the problem with modern philosophers.

it seems as though modern philosophers have a tendency to (subconciously or otherwise) make an attempt to further distance the collective from coming to a resolution. its almost as though the show must go on, philosophy has become more of an intricate dance of egos and the philosophical principles are merley vessels for our innate desire to bicker. whenever i see a post that presents a logcial conclusion that takes all of the previous statements into account, it is ignored in part, or more commonly, in whole. what becomes apparent as a result of this conjecture is that we as humans havent trancended our anamalistic nature and that philosophical discussion is simply the the evoltion of arguing over a bananna or a piece of fruit. my observation is that people arent wholly goal oriented in confrontation. it is common for two people to become so entangled in argument, that the original reason for arguing is long forgotten. this observation really bothers me in that the principles of philosophy exist outside, beyond, the human animal and before this conclusion i tended to view philosophical discussion as a means of transcending our instictual nature for a more rational, logical means of resolving problems, but as time goes on it becomes more clear that such discussion is simply another manifestation of our irrational behavior that furthers us from understanding, and ultimatley all of our endeavors.

So Wittgenstein was right after all?

Drat!

In these individualistic times it is impossible to see a consensus forming.

Why?

Say you got 5 people of 16 years of age. Forget that, 25 people of 16 years of age. If you put them each in a soundproof booth and asked them what their favourite pop song was you’d probably get some repetition, more than one person saying the same thing.

Now, if you put those people in a large room together and ask them the question in turn you’ll probably get 25 different answers, not because they all actually have different answers but because no-one wants to be the same as anyone else because you are accused of deliberately imitating them, that you are somehow a weak individual simply because you happen to like the same song as someone else. You’ll get told that you ‘can’t make up your own mind and have to copy others’.

Now the question ‘what is your philosophical position on issue X Y or Z?’ might be more ‘serious’ but I think that if you observe groups of philosophers (here or elsewhere) that the same dynamic tends to apply. It’s a sort of inverse herd mentality, or at least a herd mentality of individualism. Hilariously paradoxical, worryingly stupid.

And yes, I’m sure I make this mistake sometimes too…

Genius, someone. This is a huge problem, especially in philosophy of religion, where novelty is more important than coherence in the minds of many, it seems.

It’s all in Nietzsche if you read it in such a way, except for the part about asking people about pop music…

Controversial - can you provide any examples such as journals, papers…? When you say modern philosophers do you mean guys on an internet philosophy board or actual published philosophers (unfortunately the two groups are rarely the same!)?

I was just forming the same opinion myself. Some of the members around here are not using real counter arguments. Just arguments that don’t make any sense.

I would not confine this phenomenon to philosophy. I find that there is a growing “spirit” of individualism throughout the U.S. and other parts of the world. People are forgetting that we’re all in this together.

Everyday I see people pushing their lifestyles and opinions on others without even stopping to glance at any other perspective. It feels like we’ve all lost touch with eachother and the goals of life.

Nobody wants to listen to anyone and everyone wants to say it all.

I feel, myself, the desire to conquer the world of philosophy and truth. I want to be a guru of intuitive thought. I want my life to be special from the rest of the world…unique and powerful. Doesn’t everyone have these feelings?

The problem is not that people want to be different so much…it’s that people want everything for themselves. On top of that, there is no parent to stop these personalities from growing and spreading. All of our structure is now based on what the people feel like doing for themselves. The truth has lost all authority and anyone can run around doing and saying almost anything they want.

What happened to being polite? What happened to common decency? Morals and good attitudes? If we had these things maybe we would hesitate a bit more before blazing our own trails of truth into anarchy and confusion.

Choy,

I mean, what is this goal that you speak of? What are you striving towards? Do you really want to find some ultimate truth? What the hell for? Why would we want to live after such a discovery. Life is a game not a treasure hunt.

This is all built on the notion that philosophy is this stagnant concept, uncapable, or perhaps unincouraged towards evolution.

Yes, I agree we don’t talk and argue like they did in the old days, but in the old days it was about discovery, understanding… about being the first to think or say something new.

Nowadays philosophy serves a different purpose. It isn’t constricted to the elites of whatever society, anyone can pick up a book and take in the info. So in that regard, the sheer number of people philosophizing is increased, and thus is correlated with the change you speak of. Most off us use it now as a shield against the philosophies that are crammed into our brains at birth, things like conformity, capitolism and general fear. This is because Most of us are not the people you think of when you think back to the ‘true’ philosophy that used to go on by a few select thinkers. It’s just numbers, not everyone can be a great logitician, and not everyone wants to be. The thing we all want, is to be heard, and that’s why we come here.

Choymantisbxr,

Take two Socratic dialogues and call me in the morning.
You’ll feel better.

mrn
(I’m not a doctor, but I play on on the internet screen!)

again with your lies pincho itz time you post a NEW THREAD pinchoism is a lie and you know it.

Yeah that’s right… he went there!

OG,

I stand by my comment in the “Help and Suggestions” thread. TC’s tenacity and prolificness are exceeded only by his incoherence. His mundane babble will continue long after it ceases to be funny. Could the forum software be used to lock him and Pincho in the Rant House or something?

If the forum had an “ignore poster” function, I’d have used it on TC and Pincho weeks ago…

I don’t know. It seems quite the opposite to me. All efforts of philosophical or scientific inquiry have in mind the goal of resolution. What you’re observing is perhaps that with everything you read, the picture (i.e., the ‘resolution’ you refer to) becomes fuzzier, not clearer.

The age is one of an information glut.

You speak of laziness on the part of readers, and posters. Message boards have a unique opportunity to manifest as the most genuine form of communication in human history; but at present, their true utility is one of leisure and entertainment, and not necessarily the perfect home for philosophical discourse many of us have invisioned.

You seem surprised. Why?

Again, this is nothing to be surprised at, nor must it be viewed as a negative feature of our being.

That would be a handy thing wouldn’t it? I wonder if Pax could implement something like that.

As for TC, here’s a quote for you Aporia, (although you mighta seen it)

How did I get involved in this? I reply mainly with related information.

i apologize for the lack of a response, ive been pretty busy recently. someone, that truly was a genius commentary and you managed to organize the theory much better than i had. OG, i think, in a very idealistic way that the conclusions and beneficial resolutions we can come to and acheive by way of rational discussion and philosophical discourse are unlimited. i would hardly think it wise to say that philosophy has outlived its usefullness in the sense that it held for philosophers long ago, and i think that we should be more goal oriented in our discussions as a result. daybreak, im not actually surprised, just disillusioned. i always sort of knew it in the back of my head, but being fifteen somewhat leads me to hold a generally more idealistic view of the world than some other memebers of the board i think. and i hate timecube, if he really is 14 then he perpetuates the stereotype that teenagers are dumb as hell

i apologize for the lack of a response, ive been pretty busy recently. someone, that truly was a genius commentary and you managed to organize the theory much better than i had. OG, i think, in a very idealistic way that the conclusions and beneficial resolutions we can come to and acheive by way of rational discussion and philosophical discourse are unlimited. i would hardly think it wise to say that philosophy has outlived its usefullness in the sense that it held for philosophers long ago, and i think that we should be more goal oriented in our discussions as a result. daybreak, im not actually surprised, just disillusioned. i always sort of knew it in the back of my head, but being fifteen somewhat leads me to hold a generally more idealistic view of the world than some other memebers of the board i think. and i hate timecube, if he really is 14 then he perpetuates the stereotype that teenagers are dumb as hell

My own take:

My philosophy is that mechanistic fatalism rules the universe, people ultimately have no freewill, and this leads to a compassion for the universe that is based upon acceptance.

My goal in coming to these forums is to advance this philosophy as much as possible. Not “advance” meaning trying to get other people to accept it, but “advance” meaning “to make progress with this philosophy” amongst folks who already accept it.

Unfortunately, it hasn’t happened. Arguments have succeeded in affirming the beliefs I already have, but little progress has been made in the advancement of the (my) philosophy. I’ve tried to say “if mechanstic fatalism is true, then what conclusions can be made?” and I get nothing.

So within the confines of online philosophy forums, I would say that is the problem: no progress or building upon ideas.

This might also be widened to include the problems that exist at large. A lot of discussion seems to focus on the past; the history of philosophy and one’s learning and experience with philosophy instead of striving towards unique, insightful ideas.

That’s my two cents! :smiley:

No interesting conclusions can be derived from mechanistic fatalism because it is devoid of practical content. If a man thinks he’s a chicken and goes about living the life of an ordinary man, then his chicken philosophy is devoid of content. Similarly if you think you’re a machine bound by fate but live the life of an ordinary man, your philosophy is devoid of content.

Truth is what makes a difference. Everything else is mundane babble.