ForumGarden

“It’s a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.”

“But I'm a philosopher, and it's a philosopher's job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” Thus wrote Linda Hirshman in a recent article in the Washington Post. Linda R. Hirshman, is a retired professor of philosophy and women's studies at Brandeis University.

If I had read in the morning paper some doctor saying “it is the doctor’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” I would not have blinked. I have no problem with a doctor making such a statement but a philosopher making such a statement certainly will cause a pause.

A retired professor of philosophy from Brandeis University cares weight with me and when such a person says something startling I must give it some heed; I must pause to reflect and study the meaning of that statement.

Reflection on this statement reveals to me that human life is really a philosophical endeavor. We do not realize it but every thought we have, every decision we make, and every action we take are based upon some philosophical assumptions. Philosophers have molded these assumptions into theories that now form the very essence of our life.

We ‘know’ what is real, what is knowledge, what is moral action, how the mind works, etc. because these philosophical theories permeate every aspect of our life. Metaphysics is a philosophy word that really means ‘what is real, what is time, what is essence, what is causation, etc’.

I guess I will give the professor an “A” here. It is a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.

I would be insulted if anyone told me how I should live my life.

I will heed to my own philosophy thank you.

I agree with KS. I am autonomous and able to make my own decisions concerning my life. Anyone who has information to share may discuss it with me. I can then determine whether the information is relevant to me.

I would not even say that experts should impart any information that they uncover in their pursuits for the truth. Since they are likely to publish the results so that they can earn money, the information will become available to the public.

On the other hand, I believe that it is everyone's moral duty to warn people about critical or life threatening issues. Nonetheless, it is still the individual's right to decide whether they heed the warning, the only exception to this being where their decision, or lack of one, would endanger another person.

The majority of the time, I find that people dismiss "expert" advice unless they have specifically sought it. The reasons for this dismissal are various but the most common reason is because the average person considers the "experts" to be a bunch of crackpots.

coberst wrote:

I guess I will give the professor an “A” here. It is a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.


Absolute BS - it's a philosopher's job to formulate ideas. People then consider those ideas and make up their own minds how to live their lives.

K.Snyder wrote: I would be insulted if anyone told me how I should live my life.

I will heed to my own philosophy thank you.


Perhaps that is the reason you have only one eye!!

Just one example of what sorts of things come to us from philosophy. We cannot think well without riding on the sholders of Aristotle. Does creating the concept of logic mean that Aristotle can usefully advise us on how to live our life? I think so. Plato said the unexamined life is not worth living. Can we examine life in any critical sense without the logic that Aristotle gave us?



Where Does Logic (Formal) Come From

‘Logic’ is a word with more than one meaning; but it, like ‘science’, ‘Kleenex’ etc.,

has become a word with a common usage. In our common mode of speaking ‘logic’ means Aristotelian Formal Logic.

Aristotle said “A definition is a phrase signifying a thing’s essence.” Essence is the collection of characteristics that makes a thing a kind of thing. Such a definition expresses what is called a concept.

Aristotle equates predication (all men are mortal, I am a man) with containment. Predication is containment. To make a predication is to create a ‘container’ that contains the essence of a thing being predicated.

This containment leads us to the obvious logic (formal principles of a branch of knowledge) of containers. If container A is in container C and container B is in A then B is in C. This container schema is where all of these Latin terms, such as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, come from. This is the source of all of the principles for syllogisms, I think. In other words just imagine containers and various juxtapositions of these will lead one to the principles of Aristotelian Logic. I suspect many Greeks scratched their heads and wondered “why didn’t I think of that?”

“Aristotle’s founding metaphor was Ideas are Essences. To conceptualize a thing is to categorize it, which is to state its essence, the defining attributes that make it the kind of thing it is. For Aristotle, then, the essences of things in the world, since they are what constitute ideas, can actually be in the mind. And for the essence to be in the mind, it cannot be in the substance or matter of the thing; rather it must be its form: Essences are Forms. So, if our ideas are the form of things, and we reason with the form of things, then logic is purely formal, abstracting away from any content.”

“We reason with the form of things, then logic is purely formal, abstracting away from any content.” This, I guess, was the birth of the pure reason of Descartes, of soul in Christianity, of humans placing themselves just below God and far above animals, and of what is the common attitude of most humans.

My claim is that the ideas generally associated with Idealism (pure reason having access to truth, mind/body dichotomy, and certainty) are unhealthy for us and that such ideas should be discouraged. This bit on Aristotle indicates his thoughts about such things and that he is near the source of such ideas.

Am I wrong? Is my conclusion incorrect? If it is correct is it important? If it is important should we try to correct the common attitude of people? If we do not correct the common attitude of people does it matter? Is anyone curious and does anyone care?

These questions are primarily rhetorical because almost everyone, I guess, would have to think and study about such matters for a long time before they would commit a judgment.

Quotes and many of the ideas from “Philosophy in the Flesh” Lakoff and Johnson

coberst wrote: Perhaps that is the reason you have only one eye!!


Nope....

I only wear that for looks...

to pick up the ladies.....

:guitarist

Diuretic

Learning how to think is a project for a lifetime.

philosophers are welcome to have a go at it, everyone else tells me how i should live my life, wouldent want to leave them out

coberst wrote: “It’s a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.”

“But I'm a philosopher, and it's a philosopher's job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” Thus wrote Linda Hirshman in a recent article in the Washington Post. Linda R. Hirshman, is a retired professor of philosophy and women's studies at Brandeis University.

If I had read in the morning paper some doctor saying “it is the doctor’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.” I would not have blinked. I have no problem with a doctor making such a statement but a philosopher making such a statement certainly will cause a pause.

A retired professor of philosophy from Brandeis University cares weight with me and when such a person says something startling I must give it some heed; I must pause to reflect and study the meaning of that statement.

Reflection on this statement reveals to me that human life is really a philosophical endeavor. We do not realize it but every thought we have, every decision we make, and every action we take are based upon some philosophical assumptions. Philosophers have molded these assumptions into theories that now form the very essence of our life.

We ‘know’ what is real, what is knowledge, what is moral action, how the mind works, etc. because these philosophical theories permeate every aspect of our life. Metaphysics is a philosophy word that really means ‘what is real, what is time, what is essence, what is causation, etc’.

I guess I will give the professor an “A” here. It is a philosopher’s job to tell people how they should lead their lives.


Cobblers. It's a philospphers job to get people to think for themselves and develop their own intellect. A true philosopher would never have the arrogance to think they have all the answers and even less so be prepared to concede that another might have the answers they are seeking.

posted by diuretic

I have to admit to being baffled by syllogisms, I did enough though to "pass" the subject. I am still ignorant of it though. I suspect the same problem I had with algebra manifested itself in my inability to understand informal logic (I'm calling it "informal" coberst because it's not mathematical, I was told "formal" logic involved mathematical equations so I gave it a miss ).


OK I freely admit I had to look up syllogism cos I'd forgotten what it meant. But they are useful in helping you spot sophistry so you can recognise bullshit when you see it. Does unfamiliarity with the terms syllogism and sophistry are make you any less of a philosopher? I've often thought that the word philospher is only used to describe themselves by those overly impressed by their own intellect.

gmc says--"It's a philospphers job to get people to think for themselves and develop their own intellect."

Looks like gmc agrees that philosophy has something very important to tell us. Since the janitor cannot tell us these things then I guess the philosopher must do it.

coberst wrote: gmc says--"It's a philospphers job to get people to think for themselves and develop their own intellect."

Looks like gmc agrees that philosophy has something very important to tell us. Since the janitor cannot tell us these things then I guess the philosopher must do it.


I do agree up to a point that philosphy has something important to tell us but I would suggest the quality of janitors you have met may be lacking something. Intellect is not necessarily defined by the kind of job you decide to do and the assumption that you can only find it in the dreaming spires of academia is a rather arrogant one. It's all over the place and to assume that the bloke cleaning the toilets is necessarily thick and not interested in the world around them is rather naive. If you start out by asking what someone does for a living before judging whether they are worth talking to you will miss out on a lot of interesting people . Though hopefully you didn't actually mean your comment that way.

Much philosphical writing is, imo, pretentious claptrap written by people who should know better and who believe a limited but intense academic education somehow makes them more enlightened than their poor benighted brethern. They regurgitate bits of some other's works after rearranging the words a bit and are surprised when others are not impressed by their erudition but comfort themselves in the illusion that the world is made up of numpties that just don't get it and fail to understand.

posted by buttercup

philosophers are welcome to have a go at it, everyone else tells me how i should live my life, wouldent want to leave them out


Bet you listen and then make up your own mind anyway.

gmc wrote: I do agree up to a point that philosphy has something important to tell us but I would suggest the quality of janitors you have met may be lacking something. Intellect is not necessarily defined by the kind of job you decide to do and the assumption that you can only find it in the dreaming spires of academia is a rather arrogant one. It's all over the place and to assume that the bloke cleaning the toilets is necessarily thick and not interested in the world around them is rather naive. If you start out by asking what someone does for a living before judging whether they are worth talking to you will miss out on a lot of interesting people . Though hopefully you didn't actually mean your comment that way.




Well said - reminds me ob Fred Housego ?sp?

He was a taxi driver who decided to have a go on the Mastermind TV show - he became that year's Mastermind champion.

coberst wrote: gmc says--"It's a philospphers job to get people to think for themselves and develop their own intellect."



Looks like gmc agrees that philosophy has something very important to tell us. Since the janitor cannot tell us these things then I guess the philosopher must do it.


why can't the janitor tell us these things? because of his lowly job? by that measure, then neither could a longshoreman. scratch eric hoffer off the list of philosophers then.

I had a philosphy lecturer known as "nae balls wilson" You know how women can sit with legs crossed and the ankle wrapped around the back of the lower leg? a feat of position impossible for a male to do comfortably. He used to sit like that. Speculating how he managed was a lot more interesting than the lectures. The cowboy hat and handbag were also interesting features.

The above has absolutely nothing to do with this thread I just thought it might be interesting. Not that I intend to amply anything about cowboys but in a nation who wear skirts for their national dress if you want to stand out as weird wear a cowboy hat and carry a handbag.

Diuretic wrote: He was cut...and I don't mean he was on the turps


:eek:

agreeing with gmc

it is from philosophy we should learn how to think not be taught .. however as foucault says knowledge is power and the eagerness to proclaim 'truth' has been used since Plato's eugenics to dictate whose knowledge receives status..

me id always plump for the janitor's knowledge as truth, this knowledge has most likely been earned and probably more real/ true then any academic education can buy.... plus he could tell me how to change the washer on my dripping tap, that is at the moment what I need to be taught the most , damn tap:-5



yours gg still far too hot