|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 27, 2011 15:32:52 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0cN_bpLrxkThere are no genuine philosophical problems.
Philosophy is just a byproduct of misunderstanding language. www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_1/ts211p.htmlFor Wittgenstein, our everyday language is OK the way it is. It is "...in order as it is." Ordinary (everyday) language is OK for philosophers to use (in philosophy) as long as words are used in their everyday, ordinary sense. Philosophy as synthesis or analysis (in the traditional sense) is not needed. In one sense, the common lay-person knows as much as any philosopher. According to Wittgenstein, philosophers should ...stick to the subjects of our everyday thinking and not go astray and imagine that we have to decribe extreme subtleties...
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 27, 2011 20:11:45 GMT
I think he has a point. There is no philosophical anything for anything. Philosophers are just naval gazers and have nothing of value to contribute to our understanding. It might be useful for teaching someone how to think (about a problem or idea.) Though they believe it is actually useful for drawing conclusions. They couldn't be more wrong. Name one (valuable) conclusion that has ever been drawn from philosophy.
“There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it.” Cicero, De Divinatione Roman author, orator, & politician (106 BC - 43 BC)
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Jan 27, 2011 21:51:15 GMT
I think he has a point. There is no philosophical anything for anything. Philosophers are just naval gazers and have nothing of value to contribute to our understanding. It might be useful for teaching someone how to think (about a problem or idea.) Though they believe it is actually useful for drawing conclusions. They couldn't be more wrong. Name one (valuable) conclusion that has ever been drawn from philosophy. I believe logic and the scientific method provide uniform satisfaction, and ethics are important to some. You don't think it's important to examine how people (or you) think?
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 27, 2011 21:53:46 GMT
I think he has a point. There is no philosophical anything for anything. I can't quite believe my own eyes. I grew up with atheists who talked eagerly about reason and rationality as important tools to solve mankind's problems and the riddle of existence. Your line here confirms that a growing number of atheist the last generation or three has lost faith in philosophy, just like a conservative theologian like Francis Schaeffer insisted on in the 60's in e.g. "Escape from Reason". Philosophers are just naval gazers and have nothing of value to contribute to our understanding. It might be useful for teaching someone how to think (about a problem or idea.) Though they believe it is actually useful for drawing conclusions. They couldn't be more wrong. This is a hoot - and a bit tragic. How do you argue, Dave, for a systematic approach to logic not being usefull for drawing conclusions? Name one (valuable) conclusion that has ever been drawn from philosophy. Asking that question makes it safe to assume you know you lost the philosophical discussion on the cosmological argument.
|
|
|
Post by blessedkarl on Jan 27, 2011 22:04:06 GMT
I think he has a point. There is no philosophical anything for anything. Philosophers are just naval gazers and have nothing of value to contribute to our understanding. It might be useful for teaching someone how to think (about a problem or idea.) Though they believe it is actually useful for drawing conclusions. They couldn't be more wrong. Name one (valuable) conclusion that has ever been drawn from philosophy. “There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it.” Cicero, De Divinatione Roman author, orator, & politician (106 BC - 43 BC) Utter nonsense. Ethics? Epistemology? Existence of God? Logic?
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Jan 27, 2011 22:06:23 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0cN_bpLrxkThere are no genuine philosophical problems.
Philosophy is just a byproduct of misunderstanding language. www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_1/ts211p.htmlFor Wittgenstein, our everyday language is OK the way it is. It is "...in order as it is." Ordinary (everyday) language is OK for philosophers to use (in philosophy) as long as words are used in their everyday, ordinary sense. Philosophy as synthesis or analysis (in the traditional sense) is not needed. In one sense, the common lay-person knows as much as any philosopher. According to Wittgenstein, philosophers should ...stick to the subjects of our everyday thinking and not go astray and imagine that we have to decribe extreme subtleties... According to Wittgenstein, who was a philosopher. Name one (valuable) conclusion that has ever been drawn from philosophy. “There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it.” Cicero, De Divinatione Roman author, orator, & politician (106 BC - 43 BC) There were two in this thread alone: 1. What Wittgenstein said. 2. What Cicero said. There are more than just these.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 27, 2011 22:45:02 GMT
I think he has a point. There is no philosophical anything for anything. Nothing wrong with reason and rationality the mistake you're making is thinking philosophers are the only ones able to use it, or be any good at it. Post modernism was the final nail in that coffin. I didn't realize I was banned from using logic (though It has it's limits, I prefer the scientific method myself) if I was not a philosopher. Name one (valuable) conclusion that has ever been drawn from philosophy. It's these very arguments and the fact that they are taken seriously that makes me lose all respect for philosophy. Edit, I'll be back with my mate Buddha when I have recovered from work.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 27, 2011 22:46:43 GMT
I think he has a point. There is no philosophical anything for anything. Philosophers are just naval gazers and have nothing of value to contribute to our understanding. It might be useful for teaching someone how to think (about a problem or idea.) Though they believe it is actually useful for drawing conclusions. They couldn't be more wrong. Name one (valuable) conclusion that has ever been drawn from philosophy. I believe logic and the scientific method provide uniform satisfaction, and ethics are important to some. You don't think it's important to examine how people (or you) think? Are you saying philosophers have a monopoly on this?
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 27, 2011 22:49:35 GMT
I think he has a point. There is no philosophical anything for anything. Philosophers are just naval gazers and have nothing of value to contribute to our understanding. It might be useful for teaching someone how to think (about a problem or idea.) Though they believe it is actually useful for drawing conclusions. They couldn't be more wrong. Name one (valuable) conclusion that has ever been drawn from philosophy. “There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it.” Cicero, De Divinatione Roman author, orator, & politician (106 BC - 43 BC) Utter nonsense. Ethics? Epistemology? Existence of God? Logic? and their conclusions are?
|
|
|
Post by blessedkarl on Jan 28, 2011 0:48:41 GMT
Utter nonsense. Ethics? Epistemology? Existence of God? Logic? and their conclusions are? Dave, I think the main dilemma here is the way your looking at things. Perhaps you are viewing philosophy in the way someone who took a progressive historiography would view history; where we see that there is constant progress over what occurred in the past. Or perhaps a more scientific explanation will suffice. Neither medieval nor classical societies had any technology which is superior to anything we have today. Technology has undoubtedly undergone vast improvements. Are you simply saying that because there is no philosophical consensus that, therefore, philosophy is nonsense? I don't understand. Can you please, perhaps, elaborate further? Maybe I am reading the views of other people too much into what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Jan 28, 2011 2:45:32 GMT
I believe logic and the scientific method provide uniform satisfaction, and ethics are important to some. You don't think it's important to examine how people (or you) think? Are you saying philosophers have a monopoly on this? I'm saying these things are products of philosophy. If you agree they are good things, then I have provided examples of valuable conclusions of philosophy, as you requested.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 28, 2011 7:56:01 GMT
Nothing wrong with reason and rationality the mistake you're making is thinking philosophers are the only ones able to use it, or be any good at it. Post modernism was the final nail in that coffin. I have not made any mistake here as I have never said anyone had a monopoly on it. However, your clear mistake is to equal Philosophy as such with one tradition. There are a lot of other - and better ways - of doing philosophy. It doesn't help that you seem to dabble in the same method as postmodernists, making grand sweeping statements about "philosophy" with none (or incoherent) arguments. I didn't realize I was banned from using logic (though It has it's limits, I prefer the scientific method myself) if I was not a philosopher. Seems the only one who has banned someone from using logic here is you. Using logic is thinking rational is (one way of) doing philosophy which is something that can be done well or poorly. The scientific method is based very much on philosophy and scientists must argue their case based on valid reasoning. The philosophy of science is about examining scientific methods and reasoning and see how and why they work, what are their limits etc. It's these very arguments and the fact that they are taken seriously that makes me lose all respect for philosophy. If so it is ... puzzling that you can't make a rational case for it after having been asked to do so for weeks. Edit, I'll be back with my mate Buddha when I have recovered from work. Feel free. Though I honestly think you should choose a better mate in this discussion, man.
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Jan 28, 2011 12:45:43 GMT
Probably the most valuable conclusions of philosophy are those which establish the limits of human reason, using reason itself. Also, Philosophy is not a body of knowledge, it is a method of doing things. The first course you take if you are studying philosophy at a good university is on informal or formal logic. The point of good philosophy is to teach clear thinking, and caution about jumping to conclusions that are not either self-evident, or based on reasoning from self-evident premisses. And how to spot logical fallacies of course.
Remember that logic itself historically emerged from the study of philosophy. Ask yourself why terms like ‘modus ponens’, ‘antecedent’, ‘conclusion’, ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ are all Latin terms (or Anglicised Latin).
Remember also the origins of philosophy. Philosophers wanted to explain the world by evidence and reason alone, and without appealing to sacred texts or belief, or superstition, or revelation. Is there any better legacy than what philosophy has given us?
Are ‘ordinary people’ any better at logic than those trained in it? Judging by the contents of internet forums, probably not.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 28, 2011 13:47:21 GMT
and their conclusions are? Dave, I think the main dilemma here is the way your looking at things. Perhaps you are viewing philosophy in the way someone who took a progressive historiography would view history; where we see that there is constant progress over what occurred in the past. Or perhaps a more scientific explanation will suffice. Neither medieval nor classical societies had any technology which is superior to anything we have today. Technology has undoubtedly undergone vast improvements. Are you simply saying that because there is no philosophical consensus that, therefore, philosophy is nonsense? I don't understand. Can you please, perhaps, elaborate further? Maybe I am reading the views of other people too much into what you are saying. Thank you for your reasoned response, so I will clarify my position to you. My bookshelves are teeming with Greek, German, French and British philosophers. On another thread I posted that I have a love/hate relationship with philosophy. The early scientists were called natural philosophers and rightly so. Modernity, the enlightenment and free though, The human race has a lot to thank philosophy for and their legacy is all around us. They even laid the foundations of modern science despite what the constant stream of recent books claiming that it was Christianity whose very tenants are an antithesis of questioning, reason and free thought. Well so much for the love. I spent too many nights at university arguing over 'nothing exists' and 'how do we know anything' amongst other 'Cicero' absurdities, whose logical conclusion is that we might as well give up, pack our bags and go home. Not that I have anything against questions but I choose to live in reality despite my 'flawed senses.' This is why gymnopodie OP highlighting the musing of Wittgenstein struck a chord with me. I think that modern philosophy has taken a wrong turn. Its just that most modern philosophers really gets my goat. What with post modernism BS, their anti-science rhetoric and becoming woo merchants and trying to prove god with syllogisms or trying to define (perfect) god/s into existence. Using words like necessary and contingent as actually arguments in and of themselves. First we have Mary Midgley whose reading comprehension skills leave her to believe you really can judge a book by its cover (title) re: the selfish gene. Despite so many people pointing out that her objections are all covered in the book we have to suffer article after article. Read the bloody book women. There is of course Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. Who destroyed all of evolutionary theory by not even acknowledging let alone understanding that populations evolve, evolution simply doesn't happen on a individual level. Though it's the philosophers as apologist that really get my back up. Plantinga and Craig are philosophers I'm told and they're even held in high esteem by some. At best they're delusional at worse dishonest, I'm willing to give Plantinga the benefit of the doubt and say he is the former, Craig not so much. Say you're a philosopher and the brute fact of the universe/existence doesn't sit well with you, so far so good. Cosmologist are now saying that the universe had a beginning, the expansion of space and time estimated to be 13.7 billion years ago, intriguing. This is a problem I can sink my philosophers teeth into. Did it have a cause? Can their be a cause? Could it be even a first cause/uncaused cause? Is it eternal big bang/big crunch. This should be gold to any honest philosopher (and no doubt has been/is.) How many nights can be spent under the stars pondering, days sitting in their armchair in front of an open fire musing. Arguing and debating with friends and colleagues through till dawn. They love the hard questions and this is better than consciousness and why/how we are here, this is the motherload, existence itself. Then we have Plantinga and Craig, what do they do, do they explore all avenues in open enquiry and integrity of course not as they have a delusion to promote. The most implausible explanation of them all is grasp with both hands and they run with it. After all it can only be a supreme 'universe creating' being who inexplicably is interested in what we get up to in the bedroom, dietary habits, lifestyle your very thoughts and not falling to your knees and telling it how wonderful and great it is will not go down well.. Who provides you with a set of mostly silly rules in which even the merest transgression will send you to an eternal torture chamber. Well that must be the first cause of the universe how could it be anything else. No conformational bias comes first after all, not for them that 'an uncaused cause (that's not eternal) can never happen, I suggest they take that up with an quantum physicist.' Why speculate about 'can nothing exist anyway and if so would it be unstable.' A singularity, A quantum field potential energy conversion to kinetic energy via virtual particle pairs, an infinite regress, a deity with no interest in human affairs. No the desert dwelling goat herders are right all along so take that physicists and cosmologists. I Think Dennetts and Grayling approach is the way forward for philosophy. Wow this is a long post, sorry, I was only about half way through and all better stop here.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jan 28, 2011 14:56:47 GMT
The early scientists were called natural philosophers and rightly so. Modernity, the enlightenment and free though, The human race has a lot to thank philosophy for and their legacy is all around us. They even laid the foundations of modern science despite what the constant stream of recent books claiming that it was Christianity whose very tenants are an antithesis of questioning, reason and free thought. Well so much for the love. I don't know that many historians would want to solely credit Christianity for the rise of modern science. Rather, the more modest claim that has been made is that religious beliefs have heavily influenced science; as presuppositions underwriting science, as sanctions and motives for doing science, as principles for regulating scientific methodology and for selecting acceptable theories. So, in the West, Christian beliefs and institutions played a crucial role in fashioning the tenets, methods and institutions of what became modern science. It also supplied some of the motivation to study nature systematically - for example certain Christian doctrines (e.g the idea of the fall) lent urgency to experiment. Secondly although it might be your opinion that Christianity is opposed to questioning, reason and free thought, this has been far from obvious to many of it's adherents throughout history. Be careful not to project your own personal ideology back through history (something incidentally that A.C Grayling is particularly guilty of)
|
|