9 ms·

> Yes, they do. You ignored the part of the statement where I then said (to then say "And this is why the world should be switch to socialism" or "this is why

by stale2002 4y ago

> Yes, they do. You ignored the part of the statement where I then said (to then say "And this is why the world should be switch to socialism" or "this is why you should be a vegan".) > Plenty of abstract mathematical concepts have zero connection to anything in nature or in the physical world. Ok, and whether or not we say that this mathematical model is "real" or not, in some abstract sense, will not result in the mathematician telling me to be a vegan. Basically, I can say "sure, your math model is real, in your own self defined axiom, but I can simply not care, or change any behavior, and thats fine". > that your argument rests upon the simple fact of calling their arguments circular So, the point of calling them circular, is that the philosophers I am referring to, aren't happy with me saying "Those are just axioms that you have. Sure, whatever, they are 'true' in a way that doesn't matter at all, outside of your own set of made up axioms, and if I don't have your axioms then I can simply not care, and there is nothing provable wrong with that". The problematic philosophers I am talking about are the ones who are not just saying "here is a set of consistent axioms". Instead, the problamatic ones I am talking about are the ones who say "These axioms are true, because the universe said so, and therefore you should be a socialist/vegan/ancap/whatever", and they pretend like that is the same thing as using some chemistry knowledge, that is used to make rocketships. > Nobody said you "have to listen" to anyone. You don't have to listen to scientists, mathematicians, ect If I don't listen to scientists, or mathematicians, when trying to build a rocketship, then my rocketship might explode. If I don't listen to a philosopher's argument about how a dualism magic soul exists, nothing happens. No rockets explode. I just make the philosopher upset that I am not becoming a vegan because they think the universe proves their axioms correct. > could equally apply to any other discipline with 'circular' axioms, such as physics Once again, thats fine! Because if we say that some set of untestable axioms isn't real, the physicist isn't going to get upset, and say that I am evil for not supporting whatever political argument they are making, because the universe proves them true. Its all just axioms. Mine are just as good as theirs. Philosophers have no authority on any of this. > You're assuming your own axioms here. Hey we've finally gotten there! Thats fine! Lets just say it is axioms all the way down, and nobody should listen to someone claiming that their axioms are proved to be true by the laws of the universe. Thats the difference. I am not going to go around claiming that the universe proves my axioms. You have axioms. I have axioms. And philosophers have axioms. And just because someone is a philosopher, it does not mean that they can then wield that, and say that the universe proves their axioms true, and therefore thats why I have to support policy X or Y. Just call it all axioms, and admit that philosophers aren't any better than anyone else's set of circular axioms, and call it a day!

claudiawerner 4y ago
Okay, say a philosopher makes an argument for why we should switch to socialism, or become vegans. These arguments would go something like: "Socialism is good because it's a more equitable distribution of resources, which leads to greater happiness and a society with less poverty because xyz." "Veganism is good because it reduces the harm done to animals and the harm done to humans working in the meat industry, who have far increased rates of PTSD compared to the general population." These arguments will only convince you if (i) you think an equitable distribution of resources is better (ii) less poverty is better (iii) xyz is a convincing reason to think there would be less poverty (iv) harm to animals should be reduced (v) harm to humans should be reduced (vi) incidence of PTSD should be reduced. These philosophers do not say there is some law of the universe which mandates that less poverty is better, or that PTSD is bad. The reasons why you should think those things, they would say, are second-order reasons. There may be some other paper arguing why PTSD in society is a net negative. That paper would ultimately read something like "icreased PTSD rates lead to increased rate of suicide/lower economic efficiency/harm to other humans". There is no single argument why harming other humans is wrong, only axioms that we would take as our priors, just as we take it that "A != !A". They just seem right, and you don't have to subscribe to them yourself. Unlike religion, all philosophers can say is "it would be advantageous to generally valued goals X,Y,Z that we take these axioms for granted". It turns out that enough people share these axioms for this philosophical work to be useful for navigating difficult questions even given those axioms. Again, you don't have to share the axioms, but if you do, a logical argument can be produced from them, one which it would be to your embarrassment to ignore without any refutation, still assuming that you hold the axioms yourself. Again, you need not do so. Similarly, the advice from a physicist about the heat tolerance of the hull of your rocket ship would need to balance both economic and other interests. If you don't care about going into debt, you can sey hell to the economic arguments, and use the best materials possible. If you don't even care about your ship launching, you can say hell to the physical arguments about tensile strength. What I'm trying to convince you of is that philosophy is about as useful as any other field of inquiry in the sense that it attempts to argue from axioms most people hold already (therefore it is not a niche field) and it produces conclusions that such people can use in making choices day to day (therefore it is not a useless field). I think that no matter what particular axioms you hold, there is some philosophy which argues from those axioms out there somewhere. You yourself make philosophy. I'm not producing an argument from authority here. Can you cite a philosopher arguing that the universe itself mandates that veganism is correct?

claudiawerner 4y ago

Okay, say a philosopher makes an argument for why we should switch to socialism, or become vegans. These arguments would go something like: "Socialism is good because it's a more equitable distribution of resources, which leads to greater happiness and a society with less poverty because xyz." "Veganism is good because it reduces the harm done to animals and the harm done to humans working in the meat industry, who have far increased rates of PTSD compared to the general population." These arguments will only convince you if (i) you think an equitable distribution of resources is better (ii) less poverty is better (iii) xyz is a convincing reason to think there would be less poverty (iv) harm to animals should be reduced (v) harm to humans should be reduced (vi) incidence of PTSD should be reduced. These philosophers do not say there is some law of the universe which mandates that less poverty is better, or that PTSD is bad. The reasons why you should think those things, they would say, are second-order reasons. There may be some other paper arguing why PTSD in society is a net negative. That paper would ultimately read something like "icreased PTSD rates lead to increased rate of suicide/lower economic efficiency/harm to other humans". There is no single argument why harming other humans is wrong, only axioms that we would take as our priors, just as we take it that "A != !A". They just seem right, and you don't have to subscribe to them yourself. Unlike religion, all philosophers can say is "it would be advantageous to generally valued goals X,Y,Z that we take these axioms for granted". It turns out that enough people share these axioms for this philosophical work to be useful for navigating difficult questions even given those axioms. Again, you don't have to share the axioms, but if you do, a logical argument can be produced from them, one which it would be to your embarrassment to ignore without any refutation, still assuming that you hold the axioms yourself. Again, you need not do so. Similarly, the advice from a physicist about the heat tolerance of the hull of your rocket ship would need to balance both economic and other interests. If you don't care about going into debt, you can sey hell to the economic arguments, and use the best materials possible. If you don't even care about your ship launching, you can say hell to the physical arguments about tensile strength. What I'm trying to convince you of is that philosophy is about as useful as any other field of inquiry in the sense that it attempts to argue from axioms most people hold already (therefore it is not a niche field) and it produces conclusions that such people can use in making choices day to day (therefore it is not a useless field). I think that no matter what particular axioms you hold, there is some philosophy which argues from those axioms out there somewhere. You yourself make philosophy. I'm not producing an argument from authority here. Can you cite a philosopher arguing that the universe itself mandates that veganism is correct?