The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
APB
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Philosophy is Very usefull

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 655 times Debate No: 32601
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

Terms of acceptance
1. Appeal to authority or references are at NOT replacements for Arguments.

2. Principle of Charity=Conduct

4. The Most informative, precise & reasonable definitions are to be taken over others.

Principle of Charity
-respecting the most likely meaning of the Speaker.
-giving the best representation of opponent arguments.
-Assume your opponent to be rational and intelligent.
-Vague language is to be avoided.
-no semantic Games.

First round is acceptance.
APB

Con

It is my opinion that the subject called "Philosophy" is utterly useless. I don't see that it contributes in any way to our understanding of the world, humanity, or the mind.

Take Solipsism, for example. Solipsism is the idea that the only thing that really exists is my own mind, because I can never be sure that anything else is real. I have three problems with this:

1. It's irrelevant. Even if the person I'm interacting with is just a figment of my imagination, I still have to treat them as a real person in order to get by in this world. The knowledge that they're not real contributes nothing to my understanding of the world around me, although it may create a sense of isolation from everybody else.

2. It's untestable. There is no way you can ever prove or disprove it. The fake people still act like people, the fake food still tastes like food, and the fake experiments will produce fake results.

3. It's incomplete/inaccurate. It's all very well for a sane person to be the centre of existence, but what about a person with mental health issues? If you have dissociative identity disorder? Are both personas real or just one? What if you're unable to connect sight, sound and your thought processes together in a coherent way, and wake up one day realising that 3 whole months have passed and you've stored each sense as a different memory? And they contradict each other?

And what if your mind doesn't really exist at all? What if you drifted through those 3 months with no sense of self, so that it feels as though you were dead during that time? In fact, how does Time even tie into this at all? If your mind is the only real thing, how do we know that the world didn't begin last Thursday and your memories are all wrong?

Going back to 1 and 2, there is no way to address any of the questions I raised, and those questions don't affect the "reality" of the situation. They're just a pointless source of angst. In fact, questions like "Do we have a soul?" become less relevant the more we learn about how the brain works.

Sometimes, philosophical arguments arise because people use words and phrases incorrectly, or use them outside of their context. "Free Will vs. Determinism" is a good example. If somebody does something "of their own free will", it means they chose to do it instead of being coerced. That doesn't mean their actions are unpredictable. If I know somebody well enough, I have some idea of what choice they'll make. But my knowledge doesn't stop it being a free choice, because I did nothing to influence them. So if all of history was predicted right from the beginning, how does that interfere with Free Will? It can't, because that's not what "free will" means. It's not a question of Philosophy, just a question of basic English.

Of course, there are some cases where Philosophy DOES use basic English, but it's not suitable for answering the question. Take the Grandfather Paradox. If I go back in time and kill my grandfather before he could become my ancestor, what will happen? Will I cease to exist? Will I create an alternate timeline? Will monsters appear out of thin air and trap us inside a church until the "correct" timeline can be restored? Will some force stop me from killing my grandfather or even from travelling back in time in the first place?

It all comes down to Physics. The universe obeys mathematical laws, and those laws don't always conform to our intuition. No matter how strongly we feel that a given idea is correct, it doesn't matter unless you can back it up mathematics and empirical evidence. Philosophy cannot do that, because it is not Science and therefore cannot answer any questions about time travel. For all we know, time travel may be impossible, in which case it's as pointless a discussion as solipsism.

So, to return to my 3 points. Philosophy's approach to matters is:

1. Irrelevant to real life.

2. Unable to produce evidence.

3. Often inaccurate, incomplete or out-of-date.

Therefore, the subject of Philosophy is useless.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
APB

Con

It's your turn, Fool.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The Fool: My opponent makes many claims, about philosophy, and he is right to say some issues in philosophy can be foolish. Like any such disciplining there is good and bad. But he omitted the surmounting, successful elements. Some are not really a part philosophy. I will emphasis this next round for people who don't get my first argument.


The User

It is of popular opinion as it is always, that philosophy is useless, and many fools agree with this, but as Foolish as I may be, it seems still not enough(this one time) to matter.

1. For starters we all think what we do is practical, in so far as we intentionally practice it.

2. And what makes something practical is that it is practiced.

3. And so similarly, something used is something useful. Therefore insofar as I am using logic which is derived from
Philosophy, as is Science and most of all higher learning disciplines. It follow by necessity that it is quite useful.

c Ergo what was to be demonstrated has been proved.
APB

Con

APB forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
APB

Con

APB forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
medv4380
This could have been interesting, but if APB is truly no longer active it might not go much farther.
Posted by APB 3 years ago
APB
Nope, I have no idea what "First round is acceptance" means. I just followed the prompts.
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
medv4380
Could be and interesting debate. Is it assumed that people know what "First round is acceptance." means?
No votes have been placed for this debate.