Is Philosophy crap?

[A Tripolation]

Amazing. All my efforts and not a glimmer of understanding. Ho hum. Even a decent objection to my successful fundamental theory would have been something.

 

I must accept defeat. There is no way to convince someone that philosophy is useful if they think it's all a matter of opinion.

 

Over and out.

 

All you've stated is that we need empiricism and logic to discover the truth about our world. Good job. We agree. Except I call it science.

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

I am not likely to be the discussion partner you require. Not well read enough, and not enough grey matter. But someone might show up.

 

But I am not sure that calling in mysticism is required to answer metaphysical questions.

 

There is an area of our imaginations that is not bound by the rules of reality. Perhaps all of it, is someone that way, but I am talking about flights of fancy that adhere to some of the rules, but not quite all...like taking too large a serving, being that "your eyes were bigger than your stomach", or rehearsing what you will say to an important person in an important situation only to realize its not appropriate and isnt going to "work" in reality.

 

The mind is capable of "partial" truth. "Works on Paper" but doesn't actually fly. Contrary to the way objective reality seems to work, where everything fits together, not only in ways we know, but probably in ways we have not noticed yet. There are unintended consequences to the things we do in reality. In our minds the omissions and unaccounted for variables are not alway obvious, but in reality the plan must mesh with everything else that is really going on.

 

Like thinking that since your hand is mostly the empty space between the atoms and subatomic particles, and the steel door is the same way, there is no logical reason why you couldn't just reach through the door, or pass through the door, letting the atoms just pass each other by. But it doesn't work that way, there are some forces you did not account for.

 

So I think it important to ground any metaphysical arguments in what we know to be true. Otherwise you run the risk of "just imagining it" which is not likely to be valuble to anybody but you.

 

And since our main concerns are human concerns, I see no problem with, and in fact think it rather sensible to frame things in human terms. That is why I say that if you know a truth, but cannot point someone else to it, it is a subjective truth, and most likey does not fit reality and is therefore not very useful to anybody else.

 

Now this does not have the same uselessness, even the same thought, if it is shared by others, and works for others, as in religion, or perhaps any number of community and group activities and institutions that have a creed, or goal, or common set of beliefs, like say America. Here a subjective thought can become objective, because it is commonly held, and institutions, real institutions are built and maintained, embodying the thought.

 

Which opens up another level of distinction between what is subjective and objective. We can look at various collections of humans as subjective entities, that can be looked at objectively. As they themselves can take an objective look at their own activities.

 

But can we "really" take an objective view on humanity itself? Like we are not likely to be just a little bit bias.

 

I don't think so. If it cannot be expressed in human terms, there is no way to think it, and no way to say it to another human.

 

So how in the world could we possibly take an objective view, other than the human one we already have, on the entire universe?

 

Consider this. If you were to instantly dematerialize here, and rematerialize at the site of a super nova 6.8 billion light years from here, and you would look in the direction of the Earth, you would see either the region of Milky way, as it was when it was 6.8 billion years old, if you rematerialized in the present, or see the region just becoming a region if you rematerialized in the past.

 

The universe would still be so darn big, you couldn't see it in any other fashion than the way we see it. Near stuff immediately, distant stuff with a lag proportional to its distance. This is the only way the universe is viewable. There is no looking at it all at once. It doesn't work that way. Its too immense.

 

So a determination made at the speed of thought, may well not take into consideration, the actual things involved.

 

And unity becomes a highly fanciful and most likely inappropriate description of "all there is".

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 2, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

PeterJ,

 

But I am not sure that calling in mysticism is required to answer metaphysical questions.

 

 

 

Kant held that synthetic a priori judgments were possible in mathematics and physics but not in metaphysics. Thus he thought it a mistake for metaphysicians to attempt to go beyond sense experience in order to define concepts like God, freedom, or the immortal soul. All theoretical knowledge consists in applying the categories to perceptual material located in space and time, and these concepts lie outside the spatiotemporal categories.

 

Neither rationalism nor empiricism can answer metaphysical questions and therefore we need to look for non-positivist methods of epistemology rejecting both rationalism and empiricism to gain new truths.

[tar]

immortal,

 

Wow, I read that passage about Kant as Kant saying exactly the opposite as you are taking it.

 

Where is the quote from?

 

Regards TAR2

 

I think we need to state again, or state primarily, what definitions of metaphysics, mysticism, and philosophy we are using in this discussion. Some of us apparently already know, but I am not one of them.

 

Here is the first two paragraphs of Kant's introduction (Meiklejohn's translation) in Critique of Pure Reason.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

I.--Of the Difference Between Pure and Empirical Knowledge

 

That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare, to connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw material of our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called experience? In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to experience, but begins with it

 

But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion), an additon which we cannot distinguuish from the original element given by sense, till long practice has made us attentive to, and skilful in separating it. It is, therefore, a question which requires close investigation, and is not to be answered at first sight--whether there exists a knowledge altogether independent of experience, and even of all senuous impressions? Knowledge of this kind is called a priori, in contradistinction to empirical knowledge which has its sources a posteriori, that is, in experience.

 

For me, Kant is evaluating reason itself. The form of our thought. What makes it possible that we think. He is not exploring the content. That is given to us empirically through the senses.

 

I am not thinking that he would be a big fan of any "truth" that had no empirical content.

 

I don't think flights of fancy, magic, and made up stuff with no basis in reality, was his cup of tea.

[immortal]

immortal,

 

Wow, I read that passage about Kant as Kant saying exactly the opposite as you are taking it.

 

Where is the quote from?

 

My views are slightly opposite of Kant if one thinks that there are no other ways of epistemology other than rationalism and empiricism.

 

Kant held that synthetic a priori judgments were possible in mathematics and physics but not in metaphysics. Thus he thought it a mistake for metaphysicians to attempt to go beyond sense experience in order to define concepts like God, freedom, or the immortal soul. All theoretical knowledge consists in applying the categories to perceptual material located in space and time, and these concepts lie outside the spatiotemporal categories.

 

Grolier Encyclopedia

 

Donald Gotterbarn

Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Albright College, Reading, Pa.

 

I think we need to state again, or state primarily, what definitions of metaphysics, mysticism, and philosophy we are using in this discussion. Some of us apparently already know, but I am not one of them.

 

Okay lets define them.

 

Philosophy

Philosophy is the oldest form of systematic, scholarly inquiry. The name comes from the Greek philosïphos, "lover of wisdom." The term, however, has acquired several related meanings:

 

(1) the study of the truths or principles underlying all knowledge, being, and reality;

(2) a particular system of philosophical doctrine;

(3) the critical evaluation of such fundamental doctrines;

(4) the study of the principles of a particular branch of knowledge;

(5) a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs; and

(6) a philosophical spirit or attitude.

 

 

Each of these involves examining the fundamental principles of a discipline to see if they are logical, consistent, and most importantly true.

 

 

Metaphysics

 

 

Metaphysics is that area of philosophy which concerns itself with the nature and structure of reality. It deals with such questions as: Are the objects we perceive real or illusory? Does the external world exist apart from our consciousness of it? Is reality ultimately reducible to a single underlying substance? If so, is it essentially spiritual or material? Is the universe intelligible and orderly or incomprehensible and chaotic?

 

In its traditional meaning metaphysics is almost synonymous with ontology, the study of being as such, but it also includes cosmology, the study of the organization and origin of the universe. At times during the history of philosophy theology (the study of the nature and existence of God) has been included in metaphysics, but modern philosophers tend to treat it as a separate subject. In addition to ontology and cosmology, modern metaphysical inquiry includes the philosophy of mind or self (sometimes called rational psychology), which deals with such issues as the mind-body problem, free will and determinism, and personal identity. The term metaphysics itself was introduced by early editors of the works of Aristotle to describe those writings that came after (and thus carried analysis beyond) his studies on physics.

 

Mysticism

 

 

Mysticism in general refers to a direct and immediate experience of the sacred, or the knowledge derived from such an experience. In Christianity this experience usually takes the form of a vision of, or sense of union with, God; however, there are also nontheistic forms of mysticism, as in Buddhism. Mysticism occurs in most, if not all, the religions of the world, although its importance within each varies greatly. The criteria and conditions for mystical experience vary depending on the tradition, but three attributes are found almost universally.

 

First, the experience is immediate and overwhelming, divorced from the common experience of reality.

 

Second, the experience or the knowledge imparted by it is felt to be self-authenticating, without need of further evidence or justification.

 

Finally, it is held to be ineffable, its essence incapable of being expressed or understood outside the experience itself.

 

The philosopher Henri Bergson considered intuition to be the highest state of human knowing and mysticism the perfection of intuition.

 

 

Intuition

 

 

Intuition is the knowledge of a concept, truth, or solution to a problem, which is arrived at apparently spontaneously, without conscious steps of reasoning or inquiry. One explanation of intuition is that it is the result of a special faculty, or ability, or a special sympathy with the object known. Some philosophers and psychologists claim that human phenomena can be understood only by special intuition; many psychologists, however, attribute intuition to a thought process that occurs too fast for a person to be conscious of it. For instance, numerous minimal cues may be rapidly integrated, making possible identification of the present experience in relation to past experiences.

 

Theology

 

 

The study of nature and the existence of God

 

 

Definitions from Grolier Encyclopedia.

 

 

Here is the first two paragraphs of Kant's introduction (Meiklejohn's translation) in Critique of Pure Reason.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

For me, Kant is evaluating reason itself. The form of our thought. What makes it possible that we think. He is not exploring the content. That is given to us empirically through the senses.

 

Yes, he is saying that all our knowledge even of rationalism comes from empiricism, there are other arguments which asks whether mathematicians discover already existing hidden truths or they really invent them through the process of rational thinking.

 

The content is metaphysical and he calls it as noumenon and we need to explore the content in order to know the ultimate nature of reality and hence it is important and very much relevant. Thus according to him that ultimate nature of reality what he calls as noumenon is unknowable since all our knowledge comes from empiricism and the mind cannot really transcend itself to know itself (i.e the thing in itself).

 

Mysticism deviates from such position and says that the ultimate reality can be known and we can transcend the mind and know the mind itself through non-positivist methods of epistemology and we need to test the efficacy of those methods and its the job of theologians to do it not of scientists, metaphysicians or philosophers because their disciplines doesn't have the required tools to access such truths and hence there are of a different magisteria than religion.

 

I am not thinking that he would be a big fan of any "truth" that had no empirical content.

 

I don't think flights of fancy, magic, and made up stuff with no basis in reality, was his cup of tea.

 

This is true, he was not a mystic but his intellectual arguments clearly showed that the ultimate objective reality should be really something different from our ordinary empirical experiences and it invokes mysticism.

 

Was Kant a mystic?

 

Much about mysticism in that article is crap and misrepresented and hence don't take it literally.

[tar]

immortal,

 

I think you missed a "the" in the definition of Theology, which changes the meaning a lot. Shouldn't it be "the nature" of god, not "nature" that Theologists study?

 

But anyway, so which of the definitions of Philosophy are we considering to be crapful exercises or not?

 

And the myticism definition sounded a little like the definition of an epiphany I had, and I don't think that qualifies me as a mystic, so I am not quite sure we can go by that definition.

 

I was looking at definitions in The American Heritage Dictionary last night, and noticed something interesting. For several of the concepts we are trying to pin down here, there were several or more definitions. And some were putting the concept in a good light, some in a questionable light and some in a negative light. Take these definitions of Mysticism.

 

1.a. A spiritual discipline aiming at union with the divine throgh deep meditation or trancelike contemplation. B. the experience of such communion, as described by mystics.

2. Any belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension but central to being and directly accessible by intuition.

3. Confused and groundless speculation: superstitious self-delusion.

 

Three ways of expressing basically the same idea. Number 1 a little questionable, number 2 reasonable and number 3 foolish.

 

Like the tendency we have to put the same idea in a good light when it pertains to us, a questionable light when pertaining to the second person (in grammar) and a bad light when pertaining to the third person. As in, "i am exploring my sexuality" "you are loose" and "she is a slut".

 

Such a problem I think we are running into in this discussion. When I do mysticism its an epiphany. When you do it, you are misguiding yourself, and when mystics do it, they are delusional...so to speak.

 

So the answer to the thread question is probably...

 

Philosophy is fine and essential, when done appropriately as we intelligent, thoughtful people do it.

Somewhat questionable when you misinformed confused people try to apply it.

And down right useless crap when those delusional idiots do it.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 3, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

immortal,

 

I think you missed a "the" in the definition of Theology, which changes the meaning a lot. Shouldn't it be "the nature" of god, not "nature" that Theologists study?

 

A God will have its associated numinous nature and hence it should have been. The study of the numinous nature and the existence of God.

 

But anyway, so which of the definitions of Philosophy are we considering to be crapful exercises or not?

 

Each of these involves examining the fundamental principles of a discipline to see if they are logical, consistent, and most importantly true.

 

I go by that definition, Philosophy questions the consistencies and on the foundations or the basic assumptions of any discipline and that includes the basic foundational assumptions of science and its so called scientific method.

 

And the myticism definition sounded a little like the definition of an epiphany I had, and I don't think that qualifies me as a mystic, so I am not quite sure we can go by that definition.

 

I was looking at definitions in The America Heritage Dictionary last night, and noticed something interesting. For several of the concepts we are trying to pin down here, there were several or more definitions. And some were putting the concept in a good light, some in a questionable light and some in a negative light. Take these definitions of Mysticism.

 

 

 

Three ways of expressing basically the same idea. Number 1 a little questionable, number 2 reasonable and number 3 foolish.

 

Like the tendency we have to put the same idea in a good light when it pertains to us, a questionable light when pertaining to the second person (in grammar) and a bad light when pertaining to the third person. As in, "i am exploring my sexuality" "you are loose" and "she is a slut".

 

Such a problem I think we are running into in this discussion. When I do mysticism its an epiphany. When you do it, you are misguiding yourself, and when mystics do it, they are delusional...so to speak.

 

2. Any belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension but central to being and directly accessible by intuition.

 

I like to go by the second definition of mysticism neither the first nor the third.

 

So the answer to the thread question is probably...

 

Philosophy is fine and essential, when done appropriately as we intelligent, thoughtful people do it.

Somewhat questionable when you misinformed confused people try to apply it.

And down right useless crap when those delusional idiots do it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

We are not confused, I do know the boundaries of science and theology.

 

Whether they are mere hallucinations or is there any truth in it is best questionable and its the job of theologians to prove it that they weren't delusional idiots and in the absence of evidence the default position is we don't know.

[Genecks]

I remember when I took my first philosophy class.

 

The professor drew a circle, and in that circle is what generations before us thought they knew about reality and the world. And that was called their philosophy on things.

And then those things sectioned off, and turned into other things, such as science. Still remained concepts like the mental, consciousness, and the beginning of the universe.

Of course, you've got a bit of a hebb diagram between science and philosophy on those, but philosophy attempts to try and understand or at least explain things.

 

And then there is a philosophy of science, between a method and generation of fruitful theories... that our method of science may indeed someday change based on our methods for finding things and how they build upon one another. So, do I think philosophy is rubbish? No, I think it's the groundwork for many of things, such as the scientific method. But it indeed could be if you dare to consider philosophy to be the logic that binds us and prevents us from reaching new grounds based on irrationality and the power it may hold to find greater truths: Sometimes things aren't logical, and you have to use something other than logic to explain them.

 

If you ask me if I care, though? I'll say no... Maybe the concept of the soul worries me. The Aristotlean view that perhaps.. just maybe... the body really does contain the soul... And if you did tear yourself away from it, became an awesome cyborg, then you would be a soulless robotic shell... and then comes in the philosophy of mind, what consciousness really is, and what it means to be self-aware... You have people who say that if you could take your entire self apart and turn it into a program, that program would be you. Maybe by today's logic (without logical proof of the soul), but I'll disagree with those views.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Genecks

[tar]

Genecks,

 

 

"Philosophy attempts to try and understand or at least explain things."

 

Sounds like a good, possible definition for the purposes of this thread.

 

If taken as such, then the question would become is "trying to understand or at least explain things" essential and worthwhile, or a useless waste of time?

 

To which I would have to say that most if not all people seem to be engaged in attempts to understand and explain things, so although that would put Philosophy in the "ubiquitous' camp, it would seem to, as well, make it an essential part of human nature.

 

Which would shift the question to ones opinion on the worthwhileness of being human.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

immortal,

 

Interesting that you chose the reasonable definition for mysticism but defended the one I was framing as negative, as if that was the one you identified with.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 3, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

immortal,

 

Interesting that you chose the reasonable definition for mysticism but defended the one I was framing as negative, as if that was the one you identified with.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Yes, I don't see them as complete fools, there is a glimpse of rationality behind it but we don't have undeniable evidence to accept it and hence I basically don't know. If someone wants to invest their time on it then that's something personal and its well and good but we don't have any credible evidence to accept their views as true.

[anotherfilthyape]

1. Some definitions:

 

Science is any field of study where the studying process involves rigorous observation of the environment and study of things previously done in these fields by others to hold as a foundation for the way this observation will be managed and the consequent employment of these studies to propose a hypothesis of how the future should behave in regards to the observed criteria and the consequent design of experiments to prove this hypothesis which thus gives knowledge that engineers can apply to improve human life... Note that, by design, previous theories which are hypothesis that have been assumed true under empirical evidence can be abandoned for a superior hypothesis or theory.

 

Under this definition "abstract science" is a contradiction, however "abstract sciences" can be considered an oxymoronic in-between of science and philosophy (mathematics and logic would be one such field).

 

Philosophy is any field of study where the studying process involves rigorous study and analysis of things previous done in these fields by others to hold as a foundation for the way the field will be expanded or perpetuated and the consequent application of these fields to human behavior (ethics), human organizations or human societies (politics) or academic fields (philosophy of language, philosophy of science, etc)... Note that by design previous theories which are hypothesis that have been assumed true under reasoning that has not yet been shown to be flawed, can be abandoned for a superior hypothesis or theory as soon as flaws are found in its system and an alternate system is proposed as a solution that both explains what the previous theory or hypothesis explained and what the previous theory or hypothesis failed to explain.

 

In this way philosophy is an abstract counterpart to science and both can complement each other, supplement each other, or be in conflict, depending on the field and position one holds regarding them.

 

Not that this is a definition for science in the sense it is employed in the modern world, originally science was any field which operated to reveal reality as it is for once and for ever, so the boundaries between science and philosophy where not as strong, but those days are over and now science is necessarily empirical or, better said, criticist. Science was a term created by philosophers.

 

2. dispelling some myths:

 

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

That is not philosophy, that is theology, if you belief it is crap you are right but you obviously do not know anything about what is philosophy...

 

If a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

That is so-called "oriental philosophy", not true philosophy, philosophy as a meaningful discipline is originally western and must comply with western roots for it to work, you are judging true philosophy by false philosophy, that is the same as judging evidence-based medicine by homoeopathy... Both have the same goals but different methods and different degree of rigor and success and application to life.

 

Logic is great, but my sense is that philosophy suffers from the fact that that logic is generally rooted in non-empirical premises. Essentially, begin with any damned axiom you want and work from there... Well, I'd like to at least validate the axiom before I base my entire position on it. I don't see a lot of that validation happening, and the axioms are asked to be accepted a priori.

 

A.not al philosophy is non-empirical, there is criticism that is empirical and rationalist and there is empirism which is exclusively empirical...

 

B.that something is non-empirical it does not means it is false... for example that A is A (a tautology) is true without it being empirical.

 

Also, I struggle with the general lack of conclusions in philosophy. In science, you ask a question, seek evidence, then form some conclusions...

 

You do the same in philosophy but the evidence is not necessarily empirical, just because something is not empirical it does not means it is not evidence... Thought experiments and theoretical physics do not use empirical evidence... But mathematic evidence. So does Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

 

You often have to reframe the question more precisely and ask new questions as a result of those conclusions, but you still obtain hard and fast conclusions from which to work. In philosophy, you do little more than go back and forth between differing opinions or viewpoints, and there is no way to tell which is more rooted in reality and which is nonsense. It's really just opinion.

 

You are wrong, confusing opinions with philosophical postulates is like confusing educated guesses with whimsical guesses, conjectures with dogma.

 

Perhaps the easiest way to give value to philosophy is to say that it is the single thing that distinguish's humans from the animal

 

Nope, because ethology is not advanced well enough to say much about animal intelligence in hominids, dolphins and cephalopods...

 

One might even call philosophy 'concious mind'.

 

Nope because the conscience or conscious mind is not the same as philosophy; philosophy is deeper than mere act of exercising the existence of a conscience, it has methods and a history to follow.

 

So we need philosophy to ask questions. Agreed. Past this, what's a useful construct of philosophy?

 

A.Wrong. We need philosophy to ask questions, moderate answers and solve non-empirical or trans-scientific problems (for example "what is science" cannot be solved within science, that is like pulling oneself over a fence by one's bootstraps, only philosophy has this power and philosophy is the only field that can, within itself, answer the question "what is philosophy?", all other fields would be enduring petitio principii if they tried to prove their own worth through themselves)

 

B.Democracy, pragmatism, the concept of logical fallacy (ad populum, ad verecundiam, ad hominem, inductive fallacy, plurium interrogationum, amphiboly, ad ignorantiam, Continuum fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, ad temperantiam, ad novitam, ad antiquitam, ad baculum and Texas sharpshooter fallacy among others), capitalism, socialism, organized anarchism, science, the problem of induction (related to the inductive fallacy and the reason why science is not dogmatic and it can progress and it has a scientific method), utilitarianism, secular humanism, epicureism, etc. The list is long.

 

Art is crap we don't complain much about that.

 

False, some art is crap, other art has educational value or at least the value of making life worth living. Literature is art... Would you say good literature is crap? Just because some artists have started doing whatever they want and calling it art does not mean that art is dead...

 

Philosophy is an art but for some reason it is invalidated by its requirement to be a useful art?

 

Philosophy is not an art, unlike an art in philosophy being original and the ability to express your feelings through some media are not involved in doing a good work in the field you are operating in. Your work is not valued for its originality nor it is valued for how much it expresses but by whether what it claims is sound.

 

3. now I will answer the OP and other posters...

 

I often view philosophy as complete rubbish. Mindless mental musing with no goal, direction, or pragmatic capacity.

 

Then you are completely ignorant of philosophy... I will concentrate therefore on some of the branches of philosophy:

 

A.The goal and direction of metaphysics is, for instance, the same goal and direction of physics, only that it lacks proper tools (as a positivist I do not find any value in metaphysics because of this, but I cannot deny it has a purpose and a goal, if you know reality you can derive what to do from there so it would have a pragmatic capacity if the tools available to solve its problem existed)

 

B.This brings me to epistemology and gnoseology, the branches of philosophy that deal with the capacity to know, what does knowledge constitutes and what is the relationship of knowledge and truth... This is something that cannot be solved through science because science suffers the problem of induction (check wikipedia if you do not know what the problem of induction is). The goal and direction of epistemology and gnoseology is building fields of study that are useful to us in relation to our place in reality if that is determined to be possible, thus science was developed from this branch.

 

C.Science was created from a view that exists in philosophy that is "pragmatism" and you cannot use science to prove pragmatism, you need something outside the system to prove a system, that thing outside the system is ethics, pragmatism is one of many ethical positions, and a person who an ethical pragmatism will also have other set of positions in ethics and none can be scientifically proven and all are achieved through ethics that has the goal and direction of producing the best behavior on those that have developed a position within it or borrowed someone's else's position.

 

D.Ethics has the goal, direction and pragmatic application of answering the question "how should I behave", which is a problem on the individual level, the collective counterpart to ethics is politics which solves the question of "how our organizations should operate and what they are meant to do"... Without philosophy we would still suffer under theocratic monarchies and current science would be the kind of crap that medieval people had.

 

E.Ethics, politics, epistemology and gnoseology some way or another depend on axiology, the philosophic branch that studies what is value... You cannot determine value through scientific means and axiology has a goal and a direction with determining value; with value you know what to strive for. There it has pragmatic value... This brings me to another philosophical field:

 

F.Philosophy of language; Philosophy of language deals with the problem of what a word conveys, sense and meaning, therefore since we share all knowledge through a language philosophy of language rules over all fields by making us understand the nature of those labels that words are. But the labels cannot be whimsical and it requires another field of study to arrive to answers on this subject:

 

G.Ontology; this field has a direction and a purpose and a goal, it determines how you categorize, by knowing how to categorize you understand the foundations of taxonomy which are necessary for biology, the foundations of the periodic table which are necessary for chemistry and so on.

 

H.Then you have philosophy of science, you cannot scientifically prove that something is science or it is not, that is bootstrapping, check Munchhausen's trilemma, the method above the scientific method is the philosophical method and it questions many matters on the subject of science and its nature and its validity; how it can be biased by political goals (as it happened in the soviet empire, check lysenkoism on wikipedia) or by historical biases (like it happened in the field of medicine with puerperal fever) and whether progress in science is something we must thank to exceptional people or is something that happens at a moment in time when society is sufficiently advanced for it to happen and whether a scientist had not been born another scientist would have done the discovery or invention in the place of the scientist that was not given birth to.

 

However, upon expressing these views, I'm often immediately attacked with the claims that science cannot exist without philosophy. That we can know nothing without philosophy. The terms epistemology and sopolism are often thrown around.

 

What a lie! The term "sopolism" is never used on discussing the relationship between philosophy and science because "sopolism" is not a real term in philosophy, you mean "solipsism"... You have to learn to hear... And even then "solipsism" has nothing to do with the relationship between science and philosophy.

 

As someone who understands the power of the scientific method but knows little about "proper philosophy", I may be a tad biased and uninformed in my opinion. So I'd like to ask everyone on SFN: What are your views on the field of philosophy?

 

Without philosophy there would be no scientific method, without philosophy the scientific method would have no one to defend it from the stupid claims of theologists and other religious authorities and the method could be lost as science becomes dogma.

 

I don't know. I haven't ever really thought about this question. I just find philosophy a bit annoying as a general rule, at least here at SFN (think of users like Owl, for example).

 

You are clearly biased due to lack of understanding and knowledge of philosophy.

 

Ydoaps is a bit of an exception. I think he's made some tremendous arguments this past year or two since he began studying more formally. It's really a sight to behold. I think where I have an easier time with him is that he seems to more transparently recognize where philosophical arguments break down and where they no longer apply. He seems to be able to use philosophy within its proper boundaries. When people fail to do that, and they think logic is enough to refute obvious observable facts... That's usually where I shake my head and walk away feeling a bit of disgust.

 

Then you are judging philosophy not on itself and on its own merit but on the image you get from people that may have no studies in philosophy or that may have them but are not well learnt in the field... That is like judging psychology based on the work of psychoanalists...

 

Now, back on topic... Yes, I personally tend to view most philosophy as crap... Mental masturbation... A waste of time, and (at least here on scienceforums) generally rathet annoying... but YMMV.

 

Then you are not a good scientist.

 

Could you share some of the answers to why we exist that the atheist and agnostic's have come to please?

 

You are off topic but since I am an agnostic I can give you this answer; We are here because the conditions of existence of reality are enough to result in our conscious presence in what "here" seems to be... As to which are these conditions the question would not be "why" but "which" and the answer is two-fold; on metaphysics the answer is unknown and not vital (useful if it could be achieved, but not vital), on physics the answer is provided by science (by the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, sociology and psychology).

 

Why do you see them as a distraction?

 

I think he is the kind of guy that does not realizes the need of science to constantly fortify or redefine its definitions, boundaries, like a construction, and does not understand philosophy enough... But philosophy too needs to be maintained and nowadays scientists need philosophy and philosophers need science (personally I want to study ethology and anthropology after I have finished studying philosophy because that would make me an excellent ethicist and political philosopher)

 

Why do you think this? I'm trying to gain an understanding here, and I see many science-types reflecting my opinion that philosophy is rubbish. ydoaPs clearly thinks philosophy is useful.

 

For someone that claims that he values science this is an anecdotic argument and thus not proper science... For instance Douglas Hofstadter is a man that both knows modern science and has interest in philosophy and has done important studies for both fields. In the past we had:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Comte

 

these two are just off my head but many scientists and philosophers that follower also apply, and Marxists too, I am not much fond of Marxism but it does constitute a school of thought where you get people with interest in both science and philosophy.

 

In terms of science you've been given very specific examples of how philosophy has proven useful but you've rejected them, I'm detecting some bias in your disinterested pursuit. Are we to dismiss psychology and psychiatry as rubbish as well? How many philosophical assumptions does economics make, and how functional would it be as social science (I agree more with this guy) if we dismissed philosophical aggregation? What precisely is it that you feel is crap about a perfectly useful form of expression that relates what otherwise couldn't be?

 

That are appropriate words except where you think that philosophy is a form of expression when it is not so... But the bias is obvious from the moment the OP claims it is crap (in a loaded question) and that it is rubbish (in an introduction) despite not knowing much of the subject.

 

I don't really know.

 

I tend to avoid falling into philosophy, maybe apart from the scientific method.

 

Then you are not getting far...

 

Questions in philosophy do not have a well-posed methodology to really tackle them.

 

False, in philosophy you have to avoid informal fallacies and establish arguments that, when formalized into logic, lack contradiction or any other set of formal fallacies.

 

In mathematics you can argue a position (provide a proof) of a statement starting from some stated axioms. In practice there may be holes, subtleties and so on, but the idea is that one can construct an argument for the position taken that everyone will agree on.

 

Disagreement in philosophy comes not from flaws in the way philosophy is structured but because humans are a very dogmatic species and some people are less dogmatic than others, this means that some students of philosophy are more prone to stay under the influence of previous positions that relate better to their upbringing and some few are more prone to try newer positions so a spectrum of positions are the consequnces... Humans have varied source of dogmas that express how individuals vary from place to place and dogmatism is schismatic... Even science is one among many positions that has different schools of thought within itself.

 

In physics one can argue a position based on empirical evidence, i.e. experimental results. So you can argue your position based on these results.

 

You know not every person accepts empirism? I mean, just take a look at the stupid creationists!!!! Without philosophers we have no one to mediate the discussion between one side and the other.

 

How can you support your philosophical position?

 

The best I can think of is to argue that your position has served you well, as for instance the philosophy of the scientific method.

 

Not everyone is pragmatic... Pragmatism is itself a philosophical position, you need to know about philosophy to defend it when people bring such claims like "the devil deceives but the bible is the truth of the lord, die heathen die!"

 

That is why I see philosophy as important, but it needs to be "handled with care". One could waste much time and effort trying to figure out questions that just have no well-posed answer. Question may have no well-posed methodology to decide what position is "correct", what ever that may mean.

 

Philosophy is not just making the question, it is also stablishing what is the methodology necessary to solve the question and what is the way the question has been made and should be answered.

 

So, as someone interested in well-posed questions with well-posed answers philosophy could be a distraction.

 

Whether a question is well-posed and whether it has well-posed answers that depends more on the individual than on philosophy itself, some people are better at formulating philosophical questions and philosophical answers, it depends on linguistic skill (if you express them in informal languages) or mathematical skill (if you express them in formal language like Boolean logic or something).

 

I view a lot of philosophy as navel gazing, but I do enjoy reading the work of certain philosophers. I view it sort of like I view good works of fiction; it's a view into someone's mind, and sometimes you can come away bettered by the reading.

 

If that is all you can get from philosophy and that is what philosophy is to you then you either A.lack understanding of those philosophers you have read or B.you have not read any good philosophers (many philosophers are not really philosophers but philosophasters)

 

Marqq, thanks for your answer... These guys really needed someone to tell it to them...

 

True. But not really relevant. Philosophy is not non-empirical. It is a mixture of empiricism, logic and reason. Philosophers are not free to conclude that the earth is a cube. One has to extrapolate from the known and empirical facts. Still, it's all a bit of a muddle. Modern consciousness studies proudly calls itself 'scientific' yet consists mostly of people arguing for philosophical positions as if they are scientific theories. Besides, physicists are as guilty of favoring unproven axioms as are philosophers.

 

Depending on which philosopher you ask, Berkeleyans, idealists and rationalists can make anti-empirical claims, but the position has fallen out of favor and most philosophers nowadays are criticists...

 

I would agree with Marqq, who speaks much sense here imo. It is difficult to find a definition of philosophy that would exclude physics and mathematics, or more generally just using ones reason to think. The 'laws of thought' used in the sciences were formalised in philosophy.

 

I'd agree also with the comment that much of philosophy is a waste of time. But a lot of modern music is a waste of time. We wouldn't condemn the whole practice of music because some of it happens to be terrible.

 

and that has a name:

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SturgeonsLaw

 

Sturgeon's Revelation

 

I blame much of the bad press on the job creation scheme that is professional philosophy. It gives the impression that philosophising is an endless process of going round and round in circles. It is not, or needn't be, but that's how the professors usually do it, and how they usually teach it.

 

I would blame drug addicts, theologians and oriental thinkers calling themselves philosophers or being called philosophers and common people believing they are philosophers just because they read one author that other common people consider a philosopher (Like Nietzsche, Marx, Ayn Rand or any other non-philosopher).

 

Serendipity. I just had a short article accepted called 'Is Metaphysics a waste of time?'. My conclusion is of course not, or not unless you do it like the majority of academic professionals.

 

I apreciate philosophy but metaphysics lacks proper tools, you cannot solve an equation for the noumena and the phenomena...

 

Philosophical analysis, the application of our powers of reason to questions of first principles and their ramifications, provides an answer to the big questions in life, but only if we let it. Most people who do philosophy strongly resist its results, and once we do that all that is possible is to go round in circles. Accept the results and there can be progress.

 

My prediction is that when a person thinks that philosophy is a waste of time it will be because either 1) they refuse to accept the conclusions of their own reasoning. 2) they haven't done much of it.

 

I think that's called a hostage to fortune.

 

I would say they apply to philosophy but not to metaphysics, I reject metaphysics because my reasoning (and that of many that agree with me and are philosophers) rejects the existence of any tool to properly solve the inaccessibility of certainty regarding ultimate truth... but we do not need ultimate knowledge to use assumptions for action.

 

Is Philosophy crap?

 

In my opinion, no. Why? While some might enjoy research which leads to solid conclusions, some rather spend their free time trying to reach a valid answer to a philosophical question, which, like mentioned before, will often be subjective.

 

A lot has already been said about philosophy which I find important, so, all I'd like to add is this: If there is anyone who enjoys philosophy, then it isn't "crap". Now after reaching that conclusion what you might want to ask yourself is "Then what is it useful for?"

 

Animals rely on their instincts to survive, and to survive, they require aliments (etc). So, you could say that instinct, is what allows animal survival.

 

In comparison with that logic, what humans need to survive, is intelligence. Knowledge. Consciousness. Philosophy is a stimulation for the mind of many. It stimulates not just the will to question oneself about philosophical questions, but it also aids one's intellectual growth. (and eventually, self-discovery)

 

So my general point with this perhaps rough logic is, if philosophy does so much, how can it be crap? Sure, it might be annoying for many, and I understand why. But It's not useless for everyone. In fact, It's probably essential, as all knowledge and discoveries affecting the present day started with questions, and I believe philosophy to be the overall search for knowledge of the unknown.

 

Although I suppose that, with the coming of science, mathematics and everything else as specific areas of study, philosophy might've indeed turned into the search for answers to questions of a philosophical nature only.

 

Your opinion thinks that the value of philosophy comes from direct pleasure alone but philosophy also has an argumentative value as it is the system by which argumentation is itself ruled.

 

Quite honestly, I just want a discipline of philosophy that is able to find the truth of the matter like the scientific method does. I am aware that epistemology allows me to see that science is the best investigative method that we have. But are there any other methods that *aren't* based in the scientific method and empiricism that give us knowledge and truths?

 

Many fields do, just that not everyone accepts so... It happens with science too... Creationists do not accept science... Most people do not accept positions that are right, which positions are right? Well YMMV but I would go off topic if I specified...

 

ESP cannot be positively disproved by Science and whatever evidences that are there they are anecdotal. One problem is the repeatability of ESP, even if I give you a method which shows that ESP is possible I cannot ensure you that you'll have a ESP every time you repeat that method, it can take months, years or just 15 days or it may not happen at all.

 

One need to step up to the realm to realize ESP and to demonstrate any unusual genuine phenomena it takes time since such knowledge is unpredictable.

 

That is fallacious reasoning, you are saying it is true because it cannot be proven it is false... that an ad ignorantiam or burden of proof fallacy...

 

I don't think you've addressed my criticism. It is appropriate to assume it does not exist until someone demonstrates otherwise. It is not appropriate to assert baseless that it DOES exist, but cannot be studied empirically. That's frankly rather stupid, and part of what I despise about philosophy.

 

If you think Immortal did use philosophy you prove you do not know philosophy, I just denied his claims with philosophy...

 

The default position is not that they don't exist the default position is that we don't know. While discussing Philosophy especially metaphysical things we don't positively assert anything, it is by default understood that it falls under speculative metaphysics, no one should be allowed to discuss these issues in the mainstream science forums but it should be allowed here in the philosophy section.

 

Yes, most of what philosophers do is crap and a waste of time but it is these crap crackpot ideas which might go on to become a perfection of science.

 

Nope what most of philosophers do, not every philosopher does metaphysics and metaphysics has fallen out favour, pragmatism has no place for metaphysics because of these things.

 

You say someone else, who is that someone else refers to, it has to be someone from the intellectual community and with out having a dialect how can we even comprehend what others point of views are, most of philosophy is done through dialect and not all philosophers end their ideas there, some go on to test their ideas and turn it to accepted science.

 

your quote is good but myth is not something we need to worry about in the way we did before, it has already lost power... we must only worry about those myths that stay strong (creationism, abrahamic religions, etc). However myth is pertinent to understanding the human psyche...

 

Hang on. Don't blame philosophy for ESP and suchlike. ESP is a scientific phenomenon if it is a phenomenon at all. Nothing to do with philosophy. It is probably thanks to good philosophy that you so dislike baseless assertions about phenomena that cannot be studied empirically. You would be a rational philosopher in this respect. You do not despise philosophy, you despise sloppy thinking.

 

As a philosopher of sorts, I would suggest that if a phenomenon is not empirically unverifiable even in principle then it might as well be a unicorn or a fairy.

 

It appears to be an essential part of the definition of a 'real phenomenon' that it is empirically verifiable, for unless this a matter of definition then the word 'real' would have no meaning as an adjective. It is only thanks to their ability to do philosophy that scientists usually hold this view.

 

It frightens me that philosophy is seen by so many people to stand in oppositon to the natural sciences. This seems to be a recent development and it does not reflect well on our schools and universities. How on earth are they teaching philosophy these days? How can this view be reconciled with common sense? Is thinking opposed to seeing? Should we observe an apple fall to the ground and draw no conclusions? Should we ban theoretical physics from wondering about the nature of time and space or how the universe began?

 

As it happens I also dislike the way a lot of philosophy is done. If this is seen to be the correct way to do it then some criticism from science is justifiable. But this is a personal choice for the people doing it, not a fault of the discipline. Any task can be done well or badly.

 

Yes, ESP is not a subject philosophy tackles, philosophy has little to no interest in ESP

 

If someone told me they thought that chemistry was crap I would point out the things it has given us like nylon.

Similarly, maths has given us some neat tricks with computers (ditto physics).

Even art has given us stuff to look at.

What has philosophy given us?

 

Democracy, pragmatism, the concept of logical fallacy (ad populum, ad verecundiam, ad hominem, inductive fallacy, plurium interrogationum, amphiboly, ad ignorantiam, Continuum fallacy, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, ad temperantiam, ad novitam, ad antiquitam, ad baculum and Texas sharpshooter fallacy among others), capitalism, socialism, organized anarchism, science, the problem of induction (related to the inductive fallacy and the reason why science is not dogmatic and it can progress and it has a scientific method), utilitarianism, secular humanism, epicureism, etc. The list is long.

 

If "philosophy" includes everything then it's meaningless.

 

If "universe" includes everything then it's meaningless...

If "multiverse" includes everything then it's meaningless...

If "existence" includes everything then it's meaningless...

 

I can make non-sequitur arguments too...

 

I'm still waiting on one discipline of philosophy outside of science/logics that carries any credence at all.

 

ethics, politics, philosophy of language, onthology, axiology and gnoseology

 

For the most part modern day sciences ignore Kant's metaphysics. If it did not they (and you also) would take seriously his argument that all positive metaphysical theories are undecidable. But philosophy is held in such low regard these days that Kant is ignored. Besides, it is not convenient for the sciences to take any notice of Kant. Best to sweep his arguments under the carpet, call them metaphysics and then argue that metaphysics is useless.

 

It may be that it is only because the sciences makes such poor use of philosophy that some people come to think philosophy is useless. To be useful it must be used.

 

Kant is taken into account when the concept of noumenon and phenomenon is accepted and one decideds to rely on phenomenon alone, that is what scientists do when they reject metaphysics through a pragmatic approach (I admit however I do not understand Kant much, he is complicated with words, I have understood his theory better in encyclopedias like Grolier and others).

 

We are now 71 posts in and still don't have an answer. Yep, that sounds like the epitome of philosophy to me.

 

You and the OP have denied good andswers and other posters have sidetracked the thing (immortal and tar) with things that are not philosophy.

 

Has anyone yet defined what we mean by philosophy in this thread, or is everyone using their own arbitrary perspective?

 

my post defines philosophy... And a guy defined philosophy from the wikipedia article.

 

All you've stated is that we need empiricism and logic to discover the truth about our world. Good job. We agree. Except I call it science.

 

Then you are falling to the "no true scotsman" fallacy to call philosophy rubbish and science worthy... Science is criticist not empiricist (this means it uses both rationalism and empiricism). Philosophy is empricists, rationalist or criticist depending on your field of thought... Science is a subfield of criticist philosophy with its own methods.

 

In the 1800s Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis noticed that women giving birth at home had a much lower incidence of childbed fever than those giving birth in the doctor's maternity ward. His investigation discovered that washing hands with an antiseptic solution before a delivery reduced childbed fever fatalities by 90%. Despite the publication of this information, doctors still would not wash. The idea conflicted with both the existing medical concepts and more importantly, with the image that doctors had of themselves. That intransigence consigned large numbers of mothers to painful, lingering deaths. The scorn and ridicule of doctors was so extreme that Semmelweis moved from Vienna and was eventually committed to a mental asylum where he died.

 

Caplan, Caralee E. (1995). "The Childbed Fever Mystery and the Meaning of Medical Journalism". McGill Journal of Medicine 1. http://www.med.mcgill.ca/mjm/issues/v01n01/fever.html.

^ Hanninen, O; Farago, M; Monos, E. (Sep-Oct; 1983). "Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, the prophet of bacteriology". Infect Control. 4: 367–70. PMID 6354955. http://web.archive.org/web/20081013160051/http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/semmelweis.htm.

 

 

 

[iNow]

Your post was a little short. Can you elaborate your point?

[anotherfilthyape]

Your post was a little short. Can you elaborate your point?

 

dont be sarcastic, the post gave the answer that was required, it adressed many of the posts made in here...

[immortal]

You and the OP have denied good andswers and other posters have sidetracked the thing (immortal and tar) with things that are not philosophy.

 

 

Isn't philosophy of religion a field of philosophy?

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/#FieSig

 

Religion has more value and good tools than metaphysics to gain some real knowledge.

[anotherfilthyape]

Isn't philosophy of religion a field of philosophy?

 

http://plato.stanfor...eligion/#FieSig

 

Religion has more value and good tools than metaphysics to gain some real knowledge.

 

Some of your posts were good, some of your posts were partially good and some of your post were not good at all...

 

Were your posts about philosophy of religion good? I dont know 'cause I stop reading the posts once they went offtopic and were about you discussing with tar...

 

But you must know that "philosophy of religion" is often redundant with metaphysics and... Religion has no such thing as good tools... Is revelation a good tool? It is not a tool at all, is ranges from whims to madness... Neither religion nor metaphysics are of any value, but that does not means that philosophy is of no value... Just like theoretical physics has little value does not means that science has little value...

 

iNow if you are so lazy that you wont read my whole post read the introduction and the nskip to my answer to your questions... You can do that? Can you?

[iNow]

iNow - if you are so lazy that you wont read my whole post read the introduction and the nskip to my answer to your questions... You can do that? Can you?

I did read the whole thing. I just didn't feel like responding to anything specific you said. Was there a specific question you'd like me to address? Most of your post was a bunch of name calling and assertions that others were wrong.

Edited May 6, 2012 by iNow

[anotherfilthyape]

I did read the whole thing. I just didn't feel like responding to anything specific you said. Was there a specific question you'd like me to address? Most of your post was a bunch of name calling and assertions that others were wrong.

 

so just because I assert that people are wrong then my argument is of no value? If someone is biased against philosophy and dares calling it crap or rubbish let him or her deserve all accusations of ignorance because my post did not only claimed negative things against them (as a conclusion more than as an argument) but it also provided with points about how philosophy is of use to science and to people and how your arguments against it are flawed.

[iNow]

So, I'll ask again. Is there a specific question to which you'd like me to respond?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

anotherfilthyape,

It would be a good idea for you to calm down with the name calling and general rudeness. This is a discussion forum and we aim to discuss things in a civil and respectable manner.

Please do not respond to this mod note.

[MonDie]

Ydoaps is a bit of an exception. I think he's made some tremendous arguments this past year or two since he began studying more formally. It's really a sight to behold. I think where I have an easier time with him is that he seems to more transparently recognize where philosophical arguments break down and where they no longer apply. He seems to be able to use philosophy within its proper boundaries. When people fail to do that, and they think logic is enough to refute obvious observable facts... That's usually where I shake my head and walk away feeling a bit of disgust.

But logic can be used to refute previously adequate explanations of our observations, and the good-enough concepts must be replaced with something more accurate.

I've wondered if Einstein's theory of relativity could resolve Zeno's paradoxes of motion.

 

Copy the webpage address because the hyperlink sends me to the wrong Wikipedia page. I had problems posting this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#The_Paradoxes_of_Motion

Edited May 15, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[pmb]

I often view philosophy as complete rubbish. Mindless mental musing with no goal, direction, or pragmatic capacity.

P

I'd find it difficult or perhap impossible to do physics without philosophy. Philosophy is that part of your thinking whereupon you come to ask yourself or Can anytrhing in physics be said to be true? How do I know what I know? etc. I participated in a similar discussion in this ScienceForum today. One of my favorite quotes was raised.

 

There is a text out called Classical Charged Particles Third Edition by Fritz Rohrlich, World Scientific Publishing (2007). Rohrlich is a well-known, first rate physicist. Chapter 1, which starts on page 1, is called Philosophy and Logic and Physical Theory. In the first paragraph the Rohrlich writes

(page 1) ...ignoring philosophy in physics means not understanding physics. ... (page 2) ... Nevertheless, we can say that the theory explains the phenomenon. In this sense scientific explanation is circular.

 

However, upon expressing these views, I'm often immediately attacked with the claims that science cannot exist without philosophy. That we can know nothing without philosophy.

The terms epistemology and sopolism are oft thrown around.

I agree.

 

Do yourself a good one and read the following books

 

Another text is Logc of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper, Routledge Classics. First Ed. published in 1935 - Awesome book! This book is legendary! A must read for a very good philosopher in physics.

 

Another awsome text is called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Third Edition by Thomas Kunn.

 

as well as chapter one of Rohrlich's text I quoted above. After that you'll understand what people mean when they stress the importance of philosophy in physics.

 

You might just find that you've been doing a lot of philosophy and not knowing it. There is another good book

 

http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Logic-Antidote-Uncritical-Thinking/dp/0155030361/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1324334182&sr=8-4

 

Great book!!! Especially if you want to more easily win those arguments in wqhich you are right.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Athena and iNow, I split the last two posts in this thread into a new one (in Religion) so you can continue the discussion on religion and morality there.

[Athena]

immortal,

 

I think you missed a "the" in the definition of Theology, which changes the meaning a lot. Shouldn't it be "the nature" of god, not "nature" that Theologists study?

 

But anyway, so which of the definitions of Philosophy are we considering to be crapful exercises or not?

 

And the myticism definition sounded a little like the definition of an epiphany I had, and I don't think that qualifies me as a mystic, so I am not quite sure we can go by that definition.

 

I was looking at definitions in The American Heritage Dictionary last night, and noticed something interesting. For several of the concepts we are trying to pin down here, there were several or more definitions. And some were putting the concept in a good light, some in a questionable light and some in a negative light. Take these definitions of Mysticism.

 

 

 

Three ways of expressing basically the same idea. Number 1 a little questionable, number 2 reasonable and number 3 foolish.

 

Like the tendency we have to put the same idea in a good light when it pertains to us, a questionable light when pertaining to the second person (in grammar) and a bad light when pertaining to the third person. As in, "i am exploring my sexuality" "you are loose" and "she is a slut".

 

Such a problem I think we are running into in this discussion. When I do mysticism its an epiphany. When you do it, you are misguiding yourself, and when mystics do it, they are delusional...so to speak.

 

So the answer to the thread question is probably...

 

Philosophy is fine and essential, when done appropriately as we intelligent, thoughtful people do it.

Somewhat questionable when you misinformed confused people try to apply it.

And down right useless crap when those delusional idiots do it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

You use the word "concept", and I am beginning to think this is one of the most important words in our vocabulary. It is our ability to conceptualize that makes us like the gods, and capable of judging right from wrong. Because we can conceptualize, we can conceive the laws of nature, and be self governing. However, not all education leads to conceptual thinking. Philosophy is obviously conceptual thinking, but people of faith tend to be concrete thinkers who interpret the bible literally, instead of abstractly, and this is where religion has a problem with science, the literal, instead of abstract interpretation of the bible. It appears those who are educated for a technological society and becoming less capable of being civil.

 

I believe we have reactionary and polarizing politics right now, and a huge problem with religion, because we have gone from education that used the "Conceptual Method", teaching children increasingly complex concepts, to the "Behaviorist Method" which can also be used for training dogs. The Behaviorist Method develops lower level thinking but not higher level thinking. It is good for technology, and sure isn't good for democracy. It appears the science community has become insistent on being literal and incapable of thinking conceptually, thus the opinion that philosophy is crap. Without basic concepts the recommended books are wasted on these people, because they can no possibly understand the more complex concepts. This is good for Hitler's Germany where education made people reliant on authority, as opposed to the education we had for good moral judgment, without religion. I am saying this, because I am very concerned about where we are going. The title of this thread makes me think of someone with the mentality of a thug, someone who disrespects others and will push and shove his way threw a crowd. When the majority share this mentality, how civil are we? How different from the animals are we without intentionally developed higher level thinking skills?

[Villain]

Perhaps you are taking the title too literally

[Athena]

Perhaps you are taking the title too literally

 

Perhaps seeing the title as disrespectful and inviting trouble is, wrong? I also find moving my argument defending the importance of philosophy to the religion forum, wrong.

 

I think we have so many wrongs, because we went from education for good moral judgment, without religion, to education for technology, and at this point, we left moral training to the church, as Germany did. Now people seem to think morality is about religion instead of philosophy.

 

Only highly moral people can have liberty, because of the destructive nature of immorality, so now how do we maintain our liberty without self destructing? Capitalism without morality is self destructing. Science without morals causes major problems, such as consuming our incomes for extremely expensive weapons and warfare, a technology we can not control, and threatens all of life on earth. I think the rumor that we are intelligent is highly over rated.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Athena