Here's my take on your questions. Anecdotes [1] generally aren't the focus of academic philosophy. Modern philosophy focuses on arguments from Axiom [2] where a statement is taken to be true as a starting point for an argument. Responses to the piece of philosophy then take the form of criticism of the logic of the statements contingent on the axiom, or as arguments based on different axioms.
In other words an anecdotal argument is "I've seen and heard x, so I believe y" an axiomatic argument is "If x if true, we should believe y".
The important difference is the accessibility of each to logical analysis and discussion. Anyone can engage with an axiomatic argument by considering its premise and following statements. Anecdotal evidence relies entirely on personal experiences that another arguer may not share.
Training in academic philosophy prepares a person to engage in logically consistent criticism of existing philosophy and the production of well argued original works of academic philosophy.
You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think.
> Modern philosophy focuses on arguments from Axiom where a statement is taken to be true as a starting point for an argument.
What this means is that philosophy ultimately becomes an extended argument over which propositions to take as axiomatic. One commonly-used technique in this is the thought experiment, and some well-known, much-debated examples, such as Frank Jackson's "Mary's Room", are not even anecdotal evidence.
While, I suppose, analytical philosophy could always be presented in the form an analysis of what follows from a given set of axioms, what almost invariably happens in practice is that individual philosophers act as advocates for the particular axioms that they believe actually hold.
There also seems to be a pervasive shared assumption in current analytical philosophy that analysis of the use of language can be the ultimate arbiter on questions of how the world actually is - a questionable belief that is not questioned as much as it should be, or so it seems from my very limited perspective.
>What this means is that philosophy ultimately becomes an extended argument over which propositions to take as axiomatic.
I agree. It also involves extended arguments over the statements that follow from these axioms even amongst philosophers who agree the axioms are true.
>[W]hat almost invariably happens in practice is that individual philosophers act as advocates for the particular axioms that they believe actually hold.
I agree with this as well. My main point was about the structure of the arguments. I don't think arguing from an axiom you hold to be true turns the argument anecdotal.
> It also involves extended arguments over the statements that follow from these axioms even amongst philosophers who agree the axioms are true.
It is certainly not that uncommon for people to publish claims arising from mistakes in logic, but it is rare for any dispute over them to become extended, as they can be resolved by reason. While it is possible to disagree over the meaning of words, or even of which axioms of logic to accept (such as over axiom B in modal logic), these are still issues of what to take as axiomatic.
Edit - On reflection, I can think of cases, such as Searle's non-sequitur of a response to the 'systems reply' to his 'Chinese Room' argument, that have not been promptly eliminated. In the cases I can think of, however, there are unstated assumptions being made - and any such assumption is implicitly axiomatic, as, being unstated, it could not have been derived from other axioms.
> I don't think arguing from an axiom you hold to be true turns the argument anecdotal.
Indeed - nominally, one is merely presenting a deduction of what a set of propositions imply - but no-one persues philosophy just to do that.
When reading papers, I have learned to make note of the points where the language turns to what is likely, plausible or conceivable, as this is often close to the crux of the matter. It is here that one might find what Daniel Dennett has called the Philosopher's Syndrome: "mistaking a failure of the imagination for an insight into necessity."
I find it very often that these types of "numbered premises and consequences as natural language statements" analyses become "not even wrong", moot and missing the point.
The actual meat of the problem gets stashed away in what you exactly mean with your natural language sentences and "suitcase words". You may pronounce that Statement A is in contradiction to Statement B but it my be only true in some sense and the whole thing collapses because you made a hidden implicit assumption that turns out to ruin the whole nice house of cards.
Its easy to come up with those logical games, see proofs of God's existence.
If you can make those statements precise enough you get mathematics. If you cannot, you're better off doing empirical work and leaving the possibility open that you're wrong in some fundamental way. You my proclaim that either A or B is true and in 20 years it turns out that "hmm, things don't really work like that, neither A nor B is really true or it depends on how we look at it but generally this just wasn't a productive way to approach the issue in hindsight".
Its a bit like presenting a measurement result with too many decimal places, giving the impression of high precision when it's unwarranted. In the same way the principled structure of philosophical musings makes them look more definite than they actually are.
"You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think."
Thank you. But are these comparable? Is thinking competitive and there's a winner? What is it to be trained to think? If that training hadn't happened, would the un-trained person not be thinking? Or, would you be thinking along a more natural way? Is it more akin to building one or other type of sandcastle, rather than to be a better fighter?
The way I view it, the only thing an individual can do is try to be the winner for themselves - they need to progress their understanding of themselves as much as possible. In nature there's no competition - there are needs that might or might not be met.
But, if you want to harness or direct individuals into a collectivised state, yes, you need to train them, and they will produce what you call 'original works of philosophy' on the basis of all the thought that has preceded them. As if 'a body of original works' is important to an individual. They may be renumerated for their trained thinking. As if renumeration is something the individual would ever want.
Let me ask you some questions to zero in on your issue here.
Is coding competitive? Is cooking? Is reading? Do you think that training does not help you become a better cook or coder or reader? Were you able to read without training? Do you think the fact that you had to be taught to read poisoned the well and you cannot trust anything you have read since?
The questions about fundamentals - cooking, reading. I would of course agree that these are useful to the individual. Now coding - again the skill is neutral. But what you code might not be. Why do you code what you code? Should you code in a bank, a facebook algorithm, etc? Are you actually undertaking your life in a positive way, or are you making gains at another's expense?
Do you think training is a neutral act? Is it possible that training can be subversive to the trainee?
Perhaps you will see my position as a political, anti-statist one. I see it as an individualistic perspective. If an individual is trained in academic philosophy, in order to provide 'production of well argued original works of academic philosophy' why is that valuable? To me, there is no value there at all. As an individual, I want to uncover the innate understanding we all already have.
Have you ever heard about people who go through half their life, having trained to be doctors, or solicitors, only to then realise that they didn't want to do that? I would say that these are the lucky ones - they have wasted only half their lives, and though they have much to undo, they at least they are honest enough to change their position and try to find something authentic and innate to them. Most people do not do that. That is the power of training and education, IMO. In it for the money, sell your granny.
In my view, this is what training at a higher level is to train people NOT to look inside themselves for answers, but to refer to an external authority. This applies to academic philosophy as much as any other area. Love of wisdom, becoming oneself, makes way for the production of 'original works of academic philosophy'. Beyond the basics, education seems to me about disempowering the individual, for the benefit of some imagined 'collective'. In fact, that collective is so individual who has their hands on the levers of governance, but let's not think too closely about that.
Who decides what is neutral? What if you are trained by masters or schools with conflicting thoughts? What if you read all sides of an argument? Is this information not valuable to the informed choices of an individual?
How can you be certain that individuals have the tools to "look inside themselves" without any training?
Also I would appreciate a deeper response to the question of reading and language. The very language(s) that you use to "try to find something authentic and innate" were not the result of an individual choice, but of training to an agreed societal standard during your youth.
Do you think that you would be better able to understand your true individual self if you had been raised without any training in a language or the other aspects of your culture?
Once again I am getting the message that I am posting too fast. I think its when I am flagged for my 'contentious viewpoints'. Last time it was 3 hours before I could post, but I will submit this when I can. HN can be very frustrating.
Whether we agree or not, if you appreciate my taking the time to reply and provide you my thoughts, feel free to upvote me - I think a higher score may help in allowing me to respond in a more timely manner!
Back to your post.
Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely given my 'feralimal' handle) I was thinking about feral children and their inability to speak.
I think you would say they live a worse life than you. But why? How do you know? You do not.
You and I live in our classification systems - we probably share a very similar type. We were taught our classification systems at school and they are self-evident, right? Eg: "A whale is not a fish, its a mammal.", "this is a tree, not a bush", "tomatoes are a fruit", "peanuts are a legume", etc. This is an example of how we live in the ideas that we were given.
Think now about the feral child. This child will also have some sort of system to interpret the world. But its system would be very different to ours. It would have developed it on its own. The feral child wouldn't necessarily see a distinction between itself and the nature it lives in.
Now step back and apply some value to that. Which is the better way of living?
Is it better to live in your head, with layers and layers of classification systems filtering your engagement with the world? Going to work, coding, making some money to be able to pay your mortgage, and afford some takeaway?
Or is it better to feel a connection with the external reality, even if you can't talk about it?
I honestly don't know.
I can say that trying to engage more deeply with 'reality'. I suspect I am forever separate. Maybe feral children are too. But, I think innately, connecting to whatever is the source is what I yearn for. And I suspect it is the same for everyone else.
And then, my assessment is that the education we receive is about making that possibility almost impossible to even conceive of.
I just realised I didn't answer your question: "Who decides what is neutral? What if you are trained by masters or schools with conflicting thoughts? What if you read all sides of an argument? Is this information not valuable to the informed choices of an individual?"
You decide. You are free to view all information, and consider it. You can judge for yourself whether the argument you are presented with is sound or not. Whether all the assumptions are stated and whether the conclusion that follows is rational. If you don't have all the information, that is fine - you can work with your best hypothesis. I think the key thing is whether you are acting in good faith. If someone presents some information that you can't reconcile easily, that is likely an indication that you need to investigate further. You may get some data that will better inform your understanding.
I'll save you some time, it is that we can verify personally. If I can verify it, I can say 'its true' and that 'I know it'.
But the problem is that most individuals verify very little - its beyond ridiculous how little we verify. If we see something on TV, we think we have verified it! Did we verify the film Independence Day?!
All day long, individuals will say 'I know' or 'its true'. Even though they haven't verified their assumptions, if they even know what their assumptions are. Most people's lives are based on massive, unverified assumptions. They are so big, that they cannot consider questioning them - they have to be true or they may have a mental breakdown!
Say most people 'know' that we are on a globe. How? Have they experienced the globe? How was it proven to them that this wasn't a flat plane? Do they really 'know' it, like they know the chair they are sitting on? They do not. So, when they say 'they know' what do they mean? Its a hypothesis, or a belief, or faith. They believe they know.
So, if we were honest to ourselves, and accounting for our assumptions, we should say, 'I believe' such-and-such. But we say 'I know'. What is it to do that?
If you ask me, this is a lie. We lie to ourselves and to those around us. We live in a world of lies, of false, unverified information - and yet we call it knowledge. Its actually quite amazing.
> I'll save you some time, it is that we can verify personally. If I can verify it, I can say 'its true' and that 'I know it'.
So, have you personally verified the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Is it true? Do you know it?
And, you say a matter of fact is "what we can verify personally". Is that a matter of fact? If so, how do you know that? If it's not a matter of fact, is it still true? Or is just your opinion?
I don't know the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Do you? How do you know it? If I was to sit next to you, would you be able to walk me through all the steps whereby I would be able to say that I know it too?
What does 'know' mean to you? Is it like believe, or like a hypothesis? What is the difference?
If you don't verify something for yourself, can you know it? If someone says that something is true, does that make it true, even if you haven't confirmed it for yourself? If so, who do you trust? Should you trust teachers? Do they mean well? If they mean well, is it possible that they have made a mistake and are relaying wrong information that they haven't verified for themselves? If they are relaying unverfied information as knowledge, are they liars? Are you lying if you do the same? Who has the authority on truth? Is it the schools, as funded by the government? Is it the government?
I know that is a wall of questions, but this is what I think when I hear this sort of thing. What assumptions have I made about things I think I know, where the reality is that I have beliefs of things I think I know.
PS accept my apologies if this post takes a while to appear - HN says I am posting too fast, and won't allow me to reply in my usual, more timely way. If you do want to reply to this, no problem - it just may take a while for me to respond. Cheers.
The point of my post is that your epistemology is too narrow. Trying to sell you on my epistemology was outside of my intent.
Your epistemology leads you to not "know" all of science. Even logical positivism accepted the results of repeatable experiments, and logical positivism is itself too narrow of an epistemology (which is why it was rejected in the end).
I also profoundly mistrust any philosophy that says "the only way we know is X", where that rule (about the only way we know) is not something that is knowable via X. That leaves adherents using a rule (which by their own statements they do not know is valid) to decide what they do and do not know. That's... not something I can accept. It seems self-contradictory to me.
I'm not going to wade through your wall of questions. That's a much lower level of conversation than I am willing to get bogged down in.
"The point of my post is that your epistemology is too narrow. Trying to sell you on my epistemology was outside of my intent."
Well, you either know a thing or not. Its really that simple. You know you are sitting at a table, typing, etc. I also accept the results of repeatable experiments, as long as I have verified them.
It really comes down to you. The individual. All ideas are therein. Are you prepared to kid yourself, or do you want the truth?
Often people say 'we' know to get around this. What does this usage of 'we' mean? It is trust that someone else has done the verifying, that they are trustworthy, that they are relaying the results faithfully, etc. If you are trusting though, you are not knowing.
Now, it is fine to have beliefs, and to accept other people's ideas and hypotheses. But it is another thing to say you know them to be true!
> Well, you either know a thing or not. Its really that simple. You know you are sitting at a table, typing, etc. I also accept the results of repeatable experiments, as long as I have verified them.
Marcuse and Gettier have some things to day about this (paraphrasing):
"The world is too complicated for people to verify everything themselves" -Marcuse
"Its not clear what (if anything) constitutes justified true belief" -Gettier
> I also accept the results of repeatable experiments, as long as I have verified them.
Per Quine, individual hypotheses can't be verified, only bundles of hypotheses.
Dick got a good deal closer to the answer than you have, IMHO: “reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
The thing about a position of extreme skepticism, such as you are expounding here, is that if you acted consistently with holding it, you would not have anything to say.
That's a great quote, and I've enjoyed PKD's work.
As a skeptic, I would agree that I would not claim to know so much. I have lots of hypotheses though.
And, as a skeptic, you might think that there would not be much to say... but then I find myself swimming, nay drowning, in a world of unfounded opinion and hearsay. So much baseless belief. I think I can see the contradictions and unfounded assumptions in whatever narrative is being presented. In good faith, I try to point out the errors as I see them, to the best of my ability. I think of this as a service - helping to discern belief from knowledge.
But evidently it is not appreciated. I am flagged, people think I am hateful (I don't believe I am). In all, people do not appreciate the genuinely skeptical position, even if they pay lip service to it. They prefer to go along to get along - to do whatever their unprincipled, lightly considered, free-style way - whatever is most expedient at the time.
PS: 'I am posting too fast' so I cannot submit this response. Its not that I don't want to continue the conversation, but HN puts a block on unpopular opinions such as mine. Skeptical voices cannot be heard! But I will try to submit this in a few hours (it was 3 yesterday), even if the conversation has moved on by then. :)
Does it amaze you that freedom of speech to have a different opinion to others, one that I think I can reason and evidence, should prove to be something that requires censure? I'm amazed. Did you think that HN was better than this? I did.
Also, I don't agree that you need to be trained philosopher to think for yourself. But why do you say so? What is it that the training provides?