Why do philosophers ask such dumb philosophical questions?

[Gottservant]

I mean, come on: time travel? zeno's paradox? solipsism? free will?

I just picked four without much effort. I think it must be something to do with the idea that men typically have that they need to break things down into useless pieces, in order to examine them and understand them. It's just that breaking them down into useless pieces makes them almost unintelligible.

Time travel: who in their right mind thinks that the chaotic influence of stored energy can somehow lead to moments other than the present. Everything else is memories! You don't travel to a memory unless you are daydreaming for crying out loud. Ridiculous

Zeno paradox: exactly what point does Zeno's paradox make? That we can't travel anywhere? Or rather what every philosopher dreads, that he will have to stop thinking about things in order to get something done? Really, I'm going to be confused about distance because some guy questions it incessantly? No thanks

Solipsism: how dumb is saying you are the only thing that exists. Notice differences in life much? Hmmm? Not really? There isn't even really a point in talking about it right?

Free will: everything we see has causes, none of it has ever not had causes and yet for some reason, people want to say "I am determining my destiny right now" give me a break, you are not that free, how could you be? think about it?

See what I mean? These ideas, even if you don't take my objections to heart are just so simple. They don't connect to anything in the real world almost and their obvious simplicity points to the fact that they are insufficient as intellectual subjects for someone to dwell on. As I said, I think it comes down to what men are doing when it comes to thinking about philosophy: they break things down till they are operating at their simplest level and then they leave you with the consequences.

If you asked me "well what do you think a concept should be?" I guess I would say "I'm as guilty as the next guy" because the stuff I think is simple... maybe that's just what philosophy is. I'm not saying I wouldn't provide context of some kind and insist that the context not be messed with, but at heart, I think you would find that I was no more an involved philosopher than any of them. I think the difference would be that I would have no airs about the importance of that simplicity, which is really the point I am trying to make here.

I know philosophers don't necessarily go around saying "I have the simplest idea yet" or "bow down to my simple idea" but there is a kind of conceit that they advise us about life on the grounds of some certain insight that they have that they want to use and nothing else. Christianity is different, we say "the one who has the simple idea knows everything and is God and is not us" almost like saying "you can do worse than talk to someone who is not dependent on their idea being right" I think that's why I remain a philosopher even though I am a believer actually, because I realize my faith in God doesn't turn my brain off.

I don't know, I'm going to let philosophers off the hook here and point out that you couldn't think this stuff if you didn't have a brain. I mean obviously the simplicity of their examples does lead you to think about what is being said. Jesus used this technique a lot, frequently saying things in public that He only privately explained. But of course, He didn't pretend that these ideas made Him a god, of the mind or something. Nor did Jesus have the idea that "I was right". One day He is coming back, so I am sure He will explain all this, but for now:

Keep it simple, silly

 

[Eudaimonist]

I mean, come on: time travel? zeno's paradox? solipsism? free will?

They all sound like good philosophical issues to me. Your certainty that there can be only one right answer to each of those questions does not mean that there aren't good arguments in favor of another view or interpretation. This is why philosophy is so necessary -- there is value in being able to look at "obvious" issues from different vantagepoints and fresh perspectives.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

The OP is largely why I'm down with existentialism primarily and pretty much all other systems (with the exception of Virtue Ethics) as only peripheral interests, and why I went into psychology.

But I will say that the value for me of philosophy lies more with the psychological gain from asking questions and constantly being humbled by an overwhelming number of answers. I learn to appreciate the world as a very mysterious and beautiful place. Which is a great transition to mysticism or Eastern philosophy, actually.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I mean, come on: time travel? zeno's paradox? solipsism? free will?

I just picked four without much effort. I think it must be something to do with the idea that men typically have that they need to break things down into useless pieces, in order to examine them and understand them. It's just that breaking them down into useless pieces makes them almost unintelligible.

Time travel: who in their right mind thinks that the chaotic influence of stored energy can somehow lead to moments other than the present. Everything else is memories! You don't travel to a memory unless you are daydreaming for crying out loud. Ridiculous

Zeno paradox: exactly what point does Zeno's paradox make? That we can't travel anywhere? Or rather what every philosopher dreads, that he will have to stop thinking about things in order to get something done? Really, I'm going to be confused about distance because some guy questions it incessantly? No thanks

Solipsism: how dumb is saying you are the only thing that exists. Notice differences in life much? Hmmm? Not really? There isn't even really a point in talking about it right?

Free will: everything we see has causes, none of it has ever not had causes and yet for some reason, people want to say "I am determining my destiny right now" give me a break, you are not that free, how could you be? think about it?

See what I mean? These ideas, even if you don't take my objections to heart are just so simple. They don't connect to anything in the real world almost and their obvious simplicity points to the fact that they are insufficient as intellectual subjects for someone to dwell on. As I said, I think it comes down to what men are doing when it comes to thinking about philosophy: they break things down till they are operating at their simplest level and then they leave you with the consequences.

If you asked me "well what do you think a concept should be?" I guess I would say "I'm as guilty as the next guy" because the stuff I think is simple... maybe that's just what philosophy is. I'm not saying I wouldn't provide context of some kind and insist that the context not be messed with, but at heart, I think you would find that I was no more an involved philosopher than any of them. I think the difference would be that I would have no airs about the importance of that simplicity, which is really the point I am trying to make here.

I know philosophers don't necessarily go around saying "I have the simplest idea yet" or "bow down to my simple idea" but there is a kind of conceit that they advise us about life on the grounds of some certain insight that they have that they want to use and nothing else. Christianity is different, we say "the one who has the simple idea knows everything and is God and is not us" almost like saying "you can do worse than talk to someone who is not dependent on their idea being right" I think that's why I remain a philosopher even though I am a believer actually, because I realize my faith in God doesn't turn my brain off.

I don't know, I'm going to let philosophers off the hook here and point out that you couldn't think this stuff if you didn't have a brain. I mean obviously the simplicity of their examples does lead you to think about what is being said. Jesus used this technique a lot, frequently saying things in public that He only privately explained. But of course, He didn't pretend that these ideas made Him a god, of the mind or something. Nor did Jesus have the idea that "I was right". One day He is coming back, so I am sure He will explain all this, but for now:

Keep it simple, silly

That makes it sound like philosophy does nothing but analyze things. If anything does nothing but analyze things it is empirical science.

Philosophy synthesizes.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

It is attitudes like the OP that I struggle to understand. The only explanation that I have been able to come up with is that we are living in a culture that is increasingly dominated by scientism.

I am bothered by anything that stifles individual and collective intellectual development. I would argue that telling people that their questions that they ask are annoying or that they are acting like they are God for answering those questions is the real elitism.

It seems like as early as the first few years of elementary school I was told that there is no such thing as a dumb question. I think that what that means is that people have different needs, different learning styles and different personalities and there is no right or wrong way to learn and grow.

Alas, instead of a culture encouraging everybody to learn we seem to have a culture discouraging anything that does meet some standard of efficiency and mass productivity. Therefore, we have people saying that theology is pure tripe, philosophy is impractical, the social sciences are inferior to the natural sciences, etc.

 

[quatona]

It is attitudes like the OP that I struggle to understand. The only explanation that I have been able to come up with is that we are living in a culture that is increasingly dominated by scientism.

Accusing the OP, of all, of being "scientistic" bears quite some irony.

 

[Paradoxum]

I mean, come on: time travel? zeno's paradox? solipsism? free will?

Things worth considering.

I just picked four without much effort. I think it must be something to do with the idea that men typically have that they need to break things down into useless pieces, in order to examine them and understand them. It's just that breaking them down into useless pieces makes them almost unintelligible.

Maybe that is true with Zeno's paradox, but I don't see how that applies to the others.

Time travel: who in their right mind thinks that the chaotic influence of stored energy can somehow lead to moments other than the present. Everything else is memories! You don't travel to a memory unless you are daydreaming for crying out loud. Ridiculous

I have no idea what point you are making here. Maybe time travel is possible, or maybe it isn't. What is the problem?

Zeno paradox: exactly what point does Zeno's paradox make? That we can't travel anywhere? Or rather what every philosopher dreads, that he will have to stop thinking about things in order to get something done? Really, I'm going to be confused about distance because some guy questions it incessantly? No thanks

The is to figure out why the paradox is wrong. Clearly we can move, so what is wrong with the argument? Perhaps this will tell us something about how to understand space and movement.

Solipsism: how dumb is saying you are the only thing that exists. Notice differences in life much? Hmmm? Not really? There isn't even really a point in talking about it right?

I don't think it is dumb. Even if it is dumb, there must be a reason why it is dumb, and to identify that reason requires philosophy.

Free will: everything we see has causes, none of it has ever not had causes and yet for some reason, people want to say "I am determining my destiny right now" give me a break, you are not that free, how could you be? think about it?

I'm pretty sure you are giving a philosophical answer here.

I totally agree that we have no free will, but that doesn't mean the question is stupid.

See what I mean? These ideas, even if you don't take my objections to heart are just so simple.

If they are so simple why didn't you answer any of them except the free will problem? Apparently alot of people are unsure, so they still need convincing.

They don't connect to anything in the real world almost and their obvious simplicity points to the fact that they are insufficient as intellectual subjects for someone to dwell on. As I said, I think it comes down to what men are doing when it comes to thinking about philosophy: they break things down till they are operating at their simplest level and then they leave you with the consequences.

Well I don't know if many professional philosophers spend time on Zeno's paradox or solipsism. You might think the lack of free will is obvious, but people do make arguments in favour of compatibleness and libertarianism, etc. The philosophers jobs would be to disprove those who disagree.

I know philosophers don't necessarily go around saying "I have the simplest idea yet" or "bow down to my simple idea" but there is a kind of conceit that they advise us about life on the grounds of some certain insight that they have that they want to use and nothing else.

You think advising people is conceited? If I figure out that there is no moral difference between different races, am I conceited to say that slavery and racism in law should be abolished?

Christianity is different, we say "the one who has the simple idea knows everything and is God and is not us" almost like saying "you can do worse than talk to someone who is not dependent on their idea being right" I think that's why I remain a philosopher even though I am a believer actually, because I realize my faith in God doesn't turn my brain off.

Many Christians are just as close-minded (or more likely more close-minded) than philosophers.

Keep it simple, silly

Not everything is simple in life.

 

[Gottservant]

Hmmm.... interesting replies everyone: exactly what I hoped for!

I am particularly interested in the idea that philosophy doesn't merely analyze but synthesizes, if LOVEthroughINTELLECT or anyone else wants to expand on that.

Honestly, I am not trying to criticize for the sake of it, as a skeptic might do, I just get a very low yield for certain philosophical concepts compared with the yield I get for thinking about other things.

It could be that my strength is not in abstract recursion, since all the concepts I give as examples are examples of recursion in one way or another.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is attitudes like the OP that I struggle to understand. The only explanation that I have been able to come up with is that we are living in a culture that is increasingly dominated by scientism.

I am bothered by anything that stifles individual and collective intellectual development. I would argue that telling people that their questions that they ask are annoying or that they are acting like they are God for answering those questions is the real elitism.

It seems like as early as the first few years of elementary school I was told that there is no such thing as a dumb question. I think that what that means is that people have different needs, different learning styles and different personalities and there is no right or wrong way to learn and grow.

Alas, instead of a culture encouraging everybody to learn we seem to have a culture discouraging anything that does meet some standard of efficiency and mass productivity. Therefore, we have people saying that theology is pure tripe, philosophy is impractical, the social sciences are inferior to the natural sciences, etc.

Gott isn't really into science...quite the opposite. His personal theological beliefs are his answer to everything. For other reasons entirely, you shouldn't think his ideas represent anyone but himself.

 

[Gottservant]

Have you discovered anything scientific?

Because contrary to what you just posted - about me - I have.

You might want to think before you blurt out what has become evidence that actually not being into science is a projection you want to be true about someone other than me, when you are the only other person it could be about

ridiculous

 

[Sayre]

Ugh... anti intellectualism. No thank you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Have you discovered anything scientific?

Because contrary to what you just posted - about me - I have.

You might want to think before you blurt out what has become evidence that actually not being into science is a projection you want to be true about someone other than me, when you are the only other person it could be about

ridiculous

If you want, I can reference about a dozen threads questioning evolution to back up my claim.

 

[Paradoxum]

Honestly, I am not trying to criticize for the sake of it, as a skeptic might do, I just get a very low yield for certain philosophical concepts compared with the yield I get for thinking about other things.

What do you mean by a low yield?

Personally I focus of things like ethics, philosophy or politics and law, philosophy and religion, and stuff like that. These can be useful in life. I also used to think about free will, until I came to what I think is a good conclusion. I still think free will is an important question worth thinking about.

I can see why other philosophical questions are worthwhile though. Some can informed other debates, or be good for improving your way of thinking about things. Although subjects like philosophy of mind may not come to conclusions without science, I think it can still be useful.

It could be that my strength is not in abstract recursion, since all the concepts I give as examples are examples of recursion in one way or another.

Why do you think they involve repetition?

 

[Gottservant]

If you want, I can reference about a dozen threads questioning evolution to back up my claim.

You fail to make the distinction between Evolution and real science.

 

[Gottservant]

What do you mean by a low yield?

I just mean when someone says "Is the table really there?" I just think "yes, it is". It occurs to me that there are numerous arguments that the experience of the table is circumstantial, but I can see they are rooted in the fact that we only ever dream reality anyway. So its a fairly one dimensional question. That to me is a low yield.

A high yield subject would be something like "can we help the needy today?" because well yes, we can. It involves lots of practical questions about who has what need, how they can be helped, where the choke points are in the bureacracy and why people feel less than motivated. Thinking about it makes you feel alive because there is a real possibility that someone will be helped and even that certain assumptions will be challenged simply because you think you can't live without what you have when really it has nothing to do with happiness at all and so on. I just think philosophy could be a lot more humane.

Personally I focus of things like ethics, philosophy or politics and law, philosophy and religion, and stuff like that. These can be useful in life. I also used to think about free will, until I came to what I think is a good conclusion. I still think free will is an important question worth thinking about.

I can see why other philosophical questions are worthwhile though. Some can informed other debates, or be good for improving your way of thinking about things. Although subjects like philosophy of mind may not come to conclusions without science, I think it can still be useful.

I agree there are useful topics, its just that absurd examples of intellectualism seem to be more popular.

 

[Gottservant]

Ugh... anti intellectualism. No thank you.

I would say its more anti absurd intellectualism. Absurdism is typically an argument against something (I'm sure you can think of examples), we say "Oh that's absurd" meaning we don't think its tenable. However, philosophers frequently present the absurd as if it tangibly answers questions about life, when they say "time travel is possible" as if our memory can be situated anywhere in relation to a causal chain of events without disrupting its integrity, they do a disservice to our ability to enjoy the moment and present their intellectualism as a kind of subsitute for actually living life to the fullest.

So when you say "ugh" I really don't think you've thought about it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You fail to make the distinction between Evolution and real science.

I'm not going to need to. You've just proven the point I made in my first post. Thank you.

 

[Sayre]

I would say its more anti absurd intellectualism. Absurdism is typically an argument against something (I'm sure you can think of examples), we say "Oh that's absurd" meaning we don't think its tenable. However, philosophers frequently present the absurd as if it tangibly answers questions about life, when they say "time travel is possible" as if our memory can be situated anywhere in relation to a causal chain of events without disrupting its integrity, they do a disservice to our ability to enjoy the moment and present their intellectualism as a kind of subsitute for actually living life to the fullest.

So when you say "ugh" I really don't think you've thought about it.

Ugh

 

[Paradoxum]

I just mean when someone says "Is the table really there?" I just think "yes, it is". It occurs to me that there are numerous arguments that the experience of the table is circumstantial, but I can see they are rooted in the fact that we only ever dream reality anyway. So its a fairly one dimensional question. That to me is a low yield.

I have no idea what your point is here. Why do you think "Is the table really there?" is low yield? And what do you mean by 'low yield'?

Personally I think it is good to question things because it can either lead you to truth, give you a better perspective, or make you understand things in a better way than you did before. So I'd say the table question is worth asking, even I focus more on things like morality.

A high yield subject would be something like "can we help the needy today?" because well yes, we can. It involves lots of practical questions about who has what need, how they can be helped, where the choke points are in the bureacracy and why people feel less than motivated. Thinking about it makes you feel alive because there is a real possibility that someone will be helped and even that certain assumptions will be challenged simply because you think you can't live without what you have when really it has nothing to do with happiness at all and so on. I just think philosophy could be a lot more humane.

Ethics is part of philosophy, as well are political and legal philosophy. Some of what you said are connected to other subjects. Philosophy is already concerned with these things you talk about. I studied philosophy and built most of my course around more practical topics like these. I'm not going to condemn others who deal with other questions though, because I think they are worthwhile too. They just interest me less because they don't help others so directly.

I agree there are useful topics, its just that absurd examples of intellectualism seem to be more popular.

I'm not sure they are more popular... not that I have a chart of what all philosophers work on.

I do think it is worth consider the questions that most people think are too stupid or basic to ask. I don't see why asking if a table exists is absurd, and why is 'intellectualism' is an insult. Would you rather we were all stupid and didn't use our intellect? It just seems to are very close to saying that we shouldn't use our brains to consider truth... I hope you can be in favour of both practical philosophy and questions of truth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It occurs to me that there are numerous arguments that the experience of the table is circumstantial, but I can see they are rooted in the fact that we only ever dream reality anyway.

What do you mean by this? This caught my eye as a very odd thing to think..."we only ever dream reality".

You know many people (myself included) almost never dream reality.....right?