Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Grand Kleptin Philosophy Challenge.

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:58:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hello, I'm probably one of the oldest members around. I like to think I've seen just about every incarnation of the most popular issues around. I also pride myself on having little to no "classic" training in philosophy. I'd like to put myself to a little challenge.

I'm sure you all feel a difference between arguing here and in the real world. Non-debaters are more fragile. They take things personally. And they don't really organize their thoughts too well.

The challenge is this: I am going to compile ideal arguments for use in the practical world. When you face someone in a social situation, you will not be given 8000 characters and 72 hours. You will be given 10 seconds or so of breath.

I would like you all to compile a list of the top 10 or 20 issues of all time. The ones that are beaten and discussed to death. The general ones we're all sick of seeing.

I'm going to dumb them down, express my current position on them, and why it is most likely the right alternative to any other explanation. This thread will serve as a brainstorming and indexing thread for the creation of these "Ultimate Philosophical Issues"

Now, what philosophical issues do you want dumbed-down and bastardized?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 8:35:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God, freedom and immortality.

Taking Kant's list.
"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)
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 8:43:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 7:58:01 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Hello, I'm probably one of the oldest members around. I like to think I've seen just about every incarnation of the most popular issues around. I also pride myself on having little to no "classic" training in philosophy. I'd like to put myself to a little challenge.

I'm sure you all feel a difference between arguing here and in the real world. Non-debaters are more fragile. They take things personally. And they don't really organize their thoughts too well.

The challenge is this: I am going to compile ideal arguments for use in the practical world. When you face someone in a social situation, you will not be given 8000 characters and 72 hours. You will be given 10 seconds or so of breath.

I would like you all to compile a list of the top 10 or 20 issues of all time. The ones that are beaten and discussed to death. The general ones we're all sick of seeing.

I'm going to dumb them down, express my current position on them, and why it is most likely the right alternative to any other explanation. This thread will serve as a brainstorming and indexing thread for the creation of these "Ultimate Philosophical Issues"

Now, what philosophical issues do you want dumbed-down and bastardized?

I'll take the bait.

Why do you pride yourself on having no education in the field? Do you think you would become dumber by listening to an expert in the field go over some of the most important ideas expressed by the greats? It strikes me as profoundly arrogant if you're being honest. Where exactly do you think you stand in this field? Perhaps the Ph.Ds should be listening to you?

I'll be graduating with a B.A. in philosophy in spring and I know there's so much I don't know about a field that's truly rich and deep. It's funny how someone with no education is quite certain, if I didn't know any better I'd say you're a case of illusory superiority or dunning-krueger.

It would be a waste of time discussing with you if you already know all the answers and the experts in the field should all be listening to your expertise. Count me out of this discussion.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 8:53:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:43:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/18/2013 7:58:01 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Hello, I'm probably one of the oldest members around. I like to think I've seen just about every incarnation of the most popular issues around. I also pride myself on having little to no "classic" training in philosophy. I'd like to put myself to a little challenge.

I'm sure you all feel a difference between arguing here and in the real world. Non-debaters are more fragile. They take things personally. And they don't really organize their thoughts too well.

The challenge is this: I am going to compile ideal arguments for use in the practical world. When you face someone in a social situation, you will not be given 8000 characters and 72 hours. You will be given 10 seconds or so of breath.

I would like you all to compile a list of the top 10 or 20 issues of all time. The ones that are beaten and discussed to death. The general ones we're all sick of seeing.

I'm going to dumb them down, express my current position on them, and why it is most likely the right alternative to any other explanation. This thread will serve as a brainstorming and indexing thread for the creation of these "Ultimate Philosophical Issues"

Now, what philosophical issues do you want dumbed-down and bastardized?

I'll take the bait.

Why do you pride yourself on having no education in the field? Do you think you would become dumber by listening to an expert in the field go over some of the most important ideas expressed by the greats? It strikes me as profoundly arrogant if you're being honest. Where exactly do you think you stand in this field? Perhaps the Ph.Ds should be listening to you?

I'll be graduating with a B.A. in philosophy in spring and I know there's so much I don't know about a field that's truly rich and deep. It's funny how someone with no education is quite certain, if I didn't know any better I'd say you're a case of illusory superiority or dunning-krueger.

It would be a waste of time discussing with you if you already know all the answers and the experts in the field should all be listening to your expertise. Count me out of this discussion.

I'm bad at math, too =D
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 9:08:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:53:42 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:43:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'll take the bait.

Why do you pride yourself on having no education in the field? Do you think you would become dumber by listening to an expert in the field go over some of the most important ideas expressed by the greats? It strikes me as profoundly arrogant if you're being honest. Where exactly do you think you stand in this field? Perhaps the Ph.Ds should be listening to you?

I'll be graduating with a B.A. in philosophy in spring and I know there's so much I don't know about a field that's truly rich and deep. It's funny how someone with no education is quite certain, if I didn't know any better I'd say you're a case of illusory superiority or dunning-krueger.

It would be a waste of time discussing with you if you already know all the answers and the experts in the field should all be listening to your expertise. Count me out of this discussion.

I'm bad at math, too =D

Take your noses out your butt and you realize how math is really just the easy bit. This goes more for OMGBieber.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 9:15:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 9:08:08 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:53:42 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:43:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'll take the bait.

Why do you pride yourself on having no education in the field? Do you think you would become dumber by listening to an expert in the field go over some of the most important ideas expressed by the greats? It strikes me as profoundly arrogant if you're being honest. Where exactly do you think you stand in this field? Perhaps the Ph.Ds should be listening to you?

I'll be graduating with a B.A. in philosophy in spring and I know there's so much I don't know about a field that's truly rich and deep. It's funny how someone with no education is quite certain, if I didn't know any better I'd say you're a case of illusory superiority or dunning-krueger.

It would be a waste of time discussing with you if you already know all the answers and the experts in the field should all be listening to your expertise. Count me out of this discussion.

I'm bad at math, too =D

Take your noses out your butt and you realize how math is really just the easy bit. This goes more for OMGBieber.

I never approached philosophy from mathematics...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 9:24:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 9:15:50 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/18/2013 9:08:08 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:53:42 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:43:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I'll take the bait.

Why do you pride yourself on having no education in the field? Do you think you would become dumber by listening to an expert in the field go over some of the most important ideas expressed by the greats? It strikes me as profoundly arrogant if you're being honest. Where exactly do you think you stand in this field? Perhaps the Ph.Ds should be listening to you?

I'll be graduating with a B.A. in philosophy in spring and I know there's so much I don't know about a field that's truly rich and deep. It's funny how someone with no education is quite certain, if I didn't know any better I'd say you're a case of illusory superiority or dunning-krueger.

It would be a waste of time discussing with you if you already know all the answers and the experts in the field should all be listening to your expertise. Count me out of this discussion.

I'm bad at math, too =D

Take your noses out your butt and you realize how math is really just the easy bit. This goes more for OMGBieber.

I never approached philosophy from mathematics...

Bertrand Russell just rolled over in his grave. Fortunately, however, he remains in the grave.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 11:44:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 7:58:01 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Kleptin:: Hello, I'm probably one of the oldest members around.

The Fool: Congratulations. But I hope to never be that guy.

Kleptin: I like to think I've seen just about every incarnation of the most popular issues around.

The Fool: Around, about where?

Kleptin: I also pride myself on having little to no "classic" training in philosophy. I'd like to put myself to a little challenge.

The Fool: Nor did Socrates. And just like you he prided himself in knowing that he knew very little. But Riddle me this Mr.philosopher, how do you know what you don't know, if you don't know what that is?

Kleptin:: I'm sure you all feel a difference between arguing here and in the real world.

The Fool: Ah, you are another one of those, "In another World guys" I never thought that made any sense. But Riddle me this too. Mr.philosopher. how do you know when you are in another world to claim other worlds? Let alone the real one.

For If I have a hundred bucks. I have a hundred bucks. If I add existence or Realness to it my conception of it. I can't help but recognize the very same Conception and the very same 100 Bucks. Can you tell me what changes when you predicate it will realness? Do all the others become fake and/of non-existing? Or does the thing you are referring to become more real when you call it that?? ... Hmm, I am quite foolish to such subtlety.

Kleptin:: The challenge is this: I am going to compile ideal arguments for use in the practical world. When you face someone in a social situation, you will not be given 8000 characters and 72 hours. You will be given 10 seconds or so of breath.

The Fool: Who is getting paid for what now?

Kleptin:: I would like you all to compile a list of the top 10 or 20 issues of all time. The ones that are beaten and discussed to death. The general ones we're all sick of seeing.

The Fool: No No, no, I was talking Reality and/or a Real hundred bucks Not I really need a hundred bucks, those are different conceptions, one is fake, and the other non-existing. In particular the Real fake one, and the True non-existing one.
<(8D)

Kleptin:: I'm going to dumb them down, express my current position on them, and why it is most likely the right alternative to any other explanation.

The Fool: I am proud that you are proud, that makes it doubly proud. So you must feel really proud now.

Kleptin: This thread will serve as a brainstorming and indexing thread for the creation of these "Ultimate Philosophical Issues"

The Fool: I must say Mr. Philosopher I should be your Pupile. Can you tell us what the Properties of Ultimateness are? I been wanted to learn that for awhile. That sound like perfect and Read ultimate, philosophical issue. I am absolutly sure it is way over my head and I just don"t know it.

Kleptin:: Now, what philosophical issues do you want dumbed-down and bastardized?

The Fool: To be honest I could never distinguish Philosophy from any other kind of issues. For they all boil down to their Philosophic Roots.

For if something is grows out of another at which point does it become another thing all together. That is, when does it seize to be what it consist in? Hmm". I am all exited to learn this knowledge from you. You have been fooling us, this whole time. Ah. I am blushing. I can"t wait to learn.
"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
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 1:54:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. How do you overcome Humean skepticism?

2. How do you know that you're not a Boltzman brain?

3. Why do cosmological constants take on the particular values that they do?

4. What is the source of subjective consciousness?

5. How do we distinguish between causal and correlative relationships?

6. What is the source of mathematical truth?

7. Does free will exist?

8. Do objective moral principles exist?

9. Does God exist?

10. What does it mean for something to be possible but not actual?

11. What does it mean for two people to be the same person (for example, I am the same person today as I was yesterday)?

12. In what sense do mathematical objects exist?

13. How can inductive reasoning be justified?

14. What are the basic ontological building blocks to which everything else reduces?

15. What are the requirements for a belief to count as knowledge?

16. What is the solution to the regress problem in epistemology?

17. Should you take one or both boxes on Newcomb's problem?

18. You have a box that contains balls that can be either red or white. You take out one ball and it is red. What is the probability that the second ball will be red?

That's all I got for now. The list isn't at all optimized. Some of the questions I think are serious problems, others I think have solutions. I've tried to think of popular questions, but avoid inanities like "what is the meaning of life."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:27:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:43:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Why do you pride yourself on having no education in the field? Do you think you would become dumber by listening to an expert in the field go over some of the most important ideas expressed by the greats? It strikes me as profoundly arrogant if you're being honest. Where exactly do you think you stand in this field? Perhaps the Ph.Ds should be listening to you?

I'll be graduating with a B.A. in philosophy in spring and I know there's so much I don't know about a field that's truly rich and deep. It's funny how someone with no education is quite certain, if I didn't know any better I'd say you're a case of illusory superiority or dunning-krueger.

It would be a waste of time discussing with you if you already know all the answers and the experts in the field should all be listening to your expertise. Count me out of this discussion.

This criticism would be entirely valid in almost any field other than philosophy:http://lesswrong.com...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:40:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If we are talking about "The ones that are beaten and discussed to death", especially around here, then I have a few to add along with my approach to resolution.

Existence of God - the eistence of matter is also a speculation, not a fact. The world is theologically ambiguous; belief is a choice we make, that's why it's called "faith", get over it.

Evolution/Creationism - evolution happened, the Bible is not a science text book, so don"t worry, some think "the survivors survived" is an explanation, it isn"t, and it certainly does not explain away God or the mystery of life.

Abortion - it"s been the law for 40 years, if you don"t approve don"t have one, if the problem of unwanted children is a real problem for you, then adopt one and love it.

Objective vs Subjective Reality - The human experience is what is real, iboth aspects of it, if you don't agree, that is what is unreal. I'd suggest you get real, lof off, and go out and experience reality.

Objective Morality - see previous, and get real.

Anarchy and Libertarianism - see previous, and get real.

Consciousness - if you don't think consciousness exists, then you are thinking, and that means you are wrong.

The Jews - your conspiracy theory is insane; take your meds.

Homosexuality - it"s not a choice, if you had to choose to be heterosexual because of what you think the Bible says about it, then you are gay.

Obama - he got elected, accept it, he"s your President, if you don"t like it, you can vote your opinion again in four years.

Protestant/Catholic - you"re both wrong, one side worships a book, the other side worships a church, you are both guilty of idolatry, shut up and worship the God of your understanding.

Hopefully I have offended everyone, if I've missed anybody, please advise and I'll see what I can do :)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:45:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Typo correction:

Objective vs Subjective Reality - The human experience is what is real, iboth aspects of it, if you don't agree, that is what is unreal. I'd suggest you get real, log off, and go out and experience reality.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 9:53:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 3:27:03 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:43:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Why do you pride yourself on having no education in the field? Do you think you would become dumber by listening to an expert in the field go over some of the most important ideas expressed by the greats? It strikes me as profoundly arrogant if you're being honest. Where exactly do you think you stand in this field? Perhaps the Ph.Ds should be listening to you?

I'll be graduating with a B.A. in philosophy in spring and I know there's so much I don't know about a field that's truly rich and deep. It's funny how someone with no education is quite certain, if I didn't know any better I'd say you're a case of illusory superiority or dunning-krueger.

It would be a waste of time discussing with you if you already know all the answers and the experts in the field should all be listening to your expertise. Count me out of this discussion.

This criticism would be entirely valid in almost any field other than philosophy:http://lesswrong.com...

Nah, lol, I'll stand by the discipline. I skimmed over the criticisms from there and if you'd like to bring up one I'll offer my thoughts on it.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 10:02:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 9:53:12 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/22/2013 3:27:03 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/18/2013 8:43:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Why do you pride yourself on having no education in the field? Do you think you would become dumber by listening to an expert in the field go over some of the most important ideas expressed by the greats? It strikes me as profoundly arrogant if you're being honest. Where exactly do you think you stand in this field? Perhaps the Ph.Ds should be listening to you?

I'll be graduating with a B.A. in philosophy in spring and I know there's so much I don't know about a field that's truly rich and deep. It's funny how someone with no education is quite certain, if I didn't know any better I'd say you're a case of illusory superiority or dunning-krueger.

It would be a waste of time discussing with you if you already know all the answers and the experts in the field should all be listening to your expertise. Count me out of this discussion.

This criticism would be entirely valid in almost any field other than philosophy:http://lesswrong.com...

Nah, lol, I'll stand by the discipline. I skimmed over the criticisms from there and if you'd like to bring up one I'll offer my thoughts on it.

At least the way I see it, you can drag philosophy in the mud, but not without dragging science, math, political theory, etc. down with it.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 10:50:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 9:53:12 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Nah, lol, I'll stand by the discipline. I skimmed over the criticisms from there and if you'd like to bring up one I'll offer my thoughts on it.

Okay, here's a few:

1. Much of philosophy, and I can attest to this because a substantial part of my international politics module at uni involved the application of poststructuralist philosophy to IP, doesn't even attempt to be clear, rigorous or deconstructive. It's a mess of undefined jargon that doesn't involve much substance, ignores finds from other fields, attempts to explain otherwise simple concepts in the most roundabout, convoluted way possible and generally makes no progress in any identifiable way.

2. Far too much time in philosophy is used trying to understand the beliefs of long dead people, rather than actually making progress in the field. A textbook on general relativity or economics will divorce theories and discoveries from their proponents, but philosophy textbooks, and even professional philosophy papers spend half their time explaining what the author thinks Hume or Kant or Aristotle meant on such and such an issue.

3. Philosophers spend too much time probing their intuitions about thought experiments and not enough time learning about cognitive science which is uncovering the processes which give rise to those intuitions. Human intuition is one of the most demonstrably flawed methods of trying to uncover the world, yet it's the primary method by which philosophers operate.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 10:55:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Explain why logic should be trusted in under 2000 characters.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 11:06:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the real world, people discuss political arguments more often than philosophical (often distinguishing the two, which can be a bit problematic, but yeah). I'd say the abortion debate is pretty philosophical. I'm pro-choice for sure from a legal standpoint, but from a philosophical standpoint, the concept of "personhood" is very tricky.

I'd say free will should be included in your list. Epistemology: is knowledge derivative of rationality or the senses of each person's unique subjective experiences? From there the mind/body problem which I would imagine as a science-minded person would really interest you.
President of DDO
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 2:42:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Kinesis and Bieber are clearly not talking about the same thing when they say "philosophy." The majority of Kinesis' arguments are directed against philosophy as an academic discipline (full disclosure: I strongly agree with many of Luke Muehlhauser's criticisms of contemporary philosophy). Bieber on the other hand is referring to philosophy as a body of knowledge or field of study. I think that Kinesis would have to concede that many of the ideas that fall under the heading of "philosophy" are very important to the scientific rationalism of people like Muehlhauser, and I think that Bieber would have to concede that much of what contemporary philosophers study is really not all that useful.

I think that a lot of the criticisms from more conventional philosophers of Muehlhauser's (really Yudkowsky's) approach to philosophy are based on the assumption that it throws out more than it does. A lot of the stuff that they've written would basically be considered philosophy from the mainstream perspective. I think that the problem is that they don't want their views associated with the term "philosophy" because they think so much of it is crap, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that.

I definitely agree that philosophers spend way too much time analyzing old texts that are almost entirely wrong. Newton was the most brilliant scientist of his day, but ~300 years later basically everything he thought is known to be wrong and his mathematics, incomprehensible to most scholars of his day, is now officially considered "elementary." It would be very curious if Plato happened to have many ideas about philosophy that are still useful when his ideas about every other subject are not. Certainly it would not speak well of "philosophy."

If you think conventional philosophy is basically headed in the right direction, you should definitely read Muehlhauser's critiques. Views like this are becoming increasingly mainstream.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 2:53:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 7:40:55 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

Existence of God -

This question stays in essentially as a matter of tradition. I included it with reservation. It should be considered basically resolved.


Evolution/Creationism -

This question can be entirely reduced to hard science. There's no reason to include it under the heading of philosophy. It's also completely resolved and no longer and open question.


Abortion -

Barely philosophy. Metaethics is really the only thing that matter. Once you have abstract ethical principles, figuring out how to apply them is purely empirical.


Objective vs Subjective Reality -


Potentially a worthwhile question. You're extremely vague about what this is. I would say that the question of how to properly bridge this gap is essentially unresolved.

Objective Morality


Technically a philosophical question, but it's easily resolvable. I also included this essentially as a matter of tradition and as an exercise.

Anarchy and Libertarianism

Barely philosophy for the same reasons mentioned under abortion.


Consciousness


There's no serious debate over this.

The Jews


Not philosophy at all and there's no serious debate over this.

Homosexuality -

Not philosophy at all and there's no serious debate over this.


Obama -

Barely philosophy for the same reason mentioned under abortion.


Protestant/Catholic

Barely philosophy and there's no serious debate over this.

Ask better questions. The only questions here that were useful were uninteresting ones that you should just learn the answers to.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 2:54:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 2:42:13 PM, Grape wrote:
Kinesis and Bieber are clearly not talking about the same thing when they say "philosophy." The majority of Kinesis' arguments are directed against philosophy as an academic discipline (full disclosure: I strongly agree with many of Luke Muehlhauser's criticisms of contemporary philosophy). Bieber on the other hand is referring to philosophy as a body of knowledge or field of study. I think that Kinesis would have to concede that many of the ideas that fall under the heading of "philosophy" are very important to the scientific rationalism of people like Muehlhauser, and I think that Bieber would have to concede that much of what contemporary philosophers study is really not all that useful.

I think that a lot of the criticisms from more conventional philosophers of Muehlhauser's (really Yudkowsky's) approach to philosophy are based on the assumption that it throws out more than it does. A lot of the stuff that they've written would basically be considered philosophy from the mainstream perspective. I think that the problem is that they don't want their views associated with the term "philosophy" because they think so much of it is crap, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that.

I definitely agree that philosophers spend way too much time analyzing old texts that are almost entirely wrong. Newton was the most brilliant scientist of his day, but ~300 years later basically everything he thought is known to be wrong and his mathematics, incomprehensible to most scholars of his day, is now officially considered "elementary." It would be very curious if Plato happened to have many ideas about philosophy that are still useful when his ideas about every other subject are not. Certainly it would not speak well of "philosophy."

If you think conventional philosophy is basically headed in the right direction, you should definitely read Muehlhauser's critiques. Views like this are becoming increasingly mainstream.

I wouldn't discredit Newton so easily. Engineering majors rely pretty exclusively on Newtonian physics and don't dwell too much into relativity or quantum physics.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:03:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 2:54:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I wouldn't discredit Newton so easily. Engineering majors rely pretty exclusively on Newtonian physics and don't dwell too much into relativity or quantum physics.

You're misunderstanding what I meant by that. There's a difference between Newtonian physics being a useful model of the world and Newton physics being an accurate description of the world. Newton and I would agree on the former statement, but disagree on the latter. Newton thought that his physics described the actual laws of physics, while we know now that they are only a useful approximation what really occurs. As a description of the underlying reality, Newtonian mechanics is entirely wrong.

Aristotle thought that water flowed downhill because its telos was to go downward. You can accurately predict the behavior of water in a lot of situations by assuming that it follows that rule, but it's not even close to an accurate descriptions of how or why water does what it does.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:09:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 3:03:49 PM, Grape wrote:
At 1/22/2013 2:54:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I wouldn't discredit Newton so easily. Engineering majors rely pretty exclusively on Newtonian physics and don't dwell too much into relativity or quantum physics.

You're misunderstanding what I meant by that. There's a difference between Newtonian physics being a useful model of the world and Newton physics being an accurate description of the world. Newton and I would agree on the former statement, but disagree on the latter. Newton thought that his physics described the actual laws of physics, while we know now that they are only a useful approximation what really occurs. As a description of the underlying reality, Newtonian mechanics is entirely wrong.

Aristotle thought that water flowed downhill because its telos was to go downward. You can accurately predict the behavior of water in a lot of situations by assuming that it follows that rule, but it's not even close to an accurate descriptions of how or why water does what it does.

Do you really think anything can "accurately" describe reality given that we are limited via our own sensory and perception, there's no reason to believe that our sensory and perception can accurately describe reality. However, it can model "reality" to a degree.

Although, I also take the idealism mentality vs. the realism mentality (as described here http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:10:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 2:42:13 PM, Grape wrote:
Kinesis and Bieber are clearly not talking about the same thing when they say "philosophy." The majority of Kinesis' arguments are directed against philosophy as an academic discipline (full disclosure: I strongly agree with many of Luke Muehlhauser's criticisms of contemporary philosophy). Bieber on the other hand is referring to philosophy as a body of knowledge or field of study. I think that Kinesis would have to concede that many of the ideas that fall under the heading of "philosophy" are very important to the scientific rationalism of people like Muehlhauser, and I think that Bieber would have to concede that much of what contemporary philosophers study is really not all that useful.

I pretty much agree with your analysis. I think that many of the topics that fall under the heading of philosophy (although that's an arbitrary categorisation) are of fundamental importance. I also think that philosophy as an academic profession is deeply flawed and it frustrates me that such topic aren't getting the analysis they deserve.

To press the point on intuition, if you're going to try to use intuition to resolve questions about metaethics cognitive science should be a prerequisite, just as calculus should be a prerequisite for quantum mechanics. If you don't know how your intuitions work, then you can't know when they're telling you something useful or not.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:16:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 1:54:11 AM, Grape wrote:
18. You have a box that contains balls that can be either red or white. You take out one ball and it is red. What is the probability that the second ball will be red?

Wha...without know how many balls of each kind there are? Is this about the problem of induction?
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:21:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 12:53:24 AM, Maikuru wrote:
My joke took a weird turn.

It's okay, I lol'd. Though I did take Logic and that had a fair bit of math involved.
yang.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:32:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 2:42:13 PM, Grape wrote:
Kinesis and Bieber are clearly not talking about the same thing when they say "philosophy."

BTW, the reason I went the route of criticising the academic discipline was that bieber explicitly talked about philosophical 'experts' in his response to Kleptin, and how he should be listening to people with PhDs in philosophy. In fact, even worse, he talked about listening to people with PhDs in philosophy talking about the ideas of 'the greats', by which I can only assume he means foundational figures in philosophical history like Hume, Kant etc. etc.