What is philosophy for?

[daniel777]

How exactly does logic have anything to do with philosophy? Logic was formulated based upon observations and tests of the real world, and therefore logic is the result of science. We observe that things always behave certain ways, and therefore we have formulated laws to explain this behavior. Philosophy cannot come in after the fact and lay claims to logic. If philosophy is responsible for the laws logic, then please explain to us how philosophy went about defining them.

first of all, i do not agree with the way you're defining philosophy or science here. you seem to be defining science as "all truth arrived at from observation", and you're also assuming that philosophy for some reason never does that. that is nonsense. philosophy makes observations all the time. also, science does not make truth claims based on general observation. it makes truth claims based on a certain kind of observation, those observations that can be empirically verified. unfortunately, the assumptions that logic makes are not empirically verifiable, (law of identity, law of contradiction, law of excluded middle) so logic, at its foundation is unscientific by definition.

this idea of yours that only science can make observations is ridiculous.

Meaningful truth has everything to do with how we understand truth. A meaningless statement, by definition, cannot be understood. A meaningless statement describes something that cannot exist in reality, such as a square circle. Can you explain what a square circle is? Of course not, a square circle has no meaning because it cannot exist in reality.

can you scientifically verify that no square circles exist anywhere without making any philosophical assumptions?

this is actually a philosophical assumption.

there are certain things a scientist questions and certain things a scientist does not question (logical contradictions), why?

If truth exists, then by definition it must exist in a meaningful way.
Meaningless truth would be meaningless.
Subjective truth results in meaningless truth because contradictions become possible, this making truth meaningless.
With objective truth there is no longer the possibility of contradictions, and therefore truth now has meaning because it can refer to something that actually exists in reality without contradictions.

who's arguing for subjective truth?

Thus logic disproves all non-scientific approaches to knowledge:

no, this only proves you have very silly definitions for science and philosophy.

Logic proves that truth exists ("There is no truth" is a self-refuting statement if logic is true)

this is begging the question.

Truth must be objective in order to be logical (as I just explained in the last two paragraphs)
The only source of objective truth is reality (because reality is the only thing that is not influenced by human opinion)
Therefore observation and testing of reality is the only way to obtain truth.

and science only deals with that testable "physical" reality that is also empirically verifiable.

also, i don't agree that logic is only the tool of science. logic is very much a tool and branch of philosophy and can be used to test beyond the physical and empirically, experimentally verifiable.

There are no assumptions being made for science.

Basic assumptions of science

I suppose, in a manner of speaking, you could say that science started out as an assumption, aka a theory, but once it was tested it changed from theory into fact.

a reliable assumption doesn't make it a fact. that's not what "fact" means, at least not in the way you're equating truth to fact.

science can only arrive at "facts" by making probabilistic inferences from the evidence.
a probability can never be said to be 100% true or false, ie a fact.
science, if verified by itself, can never be said to be a fact.

Science is the only method of discovering truth that has ever discovered any truth.

if you accept that observation belongs to science alone.

If you want to challenge my syllogism above, and prove that philosophy has any validity, then please provide a single example of a discovery ever made by philosophy in the format I previously outlined:

you mean in the format that assumes that all observation is only scientific? also that science never assumes anything and that science and philosophy are mutually exclusive?

you've reduced philosophy to an abstraction without substance and elevated science to absolute truth without assumption.

 

[The Nihilist]

If we try several different methods of obtaining knowledge. if the only valid knowledge you get is from testing, then that is a non-philosophical way of arriving at that conclusion.

The interesting thing is that you'd have no way of verifying what knowledge is true and what knowledge is false, where ever it came from. This is why we have a plurality of religions.

 

[The Nihilist]

How exactly does logic have anything to do with philosophy? Logic was formulated based upon observations and tests of the real world, and therefore logic is the result of science. We observe that things always behave certain ways, and therefore we have formulated laws to explain this behavior. Philosophy cannot come in after the fact and lay claims to logic. If philosophy is responsible for the laws logic, then please explain to us how philosophy went about defining them.

Aristotle was the first figure to really formalize logic in a way that's meaningful today. Logic starts with axioms that are presuppositional, notably that of noncontradiction. Later, Kant makes the argument that these axioms are inherent in our cognitive processes. While contradictions may exist, we can only understand them as noncontradictory if we are to understand them at all.

Meaningful truth has everything to do with how we understand truth. A meaningless statement, by definition, cannot be understood. A meaningless statement describes something that cannot exist in reality, such as a square circle. Can you explain what a square circle is? Of course not, a square circle has no meaning because it cannot exist in reality.

If truth exists, then by definition it must exist in a meaningful way. Meaningless truth would be meaningless. Subjective truth results in meaningless truth because contradictions become possible, this making truth meaningless. With objective truth there is no longer the possibility of contradictions, and therefore truth now has meaning because it can refer to something that actually exists in reality without contradictions.

There are a lot of things going on in here that are suspect. The meaning you're applying to truth is ambiguous. Do you mean facts? Do you mean that facts are subjective?
It's not clear what subjective and objective mean in this context.
Your use of meaning is peculiar. First you say it has to do with how we understand it, then you say it has to do with existence. You seem to be assuming that anything that can exist must be understandable to humans, and it's not clear that this is true or why you think it is.

Thus logic disproves all non-scientific approaches to knowledge:

Logic proves that truth exists ("There is no truth" is a self-refuting statement if logic is true)
Truth must be objective in order to be logical (as I just explained in the last two paragraphs)
The only source of objective truth is reality (because reality is the only thing that is not influenced by human opinion)
Therefore observation and testing of reality is the only way to obtain truth.

While I have issues with every one of your premises, your conclusion does not follow from them. You need to show that observation and testing yield truth from objective reality. You should probably also show that our senses are trustworthy sources for observation.

There are no assumptions being made for science. I suppose, in a manner of speaking, you could say that science started out as an assumption, aka a theory, but once it was tested it changed from theory into fact. Science is the only method of discovering truth that has ever discovered any truth. If you want to challenge my syllogism above, and prove that philosophy has any validity, then please provide a single example of a discovery ever made by philosophy in the format I previously outlined:

Science never makes any claims about facts. Science starts as hypothesis, and through observation and testing, becomes theory. Knowledge is never claimed to be complete or absolute; these are exclusively the claims of religion. Science is always provisional and never more than our best present working understanding. If you're particularly interested in how science develops, Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions will explain this to you. It would be tedious for me to present it here and at least as tedious to read.

 

[Tiberius]

The interesting thing is that you'd have no way of verifying what knowledge is true and what knowledge is false, where ever it came from. This is why we have a plurality of religions.

But if we constantly test using the scientific method and get the same results and others agree with us when they perform similar tests, then we can be pretty sure we are getting accurate information.

So we can reasonably conclude that knowledge is true if it is tested and verified by many people at many different times.

 

[The Nihilist]

But if we constantly test using the scientific method and get the same results and others agree with us when they perform similar tests, then we can be pretty sure we are getting accurate information.

So we can reasonably conclude that knowledge is true if it is tested and verified by many people at many different times.

Actually, we can only be pretty sure that our experiments are doing the same thing. What the experiments will not provide is an interpretive framework or scientific model for understanding the data. That becomes essentially a creative process that can only ever be invalidated, but never validated.

Also, such a method has its limits. It will never provide answers to ethical questions, it will never answer questions about whether God exists, etc. The domain of philosophy has shrunk over the past 2500 years, but it is by no means gone.

 

[Tiberius]

Actually, we can only be pretty sure that our experiments are doing the same thing. What the experiments will not provide is an interpretive framework or scientific model for understanding the data. That becomes essentially a creative process that can only ever be invalidated, but never validated.

Not neccessarily. We can conduct experiments on radioactive decay, and while any similar experiments will provide similar results, that doesn't mean that is the extent of it. We can use that knowledge for many things, such as radio dating. The fact that we can use knowledge in many different fields and get useful results that can be verified by other knowledge gives validation.

Also, such a method has its limits. It will never provide answers to ethical questions, it will never answer questions about whether God exists, etc. The domain of philosophy has shrunk over the past 2500 years, but it is by no means gone.

Ethical questions are not part of the running of the universe. A star going supernova, the movement of asteroids, the behaviour of atoms, the flow of electricity, all of these operate according to the laws of the universe. They are subjective. But ethics - whether executing a murder is right or not, for example, or smacking a disobedient child - are not part of the underlay fabric of reality. The movement of an asteroid in a gravitational field can be predicted. We can tell where it will be in five years (they did that with the many space probes sent to the planets). But when it comes to predicting whether a child will be smacked, we have no way.

Philosophy may be better suited to asking questions like whether God exists, or what the meaning of life is, but those questions are subjective.

To wonder what the meaning of life is assumes that there is a meaning of life. A person can find their own answer, but that doesn't mean that they are here for that purpose. The universe may not have a plan for the person, and their answer to the meaning of life can be something completely internal to them.

And the exist of God has similar problems. There either definitely is a God, or there definitely isn't a God. And a person's answer does not neccessarily reflect reality. For example, a person may believe, but there could still be no God. Yet what that person believes to be a universe with a God is identical to the universe without a God.

So philosophy can never provide us with truth about the world around us, which is exactly the point i have been making throughout this thread.

 

[The Nihilist]

So philosophy can never provide us with truth about the world around us, which is exactly the point i have been making throughout this thread.

Oh. I thought you were in Verticordious's odd camp. I don't think anyone would disagree with your position.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ethical questions are not part of the running of the universe. A star going supernova, the movement of asteroids, the behaviour of atoms, the flow of electricity, all of these operate according to the laws of the universe. They are subjective. But ethics - whether executing a murder is right or not, for example, or smacking a disobedient child - are not part of the underlay fabric of reality. The movement of an asteroid in a gravitational field can be predicted. We can tell where it will be in five years (they did that with the many space probes sent to the planets). But when it comes to predicting whether a child will be smacked, we have no way.

Ok, so you don't believe in intrinsic values. But if there are no valuable things, we seem to be left with a justificatory infinite regress when asking "Why do I value this?". Anyway, if as you say below philosophy does not reveal truth, then you ought not say that ethics is subjective, as subjectivism is a meta-ethical (and therefore philosophical) perspective.

Philosophy may be better suited to asking questions like whether God exists, or what the meaning of life is, but those questions are subjective.

Agreed, philosophy is not a natural science.

To wonder what the meaning of life is assumes that there is a meaning of life. A person can find their own answer, but that doesn't mean that they are here for that purpose. The universe may not have a plan for the person, and their answer to the meaning of life can be something completely internal to them.

But either the statement "there is no objective meaning of life" is true or it is false. Philosophers seem to know that by use of logic.

And the exist of God has similar problems. There either definitely is a God, or there definitely isn't a God. And a person's answer does not neccessarily reflect reality. For example, a person may believe, but there could still be no God. Yet what that person believes to be a universe with a God is identical to the universe without a God.

Agreed, God exists or does not exist, by the Law of the Excluded Middle.

So philosophy can never provide us with truth about the world around us, which is exactly the point I have been making throughout this thread.

See above. Can't we have a priori knowledge "Either A or not A"?

 

[Tiberius]

Ok, so you don't believe in intrinsic values. But if there are no valuable things, we seem to be left with a justificatory infinite regress when asking "Why do I value this?". Anyway, if as you say below philosophy does not reveal truth, then you ought not say that ethics is subjective, as subjectivism is a meta-ethical (and therefore philosophical) perspective.

There are no objectively valuable things. And as I have been saying, philosophy tells us nothing about the objective nature of the universe.

Agreed, philosophy is not a natural science.

And thus, when we use philosophy to answer questions about the existence of God or the meaning of life, we have no way to show that those answers apply to the real universe.

But either the statement "there is no objective meaning of life" is true or it is false. Philosophers seem to know that by use of logic.

If there was an objective meaning of life, wouldn't scientific investigation be able to find it, as scientific investigation has proven results in learning about the objective universe?

See above. Can't we have a priori knowledge "Either A or not A"?

A priori knowledge about the real world? But that knowledge is testable. Once it is tested, we do not need philosophy to tell us about it. And before it is tested, we can't be certain that the knowledge is true.

Thus, no demonstratably true knowledge about the real world comes solely from philosophy. That's my point.

 

[ug333]

Philosphy is a waste of time. Mind games, nothing that is demonstratably applicable to reality.
........
Thus, no demonstratably true knowledge about the real world comes solely from philosophy. That's my point.

I pulled a quote from you from WAY back in this discussion. You seem to be under the premise that if it is not demonstrable it is a waste of time. I think we could be having a massive miscommunication. Let's break this down so we are all on the same page:

1. Can philosophy prove anything demonstrable?

2. Can non-demonstrable things be important?

3. Can philosophy be used to aid in the discussion of non-demonstrable ideas.

4. Is there another "tool" that is more helpful?

My responses:
1. No
2. Yes (i.e., when is OK to kill)
3. Yes
4. I don't think so

 

[Tiberius]

I'm afraid you misundersdtand me.

My point is that anything non-demonstratable cannot be shown to be objectively true.

For example, I can decide that in a particular circumstance it is okay to kill someone. But under the same situation, you may decide differently. The decision is entirely subjective.

In any case, I think that killing someone does have a demonstratable effect.

 

[ug333]

I'm afraid you misundersdtand me.

My point is that anything non-demonstratable cannot be shown to be objectively true.

For example, I can decide that in a particular circumstance it is okay to kill someone. But under the same situation, you may decide differently. The decision is entirely subjective.

In any case, I think that killing someone does have a demonstratable effect.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

So, I would say we both agree on my first question. Do you agree? It also seems like you do agree that non-demonstrable things can be important. Is that true?

 

[Tiberius]

That's hard to say. Non-demonstratable things are, by definition, subjective, and thus can only be said to apply to one person. Your opinion applies only to you. It is entirely possible that no one else in the world shares your opinion. Now, opinions may be important, but they are not objectively so. Your opinion may be important to you, but that does not mean it is important to anyone else. I think that all non-demonstratable things would fall into that category, though I may be wrong. I can't think of any exceptions though.

 

[ug333]

That's hard to say. Non-demonstratable things are, by definition, subjective, and thus can only be said to apply to one person. Your opinion applies only to you. It is entirely possible that no one else in the world shares your opinion. Now, opinions may be important, but they are not objectively so. Your opinion may be important to you, but that does not mean it is important to anyone else. I think that all non-demonstratable things would fall into that category, though I may be wrong. I can't think of any exceptions though.

I absolutely agree that what is important to one person may not be important to anyone else. So is that to mean that if we don't all agree that something is important, it is meaningless?

What if someone picked up a random stranger and enslaved him. Are you saying that it is a waste of time to take a stance as a society on this? The idea that it is wrong is DEFINITELY not demonstrable. However, the vast majority of us can agree on this because we share some very basic axioms, and thus share a philosophy about human freedom. Of course, this wasn't always the case. People had to contemplate the moral implications of slavery, which I would argue is philosophy.

 

[Tiberius]

I feel that you are misunderstanding me again.

My point is that philosophy is not objectively true, and can never be shown to be such. Just because we humans have a belief about such things, doesn't mean that such things are objectively true.

 

[ug333]

I feel that you are misunderstanding me again.

My point is that philosophy is not objectively true, and can never be shown to be such. Just because we humans have a belief about such things, doesn't mean that such things are objectively true.

I think we have settled on that, which is question 1. I am just trying to figure out your response to question 2-4. I would agree that "important" needs a more specific as it is a vague term. My intention was that "important" in this case meant "important to the vast majority of people".

I think my biggest difficulty is with something that you posted very on: "Philosophy is a waste of time. Mind games...". Is that something you still hold to be true?

 

[Tiberius]

For the most part.

For a person to have beliefs is fine. But I don't see that those beliefs can in any way be said to apply to anything more than the person holding them.

 

[ug333]

I must be confused. I posted that slavery is a philosophical issue, and by your opinion would be a waste of time to discuss. You posted back that I misunderstood you.

How? Do you not think the discussion of slavery was a philosophical discussion? If it is philosophical, it seems that by your stance it would be a waste of time. If it is not, what would you categorize the discussion?

I do think that, for me, answers to the 4 questions I posted earlier would help me better understand your position. Do you think you could respond to those, just so I don't continue to misunderstand what you are saying?

 

[Tiberius]

Holding someone as a slave and causing them to suffer is not a philosophical issue. It is real. Whether it is justified to have slaves is a philosophical issue. But the instant it is put into practice it is no longer a purely philosophical thing, because it changes the real world.

To answer the four questions you posted...

1. Can philosophy prove anything demonstrable?

No.

2. Can non-demonstrable things be important?
Not really, because I think that if it is important there will be a demonstratable consequence. For example, you used the example of if it is okay to kill. If it was, in a particular situation, justifiable to kill someone, then that justification would be demonstratable. For example, "It is okay to kill that person because he is about to blow up a school full of little kids and killing him is the only way to prevent it". If it was NOT demonstratable, then I can't see how the issue is relevant to the real world.

3. Can philosophy be used to aid in the discussion of non-demonstrable ideas.
That is all it is good for. In the case that a philosophical issue becomes demonstratable, then it has a real-world app;lication, and that real-world study becomes the primary method of investigation. Philosophy inevitably falls by the wayside when this occurs. Take the nature of the solar system, for example. Before the days of telescopes and other such instruments, philosophy was the only way we could reach conclusions about it. And what conclusions were they? That the earth was the center. The planets orbited in circular orbits. Everything orbited earth. But when we gained the technology to study it in the real world, the truth became known. We know longer had to rely on philosophical interpretations to reach the conclusions. And these days, philosophical reflection plays no part in learning about the solar system. because the results that it provides are untestable at best and grossly incorrect at worst.

4. Is there another "tool" that is more helpful?
More useful in studying non-demonstratable things? Probably not. But since non-demonstratable things cannot in any way influence the real world (if they could, then the influence would be demonstratable and we wouldn't be dealing with a non-demonstratable thing anymore), studying such things is a waste of time. I say that provisionally, though. I would say that String theory, which is presently untestable, ranks as a philosophy at the moment. but it is possible that further study of it will lead to tests that can performed in the real world. But I must note that the study of string theory is carried out mathematically. None of this nonsense that happened with the early ideas about the solar system - "All planets must orbit the earth because the earth is the centerpiece of God's master work, and all orbits must be circles because only circles are perfect and God wouldn't allow anything imperfect in the heavens." None of that nonsense.

 

[ug333]

Holding someone as a slave and causing them to suffer is not a philosophical issue. It is real. Whether it is justified to have slaves is a philosophical issue. But the instant it is put into practice it is no longer a purely philosophical thing, because it changes the real world.

To answer the four questions you posted...

1. Can philosophy prove anything demonstrable?

No.

2. Can non-demonstrable things be important?
Not really, because I think that if it is important there will be a demonstratable consequence. For example, you used the example of if it is okay to kill. If it was, in a particular situation, justifiable to kill someone, then that justification would be demonstratable. For example, "It is okay to kill that person because he is about to blow up a school full of little kids and killing him is the only way to prevent it". If it was NOT demonstratable, then I can't see how the issue is relevant to the real world.

3. Can philosophy be used to aid in the discussion of non-demonstrable ideas.
That is all it is good for. In the case that a philosophical issue becomes demonstratable, then it has a real-world app;lication, and that real-world study becomes the primary method of investigation. Philosophy inevitably falls by the wayside when this occurs. Take the nature of the solar system, for example. Before the days of telescopes and other such instruments, philosophy was the only way we could reach conclusions about it. And what conclusions were they? That the earth was the center. The planets orbited in circular orbits. Everything orbited earth. But when we gained the technology to study it in the real world, the truth became known. We know longer had to rely on philosophical interpretations to reach the conclusions. And these days, philosophical reflection plays no part in learning about the solar system. because the results that it provides are untestable at best and grossly incorrect at worst.

4. Is there another "tool" that is more helpful?
More useful in studying non-demonstratable things? Probably not. But since non-demonstratable things cannot in any way influence the real world (if they could, then the influence would be demonstratable and we wouldn't be dealing with a non-demonstratable thing anymore), studying such things is a waste of time. I say that provisionally, though. I would say that String theory, which is presently untestable, ranks as a philosophy at the moment. but it is possible that further study of it will lead to tests that can performed in the real world. But I must note that the study of string theory is carried out mathematically. None of this nonsense that happened with the early ideas about the solar system - "All planets must orbit the earth because the earth is the centerpiece of God's master work, and all orbits must be circles because only circles are perfect and God wouldn't allow anything imperfect in the heavens." None of that nonsense.

Wow, this REALLY helped me understand where you are coming from.

I am guessing we agree on the very low-level basics. The cause of our actions is neural activity, and that is indeed demonstrable. We also agree that the idea that "slavery is wrong" is an abstract idea that can not be proven or disproven.

I suppose if you think about it, philosophy is actually a way of modifying ones neural activity. So in that sense it is demonstrable. I would conjecture that if we had an extremely thorough understanding of the human mind we could examine someone before they "philosophized" and examine them after and determine what ideas they actually had. We should also be capable of determining the axioms they hold.

So, I would say after some deeper thought, philosophy might actually be completely demonstrable but just beyond our current understanding. As such, philosophy would be a useful tool that allows us to examine the practical applications of our neural activity in terms of thoughts. So, for example, people could ask the question if killing someone was morally acceptable based on their ideas of humanity and morality long before we even knew a neuron existed.

Wow, this has been a wonderful discussion!