Originality in Philosophy

[Burning ghost]

There are a number of things that I see repeated on philosophy forum that drive me crazy. When I read I like to read something, if not fresh, presented in a fresh and original way.

In Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language one of his rules is not to use stale idioms.

Here are some things I find stale:

- "strawman"
- "Ockham's razor", this is always said with a kind of finality.
- "reductio ad Hitlerium", basically dragging in some reference to Nazism as comparison to subject at hand.

What term in philosohy do you find of little use, often misleading or simply evading any kind of considered thought?

[Sy Borg]

"Sociobiology" uttered as a final statement of disregard of the idea that humans and other species do a lot of similar things. Used to drive me mad but the idea is much more widely accepted now than in the 90s.

My issue with "straw persons" is not the calling out of the behaviour but the behaviour itself. However, as is common with philosophy, the terms become cliched and lose their punch. So now you probably achieve more comprehension by describing the particulars.

Occam's Razor no problem but it is surely not the final word that some make out.

I think the calling of Godwin's Law largely put paid to Hitler claims aside from theists presenting as an atheist a man who believed himself to be divine.

I am bemused by all the years I've observed and participated in debates about the existence of God, spirits etc. Having had some interesting experiences and long been interested in NDEs I would personally love a theist to land a killer blow in debating me - to really make me wonder if they were on to something. So I press them to go into detail - to get to the nitty gritty about their claims to see if anything interesting comes out. Next minute I'm being castigated as a "materialist" :lol:

The behaviour of theists and religious organisations in society has been the biggest influence in me rejecting religion. People infused with love and peace simply don't interact in that way, certainly not in low stakes situations like online chatting. I figure that if they had any serious life chops that I lacked then they would not display the same kinds of flaws.

I've given up pressing. That investigation went long enough and I have my answer, ie. pretty well no one understands the deepest nature of reality.

When it comes to originality, I'd like to move on from the God question. To try other angles. If we put that one aside as a well-beaten track, where do we go to understand the universe beyond what science can tell us? My first thought is systems - to observe physical systems and how they near-fractally comprise each other ("near-" being critical for evolution and emergence generally). We know that probabilities ensure that order appears in chaotic systems given enough time.

Yet reality is not just all "physical stuff", as has been explored ad nauseam. I'd love to see this aspect explored more deeply without reference to the god concept.

[Ormond]

I am bemused by all the years I've observed and participated in debates about the existence of God, spirits etc.

I'm cheerfully annoyed by all the years I've spent in this pointless hobby, which is perhaps best compared to yelling at the weather, an entirely irrational act. Being addicted to such a stupid exercise makes me smile at the absurdity of my so very human predicament. I am His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, and my clown costume is better than yours, nana nana na na!

Having had some interesting experiences and long been interested in NDEs I would personally love a theist to land a killer blow in debating me - to really make me wonder if they were on to something.

If/when you truly want the "killer blow", you will likely find it. The fact that you're waiting for theists to do the job for you shows that you probably don't really want the killer blow, not that you should. All roads lead to the same place, and we'll all be there soon enough, so smile and be happy is a pretty good plan while we wait, and there's not really much need to complicate it beyond that.

And anyway, you're not likely to find the "killer blow" in a debate, an argument, a logical analysis, a book, a theory, a collection of assertions, a proof, etc, given that such things are not the path to the "killer blow" but rather the primary obstacle to it.

We love philosophy because we can rule over all the little symbols like gods. It's a very understandable, and for we nerds, a very strong human bias. But they are still just little symbols we rule over, a very small kingdom indeed. Nothing too interesting happening here, move along folks.

The behaviour of theists and religious organisations in society has been the biggest influence in me rejecting religion. People infused with love and peace simply don't interact in that way, certainly not in low stakes situations like online chatting. I figure that if they had any serious life chops that I lacked then they would not display the same kinds of flaws.

The people you're looking for don't hang out on forums, or even in churches, they are too busy serving, loving, healing, too busy walking the walk to talk the talk. When you want to meet such folks you most likely will, for they certainly exist.

I've given up pressing. That investigation went long enough and I have my answer, ie. pretty well no one understands the deepest nature of reality.

I agree of course, but understanding is not the point, experiencing is. This is the fundamental misunderstanding that limits philosophy forums to being the shallowest of exercises, at least on this set of topics.

I'd love to see this aspect explored more deeply without reference to the god concept.

The key to that is to see religion as being a means to an end.

Stop all the worrying about means that don't work for you personally, and shift your focus to the desired end.

As example, let's say I want to go to San Francisco, but I HATE to fly. I could spend the next couple decades yelling at the airlines. Or, I could be rational and skip all that, and instead rent a car, or take a bus, or ride a train, or go on a cruise to the west coast, or buy a unicycle.

The religious people have a concept of "getting back to God". Simply replace the word "God" with the word "nature" or "reality" and you're back in business.

How do we restore an intimate and highly personal relationship with this place where we find ourselves? How do we erase the boundary between "me" and "everything else"? How do we experience some sense of reunion while we're still alive?

These are the serious questions, which do not in any way depend upon religion.

[LuckyR]

There are a number of things that I see repeated on philosophy forum that drive me crazy. When I read I like to read something, if not fresh, presented in a fresh and original way.

In Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language one of his rules is not to use stale idioms.

Here are some things I find stale:

- "strawman"
- "Ockham's razor", this is always said with a kind of finality.
- "reductio ad Hitlerium", basically dragging in some reference to Nazism as comparison to subject at hand.

What term in philosohy do you find of little use, often misleading or simply evading any kind of considered thought?

Most use the term strawman as shorthand for the unfortunately too common tactic of using strawmen to try to devalue another's argument. One could a different term or not use a label at all and point out the inappropriate or overly simplistic argument directly. I would prefer folks stay on topic and make the need to use the term disappear on it's own.

Occam's razor is an observation, not a law so is not proof of anything and thus would fall into the category of descriptor, not evidence or proof.

Using the Nazis as examples of "really bad thing" is indeed overused and hence tiresome, though technically accurate. Used as an insult it is almost never appropriate and reveals at minimum mental laziness in it's user.

[Renee]

Cliches I often see recently in political articles and don't like:

"All middle-aged white males are trash, or should be trashed" -- common theme in the Canadian Globe and Mail, the Canadian MacLeans and the NYTimes articles.

"Hillary Clinton is a living Saint, and best for governing the country; those who oppose this are white, middle-aged angry men, trolls of evil disposition." -- common theme in the same papers.

"If you are a woman, you are okay with us; if you are anything else, go away, and stay there", common theme in said papers.

For the record, I oppose both running candidates. One is insane, has had no proper upbringing, and perhaps is a criminal; the other one is greedy, too hungry for power, far too much lacking in integrity, too hypocritical, even for a politician, and potentially a criminal.

-- Updated November 1st, 2016, 2:32 pm to add the following --

Having had some interesting experiences and long been interested in NDEs I would personally love a theist to land a killer blow in debating me - to really make me wonder if they were on to something.

Ahem... I ain't no theist, but am a Devil's Advocate nevertheless. (Devil's Advocate on God's side...)

How's this:

"No human needs to be handed a definition of God to understand the concept; in fact, definitions for God don't exist, for this very exact reason."

Or this:

"God exists, whether you like it or not. Proof: You exist, whether God likes it or not."

Demonstrating that not liking an existence is a guarantee that that thing exists.

Or this:

"God exists in concept, not necessarily in reality, on any level; but the conceptual level is a level, so he actually exists. He also exists in the faith of some followers. That's Believers: 2, Atheists: 1, at halftime. A small, statistical victory, but a victory it is, none the less."

Or this:

"God has more votes "for" than "against". There are more god-fearing people in this democratic country and democratic world, than atheists."

Or this:

"God has more votes "for" than his competing candidate. You see, atheists have no body to vote for, they got no candidate, so the atheists' ballots are completely lost. Landslide victory (100% of seats) for God." "If you deny the power of this argument, then you deny the validity of the constitution of the United States of America."

Now you owe me one. Fair is fair.