Problems with Philosophy

[duszek]

If the thoughts I express are not really mine whose are they ? Or where do they come from ?

This reminds me of Frege.
According to him there is a pool of thoughts floating in the universe and we try to grasp them. Some of us are better at doing it than others.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Everything happens.

Just because it happens doesn't mean it's conscious or certainly not self-conscious.




Our thoughts just happen.


I thought this way upon this thread this morning because I could not have thought any other way.


It's just that I don't realize that at the time. I'm not self-conscious.






.........................................





Now I'm sitting here in my work-out clothes, about to go to the gym.


At that gym I am going to do some exercises in hopes of becoming self-conscious for a while.


It's VERY hard to do.


It takes effort to be self-conscious.





.

[duszek]

If the snake eats its body then it is probably good for something. It could be a way to reduce its body.

We humans cannot do it. If we wish to become smaller we need to exercise or to fast.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Is this moment of self-consciousness a moment of ... bliss ?

Because endorphines are released (due to exercise, for instance).

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



I like the parallel that you draw.


I read somewhere thatthe original definition of ecstasywas a separation.




...............................................








.

[Mark Question]

I've come up with a solution in letter to a friend. Here is the letter:

Paul,

I've come to some answer about philosophy! I'll start with some introduction. Years ago, I studied Wittgenstein's philosophy. He basically claimed that philosophical problems are meaningless.

philosophical empiricism, in the form of modern science, is also meaningless. scientific theories are just theories, language games. each science have its own language game. winners are changing all the time.

[Nick_A]

Since my studies in philosophy, I have basically lost faith in the field. Let me explain. It started by reading Wittgenstein's philosophy. This proposes that all philosophical problems are basically pseudo-problems - false problems - because they can essentially be reduced to problems with language. When I first read this, I thought that there might be some potential to this notion, but it didn't worry me. However, the more I looked into the matter, the more it frightened me. For instance, I have read that Wittgenstein is contradicting himself; his notions are, in reality, philosophy, and therefore they are self-defeating, being nothing more than mere "language games" themselves. However, if you study the history of philosophy, you will find that almost no major philosophical problems have been solved, and the ones that have been solved are no longer considered part of philosophy! This doesn't prove Wittgenstein right, but it gives strong evidence for his views. Further, even if philosophical problems aren't reducible to problems with language, it still remains that almost no historical problems in the field have been solved! This has lead me to believe that philosophy is an entirely subjective field without answers...

However, I have been arguing with myself lately, and I've found that there is one important flaw with this notion; if you look at philosophy as a field, you will find that it is often focused on finding answers to big questions, questions that don't have an easy answer. If you look at this completely objectively, isn't it important for most people to have some opinion to these big questions? In other words, if Wittgenstein's philosophy were taken to its ultimate conclusion, the field would be shut down, as the problems are not "real problems." However, if this were the case, then wouldn't society be losing out on something important by not asking and attempting to answer these big questions? I think the answer would be "Yes." Therefore, there is something important with philosophy that would be lost if it were looked at in this way. However, I think there is more to this; philosophy should be looked at less as a search for objective truth - as nothing can be objectively proven using its methods - and more the way one might look at art criticism as a field. This would imply, in my opinion, that philosophical debate is ultimately meaningless, as it is usually an attempt to set out to prove the validity of one's ideas. However, I have an answer for this as well; philosophical debate should be less a matter of proving oneself and more a matter of clarification and discovery. In other words, it should be looked at as an attempt to solve a problem - together, as a groupr - and as a search for different viewpoints and ways of looking at things. In this case, if someone is mistaken, it is not personal, but a matter for further clarification - and dogmatism should be left at the door, with all being willing to be open-minded about being either right or wrong. In this case, philosophy is less about trying to prove your worth and more about discovery, analysis and problem-solving; in other words, perhaps the underlying problem is that some people are too dogmatic or combative to listen to or consider the viewpoints of others.

In any event, tell me what you think about these ideas...

If philosophy is, as Plato defined, the love of wisdom, where is the love in what you describe? What is "wisdom" that is loved? Is it really just problem solving. Is pursuit of the love of wisdom only the egoistic desire for the satisfaction of believing oneself right?

So the question for me is what wisdom is and why it attracts our love. Is it only a question of the mind or of the heart as well? The answers philosophy suggests appear important to me because they raise better more meaningful questions in pursuit of the experiential love of wisdom within which the mind and heart are united.

Do we need this quality of love? Some do while some don't and are content instead to argue in pursuit of self justification.

[Cosmo]

Jason,

To be really honest I can completely understand where you are coming from and studying philosophy myself, I have certainly come across this opinion a few times or another. However i think that it is really important to understand philosophy the way that it originated and is intended for use (for instance Descartes famous quote ‘i think therefore i am’ was not by finding the answer to a big question, but by asking small questions to a big answer) it isn’t a study of knowledge the same way we study biology for instance, it is more of a school of life (and i hate to say that because it sounds rather airy fairy) however, philosophy is about asking questions not about finding answers and those that seek answers from philosophy will always feel lost in absurdity.

Cosmo

[Advocate]

Finally a post that gets to the root of something!

I'm going to chop up my response because there's one piece in particular i have to get out of the way first.

><problems that> have been solved are no longer considered part of philosophy

...is one of philosopy's strengths, not a weakness. Remember how science was Natural Philosophy before it was Science? When an idea becomes so certain that it can be tested and dealt with as its own subject, philosophy lets go.

>Since my studies in philosophy, I have basically lost faith in the field.

Faith is unjustified belief. Why would you want to have unjustified belief in a system of justification?

>Let me explain. It started by reading Wittgenstein's philosophy.

Just in case it hasn't been said yet, because i haven't read the rest of the thread yet, Well that's your problem right there!

But seriously, it does illustrate a couple of issues with philosophy including the way it's presented and the fact that many philosophers taught as basic don't make any sense, they're just a good primer for some aspect of technique or the aspects of the issue.

>This proposes that all philosophical problems are basically pseudo-problems - false problems - because they can essentially be reduced to problems with language.

Ahh, the "no true problems" problem. I thought that one had been solved! A problem is an obstacle to someone's progress. They're real. Whether all problems can be deconstructed to language is a) true b) doesn't make them not real problems, it's only a pointer to one kind of solution. I'll get back to that.

>When I first read this, I thought that there might be some potential to this notion, but it didn't worry me. However, the more I looked into the matter, the more it frightened me. For instance, I have read that Wittgenstein is contradicting himself; his notions are, in reality, philosophy, and therefore they are self-defeating, being nothing more than mere "language games" themselves. However, if you study the history of philosophy, you will find that almost no major philosophical problems have been solved,

All philosopy problems have been solved. There had been an army of thinkers applying themselves to the various problems of philosophy all through history, but more importantly, those who are not written into history or don't have academic credentials to be taken seriously. It's a major disrespect to them to pretend their work simply isn't relevant, ESPECIALLY when that's where the solutions actually lie.

Academic philosopy, on the other hand, has many problems, like not finding answers, like giving students existential crises but no answers, like ignoring philosopers who are non-academics, like pretending solutions aren't possible, and on and on.

I can give you the answer to every philosophical question (tiny.cc/TheWholeStory) but who will give an honest and thorough critique of my work since i don't have a philosophical support network like academics do? The answers are out there. The problem is how to get them recognised and disseminated. The larger problem is how to get people to admit it's even possible, without which philosophy truly is useless.

>This doesn't prove Wittgenstein right, but it gives strong evidence for his views. Further, even if philosophical problems aren't reducible to problems with language, it still remains that almost no historical problems in the field have been solved! This has lead me to believe that philosophy is an entirely subjective field without answers...

Deconstruction is a tool. By reducing problems, whether to language or otherwise, you gain perspective, which helps clarify the problem, which points the way to a solution. For example: Mindfulness is actually embodiment - the opposite of mindfulness. People use the term to mean being present in the current moment, at the front of their eyeballs, NOT in their minds. Contemplation is mindfulness. But the terms get thrown about so arbitrary the problems never come to light.

Philosophy is in no sense subjective because it's a process of clarification and knowledge building, which require progressive certainty. Individual problems in philosophy can be "subjective" because of contingencies. Problems in epistemology and metaphysics are about what is, and can be answered objectively and universally. Problems in aesthetics, ethics, and politics are contingent ( subjective in the vernacular sense) which means each answer must be bespoke to each question/problem. The contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority. The fact that this Solution to the problem of finding solutions isn't taught, is a problem, but only with academic philosophy in particular.

>However, I have been arguing with myself lately, and I've found that there is one important flaw with this notion; if you look at philosophy as a field, you will find that it is often focused on finding answers to big questions, questions that don't have an easy answer.

Even the biggest problems have a simple answer if you know how to recognise it. The meaning of life is the biggest philosophical question of all and the answer is, simply: The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. Is it satisfying? No. All your work is still ahead of you. But it's it a necessarily true, complete, perfect answer to the question? It is.

>If you look at this completely objectively, isn't it important for most people to have some opinion to these big questions? In other words, if Wittgenstein's philosophy were taken to its ultimate conclusion, the field would be shut down, as the problems are not "real problems." However, if this were the case, then wouldn't society be losing out on something important by not asking and attempting to answer these big questions? I think the answer would be "Yes." Therefore, there is something important with philosophy that would be lost if it were looked at in this way.

I'm not an academic so i can't point to the particulars of W but based on your interpretation, even if there are no flaws in his argument that all problems can be phrased as semantic (which is true even if he didn't prove it) there are still answers possible. Even if there are Only semantic problems, answers are still possible. But as pointed out above, contingencies belie the universality of that particular deconstruction. All ethics problems are IF you want such and such, THEN you should behave so. Not semantic problems, but they may have a semantic solution depending on the particulars.

>However, I think there is more to this; philosophy should be looked at less as a search for objective truth - as nothing can be objectively proven using its methods - and more the way one might look at art criticism as a field.

"The methods of philosophy" is an impossibly vague idea. Logic and epistemology is what your mean perhaps? Logic can prove things absolutely. The purpose of All knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, not objective truth. Only science has the rigorous capacity for objectivity, Because all non-empirical problems are at least partially semantic.

>This would imply, in my opinion, that philosophical debate is ultimately meaningless, as it is usually an attempt to set out to prove the validity of one's ideas.

Definitely the latter but not necessarily the former. It's useless when it's all trees, no forest. That is when people don't understand the semantic points which must necessarily be cleared up to advance the problem, or don't admit solutions are possible, or, as a matter of psychology rather than philosophy, let their ego be involved.

>However, I have an answer for this as well;

See? Philosophical answers are possible!

>philosophical debate should be less a matter of proving oneself and more a matter of clarification and discovery. In other words, it should be looked at as an attempt to solve a problem - together, as a groupr - and as a search for different viewpoints and ways of looking at things. In this case, if someone is mistaken, it is not personal, but a matter for further clarification - and dogmatism should be left at the door, with all being willing to be open-minded about being either right or wrong. In this case, philosophy is less about trying to prove your worth and more about discovery, analysis and problem-solving; in other words, perhaps the underlying problem is that some people are too dogmatic or combative to listen to or consider the viewpoints of others.

This problem goes way back. It's rooted in arguments about poetry and rhetoric. (most?) Philosophy can be done by rational discussion, it doesn't require debate in the dialectical sense. When your objective is to convince rather than to be right, it becomes a very different kinds of project.

OMG, i reached the end! Never saw this coming. I realise I'm answering this years later and your philosophy career, if any, has moved on, so now i'd like your response both to mine And how your own ideas have changed in this respect over time, if you don't mind the introspection.

[Advocate]

>When any philosopher deliberate on a subject, they solve dozens of problems throughout their texts, it's just not necessary to tell you what problems they solve all the time, because they are either small or lack the originality to be exciting.

Yes. All the solutions have been found, independently derived many times. What hasn't been done is them being compiled in a cohesive way that is widely available and/or accepted.

>I like to think of philosophy as engineering, and the problems of a philosopher no different than those of an engineer. When I work on philosophy it's an engineering job, and I solve many small problems all the time that I don't really care to take note of, they are typically problems of figuring out if something fits into a scheme or if it's out of place (whether it should be included or excluded), figuring out where to go next after you've made a leap (a problem of orientation... when you work with something as vague as philosophy it can be very difficult to know where you are all the time, as it's not as procedural of nature as software engineering for instance, or as concrete as biology, it's not a body with predefined parts and functions) or it may be a problem of situation, to relate what you create to ordinary life by applying it, that may be very difficult as there's a range of tiny problems you'll have to solve so that it becomes presentable in face of the real world, as when you initially create a set of ideas they are created in the face of an ideal situation to begin with, either a real one that you've narrowed down (so that it's the only situation that you've tested it towards in a thought experimental way) or an imagined one (typical with utopianism, futurism and the likes).

You're better than average at this. I will add that "you" must be able to take an idea to its logical extreme without breaking it or there is something missing - something relevant not accounted for.

[Advocate]

>I've come to some answer about philosophy! I'll start with some introduction. Years ago, I studied Wittgenstein's philosophy. He basically claimed that philosophical problems are meaningless. But why? Take the definition of time as an example.

Time is measured change. This definition is better than the rest because it is necessary and sufficient for answering all relevant philosophical problems. There is nothing missing and nothing extra. However, that doesn't mean there's nothing more to say. Measured change requires understanding quantification and experience...

>I think that it's not the case that you can't say anything philosophically, but that philosophers take what is said too far. For instance, consider the mind-brain debate. How can the notion that mind and brain are the same have such intuitive appeal and yet say nothing?

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. They're the same physical stuff. There's always a simplest understanding that incorporates all necessary aspects of the problem.

>philosophers claim that definitions are all-encompassing, that things *have to be* a certain way, that the definitions that are given are the "essence" of the concept.

That's a claim that can be tested. I've made two such claims above. Are they necessary and sufficient?

>It's not about finding sweeping answers that have to be the case, but about looking at things from different perspectives and defining things subjectively.

But that's exactly what it is. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty. "Sweeping answers that must be the case" is a perfect definition of The Solution to philosophy, insofar as they're cohesive and coherent and so forth. That which is not necessarily the case is contingent, not subjective. those answers which are not sweepingly broad must likewise be contingent, not arbitrary.

>I guess you could say that philosophers can still use those sweeping terms, but they should be aware of the limitations of what they are saying - that the terms they are using form just one perspective/outlook or mean something that is purely subjective. In this case, one can still philosophize, but he/she must be willing to admit that there isn't always something objective and all-encompassing about what they are saying.

The whole point is to get the subjectivity out. A true philosoper won't deconstruct without the indent of reconstructing toward some practical purpose. Plenty of words are used specifically Enough, even if the final answer to what the best definition is remains open. There is something very all-encompassing and as objective as possible in My philosophy because that's the goal.

[Advocate]

>The snake is trying to eat itself.

Is it a snake eating it's own tail or is it a tail being eaten by it's own snake?