On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

Please, seriously, stop it. What you are doing is extroadinarily frustrating, and leaves me with zero interest in discussing with you. Feel free to be an annoyance, but I simply won't respond to you.You are fundamentally and willfully breaking the implicit agreement that people make, to attempt to understand each other and work together to establish communication. That is sophistry. That is annoying. That pisses me off.I *WAS* happy to tell you my thoughts, but not because I wanted to argue or convince you, simply to inform you of my internal state. I told you, I hate philosophy. I have no interest in discussing the philosophy of my position in order to determine "right/wrong" or "correct/incorrect". I only had interest in letting you ask questions to facilitate making your own decisions about yourself.Fortunately for me (in your eyes), I am no longer happy to discuss anything with you. You lose, go away.Seriously, please don't reply to this message. Show me at least that amount of respect.

So does it follow:If everything can be subject to the four fundamental forces of physics, then there's no such thing as fundamental forces in physics.If everything can be made of chemical elements, then there's no such thing as chemical elements.If every statement can be subject to logical analysis, then there's no such thing as logical analysis.If every skyscraper can have a foundation, then there's no such thing as skyscraper foundations.This 'sophistry' business is fun. I especially find the last two statements pertinent to the discussion.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Not everything can be. Not everything is. Not every statement is. Not everything is a skyscraper.On the other hand, I've been repeatedly informed that "everything is philosophy", which really means that nothing is philosophy. See, the limits are important. The limits are part of establishing rigor.But "everything is philosophy." Thus, there is no rigor in philosophy. There is no philosophy, it can answer no questions because it can't distinguish between truth and fiction - only between fallacy and tautology.

Well, I hope it's becoming abundantly obvious why some of us so disdain philosophers, particularly ones like AO who say much and mean little.Isn't it at least somewhat instructive that the only way it seems philosophy can be defended is for its defenders to act like complete assholes?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

WTF Crash? you find no intellectual merit in economics too? Like microeconomics, engineering economics, business forecasting, banking?Do you have a problem with the intellectual merit of computing compound interest?Far out.Maybe you should take some classes before dismissing whole fields of human endeavor.Dismissing philosophy and theology is bad enough, if nothing else it is necessary to have some minimal understanding of both to fully comprehend various events in history.But economics too! You and those YECs are the only people here who apparently argue for ignorance.Edited by anglagard, : add one of those philosophic qualifiers.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I guess that depends upon one's definition of every, and everything.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Yes. No rigor. In science, inaccurate models are rejected. In economics, they're enshrined.Economists still argue about whether economies are driven by supply or by demand. A field that cannot settle even the most fundamental of its questions is a field with no rigor.There's a very good reason that the so-called "Nobel Prize in Economics" is not actually awarded by the Nobel Prize committee, but by a Swedish bank in his name. That's mathematics. It was not an economist who discovered e, Ang. Um, no. You're thinking of anthropology, which is the study of human beings. The study of religion as a human phenomenon is anthropology, or possibly sociology. Theology is the study of God, and like economics and philosophy, is a field with no rigor. What, are we to accept as valid any field that appends an "ology" to its name? What are your feelings, then, about dragonology? Wizardology? Unicorn science?Are we to have no standards at all, or must we place every made-up "science" on an equal footing with physics and chemistry?Not being able to distinguish between fact and fantasy doesn't add to knowledge, Ang. Knowledge only comes when truth can be distinguished from fiction. Fields such as philosophy and theology - and, yes, economics - have absolutely no ability to do that. Thus, they're of no value for contributing to human knowledge. They may be fun, or they may be useful for generating deep-sounding bullshit to impress undergrads, but, lacking rigor, they contribute nothing to human knowledge.Fantasy is fun, don't get me wrong. A great deal of my life is wrapped up in fantasy and fiction. But I can also distinguish between the fiction and the reality. How did you come to lose that ability, Ang?

You already have, Ben. With an angry outburst.And an odd one. Why so much anger at discovering you are actually happy to discuss philosophy?Relax. Believe it or not, there are worse discoveries one can make. On the contrary: achieving understanding and communication is exactly what I was working toward. And I have some solid achievements to show for it.We both discovered, for example, that we share a common interest. We like to discuss philosophical questions, such as the nature of truth and the role of hard data in finding it.We also both learned that this discovery infuriates you rather than delights you.We have communication. We have progress toward understanding.Not bad for one exchange. Some people wave white flags, some say 'uncle,' some throw a towel, and some say 'sophistry.' Regardless: thanks for the medal.My purpose, though, was not to make you feel beaten. It was to show you something. Just something I thought you would find interesting. And I am happy to listen on that basis. As I say, I enjoy philosophical discussions.Maybe even as much as you do. Sharing thoughts about the acquisition of knowledge with others who are interested in how it works... that's the essence of a philosophical discussion, really. You did say that. But what infuriates you is learning that you like it.You thought you understood what philosophy was and you imagined yourself as standing somehow beyond it. You are learning that you didn't, and you don't.You have made some emotional investments in the idea of Ben as a philosophy hater. To have that picture altered is clearly stressful for you.My advice is to pull those investments. They're far out of proportion to what the picture is worth. No thinking person is a philosophy hater. They dislike some ideas, but they never hate all philosophy across the board. They do too much of it. But that's what a good philosophical discussion does.Few philosophical questions are ever settled finally as 'right/wrong,' 'correct/incorrect.' The questions tend to endure. People who discuss these questions know this. They just explore, seek as much clarity as they can, and compare notes. They arrive at personal syntheses that suit them and share ideas. They let others ask questions and test their reasoning in order to allow others to--how did you put it?--'facilitate making your own decisions about yourself.'You have here provided us with an excellent description of philosophy in action.I am glad you enjoy discussions of that sort. I do, too. I respect you enough to believe you are not made of sugar candy, despite your efforts to get us to think so. Imposing a gag rule after claiming martyr status is not the stuff of which communication--which you say you value--is made.Anyway, you opened your post by saying 'feel free to be an annoyance.' It seems I already have your express permission to participate in this discussion regardless of your feelings about anything I say.If you don't want replies, don't post. If you want the last word, earn it.________________Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : tinkering.

Let's stick with a general definition then...

quote:

---

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

---

How would you be able to determine if your knowledge is extended? We need to agree on what knowledge is before we can be said to have gained
it, right? An agreed system of reasoning is a pretty good tool for justifying how and why evidence can
lead to knowledge, what we mean by knowledge etc A framework to settle questions and disputes is a pretty good definition of philosophy What disputes hasn't philosophy ever settled? It settled the
geocentrism one, for example, by arguing on the nature of the evidence,
what that means and how we can apply reason to reach conclusions about
the real world. Parsimony helped in that debate if I recall correctly. The two models worked identically, but one was vastly simpler - it did away with the superfluous entity of regression by explaining it.Should women be allowed to abort fetuses? Should we go to war? What do
we need to do to show that x is true? All philosophy I'm afraid. Perhaps you can define 'rigor' for me, and how I would know it when I
see it? Can you justify why it is a necessary or desired quality in a discipline? Well logic and reasoning and your accepted variants thereof, are derived
from useless philosophical discussions. Not everything is philosophy. That's why I said their argument
could be - it might be conceivable their dispute may over something else entirely - who knows? The forefathers of philosophy that influenced our culture and thinking to the point we don't even think about it anymore are pretty much dead so they are not arrogantly strutting around. The philosophers of today have to try and get the same post mortem appreciation - though some might get it while alive. It cannot be verified at all by any system you care to think up. Lol, the obvious rightness of empiricism. Classic gold. Arrogance indeed - your philosophy is so obviously right, it doesn't need justifying. Is seeing believing or is believing seeing? I don't believe something is real just because some part of my brain tells me it is - otherwise I'd fall for an optical illusion completely and utterly, even when I knew the 'trick'. You don't have to believe the subject is valuable if you don't want to. However, given that our entire society is built on the bones of philosophy, that your constitution is written with the blood of battles over philosophy. Ethics? Not useful. Except when we want to convince people that women shouldn't be raped, then a moral debate might be worthy. Want to have an argument, then the modes of debate of reason and of logic might be worthy.The only thing you have, in my opinion, succesfully argued against is metaphysics. And then only just, and probably only because I already agreed with you anyway. If the evidence you have presented so far is all the evidence you currently have then you have no evidence - only argument.Philosophy is bunk indeed! Cast your point into the flames and be done with it - your argument just refuted itself.

Car driver: I want to know how to drive my car faster. I don't really care how my engine works.Engineer: I want to know how to make the carburettor more efficient. I don't really care about the physics of gases.Scientist: I want to know how gases act at extreme pressures. I don't really care how knowledge works.Philosopher: I want to know what we mean when we say, 'I know'. I don't drive a car.

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

If you were still confused let's expand Hume's quote:

quote:

---

The existence, therefore, of any being can only be proved by arguments from its cause or its effect; and these arguments are founded entirely on experience. If we reason a priori, anything may appear able to produce anything. The falling of a pebble may, for aught we know, extinguish the sun; or the wish of a man control the planets in their orbits. It is only experience, which teaches us the nature and bounds of cause and effect, and enables us to infer the existence of one object from that of another. Such is the foundation of moral reasoning, which forms the greater part of human knowledge, and is the source of all human action and behaviour.
...
When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion

---

You can read the whole section at your leisure here. Basically he says: here is my idea on how we can know anything about any entity, if we accept this idea, then the conclusion must be that abstract metaphysics and theology are sophistry and illusion. The 'volumes' he was speaking of are books in libraries that have been metaphorically overrun by people who are persuaded of Hume's principles.

This does appear to be logical, and would even be interesting in relation to the O.P. if Quetzal had said "All philosophical questions are B.S."The trouble is, he doesn't. Perhaps philosophical strawmen are B.S.He cries bullshit on certain types of philosophical questions, and claims that the answers given to these via philosophy can only be subjective. So he's really on your suggested new thesis: "Some philosophies are bullshit but mine is not" anyway.However, he can't use subjective philosophy to prove his point because: So can the "truth" of the uselessness of "meaning of life" type philosophy be proved scientifically, I wonder?

quote:

---

Isn't it at least somewhat instructive that the only way it seems philosophy can be defended is for its defenders to act like complete assholes?

---

ROTFLMAO!!Woe to the retail shop owner in a college town who hires philosophy majors.All those I have worked with, to a person, have been PITAs.

quote:

---

Car driver: I want to know how to drive my car faster. I don't really care how my engine works.

---

And we can determine when the car goes faster, or if it doesn't.

quote:

---

Engineer: I want to know how to make the carburettor more efficient. I don't really care about the physics of gases.

---

And we can determine when a carburator becomes more efficient, or if it doesn't.

quote:

---

Scientist: I want to know how gases act at extreme pressures. I don't really care how knowledge works.

---

And we can determine the actions of gases under extreme pressures.

quote:

---

Philosopher: I want to know what we mean when we say, 'I know'. I don't drive a car.

---

So, how do we know when the philosopher gets the right answer, or has a wrong answer?There is no way to tell.So what's the point of asking unanswerable questions?Edited by nator, : No reason given.