Should ordinary people ask philosophic questions ?

[honestrosewater]

It's not a matter of complexity, it's a matter of discipline.

Well, there can be undisciplined thinkers in both math and philosophy, or rather, undisciplined thinkers who like to think that they are doing math or philosophy. But both math and philosophy require logical arguments, so I don't see your point if it's something else.

My point was that I think they are the same in being just play with words.

Let's put it this way: mathematics doesn't tell you anything about anything, except about mathematics itself. When you learn that 2+2=4, it's up to you to answer the question "two and two what?". So whether math is pointless or not is up to you; mathematicians do not worry about that question.

Philosophy, on the other hand, tries to tell you not only what but also why and how, but philosophers do not have the discipline to do it, so all they manage to come up with are wild guesses which completely lack any solid foundation.

Do you include, say, Aristotle in that group of undisciplined philosophers? If so, do you have an example of an argument of his that you consider to be sloppy? He is one of the most disciplined thinkers that I have ever encountered (and I have studied a decent amount of logic and math), so I'd like to see one.

Can you give any examples of these bad philosophers?

And what about logic -- the very thing that makes math disciplined, no? You don't consider logic to be part of philosophy? It historically has been, for what it's worth, in the West, at least.

More to your point, I think, the difference that you point out seems to be in the application of philosophical theories. In the same sense, if you choose to add such an interpretation or application to them, mathematical theories can do the same thing. It's your choice in how you apply the theories of either field, though I suppose philosophical theories are usually intended to have such applications, whereas math has largely separated itself from all that physical messiness.

 

[kant]

Should ordinary people ask philosophic questions ? Can ordinary people ask philosophical questions, or will it requre some certain kind of education or authorization to ask the proper questions the right way ?

How should philosophical be asked ? Would'nt the best solution be to leave such problems to the professionals ? Would'nt asking such questions for people without a professional background be a waste of time ?

How can philosophy be learned ? Would'nt the best idea be to just learn the history of philosophy as most questions has allready been asked before ?

Would'nt then a person with some education on the subject "the history of philosophy" be a philosopher ?

By the way, what is philosophy and what is a philosopher ?

What about the autorities of philosophy, can they be questined, or will it be more wise to admit that the authorities of philosophy is so much smarter than you, so you should rather trust them than your own judgement ?

What about Immanuel Kant, is it possible to question his ideas ? Would'nt it be a bit stupid to question Kant and believe that you are smarter than him ?

What about nowliving authorities about philosophy, that you have going around you. Can they be trusted ? Who are the authorities of philosophy ?

If you ask philosophical questions, can you then expect to get answers ?

If not, would'nt it then be bether and more practical to go to the doctor and get pills to take away the philosophical questions ? Would'nt that solve those questions as good as any other method ?

Is answer to philosophic questions important ? Is is adviceable or a good idea to live your life without answer to philosophical questions ?

Which one should be answered and which one should not ? How can they be answered ?

To me, learning philosophy is like learn math or physics. You need some level of understanding from books. There is really no excuse, there there libraries or amazon.com

 

[AsianSensationK]

Wow. That's a lot of questions. Although, they're all good, and finding answers to them will provide insight into the nature of philosophy.

Reflecting on it, I'm surprised at how much of philosophy isn't necessarily about answering questions, but about working within the various paradoxes, contradictions, and general problems that arise in well... all of experience. It's not so much about figuring out the precise nature of everything, but more about shaping your thinking and thought process within a particular framework (At least it seems that way to me).

As such, ordinary people should ask philosophical questions. However, their inquiry might be more fruitful if they learned some of the basics of philosophy, like logic, and studied the history of philosophy. That way, they can be much more precise with their questions.

 

[Langbein]

To me, learning philosophy is like learn math or physics. You need some level of understanding from books. There is really no excuse, there there libraries or amazon.com

Is there any books about philosophy at amazon.com ?

Which one ?

I would say that most of the books I have read the last 30 years that have claimed to be about philosophy, they have not really been about philosophy, but rather about something else. (and obviosly they did not help.)


As I would see it learning philosophy or anything about philosophy is more like delearning math and delearning physics, and to understand that there is quite different ways of thinking that those used in math and physics.

 

[Langbein]

As such, ordinary people should ask philosophical questions. However, their inquiry might be more fruitful if they learned some of the basics of philosophy, like logic, and studied the history of philosophy. That way, they can be much more precise with their questions.

Why is it required to learn "logic" to understand philosophy ?

Of cource I do basically agree in what you say, but there is also a trap.

To adapt "philosophy as thought in classes" in a to high degree might also lead away the focus from the real philosophy to more something like retelleing the history of philosophy.

 

[honestrosewater]

As I would see it learning philosophy or anything about philosophy is more like delearning math and delearning physics, and to understand that there is quite different ways of thinking that those used in math and physics.

What do you have to unlearn about math, and why?

 

[honestrosewater]

Why is it required to learn "logic" to understand philosophy ?

They didn't seem to say that it was required.

You use a logic whenever you make a philosophical argument. By definition, your argument takes place in a language. A logic for the language tells you which arguments are acceptable. Without the logic, you can't tell which arguments are (minimally) acceptable, and what you are doing cannot be called philosophy by any normal meaning of the word.

I have to say also that you seem to want to strip every deductive system down to nothing, as if that will help you deduce things that are more universal or something. All you are doing is reducing what you can derive at all. Having rules or a complex system does not reduce the things that you can derive, as there is not only a single system. You are stuck inside of a system anyway. Tearing each of them to shreds is not going to do you any good. It is not constructive. You are just destroying things. And you are just destroying sand castles at that. Am I wrong? Did I misunderstand your point or goal here?

Also, in this particular forum, there are guidelines, which you agreed to follow before posting here, about what counts as an acceptable argument, so you can't just jump around randomly or ask grossly ill-defined questions.

 

[Langbein]

Why is it required to learn "logic" to understand philosophy ?

Exuse me for this one. As I can see in the definitions/explanations in Wikipedia that "logic" is concidered to be a part of the dicipline "philosophy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

This will not neccesarly mean that "logic" is a part of philosophy or that "logic" is required as a "basic building block" or as a "fundament" for the other "diciplines" related to the common term "philosophy".

On the other hand it will allways be more practical to let words mean the same and to have the same content and meaning as they have for most people.

 

[Langbein]

What do you have to unlearn about math, and why?

Because math is generally a logical stringent system while "the real world" has some elements of irrationality.

Because of these properties with "the world" a "philosophical system" or a way of "thinking" that is able to describe "the world" as a whole and not only as "parts of logical structures" that will not fit togheter unless you build in a way of dealing with the more "irrational parts of the world".

The interresting question is then "how can irrational locical stuctures" be handeled with and dealth with in such a way that they still will fit togeter in a reasonable way.

One more interesting question that follows from that first one is: "If one logical structure is irrational, how can it then be reasonable".

As "the world" has some elements of irrationality human thinking that shuold try to understand "the world" will also have to contain two components, the stright forward logical thinking and also this other element of irrationality.

I think that the application of AI and computer based logic is a rather interresing application of technologi as this technology is rather well suited to demonstrate that logical deductive reasoning can be bether done by machines than by humans. On the other hand computers are not wery clever to perform "irrational thinking" or to chain toghether "logical structures" that will not fit together as "logical structures" by first try.

Actually my belief is that the capability of handling irrational situations in a reasonable way is a more fundamental property of the human mind than doing logical deductive reasoning.

Also I believe that in its deapest nature the human mind and the human thinking is irrational and that this capability of irrationality is the basis for the free will and the free thaught.

On the other side machine based thinking or "logical deductive machines" will be without this capability of "reasonable irrationality" so there will be no free will and no free thaught.

Philosophy or human thinking also deals with breaking the logical structures in a reasonable way. Mathematics does not do that.

 

[honestrosewater]

This will not neccesarly mean that "logic" is a part of philosophy or that "logic" is required as a "basic building block" or as a "fundament" for the other "diciplines" related to the common term "philosophy".

Right, but there is not only one single logic. There are several options. And you use a logic whenever you make arguments in a language. You cannot avoid it. But if you don't specify which logic you are using, or if you use a "bad" logic, then, well, I doubt that you will make many friends or have any constructive discussions, arguments, etc.

On the other hand it will allways be more practical to let words mean the same and to have the same content and meaning as they have for most people.

Why? Not being explicit and precise about the meaning of words is one of the biggest headaches in philosophy.

 

[honestrosewater]

Because math is generally a logical stringent system while "the real world" has some elements of irrationality.
[snip]
On the other side machine based thinking or "logical deductive machines" will be without this capability of "reasonable irrationality" so there will be no free will and no free thaught.

... what is irrationality?

Philosophy or human thinking also deals with breaking the logical structures in a reasonable way. Mathematics does not do that.

What do you get when you break a logical structure? Who says that you can't get another logical structure? Have you even said what a logical structure is?

 

[Langbein]

I have to say also that you seem to want to strip every deductive system down to nothing, as if that will help you deduce things that are more universal or something. All you are doing is reducing what you can derive at all. Having rules or a complex system does not reduce the things that you can derive, as there is not only a single system. You are stuck inside of a system anyway. Tearing each of them to shreds is not going to do you any good. It is not constructive. You are just destroying things. And you are just destroying sand castles at that. Am I wrong? Did I misunderstand your point or goal here?

The intention was and still is just to build up or collect together a few logical structures,- doing some "existencial modelling" to say it like that.

The idea was just to do this by collecting a one houndred common questions, or so, and then to try to work out answers in such a way that they all will fit together as a more or less consitent structure.

The idea was/is then to collect the pairs of questions/answers on a common web page that will be open for further discussions.

If questions is not well formed please feel free to reformulate them.

 

[AsianSensationK]

Why is it required to learn "logic" to understand philosophy ?

Of cource I do basically agree in what you say, but there is also a trap.

To adapt "philosophy as thought in classes" in a to high degree might also lead away the focus from the real philosophy to more something like retelleing the history of philosophy.

I consider it more of a tool than anything.

Logic isn't necessarily required, but it will help immensely. It helps you understand how previous thinkers have built and structured their arguments, and provides you with insight into how to structure your own.

It is one of those things that's pretty useful when you think about it, isn't it? A system which can help you preserve truth between sentences... It's like it keeps you from getting lost.

It'd probably be correct to call it a requirement in a field like pure-mathematics. Philosophy's a little more open though.

 

[Langbein]

... what is irrationality?

What do you get when you break a logical structure? Who says that you can't get another logical structure? Have you even said what a logical structure is?

Yes, I guess that you normally will get a new logical structure. On the other hand the new logical structure might not be longer lasting than the first one.

Practicing free will and the creativity might be to break the logical structures all the time.

"Have you even said what a logical structure is ?" No, but as mathematics and physics and deductive systems has been mentioned I think it is understood.

"What is irrationality" Creativity and the free will is based on the principle of breaking the locical rules as they are, at first sight, and to try to see situations and objects from different sides and from different point of views.

The prosess of replacing ane logical modell that is dealing with a situation with another logical modell that will fit bether with the situation might not be based on the same rules as mathematics. This prosess of applying different logical models or structures on reality might be a completely irrational process.

 

[honestrosewater]

Practicing free will and the creativity might be to break the logical structures all the time.

Have you ever seen http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/" ? I don't have much to say about it, but you just reminded me of it.

"Have you even said what a logical structure is ?" No, but as mathematics and physics and deductive systems has been mentioned I think it is understood.

Oh, yes, fair enough. Well, a logic, by one view, is just a relation, so "breaking" one can certainly get you another.

"What is irrationality" Creativity and the free will is based on the principle of breaking the locical rules as they are, at first sight, and to try to see situations and objects from different sides and from different point of views.

The prosess of replacing ane logical modell that is dealing with a situation with another logical modell that will fit bether with the situation might not be based on the same rules as mathematics. This prosess of applying different logical models or structures on reality might be a completely irrational process.

I, personally, wouldn't put any limitations on math or logic as disciplines, and I wouldn't put any limits on language as far as expressive power, but you can do as you like. I hope to actually write a poet someday, i.e., a program that can generate poetry of the same, or better, quality as that of any human. So I do not doubt the possibilities of computation by default or think that humans are anything too special.

 

[raolduke]

Why did this thread end up like this? There are few that post on this side of the forum that don't constantly create arguments.. I am not saying that argument is destructive but a thread loses direction very quickly. If you do happen to read this, try to correct someone rather than picking a part someone's post.

 

[honestrosewater]

Why did this thread end up like this?

End up like what?

There are few that post on this side of the forum that don't constantly create arguments.. I am not saying that argument is destructive but a thread loses direction very quickly.

Haha, I'm not complaining, but if you look at the OP, the thread started with about a dozen directions. And it seems to still be talking about doing philosophy.

If you do happen to read this, try to correct someone rather than picking a part someone's post.

I think I share the sentiment, but why can't that also be a way of "correcting"? I don't know why presuming to correct someone should be preferred to asking them questions about their claims or thoughts.

Also, if you don't know what someone is talking about, if you do not understand each other's terms, what can you do except ask questions and try to tease out a definition? Is there another way?

 

[raolduke]

Thank you honestrosewater.

It seems very hard for an "ordinary person" to ask a question of someone who is of "higher intelligence" without having to consult a dictionary.

Could this be a case of "Master vs. Slave Morality"?

 

[Huckleberry]

I think if the person were really intelligent they would understand a question that didn't use big words. If they only respond to questions asked in technical jargon then it seems very much like vanity to me. They should also be able to simplify their answers so the questioner can understand as much as they are able, rather than confusing them with terms the intelligent person suspects they will not understand. On the other hand, someone seeking answers shouldn't be too put out if they need to educate themselves on the meanings of a few words. Either way, it is the communication that is the important thing, not the egos involved.

Yes, people should ask philosophical questions. I wouldn't accept and apply someone's belief to my life without question. Anyone should ask questions. It's the answers that people should be careful about giving.

 

[raolduke]

Exactly. In my opinion, labeling someone as being "intelligent" is very negative. Everyone operates on different levels and most people have personal problems.

You will never be able to fully understand a book just by reading it

 

[raolduke]

Perfect example of how I feel about this topic is my love for "Modest Mouse". If you don't like their music atleast read their lyrics.

 

[Langbein]

Thank you honestrosewater.

It seems very hard for an "ordinary person" to ask a question of someone who is of "higher intelligence" without having to consult a dictionary.

Could this be a case of "Master vs. Slave Morality"?

Well, I think a master, at least a master of philosophy, would know the difference between atacking arguments and attacking persons, but possibly it might be some different kind of "masters".

 

[Langbein]

Back to the original question:

"Should ordinary people ask philosophic questions ?"

What is then philosphy, and what is philosophic quesions ? OK then, let's look in Wikipedia to see wat at least some pople agree on at the moment:

"Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

If practising philosophy is to ask questions to find out the most important things in life, how to live the right way, how to do the right dessitions and so on, would it then be adviceable to leave those questions to some far away expert that don't know my life at all ?

If ordinary people has their own moral, their own beliefs and their own direction in life who will that treaten ? Why should anybody se it as something negative or something treatening that "ordinary people" has their own meaning and direction of life ?

 

[raolduke]

The lead singer of Modest Mouse could be described as a normal person.. Read his lyrics and then maybe it would give alittle light to what "ordinary".

 

[Langbein]

I have to admit that I have never heard about "Modest Mouse" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modest_Mouse

Quite interresting - I see the title of one of their albums:

"We Were Dead Before the Ship Even Sank"

Well, why leave the living or "to be allive" to the experts ?

.. Unless the experts are.. who ?

 

[Smurf]

Could this be a case of "Master vs. Slave Morality"?

I don't think that's quite what Nietzsche was getting at

 

[Smurf]

Exactly. In my opinion, labeling someone as being "intelligent" is very negative. Everyone operates on different levels and most people have personal problems.

Exactly, take me for example, I'm ****ing brilliant, but in the last two weeks I havn't talked to a single person who wasn't
1. my roomate, or
2. my co-worker/boss.

great minds don't burn out, they just fix their personal problems.

 

[Smurf]

Back to the original question:

"Should ordinary people ask philosophic questions ?"

What is then philosphy, and what is philosophic quesions ? OK then, let's look in Wikipedia to see wat at least some pople agree on at the moment:

"Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

If practising philosophy is to ask questions to find out the most important things in life, how to live the right way, how to do the right dessitions and so on, would it then be adviceable to leave those questions to some far away expert that don't know my life at all ?

If ordinary people has their own moral, their own beliefs and their own direction in life who will that treaten ? Why should anybody se it as something negative or something treatening that "ordinary people" has their own meaning and direction of life ?

Aristotle wrote a great book, the 'Nichomachean ethics'. Which was basically a guide to how to live a good life. Unfortunately, he didn't actually write it, it was compiled from lecture notes from his son Nicomacheus, hense the name. Also, it was written 2500 years ago, so isn't exactly an easy read from a modern context. I think it would be totally sweet if someone attempted to basically re-write that, or write their own - whatever, today, so that your average person could understand it. Because the only reason I think most people are in capable of understanding philosophy is because no one's putting into a familiar context for them, you have to understand soooo much history just to get Aristotle, Locke, etc,. And they're the easy ones, don't even get me started on Hegel or Kierkegaard.

 

[Langbein]

Aristotle wrote a great book, the 'Nichomachean ethics'.

At lest something I can agree on :-) (As I like to have my own opinion about most things.)

This was one of the first books on philosophy I read as a teenager. It has been in my bookshelf ever since then.

The thing that allmost shocked me at that time at 17, was how such a famous person like Aristoteles could write such a easy and available language, that anyone can understand.

I think this book really made me ask myself for the first time: Is it really true that the world is moving forward and that there really is something called "development", or is this just an illusion ?

I can't say anything else that this book should be highly recomended for anyone.

While speaking about Aristoteles do you know some books or some texts that is more directly after Aristoteles than this one ? I believed that this was the closest.

 

[Langbein]

Kierkegaard.

That was one of the other great heroes of the teenage years.

Not as easy as Aristoteles.

Professor Dreyfus of Berkeley does an exelent job while explaining Kierkegaard and also sets him into a relationship with some other philosophers.

I think that the freely avalable podcasts of his lessons can be recomended for anyone that would like to know sometbing about Kierkegaard or about philosophy in general.

Even for those who knows Kierkegaard already I think that there might be new ways to see things. (At lest it was like that for me.)

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978306

Here is one about more general philosophy:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978407