I am glad you've re-established a philosophy gymnasium.
It seems to me that agnosticism and its relationship to what I understand is 'the scientific method' is the requirement of 'verifiability' - the possibilty of repeating an experiment in order to confirm the result. If that is an accurate assessment then perhaps 'doubt' provides the initial impulse to investigate rather than merely accept an issue or phenomenon.
Personally I think the format, which connects to current realities, is a winner.
I think you are correct with regard to doubt as an impulse to investigate. This is what motivated Descartes. Doubt plays a part in what I am presenting here but I'm not sure if I've mentioned it already. If people believe that what they have been told (i.e. verbally or in print) is true they will not be motivated to look for the truth. That's why the term 'healthy scepticism' has been coined. I hope this does not generate too much discussion because I am not fussy on debating through this medium and I am pushed for time. But then, maybe I shouldn't have started a philosophy gymnasium.
With reference to the term "nihilism" I was motivated to look up a precise definition of that (I have several books on the subject which I haven't read yet.) There is no precise definition - it's all one philosopher's opinion after another. As the saying goes, "Everyone has an opinion. Everyone has an asshole. They are both equally important." (Although, of course, some assholes are more important than others to any particular person. LOL)
The problem I have with philosophers is that almost literally nothing in their statements refers to physical reality. It's all abstract concepts that rest on a chain of abstract concepts, none of which can be identified in the real world with precision the same way a concept such as "chair" can be defined, still less a concept such as a wavelength of light. They are all, as Max Stirner called them, "spooks in the head."
Epistemology is one of the worst areas, although it's hard to distinguish it from most of the others. Concepts such as "truth" have literally zero meaning outside of someone's head.
My favorite reference is Superman's "Truth, justice and the American Way". The first two are meaningless and the latter can only be an opinion, probably best operationally described as "get yours by any means necessary."
Which renders all of them utterly useless to me. I don't "believe" anything. I RECOGNIZE scientific facts (to the limits that science can determine them), and human behavior and the consequences of human behavior as illustrated by one's life experiences and more importantly the life experiences of everyone else over human history. Reasoning from that basis is far more productive.
I am an atheist, not an agnostic, because I recognize three things: 1) the same argument that can be made for God can be made for the "Flying Sphaghetti Monster" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster), and 2) we know where religious belief comes from, both psychologically and historically, and 3) there is zero physical evidence in reality for any deity.
As for general agnosticism, this is utterly pointless as are most of the "principles of living" philosophers like to talk about. Only an idiot would be "agnostic" about everything. Sticking a gun up his nose would immediately bring reality to his attention.
If you're going to try with this series of articles to establish some basis for either the Covid conspiracy theorists, the "stolen 2020 election" conspiracy theorists, or the climate change conspiracy theorists, I'm basically going to ignore them. I'll consider any conspiracy theory (I have 9GB of ebooks on conspiracy theorists on my hard drive) but these I've already dismissed as bullshit dredged up by "conservatives" who are probably the least epistemologically sophisticated people on the planet.
Thanks for that. I agree with much of what you have said but there's so much I could take issue with. I've not got the time to deal with it all. I'm not suggesting that we need to be agnostic about everything btw and I've never heard of principles of living philosophers. I'm not using the articles to provide a basis for any conspiracy theories; I am merely showing how fragile and uncertain our claims to know are. I'm not sure what you mean by 'precise' definitions. What makes a definition precise exactly? You are free to ignore the articles, of course, but your opinions will be valued.
The definition of precise: "exact and accurate in form, time, detail, or description". In other words, something you can point to in reality. It doesn't necessarily have to be a physical object, however; it could be an event or a behavior. But it's something that can actually be observed and perhaps measured.
As for philosopher offering principles of living, this is what most of them do. They claim to have a theory that explains this or that and expect it to have an effect on how humans make their decisions. There's nothing wrong with that unless they've merely picked one aspect of reality - or worse, merely a vague concept - and decided to make it the main thing that governs everything and is supposed to influence most decisions. Which is where you get a lot of the main philosophical movements.
The very point of "the unexamined life is not worth living" implies that once you've examined something it tells you how to live. It should, perhaps - but most of the time it doesn't because it's unrelated to actual real life. Which is where one gets the "ivory tower" denigration of philosophers, which is mostly an accurate assessment of most of them.
At least the classical ones were dealing with the real world - except they didn't understand the real world due to lack of science. The post-moderns are even worse - the just decided to ignore science and the real world. The ones influenced by religion are the worst since nothing they say is based on reality,
I generally agree with withholding judgement until one has real facts. And even if I decide that something is "true", i.e., real (a better term) I usually retain a 2% measure of doubt in case a mistake has been made - and with humans, mistakes are frequently made.
There have been a number of "scientific facts" that were overturned by later studies. This is especially true in areas of medicine, but even in physics it has happened. IIRC they taught electron flow incorrectly for decades and now the textbooks come in two editions - one that explains it the first way and one that explains the new way. Nice CYA! Typical human inability to admit a mistake.
Sorry Richard - I have edited this because I misunderstood what you are saying. It appears we both agree that there is no precise definition of nihilism but I am not certain. This is one reason I don't like doing debate through this medium.
What you say about philosophers may be true of some but not all. As a philosopher, I have been involved mainly with philosophising which I feel is useful. I don't try to tell people how to live their lives but I do help them to examine their thinking. It does not follow that once you have examined your life, you are then obliged to live in a certain way. You may decide to live exactly as you had been before this examination. I don't know what you mean by 'real facts'. Are there such things as 'unreal facts'? Surely 'unreal facts' are simply not facts.
You are very critical of philosophers and rightly so but I am just as critical. I left University with three degrees in philosophy including a PhD but I became disillusioned with philosophy and many philosophers - for some of the reasons you have offered. This is why I created 'The Praxis' with the slogan: 'bringing philosophy to life'. This concentrated mainly on philosophising rather philosophy. I taught people to critically examine their thinking which is not the same as imposing certain values on them or telling them how to live their lives. In spite of this, I didn't start thinking clearly until 2019 - but that's a long story.
I do appreciate your comments Richard but I don't always have the time or the inclination to have a debate - so you'll have to forgive me for that.
By the way, the Wikipedia entry on nihilism is instructive on how many different types and sources of the term there are. Perfect example of the problem!
There are many different concepts of nihilism just as there are many different concepts of 'freedom' or 'socialism' and so on. Another issue complicating matters is that concepts change over time. Sociologist Raymond Williams wrote a book called 'Key Words' which illustrated this. He did not deal with concepts of nihilism though.
In the case of nihilism, I presume that someone initially came up with the term. I haven't read the history of the development of the concept yet (I have a couple books on that.) But I presume the concept was developed by someone initially. Yet it seems from casual reading that there is considerable differences - of opinion, again - about that.
There's this guy:
Nihilism by Nolen Gertz
Who explicitly states:
"Nihilism, not unlike time (according to Augustine) or porn (according to the U.S. Supreme Court), is one of those concepts that we are all pretty sure we know the meaning of unless someone asks us to define it. " Which is exactly my point.
And these guys:
A Defence of Nihilism (Routledge Focus on Philosophy) 1st Edition
by James Tartaglia and Tracy Llanera
Or this guy:
A modern nihilism
Marc Krellenstein
Someone had to originate the term and it appears to be this guy - Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi - originated the term, at least in a non-religious sense (apparently there is such), back in The Open Letter to Fichte in 1799. His life and philosophy are explained here:
If you can work your way through that mass of verbiage, you're better at philosophy than I am. It might take me weeks to determine what that guy actually meant (and that's assuming that the guy explaining the guy got it right, which is problematic). And subsequent to that guy, all the other philosophers then made their OWN interpretations of what he meant as filtered through their own psychological, religious and moral biases, not to mention language translations which may or may not have been correct.
Which renders the entire discussion absolutely useless to anyone looking for a practical heuristic to follow.
The other problem I have is the misuse of language: your positing "unreal facts" as opposed to "real facts" is exactly an example. In other words, the fact that I misuse the language by introducing a redundancy in casual conversation produces a quibbling over the term which is what philosophers do, thus further confusing the discussion. They then start building chains of argument which usually involves creating their own definitions of concepts until the edifice looks like the Leaning Tower of Pisa - built on absolutely nothing let alone sand. If you read that verbiage referenced above, I don't see anything that can be referred to as a "concrete".
And then it gets a book published and taught in universities.
A pox on the whole process.
Yes, I don't have time for debate such, either. My own philosophy will be covered in my Substack as yours is in your Substack. Perhaps we can comment on each other in our own Substacks if the need arises.
Sorry Richard, I just realised that you were asking me to comment on something you have written. Have you something specific in mind? If so, can you direct me please. I honestly don't have much spare time, I'm afraid. This is why I try not to get involved in debates.
I'm afraid that I am a little 'infected' by philosophical pedantry but that's an occupational hazard. Facts, by definition, are true or real, so to say of them that they have these qualities is unnecessary. Forgive me.
I don't have my own philosophy btw - I simply employ methods that are common to all those who philosophise. There are plenty of books written about this but my favourite is 'Learning to Philosophise' by ER Emmet. You should be able to get a second hand version. It is old fashioned but clear and sound.
People labelled Conspiracy Theorists are usually skeptics, and as the Australian Skeptics have often proven, they are usually right. The Australian Skeptics offered $A1 million to anyone who could prove that they are psychic. The money is, as yet, unclaimed.
I think you are right, people are labelled 'conspiracy theorists' precisely because they are presenting a narrative that conflicts with the mainstream. Such people are often sceptics in my experience.
I am glad you've re-established a philosophy gymnasium.
It seems to me that agnosticism and its relationship to what I understand is 'the scientific method' is the requirement of 'verifiability' - the possibilty of repeating an experiment in order to confirm the result. If that is an accurate assessment then perhaps 'doubt' provides the initial impulse to investigate rather than merely accept an issue or phenomenon.
Personally I think the format, which connects to current realities, is a winner.
I think you are correct with regard to doubt as an impulse to investigate. This is what motivated Descartes. Doubt plays a part in what I am presenting here but I'm not sure if I've mentioned it already. If people believe that what they have been told (i.e. verbally or in print) is true they will not be motivated to look for the truth. That's why the term 'healthy scepticism' has been coined. I hope this does not generate too much discussion because I am not fussy on debating through this medium and I am pushed for time. But then, maybe I shouldn't have started a philosophy gymnasium.
With reference to the term "nihilism" I was motivated to look up a precise definition of that (I have several books on the subject which I haven't read yet.) There is no precise definition - it's all one philosopher's opinion after another. As the saying goes, "Everyone has an opinion. Everyone has an asshole. They are both equally important." (Although, of course, some assholes are more important than others to any particular person. LOL)
The problem I have with philosophers is that almost literally nothing in their statements refers to physical reality. It's all abstract concepts that rest on a chain of abstract concepts, none of which can be identified in the real world with precision the same way a concept such as "chair" can be defined, still less a concept such as a wavelength of light. They are all, as Max Stirner called them, "spooks in the head."
Epistemology is one of the worst areas, although it's hard to distinguish it from most of the others. Concepts such as "truth" have literally zero meaning outside of someone's head.
My favorite reference is Superman's "Truth, justice and the American Way". The first two are meaningless and the latter can only be an opinion, probably best operationally described as "get yours by any means necessary."
Which renders all of them utterly useless to me. I don't "believe" anything. I RECOGNIZE scientific facts (to the limits that science can determine them), and human behavior and the consequences of human behavior as illustrated by one's life experiences and more importantly the life experiences of everyone else over human history. Reasoning from that basis is far more productive.
I am an atheist, not an agnostic, because I recognize three things: 1) the same argument that can be made for God can be made for the "Flying Sphaghetti Monster" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster), and 2) we know where religious belief comes from, both psychologically and historically, and 3) there is zero physical evidence in reality for any deity.
As for general agnosticism, this is utterly pointless as are most of the "principles of living" philosophers like to talk about. Only an idiot would be "agnostic" about everything. Sticking a gun up his nose would immediately bring reality to his attention.
If you're going to try with this series of articles to establish some basis for either the Covid conspiracy theorists, the "stolen 2020 election" conspiracy theorists, or the climate change conspiracy theorists, I'm basically going to ignore them. I'll consider any conspiracy theory (I have 9GB of ebooks on conspiracy theorists on my hard drive) but these I've already dismissed as bullshit dredged up by "conservatives" who are probably the least epistemologically sophisticated people on the planet.
Thanks for that. I agree with much of what you have said but there's so much I could take issue with. I've not got the time to deal with it all. I'm not suggesting that we need to be agnostic about everything btw and I've never heard of principles of living philosophers. I'm not using the articles to provide a basis for any conspiracy theories; I am merely showing how fragile and uncertain our claims to know are. I'm not sure what you mean by 'precise' definitions. What makes a definition precise exactly? You are free to ignore the articles, of course, but your opinions will be valued.
Got motivated to look up that last part. This is what I was talking about:
Conventional Current vs. Electron Flow: Which is Correct?
https://www.circuitcrush.com/conventional-current-vs-electron-flow/
The definition of precise: "exact and accurate in form, time, detail, or description". In other words, something you can point to in reality. It doesn't necessarily have to be a physical object, however; it could be an event or a behavior. But it's something that can actually be observed and perhaps measured.
As for philosopher offering principles of living, this is what most of them do. They claim to have a theory that explains this or that and expect it to have an effect on how humans make their decisions. There's nothing wrong with that unless they've merely picked one aspect of reality - or worse, merely a vague concept - and decided to make it the main thing that governs everything and is supposed to influence most decisions. Which is where you get a lot of the main philosophical movements.
The very point of "the unexamined life is not worth living" implies that once you've examined something it tells you how to live. It should, perhaps - but most of the time it doesn't because it's unrelated to actual real life. Which is where one gets the "ivory tower" denigration of philosophers, which is mostly an accurate assessment of most of them.
At least the classical ones were dealing with the real world - except they didn't understand the real world due to lack of science. The post-moderns are even worse - the just decided to ignore science and the real world. The ones influenced by religion are the worst since nothing they say is based on reality,
I generally agree with withholding judgement until one has real facts. And even if I decide that something is "true", i.e., real (a better term) I usually retain a 2% measure of doubt in case a mistake has been made - and with humans, mistakes are frequently made.
There have been a number of "scientific facts" that were overturned by later studies. This is especially true in areas of medicine, but even in physics it has happened. IIRC they taught electron flow incorrectly for decades and now the textbooks come in two editions - one that explains it the first way and one that explains the new way. Nice CYA! Typical human inability to admit a mistake.
Sorry Richard - I have edited this because I misunderstood what you are saying. It appears we both agree that there is no precise definition of nihilism but I am not certain. This is one reason I don't like doing debate through this medium.
What you say about philosophers may be true of some but not all. As a philosopher, I have been involved mainly with philosophising which I feel is useful. I don't try to tell people how to live their lives but I do help them to examine their thinking. It does not follow that once you have examined your life, you are then obliged to live in a certain way. You may decide to live exactly as you had been before this examination. I don't know what you mean by 'real facts'. Are there such things as 'unreal facts'? Surely 'unreal facts' are simply not facts.
You are very critical of philosophers and rightly so but I am just as critical. I left University with three degrees in philosophy including a PhD but I became disillusioned with philosophy and many philosophers - for some of the reasons you have offered. This is why I created 'The Praxis' with the slogan: 'bringing philosophy to life'. This concentrated mainly on philosophising rather philosophy. I taught people to critically examine their thinking which is not the same as imposing certain values on them or telling them how to live their lives. In spite of this, I didn't start thinking clearly until 2019 - but that's a long story.
I do appreciate your comments Richard but I don't always have the time or the inclination to have a debate - so you'll have to forgive me for that.
By the way, the Wikipedia entry on nihilism is instructive on how many different types and sources of the term there are. Perfect example of the problem!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
There are many different concepts of nihilism just as there are many different concepts of 'freedom' or 'socialism' and so on. Another issue complicating matters is that concepts change over time. Sociologist Raymond Williams wrote a book called 'Key Words' which illustrated this. He did not deal with concepts of nihilism though.
In the case of nihilism, I presume that someone initially came up with the term. I haven't read the history of the development of the concept yet (I have a couple books on that.) But I presume the concept was developed by someone initially. Yet it seems from casual reading that there is considerable differences - of opinion, again - about that.
There's this guy:
Nihilism by Nolen Gertz
Who explicitly states:
"Nihilism, not unlike time (according to Augustine) or porn (according to the U.S. Supreme Court), is one of those concepts that we are all pretty sure we know the meaning of unless someone asks us to define it. " Which is exactly my point.
And these guys:
A Defence of Nihilism (Routledge Focus on Philosophy) 1st Edition
by James Tartaglia and Tracy Llanera
Or this guy:
A modern nihilism
Marc Krellenstein
Someone had to originate the term and it appears to be this guy - Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi - originated the term, at least in a non-religious sense (apparently there is such), back in The Open Letter to Fichte in 1799. His life and philosophy are explained here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-jacobi/
If you can work your way through that mass of verbiage, you're better at philosophy than I am. It might take me weeks to determine what that guy actually meant (and that's assuming that the guy explaining the guy got it right, which is problematic). And subsequent to that guy, all the other philosophers then made their OWN interpretations of what he meant as filtered through their own psychological, religious and moral biases, not to mention language translations which may or may not have been correct.
Which renders the entire discussion absolutely useless to anyone looking for a practical heuristic to follow.
The other problem I have is the misuse of language: your positing "unreal facts" as opposed to "real facts" is exactly an example. In other words, the fact that I misuse the language by introducing a redundancy in casual conversation produces a quibbling over the term which is what philosophers do, thus further confusing the discussion. They then start building chains of argument which usually involves creating their own definitions of concepts until the edifice looks like the Leaning Tower of Pisa - built on absolutely nothing let alone sand. If you read that verbiage referenced above, I don't see anything that can be referred to as a "concrete".
And then it gets a book published and taught in universities.
A pox on the whole process.
Yes, I don't have time for debate such, either. My own philosophy will be covered in my Substack as yours is in your Substack. Perhaps we can comment on each other in our own Substacks if the need arises.
Sorry Richard, I just realised that you were asking me to comment on something you have written. Have you something specific in mind? If so, can you direct me please. I honestly don't have much spare time, I'm afraid. This is why I try not to get involved in debates.
I'm afraid that I am a little 'infected' by philosophical pedantry but that's an occupational hazard. Facts, by definition, are true or real, so to say of them that they have these qualities is unnecessary. Forgive me.
I don't have my own philosophy btw - I simply employ methods that are common to all those who philosophise. There are plenty of books written about this but my favourite is 'Learning to Philosophise' by ER Emmet. You should be able to get a second hand version. It is old fashioned but clear and sound.
Nope, didn't ask you to comment, just provided some additional info to my previous comment. I'll look into that Emmet book. Thanks.
Thanks for that Richard.
People labelled Conspiracy Theorists are usually skeptics, and as the Australian Skeptics have often proven, they are usually right. The Australian Skeptics offered $A1 million to anyone who could prove that they are psychic. The money is, as yet, unclaimed.
I think you are right, people are labelled 'conspiracy theorists' precisely because they are presenting a narrative that conflicts with the mainstream. Such people are often sceptics in my experience.