Philosophical maelströms are ideas or ideologies that simply gobble everything up. They are ideas that seem irrefutable, yet intuitively (if we’re not a victim of their grip) they can be dismissed as incorrect or of no use. Political maelströms are easy to spot for those not under the power of their spell (libertarianism, communism, dictatorships i.e. cult of personality, etc.), but it seems to me that philosophical maelströms aren’t typically seen for what they are, even by those who don’t submit to their grip.
I believe determinism is such a maelström. There is no situation the determinist can assess, that can’t be interpreted as an example of determinism. But I trust my intuition that the way we currently conceive of cause and effect (falling dominoes, essentially) provides an insufficient account for how reality works.
I also believe psychological egoism is such a maelström. There is no situation the psychological egoist can assess, that can’t be interpreted as an example of psychological egoism. I noticed a couple eloquent dismissals (it’s difficult to actually refute a philosophical maelström) of psychological egoism here.
Feel free to take issue with my approach, or to provide more examples of philosophical maelströms. Or do whatever you want.
Solipsism, extreme conspiracy theories (of course, I would say that ), “what if the universe and all your memories with it sprang into being 5 seconds ago?”
Well it seems to me that most arguments I have with determinists end up coming down to the point that anything is possible, and then they say, “well how can it be possible that i don’t think.” And then I have to say that, “How can it be logical to use thought to prove thought is valid before thought is known to be valid.” And then they say that it is by definition…or something…then I ask, " doesn’t one have to assume that definitions are valid." and then it goes into other arguments with other words and it ends up the same; the person just moving to a different cherry… I would think the resistance is that it might mean nothing can be really considered, but I would say that what we have to do is use definitions or axioms to do some thinking , we have to make assumptions, but the importance is that one should realize that probably everything is an assumption (probably that too)…
people like to find a belief that fits all so they can sit down, rest and make home (people like perfect certainty), i like to think that being a mental nomad is more reasonable; return to the places that work, but don’t get attached because you never know…
I like the image/symbol and I think it is an interesting approach. It sounds like in a sense you are saying these are non-falsifiable positions that seem wrong or useless.
One problem I can see is that people will likely disagree about what goes on the list.
For me some that come to mind are…
1 Neo-conservatism/‘Free’ markets
2 ‘We can never know anything for sure’-ism
3 Liberalism
4 Skepticism - which is not simply 2 above but more comprehensive - iow within two you could find someone working with scientific induction - 4 would even negate that, all common sense, epistemology as a whole, etc.
5 The Modern Mixed Paradigm - this is where you find yourself dealing in the same discussion with someone who bases some points on scientific empiricism, some on common sense, some on tradition/normalcy, some on intuition - often while denying this - and on short spurts of speculation and unrealistic deduction. I think this is the most common maelstrom in the educated West. IOW where there is a lack of epistemological consistency that is repeatedly denied, while it is affirmed usually implicitly that one should be consistent.
They argue that something is 100% probable, that it is absolute, for whatever reason, science proves it or something…ehatever, but then i have to point out that anything is possible, and thus the probability though maybe really really high is not 100%… this leads back to my “can we be 100% certain?” thread…in which I got in a …IDK…8 page circular argument with James S. Saint
I’ve been rethinking this maelstrom notion for a couple days now. I think it should be narrower in scope than what I presented in the OP. For instance, I think now that only philosophical views can be maelstroms in the sense I described. So I wouldn’t include communism, while I would still include libertarianism, but only because it is so clear philosophically. It’s true that all maelstroms must be nonfalsifiable, but not all nonfalsifiable positions count as maelstroms. The maelstrom needs to be a clear and singular (i.e. it is defined by its exclusivity), and it must “cast a spell”. So I’d saydeterminism, psychological egoism, solipsism and radical skepticism fit this bill best. Though of those four, I’m not sure where solipsism stands as I’ve never met a solipsist. So maybe it’s more impotent than the others in casting its spell. Or maybe I just haven’t met them.
As cults are to religion, maelstroms are to philosophy. That’s how I’m thinking of this.
EDIT: oops I forgot political libertarianism. I think that one counts.
I think you picked two good ones. Another maelstrom is the issue of whether the universe is causally independent, or causally dependent. It seems that maelstroms result from attempts to reach beyond the perspective of experience to the absolute vantage point from which the issues in question can be surveyed. Instead of standing on the absolute ground, we end up falling into the abyss.
I think maybe you’re correct that there’s a kind of absolutism involved - that we can somehow transcend our situatedness. I’ll have to think more about that one. Thanks Felix.
I think this a smart move. Pretty much any political label can be a maelstrom though perhaps not all must be. They cover so many hazy areas.
Most solipsists - say psychopaths - won’t engage in the kinds of maelstrom dialogues you are trying to delineate. You will find discussions where people take up the position, but this is more experimental thinking. So I can see it as a minor case.
Nice sentence, though on second thought most religions start as cults. But I get what you mean - you are following the pejorative version of this word.
I think certain kinds of intelligent design theism can be a philosophical maelstrom. In fact I think the discussion would parallel the one on determism rather closely. Everything becomes an example of the axiom. I don’t think intelligent design has to be this per se - not arguing in favor of some strand of this position, just that some DO go into what design is and what it is not so not everything can be called designed.
I would say that a neo-Buddist monism/phenomenalism AND the subject object split - despite being opposites are versions of this. The former reduces everything to the phenomenon, the Buddha, the Tao, oneness and says everything that is separated out, including the ‘I’ and Ding an Sich, are really false (maya-like) abstractions from this unity. The subject object split, I suppose it could be called naive realism, though really it is realism in general, also ends up in this kind of maelstrom. Hence the resistence to QM. But most people’s gut feelings are going to be that local realism is correct, despite Einstein and Qm.
), “what if the universe and all your memories with it sprang into being 5 seconds ago?”