Does anything exist?

[JoeMorgue]

I've asked the question multiple times why we need philosophy to "spark" science but don't need anything to "spark" philosophy.

Why does philosophy get to self-start but science doesn't?

Again it's functionally the same as when Theists argue that God has to exist because something has to have created the universe, but then when you ask them who created God they go "LOL that's different because I'm defining God as not needing one."

Honest Question. Is "Methodologies that are allowed to create themselves" a workable definition for "Philosophy?"

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Honest Question.

LOL

 

[Belz...]

I've asked the question multiple times why we need philosophy to "spark" science but don't need anything to "spark" philosophy.

Why does philosophy get to self-start but science doesn't?

Again it's functionally the same as when Theists argue that God has to exist because something has to have created the universe, but then when you ask them who created God they go "LOL that's different because I'm defining God as not needing one."

Honest Question. Is "Methodologies that are allowed to create themselves" a workable definition for "Philosophy?"

Philosophy is the alpha and the omega!

 

[JoeMorgue]

LOL

Yeah I imagine the concept confused you.

Where I probably lost you was the term "Honest Question" so it was being asked of people who in the discussion honestly, not trolls.

 

[Thermal]

I've asked the question multiple times why we need philosophy to "spark" science

You don't.

..but don't need anything to "spark" philosophy.

You do.

Why does philosophy get to self-start but science doesn't?

Not a thing. Just plain curiosity could spark either.

Again it's functionally the same as when Theists argue that God has to exist because something has to have created the universe, but then when you ask them who created God they go "LOL that's different because I'm defining God as not needing one."

Philosophy is not a god argument. It is primarily the system of rigorous thought, including logic (and your beloved fallacies), values, and...oh, never mind. Just take your fingers out of your ears and read the thread.

Honest Question. Is "Methodologies that are allowed to create themselves" a workable definition for "Philosophy?"

No. Bit ridiculous, really.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You don't.

Can I quote you on that when you sit there and absolutely claim it does five minutes from now?

 

[Thermal]

You're just punking us ITT, right? You don't really endorse this anti-intellectual satire, do you?

 

[xjx388]

Well now that's a completely different discussion, and an interesting way to dodge my point.

But sure, science can't answer moral questions directly. So what? Philosophy can only answer moral questions personally. It's only useful as much as science +1 person.

I disagree. Philosophy answers the squishy questions for an entire society when the individuals in that society reach a consensus on any particular issue. Science answers the concrete questions when the scientific method is applied to relevant questions.

I've addressed this already. It doesn't matter what you claim if you act in a way that belies that claim.

To reduce my position to the equivalent of "You are really just saying everything is thinking," is to ignore the words I've actually written. You don't have to agree with my argument, but that doesn't mean your strawman is valid.

That's not the win you think it is. Of course all thinking is thinking. By definition.

I'm not trying to win.

Except that whenever we try to pin down the "kind" of thought in question, it evaporates and becomes nondescripe again, hence my comment about philosophy being everything. Of course it's not everything in real life, but it's everything in discussions like this, because if you didn't make it everything its lack of usefulness would be too apparent.

I can understand disagreeing with my division of thinking into different kinds of thinking. I cannot understand how you can say that I haven't pinned down exactly what I mean by that division.

No it isn't. It's a set of arbitrary laws made because those who wrote them agreed with them. What do you think it's an answer to?

The question of how to best set up a government. They didn't follow the scientific method to create the Constitution; they argued from philosophical principles and came to an agreement.

 

[xjx388]

I've asked the question multiple times why we need philosophy to "spark" science but don't need anything to "spark" philosophy.

Well I would say that we don't need philosophy to spark science. We need a question that can be answered objectively to engage the scientific method. And we need a question that has no objective answer to engage philosophy.

Why does philosophy get to self-start but science doesn't?

They are both sparked by a question.

Again it's functionally the same as when Theists argue that God has to exist because something has to have created the universe, but then when you ask them who created God they go "LOL that's different because I'm defining God as not needing one."

I agree that it's a dumb argument and that theistic philosophical questions don't really need an answer anymore except to support faith.

Honest Question. Is "Methodologies that are allowed to create themselves" a workable definition for "Philosophy?"

That sounds like a philosophical question.

 

[Belz...]

I disagree. Philosophy answers the squishy questions for an entire society when the individuals in that society reach a consensus on any particular issue.

That's the part you either don't understand or pretend not to. It doesn't answer those questions. There is no method or subset of philosophy that will give you objective answers. At best you have subjectively-pleasing answers that you can make a good argument for. But they stop at you.

To reduce my position to the equivalent of "You are really just saying everything is thinking," is to ignore the words I've actually written.

Yeah, because other words you've written circle right back to saying the opposite.

The question of how to best set up a government. They didn't follow the scientific method to create the Constitution; they argued from philosophical principles and came to an agreement.

Only because their feelings aligned with those principles. Had they had the discussion 20 years later or earlier they would've come up with something different. So "philosophy" sounds remarkably like "I like this and I will rationalise it."

 

[xjx388]

That's the part you either don't understand or pretend not to. It doesn't answer those questions.

Hmmm….

There is no method or subset of philosophy that will give you objective answers.

You are repeating exactly what I’ve argued in other words.

At best you have subjectively-pleasing answers that you can make a good argument for.

Uh, yeah…again: exactly what I have argued in other words.

If there’s anything I don’t understand it is why the idea that philosophy can be useful for certain things is so controversial. Like, you are framing your responses to my arguments as if we disagree; but, we really don’t -except when I argue that philosophical thinking is distinct from scientific thinking.

It’s as if I argued that a hand can be used to punch someone or to shake their hand and you just say, “We are back to, 'hand movements are everything.' "

But they stop at you.

If they stopped with the individual, building and maintaining a society would be impossible.

Yeah, because other words you've written circle right back to saying the opposite.



Only because their feelings aligned with those principles. Had they had the discussion 20 years later or earlier they would've come up with something different. So "philosophy" sounds remarkably like "I like this and I will rationalise it."

Sure, that’s a good enough start to a description of philosophical thinking to which I would add: “and I will come up with arguments to convince others I’m right. And I’ll listen to their arguments. And together we’ll compromise in order to answer the question at hand.”

 

[Belz...]

You are repeating exactly what I’ve argued in other words.

And yet you argue that they do provide answers. Which one is it?

If there’s anything I don’t understand it is why the idea that philosophy can be useful for certain things is so controversial.

You've got your posters confused. I'm on record saying that actual philosophy i.e. the narrow definition of it, can be useful; but it's not to find answers science can't find.

If they stopped with the individual, building and maintaining a society would be impossible.

No, because society is composed of individuals that can agree on things. It doesn't change the fact that any "answer" you come up with with "philosophy" is not a definite answer at all.

Sure, that’s a good enough start to a description of philosophical thinking to which I would add: “and I will come up with arguments to convince others I’m right. And I’ll listen to their arguments. And together we’ll compromise in order to answer the question at hand.”

You are repeating exactly what I’ve argued in other words.

 

[xjx388]

And yet you argue that they do provide answers. Which one is it?



You've got your posters confused. I'm on record saying that actual philosophy i.e. the narrow definition of it, can be useful; but it's not to find answers science can't find.



No, because society is composed of individuals that can agree on things. It doesn't change the fact that any "answer" you come up with with "philosophy" is not a definite answer at all.



You are repeating exactly what I’ve argued in other words.

So the only difference between us is that I choose to put labels on different thinking modalities and you just label it all “thinking.” Oh, and you seem to think that unless an answer is definite, it’s not an answer at all and I think answers can be squishy.

Eh, close enough.

 

[theprestige]

Honest Question. Is "Methodologies that are allowed to create themselves" a workable definition for "Philosophy?"

Honest Answer. Yes, and it's also a workable definition for science.

Aside from that, when your idiom is so well-established that you have to explicitly call out when you're trying to engage in honest discussion... Maybe it's time to rethink your commitment to that idiom.

 

[Belz...]

So the only difference between us is that I choose to put labels on different thinking modalities and you just label it all “thinking.”

You're not following very well. YOU are the one labeling it all "thinking". I'm just decoding it for other readers.

Oh, and you seem to think that unless an answer is definite, it’s not an answer at all and I think answers can be squishy.

The issue isn't that answers can't be squishy. But if you're going to say that an issue with science is that it can't answer every question, and you propose an alternative for some of those questions, but philosophy can only give you a personal answer, then you have to admit that it is, at most, useful for those who agree with you. Unlike science, the answers aren't more valuable than mere opinion. So it, in fact, provides essentially no answers.

 

[xjx388]

You're not following very well. YOU are the one labeling it all "thinking". I'm just decoding it for other readers.

Well, I don't think you are doing an accurate job using that Little Orphan Annie decoder ring.

Anyway, I actually thought I was agreeing with you that yes, indeed, it is all thinking. But maybe I need to throw away my own decoder ring . . .

The issue isn't that answers can't be squishy. But if you're going to say that an issue with science is that it can't answer every question,

I wouldn't say it's an issue. It's just a fact. You can't decide what values we should uphold by measuring stuff.

and you propose an alternative for some of those questions, but philosophy can only give you a personal answer,

It's not just a personal answer though, unless we are talking about an individual's personal moral code. What about ethical codes that apply to whole professions? What about systems of laws that apply to whole countries?

then you have to admit that it is, at most, useful for those who agree with you.

Well, yes. In fact, it's really the crux of my argument. That's the whole philosophy ballgame, really -the idea that philosophical thinking is useful to make arguments to convince others to agree with you about an ethical code, a Constitution or the beauty of a painting.

Unlike science, the answers aren't more valuable than mere opinion.

That's an opinion, not a fact. I disagree with your opinion.* What about people, groups or societies that elevate philosophical answers (religious ideas, mostly) over scientific answers? You and I may share the opinion that they are wrong and backwards. However, that's because we share the same philosophy on that matter.

So it, in fact, provides essentially no answers.

This is probably our fundamental disagreement and it's essentially a philosophical disagreement.

ETA
*Perhaps some clarification is in order. Philosophical answers are indeed opinion, but I take issue with "mere opinion." Consensus opinion that forms the foundation of a society -laws, rights, obligations, etc- is just as valuable, even if not permanent and unchangeable, as any scientific answer. Philosophy and science are of equal value but only in their own domains.

 

[Belz...]

Well, I don't think you are doing an accurate job using that Little Orphan Annie decoder ring.

Nonsense. I just downloaded the most recent patch for that thing.

I wouldn't say it's an issue. It's just a fact. You can't decide what values we should uphold by measuring stuff.

Here's the problem: if what you're claiming is that philosophy can offer personal answers, how is that different from any other sort of thinking? They all do that!

What about ethical codes that apply to whole professions? What about systems of laws that apply to whole countries?

Just because they are agreed upon by more than one person doesn't change their subjective and arbitrary nature. If I claim something "allows you to find answers" then presumably you mean in a way that's better, in some way, than random musings.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

No, that's a fact. Just because you can convince people of a well-considered opinion doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And that's where we at. We have opinions that have to treated as facts (or axioms or other code words for same) because they are... pause for dramatic effect... philosophy!

Philosopher want things that are treated as facts, yet only have to meet the intellectual standards (at best) of an opinion.

Everything else is just word games to keep us dancing on that line so the discussion never ends, so the discussion can be used as proof that there's some meat on the bones.

Philosophy is little more than the art of starting a conversation over nothing, then using every possible trick in the book to keep the conversation going just long enough that it becomes self-sustaining, and then using some variation on "Oh well we're got you talking about it which proves blah blah blah."

 

[xjx388]

Nonsense. I just downloaded the most recent patch for that thing.

The problem is that my programming is too complex for a bauble that hasn't fundamentally changed since the 1930's.

Here's the problem: if what you're claiming is that philosophy can offer personal answers, how is that different from any other sort of thinking? They all do that!

Just because they are agreed upon by more than one person doesn't change their subjective and arbitrary nature. If I claim something "allows you to find answers" then presumably you mean in a way that's better, in some way, than random musings.

But I stipulated from the get go that philosophy is subjective. It's fair to say it's arbitrary too. But it's not fair to say that it's random musings. It's usually founded upon axioms that are not randomly arrived at and are something more than personal feeling. Sure, ultimately, the axioms are not part of the real world but at least there's structure to it beyond: this is how I feel. In fact, when people try to argue from personal feelings, the arguments usually either fall apart or are not convincing. There has to be some basic tenet that people can agree to and you build from there. This has been going on since humans could think and, for example, the USA today is built upon and evolved from the tenets and axioms the ancients started from.

No, that's a fact. Just because you can convince people of a well-considered opinion doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion.

Well, of course it's an opinion. But a widely shared opinion -gay people have the right to marry- can change everything.

 

[Belz...]

But I stipulated from the get go that philosophy is subjective. It's fair to say it's arbitrary too. But it's not fair to say that it's random musings.

I didn't say it was random musings. I said that the answers are equivalent.

I repeat: If I claim something "allows you to find answers" then presumably you mean in a way that's better, in some way, than random musings.

Well, of course it's an opinion. But a widely shared opinion -gay people have the right to marry- can change everything.

"Gay people have the right to marry" is a fact. "They should have a right to marry" is an opinion.

Of course it can change thigns but the fact that it was decided upon via philosophy makes no difference to that.