Another reason why philosophers are useless

[inocente]

inocente

**When did religion become an academic discipline? **

When Jesus began to teach his followers.

It seems you have no answer, since you continue to dodge the question of why religious knowledge should not be as useless as philosophical knowledge by your own standard.

I’m not trying to dodge anything, I didn’t realized you were quite so confused.

First, your attempt to conflate philosophy with religion. Philosophy is concerned entirely with rational argument, while religion may include (handy list from Wikipedia) "rituals, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture”.

So it’s a category error to confuse a way of life pervading culture and world-view with a dry academic discipline.

Second, my argument has been that philosophers disagree at every opportunity, and there is no common ground whatsoever between them which could be objectively called truth.

But that is not at all the case with religion. There is common ground between all major religions. Unlike the growing tower of babbling falsehoods from philosophers, religions have found common truths.

Even though sectarian bigots may not acknowledge the truths in other religions, the rest of us do, and by us I mean including the Church:

“Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” - vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Also, e.g.:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1969/august/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19690801_comunita-islamiche_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20130502_festivita-buddista_en.html

 

[tonyrey]

As for free will, I would suggest that it can be argued that we do not have free will. Certainly we can intend our actions–but, we have no control over what we intend. A German philosopher (Schopenhauer) said it in an interesting way: Der Mensch kann tun was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will; or, in English there are various translations, but, the ones I like are “Man can do what he wills but he cannot choose what he wills” and “Man can do what he wants but he cannot intend what he wants” and “We can do what we wish, but we cannot determine our wishes”.

If we cannot choose what to think there is no guarantee that any conclusions about free will - or reality - are correct.

 

[tonyrey]

Those who reject the value of philosophy are destroying their conclusions about philosophy - or anything else - because they are destroying the foundations of rational thought (imagining it exists in a vacuum!). In other words they are conjuring up something from nothing…:takeoff:

 

[inocente]

WmJackP;11077223:

Whether philosophers are useless or not is a point that can be argued persuasively either way. Certainly, it is not a practical or pragmatic enterprise, but, it is intellectually stimulating and philosophical discussion can lead to practical and productive ends.

As for free will, I would suggest that it can be argued that we do not have free will. Certainly we can intend our actions–but, we have no control over what we intend. A German philosopher (Schopenhauer) said it in an interesting way: Der Mensch kann tun was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will; or, in English there are various translations, but, the ones I like are “Man can do what he wills but he cannot choose what he wills” and “Man can do what he wants but he cannot intend what he wants” and “We can do what we wish, but we cannot determine our wishes”.

If we cannot choose what to think there is no guarantee that any conclusions about free will - or reality - are correct.

Those who reject the value of philosophy are destroying their conclusions about philosophy - or anything else - because they are destroying the foundations of rational thought (imagining it exists in a vacuum!). In other words they are conjuring up something from nothing…:takeoff:

So as you reject the value of Schopenhauer’s philosophy, didn’t you just, in your own words, destroy the foundations of rational thought?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

You cite the following quote:

**“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” **

Yes, that is a logical position to take. Despite the diversity of the world’s religions, there is something in each of them that will “often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”
This very quote, which you appear to cite with approval, you should adopt with respect to the usefulness of philosophy. Namely, that philosophy will “often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”

 

[1AugustSon7]

Agreed. Once you doubt everything then you are certain in your doubt, while science works in exactly the way you describe.

This is false.

Do you seriously believe it is most well known and certain that if I, e.g., flick a little ball that it will continue in that direction and at a constant rate of speed for ever and ever ? Modern science deals in idealizations (“point-matter” and like nonsense) and hypotheses. Reason is needed to keep science grounded and in check. Scientists don’t convince anyone of anything without resorting to some sort of logical reasoning or some attempt at it. Logic is more pimary and basic than science: without it you can’t and won’t finally make sense and can belive all sorts of stupid things.

And when an inner voice says you can fly like Superman from the 63rd floor, it’s a good idea to doubt you can. And when some guy says he can double your $10,000 in two days, it’s a good idea to doubt.

So you think believing in God is like believing in a voice in your head that suggests Superman will rescue you if you pointlessly leap from the 63rd floor?

Who said doubt everything? That’s another useless philosophy from another useless philosopher.

Philosophy is not useless. Some people just don’t have the intelligence or patience for it.

 

[WmJackP]

If we cannot choose what to think there is no guarantee that any conclusions about free will - or reality - are correct.

Unlike some other disciplines, science lacks the arrogance to provide warranties with its theories.Scientific theory is held only tentatively, and, is always subject to change, modification or even abandonment as new data are recovered and assessed. That that are no guarantees concerning any aspect of existence is not, in my judgment, mind boggling?

 

[inocente]

inocente

You cite the following quote:

**“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” **

Yes, that is a logical position to take. Despite the diversity of the world’s religions, there is something in each of them that will “often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”
This very quote, which you appear to cite with approval, you should adopt with respect to the usefulness of philosophy. Namely, that philosophy will “often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”

Yikes! Do you think the Church is saying that atheism, nihilism and Marxism “reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men”? Yikes, you’ll have to explain that line of thought.

I’m fairly certain “you shall have no other gods before me” means we shouldn’t idolize philosophers, scientists, boy bands or anything else, but maybe that’s just me.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Unlike some other disciplines, science lacks the arrogance to provide warranties with its theories.Scientific theory is held only tentatively, and, is always subject to change, modification or even abandonment as new data are recovered and assessed. That that are no guarantees concerning any aspect of existence is not, in my judgment, mind boggling?

Perhaps this is true, but there are many, and some of them even scientists, who are convinced that science is the master key. So while no warranties are made about what will be found behind each locked door, there are implicit and often explicit claims (you would say warranties) about the fact that science will inevitably open every door.

The warranty may not be on the theories, but definitely there, for many, with regards to the method.

While I have no issues with such a claim regarding physical reality, it is troubling when that presumption is extended to include all reality, by default. Such a claim is the equivalent of a pretense, not just to “play” the role of a god in the realm of reality, but to have the means in hand to “be” God.

Implicit in the scientific method is a kind of “license” to go to the next step. There is no internal governor built into the method that asks whether that step “ought” to be taken. That kind of “governance” must come from an external source precisely because there is no possible internal one possible.

 

[inocente]

This is false.

Do you seriously believe it is most well known and certain that if I, e.g., flick a little ball that it will continue in that direction and at a constant rate of speed for ever and ever ? Modern science deals in idealizations (“point-matter” and like nonsense) and hypotheses. Reason is needed to keep science grounded and in check. Scientists don’t convince anyone of anything without resorting to some sort of logical reasoning or some attempt at it. Logic is more pimary and basic than science: without it you can’t and won’t finally make sense and can belive all sorts of stupid things.

Don’t understand. Seriously you lost me.

*So you think believing in God is like believing in a voice in your head that suggests Superman will rescue you if you pointlessly leap from the 63rd floor? *

Again, sorry but it’s late afternoon on a hot day, the bee-eaters are chattering with each other, and you lost me.

*Philosophy is not useless. Some people just don’t have the intelligence or patience for it.
*

Oh right, with you now, it’s another hot day and you’re on a short fuse. Couple of cartoons might help us both.

Nihilism: xkcd.com/167/

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Philosophy: xkcd.com/220

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/philosophy.png/

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yikes! Do you think the Church is saying that atheism, nihilism and Marxism “reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men”? Yikes, you’ll have to explain that line of thought.

I’m fairly certain “you shall have no other gods before me” means we shouldn’t idolize philosophers, scientists, boy bands or anything else, but maybe that’s just me.

Atheists have “no other gods,” so they are obeying - except for the “other” part - that commandment.

I am not clear how respecting the work of philosophers, scientists or boy bands is idolizing them. If you cannot distinguish between the role that God plays in reality and the roles of these other creatures, so that you easily confuse what they do, then the problem would seem to be yours.

Philosophers try to understand the truth. They do not create it. Scientists try to understand the physical world. They do not create it. Boy bands… Well, as with mosquitoes, I am not sure what their purpose is, but it certainly does not impinge in the least on God’s role as Creator and Sustainer of the universe.

I submit that you have a rather feeble notion of God, if your God is susceptible to being confused with scientists, philosophers or boy bands.

 

[WmJackP]

Perhaps this is true, but there are many, and some of them even scientists, who are convinced that science is the master key. So while no warranties are made about what will be found behind each locked door, there are implicit and often explicit claims (you would say warranties) about the fact that science will inevitably open every door.

Rationality is the “master key” because there is no escaping it. We are rational. Even if you argue that faith is a means of accessing truth, you necessarily use rational argument to make your point. You employed rational argument as recently as your last post. Hence, rational methodology is a given. It is necessary. It is inescapable.

All science is, is the extension of rational methodology to the investigation of phenomena. Hence, it is, in the sense of all we have to know reality, the one and only “master key”.

So, if you want to argue or make a case for something other than rationality as a “master key” then you have to consider that you only have the tools of your rational intellect to utilize. You and I, and, all of us are like fish in a fishbowl. We can see reality only through the lens we have. If reality is different than the concave images a fish sees while in its bowl, we can never know it, because we are hostage to our rational natures. Read Kant if you have the patience to do so. He makes the most brilliant observations of any philosopher I have even encountered altho he is extremely obtuse. Someone once said of Kant that he writes with the authority of Jehovah–but without the illumination of the lightening bolts.

 

[Innoruk]

We’re discussing the problem of evil.

Actually it was only a side-issue. I was hoping to see your (name removed by moderator)ut to post #241, about the question of “whether faith is needed to trust the (name removed by moderator)ut of one’s senses”, which is a much more interesting problem - and rarely, if ever discussed.

You can’t make an argument by indirect proof (like the argument from evil) about the inconsistency of religion by choosing which doctrines of the religion you accept. What you would have to show is that Christianity and problem of evil necessitate a contradiction.

It is not that simple. First, there is a need to have a common definition of what “evil” might be. I gave a rational argument against the simplistic definition of “evil is a privation of good”. You only answered that it is different from the “usual, christian definition”. Since that definition would include that a “hurricane is evil”, or a “cat playing with a mouse is evil”, I see no point in arguing against such an incorrect “definition”. If you say that this approach is a “weaker form” of Christianity, and thus it is a “straw-man”, then there is nothing to talk about.

Once a proper definition is reached, then we need to examine if that definition will lead to an internal inconsistency within Christianity. (That would necessitate further discussion of “good”, “loving”, “caring”… etc. Here the fundamental problem is that believers wish to use these categories inconsistently when they apply them to humans, and to God.) Even if there is no internal inconsistency, there is still a problem if the corollaries of that definition are at odds with the actual, observable reality.

I suggest you read this simple summary of all the defenses for the problem of evil: The tale of the 12 officers. These are the only “defenses” ever to be presented (there is nothing new under the sun)

 

[tonyrey]

Unlike some other disciplines, science lacks the arrogance to provide warranties with its theories.Scientific theory is held only tentatively, and, is always subject to change, modification or even abandonment as new data are recovered and assessed. That that are no guarantees concerning any aspect of existence is not, in my judgment, mind boggling?

Your judgment is not worth considering if you cannot choose what to think because it is a merely a product of mindless processes…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Yikes! Do you think the Church is saying that atheism, nihilism and Marxism “reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men”? Yikes, you’ll have to explain that line of thought.**

The only line of thought I need to explain, and you need to understand, is that the Church has never rendered a wholesale condemnation of philosophy as useless, which is certainly your position.

 

[WmJackP]

Your judgment is not worth considering if you cannot choose what to think because it is a merely a product of mindless processes…

But one does seem to think that his/her judgment is worth considering—and, perhaps, it is the case that those “mindless processes” (as you call them) facilitate that perception.

Choice is not intention. While one can choose actions, he/she cannot consciously (or deliberately) form an intention as intention arises from physiological and neural functions independent of choice which is a conscious act.

 

[inocente]

The only line of thought I need to explain, and you need to understand, is that the Church has never rendered a wholesale condemnation of philosophy as useless, which is certainly your position.

Your explanation may need a bit more work, as can be seen by making a substitution.

Since the Church has also never rendered a wholesale condemnation of boy bands as useless, are we to conclude that philosophers are as useful as boy bands?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Since the Church has also never rendered a wholesale condemnation of boy bands as useless, are we to conclude that philosophers are as useful as boy bands? **

The analogy is not valid!

The Church has gone out of its way validate philosophy as a legitimate tool of theology. It has never validated boy bands as tools of theology.

If you keep coming up with weird analogies, this thread is going to die pretty fast.

Is that your plan?

 

[Portofino]

They are unable to come up with a coherent definition of “free will”.

Definition #1:
Some will assert that in order to have free will, one needs the following:

1. at least two different courses of action - where both of them would lead to a desired (willed) outcome for the agent
2. the locus of decision (which one to choose) must be with the agent
3. the agent can execute either action

Definition #2:
Others dispute this. They say that it is enough to be able to “will, wish, desire” to execute a certain action, but it is not necessary that one should be free to actually carry out that action. These people wish to separate “free will” and “freedom of action”. In their opinion the internal freedom of “wishing to do something” is a sufficient criterion of “free will”.

What is your opinion? I suggest to give an example why you prefer definition #1 or definition #2 (as the case may be).

I am reminded only of Voltaire’s observation that, “we can do as we will, but not will as we will.” He equated “freedom of the will” with the “freedom to act.” This definition by Voltaire – which is the one I think is the most empirically cogent, the most pragmatic – seems to be a third way to conceive of free will, other than the two examples you gave.

Voltaire – probably influenced by Locke and the British empiricists – did not believe that metaphysical questions such as “is there free will” could be answered. What interested him was a more pragmatic, even political conception of free will. Thus, if I’m in a room and a door is locked from the outside, I am not free to leave. However, if I’m in a room and the door unlocked, then I am free to leave.

Voltaire did not believe it was answerable as to whether my desire to leave was something I “chose” to have, or rather something that had an antecedent cause (even an innate desire for “freedom” can, of course, be pre-determined!) If anything, he believed that there must be an antecedent cause, and if “I” am the cause of my actions then, in turn, something must be the cause of “I.”

It was just yesterday that I read of a French philosopher – Michel Onfray – who was criticizing French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre for, as it were, being the opposite of Voltaire – “freedom” for Sartre was something ontological, in the nature of things, and always existed, regardless of external circumstances. This led him, at times, to an utter indifference towards a political or more pragmatic definition of freedom as when he infamously said, “we were never as free, as when we lived under the Occupation.” For him, even someone in custody – in chains, and thrown into prison – is still free.

But I’m not sure you really mean to say that all of philosophy is useless… You may be saying that metaphysics – a branch of philosophy – is useless (and someone like David Hume, or Voltaire, would have agreed with you, though Voltaire still believed that grappling with fundamental metaphysical questions was an inescapable part of the human experience). Presumably, logic, aesthetics, epistemology, and ethics – all of which are branches of philosophy – are not useless, at least in the sense of "not having any practical use or application. Another thing I think philosophy excels at is in fine-tuning logical consistency, in exposing internal contradictions or paradoxes within certain systems of belief. Most “thinking individuals” can do this, to some extent, but I find that those who have devoted themselves to the formal study of philosophy tend to do so more systematically (just as someone like Socrates could find minute fissures, internal problems and inconsistencies in arguments that common sense would say was entirely straightforward and unproblematic; philosophy “looks closer”).

The best introductory book I know of on the subject is Bertrand Russell’s “The Problems of Philosophy”… And Russell was no slouch in mathematics, logic, and the sciences

gutenberg.org/files/5827/5827-h/5827-h.htm

 

[Innoruk]

I am reminded only of Voltaire’s observation that, “we can do as we will, but not will as we will.” He equated “freedom of the will” with the “freedom to act.” This definition by Voltaire – which is the one I think is the most empirically cogent, the most pragmatic – seems to be a third way to conceive of free will, other than the two examples you gave.

Voltaire – probably influenced by Locke and the British empiricists – did not believe that metaphysical questions such as “is there free will” could be answered. What interested him was a more pragmatic, even political conception of free will. Thus, if I’m in a room and a door is locked from the outside, I am not free to leave. However, if I’m in a room and the door unlocked, then I am free to leave.

Voltaire did not believe it was answerable as to whether my desire to leave was something I “chose” to have, or rather something that had an antecedent cause (even an innate desire for “freedom” can, of course, be pre-determined!) If anything, he believed that there must be an antecedent cause, and if “I” am the cause of my actions then, in turn, something must be the cause of “I.”

Excellent post (as usual ). Indeed, we cannot volitionally influence (“will”) a whole lot of our functions - our desires are but one example. Let’s remember that most of our mind functions in the “white cells”, in the subconscious. We cannot “will” what to believe either, no matter how many times some people assert that our beliefs are under volitional control. Of course many times we can override our instinctual desires, and want to take a different option - if there is one.

It was just yesterday that I read of a French philosopher – Michel Onfray – who was criticizing French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre for, as it were, being the opposite of Voltaire – “freedom” for Sartre was something ontological, in the nature of things, and always existed, regardless of external circumstances. This led him, at times, to an utter indifference towards a political or more pragmatic definition of freedom as when he infamously said, “we were never as free, as when we lived under the Occupation.” For him, even someone in custody – in chains, and thrown into prison – is still free.

It was many years ago that I had a conversation with a believer about the “free will defense”. He said (like so many others) that God respects the free will, because it is so very important. So I asked him, why does God always “respect” the free will of a strong rapist, and never the free will of the weak victim. And his answer was: “the free will of the victim is not impaired, only the acting upon that will is limited”. And then he continued: “she always has other options…”. Presumably she always has the option to lay back and “enjoy” the experience… I have never seen such a heartless and cruel point of view. And when I pointed out that if the ability to carry out one’s will is not important, then God could interfere and prevent the action itself, without infringing upon the perpetrator’s “free will”. Needless to say, I am still waiting for an answer.

But I’m not sure you really mean to say that all of philosophy is useless… You may be saying that metaphysics – a branch of philosophy – is useless (and someone like David Hume, or Voltaire, would have agreed with you, though Voltaire still believed that grappling with fundamental metaphysical questions was an inescapable part of the human experience). Presumably, logic, aesthetics, epistemology, and ethics – all of which are branches of philosophy – are not useless, at least in the sense of "not having any practical use or application. Another thing I think philosophy excels at is in fine-tuning logical consistency, in exposing internal contradictions or paradoxes within certain systems of belief. Most “thinking individuals” can do this, to some extent, but I find that those who have devoted themselves to the formal study of philosophy tend to do so more systematically (just as someone like Socrates could find minute fissures, internal problems and inconsistencies in arguments that common sense would say was entirely straightforward and unproblematic; philosophy “looks closer”).

The best introductory book I know of on the subject is Bertrand Russell’s “The Problems of Philosophy”… And Russell was no slouch in mathematics, logic, and the sciences

gutenberg.org/files/5827/5827-h/5827-h.htm

And again, you are correct. I just like to “poke” the hornet’s nest with the titles I choose. Metaphysics has been replaced with real physics (and chemistry, and biology…). It was the product of the ages of ignorance. Epistemology is also “closed” in a sense. We learn about the external world by the one and only method there is. And, of course, it is a fun endeavor to exercise one’s brain (like playing chess, for example). Yet, we should remember that the philosophers always came out of the well-fed segment of the population. who did not have to worry where their next meal will come from.