|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 16, 2021 17:26:24 GMT
Scientists proved their activities work very well. Philosophers proved nothing. If philosophy isn't about proving anything, then curiously why there are dozens of millions of different arguments /sometimes really frightening and aggressive/ come and come again from them; and seems then to what they follow is just an unstoppable and really queer idea.
Luckily for schizophrenics their illness might be cured; I doubt philosophers can be cured. Various philosophical tales have been continuing for too long to be stopped until they will find out by themselves how useless their practice is.
What if philosophiers were not schizophrenics, should we listen to them? Happily for us, either way we shouldn't.
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ". (Colossians 2:8)
"O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called «knowledge»" (1 Timothy 6:20) "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him" (Titus 3:9-10)
"And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 16, 2021 19:46:30 GMT
Scientists proved their activities work very well. Philosophers proved nothing. If philosophy isn't about proving anything, then curiously why there are dozens of millions of different arguments /sometimes really frightening and aggressive/ come and come again from them; and seems then to what they follow is just an unstoppable and really queer idea. Luckily for schizophrenics their illness might be cured; I doubt philosophers can be cured. Various philosophical tales have been continuing for too long to be stopped until they will find out by themselves how useless their practice is. What if philosophiers were not schizophrenics, should we listen to them? Happily for us, either way we shouldn't. "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ". (Colossians 2:8) "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called «knowledge»" (1 Timothy 6:20) "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him" (Titus 3:9-10) "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1 Corinthians 2:1-5) Philosophy is the definition of a phenomenon, to argue against philosophy is to use philosophy. Theology is philosophy with religious axioms. Philosophy is an inevitable foundation of the human experience.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Mar 16, 2021 21:20:05 GMT
Scientists proved their activities work very well. Philosophers proved nothing. If philosophy isn't about proving anything, then curiously why there are dozens of millions of different arguments /sometimes really frightening and aggressive/ come and come again from them; and seems then to what they follow is just an unstoppable and really queer idea. Luckily for schizophrenics their illness might be cured; I doubt philosophers can be cured. Various philosophical tales have been continuing for too long to be stopped until they will find out by themselves how useless their practice is. What if philosophiers were not schizophrenics, should we listen to them? Happily for us, either way we shouldn't. "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ". (Colossians 2:8) "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called «knowledge»" (1 Timothy 6:20) "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him" (Titus 3:9-10) "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1 Corinthians 2:1-5) Philosophy is the definition of a phenomenon, to argue against philosophy is to use philosophy. Theology is philosophy with religious axioms. Philosophy is an inevitable foundation of the human experience. So, we are back to fundamentals... What is philosophy? Historically, it was a quest for knowledge or understanding, the moment public opinions (such as the beliefs in the mythical gods or governors of the world) began to fade away and became unreliable; philosophers do not set out to prove anything and never asked for or demanded FAITH in them, whereas religionists typically do. [Scientists are philosophers of nature, even though now, since the 17th century, a scientist can be called an experimental philosopher, who interacts with Nature in order to better discover its nature.] Personally one becomes a philosopher to resolve personal conflicts or, basically, to purge his mind of acquired opinions and sonsensical or fallacious beliefs which run against natural instincts . Reason is, first of all, trust in one's own body.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 16, 2021 21:27:31 GMT
Philosophy is the definition of a phenomenon, to argue against philosophy is to use philosophy. Theology is philosophy with religious axioms. Philosophy is an inevitable foundation of the human experience. So, we are back to fundamentals... What is philosophy? Historically, it was a quest for knowledge or understanding, the moment public opinions (such as the beliefs in the mythical gods or governors of the world) began to fade away and became unreliable; philosophers do not set out to prove anything and never asked for or demanded FAITH in them, whereas religionists typically do. [Scientists are philosophers of nature, even though now, since the 17th century, a scientist can be called an experimental philosopher, who interacts with Nature in order to better discover its nature.] Personally one becomes a philosopher to resolve personal conflicts or, basically, to purge his mind of acquired opinions and sonsensical or fallacious beliefs which run against natural instincts . Reason is, first of all, trust in one's own body. Yet these foundations are the act of defining a said phenomenon. Philosophy chooses axioms, this is in itself an axiom. Philosophy is thus an act of definition choice.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 16, 2021 21:56:15 GMT
So, we are back to fundamentals... What is philosophy? Historically, it was a quest for knowledge or understanding, the moment public opinions (such as the beliefs in the mythical gods or governors of the world) began to fade away and became unreliable; philosophers do not set out to prove anything and never asked for or demanded FAITH in them, whereas religionists typically do. [Scientists are philosophers of nature, even though now, since the 17th century, a scientist can be called an experimental philosopher, who interacts with Nature in order to better discover its nature.] Personally one becomes a philosopher to resolve personal conflicts or, basically, to purge his mind of acquired opinions and sonsensical or fallacious beliefs which run against natural instincts . Reason is, first of all, trust in one's own body. Yet these foundations are the act of defining a said phenomenon. Philosophy chooses axioms, this is in itself an axiom. Philosophy is thus an act of definition choice. Here's the day is coming soon when philosophers will claim that they "breathe" specifically, and their mouth shapes are producing "sounding" vowels, etc. All the philosophers are dumb or nuts; they'll do better something useful, or to check their heads in psychiatric clinics.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 16, 2021 22:13:09 GMT
Yet these foundations are the act of defining a said phenomenon. Philosophy chooses axioms, this is in itself an axiom. Philosophy is thus an act of definition choice. Here's the day is coming soon when philosophers will claim that they "breathe" specifically, and their mouth shapes are producing "sounding" vowels, etc. All the philosophers are dumb or nuts; they'll do better something useful, or to check their heads in psychiatric clinics. And how are they dumb or nuts without reverting to a philosophy to produce your own points? What would be deemed as useful without resorting to a philosophy of use? What would be the correct state of mind without resorting to a philosophy over what sanity is? Why argue or engage with philosophers if all philosophers are either dumb or nuts?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 16, 2021 23:30:30 GMT
"And how are they dumb or nuts without reverting to a philosophy to produce your own points?"
- Really? You know some saentologists claim that one needs to have learned all their scriptures to claim about anything. And seems many religious and half-religious organizations claim typical claims.
I seee a tiny reason to addressing to philosophy each time an engeneer wants to calculate the next problem. If each time solving another systems of formulations one needs to push the red button, then I'd say that man is a lab rat, not a sane person.
"What would be deemed as useful without resorting to a philosophy of use?"
- Amazing. Just amazing. Really? How species had come to life without being taught in philosphy? And how animals do anything not reading Plato! It's terrible! let's make all the animals read Aristotle!
"What would be the correct state of mind without resorting to a philosophy over what sanity is?"
- Yeah, of course - to change burdens of proof is a tactic now. Why to mess philosophy into this investigation? I see a reason of its presence here. It depends on which way is chosen. If there's no previous data nobody can't say about some conditons. And by the way, "the sanity" is some philosophical gibberish, it doesn't make sense.
When a person doesn't feel good, and he has a pain in stomach it'll be clever to get some relevant meds, not asking philosophical questions. The same about mental conditions. When a person is hungry he doesn't need no philosophy, he needs food.
"Why argue or engage with philosophers if all philosophers are either dumb or nuts?"
- Not exactly this. I'd say there are people who claim they are philosophoers. But I can say I'm a pilot or a taxi driver and it will be true only if I can get some passangers with a plane or a taxi somewhere successfully.
So, if I were talking with philosophers it would be nonse. Moreover, there are no philosophers. If there was a one, he must have solved one philosophical question. I see no such persons.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 16, 2021 23:35:30 GMT
Here's the day is coming soon when philosophers will claim that they "breathe" specifically, and their mouth shapes are producing "sounding" vowels, etc. All the philosophers are dumb or nuts; they'll do better something useful, or to check their heads in psychiatric clinics. And how are they dumb or nuts without reverting to a philosophy to produce your own points? What would be deemed as useful without resorting to a philosophy of use? What would be the correct state of mind without resorting to a philosophy over what sanity is? Why argue or engage with philosophers if all philosophers are either dumb or nuts? I also want to add an important addition: I do not object you or anyone else. Even claiming about "dumb" or "nuts" I do not have not anything bad against anyone else. I mean, yes, the style of mine might be really really toxicated - it's true - but that's just a style. I try to get rid of toxicity in myself. So, even using some specific arguments it doesn't mean I don't honor a person. No, all of you here are really honorable and interesting persons. Please, don't take anything as it was a pejorative.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 16, 2021 23:47:54 GMT
xxxxxxxxxOne can rightfully ask me - for why am I doing it? Why to mock or to use such explicit words? In general, I just want to change the level of experience of the way we watch the subject. Usually, while talking about about some matter, we're concentrated at one point or we're wantedring within the one level, while the true barriers can get us higher (or lower?) from it. It's almost the same as catharsis feeling. A chocking sometimes, and sometimes unusual. Yeah, honestly I can't say I do it well. Many flaws my technique has, and it requires to be developed to much more advanced levels.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 17, 2021 0:07:46 GMT
"And how are they dumb or nuts without reverting to a philosophy to produce your own points?" - Really? You know some saentologists claim that one needs to have learned all their scriptures to claim about anything. And seems many religious and half-religious organizations claim typical claims. I seee a tiny reason to addressing to philosophy each time an engeneer wants to calculate the next problem. If each time solving another systems of formulations one needs to push the red button, then I'd say that man is a lab rat, not a sane person. "What would be deemed as useful without resorting to a philosophy of use?" - Amazing. Just amazing. Really? How species had come to life without being taught in philosphy? And how animals do anything not reading Plato! It's terrible! let's make all the animals read Aristotle! "What would be the correct state of mind without resorting to a philosophy over what sanity is?" - Yeah, of course - to change burdens of proof is a tactic now. Why to mess philosophy into this investigation? I see a reason of its presence here. It depends on which way is chosen. If there's no previous data nobody can't say about some conditons. And by the way, "the sanity" is some philosophical gibberish, it doesn't make sense. When a person doesn't feel good, and he has a pain in stomach it'll be clever to get some relevant meds, not asking philosophical questions. The same about mental conditions. When a person is hungry he doesn't need no philosophy, he needs food. "Why argue or engage with philosophers if all philosophers are either dumb or nuts?" - Not exactly this. I'd say there are people who claim they are philosophoers. But I can say I'm a pilot or a taxi driver and it will be true only if I can get some passangers with a plane or a taxi somewhere successfully. So, if I were talking with philosophers it would be nonse. Moreover, there are no philosophers. If there was a one, he must have solved one philosophical question. I see no such persons. 1. One is still reverting to a philosophy as a defined way of doing things. 2. How has man created civilization or deemed what was or was not an appropriate action without philosophy? 3. Questioning how to deal with pain is a question within philosophy. The Buddhists have one way, the stoics another. 4. Solution of a problem is definition of the problem, to define the problem is to form a readily applicable solution to it.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2021 0:14:15 GMT
"And how are they dumb or nuts without reverting to a philosophy to produce your own points?" - Really? You know some saentologists claim that one needs to have learned all their scriptures to claim about anything. And seems many religious and half-religious organizations claim typical claims. I seee a tiny reason to addressing to philosophy each time an engeneer wants to calculate the next problem. If each time solving another systems of formulations one needs to push the red button, then I'd say that man is a lab rat, not a sane person. "What would be deemed as useful without resorting to a philosophy of use?" - Amazing. Just amazing. Really? How species had come to life without being taught in philosphy? And how animals do anything not reading Plato! It's terrible! let's make all the animals read Aristotle! "What would be the correct state of mind without resorting to a philosophy over what sanity is?" - Yeah, of course - to change burdens of proof is a tactic now. Why to mess philosophy into this investigation? I see a reason of its presence here. It depends on which way is chosen. If there's no previous data nobody can't say about some conditons. And by the way, "the sanity" is some philosophical gibberish, it doesn't make sense. When a person doesn't feel good, and he has a pain in stomach it'll be clever to get some relevant meds, not asking philosophical questions. The same about mental conditions. When a person is hungry he doesn't need no philosophy, he needs food. "Why argue or engage with philosophers if all philosophers are either dumb or nuts?" - Not exactly this. I'd say there are people who claim they are philosophoers. But I can say I'm a pilot or a taxi driver and it will be true only if I can get some passangers with a plane or a taxi somewhere successfully. So, if I were talking with philosophers it would be nonse. Moreover, there are no philosophers. If there was a one, he must have solved one philosophical question. I see no such persons. 1. One is still reverting to a philosophy as a defined way of doing things. - As many other believers.2. How has man created civilization or deemed what was or was not an appropriate action without philosophy? - I ndeed. How unconsiousness creatures like trilobites could have come from water to life? Surely, they should study Nietzsche first.3. Questioning how to deal with pain is a question within philosophy. The Buddhists have one way, the stoics another. - Yes, and the philosophers /or so-called philosophers/ have another one. Each sect has its secret mana potion recipe.4. Solution of a problem is definition of the problem, to define the problem is to form a readily applicable solution to it. - So, have you found a readily applicable solution to the problem of COVID? or maybe some other ones? Nope? :(
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 17, 2021 0:19:20 GMT
1. One is still reverting to a philosophy as a defined way of doing things. - As many other believers.2. How has man created civilization or deemed what was or was not an appropriate action without philosophy? - I ndeed. How unconsiousness creatures like trilobites could have come from water to life? Surely, they should study Nietzsche first.3. Questioning how to deal with pain is a question within philosophy. The Buddhists have one way, the stoics another. - Yes, and the philosophers /or so-called philosophers/ have another one. Each sect has its secret mana potion recipe.4. Solution of a problem is definition of the problem, to define the problem is to form a readily applicable solution to it. - So, have you found a readily applicable solution to the problem of COVID? or maybe some other ones? Nope? :(1. All philosophy is dependent upon justified belief. Justified belief is what undermines all phenomena. Philosophy underlies all phenomena. 2. How where trilobites first documented and classified without reverting to philosophy of the natural world? 3. Philosophy at its root addresses the question of being as the question of being is the question of how to be appropriately. 4. Yeah, wear a mask, watch who you spend time with, etc. Follow the regulations of the government's definition, hence philosophy, for addressing the problem.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 17, 2021 2:55:30 GMT
It is truly ironic that a person will judge a particular class of person as crazy and not grounded in reality and that their beliefs are not only silly but ridiculous in their eyes
While completely oblivious to their own Insanity as they quote a man-made book as if it were direct quotations of a Supreme Being of some form.
It is much like a man playing Russian roulette with himself while telling the man driving the passing card that he's an idiot for not wearing a seatbelt.
|
|
Sonny
Full Member
Posts: 248
Likes: 84
Ancestry: European
Religion: Christian
|
Post by Sonny on Mar 17, 2021 6:32:31 GMT
Scientists proved their activities work very well. Philosophers proved nothing. Can the scientific method be described as a type of philosophy? In science you basically have a hypothesis that you test to see if it's true or if it works. However, the only thing keeping the scientific method propped up is that even though its very inefficient and scientists are rarely ever correct, it seems to be the best or the only method to construct tools, gadgets and mold our environment. But that utility in itself doesn't or shouldn't make science 'true' or right. It's weird that science as a concept and in practice seems like a fallacy of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2021 7:32:58 GMT
Scientists proved their activities work very well. Philosophers proved nothing. Can the scientific method be described as a type of philosophy? In science you basically have a hypothesis that you test to see if it's true or if it works. However, the only thing keeping the scientific method propped up is that even though its very inefficient and scientists are rarely ever correct, it seems to be the best or the only method to construct tools, gadgets and mold our environment. But that utility in itself doesn't or shouldn't make science 'true' or right. It's weird that science as a concept and in practice seems like a fallacy of sorts. Ok, so next time projecting something or building a house I'd address to some alchemists or sorcerers, or wizards for a help. I wouldn't say science /i.e. all they've found/ is ineficient, I'd say that more and more stuff is left undiscovered and unstudied. Taking the virus it's new today, so surely that the science can't handle it as it wishes. However, many people are stay alive, because of the work of different medical workers which practical knowledge is relying direcly within science; they've been using scientific methods.
|
|