Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1 of 307 (430305)
10-24-2007 11:58 AM


I realized that my post on this thread concerning philosophy and religion was so far off topic that I should have suspended myself. Any discussion of the post on that thread would have derailed the thread even further than it already was. On the other hand, I think it is an interesting topic for discussion here, with direct relevance for this board. I have therefore reposted the post in question here as a spin-off.
The late lamented LindaLou posed the following (in message 101):
LindaLou writes:
But are you willing to throw out the whole of philosophy and religion, which examine the nature of life and existence, because they are not as "true" as a fossil or a rock?
To which (skipping over the first, sort-of tongue-in-cheek reply):
Quetzal writes:
Whenever "truth" (small "t") claims are made, the use of philosophy and/or religion should play no part in evaluating those claims. Only, and let me emphasize this, only, has the scientific method EVER in history provided valid understanding of the world/universe that we inhabit. I think this is perhaps one reason you have suffered here.
When I wish to determine whether it is safe to cross the road in the face of on-coming traffic, I do not ponder the existentialism of a car, or the metaphysical purpose of traffic. No, I observe the actual pattern before me, my brain makes a very complex lightning-fast calculation of velocity and distance (with practice, this is almost unconscious), and then orders my body to either proceed or wait. I don't pray to a deity, either. When I wish to determine whether a particular substance is safe to put in my body in order to protect (or cure) it from a particular threat/malady, I don't meditate on the paraconsistent logic of the mind-body duality or how the concept of holism applies, or whatever other metaphysical claptrap-du-jour may be currently the flavor. Rather, I seek out and read the literature - based purely on the scientific method - wherein those substances have been evaluated, their reactions tested, and their miscibility, or lack, with other substances determined. Then, and only then, do I make the informed decision to ingest or not. I don't pray for divine guidance.
The obvious counter-argument here is the claim that science cannot examine things such as purpose (i.e., the "Why are we here?", or "Why is there life?" questions), or determine the answer to value/morality questions (i.e., "Why be good to others?"), or for that matter evaluate emotion questions (i.e., "What is love?"). However, I call BS on this. In the first place, the idea that such questions have any relevance whatsoever is one that has been foisted on humankind by philosophers. The as-yet-unevidenced claim that these questions are "important" is made by the people whose work revolves around answering them. Suspicious, to say the least.
Secondly, all the questions and subsequent answers dreamed of by philosophers/religious are purely and wholly subjective. In other words, both the importance of the question and the nature of the conjured answer are culturally and socially dependent. Aristotle claimed to have identified universal "principles" - and then every other philosopher down through the ages has argued against them. One of my favorite quotes on this subject is from David Hume (another philosopher, buggerit):
quote:
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (full text)
So, despite the fact that the great philosophers down through the ages represent some of the most brilliant minds this planet has produced, I agree with crashfrog that it is something of a tragedy that these minds have concentrated on questions of at best limited relevance.
Most of the scientifically-minded people on this forum take a more Popperian (another philosopher, although a "philosopher of science" - set a thief to catch a thief, n'est-ce pas?) approach - albeit modified in the details (strict falsificationism doesn't appear to be completely valid, either). Popper's criteria, used by science in the main for long periods before he succinctly articulated what we were doing, includes falsification, testability, and replicability, among other things. We use this methodology (for lack of a better term) because it garners valid - albeit tentative - statements about the world (Life, the Universe, and Everything). Philosophy, on the other hand, can NEVER generate anything more than a subjective idea about the world - not a fact about the world. Since facts are the things that can get us run over when we are crossing a street, a philosophical approach to "knowing" is, as I previously stated, akin to navel gazing, and about as useful.
Clearly, I anticipate that a lot of people will take exception to my position. I think, however, that it might be an interesting discussion.
"Is it Science", or other appropriate non-Coffee House thread, please.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jaderis, posted 10-24-2007 7:38 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 10-24-2007 10:18 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-24-2007 11:30 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 15 by subbie, posted 10-25-2007 3:52 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 46 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-29-2007 12:43 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 69 by Ben!, posted 10-30-2007 10:24 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 298 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-13-2007 10:59 PM Quetzal has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 307 (430363)
10-24-2007 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jaderis
10-24-2007 7:38 PM


Re: Philosophy is subjectively important
And I believe you have neatly articulated the key point I was trying to make. Those questions such as "What purpose/meaning does my life havbe?" are wholly subjective. Answers, when they can be found at all, are found internally.
What I am more suspicious of is anyone claiming they have answers all wrapped up in a pretty little package for me. The questions themselves can be very important (or not at all, depending), but only I can come up with the answers.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
PS: I love the signature line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jaderis, posted 10-24-2007 7:38 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jaderis, posted 10-24-2007 9:50 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 7 by bluegenes, posted 10-24-2007 10:59 PM Quetzal has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 307 (430424)
10-25-2007 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jon
10-24-2007 10:18 PM


Morality has no relevance?
Unfortunately, I can't add much to Jaderis' reply to this question. So, like any good philosopher ( ) with nothing substantive to say, I'll simply embellish the point. (As an aside, I would prefer not to have this thread degenerate into yet another discussion of objective vs. subjective morality. I'd rather we focus on whether or not philosophy, religion or metaphysics have applicability to the real world in which we actually live, rather than the realm of pure abstraction - i.e., navel-gazing.)
There have been numerous threads on this board where those of a religious or philosophical bent have vainly attempted to show that there is a universal or objective morality. I say vainly, because the reality is that all morality is culturally and/or socially dependent. There is no demonstrable universal. The social contract between an individual and the rest of the society/culture in which they live defines the acceptable morality. The fact that the definition of what constitutes moral behavior has changed over time and between cultures is a strong indicator that no objective morality exists.
So, in answer to your question: yes, morality (generically speaking) is certainly relevant - how we individually and as a society determine acceptable behaviors. However, the metaphysical/philosophical/religious conception of objective morality isn't, because it does not exist in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 10-24-2007 10:18 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 10-25-2007 6:31 PM Quetzal has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 307 (430428)
10-25-2007 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Hyroglyphx
10-24-2007 11:30 PM


Re: The Philosophy of the anti-philosopher: A lesson in futility
Hi NJ,
More to the point, everything you wrote was neither scientific nor mathematic. It was philosophical. You have addressed the problem you wish to eradicate with the very weapon you use to denigrate it with! You no less use a philosopher to philosophize on the worthlessness of philosophy itself! Commit it then to the flames-- it is but sophistry and illusion.
Surely you can see the irony in that.
Indeed. In fact, I alluded to the irony of using a philosopher to argue against philosophy in the OP. Admittedly, the allusion was a bit subtle unless you are familiar with Terry Pratchett's character Foul Ole Ron. This unique individual - one of my favorite Discworld characters - constantly and concisely comments (nice alliteration, no?) on the absurdity of life by using the made-up word "buggerit". I think it captures quite well the irony of the idea of a philosophically anti-philosopher.
I enjoyed the Zacharias link you provided (well, up until the last 10 seconds or so when he makes the bald assertion that the miracles, prophecies, etc in the Bible are empirically based). It totally tickled my sense of the absurd to hear a religious philosopher commenting on a philosopher's anti-commentary on philosophy . However, both you and Zacharias seem to have missed Hume's point: philosophy as a way of knowing is at best impractical and at worst vacuous since it has limited or no point of conjunction with the "real world". "Consign it to the flames", says Hume, because if we wish to understand the world in which we live, it (philosophy, metaphysics, religion, etc) can provide no concrete answers - or even, I contend, valid questions.
I'm not clear why you think that my use of a quote from a philosopher is inappropriate when I'm commenting on philosophy. Hume was, after all, contending that philosophy is a dead-end game. His statement contrasts empiricism with metaphysics, and he clearly advocates the former as a way of knowledge. I would argue that the intent of the quote is a challenge to those who feel that abstract philosophy, etc, has relevance. "Show me", he seems to be saying, "where your philosophical or religious maunderings can tell us something 'true' about the world." He isn't using philosophy writ large in his statement. He is challenging those who DO so use it to demonstrate that their claims to knowledge have a basis in fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-24-2007 11:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-25-2007 7:20 PM Quetzal has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 307 (430476)
10-25-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by subbie
10-25-2007 3:52 PM


Re: A few thoughts, in no particular order
Hi subbie. Thanks for your reply.
But you seem to be dismissing the importance of these things for all people. The way you describe things, it makes it sound as if you believe that philosophers are the only ones considering these questions while non-philosopher types are sitting on the sidelines, cheering on one side or the other. However, I believe that most people spend at least some time contemplating these questions in one fashion or another. Perhaps many of them do so in the context of religious worship. Quite often, people make vital, life altering decisions based on the answers they come up with in these deliberations. Thus, I dispute your claim that the importance of these questions is "unevidenced." The evidence of their importance is found in the fact that people think they are important enough to consider them.
On the other hand, you have merely reiterated what I (and Jaderis particularly) have stated: the importance of those specific "life-changing" questions depends entirely on the subjective weight individuals - or possibly a given society - place on them. In essence, you appear to be agreeing with me that there is no extrinsic value to either the questions or the answers. There is, as I have admitted above, certainly a subjective value and relevancy to them. Indeed, as you stated, "Quite often, people make vital, life altering decisions based on the answers they come up with in these deliberations." Someone else, on the other hand, may undertake the same deliberations, and likely come up with a completely different answer or answers. Since that is the case, pretending that there is some inherent value or universal relevance to either the questions or the answers appears specious.
This is especially the case with the subset of philosphers who base their musings on revealed religion. These folks are at best interpreting, or at worst simply regurgitating Answers (with a capital "A") from their particular holy texts. Then, of course, they turn about and tell their fellow-believers what those answers are. In other words, telling people what is important to believe. The fact that much of this belief bears no relationship to reality should be a red flag at the very least. I contend that all philosophers, metaphysicians, etc, seek to do the same. The primary difference is that non-religious ones are forced to attempt to persuade people to their viewpoint. Religious ones get to dictate.
First, the very fact that people can be persuaded of the rightness of another's position on say a matter of morality shows me that these matters are not "purely and wholly subjective."
Heh. What you've just described is pure subjectivity. Someone can persuade someone else to accept their private interpretation. If there was some extrinsic, universal "rightness" to be discovered, then all those people you claim "consider them at length" wouldn't have to be persuaded. They may differ on the details, but would pretty much be coming up with the same answers. Since they don't (obviously), then the answers are practically by definition subjective ones. And the fact that you may not be able to persuade someone - see the loooooong history of mutually contradictory philosophies humans have invented over the centuries - all of which purport to be examing the same questions...
Contrast this with "questions and subsequent answers dreamed of by philosophers/religious." While I wholeheartedly agree that these things are influenced by culture and society, you go too far in declaring that they are dependent on culture and society. Were you correct, everyone in a particular culture and society would agree on these matters.
Perhaps, for clarity, I should have used the phrase, "dependent upon and/or constrained by" instead of just "dependent". What constitutes moral behavior is quite clearly socio-culturally dependent. The relative value placed on human life, the individual's role/purpose, even the reason for existence itself is determined in large measure by the society in which the individual moves and interacts. Even how the question(s) are framed - or for that matter what questions are asked - changes from culture to culture and era to era.
As far as everyone being in complete agreement, I don't think this necessarily follows. Undoubtedly in the aggregate, except for relatively rare semi-egalitarian societies such as the modern West, most individual members of a culture or society perforce agree with the overall views of that society. They may differ on the details, perhaps, but in the main "purpose", "morality", etc, are value-laden cultural affects which most members of a society will ascribe to. In other words, most people are quite content to be told what to think. Religions and their adherents are a clear example.
Given that the most that we can say is that these questions are culturally and societally influenced, the obvious responsive question is, "So what?" That different cultures and societies have come to different conclusions does not prevent the questions from being important. Nor does it prevent the questions from being discussed, opinions exchanged, and positions modified on the basis of the exchanges. (my bold)
In other words, since the entire issue is subjective, philosophers are wasting their time attempting to define answers. As I said. How do you even know the questions being thus subjectively discussed ARE important? And how relevant are the answers?
You seek to condemn philosophy for its inability to do something that it doesn't intend to do (except for certain situations that I will address in another post). Philosophy (mostly) isn't concerned with empirical truth. But to criticize it on that basis makes as much sense as criticizing science for not answering value questions. The ToE doesn't tell us that it's wrong or right to eat our young. It simply says that in certain cases, that behavior will occur in nature. Science didn't tell Truman to drop atomic bombs on Japan, it only said that if he wanted to, he could. Instead, it takes philosophy to answer these questions, and many others of great important to a great many people.
I disagree. The very question that prompted this thread refutes your contention inre what philosophy/religion/etc claim to do. Repeating:
quote:
But are you willing to throw out the whole of philosophy and religion, which examine the nature of life and existence, because they are not as "true" as a fossil or a rock? (bold mine)
Philosophy quite clearly claims to be a way of knowledge that seeks to attain "truth" (both big and little "T" truth). I contend that it simply doesn't achieve this, and in fact, cannot. Philosophy as a discipline only develops abstractions that have little or no relationship to the world. It surely cannot answer the great questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything, because it is not based in reality, only subjectivity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by subbie, posted 10-25-2007 3:52 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by subbie, posted 10-26-2007 12:50 AM Quetzal has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 307 (430597)
10-26-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jon
10-25-2007 6:31 PM


Re: Do you think murder should be against the law?
I can think of many philosophies and philosophers that do not assert such a thing as 'objective morality'”Relativism, for example.
Right, as can I. I never said there weren't. However, the point remains that philosophers in general make truth claims about the world that have little to do with reality. With the exception of those schools which are based more or less loosely on empiricism, naturally.
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.
Ah yes, when in doubt, devolve into ad hominem. Two points:
1) I think you may be confusing ideology with philosophy. Whereas philosophy underlies ideology, my understanding is that the latter is an attempt to operationalize the former. Although this is a gross oversimplification, Marx for instance was a "pure" philosopher. Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest of that gang were ideologues who attempted to implement in the real world the theoretical philosophy of Marx (with some additions). It is entirely possible to be both, of course. Mao was both a philosopher and an ideologue. I would posit that few ideologies have been successfully implemented without serious modification and/or consequences primarily because they are based on something that has no relation to reality. There are exceptions, of course. Can you think of any?
2) As to the rest of your post, I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. When you are through attempting to portray me as a Holocaust denier, someone who considers the Holocaust irrelevant, or even (since I don't know how far you were willing to push this accusation), supporter, and are willing to actually address the substance of the thread: Is philosophy/religion/metaphysics a valid "way of knowing" about (from the OP) "...the nature of life and existence...", then we can continue.
Edited by Quetzal, : Weird unintended smiley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 10-25-2007 6:31 PM Jon has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 307 (430601)
10-26-2007 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Hyroglyphx
10-25-2007 7:20 PM


Re: The Philosophy of the anti-philosopher: A lesson in futility
I understood Hume's point well. But surely you or Hume couldn't be serious that philosophical questions have nothing valid, or are completely vacuous since we derive much meaning from them. What great conclusion are you going to come to about love without it? What great conclusion about morality are you going to come to without it? Or better yet, what great conclusion will you come to by studying the entrails of a gopher?
Evidently you didn't understand the quote. As bluegenes noted, Hume was pointing out that there have been few if any valid statements about the world derived from philosophy. Democritus' atomic theory of matter, Popper's epistemology, and a few others spring to mind, but most of it is impractical to say the least.
Sure, now we know the inner workings of a gopher. At the end of the day, you want to say, "so what?" Which is more critical: Understanding love and morality or the intestinal track of a gopher? Before you answer, don't misunderstand me to mean that science and mathematics are of no value. They are of immense value in their own right. But downplaying philosophy will bring you no greater answers.
Since you seem to be contending that LindaLou has a valid point when she said (from the OP): "...philosophy and religion, which examine the nature of life and existence...", perhaps you'd care to name a valid statement about the actual world we actually inhabit derived from any one of your favorite philosophers? Surely if philosophy provides such "great conclusions" as you claim, you should be able to come up with something that isn't either sophistry or completely subjective, n'est-ce pas? Or religious figures?
I think this would accomplish two things. First, it would refocus your, erm, "discussion" onto the topic, to wit: does philosophy/religion provide a valid way of knowing about the world? Secondly, it would get you off of this insistence that a short quotation from Hume somehow is the key point of the debate (in other words, derailment of the topic). After all, I've already stated that I concur with you that it is somewhat ironic to use a philosopher to comment on philosophy (although now that I think on it, who else would one use?).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-25-2007 7:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 307 (430602)
10-26-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by subbie
10-26-2007 12:50 AM


Re: A few thoughts, in no particular order
Hi subbie,
I appreciate your reply. Unfortunately, I don't see how I can add anything to what Jaderis has said (see especially post 27). Jaderis actually articulates my position better than I do. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you or your replies.
I would argue that "semi-egalitarian societies" are the fruits that are now blossoming from the seeds sown by the philosophers of the 18th century. Perhaps the ideas of liberty and equality are now in the process of becoming universally accepted.
Of course I agree with your first point here. But just who were those philosophers? Locke, Hume, Leibniz, etc, who provided the foundation for the Intellectual Revolution - based more or less on realism or empiricism. They all more or less rejected the esoterica of previous philosophers, and tried to envision a practical approach to knowledge. That is from where the ideals of the Enlightenment and subsequent advent of science were derived.
As to your second point,
quote:
Perhaps the ideas of liberty and equality are now in the process of becoming universally accepted.
One can but hope, because I (as I think you do) believe that such ideals are the best hope for mankind. However, and this may be a topic for another thread, I would suggest that we can only deduce the existence of Liberty and Equality as ideals because of their apparent lack anywhere in the world. In other words, they are philosophical concepts which (by the nature of philosophy that I have stated) don't actually exist in the real world. This is of course why I purposely used the term "semi-egalitarian" to which you seemed to take exception. "Well, except for the gunfire, it was quite enjoyable, thank you."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by subbie, posted 10-26-2007 12:50 AM subbie has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 242 of 307 (433128)
11-10-2007 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Modulous
11-07-2007 2:49 PM


I certainly never expected this thread to go as far and as long as it has. I applaud Crash and Mod for a fascinating and enlightening discussion. Apologies for being mostly absent - physical constraints (not philosophical ones ) have precluded much participation on my part.
I'd like to re-post Mod's expose of philosophy, bolding a key phrase or two that seem to jump out at me:
quote:
This search for truth began, in the Western world, when the Greeks first established (c.600 B.C.) inquiry independent of theological creeds. Philosophy is distinguished from theology in that philosophy rejects dogma and deals with speculation rather than faith. Philosophy differs from science in that both the natural and the social sciences base their theories wholly on established fact, whereas philosophy also covers areas of inquiry where no facts as such are available.1 Originally, science as such did not exist and philosophy covered the entire field, but as facts became available and tentative certainties emerged, the sciences broke away from metaphysical speculation to pursue their different aims. Thus physics was once in the realm of philosophy, and it was only in the early 20th cent. that psychology was established as a science apart from philosophy. However, many of the greatest philosophers were also scientists, and philosophy still considers the methods (as opposed to the materials) of science as its province.
Philosophy is traditionally divided into several branches. Metaphysics inquires into the nature and ultimate significance of the universe. Logic is concerned with the laws of valid reasoning. Epistemology investigates the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing. Ethics deals with problems of right conduct. Aesthetics attempts to determine the nature of beauty and the criteria of artistic judgment. Within metaphysics a division is made according to fundamental principles. The three major positions are idealism, which maintains that what is real is in the form of thought rather than matter; materialism, which considers matter and the motion of matter as the universal reality; and dualism, which gives thought and matter equal status. Naturalism and positivism are forms of materialism.2
1. Although a number of people on this thread have attempted to claim that science, etc, is "philosophy" - in fact, that everything is philosophy - the quoted passage seems to show that this is not actually the case. The quote clearly distinguishes between "philosophy" and "science". My distaste (for lack of a better word) for "philosophy" stems from the latter part of the bolded sentence, which indicates that "philosphy" as defined above is speculation without any basis in fact (or to be kind, speculation in the absence of fact). I think this point is directly relevant to crash's argument concerning rigor. If there are absolutely no facts/observations/data upon which to base one's speculations, how can there possibly be any rigor? Or for that matter, any relationship to what exists? Of course, I expect crash's "churlish" philosophers on this thread to immediately seize on my use of the word "exists" here and attempt to obfuscate the issue by some sort of sophistry along the lines of "How do you know what 'exists'? yada yada Only philosophy can tell you." or words to that effect. To forestall that quibble, I would merely point out that when I trip over a rock and fall on my face in the mud, I can bloody well determine beyond reasonable doubt that the rock exists - regardless and in spite of any philosophical maunderings concerning the nature of existence.
2. I will cheerfully concede that Mod has a good point that I overlooked or at the very least glossed over in the OP. Not all philosophical positions are necessarily vapid, if we consider the position of materialism/naturalism to be a philosophical position. Of course, it remains to be determined if the existence of a rock is a philosophical position. The other two described positions ARE what I considered to be utter bunk in the OP - useless, vapid, pointless, impractical wastes of talent, time, and space. Nothing presented on this thread to date has convinced me otherwise. In this, my philosophical position appears completely congruent and consistent with crash's. (An exception could be made for the use of logic as a tool - but not in the absence of supporting facts used to determine the validity of logical premises. Pure logic, on the other hand...)
Enjoyed the discussion. Thanks to all who participated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2007 2:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2007 10:45 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 244 by Silent H, posted 11-10-2007 11:54 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 257 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-12-2007 5:58 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 258 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-12-2007 6:38 AM Quetzal has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 260 of 307 (433494)
11-12-2007 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Archer Opteryx
11-12-2007 5:58 AM


Let's see, I could probably wade back through 245 posts and pick out bits that support my contention - that you cherry-picked out of a longer response, but I'll just use your own most recent post as a response:
AO writes:
Until you wake up, and find out it was all a dream. Then you conclude the opposite: that the rock you thought was real never existed.
So again the question arises: How do you know?
It's a question worth asking anywhere knowledge itself is a goal.
In short, you claim we are unable to know absolutely anything about the world without engaging in silly discussions about the nature of existence, the philosophy of knowledge, etc. What utter nonsense. I can tell whether something was a dream or not depending on whether I am actually covered in mud and my toe hurts. If I am (and it does), then for all intents and purposes the trip was "real". If not, then it wasn't. There is no need whatsoever to delve into some bizarre musing on the nature of reality. My toe hurts - end of story.
You say you don't like to be bothered with asking it. You prefer to leave certain questions unasked and take their answers for granted. If a rock seems real to you, it is.
You think the question boils down to personal preference? Fine. However, before you declare victory over the ignorant semi-literate plebes who "prefer" to think a rock on which they have stubbed their toes actually exists, riddle me this: if one seeks to understand the nature, mechanics and operation of the observable universe - in which I would assume most of us "exist" - what method would be of the most use? Philosophical maunderings on the nature of existence, or methodological naturalism (which, undoubtedly, you will consider as falling under the rubric of "philosophy" - and which I have already conceded to Mod in a previous post when I said "Not all philosophical positions are necessarily vapid")?
Quite beyond the relative merits of science vs. metaphysics, religion, etc, perhaps in part it is the arrogance and patronizing attitude of so-called "philosophers" - epitomized by several of your previous posts on this thread - that has led me to the conclusion that philosophy writ large is a waste of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-12-2007 5:58 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 12:48 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 289 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-13-2007 3:13 PM Quetzal has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024