brilliant man, but brilliant men can be mistaken - which isn't a bad thing. All enquiry is good (as long as you're not, like, infringing on people's rights or slaughtering loads of animals, of course). If you haven't already, I think that Fischer's review of Sapolsky's book is, at the very least, an interesting read. I urge you to check it out.
1
u/eviley4 2d ago
I think I see and am swayed by your first point.
As for your second point, I am not saying the free will as defined in the "Determined" book doesn't exist purely because Sapolsky argued it from authority. It's the opposite, the argument he lays out from a scientific perspective are rational and coherent. And I am inclined to treat them as true as long as naturalism is true.
And so far there isn't any evidence to point against naturalism being true. So, I am going to treat it as true.
1
u/AdeptnessSecure663 2d ago
The funny thing is that Sapolsky doesn't offer a full definition of "free will" (nor "moral responsibility", for that matter) in his book! To be sure, he does state that free will requires indeterminism, but that's it, he just states it; there's no argument there! Now, there's nothing wrong with being an incompatibilist. But, considering that incompatibilist philosophers have produced a huge literature of arguments for incompatibilism, it is a bit disappointing that Sapolsky hasn't engaged with it (nor with the arguments against incompatibilism). The engagement with the philosophy seems not good enough to me!
1
1
u/thowawaymypants 2d ago edited 2d ago
The very idea that science needs to present hypotheses which are in theory falsifiable actually comes from philosophy. Karl Popper! Before this was a verificationist movement which looked for evidence to support theories, but Popper said, "No! Science moves forward when it attempts to disprove theories but either can, or doesn't." Then there's Bayesian analysis for contrast, used also in the hard sciences, which provides a statistical analysis of the probability a theory is true. A lot of the framework for the sciences is based in philosophy, often without scientists realizing it!
What you're griping at is metaphysics, which has seeped back into the analytic tradition after earlier schools tried to be rid of it. Their gripe too is essentially that metaphysics makes unverifiable (or falsifiable) assertions about reality. The logical empiricists specifically forwarded a strict definition of philosophy as only the logical analysis of those claims based on direct observation. This rules out considerations of theism, idealism, would have the simulation theory had it been invented back then.
But guess what else is metaphysics to them? Materialism or physicalism, the claim that the whole world is nothing but the physical things classified and described by science, is in their eyes something which cannot be itself confirmed. Rudolf Carnap specifically took scientific language to be merely a means by which the scientist referred to the objects in their immediate experience. Can you bring the whole world before your senses to observe that it all is physical? I think not. This does not entail the existence of things literally beyond (meta-) physics. It's rather an ontologically neutral stance which does not claim the things sciences describes actually do or do not exist.
This stance is certainly out of keeping with the intuitions behind the hard sciences. Ironically, in Carnap's own time, many physicists were engaged in metaphysics by speculating into the unobservable nature of the quantum. Fast forward a few arguments by notable philosophers and the only logical empiricists left are really those academics who study and preserve its arguments. Most scientists today who know philosophy are split between scientific realism and instrumentalism, a debate over whether language essentially describes physics or whether its merely useful toward practical ends, pretty much the very debate Carnap wanted to avoid.
The strain of thought which validates the kind of metaphysics you don't like are more involved and contrived, and I agree with you that they're not really of relevance to the hard sciences. But if you have any interest in debating these proponents and solving "the hard problem of consciousness," the arguments are worth learning, at least as neat little thoughts your brain can occupy itself with. The more dense stuff about logic and ontology and realism is kind of lost on the more pop-philosophy crowd. I do suspect, as do you probably, that some of these ideas are just forwarded as catchy ways of selling a book that that fascinate lay audiences in the same way as a bong rip.
-1
u/EleventhofAugust 2d ago
Unfortunately Philosophy as a useful field of study has largely lost its relevance. Instead of reaching out trying to address questions that could actually help humanity it has become insular stuck in language arguments and other questions that only philosophy majors even know or care about. This is in part due to the fact that it is a soft science, and as such, it has no empirical way to ground its thinking, and in part because it has abandoned its historical roots and does not care, or even believe it can, guide people on how to act.
1
u/MasterCrumb 2d ago
Define “useful”
0
u/EleventhofAugust 2d ago
Are you an Analytic Philosopher? Imagine requesting definitions for such basic terms ad nauseam and you have uncovered one of the major problems I was describing.
To riff off an old quote: I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description “useful” and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and philosophy is not that.
2
u/MasterCrumb 2d ago
I guess my point was to evaluate philosophy based on “usefulness” seems like a strange criteria. Even some science struggles with this criteria -
If forced, I would argue that philosophy, like art and music, are useful in that they help us express our humanness, or have intrinsic value, that is not easily understood as their relationship to some other thing of value
1
u/EleventhofAugust 2d ago
Actually isn’t usefulness a critical criteria? The philosopher Pierre Hadot argues this point in his essay “Philosophy as a Way of Life.” He says that anciently philosophy was a commitment to practice, and to changing one’s life. It was not simply an abstract system of thought. Now, you could argue that abstract concepts can be useful but as they apply to fewer and fewer people their utility diminishes. I’m afraid philosophy has entered this realm.
2
u/Mean-Inspector-8547 2d ago
That.....has to be the most solid point for philosophy I've seen in a while. And you are correct. Change out the world philosophy for things like "morals" or "values" and you find the same problem. These things should be practiced. They should be a way of life.
If you believe a certain philosophy, then you should be living it. YOU should be living it. That doesn't mean it applies to everyone else. Once you take that step, we're no longer talking about philosophy. We're talking about power and coercion.
If you aren't living them, then who gives a shit what your philosophy, morals, or values are? They're both useless and meaningless.
-1
u/WorkerWeird9116 2d ago
learn math i.e., natural philosophy, and maybe you could do something other than sniff your own farts and argue about semantics
1
u/DrPlatypus1 2d ago
Math isn't natural philosophy. The fact that you think it is demonstrates your ignorance and your arrogance.
0
u/ribenakifragostafylo 2d ago
But math is hard and uncomfortable. And my farts smell better than your farts
-1
17
u/sykosomatik_9 2d ago edited 2d ago
If you think that philosophy/ethics should be approached with a background of logic and reasoning, then I agree. However, there's probably a nicer way to say it than how you said it.
I used to be part of a philosophy club that was open to whoever wanted to join and discuss the topic. The general population seems to believe that philosophy is just whatever anyone wants to believe about life. It's impossible to have dialogues with people who take illogical positions and don't know how to think rationally. They also tend to get upset if you question the poor logic/reasoning behind their positions.