Philosophy itself

Page 3 of 5 [ 65 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

30 May 2007, 5:36 pm

Phssthpok wrote:

I can safely say I have no philosophy I'm just a shark. The only reason I go along with societies views of good and evil is because it's easier.

The only way I could accept any idea of morality is if it was religious and I took it on faith that god would punish me at the end if I didn't.

see..now i don't mean this in a nasty or attacking way but what you just described in yourself is a lack of a moral compass...the empathy that helps us define morality. most people actually lack this compass but due to religion telling them what they should do, they have a false belief that they have a moral compass when really they're just regurgitating what they've been told.

your a good example of why religion is somewhat needed....but as you said...societal law does the job because it's easier for you to not be hunted down for killing people or whatever (killing is just an example...not that you would actually kill someone).

Phssthpok
Sea Gull

Joined: 16 May 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 227

30 May 2007, 5:43 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Phssthpok wrote:

I have a conscience but that really would just keep me from doing more harm then was necessary if it was anarchy. I have considered just accepting religion so I could have a moral compass but I don't think I could convince myself that I'm not an animal.

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

25 Dec 2007, 1:33 pm

Philosophy as it is today is a label for theoratical topics that are not a part of the natural sciences, the social sciences, the applied sciences, or history

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Dec 2007, 2:16 pm

The difference between science and philosophy is that philosophy proposes theories that seem to be internally consistent and in conformity with a set of accepted beliefs but science tests the premises and rejects them if they are inconsistent with observed results. As Russell noted, Aristotle maintained that women had a different number of teeth than men but never took the trouble to check his wife's mouth to confirm his proposal.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Dec 2007, 3:53 pm

Sand wrote:

Also given Odin's explanation, philosophy does not go over the same topics as science. Philosophy tends to take on topics that are beyond the scope of a scientific method today.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Dec 2007, 4:07 pm

There is a tendency in philosophy to venture into areas that cannot be tested with perception. Therefore it frequency ends in empty speculation.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Dec 2007, 5:04 pm

Sand wrote:

There is a tendency in philosophy to venture into areas that cannot be tested with perception. Therefore it frequency ends in empty speculation.

But the speculation cannot be dismissed either as we are not parsimonious beings ourselves.

Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

25 Dec 2007, 5:16 pm

RobertN wrote:

kevv729 wrote:

I think science is a philosophy but many come against me for this view. For this is all I will say on this.

I think you are right, kevv!! ! Its just that scientists are too arrogant to admit this.

This isn't true.

It has nothing to do with with arrogance, it has to do with the simple truth that science is based upon provable facts while philosophy is just concepts, thought experiments, or conjecture at best.

I'm not a big philosophy person myself, though I admit I find Platonism interesting.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Dec 2007, 5:34 pm

Phagocyte wrote:

This isn't true.

Partially true. Science is an epistemological framework.

Quote:

It has nothing to do with with arrogance, it has to do with the simple truth that science is based upon provable facts while philosophy is just concepts, thought experiments, or conjecture at best.

Science is based upon assumptions, these assumptions cause scientific actions to seek empirical data and extrapolate based upon it. Philosophy is those things, however, science is a philosophical theory. It progresses beyond the concepts, thought experiments and conjecture because the theory is already reasonably developed, however, science still gets critiqued by philosophy because scientific methods are still just part of a branch of philosophy.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

25 Dec 2007, 8:21 pm

Philosophy was what was left after the sciences, which were at one time considered branches of philosophy, broke away.

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

25 Dec 2007, 8:29 pm

Sand wrote:

There is a tendency in philosophy to venture into areas that cannot be tested with perception. Therefore it frequency ends in empty speculation.

IMO the only good philosophy is philosophy inspired by problems raised by scientific discoveries (like the impact of quantum mechanics on Determinism) and/or technological advances (like if super-advanced AI is conscious). Philosophy disconnected with problems raised by new empirical knowledge is meaningless verbage.

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Dec 2007, 8:56 pm

Odin wrote:

And it is no wonder that some consider the reductionistic, rationalistic side of our modern society to also be nihilistic. In your opinion it almost seems as if human existence itself is a meaningless afterthought. The empirical knowledge itself only derives its value from subjective preferences, so who is to say what is meaningful and meaningless?

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Dec 2007, 9:11 pm

There is much dismissal of science in that it does not present clear implications of the value of humanity on the universe and is therefore characterized as meaningless. But we inhabit an insignificantly tiny portion of the universe and our impact, as heavy as it might be on our planet, is negligible on the huge universe. It is very unclear precisely what meaning means and what might give meaning to knowledge once the term is clearly understood. Philosophy gets much entangled with theology when it speaks about meaning and, as far as I can see, theology is almost wholly a compilation of anthropocentric nonsense.

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

25 Dec 2007, 9:29 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Odin wrote:

It is impossible to gain knowledge of reality from pure reason, disconnected from empirical facts. "Meaningless" was probably not the best term I should of used, what I ment was that philosophy not connected to empirical facts is navel-gazing intellectualism, unconcerned with actual problems, and instead obsesses over pseudo-problems and/or category errors.

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Dec 2007, 9:49 pm

Sand wrote:

Life is anthropocentric as well and it can be pretty nonsensical to live through. I did not dismiss science at all, I merely refused to deify it. The universe itself does not clearly have value either and whether we impact it means nothing. Meaning is subjective and it is subjectively based upon life itself. Philosophy gets entanged in theology? Everything is entangled in a theology of its own anyway as Karl Barth once stated "There is, moreover, no religion, no philosophy, no world view that is not dedicated to some such divinity" and this even extends to the atheistic philosophers who speak of absolute morality

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:

To choose this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.

or man's complex relationship with the nature of a deity

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

as even if we cast down God, Nietzsche seems to argue that we must become gods to cope with this loss. Man's life is what he lives, his meaning must relate to him and his relation to meaning must center around him and thus be anthropocentric. To escape this idea is nonsensical and to cast yourself above this problem is really to answer it by ignoring it. One may argue that this approach is to kill many wonderful things, Nietzsche also did state "There are no facts, only interpretations.", but such an answer cannot justify itself as it presupposes value. The reason why this might be opposed is because to take this approach is to recognize the death of truth, but truth is dead, at least our ability to know if we ever stumble upon it.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Dec 2007, 9:51 pm

Odin wrote:

What makes you assume that knowledge of reality is possible in the first place or even desirable? Actual problems is also a subjective category based upon human valuation. Why couldn't navel-gazing intellectualism over pseudo-problems and/or category errors be considered more valuable than other issues, perhaps even all issues?

Page 3 of 5 [ 65 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Philosophy itself Post Reply New Topic

Philosophy itself