When does philosophy become drivel and why?

[Cunninglinguist]

Has this whole philosophical enquiry been drivel? If all philosophy is drivel, then this whole discussion is, too. Then why, if I may ask, have those who so quickly denounce philosophy in her totality so eagerly partake in it? Are these people conscious of their hypocrisy, or do they just not know that they do not believe the words with which they speak?

When is(n’t) philosophy important? Sure, sitting around thinking never gets anything done. It’s never the action, and therefore never directly potent; it’s never a remedy that saves a life or a bullet that takes one away. But yet, when we have the luxury of time, shouldn’t we spend time questioning where to aim the gun or even questioning whether or not we should pull its trigger? Moral philosophy is a tool that we can use to inform our actions.

Endeavoring to discover whether or not this debate is important is of critical importance.
The essential questions at hand are: how should we live? How should we expend our energy in life? Should we expend it on philosophical endeavors? And other questions of the like.
Consider how much energy is expended on this endeavor here. How much energy could have gone into doing something more practical e.g. volunteer work?
As we expend energy here debating over how we ought to expend our energy, people elsewhere are dying. This is one of the greatest ironies in life I’ve ever encountered. We ought to expend it on them.

[The Atheist]

I find the pre-Socratics and Lao Zi obscure, but interesting. For instance, I am not sure what the sage means by 'if a way can be told, it is not the everlasting way', the first sentence in his classic.

Something about the real, honest, one and only, truth being hidden from us, I imagine.

Has this whole philosophical enquiry been drivel? If all philosophy is drivel, then this whole discussion is, too. Then why, if I may ask, have those who so quickly denounce philosophy in her totality so eagerly partake in it? Are these people conscious of their hypocrisy, or do they just not know that they do not believe the words with which they speak?

What?

In what way is any hypocrisy involved?

Do you only argue propositions you agree with?

In case you didn't notice the front page, this is a discussion forum and we're in the philosophy section.

You may as well complain that I'm in some way hypocritical as an atheist talking in religious threads, or that I do makes me a closet theist.

When is(n’t) philosophy important? Sure, sitting around thinking never gets anything done. It’s never the action, and therefore never directly potent; it’s never a remedy that saves a life or a bullet that takes one away. But yet, when we have the luxury of time, shouldn’t we spend time questioning where to aim the gun or even questioning whether or not we should pull its trigger? Moral philosophy is a tool that we can use to inform our actions.

Ok, let's play then.

The scoreboard as I read it works like this:

Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.

We've been literally paying people to sit around and think for several thousand years, yet I'm still waiting for one single moral issue that philosophy has been able to solve. Go ahead and list 'em if you got 'em.

Endeavoring to discover whether or not this debate is important is of critical importance.
The essential questions at hand are: how should we live? How should we expend our energy in life? Should we expend it on philosophical endeavors? And other questions of the like.
Consider how much energy is expended on this endeavor here. How much energy could have gone into doing something more practical e.g. volunteer work?
As we expend energy here people debating over how we ought to expend our energy, elsewhere are dying. This is one of the greatest ironies in life I’ve ever encountered. We ought to expend it on them.

If you're seeing irony in that, you're admitting to being pretty naive, I think.

If I spent all my energy on volunteer work, I'd soon get sick of it and shoot myself. I've only got a limited supply of emotional energy and I like to save a bit for the kids and other things.

Part of my evolved human nature means that I need some entertainment time or I'll go nuts.

The time I spend online is the time I'd be doing nothing else of value - watching a tv, playing a game, sitting and scratching myself or brushing my hair. Claiming that I could make the world a better place during the time I spend typing is plain silly.

[whathappened]

The Atheist: ‘Something about the real, honest, one and only, truth being hidden from us, I imagine.’

Lao Zi does not seem to claim that the dao is unknowable. But he tries to describe it in metaphors many of which are obscure like many poems. And he writes in the first place that the dao is indescribable. Despite these problems he seems very interesting. Like many poems many of his make great sense, after much sense-making. So I guess much sense-making is needed to understand his first sentence.

The Atheist: ‘Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.’

Whoever have definitions for the good and the just would seem be able to solve moral dilemmas. The difficulty is with the definitions. It is unhelpful to complain that no convincing definitions have been given by philosophers, unless you complain about the philosophical method. But what is the method?

[IceM]

To respond to the title.

When one cannot define the entirety of his belief without using esoteric terminology, it probably isn't worth hearing.

[Cunninglinguist]

What?

In what way is any hypocrisy involved?

Do you only argue propositions you agree with?

In case you didn't notice the front page, this is a discussion forum and we're in the philosophy section.

You may as well complain that I'm in some way hypocritical as an atheist talking in religious threads, or that I do makes me a closet theist.

I would define this whole discussion as a philosophical, yet you sit here partaking in it while you claim that it's completely and utterly useless. As for saying that "I may as well complain that I'm in some way hypocritical as an atheist talking in religious threads, or that I do makes me a closet theist," I must disagree. It is more like trying to disprove reason using reason. I would like to hear your definition of philosophy, and I may agree that it is utterly useless when one accords with your definition; I will most likely contend, however, that you define it rather unfairly.

Ok, let's play then.

The scoreboard as I read it works like this:

Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.

We've been literally paying people to sit around and think for several thousand years, yet I'm still waiting for one single moral issue that philosophy has been able to solve. Go ahead and list 'em if you got 'em.

one ought not kill when one does not have to
one ought not steal when one does not have to
one ought not lie when one does not have to
the list goes on like that...

Here is another point at which you're being a hypocrite: this debate is of a moral nature (it deals with how one ought to expend energy) and you're contending that one ought not spend it doing philosophy, or at least one ought not make a profession out of it. I find it curious that you make this moral generalization and yet claim that no moral generalizations can be made. Oops, guess you didn't think that one through.

If you're seeing irony in that, you're admitting to being pretty naive, I think.

If I spent all my energy on volunteer work, I'd soon get sick of it and shoot myself. I've only got a limited supply of emotional energy and I like to save a bit for the kids and other things.

Part of my evolved human nature means that I need some entertainment time or I'll go nuts.

The time I spend online is the time I'd be doing nothing else of value - watching a tv, playing a game, sitting and scratching myself or brushing my hair. Claiming that I could make the world a better place during the time I spend typing is plain silly.

I see irony in it because, by definition, there is irony in it. I'm surprised someone who acts as clever as you do missed that.

So, you're implicitly saying that philosophy is useful (or atleast justified) when one uses it for entertainment.

I'll have to get back to you on the rest of these, as I am short on time right now.

[The Atheist]

The Atheist: ‘Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.’

Whoever have definitions for the good and the just would seem be able to solve moral dilemmas. The difficulty is with the definitions. It is unhelpful to complain that no convincing definitions have been given by philosophers, unless you complain about the philosophical method. But what is the method?

I doubt I can answer that in polite enough terms without resprting to the cliched "navel-gazing".

If we can't even define what "good" is, it's time to give up.

To respond to the title.

When one cannot define the entirety of his belief without using esoteric terminology, it probably isn't worth hearing.

That's as succinct a description as I've seen.

Is it yours, or borrowed?

If it's yours give me some attribution details so I can credit you when I use it.

I would like to hear your definition of philosophy, and I may agree that it is utterly useless when one accords with your definition; I will most likely contend, however, that you define it rather unfairly.

I may be doing just that, so to be sure where I am, this has been covered in complete detail during the thread, so just scroll back and you'll see.

one ought not kill when one does not have to
one ought not steal when one does not have to
one ought not lie when one does not have to
the list goes on like that...

They sound a lot more like humanist priciples than philosophical ones.

I have yet to see any definable consensus among philosophers on those, not to mention the obvious fish-hook that my "have to" may be different from yours.

Here is another point at which you're being a hypocrite: this debate is of a moral nature (it deals with how one ought to expend energy) and you're contending that one ought not spend it doing philosophy, or at least one ought not make a profession out of it. I find it curious that you make this moral generalization and yet claim that no moral generalizations can be made. Oops, guess you didn't think that one through.

No, I'm pretty sure you're just wrong.

Have I said that no moral generalisations can be made? If so, I don't remember it, and I expect it would be in error or out of context, because I don't agree with it. I think they can be made, but need arbitrary positions first, which philosophy cannot give us. I don't think moral generalisations can be made by philosophy.

So, you're implicitly saying that philosophy is useful (or atleast justified) when one uses it for entertainment.

For entertainment? Absolutely.

A good analogy would be bigfoot. I find bigfoot entertaining and have several friends in the bigfoot community, yet I think they're all as mad as rabbits.

I don't make many absolute statements, but I will on that subject - bigfoot is a fairytale and does not exist. The bigfooters know this.

Lots of things are entertaining - a field of study where there has never been a right or wrong answer since its inception seems to me to be the highest form of drivel-making on the planet, thus making it near the top of the list in entertainment. Much more so than religion; religion is nice and absolute.

[_Shannon_]

This whole thread ought to do a collective reading of the complete works of Wittgenstein. LOL! It'd "solve" a lot of the arguments

[Dodo25]

This whole thread ought to do a collective reading of the complete works of Wittgenstein. LOL! It'd "solve" a lot of the arguments

The name is somewhere on my (HUGE) reading list, because it has been recommended to me twice. Yet I haven't narrowed it down to actual book titles. If your familiar with his works, which one is the most important in your opinion?

He wrote in German, didn't he?

[Cunninglinguist]

If you're seeing irony in that, you're admitting to being pretty naive, I think.

If I spent all my energy on volunteer work, I'd soon get sick of it and shoot myself. I've only got a limited supply of emotional energy and I like to save a bit for the kids and other things.

Part of my evolved human nature means that I need some entertainment time or I'll go nuts.

The time I spend online is the time I'd be doing nothing else of value - watching a tv, playing a game, sitting and scratching myself or brushing my hair. Claiming that I could make the world a better place during the time I spend typing is plain silly.

I have no where declared that one should spend all their time doing volunteer work. However, it is the case that the end of serious moral discussions is humanitarian. They inform us on how to best conduct our behavior in order to benefit those around us and ourselves, and are therefore very much a humanitarian endeavor by proxy. Therefore my former comments are hinting at my answer to the forum’s question: (at least) moral philosophy becomes drivel when it gets in the way of its own end.

[mal4mac]

I have no where declared that one should spend all their time doing volunteer work. However, it is the case that the end of serious moral discussions is humanitarian. They inform us on how to best conduct our behavior in order to benefit those around us and ourselves, and are therefore very much a humanitarian endeavor by proxy. Therefore my former comments are hinting at my answer to the forum’s question: (at least) moral philosophy becomes drivel when it gets in the way of its own end.

Can you give an example of a serious work of moral philosophy that gets in the way of its own declared end?

According to Aristotle's Ethics, the highest human endeavour is "contemplating like a God", which amounts, in human terms, to studying the greatest theoretical works (e.g., reading Euclid.) Is this humanitarian?

[Cunninglinguist]

I may be doing just that, so to be sure where I am, this has been covered in complete detail during the thread, so just scroll back and you'll see.

Yes, and if I remember correctly Satan pointed out how flawwed your definition of philosophy was. You better go change it because it's wrong. It amuses me how your vanity leads you about by your nose and makes you commit to really terrible arguments.

They sound a lot more like humanist priciples than philosophical ones.

I have yet to see any definable consensus among philosophers on those, not to mention the obvious fish-hook that my "have to" may be different from yours.

Nevertheless I could've omitted these because you still scored a goal on yourself.

No, I'm pretty sure you're just wrong.

Have I said that no moral generalisations can be made? If so, I don't remember it, and I expect it would be in error or out of context, because I don't agree with it. I think they can be made, but need arbitrary positions first, which philosophy cannot give us. I don't think moral generalisations can be made by philosophy.

Yes, you have. It's curious how you argue here that no one should be making a profession out of philosophy (i.e. implicitly saying that it is immoral), yet you've also subscribed to moral relativism in other forums.

The fact still stants either way that, by definition, all arguments dealing with moral statuses fall under the scope of philosophy (by definition, to further assert the point). Once again, get your definitions straight. Oops, again.

I would like to point out that it is not necessary that everyone must reach a consensus on something in order for that something to be true. A man can disagree and say that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, yet this does not make the statment 1 + 1 = 2 not true, it makes the man incompetent or uneducated as to the meanings of the symbols used. It is very possible that philosophy is the same way (it is especially susceptible to the aforementioned latter possibility because of the subsymbolic nature of words), yet if you want to discuss this I’d be much more than happy to, but I beseech you to initiate that discussion by sending me a private message, for I fear that the topic is so large it shouldn’t be discussed here.

For entertainment? Absolutely.

A good analogy would be bigfoot. I find bigfoot entertaining and have several friends in the bigfoot community, yet I think they're all as mad as rabbits.

I don't make many absolute statements, but I will on that subject - bigfoot is a fairytale and does not exist. The bigfooters know this.

Lots of things are entertaining - a field of study where there has never been a right or wrong answer since its inception seems to me to be the highest form of drivel-making on the planet, thus making it near the top of the list in entertainment. Much more so than religion; religion is nice and absolute.

So you say it is okay if one uses it for entertainment but implying it's not if one makes a professional career out of it. This sounds much like you're trying to assert a moral maxim. Yet, you've clarified that you're a moral relativist...same point as before.
And also you're using philosophical debate to contend that philosophical debate is worthless. Of course, knowing what is useful and what is worthless is inherently useful, and philosophy being the only way one might go about finding these things is therefore useful. Yet you contend it’s not? That’s like trying to talk about how useless talking is. I hope you’re coming to realize how blatantly hypocritical that is.

"I dont make any absolute statements," do you realize how, first of all, this is an absolute statement, and second of all, how many absolute statments you DO make? You better go reveiw your other posts.

[_Shannon_]

The name is somewhere on my (HUGE) reading list, because it has been recommended to me twice. Yet I haven't narrowed it down to actual book titles. If your familiar with his works, which one is the most important in your opinion?

He wrote in German, didn't he?

I think if you were only to read one, it ought to be Philisophical Investigations...it is later than the Tractatus, and more reflective of what he came to believe, (and it will answer the OP )

Yes it's originally in German, but there are good English translations available.

[Dodo25]

I think if you were only to read one, it ought to be Philisophical Investigations...it is later than the Tractatus, and more reflective of what he came to believe, (and it will answer the OP )

Yes it's originally in German, but there are good English translations available.

Thank you. I'll read that sometime, and then, depending on how I liked it, maybe more of his books.

German is my native language, yet I'm not sure if I should read it in German. Of course, the original language is always more precise, on the other hand, reading it in English would give me the English vocabulary to the book, so people understand me better when I talk about it. Additionally, I don't like German very much..

[The Atheist]

Yes, and if I remember correctly Satan pointed out how flawwed your definition of philosophy was.

If your argument is with the description I'm using, changing your tack to that now seems quite dishonest.

The constant use of ad hominem doesn't encourage me to bother - I seem to recall you doing the same in another thread - but what really gives me the clue as to your level of argument is best shown here:

"I dont make any absolute statements," do you realize how, first of all, this is an absolute statement, and second of all, how many absolute statments you DO make? You better go reveiw your other posts.

While this is what I actually said:

I don't make many absolute statements, but I will on that subject - bigfoot is a fairytale and does not exist. The bigfooters know this.

Bolding mine.

[whathappened]

If we can't even define what "good" is, it's time to give up.

We can define what good is. It is just that our definition can hardly be satisfactory for all cases under all considerations. The difficulty is just working out more and more satisfactory definitions.

But of course we can do away with definitions... or can we?

If you have a non-philosophical (whatever this might mean) definition for the good, it would be interesting to hear it.