"Philosophy is a spoken discipline" – Stefan Molyneux

[Jose Perez]

This is why I said has he got the courage to say it to that someone's face, who is likely to be responsible and invested in his philosophy regardless of his preferred medium to communicate it...

I mean what on earth has courage got to do with whether you choose to speak or not; go tell the average child!

The lack of empathy and idealistic narrow-sightedness required by such comments is just monumental.

 

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

 

I mean what on earth has courage got to do with whether you choose to speak or not...

 

 

That is an excellent point. Look at what's going on with the potential use of government to quell opposition. Why should anyone be required to rise to the level of bravery just to express their views?

I will admit to being harsh, at times, with my criticism. I do make an effort to differentiate between criticizing opinion versus criticizing logic. Logic requires rigor, opinion has few requirements, if any.

What I've encountered in both written and spoken rhetoric is the confusion between opinion and ascertainable fact; as stated by Aristotle some 2500 years ago.

I don't have a problem with opinion, as such. It is when opinions are expressed as fact, followed by rigid entrenchment when faced with opposition, that I tend towards sarcasm as my personal method of social ostracism.

No matter how I respond, please understand, even if I disagree, I will defend, with my life if necessary, anyone's right to speak their mind. That is the essence of freedom of speech.

[Lowe D]

@Metric

Generally when you're speaking to someone, that person knows who you are.  Examples of people you might speak to are your family members, your boss and coworkers, customers, and potential friends or romantic partners, or near strangers at a private or public event.  I am sure you see how speaking up in these contexts can provoke fear.

These conversations take courage, and online, textual ones generally do not.  I empathize with the pain and shame others might experience when I say this, but the courage to engage in actual conversations to explain, relate, or negotiate, speaks to your credibility in a big way.  Those who lack that basic courage may deserve our compassion, but they don't deserve to be taken seriously until they address that lack of courage.

[Lowe D]

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.

This is a great recommendation, so I figured I'd quote it so no one misses it.  Speaking to kind people, especially a therapist, is how to cure paralyzing fear.  You show yourself that there isn't always pain in other people's responses.

 

[Metric]

 

@Metric

Generally when you're speaking to someone, that person knows who you are.  Examples of people you might speak to are your family members, your boss and coworkers, customers, and potential friends or romantic partners, or near strangers at a private or public event.  I am sure you see how speaking up in these contexts can provoke fear.

These conversations take courage, and online, textual ones generally do not.  I empathize with the pain and shame others might experience when I say this, but the courage to engage in actual conversations to explain, relate, or negotiate, speaks to your credibility in a big way.  Those who lack that basic courage may deserve our compassion, but they don't deserve to be taken seriously until they address that lack of courage.

 

We must be talking about two different things.  When I am evaluating ideas, "courage of the author" is not really on my radar -- I'm interested in who delivers the goods.

 

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

We must be talking about two different things.  When I am evaluating ideas, "courage of the author" is not really on my radar -- I'm interested in who delivers the goods.

 

+1

Wouldn't the so-called courageousness of a speaker qualify as Appeal To Authority: "He's so brave to stand up, he must be right"? I do empathize with cherapple and LoweD about the whole fear of speaking up issue. It reminds me to consider other points of view; not just intellectually, but emotionally. But the bravery, or lack thereof, required to express an idea carries little weight on the soundness of the idea. It does carry enormous weight on getting the idea expressed in the first place. How can I frame my arguments in a way that does not exclude the input of someone less bold? Another conundrum.

[Lowe D]

What is the purpose of philosophy, Metric?

[Jose Perez]

 

What is the purpose of philosophy, Metric?

 

In your view it's "courage" and engaging with people who disregard the truth, no doubt.

[fingolfin]

Philosophy: the scientific study of concepts.

Under my definition spoken word or written word matters not one bit, as long as a person is "on record" at some point with their arguments or theory. Written word is clearly advantageous because it gives one time to pause and think before making a point. In verbal debates a lot of potential manipulation, pressure, psychology and room for subjective error and backtracking can be introduced.

Written debates (and formal conversations) aren't always perfect obviously, but IMO far superior across the board. Having things written down for analysis and reference, and to make sure one doesn't change definitions or key points mid-way, makes for more objective discussion.

[Libertus]

Philosophy is a written discipline, because all the great philosophers are DEAD, and therefore, we can't talk to them anymore.

[Jose Perez]

 

Philosophy is a written discipline, because all the great philosophers are DEAD, and therefore, we can't talk to them anymore.

 

I wouldn't say it's a written discipline either, because Socrates and many others sure must have done a lot of talking. But, as you say, imagine where we would be if Plato had say: "nope, I ain't transcribing that... Philosophy is a spoken discipline!" [ROFL]

[Jose Perez]

Great arguments there Fingolfin. I don't think a lot of people can honestly say that their major philosophical breakthroughs have not come from reading some kind of text.

[Lowe D]

Joseito, I'm curious.  Have you ever done therapy?

[Jose Perez]

 

Joseito, I'm curious.  Have you ever done therapy?

 

Sorry, I think that question belongs to a thread such as "Philosophy is a discipline for people who have done therapy".

I also don't want you to have to tell me what you think on a message board, as that wouldn't be very "corageous" or "philosophical", and then I'd be missing out on the truth.

[Metric]

 

What is the purpose of philosophy, Metric?

 

Deep question.

People have purposes, and a lot of philosophy has been invented with different purposes in mind. 

But I suspect that most of us here are interested in using reason as a guide for the betterment of mankind (as well as individuals).

 

 

[Lowe D]

@ Metric

Yes, I meant it's purpose for you.  Is it's purpose your betterment?  I do not know what betterment means, though.  What does that mean?

I'm asking this because I'm curious as to whether you collect truth for the same reason a stamp collector collects stamps, for the collection, or because you are going to do something with it, like a camper who collects firewood.

If you're using truth for firewood, then probably you wouldn't have time to listen to purported truth from someone who hasn't even improved himself to the extent that he can openly address his social fear.  If you're keeping truth as a collection, maybe you do have the time for that, though.

 

@ Joseito

It's a personal question, and it's all right if you don't want to answer.  I ask it because I suspect you don't have much credibility when it comes to improving your life, which could explain your disagreement with my assertion that credibility matters in philosophy.  In this case the credibility of coping with discomfort, fear, or anxiety in speaking to others.

[Jose Perez]

I can see it... [snooze] It's a free society... Everyone has turned philosophical thanks to widespread psychotherapy. The advert by the side of the road reads: 'Skype. Because philosophy is a spoken discipline'. Skype's stocks have gone through the roof... But on the other side of the world a team of researchers works on what could be the demise of this apparent monopoly of the philosophical arena: mass teleportation. They're trying to respond to people's complaints that Skype might be distorting the validity of their philosophical propositions through the use of secret credibility-algorithms that selectively target individuals, delaying their signal to the point that their communication is regarded as non real-time... 

Youtube stocks are also going strong, as the more prominent philosophers respond to this situation by a video uploading campaign where they try to compensate for their lack of Skpye credibility by issuing their statements in increasingly corageous manners; some of them even resorting to acrobatics.

[Flake]

 

 

@ Joseito

It's a personal question, and it's all right if you don't want to answer.  I ask it because I suspect you don't have much credibility when it comes to improving your life, which could explain your disagreement with my assertion that credibility matters in philosophy.  In this case the credibility of coping with discomfort, fear, or anxiety in speaking to others.

 

Credibility matters when, say, you are giving advice on how to live a happy life, how to be successful, how to be a better person, generally speaking. Which would provide justification for your assertion if that were all that philosophy were limited to. Philosophy is more than that. It is also the study of metaphysics, semantics, epistemology, and other subjects. Subjects where the only thing that matters is the arguments and not the person making the arguments.

[Jose Perez]

 

 

@ Joseito

It's a personal question, and it's all right if you don't want to answer.  I ask it because I suspect you don't have much credibility when it comes to improving your life, which could explain your disagreement with my assertion that credibility matters in philosophy.  In this case the credibility of coping with discomfort, fear, or anxiety in speaking to others.

 

Credibility matters when, say, you are giving advice on how to live a happy life, how to be successful, how to be a better person, generally speaking. Which would provide justification for your assertion if that were all that philosophy were limited to. Philosophy is more than that. It is also the study of metaphysics, semantics, epistemology, and other subjects. Subjects where the only thing that matters is the arguments and not the person making the arguments.

 

As it happens, it's the people who most consistently care about the arguments who show the most courage and credibility in their lives. People like him are only lucky that we are not getting trolled into a discussion about who's got the most credibility.

 

[Lowe D]

Credibility matters when, say, you are giving advice on how to live a happy life, how to be successful, how to be a better person, generally speaking. Which would provide justification for your assertion if that were all that philosophy were limited to. Philosophy is more than that. It is also the study of metaphysics, semantics, epistemology, and other subjects. Subjects where the only thing that matters is the arguments and not the person making the arguments.

What is the purpose of epistemology, etc, if not to get you the life you want?  Has anyone under the sun ever said, here is my new philosophy, through which you will never accomplish anything you desire?  That wouldn't be philosophy.

To me, philosophy matters.  It's something I put into action.  I have done a year and a half of therapy with the same psychotherapist, which started about two and a half years after finding FDR, reading Alice Miller, and starting to introspect and journal, for the first time in my life.

Since then my life has improved noticeably.  I'm braver, more open to ambiguity, and to compassion, and less driven by the collected pain of my childhood.  There's still a ways to go, but already I am better at public speaking, better at making romantic advances, and in better shape physically.  I recently got a new job that pays far more than any I've had before now, and I love the work I am doing.

So, I care about arguments.  I care so much, I acted on them, and tested them (came back positive).  People who don't act on truth, care about other things more than truth.  If that's so, what good is their philosophy?  Philosophy is all about truth.

[Flake]

 

Credibility matters when, say, you are giving advice on how to live a happy life, how to be successful, how to be a better person, generally speaking. Which would provide justification for your assertion if that were all that philosophy were limited to. Philosophy is more than that. It is also the study of metaphysics, semantics, epistemology, and other subjects. Subjects where the only thing that matters is the arguments and not the person making the arguments.

What is the purpose of epistemology, etc, if not to get you the life you want?  Has anyone under the sun ever said, here is my new philosophy, through which you will never accomplish anything you desire?  That wouldn't be philosophy.

To me, philosophy matters.  It's something I put into action.  I have done a year and a half of therapy with the same psychotherapist, which started about two and a half years after finding FDR, reading Alice Miller, and starting to introspect and journal, for the first time in my life.

Since then my life has improved noticeably.  I'm braver, more open to ambiguity, and to compassion, and less driven by the collected pain of my childhood.  There's still a ways to go, but already I am better at public speaking, better at making romantic advances, and in better shape physically.  I recently got a new job that pays far more than any I've had before now, and I love the work I am doing.

So, I care about arguments.  I care so much, I acted on them, and tested them (came back positive).  People who don't act on truth, care about other things more than truth.  If that's so, what good is their philosophy?  Philosophy is all about truth.

 

By your standards something must "help you get the life you want" in order to be philosophy. Something which sounds appealing and seems intuitive. Let us apply those standards. Does the philosophy here at FDR help you get the life you want? It has helped you, you could  consider FDR the epitome of philosophy. What about other people? Does FDR help them get the life they want? Certainly not, there are plenty of people out there who find FDR anathema to what they want. By your standards, to them FDR wouldn't be philosophy, so your standards of what makes philosophy philosophy can't be universalized, meaning that standard can't be logically acceptable.

 

[TheRobin]

by that standard we sholdn't use science either, because some people still can't manage to use it to build proper bridges...

Sure if someone wants to build a bridge made of paperplanes, then science isn't gonna help them, but that doesn't invalidate science in the slightest.

[Flake]

You try to use a analogy by saying that philosophy and science are the same in that both are objective. That if science doesn't help someone then it doesn't invalidate science just as if philosophy doesn't help someone then it doesn't invalidate philosphy. Which would be fine except Lowe's standard is that it must help the person get the life they want or it isn't philosophy. Your analogy is irrelevant in that I didn't argue against the validity of philosophy based on people's opinions, I argued against Lowe's standard for considering something philosophy, for you to make a relevant analogy in support of Lowe's standard you would have to accept some off-the-wall presuppositions. (A relevant analogy wouldn't help support Lowe's standard anyway. Those off-the-wall presuppositions would be wrong.)

[TheRobin]

You seem to confuse the purpose of a tool (which is objective) with the outcome of using it (which is entirely dependant on the actual circumstance and events).Lowe D wrote about the prupose of doing philosophy is helping you get the life you want, not that it directly causes it. If you get a hammer to nail some nails into your walls, the hammer doesn't cause them to go in. And if they don't go in (for whatever reason) then that doesn't mean that the tool wasn't a hammer, or that the purpose of the hammer changed retroactively after not getting the nails in.

[Jose Perez]

 

You seem to confuse the purpose of a tool (which is objective) with the outcome of using it (which is entirely dependant on the actual circumstance and events).

Lowe D wrote about the prupose of doing philosophy is helping you get the life you want, not that it directly causes it.
If you get a hammer to nail some nails into your walls, the hammer doesn't cause them to go in. And if they don't go in (for whatever reason) then that doesn't mean that the tool wasn't a hammer, or that the purpose of the hammer changed retroactively after not getting the nails in.

 

You have just pointed out Lowe's confusion, not Flake's.[/font]

Lowe spoke about the purpose being both 'getting the life that you want' and 'truth', if you read back. Not quite the same thing.[/font]

What we have here is people equating truth with a certain ideal in order to use the ideal as a standard for truth. What can we say about that other than that is what every false philosophy and religion has ever done? Exactly the pattern you would expect in a conversation that deals with the irrational aspects of FDR, because there is no magic trick or therapy to make people rational...[/font]

[Jose Perez]

Ayn Rand made amazing speeches that conveyed corageous and revolutionary ideas... in writing.

[C]

I love mondays!