Does anything exist?

[theprestige]

I think the premise makes all the difference.

“How could I go to the moon.” That’s a question that no amount of philosophical thought will answer.

“Should I go to the moon.” That’s a question that no amount of scientific thought will answer.

This right here.

 

[Belz...]

I think the premise makes all the difference.

“How could I go to the moon.” That’s a question that no amount of philosophical thought will answer.

“Should I go to the moon.” That’s a question that no amount of scientific thought will answer.

You do understand that neither of those two questions are premises, right?

 

[Belz...]

So, philosophy.

Didn't I ask you to stop trying to make every kind of thought "philosophy"? I don't accept your overly broad definition. I've already given the definition I use, and why yours is useless; in fact it's worse than useless, it's confusing and counter-productive.

Sometimes suffering is good, though.

Sometimes pain is inevitable or necessary. Suffering, I'd disagree.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Sometimes pain is inevitable or necessary. Suffering, I'd disagree.

It's getting all philosophical up in here. ::swoon::

 

[LarryS]

The first question "How" may also require philosophy if there are several routes, methods and departure times, etc.; to choose a strategy that minimizes risk, or cost, or time, resources, etc.

 

[xjx388]

You do understand that neither of those two questions are premises, right?

They are questions predicated on a premise: It’s possible to get to the moon.

 

[Roboramma]

That's what I just said in the post you quoted!! Of course you need to start with axioms. Philosophy does that too. So does religion. What are you on about?

Okay, so you agree that whatever you do you have to start from some axioms. So we can't really fault philosophy for that, right?

The next question is, having those axioms, finding out what their implications are. That's not an easy task.

Mathematics as an entire field is basically: "Given these axioms, what follows?"
Philosophy is "Given these axioms, what follows?"

Of course, in both mathematics and philosophy, it's also okay to question your axioms. "What if parallel lines do meet eventually?". And looking at the implications if a particular axiom is false on the structure of the logical implications of the other axioms.

It's entirely possible for laymen to start from a set of axioms about what they value and develop the logical implications of that. That's true of both mathematics and philosophy.

So what's the problem with philosophy that's not also a problem with mathematics? The it has to start from some set of axioms? That non-philosophers can also do philosophy (just like non-mathematicians can also do mathematics)?

 

[Belz...]

They are questions predicated on a premise: It’s possible to get to the moon.

That's a dodge: a question is not a premise. I'm talking about premises and how once they are established you can proceed scientifically from there to an objective conclusion.

 

[Belz...]

Okay, so you agree that whatever you do you have to start from some axioms. So we can't really fault philosophy for that, right?

Who's faulted philosophy for that? Don't assume I'm saying anything else but what I write.

The next question is, having those axioms, finding out what their implications are.

Well, that's not a question, but yes that's the next step. What I'm challenging is the idea that philosophy is somehow better than the alternatives at finding answers or solutions that are beyond science's usual scope.

That's not an easy task.

Actually it's trivial.

Mathematics as an entire field is basically: "Given these axioms, what follows?"

Only in the broadest, most useless sense. Mathematics has fixed axioms, if you will. It can't operate under the premise that 2 equals 3. Maths aren't some sort of ideology. It's a language that represents how raw numbers work. I'll bet you money that every alien species in the universe that has a civilisation is using the exact same mathematics, albeit with different symbols. You're including maths in a category where they don't belong.

Philosophy is "Given these axioms, what follows?"

No, what you're not getting is that even religion does that. Everything does that. It's not a unique feature of philosophy.

"What if parallel lines do meet eventually?".

That is nonsensical. The definition of parallel is that they never meet. That's pseudo-philosophical nonsense, not math.

So what's the problem with philosophy that's not also a problem with mathematics? The it has to start from some set of axioms?

I don't know why you're asking that since I never said it was a problem.

 

[xjx388]

That's a dodge: a question is not a premise. I'm talking about premises and how once they are established you can proceed scientifically from there to an objective conclusion.

A question to be answered or a problem to be solved (How can I get to the moon? Should I get to the moon?) is required in order to determine starting premises. That's how all human inquiry begins. The nature of the question/problem dictates the methodology you should use to establish premises. The "how" question about the moon requires establishing that it's possible to get to the moon. The "should" question requires establishing justification to dedicate resources to a moonshot. "How" can proceed scientifically from those "possibility premises;" "should" can proceed philosophically from those "justification premises." You cannot reverse the two and expect to get good, actionable answers.

 

[Belz...]

A question to be answered or a problem to be solved (How can I get to the moon? Should I get to the moon?) is required in order to determine starting premises.

No it isn't. At all. Premises exist regardless of whether you use them in a problem or syllogism.

Gods, this is fundamental stuff.

 

[xjx388]

No it isn't. At all. Premises exist regardless of whether you use them in a problem or syllogism.

Gods, this is fundamental stuff.

It's only fundamental if there are Gods.

But this actually ties in to the OP question. Do "premises exist regardless . . .?"

My premise about premises is that premises don't exist out there somewhere and we just pluck them out when and where we want to use them. Every premise ever asserted has been created by people.

I'm quite sure you believe this too and just worded it sloppily, but it's important to be clear. Can I assume you agree with this?

If so, then why do we create premises? We create them, for our purposes here, to answer a question or solve a problem. If humans did not exist to ask questions or have problems to solve, there would be no premises at all.

Curiosity, IOW, is the spark for both science and philosophy. Which we employ depends on the question or problem.

 

[Belz...]

My premise about premises is that premises don't exist out there somewhere and we just pluck them out when and where we want to use them. Every premise ever asserted has been created by people.

That's true by definition. More words to mean nothing.

I'm quite sure you believe this too and just worded it sloppily, but it's important to be clear.

It's hilarious that you say it's important to be clear when most of this discussion has been about obfuscating.

If so, then why do we create premises? We create them, for our purposes here, to answer a question or solve a problem. If humans did not exist to ask questions or have problems to solve, there would be no premises at all.

Curiosity, IOW, is the spark for both science and philosophy. Which we employ depends on the question or problem.

Gods, what a delicious word salad. Premises are the basis of arguments. They are assumed to be true but may turn out to be false. It's insane that now we're in this sub-sub discussion because philsophiles can't agree on reality.

This is Jabba's thread all over again, sans the neutral audience.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Philosophy treats reality like a courtroom, and I don't mean that a complement.

 

[xjx388]

That's true by definition. More words to mean nothing.

Premises are the basis of arguments. They are assumed to be true but may turn out to be false.

{This is a mostly non-responsive meta-commentary on what kind of thread this and the "kind" of people who are participating it, so I've snipped off the fat and silverskin to get to the only piece of real meat on offer.}

If you agree with the premise that people create premises and that premises are the basis of arguments then, to my eyes anyway, we are mostly in agreement.

We can determine whether or not a premise works in one of two main ways. We can do science on it OR we can do philosophy on it. That's really it and probably the place we disagree.

 

[xjx388]

Philosophy treats reality like a courtroom, and I don't mean that a complement.

I think that's true for a lot of philosophy, maybe even all of it, essentially. But I think when we are using philosophy to determine the structure of our society, most people implicitly understand that we aren't describing reality in the same sense that science describes reality. We are not describing what "is" but what "ought."

 

[Belz...]

If you agree with the premise that people create premises and that premises are the basis of arguments then, to my eyes anyway, we are mostly in agreement.

Which is why bringing it up can only be interpreted as yet another distraction.

We can determine whether or not a premise works in one of two main ways.

We are not discussing whether we test premises. We're discussing using them as axioms. I can't believe I have to continually remind people what it is the **** we're talking about.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think that's true for a lot of philosophy, maybe even all of it, essentially. But I think when we are using philosophy to determine the structure of our society, most people implicitly understand that we aren't describing reality in the same sense that science describes reality. We are not describing what "is" but what "ought."

Okay since the Philosophy side isn't going to let this go.

Fine. For the sake of the argument (to be clear I do not actually accept this as a valid argument and this is NOT a capitulation to such) let's say there are "is" and "ought" (or "How" and "Why" or "Objective" and "Subjective" or any other billion variations on same) questions. And let's say science only gets to answer the "is" questions. And let's pretend which is which is clear and meaningfully defined.

You know what's going to get asked, don't you? How does philosophy answer (and actually answer) the "ought" questions?

"Well we talk a lot about it." isn't an answer.
"Well we labeled all the opinions" isn't an answer.
"Well science can't answer it!" isn't an answer.

 

[xjx388]

Here’s what we are talking about:

That's a dodge: a question is not a premise. I'm talking about premises and how once they are established you can proceed scientifically from there to an objective conclusion.

So rather than go around in circles, let’s start fresh from here.

“Once they are established:” how did we establish them? For example, how did we establish that “all people are equal?”

“You can proceed scientifically from there to reach an objective conclusion…” how do you do that for questions and problems involving, say, what exactly the right to free speech should entail?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah but the "Only philosophy gets to make starting points/axioms/premises/etc" argument we keep going around in a circle to is because how philosophy creates them never gets answered.

Philosophy just "does" as if that's an answer. To paraphrase an old joke:

Science: "Things aren't true just because you say them."
Philosophy: "I didn't just say it, I declared it."

Please, I ******* goddamn beg you, explain to me how "philosophy" answers the right to free speech or the trolley problem or "whether a painting is beautiful" or whatever any better than science does.