When you ask a question about psychology or philosophy?

[gregorymarquis]

invariably Y!A throws up other either psychology or philosophy as a possible category. Don't you think that these two subjects are very closely co related and inseparable ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^What is Y!A?


Don't you think that these two subjects are very closely co related and inseparable ?

No, one is a science, the other is a total waste of space:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

[Meridian]

Didn't Wittgenstein criticize psychology in Philosophical Investigations? I can't say I've fully understood it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact he said this:


The confusion and barrenness of psychology is not to be explained by calling it a 'young science'; its state is not comparable with that of physics, for instance, in its beginnings. (Rather with that of certain branches of mathematics. Set theory). For in psychology there are experimental methods and conceptual confusion. (As in the other case conceptual confusion and methods of proof.) [Wittgenstein (1958) Philosophical Investigations, §xiv, p.232e.]

Meridian:


I can't say I've fully understood it.

I'm sorry -- understood what?

[Meridian]

I meant that I don't fully understand the paragraph of Wittgenstein you quoted. I don't remember reading any more of an expounding of what was the 'conceptual confusion' of psychology, but perhaps I just need to read more carefully.

Y!A could refer to Yahoo! Answers, which is a question/answer site. Not sure what it has to do with anything, though.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You might find these helpful:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88252/Wittgenstein-on-Psychology

http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/Relevance%20of%20W's%20phil.%20of%20psychol.%20to% 20science.pdf

[L.A.P.]

^^^What is Y!A?



No, one is a science, the other is a total waste of space:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

Philosophy is a waste of space? Seriously?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


Philosophy is a waste of space? Seriously?

Seriously, yes.

Here's part of the reason why:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

[L.A.P.]

Just because of that you can't just say philosophy is a waste of time, do you realize that Karl Marx was a philosopher more than anything else and that marxism is a philosophy? Without philosophy, logic and reason would not exist therefore science and psychology would not exist. To say philosophy is a complete waste of time is either anti-intellectual or disregarding the historical significance of philosophy which is pretty sad.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


Just because of that you can't just say philosophy is a waste of time, do you realize that Karl Marx was a philosopher more than anything else and that marxism is a philosophy? Without philosophy, logic and reason would not exist therefore science and psychology would not exist. To say philosophy is a complete waste of time is either anti-intellectual or disregarding the historical significance of philosophy which is pretty sad.

1. In fact Marx was an anti-philosopher:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-anti-philosophyi-t144875/index.html

2. Science was in fact invented by ordinary working people. Philosophy only succeeded in mystifying it. [See the above link.]

3. Sure, logic was codified first by Aristotle (as far was we know), but ordinary human beings had been reasoning for thousands of years prior to that. And, although logic is certainly used by philosophers, it has no more to do with philosophy than a computer has if a philosopher uses it.


To say philosophy is a complete waste of time is either anti-intellectual or disregarding the historical significance of philosophy which is pretty sad

It is indeed a waste of space. Not one single philosophical problem has been solved in over 2400 years. In fact, we are no nearer a solution than Plato was, and that is because, as Marx noted (and as Wittgenstein argued in detail), the entire subject is based on the systematic distortion of language:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life. [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, p.118. Bold emphases added.]

And this claim of mine is no more an example of 'anti-intellectualism' than would a similar claim be that Theology is a waste of space, too.

Both are based on the ancient, ruling-class idea that there is a hidden world behind appearances, which is more real than the world we see around us, and which is accessible to thought alone.

More details here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

Use the Quick Links at the top to skip to Section Five -- Traditional Thought -- and Section 11 -- Ruling-Class Ideology.

[Ocean Seal]

No area of learning should ever be obscured simply because we see no particular advantage coming from it. I encourage learning in philosophy. Although, at the moment, the truths that it has provided I can count on my fingers, the knowledge provided is immense. It allows us to see fleeting truths, and yes philosophy draws us away from the truth we currently have, but that is only because there is more.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red, I'd like to see you list even half a dozen examples of knowledge it has produced -- that is, other than trivial examples, such as: Plato was the teacher of Aristotle, or Socrates could drink anyone under the table.

[L.A.P.]

Red, I'd like to see you list even half a dozen examples of knowledge it has produced -- that is, other than trivial examples, such as: Plato was the teacher of Aristotle, or Socrates could drink anyone under the table.

You're a bit anti-intellectual aren't you?

[L.A.P.]

xx1994xx:
1. In fact Marx was an anti-philosopher:

Karl Marx was definitely a philosopher. Materialism is the backbone of marxism and that is a philosophy and what about George Hegel's influence on Marx, are you going to say Hegel was not a philosopher? Without philosophy logic and reason as we know it would not exist and philosophers have helped advance that and given us ideas on how we should think and what methods we should use to solve problems and answer questions.

[Broletariat]

I always love seeing people's first encounters with Rosa.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Psychology the social science that focuses on the individual.

Philosophy is the science of knowledge.

[Dean]

Jung pointed out that psychology threatened to swallow philosophy. I think it basically has, since for those serious about philosophical inquiry, a degree of psychological inquiry must be undertaken, a fact which I think is increasingly evident.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


You're a bit anti-intellectual aren't you?

On what do you base that conclusion?

As I pointed out earlier: this is no more an example of 'anti-intellectualism' than would a similar claim be that Theology is a waste of space.


Karl Marx was definitely a philosopher.

You say this despite the fact that he told us he had "left it behind" and that it was based on "distorted" language. [Check out the link I posted.]


Materialism is the backbone of marxism and that is a philosophy and what about George Hegel's influence on Marx, are you going to say Hegel was not a philosopher?

1) Marx was certainly a materialist, but not a philosophical materialist. In fact he is best described as a Historical Materialist, and that meant he was a scientist not a philosopher.

2) Hegel certainly influenced his early ideas, but he spent the rest of his life distancing himself from his confused mystical and philosophical dogmas. In this, he was no different from many other scientists. For example, Einstein was heavily influenced by Hume, but that did not make him a philosopher.

3) Marx was brought up a Christian. Did that make him a believer all his life?


Without philosophy logic and reason as we know it would not exist

1) Neither would meteorology. Does that make weather forecasting a philosophy?

2) You ignore the fact that informal logic has been around far longer than formal logic, and was invented (if that is the right word) by ordinary working people.

3) It's also worth recalling that formal logic was invented (as far as we know) by Aristotle, who was just as much a scientist as he was a philosopher. Subsequently, logic was mystified by philosophers, until Frege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege) (a mathematician, not a philosopher) cleared the subject up in the late 19th century.


and philosophers have helped advance that and given us ideas on how we should think and what methods we should use to solve problems and answer questions.

1) Certainly philosophers helped develop Aristotelian logic, but they also mystified it and confused it with a priori psychology at the same time. But, the most significant advances in logic in the last 150 years were the result of the work of mathematicians.

2) I'd like to see you present us with examples of problems philosophers have solved, or problems their methods have helped solve.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dougal:


Philosophy is the science of knowledge.

In what way is it a science?

Dean:


Jung pointed out that psychology threatened to swallow philosophy.

And what is the evidence for this?


I think it basically has, since for those serious about philosophical inquiry, a degree of psychological inquiry must be undertaken, a fact which I think is increasingly evident.

If you accept Jung (and Freud's) idea that psychology is an a priori discipline, based more on make-believe than on evidence, then you might have a point.

But, not if you regard psychology as a science.

Finally, psychologists make very poor philosophers. So, a degree in psychology is more of an impediment than a 'must'.

[ZeroNowhere]

Karl Marx was definitely a philosopher. Materialism is the backbone of marxism and that is a philosophy and what about George Hegel's influence on Marx, are you going to say Hegel was not a philosopher?I don't know, is it a philosophical statement to say that matter moves, rather than motion being an independent entity from matter? I'd say that it was just a description of how the words are used in language; the latter is unintelligible. Indeed, Marx and Engels explicitly frame their critiques of speculative construction in terms of category-words simply being words used by humans in certain ways.

[L.A.P.]

xx1994xx:
2) I'd like to see you present us with examples of problems philosophers have solved, or problems their methods have helped solve.

The Stoics were a group of philosophers that said that you can only be fully logical when you separate it from emotion. This is a valid point they had.

The Socratic method was the first of its kind where you would just keep on asking "why?" after every answer which he said would lead to higher thinking. This was also valid and we use this method to this day.

Existential Nihilism made people realize that life is without objective meaning. This would open up the eyes of people who were and still are blinded by religion.

What about pragmatism?

The first people to say the earth is round were philosophers.

What philosophy you go by is basically the method of rationale argument you choose to use. Without philosophy there is no method of rationale argument, therefore no math and science. A scientist, mathematician, etc. can't do anything unless they have a form of logic or rational thinking and the methods they use were developed by philosophers. Philosophers made the blueprints and the scientists and mathematicians use the blueprints to solve problems and that is the point of philosophy, to create a form of logic so people can use that logic to solve problems. This method of argument your using against philosophy was developed by a philosopher in the past that has now become the norm of how to logically and rationally think.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


The Stoics were a group of philosophers that said that you can only be fully logical when you separate it from emotion. This is a valid point they had.

Who said this, and when?


The Socratic method was the first of its kind where you would just keep on asking "why?" after every answer which he said would lead to higher thinking. This was also valid and we use this method to this day.

In fact, if you read Socrates's 'arguments', the vast majority depend on word-juggling and the systematic distortion of ordinary words, as Marx alleged. So, if anything, Socrates sent human rationality backwards!

And what practical application did his thought have -- other than support the aristocratic and anti-democratic status quo, as I pointed out earlier?

Finally, I hope you are not suggesting that Socrates was the very first person in human history to ask 'Why?'


Existential Nihilism made people realize that life is without objective meaning. This would open up the eyes of people who were and still are blinded by religion.

To be replaced by yet another set of dogmatic a priori, but this time nihilistic nostrums.

Not much of an advance, eh?


What about pragmatism?

Well, what about it?

Yet another set of dogmatic, a priori dogmas, of no practical use.


The first people to say the earth is round were philosophers.

In so far as they addressed the material world, they were scientists. And it is open to doubt they were the first to point this out. Check out the following book:

Conner, C. (2005), A People's History Of Science. Miners, Midwives And "Low Mechanicks" (Nation Books).

There the author (who is a Marxist) points out:


"It is evident from the arguments of the ancient authors, however, that their knowledge of the earth's roundness was drawn from the experience of seafarers.... Strabo [a historian and geographer -- RL] wrote:


'...It is obviously the curvature of the sea that prevents sailors from seeing distant lights at an elevation equal to that of the eye; however, if they are at a higher elevation than that of the eye, they become visible...'" (pp.224-25.)

He goes on to point out that Aristotle drew on the experience of sailors to conclude the earth was spherical (p.225). He notes the same is true of Pliny (p.224).

Once again, it was ordinary working people who knew more than these work-shy 'theorists'.


What philosophy you go by is basically the method of rationale argument you choose to use. Without philosophy there is no method of rationale argument, therefore no math and science.

So you keep saying, but the facts of human history tell a totally different story -- see the above book.


A scientist, mathematician, etc. can't do anything unless they have a form of logic or rational thinking and the methods they use were developed by philosophers.

May I refer you to my earlier reply to this line of argument:


1) Certainly philosophers helped develop Aristotelian logic, but they also mystified it and confused it with a priori psychology at the same time. But, the most significant advances in logic in the last 150 years were the result of the work of mathematicians.

2) You ignore the fact that informal logic has been around far longer than formal logic, and was invented (if that is the right word) by ordinary working people.

3) It's also worth recalling that formal logic was invented (as far as we know) by Aristotle, who was just as much a scientist as he was a philosopher. Subsequently, logic was mystified by philosophers, until Frege (a mathematician, not a philosopher) cleared the subject up in the late 19th century.

You:


Philosophers made the blueprints and the scientists and mathematicians use the blueprints to solve problems and that is the point of philosophy, to create a form of logic so people can use that logic to solve problems.

If we move away from vague generalities, can you tell us precisely what 'blueprints' these are?


This method of argument your using against philosophy was developed by a philosopher in the past that has now become the norm of how to logically and rationally think.

That's about as misleading as saying that if we, as Marxists, sell revolutionary newspapers and books, then we must be capitalists!

Using rational arguments (which long pre-dated philosophy) in order to help accelerate its demise is not also to do philosophy.

So, we are still waiting for one, just one, philosophical problem that has been solved in the last 2400 years...

[ZeroNowhere]

Existential Nihilism made people realize that life is without objective meaning. This would open up the eyes of people who were and still are blinded by religion.Saying that life is without objective meaning is essentially devoid of meaning, objective or otherwise.


What about pragmatism?It vaguely glimpses the fact that language is intertwined with human forms of life, but then it completely misses the point. Usefulness is not the criterion of truth as it is used in ordinary language, but rather the possession of the word 'truth' and its derivatives is useful, which makes it no different to the possession of the words 'book', 'door', and 'love'; to say that it is useful is merely to say that it has a use, and hardly reveals what that use is, while it is certainly not the case that 'truth' and 'usefulness' are synonyms.

[L.A.P.]

You're suggesting that people have been thinking that way forever and always knew to think that way while that philosophers just distort it, that simply is not true. You're out look basically tells me that you reject every method of thought as useless philosophy and the only method of thought you do like is obvious observations that required no philosophical backbone.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ah, but what is the essence of thought?

[Widerstand]

You're suggesting that people have been thinking that way forever and always knew to think that way while that philosophers just distort it, that simply is not true. You're out look basically tells me that you reject every method of thought as useless philosophy and the only method of thought you do like is obvious observations that required no philosophical backbone.

What is a "method of thought?" I can think without philosophy, in fact many people have done so and are doing it.

In fact I have never met one single person that "thought dialectical", and the fact that none of the dialectics here could so far communicate how to "use" dialectics let alone "think dialectical" just adds to it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


You're suggesting that people have been thinking that way forever and always knew to think that way while that philosophers just distort it, that simply is not true.

Who used the word 'forever'?

However, and alas for you, the historical evidence tells us that ordinary working people were thinking mathematically, scientifically and rationally long before philosophers pinched their ideas.


You're out look basically tells me that you reject every method of thought as useless philosophy and the only method of thought you do like is obvious observations that required no philosophical backbone.

And what 'philosophical backbone' is this, then?

[Dean]

And what is the evidence for this?
Contemporary philosophy and its consistent reliance on psychological theories (implicit or explicit). Where is the evidence for your position?


If you accept Jung (and Freud's) idea that psychology is an a priori discipline, based more on make-believe than on evidence, then you might have a point.
Not sure where you get this from. Freud amassed and considered a range of evidence, though shaping it to support his theories when he felt it was necessary. I don't see where deductive logic somehow implies a defiance of evidence or bases itself on "make-believe."


But, not if you regard psychology as a science.
Oh, really? And what makes something a science in your book? Lack of deductive reasoning? :laugh:


Finally, psychologists make very poor philosophers. So, a degree in psychology is more of an impediment than a 'must'.
Sounds like you're making a lot more "leaps of faith" without provisional evidence than I am.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


Contemporary philosophy and its consistent reliance on psychological theories (implicit or explicit).

I agree, and that is part of the problem. But that still does not show that "psychology threatened to swallow philosophy". They are still, many decades after Jung allegedly said this, separate disciplines.


Where is the evidence for your position?

As you have been told before, I do not have a 'position'.


Not sure where you get this from. Freud amassed and considered a range of evidence, though shaping it to support his theories when he felt it was necessary. I don't see where deductive logic somehow implies a defiance of evidence or bases itself on "make-believe."

Freud in fact made all his 'evidence' up. You can find the details underlying that allegation in the works I referenced here before when you last raised that very question.

I can re-post them if you want.


I don't see where deductive logic somehow implies a defiance of evidence or bases itself on "make-believe."

It does if the premisses involved are fairy tales.


Oh, really? And what makes something a science in your book? Lack of deductive reasoning?

I'm sorry, but where on earth did you get the idea that I think this?


Sounds like you're making a lot more "leaps of faith" without provisional evidence than I am.

Plenty of evidence here:

Bennett, M., and Hacker, P. (2003), Philosophical Foundations Of Neuroscience (Blackwell).

--------, (2008), History Of Cognitive Neuroscience (Blackwell).

Even more here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

[Apoi_Viitor]

Jung pointed out that psychology threatened to swallow philosophy. I think it basically has, since for those serious about philosophical inquiry, a degree of psychological inquiry must be undertaken, a fact which I think is increasingly evident.

I disagree. From what I've read (I tend to read mostly 'continental' philosophers), most 'philosophical' approaches that attempt a level of psychological inquiry tend to only focus on Freud's dead theories.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You are largely right, but there is, alas, a significant number of Analytic Philosophers who have fallen for Freud's a priori speculations.

[Dean]

I agree, and that is part of the problem. But that still does not show that "psychology threatened to swallow philosophy". They are still, many decades after Jung allegedly said this, separate disciplines.
Its clear we were discussing two different concepts - specifically, I was referring to the character of the foundations and principles of more contemporary philosophy - not the academic fields. I think its clear that philosophy has been increasingly reliant on theories of the human mind, if only to serve as a framework or given for the philosophical theories themselves.

I wasn't trying to describe the relationship between academic fields, but between ideas themselves. In much the same way, one could say that finance has "swallowed" some of the higher maths as a consequence of the overbearing importance of the field in our economy - this doesn't mean the academic fields have simply merged de jure.


Freud in fact made all his 'evidence' up. You can find the details underlying that allegation in the works I referenced here before when you last raised that very question.

I can re-post them if you want.
Well, I know you feel this way and I know Freud had some serious issues in terms of integrity - of his science and personal life. I think we mostly disagree about the magnitude of his value to psychology and philosophy, and I doubt this will be resolved here.


I'm sorry, but where on earth did you get the idea that I think this?

What do you actually believe can constitute a science? Can you further explain this:

If you accept Jung (and Freud's) idea that psychology is an a priori discipline, based more on make-believe than on evidence, then you might have a point.

But, not if you regard psychology as a science.


I disagree. From what I've read (I tend to read mostly 'continental' philosophers), most 'philosophical' approaches that attempt a level of psychological inquiry tend to only focus on Freud's dead theories.
Well, continental philosophy mostly ends before the time of Jung's statement (it mostly refers to older philosophers up to Heidegger and some more obscure names thereafter). But notable exceptions like Adorno and Fromm - the former at least considered "continental" - support the notion of intensive psychological inquiry for a philosophical framework.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


Its clear we were discussing two different concepts - specifically, I was referring to the character of the foundations and principles of more contemporary philosophy - not the academic fields. I think its clear that philosophy has been increasingly reliant on theories of the human mind, if only to serve as a framework or given for the philosophical theories themselves.

There is some truth in this, especially since the late 1970s -- Chomsky's work was largely responsible. But, that is just another reason to reject philosophy as a bogus discipline. In which case, psychology has nothing to learn from it.


Well, I know you feel this way and I know Freud had some serious issues in terms of integrity - of his science and personal life. I think we mostly disagree about the magnitude of his value to psychology and philosophy, and I doubt this will be resolved here.

Fair enough.


What do you actually believe can constitute a science?

It's not really up to me to say; it's best to leave that to scientists themselves.


Can you further explain this:

Is there any point? You have already said we will not be able to resolve this here.

[In fact, you will find the answer in the references I added to that earlier reply to you, which I mentioned above.]

[L.A.P.]

xx1994xx:



Who used the word 'forever'?

However, and alas for you, the historical evidence tells us that ordinary working people were thinking mathematically, scientifically and rationally long before philosophers pinched their ideas.

Why do you feel the need to pit the working class against the intellectuals as if they're enemies? Is that your reasoning for why you're against philosophy? If ordinary working people have been thinking rationally, mathematically, and scientifically for a longer time then who's to say they weren't the likes of philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians? I don't see how just because the working class thought and still think rationally is a refutation to the validity of philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


Why do you feel the need to pit the working class against the intellectuals as if they're enemies?

1. I have not pitted the working class against the 'intellectuals'. The point is that they come from different classes and so have different interests. That's basic Marxism.

2. The ruling class use 'intellectuals' and other 'opinion formers' to sell their system to us:


"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.'" [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, pp.64-65. Bold added.]

You


Is that your reasoning for why you're against philosophy?

No, I have explained my reasons. [See below, too.]


If ordinary working people have been thinking rationally, mathematically, and scientifically for a longer time then who's to say they weren't the likes of philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians?

I never denied they might have been mathematicians or scientists, but as soon as they try to do any philosophy (on the very few occasions in history that we know of that they have done this) they fall into error. Here is why:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.

Philosophy is based on a distortion of language and so can only ever produce non-sense, whoever engages in it.

I explain further why this is so here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5


I don't see how just because the working class thought and still think rationally is a refutation to the validity of philosophy.

It isn't -- philosophy refutes itself.

[blake 3:17]

ROSA FUCK OFF THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT GARBAGE

SOMEONE STARTS A THREAD ON PSYCHOLOGY V PHILOSOPHY AND THEN YOU MANAGE TO TURN IT INTO "PHILOSOPHY IS NOT REAL" THREAD AND WHO CARES? FUCK OFF THIS IS EFFIN BULLSHIT I DON"T CARE I"M NOT A PHILOSOPHER I"M NOT A LOGICIAN I"M A FUCKING WORKER ACTIVIST AND ARTIST THATS WHAT I DO A FUCK OFF WITH THE BS IF YOU GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SOCIALISM FROM BELOW LET OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK AND DONT DERAIL EVERY FUCKING *****ASS POOP SKUM NAZI TJHREadf B FOR YOU TO GET OFF I REALLY LIKE THIS BOARD BUT YOU ARE A WRECKER

MAYBE YOU DEFEND THE SWP IN ITS DECLINES BUT I DON'T CARE FUCK THE THE ANTI[PLATFORMISMS FUCK THE SUCKING UP TO THE BUREAUCRACY FUCK OFF

I TOLD YOU B4 I STUDIED WITTGENSTEIN WITH IAN HACKING, YOU DON'T CARE, YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR LOGIVCA; POSITIVIOSM FUCKPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OFFFFFFFFFFFF OFFFFFFFFFFFF

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


ROSA FUCK OFF THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT GARBAGE

Good of you to own up.


SOMEONE STARTS A THREAD ON PSYCHOLOGY V PHILOSOPHY AND THEN YOU MANAGE TO TURN IT INTO "PHILOSOPHY IS NOT REAL" THREAD AND WHO CARES? FUCK OFF THIS IS EFFIN BULLSHIT I DON"T CARE I"M NOT A PHILOSOPHER I"M NOT A LOGICIAN I"M A FUCKING WORKER ACTIVIST AND ARTIST THATS WHAT I DO A FUCK OFF WITH THE BS IF YOU GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SOCIALISM FROM BELOW LET OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK AND DONT DERAIL EVERY FUCKING *****ASS POOP SKUM NAZI TJHREadf B FOR YOU TO GET OFF I REALLY LIKE THIS BOARD BUT YOU ARE A WRECKER

I think you should:

a) Use more captials.

b) Sober up.

c) Suck up to the mods before they give you an infraction for confusing extreme abuse with argument.


MAYBE YOU DEFEND THE SWP IN ITS DECLINES BUT I DON'T CARE FUCK THE THE ANTI[PLATFORMISMS FUCK THE SUCKING UP TO THE BUREAUCRACY FUCK OFF

This comes from the bottom of a whisky bottle, I presume.


I TOLD YOU B4 I STUDIED WITTGENSTEIN WITH IAN HACKING, YOU DON'T CARE, YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR LOGIVCA; POSITIVIOSM FUCKPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OFFFFFFFFFFFF OFFFFFFFFFFFF

Looks like all you learnt off Hacking was how use the caps lock key.:lol:

[Billy2]

Not one single philosophical problem has been solved in over 2400 years.
This is true in a cute/pun sort or way: once a philosophical problem is solved, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes an -ology.

[PhoenixAsh]

I simply can not resist to state that I thoroughly enjoy this philosophical debate between a proponent of philosophy and an antagonist philosopher.

I think someone mentioned that philosophy has not resolved a single issue in thousands of years...now it has. Well done Rosa...philosophying away your own argument ;-) O...the irony...

[ZeroNowhere]

I simply can not resist to state that I thoroughly enjoy this philosophical debate between a proponent of philosophy and an antagonist philosopher.There isn't any to enjoy, though.

[PhoenixAsh]

There isn't any to enjoy, though.

If you observe this from its basic definition viewpoint it is the philosophical debate about the general problem of "philosophy and its usefulnes to reality and life" by using a critical and systematic approach and use of rational arguments.

So far the useles side of the argument is winning...

[L.A.P.]

xx1994xx:
1. I have not pitted the working class against the 'intellectuals'. The point is that they come from different classes and so have different interests. That's basic Marxism.

Why do intellectuals have to be a separate class from the working class? Why do the intellectuals have to be a class at all? I would say that many intellectuals are part of the working class as well as all the other classes.


2. The ruling class use 'intellectuals' and other 'opinion formers' to sell their system to us:

So intellectuals are part of the bourgeoisie conspiracy? Correct me if I misinterpreted this but what I'm starting to sense in your posts is that intellectuals (mainly philosophers) are enemies of the working class and "sell" their ideas so the bourgeoisie can keep control of the proletarian. You know when I suggested that you could be anti-intellectual I was just kidding but now I'm really starting to get that feeling.




You

Me?


Philosophy is based on a distortion of language and so can only ever produce non-sense, whoever engages in it.

I keep on hearing this "distortion of language" argument and it seems to be the backbone of your main points. However, I don't really see the problem with philosophy being just distorted language since thought and logic's medium is language, so distortion of language leads to distortion of thought hence the point of philosophy. I have no problem with this and this does not show me the invalidity of philosophy.


It isn't -- philosophy refutes itself.

Clever.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Billy2:


This is true in a cute/pun sort or way: once a philosophical problem is solved, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes an -ology.

Well, I deny this, so let's see an example of one of these 'solved' philosophical 'problems'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

hindsight:


I think someone mentioned that philosophy has not resolved a single issue in thousands of years...now it has. Well done Rosa...philosophying away your own argument ;-) O...the irony...

In order to show that philosophy is useless one does not need to do any philosophy, any more than one has to catch a disease in order to cure it.

[L.A.P.]

Billy2:
, so let's see an example of one of these 'solved' philosophical 'problems'.

Quite the pragmatist, aren't we?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx


Why do intellectuals have to be a separate class from the working class? Why do the intellectuals have to be a class at all? I would say that many intellectuals are part of the working class as well as all the other classes.

Well, it deos not matter whether they are a separate class or part of the working class (we can debate that another time -- it's basic Marxism anyway), the point is that whatever class they hail from, all they produce when they philosophise is non-sense.


So intellectuals are part of the bourgeoisie conspiracy?

No, it's just that only those who think the right thoughts, get the right jobs and the right posts. [Chomsky is very good on this.]


Correct me if I misinterpreted this but what I'm starting to sense in your posts is that intellectuals (mainly philosophers) are enemies of the working class and "sell" their ideas so the bourgeoisie can keep control of the proletarian. You know when I suggested that you could be anti-intellectual I was just kidding but now I'm really starting to get that feeling.

They don't have to be enemies of the working class, it depends on what ideas they concoct.


You know when I suggested that you could be anti-intellectual I was just kidding but now I'm really starting to get that feeling

Not half as much as I'm 'getting the feeling' you need to read what I post more carefully.


I keep on hearing this "distortion of language" argument and it seems to be the backbone of your main points. However, I don't really see the problem with philosophy being just distorted language since thought and logic's medium is language, so distortion of language leads to distortion of thought hence the point of philosophy. I have no problem with this and this does not show me the invalidity of philosophy.

Then you need to show where this argument goes wrong:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5


Clever.

No, I'm deadly serious, as the above thread shows.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


Quite the pragmatist, aren't we?

You might be, but I'm certainly not.

[L.A.P.]

Then you need to show where this argument goes wrong:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5



They are based on features of thought/language, not on the material world.


This means that they can't be related to the material world or anything in it, and hence they can't be used to help change it.

This is where I believe we have reached a misunderstanding.

I reject philosophical ideas that try to solve problems in the physical world that require scientific method without using scientific method and through observation alone, it's like reaching a hypothesis and then making that your conclusion. While there are many philosophical ideas that attempt to do this, not all of them do and just because of these faulty ideas doesn't mean I'm going to reject all of philosophy. Philosophy should not and can not not be used to change the material world but since philosophy is based on one's thought and thought is what dictates most decisions and judgements by one then philosophy can be used to change one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx


This is where I believe we have reached a misunderstanding.

I reject philosophical ideas that try to solve problems in the physical world that require scientific method without using scientific method and through observation alone, it's like reaching a hypothesis and then making that your conclusion. While there are many philosophical ideas that attempt to do this, not all of them do and just because of these faulty ideas doesn't mean I'm going to reject all of philosophy. Philosophy should not and can not not be used to change the material world but since philosophy is based on one's thought and thought is what dictates most decisions and judgements by one then philosophy can be used to change one.

I don't think you read my comprehensive refutation all that well. Whether or not philosophical theses attempt to solve "problems in the physical world". the fact they all come out with a priori, necessary truths (as Kant called them, 'synthetic a priori' truths), they descend into non-sense.

If you disagree, can you present us with an example of a philosophical insight that does not do this?

[Apoi_Viitor]

If you disagree, can you present us with an example of a philosophical insight that does not do this?

Would you call historical materialism an a priori insight?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AV:


Would you call historical materialism an a priori insight?

In fact, it's what us Wittgensteinians call a 'form of representation'.

[Apoi_Viitor]

In fact, it's what us Wittgensteinians call a 'form of representation'.

Which is?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A set of rules, not a set of truths, used to make sense of the world

[Apoi_Viitor]

A set of rules, not a set of truths, used to make sense of the world

So then why would Michel Foucault's philosophy be an a priori philosophy? Surely his genealogical approach to historiography and knowledge would be better categorized as a 'from of representation' rather than a 'a priori' set of truths...?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AV:


So then why would Michel Foucault's philosophy be an a priori philosophy? Surely his genealogical approach to historiography and knowledge would be better categorized as a 'from of representation' rather than a 'a priori' set of truths...?

I am reluctant to call his work 'philosophy'; it's more history of ideas and social criticism.

[L.A.P.]

AV:



I am reluctant to call his work 'philosophy'; it's more history of ideas and social criticism.

So any philosopher used as an example to show philosophy that is a "set of rules" and not a "set of truths" wasn't a philosopher? What a great cop out.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


So any philosopher used as an example to show philosophy that is a "set of rules" and not a "set of truths" wasn't a philosopher?

No more than fighting capitalism is the same as supporting it.

[But notice, I did not call philosophy a set of rules. You still need to read more carefully.]


What a great cop out.

Alas for you, name-calling is not an effective form of argument.

[Billy2]

So then why would Michel Foucault's philosophy be an a priori philosophy? Surely his genealogical approach to historiography and knowledge would be better categorized as a 'from of representation' rather than a 'a priori' set of truths...?
Foucault said "I am well aware I have never written anything but fiction."


Well, I deny this, so let's see an example of one of these 'solved' philosophical 'problems'.
How about evolution. Aristotle talks about the origin of species and gets the selection part sort of right; then later it gets taken over by Darwin or Gould by which time it's science not philosophy.

Or how about certain maths problems like squaring the circle, the philosophers dwelt on this, modern period philosophers hack away at it, then after super-computers mathematicians take it up, finally finding the answer (it's impossible).

[blake 3:17]

Alas for you, name-calling is not an effective form of argument.

lol -- Waster timer. Still waiting for the warning. Please address a mod if you think it is called for.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Billy 2:


How about evolution. Aristotle talks about the origin of species and gets the selection part sort of right; then later it gets taken over by Darwin or Gould by which time it's science not philosophy.

Certain philosophers have written about science, but, if you consult this book:

Conner, C. (2005), A People's History Of Science. Miners, Midwives And "Low Mechanicks" (Nation Books).

you will see that they probably got most of their ideas from working people. But, even if they didn't, nothing I have said prevents philosophers studying science.


Or how about certain maths problems like squaring the circle, the philosophers dwelt on this, modern period philosophers hack away at it, then after super-computers mathematicians take it up, finally finding the answer (it's impossible).

Same comment.

But, I'm not too sure that computers have anything to contribute to proof in mathematics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


Waster timer.

Still prefer name-calling to argument, I see.


Still waiting for the warning.

And so you should.


Please address a mod if you think it is called for.

Unless the abuse is sexist, racist or homophobic, I never shop a fellow member.

[Thirsty Crow]

A set of rules, not a set of truths, used to make sense of the world
Two things:

1) Does Wittgenstein problematize the basis/es or principles of the selection of certain rules?

2) Could you do the same thing?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Menocchio:


1) Does Wittgenstein problematize the basis/es or principles of the selection of certain rules?

2) Could you do the same thing?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'problematize'.

[Thirsty Crow]

Menocchio:

[QUOTE]1) Does Wittgenstein problematize the basis/es or principles of the selection of certain rules?

2) Could you do the same thing?/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'problematize'.

For instance, does he take up a certain form of representation and analyze its specific bases used to select the rules which govern it?

What I want to convey is that the definition you provided may seem to connote a certain arbitrariness when it comes to selecting rules.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Menocchio:


For instance, does he take up a certain form of representation and analyze its specific bases used to select the rules which govern it?

No, he doesn't, but others have.


What I want to convey is that the definition you provided may seem to connote a certain arbitrariness when it comes to selecting rules.

Well, I do not recall defining anything.

Scientists do not just select rules arbitrarily. Their work is ideologically, historically and socially conditioned, and it has to provide solutions to the problems with which they are grappling.