• 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?

Senex said:
It isn't ad hominem if it's true.

My "accusation" about money may have been out of line (but you saying I had truly bizarre beliefs was asking for it) and you do represent part of the status quo when it comes to the state of philosophy.
Click to expand...
Ad hominems can be true.

And I'm sorry if calling your beliefs bizarre offended you, but it is simply the nature of philosophy that well-meaning, competent persons can disagree.
 
Senex said:
Oh yeah,

At least my beliefs aren't influenced because of money.

You've already admitted to being an academic. You are invested in the status quo. I challenge the fact all people with a PhD in Philosophy really know their stuff and you accuse me of having bizarre beliefs.

Have a pizza on my tuition dime.
Click to expand...

Philosophy is just like any other academic (including scientific) discipline in that a huge amount of time is spent in learning its history. Disagreements on the history itself are a bit more rare.

You couldn't say the same thing about disagreements with regard to Art History, but I'm not sure where I was going with that thought.

There is a connection between history and academia that goes way beyond the actual history department. History is the basic foundation of teaching and learning... every bit of knowledge came from somewhere, and any future discoveries will be always informed by an understanding of the past.

So... philosophy in its modern form could perhaps be said to be the continuation of an ancient tradition. You can effectively say the same thing about math. There's no difference other than your own personal judgement of its usefulness, based on what limited experience you may have. There are plenty of people in this world that do find it useful. It sort of depends upon what you're wanting to do, doesn't it? It functions essentially as a mental skill -- a pattern of thinking which has been trained and informed by those that came before.

For someone actually involved with philosophy, it isn't about the conclusions themselves, but about the way concepts are tested, and how they relate to each other. It's a mental skill set, not a conclusion, and it tends to be mostly about how we deal with knowledge and the very concept of knowledge itself.
 
Last edited:
Senex said:
Holy Smokes, this well meaning competent person believes otherwise.
Click to expand...

Go ahead, then, and show that competent reason allows one to conclude that all competent philosophers should agree on the various philosophical issues.

Because I actually have training in philosophy and experience in the issues it deals with and it is bloody clear to me that you're mistaken. But go ahead. Tell me how it is that any two competent, well-meaning philosophers ought to agree on things like aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, etc. Be sure to give me a clear enough picture that I can see that you're correct and abandon my prior position.

Until then, I can't help but think that you're well-meaning, but not competent on this issue.
 
phiwum said:
Go ahead, then, and show that competent reason allows one to conclude that all competent philosophers should agree on the various philosophical issues.

Because I actually have training in philosophy and experience in the issues it deals with and it is bloody clear to me that you're mistaken. But go ahead. Tell me how it is that any two competent, well-meaning philosophers ought to agree on things like aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, etc. Be sure to give me a clear enough picture that I can see that you're correct and abandon my prior position.

Until then, I can't help but think that you're well-meaning, but not competent on this issue.
Click to expand...

First, you need to calm down and understand that training and experience may have been useless when it comes to philosophy. Second you shouldn't blame the first person you hear this from.
 
Senex said:
First, you need to calm down and understand that training and experience may have been useless when it comes to philosophy. Second you shouldn't blame the first person you hear this from.
Click to expand...

Unmarketable and useless aren't the same thing. What's more, philosophy actually is marketable. It's just not marketable in a way that employs as many people as want to study it.
 
Last edited:
Senex said:
First, you need to calm down and understand that training and experience may have been useless when it comes to philosophy. Second you shouldn't blame the first person you hear this from.
Click to expand...

Right. Well, thanks then. Good to learn.

Or, on the other hand, you don't know doodlysquat about the discipline or the training involved and so your opinion is worth rather little.

I don't blame you. Sure, at some point, a person should recognize his base ignorance and should shut up rather than continuing to look ever more foolish, but that's fine.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Let's talk about being disingenuous.

You ask me a question, I answer to the best of my ability. Then, many posts later, you insinuate that my clear, explicit answer is a bit of sophistry or word salad. If there's something that I've said that does not appear as clear as it should be, let me know.

On the other hand, I've asked you many questions in this thread, and I don't think you've answered any of them. I've asked you for instance if your dull repetition of the question about rational anti-realists (a question which misrepresented my position several times before you finally corrected it) indicates that you doubt my answer is correct, and you have never replied. You like to insinuate that there's something wrong with my answer, but you can point to no fault in it, so instead you try to compare it to a distinct religious argument and tar me by association.

So, yes, Tsig, let's talk about which of us is here to share opinions and arguments and which is just diddling, sticking his finger up his ass and flinging whatever he finds there, with no attempt to defend his own insinuations.
Or, you could show that you are indeed interested in the discussion by answering a question. Let's start with this one: am I wrong about my claims regarding the ideally rational anti-realist? If so, please show me where my reasoning went awry.

Thrilled, as always, to have an intellectually engaging conversation with you.
Click to expand...

Senex said:
First, you need to calm down and understand that training and experience may have been useless when it comes to philosophy. Second you shouldn't blame the first person you hear this from.
Click to expand...

You got off easy.:)
 
I am satisfied knowing that those who eschew philosophy will continue to be victimized by it.

Have you considered that philosophy is an excellent remedy against the contagion of religion?
 
Senex said:
It's a good thing philosophers aren't judged by how gracious they handle contention.
Click to expand...

The fact is that you've made a claim about philosophy which is simply unsupportable. The closest you've come to an argument that the claim is true was a facile argument that logic and knowledge(?) are a part of philosophy, so there should be no disagreements.

Since then, you've more or less admitted that you have no experience in the topic.

I see no reason to ignore the fact that your claim is unsupported and that a clear reason that it is unsupported has to do with your ignorance of the subject. This is not a personal attack. This is a plain observation of the implausibility of your claim, the inadequacy of your argument and the fact that you appear to have no experience with the subject at all.

If my analysis is a bit brusque, then I will remind you that I've been rather more courteous and less personal in this exchange than you have.
 
I love it when threads degrade to the point where most posts are merely indirect ways of saying, "I don't like you" and continue to converge on the point where that is its only content. All threads get to that point eventually.

Actually, I don't love it... much. I'm outta here.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom