Gripes about philosophy or philosophocology: what's your beef?

[Mark]

I've noticed some criticism of philosophy here, some of which I share and some which I don't.  That was my undergraduate major but that doesn't mean I'm here to defend it.  But I can assure you the philosophic methods course I took my first quarter devoted no attention to identifying the hamburger button, naval gazing or obfuscating.  So at least some of what you hear is not true, even though it does draw some 'special' students.  In that introductory course groups of two students were each paired with a grad student teaching assistant or T.A. and given extra weekly writing assignments.  Copies of said assignments had to given to the other student and the T.A., Paul, in advance of our weekly meeting.  My partner, a double major in philosophy and art, didn't get his to me in advance but instead brought to the second meeting something he'd constructed out of legos.  I shit you not.  The T.A. and I sort of bonded over that since I helped him sort the other student out a little.  The T.A. was a big fan of Wittgenstein and thought philosophizing was a disease to be overcome.  On some of my papers he'd circle bits which he regarded as philosophizing.  Amusingly, when I graduated I was done with the subject.  Paul went on to be a professor of philosophy, the poor bastard.  

When discussions here take a turn in that direction, no one actually engaged in that conversation is impressed if you point and sputter "unclean, unclean".  So how about just telling us how you really feel about it here and then don't bother to point it out when you see it come up elsewhere.  You're entitled to your feelings and opinions but then, so are we.

*Oh yeah, you may not have heard of philosophocology.  it is to philosophy what musicology is to making music, art criticism is to studio art and what the study of literature is to writing.  Not seriously but essentially that is all that is encouraged at the university, an idea I just read in Pirsig's LILA and which I somewhat agree with.

[Alan V]

Religious philosophy and the philosophy of religion are two separate subjects.  Religious philosophy includes all of the philosophical arguments, from all the centuries of philosophers, which uphold religious assumptions.  The philosophy of religion assesses all of those religious philosophy arguments and comes up with a "not proven" verdict on all of them.

I point this out because I think it clearly illustrates how we can be talking about two different things, if not many more, in assessing philosophy.  Many philosophical arguments from what is really now the history of philosophy are outdated, as modern philosophers know very well themselves.  On the other hand, the study of the history of philosophy can be fascinating because we can explore the wide range of ideas which very smart people in different ages believed, even if later facts did not uphold their positions.

Modern philosophy is a box of thinking tools which can be applied to a wide range of topics, but even then its role is greatly reduced from ages past.  Such thinking tools are largely applied to new areas of research, where definitions and ideas need to be clarified up front (consciousness studies leaps to mind as a recent example).  Other areas of study are already well developed enough not to require philosophical treatments, since they are working from more-or-less settled ideas.

And that is the problem with philosophy.  People who read the old philosophers may think their ideas are still current and applicable, so they use them to support notions which are no longer supported by mainstream philosophers.  Such people confuse the history of philosophy with philosophy as a modern discipline.  This means many of the critiques of philosophy we read in our discussions are really criticisms of historical philosophical ideas which originated with later philosophers.

I hope that clarified a few important issues.  

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'll just back out quietly.

[Chimp3]

Philosophy is not a way to discover hard truths about reality. That job is in the scientist's realm now. Some use philosophy as a way of proving "truths" such as creationism. That is bullshit. Dennett is interesting. He examines science and it's effects on society from a philosophers view. Logic will always be useful and probably should be considered a branch of mathematics. It's good for people to know that there were materialists among the ancient philosophers (The Atomists). Following the Atomist's teachings rather than those favored by the Popes and Mullahs might have saved us the Dark Ages. I guess this counts as a gripe about philosophy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've heard philosophy called "The Atheist's Religion."

[brewerb]

I find it boring, no offense.

[Szuchow]

I like Kołakowski, Walicki and Dennett but other than that I don't much care for philosophy. Well, except for occasional quote from Epicurus or reminding conservatives that they aren't all that conservative if they don't subscribe to Plato thoughts about writing put in Socrates mouth in Phaedrus

[Mark]

I'll just back out quietly.

Sure you don't want to at least spit in the spittoon?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"No philosopher ever emerged from a debate with more that he started with." Robert Anson Heinlein.

[Mark]

Religious philosophy and the philosophy of religion are two separate subjects.  Religious philosophy includes all of the philosophical arguments, from all the centuries of philosophers, which uphold religious assumptions.  The philosophy of religion assesses all of those religious philosophy arguments and comes up with a "not proven" verdict on all of them.

I point this out because I think it clearly illustrates how we can be talking about two different things, if not many more, in assessing philosophy.  Many philosophical arguments from what is really now the history of philosophy are outdated, as modern philosophers know very well themselves.  On the other hand, the study of the history of philosophy can be fascinating because we can explore the wide range of ideas which very smart people in different ages believed, even if later facts did not uphold their positions.

Modern philosophy is a box of thinking tools which can be applied to a wide range of topics, but even then its role is greatly reduced from ages past.  Such thinking tools are largely applied to new areas of research, where definitions and ideas need to be clarified up front (consciousness studies leaps to mind as a recent example).  Other areas of study are already well developed enough not to require philosophical treatments, since they are working from more-or-less settled ideas.

And that is the problem with philosophy.  People who read the old philosophers may think their ideas are still current and applicable, so they use them to support notions which are no longer supported by mainstream philosophers.  Such people confuse the history of philosophy with philosophy as a modern discipline.  This means many of the critiques of philosophy we read in our discussions are really criticisms of historical philosophical ideas which originated with later philosophers.

You are preaching to the choir.  Citing name brand philosophers to make a point so goes against the spirit of philosophy.  Anyone who does it should try another subject.  Perhaps it can be done to get a serious hearing for your own thoughts or place what you have to say in a context .. but to persuade.  Yuck.  Unclean!!!

I hope that clarified a few important issues.  

It did but what matters is that you feel better.  This thread is purely about how we feeeeeel about philosophy.  

[Mark]

"No philosopher ever emerged from a debate with more that he started with." Robert Anson Heinlein.

That is certainly true regarding philophocology but it you are actively engaged in philosophy, you are clarifying or possibly even discovering what it is you think.  That can very well open up new territory if you're doing it right.  (Almost nobody does at the university.)

[Mark]

I find it boring, no offense.

As a spectator sport, so do I.  But when it's your turn .. it can be like mountain climbing.  Without the worry about frostbite.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"No philosopher ever emerged from a debate with more that he started with." Robert Anson Heinlein.

That is certainly true regarding philophocology but it you are actively engaged in philosophy, you are clarifying or possibly even discovering what it is you think.  That can very well open up new territory if you're doing it right.  (Almost nobody does at the university.)

University (Purdue) was where I was least able to escape "philosophers", mostly sophomores. I did encourage them to hope to see the next dawn, but they didn't always listen.

[Mark]

I've heard philosophy called "The Atheist's Religion."

If so I've never heard any, only atheist apologetics which is always disappointing.

[Mark]

"No philosopher ever emerged from a debate with more that he started with." Robert Anson Heinlein.

That is certainly true regarding philophocology but it you are actively engaged in philosophy, you are clarifying or possibly even discovering what it is you think.  That can very well open up new territory if you're doing it right.  (Almost nobody does at the university.)

University (Purdue) was where I was least able to escape "philosophers", mostly sophomores. I did encourage them to hope to see the next dawn, but they didn't always listen.

Sometimes you just got to do what you got to do.  Straighten them right out.

[Dānu]

"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

[julep]

How I feeeel about philosophy: interesting, sometimes thought provoking, but ultimately of little utility until philosophers start integrating deeply with other disciplines like neurology, biology, sociology, etc.  If philosophers really start thinking about us as primates, the way we actually make decisions, etc., that will be relevant and something I want to follow.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Throw them out of a window on the top floor of Witherill.

[Alan V]

This thread is purely about how we feeeeeel about philosophy.

That's like asking how I feel about my father, and the answer is much the same.  He tried really hard, but his self-doubt, odd ideas, and lack of communication skills made him difficult to sort out.  So I'm highly conflicted about my father's influences on me.

[Mark]

This thread is purely about how we feeeeeel about philosophy.

That's like asking how I feel about my father, and the answer is much the same.  He tried really hard, but his self-doubt, odd ideas, and lack of communication skills made him difficult to sort out.  So I'm highly conflicted about my father's influences on me.

Mine was almost incapable of using words for a number of reasons.  But at least he had no means to suck me into his religion.  So I never had to fight my way out of church.  Guess I got off easy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was raised in an areligious household. None of the god-bothering I ran into later got my attention.

[Mark]

"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

I know that's a fact!

Wait ..

[Mark]

I was raised in an areligious household. None of the god-bothering I ran into later got my attention.

What to hell happened to your cousins?  Then again, what happened to mine?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was raised in an areligious household. None of the god-bothering I ran into later got my attention.

What to hell happened to your cousins?  Then again, what happened to mine?

My cousins were raised in the deep South. My family moved to Indiana before I started school. AND the Y-donor was about as antisocial as you could get. Would go to church, too many people who might want to talk to him. They tried sending me and my brother to Sunday School, but the fact that both parents didn't get out of bed informed me of the real status there.

[Minimalist]

I find it boring, no offense.

I find it pointless.  Word salad without dressing.