On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy

Morality has no relevance?

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

I can think of many philosophies and philosophers that do not assert such a thing as 'objective morality'”Relativism, for example. Do social philosophers have nothing to say? Do the people who argue for equal rights have nothing substantive to say?I can tell you, the herding of Jewish people into gas chambers may have no objective placing in morality”I agree”, but to claim that people who discuss these issues have nothing substantive to say is to clearly dismiss the immense impact and importance their conclusions have had on everyone.Pity you feel this way. S'pose we could say the same about the creationism/evolution debate Not. Not all philosophers try to 'dene answers'. As I said. Will the answers determine if Jon writes his name in cursive or print? Unimportant and irrelevant.
Will the answers determine that 6 million humans are to be burned alive? Important and relevant. Absolute. 100%. Misrepresentation. Of. Your. Opponent's. Views.
Sad. Read up on my post; pay attention to the relationship philosophy has had in determining the fate of 6 million innocent people. So is Life.Jon

SO, WE DIG A BIG HOLE, look into the stars; get some loads of information. Get ourselves one of them fancy there theories; back it up with a boatload of evidence.Great! Now we know that all creatures on Earth are descendant from a single common ancestor.
What do we do now?ALSO, I want someone to answer my question in the subject title of my last post: do you think murder should be illegal?Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

Just answer it. No harm.Should it be illegal
to take the life
of another human?Jon

It seems that some folk here are forgetting that the notion that 'truth' can be obtained through observation of the 'natural world' is itself a philosophy”one used by Aristotle himself, in fact.To those 'some folk' (and they know who they are), I would like to ask how it is they have discerned several things:1) that 'truth' is derived from 'reality'
2) that 'reality' is knowable
3) what 'reality' is...that should do for now. I'd also like to wonder what on Earth it is they do with all that 'reality' they have heaped up around them. I mean, so the Earth goes around the Sun... now what? What do we do with all of this 'truthful reality' that we suddenly 'know'?I asked this question before, and it didn't get answered. If it goes unanswered this time, I think we can consider the position of those 'some folk' to be null, and we can all throw a big philosophy parade.Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

Now we know how we became we. Now what do we do with that? How is it that 'we would like' for them to work? Also, why is it that 'we would like' for them to work one way over the other? I mean, what reason is there for changing things?

What justies a belief? Is it? Proof? Only some Does it?Jon

It looks like you really are one big joke.Now, c'mon... answer the questions already and stop being a weasel.

quote:

---

crash writes:

​

If all human thought is supposedly "philosophy"

Is it?

Yes, it is, according to the defenders of philosophy on this thread.

---

So, is it? Citing your own personal experience for evidence? Damn, man... where's the rigour? Such as...? In the country of...? Nah... you just made stuff up; much like this latest reply of yours.Jon

You really can't answer the questions, can you? For some reason, you just cannot answer the questions.Oh well; I tried. It's up to the rest to play brain pong with you now.Jon

So, if anyone shows you something currently regarded as philosophy which is not "a field which, lacking rigor but possessing much cachet, becomes a dumping ground for nonsense questions that make the asker look like someone intelligent;" Your reply will merely be that it cannot be philosophy, and instead, all you'll include into your category of philosophy are those things which already t the denition you've given them, and then you'll use those to defend your point. Let's diagram that, shall we?

(Examine X)
      |
      v
   Does X=0? -No-> X = non-Philosophy
      |
     Yes
      |
      v
X = Philosophy

The obvious problem here, of course, is that you are trying to mould your reality around your denitions, instead of trying to extract your denitions from your reality. It's similar to how Creationists interpret evidence to t their presuppositions that the Bible is inherent, instead of concluding whether the Bible is inherent based on the evidence. A more honest (and non-Crashfroggian) method should be something like:

(Examine P)
    |
    v
What is P? -0-> Some P are 0
    |
    1
    |
    v
   Some
 P are 1

This way, you'll come to the proper conclusion that some philosophy is good, and that others is utter rubbish. In other words, you'll come to a conclusion that is more tting of your reality, and then you won't have to make one up any more”your reality, that is.Also, I'd like to know how it was you came to this denition.Jon

So in summary, your position's merely been pulled from your ass? Did you even read what you wrote? What I wrote? Your position, like the Creos, always breaks down to name-calling and accusing your opponents of being stupid. What does that say about your position? What does that say about you? Every eld's got its dishonest folk. If you discounted everything just because there were a few dishonest folk in the eld, you'd be listening to speaker reverb and complaining about those blasted economists.Jon

Which were...?

Okay. Dene rigour, and I'll see what I can do

Care to tell me why that isn't a sly, sneaky, weaselly fallacy? You cannot take properties of the parts and apply them to the whole. Some random mutations are bad. It doesn't matter if some are actually good, it's irrelevant. Random mutations on a whole are bad. C'mon, once again, remove your head from your ass and stop acting like a 3-year-old creationist. Of course, that's false. Philosophy does not accept everything under the same 'esteem'. You are taking denitions of 'science' and telling us that philosophy does not t those denitions (on which we generally agree with you), then concluding that philosophy is useless as a result.S'pose we could just as well say that because science is not philosophy, science is useless? Of course, that's malarkey, but it is to be believed if we accept your argumentation. Or does your argument only work one way, i.e., in the favour of Crashtoad? False analogy. Philosophy ≠ a liquid. And you'd throw 'em all out, no doubt, and your orchard business would go under. Guess I'm not surprised that you also see economics as useless, too. What about bad scientists? Do they 'spoil the bunch'? Or is this another one of those 'it only works in favour of Crashtoad' arguments?Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

[Philosophy] stands behind everything. It is the loom behind the fabric, the place you arrive when you trace the threads back to their source. It is where you question everything you think you know and seek every truth to be had. - Archer Opterix [msg=-11,-316,210]