I thought this was about clever text messages.
Do Original Philosophical Texts Matter?
- Thread starter Santino
- Start date
Knotted, sorry if I am out of practise with using technical philsophical terms and language, and if I misunderstand what you are saying. Hopefully I am making myself clear and maybe you'd be able to reply to me in more simple language that I will be able to understand.
Using Okham as just one example, I am hopefully showing how the modern idea/concept that is labelled "Okham's Razor" stands independently of any historical text or whatever did or didn't Okham write or mean. The idea could be set out without any reference to Ockham at all and still be valid.
I am arguing that the same is in fact true of any worthwhile or coherent philosophical idea or concept, and that any valid ideas are able to be expressed independently in any modern language, be it english chinese or whatever future language exists.
I am arguing that any worthwhile and coherent philsophical concept can be expressed without any connection to historical texts or authors, and while there will still be people interested in studying the literature and history of previous writers and thinkers, this is not the thing of central value to philosophy as a subject - any more than studying the history of science is the central point of science itself, for example.
Using Okham as just one example, I am hopefully showing how the modern idea/concept that is labelled "Okham's Razor" stands independently of any historical text or whatever did or didn't Okham write or mean. The idea could be set out without any reference to Ockham at all and still be valid.
I am arguing that the same is in fact true of any worthwhile or coherent philosophical idea or concept, and that any valid ideas are able to be expressed independently in any modern language, be it english chinese or whatever future language exists.
I am arguing that any worthwhile and coherent philsophical concept can be expressed without any connection to historical texts or authors, and while there will still be people interested in studying the literature and history of previous writers and thinkers, this is not the thing of central value to philosophy as a subject - any more than studying the history of science is the central point of science itself, for example.
That carries with it the bizarre conclusion that a cogito written by someone other than Descartes would have meant something different. If your interest lies in the philosophy itself as opposed to the history or sociology of it then that is a very peculiar thing to commit oneself to.
You seem to take a very personal view of philosophy. I am seeing little more than what Wittgenstein might have called you wagging your tail. There is also a good deal of self-contradiction. You say that both that something is of interest in the context of everything else the author said, and that it should be stripped out of the text and appreciated by itself.
Yes, I agree with you there. But I don't think the modern Okham's Razor says very much, and we would invent it, or something like it anyway. Also its ambiguous and it can be applied wrongly. It might be better to drop the idea altogether, and simply reason well. It carries more authority than it deserves.
I think any philosophical idea that can be expressed like that is likely to be either trivial or more trouble than its worth.
I'm not even sure I'd call Okham's Razor "philosophy". It has philosophical routes, but really its just a handy rule of thumb. Its much more sound to see it as no more than that. However I suspect it would be interesting to look at what Okham actually meant - I think you might be surprised.
Not necessarily. It could be just that the cogito considered in its own right is not very interesting (what ever considering it in its own right is!). I doubt the ancient Greeks would have been interested in it, for example. In the context of Descartes' sceptical argument and the the context of his philosophy and in the context his philosophy has in history then its interesting. Its one of those things that confuses us and seduces us. Its importance is that its hard for us to give up. Its a confusion of the modern age.
Stripping out stuff is not to simply ignore it - its to pass a judgement on it. If an old text is to be made clearer - I would say this technique of isolating certain paragraphs might be effective without adding extra confusions in the form of interpretation.
What about a utilitarian idea like "the greatest happiness for the greatest number"?Knotted said:
I don't understand why you are arguing the toss about the value of Ockham's Razor - I am neither arguing for or against it. It was simply the first example I came across and used.
Would you like to give me an example of a major philosophical concept or idea that cannot be separated from the original author, and where reading the original text is the only way in which it can be understood?
Just an example so I can see what you are actually talking about, since I still seem to be missing your point somewhat.
Also, what do you personally see as the purpose or value of philosophy? For me it lies in things like ethical debates, political philosophy, philosophy of science (including scientific method etc), and so forth - ie applying logic / reason / debate to various issues and dilemmas that people come across in real life, and trying to make sense of them systematically and carefully.
This means that when looking at imprtant philosophical ideas and arguments it is far more important that they are stated clearly and in thwir strongest and most coherent form, than in chasing around to find their earliest exponent and repeating them verbatim in the very earliest language that historical people have used to express them.
If its true then its like saying this the definition of what we mean by morality. That is its just playing with words. Otherwise its just misleading.
I'm arguing the toss because it has its value in its historical context.
Picking at random - Robin Collingwood's Essay on Philosophical Method. I haven't read it, nor have I even heard of it.
From http://plato.stanford.edu./entries/collingwood/#Met
'Philosophical distinctions differ from empirical classifications because the coordinate species of an empirical genus, unlike those of a philosophical one, form mutually exclusive classes. Consider for example the empirical concept “colour” and its coordinate species “red” and “blue”, or the empirical concept “mammal” and its coordinate species “cow” and “goat”.'
It would obviously be significant how Collingwood treats the question of species in biology. As it stands the above appears to be highly problematic - when does one species become another? Wouldn't you like to know how Collingwood deals with that sort of question? Wouldn't it be significant if he doesn't?
See post 27 for a quick outline. I don't think I could definitively say - partly its to do with being able to completely overhall your own point of view.
Are there any ideas like this?
I think we might be talking past each other a bit. I haven't said that ideas cannot be paraphrased. I just think its at best pointless, and at worst misleading.
I don't think the text can be seperated from the philosopher, unless the philosopher is saying something utterly trivial. But that's a different point.
I'm struggling to think of any major philosophical concepts at all. I genuninely think its bizarre that you think there are any ideas of importance in philosophy.
Plato's theory of forms, perhaps? I'm no expert, but Plato changed his view on this and I don't think there is a definitive version. What could you learn from a frozen version of his views? Not much. Grasp it as a living thing.
In that case I am not even going to bother continuing to discuss this with you because I really don't know what you are talking about. You just seem to be saying "blah blah blah blah blah" and using lots of long words but not saying anything I can comprehend. Sorry if that means I am not clever enough to communicate with you, but that just seems to be how it is.
Just one last question out of interest, what subjects of areas of study do you think contain 'important ideas' - and do you or have you studied any academic subjects to any great depth (and if so what subjects)? This might help me get some kind of idea as to what perspective you are coming from in all this.
I don't think so. I'm a bit puzzled about the acussation about using long words. I'm barely literate.
ETA: I mean really, you're using long words at least as much as me. Why did you say "communicate with you" instead of "talk with you" if you're so fussed? Why do you say "comprehend" when you could say "understand"? You could have left out "continuing to" altogether. Come to think of it - why did you quote something from wikipedia that can only be properly understood if you know latin?!!!
At worst I am assuming basic scientific literacy - such as the biological notion of species. And that's something I feel people should be willing to make themselves familiar with.
I'm quite wounded by this.
Pretty much any subject area should have important ideas - certainly any scientific subject. Philosophy doesn't. It has various blind alleys.
I have studied mathematics. What you say about philosophy certainly applies to mathematics. Even at a glance philosophy is radically different from mathematics.
Furthermore one of the worst things about secondary texts is that they are often utterly jargon ridden, and comprehensible only to students of philosophy. Philosophical jargon is usually thoroughly ambiguous - it is not a precise way of speaking, its a convenient way of speaking amongst specialists. Secondary texts are often caked in linguistic garbage.
Original texts often contain jargon and odd uses of language, but its usually in a novel way, so everybody struggles with it. Its the flow of the reasoning that's important - the reader learns from example that is shown by the text, rather than learns facts about such and such a thought (as if that even makes any sense!).
Original texts often contain jargon and odd uses of language, but its usually in a novel way, so everybody struggles with it. Its the flow of the reasoning that's important - the reader learns from example that is shown by the text, rather than learns facts about such and such a thought (as if that even makes any sense!).
We've had this before. It's a completely circular argument based on the retrospectively labelling anything useful as something other than philosophy.
Or a circular argument based on retrospectively labelling things useful as being philosophy.
Of course it is a difference in what we mean by 'philosophy'. We are just arguing over a definition - ie. it is a non-argument. However, I think my definition is more powerful and less confused.
Put it another way. When someone describes what art is are they making a factual claim or are they at least in part describing what they think art should be?
Same with philosophy. Don't kid yourself into thinking we are talking about the facts of the matter. Instead, try seeing it this way.
[This is not to say that philosophy is like art. I would say the same about physics.]
Same with philosophy. Don't kid yourself into thinking we are talking about the facts of the matter. Instead, try seeing it this way.
[This is not to say that philosophy is like art. I would say the same about physics.]
You would.
Did you not understand the bit where I said that I didn't think philosophy had a special subject matter or methodology?
Well, so would you. Its what having opinions is like!
I think so.
Edit:
I think you're afraid of breaching the fact/value distinction. Instead of debating your values, you instead try to encompass the whole thing by being vague about your facts.
Because I was making a point about not needing to understand Okham (and Latin) to be able to talk about the concept of "Okham's Razor" - an example I picked more or less at random.
I am not going to defend every single idea or school of thought within philosophy, but what you are saying really doesn't make sense in that "philosophy" is simply what takes place when people discuss certain topics and ask certain questions. In fact all your posts contain some kind of philosophical thinking and theoretical basis.
No doubt as someone who has studied mathematics you might well have opinions on the following questions (taken from wikipedia). In which case you would be engaging in philosophy. In fact it is probably impossible to do mathematics at all if you don't have some kind of philosophical basis, whether this is explicit or implicit.
# What are the sources of mathematical subject matter?
# What is the ontological status of mathematical entities?
# What does it mean to refer to a mathematical object?
# What is the character of a mathematical proposition?
# What is the relation between logic and mathematics?
# What is the role of hermeneutics in mathematics?
# What kinds of inquiry play a role in mathematics?
# What are the objectives of mathematical inquiry?
# What gives mathematics its hold on experience?
# What are the human traits behind mathematics?
# What is mathematical beauty?
# What is the source and nature of mathematical truth?
# What is the relationship between the abstract world of mathematics and the material universe?
# Is math an absolute and universal language?
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
I agree that philosophy is what takes place when people discuss certain topics and ask certain questions. But I hope none of my posts contain a theoretical basis. I would be hard pushed to identify any theories, although I do have identifiable influences. However, I might have a much more strict idea of what a theory is than you do.
I would guess that nine out of ten mathematicians would be stumped by those questions. The remaining 10% would most likely say something quite dodgy. I would see myself as being in the latter 10%, trying to become part of the 90%.
Does a child need to understand something of what a number is before they learn to count? Aren't they just taught how to do it? Don't imagine that a professional mathematician is necessarily any more sophisticated in terms of the philosophy of maths than that child. Don't imagine either that this is a bad thing.
ETA: Actually, I've changed my mind. It probably is a bad thing, its just that the alternative can be worse.
You take all this very personally.
I take you to be a person, not a fact stating machine.
Its rare for someone to say something which rubs me up the wrong way, I even don't mind gorski ferchrisakes. _float_ managed to wind me up the wrong way, though I don't think s/he meant to.
Nothing you have said annoys me.
Wouldn't all this be a bit boring if we didn't have opinions? I like to think I'm dealing with living, breathing people - not just bits of received wisdom.
Your having opinions doesn't bother me in the least. But you like to make the leap from arguing the details of a person's position to making vague allegations of a psychological nature too quickly for my taste. That probably doesn't bother you though because you seem to view philosophy purely as intellectual wanking and thus have no need for methodological rigour. (Hey, I can do it too.)
I've never said anything about the need for methodological rigour. I think its a good thing.
My philosophical heroes include Leibniz, Kant, Frege and Wittgenstein.
ETA: In fact, my main problem with Kant is that he lacks sufficient rigour. His arguments are quite hoky by modern standards.
My philosophical heroes include Leibniz, Kant, Frege and Wittgenstein.
ETA: In fact, my main problem with Kant is that he lacks sufficient rigour. His arguments are quite hoky by modern standards.
I don't know why my post no. 27 is getting ignored. I don't mind nobody replying, but why am I getting asked questions which are answered in this post?
For an excellent example of what I was talking about read this, especially the paragraph that starts, "There is a healthy skepticism about the role of philosophy in science, but..."
For an excellent example of what I was talking about read this, especially the paragraph that starts, "There is a healthy skepticism about the role of philosophy in science, but..."
What does this mean? At the same time as scientists 'get historical' they 'get philosophical'. This is very vague.
Do they? Who are some scientists who, upon reaching an impasse, have found something in the history or philosophy of science, and then gone on to solve a problem?
Do we? Examples again, please.
What is why we shouldn't etc etc?
Do you mean scholastic philosophers? And what are these bad habits of which you speak? Who is going around trying to re-introduce them?
Your definition of 'good' seems to mean little more than 'interesting to Knotted' though. And, that aside, this is tautological nonsense. A good idea badly expressed is a good idea. That has been expressed badly. A piss-poor idea that is part of a wonderfully constructed life-affirming intellectual edifice is still a piss-poor idea.
It means 'they look to the history of their subject' and 'they look to philosophy' respectively.
See the article I linked to.
That scientists are looking to philosophy in order to get rid of bad habits.
This was ambiguous I admit. I am talking about secondary texts where 'philosophers' do scholarly work in order to 'interpret' perfectly good originals. See Kripke's Wittgenstein for example.
I haven't given a definition of 'good'. This is a good example of you introducing bad habits into my thought that weren't there. A good example of a bad habit: the belief that every meaning has a clear necessary and sufficient definition. It is related to the bad habit of fussing over definitions.
You're not wrong. And it should be pointed out that you didn't consider that this might have occured to me, especially considering you have evidence that this sort of consideration is important to me.
It should be obvious, if you weren't interpreting, that I am not talking about the value of ideas at all. So that's another bad habit, the assumption that philosophy expresses ideas. And of course the above also shows the bad habit of not paying attention to what is not said, I said nothing about ideas and you failed to consider the possibility that this was deliberate.
Similar threads
