I don't agree that philosophy can only be about “what we mean by the word.” This puts philosophy in the realm of the subjective. But whether, e.g., God exists, is not a question of “what we mean,” it’s a question of whether he exists apart from what we mean. What distinguishes this question from empirical study is that it's not a matter of direct observation but is argued from and through reason alone, i.e. inference; albeit it does begin with observations such as “We see that things are in motion” and “some things are more perfect than others.”
I agree that philosophy isn’t something that can be built upon, due to changes in people’s interests. The things people argue about change as their understanding of reality changes. The things they think about and in which they are interested change, so many past arguments hold little interest to people in the present, and it's hard for them to see the practical use in studying them. Nevertheless they are, and have been, of enormous consequence in all of our lives, IMHO.
I don't think philosophy is in the realm of the subjective. It is as imprecise as the concepts it studies, but it is objective. It clarifies how concepts are actually used and points at consistencies and inconsistencies between those concepts. For example, philosophy explores the compatibility of concepts like “God” and “free will”. A question like “Can God and free will exist at the same time?” is a question about the objective contents of the concepts of God and free will. Or let's take a modern philosophical question, “What is a woman?”. Objectively people mean something when they say “woman”. Good philosophy summarizes what people mean when they talk, making concepts clearer. Bad philosophy comes with definitions that do not match what people actually mean when they talk, causing confusion. I think it all means that philosophy is in the realm of the objective.
I don't think “does God exist?” is a purely philosophical question. Partially it is a scientific question like “do elks exist?” or “does the Loch Ness monster exist?” If we want to know if something, for example God/elks/the Loch Ness monster exists, we first collect all the data we can on the existence of God/elks/the Loch Ness monster. Something like this:
Do Elks exist?
Many people have seen them
There are numerous high-quality photos and films
Does the Loch Ness monster exist?
Some people say they have seen it
There are some low-quality photos
Does God exist?
The world is marvelous
People hear the voice of God inside them
(Everyone adds their own observation)
When we evaluate empirical evidence like this, are we doing science or are we doing philosophy? Or are we doing something in between? I must admit I don't know, really.
'For example, philosophy explores the compatibility of concepts like “God” and “free will”. A question like “Can God and free will exist at the same time?” is a question about the objective contents of the concepts of God and free will.'
Along those lines, it seems to me you could say that the study of disease is the study of concepts like "health" and "illness" and what we mean by them. Which I think it largely is. It occurred to me while writing my comment yesterday (but I didn't indulge the urge to include it) that the way we argue in favor of God's existence and the way we interpret the results of empirical observations are basically the same. I said something like, "the difference is that we can't observe God directly." But there are all sorts of things which we never see, yet we nonetheless infer (in the practice of science) from observation that they exist, or that they behave in this way and not that way.
When an empirical study or an experiment is done, and a report is written, the authors draw conclusions about what they observed, while also explaining why other conclusions are unwarranted. "We find a correlation between taking vitamin X and better ear health, yet we must recall that 'correlation is not causation,'" which latter statement is a logical argument.
It's not a new idea, of course, but I'll just observe that empirical science rests on the foundation of philosophical realism. We assume that the things we observe are not mere phantasms, and rely, in our conclusions, on the axiom that a law that works in one place works in every place. Yet I've never seen a modern philosopher who argued against realism accused of being anti-science.
The last thing I want to say, which is something else I refrained from saying previously, is that the philosophy of one age does build on the philosophy that came before. Not in the sense of placing one brick upon another with the goal of erecting a unified edifice, but in the sense that the philosophy of one age develops from that of a previous age. I've argued in the past that liberalism is an outgrowth of Protestantism, because the latter introduced the idea of private judgment in religious matters, which was then (it appears) adopted as a principle of Western politics, that we're all entitled to our opinions, and have the right to express them. But it's a mistake to trace these things back to the Reformation and stop there. The Reformation didn't arise in a vacuum; rather the premises on which Calvin and Luther based their arguments were those they assumed people would accept, and which they did accept. By the same token our modern argument over the question "What is a woman?" didn't abruptly appear fully formed, but gained the status of a legitimate question based on concessions previously made.
I think it's important to have philosophers around to monitor the flow of modern thought and to police the borders, so to speak; by which I mean, not to arrest those who think wrongly, but at least to catch them at it and make them defend it, and not just let them run amok and ruin all our lives.
It was a very interesting post that started this conversation and I thank you for the opportunity to respond. You and your husband have a knack for seeing things from certain angles that the rest of us seem to miss, which together with your good writing makes yours one of the most interesting and enjoyable blogs out there. Best wishes for your future success.
> I think it's important to have philosophers around to monitor the flow of modern thought and to police the borders, so to speak; by which I mean, not to arrest those who think wrongly, but at least to catch them at it and make them defend it, and not just let them run amok and ruin all our lives.
How do you plan to _catch_ them and _make_ them _defend_—as judged by you, I suppose—anything without arresting them? Is it different in any practical sense from what the Inquisition was supposed to do?
I really believe some things should be left unwoken.
Philosophers challenging other philosophers is how you conceive of the Inquisition? Interesting. You must really hate having to defend your ideas. But don't worry, I would only challenge those in positions of power and influence. The little people can think whatever they want.
> Philosophers challenging other philosophers is how you conceive of the Inquisition?
I never said that. Would you mind answering my questions?:
> How do you plan to _catch_ them and _make_ them _defend_—as judged by you, I suppose—anything without arresting them? Is it different in any practical sense from what the Inquisition was supposed to do?
> You must really hate having to defend your ideas.
Quite ironic coming from someone who’s just refused to defend his ideas to me.
> But don't worry, I would only challenge those in positions of power and influence.
So which is it? Philosophers or those in positions of power and influence?
> The little people can think whatever they want.
And the big people won’t need your permission to think whatever they want. They can avoid your questions, put words in your mouth and dismiss you in a show of status just as easily as you’re doing to me.
Honestly I have no idea what we're arguing about. Though I do note that you've caught me "thinking wrongly" (as you suppose) and are trying to make me defend it. Without anyone getting arrested. So maybe it can be done?
>>Yet I've never seen a modern philosopher who argued against realism accused of being anti-science.
Probably that is because few people take philosophers seriously.
>>"What is a woman?" didn't abruptly appear fully formed, but gained the status of a legitimate question based on concessions previously made.
Yup. “One is not born, but rather becomes a woman” /Simone de Beauvoir, 1949.
>>I think it's important to have philosophers around to monitor the flow of modern thought and to police the borders, so to speak; by which I mean, not to arrest those who think wrongly, but at least to catch them at it and make them defend it, and not just let them run amok and ruin all our lives.
Amen to that!
And thank you for the encouragement. It's great to finally get the opportunity to discuss my old ideas.
I like the question of why mathematics builds on itself better than philosophy, and I agree with the gist of what you are saying. However, I would quibble that mathematics is not just numbers, but extreme abstraction.
When we model something with math, we have to ignore a lot of details. Ignore the right details and you can get something very useful.
One problem I have with some philosophy is that it isn’t always honest about the implications of the abstractions/simplifications they make. Utilitarianism is a good example. To add up agent-independent utility you have to create some new concept that isn’t exactly like ‘good’ in all of its complexity. Then you do math-like reasoning and end up with something that seems really not good. But of course you do, because utility is an extreme simplification.
I like your model where the task of philosophy is to grapple with concepts that emerge as life/society/information environment evolve. But philosophy isn’t twitter (or even journalism). It operates on the concepts that emerge from new fact patterns.
I have been thinking a lot lately about the role of philosophy as a destructive force--it sees through the things society treats as sacred right down to the weakness and corruption of prevailing social norms. This of course undermines those norms and destabilizes society.
So I ask myself what is the relationship between philosophy as developing new conceptual connections/heuristics and philosophy destroying old norms.
>>One problem I have with some philosophy is that it isn’t always honest about the implications of the abstractions/simplifications they make. Utilitarianism is a good example. To add up agent-independent utility you have to create some new concept that isn’t exactly like ‘good’ in all of its complexity. Then you do math-like reasoning and end up with something that seems really not good. But of course you do, because utility is an extreme simplification.
I agree. All philosophy is not good philosophy. To the contrary. A lot of philosophy builds on flawed definitions. Utilitarianism assumes that "good" means "increases utility", but most people wouldn't agree on that basic definition: "Improves community" is a better definition of "good". And if the basic definition is bad, every calculation that stems from it will be bad.
>>I have been thinking a lot lately about the role of philosophy as a destructive force--it sees through the things society treats as sacred right down to the weakness and corruption of prevailing social norms. This of course undermines those norms and destabilizes society.
I have thought of that too. And not only old norms - philosophy is also a weapon against fashionable bullshit. The philosophical question "what is a woman?" wasn't a question 20 years ago because everyone thought that "man" and "woman" were clear enough concepts. Then it became fashionable to use those concepts differently, and a philosophical debate was initiated.
Reflecting on Tove's post and considering my own journey with philosophy, I find the exploration of truth across mathematics, physics, and philosophy deeply resonant. As an 81-year-old retired ChE, my initial encounter with philosophy during my college years, especially with a challenging German professor, left me somewhat disconnected from the subject. However, my interest was rekindled through engaging with modern platforms like YouTube and podcasts, particularly those by John Vervaeke and Sean Carroll.
This personal journey mirrors the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of truth-finding in these fields. In mathematics, the formalism of symbols and processes leads to undecidable statements within certain axiomatic systems. In physics, fields like quantum mechanics present fundamental limits to empirical knowledge. Philosophy, with its focus on language and conceptual analysis, navigates its own undecidables, delving into areas beyond empirical reach.
The collaborative nature of truth-finding in these disciplines underscores the importance of diverse perspectives. It's a multi-person, multi-disciplinary endeavor that allows for a more robust and nuanced understanding, acknowledging the limitations of individual disciplines while leveraging their collective strengths.
In essence, the pursuit of truth, whether in life or in mathematics, physics, or philosophy, is about the ongoing process of inquiry, collaboration, and the evolution of understanding. This dynamic and collective journey is at the heart of our intellectual endeavors. My experience, from initial skepticism to renewed interest and understanding through modern mediums, reflects the ever-evolving nature of our pursuit of knowledge.
As I conclude my thoughts, I'd like to extend a special acknowledgment to GPT-4 for its assistance in articulating these ideas. The strength of GPT-4 lies not just in its ability to generate text, but in its capacity to serve as a thinking assistant, enhancing the clarity and depth of my expressions. This tool has been instrumental in bridging the gap between my thoughts and their articulation, a skill I honed later in life. While I didn't learn to write effectively until I was 30 and still don't write nearly as well or as quickly as GPT-4, this technology has been a valuable ally in translating my complex ideas into coherent and articulate written form.
P.S.: I’ve also learned that I must proofread every response, as GPT-4, like any tool, is not infallible. For instance, it confused me with an alternate spelling of 'acknowledgment' in this very text, reminding me of the importance of a vigilant and discerning eye in the writing process.
I don't agree that philosophy can only be about “what we mean by the word.” This puts philosophy in the realm of the subjective. But whether, e.g., God exists, is not a question of “what we mean,” it’s a question of whether he exists apart from what we mean. What distinguishes this question from empirical study is that it's not a matter of direct observation but is argued from and through reason alone, i.e. inference; albeit it does begin with observations such as “We see that things are in motion” and “some things are more perfect than others.”
I agree that philosophy isn’t something that can be built upon, due to changes in people’s interests. The things people argue about change as their understanding of reality changes. The things they think about and in which they are interested change, so many past arguments hold little interest to people in the present, and it's hard for them to see the practical use in studying them. Nevertheless they are, and have been, of enormous consequence in all of our lives, IMHO.
Very interesting objections.
I don't think philosophy is in the realm of the subjective. It is as imprecise as the concepts it studies, but it is objective. It clarifies how concepts are actually used and points at consistencies and inconsistencies between those concepts. For example, philosophy explores the compatibility of concepts like “God” and “free will”. A question like “Can God and free will exist at the same time?” is a question about the objective contents of the concepts of God and free will. Or let's take a modern philosophical question, “What is a woman?”. Objectively people mean something when they say “woman”. Good philosophy summarizes what people mean when they talk, making concepts clearer. Bad philosophy comes with definitions that do not match what people actually mean when they talk, causing confusion. I think it all means that philosophy is in the realm of the objective.
I don't think “does God exist?” is a purely philosophical question. Partially it is a scientific question like “do elks exist?” or “does the Loch Ness monster exist?” If we want to know if something, for example God/elks/the Loch Ness monster exists, we first collect all the data we can on the existence of God/elks/the Loch Ness monster. Something like this:
Do Elks exist?
Many people have seen them
There are numerous high-quality photos and films
Does the Loch Ness monster exist?
Some people say they have seen it
There are some low-quality photos
Does God exist?
The world is marvelous
People hear the voice of God inside them
(Everyone adds their own observation)
When we evaluate empirical evidence like this, are we doing science or are we doing philosophy? Or are we doing something in between? I must admit I don't know, really.
'For example, philosophy explores the compatibility of concepts like “God” and “free will”. A question like “Can God and free will exist at the same time?” is a question about the objective contents of the concepts of God and free will.'
Along those lines, it seems to me you could say that the study of disease is the study of concepts like "health" and "illness" and what we mean by them. Which I think it largely is. It occurred to me while writing my comment yesterday (but I didn't indulge the urge to include it) that the way we argue in favor of God's existence and the way we interpret the results of empirical observations are basically the same. I said something like, "the difference is that we can't observe God directly." But there are all sorts of things which we never see, yet we nonetheless infer (in the practice of science) from observation that they exist, or that they behave in this way and not that way.
When an empirical study or an experiment is done, and a report is written, the authors draw conclusions about what they observed, while also explaining why other conclusions are unwarranted. "We find a correlation between taking vitamin X and better ear health, yet we must recall that 'correlation is not causation,'" which latter statement is a logical argument.
It's not a new idea, of course, but I'll just observe that empirical science rests on the foundation of philosophical realism. We assume that the things we observe are not mere phantasms, and rely, in our conclusions, on the axiom that a law that works in one place works in every place. Yet I've never seen a modern philosopher who argued against realism accused of being anti-science.
The last thing I want to say, which is something else I refrained from saying previously, is that the philosophy of one age does build on the philosophy that came before. Not in the sense of placing one brick upon another with the goal of erecting a unified edifice, but in the sense that the philosophy of one age develops from that of a previous age. I've argued in the past that liberalism is an outgrowth of Protestantism, because the latter introduced the idea of private judgment in religious matters, which was then (it appears) adopted as a principle of Western politics, that we're all entitled to our opinions, and have the right to express them. But it's a mistake to trace these things back to the Reformation and stop there. The Reformation didn't arise in a vacuum; rather the premises on which Calvin and Luther based their arguments were those they assumed people would accept, and which they did accept. By the same token our modern argument over the question "What is a woman?" didn't abruptly appear fully formed, but gained the status of a legitimate question based on concessions previously made.
I think it's important to have philosophers around to monitor the flow of modern thought and to police the borders, so to speak; by which I mean, not to arrest those who think wrongly, but at least to catch them at it and make them defend it, and not just let them run amok and ruin all our lives.
It was a very interesting post that started this conversation and I thank you for the opportunity to respond. You and your husband have a knack for seeing things from certain angles that the rest of us seem to miss, which together with your good writing makes yours one of the most interesting and enjoyable blogs out there. Best wishes for your future success.
> I think it's important to have philosophers around to monitor the flow of modern thought and to police the borders, so to speak; by which I mean, not to arrest those who think wrongly, but at least to catch them at it and make them defend it, and not just let them run amok and ruin all our lives.
How do you plan to _catch_ them and _make_ them _defend_—as judged by you, I suppose—anything without arresting them? Is it different in any practical sense from what the Inquisition was supposed to do?
I really believe some things should be left unwoken.
<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jl5Ul7fledM&pp=ygUYd2lzZSBtZW4gZmVhcmVkIHRvIHRyZWFk>
Philosophers challenging other philosophers is how you conceive of the Inquisition? Interesting. You must really hate having to defend your ideas. But don't worry, I would only challenge those in positions of power and influence. The little people can think whatever they want.
> Philosophers challenging other philosophers is how you conceive of the Inquisition?
I never said that. Would you mind answering my questions?:
> How do you plan to _catch_ them and _make_ them _defend_—as judged by you, I suppose—anything without arresting them? Is it different in any practical sense from what the Inquisition was supposed to do?
> You must really hate having to defend your ideas.
Quite ironic coming from someone who’s just refused to defend his ideas to me.
> But don't worry, I would only challenge those in positions of power and influence.
So which is it? Philosophers or those in positions of power and influence?
> The little people can think whatever they want.
And the big people won’t need your permission to think whatever they want. They can avoid your questions, put words in your mouth and dismiss you in a show of status just as easily as you’re doing to me.
Honestly I have no idea what we're arguing about. Though I do note that you've caught me "thinking wrongly" (as you suppose) and are trying to make me defend it. Without anyone getting arrested. So maybe it can be done?
>>Yet I've never seen a modern philosopher who argued against realism accused of being anti-science.
Probably that is because few people take philosophers seriously.
>>"What is a woman?" didn't abruptly appear fully formed, but gained the status of a legitimate question based on concessions previously made.
Yup. “One is not born, but rather becomes a woman” /Simone de Beauvoir, 1949.
>>I think it's important to have philosophers around to monitor the flow of modern thought and to police the borders, so to speak; by which I mean, not to arrest those who think wrongly, but at least to catch them at it and make them defend it, and not just let them run amok and ruin all our lives.
Amen to that!
And thank you for the encouragement. It's great to finally get the opportunity to discuss my old ideas.
I like the question of why mathematics builds on itself better than philosophy, and I agree with the gist of what you are saying. However, I would quibble that mathematics is not just numbers, but extreme abstraction.
When we model something with math, we have to ignore a lot of details. Ignore the right details and you can get something very useful.
One problem I have with some philosophy is that it isn’t always honest about the implications of the abstractions/simplifications they make. Utilitarianism is a good example. To add up agent-independent utility you have to create some new concept that isn’t exactly like ‘good’ in all of its complexity. Then you do math-like reasoning and end up with something that seems really not good. But of course you do, because utility is an extreme simplification.
I like your model where the task of philosophy is to grapple with concepts that emerge as life/society/information environment evolve. But philosophy isn’t twitter (or even journalism). It operates on the concepts that emerge from new fact patterns.
I have been thinking a lot lately about the role of philosophy as a destructive force--it sees through the things society treats as sacred right down to the weakness and corruption of prevailing social norms. This of course undermines those norms and destabilizes society.
So I ask myself what is the relationship between philosophy as developing new conceptual connections/heuristics and philosophy destroying old norms.
>>One problem I have with some philosophy is that it isn’t always honest about the implications of the abstractions/simplifications they make. Utilitarianism is a good example. To add up agent-independent utility you have to create some new concept that isn’t exactly like ‘good’ in all of its complexity. Then you do math-like reasoning and end up with something that seems really not good. But of course you do, because utility is an extreme simplification.
I agree. All philosophy is not good philosophy. To the contrary. A lot of philosophy builds on flawed definitions. Utilitarianism assumes that "good" means "increases utility", but most people wouldn't agree on that basic definition: "Improves community" is a better definition of "good". And if the basic definition is bad, every calculation that stems from it will be bad.
>>I have been thinking a lot lately about the role of philosophy as a destructive force--it sees through the things society treats as sacred right down to the weakness and corruption of prevailing social norms. This of course undermines those norms and destabilizes society.
I have thought of that too. And not only old norms - philosophy is also a weapon against fashionable bullshit. The philosophical question "what is a woman?" wasn't a question 20 years ago because everyone thought that "man" and "woman" were clear enough concepts. Then it became fashionable to use those concepts differently, and a philosophical debate was initiated.
Reflecting on Tove's post and considering my own journey with philosophy, I find the exploration of truth across mathematics, physics, and philosophy deeply resonant. As an 81-year-old retired ChE, my initial encounter with philosophy during my college years, especially with a challenging German professor, left me somewhat disconnected from the subject. However, my interest was rekindled through engaging with modern platforms like YouTube and podcasts, particularly those by John Vervaeke and Sean Carroll.
This personal journey mirrors the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of truth-finding in these fields. In mathematics, the formalism of symbols and processes leads to undecidable statements within certain axiomatic systems. In physics, fields like quantum mechanics present fundamental limits to empirical knowledge. Philosophy, with its focus on language and conceptual analysis, navigates its own undecidables, delving into areas beyond empirical reach.
The collaborative nature of truth-finding in these disciplines underscores the importance of diverse perspectives. It's a multi-person, multi-disciplinary endeavor that allows for a more robust and nuanced understanding, acknowledging the limitations of individual disciplines while leveraging their collective strengths.
In essence, the pursuit of truth, whether in life or in mathematics, physics, or philosophy, is about the ongoing process of inquiry, collaboration, and the evolution of understanding. This dynamic and collective journey is at the heart of our intellectual endeavors. My experience, from initial skepticism to renewed interest and understanding through modern mediums, reflects the ever-evolving nature of our pursuit of knowledge.
As I conclude my thoughts, I'd like to extend a special acknowledgment to GPT-4 for its assistance in articulating these ideas. The strength of GPT-4 lies not just in its ability to generate text, but in its capacity to serve as a thinking assistant, enhancing the clarity and depth of my expressions. This tool has been instrumental in bridging the gap between my thoughts and their articulation, a skill I honed later in life. While I didn't learn to write effectively until I was 30 and still don't write nearly as well or as quickly as GPT-4, this technology has been a valuable ally in translating my complex ideas into coherent and articulate written form.
P.S.: I’ve also learned that I must proofread every response, as GPT-4, like any tool, is not infallible. For instance, it confused me with an alternate spelling of 'acknowledgment' in this very text, reminding me of the importance of a vigilant and discerning eye in the writing process.
Well . . .
This essay seems to focus on epistemology - how we know and how to prove it.
Ontology is what exists.
Are humans chemical robots (Descartes) smarter animals (Darwin) or the image of God (Moses)?
Robots can’t have free will, animals don’t have free will, children of god have free will like him.
No free will, no ability to find truth.
See William James and Charles renouvier.
Also, remember Gödel showed arithmetic can’t be proved as consistent or complete.
Mathematics used by Plato as pattern.
After non-Euclidean geometry and quantum physics, mathematics can’t properly used as model.
Wigginstein finally turned to Jewish god at end.
Sobering
Thanks
Clay