So, let's talk about Philosophy!
Do you subscribe to any particular or general school of thought? Are you interested with a special field of technology or a certain problem? Are there any philosophers you admire or despise and what for?
Let's talk about our love for wisdom!
Is Philosophy a science?
Philosophy is definitely a science, at least for the purposes of this discussion.
I don't know if I can voice my support for some particular flavour, but Pyrrho(n) is pretty cool (not that I necessarily agree with him either).
Philosophy is a science, at least in the European Universitarian Canon.
It's a somewhat hard topic to write about without getting too wordy, but my favorite philosophers would probably be Slavoj Žižek, Walter Benjamin, Roland Barthes and Ludwig Feuerbach.
I don't subscribe to any school of thought in every aspect (for example, the Wittgenstein-Russell-Austinian approach to semantics is in many aspects catastrophic); I rather pick favorites for the different branches (Judd, LeWitt in art, Kuhn-Popper in science, and so forth).
Among the philosophers I like the least are the Aquinate, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazzali, Martin Heidegger and Benjamin L. Whorf.
I have this near-irrational dislike of Kant. The categorical imperative is the most childish thing I've ever seen presented as a philosophical argument.
>Heidegger
He's a master at getting namedropped though!
"Do you subscribe to any particular or general school of thought?"
i myself am budhhist, however i do asspior to certan western philosophers like Plato
>>6
He's definitely out there in the field of winners with Nietzsche (1st Place), Kant (close second), Plato (second, ex-aequo with Kant), Sartre (Third), Marx, Zartošt and Cartesius. Also in the top-ten in the "quotedropping" athletics (the scores: 8.0, 7.6, 8.0, 5.2, 9.0)! Looks like a good start for ol' 'Eggy in the philosophy-offs, especially with public favorite Aristotle disqualified for doping. Back to you, Eddie.
>philosophy-offs
Don't forget the many non-philosophy uses. I most recently encountered him in a sociology textbook and I'm quite sure that he was the favourite scientist of many welteislehre proponents.
Even apart from the value of such claims as "there is in us a categorical imperative", we can still always ask: What does such a claim express about the person making it? There are moralities which are intended to justify their creators before other people; other moralities are meant to calm him down and make him satisfied with himself; with others he wants to nail himself to the cross and humiliate himself; with others he wants to practise revenge; with others to hide himself; with others to be transfigured and set himself above, high up and far away. This morality serves its originator so that he forgets; that morality so that he or something about him is forgotten; some moralists may want to exercise their power and creative mood on humanity, some on others. Perhaps even Kant wants us to understand with his morality: "What is respectable about me is that I can obey—and things should be no different for you than they are for me"—in short, moralities are also only sign languages of the feelings.
-- Beyond Good & Evil, 187
>>4
I thought science was a creation or a field spawned from philosophy. Science is the experiment, result, interpretation methodology. Philosophy is questions that cannot be answered. If a question can be answered then it is no longer philosophy, or at least that's what I thought.
This thread gets no love...
... makes me sad.
The entire science section gets no love.
I get no love.
I believe it would be more correct to say that science is a philosophy.
"Cartesius" -> I suppose you are talking about Descartes ?
I got a serious problem with Plato, who seems sometimes to loathe almost every artistic production, and use the weapon of its ennemy (namely rhetorics). The trick of using is master too is disturbing. Yet it is great to read and not so hard to understand.
Alain, Rousseau and Hegel are perhaps the ones I like the most.
I like Confucius and Schrodinger's cat thingie.
Although Plato seems to have the best understanding of government that I've read. Basicly Democracy ends when people figure out that they can use the government to their own ends.
Confucius had a pretty good ethical system -- basicly you have duties to everyone around you. You owe something to your older brother, and your older brother owed something to you. Seems to work pretty well. And it's been tried in China for 2000 some years. worked pretty well, I think.
>>17
problem is that recitation of Confucian precepts pretty much obliterated the well-rounded education in imperial China, and led to severe stagnation. Otherwise they would probably be ruling the world.
Philosophy defines the tools that science uses to deduce conclusions. Not that >>15 was, but it is a common misconception that something proved by scientists is irrefutable, when in reality not all people who claim to be scientists are genuine, and something can only be proved providing you make the assumptions necessary. We assume that result X proves theory Y, but for all we know theory Z could be the real reason for result X.
Sorry if I just pointed out the obvious.
I like Marquis de Sade, Nietzsche, Marcus Aurelius, Berkeley.
philosophy=NGE
>>21 is DQN
>>10
I do not believe different moralities are sign languages for feelings, as someone may carry out a course of action that hurts their feelings due to a moral, like turning down a woman due to a religious conviction when she asks politely for hot, raw animal sex.
The quote seems like a way that some philosopher can act high and mighty by making some claim that talks authoritatively over all moralities, when in actuality he is simply saying the equivalent of this: "All opinions are wrong. We all have different opinions because opinions are the language of desires." There is no more an easily establishable link between opinions and desires than there is with moralities and feelings.
For me, this quote shows all the hallmarks of what is wrong with modern philosophy, namely it's a pile of pants that is headed nowhere.
philosophy.
well im 50/50 about it.
Im mean it good to have ideas and cultural indivualities.
but all in all they always and i mean always conflict with each other.
i Dont pretend to know much on philosophy, or its different trains of thought that it has.
but they all come from the mind of an individual/s so they are as falable as anything.
(like my spelling)
wars are result of both philosophy and human nature.
Now im not going to sit here and say "War is bad" or "i love violence" the above can both be said for the simple reason that i along with everyone, is capable of great harm or great good in this world.But again this is in a world where people beleive in religeous figures based on writtings of the oldest creation.
Now correct me if im wrong but in times where they thought god was angry because of thunder etc.. and then a scientfic theory proves that the miricle is merely unseen like O2, there has to come a time where such archaic beliefs are laid to rest.
but still churches/other religeous places of worship are still in operation and they profit from it.Religion in all its humbling Majesty is merely a moral system put in place in a time when people would "buy it".
The world is a good place and that system has served us and millions well for a good long time.But based on the rigitiy of it i find that it is completly un-editable like a cd-r.
As said in a film that the religous community stuck out at
"i think its good to have ideas, you can change a idea, changing a belief is tricky"
but then again this is all my philosophy rising from an idividual, and it is that makes it falable.
(sorry about my spelling)
> i Dont pretend to know much on philosophy, or its different trains of thought that it has.
Then how about you go out and learn about it, instead of writing long incoherent posts on a subject you know nothing about? If nothing else, you'd find questions you could ask.
Why are you posting, then, if you're in such a rush?
Sounds more like a case of cannot be arsed and destined to the catagory I call "child like adult"
I wanna hear more about philosophy.
Plenty of people have been stabbed, and not a single cog wheel has been found yet.
>>31 is a lying robot.
A robot must be created by someone. It is impossible for a robot born naturally.
So everyone except me is a robot, I must have created them. But I didn't. Therefore this proposition is wrong.
This is worse than the god thread
> A robot must be created by someone.
Prove it.
> It is impossible for a robot born naturally.
Prove it.
> But I didn't.
Prove it.
>>35 says to prove everything, but it is absurd.
Absurdity is not philosophy. It's simply dull and useless.
Every philosophy has its own standpoint and thinking method.
Just to say "prove it" has nothing these and so it does not make any progress.
So as far as >>35 I can't see any philosophical element.
The God thread lacks threats on the lives of posters by mechanic killing machines. Robotic murderer debates are easily more interesting than talking about something that every robot knows doesn't even exist - and we know by default that robots are the smartest entities alive. I didn't even know how to spell entities, but the robot implemented in the newer versions of Firefox politely informed me of the correct way to do so. I just hope that next I am not (politely) manipulated into doing something harmful to myself!!
>>37
QUESTION: DO YOU HAVE STAIRS IN YOUR HOUSE?
I AM THE PUSHER ROBOT
All Solipsistic arguments are wrong because solipsists ignore the fact that their thoughts, concepts, words came from somewhere else other than solipsists themselves.
Suppose there is a solipsist insisting everything except he does not exsist. But there exists his thought that solipsism is true, that implying solipsism is really exist. And the solipsism is consisted of concepts and words that are neither solipsist nor solipsism itself, so there exists those concepts and words. Those concepts and words need someone who made them. So there exitsts someone other than the solipsist himself at least.
Not true, because it's possible that the whole of history was just an illusion, and the solipsist exists merely as-is.
>>40
You don't really understand solipsism do you?
How about this thing. I was think about it as I was walking home from the train station today. Consider that there is a diaglogue between two people. It would start of on any random topic. Everytime A says something, B would ask "Why"?. Then, A would have to answer the question, honestly and unwaveringly. Eventually, long chain of questions would lead to some fundmental, universal uber question i can't fathom, like maybe "Why did the universe come into play?" or "Why did humans come to life?" or some shit.
That sounds like Russel's paradox of the infinite sets. That you can just keep grouping an empty set inside another ad naseum. But in your case think about taking an element (say {0}) of a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup... etc. out of that subgroup, and diminishing the amount of sets containing that element until it only contains itself.
Yes, you would eventually get to the purpose of the group, or initial element, which is {0}. If I linked it correctly, asking "why" is just breaking down the containers human use in language to the point where you answer the question in terms of unabridged intuition. Well, intuition as in a Kantian model, anyway. It could just as well be highly technical language, but it still erodes away unnecessary thought processes.
Oh. Goddamnit. I didn't even add anything worthwhile to that.
You worthless mathematicians!!
oh
lmao
Anyways, >>1, please listen to me. Because it's really related to this thread.
I went to the Left Bank a while ago; you know, the Left Bank? Well anyway there was an insane number of people there, and I couldn't get in. Then, I looked at the banner hanging from the ceiling, and it had "15 francs off" written on it. Oh, the stupidity. Those idiots. You don't come to the Left Bank just because it's 15 francs off, fool. It's only 15 francs, 1-5 FRANCS for crying out loud.
There're even entire families here. Family of 4, all out for some postmodern phenomenological deconstructionism, huh? How fucking nice. "Alright, daddy's gonna explore postcolonialist narratives and dialogue with the text." God I can't bear to watch. You people, I'll give you 15 francs if you get out of those seats.
The Left Bank should be a bloody place. That tense atmosphere, where two guys on opposite sides of an existential question can start a fight at any time, the stab-or-be-stabbed mentality, that's what's great about this place. Women and children should fuck off and stay home.
Anyways, I was about to start eating, and then the bastard beside me goes "I favor Bentham's utilitarianism." Who in the world talks about the greatest good of the greatest number nowadays, you moron? I wanted to ask him, "do you REALLY want to talk about Bentham?" I want to interrogate him. I want to interrogate him for roughly an hour. "Are you sure you don't just like saying the word 'utilitarianism?'"
Coming from a philosophy veteran such as myself, the latest trend among us vets is this, scientific falsifiability. That's right, Popper's criterion of falsifiability. This is the vet's way of thinking. Falsifiability means you have to create testable ideas instead of just farting around. But on the other hand the effort required is a tad higher. This is the key. And then, it's delicious. This is unbeatable.
However, if you order this then there is danger that you'll be marked by the employees from next time on for "scientism"; it's a double-edged sword. I can't recommend it to amateurs.
What this all really means, though, is that you, >>1, should just stick with writing pseudo-profound graffiti on bathroom walls.
>>49
Atleast try something original, faggot.
>>50
Why? No "philosopher" has tried anything original in 3000 years. OH SNAP
Also, NO U
ITT PHILOSOPHERS GOT FUCKEN OWNED BY SCIENTISTS GB2/ PLATO'S ACADEMY YOU FUCKEN NUBS
AWWWWWWWWWWWWRIGHT
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSCIENCE