Philosophy for dummies

[nino_savatte]

Kant, by Roger Scruton

Sort of what you'd expect, given Scruton's ideological inclinations.

 

[max_freakout]

I think epistomology is a mistake resting upon a bigger broader mistake that much of philosophy bases its assumptions upon.

i totally agree

but i suspect that the mistake is being made deliberately

 

[max_freakout]

Apparently (lol) what you fail to appreciate, is that scepticism is itself an epistemology.

So ner.

that is just like saying, that the advice:

"don't ever ride motorbikes because they kill"

is in fact advocating a certain style of motorbike-riding, when it clearly isnt

sceptisism is the antithesis of epistemology

 

[Dillinger4]

If it is the antithesis, then where is the synthesis?

 

[bluestreak]

Oh god, here we go again.

 

[articul8]

scepticism is not the antithesis of epistemology, but nor is it a variety of epistemology. It is the uncertainty which results from encountering the limits of inadequate models of epistemology

 

[Dillinger4]

scepticism is not the antithesis of epistemology, but nor is it a variety of epistemology. It is the uncertainty which results from encountering the limits of inadequate models of epistemology

^^

I get the slight feeling that me and you have broadly similar views...

 

[xenon]

I have also used Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy quite a lot.

That's a goodun. Possibly the only philosophy book I've read come to think of it.

 

[Dillinger4]

That's a goodun. Possibly the only philosophy book I've read come to think of it.

Its good to dip into, but it is incredibly biased.

The chapter on Leibniz starts something like:

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was possibly one of the most brilliant philosophers, but he was a worthless pointless human being...

 

[xenon]

Heh. That is a little subjective. Was mainly using it to support critical theory lectures. Wish we'd done more of that TBH.

Cheers for the links. Just been reading about Anthony Giddens on that flashcard site.

 

[Aldebaran]

Its good to dip into, but it is incredibly biased.

The chapter on Leibniz starts something like:

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was possibly one of the most brilliant philosophers, but he was a worthless pointless human being...

Any author that incredible unprofessional about his subject should have his books banned from any decent library.

salaam.

 

[Dillinger4]

Leibniz was quite despicable in some ways.

 

[Dillinger4]

The quote:

Leibniz (1646-1716) was one of the supreme intellects of all time, but as a human being he was not admirable. He had, it is true, the virtures that one would wish to find mentioned in a testamonial to a prospective employee: he was industrious, frugal, temperate, and financially honest. But he was wholly destitute of those higher philosophic virtues that are so notable in Spinoza. His best thought was not such as would win him popularity, and he left his records of it unpublished in his desk. What he published was designed to win the approbation of Princes and Princesses

.

I suppose at least Bertrand Russell is not making any pretence towards non-bias, as other introductions might do.

Oh I just remembered: If you buy one book to do philosophy with, make it a dictionary of philosophy. It is the best starting point for just about any philosophical topic.

 

[Aldebaran]

Leibniz was quite despicable in some ways.

Aren't we all, in the eyes of others?

salaam.

 

[terrythomas]

scepticism is not the antithesis of epistemology, but nor is it a variety of epistemology. It is the uncertainty which results from encountering the limits of inadequate models of epistemology

Hey - don't forget this is a philosophy for dummies thread. Some of us don't know what you're on about yet

 

[max_freakout]

Hey - don't forget this is a philosophy for dummies thread. Some of us don't know what you're on about yet

one of the central question in philosophy is, is knowledge possible?


a sceptic would say that you can never be completely certain about something being true, and therefore knowledge is impossible

 

[Dillinger4]

roffles.

 

[articul8]

Hey - don't forget this is a philosophy for dummies thread. Some of us don't know what you're on about yet

sorry i'll put it in layman's terms

If you start out by asking the wrong sort of question, it's impossible to arrive at the right sort of answer.

Epistemlogical "Scepticism", the belief that we can never be sure of possessing knowledge, is the product of the confusion that arises when you start off by putting impossible demands on what might count as 'knowledge' in the first place.

So if you start by assuming that knowledge is something that you'd have to be omnipotent and omnipresent to possess, then by definition you are going to fall short of it (unless you are God, which I very much doubt, but can't "know" for sure - see how ridiculous it gets). By making "knowledge" some absolute, you let mysticism in by the back door.

If you start with a practical, material-humanistic sense of the criteria by which we judge what counts as "knowledge" in specific social and historical contexts, then you start to ask yourself a question to which it is realistic to think there might be at least a provisional answer.

 

[bluestreak]

i have never said anything about metaphysics

Oh, i never apologised for this, I was sure you'd also rejected metaphysics but i couldn't find the post so i'll retract that.

 

[bluestreak]

Hey - don't forget this is a philosophy for dummies thread. Some of us don't know what you're on about yet

so now we're a dictionary too are we

 

[terrythomas]

so now we're a dictionary too are we

It's not the just words its the way you philosophy forum lot string them all together. You are a clever bunch of that there is no doubt, just leave a bit of room for me please....

 

[Kizmet]

sorry i'll put it in layman's terms

If you start out by asking the wrong sort of question, it's impossible to arrive at the right sort of answer.

Is that always true?

Epistemlogical "Scepticism", the belief that we can never be sure of possessing knowledge, is the product of the confusion that arises when you start off by putting impossible demands on what might count as 'knowledge' in the first place.

So if you start by assuming that knowledge is something that you'd have to be omnipotent and omnipresent to possess, then by definition you are going to fall short of it (unless you are God, which I very much doubt, but can't "know" for sure - see how ridiculous it gets). By making "knowledge" some absolute, you let mysticism in by the back door.

If you start with a practical, material-humanistic sense of the criteria by which we judge what counts as "knowledge" in specific social and historical contexts, then you start to ask yourself a question to which it is realistic to think there might be at least a provisional answer.

But that also can lead to a very limited line of questioning.

 

[max_freakout]

Oh, i never apologised for this, I was sure you'd also rejected metaphysics but i couldn't find the post so i'll retract that.

it would be totally absurd to 'reject' metaphysics or epistemology

 

[articul8]

But that also can lead to a very limited line of questioning.

why so? that would only be true if you begin with a very limited conception of the concrete situations we inhabit - what is does rule of bounds is thinking with no conceivable 'real world' relevance - like the sceptical bad infinity "how do we know. or know that we know, or know that we know that we know, or..."

as to wrong questions precluding right answers, can you think of an example where that wouldn't be true? You might begin with a bad question, find a bad answer which helps you to formulate a better question...I'll grant you that

 

[Kizmet]

why so? that would only be true if you begin with a very limited conception of the concrete situations we inhabit

I think we only have a limited conception of the concrete situation we inhabit.

as to wrong questions precluding right answers, can you think of an example where that wouldn't be true? You might begin with a bad question, find a bad answer which helps you to formulate a better question...I'll grant you that

How about Newton's laws of motion? At the time they seemed like the right question giving the right answers.. but now we realise they were wrong questions.. but the answers are still right. They still work.

 

[articul8]

I think we only have a limited conception of the concrete situation we inhabit.

I'd agree. But some of us have more limited understandings than others

How about Newton's laws of motion? At the time they seemed like the right question giving the right answers.. but now we realise they were wrong questions.. but the answers are still right. They still work.

But they are the "right" answers to a different question? I wasn't really talking about the natural sciences anyway. There definition of what might constitute "working" for physics, can't necessarily be applied across the board.

 

[Kizmet]

I'd agree. But some of us have more limited understandings than others

True enough... but even our best understanding is about as concrete as a bowl of wobbly jelly sitting on a blancmange resting on Pamela Anderson's chest.

Relative to that.. the diferences between us are tiny.

But they are the "right" answers to a different question? I wasn't really talking about the natural sciences anyway. There definition of what might constitute "working" for physics, can't necessarily be applied across the board.

Not literally.. but metaphorically, they can.

Essentially I think you're missing out a very important part of the epistemological debate.. which is belief.

 

[articul8]

Essentially I think you're missing out a very important part of the epistemological debate.. which is belief.

But there are things that - even if I don't believe them - I could conceive of circumstances in which such beliefs might be valid.

And there are beliefs which are simply absurd.