|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Philosophy 101 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Is philosophy a load of navel gazing pompous pointless nonsense? or does philosophy provide us with the foundations on which science and society are formed?
I would say a bit of both. I think real philosophy is absolutely vital to the sort of questions EvC is designed to contend with. BUT there is undoubtably a contingent of philosophers who need their superior post-modern bubble to be burst. As per Alan Sokal and the Fashionable Nonsense But this post-modern drivel doesn’t make all philosophy pointless. The need for philosophy remains with regard to how and why we should choose to live (i.e moral/political philosophy) and how/what we can know and to what extent we can distinguish things like belief from knowledge (i.e epistemology). What do others (Hello Mod and Crashfrog) think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminSlev Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
I don't seem to know where to put this. Will the coffee house do ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Wherever you think best.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
To promote or not to promote......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Thread copied here from the Philosophy 101 thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Is philosophy a load of navel gazing pompous pointless nonsense? For the most part, yes. The few contributions we have from philosophy (logic, etc.) could just as easily have come from other fields as needed. To scientists, the majority of philosophy now seems to be, "But you have to pay attention to us! We were here first! (Whimper. Snivel.)" Just look at post-modernism and related nonsense for examples of modern philosophy. No wonder most scientists couldn't care less. (Flame suit on, but only set to moderate.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I quite agree with the wolf on this one.
My own problem with philosophy is it tends to get too nonsensical without much base on reality. Nothing demonstrates this better than modernism and post-modernism. What a load of crap. We have learned from the past that if you base your frame of thought not on physical evidence than you are most likely to be wrong. Look at how Aristotle described the motion of projectile. According to him, if you throw an object it will go in a straight line parallel to the ground until it loses it's libido or whatever and then fall straight down to the ground towards its natural state. A simple experiment of throwing something would have proven this wrong, but no since philosophers are all knowing and don't need no confirmation with reality. I'm constantly amazed at how people continue to put any weight on philosophy at all. It has little to do with reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Every body does philosophy. It human to do so. And there's a philosophical component to scientific theorizing.
Just to be clear, I will assume that you were not talking about that kind of philosophy, but were concerned with professional philosophy, typically done in academia.
Straggler writes:
Yes, and no (in that order). Well, okay, it isn't quite that bad. But there is a lot of nonsense.
Is philosophy a load of navel gazing pompous pointless nonsense? or does philosophy provide us with the foundations on which science and society are formed? Straggler writes:
I wouldn't worry too much about that. It is mostly temporary fads that will die out.But this post-modern drivel doesn’t make all philosophy pointless. The bigger concern should be the emphasis on tradition, and the lack of any empirical testing. The traditions mostly come from an earlier era when creationist thinking was rather common. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Is philosophy a load of navel gazing pompous pointless nonsense? or does philosophy provide us with the foundations on which science and society are formed? I would say a bit of both. And how did you come to this conclusion? Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
nwr writes:
You kidding? This post-modernism drivel has been around for almost a century now and it's still going strong among academic philosophy. Given that there are now a growing number of academics who openly voice their opinion that philosophy is useless today. It is mostly temporary fads that will die out. Added by edit. Here is a blog explaining quite clearly why post-modernism is equivalent to nonsense. Rationally Speaking: Provably Nonsense: Part I I particularly like the reference to the Alan Sokal Hoax, an example I've been using for years to demonstrate my point that post-modernist philosophy is indistinquishable from complete nonsense. Here is another good read. This is by Richard Dawkins, one of the most articulate person alive, me thinks. Page not found | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Straggler writes: Is philosophy a load of navel gazing pompous pointless nonsense? or does philosophy provide us with the foundations on which science and society are formed? Paul Simon's ex-wife once told me it was just a smile on a dog. ??? - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The few contributions we have from philosophy (logic, etc.) could just as easily have come from other fields as needed. Alternatively, it could be argued that these would constitute contributions to philosophy no matter what the job title of the person who came up with them. It depends, of course, on how you define philosophy, and I should like to see someone have a go at that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: And how did you come to this conclusion? Philosophically?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Taz writes: We have learned from the past that if you base your frame of thought not on physical evidence than you are most likely to be wrong. Isn't this a philosophical conclusion? How have you decided which methods of investigation are superior in terms of being "correct". And what do you mean by "wrong"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Coyote writes: Just look at post-modernism and related nonsense for examples of modern philosophy. Sure. But is that the be-all-and-end-all of philosophy? Or just a fashionable blind alley?
Coyote writes: No wonder most scientists couldn't care less. On what basis do scientists derive their methods? Why do they think these methods are superior to other methods? What is tentativity and why is it necessary in science? How do we judge what is science and what is not? And then there is political and moral philosophy. How do we decide what sort of society we want to live in? And how do we best achieve that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024