Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking | Psyche Ideas
I think many folks on RF will discover the linked-to article on pseudophilosophy both useful and interesting if for no other reasons than some of the subjects it touches on are among the most popular on the Forum. 'Does God Exist?' 'What is Truth?' Along many others that I have seen at least some recurring interest in.
However, the author's topic makes his article more in the way of excellent background information for those questions and issues, than direct discussions of them.
Beyond that, it might be helpful here to mention that the kind of 'philosophy' he's talking about is what more people would think of as 'academic', 'formal', or 'traditional' philosophy than the common sense of the word in America. American culture is by no measure anywhere close to having a strong, formal philosophical element. But it has a robust and thriving 'street' element, so to speak.
I call that more common philosophizing, 'street' philosophy because I enjoy it best when discussing it with friends, sitting at sidewalk tables, and trying to pretend we're not really there just to do girl and guy watching. Street philosophy is what most people are likely thinking of whenever they can think of philosophy and poetry as quite similar to each other, or even two kinds of the same thing.
On the other hand, formal philosophy is basically logical reasoning applied as rigorously as possible to questions that lead beyond much in the way of empirical evidence to support them.
Since empirical evidence is by far the best course-correcting thing humans can use when trying to stay in touch with reality, anyone at all -- philosopher or not -- who tries to figure out reality without its checks is basically like a high wire acrobat. Either he or she stretches their rope (logic) so tight it turns into a pavement, or they fall.
It's almost just as simple as that.
Sticking tightly to an unbroken, step-by-step chain of logic is about anyone's only chance to go much beyond empirical tests without ending up with a meaningless conclusion. But humans have always been fools about allowing themselves to become interested in questions whose conclusions lie well beyond the wisdom of anyone who is not perfectly insane to correctly interpret, let alone arrive at.
If you're curious, one of the best, 'casual' definitions of 'philosophy' that I have heard is, "Logic ramped up to hyper-vigilance, then rigorously pushed well beyond the point at which systems failure becomes inevitable -- just to see how far it can get from home."
I know that's one of the best definitions because that actually is pretty close to the gist of it.
Besides, I came up with it myself a few minutes ago while thinking of this OP. To be sure, i had to spend some years studying stuff before I could cut to the chase like that.
The University of Illinois back in the 1970s for some reason I don't know of, did a study of its undergraduate physics majors. At the time, philosophy was by far their most popular minor. The study concluded that might have something to do with how physics is more or less always pushing the edge of what can be known about the physical universe, and philosophy is almost the only academic discipline fool enough to try to tiptoe much further.
ENTICING BIT OF SUGGESTIVE TRIVIA: The Western philosophical tradition was crucially shaped and defined by the competitive culture of ancient Greece into a form of 'intellectual sport', with the unintended consequence of it now and then figuring out to ask the 'right question' about some thing or another.
Uncle Sunstone
"Defeating rational behavior in every battle since 2004."
I think many folks on RF will discover the linked-to article on pseudophilosophy both useful and interesting if for no other reasons than some of the subjects it touches on are among the most popular on the Forum. 'Does God Exist?' 'What is Truth?' Along many others that I have seen at least some recurring interest in.
However, the author's topic makes his article more in the way of excellent background information for those questions and issues, than direct discussions of them.
Beyond that, it might be helpful here to mention that the kind of 'philosophy' he's talking about is what more people would think of as 'academic', 'formal', or 'traditional' philosophy than the common sense of the word in America. American culture is by no measure anywhere close to having a strong, formal philosophical element. But it has a robust and thriving 'street' element, so to speak.
I call that more common philosophizing, 'street' philosophy because I enjoy it best when discussing it with friends, sitting at sidewalk tables, and trying to pretend we're not really there just to do girl and guy watching. Street philosophy is what most people are likely thinking of whenever they can think of philosophy and poetry as quite similar to each other, or even two kinds of the same thing.
On the other hand, formal philosophy is basically logical reasoning applied as rigorously as possible to questions that lead beyond much in the way of empirical evidence to support them.
Since empirical evidence is by far the best course-correcting thing humans can use when trying to stay in touch with reality, anyone at all -- philosopher or not -- who tries to figure out reality without its checks is basically like a high wire acrobat. Either he or she stretches their rope (logic) so tight it turns into a pavement, or they fall.
It's almost just as simple as that.
Sticking tightly to an unbroken, step-by-step chain of logic is about anyone's only chance to go much beyond empirical tests without ending up with a meaningless conclusion. But humans have always been fools about allowing themselves to become interested in questions whose conclusions lie well beyond the wisdom of anyone who is not perfectly insane to correctly interpret, let alone arrive at.
If you're curious, one of the best, 'casual' definitions of 'philosophy' that I have heard is, "Logic ramped up to hyper-vigilance, then rigorously pushed well beyond the point at which systems failure becomes inevitable -- just to see how far it can get from home."
I know that's one of the best definitions because that actually is pretty close to the gist of it.
Besides, I came up with it myself a few minutes ago while thinking of this OP. To be sure, i had to spend some years studying stuff before I could cut to the chase like that.
The University of Illinois back in the 1970s for some reason I don't know of, did a study of its undergraduate physics majors. At the time, philosophy was by far their most popular minor. The study concluded that might have something to do with how physics is more or less always pushing the edge of what can be known about the physical universe, and philosophy is almost the only academic discipline fool enough to try to tiptoe much further.
ENTICING BIT OF SUGGESTIVE TRIVIA: The Western philosophical tradition was crucially shaped and defined by the competitive culture of ancient Greece into a form of 'intellectual sport', with the unintended consequence of it now and then figuring out to ask the 'right question' about some thing or another.
Uncle Sunstone
"Defeating rational behavior in every battle since 2004."
