Thanks!

Hey All,
Before I leave this forum for good(probably), I'd like to express what I've learned from you people.

1. Most of you view the world of philosophy (and I'm sure other things too) backwards. I'm sure I'm guilty of this in everyday life, but not in philosophy [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].
Most of you start with an agenda, and then try to prove it.
At first I tried to engage in your discussions, trying to steer some of you in the right direction, but I've found that to be exhausting and pointless.

2.At first I thought Sklansky knew what he was talking about. He's an example of how intelligence isn't the only thing needed to "get it".

3. "Getting it" doesn't have anything to do with success in real life. Good thing for you guys.

Shooby

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
At first I tried to engage in your discussions, trying to steer some of you in the right direction…

[/ QUOTE ]

What direction was that again?

[Aytumious]

Glad you enjoyed your stay! Come back anytime.

[bearly]

shooby, you are a very perceptive, if not wise, man. i have done the unacceptable: suggested that it might be productive to agree upon the logic of the situation, and proceed w/out prejudice to, as one of the guests at william james' regular gatherings said " thrash the truth out of the matter". as for sir sklansky---poker player of the highest order. statistics, game theory, probability....he's the boss. now when it comes to philosophy, or what i would prefer to call "untangling conceptual confusion", he falls just a bit short. good luck my friend in spirit.......i may join you in disappointment............b

[chezlaw]

Like that conversation on personal identity when you insisted there was no such thing (your agenda I presume) but didn't follow through on a real discussion, which was barely getting started?

Anyway I think your wrong. Dialetic philosophy is hard to do unless someone takes a position and then tries to defend it logicaly. There's no reason why it cant work that way round. Intellectual honesty is the main requirement.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
shooby, you are a very perceptive, if not wise, man. i have done the unacceptable: suggested that it might be productive to agree upon the logic of the situation, and proceed w/out prejudice to, as one of the guests at william james' regular gatherings said " thrash the truth out of the matter". as for sir sklansky---poker player of the highest order. statistics, game theory, probability....he's the boss. now when it comes to philosophy, or what i would prefer to call "untangling conceptual confusion", he falls just a bit short. good luck my friend in spirit.......i may join you in disappointment............b

[/ QUOTE ]

You speak like you know how it should be done. Why not start a thread on a topic of your choice and give it a go. maybe good topics would be:

How much specificity is required?
Why starting from a given position + intellectual honesty isn't enough?

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
"untangling conceptual confusion"

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicely put, bear. There may be two types of philosophers - those who would mostly enjoy answers to some tough questions and those who mostly enjoy a thorough search for those answers. I suspect I fall into the latter camp.

Some standard philosophical questions do simply exist because of conceptual confusion...
- The book "Goodbye Descartes" is built on a simple equivocation fallacy.
- The tree in the forest old chestnut is built on a false unstated premise ( falling trees don't make sounds even if the whole town hears it).
..would be two examples of that.

chez makes this point
[ QUOTE ]
In rational debate the idea is to get to a situation where we agree on the assumptions and then determine which conclusions follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

which is why so many discussions on here would not qualify as rational .. it's very difficult to get somebody to lay out their premises and define their terms. That's not to say they aren't entertaining and there certainly are some good points made but we'd be thrown out of the Marquis of Queensbury ring.

well, I hope Shooby gives us a little ring room, or maybe switches to rope-a-dope tactics,

luckyme,
.. if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez makes this point

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In rational debate the idea is to get to a situation where we agree on the assumptions and then determine which conclusions follow.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



which is why so many discussions on here would not qualify as rational .. it's very difficult to get somebody to lay out their premises and define their terms. That's not to say they aren't entertaining and there certainly are some good points made but we'd be thrown out of the Marquis of Queensbury ring.

[/ QUOTE ]
There has to be some balance, dont you think? The idea is to get to that situation. Until we've got to it, we are not in a position to start from it.

So, unless we've already done it before we start from a stated position and work backwards.

This is tough both on the intellect and ego and some have no interest in it anyway. I still think there is plenty of it going on and instead of criticising where it is missing it would be better to contribute.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
which is why so many discussions on here would not qualify as rational .. it's very difficult to get somebody to lay out their premises and define their terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. I've tried to get people to do that, but they don't answer, or do so equivocally. I think the vast majority of disagreements are due to a difference of terminology. That's why it's very important to clearly define what you mean by ambiguous terms... else the discussion is pointless.

Eg:

A: "I think murder is absolutely wrong."
B: "What about in the case of war, or self-defense?"
A: "Then it would be 'killing', not 'murder'."
B: "So, what do you mean by 'murder'?"
A: "Murder is wrongful killing."
B: "Oh, in that case, I agree."

[RJT]

I am not quite sure the point. If one is looking for answers - I don’t think one can find them, only choices.
If one thinks one has the answer (for all) he is wrong. If he is not wrong then prove it - prove how one can say “I have the answer”.

If one thinks one’s choice is the right one then lay out the argument. That is all we have been doing in our discussions. Sure, along the way there have been some diversions (miscommunications, misunderstandings and the like).

Not really sure what Shooby expected and even what he is saying about his (reason) for his departure.

But, I do know this, and I‘ve said it before: This is the Hotel California. He can check out, but he can never leave.