From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!cash Tue Feb 11 15:24:56 EST 1992
Article 3525 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3525 sci.philosophy.tech:2065
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!cash
>From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: MUST Philosopy be a Waste of Time?
Message-ID: <1992Feb06.002746.16389@convex.com>
Sender: usenet@convex.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: muse.convex.com
Organization: The Instrumentality
References: <1992Feb04.060419.21963@convex.com> <1992Feb05.011716.8427@norton.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1992 00:27:46 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 147

In article <1992Feb05.011716.8427@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
>cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

In the course of our discussion, we've touched on two different issues, and
perhaps confused them a bit. These are:

1) Can a philosophical question ever be decided by empirical means? 
2) Does philosophy ever have practical benefits?

The answer to 1 seems--to me, at any rate--to be clearly "no". I'm not as
positive about the answer to number 2.

To address the second issue, Brian says:

>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, 

Could you be confusing cause and effect here? Is it possible that
philosophy became more "rational" to suit the rational spirit of the times? 

>the
>moral and political philosophy which lead to the founding of the United
>States, 

Certainly, the ideas of political thinkers like John Locke found their way
into such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
of the United States. Does that mean that these ideas caused the US to
spring into existence, or shaped its government? One could argue that the
causal chain goes the other direction: the new political philosophies were
caused by social, economic, and political changes in Europe during the 18th
century. I'm not saying it's so; I'm just saying that if you're going to
assert that political philosophy has practical implications, then more
argument will be required than just the assertion itself.

For example, did Marxism cause the Bolshevik revolution and shape the Red
Russian state? Superficially, it is difficult to deny that it must be so;
but what if there had never been a Karl Marx? The revolution was, after
all, the product of social conditions in Czarist Russia, and not of
Communist ideology; might the revolution have occurred anyway in much the
same way it did, and might the resulting state have been essentially
collectivist, as it was? I don't know. 

>as well as the effects of religious epistemology after Greece 

I don't know what you're talking about here. Are you saying that the pagan
Greek religions shaped Greek culture? Maybe. Maybe the other way around.

>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.

As a philosopher, I can only hope you are right--and that everyone will
immediately see how essential I really am! 8-}

I said:
>> 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.

Hmmm--you seem to take Descartes' proof at face value ("I doubt, therefore
I am".) In the first place, even if the proof is valid, it only proves that
the subject exists, and not the world. (And that was the question.) Even if
Descartes exists, the world might still be a hallucination, and any
experiment that "proves" its existence might be equally hallucinatory.

Actually, Descartes never even got that far: given that his doubts were
valid (something that I do not, by the way, agree to), he can't even prove
his own existence. (This has pretty much been done to death in the
commentaries.) 

>> 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, 

I don't see why.

>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.  

Hmm. You seem to be saying that living beings (like us) have a certain
nature, and that this nature requires them to seek food and shelter (and,
presumably, less tangible things like companionship, safety, etc.). If it
doesn't seek these things (or fails to find them), then it dies. Therefore,
these things are good for it. 

This is really quite interesting; it reminds me of Plato's ethics.
(According to Plato, a "good" man is a man who functions well, just like a
"good" knife is a sharp knife.) The trouble with this view is that there
seems to be an equivocation between two senses of "good" here: moral "good"
and functional "good". When you say that whatever keeps a person going is a
good thing, then you are conflating the two. (You might, of course, argue
that there is no difference.)

>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).

Ah, but there are so many philosophical questions here. _Is_ preserving
one's life always the highest good? Is it even good? Aren't there times
when it's good to die? If so, can life be an unqualified good? 

>> 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? 

How would I answer? Well, if a mugger says, "If you value your life, give
me your money", then I will hand over my wallet. So presumably, I value my
life. But if that same thief threatened my children, I would rather die
than let them come to harm, so I must value their lives over my own. I
also value (in no particular order) high mountains, old wine, enduring
friendship, and lying in bed on Saturday mornings.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


