Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 133 of 133
Like Tree25Likes

Thread: How will philosophy survive?

  1. #101  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    I can't compete with the wisdom of Bugs Bunny. Yet, strangely I think I can compete with the wisdom of most philosophers, and so can anybody who knows just a little science.
    Wittgenstein locked himself away for years in order to produce the Tractatus. It's a pity with his mind he didn't turn it to science. No one person can understand the nature of reality which has to be built on by successive generations, and these days a lot of resource. Philosophers do not do that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    philsopophy invariable suffers at the hands of the sophists
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    I'm not sure it suffers. Though maybe it becomes lost, devoid of soul.

    But yeah, agreed.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Philosophers do not do that.
    Given your demonstrable ignorance of philosophy I do not see how you can back up that claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Philosophers do not do that.
    Given your demonstrable ignorance of philosophy I do not see how you can back up that claim.
    You are fit to judge because?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by TimeLord View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Philosophers do not do that.
    Given your demonstrable ignorance of philosophy I do not see how you can back up that claim.
    You are fit to judge because?
    Fit or not, John Galt is telling it as it is! I believe Poor Ox is suffering from a memetic disease...
    I thought he was on the way to recovery but now Im afraid he is getting delusional:
    He seems to believe Bugs Bunny to be his only superior.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    philsophy invariable suffers at the hands of the sophists
    Hi sculptor!
    I would like some examples...I cant recall reading any sophists,
    all my knowledge about them is just that: Ive heard about them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    philsophy invariable suffers at the hands of the sophists
    Hi sculptor!
    I would like some examples...I cant recall reading any sophists,
    all my knowledge about them is just that: Ive heard about them.
    Well, if we could first examine what you mean when you say "examples" and "sophists."

    If you want to find an example of a sophist you must first define it. The sophist seems to be related to the philo-sopher in terms of their interest in knowledge. While the philo-sopher loves knowledge the sophist seems to be know for only manipulating such knowledge. But how is this different. If they love to manipulate knowledge they must also love knowledge, for manipulating knowledge requires first having knowledge.... Okay, I don't think my logic skills are good enough to handle this mascaraed

    Not sure I've seen any in this thread... my memory is failing me at this hour..
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    If you want to find an example of a sophist you must first define it.
    It seems that a good working definition might be "A philosopher with whom I disagree."
    Sophism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    If you want to find an example of a sophist you must first define it.
    It seems that a good working definition might be "A philosopher with whom I disagree."
    Sophism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Good one. 'Bad philosophers' are always those with whom the speaker disagrees.
    It also applies specifically to the philosophy of science. If 'reality' depends on frame of reference (philosophy implicit in SR..."for" this frame as compared with "for" that frame) then there is no reality independent of different frames of reference measuring "it"... Reality.

    My "introduction" thread is based on that. Will a moderator pleease move it to the philosophy section? (Asked twice already in my intro thread.)
    I suggest leaving the OP and flagging the rest of the thread as "moved to philosophy."

    If no one cares, this will be my last post. (A pathetic appeal for a moderator's attention to a sincere request.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    philsophy invariable suffers at the hands of the sophists
    Hi sculptor!
    I would like some examples...I cant recall reading any sophists,
    all my knowledge about them is just that: Ive heard about them.
    Well, if we could first examine what you mean when you say "examples" and "sophists."

    If you want to find an example of a sophist you must first define it. The sophist seems to be related to the philo-sopher in terms of their interest in knowledge. While the philo-sopher loves knowledge the sophist seems to be know for only manipulating such knowledge. But how is this different. If they love to manipulate knowledge they must also love knowledge, for manipulating knowledge requires first having knowledge.... Okay, I don't think my logic skills are good enough to handle this mascaraed

    Not sure I've seen any in this thread... my memory is failing me at this hour..
    Not bad answer at all but the shoe of defining is not on my foot. I like your point ...Lovers of knowledge have to eat. And what else but their skill had they to offer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by mikiel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    If you want to find an example of a sophist you must first define it.
    It seems that a good working definition might be "A philosopher with whom I disagree."
    Sophism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Good one. 'Bad philosophers' are always those with whom the speaker disagrees.
    It also applies specifically to the philosophy of science. If 'reality' depends on frame of reference (philosophy implicit in SR..."for" this frame as compared with "for" that frame) then there is no reality independent of different frames of reference measuring "it"... Reality.

    My "introduction" thread is based on that. Will a moderator pleease move it to the philosophy section? (Asked twice already in my intro thread.)
    I suggest leaving the OP and flagging the rest of the thread as "moved to philosophy."

    If no one cares, this will be my last post. (A pathetic appeal for a moderator's attention to a sincere request.)
    Welcome!

    Moderators ... cant live with them...cant live without them...Take it easy make a new thread!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    83
    Thanks for the welcome. Isn't there always a rule against duplicating a trread title... unless a moderator approves and moves it to the appropriate section? If i just started a thread in the philosophy section with the same title... would that work? But that is a question for a moderartor, and they all seem to be avoiding my repeated request.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by TimeLord View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Philosophers do not do that.
    Given your demonstrable ignorance of philosophy I do not see how you can back up that claim.
    You are fit to judge because?
    There was no judgement. My statement consists of two parts:

    Part 1: Given your demonstrable ignorance of philosophy His ignorance is demonstrable and has been demonstrated on this thread by ox himself and by commentators on his posts. So no judgement was involved.
    Part 2: I do not see how you can back up that claim. I am expressing an opinion, not a judgement, an implicitly inviting ox to demonstrate that he can back up that claim. Again, no judegment involved.

    You are quite new here TimeLord - if I have not already done so, welcome. You will find that I make an effort to minimise ambiguity in my posts, as I have done in the post you questioned, so I am puzzled how you mistook my observations for judgement.

    Quote Originally Posted by mikiel
    Thanks for the welcome. Isn't there always a rule against duplicating a trread title... unless a moderator approves and moves it to the appropriate section? If i just started a thread in the philosophy section with the same title... would that work? But that is a question for a moderartor, and they all seem to be avoiding my repeated request.
    I see the thread was eventually moved. May I ask if you pm'ed any of the admin/mod team with your request? We don't have a system that ensures every post on every thread i read from top to bottom, so requests within a post can easily be overlooked. You might want to keep that in mind for the future.
    Last edited by John Galt; July 10th, 2012 at 01:34 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    I think Ox agreed that some philosophers are/were scientists but he denies that scientists are philosophers!

    Scientists are good, Philosophers bad he thinks... But he is wrong! A philosopher tries to solve a mystery...

    Tries to formulate a hypothesis where before only confusion reigned. So there it is:

    Philosophers are Scientists opening up new scientific territory.

    They are scientists BECAUSE they use the scientific method,wherever possible.

    (They also invented it.)

    As in all activities there are charlatans, who falsify evidence and so on, and its such persons Ox identifies as "Philosophers"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    To anyone who commented on my reply regarding sophists, I think I was wholly unclear. I was trying to pretend I was a sophist, by trying to twist truths with logic, by making a sophist sound like an innocent philosopher. I think I failed completely.

    The philosopher is such a person who, in my opinion, by some unknown force is compelled to seek and manipulate knowledge. Just as love for for another person in interpersonal relationships is a vast subject with who knows how many factors or causes, so is the relationship between the philosopher and knowledge.

    The sophist could be argued to love or seek knowledge but that is not what drives them. The sophist is driven by something related to the debate, I believe. The sophist has a deep understanding of logic, such that a sophist can make untruths sound true and truths sound untrue, and the sophist is known for using this skill for personal gain, rather than some other more righteous cause. Something like lawyers, who are not concerned with truths except when regarding how they pertain to the lawyers role in a trial. A homicidal philosopher on the other hand, would not do so well alone on trial, as they would be just as interested as the judge in determining the truth of the matter.

    The philosopher often is disturbed by this, because the philosopher's clear mind is not fooled by the sophistry, but to argue would be to participate, and also the philosopher is generally seeking true knowledge where the sophist is not concerned with objective truths but only with how a truth can be made untrue.

    The scientist is basically a philosopher who has a higher standard of knowledge, that is knowledge that is provable, or testable so as to make it reliable. The knowledge of the scientist is also such that it is passed on to continue the development of such reliable knowledge by future generations. Often, yes, the scientific method is applied, but one should not forget that this includes careful logical analysis of hypotheses before testing, or else the scientist would have to test any and every old idea of any philosopher or sophist or whoever else, and that would lead nowhere.

    Without the belief that it is possible to grasp the reality with our theoretical constructions, without the belief in the inner harmony of our world, there could be no science.
    ~Einstein in The Evolution of Physics
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by mikiel View Post
    Thanks for the welcome. Isn't there always a rule against duplicating a trread title... unless a moderator approves and moves it to the appropriate section? If i just started a thread in the philosophy section with the same title... would that work? But that is a question for a moderartor, and they all seem to be avoiding my repeated request.
    Welcome.

    I think unless you are deliberately or repeatedly violating "rules" basic common sense should be viable. Also, if a substantial thread is in the wrong place a pm, as already noted, should be fine. People are usually pretty efficient here.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    A very shorthand version contrasting sophistry to philosophy, would be:

    Philosophers are seekers of truth and understanding, who engage in rational investigations of truths and principles of knowledge with the goal of improving our understanding of them.
    Sophists, on the other hand use the words and tools of philosophy and logic in service to rhetoric which often means that the goal is to obfuscate or mislead.

    By the above, they are damned near polar opposits.

    (just my opinion)
    Last edited by sculptor; July 10th, 2012 at 09:19 AM.
    DaBOB likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mikiel View Post
    Thanks for the welcome. Isn't there always a rule against duplicating a trread title... unless a moderator approves and moves it to the appropriate section? If i just started a thread in the philosophy section with the same title... would that work? But that is a question for a moderartor, and they all seem to be avoiding my repeated request.
    Welcome.

    I think unless you are deliberately or repeatedly violating "rules" basic common sense should be viable. Also, if a substantial thread is in the wrong place a pm, as already noted, should be fine. People are usually pretty efficient here.
    Thanks again to you and to John Galt for your welcome and suggestions. I should have PM'ed the request to move my intro thread to Philosophy, but a moderator picked up on it and did it after I kept whining about it. Thanks.

    Getting a respectful philosophical discussion going on the specific points I raised is another matter. I'll be patient.
    Edit; Ps: Thanks also to sigurdW for the welcome and humor.
    Last edited by mikiel; July 10th, 2012 at 01:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    A very shorthand version contrasting sophistry to philosophy, would be:

    Philosophers are seekers of truth and understanding, who engage in rational investigations of truths and principles of knowledge with the goal of improving our understanding of them.
    Sophists, on the other hand use the words and tools of philosophy and logic in service to rhetoric which often means that the goal is to obfuscate or mislead.

    By the above, they are damned near polar opposits.

    (just my opinion)
    Did you have some examples of sophists in mind?
    I would note that our views of someone else's motives may be prejudiced according to whether we agree or disagree with them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    ... Did you have some examples of sophists in mind?
    ... .
    You mean, besides sigurdW?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    ... Did you have some examples of sophists in mind?
    ... .
    You mean, besides sigurdW?
    Hey that was a sobering thought! Perhaps I cause real damage sometimes when I only try to present truths in I way I consider witty? (You just wait Mr Wise guy Ill be watching you.) Nah! Ox is thick skinned, hell survive... Fact is there has been few break throughs in philosophy lately, Ive of course been somewhat isolated in my research but any important philosophical work should have reached me...So what new thinking has there been the last thirty years anyway? Maybe Ox unwittingly is on to something...some decline in analytical philosophical thinking? It happened before just see what happened to german philosophy after Kant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    83
    sigurdW:
    “Fact is there has been few break throughs in philosophy lately...”

    How did that opinion become a fact?... and... it’s “there have been”...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by mikiel View Post
    sigurdW:
    “Fact is there has been few break throughs in philosophy lately...”

    How did that opinion become a fact?... and... it’s “there have been”...
    Facts come to my attention now and then...but youre right, here we are talking negative facts: No important philosophical discoveries waits outside my door to be examined by an expert, so if I wasnt occupied with the comic books by Hegel at the moment I would be somewhat bored.

    And yes... I now and then tend to make some minor errors in my texts so ppl can get the satisfaction of proving me wrong!
    Also I throw coins on the street outside schools to enjoy the happiness of the kids when they find the unexpected in front of their feet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    So what new thinking has there been the last thirty years anyway? Maybe Ox unwittingly is on to something...some decline in analytical philosophical thinking? It happened before just see what happened to german philosophy after Kant.
    Welcome to my latest convert. I should always remember that everything is metaphor, including this post. Poets and philosophers thrive on it. Poets like to harmonize subjects like time within their view of reality. For them, it usually turns out that each living thing has only a brief moment of perfection. Philosophers tend to view time as some sort of paradox. Space is contained within time for instance, and not the other way around, and certainly not that the two might be unified.
    So while our way of thinking can never reflect the state of reality, we can at least form some dangerous ideas, and it is these that I think have largely replaced philosophy. There is still a bit of overlap between science and philosophy, but the gap is growing ever wider. Poetry was properly discredited by Paul Dirac. So I think we can wave goodbye to that.
    Is poetry dead too? Yes, I guess so.
    It seems to take a big flip in our consciousness to understand anything that science today is trying to tell us. So we have the unlikely event, from the brain's point of view, that genes don't exist for our benefit, but it is we (yes, we) that exist for their benefit. As for time, or spacetime, then it is not for the benefit of our observation. It is space and time itself that needs observers, and not the other way round. Time ticks by differently depending on your motion and position within the universe.
    Reality cannot be explained by one great philosophical idea, but only by an overlapping series of scientific ideas. The atoms that make up our bodies are exploring every possible history within the universe, and will still be doing so long after we are gone.
    This is where philosophy got it wrong. The tools it works with are inadequate. The only future for it is some form of quantum philosophy to replace the now obsolete classical version.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    All right. So, when are you going to shut up shuttin' up?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Besides a few side comments and discussions I have been primarily responding to questions posed by ox and the comments of sigurdW, both of whom have not responded to any of my responses. So, seeing as we are not having a two way discussion I will refrain from further posts on this thread.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    So what new thinking has there been the last thirty years anyway? Maybe Ox unwittingly is on to something...some decline in analytical philosophical thinking? It happened before just see what happened to german philosophy after Kant.
    Welcome to my latest convert. I should always remember that everything is metaphor, including this post. Poets and philosophers thrive on it. Poets like to harmonize subjects like time within their view of reality. For them, it usually turns out that each living thing has only a brief moment of perfection. Philosophers tend to view time as some sort of paradox. Space is contained within time for instance, and not the other way around, and certainly not that the two might be unified.
    So while our way of thinking can never reflect the state of reality, we can at least form some dangerous ideas, and it is these that I think have largely replaced philosophy. There is still a bit of overlap between science and philosophy, but the gap is growing ever wider. Poetry was properly discredited by Paul Dirac. So I think we can wave goodbye to that.
    Is poetry dead too? Yes, I guess so.
    It seems to take a big flip in our consciousness to understand anything that science today is trying to tell us. So we have the unlikely event, from the brain's point of view, that genes don't exist for our benefit, but it is we (yes, we) that exist for their benefit. As for time, or spacetime, then it is not for the benefit of our observation. It is space and time itself that needs observers, and not the other way round. Time ticks by differently depending on your motion and position within the universe.
    Reality cannot be explained by one great philosophical idea, but only by an overlapping series of scientific ideas. The atoms that make up our bodies are exploring every possible history within the universe, and will still be doing so long after we are gone.
    This is where philosophy got it wrong. The tools it works with are inadequate. The only future for it is some form of quantum philosophy to replace the now obsolete classical version.
    Heh! I give you a finger and you grab the hand I still deny you know anything about Philosophy so im inviting you to a short lecture im giving in:On the philosophy of Cantor

    Y
    our basic mistake is in thinking of philosophy and science as two distinct and different activities while they actually are the same! All scientists are philosophers (ha ha to you) but not all philosophers are scientists in the sense that the question they try to answer is not (yet) belonging to any defined science ...say the science of moral judgements. Come to think of it, the latest "break through" in philosophy that reached my attention was by some moral philosopher...Ryle I think he was called...You know all about it dont you? No philosophy can hide from your scrutiny eh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    Besides a few side comments and discussions I have been primarily responding to questions posed by ox and the comments of sigurdW, both of whom have not responded to any of my responses. So, seeing as we are not having a two way discussion I will refrain from further posts on this thread.
    Hi DaBOB! Im very sorry,and I apologize if I have unintentionally ignored you. I will now read everything you wrote in this thread...My immediate reaction while writing this post is that you never wrote anything I seriously and immediately recognized as an error in thinking! I now will see about that wont I?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    philsophy invariable suffers at the hands of the sophists
    Hi sculptor!
    I would like some examples...I cant recall reading any sophists,
    all my knowledge about them is just that: Ive heard about them.
    Well, if we could first examine what you mean when you say "examples" and "sophists."

    If you want to find an example of a sophist you must first define it. The sophist seems to be related to the philo-sopher in terms of their interest in knowledge. While the philo-sopher loves knowledge the sophist seems to be know for only manipulating such knowledge. But how is this different. If they love to manipulate knowledge they must also love knowledge, for manipulating knowledge requires first having knowledge.... Okay, I don't think my logic skills are good enough to handle this mascaraed

    Not sure I've seen any in this thread... my memory is failing me at this hour..
    Take this post...I think I agree! If the sophist can make money he must understand a lot about truth...Was it only the chanse to make money that motivated his studies to become what he now is? I dont think so... So I did not object to this post!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    To anyone who commented on my reply regarding sophists, I think I was wholly unclear. I was trying to pretend I was a sophist, by trying to twist truths with logic, by making a sophist sound like an innocent philosopher. I think I failed completely.

    The philosopher is such a person who, in my opinion, by some unknown force is compelled to seek and manipulate knowledge. Just as love for for another person in interpersonal relationships is a vast subject with who knows how many factors or causes, so is the relationship between the philosopher and knowledge.

    The sophist could be argued to love or seek knowledge but that is not what drives them. The sophist is driven by something related to the debate, I believe. The sophist has a deep understanding of logic, such that a sophist can make untruths sound true and truths sound untrue, and the sophist is known for using this skill for personal gain, rather than some other more righteous cause. Something like lawyers, who are not concerned with truths except when regarding how they pertain to the lawyers role in a trial. A homicidal philosopher on the other hand, would not do so well alone on trial, as they would be just as interested as the judge in determining the truth of the matter.

    The philosopher often is disturbed by this, because the philosopher's clear mind is not fooled by the sophistry, but to argue would be to participate, and also the philosopher is generally seeking true knowledge where the sophist is not concerned with objective truths but only with how a truth can be made untrue.

    The scientist is basically a philosopher who has a higher standard of knowledge, that is knowledge that is provable, or testable so as to make it reliable. The knowledge of the scientist is also such that it is passed on to continue the development of such reliable knowledge by future generations. Often, yes, the scientific method is applied, but one should not forget that this includes careful logical analysis of hypotheses before testing, or else the scientist would have to test any and every old idea of any philosopher or sophist or whoever else, and that would lead nowhere.

    Without the belief that it is possible to grasp the reality with our theoretical constructions, without the belief in the inner harmony of our world, there could be no science.
    ~Einstein in The Evolution of Physics
    And its the same here...this is a good post! Maybe a little too much is made to put the sophist in a bad light...He must eat and pay his rent remember! Twisting the truth simply is his job!

    Edit: Hey Ox! Lookyhere! Im not alone in believing scientists are philosophers!
    Last edited by sigurdW; July 12th, 2012 at 03:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Well thats enough! Im now certain the reason why we have not communicated is because I found no reason to oppose you.

    That is perhaps a weak excuse, but notice that once I saw you commenting my ignorance of your statements then I ACTED on it!

    Now I ask: Did you somewhere state anything you think I may object to?

    BTW: Thank you, you opened my eyes to the fact I should not only speak to ignorant people.

    Hey sigurd! Thats not strictly true you do speak with some people you dont oppose!

    Sorry sigurdV I always find something to critizise when I start speaking to someone!

    No sigurd just look at your opening up with Da...SHUT UP ALL OF US THIS IS PRIVATE BUSINESS!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Well thats enough! Im now certain the reason why we have not communicated is because I found no reason to oppose you.

    That is perhaps a weak excuse, but notice that once I saw you commenting my ignorance of your statements then I ACTED on it!

    Now I ask: Did you somewhere state anything you think I may object to?

    BTW: Thank you, you opened my eyes to the fact I should not only speak to ignorant people.

    Hey sigurd! Thats not strictly true you do speak with some people you dont oppose!

    Sorry sigurdV I always find something to critizise when I start speaking to someone!

    No sigurd just look at your opening up with Da...SHUT UP ALL OF US THIS IS PRIVATE BUSINESS!
    Ha, okay. I was not offended by the ignorance, though I was interested in the topic, but found that my point was being left on the wayside. When I pointed out the ignorance I was referring to posts on the topic, which is not sophistry.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    06.16

    You're all acting like philosophers.

    First of all, I'd like to present a quote from a little known film by Guy Ritchie: "If there's one thing I've learned about experts, they're experts on f*** all." -Jake Green [character from the film Revolver]

    This is in reference to people's differentiation of these so called "professional philosophers" from the lay ones. There is no difference except that the so called professional has come to understand that this love, or addiction, to knowledge can be used as a form of income in our modern idea of civilization. Sort of like an alcoholic owning a bar.

    I think it's funny how so many have come to discuss the purpose of philosophy, and thus it's place in our world and it's ability to "survive." Philosophy, like science, is not just some system people have put into place to entertain themselves that may or may not continue to be "useful." It's a natural process. Some people love knowledge and as a result of that indulge in knowledge. Some people are interested in nature and thus find their way into science. Some people move in both directions. Neither of these things have any professed purpose to us humans. Someone may say philosophy has a purpose, and some may say religion is outdated, and if i want I can say that God is in favour of science. However, this is all mere speculation, this is all just philosophizing. And it seems to me that you all are indulging, as you should be.

    -----
    06.16

    Are you saying that because philosophy will not save us from a comet that it will therefore not survive?

    You're trying to put worth on something that has no innate worth. Just as we human beings have no innate worth. Science has none either. I think what you are looking for is technology. Technology may "save" us from a comet, but religion, philosophy, and science will not.

    Philosophy never was and never will be a "saviour." Same goes for religion and science. Besides, the idea of a saviour is subjective. Someone could actually claim anything to be their saviour, and and set of circumstances to be indicative of being saved. The scientist might consider the use of technology providing a means of escape and thus preserving one's own life in this realm as being saved. The religious person might consider preserving their idea of a soul as being saved. The philosopher might be saved from this meaningless world by the comet itself.

    I don't understand where all this conjecture is going. Though, if it's going nowhere that is of course completely okay, an presents us with a perfect example of philosophy at work. Questions which go nowhere!

    ------[sigurdW, you weren't present until here]
    07/05

    Well I think I've said this several times, but you've yet to comment... so maybe you have already read it. I'll restate briefly.

    Philosophy was not something that humankind chose to do and it is not something humankind can chose to not do. You can't just discard it. That's like saying I think poetry is of no use and humans should discard it. I think sex is a waste of time and we should discard it. Alcohol is bad for human health, we should discard it. Philosophy undermines all of this.

    A single person trapped in a jail cell with no materials or friends cannot through experiment test their hypotheses, they have no one to prove them to, they cannot write poetry, they cannot have sex, and they can not enjoy a bottle of sake while watching Kill Bill. They can however, philosophize, and if they are the sort to end up in a jail cell they probably will, not because they choose to, but because it is in their nature.

    I think religion is dying, but only because people are adopting celebrities and science as their new gods for which they come to common judgements. People are so ignorant of what science actually is that it is horrifying. Even governments use science to arouse people, let alone product advertising. Screw the church, we have SCIENCE!

    I think science is wonderful, and I think without all the distraction in life many people would naturally incline towards being scientists in their own lives. Science, however, is not god, science is not government, science is not technology, science is discovery, a way of thinking, brought about and perpetuated by, what I believe to be, an innate drive of humankind towards discovery, knowing thy self. I think it is arrogant to believe other forms of discovery are useless or being discarded. I think this philosophizing we are engaged in right now is a product of that same drive, which expressed itself through the originator, ox.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. How to survive without these body parts?
    By Green Xenon in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: April 6th, 2012, 04:29 AM
  2. Could aliens survive on Earth?
    By Smurkey Smurk in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 02:20 PM
  3. Can Israel survive in the near future?
    By newnothing in forum Politics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: November 10th, 2009, 02:20 AM
  4. Can we survive Global Capitalism?
    By coberst in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 21st, 2009, 02:27 PM
  5. How does the pig survive?
    By gib65 in forum Biology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 13th, 2008, 06:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •