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

[chewybrian]

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?

Aren't there some ideas that just seem to work in theory without carrying over into the 'real' world? Look at an idea like "there is no objective basis for morality". Does that imply in the real world that you can only convince me not to do something horrible by changing my desires or aversions? Don't you feel that some actions are wrong for everyone and not just for you and others who believe just what you believe? If I am about to club an old lady and take her purse for beer money, would you stand by and offer no argument, since my actions matched my beliefs or desires? Not to derail the thread, but doesn't determinism work better in theory than real life? Won't you head out into the real world and hold people accountable to some degree for their choices, even though you might argue here that there is no accountability?

[Steve3007]

Aren't there some ideas that just seem to work in theory without carrying over into the 'real' world?

I think the way I'd put it is that there are some ideas that are true but not useful. For example, it's true that I don't know with absolute certainty that I'm talking to you right now, that I'm sitting in a room, that Australia exists, etc. But it's not useful, so it's the kind of thing that we don't use in the 'real' world. That doesn't stop it from being true in both the 'real' world and in the 'philosophy club' world.

Look at an idea like "there is no objective basis for morality". Does that imply in the real world that you can only convince me not to do something horrible by changing my desires or aversions?...

I don't think it implies that in either world, either the 'real' one or the 'philosophy club' one. Saying "there is no objective basis for morality" is not the same as saying that people don't almost universally share the same positions on lots of moral issues. All people who have ever lived might share the same position on some moral issue but that still wouldn't make morals objective. Likewise, all people who have ever lived might like the taste of some particular food but that doesn't make taste objective. I think that's true in both worlds.

Not to derail the thread, but doesn't determinism work better in theory than real life? Won't you head out into the real world and hold people accountable to some degree for their choices, even though you might argue here that there is no accountability?

In my view, determinism (if it's defined as people not being accountable for their choices) doesn't work in either world.

[Steve3007]

I can't, off the top of my head, think of anything that I think is true in 'philosophy world' but false in the 'real world'. Or vice versa. I can think of lots of things that are interesting to talk about in 'philosophy world' but which I don't use to get me through the day and therefore don't use as mental tools for that.

[Pattern-chaser]

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...?

Whatever I say here about what I believe to be true, I don't stop believing it to be true when I leave here.

Thanks, I wasn't quite clear on that; now I am. So for you, as well as for me, philosophy is for real, not just an academic amusement.

[Pattern-chaser]

Not to derail the thread, but doesn't determinism work better in theory than real life?

No, that's not a derail. What you observe is central to this topic as I conceived it. This thread was inspired by encountering philosophers who express beliefs in a forum that simply cannot be carried out into RL because they quite clearly do not apply correctly to it. Thanks for the example.

[Steve3007]

Not to derail the thread, but doesn't determinism work better in theory than real life? Won't you head out into the real world and hold people accountable to some degree for their choices, even though you might argue here that there is no accountability?

No, that's not a derail. What you observe is central to this topic as I conceived it. This thread was inspired by encountering philosophers who express beliefs in a forum that simply cannot be carried out into RL because they quite clearly do not apply correctly to it. Thanks for the example.

Yes, I agree that it's not a derail. It's a good example of the principle that if one's philosophical position leads one to think that certain things are somehow true in the context of a philosophy discussion but false in "real life", then there's something wrong with one's philosophical position!

So, in this example, if one takes a view like "I believe the universe is deterministic and therefore nobody is responsible for their actions" in a philosophy forum, but doesn't believe that to be true outside that context, that's a cue to look more carefully at that proposition. It's sometimes put in a form similar to this:

1. Brains are made from matter.
2. Matter is describable by deterministic physical laws, in the sense that for a given initial state of a physical system the same later state will always result.
3. Therefore there is no free will and people aren't responsible for their actions.

In my view, 3 doesn't follow from 1 and 2. And 2, if it is supposed to be a statement about the actual behaviour of the physical world, is incoherent (for reasons that have nothing to do with quantum mechanics).

[Sy Borg]

Maybe #3 is more a political than philosophical stance?

If #3 is true, with neither free will nor responsibility being real, then we do not, as a society bring retribution to serial killers, thieves, standover men (standover persons? haha) and destroyers of public utilities. But, as animals, we will individually resist others killing, wrecking or taking that which matters to us.

So #3, when taken to its logical conclusion, or reductio ad absurdum, is ultimately a post-modern argument for anarchy.

Many come to philosophy forums, closely blending the political and philosophical, using ostensible philosophy to ultimately push a political view.

Philosophy is arguably most interesting when it transcends the political, where political manoeuvrings are seen as just abstract versions of natural selection games played out since the beginning of the universe (galaxies, stars and planets and chemicals have their own selection processes over time).

However, that is not when philosophy is at its most practical. For that aspect, though, Marcus Aurelius worked out how to play the game of life almost 2,000 years ago. I don't think anyone has much improved on his concepts, and even today most of us moderns are less wise, me included.

[Tegularius]

In Nitty gritty mode, it's a collection of opinions without any proof or credibility requirement. It's how humans interpret or come to terms with their thoughts and experiences; a way of making sense even if it often doesn't. Its most potent manifestation, I think, is in how it creates and rationalizes moral systems for it's these which get incorporated into a society; its immediate and historical consequences analyzed based on the current age, subject to rethinking and reorganization; a never ending process of limiting entropy in human affairs. It's in the political and moral realm where philosophy is supreme, but only in respect to how effective its theories are. Philosophy in most of its other postures is nothing more than a collection of fantasies.

[Nick_A]

In Nitty gritty mode, it's a collection of opinions without any proof or credibility requirement. It's how humans interpret or come to terms with their thoughts and experiences; a way of making sense even if it often doesn't. Its most potent manifestation, I think, is in how it creates and rationalizes moral systems for it's these which get incorporated into a society; its immediate and historical consequences analyzed based on the current age, subject to rethinking and reorganization; a never ending process of limiting entropy in human affairs. It's in the political and moral realm where philosophy is supreme, but only in respect to how effective its theories are. Philosophy in most of its other postures is nothing more than a collection of fantasies.

So in reality humanity as a whole are passengers on the Ship of Fools described by Plato all arguing opinions without a clue as to where they are going. Yet if there is no objective way to leave the ship or leave Plato's cave, then philosophy is meaningless. If this is true, philosophy should be eliminated from education as useless fantasy and replaced by porn which offers immediate pragmatic satisfactions.

[mystery]

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.

exactly. nice simplification.

[mystery]

it is real, we think and discuss based on the flow of events that we are aware of.

Do we tell an opinion on a topic that is designed to sound correct or good, and then in real life choose another path that is less good but perhaps one that is based on greed. I think it happens, those that care about such things continue to monitor themselves and adjust when and as the will allows. Sometimes it takes much willpower to actually follow what we know is correct.

It is pretty easy to figure out, as we are all more or less at the same point of evolution and more or less have the same internal questions. A person that NEVER has any ill-sounding feeling is likely filtering for the perceived image and the need for approval.

We can learn much faster when we listen and consider what others tell, both when they agree and when they do not.

[Tegularius]

In Nitty gritty mode, it's a collection of opinions without any proof or credibility requirement. It's how humans interpret or come to terms with their thoughts and experiences; a way of making sense even if it often doesn't. Its most potent manifestation, I think, is in how it creates and rationalizes moral systems for it's these which get incorporated into a society; its immediate and historical consequences analyzed based on the current age, subject to rethinking and reorganization; a never ending process of limiting entropy in human affairs. It's in the political and moral realm where philosophy is supreme, but only in respect to how effective its theories are. Philosophy in most of its other postures is nothing more than a collection of fantasies.

So in reality humanity as a whole are passengers on the Ship of Fools described by Plato all arguing opinions without a clue as to where they are going. Yet if there is no objective way to leave the ship or leave Plato's cave, then philosophy is meaningless. If this is true, philosophy should be eliminated from education as useless fantasy and replaced by porn which offers immediate pragmatic satisfactions.

Yeah, but in the case of pornography vs. philosophy, mental orgasms usually last longer even if its cerebral output is not up to standard.

Also, it was often Plato, in spite of all his brilliance, at the helm in that ship of fools.

[Tegularius]

We can learn much faster when we listen and consider what others tell, both when they agree and when they do not.

That's almost as impossible on philosophy forums as hoping to win against climate change but a nice sentiment nevertheless.

[Gertie]

I'm similar to Sy Borg, ''infotainment'' sounds right. I like understanding things at a fundamental level (the detailed technicalities usually bore me).

I have an interest in morality, ontology and philosophy of mind, and learning more about those fields and discussing them here has helped me firm up my thoughts. These areas inevitably have some impact on how you re-evaluate seeing the world, your place in it, and actions. The isms I can now attach to my vague inclinations haven't radically changed direction, but my biases feel more securely founded!

I feel like I've gotten the basics of morality sorted, which philosophical traditions only got me more confused about. And as regards 'reality', I'm on the way to thinking ultimate objective knowledge is a no hoper, and my internal world model is as real in its own way. Just a different type of real, a different level of resolution, or a different experiential manifestation of 'real' reality. That's still blurry tho.

I'd say I've ended up with a greater appreciation of the here-and-now beingness of life, rather than the various framings and expectations which come along with that. Day to day life still occupies me mostly, but when I need to reflect I think this can help focus on living well (and what that means for me), and getting through hard or confusing times. There's a sort of liberation in that, but it has to be balanced with morality. So try to be happy, try to be kind is where philosophy has gotten me to for now. Doing it is another matter...

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"Today more than ever before the serious-minded are convinced that philosophy has practical tasks. The life of both the individual and the community is not molded by their mere needs and fortunes but also at all times by the strength of dominant ideas. Ideas are spiritual powers. They belong to the realm of thought. But thought has its own discipline and its own critique—philosophy. Therefore philosophy is called upon to include within its scope the pressing problems of the contemporary world and to co-operate in the work that needs to be done."

(Hartmann, Nicolai. New Ways of Ontology. Translated by Reinhard C. Kuhn. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1953. p. 3)
<QUOTE

Political ideologies are important factors in society, and they are all based on philosophical ideas and theories.