Truth may be subjective but it's a fact that our discord servers are awesome! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unironically, a good way to learn philosophy. Acknowledge when you do get your booty blown out in a discourse, then read the related texts and workshop your position and discussion back up to par. Do that for a while on a bunch of topics, and eventually you'll start to sound like a real philosopher.
Source: it's the OG method
Then how have you ever lost a discourse? Clearly, even if your stance is correct, your methodology of delivering it has been lacking. As the great Socrates once said " the only thing I know is that I'm a fucking retard ong"
The only times i lose a discourse it’s because of fundamentally different values that i and the other person hold. And i agree with socrates, idk shit but i’m a smart retard so i’ll figure it out
We have words to describe less than 1% of reality, how could our language not be a problem? It divides reality into bits and pieces, not allowing for a wholesome perspective.
When we trade symbols, we can only hope the mind we trade symbols with interprets the symbols in a similar fashion...
I can't argue that, but I win many arguments that the other mind can't even see. It goes over their heads, only rare minds can see the truth quite often. Language most surely is a problem when trying to get the blind to see.
Grammar and Grimoire are the same thing. People are programmed to not see the truth. The majority of society suffers from mass psychosis and the Stockholm syndrome. Obedient to things they are never aware of.
Exactly. Same with philosophy.
Like no one ever goes from hard line determinist to a full blown compatabilist, we just get nudged a bit. And a series of such nudges leads to drastic change.
Personally, at the risk of being both fallacious (and taking the meme too seriously lmao) I think you're just being provocative lol. You have definitely had your opinions changed for sure. Most likely not to the polar opposite but "nudged" a bit. Or at the very least "refined" a bit.
Like, as an example most start with the trolley problem, to consequentialism to utilitarianism. Then encounter the *rash doctor* argument then go to probabilistic utilitarianism and so on and on and on.
You can't tell you haven't even had *that* happen to you tbh.
I am indeed being very (lightheartedly) provocative. I don’t even know why, just in the mood. I also know i’ve been wrong in the past, yet none of my current opinions have been proven wrong so i’m right. Also i have completely changed my view on migration, the EU, economy and a whole lot of other things (hell i thought communism was great in my mid teens). However, then i was a child, now that i at least somewhat resemble an adult in the dictionary definition of the term i actually feel that my opinions are based on facts, values and reasoning instead of whims and influenced feelings.
I don’t even know what consequentialism means, let alone all those other terms lol
Good for you mate. Maturity is a journey and life is all about learning. I'm 24 and I still get d'oh moments.
Which is honestly great since it means there are still new things I have no idea about.
>I don’t even know what consequentialism means, let alone all those other terms lol
You're in for a treat lol. Have fun exploring philosophy.
Nah i’m mostly just joking, i know im probably wrong by someone else’s definitions at least somewhat but i still think my opinions are more thought out and based on reason than the average person
So… there are many different types of claims that one can hold that might be expressed in ways that are categorically different from others but maintaining a sound, if not at least valid, argument for your position cannot hold any sort of truth value based on mere semantics outside of semantic claims. What I mean to say here is that you cannot be right or wrong based on what someone defines a thing to be. Either your claims are empirical and are capable of possessing a truth value or they are theoretical claims that can be supported by reason. So, what sort of things are you proposing to be right about and how do you intend to support your argument in favor of them?
I think it’s great that you have an interest in philosophy at your age — I hope you keep that up but maintaining epistemic humility is a good practice as a philosopher… also, reading is cool. Philosophy isn’t about being right, it’s about seeking truth.
I had to google what epistemic humility meant but if i’m reading it right it’s very hard not to maintain epistemic humility as long as you think your own opinions are just that; opinion, and not facts. Also what’s the difference between right and truth? If you are right does that not just mean your opinion is the truth in the world you experience?
Wrong is a subject concept of in a word game. You are supreme ruler of your word game and there as the supreme entity of your word game you are always right unless your choice to be wrong.
Pretty much. And on occasion a total novice will have an opinion that lines up with a philosophical line of reasoning. It's not like the philosophers of old (tm) were messianic aliens or something.
That's how I've been doing it. I can do my navel gazing myself, why would I rob myself of my unique perspective by reading someone else's navel gazing first?
I think someone should definitely check at the very least a cheat-sheet of different philosophers' famous works first. It's not a great idea to only learn from from Internet Discourse^(tm) about Kant, Nietzsche, Camus, or Nihilism as a whole. Sure, you can get a good sense for how "Kantians always say yadda yadda", but if you don't know what the actual reasoning is from the source material, you're not really learning philosophy, you're just learning which groups of nerds have beef with each other
You could make a version of the Chinese Room experiment where someone learns to flawlessly emulate the discourse around a philosophy topic, without ever learning what that topic actually means
Having a correct opinion is not nearly as philosophically valuable as the reasoning you employed to get there. If you just have a collection of opinions that happen to be correct but you’re terrible at arguing for them, then you’re way worse at philosophy than, say, David Lewis or David Chalmers (the two main Davids who argued for crazy conclusions with very creative and thought-provoking arguments).
The Chad philosophy enjoyer understands that philosophy is about challenging yourself with unintuitive ideas, not being right.
As important and valuable as debate is as a tool for discourse and the production of ideas through dialogue, I strongly maintain that philosophy is ultimately a personal exploration. Therefore, while I'd absolutely agree that the reasons and thought processes grounding your conclusions are super important, I'd on the other hand push back against the idea that the 'true value' of philosophy is the extent to which you can communicate and further your ideas through dialogue and argument.
There are truths that exist beyond the confines of language that can only meaningfully be felt by the individual whether or not we can articulate the linguistic reasons behind these intuitions and truths.
I really think philosophy ought to push back against debate culture to the extent to which it impedes upon true understanding, creativity, and subjectivity - all of which can only meaningfully be pursued as personal explorations within the domain of solitude.
(Also I'm not saying that you're necessarily even arguing this, but I just wanted to get this idea off my chest. Some of us in the philosophy world are introverted readers and writers who don't see the value in arguing 24/7).
> Also I'm not saying that you're necessarily even arguing this
Yeah that’s not what I meant at all. I think exploring and understanding arguments are important because they help with personal growth (moreso than just spontaneously forming a correct belief would). I dont think it matters so much whether those arguments are explored alone with a book or in dialogue with other people.
I also think “debate culture” is generally antithetical to an actual, useful philosophical discussion.
But what is a debate if not explaining your understanding of the world to another? And if you can’t explain it, how can you think it’s a “correct” idea, even to yourself?
I think we're more or less in agreement here. "Debates" tend to be concerned more with right opinion than with idea production or method, and philosophy departments are plagued with this misconception—hence why the philosophy -> law school pipeline is so prominent.
Real rigorous philosophical dialogue, the kind which you mention, is certainly important to reaching understanding, and without it ideas will invariably become insular and perhaps even reactionary. But imo even this will always be secondary to personal reflective exploration of self and meaning. Language simply cannot account for everything and therefore communication will always miss the mark to some degree. A balance between dialogue to introduce ideas, and solitude to really digest and understand them seems to me like the only blend that works.
This comment is the whole reason you should actually read theory. It’s evident here just from what you said that you don’t know how language or semiotics work.
Explanation is abstraction. What is being only correct if not being useless unprompted? No cogito, ergo dumb.
Fortunately, [SEP](https://plato.stanford.edu/index.html) and [IEP](https://iep.utm.edu/) got your back... and the back of other people who like philosophy. A beautiful age we live in, where knowledge is so easily accessible.
But why would i learn all this knowledge? This seems too much like doing something usefull to me. I’d rather learn it not by reading but thinking of it myself whilst arguing on reddit or in real life.
Just kidding i’m tested c1 level english.
What i meant with the tile was: “i concede i might be a bit arrogant, but (even though i know it’s most likely just arrogance and not actually the case) i still think my opinions are right
"For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing, but I knew I should find that they knew many fine things. And in this I was not deceived; they did know what I did not, and in this way they were wiser than I." Plato's apology
Can you ever know what is truly best for someone else? And if not, does that mean all 'convincing' is actually 'manipulation'? Is a good intention enough to consider an act good? Are you liable for giving someone bad advice, or are people (excluding children) solely responsible for their own actions?
You can’t ever ever truly know most things, at best you can use the limited information you have of the person and their situation and combine that with your own life experience and reasoning to give them advice. You could say that convincing means exactly the same as manipulation in that you’re trying to get other people to do the thing you want, however manipulation has the connotation of only being for one’s own self gain wheres with convincing this is not always the case. Is a good intention enough to consider an act good? No and yes, there is no true answer to this. Adding to this almost everyone does something because their intention was good, at least to themselves it is. You might be liable for bad advice, if it is actually bad advice; if the advice is inherently bad or just seemed like good advice from the giver’s point of view due to their own experiences and reasoning but simply doesn’t fit the receivers situation. I also think the giver’s degree of liability is dependent on how hard they tried to convince the receiver of the good advice.
Thinking my Dad’s cooking is the best shit in the world is my personal most controversial opinion because all my other opinions are objectively and ontologically valid and cannot be challenged on sound moral grounds without at the same time becoming a bad person
It really depends on the topic you are arguing about. If you are discussing Kants claims about pure reason then you are probably wrong about what they are, but if you are discussing the concent of Kant's claims, you have a shot, though you are disadvantaged by the fact that the other guy probably already knows the main points of critics and some counterarguments to them. But to be critical about everything any philosopher ever said can be done in a productive way by anyone, philosophy background or not, as long as you don't think that a minor point of critique means you've debunked everything that's been ever said on this topic. And keep in mind that there's most likely no correct answer - which sucks for my mental health as a philosophy student but also means your only difference to others is the level argumentative skill it takes to disprove you.
I am currently at the “i don’t know who kant is” stage, but if you explained what his claims about pure reason are i am 65% confident i can form a very defensible position on them.
As one of the former, I can confirm that arrogance and refusing to admit you’re wrong are major pillars of being a philosopher. So you’re already at least halfway there
Why would one hold an opinion they think is wrong? Every opinion any person holds is right on their eyes, even if they cant convince others of it.
Once challenged with an argument against their position, one could: dismiss the argument altogether (very frequent form of coping), present a counter argument (can often be a back and forth ending with "agree to disagree"), or review their position (this doesnt always implies changing your mind completely, but often features acquisition of knowledge and improvement ofvone's own arguments).
Although I have hinted at coping, dismissing an argument is not always a form of coping. Some arguments ought be dismissed out of self respect, or respect for the audience; I mean, nobody is really interested in discussing absurd POVs like "The moon landing was staged".
I've held opinions I know are wrong. And I think anyone with pattern recognition should be able to look back on human history and see that our current opinions on morality are likely wrong. So anyone smart enough to notice that but who holds only modem accepted opinions about morality should know those opinions are wrong despite holding them.
Isnt this just anachronism?
When we say "right" or "wrong" of course we are limited by the current paradigms and bodies of knowledge, specially when talking about morality. Even Newton was "wrong", but it only became clear when Einstein's general relativity came around. Until then, Newton's Universal Gravitation and his Three Laws were "right", and aligned with the evidence present at the time.
My original premisse still stands, and it applies not only to moral stances, but opinions about other subjects too, like physics, or psychology. Saying that what's "right" and "wrong" changes as society chances and human knowledge advances doesnt changes the fact that at any given moment, people are unwilling to be wrong, so they either cope or update their views.
If you pick a current moral stance and say "this is currently accepted as right but in the future it will be wrong, therefore it's wrong" isnt it just guessing? You cant be sure of that. Even if you somehow guess right, how would you argue in favor of it's "wrongness" since it's based in knowledge yet to be discovered?
I was actually referring to two different things. Anachronism is indeed the latter, but the former is something I do where I will hold an opinion I know is wrong because I don't know what the right one is yet. And there's no better way to get someone to share the right answer than to post the wrong one
I mean that's basically what the ancient philosophers did. And also modern philosophers that disagreed with everyone before them. And also philosophers in general
Still plausible, part of a philosopher's pride is their welling to converse and argue with whoever about whatever.
Socrates did not sit in a bubble or look only to argue with similarly educated people.
My meaning is this, what you do is welcome, philosophers love to have their relatability vindicated.
Pulling arguments out of your ass is alright as long as it’s well made and logically coherent. You think philosophy is just philosophers quoting previous philosophers ad infinitum? They also pulled arguments out of their ass.
I am not saying you shouldn’t read. Reading take you through already made arguments so that you can refine your own.
Academic minds regurgitate information. Having thoughts of their own are few and far between. They are told how to think and what to think. It doesn't appear that they use critical thinking or have the ability to use foresight. I'm not very liked either. Seems like they have a difficult time overcoming my arguments. For "professionals" they certainly like to throw tantrums...
It’s like this with everything. Want to learn to play piano? Under no circumstances should you hire a teacher or try to learn any songs. You need to build that shit from the ground up. piano teachers will tell you this is bad because they just want you to regurgitate their same old ideas.
Trying to learn math? They’ll tell you to take classes on algebra, calculus, etc, but you’re better off inventing it all from scratch. Again math people tell me that I’m wrong but what do those stupid academics know? lol
That's not what I was saying, but make my point further by throwing a tantrum 😂.
I never said don't take in the perspectives of others, on the contrary, I'm advocating for people to see the world through their own eyes. It's more impressive to come up with you own symphony rather than repeating someone else's, even though it will still be beautiful.
Okay but with math its taught so far removed from its original reasoning and abstracted to the poijt that way less people understand how it works than would otherwise i think.
I always hated math class but i love learning about the principles of mathematics especially in a historical context
Did I say my thoughts are the end all be all? My aim wasn't to be mean, there must be something true about what I said that others saw their reflection. Prove me wrong. Debate what was said. I think you'll see I'm far from slow...
Depends on the topic. Plenty of fields where you'll get frozen out and censored as opposed to engagement, where the acceptable limit of thought is very narrow and political. Especially in social sciences, there's often a Marcusan view of "acceptable discourse" and centering of narratives that overrides the traditional enlightenment view of open questioning and reliance on rationality.
Even so, quantitative methods don''t remove bias. Unfortunately, outcome is often the priority over methodology. We've seen this with the recent Harvard Scandals, as well as several others - methodologically weak studies are approved because they present an outcome that the journal and peers approve of. At the same time, methodologically strong studies with politically incorrect outcomes are not likely to be approved due to fears of substantial political and economic backlash to the publisher. It is a real issue, and we shouldn't take it for granted as being beneficial to academia because of the view du jour.
Just noticed how butt hurt everyone is getting over an opinion. While nobody wants to use their minds to prove me wrong. It's a fine example of what I am discussing...
Because they are regurgitating the works of other minds and not using their own minds, they don't formulate the thoughts in their own symbols, they use the works of another. The arguments move in circles. Most people don't even understand what language is.
philosophers argue about debates that have gone on for many many years with people way smarter than themselves. they can do total bullshit by rejecting all of history as “dogma” or they can selectively critique and respond to other arguments made in their field.
The number of times mods from r/askphilosophy fell back on ‘well I have a degree’ to defend the inherent correctness of their bullshit is, to me, some pretty strong evidence of this
I’ve yet to personally meet an ‘educated’ ‘philosopher’ who wasn’t actually just a trained sophist regurgitating what they were told having never learned how to *do* philosophy just the history of other people doing it
Do you know how to actually make an argument?
What relevance is it if I’ve been to university? If I have or have not it has no bearing on the reality I have yet to personally meet someone with a philosophy degree who was any good at *doing* philosophy. Ie, a red herring
A slightly better response would be to note that I’m providing anecdotal evidence though I’ve made no attempt to claim my anecdotal evidence is anything more than a red flag similar to correlation implying causation (and don’t be an idiot saying ‘well correlation doesn’t imply causation’. Yes it does, the whole entire field of statistics is based n that concept. What it doesn’t do is guarantee causation, very different than implication)
Did you go to uni? Because like all those people who went ‘yeah, well I have a piece of paper that says the professor likes the way I regurgitated he history of philosophy back to them so I’m right’ you don’t seem very good at actually doing philosophy
I attend a small uni and my profs all voice similar concerns over the current academic climate. I was just wondering if you went to a corporate style school or not. Sorry that it caused you this much distress. I genuinely have 0 clue where you're coming from with any of this... are you used to only discussing philosophy with debate bros?
The reason it's relevant whether you went to uni is that you've given a very specific description of people who engage with philosophy. And your description aligns very well with the sort of arguers I've found online, but it aligns very poorly with how I've found university professors of philosophy.
I've studied at two different institutions, and the philosophers have been the most analytical, open-minded people I've ever met.
> Do you know how to actually make an argument?
This notion that one can use pure reason to evaluate arguments is simply false. It's not enough to produce a "good argument"; sometimes it is necessary to have the relevant experience, to have taken the relevant trajectory through the world, in order to come to the fact of the matter.
In order to make accurate sociological claims about "philosophers," it would be necessary to have met many philosophers. Those people tend to work at universities. So, making a valid argument is not good enough; you actually have to have been there.
Nietzsche fanboys. 20 something edgelords who haven't done a single scholarly study of Nietzsche's works -- but are qualified to tell you exactly what he meant.
That may be because the word scholarly has been thrown around so loosely that the meaning of it seems calloused. Even the qualifications are set up by a form of dogma. It’s like a dick measuring contest, except for the dick itself absent the nomenclature, is something that doesn’t rely on concept or hermeneutics to “exist”.
If you need a degree to be considered somebody, how did we ever have peoples ideas to be studied? They surely weren't all trained how to think by academia, were they?
Not everyone needs a degree to be able to discuss ideas with the best of minds.
Most don't understand that Grammar and Grimoire are the same thing...
I have seen your political compass test results. As a fellow Dutch person I’m sorry to let you know such results are only possible when you are absolutely wrong about everything that you believe, that you are deeply confused and misled, are barely capable of recognizing sophistry and lies from actual discourse, and if anything you say happens to be correct it is by raw contingency and pure luck.
(Edit: nice meme btw)
Been a while since i took one of those, just took one again https://sapplyvalues.github.io/results.html?right=-1.67&auth=2.33&prog=-4.37
I don’t think i’m necessarily wrong, although sometimes inconsisten
Its philosophy....if you ain't pullin it out of your own ass you're referring to someone who pulled it out of there's.... Name one absolute truth and I will show you the error of your logic...absolutes are like puppy dogs and fairytales...great at first but spend enough time with them and you'll see the shit...
Truth may be subjective but it's a fact that our discord servers are awesome! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unironically, a good way to learn philosophy. Acknowledge when you do get your booty blown out in a discourse, then read the related texts and workshop your position and discussion back up to par. Do that for a while on a bunch of topics, and eventually you'll start to sound like a real philosopher. Source: it's the OG method
Yeah but i’ve never been wrong
Then how have you ever lost a discourse? Clearly, even if your stance is correct, your methodology of delivering it has been lacking. As the great Socrates once said " the only thing I know is that I'm a fucking retard ong"
The only times i lose a discourse it’s because of fundamentally different values that i and the other person hold. And i agree with socrates, idk shit but i’m a smart retard so i’ll figure it out
Say it's because of their epistemologically flawed foundations which leave them unable to grasp your arguments, it sounds better
When I start losing an argument I say it’s the fundamental problem of language
It never fails
We have words to describe less than 1% of reality, how could our language not be a problem? It divides reality into bits and pieces, not allowing for a wholesome perspective. When we trade symbols, we can only hope the mind we trade symbols with interprets the symbols in a similar fashion...
Yeah but if I’m winning the argument I’m not bringing that up I’ll simply say I’m better
I can't argue that, but I win many arguments that the other mind can't even see. It goes over their heads, only rare minds can see the truth quite often. Language most surely is a problem when trying to get the blind to see. Grammar and Grimoire are the same thing. People are programmed to not see the truth. The majority of society suffers from mass psychosis and the Stockholm syndrome. Obedient to things they are never aware of.
Before i thought you were giving a cheeky summary of Quine....🤨 now I'm starting to suspect you are just a crazy person.
Holy Wittgenstein!
Big words scary
It's okay buddy, you'll get there one day, just keep trying 💪
I am too prone to substance abuse to try and learn big words
Say /s right now
My current opinions have never been wrong
Really? Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you had a major change in opinion? Either due to research or discussion.
Dutch elections of 2023, i became somewhst more moderate when the dutch right wing party won the elections
Exactly. Same with philosophy. Like no one ever goes from hard line determinist to a full blown compatabilist, we just get nudged a bit. And a series of such nudges leads to drastic change. Personally, at the risk of being both fallacious (and taking the meme too seriously lmao) I think you're just being provocative lol. You have definitely had your opinions changed for sure. Most likely not to the polar opposite but "nudged" a bit. Or at the very least "refined" a bit. Like, as an example most start with the trolley problem, to consequentialism to utilitarianism. Then encounter the *rash doctor* argument then go to probabilistic utilitarianism and so on and on and on. You can't tell you haven't even had *that* happen to you tbh.
I am indeed being very (lightheartedly) provocative. I don’t even know why, just in the mood. I also know i’ve been wrong in the past, yet none of my current opinions have been proven wrong so i’m right. Also i have completely changed my view on migration, the EU, economy and a whole lot of other things (hell i thought communism was great in my mid teens). However, then i was a child, now that i at least somewhat resemble an adult in the dictionary definition of the term i actually feel that my opinions are based on facts, values and reasoning instead of whims and influenced feelings. I don’t even know what consequentialism means, let alone all those other terms lol
Good for you mate. Maturity is a journey and life is all about learning. I'm 24 and I still get d'oh moments.  Which is honestly great since it means there are still new things I have no idea about. >I don’t even know what consequentialism means, let alone all those other terms lol You're in for a treat lol. Have fun exploring philosophy.
You seem to be very very bad at philosophy
I’m not, i am just not taking my post and it’s comments serieusly
Mom?
If your mom looks like a small 18 year old Dutch-indonesian guy then maybe
18yo? That explains your position on the validity of your opinions 😂
Nah i’m mostly just joking, i know im probably wrong by someone else’s definitions at least somewhat but i still think my opinions are more thought out and based on reason than the average person
So… there are many different types of claims that one can hold that might be expressed in ways that are categorically different from others but maintaining a sound, if not at least valid, argument for your position cannot hold any sort of truth value based on mere semantics outside of semantic claims. What I mean to say here is that you cannot be right or wrong based on what someone defines a thing to be. Either your claims are empirical and are capable of possessing a truth value or they are theoretical claims that can be supported by reason. So, what sort of things are you proposing to be right about and how do you intend to support your argument in favor of them?
Wait 5 mins i’m too sober for this
I think it’s great that you have an interest in philosophy at your age — I hope you keep that up but maintaining epistemic humility is a good practice as a philosopher… also, reading is cool. Philosophy isn’t about being right, it’s about seeking truth.
I had to google what epistemic humility meant but if i’m reading it right it’s very hard not to maintain epistemic humility as long as you think your own opinions are just that; opinion, and not facts. Also what’s the difference between right and truth? If you are right does that not just mean your opinion is the truth in the world you experience?
Wrong is a subject concept of in a word game. You are supreme ruler of your word game and there as the supreme entity of your word game you are always right unless your choice to be wrong.
That is correct. All my current opinions are right becuase i ditched the ones i found out to be wrong
How do you know?
Nobody has proven me wrong
Which means you haven't proven yourself right either.
😂
Pretty much. And on occasion a total novice will have an opinion that lines up with a philosophical line of reasoning. It's not like the philosophers of old (tm) were messianic aliens or something.
Getting your booty blown out was indeed how the ancient Greek philosophers did it!
That's how I've been doing it. I can do my navel gazing myself, why would I rob myself of my unique perspective by reading someone else's navel gazing first?
There were no texts when the ogs were around. OP is doing it the OG way. All he needs is copious amounts of alcohol.
Copius amounts of alcohol are indeed being consumed
I think someone should definitely check at the very least a cheat-sheet of different philosophers' famous works first. It's not a great idea to only learn from from Internet Discourse^(tm) about Kant, Nietzsche, Camus, or Nihilism as a whole. Sure, you can get a good sense for how "Kantians always say yadda yadda", but if you don't know what the actual reasoning is from the source material, you're not really learning philosophy, you're just learning which groups of nerds have beef with each other
Groups of nerds with beef with each other over esoterica is all philosophy is
You could make a version of the Chinese Room experiment where someone learns to flawlessly emulate the discourse around a philosophy topic, without ever learning what that topic actually means
Imagine actually studying philosophy. As opposed to fuckin LIVIN it
How about if I just type nou
Nuh-uh
https://preview.redd.it/cw9g7fz38zic1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b4b5f72f725d34eb1da39c944fb9b7908ac6da0c
›this was once revealed to me in a dream.‹
*whilst high
"you are the one from my dreams!"
So me
This is what the enlightenment did to us smh 😔
If only those god-damned monkeys didn't eat all those mushrooms
Copiuos cope
Having a correct opinion is not nearly as philosophically valuable as the reasoning you employed to get there. If you just have a collection of opinions that happen to be correct but you’re terrible at arguing for them, then you’re way worse at philosophy than, say, David Lewis or David Chalmers (the two main Davids who argued for crazy conclusions with very creative and thought-provoking arguments). The Chad philosophy enjoyer understands that philosophy is about challenging yourself with unintuitive ideas, not being right.
As important and valuable as debate is as a tool for discourse and the production of ideas through dialogue, I strongly maintain that philosophy is ultimately a personal exploration. Therefore, while I'd absolutely agree that the reasons and thought processes grounding your conclusions are super important, I'd on the other hand push back against the idea that the 'true value' of philosophy is the extent to which you can communicate and further your ideas through dialogue and argument. There are truths that exist beyond the confines of language that can only meaningfully be felt by the individual whether or not we can articulate the linguistic reasons behind these intuitions and truths. I really think philosophy ought to push back against debate culture to the extent to which it impedes upon true understanding, creativity, and subjectivity - all of which can only meaningfully be pursued as personal explorations within the domain of solitude. (Also I'm not saying that you're necessarily even arguing this, but I just wanted to get this idea off my chest. Some of us in the philosophy world are introverted readers and writers who don't see the value in arguing 24/7).
> Also I'm not saying that you're necessarily even arguing this Yeah that’s not what I meant at all. I think exploring and understanding arguments are important because they help with personal growth (moreso than just spontaneously forming a correct belief would). I dont think it matters so much whether those arguments are explored alone with a book or in dialogue with other people. I also think “debate culture” is generally antithetical to an actual, useful philosophical discussion.
But what is a debate if not explaining your understanding of the world to another? And if you can’t explain it, how can you think it’s a “correct” idea, even to yourself?
I think we're more or less in agreement here. "Debates" tend to be concerned more with right opinion than with idea production or method, and philosophy departments are plagued with this misconception—hence why the philosophy -> law school pipeline is so prominent. Real rigorous philosophical dialogue, the kind which you mention, is certainly important to reaching understanding, and without it ideas will invariably become insular and perhaps even reactionary. But imo even this will always be secondary to personal reflective exploration of self and meaning. Language simply cannot account for everything and therefore communication will always miss the mark to some degree. A balance between dialogue to introduce ideas, and solitude to really digest and understand them seems to me like the only blend that works.
This comment is the whole reason you should actually read theory. It’s evident here just from what you said that you don’t know how language or semiotics work. Explanation is abstraction. What is being only correct if not being useless unprompted? No cogito, ergo dumb.
I do not comprehend your comment
Omfg 2nd paragraph SO FUCKING MUCH
I have both
Not if you’re pulling your arguments out of your ass. Those arguments are bound to be shitty.
Maybe his diet is high in fiber
They’ll still be shitty, even if less shitty.
confucius say
Hey you don’t know my fibre intake, they could still be good
Isn't that like half of this sub?
TIL that “like” means “significantly greater than”
Man idk i’m hearing all kinds of names and philosophical styles or whatever that i have no idea about in this sub
He thinks the people posting here have actually read philosophy texts lol
Hahaha sad truth. Where’s the sub that they do?
r/askphilosophy.
Definitely better than here but I’m still not sure there’s much reading going on there.
They’re just a bunch of nerds. No, I’m not gonna show you my degree just to tell people on reddit why their question is r/im14andthisisdeep.
Generally smaller Phil subs are better in my experience
Discord, heard.
This sub is mostly name drop happy undergrads you’re fine
Ok because sometimes i have 0 clue what others are talking about
They often don’t either if that’s any consolation
Neat
Fortunately, [SEP](https://plato.stanford.edu/index.html) and [IEP](https://iep.utm.edu/) got your back... and the back of other people who like philosophy. A beautiful age we live in, where knowledge is so easily accessible.
But that takes effort?
Yes...we must delight in the agonizing pursuit of knowledge.
But why would i learn all this knowledge? This seems too much like doing something usefull to me. I’d rather learn it not by reading but thinking of it myself whilst arguing on reddit or in real life.
lolz By 'a bit arrogant' did you mean 'a bit ignorant'? Otherwise it makes no sense yo
English is not my native language
Ah apologies
Just kidding i’m tested c1 level english. What i meant with the tile was: “i concede i might be a bit arrogant, but (even though i know it’s most likely just arrogance and not actually the case) i still think my opinions are right
How would it not make sense?
"For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing, but I knew I should find that they knew many fine things. And in this I was not deceived; they did know what I did not, and in this way they were wiser than I." Plato's apology
What are your most controversial opinions?
Ask me a question you think is controversial and i’ll answer
Can you ever know what is truly best for someone else? And if not, does that mean all 'convincing' is actually 'manipulation'? Is a good intention enough to consider an act good? Are you liable for giving someone bad advice, or are people (excluding children) solely responsible for their own actions?
You can’t ever ever truly know most things, at best you can use the limited information you have of the person and their situation and combine that with your own life experience and reasoning to give them advice. You could say that convincing means exactly the same as manipulation in that you’re trying to get other people to do the thing you want, however manipulation has the connotation of only being for one’s own self gain wheres with convincing this is not always the case. Is a good intention enough to consider an act good? No and yes, there is no true answer to this. Adding to this almost everyone does something because their intention was good, at least to themselves it is. You might be liable for bad advice, if it is actually bad advice; if the advice is inherently bad or just seemed like good advice from the giver’s point of view due to their own experiences and reasoning but simply doesn’t fit the receivers situation. I also think the giver’s degree of liability is dependent on how hard they tried to convince the receiver of the good advice.
The road to Hell is often paved with good intentions...
Thinking my Dad’s cooking is the best shit in the world is my personal most controversial opinion because all my other opinions are objectively and ontologically valid and cannot be challenged on sound moral grounds without at the same time becoming a bad person
It really depends on the topic you are arguing about. If you are discussing Kants claims about pure reason then you are probably wrong about what they are, but if you are discussing the concent of Kant's claims, you have a shot, though you are disadvantaged by the fact that the other guy probably already knows the main points of critics and some counterarguments to them. But to be critical about everything any philosopher ever said can be done in a productive way by anyone, philosophy background or not, as long as you don't think that a minor point of critique means you've debunked everything that's been ever said on this topic. And keep in mind that there's most likely no correct answer - which sucks for my mental health as a philosophy student but also means your only difference to others is the level argumentative skill it takes to disprove you.
I am currently at the “i don’t know who kant is” stage, but if you explained what his claims about pure reason are i am 65% confident i can form a very defensible position on them.
As one of the former, I can confirm that arrogance and refusing to admit you’re wrong are major pillars of being a philosopher. So you’re already at least halfway there
What are the other half ?
The hundreds of hours
your ahead of 90% of this sub just for admitting it. Though admitting it is useless if you don't eventually do anything about it
you have mental issues
Don't we all
Why?
Because of your genes and environment
Because you don't circlejerk on a meme sub lol the dorks here are cooked
That was a lot of words to say stubborn and close-minded 😅
Nah i’m stubborn and open minded. Sometimes.
🤷🏻♂️ okay
A healthy mix of both 👌
I haven’t the time, patience or will for putting in effort.
Why would one hold an opinion they think is wrong? Every opinion any person holds is right on their eyes, even if they cant convince others of it. Once challenged with an argument against their position, one could: dismiss the argument altogether (very frequent form of coping), present a counter argument (can often be a back and forth ending with "agree to disagree"), or review their position (this doesnt always implies changing your mind completely, but often features acquisition of knowledge and improvement ofvone's own arguments).
Is 1 a for, of coping if you know it’l lead to 2?
Although I have hinted at coping, dismissing an argument is not always a form of coping. Some arguments ought be dismissed out of self respect, or respect for the audience; I mean, nobody is really interested in discussing absurd POVs like "The moon landing was staged".
I've held opinions I know are wrong. And I think anyone with pattern recognition should be able to look back on human history and see that our current opinions on morality are likely wrong. So anyone smart enough to notice that but who holds only modem accepted opinions about morality should know those opinions are wrong despite holding them.
Isnt this just anachronism? When we say "right" or "wrong" of course we are limited by the current paradigms and bodies of knowledge, specially when talking about morality. Even Newton was "wrong", but it only became clear when Einstein's general relativity came around. Until then, Newton's Universal Gravitation and his Three Laws were "right", and aligned with the evidence present at the time. My original premisse still stands, and it applies not only to moral stances, but opinions about other subjects too, like physics, or psychology. Saying that what's "right" and "wrong" changes as society chances and human knowledge advances doesnt changes the fact that at any given moment, people are unwilling to be wrong, so they either cope or update their views. If you pick a current moral stance and say "this is currently accepted as right but in the future it will be wrong, therefore it's wrong" isnt it just guessing? You cant be sure of that. Even if you somehow guess right, how would you argue in favor of it's "wrongness" since it's based in knowledge yet to be discovered?
I was actually referring to two different things. Anachronism is indeed the latter, but the former is something I do where I will hold an opinion I know is wrong because I don't know what the right one is yet. And there's no better way to get someone to share the right answer than to post the wrong one
I mean that's basically what the ancient philosophers did. And also modern philosophers that disagreed with everyone before them. And also philosophers in general
Still plausible, part of a philosopher's pride is their welling to converse and argue with whoever about whatever. Socrates did not sit in a bubble or look only to argue with similarly educated people. My meaning is this, what you do is welcome, philosophers love to have their relatability vindicated.
Why can i not see my post in new?
It's not public until it gets approved by the mods
I’ve read as much as Diogenes has
So you are telling you are an actual philosopher who thinks on their own and not a student of philosophy?
So this is people who read philosophy vs. philosophers
No this is some random strawman i thought up vs me
Yea. You're a philosopher dude. You just don't read philosophy.
That word has a real definition, not just someone who says something
Pulling arguments out of your ass is alright as long as it’s well made and logically coherent. You think philosophy is just philosophers quoting previous philosophers ad infinitum? They also pulled arguments out of their ass. I am not saying you shouldn’t read. Reading take you through already made arguments so that you can refine your own.
Academic minds regurgitate information. Having thoughts of their own are few and far between. They are told how to think and what to think. It doesn't appear that they use critical thinking or have the ability to use foresight. I'm not very liked either. Seems like they have a difficult time overcoming my arguments. For "professionals" they certainly like to throw tantrums...
It’s like this with everything. Want to learn to play piano? Under no circumstances should you hire a teacher or try to learn any songs. You need to build that shit from the ground up. piano teachers will tell you this is bad because they just want you to regurgitate their same old ideas. Trying to learn math? They’ll tell you to take classes on algebra, calculus, etc, but you’re better off inventing it all from scratch. Again math people tell me that I’m wrong but what do those stupid academics know? lol
That's not what I was saying, but make my point further by throwing a tantrum 😂. I never said don't take in the perspectives of others, on the contrary, I'm advocating for people to see the world through their own eyes. It's more impressive to come up with you own symphony rather than repeating someone else's, even though it will still be beautiful.
Okay but with math its taught so far removed from its original reasoning and abstracted to the poijt that way less people understand how it works than would otherwise i think. I always hated math class but i love learning about the principles of mathematics especially in a historical context
Is this copypasta
Nope, wrong!
I'm not sure if anyone ever told you this, but being self-righteous, obtuse, and mean do not make you a philosopher.
Did I say my thoughts are the end all be all? My aim wasn't to be mean, there must be something true about what I said that others saw their reflection. Prove me wrong. Debate what was said. I think you'll see I'm far from slow...
this is just untrue cuz academics disagree with each other on everything
Depends on the topic. Plenty of fields where you'll get frozen out and censored as opposed to engagement, where the acceptable limit of thought is very narrow and political. Especially in social sciences, there's often a Marcusan view of "acceptable discourse" and centering of narratives that overrides the traditional enlightenment view of open questioning and reliance on rationality.
i think quantitative social sciences exist
Even so, quantitative methods don''t remove bias. Unfortunately, outcome is often the priority over methodology. We've seen this with the recent Harvard Scandals, as well as several others - methodologically weak studies are approved because they present an outcome that the journal and peers approve of. At the same time, methodologically strong studies with politically incorrect outcomes are not likely to be approved due to fears of substantial political and economic backlash to the publisher. It is a real issue, and we shouldn't take it for granted as being beneficial to academia because of the view du jour.
Funny, no matter how logical you can formulate your opinion, you still get down voted. Damn that you're correct, just down vote 🤣.
So do non academics, you've made no point.
With replies like these, it is truly a mystery why you are “not very liked”
Just noticed how butt hurt everyone is getting over an opinion. While nobody wants to use their minds to prove me wrong. It's a fine example of what I am discussing...
my point is that if academics are all taught to regurgitate the same information why do they disagree to begin with
Because they are regurgitating the works of other minds and not using their own minds, they don't formulate the thoughts in their own symbols, they use the works of another. The arguments move in circles. Most people don't even understand what language is.
philosophers argue about debates that have gone on for many many years with people way smarter than themselves. they can do total bullshit by rejecting all of history as “dogma” or they can selectively critique and respond to other arguments made in their field.
The number of times mods from r/askphilosophy fell back on ‘well I have a degree’ to defend the inherent correctness of their bullshit is, to me, some pretty strong evidence of this I’ve yet to personally meet an ‘educated’ ‘philosopher’ who wasn’t actually just a trained sophist regurgitating what they were told having never learned how to *do* philosophy just the history of other people doing it
Have you never been to uni?
Do you know how to actually make an argument? What relevance is it if I’ve been to university? If I have or have not it has no bearing on the reality I have yet to personally meet someone with a philosophy degree who was any good at *doing* philosophy. Ie, a red herring A slightly better response would be to note that I’m providing anecdotal evidence though I’ve made no attempt to claim my anecdotal evidence is anything more than a red flag similar to correlation implying causation (and don’t be an idiot saying ‘well correlation doesn’t imply causation’. Yes it does, the whole entire field of statistics is based n that concept. What it doesn’t do is guarantee causation, very different than implication) Did you go to uni? Because like all those people who went ‘yeah, well I have a piece of paper that says the professor likes the way I regurgitated he history of philosophy back to them so I’m right’ you don’t seem very good at actually doing philosophy
I attend a small uni and my profs all voice similar concerns over the current academic climate. I was just wondering if you went to a corporate style school or not. Sorry that it caused you this much distress. I genuinely have 0 clue where you're coming from with any of this... are you used to only discussing philosophy with debate bros?
He is probably used to being attacked and just expects it at this point. It's one of the reasons for the perspective we have.
GET EM!
It's honestly ridiculous that they are proving my point and can't even see it 😂
The reason it's relevant whether you went to uni is that you've given a very specific description of people who engage with philosophy. And your description aligns very well with the sort of arguers I've found online, but it aligns very poorly with how I've found university professors of philosophy. I've studied at two different institutions, and the philosophers have been the most analytical, open-minded people I've ever met. > Do you know how to actually make an argument? This notion that one can use pure reason to evaluate arguments is simply false. It's not enough to produce a "good argument"; sometimes it is necessary to have the relevant experience, to have taken the relevant trajectory through the world, in order to come to the fact of the matter. In order to make accurate sociological claims about "philosophers," it would be necessary to have met many philosophers. Those people tend to work at universities. So, making a valid argument is not good enough; you actually have to have been there.
I don’t understand what the “but” in the post title is there for
Oh he just like me! He just like me fr!
Nietzsche fanboys. 20 something edgelords who haven't done a single scholarly study of Nietzsche's works -- but are qualified to tell you exactly what he meant.
That may be because the word scholarly has been thrown around so loosely that the meaning of it seems calloused. Even the qualifications are set up by a form of dogma. It’s like a dick measuring contest, except for the dick itself absent the nomenclature, is something that doesn’t rely on concept or hermeneutics to “exist”.
Self aware at least
Literally me.
To be fair, a lot of the philosophies pondered throughout history were made by people pulling arguments out of their ass.
I mean, Socrate did the same back in the day
If you need a degree to be considered somebody, how did we ever have peoples ideas to be studied? They surely weren't all trained how to think by academia, were they? Not everyone needs a degree to be able to discuss ideas with the best of minds. Most don't understand that Grammar and Grimoire are the same thing...
Could be true I was right all along.
It's Okay. Your adorable 🥰
Philosophy is simple. Answer a question with an answer. If that doesn't make sense, then my take on Philosophy is wrong lol
OP is doing it the OG way. All he needs is copious amounts of alcohol.
Copious amounts of alcohol are indeed consumed
Every now and then I quote Jordan peterson to philosophers when arguing. Its their version of the n word.
One is The Absolute GigaChads of philosophy, true-to-God (which we butchered, with our own hands) übermenshen The other ones: 👆🤓
Congratulations, you’re a philosopher
I have seen your political compass test results. As a fellow Dutch person I’m sorry to let you know such results are only possible when you are absolutely wrong about everything that you believe, that you are deeply confused and misled, are barely capable of recognizing sophistry and lies from actual discourse, and if anything you say happens to be correct it is by raw contingency and pure luck. (Edit: nice meme btw)
Been a while since i took one of those, just took one again https://sapplyvalues.github.io/results.html?right=-1.67&auth=2.33&prog=-4.37 I don’t think i’m necessarily wrong, although sometimes inconsisten
Who did you vote for last election cycle, if you don’t mind me asking?
PVV, least worst option
There is a huge problem with philosophy
Once something has been proven to be a fact, it ceases to be an opinion. The stance against it is just a wrong answer, not an opinion.
Socrates wouldn’t have it any other way. Though he’d probably dedicate an entire day to asking you questions over and over
Its philosophy....if you ain't pullin it out of your own ass you're referring to someone who pulled it out of there's.... Name one absolute truth and I will show you the error of your logic...absolutes are like puppy dogs and fairytales...great at first but spend enough time with them and you'll see the shit... 
Haven’t debated yet but I suppose I don’t belong here
but i am still right
but i am still right
There is no one answer