Another reason why philosophers are useless

[Charlemagne_II]

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

I also think he is inocente without the Baptist label. Only inocente is so rabidly against philosophy.

By the way, if he is not inocente, why hasn’t inocente shown up?

And why does Innoruk not designate his religious identity, if he even has one?

 

[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.

If you are claiming that, then you are either claiming God as Christ does not exist (Recall: “I am the Truth.”) or that Christ was either a liar or mistaken about that claim. Pick your poison!

 

[Innoruk]

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.

That is not the way the cookie crumbles.

It was many years ago that I had a conversation with someone about the so-called “free will defense”. He asserted that God “respects” the free will of humans, and that is why he does not interfere in “evil” acts. So I asked him, why does God always “respect” the free will of a** strong rapist **and NOT the free will of the weak victim? I could hardly believe my eyes at the reply.

He actually said that the “free will” of victim is in no way impaired, since she is perfectly free to “will, wish, desire” not to be raped, she is “merely” incapacitated in carrying out her will. The poster explicitly said that “free will” and “freedom to act” are two completely different things.

I have seen the same kind of “reasoning” several times. Needless to say, I had a follow-up question. I asked, why does God not interfere with the action of the rapist (for example by sending a police patrol), since that interference would not “impair” the desire of the rapist, merely take away his freedom to carry out his act. If - as the person said - the only thing that matters is the internal freedom to desire something, then the “free will” of the rapist would stay intact, only his ability to act on it would be taken away.

Even more needless to say, there was no reply.

 

[Innoruk]

If you are claiming that, then you are either claiming God as Christ does not exist (Recall: “I am the Truth.”) or that Christ was either a liar or mistaken about that claim. Pick your poison!

Ah, the usual “liar, lunatic or lord”… I choose the fourth one: LEGEND!

 

[Innoruk]

And why does Innoruk not designate his religious identity, if he even has one?

Because it is none of your business. But rest assured, I am not a baptist. Still, I give credit, where credit is due.

Another cute story comes to mind.

A famous actor was invited for dinner, and he praised the wonderful main course which was served. The woman asked him, if he was really satisfied or did he give praise out of politeness. He answered: “I was totally honest. If I had not been satisfied, I would not have said anything…”. And after a short pause he added: “Did I say anything about the soup??”…

I do not say a word about 95% of the posters… can you guess, why?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ah, the usual “liar, lunatic or lord”… I choose the fourth one: LEGEND!

So, you are not a “so called traditional Catholic,” then?

The question then becomes, “Does that mean you cannot really be a Baptist either?”

What is the truth about that?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Because it is none of your business. But rest assured, I am not a baptist.

Apparently, not a Baptist, either.

Not that claiming to be Baptist while not actually being one (or for that matter being a nominal one while claiming not to be) would matter to someone who didn’t think the truth was important or didn’t exist.

 

[polytropos]

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!”.

Philosophers create their own terminology to say what they are trying to say. Anyone who studies philosophy knows that he has to pay attention to what terminology the philosopher sets up.

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

Well, that’s part of the problem. Your thread title is “Another reason why philosophers are useless” but the OP is about two definitions of free will. Perhaps it would be easier to keep the thread on topic if it had 1 topic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Finally there is no such THING as “Truth”, there are innumerable true propositions.

Interesting claim. How could we distinguish even one true proposition (let alone the innumerable ones) from a false one if there is no gauge (Truth or truth, if you prefer) by which to determine that?

It would seem a great waste of time to discuss the truth of the proposition that philosophers are useless or the truth of the proposition that free will exists with someone who claims there is no such thing as truth. It would appear to be a meaningless exercise in useless futility as far as I can tell.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter
**
It would appear to be a meaningless exercise in useless futility as far as I can tell. **

As it was with him in his previous incarnation.

 

[Innoruk]

Interesting claim. How could we distinguish even one true proposition (let alone the innumerable ones) from a false one if there is no gauge (Truth or truth, if you prefer) by which to determine that?

Of course there is a gauge. There are several kinds of propositions. One is about the external reality, and in this case we speak of a true proposition if the proposition correctly reflects the external reality (which means that we can perform a comparison, which means a verification process). Another one is a proposition within an axiomatic system, and in that case we speak of a true proposition, if that proposition is the logical corollary of the axioms - using the permitted transformation rules. Finally there are subjective propositions, for which one cannot assign an objective true/false value.

It is very boring to explain such simple concepts.

It would seem a great waste of time to discuss the truth of the proposition that philosophers are useless or the truth of the proposition that free will exists with someone who claims there is no such thing as truth. It would appear to be a meaningless exercise in useless futility as far as I can tell.

Well, since I find it a waste of time to talk to you - since you do not even read what I say (truth is NOT an ontological object, it is NOT a thing), I will be happy to disregard your (name removed by moderator)ut from now on.

As it was with him in his previous incarnation.

What previous incarnation?

 

[Innoruk]

Philosophers create their own terminology to say what they are trying to say. Anyone who studies philosophy knows that he has to pay attention to what terminology the philosopher sets up.

Actually, it is my view that the “special terminology” is only used by those philosophers, who wish to hide that they have nothing to say. Either their terminology can be translated into simple, everyday terms - in which case the special terms are superfluous; or they cannot be translated, in which case they are meaningless gobbledygook.

Well, that’s part of the problem. Your thread title is “Another reason why philosophers are useless” but the OP is about two definitions of free will. Perhaps it would be easier to keep the thread on topic if it had 1 topic.

A simple dilemma should not be a problem. it was the reason of this thread to see which definition is endorsed by different respondents.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Innoruk

**What previous incarnation? **

 

[Tyrel]

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?”.

The answer is yes. Libertarians would say yes. Of course not all philosophers are going to agree, but many philosophers do affirm the libertarian position.

If that’s your question, then I’m not sure I see the problem. Perhaps you’re looking for philosophers to be in consensus? The trouble here is that there are good reasons why consensus is harder to achieve in philosophy than it is in, say, science. The scientific enterprise works with certain rules and presumptions. First, the name of the game is to look for explanations which exemplify certain virtues (parsinomy, explanatory scope, predictive power, explanatory power, etc), and then these explanations are subject to processes of verification/falsification. Science presumes things like the normativity of experience (and therefore the legitimacy of inductive reasoning) along with other broadly logical presumptions. Because there are so many rules the game is easier to play. Philosophy, however, is a much broader enterprise (in fact, it is the broadest knowledge enterprise there is, since, to it, nothing is off limits). Underlying science there are philosophical presumptions. Underlying Mathematics there are philosophical presumptions. Philosophy, however, is at the bottom, there isn’t anything more foundational (at least nothing which can be made a discipline of). Because philosophers argue about things like whether scientific models are merely useful or also true, or possibly true or plausibly false. They argue about what makes a good explanation good in the first place. They argue about whether we are justified in using inductive, abductive or deductive reasoning. There’s a reason the study of ‘Logic’ is part of philosophy and not part of science (or psychology or art history).

It is because philosophers adopt such an eclectic variety of beliefs as a result of thinking critically about the things that others don’t bother questioning in the first place that they also come to affirm opposing positions on very important practical matters, such as whether we really do have free will. You can’t expect all philosophers to agree with each other, because philosophy is less of a game than science insofar as it consists of fewer rules and makes fewer common presumptions.

However, a great many philosophers do affirm that we have categorical free will (the power to act such that, given the same antecedent conditions the consequent would not follow of necessity).

Does that help answer your question?

 

[Tyrel]

Of course there is a gauge. There are several kinds of propositions. One is about the external reality, and in this case we speak of a true proposition if the proposition correctly reflects the external reality (which means that we can perform a comparison, which means a verification process). Another one is a proposition within an axiomatic system, and in that case we speak of a true proposition, if that proposition is the logical corollary of the axioms - using the permitted transformation rules. Finally there are subjective propositions, for which one cannot assign an objective true/false value.

It is very boring to explain such simple concepts.

By subjective would you include a proposition spoken from the first person perspective? Say, like the proposition “I am here” or “I am appeared to redly” or “I am conscious” or “I believe in something like God”. Moreover, even if my assigning a truth value to that kind of proposition, if you reported it to me, could be immodest of me in some sense, certainly I could have some justifying reason for believing you (and thus assigning the proposition with a truth value).

In fact, I am of the opinion that there is not any proposition of any kind without a truth value, there are only sentences without truth values (namely, sentences bankrupt of propositional content, either because they aren’t in the indicative mood at all, or because they are self-referentially incoherent, or broadly logically impossible). It makes no sense to say that there are propositions which are neither true nor false (for that would be a violation of the law of excluded middle).

Also, just so we’re clear, empirical propositions are never ‘actually’ about the external world, they are actually about the conjunction of experiences. There are innumerable scientists who are anti-realists about science (Stephen Hawking is a good example). But what a proposition is ‘about’ doesn’t make it a different species of proposition. If there are ‘kinds’ of propositions at all, then the only kinds are: analytic, synthetic, a priori and a posteriori.

 

[Innoruk]

The answer is yes. Libertarians would say yes. Of course not all philosophers are going to agree, but many philosophers do affirm the libertarian position.

Excellent. That is what I was looking for, your choice of the two possible definitions. I am simply interested in the personal views of different posters concerning this dilemma. Obviously I agree with you. One of the reasons I presented this question I enumerated in post #43.

If that’s your question, then I’m not sure I see the problem. Perhaps you’re looking for philosophers to be in consensus?

Not really. I consider philosophers as good-for-nothing losers, who try to carve out an existence by presenting pseudo-problems, and presenting their subjective opinions about them.

You can’t expect all philosophers to agree with each other, because philosophy is less of a game than science insofar as it consists of fewer rules and makes fewer common presumptions.

I cannot agree here. Philosophy is a useless game, unlike mathematics, which is a useful game.

Does that help answer your question?

I appreciate that you actually answered my question.

 

[Innoruk]

By subjective would you include a proposition spoken from the first person perspective? Say, like the proposition “I am here” or “I am appeared to redly” or “I am conscious” or “I believe in something like God”.

Not really. I was thinking about a proposition like “Mozart’s music is beautiful”.

In fact, I am of the opinion that there is not any proposition of any kind without a truth value, there are only sentences without truth values (namely, sentences bankrupt of propositional content, either because they aren’t in the indicative mood at all, or because they are self-referentially incoherent, or broadly logically impossible). It makes no sense to say that there are propositions which are neither true nor false (for that would be a violation of the law of excluded middle).

Huh? A sentence is simply a proposition expressed in a linguistic form.

Also, just so we’re clear, empirical propositions are never ‘actually’ about the external world, they are actually about the conjunction of experiences. There are innumerable scientists who are anti-realists about science (Stephen Hawking is a good example). But what a proposition is ‘about’ doesn’t make it a different species of proposition. If there are ‘kinds’ of propositions at all, then the only kinds are: analytic, synthetic, a priori and a posteriori.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect that the word “realist” as you use it, is totally different from my usage of this word.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Innoruk

**Do you believe in wisdom? **

 

[polytropos]

Actually, it is my view that the “special terminology” is only used by those philosophers, who wish to hide that they have nothing to say. Either their terminology can be translated into simple, everyday terms - in which case the special terms are superfluous; or they cannot be translated, in which case they are meaningless gobbledygook.

Sorry, but this is pretty absurd. All fields have terminology, and all fields use their own terminology internally. The fact is that the words can be translated into simple, everyday terms, but it’s not the burden of the philosopher to do this if defining things helps him structure his argument. If you want to converse with and dispute philosophers, you need some understanding of what they say.

You would hardly suggest that a biology textbook should use everyday terms throughout. You can, of course, start at the beginning with no prior knowledge of biology, and then get used to the terms of biology as a specialized field. But once it introduces the terms it’s going to start using them.

Or, alternatively, you could open the biology textbook to a random page, read a sentence, not comprehend it, and then start telling everyone that all that biology jargon is “gobbledygook.”

 

[Tyrel]

Not really. I was thinking about a proposition like “Mozart’s music is beautiful”.

Well, I’m a realist concerning aesthetic truths, so I think the truth value assigned to that proposition is literally and objectively ‘true’ (of course there are truths which are subjective, such as ‘I am here’ - though I think in the case of something’s being beautiful, one can define objective beauty by something’s ability to beatify). However, you present an interesting point, that for the anti-realist, if the sentence is a proposition, and if it isn’t true or false, then they, not unlike the mathematical intuitionists, do not hold to the law of excluded middle.

Huh? A sentence is simply a proposition expressed in a linguistic form.

Here’s the beauty of having studied philosophy: you know both how to think critically and logically, and you also know a great deal about things like the philosophy of language. Let me give you an example of a sentence which is perfectly grammatical, and yet is not a proposition (its expression has no sense or tells no story about the way the world is). Consider the sentence “Your dogs are hogging redly for the cats.” That sentence is fine as far as the rules of English grammar are concerned, but it doesn’t mean anything. It isn’t a proposition. More subtle examples exist as well, such as “Timothy is a married bachelor”. That sentence is fine grammatically, but it’s clearly nonsense (it isn’t false, it’s actually meaningless because the predicate involves a contradiction). Other examples include “God can/cannot create a square circle”, because the term ‘square-circle’ is just a meaningless combination of words that doesn’t signify or mean anything. Or again, consider the sentence “this sentence is false.” Those are all sentences, but they aren’t propositions.

Also, you said that a sentence is just a proposition expressed in linguistic form, but clearly the following is a sentence: “Do your homework!” Yet, clearly that statement isn’t a proposition (it doesn’t propose anything about the way the world is or could possibly be). It’s mood is imperative rather than indicative.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect that the word “realist” as you use it, is totally different from my usage of this word.

It could be that we have different concepts at play here, but I think what I mean by a realist position is really just the common sense intuitive notion. Namely, that some proposition or set of propositions (i.e., model) about the world is true if and only if it corresponds to the way the world is independent of what anyone believes or perceives. Stephen Hawking does not believe that, as he has expressed brilliantly in his discussion of the difference between six day creationism and big bang cosmology (in The Grand Design), where he explains that neither one of these are strictly true, and neither one is closer to being true, but rather truth, in the correspondence sense, is just too much to hope for, even in science.

Now, I find it embarrassing to try to defend philosophy in general, since the study of philosophy is properly construed as the discipline of thinking hard about stuff, and to present any intelligent critique of philosophy is itself going to be philosophical, in which case the claim that philosophy cannot do anything useful is self defeating insofar as it is issued with the purpose, presumably useful, of pointing out the utter uselessness of philosophy. I can think of no more stupid a position to adopt on any issue whatsoever than to adopt a wholesale rejection of the enterprise of thinking critically, consistently and carefully. It is a dangerous thing to promote an anti-philosophical attitude, because that’s just tantamount to promoting an attitude which is anti-thought (or anti-critical-thought). Philosophy just is critical thinking. Moreover, philosophy is the only domain in which we can pursue the answers to the most important practical questions, such as whether there are moral duties, what they are, whether the human mind is equipped to understand the world as it is or merely create models for the sake of negotiating our way around in it, whether God exists, whether death is the end of the road, whether mathematical truths are mind-independent or else are model dependently true, whether science is a rational enterprise, whether anything is a rational enterprise, and so on.