What are the ethical laws that should be followed by philosophers? For example, no philosophical masturbation. What else?
- put the seat down
- no using your powers for evil
- no asking if an omnipotent god could make a rock he could not lift
- no tagbacks
But seriously folks…
but seriously…
-
shows empathy, and a willingness to be sensitive to the needs of others, even if you do think the need is kind of random.
-
don’t think it needs too much explanation
-
don’t ask stupid recursive questions that don’t get anyone anywhere. Use philosophy to make the world better, don’t philosphically masturbate as you say.
-
Play the game the way it was meant to be played… don’t just derail an argument by turning it back on a person.
Really, thezeus18, I was completely serious in my rules, I just didn’t want to write them in a dry, boring way. Read harder, sometimes people say important things in the guise of levity. Half fun, whole earnest sort of thing.
cheers,
gemty
zeus - maybe you could flesh out the concept a bit. You could, if you want, explain why philosophers should have their own ethics, different from those that apply to everyone. And you could, if you want, explain what you mean by philosophical masturbation. What I am getting at is that, for me, the question you pose lacks a certain context. Maybe it’s just me, however.
Truth be told, I don’t think gemty’s suggestions are all that bad.
- Only repeat good jokes
- Let the future have a future
- Remember that it doesn’t cost much to keep clean
What in the world is philosophical masturbation? If gemty has interpreted it correctly, I am inclined to disagree; the practice of philosophy should not be undertaken for a goal, such as making the world a better place, but out of love of sophos, wisdom. A person who has an opinion, and wishes to prove it by philosophical means, is no better than the scholastics. Any philosophy overtaken with ulterior motives has a tendency to end up as Marx’s, or Hegel’s: one-sided, and twisted.
So, I have a single code for philosophers: only care about the truth, no matter what shape it takes.
I see things differently from you Oskari… I totally respect your position about seeking the truth no matter what it looks like but there are a few other things about philosophy that I feel:
-
Because I have absolutely no philosophical training whatsoever, I am not particularily interested in the concerns of academic philosophy. I am interested in philosophy as a tool for good living.
-
While the truth is an important thing, not everything can be expressed as a statement which will return a determinable truth value - what should we do about those questions?
-
Not to be arrogant, but of those who have been given much, much is expected. A survey and enumeration of truth must be in relation to the human condition so why would we not try to use that understanding to increase the dignity, safety, nutrition, and meaning of those who share the human condition?
cheers,
gemty
It is quite ordinary that you would see things differently than me, and are completely free to do so. My philospohical training is limited to one year of secondary school philosophy, but even with that, I’ve come to believe that the seeking of truth in itself sould be the first priority. Ancient Greek philosophers believed that wrongdoing was caused only by a lack of knowledge of what is ultimately good for the individual, and while I have rejected this particualr notion (mainly on observing how people who are very conscious of the negative effects of smoking still keep puffing), it is still quite a good representation of the mind-set I have adopted.
If one seeks to make life better for people using phisosophy, an obstacle one will very likely encounter is: “What is better life?” Because of this, beginning philosophical thought by trying to improve living conditions will lead to a system which is standing on very little. If one sets out trying to find a satisfying notion of a good life, even the task of making life better will be made easier.
And, as I said in my previous post, philosophers with a “hidden agenda”, some kind of goal they want to reach, will very often stumble upon themselves. Thomas Aquinas stumbled in his proofs of God’s existance by choosing principles which led to his proofs being valid (for exampe, he argued that because every movement is caused by another movement, and the chain of causes couldn’t go on for ever, there had to be an Unmovable Mover, something which moved without being moved itself). Karl Marx stumbled in his philosophy, which was based on improving conditions of the workers (he had to interpret history very vaguely to show that a revolution of the working class was inevitable in the developped countries, and was proven wrong when it happened in backwater Russia). Hegel idealized the state, and ended up arguing that freedom was more or less the right to obey laws.
It is true that, as you say, “not everything can be expressed as a statement which will return a determinable truth value”. What is good? How does one live a good life? Those are questions to which there can be no definitive answer - or so it seems right now, at least. However, the beauty of philosophy is as much in the journey as in the result. By suggesting different answers, we will see what in each of them works, and what does not. Bit by bit, we can gain a better understanding of what the answer to the question might be. Once we have this better understanding, our capability to address more concrete questions - such as “How to improve human condition” - is also improved. A good example of this process is Ockham’s razor, the basis of scientific though, which states that, from equal ways to explain a phenomenom, the simplest one must be chosen. It is easy to see ways in which this principle may be wrong, but it has allowed humanity to become like magicians in the eyes of people of centuries past, when multiplication was forbidden for being “created by the devil”.
So, in the end, this is why I believe as I do. I do hope it was enjoyable.
It was enjoyable, and I’m very impressed that you can sum up your beliefs so clearly. I find myself unable to do the same thing. 
cheers,
gemty
06.27.06.1345
I bid my time watching this thread and decided to cast my two bits into your well of inquiry. So to answer: why should there be laws? Are there not enough philosophers eminently capable of arguing against the need for ethics; laws even? Your question seems to confine itself within the parameters of certain philosophical doctrines! That said, allow me to elaborate that such laws exist in regards to the philosopher to which one is studying; or to which personal philosophy one holds themselves true to.
For example: the connoisseur Nietzschean seeking to argue eloquently against Christianity may find the task difficult or even impossible unless they have at their command a vast knowledge of the religion they seek to debauch. Ergo; it would be prudent to lead oneself by a given law that: one cannot truely argue against a thing unless one knows and understands all there is to know of it.
how can one know that they truly know all there is to know, if one comes from ignorance?
if all philosophers followed a code of ethics then nihilism and existensialism wouldn’t exist 
What I meant is, that different organizations have their rules that all must abide by, even societies do. All members of the group agree to abide by these rules and thus the group works more effectively together. ILP seems to be the only group that forges ahead without making stopping to tie their shoes.
I believe it’s difficult to create ethics such as “don’t do harm†or “don’t have a goalâ€, or even “don’t be greedy†because considering philosophy someone will be quick to point out that these are all subjective – thus leading to chaotic unneeded arguments over the “scope†or the meaning of the rules.
However I feel that these rules – perhaps guidelines should be followed. I honestly feel that if we attempt to follow these guidelines then we won’t have to waste time arguing about the subjective nature of most ethics and morals.
-
Respect – This is of the utmost importance. Respect yourself, and more importantly respect others opinions and ideas.
-
Learn – I believe it’s a good idea to embrace different topics. Don’t restrict yourself to religion, or mathematics. Of course you will always have your core interest in which you will continue to research but a little bit of exploration and research in other fields can do no harm.
-
Questioning – Isn’t this really what philosophy is all about? Even the beliefs that we may hold to be true we should question, and this leads to rule number three.
-
Have no fear – Why fear? Do not be a afraid to hear out what others have to say and attempt to make understanding of it, do not be afraid to explore new ideas. I believe most people don’t listen to contrary opinions or explore new subjects because they fear their views maybe nullified. Really how terrible would it be?
-
Explore – I suppose you can say this is like questioning but I feel things must be taken farther than just a question.
-
Look at things differently – How can we accomplish any of the above if we refuse to at least make an attempt to view life with a different pair of glasses on. A good example of this is if you are an atheist, maybe try and attempt to understand why people would be a theist. Try to see things how others might see it, remember a lot of things in life are subjective.
-
Embrace life – Realize that there is more to life then philosophy and sometimes to answer the questions we ask we must take a step back and stop mulling things over. Go out and smell the roses or jump into a freezing cold lake naked. I personally have found that often the times when I am not attempting to put a lot of thought into matters is when I have my greatest moments of clarity.
-
Respect – Again respect. Exactly how can we respect when it’s such a subjective idea? Well first off by acknowledging that things are subjective.
I don’t think it’s possible to “philosophically masturbate”; ultimately, if you post your ideas just to fulfill your “craving” for philosophy, you’re still helping other people learn, and in turn helping to sustain philosophy. I think the only real code of ethics philosophy needs is found in the word itself. In order to be a philosopher, you have to love wisdom.
Here’s a quote,
“When you say you know something, you stop learning about it.”
So, what I mean by philsophically masturbating is people who think they love wisdom, but show it by trying to prove how smart they are. It’s the same as spirtual people trying to find themselves by showing to everybody else how in touch with themselves they are.
I’ve heard that one of the biggest rules to doing productive philosophy is to exhibit intellectual humility, to accept when one’s own position is legitimately refuted and work from those refutations. Refusing to practice intellectual humility will lead to a plethora of informal fallacies, making attempts at philosophy shoddy at best.
Wow. You’re talkin’ my dictionary!
I get what you’re saying though, that a philosopher should admit when he is wrong. I posit further that it is everybody’s best interest to admit it when they are wrong.
Welcome!
(on the other hand, there is the argument that everybody should refuse to admit they are wrong, because they contribute anyway to the synthesis that comes from the hegelian dialectic)