Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[anonymous person]

You're not a philosopher. You don't even engage with the philosophical canon... You're diluting what so many people have worked so hard to create with your attitude towards this ancient intellectual tradition by claiming it for yourself...

Hmm...

Ok....

Thank you for your insightful and constructive criticism.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Thank you for your insightful constructive criticism.

Well, I've got a degree in philosophy, you think anyone can be a philosopher and that it's simply asking questions and thinking about things. You can't just call yourself a philosopher and expect it to mean something - It would be like calling yourself a scientist because you've paid careful attention to the grass in your lawn...

 

[anonymous person]

Well, I've got a degree in philosophy, you think anyone can be a philosopher and that it's simply asking questions and thinking about things. You can't just call yourself a philosopher and expect it to mean something - It would be like calling yourself a scientist because you've paid careful attention to the grass in your lawn...

Thank you for telling me you have a degree. That's great.

And thanks for the illustration too.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Thank you for telling me you have a degree. That's great.

And thanks for the illustration too.

It means that I've devoted years to studying a very particular set of rules and methods, reading the philosophical canon and engaging with it. From what I've read of you, even outside of the academic environment you simply haven't done this and yet you claim to be a philosopher... Again, it would be like claiming to be a historian because you've asked your grandparent what they remembered about the 50s...

 

[Neogaia777]

It means that I've devoted years to studying a very particular set of rules and methods, reading the philosophical canon and engaging with it. From what I've read of you, even outside of the academic environment you simply haven't done this and yet you claim to be a philosopher... Again, it would be like claiming to be a historian because you've asked your grandparent what they remembered about the 50s...

Can you answer my question, in a few paragraphs how would you introduce someone to Philosophy?

 

[anonymous person]

It means that I've devoted years to studying a very particular set of rules and methods, reading the philosophical canon and engaging with it. From what I've read of you, even outside of the academic environment you simply haven't done this and yet you claim to be a philosopher... Again, it would be like claiming to be a historian because you've asked your grandparent what they remembered about the 50s...

And you are wrong. But that's ok. Even the best of us sometimes draw erroneous conclusions from what people write here on this forum. It happens sometimes.

 

[Davian]

Why does the definition have to be testable or falsifiable?

The "philosopher" is asking me why a definition has to be testable or falsifiable to be workable? lol.

What are you referring to when you say anonymous stories of nameless witness accounts?

Anonymous authors of the gospels and unnamed eye witnesses that the gospel discusses.

I would imagine, this is what he meant.

Indeed. I thought he would have known that one.

 

[anonymous person]

The "philosopher" is asking me why a definition has to be testable or falsifiable to be workable? lol.


Indeed. I thought he would have known that one.

Can you provide a workable definition of workable definition?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Can you answer my question, in a few paragraphs how would you introduce someone to Philosophy?

OK, this may take some time...
Philosophy can be abstract and theoretical. Humans do things for reasons, we desire certain things and believe that acting in certain ways will get us those things. Values and concepts are the building blocks of desires and beliefs. Humans also reflect on and criticise the reasons we do things. We constantly question whether or not we have good reasons for whatever we are doing and for whatever we are believing. Having the capacity to reflect on one's reason is another part of being human.

Everyone has this sort of capacity, this ability to reflect on basic concepts and values. It is the love of this activity which is philologically what philosophy is: the love of reason. If you worry about whether there is a God or not, what the difference between the future and the past is, why we can't turn around in time as we can in space, whether one is a brain in a vat in another's experiment, whether other humans have minds or just you, how you would know if blue things looked to you just like green things looked to everyone else, how one can be 'free' if every physical event has a physical cause, or why it was wrong to lie and cheat. These are philosophical conundrums and if you worry about them you may be inclined towards this great and ancient tradition of focusing on the minute details of these various problems logically and reasonably.

Philosophy means thinking as hard and as clearly as one can about some of the most interesting and enduring problems that human minds have ever encountered. Some of these problems have been discussed since ancient times. Whether an act is right or wrong has been discussed by both Plato and David Hume, and very many people in between. To read philosophy well one must read slowly and aggressively. Good philosophers develop arguments and theories of some intricacy; arguments that are designed to convince the reader of the author's position on important issues.

Philosophy is also inevitably technical. The philosopher constructs arguments, theories, positions or criticisms in an attempt to persuade his or her most intelligent and perceptive opponents. To understand these sorts of arguments best one must engage with them from the most intelligent and perceptive perspective possible. To read philosophy aggressively, one should always imagine oneself in dialogue with the philosopher. I'll give an example in reading Descartes First Meditation.

Today, then having rid myself of worries and having arranged for some peace and quiet, I withdraw alone, free at last earnestly and wholeheartedly to overthrow all my beliefs.
To do this, I do not need to show each of my beliefs to be false; I may never be able to do that. But since reason now convinces me that I ought to with-hold my assent just as carefully from what is not obviously certain and indubitable as from what is obviously false, I can justify the rejection of all my beliefs if I can find some ground for doubt in each. And, to do this, I need not take on the endless task of running through my beliefs one by one: since a building collapses when its foundation is cut out from under it. I will go straight to the principles on which all my former beliefs rested.

One may engage for example with the second paragraph:
Descartes: To do this...
Reader: To do what? Overthrow all your beliefs. And what does that mean? Every single one of them? This does seem like an odd sort of endeavour...
Descartes: I do not need to show each of my beliefs to be false; I may never be able to do that...
Reader: OK so not every belief, yet why the desire to do so?
Descartes: But, since reason convinces me . . .
Reader: Reason? I wonder what exactly you may mean by that? I tend to use the word more as a verb than a noun. The dictionary definition would suggest something more as in a statement offered in explanation, connoting motive or sanity or intelligence. Are you saying your intelligence convinces you that you should be a great deal more cautious about what you believe? There may be more to this than that though since you seem to come from a tradition of "rationalism"...
Descartes: ... That I ought to with-hold my assent just as carefully from what is not obviously certain and indubitable as from what is obviously false; I can justify the rejection of all my beliefs if I can find some ground for doubt in each.
Reader: Let's get this straight: You said you would overthrow your beliefs just before then you said that to do this you don't need to show they are false. So with-holding assent may be something of an inbetween position... Yet, is this the case in reality to specific epistemological statements? If I don't believe that 1+1=2 then don't I automatically believe that it is not the case that 1+1=2? This may be true for rather simplistic notions however if I engage with larger mathematical problems I may be inclined to with-hold asset, until I add up 211435 + 2345 I'm not inclined to say one way or the other what the answer may be... What does the contrast between certainty and indubitable matters mean? Are you saying that what you are going to do is the same for everything, except that which is obviously certain or undoubtable?
Descartes: I can justify the rejection of all my beliefs if I can find some ground for doubt in each...
Reader: Well, not believing something on the grounds of being unsure or that something sounds weird, I guess that makes sense. But "ground for doubt" seems more technical... a basis for belief seems to me to be an exhausting project to try to refute.. This book is so short how can you go through each and every one of your beliefs?
Descartes: And, to do this, I need not take on the endless task of running through my beliefs one by one...
Reader: Thank heavens!
Descartes: ... Since a building collapses when its foundation is cut out from under it, I will go straight to the principles on which my former beliefs rested.
Reader: Is this an argument from metaphor? This seems a bit dubious. Are the assumptions underlying the appropriateness of this metaphor? You seem to think beliefs are a form of structure with foundations, so the foundation is a principle (or group of principles). I suppose beliefs depend in some way on certain principles... So you are going to isolate certain beliefs, on which the rest depend, and if you have grounds for doubt you will quit believing them, in the sense that you will with-hold assent? In doing so you will have ground for doubting all other beliefs which depend on this dubious principle? It seems like this should take longer than 50 pages but we shall see...

 

[Davian]

Can you provide a workable definition of workable definition?

lol.

If you are still stuck back on the concept of falsifiability, no.

 

[anonymous person]

lol.

If you are still stuck back on the concept of falsifiability, no.

Thank you.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

And you are wrong. But that's ok. Even the best of us sometimes draw erroneous conclusions from what people write here on this forum. It happens sometimes.

I have looked at the posts you've made, you seem to think that philosophy is simply asking "why" questions to every single answer. I'm reminded of this.

 

[Neogaia777]

OK, this may take some time...
Philosophy can be abstract and theoretical. Humans do things for reasons, we desire certain things and believe that acting in certain ways will get us those things. Values and concepts are the building blocks of desires and beliefs. Humans also reflect on and criticise the reasons we do things. We constantly question whether or not we have good reasons for whatever we are doing and for whatever we are believing. Having the capacity to reflect on one's reason is another part of being human.

Everyone has this sort of capacity, this ability to reflect on basic concepts and values. It is the love of this activity which is philologically what philosophy is: the love of reason. If you worry about whether there is a God or not, what the difference between the future and the past is, why we can't turn around in time as we can in space, whether one is a brain in a vat in another's experiment, whether other humans have minds or just you, how you would know if blue things looked to you just like green things looked to everyone else, how one can be 'free' if every physical event has a physical cause, or why it was wrong to lie and cheat. These are philosophical conundrums and if you worry about them you may be inclined towards this great and ancient tradition of focusing on the minute details of these various problems logically and reasonably.

Philosophy means thinking as hard and as clearly as one can about some of the most interesting and enduring problems that human minds have ever encountered. Some of these problems have been discussed since ancient times. Whether an act is right or wrong has been discussed by both Plato and David Hume, and very many people in between. To read philosophy well one must read slowly and aggressively. Good philosophers develop arguments and theories of some intricacy; arguments that are designed to convince the reader of the author's position on important issues.

Philosophy is also inevitably technical. The philosopher constructs arguments, theories, positions or criticisms in an attempt to persuade his or her most intelligent and perceptive opponents. To understand these sorts of arguments best one must engage with them from the most intelligent and perceptive perspective possible. To read philosophy aggressively, one should always imagine oneself in dialogue with the philosopher. I'll give an example in reading Descartes First Meditation.



One may engage for example with the second paragraph:
Descartes: To do this...
Reader: To do what? Overthrow all your beliefs. And what does that mean? Every single one of them? This does seem like an odd sort of endeavour...
Descartes: I do not need to show each of my beliefs to be false; I may never be able to do that...
Reader: OK so not every belief, yet why the desire to do so?
Descartes: But, since reason convinces me . . .
Reader: Reason? I wonder what exactly you may mean by that? I tend to use the word more as a verb than a noun. The dictionary definition would suggest something more as in a statement offered in explanation, connoting motive or sanity or intelligence. Are you saying your intelligence convinces you that you should be a great deal more cautious about what you believe? There may be more to this than that though since you seem to come from a tradition of "rationalism"...
Descartes: ... That I ought to with-hold my assent just as carefully from what is not obviously certain and indubitable as from what is obviously false; I can justify the rejection of all my beliefs if I can find some ground for doubt in each.
Reader: Let's get this straight: You said you would overthrow your beliefs just before then you said that to do this you don't need to show they are false. So with-holding assent may be something of an inbetween position... Yet, is this the case in reality to specific epistemological statements? If I don't believe that 1+1=2 then don't I automatically believe that it is not the case that 1+1=2? This may be true for rather simplistic notions however if I engage with larger mathematical problems I may be inclined to with-hold asset, until I add up 211435 + 2345 I'm not inclined to say one way or the other what the answer may be... What does the contrast between certainty and indubitable matters mean? Are you saying that what you are going to do is the same for everything, except that which is obviously certain or undoubtable?
Descartes: I can justify the rejection of all my beliefs if I can find some ground for doubt in each...
Reader: Well, not believing something on the grounds of being unsure or that something sounds weird, I guess that makes sense. But "ground for doubt" seems more technical... a basis for belief seems to me to be an exhausting project to try to refute.. This book is so short how can you go through each and every one of your beliefs?
Descartes: And, to do this, I need not take on the endless task of running through my beliefs one by one...
Reader: Thank heavens!
Descartes: ... Since a building collapses when its foundation is cut out from under it, I will go straight to the principles on which my former beliefs rested.
Reader: Is this an argument from metaphor? This seems a bit dubious. Are the assumptions underlying the appropriateness of this metaphor? You seem to think beliefs are a form of structure with foundations, so the foundation is a principle (or group of principles). I suppose beliefs depend in some way on certain principles... So you are going to isolate certain beliefs, on which the rest depend, and if you have grounds for doubt you will quit believing them, in the sense that you will with-hold assent? In doing so you will have ground for doubting all other beliefs which depend on this dubious principle? It seems like this should take longer than 50 pages but we shall see...

Thank You!

God Bless!

 

[anonymous person]

I have looked at the posts you've made, you seem to think that philosophy is simply asking "why" questions to every single answer. I'm reminded of this.

And like I said, you have come to the wrong conclusion.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

And like I said you have come to the wrong conclusion.

...Why?
[/sarcasm]

I just haven't found the engagement that you promised here. I initially asked you what sort of philosophy you engage with and you quoted me a bunch of Christian apologists, I then asked if you engaged in any other philosophers, I listed them, and you said yes, but I haven't seen substantial reference to any of them. When people ask you about the philosophy of science why don't you appeal to Karl Popper or Wittgenstein or any of the others? I'm inclined to think that it's because you don't know them...

 

[anonymous person]

...Why?
[/sarcasm]

I just haven't found the engagement that you promised here. I initially asked you what sort of philosophy you engage with and you quoted me a bunch of Christian apologists, I then asked if you engaged in any other philosophers, I listed them, and you said yes, but I haven't seen substantial reference to any of them. When people ask you about the philosophy of science why don't you appeal to Karl Popper or Wittgenstein or any of the others? I'm inclined to think that it's because you don't know them...

Why?

Because I believe philosophy is more than what you think I believe it is.

You don't have to be a philosopher to drop names either. A professional philosopher would know this.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Why?

Because I believe philosophy is more than what you think I believe it is.

You don't have to be a philosopher to drop names either. A professional philosopher would know this.

If you read professional philosophers you'll find that they engage with other professional philosophers. They quote them and detail how and why a specific segment of argumentation from them may be valid or invalid, etc.

What was it you believed "philosophy" was, again? I remember reading it and thinking that it seemed diluted, jejune and devoid of real intellectual engagement...

 

[anonymous person]

If you read professional philosophers you'll find that they engage with other professional philosophers. They quote them and detail how and why a specific segment of argumentation from them may be valid or invalid, etc.

What was it you believed "philosophy" was, again? I remember reading it and thinking that it seemed diluted, jejune and devoid of real intellectual engagement...

And yet in all your dialogue with me you have quoted no professional philosophers.
What you have succeeded in doing is making certain judgments about me after having read several posts I have written on an online forum. Judgments which have lead you to an erroneous conclusion.
Rather than resort to concluding that you are not really a professional philosopher at all, I will simply reserve judgment and give you the benefit of the doubt as I respectfully ask you to do for me.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

And yet in all your dialogue with me you have quoted no professional philosophers.
What you have succeeded in doing is making certain judgments about me after having read several posts I have written on an online forum. Judgments which have lead you to an erroneous conclusion.
Rather than resort to concluding that you are not really a professional philosopher at all, I will simply reserve judgment and give you the benefit of the doubt as I respectfully ask you to do for me.

It's this sort of thing which really strikes me as odd... You don't exhibit any sort of understanding of what philosophy is and claim that you should be understood as one... If you are a philosopher demonstrate it. Your ability to reason should be much more coherent than what has been exhibit thus far.

 

[anonymous person]

It's this sort of thing which really strikes me as odd... You don't exhibit any sort of understanding of what philosophy is and claim that you should be understood as one... If you are a philosopher demonstrate it. Your ability to reason should be much more coherent than what has been exhibit thus far.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be under the impression my aim is to prove to you that I am a philosopher.

I'm sorry for giving you that impression.

You either take my word that I am a philosopher or not. I take your word that you are. I'm not even remotely concerned with trying to prove this to you.