7 ms·

To be honest, it seems very superficial to me - like most philosophy. It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the prem

by Tichy 15y ago

To be honest, it seems very superficial to me - like most philosophy. It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all. To me the interesting bit is "why does the brain want to process symbols". Which is probably better answered by evolution theory than by philosophy. Another example of the shallowness of philosophy: "I think, therefore I am". Again, an arbitrary premise. What does it mean to exist? Again, philosophy does not seem to be interested.

philbarr 15y ago
I thought, "I think, therefore I am" was an answer to the question, "how do I know what is real and what is not?" So, for example, we're all stuck in some virtual reality world and everything is fake, how would we know? How do we even know, for that matter, that we ourselves our real? Well, we're wondering about it, so therefore we ourselves are definitely real in some way, even if everything else is fake - "I think, therefore I am" Although most philosophy never draws a conclusion, I actually quite like this "proof". And further, just because philosophy rarely draws conclusions, it doesn't mean it's not worth thinking about, if just for the fun of it.
- Tichy 15y ago
  I have studied maths, and I enjoy thinking logically. The difference is that while mathematical axioms are also arbitrary, they never claim to not be arbitrary. Therefore it seems more honest to me.
  - Locke1689 15y ago
    Mathematics axioms aren't arbitrary in the same way philosophical axioms aren't arbitrary. Mathematical axioms are chosen for many reasons, one of which is that they are useful.
thrdOriginal 15y ago
I realize it is easy to pick on philosphy, but if you're going to write off one of our oldest disciplines it should at least come from an informed place: "I think therefore I am" is not Descartes' premise, but one of his conclusions. Even as a conclusion, it is mostly misunderstood. The point is not that it is the thinking that brings one into being, but that there is something there that must exist in order to do the thinking. Other translations I have read have it "I am deceived, therefore I am," again the point being that something must first exist in order to be deceived. His original "arbitary premise" is that he must first discard everything he thinks he already knows.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Still, he dodges the question as to what it means that something exists. But I admit I haven't really read him. It is just that whenever I pick up a philosophy book (very rarely), I tend to hit upon false premises immediately.
  - rfrey 15y ago
    Whenever I pick up a maths book, I read all these symbols that have no explanation whatsoever - it's obviously self-indulgent wanking. I admit I don't actually read the book, though, I just open it. But I can tell the symbols aren't english, or any other language I learned before my mind closed, so I can tell it's dross.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      Well name a philosophy book that is worth reading. Maths books don't claim to be anything but self-indulgent.
      - telemachos 15y ago
        Given your comments, I'm would recommend W.V. Quine (staunchly realist, writes wonderfully clearly, very rigorous, a logician at heart). A good collection of basic essays is Quintessence, and a good first essay might be 'On What There Is'[1][2]. (Arguably his most important book-length work is Word and Object, but I wouldn't recommend starting there.) Here's the first paragraph (complete) to give you a sense of how well he writes: >> A curious thing about the ontological problem is its simplicity. It can be put in three Anglo-Saxon monosyllables: ‘What is there?’ It can be answered, moreover, in a word—‘Everything’—and everyone will accept this answer as true. However, this is merely to say that there is what there is. There remains room for disagreement over cases; and so the issue has stayed alive down the centuries. [1] Online: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is [2] Original source: http://www.jstor.org/pss/20123117 http://www.jstor.org/pss/20123117
calibraxis 15y ago
Actually, philosophers do seem to be interested in questions of existence. For example, Bertrand Russell probably mentioned that "I think, therefore I am" is wrong — what does "I" mean? Particularly if the mind is a collection of things, and the notion of "I" is a useful illusion, an oversimplification. Maybe an improvement is, "Something thinks, therefore it is." I think that there's various parts of philosophy, and not all topics will interest any given person, nor will the work of all philosophers. Maybe various institutions (like universities and priesthoods of professional philosophers) promote practices one doesn't like, like big software companies enforcing only Java-the-language. But I think the subject naturally attracts people who ask themselves why they're doing what they're doing, and other such questions.
danenania 15y ago
"What does it mean to exist? Again, philosophy does not seem to be interested." Seriously? A monumentally vast number of volumes have been written by philosophers on what it means to exist. I find this sort of academic partisanship bizarre. There are no rigid distinctions between philosophy and science. They are both attempts to gain knowledge and insight about the universe, and their methods largely overlap. It could be argued that science is a subset of philosophy. By the way, your critique of philosophy is itself a piece of philosophy. Critiquing philosophy is one of philosophy's favorite pastimes.
- Tichy 15y ago
  But they all start with the premise that they exist.
  - danenania 15y ago
    That's false.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      Name some philosophers worth reading, then.
      - yters 15y ago
        Aristotle and Aquinas have informed my thinking significantly. Much more so than math and physics.
  - somephilosopher 15y ago
    In the example you yourself gave of 'I think therefore I am', the claim following 'therefore' is a conclusion, not a premise. So no, Descartes didn't start with the premise that he existed.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      He seems to assume that because he (what?) can think, he exists. Either he has an implicit assumption about what it means to exist (which he never describes, and which is therefore useless to me), or his definition of exist is "can think", in which case the famous proof would be trivial and useless (it would boil down to "I exist therefore I exist"). I already see many people here don't understand what I mean, but this is the kind of thing that makes most philosophers useless to me.
rektide 15y ago
It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all. I think you are far off the mark. Want may well be tangential. The brain is a symbol processor; that's all it knows how to do. If there aren't positive feedbacks in place to encourage it to do what it does, this sole ability will atrophy and decay. Here's is your much vaunted evolution, in 36 words. The philosopher in me would much rather interrogate the implications and dynamics that this situation creates, and accept apriori what I see as self evident facts of creation.

by Tichy 15y ago

philbarr 15y ago

I thought, "I think, therefore I am" was an answer to the question, "how do I know what is real and what is not?" So, for example, we're all stuck in some virtual reality world and everything is fake, how would we know? How do we even know, for that matter, that we ourselves our real? Well, we're wondering about it, so therefore we ourselves are definitely real in some way, even if everything else is fake - "I think, therefore I am" Although most philosophy never draws a conclusion, I actually quite like this "proof". And further, just because philosophy rarely draws conclusions, it doesn't mean it's not worth thinking about, if just for the fun of it.

Tichy 15y ago
I have studied maths, and I enjoy thinking logically. The difference is that while mathematical axioms are also arbitrary, they never claim to not be arbitrary. Therefore it seems more honest to me.
- Locke1689 15y ago
  Mathematics axioms aren't arbitrary in the same way philosophical axioms aren't arbitrary. Mathematical axioms are chosen for many reasons, one of which is that they are useful.

thrdOriginal 15y ago

I realize it is easy to pick on philosphy, but if you're going to write off one of our oldest disciplines it should at least come from an informed place: "I think therefore I am" is not Descartes' premise, but one of his conclusions. Even as a conclusion, it is mostly misunderstood. The point is not that it is the thinking that brings one into being, but that there is something there that must exist in order to do the thinking. Other translations I have read have it "I am deceived, therefore I am," again the point being that something must first exist in order to be deceived. His original "arbitary premise" is that he must first discard everything he thinks he already knows.

Tichy 15y ago
Still, he dodges the question as to what it means that something exists. But I admit I haven't really read him. It is just that whenever I pick up a philosophy book (very rarely), I tend to hit upon false premises immediately.
- rfrey 15y ago
  Whenever I pick up a maths book, I read all these symbols that have no explanation whatsoever - it's obviously self-indulgent wanking. I admit I don't actually read the book, though, I just open it. But I can tell the symbols aren't english, or any other language I learned before my mind closed, so I can tell it's dross.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Well name a philosophy book that is worth reading. Maths books don't claim to be anything but self-indulgent.
    - telemachos 15y ago
      Given your comments, I'm would recommend W.V. Quine (staunchly realist, writes wonderfully clearly, very rigorous, a logician at heart). A good collection of basic essays is Quintessence, and a good first essay might be 'On What There Is'[1][2]. (Arguably his most important book-length work is Word and Object, but I wouldn't recommend starting there.) Here's the first paragraph (complete) to give you a sense of how well he writes: >> A curious thing about the ontological problem is its simplicity. It can be put in three Anglo-Saxon monosyllables: ‘What is there?’ It can be answered, moreover, in a word—‘Everything’—and everyone will accept this answer as true. However, this is merely to say that there is what there is. There remains room for disagreement over cases; and so the issue has stayed alive down the centuries. [1] Online: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is [2] Original source: http://www.jstor.org/pss/20123117 http://www.jstor.org/pss/20123117

calibraxis 15y ago

Actually, philosophers do seem to be interested in questions of existence. For example, Bertrand Russell probably mentioned that "I think, therefore I am" is wrong — what does "I" mean? Particularly if the mind is a collection of things, and the notion of "I" is a useful illusion, an oversimplification. Maybe an improvement is, "Something thinks, therefore it is." I think that there's various parts of philosophy, and not all topics will interest any given person, nor will the work of all philosophers. Maybe various institutions (like universities and priesthoods of professional philosophers) promote practices one doesn't like, like big software companies enforcing only Java-the-language. But I think the subject naturally attracts people who ask themselves why they're doing what they're doing, and other such questions.

danenania 15y ago

"What does it mean to exist? Again, philosophy does not seem to be interested." Seriously? A monumentally vast number of volumes have been written by philosophers on what it means to exist. I find this sort of academic partisanship bizarre. There are no rigid distinctions between philosophy and science. They are both attempts to gain knowledge and insight about the universe, and their methods largely overlap. It could be argued that science is a subset of philosophy. By the way, your critique of philosophy is itself a piece of philosophy. Critiquing philosophy is one of philosophy's favorite pastimes.

Tichy 15y ago
But they all start with the premise that they exist.
- danenania 15y ago
  That's false.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Name some philosophers worth reading, then.
    - yters 15y ago
      Aristotle and Aquinas have informed my thinking significantly. Much more so than math and physics.
- somephilosopher 15y ago
  In the example you yourself gave of 'I think therefore I am', the claim following 'therefore' is a conclusion, not a premise. So no, Descartes didn't start with the premise that he existed.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    He seems to assume that because he (what?) can think, he exists. Either he has an implicit assumption about what it means to exist (which he never describes, and which is therefore useless to me), or his definition of exist is "can think", in which case the famous proof would be trivial and useless (it would boil down to "I exist therefore I exist"). I already see many people here don't understand what I mean, but this is the kind of thing that makes most philosophers useless to me.

rektide 15y ago

It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all. I think you are far off the mark. Want may well be tangential. The brain is a symbol processor; that's all it knows how to do. If there aren't positive feedbacks in place to encourage it to do what it does, this sole ability will atrophy and decay. Here's is your much vaunted evolution, in 36 words. The philosopher in me would much rather interrogate the implications and dynamics that this situation creates, and accept apriori what I see as self evident facts of creation.