Authentic Philosophy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Guest Speakers » David Chalmers » Authentic Philosophy » Authentic Philosophy

Authentic Philosophy

HH
Reader

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 21, 2005

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/24/09 - 09:55 PM: Subject: Authentic Philosophy	#1
I remember accosting Nigel warburton, over a pint, in an Open University bar after a summer school in Bath (2003 I think) and telling him about Stephen Law's Philosophy Gym. One of Stephen's chapters was on animal rights, which he surmised as having very strong arguments not to eat meat. I asked Nigel if he thought Stephen Law's philosophising on AR, and his surmising that the arguments were very strong, were justification enough to compel him to stop eating meat? I think Nigel said he would ask him (I never heard back :-)) Nonetheless, my question is: Should philosophers (or anyone else for that matter) practise what they preach? Are they unauthentic if they don't? Most moral philosophers seem to live their beliefs; Rosalind Hursthouse for example, springs to mind. Thanks

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 391

Posted 04/25/09 - 02:51 AM:	#2
Usually, it's difficult to see final solutions to any one question in philosophy so generally I don't think people are obliged to stick to or "practise" a certain direction in philosophy as there may come up new and interesting arguments that may turn people around or tend to other questions. I do, however, think that people should be honest and give their best in the philosophical discussion. Just my opinion. Cheers!
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

nomadx
Undergraduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 56

Posted 04/26/09 - 03:09 AM:	#3
I reject premise one.. The philosophy gym does not present good arguments for vegetarianism. I like Warburton though. He did a pretty fantastic intro to philosophy which was very helpful in my first year at uni. Anyway to answer your question I would say both yes and no. I think one should be roughly consistent with what one thinks and then what one does. However when such thinking is applied to moral and nutritional issues, I think they fail on practical and logistical grounds. The fact is I may be unable to be a vegetarian for practical reasons - such as already being anemic and so on. Therefore I could hold the belief that eating meat is morally wrong, yet be practically unable to enact that belief with a type of vegetarianism. Would people think of me as 'unauthentic' or morally suspect? I could of course supplement with vitamins and iron to destroy the practical reason - but then what if I could not afford such supplements? Edited by nomadx on 04/26/09 - 03:17 AM
What is a box? Is the text in the box separate from the text outside the box? How is it linked? What is the border, the margin or frame? Is it inside or outside the box? And why do we talk of a box, say, rather than a square or oblong, a coffin or crypt? What are we trying to hide? Or what is hereby hiding? 'What is a box?' (The Truth in Painting: 229)

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1231

Posted 04/28/09 - 09:41 AM:	#4
nomadx wrote: Anyway to answer your question I would say both yes and no. I think one should be roughly consistent with what one thinks and then what one does. However when such thinking is applied to moral and nutritional issues, I think they fail on practical and logistical grounds. The fact is I may be unable to be a vegetarian for practical reasons - such as already being anemic and so on. Therefore I could hold the belief that eating meat is morally wrong, yet be practically unable to enact that belief with a type of vegetarianism. Would people think of me as 'unauthentic' or morally suspect? I could of course supplement with vitamins and iron to destroy the practical reason - but then what if I could not afford such supplements? Then you don't think eating animals is wrong. You only think eating animals is wrong under certain circumstances.

nomadx
Undergraduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 56

Posted 04/29/09 - 02:08 AM:	#5
Yes - and this sits with Singers ideas on the topic also. Eating say, organic meat is perfectly moral, sustainable and so on if you know for certain how the animal has been killed. However, I don\'t eat meat at all because I just do not see the need. I can get the same amount of protein from soy, vitamins from vegetables, and taste from seasoning etc..
What is a box? Is the text in the box separate from the text outside the box? How is it linked? What is the border, the margin or frame? Is it inside or outside the box? And why do we talk of a box, say, rather than a square or oblong, a coffin or crypt? What are we trying to hide? Or what is hereby hiding? 'What is a box?' (The Truth in Painting: 229)

davidchalmers
Aspirant

Usergroup: Guest Speakers
Joined: May 09, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 05/09/09 - 09:03 PM:	#6
Well, in my work I don't preach very much about how one should live or how one should act. So I'm not sure that the question really applies to me. Maybe it applies in more limited ways. For example, here and there I've stressed the value of making a careful first-person study of consciousness using methods drawn from meditation, phenomenology, and so on. And as a matter of fact I think it would be good if I engaged in these practices. But in practice I don't, very much -- I don't seem to have the patience. So perhaps this is an area where I don't practice what I preach. I do think that as a rule, one should act as one believes one should act (although in some cases, where people have false beliefs about how they should act, it's better if one doesn't). But philosophers are only human, and are probably no better at bringing their actions in alignment with their beliefs than anyone else is. As for vegetarianism, I used to think that one shouldn't eat any creature that is or had been conscious (I didn't practice this, but I thought it). But then I became sympathetic with panpsychism, the view that (roughly) everything is conscious. So I had to revise the ethical view, to one where it isn't consciousness per se but the kind of consciousness that matters (e.g. intelligence, conscious thought, self-consciousness, etc). I suppose that this is a place where philosophy has brought my actions and my beliefs into closer alignment, albeit perhaps fortuitously.

octarinemage
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 26, 2004

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 24

Posted 05/15/09 - 11:27 AM:	#7
I do not think it is possible to act otherwise from one's beliefs whether they be true or false. One can certainly act as though the opposite of a belief is true. If it is my belief that I should not eat meat and yet I do, then obviously I have other unconscious beliefs whose value contradict my conscious belief to not eat meat. When I see someone who, for all appearances, seems to behave in a manner inconsistent with his or her openly stated beliefs, I stop and remind myself that what is not openly stated is taking precedence, despite any appearance to the contrary.

Mawpe
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/15/09 - 04:42 PM: Subject: Authentic Philosophy	#8
I regard the politics of philosophy whenever there is a debate over views. Philosophers are doing a job. They get paid for being accredited by their peers. There is a celebrity factor involved that always belies their motivations for the sake of being "on top" of their game. It takes on proportions similar to an old fashioned duel. I don't know what has ever came out of philosophy except argumentation. I read the forum in here and most people are regurgitating the same old pap that intellectuals have argued over centuries. What has ever came out of philosophy that has been of practical use other than debating skills and the confounding of simplicity? I realize that people have to make a living but science has more to offer nowadays as far as insights into philosophicsl views. We have the fantastic tools of new science to open doors to philosophical questioning, so do we really need the entanglements of words and the platform of debate for which the celebrities can add esteem to their names? The main question on their minds is probably when can I get my cheque.

Lucrece
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 18, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 05/18/09 - 05:34 AM:	#9
Inside everyone there is a philosopher. Everytime we ask ourself a question and think about what is right and wrong or what could have the best result - we are actually thinking like a philosopher. We all have some moral here in life. I would like to be a vegetarian – but that’s not because of the animals, but because of my self and my moral. I can’t see how you can make a difference between a cat and a cow. But the most people don't eat a cat. And then that’s exactly why there isn’t any difference between a scientist and a philosopher. A scientist gets money for finding new technology. He finds the answers, but who asks them? Somehow philosophers have always existed and for some reason. Some became philosopher because they had the money and the time to think about things and ask questions. And we still think about those old questions – because they are important and they have moved us. Philosophers are the reason for scientists to live. What if somebody hadn't thought about the society in the old Grece, and they hadn't met with other people and talked about it, would we then have democracy today? Somebody has to ask the questions - and to find questions somebody has to think. But they also have to speak out loud so that other people can ask themselves the same question and then we can argument, and an argument can go on forever cause nobody is really right or wrong. Cause who decides that? But if you don’t speak you won’t be heard and then nothing can be changed or debated. When people talk together and they debate their minds get opened and they will be more understanding – if they listen and see the logic, and we learn to show respect. Philosophy created debate and without debate there would only be one who would be right - and that's the one with the power. What would you say if someone toke your voice and your choices and possibilities in life? Would you then even think?

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.