# Do you think sophistry is harmful in today's society?



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

For those of you who don't know a sophist is a term first used in ancient Greece to describe a paid philosophy teacher. But being paid to teach is not the issue. Later on sophistry became an opposition to philosophy and both Plato and Aristotle rejected sophistry.

If you've ever taken a phil class there is about a 50% chance your teacher would be a sophist. sophistry is different than philosophy because sophistry focuses on arguments, while philosophy focuses on obtaining wisdom. It might be harsh to say this, but sophistry is very damaging to any phil major. 

The fact of the matter is, a sophist does not want you to be right, nor does he expect you to be right. In fact if you are ever to be right, it would be a threat to sophism. A sophist teacher would ask a question in a way that he knows there will always be two sides of the story. For example he will tell you to argue about abortion, but he won't allow you to tackle the question of existence as a whole. This means that no matter what your essay describes, there will purposely always be a counter argument to your essay that is equally valid. However the goal is simply to structure your argument in a way just for the sake of presentation

I know you cannot just explain your thoughts, you have to properly derive it, but the purpose isn't to argue but to reach a conclusion. If someone takes a philosophy class for the first time and is taught sophistry, that would be his lifelong impression of the subject. The person will forever mistake argument with wisdom.

What do you think about this issue?


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2015)

Sounds like you're not happy with a course?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

It's neither here nor there.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Sophistry, which should not be confused with the very valuable skill of constructing an argument based on sound logic, has always been important to politicians and lawyers, and today it's taken on new life on the internet.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

No! Sophistry is great!

Did you except to any of us to say that?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

So sophistry is kinda the art of being the devil's advocate then? That's interesting. I never had a philosophy class like that.

Yeah, being the devil's advocate or being interrogated by a devil's advocate is a very harsh thing. Hyper-relativism.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

I always used to feel a bit sorry for the sophist when Socrates started on him.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

It's hard to answer this without examples. We might not agree that what you consider sophistry actually is.

I agree with Mahlerian that it's now used most often by politicians (of all political persuasions).


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2015)

If them Ancient Greeks had gone out and got a proper job, they wouldn't have needed to found their society on slavery.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

dogen said:


> If them Ancient Greeks had gone out and got a proper job, they wouldn't have needed to found their society on slavery.


Then they wouldn't have been able to have all the Socratic dialogues that I used to be forced to plough through at school.

Come to think of it, that would have been brilliant! What tedium I would have been spared.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Reading a lot more deeply about the topic might lead to better understanding of the difference between sophistry and precision in constructing an argument.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Reading a lot more deeply about the topic might lead to better understanding of the difference between sophistry and precision in constructing an argument.


Sophistry 'as I and the spindoctors know it' is only as good as the precision used in the construction of the argument. The better the fallacy is camouflaged, the more successful the argument.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

dogen said:


> If them Ancient Greeks had gone out and got a proper job, they wouldn't have needed to found their society on slavery.


Plato would have been Plato regardless if he was or wasn't born into an already established slave society. He for the most part ignores the subject entirely

Aristotle...maybe not so much


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

isorhythm said:


> It's hard to answer this without examples. We might not agree that what you consider sophistry actually is.
> 
> I agree with Mahlerian that it's now used most often by politicians (of all political persuasions).


Heres an example:
Suppose we lived in ancient times and we had no knowledge of anything.

In the subject of philosophy, you'd need to sit down and bring up the subject, lets say if the Earth is flat or round. Now the purpose is to actually discover if the Earth is flat or round. Why? because we want to know if the world is flat or round, no other reason. So if I start off saying it has a cube like nature, you might say "well is it? lets analyze it" our goal here is to simply know what nature the earth is
In the subject of sophistry, you pick any view the Earth is flat, round or cube like in nature. Now your job is to develop a well constructed argument so that you can defend your position. What is missing is the actual desire to know what shape the Earth actually is


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

dogen said:


> Sounds like you're not happy with a course?


.....pretty much


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Dr Johnson said:


> I always used to feel a bit sorry for the sophist when Socrates started on him.


I'm pretty sure that if he were alive today he'd be banned from the forum for being a pain in the a**.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

hagridindminor said:


> For those of you who don't know a sophist is a term first used in ancient Greece to describe a paid philosophy teacher. But being paid to teach is not the issue. Later on sophistry became an opposition to philosophy and both Plato and Aristotle rejected sophistry.


Let's lend some broader clarity on this subject with a short little series. First it must be mentioned that the Sophists were famous for making eristic arguments. What are eristic arguments? Read on, my friends, read on.

Alright, fellow lovers of knowledge, let's ponder what exactly logic and rationality are. If you're less inclined to take on an involved read, you may prefer skipping to part 2.

Part 1:

P1:John is a man.
P2:All men are mortal.
C:Ergo, John is mortal.

That is an argument called a syllogism. There are only two premises, and one conclusion. The conclusion in this case necessarily follows from the premises because they supply a material cause. This was Aristotle's favorite kind of argument because based upon them we could form conclusions that are an axiomatic foundation for further discussion. While not all arguments fall along these necessary lines, and not all of them exist entirely without smuggled premises, these provide a good grounding for discussion as they help to provide what is called a universe of discourse.

This kind of argument is very much the opposite of an eristic argument. Eristic arguments are typically predicated on sophistical thinking (*that is, sophistical in the popular sense*), and as such they accomplish nothing but a success in rhetoric, not logic. While eristic arguments can seem perfectly rational, they are, for the most part, not logical/valid. Logic pertains to the formation of thoughts and the validity of those forms, not necessarily to the truth behind any particular argument. The basic function of logic is to validate and differentiate between inferences, which can be deductive or inductive.

Formal logic is grounded in concrete, absolute inferences. Informal logic on the other hand deals in varying levels of certainty. In the first type we can definitely say yes or no to the validity of an argument, and in the second type we can assess varying levels of validity.

Rationality is the perception of how well logical thoughts pertain to reality, and so long as two opposing arguments have valid form they can both hypothetically be rational. One might say that we cannot have a round square, but rationality isn't so much a Cartesian proof as it is an indication of however much or little we feel that a thought corresponds with reality. It may have been perfectly rational at one point to believe the earth was flat, for example, until our understanding of applied math, and some principles that were precursors to empiricism, made the position untenable.

So given that, we can see that rationality takes into account values of reasoning like probability, coherence, formal and informal validity, and to put it bluntly and more succinctly an argument's general ability to be compelling. This is why philosophers typically admit to and should be able to recognize rationality in one another, instead of fooling themselves that they are the only party that can be possibly rational. The assessment that an argument is rational is not so much a categorical, yes or no, assessment so much as it actually gauges just how much rationality it has or lacks.

As Aristotle said in Posterior Analytics: "The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it." In order to truly entertain an idea we must give it the benefit of the doubt that it is rational. Unless we are predisposed to do that, there is no progress that can be made and we are simply pontificating at one another. That is argument in the popular sense.

Now I've mentioned validity, and it is time to explain that term and another ("sound") as it is understood by philosophers. Validity means an argument has proper form. This means that if we accept the premises as true the argument is sound. Soundness in philosophy is the judgment that not only is an argument valid, but it is compelling enough to be considered true. The syllogism I presented was an example of proper form.

Here is a series of examples in order to make the relationship between validity and soundness apparent, thanks to Joel Feinberg. In the series I will be marking the premises and conclusions as true and false.

All humans are mortal. (True)
Feinberg is human. (True)
Therefore, Feinberg is a mortal. (True)
(Valid)

All mammals have wings. (False)
All reptiles are mammals. (False)
Therefore, all reptiles have wings. (False)
(Valid)

Chicago is north of Dallas. (True)
Feinberg is mortal. (True)
Therefore, all birds have wings. (True)
(Invalid)

If Bill Gates owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then he would be wealthy. (True)
Bill Gates does not own all the gold in Fort Knox. (True)
Therefore, Bill Gates is not wealthy. (False)
(Invalid)

All fish are mammals. (False)
All whales are fish. (False)
Therefore, all whales are mammals. (True)
(Valid)

All dogs have wings. (False)
All puppies have wings. (False)
Therefore, all puppies are dogs. (True)
(Invalid)

On the basis of what has been established so far, we can observe that this is why philosophers that argue for divergent positions can consider each other rational. So long as their interlocutor's arguments cumulatively possess enough validity, and a sufficient portion of the arguments within the epistemological whole are compelling enough to be considered sound, the interlocutor by all rights should be deemed rational. They may not agree with their interlocutor on whether the arguments are sound, but if they can respect the type of reasoning involved in considering the arguments sound, by all rights they should never disparage their interlocutor as if he/she is irrational.

Do philosophers always live up to this reasonable standard when choosing whether or not to disparage their colleagues? Certainly not. I have all of the respect in the world for Bertrand Russell and have found many of his ideas compelling, but I do feel that he didn't appreciate well enough the rationality of theism.

This has been known to happen in science. Divergent positions get painted as if they are irrational, so physicists will not even argue directly with their interlocutors, simply labeling the divergent positions as "pseudoscience" as if what they are practicing is an activity not even in the same category. These kind of summary dismissals can honestly be harmful to the general practice of philosophy (science being a branch of Empirical philosophy, and scientists properly being defined as philosophers themselves).

During the Scientific Revolution, the scientists recognized these principles and actually called themselves natural philosophers. But now, there are some scientists who disparage philosophy, and have trouble fully appreciating their origins and the logical basis of their work. The Scientific Method, after all, is a philosophical concept based on the coherence and correspondence theories of truth, espoused by the early scientists they idolize such as Hobbes, Leibniz, Newton, Haufner, Leeuwenhoek, and Locke, all of whom practiced other branches of philosophy as well. Essentially, there are only differences in practice and use when we compare science's use of calculus and philosophy's use of propositional logic (the precursor to and grounds for applied math): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus

Now that we've laid down some very basic grounds as to what logic is and how it is used, we must take a look at just who the Sophists were, and how they might have mucked up the works.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Part 2:

Who *are* the sophists? Here's a more meaty entry to wash the bad taste of a wiki reference out of our mouths: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sophists/ Well, they weren't a school of philosophers in the traditional sense. The name's general and specific senses evolved a bit in the last two Presocratic centuries. It was first a reference to sages and turned into the idea more easily recognizable today of a philosopher who educates men of public affairs.

The eristic arguments arose out of the nature of philosophy as an industry at that time. Protagoras, a notable Presocratic Sophist, argued for Protagorean subjectivism and laid the ground for much of the thinking of the Pyrhhonian Skeptics of the Second Academy, who were made famous by Sextus Empiricus. It is a very loose attitude towards Protagoras' subjectivism that characterized much of the professional philosophers in Socrates' day, one of capricious, noncommittal arguments. Without going into overly laborious detail, it suffices to say that Protagoras himself was not so noncommittal as, say, Gorgias from Plato's Gorgias, or the Eleatic Sophists described all over Aristotle's Organon.

It is interesting to note in passing that Plato also had a Protagoras dialogue, however, it is clear that he was borrowing a long dead person for a "current" interlocutor of Socrates. But I digress. Probably the most important contribution of the Sophists, and Protagoras in particular, was their commendable focus on developing vocabulary and syntax specific to discussion in the academic as opposed to popular sphere.



> Relevantly to this, he is reported as a pioneer of some aspects of linguistic theory, and of its application to literary criticism. He wrote on correctness in language (orthoepeia, Plato, Phaedrus 267c): he is said to have devised a taxonomy of speech acts into assertion, question, answer, command etc. (Diogenes Laertius IX.53-4), and to have criticised the opening of the Iliad 'Sing, goddess, of the wrath of Achilles' on the ground that instead of a prayer, as it ought to be, the phrase is a command (Aristotle Poetics 1456b15-16). He is also said both to have classified grammatical genders (Aristotle Rhetoric 1407b6-7) and to have suggested that gender should be modified to fit the sense, so that 'wrath' (mēnis) in the same line of Homer, which is a grammatical feminine, should be masculine, since wrath is characteristic of males rather than females (Aristotle Sophistici Elenchi 173b19-20).


Of great consequence also were Hippias, Protagoras, and Xenophanes' views on religion: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sophists/#Religion Xenophanes in particular was famous for criticizing anthropomorphism in religion.

Hopefully this has been an informative, entertaining, and broader approach than is typically given to such an important group of philosophers. So, is sophistry harmful today? Eristic arguments may be harmful but the Sophists also made great contributions that are still being ennucleated by people today. It is the Skeptics of the Second Platonic Academy that were more responsible for the persistence of the kind of thinking that the OP bemoans.



Headphone Hermit said:


> Reading a lot more deeply about the topic might lead to better understanding of the difference between sophistry and precision in constructing an argument.


Did someone order a hot, steaming plate of fun? Well the dish is served, monsieur, the dish is served.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

I have taken a course on deductive logic, so I am familiar with the logic system. I agree, a good argument cannot rest on untrue premises. An argument should be sound for that matter.
However the fact of the matter is, there hasn't been a single argument to date that survives against radical skepticism. That is precisely what is wrong with modern philosophy. There is a Socratic dialogue on this subject. I forgot the name but if I remember correctly, Socrates had an argument with two people who were trained in argument, neither of them had anything to say but they managed to beat Socrates in the argument just by using their argument skills. They chose a topic and they managed to argue both sides.The point of the dialogue is just to show that knowing how to argue does not mean knowing. This is why Plato and Aristotle both had such a problem with sophism. I think Aristotle said something like, "a sophist is someone who knows how to put the appearance of wisdom"

I do not have a problem with the logic system itself. However the logic system needs to be used for a purpose, to obtain something. Modern philosophy does not do it, which is why it seems as if philosophy is a dead subject. You give an argument on morality, I'm going to give a bad example but lets say
1. Anything which has the ability to feel complex emotions is born with rights
2.Dogs have complex emotions
therefore
Dogs have rights
_______
Now, no matter how much depth that person added in his argument, how much emotional appeal he demonstrated, rights is something that has no empirical basis. If I for some reason was set on the fact that dogs do not have rights, do you know how easy it would be to counter that statement? I'd simply refute the first premise saying that no one is born with rights, rights are something that is decided by social order, and dogs do not have the ability to partake in political decision.

And that is precisely what is wrong with modern philosophy, because there is no common objective or goal. Both of us would be set on our own views, and we would do whatever we can to defend it. The winner is the person who is better at arguing, not the person who is right.


----------



## SarahNorthman (Nov 19, 2014)

I think it is always harmful, no matter what time in society or what society you live in. Unfortunately it is just becoming more and more common as time goes on. It's a shame.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2015)

I'm no philosopher, so my argument here is common-or-garden.

The pursuit of facts - such as whether the Earth is flat or round - does not require philosophy or logic.
The pursuit of truth - such as whether all sentient beings have rights - does. But because this road of philosophy does not lead to facts, it may seem worthless. What use is philosophy if it can't be used to establish that it is a fact that we must all be nice to each other?

I can't comment on your class, but it sounds as though your teacher may be illustrating this point.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I believe sophistry is an excellent exercise. One of the most difficult things to do is to see the errors in one's own beliefs, and one of the best ways to achieve that is argue against them. Were we all just unbiased, dispassionate seekers of knowledge, that sort of exercise wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, we're nothing like that: the human mind might even be the most deceitful, sneaky, tricky thing in the universe. If you hope to be an honest thinker - good luck!


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2015)

hagridindminor said:


> .....pretty much


Change course then? Talk to someone?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> I'm no philosopher, so my argument here is common-or-garden.
> 
> The pursuit of facts - such as whether the Earth is flat or round - does not require philosophy or logic.
> The pursuit of truth - such as whether all sentient beings have rights - does. But because this road of philosophy does not lead to facts, it may seem worthless. What use is philosophy if it can't be used to establish that it is a fact that we must all be nice to each other?
> ...


I find that distinction between truth and facts rather strange to be honest.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Dim7 said:


> I find that distinction between truth and facts rather strange to be honest.


If Empiricism falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

As Robert Pirsig pointed out in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" (which tends to drive philosophy professors crazy), everything we know about Greek sophists we know from Plato, who hated them. So who knows?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

What was truly harmful is when 20th century academia shunned the art of rhetoric. Facts and logic have no need for rhetorical dressing, they supposed. They stopped teaching it in schools, and now some of the most informed and earnest minds are also the least able to communicate and promulgate their ideas. One only needs to read the lectures of the great orators of the 19th century to realize how enormous our loss is. These powerful tools of persuasion were left to the charlatans, the pseudoscientists, and the sacerdotal class, wrecking incalculable anti-intellectual damage.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> I'm pretty sure that if he were alive today he'd be banned from the forum for being a pain in the a**.


That basically _is_ what happened to him. Well, a slightly more lethal version thereof.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I don't know what the definition of 'rhetoric' is, but I suspect that truth is not part of it. Is there, or has there been, a course on the art of detecting flawed arguments - and so developing the ability to construct unflawed ones? That's what I thought Socrates was doing, though it ain't easy to see through Plato's descriptions. If sophistry's "finest moments" are those that occur when the half-baked supporting brick in the base of an elegant structure escapes detection, then sophistry is an art of great value.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2015)

Dim7 said:


> I find that distinction between truth and facts rather strange to be honest.


Strange...in what way?


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

Ok fine I admit I was rather pissed off yesterday after getting back my argument paper. But i still hold my ground to some extent with the problem of modern philosophy. The problem isn't rhetoric by itself, but rather the way that its used. We have all these moral theories such as deontology, utilitarianism, ethics of care, and virtue ethics, and each of them have their flaws. By the process of analyzing each on of them, and criticizing each and every situation where the moral theory would not work, you are missing the big picture. I tried reading Aristotle right after reading Plato and so I naturally had a bias towards Plato so I was reading Aristotle super critically pointing out each and every mistake and by doing so, I just didn't get the bigger picture.

I think phil majors like the idea of putting fancy glasses on and egotistically reading each and every word another philosopher says ready to critically asses each and every point. I don't think that is the point of philosophy, you're supposed to read lets say Kant in a way that he's trying to pass down his words onto you, you understand his point of view, and then maybe read another philosopher who says something of an opposing view and then digest what he has to say. Then when you are faced with a philosophical question you'd have both sides of the story so you're able to answer the question more knowledgeably.
Now we completely ignore that element and instead we just focus on rhetoric which goes absolutly nowhere. It gets to the point where you're no longer trying to obtain truth. Rhetoric is important, but only as a secondary quality. Is it better if you lived in ancient times and you said that the world was round, but nobody believed you? Or is it better to say that the world is flat and you managed to persuade everyone to believe you? Ideally, it would be best if you said the world is round and managed to argue in such a way that you persuaded your point, hence the importance of rhetoric. However rhetoric comes only after truth if it is to remain philosophy


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hagridindminor said:


> I think phil majors like the idea of putting fancy glasses on and egotistically reading each and every word another philosopher says ready to critically asses each and every point.


How is attempting to understand what another is saying on their own terms egotistical in any way?

Spinoza has what strikes many of us as a bizarre view of the world and the nature of ultimate truth, but it's remarkably coherent on its own terms. It's only that I disagree with some of those terms and also that modern science seems to point in directions other than the one his cosmology was based on.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> How is attempting to understand what another is saying on their own terms egotistical in any way?
> 
> Spinoza has what strikes many of us as a bizarre view of the world and the nature of ultimate truth, but it's remarkably coherent on its own terms. It's only that I disagree with some of those terms and also that modern science seems to point in directions other than the one his cosmology was based on.


I meant the opposite, thinking over critically and not understanding what the other person is saying.
Yes, and modern science creates a discovery which conflicts with a philosophical belief, that belief needs to evolve around it. Usually its not the essence of the view which is at an error but the way its presented. For example if I were to have some view on morality with the absence of scientific knowledge I might explain it in a way which goes against science. Rather than saying the whole point is untrue, therefore modern science is the ultimate truth, it might be more effective to say "look I get what you're saying, however the thing is modern science shows evidence that the universe at one point was smaller than an atomic particle but is now continuing to expand" I can use that piece of data to then create a more enhanced philosophical view, and you may refute it again with another piece of scientific evidence. The idea isn't to argue, but to reach a point of certainty. Though argument may help reach that point


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Well, it is certainly a fallacy to say that because a premise is untrue, the conclusion must be false. All refuting an argument proves is that that particular argument doesn't work.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

hagridindminor said:


> Ok fine I admit I was rather pissed off yesterday after getting back my argument paper. But i still hold my ground to some extent with the problem of modern philosophy. The problem isn't rhetoric by itself, but rather the way that its used. We have all these moral theories such as deontology, utilitarianism, ethics of care, and virtue ethics, and each of them have their flaws. By the process of analyzing each on of them, and criticizing each and every situation where the moral theory would not work, you are missing the big picture. I tried reading Aristotle right after reading Plato and so I naturally had a bias towards Plato so I was reading Aristotle super critically pointing out each and every mistake and by doing so, I just didn't get the bigger picture.
> 
> I think phil majors like the idea of putting fancy glasses on and egotistically reading each and every word another philosopher says ready to critically asses each and every point. I don't think that is the point of philosophy, you're supposed to read lets say Kant in a way that he's trying to pass down his words onto you, you understand his point of view, and then maybe read another philosopher who says something of an opposing view and then digest what he has to say. Then when you are faced with a philosophical question you'd have both sides of the story so you're able to answer the question more knowledgeably.
> Now we completely ignore that element and instead we just focus on rhetoric which goes absolutly nowhere. It gets to the point where you're no longer trying to obtain truth. Rhetoric is important, but only as a secondary quality. Is it better if you lived in ancient times and you said that the world was round, but nobody believed you? Or is it better to say that the world is flat and you managed to persuade everyone to believe you? Ideally, it would be best if you said the world is round and managed to argue in such a way that you persuaded your point, hence the importance of rhetoric. However rhetoric comes only after truth if it is to remain philosophy


I nearly completed a philosophy degree as an undergraduate, so I'm almost qualified to have an opinion on this topic, and it is:

The primary value of studying philosophers from the distant past is historical. Plato, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant have _nothing_ to tell us today. There's also nothing wrong with thinking through their ideas as an exercise, but when you put them in their time, their brilliance appears, and I personally can't help being very impressed and even grateful to them.


----------



## SarahNorthman (Nov 19, 2014)

Oh boy, you all are worrying me about my possible decision to minor in philosophy. It seems many people dont have a very high opinion of them at all.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

SarahNorthman said:


> Oh boy, you all are worrying me about my possible decision to minor in philosophy. It seems many people dont have a very high opinion of them at all.


Oh no its a great subject and highly useful, especially for daily life. On the contrary, philosophy does not lead you in an endless cycle of uncertainty. For example, you'll stop believing in crazy conspiracy theories (not saying you in particular do)


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm pretty sure philosophy *does* leave you in endless cycles of uncertainty. There were never two philosophers who agreed with each other on anything, it's entire history is a history of rebuttals of previous thought. Hume firmly established the entire field as founded upon bullsh*t, and after an existential crisis, philosophers eventually simply embraced the bullsh*t (ie. the French post-structuralists).


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

science said:


> Plato, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant have _nothing_ to tell us today.


Yikes, you really think so?


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

science said:


> I nearly completed a philosophy degree as an undergraduate, so I'm almost qualified to have an opinion on this topic, and it is:
> 
> The primary value of studying philosophers from the distant past is historical. Plato, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant have _nothing_ to tell us today. There's also nothing wrong with thinking through their ideas as an exercise, but when you put them in their time, their brilliance appears, and I personally can't help being very impressed and even grateful to them.


That's where I disagree. The reason why we think its irrelevant is just because of the sheer amount of progress science has made in the last two hundered years. Because of this we think that we are random mutations created by chance and so truth is only relative to the perceiver. We think our reality is just human construct. That idea is still very debatable. If you are to sum up Plato's view in a brief phrase it would be that things have an innate nature. Morality isn't a human construct, but something that all life already possesses (according to Plato)

Descartes also has plenty to tell us, while the argument is not the best argument, it still holds relevance.

And i'm not too read up on Aquinas to speak about him.

I sense you arn't a rationalist?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

science said:


> I nearly completed a philosophy degree as an undergraduate, so I'm almost qualified to have an opinion on this topic, and it is:
> 
> The primary value of studying philosophers from the distant past is historical. Plato, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant have _nothing_ to tell us today. There's also nothing wrong with thinking through their ideas as an exercise, but when you put them in their time, their brilliance appears, and I personally can't help being very impressed and even grateful to them.


To be perfectly honest (and no offense intended), this sounds like a peanut gallery assessment to me, considering that Euclid's equations are still commonly used, democratic republics are quite common, dualism is still a persistent element in psychology and even neurology, and the continuing dominance of Thomism (Aquinas' theology) and Molinism (Luis Molina's theology) in Catholic theology. Their ideas were not just important in the development of modern society and academic thinking, they are still influencing the conclusions of people today.



Couchie said:


> I'm pretty sure philosophy *does* leave you in endless cycles of uncertainty. There were never two philosophers who agreed with each other on anything, it's entire history is a history of rebuttals of previous thought. Hume firmly established the entire field as founded upon bullsh*t, and after an existential crisis, philosophers eventually simply embraced the bullsh*t (ie. the French post-structuralists).


The mere presence of disagreement doesn't indicate that there isn't any agreement present either, nor does it suggest that reality is ultimately ambiguous and we don't really know anything about it. Your train of thought here suffers from a genetic fallacy. See post #17 on the nature of opposing views in philosophy.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2015)

science said:


> IThe primary value of studying philosophers from the distant past is historical. Plato, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant have _nothing_ to tell us today.


It occurred to me when I was a young teen that the world might be an illusion - that my eyes might be deceiving me - that what I see as 'red' may not be the same as what others say they see as 'red'.

I can't remember which of the philosophers is best known for exploring this idea (Descartes, I think) but I did feel a smidge of pride that I'd come up with this idea without having encountered it anywhere before. Even so, I know that the ancient philosophers have a lot to tell us today, if only because what made them famous was they were the best at framing the philosophies that we have come to know and love. (Mind you, undiluted philosophy can be a stodgy meal, which is why Shakespeare can be so rewarding - philosophy on a stick!)

This does not mean that these philosophers are untouchable, but if you want to explore the main themes that they have grappled with, you would do well to srat with their particular exploration of them. I don't think it means you have to read their original writings, you can read modern analyses that take an "Idiot's Guide" approach, like Julian Baggini, Nicholas Fearn and AC Grayling.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I used to have a taste for philosophy when I was a kid. Our relationship went sour when I entered adulthood as I, paradoxically, became more critical.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Couchie said:


> I'm pretty sure philosophy *does* leave you in endless cycles of uncertainty. There were never two philosophers who agreed with each other on anything, it's entire history is a history of rebuttals of previous thought. Hume firmly established the entire field as founded upon bullsh*t, and after an existential crisis, philosophers eventually simply embraced the bullsh*t (ie. the French post-structuralists).


I just read that professors discussion on axioms and pseudo-questions that you linked.

I thank you so much for it! It was extremely insightful for some of my personal issues. I am going to try to choose my axioms based on utility and reasonability rather than truth.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'll stick with my evaluation of the philosophers of the distant past. If you are actually philosophizing from the POV of someone unfamiliar with Kepler's laws, electricity, natural selection, general relativity, continental drift, computing, genetic engineering, digital communication, and MAD, then maybe they can still speak directly to you. But if you are philosophizing from the present, you have to philosophize in the present. The political philosophy of a world of hoplites and triremes is at best somewhat analogous to the political philosophy of a world of chemical weapons, aircraft carriers, and electronic passports.

OTOH, if you actually want to understand someone like Plato or Descartes on their own terms, you'll have to work hard not only to bracket all the knowledge humanity has acquired since their times, but to learn what was the "knowledge" and culture of their times. Pretending that the theory of forms or the cogito was invented by someone familiar with quantum physics is not so helpful.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I just read that professors discussion on axioms and pseudo-questions that you linked.
> 
> I thank you so much for it! It was extremely insightful for some of my personal issues. I am going to try to choose my axioms based on utility and reasonability rather than truth.


It sounds like you're a prime candidate for enjoying the theories posited by Utilitarian and Pragmatist theories of knowledge and ethics, my friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

You may find the arguments forwarded under the subcategory of anti-Cartesianism here edifying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

See also Stanford's far superior assessment of important pragmatist figures like Peirce: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Both of these schools of philosophy began finding the most traction in the 19th century, and still have a lot of staying power amongst philosophers today.



science said:


> I'll stick with my evaluation of the philosophers of the distant past. If you are actually philosophizing from the POV of someone unfamiliar with Kepler's laws, electricity, natural selection, general relativity, continental drift, computing, genetic engineering, digital communication, and MAD, then maybe they can still speak directly to you. But if you are philosophizing from the present, you have to philosophize in the present. The political philosophy of a world of hoplites and triremes is at best somewhat analogous to the political philosophy of a world of chemical weapons, aircraft carriers, and electronic passports.
> 
> OTOH, if you actually want to understand someone like Plato or Descartes on their own terms, you'll have to work hard not only to bracket all the knowledge humanity has acquired since their times, but to learn what was the "knowledge" and culture of their times. Pretending that the theory of forms or the cogito was invented by someone familiar with quantum physics is not so helpful.


Not sure which thinker you're referring to with your hypothetical "POV", because it's not advisable for any student of philosophy to think like that, obviously. Although, I do find it amusing when you say "their ideas can at best be only analogous", considering the fact that democratic republics are so popular today. By your own seemingly implicated litmus, Cicero, Virgil, and Coriolanus (all being philosophers and statesmen in democratic republics) are fairly modern thinkers!


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

science said:


> I'll stick with my evaluation of the philosophers of the distant past. If you are actually philosophizing from the POV of someone unfamiliar with Kepler's laws, electricity, natural selection, general relativity, continental drift, computing, genetic engineering, digital communication, and MAD, then maybe they can still speak directly to you. But if you are philosophizing from the present, you have to philosophize in the present. The political philosophy of a world of hoplites and triremes is at best somewhat analogous to the political philosophy of a world of chemical weapons, aircraft carriers, and electronic passports.
> 
> OTOH, if you actually want to understand someone like Plato or Descartes on their own terms, you'll have to work hard not only to bracket all the knowledge humanity has acquired since their times, but to learn what was the "knowledge" and culture of their times. Pretending that the theory of forms or the cogito was invented by someone familiar with quantum physics is not so helpful.


Heres the thing, science tells us that there is a world made up certain properties. Nobody denies that, but then we turn that around and start saying that life is relative and that is what is baffling.Theres dna which is the blueprint of how your body will develop, you can calculate the amount of atoms there is in an object, we can predict the longevity of the sun. Why do we turn that around and say that everything except science is relative? Surely there is a way that a society is supposed to function, surely there is a way that people are supposed to live, but we completly deny that aspect yet we support science, and I just understand how that makes sense. Either we take the stance that life is perception and start saying the wall is only there because i think its there, atoms are only atoms because i think its atoms, and I can fly if I believe I'm flying, or we take the view that there is a certain way that we are meant to live and certain way a society is supposed to function and atoms are really atoms

But no, we say things are relative when convenient,and then point to science as a fact when convenient


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2015)

hagridindminor said:


> science tells us that there is a world made up certain properties. Nobody denies that, but then we turn that around and start saying that life is relative and that is what is baffling.


Can you give an example of what you mean when people say that 'life is relative'?


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Can you give an example of what you mean when people say that 'life is relative'?


For example we treat ethical subjects in relation to current times. For example when discussing an issue such as abortion we're really not discussing on a holistic scale whether abortion is right or wrong, what we really mean is it beneficial in our current society. As in we might agree that if we were in different circumstances where people didn't create unwanted babies we would agree against abortion but because we live in current times where situation allows it, we might justify it by avoiding the actual philisophical theme and imply that human behavior is a social construct and we create our own morality.

Sorry for the run on sentence


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I have not read this entire thread, but continue to hold that sophistry is the art of constructing an argument at variance with my views.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2015)

hagridindminor said:


> For example we treat ethical subjects in relation to current times. For example when discussing an issue such as abortion we're really not discussing on a holistic scale whether abortion is right or wrong, what we really mean is it beneficial in our current society. As in we might agree that if we were in different circumstances where people didn't create unwanted babies we would agree against abortion but because we live in current times where situation allows it, we might justify it by avoiding the actual philisophical theme and imply that human behavior is a social construct and we create our own morality


Well, I would expect a philosophy class to explore the extent to which ethical dilemmas can be 'resolved' and the ways in which resolutions can be reached. I wouldn't expect such a class to present resolutions (if there are any) as if they were scientific facts.

Try this one: is a deed good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

http://wisdomandfollyblog.com/solving-the-euthyphro-problem/

An ancient dilemma, with no simple resolution, especially if you don't believe in God.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> I have not read this entire thread, but continue to hold that sophistry is the art of constructing an argument at variance with my views.


Pithy and humorous as always, Ken. :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> Not sure which thinker you're referring to with your hypothetical "POV", because it's not advisable for any student of philosophy to think like that, obviously. Although, I do find it amusing when you say "their ideas can at best be only analogous", considering the fact that democratic republics are so popular today. By your own seemingly implicated litmus, Cicero, Virgil, and Coriolanus (all being philosophers and statesmen in democratic republics) are fairly modern thinkers!


Are you really unaware of the differences between the Roman Republic and modern republics? I don't know about you, but many people are, and this is a huge problem with our historical education. People have no concept of how foreign the ancients are to us. People almost need an advanced degree in history to find out how different the ancient world was to us.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

hagridindminor said:


> Heres the thing, science tells us that there is a world made up certain properties. Nobody denies that, but then we turn that around and start saying that life is relative and that is what is baffling.Theres dna which is the blueprint of how your body will develop, you can calculate the amount of atoms there is in an object, we can predict the longevity of the sun. Why do we turn that around and say that everything except science is relative? Surely there is a way that a society is supposed to function, surely there is a way that people are supposed to live, but we completly deny that aspect yet we support science, and I just understand how that makes sense. Either we take the stance that life is perception and start saying the wall is only there because i think its there, atoms are only atoms because i think its atoms, and I can fly if I believe I'm flying, or we take the view that there is a certain way that we are meant to live and certain way a society is supposed to function and atoms are really atoms
> 
> But no, we say things are relative when convenient,and then point to science as a fact when convenient


I'm sorry, I don't understand most of this, and I'm not sure what it has to do with the post you quoted.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

science said:


> I'm sorry, I don't understand most of this, and I'm not sure what it has to do with the post you quoted.


You're acting like science and empirical evidence is the only absolute truth. It's not. If you're going to say "what has philosophy ever done, look at the progression science has made" both of them have made equal contributions. You could go up to Hegel's decayed body and tell him he needs to learn quantum mechanics the same way you could go up to Hawkins and tell him he needs to read up on some philosophy


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

God is love.
Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Stevie Wonder is God.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I know that any of us can come up with rhetoric that proves Beethoven's _Ninth_ is a piece of garbage. I have seen this done in other threads. I have performed _The Ninth_ twice in my life and based on my experience of actually performing itI think it is the greatest piece of music I have ever performed. See: http://www.talkclassical.com/22451-why-do-people-consider.html?highlight=beethoven#post384763

I have seen many who have tried to use rhetoric to establish that music they dislike is substandard. The dilemma I have found that it is next to impossible to judge music simply based on rhetoric.

I had experience with musical group that was destroyed by a board that hated that modern stuff and believed we should not program it. (I have mentioned this before in other threads.)

I have found that using rhetoric to judge music is frequently employed be those who have no experience at performing music.

There are two types of music. There is music that we like and there is music that we dislike. If we like it, great. If we dislike it, don't listen to it. The ear and our individual feelings should be the final judge.

I do not understand why some have to spend time generating hundred's of post to prove that Beethoven's _Ninth_ or Schoenberg or _433_ or whatever is unworthy.

Most of us have years of experience with classical music. Based on our experiences we have developed what our musical tastes are like. We really are not interested in being treated like eighteen year old freshmen in a music appreciation class that does not know the difference between Bach and ABBA.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

science said:


> Are you really unaware of the differences between the Roman Republic and modern republics? I don't know about you, but many people are, and this is a huge problem with our historical education. People have no concept of how foreign the ancients are to us. People almost need an advanced degree in history to find out how different the ancient world was to us.


Unfortunately, I'm aware enough of what's actually in a couple of modern constitutions to be as disappointed with them as Coriolanus was with Rome. Likewise, our concepts of democracy today are little more satisfying than what appalled Aristiades and Themistocles at the Areopagus.

Not trying to put you down in this thread, my friend. You're making valid points. It must be noted though, that there are still ideas derived directly from ancient sources that hold up to modern scrutiny.

Exceptional philosophers like Saul Kripke, Peter Adamson, and Heinrich Zwingli have been known for digging through myriad sources and finding gems that rock the academic world. Kripke is a choice example, having derived significant pieces of his work on modal logic from Leibniz (who came up with the first system similar to Kripke's own "possible worlds semantics"), and Stoic philosophers like Aratus who focused on building propositional statements with special conditionals.

That and it has to be mentioned again that several of Euclid's geometric proofs still hold up beautifully in applied math today. Need I also bring up the obvious and point out that we measure the distances of stars from us using Pythagorean math?

What I think our friend hagrid is really running into right now is a mid to low level course, in which the professor is not an esteemed author who is writing for reputable journals. *The public perception of philosophy is largely based on people who barely publish any quality material at all in the field.*


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

To lure a Tiger down from its mountain lair...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> That and it has to be mentioned again that several of Euclid's geometric proofs still hold up beautifully in applied math today. Need I also bring up the obvious and point out that we measure the distances of stars from us using Pythagorean math?


Well yes, but running a society and examining a triangle require two very different skill sets these days.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Nereffid said:


> Well yes, but running a society and examining a triangle require two very different skill sets these days.


This is a great point. While remarkable material, especially epochal material like Demosthenes' Phillipic speeches, has to resonate with people who seriously contemplate it and look at the world today, we wouldn't be too greatly equipped to deal with their circumstances, nor they ours.


----------

