True. The like system on the new PF is far better in my opinion than the like system in the old PF. Mostly because there are no dislike options. That's not to say people can just post whatever they want, but rather they can post freely without mob lynchings. It's no fun seeing your posts disliked without any explanation, which leads to the assumption that the voting system was only being used as a way of expressing agreement or lack thereof.

Would it be possible for only the user to know what post of theirs was liked?

To see a post with likes, no matter its content, subconsciously makes people think it is superior to other posts that don't have likes. I have found myself only focusing on the posts with likes and ignoring the ones without any.

I f-ing love Foals.

Can you elucidate the differences in the sophomoric complaining of the temperament vs. philosophical pessimism? — schopenhauer1

Like I said above, I don't think being a philosophical pessimist leads to a depressive demeanor. This is the point of this discussion, is it not?: why pessimists generally have a depressive-like temperament.

My opinion is that a philosophical pessimist that has a depressive temperament is fundamentally at fault, not the world. It's the fault of the pessimist that they cannot find a solution to the problems of existence (such as suffering, boredom, time, exile, and death), for if they could, then they wouldn't have such a poor temperament.

I think what you are asking about is the apparent Catch-22 nature of my position: how can someone argue for pessimism without complaining about the world? To which I reply, yes, I suppose pessimism is criticism of the world. But again this topic is about the temperament of the pessimist, not their position. Criticism of the world does not logically lead to depressive characteristics.

To a point, I think pessimists such as myself (and presumably you and others) are unable to completely escape the points of existence that we criticize. This is what depresses me. For example, watching a political debate and seeing just how petty and egoistic it is makes me depressive. Why? Because there is a contradiction between what I expect/desire the world to be like and what the world is really like.

But it is possible to move on from many our points of criticism, or at least mitigate them. It is possible to remove oneself from ennui, from anxiety, from a lot of suffering, from boredom, and even enjoy life (not implying that you do not enjoy life).

So I think, Schopenhauer1, the reason pessimists tend to have a sour temperament is that they see the world as it is, don't like it, but are unable to move past it completely, a case that I would self-diagnose myself with.

Alternatively, the temperament could always just be the result of a chemical imbalance, and the appeal to philosophy is just a silly, post-hoc rationalization (pace Russell).

Also you had some posts a while back on exustential boredom or something of that sort. — schopenhauer1

I don't recall this.

How do I not know[...]you are just not trolling? — schopenhauer1

What kind of response would satisfy your doubt?

Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers. — Marco Rubio, Florida Senator and presidential candidate

Isn't this a philosophical statement?

I am going to be completely honest here and contradict parts of what I previously said on the first page of this topic, but I think there is something inherently attractive about a depressive intellectual to many people (including, amusingly enough, myself). Mostly because it is easy to think one is actually doing some deep-shit philosophy when all they are doing is recycling the same things over and over again.

This does not mean philosophical pessimism isn't a legitimate position. But the topic of this discussion is the motive of the temperament of the pessimist (not pessimism per se). I can see no correlation between pessimism and depressive symptoms.

Rather, the depressive symptoms arise when one has not let go of their prior expectations of life. Thus, the position of philosophical pessimism can be of legitimacy, but the temperament can be of relentless, sophomoric complaining.

Everything you said makes sense. Cool stuff.

Depressive Realism.

I'm ordering Hume's An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

To try to rephrase my thinking here: If we don't know we are correct (as in, we are not omniscient), then is it reasonable to hold a position as truth?

Wait a second...is this post-modernism?

Hi . I'm currently working on a quasi-serious philosophical article concerning the philosophies surrounding the Force in the Star Wars universe. Is it cool if I submit it here once I am done?

It's important to understand that philosophy is not science, and that to expect it to produce results on the magnitude and abundance of science is misunderstanding what philosophy is and what it does. Progress can be made in philosophy, but not in the manner of scientists being awarded the Nobel prize by discovering the Higgs Boson. There's not going to be an E = MC^2 in philosophy, although personally I feel Kant comes close.

To me it's more interesting though that the legality of the use of nuclear weapons isn't questioned, whereas it does highlight that all weapons act as a deterrent. Yet, in that sense mustard gas would work as a deterrent too but we outlawed that; just like ordnances designed to maim instead of kill. Outlawed. Biological weapons. Outlawed. — Benkei

Well, mustard gas doesn't lead to a Cold War and MAD.

It seems rather counter-intuitive to "allow" nuclear weapons as an option on the table, as the most gruesome, where it concerns the fall-out, and deadliest and most destructive weapon when lesser weapons were banned for, well, less. — Benkei

It has to do with the magnitude of destruction. Mustard gas does a lot of damage, but pales in comparison to a nuclear bomb. To put complete faith in international accords to not use certain weapons is naive: why don't we just outlaw war itself?! These weapons are necessary to keep enemies from using these same weapons on ourselves. It's unfortunate, unstable, and scary, but ultimately necessary. Using mustard gas to keep others from using mustard gas won't work; the destruction is not great enough. Having the ability to nuke a country the size of Russia off the face of the Earth is enough incentive to not launch nukes at us.

I know this may not be a popular opinion, but our "progress" is ultimately doomed, whether it be from the trigger-happy terrorists with nuclear weapons, or from the eventual entropic heat death of the universe. We can plug our ears and cover our eyes from this reality and pretend it doesn't exist, but ultimately we are just kicking the can down the road.

Glad to be here by the way. Nice place. — Erik

Welcome to the insane asylum :P

I don't believe the sun will rise in the east. I know the sun MUST rise in the east, given the mechanics of celestial bodies. It's not a belief. The sun has no choice. — Bitter Crank

But do you know that there isn't going to be a mysterious demon that pops in and out of existence and tomorrow will change the rotation of the Earth? Call it absurd, but how do you know?

To continue:

Just a made up scenario: Say I read a philosophical article. The article talks about the position of compatibilism, in relationship to the free will debate. Say I find it fairly convincing, and am comfortable in calling myself a compatibilist.

Now say a month later I read a different philosophical article, which attacks the compatibilist position. I find it thoroughly convincing and am forced to drop my prior compatibilist tendencies.

Did my original position count as knowledge? Obviously not, since it is wrong because I was convinced by the other article.

Does my new position count as knowledge? How can it?, since this new position is just as conceivable to be disproven as my prior position.

There will always be the unknown possibility, the never-before-thought-of position. It doesn't mean it actually exists, but it is conceivable that it exists, and therefore we are always on our toes, so to speak, when it comes to justifying our beliefs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm basically advocating Pyrrhonism.

I used the Sun rising in the West as an example because that would not happen. I do not live in a place in which the Sun rises in the West, and as far as I know it is impossible for any place in the solar system except Venus for the Sun to rise in the West.

Your argument is convincing, but there's a possibility that it may be false, so I'm going to disbelieve it. — Arkady

This is similar to that zingy argument against logical positivism that makes it self-refuting, you know, the whole "well is the statement: 'only empirical statements are meaningful', empirical?". But it's more of a guideline.

To believe something is not the same as knowing without any doubt that it's falsity is impossible. — shmik

Then why believe anything?

That was the point.

This is my position on philosophy. There is no progress, and philosophers need to stop fooling themselves into thinking there will be.

As far as metaphysics is concerned, I personally consider that, as well as theology, to be to philosophy what the vermiform appendix is to biology. It was a once useful organ that, due to evolutionary processes, has been rendered a redundant organ. For the most part it exists in a benign state, but can become inflamed with the potential of causing harm to the body to the point of endangering it's continued existence.

At this point in time, the best know procedure to remedy this harm or endangerment of removal of this redundant organ. — Mayor of Simpleton

I think I agree with you on this. Metaphysics, to me, seems like hogwash and can do more harm than good. I am extremely skeptical about metaphysical claims.

Since when does philosophy include gurus?

Since when does philosophy somehow create a 'plug and play' connection with being 'wise'? — Mayor of Simpleton

Not necessarily "guru" in the sense of an ascetic living on a mountaintop, but in the sense of having a heightened sense of intuition, general wisdom, knowing how to live the good life, etc.

I suppose I have noticed that I have been assigning a quasi-apotheosis to many philosophers, making them out to just know everything there is to know.

Thanks for the patient replies thus far MoS.

I think, like many people as well, I don't really understand what exactly philosophy is. I can recognize philosophy when I see it, but if asked to define what philosophy is or what it attempts to do, I would be stumped.

One of the reasons I believe I have been so confused lately is because I think I have misunderstood the goals of science and philosophy. Science is a philosophy, but philosophy is not a science. I was expecting philosophy to be as productive as science has been. Philosophy doesn't do that. Philosophy clarifies concepts, eliminates irrationality, explores new ideas, etc. I don't think there really is a point to philosophy, but unfortunately academic philosophers seem to treat it like it's extraordinarily important. It really is just a recreational activity, for the most part.

Dietrich's case is exactly what I was trying to argue about in a different thread. I enjoyed the essay, although I felt it was a little clunky at times. Now I'm looking for a good counterargument that doesn't just validate the original argument.

I can see a possible counterargument. The author uses the examples of philosophical "camps" a lot, such as consequentialism vs deontology, as examples of the gridlock in philosophical communities.

But look at this forum. We have a bunch of people with differing opinions discussing topics and trying to change each others' minds. Sure, we might not belong to strict philosophical camps, but we still hold positions, This is no different from the academic camps. These guys have just thought about it much more and are still in debate.

Unless I was misunderstanding him, the author seemed to be concluding that philosophy inevitably leads to gridlock via camps. I'd argue that this is the inherent nature of philosophy, and it is foolish to assume otherwise.

Touché.

Philosophy does not necessarily make someone arrogant. But it does have a propensity to do so.

True, but there are still conferences and symposiums for philosophy that cost money.

I hadn't heard of the NEH. But I looked it up and learned that the NEH has a budget of $160 million. The NSF has a budget of $7.0 billion.

We accept that some scientific work has immediate technological applications, and other is pure "pie in the sky" research. Why oughtn't it be the same for philosophy? — Arkady

I think possibly because the scientific pie in the sky research is at least headed for a consensus. This is why we give grants to theoretical physicists and not philosophers.

The point implies a sort of definitive answer (must be). Is that at all the case with such a field investigation and accumulation of knowledge... various investigations and various knowledge, as in plural?

It would appear to me that philosophy touches on far too many investigations and is in the pursuit of too many fields of knowledge to ever settle on a single point to it all. Philosophy is set of multi use tools and applied in many a different context; thus establishing a single purpose seems a bit off. — Mayor of Simpleton

Science touches on countless investigations, from physics to biology to chemistry and the specialized fields. The point of science is to settle our curiosities about the world and make accurate predictions of the world.

So what about philosophy?

My take is that intellectual masturbation is less an activity, but more an accusation of those engaging in philosophy who feel either bored, disinterested or left out of the debate. — Mayor of Simpleton

True. I don't find the philosophy of language to be very interesting at the current moment, for example. In fact I find it boring as hell.

Astronomy could be seen as intellectual masturbation, and yet most people including myself find it at least curiously interesting. So I guess one person's sleeping pill is another person's caffeine.

Are you sure you mean conclusions or do you mean consensus? — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, that is what I meant. Last time I checked, the scientific consensus for global warming was 97+%. The philosophical consensus for the nature of time, for example,...mixed and it always will be.

Do philosophers gain any new knowledge? Does a philosophical theory count as knowledge? Or is it just unprovable speculation? This is the biggest point I'm getting at here. If there is no way of verifying something, then why assert it? Why even try if it is futile? Has philosophy given us any knowledge? Is there any consensus on anything?

It doesn't make any sense, to me, to formulate complex arguments, debate and critique and assert and attempt to get to the "truth" if it is impossible to get to it. It's completely worthless.

Yes, ethics and political philosophy can help us in the real world, I will give you that. But metaphysics? How the hell do we verify if a theory in metaphysics is correct? We can't! It's absurd!

All it can give us is a warm little feeling of "I think this is the way the universe is" but nothing more. The only confirmation we are going to get from a normative ethical position is "well, this makes sense to me..." There's never going to be an E=MC^2 of philosophy. There's not even going to be an agreement on what the definition of a word is.

Philosophy is the love of knowledge — Mayor of Simpleton

I used to think this of philosophy as well. I used to think philosophy was an underrated thing that held countless intellectual secrets. I thought by reading philosophy I would gain knowledge about the world and be wise, know the fundamentals of the universe and become like a guru almost.

And this doesn't make any sense now. From my perspective, philosophy is just a mis-mash of disagreements and confusion.

Why isn't science part of the "love of knowledge"? Surely science has given far more than philosophy has.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm bitter after getting pissed on by other people on a separate forum.

Thanks for the reply.

EDIT: To add one more thing: what are you expecting to get out of philosophy?

At its best, doing philosophy makes us better people — Baden

I can see how it may make us more patient or better thinkers but an overall better person, nah. If anything philosophy makes someone arrogant and reclusive.

Philosophy is, in my mind, one of the most useful things to do. It helps us master whatever craft we're engaging in on a higher level of sophistication, and defeats the ability of others to mystify or dupe us. — Shevek

Would you agree that philosophy is something that is inherently part of a human being? To think philosophically, to use reason, it is inevitable and unavoidable?

I agree with you, I study philosophy on my own time and for fun as a hobby.

As I get older though, more and more subjects bore me as they are usually more of the same without a real resolution. — Benkei

This is a very important point I was trying to get across. Philosophy for the most part seems to just revolve around and around and around the same thing until everyone gets bored and a new idea pops up. There's a reason there's a National Science Foundation and not a National Philosophy Foundation. Much of philosophy is, to the dismay of its practitioners, utterly worthless to society.

But philosophy itself can sometimes offer substance and relief, whereas astrophysics cannot. — The Great Whatever

Erm, I like to go out with my telescope at night and look at DSOs, planets, and stars, and although this is not astrophysics, it is very substantial and relieving of my boredom.

With all due respect, this is quite simply philosophical navel-gazing. Philosophy is not "better" than other fields. If anything, it often falls behind the advancements of science by not utilizing the evidence gathered by science.

A scientist could easily say that the philosopher is wasting their brainpower on fruitless ideas that will never be solved, and should be doing something more productive.

Additionally, I would like to know why you like philosophy. I feel the reason I like philosophy is because I like rational argumentation.

Why did a metaphysician become a metaphysician? Why not a scientist?

I really don't like quoting philosophers as a form of argument, but I think this applies well. At least it might stimulate discussion.

The secret of reaping the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment from life is to live dangerously.

-Nietzsche

Because really, what do you have to lose?

Anyway, I think I'm done with the tangent. Thanks for producing that, I asked you because I didn't think that you could, but I stand corrected. — Wosret

I haven't actually read anything specifically by Nietzsche, only commentaries and criticisms like the one produced above. I am by no means an expert on Nietzsche; I'm only parroting what I have read elsewhere. Which actually goes against the Nietzschean idea of making up your own mind... ;)

In discussing what can be translated into English alternately as “pity,”
“sympathy,” or “compassion,” Nietzsche almost always uses variations on
the German term Mitleid—literally, “suffering-with”—and only rarely
uses alternative German terms such as Mitempfinden, Mitgefu¨hl (both
“feeling-with”) or Sympathie.

-The Compassion of Zarathustra, p. 60

A true compassion of
strength would not be the distinctive symptom of the imminent demise of
the once strong, but an expression of life and power successfully at work
in the very moment of compassion.

-The Compassion of Zarathustra, p. 66

The distinction between pity and compassion is that pity leaves two people in misery, while compassion leaves no people in misery. Both stem from empathy, but pity is simply defeatist while compassion is motivating. The strong should take care of themselves, and help others out of the muck to get them to pursue their Ubermensch.

We cannot, being creatures of habit, do anything other than to expect the future to resemble the past, but we would do better to fight this irrational tendency. — John

But not expecting things is setting one up for either disappointment or tragedy.