Are There Philosophies Which Are Dangerous and What Has Made the Ideas Toxic?

[JackDaydream]

I am not asking about ideas which you dislike, although beliefs and philosophies are viewed subjectively as well as in a more analytical way. The specific focus which I am considering is about the consequences of applying philosophy to life. It is partly linked to the way in which ideas may become ideologies. It is also about the moral responsibilities connected to knowledge.

The following quote by Max Stirner, a philosopher of egoism is worth thinking about:
'Do I write out of love to men. No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from the seed of thought_ I would nevertheless scatter it.'
Stirner' s viewpoint is stark in the way that it does not involve any concern on the ripple effects of ideas.'

It can be asked about how Nietzsche's ideas were used to support Nazism. It is unlikely that he meant his philosophy to be interpreted in such a way. There is a difference between the teachings of Jesus and the practices of the Christianity through history. Also, Marx developed his political critique but it can be asked to what extent were the forms of socialism were what he intended or foresaw occurring in response to his writings?

Philosophy is about understanding, but is it about 'truth' at all costs? Are some ideas dangerous intrinsically and, how important is it to think about the potential applications pragmatically and ethically in personal, social and political life?

Philosophy as such is either useless (best case) or toxic (worst case).

The thread isn't aimed at making generalisations about philosophy as a whole, but at particular ideas which have negative consequences. Are there any specific ideas or systems of thought which you identify as being toxic?

Ackowledging the uselessness of philosophy no philosophical idea can be toxic.

You haven't constructed any kind of argument for saying that philosophy is useless. The idea of toxic ideas is one which would be about the application of these in life as a rationale. For example, one may argue that a belief that certain groups of people are superior would be toxic because it would justify inequality. Philosophical toxicity would imply that the way of thinking has specific negative consequences. This could be about social life or destructive beliefs in personal life, such as those recognised within cognitive behavioral therapy..

[JackDaydream]

Are there any specific ideas or systems of thought which you identify as being toxic?

Antinomianism is highly toxic:

Antinomianism (Ancient Greek: ἀντί [anti] "against" and νόμος [nomos] "law") is any view which rejects laws or legalism and argues against moral, religious or social norms (Latin: mores), or is at least considered to do so.

In modern lingo:

Don't worry because Jesus still loves you!

Embrace promiscuity as sex positivity and gluttony as fat positivity because it is preferable to embrace and indulge in the problem than to do something about it!

By the way, is Vladimir Putin right that the West has become Satanic, i.e. an instrument of the devil? He is definitely not the first or the only one to make that remark.

What is interesting is that the authors which I referred to In my previous post to you, Milbank, Zizek and Davis(2010) use their critique of Paul's text to support the principle of moral law as a basis for social ethics. My thread is not meant to be aimed at religion but it could be argued that one of the problems of the 'fundamentalist' forms of Christianity and other religions is that the basis of ethics may be backed up with concrete views about the supernatural, including the idea of the 'devil'. What may be important is for ideas about the supernatural and ethics to be disentangled. Also, the idea of the devil can be used as a way of projection, including those who one regards as enemies.

[JackDaydream]

I am not asking about ideas which you dislike, although beliefs and philosophies are viewed subjectively as well as in a more analytical way. The specific focus which I am considering is about the consequences of applying philosophy to life. It is partly linked to the way in which ideas may become ideologies. It is also about the moral responsibilities connected to knowledge.

The following quote by Max Stirner, a philosopher of egoism is worth thinking about:
'Do I write out of love to men. No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from the seed of thought_ I would nevertheless scatter it.'
Stirner' s viewpoint is stark in the way that it does not involve any concern on the ripple effects of ideas.'

It can be asked about how Nietzsche's ideas were used to support Nazism. It is unlikely that he meant his philosophy to be interpreted in such a way. There is a difference between the teachings of Jesus and the practices of the Christianity through history. Also, Marx developed his political critique but it can be asked to what extent were the forms of socialism were what he intended or foresaw occurring in response to his writings?

Philosophy is about understanding, but is it about 'truth' at all costs? Are some ideas dangerous intrinsically and, how important is it to think about the potential applications pragmatically and ethically in personal, social and political life?

Philosophy as such is either useless (best case) or toxic (worst case).

The thread isn't aimed at making generalisations about philosophy as a whole, but at particular ideas which have negative consequences. Are there any specific ideas or systems of thought which you identify as being toxic?

It is important that thinking about happiness and that of others is taken into account in thinking of ideas. Many ancient and spiritual traditions made this a basis for measuring ways of thinking. What may have happened in the present time is that so much of philosophy is based on explaining and, in doing so, the nature of happiness and wellbeing gets left out. This may also be about the wellbeing of all lifeforms, not simply human beings. The philosopher, Schumacher, who draws on Buddhist ethics points to the idea of stewardship which may involve correct thinking and living, which are often ignored in economics and Western individualist culture.

[heracleitos]

What may be important is for ideas about the supernatural and ethics to be disentangled.

If ethics is foundationalist -- it can certainly be represented by basic rules that collectively form a theory -- then we can argue that its basic beliefs appear out of nowhere, a bit like the universe itself.

Therefore, the entanglement of ethics with the supernatural is a quite straightforward take on the matter. It may very well be inevitable.

The alternative is not particularly straightforward. Who exactly programmed the biological firmware of humanity? Answering "humanity itself", would clearly be circular.

[stevie]

Philosophy as such is either useless (best case) or toxic (worst case).

The thread isn't aimed at making generalisations about philosophy as a whole, but at particular ideas which have negative consequences. Are there any specific ideas or systems of thought which you identify as being toxic?

Ackowledging the uselessness of philosophy no philosophical idea can be toxic.

You haven't constructed any kind of argument for saying that philosophy is useless.

There is no need for argument since it is obvious that everyday life of people doesn't need philosophy but functions pretty well without it.

[stevie]

Philosophy as such is either useless (best case) or toxic (worst case).

The thread isn't aimed at making generalisations about philosophy as a whole, but at particular ideas which have negative consequences. Are there any specific ideas or systems of thought which you identify as being toxic?

Ackowledging the uselessness of philosophy no philosophical idea can be toxic.

... The idea of toxic ideas is one which would be about the application of these in life as a rationale. For example, one may argue that a belief that certain groups of people are superior would be toxic because it would justify inequality. Philosophical toxicity would imply that the way of thinking has specific negative consequences. This could be about social life or destructive beliefs in personal life, such as those recognised within cognitive behavioral therapy..

You are affirming what I said: Only if one doesn't acknowledge the uselessness of philosophy would one apply a philosophical idea in life as rational. But it is obvious that everyday life of people doesn't need philosophy but functions pretty well without it.

[heracleitos]

But it is obvious that everyday life of people doesn't need philosophy but functions pretty well without it.

In fact, we do not even have agreed on a suitable definition for the term "philosophy".

If more "practical" non-philosophical propositions are statements about facts, then philosophy can be defined as propositions about other propositions. Hence, philosophy can be summarized as any proposition that fits the following higher-order logic template:

ψ ↔ F(⌈ψ⌉)

"Proposition ψ has property F."

The following examples are therefore philosophy:

- "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" is in French.
- What that person has said, is infuriating.

As you can see, according to the definition above, people routinely make philosophical statements. Could they avoid it? Would their everyday life still "function pretty well without it"? Not sure about that.

In my opinion, the most profound philosophical statement ever made, is Carnap's general self-referential lemma:

∀F∃ ψ ( ψ ↔ F(⌈ψ⌉) )

One way to read his lemma, is simply:

"Philosophy is possible."

It is actually amazing that you can use this lemma to trivially prove Gödel's incompleteness and Tarski's undefinability of the truth. As you can see, all you have to do, is to first prove that "philosophy exists". It automatically exists, if the language that you use, is capable of expressing Robinson's fragment Q of arithmetic theory. In those circumstances, you can simply assume that it exists, and then you are good to go.

[JackDaydream]

The thread isn't aimed at making generalisations about philosophy as a whole, but at particular ideas which have negative consequences. Are there any specific ideas or systems of thought which you identify as being toxic?

Ackowledging the uselessness of philosophy no philosophical idea can be toxic.

... The idea of toxic ideas is one which would be about the application of these in life as a rationale. For example, one may argue that a belief that certain groups of people are superior would be toxic because it would justify inequality. Philosophical toxicity would imply that the way of thinking has specific negative consequences. This could be about social life or destructive beliefs in personal life, such as those recognised within cognitive behavioral therapy..

You are affirming what I said: Only if one doesn't acknowledge the uselessness of philosophy would one apply a philosophical idea in life as rational. But it is obvious that everyday life of people doesn't need philosophy but functions pretty well without it.

While many people do not study philosophy and read about it is likely that everyone thinks about philosophy questions in some ways. I know that you see it as useless speculation but that is only an opinion which amounts to nothing more than mere speculation of any kind. Philosophy, to a large extent is bound up with human thinking. The problem which I see with this is the danger of overthinking, which can turn into endless rumination.

[JackDaydream]

What may be important is for ideas about the supernatural and ethics to be disentangled.

If ethics is foundationalist -- it can certainly be represented by basic rules that collectively form a theory -- then we can argue that its basic beliefs appear out of nowhere, a bit like the universe itself.

Therefore, the entanglement of ethics with the supernatural is a quite straightforward take on the matter. It may very well be inevitable.

The alternative is not particularly straightforward. Who exactly programmed the biological firmware of humanity? Answering "humanity itself", would clearly be circular.

It does seem that ethics does stem from a basic understanding of nature of reality and the two are interconnected. If one believes in the existence of God or scientific materialism, or some other possibilities this gives rise to values of what matters in life. So, it comes down to the picture of reality being important. Most people grow up with a worldview, although many grow up with conflicting worldviews in the context of pluralism. It is possible to spend a great deal of time searching philosophically. However, one cannot refrain from action completely in the process. For example, if one is uncertain about life after death, it not possible to avoid ethical choices until one comes to a conclusion. It leads me to think of Pascal's wager, although that may be going too far, and for ethics it may be possible to focus most on the consequences of actions. Nevertheless, some people may not simply care about others automatically and this brings in Dostoevsky's idea that if God does not exist, 'everything is permissable'. It is a complex area because, unfortunately, if ethics is only seen as relevant in connection with religious belief it is a fear based approach as opposed to ethics based on rationality and a genuine conscience.

[Pattern-chaser]

Are There Philosophies Which Are Dangerous and What Has Made the Ideas Toxic?

In the context of this topic, would you say that a religious or a political ideology is a "philosophy"? I'm not trying a derail, along the lines of 'if you don't define your terms, I refuse to participate!' I'm just not sure if (for example) Christianity or Capitalism are suitable subjects here?

The overlap between religion and politics with philosophy is complicated because some thinkers combined these. For example, Augustine and Aquinas drew on Greek philosophy and Kantian thinking is a mixture of the two. It may be that the various disciplines were combined more in the past and specialisation has lead to them diverging so much. It could be that philosophy is the one which looks to the various disciplines, including religion, politics, science and the humanities because it is the one which focuses on ideas in particular.

You're overthinking your response to my request, which perhaps I should've worded more clearly. I was only asking if an ideology (like Capitalism) qualifies as a "philosophy" in the topic question "Are There Philosophies Which Are Dangerous and What Has Made the Ideas Toxic?"

[Pattern-chaser]

After all, there is science, and there is the philosophy of science. There is politics, and there is the philosophy of politics. And so on.

In this topic, is a political ideology a "philosophy"?

[JackDaydream]

Are There Philosophies Which Are Dangerous and What Has Made the Ideas Toxic?

In the context of this topic, would you say that a religious or a political ideology is a "philosophy"? I'm not trying a derail, along the lines of 'if you don't define your terms, I refuse to participate!' I'm just not sure if (for example) Christianity or Capitalism are suitable subjects here?

The overlap between religion and politics with philosophy is complicated because some thinkers combined these. For example, Augustine and Aquinas drew on Greek philosophy and Kantian thinking is a mixture of the two. It may be that the various disciplines were combined more in the past and specialisation has lead to them diverging so much. It could be that philosophy is the one which looks to the various disciplines, including religion, politics, science and the humanities because it is the one which focuses on ideas in particular.

You're overthinking your response to my request, which perhaps I should've worded more clearly. I was only asking if an ideology (like Capitalism) qualifies as a "philosophy" in the topic question "Are There Philosophies Which Are Dangerous and What Has Made the Ideas Toxic?"

Don't be surprised if I overthink because it is probably the side-effect of my speculations as Jackdaydream! The question of where philosophy begins and ends in relation to ideologies is probably a complex one because it is more likely that outsiders will argue that it is an ideology than those following it. Marx called religion the opiate for the people and many people call Marxism an ideology. To my mind, an ideology is a way of suppressing freedom of thought and involves certain beliefs as dogmas. It may be that when any system is taken in as one that should not be questioned in relation to any new knowledge. Sometimes, religious ideas are advocated as ones not to be questioned, with doubting Thomas's being criticised harshly. However, there are many rigid thinkers, including 'fundamentalist' scientists. I am also rather wary of 'isms' in general, because they seem to signify rather 'boxed in' corners, with little space for any scepticism or fluidity of thought.

[heracleitos]

It is a complex area because, unfortunately, if ethics is only seen as relevant in connection with religious belief it is a fear based approach as opposed to ethics based on rationality and a genuine conscience.

Spirituality, i.e. liturgy and prayer, connect directly to the biological firmware. This part of religion is not rational -- and not even meant to be rational -- a bit like sexual intercourse is not meant to be rational.

The other part of religion, i.e. the moral theory, can be rational, depending on the religion. For example, in Judaism and Islam, morality is rational.

In Christianity, it is clearly not:

(Worms, Germany, April 1521, at the Imperial Diet)

Luther: If you can show me through scripture and reason that I have erred, I will retract what I have written.
Papacy (Johann Eck): But Martin, the Bible itself is the arsenal whence each evil heretic has drawn his deceptive arguments.

Clerical religions, such as Christianity, could actually be rational, but refuse to be. In a clerical religion, the authority of the clergy will always overrule the scripture. The issue is truly about power. As a result, morality in such religion is not a legitimate moral theory. It is not a system, and it cannot be used as a system. This problem was long recognized and known about Christianity:

They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

In fact, Christian morality is not completely irrational, because there is actually quite a bit of logic in the madness. It is predictable in its corruption, because the corrupt input of the clergy will always seek to increase the power of Church and State. But then again, the idea that all religion would be corrupt because Christianity is clearly corrupt, is a western fallacy. That view is misguided.

[JackDaydream]

It is a complex area because, unfortunately, if ethics is only seen as relevant in connection with religious belief it is a fear based approach as opposed to ethics based on rationality and a genuine conscience.

Spirituality, i.e. liturgy and prayer, connect directly to the biological firmware. This part of religion is not rational -- and not even meant to be rational -- a bit like sexual intercourse is not meant to be rational.

The other part of religion, i.e. the moral theory, can be rational, depending on the religion. For example, in Judaism and Islam, morality is rational.

In Christianity, it is clearly not:

(Worms, Germany, April 1521, at the Imperial Diet)

Luther: If you can show me through scripture and reason that I have erred, I will retract what I have written.
Papacy (Johann Eck): But Martin, the Bible itself is the arsenal whence each evil heretic has drawn his deceptive arguments.

Clerical religions, such as Christianity, could actually be rational, but refuse to be. In a clerical religion, the authority of the clergy will always overrule the scripture. The issue is truly about power. As a result, morality in such religion is not a legitimate moral theory. It is not a system, and it cannot be used as a system. This problem was long recognized and known about Christianity:

They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

In fact, Christian morality is not completely irrational, because there is actually quite a bit of logic in the madness. It is predictable in its corruption, because the corrupt input of the clergy will always seek to increase the power of Church and State. But then again, the idea that all religion would be corrupt because Christianity is clearly corrupt, is a western fallacy. That view is misguided.

It is important to think whether religion can be completely rational. Rationality may be a way of exploring ideas but may be that day to day rational thinking, especially in times of crisis is difficult. I have known people who are not religious at all turn to prayer. That may be connected to uncertainty about how the cosmos works and the sources of help. Some may involve magical thinking and some may be about a genuine sense that there is more to reality, and the question of faith.

One particularly interesting book in thinking about this is Kierkegaard's 'Fear and Trembling'. It involves Abraham being prepared to sacrifice his son, Isaac, in order to be obedient to God's commands. The Biblical story being discussed is useful for thinking about the way in which ideas can become problematic. It could be seen as problematic if someone followed the beliefs about divine commands to the point of suspending ethics.

[heracleitos]

It is important to think whether religion can be completely rational. Rationality may be a way of exploring ideas but may be that day to day rational thinking, especially in times of crisis is difficult. I have known people who are not religious at all turn to prayer. That may be connected to uncertainty about how the cosmos works and the sources of help. Some may involve magical thinking and some may be about a genuine sense that there is more to reality, and the question of faith.

If a particular behavior is universal across humanity, then it is most likely part of our biological preprogramming. The alternative to rituals and prayer seems to consist in trying to cope with mental illness by means of therapy and psychotropic medication.

Unhappiness seems to be highly autosuggestive. If someone does not believe that he can be happy, then he almost surely cannot. In that sense, the inability to believe, is damaging in itself. Lack of motivation in life itself is rapidly spreading with the growth of atheism. In a sense, atheism is its own punishment. Imagine that an antelope refuses to run for the lion because it feels depressed? In a sufficiently Darwinian environment, the problem would rapidly solve itself. There simply are no depressed antelopes in nature. There would be no atheist people either. Atheism only exists because humanity makes it easy for the problem to keep festering.