Contradicting one's philosophy

[junglecat]

If someone has contradicted one's own philosophy should we then throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak?

Doe it make one's philosophy null and void if one is not able to consistently live by it's premises?

[shirgall]

If someone has contradicted one's own philosophy should we then throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak?

Doe it make one's philosophy null and void if one is not able to consistently live by it's premises?

 

Philosophy is the algorithm that's always right, and human action is often the heuristic that's right enough quickly enough for the narrower situation in which it is applied. Remember that logic, reason, and evidence is not overturned by beliefs but rather by errors. Doing the wrong thing when you know better doesn't imply that the right thing is wrong. It just means you chose not to the do the right thing for some "reason", pun intended.

[Tyler H]

Philosophy is the algorithm that's always right, and human action is often the heuristic that's right enough quickly enough for the narrower situation in which it is applied. Remember that logic, reason, and evidence is not overturned by beliefs but rather by errors. Doing the wrong thing when you know better doesn't imply that the right thing is wrong. It just means you chose not to the do the right thing for some "reason", pun intended.

Very well put. I'd like to add that if you see someone consistently act in opposition to the "philosophy" they profess then it is certainly a red flag. It would be in the interest of sanity and time to dismiss such sophistry on those grounds alone. It still doesn't mean what they say is wrong, but there a billion idiots touting "truth" so dismissing fat guys selling diet books is in your best interest if you really want to lose weight.

[thebeardslastcall]

Philosophy isn't invalidated by someone not following the philosophy, it merely means they haven't embraced the philosophy they preach. That's a contradiction of self, not of the substance of what they preach, but generally means they don't believe in or understand what they preach if they don't see the value in following the philosophy themselves. Generally this means they are lying about and not willing to acknowledge the benefits of deviating from what they profess. The philosophy is only invalidated if the philosophy is flawed and can't work. A philosophy is not dependent on anyone successfully currently employing the philosophy. If that were the case, philosophical and rational progression would never occur, because all untested philosophies would be incorrectly invalidated. I can come up with the philosophy of not eating junk food as being a way to better health, and be correct, but this doesn't mean I personally want to trade away junk food for better health, as that's a different philosophy not about what is healthier for the body, but preferred by the mind. As with the diet book example, you can write an accurate diet book for better health, but you're not going to get as many followers if you don't believe such a dietary change leads to a more satisfactory life as evidenced by your remaining fat and unhealthy and not following the diet yourself. Such action means the person embodies the philosophy that dietary pleasure is more important than health gains by dietary change.

[junglecat]

Philosophy is the algorithm that's always right, and human action is often the heuristic that's right enough quickly enough for the narrower situation in which it is applied. Remember that logic, reason, and evidence is not overturned by beliefs but rather by errors. Doing the wrong thing when you know better doesn't imply that the right thing is wrong. It just means you chose not to the do the right thing for some "reason", pun intended.

I agree with you. The reason I ask is that I heard a video of Molyneux where he said 'proving moral inconsistencies of a moralist is sufficient cause to reject his arguments as a whole'. 

[Tyler H]

I agree with you. The reason I ask is that I heard a video of Molyneux where he said 'proving moral inconsistencies of a moralist is sufficient cause to reject his arguments as a whole'.

 

I think that's in line with what we're saying; reject can be ambiguous but I think he meant dismiss, not invalidate or disprove.

[shirgall]

I think that's in line with what we're saying; reject can be ambiguous but I think he meant dismiss, not invalidate or disprove.

 

Wasn't the idea put forward when considering advice from a fat nutritionist? In fact, I think the statement in particular was about Karl Marx, his treatment of his maid, and his advocacy for workers' rights.

[Tyler H]

Wasn't the idea put forward when considering advice from a fat nutritionist? In fact, I think the statement in particular was about Karl Marx, his treatment of his maid, and his advocacy for workers' rights.

That sounds right...  Stef has made the fat guy/diet book analogy a lot but yeah I'm pretty sure that particular statement was in that presentation.

[junglecat]

So what do you make of all of Molyneux's contradictions? As I've dug into his thought more I have found him to be inconsistent, particularly on the use and support of state power. Or is even calling attention to these contradiction not allowed in this forum?

[shirgall]

So what do you make of all of Molyneux's contradictions? As I've dug into his thought more I have found him to be inconsistent, particularly on the use and support of state power. Or is even calling attention to these contradiction not allowed in this forum?

 

You may want to be specific if you want a response.

 

He already explained that unfettered immigration increases state power more than controlled, for example.

[junglecat]

You may want to be specific if you want a response.

 

He already explained that unfettered immigration increases state power more than controlled, for example.

I tried to post a video that had a great example of what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, it looks as if it didn't make it past the censors.

I love the irony in your quote- "Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?"

[thebeardslastcall]

I tried to post a video that had a great example of what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, it looks as if it didn't make it past the censors.

I love the irony in your quote- "Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?"

 

Are you suggesting people here have been unable to and have not successfully criticized Stefan on the forums and on his show? Or if not could you clarify your implication and make your statement less obscurely to make the implied point of alleged irony.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

There is also the case of people who have incoherent beliefs or a smallness in their life who wil nitpick someone who has greater visions based on universable principles for not acting in perfect congruence with their beliefs, despite living in a state of affairs that makes the manifestation of their ideals impossible. In other words, small people are threatened by those who dream big, and will try and tear them down in spite at any notice of their own despairing lack of impact and longevity in the eyes of the future. There is a life after death for those who strive to chase their dreams at all costs, knowing full well they will fail to be able to carry the world on their backs, but the great benefits that accrue to the philosopher who lives for the future requires astounding humility and patience that most others cannot or will not (because knowledge is responsibility) conceive of.

 

I am paraphrasing this perspective that I came across in the closing speech in the recent call "My Husband is a Milwaukee Police Officer| Black Lives Matter" and it's excellent.