Philo.
 

So this may or may sound stupid but whatever :)
So i'm taking my first philosophy course in unisersity this semester. I'm currently reading Plato's "The Republic". It's interesting and all.. the arguements i've never thought of.. but does anyone else find it a big, long, long, long puzzle. Any hints on what I should really be focusing on throughout the book? Thank yas :)

I think philosophy generally amounts to an intellectually masturbatory exercise where no one really learns anything useful because everybody is too busy patting themselves on the back. I think most philosophical arguments can be ended with a simple "So what?" It is a good way to develop abstract reasoning skills though.

I seriously disagree with filtherton but in a way he's got a point. There's a difference between philosophy and speculation, and Plato sometimes crosses it. I find it helps to always ask yourself "Can this be logically proven?" and "If this were true, how would it affect how I live my life?" Don't give Plato's writing more credit than it deserves just because it's Plato.... everything can be analyzed on its intrinsic merits alone.

The Republic can either be understood as primarily political or primarily ethical -- that is, mostly concerned with the ideal state or mostly concerned with the ideal person. Personally, I tend to read it in the second way, because it's more interesting that way. For this, the discussion of the different personalities is important.

asaris hit the nail right on the head


although i for one read it as the frist way

I was in your position. I took 2 philo courses- western and religion and I sure did take it seriously and pondered every theory. I felt more lost than I did before, but I loved it, because then I reflected on everything I learned and found what my Truth was from that. It's all in the heart what feels true to you.
My suggestion to you is this:
Listen to/read and ponder everything.
Be open to it all.
Listen.
Ask questions if you have them, don't be afraid to.
Oh, and...........listen.
Seriously- "a wise person asks & listens /
the fool who constantly speaks never learns."

Philosophy made me start to question everything!

ya my first paper is due in 2 weeks or so
oh yay :P
hehe :)

If that's what you think, then why are you posting on Tilted Philosophy?

Maybe there's another board that caters for your interests better?

This tends to be one of the typical criticisms of philosophy that people bring up, usually when they can't think of a worthwhile argument. I'm not sure that there is an argument in any subject that I couldn't end with the words 'so what?' That doesn't not however mean that I have understood or even made a good point, only that I have nothing else to say or contribute.

Well, why does anyone do anything? I enjoy it. That's the mastubatory part of the equation. Why would anyone want to argue endlessly about things that
1. they'll never be ably to conclusively prove,
2. they'll probably never be able to get someone from the oposing viewpoint to agree with them,
if they didnt enjoy it?
I also mentioned the value of philosophical disussion for developing abstract reasoning skills.

You're right, "so what" isn't the most productive philosophical argument. There is however a lot of philosophy that isn't very productive either. I can't really think of many times where i've used it. But when a discussion basically amounts to, "whoa dude, have you ever, like, actually just looked at your hand?" That gets the old "so what". It is basically a way of saying that i think the majority of philosophical discussion is useless in terms of anyone deriving anything meaningful from it. We can argue forever about whether the planets in out solar system are part of an atom in a large scale version of our universe, but no one can really be sure so it just boils down to "Yup, i think so" vs. "Nope, i don't think so at all".

So let me change my above statement.

WOW. That really got me thinking about the futility of thought....ouch. Guess life is pointless, growth a false reality, history and education nothing but wasted time.

oh well......so what.

I guess you could say that's your............ PHILOSOPHY!!!

MWAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!

What can you conclusively prove?

I have to agree with my man Parkhurst here, there's nothing in the world you can prove conclusively. As Karl Popper puts it, all knowledge is conjecture and refutation.

I personally believe that philosophy is the primary discipline. It is the bedrock on which all other sciences and arts are built. And not only that, it gives you the ability to turn back on those sciences and arts and deconstruct them.

To say philosophical arguments don't have any meaning is ridiculous. In terms of changing the way you live your life, perhaps not, but I have never felt my mind so stretched as it was the day I tried to grapple with Immanuel Kant's theory of time. It was the mental equivalent of Marine Corps boot camp.

I certainly think I'm a better person for having studied philosophy, and despite the apparent futility of the questions that can't be answered, I think it has an awful lot to tell us about ourselves and the world we've built.

Okay, does anyone remember where i said "most"?

I don't know, it seems like you folks are coming at me like i said that all philosophy is useless and a waste of time. If you read what i posted you would see that that is not at all what i said. I said most philosophical discussions are a waste of time because both sides are more concerned with being right than they are with devining any kind of knowledge. Are you trying to claim that that isn't the case? What is going on in this thread right now?


First of all, picking one line out of a paragraph and trying to refute said line as your sole means of refuting said paragraph isn't the most effective way to prove your point.
Second, doesn't calling out me out for the use of "so what" as a "typical" cop-out argument and then shortly thereafeter using the "well, you can't really conclusively prove anything" seem a little ironic to you? One says an argument isn't valuable because it is irrelevant, the other says an argument is invalid because, you know, we'll never really know. Both sound like "typical criticisms of philosophy that people bring up, usually when they can't think of a worthwhile argument."

.. and this is why i'm scared to heck of handing in my paper
that along with the fact that my TA has mentioned she's a "hard marker" every day i see her

Good luck. It always takes at least one exam to figure out what the TA actually looks for in papers.

Interesting, however, picking one line out of a paragraph and trying to refute said line as a sole means of refuting said paragraph can be most effective. Especially if said line is one of the premises on which the point is based. In fact, this very basic skill, is an essential part in the study of philosophy.

Secondly at no point does the question 'what can you conclusively prove?' attempt to refute anything. It is asking a question which was an attempt to engage with you in communication about why conclusive proof is seemingly one of the benchmarks which you set to define to make an argument worthwhile. Or rather that by lacking such an outcome the purpose of arguing is solely for the enjoyment taken from it.

Even however, were it an argument, then at no point does it fall into the pitch of the ‘typical’ that I chose to label the phrase ‘so what?’ with. The phrase ‘so what?’ is stated to be the appropriate answer to most philosophical arguments, where as the question ‘what can you conclusively prove?’ is in keeping with, and relevant to, the discussion at hand. I also don’t feel that there is anything vaguely ironic contained in its use.

Taking this section as a whole I would have to question the idea that is inherent that philosophy is about endless arguments. I have never had a philosophical argument that didn't end.

With the first outlined premise 'they'll never be able to conclusively prove,' I would question what is 'conclusive proof,' and is it necessary to deem a discussion valued beyond enjoyment?

The second premise of 'they'll probably never be able to get someone from the oposing (sic) viewpoint to agree with them,' leaves me again asking why this is a measure that validates an argument beyond enjoyment?

If these are the two required points that bring relevance over mere enjoyment then is it reasonable to aim them solely at philosophy? Isn’t every argument and discussion, in every form of learning, susceptible to this very standard? A point that tecoyah made in an earlier post.

To answer the question that you seem to be posing of 'why to argue if they didn't enjoy?' I think that the first reason is that it is required for passing the course.

Perhaps the best reason of all to argue is so that you can gain insight into your own ideas. Rather than seeing arguing as worthwhile if it changes someone else’s view, maybe the greatest reward is that you can change your own. Certainly in the very least to have to amend an argument to make it stronger is surely worthwhile beyond enjoyment.

Your practise of philosophy may well amount to 'an intellectually masturbatory exercise where no one really learns anything useful because everybody is too busy patting themselves on the back.' This may however say more about you than it does about philosophy. Certainly if I was to enter into a discussion with the attitude of already being right and not wanting to have my mind opened let alone changed then this might be what I would end up thinking as well.

Of all the philosophical arguments that I have come across I am not sure that any of them could be ended with a 'so what?' simple or otherwise. The only thing that is ended in a philosophical argument with the words 'so what?' is the part you take in it, and the illusion that you understood it in the first place.

The fact that you seem to find no value, or take no value from philosophy other than abstract reasoning skills, may be a measure of your inability to find such value. It is not however reasonable to assume that they are not present.

As an aside while I find this discussion truly fascinating I am not sure how Unga may feel about this post being hijacked? Might I suggest that we continue our discussions on a new thread? However while I am totally able to argue and discuss philosophical points I will have to leave the technical duty of such in the hands of others.

Btw Unga do you have a question that you are writing your paper on? I personally have only touched on Plato in Aesthetic philosophy and would love to hear any of the ideas that you are looking at. I am also sure that others on this board will have studied Plato and could give deeper insight to the discussion.

Anyone who wants to further discuss the merits of philosophy can do so on the thread that is now titled ‘Is most philosophy useless speculation.’ Remain here for more relevant topic on Plato’s republic.

Thanks for making a new thread Parkhurst.

Ok, back to the republic.
In book I, at the end of Plato's debate with Polemarchus, Plato says that the definition of justice being helping one's friends and hurting one's enemies must come from "someone else of wealth and arrogance". Does anyone know why this is?

For no reason at all I'm wondering if it relates back to the conversation Plato had earlier with Cephalus about money helping him be just (telling the trust and paying one's debts).. soo how he has the money to buy things for sacrifices.

Thoughts anyone?
Thank you :)

to be fair, the Republic was dictated by Socrates, and written by Plato. Giving Plato credit for the Republic is like giving a stenographer credit for an attorney's clothing statements, or more appropriately, giving all the credit to a student who took notes on his professor's lecture.

The Republic is a thick read, the best way to attack it is to take it step by step, and thoroughly analyze what you're reading. take notes!

That's not quite right, bermuda. It was based on the philosophy of Socrates, though not nearly as much as the early dialogues (it belongs to Plato's 'middle period'), but it's final form owes at least as much, if not more, to Plato than to Socrates.

then they should stop printing it as a dialogue between socrates and his pupils. I don't like reading the "play format" anyways :(

ahh sorry about that
I always forget that it's socrates :P

do you two have any ideas on what i wrote just above bermuDa's first post?

I read this for my freshman seminar that was taught using a new pedagogy a professor at my college came up with. We played Ancient Greece as a game and were assigned roles with objectives that, if achieved, would mean winning the game (and a half grade bonus ;)). The roles were divided into factions (Socratics, Radical Democrats, Moderate Democrats and Oligarchs) each with their own special interests, and a faction-sized group of independents who had random specific goals for themselves (a rich athlete, a woman disguised as a man, and so on). Anyway, we used the Republic as the text to inform our behavior in class and we would vote on issues everyday after making our respective arguments. It was a helpful way to think about Socrates' idea of the ideal republic (1) in the context of the political opposition he met, which coincidentally led to his execution in the end, (2) in the context of having to put it together as an argument against pure democracy, and (3) as an ideal that I (as a member of the Socratic faction) would have to learn enough about and understand in a way that I could apply it to my behavior in class every week.

I realize that telling you about my class isn't directly answering your questions about the text, but maybe looking at it in this light will help you fish out the more important information in your reading. If it would help, I could even give you the basic structural outline of Socrates' ideal socio-political structure that we used to frame our game. I love to talk about what I learned in that class, and I'm just a PM away.

Good luck!

Word on the street is that philosophy is concerned with finding problems instead of finding answers. I saw this nugget of wisdom when I kept arguing for the scientific method in a philosophy chat room.

However, you should know that the most esteemed physicists are aware of the epistemological problems involved in claiming that they have (or would have) a Theory of Everything. Steven Weinberg recently admitted that there are some constants in nature that are so arbitrary, that he is led to believe that they only take on those values in a local pocket of our universe. After all, how could any physicists know for sure that the laws of physics do not look different in a very far-away place?

Try looking up the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on google. It is run off itm.edu server. I'd link but I can't post links yet under this account. Check out the entry there on epistemology. It's good stuff.

I suspect it depends on the philosopher.

You'll never find an applied physicist who cares about epistemological problems, because applied physicists have resolved their epistemological issues a long time ago. How do they know they've detected a certain subatomic particle in one of their atom-smashing do-hickey's? Because their results confirm their theory-based expectations (which are based on both empirical evidence and reason). It's worked for them so far, and they'll continue to use it until it doesn't anymore.

As for theoretical physicists, they're actually mathematicians and not physical scientists.

I've seen it before. I'd use it more if I thought learning that type of stuff would enrich my life. I prefer to learn about things that pique my curiosity, and right now, philosophy for philosophy's sake just doesn't do it for me.

Epistemology is the high dude sitting in the corner, staring at his hand repeating in a long, drawn out, nasal voice "Dude, how do we even know that we know stuff?" I resolved my personal epistemological questions a long time ago and have yet to feel compelled to revisit them.

that's because most of the conceptual problems that attend ordinary science are ontological. epistemology is concerned with the relations between categories and phenomena in the world. ontology is concerned with the arrangements of categories, their definitions and the frameworks that enable them. epistemology is like a proof---simple procedures, straightforward rules. ontology enables some access to axioms---you know, the statements that are arbitrary with respect to a proof because you can't prove an axiom from inside a proof that presupposes them.

but hey, that'd be a recursive way of thinking. which is where philo as an activity starts. philo as an academic institution tends to start from commentary on other texts. i enjoy some of it, find some of it useful even. but commentary as an exclusive m.o. is a problem. plus Scientists think they Know Shit because the world they operate with is carved up to fit the assumptions that orient experiment and have no Need for stuff like commentary on plotinus where they'd find exactly the same kind of activity, written about in the 3rd century, in language (an ontology) they wouldn't recognize. so they wouldn't bother trying to figure it out in the main. so the maybe questions about the interpretive circle wouldn't come up. but it'd be alot more interesting if it did come up.

unless science is supposed to just repeat the same procedures again and again.

That would only be true if you are using the phrase "applied physicist" as a synonym for "engineer".

Consider, "Why are the fundamental particles different?" That question is an explosive, hotly-debated, contentious issue among theoretical physicists as well as those working in "applied" physics at CERN. The question strikes right at the heart of why our minds perceive differences (or create them -- be that as it may).


Enrichment aside, I don't think there is any "safe spot" in science where you somehow absolve yourself of any responsibility of facing epistemology.

There is nothing wrong with taking an epistemological stance. And pointing out that you are taking one is not an underhanded attack to "prove you wrong". Everyone carries a holster around their waist with an Intellectual Gun ready to be drawn at any time to defend their epistemology. I think it would be preferable if people could maturely and calmly declare their epistemic stance. There is no danger in doing so, because there is no way to "prove" an epistemic stance.

Coming back to enrichment. Without an ability to recognize their own epistemology, people exhibit a kind of "nervous defensiveness" in conversation. When you are aware of how your own knowledge is being derived, you gain a calmer, clearer attitude; a type of inner peace that then shows on the outside. But if you prefer to act like a cat that has been cornered, and is hissing and fluffing its fur, that's your prerogative.

While I also disagree with filtherton, you can't really say plato crosses any line between philosophy and speculation. You have to look at his work in the terms pf his own time in such cases. The fact of the matter is that The Republic is one of the most brilliant pieces of writing in history which encompasses political ethical and metaphysical thought still relevant today.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

What you're really learning with a philosophy book or course is a new way to think. Not the principles themselves but how they came to their conclusions. The more ways you can look at something and think of it at a different angle the wiser you will become. Take it seriously.