sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
How does that follow from "my logic"? Please show your work.
-
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
How does that follow from "my logic"? Please show your work.
Thermal
August Member
Jesus, Mary and Joseph...
You want to know what philosophy does? It disciplines and structures your thinking so that you don't do something foolish like repeatedly demand what explanations it gives, then crow for post after post that no one answers you, while pages of ******* detailed responses have been laid out.
That's what philosophy does.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Sorry, not being a member of such a "fanclub" I'm not sure what you are saying. Other than, apparently, people can contradict themselves. Even if perhaps not intentional.
Again, conceptual constructs are not, in and of themselves, 'real' other than in being such constructs. They are however how we communicate, model the universe, plan for events that have yet to happen, try to make sense of things that have happened. So not strictly being 'real', doesn't imply being useless.
Sure they do, it's called being honest. While I have no love of philosophy people do get use out of it. So even if I don't care for it, I have to honestly admit that others do find it useful. With some recent direct success as I linked before. Same with god, since you make the comparison, I've got no use of him. Others find their belief in god quite comforting and useful. So again, if I'm going to be honest, I have to admit that despite my lack of use for god, it in no way inhibits their uses of such.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
The wave interference you remark to was for sound or water waves, not "wave-particle duality on a quantum level at all".
Wave-particle duality is explained by the Wave packetWP. Basically what we generally consider a particle is just the very localized (tightly grouped) form of such a wave packet. What generally we consider to be just a wave is conversely the more spread out version of that packet. I'm not familiar with any claims that "philosophy" has explained any of that or contributed significantly, but, heck, I know hardy anything about philosophy.
Last edited:
"Please show my work"? ... I just told you exactly how it follows (in one line!). Read the post again.
By the way – Kurt Godel was just trotted out as someone who influenced Einstein, and hence as someone who we should take seriously for the value & importance that he placed on philosophy. Have a look at the Wiki link below on Kurt Godel -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel
First of all, it looks to me that Godel was more of a mathematician than what we'd regard as typical of earlier generation philosophers. But more relevantly (perhaps), he is said there also to have been religious and in particular felt certain that there must be an afterlife. Like many mathematicians (I mentioned this earlier from my own experience in science/maths) he seems to be a rather odd character with a range of peculiar irrational beliefs, eg see this passage from Wiki (just to save philosophy people here from even bothering to click a link) -
Later in his life, Gödel suffered periods of*mental instability*and illness. Following the assassination of his close friend*Moritz Schlick,[34]*Gödel had an*obsessive fear of being poisoned; he would eat only food that his wife, Adele, prepared for him. Late in 1977, she was hospitalized for six months and could subsequently no longer prepare her husband's food. In her absence, he refused to eat, eventually starving to death.[35]*He weighed 29 kilograms (65*lb) when he died. His death certificate reported that he died of "malnutrition and*inanition*caused by personality disturbance" in*Princeton Hospital*on January 14, 1978.[36]*He was buried in*Princeton Cemetery. Adele's death followed in 1981.[37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel
First of all, it looks to me that Godel was more of a mathematician than what we'd regard as typical of earlier generation philosophers. But more relevantly (perhaps), he is said there also to have been religious and in particular felt certain that there must be an afterlife. Like many mathematicians (I mentioned this earlier from my own experience in science/maths) he seems to be a rather odd character with a range of peculiar irrational beliefs, eg see this passage from Wiki (just to save philosophy people here from even bothering to click a link) -
Later in his life, Gödel suffered periods of*mental instability*and illness. Following the assassination of his close friend*Moritz Schlick,[34]*Gödel had an*obsessive fear of being poisoned; he would eat only food that his wife, Adele, prepared for him. Late in 1977, she was hospitalized for six months and could subsequently no longer prepare her husband's food. In her absence, he refused to eat, eventually starving to death.[35]*He weighed 29 kilograms (65*lb) when he died. His death certificate reported that he died of "malnutrition and*inanition*caused by personality disturbance" in*Princeton Hospital*on January 14, 1978.[36]*He was buried in*Princeton Cemetery. Adele's death followed in 1981.[37]
Belz...
Fiend God
If you don't respond within 12 hours, I'll take it as a humiliated concession
Unfair!!
Belz...
Fiend God
You didn't say it. But you did it. Always trust what people do over what they say.
Well, you're wrong again, then.
The Man, I've explained all this to you before. Following up one question with another to further clarify and explain the object of the discussion is not moving the goalposts. I suggest you look up the concept before you continue to misuse it.
How about you answer my question? Address the reasons I gave for rejecting your claim. That's the least you can do.
You don't seem to understand the concept of demonstration. I'm not interested in what you claim the problem is. I want you to explain it.
Belz...
Fiend God
No it isn't. Once again you are expanding the concept of philosophy to the point of absurdity.
If you study any academic subject, then you will always find that it " disciplines and structures your thinking ".
Philosophy, as practised and explained by all of the famous named philosophers throughout history, comes from a time long ago before the world had much in the way of other academic subjects taught to people in anything like the university systems that we have now ... throughout much of that long earlier period of thousands of years, philosophy and religion were the only two subjects that tried to teach people what to think and how to think in what were at the time believed to be logical true ways.
But that's no longer the case. Even if you study something as seemingly banal as Golf Course Management or the history of The Beatles (pop group!), which afaik are actually courses offered in some real universities, those courses will automatically teach you how to think logically and constructively about the subject ... and you will certainly be left with that knowledge as something you need to apply to things in your life in general ...
... science, medicine, psychology and various other disciplines subject you to that need for logical constructive analysis in a very direct and essential way.
Long gone are the days when anyone needed a course in philosophy in order to think logically and constructively about the world around them.
Science in particular (core science) does not need philosophers telling it what to do or how to think etc. And more than that - almost no scientists have the time or the need to have that discussion with philosophers ... philosophers might want to have that discussion with scientists and they might want to engage scientists in endless argument & debate about what philosophy says about everything ... but scientists have not got time to waste on discussions like that (they have far more important things to do than indulge philosophers in pontificating endlessly about their philosophy).
If you (anyone) wants to spend their time studying philosophy, then nobody is stopping you - you can still find plenty of college and Univ course for that. However, if you actually want to understand what is really likely to be true about everything, including all the most astonishing and important, things in this world/universe, then if you are in philosophy you are certainly in the wrong subject! … you should be in core science.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Thing is that science converges on the truth. It may not be possible to arrive at any absolute truth, nevertheless science still converges.
Philosophy does exactly the opposite. It diverges all the time. As a truth seeking tool it is useless. Does that mean it is entirely useless and should be dispensed with altogether? Not at all. Philosophy can usefully contribute to discussions of morality, ethics, aesthetics and such things. But it still cannot answer even those. It can only contribute to discussion of those.
For example, suppose two people see a painting. One loves it and wants to buy it. The other hates it and thinks it should be chucked in the trash. Philosophy can suggest ideas to discuss why that might be so. But it cannot answer why it IS so.
Science can actually suggest real reasons why it is so, but largely doesn't care much anyway. There are areas of research into how that works. Neuroscience is discovering a lot about why that happens in the meat between our ears. Philosophy has done nothing at all to understand it. It cannot even agree with itself.
Take one of the basic questions: Is there a god/s?
Science says "Got any evidence for any god/s? No? Call me when you do"
Philosophy says "Well it is complicated, you see...." And so on. The most obvious thing that one might expect philosophy to even hazard a guess on and it cannot even manage that.
Philosophy does exactly the opposite. It diverges all the time. As a truth seeking tool it is useless. Does that mean it is entirely useless and should be dispensed with altogether? Not at all. Philosophy can usefully contribute to discussions of morality, ethics, aesthetics and such things. But it still cannot answer even those. It can only contribute to discussion of those.
For example, suppose two people see a painting. One loves it and wants to buy it. The other hates it and thinks it should be chucked in the trash. Philosophy can suggest ideas to discuss why that might be so. But it cannot answer why it IS so.
Science can actually suggest real reasons why it is so, but largely doesn't care much anyway. There are areas of research into how that works. Neuroscience is discovering a lot about why that happens in the meat between our ears. Philosophy has done nothing at all to understand it. It cannot even agree with itself.
Take one of the basic questions: Is there a god/s?
Science says "Got any evidence for any god/s? No? Call me when you do"
Philosophy says "Well it is complicated, you see...." And so on. The most obvious thing that one might expect philosophy to even hazard a guess on and it cannot even manage that.
Matt Iman, writer of the Oatmeal webcomic, description of Brainstorming is a fairly, if more limited, description of philosophy itself.
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/creativity_brainstorming
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/creativity_brainstorming
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
So you're saying we should get rid of math. Got it!
Belz...
Fiend God
I... what?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
There may be a clue in the name.
Thermal
August Member
In certain ways, sure. What stands out about that particular poster is his proud parading of fallacious thinking. He wears it like an argumentative badge of honor, which (it should be fairly obvious), it is not.
Well...yes and no. One certainly doesn't need a course in philosophy. But one needs to employ it. I kind of agree with you here that as a standalone discipline, it does not serve much of a practical purpose outside of academia. But each and every thinking head should employ it nonetheless. It should be part and parcel of any other discipline, as it should be (recall the PhD).
Again...sort of. If your interest and aptitude is in the natural world, absolutely you should apply to the core sciences. If it is in interpersonal relationships, maybe psychology, sociology, or whatever will be your forte. An artist or entertainer will view what is "most astonishing and important" very differently than a mathematician or chemist.
Its a big world, man, with room for everyone to contribute. Science is fantastic, but that doesn't make poetry worthless or lesser. They are different, and have their relative places.
Thermal
August Member
Not in the context of the post. Here, it was limited to that poster's proud parading of informal logical fallacies, which (I think) it is agreed fall solidly under philosophy's wing.
All the stuff you list doesn't exist "outside the natural world."
Psychology and sociology is just chemistry in the brain.
Again, stop arguing for a soul.
Thermal
August Member
Yet Again, no one is arguing for a soul. That's your weird hangup.
My wife is a psychologist. Her interest is in a person standing in front of her that she evaluates or helps. It might make you happy to try and reduce that to chemistry. Vaya con dios. She is taking a real person and helping them live a more rewarding life.
Pretend it's a chemistry experiment if it blows your dress up. The rest of us will see it as people helping people.