The philosophy thread general discussion

@G Ninja Good point.

@Fighteer any morality is "in our heads".

Edited by Risa123 on Apr 19th 2024 at 11:06:53 AM

Phew, finally finished Book 1 out of 2 of A History of Western Thought, by Gunnar Skirbekk and Nils Gilje.

The first volume covers from "Pre-Socratic philosophy, with a glance at ancient Indian and Chinese thought" to "Empiricism and critique of knowledge"

And not gonna lie, the last few chapters made my head hurt, especially because of all the discussion about epistemology and experiences.

In particular, empiricism of Hume and Berkeley were so complicated for me that I think I'll have to return to it. XP

Speaking of whom, I find it amusing but hardly surprising that the most prominent classical rationalists - Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz - were all mathematicians.

I already knew that Descartes and Leibniz left significant marks in mathematics (coordinates and calculus, respectively), but I didn't know Spinoza's Ethics full title is Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order.

God, I should really read Ethics already, it has been in my reading list for well over fifteen years XP

Welp, that's enough of philosophy for now, I'm gonna read books about other fields....

So I am reading the Oxford handbook on Indian philosophy by Jonarden Ganeri and it was brought that Hegelian historians believed that India did not have philosophy because phiosopha was a Greek word. I assume their reasoning was more elaborate than that. Searching a bit more, I learned the claim that Hegel himself believed that philosophy only originated in Greece first and India did not have philosophy. Is thatvtrue and if so, what was his reasoning for believing so? The concerned excerpt:

There is also a later bit that due to Indian philosophy being wrapped in religious jargon and being conveyed in religious sects, it led to misconceptions regarding it.

In these, aren't (a) and (b) contradictory. The first one is arguing that Indian philosophers are not thoroughly rational while the second is arguing that they are practically oriented. Also shouldn't these issues be no different that when dealing with theistic/ Christian western philosophers who would also likely bring god into their philosophy. The book even later states that for the theistic Indian philosophers, their logic behind the acceptance of God isn't all that different from western theistic philosophers

So was there some fallout between theistic and atheistic western philosophers at some point or did Christian philosophers kept god out when presenting their philosophical arguments? Shouldn't understanding Indian religious philosophy be not that distinct from the nuances of western Christian philosophy?

Edited by xyzt on Apr 21st 2024 at 1:25:37 AM

That's kind of funny, I think I read that Indian philosophy actually had some influence on Greek thought thousands of years ago. As a matter of course, after all Alexander tried to invade India, and the successor states of his empire were in constant contact for hundreds of years. There was a lot of cultural syncretism in central Asia around that time

Hell the Greeks themselves talked about the "naked philosophers of India" iirc.

it is in part because indian philosophy was not particularly well known in Europe back then, in part good old ethnocentrism, and in part because Hegel did not recognize as philosophy anything that did not enter into his dialectical scheme of the evolution of thought, which culminates with his system. In other word, it’s not philosophy beacause it is not his kind of philosophy. Ellenistic philosophers were equally underestimated by him.

(Supposed answer of an Indian philosopher to Alexander the Great according to Plutarch)

Finished reading Does the Richness of the Few Benefit Us All? by Zygmunt Bauman. While the book is mostly about economics, it also has a section dedicated to Marxist theory of alienation.

Also, I never knew that John Stuart Mill also wrote a work on economic theory as well, titled Principles of Political Economy...although it makes a total sense, now I think of it. XP

Started reading: Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius.

God, this book has been in my reading-list for well over a decade by now. And it's such a short book too!

I hope to finish this one by the end of this week at the latest.

There's an idea I saw on Lesswrong called the ideological Turing Test. It is about whether you understand the other person's ideology well enough that you could present the case without it being apparent that you don't buy it.

I was wondering if any of you have a position you can do this for. I think I can pass as a Vegan online at least if it doesn't get to the point of describing Vegan recipes.

I think I could do that for a few ideologies I don't believe in, such as Anarchism, Communism, or Objectivism.

Sure, it is not that complicated; this is thought in debate classes, in schools and universities.

In fact, I will say that if you don't understand a position well enough, to be able to pass as a believer if you wanted to, then debating against it is meaningless.

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

With that said, many people who think they can do it, may actually just present a Shallow Parody or come off as a Straw Character to the ideology they claim they understand.

Also, there are some positions and ideas, that are so repugnant to me personally, that I can never pretend to believe in them, even if, in theory, I could.

Edited by jawal on May 1st 2024 at 7:39:18 PM

@Jawal

I'd argue these two things fit together well: An ideology so vile that you couldn't even begin to play devil's advocate for it is also too evil to even be worth arguing with.

Though to be fair, when you're debating against an ideology, you're not necessarily doing so with the true believers in that ideology. Oftentimes you're preaching to people who simply don't have an opinion yet or even people who already agree with you but need to have their views refined better.

Edited by Protagonist506 on May 1st 2024 at 12:19:05 PM

If an idea is embraced by a lot of people, you are forced to argue against it, if you want your own ideas to spread and gain popularity.

Not bothering to argue against a position because you think it is worthless will only work if you hold enough power to quell it by force, or if your ideology hold an absolute majority (like 99%), and you can afford to ignore the "worthless" opinions of the remaining 1%.

Otherwise, refusing to engage is just leaving the field open for the "worthless" idea to gain supremacy.

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

Of course, if I think an idea is especially vile or evil, or if it affects me personally, I will also find it hard to argue against it logically and calmly, but this is another problem, and mostly a "me" thing, because there are other people who are more patient than I am, and can keep their calm while arguing against even the stupidest and most horrendous positions.

Edited by jawal on May 1st 2024 at 8:31:59 PM

It might be more helpful to think of it as understanding it well enough that it seems like a reasonable mistake. Like you understand how someone could get there.

Probably best to first probe whether the position is even being held in good faith, as whether it is or is not can change the correct response either to try to convince the position holder, or just to convince onlookers.

In a "good faith" debate, you are arguing against the idea, not the character of your interlocker, so it doesn't matter if he really beieve, mostly believe, or pretend to believe

If the character is arguing in "bad faith," then it means he won't change his opinion, but what of it? Most people don't change any strongly held beliefs after debating a stranger; the goal is that if you succeed, you will have proven the weakness of his idea to others and most importantly to yourself

Or proved to  that your position is the incorrect one and your opponent was right all along.

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

Of course, it is easier said than done, but again "me problem".

Edited by jawal on May 1st 2024 at 8:40:08 PM

What about getting the opponent to question their opinion on their own by making them explain their opinion and justifications for it ?

Finished reading ''Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius. My copy isn't a complete 100 translation though, and the edit removed some of the more extremely outdated lines and repetitive bits.

There were many bits that I can't agree with, such as a lot of mention about how "it's all within your control" aspect (I guess it's kinda inevitable for a Stoic scholar). Still, this is way better than 99% of the self-help books out there...though I'm not sure if that's really a compliment.

Next stop - Epicurus: The Extant Remains. Apparently Thomas Jefferson referred himself as an Epicurean.

Edited by dRoy on May 3rd 2024 at 4:52:39 AM

"I was wondering if any of you have a position you can do this for."

I believe that I can do this for American Conservatism. I am myself a left-leaning centrist.

"Arguing in bad faith" means the other person is employing rhetorical tactics to appear to "win" the argument before an audience. Things like strawman arguments, etc. In other words, they aren't listening to you, they're debating a straw version of you that isn't there. It has little to do with the sincerity of their beliefs.

To be honest, I find that most people, regardless of their ideologies, use those tactics

People really hate to "lose", and if the issue is a serious Real Life one, then people fell that they must not lose. Logic, truth, fairness and civility be damned.

In fact, people use these tactics even in the stupidest of arguments (like which eye color this random anime character has)

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

If you find a person, who does not strawman your argument, debate calmly and polity, seem to understand what you are saying, and admits when they are wrong, then you have discovered an Endangered species.

That's mostly only true on the internet. IRL most people won't debate at all, unless they trust the other person, and then they try to be as sincere as possible. Unless you have a public protest scenario or public appearance by a political celebrity in which case loudly yelled slogans are the rule.