Now, for everyone who isn't aware, math is philosophy. I'm going to get this right out of the way: math is literally philosophy. It's numerical logic, and you know what logic is? That's right, motherfucking philosophy. Deal with it.
Incidentally, science is philosophy too. When I try and explain this to STEM people, they get all worked up about how "philosophy is useless Ivory Tower drivel" and in that regard, I don't blame them. If you're forced to wade through all of the preceding garbage of Platonic Ideals and Catagorical Imperatives, as students of philosophy often do, you get so caught up in the history and literature of philosophy that they actually fail to philosophize (for those of you keeping score, this is why I don't consider having an intimate understanding primary texts as absolutely necessary for understanding philosophy, but more on that another time). However, when you get right down to it, philosophy is about broadening the understanding of the human experience. Science does this (quite effectively I might add) through the methodical application of skeptical empiricism, and thoroughly sifted through math (usually statistics, more on that in a moment). Like all philosophers, scientists act under certain axioms, specifically that 1. Sense is ultimately truthful, if often confounded 2. If the causes of an action are the same, the effects of the action will, on average be the same too (not always exactly the same though because QUANTUM) and 3. Humans are capable of using axiom 1. and logic to confirm axiom 2. applies in various physical circumstances. Hence, scientists are philosophers: natural philosophers (or physicists, before Science stole the term) who use a logical method of applying their axioms to further their understanding of the human condition. QED
Now, I am not going to try and debunk these axioms, because they're fucking axioms, they're supposed to exist a priori. I hate people who go around saying "DUR HUR YOU CAN'T SAY YOU 'KNOW' SOMETHING BECAUSE WHAT IF ALL YOUR SENSES ARE LYING TO YOU? HURP A DURP PLATONIC CAVE, PHENOMENOLOGY, SCIENCE IS WRONG." (I have been working on my impression of continental philosophers). My answer to them is this: Okay. Whatever. You're not wrong, but you're debunking axioms, which any idiot can do. In the context of their axioms (I know all you continentals out there are big on context), science has been doing a bang up job while you've been sitting around in a circle jacking off to Kant and doing fuck all.
Right, so there was a point to that. My point is that insofar as we can perceive it, the human experience is grounded in logical principles. They're not simple logical principles, obviously, and it especially doesn't help that science is, as we say in the philosophic circles, slow as tits. However, because of this, we are able to use principles of math to further our understanding of the human experience. But before you prepare your anus for some hardcore Newtonian determinism, don't, because the math I'm referring to is statistics.
Yes, statistics, the red-headed stepchild of math. So many people overlook it because most of the time it takes more patience than brains and insofar as math can be glamorous, it is the most homely of them all. This is complete bullshit because it's the most relevant of all math. If you recall Science Axiom 2, quantum kind of fucks over any sort of absolute determinism, because as far as we can tell, it's absolutely random. Sucks for calculus, because you know what deals great with randomness: that's right, stat.
What I would consider statistic's best law is the Law of Large Numbers which is able to take the jumbled fucking mess of randomness and constructing nice little probabilities with only a fuckton of events and a satanic ritual (Probably. I wasn't paying much attention in AP Stat at the time). As such, we can predict the result of certain things even without knowing all the variables of the cause (which is nice, seeing as how we're up to 11 dimensions now and we can only directly observe 3 of them. Fucking quantum).
So by now I am guessing you're all getting real fucking tired of this math bullshit and are wondering when the morality shit's going to come in. Well, kindly remove the bees from your bonnet and listen: Utilitarianism. What sort of images does that evoke? Poor Mr. Blackpool? Adorable British orphans? This SMBC comic? Ron Paul? All terrible things, yes but I would argue that it's not the method of Utilitarianism that's wrong (for those of you new to this, it is basically using logical principles to increase the overall happiness of a given population, with variable results), but rather the models. The historical models of Utilitarianism operated something like this: Axiom 1. Wealth = Happiness (Wrong, also this isn't an axiom, it's an assumption. More on that later.) Axiom 2. The best method of fair distribution is by using the mean: the SMBC comic explains very neatly why this is a fucking idiotic idea.
So what is a good idea, then? Well why don't we start with replacing trying to get a high mean with a high median while also trying to bolster the mode so that it's not a tidy little bell chart but skewed so far right it wants every household to have 12 kids, a minigun and a plaque of the Ten Commandments. Then, we'll base our judgements not on simple quantifiers like wealth or number of hats, but on a complicated matrix of criteria that have systematically show to optimize human happiness. What the flying fuck does that even mean? Its... complicated, so I'm going to save that for Thursday.
Sincere Regards,
Michael Coffey
(P.S. Some of the more savvy may have noted that the scientific axioms leave little in the way for free will, relying instead on either absolute determinism or probable determinism to explain human action. Some may even find this to be upsetting, but I have found something which may help you here. I'll cover this on Thursday too)
I. I'm not sure how I feel about this.
ReplyDeleteHere's a list of adjectives for you.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.enchantedlearning.com/wordlist/adjectives.shtml
Oh how I miss your assholeness as tool tzar.
DeleteI like this post, but I have some issues with it:
ReplyDelete1. I disagree with the claim that the categorical imperative, or as you put it, all philosophical literature that is seemingly impractical, is useless. First, the point of Kantian ethics is that it's practical and applicable to an agent's decision making. It is called 'practical' reason for a reason. Other ethical theories do this too. Contractarianism. Rawlsian Contractualism. Scanlonian Contractualism. Utilitarians justify their theory using pragmatist arguments. Second, while the ethical debate is seen as senseless or queer or whatever, it's also pretty important for broadening human experience. If you're correct that philosophy is about gaining a better understanding of human experience, then moral philosophy is indispensable to us. A) it forces us to acknowledge other perspectives and gain a broader understanding of other ethical viewpoints, and B) the whole point of it is to gain a much better understanding of what we mean metaethically when we say something is correct or good.
2. Bertrand Russell is pretty famous for arguing that philosophy is important because of its uncertainty. It forces us to challenge our inherent biases and perspectives. I think your view of science as philosophy, and more generally, of pragmatism is exactly what Russell is criticizing. The point is that we don't reach final answers. That is why philosophy is valuable, not because it discovers some godlike scientific fact.
3. Kant makes a very good argument about logic, namely that it cannot be empirical. That's because logic must be a set of rules that governs all ways of thinking and that governs reason. Your discussion of math is essentially a discussion of formal logic and the supposedly a priori nature of logic that you cite just proves that logic is distinct from empirical propositions. That probably contradicts everything you're saying about science. Your argument is that we can use science and logic in conjunction with each other to formally understand that world. Logic definitionally doesn't concern this. NOW what can have an empirical character is moral philosophy. But you've already done away with that when you indict all the people jacking off to Kant, so, I guess that's been foreclosed.
4. Your proof seems absurd. It implies that any agent operating using an axiom is a philosopher. First, an agent could endorse a maxim that philosophy is bad, which at the very least contradictory, using some sort of axiom. Second, we endorse specific 'axioms' whenever we act. For example when I use a chair I endorse the self-evident claim that a chair exists. Literally any action would make me a philosopher because it would be operating under some sort of assumption of an axiom. Perhaps your qualifier that it has to be for the sake of human understanding answers this objection, but that's extremely vague. I take certain actions because they further my understanding of the world around me. Looking on top of a book shelf for some lost change would be a philosophical action in your view because it would further my knowledge of the world around me and answer a question of mine.
5. This entire passage begs a normative question because it says that the products of science or logic or pragmatism are 'good' for some reason. You can't say that ethical philosophy is senseless and then randomly say something is good without first having an understanding of what the good is. Moral philosophy does that for you.
6. I'm nitpicking, but you seem to equate a very Humean claim to a Kantian one when you end your paragraph with jacking off to Kant. Hume argued we can't verify what our senses tell us, not Kant.
What I've written above may make me seem like a Kantian, but I'm not. I'm just using some of his arguments and/or using him as an example. Despite my objections above, I really enjoy reading these posts and I think they're awesome.
@ Sam Mathews
DeleteYou raise a bunch of valid points, most of which I actually agree with, though the style of the post obscures the meaning a bit. I'll respond to your points in the same order.
1. I don't conciser philosophical literature impractical or useless at all. I think that a good understanding of the ideas in the literature is necessary for making informed decisions on philosophy. When I say "If you're forced to wade through all of the preceding garbage of Platonic Ideals and Catagorical Imperatives, as students of philosophy often do, you get so caught up in the history and literature of philosophy that they actually fail to philosophize." My point is (and this is only an opinion mind,) that high level academic philosophy is far too focused on analyzing their predecessors rather than actually using their insight to address contemporary issues. I'm not alone in this opinion either: there are a good number of scholars such as Christopher Philips of Socrates Cafe fame, Dr. Zachery Ernst of the University of Missouri-Columbia (link: http://zacharyernst.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-i-jumped-out-of-ivory-tower.html) and the Classical Cynics, who believed that excessive use of esoteric terminology in other schools of philosophy (*coughAcademicschough*) contributed to the typhos which blocked normal people out of philosophy. This was not a criticism as philosophy as a study, but rather clarifying (albeit poorly, apparently) that I subscribe to the more counter-cultural, pedestrian philosophy, because I feel that it better accomplishes the goal of enhancing knowledge of the human condition through reason (primarily through literature, art, science and snarky blogs). And as to moral philosophy: SHOOSH I'M NOT DONE YET. I will address ethics Thursday, and probably many other times too, because I actually conciser ethics to be one of the most important branches of philosophy.
2. I agree, but my point was that within boundaries of the axioms of science that I listed above, the scientific method has proven to be the most effective study of physics (I will use physics in the more classical, philosophical sense, btw). Science gives us a logical understanding of the world as we perceive it and as we perceive it only, which is fine, because that turned out to be super helpful for day to day things like how to make pencils not to die of smallpox. As to bias, both the the Law of Large Numbers helps a lot with that and even such just about every error in science can be chalked up to either: asking the wrong question, having a stupid hypothesis (eugenics), or doing your math wrong. Science admits that the largest block to knowledge is that humans are stupid, which is what Russell is more politely and precisely stating.
3. I would actually argue that sense precedes logic, with the exceptions of axioms. Let's conciser the most basic mathematical principle 1+1=2. How do you prove that? Well, if you're not a philosopher, you would take an object, say a rock for instance and you would establish that this here is one rock. You would then take another rock and reinforce the fact that here is one rock and there is one rock and when you put the two together it's two rocks (and then presumably you would throw the rocks at me for asking stupid questions). If you're a philosopher, however, you're stuck because there's no way to clarify the meaning of numbers without using either a tautology or a perceived example. I suppose you could argue that the logic exists in some kind of evanescent ideal form, as Kant (and my truly hated foe: PLATO) does, but this is as unsubstantiated as the empirical tautology. So why then do I conclude that logic is derived from sense? I claim this because man existed before philosopher did, and so it is reasonable to assume that they had the sort of intuitive sense of logic before they could explain it without sounding like a dumbass (viz. the rock example). In any case, I find the point moot, chicken or egg because we always come back to the point that we can't prove that logic works without using logic. Essentially, all reason breaks down after a certain level of abstraction because there's nothing to base the reason on. Axioms act as a first stepping stone for any reason at all. As to my "indictment," that was hyperbolic mockery leveled not at Kant, but at people (usually those fucking Academics) who debunk arguments by forcing people to prove their axioms. (Also note for clarification: academics= educated in modern institutions of higher learning, Academics= smelly Platonic Skeptics and people who act like them, (see Gaius Cotta in De Natura Deorum)).
Delete4. Philosopher: noun. One who uses reason to further the understanding of the human condition. In my book, scientists never stopped being philosophers. It's really just a branch of Physics who doesn't like to associate with philosophy because of the whole "Scholasticism" and "Galileo" thing (philosophy was hanging out with catholic theology at the time. It was a phase, I swear.) I will explain what I mean about the human condition in a later post, because that's a doozy and too much for the comment box. If you still disagree, I will refer you to link 2.
5.Did I? Where did I say that? I said that science was good at answering things within the bounds of its axioms. You just hush up and wait for me to write on moral philosophy on Thursday because it's too much for the comment box.
Delete6. I could have sworn that Kant said something about- let me look it up... Wait. Kant was an Idealist? That's even worse! KAAAAAAAAAAANT!!!!!
(It should be noted that I tend to stay away from epistemology. It's too wrapped up in a priori stuff. I am willing to allow a priori for axioms, but only for the reasons I explained above. Usually, the phrase "insofar as we can perceive" or something like that translates to "YES I KNOW, EPISTEMOLOGY. LET'S JUST ASSUME OUR PERCEPTION HAS USEFUL INFORMATION SO WE CAN MOVE ON, PLEASE.")
Overall, take this blog with a grain of salt. I'm writing it for fun, so the sardonic style and lack of fact checking may obfuscate my actual opinion some (though for the fact checking, I'll do my best to not be glaringly wrong in the important things). I did enjoy clarifying the points though too, so keep 'em coming, so long as we are not arguing a priori assumptions like axioms and definitions because that's where your standard Ivory Tower Circle-Jerk lives.
Would you just come out of the closet already? There's no need anymore to hide that you want to be a philosophy major! Society's changing, and you don't need to fear retribution! It's ok! We're all allies here.
ReplyDeleteI apologize that I don't have any constructive philosophical arguments to add to your and Sam's discussion. And besides, continental philosophy is entirely valuable! Who else is going to shut the damned interactive dualists up and repudiate their 'soul-body' bullshit? And if you think they're bad, I'd very much recommend reading Shankra, the Hindu Husserl.