NigelW Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 In an attempt to disarm my growing anxiety towards philosophers and develop competence I am trying to understand what a philosopher is. A laborer is someone who moves, shovels, and constructs physical things. A manager is someone who coordinates the efforts of people to accomplish a set of goals and objectives using resources effectively and efficiently. Someone who studies something has an incentive to gather the information. A philosopher is not a laborer. I think a philosopher is someone who uses language to coordinate the efforts of people to accomplish a set of goals and objectives using resources effectively and efficiently. A philosopher is a type of manager who has an incentive to gather information and create or dismiss arguments on the basis of validity and accuracy. Am I off base here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 I would say that a philosopher is someone who aligns the verbal world with the physical world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 Maybe: A person who goes to great lengths to determine and communicate the truth, in spite of waves of culture crashing against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelW Posted July 26, 2014 Author Share Posted July 26, 2014 Isn't there always a goal to aligning the verbal and physical world? Not just for the action, but the result? I think that communicating the facts about spanking would be to change the behavior of parents. Is that true? If the goal is to change or coordinate behavior, voluntarily, then can you measure a philosopher's skill by that scale? Then the way to develop the skill to become a philosopher is to make valid and accurate arguments that change or coordinate people's behavior. Is that correct? I am not a history buff, but maybe an argument can be made that philosopher's from the past were so bad that societies had to resort to violence. I am not trying to justify violence but I am trying to accept responsibility for my thoughts and instincts in this area with the goal of preventing what happened to me as a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamuelS Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Google defines philosophy thusly: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. A philosopher is one who practices philosophy. What you describe is closer to marketing/marketer. While the two can have some overlap, I wouldn't suggest they are the same. I would also keep in mind that the goal of marketing is first and foremost to persuade people, truth isn't always a part of that...I'd venture that it's almost never part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Philosophy can definitely be used to convince people to change their behavior, but that's only part of it. Take for example this conversation, we are trying to define what a philospher is, but none of us is trying to change or coordinate anyone's behavior. The same can be said for entire sections of the board, such as the atheism section. Nobody is there to convince people to stop going to church or anything, people are just trying to separate truth from falsehood. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 "[P]hilosophy, I would argue, is the pursuit of an 'ought' without and 'is'" - Stef (FDR2713 What The Hell Is Philosophy For? ~15m 30s) In medicine, the doctor says "if you want to be healthy, you should do X". The nutritionist says "if you want to lose weight, you should do X". A philosopher is like a doctor, but instead of trying to achieve physical health, he seeks to achieve morality. So, in a way, your manager analogy is pretty close to Stef's definition. A broader view of philosophy (not necessarily better) is to consider the following: every discipline which is now considered a science, was once called "philosophy" (see "natural philosophy"). In that sense you could say that a philosopher is a truth seeker, especially in those domains which are not yet established. There is no theory of evolution, or atomic theory of matter regarding things like ethics (until now, UPB FTW!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelW Posted July 27, 2014 Author Share Posted July 27, 2014 @SamuelS Sorry, I don't know enough about marketing to agree or disagree. Are you trying to convince me? @Tyler Durden Are we exploring the definition of philosophy using philosophy? @Kevin Beal Ok, so by having a conversation about truth am I practicing philosophy? (UPB is pretty awesome! Still trying to get experience in applying it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 @Tyler Durden Are we exploring the definition of philosophy using philosophy? That's an unanswerable question, as we would need the definition of philosophy first in order to determine if we are using philosophy in our exploration of the definition of philosophy. The reason I used this conversation as an example is because I assumed you would consider what goes on in the philosophy section of a philosophy forum as philosophy. But we can leave this particular conversation out of it if it doesn't make things easier. Let me try to explain what I meant with my original statement: We live in a physical world and we live in a verbal world as well. When the verbal world and the physical world are in alignment we can say stuff like "apples grow on trees" and everybody is like "they sure do". We're speaking the truth, but because it's such a well established truth most people wouldn't call that philosophy. But when the verbal world and the physical world are not in alignment you can make a truth statement like "taxation is theft" or "spanking is assault" and get a totally different response. Suddenly you find yourself in a position where the truth is not obvious to people and you really have to reason with them to align the verbal world with the physical world. To me, that reasoning is what defines a philosopher. In between the apples and taxation there are many more statements you could make that will elicit some discussion, but the topics that really set people off are the ones related to morality. And the reason those topics set people off is precisely because accepting the truth would mean that they have to change their behavior. So philosophy is definitely related to changing people's behavior. But it's more of a side effect of the philosopher's quest for truth than a goal in itself. Because as soon as you start valuing the change in behavior more than you value the truth then you're not really a philosopher anymore, then you're just a manipulator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamuelS Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 @SamuelSSorry, I don't know enough about marketing to agree or disagree. Are you trying to convince me?It doesn't matter if you're convinced, what matters is if it is true. A rock falling on your head doesn't care if you accept that it does so, it is true that it does.Google defines marketing as:the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising.If one values philosophy, it would seem to me consistent to promote the methodology and/or the conclusions. Not promoting either does not make the truth false, however. A tree falling in the woods makes a sound whether or not anybody hears it, it just doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelW Posted July 27, 2014 Author Share Posted July 27, 2014 Given that I want to pursue morality, I accept that a good philosopher values the truth over changing other peoples behavior and that it is manipulative to value results over methodology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelW Posted July 27, 2014 Author Share Posted July 27, 2014 @SamuelS Well I know that I am capable of surviving criticism but other people do not. If the goal of a philosopher is to just simply say stuff... then I want no part of it. The definition of convincing is to cause someone to believe that something is true. I would say that if we know that we have the capability of surviving criticism and the knowledge that people become hostile to it when confronted by it, then we are responsible for finding ways to convince them if they goal is communicating the truth. If the goal is not to communicate the truth... well lol cmon In other words, by surviving criticism we are showing that it is possible. We are leading by example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamuelS Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 The goal of a person that uses philosophy should not be confused with philosophy...a horse rider may have the goal of getting from point A to point B, but that has no bearing in whether or not they are, in fact, riding a horse. Does that make sense? I think it is an admirable goal to try to spread the truth and the methodologies by which it is discovered, but to me, to call that philosophy is to conflate marketing into the definition. I could be wrong, and I'm certainly fine with the honest marketing of philosophy...I'm not sure my nitpicking over definitons really matters, but I'm happy to continue exploring that. I am curious about your definition of convince -- what would you call it if one caused someone to believe something that is NOT true, or only incidentally true (such as an invalid method that still leads to the correct answer)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelW Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 Then why call him a horse rider? If a philosopher no longer uses logic, he/she is not longer a philosopher. I think what you're getting at is that because someone uses logic does not mean they will, or have to, use logic in every instance of their life. I definitely agree, I don't need to justify eating breakfast in the morning. I just do it. Ok so you're saying that I am talking about philosophy and conflating it with marketing. Can you tell me more about what you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamuelS Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 I think I may have stumbled into an untenable position here, or at least one that I don't really want to promote, as I think we're very much in agreement on the implications and virtuous application of philosophy... but let's see where it goes... I think you're conflating marketing of philosophy with philosophy itself, as per the definitions above. I'm not sure where the confusion on this lies. Perhaps you find my definitions unacceptable, if so please do propose alternatives. If Stef sat alone on a mountain top, thinking about these same things, would he cease to be a philosopher? I don't think so, but the effect of that philosophy would be greatly reduced. Much as the horse rider would still be riding a horse even if he couldn't get the horse to go the right direction or anywhere at all. To measure the process by its effects would seem to me a very frustrating endeavor. Was Einstein any less a mathematical genius when the effects of his work were nuclear bombs? Is Stef any less a philosopher because many people refuse to listen to his arguments for irrational reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelW Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 I accept that I am conflating philosophy with marketing and that you do not need to communicate the value of everything in your life. Just as you do not need to justify daily tasks. Am I correct? I keep running into the same problem where I try to define something and it turns out that I am focusing on the effects rather than the process. You are right, it is frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamuelS Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 You really don't need to do anything at all. I do think it's good both to avoid hypocrisy and to live by the truths you discover. I also think it's good to share those truths, but I would not want to feel compelled to do so. I take "no rulers" to the extreme, I don't even want to rule over myself, except when I do want to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelW Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 Thanks dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelW Posted July 29, 2014 Author Share Posted July 29, 2014 I don't want to over analyze this too much but there is something else I would like to contribute. A philosopher is someone who attempts to define reality. And by definition reality is logical so to attempt to define reality you must be rational. A downhill biker can go uphill sometimes. I suppose someone could ride a road bike down a rocky mountain. hah Hey SamuelS, I thought more about what you said and the conclusion we reached that things are not their effects. I think that is true because an orange is not just the exterior, but the juice and the pulp as well. A hollowed out pumpkin is not the same as a pumpkin on the vine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts