Philosophy - What Is It?

The Autonomist ^ | March, 2003 | Reginald Firehammer

[Hank Kerchief]

We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion.

I completely agree. I am totally convinced, mankind prefers his superstitions to all things, and will trample over any truth rather than surrender them. Or as H. L. Mencken put it:

"The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind."

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

...prime the pump and comment on a few observations you have about this article.

Well, I've been waiting for some comments on the main thing the article was about and haven't seen any, so I'm asking if any of you have any comments on the description and breakdown of philsophy, itself, as a discipline, formal or informal.

When he finally gets to it, I found the description of philosophy itself concise and accurate, yet more comprehesive than other overviews I've heard and read.

Hank

[Hoppean]

If your quip were true, one would be advised to make mistakes on purpose. Doesn't seem right somehow.

If you "make mistakes on purpose," then you're not making "mistakes," but successfully accomplishing the purpose you set out to achieve.

[P.O.E.]

Tell you the truth, I read (most) of it. I was turned off by what I'll call "simplisticisms". In that spirit, I will post my thoughts, albeit more briefly.

There are many reasons for war besides those he describes.

The whole discussion on "choice" is existentialism redux - the world will go on whether or not you will.

The overview was rather broad, but not deep.

The virtues of a liberal education have been known for centuries (I use the "L" word in it's classical sense, like the "liberal arts") - the unexamined life is not worth living and all that. However, you can develop your philosophy independent of formal education (such as by the example of caring parents).

There's really no need to drive yourself to adopt a particular "named" philosophy. I'm thinking of my eclectic furniture here, but I know what I like when I see it.

[P.O.E.]

P.S. - I didn't mean to appear ungrateful for your post of the article, though. These types of posts are among my favorites on FR.

[Hank Kerchief]

If your quip were true, one would be advised to make mistakes on purpose. Doesn't seem right somehow.

If you "make mistakes on purpose," then you're not making "mistakes," but successfully accomplishing the purpose you set out to achieve.

I do not believe in paradoxes, but you have put your finger on something that is veeeerrry close. What you are saying is you cannot make a mistake on purpose. So, if you try to make a mistake, no matter what you do, even if it is wrong, it is not a mistake, because it was intentional. But suppose you intend to make a mistake, but fail to do it, so what you do actually turns out right? Is doing right in this case a mistake?

Just asking.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Thanks for both of your comments.

However, you can develop your philosophy independent of formal education

This, at least, I am in total agreement with. In fact, I would say, if your philosophy is entirely the result of an academic education, you have lost all hope of ever actually discovering philosophical truth.

I intend to post more of this kind of thing, by the way. I'll ping you when I do if you are interested.

Hank

[P.O.E.]

Please add me to that ping list. Thanks!

[reflecting]

Add me also....I mostly just read and learn...my formal education in these matters is limited....an undergrad course here or there long ago...yet my experiential learning grows as the years pass..

[Zon]

Arthur Koestler on beng surrounded by idiots:...

We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion.

Nice quote.

I'd say an excess of mysticism -- any is too much let alone each person is inflicted to greater or lesser degree -- that is easily manipulated in people to believe the "tribe, nation, church or cause" is more important than the individual. The cause is mysticism -- the effect is parasitical elites wielding the initiation of force, fraud and threat of force.

[Zon]

Most people are not only willing to give up some (or even all) of their liberty for security, but willing to force that policy on everyone else, especially the self-sufficient, because it is the self-sufficient the government is going to have to confiscate the wealth from it intends to redistribute to those that voted them in.

Most people don't even make the choice to think about that in the way even remotely close to how you (I suspect) or I would think about it.. They take it for granted that it's basically right. The government is basically right. The only thing right about government is it's prime responsibility to protect individual rights and property rights. Since government begins witht a "gun to the head" initiation of force to fund itself it's sure to do just about every thing wrong while it neglects its prime responsibility.

In principle we agree. It's about the actual state of people and society we have different viewpoints on.

I'd agree with you if people actually thought about it but they don't. They except government as basically just and justify government in their mind from that point of reference. They didn't chose to think through how they arrived at that point of reference.

Interestingly, or observationally, on this forum and others similar societal concerned forums the vast majority of people have chosen to think about such things. having chosen to think about such things they are the ones most in need of a self-referential philosophy, IMO. For they are the people I see most often willing to advocate policies that involve the initiation of force, fraud or threat of force on people that are minding their own business. They knowingly enlist government to initiate force, fraud and threat of force on their behalf. Unlike most people, they have chosen to think about it. Many, having thought about, turn a blind eye to it because it is a seemingly foreign concept to their belief that government is basically right and just.

The solution is outside the box. Even more outside the box than was Copernicus with his seemingly radical and accurate model of a geocentric model of the Universe. The concept was so "radical" that most people couldn't clear their faiths, biases and beliefs out of the way to think clearly about what Copernicus discovered. Most people back then turned a blind eye to his "radical" geocentric model of the Universe. Yet that didn't stop the scientific revolution from dragging the masses along it. Which eventually paved the way to the industrial revolution that began in Belgium around 1763.

The computer/information/cyberspace age is paving the way for business and science to out-compete politics and religion that wield the initiation of force, fraud and threat of force. A business/science civilization will soon rise in place of the current political/religious anticivilization. That's based on the fact that the vast majority people are fundamentally good and honest -- albeit mostly asleep at the wheel, so to speak and unaware of that they harbor mysticism that is manipulated by parasitical elites to do their bidding.

[Zon]

...so I'm asking if any of you have any comments on the description and breakdown of philsophy, itself, as a discipline, formal or informal.

No comment aside form it being a good article.

When he finally gets to it, I found the description of philosophy itself concise and accurate, yet more comprehesive than other overviews I've heard and read.

"Concise" and "accurate" are good descriptors,IMO. But what do I know, as I said, I'm not much into philosophy per se. Least wise not the study of it. Despite several people on this forum "accusing" me of having read Ayn Rand -- usually Atlas Shrugged -- which I haven't read any.

[DannyTN]

Philosophy {Gk. filosofia [philosophia]} Literally, love of wisdom. Hence, careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human knowledge, and the evaluation of human conduct.

I might define philosophy as the study of what drives human decision making which is knowledge plus the system of values adopted by an individual.

Knowledge comes to us from a variety of sources, education, experience, perception, deduction, generalization, etc.

Values also come from a variety of sources: innate conscience, experience, social mores, etc.

It seems to me that the most valuable aspect of philosophy is not in the study of knowledge but of values for upon an individual's value base is their character developed. Both however are important, since the best value applied to faulty knowledge can lead to disaster.

And really, who wouldn't rather be in the company of less than average intelligent men of good character, than in the company of evil geniuses even though the latter might seem at times to be more interesting?

[Hank Kerchief]

I might define philosophy as the study of what drives human decision making which is knowledge plus the system of values

This seems to indicate a dichotomy between "knowledge" and a "system of values." Do you imply that a "system of values," is other than objective knowledge that must be non-contradictorily integrated with all other knowledge?

(I'm asking because I may have misinterpreted what you intended.)

Also, I do not believe there is such a thing as, "innate conscience," and that what is normally called "conscience" is one's emotional reaction to the values they already hold. For example, there was a tribe in New Guinea that believed they ought to lie whenever speaking to a member of other tribes, and would suffer a "guilty conscience," if they told the truth to an enemy. (These were cannibals who suffered the same pangs of conscience if they failed to eat their enemies after defeating them in war.)

Hank

[DannyTN]

"Do you imply that a "system of values," is other than objective knowledge that must be non-contradictorily integrated with all other knowledge?"

I see your point. I concede that values would be a specialized subset of knowledge that would incorporate knowledge of right and wrong.

"Also, I do not believe there is such a thing as, "innate conscience," and that what is normally called "conscience" is one's emotional reaction to the values they already hold."

I do believe strongly in an "innate conscience". However, that conscience can be overwritten by social mores and religious beliefs.

Man is born with a basic understanding of right and wrong. Yet if you tell men enough times that he will get 72 virgins and the approval of Allah if he straps bombs to his chest and blows up children. And if the community he lives in agrees with that, some percent will allow their innate conscience to be overwritten and will become suicide bombers.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

You must have missed this footnote

I did. I'm rereading it to answer your other posts more intelligently. (I hope.)

[dyed_in_the_wool]

I may be mistaken about this, but I believe you had the impression the author was arguing against war in the sense the usual pacifist does, and that impression misled you somewhat about where the article was going. I can understand how you got the impression, and I too would have been put off by it, if my original impression had been what I believe yours was.

'Twas indeed the case.

[Hank Kerchief]

Man is born with a basic understanding of right and wrong.

There is a sense in which I would agree with this premise, but suspect it is not the same as yours. I would be very interested in what it is on which you base this concept. I do not believe in "a priori" knowledge of any kind, so, if that is your premise, please be prepared to defend it. (Not that you have to answer to me for anything, I mean only for the sake of discussion, I hope you understand.)

Hank

[dyed_in_the_wool]

I found the description of philosophy itself concise and accurate, yet more comprehesive than other overviews I've heard and read.

The explanatory part is rather concise. His outline for the 'need' for Philosophy suffers from being overwrought.
In drawing out the REASON for Philosophy, he's succumbing to the same pedantic style so many writers of Philosophy suffer from. That, in and of itself, was enough to set the general tone toward the piece as negative.
Bad rhetorical positions are one thing. Poor linguistic flourishes are another.

Truth be told, having studied Philosophy I found that any time someone either tries to 1.)enumerate reasons why someone ought to be interested in Philosophy or 2.)outlines a general history of Philosophy, they fall short.
In the first case, people are often put off because they don't know how to think logically or rationally. In fact, and take my word on this, most people like to hang their hats on their idiosyncrasies and illogical beliefs. In their minds, Philosophy threatens their humanity and thus their existence.
As for a general history of Philosophy, you're attempting to present a tableau of historically significant and not entirely simple ideas in some sort of context. Even by outlining different schools of Philosophy, you have to put forth WHY they're different schools.

Anyway, I found it dry, even as a pro-Philosophy piece.
If you want to see something really neat along the lines of Philosophy, check out Plato's Allegory of the Cave from Chapter VII of the Republic and then watch The Matrix and see if you note any similarities. Far more interesting than this historical Philosophy. ;-)

[Hank Kerchief]

If you want to see something really neat along the lines of Philosophy, check out Plato's Allegory of the Cave from Chapter VII of the Republic and then watch The Matrix and see if you note any similarities. Far more interesting than this historical Philosophy.

Actually, I have no interest is seeing, "something really neat," along the lines of anything. I suspect you are young, (at least younger than I, who am enjoying my sixth decade). My wife and I have watched no TV for about 15 years, and watch only a few selected "videos" of some old, but very good movies.

As for interest, I consider philosophy one of those subjects that one must master, like mathematics, if one desires to be successful in life, even if they are mortally bored by it. Ultimately, the most enjoyable things in life are those that are the most difficult to achieve and hardest to learn to enjoy.

By the way, while I disagree entirely with the philsophical views of Bertrand Russell, his History of Western Philosophy is a pure joy to read. (I know you have not read it.)

I also recommend Philosophy: Who Needs It, by Ayn Rand. You can get a taste of it Here. I would be very interested in your opinion of that taste, if you take it.

Hank