Philosophy: books and discussion

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Oh, and if you want a critique of Nietzsche by one of his near contemporaries, "Heretics" by Chresterton is very good.

Thanks. I haven't read that one. I have read an awful lot of Nietszche's works however, and despite appearances from what I've said of my disagreements with various aspects of his philosophy; he's one of my favorite philosophers.

[nguirado]

Even though I don't agree with him (because I choose different premises), he's a person who reasons logically from his premises.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I don't mean to start a fight. Most of my friends are atheists or irreligious. Nothing you said contradicts what I said. In regards to morality and ethics, you can say and defend anything you want.

The only authority you can use is that a particular opinion on morality, if held by everyone, would create a "worse" society, sort of like what Kant held. This is no argument for an objective morality that holds for everybody (such an idea is to be found in the concept of the natural law, but that necessitates an author of nature).

It's like deciding which rules for a particular game would make it more fun. The rules aren't inviolate. They're there to facilitate a certain result.

Respectfully, except for physical reality, one can hold any morality one wants to since it's just a social construct anyways and doesn't exist independently of our opinion.

There is a contradiction in what you say, and I think it points out to something very important. If morality is a social construct (which I agree with, although I would add that it is based on biological premises), then potentially, holding a different morality than the rest is a threat to society. After all, morality is what is supposed to guide your behavior as a member of society.

In theory, you could for instance decide that in order to preserve the Earth's peace, harmony and balance, humanity needs to be reduced to a population of a few thousand individuals. I would respect your right to believe this (I'm close to it myself some days ), but if there is the slightest chance that you would be ready to act on it, I would prefer you to hold this view while safely locked away from any sharp-edged object

The purpose of morals is to hold society together, and for this we need to choose, collectively, a set of rules and keep to it. As you said, it doesn't matter what the rules of a sport are, but if there were not rules, there would be no sport. Any set of moral rules chosen by a society has some arbitrary in it. You can build your own morality, I think it's even important to do that, but you also have to work with the rules of the society you live in.

I think this is an important issue, because we now live in a very open society, where different sets of moral rules can come into contact, with extremely destructive results. It's not an easy one. What do you do if society requires you to do something that you hold to be evil?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Just to be clear. The person in your example is being perfectly reasonable, according to him premise. You're confusing "reason" with a morality that most people think is silly. Nobody holds the premise that certain letters denote superiority.

It doesn't need to be a fight, it can just be a discussion

Is it your position that morality needs some underpinning from outside the human realm - i.e. a god - otherwise all moral positions are contingent and relative? If that's right then you do seem to be committed to saying that the morality in my made up example - no living being should be intentionally harmed unless it's name in English begins with W - is, in some sense, "as good as" any other morality based on different principles. At the same time as being committed to that you also seem to recognize that the position in my example is just plain daft.

The point is not whether anyone actually holds that position, but that if they did, whether we can tell any difference between that position and one which held, for example, that no living creature should be intentionally harmed - whatever letter it's name started with. You seem to be saying that we cannot, (because neither position is vouchsafed by god).

[TimMason]

I'm saying that you can make up what you consider right and wrong

Only if you are indifferent to the reactions of others. If you decide that wealth should never be allowed to become concentrated in the hands of the few - a respectable ethical principle, which has probably been the most consistently applied moral rule in human history (see Pierre Clastres, 'Society Against the State', or listen to James Scott's LSE lecture on Why States Can't Climb Hills), and if you act upon this notion, you will find that, in state societies such as those we live in, you quickly find yourself of interest to the policeman.

Note here a difficulty for those that hold a naturalistic view of ethics: we usually think of private property as a given: humans instinctively hold what is theirs, and if possible, accumulate. Yet, as Clastres shows, in many prestate societies this point of view was regarded as dangerous and to be avoided.

Similarly, most of the things that we think of as universal rules or principles simply do not hold up to scrutiny. We are in the grip of a very strong social formation that, from an early age, shapes and processes the ways we think about good and bad. In reality, these ways are local, both in time and space, and are contingent upon the existence of something like a nation state.

We manage to construct stories about how these rules "help us live in society" because we're very good at constructing stories. Different rule-sets would - and do - give rise to very different stories. Now, you and I would probably not like to live according to rule-sets that are very different from those we have been trained to hold to - but that does not take away their legitimacy. We, after all, have been domesticated, and just as a dog would be unable to find its place in a pack of wolves, so we would have a hard time among the hill peoples of Zomia.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Only if you are indifferent to the reactions of others. If you decide that wealth should never be allowed to become concentrated in the hands of the few - a respectable ethical principle, which has probably been the most consistently applied moral rule in human history (see Pierre Clastres, 'Society Against the State', or listen to James Scott's LSE lecture on Why States Can't Climb Hills), and if you act upon this notion, you will find that, in state societies such as those we live in, you quickly find yourself of interest to the policeman.

Note here a difficulty for those that hold a naturalistic view of ethics: we usually think of private property as a given: humans instinctively hold what is theirs, and if possible, accumulate. Yet, as Clastres shows, in many prestate societies this point of view was regarded as dangerous and to be avoided.

Similarly, most of the things that we think of as universal rules or principles simply do not hold up to scrutiny. We are in the grip of a very strong social formation that, from an early age, shapes and processes the ways we think about good and bad. In reality, these ways are local, both in time and space, and are contingent upon the existence of something like a nation state.

We manage to construct stories about how these rules "help us live in society" because we're very good at constructing stories. Different rule-sets would - and do - give rise to very different stories. Now, you and I would probably not like to live according to rule-sets that are very different from those we have been trained to hold to - but that does not take away their legitimacy. We, after all, have been domesticated, and just as a dog would be unable to find its place in a pack of wolves, so we would have a hard time among the hill peoples of Zomia.

This is very true. However, I don't personally think that these rules are necessary to live in society. But I do think that rules are necessary to live in society

[WT Sharpe]

Should philosophical discussions in general — and discussions of ethics in particular — make an attempt at being entertaining? In an article on the Huffington Post website, Sam Harris made this comment:

.....Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy. There are two reasons why I haven't done this: First, while I have read a fair amount of this literature, I did not arrive at my position on the relationship between human values and the rest of human knowledge by reading the work of moral philosophers; I came to it by considering the logical implications of our making continued progress in the sciences of mind. Second, I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.
..........— Sam Harris (1967 - ), American neuroscientist, author. "Toward a Science of Morality", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_567185.html, posted May 7, 2010.

What do you think?

This is certainly not meant as a reflection upon anything anyone here has said. Personally, I find everything said in this thread to be fascinating, but full disclosure demands the admission that I'm a boring person with a limited range of interests.

Should philosophers make a greater attempt at mass appeal? Can a discussion that deliberately attempts to avoid academic philosophical terminology be considered truly philosophical?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Should philosophical discussions in general — and discussions of ethics in particular — make an attempt at being entertaining? In an article on the Huffington Post website, Sam Harris made this comment:

.....Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy. There are two reasons why I haven't done this: First, while I have read a fair amount of this literature, I did not arrive at my position on the relationship between human values and the rest of human knowledge by reading the work of moral philosophers; I came to it by considering the logical implications of our making continued progress in the sciences of mind. Second, I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.
..........— Sam Harris (1967 - ), American neuroscientist, author. "Toward a Science of Morality", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_567185.html, posted May 7, 2010.

What do you think?

This is certainly not meant as a reflection upon anything anyone here has said. Personally, I find everything said in this thread to be fascinating, but full disclosure demands the admission that I'm a boring person with a limited range of interests.

Should philosophers make a greater attempt at mass appeal? Can a discussion that deliberately attempts to avoid academic philosophical terminology be considered truly philosophical?

Love that quote Tom and love Sam Harris, but don't necessarily agree with all the details of his "ethics" position (or maybe I just don't understand them in enough detail).

Nor do I think ethics are something religious handed down from a god. I think ethics are what are in place that allows a species to survive in a Darwinistic sense.

And I'm sure I have more limited interest in High-falutin' Philosophy than you but I am completely and totally enthralled by human behavior, beliefs, etc.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Should philosophical discussions in general — and discussions of ethics in particular — make an attempt at being entertaining? In an article on the Huffington Post website, Sam Harris made this comment:

.....Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy. There are two reasons why I haven't done this: First, while I have read a fair amount of this literature, I did not arrive at my position on the relationship between human values and the rest of human knowledge by reading the work of moral philosophers; I came to it by considering the logical implications of our making continued progress in the sciences of mind. Second, I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.
..........— Sam Harris (1967 - ), American neuroscientist, author. "Toward a Science of Morality", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_567185.html, posted May 7, 2010.

What do you think?

This is certainly not meant as a reflection upon anything anyone here has said. Personally, I find everything said in this thread to be fascinating, but full disclosure demands the admission that I'm a boring person with a limited range of interests.

Should philosophers make a greater attempt at mass appeal? Can a discussion that deliberately attempts to avoid academic philosophical terminology be considered truly philosophical?

I think it is possible for philosophical discussion to happen without resorting to words like the ones in the quote, but philosophy as a discipline is highly technical, and as such it has developed a (well, several actually), technical vocabulary. Just like other technical vocabularies it helps technical discussion but excludes lay people - I just have to think about when the guy who repairs my car tries to explain what was wrong and what he has done about it to realize just how much lay people can be excluded by technical vocabulary. Often technical vocabularies develop because they provide efficient ways of capturing complex concepts - if you don't have the technical vocabulary there are just some things you cannot express, or cannot express very well.

Stephen Hawking writes popular books about cosmology, reading them and discussing them with my mates down the pub doesn't make me a cosmologist, it doesn't make those conversations "doing cosmology", but that doesn't mean I can't have perfectly meaningful conversations about cosmology. I think it's the same with philosophy.

[WT Sharpe]

Does anyone think philosophy could benefit by having popularizers in the way scientific knowledge has become more widespread through the efforts of folks like Sagan, Gould, Hawking, Asimov, et al.? And would any professional philosopher who attempted to make philosophy available to that masses suffer the same fate as the scientists who are belittled by their colleagues for their efforts to bring scientific literacy to the masses?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Does anyone think philosophy could benefit by having popularizers in the way scientific knowledge has become more widespread through the efforts of folks like Sagan, Gould, Hawking, Asimov, et al.? And would any professional philosopher who attempted to make philosophy available to that masses suffer the same fate as the scientists who are belittled by their colleagues for their efforts to bring scientific literacy to the masses?

I think philosophy might benefit, but would humanity benefit?

[FlorenceArt]

I'm a bit puzzled by these questions. How can philosophy be technical, when its purpose is to help us make sense of the world and ourselves? This concerns everyone. It's not something that can be delegated to a bunch of technocrats that will make sense of the world for us, is it? Although I guess Plato had something like that in mind.

This needs some thought, but right now I have to go to a meeting

[TGS]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Does anyone think philosophy could benefit by having popularizers in the way scientific knowledge has become more widespread through the efforts of folks like Sagan, Gould, Hawking, Asimov, et al.? And would any professional philosopher who attempted to make philosophy available to that masses suffer the same fate as the scientists who are belittled by their colleagues for their efforts to bring scientific literacy to the masses?

There are popularizers - Alain de Botton, Mark Rowlands/, and even Bertrand Russell spring immediately to mind.

Both Mark Rowlands and Alain de Botton are professional philosophers - in the sense that they earn their living from teaching in universities and writing about philosophy. Most of what they write is written for other philosophers - and their popularizing books are not the same thing as what they teach to their students or write in academic journals.

I don't think the likes of Hawking are belittled by their academic peers, but it has to be recognized that what their popularizing books do is popularize - and in order to popularize they have to simplify, and in order to simplify they have to be less precise - which is why popular versions of science or philosophy don't have the rigour of, and are not taken seriously by people in the academic study of, those disciplines.

Kenny said:

I think philosophy might benefit, but would humanity benefit?

First do no harm! Doing philosophy isn't drilling oil, isn't making weapons, isn't exploiting people in poor countries, isn't destroying the ozone layer, isn't leading to the extinction of any animal species, isn't contaminating the earth with radioactivity. It's not alone in not doing those things - but there are are lot worse thing for humanity than philosophy.


FlorenceArt said:

How can philosophy be technical, when its purpose is to help us make sense of the world and ourselves? This concerns everyone. It's not something that can be delegated to a bunch of technocrats that will make sense of the world for us, is it?

Most academic philosophy has got nothing to do with how to live a better life, (it's not unique in that, most of what goes on in the humanities and social science, and quite a lot of what goes on in natural and theoretical science, is of no practical value - that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done though). I guess Alain de Botton is an exception to that - he does think philosophy - both as a process and in terms of its products - has the potential to make human life "better".

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

The purpose of morals is to hold society together, and for this we need to choose, collectively, a set of rules and keep to it.

I don't agree - I think the pupose of laws is to hold society together; but there is often very little connection between laws and morals.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I don't agree - I think the pupose of laws is to hold society together; but there is often very little connection between laws and morals.

Good point, but here is an example of why philosophy is a technical discipline. What is it for laws - or morals - to have a purpose.