Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:33 pm Why do you say that eristic (debate) is irresponsible use of philosophy? Should people not debate things?

Eristic is not debate. Eristic is winning arguments.

It's about domination and subjucation, not persuasion or truth.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:37 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:33 pm Why do you say that eristic (debate) is irresponsible use of philosophy? Should people not debate things?

Eristic is not debate. Eristic is winning arguments.

It's about domination and subjucation, not persuasion or truth.

Not all philosophy is just about "winning" arguments. Some philosophy is more directly about exposing bad arguments on the part of others. There's a lot of nuance to philosophy.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:42 pm Not all philosophy is just about "winning" arguments. Some philosophy is more directly about exposing bad arguments on the part of others. There's a lot of nuance to philosophy.

Sure. I am speaking in context.

The way "philosophy" is understood here. On this forum; and how I've seen it conducted in academic settings.

Everybody does what you just did. Go for the premises.

Thanks for disregarding and disrespecting all that time I just spend thinking about this idea.

"Not all philosophy is just about "winning" arguments."

Well goddamit it should be. You'd do well to read Protagoras, young man.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:45 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:42 pm Not all philosophy is just about "winning" arguments. Some philosophy is more directly about exposing bad arguments on the part of others. There's a lot of nuance to philosophy.

Sure. I am speaking in context.

The way "philosophy" is understood here. On this forum; and how I've seen it conducted in academic settings.

Everybody does what you just did. Go for the premises.

Thanks for disregarding and disrespecting all that time I just spend thinking about this idea.

I'm sorry to "disregard" and "disrespect" the idea you're thinking about. Are you sure it's an idea worthy of your thought? Are there other ideas you can have that might yield better fruit?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:42 pm Not all philosophy is just about "winning" arguments. Some philosophy is more directly about exposing bad arguments on the part of others. There's a lot of nuance to philosophy.

But there is also the systemic problem. Humans are biased creatures. This is unavoidable. Biases are beliefs.

We have to believe something; otherwise we believe nothing and that's no good way to move forward.

The trouble is when some particular presupposition becomes so prevalent and unchecked that it becomes the social norm.
It becomes actively harmful and disruptive to society.

The skeptic's privilege to simply negate everything. For free. Without consequence.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:47 pm "Not all philosophy is just about "winning" arguments."

Well goddamit it should be. You'd do well to read Protagoras, young man.

Well, if you insist. I can't stop you from doing what you want to do.

But if there's one way to make sure you are the biggest loser is to convince me you can win all arguments.

You aren't even wrong. So you aren't my people.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:48 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:42 pm Not all philosophy is just about "winning" arguments. Some philosophy is more directly about exposing bad arguments on the part of others. There's a lot of nuance to philosophy.

But there is also the systemic problem. Humans are biased creatures. This is unavoidable. Biases are beliefs.

We have to believe something; otherwise we believe nothing and that's no good way to move forward.

The trouble is when some particular presupposition becomes so prevalent and unchecked that it becomes the social norm.
It becomes actively harmful and disruptive to society.

The skeptic's privilege to simply negate everything. For free. Without consequence.

Is "moving forward" always necessary? Can you not believe that you don't know something? Is that not an option?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:51 pm Is "moving forward" always necessary? Can you not believe that you don't know something? Is that not an option?

No, you can't. To know that you believe that you know nothing is you just re-assirting the fact of your ignorance.

OK. You are ignorant. You can redefine it in as many circles as you.

And then?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:52 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:51 pm Is "moving forward" always necessary? Can you not believe that you don't know something? Is that not an option?

No, you can't. To know that you believe that you know nothing is you just re-assirting the fact of your ignorance.

OK. You are ignorant.

And then?

If you are ignorant, then you pause and take your bearings to see if you are/were doing something that ought or else ought not be done. Is doing something under ignorance a wise choice? Are there some things that ought not be done when one is ignorant?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:55 pm If you are ignorant, then you pause and take your bearings to see if you are/were doing something that ought or else ought not be done. Is doing something under ignorance a wise choice? Are there some things that ought not be done when one is ignorant?

You can't derive an ought from any facts.

You pause. You look. All you see is Truth.

And then?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:55 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:55 pm If you are ignorant, then you pause and take your bearings to see if you are/were doing something that ought or else ought not be done. Is doing something under ignorance a wise choice? Are there some things that ought not be done when one is ignorant?

You can't derive an ought from any facts.

You pause. You look. All you see is Truth.

And then?

Facts don't tell us what you "ought" to do. People tell us what we "ought" to do.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:59 pm Facts don't tell us what you "ought" to do. People tell us what we "ought" to do.

And who tells people what they ought to do?

And who are "people"?
And who are "us"?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:59 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:59 pm Facts don't tell us what you "ought" to do. People tell us what we "ought" to do.

And who tells people what they ought to do?

As far as I know for certain, other people tell people what they ought to do. Outside of that, I couldn't tell you.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 3:02 pm As far as I know for certain, other people tell people what they ought to do. Outside of that, I couldn't tell you.

You seem to be kicking the can down the road.... until it evaporates.

Nobody tells anybody what to do.