Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[juvenissun]

You seem to ascribe very little value to all that work if you think you can just jump into the discussion at will and operate at their level.

I can't. Because I can not use the language and I don't know the historical discussion on the issue (i.e. he said ... and she said ...)

I DO can discuss/argue with them IF they patiently explained the issue to me in plain English. They are better than me in having a larger database, but not in the use of data.

King Solomon said: there is no new things under the sun. We are NOT any inferior than Socrates in the understanding of some famous philosophical issues he talked about. Only he talked about it at a much earlier time than we could.

 

[juvenissun]

I do believe you or I could talk sensibly about most philosophical concepts. But our discussion will typically be rather shallow as we reinvent the wheels for ourselves. Studied philosophers have typically reviewed these topics from multiple angles, and in depth.

When someone offers themselves up as a "philosopher", I expect the depth that you get from real study, and not just native intelligence or training in other fields. Also, I think you might be surprised at how much the typical philosopher has assimilated scientific knowledge and the assumptions that underlie the scientific method.

I understand that.

To a philosophical issue, I may come up with one view which is new to me. However, they could easily point out that my view have been brought up by a particular philosopher 1000 years ago. That is fine. But would that also suggest that I am as good as the famous philosopher 1000 years ago? If so, should I also be called a philosopher?

Yes, they know more about an issue. But my carefully thought understanding may not be any worse then one which has been addressed by a philosopher. And consider ... that I have never taken a single course in philosophy.

That is why I think I got a title called a Ph.D. (in Geology). It means that I understand philosophy through the study of geology. If I understand philosophy, then why couldn't I also be called a philosopher?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Cheap responses. Shame.

I'm not ashamed for being honest with you. I'm just trying to give you honest feedback. Do with it what you will.

That is why I think I got a title called a Ph.D. (in Geology). It means that I understand philosophy through the study of geology.

No, it doesn't, as has been explained to you dozens of times in this thread. No one who gives someone a Ph.D. in Geology does so because they think that someone understands philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Most philosophical arguments are crippled without a scientific understanding.

Remind me how lack of 'a scientific understanding' cripples most philosophical arguments on ethics & morals. Alternatively, please clarify what you mean by, 'a scientific understanding'.

 

[durangodawood]

....To a philosophical issue, I may come up with one view which is new to me. However, they could easily point out that my view have been brought up by a particular philosopher 1000 years ago. That is fine. But would that also suggest that I am as good as the famous philosopher 1000 years ago? If so, should I also be called a philosopher?

Thats the problem. You may come up with one view. By contrast, training in the field will have exposed you to multiple views, and tested them against each other... which is work that you and I have not done.

When we advertise "Philosopher", it means, to most people, that we've had that training, done that work. If you havent done the work, then its really false advertising and toying with people's expectations. Excusable as a lark, I suppose. Dishonest if we persist, though.

 

[juvenissun]

Remind me how lack of 'a scientific understanding' cripples most philosophical arguments on ethics & morals. Alternatively, please clarify what you mean by, 'a scientific understanding'.

Philosophical arguments on ethics and morals have high probability to use scientific knowledge. For example: Since biology suggests .... so human should ....

 

[juvenissun]

Thats the problem. You may come up with one view. By contrast, training in the field will have exposed you to multiple views, and tested them against each other... which is work that you and I have not done.

When we advertise "Philosopher", it means, to most people, that we've had that training, done that work. If you havent done the work, then its really false advertising and toying with people's expectations. Excusable as a lark, I suppose. Dishonest if we persist, though.

It is true.

However, it is very interesting to notice that to a philosophical issue, conclusions made from the work of multiple views, syntheses, analyses, tests done by "philosophers" of all ages are usually not any better than any single view used in the analysis. A philosophical question usually does not have a correct answer.

This is the nature of philosophy. As a consequence, I do not think my "untrained" view to a particular issue is any worse than those made by "professionals". In particular, if my argument includes, for example, some modern geological data/understanding which no one have ever used before, it might even become a better conclusion than all others.

 

[durangodawood]

It is true.

However, it is very interesting to notice that to a philosophical issue, conclusions made from the work of multiple views, syntheses, analyses, tests done by "philosophers" of all ages are usually not any better than any single view used in the analysis. A philosophical question usually does not have a correct answer.

This is the nature of philosophy. As a consequence, I do not think my "untrained" view to a particular issue is any worse than those made by "professionals". In particular, if my argument includes, for example, some modern geological data/understanding which no one have ever used before, it might even become a better conclusion than all others.

Sounds like you should present yourself as a geologist rather than a "philosopher". Keep it honest.

 

[juvenissun]

Sounds like you should present yourself as a geologist rather than a "philosopher". Keep it honest.

Based on the recognition of the majority, I would never claim that I am a philosopher.
But, yes, honestly, I do think I am a philosopher. And I am very happy about that since I did not spend time on a single course of philosophy.

It is not if I am or am not. It is about the interesting nature and relationship between science and philosophy. I do think those people who decided to offer a person who has the ultimate degree of scientific learning, a title of Ph.D., were very wise.

To conclude, this is my definition of a philosopher: A philosopher is one who knows how to teach himself very efficiently.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Based on the recognition of the majority, I would never claim that I am a philosopher.
But, yes, honestly, I do think I am a philosopher.

This brought a chuckle.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That is why I think I got a title called a Ph.D. (in Geology).

Regarding that, how did you get this Ph.D.? What was your thesis paper about?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Regarding that, how did you get this Ph.D.? What was your thesis paper about?


eudaimonia,

Mark

In my time, it took me 4 years directly (skipped the M.S.) after B.S. It was a good deal.
My dissertation? About rocks. How many types of rocks do you know? Three? It covered two of them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Philosophical arguments on ethics and morals have high probability to use scientific knowledge. For example: Since biology suggests .... so human should ....

Oh yeah; great example

What about:
Is killing always wrong?
Can there be a just war?
Is lying ever permissable?
Is 'collateral damage' acceptable (both in reality and as a description)?
What are the problems with consequentialism?
Are deontological ethical theories necessarily agent-relative?

 

[juvenissun]

Oh yeah; great example

What about:
Is killing always wrong?
Can there be a just war?
Is lying ever permissable?
Is 'collateral damage' acceptable (both in reality and as a description)?
What are the problems with consequentialism?
Are deontological ethical theories necessarily agent-relative?

In terms of scientific contents it may involve, correspondently:

plant life vs. animal life; is human an animal?
war among animals.
neuroscience.
smart weapons
?
?

? means I don't understand the question.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In terms of scientific contents it may involve, correspondently:

plant life vs. animal life; is human an animal?
war among animals.
neuroscience.
smart weapons
?
?

? means I don't understand the question.

Not to worry; you've neatly demonstrated the difference between the knowledge of philosophy you get from a Ph.D. in geology and that you get from studying philosophy.

 

[juvenissun]

Not to worry; you've neatly demonstrated the difference between the knowledge of philosophy you get from a Ph.D. in geology and that you get from studying philosophy.

Certainly. Not many philosophers can use good scientific information to support their arguments. They would either be stunned and do not know what to say, or they would simply ignore the scientific part of the argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Certainly. Not many philosophers can use good scientific information to support their arguments. They would either be stunned and do not know what to say, or they would simply ignore the scientific part of the argument.

I don't know about the philosophers you've encountered, but that's not been my experience; a good knowledge or the relevant science is particularly important in epistemology and metaphysics. Science isn't essential for all areas of philosophy, but I don't think you can call yourself a serious philosopher without some relevant scientific knowledge in those fields.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know about the philosophers you've encountered, but that's not been my experience; a good knowledge or the relevant science is particularly important in epistemology and metaphysics. Science isn't essential for all areas of philosophy, but I don't think you can call yourself a serious philosopher without some relevant scientific knowledge in those fields.

I can't agree more.
The fact is, very few philosopher has a Ph.D. level science training.

So, compare two persons:

A: A Ph.D. in science, with a little philosophy understanding.
B: A Ph.D. in philosophy, with a little scientific understanding.

Who can make a better argument on some (or most) philosophical issues?

I am not sure person B will always be the one.
So, what B can argue (philosophy), sometimes A can also do it, and may even do it better.
What A can argue (science), B usually can only say very little about it.

That is my view toward a formally trained philosopher.
If I want to be a philosopher, I want to get both TWO ph.D.s. It would take me 8 to 10 years.

 

[durangodawood]

I can't agree more.
The fact is, very few philosopher has a Ph.D. level science training.

So, compare two persons:

A: A Ph.D. in science, with a little philosophy understanding.
B: A Ph.D. in philosophy, with a little scientific understanding.

Who can make a better argument on some (or most) philosophical issues?

I am not sure person B will always be the one.
So, what B can argue (philosophy), sometimes A can also do it, and may even do it better.
What A can argue (science), B usually can only say very little about it.

That is my view toward a formally trained philosopher.
If I want to be a philosopher, I want to get both TWO ph.D.s. It would take me 8 to 10 years.

Can you give us an example of a typical, specific philosophical question for which the scientist would likely provide a better response than a philosopher?

 

[juvenissun]

Can you give us an example of a typical, specific philosophical question in which the scientist would likely provide a better response than a philosopher?

I can not come with one right off my head. Use the one brought up by Furiousxxx:Is killing always wrong?

If a biologist thought that human is only an evolved animal, then kill a human is probably not that much different from killing a monkey. Is it wrong to kill a monkey without a good reason? How about kill a chicken? Or, how about kill a cabbage?

See how much biology would be involved in the issue? Could a "formally" trained philosopher handle this issue along this particular context? When terminating a life, should we only worry about human life, but not other forms of life?