The dangers of philosophy

simplistic

extrinzic wrote: »

Simplistic. I think it’s great you are interested in philosophy, and I think philosophical questioning is a worthwhile action. There are many ‘dangers’ in asking philosophical questions. Philosophical development causes us to consider many extraordinary ideas, and sometimes the complexity of such ideas can be overwhelming, particularly when we have not studied a variety of philosophers.

One danger is becoming indoctrinated by a paradigm. It is easy to be convinced of the “truth” of an “understanding” of the world, but the real strength of philosophy is to escape paradigms, and in this respect, philosophy is similar to science. One of the most important aspects of philosophy, in my opinion, is the acceptance of fallibility. If we examine any philosophical position we invariably find inconstancies, regardless of how meticulously a theory has been constructed. Both good science and good philosophy will continually attempt to undermine itself in an effort to understand inconsistencies. The more philosophy we read, the more we appreciate that it is not an effort to find the absolute solution to any problem, but to understand the problem as best we can. This understanding can help us to make measured decisions, whilst striving for an ethical balance.

I disagree. I think that science or maths are built on principals and philosophy is too. I think that it essential for a person interested in philosophy to start from principals and reason out arguments from there.

For instance one of my principals is that I think that killing people is immoral. If I say killing people is moral then I am saying " its ok to kill me".

So I will start with that and build on it from there so that way I am technically stuck in a paradigm but its a logically consistant one.

extrinzic wrote: »

Another danger of philosophy is to become nihilistic, or disillusioned without the realization of truth. Most philosophy students will experience this at some point, and how we respond to this is very important. One can shut one’s eyes, and return to dogmatic rhetoric, often with a self righteous tone. However, the mark of arrogance often reveals the absence of philosophy’s greatest tool, modesty. Philosophy is about questions, and the best philosophers will take a stand on issues, but will also acknowledge the weakness of their position. The “truth” can be the philosopher’s greatest enemy, it stops the thinker questioning, and consequently, stops the thinker philosophising. The other way we can deal with nihilism is to accept our subjectivity, and take our heads out of the clouds. You are the philosopher, what do you think? This experience can be liberating because we now are no longer required to recognise the truth of mankind, only the best for mankind, from the perspective of a man. This is where (I dare to suggest) progress is made, with two feet on the ground.

By the way, Ayn Rand is an interesting writer, but man, is her head in the clouds or what? Check out this review of a book about her: AYN RAND AND THE WORLD SHE MADE.

True nililism is a danger. But dosnt it come from the belief that nothing is real? Just accepting objective reality is the cure.

The best for mankind is truth. The best for mankind is not simply his subject perspective because only the man using his perserpective will know what is best for himself.

Its kind of a sick idea really I think its why people worship leaders because they think he knows whats best for them. When In reality in truth he alway leads them off a cliff.

Just like what we are seeing with obama or any other government. We will continue to see this nightmare repeat itself like a horror movie until people regain their self esteem and accept responsibility for there own lives and realise that no man or government can do a better job at running their lives for them.

I agree that Rand had a messy life and her philosophy had a few contradictions like the beleif in non agression principal and still wanting a government which breaks it, but I think she still did a great service to philosophy she certainly inspired me.

extrinzic

simplistic wrote: »

For instance one of my principals is that I think that killing people is immoral. If I say killing people is moral then I am saying " its ok to kill me".

So I will start with that and build on it from there so that way I am technically stuck in a paradigm but its a logically consistant one.

Is killing always immoral? What about assisted suicide?

True nililism is a danger. But dosnt it come from the belief that nothing is real? Just accepting objective reality is the cure.

The best for mankind is truth. The best for mankind is not simply his subject perspective because only the man using his perserpective will know what is best for himself.

Can man know objective truth?

simplistic

extrinzic wrote: »

Is killing always immoral? What about assisted suicide?



Can man know objective truth?

Very true , Im wrong I think that that would be amoral as it requires consent.

I still would never do it to somebody even if they where on their hands and knees in agony with hundreds of contracts.

So maybe ill have to change the principal to " I will never kill somebody unless in self defence"

Can man know objective truth? what does it mean if there is no objective truth or reality?

Joe1919

There is a difference between 'objective truth', 'reality' and 'value'. They are to some extent three separate things.(imo)

Now many would argue that we can never be certain about anything and that there is no absolute objective truth. However, this is not a denial of reality; it is just a denial that we can be certain about reality.

Also, you can deny that there is no absolute objective truth, yet agree that as human beings we have to get on and live in a common world together. We have to share to some extent. And so we do, we share language, values, customs, traditions, laws. It is not necessarily the truth that binds us together but solidarity, a sharing of common values.

One of our greatest values is 'life' and because of this, the deliberate and unnecessary taking of a life (murder) goes against our common values. It frightens us. As people with some amount of common culture and values, we rise up in anger and solidarity against this murder or any other despicable crime.

extrinzic

simplistic wrote: »

Very true , Im wrong I think that that would be amoral as it requires consent.

So being moral, or immoral, does not require consent?

Surely.. morality would play a role in some peoples decision to assist a person to die.

I still would never do it to somebody even if they where on their hands and knees in agony with hundreds of contracts.

What if you were in a position where you couldn't bare to live any more, but couldn't end your own life?

So maybe ill have to change the principal to " I will never kill somebody unless in self defence"

What if there is an accident? Say you misjudged a persons intentions.

Can man know objective truth? what does it mean if there is no objective truth or reality?

As Joe1919 has pointed out, we have a perspective of reality, based on our location, sense ability, conceptual understanding, intelligence, scientific understanding, socio economic circumstance, cultural education etc.

Can anybody claim to know the truth for all mankind?

simplistic

Joe1919 wrote: »

There is a difference between 'objective truth', 'reality' and 'value'. They are to some extent three separate things.(imo)

Now many would argue that we can never be certain about anything and that there is no absolute objective truth. However, this is not a denial of reality; it is just a denial that we can be certain about reality.

Also, you can deny that there is no absolute objective truth, yet agree that as human beings we have to get on and live in a common world together. We have to share to some extent. And so we do, we share language, values, customs, traditions, laws. It is not necessarily the truth that binds us together but solidarity, a sharing of common values.

One of our greatest values is 'life' and because of this, the deliberate and unnecessary taking of a life (murder) goes against our common values. It frightens us. As people with some amount of common culture and values, we rise up in anger and solidarity against this murder or any other despicable crime.

Ok but Im saying that I claim that there is an objective reality that exists outside my mind that is not dependant on my mind.

I use my mind to interact with the reality. So I type this message on a computer in objective reality and send it across reality to be read by your mind. I am 99.999999% ish sure that I am using a computer to send this message to you.

That I think is the truth.

simplistic

632420

extrinzic wrote: »

So being moral, or immoral, does not require consent?

Did I say that?

632420

extrinzic wrote: »

Surely.. morality would play a role in some peoples decision to assist a person to die.

does amoral not count, why?

632420

extrinzic wrote: »

What if you were in a position where you couldn't bare to live any more, but couldn't end your own life?

I would never intentionally take sombodys life nor would I ask sombody intentionally to take mine.

632420

extrinzic wrote: »

What if there is an accident? Say you misjudged a persons intentions.

Ok I would never intentionally murder sombody unless in selfdefence

632420

extrinzic wrote: »

As Joe1919 has pointed out, we have a perspective of reality, based on our location, sense ability, conceptual understanding, intelligence, scientific understanding, socio economic circumstance, cultural education etc.

Can anybody claim to know the truth for all mankind?

I dont understand what you mean by "the truth" but I claim that it is true that if you chop of a humans head he will die. So I claim to know truths not every possible truth.

Joe1919

simplistic wrote: »

Ok but Im saying that I claim that there is an objective reality that exists outside my mind that is not dependant on my mind.

I use my mind to interact with the reality. So I type this message on a computer in objective reality and send it across reality to be read by your mind. I am 99.999999% ish sure that I am using a computer to send this message to you.

That I think is the truth.

There are many uncontroversial 'truths' and I suppose your computer example is one of them. (although I suppose there is the possibility of hallucination or I may be a machine and have no mind).

However, I think what philosophy is more interested in are the controversial 'truths' and the bigger questions such as "What can I know? (knowledge),What ought I do? (morals) For what may I hope? (purpose of life).

Many of these questions don't come with easy answers and many cases have no definite answers. For example, in political philosophy, questions such as 'What justifies the state /ownership of property /rights/ ideas about equality/liberty/punishment/war/freedom/democracy etc ? There are no easy answers or 'objective truths' to give us absolute answers. Why? Because many of these questions involve 'value' and 'emotion' or just 'pragmatism' i.e. They often involve how we feel about things (like freedom or equality) or we just do things because they appear to work.

Now I would accept that we can have some objectivity in discussions on these matters, and philosophy and 'objective truths' can be used to clarify and help our thinking but often the arguments reach a dead end because we have to bring our own values to bear on these matters. I may for example argue that a serial killer deserves to be severely punished, you may argue for mercy.

Hence there are things we cannot know or say for certain. I may 'believe' (for example) that execution of a serial killer is the right thing to do but I can't 'know' it or claim it to be a 'truth'. But I can make objective arguments that are 'relative' to the case.

extrinzic

simplistic wrote: »

Did I say that?

does amoral not count, why?

You said that assisting someone to die would be amoral. Why is it that you think people who assist a person to die commit amoral actions? Is it because such decisions fall outside your particular moral principles? If this is the case, I am not convinced of the universal “truth” of your moral principles, indeed, it seems to me that your moral principles are very narrow and ultimately unhelpful.

I dont understand what you mean by "the truth" but I claim that it is true that if you chop of a humans head he will die. So I claim to know truths not every possible truth.

Wow, we live in a world in which we perceive phenomena and deduct thorough our cognitive powers of understanding, cause and effect. Surely we can put all this philosophical nonsense behind us!! If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, experience tells us that we only perceive reality in a subjective way. We are not omnipotent, and your categorical imperative will never be a suitable substitute for the “truth” you claim to represent. Your particular perspective on life in no way compels me to accept your understanding of truth. It is better to listen to others than judge them on abstract moral principles. Ultimately, if we tried to live by your “truths”, I believe people would forsake your principles. I believe this because your ridged moralising would interfere with the difficult decisions and consequences of everyday life. What good is an abstract moral principle that tells us nothing about how to cope in reality, with reality, and condemns us to behave in accordance with a moral program, regardless of the multitude of factors in every circumstance?

simplistic wrote: »

I would never intentionally take sombodys life nor would I ask sombody intentionally to take mine.

Lets just hope you don't fall out of your ivory tower, or at the very least, injure somebody else when you land.

extrinzic

I just want to add, that my intention is not to bully you, or anybody else. It just boils my blood when I hear people sit in abstract moral judgement of others, gazing from the watch tower, basking in hypocritical rhetoric. I don’t care if your god is faith, or faith in reason, it can all go to hell. We don’t need narrow, abstract, inflexible, moral duty. We don’t need to turn off our conscience in favour of the end. We need to be a whole lot more ****ing honest with ourselves and each other. I don’t care about how lost you are, how confusing it all is. I don’t have time for another childish dream, for another crazy utopian promise. The world of moral excellence is outside the window, fighting for every inch, every half victory. It’s not rational, it’s not elementary, it’s not geometric, it’s not numbers, it’s not in your copy of Atlas Shrugged, and it’s not on the ****ing internet. Have a nice day.

simplistic

extrinzic wrote: »

You said that assisting someone to die would be amoral. Why is it that you think people who assist a person to die commit amoral actions? Is it because such decisions fall outside your particular moral principles? If this is the case, I am not convinced of the universal “truth” of your moral principles, indeed, it seems to me that your moral principles are very narrow and ultimately unhelpful.

Wow, we live in a world in which we perceive phenomena and deduct thorough our cognitive powers of understanding, cause and effect. Surely we can put all this philosophical nonsense behind us!! If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, experience tells us that we only perceive reality in a subjective way. We are not omnipotent, and your categorical imperative will never be a suitable substitute for the “truth” you claim to represent. Your particular perspective on life in no way compels me to accept your understanding of truth. It is better to listen to others than judge them on abstract moral principles. Ultimately, if we tried to live by your “truths”, I believe people would forsake your principles. I believe this because your ridged moralising would interfere with the difficult decisions and consequences of everyday life. What good is an abstract moral principle that tells us nothing about how to cope in reality, with reality, and condemns us to behave in accordance with a moral program, regardless of the multitude of factors in every circumstance?



Lets just hope you don't fall out of your ivory tower, or at the very least, injure somebody else when you land.

Two strawman arguments and an attempted insult! Nice! Ha I would understand the insult if I was in say the after hours forum but I am in the philosophy forum. Its like telling some one in the conspiracy theory forum to take off their tin foil hat and getting out of their fallout bunker!

extrinzic

Of course, philosophers never insult anybody.. Socrates

simplistic

extrinzic wrote: »

I just want to add, that my intention is not to bully you, or anybody else. It just boils my blood when I hear people sit in abstract moral judgement of others, gazing from the watch tower, basking in hypocritical rhetoric. I don’t care if your god is faith, or faith in reason, it can all go to hell. We don’t need narrow, abstract, inflexible, moral duty. We don’t need to turn off our conscience in favour of the end. We need to be a whole lot more ****ing honest with ourselves and each other. I don’t care about how lost you are, how confusing it all is. I don’t have time for another childish dream, for another crazy utopian promise. The world of moral excellence is outside the window, fighting for every inch, every half victory. It’s not rational, it’s not elementary, it’s not geometric, it’s not numbers, it’s not in your copy of Atlas Shrugged, and it’s not on the ****ing internet. Have a nice day.

HA, Thats the whole point of the philosophy forum!!

But yeah I get what you mean by people being all talk and no action.

This is what I have been doing over the past year. I have been in and out of court over the past year for " offences against the state" Ie no injured party just the state attempting to extort money. I have stood and questioned every principal and moral bull that any judge threw at me. I have been held in contempt for asking a member of the gardai to define a crime and spend many nights in a cell for daring to question their actions. Here is some audio from the last case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E8zowJOtM8&feature=related

Over the past year we have set up a website and radio station www.freemanireland.ning.com and have over 500 members and its aims are to help anybody achieve freedom in all areas of their lives. But we mainly help people and stand with them in court and challenge the corrupt on their principals that they shovel down our necks.

Here is the audio from the latest case this one is enjoyable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DX7ZI7S60w


So yeah I really do like sitting in my Ivory tower and having a good think but theres no need to attack me for it because it makes you look cowardly.
If you ever want to come to any of the cases and see over 20 people in a court room standing up against corrupt violent cowards your more than welcome we have a list of court dates that if your not too busy you could come for the fun day out. You might even get to see a judge run off the bench.

extrinzic

I’m heartened by your sincerity, but I still fundamentally disagree with your political convictions, and your moral code. Thanks, but no thanks.

extrinzic

Simplistic, I thought you might be interested in this lecture by Massimo Pigliucci who is a Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Philosophy at Stony Brook University in New York. He outlines some philosophical objections to an over-simplification of "truth" better than I have done, and also shares similar views with me on morality. I think he is a little quick to dismiss postmodern theory, but we cant agree on everything. He tends to ramble a bit but there are some interesting anecdotes about scientific blunders, and the end of the lecture deals with some truth theories, old and new. The truth can be a little confusing though. Well worth a listen to imo.

'Of Paradigm shifts and the Objectivity of Science'