Has Professional Philosophy Been Corrupted by Logical Fallacies?

[Daktoria]

Isn't modern philosophy really just an exercise in trolling?

The goal is to deliberately appeal to authority, popularity, emotion, etc. in order to manipulate enforcement of rules rather than actually understand reason. Therefore, there really isn't any value in discussing philosophy at all because the authorities at stake are more concerned with being worshiped than preserving the values at stake.

In essence, modern philosophy has become an anti-intellectual, conform to norm, simple-minded, closed-minded field that really isn't any different from the brutes it seeks to distinguish itself from.

A classic example of this is how so many philosophers are "empiricists", but they get laughed at in the real world. In the real world, those empiricists are told to get real and show how they appreciate reality so much, but they instantly resort to scientific experiments to prove their points.

The problem is these scientific experiments can only be designed under rational freedom, so real world people just bully them around and laugh in their faces, expecting them to perform physical good works in advance of being treated with respect. If they don't satisfy work ethic, they get abused, and when they complain about it, they're made fun of.

Professional philosophy has embraced the very attitudes of those who abuse said professionals. It seeks to compare itself against the rational who enable to have sanctuary from brutes, but the bottomline is without rational thought, professional philosophy just gets accused of being an ivory tower delusion that can't get real.

I mean the really sad part is generation after generation of philosophy students get taught by these professionals, and when they graduate, they become nobodies in life. They get dumped right back into reality, and those realists throw the nonsense they believe in right back in their face. Perhaps if they want to get real so much, the should never leave reality. Instead of claiming to be "intellectuals", they should just dig down and get their hands dirty.

[Dalek Prime]

I remembered reading the following, and think it fits in with this thread.

Http://www.jehsmith.com/1/2012/11/must- ... rents.html

[WanderingLands]

Isn't modern philosophy really just an exercise in trolling?

Yeah, I pretty much agree with what you said in your post. I notice that there's a ton of dogmatic academics out there defending their 'philosophy', pretending to be thinking intellectuals with their elitist attitudes (especially reading some of the philosophy articles). It's pretty much been compartmentalized, much like science and other fields, into institutions that churn out followers instead of independent people, and in upholding their ideology they move to censor any 'dissent'. An individual willing to use the curiosity to study knowledge on his own is rare, unfortunately.

[Daktoria]

I remembered reading the following, and think it fits in with this thread.

Http://www.jehsmith.com/1/2012/11/must- ... rents.html

I'm going to have to reread that piece a couple times, but yea, I can see a connection between what it says and what I wrote.

I'm just not quite sure what that connection is yet.

[Daktoria]

Isn't modern philosophy really just an exercise in trolling?

Yeah, I pretty much agree with what you said in your post. I notice that there's a ton of dogmatic academics out there defending their 'philosophy', pretending to be thinking intellectuals with their elitist attitudes (especially reading some of the philosophy articles). It's pretty much been compartmentalized, much like science and other fields, into institutions that churn out followers instead of independent people, and in upholding their ideology they move to censor any 'dissent'. An individual willing to use the curiosity to study knowledge on his own is rare, unfortunately.

Exactly.

There are a lot of dogmatists who have their own particular brand of philosophy, and if you don't practice their dogmas, then they say you're practicing philosophy wrong in general.

To be fair, this sort of dogmatism isn't necessarily unjustified. If your dogmas are universalist, then indeed, the opposite would be particularism, so not practicing your dogmas would be wrong...

...but many dogmas are particular, so they're intrinsically prejudiced.

It's like say you have a study of triangles, and some of these triangles are green. A particular dogmatist would say if you're not studying green triangles, then you're not studying triangles correctly. A universal dogmatist would say you should study triangles regardless of color, so if you're only studying green triangles, then you're not studying them correctly.

[Dalek Prime]

Part of what he's saying is that philosophers, in his experience, are becoming more accepting of conventional views, unwilling to step outside norms.

[Daktoria]

Part of what he's saying is that philosophers, in his experience, are becoming more accepting of conventional views, unwilling to step outside norms.

My first impression was it was more about philosophers handing down values to students like parents hand down values to children.

I still need to read it again to get a better grasp of it though.

[WanderingLands]

My first impression was it was more about philosophers handing down values to students like parents hand down values to children.

I still need to read it again to get a better grasp of it though.

Dalek Prime was actually more correct about what I meant, because although parents do hand down what they believe to their children, it's not done out of evil and at least some/most parents would let their children think for themselves. What the institutions (ie. academia) are doing actually is out of evil, as they are partisan with the elites that are in government; but even that, there are just 'true believers' that just have a biased and dogmatic view that was ingrained in them like everyone else.

One such example of the dogmas in academia would be this 'analytic vs. continental' polarity that are upheld by various 'professionals', as I have looked into. Once you go to some big-time 'philosophy' school, you're told that the split between the analytical and continental schools are absolute, just because they take on different views and methodologies of the world. Examples lie this prevent anyone from thinking outside that box, without feeling hampered mentally by that false dichotomy (anyone can be objective and search for simple clarity as the 'analytics', and still look into the subjective realm as the 'continentals'). It's what you would see with the empiricists and rationalists, the Platonics vs Aristotelians, etc.

Another example would be the upholding of modernism and its ideologies, the shunning of the past as being merely full of 'superstition', and casting away anyone who is considered to be reactionary or 'conspiracist' (believing that there are conspiracies committed by people in power).

[Daktoria]

Part of what he's saying is that philosophers, in his experience, are becoming more accepting of conventional views, unwilling to step outside norms.

OK, so I reread it, and my impression now is that he's saying philosophers' attitudes change once they become parents, but I'm not sure it's the same thing I'm saying in this thread.

I mean there are lots of parents out there who fit the bill of what I'm describing here too, but his description of parenting seems to be the exact opposite. That is the philosophers become benevolent parents who take pride in their children, and they accept good values after experiencing parenthood. Yea, he says that conservatism becomes more prevalent among philosopher parents, but conservatism isn't uniform. Heck, a lot of conservatives are anti-intellectually stuck in their ways, and embrace logical fallacies on purpose just to advocate might makes right power politics. He doesn't seem to describe that style of conservatism here though. He's describing a more principled conservatism instead such as what he says about a priori language acquisition.

It's important to remember that there are different styles of conventions. Some conventions are about just remaining stuck in one's ways and practicing things the way they've been, but other conventions are about upholding context-free principles that always apply. Yea, philosophers kick and scream against conventions, but they're not always kicking and screaming against the same conventions.

[Daktoria]

My first impression was it was more about philosophers handing down values to students like parents hand down values to children.

I still need to read it again to get a better grasp of it though.

Dalek Prime was actually more correct about what I meant, because although parents do hand down what they believe to their children, it's not done out of evil and at least some/most parents would let their children think for themselves. What the institutions (ie. academia) are doing actually is out of evil, as they are partisan with the elites that are in government; but even that, there are just 'true believers' that just have a biased and dogmatic view that was ingrained in them like everyone else.

One such example of the dogmas in academia would be this 'analytic vs. continental' polarity that are upheld by various 'professionals', as I have looked into. Once you go to some big-time 'philosophy' school, you're told that the split between the analytical and continental schools are absolute, just because they take on different views and methodologies of the world. Examples lie this prevent anyone from thinking outside that box, without feeling hampered mentally by that false dichotomy (anyone can be objective and search for simple clarity as the 'analytics', and still look into the subjective realm as the 'continentals'). It's what you would see with the empiricists and rationalists, the Platonics vs Aristotelians, etc.

Another example would be the upholding of modernism and its ideologies, the shunning of the past as being merely full of 'superstition', and casting away anyone who is considered to be reactionary or 'conspiracist' (believing that there are conspiracies committed by people in power).

I don't know if "partisan" is the right words, but they're definitely divided. Both analytic and continental philosophy can be liberal or conservative, but there's another dimension at stake in politics that goes both ways.

Isaiah Berlin seemed to touch on why this polarity happens when discussing incommensurable values. Philosophers use words to express ideas, and words can have multiple ideas associated with them, but philosophers also have some core ideas to how they justify their values. If certain words are used to express those ideas, then when they see different words expressed, they'll believe ideas aren't being matched appropriately.

I mean there's nothing wrong with believing in objective reason, but the trick comes about from understanding how objective reason can be expressed in many ways, so if you're dogmatic about what style of expression you want to see objective reason expressed by, then you're going to become dogmatic and closedminded to other schools of thought.

[lukasecho]

Isn't modern philosophy really just an exercise in trolling?

Hey wait have you read any Plato recently - how else would you describe Socrates behaviour today? I don't think its "modern" philosophy you have a problems with.

[Advocate]

>One such example of the dogmas in academia would be this 'analytic vs. continental' polarity that are upheld by various 'professionals', as I have looked into. Once you go to some big-time 'philosophy' school, you're told that the split between the analytical and continental schools are absolute, just because they take on different views and methodologies of the world. Examples lie this prevent anyone from thinking outside that box, without feeling hampered mentally by that false dichotomy (anyone can be objective and search for simple clarity as the 'analytics', and still look into the subjective realm as the 'continentals'). It's what you would see with the empiricists and rationalists, the Platonics vs Aristotelians, etc.

The value of even a false dichotomy or dialectic is in giving a framework of understanding. Just like parents or the MBTI, you can define yourself in relation to or in opposition to them.

{ The middle ground is Bayesian reasoning (the practical sense, fuck math) where it doesn't matter your prior as long as you a) understand the value of evidence and appropriately iterate as new information becomes available b) re-validate your internal reasoning at lower levels consistently c) habitually seek out new information d) keep your ego in check. }

The typical divisions of philosophy are pragmatic. They are the best until another one settles in. It's a matter of metaphor. No doubt they're not the best and should be supplanted. Who's making that case explicitly? What is a better Taxonomy if Philosophy?

[Advocate]

>OK, so I reread it, and my impression now is that he's saying philosophers' attitudes change once they become parents, but I'm not sure it's the same thing I'm saying in this thread.

Bring a parent is an irrational act and when you self-identify as a parent it becomes inherent. You're feels-based from there on out. Ego wins again.

[PeteJ]

Isn't modern philosophy really just an exercise in trolling?

Yes. It's appears to be a complete waste of time. I don't know what it's for. More than one university is questioning the need for a philosophy department since nobody can figure out what it's for. I'd close it down tomorrow.

Like you I have great sympathy for students who are sucked into this ridiculous approach to philosophy. After twenty centuries it must be obvious to everybody it doesn't work.

Professional philosophy must be unique as a discipline in that understandi9ng the subject is not part of the job specification. The level of scholarship is dire. Indeed, this is my complaint against PN, that it promotes the same nonsense.

[FlashDangerpants]

This conversation crops up whenever somebody with a bad theory to sell gets sour grapes about "academic philosophy" not appreciating their genius. The problem is always somebody else.