• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

What is the point of studying Western Philosphy?

I'm not honestly sure what people demand from philosophy and why people find it such an easy target. OK, lets get rid of it! It doesn't DO anything! Let's also get rid of music and art. They're USELESS too! Let's get rid of anthropology...who gives a shit about other cultures? USELESS. Let's just focus on making our plasma screen TVs sharper and make sure our interest rates are good. Then we'll have a good life.
 
lol, im really sorry i (or someone else ?) pissed oyu off in this thread, im not trying to hate on philosophers, i dont think they should all be exterminated im just joking around..... but you contradicted yousrelf, you said i seem like a stereotypical freshman then said is this just your take outside of academia, well which box am i really in?

p.s. i think philosophy as a career is fine, im glad universities still fund it, even though its useless, haha jk seriously, it is a more noble occupation than most... though i wouldn't really call it a "Job" (not to say I like jobs at all)
 
G to the P said:
ebola, you seem to think just because concepts remain internalized to philosophical circles, this is necessarily a bad thing. Consider that some of the concepts we are working with (especially the more metaphysically loaded ones) only we can understand because we are A) intelligent and B) have spent enough time working on them. We then go on to use those concepts (which very well may always remain internal to philosophical circles) to generate new conceptions and ideas that may externalize themselves at this point into other academic circles or into scientific circles. Or, they could remain internal yet still and remain as fodder for future generations to propel us onwards to a fuller understanding of the concepts we are using.

So, is it an immediate pay-off? No.

Is it worthless like some people seem to suggest because it doesn't have an immediate pay-off? No.
Click to expand...

I think that you may be taking to blunt a reading of me, particularly with that tricky adverb, "necessarily". ;) I don't think that occupational specialization in intellectual fields confers no benefits, but I DO think that there are greater benefits to be yielded through interdisciplinary collaboration, coupled with some sort of dialogue with 'the public'.

I speak mainly out of frustration at sociology's version of this problem.

ebola
 
Extreme reductionism in sociology seems particularly alienating, but it's a problem with every single field.

About reaching out to public. Don't sociologists run think-tanks?
 
Think-tanks typically reach out to governments, who then ignore whatever disagrees with their ideological predispositions and the recommendations of their own departments, who pump out what Marx would call 'bourgeois social science.'

Here in Australia the most publicly visible think tank is called the "Centre for Independent Studies" which is a right wing institution that basically just trots out predictable free-market constructions of whatever is in the news at the time, using sometimes intellectually dishonest arguments to make the same argument over and over again: that as long as you don't regulate anything, everyone will be better off.

The state doesn't listen to sociologists any more because it no longer needs them to legitimise its existence. When modernity was still young, intellectuals were very important to the legitimisation of new political forms and structures, and consequently were often heavily censored. Nowadays nobody gives a shit about us, and so we are allowed to say whatever we like because the state knows nobody is listening (including the state. This is Zygmut Bauman's thesis btw).

Social theory is constantly wrestling with the problems of politics and social change but the power to legitimately know the social world was basically handed over to economics (bourgeois social science par excellence) ages ago. Now with the financial crisis you see some basic sociological ideas coming back into public discourse but they're usually coming from economists who say them with a sort of sense of wonderment as though they've discovered something new and exciting. One of them will probably win a Nobel prize for discovering that rational individualism is not a good (or possible) basis for society.
 
Oh and another point (oh no, another point!?)

It probably doesn't matter a great deal that social theory's musings are not having any influence on 'real' politics.

Radical social change is not driven by intellectuals anyway, but by broad social movements with their origin outside the academy. These movements usually provide the academy with years of exciting things to muse over (this is part of where the postmodern preoccupation comes from) but these movements didn't come from people reading theory and saying "holy crap, Judith Butler is right, gendered performativity really is contingent on the discursive constructions of the historical moment! Subjectivity really does need to cite discourse and be performed, as well as recognised by the other in order to be intelligible! Cultural and structural forms really are mutually constituting! Quick, to the queer rights movement, where we will subvert the discourses constructing our gendered subjectivities and recreate our bodies in new and more liberated textual spaces!"

The project of social theory and sociology is different. We're not here to create politics, we're here to create knowledge about the social world. We acknowledge such knowledge is political, but it's about the social processes constituting our texts. Only idiots think their texts are really political weapons (except for those rare intellectuals who manage to write in ways that are true to the discipline and intelligible to people outside it, which are rare and for good reason, because doing this is really, really difficult)
 
*Disclaimer - all things stated are most likely an opinion, and if they are fact and you don't realize that but still want to [argue/debate - I see this as a tool for learning, not something hostile, hopefully we can overcome such petty things if we disagree and reach constructive conclusions, even if its in agreeing we disagree, just respect enough to state your point, answer/justify/point out logical fallacies, and perhaps reconstruct our perspectives if they were portrayed incorrectly. I don't mind being wrong or being told I'm wrong, it simply makes me think of better ways to be right in the future]

The point of studying any philosophy...well I'll break this down into the most basic reductionist views. Occams razor is comin for ya'll :P
The point is a subjective one, and it pretty much always will be if we are speaking about individuals. What it means to you, how it affects your thoughts and views about life.
With that being said, even if a philosophy is completely against everything you believe in or you disagree with a large portion of its foundation, if it is able to hold itself up well enough to become a philosophy which is studied, then chances are that its structure alone is [or may be] worth giving a look at. Whether you learn positive things that you agree with and expand you're thought processes and perspectives or you sit and see how the processes of thought that many others follow or used to follow work and are at first completely baffled how someone could swallow so much horse shit, you are learning. By understanding the structures and scaffolding of a philosophy, the basic principles and ways in which it applies to various facets of life, you allow yourself both to possibly understand more about how/why others believe some outrageous pseudo-scientific fanatical things, and you can compare and contrast you're own beliefs and thoughts to the others and perhaps see the points in theirs that you view as weak and then question your own as well, and the same goes for the parts of others beliefs that are backed solely by subjectivism and faulty logic, if you can recognize it within another, you can become a better self editor as well. By understanding the way others perceive the world, even if its an extreme view that you disagree with, if you take the time to try to recognize the foundation for these thoughts perhaps you will have both the ability to communicate better and help the other person understand where you stand without attacking their positions, or lessen your intolerance for those you disagree with (lest they impose their values upon you and criticize yours, which in the end they only offend themselves by showing they can't appreciate their own values enough to have them as their own, they are offended that others don't agree, they let someone else evoke feelings within them and control them enough to become an offender of their own dignity by doing so :P)

If you disagree with something or have strong convictions in your own beliefs, it doesn't seem like it would hurt to know thy "enemy". If there are people or philosophies that criticize or contradict what you think, you can study them and find either where they lose objectivity and have flaws, see where they point out weaknesses in your beliefs and perhaps revise or at least question your own beliefs enough to either re affirm them, realize there are stronger or different ways to still keep that belief that are not subject to the enemies attacks, or perhaps change some aspects of what you think, adapt, evolve.

The point is to learn ;)
 
ControlDenied said:
p.s. i think philosophy as a career is fine, im glad universities still fund it, even though its useless, haha jk seriously, it is a more noble occupation than most... though i wouldn't really call it a "Job" (not to say I like jobs at all)
Click to expand...
well sorry maybe I'm being a little emotional about it. Just read your words again though. You called my future useless. :\
 
yougene said:
Extreme reductionism in sociology seems particularly alienating, but it's a problem with every single field.

About reaching out to public. Don't sociologists run think-tanks?
Click to expand...

Yougene (whats up btw I'm in atl too!)

I don't know what reduction is anymore. A colleague of mine were discussing this a few days ago. All the traditional formulations of reduction are really incoherent once you start analyzing them. Nobody reduces anything. There are some neat linguistic entities that can be reduced to a series of statements in another discipline's vocabulary, but they are very rare for the most part, anomalies.

I was actually contemplating writing a paper where I line up each of the different formulations of reduction (I can think of four off the top of my head) and then knock them down for technical reasons as logically incoherent. I just like that style though! Doing that right now with the concept of impartiality in the history of its use.

Its a philosophical mistake to have committed so much time to analyzing this concept. Or, rather, its not a complete mistake since it ruled out some useless concepts.
 
Gaian Planes said:
Yougene (whats up btw I'm in atl too!)

I don't know what reduction is anymore. A colleague of mine were discussing this a few days ago. All the traditional formulations of reduction are really incoherent once you start analyzing them. Nobody reduces anything. There are some neat linguistic entities that can be reduced to a series of statements in another discipline's vocabulary, but they are very rare for the most part, anomalies.

I was actually contemplating writing a paper where I line up each of the different formulations of reduction (I can think of four off the top of my head) and then knock them down for technical reasons as logically incoherent. I just like that style though! Doing that right now with the concept of impartiality in the history of its use.

Its a philosophical mistake to have committed so much time to analyzing this concept. Or, rather, its not a complete mistake since it ruled out some useless concepts.
Click to expand...

Once again, opinion here.

Are you saying reductionism as a philosophy is useless. I agree if you are speaking absolutes, although I don't really agree with most absolutes :P

I'd consider reductionism more-so a tool or an integrated part to some philosophies.

Kinda like having a control, experimental control, and a variable.

Reductionism as a philosophy, and I'm sorry if I misread what you said and this is irrelevant, but as a philosophy it sounds kinda like a hybrid of Reductionism and Skepticism, which pretty much leads to the fundamentals of Nihilism in the end.

I wouldn't disagree with skepticism and reductionism, but I don't see them as progressive, for me, they are tools to hack away all the useless clutter and find the core of something and decide whether its something you agree with or find logical, really whatever you make of it but it removes distractions and fallacies. Skepticism and reductionism and nihilism will always stand somewhat true in the sense that there are usually no absolutes except a paradox, which in this case, all of those mentioned above are more so reactions to things people put forth. They take no step forward to assert ANYTHING, the just kinda deconstruct, I consider them all to be necessary elements in philosophy, but as philosophical constructs on their own, they seem more like they are the antithesis of what philosophy is. Just a half of a puzzle, they illuminate whats false. Whether they are true or not, they are a symptom, not a cause.
 
I have no idea what 'reduction as philosophy' means. I am speaking of the possibility to reduce one term to another (terms that cut across disciplinary boundaries). This is the concept I speak of as incoherent.

It has been formulated in many different ways. For instance, Nagel has famously formulated the concept as requiring 'bridge laws' (intertheoretic conversions of one set of laws in one discipline to another set of laws in a 'lower' more 'fundamental' discipline) that connect the two terms together (and allow the reduction). This is incoherent. It does not happen. Ever. Give me one example where a reduction/elimination has occurred in the sciences if you think otherwise.
 
I wasn't trying to argue with you, I was actually just asking if you were saying that reduction was a form of philosophy, which I was a bit confused about, which is why I pre-apologized if I had misread what you stated. Although it did end up having the effect I was looking for, clarity, so thank you. I agree with you that the hypothetical concept I was asking about doesn't make much sense, which is why I was asking if that is actually what you meant. I don't really go to the philosophy boards to argue, if it seemed I was, I am asking questions and trying to understand others perspectives, I'm not always the greatest at communication so I guess I might've come off as rude?
 
no, I did not take you to be arguing with me. I'm used to explaining philosophical concepts to people. I get paid to do that at least. Its actually why I rarely visit this part of Bluelight. Its way too close to 'work' for me.

Its all good :D
 
Ahh, well I'm glad everythings good :) I am interested in biopsychology, so I get very analytical of things and can tend to be nitpicky, but I realize that is a fault of mine, because I find myself focusing on certain details while losing sight of the entire concept. I am better at holistic thought than linear, if I know the platform then I can take out the microscope and delve deeper into a subject, but if its vague or unknown, I can end up missing a point or looking too much into the wrong parts of things.

If you don't mind my asking, what are your thoughts on Nietzsche's work, particularly Thus Spake Zarathustra. I find this one to be one of his most intriguing writings mostly because it builds upon the previous topics of Nihilism and "God is dead". I think he was a great writer with some very interesting things to say and I do like his work, however over time it can become a bit redundant, the gloomy monotonous rhetoric just gets to me..
I liked that with Zarathustra and the Ubermensch he seemed to step away from the focusing solely on how everything can lose meaning and wrote about something that used that as a tool to create its own meaning, a character that is constantly overcoming himself.
 
>Satricion
Alot of think-tanks are in the business of explicit promotion of ideas to political bodies. But others also disseminate their ideas in an implicit manner. Engineering the fabric of cultural context. I find this fascinating.


Gaian Planes said:
Yougene (whats up btw I'm in atl too!)
Click to expand...
Ahh, what's up neighbor.

Reductionism is interpreting the world through one frame of analysis to the point of disregarding other frames or claiming they are derivative. Scientists reduce everything to particles, Sociologists reduce to emergent properties of systems, Economists reduce to emergent properties of the market and so on.
 
No, I think that is an honest misapplication of the reduction concept.

In order to reduce something you start with a set of statements (laws) or facts in one discipline and you end with a set of statements (laws)/facts in another discipline. IE, take the statements of biology and explain them in terms of physics.

I'm saying it very well is an incoherent concept. Its not possible in principle even to do this.

I think of the disciplines as being autonomous perspectives or 'spheres of analysis'. It does not make sense to attempt to bridge many disciplines together. There is interplay between disciplines, but that is very far from there being reduction!
 
I'm not sure where your disagreement stems from I think our interpretations are the same.

Reductionism is where one frame of analysis is taken to be ontologically primary and all other frames are taken to be secondary( derivative ) to this frame. So biology could be considered derivative from physics as you stated, social phenomenon could be taken as derivative from economics( and vice versa ), and so on.



I think of the disciplines as being autonomous perspectives or 'spheres of analysis'. It does not make sense to attempt to bridge many disciplines together. There is interplay between disciplines, but that is very far from there being reduction!
Click to expand...
I think of them as autonomous perspectives as well, but I think it makes sense to bridge them. Obviously all these perspectives connect in some coherent way. Typically the explanation of this unity is attempted through reduction of all perspectives into one perspective. I think it's the wrong way to go and I also think it is common. It's becoming less of a problem these days, but it's still a pressing issue. Not only in the pursuit of truth, but also in solving the fragmentation of power structures.
 
Ah, I see we are nearly on the same page.

why do you say 'obviously all these perspective connect in some coherent way' -

that is PRECISELY the point that I refuse to accept without some proof.

Show me the reduction!

Show me the reduction from 'property of exhibiting fear withdrawal behavior' (ecological perspective) to 'property of receptor XYZ binding' (neurobiology).

It WILL NOT happen I suggest to you. Look at what you are trying to reduce in the above example: a relational environmental context to internal brain states. They truly are totally different perspectives on reality...they do not meaningfully entail one or the other.
 
Gaian Planes said:
why do you say 'obviously all these perspective connect in some coherent way' -
Click to expand...
Because there isn't a separate social world, physical world, and phenomenological world. If there is validity to a model then there should be points of intersection with other models.

that is PRECISELY the point that I refuse to accept without some proof.

Show me the reduction!
Click to expand...
I think you think I'm making a case for reduction. I'm not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top