It's a philosopher's job to tell people how to live

coberst wrote:

"We ?'know' what is real, what is knowledge, what is moral action, how the mind works, etc. because these philosophical theories permeate every aspect of our life. Metaphysics is a philosophy word that really means ?'what is real, what is time, what is essence, what is causation, etc'.

Like YitwailI question this.

What makes you suppose we (or you, for that matter) "know" any of that stuff????

Quote:

Why you would say such a think I find amazing. Do you not regard learning to be of any value? Perhaps it is that you have not studied philosophy. Of course that is not anything to be ashamed of. I was totally ignorant of philosophy until I was almost forty.

I suspect this is a case of you underestimating.

0 Replies

Frank asks--"What makes you suppose we (or you, for that matter) "know" any of that stuff????"

Because everything we experience and know requires our input and our input is greatly determined by our environment and our environment is greatly determined by philosophical theories. If you speak English you think in English. If you think in theories you cannot remove yourself from the makers of theories.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you speak English you think in English.

Do you?

I don't think our mind works in languages. That is applied by us. How else could I explain that the thoughts I have sometimes are easier to express in different languages. I might read something in english that sparks a thought, although the thought may be in norwegian, and vice versa.

0 Replies

Coberst

I'd think all of that would only confirm the appropriateness of frank's question.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Coberst

I'd think all of that would only confirm the appropriateness of frank's question.

Thanks, Cyracuz. And Amen.

I have no idea of why Coberst thinks he answered (or even responded) to my comments with that last post.

Coberst....take another look at what I said.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
If you speak English you think in English.

Do you?

I don't think our mind works in languages. That is applied by us. How else could I explain that the thoughts I have sometimes are easier to express in different languages. I might read something in english that sparks a thought, although the thought may be in norwegian, and vice versa.

or even for someone who's monolingual, surely there are times when one cannot "think of" the exact word. also, Noam Chomsky's theory of transformational-generative grammar, a forerunner of cognitive science with its emphasis on innate knowledge, seems to be at odds with coberst's claim:

Quote:

transformational-generative grammar, linguistic theory associated with Noam Chomsky, particularly with his Syntactic Structures (1957), and with Chomsky's teacher Zellig Harris. Generative grammar attempts to define rules that can generate the infinite number of grammatical (well-formed) sentences possible in a language. It starts not from a behaviorist analysis of minimal sounds but from a rationalist assumption that a deep structure underlies a language, and that a similar deep structure underlies all languages. Transformational grammar seeks to identify rules (transformations) that govern relations between parts of a sentence, on the assumption that beneath such aspects as word order a fundamental structure exists. Transformational and generative grammar together were the starting point for the tremendous growth in linguistics studies since the 1950s.

transformational grammar." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press., 2003. Answers.com 26 Jun. 2006. http://www.answers.com/topic/transformational-grammar

0 Replies

Coberst,

Firstly, let me congratulate you on finally getting a thread off the ground. The continuity is a direct result of the contentious claims which you appear to support....this will always attract a reaction....a point worth noting perhaps.

To get to the actual proposition about "a philosophers job" this may simply be "to question the assumed" especially questions concerning "knowledge" and "existence". Now it may be that the "critic" of lifestyles becomes the "setter" of lifestyles...I'm thinking of Marx here...but the danger is of course that the detailed thinking is glossed over by "the masses" in a parody of "one liners".

It IS the case that professional philosophers sit on ethics committees and help to steer discussion of complex issues like "cloning", but this could hardly be called telling people how to live their lives. The umpire does not decide the rules of the game, only their resolution in cases of dispute...and this judgement even if arbitrary merely functions as a form of conflict resolution.

0 Replies

Coberst,

Firstly, let me congratulate you on finally getting a thread off the ground. The continuity is a direct result of the contentious claims which you appear to support....this will always attract a reaction....a point worth noting perhaps.

To get to the actual proposition about "a philosophers job" this may simply be "to question the assumed" especially questions concerning "knowledge" and "existence". Now it may be that the "critic" of lifestyles becomes the "setter" of lifestyles...I'm thinking of Marx here...but the danger is of course that the detailed thinking is glossed over by "the masses" in a parody of "one liners".

It IS the case that professional philosophers sit on ethics committees and help to steer discussion of complex issues like "cloning", but this could hardly be called telling people how to live their lives. The umpire does not decide the rules of the game, only their resolution in cases of dispute...and this judgement even if arbitrary merely functions as a form of conflict resolution.

0 Replies

My computer is down. I will be back shortly. I hope!

0 Replies

I've been having problems too. A2K is just slooooow. I have trouble loading threads and replies. At times I just get the message that the page doesn't exist. Confused

0 Replies

It's been happening to everyone - on the Announcements page, it says A2K will be slow the next few days...

0 Replies

I think a good philosopher can relate to people using modern day situations in contrast to ancient rules of thumb. If your handy with both aspects of culture then you can point these things out using your index finger for punctuation.

0 Replies

Good to hear it's not my newly installed firewall that's acting up..

0 Replies

Fresco

I expect experts in some of the natural sciences to advise us on global warming, I expect experts in the science of economics to advise us in matters of economics, believers expect preachers and priests to advise them in matters of morality, non believers expect philosophers to advise them in matters of morality, I expect teachers to advise us in matters of education, I expect generals to advise us how to fight war, etc.

Philosophers are experts in matters of what is real, how to think coherently, morality, etc. The conclusions of philosophers permeate everything we think and thus everything we do. I guess all of our fundamental ideas of what is ?'true' are grounded in the theories of some philosopher. When we reason, i.e. draw conclusions from a set of facts, we are standing on the shoulders of Aristotle.

Independent thinking that is grounded in knowledge is great and must be done. However if we blithely ignore experts we fly off into the blue without any guidance.

0 Replies

Frank

I expect experts in some of the natural sciences to advise us on global warming, I expect experts in the science of economics to advise us in matters of economics, believers expect preachers and priests to advise them in matters of morality, non believers expect philosophers to advise them in matters of morality, I expect teachers to advise us in matters of education, I expect generals to advise us how to fight war, etc.

Philosophers are experts in matters of what is real, how to think coherently, morality, etc. The conclusions of philosophers permeate everything we think and thus everything we do. I guess all of our fundamental ideas of what is ?'true' are grounded in the theories of some philosopher. When we reason, i.e. draw conclusions from a set of facts, we are standing on the shoulders of Aristotle.

Independent thinking that is grounded in knowledge is great and must be done. However if we blithely ignore experts we fly off into the blue without any guidance.

0 Replies

Coberst wrote:

Quote:

Frank

I expect experts in some of the natural sciences to advise us on global warming, I expect experts in the science of economics to advise us in matters of economics, believers expect preachers and priests to advise them in matters of morality, non believers expect philosophers to advise them in matters of morality, I expect teachers to advise us in matters of education, I expect generals to advise us how to fight war, etc.

Philosophers are experts in matters of what is real, how to think coherently, morality, etc. The conclusions of philosophers permeate everything we think and thus everything we do. I guess all of our fundamental ideas of what is ?'true' are grounded in the theories of some philosopher. When we reason, i.e. draw conclusions from a set of facts, we are standing on the shoulders of Aristotle.

Independent thinking that is grounded in knowledge is great and must be done. However if we blithely ignore experts we fly off into the blue without any guidance.

I assume you think all this is correct.

If sowhy are you not agreeing with me that the statement: It is a Philosophers job to tell people how to live.is bullshyt???

0 Replies

The business of philosophers is the acquisition of wisdom. Doctors of Philosophy in Philosophy are seldom much more than a repository of Philosophical writings. So called "philosophers" may be less entitled to the classification than the janitor who cleans up after you. Few philosophers are terribly successful, though they may be very influential. Some become wise and provide an example for us to follow. Some go to their graves unmarked and never known.

0 Replies

Coberst,

You seem to have little idea of what academic philosophers actually do. Most of the time they do not advise on anything but argue amongst themselves as to the nature of fundamental concepts such as "knowledge" (epistemology) "existence" (ontology) "morality" (ethics) etc. This "standing on the shoulders" is a naïve and misguided view of the paradigmatic and spasmodic progression within the philosophical literature.
The philosophical corpus is as much influenced by external cultural and scientific and mathematical developments as it is by its own incestuous debate. Such external "nourishment" from others is rightly recognized in my opinion by the awarding of the degree "Doctor of Philosophy" to those working at the limits of there own fields..

0 Replies

coberst, went back & read your answer. i'll comment on 2 passages:

coberst wrote:

This was a kind of informal sort of gee-wiz effort to convince the unbeliever that all creatures must categorize. A tadpole must be able to perceive and to conceive and this gee-wiz quote will give the novice some indication of why this capability is necessary. It represents the first step in a long journey of explanation as to why the ?'conceptual metaphor' might be the first paradigm of cognitive science.

if that was just the first step, it's going to take a long time for you to retrace the journey to its destination, correct? so i'll have to content myself with asking you for references. in the meantime, though, i'd like to know how you account for free will. since your original post asserted that philosopher's should tell people how to live, it implies that people can choose how to live.

Quote:

We are acculturated to recognize that a useful life is a life with purpose. The complex metaphor ?'A Purposeful Life Is a Journey' is constructed from primary metaphors: ?'purpose is destination' and ?'action is motion'; and a cultural belief that ?'people should have a purpose'.
.

i think i understand your example, but you've introduced a new concept, cultural belief, which you haven't explained. also, introducing culture complicates your earlier characterization that "human reason is a form of animal reason," does it not?

0 Replies

coberst wrote:

The conclusions of philosophers permeate everything we think and thus everything we do. I guess all of our fundamental ideas of what is ?'true' are grounded in the theories of some philosopher. When we reason, i.e. draw conclusions from a set of facts, we are standing on the shoulders of Aristotle.

That's quite a romanticized view of philosophers. It may be true that the mere act of reasoning means we are indebted to Aristotle, but this thread purports to be about "living life," and the act of reasoning doesn't even begin to approximate what "living life" involves. What's missing is what conclusions are being drawn--again, you demonstrate your lack of concern for specificity, for actual examples. "Living life" happens only when ideas are put into practice, and it's only through practice that these ideas can prove their merit. If "the act of reasoning" is the closest you can get to "living life," well, then it's no wonder you can believe as ardently as you seem to in the ideas you're presenting in this thread.

You put it best when you wrote:

Quote:

If you think in theories you cannot remove yourself from the makers of theories.

There was a time when a "theory" was a way of organizing one's observations. You're proceeding in the opposite direction: you're shaping your observations to fit the theory. "Thinking in theories" is another way of saying "letting theories do the thinking for you."

It is both the luxury and the curse of abstract philosophizing that it has no negative repercussions: when you hover so high above the real world, anything goes because you've turned your back on testing. This is what enabled you to write "I guess all of our fundamental ideas of what is ?'true' are grounded in the theories of some philosopher" and then immediately treat it like a statement of fact, on which your entire argument rests.

To ensconce oneself in the world of abstraction is certainly safer, but it also means absolutely nothing is at stake; you gain as little as you lose. If that's a trade-off you're willing to make, more power to you; but as you aptly point out, if this is your default mode then it's very difficult to get out of.

0 Replies

It's a philosopher's job to tell people how to live

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know