What do philosophers believe?

[Senex]

I've been a little hard on the topic of philosophy however I know there is one branch of philosophy that's true.

True story. I had a good friend who was a disciple of Descartes. It was always Descartes thinks this or Descartes thinks that. It started to get on my nerves. We went to dinner one night and ordered wine. The waiter came back with the wine and when my friend sniffed the cork and said, "I think not!" Poof, my friend disappeared.

 

[phiwum]

I've been a little hard on the topic of philosophy however I know there is one branch of philosophy that's true.

True story. I had a good friend who was a disciple of Descartes. It was always Descartes thinks this or Descartes thinks that. It started to get on my nerves. We went to dinner one night and ordered wine. The waiter came back with the wine and when my friend sniffed the cork and said, "I think not!" Poof, my friend disappeared.

I use that joke every semester. It's a kind of a baseline. I tell the class that, if things go well, that is the worst joke I will tell this semester.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Leumas has a fairly skewed view of contemporary analytic philosophy in part because this seems to be the only living philosopher he can name.

William Lane Craig killed his parents.

 

[Leumas]

...Leumas has a fairly skewed view of contemporary analytic philosophy in part because this seems to be the only living philosopher he can name.

I know it is part of the training of "philosophers" to make unfounded asinine assumptions about things they couldn't have any hope of knowing anything about.

They do that because they know that their assumptions may never be proven wrong because they usually are careful to make sure the stuff about which they blabber and make up claptrap is esoteric and unknowable.

Fortunately in this case you have attempted to make assumptions that can be very easily proven nothing but asinine sophistry.

In this thread, in which you have participated and posted plenty of posts I discuss at length here and here and here and here what one living philosopher has written and said.

But I think this goes to prove that you either have no idea who Samuel Harris is.... or... more accurately... your post is an utter disingenuous pretense and ad hominem.

Now I could also go on and show you other posts and threads where I discuss yet more living philosophers I like and respect.... but what would be the point.

I have already shown that your statement is nothing but a deliberate lie since you know jolly well who Sam Harris is (here too and here) and you know I quoted him and discussed his books and his philosophical theses in a thread that is still active and ongoing with your copious participation in it.

 

[phiwum]

I know it is part of the training of "philosophers" to make unfounded asinine assumptions about things they couldn't have any hope of knowing anything about.

They do that because they know that their assumptions may never be proven wrong because they usually are careful to make sure the stuff about which they blabber and make up claptrap is esoteric and unknowable.

Fortunately in this case you have attempted to make assumptions that can be very easily proven nothing but asinine sophistry.

In this thread, in which you have participated and posted plenty of posts I discuss at length here and here and here and here what one living philosopher has written and said.

But I think this goes to prove that you either have no idea who Samuel Harris is.... or... more accurately... your post is an utter disingenuous pretense and ad hominem.

Now I could also go on and show you other posts and threads where I discuss yet more living philosophers I like and respect.... but what would be the point.

I have already shown that your statement is nothing but a deliberate lie since you know jolly well who Sam Harris is (here too and here) and you know I quoted him and discussed his books and his philosophical theses in a thread that is still active and ongoing with your copious participation in it.

I've heard of Sam Harris in this forum. Have I ever denied that?

I've not read anything written by Sam Harris, nor seen any of his talks (on- or offline). I am familiar with him secondhand. (I think I read a magazine review of his book once.)

From what I've seen of his arguments, Sam Harris is all wet. However, aside from the review, I have only seen online posters presenting his arguments, and these can be misleading, so take my evaluation with a large grain of salt. I tend not to talk much about Harris's arguments because I haven't read them first-hand.

I'm really not sure what your point is here. If it is that I misspoke when I said you knew only one living philosopher, fine, I'll own up to it. You know two. I had forgotten that you talk about Harris as well.

My sincere apologies for the gross mischaracterization.

 

[Leumas]

...
I'm really not sure what your point is here. If it is that I misspoke when I said you knew only one living philosopher, fine, I'll own up to it. You know two. I had forgotten that you talk about Harris as well.

My sincere apologies for the gross mischaracterization.

It seems that you are going to have to apologize yet again for even more sophistic assumptions

...
... You know two.

Despite the fact that you have just finished reading this

...
Now I could also go on and show you other posts and threads where I discuss yet more living philosophers I like and respect.... but what would be the point.

 

[Senex]

I use that joke every semester. It's a kind of a baseline. I tell the class that, if things go well, that is the worst joke I will tell this semester.

It's all in the set up.

 

[phiwum]

It seems that you are going to have to apologize yet again for even more sophistic assumptions

Some day, I will be curious enough to ask you what it is you think that "sophistic" means. The notion of "sophistic assumptions" is a mighty curious one.

Despite the fact that you have just finished reading this

You know, my point really is that you reach for Craig as an example of contemporary philosophy so damned often that it is no doubt you come to the skewed view of philosophy you have. Perhaps you know a few others. My point still stands, even if my mocking presentation was not literally true.

I don't think you have any real notion of what academic philosophy is about. Craig is not representative, and I don't think that Harris is either. I've certainly never heard either mentioned in my circles -- but I'm not very active these days and neither of them are the least bit related to my background, so take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Leumas]

Some day, I will be curious enough to ask you what it is you think that "sophistic" means. The notion of "sophistic assumptions" is a mighty curious one.

Do you want to see a delectable example of sophistry and sophistic assumptions.... feast upon this

...
I've not read anything written by Sam Harris, nor seen any of his talks (on- or offline). I am familiar with him secondhand. (I think I read a magazine review of his book once.)

From what I've seen of his arguments, Sam Harris is all wet. However, aside from the review, I have only seen online posters presenting his arguments, and these can be misleading, so take my evaluation with a large grain of salt. I tend not to talk much about Harris's arguments because I haven't read them first-hand.
...

The above is a most perfect demonstration of arrantly sophistic assumptions... assuming that the guy is "all wet" despite admitting knowing NEXT TO NOTHING about his writings and ideas and that what little you do know comes from second and third hand knowledge.

But what is even more ironic is that you say

...
Here's what I think: most people can make a passable argument, but what I see is that they are incapable of listening to their interlocutor carefully enough.

Maybe if you read CARFULLY the guy's work before you mischaracterized him as "all wet" you may have avoided this

They are so busy fashioning a reply that they miss half of what is said, filling in what they expect to hear instead.

And had you not done this

... People tend to leap rather than carefully reason.

You may have avoided saying this

...
Leumas has a fairly skewed view of contemporary analytic philosophy in part because this seems to be the only living philosopher he can name...

And you would have avoided the necessity to apologize for and admitting careless reasoning

.... If it is that I misspoke when I said you knew only one living philosopher, fine, I'll own up to it. You know two. I had forgotten that you talk about Harris as well.

My sincere apologies for the gross mischaracterization.

But what is even more amazing is that had you not been

incapable of listening to their interlocutor carefully enough.

You would have not committed this further sophistic assumption yet again

.... If it is that I misspoke when I said you knew only one living philosopher, fine, I'll own up to it. You know two. I had forgotten that you talk about Harris as well.

...

Despite the fact that the post to which you were responding says

...
Now I could also go on and show you other posts and threads where I discuss yet more living philosophers I like and respect.... but what would be the point.

I have already shown that your statement is nothing but a deliberate lie ....

So I think it is very obvious for all to see that it is YOU who hasn't

... any real notion of what academic philosophy is about....

 

[phiwum]

Do you want to see a delectable example of sophistry and sophistic assumptions.... feast upon this




The above is a most perfect demonstration of arrantly sophistic assumptions... assuming that the guy is "all wet" despite admitting knowing NEXT TO NOTHING about his writings and ideas and that what little you do know comes from second and third hand knowledge.

But what is even more ironic is that you say




Maybe if you read CARFULLY the guy's work before you mischaracterized him as "all wet" you may have avoided this




And had you not done this




You may have avoided saying this




And you would have avoided the necessity to apologize for and admitting careless reasoning




But what is even more amazing is that had you not been




You would have not committed this further sophistic assumption yet again




Despite the fact that the post to which you were responding says




So I think it is very obvious for all to see that it is YOU who hasn't

Yes, Leumas, yes. A very good point.