Does anything exist?

[LarryS]

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

Re any relationships between logic, philosophy and science is all semantics - there are no facts. As evidence to this, there have been no agreements/clarifications on what the terms mean or refer to.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Re any relationships between logic, philosophy and science is all semantics - there are no facts.

And stuff like this is why people saying I'm either being mean to or scared of philosophy makes me laugh.

When we can have one, just one philosophy discussing without this kind of gibberish, I'll maybe consider starting to think about caring about what philosophy has to say about the world.

 

[Chanakya]

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.

That.

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

That not all opinions are equivalent, as LarryS seems to be saying? That at least in some cases --- and I'd say this discussion, not as the OP started out, but as the thread has transpired --- does admit of some correct opinions, and some not so much, and that the point is to arrive at the correct opinions?

If that's what you were meaning to convey, then I agree with that.

Except I still don't see how that ties in with civility, which was the term you brought in, and in which context you brought in this argument.

(It's okay, not to beat this to death. This is clearly off-topic, and I don't mind dropping this if you don't want to be drawn in. But if you wish to explain in fuller detail, do go ahead.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

That not all opinions are equivalent, as LarryS seems to be saying? That at least in some cases --- and I'd say this discussion, not as the OP started out, but as the thread has transpired --- does admit of some correct opinions, and some not so much, and that the point is to arrive at the correct opinions?

If that's what you were meaning to convey, then I agree with that.

Except I still don't see how that ties in with civility, which was the term you brought in, and in which context you brought in this argument.

(It's okay, not to beat this to death. This is clearly off-topic, and I don't mind dropping this if you don't want to be drawn in. But if you wish to explain in fuller detail, do go ahead.)

I'm not going down some death spiral of "Mathematically define the exact level of 'correctness' an opinion has to have..." sort of thing.

A methodology which never, by it's own design and definition, advances beyond "Think about stuff really hard" is dangerous, anti-intellectual nonsense and I'm done explaining why I oppose it.

The "Well if you hate philosophy why are you in the discussion / why not just ignore them" card has already been played multiple times in this discussion and I'm tired of answering it.

 

[LarryS]

I am not suggesting opinions are equivalent, people can decide for themselves who is making the stronger case, or, when each opinion is best applied. There may be branches of science, or individual scientists, more open to input, and think they can benefit from philosophers. There are some scientists (ie Lawrence Krauss) who have a disdain for philosophy, likely because they speak philosophically and really suck at it.

 

[Chanakya]

I'm not going down some death spiral of "Mathematically define the exact level of 'correctness' an opinion has to have..." sort of thing.

A methodology which never, by it's own design and definition, advances beyond "Think about stuff really hard" is dangerous, anti-intellectual nonsense and I'm done explaining why I oppose it.

The "Well if you hate philosophy why are you in the discussion / why not just ignore them" card has already been played multiple times in this discussion and I'm tired of answering it.

Were you explaining your meaning there, or are you directing those comments to me? I'm honestly not clear what it is you're alluding to there.

In this instance, in this thread, in this context, and as far as this subject, I haven't said or asked of you any of the things you speak of here.

Are you saying others have said things like that in this thread, and that you're not willing to be civil with those who have? Or what?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Are you saying others have said things like that in this thread, and that you're not willing to be civil with those who have? Or what?

"Civil is not the same as nice."

 

[Chanakya]

I am not suggesting opinions are equivalent, people can decide for themselves who is making the stronger case, or, when each opinion is best applied. There may be branches of science, or individual scientists, more open to input, and think they can benefit from philosophers. There are some scientists (ie Lawrence Krauss) who have a disdain for philosophy, likely because they speak philosophically and really suck at it.

Some subjects can admit of equivalent opinions, where there can be two or even multiple opinions, all of them right, or at least none of them more right than others. While there are other subjects where things are a bit more black and white than that.

Although the OP started out on a different tack, but what this thread has in effect devolved into is an examination of the question, Does philosophy have any actual use?

I don't see why that question cannot have a Yes/No resolution.

If you're saying Yes, then, as some have demanded, the thing to do is to show some actual use. Else the No would carry the day.



Basis this thread, and given my own limited understanding, it is the No that seems to be carrying the day so far. Except in one instance, which would be the multiple kinds of logic. As far as that last, the issue seems to be tilting towards the opposite end. At least basis my admittedly limited understanding.

Individual scientists may or may not have the hots for philosophy. But the question itself seems quite cut and dried. (By that I don't mean it is a simplistic question. It can potentially become a very involved discussion. To some extent it already has. But it would, it seems to me, end up admitting of some unequivocal answer, that can be summarized in a simple Yes or No.)

 

[Belz...]

Re any relationships between logic, philosophy and science is all semantics - there are no facts. As evidence to this, there have been no agreements/clarifications on what the terms mean or refer to.

There are also no agreements between Christians and science regarding creation. That doesn't mean that there are no facts there, either.

I'm sorry but this is a silly argument. The ARE facts. Philosophy is not just another word for "opinion". Or is it?

 

[Chanakya]

"Civil is not the same as nice."

Sure, agreed 100%.

It is entirely possible to be entirely civil, and yet at the same time entirely vile.

And agreed, a case can be made that civility is misplaced when faced with vileness.



But I still don't see how that ties in. You can use that argument when the context is racism, say, or some other kind of bigotry, something like that. But in a discussion on whether philosophy has any real use, you can be either right or wrong, but I don't see how niceness enters into it at all, other than in the context of civility.

 

[Thermal]

...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.

Note that I did no such thing. I didn't mention myself or anyone but your anecdote of watching interviews on TV. You are not telling the truth, in a simply factual matter. Look at the structure of your Boxing reply, simplified for clarity:

1. My question (to another poster): do you have a philosophy of self defense?
2.Your counter query: Do you mean boxing? Boxers don't know anything about philosophy.
3. Your conclusion (see quote above): So, No! Philosophy is really of no interest in either of those pursuits.

First off, since sport boxing interviews have Jack squat to do with a personal philosophy of self defense, you might as well have responded talking about sustainable avacodo farming.

But we are talking about logic here. Since your boxing comments were an irrelevant flight of fancy, how did you come to your stated conclusion? Again:

Q: Do you have a philosophy of self defense?
CQ: Do you mean boxing? (followed by irrelevant TV extrapolation)
Concl: So, No! Philosophy is of no interest in those pursuits

Your conclusion, read in context, rebuts the initial question. Did you mean something else?

Eta: if you were saying philosophy is of no interest to the two random examples you plucked out of thin air, well duh. Meaningless. If you were addressing the original question, your conclusion does not follow from your random irrelevant examples.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I think somethings exist but really you have to be special in order to see what does and does not exist. I am guessing that a lot of things you think are real do not in fact exist

 

[Minoosh]

People hostile to philosophy seem to be saying there's no such thing as philosophy. Which I disagree with. It doesn't help though that people speaking of a "philosophy of self defense" decline to elaborate on what they mean.

"I will not deploy violence to protect property but touch one hair on a loved one's head and I will unleash as much fury as is allowed under the law" strikes me as a philosophy of self-defense. Yeah, but: Some will chime in that the word "philosophy" is misused in this instance. But I see it as a valid usage. There is a structure to it, conditions to be met; it is not arbitrary. Good enough for me to call a "philosophy of self-defense." That other words could be used does not IMO cancel out the justification of calling it a "philosophy."

 

[Belz...]

People hostile to philosophy seem to be saying there's no such thing as philosophy.

How can someone be hostile towards something that they say doesn't exist?

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

People hostile to philosophy seem to be saying there's no such thing as philosophy. Which I disagree with. It doesn't help though that people speaking of a "philosophy of self defense" decline to elaborate on what they mean.

"I will not deploy violence to protect property but touch one hair on a loved one's head and I will unleash as much fury as is allowed under the law" strikes me as a philosophy of self-defense. Yeah, but: Some will chime in that the word "philosophy" is misused in this instance. But I see it as a valid usage. There is a structure to it, conditions to be met; it is not arbitrary. Good enough for me to call a "philosophy of self-defense." That other words could be used does not IMO cancel out the justification of calling it a "philosophy."

Or if bit do no pull away or the persons teeth may come out. That’s philosophy heh

 

[IanS]

Note that I did no such thing. I didn't mention myself or anyone but your anecdote of watching interviews on TV. You are not telling the truth, in a simply factual matter. Look at the structure of your Boxing reply, simplified for clarity:

1. My question (to another poster): do you have a philosophy of self defense?
2.Your counter query: Do you mean boxing? Boxers don't know anything about philosophy.
3. Your conclusion (see quote above): So, No! Philosophy is really of no interest in either of those pursuits.

First off, since sport boxing interviews have Jack squat to do with a personal philosophy of self defense, you might as well have responded talking about sustainable avacodo farming.

But we are talking about logic here. Since your boxing comments were an irrelevant flight of fancy, how did you come to your stated conclusion? Again:

Q: Do you have a philosophy of self defense?
CQ: Do you mean boxing? (followed by irrelevant TV extrapolation)
Concl: So, No! Philosophy is of no interest in those pursuits

Your conclusion, read in context, rebuts the initial question. Did you mean something else?

Eta: if you were saying philosophy is of no interest to the two random examples you plucked out of thin air, well duh. Meaningless. If you were addressing the original question, your conclusion does not follow from your random irrelevant examples.

Sorry but this is just thoroughly dishonest from you now. Look, here is your earlier post where you are clearly talking about what you called your “personal” “political philosophy” and your own “philosophy of self defence”.

Why should it lead to nothing? My political philosophy hits the road, much as my philosophy of self defence. I mention those two frequently because they are a hands-on application that even the most dedicated anti-intellectualist would acknowledge are practical.

And yes, trying to dismiss philosophy across the board is textbook anti-intellectual.

Um...I'm not talking about what degrees a politician might have. Or degrees at all. Or politicians, for that matter. I'm talking about anyone who has a personal political philosophy, as most of us do. You can have a personal philosophy without a freaking degree in it, or a degree in anything for that matter.

I simply asked you what you meant by saying that you have a personal philosophy of politics and self defence. Here is the post where I clearly asked you if by saying “self defence” you meant things like boxing or martial arts … that was merely a question to you … and I added that as it happened I had some personal interest in boxing (over several decades, as it happens) and I do not think many boxers even know or care what the subject called “Philosophy” is or what it's about at all. So what are you complaining about there? What do you claim is wrong with me making that reply to you?

Then you replied saying the following -

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.

There you are accusing me of thinking that watching TV interviews of boxers was somehow what you meant by your own “personal” “philosophy of self defence” … but as everyone can see in the above exact quotes of what I said – I said not a single word about you, me or anyone else watching boxers being interviewed on TV … and neither said or implied that such interviews were where you were getting what you call your own “philosophy of self defence” … I simply asked you if by "self defence" you meant things like boxing, and where I added that as far as boxing is concerned I doubt if hardly any boxers have any interest or knowledge at all of what the subject called “Philosophy” is about.

At some point, when someone keeps misrepresenting stuff, even after they have been shown the direct quotes of both their own words and the other posters words, we all have to conclude that the person (you in this case) is simply lying about it.

 

[Thermal]

IanS. Brah. You are still ducking the question: if you were just asking for clarification (although by asking if I meant something utterly unrelated), that would be fine. It would just mean you asked a ridiculously foolish question. Which is fine.

But you went on to draw a conclusion following it. Here, as you apparently forgot about that again:

So, No! Philosophy is of no interest to those pursuits.

As a reminder, you were responding specifically to a question I asked another poster, specifically if he had a political philosophy and philosophy of self defense. There was no other question being asked that you would be answering.

But your courageous evasions are getting boring. So I'll answer for you:

Oh I was just letting you know that my foolish examples had no interest in philosophy either. Yet I phrased it as an answer to your question to throw you off the scent. Misdirection and whatnot.

See? Easy.

 

[IanS]

IanS. Brah. You are still ducking the question: if you were just asking for clarification (although by asking if I meant something utterly unrelated), that would be fine. It would just mean you asked a ridiculously foolish question. Which is fine.

But you went on to draw a conclusion following it. Here, as you apparently forgot about that again:



As a reminder, you were responding specifically to a question I asked another poster, specifically if he had a political philosophy and philosophy of self defense. There was no other question being asked that you would be answering.

But your courageous evasions are getting boring. So I'll answer for you:

See? Easy.

OK, well the above is really an admission from you that you had “made it up” yourself when you implied that I had said anything about either of us listening to boxers on TV interviews, and presenting that as if I thought that was the sort of thing from which you got what you called your “personal philosophy” about things like whatever you meant by “self defence”. That was all entirely a bogus invention from you.

And it's utterly irrelevant whether you were previously replying to someone else. I was just responding to the comments that you had made and which I quoted from your posts. If you write things here, whether as replies to me or to anyone else, then you must expect others to comment on the things that you say. Especially if you write something seemingly absurd as you did when calling your own personal interest in what you called “self defence” to be a “philosophy”.

OK, so what do you mean when you say that you have a personal philosophy of “self defence”? What sort of self defence is it? And why is it “Philosophy”? Why is it anything more that your own personal interest in things? All sorts of people take a very deep interest in all sorts of things, such as (say) stamp collecting or ancient history, but they would not describe their interest as “Philosophy”.

In this thread we have been arguing about science vs philosophy, but people do not normally say they have a personal science of golf, or politics, or fishing, or self defence, or whatever … that would really be just a grandiose or egotistical misuse of the language.

It sounds to me, and I think it sounds to others here as well, as if you want to describe any sort of constructive thinking as “philosophy” … but as I think several of us have shown, that quickly becomes an absurd & redundant description.

 

[LarryS]

Some subjects can admit of equivalent opinions, where there can be two or even multiple opinions, all of them right, or at least none of them more right than others. While there are other subjects where things are a bit more black and white than that.

Although the OP started out on a different tack, but what this thread has in effect devolved into is an examination of the question, Does philosophy have any actual use?

I don't see why that question cannot have a Yes/No resolution.

If you're saying Yes, then, as some have demanded, the thing to do is to show some actual use. Else the No would carry the day.



Basis this thread, and given my own limited understanding, it is the No that seems to be carrying the day so far. Except in one instance, which would be the multiple kinds of logic. As far as that last, the issue seems to be tilting towards the opposite end. At least basis my admittedly limited understanding.

Individual scientists may or may not have the hots for philosophy. But the question itself seems quite cut and dried. (By that I don't mean it is a simplistic question. It can potentially become a very involved discussion. To some extent it already has. But it would, it seems to me, end up admitting of some unequivocal answer, that can be summarized in a simple Yes or No.)

I have no 'dog in this fight', whether there is a simple Yes/No answer, and whether that answer be yes or no . . .
but I am reminded of this example, I beleive it dealt with using philosophy to analyse 'what a cell does' vs 'properties of a cell' . . . I found the link to the research and it does have the word philosophy in the title 'https://elifesciences.org/articles/46563' - but more than that it does endorse hte use of philosophy.
I also remember a theoretical physicist who claims to bounce ideas/wording of his scientific questions and interpretations - I don't remember his name but he was from UK so there's that. He also claimed that philosophy hels to lay the foundation of questions science can and will eventually get to.
All I or anyone has to do is find 1+ examples of philosophy and science in collaberation - and the examples to support the opposite to demonstatrate it's a muddle.

 

[IanS]

People hostile to philosophy seem to be saying there's no such thing as philosophy. Which I disagree with. It doesn't help though that people speaking of a "philosophy of self defense" decline to elaborate on what they mean.

"

If people here have been saying that philosophy does not exist, then I must have missed their posts (which is entirely possible over the last few pages where I think the thread has become bogged down in disputes about what anyone means by words like "logic", and where I stopped reading most of those posts).

What we should really mean by "philosophy", is what the people who lecture university courses mean by "philosophy" - and almost by definition what they mean is the stuff they teach on degree courses in "Philosophy". And I doubt if anyone here has claimed that those university courses do not exist!

The problem in this thread has been that philosophy proponents/supporters tried to claim that philosophy, ie the academic subject, is really responsible for whatever science has achieved … because (according to them) philosophy came first and science was (so they claim) born out of philosophy (or even saying that science is merely a part of, or branch of, philosophy).

But all of that aside, I'm glad to see that you appreciate why there's a problem with people describing things like self defence or politics as a “personal philosophy”