Agnostic.com

16 8

Could philosophical discussions be better and more productive? [aeon.co]

Allamanda 8 Jan 11
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

16 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I agree with Shawno1972 that the linked article is a “word salad trying to make a big point out of a relatively small one.” The last sentence seems to sum up the point of the article:

“The critical nature of philosophy will thrive more if we model our conversations on the playful exchanges among friends rather than on the idea of a tribunal looking to tear down a philosopher who has an idea.”

In fact, this article is a perfect example of what not to do to make “philosophical discussions be better and more productive.” The very nature of philosophy requires the use of words that are unfamiliar to most readers who are novices to the field of philosophy. Using too many words to make a simple point does the same thing.

It seems to me that the very long last sentence, in fact the entire article, can be summed up simply by encouraging respectful, civil discourse.

I also agree with Allamanda that “many voices are stifled.” Lack of respectful, civil discourse is only one reason this happens. I suspect there are many. If we are to encourage better and more productive discussions we must identify these obstacles.

0

How do you define philosophical discussions?

The broad range of modern-day 'philosophical' topics seems to encompass nearly everything imaginable. There are branches of philosophy that include science, mathematics, language, theology et. al. I believe this is part of the problem. I prefer the question: How should we define philosophical discussions? Broadly speaking, philosophy is the love of wisdom" and the study of general, fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, and mind. Wikipedia includes language on this list. I disagree. Language wasn't introduced into the conversation until the 1930s. Note too, that theology, as well as science, are not included in this definition but they have been front-and-center in many discussions since the beginning.

As I have written elsewhere, most modern 'philosophy' is a mess. Descartes started the disaster by separating reason from the senses; Spinoza & Leibniz rejected that the senses contribute to knowledge; Locke & Hume denied reason and believed all knowledge was due to the senses; Kant, who attempted a synthesis of both, ended up believing that existence cannot be known in itself. Nietzsche's "will to power" as the ruling principle of all life and his idea that life on earth has an absolute value is only one absurd 'conclusion" that stems from the forgoing philosophies. They all took philosophy on a roller coaster ride that set philosophy back centuries. Aristotelianism is the only philosophy to withstand the ages (with some minor modification).

Religion matters. But religion demands that we reject reason altogether and accept on faith, all that we 'believe.' All aspects of theology, therefore, should be off-limits as topics of true philosophical discussion, IMO.

Science matters. The rules and findings of science reinforce philosophy. Science affirms Aristotelian philosophy specifically - that the natural world is knowable and that man has the ability to understand and know it. In fact, Aristotle introduced empiricism and the notion that universal truths can be arrived at via observation and induction, thereby laying the foundations of the scientific method (Wikipedia). But science is not a subset of philosophy. It is a consequence of philosophy. Science as a stand-alone discipline naturally separated from philosophical discussion after Copernicus. As such, all fields of science should now be off-limits as topics of philosophical discussion. The process of discovery is quite different for science. This includes the psychological views of Freud and others, as well as the views of Sam Harris (based in neuroscience) whose premise is - "human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and states of the human brain.

I am less certain that the study of language should be excluded from philosophical conversations but it seems very odd to me that during late classical and medieval times, people were able to have serious, in-depth conversations and arguments about true philosophical issues, without language becoming an insurmountable obstacle. Languages in common use during those times included Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew. Does it matter if the word, the 'symbol' for an object is different if we all understand that the definition of each word has the same meaning? (The Moral Landscape).

For me, the fundamental question of philosophy [still] centers around the Plato-Aristotle dichotomy - the conflict between philosophies that have as their basis spiritualism vs. reality [the primary conflict between Aristotle and Plato], as well as the resulting tension with religion.

Ideas are the means by which we understand reality - ideas are not some type of physical reality; they are not superior to physical reality (Plato) - the idea of an elephant, for example, does not mean (obviously) that the elephant exists in our mind. Curiously, there are ‘philosophers' who have argued for this conclusion. The idea of "soul" (as something separate from the body; and/or living outside the body; and/or existing after the death of the body) for another example, is nothing more than an [absurd] idea of the mind. More than 2,000 years of discussion about "soul" and no one has been able to provide any evidence that it is real, that it is anything more than a way to characterize the essence of what it means to be a human. But 'philosophers' have jumped through hoops to try to explain it; to find a way to rationalize its existence, and have caused much-confused thinking.

Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that our senses lead to our perceptions, which provide us with evidence that leads to knowledge and permits us to reason with each other based on common experience. "Common sense" experience is what makes consensual understanding possible... true knowledge... and connects us with the realities that exist objectively as well as in our minds."

Many of the errors in Philosophy are the result of "an attitude of antagonism toward or even contempt for the past - for the achievements of those who have come before." Contemporary philosophers are, for the most part, vastly ignorant of the great works of philosophical tradition before the 17th century." Going back to the "distinctions, insights, and formulations explicitly achieved in the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas" [and others who have followed in this tradition], and identifying and correcting those errors has finally given us an objective philosophy based in reality that offers real-world" value.

If we remove theology and spirituality from the conversation; remove science from the conversation; acknowledge that objective reality exists, and recognize that perhaps we should look back to the classical philosophers to identify and correct the errors made - then perhaps we can have useful, productive philosophical discussions.

Sources: Most of the quotes are from (1) Ten Philosophical Mistakes and "Six Great Ideas" (mostly derived from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and what is now classified as Philosophical (or Classical) Realism. (see also: Philosophical realism)). Also, to truly appreciate Aristotle's contribution and influence [until the 17th century], I also recommend Aristotle's Children, by Richard E. Rubenstein.

1

What you put in is what you get out of it. I do not care one fig about productivity in discussion. I delight in an interesting choice of words, funny turns of phrases.

0

The problem to me is garbage in equals garbage out. When I hear theIsts make philosophical justifications, inevitably they fail to a chive the proof. They just throw a lot of must be sos together in a way they say points to their god. None of those claims identify their god, or could not be true for a completely different creator. So they really are just assertions building on assertions. And thus not really good philosophy. For instance saying the creator has to be good and loving is pure poetry, there is nothing to support this claim. And they twist evidence against it to blame humanity, thus preventing them from actually considering some of the flaws in their stories that lead us to believe men invented them..

Just my two cents, but attempting a debate based on critical thinking with those who have the opinions based in faith, is speaking two different languages. Faith does not require proof, logic or even reality.

@Allamanda students might buy that lie but philosophers are inseparable from religious faculty and their books sell right next to bibles

0

Depends on the argument and who the debaters are.

All positions are open to challenge so I guess the question must be better than what?

0

What I read here is about the value of critical thinking. Critical thinking is about understanding how to identify the truth. If a proponent of an idea is using fallacious reasoning to prove his point then pointing out where he strays should not be taken as an attack on the person making the claim but as help in modifying his argument so it is stronger and if it is bad enough to just forget it. The religious make bad reasoning a virtue and take pride in it but it seems so do a lot of nonbelievers.

gearl Level 8 Jan 11, 2020
0

Philosophy, particularly epistemology, is the best way in my estimation to reach truth, or at least the best approximations of it. It goes hand in hand with all other forms of rational inquiry and skepticism, including the scientific method.

Once you learn what logical fallacies are, and how to spot them, you're never the same.

The article you linked to, however, is a word salad trying to make a big point out of a relatively small one. What it says could be much better distilled, and the author probably knows that, but I get the impression he desires to show the world how clever he thinks he is. I didn't take anything of value from it.

@Allamanda I don't disagree with the point, only the manner in which it is conveyed.

0

There was no single example of this proposal....the author concluded philosophical discussions over beer or tea should be friendlier and less reliant upon proving a point false or true... Aristotle was mentioned by name along with Acquinas but not to any point of discussion ....I would suggest how Atheism evolved from Thales and Materialism away from various alleged gawds accredited to be in charge of fire, death or birth.....philosophy of 26 centuries ago just does not seem all that relevant today with various violent faiths guiding whole armies and disputed geography

0

What really hurts philosophical discussions is playing the senseless "glass bead games" ala Hermann Hesse.

1

Certainly, but I don't care for them much. I'm not into Plato or Epicurus. I don't read or argue Socrates. They offer nothing to me in the modern world and I blatantly refuse to discuss religious philosophy. I will bring out religious ideas by bible claims but usually it is to show you how silly it all is.

Why do I constantly run into the same contankerous old man? LOL you have been a great mentor!
I totally agree Philosophy is not a good subjest to discuss with any theist as they ALWAYS conflate it with theology and can not seperate the two.
Which brings me to theology, a bunch of religious dogma that is not worth debating.

0

Name calling is much more fun and entertaining. 🙂

1

I've watched political discussions on TV for decades. They are definitely adversarial and seem utterly non-productive. Recently, I've been reading about dialectics and the idea of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This is about presenting an idea, someone else countering that idea and another idea being created from the combination of the two. A viewer watching that political discussion on TV might understandably ask what's the difference between what the two politicians are doing and the dialectic. The answer might be that the politicians are behaving as if only the thesis or the antithesis are true while the viewer is in a position to make a synthesis if he or she wishes. The politician has no interest other than furthering the objectives of the party; the philosopher might be bound to a certain school of thought. Ego, loyalty, finance and other issues affect schools of philosophy like they do all the sciences. The only way I see to improve discussion is to hunger after truth more than other consideration.

0

Discussion without adversarial conversation is NOTHING, at best it is mutual mental masturbation.
The whole point of discussion the attempt to falsify the other opposing argument by pointing out flaws that maybe raised by evidence or reference to experience if possible.

@Allamanda yes and if that is the case it is not a discussion, true discussion is open, if your reputation means more to you than truth then you are an intellectual coward without the courage of your own convictions or you already know your ideas are unfounded.

@Allamanda true if you have no integrity, then you can't lose it

0

Could they? That is something to ponder. A deep and complex issue, sort of a philosophical question . . .

5

Absolutely. But the quality of the discussion is dependent on the people discussing sticking to the point or the topic. Very often the talk breaks down into judgments of a personal nature which derails the progressive flow of ideas.

Glad I read your comment before I made mine. I essentially was going to say the same.
But yes, I agree.

3

Definately they could improve. The problem is that the average person does not understand the dynamics or importance of Philosophical discussions. There may not be a right or wrong but they do inspire thought and teach us how to better think.
I really hate to sound cliche but education is the key. People simply need to understand why it is important. As far as the stucture of arguments etc. I don't know we can offer much improvement. There is of course much problems with people understanding philosophical discussions.

I'm in agreement.

Philosophy is rarely if at all a subject in high school. When it is, it's just touched on. Perhaps educators don't believe teenagers can handle rational inquiry as a science. Even so-called debate classes only offer certain elements of argument theory - just a slice off the top. Yet we're perfectly happy teaching them moderately complex math.

I think if we started early with philosophy kids would be better prepared to deal with the world they encounter upon reaching adulthood. Relegating philosophy to college or self-study practically ensures a whole class of people never learn how to spot irrational arguments. Of course, with that kind of education they'd be a lot more likely to abandon their religious faiths after putting them through some critical thinking exercises, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised it's not on the school menu.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:448258
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.