You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to make your point. Just type it into google. You have to look harder to find your meaning. It's typically further down the list - if it's even there at all, which it isn't in some cases - and these lists are typically ordered in terms of most-to-least common usage - and recent editions of The Chambers Dictionary are no exception, as I have discovered. In your own definition of "pretence", "pretentiousness" is fifth down. And in your definition of "pretentious", there was only a single word which backs up your meaning, namely "phoney", amongst all of the other words, which back up my meaning. That should tell you something.

It would have been more sensible for you to have picked definition number one for each word. That would have been more likely to be a correct interpretation, and, funnily enough, that's what I meant, as I've made clear. But instead, you jumped in with your own interpretation, stubbornly stuck by it, and even went so far as to cherry-pick out of less common usage to back it up.

But all of this is beside the point, since my meaning is what matters, not yours, since I asked the question. And my meaning has been clarified, so there should be no further misunderstanding from you about what is meant from that point onwards.

My question was not about whether philosophy attracts pompous, self-important, foolishly grandiose, affected, showy or ostentatious people. If you claim that that'd be an unintended consequence of an affirmative answer to what I am asking, then okay, but even if you're right, that wasn't the focus of my question.

I've elaborated on the meaning of my question, and what I was getting at, and others have understood it - some of them surprisingly well. But with you, it seems to be a problem. Why is that, I wonder?

Sorry BC I just cannot agree that the attempt to think the nature of the God, absolute, the infinite, the eternal or whatever you want to call it, is a complete waste of time. — Janus

Thinking about the nature of God is essentially a creative activity which brought God into existence. As a creative activity, making God real is an essential part of religious practice. The believer thinks God into being God. Man creates God.

God has a reality in the minds of his creators. There is no objectively existing being to discuss. It is like arguing over the objective abilities of Gandalf, Frodo, Elrond, or Lady Galadriel in LOTR. They, being fictional characters, have no objective abilities at all since they are only characters in a story. As such, they are wonderful characters, just not real.

Some people have a taste for the allusive, the evocative, the numinous or simply the arcane and esoteric, in thought and language. They may find it inspiring or even utterly life-changing. As long as it is not mistaken for definitive or empirical knowledge (which leads to fundamentalism) how can you justify saying it is a waste of time, per se? — Janus

There is nothing wrong with a taste for the allusive, the evocative, the numinous, or the arcane or esoteric; it just does not lead to anything life-changing. A few experiences are life-changing, but any one would be hard pressed to predict which experiences are going to do that.

Perhaps you were just shit-stirring, eh? :razz: — Janus

What, Moi? Remuer un pot de merde? How could you say such a thing about me! :cry:

before you do something regrettable. — Sir2u

Like reduce poor little you to tears?

@CuddlyHedgehog @Sir2u

Stop it. You want to behave like kids, go somewhere else.

It's not so hard when you're as wise as me. — Sapientia

Yes, I figured out that was the gist of your responses :)

So I think my response depends a little bit on whether or not what you propose as solution is a strict rule, or more of a suggestion. As a suggestion I'd probably find little to no disagreement -- I have my own set of little rules I try to use to think through questions that crop up based upon my own tendencies or errors past. And, sure, often times we simply need to rephrase our question to make it more specific because we may just be following a bad habit that leads nowhere, after all.

As a rule, though, I think I'd disagree. I'd go to Heidegger to do so -- heck, one could argue that Being in Time just is a circle where Heidegger is clarifying what he already believes to be the case, chasing his own tale, but I'd still say it's good philosophy.

But before saying much more I'll just wait and see in what capacity you mean your solution.

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to make your point. Just type it into google. You have to look harder to find your meaning. It's typically further down the list - if it's even there at all, which it isn't in some cases - and these lists are typically ordered in terms of most-to-least common usage - and recent editions of The Chambers Dictionary are no exception, as I have discovered. In your own definition of "pretence", "pretentiousness" is fifth down. And in your definition of "pretentious", there was only a single word which backs up your meaning, namely "phoney", amongst all of the other words, which back up my meaning. That should tell you something. — Sapientia

Are you trying to tell me that the meaning of words is based up the position on the scale of common usage. That sounds silly.
A word that means something still means the same no matter where it is in a dictionary. And how did you figure out that they are placed in order of common usage?

It would have been more sensible for you to have picked definition number one for each word. That would have been more likely to be a correct interpretation, and, funnily enough, that's what I meant, as I've made clear. But instead, you jumped in with your own interpretation, stubbornly stuck by it, and even went so far as to cherry-pick out of less common usage to back it up. — Sapientia

Sensible to whom? You. Just because that fits your way of thinking does not make the only way of thinking.

But all of this is beside the point, since my meaning is what matters, not yours, since I asked the question. And my meaning has been clarified, so there should be no further misunderstanding from you about what is meant from that point onwards. — Sapientia

And here we get to the point. How is one supposed to know your meaning? How is one supposed to know what you expect for an answer? As you so often say, words have many meanings, how does anyone know which meaning you are using? Or should we go by the top ten chart?

All you did in your post was to do what you are bitching about in it. Stack up a bunch of questions. You later claim that you would expect people to post questions that required some thinking, that would be of interest to you.

I understand the asking of a question like, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of faith?", more than I understand the asking of a question like, "What is faith?". I don't think that they're equivalent in meaning, and if they were, why not express it as the former, so as to avoid the kind of misunderstandings you'd get with the latter? — Sapientia

"Don't question", just "Question wisely". — Sapientia

"What is Google?" — Sapientia

Is a no no.

"What is Google at the most basic or fundamental level?" — Sapientia

Is the correct way.

So do you think a question, like the one below, that solicits a yes or no answer falls into the first or second category?

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? — Sapientia

Should your question not be something like;

What is it about philosophy that invites or attracts a sort of pretence?

That at least gives people the idea that you want more than a yes or no.
But because as you say, words have many meanings, would it not also have been requires of you to give a reasonable insight to what exactly you are think so that people would know what to respond to? And so as to avoid the kind of misunderstandings you'd get with the original question?

Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception. — Sapientia

Funny how when I use a certain interpretation of a sentence you quickly say that I have it wrong. That you do not mean the word as pretentious, but when others interpret it the same way

If what you say is true, you have been as pretentious as the rest of us. — T Clark

Yes, I think it's more of the case that pretentious people can invite themselves to do philosophy, or art, or write poetry, or compose music, or.... — Janus

you laugh it off

T Clark It's called disillusionment. — Sapientia

or ignore it.

My question was not about whether philosophy attracts pompous, self-important, foolishly grandiose, affected, showy or ostentatious people. — Sapientia

That is a shame, it might have made for an interesting discussion.

If you claim that that'd be an unintended consequence of an affirmative answer to what I am asking, then okay, but even if you're right, that wasn't the focus of my question. — Sapientia

Nice side step there. But the fact still remains that you did not specify your focus. You just did a question dump.

I've elaborated on the meaning of my question — Sapientia

After the fact, I would have thought you did not approve of people doing things like that.

But it seems that on page 5 some people still don't know what you are talking about.

I wonder what sort of pretence, exactly, you think philosophy might invite. Like, that we are just pretending that we do not know something, maybe? — Moliere

But with you, it seems to be a problem. Why is that, I wonder? — Sapientia

Could it possibly be because I am not up to the level of your high and mighty attitude.

I have some interest in finding things out, but I lack interest in allowing you to set the agenda if that's the best you can come up with. More specificity, and I might bite. — Sapientia

How far down the rabbit hole are you? — Sapientia

I do try to shake some sense into those who seem to be lost and struggling to find their way back to reality. — Sapientia

Stop asking me time-wasting loaded questions, please. — Sapientia

That's a pretty good reply, in contrast to some pretty awful replies that this discussion has attracted. You know who you are, so take note. — Sapientia

Anyone who can read and has half a brain will be able to compare the two and note the difference, — Sapientia

Yes, it is, if you find that kind of thing interesting. Of course, that wasn't a genuine example, but an example of my smartasrsery. — Sapientia

↪Bitter Crank No, no, you just need to look a little deeper. Try again in another ten years. — Sapientia

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to make your point. — Sapientia

It's not so hard when you're as wise as me. — Sapientia

:wink:

Stop it. You want to behave like kids, go somewhere else. — jamalrob

Sorry, it is just that I was having so much with with the cuddly little guy I forgot to be serious. Maybe it was the influence the thread had on me. :pray: Forgiveness please. :smile:

Are you trying to tell me that the meaning of words is based up the position on the scale of common usage. That sounds silly. — Sir2u

Yes, that does sound silly. It's a silly interpretation. Anyone can do that. It's easy. Look:

"Are you trying to tell me that common usage has nothing whatsoever to do with the way in which we use words?"

At least, I hope that that's not an accurate suggestion about your stance, because it would be remarkably naive.

And how did you figure out that they are placed in order of common usage? — Sir2u

Research. I actually found a book about the history of Chambers Dictionary which I was able to access online, and it said what I told you: that recent editions abide by the usage principle in their ordering.

Sensible to whom? You. Just because that fits your way of thinking does not make the only way of thinking. — Sir2u

No, not sensible to whom. Just sensible.

And here we get to the point. How is one supposed to know your meaning? — Sir2u

:lol:

Really?

As you so often say, words have many meanings... — Sir2u

That isn't something I often say, actually. I don't know where you're getting that from. And please don't waste your time hunting around for quotes. The key word is "often".

All you did in your post was to do what you are bitching about in it. Stack up a bunch of questions. — Sir2u

That's a hilarious misunderstanding. No, I'm not being critical of people asking a bunch of rhetorical questions like those in my opening post in order to make the very point that I'm making. I'm being critical of the asking of those questions, as worded and with sincerity.

So do you think a question, like the one below, that solicits a yes or no answer falls into the first or second category?

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence?
— Sapientia

Should your question not be something like;

What is it about philosophy that invites or attracts a sort of pretence?

That at least gives people the idea that you want more than a yes or no. — Sir2u

It shouldn't be replaced with that question, because that would be an example of begging the question. And, although I could have added, "And why?", I'm pretty sure that people already had that idea. Just look at the replies.

Anyway, can't be bothered with the rest of your post. Sorry, not sorry.

Thinking about the nature of God is essentially a creative activity which brought God into existence. As a creative activity, making God real is an essential part of religious practice. The believer thinks God into being God. Man creates God.

God has a reality in the minds of his creators. There is no objectively existing being to discuss. — Bitter Crank

Are you sure that God is real only in the human imagination? It is often said that God is not an objective, in the sense of empirical, being. Is the category of the objectively real exhausted by what is empirically encounter-able?

There is nothing wrong with a taste for the allusive, the evocative, the numinous, or the arcane or esoteric; it just does not lead to anything life-changing. A few experiences are life-changing, but any one would be hard pressed to predict which experiences are going to do that. — Bitter Crank

When I speak of life-changing experiences I don't mean to refer to events that merely change the course of one's life; I am speaking of events which alter the whole orientation of one's being. Love can do that; but I doubt that mere love of a fellow human, or one's community, or nation, can; it takes a love of what is greater than, transcendent of, one's own being, to bring that transformation about.

When I speak of life-changing experiences I don't mean to refer to events that merely change the course of one's life; I am speaking of events which alter the whole orientation of one's being. Love can do that — Janus

Most of us do not have life-changing experiences on the order of the Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. Usually we have small-scale experiences that lack the voltage to remake our whole orientation toward life.

I am not at all certain that had I a choice, I would choose a road-to-Damascus type experience. It was good for Saul/Paul, but there would be no guarantees about the kind of metanoia one would experience. It might be an unmitigated disaster.

Love is good bet. Love is an unplanned disruption.We can not choose to desire; one can't choose to fall in love. It just happens, (or it doesn't). We can change ourselves through learning, practice, persistent effort, working toward a worthy goal, but this won't have that ZAP! experience you spoke of. We can keep ourselves open to new experiences, and maybe something surprising and worthwhile will com of that.

"Are you trying to tell me that common usage has nothing whatsoever to do with the way in which we use words?" — Sapientia

That is bloody stupid. And has nothing at all to do with what I said. Why don't you stop trying so hard to put people down and give an answer to a question that should be easy for you to do.

Research. I actually found a book about the history of Chambers Dictionary which I was able to access online, and it said what I told you: that recent editions abide by the usage principle in their ordering. — Sapientia

Oh dear, and you did not think that I might be interested in having the link to it. Wait, I think I already know your answer, "google it yourself". But I already did that and I failed to find it. So please try to be nice and share.

No, not sensible to whom. Just sensible. — Sapientia

I brought my umbrella to work today, does that seem sensible to you. But then you are probably going to say that it would depend on why I did it. If was it raining then yes it would be sensible, if not then probably not sensible.
So to whom would it be sensible to if not everyone has all of the facts. Things making sense or not do depend on facts don't they?

:lol:

Really? — Sapientia

Sad when all you can do to hide your inadequacies is try to put people down. Someone asks you a serious question and you don't even try to be polite about not answering. But that is part of your style also, so I guess we will have to put up with it as long as you are here.

That isn't something I often say, actually. I don't know where you're getting that from. And please don't waste your time hunting around for quotes. The key word is "often". — Sapientia

I have no need for searching, you just told us that you have used that phrase, just not "often". So you do know that words have more than one meaning, therefore you should take the time to explain which meaning you are using so as to avoid the posibility of misunderstanding.

That's a hilarious misunderstanding. No, I'm not being critical of people asking a bunch of rhetorical questions like those in my opening post in order to make the very point that I'm making. I'm being critical of the asking of those questions, as worded and with sincerity. — Sapientia

So you are critical of people asking those types of questions with that style of wording and you don't consider them worthy of your notice or reply. But you do expect others to pay attention to your admittedly rhetorical questions and give proper answers.

rhetorical questions A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered

It shouldn't be replaced with that question, because that would be an example of begging the question. — Sapientia

begging the question
Assume the truth of something, especially the very thing to be proved
avoid a difficult point
invite a follow up question or point

Which of these definitions of begging the question are you using, for the sake clarity.

If you are using the first definition then it makes no difference because the post makes it clear that you think philosophy attracts pretense. you would not be influencing anyone with the question.

If you are using the second definition, what is the situation you are trying to avoid.

If you are using the third then you would want to ask the question because that is your stated purpose of the post.

And, although I could have added, "And why?", I'm pretty sure that people already had that idea. Just look at the replies. — Sapientia

Is "pretty sure" the same as being sure. I do not think that they are quite the same, and if it was my OP I would try to be sure that people understood what I was asking and that I do expect answers to my rhetorical questions.

Most people do not respond to rhetorical questions

rhetorical question A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered

Anyway, can't be bothered with the rest of your post. Sorry, not sorry. — Sapientia

Now why is that not a surprise? Actually I never imagined that you even try to answer the rest of it. It is not your style.

So OK, just answer one more question.

Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception. — Sapientia

How did you ever manage to get pretence to mean self deception?

I started a thread on this same subject at the old place about 8 years ago. But I was honest enough to actually say what I thought.
It was called "A big, long winded rant on "The Pretentiousness of Philosophers". I think that the OP was about 1000 words. There was quite a bit of serious discussion contained in the thread. Unfortunately I am blocked from viewing it so I cannot make a copy.

I think that you see yourself as some sort of modern Socrates, Always trying to provoke people into thinking and reasoning. I cannot remember the source, I think it was from Plato, where Socrates described himself as a fly continually irritating a half dead horse or something like that. The horse was ancient Athens and he considered it his god given job to provoke the people into thought. He too was well known for never giving answers to the questions he posed. And he only got invited to one drink for his services to the state even though he thought that he deserved a free meal every day for life.

but there would be no guarantees about the kind of metanoia one would experience. It might be an unmitigated disaster. — Bitter Crank

Do you have any examples of disastrous metanoia in mind?

We can keep ourselves open to new experiences, and maybe something surprising and worthwhile will com of that. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I think that's the key: experiential openness.