Philosophy is a Discipline

[Cognisant]

Philosophizing is different from theorizing in that philosophy is the rationalization of theories, to say I believe something is to theorize, to say I believe something for rational reason is philosophy and it is the analysis of this reasoning that is a philosophical discussion.

On this forum philosophical discussions have largely ceased due to the ever present influence of sophists, people who resort to absolute skepticism to disregard evidence that contradicts their theories in order to assert their theories despite the lack of supporting evidence and then tie up discussion defending these irrational assertions with yet more sophistic arguments until nobody can be bothered with the discussion anymore.

If this forum is a venue for intelligent philosophical discussion, for people to learn from each other and contribute their experiences to achieving greater understanding then these sophists are cancer that has crippled us, a cancer that must be identified, isolated and ideally removed.

How shall we do this?

 

[Cognisant]

I think we need a clear understanding of the difference between philosophy and sophism, unfortunately that's an incredibly complex topic with many highly debatable borderline instances and I don't think this community is ready to undertake such an endeavor.

However for those possessed of wild ambition here's where I suggest we could begin, a book by Madsen Pirie called "How To Win Every Argument; The use and Abuse of Logic", a couple of commonly occurring fallacious arguments mentioned in it are the Ad Hominem Attack (attacking someone's credibility rather than their reasoning) and the Scarecrow argument (misrepresenting another's position). Though of course sometimes people do lack requisite credibility such as when pretending to have expertise in a field that they do not and sometimes people will disguise their philosophy as a less extreme one to try and sneakily make people seem to be agreeing with something they otherwise would not.

 

[redbaron]

Discipline is a philosophy.

 

[Cognisant]

If you idealize discipline then that is your philosophy however discipline is in of itself no more a philosophy than any other noun/verb.

Also thank you for your smartass single line remark that contributed absolutely nothing to this thread other than giving me a perfect example of the kind of cancerous personality that is crippling our community.

 

[Grayman]

If you idealize discipline then that is your philosophy however discipline is in of itself no more a philosophy than any other noun/verb.

Also thank you for your smartass single line remark that contributed absolutely nothing to this thread other than giving me a perfect example of the kind of cancerous personality that is crippling our community.

What is your philosophy? It seems as if you are indicating that it is based on belief but that seems more like religion and theology.

Would you help us define the appropriate amount of skeptism? I have not seen pure skeptism of others 'accepted truths' since Wonka left and his views where not based on the philosophy of solphism but of absolute belief.

Edit: I quoted the wrong thing...

 

[Cognisant]

My reasoning is based upon my knowledge and the trust I put in the accuracy of that knowledge so for the sake of clarity when referring to philosophical theories I say I believe something to be true in recognition of the fact that if shown sufficient contradictory evidence I would change my mind.

Would you help us define the appropriate amount of skeptism?

Whenever skepticism is used to disregard evidence or valid reasoning without better evidence or better thought out reasoning, for example saying consciousness can't be a mechanistic process because I can't prove it is whereas it could be some kind of inter-atomic ether because there's lots of space between atoms so there ought to be something there.

Our state of consciousness can be affected in numerous physical ways, this strongly suggests that consciousness is a physically embodied process and so I believe consciousness is mechanistic and I won't change my beliefs until someone can present me with a better explanation.

 

[Grayman]

My reasoning is based upon my knowledge and the trust I put in the accuracy of that knowledge so for the sake of clarity when referring to philosophical theories I say I believe something to be true in recognition of the fact that if shown sufficient contradictory evidence I would change my mind.

Yes, but why should I trust your perceptions? If someone says they saw god would you believe them? This person is generally sane you have no reason to doubt him and yet you will.

Whenever skepticism is used to disregard evidence or valid reasoning without better evidence or better thought out reasoning, for example saying consciousness can't be a mechanistic process because I can't prove it is whereas it could be some kind of inter-atomic ether because there's lots of space between atoms so there ought to be something there.

Our state of consciousness can be affected in numerous physical ways, this strongly suggests that consciousness is a physically embodied process and so I believe consciousness is mechanistic and I won't change my beliefs until someone can present me with a better explanation.

Anything in this world is a mechanical process and only a few objects have conciousness. What makes them different than the physics of reality? Can reality observe itself?

 

[kris]

Yes, but why should I trust your perceptions? If someone says they saw god would you believe them? This person is generally sane you have no reason to doubt him and yet you will.

That's not what is being asked of you. If I saw God, hopefully I would appreciate that this evidence is anecdotal and, while significant to me, is not credible to anyone else. If I submit my personal experience, it doesn't need to be accepted or rejected as true or false, but it does need to be placed into perspective. If the question is about why I, personally, believe in God, it's highly relevant to the conversation. If the question is why other people should also believe in God, objectively, it's not compelling. It may offer some value in interpersonal interaction, but it has marginal value in forming a rational argument.

I think the main point of this thread is that philosophy is not navel-gazing. Systems of logic and argumentation are not arbitrary points of view, but rather reliable methods for moving forward in the exploration of concepts and ideas. It may not be perfect, but it's more reliable in objective discourse than tit for tat opining.

Apologies to the op if I've missed the mark.

 

[Grayman]

That's not what is being asked of you. If I saw God, hopefully I would appreciate that this evidence is anecdotal and, while significant to me, is not credible to anyone else. If I submit my personal experience, it doesn't need to be accepted or rejected as true or false, but it does need to be placed into perspective. If the question is about why I, personally, believe in God, it's highly relevant to the conversation. If the question is why other people should also believe in God, objectively, it's not compelling. It may offer some value in interpersonal interaction, but it has marginal value in forming a rational argument.

I think the main point of this thread is that philosophy is not navel-gazing. Systems of logic and argumentation are not arbitrary points of view, but rather reliable methods for moving forward in the exploration of concepts and ideas. It may not be perfect, but it's more reliable in objective discourse than tit for tat opining.

Apologies to the op if I've missed the mark.

I took his term of sophist and his other remarks to be an issue with skeptism itself.

I agree with you on the nature of debate. To change their opinion you must argue from their point of view. Likely seeing it from their eyes will change your understanding as well. The other method results in nothing but the back and forth of the same beliefs.

 

[Reluctantly]

It's hard to take you seriously when those that bring up counter viewpoints to what you think about philosophy and its role quickly get labeled as Sophists.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Philosophizing is different from theorizing in that philosophy is the rationalization of theories, to say I believe something is to theorize, to say I believe something for rational reason is philosophy and it is the analysis of this reasoning that is a philosophical discussion.

A nice distinction.

On this forum philosophical discussions have largely ceased due to the ever present influence of sophists, people who resort to absolute skepticism to disregard evidence that contradicts their theories in order to assert their theories despite the lack of supporting evidence and then tie up discussion defending these irrational assertions with yet more sophistic arguments until nobody can be bothered with the discussion anymore.

It's one of the reasons I post significantly less than I used to.

If this forum is a venue for intelligent philosophical discussion, for people to learn from each other and contribute their experiences to achieving greater understanding then these sophists are cancer that has crippled us, a cancer that must be identified, isolated and ideally removed.

Maybe. Maybe not. I agree that trying to navigate around or ignore them is a challenge and a burden we should not have to carry. ...

How shall we do this?

Creating another forum location, with some strict rules about membership, might help.

 

[Grayman]

This is the INTP forum not a philosophy forum.

Try http://forums.philosophyforums.com

 

[nexion]

Being one of these aforementioned sophists (and admittedly taking a fair bit of pride in being called cancer to the idea of philosophical progress), I merely wish to ask what makes sophistry any less a philosophy than whatever it is you are pushing, and how these principles can't impart greater understanding onto those who are receptive to the idea that these principles uphold.

You decrying these people under the assumption that absolute skepticism does nothing but destroy philosophical discussion and render conversation itself pointless seems to me like little more than a reaction to your own views being challenged. You have to ask yourself, what is philosophy about? Is it about belief or is it about truth?

You fail to see the discussion itself as meaningful, rather than solely the conclusions the discussion provides. I guess I can't really criticize you too much, since you have in this case provided the means for discussion, but I would still urge you to consider reality beyond such a rigorous dichotomy of true and untrue. Belief has inherent value irrespective of these qualities.

 

[Cognisant]

Yes, but why should I trust your perceptions? If someone says they saw god would you believe them? This person is generally sane you have no reason to doubt him and yet you will.

If someone claimed that they personally met the omnipresent omniscient all powerful creator of the universe and absolute arbiter of morality, yes I'd be a tad skeptical, if someone told me they rode a unicorn yesterday I'd also be skeptical, now if they had witnesses and credible photographs that evidence would make me very curious because it would conflict with a lifetime of experiences to the contrary.

I can't say god/unicorns don't exist, nor have I ever encountered one, seen a photograph of one, personally met someone that has seen one or heard of one existing from what I would consider a credible source so why shouldn't I be skeptical?

Anything in this world is a mechanical process and only a few objects have conciousness. What makes them different than the physics of reality? Can reality observe itself?

What do you mean by "the physics of reality"?
A computer processes information, the brain clearly is an information processing organ of some sort, furthermore consciousness seems directly related to the brain so it seems apparent that consciousness is a physical process of some sort, I don't understand why people insist that some exotic physics or yet unknown element must be involved, I think consciousness is just an incredibly complex process that we have only recently acquired the tools to properly study.

It's hard to take you seriously when those that bring up counter viewpoints to what you think about philosophy and its role quickly get labeled as Sophists.

I'm not calling Grayman a sophist, in fact I'm quite enjoying having an intelligent conversation with him despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that we don't agree.

You have to ask yourself, what is philosophy about? Is it about belief or is it about truth?

The pursuit of truth.

You fail to see the discussion itself as meaningful, rather than solely the conclusions the discussion provides

I encourage discussion but I object to sophistic argument that does nothing more than prolong discussion by preventing a conclusion from being reached, particularly when this is done for the sake of pushing religious beliefs irrespective of the evidence they conflict with, it's like saying we should shut down schools because the science taught in schools conflicts with parts of the bible which cannot be proven absolutely inaccurate because nothing can be absolutely known.

Surely you understand how unreasonable that is?

 

[Polaris]

I understand OP's frustrations. Although I think it would be difficult to execute such discussions on here unless there are strict guidelines outlined; anyone who enters such a discussion would have to have a high degree of informed consent before joining, which could only be achieved through an enforcement of rules. People on here are generally not fond of rules.

Ideally, I would like to see a formal philosophical discussion sub-forum. We do have the formal debates section, but nobody seems to want to go there.

From Wiki: "Before the writing of Plato, the word "sophist" could be used as either a respectful or contemptuous title, much like way the word "intellectual" can be used today. It was in Plato’s dialogue, Sophist, that the first record of an attempt to answer the question “What is a Sophist?” is made. Plato described Sophists as paid hunters after the young and wealthy, as merchants of knowledge, as athletes in a contest of words, and purgers of souls. From Plato's assessment of Sophists it could be concluded that Sophists do not offer true knowledge, but only an opinion of things. Plato describes them as shadows of the true early Sophists and wrote, “...the art of contradiction making, descended from an insincere kind of conceited mimicry, of the semblance-making breed, derived from image making, distinguished as portion, not divine but human, of production, that presents, a shadow play of words—such are the blood and the lineage which can, with perfect truth, be assigned to the authentic Sophist”. Plato sought to separate the Sophist from the Philosopher. Where a Sophist was a person who makes his living through deception, a philosopher was a lover of wisdom who sought truth. To give the Philosophers greater credence, the Sophists had to receive a negative connotation".

Do religious/spiritual arguments belong in philosophical discussions?

Philosophy of religion/beliefs + philosophy of science/facts = circular arguments

 

[Grayman]

I can't say god/unicorns don't exist, nor have I ever encountered one, seen a photograph of one, personally met someone that has seen one or heard of one existing from what I would consider a credible source so why shouldn't I be skeptical?

At first I had confused the term solipsism with sophism. Sorry.

This part here...

sophists, people who resort to absolute skepticism to disregard evidence that contradicts their theories...

led be to thinking you were talking about solipsism which is a form of philosophy I like to utilize in my mindset when understanding. To remain skeptical. That nothing is fully known as true. I seek plausiblities based on what I accept as true in order to maintain some form of reality since I would have nothing otherwise.

I suppose the only difference in the dictionary is that the Sophist is intending to deceive everyone else but the Solipsist is self deceiving.

I do support the idea of solipsism but I don't think I fit into the category of Solipsist unless I am suffering from some great delusion so perhaps I should not consider myself a solipsist....

Sorry for the tangent.


**************

I guess we agree that skeptism is good and data should be checked against your own world view. We need to determine truth and there are a lot of deceits(inwardly or out) and faulty perceptions. I do believe that I should keep their input in mind as a part of understanding them but I do not make things my truth without great deliberation and supportive evidence.

Evidence in the form of legitimate links seem to be lacking on this forum but I suppose I have been in the type of discussions where evidence such as statistics would serve any purpose. Perhaps I would do well to research more and provide more links and argue less.

 

[Cognisant]

Do religious/spiritual arguments belong in philosophical discussions?

Technically yes but it is SO HARD to have an intelligent discussion about religion because the people who have the most desire to talk about it are already emotionally invested in it and thus seemingly incapable of regarding it from a detached, open minded perspective.

Evidence in the form of legitimate links seem to be lacking on this forum but I suppose I have been in the type of discussions where evidence such as statistics would serve any purpose. Perhaps I would do well to research more and provide more links and argue less.

If you're backing up your arguments with evidence I don't care if I disagree with you because chances are I'll still learn something and that has a value in of itself