Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2013, 05:40 AM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
I personally enjoy a little philosophy on a breezy summer's afternoon, but what I can't stand are people who adhere to it like it's the only possible way to look at the world.

A good example would be the guy to whom I spoke about the "rock paradox". I asked if God could "create a rock so heavy that even HE cannot lift it". Instead of furthering the debate, the jackass got stuck on the "rock so heavy" part.

"What does that even mean, 'rock so heavy'? When you ask that question, you're not really refering to anything. It's very vague. That's why every philosopher and academic I know has denounced the 'Rock' argument in their first year of schooling."

I just wanted to strangle the fuck because people like him have their heads entirely in the clouds and are thus unable to see the real world around them. After all, I could say "temperature so cold that it freezes water", and such people would say "what does that mean, 'temperature so cold'? You're not refering to anything, blah blah fuckity blah". If we had all been hung up on "temperature so cold" and allowed it to hinder our progress; we might never have found that there IS a "temperature so cold" that it'll freeze water - and it happens to be 32 degress F.

So, I don't mind philosophy. But there are some "philosophers" who have thought their own heads right up into their own asses, and I find it infuriating.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Misanthropik's post
23-03-2013, 05:55 AM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
Cause they dumb. Thumbsup

Although formal philosophy give me a headache. And! Fucking Julius. Both science and mathematics are philosophy. Speaking of dumb... Tongue

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
23-03-2013, 08:14 AM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
Because the word "philosophy" doesn't mean anything. It's too broad to take seriously. Here are the cases where I usually hear the word used:
* By theistic apologists who are trying dress their awful arguments in a shroud of credibility
* By people who feel they have tapped into some deep secret private knowledge that makes them feel deeply self-important but doesn't give them any special tools for dealing with reality
* By people who feel that the age of science as passed and that it is just another branch on the tree of philosophy of no more importance than intellectual wankery removed as far from physical reality as the universe is wide

Occasionally sensible people mention it in sensible contexts, but usually sensible people don't need to use that word because they are talking about something useful and sensible that doesn't need to be dressed up to be interesting.

There's an important principle in science. No, I'm not talking about verifying hypotheses or ensuring ideas are falsifiable. This is the most important idea in science - it's that any field of science with "science" in the name isn't really science. I present for your consideration: Computer science, materials science, military science, space science, social science, christian science, information science, soil science, sports science, actuarial science, systems science (these are all real Wikipedia pages and there are many more besides). Real sciences don't need that word tacked onto them because they aren't self-conscious. Chemistry and Physics know what they are. They don't need the "I'm not really important, but look, I might be because I'm SCIENCE" marker. I look at philosophy in much the same way. If your branch of philosophy was interesting and useful and meaningful in its own right you wouldn't have to insert the word "philosophy" into your title or into your sentences. If your ideas were interesting you would talk about those ideas. You wouldn't be talking about "philosophy" in some nebulous self-important fashion. Mathematics, science, logic, ethics, ontology, etc - these don't need the word "philosophy" tagged on for people to understand their significance.

The reason I don't respect someone bringing "philosophy" to the table in a discussion is that outside the philosophy department of university the term means something else: It means you are trying to sell me something. It's shit. That's what you are trying to sell me. You are literally trying to sell me shit. If you weren't trying sell me shit you would tell me what you are really trying to sell me. You would tell me you are selling me science. You would tell me you are selling me logic. You would tell me you are selling me some specific useful idea. If you're telling me about philosophy when you could be talking about something other than "the entirety of the knowledge of human kind from creation to the present day" then you bloody well would be.

Outside of very specific academic contexts the world's philosopher and philosophy are synonyms for "snake oil salesman" and "shit", respectively. We can have a civil discussion about any branch of philosophy you like. We have have civil discussion about the entirety of human knowledge and how it is organised, but if you start using the word "philosophy" without first being clear about which branches and in what way the term is relevant to our conversation then oh boy you might as well have [-7] after your name. The chance this conversation will turn into a productive discussion about ideas and not a "philosophy is good, I care about philosophy, therefore my ideas are good" brick wall falls rapidly with every mention.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Hafnof's post
23-03-2013, 05:01 PM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
(23-03-2013 05:55 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Cause they dumb. Thumbsup

Although formal philosophy give me a headache. And! Fucking Julius. Both science and mathematics are philosophy. Speaking of dumb... Tongue
Well...let's talk about Science in the way I described it - as having to ultimately be proven in Physical reality in order to be considered valid. Now...this is something unique to science, and while large portions of the field of Mathematics may also fit this category, there are large portions of the field of Mathematics that bear no semblamce to physical reality - and this goes for Philosophy, too.

Because Science is always tied to reality by test/observation, it is something fundamentally different from Philosophy. In Science, Ideas are tested and the good ones kept and the bad ones ejected. As a result, Science can steadily progress while Philosophy has been wallowing in it own intellectual garbage for over 2000 years. While Science has cured disease and sent men to the moon, Philosophy has become a handmaiden of religion and mysticism.

Philosophy has been dead for over 2000 years, and it was long dead before Science was developed. But...ya' just never hear the end of Philosophy trying to take credit for Science and it's achievements - trying to cloak itself in Science's glory. Well...there's a lot of Scientists who have gotten tired of the Philosophers and their intellectual garbage, and are now telling them to piss-off in matters of Science! I just wish the Philosophers would listen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 03:41 AM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
(23-03-2013 05:01 PM)Julius Wrote:  Now...this is something unique to science, and while large portions of the field of Mathematics may also fit this category, there are large portions of the field of Mathematics that bear no semblamce to physical reality - and this goes for Philosophy, too.

Can you expound on what you mean by something having "semblance" to physical reality?

I ask, because the way I understand it, mathematics is pure logic. Whether we use mathematics to reference physical reality (the "semblance" I presume you refer to), or exercise mathematics without referencing physical reality, we use the same logic rooted in the most fundamental assumptions of what value each number has and how they relate with each other through various operations. Whether we reference reality with it or not, mathematics is entirely abstract. Philosophy is the same way.

So yes, "philosophy" and "science" are fundamentally different. "Philosophy", like mathematics, is a part of "science".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 04:49 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2013 04:54 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
(21-03-2013 09:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Why is that?
My exposure to philosophy all falls into one category to me, it falls into the Philosobull category. Philosobull of course means Philosophical bullshit, which is the way I have seen it used most often; for bullshitting. I have seen some interesting questions, mostly epistemological questions, yet I still found them to be questions with inevitably unhelpful and extremely personalised answers.

While it was obviously useful in the past, but I frankly don't see it all that helpful to myself, and fail to see how the empty Fill-It-Yourself questions of philosophy (which I have seen, just to emphasise as my experience, not a generalisation) can help me understand anything which is actually helpful or practical.

*Don't get me wrong, I don't hate philosophy, I just find it tedious and unhelpful.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
(23-03-2013 05:01 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(23-03-2013 05:55 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Cause they dumb. Thumbsup

Although formal philosophy give me a headache. And! Fucking Julius. Both science and mathematics are philosophy. Speaking of dumb... Tongue
Well...let's talk about Science in the way I described it - as having to ultimately be proven in Physical reality in order to be considered valid. Now...this is something unique to science, and while large portions of the field of Mathematics may also fit this category, there are large portions of the field of Mathematics that bear no semblamce to physical reality - and this goes for Philosophy, too.

Because Science is always tied to reality by test/observation, it is something fundamentally different from Philosophy. In Science, Ideas are tested and the good ones kept and the bad ones ejected. As a result, Science can steadily progress while Philosophy has been wallowing in it own intellectual garbage for over 2000 years. While Science has cured disease and sent men to the moon, Philosophy has become a handmaiden of religion and mysticism.

Philosophy has been dead for over 2000 years, and it was long dead before Science was developed. But...ya' just never hear the end of Philosophy trying to take credit for Science and it's achievements - trying to cloak itself in Science's glory. Well...there's a lot of Scientists who have gotten tired of the Philosophers and their intellectual garbage, and are now telling them to piss-off in matters of Science! I just wish the Philosophers would listen.
Oh my Gwynnies! Electroshock therapy, stat! Big Grin

Not, and never, dead. Philosophy is an essential tool for the intellect. Perhaps not "formal philosophy" so much as naive philosophy (guess which kind of philosopher I am Big Grin ), but there is no other tool to separate truth from GIGO.

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
24-03-2013, 04:54 PM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
(21-03-2013 11:32 PM)Julius Wrote:  Philosophy is not effective. Philosophers had 2500 years to accomplish what Science has done in the last 350 years - and the Philosophers couldn't. Instead, Philosophy became a Handmaiden of Religion and the Mystic. This is not surprising due to the fact that Philosophy does not rely on Empirical Evidence (i.e., Experiments, Observations, etc..) to validate it's conclusions: it does not anchor itself to reality.

First philosophy is older than 2500 years.

As for the past 350 years this was in sequence to the preceding years, despite a 350 year spike of sorts.
The reality you allude we are anchored to, does not truly reflect your specific 350 years.
Our intelligence and scientific know how does not show much for the latter years when you consider Hiroshima, Pol Pot, the Holocaust,the Industrial Revolution sufferings, nuclear meltdowns,medical blunders, market crashes, and the ultra dangerous world we inhabit.

As for 1st world life style gains, such as high living standards, possessions, health etc there is the down side of population growth,land degradation, the aged often living longer but miserable lives, and the creation of frenzied feeding automatons following their corporate masters.

Philosophy can be concerned at looking at our existence from all conceivable positions and here it can be helpful.
The alternative is rule by dictators or rule largely by self promoting entrepreneurs,neither of which want the mass populace to think (philosophise) for themselves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 04:59 PM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
(24-03-2013 04:54 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  The alternative is rule by dictators or rule largely by self promoting entrepreneurs,neither of which want the mass populace to think (philosophise) for themselves.
Or, rule by self promoting dictators.... which we have now.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 05:15 PM
RE: Love of Wisdom - Hatred of Philosophy
Philosophy is concerned with establishing a general, certain, necessary and true knowledge.Philosophy is not science. Each science has its own method, especially related to empiricism. Philosophy is so general, that it deals with fundamental properties of reality and logic or the very possibility of obtaining any knowledge at all (noetics). For a long time it wasn't clear if we're just not brains in the vat or simulations in a great computers, to tell it in a modern way. Without noetics, science is impossible, because anyone can dismiss it on philosophic grounds! Today it might seem self-evident that science works, but firstly, there are still fundies and secondly, back then in old times science had a much, much less impressive showcase and inordinately high demands on people's sense of piety and tolerance.

Philosophy deals with such question as "What is a human?" "What is freedom?" "Is human free?"
Sounds like a boring crap!

But then, like in that joke, a priest, a general, a politician and an imam walk into a bar... and they start telling who is or isn't human. Non-humans of course have no rights to freedom. And the "humans" can have only a "freedom" as defined by the four. A nice recipe for an instant totalitarian regime.

Assuming you survive and try to prove them wrong, your own people will say that you can't say that. That you can't oppose them, because you don't know anything, because it is impossible to know anything for sure. There is a big red man with pitchfork deep underground, who sends telepathic waves into everyone's mind and deceives them, disrupts their thinking. So you better obey what the totalitarian four says, because they're the only ones not deceived by the big red man underground.

At this point you should go study noetics, the "science" of why the above believer is full of crap and why we are indeed capable of knowing and being really in touch with reality through our mind and our senses.
Indeed, most of medieval philosophers and onwards like Descartes failed at this test and his lifelong work was wasted. This is why you should be suspicious towards all modern philosophers. Better start with the holy trinity of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: