The Correct Philosophical Method?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The Correct Philosophical Method? » The Correct Philosophical Method?

The Correct Philosophical Method?
Philosopher baiting...

Page: 1 2

The Correct Philosophical Method?

flix
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/14/08 - 07:10 PM: Subject: The Correct Philosophical Method?	#1
It struck me that this might constitute the ideal philosophical method:- When attempting to determine the value (not truth value) of a particular statement, be it scientific, philosophical, religious or otherwise, ask yourself one question: ‘What actual difference would it make if this statement were true?’ If the answer is ‘absolutely none’, then the statement in question is utterly devoid of any meaning or significance. The various claims regarding the possibility of solipsism and determinism, for example, or those about the existence of God, appear to fall into this latter category. In fact, almost all religious and philosophical claims do. Seems to work quite nicely then. Thoughts anyone? Counter examples?
"It seems to me that, in every culture, I come across a chapter headed Wisdom. And then I know exactly what is going to follow: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

benzie5033
Graduate

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
Location: Penn State University
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 159

Posted 03/15/08 - 08:24 AM:	#2
This seems to sound alot like William James' pragmatic method which I just did a paper on. He looks at the common philosophical discussions and their fundamental difference in the world of experience. If there isn't any to be found, the discussion is dead and we can move onto questions that have a difference in experience. If you are looking to read some of his essays let me know and when I get to my apartment tomorrow I will give you the names of the few I used to write my paper. -Benz
What goes here?

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 533

Posted 03/16/08 - 06:11 AM:	#3
flix wrote: 'What actual difference would it make if this statement were true?' Difference to what? 1) Your experiences? 2) The experiences of all conscious entities? 3) The physical world 4) the Metaphysical world underlying the physical world. Obviously there is a difference between 1) and 2) if solipsism was true, but we (I) would never know. As far as I can see most philosophical issues require us to distinguish between 3) and 4) yet we would only be aware of 3). Most philosophical issues imply that a metaphysical change would cause a change in the physical world and in some cases vice versa, but this would not be experimentally or logically demonstrable. Imagine being limited to your keyboard and VDU screen. You theorise a CPU exists inside of the machine but can never proove this is true over an equally plausable theory. Does it make a difference to your experiences? No, but there is a difference non the less, this may be forever beyond ones capability to understand.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Postmodern Beatnik
Or Is It?

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1464

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 03/16/08 - 08:16 AM:	#4
What you have suggested is a key element of Logical Positivism, and it is the precise opposite of the ideal philosophical method. Leaving aside the internal issues facing Logical Postivism (which any history of philosophy professor can probably tell you), the method completely misses the point. While philosophy and science are often practical, they are fundamentally about sating the irresistible force of human curiousity. We are driven to learn the truth about the world around us, regardless of its practical value. Maybe we have to focus on what philosophy and science can do for our survival before we pass on to more abstract questions, but this is no evidence that such quotidian concerns are the true telos of these disciplines. I have brought science into this analysis because those with latent Positivist tendencies often hold it up as the quintessential human activity, relegating philosophy to some lesser task either subservient, beholden, or inferior to it. Indeed, Positivism often leads people once pleasantly disposed to philosophy to conclude that it is, in fact, a task undertaken in vain. But such notions are ridiculous. To quote Daniel Dennett: "[T]here is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philsophical baggage is taken on board without examination" (Darwin's Dangerous Idea, p. 21). The sooner people realize this, the sooner philosophers can get over their existential crisis regarding where they fit in this "scientific age" and get back to the uncompromising search for answers to even our most bizarre questions.
"It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else." --Anthony Weston "If you can't imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don't understand it yet." --Anthony Weston

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Womenâ€™s Pay Key to Child Poverty

Posted 03/16/08 - 08:35 AM:	#5
Flix, that method might be a nice way for a lot of people to live their lives. But philosophers distinctly are people who enjoy the search for and exploration of of truth and wisdom. Figuring out how to find or confirm the validity and truth value of various types of statements, theories, and arguments is valuable to us in itself. -Floyd
Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

flix
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/16/08 - 06:27 PM:	#6
perseus wrote: Imagine being limited to your keyboard and VDU screen. You theorise a CPU exists inside of the machine but can never proove this is true over an equally plausable theory. Does it make a difference to your experiences? No, but there is a difference non the less, this may be forever beyond ones capability to understand. This example – in my opinion at least – is confused. Why, if my experience were limited in this way, would I even stop to consider the possibility of a CPU being inside of the machine? What could I know about CPUs if I were confined to my keyboard and screen? Presumably nothing. If the hypothetical me were to ask the question ‘Is there a CPU inside this machine?’ then either a ‘CPU’, and hence the characteristics of a machine so equipped, is something known to me, or I might as well be speaking gibberish. You know what a CPU is, because you have some degree of knowledge about the different components of a computer. Therefore the ‘difference’ you speak of in this case is something very relevant. A computer that processed information in thin air would be a technological marvel in most peoples’ eyes. But if I am confined to my keyboard and screen then, to me, that is exactly how a computer works. The question of whether there might be a CPU inside would be akin to my wondering, in this world, whether there’s a ‘&^%’ powering my car. Postmodern Beatnik wrote: We are driven to learn the truth about the world around us, regardless of its practical value. Of course there are endless reasons why we seek the truth about the world around us and, indeed, many of these are not practical. But that’s not to say that ‘truth’ established independently* of the world should be of any real value to anyone. Maybe we have to focus on what philosophy and science can do for our survival before we pass on to more abstract questions, but this is no evidence that such quotidian concerns are the true telos of these disciplines. To say that ‘survival’ is the ultimate goal of science is misleading because it creates, in the mind’s eye, a picture of the human race as a one-dimensional species, self-serving and completely non-spiritual. This is clearly an erroneous conception because, as you say, we are driven to seek the truth for many different reasons. However, as we abstract away from reality – like we do in philosophy - terms and concepts become so general that this inherent drive for truth is easily satisfied by propositions whose apparent plausibility is the result of our loose mental grip on the conditions for truth at this level of abstraction. For example, the picture of a deterministic world that forms in our imagination is obviously not a genuine possibility if it differs from that of this world. We only believe it possible when we start philosophising and end up mixing up our elaborate imaginary construction with what we see, hear, touch, smell and feel every moment of our conscious lives. I’m not a psychologist, but I think that perhaps because this type of extended abstract thinking is quite difficult to sustain, we automatically attach great significance to seemingly true propositions ‘established’ by the philosophical process. Abstract thought can undoubtedly be a powerful – and often very practical – tool, because it allows us to generalise and thus make predictions about a great variety of things. But if I’ve learnt anything from studying philosophy, it’s that complexity and generality are absolutely no guarantee of significance or meaning. I have brought science into this analysis because those with latent Positivist tendencies often hold it up as the quintessential human activity, relegating philosophy to some lesser task either subservient, beholden, or inferior to it. Personally I think it is up to each individual to decide what constitutes ‘the quintessential human activity’. But my problem with philosophy is that it is often mistakenly construed as the quest for ‘absolute truth’ when in fact it is merely a kind of mental workout that yields no real information about anything at all. Surely it is those applications of an abstract theory that allow us to achieve our real worldly aims - whatever they may be - that we value, not the collection of propositions that make up the theory itself. But to say that a philosophical theory assists us in pursuing our goals is to say this very thing – that the process of theorising is more important than the results. Edited by flix on 03/17/08 - 11:59 AM
"It seems to me that, in every culture, I come across a chapter headed Wisdom. And then I know exactly what is going to follow: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

ying
Stoned ape theorist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1155

Posted 03/16/08 - 10:04 PM:	#7
flix wrote: Of course there are endless reasons why we seek the truth about the world around us and, indeed, many of these are not practical. But that’s not to say that ‘truth’ established independently of the world should be of any real value to anyone. Bah, truth. I really dislike that term. Anyway, lets define truth as a 100% correlation between a statement or theory and reality (verisimilitude). If defined as such, and I don't see how it could be defined otherwise, then your statement makes no sense at all since it's a contradictio in terminis. Personally I think it is up to each individual to decide what constitutes ‘the quintessential human activity’. But my problem with philosophy is that it is often mistakenly construed as the quest for ‘absolute truth’ when in fact it is merely a kind of mental workout that yields no real information about anything at all. As a sceptic I also dislike the term 'truth', even more when it's also supposed to be 'absolute'. But reducing the entire project of philosophy to"merely a kind of mental workout that yields no real information about anything at all" is overkill, in my opinion. At the very least, philosophy is the act of constituting a subjective worldview, and this might just be one of the most important drives for human behaviour, conisidering that all worldviews start out in such a fashion, including social paradigms, political views etc. Surely it those applications of an abstract theory that allow us to achieve our real worldly aims - whatever they may be - that we value, not the collection of propositions that make up the theory itself. But to say that a philosophical theory assists us in pursuing our goals is to say this very thing – that the process of theorising is more important than the results. This just doesn't make any sense at all...
*"I determined nothing."* -Sceptical expression

flix
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/17/08 - 05:41 AM:	#8
ying wrote: Bah, truth. I really dislike that term. Anyway, lets define truth as a 100% correlation between a statement or theory and reality (verisimilitude). If defined as such, and I don't see how it could be defined otherwise, then your statement makes no sense at all since it's a contradictio in terminis. I dislike it also, at least when used in a philosophical context. Obviously I don't believe that truth can be established in this way because, as you say, it is a contradiction. I thought that having 'truth' in inverted commas would make that clear, but apparently not... This just doesn't make any sense at all... I don't see why not, I'm afraid. Perhaps you misunderstand me. I said philosophy is theory without application. Hence to attach importance to a philosophical theory is to attach importance to a collection of propositions without considering - or possibly by misinterpreting - their application.
"It seems to me that, in every culture, I come across a chapter headed Wisdom. And then I know exactly what is going to follow: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Postmodern Beatnik
Or Is It?

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1464

Posted 03/17/08 - 08:03 AM:	#9
flix wrote: Of course there are endless reasons why we seek the truth about the world around us and, indeed, many of these are not practical. But that's not to say that 'truth' established independently of the world should be of any real value to anyone. First of all, you have not really elaborated upon what "truth" is supposed to be, as opposed to truth (without scare quotes). Second, you seem to be conflating epistemology (what we can know and when we can say we know it) with alethiology (what constitutes truth and when something counts as true). That is, no matter what our personal epistemic limitations might be, there could still be truths about the world. Third, I suspect that regardless of how you decide to explicate "truth," it will turn out that philosophy is more concerned with truth (again, no scare quotes). Some branches of philosophy may be primarily concerned with "truth" than truth, but the parts do not necessarily resemble the whole (and there remains the question of whether or not those branches concerned think it is a truth that we should be primarily concerned with "truth" or only a "truth" that we should be primarily concerned with "truth"). And finally, I am not aware of any serious philosophers who are looking for anything -- truth or "truth" -- that is independent of the world. Methinks you are importing an unstated premise into your argument somewhere that only direct sensory experiences are "about the world." This is, of course, false. flix wrote: [A]s we abstract away from reality – like we do in philosophy... But no we don't, and this is where your error lies. Philosophy may involve a certain amount of abstraction from the particular to the general, but that is not to abstract from reality. While there may be exceptions, philosophy is aimed at understanding the world -- that is, the reality -- in which we find ourselves. flix wrote: For example, the picture of a deterministic world that forms in our imagination is obviously not a genuine possibility if it differs from that of this world. I believe determinists would argue that this world is deterministic, and thus your worry is idle. That is, their theory does not hold that the world should appear any differently than it actually does. As such, I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be or how this example was supposed to clarify it. flix wrote: But if I've learnt anything from studying philosophy, it's that complexity and generality are absolutely no guarantee of significance or meaning. Significance and meaning are both relational properties, so all you've learned is that some things aren't important to you. Congratulations. Now if that category happens to include all of philosophy, then I suggest you focus your interests elsewhere. But the fact that you don't care about them doesn't mean they aren't important or efficacious. flix wrote: Personally I think it is up to each individual to decide what constitutes 'the quintessential human activity'. Obviously, I agree. There are many, however, who would disagree -- and they often use arguments similar to yours as justification. flix wrote: But my problem with philosophy is that it is often mistakenly construed as the quest for 'absolute truth' when in fact it is merely a kind of mental workout that yields no real information about anything at all. "Questing" is an intentional concept, so at a purely technical level philosophy could be both of the things you have described. And it certainly is a mental workout, though that aspect is rather incidental. But you have offered no reason for us to believe that philosophy "yields no real information about anything at all." So far, you have only demonstrated misconceptions about what philosophy is and how it goes about its business. And just what is meant by "absolute truth?" Are the scare quotes again significant here, or are they superfluous in this case? And if they are superfluous, how exactly does absolute truth differ from truth? Finally, my own experience suggests that philosophy certainly can give me useful and accurate information about the world, answering questions that are the concern of both my curiosity and my practical needs. As such, philosophy makes an actual difference in my life -- which is the standard you yourself suggested for judging the value of something. flix wrote: Surely it [is] those applications of an abstract theory that allow us to achieve our real worldly aims - whatever they may be - that we value, not the collection of propositions that make up the theory itself. But to say that a philosophical theory assists us in pursuing our goals is to say this very thing – that the process of theorising is more important than the results. Non sequitur. All that would suggest is that theorizing is prior to application, which seems rather obvious (you can't apply a theory prior to formulating one). Moreover, if the purpose of philosophy is (as I suggested) to discover truths about the world around us, and if those truths are the results, then theorizing is just a means to an end -- making the results more important than the theorizing (though it is still important that we got there in the right way). In this sense, then, philosophy is an instrument aimed at a further purpose -- and that's why it's called a "discipline." Therefore, it seems to me that you have things all backwards and upside down in your head. Luckily, there is an academic discipline that has, as one of its goals, the clarification of our thoughts by way of the removal of inconsistencies. It's called "logic," and it is a branch of... philosophy.
"It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else." --Anthony Weston "If you can't imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don't understand it yet." --Anthony Weston

flix
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/17/08 - 03:55 PM:	#10
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: First of all, you have not really elaborated upon what "truth" is supposed to be, as opposed to truth (without scare quotes). ‘Truth’, in keeping with the semantic adjustment usually suggested by the addition of scare quotes in this context, is a misrepresentation of real truth. That is, although philosophers seem to believe that philosophical truths are the genuine article, they are fundamentally mistaken. Second, you seem to be conflating epistemology (what we can know and when we can say we know it) with alethiology (what constitutes truth and when something counts as true). That is, no matter what our personal epistemic limitations might be, there could still be truths about the world. The only ‘truths about the world’ that we could possibly be concerned with are those which lie within ‘our personal epistemic limitations’. I do not see how it could be otherwise. If I were to say to you, ‘the blah is bleh’, for instance, and then claimed to be speaking of a truth beyond your epistemic limitations, would you appreciate the profundity of my statement? Third, I suspect that regardless of how you decide to explicate "truth," it will turn out that philosophy is more concerned with truth (again, no scare quotes). ‘Truth’, of course, is of no value to anyone, philosophers included. Hence a philosopher, or anyone else for that matter, who believes in what he or she is doing will claim to be dealing with plain old truth. And finally, I am not aware of any serious philosophers who are looking for anything -- truth or "truth" -- that is independent of the world. Methinks you are importing an unstated premise into your argument somewhere that only direct sensory experiences are "about the world." This is, of course, false. Like I said, no one actively seeks truth that is independent of the world – that would be ‘truth’. Unfortunately, this is what philosophers are doing, despite their claims to the contrary. I don’t think I believe that only direct sensory experiences are about the world. But then again, I’m not completely sure what ‘direct sensory experiences’ are, and I seriously doubt that you are either. What’s more, it doesn’t seem like an ‘experience’ could really be about anything. But let’s ignore ambiguity and inconsistency for the moment. I’m perfectly aware that many different types of statements could be said to be ‘about the world’. But the requirement that a statement be ‘about the world’ is a vague and completely unhelpful condition for truth. In fact, to even suggest that we can identify such general conditions for truth is misleading – the truth of each and every statement must be decided on an individual basis. If we attempt to talk about what, in general, makes a statement true, then what we inevitably end up formulating an elaborate variation of: ‘the fact that it’s true makes it true’! That is the philosophical process. But no we don't, and this is where your error lies. Philosophy may involve a certain amount of abstraction from the particular to the general, but that is not to abstract from reality. While there may be exceptions, philosophy is aimed at understanding the world -- that is, the reality -- in which we find ourselves. Firstly, philosophy consists entirely of abstraction from the particular to the general. Secondly, I concede that ‘reality’ can be understood to mean practically anything and thus that philosophy can be said to deal with reality, but it makes no difference – these are just words. I could say that philosophy isn’t practical, and you would most likely agree. But when I use the word ‘reality’, it is much easier for someone to adjust their conception of the term - because it is so abstract/general – so to apply it to whatever is actually the subject of philosophy. This is another example of the philosophical process. But at some point we have to stop and ask, ‘what does it really mean to say that reality is the subject of philosophy?’ If another abstract answer is given, then we must ask again, with emphasis. And if the abstract answers keep coming, then we know the original claim was entirely meaningless. I believe determinists would argue that this world is deterministic, and thus your worry is idle. That is, their theory does not hold that the world should appear any differently than it actually does. As such, I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be or how this example was supposed to clarify it. Okay, suppose we accept their claim that the world is deterministic. So what? So what? Then ‘deterministic world’ means exactly the same thing as ‘world’; then the two concepts must be identical in every single respect, for how could we possibly imagine a non-deterministic world if this one is deterministic? Of course, they are not identical concepts. It’s just that the idea of a world in which every event is determined is such an abstract one that, in our imaginations, we are often incapable of discerning any difference between this picture and that conjured up by the word ‘world’. As a result, determinist philosophers assume that the two ideas are interchangeable and hence that ‘every event is determined’ is a true statement about this world. But while to some it seems a profound thing to say, because of its impressive generality, it is actually an either an entirely imaginary construction, or else an entirely empty statement. The same can be said of all philosophical propositions. Such absolute generality is just not all it’s cracked up to be. Significance and meaning are both relational properties, so all you've learned is that some things aren't important to you. Congratulations. Now if that category happens to include all of philosophy, then I suggest you focus your interests elsewhere. But the fact that you don't care about them doesn't mean they aren't important or efficacious. Again, I’m not sure what you mean by a ‘relational property’. It seems to me that any property could be conceived of as ‘relational’. I meant significance as in, ‘D-day was a significant day in world history’, that is, significant by most people's standards. As for meaning, I was referring to actual semantic meaning. And I never said I didn’t care about philosophy. "Questing" is an intentional concept, so at a purely technical level philosophy could be both of the things you have described. I’m afraid I don’t see how philosophy could feasibly be the quest for absolute truth and yet yield no real information about anything at all. Unless you’re saying that it’s an ultimately pointless quest, which I accept. And just what is meant by "absolute truth?" Are the scare quotes again significant here, or are they superfluous in this case? And if they are superfluous, how exactly does absolute truth differ from truth? The scare quotes, as in the previous case, are simply meant to represent my scepticism regarding the value/meaning/significance of such concepts when philosophers speak about them. I have no idea how absolute truth might differ from truth, but many philosophers seem to think there is a difference. You may not be one of them . Finally, my own experience suggests that philosophy certainly can give me useful and accurate information about the world, answering questions that are the concern of both my curiosity and my practical needs. As such, philosophy makes an actual difference in my life -- which is the standard you yourself suggested for judging the value of something. Could you possibly give an example of how philosophy has helped you in this way? I would genuinely like to know. I admit that there is undoubtedly a certain enjoyment and satisfaction to be gotten from the mental exercise I earlier associated with philosophy. It makes you feel as if you know things that others do not, as if you truly understand how the world works. It is similar to religion in this respect. And if were not for their potential to mislead, confuse and delude, both philosophy and religion would be very worthwhile pursuits, for that feeling of understanding and acceptance is extremely beneficial to many people. …it seems to me that you have things all backwards and upside down in your head. Right back atcha . Edited by flix on 03/21/08 - 10:56 AM
"It seems to me that, in every culture, I come across a chapter headed Wisdom. And then I know exactly what is going to follow: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.