Philosophy About Philosophy... Ironically

[lapis_knight]

Philosophy cannot construct anything besides itself (and then only shakily); it can only tear things down. It can do nothing constructive and yet it fascinates so many. It is the intellectual's toy. It's completely ridiculous and I hope I never have to take a philosophy class. Oh but watch, God has a sense of humor and I'm totally going to wind

Comments

[werebeagle]

Hmm. What is it about philosophy that makes you see it that way? I've always thought of it as bringing our not-quite-conscious assumptions about things into the open by naming them. So, you learn (or are finally forced to admit) the reasons (or lack thereof) for more conscious convictions. In that sense it's no more destructive than, say, formal logic.

[coweringmeepo]

Yah, but that's very destructive. I mean, just think about the debates you and I have had.

Formal logic is extremely detrimental and deconstructive to a species that formulates most of its consciousness from an organic synthesis of experience and assumption.

(And the beauty is, even if you try to argue against it, I can just claim that you're detailing the result of your own experiences and assumptions! Either that or that your syntheses are broken. ^__^)

...And the same goes for all of you! Muahahahahahaha!

[lapis_knight]

Perhaps Alan said what I'm going to say, only more eloquently, but it seems to me that the trained philosopher can prove anything and everything wrong. If philosophy makes no distinction between actual truth and otherwise, then at what point does it become useful?

As a hobby, it's fine by me. Kind of like basketball. Not my cup of tea, but I understand that some people enjoy it. But when people get so wrapped up in it that I start to lose touch with them, it's very sad indeed.

[shopeinator]

"but it seems to me that the trained philosopher can prove anything and everything wrong."

Actually, more likely: "but it seems to me that the trained philosopher can prove anything and everything unable to be proven."

"If philosophy makes no distinction between actual truth and otherwise"

Not sure what you are saying here.

[werebeagle]

Hmm again. I'd say that good philosophy can't prove anything, it can only show you whether your own beliefs support each other. To either prove or disprove something you have to start out with something else assumed to be definitely correct or incorrect. So, if you're trying to convince someone of something with philosophy the only way to do it (at least that I've found) is to show that what you're trying to convince them of is a necessary extension of something they already believe. If someone seems to be able to prove everything wrong, it's not because they're a good *philosopher*; they're just good at being tricky. At least that's how I see it.

[shopeinator]

"it can only show you whether your own beliefs support each other."

The genius of Socrates. Internal consistency of belief systems is indeed the basis for philosophy. Oftentimes it involves basic assumptions, or argues those assumptions as true, but the actual exercise of it is to extrapolate an internally consistent structure, or confirm the structural integrity of an existing belief system.

Th ephilosophers that try to disprove everything are either:

a) Having fun being skeptical.
b) Being nihilists.

In the case of the former, it's not necessarily the nature of philosophy that leads to them doing this. It's mostly a desire to tear things down inherent in the person. Philosophy has no particular inclination to destroy things.

In the case of the latter, please slap them in the face. If they object tell them that since they do not exist, they have no right to complain. ;)