From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian Wed Feb  5 11:57:06 EST 1992
Article 3489 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3489 sci.philosophy.tech:2049
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian
>From: brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder)
Subject: Re: MUST Philosopy be a Waste of Time?
Message-ID: <1992Feb05.011716.8427@norton.com>
Organization: Symantec / Peter Norton
References: <1992Feb04.060419.21963@convex.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1992 01:17:16 GMT

cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
> In article <1992Feb04.011418.5433@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
 
> >So what you are saying is that you see philosophy as a game rather than as
> >a serious study of an important subject.  Why should I take you seriously
> >in your writings then if you admit that you are not serious about them
> >yourself?
 
> I don't think we're going to get very far with this. You think that if an
> endeavor isn't practical, then it's trivial. Therefore, if I say philosophy
> isn't practical, then you think I'm saying it's trivial. We're very
> different persons, you and I: I think practical things are trivial. 

I thought you might say something like that.  On what basis do you reach such 
a conclusion?  Practical issues like how to make a living, how to choose a mate,
how to write a book, how to raise children, how to design a computer, how to
make a scientific discovery certainly do suffer or benefit by their association 
with philosophical conclusions and they ARE the kinds of things that are 
important (and even the question of whether they are important is a philosophical
matter but you seem to assume it previous to the philosophical consideration).
In any event, if you claim that "practical matters" like work, sex, wealth,
science, and personal relationships are "trivial" what do you consider 
"non-trivial"?  You apparent claim that whether you eat tomorrow is a trivial
matter while determining what the consequences of red and blue lights over 
beds containing identical people, what is your standard of importance?  And
did you come to know it to be the right one?
 
> >>So can we conclude from this that you do not believe that philosophy has any
> >>practical implications or applications?  What utter nonsense.  
  
> >> "Utter nonsense?" I suppose that you can say that philosophy is anything
> >> you like--but don't you think you should take into account the opinions of
> >> those who have studied the field? 
 
> >Since I don't consider matters of fact to be properly decided by vote, no.
 
> This may surprise you, but some matters of fact _are_ decided by a vote.
> For example, the practitioners of a discipline decide what constitutes that
> discipline. 

I can't believe you really think that!  Are you saying that if the AMA held 
an election and 51% of the doctors voted that "Doctors are long yellow fruits 
that grow on trees in the tropics." then it would be correct?  Would that choice
be no better or worse than the definition "Doctors are people whose occupation
is the maintenance of the human body."?  Perhaps you would like to explain 
how in the world you can justify such a theory.

>I do not think you will find that the majority of philosophers
> alive today will say that theirs is an empirical discipline, in the sense
> that philosophical problems can be decided by empirical means. 

Why should I care what 51% of philosophers think?  I disagree with 51% of
philosophers on a great many issues.  Does that make me wrong about them
simply because of the fact?  51% of philosophers once thought that there were 
only four elements.  Is that a reason to believe them to be correct?
 
> What will they say about the "practical implications" of philosophy? If by
> "practical" you mean, "has material benefits", then the answer will be a
> resounding "no". (Philosophers are notoriously underpaid). But perhaps you
> mean something else by "practical"; perhaps you could clarify this.

What I mean is that the conclusions of philosophy can have enormously good and 
bad effects on individuals and societies.  This can be seen by looking at the
effects of rational epistemology at the end of the dark ages, the moral and 
political philosophy which lead to the founding of the United States, as well 
as the effects of religious epistemology after Greece and the moral/political
philosphies of Nazi Germany and the USSR.  Philosophy is indeed quite practical
and without good philosophical foundations, the would will again collapse into
barbarism.

Regarding the pay of philosophers, the question of whether philosophers are
happy about the amount, it still manages to keep them alive and healthy.  Would
you not call that a material benefit?  Or do you consider eating to be too 
trivial to consider?

> >>Philosophy is the study of the broadest abstrations important to life.
> >>That includes questions like "What is the universe really like?  Does it
> >>exist?"  and "What is knowledge?  How can I know things are true?  What
> >>is truth anyway?"  and "What is life all about?  Why I am I here?" and
> >>"What should I do with my knowledge?  Is it all just a waste of time?
> >>Should I care about anything?".  If you wish to defend your position that
> >>"Philosophy is just entertaining word play." you need to be able to
> >>explain why you think your definition is valid.  Appeals to authority are
> >>not good enough.
 
> Do you seriously propose that a question like, "does the universe really
> exist" can be decided by an _experiment_? This one I'd like to see. 

It's a very simple experiment.  Are you perceiving anything?  This message?
A workstation?  Anything?  If so, then the universe exists.  To deny it would
involve a self-contradiction since you denial must exist for you to deny it.
I didn't say that it was a big elaborate experiment involving test tubes and
cyclotrons.  But it is a conclusion based on evidence and thus falls loosely
into the category of empirical experimental observational conclusions.

> And
> after you do that one, please resolve "Should I care about anything" in a
> similar fashion.

To fully explain my position in this regard would take more space than I have
since it relies on previously having developed a complete theory of 
epistemology, but the end result is that having observed various kinds of
entities, living, non-living, human, and otherwise, we can draw certain
conclusions about choice, values, and the like.  The conclusion of this
line of thinking and observations is that to be a living being is to pursue
values (food, water, shelter, companionship, etc.) in accordance with one's
nature.  Any living thing that ceases to pursue values eventually dies at
very least of starvation.  This means that to be something with a living nature
implies a certain course of action, without which the living nature would vanish.
That's how you get 'ought' from 'is'.  If you ARE a living being then you OUGHT
to take certain actions necessary to maintain your life.  If you don't you
will no longer be a living being.  If you desire to take the opposite position
then you should just stop talking lay down and die.  Your presence in this
or any other discussion entails of necessity a desire to live (even if for no 
other reason than to continue arguing).
 
> And when you've done your laboratory work, what practical difference does
> it make? For example, if you don't "care about anything" will you start
> caring if an experiment convinces you that you should? (Or vice versa?) I'm
> skeptical. 

If they have reached the conclusion that reason is the means to knowledge
and that reason says "Care about X." then why would you expect them not to?
I can tell you are a skeptic.  Perhaps you can explain how you reached your
skeptical conclusions?  Perhaps by use of methods whose validity your dispute?
 
> >>My point was that the ANSWERS that come out of philosophical discussions
> >>need to have some kind of value.  If you are looking for the other kind,
> >>why not just do crossword puzzles?
 
> What is "value"? What do you value? 

A value is anything that one acts to gain or keep.  This general concept invludes
even irrational and self-destructive things one acts to attain.

What do I value?  My own life and everything that contributes to it.  

How do you answer these questions?  Do you just shrug them off as naive?  Or 
unknowable?  Or subject to voting? 
 
> >Philosophy is not an _empirical_ endeavor: any question that can be decided
> > by an experiment is not a philosophical question, and is in the realm of
> > science.
 
> >>You really think so? Where do you get your original starting data from
> >>which to reason if not from "empirical" observation?  Are we being a bit
> >>rationalistic here?  It sounds like you have a nasty case of
> >>analytic/synthetic dichotomitis.
 
> I don't think you're addressing anything I said; I made no assertions about
> where we "get data". 

OK, if not by observing reality, then where is it that you think we "get data"?
Revelation from the gods?

--Brian
 
-- 
-- Brian K. Yoder (brian@norton.com) - Q: What do you get when you cross     --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group      -    Apple & IBM?                       --
-- Symantec Corporation              - A: IBM.                               --
--


