[Bups-dis] a late reply

[lj lj]

Greetings,

First off, I'm in the middle of changing ISP's at the moment and so my 
e-mail has just changed to a temporary account (but be assured this is still 
me).
-

I'm not sure that you have followed the argument that I gave. My point was 
that specific procedures (which would include best practices of reasoning) 
aren't identical with philosophy. For if they were we wouldn't have the 
meta-analytical ability to critique our own reasoning which is the 
corner-stone of philosophy.
After all, we can an do use the law of the excluded middle and the law of 
non-contradiction in our reasoning as it is applied to philosophical 
problems and everyday problems but depending on ones other views one might 
need to re-evaluate ones commitment to those axioms. If the procedures of 
reasoning just ARE philosophy then there is an identity between a given set 
axioms of the reasoning and philosophy. But if that's right then the 
identity is necessary and it cannot be false that the given set of axioms is 
identical to philosophy. It is, I think, clear that one can abandon, modify 
or re-interpret certain axioms (and even create new ones) and yet still be 
doing philosophy. Therefore a given set of axioms cannot be identical with 
philosophy. And if that's right then my claim that the reasoning used in 
everyday life is not the same (read: identical) as philosophy stands.

Secondly, I think that the distinction that you are driving at is between 
artifice and teleology (or something like that). I'm not sure how the 
distinction helps though because it's not at all clear whether purposes are 
really object things. I mean if you are into teleology then maybe you might 
think that there is some end for each thing by virtue of its nature, or 
something like that. But is there any reason for thinking that given my 
examples? I mean what gives one interpretation priority over the other? My 
example involves a highly artificial and contrived environment (the online 
world) and so it seems a real stretch to, for example, say that we might 
judge priority based on which is the 'natural' purpose. And temporal 
considerations seems useless since it might well be a fluke that something 
was used as an A before it was used as a B since it easily have been the 
other way around. And intentions don't seems to help either because they can 
cut both ways- e.g. if one was a psychopath one might believe that the bones 
of other people had the purpose of enhancing your mojo- or something to that 
effect (you get the idea).
But even if there is are objective purposes that still wouldn't answer the 
question that I posed at the very beginning of the thread, which was whether 
Sophie wanted to know what the purpose of philosophy IS or what it OUGHT to 
be. For there's nothing about a thing having an objective purpose which 
rules out that purpose changing. In order for that possibility to be ruled 
out one has to add the additional premise that the purpose is a necessary 
part of its nature.

Thirdly, I started studying philosophy because it interested me. I find it 
challenging; and like many forms of training (philosophy being a kind of 
mental training) the difficulty can be varied depending on how committed I 
am. The benefit lays in the result of the difficulty. When we face 
challenges we can either step up or stay as we are. When we step up we have 
to push beyond our comfort zone and become a stronger person (this applies 
equally well to physical and spiritual matters too). And it is by becoming a 
stronger and better person that I am both improving myself and gaining the 
ability to help others.
I think that this would be my reply to Sophie's question. Namely, that I 
approach philosophy (and everything I do) in this way and for those reasons. 
The particular choice of Philosophy as a means to that end is contingent 
upon my desires and inclinations (maybe in another life I'd be more 
interested in social work- who knows?) and thus philosophy is only important 
to me so far as it is a means to the achievement of the aforementioned aims. 
And I think that's what really bugs some people- namely, that philosophy 
doesn't seems to make one a better person (studying ethics, for example, 
certainly doesn't make one more ethical or moral)- and I think that there is 
a very strong intuition and or expectation that it SHOULD. Now, I'm not 
going to try to defend that intuition because it may well be that some 
people just have an overly romanticized view of what they think philosophy 
ought to be, inculcated by a general ignorance about what philosophy is (and 
probably an over-contact with some of the more accessible works of the 
Continental tradition- which tend to deal more with existential issues).
For my own part I think that people should be attempting to better 
themselves and others and, frankly, I don't see that as an intuition that is 
in need of a defence. I also think that philosophy can help achieve that end 
but also that many other things could achieve the same end. As far as I'm 
concerned, if Philosophy helps me become that better man that I hope that I 
can be then great but, if not, I'll seek out something that can because 
otherwise I'm wasting my time doing something which isn't helping me achieve 
my aim when I could be doing something that does. And yes, I do see it as a 
moral responsibility to improve oneself and others; and by proxy I think 
it's a moral responsibility to seek out those means that will improve the 
chances of achieving those aims and I thus think that it's morally 
irresponsible not to do so. Of course, I'm not saying that one shouldn't do 
anything that doesn't achieve those aims but they certainly ought to be a 
priority.
Perhaps that sounds a bit harsh- where's all the fun, I hear you say? Well, 
philosophy is fun for me to do and so my aims and fun can coincide. But I 
think that the problems today are often caused because people don't give a 
damn about each other and are too caught up with their own lives. What I'm 
talking about indeed requires one to put those petty interests on the 
back-burner somewhat but only insofar that it allows us to become better 
people once we are freed of our selfish and self-indulgent behaviours. I do 
strongly think that when we care about other people we become better people 
ourselves but this is not to be confused with empathizing. It's easy to 
'feel' for other people but if you really care about them, if you really 
give a damn then you will do something about it. And, as I see it, the 
strengthening of Self (body, Mind, Spirit etc.) is exactly what one needs to 
do if one wants to become a person that can actually MAKE a difference.

eek, sorry, rant over :-)

Best,

Luis.

S.F. Erskine wrote:
>To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: 
>BUPS-DIS at bups.org
>-
>
>Hello,
>
>I think Ron is right that the reasoning we use in 'everyday' situations can 
>be the same reason we apply to some sorts of philosophical problems. But to 
>say that we are using 'philosophy' to solve problems eg. about whether 
>Johnny needs new shoes seems to me inappropriate (even with your own 
>definition, it doesn't seem clear that you are significantly increasing 
>human understanding by inquiring in THIS way). But certainly reason - one 
>of the philosophers' tools, in my opinion - is something we use every day 
>of our lives.
>
>However, 'reason' is a difficult term and I think fits a great many 
>different ways of thinking. There is a sense of 'rational' quite close to 
>the literal meaning of 'reasonable' in which everything that anyone ever 
>does is rational since they have (what they think of as at least) some good 
>reasons for doing it. Whether it is useful here to make a distinction 
>between subjective and objective rationality, I'm not sure. But this kind 
>of 'reason' should, I think, be distinguished from the formal, deductive 
>reasoning which philosophers often like to apply to problems. So again, I 
>think the kind of reason used in eg. working out whether to do your 
>shopping first or get a haircut is often a different kind of reason to that 
>used in eg. working out whether people survive death, and so on. Obviously, 
>though, different philosophers use different methods...
>
>In response to Luis:
>
>I think a distinction needs to be made between different kinds talk of 
>purposes. Most objects can be used for a wide variety of purposes if we 
>choose to so use them, and it is in this sense that you might use bups-dis 
>'for the purpose of' offending me. In the same way, I might use a knife 
>'for the purpose of' being part of an artistic sculpture. However, there is 
>often (especially with man-made artefacts) an intended purpose for objects: 
>most people would disagree that THE purpose of a knife is to be part of 
>artistic sculptures, but would say that its purpose is for cutting things. 
>Similarly - as far as I can work out - THE (intended) purpose of bups-dis 
>is to enable undergraduates to participate in philosophical discussion. So 
>I suppose I was asking what the purpose of philosophy is in the sense of 
>asking what THE purpose of it is - what it's meant to be used for - rather 
>than what people actually do happen to use it for.
>
>Lastly, I'm curious about the fact that you see philosophy as a means to 
>self-improvement but don't employ it in everyday life. Do you mean that you 
>see it as a means to academic self-improvement? And how does this purpose 
>fit in with the recreational one?
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>-
>Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing 
>list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Watch all 9 Live Earth concerts live on MSN.  http://liveearth.uk.msn.com