What Does it Mean to Be 'Right' or 'Wrong' in Philosophy?

[JackDaydream]

It is noble to go against mental attitudes and not the individual. We could make a Menippean satire and the muses of ‘the Consolatio’ will come to our calling. In this manner I will tell lady Philosophy my thoughts on the vagaries of Fortune, the moral government of the Universe and the dilemma of free will. The master and the greater comforter of weary minds goes at it again with deep thoughts as I zealously requested them. Lady Philosophy’s guitar is set forth a bright song about what rullos keep safe the immense Universe, bending and tying each and all with cords that cannot be loosed. Since she was all revealing I asked: What is the greatest good? “Happiness is the greatest good and it correlates with divinity” and Jack Isn’t this true. And how can we be happy and achieve divinity? It is in the logical pursue of my clan of augurs to make divination a science. “I came to know that human reasoning cannot attain to the act of insight which divine foreknowledge is” It is the coexistence of free will and determinism. Let’s assume that foreknowledge exists but imposes no necessity upon things then free will should be left intact. Let it be… Let it be. There will be an answer...

There is the question of foreknowledge and hindsight for judgements and evaluation. This is especially true for choices and decisions. With foreknowledge it is about trying to see the larger scheme of potential consequences. In retrospect, there is evaluation on the basis of what may have happened, including weighing of positives and negatives. This aspect of assessing and differentiating is more applicable in thinking of right and wrong with ethics. However, the way choices are perceived is within the larger framework of how reality is and in relation to general worldviews as a context for understanding and framing experiences. The nature of experiences may have important influence in the ongoing modification of ideas, attitudes and insight.

[Belindi]

It is noble to go against mental attitudes and not the individual. We could make a Menippean satire and the muses of ‘the Consolatio’ will come to our calling. In this manner I will tell lady Philosophy my thoughts on the vagaries of Fortune, the moral government of the Universe and the dilemma of free will. The master and the greater comforter of weary minds goes at it again with deep thoughts as I zealously requested them. Lady Philosophy’s guitar is set forth a bright song about what rullos keep safe the immense Universe, bending and tying each and all with cords that cannot be loosed. Since she was all revealing I asked: What is the greatest good? “Happiness is the greatest good and it correlates with divinity” and Jack Isn’t this true. And how can we be happy and achieve divinity? It is in the logical pursue of my clan of augurs to make divination a science. “I came to know that human reasoning cannot attain to the act of insight which divine foreknowledge is” It is the coexistence of free will and determinism. Let’s assume that foreknowledge exists but imposes no necessity upon things then free will should be left intact. Let it be… Let it be. There will be an answer...

There is the question of foreknowledge and hindsight for judgements and evaluation. This is especially true for choices and decisions. With foreknowledge it is about trying to see the larger scheme of potential consequences. In retrospect, there is evaluation on the basis of what may have happened, including weighing of positives and negatives. This aspect of assessing and differentiating is more applicable in thinking of right and wrong with ethics. However, the way choices are perceived is within the larger framework of how reality is and in relation to general worldviews as a context for understanding and framing experiences. The nature of experiences may have important influence in the ongoing modification of ideas, attitudes and insight.

That we learn from actual experience is true of the simpler experiences (that animal may bite, or ice cream tastes nice) and of the more life changing experiences (Nazism results in enormous cruelty, or if you normalise theft you can become rich).

Learning is often vicarious: good literature tells relative truths about the human condition: good philosophers impart good ideas: a great painting tells truth on the one small canvas.

Not only truths but also both actual experiences and vicarious experiences may be sources of learning lies, deceits, and unethical and ineffectual behaviours i.e. what used to be called sins.

I agree that "general worldviews" are how we evaluate which ideas and behaviours are ineffectual and unethical and which are effective and ethical. How do we learn these general criteria? We learn them like we learn other lessons; from the prevailing culture of beliefs. The question remains 'How should we evaluate cultures of belief?'

It may be that Salman Rushdie was attacked by a fanatical believer in the fatwa as it was before Iran revoked it. While we may say the attacker is a Dasein who could not be otherwise than he was, we may also say that had the culture which nurtured the attacker included liberal education for all children and youths he would not have attacked a main man who teaches us to understand an idea.

[JackDaydream]

It is noble to go against mental attitudes and not the individual. We could make a Menippean satire and the muses of ‘the Consolatio’ will come to our calling. In this manner I will tell lady Philosophy my thoughts on the vagaries of Fortune, the moral government of the Universe and the dilemma of free will. The master and the greater comforter of weary minds goes at it again with deep thoughts as I zealously requested them. Lady Philosophy’s guitar is set forth a bright song about what rullos keep safe the immense Universe, bending and tying each and all with cords that cannot be loosed. Since she was all revealing I asked: What is the greatest good? “Happiness is the greatest good and it correlates with divinity” and Jack Isn’t this true. And how can we be happy and achieve divinity? It is in the logical pursue of my clan of augurs to make divination a science. “I came to know that human reasoning cannot attain to the act of insight which divine foreknowledge is” It is the coexistence of free will and determinism. Let’s assume that foreknowledge exists but imposes no necessity upon things then free will should be left intact. Let it be… Let it be. There will be an answer...

There is the question of foreknowledge and hindsight for judgements and evaluation. This is especially true for choices and decisions. With foreknowledge it is about trying to see the larger scheme of potential consequences. In retrospect, there is evaluation on the basis of what may have happened, including weighing of positives and negatives. This aspect of assessing and differentiating is more applicable in thinking of right and wrong with ethics. However, the way choices are perceived is within the larger framework of how reality is and in relation to general worldviews as a context for understanding and framing experiences. The nature of experiences may have important influence in the ongoing modification of ideas, attitudes and insight.

That we learn from actual experience is true of the simpler experiences (that animal may bite, or ice cream tastes nice) and of the more life changing experiences (Nazism results in enormous cruelty, or if you normalise theft you can become rich).

Learning is often vicarious: good literature tells relative truths about the human condition: good philosophers impart good ideas: a great painting tells truth on the one small canvas.

Not only truths but also both actual experiences and vicarious experiences may be sources of learning lies, deceits, and unethical and ineffectual behaviours i.e. what used to be called sins.

I agree that "general worldviews" are how we evaluate which ideas and behaviours are ineffectual and unethical and which are effective and ethical. How do we learn these general criteria? We learn them like we learn other lessons; from the prevailing culture of beliefs. The question remains 'How should we evaluate cultures of belief?'

It may be that Salman Rushdie was attacked by a fanatical believer in the fatwa as it was before Iran revoked it. While we may say the attacker is a Dasein who could not be otherwise than he was, we may also say that had the culture which nurtured the attacker included liberal education for all children and youths he would not have attacked a main man who teaches us to understand an idea.

Learning is very complex and it is an ongoing process. Some of the basics are learned in childhood but I find that it is about constant revisions, both in understanding ideas and the practical aspects of living. Reading different aspects of ideas within philosophy, science and other disciplines is important in understanding which ideas and beliefs make sense and which do not. It is not a simple task though because there is so much information that it is possible to almost get lost in it. I am not sure that any one perspective is completely right or wrong, and, sometimes, juggling all the different ideas is like mental gymnastics.

Also, while the understanding of beliefs is central to personal understanding, dealing with the practical demands in life is not easy. In particular, I have found in the last few years that it is extremely difficult to know to what extent to trust other people. Growing up, my family and tutors treated me fairly, so I was very trusting. More recently, I have found that I need to be alert because there are so many people who are extremely deceitful and try to do things in an underhand way. So, it is often about having to be cautious. For example, I almost agreed to a housing contract which had a small print clause which said that I must not register on the electoral role, which is probably illegal.

I think that the digital age of information gives more leeway for people to find ways of trickery. I have come across people who have experienced all kinds of scams and it does seem that it has become a post truth world. Nevertheless, I don't wish to become completely pessimistic, but simply aware, because I used to take everyone at face value. Perhaps, I used to be naiive, but living in the twentieth first century is hard because everything in life is so fast, uncertain and social interaction involves such vast networks of both face to face and online communication.

[Pattern-chaser]

While flippant, my comment above is also what everyone believes.

Your comment is amusing, but right on the nail too.

That's because if we recognize we are wrong about something, we change our stance. Nobody believes what he doesn't believe, or doesn't believe what he believes. We think we are right because otherwise we would change our opinion. (Of course reasonable people also recognize they MIGHT be wrong -- but if they think they are wrong they change their opinion.)

That's true, to a point, but it isn't the whole story. Many of us don't change our stance if we're wrong. This is the Blair/Dubya 'alt-truth', championed by luminaries such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, and their cronies. When we're wrong, many humans double-down on their original opinion, even when it's clear that opinion is wrong.

Philosophers are, perhaps, a little better than this , but not by as much as we might prefer.

[Pattern-chaser]

Persuasion is an aspect of philosophical argument but it is so bound up with the nature of communication as well.

It's bound up with the nature of human communication, but also with the way in which humans are persuaded. The latter is far from limited to facts, logic and deductive arguments. Social and cultural issues play a major part, I think. And we are highly resistant to changing our minds, regardless of evidence, or trivia like that.

[Pattern-chaser]

Believing something to be true that one does not believe to be true is a logical contradiction.

Yes, but it's so common that we had to invent the term 'cognitive dissonance' to describe an aspect that only some of us experience, or at least, acknowledge. Many humans ignore that intellectual unease, valuing our own opinions more highly than trivia like actually being wrong.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is naive to think a successfully made argument will or should change another's view dramatically, rather incrementally...

...or even at all? Changing people's minds is a very different thing from presenting a soundly-founded argument. Ask Trump how we should do the former, but steer well clear of him if you want to know about the latter!

I am describing open-mindedness, you are describing close-mindedness.

Perhaps so, yes. But close-mindedness is common; open-mindedness less so, sadly.

[philg42]

Perhaps the idea of right or wrong in philosophy is whether a particular philosophical idea is internally consistent rather than correct or incorrect, or maybe morally right or wrong. Or whether an interpretation of a philosophical idea uses strategies which do not do justice to the original writer's actual work, deliberately or otherwise. For me, 'right' is useful in moving things on and 'wrong' the opposite. Which may not be true for someone else, of course.

I look at this issue very differently. Specifically, IMO any philosophy is only as good (right) as its ability to function in Real World situations. This is going to vary given what the goals are of any given individual. Therefore "relevant" is closer to the correct meaning than "right".

Interesting. For me a philosophy is only as good as it's ability to take me on a journey which results in a different 'me' at the end, whether any real world issue has been solved or not

[Belindi]

It is noble to go against mental attitudes and not the individual. We could make a Menippean satire and the muses of ‘the Consolatio’ will come to our calling. In this manner I will tell lady Philosophy my thoughts on the vagaries of Fortune, the moral government of the Universe and the dilemma of free will. The master and the greater comforter of weary minds goes at it again with deep thoughts as I zealously requested them. Lady Philosophy’s guitar is set forth a bright song about what rullos keep safe the immense Universe, bending and tying each and all with cords that cannot be loosed. Since she was all revealing I asked: What is the greatest good? “Happiness is the greatest good and it correlates with divinity” and Jack Isn’t this true. And how can we be happy and achieve divinity? It is in the logical pursue of my clan of augurs to make divination a science. “I came to know that human reasoning cannot attain to the act of insight which divine foreknowledge is” It is the coexistence of free will and determinism. Let’s assume that foreknowledge exists but imposes no necessity upon things then free will should be left intact. Let it be… Let it be. There will be an answer...

There is the question of foreknowledge and hindsight for judgements and evaluation. This is especially true for choices and decisions. With foreknowledge it is about trying to see the larger scheme of potential consequences. In retrospect, there is evaluation on the basis of what may have happened, including weighing of positives and negatives. This aspect of assessing and differentiating is more applicable in thinking of right and wrong with ethics. However, the way choices are perceived is within the larger framework of how reality is and in relation to general worldviews as a context for understanding and framing experiences. The nature of experiences may have important influence in the ongoing modification of ideas, attitudes and insight.

That we learn from actual experience is true of the simpler experiences (that animal may bite, or ice cream tastes nice) and of the more life changing experiences (Nazism results in enormous cruelty, or if you normalise theft you can become rich).

Learning is often vicarious: good literature tells relative truths about the human condition: good philosophers impart good ideas: a great painting tells truth on the one small canvas.

Not only truths but also both actual experiences and vicarious experiences may be sources of learning lies, deceits, and unethical and ineffectual behaviours i.e. what used to be called sins.

I agree that "general worldviews" are how we evaluate which ideas and behaviours are ineffectual and unethical and which are effective and ethical. How do we learn these general criteria? We learn them like we learn other lessons; from the prevailing culture of beliefs. The question remains 'How should we evaluate cultures of belief?'

It may be that Salman Rushdie was attacked by a fanatical believer in the fatwa as it was before Iran revoked it. While we may say the attacker is a Dasein who could not be otherwise than he was, we may also say that had the culture which nurtured the attacker included liberal education for all children and youths he would not have attacked a main man who teaches us to understand an idea.

Learning is very complex and it is an ongoing process. Some of the basics are learned in childhood but I find that it is about constant revisions, both in understanding ideas and the practical aspects of living. Reading different aspects of ideas within philosophy, science and other disciplines is important in understanding which ideas and beliefs make sense and which do not. It is not a simple task though because there is so much information that it is possible to almost get lost in it. I am not sure that any one perspective is completely right or wrong, and, sometimes, juggling all the different ideas is like mental gymnastics.

Also, while the understanding of beliefs is central to personal understanding, dealing with the practical demands in life is not easy. In particular, I have found in the last few years that it is extremely difficult to know to what extent to trust other people. Growing up, my family and tutors treated me fairly, so I was very trusting. More recently, I have found that I need to be alert because there are so many people who are extremely deceitful and try to do things in an underhand way. So, it is often about having to be cautious. For example, I almost agreed to a housing contract which had a small print clause which said that I must not register on the electoral role, which is probably illegal.

I think that the digital age of information gives more leeway for people to find ways of trickery. I have come across people who have experienced all kinds of scams and it does seem that it has become a post truth world. Nevertheless, I don't wish to become completely pessimistic, but simply aware, because I used to take everyone at face value. Perhaps, I used to be naiive, but living in the twentieth first century is hard because everything in life is so fast, uncertain and social interaction involves such vast networks of both face to face and online communication.

I too believe in lifelong learning. There's evidence(so I have heard) old people are better at synthesising their collections of ideas whereas younger people are better at learning new ideas.

Scepticism can't be over rated. Teachers should teach their students how not to be gulled by self seekers. We should exchange ideas about how to stay safe in the wilderness of cruelty and crime.

What was the housing contract, Jack? I am glad you stayed safe.

[JackDaydream]

There is the question of foreknowledge and hindsight for judgements and evaluation. This is especially true for choices and decisions. With foreknowledge it is about trying to see the larger scheme of potential consequences. In retrospect, there is evaluation on the basis of what may have happened, including weighing of positives and negatives. This aspect of assessing and differentiating is more applicable in thinking of right and wrong with ethics. However, the way choices are perceived is within the larger framework of how reality is and in relation to general worldviews as a context for understanding and framing experiences. The nature of experiences may have important influence in the ongoing modification of ideas, attitudes and insight.

That we learn from actual experience is true of the simpler experiences (that animal may bite, or ice cream tastes nice) and of the more life changing experiences (Nazism results in enormous cruelty, or if you normalise theft you can become rich).

Learning is often vicarious: good literature tells relative truths about the human condition: good philosophers impart good ideas: a great painting tells truth on the one small canvas.

Not only truths but also both actual experiences and vicarious experiences may be sources of learning lies, deceits, and unethical and ineffectual behaviours i.e. what used to be called sins.

I agree that "general worldviews" are how we evaluate which ideas and behaviours are ineffectual and unethical and which are effective and ethical. How do we learn these general criteria? We learn them like we learn other lessons; from the prevailing culture of beliefs. The question remains 'How should we evaluate cultures of belief?'

It may be that Salman Rushdie was attacked by a fanatical believer in the fatwa as it was before Iran revoked it. While we may say the attacker is a Dasein who could not be otherwise than he was, we may also say that had the culture which nurtured the attacker included liberal education for all children and youths he would not have attacked a main man who teaches us to understand an idea.

Learning is very complex and it is an ongoing process. Some of the basics are learned in childhood but I find that it is about constant revisions, both in understanding ideas and the practical aspects of living. Reading different aspects of ideas within philosophy, science and other disciplines is important in understanding which ideas and beliefs make sense and which do not. It is not a simple task though because there is so much information that it is possible to almost get lost in it. I am not sure that any one perspective is completely right or wrong, and, sometimes, juggling all the different ideas is like mental gymnastics.

Also, while the understanding of beliefs is central to personal understanding, dealing with the practical demands in life is not easy. In particular, I have found in the last few years that it is extremely difficult to know to what extent to trust other people. Growing up, my family and tutors treated me fairly, so I was very trusting. More recently, I have found that I need to be alert because there are so many people who are extremely deceitful and try to do things in an underhand way. So, it is often about having to be cautious. For example, I almost agreed to a housing contract which had a small print clause which said that I must not register on the electoral role, which is probably illegal.

I think that the digital age of information gives more leeway for people to find ways of trickery. I have come across people who have experienced all kinds of scams and it does seem that it has become a post truth world. Nevertheless, I don't wish to become completely pessimistic, but simply aware, because I used to take everyone at face value. Perhaps, I used to be naiive, but living in the twentieth first century is hard because everything in life is so fast, uncertain and social interaction involves such vast networks of both face to face and online communication.

I too believe in lifelong learning. There's evidence(so I have heard) old people are better at synthesising their collections of ideas whereas younger people are better at learning new ideas.

Scepticism can't be over rated. Teachers should teach their students how not to be gulled by self seekers. We should exchange ideas about how to stay safe in the wilderness of cruelty and crime.

What was the housing contract, Jack? I am glad you stayed safe.

The contract had so many dubious clauses, hidden in a link. I won't say too much online although the philosophy site is fairly private. I just opened a link somewhere amid the contract this morning. It has occurred to me that many people may not look at that link at all because it is seems more like an addendum. I am fortunate in that I did voluntary work in an advice office, so I do have a little working knowledge of housing law.

It just seems as if the world has gone a bit crazy in many ways. After cancelling the cheque I saw the news headlines about Salman Rushdie being stabbed. The other day I read that a lot of hospital data systems have been cyberattacked. It seems like, what is going to happen next? It does appear like a fragmenting post-apocalyptic world at the end of history.I try not to collapse in doom and gloom amidst the English heatwave, but I wish it would rain, almost like a symbolic process. I do wonder about moving out of London at times because life seems to be becoming so brutal, possibly back to the town where I was born, Bedford. It was the town of John Bunyan and his philosophy of 'The Pilgrim's Progress'. However, I am not sure that life isn't becoming tougher everywhere and it requires such intuition and analysis to think clearly about daily life, aside from the big philosophy questions.

I do wonder if life has become more unstable in the aftermath of the pandemic and lockdowns. So many people I know seem to be coming across major obstacles, often connected to so much being done digitally instead of by face to face communication. I hope that I am wrong in seeing so many negative changes being ushered in. I also do try to incorporate Nassim Taleb's idea of trying to use the 'Black Swan' events of unpredictability into a source for creativity and positive innovation.

[LuckyR]

Perhaps the idea of right or wrong in philosophy is whether a particular philosophical idea is internally consistent rather than correct or incorrect, or maybe morally right or wrong. Or whether an interpretation of a philosophical idea uses strategies which do not do justice to the original writer's actual work, deliberately or otherwise. For me, 'right' is useful in moving things on and 'wrong' the opposite. Which may not be true for someone else, of course.

I look at this issue very differently. Specifically, IMO any philosophy is only as good (right) as its ability to function in Real World situations. This is going to vary given what the goals are of any given individual. Therefore "relevant" is closer to the correct meaning than "right".

Interesting. For me a philosophy is only as good as it's ability to take me on a journey which results in a different 'me' at the end, whether any real world issue has been solved or not

Well to me, seeking a life change (presumably for the better) is a Real World issue. But that's just semantics.

A question about your motivation for the journey: are you solving current problems or perhaps actually not changing rather adding to your repertoire?

[JackDaydream]

Persuasion is an aspect of philosophical argument but it is so bound up with the nature of communication as well.

It's bound up with the nature of human communication, but also with the way in which humans are persuaded. The latter is far from limited to facts, logic and deductive arguments. Social and cultural issues play a major part, I think. And we are highly resistant to changing our minds, regardless of evidence, or trivia like that.

Persuasion is so bound up with communication, especially in the form of images in the media. Appearances of political leaders and glamour may carry so much more weight than ideas. Also, many ideas in science are mystified in the form of expertise. At the same time, many cling to fundamentalist beliefs, afraid to question and doubt. To think critically and follow the path of the philosophy quest can be seen as radical and subversive if followed in a deep way. Television and entertainment trivia may be ways of dulling and numbing the brain and this is the likely reason why philosophy is a minority interest. In that respect, it almost seems strange that it should become a fighting ground so frequently. Of course there are oppositional ideas and no clear consensus and that may because the topics discussed are limbo areas where it is possible to think and think endlessly. A lot of people are afraid of the strange wilderness of limbo areas of uncertainty and unknowingness.

[philg42]

A question about your motivation for the journey: are you solving current problems or perhaps actually not changing rather adding to your repertoire?

Neither. I'm exploring. To put things in context I'm a retired teacher looking to follow up on things I didn't have time for before. At the moment I'm interested in relating things to what happened to me when I took up meditation many years ago. It lead me to Buddhism as a strategy to understand and develop my thinking, but I've moved on for now to see how different philosophical ideas might change how I see things.

[LuckyR]

A question about your motivation for the journey: are you solving current problems or perhaps actually not changing rather adding to your repertoire?

Neither. I'm exploring. To put things in context I'm a retired teacher looking to follow up on things I didn't have time for before. At the moment I'm interested in relating things to what happened to me when I took up meditation many years ago. It lead me to Buddhism as a strategy to understand and develop my thinking, but I've moved on for now to see how different philosophical ideas might change how I see things.

I hear what you're saying. To my eye you're seeking to find a philosophy that will change how you view things. Great. I hope you find one that is "relevant" to your goal (helps you to do that). I'm not seeing much daylight between our viewpoints.

[philg42]

A question about your motivation for the journey: are you solving current problems or perhaps actually not changing rather adding to your repertoire?

Neither. I'm exploring. To put things in context I'm a retired teacher looking to follow up on things I didn't have time for before. At the moment I'm interested in relating things to what happened to me when I took up meditation many years ago. It lead me to Buddhism as a strategy to understand and develop my thinking, but I've moved on for now to see how different philosophical ideas might change how I see things.

I hear what you're saying. To my eye you're seeking to find a philosophy that will change how you view things. Great. I hope you find one that is "relevant" to your goal (helps you to do that). I'm not seeing much daylight between our viewpoints.

I don't think that there is much daylight either. As a newbie I thought I'd say a bit more about where I'm at. I'm not looking for any philosophy in particular. I think that many ideas in philosophy are worth a look, to find a 'what if this is how to look at the world?' moment that makes them relevant. I did some work a while back on how different philosophies have affected views about how things are. At the moment I am having fun with the Philosophy Now magazines I get free online with my library card via Libby, this month studying Kant.