Philosophy: books and discussion

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TGS

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".

I know, and that's why I didn't mention it I said that the purpose of philosophy is to help us make sense of life. By that I mean that it should help us think about the world and ourselves. If philosophy is a technical discipline, then how is it different from science? What is its purpose?

I know that philosophy and science were very close, almost indistinguishable, for a long time, but I'm not sure this is relevant now. Not that they shouldn't have anything to do with each other, on the contrary, they should be in constant dialogue, but they are different disciplines.

A technical vocabulary is useful for technical persons to communicate efficiently and precisely, but to the layman it is a barrier. I can understand the usefulness of technical words to philosophers, and I'm willing to learn some of the vocabulary, but if philosophy becomes so technical as to be restricted to a discussion between philosophers, what's the use of it?

[TimMason]

What is this society thing, that it needs holding together? Why does it need more than day-to-day reciprocity - which worked reasonably well for hundreds of thousands of years?

we need to choose, collectively, a set of rules and keep to it.

What trace is there of 'our' ever having done that? The social contract is pure invention (as Hobbes was aware). In fact, our assent is assumed, even if we know nothing of the rules (ignorance is no defence). The rules appear as 'social facts' - both 'moral rules' and 'legal rules'. In most cases, they favour some and disfavour others. The few? The many?

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TimMason

What is this society thing, that it needs holding together? Why does it need more than day-to-day reciprocity - which worked reasonably well for hundreds of thousands of years?

For hundreds of thousands of years, people have been living together under a number of very strict rules. Our rules are different in nature, and different in that we feel we have the right to challenge them, but rules are hardly a new thing.

Originally Posted by TimMason

What trace is there of 'our' ever having done that? The social contract is pure invention (as Hobbes was aware). In fact, our assent is assumed, even if we know nothing of the rules (ignorance is no defence). The rules appear as 'social facts' - both 'moral rules' and 'legal rules'. In most cases, they favour some and disfavour others. The few? The many?

Yes, those are good points.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

A technical vocabulary is useful for technical persons to communicate efficiently and precisely, but to the layman it is a barrier. I can understand the usefulness of technical words to philosophers, and I'm willing to learn some of the vocabulary, but if philosophy becomes so technical as to be restricted to a discussion between philosophers, what's the use of it?

It is a barrier, which I acknowledged in my post, (maybe I'm a closet Platonist - philosophy should be left to philosophers ), but it is maybe a barrier that is worth getting over.

Again, I'm not sure the value of philosophy resides in its practical application, some things seem to be good in themselves. Art, music, philosophy, can all fulfill functional roles, and at a certain level of description can all be thought of functionally. But that they can be thought of functionally does not imply that accounting for them in that way exhausts the ways in which they are of value.

In some ways it makes no sense to talk of philosophy as such - Kant reckoned he'd wrapped up that conversation - but only to talk about "philosophy of": philosophy of mind, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, moral philosophy, philosophy of truth, and so on. One can think about these various philosophies of from within various traditions - the analytic tradition, the continental tradition, the phenomenological tradition, the American pragmatist tradition and so on. I'm not saying you have to know all this stuff before you can engage in philosophical discussion, but at the same time I can't ignore the fact that an awful lot of people have thought an awful lot of stuff before any of this entered my head, so isn't it helpful in working out what I think about something to stand it up against what other people have thought about it? And doesn't that mean I've got to be able to engage with the technical vocabulary that these people use?

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TGS

Again, I'm not sure the value of philosophy resides in its practical application, some things seem to be good in themselves. Art, music, philosophy, can all fulfill functional roles, and at a certain level of description can all be thought of functionally. But that they can be thought of functionally does not imply that accounting for them in that way exhausts the ways in which they are of value.

That's not exactly what I said. I said that philosophy must help me to think. If only philosophers can understand it, that's great for philosophers but useless to me, though I'm not necessarily talking about strictly practical use. But it's true that I am a very practical person at heart. And also a very self-centered one

In fact, I don't think we really disagree, but it may be more a question of what aspect of philosophy appeals to you or me most. As I believe I've said before, I love theory, it can be very exciting (as long as I can understand at least some of it), but in the end I'm more interested in the down-to-earth side of things maybe. But the theoretical side is also important, I think we need both.

[Sparrow]

Woo hoo! YouTube has clips videos of the old BBC 'Great Philosophers' series; the first part of the one on Plato is at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXBQR...x=0&playnext=1

Excellent stuff!!

[TGS]

Originally Posted by TimMason

In most cases, they favour some and disfavour others. The few? The many?

Only most, not all? As risky as making unverifiable universal claims is, I'd bet a week's wages, (I'm a student so that doesn't actually amount to much!), that there is no legal or moral "rule" that doesn't favour one group at the expense of another.

[TimMason]

For hundreds of thousands of years, people have been living together under a number of very strict rules. Our rules are different in nature, and different in that we feel we have the right to challenge them, but rules are hardly a new thing.

From what is known of hunter-gatherer groups, some of them, at least, manage with very few rules, and have all sorts of ways round those rules they do have. There do seem to be two fairly basic rules, which are both ways of saying the same thing;

a) women should not marry their brothers

b) men should not eat the meat of an animal they have killed

Which is to say: "Spread stuff around: don't hang onto it for yourself". (Symbolically - "You should not taste your own blood" covers both of them).

How strict are the rules? Evidence suggests that they are only as strict as the enforcement system. Malinowski observed the incest rule being applied very strictly in the case of a young man with few family connections, and not applied at all in the case of a chief and his sister (who was understood to be a very powerful witch). Among some African groups, men will go off hunting on their own and happily consume what they have killed out of sight of the main group.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

For hundreds of thousands of years, people have been living together under a number of very strict rules. Our rules are different in nature, and different in that we feel we have the right to challenge them, but rules are hardly a new thing.

and how easy is it for those rules to break down...is it really true that the veneer of humanity/social conscience is very thin ? - seems to be a theme suggested by armageddon writers.

if armageddon strikes, how quickly will society revert to its basic instinct of every man for themselves.

?

[sorry, recently watched The Road, and it brought to mind the chaos following Katrina]

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

and how easy is it for those rules to break down...is it really true that the veneer of humanity/social conscience is very thin ? - seems to be a theme suggested by armageddon writers.

if armageddon strikes, how quickly will society revert to its basic instinct of every man for themselves.

?

[sorry, recently watched The Road, and it brought to mind the chaos following Katrina]

True, but almost as quickly individuals will band together to protect themselves against others.

Strength in numbers.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by kennyc

True, but almost as quickly individuals will band together to protect themselves against others.

Strength in numbers.

Strength in numbers, but who takes control?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Strength in numbers, but who takes control?

The strongest of course.

[GeoffC]

... and that would be irrespective of what their morals would be ....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

... and that would be irrespective of what their morals would be ....

Sure, that's the way it was, id, and has been throughout history.

[GeoffC]

so will altruism die, do you think ?