HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

The Philosophical Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-23-2012, 09:49 AM
  #51
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 50
Couple of points:

a) I won't fight to death over my statement that studying philosophy could ruin some of the personal creativity of a potential philosopher , mainly because I never did study philosophy in an academic setting , so I'll just concede this one for the moment.

b) I disagree that fresh minds and fresh ideas don't exist , they always do even if they are rare.I'm not saying they aren't building on some already constructed strutures , but they have to at least built one new step all by themselves.Maybe their ideas was once ''thought'' by another person , but as long as this person didn't make it known it doesn't really matter does it? Explaining why you agree or disagree with a philosopher is good for practicing debating skills , but in the end what are you creating? It's like mathematic , a mathematician from 2000 years ago couldn't invent calculus because the existing structures weren't there yet for him to built a new step on it.It's like trying to built the 17th floor of a building before the 1st one , therefore it's not so hard to believe someone could ''invent'' this 17th floor , since a relatively low number of people had the opportunity to work from the 16th floor before him.

c) The only thing I've read of Nietzsche is Zarathustra , it's a long time ago and maybe I wasn't ready for this book , but I have to say the bible-like style of it got on my nerves.

d) As for the originality in argumentation , you are correct.I guess any philosophy that goes too far from the metaphysical is not my cup of tea.

e) Philosophy is clearly exposing my limitations in debating in the english language , everytime I attempt to do it I find myself spending more than 50% of my brain on finding the right words or how to phrase my ideas correctly.This does not happen in most subjects.

f) about the last quote , I was trying to say that since no philosophical theories could be proven to the extent that a mathematical one can , it might be better to actually try to create fresh ideas instead of being content in being creative in the agreement or the disagreement of another theory (not that I'm saying you shouldn't do it often , but not all the time)


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 11-23-2012 at 09:58 AM.
BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 09:56 AM
  #52
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,781
vCash: 500



Doppler Drift is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 11:02 AM
  #53
Epictetus
Global Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,516
vCash: 4200
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
Couple of points:

a) I won't fight to death over my statement that studying philosophy could ruin some of the personal creativity of a potential philosopher , mainly because I never did study philosophy in an academic setting , so I'll just concede this one for the moment.
I do understand what you are saying. Lots of contemporary scholars in the field of philosophy feel that anything produced in philosophy after the 1960's possesses no philosophic significance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
I disagree that fresh minds and fresh ideas don't exist , they always do even if they are rare.I'm not saying they aren't building on some already constructed strutures , but they have to at least built one new step all by themselves.Maybe their ideas was once ''thought'' by another person , but as long as this person didn't make it known it doesn't really matter does it? Explaining why you agree or disagree with a philosopher is good for practicing debating skills , but in the end what are you creating? It's like mathematic , a mathematician from 2000 years ago couldn't invent calculus because the existing structures weren't there yet for him to built a new step on it.It's like trying to built the 17th floor of a building before the 1st one , therefore it's not so hard to believe someone could ''invent'' this 17th floor , since a relatively low number of people had the opportunity to work from the 16th floor before him.
This goes to the nature of philosophy itself. You start by a belief (which anyone can have), and the process must then be argued for either through reason or observation.

For example, many people believe in God. However, what if somebody does not believe in God? How do you prove it? These thoughts have existed forever, and I hope are not original. However, the proof for the demonstration of the existence of God can be completely original. And when somebody does create an original proof or argument, it's within the nature of philosophy to test and push this argument to deduct flaws in logic or reasoning. This is why you rarely see a breakthrough -- for philosophy it must reach a level of certainty. Throughtout the history of philosophy, it can be argued there are as many good objections as there are good arguments.

To illustrate, the mathematican will search for a proof to show 1 + 1 = 2; but the philosopher will search for the meaning of this, or if 2 must always be a necessary result. The thought can be the same, but the argumentation is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
c) The only thing I've read of Nietzsche is Zarathustra , it's a long time ago and maybe I wasn't ready for this book , but I have to say the bible-like style of it got on my nerves.
It's a great piece and explores some deep profound questions about God and what our lives would be like if we rejected him. Nietzsche was an athiest, so a lot of his points on the bible are actually subtle, sarcastic remarks. His writing style can be frustrating to some, but completely amusing to others. It's interesting because he actually had no philosophic background -- so he broke tradition in the field of philosophy and did his own thing. So in a sense, as I said before, he ''changed the question''.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
e) Philosophy is clearly exposing my limitations in debating in the english language , everytime I attempt to do it I find myself spending more than 50% of my brain on finding the right words or how to phrase my ideas correctly.This does not happen in most subjects.
This happens to a lot of us, not just those limited by English as a second-language. Even mathematicans who have great proofs struggle to connect it to others in fields of mathematics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
about the last quote , I was trying to say that since no philosophical theories could be proven to the extent that a mathematical one can , it might be better to actually try to create fresh ideas instead of being content in being creative in the agreement or the disagreement of another theory (not that I'm saying you shouldn't do it often , but not all the time)
How are mathemathical theories more proven than philosophic theories?

Epictetus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 11:18 AM
  #54
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
How are mathemathical theories more proven than philosophic theories?
I have to go soon so I'll just answer that one for the moment.

That's why I said ''to the extent''.I'm aware you can't really ''prove'' anything , but what I meant was that a lot of mathematical ideas are accepted by pretty much every mathematicians , while this is not the case for philosophy.

That 1+1=2 isn't so much about understanding 1 or 2 (though it is of course) , but what + and = really represent in reality.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 11-23-2012 at 11:24 AM.
BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 08:52 PM
  #55
Francesa
(╯°□°)╯︵ SƖ ןɥu ɐǝ
 
Francesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 182,917
vCash: 500

Francesa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 09:36 PM
  #56
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,349
vCash: 500
Inspired by ixcunicle's avatar:

The Question Concerning Cheese -- the Intersection of Power, Capitalism, and Ethics in Urban Culture.



slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 10:05 PM
  #57
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,349
vCash: 500
Add this to Doppler's list:



slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 11:11 PM
  #58
Garo
Registered User
 
Garo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montréal
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,522
vCash: 500
Clearly offside.

Garo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:51 AM
  #59
Hippasus
1,9,45,165,495,1287,
 
Hippasus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
Not sure if this is a good thing or not



To be honest, I find Hegel and his Phenomenology of the Spirit to be a much more difficult reading.

Anybody else, agree or disagree?
I found Kant harder than Heidegger or Hegel but none of these three are easy. Kant has such little flow but all have involved terminology. I was reading translations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisen View Post
It's still very intricate and the sentence structure makes you get lost a lot of times. I was born and raised in Germany and have humanities education. I can't read that without problems. I found that the sentence structures in English translations was far easier to understand. On a lexical level, I'm with you though.
The word order has pretty precise rules though. A lot of philosophers in history wrote what would today be called run-on sentences. So when I used to read them I just separated out the sentences within the sentences by the semi-colons or commas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
Karl Marx? Nice.

His philosophy is very interesting to study if you remove its ratification to other social sciences. He's much like Freud in this respect.
What do you mean by that last sentence?


Last edited by Hippasus: 11-26-2012 at 10:17 AM.
Hippasus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 12:11 PM
  #60
Panteras
perennial loser
 
Panteras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Television sky
Country: United States
Posts: 6,970
vCash: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
Karl Marx? Nice.

His philosophy is very interesting to study if you remove its ratification to other social sciences. He's much like Freud in this respect
Care to elaborate what these ramifications were and to which social sciences and why this made it un-interesting?


Last edited by Panteras: 11-26-2012 at 12:32 PM.
Panteras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 01:12 PM
  #61
Epictetus
Global Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,516
vCash: 4200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippasus View Post
I found Kant harder than Heidegger or Hegel but none of these three are easy. Kant has such little flow but all have involved terminology. I was reading translations.
Are you talking about Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? If so yeah, this is difficult text as well. However, with Kant, I found that reading the Preface helped tremendously (at least with the course I took, not in terms of intellectually grasping all of Kant's thought in the real text).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippasus View Post
What do you mean by that last sentence?
See reply to Panteras below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panteras View Post
Care to elaborate what these ramifications were and to which social sciences and why this made it un-interesting?
Sure.

Karl Marx is seen as a huge father in sociology and economics, while Freud is seen as a huge father of psychology and other subjects related to the unconscious.

If you remove their contributions to those respective fields (i.e., do not look at their contributions to those fields but to philosophy), and study them as purely philosophers, their philosophic significance is very interesting.

For example, Karl Marx, the philosopher, provides a great critique on the history of philosophy and the material world which gets under-appreciated for some ideal world. Hence, the quote you posted.

Same with Freud; his outlook on repression provides some neat comparisons to say Nietzsche's ressentment or Marx's theory of alienation.

Implicit to my point is that these guys are often under-appreciated in a philosophic paradigm since their contributions later on to other subjects shadows over their philosophic significance. If you look at them strictly in a philosophic sense, it leads to some interesting thoughts.

Epictetus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 06:13 PM
  #62
Panteras
perennial loser
 
Panteras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Television sky
Country: United States
Posts: 6,970
vCash: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
Sure.

Karl Marx is seen as a huge father in sociology and economics, while Freud is seen as a huge father of psychology and other subjects related to the unconscious.

If you remove their contributions to those respective fields (i.e., do not look at their contributions to those fields but to philosophy), and study them as purely philosophers, their philosophic significance is very interesting.

For example, Karl Marx, the philosopher, provides a great critique on the history of philosophy and the material world which gets under-appreciated for some ideal world. Hence, the quote you posted.

Same with Freud; his outlook on repression provides some neat comparisons to say Nietzsche's ressentment or Marx's theory of alienation.

Implicit to my point is that these guys are often under-appreciated in a philosophic paradigm since their contributions later on to other subjects shadows over their philosophic significance. If you look at them strictly in a philosophic sense, it leads to some interesting thoughts.
so you're saying that if you remove their "contributions" to their specific fields and just look at them as philosophers, it's interesting, otherwise it's not? yeah I'm confused...

the thing is that you want to look at them as "philosophers" while they are much more practical than that, they weren't just thinkers, but true empirical and theoretical scientists just as much as Darwin was in the natural sciences...

If you read Marx's 18th Brumaire of Luis Bonaparte for example, you'll see that he skillfully analyzes and ingeniously creates the basis of his argument based on true historical occurrences , and finally reaching deductible conclusion which falls more as a practical theory than a mere philosophical viewpoint...


Last edited by Panteras: 11-26-2012 at 06:31 PM.
Panteras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 06:49 PM
  #63
Epictetus
Global Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,516
vCash: 4200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panteras View Post
so you're saying that if you remove their "contributions" to their specific fields and just look at them as philosophers, it's interesting, otherwise it's not? yeah I'm confused...
No. If you study Marx, Freud, etc. as philosophers in a philosophic paradigm they can provide an interesting aspect to the field of philosophy.

Marx, through a sociological lenses, so to speak, will be interesting in a different way from that of philosophic lens. The philosophic lens for these guys are often under-appreciated because of their contributions to other fields. So by overlooking their contributions to other fields, you can begin to appreciate their philosophic significance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panteras View Post
the thing is that you want to look at them as "philosophers" while they are much more practical than that, they weren't just thinkers, but true empirical and theoretical scientists just as much as Darwin was in the natural sciences...
They were that, yes. Who is denying that?

Darwin is another example. Look at Darwinism in a philosophic paradigm and it provides another lens to interpret the world, which is interesting aside from how good of a scientific theory it was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panteras View Post
If you read Marx's 18th Brumaire of Luis Bonaparte for example, you'll see that he skillfully analyzes and ingeniously creates the basis of his argument based on true historical occurrences , and finally reaching deductible conclusion which falls more as a practical theory than a mere philosophical viewpoint...
Yes, Marx also does this (i.e., using historical occurrences) for materialism -- how material structures give rise to consciousness. He looks specifically at a history of production to do this.
This has enormous contributions to economics, sociology, institutions, etc.

However, if you look at it through a philosophic lens, you are looking at a complete reverse of our thought -- ideas don't influence our institutions, but the institutions itself can alienate or transcend man; thus, influencing us. For example, the concept of God is just purely abstract (i.e., no basis in the material world), we through our institutions then transcend it above man and alienate ourselves limiting our progressiveness.

So again, their philosophic contributions are often overlooked. Marx, to me, was just as great of a philosopher; he changed the question. Hence, 'philosophers have to change the world'.

Epictetus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 07:24 PM
  #64
Hippasus
1,9,45,165,495,1287,
 
Hippasus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
I have to go soon so I'll just answer that one for the moment.

That's why I said ''to the extent''.I'm aware you can't really ''prove'' anything , but what I meant was that a lot of mathematical ideas are accepted by pretty much every mathematicians , while this is not the case for philosophy.

That 1+1=2 isn't so much about understanding 1 or 2 (though it is of course) , but what + and = really represent in reality.
Personally I think the meanings and references of zero, one, and twoness are even more provocative than equality and operators like addition. The former can have a more general metaphysical interest while the latter are more questions in philosophy of math and language. The latter do not refer but are rather signs that must be understood in the context of a mathematical statement. Both sides are interesting though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
Are you talking about Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? If so yeah, this is difficult text as well. However, with Kant, I found that reading the Preface helped tremendously (at least with the course I took, not in terms of intellectually grasping all of Kant's thought in the real text).
Yeah, the First Critique had me lost when I first tried to read it. If I understood a bit more about the system from a broader vantage point, i.e. Kant's system as a whole, then that might have helped me. The preface and introduction were okay to understand, and the Prolegomena too.

Hippasus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 08:25 PM
  #65
The Moose
Registered User
 
The Moose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
How are mathemathical theories more proven than philosophic theories?
I am not sure what you mean by "more proven". Something is proven or is not proven. But to entertain your line of thought, the difference between the rigour of a mathematical proof and and the argumentation in support of a philosophical theory (I purposely avoid the word 'proof') is as night and day. First of all, unlike philosophy, the object of study in mathematics is always well defined, unambiguous and its properties are not a matter of personal opinion. Secondly, mathematics is entirely non-empirical (I am talking about mathematics, not about the application of mathematics) and the conclusion Y that follows from hypotheses X is valid without a shadow of a doubt (as long the argumentation is logically valid). Nobody sane will question the validity of Pythagoras' Theorem, as long they understand the setting of the statement (Euclidean geometry) and the proof.

The same infallible approach is practically impossible in Philosophy. Any argument about, say, the soul, is hampered right from the beginning by the lack of a unambiguous definition of the term. There is nothing wrong with that, but just be aware that whatever conclusion you form will never have the same validity as Pythagoras' Theorem.


Last edited by The Moose: 11-26-2012 at 08:33 PM.
The Moose is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 01:40 PM
  #66
Hippasus
1,9,45,165,495,1287,
 
Hippasus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
Are you talking about Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? If so yeah, this is difficult text as well. However, with Kant, I found that reading the Preface helped tremendously (at least with the course I took, not in terms of intellectually grasping all of Kant's thought in the real text).
I forgot to mention the Critique of Judgment. A highly interesting and confusing text.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Moose View Post
I am not sure what you mean by "more proven". Something is proven or is not proven. But to entertain your line of thought, the difference between the rigour of a mathematical proof and and the argumentation in support of a philosophical theory (I purposely avoid the word 'proof') is as night and day. First of all, unlike philosophy, the object of study in mathematics is always well defined, unambiguous and its properties are not a matter of personal opinion. Secondly, mathematics is entirely non-empirical (I am talking about mathematics, not about the application of mathematics) and the conclusion Y that follows from hypotheses X is valid without a shadow of a doubt (as long the argumentation is logically valid). Nobody sane will question the validity of Pythagoras' Theorem, as long they understand the setting of the statement (Euclidean geometry) and the proof.

The same infallible approach is practically impossible in Philosophy. Any argument about, say, the soul, is hampered right from the beginning by the lack of a unambiguous definition of the term. There is nothing wrong with that, but just be aware that whatever conclusion you form will never have the same validity as Pythagoras' Theorem.
Philosophy is largely non-empirical, and thus not entirely unlike mathematics. I believe these are a couple truths--either proven or sufficiently self-evident to be held to be true. I guess one could argue that this is informal logic as well, but I fail to see how it couldn’t also be called philosophy. The first is from Frege and the second is sort of inspired by Descartes. The arguments may have gaps in them, as is prone to happen in ordinary language, but I could try to fill them out better if someone points out to me what’s missing. If they were properly filled-out in this way, one could claim that they are proven or supposed as self-evident, and be correct is believing that. It would also not be hard for me to come up with other examples.

(1) Concepts and thoughts are objective entities which exist irrespectively of whether or not they’re intuited or perceived by a conscious agent. Concepts are unsaturated in that they have to be instantiated by an argument or object in the context of a proposition. Here is an example of the empty form of a concept: (a) ‘( ) is a green elephant’. When an argument or object is instantiated into the argument-place we have a truth function, which by definition maps the resulting proposition onto the true or the false. If I instantiate the object ‘Ales Hemsky’ into the argument-place the result is a truth function which maps onto the false. Now numbers are extensions of concepts. All pairs that may be determinately conceptualized as pairs correspond to the number two. So I can expand the proposition as follows: (b) ‘Zero is the number to which the statement ‘Ales Hemsky is a green elephant’ applies.’ Now we have a proposition which maps onto the true. Concepts have to be determinate and well-defined in order for truth functional mappings to occur--there can be no ambiguity. So I’d say that truth is a regulative idea to which we aspire in earnest discourse or thought, which may or may not adhere to the state of affairs or existence depending on the conditions. However, just because I said truth is a regulative idea doesn’t mean that it isn’t sometimes realized in an indubitable manner.

(2) ‘Existence is not an ill-formed term. Existence exists and is the same as reality. Truth is a characteristic of any statement or thought which reflects existence in any way provided that that statement does not undercut itself in any way.’ One could take the statement in single quotation marks directly above and apply it to Descartes’ cogito. It is absolutely true that something exists by virtue of a self-reflective thought--perhaps we can say that merely existence pure and simple exists through the cogito. At least this is an indubitable truth. If we are self-conscious, then we are thus committed to truth at least at this basic level.


Last edited by Hippasus: 11-27-2012 at 01:48 PM.
Hippasus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 01:43 PM
  #67
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,497
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
I disagree with the notion that a thought excerise holds no truth.
Never said anything to the contrary. Simply that stating something as true because it's possible doesn't work for me. One needs more than possibilities to say whether something is true. That doesn't mean that what one says is possible is not true unless it's probable, just that claiming that it is true is irrational unless we're talking about philosophical deduction (ie: a = b = c, ∴ a = c).

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 10:30 AM
  #68
Epictetus
Global Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,516
vCash: 4200
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Moose View Post
I am not sure what you mean by "more proven". Something is proven or is not proven. But to entertain your line of thought, the difference between the rigour of a mathematical proof and and the argumentation in support of a philosophical theory (I purposely avoid the word 'proof') is as night and day. First of all, unlike philosophy, the object of study in mathematics is always well defined, unambiguous and its properties are not a matter of personal opinion. Secondly, mathematics is entirely non-empirical (I am talking about mathematics, not about the application of mathematics) and the conclusion Y that follows from hypotheses X is valid without a shadow of a doubt (as long the argumentation is logically valid). Nobody sane will question the validity of Pythagoras' Theorem, as long they understand the setting of the statement (Euclidean geometry) and the proof.

The same infallible approach is practically impossible in Philosophy. Any argument about, say, the soul, is hampered right from the beginning by the lack of a unambiguous definition of the term. There is nothing wrong with that, but just be aware that whatever conclusion you form will never have the same validity as Pythagoras' Theorem.
I was asking what the poster meant by mathematics is 'more proven' than philosophy, which is why I asked him the question citing the words 'more proven'. So, you've misinterpreted that as my view.

And what you've described was something like 'prove-ability', where mathematics may or may not be easier to provide a valid proof.

I say 'may or may not' because there are some arguments from self-evident axioms that is regarded within the field of philosophy to be on par with mathematics. Hippasus has cited some.

However, I disagree with this whole comparison since it's not the nature of philosophy to actually prove something but instead to suggest if the proof for X is valid or is not valid. This is, roughly speaking, why you get fields such as 'Philosophy of X'. So in a sense, mathematics (the kind that you defined) fits the criteria of what philosophy would deem valid. Hence, the question is ultimately different than from a direct comparison between philosophy and mathematics in terms of 'prove-ability'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
Never said anything to the contrary. Simply that stating something as true because it's possible doesn't work for me. One needs more than possibilities to say whether something is true. That doesn't mean that what one says is possible is not true unless it's probable, just that claiming that it is true is irrational unless we're talking about philosophical deduction (ie: a = b = c, ∴ a = c).
Thought-experiments can entertain possibilities, and from these possibilities deduce which possibility is the most probable (i.e., likely to occur). Or, they can deduce which possibility does stand to criticism. The latter surely has some element of being true and serving a practical purpose (which is why I was responding to your post). The former needs to be argued for, but it can probably be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to say. Not everything can be realistically deduced, and the criticism that thought-experiments are subjected to are scientific in nature if they're meant to be shown as true.
I think you are assuming that all thought-experiments are some metaphysical conception. There are thought-experiments, for example, in ethics (a subfield of philosophy), that rationally hypothesize how it is a person should act in a particular situation based on possibilities in front of them. Think Trolley Problem, Experience Machine, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
And no, something which is deduced as a possibility doesn't necessarily have any element of truth in it, at least without real world testing to support it.
I said that you go from possibilities to a probable possibility. How does that probability then not hold any element of truth since it is, as it was defined, likely to occur? Remember, I am not talking about some thought-experiment concerning God or something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
Also, I'm not trying to say there's no use to philosophy, just that I prefer to know what science says over philosophic thoughts on a topic.
Fair enough.


Last edited by Epictetus: 11-28-2012 at 11:13 AM. Reason: Added your other post.
Epictetus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 10:55 AM
  #69
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,497
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
Thought-experiments can entertain possibilities, and from these possibilities deduce which possibility is the most probable (i.e., likely to occur). Or, they can deduce which possibility does stand to criticism. The latter surely has some element of being true and serving a practical purpose (which is why I was responding to your post). The former needs to be argued for, but it can probably be done.
I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to say. Not everything can be realistically deduced, and the criticism that thought-experiments are subjected to are scientific in nature if they're meant to be shown as true.

And no, something which is deduced as a possibility doesn't necessarily have any element of truth in it, at least without real world testing to support it.

Also, I'm not trying to say there's no use to philosophy, just that I prefer to know what science says over philosophic thoughts on a topic.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 07:13 PM
  #70
NYRFANMANI
beyond good and evil
 
NYRFANMANI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ye Old Saarbrücken
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to say. Not everything can be realistically deduced, and the criticism that thought-experiments are subjected to are scientific in nature if they're meant to be shown as true.

And no, something which is deduced as a possibility doesn't necessarily have any element of truth in it, at least without real world testing to support it.

Also, I'm not trying to say there's no use to philosophy, just that I prefer to know what science says over philosophic thoughts on a topic.

Are you aware of the facts that philosophic thought on a topic, thought tousands of years ago, eventually lead to that what you call "science" today! Come on man. Pure ignorance.

Philosophy was/is the first science! It means "Friend of Wisdom" (gr.: philos = friend/ sophia=wisdom/godess)

Everything (I mean literally everything) started with one dude/s somewhere/all over the place asking himself/themselves: What is this? Where am I? How does this "thing" work?

These people ended up engineering stuff, did you know?! Everything that works today is Philosophers work (in its first shape)!


Leafy, I am pretty sure, you try to tell yourself that you know what the **** is going on, but you just are not. Science demands obedience, yet is it deduced from phantasy. You obviously chose to obey.


And yes, anything can be deduced! Anything. God is love, the rest is money, and science.

NYRFANMANI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 07:46 PM
  #71
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,497
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
I think you are assuming that all thought-experiments are some metaphysical conception. There are thought-experiments, for example, in ethics (a subfield of philosophy), that rationally hypothesize how it is a person should act in a particular situation based on possibilities in front of them. Think Trolley Problem, Experience Machine, etc.
I think your example fails for the simple reason that fields like ethics and morality, etc, are not "true or false" questions, but rather comparative extremes. My point about science vs philosophy doesn't apply when you're dealing with comparative extremes. IMO, when you're doing the latter, you're arguing opinions through philosophical and logical processes, not facts. Those activities are interesting, but I don't tend to find them overly important (the exception would be legal philosophy).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
I said that you go from possibilities to a probable possibility. How does that probability then not hold any element of truth since it is, as it was defined, likely to occur? Remember, I am not talking about some thought-experiment concerning God or something.
But the possibilities that don't go to probable possibilities don't hold any element of truth, at least as far as we can see it, no? So why should I find 3 possibilities without any information as to probabilities of interest if they're equally possible? Two are likely going to be untrue, and if they're all possible, I have no idea which of the two are wrong. As I said, it's interesting, but as far a truth in the real world, it's useless until probability is factored in.

Quick note: of course, as a scientist testing the possibilities to figure out the probabilities, I would care, but as a layman not working in a scientific field, I am only interested in findings after they're shown as probable. I don't care much about what possibilities are being tested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN88 View Post
Are you aware of the facts that philosophic thought on a topic, thought tousands of years ago, eventually lead to that what you call "science" today! Come on man. Pure ignorance.
Argument from association. Your point has no relevance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN88 View Post
Philosophy was/is the first science! It means "Friend of Wisdom" (gr.: philos = friend/ sophia=wisdom/godess)
Science is defined as knowledge. Wisdom is something entirely different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN88 View Post
Leafy, I am pretty sure, you try to tell yourself that you know what the **** is going on, but you just are not. Science demands obedience, yet is it deduced from phantasy. You obviously chose to obey.
Uh huh. And no, I don't tell myself that I know what the **** is going on. In fact, as Socrates once said, it's the only the truly wise that knows that he does not know, and it's the foolish, insane and delusional that believes he knows all with absolute certainty.

I have a good idea of what the **** is going on, but I would never claim to know.

You, on the other hand...

Typical projection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN88 View Post
And yes, anything can be deduced!
Yes, absolutely right.

But, if you reread my post, what I said was most things cannot be reasonably deduced. Some phenomena have thousands upon thousands of possibilities of their cause. It'd be unrealistic to try to figure out which one is right via deduction.


Last edited by Leafsdude7: 11-28-2012 at 07:56 PM.
Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 08:02 PM
  #72
NYRFANMANI
beyond good and evil
 
NYRFANMANI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ye Old Saarbrücken
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post

Uh huh. And no, I don't tell myself that I know what the **** is going on. In fact, as Socrates once said, it's the only the truly wise that knows that he does not know, and it's the foolish, insane and delusional that believes he knows all with absolute certainty.

I have a good idea of what the **** is going on, but I would never claim to know.

You, on the other hand...

Typical projection.
Socrates kills me here. True. The enviorement has changed though, so will this quote.

In an insane, foolish and dilusional world, the wise mans truth lies somewhere else.

NYRFANMANI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 03:22 PM
  #73
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,050
vCash: 500
I don't want to be one of those guys, but Philosophy means love of wisdom, not friend of wisdom.

Philo = Love
Sophia= wisdom

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 12:00 PM
  #74
NYRFANMANI
beyond good and evil
 
NYRFANMANI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ye Old Saarbrücken
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,305
vCash: 500
Fine. Love of Wisdom, doesn't change a bit, the fact that philosophy was science. Thesedays its become a pertentious, pseudo-fantastic *****-waving. They don't care for the world or its status or its outcome. They, the modern age philosophers have also become deceivers.

NYRFANMANI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 11:38 AM
  #75
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,497
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN88 View Post
Fine. Love of Wisdom, doesn't change a bit, the fact that philosophy was science. Thesedays its become a pertentious, pseudo-fantastic *****-waving. They don't care for the world or its status or its outcome. They, the modern age philosophers have also become deceivers.
Philosophy is not science.

...Unless you mean that philosophy was the equivalent of science today for that period. In that case, the fact that technological progress was nowhere near that of the modern age should show you how successful of a method it was.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:41 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.