h a l f b a k e r yStill more entertaining than cricket.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
According to the teachings of this church there is an infectious
nature to everything. Morality is a way of measuring what would
be
otherwise immeasurable diseases. Retaining the word "disease" to
describe church members and doctrine, is a way of embracing
what
was once thought of as a
moral minority, but is now embraced as
an
identity. The aim of the church is to have all church members get
along with eachother.
(Try 2)
This church teaches that everyone and everything acts as a
disease to some other entity. Symbiosis is the way it all works.
People are a disease to the world when there are too many of us.
Embracing our disease-like identities and learning to moderate is
the path toward compromise and overcoming the negative
aspects of our relationships with our own diseases. Everyone in
this church learns to live happily with Aids and Ebola and much
worse nasties while also eating green and watching our carbon
footprints.
(Try 3)
Morality is a historical, linguistic way of describing the infectious
nature of reality. It's acurate but if you try to use it to make
predictions you get standard religions and all of their problems.
Everything from evolutionary change to disabilities to ideas have
viral vectors. This church includes viruses and bad ideas as church
members and prescribes learning to get along as a remedy.
Church ritual include engaging in borderline activities mindfully
and sacramentally and moderating the infection process.
aids denialists exposed
https://www.youtube...watch?v=3-XFeClWlWY
[pashute, Nov 04 2014]
Garth Brooks is the antichrist of the Church of Disease
http://www.mrctv.or...brooks-concert-halt
"you go kick cancer's ass!" [JesusHChrist, Nov 13 2014]
[link]
|
| |
I guess its about the changing relationship of churches to disease, and what was considered morally caused. Pastoralism has crossed into the materialist domain of medicine, but progress towards amorality may allow for a church to accept disease without any moral judgement and that advocates harmony amongst all things in the universe, morality being eliminated as causing disharmony. Ultimately the post infers that without moral judgement upon disease and the material etiology of transmission or reproduction of disease, pastoralism can continue with harmonious biopolitics despite alarming statistical demography. |
|
| |
So, it's a medicalisation of Original Sin. Or possibly vice versa. Either way, it's surprisingly close to mainstream Christianity. |
|
| |
What? Also, why isn't this in other:general? |
|
| |
This is completely out of the ordainary. |
|
| |
//Everyone in this church learns to live happily with
Aids and Ebola and much worse nasties// Is that
before or after they die? What part does the Ebola
virus take in this learning-to-get-along? |
|
| |
//Morality is a historical, linguistic way of describing
the infectious nature of reality.// That may mean
something, but then again it may not. If I say
"Agnosticism is a dialogue between the inexpressible
and the overt.", does that mean anything? |
|
| |
In some ways his argument is a 'reduction to the absurd' about rejecting amorality by showing what results from morality's denial. |
|
| |
His definition of morality as historical and linguistic perhaps refers to Foucauldian or contemporary analytical thought, but using 'linguistic' instead of semiotic or discursive. |
|
| |
// Foucauldian or contemporary analytical thought,
but using 'linguistic' instead of semiotic or
discursive.// |
|
| |
~It's about the discursive regulation of madness by pathologists, madness hypothetically relating to logia and positivism through rationalization indicated by so-called cultural relativism or decolonization. |
|
| |
It's about being the most moral person, someone who rejects the bodily life and cultivates a contemporary form of madness through rejection of materiality as an important domain including text. |
|
| |
//madness hypothetically relating to logia and
positivism through rationalization indicated by so-
called cultural relativism or decolonization.// |
|
| |
British English? The sort of level of language I'm
hoping for is at the level of "He's saying that we're all
sick, but should live with it and try to accept it" - or
the equivalent. |
|
| |
And how does the colon enter into this? |
|
| |
Its about lying at all times and in all manners of meaninglessness and producing subjective inaccuracies of your own internal self to present to others. Basically you want to situate anyone who is at odds with you in as conflictual relation as possible so that they have no excusable altruistic bond (trying to help you converse persecution) and other strategic mediations that are difficult. For example a person who supports total institutionalization or totalitarianisms such as a mental institution, an English rooming house, residential school, increasing state nationalism, small-town people in a large city, and attraction to power of functionalist conformity, the internet as total institution by degrees of permissiveness of private life etc. |
|
| |
Of course this is about Foucault and George Orwell not in reference to my own personal life narrative. George Orwell wanting to get away to a place where he wasn't constantly being surveilled by fascist totalitarians, however at the same time obsessing over sword-pen at all times. Its about being alone but not being alone by actually living in a shared meaning in a long term conflict while smarty pantses blunder through conflictual relations. |
|
| |
// If I say "Agnosticism is a dialogue between the inexpressible and the overt.", does that mean anything?// |
|
| |
Yes; it means you're taking the piss. If someone else says it, it might have a different meaning - probably that they're trying to fill an awkward lull in the conversation. |
|
| |
//
// Foucauldian or contemporary analytical thought, but using 'linguistic' instead of semiotic or discursive.// |
|
| |
Well, Foucault's thought is largely about pretending that people's sensibilities are sort-of prior to any external reality. This is, of course, bollocks, and is why Uppsala University refused him a doctorate, and he had to get one back in France, where he had better social connections. It is no coincidence that his doctorate depended on social connections, because his thought only works in a clique-based world, where dealings with reality can be delegated to inadequate, uncool people outside the clique. |
|
| |
Fortunately, I don't think that [JesusHChrist]'s thinking here *is* Foucauldian. I think it's better than that - but I hesitate to second-guess his explanation of it. |
|
| |
// Foucault's thought is largely about pretending that
people's sensibilities are sort-of prior to any external
reality.// |
|
| |
Are "sensibilities" = "perceptions" = "sensory data"? |
|
| |
(w.r.t. my facetious pseudo-babble): // it means
you're taking the piss. If someone else says it, it
might have a different meaning// If its meaning
depends on who says it, then by definition it has no
meaning. If I say "the density of water is about 1
gram per cc", that means something regardless of
who says it - i.e. _it_ (the statement) has a meaning. |
|
| |
OK, I just checked the Wikipedia page on Foucault
(not the pendulum guy, I guess). |
|
| |
It says NOTHING! It tells me he worked on theories
concerning power, repression, and some other things;
and it variously classifies him as various types of
philosopher and cites his influences. |
|
| |
But it says NOTHING about what he discovered, or
even whether he discovered anything. It doesn't
even say what his theories were. |
|
| |
Is this normal for a philosopher? What did he actually
do? |
|
| |
I think he philosophised a bit. |
|
| |
I just joined a philosophy forum to ask what
philosophers do. I'll let you know how it turns out. |
|
| |
//I just joined a philosophy forum to ask what philosophers do// |
|
| |
That should be a fascinating discussion. |
|
| |
I can't imagine anything more soul-draining than partaking in anonymous online amateur philosophy debate. |
|
| |
Keep (trying to) fighting the good fight. |
|
| |
I haven't had an answer to my question on the
Philosophy forum yet. |
|
| |
But I suspect I have joined a pretty amateur forum.
All the "big" topics there are either
|
|
| |
a) Quibbling over semantics
b) Long-since solved by biologists, physicists or
(rarely) chemists or
c) Questions that can only be answered by biologists,
physicists or (possibly) chemists, if only they didn't
get sidetracked into frittering away their time on
philosophy forums. |
|
| |
Based on my representative sample of 1 philosophy
forum, philosophy appears to be a form of hands-free
masturbation. |
|
| |
The redefining of organizational structures is confusingly
convolved with the redefining of terminology. If I'm
reading this correctly, this church would literally infect
members with incurable diseases to help their spiritual
journey. While this does have a certain satirical quality,
it appears to, in this conception, have been Baked. by
Warhammer 40,000 tabletop games. Look up the church
of the "Chaos lord" "Nurgle". I recommend avoiding
reading this mythology, because it provides a false sense
of belonging that a certain kind of mind craves, but
ultimately provides only a shared fiction to meet people
with similar issues. Organizing a gaming club as a church
was portrayed in a positive way in "The Quantum Thief",
but in reality such organizations get very weird, and only
their stupidity and insecure fecklessness mitigates their
danger. If you're seeking a rush and a sense of belonging,
save some money and do EMT training. Good luck. |
|
| |
//Are "sensibilities" = "perceptions" = "sensory data"?// |
|
| |
"Sensibility", in Foucault, is more like "way of looking at things common to a particular group of people at a particular time". For example, "I hate my dad; bourgeois dads are the worst!" Put together enough people who feel that way, give them publicly funded sinecures, and it's no longer a tantrum but a sensibility. |
|
| |
Ah, yes: Google says (of "sensibility" in general) |
|
| |
######################### |
|
| |
1.
the quality of being able to appreciate and respond to complex emotional or aesthetic influences; sensitivity.
"the study of literature leads to a growth of intelligence and sensibility"
synonyms: sensitivity, sensitiveness, finer feelings, delicacy, subtlety, taste, discrimination, discernment; More
understanding, insight, empathy, appreciation, awareness of the feelings of others;
feeling, intuition, intuitiveness, responsiveness, receptivity, receptiveness, perceptiveness, awareness
"the study of literature leads to a growth of intelligence and sensibility"
a quality of delicate sensitivity that makes one liable to be offended or shocked.
plural noun: sensibilities
"the scale of the poverty revealed by the survey shocked people's sensibilities"
synonyms: feelings, emotions, finer feelings, delicate sensitivity, sensitivities, susceptibilities, moral sense, sense of outrage
"the wording was changed because it might offend people's sensibilities"
2.
Zoology (dated)
sensitivity to sensory stimuli. |
|
| |
Origin
late Middle English (denoting the power of sensation): from late Latin sensibilitas, from sensibilis ‘that can be perceived by the senses’ (see sensible). |
|
| |
######################### |
|
| |
So, in Foucault, we're looking exclusively at sense (1), not sense (2). |
|
| |
//Is this normal for a philosopher? What did he actually do?// |
|
| |
Sadly, it is now normal for a philosopher. The philosopher Richard Rorty admitted out loud that the purpose of philosophy nowadays was just "to keep the conversation going". |
|
| |
However, it was not always so. |
|
| |
In the past, philosophy has served two functions (both of which, admittedly, are only visible with hindsight). |
|
| |
(1) It has acted as a sort of stem cell line from which other fields of knowledge have been propagated. |
|
| |
(2) It has helped autistic people to find their way from one day to the next without getting lost. (I mean "autistic" in quite a broad sense). |
|
| |
Function (2) has tended to support function (1), in so far as well-adjusted people are less likely to have interesting new thoughts in any field. |
|
| |
Both functions were repudiated, quite aggressively, in 1968. They are only kept going in a few niches by honourable amateurs such as [nineteenthly]. |
|
| |
//philosophy appears to be a form of hands-free masturbation// |
|
| |
Well it certainly seems to be used by some people as a kind of masturbatory aid. |
|
| |
I think there's still room for philosophy in the modern world, certainly in the relams of "should" we do something rahter than "can" we do it. What I would violently disagree with, however, is the making of philosopy into some kind of unobtianable jargon-locked speciality that only the anointed few can participate in. |
|
| |
I mean, astrophysics or genetic engineering are super complex fields that amateurs should only be expected to speak about in very generalised terms. And this is as it should be. But the philosophy of whether it's morally right or wrong or whether morals even come into the decision of whether to allow vivisection or genertic experimentation, space travel or development of neutron bombs should squarely sit in the public realm and discussion should be encouraged in as wide an audience as possible. Adopting special language or obfuscating concepts to the point that the average (or even some of the more educated) persons find the whole discourse unuintelligible, is not a good thing. |
|
| |
Perhaps, however, as a rather strong counterargument: much like masturbation, people should be discouraged from indulging themselves in amateur philosophy in public. |
|
| |
//Foucault's thought is largely about pretending that people's sensibilities
are sort-of prior to any external reality.// |
|
| |
// "Sensibility", in Foucault, is more like "way of looking at things
common to a particular group of people at a particular time". For example,
"I hate my dad; bourgeois dads are the worst!" Put together enough people
who feel that way, give them publicly funded sinecures, and it's no longer a
tantrum but a sensibility.// |
|
| |
OK, so Foucault is saying that "People have a way of thinking about things
which exists before they have any concrete examples of those things." - yes? |
|
| |
If so, then it's bollocks, n'est ce pas? I mean, I might grow up in a world
without inequality and think "Inequality would be a bad thing if it existed".
So what? In thinking that, I have formulated the idea of inequality in my
head, so it 'exists'. |
|
| |
Equally, I might think "It would be bad if an asteroid hit London" - it hasn't
happened, but what's so miraculous about my thinking that? |
|
| |
So, I presume (since Foucault was pretty well-known and did OK as a
professional philosopher) that there is more to it than that. What? |
|
| |
And, assuming that there was more to this theory than the bleeding obvious,
did he actually prove it, disprove it, or neither? |
|
| |
The idea isn't new, applying an analogy from one thing
to another thing is as old as Plato's cave, and they
did the disease thing way back in the Matrix, and that
had Keanu Reeves in it. |
|
| |
Meh. Meh and triple meh. And yes, philosophy is often
bollocks, though it does provide us with handy labels
to hang on concepts that I suppose would take a lot
longer to talk about if someone hadn't done that for
us. So if some bourgeois father-annoyance concept gets
labelled as a "Humptyfirstian Idea" (after Geronimo
Humptyfirst, the famous Parisian who first came up
with that particular bollocks) then it saves us having
to go through all the effort of laying it all down in
our own torturous language for others to opine about.
In that sense, Philosophy is a fairly utilitarian
process. |
|
| |
// "People have a way of thinking about things which exists before they have any concrete examples of those things." // |
|
| |
You're getting warm, but it's actually worse than that. |
|
| |
Foucault's main point is not of the form "X is the case", but rather "Let's do X". Specifically, "Let's use groupthink to control reality". |
|
| |
The assumption that groupthink *can* control reality is sort-of taken for granted. |
|
| |
The reason why Foucault did so well out of it at that particular point in history is this: there was a generation of people who,
on the one hand, wanted to see themselves as, at least, progressive and, if possible, revolutionary - because that was cool.
On the other hand, many of these people tended to recoil from the hard work of actual political change - because hard work is uncool. |
|
| |
Therefore, they were easily sold on the idea of changing everything through groupthink. Basically, what it meant to them was that they could spend their time going to all the right parties, screwing the beautiful people and networking with the rich people, and *still* be revolutionaries. |
|
| |
In some cases, those drugs still haven't worn off. |
|
| |
Good analysis, [pertinax]. Nicely highlights how mendacious this stuff is. But it doesn't really get to the depths of [max]'s point, which is how wrong it is as well. |
|
| |
I mean, stuff can be basically correct, and mendacious, or it can be uterly wrong but not mendacious at all. It's perhaps the combination that is so horrifying. |
|
| |
(w.r.t. philosophy giving convenient names to
complex topics, to accelerate discussion):// In that
sense, Philosophy is a fairly utilitarian process.// |
|
| |
In science, scientists use a lot of jargon because it
saves time. But it only saves time amongst
themselves - they have to translate into normal
English if they want to discuss with non-scientists. |
|
| |
In philosophy, jargon presumably saves time in
discussions between philosophers. But if they want
to discuss with non-philosophers they also need to
translate into normal English. |
|
| |
So what's the difference between scientific jargon
and philosophical jargon? The difference is that
science has an output (a new polymer; a better
vaccine) that can be used by non-specialists.
Philosophy has no output. |
|
| |
So the internal jargon of philosophy is just like the
moves in a computer game - valuable only within the
game. |
|
| |
I think that's fair enough - though we should try
and
figure out some fundamental reason why
mathematics
and philosophy are different - since otherwise,
you
could continue the same argument to suggest that
maths is valuable only within maths, and that's
obviously not the case. |
|
| |
Also, thanks again to [pertinax] for translating and
providing an interesting, human and sensible
perspective -
If you wrote a book about all this stuff, I'd read it. |
|
| |
Thank you, [zen_tom]. Actually, I *am* writing a book about it, which is why it's front-of-mind just now. I don't yet know when it will be finished - there's a lot of material to cover. |
|
| |
Haha - fantastic! - And in case anyone was wondering,
no, [pertinax] has not paid me a bung, that was a
genuine, unscripted comment (p.s. [pertinax] I'll send
you my bank details later, it's the usual rate) |
|
| |
//we should try and figure out some fundamental
reason why mathematics and philosophy are
different// |
|
| |
In some cases they're not. Some aspects of number
theory have few or no consequences outside number
theory, and people work on them largely because of
their beauty. Which is fine. |
|
| |
But a lot of mathematics has applications outside
maths. Joe Smith can send his credit card details
over the internet thanks to maths. Weather can be
predicted more easily thanks to maths. |
|
| |
What I'm saying is that philosophy (and some areas of
maths) are like computer games or crossword puzzles
- interesting and enjoyable (which is a valid goal
from a utilitarian perspective), but closed systems. |
|
| |
Yes, I'm with you on most of that but what I'm
wondering is whether we can find a better definition
that allows us to formally classify all of maths as
"good" and equally vast swathes of philosophy as
"bollocks". |
|
| |
Our current definition, that looks at the output as a
basis of performing this function is problematic on
this basis, for the reasons you suggest. |
|
| |
I don't like the utility argument necessarily, though it
may suit this purpose - so, how about saying that if
there is no *possible* future output, then it's of the
game-playing sort (for example lots of number theory
was considered exactly this, until computers
provided a viable application) and then on the other
side, say that if there's some application that can be
derived from philosophy, then actually, it's maths? If
no current, or future application is deemed possible,
then we can safely define it as philosophy, and
hence, naturally, by definition, bollocks. |
|
| |
It's a kind of True Scotsman approach, but it may do
the trick. |
|
| |
I don't think that philosophy is necessarily a closed system. I just think that the union of philosophers have circled the wagons in some fashion that resembles a closed system in order to protect their livelihood, or something. |
|
| |
// a better definition that allows us to formally
classify all of maths as "good" and equally vast
swathes of philosophy as "bollocks"// I don't think all
maths is "good" - some of it is useful and some of it is
elegant (not much of it is bollocks). For philosophy -
I
suspect a lot of it is elegant, a fair amount is
probably bollocks, and as far as I can tell none of it is
useful. |
|
| |
//how about saying that if there is no *possible*
future output, then it's of the game-playing sort //
Well, I think you have to put a time limit on it. Has
philosophy had any tangible output (ie, out of
philosophy) in the last, say, 250 years? |
|
| |
//if there's some application that can be derived
from philosophy, then actually, it's maths?// It would
depend on the application. I hate it
when philosophy "claims" mathematics. I think if a
philosopher is doing useful or elegant maths then
(s)he's a mathematician. It's a bit like a poet building
a bridge and saying how useful poets are. |
|
| |
There should be a drinking game on how many times the words 'semiotic,' 'positivism,' or other nonsense words show up. |
|
| |
OK, I'm back from the philosophy forum. The
discussion is still ongoing, but so far the only net
outputs of philosophy that the philosophers have
identified are: |
|
| |
(a) People who study philosophy are often good in
other jobs - i.e. it trains the mind to do non-
philosophical things. Not unreasonable, though not
very encouraging. |
|
| |
(b) Philosophy teaches people to understand
themselves. Very valuable, but it's not (yet) clear
whether anyone outside philosophy benefits from this
in practice. |
|
| |
It's also not (yet) clear how much progress has been
made in self-understanding in the last 250 years of
philosophy, or whether philosophy today is any better
than it was 250 years ago. |
|
| |
Would Buddha have been considered a philosopher? |
|
| |
It keeps the schizophrenics busy? |
|
| |
Does this concept of 'outputs' correspond to the idea of useful work? Not physical work, but perhaps social work? |
|
| |
How does art in general fit in here? What are typical outputs of skiffle music, or abstract video intallations, or paper-marbling? |
|
| |
Also if all this philosophy is bollox then shureley also angsting about whether philosopy is bollox or not is bollox too and the best answer is more like what? |
|
| |
[pocmloc] yes - I think you may have hit the nail on the
head there. |
|
| |
//How does art in general fit in here? What are
typical outputs of skiffle music, or abstract video
intallations, or paper-marbling?// I'm not sure, but I
believe they are skiffle music, video installations and
marbled paper - probably in that order. |
|
| |
The point about art is that it expressly does have an
output - it's generally intended to be accessed by
non-artists (even if it sometimes fails to do so). It's
not clear that philosophy has an output, though I
expect some of it is written up in "popular
philosophy" books. |
|
| |
As a casual observer, I think the goal of philosophy is similar to one of the goals of theoretical physics, to have some kind of grand theory of unification, only with it being in the domain of rationality, logic, and the nature of our common experience. But I might be just misremembering that from THHGTTG. |
|
| |
That's reasonable. But two things worry me: |
|
| |
(a) Searches for unified theories in physics often lead
to useful things. For instance, a lot of modern
electronics wouldn't be possible without an
understanding of quantum mechanics. That's not to
say there's no value in understanding something that
can't be applied, but it's a factor. |
|
| |
(b) In general, we have good reason to believe that
physics (and cosmology, mathematics, biology...)
makes incremental progress. Our understanding of
the universe is better now than it was 50 years ago.
We have proved theorems that were unproven 50
years ago. We can treat more cancers than we could
50 years ago. In philosophy, it's not clear that any
questions have been answered, or that the arguments
are any better than they were 50 years ago. |
|
| |
Philosophy looks, to me, very much like art (in the
sense that there's no meaning to the word
"progress"). This is OK, but its disappointing that it is
so inaccessible as an art-form to the general public. |
|
| |
//how mendacious this stuff is// |
|
| |
To be fair, [pocmloc], I wouldn't call it "mendacious" so much as mistaken. They begin by fooling themselves and, like software salesmen, they don't usually know they're lying. In particular, I don't doubt the good faith of our own [rcarty]; I just think he's wrong. |
|
| |
FFFFFffffffffffffffffffttt! Disease, man. Man
is just a disease. |
|
| |
//some of it is written up in "popular philosophy" books.// |
|
| |
Alain de Botton is quite a decent retailer of philosophy. If you want consumer-grade outputs from philosophy, you might look at his books. |
|
| |
//some kind of grand theory of unification// |
|
| |
That *was* the goal up until the mid twentieth century. However, since the 1960s, many philosophers have made it their primary goal to prevent precisely that. That sounds like a joke, but it isn't. And the reason has to do with the way different people's brains are wired. |
|
| |
The head of the church is called the Culture General. That's
why. |
|
| |
I have to report that things are not going well over in
the philosophy forum. However, I can make an
interim report, as follows. |
|
| |
====On professional accreditation and professional
standards====
About 90-95% of the people who call themselves
philosophers are not professionally accredited as
such. It's not clear whether these
unaccredited philosophers are allowed to practise
philosophy on a professional basis. Given the
immense power which philosophy
claims to wield, this is concerning. |
|
| |
====On the Questions Addressed by Philosophers====
Of the topics discussed by philosophers (at least on
philosophyforums.com), the breakdown is roughly: |
|
| |
(a) 60% either semantic arguments; topics purely
internal to philosophy; or questions which are by
definition unanswerable. These can
be collectively termed "pointless topics". |
|
| |
(b) 20% questions to which the answer is obvious to
anyone outside of philosophy. There is money to be
made, as a philosopher, by
taking such a question and then reformulating in such
a way that it requires further analysis. The most
successful philosophers
reformulate the question in such a way that it
becomes unanswerable, thereby ensuring continued
employment. |
|
| |
(c) 10% questions which are interesting to think
about, but whose answer (which is never found)
would not make any practical
difference to anyone. |
|
| |
(d) 10% questions which are important and, in theory,
answerable. However, most of these questions go
back to Plato (who, as far as I
can establish, invented professional philosophy).
Answers to them are constantly being produced, but
these answers change every few
decades. There is normally a cyclical nature to the
answers, such that one answer was right in the 1900s
and in the 1700s, but another
answer was right in the 1800s and 1600s. There does
not seem to be any way to measure progress in
philosophy, so this cyclical process
is OK and nobody is ashamed of it. |
|
| |
Note that these percentages differ across different
sub-genres, but I've tried to take a broad view. |
|
| |
====On the Purpose of Philosophers====
I have tried, diplomatically and without causing
offence, to determine what philosophy contributes
(ie, what philosophers get paid for).
After some rather unhelpful discussions, the outputs
of philosophy seem to be: |
|
| |
(a) Training people to think. It seems that training in
philosophy is sufficient and helpful in careers such as
politics or banking, which do
not require the extremes of critical thought
engendered by a scientific training. This is similar to
the way in which military training is
helpful in, for instance, a career in armed robbery.
Philosophers are not apparently discouraged by the
fact that the main aim of
philosophical training is to get people out of
philosophy. |
|
| |
(b) Informing public opinion and influencing
politicians. This seems like the most significant
contribution of philosophy. However, as far
as I can establish, governments do not employ
philosophers directly, which suggests that they are
rather lukewarm about philosophy.
There does not seem to be any formal system for
allowing philosophical discoveries to influence
government policy, in any major
democracy. This may be because there is no measure
of progress in philosophy, and hence no way to assign
a value to it. There is also
(and I was a little shocked at this) no formal system
of quality control on philosophical discoveries. This
may be the main reason why
governments do not use them directly. |
|
| |
(c) Inventing Science. Almost all of my discussions on
the philosophy forum led to people reminding my
that modern science emerged
from philosophy, much as chemistry emerged from
alchemy, astromony from astrology, or the USA from
the British Empire. However,
the philosophers were not
optimistic about repeating this success by inventing
science again. |
|
| |
Note that Philosophy is also very enjoyable for
philosophers (philosophy has the highest job
satisfaction in the USA), but this is not
strictly speaking an "output". |
|
| |
I'll bring further news as it emerges. |
|
| |
But that's only valid if your definition of philosophy is "thinking about things". |
|
| |
So what do "professional" philosophers produce? Does that output serve anyone (other than other philosophers) any purpose? |
|
| |
That's what I was trying to find out. I think my points
(a)-(c) under "On the Purpose of Philosophers"
address their net outputs. |
|
| |
Update: There will be no further updates on this
topic. I have been invited to leave the philosophy
forum, chiefly by philosophers. I am philosophical
about this. |
|
| |
//I would say that "professional philosophers" produce arguments and decisions with a net production of policy// |
|
| |
Ah, but do they require a professional qualification in philosophy to do so? How do you assess their output? Is it measurably better if they are qualified in philosophy? Do you need to be a philosopher in order to answer these questions (in which case we've encountered a dangerous circular logic) -? |
|
| |
My work is assessable using objective measures. I could do what I do without my mechanical engineering degree - to a point. However my govenrment, in their (rare) wisdom, chose to legislate certain engineering activities such that it is illegal to provide certain services without a degree and then subsequent certification. This is to protect the public, and is a very good thing. |
|
| |
It seems that we can't make the same argument for philosophy. |
|
| |
I still don't understand how we can tell "good" philosophy from aimless drivel. I don't understand how it's vital to certain important processes. And I especially don't understand why philosophers have invented their own language and jargon with (what seems to me) the explicit intent of making philosphy "special" such that you need a whole lot of reading and translation done just to talk about it in simple terms. As [max] mentioned above - most fields can be summarised and simplified so they can be explained to the layperson. Philosophy, generally, is kept aloof and "practitioners" are loath to (or unable to) discuss their work in simple terms. |
|
| |
I think it was Einstein who said (although it probably wasn't) - you don't really understand something unless you can explain it in simple terms to a layperson. |
|
| |
I wouldn't argue with most of what you said there. |
|
| |
//similar to someone asking you to teach them calculus. Would you take the time or would you tell them to take a class?// I disagree. I can, in simple terms, explain any and all of my work to laypeople - as that is my job to do so. Getting an accounting or HR qualified GM or MD to sign off on spending heaps of money to change assets, strategies or budgets against probability- based estimates of performance improvements requires you to be able to use very simple, but persuasive language. Likewise getting experienced maintainers to go outside their tradecraft and change how they do maintenance - you can't obfuscate your message, and it needs to be convincing. |
|
| |
//a certified engineer cannot be counted on to be a good engineer// |
|
| |
Again, I disagree. To get registered (here) you need to prove, in evidenciary form, sound engineering practice in a number of applicable areas, over a sufficient period of time (not less than 5 years, normally many more), to an appointed board of highly qualified engineers. if your judgement is called into question, you don't get registered. If you fuck something up later in your career, the board can and will repeal your registration. |
|
| |
The best indicator that registered engineers are "good" is the fact that they can get liability and indemnity insurance to carry out engineering. |
|
| |
I take your point that the word "good" is insufficient here, and in fact is sloppy communication on my behalf. I really mean "competent to a measurable standard" - which is the same standard I would have liked to apply to philosophers. |
|
| |
How can there be a measurable standard for something which can be learned without a teacher? I could not figure out engineering without someone teaching me everything which has been pieced together over many generations. Philosophy can be intuited or devil's advocate-ed in one's own head without either a teacher or even the words to explain the mental concepts gleaned. |
|
| |
It's like comparing apples to platypuses. |
|
| |
I don't understand the complaint. |
|
| |
Ah, so philosopher = lawyer without a job that couldn't make it as a lobbyist. |
|
| |
Frankly I find it analogous to some weird form of exercise. Doesn't accomplish much work but burns calories. Probably beneficial for my body, but there are other types that I prefer. |
|
| |
Anyway I was simultaenously referring to both psychical and physical phenomenon. Philosophy is an epic story of verstehn the philosophical correspondence of action to philosophy and also the acceptance of material physics. Christianity plays an immense role in philosophy, and my particular area of interest has been schizophrenia and capitalism, namely connection to calvinism and the general connection between discursive regulation in comparison to glossolalia and cessationism as well as the interpretation or the semiotic of signs. Essentially how correspondence of charisma, and how tighter discursive regulation in all aspects of social-and political life is connected with these practices. But also on the level of materialist sociology and how neoliberalism has at once marginalized durkheimian and marxist discourses simply through economic policy, and how discursive regulation through economic adaption can marginalize discourses at the level of 'interpretive' or emergent social phenomena rather than structural. Neoliberalism simply can be compared to other 'iron cage' liberal paradigms including utilitarianism. So the connection between pathology which can be physical and psychical, and how that is moderated via infrastructure and a dominant psychology ie ethical egoism. The ongoing conflict between organized or political criminality, deviant criminality and statists, and the elusiveness of the ethical ego in any of these categories. It's about Kierkegaards existentialism and that which followed and the prominence of the discussion of schizophrenia, and whose work centered on existential angst, a now medicalised deviance. So its about secularization but also about religious conflict, its about schizophrenia and criminals, gay sex, fucking and gore, its about positivist control such as using economics to control 'social problems' and marginalizing the deviants as 'irrational' because they don't respond to classical economics. Its about saying somewhat associated words in somewhat understandable combinations and painting a sort of picture once someone reads each. |
|
| |
You see, this is the problem with philosophy. |
|
| |
The question was pretty much sorted out in my
earlier annotations, but the debate goes on and will,
eventually, come full circle. |
|
| |
Yeah but, like, it's still just philosophy. |
|
| |
Anywat the question asked at the top was 'what' and no amount of philosophy or natural science has made much progress in answering it. |
|
| |
My brother says philosophy passes the time before you die. |
|
| |
How could he possibly know that? |
|
| |
Ah. Well, I'm glad we answered the "what". |
|
| |
So, what the original idea boils down to is "Listen,
nobody's perfect so let's just live and let live."? |
|
| |
I think this is a great idea, but I'm not sure calling
this thing a "church" is the best starting point. Part
of the qualification for being a church is a statement
to the effect "Nobody's perfect except us, so let's just
eradicate the opposition". |
|
| |
Also, organisations with "disease" in the title have a
PR issue. |
|
| |
It might be better to call this the "Let's just all try
and get along society." |
|
| |
Well it doesn't pass the time afterwards does it? |
|
| |
//Its about saying somewhat associated words in somewhat understandable combinations and painting a sort of picture once someone reads each.// |
|
| |
Add random smatterings of modern art paint, and this summarizes any attempt I've ever made at understanding what you're saying. |
|
| |
In the meantime, I'll sleep peacefully knowing that Philosopher Man is out there, fearlessly defending us from existential crises, errors in meta-belief, unclear modes of supposition, and improper use-mention distinctions. |
|
| |
I have to admit that, after my brief foray into the
philosophy forum, I am a little more tolerant of
philosophers. |
|
| |
Part of their problem is that anyone can call
themselves a philosopher. "Always check the doors
are locked after you leave - that's my philosophy" - is
it? Really? Your _philosophy_? Puts Plato in the
shade a bit. |
|
| |
When you filter out all the pretentious twats who
aren't really philosophers, and some of the
pretentious twats who are, you're left with a few
people thinking quite hard about questions that
cannot
be answered. |
|
| |
On balance, I'd say that philosophy is about 1% as
important as science, and about 1% as important as
engineering, and maybe 3% as important as art. And
there are probably 100 times as many people making
a living as scientists or engineers (and maybe 30
times as many professional artists) as there are
philosophers, so that's all OK then. |
|
| |
There are many people with official philosophy
credentials. I have a friend who went to the same
university as me who studied for his doctorate in
the field of electrical engineering. When he was
done, at the graduation ceremony they declared
that he was a doctor of philosophy, even though
he hadn't taken any (or at least very few) classes
in the subject. [Max] I thought I remembered that
you had a PhD as well. |
|
| |
Wikipedia says that this title stems from the fact
that all of the scientific disciplines used to be
grouped under philosophy which apparently meant
"love of wisdom". So it appears that all useful
aspect of love of philosophy got branched off into
separate areas of study, leaving philosophy itself
with an empty box. Funny that I think of current
philosophy as being very close to religion, yet
religion was transitionally considered to be a
separate field of study. |
|
| |
//[Max] I thought I remembered that you had a PhD
as well.// |
|
| |
Strangely enough, mine's a D. Phil (same thing,
different name). Even perverselier, my science
degree is a Bachelor of Arts, despite the fact that I
can't draw anything but conclusions. |
|
| |
'Science' as in knowing stuff, 'art' as in making stuff? |
|
| |