The Instigator
ames4
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Myxlptlk
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Philosophy is either a dead knowledge in theory, or a useless one in application.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 844 times Debate No: 18600
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

ames4

Pro

This debate is on the following:
"Philosophy is either a dead knowledge in theory, or a useless one in application."

I will be taking it upon myself to be 'for' the prior statement. This means that I will try to prove with evidence, both inferred or cited, that the statement I support is true. In this case you will be proving the opposite.

The first part of the argument, or round one, will be spent in agreement. The agreement is simply that you will comply to the obvious conditions given above. Also, at this round, I guess it is proper to say whether you actually are for my statement as well. In that case, there wouldn't be much reason to debate and the debate will be ended. That is, unless, you want to debate in an attempt to look at things from an opposing view. This intent will be respected, and the debate will thus continue.

So if you want to debate, respond accordingly. If the debate ultimately continues, then the actual non-introductory section of the debate will begin in Round 2. Cheerios!
Myxlptlk

Con

Challenge accepted. I oppose your views on this debate, so let us hope a mind is changed by the end. Let it begin.
Debate Round No. 1
ames4

Pro

The opponent may very well say that philosophy rules in all the major fields, or is important because philosophy is needed to uncover the depths of undeveloped disciplines. I do not argue against this. However, I do argue against where the praise is placed. Philosophy, is a field that employs the use of logic in order to understand (as nothing yet has been discovered) the foundational roots of the world around us. However, it is not philosophy that further aids those fields which are practiced in today. It is instead logic that aids us.

Philosophy should not be confused with logic. Both of these things are amazingly bound with each other, as a mother is to the child in the womb, but they are separate entities. Philosophy is the practice of discovering the world and new ideas through thought; the field aims to help us understand the concepts that underlie life. However, philosophy itself doesn't do the job. It requires the use of logic.

Logic is the engine of philosophy. It is what powers the field and is the main reason we are able to build philosophy to the great subject that it is today. However, philosophy should not be so complimented. As a field, philosophy has a goal to help us understand life in the aspect of life. Although this isn't as special or emphasizing as it sounds. One cannot forget that there are other disciplines which also employ the use of logic to forward themselves. There are the sciences, both social (psychology, anthropology, sociology) and hard (physics, chemistry, biology). There is maths, and all the sub-divisions that compose it (trigonemtry, arithmetic, algebra, calculus). There are endless amounts of fields which employ the use of logic, all aiming to edify us in a specifc category of life. Philosophy is merely a breaking branch from the intellectual tree.

I say breaking branch because philosophy is unable to catch up to the standards of the practices which have followed it. It is a common claim that philsophy mothered the sciences we study today, and is for that reason that philosophy is important. Unfortunately, we don't have the same empathy for the candle after it was overthrown by the lightbulb. But what if the candle were still useful to us today? Yes it is, but that just goes beyond the boundaries of the analogy. Unfortunately, unlike philosophy, modern science developed procedures which help to ensure that the discoveries made from the practice are as accurate as they could be. In other words, modern scientists work hard to ensure that their hypotheses are true. For example, in the argument of God, scientists have often disregarded God's existence because it is not useful to science. To simply accept God without rational explanation is considered to be non-edifying, and thus nothing can be learned from it. Data and evidence is also a major part of the sciences, as data and evidence can be used to refine our existing knowledge, while uncovering future knowledge. As a last place runner, there is also the openness to the sciences being wrong when a new theory is found to be more useful than the previous one; science is dedicated when right, and yet humble when wrong.

Now what do all of these have to do with the deteriorating state of philosophy? Well, the big problem is that philosophy cannot properly test its hypotheses because it is impossible to do so. , biology, chemistry and physiology acted to discover the issue as a truth. With scientific procedures, the product is truth; with philosophy, the product is speculation.How do we test the conclusions of metaphysics? How do we test the conclusions of moral philosophy? Other than rationalization, it appears that we cannot. The closest that philosophy has ever gotten to discovering the truth of free will, has been when the science of psychology

By no means does this mean that philosophy, in its purest form, is a worthless practice, but that it is a useless practice (and though 'useless' is used offensively in an informal setting, I mean it purely by its definition here). It is not that philosophy can't catch up to the same speeds as the other sciences in the intellectual race, but that it cannot even get on its feet. As a practice, philosophy trips on itself almost as frequently as the FIFA 2012 Impact Engine (http://youtu.be...). For example, there is the philosophical task of discussing the true definition of what is being talked about. Let us pretend that we are to discuss human morality in the philosophical method of things. In that case, I suggest that we first have to define what a human being is. We discuss, and then the conclusions of what a human being is are then made. Sadly, the same problem from before presents itself: since there are no tests to ensure the clarity and truthfulness of the produced conclusion, the conclusion cannot escape the plane of speculation. And thus, even before the discussion is begun on the nature of human rationality, there is already a weak foundation on what defines a human in the first place. The problem only grows exponentially when you suggest we ought to define rationality, and then reaches its ultimate downfall when I suggest we should limit ourselves to female rationality.

Overall, it appears that philosophy can only act as an optional bridge towards fields which aim to help us understand the world as we can sense it in the world. As a field itself, philosophy's truths are often half-baked and nearly unsupportable. With such major flaws, it is possible that philosophy is no longer a useful discipline, but instead a quasi-productive past time.
Myxlptlk

Con

Myxlptlk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ames4

Pro

Umm. This debate is to be delayed due to the opposition's time constraints . . .
So like.
Boobs.
Myxlptlk

Con

Myxlptlk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ames4

Pro

ames4 forfeited this round.
Myxlptlk

Con

Myxlptlk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ames4

Pro

ames4 forfeited this round.
Myxlptlk

Con

Myxlptlk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
ames4MyxlptlkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately, even though Pro mostly strawmanned the aims and results of philosophy and his arguments were mainly unsupported, Con never responded. Therefore argument automatically go to Pro with conduct for forfeit.