Could This Actually Happen?

[Jok]

The problem I find is that if one just picks something one can actually understand, one usually finds out later that one of the other philosophers, (or even that exact same philosopher), has picked that bit apart in some subsequent (or tangential) dissertation, leaving it in a complete and total mess.

So what was the point of spending all the effort in actually understanding that part?

I’m a hodgepodge, even with the same philosopher I’ll like some things they say but not others. And then a lot of it (maybe even most of it) is just background noise where I feel like they are either just stating the obvious, or not making a good argument for their position, but then other times I like it more as just a cool history of thought under different historical conditions that different philosophers lived under.

What you mentioned about the rebuttals that pick previous positions apart, sometimes I like to just think about both sides for awhile and ponder who I think makes a better point. So I guess I’m saying that even if I found that nothing in philosophy bettered my life or bettered my understanding, I would still find some thought entertainment value in it.

 

[SelfSim]

I’m a hodgepodge, even with the same philosopher I’ll like some things they say but not others. And then a lot of it (maybe even most of it) is just background noise where I feel like they are either just stating the obvious, or not making a good argument for their position, but then other times I like it more as just a cool history of thought under different historical conditions that different philosophers lived under.

What you mentioned about the rebuttals that pick previous positions apart, sometimes I like to just think about both sides for awhile and ponder who I think makes a better point. So I guess I’m saying that even if I found that nothing in philosophy bettered my life or bettered my understanding, I would still find some thought entertainment value in it.

Yeah .. I suppose .. I just get frustrated with having to engage my brain at such deep levels .. its a bit like math education .. its not intuitive on the surface .. but it usually ends up defining what logical consistency means (which is an understatement or tautology(?), I suppose .. given that math is the rigorous formulation of pure logic).

And the study of philosophy gives one confidence that one's own ideas, (particularly about religion and/or reality, for eg), have already been considered in way more detail than the average person would ever go to in everyday life thinking.

It provides other perspectives which are essential ingredients in acquiring wisdom too, (IMO).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... given that math is the rigorous formulation of pure logic).

I think that's debatable (given Gödel's incompleteness theorems).

And the study of philosophy gives one confidence that one's own ideas, (particularly about religion and/or reality, for eg), have already been considered in way more detail than the average person would ever go to in everyday life thinking.

It provides other perspectives which are essential ingredients in acquiring wisdom too, (IMO).

I agree.

 

[Jok]

And the study of philosophy gives one confidence that one's own ideas, (particularly about religion and/or reality, for eg), have already been considered in way more detail than the average person would ever go to in everyday life thinking.

It provides other perspectives which are essential ingredients in acquiring wisdom too, (IMO).

Well said! That was a better point about philosophy than the one that I gave.

 

[SelfSim]

... given that math is the rigorous formulation of pure logic).

I think that's debatable (given Gödel's incompleteness theorems).

How so?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How so?

As I understand it, David Hilbert made an attempt to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for mathematics, and Russell & Whitehead, in Principia Mathematica, attempted to derive mathematics from logical axioms. In both cases, Gödel's incompleteness theorems meant that those axioms produced a system that could not be both consistent and complete.

So for those who thought a rigorous formulation of pure logic should necessarily be consistent and complete (idealists?), mathematics could not be a rigorous formulation of pure logic, and for those who thought a rigorous formulation of pure logic would clearly not necessarily be both consistent and complete (realists?), mathematics was a canonical example of that fact.

 

[SelfSim]

So for those who thought ... (idealists?)
...
... and for those who thought ...(realists?)

Ok .. I see - (thanks for your clarification).

Funny how '-ists' (or '-isms') invariably drive discussions towards entirely useless arguments, eh?

If anything, the 'surprise' lesson for all those you mention above, was that the completeness/consistency of their logic, was shown to be entirely dependent on their belief in the 'truth' value of their posited assumptions ... aka: at the end of the day, that itself was just another belief .. (akin to an evidently religiously held one, what's more).

The truth value of Russell's axioms, IIRC, was totally dependent on the meaning of the words used in expressing them, (and circularity), which, I suppose, at least helped to expose how we are responsible for any meanings we associate with the concept of truth .. (and not some 'thing' which we believe exists independently from that).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok .. I see - (thanks for your clarification).

Funny how '-ists' (or '-isms') invariably drive discussions towards entirely useless arguments, eh?

If anything, the 'surprise' lesson for all those you mention above, was that the completeness/consistency of their logic, was shown to be entirely dependent on their belief in the 'truth' value of their posited assumptions ... aka: at the end of the day, that itself was just another belief .. (akin to an evidently religiously held one, what's more).

The truth value of Russell's axioms, IIRC, was totally dependent on the meaning of the words used in expressing them, (and circularity), which, I suppose, at least helped to expose how we are responsible for any meanings we associate with the concept of truth .. (and not some 'thing' which we believe exists independently from that).

Wittgenstein said there was no private language and that the meaning of words was in their usage; but it seems inevitable that meaning is subjective - the associations evoked within each brain. We can only appeal to shared meaning through the experience of similar events... but we know this is demonstrably unreliable.

 

[SelfSim]

... We can only appeal to shared meaning through the experience of similar events... but we know this is demonstrably unreliable.

Still, its better than the other method ...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Still, its better than the other method ...

Which is?

 

[SelfSim]

Which is?

Appealing to meanings shared by way of believed supernatural events that no-one has experienced ..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Appealing to meanings shared by way of believed supernatural events that no-one has experienced ..

OIC - yes, certainly better than that! It's simply incoherent...