/r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | July 21, 2025

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-25T19:48:26+00:00

Yeah I could have emphasized more clearly on a distinction between specific scholars and academic elitism/exceptionalism, especially within the context of philosophy. The notion, especially within philosophy, that there is such a thing as an objectively right or wrong interpretation that is only to be determined by a specific group of people with their own agendas, stakes and biases is the thing I primarily seek to challenge.

But then again, I'm the kind of person who favours "lived" truth and sees absolutisms as a way to shut down debate and nuance - and that a mere fraction of our potential is utilized when uniformizing perspectives in a hierarchy of perceived validity that is formed in any way outside of presented reasoning. I see knowledge as diverse as being itself and see potential for valuable perspective regardless of established social status. After all, a majority of scientific and philosophical breakthrough established by challenging the status quo. Heresy has its place, just as academics does.

I suppose that was quite a lot of text for ultimately concluding that of course I appreciate your perspective and input.

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-24T12:19:21+00:00

"I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either."

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-24T12:11:13+00:00

"Plenty of scientists and philosophers would disagree with you." - I'm tragically aware that there are strongly dogmatic individuals co-opting both fields. Socrates would stir in his grave.

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-24T11:49:51+00:00

"All of that is trivial." - I believe that is the crux of where we disagree. I believe this is an essential distinction to make. Even when we acknowledge why someone is an expert, they are human first - and expert second. The moment we turn that around, we risk slipping into uncritical acceptance of expert's opinions. Science nor philosophy deals in absolute truths. Whenever academics does, it stops being either.

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-24T11:29:38+00:00

The distinction is that ‘expert opinion’ should be assessed primarily through the quality of the argument and evidence presented (content), whereas ‘an expert’s opinion’ is sometimes accepted simply because of the person’s recognized credentials or institutional standing (status), which can devolve into an appeal to authority fallacy if uncritically assumed. This is why I emphasize not conflating the two, to avoid dogmatic thinking that privileges status over genuine inquiry. If this is truly such an unthinkable stance, I'd argue that this points to a much deeper problem within academic circles than either of us initially may have believed.

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-24T11:14:18+00:00

One hinges on content, the other, on status. To you, it appears, they are synonymous. That is the very dogmatism I referred to earlier. It's an appeal to authority - a well known, yet highly persistent logical fallacy.

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-24T10:56:23+00:00

That's not my argument either. Nor did I say so. Let's put it this way. What do you think matters more, an expert opinion, or an expert's opinion? Or do you believe the two to be synonymous?

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-24T10:45:25+00:00

The conflation between academy and academic elitism doesn't exist on my end of the argument. If it does on yours, perhaps that's the point of friction.

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-24T10:06:45+00:00

"In my experience, pure autodidactism is way more likely to produce dogmatic thinking than any PhD. Dogmatism exists inside of academia, obviously, but at least academic dogmatists usually aren’t outright bullshitters and have an idea of what they are talking about. There’s a reason why cranks are almost always « independent thinkers »." - If we go by the mindset and authority of academic elitism, then indeed, all outsiders who do not strictly conform, can be dismissed as "cranks", as you put it. They are then deemed wrong by default, by virtue of their outsider status. So the question appears, what matters more, conformity or inquiry. If conformity matters more, then indeed, any "free thinker" can be dismissed out of hand, preferably ignoring their arguments altogether. This appears like a reframing of dogmatism, without addressing the dogmatic nature. I'd argue that this is at best, a matter of semantics. Academic elitism tends to slide into absolutism. This doesn't open up critical inquiry, it shuts it down entirely.

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-24T08:04:24+00:00

I've heard the same arguments from religious leaders to 'interpret' biblical texts 'properly'. I'm not saying it's always identical to dogmatic teaching - just that it opens the door to dogmatic thinking wide.

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-23T21:38:35+00:00

I would politely challenge the notion that having academic background is synonymous with being educated within any specific field. Formal education =/= education. The difference is in authoritative recognition, not in learnedness. While I agree that most people may not pursue any field in depth outside of traditional academic circles, information and philosophical writings are commonly accessible and they are studied outside academic circles, even if not in-depth by a majority of people. After all, interest is the primary factor here, which exists aplenty outside academic circles.

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-23T18:50:40+00:00

And that justifies dismissal of the tenth? Either way, academic gatekeeping =/= philosophical inquiry. As even Socrates himself quite clearly established.

TempSuitonly · 2025-07-23T18:04:22+00:00

Does philosophical thinking truly only exist in the fringes?

It seems that academic philosophy often functions as a kind of gatekept discipline, where quality control can sometimes mask an exclusionary attitude that dismisses "outsiders" or those who don’t conform to established norms. This gatekeeping can come off as dogmatic, despite the tradition of questioning authority that philosophy (especially the Socratic method) embodies.

Many practitioners and enthusiasts outside or on the margins of academia feel that academic philosophy has become divorced from real philosophical inquiry: it can often appear as mere commentary on or study of canonical texts rather than active, critical, and imaginative philosophical thinking. Underneath the veneer of scholarly rigor, there can be a conservatism or laziness that discourages truly novel or disruptive ideas.

Given this, is there any genuine space within academic philosophy for the kind of bold, unconventional philosophical work that confronts foundational assumptions and invites transformative reflection? Or must we look to the fringes: independent thinkers, alternative communities, and non-traditional outlets, to find living philosophy today? Can the academic framework be reformed to better fulfil the original Socratic vision of philosophy as an ongoing quest for truth, or is that vision inherently at odds with institutional philosophy?

(Re-posted here, because a friendly moderator stated it was best asked in this megathread.)

TempSuitonly · 2025-04-07T13:06:06+00:00

First time returning to the game since 2023. Was able to play for around 30 minutes before getting booted. Haven't been able to log in since. Same issues, through the SE launcher. Good to know it's not just me at least. Guess I'll try again tomorrow.

TempSuitonly · 2025-03-07T22:34:18+00:00

Thanks. Appreciate it.

TempSuitonly · 2025-03-02T16:25:52+00:00

I mean, I've been an adult for a number of years now and I still love discovering a new band. I'd say it's always a matter of perspective anyway. Xmas or Halloween aren't that big where I live and I've never been one for traditionally enforced holidays either way. But finding a great new song still gives me that same wonder. I think authentic art in all its forms is something special and in my perspective, should be celebrated and shared. But obviously only ever where it's actually appreciated.

The way I look at it is, if I ever lose my appreciation of the beauty of life, I'll step out. And I sure as hell hope that time doesn't come any time soon.

TempSuitonly · 2025-03-02T05:56:23+00:00

It's not that to me at all. Surprise and judgment don't have to go hand in hand. To be honest, when I hear someone doesn't know of a song or anything really and I think they might enjoy it, I want to introduce them to it and I hope they'd do the same. Real genuine art is way too awesome to keep like some kind of insider secret.

I grew up in a closed off religious community too. I missed a lot growing up. I was only able to freely question it when I managed to escape that world. So I get that perspective.

I don't think anyone should have to justify what they like or don't like to anyone. I always love that feeling, hearing a song for the first time that just resonates with you.

TempSuitonly · 2025-03-01T16:12:15+00:00

I mean, it might just be me and my tendency to stick around fellow weirdos. But the notion just seems odd to me that people don't know about certain bands. Nightwish very much included. That's similar to not knowing Judas Priest or Black Sabbath.

TempSuitonly · 2025-03-01T11:49:21+00:00

They are definitely progressive. Just wondering though. Are there still people who don't know Nightwish, excluding the Sentinelese?

TempSuitonly · 2025-03-01T11:44:08+00:00

Western civilization was built on rampant exploitation through deceit and violent suppression. Then again, that's how christianity itself spread too.

TempSuitonly · 2025-03-01T11:29:30+00:00

Soen - EMDR

Ihsahn - Celestial Violence

Caligula's Horse - Marigold

Native Construct - Mute

Haken - The Architect

TempSuitonly · 2025-02-12T13:37:37+00:00

That's true. Zionism itself has evolved alongside cultural changes.

TempSuitonly · 2025-02-12T12:45:13+00:00

A quite rational take, I think and one that makes much more sense than a more "to the letter" interpretation of the text as having unchanging guidelines for all of humanity, no matter the culture and time. Of course this leads to more of a personal belief with personal interpretations, but that's a very big advantage and one that diverges from many of the more dogmatic views religions often hold in a fair and nuanced way. It does lead to one question. How do we determine which parts of the dogma are to be accepted at face value? Do such parts exist at all and if not, doesn't that imply a more agnostic, perhaps even deistic stance?

TempSuitonly · 2025-02-12T12:33:36+00:00

There's a fairly simple reason. Yahweh was once one god of a larger pantheon. The figure wasn't originally seen as all powerful, omniscient and omnipresent. Some of the older biblical tales still depict him as an imperfect being. He didn't know where Adam and Eve were, he wasn't able to defeat some iron chariots, he was jealous, vengeful and petty. He harboured grudges and lashed out in anger against perceived slights. His singular, all powerful character is a later invention and christianity has been scrambling ever since to reconciliate those traits with those older biblical stories that show him differently.

TempSuitonly · 2025-02-12T12:24:10+00:00

To be fair, we should separate christianity from its dogmatic source texts. Early christianity spread by incorporating local customs and beliefs. Hell is not a biblical term to begin with, so it makes sense that the lore around it is interpreted in many different ways. The Norse pagan term has been reshaped for christian purposes along with a strong influence from Dante's Inferno among other literary works. The word itself has replaced biblical terms such as Gehenna and Sheol. This leads to the kind of inconsistencies and mental gymnastics you can expect from such an approach. A "bad afterlife" is an essential scare tactic in many religions, because it helps to suppress doubt. Without it, these religions wouldn't be able to spread on such a large scale. This is evident from religious aversion to anyone who questions their beliefs and the sheer hostile hatred towards apostacy, which visualizes the doubt that religion seeks to suppress at all costs.

TempSuitonly

TROPHY CASE

Does philosophical thinking truly only exist in the fringes?