Philosophy undermines truth

[Skepdick]

But you do stop thinking when you stop existing.

Since time makes a difference...when do you think you stop existing?

Before or after they turn off the life support machines?

[Will Bouwman]

Just as I thought you had agreed that thinking depends on existing.

Do you need a minute to un-confuse yourself?

No. I happen to think that thinking depends on existing. I don't know that is true because:

The standard objection to Descartes is that it doesn't necessarily follow from thoughts that there has to be a thinker. All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.

[Will Bouwman]

But you do stop thinking when you stop existing.

Since time makes a difference...when do you think you stop existing?

Before or after they turn off the life support machines?

Time doesn't make any difference. If you don't exist, you don't think.

[Skepdick]

Time doesn't make any difference. If you don't exist, you don't think.

Which is the point of the question.

Do you exist if all that's keeping you alive is the life support machine?

[Will Bouwman]

Time doesn't make any difference. If you don't exist, you don't think.

Which is the point of the question.

Do you exist if all that's keeping you alive is the life support machine?

I don't know. The 'truth' depends on what you choose to believe you are.

[Skepdick]

I don't know. The 'truth' depends on what you choose to believe you are.

I know.

That's why I drew the distinction between an exister and a thinker.

We spend more of our time existing than we do thinking.

[attofishpi]

We spend more of our time existing than we do thinking.

Axiomatically true, but most spend far too much time thinking about pointless ridiculous crap and end up making everyone's existence a drag (such as drag queens).

[Iwannaplato]

I don't disagree with any of the above but I think it's a bit different from your quote on aesthetics. I don't think this entails that it's all just aesthetics or emotional attachment to the implications, say. Otherwise we could conclude there is no point in checking anomalies. Or reevaluating our own beliefs in the face of...whatever.

At the foundational level that Descartes was trying to reach, questions like 'Is the universe material or ideal?', 'Do humans have souls?' are unanswerable.

So, certain conclusions you see as based on aesthetics, those on the level that Descartes was trying to work on, not a conclusions in general.

I think some people can get better at finding things that work well and letting go of things that don't.

People can and do operate entirely successfully holding ideas that others reject. The reason some questions are unanswerable is because they make no difference.

How do we determine which questions are like that?

[Will Bouwman]

So, certain conclusions you see as based on aesthetics, those on the level that Descartes was trying to work on, not a conclusions in general.

Nearly all our conclusions are arrived at via some broadly logical process; it's just that some of the premises they are based on are simply part of who we are. For instance, I happen to think that exploiting people isn't a nice thing to do. I can read Nietzsche, follow his reasoning, agree with his conclusions and still not behave like the übermensch, because I don't like the idea. As much as I can rationalise such a core belief, I have no better explanation for why I don't like Nietzsche's ideas than I have for why I like the art or music that I do.

People can and do operate entirely successfully holding ideas that others reject. The reason some questions are unanswerable is because they make no difference.

How do we determine which questions are like that?

Some questions we don't know the answer to for practical reasons; is there life on other planets? for example. Then there are the philosophical questions. We can, and almost certainly will keep banging away at questions like does god exist? Is democracy the best form of government? Is meat murder? Is blue the best colour? and so on. What you think of those sorts of questions depend on who you are.

[Iwannaplato]

Nearly all our conclusions are arrived at via some broadly logical process;

I guess if that's a very, very broad category. Otherwise it seems to me like a lot is introjected, sort of swallowed whole via media/parenting, for example. Often not even stated directly. Just things are presented as coupled so we assume they are coupled - this leads to approval of the opposite sex, this should never be spoken, this leads to a lack of success, this is bad, your identity is based on X, these are the sources of truth, here are the things that might be true, anything not on that list we can ignore, these beliefs mean you are nuts (won't get love, sex, respect, money)....None of which need be put in verbal terms, though this happens also. I don't know if that counts as logical processes. Logical arguments can be made for fitting in and not always trying to reinvent the wheel, but I don't think the processes are very logical in themselves. And I think this includes beliefs that are fairly fundamental about selves, reality, ontology in general...

But starting from this, I think we can begin sifting through these beliefs, from different motivations, and improving our conclusions and then applying them.

it's just that some of the premises they are based on are simply part of who we are. For instance, I happen to think that exploiting people isn't a nice thing to do. I can read Nietzsche, follow his reasoning, agree with his conclusions and still not behave like the übermensch, because I don't like the idea. As much as I can rationalise such a core belief, I have no better explanation for why I don't like Nietzsche's ideas than I have for why I like the art or music that I do.

Sure.

Some questions we don't know the answer to for practical reasons; is there life on other planets? for example. Then there are the philosophical questions. We can, and almost certainly will keep banging away at questions like does god exist? Is democracy the best form of government? Is meat murder? Is blue the best colour? and so on. What you think of those sorts of questions depend on who you are.

OK, but it seemed like you knew or had some idea which questions could not be answered and in a sense which were meaningless and which had meaning and where the answer might make some practical difference.

[Skepdick]

For instance, I happen to think that exploiting people isn't a nice thing to do. I can read Nietzsche, follow his reasoning, agree with his conclusions and still not behave like the übermensch, because I don't like the idea.

That seems like a moot point.

The far more important question is whether you can actually avoid behaving like the übermensch despite disagreeing with the idea.

Feeling some kind of way about some words is trivial. Translating those feelings into a change of behaviour (a.k.a learning) - is less trivial; or not trivial at all.

[Will Bouwman]

...I think we can begin sifting through these beliefs, from different motivations, and improving our conclusions and then applying them.

I agree, but I would argue that motivations are reducible to a few needs and a shifting collage of wants.

...it seemed like you knew or had some idea which questions could not be answered and in a sense which were meaningless and which had meaning and where the answer might make some practical difference.

Sorry to disappoint you. I'm with Feyerabend on this, I actually think prescribing which ideas are meaningful is a bad idea. This is something else I wrote for Philosophy Now:

Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994) was one of four people personally thanked by Kuhn in the Preface to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Feyerabend had turned down an offer to be Popper’s research assistant. Having started his academic career as a physicist he was well qualified to make that judgement. As the history of gravity shows, explanation, demonstration, and usefulness have all played a critical role in science; and Feyerabend was concerned that any reductive scientific method, such as Popper was advocating, would have ruled out some part of that history. No one likes being told what to think or do, and scientists are no exception. Rather, Feyerabend thought that the only prescription for science that could accommodate every stumble and leap is methodological anarchy, or as Feyerabend put it, anything goes. He took the view that by far the most important criterion is that a theory should be useful – it didn’t matter to who, or what for. Feyerabend gave this insight: “Having listened to one of my anarchistic sermons, Professor Wigner exclaimed: ‘But surely, you do not read all the manuscripts which people send you, you must throw most of them into the wastepaper basket.’ I most certainly do. ‘Anything goes’ does not mean that I shall read every single paper that has been written – God forbid! – it means that I make my selection in a highly individual and idiosyncratic way, partly because I can’t be bothered to read what doesn’t interest me – and my interests change from week to week and day to day – partly because I am convinced that humanity and even science will profit from everyone doing their own thing” (Against Method, 1975). Whatever anyone thinks should or shouldn’t qualify as science, the fact is that science is done by people. Some of those people are rationalists, some are empiricists, and some are pragmatists; and no matter what rules are imposed, people break them.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

[Will Bouwman]

Feeling some kind of way about some words is trivial. Translating those feelings into a change of behaviour (a.k.a learning) - is less trivial; or not trivial at all.

As Karl Marx said: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

[Skepdick]

As Karl Marx said: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

Hitler changed it.
Newton changed it.
We are all agents of change.

I think some truth with respect to the morality of changes is necessary.

Shout if you need any reading material on the science of change management...

[Skepdick]

I actually think prescribing which ideas are meaningful is a bad idea.

Then don't prescribe it (not like anyone determined enough obeys prescriptions anyway) - simply express the necessary contempt; and do the usual social stigmatisation to put an end to the tomfoolery.

There's a gigantic qualitative difference between asking "Is the meaning of life 42?" and "Is this mRNA sequence effective against cervical cancer?"

We tell white lies to children in schools (that there are no such things as stupid questions), but once you get to a certain age asking philosophical questions outside of pedagogy does, in fact, qualify you as an idiot.