|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305160 - 02/15/06 11:48 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I'd like to say that it is not just inconsistency which makes a bad philosophy, but also rigidness and simplicity.
Overlooking the questionable selection of "simplicity" as a bad quality, I agree - look at Christian fundamentalism, for instance.
A good philosophy should be flexible and adaptable. In fact, I'm not even so sure it's good to have a philosophy at all.
Philosophy is inescapable. Either way, philosophy is something we ALL have in our lives.
When you buy into some philosophy, whether it be Objectivism, Marxism, or what have you, there is a tendency to use it as a substitue for thinking, as Nathaniel Branden pointed out.
As you imply, such is a natural hazard with any philosophy - not just Objectivists, as Branden may have implied in your earlier quote [Perhaps I should start collecting quotes about the evils of Christianity now, hmm?]. That's really a human-behavior problem.
There is a very human tendency to look for easy answers, and such philosophies will readily provide you with them. But the truth is there are no easy answers. The world is a complex place, and to assume that because a philosophy is consistent that it is therefore right is to do yourself a great disservice.
You have essentially epitomized the basic error made by most intellectuals who are resistent to Objectivism: concluding that because philosophical issues are extremely complicated, they must just be unknowable, and that any kind of certainty is impossible - a similar error would be concluding that because logic is fallible, it must not be a valid way of gaining knowledge. Much of this could be attributed to the influence of Kant and his ilk in society.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said: You have essentially epitomized the basic error made by most intellectuals who are resistent to Objectivism: concluding that because philosophical issues are extremely complicated, they must just be unknowable, and that any kind of certainty is impossible - a similar error would be concluding that because logic is fallible, it must not be a valid way of gaining knowledge. Much of this could be attributed to the influence of Kant and his ilk in society.
First of all, where did I say anything about these issues being unknowable? Second, it is ironic that you mention Kant, since the all-important central emphasis in his philosophy was consistency.
--------------------
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305191 - 02/16/06 12:02 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: Just to elaborate, I'd like to say that it is not just inconsistency which makes a bad philosophy, but also rigidness and simplicity. A good philosophy should be flexible and adaptable. In fact, I'm not even so sure it's good to have a philosophy at all. When you buy into some philosophy, whether it be Objectivism, Marxism, or what have you, there is a tendency to use it as a substitue for thinking, as Nathaniel Branden pointed out. There is a very human tendency to look for easy answers, and such philosophies will readily provide you with them. But the truth is there are no easy answers. The world is a complex place, and to assume that because a philosophy is consistent that it is therefore right is to do yourself a great disservice. Never surrender your own freedom of thought to the shackles of others' philosophy.
I myself am not particularly inclined to philosophy, but shouldn't philosophy be the basis upon which you gather data and then infer meaning from it? You amaze me, you have quite concisely in your post contradicted yourself.
You have gathered information that has led you to the conclusion that philosophy is malicious, yet you had no qualms about representing your particular philosophy. Your philosophy is that philosophy is restrictive and ensnaring.
-------------------- Asshole
Edited by nakors_junk_bag (02/16/06 12:03 AM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Where did I say philosophy was malicious? I was simply pointing out the trap that one can get into by letting some all-encompassing philosophy dictate their thoughts.
--------------------
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
|
Kant wasn't a philosopher, he was a logician. There can be no inconsistenices in logic. I agree with you there.
I like Futurama, therefor it is logical I will watch Futurama. It is also logical that I have seen Futurama, that is what Kant would say.
-------------------- Asshole
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
jiggy writes:
Quote:
I gave one example, that can be researched with the 3rd law of thermo dynamics contradicting Newtons Laws of physics. Others have given them here with Bells theorems, and others have with what happens on the Plank scale.
None of those are examples of nature (reality) contradicting itself, but rather examples of how some theories of how the universe behaves are incomplete -- sometimes to the point even of contradicting each other.
The way to tell when someone is stumped philosophically is to observe the point at which they trot out Quantum mechanics. Any honest physicist will tell you that QM is applicable only at insanely tiny dimensions -- literally sub-atomic dimensions. As soon as you get even to the size of a complete atom -- much less a molecule -- everything changes. And even then the honest physicist will tell you that it is impossible to accurately convey what is going on in QM with just words -- that only mathematics gives the full picture. The analogies used to make the concepts graspable to non-mathematicians are just that -- analogies.
For example, no one denies that subatomic space is almost entirely empty. Yet that doesn't mean the empty spaces in your hand and the empty spaces in a steel plate will ever line up in such a way that you can pass your hand through the plate. They never will, and no reputable scientist will suggest they ever will.
The point is that in the context of this discussion -- the effect on a human of holding inconsistent philosophies -- what is happening at a subatomic scale is completely irrelevant.
Quote:
Any time I am told that only one way is right, I know I am getting as partial truth.
Really? The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. If you were to base some behavioral choice of yours consistently on the recognition of that fact, you would be acting in the "right" way -- i.e. basing your actions on that particular (easily verifiable) truth. To act as if the sun rises in the west and sets in the east would be to act wrong. So if I tell you that in order to have the natural unaltered light of each day's sunrise brighten the kitchen of your house in Chicago by shining through the kitchen window, the only right way to do it (short of placing a mirror far enough outside your window to reflect it into the window -- but then it is not unaltered) is to make sure you build your kitchen with at least one window facing east, what "partial truth" have I told you?
Phred
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Kant was most most certainly a philosopher. He may have also been a logician, but he was a philosopher first and foremost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305209 - 02/16/06 12:10 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
First of all, where did I say anything about these issues being unknowable?
Never claimed you did. I was merely elaborating further from the striking similarity I saw between what you wrote and what I've seen.
Second, it is ironic that you mention Kant, since the all-important central emphasis in his philosophy was consistency.
Highly debatable, if by consistent, you mean logical and non-contradictory.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305210 - 02/16/06 12:11 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: In fact, I'm not even so sure it's good to have a philosophy at all. When you buy into some philosophy, whether it be Objectivism, Marxism, or what have you, there is a tendency to use it as a substitue for thinking, as Nathaniel Branden pointed out. There is a very human tendency to look for easy answers, and such philosophies will readily provide you with them. philosophy.
you dint specifically say that philosophy was malicious.
I simply mean to establish that you yourself have a very readily identifiable philosphy. It amused me, tat tis all.
futurama is on.
woot woot
-------------------- Asshole
Edited by nakors_junk_bag (02/16/06 12:17 AM)
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305216 - 02/16/06 12:15 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: Kant was most most certainly a philosopher. He may have also been a logician, but he was a philosopher first and foremost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
semantics my friend, smeantics.
Yeah, I guess he pondered moral implications and the relativity to logic.
-------------------- Asshole
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305217 - 02/16/06 12:15 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Paradigm writes:
Quote:
Actually, he seems to be criticising them for holding too strictly to those principles.
Read it again. He isn't doing that at all. A principle, once identified and verified as corresponding to reality, cannot be discarded whenever it is deemed inconvenient. His beef is with people discovering a principle (or several), then misapplying them. Those who THINK tend to misapply principles less than those who don't.
It's similar to the old saw about someone equipped only with a hammer using it to "fix" everything in sight -- fom loose nails to a squeaky fan belt.
Phred
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305220 - 02/16/06 12:17 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Kant was living during the end of the Enlightenment era when science and reason were undercutting religion at every turn. Kant set out to save religion and religious morality by devising a philosophy that enshrined irrationalism at every turn. Kant is the mystic par excellence.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
NerdleWombanger
Stranger

Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 34
Loc: Nerdleton
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
|
As you imply, such is a natural hazard with any philosophy - not just Objectivists
You could argue Heavens Gate isn't a cult with the same logic. Why do Objectivists all seem to rigidly believe laissez faire style capitalism is the only correct economy?
Perhaps I should start collecting quotes about the evils of Christianity now, hmm?
I think it would be warrented... At least Objectivism is based in reality (more or less ).
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
|
can there really be philosophy sana inconsitencies. Seems philosophy is conitingent upon ones ability to apply definiton to symbols, who then I ask you is perfect at that?
-------------------- Asshole
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Kant's philosophy had nothing to do with religion. He devised a moral philosophy which was completely divorced from any concept of God or faith. In fact, his moral philosophy was based around a single axiom: consistency.
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305236 - 02/16/06 12:25 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
As one of the very few people on this board who has actually expended the effort to read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" (a wasted month I will never get back) in its entirety (English translation), I can confidently say that Kant did indeed hold inconsistent positions. More to the point, the entire core of his philosophy is based on sheer arbitrariness. His central "noumenal" vs "phenomenal" construct is totally unverifiable and must be accepted on Kant's say so alone. He might just as well have asserted we are all merely puppets being manipulated through an advanced remote control transmitter by purple unicorns who live on Ganymede. The unicorn postulate is every bit as valid as Kant's noumenal world.
And even with the luxury of making up out of thin air the conditions he needed in order to make his point, he STILL couldn't manage to be internally self-consistent. Or even logical, at some points.
I agree with you that Kant was more than a logician, he was in fact a philosopher. It's just that he was an incredibly BAD one.
Phred
--------------------
|
NerdleWombanger
Stranger

Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 34
Loc: Nerdleton
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Phred]
#5305241 - 02/16/06 12:27 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
...the entire core of his philosophy is based on sheer arbitariness. His central "noumenal" vs "phenomenal" construct is totally unverifiable and must be accepted on Kant's say so alone.
Like, "Existence exists"?
|
nakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque


Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305248 - 02/16/06 12:31 AM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Instead of assuming that our ideas, to be true, must conform to an external reality independent of our knowing, Kant proposed that objective reality is known only insofar as it conforms to the essential structure of the knowing mind. He maintained that objects of experience?phenomena?may be known, but that things lying beyond the realm of possible experience?noumena, or things-in-themselves?are unknowable, although their existence is a necessary presupposition.
see, he thinks that it can only be consistent to the extent of the mind in which the stimuli has come to rest. thus inconsistencies in the external real realm of physicality is without doubt, but consistency in the perceived world is quite plausible.
-------------------- Asshole
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Like, "Existence exists"?
Surely you jest. If not, please elaborate.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
Yup. You've lost me. And your voodoo accusations are strawmans - but that's what I get for being astray from the dead-serious side with you.
You made the funny voodoo straw man accusations. I was just playing along with the line of evil reasoning you imparted into the discussion. It did lighten it up humorously and I will easily sway to the light side before the heavy and serious any day.
It is very difficult for me to keep a straight face for long with any serious discussion. You have me there. I can't seem to do it. The serious turns to the ridiculous quite quickly for me when the cosmic joke overcomes me and cancels out all rights and wrongs. There is what just is, as it is, subject to change without notice.
What was your salient point that I missed? There was a lot I agreed with, within context. I'll reply to something I missed if I did, though I don't see how because I quoted and replied to everything you wrote.
Sorry for the Ayn Rand joke. I figured if you could dish it out you could take it.
How did I draw you off track anyway so you say? Did you expect everyone besides Phred to agree fully with that post? How can you post something that restrictive, unrealistic, linear and one sided and expect it not to be creatively or re-constructively challenged?
Can you tell me what the weather will be like here in Tampa next year?
Can you tell me how many flowers my Hibiscus bushes will bloom next year and will it be the same after that.
You can't because Nature is not consistent. Its always renewing its natural order. Look at how virus strains change and adapt for example. Ever see a plant grow sideways to catch more sunlight?
Chang-ability and flex-ability is key to evolution and nature.
That means human nature being expected to be consistent with the application of any philosophy without the ability to change it or flex it, as need be is unrealistic. It's just not natural either. Realistic philosophy is inconsistent, not bad philosophy. Unrealistic philosophies created to be strictly adhered too leave no room to change their order or ability to bend, flex and stretch when the unpredictable and unaccounted for arises.
I've noticed objective philosophy just wrrrrrrrrrrrites off the fabric of reality what doesn't fit into the tight forms.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
|