Is all kind of though philosophy?
We've answered this about a billion times, and this will be THE LAST.
No. But critical examination of issues that affect us all likely is.
I just do not buy that, What prevent a normal mortal to critical examinate the concepts of justice and love. what make philosophy special? if is not special then shy iit is important?
Nothing "prevents" people from thinking critically about big issues, but you can't deny that the vast majority of people don't. When they do, they call it philosophizing.
I think all philosophy is interesting because it provokes thought and introspection. Even ones I disagree with I find engaging, typically. They make me examine why I hold the beliefs I do, and reinforce them as often as adjust them. As for favorites? I'm still a big fan of Nietzsche. And while it maybe doesn't fit the classical definition of philosophy, Flatland. A lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A toaster is a wondrous machine: you insert a slice of bread and receive a slice of toast.
What happend to the bread? How can we ever know...
<3 Calvin and Hobbes.
Then our disagreement is just a matter of definition. You have a definition of philosophy that i would not use and that is all.
I just do not buy that, What prevent a normal mortal to critical examinate the concepts of justice and love. what make philosophy special? if is not special then shy iit is important?Nothing "prevents" people from thinking critically about big issues, but you can't deny that the vast majority of people don't. When they do, they call it philosophizing.
I know. I use the dictionary.
You won't use the dictionary definition because it disagrees with your rhetorical definition. Your rhetorical definition is only there to reinforce your belief that philosophy isn't worthwhile.
I do not use a definition. I have looked the topic, the work of the main philosophers and reached my view of philosophy as the conclusion. Maybe my view is flawed but my method is better.
What are the "main philosophers" that you speak of?
And you just said that our disagreement is one of definition...then said that you don't use a definition.
Just admit it, you decided what you thought about something before researching it and, rather than admit that MAYBE you're an eensy bit wrong about something, you'd rather redefine it.
I can't even take you seriously anymore.
|
Just to use a parallel.
God is the beign whose essence is to exist - Aquinas.
namig is not a good way to argument.
Nicos, I've taught philosophy at West Point (US Military Academy). Nonetheless, I can't reasonably condense the topic to a few posts on this message board, and I'm not inclined to write 500 word spoiler-tagged essays.
If you're interested in names and naming, read up on Frege, Russell, and Kripke. You can find most of what they've written translated into Spanish.
Once you have a better referential basis, come back and we can continue this discussion succinctly and without spoiler-tagged 500 word essays.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Science is the rejection of philosophy: if science is the son of philosophy its on a Cambelesque quest to find it, kill it, and take over the empire.
Your utter fabrication of this 'definition' of science is most unscientific. No matter how many times you make this assertion, it doesn't magically become true. See? Philosophy.
I do not use a definition. I have looked the topic, the work of the main philosophers and reached my view of philosophy as the conclusion. Maybe my view is flawed but my method is better.
Nicos, el problema con tu postura referente a que es la Filosofía es que la estas basando en una definición completamente subjetiva a la que has llegado después de leer a un conjunto particular de filósofos. La definición formal de la Filosofía, según la Real Academia Española, es la siguiente:
"Conjunto de saberes que busca establecer, de manera racional, los principios más generales que organizan y orientan el conocimiento de la realidad, así como el sentido del obrar humano."
Entonces, la Filosofía no es "explicar a Dios" o "describir la Moral"; esas son solamente algunas aplicaciones potenciales de la Filosofía, tal y como "estudiar Organismos Extremófilos" no es la definición de la Ciencia, pese a que es una de tantas aplicaciones potenciales de la misma.
La Filosofía es el pensamiento critico que sigue una serie de reglas para construir argumentos lógicamente sólidos. La Teología, la Ontológica, la Deontología, el Utilitarismo, el Consecuencialismo, la Semántica, y un largo et cetera, son aplicaciones de dicho proceso, mas no el proceso en si. Y la Ciencia surge de la combinación de varias dichas aplicaciones.
Did anyone quote Conan yet?
.
|
Yep, this is turning into exactly the same thread as the last couple of threads on the same topic.
So, let me reiterate...
Where does this inane babble come from?
Really, people unhappy with philosophy because "science is so awesome we don't need that poxy philosophy." Where did you learn such brutally divisive thinking?
When i repeatedly ask 'what on earth do you do with philosophy?" and the only answers I see so far are
1) Justify religion/belief in god
2) Apply philosobable to patently inane/obvious ideas
3) Use a fancier method to justify pre held convictions.
4) Define philosophy to be thinking so that any idea is philosophy.
For someone with such a chip on his shoulder about philosophy, you sure do seem to have taken great inspiration from Socrates.
Maybe you should try answering a question with an answer before generating a new question?
Otherwise this thread will go nowhere and just end up in an offensive troll-fest of... oh, I get it.
Given string theory invalidates religion and evolution even science is provably fraudulent. In the end it is all just a guess with a degree of consensus as to the most acceptable solution - or
SCIENCE: THE ABILITY TO BACK A BELIEF, NO MATTER HOW INCORRECT, WITH ENOUGH WORDS, SUPPORTERS AND SOCIAL PERSECUTION THAT THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO PROVE OTHERWISE WITHOUT ISOLATION FROM THE GROUP WILL NOT CHALLENGE YOUR VERSION OF REALITY.
caps lock is cruize control for cool.
Also, how does string theory invalidate evolution or are you joking? Sarcasm doesn't always translate in type.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is best in life?
What is best in life?
:P
Science is the rejection of philosophy: if science is the son of philosophy its on a Cambelesque quest to find it, kill it, and take over the empire.Your utter fabrication of this 'definition' of science is most unscientific. No matter how many times you make this assertion, it doesn't magically become true. See? Philosophy.
My definition of science is that it uses an experiment or observations to determine if something is true or not. It tries to check itself against reality as much as possible. What definition of science are you using that that isn't the case?
Philosophy by contrast tries to go as far as it possibly can, on as little information as it can, without stopping to see how far down the rabbit hole its gone.
.
Science can not prove anything True, only "so far, so good."
Philosophy of Science: Section 1
.
Does anyone sane actually believe that?
If you want to know why I dislike philosophy that's one of the big reasons. Its an inane, unreachable standard that no one pays any attention to in practice, only in lip service. Is there any sincere doubt about where the planets are? That viruses and bacteria can cause disease? That evolution works roughly as described? That cutting someone's head off is fatal? That reality exists?
That there is an objective reality that we're interpreting does not mean that our interpretation in any way determines reality, or that the laws of physics are any less real because we don't fully understand all of them.
That is true :P.
Science can not prove anything True, only "so far, so good."
Philosophy of Science: Section 1
.
.
awesome! :)
.
.
I do think there is a objetive reality outside my mind. But note (up to my knowledge) that there is no way to prove it existence OR to prove that your senses actually tell you somehting about the worloutside.
Prove it how?
I refute it thus *kicks a rock*
Does anyone sane actually believe that?.
Science can not prove anything True, only "so far, so good."
Philosophy of Science: Section 1
.
I don't know, but...
let's do this: You prove that science can prove things True.
Then, humanity will have no choice but to believe it because you have
proven it so.
.
If you want to know why I dislike philosophy that's one of the big reasons. Its an inane, unreachable standard that no one pays any attention to in practice, only in lip service. Is there any sincere doubt about where the planets are? That viruses and bacteria can cause disease? That evolution works roughly as described? That cutting someone's head off is fatal? That reality exists?
That there is an objective reality that we're interpreting does not mean that our interpretation in any way determines reality, or that the laws of physics are any less real because we don't fully understand all of them.
I wonder what 'science is coorigable' means? (Part 2 @3:00)
Also, Part 2 @1:40
.
let's do this: You prove that science can prove things True.
Then, humanity will have no choice but to believe it because you have
proven it so.
Humanity already believes it. They get on airplanes derived from the laws of aerodynamics, take chemical cocktails developed by chemists, get vaccinated against disease, use early warning detection systems for tsunami's, and worry about what will happen if someone puts little green rocks in a container and blows them up, and you yourself fully believe that I will see the same words on my computer screen that you typed into your keyboard.
This has already been proven. You're not looking for proof: you have it. You're looking for philosophical proof: which is an oxymoron.
You're looking for philosophical proof: which is an oxymoron.
Close enough for me.
:: puts mark in win column.
.
You're looking for philosophical proof: which is an oxymoron.Close enough for me.
:: puts mark in win column.
.
If you can't (philosophically prove) anything then then your definition of proof is a null set. A definition that defines nothing is worthless, and worse you're equivocating between the two. Why on earth would should anyone care that science, or anything, is not (philosophically proven) ? Its like saying 'oh my god, the movie critic who hates every movie ever made doesn't like my movie'
Science can and does prove itself: all day, every day: that's the entire point of the experiment. Even the two philosophers you quoted were at a loss to explain how science works so well, and why its fundamentally changed our society in a way that philosophy has not. They were looking at the structure, the organization... but philosophy has all of that too. What makes science different is a grounding in reality on both ends: from the observations to the experiment.
The video had a very funny part where he said he'd been trying to bring philosophers of science and scientists together, but it kept falling apart because the rank and file scientists would get bored and leave. He thought there was something in philosophy for the cutting edge physicist though.
.
Check this out: >things we know to be true that are unprovable<.
Let's all read >Gödel, Escher, Bach< again, and get part-time jobs in bookstores and coffee houses.
And play RPGs !!
.
Who agrees with this philosophy ??
EDIT: the frist link seems to not work.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxhft2RY8t4&feature=youtu.be&t=6m32s
.
Since empiricism isn't all in your head then it can't be philosophy
In fact, empiricism is all in our heads. It is an idea, not a concrete thing. And science is not a purely empiric endeavour.A good part of scientifc knowledge is obtained by rational inquiry, and empirical data comes into play, at least in most cases, when checking the value of theoretical constructs. Besides, even the empirical data is "contaminated" with theory as there isn't very much nowadays which can be measured without recourse to theory.
The scientific mindset is well known to have been deeply influenced by philosophy. Both empiricism and rationalism are elements of science and the particular combination of these that leads to what we know as science was hammered into form and shape by both scientists and philosophers.
.
How can a scientific philosopher 'Catch a Lion in the Sahara Desert' ?
.
We place a locked cage onto a given point in the desert. After that
we introduce the following logical system:
Axiom 1: The set of lions in the Sahara is not empty.
Axiom 2: If there exists a lion in the Sahara, then there exists a
lion in the cage.
Procedure: If P is a theorem, and if the following is holds:
"P implies Q", then Q is a theorem.
Theorem 1: There exists a lion in the cage.
.