Comments on: When Philosophers Attack

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:56:45 +0000

Mr Ellis, You are the one “making an assumption you ought not make.” I don’t see how I could have been more explicit in directing my comments against those who, like shai, claim that “it is hilarious that someone imagines anselm’s ontological argument is a serious topic in the philosophy literature,” which I take to be an obviously false claim about what questions top philosophers take to be important. (Shai later claimed “I didn’t say anselm’s argument wasn’t worthy of discussion,” but it’s not clear to me how thinking it hilarious that something is a serious topic is compatible with thinking it is worthy of discussion.) I have no idea what the basis is for your “disdain” for Anselm’s argument. Unless it’s the mistaken belief that no top philosophers take the argument seriously, my comment had nothing to say about it.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:42:38 +0000

Thank you all for reminding my why I take John Searle seriously, compared to what I read here. I still like to come by, though.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:43:54 +0000

“but all the hilarity here is down to the spectacle of pig-ignorant commentators gauging the philosophical significance of an argument by its degree of fit with their utterly predictable prejudices.“—Jimmy Doyle

You’re making an assumption you ought not make. My disdain for Anslem’s argument is entirely on what I think are its own merits and not at all whether I agree with his conclusion about theism. Unlike (probably) a lot of the other people here who’ve read a great deal of philosophy, I happen to have read a great deal of theology, particularly the scholastics. In contrast to Anslem’s Ontological argument, I have much respect for many other arguments and for the thinkers that elucidate them. In fact, I rather liked Anselm otherwise.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:57:31 +0000

Ah. Hadn’t checked this thread in a while, figured it had petered out. Searle constructs an argument around “knowing” without rigorously defining it, allowing him to equivocate and seem to prove something that he hasn’t. Alternatively, he does define “knowing” adequately, but does so in a way that allows him to constuct a tautology. As to Anselm’s argument: yes, many people do take it seriously—as they take Searle’s argument seriously—and many of those people are, by many indications, very, very, smart. That was my point. I was not saying, chai, that philosophy was little more than stupid tricks with logic. My point was that philosophy is more prone to asking and attempting to answer badly formed questions than is science. I was saying that this is the case because, firstly, philosophers can more easily get away with doing this; secondly, there is an attraction to both the performer and the audience in doing so; and, thirdly, it’s tolerated even when recognized for what it is because philosophy is socially irrelevant in a way that science is not. My main point was that I was empathizing with McGinn’s disdain even if, in fact, he and I are on opposite sides of that divide. Among very smart people, a lot of them seem pretty dumb to the others, in a sense. It’s very, very difficult for me to see why anyone with any sense would take either of the two arguments discussed above seriously. And yet, I recognize that a great many very (otherwise?) intelligent people do. It could be that they’re merely clever “talking parrots”, as I said. It could be something else—that I’m the talking parrot. Or there could be something relativistic going on. I don’t know. But I think it’s interesting because, for me anyway, this experience is an intense and puzzling component of my intellectual life. From my intellectual perspective, there’s a big chunk of things people continually and fruitlessly puzzle over that they should not because, loosely speaking, there’s a category error implicit in the question. These category errors are obvious to me. This is the case with both the examples already mentioned; it’s the case with, as another example, Newcomb’s Paradox; and it’s the case with the “problem” of “free will”. I accept the possibility that I’m the fool in these cases, and it is I that believes I am comprehending something I am not. But the subjective experience is like being that little boy seeing the emperor with no clothes while everyone else is oohing and aahing.

By: luke weiger

luke weiger — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:16:10 +0000

Shouldn’t asserting that an argument’s real dumb be enough to knock it down? I love that method myself…

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:26:53 +0000

Go on then Keith, indulge us. What’s your knockdown argument against Searle?

By: Shai

Shai — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:56:05 +0000

well first, I didn’t say anselm’s argument wasn’t worthy of discussion, like I didn’t say Searle’s chinese room wasn’t worthy (even if neither are especially convincing unless you want to believe the conclusion) but you’re right, I had forgotten about platinga (and unfairly tarred religious philosophy; i’ll re-read this as punishment); keep in mind, I was responding to mr. ellis who was suggesting that philosophy was little more than stupid human tricks with logic.

By: Luke Weiger

Luke Weiger — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:09:12 +0000

Robert: that was my interpretation.

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:03:17 +0000

Right, I’d forgotten about Gödel. But then, when all’s said and done, what did he know about logic?

By: mike

mike — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:55:40 +0000

Interesting that Anselm’s ontological argument is so bad-mouthed. David Lewis took the argument seriously enough to offer a version in ‘Anselm and Actuality’ (and postscripts thereto). He found the argument unsound, sure, but not silly. More importantly, Kurt Gödel took the argument seriously enough to offer his own ontological argument. Circulated in the 70’s and published in the 80’s. It’s his Collected Works Volume III. OUP (1995). What could these small minds have been thinking?

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:47:14 +0000

shai: “but it is hilarious that someone imagines anselm’s ontological argument is a serious topic in the philosophy literature” I hate to sound like a broken record, but all the hilarity here is down to the spectacle of pig-ignorant commentators gauging the philosophical significance of an argument by its degree of fit with their utterly predictable prejudices. Anselm’s ontological argument is a serious topic in the philosophy literature, whether shai, or anyone else, knows it, or likes it, or not. David Lewis found it ‘significant’ enough to write about, and philosophers don’t come much more secular, or knowledgable about science, than him. Alvin Plantinga has forgotten more about modal logic than most philosophers will ever know, and he not only finds it significant—he thinks it’s sound.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:52:19 +0000

“Note for sociologists of the philosophy profession; “Disdain” is what philosophers have for unpalatable conclusions when they can’t think of an argument against them.“—

True. It’s also what they have when they can.

By: Michael Drake

Michael Drake — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:58:19 +0000

he claims to be a vegetarian who happens to eat meat. Hey, McGinn never said he was a strict vegetarian.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:26:54 +0000

And whatever it is that makes it possible for some people to take Anselm’s or Searle’s arguments seriously where, for example, I cannot, is the sort of difference that inspires (in each direction) such disdain. Note for sociologists of the philosophy profession; “Disdain” is what philosophers have for unpalatable conclusions when they can’t think of an argument against them.

By: AG

AG — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:16:21 +0000

Reading through the above about CM, and then seeing the comments about Searle’s Chinese Room argument triggered something in my memory about Searle being particularly, erm, forceful in print. So I dug out the passages – both of these are from his “Can Computers Think?”, and made me laugh when I first stumbled across them. On objections to the Chinese Room argument: “Various replies have been suggested to this argument… They all have something in common: they are all inadequate.” On claims that the mind is a computer program: “As a philosopher, I like all these claims for a simple reason. Unlike most philosophical theses, they are reasonably clear, and they admit of a simple and decisive refutation” The comments may be tongue-in-cheek, but they did make me smile. How JS would have come across had he been interviewed for the Times, I do not know.