armchair philosophies; why do they sometimes pass as answers?

Question

Have you gotten an answer in the philosophy section that had nothing to do with actual philosophy? Armchair philosophy often comes across as sage advice to the layman, but when scrutenized even a little; are found to say nothing at all.
So, why do they pass fro answers in Yahoo's philosophy section?
And Do they think they actually make sense?

I do realize that this is more of a gripe than a question, but I am serious about the subject. "it is what it is" is not an answer.

As requested I will tell you what real philosophy is. Philosophy uses structured arguments in either the Deductive, Abductive, or Inductive forms. Each form of argument has it's own strengths and weakness' Abductive provides the least guarentee, but yeilds the greatest results...they are extremely easy to bust if they are wrong. Induction is slightly better with the guarentee, but a little harder to disprove. You cannot disprove a Deductive argument. For more information about the various forms of these arguments, or in Philosophy in general I suggest 'Core Questions in Philosohys' by Elliott Sober, or any other of the various text books on the subject...or better yet, take a class megalomaniac.

baghmom: The biggest problem that I have with this issue is the form in which answers take. There are hardly justifications to the answers given, and for the most part they are in no form at all. In the argument of dying babies, for example, there is only one premise, and it is a conditional. I may answer as follows: Your argument that there is a reason at all for a life is unfounded in your conditional. You meerly assume that there is a reason for life, and provide no evidence stating the need for a reason. Your question is meaningless without a reason, and an answer would be just as meaningless.

I know it sounds harsh, but Philosophy is the love of knowledge, and it's main goal is the search for the truth, and in order to get to the truth, and know it is the truth; there must be a logical form, and untruths must be regarded as such.

Point taken _._, but I can take the same stance as you in stating that I am not committed to the statement that the world is round, only that simply believing something is true does not make it so. I realize that you are also responding to another answerer; I will not argue for him. I answered your question about the mystical purple dragon as best I saw fit, and used an example that should be relatable to everyone, or at least most people. I hold it possible that the truth of the matter may be that the world is not round, but instead has no shape at all, as it could be part of my nonphysical mind. Possibilities abound, it could be true that circular reasoning is true because there is in fact no time, and without an idea of time you have no before or after. In this case my experiences are perfectly random, and only make sense because of my understanding of all circumstances I that have, and will ever be involved in.

but since I exist, and I know that I exist, another persons belief has no bearing on my existance. You stated in your question: if everyone believed that something existed then would it exist? or something to that effect. Logically it would hold true that if everybody did not think that something existed then it would not exist. I still exist no matter who does not believe it, and that is the basis of my answer to your purple dragon.

-.-: I completely understand your response to, whomever, but I recognized the inference that you used, and wanted to make sure that you realized the same fact about me, that you were stating about yourself. Thank you for your response, although I probably should have posted the question on the gripe section (if they had one).

Answer 1

Not even "academic" philosophy should pass as "answers".

*** "There are some stupid questions alright-like about Purple Dragons n stuff"

-.-
just because I ask a question doesn't mean I'm committed to whatever you think I'm implying. If I ask what's the ontological status of the objects of our belief, no one will answer.

Besides it's not a 'stupid' question. If you're commited to the world once being known as flat, and now round, and think that there ISNT another way to look at it, that we've lighted upon the absolute ground of reality... you're taking the former generalization of appearances---> reality, and assuming, like Plato that we only ever get closer to the Pure Abstract Real World by the application of Reason. That assumption is just as mythological, metaphorical and irrational as any of the foundational assumptions that add up to "this body of facts" known as the physical world apart from my sensing it.

The logical positivist tradition only ever proves tautologies, circularities and banalities, or else it says "We can't know!" Impossible! Irreducible! Indeterminate! It's the most defeatist business I've ever been involved in.

Don't make it seem like this critique isn't available, just because I choose not to use syllogisms to drive all my thoughts, doesn't mean it's bullshit and trivial. It's rather the opposite.

***I'm not doubting everything, I'm not playing that game. I'm questioning the relationship between epistemology and ontology. In response to your Cartesian answer I'd say 1) you're altering the class of All people by separating yourself 2) I don't need the class of All people to make the same point 3) If we were to believe you didn't exist and then you demonstrated that you do, that demonstration would be very odd and super-solipcistic.

*** I'm damn sure I deserve an apology, if such a deserving and right were a virtue of this world. The fact that Zephyrscent discounts such a question as mine as "stupid" IS stupid without reasons. The use of thought experiments is so essential and primary to philosophy. It wasn't my intention to say purple dragons really do exist, and it's also NOT easy to say that they don't given the very basic way I've described how many many many people relate to the real world. I don't care IF anyone responds. I think it's totally asinine, elitist, and myopic to say only Descartes, only Hume, only Kant, only Russel or whoever are allowed to do philosophy.

I don't know if you, wishmaster, were directing this question at me specifically. Yes I used your answer to my Question to respond to zephyrscent inappropriately, possibly. And then went on to attribute a certain set of philosophic attitudes to zephyr which he may not endorse fully. So it seems my diatribe on the 'bullshit' status of the analytic school is a quagmire of stupidness (not that it wouldn't be anyway, I am frustrated by my English-speaking colleagues to say the very least). But my intent was to show that it's NOT simple to discount what Zephry was attributing to my Question. That your fair response isn't satisfying enough to put a QED on the end like i've seen others do.

I HOPE, in writing this, something has been cleared up.

I'm RARELY satisfied, VERY skeptical, and don't think ANY "answer" .. EVEN my own, is such a final thing. Why do some people choose answers that seem QUITE illogical, irrational, un-investigated? because they value certain premises as 'proven' and understand the coherence of the answer Based on the "unquestionables". Do I find most religious answers to religious questions satisfying? No. Because I don't accept the premises or use methods that 'faith' is oblivious to.

But that doesn't mean that I'm necessarily right
THOUGH I THINK I AM.
AND MAY BECOME QUITE INDIGNANT ABOUT IT.

Answer 2

some of the greatest philosopies can come from the uneducated, if thats what youre calling "armchair philosopies". dont sell a person short. if you do that you are selling yourself short. sage advice from a person not educated in philosophy.

however, no matter what the section, there are people who answer inappropriately-not just meaning rudeness or completely off the wall answers-just inappropriate to the true gist of the question. I see that all the time. It can be frustrating. I guess thats why it would be considered "weeding" through the answers to one that is appropriate.
Theres a question now, why do babies die-if everyone has a purpose, what purpose did the babies have- (It seemed inherent in the queston was time and purpose were directly related-which is untrue) I was going to answer it, but as I thought about it there were so many purposes that a paper could have been written on it.
I didnt answer it. What if I did? How could you tell that I was a deeper or less deeper thinker than you or was more or was less educated than you? How would you know if my answer was highly hogwash or highly philosophical? Whats the litmus test-isnt philosophy more or less subjective-without parameters say found in math or music? Enlighten me, if you wish-no sarcasm intended at all.
I understand your frustrations truly I do. "They pass for answers" in any section, not just philosophy. And yep, if you think the answer is serious then yes, just like me now, they do think they "actually makes sense".
dont be insulted by the obvious-it may be how a person gets along in this big indifferent frightening world.

Answer 3

There are two types of philosophy and i've found both. The higher,or Ivory Tower Philosophy i've seen here yes-complex questions on form and substance in Aristotle or Infinity concept in Nietzsche. Then there is lower, or applied Philosophy where the wisdom is applied the real problems of life and existence.
There are some stupid questions alright-like about Purple Dragons n stuff. But generally speaking i believe both streams of philosophy are present. But not equally-there just aren't enough trained philosophers in circulation.
People ask, we give wise answers. They say "how ya know the best thing to say?" and then we can dish out the Ivory Tower stuff.
Thats what i think.

Answer 4

Bumper Sticker kind of answers are annoying.

I took a class called "Listening for Heaven's Sake" that talks about non-answers folks use when they are afraid to Listen and adequately determine what the actual question or or words spoken are about. I can't imagine folks getting out of elementary school without an active listening class.

End Point: I've found active listening to be helpful in feeling more secure in understanding who I am listening too. Before the class sometimes I would use simple answers to comfort out of my own insecurity with a situation more so than to truly listen.

I'm not sure I'm answering your question well because I am talking about listening to spoken words, but seems similar when applied to written words. Sometimes it is annoying to be answered by a non-answer.

Answer 5

And I suppose that you can tell us what 'real' philosophy is. If so please do so...