I don't exist. According to some philosophers they don't exist and I don't exist... .

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by Twiler

This response is a non-sequitur.

That must make Tsig a really good philosophizer then.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

That must make Tsig a really good philosophizer then.

Is this one of those claims I'm supposed to take seriously, or is it in the same class as:

Quote:

99.99% of all philosophy and 99.999999% of all coffee shop intellectual level fauxosophy became null and void with the birth of modern neuroscience

[JoeBentley]

You can take them however you like, I stand behind them. People are giving far too much credence to simply playing around with the language and trying to get some grand meaning out of silly word games.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

You can take them however you like, I stand behind them. People are giving far too much credence to simply playing around with the language and trying to get some grand meaning out of silly word games.

So, where is the evidence demonstrating that a non-sequitur would make tsig a 'really good philosophizer'?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Twiler

So, where is the evidence demonstrating that a non-sequitur would make tsig a 'really good philosophizer'?

Philosophy is one huge non-sequiter.

[JoeBentley]

What Dafydd said. Because what passes for philosophy on this forum is 99.99% meaningless word games.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Philosophy is one huge non-sequiter.

That's just meaningless hyperbole. You can't have a universal non-sequitur, because the classification of something as a non-sequitur is based on context.

Quote:

What Dafydd said. Because what passes for philosophy on this forum is 99.99% meaningless word games.

So, are you objecting to 'what passes for philosophy on this forum', or philosophy in general?

And what's the point of throwing in a percentage that's obviously made up?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Twiler

That's just meaningless hyperbole. You can't have a universal non-sequitur, because the classification of something as a non-sequitur is based on context.

Name one practical benefit that philosophy has brought to mankind. Leave out the Natural Philosophy of Newton and the Royal Society, that was science by another name.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Name one practical benefit that philosophy has brought to mankind. Leave out the Natural Philosophy of Newton and the Royal Society, that was science by another name.

I'll give you a few and you can pick one.

Self-reflection, self-knowledge, the ability to construct a valid argument, to think clearly and critically, to look at difficult questions in a systemic way, to test the grounds for beliefs.

You don't have to go far to see this in action, JREF is full of philosophical arguments.

Science is lost without it. Why? Because there is more data in the world than we can ever capture and we need a method to help us decide which questions are worth investigating. Questions about value are philosophical questions.

Maybe, like the man who discovered he'd been writing prose all along, we just don't notice how philosophical we actually are. Some of the larger questions: How should I be governed? What constitutes a good life? What is my relationship with and my obligations to my fellow men? The fact that these questions have not been answered doesn't mean they aren't worth exploring, and philosophy is the way we do that.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by marplots

Science is lost without it.

^This

Epistemology (the branch of Philosophy that deals with knowledge) is absolutely necessary for science to operate. One could probably make the same argument for Metaphysics, but there's a lot of crap in Metaphysics as well (this is where you get all that inane solipsism). Also, Ethics and Political Philosophy are relevant to everyone on the planet, so it's absolutely absurd to have such a distaste for Philosophy*.

*I mean the academic discipline, not the mystical BS people will try to peddle off as Metaphysics.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by marplots

Questions about value are philosophical questions.

No they aren't. Questions about value that people don't want to argue rationally are philosophical arguments. Many of us have values we can actually back up with reasons.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

No they aren't. Questions about value that people don't want to argue rationally are philosophical arguments. Many of us have values we can actually back up with reasons.

I think you'll find that when you dig into it, those reasons require previously held values that are indeed philosophical.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Name one practical benefit that philosophy has brought to mankind. Leave out the Natural Philosophy of Newton and the Royal Society, that was science by another name.

No, that's defending the proposition 'Philosophy is useless.'

The proposition you made was 'Philosophy is one huge non-sequiter.'

I think you're trying to change the subject.

[JoeBentley]

So basically it "Philosophy of the Gaps."

Great because that works so well explaining the God concept.

If it can't be backed up with evidence or falsified/supported by experimentation, it's meaningless.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

So basically it "Philosophy of the Gaps."

Great because that works so well explaining the God concept.

If it can't be backed up with evidence or falsified/supported by experimentation, it's meaningless.

What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by marplots

Self-reflection, self-knowledge, the ability to construct a valid argument, to think clearly and critically, to look at difficult questions in a systemic way, to test the grounds for beliefs.

I'd call that common sense.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

So basically it "Philosophy of the Gaps."

Great because that works so well explaining the God concept.

If it can't be backed up with evidence or falsified/supported by experimentation, it's meaningless.

I highlighted the philosophical statement for you.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I'd call that common sense.

Good call. Philosophy is formalized common sense. I can buy that. But, of course, so is science and agriculture.

[JoeBentley]

Go philsophize me up a cure for cancer, then I'll be impressed.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Go philsophize me up a cure for cancer, then I'll be impressed.

Tough standard. I suppose you don't much care for paleontology or cosmology either?

Did you know Georgetown University offers a dual degree in medicine (MD) and philosophy (PhD)? http://philosophy.georgetown.edu/gra...ograms/dualmd/

Someone thinks it's worthwhile -- even worthwhile in the practice of medicine.

[dafydd]

I tripped over a dog yesterday and I think I've cracked a rib. I'll go and see if my doctor can philosophize it away.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I tripped over a dog yesterday and I think I've cracked a rib. I'll go and see if my doctor can philosophize it away.

The dog or the rib?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by marplots

The dog or the rib?

The pain in my rib. Should I use Kantian or Platonic philosophy?

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by dafydd

The pain in my rib. Should I use Kantian or Platonic philosophy?

You haven't considered using Mathematics or Linguistics?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by dafydd

The pain in my rib. Should I use Kantian or Platonic philosophy?

Platonic. Plato recommends you go see a doctor.

Although Kant has some good points about why a doctor is a better choice than a florist.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by marplots

Platonic. Plato recommends you go see a doctor.

Although Kant has some good points about why a doctor is a better choice than a florist.

Which brings us back to common sense. If you need a philosopher to tell you when to see a doctor then something is wrong.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Twiler

You haven't considered using Mathematics or Linguistics?

I'll stick with non-philosophical radiography.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I'll stick with non-philosophical radiography.

You do realize that this is just a reskinned version of the 'Evolution can't provide moral principles' argument that creationists use?

You're criticizing a field of knowledge for not providing things that another field provides.

I can understand why you might not like philosophy, but you shouldn't sink to this level.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Twiler

You do realize that this is just a reskinned version of the 'Evolution can't provide moral principles' argument that creationists use?

You're criticizing a field of knowledge for not providing things that another field provides.

I can understand why you might not like philosophy, but you shouldn't sink to this level.

In one sense it's sinking, but it captures a common complaint: philosophy is too esoteric to be of any use and can thus be ignored. It's a stance with some merit and it parallels how I might feel about art or classical music.

I think there's another theme as well: philosophy being as much a pretentious and bloated ego salve as a Lamborghini. As much as I might tout the engineering feat the car embodies, it will still seem like it has to be a phallic symbol and sign of a character flaw to some.

I don't own a sports car, but I can read philosophy. I think what surprises me is how often logical fallacies are presented as a tool here at JREF without any recognition they belong most properly to the field of philosophy, not mathematics. As I mentioned before, they are writing prose without knowing it.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Twiler

You do realize that this is just a reskinned version of the 'Evolution can't provide moral principles' argument that creationists use?

You're criticizing a field of knowledge for not providing things that another field provides.

I can understand why you might not like philosophy, but you shouldn't sink to this level.

I would dispute the statement that philosophy is a field of knowledge. Speculation, yes, knowledge, no.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I would dispute the statement that philosophy is a field of knowledge. Speculation, yes, knowledge, no.

Would you consider the Law of Identity, (i.e., for any entity A, A = A) to be speculation, or knowledge?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Would you consider the Law of Identity, (i.e., for any entity A, A = A) to be speculation, or knowledge?

An object is the same as itself? A child knows that. Common sense again.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by dafydd

An object is the same as itself? A child knows that. Common sense again.

So, is it speculation, or knowledge?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Twiler

So, is it speculation, or knowledge?

It's obvious.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by dafydd

It's obvious.

You could have answered the question in the time it took you to type that.

Is it speculation, or is it knowledge?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Twiler

You could have answered the question in the time it took you to type that.

Is it speculation, or is it knowledge?

Is something the same as itself? The answer is obvious.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by dafydd

The answer is obvious.

You failed to answer the question and you had three opportunities.

I'm going to assume you mean it's knowledge, which would mean that philosophy is a field of knowledge, because the law of identity is within its purview.

EDIT: Oh, that's what you meant. I don't think being 'obvious' excludes it from being speculation or knowledge.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Twiler

You failed to answer the question and you had three opportunities.

I'm going to assume you mean it's knowledge, which would mean that philosophy is a field of knowledge, because the law of identity is within its purview.

EDIT: Oh, that's what you meant. I don't think being 'obvious' excludes it from being speculation or knowledge.

Philosophers have different opinions. Which philosopher, past or present, had the real knowledge?

[JoeBentley]

Philosophy (as it is generally used here) is meaningless because it's unfalsifiable, it by definition can't give us any answers because it's all meaningless wordplay about the definitions themselves.

Philosophy prides itself in asking unanswerable questions which to me is a tacit admission that it's doing nothing but mental masturbation.

[yog_sothoth]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

What Dafydd said. Because what passes for philosophy on this forum is 99.99% meaningless word games.

Have you read any philosophy texts? That sums up just about all of it. They make tons of unsupported assertions and try to hide this behind the densest hard-to-read gibberish possible.