The Instigator
PanLeo716366
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
18Karl
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Philosophy is not wisdom, but rather tedious long opinions of a man about nothing exciting

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
18Karl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 440 times Debate No: 63691
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

PanLeo716366

Pro

For now I like to say that I am against that philosophy is wisdom, but it is rather a tedious long opinion on the literal nothing, nihilism, life, universe, all this are nothing to talk about, yet they talk about it and this should thus not be wisdom, but unsupported, untestable science. I am looking forward to my opponent's response.
18Karl

Con

Definitions:

1. Philosophy shall be defined as the study of reality, reasoning, society, morality, mind, knowledge and language.
2. Wisdom shall have the usual Aristotelian connotation; that is, wisdom is the knowledge of causes and effect
3. Opinions shall be defined as the thoughts of someone

BoP lies upon the opposition

Arguments:

Prop. 1
All studies derive from opinions

Demonstration: Let us assert the normative scientific method first; the truth is derived in a threefold process that concludes with an inferred conclusion deriving from the yielded data. The first step in the process is called the "hypothesis" This is an assertion of one quality, of one observation, from the world. Then let us assume that "philosophy" is the study of an opinion. The philosophy the opposition talks about is that of metaphysics; the opposition affirms that nihlism and the like is a "long tedious study of untestable science" However, the basis of all scientific structures derive from the need to affirm or deny a hypothesis. This is an epistemological premise that has created the modern scientific community.

Prop. 2 Metaphysics is not the study of opinion

Demonstration: Metaphysics is an a priori discipline. This is analytically true, for if metaphysics were a posteriori, then it would be necessary for metaphysics to be objective. However, metaphysics is the study into the perception of reality; this idealistic presumption is supported by the fact that the mind perceives a material reality, but inherently this material reality is a creation of the mind. Henceforth, this a priori study called metaphysics is not the study of the opinions of one per se, for opinions is the thoughts of one, but the study of metaphysics is the study of perception.

On Philosophy being Untestable

Something being untestable is not a measure of wisdom, but of objectivity. If philosophy was not wisdom, then it would affirm that a rational basis does not exist, and would be based on faith. Since analytically, wisdom is the knowledge of causes, then philosophy is wise as it studies the causes of our wisdom, of our knowledge etc.


Debate Round No. 1
PanLeo716366

Pro

It is an interesting argument, but it forgets the fact that philosophy has never benefited of anything. Philosophy are never the reality but the opinion of a boring man, my proofs are Alan Watts was nothing but a man writing a diary about his views on Zen Buddhism and he is called for a philosopher, I wouldn't say that. And that is a excellent evidence to support my arguments.

Thank you, I look forward to your response.
18Karl

Con

Objection One: Benefits of Philosophy

Philosophy is the groundworks of all science(s), and the ultimate aim of humanity is not to discard philosophy, but eventually, to make philosophy another science. The opp. says that philosophy has never been adaventageous to any art. Philosophy however, is the groundwork to all scientific studies; it was philosophy that led to optics, and eyeglasses. It was the natural philosopher Isaac Newton who discovered that white was a combination of light. It was Aristotle who created logical reasoning, and henceforth, he outrightly created modern mathmatical logic. Philosophy's contribution to the world has been tremendous; the computers you are using right now make usage of propositional calculus to determine of what "it woud do" after you press a button.

"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.

Aristotle, Metaphysics Bk. I


Objection Two: Fallacies

The opposition has simply strawman'ed philosophical works with this "Alan Watts" character. Boredom is a subjective measure, and cannot be said to be objectively boring until reason has been employed with it.

RESOLUTION REMAINS NEGATED
Debate Round No. 2
PanLeo716366

Pro

I forfeit.
18Karl

Con

He forfeits!
Debate Round No. 3
PanLeo716366

Pro

PanLeo716366 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
PanLeo716366

Pro

PanLeo716366 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Long winded comes to mind.Ever talking but never coming to a conclusion.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
PanLeo71636618KarlTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
PanLeo71636618KarlTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
PanLeo71636618KarlTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture