Actual Philosophy

Jeremiah

HexHammer had a valid point but the thread was locked prematurely.

To some philosophy is a precursor to scientific investigation. In philosophy they came to understand and define truth. A point others seem stuck on, but for some they are able to move beyond that aspect which creates a natural path to science. Science is modern philosophy and philosophy is ancient science. Some do not see a division but see them as a single continuation.

You may not like what HexHammer had to say, or perhaps the disagreement was with how he said it, but he had a valid point. Some philosophers seem to stop along the road and take rest under a shady tree instead of forging ahead into the burning sunlight along a path that pushes closer to truth. That path takes more effort, more time and more dedication and along this path you are more exposed, your beloved views can shed under such harsh light, but for those that love truth it is a sacrifice they are more than willing to make.

Too many modern philosophers too much want to cling to their POV, their subjectivity, their opinions; they want to lay around in the shade of the tree and talk instead of pushing ahead. They don't want to find truth, instead they rather hide away in their minds and in talk.

Anyone who thinks the path of truth does not include a heavy dose of science is kidding themselves. It does not necessarily need to be physics, but it should be some formal science which teaches a person to reason and explore the reality around themselves in a scientific fashion. This also consequently means a deeper understanding of mathematics.

Consider for discussion this conversation in Plato's The Republic:

Glaucon said: If curiosity makes a philosopher, you will find many a strange
being will have a title to the name. All the lovers of sights have a delight in learning,
and must therefore be included. Musical amateurs, too, are a folk strangely
out of place among philosophers, for they are the last persons in the world
who would come to anything like a philosophical discussion, if they could help,
while they run about at the Dionysiac festivals as if they had let out their ears
to hear every chorus; whether the performance is in town or country–that makes
no difference–they are there. Now are we to maintain that all these and
any who have similar tastes, as well as the professors of quite minor arts, are
philosophers?

Certainly not, I replied; they are only an imitation.

He said: Who then are the true philosophers?

Those, I said, who are lovers of the vision of truth.

That is also good, he said; but I should like to know what you mean?

To another, I replied, I might have a difficulty in explaining; but I am sure that
you will admit a proposition which I am about to make.

What is the proposition?

That since beauty is the opposite of ugliness, they are two?

Certainly.

And inasmuch as they are two, each of them is one?

True again.

And of just and unjust, good and evil, and of every other class, the same remark
holds: taken singly, each of them is one; but from the various combinations of
them with actions and things and with one another, they are seen in all sorts of
lights and appear many?

Very true.

And this is the distinction which I draw between the sight-loving, art-loving,
practical class and those of whom I am speaking, and who are alone worthy of
the name of philosophers.

How do you distinguish them? he said.

The lovers of sounds and sights, I replied, are, as I conceive, fond of fine tones
and colours and forms and all the artificial products that are made out of them,
but their mind is incapable of seeing or loving absolute beauty.

True, he replied.

Few are they who are able to attain to the sight of this.

Very true.

http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/republic.pdf

HexHammer

↪Jeremiah

You have my thanks for seeing reason, and to speak my defense! <3

Ying

they want to lay around in the shade of the tree and talk instead of pushing ahead. — Jeremiah

"Huizi said to Zhuangzi, 'I have a large tree, which men call the Ailantus. Its trunk swells out to a large size, but is not fit for a carpenter to apply his line to it; its smaller branches are knotted and crooked, so that the disk and square cannot be used on them. Though planted on the wayside, a builder would not turn his head to look at it. Now your words, Sir, are great, but of no use - all unite in putting them away from them.' Zhuangzi replied, 'Have you never seen a wildcat or a weasel? There it lies, crouching and low, till the wanderer approaches; east and west it leaps about, avoiding neither what is high nor what is low, till it is caught in a trap, or dies in a net. Again there is the Yak, so large that it is like a cloud hanging in the sky. It is large indeed, but it cannot catch mice. You, Sir, have a large tree and are troubled because it is of no use - why do you not plant it in a tract where there is nothing else, or in a wide and barren wild? There you might saunter idly by its side, or in the enjoyment of untroubled ease sleep beneath it. Neither bill nor axe would shorten its existence; there would be nothing to injure it. What is there in its uselessness to cause you distress?"
-Zhuangzi, inner chapters, "Enjoyment in Untroubled Ease", 7.

Galuchat

To some philosophy is a precursor to scientific investigation. In philosophy they came to understand and define truth. A point others seem stuck on, but for some they are able to move beyond that aspect which creates a natural path to science. Science is modern philosophy and philosophy is ancient science. Some do not see a division but see them as a single continuation. — Jeremiah

Science and Philosophy can be complementary endeavours.

Scientific conclusions which are not subjected to logical investigation can be just as false as Philosophical conclusions not based on relevant empirical investigation.

The coherence which logical investigation imposes upon Scientific conclusions should serve as an effective guide for further empirical investigation (or lack thereof), and empirical facts should serve as a starting point for pragmatic Philosophical speculation.

Jeremiah

Scientific conclusions which are not subjected to logical investigation — Galuchat

I am sorry, but no valid scientific conclusion is void of logical coherence.

Streetlight

Just to be clear, there is a good discussion to be had about the relationship between science and philosophy. There is no good discussion to be had about a rant regarding 'intelligent' and 'inept' people and their 'suitability' for philosophy. One of these is philosophy. The other is pompous trash peddled by dickheads.

Jeremiah

↪StreetlightX

Before your post such "trash" was not a part of this thread.

Streetlight

↪Jeremiah

Fair enough, and I'll say no more about here.

Baden

↪Jeremiah

You've taken HexHammer's angry babble and turned into something more coherent and focused. But to be clear, discussions like his will continue to be closed (or deleted) for low quality.

_db

Intellectuals have an over-inflated sense of the importance of their discipline and make broad, sweeping generalizations of other disciplines they are unfamiliar with? :gasp:

There will never be a cohesive and inclusive model for inquiry. Everyone thinks that their favorite philosopher, or their chosen scientific field, is the be-all-end-all pinnacle of everything, and fuck everything else. Echo-chambers exist throughout the sciences and humanities. One person may doubt another person's self-evident truths. et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. At the end of the day, nothing changes, nobody has learned anything, and we all go home just a little more disappointed in others.

If I had to criticize philosophers and scientists for one thing, it's that they tend to make things into a big narrative, with philosophy or science being the "ultimate" that eclipses any other discipline. Philosophy does, in my opinion, technically hold the cards as the "ultimate", but it's often so impotent and slow-moving that you might as well just give the torch to someone more competent. If science is to be the model for everything and anything (as naturalism wishes it to be), then scientists need to be philosophically literate. Before, we had scientist-philosophers, who really were the model intellectuals, and who held a deep respect for philosophy. Nowadays you just have douchey wannabes spouting racist and sexist hate-speech and pretending it's science, parading around and T-bagging dissenters. Rah-rah, we're the best! Rah-rah!

HexHammer

Plato: “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”

Very true quote, the ignorant will always get angry attack those who expose their ignorance.
On the contrary you should thank me for trying to step up the philosophical skills amongst these cozy chatters, to evolve humankind from the stone ages to information age.

Some still live in mud huts even in these modern times anno 2018, because they don't have what it takes to evolve, because they have lived in ignorance.

It's Plato's cave all over again, they attacked and killed the dude who went outside and tried to enlighten those still remaining inside.

_db

Plato: “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”

Very true quote, the ignorant will always get angry attack those who expose their ignorance.
On the contrary you should thank me for trying to step up the philosophical skills amongst these cozy chatters, to evolve humankind from the stone ages to information age. — HexHammer

Something-something persecution complex; disagreement misinterpreted as hostility and transformed into self-righteous ego-inflation.

Boy, aren't you masculine! 8=========D

Baden

↪darthbarracuda

I'll just leave that there as one example of why he has now been banned. Carry on.

Jeremiah

Intellectuals have an over-inflated sense of the importance of their discipline and make broad, sweeping generalizations of other disciplines they are unfamiliar with? :gasp:

There will never be a cohesive and inclusive model for inquiry. Everyone thinks that their favorite philosopher, or their chosen scientific field, is the be-all-end-all pinnacle of everything, and fuck everything else. Echo-chambers exist throughout the sciences and humanities. One person may doubt another person's self-evident truths. et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. At the end of the day, nothing changes, nobody has learned anything, and we all go home just a little more disappointed in others.

If I had to criticize philosophers and scientists for one thing, it's that they tend to make things into a big narrative, with philosophy or science being the "ultimate" that eclipses any other discipline. Philosophy does, in my opinion, technically hold the cards as the "ultimate", but it's often so impotent and slow-moving that you might as well just give the torch to someone more competent. If science is to be the model for everything and anything (as naturalism wishes it to be), then scientists need to be philosophically literate. Before, we had scientist-philosophers, who really were the model intellectuals, and who held a deep respect for philosophy. Nowadays you just have douchey wannabes spouting racist and sexist hate-speech and pretending it's science, parading around and T-bagging dissenters. Rah-rah, we're the best! Rah-rah! — darthbarracuda

So then you do see them as separate paths?

_db

So then you do see them as separate paths? — Jeremiah

Do I see philosophy and science as two separate paths? No, absolutely not. Neither one has full hegemony over the field of inquiry. Additionally, I would include religion in the mix.

There is bad science. There is bad religion. There is bad philosophy. In other news, the sky is blue and I hate cucumbers.

Jeremiah

↪darthbarracuda

So then you are in agreement with HexHammer. There is good and there is bad philosophy.

_db

↪Jeremiah

There is good philosophy and there is bad philosophy. But I don't think there's one single model for what good philosophy is. I recognize good philosophy when I see it. I'm not sure what essential features there are about good philosophy that aren't also features of good science, good religion, or whatever.

Jeremiah

↪darthbarracuda

No one is suggesting "one single model" for anything; however, if your statement is that there is bad philosophy then you must have reasons for thinking that. So then, what are the characteristics of "bad philosophy"?

_db

↪Jeremiah

Like I said, there isn't a single model for this. Bad philosophy is obviously going to include anything that is factually incorrect, clearly logically invalid or poorly presented without the proper theoretical virtues like the principle of charity.

We are never going to arrive at a satisfactory definition of what good philosophy is, because philosophy is highly individualistic. We can't even agree on what "philosophy" is - you might even disagree that it's individualistic, although it would kinda prove my point.

Jeremiah

↪darthbarracuda

I think a characteristics of bad philosophy is over generalizations and giving up before before even trying. Always seeking the middle of the road, and speaking in terms so wide they include everyone, because being precise takes actual work.

HexHammer is right, there are a lot of lovers of opinion that masquerade as philosophers, and it is important for these lovers of opinion to maintain that fluid form, with no clear outline, so that they can feel like they belong to all the shapes. And because they never take a solid stance they avoid being put in a position where they may fail; a defense mechanism of the ego.

_db

↪"Jeremiah

Oh, man, you got me cornered. Don't shoot! :yikes:

Jeremiah

↪darthbarracuda

I have no idea what that means. Was I not suppose to share my thoughts?

_db

↪Jeremiah

Well, your reply came across as disagreement, and I felt it characterized my position unfaithfully. I said philosophy is highly individualistic and inherently puts the questioner in question, and because of this individuality, attempts to systematize philosophy will fail. We don't know what good philosophy looks like, other than that is contains elements that are commonly found in other species of things we consider good as well. In fact we don't even have a common consensus as to what philosophy is. How can we agree on what good philosophy is when we can't even agree what philosophy tout court is?

None of this means we should accredit the same respect to charlatans as we do scientists, or forgo the use of precision and coherency. All I am saying is that asking what good philosophy is, is akin to Socrates demanding the essence of justice or virtue. We can obviously point to particular instances of good philosophy. But "good philosophy" in the abstract is an impossible concept to flesh out. It might even be malformed.

Philosophy is philosophy. It's up to the individual to determine whether it's any good. I don't think I am "giving up" so much as I am recognizing the impossibility of systematizing something as diverse as philosophy. I'm being historical. One person's good philosophy is another person's shit philosophy. I am espousing a mild form of relativism, or rather, agnosticism. If we agree on something, great. If we disagree on something and can't resolve our disagreement, then we go our own ways and stick to our perspectives. That is what has happened and what will continue to happen. That's how philosophy works.

Shawn

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed my comment in the other thread, where Hex posted; but, to practice "actual philosophy" requires an epistemic gap in knowledge that is manifest in an appeal to authority or someone who knows what "real philosophy" is. Hence, why Plato gets such a bad rap in regards to people who made that epistemic bridge possible with their own appeal to authority.

It's a non-sequitur in general, for the most part, to draw false dichotomies between "real philosophy" and "babble".

Akanthinos

No one is suggesting "one single model" for anything; however, if your statement is that there is bad philosophy then you must have reasons for thinking that. So then, what are the characteristics of "bad philosophy"? — Jeremiah

think a characteristics of bad philosophy is over generalizations and giving up before before even trying. — Jeremiah

HexHammer is right, there are a lot of lovers of opinion that masquerade as philosophers, — Jeremiah

If we ask you who these philosophers are, my guess is that the list you'll provide will feature predominantly philosophers belonging to a single tradition. Since you mentioned "a love of opinion", "maintaining a fluid form" and your preferences for science, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that you'd put a lot of Continentals on that list of "bad philosophers". So in effect, you likely are trying to impose "one single model".

Often, philosophers who maintain a fluid form do so out of a principled positioning against objectivism or some other ~ism. By taking such a narrow stance toward the methodology of philosophy, you restrict the practice, its history and its future.

apokrisis

Real philosophy is the pragmatism of philosophical naturalism. Science is the applied arm of that these days.

Then you have that sound middle road flanked by the unrestricted objectivism/realism of AP, and the unrestricted subjectivism/relativism of PoMo.

It is a luxury that modern academia can enjoy I guess. A cultural entertainment. The tab is being picked up by the science dudes anyway.

Wayfarer

Anyone who thinks the path of truth does not include a heavy dose of science is kidding themselves. — Jeremiah

Notice the emphasis on the passage you have quoted from Plato on aesthetics, beauty and music. Whilst I certainly agree that the Greek heritage is fundamental in the formation of science, modern science, commencing with Galileo, tends to eschew those areas of aesthetic judgement, or rather, relegate them to the domain of the subjective, which is by its lights, what amounts to secondary or derivative. What is primary, in post-Galilean science, is what is able to be quantified. And that is due in large part of Galileo's 'the book of nature being written in mathematics', which he did indeed derive from the dianoia of Plato, via the Platonic revival of Renaissance humanism. But again, the kind of 'holistic' logic that you find in the quote from the Republic, is generally absent from modern science, whereas it was found in pre-modern or medieval conceptions of science.

Noble Dust

Real philosophy is...wait...

Marcus de Brun

"HexHammer is right, there are a lot of lovers of opinion that masquerade as philosophers"

How can one possibly masquerade or pretend to philosophy? The pretense itself is valid philosophy.

Nietzsche declared 'why do we value truth more than untruth?' Indeed what is Art, only the masquerade of a particular reality. And, perception itself is the personal/private masquerade of existent reality.

'Actual philosophy' is a spectrum. It is a 'scalar' quality, in that it has magnitude alone and not direction.

There is simple philosophy and there is complex philosophy. There is valid philosophy and invalid philosophy. What actualizes a philosophy is that which renders it actual or real, what is 'real' (within the context of existent reality) is true, and what is unreal is not true. However what is not real or untrue within the context of existent reality, may be true outside of existent reality and as such may be metaphysically true.

Therefore 'actual philosophy' is 'real' or 'actual', relative to the amount of reality-truth it contains, or the closer it approximates to metaphysical truth. Temporal persistence of philosophical ideals appears to be the mechanism by which actuality becomes established.

What was once true/real/actual remains true/real/actual today. The truth of 'atomism' persists because it is an actual philosophy. Whereas the philosophy of Amon-Ra remains confined to the glyphs. History, it would appear is the arbiter to the question.

M

↪Marcus de Brun

My philosophy is really real because it contains 95.2% reality-truth in the context of existent reality.

Jeremiah

↪Akanthinos

I don't keep such lists and it is the lovers of opinion that are limiting themselves. The very nature of overindulgence in subjectivity is to limit everything to the self.

Actual Philosophy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions