First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Nature of majority of philosophical disputes
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
(note to moderator: I'm making successive posts because if I make edits to existing posts, people don't get notified of the replies)


crazykl45 wrote:

Philosophy is one thing, but I think if you left philosophy to a realm like politics or morality, you'd really quickly find that people can genuinely agree on all the facts and terms of a particular discussion and still disagree. Cause values color those discussions. And more often than not, values color how people choose to start and frame those discussions.

Plus, charity is a principle of philosophical discussion that everyone learns early on, which I'm guessing is not the case in other fields. Although it should be. But it requires a level of non-commitment most people aren't prepared for.


The end of an argument is not the same as the end to a disagreement.

Once it just gets to that point, it's not even an argument or a debate anymore- It's then turned into an arational conversation that doesn't even operate on logic, thus "not an argument anymore". It's then a "I feel it, do you feel it too?" intuition pumping. Once it gets down to the bare "I feel that way" and "I don't feel that way" there is no longer a debate. That's when people "agree to disagree", the end of a debate.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

mistletain wrote:

For anyone who is thinking what the fuck, here's a short clip on Wittgenstein's private language argument. I'm sure that if there's one thing philosophers can agree on, it's that he was a bit of a nutcase but no less brilliant.

I agree that to be practical, definitions with context do need to be laid out if we're to avoid a pointless discussion about semantics. But if you're suggesting that nothing can be discussed or known because of the subjective nature of language, then you're running head first into self-defeating relativism.


I'm not suggesting nothing could be discussed. Everything could be discussed until positions are clarified to the point where the argument ends with an arational "I feel the same" or "I don't feel the same" (which would be ending the discussion with "agree to disagree")
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

BlueOni wrote:

No, I don't think that's the case. I've disagreed with and debated anarchist capitalists on their own terms. I reject the non-aggression principle itself, not their definition of aggression. It's their characterization of aggression as, save for in defense of an individual's body or private property, unethical and unjustified even if its effects are to one's benefit which I reject. As for Objectivists, it's not their definition of altruism which is at issue, nor is it the nature of the word's use in Objectivist writing. It's their ethical code itself I reject. I see no strength in the argument that there's a moral imperative to put oneself above all others.


Once all terms are clarified then there is no further debate, because then it simply gets down to an arational "I feel this way" and "I don't feel this way". Once logic has been exhausted, it's the end of discussion.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

severticas wrote:

Have yoou been eating too much Bird's Eye food OP?


Have you stopped beating your wife?
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

forkberry wrote:

What are you talking about?


Context.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

nanikore2 wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:

It also totally disregards context. Language also works because context is important. the same word can have multiple meanings because of context. I mean think of the alphabet. With 26 letters we make words in ways it takes asiatic languages thousands of character sets (of which nobody learns all) to create a myriad of words (and creating more each day!). Then among those words, we create a truly countless number of sentences and permutations with their own complex meaning, and even THAT doesn't begin to account for context, tone, the person speaking, etc which would only further multiply the exact meanings to a number that truly cannot be even conceived.


You're making context an all-or-nothing slippery slope. Definition isn't about absolute precision but about clarity. See? Now there's an example already... I'm clarifying to you right now that the objective is clarification and not absolute precision which of course doesn't exist.


I could argue that you did not stick to your own values and clarify all this in your OP... :P

see, you can clarify while you're arguing. Spending time doing that beforehand makes your statements incredibly... Dull... Uninteresting. Unimportant. And then the question always looms as to when to stop explaining your terms and just get to the heart of the matter. And even still, you may not explain it in a way that's satisfactory for the other person. That's all.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

serifsansserif wrote:
I could argue that you did not stick to your own values and clarify all this in your OP... :P

see, you can clarify while you're arguing. Spending time doing that beforehand makes your statements incredibly... Dull... Uninteresting. Unimportant. And then the question always looms as to when to stop explaining your terms and just get to the heart of the matter. And even still, you may not explain it in a way that's satisfactory for the other person. That's all.


See the really Wittgensteinan thing that's going on here... We aren't really disagreeing at all.

Note that in my original post I said

"Actually, the entire discussion needs to be what's under discussion in the first place "

...Which Is what we're doing. One is naming something an "argument" while the other is naming it a "clarification" To me, we're just playing out Wittgenstein's point.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15

nanikore2 wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:
I could argue that you did not stick to your own values and clarify all this in your OP... :P

see, you can clarify while you're arguing. Spending time doing that beforehand makes your statements incredibly... Dull... Uninteresting. Unimportant. And then the question always looms as to when to stop explaining your terms and just get to the heart of the matter. And even still, you may not explain it in a way that's satisfactory for the other person. That's all.


See the really Wittgensteinan thing that's going on here... We aren't really disagreeing at all.

Note that in my original post I said

"Actually, the entire discussion needs to be what's under discussion in the first place "

...Which Is what we're doing. One is naming something an "argument" while the other is naming it a "clarification" To me, we're just playing out Wittgenstein's point.


ok, I'll say you win, but it's not always the case that this happens.
2459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Minnesota, USA
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:

The problem herein lies that ultimately meaning is subjective to the individual. While the majority can of course adopt meanings (which is where we get technical definitions from in the first place) we need to keep in mind that each person is varied and different. No one will be able to fully agree on the meaning of the word because their connotation with it depends on their psychological state, their experiences throughout life, and overall their perspective. Now, is it possible to convince people to agree with your classification of the issue or subject at hand? Of course. If it wasn't change would only exist through force when we've clearly observed a pattern of societal and personal viewpoints changing over human history without the usage of violence being required. However, just because something can happen doesn't mean it will; let alone that everyone will conform to the majority's new way of thought.

With that in mind meaning becomes subjective; which is why philosophical points would argue on that basis. Your solution wouldn't work as it would require a common ground that perhaps couldn't be reached. And even if the two sides can't agree on a meaning, is that really a problem? I think we need to analyze matters situationally in accordance with that; as in some cases it can be whereas in others it's not. Even then, that's another matter of perspective. Thus what matters most in any philosophical debate is not necessarily the issue itself but rather how people view it.

Thus you're right in one way: the nature of philosophical disputes, at least from my own experience and perspective, is as you've clarified. However, I don't believe that solution would work in all cases. Furthermore, is this even an issue? Does it need a solution?

When it comes down to it everything relates back to the person themselves and their thoughts on the subject matter.


You sir said that more eloquently than I ever could. Well stated, agree 100% with your points.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15

serifsansserif wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

(What happened to the "in depth discussion" sub forum? Did it get folded into General Discussion?)

Through the years I've found Wittgenstein (if it's not him then someone could correct me) to be absolutely right in that philosophical disputes are pretty much about semantics as well as definitions, and as soon as those are straightened out there wouldn't be much of anything to argue/de-bait about anymore.

People talk past each other because even though they use the same terms they mean different things by those terms.

My meta-philosophical point: What needs to be done first in a discussion is clarify the terms and agree on what each of them mean. Actually, the entire discussion needs to be what's under discussion in the first place before going into any disputes regarding the subject. Skipping past that would mean wasting time.


I totally disagree and find that definition and semantics are typically a dead end. It's like the sand pile paradox... (precisely how many grains of sand does it take to make it a "pile" of sand? And does one less diminish it's "pile-ness"?) Granted, without adhering to definitions somewhat, you fall often into the "no true scotsmen" fallacy but still...

And I'll even be generous and say that linguistics and words themselves are all about making distinctions, but you can never define something precisely enough. eventually you'll run out of words to describe your words and need to make up new ones. And then you'll need to make up even newer words to define (give distinctions) between your newly created words, ad infinitum.

It also totally disregards context. Language also works because context is important. the same word can have multiple meanings because of context. I mean think of the alphabet. With 26 letters we make words in ways it takes asiatic languages thousands of character sets (of which nobody learns all) to create a myriad of words (and creating more each day!). Then among those words, we create a truly countless number of sentences and permutations with their own complex meaning, and even THAT doesn't begin to account for context, tone, the person speaking, etc which would only further multiply the exact meanings to a number that truly cannot be even conceived.

And THAT is all with a mere 26 symbols... The pursuance of "true" definitions (which, I forgot, the temporal element, in which the same context and speaker may use the same words but into something different than before but mean different based on knowledge that was not present in the original statement) is utterly pointless. I take a stand and say that if philosophy is going to be about semantics and definitions it will never get anything done, and it's primarily either a fool's errand or a calculated method of avoiding the questions.

Personally, I also think that despite all we think we know, we truly cannot discern truth from non-truth except perhaps as a pragmatic truth through experience and probability to point to a likely chance something working in the future.

All of this reminds me of an old philosophy joke:

A philosopher once had the following dream.

First Aristotle appeared, and the philosopher said to him, "Could you give me a fifteen-minute capsule sketch of your entire philosophy?" To the philosopher's surprise, Aristotle gave him an excellent exposition in which he compressed an enormous amount of material into a mere fifteen minutes. But then the philosopher raised a certain objection which Aristotle couldn't answer. Confounded, Aristotle disappeared.

Then Plato appeared. The same thing happened again, and the philosophers' objection to Plato was the same as his objection to Aristotle. Plato also couldn't answer it and disappeared.

Then all the famous philosophers of history appeared one-by-one and our philosopher refuted every one with the same objection.

After the last philosopher vanished, our philosopher said to himself, "I know I'm asleep and dreaming all this. Yet I've found a universal refutation for all philosophical systems! Tomorrow when I wake up, I will probably have forgotten it, and the world will really miss something!" With an iron effort, the philosopher forced himself to wake up, rush over to his desk, and write down his universal refutation. Then he jumped back into bed with a sigh of relief.

The next morning when he awoke, he went over to the desk to see what he had written. It was, "That's what you say."

[From Raymond Smullyan, 5000 B.C. and Other Philosophical Fantasies. St. Martin's Press, 1983]


http://consc.net/misc/univ-joke.html


To fall into the joke, defining how many grains of sand it takes to make a pile is a very good way for two people to decide exactly that. And most philosophy debate comes down to that, a few people trying to answer a broad, difficult question. "Now, would you say this is a pile?"

So on a forum where something can be defined as General or Extended, but anyone is welcome to post whatever meme they want in response, maybe it's not so important to differentiate. Maybe they're both piles and we have to pick out the sand we want. Neither was so active or inactive that we don't get to respond to just about anything we want, I think it's nice to be able to freely move between serious and general statements.

Being said, it is important to define things, even if they don't seem to matter. I admit, I make a bad habit of trying to explain my views as coming from some point of authority when I'm mostly just trying to explain why I think the way I think about something without being dishonest.

The idea that words cannot define something really oversells human cognition. While it's true that you can't write a sentence like "I have a stomach-ache" and expect somebody to understand exactly what you mean, you can start to define it. Is it a shooting pain or a general uneasiness? Do you feel like puking or crying or both? Hospitals have circumvented linguistic semantics with the pain scale, but even that is subjective enough that your doctor won't understand until you've given enough responses that they can get a good view of your semantic representation of pain.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say semantics are somewhere between a 7 and an 8 as far as reasons for philosophical disagreements go. Definitely wanna dial it back to a 2 or 3 whenever you can.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

nanikore2 wrote:

Once all terms are clarified then there is no further debate, because then it simply gets down to an arational "I feel this way" and "I don't feel this way". Once logic has been exhausted, it's the end of discussion.


Semantics is only one part of the broader field that is logic, the part that's concerned with the meaning of things. That the matter of semantics is settled in no way entails that the logical analysis is over. Indeed, that merely means that it now has a board on which to play.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

morechunch wrote:

To fall into the joke, defining how many grains of sand it takes to make a pile is a very good way for two people to decide exactly that. And most philosophy debate comes down to that, a few people trying to answer a broad, difficult question. "Now, would you say this is a pile?"

So on a forum where something can be defined as General or Extended, but anyone is welcome to post whatever meme they want in response, maybe it's not so important to differentiate. Maybe they're both piles and we have to pick out the sand we want. Neither was so active or inactive that we don't get to respond to just about anything we want, I think it's nice to be able to freely move between serious and general statements.

Being said, it is important to define things, even if they don't seem to matter. I admit, I make a bad habit of trying to explain my views as coming from some point of authority when I'm mostly just trying to explain why I think the way I think about something without being dishonest.

The idea that words cannot define something really oversells human cognition. While it's true that you can't write a sentence like "I have a stomach-ache" and expect somebody to understand exactly what you mean, you can start to define it. Is it a shooting pain or a general uneasiness? Do you feel like puking or crying or both? Hospitals have circumvented linguistic semantics with the pain scale, but even that is subjective enough that your doctor won't understand until you've given enough responses that they can get a good view of your semantic representation of pain.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say semantics are somewhere between a 7 and an 8 as far as reasons for philosophical disagreements go. Definitely wanna dial it back to a 2 or 3 whenever you can.



Google FTW...



there's a legit reason I used that example, but I guess it's not well enough to catch on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

It's basically about subjectivity and how much that plays into definitions.

Additionally, I can never feel your pain. If your preoccupation is with definitions, then you're going to delve into a truly bullshit debate. Mainly one of them asking you to define something, and you answering, and then being asked to define something, and then ask to define something else.. I recently avoided bothering with such a debate with one such person in the latest religion thread.. but you wouldn't know I was thinking of that either.

Then there's the arguments that I had which got more and more retarded as the person I was arguing against kept trying to focus on OOOOONNNNNNE point, to avoid the other more complicated stuff I was explaining just so they could simply get me to say "yeah, I agree with you there"......

...............................

........................................................

..............................................................

COMPLETELY FUCKING IGNORING EVERYTHING I HAD BEEN SAYING PRIOR JUST TO GET A WIN....

But again, you wouldn't know what colors my reason or rationale for saying what I'm saying.

But getting hung up on definitions is a big no no. And definitions start to form usually as your talking with someone and either you ask for clarification or you realize someone is misunderstanding you.

My objection on this is not dealing with definitions as they are needed, but not to get hung up with them at the beginning, and not to use them as a distraction from your bigger point. or to just bore the shit out of your debate opponent.

There's a fair amount of just commonly held definitions and understanding to start with. and if we kinda know what we're debating (which is often easy enough to sum up in a sentence or two, (like most of the topics here can be summed up with in the OP) then we're probably pretty sure we can know what most of the words are going to refer to. And like with the Sorites paradox, google's only a click away.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

serifsansserif wrote:


morechunch wrote:

To fall into the joke, defining how many grains of sand it takes to make a pile is a very good way for two people to decide exactly that. And most philosophy debate comes down to that, a few people trying to answer a broad, difficult question. "Now, would you say this is a pile?"

So on a forum where something can be defined as General or Extended, but anyone is welcome to post whatever meme they want in response, maybe it's not so important to differentiate. Maybe they're both piles and we have to pick out the sand we want. Neither was so active or inactive that we don't get to respond to just about anything we want, I think it's nice to be able to freely move between serious and general statements.

Being said, it is important to define things, even if they don't seem to matter. I admit, I make a bad habit of trying to explain my views as coming from some point of authority when I'm mostly just trying to explain why I think the way I think about something without being dishonest.

The idea that words cannot define something really oversells human cognition. While it's true that you can't write a sentence like "I have a stomach-ache" and expect somebody to understand exactly what you mean, you can start to define it. Is it a shooting pain or a general uneasiness? Do you feel like puking or crying or both? Hospitals have circumvented linguistic semantics with the pain scale, but even that is subjective enough that your doctor won't understand until you've given enough responses that they can get a good view of your semantic representation of pain.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say semantics are somewhere between a 7 and an 8 as far as reasons for philosophical disagreements go. Definitely wanna dial it back to a 2 or 3 whenever you can.



Google FTW...



there's a legit reason I used that example, but I guess it's not well enough to catch on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

It's basically about subjectivity and how much that plays into definitions.

Additionally, I can never feel your pain. If your preoccupation is with definitions, then you're going to delve into a truly bullshit debate. Mainly one of them asking you to define something, and you answering, and then being asked to define something, and then ask to define something else.. I recently avoided bothering with such a debate with one such person in the latest religion thread.. but you wouldn't know I was thinking of that either.

Then there's the arguments that I had which got more and more retarded as the person I was arguing against kept trying to focus on OOOOONNNNNNE point, to avoid the other more complicated stuff I was explaining just so they could simply get me to say "yeah, I agree with you there"......

...............................

........................................................

..............................................................

COMPLETELY FUCKING IGNORING EVERYTHING I HAD BEEN SAYING PRIOR JUST TO GET A WIN....

But again, you wouldn't know what colors my reason or rationale for saying what I'm saying.

But getting hung up on definitions is a big no no. And definitions start to form usually as your talking with someone and either you ask for clarification or you realize someone is misunderstanding you.

My objection on this is not dealing with definitions as they are needed, but not to get hung up with them at the beginning, and not to use them as a distraction from your bigger point. or to just bore the shit out of your debate opponent.

There's a fair amount of just commonly held definitions and understanding to start with. and if we kinda know what we're debating (which is often easy enough to sum up in a sentence or two, (like most of the topics here can be summed up with in the OP) then we're probably pretty sure we can know what most of the words are going to refer to. And like with the Sorites paradox, google's only a click away.


OKokokokOK DUDE.

Sorry, man, wow. I'm sorry for reading what you wrote and responding to it without really looking into your sand-thing, honestly. Can we cool it? Nobody's looking for a semantic win, that is worth literally (just googled "literally," I think it applies) nothing.

In my response, I addressed the OP, I addressed you, I think you're misguided in your response. It's about the work up, not the trickle down.

Ok, lemme explain it in general terms that I would assume the kids get, chicka-check it my home-dawg.

If you're going to respond to a post, and subject your response to the reading of other viewers, you can't only take what you and you hope the responder knows into account. Whether they look it up or not is entirely MY FAULT, because I might not have ever thought looking up some sand-thing was important after you explained it to me.



9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15

morechunch wrote:

OKokokokOK DUDE.

Sorry, man, wow. I'm sorry for reading what you wrote and responding to it without really looking into your sand-thing, honestly. Can we cool it? Nobody's looking for a semantic win, that is worth literally (just googled "literally," I think it applies) nothing.

In my response, I addressed the OP, I addressed you, I think you're misguided in your response. It's about the work up, not the trickle down.

Ok, lemme explain it in general terms that I would assume the kids get, chicka-check it my home-dawg.

If you're going to respond to a post, and subject your response to the reading of other viewers, you can't only take what you and you hope the responder knows into account. Whether they look it up or not is entirely MY FAULT, because I might not have ever thought looking up some sand-thing was important after you explained it to me.



nah.. my fault.. I was just nettled and irritated, and not even at you. It's just the overly prissy ones like the ones I mentioned in my comment.

thinking about that got me more irritated and I went off on a tangent. No big deal.



Also: tone sucks to convey over the internet..
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

serifsansserif wrote:


morechunch wrote:

OKokokokOK DUDE.

Sorry, man, wow. I'm sorry for reading what you wrote and responding to it without really looking into your sand-thing, honestly. Can we cool it? Nobody's looking for a semantic win, that is worth literally (just googled "literally," I think it applies) nothing.

In my response, I addressed the OP, I addressed you, I think you're misguided in your response. It's about the work up, not the trickle down.

Ok, lemme explain it in general terms that I would assume the kids get, chicka-check it my home-dawg.

If you're going to respond to a post, and subject your response to the reading of other viewers, you can't only take what you and you hope the responder knows into account. Whether they look it up or not is entirely MY FAULT, because I might not have ever thought looking up some sand-thing was important after you explained it to me.



nah.. my fault.. I was just nettled and irritated, and not even at you. It's just the overly prissy ones like the ones I mentioned in my comment.

thinking about that got me more irritated and I went off on a tangent. No big deal.



Also: tone sucks to convey over the internet..


Hahaha, I thought we were doing a big pretend to be upset bit.

Never worry yourself with me, trust.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.