Definitions
If I have any bone to pick with philosophy and philosophers, it's the excessive need to debate definitions.
Wait, you may be thinking, isn't that a core part of philosophy?
Well, yeah. But like so many other things, definitions are a tool to be used in moderation.
More importantly, we need to leave the bulk of it to philosophy professors and other academics in the realm of pure theory.
Why? Because it gets in the way of getting shit done. It gets in the way of ideas. It easily devolves into a form of nationalism.
See also, my earlier screeds on isms and ists.
This obsession with definitions is especially problematic when we try to mix philosophy with public policy, as Plato so strongly encouraged.
The nexus of the two should be a method of critical thought and evaluation, not an obsession with definitions.
In other words, the two key questions in public policy are:
1. Is this idea is a good one?
2. What information, data, etc., should we use to evaluate the idea to determine if it's a good one?
You never need to ask the question, "Does the idea fit this ideological framework?" Why? Because if it's a good idea and doesn't fit your ideology, then you should rethink your ideology; not the other way around.
Wait, you may be thinking, isn't that a core part of philosophy?
Well, yeah. But like so many other things, definitions are a tool to be used in moderation.
More importantly, we need to leave the bulk of it to philosophy professors and other academics in the realm of pure theory.
Why? Because it gets in the way of getting shit done. It gets in the way of ideas. It easily devolves into a form of nationalism.
See also, my earlier screeds on isms and ists.
This obsession with definitions is especially problematic when we try to mix philosophy with public policy, as Plato so strongly encouraged.
The nexus of the two should be a method of critical thought and evaluation, not an obsession with definitions.
In other words, the two key questions in public policy are:
1. Is this idea is a good one?
2. What information, data, etc., should we use to evaluate the idea to determine if it's a good one?
In other words, we all too often find ourselves asking what category something fits, rather than evaluating that thing on its own merits.
If you say, "I've got this new idea..." folks will immediately try to figure out which bucket it belongs in, and then evaluate it based on the bucket.
"I don't like this bucket [e.g. socialism], so anything that goes in it must be bad."
As I said, it's getting in the way of ideas.
I've also noticed a disturbing trend: Toxic masculinity is trying to co-opt philosophy. I hate that shit.
The mentality seems to be that reading philosophy is one piece of alpha behavior - kind of like Andrew Tate's obsession with chess. I'm richer than you, I'm stronger than you, and now let me argue about nuanced dictionary definitions to show I'm smarter than you.
It's a method of controlling the debate, rather than a method of understanding and inquiry.
For example, it's okay to ask someone to define the terms they're using so that you know where they're standing.
It's also, on occasion, okay to throw the dictionary definition in the face of an idiot.
But by and large, these dudes are using definitions like baseball bats to control the line of inquiry.
Not, you know, to get at the truth. Not to advance ideas and public discourse. Not to help us be better people and make wiser decisions. But, instead, to be a self-entitled dick.
In other words, the literal opposite of philosophy.
It's surface-level bullshit masquerading as philosophy. Kind of like Rain Man, where Ray recites every single word of "Who's On First" without ever realizing it's a joke.
It's time to toss all that bullshit aside and get back to the important questions:
Is it a good idea?
How would you know?
And most important of all, what are you going to do about it?