I'm not confident enough to say that it's the purpose. — Moliere

Fair comment. Again, the notion that this or that part of philosophy is primary or fundamental is fraught, but that's the case with anything that might be considered fundamental. To be sure, physics and metaphysics are of interest for their own sake, and not just as a means to some ends.

Looking back, I've moved from seeing philosophy as serious play towards seeing it as plumbing. They're not mutually exclusive, though.

Pantagruel might agree with Rabelais, seeing philosophy as serious play. — Banno

Rabelais has long been a favourite of mine.

Rabelais has long been a favourite of mine. — Pantagruel

So I had surmised...:wink:

Are you familiar with this podcast? Serious fun.

A better standard for the nature of the philosophical project, I think.

No, but thanks for the recommendation.

Montaigne makes an interesting contemporary counterpoint to Rabelais, also full of good things...

Mere vitriol in the place of discussion. — Banno

Nope. Irreverence as the correct response to pomposity.

You just about employ the Royal we in your posts. You certainly rely on the booming paternal voice of first person authority - the I that is at the centre of your world and can recognise the legitimacy of no other.

Funny how upset you get about being personally attacked when your approach is so rooted in your first person framing of any debate. You bring it on yourself.

...?

Hay, always happy to be the main topic of conversation. Tell me more about me.

I’ll be damned, I think you’re right. — Joshs

I suspect thinks I'm right, too.

Now we might move on to the limitations of pragmatism... :wink:

Now we might move on to the limitations of pragmatism... :wink: — Banno

Is there a coherent account of pragmatism?

I suspect ↪Pantagruel thinks I'm right, too. — Banno

:rofl:

I don't think it incoherent so much as incomplete. After all, why not do what is useful? But deciding what is useful presupposes other stuff. Choosing a screw driver over a hammer assumes a great deal about the task in hand.

Montaigne :up:

Yes, indeed.

A context limits what is possible. — apokrisis

I think, rather, a context limits what is probable.

So it is an apophatic cause.

What?

It causes by suppressing what might otherwise be the case.

This makes about as much sense as saying the living room floor I'm standing on "causes" me not to be standing on the living floor in the apartment below.

This makes about as much sense as saying the living room floor I'm standing on causes me not to be standing on the living floor below. — 180 Proof

Well put. But of course, that's right - in that you can't prove that the floor does not cause you not to be standing on the floor below. It's not unlike the haunted universe statements in the Watkins article mentioned the other day; it's not that it's wrong, so much as odd.

I don't think it incoherent so much as incomplete. After all, why not do what is useful? But deciding what is useful presupposes other stuff. Choosing a screw driver over a hammer assumes a great deal about the task in hand. — Banno

That is a key question for me. In this view I often query 'useful' to what end? I can choose a screwdriver to usefully repair something. But what if the thing I am repairing is a gas chamber at Treblinka?

I think, rather, a context limits what is probable. — 180 Proof

As a Peircean, I would even want to talk in terms of propensities. But let's not scare folk too much.

This makes about as much sense as saying the living room floor I'm standing on "causes" me not to be standing on the living floor below. — 180 Proof

If you have shaved your head bald, then that excludes all sorts of fancy coiffures you might have entertained as being actual possibilities.

So maybe the problem here is that you believe in frequentist ensembles and other products of modal realism? This is the reductionist image fixed in your mind?

As I say, I prefer Peircean/Popperian propensity for a reason. Potentiality has to be given structure to generate some range of possible outcomes. Contextuality is built in to how the actualisation of probabilities can even work.

But deciding what is useful presupposes other stuff. — Banno

A finality?

It's not unlike the haunted universe statements in the Watkins article mentioned the other day; — Banno

Another fan of Peirce.

But what if the thing I am repairing is a gas chamber at Treblinka? — Tom Storm

Yep. Pragmatism tends to avoid ethics, or attempt to subsume it into other areas - metaphysics and so on.

Rawls is considered a pragmatist by some, so there's that.

I enjoyed his veil-of-ignorance.

Pragmatism tends to avoid ethics, or attempt to subsume it into other areas - metaphysics and so on. — Banno

Really? :chin:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics

So maybe the problem here is that you believe in frequentist ensembles and other products of modal realism? This is the reductionist image fixed in your mind? — apokrisis

Maybe the problem is I'm not a possibilist (i.e. actualism as well as an probabilist (ergo fallibilism)) and do not "believe" "possibilities" (abstraction entities) are "caused".

Maybe the problem is I'm not a possibilist (i.e. actualism as well as an probabilist (ergo fallibilism)) and do not "believe" "possibilities" (abstraction entities) are "caused". — 180 Proof

You would have to unpack that. Any sources that do that for you?

Well, I referred to your saying "I try to cover as much ground as humanly possible, philosophy, science, anthropology, sociology, political theory. To what end?" Why do you try do do all that? Esp. in so many different fields? You cannot get specialized in all of them, can you?

Look what happens to this place (TPF): it accepts all of the above and more. It's a garden cake. It lacks "personality". That's why there's chaos in here. This site should treat only philosophical subjects.
Besides, you mentioned that yourself: you included "philosophy" as a separate field in your list of your fields of interest. This is what TPF should do too.

Well, I referred to your saying "I try to cover as much ground as humanly possible, philosophy, science, anthropology, sociology, political theory. To what end?" Why do you try do do all that? Esp. in so many different fields? You cannot get specialized in all of them, can you?

Look what happens to this place (TPF): it accepts all of the above and more. It's a garden cake. It lacks "personality". That's why there's chaos in here. This site should treat only philosophical subjects.
Besides, you mentioned that yourself: you included "philosophy" as a separate field in your list of your fields of interest. This is what TPF should do too. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, but philosophy, likewise, is an overarching field. Every field has its "philosophy" - philosophical anthropology, philosophy of science, etc. Similarly, I personally feel that the subdisciplines of philosophy ultimately accrue to metaphysical questions at the limits of knowledge. That is really the defining characteristic of metaphysics, it verges on the unknown.

Yes, but philosophy, likewise, is an overarching field. Every field has its "philosophy" - philosophical anthropology, philosophy of science, etc. — Pantagruel

This is true. There are all kinds of "philosophies": a "philosophy" of reading and a "philosophy" of cooking. There are also personal "philosophies": e.g. a programmer's "philosophy" of programming. In fact, you can add anything you can think of to "'philosophy of".
Then, after being confused of all that you can read in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias, what they have to say about the subject of philosophy: e.g. the kinds, categories, etc. of philosophy. You can also take as an exempley what all known philosophers from the past to this day --well, maybe with some exceptions-- what subjects are treating under the umbrella of philosophy. Science was connected to it until the 19th centure, when it has separated from it.

Similarly, I personally feel that the subdisciplines of philosophy ultimately accrue to metaphysical questions at the limits of knowledge. — Pantagruel

BTW, I just checked "subdisciplines of philosophy" --not a very popular subject in itself-- and I read: "the core subdisciplines of philosophy: epistemology (the theory of knowledge), metaphysics (the theory of being), logic (the theory of reason and inference), value theory (including ethics, politics and aesthetics) and the history of philosophy." (https://philosophy.ubc.ca/undergraduate/ba-philosophy/major/)
Metaphysics, which you mentioned, is only one of the subdisciplines, so they cannot all "accrue to metaphysical questions". Besides, I can't see how does all this apply to our subject. Which, we must not forget, talks about the "Philosophical Project", and which is something that remains still unexplained ...

Besides, I can't see how does all this apply to our subject. Which, we must not forget, talks about the "Philosophical Project", and which is something that remains still unexplained — Alkis Piskas

With all due respect, you are a little bit hung up on finding citations for terminology. I don't mean to be unkind, maybe it is because English is not your first language, or because you are new to the field. Yes, some terms have broadly accepted definitions (although their actual scope of application may vary widely) such as "epistemology," and especially "metaphysics". But "the philosophical project" isn't something you can neatly pin down. I use it in the context of this inquiry (and in the context of a well-rounded knowledge philosophy in general) to designate the place of philosophy in my own life, which is committed to the pursuit of knowledge, at least to a significant degree.

I realize the field of philosophy can seem vast (indeed it is), and you have to start somewhere. But I really don't feel you can read a five page online precis of a five-hundred page book and claim to have a real understanding. Anymore than you can read a one page (or one paragraph) precis about the field of metaphysics, which consists of thousands of works, and believe you have authoritative knowledge.

you are a little bit hung up on finding citations for terminology ... maybe it is because English is not your first language, or because you are new to the field. — Pantagruel

English is my second language and I am a professional translator. I have also graduated from an American college.

But you miss the point here. It's not so the language itself the issue here --and in most cases in these discussions-- but the way one talks, arguments, describes a subject, uses terms, presents a point and so on. In short, it's more about how one thinks.

As for "new to the field", I don't know what "field" do you mean, but if it is philosophy in general, well, I started getting involved in it most probably before you were even born.

So, don't rush into conclusions so easily.

***

And, as for terminology, I advise you to also "get hung" on dictionaries because only then you will know what you --and also the others with whom you communicate-- are really talking about.

As for citations, they are sometimes necessary when one needs to explain terms, expressions and notions, esp. when one is asked for, without having to make long descriptions and also show that it is not something one has just got out of one's own head. For instance, about your "Philosophy Project". A description of which, BTW, never came, although I asked for it 3 times. So I have to conclude --and I'm sorry for that-- that you don't know yourself.

For instance, about your "Philosophy Project". A description of which, BTW, never came, although I asked for it 3 times. So I have to conclude --and I'm sorry for that-- that you don't know yourself. — Alkis Piskas

In fact I did answer it honestly and specifically. Maybe you should check your own expectations and presuppositions as they seem to be affecting your eyesight.

"But "the philosophical project" isn't something you can neatly pin down. I use it in the context of this inquiry (and in the context of a well-rounded knowledge philosophy in general) to designate the place of philosophy in my own life, which is committed to the pursuit of knowledge, at least to a significant degree."

Peace and bye.

There are all kinds of "philosophies": a "philosophy" of reading and a "philosophy" of cooking….

…Metaphysics, which you mentioned, is only one of the subdisciplines, so they cannot all "accrue to metaphysical questions". — Alkis Piskas

What would a philosophy of reading or cooking look like? I would suggest that it would take something everyday and seek to place it within a more abstracted view of being.

In general, it would be the meta-view.

So that for me is the meaning of metaphysics. The move from the particular to the universal. From the concrete to the abstract. From that which is true of some things to that which is true of all things.

It would be by being able to cover all possible subjects using the same univocal approach that you would indeed demonstrate you have got somewhere with this goal of completely generalising discourse.

If you could turn even cooking and reading into a philosophy under your metaphysics, then that would be a feature and not a bug. By its own claims, metaphysics lacks subject limits as it is meant to be the universalising highest level view of any subject.

It is the umbrella discipline under which everything else more specific shelters. Metaphysics just speaks to the universalising tendency in rationally structured thought.

What would a philosophy of reading or cooking look like? I would suggest that it would take something everyday and seek to place it within a more abstracted view of being.

In general, it would be the meta-view.

So that for me is the meaning of metaphysics. — apokrisis

:100:

Precisely. It is really just a matter of perspective.

My feeling is that some people object to this because they are already locked into a specific metaphysical position which they hold "dogmatically" - as Fichte puts it.