Does anything exist?

[MarkCorrigan]

Philosophy as I would define it is the discussion of ideas that do not have, or we are currently unable to arrive at an objective answer.

To use an example that is in my wheelhouse, political philosophy is the discussion of the motivations of people and the resultant types of state/country/whatever that form out of the ideas held by the inhabitants and what they value. There are discussions in political philosophy that detail the motivations of people both in the individual and group levels and that discuss approaches on how to best serve those motivations politically in how a state is run. These can range from the small scale on individual policy to the largesr scale of entire political and economic philosophies such as socialism, conservatism or libertarianism. Philosophy is the act of discussing these ideas that cannot be fully explored by science because there is no one single objective set of motives among humanity.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Of course it is. You have a political philosophy, philosophies of self-defense and personal conduct, etc.

Philosophy is 'working out the right way of thinking'. If you restrict it to 'but do I *really* have hands?' kind of questioning, then yeah, you will have little patience or use for it. Renaming it as 'science' when it works for you doesn't really change what it is.

This.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again that's just listing a bunch of actually useful things, and declaring them all philosophy.

 

[Scorpion]

To be honest, that's fair regarding not wanting to derail this thread and I apologise to you and everyone else for my attempt to derail it. However I would very much like to continue this discussion. How about we move it to one of your threads regarding your beliefs, like the spirituality one?

I expect my thread. 'scorpions spiritualism' is still in the archives. You could post on that. But I have given up trying to justify my beliefs in debate.
Also I know nothing about split, divided brains which you mentioned, so I can't say much about it. However I do have some experience of a split personality.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Uh-huh sure. This is twice now you done the "Philosophy Skit Routine" and then apologized for it.

I get a very sneaking suspension that you're going to keep doing it and then apologizing for it instead.... ya know just not doing it.

Because when people choose "Philosopher" on their internal character selection screen, they become deathly allergic to just getting to a point and staying there.

I'm sorry, are you accusing me of being a liar for the sake of what, online street theatre?

Good grief. I can understand being frustrated with my answer not actually answering anything (which I have apologised for) but impugning my motives based on nothing but your own suspicion of my character? What is your malfunction, exactly? Why do you assume that people who you disagree with must have an alterior motive?

I AM at work, currently on break, and I AM going to be going back to work very shortly. Believe me or not, that's up to you I guess, but I find your assumption that I am a liar distasteful at best and outright needlessly hostile at worst.

I may not have answered your questions to your satisfaction, but to accuse me of only having defined what I say philosophy isn't even prior to my latest post is at best a failure on your part to read what I actually wrote.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm sorry, are you accusing me of being a liar for the sake of what, online street theatre?

Liar? No. Performing a roll? Yes.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Again that's just listing a bunch of actually useful things, and declaring them all philosophy.

What exactly would satisfy you? Political philosophy is philosophy whether you like it or not.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Liar? No. Performing a roll? Yes.

Why do you assume I am performing a role? Why can't I just be exactly what I am, someone who is posting on the nature of philosophy on a break from work?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why do you assume I am performing a role? Why can't I just be exactly what I am, someone who is posting on the nature of philosophy on a break from work?

For the same reason I know the guy in the trenchcoat and fedora who's office a dame in a red dress just walked into is a Film Noir Private Eye.

See my sigline. When you ask a question and the person doesn't answer the question but response by talking about the philosophy of the question, the cards are on the table.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But I did answer the question.

Just because I initially did not answer it sufficiently, which I freely admit I did not, does not mean I was doing anything nefarious.

Tell me, why do you not assume that my explanation is possible? Why are you so convinced that I was performing a role for you rather than I'm someone posting while working from home?

 

[Thermal]

Today's Philosophical Conundrum: is handwaving away an answer the same as not receiving one?

 

[bruto]

My anecdote on philosophical uselessness...Long long ago when I was a student, I lived in a little apartment and had a very complicated toaster,an old thing with a little electric motor that lowered the toast, and a bunch pf linkages that,at the right moment,unlatched and let it up again. It broke, just around the time that I was getting deep into the logical ends of philosophy, and, though usually impulsive and impatient, I opened it up and studied it as an exercise in logic. Eventually I found the problem and fixed it, thinking to myself that while it may be true,as the old saying goes, that philosophy bakes no bread, at least it can toast it.

It is only partly a joke, I think, that I have ever since been, if not a scholar, at least a good mechanic, and that a little of the credit goes to Locke and Peirce and a few other brave folks who tried, with varying success, to figure out how the universe is put together.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I've bumped the thread about your beliefs Scorpion in order to avoid further derailing this one as I would very much like to continue the discussion.

 

[suren]

I would argue that yes, it is.

Again, I don't think all philosophy is useful or even worthwhile.

So is it useful or not?


PS:
Sorry, I misread 'I don't think all' as 'I don't think at all'.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So is it useful or not?

It's meaningless as a term so any question about it is useless.

Since philosophy is everything, nothing, and everything in between at random how the bloody blue farting blazes are we supposed to answer any questions about it?

Or do I need to find a quote in an old leather-bound book in Latin written by someone who died before we learned to separate the drinking water from the pooping water to stop Cholera to be in this discussion?

 

[Thermal]

So is it useful or not?

I've got a hammer. It's useful for driving nails. Not so much for penning love ballads.

So is it useful or not?

 

[suren]

I've got a hammer. It's useful for driving nails. Not so much for penning love ballads.

So is it useful or not?

Yes, hammer is useful, just not in everything.

OK, sorry I misread his comment, I thought he was claiming that the philosophy is completely useless. He was claiming that not everything in philosophy is useful. That's fine. And I agree.

 

[bruto]

I've got a hammer. It's useful for driving nails. Not so much for penning love ballads.

So is it useful or not?

Oh come on, you could at least hammer out the love between your brothers and your sisters all over this land!

 

[Myriad]

I've got a hammer. It's useful for driving nails. Not so much for penning love ballads.

Ah, so that's how the famous love ballad "Pound You With My Peen" got written.

 

[The Man]

I've got a hammer. It's useful for driving nails. Not so much for penning love ballads.

So is it useful or not?

Depends on the hammer.

Hammer pen

Though I expect brads, tacks or staples would be more of its hammering limits.