Does anything exist?

[IanS]

Look at my post number 790 & 814. I quoted Stanford University and Albert Einstein. Nobody has addressed the substance of those posts. All I have received is mockery, satire involving multiple participants, & strawman (Arguments about something I never said).

Just regarding your reliance on a quote from Einstein … here's another famous quote that almost everyone has heard of (heard from religious creationists) ; “the odds of life forming from non-life on Earth, are comparable to the odds of a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and creating a Boeing 747 aircraft” … but do you know who that quote is attributed too? … apparently it was said by Fred Hoyle, who as I expect you know, was a fairly eminent UK astronomer in the 1950's-60's, who famously dismissed the idea of a “Big Bang”, believing instead that a Steady State model was correct for the existence of our universe … so on the basis of your preference for believing quotes from famous scientists, we should all be accepting Hoyle's claim that evolution is virtually impossible with odds of almost zero … brilliant huh!

 

[Belz...]

Just regarding your reliance on a quote from Einstein … here's another famous quote that almost everyone has heard of (heard from religious creationists) ; “the odds of life forming from non-life on Earth, are comparable to the odds of a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and creating a Boeing 747 aircraft” … but do you know who that quote is attributed too? … apparently it was said by Fred Hoyle, who as I expect you know, was a fairly eminent UK astronomer in the 1950's-60's, who famously dismissed the idea of a “Big Bang”, believing instead that a Steady State model was correct for the existence of our universe … so on the basis of your preference for believing quotes from famous scientists , we should all be accepting Hoyle's claim that evolution is virtually impossible with odds of almost zero … brilliant huh!

I guess he didn't know that life doesn't come full-formed randomly.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Did someone just say scientism with a straight face?

Jesus.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Did someone just say scientism with a straight face?

Jesus.

It's the "Reverse Racism" of intellectual discussions.

 

[Thermal]

Not 100% confident that "pHilOsopHy sUCks maaAAAaan" qualifies as an intellectual discussion.

 

[abaddon]

Not 100% that "pHilOsopHy sUCks maaAAAaan" qualifies as an intellectual discussion.

Theology is philosophy. Not only is there some beardy bloke in the sky above the firmament, we get to have thoughtful pondering debate about what colour the beard is and how often it might need trimming. That is part of philosophy. Own it.

Or have you some subset of philosophy which you consider valid and another subset you consider invalid?

And yes indeedy, this entire post actually IS philosophy. Whee. How thrilling. I am certain that if we all think about it we can acheive...something really important. To somebody. At some time. Somewhere. OOOO, does there even need to be a where at all? Or a time, even? More philosophy.

I wish I were dead.





OOOOO more philosophy.

 

[abaddon]

Did someone just say scientism with a straight face?

Jesus.

That was irony. If you had charcoal, you could make steel.

 

[Belz...]

Not 100% confident that "pHilOsopHy sUCks maaAAAaan" qualifies as an intellectual discussion.

No but it qualifies as a conclusion!

 

[Thermal]

Theology is philosophy. Not only is there some beardy bloke in the sky above the firmament, we get to have thoughtful pondering debate about what colour the beard is and how often it might need trimming. That is part of philosophy. Own it.

Or have you some subset of philosophy which you consider valid and another subset you consider invalid?

And yes indeedy, this entire post actually IS philosophy. Whee. How thrilling. I am certain that if we all think about it we can acheive...something really important. To somebody. At some time. Somewhere. OOOO, does there even need to be a where at all? Or a time, even? More philosophy.

I wish I were dead.





OOOOO more philosophy.

Some guy said this:

Just my opinion.

The 4 main areas of philosophy are

A: Epistemology. Basically "How do you know?". Skepticism is a sub-branch of this for example. Science uses it extensively.

B: Ethics. No problems there. Science intersects with ethics all the time. We could create a human/chimp hybrid, but should we? And so forth.

C: Logic. Well, obviously. Law of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle. I doubt anyone would argue with the utility of logic.

D: Metaphysics. Right. This is the toilet where all the useless junk philosophy gets thrown. The title of this thread, "Does anything exist?" is metaphysics. This is where all the pointless navel gazing crap lives. Nobody would notice if it was dispensed with completely.

Just my 0.02c.

...with which I entirely agree. He also said something about philosophy being fine for what it is. Go "argue" with him.

 

[Thermal]

No but it qualifies as a conclusion!

Serious question: do you have a political philosophy, or even acknowledge that they exist? How about a philosophy of self defense? Do they sucks too, maaaaan?

 

[Belz...]

Serious question: do you have a political philosophy, or even acknowledge that they exist? How about a philosophy of self defense? Do they sucks too, maaaaan?

I have personal values, objectives and opinions. I try to be consistent and to reason my way from these values and opinions to conclusions. But I wouldn't pretend to have some sort of philosophy, whatever that would mean. I don't waste my time with that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Serious question: do you have a political philosophy, or even acknowledge that they exist? How about a philosophy of self defense? Do they sucks too, maaaaan?

You must be super confused by Grape Nuts.

*Whispers* They don't have grapes or nuts.

 

[Thermal]

I have personal values, objectives and opinions. I try to be consistent and to reason my way from these values and opinions to conclusions. But I wouldn't pretend to have some sort of philosophy, whatever that would mean. I don't waste my time with that.

That sounds an awful lot like a philosophy, in all but name.

 

[Thermal]

You must be super confused by Grape Nuts.

*Whispers* They don't have grapes or nuts.

I see. So it's just the actual word you are in a tizzy over. What it actually *is*, you're fine with? I mean, as long as we call it something else?

 

[Belz...]

That sounds an awful lot like a philosophy, in all but name.

Maybe it does to you, but I assure you I haven't put enough thought into any of that for it to seriously be considered a philosophy, unless, again, everything is philosophy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again "LOL that's a type of philosophy you're doing HAHA caught you!"

That's and getting huffy when people say that's literally the only argument you have are the only argument you have.

 

[Belz...]

Again "LOL that's a type of philosophy you're doing HAHA caught you!"

I really don't understand that argument. Let's say he's right and my very loose, day-to-day values are a "philosophy", so what? What does it have to do with the larger discussion of the thread? It's not even a victory in any sense.

There's a difference between having values and trying to be consistent, and mental masturbation about the "true" nature of reality and all that nonsense.

 

[Thermal]

Maybe it does to you, but I assure you I haven't put enough thought into any of that for it to seriously be considered a philosophy, unless, again, everything is philosophy.

Ok, so a philosophy, to you, is something that requires more thought put into it than you have, but short of being everything?

This is not some kind of setup, btw. I'm really trying to figure out your objection.

Eta: philosophy, to me, is pretty mundane and not much to get all up in arms about. As I was taught, it's just working out the way to think about things. Pretty pedestrian stuff. I get resentment over philosophers who want to beard-stroke away any sense of practicality, but I don't think all of Phil falls under that

 

[Belz...]

Ok, so a philosophy, to you, is something that requires more thought put into it than you have, but short of being everything?

This is not some kind of setup, btw. I'm really trying to figure out your objection.

My objection is that I provided two definitions of philosophy upthread that do not include incidental personal worldviews. Two definitions that went ignored by everybody, and now you're trying to peddle a different definition, one that is nowhere to be found but in discussions about philosophy. Odd that.

 

[abaddon]

Some guy said this:



...with which I entirely agree. He also said something about philosophy being fine for what it is. Go "argue" with him.

No need. None of that is self contradictory, nor is any of it warranting a self examination of any kind.

A lot of philosophy is turd soup. Some of it is useful. I am uncertain how many ways I can express the same darn thing.

But as stated by an acclaimed theologian and philosopher, "That would be an ecumenical matter"

ETA: I am uncertain how many ways a multitude of people can express the same thing.