Freedomain Radio

This idea struck me in the car yesterday: Why are we still debating philosophy?

Debate can either be a fun mental excersize of logic and argument or a form of mutual intellectual discovery. The latter is what really interests me here as the former is really just personal preferance (like a hobby).

UPB invalidates debating against UPB. Therefore any improvements that will be made on the methodology will not come through debating it.

Additionally, anyone with the wisdom, empathy and rationality to make improvements will not communicate them through arguments against UPB.

Is continued use of debating as a tool for continued philosophical development obsolete?

My vote for further growth and development is through psychology. I think the next steps will come after the removal of all psychological defenses.

Thoughts?

Ned:

This idea struck me in the car yesterday: Why are we still debating philosophy?

Debate can either be a fun mental excersize of logic and argument or a form of mutual intellectual discovery. The latter is what really interests me here as the former is really just personal preferance (like a hobby).

UPB invalidates debating against UPB. Therefore any improvements that will be made on the methodology will not come through debating it.

Additionally, anyone with the wisdom, empathy and rationality to make improvements will not communicate them through arguments against UPB.

Is continued use of debating as a tool for continued philosophical development obsolete?

My vote for further growth and development is through psychology. I think the next steps will come after the removal of all psychological defenses.

Thoughts?

I don't really understand this post. I don't think psychology can replace philosophy at all, perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean?

On the UPB point, you cannot debate against UPB as a whole without invoking UPB for sure, but we can certainly debate aspects of the methodology, as has been done and I think some useful tweaks and clarifications have resulted. Theres a huge difference between saying universally preferable behaviour doesnt exist (which would be invalid) and debating the many nuances that fill the book. I think UPB is awesome, though probably not perfect, so debating small points could definately lead to refinement over time.

ash:

I don't really understand this post. I don't think psychology can replace philosophy at all, perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean?

On the UPB point, you cannot debate against UPB as a whole without invoking UPB for sure, but we can certainly debate aspects of the methodology, as has been done and I think some useful tweaks and clarifications have resulted. Theres a huge difference between saying universally preferable behaviour doesnt exist (which would be invalid) and debating the many nuances that fill the book. I think UPB is awesome, though probably not perfect, so debating small points could definately lead to refinement over time.

Yes i'm sure that it is useful for refining UPB, but I'm not really interested in changing the minutia of UPB.

I don't think I said that psychology can replace philosophy, maybe you can explain that some more.

Ned:

Yes i'm sure that it is useful for refining UPB, but I'm not really interested in changing the minutia of UPB.

I don't think I said that psychology can replace philosophy, maybe you can explain that some more.

I was slightly irritated when you conflated refining UPB with minutia, I don't think thats necessarily the case at all.

Perhaps I misunderstood your initial post, which is why I asked for elaboration. I thought you were trying to say that, although we use both philosophy and psychology now, you want to drop the philosophical side and focus on psychology for personal growth. I guess instead of replacement it could just be focusing on the psychology, is that what you meant? My thoughts on this are that the two are inseperable, especially when it comes to what we work with here at FDR, the philisophical abstractions like voluntaryism etc applied to our lives are where the psychoogical aspects of FDR seem to be born to me. Could you go into more detail about why you think debating philosophy is not as useful any more?

ash:

I was slightly irritated when you conflated refining UPB with minutia, I don't think thats necessarily the case at all.

Perhaps I misunderstood your initial post, which is why I asked for elaboration. I thought you were trying to say that, although we use both philosophy and psychology now, you want to drop the philosophical side and focus on psychology for personal growth. I guess instead of replacement it could just be focusing on the psychology, is that what you meant? My thoughts on this are that the two are inseperable, especially when it comes to what we work with here at FDR, the philisophical abstractions like voluntaryism etc applied to our lives are where the psychoogical aspects of FDR seem to be born to me. Could you go into more detail about why you think debating philosophy is not as useful any more?

I've sensed irritation in your last two posts so maybe it would be more helpful for you if we discuss that feeling? I do appreciate your initial response to the idea though.

I wasn't conscious of any irritation during my first post, but I can see on re-reading that I may have had something subconscious going on when I jumped to the conclusion of psychology replacing philosophy in your mind, where looking at it now it seems more likely that you just meant a shift in focus, so I apologize for that.

I do think I understand your desire, I have felt like that at times, and at other times I have wanted to focus more on the abstract, and sometimes a combination of the two, it seems to ebb and flow for me, and I think it tends to be that I focus on psychology when I want a jump in personal growth, then I switch back to the more abstract for a while after the psychology injection while I integrate the psychological growth into my life on a day-to day basis, kind of like how when you lift weights you alternate muscle groups to give them a rest alternately.

Have you experienced anything like this at all?

I am guessing the irritation that must have been in my initial post may have been because I interpreted your suggestion as something prescriptive and applying to the community at large, not just yourself. I realise it was merely an idea or suggestion though. I am very sorry if I acted out that irritation.

I would like to hear more about your thinking surrouding this if you still feel inclined to share, and I'll totally understand if you don't want to

thank you so much Ash for that post, i really appreciate it.

I think you said a mouthful! I think I have experienced a sort of sloshing back and forth like you described. I hadn't thought of it in reference of this thread however so that's really interesting and I think it fits. I had this image in my head that philosophy may have reached a point where psychology needs to "catch up" in order for more progress.

I debated on whether to include the bit about psychology at the end of my post because i of course have no idea what future developments will look like or come from. I saw it more as a path that has a lot of potential for growth, moreso than traditional logic arguments (especially in the light of UPB). The brain is the wild west and a major tool for philosophical discovery.

If we are going to take UPB seriously, is debate really the correct tool for further philosophical growth (rather than refining the conclusions of UPB). I find it hard to listen to people debating UPB at any length. Is ignoring psychological defenses for the sake of the debate really the answer?

Thanks for your patience and for pulling me up in the thread too, its been really productive for me.

You raise a great point I think, the progress of ideas seems to be mostly limited by psychological factors in many cases rather than lacking the philosphy, although I don't think thats true universally. One big problem to communicating the ideas is to figure out how to bypass of overcome some of these psychological barriers, and maybe furthur studying and experimentation may lead us to new ways to spread the ideas more effectively somehow.

This is a really tough question, I think the core philospohical aspects of FDR are as mature as they really need to be, and you are correct in thinking that the next major hurdle is the psychological one, but I think some of the more fringe aspects of the abstract philosophy here lacks a little rigour, although those areas are far less important in my opinion.

Did you have any more concrete ideas of what this might involve Ned? Id be interested to hear what they are.

Ned:

This idea struck me in the car yesterday: Why are we still debating philosophy?

That's an interesting question. Of course, what passes for philosophy debate these days is neither philosophy nor debate; it's just two people arguing abstractions to avoid their anxieties, for the most part.

Ned:

Additionally, anyone with the wisdom, empathy and rationality to make improvements will not communicate them through arguments against UPB.

Someone with wisdom and empathy would certainly communicate curiosity, which is a first step in trying to understand something. Through a mutual understanding that person and another curious person can explore UPB or whatever it is they want and perhaps come up with a mutually agreed upon sollution.

Ned:

My vote for further growth and development is through psychology. I think the next steps will come after the removal of all psychological defenses.

As you mention here, what traditionally passes for debate is just psychological defenses that keep people from being curious about the real issues. If I understand what you are saying, than I agree that psychology certainly is part of this transformation in the way we normally communicate disputes in philosophy.

 I really would like to hear richer debates on UPB from people stablished or more mainstream in and around phylosophy. Maybe screaning the people who claim to have something to say on UPB would be helpful. I'm sure it's being done, but it would be good if it was not labled as a debate, but as an exploration of psycological barriers to productive debates.

Debating against UPB is great for testing the validity of the theory and for finding ways to overcome rejections to it; to help promote the theory and to further train the debating muscle. I can certainly forsee nearing the point where there would be too much debating on the same arguments; specially the one that you cannot disprove UPB without rellying on UPB. I'd like to see people using the framework for coming up with moral theories and listen to debates about it. I don't have any yet, but I would be willing to enter in one such debate for the fun of it. Just let me know.

Verrry interesting idea Ned - do you recall what led you to that thought? 

Stefan Molyneux:

Verrry interesting idea Ned - do you recall what led you to that thought? 

Yeah I think so too. I'm not sure exactly what it was, it popped into my head for sure. I had listened to the recent premium casts and connected with your own observations about recent debates. A few weeks ago I was thinking about how there's been an increase in debates and a decrease in psychology in the podcasts. I have also felt emotionally dissatisfied with the recent debates so I was trying to figure that out as well.

Also, i was thinking recently about your suited savages podcast and how another interpretation is the suited child: how most people are replaying their emotional lives from before the age of 8, just now with the mighty strength and power of an adult. When you deal with defenses, you come face to face with children, not savages.

Debating seems to me to be about force of logic. I think for logic to be most powerful it doesn't need the force behind it. Defenses are almost by definition hinderances to logic and are inevitably triggered by debate. To continue or force the logic in the face of defenses only strengthens them. I don't think debating has room or method for dealing with defenses as they arise. As a tool at this level of philosophical discovery I think it is begining to show some wear. Thoughts?

Ned:

 I think the next steps will come after the removal of all psychological defenses.

Can you elaborate more on this point? What do you see as 'next steps'? and do you have  any thoughts on psychological defenses? Where do they show up for you? How do you deal with them? Etc..

Thanks.

GregG:

Ned:

 I think the next steps will come after the removal of all psychological defenses.

Can you elaborate more on this point? What do you see as 'next steps'? and do you have  any thoughts on psychological defenses? Where do they show up for you? How do you deal with them? Etc..

Thanks.

I have no idea what the next steps are, it was just an idle guess. I explain it a bit in a response above.

I treat defenses very seriously and think they have a lot to offer in psychological insight. How about you?

Ned:

This idea struck me in the car yesterday: Why are we still debating philosophy?

Debate can either be a fun mental excersize of logic and argument or a form of mutual intellectual discovery. The latter is what really interests me here as the former is really just personal preferance (like a hobby).

UPB invalidates debating against UPB. Therefore any improvements that will be made on the methodology will not come through debating it.

Additionally, anyone with the wisdom, empathy and rationality to make improvements will not communicate them through arguments against UPB.

Is continued use of debating as a tool for continued philosophical development obsolete?

My vote for further growth and development is through psychology. I think the next steps will come after the removal of all psychological defenses.

Thoughts?

I have a different take on this.

I don't agree that debate has become obsolete.  However, I will say that after the last few debates it is apparent that we are not operating in the same reality.

I find it intriguing that no one ever debates the first part of the UPB book proper where Stef provides a definition of truth based in reality.  Instead, everyone jumps ahead to the juicy ethics stuff and completely ignores that UPB is based upon (and almost simply identified/defined in) reality and the philosophical principles which most accurately and consistently portray it.  And the result?  Not only does the debater lack even a moderate understanding of UPB itself, they don't have a sturdy philosophical leg to stand on.  So the resulting debate devolves into an (at times annoying) exercise in first principles instead of the topic at hand.

After a debate like this, the critics come out of the woodwork and declare that you can't debate UPB without already accepting UPB (insert silly cult identifiers as appropriate).  But that's not true.  You must accept a rational philosophical framework and have the courage to apply it consistently.  Then you can explore whether UPB is an end result.

Perhaps what is most lacking is the courage part...

KevinP