Academic philosophy and its pitfalls...

[Hyperion]

If we were in a philosophy class, writing philosophy papers, then yes, we should cite everything, else we'd be plagiarizing. However, this is an internet bulletin board, and most of the stuff on here is just random brain farts anyways, so citations aren't exactly essential unless it's part of a larger point (ie a scientific discussion).

 

[pennywise]

most of the stuff on here is just random brain farts anyways, so citations aren't exactly essential unless it's part of a larger point (ie a scientific discussion).

exactly my point. its all just "brain farts".

 

[Hyperion]

Yes, and my point is: What the fuck do you expect on an internet bulletin board? Do you see the words "peer review" or "scientific journal" anywhere on the title to this site? Perhaps you misunderstand the very nature of the internet and, like Jay and Silent Bob in their eponymous movie, need a short education on the nature of the internet and the fact that the vast majority of it consists of brain farts.

 

[pennywise]

i didnt say i expected anything. i just commented that it pissed me off. i stated my opinion. its everyone else who made an issue of it.

 

[PhorIndicator]

I am a philosophy major, and honestly, I RARELY see any real philosophical arguments in here, other than my own posts.

People usually are not rehashing what they learned in their philosophy class, they are usually rehashing vague, general opinions based on circular or faulty logic (or none at all). They are usually emotion-fueled, which is deleterious to any type of philosophical writing.

Emotion clouds reason and objectivity. Often times, the posts in here are prideful, posted by people who want to flaunt their strong opinions but not their critical thinking skills.

Throughout this thread, I have seen many references to its uselessness. And I completely agree, but I can't help but contribute. This thread is utterly worthless, and it honestly pissed me off. There is barely ANY philosophy in here, but there is alot of religious/anti-religious sentiment, scientific facts and statistics (which have nothing to do with philosophy - philosophical theories cannot be proved or disproved by science - that's why they are philosophical theories, not scientific ones), and faulty logic.

I don't know what philosophy courses you are taking, but you might have them confused with another subject, like psychology or religious studies.

I wish there was MORE philosophy in here. If people recited their notes from philosophy class, there would be little flaming and prideful posts and more rational, educated, and informed disussions and discourse.

 

[PhorIndicator]

is it me, or are most of these threads and responses born out of what someone heard in their philosophy class today?

****EDIT: i didnt make this thread, but it was a good idea anyway****

Yes, it IS you.

 

[PhorIndicator]

well im much more likely to care about what kant says than whatever you say

So - you DO value the notes someone took in their philosophy class. Would you encourage more of it? Would you rather we not post our own thoughts but post our philosophy notes? I mean, you're probably more likely to care about them, right?

 

[pennywise]

Throughout this thread, I have seen many references to its uselessness. And I completely agree, but I can't help but contribute. This thread is utterly worthless, and it honestly pissed me off. There is barely ANY philosophy in here, but there is alot of religious/anti-religious sentiment, scientific facts and statistics (which have nothing to do with philosophy - philosophical theories cannot be proved or disproved by science - that's why they are philosophical theories, not scientific ones), and faulty logic.

what thread were you reading? certainly not this one. there is no religious discussion, scientific facts, or statistics contained anywhere in this thread.....

So - you DO value the notes someone took in their philosophy class. Would you encourage more of it? Would you rather we not post our own thoughts but post our philosophy notes? I mean, you're probably more likely to care about them, right?

i was talking about him specifically, which is why i said "you" and not "everyone".but if someone IS going to post someone else's thoughts almost verbatim, i DO think they should give credit where credit is due.

 

[ebola?]

>>
what thread were you reading? certainly not this one. there is no religious discussion, scientific facts, or statistics contained anywhere in this thread.....
>>

That's because that paragraph refers to this forum in general.

ebola

 

[pennywise]

when someone talks about this thread, then makes a reference to "in here", it leads me to believe that "in here" refers to "this thread".

 

[pennywise]

who else has beef?

 

[ebola?]

er...I was just trying to clarify for you.

ebola
np: amon tobin

 

[HatchBack176]

"philosophical theories cannot be proved or disproved by science"
That is the major pitfall of academic philosophy.

 

[ebola?]

Well, I would argue that some philosophical theories can be disproven by science. Any philosophical theory worth its salt wont be blantently false on empirical terms. On the other hand, the vast majority of interesting philosophy lies outside the scope of science, congruent with but neither proven nor disproven by its findings. I would also argue that science relies on certain philosophical underpinnings insofar as it speaks on ontology (again, where it is interesting). We find that there are multiple philosophies which are congruent with any given theoretical body in science. Yes, we are on shakey ground when speaking of what is "true". On the other hand, the alternative is tantamount to sticking our heads in the sand. That is, when these philosophical underpinnings are ignored and branded "metaphysical speculation", we come to rely on a single implicit philosophy that remains unexamined but is as much metaphysical specualtion as the next philosophy.

ebola

 

[protovack]

well im much more likely to care about what kant says than whatever you say

Of course. I enjoy reading philosophy as much as anyone.

But I think a lot of people, especially people in their early twenties, latch on to academic philosophy for a couple years and become very attached to it, like a part of their personality.

I'd even go so far as to say that some people get an ego-boost from citing notorious philosophers.

Fine, so Kant said we should pretend our actions are based on fundamental laws.

So WHAT? A motivational speaker in my 7th grade gym class said "you have to believe in yourself" and it meant the EXACT same thing to me. I was certainly more inspiring, and much less contrived.

Academic philosophy belongs in University. The mistake students make is believing that philosophy ONLY exists in universities.

Wake up. Everyone has philosophical thoughts all the time. We talk about them all the time. Sure, a few people might not possess the analytical ability to think philosophically, but the majority of people do. Every tribal culture that has ever existed has constructed their own folk philosophy. And GASP...most of them have never heard of Kant, Nietzshe, Hegel, etc....

I talk philosophy all the time with a few people. I never need to use the name of a single philosopher. Of course, there are different kinds of philosophical discussion.

The kind I prefer, is that which serves as a bonding experience with others, and stimulates my curiousity in the world around me.

Academic philosohers are so immersed in the tradition of philosophy that it becomes meaningless (or it always was).

I have nothing against academic philosohy, except I think certain people use it as a way of never outgrowing their philosophical phase. There is a certain point at which you are supposed to realize that everything is contingent, the answers will never come, and everything is united in one fundamental system that YOU will never figure out. After this happens, you are supposed to go back to the real world. Many people need to go through something like this, but some get stuck.

 

[protovack]

Hmm, just thought of something. It may be that the academic study of philosophy has gradually filled in the hole left by the dissappearance of folklore and mythology from modern society...

The difference being, mythology and folklore teach you how to live a human life (a topic on which philosophy is pretty much silent).

 

[Hyperion]

Hmm, just thought of something. It may be that the academic study of philosophy has gradually filled in the hole left by the dissappearance of folklore and mythology from modern society...

I would argue that the fallacy here is that you perceive that one preceeded the other. If the Talmud is not an example of both mythology and academic philosophy, I don't know what is.

What we think of as "academic philosophy" is merely one of many "philosophies" that include both the "major religions" as well as many individual life choices.

 

[protovack]

^^^
I was just thinking about how there is a theme in mythology that involves people turning away from philosophy, and what that means for academic philosophy as a whole.

A good example is the following story...(re-told by Joseph Campbell in his series "The Power of Myth")

"There is a wonderful story in one of the Upanishads about the god Indra.

It happened at this time that a great monster had enclosed all the waters of the Earth, so there was a terrible drought, and the Earth was in a very bad condition. It took Indra quite a while to realize that he had a box of thunderbolts and that all he had to do was drop a thunderbolt on the monster and blow him up. When he did that, the waters flowed, and the Earth was refreshed, and Indra said, "What a great boy am I."

So, thinking, "What a great boy am I," Indra goes up to the cosmic mountain, which is the central mountain of the Earth, and decides to build a palace worthy of Indra. The main carpenter of the gods goes to work on it, and in very quick order he gets the palace into pretty good condition.

Every time Indra comes to inspect it, he has bigger ideas about how splendid and grandiose the palace should be. Finally, the carpenter says, "We are both immortal, and there is no end to his desires. I am caught for eternity." So he decides to go to Brahma, the creator god, and complain.

Brahma sits on a lotus, the symbol of divine energy and divine grace. The lotus grows from the navel of Vishnu, who is the sleeping god, whose dream is the Creation. So the carpenter comes to the edge of the great lotus pond of Creation and tells his story to Brahma. Brahma, "You go home. I will fix this up."

Brahma gets off his lotus and kneels down to address sleeping Vishnu. Vishnu just makes a gesture and says something like, "Listen, fly, something is going to happen. "

Next morning, at the gate of the palace that is being built, there appears a beautiful blue black boy with a lot of children around him, just admiring his beauty. The porter at the gate of the new palace goes running to Indra, and Indra says, "Well, bring in the beautiful blue black boy." The beautiful blue black boy is brought in, and Indra, the king god, sitting on his throne, says, "Young boy, welcome. And what brings you to my palace?"

"Well," says the beautiful blue black boy with a voice like thunder rolling on the horizon, "I have been told that you are building such a palace as no Indra before you ever built."

Indra says, "Indras before me, young boy what are you talking about?"

The beautiful blue black boy says, "Indras before you. I have seen them come and go, come and go. Just think, Vishnu sleeps in the cosmic ocean, and the lotus of creation grows from his navel. On the lotus sits Brahma, the creator. Brahma opens his eyes, and a world comes into being, governed by an Indra. Brahma closes his eyes, and a world goes out of being. The life of a Brahma is four hundred and thirty two thousand years. When he dies, the lotus goes back, and another lotus is formed, and another Brahma. Then think of the galaxies beyond galaxies in infinite space, each a lotus, with a Brahma sitting on it, opening his eyes, closing his eyes. And Indras? There may be wise men in your court who would volunteer to count the drops of water in the oceans of the Earth or the grains of sand on the beaches, but no one would count those Brahmin, let alone those Indras."

While the beautiful blue black boy is talking, an army of ants parades across the floor. The beautiful blue black boy laughs when he sees them, and Indra's hair stands on end, and he says to the boy, "Why do you laugh?"

The beautiful blue black boy answers,"Don't ask unless you are willing to be hurt."

Indra says, "I ask. Teach." (That, by the way, is a good idea: you don't teach until you are asked. You don't force your mission down people's throats.)

The beautiful blue black boy points to the ants and says, "Former Indras all. Through many lifetimes they rise from the lowest conditions to highest illumination. And then they drop their thunderbolt on a monster, and they think, 'What a good boy am I.' And down they go again."

While the beautiful blue black boy is talking, a crotchety old yogi comes into the palace with a banana leaf parasol. He is naked except for a loincloth, and on his chest is a little disk of hair, and half the hairs in the middle have all dropped out.

The beautiful blue black boy greets him and asks him just what Indra was about to ask.

"Old yogi, what is your name? Where do you come from? Where is your family? Where is your house? And what is the meaning of this curious constellation of hair on your chest?"

"Well," says the crotchety old yogi, "my name is Hairy. I don't have a house. Life is too short for that. I just have this parasol. I don't have a family. I just meditate on Vishnu's feet, and think of Eternity, and how time is passing. You know, every time an Indra dies, a world disappears; these things just flash by like that. Every time an Indra dies, one hair drops out of this circle on my chest. Half the hairs are gone now. Pretty soon they will all be gone. Life is short. Why build a house?"

Then the two disappear. The beautiful blue black boy was Vishnu, the Lord Protector, and the old yogi was Shiva, the creator and destroyer of the Earth, who had just come for the instruction of Indra, who is simply a god of history but thinks he is all of Creation.

Indra is sitting there on the throne. He is completely disillusioned. Indra calls the carpenter and says, "I am quitting the building of this palace. You are dismissed." So the carpenter got his intention. He is dismissed from the job, and there is no more house building going on.

Indra decides to go out and be a yogi and just meditate on the lotus at the feet of Vishnu. Only Indra has a beautiful queen named Indrani. And when Indrani hears of Indra's plan, Indrani goes to the priest of the gods and says, "Now Indra has got the idea in his head of going out to become a yogi."

"Well," says the priest, "come in with me, darling, and we will sit down, and I will fix this up."

So they sit down before the king's throne, and the priest says, "Now, I wrote a book for you many years ago on the art of politics. You are in the position of the king of the gods. You are a manifestation of the mystery of Brahma in the field of time. This is a high privilege. Appreciate it, honor it, and deal with life as though you were what, in reality, you really are. And besides, now I am going to write you a book on the art of love so that you and your wife will know that in the wonderful mystery of the two that are one, the Brahma is radiantly present also."

With this set of instructions, Indra gives up his idea of going out and becoming a yogi and finds that, in life, he can represent the Eternal as a symbol of the Brahma. So each of us is, in a, way, the Indra of his own life. You can make a choice, either to throw it all off and go into the forest to meditate, or to stay in man's world, both in the life of your job, which is the kingly job of politics and achievement, and in thelove life with your wife and family."

 

[PhorIndicator]

when someone talks about this thread, then makes a reference to "in here", it leads me to believe that "in here" refers to "this thread".

Ebola was right.... I was not referring to this thread when I mentioned the anti-religious sentiments etc.. I was referring to the entire forum and its posts.

 

[PhorIndicator]

I talk philosophy all the time with a few people. I never need to use the name of a single philosopher. Of course, there are different kinds of philosophical discussion.

The kind I prefer, is that which serves as a bonding experience with others, and stimulates my curiousity in the world around me.

I talk philosophy all the time, and I constantly use the names of specific philosophers. Philosophy today is not all that much different than philosophy 1000 years ago.... Certain generally accepted arguments such as Plato's Theory of the Forms and Kant's fundamental laws become foundations for higher planes of thought. Referencing a philiosopher and his well-known argument can be much more efficient than explaining the entire argument itself, then trying to get person to understand it, when only a simple reference is needed.

Academic philosohers are so immersed in the tradition of philosophy that it becomes meaningless (or it always was).

I have nothing against academic philosohy, except I think certain people use it as a way of never outgrowing their philosophical phase. There is a certain point at which you are supposed to realize that everything is contingent, the answers will never come, and everything is united in one fundamental system that YOU will never figure out. After this happens, you are supposed to go back to the real world. Many people need to go through something like this, but some get stuck. [/B]

How can philosophy be meaningless? What are your qualifications for a study to have meaning or not? Do we not ascribe our own meanings to everything?

Also, I am not familiar with the so-called "philosophical phase." Perhaps you are confusing it with the "post-adolescent idealistic phase" - (to borrow from Clueless ).

And dude the rest of your post - "There is a certain point at which you are supposed to realize that everything is contingent, the answers will never come, and everything is united in one fundamental system that YOU will never figure out. After this happens, you are supposed to go back to the real world. Many people need to go through something like this, but some get stuck."

Haha... have you ever read 1984? Haha... You sound like the editor of the Communist Manifesto.... "Conform to my mold.... Let your thoughts become my thoughts... you are merely a robot inhabiting a body of flesh...... now obey my wishes... MUAHAHAHAA!!!!"

Hahhaha....I disagree adamantly with your opinion.