Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → how to do philosophy

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
Today at 01:19 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 01:22 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
April 16, 2025, 11:54 PM
New Britain
April 08, 2025, 05:35 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
April 08, 2025, 09:37 AM
عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
March 29, 2025, 01:09 PM
Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
March 29, 2025, 08:40 AM
Ramadan
by akay
March 29, 2025, 08:39 AM
Turkish mafia reliance
March 24, 2025, 06:00 PM
افضل الايام
by akay
March 21, 2025, 10:57 AM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
March 21, 2025, 07:07 AM
Gaza assault
March 19, 2025, 09:04 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: how to do philosophy

 (Read 12990 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #30 - November 08, 2011, 07:58 PM
    And while we're at it:

    Quote from: Abood on November 07, 2011, 12:38 AM
    Science is the application of certain philosophical schools of thought. It's based on the belief that we have access to the outside world and can deduce justified beliefs from said access.

    What you are missing here is that this describes exactly how every species with any degree of sentience approaches the world. It also applies, without the conscious deduction, to species which have little or no sentience.

    To attempt to claim that a particular school of philosophy is required before anyone can begin to learn about the world around them is very much putting the fart before the whores.

    Every species acts as if they have access to the world and can adapt to and/or learn from it. They do this because the world is real enough to kill you, even if you cannot prove its existence in absolute terms. A species that didn't behave that way would not survive. Our species has been surviving for a very long time.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #31 - November 08, 2011, 07:59 PM
    Quote from: Abood on November 08, 2011, 07:57 PM
    I've already explained this, actually. My definition is experiential and subjective. People experience something powerful and mysterious, something "higher" than them, something they cannot explain. Some of them call it God. Therefore to them God is a fact. It's not only a belief, it's a knowledge.

    This is nothing new, it's the basis of mysticism.

    It's a very crappy definition of "fact", and not one that would usually be applied by most people familiar with the language.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #32 - November 08, 2011, 08:01 PM
    Quote
    putting the fart before the whores.

    Oh my giddy aunt that made me chuckle so hard.
    Against the ruin of the world, there
    is only one defense: the creative act.

    -- Kenneth Rexroth
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #33 - November 08, 2011, 08:03 PM
    grin12
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #34 - November 08, 2011, 08:07 PM
    Obviously that wasn't a concise description of the philosophy of science. I'm no expert on the matter. But science is based on certain philosophies, such as empiricism, positivism, etc.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #35 - November 08, 2011, 08:08 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 08, 2011, 07:59 PM
    It's a very crappy definition of "fact", and not one that would usually be applied by most people familiar with the language.

    Just because it's not one applied by most people does not make it crappy. It's esoteric.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #36 - November 08, 2011, 08:09 PM
    Oh, well. Tongue
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #37 - November 08, 2011, 08:13 PM
    To elaborate on the "Oh, well": this all started because of a video of one of Dawkins' public speeches. He used the word "fact" and you (and several others) went off about it.

    He was speaking to a predominantly lay audience, if I'm not mistaken. You can hardly expect him to use the word "fact" in a particular esoteric sense that would not be understood as such by his audience, and indeed a sense which he has likely never heard of himself. Short version: your objections were rather ridiculous.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #38 - November 08, 2011, 08:15 PM
    Quote from: Abood on November 08, 2011, 08:07 PM
    Obviously that wasn't a concise description of the philosophy of science. I'm no expert on the matter. But science is based on certain philosophies, such as empiricism, positivism, etc.

    I think it would be at least as accurate to say that those philosophies are the written/verbal elucidation of what everyone does naturally anyway. Ergo farts and whores, old chap. Smiley
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #39 - November 08, 2011, 08:21 PM
    I would love to have a discussion about the history and philosophy of science. If you have an article to share please do so.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #40 - November 08, 2011, 08:24 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 08, 2011, 08:13 PM
    To elaborate on the "Oh, well": this all started because of a video of one of Dawkins' public speeches. He used the word "fact" and you (and several others) went off about it.

    He was speaking to a predominantly lay audience, if I'm not mistaken. You can hardly expect him to use the word "fact" in a particular esoteric sense that would not be understood as such by his audience, and indeed a sense which he has likely never heard of himself. Short version: your objections were rather ridiculous.

    My point precisely (which I've mentioned already) is that we don't need to dumb down education any more than it's been dumbed down. I strongly believe in making philosophy more accessible and in general giving people more access to specialized fields. This would start by educating them using the language of the specialists rather than some stupid version of the language.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #41 - November 08, 2011, 08:29 PM
    Quote from: Abood on November 08, 2011, 08:07 PM
    But science is based on certain philosophies, such as empiricism, positivism, etc.

    You keep implying that science is part of philosophy but you miss the point that your particular philosophy as exhibited in the Science and Relativism thread is at odds with basic scientific pillars.  So I think that when we talk about the 'difference between science and philosophy', it applies to common conflicts like the one we had in said thread where we disagreed on what a phenonmenon is, specifically on observation - one of the said basic pillars of the scientific method.
    Against the ruin of the world, there
    is only one defense: the creative act.

    -- Kenneth Rexroth
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #42 - November 08, 2011, 08:32 PM
    I didn't say science is based on my philosophy, I said it's based on certain philosophies. I do believe in science but I'm also critical of it because I disagree with objective epistemologies.

    My point when I say that science is based on philosophy is that it's pretty fucking stupid and ignorant and just fucking shows a lack of education when people say shit like "science is right", "philosophy is stupid". serrated_colon summed it up pretty well.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #43 - November 08, 2011, 08:39 PM
    Quote from: Abood on November 08, 2011, 08:24 PM
    My point precisely (which I've mentioned already) is that we don't need to dumb down education any more than it's been dumbed down. I strongly believe in making philosophy more accessible and in general giving people more access to specialized fields. This would start by educating them using the language of the specialists rather than some stupid version of the language.

    And right here is where you are being pretentious about your dearly beloved. Smiley It's a common flaw whenever one is totally smitten, and it does result in some rather odd behaviour. Wink

    It's not "dumbing down" to use a word in its traditionally established sense. That is how language works: by having established meanings attached to certain combinations of sounds. If you then attempt to bring in a new and esoteric meaning, you are going to have problems when using it in conversation with most people.

    Let's concentrate on "fact", since it seems to bother you so much. It has been used for ages in common speech. It is also used in law. In law, the facts of a case are not things which, in absolute terms, cannot be disproved. They are simply things which appear to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Using the word "fact" in this sense is not dumbing things down.

    The word is used in much the same sense in everyday speech. Using it that way is not arbitrarily redefining it to suit oneself, which is what you suggested I was doing.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #44 - November 08, 2011, 08:44 PM
    Quote from: Abood on November 08, 2011, 08:32 PM
    I didn't say science is based on my philosophy, I said it's based on certain philosophies. I do believe in science but I'm also critical of it because I disagree with objective epistemologies.

    My point when I say that science is based on philosophy is that it's pretty fucking stupid and ignorant and just fucking shows a lack of education when people say shit like "science is right", "philosophy is stupid". serrated_colon summed it up pretty well.

    grin12 Take a few deep breaths.

    Personally, I would say that "Science appears to be one of our most useful tools, and it's hard to think of anything that could realistically replace it" and "Philosophy can certainly be interesting and useful, but is still only a tool that has its own limitations and should not be blindly applied to every situation".
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #45 - November 08, 2011, 08:45 PM
    I have experienced elves, but I do not worship them. I have experienced Nyx and Momus her son, yet I do not worship them. Better by far to follow Buddhism. God, if he exists, should be like Mozi's concept of Heaven, which loves all equally.
    Interested in Buddhism? Check out http://www.accesstoinsight.org/!
    Consider Nalanda University, and never let it happen again.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #46 - November 08, 2011, 08:49 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 08, 2011, 08:39 PM
    And right here is where you are being pretentious about your dearly beloved. Smiley It's a common flaw whenever one is totally smitten, and it does result in some rather odd behaviour. Wink

    It's not "dumbing down" to use a word in its traditionally established sense. That is how language works: by having established meanings attached to certain combinations of sounds. If you then attempt to bring in a new and esoteric meaning, you are going to have problems when using it in conversation with most people.

    Let's concentrate on "fact", since it seems to bother you so much. It has been used for ages in common speech. It is also used in law. In law, the facts of a case are not things which, in absolute terms, cannot be disproved. They are simply things which appear to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Using the word "fact" in this sense is not dumbing things down.

    The word is used in much the same sense in everyday speech. Using it that way is not arbitrarily redefining it to suit oneself, which is what you suggested I was doing.

    I'm sorry if I offended you.

    I don't agree with using the term 'fact' in science the way it's used in popular lingo. You don't have to agree with me.

    This discussion has become stagnant as we both seem to have made all our points yet cannot agree. I don't think there's any point in continuing it.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #47 - November 08, 2011, 08:51 PM
    Quote from: Abood on November 08, 2011, 08:32 PM
     I disagree with objective epistemologies.

    So why use words like fact so assuredly? Especially when you object to applying it to a scientific phenomenon but, I assume, would have no problem in agreeing with a paranoid schizophrenic's claim that [insert some crazy shit that can never be verified] is a fact simply because he experienced it.  Don't you think that, given your views, it would make more sense to just abandon using that term?
    Against the ruin of the world, there
    is only one defense: the creative act.

    -- Kenneth Rexroth
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #48 - November 08, 2011, 08:53 PM
    No. Read my explanation here.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #49 - November 08, 2011, 08:55 PM
    Quote from: Abood on November 08, 2011, 08:49 PM
    I'm sorry if I offended you.

    You didn't. Smiley
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #50 - November 08, 2011, 08:57 PM
    That doesn't really get around arX's point.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #51 - November 08, 2011, 08:57 PM
    I long for the day when every philosophical discussion doesn't descend into epistemology.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #52 - November 08, 2011, 09:00 PM
    It does. Subjective knowledge is not antonymous to assuredness.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #53 - November 08, 2011, 09:00 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 08, 2011, 08:57 PM
    I long for the day when every philosophical discussion doesn't descend into epistemology.

    Then go and look for an epistemology that everyone can agree on.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #54 - November 08, 2011, 09:05 PM
    How about instead we accept epistemology has its problems to which we can dedicate some time, rather than spending all our time dragging every philosophical argument back to the problems of epistemology. Else philosophy bececomes nothing but 'how do we know we know we know it'.
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #55 - November 08, 2011, 09:06 PM
    Well I would get into a discussion with you about that, but it's bound to descend into epistemology. Wink
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #56 - November 08, 2011, 09:07 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 08, 2011, 09:05 PM
    Else philosophy becomes nothing but 'how do we know we know we know it'.

    You can't answer that one anyway, so it's a waste of time.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #57 - November 08, 2011, 09:10 PM
    ... and how do you know you can't know that?
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #58 - November 08, 2011, 09:12 PM
     Cheesy

    meta-pwned
  • Re: how to do philosophy
     Reply #59 - November 08, 2011, 09:13 PM
    I know it. grin12 Attempting to answer that question would be as daft as Kant's attempt to come up with an objective morality by reasoning from first principles. Silly bugger should have had more sense. At least he had the sense to stop, although it did take him a while.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »