The Problem with Non-Philosophers

[Conscious Z]

I have occasionally found myself frustrated with the level of discourse on this forum, in particular the inability to make any actual progress on philosophical problems. It seems that every thread gets derailed within a page or two, or simply that the level of debate is not much better than I would expect to find in any random internet forum. While I realize that many people here have never taken any philosophy courses, and that is fine, I also think there is something to be said for engaging in productive philosophical banter. I don't think anyone needs a philosophy degree to do that.

I recently came across an article that articulates my frustrations well, and it surprised me that this article reminded me of this forum, considering that this is, after all, a philosophy forum.

Here it is: Philosophy, et cetera: The Problem with Non-Philosophers

The three I found most applicable were the following:

2) They seem incapable of focusing on a particular argument.

4) They constantly fail to understand how a point (e.g. an analogy or thought experiment) fits in to a particular argument, and instead insist on applying it more broadly -- and then objecting when this irrelevant application fails! It's so frustrating.

5) Relatedly, they fail to grasp the import of hypotheticals.

In case you were wondering, the author is a philosopher at York.

 

[Ahermit]

Hello Conscious Z.
If a person of faith were to engage in a philosophical banter with a pure philosopher, it will soon deteriorate because the philosopher would reference everything from a knowledge based on logical truths; and the person of faith would reference everything from a knowing based on spiritual truths.

The person of faith uses their mind which listens to their Spirit of truth (Holy Spirit), and their knowing, of what is true, is based from that spirit-mind connection. While the pure philosopher uses their mind which listens to their worldly educated logic, and their knowledge, of what is true, is based from that worldly-mind connection.

Exercised faith is more in line with intuition than logic. Logical truths are based on worldly concepts, not on spiritual concepts. Spiritual truths are far deeper than any logic limited to this world. Normal languages of linguistics and/or mathematics is too limited and shallow for the deeper truths of God's word.

Any frustration stemming from lack of philosophical banter is more to do with not getting the validations sought. IMHO.

 

[Architeuthus]

If a person of faith were to engage in a philosophical banter with a pure philosopher, it will soon deteriorate because the philosopher would reference everything from a knowledge based on logical truths; and the person of faith would reference everything from a knowing based on spiritual truths.

Being a philosopher is not incompatible with being a Christian.

And, to the extent that your post is an attack on reason, I disagree with it 100%.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have occasionally found myself frustrated with the level of discourse on this forum, in particular the inability to make any actual progress on philosophical problems. It seems that every thread gets derailed within a page or two, or simply that the level of debate is not much better than I would expect to find in any random internet forum. While I realize that many people here have never taken any philosophy courses, and that is fine, I also think there is something to be said for engaging in productive philosophical banter. I don't think anyone needs a philosophy degree to do that.

I recently came across an article that articulates my frustrations well, and it surprised me that this article reminded me of this forum, considering that this is, after all, a philosophy forum.

Here it is: Philosophy, et cetera: The Problem with Non-Philosophers

The three I found most applicable were the following:

2) They seem incapable of focusing on a particular argument.

4) They constantly fail to understand how a point (e.g. an analogy or thought experiment) fits in to a particular argument, and instead insist on applying it more broadly -- and then objecting when this irrelevant application fails! It's so frustrating.

5) Relatedly, they fail to grasp the import of hypotheticals.

In case you were wondering, the author is a philosopher at York.

Hi Conscious,

This problem is analogous in some ways to one that educators deal with--that of motivating disinterested students in the processes of learning. It's a common problem.

Likewise, a lot of disinterestedness over philosophical engagement probably comes about because many people do not see the practicality of investing their time in something that (they perceive) does not solve real life problems.

Sure, you and I know that analysis can bring clarity to various issues, but admittedly, it takes a lot of work--and often a lot of bantering back and forth--to achieve some approximation of 'truth.' For most people, however, even for those who may be highly intelligent or have a stake in some important issue, the intensive study and practice of philosophy (work/bantering) is seen as a massive waste of time and effort.



Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello Conscious Z.
If a person of faith were to engage in a philosophical banter with a pure philosopher, it will soon deteriorate because the philosopher would reference everything from a knowledge based on logical truths; and the person of faith would reference everything from a knowing based on spiritual truths.

The person of faith uses their mind which listens to their Spirit of truth (Holy Spirit), and their knowing, of what is true, is based from that spirit-mind connection. While the pure philosopher uses their mind which listens to their worldly educated logic, and their knowledge, of what is true, is based from that worldly-mind connection.

Exercised faith is more in line with intuition than logic. Logical truths are based on worldly concepts, not on spiritual concepts. Spiritual truths are far deeper than any logic limited to this world. Normal languages of linguistics and/or mathematics is too limited and shallow for the deeper truths of God's word.

Any frustration stemming from lack of philosophical banter is more to do with not getting the validations sought. IMHO.

Nice response, Ahermit! And welcome to Christian Forums!

2PhiloVoid

 

[Ahermit]

Being a philosopher is not incompatible with being a Christian.

And, to the extent that your post is an attack on reason, I disagree with it 100%.

Hello Architeuthus.
Being a philosopher is not incompatible with being a Christian.
Not at all, but imagine the depth a Christian philosopher would have. Though it may cause dissanction among non-Christian philosophers.

And, to the extent that your post is an attack on reason, I disagree with it 100%.
That is logical.

 

[Architeuthus]

Not at all, but imagine the depth a Christian philosopher would have.

There have been many Christian philosophers in the past (Augustine and Aquinas, just under the A's). There are still plenty around today.

Christian philosophers communicate in language, using reason and logic.

 

[Ahermit]

There have been many Christian philosophers in the past (Augustine and Aquinas, just under the A's). There are still plenty around today.

Christian philosophers communicate in language, using reason and logic.

True, but reason and logic can only go so far. Do/did you not have a knowing that cannot be explained by reason or logic?

 

[HitchSlap]

True, but reason and logic can only go so far. Do/did you not have a knowing that cannot be explained by reason or logic?

There is no "knowing" outside of reason and logic. Belief is not knowing, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Conscious Z]

True, but reason and logic can only go so far. Do/did you not have a knowing that cannot be explained by reason or logic?

I disagree that such knowledge exists, so long as we are talking about knowledge-that. If we are talking about knowledge-how or something similar, I agree that it isn't always explainable in proposition form. That's an irrelevant concern, however, as we are by nature discussing propositions on this forum. That is the nature of a forum. As such, I don't agree that there is relevant knowledge that isn't explained by reason or logic.

 

[Conscious Z]

Hi Conscious,

This problem is analogous in some ways to one that educators deal with--that of motivating disinterested students in the processes of learning. It's a common problem.

Likewise, a lot of disinterestedness over philosophical engagement probably comes about because many people do not see the practicality of investing their time in something that (they perceive) does not solve real life problems.

Sure, you and I know that analysis can bring clarity to various issues, but admittedly, it takes a lot of work--and often a lot of bantering back and forth--to achieve some approximation of 'truth.' For most people, however, even for those who may be highly intelligent or have a stake in some important issue, the intensive study and practice of philosophy (work/bantering) is seen as a massive waste of time and effort.



Peace
2PhiloVoid

Good response. I think this is a big part of it. It is similar to the distinction people often draw between "theory" and "practice," as though theory is somehow inherently irrelevant to practice.

 

[Paradoxum]

Here it is: Philosophy, et cetera: The Problem with Non-Philosophers

The three I found most applicable were the following:

2) They seem incapable of focusing on a particular argument.

4) They constantly fail to understand how a point (e.g. an analogy or thought experiment) fits in to a particular argument, and instead insist on applying it more broadly -- and then objecting when this irrelevant application fails! It's so frustrating.

5) Relatedly, they fail to grasp the import of hypotheticals.

As someone who's had philosophical training (to degree level) I agree. I know I don't always argue as best I could though... because I'm lazy.

I think the number (1) point is also relevant sometimes on this forum too. I swear at times people argue with a stupid argument, just to disagree with the person on the other side.

 

[Ahermit]

I disagree that such knowledge exists, so long as we are talking about knowledge-that. If we are talking about knowledge-how or something similar, I agree that it isn't always explainable in proposition form. That's an irrelevant concern, however, as we are by nature discussing propositions on this forum. That is the nature of a forum. As such, I don't agree that there is relevant knowledge that isn't explained by reason or logic.

Then explain with reason or logic what is precognition, intuition, clairvoyance, or knowing that God is.

 

[Conscious Z]

Then explain with reason or logic what is precognition, intuition, clairvoyance, or knowing that God is.

Those things aren't knowledge. You may have the belief that god is due to those things, but your belief is not a knowledge belief. Knowledge must come about through a justified method, and intuition or clairvoyance about the supernatural is not a justified method.

 

[Ahermit]

Those things aren't knowledge. You may have the belief that god is due to those things, but your belief is not a knowledge belief. Knowledge must come about through a justified method, and intuition or clairvoyance about the supernatural is not a justified method.

That is so illogical.
Part of determining and justifying your reasoning requires imagination of what could be true. Preknowledge requires an element of imagination. "If so..., what if..., could that be ...," etc., all these are imaginings. In this regard, unjustified methods of knowledge were used to determine what is logical or not. To disregard the illogical is in itself illogical.
Paradoxes exist because they require imagination to see both sides of the coin, though each side cannot see the other. Philosophers of logic are prone to only come from one side of the coin. And non-philosophers are more willing to accept that the coin does have another side to it. By doing so, they can see both sides of a paradox.

 

[Architeuthus]

Then explain with reason or logic what is precognition, intuition, clairvoyance, or knowing that God is.

I will grant you personal spiritual experience, but precognition and clairvoyance do not exist.

Intuition exists, but it doesn't provide knowledge; intuition is unreliable enough that its insights have to be confirmed with reason.

 

[Ahermit]

I will grant you personal spiritual experience, but precognition and clairvoyance do not exist.

Intuition exists, but it doesn't provide knowledge; intuition is unreliable enough that its insights have to be confirmed with reason.

What knowledge do you have that precognition and clairvoyance do not exist?

Or can you explain this: Since I have been driving a car (44 years now) I have always slowed right down after receiving thoughts that something is on the road just around the upcoming blind corner. On ever single occasion there was either a person, dog, cow, stopped vehicle, or a vehicle coming out of a driveway, that I would have collided with if I did not slow down. And never did I slow down to find nothing in the way.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... can you explain this: Since I have been driving a car (44 years now) I have always slowed right down after receiving thoughts that something is on the road just around the upcoming blind corner. On ever single occasion there was either a person, dog, cow, stopped vehicle, or a vehicle coming out of a driveway, that I would have collided with if I did not slow down. And never did I slow down to find nothing in the way.

As described, it sounds like a classic example of a type of confirmation bias - where you notice and remember the 'hits', but fail to notice, or forget, the 'misses' (there is often also an unconscious exaggeration that comes with recalling and recounting the story). Such experiences are not uncommon - most of us experience sequences of events that individually might seem coincidental but seem to occur far more regularly or frequently than can be accounted for by chance. It's the way our memory works - we tend to remember what strikes us as interesting or unusual, and this 'primes' us to notice if something similar happens again; we don't remember the instances where nothing interesting or unusual happens, even if they are far more frequent.

There are lots of these apparent sequences of coincidences associated with driving, because it lends itself to repeated experiences of particular types - from the stop lights that are always against you when you're late, to the sudden appearance of many cars of a particular model on the roads after an incident involving that model (especially after buying one).

Many of these seemingly unusual sequences are obviously perceptual errors, but many are not so obvious. Of those that can be, and have been, tested, the statistics invariably contradict the perceived experience, suggesting that it's our highly selective perception and memory that are misleading us. This particular account would be difficult, if not impossible, to test specifically, because it involves first 'receiving thoughts', which would need to be noted before entering the corner, which is problematic; and good drivers will tend to slow for blind corners anyway; and it's a subjective judgement as to whether you'd have collided with something had you not slowed due to 'receiving thoughts'. But it does follow the canonical pattern for confirmation bias, so that would be my explanation.

A wider (possibly more philosophical) approach would explore various ways to understand this phenomenon in general - for example, if this really involved receiving thoughts, who's thoughts might they be, received by what mechanism? or why, if an otherwise inevitable accident is always avoided by acting on thoughts received, do such accidents occur at all?; does everyone receive thoughts but some fail to act? do only some receive them - if so why? Are such thoughts received in other potentially dangerous situations? if not, why not? is religious or spiritual belief a factor in receiving or acting on these thoughts? Do people who don't receive such thoughts have more accidents than those who do receive them? What would we expect the world to look (e.g. accident stats) like if this effect was real? Should insurance companies be taking an interest? etc.

 

[KCfromNC]

What knowledge do you have that precognition and clairvoyance do not exist?

If you had the power of precognition, you wouldn't have to ask. You'd know the answer before this thread even started.

 

[Ahermit]

As described, it sounds like a classic example of a type of confirmation bias - where you notice and remember the 'hits', but fail to notice, or forget, the 'misses' (there is often also an unconscious exaggeration that comes with recalling and recounting the story)....

After reading your response I am so grateful that my life is not so full of doubt.