The Philosophy Thread

[Rath Darkblade]

I think I might rule myself out of participating in this discussion, since I haven't read in detail (or remembered) too much philosophy. I do remember Socrates's allegory of the cave; does that count?

I remember reading Hobbes and disagreeing with him about his Leviathan, although some countries still haven't moved away from that philosophy (but that way lurks politics, so let's move away quickly). I also remember reading some later political philosophers, like Paine, Thoreau, and Carnot.

More recent names (e.g. G. H. Mead, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Putnam, Dworkin etc.) ring a bell for me, but I'm not sure about their philosophies. *shrug* I'm more of a live-and-let-live person.

I think it's Kant you want to start with.

He was also a real pissant.

 

[Louanne Learning]

analytical truths and synthetic truths

Oh, now I see, thanks. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes this distinction between analytic and synthetic truths:

Analytic truths “are true by virtue of the meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by knowing those meanings.” They are less likely to be doubted.

Examples of analytic truths:
All doctors that specialize on children are doctors.
All pediatricians are doctors.
Everyone who runs moves.
If Holmes killed Sikes, then Sikes must be dead.


Synthetic truths are the ones whose truth depends upon some other knowledge. They are more likely to be doubted.

Examples of synthetic truths:
All doctors that specialize on children are rich.
All pediatricians are rich.
Everyone who runs damages their bodies.
If Holmes killed Sikes, then Watson must be dead.


Here’s what Kant wrote about these concepts of truth in his Critique of Pure Reason:

In all judgments in which the relation of a subject to the predicate is thought (if I only consider affirmative judgments, since the application to negative ones is easy) this relation is possible in two different ways. Either the predicate B belongs to the subject A as something that is (covertly) contained in this concept A; or B lies entirely outside the concept A, though to be sure it stands in connection with it. In the first case, I call the judgment analytic, in the second synthetic.

 

[Louanne Learning]

since I haven't read in detail (or remembered) too much philosophy.

Sharing your own personal philosophy is welcomed, your own personal thoughts about this existence

 

[Rigor Mortis]

Purely amateur here, so bear that in mind.
For the purpose of my demonstration, we’re putting Louanne back in the room. Sorry Louanne but you must shush for a little while. Our objective reality is that Louanne is in the room.
Now we bring in 5 people, however you might want to define that. We take them out and individually ask them to relay the experience. We get 5 accounts with some level of variance.
Then we do 3 different things.
1. Ask for greater detail, eye colour, temperature, things like that.
2. Bring the 5 together to bear witness while hearing what the others are describing.
3. Recognise that Louanne was never going to stay shushed and ask the group what she said.

I’m confident the first will have significant deviation due to perceptions of each of the 5 and objective reality loses its veneer, heightened on closer examination, corrupted by exposure to other opinion and blown apart by inclusion of additional data.

I listened to five minutes of that video and it brought me right back to when my mother-in-law, an absolute lady but not one to suffer fools, asked me “Rigor, what is Quantum Physics?” to which there is no right answer, just different forms of wrong. I went with honesty and said I’d no idea. Apologies if I’ve mentioned that before.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Sorry Louanne but you must shush for a little while

Recognise that Louanne was never going to stay shushed

I’m confident the first will have significant deviation due to perceptions of each of the 5 and objective reality loses its veneer, heightened on closer examination, corrupted by exposure to other opinion and blown apart by inclusion of additional data.

I had to read this over a couple of times, but I think I might understand it. Our perceptions are influenced by second-hand knowledge, which may or may not be reliable.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

had to read this over a couple of times, but I think I might understand it. Our perceptions are influenced by second-hand knowledge, which may or may not be reliable.

That too.
Firstly, the seemingly objective reality is formulated through prism of the observer. Different observers will record a somewhat different reality. The finer the detail under examination, the greater the diversity.
Secondly, we are funny and social creatures and will bend our telling to fit or contradict the group, depending on affinity with group and how cantankerous the individual. Not only will people change their account, they may even adjust their memory of the event.
Lastly, the more stimulus to be absorbed, the greater chance of wide disparity within the group of witnesses.

I believe eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable for determining objective truth.

The quantum stuff is just hard sums about which they seem to keep changing their minds. I’ll wait until they reach reliable conclusions before I venture into that (not really, that stuff causes me pain when I try to tune in)

 

[Louanne Learning]

the seemingly objective reality is formulated through prism of the observer. Different observers will record a somewhat different reality. The finer the detail under examination, the greater the diversity.

Yes - taking a subjective reality for an objective reality

we are funny and social creatures and will bend our telling to fit or contradict the group, depending on affinity with group and how cantankerous the individual. Not only will people change their account, they may even adjust their memory of the event.

Bias. I recall reading something about if we want to believe something, then all the evidence to the contrary won't sway us from it. But if we do not want to believe something, then only one piece of contradictory information is enough for us to discard it.

I also found it interesting that you referred to the "veneer of objectivity reality" - seems to imply there is a lot below the surface that we just don't access to.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Does the validity of reason rest on consistency or intuition and understanding?

 

[DLC]

We are travelling on a train. We pass a white house. Is the house white? It could be painted yellow or some other colour at the back, which we can't see. But - the house fronts the road - it presents itself as a white house. You see where this goes.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Does the validity of reason rest on consistency or intuition and understanding?

This is an easy one. The answer must be both intuition and analysis, either working together or independently, as the situation warrants.

You wouldn't use intuitive reasoning if you were (for instance) crunching numbers. You wouldn't use analytic reasoning if you were in the African savannah and saw a lion.

They can work together, too. Suppose you're betting on something (horses, football, it doesn't matter). Some people would over-analyse one team's performance against the other, statistics, injuries, how both teams performed in the past and on whose ground, and what not. Other people would just go with their gut: Team A are jerks, so I'll go with Team B. =P And still more people would try to analyse, give up, and go "You know what, I hate 'em both equally, let's flip a coin. Heads. Fine, Team A it is. GO, TEAM A!"

Simplistic? Maybe, but it works ... (sometimes) ...

 

[Louanne Learning]

We are travelling on a train. We pass a white house. Is the house white? It could be painted yellow or some other colour at the back, which we can't see. But - the house fronts the road - it presents itself as a white house. You see where this goes.

I would get off the train and walk around the house and investigate.

But seriously, only certain "sides" of reality are accessible to us. We are limited by our senses that evolved to detect certain types of stimuli. But that does not pre-suppose that the stimuli that we are able to detect make up all that there is.

 

[Louanne Learning]

analytic reasoning

So - logical systems give consistent results? And that makes it valid?

Other people would just go with their gut:

Is that reasonable?

 

[Rath Darkblade]

So - logical systems give consistent results? And that makes it valid?

That depends on what systems you use and what the question is.

Is that reasonable?

That depends on how you define "reason". The real questions are:

1. Are people always reasonable (for a given value of "reasonable")?
2. Should we expect them to be?

The answers are clearly no and no. Even the most sober-minded individuals will sometimes do something unexpected. Other humans are usually prepared to tolerate it, as long as it's lawful and not too bizarre.

Since "unexpected" can mean anything, let's take an example. I like whistling; it gives me some extra energy when I walk to the train in the morning. So I whistle any old tune that comes to mind. I realise it's unusual, but most people don't care, and I've even had a couple of compliments.

On the other side of "unexpected", a few years ago I was unemployed, but I had a job interview lined up. I was ready. I hopped on a tram to take me there, and to pass the time, I was reading a book. A few stops later, a big guy got on, darted this way and that, saw me read the book -- and karate-kicked the book out of my hands (I'm not kidding!! ), and started ranting at me about how I should pay attention to him, and to him only. I was obviously in shock, but three other big, big, REALLY big dudes got up, surrounded him, and told him to F*** off (which he did, thank god), and then they helped me and gave me water. Faith in humanity == restored.

Are either of those things (whistling a tune in public, attacking strangers in public) reasonable? I think close to 100% of people would say the former is OK, and the latter is definitely not.

So to answer your question: "Is going with your gut reasonable?" It depends on what you're doing and why.

 

[Louanne Learning]

That depends on what systems you use and what the question is.

The question that pops out at me here is this - Is the human brain a logical system?

That depends on how you define "reason".

So true. Is it just the absence of subjective emotion?

Are people always reasonable

I'm looking at you, Spock. Famous scene (31 second-video) of him showing emotion in the clip below

I wonder if there are people who can relate to Spock - that feelings are to be hidden.

will sometimes do something unexpected.

I love that you introduced this word - unexpected - into the discussion. It implies an effect that does not logically follow from a cause. And that would seem, on the face of it, to go against reason.

 

[DLC]

I would get off the train and walk around the house and investigate.

I'm not sure if you missed the point of there being a train, but lol anyway.

 

[Louanne Learning]

We've had some discussion about "faith."

I offered the definition that faith is "belief without evidence."

But, faith is not merely a word that can be defined. It is also a concept. A concept is something different from a definition.

Faith as a concept covers a much broader scope - it encompasses things like trust, confidence, and hope.

When I talk about "faith in myself" - that's using faith as a concept, not the narrow definition.