Why philosophy is fucked

Seen on substack:

= = = = =

Most people don’t realize how ridiculously hard one needs to think in order to thoroughly grasp certain philosophical problems. It took me well over a decade to really grasp the sorites paradox, for instance. And one often needs more years of investigation to realize the depth of a problem. If you have an opinion on how to solve the sorites or the liar paradox or the hard problem of consciousness, it’s almost always premature in the sense of being based on a superficial understanding of the problem. Really hard problems, that have resisted consensus for centuries, are annoying this way.

= = = = =

NOPE. If you need to think for 10 years, it’s not a concept worth thinking about. USEFUL concepts are simple and universal. A subject area should be HELPFUL to real people, not endless food for pointless argument.

Come to think of it, a subject of study is like soap or cars or any other product. If it’s helpful, if it improves life, people will gladly pay for it.

THE WORLD NEEDS SOLVED PROBLEMS. We sure as hell do not need MORE pointless argumentation, and we shouldn’t have to pay university departments for MORE pointless argumentation.

Sometimes you do need experience with real things or real people to get into the realm where a concept IS useful, but after you’re accustomed to the way things or people work, a USEFUL concept is instantly clear and helps to clarify everything in that realm.

You need to do mechanical stuff (eg carpentry or auto repair) for a while before Newton’s laws are obvious. You need to deal with batteries and resistors and motors before Ohm is obvious. You need to do some persuading or sales work before Duane Jones is obvious. After you’ve worked in a bureaucracy for a few weeks, Parkinson is a revelation. After taking a philosophy course, Ockham is PAINFULLY obvious. Each of these rules HELPS you to handle things or people more effectively because you know what to expect.

The “prisoner’s dilemma” is a perfect example of a difficult philosophical concept. I’ve been in jail. I know the “prisoner’s dilemma” is DANGEROUS NONSENSE. It bears precisely zero connection to the dilemmas a real prisoner faces, or the way a real prisoner thinks about his situation.

NOBODY WOULD EVER DO WHAT THE THEORETICAL PRISONER DOES.

IT WOULD BE DEADLY!!!!!!!!

Consciousness doesn’t need specialized experience. We’re all conscious, and we’ve all thought about the situation. It’s difficult because it’s simply not testable. There’s no way to measure or observe consciousness from outside. Professional philosophers have been arguing about it for thousands of years and nothing has changed because it’s utterly futile.

There are only two LOGICAL possibilities. (1) I’m the only conscious being. (2) All of the universe is conscious.

We feel the truth is somewhere between those two, but no in-between point can be tested. The best candidate for a measurable test is dreams, because dreams require internal awareness. Still, it seems likely that animals and plants are aware without having dreams.