Insult Yourself and Get Nasty

[vulcanlogician]

I'd have to agree, especially since you qualified your statement with "generally." Most philosophizing that goes on in these forums (including my own contributions) often amounts to little more than listing flavor notes of Trappistes Rochefort 10. But I have to say, if I employ bad logic and somebody calls me on it, that's a learning experience. Even when done in the context of an online forum, it can help keep the mind sharp.

However, in the grand scheme, philosophy has been rather important (if not integral) to cultural development. I also think that philosophy should be taught in high school-- at the very least a "critical thinking" course. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that college curricula ought to make Phil 101, intro to ethics, and intro to logic mandatory for all students, regardless of major. The value in logic speaks for itself, but if everyone had an ethics course under their belts, this actually might improve things at the societal level.

So, yeah, take philosophical musings with a grain of salt. But I also like to think there is value in philosophy beyond our own enjoyment of it.

Just to say vulcan, in case you took it otherwise, my reply to Neo was not disparaging philosophy, just pointing out some of its dangers... pointing out that it's not straightforward and prone to red herrings... especially in the realms of metaphysics etc... if it were straightforward, people wouldn't have been arguing the same questions since the dawn of time. I love philosophy and it wasn't for lack of interest why I didn't finish that course, just difficulty learning.

I didn't take it the wrong way. I agree with what you said for the most part. And you make a really good point about metaphysical inquiries. William James said much the same thing about metaphysics. I've enclosed a bit of his writing concerning the matter if you're interested. I think he makes a valid point, and one that lines up with your assessment.

---

Some years ago, being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find everyone engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel—a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree's opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: DOES THE MAN GO ROUND THE SQUIRREL OR NOT? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel? In the unlimited leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been worn threadbare. Everyone had taken sides, and was obstinate; and the numbers on both sides were even. Each side, when I appeared, therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of the scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction, I immediately sought and found one, as follows: "Which party is right," I said, "depends on what you PRACTICALLY MEAN by 'going round' the squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite as obvious that the man fails to go round him, for by the compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned towards the man all the time, and his back turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb 'to go round' in one practical fashion or the other."

---