filtherton

This thread is attempt to stop a threadjacking in progress. I know this post is kind of long winded, so my apologies. Feel free to tell me i'm full of shit too, though.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=43016





Well, let me just reiterate that my above statements were meant to apply to most philosophy, not all as you insinuate. In fact, were it not for my will to discuss certain things i wouldn't even be attemting to clarify my opinion.

Do you realize what is going on here? Unga starts a thread asking people's opinions on philosophy and i offer mine. Yay, someone is providing their input. Then, other people also offered their opinions. All is well.
What is the first thing you did when you read unga's request for a perspective? You attacked my opinion as "typical of someone who can't think up a worthwhile argument". That's fine, not really helping unga, but ok. So i attempt to refine my opinion, thinking that maybe it was i who misspoke. One of the most important things i said was that i didn't think ALL philosophical discussion was useless, just most of it. Now before you go completely proving my point about intellectual masturbation and the lack of desire for personal growth, let me point out that if not for your desire to be right you probably would have acknowldeged the fact that my opinion was not an attempt to claim that all of philosophy is useless, just that most of it was. But, alas, your whole argument rests upon my complete an utter rejection of all that is good and useful in civil/philosophical discussion. Did you come yet? Whether you know it or not you agree with me to a certain extent. For example, you don't seem to be going out of your way to learn and refine your perspective by actively participating in even one-fourth of the threads currently going on in this philosophy forum? I know your lack of participation isn't due to your inability to argue and discuss philosophical points, you pointed out and have demonstrated that you can do that just fine.
Why then, if ALL philosophical discussion has such intrinsic value(your main point?), value that can only be overlooked by the incapable or the lazy(Me), are you not attempting to grow and learn as much as possible by adding your perspective in every thread in the philosophy forum? Is it because you don't care to discuss the topics of the majority of these threads(my "so what" argument)? Aren't you effectiveley ending your part of all of these arguments with a big fat implied SO WHAT?!?!? by not participating in them?

pyraxis

Just because many philosophical debates fall apart into personal attacks is no reason to condemn the philosophy, just the debaters. Now granted that may be what you intended all along, but with lines like "my opinion was not an attempt to claim that all of philosophy is useless, just that most of it was", I have to ask.

The thing is, philosophy is what shapes our ethics, and ethics influence almost every action. It may be unproveable whether a supreme being exists (for example), but many people who believe it have adopted a certain set of values with it, and that's changed how they try to live their lives.

And as for whether debate can really lead to new ideas, if you agree that philosophy must follow logical standards, it's quite possible to prove or disprove theories that people have come up with in the past. Even if you think logic's got nothing to do with it, discussion can still give you a new perspective on ideas... ideas that could easily have a major impact on your life. Abortion, euthanasia, and other "hot topics" like that are all philosophical issues in the end.

__________________
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." -Emerson

wilbjammin

That's sad, I wish that everyone would live such an enriched life as I do with friends that care deeply about philosophical matters on life, existence, ethics, society, values, etc.

If you find most philosophical discussions useless then you're either talking to the wrong people, or about the wrong things, or something. I can only hope that you find out why this is the case so that you can change it. It seems that if you talk about these big key issues about the nature of what, why, and how things are and you aren't getting anything out of it other than "intellectual masturbation" then you're cheating yourself somehow. I guess I just don't understand...

__________________
Innominate.

Nevus

Many times philosophical discussions "sound" meaningless because of the lack of vocabulary to address the problem. Furthermore many of the same 'problems' in philosophy have been explored many times by many people from different ages of civilization. Some people like the simplicity of Plato's arguments while others would rather read 21st century Anthropic Principle literature. The idea is to identify the universal questions of philosophy and convince yourself to the point you are just that - convinced. Depending on the people you spend time with discussions on such things may or may not be fruitful. It helps when one person is an expert in the sciences while another has surveyed the vast majority of philosophers, poets, and writers of ancient and/or modern literature. Or if you have smoked some ganj.

__________________
"How can the Have-Nots win when the Haves have M-16s and F-16s and the Have-Nots have not?"
-- Dr. Seuss

filtherton

I guess the most important things about philosophical thought to me are that it helps me to understand the world i live in more vividly and does so in terms that i can agree with. Most philosophical discussions that i have been exposed to fail on both counts. Either they aren't relevant to the way that i view the world or they aren't logical to my vulcan mind.

That being said, this discussion has been the exception.

Lebell

I will only say that bad philosophizing is worthless, and most people (probably including myself) are bad at it.

Good philosophers can help us answer important human issues, and that is the worth of philosophy.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

filtherton

*attempts to ride lebell's coat tails to the land of succinctly made points*

Ustwo

Maybe

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

flamingdog

First things first, this isn't a personal attack. I just noticed a few points...

Let's just examine this.

By all means pat yourself on the back for contributing, but don't for a second pretend that response was even relevant to Unga's question.

I wish I could have popped out of my mother a fully formed filosofizin' machine, man, but unfortunately, I had this tiresome thing called immaturity to overcome. Good philosophy is the product of many years of study, argument and refinement. Sadly, most philosophers don't spend the time and energy they need to attain that level. In fact, most people who are new to philosophy are so taken with the fact that they're debating the biggest issues there are, it does turn into intellectual masturbation. So most philosophers suck. I know I do.

So does that instantly invalidate my opinion? Is it worthless to argue a point, because I'm not very good at it? To my mind, it takes an awful lot of dedication to reach the lucidity of argument that produces philosophical truth. I view the bad arguments and the intellectual masturbation and the personal attacks and the 'but that's a cop-out' rejoinders as a hurdle to be overcome on the path to philosophical mastery. So let 'em have their arguments.



And with such scorching philosophical hot potatoes as 'If You Could Have Sex With God, Would You?' flying around, I have to say, man, I can't believe he hasn't participated more.


That just doesn't make sense. So I don't have a post in EVERY SINGLE THREAD on the board. That means I don't have an opinon on the matters? I don't know about you, but I don't really have time to sit here 24/7.

And this is your picture of personal betterment? Something irrelevant to your view of the world is dismissed? Did it occur to you that once in a while your view of the world might need shifting? I wouldn't for a second suggest it in all cases. But what's the point in going into an argument thinking everything contrary is irrelevant to you?

filtherton

You got me, i misread unga's post and though he was just asking for opinions on philosphy in general. I guess
:::OshnSoul::: and TheKak did too, so i don't feel so bad. Anyway, score for you.


I'm sorry you thought i was talking to you. I was actually talking to parkhurst since he was the one who thought it best to continue our discussion in a new thread. I guess since your comments echoed his it might still apply. I think you miss the point of this post though. My point was that parkhurst was trying to win, rather than trying to "learn and refine his perspective". My evidence for this was his apparent refusal to acknowledge the fact that i admitted that i find value in some philosophical disussions. Without my denouncement of all that is philosophy his argument is off base.

I hope your not taking this personally, i wasn't trying to say that you can't argue well. Just that you're position doesn't contradict mine. As for your search for "philosophical truth"
What is truth if you can't prove anything conclusively?
If you want to use bad philosophical discussions as a learning tool, good, that's a good way to learn what you respect and don't respect in other people's opinions and reasoning. But don't pretend that such things have inherent value beyond learning how to argue. Sometimes you might find a gem of a discussion, but most of the time you may end up pondering an absurdity that you don't even care about.



You prove my point. No offense to anyone who enjoyed that particular philosophical discussion, but c'mon. Is that what you and parkhurst are talking about when you attempt claim that all philosophy is inherently valuable? Am i lazy or incapable for not being ultra-enthusiastic about debating such things?

Aha, so you admit it then. There are more important things to you than debating philosphy 24/7. I guess i got the impression that you thought i was dead wrong for pointing out that many philosophical arguments didn't matter to me, and were even irrelevant.


Do you know how to tell when your worldview needs shifting? As soon as you realize that your world view needs shifting, that is when your world view needs shifting. When your perspective becomes a problem than you should re-examine your motivations and your beliefs. Philosophy is a tool. If that tool ceases to do its job effectively than you need to find yourself a new tool. If i have a question, i ask somebody. The fact is that most discussions contain answers to questions i never asked and don't care to know. If you want to know than by all means participate, just don't tell me i'm wrong when i point out my perspective.

P.S. Just so you know that i find value in the discussions i participate in: This little discussion has made explore and rephrase my perspective on this matter. Thanks for your part.

Parkhurst

At no part during my deconstruction of any of your statements did I use anything that approached insinuation. Whether you say that most philosophy or all philosophy is useless speculation is not important for any of my aforementioned arguments on the previous post. I only question the premises and the a posteriori that you bring to the discussion.

Unga didn’t ask for people’s opinions his words were ‘Any hints on what I should really be focusing on throughout the book?’ and if anyone else found the Republic difficult to get to grips with. It was you who went off saying that ‘philosophy generally amounts to an intellectually masturbatory exercise where no one really learns anything useful’ and ‘most philosophical arguments can be ended with a simple "So what?”’

Perhaps you truly believe that Unga would benefit with this attitude towards his philosophy course. I doubt however that the ‘so what?’ line would look convincing in an argument either for or against any of the issues raised in Plato’s republic. Also I doubt that if he were to try to ‘intellectually masturbate’ his way through the course that his grades would amount to very much.

The reason that I chose to attack your opinion is that it can be a harmful attitude for the student to take when embarking on said course. In that sense I feel that my points were far more helpful for Unga than any of the ill conceived rhetoric that your first post contained.

In a way it was you misspoke. Someone asked for help on a specific field and you ignored their request. The fact that you do not ‘think ALL philosophical discussion was useless’ again in no way alters any of the points that I have made. Most of my points have been based on the clauses that you presented with each of your statements, making them more or less a priori. This may be one of the most important things that you have said, but I feel that it bares little relevance to the discussion at hand. I do not believe that most philosophical discussion is useless, just as I do not believe that most discussion in any learned discipline is.

Through the linguistic choices that I have made throughout this discussion I have acknowledged your opinion. However as most of my arguing has sort to reason within the confines of your ever-changing premises in order to dispute your opinion the need to acknowledge said opinion has been less of a big issue than you seem to want to believe. I may well accept that it may be one of the most important things that you have said, I do however question whether it is important.

Also at no point during this discussion have I ever had the desire to ‘be right.’ Most of your philosophical discussions may result in intellectual masturbation, and this may result from the fact that you have a desire to ‘be right.’ This desire however is something of a hurdle that may well prevent rising yourself from the levels of cognitive wanking and slapping yourself on the back.

My argument has never, and will never rest on the your ‘complete an utter rejection of all that is good and useful in civil/philosophical discussion.’ It rests on the questioning of the premises that you have put forward.

I personally do not ‘intellectually masturbate’ when I argue philosophical points. You are the one who claims to have mostly met with such approaches, my experience has these type of approaches very thin on the ground. Your need to ‘be right’ may drive your part in this discussion, do not assume that it is mine. Perhaps a better question is ‘have you lost your mental libido yet?’

Ok, lets see where this idea goes.

By not participating in many of the philosophical arguments on the forum, am I employing (through ‘big fat’ implication, apparently) your ‘so what?’ argument?

How can I end my part in all of these arguments if the part was never begun in the first place?

Not taking part in the arguments does not imply ‘so what?’ on my part. There are discussions going on all over the world that I am not a part of, and I don’t feel in a position to dismiss any part of them. The non-participation in an argument merely acknowledges a constraint on my time. Deeming something less important than something else, does not however lead me to assume that it is therefore unimportant.

The choice of one argument over another for myself doesn’t mean however that I value one over another, for the most part it is merely that I encountered it. ‘So what?’ has the connotations that the user is questioning (certainly from my understanding of how you employ the phrase) the point of the discussion. By not taking part in a discussion I am not thereby questioning the point of the discussion. In fact I am not questioning the discussion at all.

There is nothing seemingly gainful in the analysis of the unsaid. By not taking part I am merely not taking part, the conclusion that this somehow implies a ‘so what?’ on my part is flawed. I think that there is more implied with the words ‘so what?’ than mere non-participation dictates.

Also not posting on a thread that I have read does not seem to imply that I would view said thread as being useless and meriting a ‘so what?’ response. It has been the case that I have read some very interesting arguments, but that my view has already been put forward in a previous post. Also it may be the fact that that while I find a discussion both engaging and relevant, that I cannot form an opinion that is a worthy response to such points. Surely that does not infer that I am in anyway treating the points within the argument with a contemptuous ‘so what?’

Btw I would like to thank flamingdog for posting me to let me know that this discussion was continued on another thread. I may have missed out had he not done so.

__________________
The unexamined life is not worth living.

Parkhurst

Hmm. This is an interesting view although I am not sure that it is as worthless (bad philosophy not the view) as first appears. I am not even sure that bad philosophy exists any more than good philosophy. If beginning philosophy invariably involves working through awful reasoning and bad approaches to reach a better understanding, then perhaps it has served a greater purpose than you first give it credit.

I think that terms like good and bad are more suited to the attitudes to philosophy, than the actual philosophising. It is interesting that you seem to believe that you are probably bad at philosophy, because I am not sure that anyone whom you may consider to be good with philosophy would recognise themselves as such. The need to improve thinking, and understanding such a need, may be a great tool in philosophy. Your acknowledgement that you are probably bad at philosophy, infers that you could be head and shoulders above many people who think that they know what philosophy is all about. You display a willingness to accept that you may be wrong when entering into a discussion, and in my experience this has proved to be a useful attitude.

I would argue that it is not ‘the’ worth of philosophy, but rather it is ‘a’ worth of philosophy. For instance, does philosophy not also help us question important human issues as well as form answers?

__________________
The unexamined life is not worth living.

Lebell

Poor use of logic (or no use at all), false analogies, strawman arguments, emotional arguments, etc. are all apart of bad philosophy.

I continue fail to see any worth in it.

I would simply argue that answering the question logically implies a question to answer.

And thank you for the complement.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

John Henry

No, philosophy is not 'useless'. How useful something is should be measured by its fulfilment of its intended purpose. A blunt blade is useless, it is intended to cut, but does not. A hammer is blunt, but not useless, it drives in nails. If you try to cut with a hammer, you are the useless one of the two.

Why do you Masturbate? To get off. Do you get off when you masturbate? Yes? Then masturbation is useful.

So even if philosophy is a masturbatory excercise (and isn't everything, when you break it down?) it serves the purpose of pleasing its participants. Useful, then. Can't ask much more than that.

__________________
"No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

meembo

Socrates: "Know thyself."

Philosophy is the blade of thought we use to cut into the unknown and the minunderstood. It's a "love of knowledge/thought/reason" which I believe everyone participates to some degree, appropriate to the level of stargazing (or navel-gazing) they do with wonder. It's self-indulgent by its own nature, but it's useful. Philosophy and its child, ethics, are exactly what make a civilization civilized, and we all enjoy the benefits of that daily.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

filtherton

I'm sorry if my position seems to change. I assure however, that my position has not changed one inch. What has changed have been the terms in which i frame it. Sometimes i say something and i expect someone to understand what i'm saying without realizing that what i said isn't really what i mean. One of the things i value about the tfp is that it has helped me learn how to frame my ideas better.

In first responding to unga, i was responding to the fact that unga had not taken a philosophy course before and seemed unsure about what to expect. Having never read the republic i felt i had no right to comment on that. I don't think my comment on philo in general was out of place since two other people posted about philo in general rather than the book. I was just trying to warn unga about some of the downsides of the philosophical tool that is philosophical discussion- people who are more concerned with obliterating another's perspective than with learning anything. It seems like you are trying to claim that i am the only person who as ever noticed such a phenomena. Probably due in part to my inability to argue for the sake of growth, right?


As for your lack of participation in all of the meaningful discussions available to you, lack of time is really a cop-out. Tell me, what could ever be more meaningful than philosophical discussion? If you really cared you'd make time, right? You're the one who believes all discussion is inherently worth-it and valuable. Did somebody allready state your opinion in the "If you could would you have sex with god" thread? By not participating in all of these discussion your are implying that they lack value to you. I'm just not sure how that could be, since you think that all philosophy is immeasurably valuable.


I'd like to thank flamingdog too. I would've told you, but since you're the person who bandied about the idea for a new thread for this i just assumed you'd be looking for one.

filtherton

Except philosphy isn't itself the masturbation(rewarding part), i think in this example philosophy is the porn. That is, it is the object, not the orgasm. For some people senior porn just doesn't cut it, just like for some people existentialism just doesn't cut it. I think for me personally, most porn is useless. It doesn't turn me on and some of it even disgusts me. I do have my preferences though and i don't think all porn is useless. For me most of it is though.

Parkhurst

[I think that perhaps these are more bad techniques or skills, rather than the philosophy itself. Although I am less sure that the position that I took as a possibility that philosophy can't be bad is perhaps wrong. Perhaps bad techniques can leave a philosophy open to easy criticism, although I don’t think I would throw away the whole worth of the piece on one ill thought out concept. However should the piece contain only arguments from bad technique then this may be a case of bad philosophy. Although I am not sure that a piece that hasn’t the thought there in the first place really contains philosophy, but this is something that I will have to think on further.

The worth of learning such things can be that once you are aware of them you can avoid them, as well as recognise them in other work. Although the worth may simply be to learn by mistakes, I don't think that I have ever read any philosophy that was holy bad. I usually find that while it is always open to criticism that it still has some worth even if that worth is just to start a debate.

I was amused to see you refer to the strawman arguments, I remember when I used them when I first began philosophy.

But I am not sure that questioning something in philosophy always requires an answer to make it valid. Philosophy can question things without supplying an answer, indeed I think that creating the question in the first place seems to be a point of philosophy.

Lol, don't mention it.

__________________
The unexamined life is not worth living.

thingstodo

To go back to the original question, whatever that was.... I think the discussion 9s always worthwhile if it makes our mind's work - if we think. Too many don't even know how to think, much less actually do think!

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

thespian86

Sure i do find Philosophy intresting and a great conversation always comes out of it. But have you ever heard the saying "Shoulda Coulda Woulda"? If i thought about why the world is here and why i'm writing this and why i'm listening to the incredibly funny Adam Sandler right now then I would be wasting time. It doesn't change anything thinking about it, it's like when you think about what you could have done, why would you? there is no point. I'm not saying that there is no point to philosophy because it's amazing to think about, i'm just saying don't build your life around it? I think? hahaha, sorry about the not so clear answer. Hope that helps

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.

raeanna74

I guess that I find the philosophical discussions here offer a couple of points of value. First off I have become disillusioned with the religious philosophy that I was raised with. While I am not ready to give it all up I am still attempting to explore other possibilities. The discussions here give me many different philosophies to consider. Secondly I find that seeing how others think and believe gives me another's perspective on life and how they see it. When you can relate to another person's view of things you are able to empathize with them and learn how to work with them better.

I think even just the examining of my own beliefs is a positive thing about philosophical discussion, even if I don't change that belief. In that case it just solidifies my conviction concerning my own position.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Yakk

Meaningful is the wrong term. Try important.

There are many things more important than philosophy. Having food to eat, for example, at a rate sufficient to keep you alive in order to argue philosophy.

Other things could also be more important than philosophy.

Ridiculous. I care about many things. Some things I care about more than others. Just because I care about something else more, doesn't mean I don't care about the other thing.

Examples:
Assertion: "making money is important".
"but, there are trillions of dollars in the USA you do not own. If making money is important, why have you not earned all the trillions of dollars in the USA?"
"because I don't have time".
"lack of time is a cop-out. If making money was truely important, you would make time!"

The arguement presented here is about as ridiculous as yours.

Please quote the position that implies that the value of philosophy is immasureable. I didn't see it.

It is quite possible that you are simply pointing out Sturgeon's Law:
However, the use of the term "in general" to me, at least, implies that the exceptions are not just in the minority, but are anomolous.

"In general, American voted for Gore last election. Bush only won because of the electoral college system."

This is a ridiculous statement. More people did vote for Gore, so "most" people who voted voted for Gore, but a simple majority isn't enough to use a term like "in general".

"In general, eating a McDonalds hambuger is not immediately fatal."
"In general, airplane travel is safer than travelling the same distance by car."

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

filtherton

That's what i was getting at.


I think it was the foundation of reaganomics. The poor choose to be poor because they care not for success.

I'm just saying, there's more important things than philosophy. In fact, there are a great many things which have a greater impact on the here and now than the average philosophical discussion. Which i think was my poorly articulated argument from the get-go.


I was paraphrasing. Re-read.


[QUOTE]It is quite possible that you are simply pointing out Sturgeon's Law:

This sturgeon fellow better hope i never catch up with his copyright infriging ass.


Speaking in generalities is useful because nothing is absolute. You obviously think i'm cynical in my estimations. To each their own.

In general, most philosophical debate is poorly reasoned and based on false or erroneous assumptions. Its like a group of people trying to solve a complex math problem when they don't really know how. They can spend hours and hours just to figure out that they have no idea what the hell they are doing. Or, even worse, they can spend hours and hours using faulty reasoning to come away with an innacurate and flawed idea which they falsely believe is true and useful. I've been there. A lot philosophical discussion is useless because, in my experience, much of it is the result of people making grand statements of truth which they have not the qualifications to make, and then arguing about them. It is often a waste of time because you end up no better off than when you started. That last part is really my opinion, which you may feel free to passionately attempt to dissuade me from.

Which isn't to say that learning to think, organize and argue one's thoughts lacks any value. Discussion can be great for refining one's perspective and testing ideas against the mind of another. I just think that it is rare that any of those things are the result of two people, who both believe beyond the reach of any counter argument that they are right, butting heads. If you don't agree, see how much effect logic and reasoning has on the average mouth-of-foam conservative/liberal/fundamentalist/ecoterrorist/capitalist/socialist perspective.

Mantus

filtherton,

Consciousness creates subjectivity, making the human condition subjective. Subjectivity can only be interpreted philosophically.

We commonly refer to a discussion as being philosophical when it covers the most complex and abstract topics such as God, the nature of reality, meaning of life, existence of free will, etc. Yet one must remember that all our thoughts are philosophical in nature, that is they are subjective. Thus our entire society is subjective in nature, built on philosophical ideas that have been so widely accepted that they seem objective.

So you see philosophy is not useless, it is in fact the language of humanity.

filtherton

Well, if you want to get all broad on me. Which way to wipe my ass is philosophy too, as is figuring out whether i should wear my pumps or my high heels out to sunday night dance party. Neither of those things necessarily warrants a discussion for me.
I guess i see the reason for philosophy more as an attempt to reason out viable and useful solutions or perspectives to problems or questions.
You can say that everything is philosophy, and on some level you are right. I think that maybe it is more accurate to say that the language of humanity is based on philosophy. That still doesn't mean that there isn't a great deal of discussion that serves no purpose other than to piss in the wind.

Yakk

In general, any philosophical or meta-philosophical statement made by you that I have seen has been poorly reasoned and based on false or erroneous assumptions.

In general, any philosophical or meta-philosophical statement I have seen you interprit has been poorly misunderstood or you missed the reasoning or you showed yourself incapable of understanding what the base assumptions are.

These statements not as bad an overgeneralization as your statement was. Do you now understand how ridiculous your statement was and is?

No, actually, I made a statement that meant nearly the exact opposite of your assertions.

I read it, and I read you, already. Your debating bludgeon looked like the act of someone who cared more about winning a debate than truth.

Hence the arguement, that maybe philosophical debate isn't the problem, but you are. =)

Look, if I where to post in the Politics forum that "in general, americans did not vote for Bush in 2000", I would be called out of making an idiotic overgeneralization.

This is what you did.

And then, when people called you out on this overgeneralization, you expressed shock and dismay that they would dare misunderstand you, and proceeded to poorly redefine your statement repeatedly.

I am aware that bad philosophical debate exists. Quite possibly every debate you have ever engaged in has been poor, and quite possibly every debate you tried to understand looked poor to you.

I claim you have attribution error: you are attributing the crappyness of philosphical debate to the nature of philosophical debate. I am attributing it to your failings.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Mantus

filtherton,

Despite our already vast universal model some people still feel restrained and want to know more. I suppose they are following the same urge that our ancestors felt generations ago when they were trying to understand the world outside their caves. Understanding our world and ourselves helps us survive. Being curious about what’s over the next hill may seem futile when your patch of land is already fertile, but we rarely know of the benefits of something we don’t have.

filtherton

I stand by my usage of the word "general". I take it to mean
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ral&x=17&y=16: GENERIC
5 a : applicable to or characteristic of the majority of individuals involved. The "individuals" here being philosophical discussions. It still doesn't sound ridiculous to me.


Why are you here? Looking for the truth are you? It seems like you already have a handle on your version of the truth. Try reading yourself before you proclaim bold truths about the motivations of others. Indeed if my arguments are as flimsy as you seem to think, the person with nothing to prove wouldn't feel the need to "break me down".


The problem here is that you are attempting to take over an argument for someone who stopped caring a long time ago. In doing so you have stated no clear position for yourself, just rebutted half-statements without addressing the main point of the thread. It is difficult to argue with someone when they haven't made even a remotely direct statement about their opinion on the topic at hand.


Actually, using the generic definition above it would seem to be a technically accurate statement. If gore got the majority, than in general, americans did not vote for george bush. Since to qualify as "general" for the generic definition something has to be applicable to or a characteristic of the majority of individuals involved.
Perhaps it was the interpretation that was idiotic. I'm sorry if you were thinking of one of the other definitions of "general", but that is not my problem.


My shock and dismay was more the result of the shock and dismay expressd by my critics. I try to respond with tone matching that of my fellow debaters. As for poor redefinition, i'll try harder in the future if you promise you'll stop acting like a philo prof.

Imagine the possibilities. Imagine you, missing the thousands of times in this thread where i have stated my belief in the value of good philosophical discussion, imagining me never having recieved any benefit from discussions.

I wouldn't call them my failings. I'd call it my lack of desire to waste valuable masturbation time debating things that don't have value to me and may result in the lessing of my already diminishing intelligence.

filtherton

I hear what you're saying. Really, i do. I'm not trying to say that the search for understanding is pointless, because i'm a pretty curious kitty when it comes to certain subjects. Just that the method of discussion, for me personally, isn't very high on my list in terms of learning about the world aroung me.

Yakk

*nod*, a matter of opinion. Semantics. An easily misunderstood statement you made.

I said your debating bludgeon, or weapon, or tool, looked similar to the act of someone with particular negative motivations.

And this is a true statement. Much like "in general, philosophical debate is dumb". True for some definition of the words used, but not very clear in the meaning, and has a significant negative feel to it.

I mean, "in general, _fill_in_your_occupation_ is full of ignorant people". Almost everyone is ignorant, relative to other people.

"You are ignorant".

Another such statement. Full of insulting sounding words, but under some specific literal meaning a nearly tautologically true statement.

Nobody knows everything, thus everyone is ignorant. If I throw it out in the middle of a random debate, it doesn't sound like a null-statement: people assume when you say something that you are saying something.

I never ascribed you those motivations. In fact, in my entire post, I can only see one time that I actually ascribed a feature to you:

Every other statement was "like X" or "possibly X". Using your own standards for the use of language and the term "general", they really assert nothing about you.

That last sentace was, however, over the top. I apologize for it. The rest stand, as far as I can tell, because they are all qualified sufficiently to mean, under very specific definitions of the words used, basically nothing.

"90% of everything is crud" is a very useful statement. If all you meant by statement about philosophy in general was that 90% of everything is crud, then can you at least understand how people would take offence, misinterpriting your statement to mean something about Philosophy in specific instead of things in general?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

filtherton

No, it isn't a matter of opinion. You were practically hysterical and calling my statements ridiculous because you misunderstood what i was saying. Perhaps in the future you should examine a statement from all angles to see if maybe you were wrong at first glance before you try to jump down somebody's throat with both feet.

Quote:

I said your debating bludgeon, or weapon, or tool, looked similar to the act of someone with particular negative motivations.

I was just stating an observation. I'm sorry if you felt "bludgeoned".

Quote:

And this is a true statement. Much like "in general, philosophical debate is dumb". True for some definition of the words used, but not very clear in the meaning, and has a significant negative feel to it. Actually I mean, "in general, _fill_in_your_occupation_ is full of ignorant people". Almost everyone is ignorant, relative to other people. "You are ignorant". Another such statement. Full of insulting sounding words, but under some specific literal meaning a nearly tautologically true statement. Nobody knows everything, thus everyone is ignorant. If I throw it out in the middle of a random debate, it doesn't sound like a null-statement: people assume when you say something that you are saying something.

You can pick apart my diction till your fingernails bleed. It won't change the fact that every statement in the english language leaves room for interpretation. You assumed when i was saying one thing that i was saying another. You're the one who went on the offensive without having a clear idea of what i was actually saying. Perhaps you should take into account some of the clarification that i have provided throughout this thread.

Quote:

I never ascribed you those motivations. In fact, in my entire post, I can only see one time that I actually ascribed a feature to you:

You said that my statement was idiotic, when it was actually your interpretation of said statement that lacked clarity. Also you mentioned my "shock and dismay" which, if it even existed anywhere outside your head, was a reaction to the tone of the discussion.

Quote:

Every other statement was "like X" or "possibly X". Using your own standards for the use of language and the term "general", they really assert nothing about you.

They assert plenty about me. In fact, you may be able to conclude that my desire to stray away from the language of absolutes was a reflection of the idea that there are only absolutes because the statement "there are no absolutes" is absolute. i.e. with few exceptions there is no such thing as a statement that is true all of the time, especially in philosophical reasoning. Maybe someone else can provide you with their opinion of what is true and what is not true.

Quote:

That last sentace was, however, over the top. I apologize for it. The rest stand, as far as I can tell, because they are all qualified sufficiently to mean, under very specific definitions of the words used, basically nothing. "90% of everything is crud" is a very useful statement. If all you meant by statement about philosophy in general was that 90% of everything is crud, then can you at least understand how people would take offence, misinterpriting your statement to mean something about Philosophy in specific instead of things in general?

I'm not sure where a simple majority became 90%. Perhaps you are still thinking of another definition for "general".

I'd hate to see your reaction to somebody claiming that the hypothetical glass is less than half full.

You:"Almost empty?!?!? Why, that is a ridiculous statement!"

Guy:"Why, i was just stating that the glass is nearing emptiness"

You:"That's preposterous. The glass is obviously nowhere near almost empty. What does that even mean, 'almost'?"


Besides, if everything i said basically means nothing, as you claim, i might like to ask: Why the hell are you making such an effort to prove me wrong when, in fact, i said nothing at all?

I think i've read you. You may not use a bludgeon, but your motivations are definitely equivalent to those that you would ascribe me.

If you want definite statements of absolute truth go pick up a math book.

tecoyah

This entire thread, has proven to me that indeed useless speculation can be of benefit to society. I can feel the love .

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Yakk

filtherton, read my statements.

When I say "you are like a homocidal maniac", interprit this to mean "you are human, like a homocidal maniac".

I could have said "you are human", that would be clearer. The words "homocidal maniac" are utterly useless to the meaning I ascribe to the sentance.

Using "you are like a homicidal maniac" to mean "you are human" is ridiculous.

When you said "Philosophy is generally useless", as far as I can tell, you are saying "Philosophy, like everything else, is mosty junk".

If it is not your fault that people misinterprited "Philosophy is generally useless", then it is not my fault that you misinterprited "Your debating bludgeon looked like the act of someone who cared more about winning a debate than truth."

"Your debating bludgeon looked like the act of someone who cared more about winning a debate than truth."

Or, in other words:
"Your arguement could have been made by someone with impolite motivations -- I know nothing of your motivations."

Easy to misunderstand? You bet.

"In general, philosophy is useless" is also easy to misunderstand.

Another one:
"Look, if I where to post in the Politics forum that "in general, americans did not vote for Bush in 2000", I would be called out of making an idiotic overgeneralization."

If I made that statement in the politics forum, I would be told my statement was dumb. That is what my sentance said. When did I say your statement was idiotic? It was easy to read as an attack, I agree.

And, looking back, I think I have been trying to make this point since near the start.

Your original statement is ambiguous in meaning.

It is also worded in such a way that it is easy to interprit it as a general attack on philosophy.

This is a problem with the wording of the statement, not the problem of those that interprit it.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

asaris

Just to add to a point made earlier: I don't participate in every thread in here because some of them are not philosophy (the religion discussions, while interesting, start to repeat themselves fairly quickly), and because some of them are simply not interesting to me. I have seen very few of the threads I would like to see more of, threads like "What do you think of Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic?" or "Is Badiou's critique of Levinas valid?" Of course, I haven't started any threads like this myself, so I'm not really blaming anyone. Just explaining why I don't post as much as I might.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

filtherton

At this point i'm not even sure what your point is.

Are you just trying to point out that i made a vague statement?
That's fair, since apparently you and some others thought i meant something else. But that vague statement was made almost a month ago. Between there and here i believe i have made my postition abundantly clear. It is silly that you try to come in here this late in the game and say you were confused about what i said initially when i've already made several posts to clarify. Unless your only point is "what you said initially was confusing". Do you have anything to say about the actual topic? Or are you just on a belligerent quest for clarification.

It seems like you've been more concerned with calling bullshit on me than actually having a discussion. This is exactly the type of behavior i think of when i think of bullshit philosphical discussions.