I once entered an epistemology class at Stanford and I was like, "what the heck is this stuff." Oh yeah, it was a philosophy class, my bad. epistemology is the study of knowledge, like on a technical level. I think I just left the room frustrated muttering well that's what YOU think.

Recently, though, I stumbled upon a great discussion about knowledge and life. It's from wikipedia's discussion on NPOV (neutral point-of-view):

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, whilst collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p?

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know", we often use so-called scare quotes. In the Middle Ages, we "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise.

We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But since Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

The author is Larry Sanger, a co-founder of wikipedia.

This is a great example of positive philosophistry. Note how the author doesn't necessarily try to pin down the precise definition of knowledge. Instead he gives the English language his best shot at describing what knowledge should be construed as in wikipedia. The discussion also involves a heavy emphasis on the applications of this discussion.

Check out wikipedia's entry on God as an example of where they shine. Their entry on George W. Bush, on the other hand, should count as a failure.

A soldier in Iraq wrote a letter to Michael Moore that contained a compelling piece of philosophistric admission. By philosophistric admission, I mean a self-revelation that embraces our fallacies, rather than one that pretends we are wise and logical. In the following excerpt, Mike Prysner has the courage to reveal how his beliefs are externally-guided--a move that many of us are not capable of making.

I can't say I know what I believe. I am willing to accept that my opinions are a result of a given subconscious, not sufficient knowledge. Do I support care for the low income class because I truly understand the system, or because I've personified inadequacies and identified with those who experience struggle. Does a conservative oppose gay rights because he genuinely understands the issue or because he's scared to face deeper levels of humanity? What if you could be given a reason for everything you believe, but the reason is unrelated to the topic – the result of a life and a psyche? Will we believe those things the same way we used to? I call myself a liberal because I've been moved to tears by the words of Paul Wellstone, scenes in "The Awful Truth," the funeral of Matthew Sheppard, and the homeless people in the city I once lived in. It's not what I know, it's what I felt. It's dangerous to rely on emotions to guide your moral compass – but it’s the only way to be honest. I understand everything I believe may be wrong; that I believe for a reason, and that reason may not be reality. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say. Maybe just that I can't look at this war politically. I can only look at it as an experience that has taught me that life is dictated by seconds and inches; one that has caused me to face death and loss and fear. And at its core, stripped of the WMD's and no-contest contracts, it's been about one thing: serving my country. The most difficult thing has been learning how to be proud of that. This country, I'm serving,...is it America? Has it ever been? It's always bothered me that, despite the American philosophy, it became NECESSARY for a civil right movement, it became NECESSARY to form the ACLU. I've simultaneously battled Saddam loyalists and these questions. Kind of an odd setting for suddenly doubting my patriotism. But while my fight with those trying to kill my friends & I is far from ending, the fight within myself has ended. (Read the full letter)

My philosophistric stance is somewhat controversial. A lot of my blogs sound like complete BS, almost like Nietzsche's Gay Science. I recognize that I don't go at lengths to back up my positions with conventional academic rigour and wisdom. Nonetheless, there is always some element of truth in each of my posts. Even if I am completely wrong, the possibility that some unique position may be plausible makes it well worth entertaining.

We make a lot of shortcut decisions in life, so I find it pointless to obsess for some strict academic-like consistency. In academic circles, I have a tendency to propose some far-out possibility, and then, instead of exploring my position with a playful curiosity and helping me fill the holes, stodgy academics just shoot me down by reiterating their perspective backed up by more things that other dead white guys have said. I guess maybe this is to put the burden of proof on me and inspire me to research my position and come back. That is BS. I see what occurs more as a vicious cycle of inuring to conventionalism and specialization.

I'd rather have the tip of the iceberg of 10,000 wonderful insights than be an expert of five lame technical concepts that I can only share with the professors that are my masters.

My goal, outside of the usual humdrum of taking care of my feelings in the "real world," is to somehow set my thinking in such a way that I can not only muscle my way on top of whatever's at the bleeding edge of accelerating order now, but to also set myself up so that I'll be set to still be on top when the exponentials spike up and the singularity blows up.

This is what the latest set of posts entail. Realizing that's what I needed to do was the effect of the overbloggage this past Sunday.

Welcome to Philosophistry! What the heck is this site? Well, hopefully the answer to that question will emerge as time goes on. But, enough! On to the guts. Philosophy--see the difference--is Greek for "love of wisdom." Philos = love. Sophos = wisdom. Now, the Greek "philosophers," primarily Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, distinguished themselves from contemporary thinkers by the fact that they didn't charge money for their musings. Rival philosophers who did charge included Pythagoras, most famous for his namesake theorem. The Great Three philosophers condemned Pythagoras for being a mere rhetorician, spewing off sophisms, reducing his work to simple sophistry. They picked and gnawed at his arguments, but mainly were just pissed off that he charged money, citing an arbitrary notion that a "true" philosopher wouldn't charge money.

I feel that there is no difference between Socrates and Pythagoras. To me, all philosophical musings are just sophistry in the end. What makes one thing a work of "philosophy" and another just "sophistry" is simply the level of detail with which the author argues his points. Many would point to Nietzsche as a sophist. I mean, if you read the Gay Science, it becomes obvious. With just a simple passing over his first verse, a careful reader can tear it apart at so many places and render his argument as baseless. But you can do that with EVERYTHING. It's just that the established "philosophers" such as Sartre, Kierkegaard, and Kant are so ultra specific and thick, that it's difficult to write them off unless you yourself are a so-called philosopher. In which case, the effort you'd craft in your response to them would only further perpetuate a popular intellectual's notion of philosophy.

If "philosophy" were to stay true to its linguistic origins, it would be an archive of collected wisdom from respected people over time. Philosophy has evolved now to where modern philosophy is only considered truly philosophy if its the study of Truth. All Truth is founded on arguments that are logically sound, or consistent. So essentially, modern philosophy is the study of consistent systems related to living. However, the only thing that comes close to consistent systems are found in Math. And since I don't see many mathematical formulas in philosophy books, there isn't much difference to me between a philosopher and an editorialist.

Anyway, why I'm going at great lengths to explain this is to make a point about the title of this blog. I make no claims that what I'm doing is truly philosophy. I recognize that what I will say and what others say is just humanistic fun arguments with varying degrees of advanced style. I'm allowing everything here to be labelled as a rant, as most everything really is. Everybody has an opinion, and every opinion is motivated by human biases. There is content and worth in every point of view, from Bush to the pundit.

I love sophistry because sophistry IS philosophy.

Update 1 year later: I need fact-checking on the Pythagoras debate. I still think many of us would be in self-delusion by calling ourselves philosophers. This has got to be one of the most pompous, elitist professions, i.e. how many papers are by philosophers espousing that states should be run by them?