I am a philosopher AMA

[Booboostwo]

This will probably be the shortest AMA in the (admittedly short) history of AMA, but here it goes anyway.

I should of expanded a bit more. What we see through these lenses we call eyes can only be illusory. Or indeed any of the senses. It is all perceived, is it not?

Also a Philosopher - also hated The Good Place!

Yes, all our senses can be mistaken so they are unreliable - this is Cartesian doubt. But Descartes goes on to show that some things cannot be doubted. Consider the following and assume we have no language, translation or communication problems:

Two plus two equals four
A batchelor is an unmarried man
A triangle has three sides

They cannot be doubted as the are definitions, I.e a batchelor is defined as an unmarried man and any batchelor who marries ceases to be a batchelor. These truths we’re true yesterday and they will be true tomorrow. They are true for me, for you and would remain true even if no one was around at all.

They are true but boring as they are uninformative, I.e. if you know what batchelor means you know he will be an unmarried man. From the Descartes is inspired to come up with the cogito, I think therefore I am. The very act of doubting it is an act of thinking that confirms it. It is true but also interesting as it confirms my existence.

I bet we know each other in RL Katurah, there are so few of us!

The sum 2+2, the bachelor and triangle do not exist. They are human constructs. As in time is a human construct. The time here now is different to the time in Australia or the East coast of the USA. It is practical and required to exist in the human constructed world. But it is still Illusory and perceived.
Is a 6 month old infant aware of human constructs or ideologies? Not until it is programmed by other humans.
Or does a dog know it is a dog? Labelling creates the illusion.
If there is a dog barking a few gardens away from where I am now. I am hearing the dog where? I am perceiving the dog barking where?
If I hadn't been taught that it is a dog and that the sound is it making is a bark, then all I would perceive is a noise.
But because I have been taught that the dog is a few gardens away then the dog and the noise must be over there and not here in my perception.
When we let go of programming, conditioning, human constructed concepts, including ideologies and labelling, and only perceive from the place of perception without attachment or judgement, what then?

They cannot be doubted as the are definitions, I.e a batchelor is defined as an unmarried man and any batchelor who marries ceases to be a batchelor. These truths we’re true yesterday and they will be true tomorrow. They are true for me, for you and would remain true even if no one was around at all

Yes...but no. A woman has always been defined as an adult human female, but apparently the truths that were true yesterday will not be true tomorrow

No they are not human construct they are logical truths. The linguistic assignment “two” is a human construct, you could say “deux” or “zwei” but the concept of two is universal. I feel aliens landed tomorrow we would expect them to understand two plus two equals four (as soon as we overcame linguistic barriers).

A baby is not aware of logical truths but that doesn’t invalidate them. No one needs to know that two plus two equals four for it to be true. It just is, definitionally, tautologically, because four is made up of two twos.

The barking comes from your senses, which can deceive you, not your reason. The labeling of a dog as a dog and not a coyote or a wolf is a human construct based on how we categorize this (biological) type.

The question on ideologies and the subjective perspective is an entirely different one. There is a big divide between philosophers who argue that the just standpoint is the one which stands outside individual characteristics and preferences which make us biased, and philosophers that the human perspective is inevitably subjective as a purely objective standpoint is nonsensical (for being like us).

If the definition of woman is a culturally constructed one then it will vary from culture to culture, time to time and change. For example, some cultures have terms to refer to people who flow from one gender to the other and there is no preoccupation with a strict, binary divide.

If he definition of woman is based on biological facts then it’s an empirical matter. If there exists one person who is not biologically clearly female or male, according to the definition used to make the distinction, then the distinction is vulnerable. E.g. the existence of intersex people challenges the idea that males and females are clearly, biologically separate.

We are rational being who are attracted to reason, truth and the good

Really?! Do you not think there are irrational and bad people?

We have to have free will otherwise there is no point to anything. Academically I wouldn’t touch free will..I might find out we have none!

Do you not think it is less black and white given the myriad influences like biology and upbringing.

What do you think of schrodiger's cat?

It was said the cat can be both death or alive. Isn't it just dead or alive but in a box so we don't know. Never understood that.

Sorry writing one more post. Can pick one.

What do you thinks happen when we die? Do you think there are other realities ect.

If we are capable of metathinking and thinking doesn't always achieve any action, or it's just in our heads, do thoughts have a purpose we don't know about?

Two plus two equals four
A batchelor is an unmarried man
A triangle has three sides

I'm not sure.

As you said before it's tautology or really just synonyms. Two plus two = four. Batchelour = unmarried. Triangle = three sided shape. They are intechangable with the same definition.

But are they truths of reality? Is our perception of two the same as someone else's. For example in language some say things in two syllables others in three. A batchelor might say he's unmarried but be lying.

If you are comparing two philosophers about the truth of reality then I think you have to examine them in the same way: not one with linguistic reality and one with our sensory reality.

How we are qua human beings is a statement about the human type’s nature not about the personality of an individual. As a type we are amenable to reason...that doesn’t mean that no one makes irrational decisions. It’s like saying that bees are the type of things that sting, but that doesn’t mean that all bees sting every time, or that there won’t be some bees who are incapable of stinging.

Free will and determinism are not the same as nature and nurture. The latter can have a bit of everything type of answer, but the former is either or. Some thing moves, it was either moved (caused) or it moved by itself (free). The two positions in the free will debate are either
Compatibility: it is possible for free will and determinism to exist together
Or incompatibilism: you must chose either one or the other, we are either entirely free or entirely determined.

It’s complicated for sure! (and probably beyond my ability to give a concise but informative answer).

S’s cat is completely above my pay grade. All I know is that it’s about our knowledge of the cat’s state. So because the radioactive decay that may trigger its death is a random process, until we observe its state by opening the box it is considered to be both alive and dead equally.

All I know is that I have a mind. This mind that I am aware of can be used for practical thought, the kind of thought that is required to live in this world. Book appointments, plan routes etc.
I am also aware that this mind is capable of imaginary thought, that which I choose not to believe.
I am also aware that this mind has been programmed and conditioned by society, culture, education, parents, siblings, teachers, bosses, partners. All that has been discarded.
I am also aware that my mind has an identity, an intellect, an intelligence and is curious. And is used accordingly.
But I also am aware that there is something observing all of that. It is a higher intelligence, It has always been there, it is there now and will be there in the future. We all posses it, although most beings may not be aware of it.
So quite simply, there is something aware of the mind and can observe it without attaching to it. This something does not believe anything is see's or hears or smells or touches or tastes it simply observes.

I think it’s interesting that we think a lot about what happens when we die but very little about what happened to us before we were born. I think what happens to us after death is the same as before birth, non-existence, which is impossible to imagine.

It’s not a language issue, it’s a conceptual issue. It doesn’t matter what you chose to call two, or if Trump says two plus two equal quazillion, it is still the case that four means two and two. Even if there were no objects whatsoever to make up four or no thinkers at all to think four, four would still be two and two.

Post-doc philosopher here, and I think we've chatted before Booboos :-]

For similar reasons to Booboo, I am likely getting out this year. I love my subject, but I am very disillusioned by the machinations of academia. The pressures are immense and mental health problems amongst academics are rife. I'm convinced the stress of it led to what was essentially a breakdown in Feb-May. Only now am I recovering, and I am dealing with some physical problems.

Whilst lecturing, I also had the problem of increasingly larger class sizes. 20-25 in a seminar was just too much.

I also have zero interest in making myself competitive enough for a permanent job. At my institution, we have just had 143 applicants for one lectureship. 143!!!! I can guarantee that many of those will have profiles rivaling that of some professors, and yet, they will be bouncing around on exploitative teaching contracts.

No thank you. I have done that. We are a Northern RG uni, and your child is likely to be taught by someone stressed out from trying to teach a stupid number of modules whilst publishing their way into a permanent job. The student demographic is also changing for the worse: I am bored of teaching expensively educated teenagers who lack a certain 'spark' and think you should instantly do what they say because they are paying 9K a year (I give you someone who expected private lectures after they missed most of a module).

I have one invited journal paper to finish, and then I am DONE. The only emotion I can muster up is one of relief.

I am sorry you feel this way Everlasting. Sadly it all sounds too familiar.

I am simply exhausted by it all. Burned out.

I think I'll be a better philosopher for not being a part of academia. The pressure to meet ever increasing arbitrary targets (the TEF, good grief) hinders doing fruitful research in my view.

Some seem to think academics sit around all day pontificating irrelevant questions. If only most of us had the time to properly engage with our subject!

I don’t know what to say, it seems hopeless. Apologies for putting a downer on the idea of an academic career on any junior people reading. Some people make it work.

I think, seeing how many applications we had for one post in my own department really brought home what early career researchers are facing, and I don't think philosophy is exceptional in this respect. I don't wish to compete with 100+ people for a professional post as it's then a lottery. The people I see who have made it work are certainly very talented philosophers, but no more so than those that didn't: many simply got lucky.

Hi. My son is about to start a philosophy masters after having completed a science degree. He's become interested over the course of the last 3 years and spends all his time reading. He took some philosophy modules during his degree and did really well - was told for his last essay to send it it in to see if could be published.
He isn't at the moment fussed about earning a lot of money in life and would rather have philophy as his career than lots of money. He's like to process to post grad and stay in academia but he's aware this is a very tricky path.
What would your advice be to him? Question is for op and EverlastingGodstopper and any others I've missed! Phone playing up.

Do you fancy coming and doing a workshop with my sixth formers (and me!) on Aristotle?

@mnahmnah Yay fellow ethics A-Level teacher! Which board?