When does philosophy become drivel and why?

[The Atheist]

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.

Sorry, I didn't intend to make a discussion on the meaning of "good"; I was after more of a point that what constitutes "good" and "bad" is simply down to subjective opinion.

Philosophy cannot even answer the questions, simply because I can provide a logical argument to negate any position taken.

Let's say we take a universal position that feeding the starving is "good".

The trouble is, I can successfully argue that it is actually "bad" by showing the counter-productive nature of it - feeding people in poverty merely creates more people in poverty, the plight of whom will never be improved. Saving lives puts other lives under pressure by increasing competition for resources, and it spreads disease by enabling more people to live in unsanitary areas. Water supplies and political bargaining are also aided by feeding the starving.

Not to mention the havoc 7 billion people are causing to this otherwise very nice planet.

This is part of the reason why religion is so attractive - it provides a nice set of arbitrary rules, and if a god writes the rules, no argument is possible.

[whathappened]

It is just that the position does not satisfy your considerations.

If there is no position that satisfies you, at all, then maybe you are expecting the impossible. It is quite impossible that something is all good, no bad.

Besides, when you were negating the position you were working under a definition of the good, no matter how unclear it was.

[Scheherazade]

When does philosophy become drivel and why?

Just about now... Because a thread on how philosophy becomes drivel gets over 120 posts.

[The Atheist]

Besides, when you were negating the position you were working under a definition of the good, no matter how unclear it was.

We seem to be on different sides of the road here - I stated that defining the word "good" was a piece of cake. Making it fit into the actual world is the problem.

Just about now... Because a thread on how philosophy becomes drivel gets over 120 posts.

Wins the thread!

[The Comedian]

I'm all for getting my hands dirty in a philosophical discussion. Questioning everything and taking nothing at face value is how I try to live my life. However, when does philosophical reflection cross the border into the Republic of Rubbish? And Why?

From my own personal experience, I've noticed it gets people's eyes rolling when the situation is tense and they want direct, concrete answers to a problem or crisis. Is a truly philosophical view only tolerated when people have the luxury of time? Outside of the world of Academia, at what point does Philosophy become something far less helpful or desirable?

To address the question posed in the post title. . .I think philosophy becomes drivel when it becomes something you talk about only -- and stops becoming either something you do or a way to prepare you for an action, decision, or feeling.

[whathappened]

We seem to be on different sides of the road here - I stated that defining the word "good" was a piece of cake. Making it fit into the actual world is the problem.

Yes, and the problem may not be as impossible as you think, and it is a problem the answerING of which is of value.

I think philosophy becomes drivel when it becomes something you talk about only -- and stops becoming either something you do or a way to prepare you for an action, decision, or feeling.

Much agreed. Over-expectation may be a factor that stops us from doing ideas, but the greater factor may be that we do not go deep into ideas. On the surface ideas appear drivel and problematic.

[The Comedian]

Much agreed. Over-expectation may be a factor that stops us from doing ideas, but the greater factor may be that we do not go deep into ideas. On the surface ideas appear drivel and problematic.

Indeed. I like talkin' philosophy a lot. And I think that such conversation can improve our lived experiences in many ways. But sometimes talking philosophy and going "deep" into an idea is like a dog chasing its own tail: you just end up just biting your own *** and walking away dizzy as hell.

[whathappened]

Yep, so the problem seems to be overcoming confusion. Maybe the dizzy dog metaphor can make some suggestion.

[?NIETZSCHE'XIST]

Why? Because we continue to Flog Nietzsche's Horse! If you encounter Zarathustra on the path... KILL HIM!

[The Atheist]

Concidentally, Philosophy with a capital P is under attack in NZ, with new initiatives meaning Philosophy departments will struggle for funds.

The government has decreed that university degree funding will henceforth be based on the likelihood of graduates getting jobs, so obviously, "hard" subjects like science, medicine and engineering will get all the funding as the graduates of those pretty much all gain employment in their field of study. There is also a worldwide shortage of those three disciplines, while I have yet to see any evidence of problems caused by a lack of philosophy grads.

(Macdonald's still has no problem hiring...)

One bit I found most amusing from one of the defenders of capital P philosophy is this:

I would be confident if I only had a philosophy degree, I would be able to get a job as a policy analyst.

Yes indeed, the world needs more policy analysts!



http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/educ...osophy-degrees

[caddy_caddy]

When life istelf becomes drivel .

[Dodo25]

Concidentally, Philosophy with a capital P is under attack in NZ, with new initiatives meaning Philosophy departments will struggle for funds.

The government has decreed that university degree funding will henceforth be based on the likelihood of graduates getting jobs, so obviously, "hard" subjects like science, medicine and engineering will get all the funding as the graduates of those pretty much all gain employment in their field of study. There is also a worldwide shortage of those three disciplines, while I have yet to see any evidence of problems caused by a lack of philosophy grads.

(Macdonald's still has no problem hiring...)

One bit I found most amusing from one of the defenders of capital P philosophy is this:

"I would be confident if I only had a philosophy degree, I would be able to get a job as a policy analyst."

Yes indeed, the world needs more policy analysts!



http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/educ...osophy-degrees

What if we built a modern version of Kallipolis? No corrupt or religiously fundamental politicians. Reason as the key. Reasonable standarts of education, critical thinking classes and neutral comparative religion classes. A review going to the public that justifies government decisions by informing the them with clear arguments.

The 'rulers' themselves having no possibility to gain anything with their decisions, no temptation for corruption. Being chosen, or voluntarily study for it, having read and researched the important books and issues.

Maybe a degree in philosophy is useless today. Why are you so sure it is the problem of philosophy itself?

I'm not talking about metaphysics here. I'm talking mainly about ethics. And politics. Probably something along the lines of preference utilitarianism, because this is an objectively justifiable form of ethics with a noble and intuitively 'right' goal. Depending on certain considerations, I see nothing wrong with it, and I also see no reason why anything else does better in theory. In practice, there are huge difficulties, yet again, whose fault is that?

[The Atheist]

What if we built a modern version of Kallipolis?

Unfortunately, the idea doesn't take human nature into account - which sums up Philosophy succinctly. Until we can create perfectly rational and logical beings, a la Huxley's Utopia, Kallopolis cannot exist.

Maybe a degree in philosophy is useless today. Why are you so sure it is the problem of philosophy itself?

The lack of progress in 2000+ years.

Philosophers are still arguing the same positions today as Plato did.

I'd be anti-medicine as well if doctors in 2010 were still using Hippocrates' methods.

I'm not talking about metaphysics here. I'm talking mainly about ethics. And politics. Probably something along the lines of preference utilitarianism, because this is an objectively justifiable form of ethics with a noble and intuitively 'right' goal. Depending on certain considerations, I see nothing wrong with it, and I also see no reason why anything else does better in theory. In practice, there are huge difficulties, yet again, whose fault is that?

Probably the fault of several hundred years of the less-able doing Philosphy degrees, while the gifted become scientists and doctors. As a result of that, a vicious circle of academic philosophy has existed where those few with a passion for inaccuracy and parroting canards become the teachers of the next generation.

Using the ethics example, I agree that ethical positions need to be established, and we do that now, but through expert and informed opinion rather than Philosophy.

[whathappened]

Philosophers are still arguing the same positions today as Plato did.

And now they know more than Plato.

I agree that ethical positions need to be established, and we do that now, but through expert and informed opinion rather than Philosophy.

By 'expert and informed' I assume you mean science. Can we hear an example of scientific ethical positions?(!)

[Dodo25]

Unfortunately, the idea doesn't take human nature into account - which sums up Philosophy succinctly. Until we can create perfectly rational and logical beings, a la Huxley's Utopia, Kallopolis cannot exist.

Only the rulers need to be perfectly rational. The others only need to be rational to a certain degree, so much as to realize why Kallipolis would be a good system. Yet here is the problem, with a significant amount of religious people, such a system just can't function because they'd be motivated to fight for a revolution because they won't like all the decisions made at the top.

Apart from that though, I think its theoretically possible, even without tinkering with human nature too much as in Huxley's u-/distopia.

The lack of progress in 2000+ years.

Philosophers are still arguing the same positions today as Plato did.

I'd be anti-medicine as well if doctors in 2010 were still using Hippocrates' methods.

Ethics is further, and also philosophy of mind, the concept of memes has fostered some intriguing attempts at explaining the mind. You'd probably call this science, and indeed, the closer philosophy is to science the better.

Probably the fault of several hundred years of the less-able doing Philosphy degrees, while the gifted become scientists and doctors. As a result of that, a vicious circle of academic philosophy has existed where those few with a passion for inaccuracy and parroting canards become the teachers of the next generation.

This might be true, unfortunately.

Using the ethics example, I agree that ethical positions need to be established, and we do that now, but through expert and informed opinion rather than Philosophy.

Here we have an agreement (well if you stopped bending the definition of philosophy to suit you). Philosophy is the love for knowledge, so 'informed opinion' is exactly what a philosopher should go for. And the word expert only means that someone knows the details of his field and is able to explain them. I agree in that we shouldn't just let any kind of philosophers tackle the issue, yet nevertheless it remains a philosophical issue and there are philosophical approaches to ethics that seem very promising indeed.