The philosophy thread general discussion

I would say it's more of an axiom: anything that is falsifiable is scientific by definition.

Right, in formal logic you have to begin a chain of reasoning with a premise that itself is unprovable. "If a statement cannot be empirically falsified then there is no way to know if it is true" or somesuch in this case.

Just a random thought inspired by events in a different thread:

Is it possible to have a discussion without any value judgments? What would it look like?

I you're talking only about objective, scientific facts, sure. (Well, even then you're still probably making some unstated value judgments - e.g. by accepting the scientific method itself, if you want to consider that a value.)

Do you mean on the internet or just in general?

I guess that you could just state different facts to each other, but does an exchange of information without any personal opinions really count as a "discussion" as the word is usually understood?

In general. Though that makes me wonder if there would be a difference.

An exchange of information can be a discussion.

"Arsenal have done some business this past transfer window."

"That's incredible. Did they buy a defender, a defensive midfielder, and a striker?"

"Yes, they did: Shkodran Mustafi, Granit Xhaka, and Lucas Perez."

"Are those players often picked for their national team?"

"Perez has never been picked by Spain, who have a number of options for his position. He is 27, so he is older than some of the players that get picked ahead of him. Xhaka is always in the Swiss team, and Mustafi has appeared with increasing frequently recently in the German national team, with whom he won the World Cup in 2014."

The only explicit statement of opinion there was "that's incredible" (I couldn't leave it out because anyone would say it upon hearing that Arsenal have bought a player.) There's an implicit value judgment in the question about national team appearances, as well as the answer about Perez and the suggested reason he's not been picked. Still, the conversation was mostly just and exchange of facts and I'd call it a conversation.

It's definitely a conversation, yes. I personally think that it's a bit of a gray area whether or not it counts as a discussion though.

edited 4th Sep '16 1:36:48 PM by Corvidae

I see what you did there.

Take the newspaper example: any newspaper could stamp "It's raining!" on their front page if they wanted to, but none will. Choosing what, when, how and why to talk about something all require a value judgment, even if subconscious. Of course, there are multiple reasons behind discussing or not a certain topic, but a value judgement is always present.

Regarding Best Of's example, even talking about Arsenal instead of any other football team in [Arsenal's country]/Europe could be considered a value judgment.

Unless I'm missing the point entirely.

Nah. After all, everybody knows the real soap opera in English football is Newcastle United.

edited 5th Sep '16 2:14:31 PM by Euodiachloris

'Fraid not. Our social wiring is very pernicious. The vast bulk if us wouldn't be able to go against the group — either easily or even with a lot of work. And, those who can easily go against it, most will quite reasonably choose not to: when the group outweighs and outnumbers you, wise heads decide to go along or subvert group decisions rather than isolate themselves or outright defy it. There is a group use (heck, necessity, even) for antisocial personalities.

Having said that, Hobbes wasn't right about groups: they don't become slobbering, unreasonably monsters capable of understanding only tyrany and might. And, Rousseau was also full of it: humans aren't blank slates and, although goodness is available to both individuals and groups, the whole human condition contains way more axes than bad behaviours or good ones. Often, any given group behaviour has bad, good, and kitchen sink knock-on effects. :/

Emergent group behaviour is both stunningly simple and mind-bogglingly complex.

edited 7th Sep '16 5:59:04 AM by Euodiachloris

edited 7th Sep '16 7:40:58 AM by nervmeister

You and every other person who imagines themselves to be a unique, independent snowflake whilst hoisting a torch and pitchfork...

Like everything else, people vary in their susceptibility to group conformity. Luckily, there is a hack- minority groups within a majority population often show strong persistence in bucking the here, and not infrequently persuade the majority to compromise with them.

Is this what Nietzche was talking about when he described an ubermensch?

Yes, I know my political opinions didn't exactly strike your fancy. But the difference is, I developed those opinions outside of an echo chamber like certain cliques on Reddit where the insecure only want to be patted on the back by the choir for their opinions instead of embracing challenge. What's more, I took my opinion to the Politics thread here which, from what I could tell, was rather passionately left-leaning - though still reasonable - and thus I went in knowing that it would earn me no shortage of funny looks, if not outright scorn (implicit or otherwise). Think about it. Would a "right-wing edgelord" risk leaving the safety of his/her nice little conclave by coming here to put his own opinions to the test?

Something like that. The Ubermensch, from what I gathered, was Nietzsche idea of a individualistic mindset or personalized worldview taken to its most impossible extreme. It's literally a state that perhaps none of us, being the "social apes" that we are, can achieve 100% - though he encourages one to try to get as close as possible to that ideal.

The "special snowflake" problem that Fighteer brought up comes when a person, without giving it much critical thought, interprets the Ubermensch concept as some kind of invitation to recklessly inflate one's ego without developing any kind of substance (in the form of self-knowledge/faith/esteem/etc.) underneath that serves a foundation strong enough to keep it from being fragile as fuck.

edited 7th Sep '16 9:30:22 AM by nervmeister

And, Nietzsche was also full of it. Some people can handle whopping amounts individuality, most are meh on the topic and can adapt relatively successfully to juggling wider ideas of group vs self... and a lot need a group to function adequately within and can't handle many aspects of being a rugged, fully-independent individual. Much more than would be willing to admit it. Greatness can go jump: there's a lot to be said for the art of muddling along above expectations, but comfortably beneath maximum parameters and with sufficiently diverse roles within social systems to kind of fit a wide number of quirks. It means less unhappy people and more slack, for starters.

Social apes be social, yo! And, humans generally work best in bands, however inefficient and argumentative we can sometimes be when in them.

edited 7th Sep '16 9:59:07 AM by Euodiachloris

Yeah. Until humans evolve into a species of super-adaptable "lone wolves" (via groundbreaking transhuman science or otherwise), it's best to shoot for a society where people can get along and work together while at the same time feel comfortable and capable enough in their own skins to not have to the desire to belong to some kind of self-denying category such as a mass movement, political party or religion.

edited 7th Sep '16 10:39:47 AM by nervmeister

But to achieve:

You're going to need:

Humans (and Apes in general) are Tribal creatures — people like to belong in a particular group.

edited 7th Sep '16 10:52:34 AM by Greenmantle

I think that with conscious effort and some mental exercise (in the form of meditation, emotional introspection, or otherwise), that compulsion can be mitigated.

edited 7th Sep '16 12:27:02 PM by nervmeister

Well, sociology, anthropology, social psychology, developmental psychology, neurology and cognitive science all tend to disagree with you on this one... <shrugs>

Even people with antisocial personality disorder or really, really horribly extreme autism... don't fare well with long periods of isolation. No matter how much crowds can be too much. :/

edited 7th Sep '16 12:34:44 PM by Euodiachloris

I used a lot of books and internet to get rid of mine.

You're talking about attempting to shun all human contact for the rest of one's life. This is more about avoiding getting caught up in a collective mentality. Not just the extreme end of it like cults, racial supremacy, fundamentalism, and the like, but also things like movements, political parties, and other shit where winning some kind of peer approval takes precedence over self-realization.

edited 7th Sep '16 12:58:46 PM by nervmeister