Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

“Once they are established:” how did we establish them?

Gods of chaos and destruction, save me!

We establish them by deciding what they are. That's what axioms are. I didn't mean verify them, or I would've said that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Axioms" are just "Definitions" with pretensions that are intentionally made overcomplicated for no reason.

 

[Thermal]

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.

Science: objective
Philosophy: subjective

It ain't that ******* complicated

 

[JoeMorgue]

Science: objective
Philosophy: subjective

It ain't that ******* complicated

Then it should be perfectly easy for you to give me an example of a "subjective" question that philosophy has answered and show me the steps of how it answered it.

I'll wait.

 

[Belz...]

Science: objective
Philosophy: subjective

It ain't that ******* complicated

We're not the ones making it complicated, since the above is pretty much what I've been saying since the beginning: philosophy cannot give answers that are substantially better than any other sort of thinking. So why is it touted as the best alternative where science fails?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I will never actually get an actual real world example of philosophy actually answering a question will I?

 

[xjx388]

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.

The answer is so obvious and banal that I’m really surprised that I need to actually provide an answer. Let’s have some fun with it and do it multiple choice.

How was the Constitution of the United States created?

A. Through debate using logic, reason with the goal of compromise.
B. Through Randomized Controlled Trials.
C. Using slide rules, protractors and compasses.
D. On Planet X, they used lasers.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The answer is so obvious and banal that I’m really surprised that I need to actually provide an answer. Let’s have some fun with it and do it multiple choice.

How was the Constitution of the United States created?

A. Through debate using logic, reason with the goal of compromise.
B. Through Randomized Controlled Trials.
C. Using slide rules, protractors and compasses.
D. On Planet X, they used lasers.

How. Walk me through the steps of "Philosophy" creating the Constitution.

 

[Thermal]

Then it should be perfectly easy for you to give me an example of a "subjective" question that philosophy has answered and show me the steps of how it answered it.

I'll wait.

Why? So you can ignore it for the hundreth time and crow about no one answers you?

Also, if you genuinely need it explained how someone establishes their values and sense of right and wrong...their personal philosophy...to make decisions, you belong on a kiddie forum.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Basically at this point Philosophy is the Joker in a Dark Night. A bunch of random stuff happens and it goes "Ah yes... all according to my plan." It just takes credit for a bunch of disparate stuff happening and defines itself as in control of all of it.

Philosophy doesn't do anything and at this point my proof is the fact that every time I ask someone for a single example of philosophy doing anything they get distracted and walk off.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why? So you can ignore it for the hundreth time and crow about no one answers you?

Ah the "Use the valid criticisms that been used against you" card. Lovely.

Oh wait I mean I don't notice you using the same argumets over and over. Wouldn't want you to run whining to the Mods like a baby that we're "arguing the arguer" by noticing your bags of tricks, no siree.

Apparently you've just been given permission to troll and nobody is allowed to notice or we'll get carded.

 

[Belz...]

Why? So you can ignore it for the hundreth time and crow about no one answers you?

Er... Joe's frustration is exactly about that -- from philosophiles.

Also, if you genuinely need it explained how someone establishes their values and sense of right and wrong...their personal philosophy...to make decisions, you belong on a kiddie forum.

Again, you're barking up the wrong tree. We're not the ones making philosophy far more complicated and nebulous than it actually is. The difference is that I have no need to make philosophy into more than it is.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because if it wasn't overly-complicated for no reason it wouldn't be philosophy.

 

[Thermal]

We're not the ones making it complicated, since the above is pretty much what I've been saying since the beginning: philosophy cannot give answers that are substantially better than any other sort of thinking.

Partially agreed. It gives a philosophical answer better than other kinds of thinking. And of course, other kinds of thinking like to borrow logic, the crown jewel of philosophy.

So why is it touted as the best alternative where science fails?

Dunno why others do so. As you know, I certainly don't.

 

[Belz...]

It gives a philosophical answer better than other kinds of thinking.

What does that even mean? This seems to be mocking philosophy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"It gives an answer if you redefine 'answer' to mean something that absolutely isn't an answer."

 

[JoeMorgue]

Like when science "answers" something afterwards there is information we didn't have before.

When philosophy "answers" something we don't. We either just reword the question or... nothing.

 

[Thermal]

What does that even mean? This seems to be mocking philosophy.

If the question is value based, philosophical answers will be better.

My personal philosophy of self defense, for instance, is to allow myself to be put at extreme risk to avoid hurting someone else. I make very different preparations than someone with a gun who puts himself first at all costs, because our philosophies...our way of thinking about things...are very different.

 

[Thermal]

"It gives an answer if you redefine 'answer' to mean something that absolutely isn't an answer."

Like when science "answers" something afterwards there is information we didn't have before.

When philosophy "answers" something we don't. We either just reword the question or... nothing.

To stay with philosophy of self defense as a real-world practical example:

How will I defend myself if seriously threatened, or even a bar fight? Determine in detail what I value most, risking my own neck more because I value life highly, or me-first-****-everybody-else. That guides what I will do and what preparations I will make.

My question was practically answered by considering my philosophy carefully.

 

[xjx388]

I will never actually get an actual real world example of philosophy actually answering a question will I?

How one decides to raise their kids.

The decision to have kids in the first place.

The justification for spending billions on a Space program.

The writing of the Constitution.

Deciding to implement a UHC or not.

—-

I assume you entirely disagree.