The philosophy of agreement...

Auto-Summary

This forum post critiques the philosophical stance of "function over form," arguing that while it may be necessary for non-imposing living, it is insufficient for integrity. The author questions whether asserting a proposition, even a tentative one, inherently imposes a stance. They use the hypothetical scenario of a philosopher living in a garden, asserting that relying on "function over form" without acknowledging the underlying forms of knowledge and convention is pretentious. The post suggests that true philosophical integrity requires recognizing the continuity of knowledge and the unspoken biases that inform our decisions. Ultimately, the author posits that while "function over form" may be necessary for practical living, it alone is insufficient to demonstrate genuine philosophical integrity in real-world interactions.

To question rather than assert is a philosophical ideal I agree with. You are notorious for this. Yet here, you seem to hold or assert the question as a philosophical position, which turns a questioning attitude into a positive proposition of "function over form". Philosophically, this is an ideal I agree with. I personally believe it would be necessary for enlightened living, on scale of the individual, as well as the whole world.

But holding the ideal is not sufficient for the actual practice (living) of philosophy.

I can appreciate the fact that you aren't telling me what the truth is, especially here in a place where that pretty much the most you can impose on me. But here you are explicitly asserting a proposition, and tentative as it may be, there is a subtle imposition on your part.

You have raised a hypothetical (much like the hypothesis of my first post) by which you are indeed asserting certain implications. Strictly speaking, you can no longer isolate your position to the convention of philosophy that merely privileges questions. You question, for the sake of demonstrating a certain proposition, by hypothesis. The implication of this is that you hold certain grounds in an argument.

Function over form may be necessary to live in a non-imposing way, but I hold that it is in itself insufficient. It is insufficient as an ideal, for either a worldhood of philosophers, or the integrity of a single philosopher. The illusion is that somehow, the question is less assertive than the proposition. But this is only demonstrating rhetorical form of integrity, not the actual integrity. This rhetoric, "the face of philosophy" may indeed need to be assumed for this integrity, but that is not sufficient for it.

For example (as for instance, actually stepping into this hypothetical world): If you claim "function over form" while treading through my garden (to just eat) I would consider this offensive. When I come out to confront you and you say, "what makes these vegetables yours?" I can only answer that I somehow got my hands on seeds to plant them. Since I cannot define that they are mine, is this the intuition that will have you "just eat"?

The philosophical position of highest integrity recognizes that this seed is just a product of a plant before it, and that plant before it is a product of a seed... and so on ad infinitum. Clearly, there is nowhere along the line, that I actually assert that this vegetable as somehow mine. In this instance, you could get your hands on the vegetable, in a way that would be philosophically no different than the way I did.

So is "the philosopher" (or the one who privileges the question) being non-imposing here? Your question is assertive. The ground you stand on, (or the unspoken context of a relatively metaphysical situation) is easily assimilated by your "reasonable" nature.

In this case, if you quite reasonably ate my vegetables, it is just convenient to you that you disregard conventions of ownership. And not to mention, inconvenient for me...

Or less personally, consider the fact that you rely on the knowledge that the farmers and the grocery store are not providing you with intoxicated or poisoned food. It only seems intuitive because you are steeped in convention. Yes, you can opt out of this economy, but then you'd have to find something to eat in the wild. So you can't opt out of the knowledge of plants, but must rely on knowledge to know what is good to eat.

Its not a matter of intuition that defines what is good to eat, it is either personal, or conventional history that provides this offering, as knowledge. Either you rely upon the form of knowledge that was accumulated by predecessors function of science (hypothesis, and trial and error) - or you do this for yourself, with a certain goal, no less, to accumulate certain knowledge of what is good to eat and not good to eat.

Yet again, it is acknowledged that philosophy speaks to function and deprives form of any integrity. Again, the evolution of organism is a matter of function rather than static form (again, seed-->plant--->seed-->plant). But if you do not assume any convention of form, you will not tell the difference between what is good to eat and what is bad to eat.

It is just as pretentious to

claim to know nothing, and impose it as a question

as it is to

claim knowledge, (and assert it as truth)

Holding their difference as significant in itself, is just to become mired in the convention of philosophy, rather than to acknowledge its practice.

You can say that you live intuitively, but it is more than likely just leaving your biases unspoken.

Here, in a philosophy forum, it is appreciated that these biases are not imposed. But outside of that, philosophy is a convention itself, insomuch that it imposes leverage on human interactions. For instance (in practice) you might use it, "itself" to innocently stumble into my garden.

Therefore, in these hypotheses, "function over form" may be considered necessary to maintain certain integrity, but is not sufficient to demonstrate it in practice.

Similar Threads	Poster	Views	Replies	Last post
Philosophy is dead ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )	it stars saddam	10,957	128	08/02/08 07:29 PM by Diploid
Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent ( 1 2 3 4 all )	SkorpivoMusterion	8,600	72	02/16/06 09:20 PM by SkorpivoMusterion
Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) ( 1 2 3 all )	shroomydan	4,573	44	05/01/05 01:29 AM by Psychoactive1984
Who' s on your philosophy "dream team"??(name 3 and why) ( 1 2 all )	Psilocybeingzz	3,587	28	07/21/04 02:47 AM by Floydian
Nietzscheian Propositions on "Reality" ( 1 2 all )	psycroptic	2,153	20	09/03/08 09:26 AM by Boots
Philosophy and Depression ( 1 2 all )	zorbman	1,711	22	06/20/04 07:51 PM by Grav
The best philosophy... ( 1 2 3 4 5 all )	deCypher	8,743	94	09/22/08 11:18 PM by ackack9000
help with thesis statement for philosophy paper... ( 1 2 all )	PilzeEssen	8,189	22	09/08/08 11:41 PM by NiamhNyx