Following The Argument Where It Leads

[Fooloso4]

Existence precedes essence means that there is no fixed, determinate, or essential human nature. Who you are is a matter of self-determination, that is, who you choose to be, what you are to be is what you make of yourself.

It is a statement made famous by Sartre:

What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. (Existentialism as Humanism)

[Sy Borg]

Many naturalists would disagree with the statement "at first he is nothing".

[chewybrian]

Existence precedes essence means that there is no fixed, determinate, or essential human nature. Who you are is a matter of self-determination, that is, who you choose to be, what you are to be is what you make of yourself.

It is a statement made famous by Sartre:

What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. (Existentialism as Humanism)

I forgot how harsh his ideas were when I inserted my own. I wasn't really putting it in my own words, but putting in my own view. As Greta said, it does seem extreme to say that we fully determine ourselves. We are something before we define ourselves, and those instincts and impulses remain even as we begin to override them. And, we certainly face many attempts to influence us from the outside. He said that our actions define our moral code, but we do also have natural desires and temptations from others to do things that we might think wrong.

It's pretty tough stuff, but Sartre does have a point-- you said what you said, but you did what you did. Actions speak louder than words?

[Fooloso4]

Greta:

Many naturalists would disagree with the statement "at first he is nothing".

I have not read enough Sartre to give a confident answer. I think that what he is getting as is that our identity is not something we are given. We cannot determine at birth what someone will make of themself by a sophisticated physical examination. In addition, there is no god given plan or purpose that plays itself out for any of us or all of us.

Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism.

When he is born he has not yet made anything of himself hence he is nothing, that is, not this or that. What he becomes, both in the sense of the individual and as a species, is determined by what he does, by his actions.

There is no reality except in action… Man is nothing else than his plan; he exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself; he is therefore nothing else than the ensemble of his acts, nothing else than his life.

[Sy Borg]

Greta:

Many naturalists would disagree with the statement "at first he is nothing".

I have not read enough Sartre to give a confident answer. I think that what he is getting as is that our identity is not something we are given. We cannot determine at birth what someone will make of themself by a sophisticated physical examination. In addition, there is no god given plan or purpose that plays itself out for any of us or all of us.

Heh, I probably best not go too much into disagreement unless neither of us are fully confident as to his meaning.

Really, this is just my major beef with the little I've read from some philosophers, seemingly starting with what they perceive to be a blank slate without considering how human cultural tendencies stem from non human ancestors. I appreciate that we shouldn't logically be "fundamentalist" about it, reducing emergent entities like humanity to only that from which they emerged; civilisations and space programs are tangible evidence of humanity's novel qualities. However, without starting an analysis at the non human base and working towards greater sophisticated from there, we risk constructing ideas on a foundation of sand.

The problem is that when philosophy was in its formative years it was breaking the shackles of religious thought and there's a whole raft of missing and lost human experience and knowledge that bridges yesterday and today in the indigenous people invaded and displaced by Christians.

When he is born he has not yet made anything of himself hence he is nothing, that is, not this or that. What he becomes, both in the sense of the individual and as a species, is determined by what he does, by his actions.

While this is a reasonable enough statement, putting on my black hat, this is an example of what I meant above, where a person's totality and value is gauged in terms of human achievement and opinion.

It's fair to imagine that "nothing" was elegant shorthand to put across the fact that most of who are we is shaped rather.

Still, many do think in a way that would agree with the (almost certainly wrong, in context) literal interpretation and, if I can beg your indulgence, I'd like to rant a little about this :)

"Nothing" in that literal context (not Nietzsche's or yours) ignores the fact that we are all extraordinary, complex, deeply systematised and exceedingly rare entities (ditto all life and geology). Yet "nothing" says that we lack value in ourselves, and are only valuable in what can bring to human society. "Nothing" is what those in power like underlings to think of themselves unless they are achieving so that they try harder, are more productive and diligent.

Leaders have always devised deceits, misconceptions and other manipulative devices to get others work harder, and with spectacular results. Yet "nothing" says we have no intrinsic value, yet it seems too often that people have to be near death before starting to realise the extraordinariness they were convinced to ignore for the sake of achievement.

IMO anyone whose mind is not regularly blown away by nature, the cosmos, technology and mentality is clearly too busy to pay attention to actual reality. It seems to have always been a bind for humanity just how impractical noticing underlying realities tend to be, and how unhelpful that paying attention to actual reality is in terms of survival and success. All one needs to get by at life is to be skilled with work, relationships and manipulating the legal machinery of society. If you have those boxes ticked it doesn't matter if you can believe the Earth is flat, or 6,000 years old, or that the Moon landing was staged, that a misogynist and homophobic spirit man rules the cosmos or that Xenu is coming to Earth to enslave humanity.

I'm not even sure it matters whether a person is even a bit in touch with physical reality or if they completely buy into human meta-realities like Huxley's creations.

// end rant

[Georgeanna]

Fooloso4 wrote:

There is a famous Socratic injunction to “follow the argument where it leads”. This, in my opinion, is a key feature of philosophical argument. Attempts to restrict the flow of the argument can lead to the death of the argument. We should not preclude the possibilities it opens to other areas of inquiry simply because we cannot see ahead of time where it is going or how it might return or how it may broaden the scope of the initial question.

I never did get round to questioning this injunction. The source. The context of it. And its meaning.
And I never did get round to questioning what the key features of a 'philosophical argument' v an exploration might be.
I think that the limits and scope would depend on what kind of 'argument' is proposed and where it is written.

Did anyone care to check the injunction out ?
I haven't but I found this, in the meantime...

http://www.academia.edu/205710/To_Follo ... r_It_Leads

That we should follow the argument wherever it leads is a principle put into the mouth of Socrates by Plato: ‘we must go wherever the wind of the argument carries us’ (The Republic , tr. D Lee, second edition, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1974, 394d). The principle has seemed to be not only reasonable, but to be a demand of rationality. Thus, it appears to be commonly accepted in contemporary philosophy that a rational person will believe the conclusion supported by the strongest argument, sometimes expressed as a requirement to accept or believe the best explanation (for example, Harman, ‘Inference to the Best Explanation,’ Philosophical Review , 1965, 74/1: 88-95). And in response to the accusation that what he said at one time conflicted with what he said at another, the economist J M Keynes is reputed to have replied: ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?’ On such a view it becomes a puzzle that apparently rational people who share the same information nevertheless disagree (see, for example, Rik Peels’ report in The Reasoner 3.9, 2009, 15-16). But the fact that rational disagreement among equally well-informed people seems problematic should tell us that something has gone wrong....

...Plato’s principle is not reasonable and cannot be a demand of rationality: only an unimaginative dolt would always follow the argument wherever it leads. But nor can it be a demand of rationality always to think up a counter-argument, for two reasons. First, since a counter-argument is itself an argument, it would lead to an infinite regress: one would never be able to get off the topic. Second, arguments abound, but our resources of time, attention, concentration and ingenuity are limited, so we have to choose which arguments to try to overturn, and which to accept for the time being (Popper, ‘Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition,’ in his Conjectures and Refutations , fourth (revised) edition, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1972, 120-135).

[Fooloso4]

Georgeanna:

Did anyone care to check the injunction out ?

The injunction is not, as I see it, a "demand of rationality". The point of philosophical inquiry for Plato is not to arrive at a definitive answer. It is not something done toward some end other than contemplation itself. It is not that we must accept as true whatever conclusions the argument leads to. The fact that the dialogues lead to aporia, an impasse, should be sufficient to dispel the idea that it is about solving problems. To go where the argument leads is an open ended activity.

Following the arguments to follow the argument is illustrative. What we see is not a logical progression from point to point that ends with a necessary conclusion but, rather, the assumptions and concerns that inform the argument. The same injunction has led in opposite directions - into the open or to a narrowing down to a single end, and from this end to a rejection of the injunction itself.

[Fooloso4]

Greta:

Really, this is just my major beef with the little I've read from some philosophers, seemingly starting with what they perceive to be a blank slate without considering how human cultural tendencies stem from non human ancestors.

Darwin’s claim that the difference between species is a matter of degree of rather than of kind was an important step. Until relatively recently most philosophers were in line with the theologians in wanting to see human being as a difference in kind rather than as a biological continuum. The typical defense of this position was to claim that only humans can think because only humans had language. This view is now much less common.

Wittgenstein was moving in this direction in On Certainty. He quotes Goethe:

402. In the beginning was the act.

A few other passages:

475. I want to regard man here as an animal; as a primitive being to which one grants instinct but not ratiocination. As a creature in a primitive state. Any logic good enough for a primitive means of communication needs no apology from us. Language did not emerge from some kind of ratiocination [Raisonnement]

287. The squirrel does not infer by induction that it is going to need stores next winter as well. And no more do we need a law of induction to justify our actions or our predictions.

204. Giving grounds, however, justifying the evidence, comes to an end; - but the end is not certain propositions' striking us immediately as true, i.e. it is not a kind of seeing on our part; it is our acting, which lies at the bottom of the language-game.

475 Language did not emerge from some kind of ratiocination.

477 … why should the language-game rest on some kind of knowledge?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Karp -

They are short posts. They may help give the context to responses from others whose posts also include content.

That doesn’t make sense to me. If there is context then they stay. Have you actually looked at the posts I’ve removed?

They give the context for snarky, upset responses from other people.

I am sure Greta would agree removing “Good morning. I woke up an hour ago” was justified, it being a comment redundant to the topic of “fascism.” It was obviously made in context to TH’s off topic comment about his post being deleted (which I confirmed it wasn’t and any other mod here can confirm too because deletions are logged.)

That's fine. Likely would not gather too irritated responses if it wasn't done a lot.

What is happening here is interesting at least - I’d even say extremely fascinating!

I think it would be better if I just went about my business fror now out and make absolutely ZERO comment about this again for at least a month. I’ve been clear enough about this all in several different posts and I’m now growing tired of repeating myself.

I wasn't clear enough, but I was not making the point you are responding to.

If we are going to let people be wankers, they leave the wankeriness in so when others slam them, it makes sense.

I think people should be warned not to insult. I would prefer their insulting posts were pulled. I think it makes things in general more antagonistic, drags down other posts and interactions. And it ends up with you doing a regular cleaning job.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It's the middle ground, KT, somewhere between that happy ideal and the feral lunacy passing as conversation online.

As I say, I found that being strict in this area tends to inflame tensions. Sometime the lowest conflict option is to let small spats be and only act when there's something major going on that's impacting the forum generally.

Usually, if there's a complaint I will edit a rule breaking post, but often with misgivings.

Then I think Scott's post sticky at the beginning of the Philosophy general forum should be taken down. It's misleading.

[Sy Borg]

Aside from this being Scott's site and me not wanting to intrude on his website values, I like keeping that post as an ideal, even if it is only that. Still, most of us are respectful, or at least not aggressive.

[Georgeanna]

Georgeanna wrote:

Did you feel that your creativity was being dampened so as to follow course guidelines - or perhaps there was room for both. The orderly and the imaginative.

Fooloso4 wrote:

I was fortunate enough to be taught philosophy by reading the philosophers. Reading them continually generates new questions, new avenues of inquiry. So, no, I don’t think the course guidelines dampened my meandering, although time constraints were a limiting factor.

I don’t see the orderly and the imaginative to be at odds. Gathering is an ordering, but I never bought into the idea of systematic philosophy, of knowledge of the order of the whole. And so, if I cannot see how this and that did not fit in I am content to leave it unsettled and not reject it because it does not form part of an ordered whole. Down the road I might make connections, but never a well ordered whole.

I agree that the orderly ( the analytical, systematic, formal, professional ) and the imaginative ( the creative going with the flow, and see where the questions take us ) are not at odds. There might be significant differences in approach, process and product but they can co-exist.

It is interesting, to me, to question how a philosophical discussion might best be developed. And, of course, the answer would seem to lie in how philosophy itself is defined, or used.

I'm reminded of Pierre Hadot who saw philosophy as a way of life ( if memory serves me well ).
He wrote about the transformation of the Ancient idea of philosophy, through the Middle Ages to modernity.
The primary question of philosophy seen as an existential one: What is the best way to live?
For some, this might entail a wish to transform their lives; to work on their beliefs and practices. The overall aim: an improvement of the self.

Secondary to that would be the more abstract questions which entails narrow, questioning procedures.

So, any philosophical forum should have room and tolerance for both the analytical methodology and the more explorative questions.
The former tends to start with a more formal thesis, perhaps a strong claim for a certain position. Objections and replies made.
The latter might start from current events, an ignorance of what is going on, the terms and language used and how they might affect our way of life. There are still challenges and questions running throughout. Perhaps in a more organic, haphazard manner. But it's more of a working through to enlighten self and perhaps to educate...

I think this forum does well to encompass both.

[Georgeanna]

And I meant to add that not only can the two types co-exist but that there also exists creativity within the more systematic approach. Likewise, the exploratory can have analytical elements.

[Georgeanna]

Georgeanna:

Did anyone care to check the injunction out ?

The injunction is not, as I see it, a "demand of rationality". The point of philosophical inquiry for Plato is not to arrive at a definitive answer. It is not something done toward some end other than contemplation itself. It is not that we must accept as true whatever conclusions the argument leads to. The fact that the dialogues lead to aporia, an impasse, should be sufficient to dispel the idea that it is about solving problems. To go where the argument leads is an open ended activity.

Following the arguments to follow the argument is illustrative. What we see is not a logical progression from point to point that ends with a necessary conclusion but, rather, the assumptions and concerns that inform the argument. The same injunction has led in opposite directions - into the open or to a narrowing down to a single end, and from this end to a rejection of the injunction itself.

I don't fully understand what you mean by 'what we see is...the assumptions and concerns that inform the argument'. And how this would differ from a logical process...

I understand that there might not be a necessary conclusion. However, isn't that often the case in even analytical arguments ?
The conclusion is not necessarily an absolute truth but a middle ground approximate 'best guess' ?
I can't even think of any philosophical position which has solved any problems. Just led to more...questions.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Aside from this being Scott's site and me not wanting to intrude on his website values, I like keeping that post as an ideal, even if it is only that. Still, most of us are respectful, or at least not aggressive.

Sure, most are respectful.

And I suppose we could take it as a wish and not as something that might guide moderator behavior. But his point argues against the philosophy that says 'you can just put them on ignore' which BG put forward.

Of course, I like pluralistic 'societies' so perhaps it is all good. If no one is getting 'policed' as BG put it, then it puts the lack of specfic instances of moderation in a context that is easier to accept.

I think it would be better, given all this, to just leave the only-insult posts in place. It makes reactions to them clear and if nothing else it is a record of what should be embarassing behavior, even if the people in question never get embarrassed.

They tend to be veyr short posts, so they don't take up much space. And it would save you time.

Now I've had my say and I'll focus on other things.

Thanks for listening.
'