An art of criticism ?

Although i don’t posses much experience on this subject , but still - from quite a long time I’ve been noticing that people are using philosophy as an art of criticism . Logical reasoning is something that i accept , emotional reasoning is also okay , but using philosophy just to question others point of view is indigestible ! . i reckon that people are using it as something just to make their space, when they have no reason - and that’s certainly doesn’t come in the sphere of what we call - philosophy .

so people , what do you think what is that called - that kind of useless logic ?
( i humbly request you all to think DEEPLY before you answer , we shall not take this argument to a shallower level . )

Welcome, MIM, I call it useless logic–or fallacy. First off, not everyone uses philosophy here to question anyone’s pov–they use name calling and strawmen. This leads to argument rather than discussion–which is most probably what the illogical poster really wants–idk. But, yes, it’s probably about space and ego. Despite the name, this site is a social forum in many ways. I used to belong to a privately-owned forum “for intelligent people” which attracted a lot of people with normal intelligence (0ver a 100 IQ, but not in the genius range)–people who wanted to meet on-line friends for an evening or two of conversation. The on-line friends often bring in new ideas. This probably isn’t what you’re talking about in your OP, but it might get the thread started along the lines you want. :slight_smile:

It’s called Rhetoric in the western tradition. It’s a very old philosophical tradition, and most of the Upanishads dialoges of question and anwser formats and later on sect vs sect debates use systems of rhetoric.

In the west, Mimesis was a part of rhetoric. This is a tradition that started with Herodotus’ technique (though he wouldn’t of known it as such) when he tried to dislodge the mysticism and ritual from the history and myth he was conveying. It came overtime to systematically affect our outlooks, this segregation breaking into other realms of our outlook. As a result, aesthetics was inundated but also affirmed. One only needs to read the philosopher John Ruskin to grasp there are two systems of thought running through our history of art… intuitive beauty and synthetic, and how to be a critic and admirer of both scientifically. The intuitive, nature reaction is always the fastest, most spontaneous, though in a large event I can see having a complex alloyed reaction or repeated reorientations and wonder.

Mimesis wasn’t really ever as such in the east. Chinese art sucked in terms of naturalism… yes, great detail and complexity… but try to find a shadow in a painting. India the idols were rather poor objects until rather recently on the scene when they went full blown in the opposite direction making them super lifelike, and in some ways larger than life in terms of attractiveness.

It’s all playing with our critical capacity, and rhetoric is designed to do this. It’s the philosophy of debate, of convincing others, of remembering and realizing how your mind and other people’s minds are organized, with emphasis on active imagination and memory, and how we most closely relate to the world, juxta-positioning passions over logic and logic over the passions as needed. If you ever watch the HBO miniseries ‘Rome’ you’ll see a fat man in the town square in many episodes being the ancient version of a news caster, telling people things via rhetorical methods.

It’s still the staple of western philosophical thought, though modern philosophy has tried to undermine it and pretend it’s not there. Each new philosophy takes a small parts of it, clobbers a rude construction together, and runs off with it. Continental philosophy is the worst offenders of this, 20th century philosophy was a high embarrassment in terms of crude sensationalism and bullshitting.

I spent time looking over the old texts, and jumped into Byzantine and medieval continuations. It’s essential to a philosopher. Yes, india has it’s own traditions, and they are not bad. I encourage you to find this book ‘The Art of Deception’ it’s made by a academic for his students, but it’s still managed to be a good text, and I recommend it to many people. It’s basically a introduction to figuring out how someone is trying to pull the world over your eyes. I know it’s still in print because I just saw it again in Barnes and Noble a few weeks past. It’s not a manual to teach you how to deceive, but to detect deception. It’s just sadly today, most people aren’t aware they are deceiving, they think philosophy IS deception, and are following in the traditions of other deceivers. It’s the foundation of our major schools of thought today. One twentieth century philosopher called another on his bad ideas in a debate and was chased around the room with a fireplace poker for realizing this… he wasn’t able to accept the inherent reality he was confronted with, so he resorted to violence instead.

Don’t we all miss the days when someones else opinion was used to build into ones own intelligence instead of basis to start an argument on who is right or wrong.

The freedom of expression with all of ones self with no worry of being hated or looked down upon for your views. Helping to build each others knowledge from what
each of you learned in life not who has learned the most.

I don’t believe it useless because we will always need those who believe they are always right.
“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”
Plato quotes