# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  When does philosophy become drivel and why?

## Vautrin

I'm all for getting my hands dirty in a philosophical discussion. Questioning everything and taking nothing at face value is how I try to live my life. However, when does philosophical reflection cross the border into the Republic of Rubbish? And Why? 

From my own personal experience, I've noticed it gets people's eyes rolling when the situation is tense and they want direct, concrete answers to a problem or crisis. Is a truly philosophical view only tolerated when people have the luxury of time? Outside of the world of Academia, at what point does Philosophy become something far less helpful or desirable?

----------


## The Atheist

> I'm all for getting my hands dirty in a philosophical discussion.


Me too!




> Questioning everything and taking nothing at face value is how I try to live my life. However, when does philosophical reflection cross the border into the Republic of Rubbish? And Why?


When you've read _The Republic_ and realise it's rubbish, you're on the right side of the line.




> From my own personal experience, I've noticed it gets people's eyes rolling when the situation is tense and they want direct, concrete answers to a problem or crisis.


Thankfully, there are a lot more pragmatists than philosophers in the world.




> Is a truly philosophical view only tolerated when people have the luxury of time? Outside of the world of Academia, at what point does Philosophy become something far less helpful or desirable?


I'd go as far as saying, everywhere outside of academia it's largely unhelpful.

I'm not sure philosophy has much to offer the world of Higgs bosons.

----------


## Satan

> *When does philosophy become drivel and why?*


When you're not interested in it, and because it is mostly concerned with analyzing life in stead of living it.

----------


## Lote-Tree

Philosophy is complete waste of time...did philosophy invent pencilin? or fly men to the moon? No.

----------


## Satan

> Philosophy is complete waste of time.


No, it's not. Penicillin and moon missions cannot cure the void that the consciousness creates between life and its purpose or meaning. All our scientific prowess is keeping us alive and busy; busy, because idleness and silence yield to thoughts, and then you sink into the sea of tranquility that not only questions the worth of your existence but also the _why_ of it.

Every aspect of modern humans -- be it the social structure, politics, science, law, religion and even business has stemmed from the roots of philosophical investigations of everyday life. To deny philosophy is to deny thoughts and wisdom. But then it would be only philosophical to question the importance and relevance of questioning itself.

Is philosophy dying? Yes, the academia is killing it. They have reduced it to a formal set of analytical tools, and only the professionals are licensed to think.

----------


## grace86

You've reminded me of a philosophy class I took in junior college on the study of ethics. I love philosophy, and the fact that the ability to think and mentally construct all of these different notions of life is something the human race has apart from other species on the planet. Thinking, and/or (?  :Wink:  ) is one of those aspects unique to us and as such we're able to relate to outside circumstances and other people. I agree that philosophy has had groundwork within other branches like science and politics. However, the class I took was three hours in duration, 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. on a Monday night after working a job full time that day. Sitting in a seminar under these circumstances can DEFINITELY stalemate one's interest in philosophy and leave one a bit frustrated that there "are no right answers" - especially lacking dinner.

So I agree that in a practical and life living busy scenario...dealing with philosophy can seem pretty much like rubbish. Yet I value it highly and in its proper time.

Just my bit of rubbish!!

----------


## Vautrin

> No, it's not. Penicillin and moon missions cannot cure the void that the consciousness creates between life and its purpose or meaning. All our scientific prowess is keeping us alive and busy; busy, because idleness and silence yield to thoughts, and then you sink into the sea of tranquility that not only questions the worth of your existence but also the _why_ of it.
> 
> Every aspect of modern humans -- be it the social structure, politics, science, law, religion and even business has stemmed from the roots of philosophical investigations of everyday life. To deny philosophy is to deny thoughts and wisdom. But then it would be only philosophical to question the importance and relevance of questioning itself.
> 
> Is philosophy dying? Yes, the academia is killing it. They have reduced it to a formal set of analytical tools, and only the professionals are licensed to think.



I agree. Every major field of study essentially started off as a thought in someone's mind. In a way philosophy is the mother of all disciplines. 

Now that we've established that; When does philosophy become drivel even in this context? When does a philosophical thought begin to contribute close to nothing to a field of study or a facet of human civilization? Can ideas after a certain point simply become excessive or unnecessary? Is there a cap on the progress gained through philosophy, or is the sky the limit?

----------


## JacobF

> Thankfully, there are a lot more pragmatists than philosophers in the world.


Isn't pragmatism a philosophical position?

I don't buy into the belief that philosophy is useless. Sure, sitting around and thinking doesn't "get things done," but what's the purpose of doing so if you don't reflect on your actions afterward? And life as a whole? Everybody can benefit from philosophy.

----------


## paradoxical

> When you've read _The Republic_ and realise it's rubbish, you're on the right side of the line.


I'm curious, why would you say that?

Personally, I enjoy philosophy. I also believe that man, since prehistoric times, has always wanted to know the 'why' and not just the 'how'. I believe that this desire for meaning and understanding (which, after all is what philosophy is all about) is part of the human condition.

As was pointed out, all of our culture and religion -- our entire social structure -- is built upon philosophical beliefs. Sure, in today's corporate environment, and other segments of our materialistic society, the only thing that matters is the amount of money one can make, and there is even disdain for such things as philosophy, art, and religion. Perhaps you could classify this as nihilism, and it would actually be a kind of philosophy, after all.

But I know that most people reach a stage in life where, no matter how obtuse they have been in the past, they began to question why? They begin to search for answers. Why are we born? What happens when we die? What is the purpose of our lives? They search for answers in literature, art, religion, or perhaps go straight to philosophy, but all of these disciplines are underpinned by philosophy. In short, philosophy never becomes mere drivel.

----------


## Katy North

I would say that philosophy only becomes obsolete if any "factual" information it was based on became obsolete. 

For example, if it was proven %100 that there was a god, philosophies based on atheism would become obsolete, and vica versa. 

As for the question "When does a philosophy become drivel?" I believe the answer would be "when you stop believing it is true".

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Every aspect of modern humans -- be it the social structure, politics, science, law, religion and even business has stemmed from the roots of philosophical investigations of everyday life.


And we have now realised that that kind of investigations yields nothing.

It did not produce pencilin or fly men to the moon. It did not discover the begining of the Universe or make blind men see or explain the origins of humanity. 

And after 2000 years of philosophical quest for God it yielded nothing. It was a complete waste of time...

----------


## Jozanny

It can be argued that metaphysical inquiry has failed in the 2000 years it has been a philosophical discipline. It can also be countermanded that, just because metaphysical problems pose a series of contradictions, this doesn't mean they shouldn't be struggled with. (I derive a great deal of entertainment watching Harvard instructors play the great egalitarian to a freshman class of over a 100 students who look ghetto dependent while paying a fortune to be in their lecture hall, what can I say? :Tongue: )

Classical philosophy has spawned many disciplines, and in turn derives new problems from these: linguistics, political science, bio ethics.

Metaphysics, however, is still the Platonic-Kantian pulp fruit that keeps the engines of philosophy oiled; having said all this, I will probably be dead before I ever fully get a handle on Kant or Nietzsche (and Nietzsche leads to Foucault) or Hegel, for that matter--and phenomenology is important towards meta-theory.

----------


## Quark

> Classical philosophy has spawned many disciplines, and in turn derives new problems from these: linguistics, political science, bio ethics.


That's a good point. I also think philosophy acts as an intermediary between advanced disciplines or institutions and the average, moderately-educated person. When Plato writes about justice, he's explaining how political institutions work to people who didn't have the experience--or even the ability to imagine--how the state works. Socrates' idea is that the state functions by creating tasks (production, defense, leadership) and delegating those tasks. This gives people who haven't experienced everything in the political body a way of understanding politics. Similarly, today much of what's being done now in philosophy is questioning the basis of scientific claims. Ever since Kuhn's _Structure of Scientific Revolutions_, philosophers have asked how we can be sure what scientists are saying is objectively true. The sciences are so vast and deep that no one can possibly know everything they have to say, yet we all assume that they're true. Recent philosophy tries to act as the intermediary here, and explain if and how we can trust scientific claims.

As for the OP:




> when does philosophical reflection cross the border into the Republic of Rubbish?


When philosophy becomes more concerned with itself than its role as questioner or intermediary, then I think we've crossed that border. Some of philosophy just sounds like an internal squabble between huge-egoed men with little to actually contribute--Richard Rorty is a name that comes to mind. When philosophy becomes so self-absorbed that even people as smart as Rorty can't escape it, then it's a waste of time.

----------


## blazeofglory

To think philosophy is drivel is drivel in itself. For without philosophy how dull life would be with no inquiry into who we are. Not that we have been able to answer exactly who we are or where we are from. You can say biologically we are men, homo-sapiens or thinking animals. You can say we have come from our parents or you can point to the geographies you are from. 

But still we want a different answer. Don't we?

This is wherein philosophy interests us.

----------


## The Atheist

> No, it's not. Penicillin and moon missions cannot cure the void that the consciousness creates between life and its purpose or meaning. All our scientific prowess is keeping us alive and busy; busy, because idleness and silence yield to thoughts, and then you sink into the sea of tranquility that not only questions the worth of your existence but also the _why_ of it.


Nope, this is just a plea for magic, I'm sorry.

If there is no purpose to life other than just living it, I can't see where philosophy will or even can, provide answers.

Like religion, philosophy is a 10,000-year fail.




> Every aspect of modern humans -- be it the social structure, politics, science, law, religion and even business has stemmed from the roots of philosophical investigations of everyday life.


No problem there, earlier philosophies did ask some questions which needed considering, but it really is irrelevant in 2010.




> To deny philosophy is to deny thoughts and wisdom.


You seem to be incorrectly conflating philosophy and abstract & critical thinking, plus, you'd need to present some serious evidence of the outrageous claim that wisdom only comes from philosophy.




> Is philosophy dying? Yes, the academia is killing it. They have reduced it to a formal set of analytical tools, and only the professionals are licensed to think.


And thank god for that!

 :Biggrin: 




> Isn't pragmatism a philosophical position?


It can be, but the practice itself isn't really philosophical. Just show me the evidence.




> I don't buy into the belief that philosophy is useless. Sure, sitting around and thinking doesn't "get things done," but what's the purpose of doing so if you don't reflect on your actions afterward? And life as a whole? Everybody can benefit from philosophy.


Again, I think this is just conflating Philosophy and philosophy. Proper noun Philosophy as a school of thought and study is bunkum, thinking about the world and oneself isn't. 

Maybe that's the entire issue?




> I'm curious, why would you say that?
> 
> Personally, I enjoy philosophy. I also believe that man, since prehistoric times, has always wanted to know the 'why' and not just the 'how'. I believe that this desire for meaning and understanding (which, after all is what philosophy is all about) is part of the human condition.


And how much human endeavour has been wasted asking that one question?

From a historical perspective, yes, it's important to understand how our thinking arose, but once we know how to ask questions, Philosophy as a discipline is a waste of space.




> As was pointed out, all of our culture and religion -- our entire social structure -- is built upon philosophical beliefs.


Well, I'd kill religion off gladly, and as I said above, I'm not sure the world we've modelled is actually the right one.

I tend to see the kind of thinking usually reserved under the label "philosophy" as holding things back rather than advancing anything.

I usually use the abortion as the best example. Philosophy can give no answer as to whether it's right or wrong. Philosophy can't deal with real world problems because it isn't real. 




> Sure, in today's corporate environment, and other segments of our materialistic society, the only thing that matters is the amount of money one can make, and there is even disdain for such things as philosophy, art, and religion. Perhaps you could classify this as nihilism, and it would actually be a kind of philosophy, after all.


This is asking if philosophy is better than capitalism.

Given that the Industrial Revolution has given us everything we have and philosophy has given us nothing, I'd say the child of the Industrial Revolution, capitalism, is winning by a long way.




> But I know that most people reach a stage in life where, no matter how obtuse they have been in the past, they began to question why? They begin to search for answers. Why are we born? What happens when we die? What is the purpose of our lives? They search for answers in literature, art, religion, or perhaps go straight to philosophy, but all of these disciplines are underpinned by philosophy. In short, philosophy never becomes mere drivel.


That looks pretty good at first glance, but can you point to which of those questions philosophy has actually answered?

Science tells us why we're born and die; it tells us why the universe exists and we might soon find out what it can and will do.




> For example, if it was proven %100 that there was a god, philosophies based on atheism would become obsolete, and vica versa.


No, some philosopher would demand that we cannot prove reality, so proof is only a relative term.

 :Wink: 




> But still we want a different answer. Don't we?


Some people do.

I have yet to see where any philosophy not based on scientific evidence does more than confuse people, however.

----------


## Dodo25

It becomes drivel quite quickly, I think the majority of philosophical writing is nonsense, and even worse it is with 'amateur philosophers' and their speeches.. 

The whole field of metaphysics is nonsense, for it is grounded in no foundation whatsover. The worst being postmodernism..

But I disagree with the poster above, true philosophy is far away from being useless. Ethics for example can't be justified by mere science, moral philosophy is important and very interesting. Be it Kantian imperatifs, Moral Relativism or Utilitarianism, the stuff certainly leads to applicable rationales and interesting conclusions.

Another field of interest is philosophy of the mind. Anyone heard of Daniel Dennett? This philosophy is very closely linked to science and evolution (which is great because it has to be). And it's the only way the age old questions about free will or consciousness can be answered.

----------


## The Atheist

> It becomes drivel quite quickly, I think the majority of philosophical writing is nonsense, and even worse it is with 'amateur philosophers' and their speeches.. 
> 
> The whole field of metaphysics is nonsense, for it is grounded in no foundation whatsover. The worst being postmodernism..


Can't disagree with any of that.




> But I disagree with the poster above, true philosophy is far away from being useless. Ethics for example can't be justified by mere science, moral philosophy is important and very interesting. Be it Kantian imperatifs, Moral Relativism or Utilitarianism, the stuff certainly leads to applicable rationales and interesting conclusions.


I'm not sure philosophy enables any conclusions in ethics or morality. I have yet to see any evidence of it, anyway. If you can show where philosophy is able to direct to a specific ethical question, then fire away.




> Another field of interest is philosophy of the mind. Anyone heard of Daniel Dennett? This philosophy is very closely linked to science and evolution (which is great because it has to be). And it's the only way the age old questions about free will or consciousness can be answered.


I'm not much of a fan of Dennett - I find him to be a bit wishy-washy, as most ex-fantasists are.

Questions on free will are meaningless since nobody's ever gained a consensus on what it actually is, while consciousness is the realm of science and MRI technology.

----------


## skib

In my non-philosophically educated/interested viewpoint, philosophy becomes drivel at the point where physical productivity becomes important. I'll say straight out that I've read at the most twenty-odd pages of a philosophy book and found it so blatantly unhelpful I never went back for seconds.

----------


## paradoxical

> If there is no purpose to life other than just living it, I can't see where philosophy will or even can, provide answers.


That in itself is a philosophy, although a negative and materialist philosophy, it is still a philosophical position.




> Like religion, philosophy is a 10,000-year fail.


I don't see how you can call something that has given hope and meaning to billions of people a 10,000 year fail. Science, on the other hand has provided many good things but science and technology have also created many problems. Above all, science does not answer the more important questions.




> I usually use the abortion as the best example. Philosophy can give no answer as to whether it's right or wrong. Philosophy can't deal with real world problems because it isn't real.


Philosophy can deal with real world problems, and it can give an answer to whether it's right or wrong. Science certainly cannot answer this question.




> Given that the Industrial Revolution has given us everything we have and philosophy has given us nothing, I'd say the child of the Industrial Revolution, capitalism, is winning by a long way.


It has also destroyed most of the natural world, has put the world at the brink of nuclear destruction, and has created a diseased, stressful society that is divorced from nature, etc.




> Science tells us why we're born and die; it tells us why the universe exists and we might soon find out what it can and will do.


Science does not tell us why we're born and why we die and it most certainly does not tell us why the universe exists.

Note: please see this as a friendly debate, nothing more. I simply enjoy this kind of discussion, that's all.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Science does not tell us why we're born


Yes. It does. Self organization is inherent in nature. Because of this inherent nature you came to be.




> and why we die


Because evolution needs it.




> and it most certainly does not tell us why the universe exists.


It exists because there was quantum fluctations in the energy field.




> Note: please see this as a friendly debate, nothing more. I simply enjoy this kind of discussion, that's all.



Yayee to that ;-)

----------


## Dodo25

> If you can show where philosophy is able to direct to a specific ethical question, then fire away.


Well one thing is certian, science can't. And if you want to have any kind of opinion on moral issues, your approach must be either religious dogma or philosophical. It's not that science should be ignored. Take for example abortion, science tells you the relevant facts, but doesn't give you a conclusion. 




> Questions on free will are meaningless since nobody's ever gained a consensus on what it actually is,


There need not be a consensus. Philosophers are skilled (maybe too skilled and eager to do so) in defining their own words and explaining that before they start arguing. There are definitions of free will that make a whole lot of sense and tell us something interesting about human nature. Dennett's _free will is whatever gives us moral responsibility (if it exists)_ comes to mind.




> while consciousness is the realm of science and MRI technology.


What is MRI going to tell you about qualia? Why do we i.e. see colors the way they are? What happens if you reversed 'which color goes to what wavelength' in the brain during surgery? Again, science provides the foundation, but the conclusions need to be drawn by philosophy.




> I don't see how you can call something that has given hope and meaning to billions of people a 10,000 year fail.


Hope and meaning? How about indoctrination, delusion, fear of afterlife, inquisition, discrimination, oppression of women, crusades and terrorists? Besides from giving virtually no 'answers' at all, which I think classifies it as 'fail'? I'm not saying religion is completely evil, but I must stress that it has prevented scientific and humanistic progress (still is!). 

Yeah and for the rest of the matter I agree with Lote-Tree. And I don't see why philosophical materialism should be 'negative'. On a first level, all that counts is it's truth value. And on a second level, _personal_ meaning can be found even in a purposeless universe.

----------


## dizzydoll

Good stuff  :Thumbs Up: , its like watching a bunch of professors debate  :Cool: 

...

*Fifty-One*

Those who want to know the truth of the universe should practice the four cardinal virtues. The first is reverence for all life; this manifests as unconditional love and respect for oneself and all other beings. The Second is natural sincerity; this manifests as honesty, simplicity, and faithfulness. The third is gentleness; this manifests as kindness, consideration for others, and sensitivity to spiritual truth. The fourth is supportiveness; this manifests as service to others without expectation of reward. The four virtues are not an external dogma but a part of your original nature. When practiced, they give birth to wisdom and evoke the five blessings: health, wealth, happiness, longevity, and peace. 

Brian Walker

----------


## The Atheist

> That in itself is a philosophy, although a negative and materialist philosophy, it is still a philosophical position.


This is where again we butt up against the philosophy/Philosophy divide.

You say philosophy, I just think of it as critical thinking.

Pedantically, every thought can be a "philosophy", but I'd like to keep a divide in place. This is one I imagine academia would agree with me; I can't imagine Philosophy embracing Scientology, say.




> I don't see how you can call something that has given hope and meaning to billions of people a 10,000 year fail.


False hope and meaning, it seems to me.

In this regard, it's just like religion. Sure, it may comfort some people, but that isn't a big enough reason for me to leave it alone as a target for derision.




> Science, on the other hand has provided many good things but science and technology have also created many problems. Above all, science does not answer the more important questions.


Can you explain to me what problems science can't answer, and also note why they're important? 




> Philosophy can deal with real world problems, and it can give an answer to whether it's right or wrong. Science certainly cannot answer this question.


I'm quite certain science can, but that's by the by, really.

Can you display where Philosophy can help with one real world problem?

Provide some evidence.




> It has also destroyed most of the natural world, has put the world at the brink of nuclear destruction, and has created a diseased, stressful society that is divorced from nature, etc.


What?

The Industrial Revolution hasn't caused any of that, human stupidity and lack of foresight has.

Such problems as that stupidity has brought will no doubt be identitified and repaired by technology rather than philosophy.




> Science does not tell us why we're born and why we die and it most certainly does not tell us why the universe exists.


Science can tell us with 100% accuracy why we're born and die.

As to "why the universe exists" and some mythical "meaning of life", some people think they're important questions. I consider them to be worthless, because science has shown to my satisfaction that there is no answer - there is no "why", there just is.

Philosophy tries to make those questions seem important because they're Philosophy's sole raison d'etre. 

Maybe if people were able to accept the meaninglessness of it all, they'd spend less time asking "Why?"




> Note: please see this as a friendly debate, nothing more. I simply enjoy this kind of discussion, that's all.


Exactly where I am - I always tell people to remember that this is a discussion board and not the Security Council of the UN!

 :Biggrin: 




> Because evolution needs it.


I'll be a bit pedantic here and disagree here.

Evolution doesn't "need" anything, it also just happens.

We die because cells degenerate.




> Well one thing is certian, science can't. And if you want to have any kind of opinion on moral issues, your approach must be either religious dogma or philosophical. It's not that science should be ignored. Take for example abortion, science tells you the relevant facts, but doesn't give you a conclusion.


I disagree entirely with this, although it does bring back the philosophy/Philosophy divide, because once we're in possession of all the facts, I'm sure a little critical thinking can give us the answers.

You could assign one philosophy to it all - the greatest good - but I think the sciences of anthropology, biology (evolution) and physics can actually answer moral questions. 

That's the only place I see for any kind of philosophical thinking, but even then, it tosses the rules of Philosophy out the wondiow, because logical fallacies aren't necessarily wrong.




> There need not be a consensus. Philosophers are skilled (maybe too skilled and eager to do so) in defining their own words and explaining that before they start arguing. There are definitions of free will that make a whole lot of sense and tell us something interesting about human nature. Dennett's _free will is whatever gives us moral responsibility (if it exists)_ comes to mind.


This is why the whole "free will" argument is the core of religion and religious thinking - I can bag one description of it, but no sooner have I done so than another version springs up. Different branches of Philosophy cannot even agree on it, so I don't believe rational debate is possible on the subjet without clarity of what this "free will" is.

I can show you several million pages of debate if you'd like to follow up on it.

Dennett's just wrong, but it does exemplify what I think is wrong with his philosophical stances.




> What is MRI going to tell you about qualia?


Everything.

It will repeatedly show that the same portion of the brain is used in each individual class of quale and that different people will use the exact same bit of the brain every time for the same quale. (Except in brain damage cases)




> Why do we i.e. see colors the way they are?]


Because our eyes evolved to work as they do.




> What happens if you reversed 'which color goes to what wavelength' in the brain during surgery? Again, science provides the foundation, but the conclusions need to be drawn by philosophy.


Nope. Science will tell us exactly why, because something is obviously broken and we can find that out from scientific enquiry, not philosophical.

----------


## Dodo25

I don't have time to respond in detail, just some brief thoughts before I leave this discussion:

Lote-Tree is actually right in a way, evolution 'favors death', at some point, the repair-work in the body becomes too costly, even though technically, it's not impossible for an organism to live forever (or at least until the universe cools to death).

Philosophy should be critical thinking. I think you are too concentrated on the image of philosophy as a whole. As I've said before, most of it is indeed useless nonsense, but there are parts of it that are valuable. 

Of course brain scans show you active regions, but how is this going to explain why a pattern of neurons firing creates any sensation at all, anything 'thinking'?

----------


## Vautrin

So if philosophy is what gives birth to the various fields and disciplines and is often pushed aside or replaced once the field organizes itself and establishes its own methods and procedures, then can we say that philosophy becomes drivel once it is replaced by more tangible things like evidence and experiments (hard science)? 

If this is the case then philosophy only becomes helpful again in the theoretical branches of these sciences. 

As for the social sciences, perhaps philosophy is treated the same way once actual ethnographic and sociological studies are carried out to gather hard data and prove/disprove theories.

----------


## The Atheist

> Philosophy should be critical thinking. I think you are too concentrated on the image of philosophy as a whole. As I've said before, most of it is indeed useless nonsense, but there are parts of it that are valuable.


I think that's fair enough.




> Of course brain scans show you active regions, but how is this going to explain why a pattern of neurons firing creates any sensation at all, anything 'thinking'?


We know that from enquiry rather than MRI. As yet, we can't tell what a person is thinking from an MRI scan, but it won't be long. In the meantime, if people tell us they're seeing or thinking about blue, we take it at face value.

Again, there is no "why", there just is.




> So if philosophy is what gives birth to the various fields and disciplines and is often pushed aside or replaced once the field organizes itself and establishes its own methods and procedures, then can we say that philosophy becomes drivel once it is replaced by more tangible things like evidence and experiments (hard science)?


That seems bang on to me.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

There's no universal system of judgement; obviously, the relevency of philosophy is subjective (as is the relevency of pretty much everything else). To say anything more about the boundaries between drivel and genius is pointless (at least, that's my _subjective_ opinion).

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Evolution doesn't "need" anything, it also just happens.


I will be pedantic too and say evolution needs variation to work on ;-)

Without it does not work.

----------


## TheFifthElement

> Can you display where Philosophy can help with one real world problem?


Define 'real'?

This is, as I see it, the value of philosophy; not in the drawing of conclusions but in the opening up of questions. Because in philosophical terms your statement is flawed. What is real? How do you know what is real? How do you define what is real? Will your definition, expectation, of real be the same as mine? Is there such a thing as a common frame of reference? Is human 'perception' the limit and entirety of what is 'real' in the universe and if it is not how can it be a reliable basis on which to judge 'reality'? 

Philosophy, to me, is less about results and more about opening oneself up to the concept that everything we 'know', including religion, including philisophy, including science, including 'reality' may be flawed. I think that's valuable, personally.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Philosophy, to me, is less about results


That sums up everything about philosophy. 

It produces no results. 

And hence it's a pointless exercise. 

It has taken 2000 years of this pointless excerise to realise that it's a pointless exercise!

----------


## TheFifthElement

> That sums up everything about philosophy. 
> 
> It produces no results. 
> 
> And hence it's a pointless exercise. 
> 
> It has taken 2000 years of this pointless excerise to realise that it's a pointless exercise!


Well, you could say the same thing about quantum physics and cosmology. Quantum physics brings no 'results' only probabilities. And in cosmology in the absence of a better explanation they're not adverse to inventing something that makes the theories fit together even though there's no evidence that the invented thing exists - like dark matter for example, or dark energy. 

But I digress. Philosophical questions can lead to a greater understanding of the world around us, but when that happens the 'result' is absorbed into a more specific subject and is no longer 'philosophy'. 

For example, Bertrand Russell once wrote about the problems of philosophy and asked a question: "what makes a table a table?". As a common thinking human being you might answer that it is an object with a flat surface on top of 3 or 4 legs. But this can also be the description of a chair, so what makes a chair a chair and a table a table? It seems a simple problem, but it is not. 

This kind of thinking is now used in advanced robotics to help understand how to programme robots to recognise objects. So what was once a 'philosophical' question now serves some useful function. The 'philosophical' question, when answered will generally fall outside the realms of philosophy and more properly into something else. Which is why philosophy is filled with questions, not results.

Perhaps, as the Athiest said, there is a fine line between what is philosophy and what is critical thinking. 

Then there are other philosophers such as John Stuart Mill whose philosophies still have an impact on those of us living in Britain today. Aristotle Godfather of the scientific method and let's not forget good old Nietzsche creator of the _Ubermensch_ and the fallout that ensued therefrom. 

That philosophy encourages something other than textbook thinking, I think is a good thing. 

I think, therefore it is  :Biggrin:

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Well, you could say the same thing about quantum physics and cosmology. Quantum physics brings no 'results' only probabilities.


A probability calculation is still a calculation. A result ;-) As result of this you have computers and your ipods and ipads.




> And in cosmology in the absence of a better explanation they're not adverse to inventing something that makes the theories fit together even though there's no evidence that the invented thing exists - like dark matter for example, or dark energy.


Scientific Hypothesis are nothing like philosophies.




> Philosophical questions can lead to a greater understanding of the world around us


No. Science does this. 2000 years of philosophical quest did not discover penicilin or microbes and bacteria.




> but when that happens the 'result' is absorbed into a more specific subject and is no longer 'philosophy'.


Philosophy produced no result to be "absorbed" into.




> For example, Bertrand Russell once wrote about the problems of philosophy and asked a question: "what makes a table a table?". As a common thinking human being you might answer that it is an object with a flat surface on top of 3 or 4 legs. But this can also be the description of a chair, so what makes a chair a chair and a table a table? It seems a simple problem, but it is not.


This all boils down to analysis of language. What a climb down for Philosophy!




> That philosophy encourages something other than textbook thinking, I think is a good thing.


Philosophy encourages you to waste time on pointless things like what is a chair!





> I think, therefore it is


And science has shown there is no such think as "I think". We do our "Thinking" with all our body. 

Philosophy is like a blind person trying to cross a busy motorway with the power of his thought alone. 

As you can see it's an arrogant approach. No wonder philosophy has been reduced to just analysing language ;-)

----------


## TheFifthElement

I _have_ missed you Lote  :Biggrin: 




> A probability calculation is still a calculation. A result ;-) As result of this you have computers and your ipods and ipads.


Computers predate quantum theory. The two are not linked. 

Quantum theory doesn't give results. You ask a: "does light travel in a straight line?". Quantum theory states, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It might do, it might not. We can't say what it actually will do. No more certain than when you started. 




> No. Science does this. 2000 years of philosophical quest did not discover penicilin or microbes and bacteria.


Philosophy invented science. Thus philosophy did discover penicilin and microbes and bacteria. Without philosophy there would _be_ no science. You need to study your history more  :Wink:  By this you might have realised that philosophy has been around for more than 2000 years. 




> This all boils down to analysis of language. What a climb down for Philosophy!


Analysis of language is a part of philisophy and has always been. There's nothing debasing about that. Language is an important tool for sharing ideas, is it not? But philosophy has many angles - philosophy of science, language, logic, metaphysics, politics, economics, mathematics, ethics, and so on.

I think it is strange to call philosophy arrogant. Philosophy asks us to challenge what we think we 'know'. It is as arrogant as the wide eyed child asking 'why?'

----------


## paradoxical

> Can you explain to me what problems science can't answer, and also note why they're important?


I believe it is painfully obvious that there are many problems science can't answer: Is there an afterlife? Who, or what created the universe? Consider ethical questions regarding capital punishment, abortion, or ending life support. Science can tell us exactly what will happen when the victim is given a lethal injection, but cannot tell us if it is right or wrong to execute prisoners or to "pull the plug" on someone's life support. 




> I'm quite certain science can, but that's by the by, really.
> 
> Can you display where Philosophy can help with one real world problem?
> 
> Provide some evidence.


Please see above. By the way, you never did explain why The Republic is "rubbish".




> Science can tell us with 100% accuracy why we're born and die.
> 
> As to "why the universe exists" and some mythical "meaning of life", some people think they're important questions. I consider them to be worthless, because science has shown to my satisfaction that there is no answer - there is no "why", there just is.
> 
> Maybe if people were able to accept the meaninglessness of it all, they'd spend less time asking "Why?"


Well, if we were to believe a priori that such questions are worthless and that all is meaningless, then there would be no need for philosophy or critical thinking of any kind. However, such is not the case and it is not very scientific to believe that there is "no why, there just is." Nothing in the natural world "just is", everything is the result of something else. Why would the universe be any different?





> It will repeatedly show that the same portion of the brain is used in each individual class of quale and that different people will use the exact same bit of the brain every time for the same quale. (Except in brain damage cases)
> 
> 
> Because our eyes evolved to work as they do.


And how is this not materialist philosophy again?

----------


## The Atheist

> I believe it is painfully obvious that there are many problems science can't answer: Is there an afterlife?


Science has answered that quite adequately, and the answer is "no".

Anyone can ask pointless questions, but that doesn't make it philosophy. You may as well ask what colour "3" is.




> Who, or what created the universe?


While science hasn't answered that question fully, it will do, and fairly soon, I imagine.

On the other hand, what progress has philosophy made?

Thanks to science we know what the universe is made up of, how the different bits of it react in relation to each other and how it is likely to behave in the future.

Philosophy has given not one single thing to our understanding of the universe.




> Consider ethical questions regarding capital punishment, abortion, or ending life support. Science can tell us exactly what will happen when the victim is given a lethal injection, but cannot tell us if it is right or wrong to execute prisoners or to "pull the plug" on someone's life support.


Again, if philosophy could answer any of them, you might have a point.

I already noted that the "greatest good" is clearly the one successful philosophy we can use, and science can happily take it from there. 




> Please see above. By the way, you never did explain why The Republic is "rubbish".


Because it's wrong in every material respect.




> Well, if we were to believe a priori that such questions are worthless and that all is meaningless, then there would be no need for philosophy or critical thinking of any kind.


No, we need the critical thinking to enable science to show which questions are immaterial and which are not.




> However, such is not the case and it is not very scientific to believe that there is "no why, there just is." Nothing in the natural world "just is", everything is the result of something else. Why would the universe be any different?


Now, I can understand old Tommy Aquinas not understanding, but not everything requires a reason.

As uranium 238 decays, electrons are released at completely random atoms.

Some things do "just happen".

It's like asking why abiogenesis happened on earth. We will probably never know beyond the fact that it did happen, and it's actually of no importance whatsoever.




> And how is this not materialist philosophy again?


Sure, you can say that, but once we've decided that the universe is real and that materialism is the appropriate form of philosophical enquiry, there isn't any room for further philosophy, which means it is irrelevant.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Computers predate quantum theory. The two are not linked. 
> 
> Quantum theory doesn't give results. You ask a: "does light travel in a straight line?". Quantum theory states, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It might do, it might not. We can't say what it actually will do. No more certain than when you started.


This isn't true. Quantum mechanics can't tell you where an electron will be with 100% certainty to a single point, however it can tell you probabilities in difference spaces giving you roughly a small area where the electron is likely to be.

Our modern understanding of electronics, magnetism, the particle-wave duality of light are all dependent on quantum theory. You need quantum theory to explain how photosynthesis works, you need quantum theory to understand why metal emits light when heated, you need quantum theory to understand the 3D structure of complex molecules, and you need quantum theory to understand how matter works at the subatomic level. You need to understand quantum mechanics to build lasers, microchips and many other machines that operate with photons and subatomic particles.

Also, quantum theory predates the computer by nearly 100 years. It began in the 19th century and by the 1920s it was already the dominant trend in physics.

Moreover, science did not "invent" dark matter. Physicist inferred dark matter must exist, and from that we are able to make predictions which prove accurate in testing, which strengthens the inference.

----------


## paradoxical

> Science has answered that quite adequately, and the answer is "no".
> 
> Anyone can ask pointless questions, but that doesn't make it philosophy. You may as well ask what colour "3" is.


When you make such statements, I fear that you are being disingenuous. Or perhaps you do not see any merit in this discussion. When did science prove there is no afterlife? Exactly how did science determine that? Provide evidence. That is like saying that science has proven there is no God. 

I believe that the vast majority of people would disagree when you say that such a question is pointless and I imagine that most people would consider the question of life after death or the existence of God to be among the most important questions, if not _the most important_ questions, facing humanity.




> While science hasn't answered that question fully, it will do, and fairly soon, I imagine.
> 
> On the other hand, what progress has philosophy made?
> 
> Thanks to science we know what the universe is made up of, how the different bits of it react in relation to each other and how it is likely to behave in the future.
> 
> Philosophy has given not one single thing to our understanding of the universe.


Actually, we know very little about the universe. Scientists cannot even agree on how the universe was created, much less explain the fact that, as TheFifthElement mentioned, up to 75% of the universe is made up of so-called dark energy and dark matter. The sum of all the known matter in the universe is much less then the amount the Big Bang would have created. Also, science cannot explain the mysterious Dark Flow, which seems to suggest that some structure outside of the universe is pulling on matter in the known universe, nor can science determine if the universe will expand forever or collapse in on itself.

The reason I am mentioning these things is to point out that -- despite our arrogance -- we cannot fully explain the mysterious nature of the world we inhabit. Science makes progress, only to have something else come up that shows just how little we know. Similar to the way science will cure a disease, only to have another, more deadly disease crop up. Now, I have nothing against science. I think it is very important and has done much good in the world and, while I believe that there are limits to human understanding, I also believe that science has greatly contributed to our understanding of the world. That being the case, I wonder why you refuse to admit that philosophy has contributed to our understanding of the world? Do you feel that art and literature has contributed to our understanding of the world? If so, then why not philosophy?




> Again, if philosophy could answer any of them, you might have a point.


So you at least admit that science cannot answer these questions? Indeed, what else could we use other then philosophy or religion to answer these questions? I believe that the Existentialists, as well as philosophers such as Marx, Kant, Spinoza, or Descartes -- to name only a few -- would have much to say about these subjects. Even Socrates or Aristotle. The law is based on philosophy; why would philosophy not be able to answer these questions?




> Because it's wrong in every material respect.


So, that's it? You dismiss Plato's _The Republic_ as rubbish and, when asked to explain, simply state that it's wrong in every material respect? I imagine if I did the same with Origin of the Species or the work of Richard Dawkins, you would not accept that.




> It's like asking why abiogenesis happened on earth. We will probably never know beyond the fact that it did happen, and it's actually of no importance whatsoever.


Well, I suppose you should explain to scientists why it's of no importance. You could save them an awful lot of time and trouble.




> Sure, you can say that, but once we've decided that the universe is real and that materialism is the appropriate form of philosophical enquiry, there isn't any room for further philosophy, which means it is irrelevant.


I think that it is you who has decided and has made a kind of faith of atheism and materialism. Furthermore, scientists have discovered that even so-called solid matter is nothing but energy vibrating at a very slow rate. Science has also discovered that there is a vast amount of energy in empty space, which flies in the face of our understanding of the universe. At any rate, materialism seems to have been supplanted some time ago and statements such as "there isn't any room for further philosophy" makes me think that I should just bow out of this discussion as it is going nowhere. I may reply later, but I doubt it.

----------


## Razzleg

> However, when does philosophical reflection cross the border into the Republic of Rubbish? And Why? 
> 
> ...Is a truly philosophical view only tolerated when people have the luxury of time? Outside of the world of Academia, at what point does Philosophy become something far less helpful or desirable?


There is a quote from David Hume's _Treatise_ related to the first question, that I have always liked: "Whatever has the air of paradox, and is contrary to the first and most unprejudiced notions of mankind is often greedily embraced by philosophers, as showing the superiority of their science, which could discover opinions so remote from vulgar conceptions. On the other hand, anything proposed to us, which causes surprise and admiration, gives such a satisfaction to the mind, that it indulges itself in those agreeable emotions, and will never be persuaded that its pleasure is entirely without foundation. From these dispositions in philosophers and their disciples arises that mutual complaisance betwixt them; while the former furnish such plenty of strange and unaccountable opinions, and the latter so readily believe them."

As to the second question, I don't believe there is any substance to the distinction between Philosophy, proper noun, and "small 'p'" philosophical activity. Deliberation is often not tolerated, and certainly rarely appreciated, in times of crisis. Unfortunately, those are the times when some deliberation might be most helpful. The extent to which academics choose to isolate themselves may limit the impact their activity has on society at large, but there is no obstacle that prevents someone from studying philosophy and applying what they have learned and thought to non-academic matters.

----------


## The Atheist

> When you make such statements, I fear that you are being disingenuous. Or perhaps you do not see any merit in this discussion. When did science prove there is no afterlife? Exactly how did science determine that? Provide evidence. That is like saying that science has proven there is no God.


Pretty much has, actually.

Every claim made about god/s to date has been found wanting, along with every claim about an afterlife.

Sure, it's not "proof" in the empirical sense, but I direct you to Bertrand Russell's teapot regarding proof. 

Science has investigated claims made by theists over 10,000 or more years and when every single claim has been refuted, I'm happy to call it a done deal.




> I believe that the vast majority of people would disagree when you say that such a question is pointless and I imagine that most people would consider the question of life after death or the existence of God to be among the most important questions, if not _the most important_ questions, facing humanity.


See, I think it's the least important, and on par with whether invisible pink unicorns exist.

Also, I wouldn't get too carried away with thinking the "vast majority" of mankind thinks it's an important question at all.

In Europe and almost all developed countries, the vast majority actually couldn't care less, as evinced by census information and church attendance.

Christians and other religious sects think it's important, but by far the biggest threat to theism isn't militant atheists like me but apathetic agnosticism. The steep decline in belief in the sky-daddy shows that no such "vast majority" exists.




> Actually, we know very little about the universe.


No.

We know an amazing amount about it, from how individual atoms behave to how molecules connect and what's inside DNA, along with what makes up stars billions of light years away.

Some small parts of our knowledge is lacking, sure, but we're getting close to even those most esoteric of answers.




> Scientists cannot even agree on how the universe was created, much less explain the fact that, as TheFifthElement mentioned, up to 75% of the universe is made up of so-called dark energy and dark matter.


Yep, they're a couple of the questions we don't know precisely.

That we don't have complete knowledge of a singular event ~15 bya doesn't bother me at all. We may never find out, and since it happened so vastly long ago and far away, it's a speck of knowledge in the immense encyclopedia we already have.

Dark matter/energy is really a lot of fuss about nothing. It's not going to change physics beyond a possibility that quantum particles don't behave in accordance with physical laws for other matter & energy.

Given that *if* that is the case - that quantum particles behave differently - do you think it's going to matter? "Normal" physics will continue to work on non-quantum bits of the universe, and since the quantum bits are exceedingly unlikely to contain anything of relevance, it's not as important as people try to make it out to be.




> The sum of all the known matter in the universe is much less then the amount the Big Bang would have created. Also, science cannot explain the mysterious Dark Flow, which seems to suggest that some structure outside of the universe is pulling on matter in the known universe, nor can science determine if the universe will expand forever or collapse in on itself.


This appears to be purely speculative since my very incomplete knowledge on dark energy/matter has it as another force in this universe rather than of another.

As to whether the universe will expand or collapse, it will turn out to be a mathematical equation once we can factor in the dark energy/matter and whatever it does, it will be many, many billions of years in front of us, making it possibly the most pointless question since Russell sent his teapot into space.

Before we get too carried away in quantum physics - surely the very last refuge of the theist and philosopher - can you just state what knowledge of how it works will make any difference to you, me, or anyone not employed in quantum physics research?

People have this weird notion that earth-shattering discoveries will be made by CERN, when the boring truth is, it's actually pure mathematics and like discovery of the largest prime number, is absolutely meaningless (and incomprehensible) to 6,999,999,900 of every 7 billion people on the planet.




> The reason I am mentioning these things is to point out that -- despite our arrogance -- we cannot fully explain the mysterious nature of the world we inhabit.


Depends on how fully you need.

There are honestly hundreds of people employed in the most important task of coming up with the largest prime number. 

As to the universe and world, I think you're way overselling the mysterious angle, because it's actuall quite logical and mathematical rather than mysterious.




> Science makes progress, only to have something else come up that shows just how little we know. Similar to the way science will cure a disease, only to have another, more deadly disease crop up.


You are conflating two completely different things to make it appear that the demise of one disease causes the rise of another, which is completely incorrect.

Diseases crop up regardless of whether others exist.




> Now, I have nothing against science. I think it is very important and has done much good in the world and, while I believe that there are limits to human understanding, I also believe that science has greatly contributed to our understanding of the world. That being the case, I wonder why you refuse to admit that philosophy has contributed to our understanding of the world? Do you feel that art and literature has contributed to our understanding of the world? If so, then why not philosophy?


As it happens, I think literature has not helped our understanding of the world *at all*. 

It may help individuals understand it, but empirically, I'm pretty confident literature is no more useful than McDonald's hamburgers.
 
I'll be back to answer the rest of your post later, because I have to go!

Good discussion.

----------


## dizzydoll

> It may help individuals understand it, but empirically, I'm pretty confident literature is no more useful than McDonald's hamburgers.


I like your sense of humour, lol. however if I may just put a toe in this pool long enough to ask... 

Dont you think philosophy is a good diversion, lets say like watching an excellent match of tennis. After all they do say, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy  :Wink5: 

But on a more serious note, how does science measure intuition and coincidence and there are even some police stations who use people with psychic ability? I know there are some charletons around but many a case has been cracked with the help of a psychic. 

Just asking

----------


## paradoxical

> I'll be back to answer the rest of your post later, because I have to go!
> 
> Good discussion.


You're right, this is a good discussion. I have to admit, you really know your stuff and have given me a lot to think about. I believe it's good when two people with opposing viewpoints can have an exchange like this.




> But on a more serious note, how does science measure intuition and coincidence and there are even some police stations who use people with psychic ability? I know there are some charletons around but many a case has been cracked with the help of a psychic. 
> 
> Just asking


dizzydoll, you bring up an excellent point. How would science go about measuring things such as intuition or synchronicity? We know they exist, but cannot be detected. There have been many scientific experiments and a lot of peer-reviewed data to suggest that psychic phenomena is real. The same with clairvoyance and telekinesis as well as near death experiences (NDE's) and instances of reincarnation.

Besides the many police stations who have used psychics I know that the US Army and the CIA have invested heavily in these kind of abilities and many say that they have produced startling results. My point is, like you mentioned, these phenomena appear to be real but cannot be detected by scientific instruments. The same with qi or acupuncture.

----------


## OrphanPip

> dizzydoll, you bring up an excellent point. How would science go about measuring things such as intuition or synchronicity? We know they exist, but cannot be detected. There have been many scientific experiments and a lot of peer-reviewed data to suggest that psychic phenomena is real. The same with clairvoyance and telekinesis as well as near death experiences (NDE's) and instances of reincarnation


I don't believe we do know they exist. It's quite the jump to say you "know" something when it has no objective evidence and is based on subjective perspective and assumptions. There is no peer reviewed evidence of psychic ability that isn't massively methodologically flawed. Any claimed evidence of psychic ability has been impossible to reproduce. This strongly suggests that psychic phenomena are simply a creation of human beings.




> Besides the many police stations who have used psychics I know that the US Army and the CIA have invested heavily in these kind of abilities and many say that they have produced startling results. My point is, like you mentioned, these phenomena appear to be real but cannot be detected by scientific instruments. The same with qi or acupuncture.


Sources of these "startling results?" Certainly the army has spent money on a lot of useless garbage and they wasted money on psychic research in the 50s and 60s, but this is not evidence of the reality of paranormal abilities.

Don't get me started on the ever mysterious "qi" or the overpriced placebo acupuncture.

----------


## The Atheist

> So you at least admit that science cannot answer these questions?


No, I think science can help answer them, while philosophy is still floundering around with them 10,000 years later.

If we accept the greatest good position, then use of statistics, maths and sampling will give us the result best for all without any moralising.

It'll never happen, though.




> Indeed, what else could we use other then philosophy or religion to answer these questions? I believe that the Existentialists, as well as philosophers such as Marx, Kant, Spinoza, or Descartes -- to name only a few -- would have much to say about these subjects. Even Socrates or Aristotle. The law is based on philosophy; why would philosophy not be able to answer these questions?


Actually, most of our laws are based on the bible and religion - which really does show that Philosophy hasn't offered much in the way of laws.

Yes, all those philosophers had much to say, but they were all unable to accept that the real world doesn't work the way they expect. Marx's _Manifesto of the Communist Party_ is a brilliant example of flawed thinking.

Spinoza was just playing deist with Pascal's dice, while Aristotle and Socrates might have had interesting views if they weren't so scientifically ignorant. One of them might have been a Russell or Newton in later years. Descartes was ok for his time, while I can't discuss Kant without resorting to pretty ugly language - German philosophers bother me a great deal.




> So, that's it? You dismiss Plato's _The Republic_ as rubbish and, when asked to explain, simply state that it's wrong in every material respect? I imagine if I did the same with Origin of the Species or the work of Richard Dawkins, you would not accept that.


You might be surprised!

_The Origin of Species_ was deeply flawed, but was surprisingly close to factuality given that Darwin knew nothing of DNA. Dawkins, I wouldn't care either way.

I can't be too specific on _The Republic_ simply because it's almost 30 years ago that I read it and I'm not about to pollute my mind reading it again. 




> Well, I suppose you should explain to scientists why it's of no importance. You could save them an awful lot of time and trouble.


I wish I could.

If I could arrange for the billions of dollars and millions of man-hours to be spent on something productive, I would, but alas, I cannot do it.

Do you think it's important? If so, why? 




> I think that it is you who has decided and has made a kind of faith of atheism and materialism. Furthermore, scientists have discovered that even so-called solid matter is nothing but energy vibrating at a very slow rate. Science has also discovered that there is a vast amount of energy in empty space, which flies in the face of our understanding of the universe. At any rate, materialism seems to have been supplanted some time ago and statements such as "there isn't any room for further philosophy" makes me think that I should just bow out of this discussion as it is going nowhere. I may reply later, but I doubt it.


Like most philosophical discussions, we are certainly going to get on the carousel sooner or later.

 :Biggrin: 




> But on a more serious note, how does science measure intuition and coincidence and there are even some police stations who use people with psychic ability? I know there are some charletons around but many a case has been cracked with the help of a psychic. 
> 
> Just asking


Absolutely wrong.

To date, not one case has ever been solved by a psychic.

Along with that, every single attempt to display psychic ability has failed.

All psychics are charlatans. Bar none.

Science doesn't measure intuition since every claim for clairvoyance has also failed.




> dizzydoll, you bring up an excellent point. How would science go about measuring things such as intuition or synchronicity? We know they exist, but cannot be detected.


"We know they're real"?

I think not.

If such things existed, they would be measurable, if not by type, then by results. The Parapsychological Association has been trying for many years to make a case that they exist, but despite meta-analysis of thousands of Ganzfelds, even clowns like Dean Radin are only trying to claim a P value of >.01 or some such ridiculous assertion.

Alas, when an honest evaluation of the PA's "research" was undertaken, it was found to be flawed, so when the [allegedly] foremost parapsychological researcher in the world has to fudge data to try to even make the minutest claim, I'm very confident no such thing as intuition exists.




> There have been many scientific experiments and a lot of peer-reviewed data to suggest that psychic phenomena is real. The same with clairvoyance and telekinesis as well as near death experiences (NDE's) and instances of reincarnation.


That is also completely wrong.

If you think there's evidence, please present it and I will direct you to the appropriate study which shows where and why it's flawed.

You will not find one piece of peer-reviewed evidence that suggests any of clairvoyance, telekinesis, telepathy, reincarnation* or any other form of paranormality are actually real.

NDEs are easily explainable through oxygen deprivation. 

*I find it highly amusing that every instance ever publicised of reincarnation claims that the previous life was as a famous person. I know of three people who all claim vehemently that they were Napoleon Bonaparte!




> Besides the many police stations who have used psychics ...


I've been involved in proper investigation of claims by psychics of police involvement and we found exactly one example of a police station which used psychics - unsuccessfully, of course - and the police involved were censured for wasting resources. That was in Ireland, so if you have alleged examples of other police using psychics, I'd be most interested to know about it.




> ...I know that the US Army and the CIA have invested heavily in these kind of abilities and many say that they have produced startling results.


You're half right - the US Army did invest (although only a small amount rather than heavily) in paranormal research. The research showed no results and was stopped for that reason.

The results being nil startled nobody.




> My point is, like you mentioned, these phenomena appear to be real but cannot be detected by scientific instruments. The same with qi or acupuncture.


Again, if such things existed, they would be measurable.

Qi and acupuncture are completely different, with qi being all paranormality and non-existent. Acupuncture, because it actually sticks needles into nerves does affect humans and causes a response as expected.

Whether it's of benefit is still unknown as in almost all cases it performs exactly in accordance with placebo, but there are some studies which suggest that some kinds of head pain may be helped by acupuncture, so it can't be totally dismissed.

----------


## dizzydoll

> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> To date, not one case has ever been solved by a psychic.
> 
> Along with that, every single attempt to display psychic ability has failed.
> 
> All psychics are charlatans. Bar none.
> 
> Science doesn't measure intuition since every claim for clairvoyance has also failed.
> ...


The trouble is you cannot measure this and please believe me if there is any seed of doubt to begin with such phenomenon as intuition, synchronicity and psychic evaluation will elude you for sure. 

What you say is simply not true... or else its old science. I watch a channel called Crime and Investigation which show detectives using psychics to successfully bring perpetrators to justice, many of them are old cases.

I, for one, have had prophetic dreams. In fact I saw my home in a dream 3 years before I moved here. I believe this revelation could have only been presented in a dream by my personal guides. Its not the only prophetic dream that I've had. Edgar Casey is another who relied on prophetic dreams with great accuracy.

Another account which makes the hair on my arms stand up is Nostradamus, he was buried with a plaque around his neck predicting the exact year his grave would be unearthed. He said the man who would dig up his grave would be killed. It happened just as he predicted it would 200 years later. Granted the stray bullet that killed that grave digger came from a soldier in the French Revolution, if I am not mistaken, but isnt that such a coincidence? 

Anyway it makes me think of this little phrase, cant remember who wrote it:




> For those who believe, no proof is necessary
> For those who dont believe, no proof is possible


Its our differences that make us the interesting people that we are, and we shouldnt wish to change that in anyone. Its what makes the world go round  :Wink5: 

I love reading this thread, its not only entertaining its very educational  :Hurray:

----------


## Satan

> Nope, this is just a plea for magic, I'm sorry.
> 
> If there is no purpose to life other than just living it, I can't see where philosophy will or even can, provide answers.
> 
> Like religion, philosophy is a 10,000-year fail.
> 
> No problem there, earlier philosophies did ask some questions which needed considering, but it really is irrelevant in 2010.


I really am interested in your interpretation of life and the way it is supposed to be lived without inquiring into the meaning of the same. I'm inclined to agree with you in a way. Consciousness alone is responsible for those ripples and turbulences in our otherwise peaceful and serene existence. One look at the zombies and bam ...you want to be one. They appear content, often insanely so, with whatever they have. No worries, no pain, no future planning, no mortgages, no social appearances, no pseudo-intellectual debates and certainly no fear of death. If we're to blame anything for the human condition, please let it be the curse of consciousness. Evolution has failed miserably in this regard. I can only hope that our future generations will not have this problem, and they will just live and live and live, unlike those ancient philosophers who spent most of their life worrying and thinking about things they never understood anyway.

19th and 20th century philosophers were the worst. They are what the online populace so delightfully describes as emo losers. The likes of Sartre and Camus were annoying whiners with nothing productive or constructive to say or contribute to the society, all the while people were busy living, fighting wars, killing each other and threatening to annihilate our luxurious existence back to stone ages. No wonder they couldn't find cute dates. Nobels are overrated anyway. Even Obama got one, and that too without doing anything. But I digress!

Yes, philosophy is very much irrelevant today. Science alone, with its hard facts and inventions, is more than enough for anyone in this day and age. So what if most of their micro and macrophysics don't make much sense in a physical world such as ours. Those umpteen dimensions required by a few mathematical equations may sound out of this world today, but someday we'll thank these physicists for conjuring and summoning up those hidden secrets of the universe, including dark energy and dark matter, that make our everyday life so much more enjoyable.

I take pity on people who feel alienated from this wonderful society, especially from those shiny new gadgets and luxurious things we keep producing. How can anyone find enough time on their hands for such inane things like thoughts and philosophy? How can anyone feel disenchanted from this life of abundance ...this world full of wonders? Even those problems can be cured easily with the help of science. I so wish they brought back genius ideas like lobotomy. No wonder most of the philosophers were senile old kooks and they only sought after spreading their disease of philosophy--thus turning bright young people into pessimistic nothings.




> You seem to be incorrectly conflating philosophy and abstract & critical thinking, plus, you'd need to present some serious evidence of the outrageous claim that wisdom only comes from philosophy.


No, _you_ seem to have a problem with the word: _philosophy_. I'll let Wikipedia define it:




> Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "Philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία [philosophia], which literally means "love of wisdom".





> And thank god for that!


Amen! Even God is aware of the problem with thinking. Which is why we have commandments inscribed on stone tablets.  :Wink: 

PS: I was bored.

----------


## The Atheist

> The trouble is you cannot measure this and please believe me if there is any seed of doubt to begin with such phenomenon as intuition, synchronicity and psychic evaluation will elude you for sure.


Nope.

If it is real we will be able to count the results - no science needed, just a little arithmetic.

To date, not one case of psychic ability has been seen. This is a no-brainer.

"Researchers" into psychic phenomena use the simple shape-guessing game to judge psychic ability, and if it was real, there would be examples of people who had beaten random chance. So far, that hasn't happened once in millions of attempts, so we don't need to use scientific investigation to check out something which has no concrete results at all.




> What you say is simply not true... or else its old science. I watch a channel called Crime and Investigation which show detectives using psychics to successfully bring perpetrators to justice, many of them are old cases.


Come on! It's a TV program for god's sake.

Seeing it on TV does not make it real. 

As I asked - if you believe there is a single crime which has been solved by a psychic, tell me which one it is, because several years of investigation into crimes allegedly solved by psychics found every case to be fake or mistake.




> I, for one, have had prophetic dreams. In fact I saw my home in a dream 3 years before I moved here. I believe this revelation could have only been presented in a dream by my personal guides.


I've seen many thousands of personal anecdotes.




> Its not the only prophetic dream that I've had. Edgar Casey is another who relied on prophetic dreams with great accuracy.


I take it you're actually referring to Edgar Cayce? (nice if you know who your heroes actually are)

If so, you're right, his predictions were amazingly accurate!

A few examples of his prophetic dreams:

California will slide into the ocean
New York City will be destroyed in a cataclysm
In 1958 the U.S. will discover the death ray used on Atlantis (Atlantis being real, of course)
1933 will be a good year

Yep, he was brilliant alright, with his psychic abilities only surpassed by his medical skills:

_In 1926, prescribed for a New York patient the raw side of a freshly skinned rabbit, still warm with blood, fur side out, placed on the breast for cancer of that area_

Funny how medicine doesn't work like that. Cayce is one of history's great frauds.




> Another account which makes the hair on my arms stand up is Nostradamus, he was buried with a plaque around his neck predicting the exact year his grave would be unearthed. He said the man who would dig up his grave would be killed. It happened just as he predicted it would 200 years later. Granted the stray bullet that killed that grave digger came from a soldier in the French Revolution, if I am not mistaken, but isnt that such a coincidence?


Alas, it isn't correct.

Nostradamus has been heavily investigated and fails miserably at every turn, despite the immense and contradictory nature of translations of his quatrains.

This will help you regarding his grave and its opening.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-be-discovered




> Anyway it makes me think of this little phrase, cant remember who wrote it:


Except it's completely wrong.

You could prove psychic ability to me by passing one test of psychic ability. James Randi has had a $US1 million prize for over twenty years which will be paid to anyone displaying just one instance of actual psychic ability.

The money is still earning interest.




> Its our differences that make us the interesting people that we are, and we shouldnt wish to change that in anyone. Its what makes the world go round


I don't see claims of psychic ability as a difference - just the work of charlatans and frauds who exploit the gullible.




> I really am interested in your interpretation of life and the way it is supposed to be lived without inquiring into the meaning of the same.


Well, the first step would be to show me that we need a meaning and that one exists.

Science shows that our existence is due to evolution - which pretty much means that we're here by pure chance, so I find it hard to discren what "meaning" human existence might possibly have.




> If we're to blame anything for the human condition, please let it be the curse of consciousness.


Pretty close. If you swap consciousness for imagination, I think you're entirely right. Consciousness nees not imply a desire for magic, but because we can imagine abstract things, we desire them.




> Evolution has failed miserably in this regard. I can only hope that our future generations will not have this problem, and they will just live and live and live, unlike those ancient philosophers who spent most of their life worrying and thinking about things they never understood anyway.


On that, I concur.

I often wonder what progress human society could have made had it not been bogged down in magic/k for thousands of years.




> 19th and 20th century philosophers were the worst. They are what the online populace so delightfully describes as emo losers. The likes of Sartre and Camus were annoying whiners with nothing productive or constructive to say or contribute to the society, all the while people were busy living, fighting wars, killing each other and threatening to annihilate our luxurious existence back to stone ages. No wonder they couldn't find cute dates. Nobels are overrated anyway. Even Obama got one, and that too without doing anything. But I digress!


Sure, but you're on target!




> Yes, philosophy is very much irrelevant today. Science alone, with its hard facts and inventions, is more than enough for anyone in this day and age. So what if most of their micro and macrophysics don't make much sense in a physical world such as ours. Those umpteen dimensions required by a few mathematical equations may sound out of this world today, but someday we'll thank these physicists for conjuring and summoning up those hidden secrets of the universe, including dark energy and dark matter, that make our everyday life so much more enjoyable.
> 
> I take pity on people who feel alienated from this wonderful society, especially from those shiny new gadgets and luxurious things we keep producing. How can anyone find enough time on their hands for such inane things like thoughts and philosophy? How can anyone feel disenchanted from this life of abundance ...this world full of wonders? Even those problems can be cured easily with the help of science. I so wish they brought back genius ideas like lobotomy. No wonder most of the philosophers were senile old kooks and they only sought after spreading their disease of philosophy--thus turning bright young people into pessimistic nothings.


Douglas Adams is one of many who expresses this really well:

With all the wonders of the universe, why would I want to see fairies at the bottom of the garden? [paraphrased]




> No, _you_ seem to have a problem with the word: _philosophy_. I'll let Wikipedia define it:


No, that's the classical method I mean. The word can also be used to describe any form of thinking.




> Amen! Even God is aware of the problem with thinking. Which is why we have commandments inscribed on stone tablets.


 :FRlol:

----------


## Satan

Well, you didn't get the sarcasm; but that's because it wasn't quite apparent.  :Wink: 




> Well, the first step would be to show me that we need a meaning and that one exists.
> 
> Science shows that our existence is due to evolution - which pretty much means that we're here by pure chance, so I find it hard to discren what "meaning" human existence might possibly have.


Precisely! Existence precedes essence. And how did we come to this conclusion? By thinking over and analyzing every other possibility and only then discarding beliefs that are illogical and improbable. And since our lives don't have any predetermined divine meaning, it is entirely up to you to define and shape it the way you fancy.

I am an atheist myself, but I find it quite disheartening when people take science almost as religiously as others do with their belief systems. Science cannot and will never answer most of our questions about life, its significance or meaninglessness, morality, ethics, languages, aesthetics, politics and knowledge. It is no more than a crude and finite set of logical and mathematical tools designed to cope with materialistic problems. Considering the overwhelming effect that excessive indulgence and abundance have on our lives in this 21st century, we need philosophy more than ever.

Your proposition that life be lived without making any conscious attempt at analyzing it is but a morbidly romantic aftereffect of the scientific fascination with machines and precision tools. Why stop at philosophy? What productive contribution do music, art and literature make that philosophy doesn't?

More importantly, what possible alternatives and solution do you suggest?




> Pretty close. If you swap consciousness for imagination, I think you're entirely right. Consciousness nees not imply a desire for magic, but because we can imagine abstract things, we desire them.


And what exactly is wrong with that? Humans dreamed of flying before they actually could. Scientists imagined a lot many things before they found any concrete evidence for the same. They still do. Are you willing to refute their claims that cannot be verified using traditional methods and tools of science?




> On that, I concur.


I don't. Today we stand upon the shoulders of the giants, and we owe it to their critical thinking and imagination, just as we are thankful to and ashamed of primates. Philosophy, like any other discipline, has evolved and still is evolving.

No hard feelings.

----------


## The Atheist

> Precisely! Existence precedes essence. And how did we come to this conclusion? By thinking over and analyzing every other possibility and only then discarding beliefs that are illogical and improbable. And since our lives don't have any predetermined divine meaning, it is entirely up to you to define and shape it the way you fancy.


Yep, that's how it works.




> I am an atheist myself, but I find it quite disheartening when people take science almost as religiously as others do with their belief systems.


Me too. It's a tool, not a doctrine.




> Science cannot and will never answer most of our questions about life, its significance or meaninglessness, morality, ethics, languages, aesthetics, politics and knowledge.


I can only continue disagreeing with this position. Only science is capable of answering those questions - if they're able to be answered.

If there is no "purpose" in life beyond that of random chance through evolution, there is no way any philosophy will show us what's right.

I ask for about the fifth time - if philosophy can answer ethical questions, why hasn't it yet? Morality, aesthetics and language are based on physical concepts. Philosophy may ask the questions, but if it cannot and does not answer them, then it hasn't been of much use, has it?




> It is no more than a crude and finite set of logical and mathematical tools designed to cope with materialistic problems.


What non-material problems do we face?




> Considering the overwhelming effect that excessive indulgence and abundance have on our lives in this 21st century, we need philosophy more than ever.


Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.

What problems does the 21st century have that we haven't had for a very long time?




> Your proposition that life be lived without making any conscious attempt at analyzing it is but a morbidly romantic aftereffect of the scientific fascination with machines and precision tools.


No, it's more cynicism through decades of meaningless drivel produced by philosophers.

As I've already stated, the majority of people in developed countries don't actually care about questions of "life, the universe and everything" but simply live their lives - a sensible option. Questions of "why we're here" occupy a lot less time than you seem to think.

It's precisely because people don't care about the eternal verities that church membership has collapsed.




> Why stop at philosophy? What productive contribution do music, art and literature make that philosophy doesn't?


No, that's being silly. Music, art & literature fulfil evolutionary imperatives and create enjoyment as well. 

Philosophy does none of that, although it can be a little entertaining and provides employment for a few academics not able to progress through physical disciplines. [/insert emoticon to show that this is mostly joking]




> More importantly, what possible alternatives and solution do you suggest?


Ignoring metaphysical questions entirely. No good comes from them.




> And what exactly is wrong with that? Humans dreamed of flying before they actually could.


They had been able to see the evidence of other animals flying for all of human existence, though, so it wasn't a great philosophical leap.




> Scientists imagined a lot many things before they found any concrete evidence for the same. They still do. Are you willing to refute their claims that cannot be verified using traditional methods and tools of science?


Which claims are these?




> I don't. Today we stand upon the shoulders of the giants, and we owe it to their critical thinking and imagination, just as we are thankful to and ashamed of primates. Philosophy, like any other discipline, has evolved and still is evolving.


If evolving means being queezed out by evidential approach, then sure, it's evolving.

 :Biggrin: 




> No hard feelings.


It's an internet forum - there never are at my end.

----------


## Vautrin

Not that I don't appreciate the science/philosophy debate, but what about something closer to home? 

*Hypothetical Situation:*
A man with a wife and three kids loses his job and eventually his house. Clearly, the best solution to his problem would be for him to get a new job. He and his family could stay at a relative's house until he saves enough money to buy another house or condominium, rent an apartment, etc. In the meantime, how can philosophy help this man get through such a tough time? Can philosophy help this man approach the situation with a clearer head and keep him focused on the bigger picture or does it simply become rubbish he has no time for? Can deep philosophical reflection be a motivational tool or something that causes despair? 

Science and religion aside, can philosophy bring calm to the storm that is this man's life? or is it as good as a broken umbrella in a downpour?

----------


## dizzydoll

> Nostradamus has been heavily investigated and fails miserably at every turn, despite the immense and contradictory nature of translations of his quatrains.
> 
> This will help you regarding his grave and its opening.
> 
> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-be-discovered


*To quote you:*
Come on! It's a website for god's sake.

Seeing it on the internet does not make it real. lol. or any more believable for that matter. 

Even so, I cant find where they actually dispute this prediction. The only link to an outside website they provide doesnt even open up. I prefer another researched account which records whats been carried down for centuries even tho his predictions are very difficult to interpret because he wrote in 4 different languages for good reason. Source: The man who saw tomorrow. [I also see google provides a 88min youtube video for your viewing pleasure]

As I said before, more in line with the OP's question:




> For those who believe no proof is necessary
> For those who dont believe no proof is possible.


 :Biggrin:

----------


## The Atheist

> Science and religion aside, can philosophy bring calm to the storm that is this man's life? or is it as good as a broken umbrella in a downpour?


I'd vote for it complicating matters at a time when pragmatism's called for.




> *To quote you:*
> Come on! It's a website for god's sake.
> 
> Seeing it on the internet does not make it real. lol. or any more believable for that matter.


I've given you but one example of many, many different sources of information on the subject. 




> As I said before:


Which is meaningless as well as incorrect.

It's as cute a swerve as you can get, but the facts remain - if there were even a grain of truth in psychic abilities, there would be statistically significant and measurable results. There are none. Nada, not one.

I see at least you've recognised that claims of psychics helping solve police cases are all lies, so that's all to the good.

----------


## dizzydoll

> If there were even a grain of truth in psychic abilities, there would be statistically significant and measurable results. There are none. Nada, not one.
> 
> I see at least *you've recognised that claims of psychics helping solve police cases are all lies*, so that's all to the good.


Where did I say that they are all lies? I actually do believe the real live detectives that I see on the telly who make use of psychics successfully. 

You simply cannot and never will be able to measure psychic ability, no matter how you try. Here is a true account that happened, lets call it a direct experience which I shared on someone else's blog: 

I had just returned from Zambia, recovering from cerebral malaria, to visit my grandmother. She was asleep in the same room where I was messing around on the laptop late one night. Without warning she sat up from a deep sleep and said "Please be a pet and check on the lady across the passage shes about to die."

I got up, tucked her into the covers and told her its just a bad dream she should go back to sleep. 

Anyway, just to be certain the next day I knocked on the door of that lady across the passage to ask how she was doing. She told me she was almost better from a bout of flu but otherwise fine. She said she didnt need anything from the store when I offered to go for her. 

The next day she was dead. 

It really felt creepy to ask my grandmother how she knew this. As it turned out she had forgotten all about her dream until I had brought it up. Now if thats not a prophetic dream or a psychic revelation then I dont know..... How would you explain this?

----------


## The Atheist

> Where did I say that they are all lies? I actually do believe the real live detectives that I see on the telly who make use of psychics successfully.


That's quite funny, really. I was just messing with you - I knew full well you hadn't changed your mind, but the lack of any details of solved cases was compelling evidence that it's never happened.

I repeat my challenge for you to give just one single case where psychics solved the case.




> You simply cannot and never will be able to measure psychic ability, no matter how you try. Here is a true account that happened, lets call it a direct experience which I shared on someone else's blog:


Yep, it is indeed impossible to measure something that doesn't exist. 




> I had just returned from Zambia, recovering from cerebral malaria, to visit my grandmother. She was asleep in the same room where I was messing around on the laptop late one night. Without warning she sat up from a deep sleep and said "Please be a pet and check on the lady across the passage shes about to die."
> 
> I got up, tucked her into the covers and told her its just a bad dream she should go back to sleep. 
> 
> Anyway, just to be certain the next day I knocked on the door of that lady across the passage to ask how she was doing. She told me she was almost better from a bout of flu but otherwise fine. She said she didnt need anything from the store when I offered to go for her. 
> 
> The next day she was dead. 
> 
> It really felt creepy to ask my grandmother how she knew this. As it turned out she had forgotten all about her dream until I had brought it up. Now if thats not a prophetic dream or a psychic revelation then I dont know..... How would you explain this?


Coincidence, selective memory, lots of things - humans are awful eyewitnesses; ask any cop. The woman was clearly sick as she'd told you she'd had the 'flu, so it wouldn't be unusual for on old woman to worry about a neighbour.

Luckily, prophetic dreams have a 100% record.

Of failure.

----------


## dizzydoll

> I repeat my challenge for you to give just one single case where psychics solved the case.


Sure thing, you will have to wait until the next series comes on for me to get the detectives names and law enforcement agency where they are located. You have to understand, its not as if my life is consumed by this. I never realized I'd have to prove myself, but if it makes you feel better I will not forget this challenge. lol




> Yep, it is indeed impossible to measure something that doesn't exist.


Thats not a good enough answer to my comment, that is like me saying the world is flat. Case closed.




> The woman was clearly sick as she'd told you she'd had the 'flu, so it wouldn't be unusual for on old woman to worry about a neighbour.


No, no, no, you sidestep. and btw, my grandmother didnt know the woman, she was a new resident. She was dressed in her clothes [not in her gown/robe] and she appeared well enough to me. She wasnt too old and I doubt she died of the flu. You should know, few people die of flu these days. Where they live also has a 24hour in-house clinic if she was ill thats where she would have been. Furthermore we dont get winters in this town, we never wear cardigans or coats here, so the word flu is just a term.. its probably more like a cold she had, a runny nose, nothing more or nothing less. 

What actually happened is that my grandmother predicted her death in advance and science cannot measure this. Also psychic ability, intuition, unaccounted coincidences are not new to humanity, they've been around since the beginning of time. This is not to say I believe the world will end in 2012, I dont. People have also predicted the END since the beginning of time and this could be why science takes a dim view of these abilities.

In all fairness, is it not easier to just allow others their beliefs and possibly step out that scientific box and explore a little more.? lol

Have a happy Easter... Friends  :Biggrin: 

PS. I wont forget the challenge, perhaps you can write a thread, to share with us, what you find out from the detectives after you have followed up. lol.

----------


## The Atheist

> I never realized I'd have to prove myself, but if it makes you feel better I will not forget this challenge. lol


It's nothing to do with you proving yourself since you are only making second-hand claims. The original claims are lies.




> Thats not a good enough answer to my comment, that is like me saying the world is flat. Case closed.


No, it's completely different to that, and there's even a flat earth thread to help you with that idea at the moment.




> No, no, no, you sidestep. and btw, my grandmother didnt know the woman, she was a new resident.


So your grandmother didn't know she had a neigbour? Did she move in the day before she died?




> She was dressed in her clothes [not in her gown/robe] and she appeared well enough to me. She wasnt too old and I doubt she died of the flu. You should know, few people die of flu these days.


Ah, so because only a few people die of the 'flu, this woman didn't? Have you not heard of H1N1? Just for your edification, hundreds of thousands of people die of influenza every year - and most of them are elderly.

How old was this alleged woman?




> Where they live also has a 24hour in-house clinic if she was ill thats where she would have been. Furthermore we dont get winters in this town, we never wear cardigans or coats here, so the word flu is just a term.. its probably more like a cold she had, a runny nose, nothing more or nothing less.


Nice backdown!

Temperature doesn't make any difference, by the way. You need to realise that those old wives' tales about getting sick from getting wet feet or being cold are just old wives' tales. 




> What actually happened is that my grandmother predicted her death in advance and science cannot measure this.


This is your opinion, and the more you write, the less I accept a psychic event.

Let's have a look at the facts of the case - the few that I know, and although the only source is yourself:

You were using a laptop in your grandmother's bedroom, while she was asleep, according to you. That is most unusual in itself, and I bet you haven't done that too often.

We now find that wherever this happened has a 24-hour, in-house medical clinic attached to it. 

Since the only organisations with in-house clinics are usually only those with very sick people nearby - rest homes for the aged, for example - I'm going to have to assume that people dying there is quite a common occurrence.

The woman lived "across the passage", which tends to indicate a condominium-style retirement home, yet despite the usual camaraderie in those places, your grandmother didn't know the woman and didn't know she was sick. This smacks of being extremely unlikely.

The more facts I see, the more I am inclined to believe every word you've told me - you were staying with your granny and she predicted someone's death.

When that happens to be in a place where death is commonplace, like a retirement home, I don't find it too surprising. I imagine you didn't stay in your granny's room more than that once - could be, at an age with death around her and growing old herself, that she thought about death frequently.

I predicted my own father's death - in a dream - to the exact second.

I am 100% confident most people would see that as a sign of psychic ability, but I examined the facts and am 100% confident it wasn't.

We each use whatever means we prefer to arrive at an answer, which is why it's highly appropriate to be discussing this in a philosophy thread.

One tool of philosophy I do recommend is Occam's Razor, although I usually just use the term "critical thinking" because it encompasses Occam while examining evidence.




> Also psychic ability, intuition, unaccounted coincidences are not new to humanity, they've been around since the beginning of time.


Well, let's agree that *claims* of them have been around since the beginning of time. Coincidences don't need to be accounted for - if they were able to be accounted for, they wouldn't be coincidences. One thing people usually ignore is that in a world of 7 billion people having 100,000 thoughts a day, the odd coincidence is pretty well unavoidable.

See, I look at the millions of claims made over the millennia for psychic ability, precognition and telepathy and find that none is even remotely believable. You mention Cayce. The man was so clearly a fraud, and a fraud who purveyed medical pseudoscience as well, that I'm amazed to find someone clai,ing he was anything but a fraud.

Uri Geller, Peter Popoff, John Edwards; even locals [to me] like Deb Webber and Kevin Cruickshank, have all been exposed as using fraudulent means of claiming psychic abilities, yet people still believe them.

If psychic ability existed, it would be known to all mankind, but because the "hits" by psychics have never been better than random chance, I am not encouraged to see them as anything else.

I an not any kind of "anti" regarding psi - I find the study of it fascinating, and as an amateur mentalist myself, I'd give my right arm to be able to tap into psi. Many people who don't know me well think I have psychic abilities through my ability to use probability to make predictions on cards and relations' names.




> This is not to say I believe the world will end in 2012, I dont. People have also predicted the END since the beginning of time and this could be why science takes a dim view of these abilities.


One thing you need to realise is that science doesn't take _any_ view of precognition, psychics or telepaths. 

Once psi manages to present some evidence, it might get interested.




> In all fairness, is it not easier to just allow others their beliefs and possibly step out that scientific box and explore a little more.? lol


Exploration has nothing to do with it - I'd bet any amount you like that I've spent exponentially more time investigating psi than you ever will. Like religion, psi is not all that happy with investigation and rarely stands up to scrutiny, so what you're actually asking me to do is believe in magic. Or, at the very least, let others believe in it.

If I could see any value in that at all, I probably would.




> Have a happy Easter... Friends


No problem - some of my best friends are even christian.

 :Smilewinkgrin: 




> PS. I wont forget the challenge, perhaps you can write a thread, to share with us, what you find out from the detectives after you have followed up. lol.


Please do!

I'm not blaming you for repeating what you've been shown, but I strongly object to the fraudulent means "psychics" go about making claims like that.

As I said, the fact is that no case has ever been solved by a psychic and not one dead body has ever been found by one.

----------


## dizzydoll

> One thing you need to realise is that science doesn't take _any_ view of precognition, psychics or telepaths. 
> 
> Once psi manages to present some evidence, it might get interested.


Well I see you have proven my point. You neither believe my firsthand experience nor observation from others. I know the truth and you are not willing to to give me or any other the benefit of the doubt. You Sir are stuck in your head. lol. Until you get out and commune with your inner child, you will simply never know.

 :Angel Anim: 

As many others before me I can see, we agree to disagree.  :Ciappa:  lol

----------


## The Atheist

> Well I see you have proven my point. You neither believe my firsthand experience nor observation from others.


Why would you say this, when my very last post said:




> I am inclined to believe every word you've told me


It's obvious that I believe you.




> I know the truth and you are not willing to to give me or any other the benefit of the doubt.


And now you've repeated it?

My mind is quite honestly boggling - I could not have been more specific about believing you.

What benefit of the doubt were you after?

That a woman in a rest home accurately picked a death and therefore it is proof of precognition?

You should probably treat "truth" as a proper noun with that usage.




> You Sir are stuck in your head. lol. Until you get out and commune with your inner child, you will simply never know.


It's funny how all discussions on psi end up with this exact chant. Sweeping criticism under the mat by pleading for magick is just silly. 

I have no problem with magick and use it as a central tenet in almost all of my kids' stories, but there's actually a danger in not being able to distinguish between fairytales and reality.

Carl Sagan nailed it here:




> We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.





> As many others before me I can see, we agree to disagree.  lol


No problem there; there certainly are many others before you. I've never yet seen a True Bleever suddenly realise that weird stuff happens without needing to resort to ghosts, fairies and psi.

Luckily, the odd person who is wavering will realise that it's all just playing games when they see your "psychic encounter" paraphrased by my replies.

----------


## dizzydoll

> Luckily, the odd person who is wavering will realise that it's all just playing games when they see your "psychic encounter" paraphrased by my replies.


HA, do you think _they_ even care what you or I believe?



Welcome to my world...

Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake

...enjoy the trip with Happiness Stan on the back of that enormous fly-flallopper to see Mad John in the greenwood. 

Life is just a bowl of All-bran

V. Peace.

----------


## The Atheist

> HA, do you think _they_ even care what you or I believe?



Fortunately, no, they don't give a toss what you or I believe, but when they see a claim of psychic ability, then see that the claim is simply "a sick woman in a rest home is going to die", they see that it's easily explained without needing fairies and next time they hear an anecdote, they will ask questions.

And the key is asking questions - it even says so in the bible - "ask and ye shall receive".

Kind of segues nicely back into philosophy, doesn't it?

----------


## dizzydoll

You know we're spending an awful amount of time together we may as well just get married, we certainly disagree as much as married couples do.

Did you listen to Happiness Stan? both... no, do it now!

and then, here's another...

Itchycoo Park

 :Banana:

----------


## dizzydoll

Good news Mr Atheist. As proof, first case solved by a psychic. More to follow:

Sgt. Tim Nolde -- Toledo PD
Psychic: Gail St. John
Missing case of: Jesse Jones

The psychic crossed State lines and found his body in a creek, he had drowned as a result of too much cocaine and pills in his system. His family had originally called her and she led the police to his body. 

I expect you to follow up with the good Sergeant now, you cant keep saying its BS without confirming the proof for yourself. I will add more to this post as research allows. Now isnt that a coincidence, while its fresh in our minds? 

 :Hurray:

----------


## The Atheist

> Good news Mr Atheist. As proof, first case solved by a psychic. More to follow:
> 
> Sgt. Tim Nolde -- Toledo PD
> Psychic: Gail St. John
> Missing case of: Jesse Jones


Yet she doesn't make any note of this earth-shattering news on her own psychic page on the internet...

Also, I can't find any trace of information on Google.

How is that possible?

So, I look around Gail St John's website and picked one "case" at random - Caylee Anthony.

There is a YouTube link in the site to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bukQW...layer_embedded

Gail claims that she was within metres of where Caylee was eventually found.

On the face of it, this is startling!

Yet, again, once we check all the facts, we find that Caylee wass three years old and was found in a wood near her home.

Given that the "psychic" spent a couple of days driving around the area where Caylee disappeared from, it is impossible that she couldn't have been close to the body at some stage, yet she never knew it was right there.

Pathetic.

It's because people don't bother looking into facts that they accept absurdities like this.

If you can find some links to add into the alleged body discovery above, I'll investigate it, but at this moment, it is nothing more than an allegation as I cannot find any link or information about it.

Even "tim nolde" + toledo returns no Google results at all.

----------


## dizzydoll

> Yet she doesn't make any note of this earth-shattering news on her own psychic page on the internet...


Well perhaps she hasnt updated her website yet, dont ask me.. and dont kill the messenger. Also I have no clue what you are babbling on about in the rest of your post, this case should be more than enough proof.

Why dont you contact the Sgt himself, in the flesh? Forget the internet, speak to the cop himself I am sure he will confirm. He's only a telephone call away. 

I googled Toledo Police Dept and this came up and guess what.. there are telephone numbers too. Just ask for Sgt Tim Nolde:

http://www.toledopolice.com/

Cummon now, dont let me down.  :Hand: 


oh and btw I am not opening your link, I'm not the one needing proof...

----------


## Dodo25

Dang it why did I leave the discussion right when it started to get interesting?

@ The Atheist, you're doing an outstanding job arguing for rationality and science. I agree with everything you're saying on a general level, yet sometimes you seem to oversimplify a bit, but actually that just makes it clearer to follow, and its straight-forward to the point.

@ dizzydoll, regarding psychics, there isn't really that much to it, I'm always amazed why so many people just gullibly believe this stuff. Think about it:

You have some 'supernatural ability'. Or you know someone who does. You tell people, they don't believe you. You want to prove them wrong - very natural. So if you're actually right, just set up a simple double-blind experiment with significant amount of data being produced. If you or your friend are 'special', there will be statistically significant results. 

So if you manage to convince some people, this causes attention. Then you get sponsors, set up an experiment large-scale, invite some skeptics as experts, i.e. Richard Dawkins or James Randi and others, agree to their reasonable demands for accuracy and doulbe-blind study procedures, and show them live. If there is anything paranormal going on, results will show, and science will know and accept it as something that violates the current laws of nature.

The result: You prove haters wrong, you get fame, you get money, you probably get a Nobel Prize for discovering a new kind of force or whatever.

Now the Question: If there are psychics, why the hell has nobody ever conclusively settled the matter? It's not like it's that hard, seriously. It would be so clear by now if this stuff existed. And anyway, how do people think the stuff would work? Just by 'magic'? I really can't make any sense of this.

----------


## dizzydoll

Dodo, I am not here to change anyone's mind. Atheist put out a challenge I accepted and provided the name of a Sgt to contact, its no skin off my nose if either of you believe it or not!




> yet sometimes you seem to oversimplify a bit, but actually that just makes it clearer to follow, and its straight-forward to the point.


He probably chose to do this on my account for which I am grateful.

Anyway I must go to bed now, its after midnight here.  :As Sleep:

----------


## Dodo25

I specifically meant the dismissal of all philosophy and (even) of religion. In a way he has good points, but it goes too easy, especially the 'scientific explanation of consciousness' (but yeah we've discussed this). I'm not intending to change the subject or disturb, you two keep the interesting discussion going  :Smile:

----------


## The Atheist

> Why dont you contact the Sgt himself, in the flesh? Forget the internet, speak to the cop himself I am sure he will confirm. He's only a telephone call away.



I have e mailed this to the Chief of Police in Toledo:




> Hi there; I'm wondering if you can help me - I am an investigator of claims made by psychics.
> 
> I have been advised that a Sergeant Tim Nolde of Toledo Police has been using psychics to assist with the search for perpetrators of some unsolved murders in your area.
> 
> Can you please advise if this is correct, and if so, what success or results have come from the use of psychics?
> 
> Thanks very much


I will post the reply when received.




> I specifically meant the dismissal of all philosophy and (even) of religion. In a way he has good points, but it goes too easy, especially the 'scientific explanation of consciousness' (but yeah we've discussed this). I'm not intending to change the subject or disturb, you two keep the interesting discussion going


I think we'd pretty much done philosophy to death, hadn't we?

Quite happy to cover philosophy at the same time; claims of psi are easy.

----------


## dizzydoll

I see you are manipulative in your manner and it might even work for you -- sometimes. Bear in mind, life is a perception not a reality. Everyone's reality depends on their own individual perception of what life means to them. What appeals to one doesnt appeal to all. Our concept of life is unique in each of us, and we should embrace/accept others' concepts as simply different from our own, and not treat them as a threat or something to change. The only person we control is ourselves.

I will be surprised if he contacts you. You came across as demanding in your letter and besides that it is a misrepresentation of the facts I provided you. Over and above all that these cops work hard, I doubt they have time to email. He might spare the time for a telephone call tho.

have a nice day
 :Biggrin:

----------


## Il Dante

First, I think that whether or not philosophy is useless, it is certainly understandable. It is altogether understandable to wonder: who am I, where did I come from, is there a purpose, etc.

Also, when was the day that science liberated itself from philosophy? What we call natural science used to be called "natural philosophy." The old name was more appropriate, because science is nothing more than a subset of philosophy. It is the application of certain philosophies in an attempt to make sense of the world. It is not greater than philosophy; rather, it is subordinate to philosophy.

Every scientific endevour makes basic philosophical assumptions. For example, when trying to create a theory to explain gravity, Newton made the metaphysical assumption that the universe is rational and that the stars are not being shunted around by capricious demons.

Of course, almost none of us has any problem with that assumption. But still, you have to admit that his science was, as all science is, subordinate to philosophy and based upon philosophical postulates.

So everything, whether purely philosophical or scientifically philosophical, is based upon certain metaphysical assumptions that we make. These constitute the foundation of all our reasoning. Unfortunately for seekers of the truth, most of these basic assumptions cannot be proven. For example, you can assume that the material universe is all there is and create scientific theories based upon that assumption. But that assumption can never be rigorously proven. Whether you believe in a universe without spirits or a universe with spirits, you can always create theories based upon your assumption to fit the data. Such theory creation is possible because science is not a purely logical process, but also involves creativity on the part of the scientist. It is a creative process inspired by data and tempered by experiment.

So where have we gone? Strictly speaking, no where.

The moral of this story is that philosophy cannot lead to an absolute knowledge of truth. It can only lead to contingent truth, i.e. thus and such is true if we assume x, y, and z. 

The best we can do is make educated guesses. You can try to make your guesses more and more educated, but until you are omniscient (i.e. never) you can never know WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY anything more than logical tautologies.

This means that absolute skepticism of the "I think, therefore I am" variety does nothing for us. It doesn't get us anywhere.

----------


## The Atheist

> I see you are manipulative in your manner and it might even work for you -- sometimes.


What on earth are you talking about?

I asked a simple question based on claims you've made that Sgt Toledo used psychics.

The answer is pretty easily an even simpler yes or no. Where's the manipulation in that?




> Bear in mind, life is a perception not a reality.


This is exactly what Philosophy has to answer for!

Life is not a perception but is, in fact, real.




> Everyone's reality depends on their own individual perception of what life means to them.


This is palpably wrong.

Mathematics *always* works. Perception is irrelevant, which is why all science is either replicable and consistent.




> What appeals to one doesnt appeal to all.


No.

Whether something appeals to me or not, I will accept the evidence. There are lots of things which don't appeal to me at all, but are still true.




> Our concept of life is unique in each of us, and we should embrace/accept others' concepts as simply different from our own, and not treat them as a threat or something to change. The only person we control is ourselves.


Another plea for magic.

I love the irony of people pleading for magic while using a computer - a device using thousands of years of science and mathematics which all must remain constant for it to work.

I'm not sure what you mean by "threat" as I only see True Bleevers as threats to themselves. Ignorance is bliss, so they tell me.

 :Biggrin: 




> I will be surprised if he contacts you. You came across as demanding in your letter and besides that it is a misrepresentation of the facts I provided you.


Ok, this interests me.

How is a polite request couched in that language "demanding"?

What facts does it misrepresent?




> Over and above all that these cops work hard, I doubt they have time to email. He might spare the time for a telephone call tho.


I'm not about to spend a whole lot of money phoning USA to follow up an unsupported anecdote. As I said, it will either be true or not and a simple yes or no answer will take less time than a phone call.

Also, it's because police are busy that psychics claiming to be able to help them disgusts me so much. Cops must listen to their insane bletherings because it could be the perpetrator pretending to be psychic, which has happened.




> have a nice day


That's guaranteed - it's just dawning another brilliantly fine and clear day in paradise.

----------


## Vautrin

> First, I think that whether or not philosophy is useless, it is certainly understandable. It is altogether understandable to wonder: who am I, where did I come from, is there a purpose, etc.
> 
> Also, when was the day that science liberated itself from philosophy? What we call natural science used to be called "natural philosophy." The old name was more appropriate, because science is nothing more than a subset of philosophy. It is the application of certain philosophies in an attempt to make sense of the world. It is not greater than philosophy; rather, it is subordinate to philosophy.
> 
> Every scientific endevour makes basic philosophical assumptions. For example, when trying to create a theory to explain gravity, Newton made the metaphysical assumption that the universe is rational and that the stars are not being shunted around by capricious demons.
> 
> Of course, almost none of us has any problem with that assumption. But still, you have to admit that his science was, as all science is, subordinate to philosophy and based upon philosophical postulates.
> 
> So everything, whether purely philosophical or scientifically philosophical, is based upon certain metaphysical assumptions that we make. These constitute the foundation of all our reasoning. Unfortunately for seekers of the truth, most of these basic assumptions cannot be proven. For example, you can assume that the material universe is all there is and create scientific theories based upon that assumption. But that assumption can never be rigorously proven. Whether you believe in a universe without spirits or a universe with spirits, you can always create theories based upon your assumption to fit the data. Such theory creation is possible because science is not a purely logical process, but also involves creativity on the part of the scientist. It is a creative process inspired by data and tempered by experiment.
> ...




Great Post!

I'd say this pretty much sums up the science vs. philosophy debate. 

With that out of the way, what about real life situations? What role does philosophy play in say: solving a dispute among family members, or saving a failing relationship between lovers or friends? Can we apply the teachings of philosophy to these very personal and complicated situations? Or would it seem crazy to the people involved and perhaps even a waste of time?

----------


## The Atheist

> With that out of the way, what about real life situations? What role does philosophy play in say: solving a dispute among family members, or saving a failing relationship between lovers or friends? Can we apply the teachings of philosophy to these very personal and complicated situations? Or would it seem crazy to the people involved and perhaps even a waste of time?


I think philosophy fails in those situations because everyone is different and will react differently and no doctrine can handle that.

I'm still waiting for a single, real world application of philosophy beyond asking questions.

----------


## Il Dante

> With that out of the way, what about real life situations? What role does philosophy play in say: solving a dispute among family members, or saving a failing relationship between lovers or friends? Can we apply the teachings of philosophy to these very personal and complicated situations? Or would it seem crazy to the people involved and perhaps even a waste of time?


Where does the philosophic rubber meet the road of life? This is a huge question.

I would say that one thing we all need to do is discern the negative impact certain philosophies can have on our lives in order to live brighter, higher, and more fulfilled life.

For example, since the Enlightenment there has been an ever increasing individualism in the West. Maybe it started with Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who both thought and taught that man is essentially an incorrigibly selfish being. This matches our experience and observation. But Locke and Hobbes' mistake was to assume that since we seem so selfish this state of things is normal—they made the mistake of thinking that we just have to live with this selfishness; that it is not something _to be overcome_.

But why in the world should we overcome it? Nietzche and his followers give us the answer.

Nietzche was a radical (I would say, extremist) individualist. And he intensified western philosophical individualism. Nietzche taught that Christianity had been disproven, and that this meant that all of Western philosophy had also been disproven since it was based upon Christian culture. Thus, he taught, this opened up the abyss of moral nihilism which would result in chaos. Nietzche's solution was the creation of myths and values to replace the old western/Christian/enlightenment philosophy. In other words, he taught that we have to create and believe in myths and systems of morality that we know are not true and are entirely artificial.

You say: impossible. "You are weak," Nietzche responds. "You have to be a 'superman' to create and believe in these myths. And if you are not a superman, you are pathetic."

Well, Nietzchianism became very chic. But his whole solution to our supposed problem—creating values—never caught on. Thus western civilization has slowly gone in the direction of nihilism without any solution.

Thus we lost God, lost any basis for a system of morality, lost afterlife, lost consequence for our actions, and lost philosophy. Well, if there is no God, and if there is no punishment or reward for our actions, and if this life is all I've got—if all of this is true, it logically follows that I should squeeze as much pleasure/fun out of life as possible. The problem with this is that one of the biggest things that often gets in the way of squeezing pleasure out of life is: people.

Children drain our funds and take up our time. Spouses limit our sexual possibilities and nag us. Parents tell us what to do. Men demand that women be beautiful. Women demand that men (horror of horrors!) love them. A man is inconvenienced because he has to do something with his wife/girlfriend instead of watching the game. A woman is inconvenienced because her kids leave her no time to do things that she likes.

So, the Nietzchian acolyte thinks to themself, people are the problem. They get in the way of my PERSONAL fun. They are so inconvenient. So I won't have relationships—not serious ones, at any rate.

This begins the epoch of casual relationships. Gone are the Romeos and Juliets who would rather die than live without each other. Gone is the lover who would give up life and joy for the life and joy of the object of love. Gone is agape—the noble, unselfish, highest love. Gone is true eros—the passion stemming not merely from lust but from love for another, which causes the lover to want to join and unite with the object of love and even to engage in the process of procreation, which produces a being that is a blending of the two lovers. All that is left is a sentimental and superficial phileo: momentary affection. We don't love, with all the passion and intensity of an Othello, anyone anymore. We _like_ people... as long as they don't inconvenience us too much.

Thus human connections are fraying. Love is slowly dying. We are gradually becoming a little-souled people who only care about ourselves, and have never experienced the thrill of loving another purely. We live on a plateau, afraid of climbing the mountain, which is too strenuous for our taste. We are alive, but not living.

The character, Ryan Bingham, from the movie "Up in the Air" illustrates this sort of person. He doesn't have relationships because they cause pain. But he is a pathetic man whose life is worthless. The only meaning to his life are petty little pleasures such as getting his name on the side of a plane, racking up miles, etc. A Romeo or Juliet has lived more fully in sixteen years than a Ryan Bingham could ever live in a hundred lifetimes.

This is an example of how philosophy can, and has, affected the lives of many in an extremely negative way.

----------


## Jozanny

Dante, that is quite a post. My only critique is that I do not think most people in relatively autonomous societies are really that conscious of the tyranny of liberalism most of the time. I would like to have a decent grasp of the major philosophers before I'm dead. Quark might ask me why. I'd say because I believe in continuing education--but having admitted this, I will probably fail. What I understand of Kant, or Wittgenstein, Hegel, is mostly derivative, and even Nietzsche, with all his exhortations, remains difficult for me to grasp on my own. Foucault is the only thinker I am breaking a sweat over, because his insights into social pressure on the body is important within disability studies--but even I do not dwell on philosophy all of the time, or literature, for that matter, and if Wallace could have such abilities as he did and still hang himself, I don't know where that leaves me in the misery of my own self-interest. I am really provoked at his suicide, and his widow would probably dress me down a peg or two if she knew how personally I feel it as a failed disabled writer, his age, with my own suffering and yet refusing to cave, and yet he had to. [Note to self: Unwind and take a slow, deep breath..]

I know it is sort of the tradition within certain spheres, including philosophy, to do the suicide thing, but if autocratic autonomy has a whiff of rotten eggs about it, I am not sure I can imagine something else. Ideology usually fails, and religions are dangerous, whatever they benefit in terms of community, and intellectual pursuit becomes increasingly more esoteric. I do not know what else it could do.

*Note: I just downloaded the Tractus for free, and I thought it was under copyright--but the books about Wittgenstein's Investigations and language studies have a whopping price tag. My kindle is stuffed!

----------


## caesar

Hi all! I'm returning to this forum after a long time. After reading the posts in this thread, I really felt glad to be back. 

A very interesting question by Vautrin as to the usefulness of philosophy, and brilliant arguments by all those who have posted. 

Apparently, the argument as to whether philosophy is useful or not has originated from the difference in opinion as to whether science is a part of philosophy or not. In this regard, I agree with what Il Dante that _"science is nothing more than a subset of philosophy"_.

Having regard to the apt distinction made by Il Dante (for our purposes here) between knowledge that is purely philosophical and that which is scientifically philosophical, I would like to give "law" as an example of a purely philosophical field of knowledge, the usefulness of which cannot be denied. 

The question based on the hypothetical situation (See paragraph below) posed by Vautrin in post #50, reminded me of what I had once told my friend  _You cant make a hungry man listen to philosophy_. Certainly, one would first want to know, _how to survive_, before wanting to know, _why one must live_. To Vautrin's question - _"Can deep philosophical reflection be a motivational tool or something that causes despair?"_, my answer is, _"It can be either"_. The man who has lost his job is confronted with a philosophical question. The answer to which is either hope or despair. In the hypothetical situation, if the man has hope, it is because he sees a plausible solution. His philosophy is in his hope or despair depending upon whether he thinks he can find a new job and buy a new house or not. 




> Hypothetical Situation:
> A man with a wife and three kids loses his job and eventually his house. Clearly, the best solution to his problem would be for him to get a new job. He and his family could stay at a relative's house until he saves enough money to buy another house or condominium, rent an apartment, etc. In the meantime, how can philosophy help this man get through such a tough time? Can philosophy help this man approach the situation with a clearer head and keep him focused on the bigger picture or does it simply become rubbish he has no time for? Can deep philosophical reflection be a motivational tool or something that causes despair?


I was very impressed with the arguments put forth by Satan in favour of philosophy. But I wanted to ask why s/he thought (in post #46) that philosophy is no longer useful in today's world when it is still as important as ever to know the meaning or purpose of ones life. 

But after having found my own meaning for life, I am bored to death.

----------


## dizzydoll

I am pleased to see this thread back on track. I agree with Caesar, good reading here. 




> But after having found my own meaning for life, I am bored to death.


But then you havent found it, trust me I am older than you.  :Smile5:

----------


## Dodo25

Law is an excellent example of useful philosophy. 

Another purpose would just be to satisfy curiosity. I mentioned thinking about consciousness as one example, and 'the Atheist' dismissed it a bit easily as 'being explainable by science'. Can science really answer all the thought experiments? 

Assume for example you could replicate the exact position and energy level of each atom in a complete human body. Build a completely identical clone, including state of mind and memories. Then kill the 'old' human. Did 'something' die?

But questions like 'what is the meaning of life (or one's own life) make no sense. I might as well as what is the meaning of a tree, or even a stone or a nitrogen atom. The right way to phrase the question is 'what should I do with my life?'

----------


## Jozanny

> Law is an excellent example of useful philosophy. 
> 
> Another purpose would just be to satisfy curiosity. I mentioned thinking about consciousness as one example, and 'the Atheist' dismissed it a bit easily as 'being explainable by science'. Can science really answer all the thought experiments? 
> 
> Assume for example you could replicate the exact position and energy level of each atom in a complete human body. Build a completely identical clone, including state of mind and memories. Then kill the 'old' human. Did 'something' die?
> 
> But questions like 'what is the meaning of life (or one's own life) make no sense. I might as well as what is the meaning of a tree, or even a stone or a nitrogen atom. The right way to phrase the question is 'what should I do with my life?'


I don't know Dodo. I get the objection to the increasingly esoteric nature of specializing, but I think most everyone should have some notion of history and who the major players were, and why, and what philosophy is, and why Kant is so important and what role his work had in creating the systems we live under today.

Wittgenstein would probably look at the paradox of your questions themselves, rather than caring what answers are provided; his studies on language are important for modern linguistics and post-structuralism.

*Meaning* in very great degree is a game each individual mind plays.

----------


## Dodo25

I didn't say anyting against knowing what Kant is about, as I said I think ethics and law are useful products of philosophy. 

In a way, it is even important to know what i.e. Plato said about essentialism, even though it is complete nonsense it has influenced Western culture for centuries and it is still used to illustrate misunderstandings about things. 

Yet I'll say it again, the whole field of metaphysics is pretty much nonsense, and most philosophers who lived before Darwin didn't even have a chance to 'get it right'.

----------


## The Atheist

> I didn't say anyting against knowing what Kant is about, as I said I think ethics and law are useful products of philosophy
> 
> In a way, it is even important to know what i.e. Plato said about essentialism, even though it is complete nonsense it has influenced Western culture for centuries and it is still used to illustrate misunderstandings about things. 
> 
> Yet I'll say it again, the whole field of metaphysics is pretty much nonsense, and most philosophers who lived before Darwin didn't even have a chance to 'get it right'.


This is where I should insert a "QFT" or some emoticon to show my 100% concurrence with your post, but I'll settle for:

Bravo!

----------


## Jozanny

I believe in knowledge Dodo, and not a chip on my shoulder in delightful belligerence declaring that everything but engineering and biology is necessary. I'm not a philosopher and I'm never going to be, but I realize the value in challenging concepts to lay the ground for new ones, and biology is never going to fully explain why atoms bound in such a way to create chemical sequencing in such a way leads to a mind, and not just a central processing unit. I feel sorry for people who vomit on humanities and the arts, because they make aesthetic choices every day of their lives, and seem to feel threatened by enriching on that--the years I have spent listening to people debate Wittgenstein and Kant were valuable to me, and I am going to return to that.

I am tired of the chip on the shoulder attitude so prevalent in this community about disparaging intellect. I happen to like thinking, and like striving towards a thesis and their various constructs, and I will continue to learn as long as I live.

----------


## Dodo25

You are misrepresenting my posts. Again, I think Kant is great, he is one of my favorite philosophers. I haven't really read Wittgenstein but I've heard good things about him. And I didn't say art is useless, I was talking about metaphysics. Whether art is useless is another question.

----------


## caesar

> But then you havent found it, trust me I am older than you.


I am sure you are right. The deeper I delve and the farther I see, I discover there is a greater truth than what I knew previously. Someone has very beautifully said, "The older and wiser I become, the more ignorant I know I am." By the way, how can you be so sure that you are older than me? Is it my youthful writing?  :Smilewinkgrin:  




> But questions like 'what is the meaning of life (or one's own life) make no sense. I might as well as what is the meaning of a tree, or even a stone or a nitrogen atom. The right way to phrase the question is 'what should I do with my life?'


But before I ask myself the question "What should I do with my life?", I will have to find an answer to the question, "Why should I do anything with my life?" or "Why should I live?". This question is not as simple as it seems if you are an agnostic. Nobody asked me if I wanted to be born. If there is a God and He created me, I would want to ask him to switch places with me, because I don't want to be human, I want to be God. But this is not a topic for discussion here. All I meant in my previous post was that the philosophical questions that were relevant to my ancestors are still important to me today. And I asked that question to Satan because s/he has stated (in post #46) that philosophy is very much irrelevant today, but has in the same post acknowledged the importance of the question What is the meaning of life? I was curious because Satans arguments in favor of philosophy are brilliant.

----------


## dizzydoll

> I am sure you are right. The deeper I delve and the farther I see, I discover there is a greater truth than what I knew previously. Someone has very beautifully said, "The older and wiser I become, the more ignorant I know I am." By the way, how can you be so sure that you are older than me? *Is it my youthful writing?*


Yes its fresh... and btw that quote is true.  :Thumbsup:  The disparity between a weed and a flower is judgment.

----------


## Dodo25

> But before I ask myself the question "What should I do with my life?", I will have to find an answer to the question, "Why should I do anything with my life?" or "Why should I live?". This question is not as simple as it seems if you are an agnostic. Nobody asked me if I wanted to be born.


Indeed, nobody asked you, but as of now, you happen to be alive. I like to think of it the following way: Out of all possible sets of DNA, it is ME that is alive right now at this very moment some 13.7 billion years after the big bang, in the 21st century CE. I think it's a priviledge, and I am deeply fascinated by the fact that matter self-organized itself over time to form a structure of sufficient complexity to gain consciousness. I'm talking about humans and their brain of course. 

For that reason, I feel the need to understand why I am here, that's why I researched cosmology and evolution. I now understand why humans are the way they are and why we have the kind of feelings we have, it all makes sense once you look at it through the eye of evolution. And I must say the resulting understanding is much deeper and more satisfying than any religious dogma. I don't 'believe', I understand.

So one thing I like to do in my life is understanding as much as possible. It is absolutely mind-boggling how far science has come in the past few centuries. I wish someone could bring back say Darwin or Newton and explain them what we now know. They would be thrilled beyond anything imaginable. Some people don't really care about that stuff and just live their lifes without thinking about it. Others are satisfied by 'God just did it', which explains nothing at all. I don't understand how either of them do it, but it's their right to think that way, as long as they are happy they shall believe what they want (altough that doesn't mean I let their wrong or unsupported beliefs pass unchallenged when they present it in a discussion).

And finally for the last thing, life's fun, and since there most likely is only one life, why not try to make the best out of it? Have fun, enjoy time with firends and loved one's, achieve something... That's just how I see it, maybe it helps you, maybe you think it's a stupid view.

----------


## John Lark

> I was very impressed with the arguments put forth by Satan in favour of philosophy. But I wanted to ask why s/he thought (in post #46) that philosophy is no longer useful in today's world when it is still as important as ever to know the meaning or purpose of ones life. 
> 
> But after having found my own meaning for life, I am bored to death.


Post #46 was just a parody of the general opinion on the matter to outline its ostensive asininity; the flaw was, it wasn't exaggerated enough, as many would agree with every single word (without knowing a single thing about Satre or Camus), and some, such as yourself perhaps, would get annoyed by it.

See Satan, Post #48: 'Well, you didn't get the sarcasm; but that's because it wasn't quite apparent.'


As some have already noted, Pragmatism too is a philosophical position, as is Instrumentalism, as is Positivism, as is the stance of the OP; I've always found it difficult to understand how so many can dog on the usefulness of philosophy for society and for the individual, yet can still spend so much of their time watching television and movies and reading magazines and pondering whether a monochromatic de Brogile's wave amplitude can be represented by an expression just like that of classical running waves, if matter can indeed behave like waves as conjectured from the conclusions of the photoelectric effect--or are the latter just a more endearing class of drivel?

----------


## Dodo25

Yeah post #46 was pretty funny to read. I only got the sarcasm after he mentioned lobotomy  :Smile:  But then it was quite apparent. Funny how one person is being sarcastic and others agree with it, makes it interesting.

----------


## The Atheist

> Yes its fresh... and btw that quote is true.  The disparity between a weed and a flower is judgment.


Or, in most cases, cultural constructs.




> Indeed, nobody asked you, but as of now, you happen to be alive. I like to think of it the following way: Out of all possible sets of DNA, it is ME that is alive right now at this very moment some 13.7 billion years after the big bang, in the 21st century CE.


Quite right.

Given the size of the universe, the odds of being alive right now, communicating on a computer are so astronomical as to be almost infinite.




> For that reason, I feel the need to understand why I am here, that's why I researched cosmology and evolution. I now understand why humans are the way they are and why we have the kind of feelings we have, it all makes sense once you look at it through the eye of evolution. And I must say the resulting understanding is much deeper and more satisfying than any religious dogma. I don't 'believe', I understand.


You should write a book - isn't the entire history of philosophy about understanding those questions?




> And finally for the last thing, life's fun, and since there most likely is only one life, why not try to make the best out of it? Have fun, enjoy time with firends and loved one's, achieve something... That's just how I see it, maybe it helps you, maybe you think it's a stupid view.


Sounds pretty sensible to me!

You could even call it a philosophy.

----------


## Jozanny

Dodo, I do not believe the study of metaphysics is itself a waste, and I will return to this later as I am in a rare stable window and want to work today, only to add, I respect science, even as advances in neurology and robotics makes me uneasy, but science cannot answer everything that satisfies the nature of reality and ontology. Even the failures of metaphysical inquiries are useful, and I'll start a thread on this in the near future.

----------


## Dodo25

> Dodo, I do not believe the study of metaphysics is itself a waste, and I will return to this later as I am in a rare stable window and want to work today, only to add, I respect science, even as advances in neurology and robotics makes me uneasy, but science cannot answer everything that satisfies the nature of reality and ontology. Even the failures of metaphysical inquiries are useful, and I'll start a thread on this in the near future.


Sounds interesting, please post a link or notice here once you start that thread. Because I don't have enough time to check the whole forum, I only pick a few threads I find interesting and focus on them. I'll then explain why I think metaphysics is incapable of producing anything useful.

----------


## dizzydoll

Dont you just love it the way Atheist dissects all our posts. lol.  :Smilielol5: 

Well I dont care what y'all got to say.. I love it.  :Rofl:

----------


## Dodo25

> You should write a book - isn't the entire history of philosophy about understanding those questions?


I have something in mind.. More like a novel though with such themes. It will be hard to write though and I'm not sure whether I can do it. 

Yes, a lot of philosophy is about these questions, and I do think most of them are answered by evolutionary biology applied interdisciplinary with other sciences. It is a bit depressing that the answers to most of the 'fundamental questions of humanity' are actually known, yet people don't seem to notice that. I mean the fact that 40% of Americans reject evolution speaks for itself (and even in Europe, the average percentage is almost 20%). 

Not all of philosophy deals with these questions though, where it becomes useful in my view is subjective experiences such as consciousness, or 'values' which should be assessed somehow so one can come up with laws, or ethical systems. Or even political systems. Another interesting field would be 'philosophy of science', the scientific method itself can be regarded as a product of philosophy.

----------


## dizzydoll

And of course each culture has their own schools of thought, so people of different groups will connect in philosophy, conversing about nothingness in relaxation... OM

----------


## The Atheist

> I have something in mind.. More like a novel though with such themes. It will be hard to write though and I'm not sure whether I can do it.


Too late, Dawins has already done it!

 :Biggrin: 




> Yes, a lot of philosophy is about these questions, and I do think most of them are answered by evolutionary biology applied interdisciplinary with other sciences. It is a bit depressing that the answers to most of the 'fundamental questions of humanity' are actually known, yet people don't seem to notice that. I mean the fact that 40% of Americans reject evolution speaks for itself (and even in Europe, the average percentage is almost 20%).


Now I can just agree with you 100%.




> Not all of philosophy deals with these questions though, where it becomes useful in my view is subjective experiences such as consciousness, or 'values' which should be assessed somehow so one can come up with laws, or ethical systems. Or even political systems.


Can you let in on which ones they are useful in?

I've been trying to find a practical use of philosophy to date that isn't just critical thinking, so concrete examples will be gratefully received.




> Another interesting field would be 'philosophy of science', the scientific method itself can be regarded as a product of philosophy.


Product of, sure; but I think it's moved far enough to say that the two are no longer compatible.

----------


## Dodo25

> Too late, Dawins has already done it!


Lots of people have done something along the line. But if I try, I'd go for a novel, not a science book, which would be something new. 

Example of useful systems:

Kant's categoric imperatif makes a lot of sense. Then I do like the idea of utilitarianism, in its present form I must say it has too many flaws, but definately a promising approach. Democraty is a philosophy, Capitalism too.

----------


## caesar

> Post #46 was just a parody of the general opinion on the matter to outline its ostensive asininity; the flaw was, it wasn't exaggerated enough


Apparently I was guilty of selective reading. Thanks for pointing out.




> I think it's a priviledge......


Like I said I'm an agnostic and if there is God then I don't want any privilege; I want to be nothing less than God. Because I don't like the idea (or privilege) of being a fish in an aquarium created by God. 




> So one thing I like to do in my life is understanding as much as possible...... Others are satisfied by 'God just did it', which explains nothing at all. I don't understand how either of them do it, but it's their right to think that way, as long as they are happy they shall believe what they want (altough that doesn't mean I let their wrong or unsupported beliefs pass unchallenged when they present it in a discussion).


There we have something in common. But again, if there is God, our discoveries and inventions are meaningless, because God already knows the answers and is merely playing with us. It's like training your dog to do something which you can do yourself just for fun.




> And finally for the last thing, life's fun, and since there most likely is only one life, why not try to make the best out of it? Have fun, enjoy time with firends and loved one's, achieve something... That's just how I see it, maybe it helps you, maybe you think it's a stupid view.


Yes, finally, when your life is fun and you have friends and loved ones to share your happiness with, you are, indeed, privileged. But, firstly, not everybody in this world find themselves under such favourable circumstances to make their life worth living (One simple example is people dying of hunger and curable diseases because of poverty. There is no fun in their life. What do they have to live for?); and secondly, even if I am going to be happy for the rest of my life, it is not sufficient to make my life meaningful (or useful), unless I can beat death and live forever, or unless I can be certain that humanity will survive forever and humans will go on become the masters of their destiny and the universe. I don't think that I'll be able to beat death, but, I would like to be an optimist and believe that humans will manage to survive forever. In my opinion if humans cannot survive for ever then all that we are doing is *meaningless*. Hence, it makes sense to ask the question, "What is the *meaning* of life?" The same question can be rephrased as, "What is the use of doing all that we are doing if we, humans, will cease to exist one day?" The answer that it's a privilege and that it's fun is no good for me.

----------


## The Atheist

> Lots of people have done something along the line. But if I try, I'd go for a novel, not a science book, which would be something new.


Give it a try! You have an immediate market of a billion or so secular people!




> Hence, it makes sense to ask the question, "What is the *meaning* of life?" The same question can be rephrased as, "What is the use of doing all that we are doing if we, humans, will cease to exist one day?" The answer that it's a privilege and that it's fun is no good for me.


You've just destroyed your own premise, because if you don't conecern yourself with the meaning of life, you can just get on and enjoy it.

If you insist on having a meaning, you will end up in church, because it's the only place which tries to offer one.

----------


## caesar

> You've just destroyed your own premise, because if you don't conecern yourself with the meaning of life, you can just get on and enjoy it.


I have no idea which premise you are talking about. Please be more specific. I will repeat myself for your benefit that in order to "get on" with my life and to "enjoy it", I need to know why I need to "get on" with my life and "enjoy it".




> If you insist on having a meaning, you will end up in church, because it's the only place which tries to offer one.


This statement is nothing more than a ridiculous rhetoric. In fact, your rhetoric merely proves your lack of faith in your ability to reason, because I, like many others around the world, rely on reason to find the meaning of life. To say that church is the only place which tries to offer a meaning to life is nonsense. In any case, what is wrong in finding the meaning of your life in a church, if it satisfies you? Can you claim that the entire church-going community is lacking in wisdom?

----------


## The Atheist

> I have no idea which premise you are talking about. Please be more specific. I will repeat myself for your benefit that in order to "get on" with my life and to "enjoy it", I need to know why I need to "get on" with my life and "enjoy it".


If you need to find a "meaning of life" to be happy, you'll never be happy - unless you end up subscribing to an existing religious doctrine.

You don't *need* to get on and enjoy your life; lots of people have spent all their lives searching for the meaning, which is why this thread exists - philosophers have been searching for 10,000 years and have had no luck so far.




> This statement is nothing more than a ridiculous rhetoric. In fact, your rhetoric merely proves your lack of faith in your ability to reason, because I, like many others around the world, rely on reason to find the meaning of life.


You can call it rhetoric if you like, but to me, it's simply an analysis of fact. Nobody using reason has yet found any "meaning" to life, and given that most of those who have tried are much smarter tham me, I have extreme doubt that one will ever be found.

If you believe reason has been, or even can be, used to find a "meaning" of life, please present details.




> To say that church is the only place which tries to offer a meaning to life is nonsense.


See above. I'll wait until you can describe a non-religious claim, as I'm aware of no others to date. None that fit, anyway, as I'm ignoring the likes of David Icke.




> In any case, what is wrong in finding the meaning of your life in a church, if it satisfies you?


Delusion doesn't count as an answer in my world, but I agree that many people are quite happy with a religious answer to the question.




> Can you claim that the entire church-going community is lacking in wisdom?


No, they're more like a horse with blinkers/blinds on, because belief is about desire rather than wisdom. People want to believe, so they ignore the obvious absurdities of religion and believe it anyway.

----------


## caesar

The Atheist, I would suggest we stick to the topic of this thread about the usefulness of philosophy. In my earlier post, I pointed out, law as an example of useful philosophy. I would like to know what you think about my example since you have been vehemently arguing against the usefulness of all philosophy. 

I have responded to the remarks in your last post below. But if you want to continue discussing the topic 'meaning of life' I would suggest you open a new thread so that we can deal with the topic more effectively.




> If you need to find a "meaning of life" to be happy, you'll never be happy - unless you end up subscribing to an existing religious doctrine.


Again at the expense of repeating myself, I'm pointing out to you that the purpose of finding the 'meaning of life' is not necessarily to be happy. If there is no meaning to life there is no point in living, notwithstanding your being happy or unhappy. In other words, 'If life is *meaningless* it's not worth living'. I'll give you an analogy to help you understand the meaning (or import) of the word *"meaningless"* used in the previous sentence. Consider the word *"meaningless"* when one is consoling another by saying, "It is meaningless to cry now". The word *"meaningless"* is used to mean futile and that by crying the person crying will not be able to achieve anything.

Next, you will want to know what makes me think that life (living) is futile. It is 'death'. Again, at the expense of repeating myself, I am pointing out, if humans cannot survive for ever then there is no meaning to what humans are doing now - discovering, inventing, creating, waging wars over boundaries, over ideologies, discussing on lit-net forum, getting on with life and enjoying it, etc, etc. It would be like rehearsing for a play which will never be staged. On the other hand, if I am certain that I'll not die or (the next best thing) that humans will never cease to exist, I don't mind accepting both happiness and sorrow, because then whatever we are doing will not be for nothing. Now you may ask me why I'm sceptical about the survival of humanity for ever. Certainly, unless we, humans, manage to colonize some other habitable part of the universe, we will cease to exist when the sun burns out. One cannot even rule out the possibility of humans ceasing to to exist because of their own folly (like war, or some science experiment). 

I'll add here that different people have different reasons to ask what is the meaning of life. The reason may not always be the inevitability of death. Of course, it is one of the most important reasons. Religious people find satisfaction in the promise of heaven or rebirth or soul's immortality. I was not satisfied with answer provided by religion so the question persisted until I found my own meaning (from a lot of reading and thinking, of course). I will not claim that the meaning I've found is indisputable, but, for the time being I'm satisfied. So there is no point in your going go on and on about religion being the only source of answer, because I've gone past it. 

To me, to "get on" with life and to "enjoy it", just because I have (or have been given) a chance (privilege) to live is nothing more than living like an animal. If both animals and humans get on with their lives and enjoy it and if one day both animals and humans become extint, then, animals would have lived and died without understanding anything, and, we, humans, would have lived and died understanding some of the things. I agree, to some people, it is all the difference they need to make their life meaningful (good for them), but to me it's not enough unless the immortality of the human race is assured. To them meaning begins and ends with enjoying the life they have been given, to me it is in the perpetuity of human survival and advancement. 




> You don't *need* to get on and enjoy your life; lots of people have spent all their lives searching for the meaning, which is why this thread exists - philosophers have been searching for 10,000 years and have had no luck so far.





> You can call it rhetoric if you like, but to me, it's simply an analysis of fact. Nobody using reason has yet found any "meaning" to life, and given that most of those who have tried are much smarter tham me, I have extreme doubt that one will ever be found.


Your premise that philosophers have not found an answer for 10,000 years is wrong and your conclusion that it is very unlikely that they will find an answer is, again, wrong and it is a despondent attitude. Firstly, I don't believe in running away from a *valid* question just because others have failed to find an answer to it. Secondly, philosophers (including religious philosophers) have provided answers to this question. Some philosophers have come to a negative conclusion that there is no meaning to life for various reasons, and others have given a positive answer that life is meaningful for various reasons. Some people may be satisfied with the reasons provided to one of the answers and they may agree that life is either meaningful or meaningless; others continue to search, because they are not satisfied with the reasons to both the answers or because they are troubled by the irony of living by accepting the negative answer. 





> If you believe reason has been, or even can be, used to find a "meaning" of life, please present details.





> See above. I'll wait until you can describe a non-religious claim, as I'm aware of no others to date. None that fit, anyway, as I'm ignoring the likes of David Icke.


I don't want to waste my time supplying you with proof for a widely discussed subject. Why don't you search on the internet. Just to let you know that I'm not running away from a challenge, I'll recommend to you 'The Fountainhead' by Ayn Rand (positive answer) and 'The Bet' by Anton Chekhov (negative answer).




> No, they're more like a horse with blinkers/blinds on, because belief is about desire rather than wisdom. People want to believe, so they ignore the obvious absurdities of religion and believe it anyway.


There is no difference between you and them. You claim to use reason to find happiness and they believe in heaven or the immortality of the soul to find happiness. But, both of you are going to die (cease to be humans in flesh and blood) and the superiority of your reason (over religious beliefs) is no good once you are dead.

----------


## dizzydoll

I just believe that during discussions in philosophy bright sparks will fly, it wouldnt surprise in the least to discover that inventions did actually occur as a result of philosophical discussions. Goes to its necessity. 

Have a Spoonful

 :Aureola:

----------


## Scheherazade

*~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments and/or showing intolerance towards others' beliefs will be removed without any further notice.

~*

----------


## The Atheist

> The Atheist, I would suggest we stick to the topic of this thread about the usefulness of philosophy.


I thought we were!




> In my earlier post, I pointed out, law as an example of useful philosophy. I would like to know what you think about my example since you have been vehemently arguing against the usefulness of all philosophy.


First off, you'd need to show where and which philosophy is responsible for which law, because our law is still based on biblical ramblings far more than philosophy.

On the other hand, I have asked and asked for a practical example of something which philosophy has actually done and I haven't seen an answer yet.




> I have responded to the remarks in your last post below. But if you want to continue discussing the topic 'meaning of life' I would suggest you open a new thread so that we can deal with the topic more effectively.


No need - it's done and dusted.




> Again at the expense of repeating myself, I'm pointing out to you that the purpose of finding the 'meaning of life' is not necessarily to be happy.


I agree - I was discussing your own particular case as stated by you twice. That's why I gave the exanple of apathetic agnosticism.




> If there is no meaning to life there is no point in living, notwithstanding your being happy or unhappy.


This makes no sense and appears to be a tautology where your "point" and "meaning" are the same.




> Again, at the expense of repeating myself, I am pointing out, if humans cannot survive for ever then there is no meaning to what humans are doing now - discovering, inventing, creating, waging wars over boundaries, over ideologies, discussing on lit-net forum, getting on with life and enjoying it, etc, etc. It would be like rehearsing for a play which will never be staged.


I do understand your position. I just happen to think it's rather meaningless itself. We are a part of the evolution of life on earth and whether the species continues or not is irrelevant to me. 

Again, it seems your only option is theism, because it's a stone-cold certainty that humans will not be around forever.




> I will not claim that the meaning I've found is indisputable, but, for the time being I'm satisfied. So there is no point in your going go on and on about religion being the only source of answer, because I've gone past it.


This discussion would make a lot more sense if you just posted it.




> To me, to "get on" with life and to "enjoy it", just because I have (or have been given) a chance (privilege) to live is nothing more than living like an animal.


You do realise we are animals? Lot better than being a plant, I'd say.




> I agree, to some people, it is all the difference they need to make their life meaningful (good for them), but to me it's not enough unless the immortality of the human race is assured.


As I said - you're on a certain loser. Apart from anything else, the universe will burn out/die off at some stage.




> Your premise that philosophers have not found an answer for 10,000 years is wrong and your conclusion that it is very unlikely that they will find an answer is, again, wrong and it is a despondent attitude.


Not really despondent, because I'm not bothered by it at all. 

Since you claim I'm wrong, I'll wait for your description of that one physical success philosophy has had - aside from staffing McDonald's.

 :Biggrin: 




> Some philosophers have come to a negative conclusion that there is no meaning to life for various reasons, and others have given a positive answer that life is meaningful for various reasons.


Excellent!

That's a classic example of what I mean. Philosophy can't even agree on *whether* there's an answer, far less what it is.




> I don't want to waste my time supplying you with proof for a widely discussed subject. Why don't you search on the internet. Just to let you know that I'm not running away from a challenge, I'll recommend to you 'The Fountainhead' by Ayn Rand (positive answer) and 'The Bet' by Anton Chekhov (negative answer).


It seems to me that you're confusing the issue here. Any philosopher can give what he/she thinks is an answer.

I asked for concrete examples of real-world answers which have been given to mankind by philosophy and you've managed to come up with two opposite doctrines.

Not even close.

----------


## Lionheart

I tend to think reading a lot of Existentialism that it suffers from being way too wordy. I wouldn't necessarily call it drivel, but close to it because they aren't forthcoming about what the justification of the fifty or more pages are. Greek philosophy and Lao-Tse is very straight forward; like Heraclitus' maxims are short statements that drive you to the core and are able to analyze then and there. Since I have not read other schools of philosophy besides (the close cousin), Absurdism, and Christian infused Boethius; on the other hand, I feel bad about naming Existentialism by name. 

To suffice, I would say anything that's too much about wowing the student with their wordsmithy and not chopping to what they are trying to conclude.

----------


## whathappened

I find the pre-Socratics and Lao Zi obscure, but interesting. For instance, I am not sure what the sage means by 'if a way can be told, it is not the everlasting way', the first sentence in his classic.

----------


## Cunninglinguist

Has this whole philosophical enquiry been drivel? If all philosophy is drivel, then this whole discussion is, too. Then why, if I may ask, have those who so quickly denounce philosophy in her totality so eagerly partake in it? Are these people conscious of their hypocrisy, or do they just not know that they do not believe the words with which they speak?

When is(n’t) philosophy important? Sure, sitting around thinking never gets anything done. It’s never the action, and therefore never directly potent; it’s never a remedy that saves a life or a bullet that takes one away. But yet, when we have the luxury of time, shouldn’t we spend time questioning where to aim the gun or even questioning whether or not we should pull its trigger? Moral philosophy is a tool that we can use to inform our actions.

Endeavoring to discover whether or not this debate is important is of critical importance. 
The essential questions at hand are: how should we live? How should we expend our energy in life? Should we expend it on philosophical endeavors? And other questions of the like.
Consider how much energy is expended on this endeavor here. How much energy could have gone into doing something more practical e.g. volunteer work?
As we expend energy here debating over how we ought to expend our energy, people elsewhere are dying. This is one of the greatest ironies in life I’ve ever encountered. We ought to expend it on them.

----------


## The Atheist

> I find the pre-Socratics and Lao Zi obscure, but interesting. For instance, I am not sure what the sage means by 'if a way can be told, it is not the everlasting way', the first sentence in his classic.


Something about the real, honest, one and only, truth being hidden from us, I imagine.




> Has this whole philosophical enquiry been drivel? If all philosophy is drivel, then this whole discussion is, too. Then why, if I may ask, have those who so quickly denounce philosophy in her totality so eagerly partake in it? Are these people conscious of their hypocrisy, or do they just not know that they do not believe the words with which they speak?


What?

In what way is any hypocrisy involved? 

Do you only argue propositions you agree with?

In case you didn't notice the front page, this is a discussion forum and we're in the philosophy section.

You may as well complain that I'm in some way hypocritical as an atheist talking in religious threads, or that I do makes me a closet theist.




> When is(nt) philosophy important? Sure, sitting around thinking never gets anything done. Its never the action, and therefore never directly potent; its never a remedy that saves a life or a bullet that takes one away. But yet, when we have the luxury of time, shouldnt we spend time questioning where to aim the gun or even questioning whether or not we should pull its trigger? Moral philosophy is a tool that we can use to inform our actions.


Ok, let's play then.

The scoreboard as I read it works like this:

Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.

We've been literally paying people to sit around and think for several thousand years, yet I'm still waiting for one single moral issue that philosophy has been able to solve. Go ahead and list 'em if you got 'em.




> Endeavoring to discover whether or not this debate is important is of critical importance. 
> The essential questions at hand are: how should we live? How should we expend our energy in life? Should we expend it on philosophical endeavors? And other questions of the like.
> Consider how much energy is expended on this endeavor here. How much energy could have gone into doing something more practical e.g. volunteer work?
> As we expend energy here people debating over how we ought to expend our energy, elsewhere are dying. This is one of the greatest ironies in life Ive ever encountered. We ought to expend it on them.


If you're seeing irony in that, you're admitting to being pretty naive, I think.

If I spent all my energy on volunteer work, I'd soon get sick of it and shoot myself. I've only got a limited supply of emotional energy and I like to save a bit for the kids and other things.

Part of my evolved human nature means that I need some entertainment time or I'll go nuts.

The time I spend online is the time I'd be doing nothing else of value - watching a tv, playing a game, sitting and scratching myself or brushing my hair. Claiming that I could make the world a better place during the time I spend typing is plain silly.

----------


## whathappened

The Atheist: Something about the real, honest, one and only, truth being hidden from us, I imagine.

Lao Zi does not seem to claim that the dao is unknowable. But he tries to describe it in metaphors many of which are obscure like many poems. And he writes in the first place that the dao is indescribable. Despite these problems he seems very interesting. Like many poems many of his make great sense, after much sense-making. So I guess much sense-making is needed to understand his first sentence.

The Atheist: Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.

Whoever have definitions for the good and the just would seem be able to solve moral dilemmas. The difficulty is with the definitions. It is unhelpful to complain that no convincing definitions have been given by philosophers, unless you complain about the philosophical method. But what is the method?

----------


## IceM

To respond to the title.

When one cannot define the entirety of his belief without using esoteric terminology, it probably isn't worth hearing.

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> What?
> 
> In what way is any hypocrisy involved? 
> 
> Do you only argue propositions you agree with?
> 
> In case you didn't notice the front page, this is a discussion forum and we're in the philosophy section.
> 
> You may as well complain that I'm in some way hypocritical as an atheist talking in religious threads, or that I do makes me a closet theist.


I would define this whole discussion as a philosophical, yet you sit here partaking in it while you claim that it's completely and utterly useless. As for saying that "I may as well complain that I'm in some way hypocritical as an atheist talking in religious threads, or that I do makes me a closet theist," I must disagree. It is more like trying to disprove reason using reason. I would like to hear your definition of philosophy, and I may agree that it is utterly useless when one accords with your definition; I will most likely contend, however, that you define it rather unfairly.




> Ok, let's play then.
> 
> The scoreboard as I read it works like this:
> 
> Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.
> 
> We've been literally paying people to sit around and think for several thousand years, yet I'm still waiting for one single moral issue that philosophy has been able to solve. Go ahead and list 'em if you got 'em.


one ought not kill when one does not have to
one ought not steal when one does not have to
one ought not lie when one does not have to
the list goes on like that...

Here is another point at which you're being a hypocrite: this debate is of a moral nature (it deals with how one ought to expend energy) and you're contending that one ought not spend it doing philosophy, or at least one ought not make a profession out of it. I find it curious that you make this moral generalization and yet claim that no moral generalizations can be made. Oops, guess you didn't think that one through.




> If you're seeing irony in that, you're admitting to being pretty naive, I think.
> 
> If I spent all my energy on volunteer work, I'd soon get sick of it and shoot myself. I've only got a limited supply of emotional energy and I like to save a bit for the kids and other things.
> 
> Part of my evolved human nature means that I need some entertainment time or I'll go nuts.
> 
> The time I spend online is the time I'd be doing nothing else of value - watching a tv, playing a game, sitting and scratching myself or brushing my hair. Claiming that I could make the world a better place during the time I spend typing is plain silly.


I see irony in it because, by definition, there is irony in it. I'm surprised someone who acts as clever as you do missed that.  :Rolleyes: 

So, you're implicitly saying that philosophy is useful (or atleast justified) when one uses it for entertainment.

I'll have to get back to you on the rest of these, as I am short on time right now.

----------


## The Atheist

> The Atheist: Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.
> 
> Whoever have definitions for the good and the just would seem be able to solve moral dilemmas. The difficulty is with the definitions. It is unhelpful to complain that no convincing definitions have been given by philosophers, unless you complain about the philosophical method. But what is the method?


I doubt I can answer that in polite enough terms without resprting to the cliched "navel-gazing".

If we can't even define what "good" is, it's time to give up.




> To respond to the title.
> 
> When one cannot define the entirety of his belief without using esoteric terminology, it probably isn't worth hearing.


That's as succinct a description as I've seen.

Is it yours, or borrowed?

If it's yours give me some attribution details so I can credit you when I use it.

 :Biggrin: 




> I would like to hear your definition of philosophy, and I may agree that it is utterly useless when one accords with your definition; I will most likely contend, however, that you define it rather unfairly.


I may be doing just that, so to be sure where I am, this has been covered in complete detail during the thread, so just scroll back and you'll see.




> one ought not kill when one does not have to
> one ought not steal when one does not have to
> one ought not lie when one does not have to
> the list goes on like that...


They sound a lot more like humanist priciples than philosophical ones.

I have yet to see any definable consensus among philosophers on those, not to mention the obvious fish-hook that my "have to" may be different from yours. 




> Here is another point at which you're being a hypocrite: this debate is of a moral nature (it deals with how one ought to expend energy) and you're contending that one ought not spend it doing philosophy, or at least one ought not make a profession out of it. I find it curious that you make this moral generalization and yet claim that no moral generalizations can be made. Oops, guess you didn't think that one through.


No, I'm pretty sure you're just wrong.

Have I said that no moral generalisations can be made? If so, I don't remember it, and I expect it would be in error or out of context, because I don't agree with it. I think they can be made, but need arbitrary positions first, which philosophy cannot give us. I don't think moral generalisations can be made _by philosophy_.




> So, you're implicitly saying that philosophy is useful (or atleast justified) when one uses it for entertainment.


For entertainment? Absolutely.

A good analogy would be bigfoot. I find bigfoot entertaining and have several friends in the bigfoot community, yet I think they're all as mad as rabbits. 

I don't make many absolute statements, but I will on that subject - bigfoot is a fairytale and does not exist. The bigfooters know this.

Lots of things are entertaining - a field of study where there has never been a right or wrong answer since its inception seems to me to be the highest form of drivel-making on the planet, thus making it near the top of the list in entertainment. Much more so than religion; religion is nice and absolute.

----------


## _Shannon_

This whole thread ought to do a collective reading of the complete works of Wittgenstein. LOL! It'd "solve" a lot of the arguments  :Smile:

----------


## Dodo25

> This whole thread ought to do a collective reading of the complete works of Wittgenstein. LOL! It'd "solve" a lot of the arguments


The name is somewhere on my (HUGE) reading list, because it has been recommended to me twice. Yet I haven't narrowed it down to actual book titles. If your familiar with his works, which one is the most important in your opinion?

He wrote in German, didn't he?

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> If you're seeing irony in that, you're admitting to being pretty naive, I think.
> 
> If I spent all my energy on volunteer work, I'd soon get sick of it and shoot myself. I've only got a limited supply of emotional energy and I like to save a bit for the kids and other things.
> 
> Part of my evolved human nature means that I need some entertainment time or I'll go nuts.
> 
> The time I spend online is the time I'd be doing nothing else of value - watching a tv, playing a game, sitting and scratching myself or brushing my hair. Claiming that I could make the world a better place during the time I spend typing is plain silly.


I have no where declared that one should spend all their time doing volunteer work. However, it is the case that the end of serious moral discussions is humanitarian. They inform us on how to best conduct our behavior in order to benefit those around us and ourselves, and are therefore very much a humanitarian endeavor by proxy. Therefore my former comments are hinting at my answer to the forums question: (at least) moral philosophy becomes drivel when it gets in the way of its own end.

----------


## mal4mac

> I have no where declared that one should spend all their time doing volunteer work. However, it is the case that the end of serious moral discussions is humanitarian. They inform us on how to best conduct our behavior in order to benefit those around us and ourselves, and are therefore very much a humanitarian endeavor by proxy. Therefore my former comments are hinting at my answer to the forums question: (at least) moral philosophy becomes drivel when it gets in the way of its own end.


Can you give an example of a serious work of moral philosophy that gets in the way of its own declared end? 

According to Aristotle's Ethics, the highest human endeavour is "contemplating like a God", which amounts, in human terms, to studying the greatest theoretical works (e.g., reading Euclid.) Is this humanitarian?

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> I may be doing just that, so to be sure where I am, this has been covered in complete detail during the thread, so just scroll back and you'll see.


Yes, and if I remember correctly Satan pointed out how flawwed your definition of philosophy was. You better go change it because it's wrong. It amuses me how your vanity leads you about by your nose and makes you commit to really terrible arguments.




> They sound a lot more like humanist priciples than philosophical ones.
> 
> I have yet to see any definable consensus among philosophers on those, not to mention the obvious fish-hook that my "have to" may be different from yours.


Nevertheless I could've omitted these because you still scored a goal on yourself.  :Rolleyes: 




> No, I'm pretty sure you're just wrong.
> 
> Have I said that no moral generalisations can be made? If so, I don't remember it, and I expect it would be in error or out of context, because I don't agree with it. I think they can be made, but need arbitrary positions first, which philosophy cannot give us. I don't think moral generalisations can be made _by philosophy_.


Yes, you have. It's curious how you argue here that no one should be making a profession out of philosophy (i.e. implicitly saying that it is immoral), yet you've also subscribed to moral relativism in other forums. 

The fact still stants either way that, by definition, all arguments dealing with moral statuses fall under the scope of philosophy (by definition, to further assert the point). Once again, get your definitions straight. Oops, again.

I would like to point out that it is not necessary that everyone must reach a consensus on something in order for that something to be true. A man can disagree and say that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, yet this does not make the statment 1 + 1 = 2 not true, it makes the man incompetent or uneducated as to the meanings of the symbols used. It is very possible that philosophy is the same way (it is especially susceptible to the aforementioned latter possibility because of the subsymbolic nature of words), yet if you want to discuss this Id be much more than happy to, but I beseech you to initiate that discussion by sending me a private message, for I fear that the topic is so large it shouldnt be discussed here.




> For entertainment? Absolutely.
> 
> A good analogy would be bigfoot. I find bigfoot entertaining and have several friends in the bigfoot community, yet I think they're all as mad as rabbits. 
> 
> I don't make many absolute statements, but I will on that subject - bigfoot is a fairytale and does not exist. The bigfooters know this.
> 
> Lots of things are entertaining - a field of study where there has never been a right or wrong answer since its inception seems to me to be the highest form of drivel-making on the planet, thus making it near the top of the list in entertainment. Much more so than religion; religion is nice and absolute.


So you say it is okay if one uses it for entertainment but implying it's not if one makes a professional career out of it. This sounds much like you're trying to assert a moral maxim. Yet, you've clarified that you're a moral relativist...same point as before.  :Confused: 
And also you're using philosophical debate to contend that philosophical debate is worthless. Of course, knowing what is useful and what is worthless is inherently useful, and philosophy being the only way one might go about finding these things is therefore useful. Yet you contend its not? Thats like trying to talk about how useless talking is. I hope youre coming to realize how blatantly hypocritical that is.

"I dont make any absolute statements," do you realize how, first of all, this is an absolute statement, and second of all, how many absolute statments you DO make? You better go reveiw your other posts.

----------


## _Shannon_

> The name is somewhere on my (HUGE) reading list, because it has been recommended to me twice. Yet I haven't narrowed it down to actual book titles. If your familiar with his works, which one is the most important in your opinion?
> 
> He wrote in German, didn't he?


I think if you were only to read one, it ought to be _Philisophical Investigations_...it is later than the _Tractatus_, and more reflective of what he came to believe, (and it will answer the OP  :Biggrin: ) 

Yes it's originally in German, but there are good English translations available.

----------


## Dodo25

> I think if you were only to read one, it ought to be _Philisophical Investigations_...it is later than the _Tractatus_, and more reflective of what he came to believe, (and it will answer the OP ) 
> 
> Yes it's originally in German, but there are good English translations available.


Thank you. I'll read that sometime, and then, depending on how I liked it, maybe more of his books. 

German is my native language, yet I'm not sure if I should read it in German. Of course, the original language is always more precise, on the other hand, reading it in English would give me the English vocabulary to the book, so people understand me better when I talk about it. Additionally, I don't like German very much..

----------


## The Atheist

> Yes, and if I remember correctly Satan pointed out how flawwed your definition of philosophy was.


If your argument is with the description I'm using, changing your tack to that now seems quite dishonest.

The constant use of _ad hominem_ doesn't encourage me to bother - I seem to recall you doing the same in another thread - but what really gives me the clue as to your level of argument is best shown here:




> "I dont make any absolute statements," do you realize how, first of all, this is an absolute statement, and second of all, how many absolute statments you DO make? You better go reveiw your other posts.


While this is what I actually said:




> I don't make *many* absolute statements, but I will on that subject - bigfoot is a fairytale and does not exist. The bigfooters know this.


Bolding mine.

----------


## whathappened

> If we can't even define what "good" is, it's time to give up.


We can define what good is. It is just that our definition can hardly be satisfactory for all cases under all considerations. The difficulty is just working out more and more satisfactory definitions.

But of course we can do away with definitions... or can we?

If you have a non-philosophical (whatever this might mean) definition for the good, it would be interesting to hear it.

----------


## The Atheist

> We can define what good is. It is just that our definition can hardly be satisfactory for all cases under all considerations. The difficulty is just working out more and more satisfactory definitions.
> 
> But of course we can do away with definitions... or can we?
> 
> If you have a non-philosophical (whatever this might mean) definition for the good, it would be interesting to hear it.


Sorry, I didn't intend to make a discussion on the meaning of "good"; I was after more of a point that what constitutes "good" and "bad" is simply down to subjective opinion.

Philosophy cannot even answer the questions, simply because I can provide a logical argument to negate any position taken. 

Let's say we take a universal position that feeding the starving is "good".

The trouble is, I can successfully argue that it is actually "bad" by showing the counter-productive nature of it - feeding people in poverty merely creates more people in poverty, the plight of whom will never be improved. Saving lives puts other lives under pressure by increasing competition for resources, and it spreads disease by enabling more people to live in unsanitary areas. Water supplies and political bargaining are also aided by feeding the starving. 

Not to mention the havoc 7 billion people are causing to this otherwise very nice planet.

This is part of the reason why religion is so attractive - it provides a nice set of arbitrary rules, and if a god writes the rules, no argument is possible.

----------


## whathappened

It is just that the position does not satisfy your considerations.

If there is no position that satisfies you, at all, then maybe you are expecting the impossible. It is quite impossible that something is all good, no bad.

Besides, when you were negating the position you were working under a definition of the good, no matter how unclear it was.

----------


## Scheherazade

> When does philosophy become drivel and why?


Just about now... Because a thread on how philosophy becomes drivel gets over 120 posts.

 :Tongue:

----------


## The Atheist

> Besides, when you were negating the position you were working under a definition of the good, no matter how unclear it was.


We seem to be on different sides of the road here - I stated that defining the word "good" was a piece of cake. Making it fit into the actual world is the problem.




> Just about now... Because a thread on how philosophy becomes drivel gets over 120 posts.


 :FRlol: 

Wins the thread!

----------


## The Comedian

> I'm all for getting my hands dirty in a philosophical discussion. Questioning everything and taking nothing at face value is how I try to live my life. However, when does philosophical reflection cross the border into the Republic of Rubbish? And Why? 
> 
> From my own personal experience, I've noticed it gets people's eyes rolling when the situation is tense and they want direct, concrete answers to a problem or crisis. Is a truly philosophical view only tolerated when people have the luxury of time? Outside of the world of Academia, at what point does Philosophy become something far less helpful or desirable?


To address the question posed in the post title. . .I think philosophy becomes drivel when it becomes something you talk about _only_ -- and stops becoming either something you do or a way to prepare you for an action, decision, or feeling.

----------


## whathappened

> We seem to be on different sides of the road here - I stated that defining the word "good" was a piece of cake. Making it fit into the actual world is the problem.


Yes, and the problem may not be as impossible as you think, and it is a problem the answerING of which is of value.




> I think philosophy becomes drivel when it becomes something you talk about only -- and stops becoming either something you do or a way to prepare you for an action, decision, or feeling.


Much agreed. Over-expectation may be a factor that stops us from doing ideas, but the greater factor may be that we do not go deep into ideas. On the surface ideas appear drivel and problematic.

----------


## The Comedian

> Much agreed. Over-expectation may be a factor that stops us from doing ideas, but the greater factor may be that we do not go deep into ideas. On the surface ideas appear drivel and problematic.


Indeed. I like talkin' philosophy a lot. And I think that such conversation can improve our lived experiences in many ways. But sometimes talking philosophy and going "deep" into an idea is like a dog chasing its own tail: you just end up just biting your own *** and walking away dizzy as hell.

----------


## whathappened

Yep, so the problem seems to be overcoming confusion. Maybe the dizzy dog metaphor can make some suggestion.

----------


## ?NIETZSCHE'XIST

Why? Because we continue to Flog Nietzsche's Horse! If you encounter Zarathustra on the path... KILL HIM!

----------


## The Atheist

Concidentally, Philosophy with a capital P is under attack in NZ, with new initiatives meaning Philosophy departments will struggle for funds.

The government has decreed that university degree funding will henceforth be based on the likelihood of graduates getting jobs, so obviously, "hard" subjects like science, medicine and engineering will get all the funding as the graduates of those pretty much all gain employment in their field of study. There is also a worldwide shortage of those three disciplines, while I have yet to see any evidence of problems caused by a lack of philosophy grads. 

(Macdonald's still has no problem hiring...)

One bit I found most amusing from one of the defenders of capital P philosophy is this:




> I would be confident if I only had a philosophy degree, I would be able to get a job as a policy analyst.


Yes indeed, the world needs more policy analysts!

 :Smilielol5: 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/educ...osophy-degrees

----------


## caddy_caddy

When life istelf becomes drivel .

----------


## Dodo25

> Concidentally, Philosophy with a capital P is under attack in NZ, with new initiatives meaning Philosophy departments will struggle for funds.
> 
> The government has decreed that university degree funding will henceforth be based on the likelihood of graduates getting jobs, so obviously, "hard" subjects like science, medicine and engineering will get all the funding as the graduates of those pretty much all gain employment in their field of study. There is also a worldwide shortage of those three disciplines, while I have yet to see any evidence of problems caused by a lack of philosophy grads. 
> 
> (Macdonald's still has no problem hiring...)
> 
> One bit I found most amusing from one of the defenders of capital P philosophy is this:
> 
> "I would be confident if I only had a philosophy degree, I would be able to get a job as a policy analyst."
> ...


What if we built a modern version of Kallipolis? No corrupt or religiously fundamental politicians. Reason as the key. Reasonable standarts of education, critical thinking classes and neutral comparative religion classes. A review going to the public that justifies government decisions by informing the them with clear arguments.

The 'rulers' themselves having no possibility to gain anything with their decisions, no temptation for corruption. Being chosen, or voluntarily study for it, having read and researched the important books and issues.

Maybe a degree in philosophy is useless today. Why are you so sure it is the problem of philosophy itself?

I'm not talking about metaphysics here. I'm talking mainly about ethics. And politics. Probably something along the lines of preference utilitarianism, because this is an objectively justifiable form of ethics with a noble and intuitively 'right' goal. Depending on certain considerations, I see nothing wrong with it, and I also see no reason why anything else does better in theory. In practice, there are huge difficulties, yet again, whose fault is that?

----------


## The Atheist

> What if we built a modern version of Kallipolis?


Unfortunately, the idea doesn't take human nature into account - which sums up Philosophy succinctly. Until we can create perfectly rational and logical beings, a la Huxley's Utopia, Kallopolis cannot exist.




> Maybe a degree in philosophy is useless today. Why are you so sure it is the problem of philosophy itself?


The lack of progress in 2000+ years.

Philosophers are still arguing the same positions today as Plato did. 

I'd be anti-medicine as well if doctors in 2010 were still using Hippocrates' methods.




> I'm not talking about metaphysics here. I'm talking mainly about ethics. And politics. Probably something along the lines of preference utilitarianism, because this is an objectively justifiable form of ethics with a noble and intuitively 'right' goal. Depending on certain considerations, I see nothing wrong with it, and I also see no reason why anything else does better in theory. In practice, there are huge difficulties, yet again, whose fault is that?


Probably the fault of several hundred years of the less-able doing Philosphy degrees, while the gifted become scientists and doctors. As a result of that, a vicious circle of academic philosophy has existed where those few with a passion for inaccuracy and parroting canards become the teachers of the next generation.

Using the ethics example, I agree that ethical positions need to be established, and we do that now, but through expert and informed opinion rather than Philosophy.

----------


## whathappened

> Philosophers are still arguing the same positions today as Plato did.


And now they know more than Plato.




> I agree that ethical positions need to be established, and we do that now, but through expert and informed opinion rather than Philosophy.


By 'expert and informed' I assume you mean science. Can we hear an example of scientific ethical positions?(!)

----------


## Dodo25

> Unfortunately, the idea doesn't take human nature into account - which sums up Philosophy succinctly. Until we can create perfectly rational and logical beings, a la Huxley's Utopia, Kallopolis cannot exist.


Only the rulers need to be perfectly rational. The others only need to be rational to a certain degree, so much as to realize why Kallipolis would be a good system. Yet here is the problem, with a significant amount of religious people, such a system just can't function because they'd be motivated to fight for a revolution because they won't like all the decisions made at the top. 

Apart from that though, I think its theoretically possible, even without tinkering with human nature too much as in Huxley's u-/distopia. 




> The lack of progress in 2000+ years.
> 
> Philosophers are still arguing the same positions today as Plato did. 
> 
> I'd be anti-medicine as well if doctors in 2010 were still using Hippocrates' methods.


Ethics is further, and also philosophy of mind, the concept of memes has fostered some intriguing attempts at explaining the mind. You'd probably call this science, and indeed, the closer philosophy is to science the better. 




> Probably the fault of several hundred years of the less-able doing Philosphy degrees, while the gifted become scientists and doctors. As a result of that, a vicious circle of academic philosophy has existed where those few with a passion for inaccuracy and parroting canards become the teachers of the next generation.


This might be true, unfortunately.




> Using the ethics example, I agree that ethical positions need to be established, and we do that now, but through expert and informed opinion rather than Philosophy.


Here we have an agreement (well if you stopped bending the definition of philosophy to suit you). Philosophy is the love for knowledge, so 'informed opinion' is exactly what a philosopher should go for. And the word expert only means that someone knows the details of his field and is able to explain them. I agree in that we shouldn't just let any kind of philosophers tackle the issue, yet nevertheless it remains a philosophical issue and there are philosophical approaches to ethics that seem very promising indeed.

----------


## mal4mac

> Ethics is further, and also philosophy of mind, the concept of memes has fostered some intriguing attempts at explaining the mind.


In what way is ethics "further"? 

In what way is philosophy of mind "further"?

What do you mean by 'explaining the mind'?

Philosophers *are* still arguing for many of Plato's the same positions today as Plato did, so it is difficult to see how we have gone "further". 

It is difficult see how you can get further than Plato. Socrates takes up the position that he doesn't know anything, which is a basically sceptical position that reduces anyone's position about anything to rubble. You can't get further than that. You might take a pragmatic breather, but you can't go further.

In what way have memes fostered some intriguing attempts at explaining the mind?

----------


## Dodo25

> In what way is ethics "further"?


Kant had some interesting insights, I think they're outdated now, but they definitely are worth reading and paved the way for what came later. The same I think about Plato by the way. Utilitarianism is new and useful. The most important insight I think is Peter Singer's argument against speciesism, which directly refutes Kant as well as Plato. 




> In what way is philosophy of mind "further"?
> 
> What do you mean by 'explaining the mind'?


Darwin, Libet's experiments on unconscious readiness potential, other findings in neuroscience and as I said the concept of memes. At the bottom of this progress, there's of course science, and it _should_ be like this. Yet philosophy is needed to interpret the results, i.e. the implications on 'free will' (all varieties of definitions there are) in a deterministic or non-deterministic (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) universe, or the role and importance of consciousness in evolution, or the role of evolution itself when it comes to human beings. I think Dennett and others have contributed a lot of valuable insights to this field. 




> Philosophers *are* still arguing for many of Plato's the same positions today as Plato did, so it is difficult to see how we have gone "further".


Not all of them are, i.e. most people have accepted that 'ideas' don't exist and that is no such thing as 'souls'. On ethics or politics, his views were much better, yet still I think few are arguing for Plato without at least some modifications.




> It is difficult see how you can get further than Plato. Socrates takes up the position that he doesn't know anything, which is a basically sceptical position that reduces anyone's position about anything to rubble. You can't get further than that. You might take a pragmatic breather, but you can't go further.


Plato's arguments (with Socrates as main character) are rather bad. They raise important questions, yet the points made often use poor logic and questionable analogies. 'I don't know anything' is not skepticism, it's agnosticism.




> In what way have memes fostered some intriguing attempts at explaining the mind?


Consciousness is not something wired into the brain, it comes with memes. It is a fabric of memes and meta memes interacting with each other and competing for 'power'. This was originally a philosophical prediction. We can now scientifically test this by i.e. giving people new words to learn on a list, then let them talk about an unrelated subject. If the new words come up more often than people talking about the same subjects who already know the words, this is evidence for memes competing in the brain.

"Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was a no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious time of nothingness...Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another.'
- Helen Keller 

Consciousness is the product of 'natural selection' among memes. Religion is like a virus of the mind, for memes like 'faith' poison critical thinking and let in all kind of nonsense. In fact, it can even lead to suicidal behavior (suicide bombers in Islam or martyrs in Christianity) and can thus be compared to flukes that invade ant brains and make them climb on grass halms so they get eaten by cows, in whose stomach the fluke can mate and spread his genes. 

Now if that isn't intriguing I don't know what is, and a lot of it seems to indicate that it's actually true.

----------


## The Atheist

> And now they know more than Plato.


This is well covered by mal4 shortly, and my point is the same - given the enormous scientific advances since Plato, I'd expect them to be a lot further along than Plato.

They're not.




> By 'expert and informed' I assume you mean science. Can we hear an example of scientific ethical positions?(!)


Scient*ists*, not science. Science doesn't have a position on anything past base one = reality exists. The informed and professional opinions I mean are those of medical and other scientists from within the discipline.




> Only the rulers need to be perfectly rational.


Speaking of first base, I think you're starting from second.

Is a "perfectly rational" being possible? Spock?

Being 100% rational isn't human.




> Ethics is further, and also philosophy of mind, the concept of memes has fostered some intriguing attempts at explaining the mind. You'd probably call this science, and indeed, the closer philosophy is to science the better.


No, no and yes!

 :Biggrin: 

I will expand:

1 - along with mal4 again, can you just cover off on "further". Further than what?

2 - I am in no way convinced "memetics" is a valid science, and I also have severe doubts that it tells us anything we don't already know. I am in two minds about Dawkins and I'm not sure the entire business of memetics isn't just another of his sloppy _faux pas_.

3 - The closer philosophy is to science? Yes, a thousand times yes!




> Here we have an agreement (well if you stopped bending the definition of philosophy to suit you).


I don't think I'm bending it at all, and I've consistently separated Philosophy as a discipline from philosophy being a simile for consideration, which is just sloppy usage.




> Philosophy is the love for knowledge, so 'informed opinion' is exactly what a philosopher should go for.


This is where it goes off the rails, and I go back to dirty circle of academic philosophers. If you love knowledge, the smart place to start is with physical disciplines.

This is why, if you want to discuss _individual philosophies_ of some of the great scientific minds, I joyfully read Russell, Dawkins, Dennet, _et al_.

On the other hand, whenever I have a discussion on philosophy - go back and count 'em - I always see the same tired, cliched even, list of bearded German and Greek philosophers, (and Sartre + others) almost none of whom would be able to tell the time without a clock.

Honestly, go back and check out the names; same ones, every time. And virtually none of them who were alive when even when humans learnt to fly!

If logical positivism ruled, I'd lose most of my objections, but it doesn't.




> And the word expert only means that someone knows the details of his field and is able to explain them.


I was more thinking of people who had worked in the field at a senior level, not just knowledgeable on the subject.




> I agree in that we shouldn't just let any kind of philosophers tackle the issue, yet nevertheless it remains a philosophical issue and there are philosophical approaches to ethics that seem very promising indeed.


This is just using "philosophy" as a simile for "critical thinking".

The word philosophy is tarred with far too many brushes of failures in the past to be of value.

Just bury it and stick to critical analysis.

 :Biggrin: 

I think we could put the answer to the OP here:

Philosophy becomes drivel when it becomes a discipline of its own.




> It is difficult see how you can get further than Plato. Socrates takes up the position that he doesn't know anything, which is a basically sceptical position that reduces anyone's position about anything to rubble. You can't get further than that. You might take a pragmatic breather, but you can't go further.


I still think Socrates, "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives" as his peak.




> Not all of them are, i.e. most people have accepted that 'ideas' don't exist and that is no such thing as 'souls'.


Crikey, what planet are you from?

If there's one where a majority of people don't believe in "souls" can you give me a lift back when you go? This one has ~70% belief in souls/afterlife/something else meaning the same.




> 'I don't know anything' is not skepticism, it's agnosticism.


Quite right! Fence sitting fools.

Hate them

Death to agnostics!

(Scepticism is doubting everything, not knowing nothing, but in the end, there is little between those two positions.)




> Consciousness is not something wired into the brain, it comes with memes.


Whoa!

What's consciousness wired to then? With or without memes, and regardless of whether there are such poorly-named qualia, it must be wired to something.

Unless it's supernatural in origin, of course.




> It is a fabric of memes and meta memes interacting with each other and competing for 'power'. This was originally a philosophical prediction. We can now scientifically test this by i.e. giving people new words to learn on a list, then let them talk about an unrelated subject. If the new words come up more often than people talking about the same subjects who already know the words, this is evidence for memes competing in the brain.


Better check your hosses, pardner, looks like you've got a runaway thar!

I'm struggling with all these memes and their bigger cousins flying around the place, but you seem to gotten waaaay ahead of the game here. If memes do exist and aren't being just used as an interchange with "thoughts", I repeat that they must have a physical connection with our brains.

Lastly, your example of new words doesn't confirm a hypothesis about competing memes at all - it just shows that new information is closer to hand than old. That's how the brain works; we don't spend all day thinking about what we did at age 11, we think about what happened today and yesterday.




> "Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was a no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious time of nothingness...Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another.'
> - Helen Keller


Perfect example.

Until she learned something, she didn't even know she was something. A purely self-referential life exists, but cannot have any ideas without them being placed there first.




> Consciousness is the product of 'natural selection' among memes.


I tend to think it's a product of our DNA.

----------


## Dodo25

> Speaking of first base, I think you're starting from second. 
> 
> Is a "perfectly rational" being possible? Spock?
> 
> Being 100% rational isn't human.


Of course, the objective would be to get as close to it as possible. The best education we can offer, limiting 'temptation' such as power or status and control through the other philosopher kings in rational discussion would ensure a result which is hopefully acceptable.




> 2 - I am in no way convinced "memetics" is a valid science, and I also have severe doubts that it tells us anything we don't already know. I am in two minds about Dawkins and I'm not sure the entire business of memetics isn't just another of his sloppy _faux pas_.


Dawkins brought it up only as a good analogy, he himself was surprised how far philosophers like Blackmore or Dennet have taken the concept. It's not yet 'true science', and this is kind of my point, I predict it will be, and then we have evidence for philosophy being useful because it actually offers testable predictions. 




> I don't think I'm bending it at all, and I've consistently separated Philosophy as a discipline from philosophy being a simile for consideration, which is just sloppy usage.


So you would say 'Practical Ethics' is a book of 'critical thinking'? It certainly isn't science. Where are you making the distinction? You seem to just define capital P philosophy as all nonsense (and I'm sure there's a lot of it) and all the good stuff as 'merely critical thinking and science'. I think we owe it to minds like Democritus to preserve the word philosophy for what you define as 'critical thinking' - applied to issues about science, life, the universe and everything. 




> This is where it goes off the rails, and I go back to dirty circle of academic philosophers. If you love knowledge, the smart place to start is with physical disciplines.
> 
> This is why, if you want to discuss _individual philosophies_ of some of the great scientific minds, I joyfully read Russell, Dawkins, Dennet, _et al_.
> 
> On the other hand, whenever I have a discussion on philosophy - go back and count 'em - I always see the same tired, cliched even, list of bearded German and Greek philosophers, (and Sartre + others) almost none of whom would be able to tell the time without a clock.
> 
> Honestly, go back and check out the names; same ones, every time. And virtually none of them who were alive when even when humans learnt to fly!
> 
> If logical positivism ruled, I'd lose most of my objections, but it doesn't.


I definitely see the problem. I'm reminded of hours of tiredly looking out the window while classmates of my philosophy class were i.e. arguing about what one of them meant with an interpretation of one (rather meaningless) sentence of Sartre (or others). 

In your last sentence here, do you mean if it (logical positivism) ruled within philosophy? That would indeed solve the problem, why the hell doesn't it?




> This is just using "philosophy" as a simile for "critical thinking".
> 
> The word philosophy is tarred with far too many brushes of failures in the past to be of value.
> 
> Just bury it and stick to critical analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we could put the answer to the OP here:
> ...


I disagree, the aim of philosophy is noble, and if you count the invention of the scientific method, philosophy has achieved it to a great extent. Even if we NOW count science as a seperate field, I think philosophy deserves it's status as something useful. I just wish there were more informed people who speak out against nonsense philosophy (and religion anyway). 




> Crikey, what planet are you from?
> 
> If there's one where a majority of people don't believe in "souls" can you give me a lift back when you go? This one has ~70% belief in souls/afterlife/something else meaning the same.


You're right, I of course meant 'scientists and philosophers' instead of just 'people'. 




> Whoa!
> 
> What's consciousness wired to then? With or without memes, and regardless of whether there are such poorly-named qualia, it must be wired to something.
> 
> Unless it's supernatural in origin, of course.


I don't think you understood what I mean by 'memes'. And for the record, I don't believe there are qualia. Memes are not metaphysical ideas, Dennett and others have predicted that they are 'patterns of neuron firing activity', and when they're not 'active', they're patterns of 'weightedness levels' between neurons and neural networks. I haven't read much on neuroscience so my terminology might be weird, all I'm saying is that they're physically present. Not as specific physical entities, but as patterns of *information*.




> Better check your hosses, pardner, looks like you've got a runaway thar!
> 
> I'm struggling with all these memes and their bigger cousins flying around the place, but you seem to gotten waaaay ahead of the game here. If memes do exist and aren't being just used as an interchange with "thoughts", I repeat that they must have a physical connection with our brains.
> 
> Lastly, your example of new words doesn't confirm a hypothesis about competing memes at all - it just shows that new information is closer to hand than old. That's how the brain works; we don't spend all day thinking about what we did at age 11, we think about what happened today and yesterday.


As I mentioned above, memes are thought to be physically connected to the brain, I'd never advocate dualism. And what you mention in your last paragraph might well be _because_ consciousness functions as the product of competition amongst memes. At the moment, it is only a hypothesis, yet I am quite confident it will turn out to be true, for it has some strong explanatory power. Think back to the example about religion I gave. It explains why religions are 'designed' to be effective at 'convincing' (or 'infecting') people. 




> Perfect example.
> 
> Until she learned something, she didn't even know she was something. A purely self-referential life exists, but cannot have any ideas without them being placed there first.


This again seems to strengthen the memetic perspective.




> I tend to think it [consciousness] is a product of our DNA.


No, that's the revolutionary point. It is culture. Of course you may have some form of 'cow consciousness' without culture, yet no plans for the future, no memories, no 'why' questions. Of course you also need genes for even having a brain. Maybe memes gave opportunity for the Baldwin effect to accelerate brain evolution (okay now I'm really speculating).

Either way, I think it's a promising hypothesis. Like the multiverse. Even if there was literally no scientific evidence for it (I think there is some deep in the math of string theory, but that is hearsay since I don't understand that at all), I am confident that there are many universes. Why? Simply because it is improbable that life just happens to be possible in our universes, and a multiverse combined with the antrophic principle would explain this.

----------


## The Atheist

> So you would say 'Practical Ethics' is a book of 'critical thinking'? It certainly isn't science. Where are you making the distinction? You seem to just define capital P philosophy as all nonsense (and I'm sure there's a lot of it) and all the good stuff as 'merely critical thinking and science'. I think we owe it to minds like Democritus to preserve the word philosophy for what you define as 'critical thinking' - applied to issues about science, life, the universe and everything.


Philosophy is a style of thinking and while it's close to critical thinking, I don't think they're the same. A critical thinker knows where logic's limitations are, but I'm not sure philosophers make the distinction. In fact, I'm sure the vast majority of them don't. 




> In your last sentence here, do you mean if it (logical positivism) ruled within philosophy? That would indeed solve the problem, why the hell doesn't it?


Too much invested in it to limit it to a single doctrine.




> I don't think you understood what I mean by 'memes'.


Pretty sure I do - it's the meaning given to it by Dawkins & Dennett, and that's what I'm using.




> And for the record, I don't believe there are qualia.


That's approriate!

 :Biggrin: 

Well, my understanding of the term comes from a couple of immensely qualified psychologists who use it to describe the actual thought, so they're definitively physical and measurable. It seems that Dennet and a few of his pals want it to mean something slightly different, but I'll stick to the way I know it. Feel free to substitute "thought experience" or any other word that fits.




> Memes are not metaphysical ideas, Dennett and others have predicted that they are 'patterns of neuron firing activity', and when they're not 'active', they're patterns of 'weightedness levels' between neurons and neural networks. I haven't read much on neuroscience so my terminology might be weird, all I'm saying is that they're physically present. Not as specific physical entities, but as patterns of *information*.


Yep, I know all that, but it contradicts this bit from earlier, which my quote referred to:




> Consciousness is not something wired into the brain, it comes with memes.


If the memes are physical in nature, they are connected to the brain, so is the end result, consciousness. I just think they introduce an extra, and unnecessary, step.




> No, that's the revolutionary point. It is culture.


Chicken/egg.

Without the evolved brain, we can't have the culture. The brain had to come first.




> Either way, I think it's a promising hypothesis. Like the multiverse. Even if there was literally no scientific evidence for it (I think there is some deep in the math of string theory, but that is hearsay since I don't understand that at all), I am confident that there are many universes. Why? Simply because it is improbable that life just happens to be possible in our universes, and a multiverse combined with the antrophic principle would explain this.


See what happens when you start discussing philosophy?

 :Biggrin:

----------


## whathappened

> I'd expect them to be a lot further along than Plato.


You can hardly go 'a lot further' past general truths, of which the ancients established many. But by questioning around them truths you can learn a lot. The more you learn the more sense you can make out of what the ancients said. Plato is still under discussion, as food for thought, as opposed to something to pass. Same for science, which originates in philosophy, necessarily.




> The informed and professional opinions I mean are those of medical and other scientists from within the discipline.


It is precisely the philosopher who makes use of all sorts of opinions to establish comprehensive positions, without getting too confused to so.




> A critical thinker knows where logic's limitations are, but I'm not sure philosophers make the distinction. In fact, I'm sure the vast majority of them don't.


The vast majority of philosophers ask what logic is, while the vast majority of scientists do not. Just like the former asks what reality and existence are, while the latter takes them for granted, according to you.

----------


## Dodo25

> If the memes are physical in nature, they are connected to the brain, so is the end result, consciousness. I just think they introduce an extra, and unnecessary, step.
> 
> Chicken/egg.
> 
> Without the evolved brain, we can't have the culture. The brain had to come first.


Of course you need the evolved brain first (at least to a large extent evolved), but does that itself already grant consciousness? I highly doubt it. The reason why I find meme theory so convincing is that is holds a lot of explanatory power since it's similar to natural selection. What else could do the job? You can't have a homunculus can you.. 

Another thing to ponder, the piraha have no words for past or future. They live in the NOW only, and as hard as you try, you cannot get them to understand basic math. I'd predict that if you take a piraha child and raise it in say Portuguese language, it will have no difficulties with math or future.

----------


## The Atheist

> The vast majority of philosophers ask what logic is, while the vast majority of scientists do not. Just like the former asks what reality and existence are, while the latter takes them for granted, according to you.


I object to "takes them for granted".

"Accept the accumulation of empirical evidence gained over centuries", would be more realistic.

----------


## whathappened

Understandings of what logic and reality involve are different. The understandings bear on issues like what is the relation between logic and imagination and is reality constructed by us? The issues matter a lot more than most scientific projects. And they matter to all scientific projects. Many successful scientists and mathematicians go to philosophy for direction and inspiration. Some even go to poetry.

----------


## Vautrin

> Understandings of what logic and reality involve are different. The understandings bear on issues like what is the relation between logic and imagination and is reality constructed by us? The issues matter a lot more than most scientific projects. And they matter to all scientific projects. Many successful scientists and mathematicians go to philosophy for direction and inspiration. Some even go to poetry.



"I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research." - Albert Einstein

----------


## whathappened

> For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world


Well said.

----------


## The Atheist

> Understandings of what logic and reality involve are different.


Obviously. I'm not sure why you mention it, because it would be comparing apples with ballpoint pens.




> The understandings bear on issues like what is the relation between logic and imagination and is reality constructed by us? The issues matter a lot more than most scientific projects. And they matter to all scientific projects.


See above - they are related like apples & ballpoint pens. Imagination & reality are related to each other, but logic isn't even first cousin to either. Obviously, imagination matters, or there would be nothing new, but as human children show, that's not something that gets developed by philosophy/ies - it arrives all on its own. 




> Many successful scientists and mathematicians go to philosophy for direction and inspiration. Some even go to poetry.


Really? That's news to me. A few, but not many, I'd have thought. From what I've read and seen, the vast majority of great scientists were inspired and directed by other scientists. I'm sure some were inspired by philosophy and poetry, just as some were inspired by art and religion.

Were all the average ones inspired by philosophy?

 :Biggrin:

----------


## whathappened

Quantum physics needs philosophy to make sense of its mind-bending discoveries. Einstein, Bohr and Kuhn are among your examples. While social sciences, at theoretical level, are simply indistinguishable from epistemology and philosophy of mind. Need examples be given? Oh, I have left out medicine. Check out Antonio Damasio.

All things at theoretical level approach philosophy, necessarily.




> Imagination & reality are related to each other, but logic isn't even first cousin to either. Obviously, imagination matters, or there would be nothing new, but as human children show, that's not something that gets developed by philosophy/ies - it arrives all on its own


Logic has a closer relation to reality. Imagination is not developed by philosophy, but can be. It is not obvious that imagination matters, especially given that we have reason and logic. Philosophy gives clear answers. The mind can benefit much from them.

----------


## mal4mac

> Quantum physics needs philosophy to make sense of its mind-bending discoveries. Einstein, Bohr and Kuhn are among your examples.


Feynman said that, "if anyone says they understand quantum physics they are lying." When I did QM I was told to not try to understand it, just use the equations to get results! I wasn't happy with that, but after going away and reading some "philosophy" I was...

All things at a theoretical level approach mystery, necessarily, often having gone through a lot of unnecessary philosophical musings. (Some necessary, I'll give you!)

Einstein, Bohr, and Kuhn had nothing sensible to say about the philosophical foundation of QM, nothing that takes us any further than the anti-philosopher Feynman.

Damasio has come no nearer the solution of the mind body problem than anyone else - it's still a downright mystery - some philosophers (McGinn & the Mysterians) have had the courage to point this out, so there is some place for philosophy here, but only to show that there is a seemingly unsolvable mystery.




> Philosophy gives clear answers. The mind can benefit much from them.


No it doesn't. At its Socratic best it shows that we know nothing about fundamental matters - like "the ultimate structure of reality" or "the mind body problem". It gives no clear answers, it just shows that there are still many questions that we can probably never answer.

----------


## whathappened

Einstein and the like had nothing sensible to say about it, and Feynman is the smart one... but did Feynman achieve anything them Einsteins did?




> Damasio has come no nearer the solution of the mind body problem than anyone else.


The point is not what Damasio said about philosophy, but what the abstrations of philosophy helped Damasio to achieve in his PARTICULAR field of ideas (work).

Mind-body problem has been given clear answers by several famours philosophers and this is only in the West. The important thing is that much have been learnt by thinking this problem over, by whomever thinks it over (are you possibly exeptional?). These abstract learnings helped ALL scientists in their particular fields of work. Einstein is a believer of God for the purpose that his God is a philosophical God from whom he can get answers in face of his particularly difficult field of ideas.

----------


## mal4mac

> Einstein and the like had nothing sensible to say about it, and Feynman is the smart one... but did Feynman achieve anything them Einsteins did?


Feynman was one of those who put the finishing touches to QED, the most comprehensive and accurate theory that physics has produced to date.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...n-lecture.html

----------


## caddy_caddy

What's is more important : questions or answers ?
I say Questions not Answers .Philosophy arises questions and this is the most important thing . The jounrey itself is much more important than the end . This endless search is what gives meaning to our life . If we could find answers for every question , what would we live for ? Hence our life as human beings lies in this very fact of being Not able to find answers . Philosophy provides us with the essence of our life , that keeps us thinking , searching and moving .

----------


## blp

> I'm not sure philosophy has much to offer the world of Higgs bosons.


I don't know. One of the great problems for physicists at the moment is that quantum mechanics and Einsteinian physics, while sound in an of themselves, appear to be completely incompatible. In fact, even just remaining within quantum mechanics, you find a world that, at one of its furthest extremes (the infinitesimally small) appears to be completely contradictory. Physicists have yet to come up with solutions to these problems, but this kind of contradiction was predicted over two hundred years ago by Kant who posited that one always arrives at logical contradiction (antinomies) when trying to conceive of the limits of reality (God, the edge of the universe, the beginning of time etc.) because space and time have no objective reality, they are simply our ways of structuring reality for ourselves.




> See what happens when you start discussing philosophy?


It seems to be what happens when you start discussing reality in general  as the problem of reconciling quantum mechanics and Einsteinian physics demonstrates _in extremis_. You end up at contradictions and paradoxes. 

You say most philosophy operates without a sense of the limits of logic. What are you basing that on? So much of it, from what I can see, appears to be directly concerned with the question, from Kant making his central thesis an inquiry into the limits of reason (Critique of Pure Reason) to Hegel refuting Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction to Derrida essentially concluding that the great philosophical project of achieving scientific status was essentially doomed to founder perpetually on philosophy's innate tendency to open itself to its own refutations. 

It also surprises me to see someone like you for whom atheism is such a touchstone, denying philosophical progress. If nothing else, early modern philosophy seems to me to be the story of philosophers, almost in spite of themselves, reasoning their way painstakingly out of any real hope of hanging on to theistic belief. It's already nearly gone with Spinoza, though Leibniz, Berkeley and even Kant hung on by their fingernails in various ways. Hume withheld publication of his atheistic Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion during his lifetime for fear of the opprobrium of believers, but by the 19th Century, it was the believers, such as Kierkegaard, who were in the minority and fighting rearguard actions. By the time Darwin came along, philosophy already basically knew God was dead, even if Nietzsche didn't declare it so until after publication of the theory of evolution. Arguably, such a heretical theory would have had an even harder time of it without the atheistic groundwork of philosophical argument.




> Ok, let's play then.
> 
> The scoreboard as I read it works like this:
> 
> Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.
> 
> We've been literally paying people to sit around and think for several thousand years, yet I'm still waiting for one single moral issue that philosophy has been able to solve. Go ahead and list 'em if you got 'em.


Again, as a capitalised Atheist, I'd expect you to be a bit more up on this. 

First of all, sorry to be pedantic, but the issue, as you posit it, is a logical trap. If the problems are intractable then how could they have been solved? Play fair! 

It's true that a lot of morality continues to look insoluble, primarily, the problem of what might be termed an objective morality in the absence of religion. But are you able to argue that, soluble or not, this is a problem proper to any discipline other than philosophy? 

Also, while an absolute objective morality might remain elusive, it can be argued that the breakdown of old, supposedly objective moral certainties during the age of Enlightenment led to what might be termed moral progress. No more divine right of Kingship and we get the French Revolution, the American Revolution and the birth of modern democracy, founded on an idea that moral issues, in the absence of moral absolutism, must be argued rationally and then, given that no single individual view could be deemed a priori correct, subject to quorum. 

Surely this begins with the Cartesian insight, at the dawn of modern philosophy, that everything is open to question. 

Gilles Deleuze argued that everyone is a philosopher; it's just that most of us are very bad ones. We get lost in logical wormholes or, worse, alight on theories that aren't really founded on anything and explanations that don't really explain. And then we act on these bad assumptions. Marx defined ideology as something like this when he said: 'They are doing it, but they do not know they are doing it.' In other words, without conscious engagement in philosophy, we are liable to become caught up in processes that have their roots in certain sorts of philosophy that may not really be very good without knowing it. Real lasting solutions may seem even more elusive the more we look for them philosophically, but at least we'll be less likely to get suckered by false ones.

On reflection and after consulting a dictionary, I'm prepared to concede in advance that 'intractable' probably means very difficult, not impossible. Even so, I think it's a kind of elaborate straw man question, for all the reasons I've given above.




> When I did QM I was told to not try to understand it, just use the equations to get results!


Do you know the story about Nils Bohr having a horseshoe above his laboratory door? Someone asked him if he actually believed it would bring him good luck. 'No', he replied, 'but I have it because I was told it would work even if you don't believe in it.'

----------


## The Atheist

> It also surprises me to see someone like you for whom atheism is such a touchstone,...


Atheism isn't a touchstone, it's a lack of belief. You could say rationality is.




> denying philosophical progress. If nothing else, early modern philosophy seems to me to be the story of philosophers, almost in spite of themselves, reasoning their way painstakingly out of any real hope of hanging on to theistic belief.


No, I don't deny its use in the past. While philosophy hasn't answered any questions, the questions asked have led to some pretty useful discoveries.

I just think it's well past its use-by date.

You're misrepresenting quantum physics. Just because something *appears* contradictory to physics now doesn't mean it will be once all of the information is known. That's why scientists built the LHC. Kant's posit is no more useful than Augustine's.

----------


## spookymulder93

I read philosophy mainly to see different view points on topics. If you're looking for answers your better off going to science.

----------


## mal4mac

If you're looking for answers stop looking for answers.

----------


## blp

> Atheism isn't a touchstone, it's a lack of belief. You could say rationality is.


Whatever. 




> No, I don't deny its use in the past. While philosophy hasn't answered any questions, the questions asked have led to some pretty useful discoveries.
> 
> I just think it's well past its use-by date.


At what point do you think its usefulness ran out and why? 




> You're misrepresenting quantum physics.


No, I'm representing it as it stands. At the moment, the contradictory behaviour of particles at the quantum level hasn't been explained.

----------


## dafydd manton

Whist The Atheist and I are diametrically opposed in our beliefs, (they call it mutual respect), he has an excellent point. Atheism is a LACK of belief, and there it should be allowed to stay. Accepted, respected, but not dismissed.

----------


## The Atheist

> Whatever.


No, it's not "whatever".

You made a point about me which is completely incorrect and I corrected you. Rationalism and atheism are not the same in any way at all.




> At what point do you think its usefulness ran out and why?


You need to read the thread - it's all in here. 




> No, I'm representing it as it stands. At the moment, the contradictory behaviour of particles at the quantum level hasn't been explained.


Which is not what you said the first time. Being unexplained is not terribly relevant - we don't know everything yet.

Gravity hasn't been explained yet either.

----------


## blp

> No, it's not "whatever".
> 
> You made a point about me which is completely incorrect and I corrected you. Rationalism and atheism are not the same in any way at all.


I said atheism was a touchstone for you because you call yourself The Atheist, which suggested to me that the concept, however you define it, is key for you. 

I said 'whatever' because, however much you wanted to clarify the matter, I didn't think it was worth what felt like an online slap in the face. 





> You need to read the thread - it's all in here.


I read quite a lot. Thanks all the same, but I'd rather read contemporary philosophy.

----------


## The Atheist

> I said atheism was a touchstone for you because you call yourself The Atheist, which suggested to me that the concept, however you define it, is key for you.


It looks a lot more like you made an assumption which was just wrong. If you understand that atheism is a *lack* of belief, it cannot be a touchstone, just as a-philately cannot be.

No matter, it's clear now.




> I read quite a lot. Thanks all the same, but I'd rather read contemporary philosophy.


Well, it was you who asked me. I just pointed out that the question has already been answered in this thread, so if your question was genuine, you could find out in just a few minutes. Whether you do or not is no concern to me.

----------


## mazHur

> To think philosophy is drivel is drivel in itself. For without philosophy how dull life would be with no inquiry into who we are. Not that we have been able to answer exactly who we are or where we are from. You can say biologically we are men, homo-sapiens or thinking animals. You can say we have come from our parents or you can point to the geographies you are from. 
> 
> But still we want a different answer. Don't we?
> 
> This is wherein philosophy interests us.


Hi Blaze!!
how do you do??


I take your point on the significance of philosophy...
philosophy is the evolution of thought which is the basis of all facts and sciences!




> It looks a lot more like you made an assumption which was just wrong. If you understand that atheism is a *lack* of belief, it cannot be a touchstone, just as a-philately cannot be.
> 
> No matter, it's clear now.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it was you who asked me. I just pointed out that the question has already been answered in this thread, so if your question was genuine, you could find out in just a few minutes. Whether you do or not is no concern to me.


Atheism is, infact a belief, in a disbelief about anything but self!

----------


## The Atheist

> Atheism is, infact a belief, in a disbelief about anything but self!


You're showing a distinct lack of understanding of what atheism actually is.

Atheist = without belief in god/s.

No more, no less. It is emphatically not a belief system and cannot be. Self has nothing to do with it.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> You're showing a distinct lack of understanding of what atheism actually is.
> 
> Atheist = without belief in god/s.
> 
> No more, no less. It is emphatically not a belief system and cannot be. Self has nothing to do with it.


 
IT IS NOT A BELIEF, people! Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!

Also, it's not like a whole blog communities exist full of daily posts by atheist's spewing vitriol about religion and sharing other posts dealing with other topics of interest to a group of people who don't share a belief--whoops, I mean basic common assumptions--erm, I mean coincidental overlap of certain accidental synchronizations of ideas.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## The Atheist

> IT IS NOT A BELIEF, people! Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!


I don't care whether you type it in all caps or put it in size seven bold, you are simply wrong.

And do make sure you check my name before considering your response, because I am The Atheist, not just an atheist.

 :Biggrin: 

How the hell are we discussing this here anyway?

What I'll do is start a thread in Serious topics and put a link right here, so you can see what I mean, and I am pleased to state that the links you provided are ideal for my answer.

Thanks!

----------


## Scheherazade

*The OP:*


> I'm all for getting my hands dirty in a philosophical discussion. Questioning everything and taking nothing at face value is how I try to live my life. However, when does philosophical reflection cross the border into the Republic of Rubbish? And Why? 
> 
> From my own personal experience, I've noticed it gets people's eyes rolling when the situation is tense and they want direct, concrete answers to a problem or crisis. Is a truly philosophical view only tolerated when people have the luxury of time? Outside of the world of Academia, at what point does Philosophy become something far less helpful or desirable?


*Please note that off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.*

----------


## mazHur

> You're showing a distinct lack of understanding of what atheism actually is.
> 
> Atheist = without belief in god/s.
> 
> No more, no less. It is emphatically not a belief system and cannot be. Self has nothing to do with it.


well, that's how I thought 'atheists' are, however, in any or all cases God does have a role in their lives...without whose mention the definition of an Atheist is not complete

----------


## Heteronym

> I'm all for getting my hands dirty in a philosophical discussion. Questioning everything and taking nothing at face value is how I try to live my life. However, when does philosophical reflection cross the border into the Republic of Rubbish? And Why? 
> 
> From my own personal experience, I've noticed it gets people's eyes rolling when the situation is tense and they want direct, concrete answers to a problem or crisis. Is a truly philosophical view only tolerated when people have the luxury of time? Outside of the world of Academia, at what point does Philosophy become something far less helpful or desirable?


I'd say modern science, which originated after the Renaissance, exposed philosophy as drivel. Now from my understanding, science up until that point was inextricable from philosophy. What we call, for instance, physics nowadays was still known in Newton's time as 'philosophy of nature'. I think science emerging as an autonomous field led the way to make philosophy redundant.

On the other hand, the philosophy of Newton's time wasn't exactly the noble and useful philosophy of Socrates or Aristotles, which sought to explain the world through observation and experiment and invented syllogisms. It was better called Christian theology, devoted to the nature of God and closed to the physical world. It was the philosophy of Saint Augustine, Boethius, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Rousseau - supposedly erudite men who filled countless pages about abstractions.

I find most philosophy after the Greeks and before the 20th century drivel. It operated on the assumption that Christian dogma was infallible, beautiful and natural. Philosophy dared not look at the world with objective eyes because all that mattered was in the bible; philosophers' roles was to reiterate, recapitulate, not question, its knowledge.

The 20th century philosophy of Mary Midgley, Bertrand Russell, Albert Camus, Erich Fromm, John Rawls, George Steiner, Isaiah Berlin, etc. is infinitely more fascinating because: a) they're people clearly grounded on Earth; c) they have scientific approaches and draw knowledge from many fields of thinking; and c) they offer insight into the real world and not, for instance, the angelic hierarchy or the music of the spheres.

----------


## blazeofglory

Marrying philosophy with science is the need of the day? But can we? is the question that intrigues all of us no matter where we are rooted, rationally, empirically, religiously, scientifically, theistically, atheistically, theologically, mythologically, spiritually, materialistically. We cannot fully be earthbound the way Russell and the legion following him. I am torn between the two extremes- God exist and God does not exist. So was and is Stephen Hawking, the physicist with his latest findings in the Grand Design. Of course the design is grand no matter it hailed out of chaos or consciousness in point of fact. I do not think science ever can solve this mystery.




> I don't care whether you type it in all caps or put it in size seven bold, you are simply wrong.
> 
> And do make sure you check my name before considering your response, because I am The Atheist, not just an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell are we discussing this here anyway?
> 
> What I'll do is start a thread in Serious topics and put a link right here, so you can see what I mean, and I am pleased to state that the links you provided are ideal for my answer.
> ...


Atheist, you sound a bit incensed and that makes you irrational in point of fact. You are THE atheist, the ideal atheist who can conclusively put forth the idea of theism and atheism, not even Stephen Hawking, the illustrious physicist could conclude in his famous book "the theory of everything"! This is a delusion  the atheism  delusion. Forgive me for my poor English! 

Even Einstein was not against the idea of Impersonal God! You can keep on arguing through volumes of your squabbles over the matter. 

Since English is not my mother tongue, coming from different cultures, for give me for any abusiveness in my language. This is limited to your particular post or opinion only.

----------


## Rores28

Alright I didn't feel like reading 12 pages so I'm basically referring to the first post and I apologize if these views have already been espoused. 

I don't quite know how to answer this question because I don't know exactly what it is asking but.... I would say philosophy is valuable fora few reasons.

1) It is interesting above anything else and so is entertaining but in a different way than say straight literature, or paintings, or music, or movies. So I think it enriches that tradition of understanding/entertainment. 

2) I think there are some very cool philosophy of mind concepts that basically seem to be completely insoluble but give one interesting perspectives and things to think about, and I think particularly in the point that there are things that are unknowable but the us, at least with the nervous system we currently have. Things about qualia, the self and its continuity, personal identity, consciousness etc... are all pretty cool, and basically need to be addressed especially with the potential advent of AI, downloading your mind onto a computer, teleportation etc...

3) Morality is another pretty difficult question that philosophy seems to perennially address. And there are some very sticky things there in which it is difficult to come away with a wholly unified view, but which are very applicable to decisions etc... that we make every day. Animal treatment comes to mind. Advanced AI problems here as well. Abortion again.

Those are just things I think are interesting and important. 
I'm sure Political Philosophy has some good stuff too though I haven't read much of it. 

Basically if you are enjoying reading it I don't think its rubbish. If it is enriching your "soul" and demolishing and reconstituting your mental schemas I think it is not rubbish.

----------


## The Atheist

> Atheist, you sound a bit incensed and that makes you irrational in point of fact.


Neither incensed nor irrational - I would have thought the grinning emoticon would have given that away.

Also, you need to note that my argument is about the meaning of the word "atheist", not whether god/s actually exist.




> You are THE atheist, the ideal atheist who can conclusively put forth the idea of theism and atheism, not even Stephen Hawking, the illustrious physicist could conclude in his famous book "the theory of everything"! This is a delusion  the atheism  delusion. Forgive me for my poor English! 
> 
> Even Einstein was not against the idea of Impersonal God! You can keep on arguing through volumes of your squabbles over the matter.


Einstein and Hawking both had an eye on public opinion, which in the largest market for books in English - USA - is anti-atheist. 

I'm quite convinced Einstein used "god" metaphorically, especially after seeing his personal letters on the subject of the christian one.

Hawking states that there is no need to inject god into the equation.

We're left arguing Spinoza's "god" which is a kind of Monty Python-esque default god for people who don't want to admit to atheism.

I've never seen any point in it myself - what use is a god who doesn't actually do anything? 




> Since English is not my mother tongue, coming from different cultures, for give me for any abusiveness in my language. This is limited to your particular post or opinion only.


Nothing abusive there - you need to try harder!

 :Biggrin:

----------


## OrphanPip

Hawking has recently restated his support for atheism, and he's definitely always been a supporter of maintaining science secular and apart from commenting on political and religious matters. Since his book he has restated that he believes without a doubt that the universe would have originated the way it has simply as a product of the laws of physics, and that no God is necessary to explain the origin of our universe as is.

----------


## Alexander III

> You're showing a distinct lack of understanding of what atheism actually is.
> 
> Atheist = without belief in god/s.
> 
> No more, no less. It is emphatically not a belief system and cannot be. Self has nothing to do with it.


Atheism is a faith just like any religion let me show you

Atheism = faith that there is no god

As it is not known weather there is a god or not

Now you may say I am wrong and atheism is merely

Atheist = without belief in god/s.

So it is not a faith. But then I might say religion is not a faith as it is simply

Deist = without belief of absence of god/s.

----------


## The Atheist

> Atheism is a faith just like any religion let me show you
> 
> Atheism = faith that there is no god
> 
> As it is not known weather there is a god or not
> 
> Now you may say I am wrong and atheism is merely
> 
> Atheist = without belief in god/s.
> ...


I am moving this derail and your post to the thread specifically set up for that purpose:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=54929

----------


## OrphanPip

> Atheism = faith that there is no god


I don't think it works that way. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but that doesn't make me a member of the abunnyist religion.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Neither incensed nor irrational - I would have thought the grinning emoticon would have given that away.
> 
> Also, you need to note that my argument is about the meaning of the word "atheist", not whether god/s actually exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein and Hawking both had an eye on public opinion, which in the largest market for books in English - USA - is anti-atheist. 
> 
> I'm quite convinced Einstein used "god" metaphorically, especially after seeing his personal letters on the subject of the christian one.
> ...


I expected resentment from you. You proved me wrong.

----------


## Serena03

Philosophy drivel? Nonsense! We cannot escape philosophy, it plants the seeds that grows into a garden of solutions, universally accepted or not. It is applied in everything do and understand. Even answers that are considered scientifically "factual" are not universally accepted. Every book you open, you are naturally invited into the author's philosophy, even if it contains some commonly known facts, not everyone accepts them. 

Evolution began as a philosophy, as did relativity; all science begins as a philosophy until it is further rationally investigated as 'proof.' Where would we be today without the Age of Enlightenment or the revolutions? Would slavery and segregation still exist? It is our common philosophy of morals that has eradicated much of the 'evils' we have faced throughout history, even if some of these eradications were done with 'evil' (such as wars).The concept of 'right' and 'wrong' is only commonly understood, not universally. The whole world and everyone's way of living is primarily based on conjectures, I know everyone wants to be able to look at something and get a direct and concrete answer, but there may not be an answer without the question first.

----------


## Cat Square

Philosophy is only as good as what's practical. If you can apply what works and simply understand the rest, then philosophy isn't drivel at all.

----------


## Dodo25

I have no intention of reviving this ironically long thread, but I'd like to say something for the record:

Some might remember that I had a discussion in this thread with 'The Atheist', me supporting philosophy and him bashing it. After starting the book 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris, I have come to realize that I was wrong. Probably not for the very same reasons the Atheist advocated, but still. 

As Hawking said, "Philosophy is dead." The useful 'philosophy' (i.e. Singer's 'Practical Ethics' or Dennett's 'Consciousness Explained') better fits the category of science, for it comes to conclusions by means of rational analysis and experimental data.

There still remains a case for 'Philosophy of Science' and 'Epistemology', but since these subjects are dominated by postmodernism, produce confusion, and promote ignorance instead of answers, I come to the above stated conclusion.

----------


## mazHur

> I am moving this derail and your post to the thread specifically set up for that purpose:
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=54929


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/bo...ewanted=1&_r=1

NYT October 1, 2010
Science Knows Best
By KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH

THE MORAL LANDSCAPE

How Science Can Determine Human Values

By Sam Harris

291 pp. Free Press. $26.99

Sam Harris heads the youth wing of the New Atheists. “The End of Faith,” his blistering take-no-*prisoners attack on the irrationality of religions, found him many fans and, not surprisingly, a great body of detractors. In “Letter to a Christian Nation,” a follow-up prompted by the responses of Christians unhappy with his first book, he set out, he said, “to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms,” and so acquired, no doubt, more friends and more enemies. Certainly both books have had a wide and animated readership.

His new book, “The Moral Landscape,” aims to meet head-on a claim he has often encountered when speaking out against religion: that the scientific worldview he favors has nothing to say on moral questions. That claim often keeps company with the thesis, elaborated by the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion have “nonoverlapping magisteria.” The authority of science and the authority of religion cover different domains, Gould thought, and the methods of each are inappropriate for the study of the other’s problems. Religion deals with questions about what Harris calls “meaning, morality and life’s larger purpose,” questions that have no scientific answers.

Harris, who has a doctorate in neuroscience, holds the opposite view. Only science can help us answer these questions, he says. That’s because truths about morality and meaning must “relate to facts about the well-being of conscious creatures,” and science alone — especially neuroscience, his field — can uncover those facts. So rather than consulting Aristotle or Kant (let alone the Bible or the Koran) about what is necessary for humans to flourish, why not go to the sciences that study conscious mental life?

Harris means to deny a thought often ascribed to David Hume, according to which there is a clear conceptual distinction between facts and values. Facts are susceptible of rational investigation; values, supposedly, not. But according to Harris, values, too, can be uncovered by science — the right values being ones that promote well-being. “Just as it is possible for individuals and groups to be wrong about how best to maintain their physical health,” he writes, “it is possible for them to be wrong about how to maximize their personal and social well-being.”

But wait: how do we know that the morally right act is, as Harris posits, the one that does the most to increase well-being, defined in terms of our conscious states of mind? Has science really revealed that? If it hasn’t, then the premise of Harris’s all-we-need-is-science argument must have nonscientific origins.

In fact, what he ends up endorsing is something very like utilitarianism, a philosophical position that is now more than two centuries old, and that faces a battery of familiar problems. Even if you accept the basic premise, how do you compare the well-being of different people? Should we aim to increase average well-being (which would mean that a world consisting of one bliss case is better than one with a billion just slightly less blissful people)? Or should we go for a cumulative total of well-being (which might favor a world with zillions of people whose lives are just barely worth living)? If the mental states of conscious beings are what matter, what’s wrong with killing someone in his sleep? How should we weigh present well-being against future well-being?

It’s not that Harris is unaware of these questions, exactly. He refers to the work of Derek Parfit, who has done more than any philosopher alive to explore such difficulties. But having acknowledged some of these complications, he is inclined to push them aside and continue down his path.

That’s the case even with something as basic as what’s meant by well-being. Harris often writes as if all that matters is our conscious experience. Yet he also insists that truth is an important value. So does it count against your well-being if your happiness is based on an illusion — say, the false belief that your wife loves you? Or is subjective experience all that matters, in which case a situation in which the husband is fooled, and the wife gets pleasure from fooling him, is morally preferable to one in which she acknowledges the truth? Harris never articulates his central claim clearly enough to let us know where he would come down. But if he thinks that well-being has an objective component, one wants to know how science revealed this fact.

Harris was a philosophy major at Stanford, but he is inclined to scant most of what philosophers have had to say about well-being. There is, for example, a movement in contemporary philosophy and economics known as “the capabilities approach,” which takes seriously the question of identifying the components of well-being and measuring them. But neither of the two leading exponents of this approach — the philosopher and economist Amartya Sen and the philosopher and classicist Martha Nussbaum — gets a mention in the book.

The most compelling strand in “The Moral Landscape” is its unspooling diatribe against relativism. Harris insists that there are correct answers to all questions of right and wrong, regardless of anyone’s culture or religion. And, though some questions may escape our inquiries, many can be answered by science; none, he appears to think, can be answered without it.

You might suppose, reading this book, that this anti-relativism was controversial among philosophers. So it may be worth pointing out that a recent survey of a large proportion of the world’s academic philosophers revealed that they are more than twice as likely to favor moral realism — the view that there are moral facts — than to favor moral anti-realism. Two thirds of them, it turns out, are also what we call cognitivists, believing that many (and perhaps all) moral claims are either true or false. And Harris himself concedes that few philosophers “have ever answered to the name of ‘moral relativist.’ ” Given that, he might have spent more time with some of the many arguments against relativism that philosophers have offered. If he had, he might have noticed that you can hold that there are moral truths that can be rationally investigated without holding that the experimental sciences provide the right methods for doing so.

Still, there’s plenty of interest in “The Moral Landscape.” Harris draws our attention to the fact that “science increasingly allows us to identify aspects of our minds that cause us to deviate from norms of factual and moral reasoning.” And when he stays closest to neuroscience, he says much that is interesting and important: about the limits of functional magnetic resonance imaging as a tool for studying brain function; about the current understanding of psychopaths (whose brains display “significantly less activity in regions of the brain that generally respond to emotional stimuli”); about the similarities in the ways in which moral and nonmoral belief seem to be handled in the brain. I found myself wishing for less of the polemic against religion, which recurs often and takes up one entire chapter — he has had two bites of that apple already, and will soon be reduced to gnawing at the core — and I wanted more of the illumination that comes from our increasing understanding of neuroscience.

Yet such science is best appreciated with a sense of what we can and cannot expect from it, and a real contribution to the old project of a “naturalized ethics” would have required a fuller engagement with its contradictions and complications. Instead, the landscape that the book calls to mind is that of a city a few days after a snowstorm. A marvelously clear avenue stretches before us, but the looming banks to either side betray how much has been unceremoniously swept aside.

Kwame Anthony Appiah is the author of “Experiments in Ethics” and “The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen.”

sorry no url as recvd this in an email only

----------


## OrphanPip

Ya, I'm not fond of Harris' ethical naturalism. I concede that science has the ability to help inform moral action, when it comes to the welfare of living things, but it does not necessarily guide us towards any moral decision. I have always agreed with Gould's approach of keep science and religion separate things. Science is a useful method for understanding natural phenomena, it is not a useful guide to how we should treat others. An explanation of how things are does not necessarily inform how things should be.

----------


## The Atheist

> There still remains a case for 'Philosophy of Science' and 'Epistemology', but since these subjects are dominated by postmodernism, produce confusion, and promote ignorance instead of answers, I come to the above stated conclusion.


Anytime we should ever meet up, I will buy you the biggest beer/whisky/whatever, that you've ever seen, let alone drunk.

 :Biggrin: 




> Ya, I'm not fond of Harris' ethical naturalism.


While I agree with Sammy on lots of things, I dislike him with an intensity I can taste. To me, nothing is more morally reprehensible than someone who understands that we are nothing more than strings of molecules then supports violence in any form.




> I concede that science has the ability to help inform moral action, when it comes to the welfare of living things, but it does not necessarily guide us towards any moral decision. I have always agreed with Gould's approach of keep science and religion separate things. Science is a useful method for understanding natural phenomena, it is not a useful guide to how we should treat others. An explanation of how things are does not necessarily inform how things should be.


As usual, Harris goes too far, and the reviewer's metaphor of a snowed-in village is entirely apt. As you say, you can't get an ought from an is, but I do think Harris is largely right. Gould just liked playing Pascal's wager.

If religion had ever been right about something, I think there would be some use to the approach, but in the light of 10,000 years of evidence to the contrary, I can't accept NOMA as a valid method. 

We *can* use the scientific method to validate morals and ethics, just not in the way Harris thinks we can.

One thing I do like about Sammy being brought into a conversation is that one of my oldest and best online friends is a neuroscientist, complete with PhD, a massive list of publications and international recognition in the field - unlike Harris. Again unlike Harris, the field led him into theism and he is now a committed Roman Catholic.

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> Whist The Atheist and I are diametrically opposed in our beliefs, (they call it mutual respect), he has an excellent point. Atheism is a LACK of belief, and there it should be allowed to stay. Accepted, respected, but not dismissed.


I must beg to differ. The lack of belief position is agnosticism. When you assert any claim about God (in the general sense of the term), whether he does or does not exist, you're reasoning will always fall prey to the problems of induction, which ultimately show us we only put faith in the inferences about reality that we find intuitive. We might be brains in a vat, but we have faith in the assumption that we arent...unless youre agnostic.




> We're left arguing Spinoza's "god" which is a kind of Monty Python-esque default god for people who don't want to admit to atheism.
> 
> I've never seen any point in it myself - what use is a god who doesn't actually do anything?


On the contrary, Spinoza's God does everything.

----------


## The Atheist

> I must beg to differ. The lack of belief position is agnosticism.


No, and there's even an entire thread dedicated to the subject.

Agnosticism is quite different. If you're unsure of the difference, Google will be your friend.




> *When you assert any claim about God* (in the general sense of the term), whether he does or does not exist, you're reasoning will always fall prey to the problems of induction, which ultimately show us we only put faith in the inferences about reality that we find intuitive.


And there's the reason for your error. I have bolded the relevant part.

Atheism doesn't make any assertions or claims about god/s. You cannot make claims about something you have no evidence for.

You've fallen into the usual trap of presuming that atheism means "No god/s exist", which is just wrong. Some atheists say that, but other atheists believe the world is run by alien lizards disguised as humans. Atheism means "I do not believe in any god/s"

If in doubt, please refer to the thread, which is here.




> We might be brains in a vat, but we have faith in the assumption that we arent...unless youre agnostic.


I'll come back to this one when I figure out how to have faith in an assumption.




> On the contrary, Spinoza's God does everything.


Uh, no. Spinoza'a position was deism, which assserts that the god does not intervene in the physical universe. A non-interventionist god by definition does not "do" anything.

----------


## Vautrin

The actual reason or inspiration for this thread was honestly something quite different than what has been discussed here thus far, which is fine. 
What more or less inspired me to make this thread was my reintroduction to Aristotle's _Nicomachean Ethics_; more specifically his discussion of friendship and its three basic forms. I didn't mention this at first because I didn't want the discussion to become solely about that topic.

Friendship is a very complicated thing if we really attempt to objectively understand it and accurately explain why we keep the company we do. How this relates to my question concerning when philosophy becomes drivel has to do with the idea of examining and defining our friendships using Aristotle's points on this issue. 

Essentially, what I'm getting at is when it comes to the people in our lives, such as friends and acquaintances, can philosophy be helpful or is it too general to be effective and, therefore, rubbish? If you were having a dispute with a friend would you ever conceive of using Aristotle's writings - or any other philosopher - on friendship as guidance in solving the problem? Would it seem too unnatural or even robotic to find solutions for real life problems from an antiquated philosophy book?

I personally think Aristotle hit the nail on the head with his ideas on friendship. I can see using his ideas in reexamining certain friendships and even when forming new ones. However, I can also see how it would seem ridiculous or even Machiavellian to consciously use his categories of friendship when dealing with actual people. Therefore, his ideas are very useful or very worthless depending on how one uses them.

So I guess I just answered my own question. Philosophy becomes drivel once you stop using it as _one of many_ tools in expanding your thinking and start using it as a blanket answer for everything. The same would apply to all other fields.

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> Uh, no. Spinoza'a position was deism, which assserts that the god does not intervene in the physical universe. A non-interventionist god by definition does not "do" anything.


I suspect you've only read about Spinoza from secondary resources or your memory is just defective, so read this: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ethics_(Spinoza)/Part_1
by my understanding (and it takes no great interpreter to reach this understanding) Spinoza's God _is_ the physical universe. Nice try, though.

Atheism argues God doesnt exist in the same way I argue there's not a tiger behind me right now (even though I might argue there's a monkey), but all three are inductive arguments and ergo fall prey to the problem of induction. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

The book where Hume describes the "problem of induction":
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Enq..._Understanding





> Some atheists say that, but other atheists believe the world is run by alien lizards disguised as humans


You put a smile on my face  :Biggrin:  But if you say these so called "atheists" don't make any claims about God's existence (or lack thereof) then I'm pretty sure you're just misusing the word or trying to conveniently change the definition.

p.s.
Since these things are off topic I will send my responses hereafter via private messages

----------


## The Atheist

> I suspect you've only read about Spinoza...


No.

I stated that Spinoza's god was non-interventionist, and even your link shows that my position is 100% correct. The naturalistic stance that god is "all of creation" isn't at all unusual, and I don't even bother arguing against it; a god that does not intervene in the physical universe may be ignored, and that is one axiom I stick to.

The only part we're discussing here is whether his god physically changed the universe at his will. If you want to find something Spinoza wrote that suggests he believed in an interventionist god, then please present it - nothing else is relevant.

The point is quite subtle, but important.




> Atheism argues God doesnt exist in the same way I argue there's not a tiger behind me right now (even though I might argue there's a monkey), but all three are inductive arguments and ergo fall prey to the problem of induction.


No, this is your category error - atheism has nothing to do with induction. Your analogy of the tiger is an excellent starting point, because it is so obviously wrong.

You state "There is no tiger."

The atheist does not state "There is no god." 




> You put a smile on my face  But if you say these so called "atheists" don't make any claims about God's existence (or lack thereof) then I'm pretty sure you're just misusing the word or trying to conveniently change the definition.


I'm assuming the "linguist" in your name is only there for comedic effect, because a linguist, of all people, would know that language is defined by usage, not Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster. 

There is, however, considerable irony that a non-atheist tries to insist on a meaning for atheist. It's usually the theist's prerogative to try to persuade people that atheism is a position of belief. The irony in that is deep enough to export to China.




> Since these things are off topic I will send my responses hereafter via private messages


Please don't. The ideal place would be in the thread I linked, but this one will do.

I started the thread to help alert people to the fact that the kind of fallacies you're stating here *are* actually fallacies, so I'd much rather they were recorded publicly.

The runaway winning number one fallacy is that atheism says "there is no tiger/god".

----------


## Vautrin

This thread reminds me very much of Youtube. You know when the video is about say...*The Solar System* and when scrolling down to the comments the viewers are arguing back and forth about the the *Holy Crusades*. Haha! 

I'll do the honors..... :Crash: 
Oh wait, I missed a spot.... :Crash: 

There we go!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> No.
> 
> I stated that Spinoza's god was non-interventionist, and even your link shows that my position is 100% correct. The naturalistic stance that god is "all of creation" isn't at all unusual, and I don't even bother arguing against it; a god that does not intervene in the physical universe may be ignored, and that is one axiom I stick to.
> 
> The only part we're discussing here is whether his god physically changed the universe at his will. If you want to find something Spinoza wrote that suggests he believed in an interventionist god, then please present it - nothing else is relevant.
> 
> The point is quite subtle, but important.


The pertinent aspect Spinoza's God is that he is the physical universe. This is shown in his definition of God as "a substance of infinite attributes" and his many proofs on why there can only be one substance. And if we take Spinoza's definition of God he is impossible to ignore - it is pretty clear that he is not an “intervening” one in the sense that you’re using the word, but I dont think Spinoza would have claimed his God did or did not intervene, he is too abstract. however there is an argument to be made that since he is a substance of infinite attributes and the only substance in existence he can do everything (i.e. manifest as any “modification” possible) or that he does everything.

The point is important, I think, while discussing Spinoza in general - we wouldn't want to make him seemed grouped with all the rest of the theists.





> No, this is your category error - atheism has nothing to do with induction. Your analogy of the tiger is an excellent starting point, because it is so obviously wrong.
> 
> You state "There is no tiger."
> 
> The atheist does not state "There is no god."


I'm guessing you didn't read the article? Though I've read the wiki article and find it equally qualified but easier to read, here's a more credible resource for your liking:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/

The atheist has everything to do with induction, the agnostic has nothing to do with induction. This is in accord with popular and dictionary definitions of the words.




> I'm assuming the "linguist" in your name is only there for comedic effect, because a linguist, of all people, would know that language is defined by usage, not Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster.


A word gains its meaning through both de facto usages and de jure definitions. To start, your definition poses a few key problems, as far as I can see. You state an atheist is anyone who does not believe in God, however you must then go about more fully defining God, what are his attributes, etc. etc.. Are muslims atheists because they believe in Allah? Are all pantheists also atheists because they do not accept any single God? And by this definition all agnostics are atheists because they do not accept any God. If you define him as an entity separate from reality then Spinoza is also an Atheist, and if you include Spinoza's definition then God becomes as impossible to refute as it does your own existence. Are aliens atheists because they do not know of God? No, this is aburd. If anything they'd be agnostic. If I don't actively believe in widgets because I've never heard of widgets that doesn't make me an awidgetist. To be an atheist it is necessary to actively deny the existence of a God. The entymology suggests that this is the case, too. Read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Also your definition, I'm pretty sure, does not conform with the general de facto, if you like, definition. All the atheists I have met with deny God in the popularized sense and define themselves as atheists by such a denial.




> There is, however, considerable irony that a non-atheist tries to insist on a meaning for atheist. It's usually the theist's prerogative to try to persuade people that atheism is a position of belief. The irony in that is deep enough to export to China.


I do not know where you get this idea that I'm a non-atheist, for I'm pretty sure I have not said that anywhere on these forums. It is equally usually the atheists prerogative to try to presuade that atheism not a position of belief as to render them immune to attacks. But, as sufficiently shown by the previous links in this and the last post, it is. Once again, it is pretty clear, by both dictionary and non-dictionary definitions, a lack of belief is agnosticism.




> Please don't. The ideal place would be in the thread I linked, but this one will do.
> 
> I started the thread to help alert people to the fact that the kind of fallacies you're stating here are actually fallacies, so I'd much rather they were recorded publicly.
> 
> The runaway winning number one fallacy is that atheism says "there is no tiger/god".


If that's your wish then I will honor it, though I think it would facilitate the course of the argument.

I don't see how you've shown that any of what I'm saying is a fallacy, how any conclusions haven't followed from a premise or how any of my arguments are unsound (i.e. that either I've had invalid inferences or false premises). And from this observation I'm lead to believe that you either don't know what exactly constitutes a fallacy or that you're trying to lie to the forum readers in faith that they also do not know the definition and cannot judge the arguments by themselves, or both. If any allusion at all to an actual fallacy was made it was my point that you were equivocating on the definition of atheism presumably as to render your position immune to any arguments attempting to show its shortcomings.

----------


## The Atheist

> The atheist has everything to do with induction, the agnostic has nothing to do with induction. This is in accord with popular and dictionary definitions of the words.


I see you're still insisting on being wrong here - which is good in a thread about why philosophy is drivel. You cannot even grasp that a lack of belief has nothing whatsoever to do with induction.

This could not be any simpler, and the thread on the subject has all of the links necessary to show why you're simply making a category error.




> A word gains its meaning through both de facto usages and de jure definitions. To start, your definition poses a few key problems, as far as I can see. You state an atheist is anyone who does not believe in God, however you must then go about more fully defining God, what are his attributes, etc. etc..


This is why I wonder why I bother replying - you continually miss points I have repeatedly made - in this case, you have missed my obvious and repeated use of the singular/plural "god/s" to show that atheists do not believe in any gods. 

An atheist trying to define god would be even worse than a non-atheist trying to define atheism.




> To be an atheist it is necessary to actively deny the existence of a God. The entymology suggests that this is the case, too. Read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/


Again, you are trying to enforce your own definition onto something you clearly know nothing about. Outstanding that you choose a philosophical resource to help you deeper into the hole, though.

Seriously, I have to chuckle at the article you linked to. 

Second sentence: "I shall here assume...."

Philosophy wins again!

 :Smilielol5: 




> Also your definition, I'm pretty sure, does not conform with the general de facto, if you like, definition. All the atheists I have met with deny God in the popularized sense and define themselves as atheists by such a denial.


This again displays your own lack of knowledge on atheism, because that position is rare.

I do not believe there is a single atheism group with more than half a dozen members which would agree with you. Internet Infidels, skeptic societies, humanist groups and atheist groups all agree that atheism is a lack of belief, not a denial. 

If you bothered to take time to do some actual research rather than linking to philosophical papers, you'd actually see how wrong you are.

Is it simply a case that "all the atheists you've met" are about 16 years old and angry at god?




> I do not know where you get this idea that I'm a non-atheist, for I'm pretty sure I have not said that anywhere on these forums.


Things become obvious from context - and it is painfully obvious that you are not an atheist. If you were, you would be quoting Dawkins and agreeing with me, instead of trying to imbue philosophy papers with authority.

You speak of "all the atheists you've met" without giving a number. I can display written and electronic evidence that I have actually conversed with thousands of atheists in writing over the course of thirty years.

I have met plenty of atheists - albeit a small minority of the whole - who will state "there is no god", but you will not find one that agrees with you on what the meaning of atheist actually is.

On the other hand, I have also conversed with hundreds of theists and agnostics who have tried to insist that your incorrect meaning is valid. 

I'm comfortable with the premise that you are in the second group.




> Once again, it is pretty clear, by both dictionary and non-dictionary definitions, a lack of belief is agnosticism.


Ouch.

See, this is what happens when you use a philosophy paper as evidence. I'm assuming the bloke who wrote it failed, because it's so wrong as to be laughable.

He claims agnosticism was introduced by Thomas Huxley!

 :Smilielol5: 

Even your beloved Wiki will tell you agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.

All this is helluva funny to me - after the arguments I've had with agnostics at this place. Pity JBI isn't here to help you out on what agnosticism actually is.




> I don't see how you've shown that any of what I'm saying is a fallacy, how any conclusions haven't followed from a premise or how any of my arguments are unsound (i.e. that either I've had invalid inferences or false premises). And from this observation I'm lead to believe that you either don't know what exactly constitutes a fallacy or that you're trying to lie to the forum readers in faith that they also do not know the definition and cannot judge the arguments by themselves, or both.


Lying? Nice.

A simple description of "fallacy".




> In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation.


I have explained _ad nauseum_ why your reasoning is incorrect, and I repeat yet again, that there is considerably more evidence in the atheism thread to show why you have a misconception on the subject.

Note that I was not talking about logical fallacies, just a plain old fallacy; being wrong.




> If any allusion at all to an actual fallacy was made it was my point that you were equivocating on the definition of atheism presumably as to render your position immune to any arguments attempting to show its shortcomings.


No, but nice try.

As a rationalist, I could not take the position that "god/s do not exist".

----------


## OrphanPip

I don't understand how there can be so much confusion over such a simple issue.

Atheism is the disbelief in gods. This includes a range of ideas, from those who disbelieve in gods because they think it highly unlikely that gods could exist to those who believe, with religious intensity, that gods absolutely do not exist.

Agnosticism is the position that the question of whether gods exist or not is unknowable and thus it is impossible to favor one position over the other.

----------


## Cat Square

I had a philosophy of religion professor who used to say Agnostics were 'fraidy-cats, "Just take a position!" he would say, man I loved that old curmudgeon.

----------


## The Atheist

> I had a philosophy of religion professor who used to say Agnostics were 'fraidy-cats, "Just take a position!" he would say, man I loved that old curmudgeon.


I have been known to use that kind of approach myself!

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> Things become obvious from context - and it is painfully obvious that you are not an atheist. If you were, you would be quoting Dawkins and agreeing with me, instead of trying to imbue philosophy papers with authority.
> 
> ...
> 
> On the other hand, I have also conversed with hundreds of theists and agnostics who have tried to insist that your incorrect meaning is valid. 
> 
> I'm comfortable with the premise that you are in the second group.


By your definition I am an atheist, I am a practical atheist; and actually what I think has happened here is just miscommunication. 

I would qoute dawkins for some things, and I greatly appreciate him for turning so many individuals onto evolution, but some of the things he says about religion are wrong.

...

Let us talk about implicit/negative/practical atheism vs. explicit/positive/theoretical atheism. The former is defined by having the capacity to have theistic belief but not while simultaneously making no claim that the statement “there is at least one God” is false. The latter is defined by claiming that the statement “there is at least one God” is false. 

First we have the chief criticism of explicit/…/theoretical atheism, which has been mentioned formerly, i.e. the problem of induction, as Hume shows us, which sufficiently proves that the statement “God does not exist” is not provable, though maybe more intuitive than its reciprocal statement “God does exist.” This thereby renders explicit atheism a faith; a belief that God does not exist just as it is a belief that Russell’s tea pot or the invisible pink unicorn on Jupiter does not exist. And the pedestrian and academic definitions both include explicit atheism and as explicit atheism is a faith it would not be accurate to categorize all atheism as a lack of belief. This would be to commit a “categorical error” as you say.

Next we have the query of whether or not atheism should refer exclusively to explicit atheism or to both explicit and implicit, and why. The second we might suppose is convenient as it allows us to classify virtually all people into two camps, atheism and theism (I suppose one could be a practical agnostic, too); however, this only classifies them by their actions, not their convictions. That is, one is either an atheist because they act as a pragmatic atheist, though are not necessarily a theoretical one, or one is a theist because they act according to what they believe are “divine” standards. But having a definition so broad comes at the expense of equivocation and therefore has dubious suitability. For example the informal fallacy:
1.	A baby is born an atheist (according to d’Holbach)
2.	A baby does not make any theoretical claims about God.
3.	Ergo atheism is a lack of belief.
The fourth inference in this line of reasoning is usually something like: as this is the case atheism cannot be criticized on theoretical grounds. And there are many other fallacious arguments of this sort, and I suspect that most explicit atheists will keep committing this fallacy of equivocation, as it makes theoretical atheism appear infallible, but is clearly not as we have both settled.

If truth is anything to aim for then the polysemous and imprecise applicability of the word is an inconvenience. What is convenient is what reduces ambiguousness; hence the word atheism ought to not be utilized in a polysemous mode but either as exclusively meaning implicit or exclusively explicit atheism; and, to me, the latter seems more apt. Apparently it is the former for you.

Another criticism of using atheism as an umbrella term is that it carries connotations that those who are defined as practical atheists but are not theoretical atheists might not want. Using it as an umbrella term labels many agnostics and skeptics as atheists, it labels the alien-lizardist as an atheist, and the baby as an atheist. I have a few friends that are philosophical skeptics that would not want the sobriquet of atheist. I don’t see anything wrong with classifying the baby as a theoretical nothingist (not ‘nothing’ but ‘nothingist.’ Labeling something as just nothing implies it does not have the capacity to believe).




> Ouch.
> 
> See, this is what happens when you use a philosophy paper as evidence. I'm assuming the bloke who wrote it failed, because it's so wrong as to be laughable.
> 
> He claims agnosticism was introduced by Thomas Huxley!


He coined the term.




> Even your beloved Wiki will tell you agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.


I dont think I ever denied that.






> I have explained _ad nauseum_ why your reasoning is incorrect, and I repeat yet again, that there is considerably more evidence in the atheism thread to show why you have a misconception on the subject.
> 
> Note that I was not talking about logical fallacies, just a plain old fallacy; being wrong.


I don’t know where you got that definition of a fallacy. As for your argumentation, maybe you should commit to being more explicit and explanative instead of filling up your replies with ad hominem. Then perhaps we could reach a consensus that much more quickly?




> No, but nice try.
> 
> As a rationalist, I could not take the position that "god/s do not exist".


OK, by my definitions that qualifies you as a (theoretical) agnostic and an apatheist or practical atheist or an implicit atheist, if you like.

----------


## The Atheist

> By your definition I am an atheist, I am a practical atheist; and actually what I think has happened here is just miscommunication.


I find that difficult to believe as your opposition to the obvious appeared deliberate rather than reuslting from a mistake, but I'll have a look. 




> I would qoute dawkins for some things, and I greatly appreciate him for turning so many individuals onto evolution, but some of the things he says about religion are wrong.


Given that no two versions of the same religion actually agree with each other 100%, I think the few errors he makes are overstated.




> Let us talk about implicit/negative/practical atheism vs. explicit/positive/theoretical atheism.


I can't imagine why it's going to be helpful. As I've already said, even David Icke is an atheist, and he's barking mad; divisions of atheism aren't all that relevant, so I'm not bothering to go down that track.

As long as we agree on what the word means I don't care what divisions you make or what you name them.




> If truth is anything to aim for then the polysemous and imprecise applicability of the word is an inconvenience. What is convenient is what reduces ambiguousness; hence the word atheism ought to not be utilized in a polysemous mode but either as exclusively meaning implicit or exclusively explicit atheism; and, to me, the latter seems more apt. Apparently it is the former for you.


Sorry, but that is just word salad.

I have pointed out why the meaning I use is correct, and hiding it behind verbosity and assertions about truth will not change the fact that your position is outdated, irrelevant and incorrect.

You're still just arguing the same point.




> Another criticism of using atheism as an umbrella term is that it carries connotations that those who are defined as practical atheists but are not theoretical atheists might not want.


No. You're trying to separate varieties of atheists that only you categorise as a means of re-stating that which has already been shown to be false.

If people are so soft as to worry about sharing a term with someone because their personal doctrines might differ, then they should either harden up or find another noun.

Atheism isn't a doctrine, despite your attempts to build it into one.




> Using it as an umbrella term labels many agnostics and skeptics as atheists, it labels the alien-lizardist as an atheist, and the baby as an atheist. I have a few friends that are philosophical skeptics that would not want the sobriquet of atheist.


That's fine, nobody is going to force them into an atheist bracelet or make them wear a scarlet A on their chests.

I also know a few philosophical skeptics that dislike the word. That makes me like it even more, but that's just me.

Regarding Huxley, again it seems you chose to mis-read what I wrote. Huxley may well have coined the _word_ but he certainly did not invent agnosticism. Not by a long way.




> I dont know where you got that definition of a fallacy.


That's an odd answer. See if you can find a dictionary that does not have that as a definition for "fallacy".

Here are a few to start with:

Yahoo
MacMillan
Merriam-Webster
Cambridge
Collins
Encarta
Wordsmyth

There are lots more.




> As for your argumentation, maybe you should commit to being more explicit and explanative instead of filling up your replies with ad hominem.


There are two parts to this:

1 I have no need to be explicit when I've repeatedly pointed at a thread where all of the required information is already posted. I dislike repeating myself at the best of times. You had the option from the very start to write in that thread, but no doubt because it disagrees with your position you felt it necessary to inflict the argument on everyone.

2 The assertion of _ad hominem_ is demonstrably untrue. I'm not going to get into an argument on the subject as both of our posts stand in evidence.




> OK, by my definitions that qualifies you as a (theoretical) agnostic and an apatheist or practical atheist or an implicit atheist, if you like.


Fortunately, other than yourself, nobody is going to take much notice of your definitions.

----------


## Cat Square

I started reading this thread backwards but stopped here:




> The former is defined by having the capacity to have theistic belief but not while simultaneously making no claim that the statement there is at least one God is false.


There must have been a more concise way of putting this! Letting your statements tip-toe around their meaning like this is the best way to rob them of their authority.


Is it just me or are these lit-net forums particularly prone to excessive wordiness and overly academic posts?

----------


## Showtime

Just a few of the philosophical assumptions made by science:
The reliability of the sensesThe validity of inductionThe Copernican (mediocrity) principleThe preferential valuation of parsimony & aesthetics in theory choice
Furthermore, science is simply incapable of tackling these questions: 
The existence of a spiritual realityThe existence of an afterlife
To assert that science has answered them is incorrect; science cannot answer them because they simply fall beyond its purview. Science assumes methodological naturalism and something like an immaterial spiritual reality or afterlife would be, by definition, beyond material observation. To say that science has answered these question in the negative is to presuppose that the totality of existence is material -- a (non-scientific) philosophical position.

Nor can science comment on questions of value. Material descriptions of that which is are incapable of morphing into behavioral prescriptions. Yet acting to fulfill value-based prescriptions is the basis of rational action and guides our immediate choice-making in daily living. I would say that is more than relevant, especially when on the chief question of life -- "How ought I to live?" -- science can provide no imperative.

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> Given that no two versions of the same religion actually agree with each other 100%, I think the few errors he makes are overstated.


Blake said, and I agree with, religions are just images of the truth. In other words they are sounder if taken figuratively instead of literally. For Milton taking a religion literally was to commit the sin of idolatry. I further believe religion is as integral to human nature as art and society. Voltaire said "if God didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him," I think the same of religion. 




> I can't imagine why it's going to be helpful. As I've already said, even David Icke is an atheist, and he's barking mad; divisions of atheism aren't all that relevant, so I'm not bothering to go down that track.
> 
> As long as we agree on what the word means I don't care what divisions you make or what you name them.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that is just word salad.
> 
> I have pointed out why the meaning I use is correct, and hiding it behind verbosity and assertions about truth will not change the fact that your position is outdated, irrelevant and incorrect.
> ...


I don’t know how apt your definition of atheism is. While I have to take your word that most atheists in these coteries you’ve referenced are rationalists and hence theoretical agnostics, I still think the more pedestrian atheist has beliefs in accord with the explicit atheist. And if this is not the case and >50% are in actuality implicit atheists, most theists understand the word atheism as meaning explicit atheism. On these grounds, if effective communication means much, it would be a convenience to define atheism as explicit/theoretical atheism. Of course one cannot change how a society defines a word at a whim, but since definitions are chosen democratically one can cast their vote, so to speak.
Gould preferred the sobriquet of agnostic even though he was a practical atheist, and I would the same. This was presumably partly for appearances and on the grounds that he thought science and religion should not attempt to inform each other. I think his choice rather wise, especially considering that most theists appeal to emotion instead of evidence, hence making appearances and impressions count a great deal towards affecting them and winning them to your point of view. Calling oneself an atheist generally makes the theist feel threatened, puts him off and closes his mind, even if one wouldn’t actually question the existence of God on theoretical grounds.
Furthermore the reasoning showing that the statement “all atheism is a lack of belief” is a categorical error is sound and, I fear, saying that I am making a “word salad” is not a legitimate method of objection and I fear that it reduces the debate to a quality of a youtube one.





> If people are so soft as to worry about sharing a term with someone because their personal doctrines might differ, then they should either harden up or find another noun.


Reaching a consensus on a definition is important and useful; it facilitates communication and integration thereby promoting peace and tolerance. I would think that your intentions are pro peace and tolerance.




> Regarding Huxley, again it seems you chose to mis-read what I wrote. Huxley may well have coined the _word_ but he certainly did not invent agnosticism. Not by a long way.


Of course there were the skeptics, et al before Huxley, but there is a difference between skepticism and agnosticism. You see, skepticism entails agnosticism but agnosticism does not entail skepticism. In other words, agnosticism is only skepticism regarding the theological or existence or nonexistence of God. I do not know enough about Huxley or the history of philosophic ideas before Huxley to say with much certainty if agnosticism existed unnamed and popularly before him or if he was the first to denote its tenets, gave it a name and popularized it; but the latter seems be what the author of the article is saying.




> That's an odd answer. See if you can find a dictionary that does not have that as a definition for "fallacy".


For the sake of articulation I never liked how the pedestrian definition of fallacy was synonymous with erroneous, because the academic one is certainly not. And I sort of assumed you want to be articulate instead of muddying the waters. But it is no matter, I’m over it so let’s move on.





> 1 I have no need to be explicit when I've repeatedly pointed at a thread where all of the required information is already posted. I dislike repeating myself at the best of times. You had the option from the very start to write in that thread, but no doubt because it disagrees with your position you felt it necessary to inflict the argument on everyone.
> 
> 2 The assertion of _ad hominem_ is demonstrably untrue. I'm not going to get into an argument on the subject as both of our posts stand in evidence.


I have read some of the forum, yet I still find defining atheism as purely a lack of belief, or as solely implicit atheism, at best insensible. It is pretty clear it is used at least as a polysemic word.

Well, I commit to tolerance and believe it a fine ideal; when you give someone half a chance they are generally well intentioned (and even my first mention of you said I believe you are well intentioned, which I still do), and that matters for a lot to me. Yet in some of these instances of communication I have been reduced to a hypocrite, which I try to terminate by removing myself from the discussion; at that time I could not bear to suffer what I perceived as effrontery, intolerance and close-mindedness. If I have insulted you, I regret it and am sorry, and hope we can forgo the ad hominem henceforth.

Edit:




> I started reading this thread backwards but stopped here:
> 
> 
> 
> There must have been a more concise way of putting this! Letting your statements tip-toe around their meaning like this is the best way to rob them of their authority.
> 
> 
> Is it just me or are these lit-net forums particularly prone to excessive wordiness and overly academic posts?


I thought I summed the distinction up all right, though my double negative still makes me laugh a bit. Here is a more expounded articulation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implici...plicit_atheism

Err.. yes  :Biggrin:  lol, prolixity is all the rage.

----------


## The Atheist

> Just a few of the philosophical assumptions made by science:
> The reliability of the sensesThe validity of inductionThe Copernican (mediocrity) principleThe preferential valuation of parsimony & aesthetics in theory choice


I disagree here. Science doesn't make any assumptions at all. Science produces results which are then interpreted by humans.

Science is a method, not a doctrine.




> Furthermore, science is simply incapable of tackling these questions: 
> The existence of a spiritual realityThe existence of an afterlife


I see no reason to accept this either.

If such things exist and are capable of physical action, then they're measurable.

The invisible kind, known only through faith, sure.




> "How ought I to live?" -- science can provide no imperative.


Unlike philosophy, eh?

 :Wink:

----------


## Neo_Sephiroth

> I'm all for getting my hands dirty in a philosophical discussion. Questioning everything and taking nothing at face value is how I try to live my life. However, when does philosophical reflection cross the border into the Republic of Rubbish? And Why? 
> 
> From my own personal experience, I've noticed it gets people's eyes rolling when the situation is tense and they want direct, concrete answers to a problem or crisis. Is a truly philosophical view only tolerated when people have the luxury of time? Outside of the world of Academia, at what point does Philosophy become something far less helpful or desirable?


Dude, philosophy is not rubbish but it's not very helpful either. I say it's just food for thought.

----------


## Syd A

> When does philosophy become drivel and why?


As soon as people with a Ph.D. in philosophy get involved. There has never been, to the best of my knowledge, a philosopher with a Ph.D. in philosophy, and all philosophy Ph.D.s I've ever met or read were total douchebags.

----------


## The Atheist



----------


## Fat Mike

I think it becomes bull**** when

a) it steps away from its original purpose, which is to solve problems. As I experienced it, a lot of philosophers tend to become way too pretentios sometimes. 

b) philosophers sell their soul to the ruling elite, which is especially true within political philosophy and they only serve the agenda. At least in the early days it was a good exercise for your brain, even if their missed the point and didn't answered anything, but nowadays it's just a mixture of fancy words without any substance at all.

----------


## jajdude

Long thread, read 5 or 6 pages, nice debate. Perhaps something is drivel if no one can understand or enjoy it. Otherwise it has some value to at least one person. Surely most philosophy has some value to some people.

----------


## Theunderground

Misue of philosophy,science and religion has caused an unspeakable amount of bloodshed in this world.
Its also true that some tremendous and extremely useful ideas have been aquired from humans thinking in the abstract.
But man does not live by bread or ideas alone,they are tools to achieve his goals.
Philosophy becomes dross and harmful when folks forget it is a means to and end,a tool.
What is the end?
That is a question each individual needs to answer for themself,but i think salvation is achieved in loving human relationships. Apart from this everything else is window dressing,detail or a means to an end.

----------

