33. Does Philosophy Matter? | THUNK 

This is a fantastic example of using philosophy to change a worldview. It's curious that many very brilliant and well-read philosophers also suffered from depression - maybe it's a form of self-medication to seek out new ways of thinking if the one you start with makes you unhappy. Thank you very much for sharing! Very happy to hear that you've got a handle on things!

interesting! were you on any meds. for depression? were you able to come off of them on your own? I too came across philosophy by chance watching atheist vs. religion debates. Now I don't go with the flow I have learned to question everything. So much so that it has led me to pursue a new found passion. Inventing making, building asking questions I never thought to ask. looking for answers like how or what creates reality in the human mind. Why do I, we as a human species get depressed. since I have found my passion I no longer feel depressed I wish I could create a time machine to slow time down. Not enough hours in the day to do what I wish to accomplish.

“In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” Bertrand Russell "If I had an hour to solve a problem I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions. "

>I think you could have a pretty long argument about whether or not [logic] falls under philosophy. *Philosophers* might have a long argument. Logicians would probably just say "maybe" and knock off early for lunch. In all seriousness, this is a really good point. People who study a lot of different philosophy learn logic as part of the analytic school, but reading stuff like Plato without a decent idea of where to look for the holes in his arguments is probably not the best way to go about it. Perhaps I should have qualified this better.

Philosophy and logic have indeed a long relationship and most logicians are philosophers and mathematicians. There are indeed instances throughout history where logic is conflated with rhetoric and psychology. Which is now obsolete at least in contemporary analytic tradition.

THE THUNK MUST FLOW. Duly noted, and thanks for the suggestion!

+THUNK It is by will alone I set my Thunk in motion.

Then answer the most ancient and practical philosophical question "What is the ideal way to live life?"

Thanks! You should check out the more recent one on this topic, I think it's a more convincing argument: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kJWmmvLInzo.html

wow. you hit the nail on the head.

Now it's depends on how you define metaphysics but I think metaphysics is about: Reality, truth, conciouseness, Identity, free will, Existenace, Self, Personhood etc And for that we can do this categorization. Btw it's my categorization: Ontology: Ask questions like what is existenace? And what is being? Etc Realogy: Just a fancy term but here the questions ask like what is reality? What is the nature of reality? What makes thing real? And what is truth? And how can we acquire Truth? Etc Mindology: Again a fancy term but here ask questions like what is conciouseness? What is mind? What is identity? What is self? What is a person? How a person is a same person when he change everyday? Do we have free will? Etc So, I don't think metaphysics should be least in the rank. But you can ignore it for pragmatic reasons.

I was just remarking that I'd love to experience the ancient Greek university format, where a wise expert basically holds office hours in a public place, and students come to ask questions and learn. I'd despair about taking time away from some other subjects, though.

+Gaudio Wind This is a very good question, and the answer is contested among different philosophers. There are several systems of logic, each of which is based on a set of axioms. Depending on how much you believe in those axioms, those systems of logic may or may not be "correct." The most basic sort of logical reasoning relies on a principle of non-contradiction, basically that something can't both be & not be the case. What you think of the validity of that principle will likely determine what you think about logic as a whole; is it necessarily true? Does it only seem true because it's the only way we've seen the universe behave?

+THUNK So, the answer may be we just believe its axioms are "correct" or maybe it's the best way we could find to describe the behavior of reality?

+THUNK How about the non-contradiction principle? Can we really know when one statement is the contradiction of another or we simply define or accept that one specific idea must be the contradiction of another? Can we really apply this non-contradiction principle to nature and confirm it?

I've never raised kids & I haven't learned a lot of developmental psychology yet, I don't really think my opinion is worth anything. My intuition is frequently "if you just talk to them like they're adults, they'll figure themselves out," but I'm pretty sure that's demonstrably untrue. :P However, I do think that the lesson of skeptical thinking & questioning authorities is certainly "a hindrance," and very important to teach anyways, maybe at any age? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I wasn't going to say it. Thank you for sharing on FB! I hope you get lots of interesting discussion out of it!

I have interesting friends....(most all are like-minded)... I've decided that I will take the lead on educating my children on philosophy and why it matters.

If you're hurting for time, I highly recommend "The Partially Examined Life," a podcast with three down-to-earth guys who analyze complex principles of philosophy in a very approachable way. www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/

THUNK thanks mate, Im always pressed for time, officially, Ive got it down to a fine art appearing busy while Im really doing nothing. Then after a while doing that, I really are pressed for time. Ill look at the link for sure :)

This is your official license to recant your initial brevity. ;)

:P

Even logic is not a requirement for philosophy. A great deal of post-modern philosophy (whatever you might think of it) rejects logic. Logic could in fact be considered Aristotelian. Plato relied more on his brilliant intuition than logic. Logic must have originally been a product of intuition. In my view the core element of philosophy is skepticism, and one doubts the value of philosophy when he is skeptical about the value of skepticism.

Thank you for your critique! I can only hide so much behind authorial intent, but honestly? I think you're bringing a lot of personal baggage to some statements that do not bear resemblance to the ones you're responding to. 1. Pascal's Wager *is* a terrible argument. This does not reflect in any way on any religion (including the worship of the Greek pantheon, which is where it was first posited). In the Pascal's wager video linked, I acknowledge its brilliance in establishing decision theory and using probability to make decisions centuries before such disciplines arose, but it is clearly flawed. As stated, intuition's great for many things, but not always for validity or soundness. 2. I think the "Bible Fight!" image macro is funny, and my statement absolutely stands - conquering a people to ensure that they believe in a philosophy of peace is counterproductive, regardless of which particular example of such you wish to cite. 3. The reasons and justification for the Crusades may be attributed to religious, economic, social, or political motives, but long story short, a lot of people ended up dying on the other end of swords that people prayed to because they looked like crosses. I think most would call that an ideological contradiction. 4. Cultural constructs like the American dream or Disney's "true love conquers all" *may or may not* be true. I make no claims either way, I merely point out that refusing to think critically about those constructs makes accepting them mandatory, which may not always be desirable. 5. You're right, logic isn't necessarily intrinsic to all philosophy, but considering that a large portion of contemporary philosophy is analytic & revolves around logical principles, I think it's pretty safe to say they're intimately linked, and that the majority of philosophy at least makes an attempt to look like more than gut instinct. Anyways, thank you for keeping me honest, I hope I was able to address some of your concerns about impartiality. :)

Not having watched THUNK's video, Pascal's wager is an idea that should be dismissed. Much of philosophy shouldn't, but that particular one should (In my opinion).

THUNK You think it is a terrible argument, but that is your opinion and it is not a view upheld by the concept of philosophy itself. Philosophy does not have a ruling one way or the other on whether Pascal's Wager is valid or not. Philosophy is not a deciding body, it is more of a questioning body. Even if 100% of people agreed that Pascal's Wager has no validity to it then you still could not say it is the necessary conclusion of philosophy that it is invalid. I am only trying to get you to teach the value of philosophy itself rather than the validity of your particular conclusions. I'm trying to get you to think of it from a more meta perspective than to see the things you've learned from philosophy are inherent to philosophy rather than inherent to your own particular understanding, decided by your own intuition, and influenced by the education you have received and social environment you inhabit.

Madoka Karamazov Thats a terrible argument for why you're doing this. You sound like you like Pascals Wager and are butt blasted

It's odd to me that you're using the term "a priori" to describe all philosophy - surely you must be aware of the other option? Do you consider empiricism and naturalism to be philosophies, or something else entirely?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Both empiricism and naturalism are metaphysical or ontological concepts. One is only, in the case of say empiricism, making the a priori claim that experience is the best way to "ground" (there it is again!) our knowledge.

gerhitchman I'm just confused; if you're looking for an example of philosophy providing some foundation for science (or knowledge, if you think that science supplies knowledge), I'd say that empiricism certainly qualifies - it appears to me to be the singular founding philosophy of science itself.

THUNK Let me clarify. The philosophical tradition since Descartes has been an epistemological one; understanding the common denominator in all beliefs that we hold to be "true," for instance. The trouble is that there isn't, in any obvious way, something to say about "truth" in general, whether it be scientific truth or another kind of truth. And therefore any attempt to do so is off to a bad start. What validates or "grounds" science is the concrete results that it has provided for us. But it is emphatically *not* that science agrees with some abstract-level set of conditions thought up by some philosopher of science sitting in his armchair.

There's no way to avoid a priori assumptions in a process of reasoning. Some of those will be mathematical or logical, but some of them will often be philosophical. If science utilizes, to any great extent (generally or even not generally), a priori claims falling under the philosophical heading (i.e. not logical and not mathematical), then that would seem to be enough to make THUNK's claim true, unless he's using "ground" as a success term, in which case THUNK has a good chance of being wrong.