has philosophy lost its way?

[iambiguous]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way
By Lawrence Yeo

I’m a late bloomer when it comes to philosophy.

The first time I read the work of a philosopher was less than five years ago, but I was hooked right away.

My first purchase was a collection of letters written by Seneca, a prominent Stoic thinker that lived two thousand years ago. His clear writing and timeless wisdom made an indelible impression on me, and I brought this book with me wherever I went.

Clear writing works for me too. Also, writing that [eventually] pertains to the world that we actually live and interact in.

Seneca’s words provided applicable advice on leading a life well-lived. Inevitably, his work led me to those of other Stoics, which then led me to Buddhism (the two schools of thought are very similar), which led me to Taoism – all of which further solidified my love for philosophy.

A life well-lived. Of course, that means many different things to many different people. And, sure, up to a point Buddhism, Taoism and lots and lots of other isms are able to offer insights that many have made applicable to their lived lives. Stoicism works for some, but not for others. But to the extent that stoics connect the dots between words and worlds, it is far more likely that others will explore it deeper.

Before I read these people, I knew I enjoyed the subject, but didn’t make the effort to actually study it. I equated “pontificating” with “philosophizing,” so having rambling campfire discussions with friends about the meaning of life was enough to qualify me as a deep thinker in my mind.

Okay, we are not around a campfire here. On the contrary, philosophers take a more disciplined approach in examining "the meaning of life". And, sure, some here pontificate more than others.

But how can anyone really deem their self to be a "deep thinker" if the stuff they post here is ever and always up in the intellectual clouds? Read what they write and then ask yourself, "how is this applicable to the life I live?"


No Stooges please.

[Peter Kropotkin]

I hope I don't qualify as a ''Stooge" but anyway, here goes...

I have many times tried to connect philosophy as a ''way of life''....
not philosophy as a pie in the sky thing, but as something to be
lived.. not something to be learned in a classroom and promptly
forgotten... as how most people have learned it... or not....

but philosophy shouldn't feel special in this regards.. this is how
most people do religion/Christianity.. spend two hours in church,
and spend the rest of the week, lying, cheating, committing adultery,
and even on that rare occasion, committing murder...
but hay, I believe in Jesus, so I am saved...with no thought as to the
connection between daily actions and the word of the bible...

the same as in philosophy.... and the same goes for morality/ethics....
ethics/morality is something the other guy should be doing,
but me, hay I am already saved, so I don't have to worry about
being moral or ethical.. so fuck you... or so says the Christian...

in fact, this disconnect between our words and our actions are
in fact, legendary in human behavior... we certainly preach a good
game but when the rubber meets the road, we act, ACT, as if
there is no god, no bible, no Jesus, no heaven and certainly no hell...
at least not for them.. for thee, yes, for me, no....
we moralize about others, but when offer the same chance about ourselves,
nah, where're good...

the failure here lies in our lack of courage... we are afraid to judge, as
we judge others, quite readily in fact.... so one of the two things must
go, either we stop moralizing, judging others or we include ourselves in
our own judgement.... and few have the courage to stand in judgement
of their own actions, words and values held to...

I like to pretend this is new, but it isn't... it is as old as man himself
we judge others but lack to the courage to honestly judge ourselves....
holding our words to the actions done in our words...

so, what we face is a question of matching our words with our actions...
do we have the fortitude or courage to do so?

bringing our words to the ground and be judged for them....
bringing our actions to ground for judgement...
or do you lack the courage to do so? as with most people...

Kropotkin

[iambiguous]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way
By Lawrence Yeo

However, studying the work of these great thinkers made me understand that my intuitions needed to be refined. You may be inclined to believe that you are an independent thinker with reliable intuitions, but without the sharp tool of timeless wisdom, your conclusions of the world are shoddily grounded by personal experience.

Which is why there are aspects of academic philosophy that will, up to a point, always be relevant regarding the quest for meaning in life. Instead, what's crucial here, in my view, is the extent to which one recognizes the limitations of philosophy with respect to human interactions in the is/ought world. And, given both "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule", the limitations of philosophy [and science for that matter] with regard to the truly Big Questions.

And if you rely solely on personal experience to draft your map of reality, be prepared to fall off a cliff when reality gives you an unpleasant update.

In other words, in a world of contingency, chance and change, you never really know for sure what new experiences might knock you [and your philosophy] for a loop. I've been knocked about any number of times myself.

Upon realizing this, I thought about enrolling myself in a few philosophy courses at a nearby college to study it officially. But before doing so, I wanted to check out what the current state of the literature in the field was, and see what topics professors were addressing today. After all, my love for philosophy primarily revolved around the ancient thinkers, and that would only represent a small portion of the overall curriculum.

Well, what I found was enough to drop my desire from enrolling in any collegiate philosophy class.

And, in my view, the same might be said of those who come here only to encounter thread after thread in which the gap between the words posted and the world that we actually live in may well be beyond shrinking.

[iambiguous]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way
By Lawrence Yeo

Consider this abstract from a paper in the esteemed philosophy journal, Mind:

"This paper first argues that we can bring out a tension between the following three popular doctrines: (i) the canonical reduction of metaphysical modality to essence, due to Fine, (ii) contingentism, which says that possibly something could have failed to be something, and (iii) the doctrine that metaphysical modality obeys the modal logic."

Or this abstract from another paper:

"A consensus has arisen that ‘is like’ in relevant ‘what it is like’ locutions does not mean ‘resembles’. This paper argues that the consensus is mistaken. It is argued that a recently proposed ‘affective’ analysis of these locutions fails, but that a purported rival of the resemblance analysis, the property account, is in fact compatible with it."

Okay. What the hell are they talking about? How does this have anything to do with what it means to live a good and fulfilling life?

Don't get me started, right?

Unless, perhaps, someone here can connect the dots between those words above and their own day-to-day interactions with others.

On the other hand, if you can, why couldn't they?

[iambiguous]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way
By Lawrence Yeo

I initially thought I was too stupid to understand the wise words of these higher minds, so I looked around to see what some philosophers had to say about the current state of the field. I didn’t have to search very far to see that many people were just as confused and dismayed by its direction.

How about we start a stampede here. Really, how far removed are any number of posts we encounter on threads at PN and the excerpts above?

And yet to even suggest that this is especially pertinent relating to moral, political and spiritual value judgments, provokes some here to either suggest that I am hijacking the tread, or do not really grasp serious philosophy at all.

The best critique of the field comes from UNC professor, Simon Blackburn (whose book Think is fantastic):

"I sympathize with the ordinary reader – if there is such a person – who opens a contemporary philosophy journal, and can’t make heads or tails of what’s going on. I think that’s a terrible shame. Any educated individual who picks up Hume, Locke, or Berkeley can make a fist of what’s going on. That’s been lost, and that’s a pity."

So, the argument might seem to be this: that there are technical aspects of philosophy which are simply beyond reconfiguring into something anyone can easily understand.

Okay, but when value judgments are examined and explored, how do we really get around acknowledging that dueling definitions and deductions ofttimes accumulate assumptions that almost never bring the alleged meaning of the words down to Earth.

In the world of academia, philosophy has become this weird playground of technicality and complexity that separates the curious masses from the intellectual elite. Instead of focusing on the timeless principles that increase human well-being, it has turned into a pithy battle about what certain words mean and whether or not a certain remark is true.

I'll bet he's read Will Durant.

[Age]

I hope I don't qualify as a ''Stooge" but anyway, here goes...

I have many times tried to connect philosophy as a ''way of life''....
not philosophy as a pie in the sky thing, but as something to be
lived.. not something to be learned in a classroom and promptly
forgotten... as how most people have learned it... or not....

but philosophy shouldn't feel special in this regards.. this is how
most people do religion/Christianity.. spend two hours in church,
and spend the rest of the week, lying, cheating, committing adultery,
and even on that rare occasion, committing murder...
but hay, I believe in Jesus, so I am saved...with no thought as to the
connection between daily actions and the word of the bible...

the same as in philosophy.... and the same goes for morality/ethics....
ethics/morality is something the other guy should be doing,
but me, hay I am already saved, so I don't have to worry about
being moral or ethical.. so fuck you... or so says the Christian...

in fact, this disconnect between our words and our actions are
in fact, legendary in human behavior... we certainly preach a good
game but when the rubber meets the road, we act, ACT, as if
there is no god, no bible, no Jesus, no heaven and certainly no hell...
at least not for them.. for thee, yes, for me, no....
we moralize about others, but when offer the same chance about ourselves,
nah, where're good...

the failure here lies in our lack of courage... we are afraid to judge, as
we judge others, quite readily in fact.... so one of the two things must
go, either we stop moralizing, judging others or we include ourselves in
our own judgement.... and few have the courage to stand in judgement
of their own actions, words and values held to...

I like to pretend this is new, but it isn't... it is as old as man himself
we judge others but lack to the courage to honestly judge ourselves....
holding our words to the actions done in our words...

so, what we face is a question of matching our words with our actions...
do we have the fortitude or courage to do so?

bringing our words to the ground and be judged for them....
bringing our actions to ground for judgement...
or do you lack the courage to do so? as with most people...

Kropotkin

So, this one here known as "peter kropotkin" also lacks the courage to bring its own actions/mis-behavior 'to ground' 'for judgment'.

Which partly explains why it cannot bring philosophy as a way of life, and explains a lot of its other writings and claims here as well.

[iambiguous]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way
By Lawrence Yeo

The greatest enemy of intellectual curiosity isn’t boredom, but needless complexity. Boredom can force you to look outside your comfort zone, but complexity constructs a stone wall barrier that intimidates and scares you away.

Though, sure, this, in turn, is going to be understood differently by different people. Some men and women are just born with super-high IQs. They are able understand things that others might complain is needlessly complex simply because they are not able to understand it themselves.

Indeed, I admit that my own reaction to any number of abstractionist posts here may involve a certain measure of exasperation that I am not able myself to "get them". And here all I can do in regard ethics is to ask them to illustrate their text such that I might understand them better.

The stone wall around philosophy has gotten too high, and we need to take it back down. But first, we must identify the core problem, which stems from the often-confused relationship between philosophy and its famous friend, science.

Next up: building a car.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way
By Lawrence Yeo

I initially thought I was too stupid to understand the wise words of these higher minds, so I looked around to see what some philosophers had to say about the current state of the field. I didn’t have to search very far to see that many people were just as confused and dismayed by its direction.

How about we start a stampede here. Really, how far removed are any number of posts we encounter on threads at PN and the excerpts above?

And yet to even suggest that this is especially pertinent relating to moral, political and spiritual value judgments, provokes some here to either suggest that I am hijacking the tread, or do not really grasp serious philosophy at all.

The best critique of the field comes from UNC professor, Simon Blackburn (whose book Think is fantastic):

"I sympathize with the ordinary reader – if there is such a person – who opens a contemporary philosophy journal, and can’t make heads or tails of what’s going on. I think that’s a terrible shame. Any educated individual who picks up Hume, Locke, or Berkeley can make a fist of what’s going on. That’s been lost, and that’s a pity."

So, the argument might seem to be this: that there are technical aspects of philosophy which are simply beyond reconfiguring into something anyone can easily understand.

Okay, but when value judgments are examined and explored, how do we really get around acknowledging that dueling definitions and deductions ofttimes accumulate assumptions that almost never bring the alleged meaning of the words down to Earth.

In the world of academia, philosophy has become this weird playground of technicality and complexity that separates the curious masses from the intellectual elite. Instead of focusing on the timeless principles that increase human well-being, it has turned into a pithy battle about what certain words mean and whether or not a certain remark is true.

I'll bet he's read Will Durant.

K: the Will Durant mention will go over most people head basically because
only us old folk, remember who Will Durant is... I own most
of his work including all the books of the ''Story of Civilization"
series.... and of course his ''Story of Philosophy'' .....good stuff....

Kropotkin

[iambiguous]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way
By Lawrence Yeo

Philosophy ≠ Science

Imagine that you want to build a car. But then imagine that you have no idea what a car is made of, and where to even begin.

To build a car, you have to first figure out what type of raw materials are required to make it. Then you have to understand how to mix these materials together to build the individual parts. Then you’ll have to figure out how to engineer the various parts so they fit nicely to create the final product.

Building a car is an exercise in collecting factual information. Trial and error is of utmost importance, as experimentation is the key to getting you closer to the truth.

The process of building the car from the ground-up is called science.

So, when does it stop being science? When do people shift gears from how the car is built in the either/or world to far more contentious issues revolving instead around such things as safety issues, EVs vs. the gas-guzzlers, and [for some] the belief that we should shift dramatically over to public transportation...vastly reducing the need for cars in the first place. Automobiles and climate change? Cars in the is/ought world? Philosophy here more or less than science?

Science tells us what the world is made of, how it works, and how we can use its components to build tools that help us understand it even better. It is the gathering of information and the rigorous filtration of it that leaves us with the end result: knowledge.

Then [for me] the knowledge needed to pin down how to build a car versus the knowledge needed to pin down the most rational -- most virtuous? -- government policy pertaining to the use of cars in any particular communities. Think Steve Dunne vs. Mayor Weber from Singles.

Perhaps the coolest thing about knowledge is that it’s iterative – whatever is true today can be refuted tomorrow. This means that progress ebbs and flows; there may be times where you surge ahead, but other times you will have to go back and revise some foundational assumptions that were made in the past.

Still, what sets science apart from those aspects of philosophy that grapple with human interactions revolving around conflicting goods, is that one way or another science comes down to what is in fact either in sync with or out of sync with the laws of nature themselves. And in my view only in a wholly determined universe is the either/or world interchangeable with the is/ought world.

[iambiguous]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way
By Lawrence Yeo

So once you’ve finished building the car, then comes the next logical question:

Where do you want it to go?

This is a question that cannot be answered through your knowledge of how a car is built. This is one that is determined by your inner values, or the things that are important to the question of well-being.

After all, you might want to take the car to a bank that is being held up. You're the getaway driver.

Or are there some here who might argue that if philosophers think long and hard enough, they can create a list of the most rational places to drive a car.

Or the most irrational places to drive it? Over a cliff if your intent is to commit suicide? Or is that necessarily irrational behavior?

Science cannot tell you why you want to use your car to visit your parents, or why spending time with them is a top priority. It cannot tell you why you should use it to commute to work, or why making money is important to you in the first place.

The process of determining what to do with the car is called philosophy.

Then the part where this all unfolds squarely within the parameters of the either/or world, and the part where there have always been controversial and contentious issues relating to the automobile industry. For example, is it more or less rational for the workers who build the cars to be in a union?

Let's commence a thread in which we examine both the limitations of science and philosophy in regard to cars.

[Iwannaplato]

It seems like looking at survey of applied philosophy might be more useful than focusing on what is wrong with philosophy. If the idea is to come out of the clouds, in any case. Or one can bemoan in the clouds. Different tastes....

And it does seem like PK is being ignored like he's a Stooge. I don't know why. He's been supportive of Iambiguous and he does try to connect ideas directly to everyday life.

Anyway, for a definition of applied philosophy.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_philosophy

Here are some names:
1-Mauricio Hardie Beuchot: His analogical hermeneutics seeks to interpret texts and ideas in a way that relates directly to our human experiences. By emphasizing analogy and connection, Beuchot’s work may feel more grounded and relatable.

2-Dany-Robert Dufour: Dufour’s exploration of ethics, aesthetics, and psychoanalysis often touches on practical aspects of human existence. His focus on the human psyche and societal norms could resonate with those seeking relevance to their daily lives.

3-Roberto Esposito: Esposito’s work on biopolitics and immunology delves into issues like health, identity, and community. These topics directly impact our lived experiences, making his philosophy more tangible.

4+-Gary Lawrence Francione

: As an advocate for animal rights, Francione’s work directly addresses ethical choices in our interactions with other beings. For someone seeking a philosophy that aligns with compassionate action, his ideas may be compelling.

5-Kwasi Wiredu: Wiredu’s engagement with African philosophy and epistemology emphasizes cultural context and practical wisdom. His approach bridges theory and practice, offering insights relevant to everyday life.

6-David P. Gauthier: Gauthier’s work on ethics and social contract theory explores how rational choices intersect with our daily decisions. His focus on cooperation and self-interest could resonate with practical-minded individuals.

7-Julian Nida-Rümelin: Nida-Rümelin’s contributions to ethics, aesthetics, and political philosophy often touch on real-world issues. His exploration of values and societal structures may provide a more tangible connection.

8-Michel Onfray: Onfray’s atheism, hedonism, and existentialism challenge conventional norms. His philosophy encourages critical thinking about our existence, making it relevant to everyday questioning.

It can be hard to get direct access to philosophical papers - though if they are alive, and most of these are, for example, their homepages may give access to preprints in pdf form. Secondary sources, about their work, are often also accessible. And that was just a handful of people working in applied philosophy.

You can also search here for articles which often can be downloaded:
https://www.researchgate.net/search?q=a ... hilosophy¨

There are lots of philosophers and more philosophy than any earlier period. Even if most of it is off, there's still all sorts of stuff being written out there, both in articles and books that tries to connect ideas to real life situations.

[iambiguous]

Gary Lawrence Francione

: As an advocate for animal rights, Francione’s work directly addresses ethical choices in our interactions with other beings. For someone seeking a philosophy that aligns with compassionate action, his ideas may be compelling.

A context!

Philosophy, ethics and animal rights.

First up: the pros and the cons: https://www.google.com/search?q=animal+ ... URT-reRWmz

Though here, in turn, science would appear to be no less stymied in regard to concocting either the optimal moral prescriptions and proscriptions or [for some] championing what they insist is the one and the only rational frame of mind there can ever possibly be here.

As with the cars above, different people have different assessments regarding animal rights in the is/ought world. And, in particular, these assessments can collide ferociously for those here -- https://www.google.com/search?q=animal+ ... s-wiz-serp

And for those here: https://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/gear/ ... anizations

Now, my argument is that each of us as individuals will acquire a particular moral assessment here based largely on 1] our indoctrination regarding animal rights as children 2] our own uniquely personal experiences as adults pertaining to animal rights and 3] the world [historically, culturally and experientially] that we are adventitiously "thrown" into at birth.

The part I root existentially in dasein. The part that the moral objectivists among us root in one or another One True Path.

Their own!

So, how might Gary Lawrence Francione react to that?

[iambiguous]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way
By Lawrence Yeo

Clarity of mind is the goal of philosophy, and wisdom is the manifestation of that freedom.

Then back to the distinction that I make here...

You're a doctor who performs abortions. How clearly can you communicate the procedure to other doctors who perform them? Such that through this communication lessons can be learned to improve -- perfect? -- your skills as a doctor?

You're an ethicist grappling with the morality of abortion. How clearly can you communicate your conclusions to other ethicists grappling with it? Such that an actual deontological resolution can be arrived at?

Wisdom is the punchline that is delivered at the end of every Aesop fable, the takeaway one gets from any insightful work of science or art. It is the force that shapes personal values away from misery and toward well-being for oneself and others.

"Initially the fables were addressed to adults and covered religious, social and political themes. They were also put to use as ethical guides and from the Renaissance onwards were particularly used for the education of children." wiki

How are the punchlines here not rooted existentially in dasein? Misery and well-being? When some women encompass their well-being as revolving around the right to choose an abortion, while others will sustain their own misery as long as even a single abortion is permitted.

Wisdom here?

Some may balk at this spectrum and say that philosophy is much more than the pursuit of wisdom. They might say that philosophy is not defined by some cliched search for the deepest questions of meaning. They will proclaim that it is a hard science, as it tries to uncover the underpinnings of the mind and reveal truths that can only be discovered through experimentation.

Please.

If, in regard to either 1] moral and political conflicts or 2] the Big Questions, philosophers had made great progress over the past 2,500 years, wisdom might be the appropriate word. Instead, philosophers are nowhere near achieving the sort of progress that scientists have. And, by and large, science steers clear of the either/or world. Also, in regard to the Big Questions where is the philosophical equivalent of the scientific method?

[iambiguous]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way
By Lawrence Yeo

All too often, philosophy is viewed as a science, which leads to the tendency to place the two spectrums parallel with one another.

A "soft" science perhaps? In other words, as with the other ones -- sociology, psychology, political science, anthropology, etc. -- there are things that seem able to be connected to all of of us objectively and things that eventually come back around to our own subjective "personal opinions" regarding other things.

Thus the need to note actual contexts in order to make that distinction. Or for the objectivists among us...erase it?

There is a big problem with overlapping the “how” questions of science with the “why” questions of philosophy, and it has to do with the differing nature of progress in both fields.

Actually, even in regard to science, the "why?" part can be as much a mystery as well. Explaining how the existence of existence came to be...is that the same as explaining why?

Here, instead, we might just as well cue the theologians.

Or there's the point I often make encompassed here by Simon Blackwell:

Here’s Simon Blackwell again in eloquent form:

"If philosophy had a string of cumulative results to its name – as physics does and biology does – and we unmistakably know more than we did a couple of centuries ago . . . [then] I accept the parallel [between philosophy and science].

But there’s no evidence that it is like that.

Very basic questions keep recurring and being handled again and again in different ways. So the more apt comparison I see would be with humane studies, like with history and literature – perhaps art itself.

And yet, here, as well, there are things that historians and writers and artists can depict that are in turn reasonably true for all of us. There are, after all, historical facts, written facts, and artistic works that depicts things all of us would agree upon.

My argument is to suggest that, in regard to those things that we do come into conflict regarding, it revolves mostly around the points I raise in my signature threads.

[phyllo]

Philosophy Has Lost Its Way

Suggests that everyone ought to be interested in the same aspects of philosophy, the same problems, the same solutions.

One size fits all philosophy.