The Big Questions - Philosophy's Failure?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

...Philosophy presupposes a universal Human Nature.

No it doesn't. There are plenty of philosophers who don't recognize a universal "human nature," most notably the existentialists. As Sartre said, …

Though I said above that I admit of a multiplicity of orthodox schools, that doesn't mean that I affirm every school to fall within orthodoxy.

And though I certainly believe that Being and Becoming (or Stasis and Dynamism) are not mutually exclusive, a Philosophy without a universal Human Nature is like a Physics without a universal Physical Nature: there is simply no Object of inquiry.

[Zarathustra]

Perhaps turning oneself into an "object of inquiry" shouldn't be the goal. Man is different from the bits of matter studied by physics, especially to himself. Man is a subject, known and experienced in an entirely different manner than objective, material things in his world.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Man is a subject, known …

If the subject (Man) is known, then there is a simultaneous objective aspect at work. Thus, the opposition between Subject and Object is softened and the requirements of each are interpenetratively satisfied.

[Fist and Faith]

I believe it would be vastly more accurate to interpret what Z said as, "Man is a subject, known and experienced, to the degree man is known and experienced, in an entirely different manner than objective, material things in his world.", than as, "Man is a subject known."

[Zarathustra]

Wos, reasoning from the nature of the universe as an object of scientific inquiry in no way leads us to necessary conclusions about the "nature" of man as an object of philosophical inquiry. The ways in which we know and investigate clumps of matter are nothing like the ways in which we know and investigate ourselves as conscious, thinking, feeling, choosing beings.

That's not to say that all humans don't share some objectively similar traits that can be studied scientifically: bodies, phenotype, DNA, etc. And we all possess language, culture, social circles, etc. which can be studied objectively as well. However, studying man scientifically is different from a philosophical inquiry, and for this it's not necessary to assume a universal essence or nature (though of course, some philosophers have, though that's not as popular in the last couple centuries).

If you insist upon a single nature/essence, then perhaps it's best to say that the nature of man is that he is free to choose his nature. We can be whatever kind of human we want. We are Nature's generalists, adapting to whatever environment and circumstance we find ourselves in. If we had a single universal nature that was unalterable, we wouldn't find ourselves at the top of the evolutionary game. We wouldn't have found ways to escape our "natural" home here on earth. We wouldn't possess the power to alter our DNA and literally make ourselves into whatever the hell we want ... even in the strictest scientific/objective terms. We are literally nature's shape-shifters, and that will become more apparent as time goes on.

You could also say that the 'essence' of humans is self-transcendence or transcending our own essence ... if you have the stomach for paradox (which, I assume, most readers of this site have ).

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Z,

What puzzles me is that, on one hand, you are zealous for people (e.g. Hashi) to take Philosophy seriously. This is a noble purpose, of course. I'm with ya, there.

But on the other hand, you seem to be doing your best to weaken the idea of a universal Human Nature, such that you leave no mediatory locus for the I/Thou encounter which, alone, would make a person's engagement of Philosophy meaningful.

This seems to undermine your entire stated project.

Just a thought.

[peter]

(Cracking little exchange above)

If human nature is to be considered by means outside the standard scientific method is that not in its own way a small concession to the 'other' (or at least a tacit acceptance of the limits of that method).

[Fist and Faith]

It's not that it's outside of the scientific method. It's that there is a tool available to us when studying human nature that is not available to us when studying anything else in all the universe. Direct experience. We can still apply the principles of scientific method when using this tool.

[Zarathustra]

As I've pointed out in other Close threads, Husserl intended for phenomenology to be the philosophical grounding for any science. It's debatable to what degree he achieved that lofty goal, but the point is that introspection and objective science aren't mutually exclusive. It's more like a spectrum or separate stages. Our access to the world is through our own consciousness. Thus, a rigorous philosophical exploration of our consciousness (subjectivity, intentionality, etc.) builds the foundation for moving beyond that into objective studies of the content of our consciousness--or the world.

But the tools of phenomenology are different than the tools and methods of objective science. Phenomenology is NOT psychology. So I'd disagree slightly with F&F. While we can study the brain scientifically, and to some degree we can study the neurological causes/effects of consciousness scientifically, there is no way to apply objective scientific methods to consciousness as a phenomenon to oneself. Introspection can't be reproduced and peer reviewed, except in as much as you can apply it to your own consciousness. But that brings in all sorts of philosophical quandaries, when considering the problem of other minds.

[Orlion]

(Cracking little exchange above)

If human nature is to be considered by means outside the standard scientific method is that not in its own way a small concession to the 'other' (or at least a tacit acceptance of the limits of that method).

The issue is not one of "human nature", but one of "Universal Human Nature". There are plenty of psychological studies that can say "If X, then there is a good chance Y", but as you are beginning to see, a lot goes into what or how humans behave.

Universal Human Nature, on the other hand, assumes something like "if left to their own devices, humans will act rationally". This was a driving force behind the French Revolution, and well...

"Every ideology is contrary to human psychology" - Albert Camus

In fact, one might be able to redefine Universal Human Nature so that it fits more in what is observed and not what people wish it to be. But, that would require a new formulation of it, as Z has pointed out, traditional Universal Human Nature has largely been rejected.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

In fact, one might be able to redefine Universal Human Nature so that it fits more in what is observed and not what people wish it to be. But, that would require a new formulation of it, as Z has pointed out, traditional Universal Human Nature has largely been rejected.

I can tell you what "universal human nature" is. It is short-sightedness and self-centeredness with a high degree of emotional irrationality. This is what causes us to do stupid things like worry more about some lion about whom we have never heard before rather than people going to bed hungry in our own town. This is what causes us to follow celebrities on Twitter rather than urging our city, State, and Federal leaders to make well-informed decisions and implement wise policies wisely.

Zarathustra thinks I am trying to reinvent the wheel but I am not. I am merely asking why should I listen to what someone else says the answers to life, the universe and everything might be when I am perfectly capable of coming up with my own answers. I wager that he would agree with the sentiment that the Bible (or any other holy book, for that matter) would not be a worthwhile road map by which to conduct one's life. Why, then, should these philosophers be given a gold star stamp of approval? What makes their truths more valid than someone else's truths?

It may be trolling but you can always force philosophers or their well-read adherents into corners by asking "why?" over and over again like a 4-year-old. Why does that work? It works because ultimately they don't know why--at some point they will run into questions they simply can't answer.

[Orlion]

I can tell you what "universal human nature" is. It is short-sightedness and self-centeredness with a high degree of emotional irrationality. This is what causes us to do stupid things like worry more about some lion about whom we have never heard before rather than people going to bed hungry in our own town. This is what causes us to follow celebrities on Twitter rather than urging our city, State, and Federal leaders to make well-informed decisions and implement wise policies wisely.

Some, yes. But not all. There are some humans who do not exhibit those behavior. In fact, there are some humans that can train/develope into something other than what you describe. In fact, I know people who care about the lion (whom they have heard of before) AND care about those who go hungry AND urge their various political leaders to make well-informed decisions and implement wise policies.

Ergo, your "universal" definition fails at being "universal". At the best, it is incomplete.

Zarathustra thinks I am trying to reinvent the wheel but I am not. I am merely asking why should I listen to what someone else says the answers to life, the universe and everything might be when I am perfectly capable of coming up with my own answers. I wager that he would agree with the sentiment that the Bible (or any other holy book, for that matter) would not be a worthwhile road map by which to conduct one's life. Why, then, should these philosophers be given a gold star stamp of approval? What makes their truths more valid than someone else's truths?

Except you are advocating reinventing the wheel. Instead of learning and building on what came before, you seem to want to "re-prove" mathematical concepts that have all ready been proven. It's a waste of time.

You are also conflating study and critiquing with blind faith with your Bible statement. At which point, we are no longer talking about philosophy, but religion.

It may be trolling but you can always force philosophers or their well-read adherents into corners by asking "why?" over and over again like a 4-year-old. Why does that work? It works because ultimately they don't know why--at some point they will run into questions they simply can't answer.

It "works" because instead of showing a desire to learn or understand, you are showing a desire to be a pain-in-the-ass. If you continually and blindly ask "why" you have not proven anything except that you have not (on purpose, even!) given any consideration to the models, arguments, or answers. Faulting someone to not continue such a conversation would be like faulting someone for being unable to teach music theory to a rock.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No one is talking about math at all. Math hasn't had anything to do with philosophy since Bertrand Russell, some of whose works I have indeed read as part of a well-rounded mathematical education.

Okay, so I paint with too broad a brush when I mentioned "universal human nature". That doesn't mean that the assessment is essentially flawed or a failure, as a brief browse through news headlines will show you. In fact, you can see it if you go to the mall and engage in a little generic people-watching.

Someone has to be a pain in the ass; it might as well be me. If someone's well-reasoned arguments cannot stand up to "why?", "why?", "but why?" they may not be as well-reasoned or as well-though-out as they originally concluded.

Most people believe in their pet philosophy or philosopher with the emotional force of religious belief. In most cases, the two are essentially the same. Philosopher A writes an exegesis about something and his devotees pour over every word, study every nuance of thought contained therein, dissect it, ponder over it while sipping their morning coffee, etc. How, exactly, is this different than people who study the teachings of the Buddha on a daily basis?

Philosophy is like art. It is something to be viewed and appreciated but then you leave the museum and you go home, carrying the emotional lessons learned with you.

[Vraith]

. If someone's well-reasoned arguments cannot stand up to "why?", "why?", "but why?"

Most people believe in their pet philosophy or philosopher with the emotional force of religious belief.

Philosophy is like art.

Heh...most of the folk I know who like---and even more so do/practice/work--- philosophy ask themselves why's forever.

I"m not sure I know anyone who believes in a particular philosophy/philosopher quite that way---except the ones whose philosophy is a religion.

I can't get behind like art. But I can get behind like Art.
They bridge the raw physicallity/reality with the ethereal/abstract/visionary.

[Fist and Faith]

As I've pointed out in other Close threads, Husserl intended for phenomenology to be the philosophical grounding for any science. It's debatable to what degree he achieved that lofty goal, but the point is that introspection and objective science aren't mutually exclusive. It's more like a spectrum or separate stages. Our access to the world is through our own consciousness. Thus, a rigorous philosophical exploration of our consciousness (subjectivity, intentionality, etc.) builds the foundation for moving beyond that into objective studies of the content of our consciousness--or the world.

But the tools of phenomenology are different than the tools and methods of objective science. Phenomenology is NOT psychology. So I'd disagree slightly with F&F. While we can study the brain scientifically, and to some degree we can study the neurological causes/effects of consciousness scientifically, there is no way to apply objective scientific methods to consciousness as a phenomenon to oneself. Introspection can't be reproduced and peer reviewed, except in as much as you can apply it to your own consciousness. But that brings in all sorts of philosophical quandaries, when considering the problem of other minds.

I was thinking along the lines of doing studies with as many people as possible. Many people can answer questions based on introspection. Things might be learned about consciousness that one person's self-examination couldn't possibly establish.

Also, we can use the scientific method to study the effects of damage to certain parts of the brain, severing the corpus callosum, etc, have on consciousness.

[Fist and Faith]

Reading philosophers is exposing yourself to ideas. There's very little chance that anyone will think up every answer to the meaning of life that can be read in the works of history's philosophers.

And while we might congratulate someone for, never having heard of Descartes, coming up with the idea I think, therefore I am, we might also think someone capable of doing so in a vacuum might have accomplished much more if s/he had learned about Descartes years ago.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

And while we might congratulate someone for, never having heard of Descartes, coming up with the idea I think, therefore I am, we might also think someone capable of doing so in a vacuum might have accomplished much more if s/he had learned about Descartes years ago.

Am I the only one to realize that Descartes--another mathematician, incidentally--had it backwards? We don't live in a world of "I think, therefore I am"; rather, we live in a world of "I think because I am". You exist first and then you start to think. If we take the phrase "I think, therefore I am" at face value then we somehow manage to will ourselves into existence through the act of thinking. It is true that by the virtue of thought we are able to turn ourselves into something we currently are not now but the inescapable truth is that we cannot think unless we already exist.

I still haven't made my main point clear, apparently. If you have a question about something and you turn to a book, no matter how well-written or how insightful it may be, you can probably find the answer you may certainly take that answer and apply it to your own life but at the root is wasn't your answer. Someone else came up with the answer and you are essentially copying from someone else's test paper--yes, you got the right answer but you didn't do the work for yourself. This is where Z would mention "reinventing the wheel" but I am not talking about science, I am talking about philosophy and finding the answer's to life's questions. If we rely solely on what other people thought we may never have any new thoughts, only recycled old ones. That isn't progress.

[Fist and Faith]

Am I the only one to realize that Descartes--another mathematician, incidentally--had it backwards? We don't live in a world of "I think, therefore I am"; rather, we live in a world of "I think because I am". You exist first and then you start to think. If we take the phrase "I think, therefore I am" at face value then we somehow manage to will ourselves into existence through the act of thinking. It is true that by the virtue of thought we are able to turn ourselves into something we currently are not now but the inescapable truth is that we cannot think unless we already exist.

That is exactly the point Descartes was making. I can wonder what is real and what is not. I can wonder if you, and everything else, exist. I have no actual way of proving that you do. But I cannot doubt my own existence. I know that I exist, because I could not possibly think if I did not exist.

I still haven't made my main point clear, apparently. If you have a question about something and you turn to a book, no matter how well-written or how insightful it may be, you can probably find the answer you may certainly take that answer and apply it to your own life but at the root is wasn't your answer. Someone else came up with the answer and you are essentially copying from someone else's test paper--yes, you got the right answer but you didn't do the work for yourself. This is where Z would mention "reinventing the wheel" but I am not talking about science, I am talking about philosophy and finding the answer's to life's questions. If we rely solely on what other people thought we may never have any new thoughts, only recycled old ones. That isn't progress.

There are no new thoughts. Like movies, there are only a few cycling around, being presented in different ways. Even if you don't read any philosophy (I've read almost none. Most of what I know about what any philosophers said I learned from Northern Exposure. Some from Sophie's World, too. But I don't remember any of it. I couldn't tell you what Kant, Hume, Kierkegard, or anybody else said.), you're hearing ideas from everyone who speaks in your earshot; from television shows (There's an absolute ton of philosophy in Star Trek, especially TNG.); from scifi, fantasy, and fiction novels; movies; etc. And as we read and hear all the ideas that the world presents to us, we find that some resonate strongly within us. None of us is unique because of any unique thought; we are unique because of the particular combinations of the thoughts that resonate within us. As Mallory said in Neverness:

All the programs which drove me to change my flesh, to love, to joke, to murder, to seek the secret of life - each particle of myself was somewhere duplicated within the selfness of another man, woman or child. My programs were not unique; only their seemingly random arrangement within me was.

I'm not the only person who loves Bach, chocolate, TCTC, comic books, is an atheist, or any of the other thousand things I love and believe, fear and hate. But I'm the only person who has that specific combination of loves and beliefs, fears and hates.

And I might never have considered the existence of many of these things if I had not read about them somewhere.

[Zarathustra]

No one is talking about math at all. Math hasn't had anything to do with philosophy since Bertrand Russell, some of whose works I have indeed read as part of a well-rounded mathematical education.

Do you really think that no one has been studying the philosophy of mathematics for nearly a century?

I beg to differ.

There are no new thoughts.

Where would you get such a demonstrably false idea? Oh yeah, perhaps here:

Most of what I know about what any philosophers said I learned from Northern Exposure.

It's a cliché to say that all of philosophy is merely footnotes to Plato and Aristotle. Like most clichés, there's a grain of truth to that, but philosophy is exploding beyond most people's ability to keep up, just like most areas of human thought. We have more philosophers alive today than ever before (just like scientists, engineers, etc.). Trust me, they are not merely recycling what dead people said.

Am I the only one to realize that Descartes--another mathematician, incidentally--had it backwards? We don't live in a world of "I think, therefore I am"; rather, we live in a world of "I think because I am". You exist first and then you start to think. If we take the phrase "I think, therefore I am" at face value then we somehow manage to will ourselves into existence through the act of thinking. It is true that by the virtue of thought we are able to turn ourselves into something we currently are not now but the inescapable truth is that we cannot think unless we already exist.

If you'd read his Meditations, you'd realize that you've seriously misunderstood that sentence. F&F has already pointed it out, I'd like to add that this is what happens when people don't read the philosophers themselves and try to come up with it on their own. You've apparently misunderstood one of the most famous lines in the history of philosophy for quite some time. Credit to you for coming to the same conclusion as Descartes, but criticizing him for something he didn't say is hardly fair. If this is the kind of reasoning that informs your negative opinion of philosophers in general, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Philosophy is a cumulative field, just like any school of thought with centuries of history. Much of what is written cannot be understood without the context of the history of philosophy--just as you can't understand calculus without first studying arithmetic, algebra, and so on. Most of the things that people think they invent on their own are actually a product of living in a society with certain world views that are themselves popularized versions of what other philosophers have said. Even the words you use to think up your "own thoughts" have a rich history and evolving meanings, meanings which are culturally and historically dependent upon all those texts you're not reading.

[peter]

I'd be very suprised if their is one of us here following this discussion, who has taken one shred of true consolation from anything he/she has read written by any philosopher old or new. I'd bet a pound to a penny that each and every one of us, if/where we have learned the tricks of surviving life's mercurial games, have done it of our own making, by our own self-discovery.

Philosophy teaches us to talk the talk - but not walk the walk.