tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post8673562054836288963..comments2024-03-25T11:49:21.281-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: The Ends of PhilosophyEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-3837702692342946642020-03-12T20:52:26.590-07:002020-03-12T20:52:26.590-07:00Uncertainty begins for human beings when a mother,...Uncertainty begins for human beings when a mother, preoccupied with the emotional confusion and expectations of her past and community, does not connect emotionally with her child. That is, she does not reflect back to the child all that it is, emotionally. This missing response puts the child in a position where it is uncertain about its survival; the child having no other alternative must enact emotional strategies/an-identity that will coverup the uncertainty and insecurity of its rejected emotions and spirit. <br />As time goes on these emotional-strategies/identity become a complex system of false certainties/rationalizations/beliefs/reasons that block the uncertainty of authentic exchanges of information, ideas and concepts. <br /><br />The result for philosophers is wordy, dissociated discourse as their mind goes around in a vicious circle avoiding more fundamental, practical and relevant concepts and applications; concepts and applications that would reveal their fear of their emotions and uncertainty.<br /><br />Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-18079405226259021182015-10-27T15:36:50.909-07:002015-10-27T15:36:50.909-07:00You write: "Most philosophers will tell you t...You write: "Most philosophers will tell you that truth is their goal. They want to know the truth about Knowledge or Existence or Justice. I’m sure this is how they sincerely experience it – but I conjecture that ‘truth’ is only an instrumental goal."<br /><br />I would tend to agree with Nietzsche and Foucault that the quest after philosophical truth is a mask, and that what philosophers are really after is power. The power sought is usually presented as a form of self-mastery, i.e. self-knowledge, but the philosophical kind of self-mastery being advocated (that of pure "inquiry" into knowledge, reality or the good) stems from an unresolved and largely unrecognized anxiety (about mortality and existential contingency). <br /><br />And along those Wittgensteinian lines, I recommend a book by M. Hymers entitled "Philosophy and Its Epistemic Neurosis" (2000, Westview Press). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-88643518805162238802015-10-24T07:01:36.768-07:002015-10-24T07:01:36.768-07:00Amen!Amen!Tamlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09345122059936018977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-33516166428395270212015-10-23T17:49:18.652-07:002015-10-23T17:49:18.652-07:00I've enjoyed this post and others of yours - I...I've enjoyed this post and others of yours - I found the piece on microagression particularly illuminating for me - sorry to see you go.<br /><br />I wonder about your view regarding certainty here. I look to people exploring things like schematics of metaphysical functionalism, the AI control problem, or the many theories of consciousness and I don't see much in the way of certainty. The people working on these problems seem to me to be more-or-less comfortable with uncertainty. If I had to characterize their 'end' it would look to me more like speculative coherence: locating theoretically possible and/or plausible systems (metaphysical, ethical, empirical, what have you) which synthesize a number of ideas while explaining others. The drive towards truth or certainty seemed to me to be more of a trend towards increasing the resolution of these theoretical systems - the drive behind the improvement of the theoretical model being developed, but not its impetus.<br /><br />Anyway, none of this actually counters your points about the degree to which philosophy is out of touch with the world - important points.Adam Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-77101334677064820552015-10-23T06:16:19.080-07:002015-10-23T06:16:19.080-07:00I think the philistines have the better of the phi...I think the philistines have the better of the philosophers when it comes this particular issue. The lay perception is generally that philosophers are very skilled at rationalizing stupidity, that they have locked themselves into a kind of 'sensibility deprivation tank,' and, lacking perspective, crawl out claiming to have had visions.<br /><br />The idea can be summed up as, 'They think where thought ought not go.' I think it's becoming more clear the more we learn about our cognitive capacities that they are right. Philosophy is a cultural 'achievement,' the product of exapting existing cognitive and metacognitive resources to novel tasks. Thousands of years later, and we find ourselves embroiled in versions of the same problems confronting the first philosophers. It seems safe to say that there's a glaring mismatch between our 'cognitive and metacognitive resources' and the tasks we have traditionally charged them with solving. Something is wrong with 'theoretical reflection,' ergo, something is wrong with philosophers.<br /><br />To me, this is the more sober conclusion to draw. Attempting to rehabilitate 'uncertainty' as a virtue strikes me as yet another clever way for philosophers to rationalize persisting in their activity. The time has come to bite bullets, not dip them in more chocolate! <br /><br />Because you know that at some cognitive psychology is going to kick down the door. Philosophy too resembles madness not to find itself medicated in some fashion, eventually.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01149191617296817611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-115437759269356892015-10-22T12:32:47.047-07:002015-10-22T12:32:47.047-07:00I have enjoyed your guest posts, Dr. Rini!
> H...I have enjoyed your guest posts, Dr. Rini!<br /><br />> Hence, their category of the philosophical excludes the empirical, the accidental, and the historically contingent.<br /><br />Theologian Emil Brunner argued this was the case: "in philosophy, history is an alien and an embarrassment"; "personalism is an alien and an embarrassment in philosophy, for one cannot think a person" (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Encounter-New-Divine-Human/dp/B00BIQRWFG/" rel="nofollow">Truth as Encounter</a>, 25–26). However, when I mentioned this to a friend who recently got his PhD from USC, he argued that this is only true of <i>some</i> philosophy. I see your 1 : 6 ratio; how did you arrive at it? If it's just your expert opinion based on pretty decent exposure to what goes in philosophy that's fine, but I'm just curious about figuring out what domain you're averaging over and how reliable you think your sample set is. :-)<br /><br />> This brings me to the other sense of philosophy’s ‘end’: where does philosophy end up? Where is it located in social space? At the periphery, I think, and trending further so.<br />> [...]<br />> It might mean trading the necessary for the contingent. <br /><br />Curiously enough, I would characterize Americans as not caring enough about theory, which is necessary for long-term thinking. Next quarter's profits and high frequency trading are all the rage. Tomorrow is important; projecting pensions properly with our best guesses at demographic shifts is not valued.<br /><br />What if our problem is actually properly balancing the necessary and the contingent? We could talk about William James' dichotomy of "tender-minded rationalist" vs. "tough-minded empiricist" in his <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm" rel="nofollow">Pragmatism</a>, for example. I'm not necessarily advocating for pragmatism, but instead giving due weight to the one <i>and</i> the many, instead of elevating one and neglecting the other. Theory is important as well as practice, even though practitioners of each like to make fun of the other. I find that <i>both</i> languish when mutual respect is lost and communication breaks down.<br /><br />P.S. Have you come across Robert Burton's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/On-Being-Certain-Believing-Right/dp/031254152X" rel="nofollow">On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not</a>?Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.com