Philosophy is Bunk!

Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.
User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Philosophy is Bunk!

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:55 am

Philosophy and Metaphysics separated from Science not long after Science separated from Alchemy.

Metaphysics and philosophy are simply illusions that are plausible to the self-aware intelligence. They are the last-religion.

Philosophy can not deal with the laws of physics. Firstly it doesn't understand them because they have passed beyond it's comprehension. Secondly, Science no longer requires an explanation that needs any kind of metaphysics.

There is only one option for philosophy to adopt if it wishes to remain valid, and that is to understand the Laws of Physics ... and that is something it cannot do without discarding everything it has ever stood for.

This is something I have known for 20 years, but evidently I'm not alone any longer in dismissing all philosophy, all metaphysics, all charlatans tho they know it not.

Philosophy no longer contributes a single solutary thing to our lives or our culture, it's an Albatross around our necks. It, like all religion, all spiritually, all metaphysics is nothing more than Bunk!

Here is the germ that philosophy must adopt to remain relevant.

THROW EVERYTHING OUT AND START AGAIN

Welcome to a more relevant world.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:52 am

When you have explained how one can have the laws of physics independently of the laws of logic. Without, of course, using the laws of logic in doing so, then you might start to have a point. Good luck trying to do this without even using logical connectives in your writing.

After you have achieved that impossibility, you'll need to explain how one can do science without making axiomatic choices about what counts as evidence, exactly what your method is and so on. These choices cannot be made scientifically without begging the question, that is, assuming the very posits you are trying to explain (away).

As it is, your claims are historically false, logically flawed, shamefully vague and, unsurprisingly flat wrong. The fact that they come within a few hours of me posting here for the first time in months makes them look a lot like trolling.

Business as usual then.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:46 am

[quote=""subsymbolic""] The fact that they come within a few hours of me posting here for the first time in months makes them look a lot like trolling.
.[/quote]

Fact? It is a fact I posted here a few hours after you (if you say so) and that neither of us have made a post here in months (I haven't anyway) But that the two are connected is hypothesis, not fact.

However, it is a controversial post. I'm not trolling because trolls don't choose between fact and fiction, either suits.

The post is genuine. And as you can see by the link it has credible support. The link is a critical review of the book 'Everything must go' written by philosophers for philosophers. The critic is credible and from a good source, the book is credible and controversial.

So, I posted both sides in effect. Just like you I've never read the book only a summary. The summary tells me that it comes from the same viewpoint I have. I'm sure between the critic and the book ($100+) you will find the answers to the questions in the remainder of your post.

🙏🏽

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:57 am

The book under review argues that everything metaphysical must go. How do get from there to saying that philosophy is bunk?

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:16 am

There are heaps of reviews on the book. But this is a good summary.

Every Thing Must Go argues that the only kind of metaphysics that can contribute to objective knowledge is one based specifically on contemporary science as it really is, and not on philosophers' a priori intuitions, common sense, or simplifications of science.

In addition to showing how recent metaphysics has drifted away from connection with all other serious scholarly inquiry as a result of not heeding this restriction, they demonstrate how to build a metaphysics compatible with current fundamental physics ('ontic structural realism'), which, when combined with their metaphysics of the special sciences ('rainforest realism'), can be used to unify physics with the other sciences without reducing these sciences to physics itself.

Taking science metaphysically seriously, Ladyman and Ross argue, means that metaphysicians must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:20 am

[quote=""Hermit""]The book under review argues that everything metaphysical must go. How do get from there to saying that philosophy is bunk?[/quote]

Well ... all current philosophy. A new philosophy will be capable of informing the man in the street about the physical world we live in. It will give a conceptual view of objective reality without having to be a particle physicist.

No philosophy does that. Ergo: All philosophy is Bunk.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:21 am

I asked you how to get from "everything metaphysical must go" to "philosophy is bunk". Care to attempt a reply?

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:26 am

No :)

Look mate, read the last paragraph of the summary above.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:53 am

Yes, Ladyman and Ross argue that metaphysics is bunk. I got that. How does that lead to your assertion that philosophy is bunk? Is logic not philosophy? And what about epistemology? Is that not philosophy either? Can you have a body of scientific knowledge without any philosophic foundation at all? Even at its most primitive level, is empiricism not ultimately based on metaphysical propositions?

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:58 am

The fact that they come within a few hours of me posting here for the first time in months makes them look a lot like trolling.
Fact? It is a fact I posted here a few hours after you (if you say so) and that neither of us have made a post here in months (I haven't anyway) But that the two are connected is hypothesis, not fact.
Absolutely. That's why I used the words 'look a lot like' to express the conditionality. Or are you just looking for a row?
However, it is a controversial post. I'm not trolling because trolls don't choose between fact and fiction, either suits.
All the trolls I've met claim to be factual. As do you.
The post is genuine. And as you can see by the link it has credible support. The link is a critical review of the book 'Everything must go' written by philosophers for philosophers. The critic is credible and from a good source, the book is credible and controversial.
As Hermit has pointed out, how you get from a book making a metaphysical claim to the claim that philosophy is bunk is rather unclear
So, I posted both sides in effect.
Did you? it just looks like the same old toss supported by the vague hope that a source you haven't read might offer some support. Get back when you have read it.
Just like you I've never read the book only a summary. The summary tells me that it comes from the same viewpoint I have.
I'm assuming that you noticed the word 'analytic' before the word metaphysics. would you care to explain what that particular word means in this particular context? Because adjectives sometimes matter.

By way of an example. Imagine a book that states that poisonous fruits should be banned. Now imagine someone who doesn't like fruit arguing that the conclusion is that all fruits should be banned.

So, please explain what 'Analytic' means in this particular context?

Also, I assume you got bored before the final conclusion of the summary:
In rejecting the modes of argument they see as characteristic of analytic metaphysics, the authors of Every Thing Must Go have, I fear, also cut themselves off from the techniques analytic metaphysics has developed for stating claims clear and explicit enough to be worthy targets of argument.

They launch straight into their own elaborate suite of arguments -- from the nature of scientific progress; from various facets of modern physics up to and including quantum gravity; from claims of an anti-reductionist character made on behalf of various special sciences -- while resting content with formulations of their conclusions that do not adequately discriminate between such radically dissimilar views as (i)-(iv) from the previous section.

The whole approach of Every Thing Must Go reflects an exaggerated sense of the importance of argument in metaphysics, and a corresponding underestimation of the difficulty of merely crafting a view coherent and explicit enough for arguments to get any grip. This is a great pity, from the point of view of anyone who shares the authors' belief that analytic metaphysics has much to learn from a more informed engagement with modern physics and philosophy of physics. If this desirable interaction is to take place, it will have to be pushed forward by philosophers with a foot in both camps, who combine a rigorous understanding of the space of interpretative possibilities opened up by the physical theories with a metaphysician's patience for fine distinctions and quibbling objections.[9]

Alas, the alienated approach of Every Thing Must Go seems likely, if it has any effect at all on analytic metaphysicians, merely to confirm a few more of them in their impression that no one has yet shown how developments in the sciences might be relevant to their concerns.
Because it seems to me that it doesn't remotely support your conclusion.

Nothing changes.

User avatar
DrZoidberg
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:50 am

Post by DrZoidberg » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:06 am

[quote=""Grendel""]Philosophy and Metaphysics separated from Science not long after Science separated from Alchemy.

Metaphysics and philosophy are simply illusions that are plausible to the self-aware intelligence. They are the last-religion.

Philosophy can not deal with the laws of physics. Firstly it doesn't understand them because they have passed beyond it's comprehension. Secondly, Science no longer requires an explanation that needs any kind of metaphysics.

There is only one option for philosophy to adopt if it wishes to remain valid, and that is to understand the Laws of Physics ... and that is something it cannot do without discarding everything it has ever stood for.

This is something I have known for 20 years, but evidently I'm not alone any longer in dismissing all philosophy, all metaphysics, all charlatans tho they know it not.

Philosophy no longer contributes a single solutary thing to our lives or our culture, it's an Albatross around our necks. It, like all religion, all spiritually, all metaphysics is nothing more than Bunk!

Here is the germ that philosophy must adopt to remain relevant.

THROW EVERYTHING OUT AND START AGAIN

Welcome to a more relevant world.[/quote]

This post is a philosophical statement. You are using logic (=philosophy) to prove it. You're using arguments (=philosophy) to further your case.

I'd say this post disproves your argument. Thanks for playing, but no cigar.

User avatar
Iolo
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:50 pm

Post by Iolo » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:15 am

It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.
Gobeithiaw y ddaw ydd wyf.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:16 am

Here's a link to the book. I don't know how long it will stay up. But it appears that you can copy and save it.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... ust-go.pdf

In answer to the difference between metaphysicians and philsophers ... then there is none. Metaphysics dominates philosophy.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:17 am

[quote=""Iolo""]It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.[/quote]

It seems to me too. 😂

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:18 am

[quote=""Iolo""]It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.[/quote]
Yeah. Right. Agreeing on the meaning of words is pointless in any argument. :rolleyes:

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:31 am

[quote=""Iolo""]It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.[/quote]

Really.

Quite apart from that being one specific school of philosophy among many, perhaps you'd like to explain why arguing about the precise meaning of words is pointless.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:35 am

[quote=""Grendel""]Here's a link to the book. I don't know how long it will stay up. But it appears that you can copy and save it.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... ust-go.pdf

In answer to the difference between metaphysicians and philsophers ... then there is none. Metaphysics dominates philosophy.[/quote]

But that's just factually false. Either you are so poorly informed to be embarrassing or simply trolling. Or both. Past experience suggests both.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:37 am

[quote=""Hermit""]
Iolo;677871 wrote:It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.
Yeah. Right. Agreeing on the meaning of words is pointless in any argument. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

I agree with you. A word (or words) has no definitive meaning ultimately. If it did there would be no such thing as a theasaurus would there? That's a book of lists where words try to define each other by referring to each other

What Iolo is saying is that beyond the point of context any further meaning you are trying to find becomes an asymptotic search. You may get closer but you'll never get there. And meanwhile the information the word carried is lost. Communication becomes futile, and you're proving that.

If you don't like the title of the thread, then change it. You're the mod.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:12 pm

[quote=""subsymbolic""]
Grendel;677872 wrote:
In answer to the difference between metaphysicians and philsophers ... then there is none. Metaphysics dominates philosophy.
But that's just factually false. Either you are so poorly informed to be embarrassing or simply trolling. Or both. Past experience suggests both.[/QUOTE]

Dennett say it does? So am I in good company or bad? Or perhaps poorly informed?

You can claim it's factually false. But there's no need for the critical personal assumptions, so lay off. OK?

Metaphysics dominates Philosophy to the extent that Philosphy accounts for reality. Not the philosophy of literature, or child care, or the eskimos or any other place it wanders into.

Philosophy cannot account for the underlying reality because it's only recourse is metaphysics. It no longer understands physics.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:56 pm

[quote=""Grendel""]A word (or words) has no definitive meaning ultimately. If it did there would be no such thing as a theasaurus would there? That's a book of lists where words try to define each other by referring to each other

What Iolo is saying is that beyond the point of context any further meaning you are trying to find becomes an asymptotic search. You may get closer but you'll never get there. And meanwhile the information the word carried is lost. Communication becomes futile, and you're proving that.[/quote]
There is no ultimate meaning. For words or anything else. This is true. But without first agreeing to a word having a mutually agreed meaning, at least in the provisional sense, there would be no point in discussion, would there? For instance, if we do not agree on the meaning of "philosophy" we could not have a meaningful discussion about the assertion that philosophy is bunk.

[quote=""Grendel""]If you don't like the title of the thread, then change it. You're the mod.[/quote]
I'm the mod? That's news to me. Further, even if I were, why should I? Not liking a thread's title is insufficient justification.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:34 pm

I thought you were a mod. I thought you were saying the title should be changed from philosophy to metaphysics. No offence ��

Ok. A very short definition, the philosophy of reality. Or, where philosophy gives an account for reality.

It's failed at the fundamental level. The true account is very very different. If the fundamental premise is wrong then you have to start again.

User avatar
Iolo
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:50 pm

Post by Iolo » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:34 pm

[quote=""subsymbolic""]
Iolo;677871 wrote:It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.
Really.

Quite apart from that being one specific school of philosophy among many, perhaps you'd like to explain why arguing about the precise meaning of words is pointless.[/QUOTE]

Because it encourages people to spend time trying to define imaginary concepts, for a start.
Gobeithiaw y ddaw ydd wyf.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:44 pm

[quote=""Iolo""]
subsymbolic;677875 wrote:
Iolo;677871 wrote:It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.
Really.

Quite apart from that being one specific school of philosophy among many, perhaps you'd like to explain why arguing about the precise meaning of words is pointless.
Because it encourages people to spend time trying to define imaginary concepts, for a start.[/QUOTE]

That's not really a reason any more than claiming that people shouldn't use lego because they might not follow the plan. Even if it were, can you explain what is wrong with defining imaginary concepts?

User avatar
Iolo
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:50 pm

Post by Iolo » Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:05 pm

[quote=""subsymbolic""]
Iolo;677897 wrote:
subsymbolic;677875 wrote:
Iolo;677871 wrote:It seems to me that most philosophers are failed linguists, spending their time arguing about the 'meaning' of words without understanding how pointless that is.
Really.

Quite apart from that being one specific school of philosophy among many, perhaps you'd like to explain why arguing about the precise meaning of words is pointless.
Because it encourages people to spend time trying to define imaginary concepts, for a start.
That's not really a reason any more than claiming that people shouldn't use lego because they might not follow the plan. Even if it were, can you explain what is wrong with defining imaginary concepts?[/QUOTE]

You get fantasies like Plato's obsessing the world for many centuries, as you know. Good literature surpasses philosophical blathering by many miles, because it relates to lived experience.
Gobeithiaw y ddaw ydd wyf.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:50 pm

[quote=""Iolo""]
subsymbolic;677899 wrote:
Iolo;677897 wrote:
subsymbolic;677875 wrote:
Really.

Quite apart from that being one specific school of philosophy among many, perhaps you'd like to explain why arguing about the precise meaning of words is pointless.
Because it encourages people to spend time trying to define imaginary concepts, for a start.
That's not really a reason any more than claiming that people shouldn't use lego because they might not follow the plan. Even if it were, can you explain what is wrong with defining imaginary concepts?
You get fantasies like Plato's obsessing the world for many centuries, as you know. Good literature surpasses philosophical blathering by many miles, because it relates to lived experience.[/QUOTE]

Are you really objecting to philosophy today by invoking Plato, a philosopher who has been dead for getting on for two and a half thousand years and who had quite a lot to say about lived experience as it happens. As for literature, you are going to need to stop generalising wildly. I quite agree that there is vast value in literature, but not all literature is remotely about lived experience while whole schools of philosophy are about little else.

Indeed, some, like Sartre and Camus, manage to do both at once.

While you seem to be struggling to actually answer perfectly reasonable questions.

Post Reply