Another reason why philosophers are useless

[thenobes]

5.- Are philosophers useless because they are lovers of wisdom, or are they lovers of wisdom because they are useless ?

Lovers of wisdom try to produce models of reality which mimic reality closely. Different models of reality may handle different problems more efficiently.

I wouldn’t blame the philosopher unless he didn’t explain what problem he is trying to solve with his definition.

In other words, to a man with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Now a comprehensive view of reality may be possible, but may also be extremely impractical. Imagine a swiss army knife with 5000000 attachments.

So one shouldn’t let a salesman sell him a hammer when what he needs is a screwdriver. And yes, philosphers are salesmen.

But, again, what are these respective “philosophers” selling?

(To answer your question, not all usesless people are philosophers. It just looks that way )

peace
steve

 

[Markus61]

Exactly right, Charlemagne II.
Science itself, its very lifeblood, rests
on trying to knock over established convention.

Shoulders of giants and all that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

For the purposes of this thread this is irrelevant. Of course the concept of “compatibilist” free will is an oxymoron, but this is not what I was talking about (how can anything be “free” if it is predetermined?)

The question here is: “does the concept of free will incorporate the freedom to act on that will, or not?”.

Free will, if anything, is not a concept, but rather a “capacity.” This means that both views on free will might be true about different sets of human beings. Some humans may possess a libertarian form of free will, but others may only be capable of mustering a compatibilist form. Thus we may not have two contradictory concepts but two inherently different descriptions of how will works in particular human beings,

A philosopher capable of libertarian free will might actually and truthfully be describing how free will functions for them and a philosopher with a compatibilist view might be doing precisely the same thing. I see no contradiction as long as we don’t assume the same capacity for free will must be true equally in all humans. Personally, I see no reason for doing so. Addicts, for example, may even be less capable or even incapable of volition and therefore might be completely lacking free will altogether.

I think Jesus held this view that free will can be compromised in individuals when he claimed that anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but if the Son makes you free you are free indeed. (John 8:34)

 

[Innoruk]

1.- you stated that ‘philosophers are useless’ in your heading, which is your assertion.

The title of the thread is no always the precise topic, usually just a “teaser” or eye-catcher.

2.- it shouldn’t come as a surprise that philosophers disagree on the concept free will and if you read your Rahner you will discover a range of arguments to consider.

I am always surprised when people are unable to agree on simple definitions.

3.- Your little joke about ‘fries’ has no relevance to your post.

DUH!

4.- You commit a category error by confusing the subject with the practitioner.

When the practice is useless, its practitioners are “useless”. However, here is another little joke for you:

1. Those who know it, do it.
2. Those who are not able to do it, teach it.
3. Those who cannot do it and unable to teach it, manage it.
4. Those who can do none of the above - philosophize about it.

5.- Are philosophers useless because they are lovers of wisdom, or are they lovers of wisdom because they are useless ?

Who says that “loving wisdom” has anything to do with philosophy?

6.- I am writing this reply in point form because you have offered no argument to which to reply. Simple repetition of an assertion lends it no additional value.

Sure seems that you suffer from cognitive dissonance. I merely ASKED for your opinions, and did not present any arguments, which would need to be defended.

I am very interested in your answer to the problem of the free will argument, and how you come to your own conclusions without employing the tools of philosophy, if indeed you know what they are.

Not the topic of this thread. I refuse to entertain derail attempts.

7.- Quantum physics has established that the past and the future co-exist, which opens a very interesting problem for free will that I find fascinating.

First of all, maybe one interpretation of quantum physics does something like that, but there are several other interpretations. Second, the results of quantum physics are inapplicable in the macro world.

Now, if you are unwilling to offer your opinion, that is fine. No one can or should “force” you. But, then, what are doing in this thread?

 

[Innoruk]

Woudn’t it be a useful philosophical statement that philosophers are useless?

Simple observations about reality are not “philosophical statements”.

The fact that philosophers can contradict each other is not a proof that philosophy is useless, any more than the fact that scientists can disagree would prove that science is useless.

Ah, but actual scientist study REALITY, not simply contemplate their belly-button.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Who says that “loving wisdom” has anything to do with philosophy?

By definition:

The word “philosophy” comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which means “love of wisdom” (philo = love, sophia = wisdom)

 

[Innoruk]

Sounds more like one reason why philosophy is difficult.

It is not difficult at all. Most philosophers attempt to create their own terminology, to hide that fact that they have nothing to say about reality. The street urchin is the one, who dares to declare: “The emperor has no clothes!”.

Yet again, what does this have to do with the nature of free will?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Simple observations about reality are not “philosophical statements”.

Ah, but actual scientist study REALITY, not simply contemplate their belly-button.

No scientists study the natural, physical world. Whether that comprises all of or only a part of all reality is an open question that scientists cannot answer due to methodological restrictions. Metaphysics (a branch of philsophy) has to do with all reality.

Belly buttons are contained in the physical world, so belly buttons would be a branch of science, probably anatomy.

 

[Innoruk]

(To answer your question, not all usesless people are philosophers. It just looks that way )

Haha! Reminds me of the old saying: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds!”…

 

[Innoruk]

No (missing comma!) scientists study the natural, physical world. Whether that comprises all of or only a part of all reality is an open question that scientists cannot answer due to methodological restrictions. Metaphysics (a branch of philsophy) has to do with all reality.

And without a properly formed epistemology the alleged non-physical “reality” is empty “philosophizing”. Of course, epistemology is also simple, nothing to talk about.

Belly buttons are contained in the physical world, so belly buttons would be a branch of science, probably anatomy.

Except that philosophers do not “study” anything, they merely “contemplate” it.

Yet again, nothing to do with the topic. I wonder if there will ever be an answer to the presented topic. Seems unlikely.

 

[Gidge]

God gave us a brain and wants us to use it.

Philosophy is the handmaiden of Theology and is necessary to arrive at the Truth.

Whenever someone of a liberal bent tells me I’m judging them , I say, of course, how else am I to determine how to proceed ?

Philosophy is a means, not an end in itself, IMO.

 

[Innoruk]

Philosophy is the handmaiden of Theology and is necessary to arrive at the Truth.

As Luther said: “Reason must be made the handmaiden of Faith”, and also “Reason must be trampled underfoot”. Finally there is no such THING as “Truth”, there are innumerable true propositions.

Third page started, still no reply to the OP…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Simple observations about reality are not “philosophical statements”.

True this. However, as Aquinas points out:

We do not know a great many of the properties of sensible things, and in most cases we are not able to discover fully the natures of those properties that we apprehend by the sense. Much more is it the case, therefore, that the human reason is not equal to the task of investigating all the intelligible characteristics of that most excellent substance. (SCG Ch 1, 5)

So making simple “observations” about the properties of sensible things is the prerogative of science. Now assuming the universe is not merely sensible, but downright intelligible, then we must also assume that it has intelligible characteristics, the study of which is the endeavor of philosophy, not science.

Obviously, if human beings are confounded even by the sensible properties of nature and have devoted entire branches of science to their study, then it stands to reason that we are barely scratching the surface regarding the intelligible characteristics of the universe and reality in general. That does not argue for the uselessness of philosophy, unless you want to argue that making intelligent observations about the universe is a “useless” pursuit, but rather that we have spent entirely too much time and effort on gathering sensible data (the concern of the scientific method), but entirely too little on what that data could possibly entail (the concern of philosophy, in general.)

Furthermore, since the prerogative of science is sensible data and you want to argue for the uselessness of the intelligible characteristics of the universe, then you seem to be making a case that what is “useful” is only useful as it pertains to furthering the sensory aspects of human beings. Your case depends upon the assumption that the end of cosmic evolution is merely the development of human senses and appetites and not intelligence, at all. I.e., useful is defined as that which furthers the sensory or appetitive faculties of human beings and not the intellective faculties. Seeking to know is only useful as it pertains to fulfilling the appetitive or sensory nature of human beings and not an end in itself.

Ultimately the universe is, then, according to your philosophy, only there for the purpose of its utility towards satisfying the desires and appetites of human beings. How else would you define “useful” without reference to knowledge as an end in itself?

If knowledge is, indeed, an end in itself, then its utility cannot depend on its being “useful” towards some other end. Philosophy, then, as knowledge of reality, it would seem, need not be useful towards some other end precisely because it is an end in itself.

Given Aquinas’ distinction between the vegetative (plant), sensitive (animal) and rational (human) souls, you seem to be arguing that humans are not rational or intelligent beings at all, but merely possess sensitive souls, seeing as you are arguing for the priority of the senses and the uselessness of intelligence except as it is utile towards fulfilling animal rather than rational ends.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As Luther said: “Reason must be made the handmaiden of Faith”, and also “Reason must be trampled underfoot”. Finally there is no such THING as “Truth”, there are innumerable true propositions.

Third page started, still no reply to the OP…

Innocente? Have you been reincarnated or merely playing a joke?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Third page started, still no reply to the OP…

I gave my answer in post #23. You are making a category mistake. Free will is not a concept, but rather a capacity. There is no need to choose between the two “conceptions” of free will because both could describe how free will is operative within different individuals. In addition, the two are not exhaustive of how some form of will (free or otherwise) might obtain in other human beings.

It is you who have not replied to my post. (Another reason to think you are Innocente in under a new moniker.)

 

[Innoruk]

Given Aquinas’ distinction between the vegetative (plant), sensitive (animal) and rational (human) souls, you seem to be arguing that human are not rational or intelligent beings at all, but merely possess sensitive souls…

Nope, I am not arguing at all. **I merely asked a question, and so far received no answer. **Most emphatically not interested in some ill-defined and nebulous concept as “soul”, and not about some “teleological” concept for the universe.

Innocente? Have you been reincarnated or merely playing a joke?

Actually it would be an honor to be mistaken for him, since he is one of the very few posters, whose posts are always worthy to read. But, no, I am a separate entity.

I gave my answer in post #23. You are making a category mistake. Free will is not a concept, but rather a capacity. There is no need to choose between the two “conceptions” of free will because both could describe how free will is operative within different individuals. In addition, the two are not exhaustive of how some form of will (free or otherwise) might obtain in other human beings.

It is you who have not replied to my post. (Another reason to think you are Innocente in under a new moniker.)

Nonsense. What does the “capacity” describe? I am not interested in the “libertarian” vs. “compatibilist” views, since the “compatibilist view” is a contradiction. How many times am I supposed to point this out?

Does the “capacity” include the ability to act on one’s desires, or not? That is the question. A drug addict may very well have the freedom to buy that drug from pusher “A” or from pusher “B”, so in THAT respect his freedom to choose (and act) is undiminished. It is quite possible that the addict is too far “downhill” to resist the chemical urge, and MUST act on it. According to the #1 definition of free will, he does not have the freedom IN THAT RESPECT. According to definition #2, he can still wish not to buy the drug, but his urge is too strong to resist. Yet, according to those who subscribe to definition #2, he still have “free will”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nope, I am not arguing at all. **I merely asked a question, and so far received no answer. **Most emphatically not interested in some ill-defined and nebulous concept as “soul”, and not about some “teleological” concept for the universe.

The only question you asked in the opening post, specifically, was: What is your opinion?

You have received a number of opinions to answer your question. Now you claim no one answered your question. Are you saying no one gave you their opinion?

As far as I can tell, many did.

If you want to ask a more direct question, then do so, but don’t ask an open question and then complain that no one answered directly. Sounds like a game to moi.

Still think you are Innocente or, by the way you fawn over him, his mother or maybe a twin sibling.

 

[Gidge]

As Luther said: “Reason must be made the handmaiden of Faith”, and also “Reason must be trampled underfoot”. Finally there is no such THING as “Truth”, there are innumerable true propositions.

Third page started, still no reply to the OP…

Truth was capitalized in my post for a reason, just saying…

God is Truth.

 

[davidv]

As Luther said: “Reason must be made the handmaiden of Faith”, and also “Reason must be trampled underfoot”. Finally there is no such THING as “Truth”, there are innumerable true propositions.

Third page started, still no reply to the OP…

If there is no truth (I do not agree), then there is no rational answer to your question.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nonsense. What does the “capacity” describe? I am not interested in the “libertarian” vs. “compatibilist” views, since the “compatibilist view” is a contradiction. How many times am I supposed to point this out?

The capacity describes the potential of an agent to act free from external encumbrances and towards a self-determined end or goal.

The compatibilist view is not a contradiction, it merely describes a mitigated or compromised capacity of an agent to act.

Does the “capacity” include the ability to act on one’s desires, or not? That is the question.

It might, because free agency need not entail that an agent not act on desires. Acting on desires might be a choice freely made. In other words, the desires were not so compelling as to overwhelm the freedom of choice but were “considered” as part of a volitional choice. Just because someone acted on desires does not mean the desires compelled the action. To insist it does is actually an example of a logical fallacy - retrospective determinism.

A drug addict may very well have the freedom to buy that drug from pusher “A” or from pusher “B”, so in THAT respect his freedom to choose (and act) is undiminished.

So what is your point? You seem to be arguing for my proposition that free will is a capacity that can be mitigated to some extent or completely by addiction. I can present a further case of an addict who is even more addicted than your example and has no such choice because of an overwhelming desire to have the fix now.

It is quite possible that the addict is too far “downhill” to resist the chemical urge, and MUST act on it. According to the #1 definition of free will, he does not have the freedom IN THAT RESPECT. According to definition #2, he can still wish not to buy the drug, but his urge is too strong to resist. Yet, according to those who subscribe to definition #2, he still have “free will”.

I would argue he still has free will as a “potential” capacity that with appropriate treatment might over time restore the capacity, but the actual capacity is dormant. Just as a child who has not learned to ride a bike has the potential to do so, but at this point in time cannot actually exercise that capacity.

Those who subscribe to definition #2 may simply be describing an impaired version of free will that they themselves experience but are unwilling to admit to themselves that the capacity is debilitated. They may also sense that the capacity is not totally relinquished but some vestige remains and are attempting to retain that sense.