intergamer
New member
How to address problems in philosophy. For use in making points online while attempting to not suffer the shame of posting something that is wrong or unconsidered however correct you may think you are.
The average intro to philosophy student thinks he's all insightful, with his style of making points that essentially boils down to an assertation followed by the reason(s) supporting it. This is silly since it almost never sees the big picture, the assumptions taken outside accepted definitions and axioms, the relative importance that his assertation would have to the main idea, even if true. My philosophy professor recently asked the question, 'what is the extent to which one can be forced/compelled to believe (religiously)'. It's easy to say: "Not at all, because belief is the domain of God/the soul only and therefore cannot be affected by man." Even sounds like a reasonably insightful (or at least worthwhile) point. But as soon as you bring God into the mix, you've basically decided to define belief as faith in the sense of destiny for heaven or hell. Only God can control the soul, almost by definition. This is extremely unmeaningful. In this case it is actually the question that's faulty. The professor might have chosen to define 'belief' more specifically, but really the question boils down to the issue of whether or not there is a soul (if so then only God can sway it; if not then just take man as a collection of atoms and there's no reason why any part of belief can't be forced by man). But the question of whether or not there is a soul, I lump with questions like whether or not there is a God (in the monotheistic sense), or whether or not we even exist (beyond the obvious fact that we exist at least in some sense, by the logic of "I think therefore I am") - in that I consider them to be in a sense mathematically invalid; that is they are probably undecidable and not even very well defined. Therefore they aren't meaningful and aren't at all worth asking. In this particular case, I suggest that a better question to ask is the question of precisely when it may be utility-maximizing in a society for its government to compel belief, (or indeed attempt to compel belief). Now at least, we are addressing a concern that is meaningful, given the construction. But now, intro-philosophy students seem even more prone to the same error: "I believe yes/no for this and that whatever ethical/practical reason". This approach doesn't look at the issue as a whole, it has no way of judging the relative importance of the ethical/practical concern, and it is not well-defined in that it takes the point-maker's own utility curve as an assumption. The only way to set out to answer this sort of a question is to first set in stone one's own precise definition of the determination of utility, and then to address all of the concerns that might affect this utility together, from the ground up, black boxing groups of factors whenever possible. Only then can you begin to truly analyze the main ideas polarizing viewpoints on the issue, to make judgements on these, and to exercise lateral thinking to simultaneously consider the implications of the opposite sides of each issue.
I'll get off my soap box now. (inspired by my first philosophy paper of the year)
More on lateral thinking later.
The average intro to philosophy student thinks he's all insightful, with his style of making points that essentially boils down to an assertation followed by the reason(s) supporting it. This is silly since it almost never sees the big picture, the assumptions taken outside accepted definitions and axioms, the relative importance that his assertation would have to the main idea, even if true. My philosophy professor recently asked the question, 'what is the extent to which one can be forced/compelled to believe (religiously)'. It's easy to say: "Not at all, because belief is the domain of God/the soul only and therefore cannot be affected by man." Even sounds like a reasonably insightful (or at least worthwhile) point. But as soon as you bring God into the mix, you've basically decided to define belief as faith in the sense of destiny for heaven or hell. Only God can control the soul, almost by definition. This is extremely unmeaningful. In this case it is actually the question that's faulty. The professor might have chosen to define 'belief' more specifically, but really the question boils down to the issue of whether or not there is a soul (if so then only God can sway it; if not then just take man as a collection of atoms and there's no reason why any part of belief can't be forced by man). But the question of whether or not there is a soul, I lump with questions like whether or not there is a God (in the monotheistic sense), or whether or not we even exist (beyond the obvious fact that we exist at least in some sense, by the logic of "I think therefore I am") - in that I consider them to be in a sense mathematically invalid; that is they are probably undecidable and not even very well defined. Therefore they aren't meaningful and aren't at all worth asking. In this particular case, I suggest that a better question to ask is the question of precisely when it may be utility-maximizing in a society for its government to compel belief, (or indeed attempt to compel belief). Now at least, we are addressing a concern that is meaningful, given the construction. But now, intro-philosophy students seem even more prone to the same error: "I believe yes/no for this and that whatever ethical/practical reason". This approach doesn't look at the issue as a whole, it has no way of judging the relative importance of the ethical/practical concern, and it is not well-defined in that it takes the point-maker's own utility curve as an assumption. The only way to set out to answer this sort of a question is to first set in stone one's own precise definition of the determination of utility, and then to address all of the concerns that might affect this utility together, from the ground up, black boxing groups of factors whenever possible. Only then can you begin to truly analyze the main ideas polarizing viewpoints on the issue, to make judgements on these, and to exercise lateral thinking to simultaneously consider the implications of the opposite sides of each issue.
I'll get off my soap box now. (inspired by my first philosophy paper of the year)
More on lateral thinking later.
Last edited:
