Does anything exist?

[xjx388]

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

Ah. I get it. You think Philosophy is something that can create something. Almost like a god.

No. Philosophy is a process, a method of thinking.

 

[xjx388]

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

To answer a tad more seriously…

You are American, I assume you took American History at some point? Then you have surely read about the Constitutional Convention and everything leading up to it. You’ve heard of the debates that happened in pamphlets and newspapers? Stuff like the Federalist Papers where the founders laid out their arguments? The arguments that were had over the months of the Convention itself? Virginia Plan vs New Jersey plan?

That’s how people used philosophical thinking to create the Constitution.

ETA:

And what they came up was a definite answer to the question of how the government should be set up after the Revolutionary War. An answer that has endured for 234 years.

Is it the best answer? Is it the final answer? Whatever answer you give, you are doin’ filosofizin’.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Call me crazy but sort of expect a problem solving/information gathering process to leave me with more information/fewer variables/greater clarity then when I started.

 

[Thermal]

Call me crazy but sort of expect a problem solving/information gathering process to leave me with more information/fewer variables/greater clarity then when I started.

Then start ******* paying attention. You gain greater clarity on how you will defend yourself if you consider how far you are willing to go and under what circumstances.

You form the structure of your government based on the truths and values you decide are best.

The philosophies of each give tremendous clarity on precisely how you will do things.

 

[Belz...]

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

Why and how?

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.

How is that better than any alternative mode of thinking, and how can you be sure that this mode of thinking (philosophy) will be statistically better?

 

[Belz...]

Ah. I get it. You think Philosophy is something that can create something. Almost like a god.

No. Philosophy is a process, a method of thinking.

Funny how you sidestepped by big bold post.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why and how?

Didn't you hear the screeching? He's already answered that and me and you just magically missed it.

 

[xjx388]

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.

I didn't sidestep this post. I took some time to think about it.

"We establish them by deciding what they are."

I think what you are sidestepping is: "How do we decide what they are." You are eliding the process that led us to those axioms.

In science, no one just decided what the axioms are. They arrived at the axioms by hypothesizing, predicting, experimenting, observing and reporting, forming theories, etc. They followed the scientific process. That's what lead us out of religious cosmology to our current understanding of the universe.

The same is true for philosophy. No one just decided the axioms. They thought of an idea, applied logic and reason to formulate structured arguments, wrote essays, processed criticism, made changes as appropriate... They followed a philosophical process. That's what lead us from serfdom and slavery to the recognition of human rights.

 

[xjx388]

Why and how?

Which of the following is the most scientific view of the value of life?

A: "A human life is more valuable than lower forms of life."
B: "Humans with X characteristics are more valuable than humans with Y characteristics."
C: "All human life is equally valuable."
D: "All life is equally valuable"
E: "Lower forms of life are more valuable than humans."
F: "We cannot assign a value to any kind of life."

The only scientific position up there, in my opinion, is F. Science says nothing about value. A and B have been true for most of human history. C, D and E are more modern value statements.

Therefore:

If Thermal values another person's life, even when that person is attacking him, that's a position he could have only reached through a personal morality code. Through a philosophical process.

 

[Thermal]

Why and how?

I believe we've done this once or twice before? A scientific method of self defense would probably favor a gun. But one's personal values may be prohibitive to that end. They are for yours truly. The personal philosophy on the value of human life trumps the scientific efficiency of solving the problem.

As to the "how", I would call it soul searching informally but that would send JM into coniption fits.

How is that better than any alternative mode of thinking, and how can you be sure that this mode of thinking (philosophy) will be statistically better?

Not sure what you mean by "another" mode of thinking. Rather than make assumptions, could you clarify?

Eta: xjx said it much more coherently. Freaking teatotalers.

Eta II: I'm not shooting for "statistically better". I'm shooting for doing the right thing as I understand it. That's a huge difference in value between our respective positions.

 

[Minoosh]

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.

My college philosophy textbook was called "The Enduring Questions." They're enduring because they haven't been answered. They really can't be answered with mathematical precision. That's kind of the point. New countries and generations and even families hash it out for themselves, sometimes democratically and sometimes with directives that come from a central committee often acting as a black box.

I would say this is a question for philosophy: "What should have priority, the rights of the individual or the well-being of the group?" That's playing out in the U.S. as more employers adopt vaccination mandates. There's really no right answer. The government, so far, is not forcing folks to get jabbed, but private enterprise is. You can quit your job, so they get away with it. You can't quit being subject to the laws of your jurisdictions(s).

Does this sound like a dodge and a weave? Probably to you it does. IMO, philosophy informs debates about setting public policy. I don't think you can compare it to "2+2=4." It's a whole other thing.

 

[Thermal]

Didn't you hear the screeching? He's already answered that and me and you just magically missed it.

Answered clearly and directly. Give it a shot sometime.

 

[Belz...]

I think what you are sidestepping is: "How do we decide what they are." You are eliding the process that led us to those axioms.

I'm not sidestepping anything since I explained to you what axioms are. But you keep trying to pretend the word means something else. All this is a distraction from the main discussion, Jabba xjx.

In science, no one just decided what the axioms are. They arrived at the axioms by hypothesizing, predicting, experimenting, observing and reporting, forming theories, etc.

I think you don't know what an axiom is. How about you look it up before continuing?

Therefore:

No, none of that follows.

If Thermal values another person's life, even when that person is attacking him, that's a position he could have only reached through a personal morality code. Through a philosophical process.

Again, philosophy is everything. Now it's morality and values. Remember when I told you that this would happen?

 

[Belz...]

A scientific method of self defense would probably favor a gun.

Show your work.

But one's personal values may be prohibitive to that end. They are for yours truly. The personal philosophy on the value of human life trumps the scientific efficiency of solving the problem.

No, I'm asking you why you think the solutions would be better, and to describe HOW they are better.

As to the "how", I would call it soul searching informally but that would send JM into coniption fits.

In other words, however the person resolves it by thinking. That doesn't sound like a very precise definition of philosophy. Colour me unsurprised.

Not sure what you mean by "another" mode of thinking.

Religion, for starters. Wild musings. Acid trips. Etc.

 

[Thermal]

Again, philosophy is everything. Now it's morality and values. Remember when I told you that this would happen?

Not clean pool, man. One of my first posts, and other posters too, have been saying over and over that values are one of the four main branches of philosophy. Or seven, depending on who you ask.

Nonetheless, there's no *now* things changed. Its old business.

 

[Belz...]

Not clean pool, man. One of my first posts, and other posters too, have been saying over and over that values are one of the four main branches of philosophy. Or seven, depending on who you ask.

Or a thousand. Or infinity.

And that's the problem. It's intractable because it's designed that way. Discussing ethics and having moral values aren't the same thing. The latter is a simple emotional reaction: I want or like X and don't want or dislike Y. That's not philosophy. It's just feelings.

 

[Thermal]

Or a thousand. Or infinity.

No. It's widely four, and some break down to seven which most of us think are just subdivisions of the four.

But not the point. You claim " now it's values" when it has been unwaveringly values since the start. That's a closed mindedness on your part.

And that's the problem. It's intractable because it's designed that way. Discussing ethics and having moral values aren't the same thing. The latter is a simple emotional reaction: I want or like X and don't want or dislike Y. That's not philosophy. It's just feelings.

Again, moving the goalposts. You said "now it's values", when it never ever moved from that for centuries. This is why we go round and round.

Its a fair argument to split the hairs between ethics and values, UT that's not the same as accusing others of changing a definition they have not wavered on a millimeter since word go.

 

[Belz...]

No. It's widely four, and some break down to seven which most of us think are just subdivisions of the four.

Have you followed the thread? It ain't four, baby.

Of course, in reality, it's narrower than that.

But not the point. You claim " now it's values" when it has been unwaveringly values since the start. That's a closed mindedness on your part.

I've made a clear distinction between "values" and "ethics". Have you not read that before replying? They are NOT the same thing. In fact, if you did think they were, you'd have to exclude ethics from philosophy.

Again, moving the goalposts.

That's not what moving the goalposts is.

 

[xjx388]

I'm not sidestepping anything since I explained to you what axioms are.

Well neither of us is being very precise here, are we?

In any case, I thought we understood what each other meant. What I mean is “statements established or accepted as valid.”

Science might call such things constants or laws. Axioms are mostly a philosophical thing.

Anyway: how did these statements become established or accepted as valid? That’s the point you are sidestepping with the pedantry.

 

[xjx388]

Or a thousand. Or infinity.

And that's the problem. It's intractable because it's designed that way. Discussing ethics and having moral values aren't the same thing. The latter is a simple emotional reaction: I want or like X and don't want or dislike Y. That's not philosophy. It's just feelings.

Can we assume then, that ethics IS philosophy?

And really, if you strip away all the labels, can’t we reduce everything to thought and feeling? Both science and philosophy are products of our thoughts and feelings aren’t they? After all, neither exists outside of the human mind. No other form of life cares or thinks about about the orbits or about what justice is.