Is philosophy dead?

[thursday]

socrates probably wasn't the greatest philosopher who ever lived, just one of the earliest and most famous philosophers. he was first philosopher to make the distinction between the physical and the metaphysical.

and i think it's an unfair generalization to say that philosophers have stopped asking questions. philosophy has always been about posing fundamental questions about existence/truth/morality/etc. and then going about trying to answer these questions in the most objective and rational way possible. there are many philosophical questions which have remained at the heart of most philosophical debates since socrate,s because like you said philosophy isn't really about establishing absolute answers, and by nature philosophy is a very contentious subject so many of these questions will continued to be left up in the air for ages to come.

it's unreasonable to expect philosophical questions to be definitively answered in a single universally agreed upon ideology. and there's also no point in posing these questions if it doesn't inspire people to try to answer them. to me philosophy is just about discourse. it's not about finding the absolute answer, it's about throwing as many ideas out there as possible. once these ideas are thrown up in the air they will multiply as people expand upon them, revise them, or even create new ideas by pointing out the flaws in the old ones. ofcourse people are going to "argue" about ideas. but it's not so simple as saying which belief is right, and which is wrong. most of this "arguing" takes the form of objective criticism. people go to great lengths to scrutinize every possible aspect of whatever ideas have been raised. and this is a good thing because this rigorous peer-review process refines the ideas which have been put forth and brings to surface any weaknesses in the logic.

i mean, i kinda understand what you were trying to get at, but it seems like you're making a hasty generalization on a whole lot of academic activity that's going on in the world today. this is similar to a lot of the criticisms in earlier posts about philosophers having all become intellectual elitists who have a habit of using ostentatious language. i mean, criticisms of specific authors are welcomed but these broad generalizations have very little validity when talking about such a large population of academics. and keep in mind that most philosophers aren't "philosophers" by occupation. a lot of them are physicists, historians, writers, artists, etc. and there isn't just one type of philosopher, so generalizing the field of philosophy based on what you observe of a few academic philosophers is a bit out of line imho.

 

[thursday]

All ebola was saying is that the axioms of logic that you have described have a basis in something other than "the objective world of science." They are more than that (which might even be what you are saying).

Logic has spilled over, perhaps, because logic is indeed the one constant that allows us to derive a "self-other" distinction.

For example, take a cell. The foundation of its behaviour is an interaction between the "inside" and the "outside" of the lipid bilayer. Lipids are known to spontaneously form enclosed spaces when placed in a polar solution (water).

In nature (i.e. everything), the boundary between A and B (inside a cell and outside the membrane) is the sole basis of biological systems.

Analogously, mathematical logic is rooted in the same distinction.

But there is a crucial distinction to be made. In logic, there is no boundary that exists between A and B. There is no meeting of A and B in the middle. This would be the expression of the concept "or".

In a cell however, the lipid bilayer (distinct from inside and outside) is actually the sole reason that there can be any observable difference between inside and outside (A and B).

The usage of energy to create gradients across the cell membrane produces the change between inside and outside which we observe.

So we'll call the thing which is "not A or B" the middle, or 'M'.

Thus in the cell example, there can be no distinction between A and B without the prior existence of an active 'M'. There is no zone of higher solute concentration with out the enzymatic processes of active transport.

You will never find any observable phenomena in which there is no 'M' to create the A and B.

Therefore, any framework based on an "excluded middle" is not an accurate depiction of reality. Of course, the illusion of logic hasn't been much of a problem in practical terms. For the purposes of a microprocessor, meaning is derived from a *succession* of such A vs B distinctions. Excluding the middle is not a problem if we can set up a string of 'A-B' distinctions which have meaning in relation to each other.

Thus, the ability to "exclude the middle" allows us to recognize distinctions that are useful to survival. But that doesn't mean that the world is made of zeros and ones. The world is made of a lot of different middles, from which many different distinctions are spawned, distinctions which are indeed the sole product of the middles which we exclude.

Thus boolean logic is a utilitarian practice. We've discovered that we can safely ignore the true nature of reality, in order to mess around with it. There is nothing about logic or mathematics that is inherently "obvious" or "truthful." In fact, it's quite the opposite. It is *definately* based on experience and observation. The thing is, it doesn't really matter.

I just think it would be better to drop the language of "universality" and "empiricism," and just remember that there is nothing inherent about logic. A and B do not exist without M.

It seems possible that if one were to be socialized to think that the sole basis of reality is logic...it would be difficult to conceive of particular practices which defy that logic as acceptable (even though as you said, native american deities aren't subject to logical review).

Given that, it just doesn't make sense to describe the world in a "logical" language. So you are correct in that ebola's example of the half-human half-animal deity doesn't really counter your point that logic will make sense to any human. But let's just remember that what we are "understanding" is an expedient illusion.

i think you're getting ahead of yourself here. there are binary systems in physical reality--your example of a cell is not one of them. if you want to discuss problems with using boolean logic, you have to understand its (correct) applications. logic is based purely off of reason. it's not an observable phenomenon, so you have to be really careful when you want to use a physical analogy for critiquing boolean logic; because as i demonstrated earlier, what often happens is that you will point out a characteristic in the analogy you gave which isn't described by boolean logic, and suggest that this somehow shows inherent flaws in using boolean logic in other applications.

first off, boolean logic doesn't have anything to do with separation. it's not about making a physical distinction between two physical objects. secondly, in nature you can observe infinite counter-examples to your argument that for two objects to be distinguishable that there somehow needs to be a barrier between them. i'll leave this painfully obvious observation as a mental exercise for you as it really has nothing to do with the objective nature of logic.

lastly, boolean logic is just one area of logic which is particularly useful to mathematicians. but all logic is inhernetly objective. it is without subjective qualities, and it is without cultural characteristics. [(A | B)' == (A' & B')] == T no matter what language you speak or how you were raised. i mean, try and give an example of how logic is culturally dependent. i don't think you'd be able to find any solid support of that. logic is the exercise of reason, it pertains to logos, it's pertaining to the truth of a statement. the underlying concept of logic is that we can derive nontrivial information on the world by means of thought. in other words, we can become aware of truths by combining information in our minds--this process is called reason, and one instance of it is called a logical argument.

we don't use logic to depict reality. we use it to understand reality. if our sense of logic is somehow inherently flawed, then we have no means to deriving any useful information about anything. that would mean that our basic mental thought processes are flawed. if this is true, then you can basically label everyone as clinically insane.

now unlike utilitarianism, logic is not a human creation, it is not a school of thought. it is a epistemological primitive. you can't break it down into more basic pieces. you can think of it as that sameness behind all the changing, or the one behind the many that thales of miletos was searching for. it's basically just defining our intuitive sense of how pieces of information fit together to create tautologies. utilitarianism is based off of a logical argument, not vice-versa. skepticism, rationalism, empiricism, math, etc. are all based off of logic.

think about it. you're arguing that logic is a flawed product of culture by trying to build a logical argument to support your beliefs. does that make any sense?

 

[protovack]

think about it. you're arguing that logic is a flawed product of culture by trying to build a logical argument to support your beliefs. does that make any sense?

No it doesn't make sense, but I never really said that logic is a "flawed product of culture."

I think that modern societies *use* logic to great effect, whereas pre-modern societies do not.

I'm not claiming that a pre-modern man would be *unable* to understand logic. I'm saying that because he has not been socialized as a "logical thinker," he will not behave like we do, nor will he have similar beliefs.

What I'm saying is that human interaction, whether it takes place between two logical thinkers or two pre-modern men....has absolutely nothing to do with logic.

I also think that the language of "logic" produces a vocabulary that is clearly not suitable for anything besides scientific investigation. Yet the language seeps into other areas.

For example:

"Why can't you just be logical?"
"Women are irrational."
"White people are good, black people are bad."

Now, I'm not claiming that "logic" itself is responsible for racism or sexism.

But most of us live in a modern society with a strictly defined education curriculum that emphasizes math and logical reasoning, which should not be taken to be a necessary precondition for the continuation of science. A primary education is a good preparation for working in a factory, or worse. It is a world where all that matters is 2+2=4.

Maybe the principles of logic escape logic itself, and make people more apt to buy into "self-other" comparisons that have no basis in reality.

Who knows? All I'm saying is that logic is logic. It has nothing to do with our central mode of behavior (interaction). When two people communicate, they are changing each other in real-time. Yet people consistently attempt to evaluate other people in a logical manner. We even strive "to be logical."

That's why I say we need a different vocabulary for those aspects of life which are inherently not logical. If logic is what we use to "understand" as opposed to "depict" reality, then what are we really understanding? I'd say it is a functional depiction of reality....divorced from any understanding of it.

 

[protovack]

utilitarianism is based off of a logical argument

.

Hardly, but that is another thread

 

[thursday]

protovack i think i kinda understand what you're getting at, but i would say that logic, like morality, is an elusive concept. it's what helps us break free from the socialized assumptions we internalize from culture because it is an a priori truth. it is natural for people to think or act in a logical manner, it's just to what extent which varies between individuals.

 

[knight_marshall]

yeah thursday, i am a little out of date now, i just go by what I hear... what I was trying to get at is that these days it seems most people want to come up with answers that don't create more questions, and I feel this is un-philosophical.
And i do generalise a bit, sorry, I'm trying to change that in myself, but its a process I'm still in the middle of.

 

[Slaughterhousefive42]

Every philosopher adds another brick to the edifice of our society, until the day we finally have a decent looking house.

 

[joystick]

I don't know if I would say that philosophy is dead, but it is not exactly thriving during the early 21st century so far. Between being reduced to excruciatingly unpleasant existentialism on the one hand and millions of the binary numbers 1 and 0 on the other, the 20th century will probably not be looked back upon as philosophy's glory days in the sun. When was the last time you met a post-modernist with even a glimmer of hope in their eyes?

Even my parents' old encyclopedia states of Ayn Rand's (who was neither a budding computer programmer set to redefine philosophy--or at least formal logic--like Wittengenstein, was it?, and neither was she an existentialist, and she was also one of the few philosophy authors with any kind of cult following on college campuses) famous books, "The Fountainhead," and "Atlas Shrugged" that they were quote, "Not considered to be high quality works of literature." Our encylopedia is generallly much kinder in its diction than it was there.

I feel sure that, from the pained expression on my face in 12th grade English while we discussed "Catch-22" and "Waiting for Godot," the teacher must have known that I was not even pretending to read that drivel. She seemed, luckily, very understanding of that fact. God Bless Ms. Jones. I don't think she even cut my grade down to a "B" because of it.

And, in her defense, I got much more out of our reading of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" (which you may have seen a form of in the guise of the movie "Apocalypse Now") and Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein." I would have rather read "Interview with a Vampire," though, but you know, you've got to impress those AP English Literature graders with classic and/or trendy titles.

The famous French existentialist, Jean-Paul Sartre is somewhat more tolerable, but anything French that falls under the genre of "theather of the absurd" is not worth reading or watching unless you are tres, tres avant-garde, baby, or a member of the cast maybe. An example of a title of a book by Sartre, for example, is "Nausea," but I will concede that he did invent a clever quote I sometimes find solace in stating simply, "Hell is other people."

And I do admit French is an extremely sexy language; but how creepy it would be to hear John Kerry whispering sweet French nothings in one's ear, though, no? J'aime la francais muy bien bitte, mi amore.

 

[thursday]

Ayn Rand is a nutjob. she doesn't define, or even come close to defining exemplar contemporary philosophy. most philosophy professors i know abhor objectivism. it's one of the truly selfish and morally-bankrupt philosophies ever developed and stems from a reactionary response to soviet communism. it's not considered by most academics to be one of the more respectable philosophies of the 20th century. and other than maybe some neo-liberal elitists, few people find objectivism to have any intellectual value at all.

If you want examples of outstanding philosophical thought of the 20th century, look into deconstruction, postmodernism, post-structuralism, or neo-marxism. check out the works of althusser, debord, foucault, derrida, bourdieu, or chomsky.

what it all boils down to eventually is personal taste. you may find a particular school of philosophical thought to be boring or inapplicable in your life, or maybe it just doesn't make sense to you. but there's so much diversity in philosophical thought even if you only look at the 20th century philosophers. personally i find neo-marxist philosophy especially intriguing and i think post-colonialism is very relevant in the social and political environment we live in today, but that's just me.

there are more philosophical movements out there gathering great momentum in different parts of the world than i could even begin to list off. you just gotta find the area which interests you the most.

 

[rewiiired]

Every philosopher adds another brick to the edifice of our society, until the day we finally have a decent looking house.

... or suffer the philosophical equivalent of a wrecking ball.

 

[knight_marshall]

i was just thinking, could the new seemingly lack of philosphical thinkers be blamed on the internet, and the fact that we can discuss any topic without fear of retribution? It makes us all more philosophical, and therefore we need those 'greats' less than we did in the past? Also, because thoughts are come up with in places like this forum, or university lecture halls even, they are considered to be not owned or attributable to any individual, but are rather a community thought.
hehe... thoughts?

 

[rewiiired]

I think there's still room for great thinkers. Its just that every great thinker has always stood on the shoulders of previous great thinkers, and... well, we've got so fucking many profound dead philosophers nowadays. I just think that nowadays, we have a lot more to chew on (not that most people aren't satisfied with mere reguritation, mind you), so its taking us longer to come up with truly origional ideas that push the threshold of thought.

 

[thursday]

if you know where to look, there isn't a lack of "philosphical thinkers" at all. if anything, the world of philosophy is growing much more rapidly than it ever has in history. this is due to the increased accessibility of education, and information. you just have to know where to look. if you only sit in internet forums like this and never pick up any books or academic journals, or don't look for philosophical discourse in your life then it might be easy for you to say that philosophy is dead, but it's all on you.

 

[sourlemone]

I guess, in a strictly literal sense, philosophy can never truly 'die' because (hopefully) humans will never lose their 'love for wisdom,' and want for progress (in a metaphysical sense). The quest for knowledge drives all of mankind. Sweeping generalizations, but hey

oh, and Beckett 'boring drivel' and the Theatre of the Absurd crap? all a matter of taste. I love absurdist drama. Beckett is one of the finest wordsmiths ever to have written in the English language, IMO

 

[ebola?]

RE: Thursday and logic

My apologies for the gross delay in this response. I have been out of town visiting UC Berkeley.

What I was arguing, in fact, is that logic is NOT a priori, nor is it universalizable (or "objective", if you'd like). In constructing (yes, constructing) a logical system, we choose axioms that may be otherwise, the foremost being excluded middle. We choose the axioms that we do firstly because they are congruent with our experience and may be metaphorically extended therefrom (e.g., logical classes are extentions of the use of containers, causation an extension of our ability to manipulate our surroundings), and secondly because the system built with the particular axioms we have chosen has proven useful. We are capable of thought, experience, and meaning outside of these logical systems, and we are thus on shakey ground to argue that they are inherent in the universe's fabric. My examples (of Xianity and Native American myth) were just those: examples. They directly demonstrate what I describe and are in no way anological. I dunno. I think my paper is becoming more pertinent to this discussion. I'll put it up when I'm on a computer that has it.

ebola

 

[thursday]

What I was arguing, in fact, is that logic is NOT a priori, nor is it universalizable (or "objective", if you'd like). In constructing (yes, constructing) a logical system, we choose axioms that may be otherwise, the foremost being excluded middle. We choose the axioms that we do firstly because they are congruent with our experience and may be metaphorically extended therefrom (e.g., logical classes are extentions of the use of containers, causation an extension of our ability to manipulate our surroundings), and secondly because the system built with the particular axioms we have chosen has proven useful.

logic is not a phenomenological observation. it's not something we construct either. we don't "choose" axioms, we discover them. perhaps you need to take a course on formal logic and learn where these axioms are actually derived. and i don't think you understand what "excluded middle" actuallly refers to. it doesn't mean what you think it means.

We are capable of thought, experience, and meaning outside of these logical systems, and we are thus on shakey ground to argue that they are inherent in the universe's fabric. My examples (of Xianity and Native American myth) were just those: examples. They directly demonstrate what I describe and are in no way anological.

yes, we are fully capable of being illogical, and we are capable of alogical expressions as well. that doesn't change the fact that logic and reason are inherent a priori truths. and i said that your analogies were alogical concepts. i didn't say they were "anological," i don't even think that is a word. you can't use alogical systems to demonstrate a point about logic, it's a false analogy and it shows poor reasoning skills--so stop doing it. read my previous post in respond to your last post again.

 

[yougene]

logic is not a phenomenological observation. it's not something we construct either. we don't "choose" axioms, we discover them.

What about spiritual experiences? They are also based on observations and experiences. Observations and experiences witnessed by many people time and time again.

Objective reality is just another subjective perspective. It's just easier to get everyone on the same page with it.

yes, we are fully capable of being illogical, and we are capable of alogical expressions as well. that doesn't change the fact that logic and reason are inherent a priori truths. and i said that your analogies were alogical concepts. i didn't say they were "anological," i don't even think that is a word. you can't use alogical systems to demonstrate a point about logic, it's a false analogy and it shows poor reasoning skills--so stop doing it. read my previous post in respond to your last post again.

Is it truly logical to believe that logic is the only way to discover truth if that is indeed what you are after? I don't think so.

 

[thursday]

What about spiritual experiences? They are also based on observations and experiences. Observations and experiences witnessed by many people time and time again.

uhhh... sure. and what does this have to do with anything i said?

Objective reality is just another subjective perspective. It's just easier to get everyone on the same page with it.

that statement is illogical by definition.

Is it truly logical to believe that logic is the only way to discover truth if that is indeed what you are after? I don't think so.

logic is always necessary in discerning truth from fallacy. so i think it's perfectly logical to say that reason is the only way to discover truth. i mean, how else do you know what to believe if you are presented with two conflicting ideas or pieces of information? if something just doesn't makese sense to you, are you still just going to accept it as true despite your rational intuitions? do you think it's wise to just assume things to be true even though there's no reason to believe so? if you aren't critical of information and ideas you recieve, then you'll be very vulnerable to accepting fallacy as knowledge.

but hey, "think" whatever you will. if you don't want to exercise reason, that's fine by me. just don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you tell them things and can't support it with a reasoned argument. just because you think so is not gonna cut it for most rational individuals.

 

[yougene]

uhhh... sure. and what does this have to do with anything i said?

Axioms are based on observations and experiences, that cannot be proven.

that statement is illogical by definition.

Objective - Having actual existence or reality.

Subjective - Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

There is no definitive logical reason why something subjective can have no actual existence or reality.

logic is always necessary in discerning truth from fallacy. so i think it's perfectly logical to say that reason is the only way to discover truth. i mean, how else do you know what to believe if you are presented with two conflicting ideas or pieces of information? if something just doesn't makese sense to you, are you still just going to accept it as true despite your rational intuitions? do you think it's wise to just assume things to be true even though there's no reason to believe so? if you aren't critical of information and ideas you recieve, then you'll be very vulnerable to accepting fallacy as knowledge.

Logic is a useful tool. I was talking about believing that logic is the only way to find truth. If truth is truly what you are after then you are only limiting yourself by confining yourself to such beliefs. In such a pursuit it isn't logical to be so overconfident in your beliefs as it can put you in a delusional state of closed mindedness.

 

[thursday]

Axioms are based on observations and experiences, that cannot be proven.

mathematical axioms are not based on physical observations or personal experiences, and what do spiritual experiences have to do with any of this?

Objective - Having actual existence or reality.

Subjective - Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

There is no definitive logical reason why something subjective can have no actual existence or reality.

Subjective:
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.

Objective:
1. Having actual existence or reality.
2. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
3. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

by definition objective reality is that part of reality which we all percieve the same independent of our personal dispositions, it's what we can all agree on. subjective experiences or "perspectives" cannot be objective because they are particular to a given person, they vary between individuals.

Logic is a useful tool. I was talking about believing that logic is the only way to find truth. If truth is truly what you are after then you are only limiting yourself by confining yourself to such beliefs. In such a pursuit it isn't logical to be so overconfident in your beliefs as it can put you in a delusional state of closed mindedness.

how does logic confine someone? how is exercising reason being overconfident in your beliefs? if anything, it prevents you from assuming subjective beliefs as true when they are unsupported by empirical evidence or logic. reason demands that you deliberately scrutinize and question anything before you accept it as true. reason also demands that you reconsider beliefs you formerly held as true if you are presented with a logical and valid counter argument.

how else would you derive truth? through revelations given to you by god? through mythos as people did before empirical science was invented? through arbitrary assumptions? by believing that which is irrational to believe in?