Pragmatising Philosophy

[agentred]

so what is your argument to antirealism?

bam bam sort of thing!

 

[nosos]

not convinced you're not.

but IF you are not, why you're saying nothing at all! except science should be reflexive. what that's got to do with pragmatist philosophy i do not know.

I genuinely don't understand anything you've just written.

 

[agentred]

what is your argument to antirealism?

sorry there seem to be conversation difficulties here.

 

[nosos]

What is my argument to antirealism?

 

[agentred]

sorry i thought this has something to do with philosophy - obviously not.

 

[nosos]

On ignore you go

 

[agentred]

I haven't insulted you, and you haven't managed to disagree with anything i say.

But if you don't like me fair enough

 

[agentred]

LOL.

Not here to argue - just here to be the bigger man

 

[Dillinger4]

I haven't insulted you, and you haven't managed to disagree with anything i say.

But if you don't like me fair enough

You just don't seem to really be saying anything. I think thats the problem.

Anyway, I won't derail this thread any longer.

*leaves thread*

 

[Demosthenes]

Kant famously has a section somewhere where he talks about the illusions of metaphysics.

I read that he thought he proved various metaphysical contraries, which he called antinomies, with totally valid arguments.

And then went on to say that it if it was possible to produce valid arguments for contrary points of view then there must be something wrong with the subject...

~but, myself, I think so far in this thread, metaphysics is fairly loosely defined.

I think that the question of whether or not the universe is conscious, or purposeful, or non-conscious and purposeless, is of profound pragmatic importance to us as individuals with individual purposes,

If that's a metaphysical question, then some metaphysical questions are of profound pragmatic importance.

I think that's obvious enough to be stated without argument, but, if anyone wants an argument for it, - I expect I can produce one, when I'm next here.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

Like I said earlier I cross-posted from another forum to see what reaction it got on here without editing it. Less jargonistic version in post #6. Stuff gets lost when you write like that though and/or it takes a lot more words to say what you mean.

Eta: the only jargon I can see in the sentence you quoted is "normatively" and that's a very widely used term within philosophy.

I'm not saying it's full of jargon, I'm saying it's needlessly abstruse.

 

[nosos]

I'm not saying it's full of jargon, I'm saying it's needlessly abstruse.

Ok if it was unnecessarily full of jargon I could see your point but abstruse? I often read things or hear things people who study science say that I don't understand and, guess what, I ask them. I don't attack them for not simplifying things for me. You're reading a philosophy forum ffs.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

Ok if it was unnecessarily full of jargon I could see your point but abstruse? I often read things or hear things people who study science say that I don't understand and, guess what, I ask them. I don't attack them for not simplifying things for me. You're reading a philosophy forum ffs.

OK for the uneducated dolt over here, explain the following terms and phrases:

truth-functional

transcending metaphysical language

epistemological and ontological commitments

reflexive awareness

possess utility relative to some prior framework of inquiry.

“grand theory” (and explain why it is in inverted commas)

Philosophy and metaphysics are reified answers to second order questions.

autonomous ‘higher’ spheres of truth, knowledge and reality.

 

[nosos]

Ok so it has got jargon in it then which is a fair enough criticism because unless you're familiar with the terminology it's going to be difficult to understand. Use of the terminology isn't just being willfully obtuse though. It allows you to be a lot more concise than you could otherwise be:

1. Capable of being true or false
2. Getting beyond talking about metaphysics
3. Making commitments to belief in certain kinds of things existing (ontology) and certain ways of gaining knowledge (epistemology)
4. Self-awareness about the process you're engaging in
5. They're only useful because you've embarked on a particular sort of inquiry in a particular sort of way. Their being useful depends on this context rather than being useful to all people in all contexts.
6. Large-scale ultra abstract theorising that doesn't connect to the world.
7. Philosophy is people asking questions about questions (2nd order questions) e.g. "what is x?" (1st order) vs "how do you know what is x?" (2nd order). Philosophy as a discipline is a product of people forgetting that this is just a certain sort of question and instead treating it as a thing that has it's own existence. It used to be a verb (a certain kind of activity certain kinds of people sometimes perform) and instead becomes a nown (a thing that transcends people's enagement in it).
8. Treating "truth" for example as something metaphysical that's independent of human contact with it and unversal rather than simply something humans talk about.

Hope that's of some use. What I meant is pretty much in post #7 though which (fleshed out a bit) probably would have made a better OP than the one I used.

 

[agentred]

Treating "truth" for example as something metaphysical that's independent of human contact with it.

It seems that everyone here think that that's what truth is, and of course that doesn't mean it's not something that we talk about too.

So you're not quite denying that there is contact with a mind independent reality, but rather that it's not a useful connection?

Why should we not talk about mind independent things, we do so all the time. Don't beg the question!

This is nice little essay http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~john.f.post/precistphil.htm

 

[agentred]

Your posts remind me of the open marx folks for some reason.

 

[lights.out.london]

Too many long words

I can hear the empty barrels rattling.

 

[agentred]

Thing is, is looking back i don't think philosophy does require much training. No more than a little reasoning practice - and teaching reasoning is to me a very open thing to do.

Sure you can say that it's very self referential, but there's authors out tere who'll go to the trouble of explaining the concepts and philosophers they introduce.

You just don't get "working class" physics self study groups.

 

[gorski]

If you ask Phil then Habermas would qualify [re. the title of the thread], it seems...