“Herp derp philosophy is stupid” derailment again.
At least there can be some valid criticisms of philosophy and support for it being stupid, rather than that "herp derp what everyone says about anything is philosophy" derailment.
I'd love for one person to honestly, earnestly try and explain if it's valid and why we should act as if it were true. To me, it's just like the 'god' argument when one does not define their meaning of the word 'god'; if it could mean anything, it means nothing at all.
My question is "Is there a fact of the matter about whether some action is right or wrong, even if that fact cannot be known with precise certainty?"
My answer is "No"
Science cannot tell us what is right or wrong because there is no fact of the matter about it. Nothing can tell us what is right or wrong.
So we are left with deciding for ourselves what we want to do and don't want to do and to negotiate with others about how we can compromise and live with each of our choices.
You don't even need science for that.
And I think you're demonstrably wrong. There is no "is/ought" dichotomy or whatever it's called, just as there is no "hard problem of consciousness."
Those are tools, that can be questioned in a topic about meta-logic.
Not in a topic about consciousness.
When we discuss consciousness, we use the tools not prove them.
The same goes for math : when you do 1+1 , you use the tools, not question them.
Sure, there are people who do in philosophy of math, and meta-logic.
You want to philosophize about consciousness, great! Knock yourself out.
If you really want to find how consciousness arises from matter, you have to use the language of physics which is actually mathematics.
Besides, if you want to prove that it works, you have to prove that it doesn't work, and see where that leads you.
Sorry but this is gibberish.
If you assume it doesn't work, then you stop there, don't use it.
Interesting. Using the scientific method, one actually does presume "it doesn't work" and even has a handy term for that presumption called "the null hypothesis." But they don't simply stop there with the scientific method. Perhaps that's why problems actually get solved in science and never get solved in philosophy.
An interesting thought. They had slaves to do all the work, so lots of time to kill. No TV in those days, they had to make their own entertainment.
Well they didn't manage to answer any of those questions. They never even seemed to achieve the level of awareness necessary to reject slavery.
Just want to say that, as always, a breath of fresh air you bring to these threads! Just wish you'd post more.
I can't believe you still didn't get it .
When we talk about politics, there are certain assumptions, axioms if you will, that we start from : that trump exists
Why?
Why wouldn't you assume Trump doesn't exist and then try to explain what's going on? Heck, I actually do this (I guess you'd then say I'm doing philosophy right?) in order to test my own mental ideas of how I see reality working and how that may apply to government and aspects of social behavior.
We can concern ourselves with that assumption when we are discussing metaphysics.
Because trying to prove everything in any discussion is crazy, not philosophy.
Well, that's your opinion.
What philosophers do is that they determine their topic, it is called : the Universe of discourse
And once they define that, then they lay assumptions or axioms they agree on ... And then start their arguments from that.
Really? Did you do that prior to posting? I honestly don't recall. How about other threads or other posters in this thread? Shouldn't these other philosophers know of and wish to follow these rules too?
I can't really believe you missed my point in the previous comment.
You can't believe it, really? Or are you implying an insult here perhaps? Do you not assume good faith in other posters or is that not a rule of philosophy?
Demanding that philosophers shouldn't be allowed to discuss what interests them seems kind of authoritarian.
I know, rite?! Or when other posters make several claims to "start a new thread" about "hating on philosophy" or who make several more statements about how their posts are the only on-topic posts and everyone elses were inappropriate by implication.
Yes, agree, but the problem is that JoeMorgue introduced an analogy , that the topic of "what is nature of consciousness?" or questions of the sort are akin to us trying to prove what is already taken for granted in mathematics.
I was just trying to make the point that different branches are specialized, and that his objection is pointless , we certainly don't ask questions about numbers and functions in mathematics, but certainly we do in Philosophy of Math or Metalogic, which are branches of philosophy.
"What is the nature of consciousness" -- what does this question mean, exactly? Define your terms, please.
