Covid-19 Thread

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am sure there are many valuable recent accomplishments in philosophy, but then you are not speaking to a philosopher and you know that; I am not up to date on the topicality of the subject. But I highly suspect neither are you. You are arguing from the perspective of your own discipline with a - to borrow a word you have just used - pompous attitude regarding the subject you have chosen, and with little knowledge of concurrent philosophy.

 

But you were the one claiming philosophy is "as productive and valuable a discipline as any of the sciences", so then you have to defend that position by being able to compare it to any other science, like modern biology. Now you are just "sure there are many valuable recent accomplishments"? You claimed something, you have to argue for why that is the case. I suggested a fair way of doing that, and now you refuse. What does that say about you? Do you have any other way of establishing that modern philosophy is as valuable as, say, physics, or even material technology? This is not making a statement about biology, I could have chosen any hard sciences, or even a social science like social psychology (thanks @action!), it is a statement about the worthlessness of philosophy.

As for having little concurrent knowledge of philosophy. I would suggest it produces next to nothing of value. How is that for concurrent knowledge? Now you prove me wrong. Go ahead. I would love to be wrong on this.

[Towelie]

I guess it hasn't occurred to the bright sparks who've been bulk buying soap that if there is none left for anyone else, peoples personal hygiene will be even worse. The people with dozens of bottles of soap/handwash sitting in there cupboard better not leave the house!!!

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But you were the one claiming philosophy is "as productive and valuable a discipline as any of the sciences", so then you have to defend that position by being able to compare it to any other science, like modern biology. Now you are just "sure there are many valuable recent accomplishments"? You claimed something, you have to argue for why that is the case. I suggested a fair way of doing that, and now you refuse. What does that say about you? Do you have any other way of establishing that modern philosophy is as valuable as, say, physics, or even material technology? This is not making a statement about biology, I could have chosen any hard sciences, or even a social science like social psychology (thanks @action!), it is a statement about the worthlessness of philosophy.

As for having little concurrent knowledge of philosophy. I would suggest it produces next to nothing of value. How is that for concurrent knowledge? Now you prove me wrong. Go ahead. I would love to be wrong on this.

Jesus, I'd be lying if I said I missed this! 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, action said:

economy, certainly on a world wide level, is fundamentally philosophical in nature. 

If economic theories could be proven scientifically, there would be no economical regression anymore

Everything is "fundamentally philosophical" in nature if it involves just the tiniest of thinking. Pondering on whether to take a shit is philosophical in nature but produces a more tangible yet equally valuable product.

And that's the problem with philosophy, it is just an everyday exercise masqueraded as something noble and lofty be people with very little other skills. And just as the thinking that you and I do, it doesn't produce better results. 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Jesus, I'd be lying if I said I missed this! 

What did you expect would happen when you said that philosophy was as valuable as any other science? If there was a god you'd spontaneously burst into flames for such stupidity.

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Everything is "fundamentally philosophical" in nature if it involves just the tiniest of thinking. Pondering on whether to take a shit is philosophical in nature but produces a more tangible yet equally valuable product.

And that's the problem with philosophy, it is just an everyday exercise masqueraded as something noble and lofty be people with very little other skills. And just as the thinking that you and I do, it doesn't produce better results. 

you can't have economic theories without philosophy. science isn't developed enough to do that kind of research on a global scale. We're still not quite sure why the economy evolves in "waves" so to speak (see the waves of kondratieff). We can observe the waves, but we can not explain them. So in the absence of scientific data, many philosophers have tried to come up with economic theories that should help states develop adequate economic politics.

so there you have it: philosophy is responsible for pretty much everything when it comes to the economy. I'd even go as far as to argue: what has science ever done for the benefit of people? If you have the flu, you have to get healthy by using your own immune system etc. Science can create funky stuff like flashy lights to amuse the little folk, but when it comes to the meat and potatoes: money rolling from nation to nation: philosophers have their say

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What did you expect would happen when you said that philosophy was as valuable as any other science? If there was a god you'd spontaneously burst into flames for such stupidity.

There is no reason to assume from a position of neutrality that a degree in philosophy is any less valuable than a degree in the sciences. Indeed, the finest minds have been philosophers. 

To answer your question with the Germanic thoroughness you require, I would have to acquaint myself with concurrent biological achievements, and concurrent philosophical achievements, and create a sort of ''for'' and ''against'' list. I have neither the time nor the inclination.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

you can't have economic theories without philosophy.

Unless your argument is that modern economics developed from philosophical pondering, just like modern science developed from philosophy, then you absolutely can. Economics is a social science in itself. It doesn't require philosophy. It requires thinking, math and research.

[action]

[DieselDaisy]

Science is basically an affiliate of philosophy. It must lower Soul's self-esteem terribly that his life's work is merely a sub category of something larger. 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There is no reason to assume from a position of neutrality that a degree in philosophy is any less valuable than a degree in the sciences.

Only from a position of ignorance can you believe in such nonsense. And you have already admitted not knowing anything about the achievements of modern philosophy, nor, say, biology, so I guess that came easily to you.

I maintain: if every single philosopher alive today suddenly thought so hard their brains melted, it wouldn't make much of a difference to the world. Granted, it would be terribly sad on personal scale and I have nothing against philosophers as human beings, but it wouldn't matter to humanity and our development. Life for the rest of us would go on as if nothing much happened. The immediate stop in philosophical output wouldn't matter much for our happiness, for our jobs, for business, for science, for research, for arts and culture. But if every other profession suddenly seized to be, from every social psychologists to every molecular biologist, this would have a marked impact on the world. 

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Science is basically an affiliate of philosophy. It must lower Soul's self-esteem terribly that his life's work is merely a sub category of something larger. 

I already went through this. Science is like an evolved form of philosophy where most of its weaknesses have been fixed. That's why progress today comes from science, not people philosophizing. It's simply obsolete. 

[Len Cnut]

35 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think a field should be valued in regards to how he has improved our lives. How has Derrida improved our lives?

Well thats sort of a broad question, his writings and theories have had a pretty sizeable impact on art, art criticism, deconstructionist thought and all that, how do you quantify how something like that improves peoples lives?  Well I guess it doesn’t directly in the way soap or a flu jab does it but it serves to enrich us culturally, change the way people think etc.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Well thats sort of a broad question, his writings and theories have had a pretty sizeable impact on art, art criticism, deconstructionist thought and all that, how do you quantify how something like that improves peoples lives?  Well I guess it doesn’t directly in the way soap or a flu jab does it but it serves to enrich us culturally, change the way people think etc.

Yeah, that is pretty much impossible. Then the question could be, would art still have provided us with as much value even if philosopher's didn't exist? Can art exist without philosophy, or would it be of less value to us? I think this is more your area of expertise than mine

[ArthurMorgan]

@SoulMonster I find our fellow Norwegian Arne Næss and his Deep Ecology philosophy (from the 90s) to have some interesting points on how we should change our mindset towards the environment. While science gives us facts, I think philosophy can point us in a more healthy way of viewing ourselves and the world. I do at least think a pure positivist view would do no good. Like you say, it's hard to argue that the contemporary evolution of philosophy is as relevant today as it was back then, but I think philosophy will always be important because of how intricate the human brain is. To me at least, philosophy is as important as religion is to believers. By the way, I hope you've read any of Dag Solstad's books. I think he's one of Norway's finest authors and they're full of philosophical topics and a good lot of irony.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, ArthurMorgan said:

@SoulMonster I find our fellow Norwegian Arne Næss and his Deep Ecology philosophy (from the 90s) to have some interesting points on how we should change our mindset towards the environment. While science gives us facts, I think philosophy can point us in a more healthy way of viewing ourselves and the world. I do at least think a pure positivist view would do no good. Like you say, it's hard to argue that the contemporary evolution of philosophy is as relevant today as it was back then, but I think philosophy will always be important because of how intricate the human brain is. To me at least, philosophy is as important as religion is to believers. By the way, I hope you've read any of Dag Solstad's books. I think he's one of Norway's finest authors and they're full of philosophical topics and a good lot of irony.

Arne Næss did a lot of good with his theories on deep ecology, but I would argue that it could just as well have been a theory coming from a non-philosopher. In fact, most advancements in world-view and theories on humans place in nature and the world, don't come from philosophers but from regular thinkers who happen to think in innovative ways and be really good at expressing their ideas through writings. They don't need to dress up what they do as "philosophy", they simply think, and as I said before, I have a lot of respect for thinking and thinkers. My problem is not with that, but with the notion that philosophy is something more than simply thinking, and the false sense of importance we put to everyday people who refer to themselves as "philosphers". That doesn't mean that philosophers can't change the world through their thoughts -- as I said initially, they sometimes find gold -- just that that doesn't happen because they have special skills learnt at philosophy school, but because they are just really good at thinking in innovative, creative ways, which really is equally distributed among all professions.

[ArthurMorgan]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Arne Næss did a lot of good with his theories on deep ecology, but I would argue that it could just as well have been a theory coming from a non-philosopher. In fact, most advancements in world-view and theories on humans place in nature and the world, don't come from philosophers but from regular thinkers who happen to think in innovative ways and be really good at expressing their ideas through writings. They don't need to dress up what they do as "philosophy", they simply think, and as I said before, I have a lot of respect for thinking and thinkers. My problem is not with that, but with the notion that philosophy is something more than simply thinking, and the false sense of importance we put to everyday people who refer to themselves as "philosphers". That doesn't mean that philosophers can't change the world through their thoughts -- as I said initially, they sometimes find gold -- just that that doesn't happen because they have special skills learnt at philosophy school, but because they are just really good at thinking in innovative, creative ways, which really is equally distributed among all professions.

Oh, I must have misunderstood you then, because I agree with everything you write here. To me philosophizing and thinking are equal; there's no need for a high horse to put the philosopher on unless he or she has come up with something useful. A degree in philosophy hopefully gives a person great insight in philosophical theories, but it doesn't necessarily make the person a better thinker.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, ArthurMorgan said:

Oh, I must have misunderstood you then, because I agree with everything you write here. To me philosophizing and thinking are equal; there's no need for a high horse to put the philosopher on unless he or she has come up with something useful. A degree in philosophy hopefully gives a person great insight in philosophical theories, but it doesn't necessarily make the person a better thinker.

Yeah, I don't disprove of thinking at all 

[Dazey]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

We just don't have the need to be all pompous

You sure about that?  

[action]

56 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

I already went through this. Science is like an evolved form of philosophy where most of its weaknesses have been fixed. That's why progress today comes from science, not people philosophizing. It's simply obsolete. 

but if you're going to judge disciplines, and by extent, the people practising it, then I might argue that the people who pick up your garbage every day have at least as much value, if not more, than scientists. It would be quite something, if those people said tomorrow "you know what, we'll let it lay there, maybe it'll disappear from itself". I doubt scientist will come up with a solution to that problem.

People who clean the toilets, again, very important people with a direct impact on your daily life, multiple times a day. they don't know much about science, although they might provide accurate data on the stickyness of various types of faeces.

Many people have value to society. Yeah, science has a certain value to society too I guess. But you still need people from various disciplines to put scientific findings in practise.

I'd argue; "the value to society" is a bad measure to value one discipline against another. It's not because social science, philosophy, doesn't have a direct impact on society anymore, that it doesn't have intrinsic value. Not enough to tell them to "fuck off", in any case. That's just an outrageously ignorant thing to say.

Edited March 6, 2020 by action

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I maintain: if every single philosopher alive today suddenly thought so hard their brains melted, it wouldn't make much of a difference to the world.

We wouldn't have science haha, e.g., biology, astrology.

We wouldn't have economics.

We wouldn't have pschology

We wouldn't have linguistics

We wouldn't have sociology 

We wouldn't have logic.

We wouldn't have law codes, at least in their modern incarnation, e.g., Code Napoleon.

We wouldn't have natural law and human rights.

We wouldn't have aesthetics. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Yeah, that is pretty much impossible. Then the question could be, would art still have provided us with as much value even if philosopher's didn't exist? Can art exist without philosophy, or would it be of less value to us? I think this is more your area of expertise than mine

It would exist and it would have a value but it’d be much more of an existentialist thing (which as a theory wouldn’t exist without philosophy but you know what I mean ).  I’d venture to say that it’d exist but it would have a lot less value, the material aspect of art, I think, would exist regardless but without the ideas behind it and the development of them would it be what it is?  Would we even bother to remember and preserve it?  And if we didn’t preserve what came before would it ever evolve?  I don’t think so, it just couldn’t could it, they’re sort of interdependent.  

[DieselDaisy]

Spunk is safer than any of us,

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

but if you're going to judge disciplines, and by extent, the people practising it, then I might argue that the people who pick up your garbage every day have at least as much value, if not more, than scientists. 

I never intended to judge disciplines of science, except to express my feelings on philosophy and the weird idea that they are all of equal value.

What you are inviting to, is a discussion of the values of all kinds of professions, and I don't really have much to say about that. Personally, I think perhaps teachers are the most important profession in the world, but that's just off the top of my head. Nurses too. And garbage people. I don't have a particular soft spot for scientists in terms of societal value. We all do valuable stuff. But as far as creating knowledge, which was what I was talking about, then scientists do a great job and nothing can rival then. In that regard I question the value of philosophers.

29 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

We wouldn't have science haha, e.g., biology, astrology.

If all currently living philosophers instantly disappeared, we would still have all these things you mention. 

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If all currently living philosophers instantly disappeared, we would still have all these things you mention. 

So you are basically critical of the parent, from whom the child owes everything?

[SoulMonster]

26 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

It would exist and it would have a value but it’d be much more of an existentialist thing (which as a theory wouldn’t exist without philosophy but you know what I mean ).  I’d venture to say that it’d exist but it would have a lot less value, the material aspect of art, I think, would exist regardless but without the ideas behind it and the development of them would it be what it is?  Would we even bother to remember and preserve it?  And if we didn’t preserve what came before would it ever evolve?  I don’t think so, it just couldn’t could it, they’re sort of interdependent.  

But are there any ideas coming out of philosophy and affecting arts that couldn't have come out of just simply thinking? If no philosophers had ever lived, would art today be any less valuable in the sense of giving humans an escape and entertainment and meaning and all that? My point is that philosophy is just a fancy word for thinking, and we don't need that. The word I mean. Of course we need thinking, we need thinkers, we need gifted minds, in all disciplines, science and arts and everything. But there is nothing that comes out of the field of philosophy that couldn't come out of any other field. Deconstructionism could just have easily arisen as an idea without there ever being a field called philosophy. Anyone could have come up with that idea because it doesn't require being anchored within a specific discipline. It is a concept that one can think out on one own without the need for any experimental work or specific skills. Because it is the natural outcome of people thinking. But there is no way that philosophers through just thinking could ever have arrived at, say, the model of evolutionary synthesis which requires so much more, in particular experimental studies resulting in vast amounts of empirical data. There is no inherent value to the field of philosophy as such, as far as I can see. This cannot be said about other disciplines which have developed methods that you have to learn to be able to advance your field.