What do philosophers believe?

[Leumas]

Did they really answer the survey? How do you know? How do you know the survey was real? Is it not possible that the survey was simply an internal expression of an outward desire for meaning in an imaginary universe which they have already rendered devoid of meaning? Surely those answers provided are simply subjective assessments of a reality which cannot be demonstrated to exist beyond each individuals own limited consciousness? Surely the subjective results of a survey of subjective assessment of a posited reality which may or may not actually exist is in itself a manifestation of a perturbation of consciousness which manifests itself beyond the event horizon of the formless? Isn't that not true or false?

So what does all that mean? I have no idea because I made it up out of whole cloth and dressed it in the linguistic equivalent of the emperor's clothes of philosophical skullduggery. It looks superficially as though it might mean something profound, but the reality is that it is all appearance and no substance, no utility, no purpose and no meaning.

It is also directly equivalent to 90% of what gets wheeled around as valid philosophy.

Perfectly said!!!

 

[John Jones]

So what is your point? If ISF forum poster abaddon does not understand it, then philosophers are making it up?

Do you understand the false dichotomy fallacy?

 

[abaddon]

Do you understand the false dichotomy fallacy?

Or excluded middle.

Or non sequitur.

Or strawman.

Or...well, it's a cornucopia of logical fallacies.

 

[abaddon]

Perfectly said!!!

I would not aspire to perfection. I simply get a tad irate at the presentation of navel-gazing bum-fluffery as being in any way meaningful to anyone.

Some twenty years ago, when I was teaching, I had a colleague who taught C++. It emerged that his primary degree was in philosophy. Naturally, I had to ask the question "That's quite a leap from philosophy to programming, Why?"

His response was telling. He said "I decided I would rather do something productive"

 

[I Am The Scum]

Do you understand the false dichotomy fallacy?

Thoroughly.

Or excluded middle.

Or non sequitur.

Or strawman.

Or...well, it's a cornucopia of logical fallacies.

I am also very familiar with these.

If you could demonstrate that I've committed a single one of them in post #56, I would be extremely impressed. Go ahead. Give it your best shot.

 

[phiwum]

Did they really answer the survey? How do you know? How do you know the survey was real? Is it not possible that the survey was simply an internal expression of an outward desire for meaning in an imaginary universe which they have already rendered devoid of meaning? Surely those answers provided are simply subjective assessments of a reality which cannot be demonstrated to exist beyond each individuals own limited consciousness? Surely the subjective results of a survey of subjective assessment of a posited reality which may or may not actually exist is in itself a manifestation of a perturbation of consciousness which manifests itself beyond the event horizon of the formless? Isn't that not true or false?

You really have no idea what philosophers talk about these days, do you?

I'll give you a hint: they are not all fixated on the problems of Descartes and the aftermath. What one teaches in an introductory class is not particularly similar to one's research interests.

So what does all that mean? I have no idea because I made it up out of whole cloth and dressed it in the linguistic equivalent of the emperor's clothes of philosophical skullduggery. It looks superficially as though it might mean something profound, but the reality is that it is all appearance and no substance, no utility, no purpose and no meaning.

It is also directly equivalent to 90% of what gets wheeled around as valid philosophy.

Like hell it is.

 

[phiwum]

Studied Tommy A many years ago, short version.

Everything that exists had a cause therefore there must be something that exists that did not have a cause.

We call this god therefore Christ died for your sins.

I don't recall this conclusion from that argument.

We can, of course, see that the argument is weak, especially insofar as it concludes that God exists, but that crap about hence Jesus died is your own little fantasy.

Also, I'm not sure, but I think Aquinas said some other things too.

 

[phiwum]

I would not aspire to perfection. I simply get a tad irate at the presentation of navel-gazing bum-fluffery as being in any way meaningful to anyone.

Some twenty years ago, when I was teaching, I had a colleague who taught C++. It emerged that his primary degree was in philosophy. Naturally, I had to ask the question "That's quite a leap from philosophy to programming, Why?"

His response was telling. He said "I decided I would rather do something productive"

I did a post-doc in computer science, and I was happy to return to philosophy after that.

Different people like different things. I won't tell you that philosophy is useful. I'm not particularly interested in practicality. I think the questions and the arguments are interesting. I'd much rather study them than do the tedious things I did in the CS department.

 

[phiwum]

Or excluded middle.

Or non sequitur.

Or strawman.

Or...well, it's a cornucopia of logical fallacies.

No, it's not.

He asked what your point was, and also asked whether it was that if Abaddon didn't understand it, then philosophers are making it up. The first question is clearly no fallacy at all. The second question, if stated as a conclusion, might be misrepresenting your position, but as a question it invites you to clarify what you mean.

Unfortunately, you didn't accept the invitation so far.

 

[abaddon]

You really have no idea what philosophers talk about these days, do you?

No, and I don't much care because I have no interest in useless bumbling malformed thoughts expressed by puerile non-entities thank you very much.

I'll give you a hint: they are not all fixated on the problems of Descartes and the aftermath. What one teaches in an introductory class is not particularly similar to one's research interests.

Philosophical research? How amusing such a concept is. Are you now proposing that invalid and useless concepts have some value simply by dint of their mere existence?

How philosophical of you.

Like hell it is.

Never a more true statement. Hell is being surrounded by philosophers spouting their meaningless baloney.

 

[abaddon]

No, it's not.

Or is it?

 

[phiwum]

No, and I don't much care because I have no interest in useless bumbling malformed thoughts expressed by puerile non-entities thank you very much.

Philosophical research? How amusing such a concept is. Are you now proposing that invalid and useless concepts have some value simply by dint of their mere existence?

How philosophical of you.

Sorry, but I don't understand the bizarre certainty that this topic, of which you are certainly ignorant, is useless.

Dear sir, consider the difference between your arrogance and my own. I think that Continental philosophy is probably nonsense. It seems like meaningless wordplay to me. However, I haven't studied it, and so I couch my rejection in uncertain terms. It could be that there is insight I'm missing.

Nonetheless, I speak with more certainty when postmodernism makes truly absurd pronouncements about topics with which I am familiar.

You, on the other hand, are utterly ignorant of the state of modern analytic philosophy. Very well, there's no shame in that. 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. It is reasonable, I think, to ask how many contemporary articles you've read. If it is fewer than a dozen of the best examples of the previous century, then how indeed do you have any authority at all?

Don't like philosophy? Fine. No one requires that you engage with it. But I don't see you here discussing the stupidity of poetry, ballet, etc. What the hell do you think is so wrong with trying to answer questions that are outside the sphere of scientific methods? What is wrong, in the end, with the analytic method?

 

[phiwum]

Or is it?

Ah, I get it. You don't like philosophy because you are incapable of arguing a point.

Very well, then. Good you dropped by. Great to see you, honest it is, but I've got this thing to attend to over there.

 

[Sideroxylon]

3000 years examining the same questions with out an answer. Could there be something wrong here?

Yes, certainly. Perhaps it's in the tidy subject-object paradigm in which we see ourselves in relation to our world and frame our understandings of a world external to us.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Not sure I agree.

Science produces very accurate predictions, and these are useful even prior to any philosophical analysis. It doesn't take a philosopher to notice that accurate predictions of the weather are quite useful to the average person.

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.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

3000 years examining the same questions with out an answer. Could there be something wrong here?

How can a thing be wrong?

 

[abaddon]

Ah, I get it. You don't like philosophy because you are incapable of arguing a point.

Very well, then. Good you dropped by. Great to see you, honest it is, but I've got this thing to attend to over there.

A real thing or a philosophical thing? And how can you tell the difference?

 

[Sideroxylon]

A real thing or a philosophical thing? And how can you tell the difference?

Your asking suggests you hold a distinction. What would that be?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

A real thing or a philosophical thing? And how can you tell the difference?

What is real?
How do you know that a thing is a real thing?
What makes a thing real?

 

[phiwum]

A real thing or a philosophical thing? And how can you tell the difference?

I'm sure that seemed like an insightful reply at some point.