Senseless Philosophy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Senseless Philosophy » Senseless Philosophy

Senseless Philosophy

Weisen
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 06, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 14

Posted 11/06/09 - 01:02 PM: Subject: Senseless Philosophy	#1
How can things exist if things exist? This is an odd question, but most questions on existence question the very thing that exists, that is obvious. It is like looking at a truck coming towards you at 56 MPH and asking yourself whether it will hit. Obviously it will hit and you will wake up at the hospital later. But existence is a little different; this was just to show the almost undeniable existence of existence and many things such as freedom and justice. Are you going to question whether you should help and old woman cross the road or will you help her? I would help another would not, we have different views, but when she gets run over, it shows that at least the good action would have helped (done something, thus making it good (either way we have something in us that makes us aware of good and bad even when we question the very thing).Yet another view. The simply question is why question things so useless and obvious?

Fenchurch
Shieldmaiden

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 14, 2006
Location: Rickmansworth

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 242

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/06/09 - 09:13 PM:	#2
Weisen wrote: How can things exist if things exist? Good question. Given that things exist, we might want to understand why/how that came to be the case. Nothing odd about that question. Weisen wrote: It is like looking at a truck coming towards you at 56 MPH and asking yourself whether it will hit. Obviously it will hit and you will wake up at the hospital later. Or you'll die and never wake up at all. Weisen wrote: The simple question is why question things so useless and obvious? Because doing so shows us that they aren't so useless or obvious after all.
...and she, laughing softly, "Why should I lift a shield in contest? If I conquer when naked, how will it be when I take arms?" "Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences." -Susan B. Anthony

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1020

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 11/07/09 - 05:02 AM:	#3
Weisen wrote: The simply question is why question things so useless and obvious? I'm not sure. See quotes from Peirce, Cicero and Dewey, below. But I'm certain there is someone on this forum who could enlighten us.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Weisen
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 06, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 14

Posted 11/07/09 - 08:05 AM:	#4
The point is philosophy questions things that can A: never be proved. B: Do not deal with reality. C: Are simply made by guessing. Is the universe made of cheese? is the sky blue (all paradoxes)? Rather then accepting truth. It foolishly questions everything. Like an autistic kid with down syndrome.

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 283

Posted 11/07/09 - 08:36 AM:	#5
Doesn't philosophy question politics and ethics and physics and society and science? Wouldn't you say that those things deal with reality? And what do you mean by 'can never be proved'? But regardless, any man should listen to truth, I'd say. And given that you accept (as in, intentionally take in) truth, I'd say you probably know what it is. So tell us what truth you may have.

Fenchurch
Shieldmaiden

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 14, 2006
Location: Rickmansworth

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 242

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 08:39 AM:	#6
Weisen wrote: The point is philosophy questions things that can A: never be proved. B: Do not deal with reality. C: Are simply made by guessing. A begs the question, B is false, and C shows that you don't understand philosophy. Way to prove your ignorance there. A begs the question because it cannot yet be established that no answer to a philosophical question can be proven. Worse yet, there are some very simple proofs from the early days of philosophy. Here's one: global skeptics assert that there are no true statements, whereas Pyrrhonians just suspend judgment on the matter. But the statement "there are no true statements" is self-defeating (if it's true, it refutes itself and can be disregarded; if it's false, it can again be disregarded). So there are true statement. See? Instant refutation of A! B is also very strange. Philosophers are, and always have been, very concerned with reality. Even Wittgenstein, whose army of internet supporters tend to be predominately on your side here, said "The existence and non-existence of states of affairs is reality." See that? Wittgenstein, a philosopher, thinking about reality. And things that metaphysicians worry about typically concern states of affairs. All of ontology, for example. Finally, C. Philosophers don't guess. Take a philosophy class one of these days and try just guessing your way to an A. You'll never make it. Instead, arguments are formulated, errors in them are found and eliminated, and we slowly work towards theories that are more and more refined and more and more plausible. This is the same way that fields like science proceed. Weisan wrote: Is the universe made of cheese? is the sky blue (all paradoxes)? Neither of those are philosophical questions, so thanks for confirming that you have no idea what you're talking about. Weisan wrote: Rather than accepting truth. It foolishly questions everything. Like an autistic kid with down syndrome. Okay... I'm not sure "philosophy is retarded" is the intellectual high ground here, but I guess you're free to be as childish as you wish. Anyway, questioning everything is the role of the philosopher. And ironically, it is also the traditional role of the fool -- who is typically shown to be less foolish than first impressions may have let on. So thanks, I guess?
...and she, laughing softly, "Why should I lift a shield in contest? If I conquer when naked, how will it be when I take arms?" "Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences." -Susan B. Anthony

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1020

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 11/08/09 - 08:46 AM:	#7
I suppose I should clarify my prior comment. Philosophy is not always senseless. It can be senseless, however. It depends on the issue it addresses at any given time, and the reason for which the issue is addressed. For example, for me, questioning one's own existence, or the existence of others or the external world, is supremely silly, except perhaps as an exercise. One can, so to speak, cut one's philosophical teeth on such chestnuts. I would maintain that nobody really doubts any of these things, if the way they live is any indication (and I think this is the only reasonable measure of one's doubt#. Some pretend to, however, and these people, if they are not sick, are generally philosophers. The pretense, I think, lies in professing that one's self does not, or others do not, or the world does not, exist #or more commonly that we just can't know whether they do or not) and then acting as if they do from moment to moment. Clearly, there is no real doubt involved. Indulging in such speculations as anything but an exercise would for me therefore be senseless, as they ultimately will make no difference whatsoever in our lives.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

hanuma
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 133

Posted 11/08/09 - 09:07 AM:	#8
ciceronianus wrote: I would maintain that nobody really doubts any of these things, if the way they live is any indication (and I think this is the only reasonable measure of one's doubt#. Some pretend to, however, and these people, if they are not sick, are generally philosophers. The pretense, I think, lies in professing that one's self does not, or others do not, or the world does not, exist #or more commonly that we just can't know whether they do or not) and then acting as if they do from moment to moment. Clearly, there is no real doubt involved. Indulging in such speculations as anything but an exercise would for me therefore be senseless, as they ultimately will make no difference whatsoever in our lives. I think this is a very good point. In my case I am trying to decide whether I am sick or not, resentful of the likely fact that such things are for others to decide...

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/08/09 - 03:21 PM:	#9
In fairness to the OP, there is no shortage of excellent literature characterizing philosophy as essentially pathological. The Deleuzian characterization of philosophy as essentially paranoid springs to mind. An old professor of mind put it thusly: "When people come into a philosophy class for the first time, by and large they do so as functional human beings. They hold to whatever religious beliefs they hold, they hold a precritical, functional view of the world around them, and they are generally happy, functional people. And then we ruin them. By the time we are finished with them, they doubt everything, from God, to democracy, to their own existence. We plunge them into the depths of intellectual anxiety and, when they are a complete paranoid wreck, we tell them that we (the very ones who brought them low) are the only ones who can fix them!" Likewise, Rorty tends to characterize philosophy as a need with which certain people are afflicted. Philosophy as a discipline, then, is dedicated merely to providing a sort of therapy to people afflicted with the need to understand things in a philosophical way. Most of the world can and does continue on without it.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 11/09/09 - 11:48 PM:	#10
Weisen wrote: The simply question is why question things so useless and obvious? How can anything in existence be 'useless'? Everything has it's utility - that's why you need philosophy more than myself.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

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