Philosophy undermines truth

[Skepdick]

So in English, where is that difference between here and there that there is?

You don't know the difference between here and there? Yeah... you aren't speaking English.

You would have to ask someone who doesn't think Descartes' project is futile.

You brought Descartes (despite thinking his project is futile) into the discussion, guy. I am asking you.

[Will Bouwman]

So in English, where is that difference between here and there that there is?

You don't know the difference between here and there? Yeah... you aren't speaking English.

We are both speaking English. The difference is that I understand it.

You would have to ask someone who doesn't think Descartes' project is futile.

You brought Descartes (despite thinking his project is futile) into the discussion, guy. I am asking you.

It is futile trying to discover truth. The best you will achieve is a coherent story that is consistent with the available data. It is futile you asking me to prove anything because, beyond 'there is data', nothing is provable, in my opinion.

[Age]

P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.

This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?

BUT 'philosophy', itself, NEVER does what 'you' ARE 'trying to' CLAIM here, nor elsewhere.

In Fact 'philosophy' does NOT do ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. However, what 'you', adult human beings, DO is SEE 'things' IN WORDS, and GIVE WORDS very specific and sometimes VERY INDIVIDUAL meanings and definitions, when then CAUSES 'you', people, to LOSE SIGHT OF the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Oh, by the way "skepdick", IF the laughably so-called 'philosophical social norms' discriminate against the uttering unprovable claims, AND 'you' KNOW 'those claims' ARE TRUE, then WHY do 'you' NOT just PROVIDE the IRREFUTABLE PROOF for 'those claims'?

But if 'you' BELIEVE ANY CLAIM is true, but 'you' do NOT YET have the IRREFUTABLE PROOF FOR 'them', then HOW would 'you' KNOW 'those claims' are, supposedly, true.

Also, will 'you' NAME one, supposed and alleged, so-called 'unprovable claim', which SUPPOSEDLY 'the uttering of' is 'discriminated against', by some 'thing'?

If 'you' do NOT, then is 'this' BECAUSE 'you' just WANT to FOLLOW so-called 'philosophical social norms', OR BECAUSE what 'you' are SAYING and 'trying to' CLAIM is ANOTHER 'thing' of 'YOURS' that is REALLY NOT 'true' AT ALL?

Or, 'you' is there some OTHER reason WHY 'you' WILL NOT NAME ANY so-called 'unprovable claims' here?

[Age]

P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.

As Descartes showed, apart from 'I think, therefore I am', everything that may be true is unprovable.

Or, as 'I' SAY, the only REAL 'thing' One can KNOW, for certain, are 'thoughts exist'.

P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.

Well, you can make up such philosophical social norms and no doubt find individuals who do precisely that. I might counter with a philosophical social norm of my own, the adherents of which understand the story telling nature of philosophy, accept that every theory is underdetermined and acknowledge that any one of a number of hypotheses can explain the same phenomena, with the same precision as one or more other hypothesis and that therefore, there is no way to tell which, if any, is the truth.

Well as long as 'you', human beings, keep MAKING UP, LOOKING AT, and CONCENTRATING ON 'theories' and 'hypotheses', then the LONGER it will take 'you' to just LOOK AT what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, INSTEAD.

By the way, TELLING which ones of 'your' 'theories', or 'stories', ARE False from which ones ARE True is a VERY SIMPLE and EASY process, INDEED.

C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.

Yep; it's all about making a compelling case. According to my philosophical social norm, members don't undermine truth. They might undermine nutjobs who think they know it; more likely they'll ignore them.

AND, the ones that KNOW the Truth might undermine the RIDICULOUS of 'theories' as well as IGNORE 'those' who MAKE UP 'theories', some of are the ACTUAL work of INSANITY.

This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?

Whatever fruitloopery floats their boat.

Coming from one who continually STATES: the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING, BECAUSE 'it' CLAIMS, there IS 'compelling evidence' FOR 'this'.

Now, what is Truly MORE INSANE, just looking or seeking FOR 'what is or may be true', or CLAIMING TO ALREADY KNOW 'the truth', BECAUSE there, supposedly, IS 'compelling evidence' for 'this truth', while also BELIEVING that 'they' 'they' ALREADY HAVE 'the evidence'?

[Age]

So how and why did you choose the story Cogito ergo sum; over the story Sum ergo cogito?

Well, it seems to me that in order to think, one must exist. I don't happen to believe that in order to exist, one must think.

Yep; it's all about making a compelling case.

A compeling case is a justification.

Yep; it's all about making a compelling case.

When 'you' say here, 'it is all about ...', here, what does the 'it' word REFER TO, EXACTLY?

What 'you' BELIEVE, what 'you' KNOW, what 'you' COME-TO-KNOW, or even what 'you' THINK 'you' COME-TO-KNOW? Or, some 'thing' else entirely?

According to my philosophical social norm, members don't undermine truth. They might undermine nutjobs who think they know it; more likely they'll ignore them.

So you think that undermining nutjobs who claim to know the truth need to be undermined? That sounds like a moral task; or a moral duty.

Depends on your morals. Sometimes having a go at nutjobs is just a bit of a laugh, and I entirely understand those who find it morally reprehensible to do so.

Could 'you', "will bouwman", EVER be 'the nutjob' here? Or, could 'you' HAVE EVER been 'the nutjob', ANYWHERE?

If yes, to either of these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, then is 'it' STILL just 'a bit of a laugh', to 'you', when 'we' are 'having a go' AT 'you'?

Whatever fruitloopery floats their boat.

Including or excluding the fruitloopery of Philosophy?

Definitely including.

[Age]

So how and why did you choose the story Cogito ergo sum; over the story Sum ergo cogito?

Well, it seems to me that in order to think, one must exist. I don't happen to believe that in order to exist, one must think.

Precisely! The true order of events is necessarily existence THEN thinking. Thinking is a consequent of existence.

Sum -> Cogito.

It trivially follows that Descartes is not telling the truth.

BUT could it be a POSSIBILITY that 'that person' was NOT expressing 'that' in the WAY 'you' are LOOKING AT 'it' and SEEING 'it' here "skepdick"?

If yes, then "descartes" was NOT necessary NOT telling 'the truth' AT ALL. Which would MEAN ...?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Yep; it's all about making a compelling case.

I heard you the first time.

So what compelled you about Cogito ergo sum; that didn't compel you about sum ergo cogito?

What drew you away from the truth?

Depends on your morals. Sometimes having a go at nutjobs is just a bit of a laugh, and I entirely understand those who find it morally reprehensible to do so.

Including or excluding the fruitloopery of Philosophy?

Definitely including.

Great, so is it moral or immoral for the fruitloopery of Philosophy to undermine truth?

If 'you' think or BELIEVE that there is the so-called 'fruitloopery of Philosophy', then what IS the 'nonfruitloopery of Philosophy', EXACTLY, to 'you', "skepdick"?

[Age]

The true order of events is necessarily existence THEN thinking. Thinking is a consequent of existence.

The standard objection to Descartes is that it doesn't necessarily follow from thoughts that there has to be a thinker. All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.

...is it moral or immoral for the fruitloopery of Philosophy to undermine truth?

It's a bit like asking whether it is moral or immoral that bears shit in the woods.

I would FIRST HAVE TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, what the term 'fruitloopery of Philosophy' ACTUALLY MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY, BEFORE I could relate 'that' to be ANY 'thing' like 'bears shit in the woods' or NOT.

[Age]

The true order of events is necessarily existence THEN thinking. Thinking is a consequent of existence.

The standard objection to Descartes is that it doesn't necessarily follow from thoughts that there has to be a thinker.
All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.

Where is the "there" where thoughts are? Maybe you meant to say "All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that here are thoughts."?

All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.

Exactly. The necessary truth of the thinker's existence doesn't follow from anything.

WHERE is the ALLEGED 'necessary truth of the 'thinker's existence' here COME FROM, EXACTLY?

What do 'you' MEAN by 'necessary truth' here?

From my perspective there is NO so-called ' 'necessary truth' of the 'thinker's existence' ', AT ALL.

And then there's the misnomer of calling oneself a thinker, especially during the periods of one's existence when one doesn't think.

An exister would've been a much better name.

Now 'this' here is a so-called 'necessary truth'.

...is it moral or immoral for the fruitloopery of Philosophy to undermine truth?

It's a bit like asking whether it is moral or immoral that bears shit in the woods.

That sounds like you are agreeing on the truth that Philosophy undermines truth.

Have 'you' YET DEFINED the 'Philosophy' word here for 'us' "skepdick"?

Also, WHY do 'you' capitalize the 'p' when 'you' USE 'that' word?

[Age]

Where is the "there" where thoughts are? Maybe you meant to say "All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that here are thoughts."?

No, it doesn't follow from any thought that there is any there anywhere.

All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.

Exactly. The necessary truth of the thinker's existence doesn't follow from anything.

I don't think thinking necessarily implies a thinker.

And then there's the misnomer of calling oneself a thinker, especially during the periods of one's existence when one doesn't think.

Descartes settled on thinking as a catch all term for having any experience at all. It could be that during the periods when one doesn't experience, one doesn't exist.

An exister would've been a much better name.

Except you can't prove an exister from a thought, unless you argue that the thought of an exister is the same as an exister.

What do you mean by 'you' can NOT prove a so-called 'exister' from 'a thought'.

'you' just got through SAYING that it seems to 'you' that in order to think, 'one' must exist.

Obviously the 'one' that MUST exist, MUST ALSO BE an 'exister' then.

[Age]

Where is the "there" where thoughts are? Maybe you meant to say "All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that here are thoughts."?

No, it doesn't follow from any thought that there is any there anywhere.

All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are are thoughts.

It's almost like you don't say what you mean and mean what you say

I don't think thinking necessarily implies a thinker.

Sorry, I didn't get that. Who doesn't think that thinking doesn't necessarily imply a thinker?

Except you can't prove an exister from a thought

Why do you have to prove an exister? I exist. It's true. No proof required.

Which is just what that VERY OLD SAYING and CLAIM, 'I think, therefore I am', more or less MEANT, EXACTLY.

Although, OF COURSE and OBVIOUSLY, 'it' is written Wrong, Inaccurately, and Incorrectly. But 'this' is NOT UNUSUAL for 'you', human beings.

unless you argue that the thought of an exister is the same as an exister.

Why would anybody argue that?

Sometimes the exister thinks.
Sometimes the exister doesn't think.

NOT thking doesn't preclude existence.

[Age]

P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.

This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?

That's possible I suppose. Philosophy is generally translated as "love of wisdom" not "love of truth".

What do you mean here by 'generally translated'?

What the word 'philosophy' once meant, and translated into the english language LITERALLY translated as 'love of wisdom'. There was and still IS absolutely NOTHING about 'truth' in 'that word'.

I've often been fascinated by the phrase "The truth will set you free".

WHY?

When one IS FULLY Truthful, then BECOMING WISER FOLLOWS, EXPONENTIALLY.

'you' WILL SEE IF 'you' do 'it' some time. BUT, 'you' ALSO HAVE TO WANT TO CHANGE, for the better, and NOT necessarily FOR 'you' AT ALL.

I imagine something like that would therefore only apply to those who are not free.

Name an adult human being who IS 'free'.

If someone is already "free", then what does "truth" do for them?

AGAIN, name an adult human being who IS 'free'.

Or is it the case that we are all slaves?

In the days when this is being written 'you', adult human beings, are CERTAINLY ALL 'SLAVES'.

[Age]

P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.

This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?

That's possible I suppose. Philosophy is generally translated as "love of wisdom" not "love of truth". I've often been fascinated by the phrase "The truth will set you free". I imagine something like that would therefore only apply to those who are not free. If someone is already "free", then what does "truth" do for them? Or is it the case that we are all slaves?

Do you think it's wise for the lovers of wisdom to undermine truth?

LOL

Can 'you' SEE what 'you' ARE DOING here, or more correctly 'TRYING TO' DO here "skepdick"?

Can "others" SEE what "skepdick" is 'TRYING TO' DO here?

[Age]

I concur with the initial assessment that Skepdick's original post is essentially unintelligible. Is he referring to the axiomatic method, or specifically to Godel's Incompleteness theorem? Does philosophy abhor unprovable truths? On the contrary, they are an indispensible foundation in any science.

The people who DO 'science' do NOT deal WITH 'truth' AT ALL. 'They' just deal WITH what is STILL 'unknown'.

'Philosophy' is NOT a 'thing' that DOES 'things' NOR is 'philosophy' are 'thing' people DO, like with 'science'.

"skepdick" is just saying and using words here in a completely Incorrect way to just get people to SAY what 'it' BELIEVES, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, IS TRUE.

My dear fellow, where were you brought up? - as Theagenes said to the crossing-sweeper.

[Age]

All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are are thoughts.

It's almost like you don't say what you mean and mean what you say

You and I must be speaking different languages. In my version of English, there doesn't always reference a location. I am quite comfortable with there being imaginary numbers, without them having to be in a drawer somewhere.

I don't think thinking necessarily implies a thinker.

Sorry, I didn't get that. Who doesn't think that thinking doesn't necessarily imply a thinker?

I don't. As it happens, I do think that thinking implies a thinker, I just don't think it necessarily implies a thinker. All that thinking implies necessarily is that there is thinking. You might apply Ockham's razor, as some idealists do, and conclude that thinking is all there is.

Except you can't prove an exister from a thought

Why do you have to prove an exister? I exist. It's true. No proof required.

Descartes' project, futile in my opinion, was to build an edifice of knowledge on undoubtable foundations. If that's your bag, then you have to prove at least one thing. In practise, of course, we all know we exist and don't let the remote possibility that the entirety of existence are the soon to be extinguished, fleeting thoughts we are having right now, bother us.

ALSO, in practice, is the INABILITY of ALL of that 'we', which, supposedly, ALL KNOW that 'they' exist, to be ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHO and/or WHAT 'that we' IS, EXACTLY, collectively NOR individually, I will add.

unless you argue that the thought of an exister is the same as an exister.

Why would anybody argue that?

For the same reason they would argue this:

What a stupid fucking question. Everything exists.

Fairies, ghosts, goblins, devils, angels and gods exist exactly in the same way numbers, Logic, Mathematics, Time etc. exist.

They exist in the mind, but they do exist.

Sometimes the exister thinks.
Sometimes the exister doesn't think.

NOT thking doesn't preclude existence.

True. Advocates of panpsychism could be wrong.

[Age]

P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.

Yes and no. First off, anyone demanding proof is being silly, at least in any of my epistemologies. Proofs seem to fit more abstract things like math, and even there, as you say, Gödel challenged that everything there can be proven. But to the yes part: sure people get demanded to show justification, often. But to the no part, I see philosophy forums with more and more undiscovered geniuses who rely primarily on the assertion. More than 10 or 15 years ago. We have lovely examples here. So, the social norm is complicated.

C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.

I think you're leaving out an option. If someone has ideas they think are true but don't have a great deal of justification for, they should avoid claiming they have demonstrated it. That's all. If they can admit that they don't have the evidence to provide justification that will convince others or will convince many, then they can avoid acting as if they do.

One pet peeve I've had is the idea that anything that is true is demonstrable via words on a screen. If you can't convince someone via posts in a philosophy forum then somehow it is disproven.

From my perspective 'this' here is to ambiguous to be understood fully, or correctly.

Further there's a whole category of worth exploring but not yet demonstable - via words on screen, in other ways. There's a vast set of things one can learn via experience and/or one can explore via experience. There's no need to pretend, as many do, that their OP's have nailed it and if other have a problem or aren't convinced the fault is in those who don't get it. Ostensive posts are peachy. People can assert things, perhaps say how they came to believe X, what activities might lead others to believe and so on.

And justification is not binary, there are degrees. But even if you only have a gut feeling, I see no reason not to assert that. Yes, people will come out and attack.

I would NOT SEE WHY.

Maybe the people who 'attack' in this situation could EXPLAIN WHY 'they' DO 'this', in 'this situation'?

But jeez, that's not restricted to philosophy. Most forums on a wide vareity of topics are like that unless there is strict moderation.

If someone asserts something and doesn't pretend they have the final word or have made a good case, they can just say that.

And WHEN they do, then they will NOT get QUESTIONED nor CHALLENGED anywhere as much. Well NOT from me anyway.

This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?

It would be good if people could manage to view a variety of possible discussion forms. OPs that start off as exploratory or not in 'this demonstrates that X is true' mode, other types of reactions should be possible. And might be aided not necessarily by the humility of the OP writer but an understanding of what is a good demonstration, what is a good way of getting people interested in considering, what are terrible ways of doing both, what isn't really anything near justification and so on.

If ANY one FINDS or UNCOVERS 'a good way of getting people interested in considering', then if you could let me KNOW, then that will HELP me TREMENDOUSLY here.

Perhaps there are people who come in and say they want to explore an idea or have an idea they cannot demonstrate but think is valuable or may be
who get shut down.

But mainly I see people who claim either personal genius or having proven their thesis, when they haven't even justified well, or both. They tend to get attacked relentlessly and often without any curiosity. And they seem to present little curiosity themselves.

Even faith based religious people will present arguments they seem to think are foolproof. I mean, what the hell did they need faith for then?

It'd be lovely if more people could 'My intuition tells me that X is possible or likely or true'.

It would also be 'just as lovely' if more people would, 'This is just how I view, or see, ... 'things', or 'I think this is true ..., [because of my past experiences]'

They explain where they think this intuition was coming from and invite exploration. If confronted by others saying they don't have enough justification, just acknowledge that, and continue exploring. I am sure some people will ignore this and keep harrassing them, but I think others will back off, and perhaps a few will be curious enough to explore with the OP writer.

I LOVE 'exploring', and LEARNING MORE and ANEW, thus this is WHY 'I' CONTINUALLY ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

And then, it hasn't harmed VA, for example, to have his arguments chewed on for years. Through the process of trying to find ways to defend his position he became, for example, an antirealist. He had to read about that and to whatever extent he could, he had to mull that over.

That people will change their deep rooted ontological or political positions is a rare thing and usual requires real life processes either dramatic or long term erosion based. The undiscovered geniuses are adults and they should realize that words on a screen are not the strongest tools for change and not think anyone who disagrees is a primitive moron. They can present themselves as exploring and acknowledge their posts are not proofs. And certainly not claim they are.

BUT if someone's posts ARE proofs, then it would also help if they were Honest upfront ALSO.

And then Philosophy is hardly limited to what happens in online discussion forums.

I don't see it as undermining truth and if someone is suffering that phenomenon, they should ask for help.

LOL 'philosophy', itself, does NOT undermine 'truth' NOR EVER has.

'This' is just A BELIEF that the one here known as "skepdick" HAS and HOLDS ONTO DEARLY.

'skepdick" is asking the question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?

FROM the bold part ONLY.

'This' is what "skepdick" BELIEVES IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and is asking this question FROM the perspective of:

If you do not beat your wife, then why, or when, did you stop?

There IS absolutely NO proof ANYWHERE that 'philosophy' undermines ANY 'thing' here.

A little mental jujitsu is all that's needed. It's damn well easy, also, to just not participate in this forum, read philosophy, and get out there and meditate, learn a foreign language, engage with people from other cultures, do things that might challenge your own assumptions, try practices that purportedly lead to different understandings of ontology, get challenged by smart and smarter people and people with different kinds of intelligence than you have. Notice longing and desire and curiosity and follow it.

I suggest just NOT having an ASSUMPTION NOR a BELIEF about ANY 'thing', then you would NOT have ANY 'thing', in the beginning, that NEEDED 'changing' anyway.

I'm sure there are people here who think the litmus test of truth is convincing them Now via words on a screen.

An open secret: they have no power.