Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Philosophy is useless.

APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 3:10:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As in it has no use?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 3:22:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

Philosophy can inform your worldview, it does a good job of awakening curiosity, and can be constitutive of a deeper respect for the world at large. Philosophy need not do any of this, in fact, it can extend the reaches of despair, empower oppressive ideologies, and confuse justice.

That said, it should be plain to see that the notion of an absolute utility with respect to philosophy is misconceived.

However, I do see your point. I consider the detailed study of philosophy a complete waste of time. Indeed the ideas of popular philosophies have shaped the world, but their historical significance is about all that's worth studying at this point. You should approach the world philosophically, don't spend your whole life reading about how someone else approached their own life philosophically.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 6:50:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

The irony of course is that this itself is a philosophical point of view. Oh well.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 7:54:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

I'd say it's primarily useful in getting rid of Religion, and clearing things up for how to discuss Ethics...

also, here's some responses from zhuangzi:
Hui Tzu said to Zhuangzi, "I have a big tree, the kind they call a "stinktree." The trunk is so distorted, so full of knots, no one can get a straight plank out of it. The branches are so crooked you cannot cut them up in any way that makes sense."
"There it stands beside the road. No carpenter will even look at it. Such is your teaching - big and useless."
Zhuangzi said, "Haven't you seen a weasel? It bends down then rises up. It springs east and west, not worrying about heights or depths -- and lands in a snare or dies in a net. Now the yak is so big he looks like clouds hanging from Heaven. He sure can be big, but he can't catch mice. You have a big tree an are upset that you can't use it. Why not plant it by a nothing-at-all village in a wide empty waste? You could do nothing, dilly-dallying by its side, or nap, ho-hum, beneath it. It won't fall to any axe's chop and nothing will harm it. Since it isn't any use, what bad can happen to it?" [Kjellberg trans., p. 213]

Also:
The Way is lost in the glorification of right and wrong. The Way is lost in the completion of love. But are there such things as loss and completion? Or are there no such things as loss and completion? Loss and completion -- that's Master Bright Works playing his lute. No loss and no completion -- that's Master Bright Works not playing his lute. Bright Works playing his lute, Shi Kuang holding his baton, Huizi leaning on his desk: the knowledge of these three masters was almost perfect, and they passed their successes on to later years. What they liked they tried to set apart from other things. What they liked they tried to illuminate. But they only succeeded in illuminating the other things and so ended in the gloom of "hard and white" [that is, meaningless logical distinctions]. Their followers ended up tangled in the string of works and were incompete their whole lives. If this counts as completion, then we are all complete, too. If this doesn't count as completion, then none of us have ever been complete. So the torch of slippery doubt is what the sage steers by. Don't insist, but lodge in the usual: this is what I mean by throwing things open to the light. [Kjellberg trans., p. 218-219]

He thinks that there's a danger in philosophic conjecture (Huizi at his desk), but these danger's are a part of All different aspects of life... From Military to Music... (I'd point out religious and Ethical/Political movements) Everything..

Zhuangzi basically claims that his big, "useless", philosophy supposedly helps clear away all the brambles, and single-minded trains of thought, which get people tied up in awkward, uncomfortable, arrangements.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 9:24:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

Philosophy would be the start of any expression wouldn't it?
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 9:28:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
3.
a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4.
the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

How could we have a grasp of how anything worked, even the most simple of things, if we didn't start with whats listed above?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 10:02:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

My guess is that Philosophy, unlike many other subjects that people are usually spending time on studying, is inherently abstract. Just because it may not necessarily produce a concrete result (like a number) does not mean that Philosophy is useless. I would say philosophy is somewhat similar to those brain exercises.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 11:32:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

You're only looking at one type of philosophy, namely Anglo-Analytic style philosophizing. So your conclusions (to say nothing of their soundness) wouldn't even go as far as to prove your point if we were to accept them. They don't make any mention of the approaches/subject matters of most Continental-style philosophies e.g., phenomenology, existentialism, critical theory, Heideggerian hermeneutics, etc.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 1:30:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You are not alone in your belief (if it is indeed what you believe).

Stephen Hawking: "Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

Obviously "philosophy" is broad-enough a term that it can never be extinguished, but it has definitely been replaced by science as the way we learn about the world around us. Just because this is true, however, does not mean it is good ;)

Science is being abused nowadays, IMO, because we don't allow for differing interpretations of data. Evolution and quantum mechanics, for example, are used to show that atheism must be true. I think this is absolutely ridiculous, because science and religion are completely separate disciplines that have no foreseeable overlap. Even something ultimately atheistic, like Wiki's "Timeline of the Far Future" http://en.wikipedia.org... (which suggests that random quantum fluctuations will eventually cause a sudden drop in entropy, creating a new universe out of thin air) really have no bearing on whether or not there is a God. Maybe God used quantum fluctuations to do his bidding. Maybe God designed evolution as a way to create humans. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created science to fool us that he doesn't exist. The point is that science and philosophy are not competing disciplines, any more than mathematics and sociology are.

If you want to be enlightened then you need a healthy handle on both science and philosophy. Scientific data is much too unwieldy for us to apprehend much meaning from strictly what we have experimented with. The study of morality has been of more practical use to me than any single area of science...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 3:11:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless
Then your missing the entire point of philosophy.

You might be sated to squirrel away in Natural Philosophy(Science), but most people still interact with the real world. Moral Philosophy is all about coming up with a Sound Argument to convince yourself and others what is right and what is wrong, and not use nonsensical "just because" arguments. That then extends the the Philosophy of Law which happens to encompass every legal system ever invented.

Philosophy of Religion your "God" arguments is important if your an Atheist trying to convince people that God doesn't exist. You can't very well convince people God doesn't exist if you can't express a reasoned argument against it. Free Will arguments also fall under the Philosophy of Religion but Extend into the Moral Philosophy. Crime and Punishment is usually based on the reasoned belief that people choose to do what they do, and, for some, if you deconstruct free will you've deconstructed their moral, and legal, arguments as well.

If you're someone who doesn't want to use reasoning then yea Philosophy is pretty much useless.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 3:56:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd say that's disputable in certain ways--between factions like NAMBLA and the historical precedent for cultural sexualization of children, I think there's definitely a question of balance, even if it's not a public conversation. Plus, with the advent of shows like Toddlers and Tiaras, there's at least some question of where to draw the line on glamouring up young children--particularly young girls.

A question of balance in what sense? All I'm saying is that calling for a balance tells us something about the actor, even though on a wide range of issues it's very vague. However, on some cases that's decidedly not the case as when a pedophile or NAMBLA member comments about "balancing." Going back to our original case, I think very rigid ideologues would not be speaking of 'balance' in anything outside of a very sarcastic sense.

the reason I suggest no one would really disagree with it is that it's trivially true

Ok...then I guess I let you off the hook?

If it's semantics then okay.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 4:04:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

This is itself a philosophical position which can be philosophically scrutinized.

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

This is itself a philosophical position which can be philosophically scrutinized.

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

This is itself a philosophical position which can be philosophically scrutinized.

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

This isn't a philosophy, but rather a naive popular level view about philosophy.

Those who dismiss philosophy are most apt to be fooled by it.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 4:06:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 11:32:17 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

You're only looking at one type of philosophy, namely Anglo-Analytic style philosophizing. So your conclusions (to say nothing of their soundness) wouldn't even go as far as to prove your point if we were to accept them. They don't make any mention of the approaches/subject matters of most Continental-style philosophies e.g., phenomenology, existentialism, critical theory, Heideggerian hermeneutics, etc.

Think you've got that flipped.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 4:10:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

How do you know that we can't simply use words like "free will" and "time" in conversation the same way we use "apple" and "pear?"

Seems like such any such insight would be in the realm of philosophy.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 7:07:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

Morality is by definition subjective? I have to ask, how do you defend your moral subjectivist viewpoint without any philosophical basis?
"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)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 7:18:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 1:30:05 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You are not alone in your belief (if it is indeed what you believe).

Stephen Hawking: "Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

Obviously "philosophy" is broad-enough a term that it can never be extinguished, but it has definitely been replaced by science as the way we learn about the world around us. Just because this is true, however, does not mean it is good ;)

I don't think that's true. Tim Maudlin states, "Over the past thirty years the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists, so the situation is actually the exact opposite of what he [Hawking] describes." Kant's metaphysics has also been of much influence to the way modern physicists view reality, even if they don't always know their viewpoint stems from Kantian metaphysics. I think science, especially physics, is integrated in philosophy. I'm not saying philosophy gives us more answers than physics. I just don't think it would be most accurate to say science has replaced philosophy "as the way we learn about the world around us". They're both very relevant.

Science is being abused nowadays, IMO, because we don't allow for differing interpretations of data. Evolution and quantum mechanics, for example, are used to show that atheism must be true. I think this is absolutely ridiculous, because science and religion are completely separate disciplines that have no foreseeable overlap. Even something ultimately atheistic, like Wiki's "Timeline of the Far Future" http://en.wikipedia.org... (which suggests that random quantum fluctuations will eventually cause a sudden drop in entropy, creating a new universe out of thin air) really have no bearing on whether or not there is a God. Maybe God used quantum fluctuations to do his bidding. Maybe God designed evolution as a way to create humans. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created science to fool us that he doesn't exist. The point is that science and philosophy are not competing disciplines, any more than mathematics and sociology are.

If you want to be enlightened then you need a healthy handle on both science and philosophy. Scientific data is much too unwieldy for us to apprehend much meaning from strictly what we have experimented with. The study of morality has been of more practical use to me than any single area of science...
"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)
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 8:03:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 4:06:22 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/15/2013 11:32:17 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

You're only looking at one type of philosophy, namely Anglo-Analytic style philosophizing. So your conclusions (to say nothing of their soundness) wouldn't even go as far as to prove your point if we were to accept them. They don't make any mention of the approaches/subject matters of most Continental-style philosophies e.g., phenomenology, existentialism, critical theory, Heideggerian hermeneutics, etc.

Think you've got that flipped.

Continental philosophy generally lends interest to three (i.e., in phenomenology and the like) but it approaches the issue with that necessary subjectivity in mind, rather than trying to artificially elevate the subject material to something which could be rationally validated or invalidated. The other two I don't see it.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 8:37:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

The causes of insight and understanding are self justifying to the academic, but escape the fool. That you see no use for it is insufficient to justify the claim that philosophy is useless as a practice, as a discipline or as a field of study.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 8:39:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 8:03:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/15/2013 4:06:22 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/15/2013 11:32:17 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

You're only looking at one type of philosophy, namely Anglo-Analytic style philosophizing. So your conclusions (to say nothing of their soundness) wouldn't even go as far as to prove your point if we were to accept them. They don't make any mention of the approaches/subject matters of most Continental-style philosophies e.g., phenomenology, existentialism, critical theory, Heideggerian hermeneutics, etc.

Think you've got that flipped.

Continental philosophy generally lends interest to three (i.e., in phenomenology and the like) but it approaches the issue with that necessary subjectivity in mind, rather than trying to artificially elevate the subject material to something which could be rationally validated or invalidated. The other two I don't see it.

I thought you were saying something different! Oops, my bad haha. I gave it a quick read and thought for a moment you were saying that Continental philosophy is responsible for all the progress taking place in academia rather than analytical philosophy.

Anyhow, no doubt the most progress in continental philosophy has been that of phenomenology (particularily with William James, Searle, Husserl Wilshire, and arguably Petitot... I'm a huge fan of James though).

But that progress in phenomenology itself provided a sound basis for the analytical philosophy to elevate, or assent to, higher reaching topics like 1 and 2, etc. Take for instance the work of both William James in his phenominaligical argument and Thomas Reid's Cognitivist-Particularist model for his solution to Criterion Problem for knowledge against the global, unmitigated, and first-order skeptics. That alone was enough to give a sound basis for affirming the possibility for such elevated learning involved in 1 and 2.

Then you have the major developements in epistemology taking place- what with weak internalism and weak externalism together with reformed epistemology and Plantinga's weak foundationalism..

Continental philosophy is so needed though, I agree, it's like analytical philosophy's older, more responsible brother. But there are developments in anglo-american side that, we're they not to exist, science would be left unintelligible, and statistical science would be too bold.

That said, this APB kid just doesn't understand the role of philosophy- he thinks it's a stand in for science or something. Rather philosophy is a second order disciple- it's the proverbial handmaid of science rather than a filler for it.

My personal model of it all could probably be thought of as this,

Spiro-Theo-Phi-Sci

Spiro- for spirituality, we're all at root spiritual beings who aren't reducible to their parts, but once one says "I'm god" and the other says, "no you're not" ... then we're doing theology.. and since this can't go on unconstrained then I think we need our spirituality constrained by sound theology which takes philosophy as the mediator between theological truths and scientific ones. For since we're not just beings in our environment, but we're beings of our environment, then it's necessarily the case that to understand the world we need to know scientific truths as well as truths of the self.

Spirituality, then, constrained by sound theology, makes philosophy redundant and science trivial.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 8:45:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

I've been saying this for decades. Only things that actually work and produce positive measurable results in the real world are worth talking about. All the rest is just academic "publish or parish" useless hot air. Opinion justified by decades of real world experience and wisdom.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 8:58:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

If you're so bold as to deny the truth of these ideas, then you're taking a philosophical position on them. For instance, if you deny free will because you believe the brain is identical to the mind, and thus that our mind is purely material, then you're taking a specific philosophical stance on the issue. Further, if you deny it because of advances in psychology, then you're basing it on a specific scientific discipline, one which makes philosophical assumptions in its study.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 10:18:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@ Noumena

I've just looked them up. It's the same old crap: people using fancy words to describe meaningless bullsh!t that has no relevance to life.

@ medv4380

Nobody uses moral arguments when making decisions. They go with whatever they want to do or whatever other people tell them to do, depending on their personality type.

Debating religion is just as dumb as debating philosophy. God either exists or he doesn't, and merely arguing about it won't change that.

@ phantom

Morals don't exist outside of a person's head. How could they possibly be objective?

@ Nur-Ab-Sal

I meant that people twist the meaning of "free will" when debating its existence. If somebody does something "of their free will", it means they weren't coerced into doing it (not Philosophy, just basic English). It has nothing to do with determinism, as predicting somebody's actions is not the same as forcing them (again, basic English).
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 10:35:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 10:18:54 PM, APB wrote:
@ Noumena

I've just looked them up. It's the same old crap: people using fancy words to describe meaningless bullsh!t that has no relevance to life.

@ medv4380

Nobody uses moral arguments when making decisions. They go with whatever they want to do or whatever other people tell them to do, depending on their personality type.

Debating religion is just as dumb as debating philosophy. God either exists or he doesn't, and merely arguing about it won't change that.

It'll change our knowledge of it if the arguments are good... I don't know what more you expect.

@ phantom

Morals don't exist outside of a person's head. How could they possibly be objective?

@ Nur-Ab-Sal

I meant that people twist the meaning of "free will" when debating its existence. If somebody does something "of their free will", it means they weren't coerced into doing it (not Philosophy, just basic English). It has nothing to do with determinism, as predicting somebody's actions is not the same as forcing them (again, basic English).
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 10:47:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 10:18:54 PM, APB wrote:
@ Noumena

I've just looked them up. It's the same old crap: people using fancy words to describe meaningless bullsh!t that has no relevance to life.

@ medv4380

Nobody uses moral arguments when making decisions. They go with whatever they want to do or whatever other people tell them to do, depending on their personality type.

Debating religion is just as dumb as debating philosophy. God either exists or he doesn't, and merely arguing about it won't change that.

@ phantom

Morals don't exist outside of a person's head. How could they possibly be objective?

@ Nur-Ab-Sal

I meant that people twist the meaning of "free will" when debating its existence. If somebody does something "of their free will", it means they weren't coerced into doing it (not Philosophy, just basic English). It has nothing to do with determinism, as predicting somebody's actions is not the same as forcing them (again, basic English).

Wittgenstein is right up your alley.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 11:59:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 10:18:54 PM, APB wrote:
@ Noumena

I've just looked them up. It's the same old crap: people using fancy words to describe meaningless bullsh!t that has no relevance to life.

@ medv4380

Nobody uses moral arguments when making decisions. They go with whatever they want to do or whatever other people tell them to do, depending on their personality type.

Debating religion is just as dumb as debating philosophy. God either exists or he doesn't, and merely arguing about it won't change that.

@ phantom

Morals don't exist outside of a person's head. How could they possibly be objective?

I don't believe they're objective. However, I find it necessary to have a philosophical basis for my moral relativism. I'm wandering how you do without one in your subjectivism.

@ Nur-Ab-Sal

I meant that people twist the meaning of "free will" when debating its existence. If somebody does something "of their free will", it means they weren't coerced into doing it (not Philosophy, just basic English). It has nothing to do with determinism, as predicting somebody's actions is not the same as forcing them (again, basic English).
"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)
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 1:10:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 11:59:29 PM, phantom wrote:
I don't believe they're objective. However, I find it necessary to have a philosophical basis for my moral relativism. I'm wandering how you do without one in your subjectivism.

I look at the world around me, and see that different people have different values. No philosophising needed.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 1:18:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 1:10:10 AM, APB wrote:
At 4/15/2013 11:59:29 PM, phantom wrote:
I don't believe they're objective. However, I find it necessary to have a philosophical basis for my moral relativism. I'm wandering how you do without one in your subjectivism.

I look at the world around me, and see that different people have different values. No philosophising needed.

Observing that people have different values, isn't philosophical. However, concluding that that renders morality subjective is a philosophical determination. As is whatever basis you have for not believing beliefs are subjective even though they also vary from person to person. Difference in opinion in a field doesn't necessarily render that field subjective, so I'd like you to expand on your reasoning.
"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)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 1:21:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 2:57:04 AM, APB wrote:
Philosophical questions tend to have one of the following flaws:

1. They are based on a misunderstanding of how the world works that leads to questions (e.g. "free will", "time travel", "origin of the universe", etc.).

2. They discuss subject matter that is impossible to prove even hypothetically (e.g. the "nothing" debate on here, "God", "Presentism", etc.).

3. They are related to things that are, by definition, subjective (e.g. "morality").

I don't see that Philosophy is useful in any way, unless you're trying to impress your mates while getting stoned.

They "tend" to? There is a lot of philosophy out there--how much of it have you read? I mean, you "looked up" a bunch of the stuff Noumena mentioned, and you just dismissed it as "fancy words" with no meaning. Some people dedicate their entire lives to dissecting complex philosophical figures--there are scholars committed entirely to Nietzsche, Kant, Heidegger, etc.--and you must really be a prodigy to both and understand and dismiss all that and more in less than 8,000 characters.