Philosophy Now Forum

Robert Hanna wrote this;

• "Can philosophers change their minds?
  A friend of mine in graduate school used to say that almost all philosophers, after they’ve completed their PhD dissertations, never read anything new, never work on anything new, and never change their minds about anything, for the rest of their lives .
  
  And in fact, my 25 years of first-hand experience inside professional academic philosophy fully confirmed my friend’s cynical claim, provided that we introduce the following seven clarifications and qualifications.
  
  First , “almost all” means “as many as 99%—but not absolutely all.” There are a few exceptions, let’s say 1%.
  Second , “never” means “ almost never, i.e., 99% of the time, not.” As before, there a few exceptions, again let’s say 1%.
  Third , “philosophers” means “contemporary professional academic philosophers.”
  Fourth , “read anything new” means “read any philosophy outside their declared areas of research specialization (AOS) and teaching expertise.”
  Fifth , “work on anything new” means “work intensively and seriously, and then also publish, on any philosophical issues, problems, or topics outside their AOS.“ Many or even most professional academic philosophers work intensively and seriously, and then also publish on problems or topics inside their AOS, that they haven’t previously worked or published on.
  Sixth , “change their minds about anything” means “change their minds about their fundamental philosophical beliefs and commitments.”
  To be sure, many or even most professional academic philosophers will occasionally change their minds about some first-order philosophical claims or theories, without changing their fundamental philosophical beliefs, especially including their worldviews or their metaphilosophy.
  Seventh and finally, “the rest of their lives” means “the rest of their philosophical lives.” This includes the period beyond retirement, when many or even most professional academic philosophers remain more-or-less intellectually active for several decades."

Why Academic Philosophers do not Change their Views?

• "There are at least five very strong social-institutional pressures on newly-minted PhDs not to read anything outside their AOS [Areas of Research], not to work on anything outside their AOS, and not to change their minds about their fundamental philosophical beliefs and commitments, for the rest of their philosophical lives.
  
  First, without self-declaring an AOS by the time they’ve completed their dissertations, newly-minted PhDs will never get any sort of job, much less a tenure track job, remembering of course that for the purposes of this essay, “never” means “ almost never—i.e., 99% of the time, not.”
  Second, without publishing a few articles in their self-declared AOS, young philosophers will never get a tenure track job.
  Third, without publishing a substantial number of articles or a book in that self-declared AOS, young philosophers in the tenure track will never achieve tenure andpromotion to associate professor.
  Fourth, without publishing another substantial number of new articles or another book in the very same self-declared AOS, not-so-young associate philosophers will never be promoted to full professor.
  And fifth and finally, right from the very start of one’s career, obviously one has to do some highly-focused reading on topics X, Y, and Z in order to teach courses on X,Y, and Z; and since each and every employed philosopher has been hired by a philosophy department specifically in order to teach courses on X, Y, and Z, then there’s very little departmental incentive or interest in encouraging these philosophers, once hired, to change their areas of teaching expertise during the course of their careers, or indeed even to permit them to do so."

What about non-academic philosophers?

• What about great philosophers of the past —by which I mean, all great philosophers now dead, from the pre-Socratics forward to 2023—many or even most of whom weren’t professional academic philosophers: did any of them ever change their minds about their fundamental beliefs and commitments?
  Four leading examples come immediately to mind:
  Saint Augustine’s radical turn from worldly Manicheanism to ascetic Christianity, as recorded in the Confessions (Augustine, 401);
  Immanuel Kant’s Hume-inspired awakening from his “dogmatic slumbers,” as later recorded in the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics , and his corresponding radical turn from classical Leibnizian-Wolfran rationalism to transcendental idealism in the Critique of Pure Reason , aka “Kant’s Copernican Revolution” (Kant, 1781/1887/1997, 1783/2004);
  A.N. Whitehead’s radical turn from logicism—i.e., the explanatory and ontological reduction of mathematics to pure logic—in Principia Mathematica to “the philosophy of organism,” aka process philosophy , in Science and the Modern World and Process and Reality (Whitehead and Russell,1910/1962; Whitehead, 1927/1967, 1929/1978); and
  Ludwig Wittgenstein’s radical turn from solipsistic ideal language philosophy in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to communitarian ordinary language philosophy of the Philosophical Investigations (Wittgenstein, 1921/1981, 1953).

Why they Change their Minds;

• Now generalizing over these four great philosophers’ changes-of-mind, we can see three basic elements.
  First, each philosopher’s change-of-mind was internally-initiated or self-motivated, not externally-initiated or other-motivated . Worldviews cannot be changed solely or even primarily by engaging with other philosophers’ contrary views, and especially not by means of professional academic philosophical debate (Hanna, 2023a). Second, each change-of-mind involved the radical turn from a reductive or bottom-up worldview, to a non-reductive or top-down worldview.
  And third, each change-of-mind involved the radical turn from a deterministic and passive-minded or uncreative-minded worldview, to a non-deterministic and active-minded or creative-minded worldview. In the cases of Augustine and Whitehead, this active-mindedness or creative-mindedness included not only rational human mindedness, but also divine mindedness.
  
  If we expand the formulation of my initial question from “can philosophers change their minds?” to “can philosophers or scientists change their minds?,” then we discover at least one famous case of a physicist, namely Stephen Hawking, who during the last twenty years of his life made a radical turn from the reductive or bottom-up and deterministic and passive-minded cosmology of A Brief History of Time to what his collaborator Thomas Hertog calls “Hawking’s final theory” (Hawking, 1988; Hertog,2023). Moreover, and most importantly for our purposes, Hawking’s intellectual transition to his final theory clearly manifests the same three basic elements manifested by the four great philosophers’ changes of mind:
  (i) internal initiation or self-motivation,
  (ii) the radical turn to a non-reductive or top-down worldview, and (iii) the radical turn to a non-deterministic and active-minded or creative-minded worldview (Hanna, 2023b).

Personally, I have changed my philosophical views from philosophical_realism [& theism] to ANTI-philosohical_realism.

My Views:
Because philosophical_realism is an evolutionary default and a very primal instinct, it is unlikely that the majority will ever change their philosophical views from philosophical realism [secured] to ANTI-philosophical_realism which could trigger an unpleasant Cold-Turkey.

Anyone know of any notable philosophers who had changed from mind from philosophical realism to ANTI-philosophical_realism or vice-versa?

Some Comments from ChatGPT [with reservations] re modern philosophers who had gravitated towards ANTI-Philosophical_Realism;

• Richard Rorty: Rorty started as an analytic philosopher and was influenced by Wittgenstein, but he later moved away from the traditional questions of philosophy and embraced a form of pragmatism and anti-foundationalism. His work shifted toward focusing on the philosophy of language, literature, and politics. His later works, such as "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" and "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity," reflect this change.
  
  Michel Foucault: Although not necessarily a transition from philosophical realism to anti-philosophical realism, Foucault's philosophical trajectory changed quite dramatically. He started as a structuralist influenced by phenomenology and existentialism, but he later developed his own distinct approach known as genealogy, which focused on power, knowledge, and historical analysis. His work critiqued the idea of an objective reality and instead emphasized the constructed nature of knowledge.
  
  Jean-François Lyotard: Lyotard began as a Marxist and a phenomenologist, but he later moved towards postmodernism and skepticism about metanarratives or grand theories. His influential work "The Postmodern Condition" questioned the idea of universal narratives and advocated for a more fragmented and diverse understanding of reality.
  
  Thomas Kuhn: Kuhn is known for his work on the philosophy of science and his concept of scientific paradigms. While not necessarily moving from realism to anti-realism, his ideas challenged the traditional view of science as a linear accumulation of knowledge and instead emphasized the role of social and historical factors in shaping scientific progress.
  
  Gilles Deleuze: Deleuze's philosophical trajectory evolved from his early interest in traditional philosophy to a more radical and innovative approach. He rejected traditional notions of identity and instead focused on concepts like difference, multiplicity, and becoming. His collaboration with Félix Guattari produced works like "Anti-Oedipus" and "A Thousand Plateaus," which challenged established notions of subjectivity and reality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:23 am Can Philosophers Change their Minds?

U do wish to be taken seriously?

NOBODY CAN CHANGE THEIR FUCKING MIND OBVIOUSLY U FUCKING TWAT!!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:31 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:23 am Can Philosophers Change their Minds?

U do wish to be taken seriously?

NOBODY CAN CHANGE THEIR FUCKING MIND OBVIOUSLY U FUCKING TWAT!!

It is a question, stupid.
You should be cursing Hanna Robert and F.. OFF if you have nothing better to discuss.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:34 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:31 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:23 am Can Philosophers Change their Minds?

U do wish to be taken seriously?

NOBODY CAN CHANGE THEIR FUCKING MIND OBVIOUSLY U FUCKING TWAT!!

It is a question, stupid.
You should be cursing Hanna Robert and F.. OFF if you have nothing better to discuss.

IRONY.
Intelligent people that analyse themselves and everything can't change their minds.
Dumb shits that don't analyse anything and remain stubborn in their convictions do.

U R an imbecile to present such a thread title, but alas, what would one expect of an imbecile?

Changing the mind begins when the mind realizes it has burned out every last viable option in trying to repair the stilts its world view is built upon. It's either change or accept death and final destruction. I have tried the latter and it is unbelievably easy to do in theory but unbelievably difficult in practice. I am stubborn but when I look around I see no good route out of the dead end I have arrived at. All I see are more paths that lead to me to doing nothing fundamentally different than breathing oxygen and turning it into CO2. And the more I do that, and the more trees and plants that convert CO2 into oxygen are destroyed in the name of "progress" and "development", the more I realize my time is running out. Will I some day reach a point where voluntary self-destruction is the only noble deed I can any longer perform? (If I have not arrived there already). And how long will I refuse to sacrifice my space for the benefit of a new child to be brought into the world and given some space to live it's life and oxygen to breathe during its own life?

I am sorry to darken with my thoughts, but I cannot escape them, and hiding them from others I feel does not help others avoid my dilemma (if it is at all possible to do so). PLEASE CHANGE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. DON'T END UP IN THE LAND OF VULGARYA!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:22 am ...

To talk about changing your mind is to assume free will e.g self-change out of your own volition, so you must reject all paradigms which are founded upon the assumption of determinism e.g all of physics and everything which rests upon it.

Lets see if you are going to change your mind about that...

Mr. Hanna presents a problematic argument:
1) He gives reasons why academic philosophers are pressured not to change their minds
and contrasts this with
2) 4 non-academic philosophers who did change their minds.

Two problems: that there are pressures need not lead to people not changing their minds; 4 non-academic philosophers is anecdotal evidence.

For one group he gives some examples of people who changed their minds. For the other group why they might not want to.

Then there's an implicit argument.

VA has changed his mind. Therefore he is not like academic philosophers, he's like the dead great philosophers.
Lots of problems there. First I think he is assuming that the people disagreeing with him are academic philosophers or even philosophers. How many people here have a doctorate in philosophy? How many people are under those pressures?

Me, I've changed my mind, a number of times in my adult life and one major core belief shift in my childhood. Of course, I am not an academic philosopher and I'm certainly not under the pressures of one.

Maybe when the Philosophy Now editors drop in we have an academic philosopher amongst us, but otherwise......

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:22 am

• "Can philosophers change their minds?

No, they can't.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 12:49 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:22 am

• "Can philosophers change their minds?

No, they can't.

But then on second thought, yes they can.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:22 am Four leading examples come immediately to mind:
Saint Augustine’s radical turn from worldly Manicheanism to ascetic Christianity, as recorded in the Confessions (Augustine, 401);

Wait was ST. A. really a non-academic....?

His studies of grammar and rhetoric in the provincial centers of Madauros and Carthage, which strained the financial resources of his middle-class parents, were hoped to pave his way for a future career in the higher imperial administration

In 383 he moved to Milan, then the capital of the western half of the Empire, to become a publicly paid professor of rhetoric of the city and an official panegyrist at the Imperial court.

He also underwent a kind of philosophical apprenticeship.
I mean, we're comparing people in very different eras, but he's hardly someone who just wrestled with ideas on his own. Yeah, he didn't get a doctorate in a 20th/21st century University. I mean, seriously
And Kant?????

Immanuel Kant’s Hume-inspired awakening from his “dogmatic slumbers,” as later recorded in the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics , and his corresponding radical turn from classical Leibnizian-Wolfran rationalism to transcendental idealism in the Critique of Pure Reason , aka “Kant’s Copernican Revolution” (Kant, 1781/1887/1997, 1783/2004);

Kant showed a great aptitude for study at an early age. He first attended the Collegium Fridericianum, from which he graduated at the end of the summer of 1740. In 1740, aged 16, he enrolled at the University of Königsberg, where he spent his whole career.[18] He studied the philosophy of Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff under Martin Knutzen (Associate Professor of Logic and Metaphysics from 1734 until he died in 1751), a rationalist who was also familiar with developments in British philosophy and science and introduced Kant to the new mathematical physics of Isaac Newton. Knutzen dissuaded Kant from the theory of pre-established harmony, which he regarded as "the pillow for the lazy mind".[19] He also dissuaded Kant from idealism, the idea that reality is purely mental, which most philosophers in the 18th century regarded negatively. The theory of transcendental idealism that Kant later included in the Critique of Pure Reason was developed partially in opposition to traditional idealism. Kant had contacts with students, colleagues, friends and diners who frequented the local Masonic lodge.[2

And yeah, Whitehead wasn't an academic philosopher, he was an academic mathematician. This guy has a weird way of supporting his hypotheses.

And then Wittgenstein....
I mean, he was at Cambridge actively involved in the academic philosopher culture there.

These people all participated directly in the academic worlds of their time, engaging with academic philosophers.

But his hypothesis is poorly and even strangely 'supported'.

Robert Hanna himself is an academic philosopher. Does this mean he can't change his mind? (about this issue)

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 12:52 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 12:49 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:22 am

• "Can philosophers change their minds?

No, they can't.

But then on second thought, yes they can.

I knew you were a philosopher!

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 12:57 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 12:52 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 12:49 pm
No, they can't.

But then on second thought, yes they can.

I knew you were a philosopher!

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 2:30 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 12:57 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 12:52 pm

But then on second thought, yes they can.

I knew you were a philosopher!

You keep changing your mind about that…

Seriously, change is the result of learning. As an amateur, Í find disheartening to think that academic philosophers are not lifelong learners.