Is it fair to critique philosophers for failing to apply their

>>1784327
Yes and no. It's only fair to critique it so much as that fact that it's either not useful and just wankery, or the possibility that not living out their philosophy caused a bias in it and may have held them back from developing the philosophy.

>>1784327
That's called an ad hominem. It is a well-known fallacy. So no.

>>1785561
How so? I could see that it would be an ad hominem to critique the philosophy because the philosopher didn't live up to his ideals, but how is it true in the opposite?

Yes, since a philosopher's life is where we get to see if their philosophy is testable.

Yes, it is fair to critique the philosophers themselves. It is however not fair to critique their philosophies on those grounds.

The Greeks lived their philosophies for the most part. But did anyone thereafter?

>>1784327

If it is prescriptive sure. If it is descriptive no, that wouldn't make sense. Thinking that causation is a matter of constant conjunction as opposed to metaphysical efficacy is not something you can really apply to your daily life in any meaningful way.

>>1784327
To some extent, but it's more of an ambiguous critique.

While we may see a disconnect between a thinker's ideals and life, to say that because they didn't embody said ideals entails that their ideals are necessarily false doesn't follow.

It can perhaps be seen as a warning sign that there may be issues with whatever commitments such-and-such philosophy entails, but this gives no sound reason for major or minor refutation.

It's more a precursor to vigorous testing of theories.

>>1785573
Sorry, i thought that by "philosophers" you were referring to their philosophies.

>>1785637
Live every day like the sun might not rise tomorrow.

>>1784327
>I didn't take the bullshit I spout seriously
>but you definitely should
It certainly doesn't help their cases.

>>1785629
Many scholastics.
Probably Descartes and Leibniz. Pascal and Kant argueably. The romantics definitely did. Spencer, Sigwick and Thoreau probably. Kierkegaard if you take into account he himself says he is only at the dorrstep of his own teaching.

Ppouting bullshit and phrasing it "ethnics" is a relatively recent thing. Some "enlightened" philosophers, Schopenhauer, Comte, launched the thing. Nietzsche remains the most guilty. As for the 20th century, it's easier to count the number of philosophers that at least pretended to take their own theories seriously.

>>1785637
If you don't hold the conjunction to anything more than coincidence, that would make a tremendous effect on how you lived your life.

Unless it's the point of their philosophy, yes I think it's fair.
But if it's the point of their philosophy, it means they apply their philosophy which is to not apply their own philosophy. So it's a bit of a philosophical paradox which can be criticized.
So yes, philosophers should always be criticized for not applying their philosophy in their daily life.

>>1784327
Self-help writers are not philosophers.

>>1784327

wasn't it Voltaire who talked about the good the good of the human race, and how to proper raise children, whilst giving his children away because they were "too noisy" ?

>>1784327
Well no shit; of course we should critique them; it's literally in the premise that it's within their interest to hear our criticism. Just keep it constructive, of course.

File: evola2-300x297.jpg (10KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 350x200px

>>1785629
>brb taking a stroll

File: nassim taleb.jpg (24KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x400px

Yes, every philosopher is required to have skin in the game.

File: Jokenhauer.jpg (76KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1024x768px

>>1784327

Of course not. Schopenhauer said it best:

>"It is therefore just as little necessary for the saint to be a philosopher as for the philosopher to be a saint; just as it is not necessary for a perfectly beautiful person to be a great sculptor, or for a great sculptor to be himself a beautiful person. In general, it is a strange demand on a moralist that he should commend no other virtue than that which he himself possesses. To repeat abstractly, universally, and distinctly in concepts the whole inner nature of the world, and thus to deposit it as a reflected image in permanent concepts always ready for the faculty of reason, this and nothing else is philosophy."

Thank me later.

t. /lit/

>>1787611
Besides not agreeing, I want to make you aware of the following:
>t. /lit/
Please do not mention your containment board.

Of course it isn't. Seneca had a lot of trouble applying his Stoic ideals to his life, but that doesn't mean that his version of Stoicism is not a good thing to follow.

>>1786091
>>1786150

Hume's theory is that we perceive causation through perceiving constant conjunction, not by perceiving efficacy. You can still live as if there is efficacy without being able to perceive it, since the effects that result are the same either way, and that is what is going to matter for your actual practice.