Why do people shit on logical positivism for being self refuting in an upfront way? Why is it better to be a Hegelian or Kantian who postpones the crucial piece of self refutation on page 5107 of a 10,000 page obscurantist philosophical work (out of ten)?
Or nobody shits on Plato or Aristotle for straight up talking absolute shit.
Also I could bring up the Munchhausen trilemma like I do every time but I'm sure you know what I'll say
>>1140065
>expecting everything to be logically provable.
The Munchausen Trilemma assumes epistemology is perfectly rational which is nonsense. Foundationally, most of what we assume is simple habit because we're animals.
>>1140106
Well then fine. If some stuff is unfalsifiable then fine. If someone wants to make their own unfalsifiable house of cards then that's fine.
Now explain why the fuck my statement "Murder is bad because the sky is blue" is bad. Now explain why academic institutions say some unfalsifiable shit is good and others bad. Now explain why there is no philosophical department of the aesthetics of doughnuts.
My answer to the last one. Pseudo intellectual philosophers who have gained zero increased ability to reason from philosophy want to monopolise the big important questions.
>>1140191
>Now explain why the fuck my statement "Murder is bad because the sky is blue" is bad. Now explain why academic institutions say some unfalsifiable shit is good and others bad. Now explain why there is no philosophical department of the aesthetics of doughnuts.
Because all that stuff doesn't contribute to our survival
>>1140065
Nihilism is too edgy so we have to come up with something, right?
>>1140065
What is your complaint, exactly? I mean there are obvious issues with logical positivism and with particular positivist doctrines that have been known for decades, and that were pointed out by people very sympathetic to it--Hempel, for example.
But is your complaint that all philosophy is bullshit so why single out LP?
Because if it's the respect issue, well, there is a huge revival of interest in logical positivism. Check out Michael Friedman's work, for example. Or just look at the fact that OUP is bringing out a 14 volume edition of the complete works of Rudolf Carnap. I mean really, I think the legacy of logical positivism is in fine shape.
>>1140215
Exactly. Listen to Zizek when he talks about real world stuff (like what he wants governments to do in "tricky" moral situations). Look at Peter Singer (I chose him at random because he has taught and been educated at elite universities and to his credit he is a non obscurantist) when he talks about real world stuff. They have ZERO extra reasoning power compared to regular people. Just axioms and deductions, like the Munchhausen trilemma says. And of course the axioms are chosen based on their feels, like regular people.
It seems the way to piss off any philosopher or pseudo philosopher is to question their axioms. They don't want to admit that they have axioms but they will shit on anything new or simple.
>>1140191
Unfalsifiability is fine, but it isn't all encompassing. Induction itself can't be falsified in any way, there's no rational basis for expecting the future to resemble the past.
1: it's incorrect because either A) there are unstated premises you haven't fleshed out, or B) taking the Humean noncognitive position, what makes something morally "bad" is if a true judge would not have approbation towards it.
2: I'm not defending what academic institutions do, it's irrelevant to the actual truth of the matter that even if something isn't "falsifiable" it still had to be coherent.
3: There should be. Aesthetics of food would be covered under aesthetics as a whole and I blame the devaluation of Santayana style aesthetic philosophy.
>>1140241
To sum up from the start: The Munchhausen trilemma shows that everything is based on axioms and deductions, circular logic, or infinite regression logic. Ignoring the latter two, anyone can pick any axioms they want for anything. "Murder is wrong" "Murder is great"
So why do institutions shit on non mainstream axioms? If I wanted to write about the aesthetics of jelly doughnuts then they'd tell me that I'm stupid. If someone wants to wank over the is-ought problem (which has no solution, obviously), they think that's great.
And add in shitloads if obscurantism, pseudo intellectual worship of philosophical figures, etc and that's philosophy in a nutshell. Pseudo intellectual posturing that cannot tell us anything new or anything that was not already obvious to regular people. Within the infinite space of unfalsifiable reasoning, institutions and pseudo intellectuals on his and lit and everywhere will ravage anyone who engages in non mainstream unfalsifiable reasoning.
>>1140243
>It seems the way to piss off any philosopher or pseudo philosopher is to question their axioms. They don't want to admit that they have axioms but they will shit on anything new or simple.
what are you even talking about? i am an academic philosopher and just sort of wandered into this subreddit for the first time, and find these complaints very strange.
>>1140272
you don't need to explain the agrippan trilemma to me. i've written about it.
i don't even know what you mean by 'non mainstream axioms'. do you mean like non-mainstream philosophical topics? as someone who is an academic, this is just strange. what are you upset about?
>>1140272
>infinite space of unfalsifiable reasoning
>>1140272
name a topic you are interested in and i can guarantee you that, as long as its a coherent topic, i can point you to interesting, non dogmatic, non bullshit recent stuff that is being written on it. seriously, i think you just might not know much about what philosophy looks like currently.
>>1140191
You are axiomitcally assuming if two things are not logically true they are of equal value. You have not given a reason why this should hold true. Nor is this the position current philosophy takes.
We care if an idea is useful, and yes even false ideas are useful, for instance in politics it's actually easy to control the masses with lies than by telling them the truth.
>>1140285
He's not interested in philosophy, he's interested in saying how everyone is wrong except him.
>>1140516
>You are axiomitcally assuming if two things are not logically true they are of equal value. You have not given a reason why this should hold true. Nor is this the position current philosophy takes.
please explain what you think he is doing, and what the 'position current philosophy takes' is.
actually scratch that: please tell me what 'the current philosophy is'.
>>1140528
Current epistemology is perspectivism.
>>1140272
> If I wanted to write about the aesthetics of jelly doughnuts then they'd tell me that I'm stupid.
They'd be right, because you should be talking to Saveur.
>>1140525
i expect that is true, unfortunately. i'm not sure what drives a person to complain about the current state of philosophy and its reliance on 'axioms' when they clearly don't know the first thing about philosophy, let alone its current state.
in my department we occasionally will receive self-published philosophical treatises that are addressed to individual faculty or the department as a whole. I think most prominent departments get these occasionally. Physicists get them too--people who have figured out some grand unified theory but think they are being shut out by academics. Sometimes these things are really cool (once or twice they have been like fully illustrated), and its clear lots of time and money has gone into them. But they are all insane gibberish.
I guess those people might also post here.
>>1140538
what. the. fuck.
no, no it isn't. jesus how could anyone say this? there is no such thing as current epistemology. there are a bunch of different views and research programs.
why can't you be bothered to even read like survey articles or the SEP or pick up one of the many 'current debates in epistemology' or intros to contemporary epistemology?
why are you this intellectually lazy?
>>1140564
How's the home-brew philosophy? What are the usual topics?
>>1140600
oh it's always crap. Usually some large system in the old spinoza-leibniz-hegel spirit, mixed with a bit of mysticism and new age stuff. it's always in metaphysics or value theory or religion. it's fascinating stuff, but not like philosophically interesting.
this isn't to say there aren't independent scholars who publish good philosophical work (although they are very rare), or people who don't know tons of philosophy. but they don't self publish their systems and mail them out to all the worlds famous philosophy departments.
i really wish i had saved some of them. i would guess i've seen a half dozen of them or so. but usually we just read them over and throw them into the grad student lounge for a laugh.
>>1140538
also sorry if that was mean, but if you are interested in philosophy you should really learn some stuff.
>>1140632
That sounds pretty fun. Metaphysical mystism is always nifty. If you get some more papers you should scan it and upload it to /his/.
Is there some of index that lists the notable philosophical journals?
>>1140737
yeah, if I get one for sure I will try and share it.
Here is the general consensus of the profession, and I basically agree with it:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/09/the-top-20-general-philosophy-journals-2015.html
Note that these are 'general journals', meaning they publish on a wide variety of topics. I can recommend other journals to you based on your interests, say in history of philosophy, or language, or ethics, or ancient, or phil science etc.
but that list is certainly the best. And there are two great open access journals: philosophers imprint and Ergo, that are free to read without needing access to a library etc.
>>1140575
If you're going to write that much at least try to add quality information.
>>1140525
Why is Wittgenstein on there, he BTFO'd analytic philosophy
>>1140774
don't be silly. if you want recommendations for intro to philosophy stuff i can give them, but the person i was responding to (who may or may not be you) clearly has no idea what they are talking about. 'contemporary epistemology is perspectivism' is such a bizarre and false thing to say it's like i was responding to a flat-earther.
>>1140784
>Why is Wittgenstein on there, he BTFO'd analytic philosophy
what does he mean by this?
>>1140754
My interest right now is in spirituality/religion. Not in any particular religion as a metaphysical or ethical truth but as a useful way to cultivate the society. I think there is a certain biological aspect to humans where our subconscious needs a diet of spirit/myth, and it's just a matter of figuring out what nutrients to give it. I guess that might be more psychology/Jung.
I watched a lecture on Aztec philosophy and found it amazing how sounded like a mythologized version of totally foreign ideas like Heraclitus' harmony of opposites.
What should I be looking at?
>>1140901
hmmmm....
well faith and philosophy and oxford studies in philosophy of religion are the phil religion journals that have the best general reputation, but I don't know how much of what you are looking for you will find there.
and i'm not entirely sure where to look for the stuff on myth, sorry, beyond jung etc.
actually maybe you should check out hans blumenberg's massive book 'work on myth'. yeah, thats my recommendation. but finding very recent work may be more challenging. sorry!
>>1140976
Thank. You've been a good help.
Look forward to the day when I realign myth to it's rightful place in the cosmic order =D
Plato and Aristotle give us values, civic virtue, wisdom. Logical positivism gives us literally nothing.
Hegel and Kant have flaws, that is certain, but they endeavored to temper the absolute monstrosity Spinoza unleashed upon civilization (although they wouldn't see themselves as doing this).
>>1141786
Hegel said, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."
>>1141786
What monstrosity did Spinoza unleash?
Also, I'm pretty sure all those things you listed are older than Plato and Aristotle.
What exactly is logical positivism anyway?
>>1141807
>Hegel said, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."
What did he mean by this?
>>1141835
It's pretty self evident.
>>1141807
>Memeruch Memenoza
>>1141840
No it isn't you fucking moron. Also Hegel was a good reader of Spinoza, but got a great deal wrong about him. And Hegel is not a Spinozist.
Anyway, you need to learn about the Spinozism controversy in Germany kicked off by lessing and jacobi,
Also Kant says in the second critique that Spinozism is the only consistent form of transcendental realism.
What did he mean by this?
>>1141807
Hegel said a lot of things. . .
>>1140285
I'm (OP) back after having been away.
>Should abortion be legal?
>Axiom: Murder is bad. Murder is the killing of a human.
>When does human life begin? At conception or some point later defined by ability to survive outside the mother or brain development or whatever.
So all that happens next is that you pick what your favourite starting point for life is based on your feels. Look at Peter Singer's wiki page for how simplistic his reasoning is. Not that simplistic reasoning is bad but for you to say that I've been talking crap about the inability of philosophy to escape axioms-deductions-more axioms-etc (where axioms are based on feels) is a load of crap.
Separately: Lol you or someone else claimed that I made value decisions about unfalsifiability. It's the philosophical establishment that makes the value decisions.
>>1142093
Jesus I hate getting undergraduates like you. You are fucking insufferable.
>>1142101
I feel you, man. This dude just discovered the "wait, what if you're WRONG" aspect of philosophy and feels like a cool guy. He'll learn eventually (hopefully)
OP go read some fucking pragmatism.
FUCK.
>>1140065
Lel you're a fucking pleb
Trying to change the mind of anons who write babbys first cant kno nuffn bullshit like this never works so yeah bro you're a fucking pleb and the sad thing is you'll never be willing to learn why and better yourself
Fucking pleb
>>1140821
Not an argument
>>1143419
oh child
>>1143303
>you'll never be willing to learn why and better yourself
Not him.
But why?
>>1143645
You ever see someone write an OP like this one and then actually try to hear out opposing arguments instead of shouting epeck memes like a faggot? Okay then
>le ebin everything is based on feels except my arguments maymay
>le ebin you are cognitively unable to recognize your biases but im not maymay
Is a form of realism still the best answer to the problem of universals?
>>1143971
What's the problem of universals?
>>1143979
Wikipedia has a good intro on in it
>In metaphysics, the problem of universals refers to the question of whether properties exist, and if so, what they are.[1] Properties are qualities or relations that two or more entities have in common. The various kinds of properties, such as qualities and relations are referred to as universals. For instance, one can imagine three cup holders on a table that have in common the quality of being circular or exemplifying circularity,[2] or two daughters that have in common being the daughter of Frank. There are many such properties, such as being human, red, male or female, liquid, big or small, taller than, father of, etc.[3]
>While philosophers agree that human beings talk and think about properties, they disagree on whether these universals exist in reality or merely in thought and speech.
Things like mathematical principles, shapes and other properties are things that are objective an unchanging- something which rules them out of existing just in the material world. This objectivity also rules them out of existing in the mental plane also which has some interesting conclusions on just how they exist and are assessed.
>"Wahhh why do people have a problem with self-refuting, stillborn arguments?"
>"I could bring up the Munchhausen trilemma"
Munchhausen trilemma is asserting that you can know that you cannot know, which is logically contradictory and self-refuting. You are the one who's thinking is flawed.
>>1144000
Interesting. Though I'm not sure why that's a problem.
>>1144068
>Interesting. Though I'm not sure why that's a problem.
Because it can provide a rational proof for a whole new dimension of existence and demonstration of pure objectivity when it comes to goodness
>>1144075
How the hell does it do that? I'm not sure how "this thing is circular in a substantial sense" leads to that.
>>1144086
That's weird. Also, I'm going to be honest, it sounds kind of absurd.
>>1144090
>That's weird. Also, I'm going to be honest, it sounds kind of absurd.
Thats why its a problem because thats what happens when you allow properties to exist in a substantial sense.
>>1144096
I'm going to chalk this up as a philosophy thing I'm not smart enough to get, because I just can't understand how this could ever be an issue. Who would look at the roundness of an object and ask themselves if roundness was a tangible thing or just a description cooked up for our own understanding?
>>1144105
>Who would look at the roundness of an object and ask themselves if roundness was a tangible thing or just a description cooked up for our own understanding?
The greeks for one and generally every important philsopher has at least until Kant.
>I just can't understand how this could ever be an issue.
As I said its conclusions are enormous at the least it means there is an obejctive standard for what is good and possibly a new realm of existence. At the most it provides foundations for the evidence of God.
OP here. Let me clarify again.
>>1144052
Well you're right at the heart of the matter and you choose to be a charlatan rather than someone intelligent like me.
1. As talked about here >>1140272, we can't know anything. We have to invent the axioms but the axioms to pick are based on our whims. "Abortion is wrong because murder is wrong." "Abortion is wrong because grass is green." These are two separate examples of axioms and deductions used in potential moral systems. If you're a stupid person you'll scream that the latter quoted moral statement "is dumb hurr durr". Kill yourself if you think that. It is a perfectly "valid" moral system.
I am not offended by the implications of the Munchhausen trilemma. I don't expect toasters to fly me to Mars, just as I never expected philosophy (not including mathematics or physics, though it is defined hideously widely) to tell me anything non trivial. The Munchhausen trilemma confirms it. Look at Peter Singer's Wikipedia page and see the laughably simple (not to say that simple is bad, at least he isn't an obscurantist) arguments for abortion. Look at Zizek when he talks about real world dilemmas like authorities interfering with gypsy cultures. Philosophy has given them zero additional reasoning capabilities other than axioms (based on feels) and deductions. Literally fucking zero.
2. And point 2 is where the slurs begin, where I start to offend people. If I lived in a vacuum there wouldn't even be a point 2. But look at the monolith of philosophical institutions getting public money and publishers and pseudo intellectual hangers claiming that they have exclusive use of reason.
I just showed we can't no nuthin. I also showed a "stupid" moral statement ("Abortion... grass is green.") And here is the crucial point I'm making: If we clearly can't know nuthin and even Hume showed it with the is ought problem and the axioms are clearly based on feels... then why does the monolith vigorously reject literally everything outside its echo chamber?
If I say that I want to set up a philosophical field examining the most entertaining combination of rules for football then people would consider me stupid. Yet even after the is ought problem was clearly outlined, we still get moral philosophers who have shitloads of unfalsifiable reasoning (and axioms). I'm not shitting on unfalsifiability here, I'm just saying that it gives us an infinite space to reason (this is obvious). Even the search for what to philosophise about can only lead to axioms based on feels and unfalsifiability (pretty much a new is ought problem).
So let's look at what I'm not saying. I'm not saying all unfalsifiable statements are equal, as the other guy wrongly attributed to me. I say nothing. I simply watch the monolith of institutions and pseudo intellectuals rank statements in a facile way when everyone knows that every statement is a philosophical field in itself. The monolith is the one who initially ranks some unfalsifiable statements above others (e.g. they consider the field of morality to be more important than the rules of football). I simply call them out on it. How do you do this? And however you do this, you clearly have not escaped the axioms (based on feels) and deductions approach. A lot of the pseuds here cannot handle this. A lot of institutions have clearly built their self referential echo chamber so high that they just don't give a fuck. They're too far gone to give a fuck and they have no financial incentive to give a fuck.
Let me emphasise again. I claim nothing. The monolith claims that morals are more worth philosophising about than football. I ask why. No answer or acknowledgement that their axioms are based on feels.
I ask why my moral statement ("Abortion is murder because grass is green.") is less valid than any other abortion viewpoint. No answer or acknowledgement that their (the monolith's) axioms are based on feels.
I also ask how you can rank unfalsifiable statements. No answer or acknowledgement that their axioms are based on feels.
I ask how the basic axioms can NOT be defined based on whims (whether these are feelings or a robot or completely at random with statements from a shaken up Scrabble set). Obviously God isnt here to tell us our moral axioms, to give an example in the area of morality. Hume showed that this eas fucking obvious. No answer or acknowledgement that their axioms are based on feels.
>>1144132
You're a stupid bootlicker.
>Who would look at the roundness of an object and ask themselves if roundness was a tangible thing or just a description cooked up for our own understanding?
>As I said its conclusions are enormous at the least it means there is an obejctive standard for what is good and possibly a new realm of existence. At the most it provides foundations for the evidence of God.
Well obviously it is a man made definition. And if you want to ask whether the "idea" if roundness exists then that is not provable. So the question reduces to "Can we know what we cannot know." Well yeah, obviously you can say that knowing the answer to that can lead straight to knowing the existence of God or being invited to Allah's barbecues, because the knowable cannot be unknowable (ideas are probably defined as stuff we can't see even if we were 4 dimensional aliens).
