"Philosophy is a spoken discipline" – Stefan Molyneux

[Jose Perez]

Anyone up for a written debate on this one? Deaf-mute people, people with speech impediments, people with time constraints, people who like to think twice or in privacy, people who like unequivocal quotes and recorded evidence, people who speak english as a second language, and philosophical babies welcome!

[Jose Perez]

If you have a compelling argument about philosophy being a spoken discipline and you believe that the concepts and truth propositions involved can be represented by alphanumeric characters, please write them down here!

[Flake]

I don't know the context it was said in, so I don't know if he meant to imply that philosophy should be done only in the spoken word, at the exclusion of the written word, I'll assume he didn't mean that. Philosophy can mean love of wisdom or the study of a variety of subjects such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc. Philosophy as love of wisdom it would be understandable why Stef would say philosophy should be a spoken discipline, talking about something is often more fun than writing about it, to most people, they get a instant response from their interlocutor which often doesn't happen in the written word. Philosophy as the study of a variety of subjects is poorly suited to the spoken word, after your interlocutor has spoken, you usually feel compelled to start giving your response right away, which doesn't give you as much time to think about what was said, the presuppositions of what was said, and what you are about to say. In the spoken word you would have to ask questions to clarify your interlocutor's position, more than you would in the written word, because in the written word you can see everything that has been said, you can spend as much time as you need critically analyzing it, and of course you can spend as much time making sure your response has as much logical rigor as you want it to have. All of this adds up to the spoken word will likely be less logical, since mistakes are more likely to go uncorrected, due to you not having as much time to think about what was said and what you are about to say. With spoken philosophy being more likely to have errors go unnoticed, it calls in question philosophy in the first sense, it may be more fun talking about a subject than writing about it, if you love wisdom shouldn't you prefer the one that yields better answers, better wisdom?

[JamesP]

 

If you have a compelling argument about philosophy being a spoken discipline and you believe that the concepts and truth propositions involved can be represented by alphanumeric characters, please write them down here!

 

Why not transcribe Stef's arguments/thoughts on the matter, and provide the reference to where he made this statement?

[Stefan Molyneux]

Well, I've done quite a few written interviews, and spent looots of time in the chat room, I think a "real time discipline" would be a better way to put it.

[Jose Perez]

 

I don't know the context it was said in,

 

 (12:48) I have heard Stef say this many times before anyway, and I don't think I have ever heard a clear argument.

 

so I don't know if he meant to imply that philosophy should be done only in the spoken word, at the exclusion of the written word, I'll assume he didn't mean that.

 

He meant philosophy as the pursuit of truth – being a "tricky thing". In my understanding, yes, he is indicating that if your goal is the common arrival at truth then you should prefer the spoken word to the written one. 

So according to what you have said (thank you so much) it is clear that the written word is more appropriate for "better knowledge", as you put it. There are a million other arguments in this direction, but I think what we are lacking here is the arguments from the other team; let's hear them?

 

[Jose Perez]

 

Well, I've done quite a few written interviews, and spent looots of time in the chat room, I think a "real time discipline" would be a better way to put it.

 

Are you suggesting that your own preferred philosophical behaviour is an argument? 

You say that (in real-time interactions) you can "challenge the definitions" and "get real progress going"... Let's pick for example a UPB debate. Who is typically the person challenging definitions? What is the likelihood that the fight-or-flight mechanism will get in the way of reason, as you know it does, compared to a non real-time interaction?

[cherapple]

 

What is the likelihood that the fight-or-flight mechanism will get in the way of reason, as you know it does, compared to a non real-time interaction?

 

If you are using text in order to avoid spoken interactions, then you are not avoiding fight-or-flight. You are enacting it. I'm not saying you're doing that, but I have. From the moment I learned how to read, I sought comfort in text. That wasn't the fault of speech. That was the fault of the mean people I grew up around.

The way to handle fight-or-flight in spoken interactions is to speak with kind people—a therapist, friends, people on the board—and talk about the fear. Then you learn to speak comfortably in real time about your thoughts and feelings.

[Jose Perez]

 

 

What is the likelihood that the fight-or-flight mechanism will get in the way of reason, as you know it does, compared to a non real-time interaction?

 

If you are using text in order to avoid spoken interactions, then you are not avoiding fight-or-flight. You are enacting it. I'm not saying you're doing that, but I have. From the moment I learned how to read, I sought comfort in text. That wasn't the fault of speech. That was the fault of the mean people I grew up around.

The way to handle fight-or-flight in spoken interactions is to speak with kind people—a therapist, friends, people on the board—and talk about the fear. Then you learn to speak comfortably in real time about your thoughts and feelings.

 

You incorrectly assume that the flight-or-flight mechanism is a negative response, and that the pursuit of truth is more effective without a fight-or-flight mechanism. Sometimes the only rational response is through the fight-or-flight mechanism.

Having no fight-or-flight response doesn't make anyone's arguments correct. In fact, if someone believes they are not having such reaction they are most likely dissociated, which is quite frightening indeed. 

[cherapple]

You are the one who said the fight-or-flight mechanism will get in the way of reason. 

[Jose Perez]

 

You are the one who said the fight-or-flight mechanism will get in the way of reason. 

 

I have said the fight-or-flight mechanism will get in the way of speech being a preferable means of doing philosophy.

[cherapple]

Is it reasonable for the bulk of philosophy to take place in books and text? 

[Jose Perez]

 

Is it reasonable for the bulk of philosophy to take place in books and text? 

 

I am also not saying "philosophy is a written discipline".

[cherapple]

When you attack my understanding, I no longer care what you are saying. 

[Libertus]

Is it reasonable for the bulk of philosophy to take place in books and text?

I am also not saying "philosophy is a written discipline".

I feel your pain, Joseito. Rejecting a proposition is not the same as accepting the opposite.

 

[Jose Perez]

One does wonder (not) why anyone would cling to a proposition such as "Philosophy is a spoken discipline" 

[Maciej Bembnista]

 I had a positive emotional response to Stefans's statement! Unfortunately I didn't elaborate on it enough (not enough- as I see it now), so thank you Jose for starting this conversation.

The question for me was: why (oh, why;) did I react similarly to non rational (I fully accept Joseito's arguments) statement?

After analyzing/considering my personal issues and feelings toward Stef (that's the man who save the future of my beloved one's and mine) I could (blessedly!) exclude them.

Why did I react then that way? Because I think that's ...a true statement!

Let me explain my thoughts:

1. I don't think you could take every statement rigorously- as a rule. You can't make such a principle from what Stef said, one should depend on context- in FDR people don't discuss (by wrtiting!) determinism any more, but Stef would do it in a real-time-relationships, because "Philosophy is a spoken discipline". For me it was clearly expression of preference!

2. Philosophy preceds (and is a "cause" of) scientific method, but also accept and use it, as a only valid method to examine reality (if I understand it correctly). It's then indiffrent to the language, which is used to communicate- writing, speaking, drawing and so on... That doesn't mean that e.g. drawing the diagram is simmilar effective to speaking about it. In my opinion talking about philosophy is much more effective/inspiring, than writing. You can use the whole rage of your senses (used particulary by your unconcius mind) to understand your (potential) opponent, you have more empathy and understanding, you can engage her/his attention and your emotions don't mislead you so often. And since philosophy is about studying the reality, you can do it by speaking in a more (most) fulfilling way, confronting opinions of others.

--------------

 

nota bene:  5/26 Freedomain Radio Sunday Show was one of the best I've ever heard. Stef is in very, very good form.

[Jose Perez]

Hi Maciej, I really value your analysis. I had thought somebody would make the same case you made, perhaps Stef himself. 

First of all, if you fully agree with my arguments I don't think you can say that "P is a spoken discipline" statement is a true statement.

 

1. I don't think you could take every statement rigorously- as a rule. You can't make such a principle from what Stef said, one should depend on context- in FDR people don't discuss (by wrtiting!) determinism any more, but Stef would do it in a real-time-relationships, because "Philosophy is a spoken discipline". For me it was clearly expression of preference!

 

If it is an expression of preference then why not express it as such? If I am a really skilled fingerstyle guitar player and I say "guitar playing is a fingerstyle discipline", what am I really saying? If I then go on to provide arguments as to how fingerstyle produces more nuances, connects with people's finger-wagging animal insticts... would you – perhaps as a plectrum guitar player – say that I am saying I just "prefer fingerstyle playing"?

 

 

2. Philosophy preceds (and is a "cause" of) scientific method, but also accept and use it, as a only valid method to examine reality (if I understand it correctly). It's then indiffrent to the language, which is used to communicate- writing, speaking, drawing and so on... That doesn't mean that e.g. drawing the diagram is simmilar effective to speaking about it. In my opinion talking about philosophy is much more effective/inspiring, than writing. You can use the whole rage of your senses (used particulary by your unconcius mind) to understand your (potential) opponent, you have more empathy and understanding, you can engage her/his attention and your emotions don't mislead you so often. And since philosophy is about studying the reality, you can do it by speaking in a more (most) fulfilling way, confronting opinions of others.

 

I do agree that it can be more pleasurable and that there is much more information being conveyed by real time interaction. (By the same argument Skype and internet chat rooms can hardly compete with a face to face real world interaction, so you might as well just use a forum board.) What I don't agree with is that that information necessarily helps the pursuit of truth. It's quite obvious that it does not if you see how often people change their minds even about basic propositions like on this thread LOL. Those empathetic cues that you are talking about can be equally meant to protect falsehood (stem from the false self). In fact, given the way we have been conditioned in social interaction and the fact that defending falsehood is defending some kind of initiation of force, then being a true self in that situation is hardly going to be a pleasant experience in most cases.

People have long forgotten their curious, trusting child selves in real time interactions, and replaced them with big armours and an empathy for the other's own armour – which does not make for philosophical interaction.

I can understand that, if you feel Stef has been a saviour for you, you will have a tendency to excuse him for making these self-centered and unconscious statements. But Stef has not saved you because he did not make any choices for you, as I am sure he agrees.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Really...REALLY!!!

All the issues in the world today, and this is what needs to be dissected?

[Libertus]

Really...REALLY!!!

All the issues in the world today, and this is what needs to be dissected?

You do realize you're on a philosophy forum, right?

Your fallacy is the appeal to worse problems

Dismissing an argument due to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the world

Arguing that expressing concern about a (relatively) small problem
means that the person doesn't care about any larger problems. A type of
Strawman, this fallacy takes the opponent's claim and appends to it the
following additional claim: 

Also called

• The "Children Are Starving In Africa!" Argument.
  
• Appeal to Shame
  
• Appeal to Guilt

And don't give me that "but Stef does it all the time" line, because that is just another fallacy. Appeal to authority and two wrongs don't make a right.

So, where were we?

[Jose Perez]

Also point out that the fight-or-flight mechanism evolved to deal with real time, real life interactions, which invalidates the following, in my opinion.

 

1. I don't think you could take every statement rigorously- as a rule. You can't make such a principle from what Stef said, one should depend on context- in FDR people don't discuss (by wrtiting!) determinism any more, but Stef would do it in a real-time-relationships, because "Philosophy is a spoken discipline". For me it was clearly expression of preference!

 

It's easier to empathise + sympathise with a snake when you are not near it. (Not saying everyone is a snake but you know the chances when it comes to doing philosophy.)

And as for being able to engage someone's attention, I gotta tell ya', if a simple written proposition that contradicts something you regard as true is not engaging enough then you cannot be very philosophical God bless Facebook and the like for being able to get something more philosophical out of people, that they would otherwise not show for fear of being attacked in social situations. I think this is very clear.

[Jose Perez]

Sorry, meant to say it invalidates the other (2nd) statement where Maciej says that a real life interaction makes one more able to empathise and understand...

[Metric]

Computer science as a discipline doesn't depend much at all on speaking skill.  It's not a spoken discipline.  But successfully selling computers at Best Buy is definitely a spoken discipline.

[Jose Perez]

 

But successfully selling computers at Best Buy is definitely a spoken discipline.

 

That would be an argument for sophistry, not philosophy. An objectively better computer doesn't need a sales pitch.

[Metric]

 

 

But successfully selling computers at Best Buy is definitely a spoken discipline.

 

An objectively better computer doesn't need a sales pitch.

 

It does if you've been trained since pre-k to believe that you need an objectively inferior computer.

 

[Metric]

Main point is that creating something (in philosophy or any other field) doesn't depend on speaking.  Selling something usually does. 

If someone says "philosophy is a spoken discipline" -- I will tend to interpret that as "(selling) philosophy is a spoken discipline." 

If they say "philosophy is not a spoken discipline" I will tend to interpret that as "(inventing) philosophy is not a spoken discipline."

[Jose Perez]

I get what you mean, but I think this whole discussion is around what you see as "inventing philosophy", i.e. the pursuit of truth. The people who need a sales pitch would be just non-philosophical people and you'd be trying to sell philosophy to them... which is not the same. What Stef says means that it is preferable to use speech in order to arrive at philosophical truth among philosophical people, and in line with what you say, I say that this is like a sales pitch – not a true statement at least. What do you think?

[Metric]

 

I get what you mean, but I think this whole discussion is around what you see as "inventing philosophy", i.e. the pursuit of truth. The people who need a sales pitch would be just non-philosophical people and you'd be trying to sell philosophy to them... which is not the same. What Stef says means that it is preferable to use speech in order to arrive at philosophical truth among philosophical people, and in line with what you say, I say that this is like a sales pitch – not a true statement at least. What do you think?

 

Yes, I'm pretty much in exact agreement with you.

 

[Alan C.]

While I, myself, prefer communicating via written word because I prefer cogitation to extemporaneous speaking, I recognize that real-time interaction helps mitigate evasiveness and pettifog which some people use when their arguments consist of sophistry, etc.

[Jose Perez]

 

 I recognize that real-time interaction helps mitigate evasiveness and pettifog which some people use when their arguments consist of sophistry, etc.

 

I'd appreciate if you could explain this, since I am of the complete opposite opinion. Sophists love speech, just look at politicians! The amount of tricks a real time / live interaction brings with it as a possibility is orders of magnitude higher.

[Lowe D]

It takes no courage to write a forum post.  It does take courage to tell someone how you feel, what you want, or what you think.  How seriously can one take the philosophy of someone who hasn't the courage to speak it?

[cherapple]

Thank you [Y]. It takes courage to speak about the fear of speaking, rather than acting it out in written form on the boards, with judgments that the one who speaks is immoral. 

[Jose Perez]

 

It takes no courage to write a forum post.  It does take courage to tell someone how you feel, what you want, or what you think.  How seriously can one take the philosophy of someone who hasn't the courage to speak it?

 

Have you got the "courage" to say this to that someone's face?

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

Have you got the "courage" to say this to that someone's face?

 

That borders on inciting. This entire thread is full of opinion, and your response to an opinion is to physically challenge?

Might be time to review the Forum rules about "Internet Courage": http://board.freedomainradio.com/user/createuser.aspx

[Metric]

 

It takes no courage to write a forum post.  It does take courage to tell someone how you feel, what you want, or what you think.  How seriously can one take the philosophy of someone who hasn't the courage to speak it?

 

It doesn't take much courage to post anonymously on youtube, either.  Anonymity vs. taking responsibility is the variable that commands courage -- not simply written vs. spoken.

 

A reader has the advantage of time and care when he goes about analyzing an idea.  If your ideas are half-baked, you need your audience and/or opponents to be limited in exactly these dimensions to have the desired effecct.  This is why "fast-talking salesman" conjures up a specific type of person you don't necessarily trust.