Philosophy is dangerous

[scorpiomover]

I would like to know what these people think is worth knowing if not principles (the object of noetic knowledge) and their applications (the object of rational knowledge), both of which pertain to wisdom as I've described it. Even prudential (i.e. useful) knowledge is included in sapiential knowledge, though wisdom is by no means exhausted by prudence.

I can't say I've ever heard or read of great thinkers like Newton, Boyle, Maxwell, Avicenna, Averroes, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas of Acquinas, ever using terms like "noetic knowledge", "prudential knowledge", and "sapiential knowledge".

I've only ever heard philosophy majors using terms like these, and they talk about "philosophy" as if it means knowledge, and not "love of wisdom", as you claim.

The word 'wisdom' no more has a single, unanimously recognized meaning than 'intelligence' does, for the simple reason that English is not an artificially univocal, 'one word, one meaning' language like a mathematical deductive system, and is moreover quite unsuited to discussing immaterial things like the different kinds of knowledge.

We understand each other in English, because there is a common meaning to the words, or else we would not be able to understand what each other mean. So there is a general understanding in English.

The Hebrew word 'Chochmah', likewise, has very different meanings in exegetical and Kabbalistic contexts from the one you described here.

I've learned a heck of a lot of exegesis and Kabbalah. They do not define "Chochmah" anywhere, but clearly always use the word "wisdom" as meaning "useful knowledge".

They also talk about "Binah" as the ability to use one concept to derive others, and "Daat" as practical experience. The word "knowledge", however, is something they never mention.

Convention is not always the best guide when one wishes to express oneself precisely. One must also rely on etymology, as I have.

You have relied upon "philosophos" as "phlio" + "sophos", where "philo" means "love of", to re-interpret the meaning of the word "philosophy". However, that doesn't fit the way people who engage in philosophy as you extensively have, use the word "philosophy".

Moreover, you have not described the etymology of "sophos". So all you have is that philosophy = "love of sophos".

If you want to get into the etymology of it, then fine:

philosophy | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.

www.etymonline.com

Spoiler: Etymology of the word "philosophy"

c. 1300, philosophie, "knowledge, learning, scholarship, scholarly works, body of knowledge," from Old French filosofie "philosophy, knowledge" (12c., Modern French philosophie) and directly from Latin philosophia, from Greek philosophia "love of knowledge, pursuit of wisdom; systematic investigation," from philo- "loving" (see philo-) + sophia "knowledge, wisdom," from sophis "wise, learned;" a word of unknown origin [Beekes]. With many spelling variants in Middle English (filozofie, phelosophie, etc.).

From mid-14c. as "the discipline of dealing in rational speculation or contemplation;" from late 14c. as "natural science," also "alchemy, occult knowledge;" in the Middle Ages the word was understood to embrace all speculative sciences. The meaning "system a person forms for conduct of life" is attested from 1771. The modern sense of "the body of highest truth, the science of the most fundamental matters" is from 1794.

Nec quicquam aliud est philosophia, si interpretari velis, praeter studium sapientiae; sapientia autem est rerum divinarum et humanarum causarumque quibus eae res continentur scientia. [Cicero, "De Officiis"]

In 1744 he made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a professorship at Edinburgh; having failed in this, he became first a tutor to a lunatic and then secretary to a general. Fortified by these credentials, he ventured again into philosophy. [Bertrand Russell, writing of Hume, in "A History of Western Philosophy," 1945]

[Philosophical problems] are, of course, not empirical problems; but they are solved through an insight into the workings of our language, and that in such a way that these workings are recognized — despite an urge to misunderstand them. The problems are solved, not through the contribution of new knowledge, rather through the arrangement of things long familiar. Philosophy is a struggle against the bewitchment (Verhexung) of our understanding by the resources of our language. [Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Philosophical Investigations," 1953]

So the statement 'From mid-14c. as "the discipline of dealing in rational speculation or contemplation;" ', I think covers it.

However, that doesn't mean "love of" and that doesn't mean "wisdom".

I've already offered a proof of Kant's genius. Evidently, it didn't satisfy you, though I'm not sure if you've understood it, since you seem to think that it's based on his analytic-synthetic distinction whereas I pointed to his distinction between analyticity and apriority. This was, in any case, a digression from my main point, which was that the 'obviousness' of a statement depends on its analyticity, which in turn depends on its context.

I believe that Kant wrote that statements can be both analytic AND a priori, did he not?

Moreover, I believe that "all bachelors are unmarried" would count as both an analytic statement AND an "a priori" statement, as you don't need to know any bachelors to know if all bachelors are unmarried.

So I don't see how there can be a "distinction between analycity and apriority".

Moreover, it's quite evident that everyone knew of such concepts long before Kant was even born:

1) An analytic statement is a tautology. Tautologies were known about since the 1500s. Kant was born in 1724.

2) A priori claims were known about since the early days of mathematics.

Pretty much everything in maths matches empirical data, and yet empirical proofs of mathematial theorems were never accepted. Even now, the Goldbach's conjecture clearly has more than enough empirical support, that were it a scientific theory, it would have been accepted long before now. But it's still considered unproved, because it has not been proved in an a priori way.

Conversely, the majority of science is proved using a posteriori means. An a priori proof of a scientific theory is normally rejected until a posteriori evidence can be found to back it up.

So quite clearly, mathematics only relies upon a priori proofs and not a posteriori proofs, while science seems to the reverse.

That was the case long before Kant was born. So quite clearly, the distinction was known about and made, long before Kant was born.

So I fail to see where Kant was suggesting anything that wasn't known about long before he was born.

I will go onto another point of Kant: his Categorical Imperative has been lampooned many times due to the case of "the murderer at the door".

So you don't seem to be making valid points that prove that Kant was a genius.

I happen to think that Kant was a very smart man. But I cannot deny these points, and therefore, I cannot consider him as being very smart, on the basis of the arguments that you have presented here, which is precisely why I have veered from modern conventional viewpoints of Kant's own ideas, and in so doing, veered away from modern conventional ideas of philosophy.

I would, however, agree, that the consequences of modern conventional views of philosophy are very reminisicent of the issues that were described in the Middle Ages of those who engaged in Aristotelian philosophy, and led to Aristotelian philosophy being considered dangerous for young men to study, which in turn led to the works of Maimonides being burned for having referenced Aristotelian philosophy in his works.

So I agree that the attitude that you took towards philosophy, that so many young men have taken, even hundreds of years before you were born, is very dangerous.

 

[The Grey Man]

I can't say I've ever heard or read of great thinkers like Newton, Boyle, Maxwell, Avicenna, Averroes, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas of Acquinas, ever using terms like "noetic knowledge", "prudential knowledge", and "sapiential knowledge".

I've only ever heard philosophy majors using terms like these, and they talk about "philosophy" as if it means knowledge, and not "love of wisdom", as you claim.

It is one thing to say that the terms I use to describe wisdom are unpopular and quite another to claim, as you have, that what I call wisdom is what most people call philosophy. In fact, this very use of unpopular terms suggests that what I call wisdom is seldom if ever mentioned by people at all, which is consistent with my claim that, since around the seventeenth century, people have forgotten the very existence of noetic knowledge, thus reducing wisdom to prudence and science "so that relativism today enjoys an almost unchallenged dominance."

By the way, these terms, 'noetic knowledge', 'prudential knowledge', and 'sapiential knowledge, are glosses for νοῦς, φρόνησις, and σοφία, which can all be found in the works of Aristotle and were known to most if not all of thinkers in your list.

We understand each other in English, because there is a common meaning to the words, or else we would not be able to understand what each other mean. So there is a general understanding in English.

We also frequently mis-understand each other in English, especially in English metaphysical discussions, which is why distinctions informed by etymology are useful. They help us to avoid equivocations such as, for example, using the same word, 'wisdom', to refer to different things, prudence and wisdom.

So the statement 'From mid-14c. as "the discipline of dealing in rational speculation or contemplation;" ', I think covers it.

However, that doesn't mean "love of" and that doesn't mean "wisdom".

Given that 'philosophy' is not originally an 'Old French' word, nor was it first used in the fourteenth century, we might suspect that the Online Etymology Dictionary's account, though no doubt sufficient for many purposes, is not exhaustive.

I've learned a heck of a lot of exegesis and Kabbalah. They do not define "Chochmah" anywhere, but clearly always use the word "wisdom" as meaning "useful knowledge".

I don't know what sources you've been studying, but to call the uncreated wisdom, with which the world was made (see Proverbs 8), 'useful' is ridiculous. An instruction manual is useful when I want to assemble a coffee table from Ikea, but this humble human mode of 'making' is a far cry from what 'goes on' in eternity. God doesn't have an instruction manual or a "Chacham" whispering helpful hints in his ear.

I believe that Kant wrote that statements can be both analytic AND a priori, did he not?

Moreover, I believe that "all bachelors are unmarried" would count as both an analytic statement AND an "a priori" statement, as you don't need to know any bachelors to know if all bachelors are unmarried.

So I don't see how there can be a "distinction between analycity and apriority".

Some statements are both analytic and a priori.
Therefore, analyticity and apriority are the same thing.

Do you see the problem? One could also say that "I don't see how" there can be a distinction between height and whiteness because some men are both tall and white. If I had the time and the inclination, I'd explain how Kant's distinction between apriority and analyticity enabled him to pose the question of the validity of statements which are neither empirical nor tautological, but I have a feeling you're not really interested.

 

[Niclmaki]

Philosophy is dangerous to whom? And how? Dangerous because it causes unhappiness? Dangerous because it can or will cause personal psychological instability / cultural? Dangerous because it is a motivator of change in the general populace?

I followed some of the discussion here, but it got so deep in the woods that I was completely lost.

I saw an analogy with the tree of knowledge that seemed to imply that because we cannot achieve perfect knowledge, our actions therefore will always be corrupt. And because we are no longer completely ignorant, there is no escaping responsibility for our corrupt actions. So therefore it is better left unanalyzed? Surely I am misunderstanding this.

On a lighter note, my parents would agree that philosophy is dangerous. It was the first subject in school that I ever thoroughly enjoyed and their first question to me was, “well what job can you get doing philosophy”. (They seriously had me look up jobs with them - philosophy teacher was it lol)

 

[scorpiomover]

In the interest of not haranguing for ages, for now, I'm going to skip even evaluating the claims you made up to this point in the post.

Some statements are both analytic and a priori.

Therefore, analyticity and apriority are the same thing.

Do you see the problem? One could also say that "I don't see how" there can be a distinction between height and whiteness because some men are both tall and white.

Yes, I see the problem.

You started a thread claiming that "philosophy is dangerous", because it was dangerous to you, and on that basis, you assumed that it would be dangerous for everyone.

It might be dangerous for you, and for some others. But it also struck me that if Kant was a genius, he would also have realised his own books were dangerous for anyone to read, and thus would never have written his books.

So thus it occurred to me that if Kant was a genius, then there must be some way of reading Kant's works that would be beneficial for others, and that Kant must have intended that his books would have been read and understood using that beneficial approach, and that Kant intended that his books should NEVER be read by ANYONE in any way that might make them DANGEROUS for those who might read his books.

In short, please answer the following questions:
1) Do you agree that the way you have studied Kant, is dangerous (Yes or No)?
2) Do you agree that if Kant was a genius, then he wouldn't have written books that were dangerous and harmful for others to read (Yes or No)?
3) Do you agree that Kant was a genius (Yes or No)?
4) Do you agree that if your answers to #1, #2, and #3, are "Yes", then Kant probably wrote his books with the intent that they would be read and understood in a very different way to the approach you used to read and understant Kant's books?

I await your answers with anticipation.

 

[The Grey Man]

1) Do you agree that the way you have studied Kant, is dangerous (Yes or No)?

Yes.

2) Do you agree that if Kant was a genius, then he wouldn't have written books that were dangerous and harmful for others to read (Yes or No)?

No.

3) Do you agree that Kant was a genius (Yes or No)?

Yes.

I'll skip the fourth question since it presumes affirmative answers to the other three.

Yes, Kant was a genius; no this does not mean that he could not have written a dangerous book. On the contrary, works of genius are dangerous insofar as they challenge our fundamental beliefs and, with them, the assumptions on which the organization of society is based. And this is in fact precisely what Kant wanted to do: radically change society. The Critique of Pure Reason wasn't banned by the Catholic Church for nothing.

On the other hand, your intuition is correct in the sense that much of Kant's work could also be interpreted as an effort to make philosophy less dangerous by restricting the domain of the application of metaphysical judgments to the range of possible human experience, thereby avoiding the 'dialectical illusion' that had plagued speculative philosophy in the style of Spinoza and Leibniz.

This does not mean, however, that he thought his books could be profitably studied in a superficial manner. On the contrary, he made heavy demands of his readers (the first Critique, in particular, is notoriously difficult to understand), and was aggrieved towards the end of his life by the 'improvements' that charlatans like Fichte were making on his work (fortunately, he did not live to see Hegel). And this is another sense in which his books are dangerous: it is difficult to discern the good in them from the bad.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

 

[Daddy]

On a lighter note, my parents would agree that philosophy is dangerous. It was the first subject in school that I ever thoroughly enjoyed and their first question to me was, “well what job can you get doing philosophy”. (They seriously had me look up jobs with them - philosophy teacher was it lol)

So what, are you only supposed to do/enjoy things that can get you a job? What kind of sense is that...I can see why they don't like philosophy.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't see how we can tell whether being genius with bad idea is dangerous or not.
If genius is someone who does not commit to a bad idea, then maybe, those smart people who veer of worn out path will are too few compared to those who we never hear about, because they rather take it safe than risk doing something dangerous.

But if people consider books dangerous then we might get to a point where we might censure everything that someone deems dangerous and then we never get to a point where we can use any ideas.

I think the difference here is that application of ideas and execution are always dangerous.
I mean how many people die trying to fly into space and back?
Should we now blame the pioneers of space flight for this?
Ciolkovsky?
How many people got burned in labs. We did not stop doing chemistry, we just added safety features like showers and sinks to flush the acids down from body before you burn your skin.

So there is always risk with everything.

Plus the risky things people do, that lead to things, like wiping out entire species of this planet permanently or the amount of toxic waste industries flush down the rivers or into environment subsequently killing unsuspecting people is insane.

I definitely think we should view things in the right light that all theories have limits.
But I don't think it was safe to put gps satellites on the orbit, or developing atom bomb was safe, or in fact any application of what Einstein made happen was safe.

We should then not blame Kant for writing a measly philosophy book at all, whatever he wrote.
We also don't have a tendency to veer of religious dogma that cost millions of lives and we persist.

SO what is some philosopher going to do worse than burning witches or sending kids to holy land to be sold into slavery for God etc.


And I doubt smart people have the foresight to know how their ideas will be used now or in future.

Its simply implausible that philosophers were writing in order to find a path that will destroy humanity on any level.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The light is everywhere now. Who is to say that confidentially is even possible today, to what extent?

Sure sometimes we need the "darkness", but that's just another way of saying we need some people to not find out what one is doing.

I mean these words to elaborate on how an authoritarian stance shouldn't be taken on what ideas are useful or not.

I personally, am constantly disrupted because other people can't seem to take a hint that I just don't want to be bothered. Is it because to them I simply have a track record of controversial indictment.

I don't think I'm persecuted, people just want to know where I'm taking myself. I don't think that I am leaving destruction in my wake, I am trying to prune the toxicity in my community.

When you have certain credentials, it is a fine and well, people humor you at the very least, but at a certain point you're better hiding behind a mask or two.

 

[Niclmaki]

On a lighter note, my parents would agree that philosophy is dangerous. It was the first subject in school that I ever thoroughly enjoyed and their first question to me was, “well what job can you get doing philosophy”. (They seriously had me look up jobs with them - philosophy teacher was it lol)

So what, are you only supposed to do/enjoy things that can get you a job? What kind of sense is that...I can see why they don't like philosophy.

Yeah, pretty much. My whole family was/is pretty worldly. If it doesn’t generate income, or has no monetary value - it is a waste of time.

Now that they’re a bit older though I think they’ve started being less materialistic, but still pretty deeply rooted.