Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Philosophy is a worthless subject.

Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 4:37:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 3:57:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Do you really have a genius intellect?

Anyone who thinks so, obviously doesn't.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 5:53:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 4:37:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:57:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Do you really have a genius intellect?

Anyone who thinks so, obviously doesn't.

I kind of disagree. I know there's a social impulse to play yourself down so you don't come across as arrogant, but you have to imagine people who are actually that much abler than their peers are going to be both keenly aware of it and probably better-served by not denying it (not that they should be less careful about the fact clouding their judgment).

Not that I actually buy this particular person is a 1-in-10,000 case, but still.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 6:59:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
On the other hand.....

A philosophy degree earns more than an accounting degree.
http://finance.yahoo.com...#

Why Major in Philosophy?
There aren"t many careers that a bachelor"s degree in philosophy will give you specific training for. But there are very many different kinds of careers that philosophy majors go into after receiving their bachelor"s degrees. The study of philosophy develops many skills, including: critical thinking, evaluation of chains of reasoning, construction of chains of reasoning, and these are skills that will serve you well no matter what you end up doing.

After graduation, philosophy majors go to law school, to medical school, to business school, to seminary, and to graduate school in a range of fields from art business to education to gender studies to philosophy; they go to work for business consulting firms and for humanitarian non-government organizations; they take jobs as technical writers, teachers, web designers "

According to the 2011 numbers, the median starting salary for philosophy BAs is $39,800 and the median mid-career salary is $75.600. This puts it at #2 among the humanities majors (behind American studies), only slightly behind accounting majors, and ahead of several science majors (including biology and psychology) and professional majors (including business, advertising, public administration and hotel management).
http://philosophy.unc.edu...

It"s been said in many places before: A degree in the humanities isn"t exactly marketable to employers (less kind critics have called those degrees "useless"). But there"s one humanities major whose graduates are doing quite well in the job market"and it"s philosophy majors.
http://www.theatlantic.com...
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 7:16:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 5:53:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/14/2016 4:37:01 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:57:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Do you really have a genius intellect?

Anyone who thinks so, obviously doesn't.

I kind of disagree. I know there's a social impulse to play yourself down so you don't come across as arrogant, but you have to imagine people who are actually that much abler than their peers are going to be both keenly aware of it and probably better-served by not denying it (not that they should be less careful about the fact clouding their judgment).

Not that I actually buy this particular person is a 1-in-10,000 case, but still.

Ever heard of the dunning-kruger effect? It also has an opposite effect on an intellectual genius. Truth be told, the more you know, the more you realize how much you do not know. Only an idiot believes they are always right and through this they will never learn. They never doubt their intellectual abilities and see anything that doesn't make sense to them as wrong. The fact that others agree with you is not proof you are right, considered that true intellectual genius is rare. One needs to inspect the calibre of those who agree with you and compare it to those who don't to get a more accurate estimate of your own intelligence. True genius more often faces ridicule than praise within their lifetime. It's usually through technological advancement that their true genius become apparent, usually after their demise.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 9:02:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 7:16:17 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
You're paying $50K to become an autistic wanker.

I guess if you live in a society which:

1) Charges that much for people to actively improve their value to that society
2) Measures worth in primarily or solely economic terms

Your conclusion may well appear to be true. It may even be locally true, in that the measure of worth (earning power) dictates that skills that don't directly lead to personally advance you along that particular metric.

The question then becomes: is a society which follows that model one in which you want to live? Do you think that is the best metric when looking at a meta-societal comparison? Is your opinion, when measured in terms of opinions-about-opinions, one which will carry much weight.

I would hope that anyone of any significant intellectual capability can answer that question for themselves.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 9:04:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
With, of course, the caveat that 'being an autistic wanker' has a set, meta-normative value by which we can judge that outcome - accurate as it may or may not be - against. If only there were a subject which we could study that would allow us to form and evaluate such a process.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 10:55:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
The philosophy as a subject that gets taught by pretentious intellectual hipsters with too much money to spend on a simple cup of coffee cannot teach you anything. Real philosophy will never be found in a classroom. If we live to learn with compassion for understanding why we are alive, it is the responsibility of each life to realize their unique purpose for existing. The philosophy of life cannot be taught. It must be experienced and later judged by themselves alone their lives in reflection its values, becoming now to each its own denomininations adding then themselves their personal worth from experiences. If you don't know what that means, then you get it. Don't let anyone put you inside a box.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 12:02:09 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 7:16:17 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
You're paying $50K to become an autistic wanker.

Paying 50k for college LUL
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 12:03:12 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Why?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 12:03:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 10:55:19 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
The philosophy as a subject that gets taught by pretentious intellectual hipsters with too much money to spend on a simple cup of coffee cannot teach you anything. Real philosophy will never be found in a classroom. If we live to learn with compassion for understanding why we are alive, it is the responsibility of each life to realize their unique purpose for existing. The philosophy of life cannot be taught. It must be experienced and later judged by themselves alone their lives in reflection its values, becoming now to each its own denomininations adding then themselves their personal worth from experiences. If you don't know what that means, then you get it. Don't let anyone put you inside a box.

This basically summarizes my views on the matter. A philosophy is just a framework for thinking, and different parts of life require different philosophies. The critical thinking skills you learn doing a degree are innate to higher education, not to Philosophy courses specifically. Real philosophy is acquired from life experience, not from professors who've done nothing else with their lives.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 12:19:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 12:03:20 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/14/2016 10:55:19 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
The philosophy as a subject that gets taught by pretentious intellectual hipsters with too much money to spend on a simple cup of coffee cannot teach you anything. Real philosophy will never be found in a classroom. If we live to learn with compassion for understanding why we are alive, it is the responsibility of each life to realize their unique purpose for existing. The philosophy of life cannot be taught. It must be experienced and later judged by themselves alone their lives in reflection its values, becoming now to each its own denomininations adding then themselves their personal worth from experiences. If you don't know what that means, then you get it. Don't let anyone put you inside a box.

This basically summarizes my views on the matter. A philosophy is just a framework for thinking, and different parts of life require different philosophies. The critical thinking skills you learn doing a degree are innate to higher education, not to Philosophy courses specifically. Real philosophy is acquired from life experience, not from professors who've done nothing else with their lives.

Yes, I feel almost a necessity to sue philosophy for wasting my time. Philosophy never taught me how to step outside of time. That was a trick I had to teach myself. How irionic that my teachers used to mark me for being tardy to class, when my real education was all along timeless.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 2:02:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 12:03:20 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/14/2016 10:55:19 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
The philosophy as a subject that gets taught by pretentious intellectual hipsters with too much money to spend on a simple cup of coffee cannot teach you anything. Real philosophy will never be found in a classroom. If we live to learn with compassion for understanding why we are alive, it is the responsibility of each life to realize their unique purpose for existing. The philosophy of life cannot be taught. It must be experienced and later judged by themselves alone their lives in reflection its values, becoming now to each its own denomininations adding then themselves their personal worth from experiences. If you don't know what that means, then you get it. Don't let anyone put you inside a box.

This basically summarizes my views on the matter. A philosophy is just a framework for thinking, and different parts of life require different philosophies. The critical thinking skills you learn doing a degree are innate to higher education, not to Philosophy courses specifically. Real philosophy is acquired from life experience, not from professors who've done nothing else with their lives.

A philosophy degree would have allowed you to spot your own equivocation fallacy.

Philosophy is basically error-checking our intellectual toolset. If you don't see the value in that then you're probably a lot more dim than you tbink you are.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 7:53:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 7:16:17 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
You're paying $50K to become an autistic wanker.

I pay nothing to learn philosophy.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 11:16:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 2:02:43 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 12:03:20 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
This basically summarizes my views on the matter. A philosophy is just a framework for thinking, and different parts of life require different philosophies. The critical thinking skills you learn doing a degree are innate to higher education, not to Philosophy courses specifically. Real philosophy is acquired from life experience, not from professors who've done nothing else with their lives.

A philosophy degree would have allowed you to spot your own equivocation fallacy.

It's not an equivocation fallacy.

Philosophy is basically error-checking our intellectual toolset. If you don't see the value in that then you're probably a lot more dim than you tbink you are.

As I said before, the critical thinking skills you learn are inherent to higher education, not to Philosophy specifically. You'd acquire all the same skills from a science degree.
BlueDreams
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 12:50:29 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
If the OP believes that simply having a science degree is sufficient to acquire the critical thinking skills of a philosopher, then he ought to see the embarrassing arguments of Peter Atkins, Laurence Krauss, and Michio Kaku.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 12:39:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 11:16:07 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/15/2016 2:02:43 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 12:03:20 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
This basically summarizes my views on the matter. A philosophy is just a framework for thinking, and different parts of life require different philosophies. The critical thinking skills you learn doing a degree are innate to higher education, not to Philosophy courses specifically. Real philosophy is acquired from life experience, not from professors who've done nothing else with their lives.

A philosophy degree would have allowed you to spot your own equivocation fallacy.

It's not an equivocation fallacy.

It is if you're comparing "having a philosophy" with "Philosophy". Which is exactly what you seem to be doing.

Philosophy is basically error-checking our intellectual toolset. If you don't see the value in that then you're probably a lot more dim than you tbink you are.

As I said before, the critical thinking skills you learn are inherent to higher education, not to Philosophy specifically. You'd acquire all the same skills from a science degree.

I don't know any physics grads who studied linguistic philosophy.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 12:41:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 12:50:29 AM, BlueDreams wrote:
If the OP believes that simply having a science degree is sufficient to acquire the critical thinking skills of a philosopher, then he ought to see the embarrassing arguments of Peter Atkins, Laurence Krauss, and Michio Kaku.

Or Dawkins. It makes me cringe.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 10:39:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 12:39:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 11:16:07 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/15/2016 2:02:43 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 12:03:20 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
This basically summarizes my views on the matter. A philosophy is just a framework for thinking, and different parts of life require different philosophies. The critical thinking skills you learn doing a degree are innate to higher education, not to Philosophy courses specifically. Real philosophy is acquired from life experience, not from professors who've done nothing else with their lives.

A philosophy degree would have allowed you to spot your own equivocation fallacy.

It's not an equivocation fallacy.

It is if you're comparing "having a philosophy" with "Philosophy". Which is exactly what you seem to be doing.

Philosophy, proper noun, is merely the study of different philosophies and their methods. It's not equivocation, because the former meaning is derived from the latter. Regardless, a degree in the subject is as wasteful as a degree in baseball statistics.

Philosophy is basically error-checking our intellectual toolset. If you don't see the value in that then you're probably a lot more dim than you tbink you are.

As I said before, the critical thinking skills you learn are inherent to higher education, not to Philosophy specifically. You'd acquire all the same skills from a science degree.

I don't know any physics grads who studied linguistic philosophy.

"Linguistic philosophy describes the view that philosophical problems are problems which may be solved (or dissolved) either by reforming language, or by understanding more about the language we presently use. The former position is that of ideal language philosophy, the latter the position of ordinary language philosophy."
- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is the entire body of the Wikipedia article on linguistic philosophy. Exactly why a physics student would need to "study" this is a mystery to me.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:45:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 10:39:05 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/16/2016 12:39:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 11:16:07 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/15/2016 2:02:43 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 12:03:20 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
This basically summarizes my views on the matter. A philosophy is just a framework for thinking, and different parts of life require different philosophies. The critical thinking skills you learn doing a degree are innate to higher education, not to Philosophy courses specifically. Real philosophy is acquired from life experience, not from professors who've done nothing else with their lives.

A philosophy degree would have allowed you to spot your own equivocation fallacy.

It's not an equivocation fallacy.

It is if you're comparing "having a philosophy" with "Philosophy". Which is exactly what you seem to be doing.

Philosophy, proper noun, is merely the study of different philosophies and their methods. It's not equivocation, because the former meaning is derived from the latter. Regardless, a degree in the subject is as wasteful as a degree in baseball statistics.

Philosophy is basically error-checking our intellectual toolset. If you don't see the value in that then you're probably a lot more dim than you tbink you are.

As I said before, the critical thinking skills you learn are inherent to higher education, not to Philosophy specifically. You'd acquire all the same skills from a science degree.

I don't know any physics grads who studied linguistic philosophy.

"Linguistic philosophy describes the view that philosophical problems are problems which may be solved (or dissolved) either by reforming language, or by understanding more about the language we presently use. The former position is that of ideal language philosophy, the latter the position of ordinary language philosophy."
- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is the entire body of the Wikipedia article on linguistic philosophy. Exactly why a physics student would need to "study" this is a mystery to me.

If you can't figure out the value of that, you really need to change your name.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:40:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:45:07 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/16/2016 10:39:05 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/16/2016 12:39:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 11:16:07 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/15/2016 2:02:43 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 12:03:20 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
This basically summarizes my views on the matter. A philosophy is just a framework for thinking, and different parts of life require different philosophies. The critical thinking skills you learn doing a degree are innate to higher education, not to Philosophy courses specifically. Real philosophy is acquired from life experience, not from professors who've done nothing else with their lives.

A philosophy degree would have allowed you to spot your own equivocation fallacy.

It's not an equivocation fallacy.

It is if you're comparing "having a philosophy" with "Philosophy". Which is exactly what you seem to be doing.

Philosophy, proper noun, is merely the study of different philosophies and their methods. It's not equivocation, because the former meaning is derived from the latter. Regardless, a degree in the subject is as wasteful as a degree in baseball statistics.

Philosophy is basically error-checking our intellectual toolset. If you don't see the value in that then you're probably a lot more dim than you tbink you are.

As I said before, the critical thinking skills you learn are inherent to higher education, not to Philosophy specifically. You'd acquire all the same skills from a science degree.

I don't know any physics grads who studied linguistic philosophy.

"Linguistic philosophy describes the view that philosophical problems are problems which may be solved (or dissolved) either by reforming language, or by understanding more about the language we presently use. The former position is that of ideal language philosophy, the latter the position of ordinary language philosophy."
- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is the entire body of the Wikipedia article on linguistic philosophy. Exactly why a physics student would need to "study" this is a mystery to me.

If you can't figure out the value of that, you really need to change your name.

That is an ad hominem fallacy, not a valid response. Debate properly or GTFO.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:43:03 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:40:57 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:45:07 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/16/2016 10:39:05 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/16/2016 12:39:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 11:16:07 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/15/2016 2:02:43 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 12:03:20 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
This basically summarizes my views on the matter. A philosophy is just a framework for thinking, and different parts of life require different philosophies. The critical thinking skills you learn doing a degree are innate to higher education, not to Philosophy courses specifically. Real philosophy is acquired from life experience, not from professors who've done nothing else with their lives.

A philosophy degree would have allowed you to spot your own equivocation fallacy.

It's not an equivocation fallacy.

It is if you're comparing "having a philosophy" with "Philosophy". Which is exactly what you seem to be doing.

Philosophy, proper noun, is merely the study of different philosophies and their methods. It's not equivocation, because the former meaning is derived from the latter. Regardless, a degree in the subject is as wasteful as a degree in baseball statistics.

Philosophy is basically error-checking our intellectual toolset. If you don't see the value in that then you're probably a lot more dim than you tbink you are.

As I said before, the critical thinking skills you learn are inherent to higher education, not to Philosophy specifically. You'd acquire all the same skills from a science degree.

I don't know any physics grads who studied linguistic philosophy.

"Linguistic philosophy describes the view that philosophical problems are problems which may be solved (or dissolved) either by reforming language, or by understanding more about the language we presently use. The former position is that of ideal language philosophy, the latter the position of ordinary language philosophy."
- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is the entire body of the Wikipedia article on linguistic philosophy. Exactly why a physics student would need to "study" this is a mystery to me.

If you can't figure out the value of that, you really need to change your name.

That is an ad hominem fallacy, not a valid response. Debate properly or GTFO.

An ad hom would be "your point is invalid because you are stupid" - a fallacious argument is such because it relies upon a fallacy of reasoning. It has nothing to do with conclusions, which may still be true regardless. That's logic 101, which apparently you should have been aware of with or without an education in philosophy.

I'm saying you're stupid because you're making stupid statements. That's an observation. Taking an evidentialist/behaviouralist view of things, stupid people are those who say stupid things. If you were accurately described as having a genius intellect, you'd probably not say something as stupid as you did. Ergo, you probably aren't one.

As to debating... all you've done is make a very crude set of assertions, followed by a claim that you don't see the value in something. Is that the bar I must pass or 'GTFO'? It's not really indicative of someone who knows what they're talking about.

The tool with which we understand the world is language. It shapes how we think and perceive. It defines what we can and cannot meaningfully comprehend. It is our sole medium for expression and communication.

Linguistic philosophy is how we error-check our linguistic toolset. It is how we understand its use, its application and misapplication, its potential and its limitations. It is how we look to redesign it, to improve it and to be more skilled in its use.

So, having thus lazily flopped myself over the hilariously low bar you've ostensively set for 'debate', I go back to my previous statement: that you needed that explaining to you suggests your name is not accurately descriptive of you.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:48:02 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 7:43:03 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:40:57 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:45:07 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/16/2016 10:39:05 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/16/2016 12:39:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 11:16:07 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/15/2016 2:02:43 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/15/2016 12:03:20 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
This basically summarizes my views on the matter. A philosophy is just a framework for thinking, and different parts of life require different philosophies. The critical thinking skills you learn doing a degree are innate to higher education, not to Philosophy courses specifically. Real philosophy is acquired from life experience, not from professors who've done nothing else with their lives.

A philosophy degree would have allowed you to spot your own equivocation fallacy.

It's not an equivocation fallacy.

It is if you're comparing "having a philosophy" with "Philosophy". Which is exactly what you seem to be doing.

Philosophy, proper noun, is merely the study of different philosophies and their methods. It's not equivocation, because the former meaning is derived from the latter. Regardless, a degree in the subject is as wasteful as a degree in baseball statistics.

Philosophy is basically error-checking our intellectual toolset. If you don't see the value in that then you're probably a lot more dim than you tbink you are.

As I said before, the critical thinking skills you learn are inherent to higher education, not to Philosophy specifically. You'd acquire all the same skills from a science degree.

I don't know any physics grads who studied linguistic philosophy.

"Linguistic philosophy describes the view that philosophical problems are problems which may be solved (or dissolved) either by reforming language, or by understanding more about the language we presently use. The former position is that of ideal language philosophy, the latter the position of ordinary language philosophy."
- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org...

That is the entire body of the Wikipedia article on linguistic philosophy. Exactly why a physics student would need to "study" this is a mystery to me.

If you can't figure out the value of that, you really need to change your name.

That is an ad hominem fallacy, not a valid response. Debate properly or GTFO.

An ad hom would be "your point is invalid because you are stupid" - a fallacious argument is such because it relies upon a fallacy of reasoning. It has nothing to do with conclusions, which may still be true regardless. That's logic 101, which apparently you should have been aware of with or without an education in philosophy.

I'm saying you're stupid because you're making stupid statements. That's an observation. Taking an evidentialist/behaviouralist view of things, stupid people are those who say stupid things. If you were accurately described as having a genius intellect, you'd probably not say something as stupid as you did. Ergo, you probably aren't one.

As to debating... all you've done is make a very crude set of assertions, followed by a claim that you don't see the value in something. Is that the bar I must pass or 'GTFO'? It's not really indicative of someone who knows what they're talking about.

The tool with which we understand the world is language. It shapes how we think and perceive. It defines what we can and cannot meaningfully comprehend. It is our sole medium for expression and communication.

Linguistic philosophy is how we error-check our linguistic toolset. It is how we understand its use, its application and misapplication, its potential and its limitations. It is how we look to redesign it, to improve it and to be more skilled in its use.

So, having thus lazily flopped myself over the hilariously low bar you've ostensively set for 'debate', I go back to my previous statement: that you needed that explaining to you suggests your name is not accurately descriptive of you.

And to pre-empt your response on the ad hom point, consider the following statement:

"If you cannot add two to two and get the correct answer, you are not a great mathematician."
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 8:06:56 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 7:43:03 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:40:57 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
The tool with which we understand the world is language. It shapes how we think and perceive. It defines what we can and cannot meaningfully comprehend. It is our sole medium for expression and communication.

Incorrect. We also have mathematics, which is the primary tool of physicists. Thus, why they would need linguistic philosophy is still a mystery to me.

Linguistic philosophy is how we error-check our linguistic toolset. It is how we understand its use, its application and misapplication, its potential and its limitations. It is how we look to redesign it, to improve it and to be more skilled in its use.

I have a better idea, and it has three steps:

1. Formulate your ideas mathematically, since numbers are more reliable than words.

2. Generate a chart from these numbers, because a picture says a thousand words.

3. Let the facts and figures speak for themselves, and shut the f*ck up.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 8:14:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 8:06:56 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/17/2016 7:43:03 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:40:57 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
The tool with which we understand the world is language. It shapes how we think and perceive. It defines what we can and cannot meaningfully comprehend. It is our sole medium for expression and communication.

Incorrect. We also have mathematics, which is the primary tool of physicists. Thus, why they would need linguistic philosophy is still a mystery to me.

Linguistic philosophy is how we error-check our linguistic toolset. It is how we understand its use, its application and misapplication, its potential and its limitations. It is how we look to redesign it, to improve it and to be more skilled in its use.

I have a better idea, and it has three steps:

1. Formulate your ideas mathematically, since numbers are more reliable than words.

2. Generate a chart from these numbers, because a picture says a thousand words.

3. Let the facts and figures speak for themselves, and shut the f*ck up.

*facepalm*

Mathematics is a type of language, you COLOSSAL MORON.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 8:23:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 8:14:53 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/17/2016 8:06:56 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/17/2016 7:43:03 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:40:57 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
The tool with which we understand the world is language. It shapes how we think and perceive. It defines what we can and cannot meaningfully comprehend. It is our sole medium for expression and communication.

Incorrect. We also have mathematics, which is the primary tool of physicists. Thus, why they would need linguistic philosophy is still a mystery to me.

Linguistic philosophy is how we error-check our linguistic toolset. It is how we understand its use, its application and misapplication, its potential and its limitations. It is how we look to redesign it, to improve it and to be more skilled in its use.

I have a better idea, and it has three steps:

1. Formulate your ideas mathematically, since numbers are more reliable than words.

2. Generate a chart from these numbers, because a picture says a thousand words.

3. Let the facts and figures speak for themselves, and shut the f*ck up.

*facepalm*

Mathematics is a type of language, you COLOSSAL MORON.

Not according to common use of the term "language". Your facepalm is overruled.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 9:06:13 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 8:23:17 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/17/2016 8:14:53 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/17/2016 8:06:56 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/17/2016 7:43:03 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:40:57 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
The tool with which we understand the world is language. It shapes how we think and perceive. It defines what we can and cannot meaningfully comprehend. It is our sole medium for expression and communication.

Incorrect. We also have mathematics, which is the primary tool of physicists. Thus, why they would need linguistic philosophy is still a mystery to me.

Linguistic philosophy is how we error-check our linguistic toolset. It is how we understand its use, its application and misapplication, its potential and its limitations. It is how we look to redesign it, to improve it and to be more skilled in its use.

I have a better idea, and it has three steps:

1. Formulate your ideas mathematically, since numbers are more reliable than words.

2. Generate a chart from these numbers, because a picture says a thousand words.

3. Let the facts and figures speak for themselves, and shut the f*ck up.

*facepalm*

Mathematics is a type of language, you COLOSSAL MORON.

Not according to common use of the term "language". Your facepalm is overruled.

Why on earth would you go to the common usage when discussing linguistic philosophy? A subject you feel yourself informed enough on to write off as worthless...
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 10:44:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 9:06:13 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Why on earth would you go to the common usage when discussing linguistic philosophy? A subject you feel yourself informed enough on to write off as worthless...

Because when you use the common meaning of a word, people understand what you're saying. On the other hand, if you use obscure and/or complicated meanings, then even the smartest person may have trouble interpreting what you've said. If your goal is to be understood, simplicity is your friend. People who use lots of big words are usually trying to hide their own ignorance by making others feel stupid.