Is philosophy for real, or is it just an academic amusement?

[Pattern-chaser]

On June 24th, 2021, 12:09 pm

My gut says that [academics] are as likely as regular folks to learn the ideas without allowing the ideas to impact them...

This reminds me of something that has puzzled me about philosophers and philosophy forums.

Only as an example, consider Objectivism and Analytic philosophy. People forcefully and thoughtfully argue these positions, but they also live real lives in the real world. And when they re-enter the real world, they seem to leave behind the principles and knowledge they post about. I don't want to focus too much on any one theme of philosophy, but isn't it the case that what we discuss here is real, and applies to the real world, not just the abstract and surreal world of philosophers and internet forums?

If we say, for example, that the reality of the world we think we see is uncertain, do we mean that in an abstract philosophical sense, or do we intend that it actually applies to our 'real' world? I subscribe to the latter, but maybe I'm horribly mistaken. Am I?

The above quotes came from a thread locked for other reasons. But I didn't want to lose the discussion, hence this topic. The question of this OP is highlighted in the quote, above.

Any thoughts?

[Steve3007]

...If we say, for example, that the reality of the world we think we see is uncertain, do we mean that in an abstract philosophical sense, or do we intend that it actually applies to our 'real' world? I subscribe to the latter, but maybe I'm horribly mistaken. Am I?

I'd say it's true regardless of the context in which we say it. The reason why we might say things in philosophical discussions that we wouldn't say in ordinary conversations is not because those things are only true in those conversations. It's because different levels of approximation apply to different contexts, depending on our purposes in those contexts. It's the purpose that's context-dependant.

I'm reminded of this old joke:

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train heading north, and had just crossed the border into Scotland.
The engineer looked out of the window and said "Look! Scottish sheep are black!"
The physicist said, "No, no. Some Scottish sheep are black."
The mathematician looked irritated. "There is at least one field, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is black."

They're all true depending on the level of approximation/precision required because observations, even if they're all observations of the same physical reality, aren't all observations by the same person with the same purpose (or the same level of pedantry).

[Pattern-chaser]

...If we say, for example, that the reality of the world we think we see is uncertain, do we mean that in an abstract philosophical sense, or do we intend that it actually applies to our 'real' world? I subscribe to the latter, but maybe I'm horribly mistaken. Am I?

I'd say it's true regardless of the context in which we say it. The reason why we might say things in philosophical discussions that we wouldn't say in ordinary conversations is not because those things are only true in those conversations. It's because different levels of approximation apply to different contexts, depending on our purposes in those contexts. It's the purpose that's context-dependant.

I'm reminded of this old joke:

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train heading north, and had just crossed the border into Scotland.
The engineer looked out of the window and said "Look! Scottish sheep are black!"
The physicist said, "No, no. Some Scottish sheep are black."
The mathematician looked irritated. "There is at least one field, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is black."

They're all true depending on the level of approximation/precision required because observations, even if they're all observations of the same physical reality, aren't all observations by the same person with the same purpose (or the same level of pedantry).

Yes indeed. I don't disagree with a single word.

But I still wonder if our philosophical pronouncements are intended to apply to our 'real' world, or do we only say them for the purposes of philosophical discussion, and discard them when we return to reality (where we hold, and live by, quite different beliefs)?

[Steve3007]

I guess if there was an analytical philosopher on the train, he might say something like:

"I am having a set of sensations which I describe as 'black sheep in field'. I use inductive reasoning to conclude from these sensations that there exists an objective reality in which at least one sheep in at least one Scottish field has at least one side that appears to be black. I use further inductive reasoning, based on my previous sheep sensations, to conclude that the side of the sheep currently oriented away from me is also black."

And so it could go on.

[Pattern-chaser]

I guess if there was an analytical philosopher on the train, he might say something like:

"I am having a set of sensations which I describe as 'black sheep in field'. I use inductive reasoning to conclude from these sensations that there exists an objective reality in which at least one sheep in at least one Scottish field has at least one side that appears to be black. I use further inductive reasoning, based on my previous sheep sensations, to conclude that the side of the sheep currently oriented away from me is also black."

OK, let's assume what you have described is a thought experiment, such as we might find posted in a philosophy forum.

...

Now let's assume that we have that same philosopher, but a real person in the real country of Scotland, on a real train. Would he really think as you describe? In other words, would he carry his philosophical convictions over into the real world, or would he leave them behind in his favourite philosophy forum, and apply different* criteria?


* - not just simplified for the everyday needs of the real world, but actually, semantically, different.

[Steve3007]

Now let's assume that we have that same philosopher, but a real person in the real country of Scotland, on a real train. Would he really think as you describe? In other words, would he carry his philosophical convictions over into the real world, or would he leave them behind in his favourite philosophy forum, and apply different* criteria?

No, I don't think he'd think like that, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't believe those things. He simply wouldn't be thinking them at that time. Similarly, when I'm walking down the street I'm not usually thinking about Einstein's theory of General Relativity when negotiating with gravity. That doesn't mean I only believe that theory to be true when I'm thinking about it.

[Pattern-chaser]

Now let's assume that we have that same philosopher, but a real person in the real country of Scotland, on a real train. Would he really think as you describe? In other words, would he carry his philosophical convictions over into the real world, or would he leave them behind in his favourite philosophy forum, and apply different* criteria?

No, I don't think he'd think like that, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't believe those things. He simply wouldn't be thinking them at that time. Similarly, when I'm walking down the street I'm not usually thinking about Einstein's theory of General Relativity when negotiating with gravity. That doesn't mean I only believe that theory to be true when I'm thinking about it.

Fair enough. In these last few posts, we've been exchanging ideas. It has seemed to me to be a reasonable exchangee. But do you carry the beliefs you've aired here, in this brief forum-conversation, into real life in our real world? Maybe not in so much detail, as you say, but still...?

[chewybrian]

Fair enough. In these last few posts, we've been exchanging ideas. It has seemed to me to be a reasonable exchangee. But do you carry the beliefs you've aired here, in this brief forum-conversation, into real life in our real world? Maybe not in so much detail, as you say, but still...?

First, I am glad you furthered this discussion, as I was thinking of starting something along these lines, too, when the other discussion got cut off.

I look at gains from philosophy like gains made at the gym. You carry them out the door when you are done, and when you recover from the stress of the workout (or the stress of expanding your mind), you a a little stronger for a short time. If you continue the regular workouts, you can expand on your gains. A gain from philosophy would be something like learning not to judge others, and getting peace of mind by not finding injustice where there may be no ill intent. But, if you stop working out (or stop challenging your beliefs and perceptions), then you slide back pretty quickly. You may slide all the way back to treating your opinions as fact. You may think or say, and believe with a false sense of certainty: "that guy is a jerk!". You might forget that you can never know with certainty what he was thinking, why he did what he did, what he has been through, etc.

Of course, some philosophy has little practical application in the real world. I often wonder why people focus on such philosophy, and I might guess that they'd rather escape than embrace the real world. I lean toward philosophy with practical applications, the kind that overlaps with psychology, like stoicism. I find value in reading and re-reading some of the same texts over and over because they have a positive impact on my state of mind (this is where it feels like a workout, to me). I am looking for wisdom, and I don't think you will find it on the same shelf with certainty. You can't simply learn it and be done, but must remember to remember it, remind yourself to put it into practice and not leave the wisdom in the book. If you are not ready to challenge your own beliefs, or ready to accept new ones (even if just for a test drive), then I wonder if you are 'doing' philosophy at all. YMMV

[Tegularius]

Philosophers simply offer their own interpretations of the same reality we're collectively in; nothing more. There is much more abstraction in our thinking than in our Being. Whether reality equals actually is beside the point. That which questions if reality exists must have some kind of reality to begin with, not to mention examining how it actually works as compared to anyone's opinion.

Put another way, somewhat paradoxically, once the operation of an illusion is analyzed it becomes real enough. In that sense, it's the illusion which confirms or controls the reality causing it to be interchangeable. The greatest mystery of all is what at the very core creates reality or the illusion of it. Does one have to become that reality to actually know compared to simply accepting its consequences!

[psyreporter]

I vote for 'for real'.

When the human intends to prosper not only for the purpose to live another day (which would include 100-200 years, i.e. a 'short term' perspective), but for the long term (i.e. millions of years), the path that is chosen today can have a profound impact and it can be an argument that the human should chose wisely (by which philosophy or reason would essentially acquire a leading position, not like a religion with dogma's, but as a continuous quest to discover the optimal path for humanity).

Growth and progress is exponential by which it is increasingly important to make the right choices.

Morality may be the key for success and as it appears, modern day morality is based on magical thinking by letting it depend (in general) on the lap part of the human.

Humans are naturally equipped with a moral compass but when progress is increasingly made outside the direct influence scope of the human being, paired with the modern day dogma that the facts of science are valid without philosophy (a belief in uniformitarianism), which naturally results in a tendency to completely abolish morality, it may be important that that magical 'moral compass' aspect of human evolution is provided for by a professional plausible method that can secure long term success on that regard: philosophy.

(2020) How we make moral decisions
The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don't seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change. One possible explanation is that people don't have enough information about the potential harm that can result from certain actions, Levine says.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-moral-decisions.html

The scientists write that they "hope" that humanity / science will investigate the reasons why people sometimes do not use the "universalization principle" for moral considerations and decisions.

In 2020, the universalization principle appears to be the only method that is considered available for guiding human action and science.

How could the universalisation principle protect Nature when faced with a potential trillion USD synthetic biology revolution that reduces plants and animals to meaningless beyond the value that a company can "see" in them?

In my opinion, philosophy and morality may play a vital role in the next +10,000 years to allow humans to evolve into a 'moral being' to secure longer term prosperity and survival.

[Terrapin Station]

My opinion on this has always been that if one's philosophical views don't basically "infiltrate" every aspect of one's life, one is doing philosophy wrong.

Or in other words, one's philosophical views should firmly square with one's everyday experiences, with one's mundane experiences, etc.

[Tom Butler]

I describe Worldview as the a sort of mental database supporting memory, instincts, understanding and cultural teaching. When I model the development of perception, I see Worldview as the final Judge of what we will become consciously aware of or express. I worry about these things because they appears to have a lot to do with Psi functioning. I think it is necessary to understand our mental anatomy if we are to understand psychic phenomena.

I understand you probably have considerable more academic understanding of these concepts, but bear with me. Not being a scientist my models are probably primitive but I think they are conceptually sound and useful for lay explanation.

As far as as I can tell, it is impossible for a person to perceive an idea without it being in agreement with the person's worldview. The dominant influence in Worldview is human instinct. The second, I think, is cultural teaching. If that is true, any philosophical idea a person expresses would tend to support gene dominance wile echoing cultural dogma.

An Organizing Principle I find useful is what I refer to as the Principle of Perceptual Agreement: "Personality must be in perceptual agreement with the aspect of reality with which it will associate." If that is true, philosophical concepts will not be meaningful to a person who lacks the necessary bases of information in Worldview. They may hear but not comprehend.

The very foundation of spiritual seeking involves learning how to moderate the effect of Worldview by learning to manage its content. Putting all of the handwaving aside, that amounts to habitual examination of the implication of choices. I suspect such seeking is a primal urge to which few people consciously respond.

All of that is to say that, as I see it, the study of philosophical concepts is essentially part of a process of self education which may lead to greater understanding.

[Sy Borg]

For me, philosophising is self-administered cognitive therapy, part infotainment and part science. This seems appropriate for one who is crazy, retired and nerdy. I just want to better understand the nature of reality. Largely it's just curiosity that flowed on from childhood, but greater understanding does bring greater peace into one's life.

It's possible, with power or luck, to be a great success in life by most measures with only a shallow understanding of reality. It's not uncommon for lives that are seen as prominent or important to be largely unexamined. "The animal within" can take us far in life. Our inner ape can find us a mate, keep that mate, keep us gainfully employed and so forth.

Yet, for some of us apes, that is not enough. Rather than blindly following what others say, some people want to know the dynamics that lie beneath the hollow words that surround us. Words that tempt, cajole and bully, trying to gain people's acceptance of their agendas without adequate explanation. Having tired of this world replete with snake oil sellers, I now demand solid evidence and, if apropriate, hard numbers for claims. Some don't like this, but that's their issue, not mine.

I, and many others, just want to better understand the nature of reality. I don't care what anyone calls it. Philosophy. Science. Futurism. Spirituality. Ethics. They are some of the tools used to connect with multi-faceted reality. I find the subjectivity/objectivity nexus especially weird and compelling, along with space-time, the pre-big bang life of the universe, abiogenesis and how deeply humans will meld with their technology - and how the "melded" and "melded" interact.

That should keep "me" occupied for the next hundred lifetimes or so :)

[LuckyR]

We all know what we do. Many ponder why we do things that way. A few are curious about other ways of doing things. Theoretically that's who's on the Forum.

[Steve3007]

But do you carry the beliefs you've aired here, in this brief forum-conversation, into real life in our real world? Maybe not in so much detail, as you say, but still...?

It depends what you mean by "carry the beliefs". If you mean to ask if I believe the same things to be true during our conversation and not during our conversation then yes, I do. Whatever I say here about what I believe to be true, I don't stop believing it to be true when I leave here. Unless, of course, the belief is something like: "I am currently talking to Pattern-chaser on the philosophy site". I stop believing that to be true when it stops happening.

Or are you asking whether those beliefs cause me to act in ways that would be different if I didn't believe them?