Belz...
Fiend God
Yes.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Does anything exist?
- Thread starter Scorpion
- Start date
Yes.
Belz...
Fiend God
Har har.
*Sighs* Since the Proudly Wrong are here to pretend they don't what we are actually complaining about...
Here's basically the problem. Yes "Philosophy" is a... quasi-meaningful term to mean "All ways of looking at stuff."
But such is so generic it's meaningless.
But more importantly (and here-in is where the "Nuh-uh! Nobody is doing that! Show me where someone is doing that!" nonsense will start) is people calling stupid crap "Philosophy" in order to give it an air of validity.
"Does reality exist" is nonsense.
"Are you a materialist or a dualist?" is not just also nonsense... IT'S THE EXACT SAME NONSENSE.
Here's basically the problem. Yes "Philosophy" is a... quasi-meaningful term to mean "All ways of looking at stuff."
But such is so generic it's meaningless.
But more importantly (and here-in is where the "Nuh-uh! Nobody is doing that! Show me where someone is doing that!" nonsense will start) is people calling stupid crap "Philosophy" in order to give it an air of validity.
"Does reality exist" is nonsense.
"Are you a materialist or a dualist?" is not just also nonsense... IT'S THE EXACT SAME NONSENSE.
Thermal
August Member
No, just the opposite, which is why your oversimplification is meeting pushback. While broad and widey applicable, it's specific in scope. Formal logic and reasoning, deductive and inductive. Differentiating fact, assigning value...that's not "everything". That's a pretty damned precise way of thinking, that we should be championing, not dismissing as navel gazing.
Agreed. "Does reality exist" is for engaging the minds of teenagers into abstract thinking. But you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater when you slide Philosophy over to mean Metaphysics and ridicule it all.
Belz...
Fiend God
Only if it's anchored in actual, observable stuff. You can think all you want, but if you're not strongly linking that thinking to reality you're going to end up with absurdities like Larry's nonsensical distinction between "observable" and "real".
Thermal
August Member
Agreed. The demarcation needs to stay clear, and you can't vascillate between abstract and concrete so casually and expect to be taken seriously.
There wasn’t an ounce of emotion in that post… not even a single !
Belz...
Fiend God
I think one thing that's confusing a lot of those 2-bit philosophers, is that "having a philosophy" (e.g. "I think honesty is preferable") isn't quite the same thing as "doing philosophy" (e.g. "what does it mean to feel?").
Last edited:
Well yeah it's the same intentional conflating of the language between street level usage of words and "Official Ivory Tower According to Hoyle" uses of words.
And that's why we have people running into defend "Philosophy" that obviously are only defending some historical Western Culture concept of Philosophy.
Me? I'm done with the term. For the all the talk about its usefulness there's nothing that can be called "Philosophy" that can't more accurately and usefully called something else and I'm pretty adding "I can defend it only by calling it philosophy" tactic to my Woo list.
Thermal
August Member
And when philosophy and science have their frequent intersectionality, you deny that it's philosophy anymore. It doesn't work that way. Are you afraid that using a term like Philosophy makes you look like a twattish beard-stroker or something?
We'd be nowhere without philosophy. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow.
We'd be nowhere without philosophy. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow.
Because "science" is a meaningful term and "philosophy" is not.
Philosophy gives itself credit for everything by defining itself as everything so I'm not impressed with the "Oh without philosophy..." argument.
No we've be nowhere without science. The fact that philosophy goes "Oh... well science is a part of philosophy because we say so, so we get credit for that" means nothing.
Philosophy is that middle manager who walks into every project at an office but contributes nothing, and then goes "I was involved in everything, give me credit."
Philosophy gives itself credit for everything by defining itself as everything so I'm not impressed with the "Oh without philosophy..." argument.
No we've be nowhere without science. The fact that philosophy goes "Oh... well science is a part of philosophy because we say so, so we get credit for that" means nothing.
Philosophy is that middle manager who walks into every project at an office but contributes nothing, and then goes "I was involved in everything, give me credit."
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Yeah, there it is. You just want to call it something else, and not acknowledge that that's what it is. Maybe we can call masturbation "man handling" so you feel better about that too?
Thermal
August Member
No, philosophy is the ******* project director, who understands the underlying"why". The technicians only understand the "how"
I want words to have meaning that aren't "Everything because I so."
Horse ****.
The whole "Science can answer the how but... you need PhILISIOPHSY 2 answer da why!" is absolute anti-intellectual claptrap. Piddle of the highest order. An excuse to answer question without standards.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
You've been given clear, concise meanings, repeatedly. None of them are "duuuuuuuude, it's eeeeeeeverything". You just don't care for the metaphysical taint and baggage that it has. And I get that, and even sympathize.
But discouraging the discipline (yes, discipline) that gives us logic and formal reasoning is downright Trumpish.
Thermal
August Member
Because you are using the fruits of philosophy to deny it.
Philosophy is understanding the theoretical underpinnings. Then the mechanic uses that to work.
"Philosophy means I can listen to science until it gives me an answer I don't like, then I can pretend there's another way of getting an equally valid answer that has to be taken equally as seriously."
There. That's gonna be the argument. It's going to be every argument. And it's wrong.
There's not such thing as a valid non-scientific answer, regardless of the question by a what, why, who, how, or whatever.
Because if isn't based on evidence gathered empirically, falsifiability, standards of evidence, repeatability, etc... it's not an answer, it's random nonsense.
And if it IS based on evidence gathered empirically, falsifiability, standards of evidence, repeatability, etc... it's science.
There is no grey area between those.
I humbly await the dozens of tired, trite Zen Koans about how science can't prove I love my wife or tell if a painting is beautiful or describe the qUaLia of a cup of coffee.
There. That's gonna be the argument. It's going to be every argument. And it's wrong.
There's not such thing as a valid non-scientific answer, regardless of the question by a what, why, who, how, or whatever.
Because if isn't based on evidence gathered empirically, falsifiability, standards of evidence, repeatability, etc... it's not an answer, it's random nonsense.
And if it IS based on evidence gathered empirically, falsifiability, standards of evidence, repeatability, etc... it's science.
There is no grey area between those.
I humbly await the dozens of tired, trite Zen Koans about how science can't prove I love my wife or tell if a painting is beautiful or describe the qUaLia of a cup of coffee.
Last edited:
BECAUSE ******* PHILOSOPHY JUST CALLS EVERYTHING "IT'S FRUITS."
Again I'm not impressed with everything being philosophy because philosophy says so.