How do you deal with the wishy-washy people who say that being practical and concrete is better than being abstract and philosophical? Any ideas and thoughts are welcome.I'll go first: Since language itself is an abstraction, by their logic they cannot even communicate.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Could you give an example of this happening?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Well it seems that many people hold the attitude that philosophy as a whole is pointless or not valid. Which is of course a representation of a particular philosophy (and a bad one at that) in and of itself. And then there are those who are actively involved in philosophical discussion yet they treat philosophy as nothing more than a language game. Perhaps such people should be called "the anti-philosophy philosophers". Discussion from first principles unfortunately seems counterintuitive to many.
I would argue that one cannot be practical without an underlying philosophy and that correct philosophies are practical. You must have a sensible abstraction or theory in order to properly make something practical in the first place. In a certain sense, the separation between theory and practise is nonsensical in that something you're attempting to practise can only be made practical if you have a correct theory, a theory that objectively aligns with reality. Otherwise, you'd just be making blind guesses.
It is indicative of an un-philosophical mind, or at least of being an idiot, when one brings this objection up. Abstraction is necessarily linked to reality, as it is abstraction of the unnecessary from the necessary. Roderick Long terms this form of abstraction, where the irrelevant data are merely omitted, non-precisive abstraction (as opposed to precisive abstraction, where certain elements are deliberately and specifically omitted.) Abstraction is necessary in dealing with empirical data, both to better apprehend and comprehend it. It is required to get to the essence of things, and begin analytical work. It is only when the abstraction is deliberately severed from reality yet nevertheless applied to it as a standard (e.g. perfect competition; note, if for instance one is merely using constructs such as the ERE for purposes of economic analysis that won't apply as a standard of reality, this is alright) that one can then successfully make the charge of abstraction being opposed to practicality. For, the very role of concepts is for them to be used, that is to say, they are inherently practical. One can go wrong in the process of forming concepts via abstraction, but that is merely to say man is fallible.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I would tell those people to read Ayn Rands "For the new intellectual"
Perhaps we could say that many, if not all, the great breakthroughs in civilization have occurred through the abstract fn philosophical first. The concept of individual ilberty was just a concept for many centuries. Before this, people tended to be the chattel of someone else. We now see the practical result of the granting of some of that liberty.
A number of big breakthroughs in science have involved abstract thinking. Newton imagined a massive body, the earth, and a tiny body in close proximity to it, an apple: the smaller one being drawn to the larger. Einstein imagined himself on a wave of light travelling away from a clock tower in Bern: he realized that the time would not change because the light from the clock tower could not catch up with him.
Likewise with engineering. The wheel would have been abstract at first when there were no meaningful roads. Arthur C Clarke's low orbiting satellites were an abstract concept initially. I am sure there are thousands of other examples.
The same may apply to religion. In the case of Christianity, the actual teachings of Christ were certainly abstract initially.
I should have been more precise.I'm referring to when you're actually arguing with someone and whenever you bring up anything that they cannot comprehend by counting on their fingers, they charge you with being impractical and abstract. These are the same people who tell you to "give up intellectualizing".How do you deal with these people?
Well, I can't say that I've ever encountered that.
If it's too difficult to link your abstraction to reality, just ask him/her what gives him/her the right to tax/regulate, etc. Make it personal!
"Why do you want to hold a gun to my head and steal my money? Why won't you give me a choice?"
Sage: I should have been more precise.I'm referring to when you're actually arguing with someone and whenever you bring up anything that they cannot comprehend by counting on their fingers, they charge you with being impractical and abstract. These are the same people who tell you to "give up intellectualizing".How do you deal with these people?
You mean like when you're debating about political or economic matters and when you propose a theory or use theories to back yourself up, people respond by saying "well that's just a theory!" or something along those lines? That annoys me. Such people have concluded ahead of time that theorizing is futile. It's simply an anti-thought perspective that allows one to remain in a cozy shell of comfort so that they don't have to really substantiate their premises.
I think that ppl do this because of the influence of logical positivism. Many ppl believe that it is only possible to learn from experience and testing. Try asking what proof consists of. Is the theory of relativity true? The Pythagorean Theorem? The impossibility of an object having two different colours, each covering the entire surface of the object? Ask them if they can be absolutely certain of. The answer will probably be 'nothing'. Ask them how they know this. At this point they usually contradict themselves. Just back them into a contradictory position. They will probably still have a strong unjustified emotional attachment to their position and still won't agree with you on anything, but there is just no convincing some people.
Epistemological statements are self-referencial. It takes alot of effort to avoid contradicting yourself. Debating over the nature of knowledge is easy because it's easy to show absurdities in your opponents position. And usually they will know you are right even though they won't admit it.