This cracked me up.

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/t/20274.aspx

can somebody copy-paste the posts before the thread is deleted?

eh, posted here?

If you notice, they are using the "You can't use UPB without arguing against UPB" argument.

This argument, at best, equates UPB with simple pragmatism ("oughts" from "ifs"), but I would argue that it simply equates UPB with the exhibition of personal preference.

Basically, UPB "establishes the existence of ethics" through a series of definition switches (bait and switch a.k.a. equivocation).

First, stef says that UPB is synonymous with preference. Then once he proves that people have preferences, he switches the (implicit) definition to basic pragmatism, and works up from there.

In other words, his whole basis for ethics is a trick.

He needs this trick in order to later say that something is either immoral or moral (rather than neither).

Here is are the first 8 posts on this topic, as of 12:39 PM, PDT, April 28, 2009:

Is Debating Philosophy Obsolete?

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?

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.

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.

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?

NED
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.

ASH
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 Smile

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

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?

ASH
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.

pfff, so sad. I actually like Ash, and thought he would get out at some point, but alas.

Ned's ideas are the logical conclusion of UPB though, its reductio ad absurdum

Yo, does anyone know the argument for why you can't debate UPB without invoking UPB? I don't want to do the hard philosophical work of pouring over pages and pages of why parents are the devil to get to the point I'm interested in.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying the argument is that because someone prefers to debate (an individual preference), they are demonstrating universal preference. Wow, I almost hope that isn't really the argument...

"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."

-Joey

Well Joey, I'd be inclined to argue that FDR is neither philosophy nor debate; it's just people arguing anxieties in order to avoid abstractions. After all, philosophy is NOT the same thing as amateur psychology.

Please don't ban me for saying that.

Wait... this isn't FDR. Where am I?