The idea that a philosophy's validity, or how seriously it should be taken, depends on how well the philosopher lives up to their own advice or musings is one of the stupidest opinions I've seen repeated on this board. A philosophical viewpoint should be judged on its own merits and nothing else. A philosopher's biases are only worth raising if they affect how the idea should be interpreted, e.g. if a philosophical claim is presented as grounded in empirical fact, but research shows the author lies by leaving out evidence that contradicts it.
>>25464657the philosophy is inseparable from the philosopher.
If the author doesn't believe their own arguments, why should I?
Backed up by THE BIBLE, by the yaw>All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Mm. Hmm. This statement only true on it's face and no further. You should not reject a philosophy *solely* because an author did not live up to it, unless (possibly) part of the author's formulation rested on them claiming to live up to it.This makes sense, people rarely act in accordance with ideals 100% of the time.As for the rest of the post, no.>A philosopher's biases are only worth raising if they affect how the idea should be interpreted.Bias is always relevant to how an assertion, or any communication should be interpreted, nowhere moreso in philosophy which is structured like an argument with a proof. You don't find "pure" un-alloyed facts in philosophy, there is always an a priori assumption, ergo bias is always relevant.>research shows the author liedAnd who was doing this research and reporting it? Are they not biased? Did you see what they claim to have seen for yourself?
>>25464665In fact, the reverse is true until proven otherwise:No philosophy can perfectly account for a person and their choices.>>25464667You could see the fact that the philosophy does not demand strict adherence as a feature, rather than a bug.An example of this is the "pirate's code" in Pirates of the Carribean.Preferring consistency is, standing a lone, merely a bias in itself.
>>25464667because no one's perfect >>25464675>Bias is always relevant to how an assertion, or any communication, should be interpreted, nowhere moreso in philosophy, which is structured like an argument with a proof. You don't find "pure" un-alloyed facts in philosophy; there is always an a priori assumption, ergo bias is always relevant.Keyword there: "argument with proof." Any philosopher worth their salt will seek out counterarguments, along with the evidence and logical reasoning needed to debunk a claim. Bias is prevalent, but it should not be allowed to shape the conclusions, or the arguments used to reach them.If I randomly believed there were three moons and set out to prove it, that would be bias from the outset, yes, but if the proof I provided holds up to intense scrutiny, I don't see why the bias would at all be relevant. And the reverse is also true.>And who was doing this research and reporting it? Are they not biased? Did you see what they claim to have seen for yourself?Yes. Because that's also part of consuming a philosophy critically. The merits of a viewpoint don't suddenly become moot because the person saying them doesn't follow them, cause that's a criticism of their character, not of the argument.
>>25464667Because that he thinks them false does not by necessity make them so
>>25464716But this example of yours doesn't contradict me at all.In this case, when the person who has a probable bias of wanting three moons concludes there is one, this is relevant how you should evaluate his conclusion. It is more reliable because his conclusion contradicts his bias. This person was more likely to have double checked everything and only published if it was certain.We see this in rhetoric all the time. For example:"I used to be a communist, I used to worship mao, I wanted nothing more than for the great leap forward to succeed, until i saw for myself the horrors of the cultural revolution"In this passage the strong pro-mao bias is used to lend more credibility to the speaker's anti-mao conclusion.Now you would then say-- but this isn't logically sound, it's reasoning based on assumption.And the fact is, science also does this. If you read "science in action" by Bruno latour it discusses how a system is turned into a latourian black box and used to enable the construction of the next system-- human judgment still governs how assumptions are called into question and which ones are selected to revisit. Ergo, bias is always relevant. science doesn't proceed in a linear fashion, it serves specific purposes, always organized by a given hierarchy.
>>25464935*Provable not probable.
>>25464935>In this case, when the person who has a probable bias of wanting three moons concludes there is one, this is relevant to how you should evaluate his conclusion. It is more reliable because his conclusion contradicts his bias.1. No, it isn't, for much the same reason that anecdotes can't be relied upon once we're bringing "science" into the argument; they're too easy to lie about, and even under a charitable interpretation, they're vulnerable to flawed memory and selection bias.And 2. It shouldn't, because whether or not the person believed there were actually three moons shouldn't influence the strength of the conclusions or the evidence presented. In other words, his evidence doesn't become more or less trustworthy simply because he said he believed otherwise (assuming he stated this outright rather than presenting it as a scientific curiosity he wanted to investigate). The only thing that matters is whether his belief that there are three moons affected the evidence he gave or omitted; that is, whether it bears on the merits of the argument itself. So bias is completely irrelevant despite its presence.
>>25464657>their own adviceYou seem to have the idea that philosophy is about a lifestyle, like youtubers talking about having a certain "philosophy" for their weightlifting and diet or whatever. That's pretty stupid too.
>>25464687i never said it fully accounts for a person - i said it’s inseparable from them.
I really wish philosophyfags would use the humanities board and stop shitting up the literature board with limp wristed slapfights.
i really wish all these book-reading faggots would fuck off from the literature board.
>>25465727this is what we in the business call a strawman. show me one philosopher whose ideas exist independent of who they were, when they lived, what they feared, who they were arguing with
Let's all mass debate
>>25465720Technically philosophy should be discussed on /his/ but fuck that place.
>>25464657>>25464665>>25464667>things are not as they appear to be, so we should seek mathematical explanations for a more real understanding of the world>did you know this authour loved shoving COCKS and penis into his mouth? he LOVED jerking off men, he would take hot sweaty cum-covered loads all over his muscular thighs. he NEEDED cocks, non-stop DICKS, he NEEDED penis :)
probably not worth engaging that anon
>>25465720phl threads often discuss a specific book or authour. they should sooner make a /rel/ board, since christggers, islamists, etc are only out to proselytize instead of having real discussions
>>25464665Art is separable from the artist, why not philosophy?
>>25465714you're forgetting the "musings" part, which encompasses both ideas and advice.>>25465720>limp-wristed slapfights.Limp-wristed? I'm arguing against something I've seen a lot on this board, and as far as I'm concerned, this is more interesting than the 5000th Joyce or McCarthy thread with the same vapid observations and unfunny jokes.
>>25465751art is especially inseparable. art is a conversation with the artist.
>>25465776philosophy is neither advice nor musings, read a book sometime
>>25465778That's the kind of thing pedants would argue to justify doddles made with period blood or fruits taped to a wall to be fine art.
>>25465779You're open at any time to correct me on what philosophy asckually is.
>>25465786https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5827/pg5827-images.html
>>25465784
https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.507125
>>25465789Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Pascal, and Montaigne all fit perfectly into "musings," while Stoicism, Epicureanism, and much of Confucian thought fit into "advice," or at least lean more toward practical guidance. You're just being a pedantic asshole because I accidentally left out a third category for philosophical arguments that are rigorous in their reasoning.
>>25465736This but unironically. Every significant accomplishment in the entire history of the Western Hemisphere was made by a gay or bisexual man.
>>25465804Breeders dont like being reminded of this.
>>25465798Literally all actual philosophy is built on reasoning. All proper philosophers studied the Trivium, before they ever wrote anything on philosophy. You're just brainwashed like everyone else here to think of philosophy as crackpipe freestyling.
>>25465848>properThis word is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
>>25465850Forgive him, for he is retarded.
It's basically an admission of defeat. Were they able to defeat the idea, they would do so. The fact they haven't and have resorted to attacking around the idea, is ultimately a confession that they are unable to contest the idea itself.
>>25465869Not necessarily, especially if the idea is in the realm of ethics or politics. It seems sensible, if someone is pronouncing philosophically on conduct, to see whether they're doing so or using it as cover for maliciousness or their own narrow gain.
>>25465791Extremely pedantic passage.
>>25465892how so?
>>25465897The pedantic affectation are pretentious tone are unmistakeable.
>>25465907not really. i’ll also add that it’s a translation.
>>25465791>>25465892Pedantic and pretentious, this reads like a middle schooler trying to impress adults.Omg look I know great music!.... Oh yes or course Mozart!!1!1!1And it's so deep, trust me I get it, it's like a conversation with Mozart that transcends time and space!1!1!1!I know I am particularly adverse to such... "heartfelt" passages, but I think this should be apparent to anyone.
>>25464667Have you ever met a drunk who desperately wanted to quit drinking?
>>25465108Like it or not, the choice to accept and rely on a scientific conclusion without performing the experiment itself is a choice, and bias affects that. Ergo bias affects everything that is deemed a conclusion of science.Think of like a chaos butterfly. The bias and its relevance may not be be apparent now, but a decade, a century or millenia later it might become relevant. This is happening a lot in psychology and neuroscience when seminal studies fail to be replicated, new previously ignored biases are covered. (There is always a bias toward reaching a scientifically relevant conclusion after all, rather than saying even after your experiment, you still don't know. Ever been in a college science lab and been stressed about a report where the experiment results were coming back inconclusive and it was due the next day and you were worried about your grade and didn't want to waste time figuring out what wrong so you started trying to find a way to fit the data to your conclusion? That kind of thing happens.)
>>25466988**uncovered not covered
>>25466988It's really difficult and/or unethical (illegal) to do proper experiments in those fields, and the amount of variables you have to control for is practically insurmountable. And their subject resists study in any case, since it's a living thing that adapts to its environment and is part of its own environment, so by studying it you make your study of it automatically less valid.But if all you're studying is rocks, like the moon, it's a lot easier to trust your scientific conclusions. Maybe you could even say that your conclusions are as close to being absolutely certainly true as it is possible for anything to ever be.Hypothetically, you could do something similar for more complex things, like living things, as well. But again since they're part of their own environment, you could only really rely on that stuff if you kept your findings hidden. Isn't that the whole premise behind sci-fi concepts like "psychohistory", incidentally? Any kind of predicting the future, even. Like, imagine if you really could predict the future with perfect accuracy. But since you now know about the future, you've changed the starting conditions of the prediction, so your prediction is no longer accurate. The only way to do so would be by standing outside of the system that you're predicting. But I'm rambling.
>>25466508 honestly struggling to pin down what your actual gripe is. the language is pretty direct and the terms simple. also you’re using ‘pedantic’ wrong. pedantic means fussing over technicalities or minor details, if anything’s it’s the opposite.
>>25465732I challenge you and everyone to a debate!
>>25464667>>25464665Someone not living in line with their arguments doesn’t mean they don’t believe them or that the arguments aren’t true. A fat person can argue that being in shape is the optimal way for one’s body to be, that doesn’t make them wrong because they’re fat. Ideas transcend the individual positing them.
>>25467861if someone writes a philosophy of the body, and if it’s any good (honest, rigorous, true), it doesn’t just float free as pure ideas. it becomes a diagnostic of the writer. it shows us the precise shape of the gap between what they can think and what they can feel, what they can argue and what they can live. a philosophy that pretends the body is one way while the philosopher’s own body quietly testifies to another isn’t ‘transcending’, it’s just incomplete. or dishonest.
>>25465720Agreed. Think of all of the Danielle Chelosky threads we could be having instead!>>25465739TAG threads got you again?
