Does anything exist?

[Thermal]

OK, well I'm not going to bother with any other stuff from your posts, because you are clearly wasting everyone's time. But just re the above as an example - I never said any such thing ... You just made that up!
You are talking arrogantly about my errors, whilst it's actually you deliberately misquoting everyone.

To refresh your memory:

I don't know what happens in the USA (are you in the US?), but in the UK AFAIK politicians don't typically have philosophy degrees (they usually have other degrees, often in Law). They certainly don't need any philosophy degrees, and nor is it ever even mentioned. We also have lots of political discussion here on BBC radio and in the UK media in general, and I usually listen to it all day long (whilst working), but I've never heard anyone even mention philosophy amongst the many thousands of hours of broadcasts. Though, come to think of it, there is actually now a lot of the discussion about science since Coronavirus, and before that, since Climate Change.

Self Defence? Do you mean like boxing or martial arts? As it happens I watch a lot of boxing, and I listen to a lot of interviews with boxers and all sorts of people in that industry, and I doubt if hardly any of them even have the faintest idea of what philosophy is LOL. So, No! Philosophy is really of zero interest in either of those pursuits.

You were saying?

Oh, that's right. When directly challenged on your own words, you punk out and flounce. That gets you an Honorary membership in the Spongebob Argumentative Club.

And we didn't even get back to the other lunacy, where you equate having a personal political philosophy to what specific university degrees a politician has.

Other posters can read this stuff, you know.

 

[Chanakya]

OK, well I'm not going to bother with any other stuff from your posts, because you are clearly wasting everyone's time. But just re the above as an example - I never said any such thing ... You just made that up!

You are talking arrogantly about my errors, whilst it's actually you deliberately misquoting everyone.

No, he isn't wasting everyone's time.

You know, in this debate --- although I haven't posted much because I didn't have much to contribute that others, including you, hadn't already said, and probably said better than I myself could --- I myself happen to be firmly on the side that you are championing. Nevertheless, I find your attempts to condescend to Thermal pretty much irritating.

And your comment about arrogance is ironical, to say the least. There is no need whatsoever to use this discussion as an excuse to **** on people. You're ending up scoring own-goals here.

...Other posters can read this stuff, you know.

They can, and they do, yes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh goodie a "I agree with you but I must police your tone" hijack.

 

[Chanakya]

"My hijacks are my God-given mandate. Your incidental comments are hijacks." ---?

Get off your high horse, Joe.

We're on the same side here. I've agreed with, and applauded, a great many of the sentiments you've expressed here.

But don't you presume to try to police my tone, and my comments, while ironically protesting that exact same thing yourself.

You might want to buy yourself an irony meter. AKA a wee bit of self-awareness.

 

[Belz...]

Oh goodie a "I agree with you but I must police your tone" hijack.

I think we can be correct without being asses.

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Shrugs* So be it.

 

[Thermal]

The weirdest part of all this is that most posters are +/- on the same page. Science is without competition in explaining the natural world. Absolute slam-dunk without rival.

Philosophy is a restricted way of thinking about things. It is not in competition with science on any level, save for the actual OP which the majority of us dismiss as unproductive navel gazing.

There's not even a serious dispute going on here. Its all a torquing and redefining and subjective misinterpretation of other's postings to create an artificial argumentative polarity.

I truly don't get this disconnect. Why is the act of arguing so much more important than the content?

 

[JoeMorgue]

The weirdest part of all this is that most posters are +/- on the same page. Science is without competition in explaining the natural world. Absolute slam-dunk without rival.

Philosophy is a restricted way of thinking about things. It is not in competition with science on any level, save for the actual OP which the majority of us dismiss as unproductive navel gazing.

There's not even a serious dispute going on here. Its all a torquing and redefining and subjective misinterpretation of other's postings to create an artificial argumentative polarity.

I truly don't get this disconnect. Why is the act of arguing so much more important than the content?

Yean and if "what page you are on" and "What page you are actually arguing for" where the same thing we wouldn't have a problem.

You say one thing and then argue an entirely different thing.

The disconnect is your dishonesty in what are arguing and what you seem to think you arguing.

 

[LarryS]

I think we can be correct without being asses.

It’s not a matter of correct or incorrect, folks are expressing opinions

 

[Thermal]

Yean and if "what page you are on" and "What page you are actually arguing for" where the same thing we wouldn't have a problem.

You say one thing and then argue an entirely different thing.

The disconnect is your dishonesty in what are arguing and what you seem to think you arguing.

No dude. You're doing the same dumb ass thing you do on virtually every thread.

You try to do this bull **** "reading between the lines" thing that you suck moose cock at, and argue that your out in left field interpretation is what is actually being said.

I say philosophy can be one-linered to "working out the right way of thinking about things", paraphrasing my professor. You interpret that as "philosophy is everything" and tilt at windmills for pages.

It ain't me baby. It's you.

 

[Chanakya]

I think we can be correct without being asses.

*Shrugs* So be it.

Actually in much of what you both are saying, you do seem to be correct. Maybe not all of it, maybe not in some details that have come up in the course of the thread, but certainly as far as your broader point. And by and large you're doing a great job arguing your case. At least as far my limited understanding.

For instance, I myself, I don't think I've really ever given a thought to whether there's actually any real utility to philosophy. It's your arguments --- not just you two, but certainly including the both of you --- that has got me to agree that probably a great deal of philosophy is no longer of any use, even if at one time it might have been.

The one argument that I've seen, in this thread, where maybe your POV is misplaced, is the bit about the argument over the different kinds of logic. I don't know enough to weigh in on that myself, but that's the one part where I think you might, perhaps, be mistaken. Or not, I'm not sure which. But for the rest I'm inclined to agree with the POV you're arguing for.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No dude. You're doing the same dumb ass thing you do on virtually every thread.

Because every thread with you is the same routine.

You're not racist, but super-concerned with how fast the black guy can run.

You're not arguing for God, but goddamnit there's no dragon in the garage.

You are a goddamn master of "I'm not saying, I'm just saying."

 

[JoeMorgue]

Actually in much of what you both are saying, you do seem to be correct. Maybe not all of it, maybe not in some details that have come up in the course of the thread, but certainly as far as your broader point. And by and large you're doing a great job arguing your case. At least as far my limited understanding.

For instance, I myself, I don't think I've really ever given a thought to whether there's actually any real utility to philosophy. It's your arguments --- not just you two, but certainly including the both of you --- that has got me to agree that probably a great deal of philosophy is no longer of any use, even if at one time it might have been.

The one argument that I've seen, in this thread, where maybe your POV is misplaced, is the bit about the argument over the different kinds of logic. I don't know enough to weigh in on that myself, but that's the one part where I think you might, perhaps, be mistaken. Or not, I'm not sure which. But for the rest I'm inclined to agree with the POV you're arguing for.

I don't know if I've explained to you directly, but the difference is I don't have moral standards that exist completely separate from intellectual standards.

Being "civilly wrong" is not something you can do forever, indeed for very long in my world.

Use that information how you wish.

 

[Thermal]

Because every thread with you is the same routine.

Repeating the lie. You've been called on this many times.

You're not racist, but super-concerned with how fast the black guy can run.

Pointing out, as another poster did, that the distance covered over the time it took to cover equated to an actual slow walking pace is not racist. In fact, it only served to show that the man was not the timid rabbit you and others asserted he was. But you'll never stop lying about it.

You're not arguing for God, but goddamnit there's no dragon in the garage.

Sagan himself, the author of the analogy, did not come to your conclusion. That would give a sharp reader pause. It does not give you any, I note.

You are a goddamn master of "I'm not saying, I'm just saying."

Yeah, stellar examples. Totally not you projecting at all. You are not at all an emotional train wreck when it comes to my postings. Totally.

 

[Chanakya]

I don't know if I've explained to you directly, but the difference is I don't have moral standards that exist completely separate from intellectual standards.

Being "civilly wrong" is not something you can do forever, indeed for very long in my world.

Use that information how you wish.

I'm not sure I understand.

You'd once, in some other thread, voiced the opinion that "moral standards cannot exist in the absence of intellectual standards". I remember thinking that a profound observation, and I remember both nominating that post of yours, as well as having exchanged some comments with you specifically on that point.

While you seem to be invoking that same principle here, but I'm not sure where you're going with it this time. Because none of that has to do anything with civility, which is what you're specifically speaking of here.

Could you spell out some more, what you're trying to say here?

 

[Thermal]

I don't know if I've explained to you directly, but the difference is I don't have moral standards that exist completely separate from intellectual standards.

Being "civilly wrong" is not something you can do forever, indeed for very long in my world.

Use that information how you wish.

Vascillating between rationality and bat **** logical fallacies is not what the rest of us call 'having intellectual standards'

 

[IanS]

To refresh your memory:

Self Defence? Do you mean like boxing or martial arts? As it happens I watch a lot of boxing, and I listen to a lot of interviews with boxers and all sorts of people in that industry, and I doubt if hardly any of them even have the faintest idea of what philosophy is LOL.

So, No! Philosophy is really of zero interest in either of those pursuits.

You were saying?

Oh, that's right. When directly challenged on your own words, you punk out and flounce. That gets you an Honorary membership in the Spongebob Argumentative Club.

And we didn't even get back to the other lunacy, where you equate having a personal political philosophy to what specific university degrees a politician has.

Other posters can read this stuff, you know.

Indeed they certainly can read it, and what you just showed is that either you cannot read, or else you are simply a liar. Here is what you claimed in the post in question (it's a direct quote of your post) -

No. You can have an interest without having a philosophy about it. The two are unrelated.

Do you remember when I mentioned a philosophy of self defence earlier, and for some reason you thought that meant watching interviews on the TV with people in the sport boxing industry? If you think about where you went off the rails on that one, I think you'll see your error here.

Here is the reply that you are complaining about -

Self Defence? Do you mean like boxing or martial arts? As it happens I watch a lot of boxing, and I listen to a lot of interviews with boxers and all sorts of people in that industry, and I doubt if hardly any of them even have the faintest idea of what philosophy is LOL.

So, No! Philosophy is really of zero interest in either of those pursuits.

In that reply I am asking you a question about what you meant by your "personal philosophy of self-defence”. I am asking you there, if you meant things like boxing. And what I said about that was, that I happen to watch a lot of boxing and I have listened to a lot of interviews with boxers and others in that sport, and I doubted if hardly any of them had any idea of what Philosophy even is.

But you just presented that as if I had asked if your claim of having “a personal philosophy of self defence” meant that you were watching TV interviews with boxers! I said no such thing about what you might be doing. I asked if by “self defence” you meant things like boxing, and as far as boxing was concerned I said that I doubted if many boxers even knew what “Philosophy” was/is.

 

[Belz...]

It’s not a matter of correct or incorrect, folks are expressing opinions

If you don't care about these opinions being at least broadly based on facts, so be it. I care.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you don't care about these options being at least broadly based on facts, so be it. I care.

That.

And Chanakya that's a better answer then I could give to your question of clarifying my point as well.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again, and I keep having to repeat this over and over.

1. A methodology that actually answers questions in a meaningful sense in which the answer actually gives you more information about how the universe operates than you had before, which includes concepts like falsifiability, repeatability, standards of evidence, etc.

2. Any methodology that isn't 1.

1 is the only thing worth talking about. 2 is complete mental masturbation.

It's beyond obvious that some people just don't like the word "science" and that the whole thing has taken on a negative, almost sinister image in their minds, almost certainly because at some point it told them something they didn't like.

I'm comfortable calling 1 science and 2 philosophy but that's no goddamn point in argument the labeling anymore.

1 is good, 2 is bad. I can't make it simpler or clearer than that.