Arguments supporting philosophical bankruptcy

[Kelly Jones]

Hi all.

I concluded from the following arguments that there are few genuine philosophers nowadays.

I've compiled them for others to read, because I think it's a great shame that such simple intellectual mistakes exist so prolifically in society, which prevent so many people of any hope of finding a path into the greatest, most noble form of knowledge available to the human species.


1.
Most people believe philosophical knowledge is what you gain through learning concepts taught in universities and/or find in books, such that one's own philosophical understanding has no individual validity unless it fits into the conceptual molds and jargons prescribed by some external authority. Obviously this falls into the logical fallacy of relying on an external authority.


2.
Most people believe philosophy is about spouting big abstract words and being able to parrot their meanings (whether they understand the meanings is irrelevant, if the meanings are simply adopted).


3.
Most people believe words have no worth in philosophy unless you have found them in a "peer-reviewed" dictionary.


4.
Most people believe concepts you have developed yourself are dubious.


5.
Most people can't distinguish between scientific knowledge and philosophical knowledge.


6.
Most people believe the only valid kind of knowledge is derived through the senses, as if there is no such thing as individual perspective and interpretation, let alone thinking.


7.
Most people believe a concept or fact is dubious or useless, without consensus approval of it. This is called "thinking by committee", or "mob mentality".


8.
Most people believe that thinking so deeply that your worldview becomes different to most other people's, is the same as a mental illness. They call this "thinking too much".


9.
Most people believe they can identify what genius is, and isn't, without actually being a genius. A corollary of this, is that it is morally and politically incorrect for any person to actually be intellectually superior to others. This is an interesting consequence of the political movement to make academic achievements less competitive, called by people like Charles McCleery and Celia Green "The Abolition of Genius".


10.
Most people believe it is fine to make statements about what knowledge is true and reliable, even to the point of attacking and slandering others, without having the strong intention of living according to their knowledge.


11.
Most people believe that simple, logical disagreements in intellectual discourse are a sign of arrogance, hatred and anger, and consequently become offended when their viewpoints are challenged.


12.
Most people believe that if most people disagree with you, that you must be wrong.


13.
Most people think there is an inherent and real separation between thinking and experiencing, as if thinking happens in an inner world, and experiencing happens in an outer world. Consequently, they believe thinking is subjective and fallible, while experiencing is objective and infallible. (This is another form of scientific materialism).




.
.

 

[devilsadvocate]

You didn't provide 13 arguments, but mere assertions. At the most generous reading you have put forth a single argument with 13 premises, and even if those premises were to be accepted as true (and I certainly don't accept most of them. How do you know most people think the things you declared they do?) it's not certain the conclusion would stand. There is no clear structure that connects the premises to the conclusion.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well, I think Kelly's well on her way to proving her own intellectual bankruptcy. This should be fun. :facepalm:

Lots of it is strawman assertion: "Many (unnamed, unidentified) people believe X, Y, and Z. Therefore..."

More of it appears to be building up to this: Kelly has one or more unfounded, illogical, unsupported hypotheses that she'd like to foist on us, and this whole exercise is a way of creating a special exception to the rules of logic and evidence that will allow her stupidity to get a free pass from rational criticism.

It is the same crazy horseshit that dotoree has been pulling, so let's nip this in the bud right off the bat, OK? You don't get to redefine terms outside of their normal meanings, in order to avoid having to defend your claims later. You can't define the basis of your claims as valid by fiat in order to avoid having to provide actual evidence for their validity. It is obvious why you would want to do so, because if you don't have any evidence, what you're doing is FANTASIZING... also known as "making shit up" and "pulling things out of your ass."

And you don't get away with it by defining your rectum as a valid source of knowledge.

 

[Dean]

@ImprobableJoe

It's more a matter of what and what not you would accept as "evidence", really. I can quite easily understand that there are a great many logical problems to be solved yet, and cannot be solved via empiricism alone. Although one would imagine that empiricism could be a decent starting point ....

 

[ImprobableJoe]

@ImprobableJoe

It's more a matter of what and what not you would accept as "evidence", really. I can quite easily understand that there are a great many logical problems to be solved yet, and cannot be solved via empiricism alone. Although one would imagine that empiricism could be a decent starting point ....

I'd love for you to name a problem that could be solved outside of empiricism, that can also be defined in a coherent manner. And then, you can tell me how you can determine whether the solution is the correct one without some sort of empirical test. Once you've done that, you can compare your process to what Kelly posted, and see if your problem and solution don't fall under the category of "internal" that Kelly dismisses outright.

Issues that pertain to your inner life can be solved by introspection. Issues that pertain to the empirical world require solutions based in that world. That involves thinking, but then it requires doing.

 

[devilsadvocate]

Well, I think Kelly's well on her way to proving her own intellectual bankruptcy. This should be fun. :facepalm:

Lots of it is strawman assertion: "Many (unnamed, unidentified) people believe X, Y, and Z. Therefore..."

More of it appears to be building up to this: Kelly has one or more unfounded, illogical, unsupported hypotheses that she'd like to foist on us, and this whole exercise is a way of creating a special exception to the rules of logic and evidence that will allow her stupidity to get a free pass from rational criticism.

It is the same crazy horseshit that dotoree has been pulling, so let's nip this in the bud right off the bat, OK? You don't get to redefine terms outside of their normal meanings, in order to avoid having to defend your claims later. You can't define the basis of your claims as valid by fiat in order to avoid having to provide actual evidence for their validity. It is obvious why you would want to do so, because if you don't have any evidence, what you're doing is FANTASIZING... also known as "making shit up" and "pulling things out of your ass."

And you don't get away with it by defining your rectum as a valid source of knowledge.

And I tried so hard to be nice to Kelly! :roll:

 

[Laurens]

When I see statements declaring what 'most people' think, believe and do, I like to see some kind of evidential justification for such statements...

Take this for example:

Most people believe philosophical knowledge is what you gain through learning concepts taught in universities and/or find in books, such that one's own philosophical understanding has no individual validity unless it fits into the conceptual molds and jargons prescribed by some external authority. Obviously this falls into the logical fallacy of relying on an external authority.

You assert what most people believe as though it is common knowledge, and you do that with a lot of your points. You're actually making assertions that require justification.

I could quite easily just state that most people actually think the opposite of what you just wrote there, and it would have just as much worth and validity. That being none.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

And I tried so hard to be nice to Kelly! :roll:

Yes, but why?!?! Niceness misplaced is no virtue.

 

[Kelly Jones]

You didn't provide 13 arguments, but mere assertions. At the most generous reading you have put forth a single argument with 13 premises, and even if those premises were to be accepted as true (and I certainly don't accept most of them. How do you know most people think the things you declared they do?) it's not certain the conclusion would stand. There is no clear structure that connects the premises to the conclusion.

Saying that most people lack philosophical nous is a figure of speech, generalising my experiences of the quality of thought I encounter in the overwhelming majority of people I observe or interact with.

It's demonstrated yet again by the responses in this thread. Q.E.D. Not because everyone disagreed with me (how shallow and mentally evasive such arguments are!), but because there was no real understanding of the contents of each points made. There were only two attempts in all the responses at making substantial responses to the actual content of the points made, and both were flawed:

The first was by Improbable Joe:

You don't get to redefine terms outside of their normal meanings, in order to avoid having to defend your claims later. You can't define the basis of your claims as valid by fiat in order to avoid having to provide actual evidence for their validity.

I haven't avoided anything.

Firstly, nothing demonstrable is evidence unless the person perceiving it realises how it is evidence. It's impossible to present evidence without that internal reasoning process. So, if a person cannot perceive what philosophical bankruptcy actually is, they'll never perceive that the majority of people are; so it doesn't matter how much evidence they're presented with, they'll never see it.

As to redefining terms to avoid "normal" meanings, presumably normal refers to a majority consensus. So again, Joe has just proved one of my points. I mean, try to explain to me how anyone can come to a purely logical conclusion by committee? If a concept is logical, it's itself logical and internally consistent, not because other people agree.


The second was also by Improbable Joe:

I'd love for you to name a problem that could be solved outside of empiricism, that can also be defined in a coherent manner. And then, you can tell me how you can determine whether the solution is the correct one without some sort of empirical test.

His assumption here, that all problems are solved using empiricism, doesn't once rest on empiricism. So there's his "proof" problem. Notice that he didn't need to use any kind of observation of sensory data to form that assumption, so if he wanted to state it as a true premise, he'd be contradicting himself.



.

 

[Laurens]

Firstly, nothing demonstrable is evidence unless the person perceiving it realises how it is evidence. It's impossible to present evidence without that internal reasoning process. So, if a person cannot perceive what philosophical bankruptcy actually is, they'll never perceive that the majority of people are; so it doesn't matter how much evidence they're presented with, they'll never see it.

Bollocks, if you had some surveys asking questions like 'Do you think philosophy is an academic subject confined to complicated books and universities?' etc. and there was a trend towards answering 'yes' then you could justify your statements. Right now they are of no worth because you are asserting what most people believe without supporting it.

If you don't have any justification, I can, and will contest your statements.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I feel some solipsism on the way...

His assumption here, that all problems are solved using empiricism, doesn't once rest on empiricism. So there's his "proof" problem. Notice that he didn't need to use any kind of observation of sensory data to form that assumption, so if he wanted to state it as a true premise, he'd be contradicting himself.

No, not exactly correct. I'm basing my statement on the fact that I've never observed anyone solving any problems by any means that don't involve empiricism... and neither has anyone else to my knowledge, and sure as shit people have you have been claiming it happens and have not once come within a parsec of demonstrating it.

Empiricism is also axiomatic, because the alternative is completely useless from any practical perspective. I'm saying that any idea that can be said to have any truth value in the world outside of your brain must by definition map to something in the physical world. If it does not, it has no meaning outside of your brain.

 

[Noth]

Saying that most people lack philosophical nous is a figure of speech, generalising my experiences of the quality of thought I encounter in the overwhelming majority of people I observe or interact with.

Still, quite probably, not a large enough sample size to base your assertions of. And even if it was true you provide us with nothing to assess your claims with. This is precisely the reason why we want empirical data.

It's demonstrated yet again by the responses in this thread. Q.E.D. Not because everyone disagreed with me (how shallow and mentally evasive such arguments are!), but because there was no real understanding of the contents of each points made.

Again you mercilessly peer into the recesses of our minds and find our understanding wanting. How great your powers of telepathy are.

<snip> So, if a person cannot perceive what philosophical bankruptcy actually is, they'll never perceive that the majority of people are; so it doesn't matter how much evidence they're presented with, they'll never see it.

This feels too much like your own internal justification for making your assertions in the first place. Let me flip it around and show you:

<snip> So, if a person thinks she perceives what philosophical bankruptcy is, she'll believe that the majority of people are; so it doesn't matter how much evidence she's presented with, she'll keep seeing it.

Would you say I have enough insight into your psyche to make this assertion about you?

As to redefining terms to avoid "normal" meanings, presumably normal refers to a majority consensus. So again, Joe has just proved one of my points. I mean, try to explain to me how anyone can come to a purely logical conclusion by committee? If a concept is logical, it's itself logical and internally consistent, not because other people agree.

Let's take an example, not fully representable because it doesn't involve logic, but serves to perhaps demonstrate a point:

Red is red is red. There was once a general consensus that this colour should be called red. People who called it Pripple eventually died out and now everyone calls it red. Whether everyone philosophically SEES the same thing is irrelevant. It is still red. Conclusion made by "committee", the eventual outcome of which we accept and apply by general consensus.
OF COURSE the colour already existed prior to that and in spite of our naming it, but we called it red, so we defined the terms we use to classify this colour and others.
Now if people - barring the colour blind - should start calling all things red, green, it would lead to a great deal of confusion. If someone was to write an essay with the premiss that all red should be be green and vise versa and base his conclusion on that very premiss we would dismiss the conclusion along with the faulty premiss (that is, until a general consensus is reached that the two names should be reversed).
It is only logical that we keep calling red, red and green, green. To otherwise define them is plain silly, not a good basis for an argument and above all dangerous around the traffic lights.

 

[Kelly Jones]

Bollocks, if you had some surveys asking questions like 'Do you think philosophy is an academic subject confined to complicated books and universities?' etc. and there was a trend towards answering 'yes' then you could justify your statements.

Take Galileo. He probably never attended the Vatican's committee meeting where they decided his astronomical theses disagreed with majority opinion (i.e. statistical norms), so he never saw any such statistics-based information. Nevertheless, wasn't he justified in relying on his own assumption that he was under house arrest for disagreeing with popular opinion?

A person's own perceptions and reasonings aren't invalid in themselves, just because there is no committee around to give approval. A pioneering scientist's theories aren't mistaken because he or she hasn't yet demonstrated them to others, or because others disagree. Similarly, a philosopher's reasonings aren't invalid because he or she is not part of a Borg consciousness.


.

 

[Kelly Jones]

I'm saying that any idea that can be said to have any truth value in the world outside of your brain must by definition map to something in the physical world. If it does not, it has no meaning outside of your brain.

What about that idea? It argues that it holds truth value even though it doesn't map anything in the physical world.


.

 

[Kelly Jones]

Let me flip it around and show you:

So, if a person thinks she perceives what philosophical bankruptcy is, she'll believe that the majority of people are; so it doesn't matter how much evidence she's presented with, she'll keep seeing it.

Would you say I have enough insight into your psyche to make this assertion about you?

You don't have to have any insight into anyone's psyche to make that assertion. It's illogical in itself, because it makes a leap that sometime decides that the majority of people must be fools (folly being the opposite of wisdom, and philosophy being love of wisdom) based on them knowing what folly is. I don't know why you made that argument. I certainly didn't.

Kelly: As to redefining terms to avoid "normal" meanings, presumably normal refers to a majority consensus. So again, Joe has just proved one of my points. I mean, try to explain to me how anyone can come to a purely logical conclusion by committee? If a concept is logical, it's itself logical and internally consistent, not because other people agree.

Noth: Let's take an example, not fully representable because it doesn't involve logic, but serves to perhaps demonstrate a point:

Red is red is red. There was once a general consensus that this colour should be called red. People who called it Pripple eventually died out and now everyone calls it red. Whether everyone philosophically SEES the same thing is irrelevant. It is still red.

Again, you've proved another of my points: that most people don't know the difference between science and philosophy.

I mean, what on earth do you mean by "philosophically see"? You don't philosophically see an empirical phenomenon. Philosophical "eyes" (i.e. your reasoning) aren't one of the senses.



Come on, you guys! Don't you care about thinking with uncompromising determination to work out what is ultimately true, the essence of all philosophical enquiry? Where is the burning fire in your gut to ascertain what is essentially false, and what is reliable? Surely you realise this is an important matter. Playing at philosophers like most people do (you guys are really a typical sample) isn't a teenager's drunken party for making obtuse remarks, dabbling in mundane political opinions, and playing mental games to pass the time.


.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What about that idea? It argues that it holds truth value even though it doesn't map anything in the physical world.


.

Are you being intentionally dense, or do you just not get it? Based on your first post, your thinking skills are questionable, but maybe you're just dishonest.

Speaking of which, what dumbass idea are you trying to preemptively excuse from having to present evidence for? Cut the shit and get to it, I've got other things to do this week.

 

[Kelly Jones]

What about that idea? It argues that it holds truth value even though it doesn't map anything in the physical world.

Are you being intentionally dense, or do you just not get it? Based on your first post, your thinking skills are questionable, but maybe you're just dishonest.

Speaking of which, what dumbass idea are you trying to preemptively excuse from having to present evidence for? Cut the shit and get to it, I've got other things to do this week.

If you want to get angry instead of engaging in a genuine, earnest philosophical discussion, go right ahead. But I won't waste my time on you.

The reason why your idea is wrong, is because purely logical, a priori statements are still absolutely true in the empirical world. Take any mathematical axiom, which is defined and proven in the mind only --- but then is applicable in the empirical world. Not proven in the empirical world, note. Similarly, there are oodles of concepts and problems that are resolved in the mind, in an a priori fashion, and need no reference to sensory data to have meaningful content, nor to be proven --- and yet still can be used in the empirical world. For instance, a thing can be defined in the mind only, where it has its full meaning, and yet then be applied to the data from the senses without any loss of utility or truth value.


.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

5.
Most people can't distinguish between scientific knowledge and philosophical knowledge.

I'm curious how you distinguish between scientific knowledge and philosophical knowledge. Why don't you define these and give an example of each?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm curious how you distinguish between scientific knowledge and philosophical knowledge. Why don't you define these and give an example of each?

Yep, still waiting for that example. Otherwise, this is just nonsensical naval-gazing and worthless.

 

[Noth]

You don't have to have any insight into anyone's psyche to make that assertion. It's illogical in itself, because it makes a leap that sometime decides that the majority of people must be fools (folly being the opposite of wisdom, and philosophy being love of wisdom) based on them knowing what folly is. I don't know why you made that argument. I certainly didn't.

It is an inference I made from your literal statement that I then flipped around. You seem to have completely missed the point of it, so I'll try again:

...they'll never perceive that the majority of people are

Underlined is your statement, yes?

I made the comment about people's psyche as a bit of a jab, because you proclaim to be knowledgeable about things that I don't think you are equipped to speak about, dealing with what "the majority of people" - you were very generalising - know or understand

"...there was no real understanding"

You even admit you were generalising your experiences, but don't seem to see that this is precisely why - at least to me - a lot of your initial OP statements are either incoherent or seem to serve to reflect your own struggle with philosophy.

If you weren't so over-generalising I might even see merit in a few of your points, or keep them like this but provide them with backing evidence to support the "most people" bit.
Then there are a number of points I just outright disagree with and, if I get to it later, I might pick apart.