Does anything exist?

[JoeMorgue]

And nobody should expect any current Philosophy to stand NOW.

Why does Philosophy demand credit for doing NOTHING because science can't do stuff perfectly?

 

[Thermal]

And nobody should expect any current Philosophy to stand NOW.

Why does Philosophy demand credit for doing NOTHING because science can't do stuff perfectly?

It doesn't. It also is not in opposition to science. Outside your imaginings, I mean.

You don't have things like a political philosophy, right? Or do you still rolling with giving philosophy a new haircut and insisting it is really science?

Calling ethics nothing but applied psychology and sociology was a hoot. There's a linguistic reason those soft sciences end in "ology".

 

[Belz...]

It doesn't. It also is not in opposition to science. Outside your imaginings, I mean.

"Philosophy can give answers that science can't" sure seems to put them into opposition.

You don't have things like a political philosophy, right? Or do you still rolling with giving philosophy a new haircut and insisting it is really science?

Don't project, please. We're not the ones trying to fit everything into a word.

Calling ethics nothing but applied psychology and sociology was a hoot.

Ethics is based on values more than anything else.

 

[LarryS]

Why?

Why? Because science is strong, not weak.

 

[Belz...]

Why? Because science is strong, not weak.

What a nice non-answer.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It doesn't. It also is not in opposition to science. Outside your imaginings, I mean.

You don't have things like a political philosophy, right? Or do you still rolling with giving philosophy a new haircut and insisting it is really science?

Calling ethics nothing but applied psychology and sociology was a hoot. There's a linguistic reason those soft sciences end in "ology".

This kind of word games are on the same level as "The Nazi were Socialists because they had it in their name."

The fact that Philosophy gets used as a term for certain kinds of things which aren't philosophy isn't impressing me.

Nor is you flouncing from the argument for a few pages and showing back up with a fringe reset.

 

[Thermal]

"Philosophy can give answers that science can't" sure seems to put them into opposition.

...which is not my argument, nor that of most pro-Phil posters.

Don't project, please. We're not the ones trying to fit everything into a word.

Nor am I, nor most of us. Please keep track of which posters are giving different arguments.

Ethics is based on values more than anything else.

True. Ethics and values belong solidly in philosophy's wheelhouse. By definition, actually.

 

[Belz...]

...which is not my argument, nor that of most pro-Phil posters.

Who cares? It's been brought up here and thus addressed. That it's not YOUR argument doesn't mean no one should address it when it pops up.

Nor am I, nor most of us.

See above.

Ethics and values bring solidly in philosophy's wheelhouse. By definition, actually.

Values are philosophy? Emotions, really? You just said that you weren't doing that a second ago!

 

[Thermal]

This kind of word games are on the same level as "The Nazi were Socialists because they had it in their name."

The fact that Philosophy gets used as a term for certain kinds of things which aren't philosophy isn't impressing me.

Dude...you are quite unabashedly renaming the majority of philosophy as science, except metaphysics. It's literally the entirety of your argument.

Nor is you flouncing from the argument for a few pages and showing back up with a fringe reset.

You would benefit from a Phil course to structure your thinking. But we know you wouldn't do well, because you think getting bored with endless repetition and handwaving is a flounce.

Wait...you do know what a flounce is, right? Can you point to mine?

You can't. Because you're lying, or don't understand what a flounce is. In fact, our last exchange, you didn't answer a direct question. Busy building that scarecrow army, I guess.

Eta: re flounce: I do so apologize for having to do the worky-worky thing. It does occasionally interfere with debating some random guy who thinks he outranks MIT

https://philosophy.mit.edu/phd/

 

[Thermal]

Who cares? It's been brought up here and thus addressed. That it's not YOUR argument doesn't mean no one should address it when it pops up.



See above.

I'm impressed with your candor. You do see that you arguing against a POV that *I am not advocating* because someone else did?

Values are philosophy? Emotions, really? You just said that you weren't doing that a second ago!

The study of (-ology) is not equivalent. And I didn't say a word about emotions. I have no idea what planet you are on now

 

[Belz...]

I'm impressed with your candor. You do see that you arguing against a POV that *I am not advocating* because someone else did?

I've already addressed that in the post you quoted. Did you stop at "who cares" because it was the low-hanging fruit you were waiting for?

The study of (-ology) is not equivalent. And I didn't say a word about emotions. I have no idea what planet you are on now

Do you have any idea what "values" are?

It seems increasingly likely that the proponents of philosophy are so because it allows them to use language willy-nilly.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My "All philosophy is either Solipsism or Silly Word Games" theory is getting stronger by the post in this thread.

 

[Thermal]

I've already addressed that in the post you quoted. Did you stop at "who cares" because it was the low-hanging fruit you were waiting for?

No, it was because you are...what? Requiring I respond to a position I don't hold? It wasn't "brought up". You textbook projected it.

Do you have any idea what "values" are?

It seems increasingly likely that the proponents of philosophy are so because it allows them to use language willy-nilly.

I see you are literally fringe resetting, as we have been over this quite a bit.

Yea, I know what values are. Philosophy, as I have already replied to you, makes a formal study of them under one of the four main branches. Ethics, or the cooler sounding axiology.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I see you are literally fringe resetting, as we have been over this quite a bit.

I love how you will always, always accuse someone of doing something right after you are caught and called out for doing it. It's like you are simply of making an argument until it has been used against you.

Your sad little "Philosophy doesn't overlap with science" argument has already been well covered and the points brought up against it have not been addressed. The most basic question of what philosophy is, and actually is not just a self defining "It is what I say it says it is" has not been provided, because nobody put any actual standards on philosophy so it can remain what it actually is, a way for people to spot off irrational nonsense and go "But it's okay you see, because I'm doing a type of philosophy."

 

[Belz...]

No, it was because you are...what? Requiring I respond to a position I don't hold?

Of course not. But if you're not making it clear that you don't support that argument it's hard to keep you philosophisers apart.

You textbook projected it.

That's like saying "literally" and then using a metaphor. In fact, there's one right here:

I see you are literally fringe resetting

Fringe resetting? What are you refering to? What did I reset? Be specific.

Yea, I know what values are.

Marvelous. You are therefore aware that they are based on your wants and likes and are based on emotions and not reason. You were therefore stating that emotions were part of philosophy.

Philosophy, as I have already replied to you, makes a formal study of them under one of the four main branches.

Did you just try to bait-and-switch "studying X" with "including X"?

Philosphy can study whatever it wants. But it's what constitutes philosophy that is under question.

 

[Darat]

Why? Because science is strong, not weak.

That doesn't seem to explain how you have come to your conclusion.

For instance will the nature of common table salt no longer be chlorine and sodium?

 

[Belz...]

The most basic question of what philosophy is, and actually is not just a self defining "It is what I say it says it is" has not been provided, because nobody put any actual standards on philosophy so it can remain what it actually is, a way for people to spot off irrational nonsense and go "But it's okay you see, because I'm doing a type of philosophy."

Now, now. I provided an answer to that question by posting clear definitions. It's not my fault they were ignored.

 

[Thermal]

I love how you will always, always accuse someone of doing something right after you are caught and called out for doing it. It's like you are simply of making an argument until it has been used against you.

This coming from the guy whose literally every post is a fringe reset, repeating his same debunked handwaving argument and strawmen over and over. It's uncanny.

Your sad little "Philosophy doesn't overlap with science" argument has already been well covered and the points brought up against it have not been addressed. The most basic question of what philosophy is, and actually is not just a self defining "It is what I say it says it is" has not been provided, because nobody put any actual standards on philosophy so it can remain what it actually is, a way for people to spot off irrational nonsense and go "But it's okay you see, because I'm doing a type of philosophy."

Had you the atfention span of a goldfish, you might note I have been arguing the opposite.

 

[Belz...]

This coming from the guy whose literally every post is a fringe reset, repeating his same debunked handwaving argument and strawmen over and over. It's uncanny.

Stop saying "literally" when using a metaphor! Damn, it's annoying.

If you think what Joe is doing is a fringe reset then this confirms that you have no idea what the term means. It doesn't just mean "repetition".

 

[abaddon]

That doesn't seem to explain how you have come to your conclusion.

For instance will the nature of common table salt no longer be chlorine and sodium?

That is a better example than I initially thought.

We flavour our food with a metal that explodes on contact with water, and a gas that will kill you on contact.

Has philosophy resolved that?

Or science?

Which is it?

I await the inevitable philosophobabble.