INTP Forum  

Go Back   INTP Forum > Within > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 22nd-October-2016, 06:11 PM   #1
Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
 
Philosophyking87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 823
macossafari
Default Philosophy Blog

Hey, guys. I've been coming here for quite a while, though I haven't logged in much in the past few years. Anyway, I'm a philosophy major and did pretty well with my studies. Moreover, I have a clear philosophical aptitude (as many of my professors openly noted on more than one occasion).

With my degree, I've decided to write articles of various kinds - on philosophy, basketball, and social events. Some philosophy articles will be informative, while others will be critical, and some may be my own philosophical take on certain ideas or issues. So mostly, it's just a giant bag of analysis.

The blog (or online magazine, as it may become) is http://keencommentary.com. Come try us out if you're curious and have some time. You may enjoy my thought processes and can freely question or comment on anything I (or my partner) write. I encourage free thinking, mental exploration, and growth. Any philosophy lover is invited, but especially philosophy majors who are still working on a degree.

There's not much yet, as we are just starting. But we expect to have much more in the future. It should be, at least in theory, a kind of "INTP paradise" - where you can get away from society and read some intelligent discourse, or learn something very abstract and logical.

Come give us a try. Our world revolves around philosophy.
__________________
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours." -- Johh Locke
Philosophyking87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd-October-2016, 06:36 AM   #2
QuickTwist
INTPf's very own Southern Baptist
 
QuickTwist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The keen war front.
Posts: 4,860
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

I'm wondering if its possible to ask you (or your community) questions on current philosophical theories I have. I am not an astute learner so most of what I know is based a priori.

All in all I find this endeavor you have created an interesting one, and I hope it grows.
__________________

Fucking right.
QuickTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd-October-2016, 10:37 AM   #3
Hadoblado
Looker at dicker
 
Hadoblado's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,272
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Hi there.

I remember you vaguely, though nothing overly specific about your philosophical views. I minored in philosophy before changing my degree over to a more psychological/neuroscience area. I really enjoyed logic and stuff.

Might I say that your site looks sexy as all fuck?

A few things but. When you refer to psychologists who thought ____, could you cite it?

Quote:
For instance, some psychologists have held that we develop language through experience and observation, while at least one linguist has argued that language development is instead innate (and so not dependent on experience).
Because some psychologists think that mushrooms arrived on earth from the sun. My immediate thought is that no psychologist with their feet on the ground assumes language is 100% innate when all of written language needs to be taught, and spoken language needs to be observed, but can't fact check you without concentrated effort which I happen to have in short supply.

I also notice you refer mainly to older philosophers? While they're obviously important to include, I'd have thought the most recent meaningful iteration of a position would be the most valuable to communicate given that such a position would be the most informed about scientific discovery etc. We're in the middle of plotting out the brain and its functions including knowledge acquisition, it just seems relevant to the conversation is all! In comparison, Descartes meditations are still taught today to serve the function of (non fallacy) straw-men to be ripped apart by first years to give them a taste for blood.

Thoughts?

Edit: also QT you should totes be more specific.
__________________
Spoiler:

"Fire is magic, friendship is mere technology" ~ Void of Space

"The advantages of being very precise even while not being very accurate" ~ Genitive Of Of

"Don't you just love punctuating questions as you would statements in order to soft-claim certainty that elicits agreement" ~ Taint of Volition

Unprincipled exceptions rule everything around me" ~ Content of Media
Hadoblado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd-October-2016, 03:53 PM   #4
Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
 
Philosophyking87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 823
macossafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickTwist View Post
I'm wondering if its possible to ask you (or your community) questions on current philosophical theories I have. I am not an astute learner so most of what I know is based a priori.
That sounds possible.

Quote:
All in all I find this endeavor you have created an interesting one, and I hope it grows.
Thank you.
__________________
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours." -- Johh Locke
Philosophyking87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd-October-2016, 04:24 PM   #5
Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
 
Philosophyking87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 823
macossafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadoblado View Post
Might I say that your site looks sexy as all fuck?
Yes, I've been told by a few others that it is aesthetically pleasing. My partner (an INTJ) set it up (for the most part).

Quote:
A few things but. When you refer to psychologists who thought ____, could you cite it?
Sure. Some of them are a little rushed, so citations and specifics were not in my immediate awareness. I tend to focus on the philosophical ideas more than anything. But you're right: I should specify who thought what.



Quote:
Because some psychologists think that mushrooms arrived on earth from the sun. My immediate thought is that no psychologist with their feet on the ground assumes language is 100% innate when all of written language needs to be taught, and spoken language needs to be observed, but can't fact check you without concentrated effort which I happen to have in short supply.
Well, I had B. F. Skinner and Noam Chomsky in mind when I mentioned language learned through observation and nativism. Chomsky holds not that language is completely known without experience, but that the tools that allow one to learn a language are innate. Many simply communicate this as "Chomsky holds that language is innate" to make things simple. So, Chomsky disagrees with empiricists who believe the mind passively takes in information through experience. Linguistically speaking, at least, Chomsky thinks the mind has innate features through which language is universally developed. This is a rationalist perspective.

Quote:
I also notice you refer mainly to older philosophers? While they're obviously important to include, I'd have thought the most recent meaningful iteration of a position would be the most valuable to communicate given that such a position would be the most informed about scientific discovery etc. We're in the middle of plotting out the brain and its functions including knowledge acquisition, it just seems relevant to the conversation is all! In comparison, Descartes meditations are still taught today to serve the function of (non fallacy) straw-men to be ripped apart by first years to give them a taste for blood.

Thoughts?

Edit: also QT you should totes be more specific.
In time, I will likely get around to this. But many of the articles I plan to write are largely intended more as "philosophy breakdown" type lessons that quickly, clearly, and easily simplify philosophical ideas that might otherwise be complicated. This is why philosophy majors are the more strongly targeted audience. (My partner and I love the idea of philosophy tutoring.) So, philosophical ideas, themselves, are more the point. (I also focus on analytically examining certain ideas and events to provide clarity and useful distinctions - kind of like an "applied philosophy"). But I do think you're right: more recent developments are worth explaining, as well. But I think the basics are best to establish first. In time, I would love to communicate modern developments in philosophy that are much more relevant to recent scientific discoveries and developments.

And yes, Descartes' thinking was very bad, but historically, one must include his thoughts with respect to rationalism and its history. Lol - Otherwise, his philosophical contribution is very irrelevant indeed.

Thanks for the helpful feedback.
__________________
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours." -- Johh Locke
Philosophyking87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd-October-2016, 09:08 PM   #6
Hadoblado
Looker at dicker
 
Hadoblado's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,272
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Ah, ye olde language acquisition device

Chomsky's a smart dude, I wouldn't trust this Skinner bloke though :^).

I've never heard the concept enter a philosophical context. It seems almost misplaced? I guess an LAD serves as counter-example to the extremes of both positions, since such a predisposition proves the slate is not blank, but also requires experience for acquisition to occur? NVM it fits.

I think the forum has been comparatively light on philosophy since you were active. The god arguments (thankfully) died out with a few key proselytizers being shown the door, but the same people that were pushing god may have also been the people pushing philosophy? Or maybe my observation is askew? W/E, more philosophy could be good either way.
__________________
Spoiler:

"Fire is magic, friendship is mere technology" ~ Void of Space

"The advantages of being very precise even while not being very accurate" ~ Genitive Of Of

"Don't you just love punctuating questions as you would statements in order to soft-claim certainty that elicits agreement" ~ Taint of Volition

Unprincipled exceptions rule everything around me" ~ Content of Media
Hadoblado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd-October-2016, 11:25 PM   #7
QuickTwist
INTPf's very own Southern Baptist
 
QuickTwist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The keen war front.
Posts: 4,860
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadoblado View Post
Edit: also QT you should totes be more specific.
Be more specific than what? I don't want to take away from questions I might ask on his blog because I understand its prolly some kind of business and it would seem cheap to ask him about my theories in this thread. I prolly made a poor assessment so maybe you can clarify?
__________________

Fucking right.
QuickTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th-November-2016, 02:24 AM   #8
Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
 
Philosophyking87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 823
macossafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

http://http://www.keencommentary.com/archives/863

Do we have a moral or civic obligation to vote? Here's a philosophical stance. Feel free to discuss or comment with your own thoughts.

A related problem, not discussed in the article, is whether voting itself is rational, which I may write on soon, as well. What do you guys think?

Another area for discussion: did Bob Dylan really qualify for the Nobel? Both articles are under "social commentary".
__________________
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours." -- Johh Locke
Philosophyking87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th-November-2016, 10:57 AM   #9
ProxyAmenRa
Here to bring back the love!
 
ProxyAmenRa's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,674
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
Anyway, I'm a philosophy major and did pretty well with my studies.
You corrupt the youth! You do not renounce impiety! You are even conceited in light of this! You are sentenced to death. Esoteric linguistic constructs won't save you. They will very much hasten your death. Perhaps one of your friends can deliver you hemlock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
A related problem, not discussed in the article, is whether voting itself is rational, which I may write on soon, as well. What do you guys think?
If a person perceives that it is beneficial after the cost of voting has been taken into account and the person votes, that person is acting rationally when voting. If the person chooses not to vote, that person is acting irrationally. There is no need to write an essay.
ProxyAmenRa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th-November-2016, 07:37 PM   #10
Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
 
Philosophyking87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 823
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProxyAmenRa View Post
If a person perceives that it is beneficial after the cost of voting has been taken into account and the person votes, that person is acting rationally when voting.
"If a person perceives that it is beneficial..."

The problem with this view is that perception is subjective. Rationality has to do with having objectively good reasons to do something, or not. So, the rationality of voting comes down to much more than the perception of costs/benefits; it comes down to the actual payoff of one's time and energy. And this is not subjective.

There are many reasons to question the objective rationality of voting. For one thing, many note that an individual vote will rarely ever have a direct affect on the outcome of an election. So, some respond by saying, "Well, what if my intention is only to influence the outcome, instead?" But this just sets back the problem, as the way in which one vote influences an outcome is still incredibly minor.

Plus, if one wishes to influence an election toward a beneficial end, there is also the problem of spending lots of time and energy studying and becoming informed, while millions of other voters merely make their decision on the basis of the clothing style and cuteness of a candidate. The problem here would be that one's informed vote is likely drowned out by millions of uninformed votes. So the goal of helping society through voting contribution appears futile. Plus, if voting is rational for you (toward the end of benefiting society), is it also rational then for your political opponents? Do we not believe the opposition will harm society?

Due to problems like these, many have concluded that voting is not rational and have instead turned from seeing voting as an instrumental (outcomes-based) activity to one of expressive political freedom - like wearing a band shirt to a concert. In other words, if voting isn't rational, then it's just expressive (non-rational).

So there is a lot to consider here, when viewing things objectively and not in terms of individual perception.

With that, I encourage others to offer input. It's a very important topic.
__________________
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours." -- Johh Locke
Philosophyking87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th-November-2016, 08:41 PM   #11
ProxyAmenRa
Here to bring back the love!
 
ProxyAmenRa's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,674
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
The problem with this view is that perception is subjective.
That's correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
Rationality has to do with having objectively good reasons to do something, or not.
Value is subjective. In turn, there are no objectively good reasons to do something. Unless there is at least one true axiom being used by the individual to derive what they should value. Then you could argue whether or not what they have valued is rational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
So, the rationality of voting comes down to much more than the perception of costs/benefits; it comes down to the actual payoff of one's time and energy. And this is not subjective.
Yes, the payoff is not subjective but it is impossible to know the payoff before it occurs. The likelihood of different resultant events can be estimated. I engage in this quite frequently with my risk analyses (mathematical wizardry).

Take this recently election. Hillary had a 80% chance to win and Trump had a 20% chance to win; an estimated probability mass function was describing the payoff. One event occurred, Trump winning, thus anyone who voted with the expectation of Hillary winning, in hindsight, could have put their effort to better uses. Of course, the expected value of the probability mass function was Hillary winning. If the Trump voters based their decision on the expected value of the mass function and not voted, Trump would not have won. People's decision making processes were far more complex than just taking the expected value of a probability mass function.

Now we ask the question: Were the Hillary voters acting irrationally?

I have no grounds to believe they were acting irrationally. I don't know what axioms they were appealing to in their value tabulations. Let alone, whether or not these axioms are "rational" to begin with. For some reason they thought voting for her was beneficial. They acted according to their subjective value tabulations and they voted. I give them the benefit of the doubt.
ProxyAmenRa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-November-2016, 01:42 AM   #12
redbaron
haHAA cringe haHAA
 
redbaron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: 38S 145E
Posts: 5,780
linuxsafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
http://http://www.keencommentary.com/archives/863

Do we have a moral or civic obligation to vote? Here's a philosophical stance. Feel free to discuss or comment with your own thoughts.

A related problem, not discussed in the article, is whether voting itself is rational, which I may write on soon, as well. What do you guys think?

Another area for discussion: did Bob Dylan really qualify for the Nobel? Both articles are under "social commentary".
It's like you're actually trying to discuss useless things.
__________________
They call me the man who isn't could not try to would it. But I would it.
redbaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-November-2016, 02:51 AM   #13
Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
 
Philosophyking87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 823
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProxyAmenRa View Post
Value is subjective. In turn, there are no objectively good reasons to do something. Unless there is at least one true axiom being used by the individual to derive what they should value. Then you could argue whether or not what they have valued is rational.
Yes, value is subjective. And if voting is a matter of expression, then it's true that voting is not irrational (but instead nonrational). That is, voting would be intrinsically valued (or perceived as beneficial) as long as it allows one to express, and this would be the case so long as one turns in a ballot.

But if instead voting is construed as instrumental (which is the common view), then there is goal, and this is usually to reach some political outcome, such as 'making the country better off'. In this situation, someone may subjectively value the goal, but would voting be a rational means of attaining this goal?

This is where your initial response is ambiguous: by "beneficial", did you mean to suggest that voting can be perceived as benefiting one in terms of, say, allowing one to politically express, or did you mean to suggest that voting can be perceived as beneficial in the context of some contribution to a political outcome?

If the former, the value of voting is subjective and non-rational. But if the latter, the subjective value of a political outcome (reached by means of voting) may not necessarily be rational, despite one's value system. So how do you construe voting and the perception of benefits versus costs? Is it inherently or instrumentally beneficial to a voter? The answer to this determines if voting is possibly rational, irrational, or non-rational.

Plus, some also question the ethics of voting. So regardless of the subjective value of political outcomes, some may argue that political outcomes have objective value, so that a vote can be ethical or unethical depending on the outcomes one's vote (presumably) supports.


Quote:
Yes, the payoff is not subjective but it is impossible to know the payoff before it occurs. The likelihood of different resultant events can be estimated. I engage in this quite frequently with my risk analyses (mathematical wizardry).
Well, this assumes there is a direct voting payoff, to begin with. That is, whether or not a vote is causally connected to a payoff in a way that matters. Otherwise, voting only incidentally results in favorable outcomes (and so is perceived as a payoff). But surely one can attempt to estimate outcomes prior to voting. So, again, the idea that voting for outcomes is rational is not very clear.

Quote:
Take this recently election. Hillary had a 80% chance to win and Trump had a 20% chance to win; an estimated probability mass function was describing the payoff. One event occurred, Trump winning, thus anyone who voted with the expectation of Hillary winning, in hindsight, could have put their effort to better uses. Of course, the expected value of the probability mass function was Hillary winning. If the Trump voters based their decision on the expected value of the mass function and not voted, Trump would not have won. People's decision making processes were far more complex than just taking the expected value of a probability mass function.

Now we ask the question: Were the Hillary voters acting irrationally?

I have no grounds to believe they were acting irrationally. I don't know what axioms they were appealing to in their value tabulations. Let alone, whether or not these axioms are "rational" to begin with. For some reason they thought voting for her was beneficial. They acted according to their subjective value tabulations and they voted. I give them the benefit of the doubt.
If they voted to express, then surely they were not voting irrationally. But if they voted for outcomes, there's many problems. Again, there's the issue of establishing the very idea that voting is casually connected with outcomes in a way that rationally justifies individual votes. This doesn't seem clear. Also, the extent to which other voter's ignorance impacts the worth of your own vote (assuming you spend much time informing yourself) also leaves reason to question the rationality of voting as an instrumental means. Expectations as to who will win are then irrelevant.

But even then, even if voting based on probabilistic expectations did often lead to the right election outcomes, it is still questionable whether the candidate one helped to elect would actually improve the state of things, overall. They might simply find that the candidate is horribly unprepared for the job, despite appearances. In this way, then, voting even with probabilistic calculations taken into account, one's vote may end up actually contributing, again assuming causal connections, to a worse state of things for a country, county, state, etc. And if voting is to do a duty in promoting the greater good, then voting isn't always rational.
__________________
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours." -- Johh Locke
Philosophyking87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-November-2016, 02:53 AM   #14
Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
 
Philosophyking87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 823
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
It's like you're actually trying to discuss useless things.
How so?

Philosophically, these are important issues. And this is a philosophy section. Moreover, philosophical considerations are rarely useless for the sake of understanding, clarity, and even as a guide to optimal action and behavior. Properly appreciated, they are far from useless.

But yes, philosophical considerations aren't always practical. And in many ways, they rarely are. Yet to focus on this is to miss the point of philosophy. It's primarily about solving abstract problems for the sake of understanding and clarity. If the solution to an abstract problem, then, never has a practical effect, it doesn't mean the resolution of the abstract problem, in and of itself, isn't valuable. It's value just isn't necessarily tangible or concrete. But not everything valuable is.

Thus, you might prefer the science section.
__________________
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours." -- Johh Locke
Philosophyking87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-November-2016, 03:05 AM   #15
Cognisant
Condescending Bastard
 
Cognisant's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,001
linuxsafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

As I see it there's fundamentally three options.
1. Act within the system, i.e. vote.
2. Act outside the system, actively rebel against it.
3. Take no action, don't vote.

Option 3 achieves nothing, even if only the politicians voted it will still be a valid election, the individual's vote is not required, any attempt to constrew this as an act of rebellion is just justifying laziness.
__________________
Deadlier, Sillier and more Perverted.
Cognisant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-November-2016, 03:09 AM   #16
Cognisant
Condescending Bastard
 
Cognisant's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,001
linuxsafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Interestingly people voting for Trump is being interpreted as a rebellion of rural conservatives againat the urban liberals.
__________________
Deadlier, Sillier and more Perverted.
Cognisant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-November-2016, 03:16 AM   #17
Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
 
Philosophyking87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 823
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognisant View Post
As I see it there's fundamentally three options.
1. Act within the system, i.e. vote.
2. Act outside the system, actively rebel against it.
3. Take no action, don't vote.

Option 3 achieves nothing, even if only the politicians voted it will still be a valid election, the individual's vote is not required, any attempt to constrew this as an act of rebellion is just justifying laziness.
Why must one achieve anything (in this context), though?
__________________
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours." -- Johh Locke
Philosophyking87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-November-2016, 03:44 AM   #18
redbaron
haHAA cringe haHAA
 
redbaron's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: 38S 145E
Posts: 5,780
linuxsafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
How so?

Philosophically, these are important issues. And this is a philosophy section. Moreover, philosophical considerations are rarely useless for the sake of understanding, clarity, and even as a guide to optimal action and behavior. Properly appreciated, they are far from useless.

But yes, philosophical considerations aren't always practical. And in many ways, they rarely are. Yet to focus on this is to miss the point of philosophy. It's primarily about solving abstract problems for the sake of understanding and clarity. If the solution to an abstract problem, then, never has a practical effect, it doesn't mean the resolution of the abstract problem, in and of itself, isn't valuable. It's value just isn't necessarily tangible or concrete. But not everything valuable is.

Thus, you might prefer the science section.
It's not that philosophy is entirely useless, they're just useless topics.

Unless you just want to sound smart and pat yourself on the back for sounding smart, they're good for that.
__________________
They call me the man who isn't could not try to would it. But I would it.
redbaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-November-2016, 04:08 AM   #19
Cognisant
Condescending Bastard
 
Cognisant's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,001
linuxsafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
Why must one achieve anything (in this context), though?
I assume if we're talking about voting we do so under the assumption that the voter or non-voter seeks to affect the electoral outcome.

But if you want to get all existential about it, why must voting have a purpose, why not just vote for the sake of voting?
__________________
Deadlier, Sillier and more Perverted.
Cognisant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-November-2016, 05:21 AM   #20
Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
 
Philosophyking87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 823
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
they're just useless topics.
How so? People tend to think voting is important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognisant View Post
I assume if we're talking about voting we do so under the assumption that the voter or non-voter seeks to affect the electoral outcome.
Yes, some wish to do this. But some don't. So it's difficult to see how those who avoid voting are accomplishing nothing, if they don't seek to affect the electoral outcome.

Quote:
But if you want to get all existential about it, why must voting have a purpose, why not just vote for the sake of voting?
That was the point I was trying to get you to notice. Some people just vote to vote, while some don't see the point. So the ones who avoid voting aren't failing to accomplish anything, as they don't accept the outcomes assumption to begin with.

The questions are these:
* Is there a duty to vote?
* Is voting rational?

In time, I'll have more "useless topics". One example is sex ethics. It'd be interesting to see what you guys make of that dilemma.
__________________
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours." -- Johh Locke
Philosophyking87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-November-2016, 07:02 AM   #21
Cognisant
Condescending Bastard
 
Cognisant's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,001
linuxsafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Yes, some wish to do this. But some don't. So it's difficult to see how those who avoid voting are accomplishing nothing, if they don't seek to affect the electoral outcome.
To do nothing is a choice whether the act of choosing is acknowledged or not, unless of course the person is completely unaware of the situation but that is an irrelevant assumption.
__________________
Deadlier, Sillier and more Perverted.
Cognisant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-November-2016, 07:24 AM   #22
Cognisant
Condescending Bastard
 
Cognisant's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,001
linuxsafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
So the ones who avoid voting aren't failing to accomplish anything, as they don't accept the outcomes assumption to begin with.
Your boat is sinking and you're surrounded by sharks, do you bail water, try to find and plug the hole or pray for rescue?

"I refuse to acknowledge the situation"
__________________
Deadlier, Sillier and more Perverted.
Cognisant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th-November-2016, 11:51 AM   #23
ProxyAmenRa
Here to bring back the love!
 
ProxyAmenRa's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,674
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

You're presuming people's intentions which leads to a spurious discussion.
ProxyAmenRa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-November-2016, 12:02 AM   #24
Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
 
Philosophyking87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 823
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognisant View Post
Your boat is sinking and you're surrounded by sharks, do you bail water, try to find and plug the hole or pray for rescue?

"I refuse to acknowledge the situation"
I'm not sure you understand the philosophical issue adequately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProxyAmenRa View Post
You're presuming people's intentions which leads to a spurious discussion.
Not really. It's a matter of taking intentions into account, but then noting problems with various perspectives, and then noting how voting should be viewed ideally, perhaps (or how actual behavior indicates what people actually see voting as, even if they think otherwise).

So it's two questions:
(1) Depending on various reasons for voting, is it rational?
We did this. If voting is instrumental, it is hard to say it's rational. But if it's expressive, it seems to not involve reason at all (and is nonrational).

(2) Regardless of intentions (or the way people actually go about voting), how might voting most rationally be understood or engaged? And depending on this, is it rational?

The first question is a matter of analyzing possible descriptive accounts of voting (instrumental and expressive). The second question, however, is a normative matter that moves beyond empirical matters and looks at the ideal way of viewing voting, according to analysis.

So, there's is actually much to discuss here, philosophically. But from what I gather, not many in this section, or on this forum generally, are adequately philosophical. (Plus, my blog link was removed, anyway.)

So this entire issue is wasted, as philosophical reasoning involves a certain perspective (mindset, state of mind, or approach) I've not yet seen in this thread.

Peace, guys. Hopefully I find philosophical peers elsewhere. I don't think this is the place to find such persons.
__________________
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours." -- Johh Locke
Philosophyking87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-November-2016, 04:34 AM   #25
ProxyAmenRa
Here to bring back the love!
 
ProxyAmenRa's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,674
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
Peace, guys. Hopefully I find philosophical peers elsewhere. I don't think this is the place to find such persons.
So when it gets tough and your ideas are scrutinized, you run away. Well, Socrates didn't run away. He died for what he believed in.
ProxyAmenRa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-November-2016, 09:53 PM   #26
Puffy
Demon Alpaca Overlord
 
Puffy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SOON
Posts: 2,672
macossafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProxyAmenRa View Post
So when it gets tough and your ideas are scrutinized, you run away. Well, Socrates didn't run away. He died for what he believed in.
The kind of modern philosophising he's advocating ('trained in' lol - training in critical theory consists of being forced to read loads of their essays until you start regurgitating their style) seems more akin to Protagoras than Socrates tbh. Which if I understand it is the essence of your point.

I'd expect Protagoras to run away when he finds a lack of admirers for his clever verbiage, given that he only 'philosophises' in this thread, and came back to this forum, to self-aggrandise himself anyway.
__________________

Puffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th-November-2016, 09:26 PM   #27
green acid
Member
 
green acid's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 92
windows_98_nt_2000mozilla
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognisant View Post
Interestingly people voting for Trump is being interpreted as a rebellion of rural conservatives againat the urban liberals.
I live in a rural district in the American west that votes Republican. The ones waving the Trump-Pence signs are white, beer-drinking NRA members. Some of them are my neighbors, they have 8th grade scholastic aptitudes. They are paranoid of anyone who looks Middle Eastern, and are many of those in a college town. I vote for lowering the sales tax and keeping marijuana legal. This is purely operational, because I feel morally compromised by participating in a criminal system that is committing humanitarian crimes in Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere. On the other hand, urban liberals can be equally strident. We're seeing less and less objectivity and two sides getting emotional over propaganda, from FOX, Democracy Now!, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh and these other agitators. I don't take them seriously at all. Maybe I'll move to Australia.
green acid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th-November-2016, 03:03 AM   #28
Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
 
Philosophyking87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 823
macossafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProxyAmenRa View Post
So when it gets tough and your ideas are scrutinized, you run away. Well, Socrates didn't run away. He died for what he believed in.
It's nothing to do with my ideas being scrutinized, as I did not offer my views. It was actually more a matter of scrutinizing your response (about perception of benefits) to a question I posed, and then explaining and distinguishing various philosophical ways of analyzing the subject (the rationality of voting).

And as I specifically said, the general philosophic capacity in this forum is not as great as I thought it would be. By analyzing your response, and then attempting to explain to you the philosophical problems, it became evident that these highly abstract issues are not easy to grasp and deal with. And more or less, the general input was lacking in philosophical substance and acuity.

This is all to say that those fortuned enough to appreciate and comprehend the problems I notice and shared are very rare in the general population. As if this crowd is already a subset of the general population, and these matters are still too esoteric, then my actual peers lie in philosophy and graduate departments. Yet due to aspergers, I turned from that path. (Grad school is very taxing, especially if your social skills are limited.)

So it's more a matter of realizing that my thinking patterns and interests are far too obscure in nature to be appreciated by most people. I really thought at least one or two of the members here would be capable of offering substantive feedback on these issues, and would possibly be interested in related articles on the topics. But I suppose I expected too much.

It's not about my ideas, for I know I'm gifted at logical thought. It's about other people's ability to think philosophically and work through such issues on a level nearing my own. And in that regard, I appear to be a kind of unicorn.

I merely realized this and figured my aptitude for philosophic thought is difficult for others to appreciate outside of an educated philosophy crowd. And this is just to say that without attending grad school, I would have to dumb down my philosophical work to appeal to those who aren't naturally on my level. But dumbing down is not my forte. And so it's best that I find another approach.

That's all.

My own thinking is highly complex. And I would have loved some actual scrutiny at some point. But again, you can't scrutinize what you don't understand. And that's the problem: my ideas are too advanced and philosophic to be easily digested in the first place. They never get to be scrutinized, as they are not addressing issues that are easily noticed and understood.

So unless I find a few graduate fellows to find my blog, it's mostly high end philosophy spoken out to a crowd with no ears for such things.

But you guys enjoy this site. I just expected more.
__________________
"Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours." -- Johh Locke
Philosophyking87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th-November-2016, 03:55 AM   #29
QuickTwist
INTPf's very own Southern Baptist
 
QuickTwist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The keen war front.
Posts: 4,860
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
It's nothing to do with my ideas being scrutinized, as I did not offer my views. It was actually more a matter of scrutinizing your response (about perception of benefits) to a question I posed, and then explaining and distinguishing various philosophical ways of analyzing the subject (the rationality of voting).

And as I specifically said, the general philosophic capacity in this forum is not as great as I thought it would be. By analyzing your response, and then attempting to explain to you the philosophical problems, it became evident that these highly abstract issues are not easy to grasp and deal with. And more or less, the general input was lacking in philosophical substance and acuity.

This is all to say that those fortuned enough to appreciate and comprehend the problems I notice and shared are very rare in the general population. As if this crowd is already a subset of the general population, and these matters are still too esoteric, then my actual peers lie in philosophy and graduate departments. Yet due to aspergers, I turned from that path. (Grad school is very taxing, especially if your social skills are limited.)

So it's more a matter of realizing that my thinking patterns and interests are far too obscure in nature to be appreciated by most people. I really thought at least one or two of the members here would be capable of offering substantive feedback on these issues, and would possibly be interested in related articles on the topics. But I suppose I expected too much.

It's not about my ideas, for I know I'm gifted at logical thought. It's about other people's ability to think philosophically and work through such issues on a level nearing my own. And in that regard, I appear to be a kind of unicorn.

I merely realized this and figured my aptitude for philosophic thought is difficult for others to appreciate outside of an educated philosophy crowd. And this is just to say that without attending grad school, I would have to dumb down my philosophical work to appeal to those who aren't naturally on my level. But dumbing down is not my forte. And so it's best that I find another approach.

That's all.

My own thinking is highly complex. And I would have loved some actual scrutiny at some point. But again, you can't scrutinize what you don't understand. And that's the problem: my ideas are too advanced and philosophic to be easily digested in the first place. They never get to be scrutinized, as they are not addressing issues that are easily noticed and understood.

So unless I find a few graduate fellows to find my blog, it's mostly high end philosophy spoken out to a crowd with no ears for such things.

But you guys enjoy this site. I just expected more.
TBH, I find it interesting that you bring up the topic of "is voting rational?" It is really quite intriguing to think that things like this are at a point of discussion to err.. rationalize. To think something as simple as filling in bubbles on a sheet of paper has enough content to be a topic of serious discussion is kinda cool. The problem with people here is that if they think they are smart, they are not likely to think they are wrong. It doesn't matter how smart they are, they are simply not open to changing their mind once it has been made up. This may not be true for everyone, but I know a lot of forum members here have very strong opinions about things that they will not budge from. This is a problem here, and if I am being perfectly honest here, I think the administrators have something to do with it. So again, its not that they are dumb and/or can't grasp the concepts, its that people have an agenda that they want to propogate without the meanderings solely of critical thought without the necessity of judgement associated with that. You don't do this because you have been taught how to think like a philosopher. You know that judgements are better passed than taken at the first opportunity and that is not a common trait here.

That said, I know you might feel kinda dull talking about this because its been done to death, but I would really like to read what you have to say about free will vs. determinism. I myself am somewhat pessimistic in my understanding, so that should give you an idea of where I stand on the subject. But that would be one thing I would really think would be interesting to read about coming from a strictly analytical approach, namely, what are the main points of either side and then letting the reader decide for themselves where they stand on the issue.
__________________

Fucking right.
QuickTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th-January-2017, 08:19 AM   #30
ProxyAmenRa
Here to bring back the love!
 
ProxyAmenRa's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,674
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
It's nothing to do with my ideas being scrutinized, as I did not offer my views. It was actually more a matter of scrutinizing your response (about perception of benefits) to a question I posed, and then explaining and distinguishing various philosophical ways of analyzing the subject (the rationality of voting).

And as I specifically said, the general philosophic capacity in this forum is not as great as I thought it would be. By analyzing your response, and then attempting to explain to you the philosophical problems, it became evident that these highly abstract issues are not easy to grasp and deal with. And more or less, the general input was lacking in philosophical substance and acuity.

This is all to say that those fortuned enough to appreciate and comprehend the problems I notice and shared are very rare in the general population. As if this crowd is already a subset of the general population, and these matters are still too esoteric, then my actual peers lie in philosophy and graduate departments. Yet due to aspergers, I turned from that path. (Grad school is very taxing, especially if your social skills are limited.)

So it's more a matter of realizing that my thinking patterns and interests are far too obscure in nature to be appreciated by most people. I really thought at least one or two of the members here would be capable of offering substantive feedback on these issues, and would possibly be interested in related articles on the topics. But I suppose I expected too much.

It's not about my ideas, for I know I'm gifted at logical thought. It's about other people's ability to think philosophically and work through such issues on a level nearing my own. And in that regard, I appear to be a kind of unicorn.

I merely realized this and figured my aptitude for philosophic thought is difficult for others to appreciate outside of an educated philosophy crowd. And this is just to say that without attending grad school, I would have to dumb down my philosophical work to appeal to those who aren't naturally on my level. But dumbing down is not my forte. And so it's best that I find another approach.

That's all.

My own thinking is highly complex. And I would have loved some actual scrutiny at some point. But again, you can't scrutinize what you don't understand. And that's the problem: my ideas are too advanced and philosophic to be easily digested in the first place. They never get to be scrutinized, as they are not addressing issues that are easily noticed and understood.

So unless I find a few graduate fellows to find my blog, it's mostly high end philosophy spoken out to a crowd with no ears for such things.

But you guys enjoy this site. I just expected more.
You have not demonstrated that you're a master of ratiocination. Otherwise you would have properly constructed a thesis. The main reason why you did not is that you claim knowledge about voters (their motivations) that you do not have. You could have assumed hypothetical motivations are argued those but you did not. Even in this ego driven rant of yours you claim that you have knowledge (i.e. that we are essentially idiots that can't understand you) that you do not have.
ProxyAmenRa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th-January-2017, 03:37 PM   #31
Hadoblado
Looker at dicker
 
Hadoblado's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,272
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
This may not be true for everyone, but I know a lot of forum members here have very strong opinions about things that they will not budge from. This is a problem here, and if I am being perfectly honest here, I think the administrators have something to do with it.
Could you be more specific? Via PM if you wish. How do two largely absent and/or recently promoted thought police have so much influence over the beliefs of our residents?

I agree a lot of people have very strong opinions that they're unwilling to budge from.
__________________
Spoiler:

"Fire is magic, friendship is mere technology" ~ Void of Space

"The advantages of being very precise even while not being very accurate" ~ Genitive Of Of

"Don't you just love punctuating questions as you would statements in order to soft-claim certainty that elicits agreement" ~ Taint of Volition

Unprincipled exceptions rule everything around me" ~ Content of Media
Hadoblado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th-January-2017, 04:33 PM   #32
Blarraun
straightedgy
 
Blarraun's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: someplace windswept
Posts: 4,101
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophyking87 View Post
So it's more a matter of realizing that my thinking patterns and interests are far too obscure in nature to be appreciated by most people. I really thought at least one or two of the members here would be capable of offering substantive feedback on these issues, and would possibly be interested in related articles on the topics. But I suppose I expected too much.

It's not about my ideas, for I know I'm gifted at logical thought. It's about other people's ability to think philosophically and work through such issues on a level nearing my own. And in that regard, I appear to be a kind of unicorn.

I merely realized this and figured my aptitude for philosophic thought is difficult for others to appreciate outside of an educated philosophy crowd. And this is just to say that without attending grad school, I would have to dumb down my philosophical work to appeal to those who aren't naturally on my level. But dumbing down is not my forte. And so it's best that I find another approach.
You're so full of yourself.

If you can't agree to 'stoop as low' as to explain anything you have to say to the general populace, which intpf members like proxy are probably above the average representatives thereof when it comes to comprehension, then you really have nothing of value to communicate. You just produce void musings for your personal sake.

Every idea and every thought, regardless of how complex it is in outset, can be simplified or reworded to promote mutual understanding. The greatest skill lies not in eloquence or fancy subclauses, it lies in concise and simple delivery.

It's quite sad that you'd deem a majority of the populace as not capable of participating in your level of reasoning, it's not so far from escaping to a cave or writing them off as animals.
__________________
Spoiler:
~life is the exercise of will
Many valued logic
mail preferred

Blarraun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th-January-2017, 04:19 PM   #33
gilliatt
Member
 
gilliatt's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: usa
Posts: 262
macossafari
Default Re: Philosophy Blog

If I could teach you the right philosophy, your own mind will do the rest. So, I do not have to change the world single-handed, I can use my head and teach a few people in the world the right philosophy & they will do the rest.
__________________
"State planning is extremely old, its free enterprise that is the new." Statism need not be the philosophy of the future when there is an increasing number of dedicated people fighting for freedom.
gilliatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:48 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Template-Modifications by TMS
no new posts