First, make sure that they’re actually approachable at all.
Second, don’t approach them in a combative fashion, like this post does. You need to approach them by understanding their specific view of morality and epistemology and their view of how philosophy relates to that, and how it should relate to it, or even if they think it does or should at all. Approach them from a perspective that is explicitly open to change. Ask lots of questions, then ask follow up questions. These questions shouldn’t be combative, although they should probably expose assumptions that are at least seemingly questionable.
Third, make sure you know what you’re getting into yourself. Some of those guys are very smart, and they have a lot more experience than you do. Do your homework.
I’m trying to think what I would do. I don’t know how I’d go about creating the groundwork for the conversation or selecting the person with whom I would converse. But here’s an outline of how I think the conversation might go.
Me: What do you believe about epistemology?
Them: I believe X.
Me: I believe that empiricism works, even if I don’t know why it works. I believe that if something is useful that’s sufficient to justify believing in it, at least up to the point where it stops being useful. This is because I think changing one’s epistemology only makes sense if it’s motivated by one’s values since truth is not necessarily an end in itself.
I think X is problematic because it ignores Y and assumes Z. Z is a case of bad science, and most scientists don’t Z.
What do you believe about morality?
Them: I believe A.
Me: I believe that morality is a guide to human behavior that seeks to discriminate between right and wrong behavior. However, I don’t believe that a moral system is necessarily objective in the traditional sense. I think that morality has to do with individual values and desires since desires are the only form of inherently motivational facts and are thus the key link between epistemic truth and moral guidance. I think individuals should pursue their values, although I often get confused when those values contradict.
I sort of believe A, in that _. But I disagree with A because X.
What do you think philosophy is and ought to be, if anything?
Them: Q.
Me: Honestly, I don’t know or particularly care about the definitions of words because I’m mainly only interested in things that achieve my values. But, I think that philosophy, whatever its specific definition, ought to be aimed towards the purpose of clarifying morality and epistemology because I think that would be a useful step towards achieving my individual values.
Thank you very much Chaos. I did not realize that my post came off as abrasive, I appreciate you pointing that out. Your example sounds quite reasonable and is more along the lines of what I was looking for.
First, make sure that they’re actually approachable at all.
Second, don’t approach them in a combative fashion, like this post does. You need to approach them by understanding their specific view of morality and epistemology and their view of how philosophy relates to that, and how it should relate to it, or even if they think it does or should at all. Approach them from a perspective that is explicitly open to change. Ask lots of questions, then ask follow up questions. These questions shouldn’t be combative, although they should probably expose assumptions that are at least seemingly questionable.
Third, make sure you know what you’re getting into yourself. Some of those guys are very smart, and they have a lot more experience than you do. Do your homework.
I’m trying to think what I would do. I don’t know how I’d go about creating the groundwork for the conversation or selecting the person with whom I would converse. But here’s an outline of how I think the conversation might go.
Me: What do you believe about epistemology?
Them: I believe X.
Me: I believe that empiricism works, even if I don’t know why it works. I believe that if something is useful that’s sufficient to justify believing in it, at least up to the point where it stops being useful. This is because I think changing one’s epistemology only makes sense if it’s motivated by one’s values since truth is not necessarily an end in itself.
I think X is problematic because it ignores Y and assumes Z. Z is a case of bad science, and most scientists don’t Z.
What do you believe about morality?
Them: I believe A.
Me: I believe that morality is a guide to human behavior that seeks to discriminate between right and wrong behavior. However, I don’t believe that a moral system is necessarily objective in the traditional sense. I think that morality has to do with individual values and desires since desires are the only form of inherently motivational facts and are thus the key link between epistemic truth and moral guidance. I think individuals should pursue their values, although I often get confused when those values contradict.
I sort of believe A, in that _. But I disagree with A because X.
What do you think philosophy is and ought to be, if anything?
Them: Q.
Me: Honestly, I don’t know or particularly care about the definitions of words because I’m mainly only interested in things that achieve my values. But, I think that philosophy, whatever its specific definition, ought to be aimed towards the purpose of clarifying morality and epistemology because I think that would be a useful step towards achieving my individual values.
Thank you very much Chaos. I did not realize that my post came off as abrasive, I appreciate you pointing that out. Your example sounds quite reasonable and is more along the lines of what I was looking for.
Your post didn’t come across as abrasive, Luke’s did. Sorry for my bad communication.
Based on the previous paragraphs, this should probably end with “because ~X.”
I didn’t have any specific format in mind, but you’d be right otherwise.