Philosophy 101

*stumbles into a room lit up by a great massive, commanding fireplace*I must say, this is a nice warm fire. Would anyone mind if I sit in this comfy chair right now? No? *settles in**fidgets**fusses*Oh - wait, I'm sorry, but - would you happen to have a fine snifter of cognac handy? I should like to get my hands around one of those. Oh! Why, thank you! *settles in again*Oh, thank you, but - no - I gave up smoking 36 years ago. Well....tobacco, that is. Still those look very, very nice - from Cuba even! *examines the room again**nods approvingly**stands up briefly to walk around in the room**suddenly dodges what is apparently nothing at all*Oh - I so sorry, I didn't see the IPU there!! Forgive me. I guess I'm just another one of those clumsy, crude Americans. *resumes settling deep in the chair*Wow...I just had a thought - doesn't Ph.D. stand for Doctor of Philosophy?Or? Wait...was it "piling it higher and deeper? Never could remember. After all that Bull Shit and More Shit on my side of the pond. Ah, never mind. Say, this is a most wonderful brandy! *fidgeting again, suddenly reaches into the chair behind his back and pulls out a stuffed animal - a pink rabbit with a basket in his hand*Huh??? Who left this here?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

You old pseudoskeptic you.

OK. Postmodern ramblings aside isn't there a significant overlap?

I must admit philosophy is interesting in that one can see the progression of thoughts throughout the ages. Aristotelian, Cartesian, The empiricist, the age of enlightenment, existentialism. But like you I feel Philosophy never offers any real solutions, but sometimes knowing there is a problem is the first step in finding a solution. I like how Alexander the Great just walked up and cleaved the knot rather than sit around talking about it.

(How do I size it down a bit ?)

By not presenting it as a cartoon.Oh, and the Greeks won the Peloponnesian War. They also lost it. It was a civil war. That's how civil wars go. Later on, the Thebans kicked the arse of the Spartans. Then the Romans took the whole lot of them. Then the Turks did the Byzantine Empire. Then we kicked the shit out of the Turks. History is not the last court of appeal.

Um, no, it's a common sense + scientific conclusion.Again, with the case of Aristotle, all they had to do was throw a rock or something and see what happens. But no, they had this notion of mind over matter thing.Take a look at this post modern crap. Believe it or not, I tried to minor in philosophy back in college. Was always interested in it. I actually got voted in as president of the debate club. After years of debating and studying postmodern philosophy, I came to the conclusion that it's utter crap. The only reason people can't prove definitely that it's utter crap because most of the writings are done in obscure language. Take a look at the following quote.

quote:

---

In the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous series which are organized into a system which is neither stable nor unstable, but rather ‘metastable,’ endowed with a potential energy wherein the differences between series are distributed ... In the second place, singularities possess a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast.

---

It's utter nonsense. I've read extensively on Kant, Marx, etc. and I can tell you that it doesn't get better. At all.I know, I know, I'm not sophisticated enough to understand this crap. What about the Sokal hoax? His paper was loaded with nonsense and they honestly couldn't tell the difference between that and a real postmodern paper.Postmodernists seem to have a knack for committing the fallacy of the middle ground. I'm sorry, but I absolutely refuse to accept that a person can be worth 3/5 of a person through some bullshit compromise.Added by edit.Richard Dawkins makes a good point about postmodernists. They bear a striking resemblance of charlatans and creationists. Why in the world would anyone want to write their thoughts in obscure language other than to deceive? I along with most others have done this before where we purposely put our words in obscure arrangement in order to decieve. What's new about postmodernism is it takes it to a whole new level. They managed to build an entire academic field around what charlatans have been doing for thousands of years.Don't believe me? Even postmodern philosophers admit that they have a hard time understanding each other. We're not the only ones having trouble with what they write. They themselves can't even understand each other. What does that tell you about their field? Look, if you can't phrase your thoughts in a coherent manner that at least people in your own damn field could understand, then it is indifferentiable from utter crap.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Hi, Dr A. The cartoon only says Athens lost the Peloponnesian War, which is accurate.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Makes my brain hurt reading that quote.
I feel like Sly Stallone in that movie "Demolition Man" when he curses enough to wipe his ass because he cant use the three sea shells. Edited by 1.61803, : changed taq to taz.

As far as I can tell, most philosophers don't take the post modernists very seriously.I see references to Dennett, Putnam, Quine, Strawson, Fodor. I rarely see references to Derrida. Rorty is referenced, but he makes more sense than Derrida.Note that I am not a philosopher, so perhaps I don't see a broad enough spectrum. I mostly see what is referenced from cognitive science.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I don't think so. But maybe I see from a narrow perspective.As best I can tell, scientists and mathematicians don't think the same way as academic philosophers.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I agree that postmodern philosophy is fashionable nonsense as exposed by Alan Sokal. I even described it as such in the OP. Nobody here is defending that. But are you going to throw away all philosophy on that basis? Can you really cite science itself as supporting the conclusion that science is superior method of investigation? And doesn’t science show us that common sense is an unreliable tool? Whilst your conclusion may ultimately be right are these not valid (philosophical?) questions? Or do you think we should just accept what you say as obviously true? Common sense and obviousness dictated that the natural state of motion was for things to come to rest. Common sense and obviousness are not always enough. Hence the need for science in the first place. It sounds so simple. Yet the idea of testing conclusions, formalising procedures to overcome preconceived notions etc. These things had to be thought of and developed. Do you agree with Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins that science seeks objective truths about the world? Is that a philosophical stance?

But no reason to knock the Greeks, which I felt was implied.It's a fairly minor point, but if one is going to look at a cartoon putting down the Greeks on the grounds that they lost the Peloponnesian War, then it is perhaps pertinent to point out that the people to whom they lost the Peloponnesian War were in fact other Greeks.And they beat the shit out of the Persians.

I'm not saying throw away all philosophy. At the same time, I think it is over-inflated. People are placing too much importance on it. That's why I didn't just say common sense. I said common sense and scientific evidence.Again, let me point out to you that philosophers believed for a very long time that projectiles travel in a rectangular path. A simple experiment of tossing a rock would have shown that projectiles travel in a parabolic path.Why did it take philosophers so long to correct their mistake? Because philosophy itself is ill-equipped to do so. They base all their thought process on things that exist in their minds. They don't care much for reality.Every researcher will tell you that book-smart science ain't the only thing you need in scientific research. You also need a lot of common sense. Common sense alone is terrible at investigating real world phenomena. Book-smart science alone is terrible at investigating real world phenomena. You need both to have an accurate assessment of reality. No, philosophers went further than that. They described the motion of projectiles as travelling in a rectangular path. Precisely. And that's my point. Philosophy is ill-equipped to deal with reality. This has led to nonsense such as postmodernism. No need for confirmation. As long as they can crank out utter crap. Again, even postmodernists have trouble understanding each other, and they admit this. It's not a philosophical stance. It's a fact of life.Look, you can try to obscure the subject all you want. You can fill this thread up with all the nonsense such as right is wrong, wrong is right, there is no free will, and other nonsense of philosophy. The fact remains that science coupled with common sense have done a hell of a lot more than philosophy has been able to achieve. Despite popular belief, philosophy never brought us any closer to truths about reality. Real, honest to god scientists and empiricists with their lives' works brought us closer to the truths of reality.Philosophers can try to claim credit all they want. They're wrong.

Yet many working scientists on this very site would dispute that science is the search for objective truth. How do we determine how close we are to the truths of reality? Isn’t empiricism a philosophical position? I don’t think any philosophers are trying to take credit for the achievements of science. Philosophers of science (postmodernist-nonsensicalists apart) are instead trying to explain why science is a successful as it demonstrably is.