Problems with Philosophy

[jason_m]

Since my studies in philosophy, I have basically lost faith in the field. Let me explain. It started by reading Wittgenstein's philosophy. This proposes that all philosophical problems are basically pseudo-problems - false problems - because they can essentially be reduced to problems with language. When I first read this, I thought that there might be some potential to this notion, but it didn't worry me. However, the more I looked into the matter, the more it frightened me. For instance, I have read that Wittgenstein is contradicting himself; his notions are, in reality, philosophy, and therefore they are self-defeating, being nothing more than mere "language games" themselves. However, if you study the history of philosophy, you will find that almost no major philosophical problems have been solved, and the ones that have been solved are no longer considered part of philosophy! This doesn't prove Wittgenstein right, but it gives strong evidence for his views. Further, even if philosophical problems aren't reducible to problems with language, it still remains that almost no historical problems in the field have been solved! This has lead me to believe that philosophy is an entirely subjective field without answers...

However, I have been arguing with myself lately, and I've found that there is one important flaw with this notion; if you look at philosophy as a field, you will find that it is often focused on finding answers to big questions, questions that don't have an easy answer. If you look at this completely objectively, isn't it important for most people to have some opinion to these big questions? In other words, if Wittgenstein's philosophy were taken to its ultimate conclusion, the field would be shut down, as the problems are not "real problems." However, if this were the case, then wouldn't society be losing out on something important by not asking and attempting to answer these big questions? I think the answer would be "Yes." Therefore, there is something important with philosophy that would be lost if it were looked at in this way. However, I think there is more to this; philosophy should be looked at less as a search for objective truth - as nothing can be objectively proven using its methods - and more the way one might look at art criticism as a field. This would imply, in my opinion, that philosophical debate is ultimately meaningless, as it is usually an attempt to set out to prove the validity of one's ideas. However, I have an answer for this as well; philosophical debate should be less a matter of proving oneself and more a matter of clarification and discovery. In other words, it should be looked at as an attempt to solve a problem - together, as a groupr - and as a search for different viewpoints and ways of looking at things. In this case, if someone is mistaken, it is not personal, but a matter for further clarification - and dogmatism should be left at the door, with all being willing to be open-minded about being either right or wrong. In this case, philosophy is less about trying to prove your worth and more about discovery, analysis and problem-solving; in other words, perhaps the underlying problem is that some people are too dogmatic or combative to listen to or consider the viewpoints of others.

In any event, tell me what you think about these ideas...

[Mark Question]

i see philosophy as mind hacking. backstage partying. adventures lost in a matrix. tweaking the world views of the assumed world. ultimate weapon and slayer of the gods. mother of the science. funnier than the mad magazine. dry as a whiskey. owner of the truth. the anarchist and the law. ghost in the buddha and all machines. deep shit.

no problems no philosophy.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







.........................................






.

[The Voice of Time]

Since my studies in philosophy, I have basically lost faith in the field. Let me explain. It started by reading Wittgenstein's philosophy. This proposes that all philosophical problems are basically pseudo-problems - false problems - because they can essentially be reduced to problems with language. When I first read this, I thought that there might be some potential to this notion, but it didn't worry me. However, the more I looked into the matter, the more it frightened me. For instance, I have read that Wittgenstein is contradicting himself; his notions are, in reality, philosophy, and therefore they are self-defeating, being nothing more than mere "language games" themselves. However, if you study the history of philosophy, you will find that almost no major philosophical problems have been solved, and the ones that have been solved are no longer considered part of philosophy! This doesn't prove Wittgenstein right, but it gives strong evidence for his views. Further, even if philosophical problems aren't reducible to problems with language, it still remains that almost no historical problems in the field have been solved! This has lead me to believe that philosophy is an entirely subjective field without answers...

Tell me, do you know what a philosophical problem is, even?

When any philosopher deliberate on a subject, they solve dozens of problems throughout their texts, it's just not necessary to tell you what problems they solve all the time, because they are either small or lack the originality to be exciting.

I like to think of philosophy as engineering, and the problems of a philosopher no different than those of an engineer. When I work on philosophy it's an engineering job, and I solve many small problems all the time that I don't really care to take note of, they are typically problems of figuring out if something fits into a scheme or if it's out of place (whether it should be included or excluded), figuring out where to go next after you've made a leap (a problem of orientation... when you work with something as vague as philosophy it can be very difficult to know where you are all the time, as it's not as procedural of nature as software engineering for instance, or as concrete as biology, it's not a body with predefined parts and functions) or it may be a problem of situation, to relate what you create to ordinary life by applying it, that may be very difficult as there's a range of tiny problems you'll have to solve so that it becomes presentable in face of the real world, as when you initially create a set of ideas they are created in the face of an ideal situation to begin with, either a real one that you've narrowed down (so that it's the only situation that you've tested it towards in a thought experimental way) or an imagined one (typical with utopianism, futurism and the likes).

[The Voice of Time]

However, I think there is more to this; philosophy should be looked at less as a search for objective truth - as nothing can be objectively proven using its methods - and more the way one might look at art criticism as a field. This would imply, in my opinion, that philosophical debate is ultimately meaningless, as it is usually an attempt to set out to prove the validity of one's ideas. However, I have an answer for this as well; philosophical debate should be less a matter of proving oneself and more a matter of clarification and discovery. In other words, it should be looked at as an attempt to solve a problem - together, as a groupr - and as a search for different viewpoints and ways of looking at things. In this case, if someone is mistaken, it is not personal, but a matter for further clarification - and dogmatism should be left at the door, with all being willing to be open-minded about being either right or wrong. In this case, philosophy is less about trying to prove your worth and more about discovery, analysis and problem-solving; in other words, perhaps the underlying problem is that some people are too dogmatic or combative to listen to or consider the viewpoints of others.

In any event, tell me what you think about these ideas...

"Philosophy should be about..."

Why don't just use it for what the heck you want? It's a toolbox, take it if you need it, leave it if you don't.

[jason_m]

I've come up with a solution in letter to a friend. Here is the letter:

Paul,

I've come to some answer about philosophy! I'll start with some introduction. Years ago, I studied Wittgenstein's philosophy. He basically claimed that philosophical problems are meaningless. But why? Take the definition of time as an example. Look at the number of definitions of time you can come up with: "time is motion", "time (with space) is the basis of physics", "time is an entirely social entity", etc. Why can we say all of these things and keep coming up with more and more definitions and yet still not have a definitive answer to what time is? Because, according to Wittgenstein, we are taking language beyond its limits... If one wants to come up with a definition of time, look at what people say in society, in the real world. In other words, there is no secret to what time is, it simply is what is meant by the word in everyday use. (Otherwise, we could keep coming up with more and more definitions which basically say nothing and don't provide us with answers.) And this applies to basically every problem in philosophy. Otherwise, some philosophical problems could have been solved - and yet, if you look at the history of philosophy, none have. The fact that no problems have been solved illustrates that something is wrong with the nature of philosophy, and this gives evidence for Wittgenstein's views. When the point finally sank in, it troubled me greatly. Let's just say that it is difficult to study philosophy when this is all that you see in the field. However, I've come up with an answer to Wittgenstein.

I think that it's not the case that you can't say anything philosophically, but that philosophers take what is said too far. For instance, consider the mind-brain debate. How can the notion that mind and brain are the same have such intuitive appeal and yet say nothing? For instance, look at how strong the connection is between mind and brain... If you have a lesion anywhere in your brain, your "mind" loses some functioning. And I don't mean just in some cases, but anywhere in the brain this happens, to the point that you could completely shut your "mind" down by putting lesions everywhere throughout the brain. Something like this in fact happens in Alzheimer's and the individual's mind does in fact shut down. Doesn't that say that mind and brain are "the same"? In other words, how could an argument with this intuitive appeal say nothing? I think the answer is not that you can't say anything philosophically but that philosopher's say too much. For instance, in the mind-brain debate, it can't be said that mind and brain are the same, but it can be said that there is a deep connection between mind and brain, a connection that means that it *could easily be the case* that mind and brain are the same, but not that they have to be. And that is where the big debate starts up and where philosophy goes wrong - instead of saying that things could be a certain way or share a certain similarity, philosophers claim that definitions are all-encompassing, that things *have to be* a certain way, that the definitions that are given are the "essence" of the concept.

The answer then is to be more compromising and less all-encompassing when thinking philosophically. It's not about finding sweeping answers that have to be the case, but about looking at things from different perspectives and defining things subjectively. For instance, when nihilists are saying that "life has no meaning", they shouldn't mean that there is absolutely nothing to life under any circumstances for anyone, but that they see no meaning in life, because they think there is no God or because of that, that "life has no meaning to me." When someone says that "time is motion", they should say that motion "is an aspect of time", "is relevant to time", "is deeply connected to time", etc. In fact, think of what you said when you ask if we are "truly free." If you say that we are, what you are really trying to say is, "freedom is important to me." If you say that there is no God, you are really saying, "I don't believe in God." If you say that "humanism is central to society", you are saying that "humanism is important to me" or "is an important aspect of society." I guess you could say that philosophers can still use those sweeping terms, but they should be aware of the limitations of what they are saying - that the terms they are using form just one perspective/outlook or mean something that is purely subjective. In this case, one can still philosophize, but he/she must be willing to admit that there isn't always something objective and all-encompassing about what they are saying. Now, some may argue that this philosophy basically "says nothing beyond the obvious", but look at the mind-brain debate as an example. In that case, isn't stating that there is a deep connection between mind and brain and that they could be the same because of this bring something to the table, something that we would not otherwise be aware of if we didn't say it? In that case it does say something. Therefore, this does appear to be an answer to Wittgenstein.

Jay

[duszek]

Good morning Jason,

"meaning of life" is a good one, one can also say: "what do I live for ?"

If you can answer this question for yourself in some way then you can go on, otherwise you sink in despair.

Some people who are unable to answer this question on their own (because thinking is not what they have been encouraged to do in their lives) become often victims of skillful manipulators who persuade them to do something evil and perversive.

Philosophy keeps us from despair and from depression.
Using one´s brain and mind is good if it makes us realize things and understand.
It makes one feel like a bird flying.

Thinking is one good thing for a human being, walking is another.
And there are some more.

The aim of thinking is to become wiser and to love wisdom (philo - sophy).
It is the best we have.
We should be grateful for having got this gift (from God or from mother Nature or from the spirit of evolution).

Thinking is only possible with language, that is why language problems and logical problems are an important fitness training for the mind.

Best wishes.

[duszek]

The meaning of one´s life can be expressed poetically or metaphorically.

For example:

Life is like an apple that I got as a free gift.
So I say thank you, eat it and enjoy.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






..........................





The point of philosophy, REAL philosophy is to develop self-consciousness.


The human body is a factory.

The intellect is like a double-edged sword in this regard; a function that we must use at one point and yet an important function that we must estrange our consciousness from.








.

[duszek]

Interestingly, in the English language the term "self-conscious" is often used in the sense of "shy".

Being shy prevents you from action.

Many people recommend not to think too much, just to make the first step.

Otherwise you stay trapped in your brooding like in a swamp.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



In the term self-consciousness I mean to convey being conscious of one's self as an object. Not self.


Self as being pure consciousness; observation.






.........................................................






.

[duszek]

But what would be the difference to an animal observing all the time what is going on around it, to avoid being eaten by a natural enemy ?

That´s what animals often do all the time, they observe.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




............................





Animals cannot experience self-consciousness to any large degree.


If they could, they would have developed more intricate language.


Instinctive functions and moving functions are sometimes confused with consciousness or being conscious.



Most humans are not self-conscious to any large degree for any significant amount of time.




.

[duszek]

Is a living creature not particularly conscious of its self (or of itself) in the moment of being hurt ?

Because of the pain it experiences ?

I assume that the snake is not hurting itself. It does what a kid does with its thumb, probably.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




The snake is trying to eat itself.


It is not self-conscious enough to understand that the tail it's eating is it's own.





Consciousness is fluid.




I think self-consciousness is quite rare - even in humans. Self-consciousness is something that you may understand in this way;

You have responded many times within this particular thread. If you would have been self-conscious you would have been conscious of your responses AS THEY HAPPENED. You would have understood that your thoughts are not really yours. Not really you.


You would have been able to display a separation that has not been evident within your subsequent responses.


You have expressed what we call consciousness; or waking sleep.





.