Does anything exist?

[Steve]

Maybe table salt is composed of the tears of angels, man. Take some time to consider that idea. It could be really important.

Once again. we land right back at the proposition that philosophy is useless. Evidence? We have a philosopher proposing that serious thought should be given to the idea that common table salt could be composed of something else entirely. Thoughts and prayers, perhaps. We all know how effective those are.

This is a proposition that necessarily warrants serious thought. After all, those wedded to scientism could be totally mistaken about the true nature of sodium, and of chlorine, and of how they bind together to form a compound. Alternatives must be pondered deeply.

How about this - When a boy element meets a girl element and the sparks of chemistry begin to fly......

 

[ServiceSoon]

Richard Feynman once described philosophers as people who kick up the dirt, and then complain because they can't see. So if you're right about what it's meant to do, he evidently didn't think it was doing a very good job of it.

I have never heard that before. Thanks for sharing.

You are confused. You spoke of "expanding human knowledge". Presumably you're not just talking about experience broadly.

The entirety of Science, empiricism is based solely on experience.

Is your position that experience gained from Science is an acceptable way to expand knowledge, but other methods of experience that either assist Science on its quest to gain knowledge or other methods of experience that increase our knowledge are non-existent?

You asked me to provide other means of increasing our knowledge. The two possible categories are a priori or posterior. Are you familiar with these terms and do you accept them as a general guide to the types by which humans can expand our knowledge?

That is a total lie. My responses included questions, requests, and comments. None of which you've responded to, by the way.

There were questions you posed that I did not answer. I can go back if you think it is worthwhile.

In other words you have NOTHING and are blaming future me for it. Very philosophical of you. Try me.

I'm under no obligation to prove a negative claim. I've made an argument, one that has been steadfastly ignored.

Again, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You're all over the place.

I do not find me asking if you are aware of anybody else besides yourself that has aligned their position with yours as irrelevant. I am trying to help you help me understand your claim. If what you are claiming cannot be found anywhere else then you made it up. Which I am fine with that. I requested a resource so I could dive deeper into your POV. Our exchanges have not been adequate enough for me to understand your position.

 

[bruto]

I have a soft spot for philosophy, once having studied it pretty hard, and I still think there is some room for it (I'm with Thermal on this one). But I must also say that issues like whether things exist, or whether the universe is a simulation, or whether salt is really salt, are among the reasons I don't dabble in it any more except occasionally to yell "ouch" when people claim it never was worth anything at all. I am still a little reluctant to say that philosophy has run its course, but I think philosophers are doing their damnedest to change my mind.

 

[Ulf Nereng]

A theist who phoned in to The Atheist Experience (It's a YT channel) argued that "If non-existence exists, then... something, something God must exist!" I'm afraid I lost the thread of his thought after the first sentence.

 

[Belz...]

The entirety of Science, empiricism is based solely on experience.

Again you are playing with words. You spoke of "expanding human knowledge", not "adding to the knowledge of one person". I assume you knew exactly what you meant when you said it, so don't pretend that you meant something else now. There's no point, because I won't believe you.

Science isn't about adding broad experience to one person, but to add to the sum of human knowledge. There is no other method that has been even remotely as successful.

Either provide these alternatives or admit that you were wrong.

Is your position that (snip)

Stop trying to find out "my position" beyond what I tell you, and focus on the argument.

I do not find me asking if you are aware of anybody else besides yourself that has aligned their position with yours as irrelevant.

It's irrelevant. Nothing can possibly follow from it.

 

[Belz...]

A theist who phoned in to The Atheist Experience (It's a YT channel) argued that "If non-existence exists, then... something, something God must exist!" I'm afraid I lost the thread of his thought after the first sentence.

It's irrelevant anyway. "non existence" is a meaningless, and apparently impossible, concept.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I have a soft spot for philosophy, once having studied it pretty hard, and I still think there is some room for it (I'm with Thermal on this one). But I must also say that issues like whether things exist, or whether the universe is a simulation, or whether salt is really salt, are among the reasons I don't dabble in it any more except occasionally to yell "ouch" when people claim it never was worth anything at all. I am still a little reluctant to say that philosophy has run its course, but I think philosophers are doing their damnedest to change my mind.

Okay, I think we should address this.

A lot of this thread has been people (both honestly and not at all honestly) basically going "Okay I agree that most philosophy is bunk, but I'm hesitant to throw it all out." Baby, bathwater, metaphor. The incredulous "Oh so you're saying all philosophy is useless?" routine. Etc, etc.

But nobody seems to be able to verbalize WHAT this leftover "good" philosophy is.

I've mentioned a few times throughout this thread that people seem less to be arguing for philosophy than they are making some vaguer defense of philosophy's honor or the vague idea that they have to keep philosophy in their back pocket because it might do something someday despite the fact that's it's not doing anything now.

 

[abaddon]

Okay, I think we should address this.

A lot of this thread has been people (both honestly and not at all honestly) basically going "Okay I agree that most philosophy is bunk, but I'm hesitant to throw it all out." Baby, bathwater, metaphor. The incredulous "Oh so you're saying all philosophy is useless?" routine. Etc, etc.

But nobody seems to be able to verbalize WHAT this leftover "good" philosophy is.

I've mentioned a few times throughout this thread that people seem less to be arguing for philosophy than they are making some vaguer defense of philosophy's honor or the vague idea that they have to keep philosophy in their back pocket because it might do something someday despite the fact that's it's not doing anything now.

Wrong. Logic, ethics, epistemology? Those are all philosophy, and I have stated several times that I am all good with that because they a useful. Yay. useful philosophy, who would have thunk. It is the vast, colossal bulk of pointless navel gazing that passes for philosophy that needs cleansing fire

 

[Belz...]

Wrong. Logic, ethics, epistemology? Those are all philosophy, and I have stated several times that I am all good with that because they a useful.

Potato chips, ketchup, pickles? Those are all philosophy, too. See how easy it is to state things as fact?

Epistemology, I'm with you. Ethics, half-and-half, because in the end it's how you feel about X that'll determine if it's good or not, regardless of how much thinking you do about it. Logic? The study of it, maybe. The use of it, maybe. But the actual boolean implications of P and Q? Nah. That has nothing to do with philosophy, and here's a demonstration: "Is the question 'are X and ~X mutually-exclusive' a matter of philosophy?"

 

[ServiceSoon]

Again you are playing with words. You spoke of "expanding human knowledge", not "adding to the knowledge of one person". I assume you knew exactly what you meant when you said it, so don't pretend that you meant something else now. There's no point, because I won't believe you.

Science isn't about adding broad experience to one person, but to add to the sum of human knowledge. There is no other method that has been even remotely as successful.

Either provide these alternatives or admit that you were wrong.

Stop trying to find out "my position" beyond what I tell you, and focus on the argument.

It's irrelevant. Nothing can possibly follow from it.

I’m not trying to “play with words.” I am not attempting to trick you. Your arguments do not contain enough details or substance for me to understand what you are trying to argue.

If a successful CEO writes a book about their learned experience by way of empiricism, haven't they added to the “sum of human knowledge.”
The same learned experience by way of empiricism is utilized by Science.

em•pir•i•cism ĕm-pîr′ĭ-sĭz″əm►
n. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.
n. Employment of empirical methods, as in science.

I explained precisely what ”can follow” if you provide me with the information I’ve requested… I’m baffled why you are being so stubborn and defiant. I guess we are done.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Potato chips, ketchup, pickles? Those are all philosophy, too. See how easy it is to state things as fact?

Epistemology, I'm with you. Ethics, half-and-half, because in the end it's how you feel about X that'll determine if it's good or not, regardless of how much thinking you do about it. Logic? The study of it, maybe. The use of it, maybe. But the actual boolean implications of P and Q? Nah. That has nothing to do with philosophy, and here's a demonstration: "Is the question 'are X and ~X mutually-exclusive' a matter of philosophy?"

I already provided you with a link to encyclopedia britannica, a link you told me you read, that defined philosophy as having distinct categories; epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and ethics. I’ve also provided a link to Stanford University that coincides with britannica.

Meanwhile, when I ask you to provide a reference you reply by telling me that nothing can follow from that and that you no longer trust/believe me.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I've mentioned a few times throughout this thread that people seem less to be arguing for philosophy than they are making some vaguer defense of philosophy's honor or the vague idea that they have to keep philosophy in their back pocket because it might do something someday despite the fact that's it's not doing anything now.

But it is doing something right now - it's keeping this thread going.

Now you could argue that if that's all philosophy is good for then it's useless, but if so what are you doing here?

 

[Belz...]

I am not attempting to trick you.

Are you Gandalf?

Your arguments do not contain enough details or substance for me to understand what you are trying to argue.

They contain plenty. If you don't understand them, feel free to ask for clarifications and I'll be happy to provide them.

If a successful CEO writes a book about their learned experience by way of empiricism, haven't they added to the “sum of human knowledge.”

Your mistake here is saying he acquired experience through empiricism. That's basically all science is.

I explained precisely what ”can follow”

Reality is not a popularity contest. Other people agreeing with me or not is irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

I already provided you with a link to encyclopedia britannica, a link you told me you read, that defined philosophy as having distinct categories; epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and ethics. I’ve also provided a link to Stanford University that coincides with britannica.

Do you remember my answer to that post?

Meanwhile, when I ask you to provide a reference you reply by telling me that nothing can follow from that and that you no longer trust/believe me.

That is a lie. You are taking an answer I made to a different point and assigning it to that request, when in fact the two were never related. That's actually dishonest from you.

 

[Belz...]

But it is doing something right now - it's keeping this thread going.

Now you could argue that if that's all philosophy is good for then it's useless, but if so what are you doing here?

That's the same argument theists use. "If God doesn't exist according to you, why are you arguing with me, eh?"

It's a stupid argument. We debate all sorts of topic all the time.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Now you could argue that if that's all philosophy is good for then it's useless, but if so what are you doing here?

This is the second time my participation in this thread has been met with huffy incredulity as if I'm crashed some special Philosopher's Club Dinner and I'm running around with a lampshade on my head.

Because magical, non-reason-based thinking is bad. The continued enshrinement of this kind of "Well I thought hard about it" nonsense as some sort of "Ultimate Epistemology" in a world where we've discovered experimentation is dangerous.

Because 99% of the time "philosophy" and "woo nonsense" is intellectually identical just packaged differently.

Shall I go on?

 

[JoeMorgue]

But it is doing something right now - it's keeping this thread going.

Belz already covered this but I'll be even blunter, this is one of those "so stupid I'm literally insulted you used it against me" arguments.

ETA: It's also yet another thing that makes "Philosophy" functionally indistinguishable from trolling.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That's the same argument theists use. "If God doesn't exist according to you, why are you arguing with me, eh?"

Oh sorry, I didn't realize your argument was that philosophy doesn't exist.

But that could make sense. I mean, if philosophy doesn't exist, perhaps nothing exists. And this can't be a philosophical argument - because philosophy doesn't exist.

It's a stupid argument. We debate all sorts of topic all the time.

Yes, we do. But apparently philosophical discussions are somehow uniquely valueless.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay we're on page 27 of this argument, we're not starting it over for the new guy.

The "Everything is philosophy!" routine has already been addressed. Like 3 times now.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Somebody, anybody, please explain to me why being told "But you're doing philosophy / a type of philosophy!" is somehow the only argument?