Philosophy Now Forum

Kuznetzova wrote:Conde Luncanor,

Our brains are not deduction machines. They are primarily an organ whose purpose is the survival and maintenance of the body. The same is true of sense organs.

Alright they are not machines, of any kind. I will assume that "purpose" means in this statement something different from "reason of being", a goal of nature. That would have teleological implications, which (by the way) fall outside the scope of the type of science you're trying to advocate.

Kuznetzova wrote: Is this baseless propositioning on my part? No. Look at the evidence we have today. We cannot see in the dark of night...

I agree, but it is not a baseless propositioning either that most Western Philosophers would agree. So, why it has to be declared bankrupt?

Kuznetzova wrote:Already our sense organs are dividing the world up in a way that is conducive to our survival, and not because we were designed to "see the world the way it is". It does not take a leap of faith, nor a wild conjecture, to claim that the mental categories of humans are related to our survival values. Since our brains contain functional areas whose purpose is survival of the body, then the mental categories may also be a product of categories whose boundaries are defined along value.

It seems to me here that the "survival of the fittest" explanation (which I find the most reasonable explanation) has gone from a natural law governing human evolution, to a deterministic, teleological explanation, beyond the reality of nature itself. Those "survival values" and "purposes" seem to be somewhere else, are not immanent causes, but transcedental causes, which would need to be explained too (interesting to note the paradoxical appearance of transcendentalism in sciences supposedly founded on immanentism). It is true, however, that human capabilities derived from the process of natural selection allow for the first time the emergence of goals, values or purposes, what we call culture (in an anthropological sense). Nature by itself isn't suffice to explain what we are as humans, and neither is culture (understood as a blank state of our mind to be filled with experience). It is the dialogue, the dialectical process between nature (physis) and culture (nomos), in which one cannot be explained without the other.

Kuznetzova wrote:Emanuel Kant lived in a time when no one knew of the theory of evolution by natural selection. From that we gain "Traits of organism are properties of their survival in an ecological niche".

No one in Kant's time knew about molecules or how and why molecules are composed of atoms...

IN the 20th century, we probed the properties of the fundamental constituents of atoms, and we have a very fine theory of how they operate that we call the Standard Model. So Kant was correct in his day, but wrong in our contemporary time...

Well, yes, of course the advance of knowledge in Kant's time might be shy in the face of today's knowledge, but Kant, as most of his contemporary philosophers, was not set apart from the problems of physical sciences. There were not specialized fields as we have them today and the distinction between Physics and Metaphysics, science and philosophy, were not that clear. That came with the rise of Positivism. But anyway, Kant's project involved precisely some kind of recognition to the triumphs of physical sciences, since he was trying to raise the explanations of Metaphysics to the same level of "universality and necessity" than those of Newtonian sciences. We may argue whether his conclusions were ultimately right or wrong, but he certainly had seen the "bankrupcy" of the old philosophers. My point is that if this was happening two hundred years ago, within Western Philosophy itself, how can it be declared "bankrupt" now because of the state of Western Philosophy before Kant? As far as I know, Western Philosophy went on to have a healthy, productive life.

Conde Lucanor wrote: My point is that if this was happening two hundred years ago, within Western Philosophy itself, how can it be declared "bankrupt" now because of the state of Western Philosophy before Kant? As far as I know, Western Philosophy went on to have a healthy, productive life.

Conde Lucanor, a word of advice, Don't feed the troll, especially this one. There is only a thin veneer of assumed intellectualism, probably copy paste.

Kuznetzova wrote:

I call on all the posters and readers of Philosophy Now! forums to reject the presumptuous foundations of traditional philosophy canon of the Enlightenment in Europe. I declare here a mobilization of the acceptance of a new set of foundational axioms -- axioms which are consistent with the facts we now know about ourselves and our place in the universe.

The entire tradition of Western Philosophy is bankrupt. The basis of the tradition's epistemology was a Cartesian skeptical crisis. This crisis led Rene Descartes to only conclude that he is some sort of disembodied mind which receives sense perceptions, and that he couldn't find a way to demonstrate the factualness of anything beyond that. Thus began the unfortunate departure of a bandwagon of solipsistic skepticism. This bandwagon was joined by a number of later writers in the century following the publication of Descartes' Meditations. The eventual culmination of this (failed) epistemology was that, "All knowledge is derived from sense perception." In other words, we know absolutely nothing at birth, and we literally use deduction on perceptions alone, to produce all of our knowledge.

This tradition is based on wobbly foundations. A more solid foundation is that we are organisms on a planet, and our brains and sense organs are tools which are primarily used to keep our bodies alive in the environment and facilitate our own reproduction. We are not floating, disembodied tabula rasas. The facts of modern biology and modern neuroscience are now running contrary to the mystical framework of the canon. (FBA = Functional Brain Area) A tentative list:

1. The limbic system contains a functional brain area called the Amygdala. This is located in the same location in every human brain. It is therefore, ipso facto, a product of our genetic blueprint. The amygdala is the FBA which mediates panic and fright. In particular it mediates an ancient response to fright that is freezing. Humans do not deduce this freezing response -- freezing in response to sudden loud noise is both innate and operates below conscious control.
2. The brainstem is located in the same location in every human brain. The brainstem is the FBA that is responsible for controlling breathing, heart rate, and body temperature. Even people with severe brain damage my have a completely intact brain stem, allowing their heart and breathing to operate normally. These people are said to be in a "persistent vegetative state". Most importantly for you philosophers: These functions are carried out without conscious control, completely automatically. They proceed normally during sleep, for instance.
3. The brainstem and amygdala demonstrate that entire portions of the brain exist in all humans, whose primary purpose is to keep the body alive in an environment. They have nothing to do with deductions on sense perceptions.
4. There are FBAs in all human brains, roughly located in the same location in the left temporal lobe, whose functions are concerned with the production and processing of speech. They are the Vernicke's Area and the Broca's Area. This means that human children do not reinvent language from scratch, but are endowed with innate capacities to process phonemes in spoken language. Children are not blank slates.
5. How much of the brain actually performs deducing? We can surmise that this is probably done with the lateral prefrontal cortex, with some supporting role played by the hippocampus. (The thalamus will play a role, but only because it plays a role in everything you are paying attention to while awake). The evidence from science for this is that the PFC is the major brain area for applying verbal rules to behavior. Why am I mentioning this example? Because it shows that only a tiny portion of the brain is actually concerned with DEDUCTION in any sense of the word. The rest of the brain is doing low-level processing having to do with memory, visual processing, spatial processing, and processing of fine control of muscles. Don't mince my words: The vast majority of the weight of the human brain is not dedicated to performing deduction.
6. All knowledge is derived from sense perception? Really? But the human eye does not see the world the way it is. The human eye sees the world in such a way that was conducive to the survival of our primate ancestors in rainforest. Consider the facts here -- the human eye only sees a tiny slice of electromagnetic radiation range, called the "Visual range". On top of that limitation, our eyes have a filter for green, meaning our retina does not even receive that particular wavelength. Dogs and cats are nocturnal, and can navigate well in near darkness. And rightfully so. These hunters had to catch prey at night, and that is directly related to their survival. Human eyes are terrible when it comes to vision in the dark conditions of the night. The human retinal cells are trichromatic, whereas the eyes of birds are tetrachromatic. Compared to birds, we have a limited color palette, and we are blind to ultraviolet, which is, ironically, a chief component of sunlight. The eyes of George Berkeley and John Locke were blind to the chief spectral component of sunlight. Mull that over.
7. Cats are nocturnal hunters, thus their eyes can see in near darkness. This ability has a direct bearing on their survival in the environment. This has not a lick to do with "God wanted it that way."
8. Human beings are social animals, and have innate capacities to process faces. When these innate capacities fail, produce bizarre illusions, all documented by neuroscience. Facial processing is directly related to survival in our (social) niche, and has not a lick to do with "God intended it."
9. The organs of perception in our bodies are tools related to our survival in the environment. Organs operate by the laws of physics, and their individual operation is understood at the chemical level, in some cases down to the molecules. It is not the case that "God gave Man eyes so that we could perceive His Creation". The problem is that in order to for you to be a good academic, you need not only suspect and feel like the God-gave-eyes claim might be true on your more spiritual days. Nay -- you must commit yourself to it as a binding axiom of your knowledge. And that is wrong. And that is misguided. This is one of the many reasons why philosophy is becoming marginalized on university campuses.

We enter the world on our first day , screaming, cranky, hungry and thirsty. We are ready to suckle a breast for sustenance from our mothers. We are endowed with innate responses to do so. From the first day, we enter a universe of human value. Those values are primarily defined by biophysical needs of our bodies. This would be a much more fruitful epistemological framework, than the Cartesian one. Descartes will have you believing you are some disembodied mind passively receiving sense perceptions. That you are a mind-container thing holding little objects called "propositions" which collectively constitute your "knowledge". You are no such thing. You are an organism that is born and must survive long enough in a dangerous environment prior to dying. Our entire method of carving up the world into categories is primarily a symptom of these biological values.

We do not deduce from first principles, that we are hungry and must eat.

We do not deduce from first principles, that we should salivate around good food.

We do not deduce from first principles, that we are thirsty and must drink.

We do not deduce from first principles, that our body is too warm and must start sweating to avoid hyperthermia.

We do not deduce from first principles, that we are afraid of something.

We do not deduce from first principles, that we are attracted to the opposite sex.

We do not deduce from first principles, that injuring our own flesh is a bad idea.

We do not deduce from first principles, that having sex with the opposite sex is a good plan.

If at this point you still cling to the failed tradition of Western Philosophy, consider the following. Where is the discussion of value in any of these writers? Is the human being a robot, cleanly and logically deducing shapes and regularities from its environment? Or do human beings live in a mental world of valuation? What do you really think is the case? Those things which are conducive to our reproduction all feel pleasurable -- while those things which run contrary create pain and suffering. Why did this simple equation elude the "Greatest Minds" of Europe?

We can speculate -- perhaps the origin of human value was simply too complicated a subject for them to tackle in the time in which they lived.

Kuznetzova!

Kuznetzova is a Western Russian name, is it not?

Everything in Russia west of the Urals is European!

Western Philosophy is bankrupt?

The White people in American are coming home to Russia to sort it all out and balance the accounts.

Conde Lucanor wrote: But anyway, Kant's project involved precisely some kind of recognition to the triumphs of physical sciences, since he was trying to raise the explanations of Metaphysics to the same level of "universality and necessity" than those of Newtonian sciences. We may argue whether his conclusions were ultimately right or wrong, but he certainly had seen the "bankrupcy" of the old philosophers.

I understand and agree with this now.
Please see this other thread regarding Kant.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12062

Conde Lucanor wrote: , how can it be declared "bankrupt" now because of the state of Western Philosophy before Kant? As far as I know, Western Philosophy went on to have a healthy, productive life.

A much more fruitful question is to ask: What was the state of Western philosophy immediately prior to Descartes?

Conde Lucanor wrote: Alright they are not machines, of any kind. I will assume that "purpose" means in this statement something different from "reason of being", a goal of nature. That would have teleological implications, which (by the way) fall outside the scope of the type of science you're trying to advocate.

It was valid for me to use the word "purpose" there. The reason was to substitute for earlier , medieval notions of the sense organs existing for a purpose ordained by the creator of the human organism. I could have been more verbose there for the sake of clarity. The organs of the body take on completely functional roles in light of natural selection. I assumed that "function" would be contained in the words I already used there.

Conde Lucanor wrote: It seems to me here that the "survival of the fittest" explanation (which I find the most reasonable explanation) has gone from a natural law governing human evolution, to a deterministic, teleological explanation, beyond the reality of nature itself.

Well first of all, nobody in the modern thrust of biology says there is a teleological aspect to natural selection, myself included. "Survival of the fittest" was a phrase coined by a right-wing, racist nutbar named Herbert Spencer. In fact, in the exact book in which he coined that phrase, he was not even writing about biology, instead he was ranting about socialism and the poor. In other words, it was a political book. It was not even a scientific article.

Our best understanding is that natural selection produces diversity, and after some enormous amounts of deep time, the diversity on earth has happened upon homo sapiens as another variation within the hominid ancestral line. Is this a fact? No. It's our best explanation given the evidence. After all , dinosaurs were around for hundreds of millions of years, and showed no relative change in their intelligence during all that time. (If evolution were teleological, we would expect dinosaurs to be writing opera somewhere in the cretaceous period... anyways... )

Those "survival values" and "purposes" seem to be somewhere else, are not immanent causes, but transcedental causes, which would need to be explained too (interesting to note the paradoxical appearance of transcendentalism in sciences supposedly founded on immanentism). It is true, however, that human capabilities derived from the process of natural selection allow for the first time the emergence of goals, values or purposes, what we call culture (in an anthropological sense). Nature by itself isn't suffice to explain what we are as humans, and neither is culture (understood as a blank state of our mind to be filled with experience). It is the dialogue, the dialectical process between nature (physis) and culture (nomos), in which one cannot be explained without the other.

In this case you are flirting with thread hijacking. It is obvious that you are itching to discuss compatibalism and whatnot. These are topics from 20th century philosophy. I don't see how any of what you have said here supports Berkeley's solipsism, or Cartesian Mental Substances interacting with pineal glands.

'K', Thankyou for the meaningless threat via. PM, but FYI, I will continue to post what I want, when I want, and where I want, and if the Moderators take some action against them, so be it. But I will continue to regard all posts and PMs from you with the contempt they deserve.

Kuznetzova wrote:
Please see this other thread regarding Kant.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12062

Just took a peek and saw it was a long post, so I'll look at it closely later.

Kuznetzova wrote:
A much more fruitful question is to ask: What was the state of Western philosophy immediately prior to Descartes?

If by that we mean the official, institutionalized ideology of the church, to my mind come: scholasticism, dogmatism, aristotelian-thomism. To make a judgement about it being regressive or progressive in the context of western philosophy, will depend on our historical point of view. In relation to augustinian-platonism, aristotelian-thomism was a move forward, but compared to the type of epistemology that Descartes and his contemporaries were advocating (which I understand as foundational for the scientific method), aristotelian-thomism might actually be more appropriate for the declaration of bankrupcy of western philosophy. But these declarations are, anyway, only useful for pamphletary purposes, a comfortable way to categorize things and cast them out as old paradigms, for advancing the new one. The problem is that your new paradigm, or as you call it: "new foundational axiom", comes about three hundred years too late. And going after Descartes for what he wrote back then, and pretending that proving him wrong now will bring to bankrupcy the entire western philosophical canon, not only means playing a safe bet, but betting on a game that is already over.

Kuznetzova wrote:
It was valid for me to use the word "purpose" there. The reason was to substitute for earlier , medieval notions of the sense organs existing for a purpose ordained by the creator of the human organism. I could have been more verbose there for the sake of clarity. The organs of the body take on completely functional roles in light of natural selection. I assumed that "function" would be contained in the words I already used there.

As it clarifies what your words intended, I accept that explanation.

Kuznetzova wrote:
Well first of all, nobody in the modern thrust of biology says there is a teleological aspect to natural selection, myself included.

Well...you certainly don't read much of Nature and Science magazines. Leaving those aside, it is too often implied in the routinary discourse of the gurus of evolutionary psychology (the Dawkins/ Dennet type), all of which endorse some sort of biological determinism. But let me emphasize the word "imply" here, because most of the time this notion is not explicitly stated, but somehow assumed unconsciously. To be honest, it comes out more often in the popularized versions of darwinism, as well as in the just-so stories of darwinian fundamentalists, denounced by Stephen Jay Gould. Teleology might not be an essential doctrine of biological sciences, but natural determinism opens up the doors for the teleological explanations of sociobiology, often in the form of a gene or a modularized cognitive ability that served some natural purpose in the savannah of our hunter-gatherers ancestors.

Kuznetzova wrote: "Survival of the fittest" was a phrase coined by a right-wing, racist nutbar named Herbert Spencer. In fact, in the exact book in which he coined that phrase, he was not even writing about biology, instead he was ranting about socialism and the poor. In other words, it was a political book. It was not even a scientific article.

Sure, but Edward Wilson, the so-called "father of sociobiology" (he actually coined the term), has been an advocate of eugenics (genetic improvement) and was publicly scorned as a racist in one of his conferences. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he is a racist nutbar, or that he isn't, that's not the issue. The issue is that sociobiology tends to use natural determinism to impose a final cause to human action.

Kuznetzova wrote:Our best understanding is that natural selection produces diversity, and after some enormous amounts of deep time, the diversity on earth has happened upon homo sapiens as another variation within the hominid ancestral line. Is this a fact? No. It's our best explanation given the evidence. After all , dinosaurs were around for hundreds of millions of years, and showed no relative change in their intelligence during all that time. (If evolution were teleological, we would expect dinosaurs to be writing opera somewhere in the cretaceous period... anyways... )

I can easily agree in that some natural conditions (in which, by the way, dinosaurs might have played a role by going extinct) gave us hominids with superior intelligence. I might find disagreement if you ever entertained the notion that hominids were not only predisposed, but predestined to write opera at some time in their history.

Kuznetzova wrote: In this case you are flirting with thread hijacking. It is obvious that you are itching to discuss compatibalism and whatnot. These are topics from 20th century philosophy.

Maybe the discussion has taken this course, but we are eating what you served at the table: metaphysics, natural science, cognition and human action. You brought up the philosophy of naturalism, and that immediately calls for a debate on determinism (you should add it to the philosophical Jiu-Jitsu).

Kuznetzova wrote: I don't see how any of what you have said here supports Berkeley's solipsism, or Cartesian Mental Substances interacting with pineal glands.

Neither do I, nor it's my intention. I don't need to support Berkeley or Descartes to reveal how untimely your manifesto on naturalism is, and how absurd it is to make your call for western philosophy bankrupcy based on cartesianism. It's like calling modern science bankrupt because Newton didn't get it all right. Nevertheless, I will bet on Descartes this time, saying that it looks to me that his skepticism contributed to the rationality of modern science by being a methodological skepticism, while you are attacking him on the grounds of being ontological.

Why do people keep referring to "my brain" as if it is something separate from who they are? I am my brain. My brain's name is liliyan. I am liliyan. All the other parts ( legs, arms etc) are for me (the brain) to get around and do. I think therefore I am. I have a brain, therefore I am.

"I am my brain"

Yes, and you're a body.

Specifically, you're (I'm) a whole animal comprised of organs, organ systems, and electricity.

There exists not a single example of naked, unsupported, brain or nervous systems flittin' around on land, in the sea, or in the air.

#

As for the topic: philosophy (all of it) is poop...a rarified exercise for insane persons and folks who wanna live in Ivory Towers (and never actually 'work' for their bread).

'Thinking' (and 'doing') is much more satisfying than 'philosophizing'.

Kuznetzova wrote:I understand and agree with this now.
Please see this other thread regarding Kant.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12062

OK then, I've just read that excellent post and find that we agree on key issues, being one that at least part of western philosophy came up with the ingredients "for unleashing all of science in its modern form". That means western philosophy is not bankrupt. I suppose that brings closure to this thread.

henry quirk wrote:
As for the topic: philosophy (all of it) is poop...a rarified exercise for insane persons and folks who wanna live in Ivory Towers (and never actually 'work' for their bread).

There's a lot of philosophical work based on the category of praxis. Your unawareness of it explains your judgement from the ivory tower of lowbrowism, and viceversa.

henry quirk wrote: 'Thinking' (and 'doing') is much more satisfying than 'philosophizing'.

What is the business of philosophers, if not "thinking".

"What is the business of philosophers, if not "thinking"."

That's supposed to be the business, but -- largely -- it's not.

Again: 'philosophy (all of it) is poop...a rarified exercise for insane persons and folks who wanna live in Ivory Towers (and never actually 'work' for their bread). 'Thinking' (and 'doing') is much more satisfying than 'philosophizing'.'

henry quirk wrote:"What is the business of philosophers, if not "thinking"."

That's supposed to be the business, but -- largely -- it's not.

Again: 'philosophy (all of it) is poop...a rarified exercise for insane persons and folks who wanna live in Ivory Towers (and never actually 'work' for their bread). 'Thinking' (and 'doing') is much more satisfying than 'philosophizing'.'

Philosophy = love of wisdom, what people endulge in now is love of nonsens and babble and knowledge at best.

"Philosophy = love of wisdom"

Yeah, that works.


And where does wisdom come from?

From the happy coincidence of 'thinking' and 'experience' (wisdom is the on-going result of those two).

When a child (impulsive and young, usually dis-eased with the insanity of idealism) utters what he or she believes to be profundity, all I hear is "nonsens and babble".


What are some qualities of 'wisdom'?

Two that come to mind...

Practical: artsy-fartsy is not wise....confined to the Ivory Tower is not wise...wisdom comes (sometimes, and only) in the midst of living a real life (unstructured, unprotected).

Measured: thinking takes time...experiences must be accrued over time...wisdom is a slow cook/slow brew event.


An example of wisdom...

Looking both ways as one crosses a one-way street.

And going after Descartes for what he wrote back then, and pretending that proving him wrong now will bring to bankrupcy the entire western philosophical canon, not only means playing a safe bet, but betting on a game that is already over.

The bankruptcy continues to play out today on modern university campuses; particularly among people on campus who refer to themselves as "phenomenologists". They can be found in philosophy depts. They can be found in Literary Theory depts. They can be found in Critical Theory depts, and they can be found teaching Comparative Studies. The essential thread that ties all these people together is their adherence to the axiom that they cannot be sure that there is a real world outside of them. You will know when you see one because they will say something about "Post-colonial theory" or they will mention something about "existential psychology".

Now instead of taking that position as theoretical postulate at the very edges of their knowledge (which I am completely open to!) , they instead take "No Objective World Exists" as a foundational pillar of how they operate and how they think.

It is the adherence to NO-objective-world as a foundational , axiomatic pillar, is where the bankruptcy takes place. Now please do not sit there and tell me "I've never seen them" or "Those people are a minority that don't count" or some such other marginalizing dismissal. Let me show you two examples of them which you can immediately interact with on the internet.. today.

Mathew Segall http://www.youtube.com/user/0ThouArtThat0/videos

Cory Anton http://www.youtube.com/user/Professoranton/videos

Teleology might not be an essential doctrine of biological sciences, but natural determinism opens up the doors for the teleological explanations of sociobiology, often in the form of a gene or a modularized cognitive ability that served some natural purpose in the savannah of our hunter-gatherers ancestors.

Well this is you talking, this is not science. This is not biology. In your earlier post you just said it as a given fact, as if to attribute your opinion to established science.

Sure, but Edward Wilson, the so-called "father of sociobiology" (he actually coined the term), has been an advocate of eugenics (genetic improvement) and was publicly scorned as a racist in one of his conferences. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he is a racist nutbar, or that he isn't, that's not the issue. The issue is that sociobiology tends to use natural determinism to impose a final cause to human action.

You have completely dodged what I actually said to you. You attributed "Survival of the Fittest" to Darwin and you acted like it was a valid summary of the theory of evolution by Natural Selection. Number one, it is no such thing, and number two, Darwin neither wrote nor said the phrase during his entire life. I then told you that the phrase was coined in a piece of writing that was not even a scientific article or publication. It was a purely political book. (I believe the actual book that the phrase appears in is Herbert Spencer's Man Versus State. But you might want to fact-check me on that one) I never brought up "sociobiology" ever in any part of my post. You did.

I can easily agree in that some natural conditions (in which, by the way, dinosaurs might have played a role by going extinct) gave us hominids with superior intelligence. I might find disagreement if you ever entertained the notion that hominids were not only predisposed, but predestined to write opera at some time in their history.

Apparently I made the mistake of assuming I am interacting with a person who already has the facts in front of him. Homo sapiens are said to be the predecessors of a hominid line that began 6 million years ago. Six. Six million. Dinosaurs were the dominant apex predator as well as the dominant herbivores for over 250 million years. There was no change in their brains. No change in their vision capacity. No measurable change in their intelligence. (They did however, grow really large and start to carry around very heavy body armor.) If you are suggesting some Telos in nature, I just ain't seeing it. The facts are not lining up with such a proposition.

You brought up the philosophy of naturalism, and that immediately calls for a debate on determinism (you should add it to the philosophical Jiu-Jitsu).

I did not call for a debate at all. Where are you getting that? You might try responding to what I actually wrote.

I don't need to support Berkeley or Descartes to reveal how untimely your manifesto on naturalism is, and how absurd it is to make your call for western philosophy bankrupcy based on cartesianism. It's like calling modern science bankrupt because Newton didn't get it all right.

No that's a terrible analogy and that does not hold at all. Let me explain why it does not match this situation. See with Newton's scientific theories, those propositions about the real world were taken at the edges of our knowledge. They were taken to be hypotheses to be subject to investigation. That is, their truth is tentative and subject to scrutiny. The difference with the phenomenologists, and other adherents to the cartesian tradition, is that they take "NO Objective World Exists" as a binding axiom -- an unquestionable truth sitting at the core of their knowledge. At the outset they assume its binding truth. It is not tentative with them, they are not merely proposing it -- they are demanding that it is true right out of the opening gate. That is a crucial difference, and that is why your silly analogy does not fit here.

No, philosophy is not love of wisdom. It's not enough. Religion and New Age movements love wisdom, but ultimately produce only shit. Philosophy is love of systemized thinking.