Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Philosophy is useless, pointless BS

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 12:43:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I hate philosophy. I never understood why people revere it as something worth spending time towards. I took a philosophy class, exited because I liked arguments, opinions and debating. However, I was completely apathetic towards the majority of the topics. Most topics have no applied use to the "real world". I am not a fan of the subject at all, and I am interested to see if people agree with me, or why they like it?
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 1:44:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Philosophy is the trunk that branches off to all other disciplines. Everything has philosophical implications. Basically anything involving ethics, existence, logic, or knowledge is philosophical.

Maybe you don't find the cannon of philosophers taught in philosophy classes to be particularly compelling, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! There's really no academic discipline that doesn't involve wrestling with philosophical quandaries and concepts.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 2:34:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 1:44:45 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Philosophy is the trunk that branches off to all other disciplines. Everything has philosophical implications. Basically anything involving ethics, existence, logic, or knowledge is philosophical.

Maybe you don't find the cannon of philosophers taught in philosophy classes to be particularly compelling, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! There's really no academic discipline that doesn't involve wrestling with philosophical quandaries and concepts.

I find the method of arguing in philosophy to be abstract, verbose, unneeded and irrelevant. For example, I would say business ethics is important. But, abstract moral theories like utilitarianism, Kant, or that Rand person, seem to just confuse things and cause unneeded debate. Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and decide what to do.

I would argue, science, math, engineering ect, do not need philosophy. And many subjects philosophy is the least important aspect. For example, economics = good. Economic philosophy= bad.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 2:36:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 2:36:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and decide what to do."

No comment.

No offence, but that is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 2:54:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 2:36:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and decide what to do."

No comment.

No offence, but that is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while.

Well, no "one theory" applies perfectly to the real world. The best decisions are an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning.

So let me fix my quote "Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and apply an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning"
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 2:56:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 1:55:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Most topics have no applied use to the "real world".

Then I would say they don't qualify as philosophical.

Arguing whether we could live in the matrix, all of metaphysics and philosophical arguments for time travel have no real world usage.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 3:38:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 2:54:59 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and decide what to do."

No comment.

No offence, but that is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while.

Well, no "one theory" applies perfectly to the real world. The best decisions are an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning.

So let me fix my quote "Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and apply an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning"

So, basically, you want your intuitions given moral relevance and clout without ever having to defend them philosophically.

Yeah, good luck with that.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 4:02:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 1:44:45 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Philosophy is the trunk that branches off to all other disciplines. Everything has philosophical implications. Basically anything involving ethics, existence, logic, or knowledge is philosophical.

Maybe you don't find the cannon of philosophers taught in philosophy classes to be particularly compelling, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! There's really no academic discipline that doesn't involve wrestling with philosophical quandaries and concepts.

Philosophy deals with every premise necessary to live life. So it is impossible to find anything that has nothing to do with philosophy. So it's branching and fundamental nature isn't really relevant. I think what the OP might be saying is that philosophy raises questions and answers almost none of them. It's a study based on possibilities and perspectives with no solid final answer. So not only can't philosophy get a job, but it can't solve your intellectual problems either - at best it widens them.
"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
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 4:48:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 3:38:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:54:59 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and decide what to do."

No comment.

No offence, but that is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while.

Well, no "one theory" applies perfectly to the real world. The best decisions are an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning.

So let me fix my quote "Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and apply an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning"

So, basically, you want your intuitions given moral relevance and clout without ever having to defend them philosophically.

Yeah, good luck with that.

People should defend them, just not philosophically. Just say what you think and why you think it. No need to delve into deep, abstract, off topic thought.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 4:49:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Philosophy deals with every premise necessary to live life. So it is impossible to find anything that has nothing to do with philosophy. So it's branching and fundamental nature isn't really relevant. I think what the OP might be saying is that philosophy raises questions and answers almost none of them. It's a study based on possibilities and perspectives with no solid final answer. So not only can't philosophy get a job, but it can't solve your intellectual problems either - at best it widens them.

Ike does a good job articulating, some of my criticisms and thoughts.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 6:26:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 2:56:22 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 1:55:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Most topics have no applied use to the "real world".

Then I would say they don't qualify as philosophical.

Arguing whether we could live in the matrix, all of metaphysics and philosophical arguments for time travel have no real world usage.

Those could both have real world usage. For instance, when Renes Descartes realized that he know nothing but himself, he came also made a huge break in neurology. That being, that the brain can be tricked. We might be able to, one day, put people into matrix like situations. Now, what would be the implications of that? Well, that's a philosophical question. And philosophies of time travel, how could that not have real world implication? It helps in our understanding of time itself, and how it works with reality. Without philosophical theories of time, how could physicists understand how it might affect things?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 6:50:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 4:48:31 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 3:38:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:54:59 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and decide what to do."

No comment.

No offence, but that is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while.

Well, no "one theory" applies perfectly to the real world. The best decisions are an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning.

So let me fix my quote "Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and apply an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning"

So, basically, you want your intuitions given moral relevance and clout without ever having to defend them philosophically.

Yeah, good luck with that.

People should defend them, just not philosophically. Just say what you think and why you think it. No need to delve into deep, abstract, off topic thought.

Not all philosophy is deep, abstract, off topic thought. Logic itself is philosophical in nature. You simply cannot defend one of many contradictory ideas without employing philosophical ideas. You can certainly state what you believe, but you won't be able to defend your arguments and premises without philosophy. You don't have to defend them, but everyone just standing around and stating what they believe isn't very useful to anyone,
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 7:48:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

Those could both have real world usage. For instance, when Renes Descartes realized that he know nothing but himself, he came also made a huge break in neurology. That being, that the brain can be tricked.

Some dude realizing he knew nothing but himself did not prove that the brain can be tricked. There is nothing scientific about thinking all you know is yourself.

We might be able to, one day, put people into matrix like situations. Now, what would be the implications of that? Well, that's a philosophical question.

It is not an important question. "Implications on putting people into the matrix" is not nearly important at all. Ranking important topics from most to least, what do you think "Matrix implications" comes in?

And philosophies of time travel, how could that not have real world implication? It helps in our understanding of time itself, and how it works with reality. Without philosophical theories of time, how could physicists understand how it might affect things?

Physicists do not consult philosophers. Philosophers do not look at time travel in a physical sense, but a "philosophical sense". A made up world. Same with metaphysics. Metaphysics is science that applies to the "philosophy world"
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 7:50:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 6:50:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/25/2013 4:48:31 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 3:38:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:54:59 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and decide what to do."

No comment.

No offence, but that is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while.

Well, no "one theory" applies perfectly to the real world. The best decisions are an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning.

So let me fix my quote "Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and apply an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning"

So, basically, you want your intuitions given moral relevance and clout without ever having to defend them philosophically.

Yeah, good luck with that.

People should defend them, just not philosophically. Just say what you think and why you think it. No need to delve into deep, abstract, off topic thought.

Not all philosophy is deep, abstract, off topic thought. Logic itself is philosophical in nature. You simply cannot defend one of many contradictory ideas without employing philosophical ideas. You can certainly state what you believe, but you won't be able to defend your arguments and premises without philosophy. You don't have to defend them, but everyone just standing around and stating what they believe isn't very useful to anyone,

Sure, logic is useful. But logic is not unique to philosophy. Logic is a part of math. There is nothing worthwhile about philosophy that is unique to philosophy.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 7:56:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is debate, reasoning, logic in every subject. The difference is, in philosophy, people debate the most useless questions.

So, if you like arguing, debating and reasoning you should not become a philosopher. Find a good business idea, a good economics idea, engineering idea medicine idea, economics idea you make a difference. Find a good philosophical idea you do nothing.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 7:56:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 7:48:57 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Those could both have real world usage. For instance, when Renes Descartes realized that he know nothing but himself, he came also made a huge break in neurology. That being, that the brain can be tricked.

Some dude realizing he knew nothing but himself did not prove that the brain can be tricked. There is nothing scientific about thinking all you know is yourself.

We might be able to, one day, put people into matrix like situations. Now, what would be the implications of that? Well, that's a philosophical question.

It is not an important question. "Implications on putting people into the matrix" is not nearly important at all. Ranking important topics from most to least, what do you think "Matrix implications" comes in?

And philosophies of time travel, how could that not have real world implication? It helps in our understanding of time itself, and how it works with reality. Without philosophical theories of time, how could physicists understand how it might affect things?

Physicists do not consult philosophers. Philosophers do not look at time travel in a physical sense, but a "philosophical sense". A made up world. Same with metaphysics. Metaphysics is science that applies to the "philosophy world"

You're right, physics don't necessarily consult philosophers. But they do use philosophy. There is no dichotomy between 'physical sense', and 'philosophical sense'. Are you saying philosophy only deals with a made up world? No science is just a way of going about metaphysics. You do know that the scientific method is a philosophical paradigm, right?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 7:58:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 7:56:45 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 7:48:57 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Those could both have real world usage. For instance, when Renes Descartes realized that he know nothing but himself, he came also made a huge break in neurology. That being, that the brain can be tricked.

Some dude realizing he knew nothing but himself did not prove that the brain can be tricked. There is nothing scientific about thinking all you know is yourself.

We might be able to, one day, put people into matrix like situations. Now, what would be the implications of that? Well, that's a philosophical question.

It is not an important question. "Implications on putting people into the matrix" is not nearly important at all. Ranking important topics from most to least, what do you think "Matrix implications" comes in?

And philosophies of time travel, how could that not have real world implication? It helps in our understanding of time itself, and how it works with reality. Without philosophical theories of time, how could physicists understand how it might affect things?

Physicists do not consult philosophers. Philosophers do not look at time travel in a physical sense, but a "philosophical sense". A made up world. Same with metaphysics. Metaphysics is science that applies to the "philosophy world"

You're right, physics don't necessarily consult philosophers. But they do use philosophy. There is no dichotomy between 'physical sense', and 'philosophical sense'. Are you saying philosophy only deals with a made up world? No science is just a way of going about metaphysics. You do know that the scientific method is a philosophical paradigm, right?

I do not see how physicists do philosophy. Please entertain me.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 8:00:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 6:26:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:56:22 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 1:55:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Most topics have no applied use to the "real world".

Then I would say they don't qualify as philosophical.

Arguing whether we could live in the matrix, all of metaphysics and philosophical arguments for time travel have no real world usage.

Those could both have real world usage. For instance, when Renes Descartes realized that he know nothing but himself, he came also made a huge break in neurology.

lol what?
"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
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 8:03:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 8:00:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/25/2013 6:26:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:56:22 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 1:55:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Most topics have no applied use to the "real world".

Then I would say they don't qualify as philosophical.

Arguing whether we could live in the matrix, all of metaphysics and philosophical arguments for time travel have no real world usage.

Those could both have real world usage. For instance, when Renes Descartes realized that he know nothing but himself, he came also made a huge break in neurology.

lol what?

Well, technically it was in neurology.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 8:04:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 7:58:31 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 7:56:45 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 7:48:57 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Those could both have real world usage. For instance, when Renes Descartes realized that he know nothing but himself, he came also made a huge break in neurology. That being, that the brain can be tricked.

Some dude realizing he knew nothing but himself did not prove that the brain can be tricked. There is nothing scientific about thinking all you know is yourself.

We might be able to, one day, put people into matrix like situations. Now, what would be the implications of that? Well, that's a philosophical question.

It is not an important question. "Implications on putting people into the matrix" is not nearly important at all. Ranking important topics from most to least, what do you think "Matrix implications" comes in?

And philosophies of time travel, how could that not have real world implication? It helps in our understanding of time itself, and how it works with reality. Without philosophical theories of time, how could physicists understand how it might affect things?

Physicists do not consult philosophers. Philosophers do not look at time travel in a physical sense, but a "philosophical sense". A made up world. Same with metaphysics. Metaphysics is science that applies to the "philosophy world"

You're right, physics don't necessarily consult philosophers. But they do use philosophy. There is no dichotomy between 'physical sense', and 'philosophical sense'. Are you saying philosophy only deals with a made up world? No science is just a way of going about metaphysics. You do know that the scientific method is a philosophical paradigm, right?

I do not see how physicists do philosophy. Please entertain me.

Read bold.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 8:13:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 8:03:29 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 8:00:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/25/2013 6:26:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:56:22 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 1:55:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Most topics have no applied use to the "real world".

Then I would say they don't qualify as philosophical.

Arguing whether we could live in the matrix, all of metaphysics and philosophical arguments for time travel have no real world usage.

Those could both have real world usage. For instance, when Renes Descartes realized that he know nothing but himself, he came also made a huge break in neurology.

lol what?

Well, technically it was in neurology.

That's not exactly why I exclaimed. Decartes philosophy had neurological implications, but a dubious "realization" is a far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far cry from a neurological breakthrough. Neurology is science, and science is the product of induction. A deductive conclusion cannot be a scientific breakthrough.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 8:15:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 7:50:50 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 6:50:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/25/2013 4:48:31 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 3:38:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:54:59 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and decide what to do."

No comment.

No offence, but that is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while.

Well, no "one theory" applies perfectly to the real world. The best decisions are an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning.

So let me fix my quote "Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and apply an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning"

So, basically, you want your intuitions given moral relevance and clout without ever having to defend them philosophically.

Yeah, good luck with that.

People should defend them, just not philosophically. Just say what you think and why you think it. No need to delve into deep, abstract, off topic thought.

Not all philosophy is deep, abstract, off topic thought. Logic itself is philosophical in nature. You simply cannot defend one of many contradictory ideas without employing philosophical ideas. You can certainly state what you believe, but you won't be able to defend your arguments and premises without philosophy. You don't have to defend them, but everyone just standing around and stating what they believe isn't very useful to anyone,

Sure, logic is useful. But logic is not unique to philosophy. Logic is a part of math. There is nothing worthwhile about philosophy that is unique to philosophy.

He's not saying that philosophy uses logic, he means what we have come to know as logic is in its very nature philosophical.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 8:17:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 8:15:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2013 7:50:50 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 6:50:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/25/2013 4:48:31 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 3:38:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:54:59 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and decide what to do."

No comment.

No offence, but that is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while.

Well, no "one theory" applies perfectly to the real world. The best decisions are an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning.

So let me fix my quote "Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and apply an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning"

So, basically, you want your intuitions given moral relevance and clout without ever having to defend them philosophically.

Yeah, good luck with that.

People should defend them, just not philosophically. Just say what you think and why you think it. No need to delve into deep, abstract, off topic thought.

Not all philosophy is deep, abstract, off topic thought. Logic itself is philosophical in nature. You simply cannot defend one of many contradictory ideas without employing philosophical ideas. You can certainly state what you believe, but you won't be able to defend your arguments and premises without philosophy. You don't have to defend them, but everyone just standing around and stating what they believe isn't very useful to anyone,

Sure, logic is useful. But logic is not unique to philosophy. Logic is a part of math. There is nothing worthwhile about philosophy that is unique to philosophy.

He's not saying that philosophy uses logic, he means what we have come to know as logic is in its very nature philosophical.

Basically, you just listed reasons why philosophy is anything but: useless or 'pointless BS.'
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 6:44:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 2:54:59 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:36:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and decide what to do."

No comment.

No offence, but that is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while.

Well, no "one theory" applies perfectly to the real world. The best decisions are an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning.

So let me fix my quote "Instead of developing theories, why not just look at each case and apply an intuitive blend many theories combined with empathy and reasoning"

Congratulations - you're arguing moral intuitionism over moral realism. You're committing not just into ethics, but meta-ethics, which is probably one of the more abstract philosophies you could discuss.

Ontology and Epistemology and stuff like this are dry. Same goes with philosophy of history, philosophy of maths, etc. They're not for everyone (the former two I really cannot put up with as a major discipline). However, the majority of developing philosophies (business ethics; environmental ethics; population ethics; political philosophy; meta-ethics; meaning of language, etc.) are all very exciting and pushing boundaries. Analogously to science, whilst studying particle theory may seem quite dry for most, Quantum physics and mechanics is an exciting boundary for many studying the subject. Similarly, philosophy has its dry, stagnant subjects. But it also has absolutely fantastic, even revolutionary ideas that are being debated day in and day out, of absolute importance.

To finish, I'll quote Kenyes: "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas."
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 7:03:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 8:13:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/25/2013 8:03:29 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 8:00:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/25/2013 6:26:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:56:22 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 5/25/2013 1:55:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Most topics have no applied use to the "real world".

Then I would say they don't qualify as philosophical.

Arguing whether we could live in the matrix, all of metaphysics and philosophical arguments for time travel have no real world usage.

Those could both have real world usage. For instance, when Renes Descartes realized that he know nothing but himself, he came also made a huge break in neurology.

lol what?

Well, technically it was in neurology.

That's not exactly why I exclaimed. Decartes philosophy had neurological implications, but a dubious "realization" is a far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far cry from a neurological breakthrough. Neurology is science, and science is the product of induction. A deductive conclusion cannot be a scientific breakthrough.

Ok, fine, what I said is incorrect. I am curious, though. What do you mean by "dubious "realization""?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:21:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 4:48:31 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
People should defend them, just not philosophically. Just say what you think and why you think it. No need to delve into deep, abstract, off topic thought.

It really shouldn't need pointing out that the 'and why you think it' part of that is precisely what philosophy sets out to do. How do I defend propositions such as "I support the right to abortion" or "I am against the death penalty" (or their opposites) without an ethical enquiry? Why are there ethics committees in every hospital, university and research institution? How was the scientific method developed?

While there is undoubtably an astounding amount of balls cluttering up philosophy in general (thanks, Dark Age theologians!), to write it off as a discipline - when it is essentially the ultimate in interdisciplinary thought - is utterly ignorant. 95% of what has been said over the years may well be drivel, but 5% is not and the questions it deals with and insights it has provided over the years have been very instructive.

Without philosophy, it wouldn't be a matter of saying "what you think and why you think it" but of merely saying "what you think" and hoping whoever you're saying it just happens to agree.