Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Perpetual conflict

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Awesome-Sauce
Posts: 208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 12:19:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

We're not heading anywhere with this.

Mankind will always be looking for the answer to everything, because we cannot STAND it when we don't know the explanation for something. It's in our nature.

The only time the drive for this answer will stop is when mankind becomes extinct, or when Judgement Day comes, or when the world ends in some other fashion (whatever one may believe)
Cogito ergo sum - Rene Descartes

: At 6/23/2012 1:15:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote: (to Jimtimmy)
:
: You are the equivelent of a fly buzzing around a cow. I can just swat you with my tail without it taking my attention away from grazing the sweet grass that is DDO.

DDOians for a better DDO! (DDOfabDDO)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 12:22:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

The Fool: appeal to ignorance!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 12:23:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool:
The order I gave was more for pedagogy. In a grand argument I would go through all this but I don't have this kind of time, if you get it or agree, Great is you don't well that's that. I am not defending this all on a forum, I may be missing a few small things. These are not to direct logical connection but rather each Premise is a much larger argument on its own.

P1 Foundation or certainty, Via Cogito (Decartes)
C2 experience and observer (Fool modernized Cogito)

P1 Leibniz's law (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
C2 law of demarcation (Via Fool modernization)

P1 the conception of ‘I' comes from recognizing cognition of other. (Via Law of demarcation)
C3 out of solipsism, and into an external world

P1 Irreducible element of mind (philosophy of mind)
P2 core arguments of Critique of pure reason (Kant)
P3 Determinism and criteria of falsifiability (via Karl Popper) (to refute Hume)
P4. Rationalization of language with the stabilized definitions (Via Fool's transcendence of Ideas")

C4 the certainty of scientific progress (and knowledge in general)
The final solution
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 12:25:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

One would have to define what is "an answer" and to what question it is for. Over the thousands of years, we have far more answers for more questions than we used to have. And these answers to various questions have lead to a better life in general for us.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 1:09:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:25:20 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

One would have to define what is "an answer" and to what question it is for. Over the thousands of years, we have far more answers for more questions than we used to have. And these answers to various questions have lead to a better life in general for us.

P4. Rationalization of language with the stabilized definitions (Via Fool's transcendence of Ideas")
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 1:23:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

I'm confused. What answer are you talking about.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:16:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:25:20 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

One would have to define what is "an answer" and to what question it is for. Over the thousands of years, we have far more answers for more questions than we used to have. And these answers to various questions have lead to a better life in general for us.

Philosophy has answered nothing. Only science answers. Philosophy creates problems it can't resolve.

By "an answer" I mean truth in any form,....but philosophers argue over the existence of absolute truth and the existence of logic, so they screw that up too.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 10:04:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interpreting the relevant science requires and even presupposes philosophizing. See: theory-ladenness and underdetermination among other things. your scientism isn't helping you avoid those problems - it's probably exacerbating them in fact -so you're stuck just like the rest of us. Sorry to break it to you.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 10:15:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"

That's an opinion

....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....

That's also an opinion.

AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

That most people are wrong?

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

Philosophy strives toward what's ideal/good/true/etc. Most philosophers throughout history have conceded that actually getting there is impossible (that would be what God is).
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 10:23:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 10:15:12 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"

That's an opinion

....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....

That's also an opinion.

AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

That most people are wrong?

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

Philosophy strives toward what's ideal/good/true/etc. Most philosophers throughout history have conceded that actually getting there is impossible (that would be what God is).

You didn't actually refute anything. You substituted a refutation for "that's an opinion".

Enlighten me. What is the "answer" that philosophy has reached?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 10:50:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 10:23:04 AM, 000ike wrote:

You didn't actually refute anything. You substituted a refutation for "that's an opinion".

Because that's what it is. It's also self-contradictory. You seem to be wading into "nothing is certain" territory, which refutes itself anyway.

Enlighten me. What is the "answer" that philosophy has reached?

Whoa there. Your OP wasn't asking about "the ANSWER," just "an answer."

Kant's Categorical Imperative is one, Hume's Skepticism is another. Both are answers, and the validity of each is contested.

As for THE ANSWER, we'll of course never get there, because human capacity is limited. But that doesn't mean we can't stretch.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:34:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.
1-What is this "answer" that you're speaking of?
In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?
2-Hmm....Could it be the fact that multiple answers in regards to philosophical topics can either highlight the immense complexity of the subject that transcend levels of understanding/reasoning and undermine one's efforts to reach a single answer or conclusion, Ike????????
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:39:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 10:50:18 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 10:23:04 AM, 000ike wrote:

You didn't actually refute anything. You substituted a refutation for "that's an opinion".

Because that's what it is. It's also self-contradictory. You seem to be wading into "nothing is certain" territory, which refutes itself anyway.

Enlighten me. What is the "answer" that philosophy has reached?

Whoa there. Your OP wasn't asking about "the ANSWER," just "an answer."

Kant's Categorical Imperative is one, Hume's Skepticism is another. Both are answers, and the validity of each is contested.

As for THE ANSWER, we'll of course never get there, because human capacity is limited. But that doesn't mean we can't stretch.

Kant's what?....As respected as it is, I don't care about it. It's hardly an answer to what I should eat for lunch tomorrow, much less an answer to morality. Also, one could write volumes about how wrong it is. Where is the solution? Where is the answer? It is just a man's opinion.

I am asking for an uncontestable truth, so apparent and solid in its foundations that it would take a fool to find fault with it. THAT is "an answer"!

Philosophy does not now, nor will it ever give us such a thing.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:40:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is no answer.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:42:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 11:34:33 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

1-What is this "answer" that you're speaking of?
In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

The Fool: one bold assertion is as good as the next. This is an appeal to ignorace, I we don't know the answer so we will never know??

2-Hmm....Could it be the fact that multiple answers in regards to philosophical topics can either highlight the immense complexity of the subject that transcend levels of understanding/reasoning and undermine one's efforts to reach a single answer or conclusion, Ike????????

The Fool: That a nonsense claim because you couldn;t know if such a think exist, it would be beyond your understanding.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:43:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:16:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 12:25:20 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

One would have to define what is "an answer" and to what question it is for. Over the thousands of years, we have far more answers for more questions than we used to have. And these answers to various questions have lead to a better life in general for us.

Philosophy has answered nothing. Only science answers. Philosophy creates problems it can't resolve.

By "an answer" I mean truth in any form,....but philosophers argue over the existence of absolute truth and the existence of logic, so they screw that up too.

Philosophy has done a good job at proving that we don't know what we think we know. This was Socrates' project and it continued on for thousands of years. Science too is in the business of showing us what we don't know intuitivly.

This is progress. You have to unlearn the invalid before you can learn the valid. Philosophy is also good at bumping up into areas where our cognition can't seem to pass such as the fundemental nature of logic. However, knowing these problems are too difficult for us apes and knowing that absolute truth isn't accessable to us is a useful form of knowledge in itself.

Philosophy shows us that we are capable of asking questions we can't answer or that we can't seem to answer at the present. The project of philosophy may be take more than a few thousand years to complete.

But regardless of all this pessimism, philosophy does answer questions. The answers are sometimes of a slipper and abstruce nature that allows people to disregard them for selfish motives. However, this is a reflection on human nature; not human inquiry.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:43:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 11:42:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:34:33 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

1-What is this "answer" that you're speaking of?
In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

The Fool: one bold assertion is as good as the next. This is an appeal to ignorace, I we don't know the answer so we will never know??


2-Hmm....Could it be the fact that multiple answers in regards to philosophical topics can either highlight the immense complexity of the subject that transcend levels of understanding/reasoning and undermine one's efforts to reach a single answer or conclusion, Ike????????

The Fool: That a nonsense claim because you couldn;t know if such a think exist, it would be beyond your understanding.

Fool, it was a question not a contention.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:45:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 11:40:14 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
There is no answer.

I agree. That's why philosophy is pointless in the grand scheme of things. That's also probably why they teach you about Newton, Avogadro, Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr in school, but they don't teach you about Kant, Plato, or Socrates.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:47:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 11:45:33 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:40:14 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
There is no answer.

I agree. That's why philosophy is pointless in the grand scheme of things. That's also probably why they teach you about Newton, Avogadro, Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr in school, but they don't teach you about Kant, Plato, or Socrates.

In HS I was only taught about Newton. In college I've been taught the latter 3 and once again Newton in intro physics.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:51:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 11:45:33 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:40:14 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
There is no answer.

I agree. That's why philosophy is pointless in the grand scheme of things. That's also probably why they teach you about Newton, Avogadro, Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr in school, but they don't teach you about Kant, Plato, or Socrates.

Ike, can I ask you this question: Can philosophy be constructive in highlighting implications rather than absolute truths?

Do such truths exist, in your view?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:51:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 11:45:33 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:40:14 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
There is no answer.

I agree. That's why philosophy is pointless in the grand scheme of things. That's also probably why they teach you about Newton, Avogadro, Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr in school, but they don't teach you about Kant, Plato, or Socrates.

I think you're going WAY too far to say philosophy is pointless. I'd say philosophy is almost the opposite. It is the point. It is the ultimate. That's what everything is all about. I think you may have a misconceived idea of the purpose of philosophy. It isn't about getting an objective truth, it's about a perceived better understanding of the world. It's a way to be better connected. To develop worldviews. Not to definitively answer anything.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:52:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 11:51:11 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:45:33 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:40:14 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
There is no answer.

I agree. That's why philosophy is pointless in the grand scheme of things. That's also probably why they teach you about Newton, Avogadro, Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr in school, but they don't teach you about Kant, Plato, or Socrates.

Ike, can I ask you this question: Can philosophy be constructive in highlighting implications rather than absolute truths?

Do such truths exist, in your view?

And thirdly, can an understanding of this world--of human nature--of the abstract, and so forth be achieved through other means than a discovery of the "truth"?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:54:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

You could also mention that for hundreds or thousands of years few people had much interest in knowledge and intellectualism. A long time ago, life was all about surviving, pleasure and conquest. Only a few selection of people were really interested in how the world work. In recent times, recent as in the past few hundred years, it is much different. The value on science, philosophy and logically founded beliefs is more so than it has ever been. Technology itself is a large factor. The Internet gives us easy access to an abundant source of information. Furthermore, advancement in these areas are always increasing. More and more we are establishing facts and less things are considered debatable. I think it is safe to say that we have come very far in intellectual pursuits. Now I do not know to what extent that will evolve to, but we can still realize the fact that we are approaching intellectual agreement an many factors and also developing ways to gain firm knowledge. Further, humans are developing more rational minds and while I think we are still far from it, one day we will be a much more open minded people than now.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:55:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 11:51:15 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:45:33 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:40:14 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
There is no answer.

I agree. That's why philosophy is pointless in the grand scheme of things. That's also probably why they teach you about Newton, Avogadro, Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr in school, but they don't teach you about Kant, Plato, or Socrates.

I think you're going WAY too far to say philosophy is pointless. I'd say philosophy is almost the opposite. It is the point. It is the ultimate. That's what everything is all about. I think you may have a misconceived idea of the purpose of philosophy. It isn't about getting an objective truth, it's about a perceived better understanding of the world. It's a way to be better connected. To develop worldviews. Not to definitively answer anything.

What? If you don't definitively answer anything, the result is a pool of subjectivity. Everyone can disagree and argue all they like, drawing whatever justification they like, and no one will be "right". Argument loses meaning. Inquiry loses meaning. What exactly are you "understanding" about the world if there is no objective truth to it?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:56:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

An answer for what? There are people who disagree with evolution, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 11:57:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 11:55:45 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:51:15 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:45:33 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:40:14 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
There is no answer.

I agree. That's why philosophy is pointless in the grand scheme of things. That's also probably why they teach you about Newton, Avogadro, Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr in school, but they don't teach you about Kant, Plato, or Socrates.

I think you're going WAY too far to say philosophy is pointless. I'd say philosophy is almost the opposite. It is the point. It is the ultimate. That's what everything is all about. I think you may have a misconceived idea of the purpose of philosophy. It isn't about getting an objective truth, it's about a perceived better understanding of the world. It's a way to be better connected. To develop worldviews. Not to definitively answer anything.

What? If you don't definitively answer anything, the result is a pool of subjectivity. Everyone can disagree and argue all they like, drawing whatever justification they like, and no one will be "right". Argument loses meaning. Inquiry loses meaning. What exactly are you "understanding" about the world if there is no objective truth to it?

It can safe to be said that such a discourse might allow a better understanding of the world and ourselves and a sole discovery of truths and fundamentals, Ike.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 12:08:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 11:47:24 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:45:33 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:40:14 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
There is no answer.

I agree. That's why philosophy is pointless in the grand scheme of things. That's also probably why they teach you about Newton, Avogadro, Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr in school, but they don't teach you about Kant, Plato, or Socrates.

In HS I was only taught about Newton. In college I've been taught the latter 3 and once again Newton in intro physics.

In what class? Was the class a graduation requirement?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 12:08:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:04:15 AM, 000ike wrote:
The sheer fact that for thousands of years we still don't have "an answer"....AND the sheer fact that for thousands of years of argument there is no sign that we are approaching "the answer"....AND the sheer fact that after thousands of years we all still disagree, should tell us something.

In the end, we will all do as we wish. The events will unfold in whatever way the preceding conditions determine. Ideas will be dropped and found, and dropped again and found again. Where are we headed with this? Where?

Interesting, I've been thinking about this a lot lately. But you have to compare what most people in the West agree on/know now to 1 or 2 thousand years ago. Newton's laws, evolution, relativity, the evil of slavery, basic women's rights, certain kinds of individual freedom, our true place in the universe, that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, amazing medicinal advances that turn once regular fatalities (child birth) into normal, virtually harmless procedures....

I know this isn't directly related to having an "answer" or discovering the meaning of life that we can all agree on. But my point is that the more we know about humanity and the universe in terms of science, the better off we will be to find the elusive "answer" you're talking about. Remember, in the grand scheme of things, we're still so young. We're only beginning to discover the kind of things that would allow us to find the answer. Maybe we just don't have enough information yet.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 12:09:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 12:08:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:47:24 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:45:33 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 11:40:14 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
There is no answer.

I agree. That's why philosophy is pointless in the grand scheme of things. That's also probably why they teach you about Newton, Avogadro, Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr in school, but they don't teach you about Kant, Plato, or Socrates.

In HS I was only taught about Newton. In college I've been taught the latter 3 and once again Newton in intro physics.

In what class? Was the class a graduation requirement?

I was taught about Newton in HS physics, yeah it was required science but it was really just his 3 laws.