Perspectives on philosophy as it relates to worldviews

[PorcelainLark]

I'm interested in hearing what your perspectives are on philosophy.

For me, I'd say the three most important philosophers who impacted my worldview are Frege, Sellars, Kripke, and Habermas. Frege for the rejection of psychologism, Kripke for the causal theory of reference, and Habermas for the idea of communicative rationality.

For Frege:

The first problem considers the following sentences:

Hesperus is Hesperus.
Hesperus is Phosphorus (Lucifer).

Each of these sentences is true, since 'Hesperus' refers to the same object as 'Phosphorus' (the planet Venus which few months apart can be seen as the brightest star of morning or of evening). Nonetheless, (1) and (2) seem to differ in their meaning or what Frege called "cognitive value". (1) is just a truth of logic that can be known a priori, whereas (2) records an empirical truth that was discovered by astronomers. The problem, however, is that proper names are often taken to have no meaning beyond their reference (a view often associated with John Stuart Mill). But this seems to imply that the two statements mean the same thing, or have the same cognitive value.

If it's possible to learn Hesperus is Phosphorus, then thought isn't a matter of convention.

For Sellars:

In characterizing an episode or a state as that of knowing, we are not giving an empirical description of that episode or state; we are placing it in the logical space of reasons, of justifying and being able to justify what one says.

Therefore the causes of a belief aren't relevant to it's status as knowledge.

For Kripke:

Kripke argued that in order to use a name successfully to refer to something, you do not have to be acquainted with a uniquely identifying description of that thing. Rather, your use of the name need only be caused (in an appropriate way) by the naming of that thing.

Such a causal process might proceed as follows: the parents of a newborn baby name it, pointing to the child and saying "we'll call her 'Jane'." Henceforth everyone calls her 'Jane'. With that act, the parents give the girl her name. The assembled family and friends now know that 'Jane' is a name which refers to Jane. This is referred to as Jane's dubbing, naming, or initial baptism.

However, not everyone who knows Jane and uses the name 'Jane' to refer to her was present at this naming. So how is it that when they use the name 'Jane', they are referring to Jane? The answer provided by causal theories is that there is a causal chain that passes from the original observers of Jane's naming to everyone else who uses her name. For example, maybe Jill was not at the naming, but Jill learns about Jane, and learns that her name is 'Jane', from Jane's mother, who was there. She then uses the name 'Jane' with the intention of referring to the child Jane's mother referred to. Jill can now use the name, and her use of it can in turn transmit the ability to refer to Jane to other speakers.

For Habermas:

Instrumental reason, as defined by Adorno and Horkheimer, refers to the use of reason as a tool to achieve ends—regardless of whether those ends are desirable, just, or humane. It is the logic of calculation, of optimization, of control. It pervades science, technology, bureaucracy, and increasingly, the everyday life of modern individuals.

In instrumental reasoning, questions of meaning, value, or consensus are secondary. The only question is: what works?

Habermas accepted this critique but argued that it only captured part of the picture. To reduce all rationality to its instrumental form, he insisted, is itself a kind of defeatism. There is another kind of rationality—one embedded in language, dialogue, and the human capacity for mutual understanding.

Communicative Rationality: Understanding Through Dialogue

Communicative rationality is Habermas’s answer to the crisis of reason. It arises not from the solitary subject calculating ends and means, but from people engaging in dialogue aimed at mutual understanding. This is not the kind of communication that aims to manipulate or persuade for gain; it is oriented toward truth, sincerity, and intersubjective agreement.

In The Theory of Communicative Action (1981), Habermas argues that language has an inherent rational potential. When people engage in argumentation—when they try to justify their claims, respond to objections, and agree upon norms—they participate in a form of reason that is not instrumental but dialogical.

This communicative reason is the basis, for Habermas, of democratic life. It allows citizens to deliberate, to justify laws, to critique power, and to co-author the norms that bind them. It is reason not as domination, but as a medium of freedom.

Basically, communicative rationality, is meant to be antithetical to propaganda. You try to avoid treating people or publics as means to ends.

How it impacts my world view:
I reject the idea that everything is subjective/relative/socially constructed; I reject the idea that the historical origins of a belief are relevant to it; I reject the idea that words can just be redefined and remain meaningful; and I reject the idea that all rationality is instrumental.

What do you guys think? Can you link what you believe philosophically to your worldview?

[Learning to undeny]

I have regrettably not read much philosophy, but let's try.

1. Thales of Miletus. Everything is water. Philosophy solved.
2. Epicurus. Cool ideas on materialism/atomism, death ("Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And once it does come, we no longer exist."), etc. But perhaps I would highlight his hedonism, where pain is identified not only in obvious physical pain, but also in unnecessary or unnatural desires as well as fears. The takeaway is to try to do the best we can with what we have, no need not to enjoy life simply because the world is not perfect.
3. Berkeley. Cool metaphysics. Esse est percipi. Since I was a child I wondered if the world would exist if no one was there to perceive it. Berkeley develops his philosophy from this idea. The takeaway is that, possibly, nothing exists outside perception (although I would add some qualifications), and this makes beings who we believe experience things important for us.
4. Marx. Cool idea that history of humanity is history of class struggle. I think social classes are real and a crucial component to understand society, even though I am not satisfied by the predictions and accomplishments of marxists. The takeaway is that we can understand all ideologies, religions, institutions, etc. from a functional point of view, as if they were determined by the material foundations of society. Of course, it might not be 100% true, but it is enlightening nonetheless.
5. Simone Weil. More for her life than for her philosophy. She was courageous and had her own ideas on what was right and wrong. The takeaway is that it is possible to live a life aligned with your ideals, even if it's against the world's inertia.
6. Kuhn. Science often gets stuck in an old paradigm until there is cumulative evidence that shakes its foundation. The takeaway is that, even if science is our best bet at understanding the world, one can easily identify areas where it lags behind, and even if they appear obvious, science tends to be conservative and won't move to a more rational paradigm until great discoveries pile up.

Those are good, and a few honorable mentions would be Ockham, Hume, Lakatos, Buddha, the Sikh gurus, Jesus Christ, Kant...