Is Philosophy a Waste of Time?

No low effort top level posts. I’m going to delete it tomorrow if you don’t edit it to give your take.

Of course it’s a waste of time! As “Leon Voss” has informed us in the chat, Nietzsche wrote Also Sprach Zarathustra just to express the thought that the Übermensch is actually a race with a mean IQ of 145. All that writing for something that could have been expressed in a Substack post. Who needs philosophy when we have Branson’s Daily Brap?

Mr. Voss, in response to your chatbox challenge (“What’s your take on Zarathustra?”), I prefer to post sub specie aeternitatis:

My “take” is that there is an ocean of difference between Cesare Borgia and your mean 145IQ possessor. You pretend in public not to see this ocean because you don’t understand it and you don’t have anything interesting to say about it, yet you are so desperate for some shred of notoriety that you feel you must say something so you make Nietzsche about the one thing you think you do understand.

You should go back to Powerology, it was almost endearing in a way. I have $500 burning a hole in my pocket!

What’s the point of coming on here and trolling? Only few professors are 145 IQ, most are more like 125. And yes, most 145 IQ professors are very leftwing and don’t have the temperament of the Übermensch. A medieval prince matches that temperament more closely. There’s more than one component to the Übermensch.

This sounds interesting. What do you mean by “temperament”?

We could have all the meticulously gathered data in the world to answer whatever question we need, and we would still need a conceptual framework to even see what “answers” are out there. We know empirically, say, that DPH is an acetylcholine inhibitor and we know very well that “Benadryl challenge” doses produce a characteristic set of experiences, and we know empirically that DXM is an NMDA inhibitor and we know very well what “Robotripping” produces. One doesn’t have to be very intelligent to grasp these. What’s interesting and difficult is finding the conceptual bridge - how does one side translate to the other?

That’s the territory of cognition, which is not a “hard science” field. The general answer is that DPH degrades the noise-to-signal gate that prevents you from triggering high-level perceptual categories without the proper input for them, which leads to you processing visual noise as dirt and spiders (contamination), peripheral vision as shadow people (person recognition), and noise as recognizable voices (social cognition), while DXM’s action keeps those categories intact but disrupts the specific NMDA-dependent process that maintains the self-world boundary, dissolving the meta-categorical distinction between the self doing the categorizing and the world being categorized. High-level perception being the core of cognition and cognition shaping perception top-down are not trivial concepts, although they may seem so in hindsight as any true conceptual achievement does; much work in cognitive psychology and philosophy of mind took place for us to even think to speak in terms of these.

So yes, “we know what hormones and genes there are now,” and we can find statistical associations between them and measurable behavioral outcomes, but without a cognitive bridge, is that science or stamp-collecting? The bridge between empirical evidence and conceptual insight is not itself a directly empirical question.

There are big questions worth asking that can’t be directly answered empirically. Does God exist? What rights should society protect? If you think a couple of pages of science are sufficient to answer these, you’d probably get a lot of people objecting to whatever argument is in those pages - they’d have room to argue even when the scientific measurements themselves are airtight.

People insist you should know what philosophers have said, for reasons you don’t necessarily have to know what early attempts at science said, because it helps to know what conversation you’re entering, what concepts have been introduced, what arguments in a domain have already been tired out, so you don’t reinvent the wheel. The midwit trap is lionizing them as authoritative thinkers; that’s not the point of keeping their words alive.

I think we just can’t escape doing philosophy. Then, you can either do it poorly or do it well by devoting time to it.

That said, I’m not sure it’s a good idea to spend public money on this discipline, since it has no productive value. It’s more of a contemplative activity that intelligent citizens should pursue in their free time.

https://youtu.be/JLD2MoEMmHo

What exactly is philosophy? What is the difference between philosophy and theology? I personally view philosophy as the theology of the belief system founded by Plato, which I don’t believe in, so I consider philosophy to be useless to me.

That is an extremely restrictive and unusual definition of philosophy. I would say that philosophy is the discipline that seeks to understand and conceptualize reality. It has to be vague, because many philosophers have different goals, and not all of them believe that philosophy should be devoted solely to the search for truth—hence the broader concept of “understanding.” In any case, even scientism must be philosophically justified, since the thesis that all cognizable reality is that which is described by a mathematized science is not itself proven by a mathematized science. The question of the demarcation between science and pseudoscience is itself a philosophical question. Then there are many branches, such as epistemology (what is knowledge, when are we justified in believing something), ethics (are there moral facts, and if so, what are they), or metaphysics (what is or constitute the most fundamental reality).

I would say that philosophy is the discipline that seeks to understand and conceptualize reality.

This does not adequately describe what philosophy is in practice. I am someone who seeks to understand and conceptualize reality, and because of that I produced some quantitative science. If I were more concerned with non-biological phenomena I would have done physics instead of quantitative sociobiology. In practice, philosophy is a particular type of writing which can be argued to do a poor job of understanding and conceptualizing reality.

In any case, even scientism must be philosophically justified

Years ago I joked that philosophy was a mental disorder, and two of the DSM-style symptoms I listed were obsession with verbal “justification”, and the (allegedly delusional) idea that science relies on academic philosophy to function. I bring this up because no matter who we have this debate with, these points are always raised, so they are core to what philosophy is in practice. Another symptom I think was defining philosophy excessively broadly as to include all thinking or academic disciplines outside of philosophy. So the conversation with a “disordered” mind always goes, “you need philosophy because all thought is really philosophy. [false definition]. Therefore you must justify science [false deduction obtained through equivocation of false definition with the more accurate definition of philosophy]. Thus science can’t exist without philosophy [etc]”

I am not saying it is really a disorder, this came from trying to troll back in the day, but I do think the framework is false. I do not believe that anything needs to be verbally justified. I think philosophy is something like the practice of verbally justifying ideas. I find this to be folly; I think mathematical modeling and empirical observation are much better than verbal justification. I don’t have to verbally justify that and I don’t think it can be done. Rather, the proof of this is in your own ability to observe and do logic.

Then there are many branches, such as epistemology (what is knowledge, when are we justified in believing something), ethics (are there moral facts, and if so, what are they), or metaphysics (what is or constitute the most fundamental reality).

Statistics is great epistemology. We have Bayes’ theorem and a bunch of other stuff. Eugenics is good ethics and physics is good metaphysics. I find verbal justificational tracts on these topics to be inferior.

Philosophy is practiced in different ways by many different sociological groups, so I don’t see why my definition wouldn’t describe what philosophy is in practice. Your own approach can itself be defined philosophically, placing you close to empiricism and naturalism. Naturalism — which consists in scientizing the methods of philosophy, or in holding that only the natural world described by the empirical sciences exists — is moreover very popular nowadays. My definition of philosophy is broad enough that one who think about the world cannot avoid doing philosophy, which might be criticized as trivial or uninformative, or as a symptom of a mental disorder (a gratuitous accusation), but I disagree; I think it accurately reflects our practices, which are not limited to following our instincts and solving functional problems. We ask ourselves questions about the world, about what we ought to do, about which methods are effective — and in doing so, we philosophize, because we also question scientific practices. Even physics, which today is a branch of hard science, was once a branch of philosophy, and Aristotelian physics was itself a good approximation of Newtonian physics. To quote Carlo Rovelli: “Aristotelian physics lasted long not because it became dogma, but because it is a very good empirically grounded theory.”

The reference: https://hal.science/hal-00957713/

Logic, for its part, has always been a philosophical discipline, and the first mathematicians, such as Pythagoras, were also philosophers. Philosophy having been born with the pre-Socratics, it emerged from a desire to explain the world in natural or rational terms, rather than through mysticism.

Nothing prevents you from criticizing the excesses of speculative metaphysics or conceptual analysis. I do so myself.

See also, by a philosopher: https://fakenous.substack.com/p/the-failure-of-analysis-and-the-nature

To consider such investigations sterile is a philosophical position, one generally associated with naturalism, pragmatism, or phenomenal conservatism.

Finally, if you say that eugenics is a sound ethics, then you may be called a eugenicist — that is a political position. If you say that physics is a sound metaphysics, then you are a scientific realist, seeking to naturalize metaphysics, as philosophers such as Ladyman, Ross, and French do with ontic structural realism — they also criticize contemporary metaphysics as amounting to a “neo-scholasticism.” You may stop there, but just as the first link on every Wikipedia page ultimately leads to the page “Philosophy,” I do not find it irrelevant to regard these as philosophical positions and to offer arguments supporting, for example, why eugenics might indeed constitute a sound ethics. Now, if you don’t believe in memetics, the effort may be wasted — but it does not seem serious to hold that it would have absolutely no impact whatsoever. If that were the case, I cannot explain why, for instance, I was an ecologist and a conservative in the past, and am today a eugenicist and a transhumanist, having been persuaded by philosophical arguments.

See also this study: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/studying-philosophy-does-make-people-better-thinkers/45A7DE8F37BE4698265BD54490109D4A

[deleted]

You may stop there, but just as the first link on every Wikipedia page ultimately leads to the page “Philosophy,”

Starting at “Territoriale Besonderheiten in Südwestdeutschland nach 1810”, which was at the top of the front page, I get a loop involving Sprachwissenschaft, Latein, Person, and Umgangssprache with some other stuff in between.

On French Wikipedia, I also get to latin, but it ends up on philosophie. Likewise on English, Latin goes to language, information, then to philosophy with some steps. Most articles seem to go through Ancient Greek or Latin. So this seems to just be a consequence of all wikipedia first links eventually ending up on ancient language due to philogical concerns, and then those going to philosophy if the wikipedia’s language has too much french in it. On Spanish wikipedia, there is a loop between ancient greek and Autoglotónimo you eventually reach.

On Arabic Wikipedia there is a loop involving English and continents.

Even physics, which today is a branch of hard science, was once a branch of philosophy,

It’s not clear that ancient thinkers were philosophers in the modern sense.

Philosophy having been born with the pre-Socratics, it emerged from a desire to explain the world in natural or rational terms, rather than through mysticism.

Sounds like math and science is more of the inheritor of that ancient thing than people who write verbal justifications about purely abstract problems ancients didn’t care about.

To consider such investigations sterile is a philosophical position, one generally associated with naturalism, pragmatism, or phenomenal conservatism.

Yes but I also don’t find it to be useful to argue verbally or attempt verbal justification about these positions. The positions are obviously true. It is more interesting to investigate, taking them as given, why someone who fail to admit they are obviously true. That is partially where the “disorder” idea comes from.

I do not find it irrelevant to regard these as philosophical positions and to offer arguments supporting, for example, why eugenics might indeed constitute a sound ethics. Now, if you don’t believe in memetics,

I believe memetics is weak, but there. However, I find it to be better to talk about eugenics in a practical sense, like what it can do for the economy, national IQ, for what practical reasons people oppose it (do they not understand it, are they deceived, are they narcissists, are they liars, etc), how science shows it will work, etc, than to talk about abstract ethical dilemmas and eugenics in utilitarianism vs deontology etc. Memetics can matter and the latter will still be useless and silly.

Very often, one arrives at the page “notion” before reaching “philosophy”. You can skip “Greek” or “Latin,” and, for example, starting from “science,” arrive at “knowledge,” then “concept,” then “philosophy.” Starting, more anecdotally, with “butter,” and still skipping the pages referring to languages, I eventually arrive at the same result. We notice that we move each time from the specific to the fundamental. For example, I went through “milk,” then “liquid,” then “state of matter.” That said, it was mainly intended as an illustration and does not apply to all languages — it does apply to mine, which is French (just so you know, I translated the pages cited earlier).

The word “philosopher” was first used by Pythagoras to describe himself, and many ancient philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, founded their academies. Now, if you focus on practice, there are surely real differences between ancient and modern philosophy. You will notice that I did not say that philosophy departments ought to be funded — quite the contrary. I see philosophy as a form of entertainment, in the same way as art, but that is also what gives both their nobility.

If you dislike verbal justifications, simply be a deflationist. That is a position discussed within philosophy. You may refuse to call it philosophical, but that’s not a big deal. All these positions, and their formulations, allow us to categorize — and therefore clarify — our thinking and our concepts. And I think it is useful to argue about these positions rather than to treat them as obviously true, because first, it stimulates our critical thinking, as suggested by the study I shared.

Or to illustrate, see the discussion in this video: https://youtu.be/6p_MJhIZuhY

And second, for the sake of persuasion — if we accepts that memetics has a non-zero effect, however small.

On the practical approach with regard to eugenics, I agree — but do you have examples of ethical dilemmas or reflections that would not be useful? For my part, when asked why eugenics might be a good thing, I can argue that it is because it would promote our flourishing, and that happiness is positive. I can then illustrate why, and criticize the view that suffering is good or gives life meaning through various arguments. What is the problem with this approach? Simply saying “economic growth is good” or “having good genes is good” can be viewed as superficial. If someone disagree, do you just stop there, and call them stupid? That’s not really civilized. As for moral dilemmas, I see them as interesting defeaters against ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism.

See, for example, the sadistic theater thought experiment.

Btw, what do you find stupid about this post? So, you could elaborate on what you find silly about philosophy.

I subscribe to the simple theory of personal identity; take a look at these two screenshots. If anyone’s interested, I can share the others that show what’s wrong with the complex theories.

One could ask why one should understand and conceptualize reality. The philosopher would say to find truth. But truth is a nebulous concept. I would say that the reason why is because it is useful. Useful for what? Useful for fulfilling one’s own goals, whatever they are.

There is one clear need for verbal justification. Morality has to be verbally justified to the masses. This is one of the functions of religion. Historically, philosophy seems to be mostly harmful. Rising cultures are religious. Philosophy influences culture when it has peaked, and then it goes into decline.

Philosophy isn’t necessarily about finding the truth; it can also be about stimulating our critical thinking, satisfying our natural curiosity, or clearing our minds. It could even be purely negative and critical, as a therapeutic approach to eliminating pseudo-problems. See quietism. I suppose this approach might appeal to Voss.

Here, Wittgenstein attempts to systematize the entire field of epistemology in seven propositions, clarified through ~100 pages: https://www.wittgensteinproject.org/w/index.php/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus_(tree-like_view)

In any case, the most fundamental aspect, it seems to me, is the concept of understanding, as most philosophers agree.

It is also worth noting that it is Europeans who have philosophized the most, whereas primitive peoples, such as those in Africa, or narrow-minded peoples, such as those in Asia, have developed philosophy very little.

The West peaked after the Enlightenment in terms of cultural, technological, economic, and demographic power, yet philosophy and rationalism peaked during the Enlightenment.

It is mathematics and logic that are both metaphysics and epistemology. Math concepts are discovered with abstract reasoning, yet the world is built around them (all that defines physical objects is the equations that determine how they behave,) , they are objective and basically fulfill the criteria of a platonic universal unlimited by space and time, and likewise logic is objective and independent of any particular mind or language, for instance when you want to build and program a computer. Correct epistemology is using math’s and logic to learn things, not just statistics. You can in fact predict what will happen based on logical deduction from known properties of objects and people, for example that if alien life reproduces, it will be subject to the breeders equation, or that if a country has democracy, it will have wealth redistribution, or that price controls cause shortages every time,so It’s not just statistics. Would you say I have correcf epistemology and metaphysics?