3) I do not undestad your question about the earth revolving around the sun, the evidence is in everywere
When you are willing to look for it, yes. But like every scientific discovery, people had to be willing to 1)look for it and 2)acknowledge it. The whole condundrum with the moon's movement baffled astronomers for a long time because it never occurred to them to challenge the base model. When someone finally did, they got ridiculed and excommunicated for their troubles, and this happened not just once, but twice, to otherwise respected astronomers.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me there are a number of posters in this thread who have decide that "philosophy" means what they think it means, and are ignoring the clear and unbroken line of thinking that established most of our world understanding back to antiquity.
There's a lot of talk about science. The standards that we now call "scientific thought" are not universal truths, they are human inventions. In addition to being a process, scientific thought as a a series of standards and behaviors is also a process! In fact, we are still refining it, and the tool used to guide the development of science as a whole is philosophy.
There are many outdated parts of philosophy that can be safely ignored or are barely relevant. But to discard the entire field of study belies a complete lack of understanding of what philosophy is.
There are countless people who make me sympathetic to BNW's knee-jerk reaction against "philosophy". However, they are only superficially philosophers. When you arrive at philosophy via computer science, you begin to realize just how pervasive and relevant it is to every other discipline.
In other words, it is not just some froophy liberal arts nonsense. Like many disciplines, the most batty proponents may give the illusion that it is, but there's some serious "crunch" there.
EDIT: It is very much like how psychology is an actual scientific discipline, but you'd never know it because 90% of "psychologists" are barely scientists and see value in Freud. There is an awesome ten percent off conducting experiments that teach us things about human thought, but you rarely hear from them because their not pretending to know stuff that can't be known.
I'm going to be as kind as I can. I have no idea what you're trying to say. It's completely incoherent. Don't try posting on an English language message board.
He's arguing against the ontological argument for god
The role of philosophy, and reason, is to help people to prune that latticework of interwoven assumptions. My point is that it's something we all do. If we didn't it would be chaos.
I don't think philosophy prunes so much as it gives people the means to justify the existence of their leaves as they are.
"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."
--Darl Jubannich, Theses on Hossiter
I've actually been careful not to define precise definitions for many of the reasons you state, Evil Lincoin, while pointing out how it still can influence, becuase the definitions all boil down to the same thing. They all define how people who use those definitions view the world and approach questions regarding the world. Math and science, in their various incarnations since ancient times have been the questions, but have always been shaped by the particular point of view of the dominant philosophy of the individual and society at the time the question was asked.
Am not.
Am always.
Where is AM BARBARIAN anyway? He's the board's own philosopher.
It seems to me there are a number of posters in this thread who have decide that "philosophy" means what they think it means, and are ignoring the clear and unbroken line of thinking that established most of our world understanding back to antiquity.
I have a problem with this paragraph. Philosophy ahd just darkened the understandig of the world, our real understading cames from experiences not for a couple of philosophers.
I define philosophy as what philosopher do (90% of the time nothing good)
Recursion limit reached.
|
Recursion limit reached.It seems to me there are a number of posters in this thread who have decide that "philosophy" means what they think it means, and are ignoring the clear and unbroken line of thinking that established most of our world understanding back to antiquity.
I have a problem with this paragraph. Philosophy ahd just darkened the understandig of the world, our real understading cames from experiences not for a couple of philosophers.
I define philosophy as what philosopher do (90% of the time nothing good)
We couldn't have seen that far anyway. ;)
It seems to me there are a number of posters in this thread who have decide that "philosophy" means what they think it means, and are ignoring the clear and unbroken line of thinking that established most of our world understanding back to antiquity.
Hey now, I did find a definition.
Your Lincolness, how would you define things like the ontological argument? Not the theology aspect of it, just the attempt to use that sort of logic/reasoning about the world.
Take one of two foundational principles of science; empiricism or materialism (your choice) and give me non-philosophical arguments that they are true.
*kicks rock*
Ow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're using philosophy to denounce philosophy. What on earth do you think empiricism is? Why should I be ought by dismissive of the solipsism you are presenting?
Seriously, I am just mystified by this. You people don't hate philosophy, you're just reading the wrong books.
That proves neither of those concepts. Try again.
Why? Nothing gets proved philosophically. Its like a set of chopsticks complaining that a forklift can't pick up mt rushmore.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're using philosophy to denounce philosophy. What on earth do you think empiricism is? Why should I be ought by dismissive of the solipsism you are presenting?
Seriously, I am just mystified by this. You people don't hate philosophy, you're just reading the wrong books.
Darn right! Get you all some logical positivism and temper it with some pragmaticism and a little bit of existentialism sans the nihilism fraught in Nietzscheanism and you'll be fine. ;)
Exactly what it says on the tin. What good is philosophy? How involved was it in the generation of of our modern ideas and technology?Philosophy is an opiate for the mind. It numbs the blinding fear of dieing we all have, because we all know one day we'll be dead.
Is it practical? I throw out an empirical observation -- with all our philosophy(s) we still have hunger in our world, and hunger is deemed to be a human creation.
But it fills your days, and occupies your mind. In the end, no one cares what you (I mean you) think.
** spoiler omitted **
This is about right.
You're using philosophy to denounce philosophy.
Depends on your definition of philosophy.
What on earth do you think empiricism is? Why should I be ought by dismissive of the solipsism you are presenting?
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience. Its sort of the anti philosophy philosophy, because it denies the ability to reach knowledge through philosophy because philosophy is not a sensory experience.
As to how to reach that conclusion, its an inherently non circular process since it relies on something outside of the self.
Seriously, I am just mystified by this. You people don't hate philosophy, you're just reading the wrong books.
Well, what would you call things like the ontological argument? Is that philosophy? Philosophies shady brother in law? A subset of philosophy?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ragequit.
Then please define philosophy so we can have a discussion. :)You're using philosophy to denounce philosophy.Depends on your definition of philosophy.
From above
"a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means"
Kicking the rock is definitely observational. Hey, there's a rock there.
|
|
Then please define philosophy so we can have a discussion. :)You're using philosophy to denounce philosophy.Depends on your definition of philosophy.From above
"a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means"
Kicking the rock is definitely observational. Hey, there's a rock there.
Okay, then we can proceed. What do you mean by search in this case? What do you mean by "general understanding"? Can you define what "value" means to you? Can you give me a definition for speculative that isn't theoretical based on observation? And what is observable?
I want all of this covered before we proceed further into the discussion, since we're using your definitions. It's necessary to the process of understanding your teleology.
[Ahem.]
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table
David Hume could out consume Wilhelm Freidreich Hegel
and Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schegel
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach you about the raising of the wrist
Even Socrates himself was permanently pissed
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato they say could stick it away, a half crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a beggar for the bottle
and Hobbes was fond of his dram
and Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: I drink, therefore I am!
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!
Search= the attempt to figure out
General understanding= rules that usually apply
Value= the ought
Do you need to know what is is?
Can you give me a definition for speculative that isn't theoretical based on observation?- Yes. The ontological argument.
And what is observable- Sight sound hearing taste touch time balance, feelings (self only) and observations derived from that (ie, you saw a bird ruffle its feathers 5 times in 10 minutes)
|
|
Search= the attempt to figure out
General understanding= rules that usually apply
Value= the oughtDo you need to know what is is?
Can you give me a definition for speculative that isn't theoretical based on observation?- Yes. The ontological argument.
And what is observable- Sight sound hearing taste touch time balance, feelings (self only) and observations derived from that (ie, you saw a bird ruffle its feathers 5 times in 10 minutes)
:) Nice little joke in there.
Okay, so we can agree that what you mean by your definition that what you mean to ask is "By our own common societal measures based upon an assumption of American identity, we ought to structure our lives based on rational information gained via our senses rather than through the use of priori to establish our identity."
Does this sound like the ought definition you're looking for? I just want to be on the same page.
:) Nice little joke in there.
*whistles innocently*
"By our own common societal measures based upon an assumption of American identity, we ought to structure our lives based on rational information gained via our senses rather than through the use of priori to establish our identity."
Turn the page.
Close the book.
Go to the next isle over.
Further.
Fuuuuuuuuuurtheeer.
American doesn't enter into it.
Life structure doesn't enter into it.
Society doesn't enter into it.
Priori is like chalant. You neved see someone chalant, they're always nonchalant. See, eveny my spellchecker doesn't like chalant.
Lets try again, since trying to define anything with you.. didn't work.
*holds up ontological argument* Philosophers have been debating and churning out junk like this for 2000 years. It doesn't work to get us an accurate picture of reality. What have you got, and why shouldn't I tear down the philosophy department to put in a machine that goes ping that the physicists have been dying to play with?
Does this sound like the ought definition you're looking for? I just want to be on the same page.
|
|
Lets try again, since trying to define anything with you.. didn't work.
What is the purpose of your question then? What is the direction you deem for your assertions so far that you've found no purpose for philosophy?
*holds up ontological argument* Philosophers have been debating and churning out junk like this for 2000 years. It doesn't work to get us an accurate picture of reality. What have you got, and why shouldn't I tear down the philosophy department to put in a machine that goes ping that the physicists have been dying to play with?
Okay, so your problem is specifically the priori? There are a number of people who don't agree with the idea of priori as the basis for knowledge. It requires no work, you can do it from your couch. A lot of philosophers argue against this approach. You should check out the works of the Pragmatists. I think you'll find a lot of the answers you're seeking.
Or go for the sophists. They can give you whatever you want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I'm not sure if it was mentioned, but all of the sciences used to referred to as philosophies.
There were the natural philsophies, for instance, study of the world and weather and zoology. It wasn't until much later that "science" and "philosophy" were distinguished as seperate things.
In short;
Used to be Philosophy = knowledge of a topic.
Now Philsophy = inflective views of the human condition.
now as for it being worthless... well, I can't really vouch for that one way or the other, although it's a pretty big statement - inflection, retrospection, and constructive thought about humanity is worthless is a textbook example of nihilism.
And, seeing as you're using nihilism to discredit philosophy, it leaves you on pretty shaky ground.
Of course we could go back to talking about semantics, because I could use a good gruntle-ing!
What is the purpose of your question then?
Mostly to start a conversation because I'm bored.
But if you're asking what direction I'm heading it, its that philosophy is useless. I hold a large number of fields that aren't tied to reality in similar disregard. (I'm looking at YOU Psychology)
What is the direction you deem for your assertions so far that you've found no purpose for philosophy?
Well mostly that when I ask "what do you do with philosophy" I either get no answer, questions as "answers", or someone decides to call all thinking philosophy. Could just be the nature of philosophers, but it seems that if there were better answers I would have found them by now.
What do you do with biology? "Cure diseases!"
What do you do with physics? "Launch stuff in the air and make it hit the spot we want!"
What do you do with chemistry "Blow stuff up!"
I mean, under what circumstances do you ever shout "I need a philosopher, stat!
Or go for the sophists. They can give you whatever you want.
I'm not the only one with jokes...
It would have to be a very good sophist to get me an actual pizza.
Oh.. wait.. he's probably working delivery anyway.