Does anything exist?

[JoeMorgue]

Again I will ask, again I will be ignored.

Philosophy defenders give me an actual real work example of philosophy failing THAT didn't just create a new, alternative, equally valid form of philosophy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Bring it, when, and if, you can.

This is what I mean when I say philosophy isn't a method or a discipline or set of standards or methods.

It's a persona.

A "Philosophy Internet Tough Guy" is a new variation however. Not sure if I like it more or less than the "Deepity" ones.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... (1) He suggests that Philosophy might help physicists with both creativity in their thinking as well as help them avoid unexamined biases in their general assumptions. While that may be true, that seems to address the same old use of generalists' contributions, not specifically philosophy's constribution. (That is, a physicist who is cocooned within his particular specialization can benefit from generalist inputs, regardless of whether that happens by other generalists stepping in or by this same physicist broadening his reading and understanding; but I don't see that that speaks particularly to Philosophy, it might cover any and every thing, including other sciences, as well as something as apparently trivial as science fiction.) What I'm saying is, we've still not seen a case made for philosophy specifically, as far as this aspect of his argument.

(2) He also suggests that philosophy might help make sense of QM. This is the part that I believe might make for interesting discussion, should those whose familiarity with QM goes beyond just casual general reading like to step in. I mean, "shut up and calculate" seems like a very unsatisfactory approach, generally speaking; but firstly, is there actually any way out of this unsatisfactory approach at all, that is, is it even possible to actually interpret the math of QM in terms of "reality"; and secondly, is Philosophy actually somehow uniquely equipped to do that? (I guess if someone claims that it does, then they'll need to demonstrate how exactly it does that. This article claims it does, but does not actually demonstrate how.)

I would argue the opposite. On the first point, I think sense-making is either an art, or is a human capability best understood as using pattern-matching and other base heuristics in a massively parallel way, such as to make objective description difficult (though someday maybe less so), making it more or less still an art. At any rate, something we need tease and toss about, not yet amenable to hard coding.

I also see no reason to create a hard separation between, say, critical thinking, logic, and philosophy, in that the latter is best understood as the application of the first two to all things either meta or lying solely within conceptual space* (human laws are not found in nature).

On the second point, I think everyone not doing the math and the observations should wait a great deal longer before making anything out of QM in terms of "broad meaning", though the implications of quantum supremacy in computing (now a human endeavor, not hard science alone) are very interesting. After all, upon analysis, even the much-vaunted GUT, if ever there is one, is not an all-explanatory "god" theory, just a more comprehensive and insightful explanation of certain fundamental phenomena.

ETA: Conceptual space does not have a one-to-one relationship with physical space, nor is merely a referent to some reference. Otherwise, no fiction, among many other implications.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Again I will ask, again I will be ignored.

Philosophy defenders give me an actual real work example of philosophy failing THAT didn't just create a new, alternative, equally valid form of philosophy.

You should be ignored, as you have not dealt with significant challenges.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

This is what I mean when I say philosophy isn't a method or a discipline or set of standards or methods.

It's a persona.

A "Philosophy Internet Tough Guy" is a new variation however. Not sure if I like it more or less than the "Deepity" ones.

Ad-hom? Is that all you got? Sure I'm tough; I dislike those who issue declarative statements without backup; intellectual sissies, to speak as you seem to prefer.

 

[Thermal]

You should be ignored, as you have not dealt with significant challenges.

You get used to it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Conceptual space does not have a one-to-one relationship with physical space, nor is merely a referent to some reference. Otherwise, no fiction, among many other implications.

Gibberish.

 

[Thermal]

Again I will ask, again I will be ignored.

Philosophy defenders give me an actual real work example of philosophy failing THAT didn't just create a new, alternative, equally valid form of philosophy.

The question is nonsensical.

Your position is painfully clear. You do not want to discuss or even debate. You want to act like the kid in the back row who fancies himself to be Einstein, realizing the ether doesn't exist.

Do you want to learn about philosophy, maybe explore it a little, then make a judgement maybe? No you don't. You just want to stick your fingers in your ears while you quite Proudly parade logical fallacies through the thread. It's like a Poe.

Also, dozens of pages of full-tilt derail and no mod action. Worthy of note by itself, considering the trivialities sent to the flames on other threads.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... What, say, is your political philosophy based on? How is it argued? Upon what foundation is it built, and what is the sole way in which such a foundation can claim validity?

More "Everything is a type of philosophy!" gotcha theatrics.

Handle the one case that is, in common parlance, referred to as "philosophy", and then maybe we'll see if you can handle more. To actually answer the questions posed would take some homework, and lengthy text if this is your first attempt. You are welcome to try; rule being you intend to make some sort of reasoned defense.

ETA: The last question, if done well, is your ticket to clear thinking as a skeptic; ie, to know and use proper method in preferential reasoning by understanding what/how any set of postulates must be based and, most importantly, agreed upon. What science does when tethered to observation, reasoning must be able to do when not. How?

 

[Thermal]

Handle the one case that is, in common parlance, referred to as "philosophy", and then maybe we'll see if you can handle more. To actually answer the questions posed would take some homework, and lengthy text if this is your first attempt. You are welcome to try; rule being you intend to make some sort of reasoned defense.

I posed the same example to JM dozens of pages ago, and he slunk away then, too. Sometimes he will assert that any philosophy is just "stuff" and doesn't count.

Try hitting him with logic and logical fallacies. It's a hoot to watch the squirming.

Just saving you some time.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I posed the same example to JM dozens of pages ago, and he slunk away then, too. Sometimes he will assert that any philosophy is just "stuff" and doesn't count.

Try hitting him with logic and logical fallacies. It's a hoot to watch the squirming.

Just saving you some time.

Really? Well, anyway, just stretching the legs, really. Not expecting much.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Gibberish.

Clearly, you are in way over your head. I suggest remedial K-12.

Next!

 

[Lithrael]

1) Survival: how can we eat?
2) Inquiry: why do we eat?
3) Sophistication: where shall we have lunch?

…

4) Philosophy: what does eating mean?

 

[JoeMorgue]

1) Survival: how can we eat?
2) Inquiry: why do we eat?
3) Sophistication: where shall we have lunch?

…

4) Philosophy: what does eating mean? (Also questions 1-3 are totally because of us because we said so and they wouldn't have been asked if it wasn't for us, no don't ask how how or why that's mean)

Fixed it for you.

 

[LarryS]

Do not bother telling me anything else. Just produce the papers which show that philosophers not scientists, actually discovered and explained the “reality” of the universe as we now understand it from discoveries like QM, Realtivity, Big Bang, Evolution etc.

No one has to provide any philosophers when scientists themselves have the 'bad habit' of spewing philosophy, ideologies and poetic musings. That's really what Hawkings and Krauss are saying - "leave the philosophizing to me". Maybe pure science doesn't sell books, podcasts and get you on TV. Or maybe, science doesn't tell us anything about reality - until science is placed on top of some ontology or wrapped in a narrative. In any case, I think it's reasonable to assume no one here in this thread has the expertise to properly distinguish between science and scientific opinion.

 

[Belz...]

Bring it, when, and if, you can.

Considering the feeble arguments of the philosophiles in this thread I don't really have to lift a finger.

 

[Belz...]

You should be ignored, as you have not dealt with significant challenges.

That's true, but only because no challenges have been made. "I assure you, philosophy can do stuff" is about as far as we've got, though a bit more verbose than that.

 

[Belz...]

Clearly, you are in way over your head. I suggest remedial K-12.

Next!

No, how about you clarify what you meant by "conceptual space" and what in the blazes it has to do with reality? The main complaint about philosophy is that it says a lot of pointless things very eloquently. The counter-argument to that is not what you've been doing so far, which is essentially proving the complaint right.

 

[Jimbo07]

That's true, but only because no challenges have been made. "I assure you, philosophy can do stuff" is about as far as we've got, though a bit more verbose than that.

I thought that wasn't the point. I thought the idea was to create a space in history/academia/etc. for the pursuit of thought. It might be a small discipline, but I suspect something needs to occupy the space (physical, office, conceptual, etc.) of thought. Call it philosophy or exnoctyclops, if the term is poisoned.

Twenty years ago, I was introduced to the idea that active areas of work were ethics and environmental ethics. This "what is real" stuff was regarded as somewhat sophomoric, amongst working philosophers (of which I've only been privileged enough to know a couple).

Tying back into the thread... Does any well-paying philosophy job outside of academia exist?

ETA: If anyone here actually is a working philosopher, please feel free to correct/update me. As I said, my anecdotes are starting to date back a decade or two.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I thought that wasn't the point. I thought the idea was to create a space in history/academia/etc. for the pursuit of thought.

"Pursuit of thought." This is another one of those philosophy adjacent terms that sounds all good but... what does actually mean?

Again we keep coming back to this vague idea that science, rationality, and just like... humanity was/is just sitting there until "philosophy" goes "Did you try thinking about it?" as if the idea never occurred to anybody.

"Think about it" isn't something that we need to told to do. Nobody gets credit for that idea.