Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 12:17 am
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 22nd, 2020, 8:39 pm

In hindsight, I probably should have sent it to you first before posting. I just hope I got it at least somewhat close to what you were trying to convey.

And yes, that Kantian justification for noumena is very unsatisfying.

Okay, so I read your phrasing of your question properly. I find Kant very unsatisfying. So, when evaluating him, you should also look for those who like him, to see if any of them have anything sensible and convincing to say. You should not take my word for it when I say he is overrated; you should look for what others say and consider whether what they say is sensible and correct or not. Then, of course, when they don't have anything sufficiently convincing to say, you should agree with me. ;)

Also, obviously, you should look at some of what Kant actually wrote before judging him. Then, and not until then, you may be in a position to properly reject him.


But, if you are going to major in philosophy, you will need to study him. No matter how wrong you judge him to be.
Oh, definitely. I am going to read Kant regardless of whether I major in philosopher, if for no other reason than his massive influence on philosophy. That extends to Hume as well. Right now I agree with your arguments, but I am like a new chess player being shown "clever" moves by someone more experienced. I know nothing about what makes your strategy any more clever than someone else's, let alone how to develop a winning strategy myself when someone challenges me. With philosophy, I need to study every possible philosophical position like pieces on a chessboard through years of experience. Only then can I appreciate your worldview, assuming it is true. Maybe by then, I will have developed my own worldview to share, and I can whip you back up into shape instead of the other way around. ;)
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 9:31 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 12:17 am


Okay, so I read your phrasing of your question properly. I find Kant very unsatisfying. So, when evaluating him, you should also look for those who like him, to see if any of them have anything sensible and convincing to say. You should not take my word for it when I say he is overrated; you should look for what others say and consider whether what they say is sensible and correct or not. Then, of course, when they don't have anything sufficiently convincing to say, you should agree with me. ;)

Also, obviously, you should look at some of what Kant actually wrote before judging him. Then, and not until then, you may be in a position to properly reject him.


But, if you are going to major in philosophy, you will need to study him. No matter how wrong you judge him to be.
Oh, definitely. I am going to read Kant regardless of whether I major in philosopher, if for no other reason than his massive influence on philosophy. That extends to Hume as well. Right now I agree with your arguments, but I am like a new chess player being shown "clever" moves by someone more experienced. I know nothing about what makes your strategy any more clever than someone else's, let alone how to develop a winning strategy myself when someone challenges me. With philosophy, I need to study every possible philosophical position like pieces on a chessboard through years of experience. Only then can I appreciate your worldview, assuming it is true. Maybe by then, I will have developed my own worldview to share, and I can whip you back up into shape instead of the other way around. ;)

If my world view were something I recently made up, there would be little reason to suppose that it would survive examination for long. However, I have basically adopted the world view of a philosopher who is widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Many have tried to disprove some aspect of his ideas, even among those who admire him, because they do not want him to be right. Bertrand Russell comes to mind in this, as one can tell from reading A History of Western Philosophy in which he states:

Bertrand Russell wrote:DAVID HUME ( 1711-76) is one of the most important among philosophers, because he developed to its logical conclusion the empirical philosophy of Locke and Berkeley, and by making it self-consistent made it incredible. He represents, in a certain sense, a dead end: in his direction, it is impossible to go further. To refute him has been, ever since he wrote, a favourite pastime among metaphysicians. For my part, I find none of their refutations convincing; nevertheless, I cannot but hope that something less sceptical than Hume's system may be discoverable.
p. 659
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/H ... osophy.pdf

Bertrand Russell wrote:The most important part of the whole Treatise is the section called "Of Knowledge and Probability." Hume does not mean by "probability" the sort of knowledge contained in the mathematical theory of probability, such as that the chance of throwing double sixes with two dice is one thirty-sixth. This knowledge is not itself probable in any special sense; it has as much certainty as knowledge can have. What Hume is concerned with is uncertain knowledge, such as is obtained from empirical data by inferences that are not demonstrative. This includes all our knowledge as to the future, and as to unobserved portions of the past and present. In fact, it includes everything except, on the one hand, direct observation, and, on the other, logic and mathematics. The analysis of such "probable" knowledge led Hume to certain sceptical conclusions, which are equally difficult to refute and to accept. The result was a challenge to philosophers, which, in my opinion, has still not been adequately met.
p. 663
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/H ... osophy.pdf

Bertrand Russell wrote:Subsequent British empiricists rejected his scepticism without refuting it; Rousseau and his followers agreed with Hume that no belief is based on reason, but thought the heart superior to reason, and allowed it to lead them to convictions very different from those that Hume retained in practice. German philosophers, from Kant to Hegel, had not assimilated Hume's arguments. I say this deliberately, in spite of the belief which many philosophers share with Kant, that his Critique of Pure Reason answered Hume. In fact, these philosophers--at least Kant and Hegel--represent a pre-Humian type of rationalism, and can be refuted by Humian arguments. The philosophers who cannot be refuted in this way are those who do not pretend to be rational, such as Rousseau, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche.
p. 673
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/H ... osophy.pdf

Bertrand Russell wrote:What these arguments prove--and I do not think the proof can be controverted--is that induction is an independent logical principle, incapable of being inferred either from experience or from other logical principles, and that without this principle science is impossible.
p. 674
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/H ... osophy.pdf


When I was younger, I, too, wanted Hume to be wrong about a good number of things. But wanting someone to be wrong does not make him wrong. It does, however, tend to make one too readily accept an argument as a refutation, as people are not entirely reasonable (there is nothing like an understatement) and are apt to readily accept anything that has any plausibility at all that supports what they want to believe.

So, beware of believing what you want to be true.

If you have a stronger desire to be correct than to believe things that are comfortable, you will be a better philosopher. Most people are the opposite.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 24th, 2020, 2:14 pm
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 9:31 pm

Oh, definitely. I am going to read Kant regardless of whether I major in philosopher, if for no other reason than his massive influence on philosophy. That extends to Hume as well. Right now I agree with your arguments, but I am like a new chess player being shown "clever" moves by someone more experienced. I know nothing about what makes your strategy any more clever than someone else's, let alone how to develop a winning strategy myself when someone challenges me. With philosophy, I need to study every possible philosophical position like pieces on a chessboard through years of experience. Only then can I appreciate your worldview, assuming it is true. Maybe by then, I will have developed my own worldview to share, and I can whip you back up into shape instead of the other way around. ;)

If my world view were something I recently made up, there would be little reason to suppose that it would survive examination for long. However, I have basically adopted the world view of a philosopher who is widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Many have tried to disprove some aspect of his ideas, even among those who admire him, because they do not want him to be right. Bertrand Russell comes to mind in this, as one can tell from reading A History of Western Philosophy in which he states:

Bertrand Russell wrote:DAVID HUME ( 1711-76) is one of the most important among philosophers, because he developed to its logical conclusion the empirical philosophy of Locke and Berkeley, and by making it self-consistent made it incredible. He represents, in a certain sense, a dead end: in his direction, it is impossible to go further. To refute him has been, ever since he wrote, a favourite pastime among metaphysicians. For my part, I find none of their refutations convincing; nevertheless, I cannot but hope that something less sceptical than Hume's system may be discoverable.
p. 659
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/H ... osophy.pdf

Bertrand Russell wrote:The most important part of the whole Treatise is the section called "Of Knowledge and Probability." Hume does not mean by "probability" the sort of knowledge contained in the mathematical theory of probability, such as that the chance of throwing double sixes with two dice is one thirty-sixth. This knowledge is not itself probable in any special sense; it has as much certainty as knowledge can have. What Hume is concerned with is uncertain knowledge, such as is obtained from empirical data by inferences that are not demonstrative. This includes all our knowledge as to the future, and as to unobserved portions of the past and present. In fact, it includes everything except, on the one hand, direct observation, and, on the other, logic and mathematics. The analysis of such "probable" knowledge led Hume to certain sceptical conclusions, which are equally difficult to refute and to accept. The result was a challenge to philosophers, which, in my opinion, has still not been adequately met.
p. 663
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/H ... osophy.pdf

Bertrand Russell wrote:Subsequent British empiricists rejected his scepticism without refuting it; Rousseau and his followers agreed with Hume that no belief is based on reason, but thought the heart superior to reason, and allowed it to lead them to convictions very different from those that Hume retained in practice. German philosophers, from Kant to Hegel, had not assimilated Hume's arguments. I say this deliberately, in spite of the belief which many philosophers share with Kant, that his Critique of Pure Reason answered Hume. In fact, these philosophers--at least Kant and Hegel--represent a pre-Humian type of rationalism, and can be refuted by Humian arguments. The philosophers who cannot be refuted in this way are those who do not pretend to be rational, such as Rousseau, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche.
p. 673
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/H ... osophy.pdf

Bertrand Russell wrote:What these arguments prove--and I do not think the proof can be controverted--is that induction is an independent logical principle, incapable of being inferred either from experience or from other logical principles, and that without this principle science is impossible.
p. 674
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/H ... osophy.pdf


When I was younger, I, too, wanted Hume to be wrong about a good number of things. But wanting someone to be wrong does not make him wrong. It does, however, tend to make one too readily accept an argument as a refutation, as people are not entirely reasonable (there is nothing like an understatement) and are apt to readily accept anything that has any plausibility at all that supports what they want to believe.

So, beware of believing what you want to be true.

If you have a stronger desire to be correct than to believe things that are comfortable, you will be a better philosopher. Most people are the opposite.
I never said I wanted Hume to be wrong. I want Hume to be right, for it would save me a great deal of time in searching for the truth (even if it does in fact lead to a dead end as Russel suggests). I only mean that I need to examine all arguments before concluding that Hume's argument is the end all be all, regardless of how famous he is because there are plenty of other highly regarded famous philosophers. Of course, I recognize that your worldview comes from a famous philosopher. I want to read Hume's enquiries precisely because he has a higher chance of being right, and you do too. If I thought he had no chance, then I would be less inclined to read him.

I am essentially agreeing with what you said previously about evaluating arguments rather than trusting that someone is right just because they have credibility. It is too soon for me to say that I have evaluated all the important arguments.

For my part, I want to agree with everything you say so as to make things pleasant, but then we would not be engaging in something that resembles philosophy. As you noticed from how many times you convinced me, I am not afraid to admit when my beliefs are disproven. Not much of what I believe will hold a candle to you or Hume. That does not mean I will not read Kant to see if he has something better to say, even if I want him to be wrong.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Fine.

I cannot relate to your desire for Hume to be right. When I was young, I wanted to come up with some great philosophy and convince the world of it. Deciding that Hume was basically right killed that dream.

But, one minor quibble with what you are stating. Hume being right is not saving you so very much time, as you still need to look at what others have had to say, and need to evaluate those other things.

Also, you should not feel too much of a need to agree with me. I do not expect it or require it.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 24th, 2020, 9:48 pm Fine.

I cannot relate to your desire for Hume to be right. When I was young, I wanted to come up with some great philosophy and convince the world of it. Deciding that Hume was basically right killed that dream.

But, one minor quibble with what you are stating. Hume being right is not saving you so very much time, as you still need to look at what others have had to say, and need to evaluate those other things.

Also, you should not feel too much of a need to agree with me. I do not expect it or require it.
I never said that you demanded it of me. It is within my nature to feel a desire to agree with others, because I like people in general, and I want to please them. But to agree with others out of a desire to please them in philosophy would be the equivalent of castrating the intellect.

I do not mind leaving the spotlight. It matters more to me to spread the truth. Is that not a laudable goal, a worthwhile dream? You helped to convince the world that Hume is right, did you not?

I do want to convince the world of some great philosophy. Whether it happens to be mine or not makes little difference. I would still be making an impact. And if I need to come up with my own philosophy to convince the world, then I can do that too.
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 24th, 2020, 9:48 pm But, one minor quibble with what you are stating. Hume being right is not saving you so very much time, as you still need to look at what others have had to say, and need to evaluate those other things.
Also, you are wrong about that. If philosophers before me have already found the truth, then I can discover it through them. I do not have to go through the process of changing the world myself. Granted, a life in which one changes the world has more glory, but is glory something that one should strive for? If I finally reach a place I have long traveled to reach and I am surprised by the result (such as Hume being right), I move forward with what is there in lieu of a winsome sigh and a resignation that my life is therefore pointless.

I am not belittling your dream, and to a large degree, I share it. One day I want to contribute to human knowledge, write books, and mentor people that look up to me, but as I said earlier Hume being right does not change that. Philosophy is also not the only subject one can change the world in if one reaches a dead end there. If I get a degree in mathetics, then I can contribute somewhere else.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 25th, 2020, 11:35 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 24th, 2020, 9:48 pm Fine.

I cannot relate to your desire for Hume to be right. When I was young, I wanted to come up with some great philosophy and convince the world of it. Deciding that Hume was basically right killed that dream.

But, one minor quibble with what you are stating. Hume being right is not saving you so very much time, as you still need to look at what others have had to say, and need to evaluate those other things.

Also, you should not feel too much of a need to agree with me. I do not expect it or require it.
I never said that you demanded it of me. It is within my nature to feel a desire to agree with others, because I like people in general, and I want to please them. But to agree with others out of a desire to please them in philosophy would be the equivalent of castrating the intellect.

I do not mind leaving the spotlight. It matters more to me to spread the truth. Is that not a laudable goal, a worthwhile dream? You helped to convince the world that Hume is right, did you not?

Since the world does not believe that Hume was right, then no, obviously I have not helped bring that about.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 25th, 2020, 11:35 am
I do want to convince the world of some great philosophy. Whether it happens to be mine or not makes little difference. I would still be making an impact. And if I need to come up with my own philosophy to convince the world, then I can do that too.

You are not going to convince the world of anything. It does not matter if you are right or not in whatever you try to convince people to believe. Most people are unreasonable, so that using reason will not convince most people. Most people believe what they want to believe. In large part, that is based on what they were indoctrinated to believe when they were young. Thus, most who were raised as Christians believe in some form of Christianity, most who were raised as Muslims believe in some form of Islam, most who were raised to believe as Hindus believe in some form of Hinduism, etc.

https://www.pewforum.org/2016/10/26/lin ... -identity/


So, I can promise you that you will not get what you want; you will not "convince the world of some great philosophy".
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 25th, 2020, 1:09 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 24th, 2020, 9:48 pm But, one minor quibble with what you are stating. Hume being right is not saving you so very much time, as you still need to look at what others have had to say, and need to evaluate those other things.
Also, you are wrong about that.

You believe I am wrong to say that you should look at other ideas before you conclude that Hume is right about practically everything?

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 25th, 2020, 1:09 pm If philosophers before me have already found the truth, then I can discover it through them.

Perhaps. Imagine that it is some really obscure philosopher, who almost no one ever reads, who is right. Will that make any difference for you if you never read that obscure philosopher?

Also, if you read the truth, how will you recognize it?

Most people obviously don't recognize the truth whether they read it or not, as they generally just believe whatever they have been indoctrinated to believe as children.

https://www.pewforum.org/2016/10/26/lin ... -identity/

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 25th, 2020, 1:09 pm I do not have to go through the process of changing the world myself. Granted, a life in which one changes the world has more glory, but is glory something that one should strive for? If I finally reach a place I have long traveled to reach and I am surprised by the result (such as Hume being right), I move forward with what is there in lieu of a winsome sigh and a resignation that my life is therefore pointless.

I am not belittling your dream, and to a large degree, I share it. One day I want to contribute to human knowledge, write books, and mentor people that look up to me, but as I said earlier Hume being right does not change that. Philosophy is also not the only subject one can change the world in if one reaches a dead end there. If I get a degree in mathetics, then I can contribute somewhere else.

It is good to keep one's options open. It is also a good idea to realize that most people are never going to contribute much to human knowledge. Regardless of whether they wish to or not.

Many philosophers essentially do the opposite. This can be known because of their disagreements with each other, that most of them must be wrong. So their great accomplishment in life is to persuade others to be wrong as well. That is what the majority of philosophers have done, insofar as they have convinced others that they are right. Of course, by writing crap, many convince some others that what they have written is crap, but that is not generally the intention.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Wossname »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:33 am by Jack D Ripper » Today, 4:33 am

Seth_Gibson wrote: ↑Yesterday, 5:09 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑Yesterday, 1:48 am
But, one minor quibble with what you are stating. Hume being right is not saving you so very much time, as you still need to look at what others have had to say, and need to evaluate those other things.
Also, you are wrong about that.

You believe I am wrong to say that you should look at other ideas before you conclude that Hume is right about practically everything?

Seth_Gibson wrote: ↑Yesterday, 5:09 pm
If philosophers before me have already found the truth, then I can discover it through them.

Perhaps. Imagine that it is some really obscure philosopher, who almost no one ever reads, who is right. Will that make any difference for you if you never read that obscure philosopher?

Also, if you read the truth, how will you recognize it?

Most people obviously don't recognize the truth whether they read it or not, as they generally just believe whatever they have been indoctrinated to believe as children.

This is a point, I think, that some people do not properly grasp.

At school, a teacher might explain that person A proposed theory X based on evidence E. But later the theory was shown by person B to be inadequate because of evidence F, and person B therefore proposed theory Y as a better theory. At which point it is tempting as a student to scratch your head in exasperation and ask why your teacher bothered to make you learn theory X in the first place. Wouldn’t it have been better and saved everyone’s’ time just to teach theory Y and ignore clearly inadequate theory X?

The answer, of course, is no it wouldn’t. Knowledge is a construct and it is important that people understand the process by which it is constructed. That involves the ability to evaluate argument and evidence. It is no good if a teacher says “The moon is made of green cheese” and you write that down and leave believing you now know what the moon is made of. You would ideally ask, “Why do you claim the moon is made of green cheese? What is your evidence”? And you need an understanding of how to evaluate that evidence.

So when people make claims about the world or the people in it, be they scientists, psychologists, philosophers or whoever, a good thing to ask is why should believe that claim. And there is not much point in asking if you do not know how to evaluate the reply. In fact, understanding that you often don’t know how to evaluate the reply can sometimes be a spur to new learning (if the topic interests you). If you are ever good enough, and I never have come close, you may one day present new theories or arguments to the world that change or challenge the way people think. That could be a hallmark of genius. But even so, when you do, other people around the world will jump all over your theory and will likely, eventually, explain why it was wrong. New and better theories will emerge and knowledge will progress. A hallmark of Hume’s genius is the way in which his theories have withstood such scrutiny for so long.

So if, Seth, as you say, you want, one day to contribute to human knowledge, in whatever field, it will probably be helpful first try to understand what it is we think we already know, and why so much of it is probably inadequate or wrong. Good luck with that.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Image
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Here is a NASA photo showing the expiration date of the cheese that comprises the moon:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190114024 ... 9_apr1.jpg

You may have to zoom in to read the date.

Also:
Is the moon made of green cheese?


(the scientific evidence)

The landings of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 on the moon sent shock waves through the moon's surface, which were detected on a seismograph. By measuring the speed of shock waves through rock (known as the seismic velocity), the density of the rock can be estimated. The higher the seismic velocity, the denser the rock. Seismic velocities for moon "rock" were compared to those of rocks from various locations. The results were published in Science [1], and are shown below:

Seismic Velocities

Lunar________________Seismic Velocity (km/sec)
Basalt 10017.....................1.84
Basalt 10046.....................1.25
Near surface layer..............1.2

Terrestrial rocks_______Seismic Velocity (km/sec)

Granite...............................5.9
Gneiss................................4.9
Basalt.................................5.8
Sandstone...........................4.9
Marble................................6.02
Limestone...........................5.06-5.97

It is clear from this that moon "rock" is considerably less dense than any type of rock found on earth. The scientists then decided to examine the seismic velocities of various cheeses from around the world. Some of the results are shown below:

Cheese_______________Seismic Velocity (km/sec)

Sapsego (Swiss).................2.12
Romano (Italy)....................1.74
Cheddar (Vermont).............1.72
Muenster (Wisconsin)..........1.57

The seismic velocity of moon "rock" is much closer to cheese than any rock found on earth.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200809031 ... heese.html


If you have an account, you can view what seems to be the original article from which the numbers above are said to have originated:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/168/3939/1579

So, some of the moon appears to be more like Romano cheese and some more like Muenster. I think more types of cheese should be tested, to get a closer match.

This does explain why NASA stopped going to the moon, as it was a very expensive way to sample cheese. I do not think it likely that the quality of the cheese on the moon could be high enough to justify the cost of obtaining it.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 25th, 2020, 9:41 pm
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 25th, 2020, 11:35 am

I never said that you demanded it of me. It is within my nature to feel a desire to agree with others, because I like people in general, and I want to please them. But to agree with others out of a desire to please them in philosophy would be the equivalent of castrating the intellect.

I do not mind leaving the spotlight. It matters more to me to spread the truth. Is that not a laudable goal, a worthwhile dream? You helped to convince the world that Hume is right, did you not?

Since the world does not believe that Hume was right, then no, obviously I have not helped bring that about.
Well, obviously, yes. It is a matter of degrees though. You convinced me, correct? I cannot be the only one you convinced during your life on this planet. I think you already know that, but you should not undersell your contribution, as it does not have to be an all or nothing deal. We cannot convince "The World", but we can convince a part of it, and in that sense, you definitely convinced the world of Hume's philosophy. Maybe it was only among academics, but philosophy has a way of trickling down through the cracks to the proletariat. People who know almost nothing about philosophy know who Plato is. If you remember from Russel's History of Western Philosophy, Plato and Aristotle had a massive influence on the catholic church and the papacy through people like Saint Augustine, and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Whether that is good or bad is beside the point. What matters is that when people engage in scholasticism, they preserve the thinking of the greats, even if only in a watered-down Neoplatonism, as in Plato's case when Plotinus wrote for the masses. We have the power to do the same with Hume if we choose to.

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:33 am
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 25th, 2020, 11:35 am
I do want to convince the world of some great philosophy. Whether it happens to be mine or not makes little difference. I would still be making an impact. And if I need to come up with my own philosophy to convince the world, then I can do that too.

You are not going to convince the world of anything. It does not matter if you are right or not in whatever you try to convince people to believe. Most people are unreasonable, so that using reason will not convince most people. Most people believe what they want to believe. In large part, that is based on what they were indoctrinated to believe when they were young. Thus, most who were raised as Christians believe in some form of Christianity, most who were raised as Muslims believe in some form of Islam, most who were raised to believe as Hindus believe in some form of Hinduism, etc.

https://www.pewforum.org/2016/10/26/lin ... -identity/


So, I can promise you that you will not get what you want; you will not "convince the world of some great philosophy".

Yes, most people are probably like that. I read about that phenomenon when I was a Christian in middle school deciding whether to believe in God prior to becoming an agnostic/atheist. I ended up concluding that I had no reason to disbelieve all the other religions, and so I gave up Christianity. If you remember from my original post, 72% of beliefs can be predicted by looking at the internal components of the brain. I also said that I do not know whether anyone can root out superstitious beliefs, including philosophers and scientists. Except now I am the one trying to convince you that most people are not completely hopeless, despite being illogical. Virtually everyone in my family is a conservative Christian, so things can get heated around the dinner table, but I still speak my mind and the situation invariably works out reasonably well (I try to be diplomatic). The trick is to argue from the other side's premises, instead of one's own. Maybe I am just lucky, but they do listen.

So people will believe strange things for illogical reasons, but one can still influence them as I did. Like I said before, not all people are illogical. If one can convince reasonable academics, then the academics can convince the people who read, and who are likely to have more power. Those people can influence public opinion, whether directly or indirectly.
User avatar
Seth_Gibson
Posts: 43
Joined: October 30th, 2020, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Seth_Gibson »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:33 am
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 25th, 2020, 1:09 pm

Also, you are wrong about that.
You believe I am wrong to say that you should look at other ideas before you conclude that Hume is right about practically everything?
Your premise that it is good to evaluate other ideas is correct. I was arguing that your conclusion about not saving time is wrong because if he is right, and assuming I realize this, then I can attempt to spread the word about Hume. I do not have to be so much of a polymath genius to get things done.
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:33 am
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 25th, 2020, 1:09 pm If philosophers before me have already found the truth, then I can discover it through them.

Perhaps. Imagine that it is some really obscure philosopher, who almost no one ever reads, who is right. Will that make any difference for you if you never read that obscure philosopher?

Also, if you read the truth, how will you recognize it?

Most people obviously don't recognize the truth whether they read it or not, as they generally just believe whatever they have been indoctrinated to believe as children.

https://www.pewforum.org/2016/10/26/lin ... -identity/
If it is some obscure philosopher, then you are right. I would not find out the truth. Hume is not an obscure philosopher though. I do not have an answer for how to recognize truth, as I have not read enough into it to make a judgement. You know better than I do. Do you believe that it is possible to recognize the truth? Ah, but you already said you did not want to define truth because it is too troublesome. Some of these questions I am asking might be answered by Hume's Enquiries. Is this correct?
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:33 am
Seth_Gibson wrote: November 25th, 2020, 1:09 pm I do not have to go through the process of changing the world myself. Granted, a life in which one changes the world has more glory, but is glory something that one should strive for? If I finally reach a place I have long traveled to reach and I am surprised by the result (such as Hume being right), I move forward with what is there in lieu of a winsome sigh and a resignation that my life is therefore pointless.

I am not belittling your dream, and to a large degree, I share it. One day I want to contribute to human knowledge, write books, and mentor people that look up to me, but as I said earlier Hume being right does not change that. Philosophy is also not the only subject one can change the world in if one reaches a dead end there. If I get a degree in mathetics, then I can contribute somewhere else.

It is good to keep one's options open. It is also a good idea to realize that most people are never going to contribute much to human knowledge. Regardless of whether they wish to or not.

Many philosophers essentially do the opposite. This can be known because of their disagreements with each other, that most of them must be wrong. So their great accomplishment in life is to persuade others to be wrong as well. That is what the majority of philosophers have done, insofar as they have convinced others that they are right. Of course, by writing crap, many convince some others that what they have written is crap, but that is not generally the intention.
I am open to changing my direction in life given that it is necessary. Hopefully, I do not end up convincing others of crap.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 12:35 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 25th, 2020, 9:41 pm


Since the world does not believe that Hume was right, then no, obviously I have not helped bring that about.
Well, obviously, yes. It is a matter of degrees though. You convinced me, correct? I cannot be the only one you convinced during your life on this planet. I think you already know that, but you should not undersell your contribution, as it does not have to be an all or nothing deal. We cannot convince "The World", but we can convince a part of it, and in that sense, you definitely convinced the world of Hume's philosophy.

No, your terminology is simply not correct. Convincing someone in the world that Hume is correct is not convincing the world that Hume is correct.
Oxford wrote: world

NOUN

1 (usually the world) The earth, together with all of its countries and peoples.


1.1 (the world) All of the people and societies on the earth.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/world

Convincing one person, or even ten thousand people, is not convincing all of the people of the world.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 12:35 am Maybe it was only among academics, but philosophy has a way of trickling down through the cracks to the proletariat. People who know almost nothing about philosophy know who Plato is.

I rather wonder about that claim. If they do recognize the name, what, precisely, do they attach to it?

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 12:35 am If you remember from Russel's History of Western Philosophy, Plato and Aristotle had a massive influence on the catholic church and the papacy through people like Saint Augustine, and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Whether that is good or bad is beside the point. What matters is that when people engage in scholasticism, they preserve the thinking of the greats, even if only in a watered-down Neoplatonism, as in Plato's case when Plotinus wrote for the masses.

I cannot but wonder what Plato would think of what was done with his ideas. In my opinion, Plotinus took what was worst in Platonism and ejected the best parts. And as for Augustine, the use of Platonic ideas by him is even more removed from what Plato envisioned. If I had written what Plato wrote, and saw people doing with my philosophy what they have done with his, I would be angered to the point of finding it very difficult to express how angry I was. I would regret having written anything at all.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 12:35 am We have the power to do the same with Hume if we choose to.

I think you are greatly overestimating what is possible. Plato is the most influential philosopher in the history of the world. Plato has influenced, in one way or another, virtually every philosopher since his time. So, indirectly, he has influenced everyone who was influenced by one of them.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 12:35 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:33 am


You are not going to convince the world of anything. It does not matter if you are right or not in whatever you try to convince people to believe. Most people are unreasonable, so that using reason will not convince most people. Most people believe what they want to believe. In large part, that is based on what they were indoctrinated to believe when they were young. Thus, most who were raised as Christians believe in some form of Christianity, most who were raised as Muslims believe in some form of Islam, most who were raised to believe as Hindus believe in some form of Hinduism, etc.

https://www.pewforum.org/2016/10/26/lin ... -identity/


So, I can promise you that you will not get what you want; you will not "convince the world of some great philosophy".

Yes, most people are probably like that. I read about that phenomenon when I was a Christian in middle school deciding whether to believe in God prior to becoming an agnostic/atheist. I ended up concluding that I had no reason to disbelieve all the other religions, and so I gave up Christianity.

I will give you a reason to disbelieve most religions. All but at most one. They all contradict each other, so it is impossible that they could all be right. In fact, at most, one religion is right. And this goes down to the most exacting level; it is impossible for even both Catholicism and Lutheranism to both be right. And although I have heard some refer to Lutheranism as "Catholic lite", the difference is important, according to the religions in question. It used to be, and I think it still is the case, that the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In other words, if that is right, then choosing "Catholic lite" gets you eternal damnation in hellfire.

Now, perhaps you meant that you had no more reason to disbelieve any of the other religions than the one you were raised to believe, and that is likely close to true. (I say "close", because some religions are more ridiculous than others, as, for example, Mormonism is more ridiculous than mainstream Christianity, because it was founded by a main who was charged with fraud, and instead of facing a trial, he illegally left the state. Also, of course, he added to the absurdities of ordinary Christianity with his additional absurd "revelations" from god, making it even more ridiculous.)

But, of course, you are right in the sense that they all use the same kinds of "evidence" to support themselves, which means that the kinds of evidence used must be inadequate, since all of the false religions have that same kind of evidence. (As noted before, as a matter of logic, which makes it known with certainty, at a minimum, all but one of the religions is false, though they could all be false).

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 12:35 am If you remember from my original post, 72% of beliefs can be predicted by looking at the internal components of the brain. I also said that I do not know whether anyone can root out superstitious beliefs, including philosophers and scientists. Except now I am the one trying to convince you that most people are not completely hopeless, despite being illogical.

On this point, you do seem to have switched sides, as it were.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 12:35 am Virtually everyone in my family is a conservative Christian, so things can get heated around the dinner table, but I still speak my mind and the situation invariably works out reasonably well (I try to be diplomatic). The trick is to argue from the other side's premises, instead of one's own. Maybe I am just lucky, but they do listen.

You are fortunate. Some people, when they have done as you have done, have been thrown out of their homes and disowned by their parents. (No, I am not referring to me on this.)

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 12:35 am So people will believe strange things for illogical reasons, but one can still influence them as I did. Like I said before, not all people are illogical. If one can convince reasonable academics, then the academics can convince the people who read, and who are likely to have more power. Those people can influence public opinion, whether directly or indirectly.

To influence people does not entail that one influences them in the way intended. Particularly when it gets watered down and passed through so many different people.

Also, not all academics are reasonable people. You might want to read about the Sokal Hoax.

https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/weinberg.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ax/572212/

Depending on where you go to school, and what teachers you have, you might be more successful if you ignore everything I say to you and just go along with whatever nonsense any of them say to you. Some have made a successful career out of writing nonsense.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 1:05 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:33 am

You believe I am wrong to say that you should look at other ideas before you conclude that Hume is right about practically everything?
Your premise that it is good to evaluate other ideas is correct. I was arguing that your conclusion about not saving time is wrong because if he is right, and assuming I realize this, then I can attempt to spread the word about Hume. I do not have to be so much of a polymath genius to get things done.
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:33 am


Perhaps. Imagine that it is some really obscure philosopher, who almost no one ever reads, who is right. Will that make any difference for you if you never read that obscure philosopher?

Also, if you read the truth, how will you recognize it?

Most people obviously don't recognize the truth whether they read it or not, as they generally just believe whatever they have been indoctrinated to believe as children.

https://www.pewforum.org/2016/10/26/lin ... -identity/
If it is some obscure philosopher, then you are right. I would not find out the truth. Hume is not an obscure philosopher though. I do not have an answer for how to recognize truth, as I have not read enough into it to make a judgement. You know better than I do. Do you believe that it is possible to recognize the truth?

I believe that some people can recognize the truth. But that might just be excessive optimism on my part. Most people seem to imagine themselves not only being capable of recognizing the truth, but of having it. When it comes to the kinds of truths that we are discussing, most people are wrong. Again, we know this because of the fact that they contradict each other, so most people must be wrong.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 1:05 am Ah, but you already said you did not want to define truth because it is too troublesome.

Recognizing it and defining it are two different things. Just like recognizing that someone is conscious is quite different from giving a precise definition or explanation of what consciousness is.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 1:05 am Some of these questions I am asking might be answered by Hume's Enquiries. Is this correct?

If you are hoping for a lengthy discussion of what truth is, then you will be disappointed, as he does not waste his time on that subject.

Seth_Gibson wrote: November 27th, 2020, 1:05 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:33 am

It is good to keep one's options open. It is also a good idea to realize that most people are never going to contribute much to human knowledge. Regardless of whether they wish to or not.

Many philosophers essentially do the opposite. This can be known because of their disagreements with each other, that most of them must be wrong. So their great accomplishment in life is to persuade others to be wrong as well. That is what the majority of philosophers have done, insofar as they have convinced others that they are right. Of course, by writing crap, many convince some others that what they have written is crap, but that is not generally the intention.
I am open to changing my direction in life given that it is necessary. Hopefully, I do not end up convincing others of crap.

I hope that. However, some have made a good amount of money convincing others of crap. Usually, one gets paid more for crap. That is true not just in philosophy, but in other things as well. For example, it is easier to make money as a phony faith healer (surely a redundant phrase) than it is to make money in debunking phony faith healers.

A significant part of the reason why crap is more profitable is that it typically involves telling people something they want to hear. People find the truth unpleasant, and prefer to believe comforting lies. Many go so far in this as to disown reason, and just believe what they want to believe. Not only that, but many regard it as a virtue to not bother with evidence, as is demonstrated by the advocates of "just having faith" (i.e., believe something without evidence), who claim that that is better than going with the evidence. As a general rule, people are irrational and do not like it when they encounter someone who points out their irrationality.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021