Does anything exist?

[JoeMorgue]

Trying to divorce "goodness" (exact arguing over the exactly terminology aside) from all standards of intellectual rigor has a downside that I can't imagine really needs to be explained to anyone.

 

[xjx388]

Trying to divorce "goodness" (exact arguing over the exactly terminology aside) from all standards of intellectual rigor has a downside that I can't imagine really needs to be explained to anyone.

What's good from your POV may not be good from mine. Each of us will argue from our own position of what is "good." No one is trying to divorce "goodness" from all standards of intellectual rigor.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What's good from your POV may not be good from mine. Each of us will argue from our own position of what is "good." No one is trying to divorce "goodness" from all standards of intellectual rigor.

Well then what's the point? Where is any of this going? What possible solution to anything are we expected to get?

Outside of letting "Goodness" being defined by the loudest, most stubborn, and most immune to reason what's the point?

 

[xjx388]

Okay. Let's run with that.

Maybe "good" just isn't a meaningful word then.

If we have these terms that we are defining as unanswerable/undefinable/something similar what good do they do?

Maybe if we spend centuries trying to define/prove something and get nowhere, maybe that's evidence that the question is just bad, or at the very least inefficient.

How can we reduce harm, how do we reduce suffering, those questions DO have answers so maybe we should focus on them more instead of an endless game of "define this LOL WAIT I'M DEFINING IT AS UNDEFINABLE AREN'T I CLEVER!"

Missing the point.

We all pretty much agree that reducing harm and suffering is a good thing to do. We have been having that intellectual argument for centuries and our societies have pretty much settled on that being axiomatic.

My point is that this axiom is agreed upon. It doesn't have to be so. In fact, it isn't so in much of the world, not for every class of people anyway and not in every situation. China's treatment of the Uyghurs, for example.

 

[Belz...]

If you know that there is no such thing as objective "good," why do you say things like the following?

You can't justify your words based on things that were said AFTER.

"Better" can't have an objective metric; it can only have subjective metrics.

Well if you hadn't moved on from our discussion about axioms, which was itself a distraction from another distraction, you might have known.

The axioms themselves may be subjective, but once you have them you can absolutely find objective ways to proceed from them. We do it all the time.

Will I ever get an answer to my question about how and why philosophy is more suited to find answers than, say, religion?

 

[Thermal]

Will I ever get an answer to my question about how and why philosophy is more suited to find answers than, say, religion?

Philosophy is not based on the supernatural or an order from a supernatural being.

 

[Thermal]

Okay. Let's run with that.

Maybe "good" just isn't a meaningful word then.
If we have these terms that we are defining as unanswerable/undefinable/something similar what good do they do?
Maybe if we spend centuries trying to define/prove something and get nowhere, maybe that's evidence that the question is just bad, or at the very least inefficient.

How can we reduce harm, how do we reduce suffering, those questions DO have answers so maybe we should focus on them more instead of an endless game of "define this LOL WAIT I'M DEFINING IT AS UNDEFINABLE AREN'T I CLEVER!"

*smirk*

 

[Belz...]

Philosophy is not based on the supernatural or an order from a supernatural being.

It's based on thoughts, which may or may not be as fictional, capricious or groundless as those of religion. So I repeat my question: how and why is philosophy more suited to find answers than, say, religion?

 

[theprestige]

This is why I've often said in the past that I don't have morals or values, I just have standards. Those can be perfectly objective/rational.

No, they can't. I guarantee that every single one of your standards springs from an axiomatic premise that is neither objective nor rational.

 

[Thermal]

It's based on thoughts, which may or may not be as fictional, capricious or groundless as those of religion. So I repeat my question: how and why is philosophy more suited to find answers than, say, religion?

Reason and logic are thought based, too. Philosophy is in no way restricted to irrational, capricious etc thinking. So I repeat my answer.

Eta: you are subtly demanding that philosophy abandon logic, it's own crown jewel, for no reason

 

[theprestige]

Eta: you are subtly demanding that philosophy abandon logic, it's own crown jewel, for no reason

He's doing it for a very good reason, actually: The demand is consistent with his arbitrary and subjective axioms.

 

[Belz...]

Reason and logic are thought based, too. Philosophy is in no way restricted to irrational, capricious etc thinking. So I repeat my answer.

Why do you keep dreaming up things I never said? I didn't say it was restricted to any of that. Did you not read the "may or may not" in that post? But reason isn't limited to philosophy, nor are "useful" answers in the everyday sense.

Why can't anyone answer this simple question? How and why is philosophy better than its alternatives?

Eta: you are subtly demanding that philosophy abandon logic, it's own crown jewel, for no reason

So subtle, that you made it up. I have done no such thing.

 

[Belz...]

He's doing it for a very good reason, actually: The demand is consistent with his arbitrary and subjective axioms.

You've made a pretty egregious mistake, here, trusting Thermal's intepretations (or rather, extrapolations) of my posts rather than going at the source.

Or was it just more of your personal vendetta?

 

[xjx388]

It's based on thoughts, which may or may not be as fictional, capricious or groundless as those of religion. So I repeat my question: how and why is philosophy more suited to find answers than, say, religion?

Religion can and does answer the subjective questions. If you accept their axioms, the rest of it follows. Most of the world follows one religion or another, so there is wide agreement on those axioms.

Religion is no more or less suited than philosophy. I’m not sure why we would separate them. Religion is just a structured philosophy. The only thing that separates religion is the assertion that religion actually describes the physical universe, which puts it at odds with science. Philosophy has no bidness supplanting science, even if you call it “religion.”

 

[Belz...]

Religion is no more or less suited than philosophy. I’m not sure why we would separate them.

I can't say I'm surprised that philosophy just became everything again, just as we're showing you that you have no means to tell me how it's more suited to answering non-scientific questions than its alternatives.

Par for the course.

 

[Thermal]

Why do you keep dreaming up things I never said? I didn't say it was restricted to any of that. Did you not read the "may or may not" in that post? But reason isn't limited to philosophy, nor are "useful" answers in the everyday sense.

Why can't anyone answer this simple question? How and why is philosophy better than its alternatives?



So subtle, that you made it up. I have done no such thing.

Oh, you're being impossible. Of course a philosopher could use irrational thinking. So could religion, or science, or literally any other "kind of thinking". If we accept your "well it might employ irrational thinking" as a baseline, then your question becomes meaningless. Any kind of thinking would not be superior to another.

 

[theprestige]

You've made a pretty egregious mistake, here, trusting Thermal's intepretations (or rather, extrapolations) of my posts rather than going at the source.

Or was it just more of your personal vendetta?

Neither. I don't have to know the details of your exchanges with Thermal to know you're both starting from arbitrary and arational axioms. Because neither of you really has any other choice.

And far from a personal vendetta, I'm engaging your arguments as such. I would say exactly the same thing about anyone's arguments, were they arguing from the same position.

I'm also giving you credit for trying to be a rational thinker, and trying to reason consistently from your axioms. Hence I assume your demands (whatever they are) are reasonably consistent with your axioms (whatever they are). Would you rather I not give you the benefit of the doubt? Would you rather I give more weight to the possibility that you're *not* trying to reason consistently from your axioms?

The only personal vendetta I have here is a vendetta against the refusal to acknowledge or examine one's starting axioms, which you (and Joe) have consistently displayed throughout your arguments in this thread. Your attempt to personalize this notwithstanding, from my side this is entirely about attacking the argument.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh, you're being impossible. Of course a philosopher could use irrational thinking. So could religion, or science, or literally any other "kind of thinking".

Yes but when a scientist is acting irrationally you can say they are wrong and have it be A) correct, B) provable, and C) actually mean something.

Again science has actual standards not just arbitrary rules and tradition.

 

[Thermal]

Yes but when a scientist is acting irrationally you can say they are wrong and have it be A) correct, B) provable, and C) actually mean something.

Again science has actual standards not just arbitrary rules and tradition.

And the same can be directed at philosophy far more pointedly because .....drum roll drum roll drum roll...logic is the cornerstone of philosophy.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, you're being impossible.

Asking you to stick to the content of my posts is not impossible.

Of course a philosopher could use irrational thinking. So could religion, or science, or literally any other "kind of thinking". If we accept your "well it might employ irrational thinking" as a baseline, then your question becomes meaningless.

You're missing the point: how do you tell one from the other? Science has a pretty good way to toss out bad theories. How about religion? Philosophy?