What’s Your Philosophy of Life?

[Jacksprat]

OK. But how does this make it non-physicalist?

I tried to explain why "non-physicalist" is a meaningless term. You assume that physicalism is true, I do not.

 

[ataraxia]

I tried to explain why "non-physicalist" is a meaningless term. You assume that physicalism is true, I do not.

So that's what I mean by "non-physicalist": assuming that physicalism is NOT true.

 

[ataraxia]

Like I said, Mussolini thought fascism was good for his country.

Well, the consequences obviously say otherwise.

 

[noonereal]

Keep a low profile and never stop learning.

 

[Jacksprat]

OK, so you are OK with pragmatism in science. That's something. So at least you agree that at least in some quite important areas, saying something is "true" vs "useful" does no useful work, and just trying to come up with the most useful model is plenty good motivation, and often even a better understanding of what it is we are doing when we search for "truth".

So how is it different in other areas? How do we ever know, in anything, that we have finally achieved "truth" vs just the best, latest, most useful explanation we can come up with?

I am saying it is meaningful to talk about truth. Not absolute truth, just truth. It is true we are in the month of September.

 

[Jacksprat]

Well, the consequences obviously say otherwise.

Yes, but Italy did not know the consequences.

 

[ataraxia]

I tried to explain why "non-physicalist" is a meaningless term. You assume that physicalism is true, I do not.

I still don't even know what you mean by "physicalism"- I am starting to think you mean that it's the relation between physical objects, and it's not something we can see so that makes it not physical. Am I mistaken?

 

[ataraxia]

I am saying it is meaningful to talk about truth. Not absolute truth, just truth. It is true we are in the month of September.

You sure you are not in a dream right now?

I am OK with saying it is true we are in the month of September in a casual speech kind of way. It's a short-cut way to talk about our latest mutually understood comprehensions of the world we see around us in day-to-day speech.

But since this is a philosophical discussion, we should try to make things as clear as possible. Really, technically speaking, it is probably more accurate to always add "as best we know as of right now".

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, but Italy did not know the consequences.

Not at the time. They learned though. Reality can be a harsh teacher.

That's what Dewey meant when he was saying education entails constant interaction with the environment, observing the consequences, making adjustments based on it, and interacting some more. It's a never ending process.

 

[Jacksprat]

I still don't even know what you mean "physicalism"- I am starting to think you mean that it's the relation between physical objects, and it's not something we can see so that makes it not physical. Am I mistaken?

No, it is a specific idea in philosophy. Basically, that reality reduces to physical objects.

"Physicalism is, in slogan form, the thesis that everything is physical."
Especially that, "the linguistic thesis that every statement is synonymous with (i.e. is equivalent in meaning with) some physical statement." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

 

[Jacksprat]

You sure you are not in a dream right now?

Whether I am or not changes nothing about how I act. If there is no way to know, then it is a statement with no consequences.

 

[ataraxia]

No, it is a specific idea in philosophy. Basically, that reality reduces to physical objects.

"Physicalism is, in slogan form, the thesis that everything is physical."
Especially that, "the linguistic thesis that every statement is synonymous with (i.e. is equivalent in meaning with) some physical statement." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

So in trying to refute this, you appealed to interaction between physical objects. But I just don't see how that makes anything non-physical, or what it has to do with pragmatist vs realist understandings of "truth".

 

[Jacksprat]

Not at the time. They learned though. Reality can be a harsh teacher.

That's what Dewey meant when he was saying education entails constant interaction with the environment, observing the consequences, making adjustments based on it, and interacting some more. It's a never ending process.

Yes, agree. A pretty constant idea in the history of philosophy.

 

[Jacksprat]

So in trying to refute this, you appealed to interaction between physical objects. But I just don't see how that makes anything non-physical, or what it has to do with pragmatist vs realist understandings of "truth".

I am saying physicalism is incoherent. You do not agree, but let us be clear what the issue is.

 

[ataraxia]

Whether I am or not changes nothing about how I act. If there is no way to know, then it is a statement with no consequences.

Except that it may always turn out what you called "true" earlier may always turn out to not be "true". So what useful thing have you done by using such inaccurate language to describe what is happening. Pragmatism is just a more accurate understanding of what we really mean when we use the word "true" in everyday language.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, agree. A pretty constant idea in the history of philosophy.

Not really. Plato thought you could short-circuit all that and, through philosophy, gain an intellectual vision of the ideal forms, the ultimate truths of the matter.

Dewey is there to point out that you can never escape Plato's cave- only function in it in better or worse ways.

 

[Jacksprat]

But since this is a philosophical discussion, we should try to make things as clear as possible. Really, technically speaking, it is probably more accurate to always add "as best we know as of right now".

No, that is an abuse of language. If this is not the month of September then logic goes on holiday.

 

[ataraxia]

I am saying physicalism is incoherent. You do not agree, but let us be clear what the issue is.

Why is it incoherent?

 

[Jacksprat]

Not really. Plato thought you could short-circuit all that and, through philosophy, gain an intellectual vision of the ideal forms, the ultimate truths of the matter.

Dewey is there to point out that you can never escape Plato's cave- only function in it in better or worse ways.

I am not a platonist. I am much more aligned with Aristotle.

 

[ataraxia]

No, that is an abuse of language. If this is not the month of September then logic goes on holiday.

LIke I said, I am OK with saying that in day-to-day speech. But in a philosophical discussion, it's good to acknowledge that that is always contingent.

At one time "The Earth is fixed unmoving at the center of the universe" was just as logical and obvious.

The premises of Euclid's geometry, such as that two parallel lines never cross and three points define a plane, were also at one time equally logical and obvious. But Einstein showed with general relativity that: not really. That's not how the universe really works after all (or well, at least that's our latest understanding yet).

 

[ataraxia]

I am not a platonist. I am much more aligned with Aristotle.

The critique of Aristotle is that our empirical observations are always fallible and incomplete. Heck Aristotle himself acknowledged that. So by definition none of the latest understandings we come to by using his approach can be called "true" as opposed to "the best we know so far".

 

[Jacksprat]

Why is it incoherent?

How would one go about proving physicalism is true? That is the problem.
I do not buy the idea that scientists are pragmatists. Newton got pissed as hell when a contemporary said science is not true and just instrumental (utilitarian).

 

[Jacksprat]

The critique of Aristotle is that our empirical observations are always fallible and incomplete. Heck Aristotle himself acknowledged that. So by definition none of the latest understandings we come to by using his approach can be called "true" as opposed to "the best we know so far".

Again, for science, I agree.

 

[Jacksprat]

LIke I said, I am OK with saying that in day-to-day speech. But in a philosophical discussion, it's good to acknowledge that that is always contingent.

At one time "The Earth is fixed unmoving at the center of the universe" was just as logical and obvious.

The premises of Euclid's geometry, such as that two parallel lines never cross and three points define a plane, were also at one time equally logical and obvious. But Einstein showed with general relativity that: not really. That's not how the universe really works after all (or well, at least that's our latest understanding yet).

Well, mathematicians may have accepted the parallel line theorem, but they could not prove it was true.

 

[ataraxia]

How would one go about proving physicalism is true? That is the problem.

Don't have to. It provides the best explanations we have had so far, and there really has been no need for anything else. In fact, we have gone wrong when we have assumed there is. So to assert that we need something more, there has to be some good reason given. Unless I have misunderstood your position, you were trying to show how interactions between physical things are that reason doesn't make any sense. Interactions between two physical things does not make the whole thing non-physical.

I do not buy the idea that scientists are pragmatists. Newton got pissed as hell when a contemporary said science is not true and just instrumental (utilitarian).

Well it eventually turned out his formulas were not quite right after all. So there's egg on his face with that, isn't there?