Philosophy's Greatest Flaws

[d0rkyd00d]

I saw this mentioned in another post, but I would like to create a post of my own to reiterate what I believe to be philosophy’s greatest flaw.

In the past, there have undoubtedly been many great philosophers, making new ground, or shedding new light on already covered ground. Along with this new light and uncovered ground is a population of followers who find that what is stated is true, or at least more true than the other philosophical beliefs or truths available.

The sickness that plagues philosophy and it’s community is two-fold. The first is the dogmatic nature of the community (myself included). It seems many who study philosophy eventually find a specific set of teachings that they relate to or accept as truth. At this point, the exploration for something possibly more true is disabled or ends completely, and the new position is one of justification and defense of the current belief.

Many on the forum (again, myself included), it seems, are here not to discuss and further their understanding, but rather to defend their current position. Fortunately, often times this is how new philosophical understanding and enlightenment is acquired, for after defending one’s position zealously, often times the weakness of such a position will be exposed, and in time an epiphany and change of beliefs will occur. It seems, however, that equally or more often, this doesn’t occur, and one is left hardened and even more zealous in their current mindset. One becomes dogmatic.

The second problem lies within the education of the community itself. There are many who do not realize that there is a difference between a logical argument and an illogical one. When this difference cannot be realized, all arguments are equally valid, including any used to defend one’s position. This is the other factor that seemingly impedes the progress of understanding in the philosophical community.

Recently, I have been trying, with great difficulty, to both prevent myself from being hardened in my dogmatic beliefs, as well as overcome my own confirmational bias and truly determine if an opposing argument is more logical than my own. This is very difficult to do, for although logic plays a vital role in determining if an argument is valid, it is still not a cure-all for the sickness that infects philosophy, or we would easily be able to sort between which philosophies are true and which are not.

Perhaps this is what philosophy is, but I don’t feel comfortable with settling for the thought that it’s how philosophy should be. I am requesting your thoughts, not only on whether these issues seem as problematic to philosophy as they appear to me, but if so, how to fix them. Thanks for reading, and for helping me grow.

[Sabrina]

I have no instant answers.

But I commend your apparent respect for an honest seeking of the truth.

I guess such a quest does indeed begin at home.

And if we’ve ever done otherwise or listened to otherwise, our bullshit detector becomes finely honed.

So that when it continuouslly goes off while we’re in the midst of a fearless searing search for real answers, that interruption can get painfully old.

[kingdaddy]

@d0rkyd00d

The second problem lies within the education of the community itself. There are many who do not realize that there is a difference between a logical argument and an illogical one. When this difference cannot be realized, all arguments are equally valid, including any used to defend one’s position. This is the other factor that seemingly impedes the progress of understanding in the philosophical community.

And this is best personified with many form members attitudes of no Absolute.

No right no wrong.

No good or bad.

No reference to judge anything from or stand on. No way to defend a point or have logic if everything is right, yet many here still claim that their assertions are correct and others are not, all along claiming there is no absolutes and everything is relative with remarks like “we make our own truth".

Now that’s illogical and unproductive. Cannot learn anything with that attitude, it’s a complete cowards way out so you can always be right.

Sound familiar?

[d0rkyd00d]

Sound familiar?

It does sound familiar.

I don’t mean to offend, but you are truly an excellent example of everything mentioned in my post. You are certain that absolutes exist, and you are here to ferverently defend your position, not to gain insight from arguments against your position.

You aren’t fully aware of the difference between an argument possibly more logical than your own, and therefore your arguments trump all. This is exactly the dogmatic positions my post is looking to highlight, and then scrutinize, and hopefully find a way to resolve.

Obviously human psychology plays an enormous role, which makes me question whether simple discussion would be able to bring the issues in my post to the table, or if psychological enlightenment would be necessary.

[kingdaddy]

@d0rkyd00d

It does sound familiar.

I don’t mean to offend, but you are truly an excellent example of everything mentioned in my post. You are certain that absolutes exist, and you are here to ferverently defend your position, not to gain insight from arguments against your position.

Actually I would love it if someone would or could counter anything I have said concerning absolutes with some logic and examples, but they haven’t. I’m not the least bit afraid of being wrong.

@d0rkyd00d

You aren’t fully aware of the difference between an argument possibly more logical than your own, and therefore your arguments trump all. This is exactly the dogmatic positions my post is looking to highlight, and then scrutinize, and hopefully find a way to resolve.

You mistake passion for pure bull headed close mindedness. Just because you don’t have such passion doesn’t mean others don’t or cant.

@d0rkyd00d

Obviously human psychology plays an enormous role, which makes me question whether simple discussion would be able to bring the issues in my post to the table, or if psychological enlightenment would be necessary.

You misunderstood or completely ignored the point I made about Absolutes. No one can assert any point or argue or claim anything without them, however if you can demonstrate a way that one can without some set reference then I would be glad to hear.

See, each and every time I give a way out and ask for like opposing examples or logic or alternatives, yet I never get any, so my ideas go unchallenged in my mind. Should I be so weak in my ideas that any fool claiming “it aint so” should topple me and change my outlook? Maybe I didn’t build my foundation so poorly and hastily as other here, ever think of that?

[WillNZ]

Hey, umm, d0rk LoL

Doesn’t Marxism teach something about accepting philosophies as they are practical in the world? Not to accept anything other than on the basis of it’s practicality? I dunno

Yeah, I agree with ya man! The whole logical/illogical argument, and to question everything.

What about questioning the validity of using logical arguments? LoL

Well dogmatism, I mean it could relate to a number of things, I guess I might start off by using the simple pleasure/pain model.

We pursue truth because we think in the end it will make us feel better, or have a sense of achievement (perhaps, once again, questionable due to the nature of philosophy).

But when we come across a certain truth, which fits us, then WHY CHANGE if it makes us feel good to stay with this?

It’s like a “home ground” sorta thing I think.

When I hear people say ‘I’m a marxist’ i’m like, “excuse me? Do you not think for yourself?”

Pride perhaps? Not allowing someone to “run your thought patterns for you” etc.

Lots of factors.

Just extending discussion.

PEACE!

[d0rkyd00d]

Actually I would love it if someone would or could counter anything I have said concerning absolutes with some logic and examples, but they haven’t. I’m not the least bit afraid of being wrong.

Imagine, for a moment, the following scenario.

There are two people arguing over the validity and logic of two arguments. The first is claiming that argument “X” is more valid and logical. The second is arguing that “Y” is more logical and valid.

Now suppose that “X” actually is more logical and valid. What I’m trying to explain, Kingdaddy, is that the person who is arguing for the logic and validity of “Y” will see “X” as less logical than “Y,” even if this isn’t the case. This isn’t because this person is less intelligent, but simply human, because human beings have a tendency to view arguments against their beliefs as less logical, regardless if they are not.

So if somebody made an argument against absolutes, or refuted any of your arguments, it would automatically seem less logical than what you believe, not because it is necessarily so, but rather because of this human tendency. Does that make sense?

You mistake passion for pure bull headed close mindedness. Just because you don’t have such passion doesn’t mean others don’t or cant.

I do not think this to be the case, at least by my definitions of passion and close mindedness, so I assume you and I are using different definitions.

You misunderstood or completely ignored the point I made about Absolutes. No one can assert any point or argue or claim anything without them, however if you can demonstrate a way that one can without some set reference then I would be glad to hear.

If you would like to begin another thread regarding this, then I’d be more than happy to discuss it. If one has already been made, then I’d appreciate if you link me. Otherwise, I’d like to continue along the topic of my original post in this thread, and not deviate too far. Thank you in advance.

[Turtles_all_the_way (Turtles all the way down)]

@d0rkyd00d

Now suppose that “X” actually is more logical and valid. What I’m trying to explain, Kingdaddy, is that the person who is arguing for the logic and validity of “Y” will see “X” as less logical than “Y,” even if this isn’t the case. This isn’t because this person is less intelligent, but simply human, because human beings have a tendency to view arguments against their beliefs as less logical, regardless if they are not.

So if somebody made an argument against absolutes, or refuted any of your arguments, it would automatically seem less logical than what you believe, not because it is necessarily so, but rather because of this human tendency. Does that make sense?

Also related to this, or perhaps putting it another way, is the feeling in debate that it isn’t just the position that is under attack or even our position, but rather ourselves. We are being attacked. And so we become defensive. Maybe philosophy is necessarily more personal that it should be because of this tendancy in argument. Or maybe this is just me

I agree with your general point. Good luck with kingdaddy.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@d0rkyd00d

The sickness that plagues philosophy and it’s community is two-fold. The first is the dogmatic nature of the community (myself included). It seems many who study philosophy eventually find a specific set of teachings that they relate to or accept as truth. At this point, the exploration for something possibly more true is disabled or ends completely, and the new position is one of justification and defense of the current belief.

Many on the forum (again, myself included), it seems, are here not to discuss and further their understanding, but rather to defend their current position. Fortunately, often times this is how new philosophical understanding and enlightenment is acquired, for after defending one’s position zealously, often times the weakness of such a position will be exposed, and in time an epiphany and change of beliefs will occur. It seems, however, that equally or more often, this doesn’t occur, and one is left hardened and even more zealous in their current mindset. One becomes dogmatic.

I think you’ve selected the right nail, but not hit it on the head. Philosophy’s greatest flaw is thinking that it is about a search for truth. It isn’t, never has been, and never will be. It has always been about either discovering ideas, perspectives, ideologies and whatnot, or defending those ideas, perspectives and so on.

If philosophy wants to liberate itself from the shackles of its own history, which it probably doesn’t, then it needs to embrace a new ‘founding aim’, a new teleology. Some would say that the bidding for that new founding aim, one of our ‘new modernisms’, has already begun.

[Twiffy]

DD,

This is an interesting question / meta-question. In order to answer it, you really need to decide “what philosophy is”, which I think has a precise answer, although many (relevantly) would disagree with me.

The reason why “what philosophy is” needs to be answered is so you can then determine how you should be thinking about certain things, and judging certain ideas right, wrong, or neither.

The interesting thing about “what philosophy is” is that there IS no right or wrong answer, as with all definitions. But there are definitions of philosophy that are more useful, more appealing to the individual, and so on, so while you might not be able to make an objective definition, you might be able to make a socially optimal definition, and you can definitely make an individually based definition.

For me, philosophy is nothing more or less than the search for logical truth. That is, the axioms of philosophy are the axioms of logic, and truths in philosophy are theorems of the system. To me this seems clearly the best style of system to adopt, because then there is capital-T truth, instead of everything being opinion, as seems to be the case with lots of philosophical issues currently. Opinions are great, but they aren’t an interesting field of academic study.

If you decide, for example, that you approve of my definition, then your quest for truth has some interesting consequences. I think one of the most interesting questions is “when do you continue to doubt, and when do you go ahead and have confidence?” One thing I think we both believe is that any philosopher worth his salt will always be entirely willing to reconsider a long-held and long-cherished belief. However, I DON’T think it’s true that such a philosopher should be ACTIVELY SEEKING for a new perspective on all his long-held issues.

For example, although I am always willing to engage a theist in active and honest debate, I am not at all interested in challenging my own atheism. I’ve already exhausted the topic, and challenged myself, far beyond a reasonable doubt - and I’ve already conversed with as many theists as I could find, at a top-notch university, of different backgrounds, and was disappointed to find how homogenized and trivially flawed their justification for theism was. At this point, it is literally a waste of my time to actively seek to challenge my atheism - and although I am never content to refuse conversation with a theist because it seems too much like wallowing in my own beliefs and refusing to change, every time I DO converse with a theist, it always ends up being a waste of my time.

So it seems that it’s all about accurately perceiving the difference between when you should actively challenge a belief, and when you shouldn’t bother actively challenging the belief, but still be willing to reconsider the issue when opposing data presents itself. (And of course, there’s always a third category - when what you believe is independent of logic, and thus cannot be logically argued to be true or false. A good example is the fact that I have a very strong moral system, yet believe it to be entirely logically subjective.)

It also seems like the most important trait in being able to accurately determine what you should actively question and what you should passively question is good introspection - the ability to determine if you believe something for reasons you’ve come to on your own, or at least come to logically, and reasons you’ve generated emotionally, or stuck with habitually.

Any thoughts?

[kingdaddy]

@d0rkyd00d

Imagine, for a moment, the following scenario.

There are two people arguing over the validity and logic of two arguments. The first is claiming that argument “X” is more valid and logical. The second is arguing that “Y” is more logical and valid.

Now suppose that “X” actually is more logical and valid. What I’m trying to explain, Kingdaddy, is that the person who is arguing for the logic and validity of “Y” will see “X” as less logical than “Y,” even if this isn’t the case. This isn’t because this person is less intelligent, but simply human, because human beings have a tendency to view arguments against their beliefs as less logical, regardless if they are not.

So if somebody made an argument against absolutes, or refuted any of your arguments, it would automatically seem less logical than what you believe, not because it is necessarily so, but rather because of this human tendency. Does that make sense?

No, it seems less logical to me because the opposition cannot provide any continuity or logical real world examples to support their point. So far all attempts by you and others have only been able to give poor illogical misplaced examples that are irrelevant and easily refuted with many more counter examples, IOW, false evidence. If I hear as much or more like counter evidence to oppose my assertions then I will most certainly give serious thought and rethink my position. However, I have been quite disappointed with the thought process and pitiful evidence that the atheist camp puts forth as to their being no chance of a God. In addition the standards for proof in a God for all atheist I have conversed with are completely different and more rigid then for evolution or any science so I find this along with the lack of examples to show that the atheist camp are irrational and bull headed with closed minds and angry bias towards the Theist camp.

@d0rkyd00d

If you would like to begin another thread regarding this, then I’d be more than happy to discuss it. If one has already been made, then I’d appreciate if you link me. Otherwise, I’d like to continue along the topic of my original post in this thread, and not deviate too far. Thank you in advance.

This has been done to death and the atheist camp wont concede on any point out of pure irrationality. They wont even accept Death of the body as a form of physical absolute, nor the laws of physics and nature that all of science is founded on. I don’t know how much more irrational and ignorant the atheist camp could possible be, no need to discuss with such insanity and double standards, no way to find any common ground.

[d0rkyd00d]

No, it seems less logical to me because the opposition cannot provide any continuity or logical real world examples to support their point. So far all attempts by you and others have only been able to give poor illogical misplaced examples that are irrelevant and easily refuted with many more counter examples, IOW, false evidence. If I hear as much or more like counter evidence to oppose my assertions then I will most certainly give serious thought and rethink my position. However, I have been quite disappointed with the thought process and pitiful evidence that the atheist camp puts forth as to their being no chance of a God.

My point is, humans often cannot realize the difference between something seeming less logical because it actual is, and something seeming less logical because it conflicts with currently held belief.

If you cannot admit this to be true (it’s a part of human psychology, I’m not making it up), then you do not yet understand the importance of what I’m saying.

WHen you say counter arguments are illogical, you must also realize the possibility that they might seem less logical not because they are so, but because you disagree.

Perhaps this in itself is philosophy’s greatest flaw: the convincing illusion of confirmational bias.

[Drift]

This sounds unneccesarily complicated.

Help me understand this statement, if you will.

Dogma is the enemy of truth. But would not truth, as a whole, be absolute and therefore dogmatic?- i-spake

“The very man who has argued you down, will sometimes be found, years later, to have been influenced by what you said.” — C.S. Lewis

I also agree with SIATD’s comments. Though often said, philosophy is a ‘search for truth’,i fear it is actually more for personal affairs these days,like almost everything else.

I am also disturbed by the ‘philosophical nihilism’(my term) of all things being subjective to the individual.

All philosophy subjective,no absolutes…Am i the only one who sees a problem with this?

[d0rkyd00d]

All philosophy subjective,no absolutes…Am i the only one who sees a problem with this?

I don’t think so…but do you subjectively view it as a problem?

I am also disturbed by the ‘philosophical nihilism’(my term) of all things being subjective to the individual.

Why?

[Drift]

@d0rkyd00d

All philosophy subjective,no absolutes…Am i the only one who sees a problem with this?

I don’t think so…but do you subjectively view it as a problem?

I am also disturbed by the ‘philosophical nihilism’(my term) of all things being subjective to the individual.

Why?

while philosophical opinion and interpretation are pretty much subjective,i believe in objective understanding(s). being that truth is objective, i believe there are inevitably going to be many common pit-stops philosophers stop at in thier journey of learning new things.

[Impious]

@someoneisatthedoor

I think you’ve selected the right nail, but not hit it on the head. Philosophy’s greatest flaw is thinking that it is about a search for truth. It isn’t, never has been, and never will be. It has always been about either discovering ideas, perspectives, ideologies and whatnot, or defending those ideas, perspectives and so on.

If philosophy wants to liberate itself from the shackles of its own history, which it probably doesn’t, then it needs to embrace a new ‘founding aim’, a new teleology. Some would say that the bidding for that new founding aim, one of our ‘new modernisms’, has already begun.

Philosophy is about understanding the world. It’s about being critical of mediocre reasoning. It’s about applying a rigorous intellect in order work out the truth given certain experiences and knowledge.

[Trevor_W]

firstly, philosophy in general is not dogmatic, or at least should not be. there should be no belief or assumption which is unquestioned and held as authoritative. philosophy a critical inquiery into fundamental issues that concern the human condition and the nature of reality itself. critical inquiery is not possilbe if one holds certain beliefs as unquestionable.

also, the concept of something being “more true” is fundamentally flawed. there are no 1/2 truths only plausibility.

now, if you said that one theory is more plausible than another and provided grounds for that argument…

[Drift]

@Trevor_W

firstly, philosophy in general is not dogmatic, or at least should not be. there should be no belief or assumption which is unquestioned and held as authoritative. philosophy a critical inquiery into fundamental issues that concern the human condition and the nature of reality itself. critical inquiery is not possilbe if one holds certain beliefs as unquestionable.

also, the concept of something being “more true” is fundamentally flawed. there are no 1/2 truths only plausibility.

now, if you said that one theory is more plausible than another and provided grounds for that argument…

with this stance,is there any ground for holding onto true philosophical findings,assuming truth exists…

i’m getting at,if philosophy is that fluid,any truth would be found then abandoned.

[kingdaddy]

@d0rkyd00d

My point is, humans often cannot realize the difference between something seeming less logical because it actual is, and something seeming less logical because it conflicts with currently held belief.

How can you completely miss the point about all the observable proof? You idea is only valid if we lived in a vacuum, you’re still stuck in your own mind trying to reason, I’m using the observable world and experiences of this common world to make my conclusions. Why would you not use these tools, logic is proven every day in everything that works, do you need something more?

@d0rkyd00d

If you cannot admit this to be true (it’s a part of human psychology, I’m not making it up), then you do not yet understand the importance of what I’m saying.

WHen you say counter arguments are illogical, you must also realize the possibility that they might seem less logical not because they are so, but because you disagree.

I understand just fine, it seems it is you that are having difficulty with the idea of proof. This pure relativity has poisoned your thought ability to no end it seems. Facts are facts regardless of you POV, you cant make them false just because you see it differently, gravity and other absolute laws will go on rather you believe in the obvious proof of their affects or not.

The day you can defy one of these laws is the day you can be crowned correct about you idea of pure relativity with no absolute right or wrong. My whole point has been that I see obvious proof to my assertions and this proof is based on hard facts that cannot be denied logically. I have shown you many examples of this proof and have listed some factual absolutes that no one can get around no matter your POV. If you wish to show counter evidence you need some Facts of your own, but since you done believe in Facts or Truth your gonna have a difficult time.

[Trevor_W]

@Drift

@Trevor_W

firstly, philosophy in general is not dogmatic, or at least should not be. there should be no belief or assumption which is unquestioned and held as authoritative. philosophy a critical inquiery into fundamental issues that concern the human condition and the nature of reality itself. critical inquiery is not possilbe if one holds certain beliefs as unquestionable.

also, the concept of something being “more true” is fundamentally flawed. there are no 1/2 truths only plausibility.

now, if you said that one theory is more plausible than another and provided grounds for that argument…

with this stance,is there any ground for holding onto true philosophical findings,assuming truth exists…

i’m getting at,if philosophy is that fluid,any truth would be found then abandoned.

the way i look at it, philosophy should not be static, philosophy should be fluid and allowed to evolve, the value of a philosophy is in how long it can lay a claim to truth, how long it can have influence. This is philosophy as a prelude to science.