|
|
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 Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2021 9:04:10 GMT
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. The most interesting feature I've been trying to show you is that any of arguments can be aimed to get the point (within philosophy). Even my "mocking" arguments are relevant. I'd say that all of the methods in philosophy are relevant, because philosophy is something alike the war, but in a head. arktos.boards.net/thread/7062/idea-privilege-method-philosophy-scienceI don't really know much about the trillobites, but the most certain way is to say about the ancestors of a human. Can anybody, except for the philosophers, say what being is? They've invented the term, and they decide "who's right, and who's wrong" about the term. Presumably, the term is dull as many other philosophical terms. Unfortunatly I live within a government. I wish to live in some neutral territory, however most of them are inevitable to live or taken off. The government is a terrible thing: living without it is really difficult, living inside it - is really dangerous. A govt is another stupid toy which the humanity's created. |
|
Sonny
Full Member
Posts: 248 
Likes: 84
Ancestry: European
Religion: Christian
|
Post by Sonny on Mar 17, 2021 15:54:10 GMT
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. You don't need science to build a decent home. There is no justification for science that isn't fallacious. We run into the is ought problem. All the essential medical twerkers you mean. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2021 18:03:12 GMT
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. You don't need science to build a decent home. There is no justification for science that isn't fallacious. We run into the is ought problem. All the essential medical twerkers you mean. Well, let's get some things straight. Mentioning 'science' I'm talking about an amount of data or knowledge of a certain science or science in general. I mean using the Newton law I'm possessing the efforts of Newton and all those who put efforts to inform me with this law. I do need knowledge to build a shelter. Why? Because doing something means a performing of a series of tasks. Yes, if you'd say that even an animal could build a home, I wouldn't object, but people are not animals. We need food, rest, warm clothes, and even entertainment. Wild children aka feral children don't need an amusement of rapid boats, while an average person perhaps does. To heal a wound or to repair a part of a house needs some mind work. I can calculate everything by hand, yet using some math would help me to save my time, and, therefore, to allow me do many other useful things. But, must say, that the argument of yours is really strong though. I mean that one can be skeptic at what scientists being correct, and at the same time his position isn't wise at all. It's just a step back :-/ |
|
Sonny
Full Member
Posts: 248
Likes: 84
Ancestry: European
Religion: Christian
|
Post by Sonny on Mar 17, 2021 20:45:31 GMT
You don't need science to build a decent home. There is no justification for science that isn't fallacious. We run into the is ought problem. All the essential medical twerkers you mean. Well, let's get some things straight. Mentioning 'science' I'm talking about an amount of data or knowledge of a certain science or science in general. I mean using the Newton law I'm possessing the efforts of Newton and all those who put efforts to inform me with this law. I do need knowledge to build a shelter. Why? Because doing something means a performing of a series of tasks. Yes, if you'd say that even an animal could build a home, I wouldn't object, but people are not animals. We need food, rest, warm clothes, and even entertainment. Wild children aka feral children don't need an amusement of rapid boats, while an average person perhaps does. To heal a wound or to repair a part of a house needs some mind work. I can calculate everything by hand, yet using some math would help me to save my time, and, therefore, to allow me do many other useful things. But, must say, that the argument of yours is really strong though. I mean that one can be skeptic at what scientists being correct, and at the same time his position isn't wise at all. It's just a step back  Accumulated knowledge is wisdom which we've had for two or more millennia prior to the scientific method. We've had algebra for just as long. Maybe the meaning of life is found in death. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2021 20:55:18 GMT
Well, let's get some things straight. Mentioning 'science' I'm talking about an amount of data or knowledge of a certain science or science in general. I mean using the Newton law I'm possessing the efforts of Newton and all those who put efforts to inform me with this law. I do need knowledge to build a shelter. Why? Because doing something means a performing of a series of tasks. Yes, if you'd say that even an animal could build a home, I wouldn't object, but people are not animals. We need food, rest, warm clothes, and even entertainment. Wild children aka feral children don't need an amusement of rapid boats, while an average person perhaps does. To heal a wound or to repair a part of a house needs some mind work. I can calculate everything by hand, yet using some math would help me to save my time, and, therefore, to allow me do many other useful things. But, must say, that the argument of yours is really strong though. I mean that one can be skeptic at what scientists being correct, and at the same time his position isn't wise at all. It's just a step back Accumulated knowledge is wisdom which we've had for two or more millennia prior to the scientific method. We've had algebra for just as long. Maybe the meaning of life is found in death. I'd say we both hadn't come to different conclusions, because of the different points. I wouldn't hold the view that science was a panacea or a universal cure. Surely, there are some things science seems to ignore - i.e. problems of poverty, problems with conspiracy theories, problems of personal happiness, and so on. But why to be so rigorous at this field if any struggle against the science might bring even danger, than positivity. |
|
Sonny
Full Member
Posts: 248
Likes: 84
Ancestry: European
Religion: Christian
|
Post by Sonny on Mar 17, 2021 22:54:00 GMT
But why to be so rigorous at this field if any struggle against the science might bring even danger, than positivity. Because, 'science' is what you want it to be, when you want it to be, that is if you're the one holding all the cards. That is when dissenting opinions and concerns turn into conspiracy theories. Feminism because science, LGBTQ+ because science, islam because science, blm because science. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 17, 2021 23:51:28 GMT
If those with the most genuine interest in philosophy are schizophrenic, then let the schizophrenics replace the academic philosophers, who haven't contributed with anything the last 50 years.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2021 11:33:03 GMT
Philosophy isn't schizophrenia.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2021 11:38:26 GMT
So, philosophy is an art, an art of creating the new.
So much artists and guru are philosophers. The new is a force of rejuvenescence, a force of inovation, of bringing the new for the world.
Isn't a kind of spiritual comunication or psychological pathology, but a achievement of mind itself. Mind becames fertile.
But we cannot forgot that creativity comes with justice. If there are no justice, creativity haves no hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 18, 2021 13:57:17 GMT
If those with the most genuine interest in philosophy are schizophrenic, then let the schizophrenics replace the academic philosophers, who haven't contributed with anything the last 50 years. There are schizophrenia degrees and types. I don't think we can't replace them in any possible way. But there would be nothing really unusual to replace them with some of them. Such philosophers as Kuhn and Fefherabend told the same – there could be other routes for philosophy. I mean we can be more realistic or less realistic, or more utilitarian or less, etc. Ny opinion Nietzsche was schizophrenic, but there were times nobody would agree with it in major class of meanings as it was in the Third Reich. |
|
philosophize
New Member
Posts: 21
Likes: 13
Meta-Ethnicity: Planner for Gaia
Religion: Di-theist
Philosophy: Pragmatic empirical triplest
|
Post by philosophize on Mar 18, 2021 23:25:30 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. The development of the scientific method was done by philosophers, and yes, it was based on pragmatism, not on a logic process.
Our faith in pragmatic empiricism IS based on its success. Which is the value metric one arrives at after accepting pragmatic empiricism. So yes, the rationale for science, and empiricism in general IS circular.
But pragmatism accepts that reasoning is flawed, and the only justification we can ever find will fail one or another leg of Munchausen's Trilemma. So a circular justification is unfortunate, but something a pragmatist can live with.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 19, 2021 1:48:34 GMT
If those with the most genuine interest in philosophy are schizophrenic, then let the schizophrenics replace the academic philosophers, who haven't contributed with anything the last 50 years. There are schizophrenia degrees and types. I don't think we can't replace them in any possible way. But there would be nothing really unusual to replace them with some of them. Such philosophers as Kuhn and Fefherabend told the same – there could be other routes for philosophy. I mean we can be more realistic or less realistic, or more utilitarian or less, etc. Ny opinion Nietzsche was schizophrenic, but there were times nobody would agree with it in major class of meanings as it was in the Third Reich.
Philosophy is the study of how we think, and how we should think, on the most fundamental level, and is therefore at the core bottom of every imaginable subject. One can't, for example, ignore philosophy and look to science for answers, for that premises there being full agreement on what science is. Any discussion about the scientific method is, by itself, a philosophical discussion. Such as: Can anecdotal evidence sometimes be permissible? How can we apply probability math to formalize the use of the induction principle?
Dismissing philosophy is to resist an re-evaluation of whatever other methods one has developed to interpret reality. It's like when the people who idolizes science make statements like: "I don't have a belief system. I just look at the facts." As if there is an indisputable way to determine what are facts and what are not. And if the same people are asked how a scientific hypothesis becomes an accepted scientific theory, the answer would be something like: "Consensus". -Similarly to how "peer reviewed" is the gold standard for a scientific article. What this boils down to is inter subjectivity, which one can translate to mean: "We are right because we agree. All of these distinguished ladies and gentlemen with all their credentials can't possible be wrong."
Philosophy empowers the individual to question the judgement of the collective. This is why collectivists, when entering philosophy, seek to destroy it. -Which is what postmodernism is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 19, 2021 6:24:57 GMT
There are schizophrenia degrees and types. I don't think we can't replace them in any possible way. But there would be nothing really unusual to replace them with some of them. Such philosophers as Kuhn and Fefherabend told the same – there could be other routes for philosophy. I mean we can be more realistic or less realistic, or more utilitarian or less, etc. Ny opinion Nietzsche was schizophrenic, but there were times nobody would agree with it in major class of meanings as it was in the Third Reich.
Philosophy is the study of how we think, and how we should think, on the most fundamental level, and is therefore at the core bottom of every imaginable subject. One can't, for example, ignore philosophy and look to science for answers, for that premises there being full agreement on what science is. Any discussion about the scientific method is, by itself, a philosophical discussion. Such as: Can anecdotal evidence sometimes be permissible? How can we apply probability math to formalize the use of the induction principle?
Dismissing philosophy is to resist an re-evaluation of whatever other methods one has developed to interpret reality. It's like when the people who idolizes science make statements like: "I don't have a belief system. I just look at the facts." As if there is an indisputable way to determine what are facts and what are not. And if the same people are asked how a scientific hypothesis becomes an accepted scientific theory, the answer would be something like: "Consensus". -Similarly to how "peer reviewed" is the gold standard for a scientific article. What this boils down to is inter subjectivity, which one can translate to mean: "We are right because we agree. All of these distinguished ladies and gentlemen with all their credentials can't possible be wrong."
Philosophy empowers the individual to question the judgement of the collective. This is why collectivists, when entering philosophy, seek to destroy it. -Which is what postmodernism is.
Maybe in those periods of time when science is urgently required to be formatted philosophical practices can be come in handy, however: (a) science never breaks up to such a condition when philosophy as a treatment is needed it. A scientist can continue his researches successful not even mentioning any philosophers – as it's been through ou the history. Because even names on the books like: "Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica" by Newton or "Philosophia Botanica" by Lamark share or use philosophy just as a tinieet part. Math is in absolutr average to reach anything. And I would say instead that it's definitely postmodernists' view to involve philosophy elsewhere: from domestic affairs to science academies. Science is as good as its own rails, and – science will never die without philosophy. All those political things as the phenomenon of individualistic contra collectivistic thing is the matter of unstable process which are mostly philosophical, than scientifical itself. The same conditions 150-200 years ago would never collapse science and any researchers, yet today a scientist might be afraid of to be not politically correct, and therefore be banned from society. If I were a scientist I wouldn't hesitate between politically correctness and practice, because I think no politics is the best cure for any science. Unfortunately we've lost this healthy view. |
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Mar 19, 2021 19:40:26 GMT
The Old Testament perspective is a cure to the illness of western philosophy, but is one that you will not accept. The Old Testament throws out absolute truth and this leave philosophers with the simple question of how best to live life, and this is actually a useful question whose answers can be argued based on empirical evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 19, 2021 20:08:37 GMT
The Old Testament perspective is a cure to the illness of western philosophy, but is one that you will not accept. The Old Testament throws out absolute truth and this leave philosophers with the simple question of how best to live life, and this is actually a useful question whose answers can be argued based on empirical evidence. Does OT have any truths /the answers/ for all the cases /questions/? |
|
