Re: Everything in philosophy is belief or opinion?

[A_Seagull]

i don't know why you're attempting to refute my solid distinction with crudeness. the point of philosophy is to draw out the precise distinctions and meanings of words, yet every time i make a surgical cut you slam your rusty bread knife on the cutting board

Well that is where we differ. For me philosophy is about making sense of the world, and language is just a small part of that.
Words are not precise, and trying to make precise distinctions using words is doomed to failure except in an entirely subjective domain.

[11011]

logik

i will answer because that looks fun

however, as far as THIS thread/issue is concerned, what you're referring to is problems in drawing distinctions between data/information/things in reality; the distinction i am drawing in this thread is a conceptual one

it's between two concepts, not pieces of data/information, so your problem isn't applicable here

another surgical cut..

[Logik]

it's between two concepts, not pieces of data/information, so your problem isn't applicable here

You cannot draw a conceptual distinction before an empirical one. That is to draw a distinction without a difference.

Experience is information, so I am spot on.

another surgical cut..

Another brick-smash.

It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere – no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one. -- William James

[11011]

i don't know why you're attempting to refute my solid distinction with crudeness. the point of philosophy is to draw out the precise distinctions and meanings of words, yet every time i make a surgical cut you slam your rusty bread knife on the cutting board

Well that is where we differ. For me philosophy is about making sense of the world, and language is just a small part of that.
Words are not precise, and trying to make precise distinctions using words is doomed to failure except in an entirely subjective domain.

and which is more conducive to making sense of the world, an opinion with a reason or an opinion without?

[11011]

logik

that's just a fancy way of saying conceptual distinctions that have no relevance to practice are pointless, with which i would agree

however, i demonstrated the practical utility of the distinction i'm making in my post (pg 1) on the histories of these terms which have shaped their meaning and impression in people's minds. by conflating philosophy with opinion you misrepresent its credibility, because it requires and boasts a history of containing reason while opinions do not

that is not to say that opinions never contain(ed) reason, and i even went as far as to say overall, the reason contained in the sum total of expressed opinions ever in human history probably outweighs the combined reason tonnage of philosophy, but that in terms of what we can expect when we encounter a piece of philosophy vs an opinion, we are more likely to encounter reason with philosophy vs opinion and therefore calling philosophy opinion gives the wrong impression. it misrepresents it, the implication being less perceived credibility when references are made to a philosophical piece, if it is wearing the banner of an opinion

it's really no different than miscategorizing something else. if a biologist is categorizing specimens, if they make an error that can affect the overall findings of the study, and perhaps the proper treatment for the real world problem won't be given, because the study didn't support it

[FlashDangerpants]

another surgical cut.

That's just marking your own homework. You will be continuously mocked if you keep awarding yourself points this way.

i can even frame this entire discussion in entirely clear and exact terms.

philosophy = opinion + reason (required)

-> philosophy requires reason like science requires the scientific method to be science and not something else

opinion = opinion +....

-> no reason required

Legal opinions = opinion + reason (required)
Debate club = opinion + reason (required)
Macroeconomics = opinion + reason (required)
Even most of Breitbart = opinion + reason (required)
Any belief arrived at by persuasion = opinion + reason (required)

You can counter this problem by tightening up your definition of reason if you want, but that would obviously place you in a trap.

If we assume in advance that you might extricate yourself from that trap .... that sort of reason (the sort that distinguishes philosophy from mere 'reasonable man would conclude...' reasoning) would exclude things that aren't philosophy, and so mere opinion would no longer come with reason (optional) as any opinion backed by that level of reason would be philosophy not opinion. So my reasoned opinion is that you ought to reconsider your position.

I don't see much future for your definition of philosophy which focuses too narrowly on the how and shows no real gift for the what and the why. There is no need for an inferiority complex to drive any comparison to science. Perhaps if you can learn not to compare philosophy to something else, you might end up supposing that the highly ritualised reasoning processes of philosophy are the part that contains the value, thus maybe it is ok for most of the conclusions to be, not just opinion, but outright bullshit to boot.

[11011]

who said that that definition was complete as far as what is philosophy is concerned? it merely emphasizes the distinction between philosophy and opinion.

context context

we're in the operating room..

[FlashDangerpants]

who said that that definition was complete as far as what is philosophy is concerned? it merely emphasizes the distinction between philosophy and opinion.

context context

we're in the operating room..

All reasoned opinion is opinion plus reason (required). By definition.

That makes all reasoned opinions philosophy under your formula of "philosophy = opinion + reason (required)" which you expressed in "entirely clear and exact terms".

[Logik]

that's just a fancy way of saying conceptual distinctions that have no relevance to practice are pointless, with which i would agree

That is not at all what I am saying.

Literally. The order in which concepts are developed are: experience -> concept. In that order
If you have a concept-first without particular real-world examples in mind you are making it all up.

If you have never experiences grobmunfs in some form or shape you can't possibly develop a concept for them.

however, i demonstrated the practical utility of the distinction i'm making in my post (pg 1) on the histories of these terms which have shaped their meaning and impression in people's minds. by conflating philosophy with opinion you misrepresent its credibility, because it requires and boasts a history of containing reason while opinions do not

I conflate philosophy with sophistry. Lots of words. Little meaning. All noise - no signal.

0 decibels.

That's a scalpel.

it's really no different than miscategorizing something else. if a biologist is categorizing specimens, if they make an error that can affect the overall findings of the study, and perhaps the proper treatment for the real world problem won't be given, because the study didn't support it

To categorize things you need non-zero decibels of information. If you can't tell the difference between things - you can't categorize them.

Q.E.D the rose experiment which you have not (yet) answered.

[A_Seagull]

i don't know why you're attempting to refute my solid distinction with crudeness. the point of philosophy is to draw out the precise distinctions and meanings of words, yet every time i make a surgical cut you slam your rusty bread knife on the cutting board

Well that is where we differ. For me philosophy is about making sense of the world, and language is just a small part of that.
Words are not precise, and trying to make precise distinctions using words is doomed to failure except in an entirely subjective domain.

and which is more conducive to making sense of the world, an opinion with a reason or an opinion without?

What is conducive to making sense of the world is an opinion that corresponds to the 'facts' and which is consistent with other useful opinions.

Also IMO the statements 'I like cake', 'I think cake is great' and 'cake is great' are essentially equivalent.

Also just to clarify the origins of this thread .. it came from a statement in another thread of the form.. "It's a completely lost mind that thinks everything is a belief or an opinion." So then the question of the title of this thread is not asking anyone to distinguish between belief and opinion.

[11011]

is fact vs not fact really the only important distinction to be made here?

that seems out of touch with the reality of human experience. humans often make decisions outside of fact or without the facts at hand, i think it more useful to assign these things along a more nuanced continuum of knowledge.

[Logik]

is fact vs not fact really the only important distinction to be made here?

You are focusing on the particular, not on the general problem I am pointing out.

I am pointing out that the general process of "drawing distinctions" is a REALLY HARD PROBLEM.
Your failure to recognize how hard it is leads you to confuse the complex for the simple.

Being able to correctly categorize things (e.g distinguish them from one another) is hard!
It is called binary classification. It's requires pattern-recognition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic

that seems out of touch with the reality of human experience. humans often make decisions outside of fact or without the facts at hand, i think it more useful to assign these things along a more nuanced continuum of knowledge.

Human experience has limits. There are certain things your mind cannot do. Like for example - explain its own inner workings.
Part and parcel of what your brain does is pattern-matching.

If you can't tell the difference between two things - there is no difference. 0 bit of information.
If you can tell the difference between two things - there is a difference. 1 bit of information.

[11011]

it's also worth noting that philosophy, at least western philosophy is at least partially based on facts, that is it uses 'the facts' as its starting/departing point.

opinions do not (or rather it is not customary)

philosophy at least will give a lit review on the facts and then go from there

important distinction no?

[Logik]

it's also worth noting that philosophy, at least western philosophy is at least partially based on facts, that is it uses 'the facts' as its starting/departing point.

opinions do not (or rather it is not customary)

philosophy at least will give a lit review on the facts and then go from there

important distinction no?

Before you can base anything on "facts" first you have to be able to RECOGNIZE facts from fiction.

You are trying to run when you can't even walk! You can't even recognize truth from falsity!

True or false: A = А

[planetlonely23]

How take something as real or not, we can bite an apple, a somebody say that you bite an apple right now, and it is an opinion when for sure you did it, so elaborating an opinion you need a reason and a reason (wich contains a judgement of logic based in certainty), moreover is necessary maths to affirm that opinion?, Yes I think that, so an image of the instant that we just to see how I bite an apple is made of lines, curves, shapes and pixels that are measured mathematically, therefore a belief will be "I eat an apple every day" (just because I going to a grocery every day) it doesn't mean that I am buying apples every day, why then we have a beliefs that are not affirmed, we use deduction? but base on what, our view?, our other opinions. In my opinion beliefs are based in faith without the strength to tackle a risk or deduct something with logic.