Ten Rules of Philosophy to live by

[Ecurb]

The Guardian ran this article today:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/ ... to-live-by

As expected, I (and many others on this forum) violate many of the rules.

Rule 1: Be sincere (avoid wrangling for wranglings sake). Huh! What if we like wrangling? Sincerity is overrated. An insincere but entertaining or controversial post is preferrable to a sincere but dull one.

Rule 2: Be charitable. I agree, here (though I violate this rule regularly). The idea is to see the best points of one's interlocutor's posts, instead of the worst ones.

Rule 3: Be humble. I try. But when you're me, it's so difficult.

Rule 4: Keep it simple, but not simplistic. OK. Fair enough.

Rule 5: Watch your language. I agree. But this can be overdone. Endless defining of terms gets dull.

Rule 6: Be eclectic. Bingo. Philosophy need not be monlithic. It can encompass, science, literature, poetry, politics, etc.

Rule 7: . Think for yourself, not by yourself
“No culture has a monopoly on wisdom, no culture embodies all the great values, and therefore each culture has a great deal to learn from others, through dialogue." Nobody has it all figured out. Wisdom is cultural, and must be learned.

Rule 8: Seek clarity, not certainty. Good advice, since certainty is always, well, uncertain.

Rule 9: Pay attention.

Iris Murdoch was a philosopher and a novelist. These two vocations were intimately linked. As her colleague Mary Midgley put it: “On Murdoch’s view of ethics, we learn what is the right thing to do by attending to what is the case and increasing our understanding of reality.” For example, empathy teaches us more about what is needed to treat a person well than moral theory.

Rule 10: Follow the mean. The notion here is that every virtue can be overdone and become a vice. Everything in moderation (per Aristotle). This advice can be violated philosophically when reason, objectivity, and logic become our rulers instead of our tools. As the article states:

That is why every intellectual virtue needs to come with a warning not to slavishly apply it: follow the argument wherever it leads but don’t follow it to absurdity; question everything but not all the time; define your terms as clearly as you can but don’t think all terms can be defined with scientific precision. Even virtuous habits of thought can become vices if they are misapplied. The virtues of thinking require balance and judgment – and, thankfully, these are skills any one of us can learn.

Of course by calling these bits of advice "rules" the article violates its own rules #3, 4, 5, and 7. This may or may not invalidate the rest of the advice.

IN any event, what do people here think? Should we heed this advice? I think "follow the mean" can be overdone. I want to live passionately, and boldly, however risky that may be. I'll have plenty of time to follow the mean in the grave. As Andrew Marvell wrote, "the grave's a fine and private place / But none, I think, do there embrace..."

[Gertie]

The Guardian ran this article today:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/ ... to-live-by

As expected, I (and many others on this forum) violate many of the rules.

Rule 1: Be sincere (avoid wrangling for wranglings sake). Huh! What if we like wrangling? Sincerity is overrated. An insincere but entertaining or controversial post is preferrable to a sincere but dull one.

Rule 2: Be charitable. I agree, here (though I violate this rule regularly). The idea is to see the best points of one's interlocutor's posts, instead of the worst ones.

Rule 3: Be humble. I try. But when you're me, it's so difficult.

Rule 4: Keep it simple, but not simplistic. OK. Fair enough.

Rule 5: Watch your language. I agree. But this can be overdone. Endless defining of terms gets dull.

Rule 6: Be eclectic. Bingo. Philosophy need not be monlithic. It can encompass, science, literature, poetry, politics, etc.

Rule 7: . Think for yourself, not by yourself
“No culture has a monopoly on wisdom, no culture embodies all the great values, and therefore each culture has a great deal to learn from others, through dialogue." Nobody has it all figured out. Wisdom is cultural, and must be learned.

Rule 8: Seek clarity, not certainty. Good advice, since certainty is always, well, uncertain.

Rule 9: Pay attention.

Iris Murdoch was a philosopher and a novelist. These two vocations were intimately linked. As her colleague Mary Midgley put it: “On Murdoch’s view of ethics, we learn what is the right thing to do by attending to what is the case and increasing our understanding of reality.” For example, empathy teaches us more about what is needed to treat a person well than moral theory.

Rule 10: Follow the mean. The notion here is that every virtue can be overdone and become a vice. Everything in moderation (per Aristotle). This advice can be violated philosophically when reason, objectivity, and logic become our rulers instead of our tools. As the article states:

That is why every intellectual virtue needs to come with a warning not to slavishly apply it: follow the argument wherever it leads but don’t follow it to absurdity; question everything but not all the time; define your terms as clearly as you can but don’t think all terms can be defined with scientific precision. Even virtuous habits of thought can become vices if they are misapplied. The virtues of thinking require balance and judgment – and, thankfully, these are skills any one of us can learn.

Of course by calling these bits of advice "rules" the article violates its own rules #3, 4, 5, and 7. This may or may not invalidate the rest of the advice.

IN any event, what do people here think? Should we heed this advice? I think "follow the mean" can be overdone. I want to live passionately, and boldly, however risky that may be. I'll have plenty of time to follow the mean in the grave. As Andrew Marvell wrote, "the grave's a fine and private place / But none, I think, do there embrace..."

Had I but world enough and time... I might be arsed.

[JackDaydream]

The Guardian ran this article today:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/ ... to-live-by

As expected, I (and many others on this forum) violate many of the rules.

Rule 1: Be sincere (avoid wrangling for wranglings sake). Huh! What if we like wrangling? Sincerity is overrated. An insincere but entertaining or controversial post is preferrable to a sincere but dull one.

Rule 2: Be charitable. I agree, here (though I violate this rule regularly). The idea is to see the best points of one's interlocutor's posts, instead of the worst ones.

Rule 3: Be humble. I try. But when you're me, it's so difficult.

Rule 4: Keep it simple, but not simplistic. OK. Fair enough.

Rule 5: Watch your language. I agree. But this can be overdone. Endless defining of terms gets dull.

Rule 6: Be eclectic. Bingo. Philosophy need not be monlithic. It can encompass, science, literature, poetry, politics, etc.

Rule 7: . Think for yourself, not by yourself
“No culture has a monopoly on wisdom, no culture embodies all the great values, and therefore each culture has a great deal to learn from others, through dialogue." Nobody has it all figured out. Wisdom is cultural, and must be learned.

Rule 8: Seek clarity, not certainty. Good advice, since certainty is always, well, uncertain.

Rule 9: Pay attention.

Iris Murdoch was a philosopher and a novelist. These two vocations were intimately linked. As her colleague Mary Midgley put it: “On Murdoch’s view of ethics, we learn what is the right thing to do by attending to what is the case and increasing our understanding of reality.” For example, empathy teaches us more about what is needed to treat a person well than moral theory.

Rule 10: Follow the mean. The notion here is that every virtue can be overdone and become a vice. Everything in moderation (per Aristotle). This advice can be violated philosophically when reason, objectivity, and logic become our rulers instead of our tools. As the article states:

That is why every intellectual virtue needs to come with a warning not to slavishly apply it: follow the argument wherever it leads but don’t follow it to absurdity; question everything but not all the time; define your terms as clearly as you can but don’t think all terms can be defined with scientific precision. Even virtuous habits of thought can become vices if they are misapplied. The virtues of thinking require balance and judgment – and, thankfully, these are skills any one of us can learn.

Of course by calling these bits of advice "rules" the article violates its own rules #3, 4, 5, and 7. This may or may not invalidate the rest of the advice.

IN any event, what do people here think? Should we heed this advice? I think "follow the mean" can be overdone. I want to live passionately, and boldly, however risky that may be. I'll have plenty of time to follow the mean in the grave. As Andrew Marvell wrote, "the grave's a fine and private place / But none, I think, do there embrace..."

Had I but world enough and time... I might be arsed.

The rules seem fair and worthy of consideration. The question may be whether prescriptive rules are useful or warranted, like Ten Commandments of philosophy, as opposed to open discussion of what is important or helpful in philosophy methods and practice? To what extent will the rules generate creative thinking, or try to restrict, according to a constructed agenda of rules?

[Gertie]

The Guardian ran this article today:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/ ... to-live-by

As expected, I (and many others on this forum) violate many of the rules.

Rule 1: Be sincere (avoid wrangling for wranglings sake). Huh! What if we like wrangling? Sincerity is overrated. An insincere but entertaining or controversial post is preferrable to a sincere but dull one.

Rule 2: Be charitable. I agree, here (though I violate this rule regularly). The idea is to see the best points of one's interlocutor's posts, instead of the worst ones.

Rule 3: Be humble. I try. But when you're me, it's so difficult.

Rule 4: Keep it simple, but not simplistic. OK. Fair enough.

Rule 5: Watch your language. I agree. But this can be overdone. Endless defining of terms gets dull.

Rule 6: Be eclectic. Bingo. Philosophy need not be monlithic. It can encompass, science, literature, poetry, politics, etc.

Rule 7: . Think for yourself, not by yourself
“No culture has a monopoly on wisdom, no culture embodies all the great values, and therefore each culture has a great deal to learn from others, through dialogue." Nobody has it all figured out. Wisdom is cultural, and must be learned.

Rule 8: Seek clarity, not certainty. Good advice, since certainty is always, well, uncertain.

Rule 9: Pay attention.

Iris Murdoch was a philosopher and a novelist. These two vocations were intimately linked. As her colleague Mary Midgley put it: “On Murdoch’s view of ethics, we learn what is the right thing to do by attending to what is the case and increasing our understanding of reality.” For example, empathy teaches us more about what is needed to treat a person well than moral theory.

Rule 10: Follow the mean. The notion here is that every virtue can be overdone and become a vice. Everything in moderation (per Aristotle). This advice can be violated philosophically when reason, objectivity, and logic become our rulers instead of our tools. As the article states:

That is why every intellectual virtue needs to come with a warning not to slavishly apply it: follow the argument wherever it leads but don’t follow it to absurdity; question everything but not all the time; define your terms as clearly as you can but don’t think all terms can be defined with scientific precision. Even virtuous habits of thought can become vices if they are misapplied. The virtues of thinking require balance and judgment – and, thankfully, these are skills any one of us can learn.

Of course by calling these bits of advice "rules" the article violates its own rules #3, 4, 5, and 7. This may or may not invalidate the rest of the advice.

IN any event, what do people here think? Should we heed this advice? I think "follow the mean" can be overdone. I want to live passionately, and boldly, however risky that may be. I'll have plenty of time to follow the mean in the grave. As Andrew Marvell wrote, "the grave's a fine and private place / But none, I think, do there embrace..."

Had I but world enough and time... I might be arsed.

The rules seem fair and worthy of consideration. The question may be whether prescriptive rules are useful or warranted, like Ten Commandments of philosophy, as opposed to open discussion of what is important or helpful in philosophy methods and practice? To what extent will the rules generate creative thinking, or try to restrict, according to a constructed agenda of rules?

Yeah they're fine as life hacks. As posting tips I try to take an each to their own attitude, but prefer Scott's 'clear and concise' guideline re arguments - even if I'm not great at it. Mulling over ideas is fine with me too. I go more towards letting a hundred flowers bloom than having style rules.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yeah they're fine as life hacks. As posting tips I try to take an each to their own attitude, but prefer Scott's 'clear and concise' guideline re arguments - even if I'm not great at it. Mulling over ideas is fine with me too. I go more towards letting a hundred flowers bloom than having style rules.

The rules seem fair and worthy of consideration. The question may be whether prescriptive rules are useful or warranted, like Ten Commandments of philosophy, as opposed to open discussion of what is important or helpful in philosophy methods and practice? To what extent will the rules generate creative thinking, or try to restrict, according to a constructed agenda of rules?

I think these 'rules' are more or less as good as Scott's 'rules', provided all are implemented in the spirit of #10, "in moderation", as guidelines not commandments. The only thing I would've added to them is to pursue co-operative discussion, as opposed to combative 'debate' (i.e. fighting; fighting to 'win' (), no matter what).

[Pattern-chaser]

I think these 'rules' are more or less as good as Scott's 'rules', provided all are implemented in the spirit of #10, "in moderation", as guidelines not commandments. The only thing I would've added to them is to pursue co-operative discussion, as opposed to combative 'debate' (i.e. fighting; fighting to 'win' (), no matter what).

1. Be sincere

“A wrangler is one who aims only at victory, being indifferent whether the arguments which he employs support his own contention or that of his opponent.”
Akapāda Gautama
Written some time between the sixth and second centuries BCE, supposedly by Akapāda Gautama, the Indian classic the Nyāya Sūtras is the first great treatise on the principles of reasoning. Gautama distinguishes between three kinds of debate. In jalpa (wrangling) the aim is victory, while vitanda (cavilling) is concerned wholly with criticising the other side. But in good or honest discussion, vada, the aim is truth.

Sometimes philosophy descends into adversarial combat. But the best thinkers avoid wrangling or cavilling. One such philosopher, Bernard Williams, identified sincerity as one of the two primary “virtues of truth”, alongside accuracy.

The most dangerous enemy of sincerity is not deliberate deception but the desire to be right overpowering the desire to get to the truth. Sincerity in thought therefore requires overcoming an ego that hates admitting being wrong.

It seems my point about co-operative discussion is already well-made in the original article.

[Ecurb]

Combative debate can hone one's ideas. Academia is, in general, a hotbed of combative debate. By defending one's notions in the crucible of trenchant criticism, one can either hone or discard them. As the article states, this is often a competitive game rather than a real search for the truth -- but the competitive motive can sometimes have the side effect of producing good ideas, or abandoning bad ones.

Of course it is also true that cooperative discussion can be valuable.

[Pattern-chaser]

Combative debate can hone one's ideas.

So can co-operative discussion.

Academia is, in general, a hotbed of combative debate.

To its own disservice? Academia, at least in theory, pursues knowledge and understanding; winning shouldn't matter?

By defending one's notions in the crucible of trenchant criticism, one can either hone or discard them.

Surely one can do likewise in a co-operative environment?

As the article states, this is often a competitive game rather than a real search for the truth -- but the competitive motive can sometimes have the side effect of producing good ideas, or abandoning bad ones.

Again, co-operative discussion can achieve this aim just as well, if not better? ... And co-operative discussion is rarely, if ever, "a competitive game rather than a real search for the truth".

Of course it is also true that cooperative discussion can be valuable.

My (one and only) point. Exactly so. When we make the comparison, as perhaps we have just done here, co-operative discussion appears preferable, on all counts.

[Ecurb]

Combative debate can hone one's ideas.

So can co-operative discussion.

Academia is, in general, a hotbed of combative debate.

To its own disservice? Academia, at least in theory, pursues knowledge and understanding; winning shouldn't matter?

By defending one's notions in the crucible of trenchant criticism, one can either hone or discard them.

Surely one can do likewise in a co-operative environment?

As the article states, this is often a competitive game rather than a real search for the truth -- but the competitive motive can sometimes have the side effect of producing good ideas, or abandoning bad ones.

Again, co-operative discussion can achieve this aim just as well, if not better? ... And co-operative discussion is rarely, if ever, "a competitive game rather than a real search for the truth".

Of course it is also true that cooperative discussion can be valuable.

My (one and only) point. Exactly so. When we make the comparison, as perhaps we have just done here, co-operative discussion appears preferable, on all counts.

I disagree. People are motivated in a variety of ways. Some scholars may be motivated to do research in order to get jobs or tenure, rather than because they are lovers of the truth. Does this invalidate their research? Of course not.

Some scholars are motivated by competition; they want to prove their own theories correct, and competing theories incorrect. However much we may think that "pure" motives of honorable truth-seeking are preferrable, we cannot infer from this that they are superior in terms of producing good scholarship. Good research and good arguments remain good research and good arguments whatever the motives from which they derive. If some scholars are motivated by competition, so much the better. I believe, indeed, that many scholars are thus motivated.

[Pattern-chaser]

However much we may think that "pure" motives of honorable truth-seeking are preferrable, we cannot infer from this that they are superior in terms of producing good scholarship.

OK, but how about their superiority (or otherwise) when it comes simply to seeking knowledge and understanding?

Scholarship has nothing to do with philosophy, but only with (academic) philosophers.

[Ecurb]

However much we may think that "pure" motives of honorable truth-seeking are preferrable, we cannot infer from this that they are superior in terms of producing good scholarship.

OK, but how about their superiority (or otherwise) when it comes simply to seeking knowledge and understanding?

Scholarship has nothing to do with philosophy, but only with (academic) philosophers.

Scholarship: Learning of a high level (Oxford dictionary)

Surely the biologist, and the chemist, and the anthropologist, and the economist are learning at a high level, whatever their motivations. And knowledge is the goal of philosophy, is it not?

Considering that you tout co-operative posting, PC, you seem to argue with anything other posters write. You have no interest (ironically) in practicing what you preach.

[JDBowden]

I like the idea of the 10 rules. However, anyone can put up 10 sentences and draft them to make them sound pretty. A so called one-size-fits-all model I would highly doubt work for everyone. Perhaps, each individual could follow their own 10 rules to live a virtuous lifestyle. I did/do have trouble with the "Watch your Language." Words mean different things to different people. Saying that, this would turn into its own debate which requires a different thread... Good list. I saw it on Reddit this morning as well.

[Pattern-chaser]

However much we may think that "pure" motives of honorable truth-seeking are preferrable, we cannot infer from this that they are superior in terms of producing good scholarship.

OK, but how about their superiority (or otherwise) when it comes simply to seeking knowledge and understanding?

Scholarship has nothing to do with philosophy, but only with (academic) philosophers.

Scholarship: Learning of a high level (Oxford dictionary)

Surely the biologist, and the chemist, and the anthropologist, and the economist are learning at a high level, whatever their motivations. And knowledge is the goal of philosophy, is it not?

I think that acquiring knowledge is one aim of philosophy, but understanding — and wisdom too — matter just as much, IMO. But my position is not that scholarship is unimportant or wrong, but only that it is not a primary aim of philosophy, and by extension, of philosophers. Philosophy does not need or depend on "scholarship".

Considering that you tout co-operative posting, PC, you seem to argue with anything other posters write. You have no interest (ironically) in practicing what you preach.

Co-operative discussion describes an exchange of views, which necessarily involves argument — meaning something like an "attempt to persuade or to determine the truth of a conclusion", and not "an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one". [Both quotes taken from an online search for "argument".]

You often seem to fall back on an ad hominem approach to things. Admittedly, this is about as mild as ad hominem attacks get, but you are still addressing me, and not my argument. Please, can we return to the latter? Thanks.

[Ecurb]

You often seem to fall back on an ad hominem approach to things. Admittedly, this is about as mild as ad hominem attacks get, but you are still addressing me, and not my argument. Please, can we return to the latter? Thanks.

Perhaps that's because I find people as interesting (or more interesting) than the issues being discussed. Discussing people and their approaches is, of course, literally ad hominem but the (pretentious?) Latin should probably be used only when referring to the ad hominem fallacy. Perhaps discussing people should be referred to as "discussing people", in plain English. That's my vote, anyway.