• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What do philosophers believe?

Leumas said:
tsig said:
3000 years examining the same questions with out an answer. Could there be something wrong here?
Click to expand...


In fact, many of the more intelligent ones already knew the answers long ago... it is all fakery.

But obviously if they just declared the answer there would be no more need for philosophers... Just like what Douglas Adams' very cleverly wrote in Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy ...when Deep Thought came online:

Adams, Douglas - The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

“O Deep Thought computer,” he said, “the task we have designed you to perform is this.
....
​
Click to expand...


OK... seeing that the whole point of the post will not be conveyed by the remaining few words... I searched for somewhere where one can read the pertinent 560 words I wanted to quote out of the entire book which is 46,000 words.

I could not find anything... but here is a youtube video of the whole scene.

Watch the whole thing ... but concentrate on minutes 4:05 to 5:53 where the two representatives of the Philosophers' league barge into the computer room and demand that the computer must be shut down immediately.

I love how they demand that there be demarcation and rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

And the stuff that follows is just beautiful... especially minutes 6:51 to 7:54... hilariously clever and apt parody of philosophers.

By the way... also watch minutes 8:50 to 11:00.... but read the book, it is much much better than any video.

 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
That is the point - useful is useful to someone. The weather or a weather prediction is fact or a prediction of what facts can come, where as X is useful requires something subjective; i.e. a person for which it is useful.
Click to expand...

You said that the claim, "Science is useful," is philosophy. This is just a very strange claim. We don't have to know any philosophy at all to see that science is useful.

Now you're pointing out that usefulness depends on one's desires, aims, etc. Yes, of course it does. But that doesn't mean that every time I say something is useful, I'm doing philosophy.
 
phiwum said:
Maybe so. I won't argue as to the utility of philosophy aside from this point: we each must decide what to do, and this decision depends in part on our notions of morality and prudence. Surely, these are important considerations, then, and we should make our decisions with as much reason as we can muster.
Click to expand...


This is the heart of the majority of the ‘philosophy is the stupid’ debate…here and just about everywhere.

It is the simple question: What matters…and how do we answer this question?

To put it simply…there are many who have, do, and will continue to wish that ‘what matters’ is a simple question that can be answered before brushing one’s teeth in the morning. Today is remembrance day where I live….the meaning of which very effectively exposes how utterly bankrupt such a position actually is.

phiwum said:
But rather than remain reasonably silent on the state of a subject about which you know damn near nothing, you also loudly proclaim that it is nonsense.
Click to expand...
phiwum said:
Ah, I get it. You don't like philosophy because you are incapable of arguing a point.
Click to expand...


…that about sums it up. I think the word is ‘threatened’. Psychology 101. Folks become defensive when they feel threatened by something they do not understand. Why even bother with the time and effort required to read this thread…and post replies…if it is all so much manifestly pointless irrelevant garbage!?!?1?!?

…because that which is threatening must be attacked. Leumas ought to recognize that one. It’s called instinct (...interestingly...Leumas seems so dismayed by the questions I've asked [8 times] that he's put me on 'ignore' rather than be reminded of them...flattering, I suppose).

Why would anyone feel threatened? Self-knowledge should be sufficient, but where there are gaps, insecurity leaks through.

I think Abraham Lincoln summed it up nicely:

“Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Robin…an ISF member sadly not around too much anymore…also described things quite succinctly:

Robin said:
You don't have to declare victory because your modus operandi is to make vague, meaningless, irrelevant statements in the fond belief that they make you appear intelligent.
Click to expand...


phiwum said:
You said that the claim, "Science is useful," is philosophy. This is just a very strange claim. We don't have to know any philosophy at all to see that science is useful.
Click to expand...


…no, but can it not be argued that the realm of intellectual meaning is explored and differentiated within the realm of the discipline of philosophy? Thus, what any word or combination of words means is, ultimately, demarcated by some variety of mutually agreeable formal or informal philosophical paradigm.

It’s not so much that ‘thought’ is synonymous with ‘philosophy’…as much as philosophy is simply the formalization of thought.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
You said that the claim, "Science is useful," is philosophy. This is just a very strange claim. We don't have to know any philosophy at all to see that science is useful.

Now you're pointing out that usefulness depends on one's desires, aims, etc. Yes, of course it does. But that doesn't mean that every time I say something is useful, I'm doing philosophy.
Click to expand...

You can't see that science is useful, because you can't see useful. What are the dimensions of useful, what is its color and so on?
Science is about what you can see and it is combined with logic and sometimes math. You can''t see useful and who is that "we" you speak of. I am not a part of that "we" and I can't see useful.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
You can't see that science is useful, because you can't see useful. What are the dimensions of useful, what is its color and so on?
Science is about what you can see and it is combined with logic and sometimes math. You can''t see useful and who is that "we" you speak of. I am not a part of that "we" and I can't see useful.
Click to expand...

Why should we pretend that everything is either science or philosophy?

Surely, the average man knows nothing about philosophy but can readily see that science is useful.

Sometimes, when one defends philosophy, he's tempted to pretend that philosophy is more essential than it is. Sometimes, for instance, we see claims that philosophy is needed in order to tell good arguments from bad. Now, it's true that philosophy includes logic and critical thinking, but it's also true that most people can evaluate arguments reasonably well with no exposure to philosophy.

I think that you're falling into the same thinking here. Philosophy isn't required to distinguish useful from useless. We do that every day without using any particularly philosophical concepts.
 
annnnoid said:
This is the heart of the majority of the ‘philosophy is the stupid’ debate…here and just about everywhere.

It is the simple question: What matters…and how do we answer this question?

To put it simply…there are many who have, do, and will continue to wish that ‘what matters’ is a simple question that can be answered before brushing one’s teeth in the morning. Today is remembrance day where I live….the meaning of which very effectively exposes how utterly bankrupt such a position actually is.





…that about sums it up. I think the word is ‘threatened’. Psychology 101. Folks become defensive when they feel threatened by something they do not understand. Why even bother with the time and effort required to read this thread…and post replies…if it is all so much manifestly pointless irrelevant garbage!?!?1?!?

…because that which is threatening must be attacked. Leumas ought to recognize that one. It’s called instinct (...interestingly...Leumas seems so dismayed by the questions I've asked [8 times] that he's put me on 'ignore' rather than be reminded of them...flattering, I suppose).

Why would anyone feel threatened? Self-knowledge should be sufficient, but where there are gaps, insecurity leaks through.

I think Abraham Lincoln summed it up nicely:

“Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Robin…an ISF member sadly not around too much anymore…also described things quite succinctly:







…no, but can it not be argued that the realm of intellectual meaning is explored and differentiated within the realm of the discipline of philosophy? Thus, what any word or combination of words means is, ultimately, demarcated by some variety of mutually agreeable formal or informal philosophical paradigm.

It’s not so much that ‘thought’ is synonymous with ‘philosophy’…as much as philosophy is simply the formalization of thought.
Click to expand...

Lincoln summed it up nicely:

"Philosophy is bunk".
 
tsig said:
^^^^^

A single sentence.

:dl:
Click to expand...

Yes, but did Abraham Lincoln actually say, "Philosophy is bunk"?

Obviously, he said lots of stuff, but even more stuff is attributed to him (he's like Churchill and Einstein). So, can you tell me whether you actually have a citation that he said this or whether you're just repeating stories of dubious source?

Thanks, tsig.
 
If a philosopher gives a speech in the middle of a lecture hall, and there's no one there to hear it, did he say anything at all?
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
If a philosopher gives a speech in the middle of a lecture hall, and there's no one there to hear it, did he say anything at all?
Click to expand...


Yes... he heard himself... and that is all what 90% of philosophy/philodeusy is all about in the first place... just gobbledygook that makes sense only to the person uttering the gibberish in the first place.

But at least that air of self-assigned importance fools some people, who might on occasion listen, into thinking that something of value is being said if only one was intelligent enough to understand... ergo... Jesus must be it... since he too spoke gibberish and gobbledygook that we are assured, by philodeusy, is of profound deep importance to our souls if only we just were clever enough to understand it.

  • 1 Corinthians 3:18 ...If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
Irony strikes me as funny. Errant pedantry does too. B-)
Click to expand...

Okay, if you say so.

I sure didn't see irony. Pedantry is probably my stock-in-trade, so I won't doubt that it's in there somewhere.
 
Leumas said:
Yes... he heard himself... and that is all what 90% of philosophy/philodeusy is all about in the first place... just gobbledygook that makes sense only to the person uttering the gibberish in the first place.

But at least that air of self-assigned importance fools some people, who might on occasion listen, into thinking that something of value is being said if only one was intelligent enough to understand... ergo... Jesus must be it... since he too spoke gibberish and gobbledygook that we are assured, by philodeusy, is of profound deep importance to our souls if only we just were clever enough to understand it.

  • 1 Corinthians 3:18 ...If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a good point, Leumas. A very good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom