I use those terms in the philosophical sense as distinct from the nonsensical shouting that we witness all too often on Social Media and elsewhere on the Web. That we often do not listen carefully and take time to analyze what others are saying is the cause of much of the world's ills.

I've always prized debates as I've learned so much from having taken part in them. And It's a great shame that these days formal debating seems to have gone out of fashion.

If one cannot explain or logically support one's propositions during a debate (or when trying to teach a subject) then one doesn't fully understand the matter at hand. What's also important to recognize is that there are times during a debate when a protagonist first becomes aware of fallacies and weaknesses in his/her own case and that realization can occur without his/her opponent being aware of the fact.

It's an interesting phenomenon which I've experienced albeit not for quite some while. Moreover, when I've become aware that I've been wrong under such circumstances then learning turned out to be a sharper and more positive experience than other forms of learning (trouble is that these days there's little opportunity to partake in such debates as few are prepared spend the time to take them seriously).

The reason I mention that scenario here is to show that as I'm a bit of a veteran of such discussions and that I'm used to opponents 'clobbering' me during disagreements. If I were to be offended by such criticisms in philosophical debates then I'd have quit long ago.

However, what I do find disconcerting is when I've not chosen my words carefully enough for whatever reason (usually brevity) and what comes out ends up either sounding wrong or that I'm misinterpreted. My earlier comment would likely fall into that class.

I try to avoid misunderstandings by being prolix, that is I'll restate a point using different phraseology but at times even that doesn't work. I'm often surprised how some readers even misinterpret the most straightforward of statements. [Note: I'm not referring to you in the following.] And that just happened yesterday with another of my comments when someone deliberately misquoted what I said. Clearly hide has no bounds when one's actual words are deliberately misquoted just below what one has actually written. I'm curious about the logic that underpins such strange thinking.

(I suppose one shouldn't be a bit surprised these days when the leader of the free world sets quintessential examples for all to follow. By uttering blatant and outrageous lies with a deadpan expression that'd put masters of the art like Buster Keaton to shame then it's little wonder that many are bound to emulate his practice.)

I'm unaware of any correlation between the large decline in the study of liberal arts subjects in recent decades and many of the antics we're witness in politics these days but I'd not be surprised by one iota if something of note were to be found.

Philosophy often comes under that wing which implies that fewer people are studying the subject (well, at lest so on a per capita basis), and I'd posit that's not an ideal situation by any stretch. I'd suggest that skills that philosophy teaches such as the ability to help people think logically and to examine issues from multiple perspectives and to do so from factual evidence are in very short supply at a time when the world desperately needs them.

We need aeridite people who can speak with authority on important world affairs such as Russell and the remarkable historian A.J.P. Taylor used to do, they had the ability to mesmerize just about anyone who'd listen to them. Even those who'd disagreed with their arguments and or worldviews couldn't counterattack with simplistic counterarguments without looking ill-equipped and or not in command of the facts.

It's here philosophy comes to the fore in that it educates from multiple perspectives, whether it's teaching argument (such as Socrates' wonderful demolition of Thrasymachus' stance on justice) or teaching works of great thinkers whose views on matters differ wildly from one another actually forces one to consider philosophical notions from different viewpoints. Hobbes' worldview differs widely from say Locke's, Berkeley's immaterialism is a forerunner to later works on perception, and so on.

The matter of mysticism, esoteric number theory and such, to my mind comes under metaphysics—whose definition I well remember as 'above and beyond physics', which is about as short and as apt as any definition gets. You're right, my mind endeavors to make sense of the world from an analytical perspective, like Descartes's cogito, ergo sum I have to begin my worldview somewhere and it more or less ends with my 'sense data' (like Russell banging his hand on his table to 'prove' it was there). Unlike Descartes, I don't move up the thought chain and attempt to prove God exists—after all, philosophy once taught me where Descartes's logic fell apart.

That said, I remain agnostic about most metaphysical matters but in no way do I criticize others who hold stronger views—whether they come under the purview of traditional religions or say esoteric number theory. Frankly, I don't know enough about them (except, perhaps some religious training I learned as a child). If pushed however, I reckon I'd likely agree with the saying:

"That there are more things in heaven and on earth than man will ever dream of."

OK, let me roll the metaphysical ball a little further. You correctly took my handle as a reference to that Hilbert although it's a pretty common name. Why is that relevant here? If your knowledge extends as far as mathematical Hilbert spaces and QM then you'd know that much of our knowledge (and perception) of the actual QM world only exists through mathematical analogy. Whilst, we've managed some truly remarkable feats with QM such as being able to measure alpha, the fine structure constant, to an accuracy of about 10 decimal places and use such figures to produce some remarkable engineering, we've only gotten there by cleaver trickery. Our mathematics is not up to the job, we're constantly dodging infinities in QFT and so on. Simply, what actually happens and goes on down there in the quantum realm is anyone's guess. For all intents and purposes the real quantum world may as well be metaphysical.

BTW, Being and Nothingness and No Exit (Huis clos) and related material were on the syllabus, so one had to wade through the Book. That's now quite some time ago but I don't recall it being anything other than tedious (perhaps, that was down to the translation).

Given the outrageous political behavior we're witnessing in the world today I reckon No Exit paints a remarkably apt metaphor.

Relatedly, the "saying" you referenced is actually a slight misquote from Shakespeare's Hamlet that changes the meaning significantly. It comes from a scene where Hamlet is rejecting his schoolmate Horatio's dependence on naturalist/rationalist explanations for the supernatural appearance of old King Hamlet's ghost. Significantly, they were both students in philosophy! The complete quote is "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

As time is running out to post here there are few points I wish to mention.

Your last reply left some issues dangling and it's clear my comments have left you with an inaccurate view about my position about several matters. Note the problem mainly rests with me for shortcutting explanations, also forums such as HN make it difficult to put complex arguments let alone have them resolve cleanly.

Second thoughts made me post this late comment. Earlier, just after your post, I made three separate attempts at replying but aborted them because of their excessive length. Each time I had to shorten what could easily pass as a multipart blog and before it was finished it'd become clear it was too long and would have bombed out if I'd tried to post it—and that's after I'd deleted the largest part which was about mathematics† and its relationship to/overlap with philosophy. (Editing comment so that it's difficult to misinterpret its contents and still keep it short and succinct is difficult—at least it is for me.)

You're probably asking why I would commit so much effort to reply to a comment. There are many reasons and I can't mention them all but I've extracted and précised a few from the longer draft. Perhaps the most significant reason is that whenever I've made a general comment that lacks detail or references there are always those who either misinterpret the message or use its limitations to lever their contrary position.

There's nothing wrong with protagonists leveraging their propositions but in any discussion it makes sense to put one's points as clear and as succinctly as possible. With mathematics and science/technology putting one's case is comparatively straightforward as equations and accepted facts (scientific evidence/the scientific method) provide a solid framework from which to state one's case. In physics, whilst opinions often differ wildly and despite controversies such as the relevance of the Scientific Method and Popper's Falsifiability/Refutability rage on, consensus is often reached even if it takes decades. There comes the realization the properties of nature are immutable, Nature doesn't give a damn about physicists' opinions. Physicists can't argue when Nature says m(e) = ~9.10938371393×10^−31 kg. In the end it's no-contest, Nature's position always wins out.

On the orher hand, things are rather different with philosophy for multiple reasons. With philosophy a wide and diverse range of opinions are to be expected due to its inherent nature and structure. In short, philosophical concepts are usually founded on earlier frameworks which of themselves have no universally-accepted 'truths'. Moreover, with philosophy, linguistics, semantics and even its epistemological underpinnings—the theory of knowledge—continue to be subject of argument. In Principia Ethica G.E. Moore questions the foundations of ethics. One can't put a measure on "good", similarly, one can't explain or convey a sense of "yellow" to someone who's been blind from birth. In his books Language, Truth, and Logic and The Problem of Knowledge A. J. Ayer continues in a similar vein to the effect that sentences about ethics and ethical constructs are more emotional than propositional.

And these issues are still being debated. Simply, if one can't anchor and measure a "notion" or "concept" then one's pretty well stuffed to define it as an axiom. That's not to say we should give up worrying about ethics, as you'd know we don't. You'd also note that arguments about these matters get very messy.

It's clear my roots are anchored in the analytical tradition. And from what you've mentioned, the factors that have shaped your philosophical views are based more on metaphysical lines, thus I doubt you and I would ever fully agree on certain topics. There's nothing wrong with that and it's to be expected. That's how philosophy works in practice and it's always worked that way (except perhaps in some parts of analytical philosophy such as formal logic which is more akin to mathematics).

That there's a wide divergence of opinion over philosophical matters is an important aspect of philosophy as it shapes the way the discipline is conducted in practice, it's also a weakness. I've had to omit detailed discussion about that here but it has an important bearing on these comments. Human factors shape one's worldview and here our worldviews are different—they've not only shaped what we've commented upon but also they've influenced the emphasis we've placed on what we've said.

Some HN stories are such that comments have a clearly defined focus and that attracts those of a certain ilk, they pinpoint and confine comments to within narrow bands. In those situations I'll do likewise. However, that's not the situation with most stories on HN it's why I assume a general audience, I thus take the position that participants hold a broad spectrum of views—from those with little or no understanding of the issues through to experts and professionals.

The quandry is how best to respond, there's always the dilemma of how to best pitch my post, and my usual solution is to write to the LCD on grounds that everybody will understand what I've written.

I'm mindful to keep comments short and at a high-level (thus they lack rigor). That's the intention but all too frequently I'll get bogged down in detail. Also, short and simple replies sans detail come with the advantage that they'll capture more readers (very few ever read long posts, I know from experience).

Unfortunately, the shortcomings of a simplistic, overly-general comment invites criticism from the cognoscente. Here, I'm reminded of the parable Try to please all and you'll please none. Moreover, commenting on political and philosophical topics is to enter a minefield, one cops it from all directions—broad sweeping generalizations are criticized for having no depth, more involved comments (especially those without strong supporting evidence) attract those with contrary views who attack the lack of rigor, and long detailed analyzes are rarely read.

Essentially, when discussing these topics one can't win. I'll use your posts to illustrate the problem.

I'll start with how utilitarianism entered the discussion, The HN story wasn't directly about philosophy but rather "The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised", which raised a valid social concern that a section of society would be disadvantaged if apps predominated and "…all the brick and mortar close."

The retort to that was "Look at it this way: should the rest of us with smartphones pay for that bank office?", which is both a valid argument and an-all-too-common response from those who don't think they've a social obligation and responsibly to help pay for or support society's disadvantaged (this is far from an isolated example).

My response implied the matter was of ethical concern and that social responsibility was an issue, thus one would need to examine the history and I said many (but not all) issues could be found in utilitarian concepts (which is fact). My comment was of a general nature and in keeping with the granularity of the story and that's when things came off the rails. Your attack on my general comment about utilitarianism sidetracked the key issue. I'm not deliberately singling you out for criticism but I'd contend that what happened here is typical and a commonplace problem on the web and social media.

Whether I was precicely correct or not in my comment about utilitarianism oughtn't have been an issue because its intention was clear—that about social responsibly and that its history that goes back several hundred years is important for context.

BTW, as I alluded to in my subsequent post, I was well aware utilitarian principles are hotly contested. What i didn't point out was that the curriculum that I'd studied under spent an inordinate amount time on utilitarianism (too much in my opinion), thus I'm reasonably acquainted with its issues and variations/derivatives. One matter I should have mentioned is that when putting a measure on utilitarianism and valuing its worth in the context of political philosophy one finds large differences of opinion exist between populations (especially so in past decades). Where I live, there was a time when almost every utility was run by government and the majority of the population would have been aghast if it had not been the situation (perhaps that's why our curriculum covered it in such detail). For obvious reasons, utilitarian concepts hold much less sway in the US. ...

It's important for me to stress that I make a clear distinction between the way I comment on HN where I usually take a more flexible position and present a less dogmatic view than I would in a paper or technical report (or when partaking in a formal debate) where structure, accuracy, presentation and demeanor of the written word or what's said are important. Here, gravitas also matters.

Again, that brings me back to the other point you raised about about Book-I of The Republic and why I said what I did. First, the subject matter—that of justice—is important and it needs highlighting. Second, very few on HN are interested in the fine minutiae (points of argument) in the Socrates/Thrasymachus debate) let alone why a person who conducts a modern analysis of Book-I would likely come to different conclusions to those of Plato's contemporaries (clearly philosophical thought has developed and matured over the intervening two millennia, so too the way we analyze and document philosophical concepts).

In a strict reading of Book-I I'd essentially agree with you but there's just too much to discuss to detail it here, although I'd mention that Socrates (Plato) doesn't give a proper definition of justice and admits to being not able to do so. To my mind, Socrates takes a similar position with Justice that's somewhat akin to the well-known quote about porn "I can't describe it but I know it when I see it". Your point about Callicles and justice is well taken, between his and other writings by Plato and others we are nevertheless able to gleen a much more nuanced view of what Ancient Greeks thought about Justice.

My view is we should focus the public's attention on the noble aspects of what Plato was trying to achieve in Book-I and not the points that are only of interest to philosophers and logicians. And I reckon that's damn easy—almost everyone can understand that Justice isn't Thrasymachus' notion of every man for himself and that Justice serve a much bigger more noble purpose. (Similarly, other philosophical concepts must be understood to before they're useful. The public has no difficulty in understanding the concept the greatest good for the greatest number but it couldn't give a damn about the minutiae of utilitarian theory. So let's use it.)

I'd contend the sentiment, import and values expressed by Plato in Book-I are essentially timeless; with some concessions to differences in societal/cultural norms and such, a modern reader's understanding and take on Plato's intention wouldn't be that different to that held by Ancient Athenians. This is what actually matters, and it's why I emphasize it over the minutiae.

I'd back that assertion by virtue of the enormous influence and sway that Greek philosophy still has on Western thought. That this is still true is really quite remarkable given the intervening two millennia. More to point, the reason why The Republic has endured for around 2400 years and that it's still a key document in the philosophical corpus is because across those millennia many have considered what Plato says is important enough to ensure its preservation.

That doesn't necessarily mean everybody agrees with Plato, nor that everything he says is accurate and or logical by modern standards. Nor do we consider or accept the political framework in which the work was written was above reproach, in Ancient Athens slavery was a given, nowadays—at least for most of us—it's an abomination.

On the matter of disagreement, I'd refer you to Karl Popper's work The Open Society and its Enemies—Volume I Plato wherein he indicts Plato on multiple accounts. The Book's title alone tells us of Popper's distaste for Plato's political philosophy.

But put all that aside for a moment, The Republic, especially Book-I, is a sheer delight to read. The way Plato manipulates and plays with the text is both engaging and entertaining, and the translatior of my copy, Benjamin Jowett, is a very skillful and accomplished writer. Unfortunately, I can't speak for literal accuracy of the translation. (I consider not having studied Ancient Greek a major deficit in my education.)

Re: "…a slight misquote from Shakespeare's Hamlet…"

It wasn't my intension to quote the Bard verbatim, you'll note I did not attribute it and that was intentional. The reason is that whilst there's little doubt that the origin of what I quoted rests with the Bard there are other versions similar to mine where the wording has been changed deliberately. Scientists and techies deemed it necessary to remove references to "Horatio" and thus to Hamlet to make the quote more general (more applicable to science). This site is a messy unedited jumble of quotes but the gist of its message is clear: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/12/25/universe/

Quo vadis? I can't answer that as I do not know. I'll say this however: despite my defense of philosophy, I'm of the opinion that the dicipline is becoming less relevant to society than is has been in past decades. There's little doubt that its influence and standing in society 50 or more years ago was much higher than it is today. The large decline in the study of humanities studies is evidence for that.

I'm strongly of the opinion that specialization is largely responsible for philosophy's deline in the eyes of the public and that's very bad news. These days, philosophy has grown into monumentally large discipline with hundreds of specialized subbranches and professional philosophers are required to investigate them in keeping with the longstanding traditions and practices of academia.

To get ahead in their profession, academics have to accept and adapt to the publish-or-perish demands of academia and that means having to specialize. Philosophy academics are now so deeply enmeshed in esoteric aspects of the discipline that they cannot adequately describe to a lay public what their work entails. This disconnect has not only led to philosophy becoming less relevant to ordinary people but also it's not in keeping with taking a more generalist approach to the discipline and emphasizing aspects that have practical relevance to real-world issues.

In short, the public has come to believe philosophy has lost touch with reality. Whether or not that's correct is essentially immaterial, what actually matters is the public's current perception of philosophy, and it's not favorable. That's a tragedy, and personally I find it not only sad but also damned annoying.

Why do I consider these issues important and why am I laboring the points with such intensity? Well, I'd posit that whilst evidence—factual data—is important and plays a significant role it's nevertheless strongly mitigated by one's political and ethical beliefs. Unfortunately, they play a disproportionate role in the public's negative perception of philosophy, also it affects the way philosophers go about their work (both judgment and the degree to which one can be impartial are impacted (that comment needs expanding to do it full justice but I can't do so here)).

Moreover, I'd contend those of a philosophical bent are often not completely immune—myself included, we've all biases. Add to that the fact we don't always arrive at conclusions by conscious deliberation, subconscious thought also plays a role. Again, these are just some more of the underlying reasons for why philosophy as a discipline plays a less influential role in world affairs nowadays than it once did. Given the state of world affairs at present the opposite ought to be true.

_

† It's a shame I couldn't post the stuff on mathematics as I reckon it added weight to my points. There's no great insight here but I did mention the notion of the infallibility of proof in mathematics and how Gödel undermined that worldview not to mention putting the kibosh on Hilbert's idea of mathematicians coming up with a finite set of axioms and proof thereof that would make mathematics 'complete'. The relevance here is that Gödel's theorems had a large impact on the philosophy of mathematics, They're even important in the context of Wigner's oft-quoted "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences", one has to ask to what degree or extent does the mathematical analog represent the natural world.