When does philosophy become drivel and why?

I believe in knowledge Dodo, and not a chip on my shoulder in delightful belligerence declaring that everything but engineering and biology is necessary. I'm not a philosopher and I'm never going to be, but I realize the value in challenging concepts to lay the ground for new ones, and biology is never going to fully explain why atoms bound in such a way to create chemical sequencing in such a way leads to a mind, and not just a central processing unit. I feel sorry for people who vomit on humanities and the arts, because they make aesthetic choices every day of their lives, and seem to feel threatened by enriching on that--the years I have spent listening to people debate Wittgenstein and Kant were valuable to me, and I am going to return to that.

I am tired of the chip on the shoulder attitude so prevalent in this community about disparaging intellect. I happen to like thinking, and like striving towards a thesis and their various constructs, and I will continue to learn as long as I live.

You are misrepresenting my posts. Again, I think Kant is great, he is one of my favorite philosophers. I haven't really read Wittgenstein but I've heard good things about him. And I didn't say art is useless, I was talking about metaphysics. Whether art is useless is another question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

But then you haven’t found it, trust me I am older than you. :smile5:

---

I am sure you are right. The deeper I delve and the farther I see, I discover there is a greater truth than what I knew previously. Someone has very beautifully said, "The older and wiser I become, the more ignorant I know I am." By the way, how can you be so sure that you are older than me? Is it my youthful writing? :smilewinkgrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

But questions like 'what is the meaning of life (or one's own life) make no sense. I might as well as what is the meaning of a tree, or even a stone or a nitrogen atom. The right way to phrase the question is 'what should I do with my life?'

---

But before I ask myself the question "What should I do with my life?", I will have to find an answer to the question, "Why should I do anything with my life?" or "Why should I live?". This question is not as simple as it seems if you are an agnostic. Nobody asked me if I wanted to be born. If there is a God and He created me, I would want to ask him to switch places with me, because I don't want to be human, I want to be God. But this is not a topic for discussion here. All I meant in my previous post was that the philosophical questions that were relevant to my ancestors are still important to me today. And I asked that question to Satan because s/he has stated (in post #46) that “philosophy is very much irrelevant today”, but has in the same post acknowledged the importance of the question “What is the meaning of life?” I was curious because Satan’s arguments in favor of philosophy are brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

I am sure you are right. The deeper I delve and the farther I see, I discover there is a greater truth than what I knew previously. Someone has very beautifully said, "The older and wiser I become, the more ignorant I know I am." By the way, how can you be so sure that you are older than me? Is it my youthful writing? :smilewinkgrin:

---

Yes its fresh... and btw that quote is true. :thumbsup: The disparity between a weed and a flower is judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

But before I ask myself the question "What should I do with my life?", I will have to find an answer to the question, "Why should I do anything with my life?" or "Why should I live?". This question is not as simple as it seems if you are an agnostic. Nobody asked me if I wanted to be born.

---

Indeed, nobody asked you, but as of now, you happen to be alive. I like to think of it the following way: Out of all possible sets of DNA, it is ME that is alive right now at this very moment some 13.7 billion years after the big bang, in the 21st century CE. I think it's a priviledge, and I am deeply fascinated by the fact that matter self-organized itself over time to form a structure of sufficient complexity to gain consciousness. I'm talking about humans and their brain of course.

For that reason, I feel the need to understand why I am here, that's why I researched cosmology and evolution. I now understand why humans are the way they are and why we have the kind of feelings we have, it all makes sense once you look at it through the eye of evolution. And I must say the resulting understanding is much deeper and more satisfying than any religious dogma. I don't 'believe', I understand.

So one thing I like to do in my life is understanding as much as possible. It is absolutely mind-boggling how far science has come in the past few centuries. I wish someone could bring back say Darwin or Newton and explain them what we now know. They would be thrilled beyond anything imaginable. Some people don't really care about that stuff and just live their lifes without thinking about it. Others are satisfied by 'God just did it', which explains nothing at all. I don't understand how either of them do it, but it's their right to think that way, as long as they are happy they shall believe what they want (altough that doesn't mean I let their wrong or unsupported beliefs pass unchallenged when they present it in a discussion).

And finally for the last thing, life's fun, and since there most likely is only one life, why not try to make the best out of it? Have fun, enjoy time with firends and loved one's, achieve something... That's just how I see it, maybe it helps you, maybe you think it's a stupid view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

I was very impressed with the arguments put forth by Satan in favour of philosophy. But I wanted to ask why s/he thought (in post #46) that philosophy is no longer useful in today's world when it is still as important as ever to know the meaning or purpose of one’s life.

But after having found my own meaning for life, I am bored to death.

---

Post #46 was just a parody of the general opinion on the matter to outline its ostensive asininity; the flaw was, it wasn't exaggerated enough, as many would agree with every single word (without knowing a single thing about Satre or Camus), and some, such as yourself perhaps, would get annoyed by it.

See Satan, Post #48: 'Well, you didn't get the sarcasm; but that's because it wasn't quite apparent.'


As some have already noted, Pragmatism too is a philosophical position, as is Instrumentalism, as is Positivism, as is the stance of the OP; I've always found it difficult to understand how so many can dog on the usefulness of philosophy for society and for the individual, yet can still spend so much of their time watching television and movies and reading magazines and pondering whether a monochromatic de Brogile's wave amplitude can be represented by an expression just like that of classical running waves, if matter can indeed behave like waves as conjectured from the conclusions of the photoelectric effect--or are the latter just a more endearing class of drivel?

Yeah post #46 was pretty funny to read. I only got the sarcasm after he mentioned lobotomy :) But then it was quite apparent. Funny how one person is being sarcastic and others agree with it, makes it interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

Yes its fresh... and btw that quote is true. :thumbsup: The disparity between a weed and a flower is judgment.

---

Or, in most cases, cultural constructs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

Indeed, nobody asked you, but as of now, you happen to be alive. I like to think of it the following way: Out of all possible sets of DNA, it is ME that is alive right now at this very moment some 13.7 billion years after the big bang, in the 21st century CE.

---

Quite right.

Given the size of the universe, the odds of being alive right now, communicating on a computer are so astronomical as to be almost infinite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

For that reason, I feel the need to understand why I am here, that's why I researched cosmology and evolution. I now understand why humans are the way they are and why we have the kind of feelings we have, it all makes sense once you look at it through the eye of evolution. And I must say the resulting understanding is much deeper and more satisfying than any religious dogma. I don't 'believe', I understand.

---

You should write a book - isn't the entire history of philosophy about understanding those questions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

And finally for the last thing, life's fun, and since there most likely is only one life, why not try to make the best out of it? Have fun, enjoy time with firends and loved one's, achieve something... That's just how I see it, maybe it helps you, maybe you think it's a stupid view.

---

Sounds pretty sensible to me!

You could even call it a philosophy.

Dodo, I do not believe the study of metaphysics is itself a waste, and I will return to this later as I am in a rare stable window and want to work today, only to add, I respect science, even as advances in neurology and robotics makes me uneasy, but science cannot answer everything that satisfies the nature of reality and ontology. Even the failures of metaphysical inquiries are useful, and I'll start a thread on this in the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Dodo, I do not believe the study of metaphysics is itself a waste, and I will return to this later as I am in a rare stable window and want to work today, only to add, I respect science, even as advances in neurology and robotics makes me uneasy, but science cannot answer everything that satisfies the nature of reality and ontology. Even the failures of metaphysical inquiries are useful, and I'll start a thread on this in the near future.

---

Sounds interesting, please post a link or notice here once you start that thread. Because I don't have enough time to check the whole forum, I only pick a few threads I find interesting and focus on them. I'll then explain why I think metaphysics is incapable of producing anything useful.

Dont you just love it the way Atheist dissects all our posts. lol. :smilielol5:

Well I dont care what y'all got to say.. I love it. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You should write a book - isn't the entire history of philosophy about understanding those questions?

---

I have something in mind.. More like a novel though with such themes. It will be hard to write though and I'm not sure whether I can do it.

Yes, a lot of philosophy is about these questions, and I do think most of them are answered by evolutionary biology applied interdisciplinary with other sciences. It is a bit depressing that the answers to most of the 'fundamental questions of humanity' are actually known, yet people don't seem to notice that. I mean the fact that 40% of Americans reject evolution speaks for itself (and even in Europe, the average percentage is almost 20%).

Not all of philosophy deals with these questions though, where it becomes useful in my view is subjective experiences such as consciousness, or 'values' which should be assessed somehow so one can come up with laws, or ethical systems. Or even political systems. Another interesting field would be 'philosophy of science', the scientific method itself can be regarded as a product of philosophy.

And of course each culture has their own schools of thought, so people of different groups will connect in philosophy, conversing about nothingness in relaxation... OM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

I have something in mind.. More like a novel though with such themes. It will be hard to write though and I'm not sure whether I can do it.

---

Too late, Dawins has already done it!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

Yes, a lot of philosophy is about these questions, and I do think most of them are answered by evolutionary biology applied interdisciplinary with other sciences. It is a bit depressing that the answers to most of the 'fundamental questions of humanity' are actually known, yet people don't seem to notice that. I mean the fact that 40% of Americans reject evolution speaks for itself (and even in Europe, the average percentage is almost 20%).

---

Now I can just agree with you 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

Not all of philosophy deals with these questions though, where it becomes useful in my view is subjective experiences such as consciousness, or 'values' which should be assessed somehow so one can come up with laws, or ethical systems. Or even political systems.

---

Can you let in on which ones they are useful in?

I've been trying to find a practical use of philosophy to date that isn't just critical thinking, so concrete examples will be gratefully received.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

Another interesting field would be 'philosophy of science', the scientific method itself can be regarded as a product of philosophy.

---

Product of, sure; but I think it's moved far enough to say that the two are no longer compatible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Too late, Dawins has already done it!

---

Lots of people have done something along the line. But if I try, I'd go for a novel, not a science book, which would be something new.

Example of useful systems:

Kant's categoric imperatif makes a lot of sense. Then I do like the idea of utilitarianism, in its present form I must say it has too many flaws, but definately a promising approach. Democraty is a philosophy, Capitalism too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Lark

Post #46 was just a parody of the general opinion on the matter to outline its ostensive asininity; the flaw was, it wasn't exaggerated enough

---

Apparently I was guilty of selective reading. Thanks for pointing out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

I think it's a priviledge......

---

Like I said I'm an agnostic and if there is God then I don't want any privilege; I want to be nothing less than God. Because I don't like the idea (or privilege) of being a fish in an aquarium created by God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

So one thing I like to do in my life is understanding as much as possible...... Others are satisfied by 'God just did it', which explains nothing at all. I don't understand how either of them do it, but it's their right to think that way, as long as they are happy they shall believe what they want (altough that doesn't mean I let their wrong or unsupported beliefs pass unchallenged when they present it in a discussion).

---

There we have something in common. But again, if there is God, our discoveries and inventions are meaningless, because God already knows the answers and is merely playing with us. It's like training your dog to do something which you can do yourself just for fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

And finally for the last thing, life's fun, and since there most likely is only one life, why not try to make the best out of it? Have fun, enjoy time with firends and loved one's, achieve something... That's just how I see it, maybe it helps you, maybe you think it's a stupid view.

---

Yes, finally, when your life is fun and you have friends and loved ones to share your happiness with, you are, indeed, privileged. But, firstly, not everybody in this world find themselves under such favourable circumstances to make their life worth living (One simple example is people dying of hunger and curable diseases because of poverty. There is no fun in their life. What do they have to live for?); and secondly, even if I am going to be happy for the rest of my life, it is not sufficient to make my life meaningful (or useful), unless I can beat death and live forever, or unless I can be certain that humanity will survive forever and humans will go on become the masters of their destiny and the universe. I don't think that I'll be able to beat death, but, I would like to be an optimist and believe that humans will manage to survive forever. In my opinion if humans cannot survive for ever then all that we are doing is meaningless. Hence, it makes sense to ask the question, "What is the meaning of life?" The same question can be rephrased as, "What is the use of doing all that we are doing if we, humans, will cease to exist one day?" The answer that it's a privilege and that it's fun is no good for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

Lots of people have done something along the line. But if I try, I'd go for a novel, not a science book, which would be something new.

---

Give it a try! You have an immediate market of a billion or so secular people!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

Hence, it makes sense to ask the question, "What is the meaning of life?" The same question can be rephrased as, "What is the use of doing all that we are doing if we, humans, will cease to exist one day?" The answer that it's a privilege and that it's fun is no good for me.

---

You've just destroyed your own premise, because if you don't conecern yourself with the meaning of life, you can just get on and enjoy it.

If you insist on having a meaning, you will end up in church, because it's the only place which tries to offer one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You've just destroyed your own premise, because if you don't conecern yourself with the meaning of life, you can just get on and enjoy it.

---

I have no idea which premise you are talking about. Please be more specific. I will repeat myself for your benefit that in order to "get on" with my life and to "enjoy it", I need to know why I need to "get on" with my life and "enjoy it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If you insist on having a meaning, you will end up in church, because it's the only place which tries to offer one.

---

This statement is nothing more than a ridiculous rhetoric. In fact, your rhetoric merely proves your lack of faith in your ability to reason, because I, like many others around the world, rely on reason to find the meaning of life. To say that church is the only place which tries to offer a meaning to life is nonsense. In any case, what is wrong in finding the meaning of your life in a church, if it satisfies you? Can you claim that the entire church-going community is lacking in wisdom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

I have no idea which premise you are talking about. Please be more specific. I will repeat myself for your benefit that in order to "get on" with my life and to "enjoy it", I need to know why I need to "get on" with my life and "enjoy it".

---

If you need to find a "meaning of life" to be happy, you'll never be happy - unless you end up subscribing to an existing religious doctrine.

You don't need to get on and enjoy your life; lots of people have spent all their lives searching for the meaning, which is why this thread exists - philosophers have been searching for 10,000 years and have had no luck so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

This statement is nothing more than a ridiculous rhetoric. In fact, your rhetoric merely proves your lack of faith in your ability to reason, because I, like many others around the world, rely on reason to find the meaning of life.

---

You can call it rhetoric if you like, but to me, it's simply an analysis of fact. Nobody using reason has yet found any "meaning" to life, and given that most of those who have tried are much smarter tham me, I have extreme doubt that one will ever be found.

If you believe reason has been, or even can be, used to find a "meaning" of life, please present details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

To say that church is the only place which tries to offer a meaning to life is nonsense.

---

See above. I'll wait until you can describe a non-religious claim, as I'm aware of no others to date. None that fit, anyway, as I'm ignoring the likes of David Icke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

In any case, what is wrong in finding the meaning of your life in a church, if it satisfies you?

---

Delusion doesn't count as an answer in my world, but I agree that many people are quite happy with a religious answer to the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

Can you claim that the entire church-going community is lacking in wisdom?

---

No, they're more like a horse with blinkers/blinds on, because belief is about desire rather than wisdom. People want to believe, so they ignore the obvious absurdities of religion and believe it anyway.

The Atheist, I would suggest we stick to the topic of this thread about the usefulness of philosophy. In my earlier post, I pointed out, law as an example of useful philosophy. I would like to know what you think about my example since you have been vehemently arguing against the usefulness of all philosophy.

I have responded to the remarks in your last post below. But if you want to continue discussing the topic 'meaning of life' I would suggest you open a new thread so that we can deal with the topic more effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If you need to find a "meaning of life" to be happy, you'll never be happy - unless you end up subscribing to an existing religious doctrine.

---

Again at the expense of repeating myself, I'm pointing out to you that the purpose of finding the 'meaning of life' is not necessarily to be happy. If there is no meaning to life there is no point in living, notwithstanding your being happy or unhappy. In other words, 'If life is meaningless it's not worth living'. I'll give you an analogy to help you understand the meaning (or import) of the word "meaningless" used in the previous sentence. Consider the word "meaningless" when one is consoling another by saying, "It is meaningless to cry now". The word "meaningless" is used to mean futile and that by crying the person crying will not be able to achieve anything.

Next, you will want to know what makes me think that life (living) is futile. It is 'death'. Again, at the expense of repeating myself, I am pointing out, if humans cannot survive for ever then there is no meaning to what humans are doing now - discovering, inventing, creating, waging wars over boundaries, over ideologies, discussing on lit-net forum, getting on with life and enjoying it, etc, etc. It would be like rehearsing for a play which will never be staged. On the other hand, if I am certain that I'll not die or (the next best thing) that humans will never cease to exist, I don't mind accepting both happiness and sorrow, because then whatever we are doing will not be for nothing. Now you may ask me why I'm sceptical about the survival of humanity for ever. Certainly, unless we, humans, manage to colonize some other habitable part of the universe, we will cease to exist when the sun burns out. One cannot even rule out the possibility of humans ceasing to to exist because of their own folly (like war, or some science experiment).

I'll add here that different people have different reasons to ask what is the meaning of life. The reason may not always be the inevitability of death. Of course, it is one of the most important reasons. Religious people find satisfaction in the promise of heaven or rebirth or soul's immortality. I was not satisfied with answer provided by religion so the question persisted until I found my own meaning (from a lot of reading and thinking, of course). I will not claim that the meaning I've found is indisputable, but, for the time being I'm satisfied. So there is no point in your going go on and on about religion being the only source of answer, because I've gone past it.

To me, to "get on" with life and to "enjoy it", just because I have (or have been given) a chance (privilege) to live is nothing more than living like an animal. If both animals and humans get on with their lives and enjoy it and if one day both animals and humans become extint, then, animals would have lived and died without understanding anything, and, we, humans, would have lived and died understanding some of the things. I agree, to some people, it is all the difference they need to make their life meaningful (good for them), but to me it's not enough unless the immortality of the human race is assured. To them meaning begins and ends with enjoying the life they have been given, to me it is in the perpetuity of human survival and advancement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You don't need to get on and enjoy your life; lots of people have spent all their lives searching for the meaning, which is why this thread exists - philosophers have been searching for 10,000 years and have had no luck so far.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You can call it rhetoric if you like, but to me, it's simply an analysis of fact. Nobody using reason has yet found any "meaning" to life, and given that most of those who have tried are much smarter tham me, I have extreme doubt that one will ever be found.

---

Your premise that philosophers have not found an answer for 10,000 years is wrong and your conclusion that it is very unlikely that they will find an answer is, again, wrong and it is a despondent attitude. Firstly, I don't believe in running away from a valid question just because others have failed to find an answer to it. Secondly, philosophers (including religious philosophers) have provided answers to this question. Some philosophers have come to a negative conclusion that there is no meaning to life for various reasons, and others have given a positive answer that life is meaningful for various reasons. Some people may be satisfied with the reasons provided to one of the answers and they may agree that life is either meaningful or meaningless; others continue to search, because they are not satisfied with the reasons to both the answers or because they are troubled by the irony of living by accepting the negative answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If you believe reason has been, or even can be, used to find a "meaning" of life, please present details.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

See above. I'll wait until you can describe a non-religious claim, as I'm aware of no others to date. None that fit, anyway, as I'm ignoring the likes of David Icke.

---

I don't want to waste my time supplying you with proof for a widely discussed subject. Why don't you search on the internet. Just to let you know that I'm not running away from a challenge, I'll recommend to you 'The Fountainhead' by Ayn Rand (positive answer) and 'The Bet' by Anton Chekhov (negative answer).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, they're more like a horse with blinkers/blinds on, because belief is about desire rather than wisdom. People want to believe, so they ignore the obvious absurdities of religion and believe it anyway.

---

There is no difference between you and them. You claim to use reason to find happiness and they believe in heaven or the immortality of the soul to find happiness. But, both of you are going to die (cease to be humans in flesh and blood) and the superiority of your reason (over religious beliefs) is no good once you are dead.

I just believe that during discussions in philosophy bright sparks will fly, it wouldnt surprise in the least to discover that inventions did actually occur as a result of philosophical discussions. Goes to its necessity.

Have a Spoonful

:aureola:

~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments and/or showing intolerance towards others' beliefs will be removed without any further notice.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

The Atheist, I would suggest we stick to the topic of this thread about the usefulness of philosophy.

---

I thought we were!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

In my earlier post, I pointed out, law as an example of useful philosophy. I would like to know what you think about my example since you have been vehemently arguing against the usefulness of all philosophy.

---

First off, you'd need to show where and which philosophy is responsible for which law, because our law is still based on biblical ramblings far more than philosophy.

On the other hand, I have asked and asked for a practical example of something which philosophy has actually done and I haven't seen an answer yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

I have responded to the remarks in your last post below. But if you want to continue discussing the topic 'meaning of life' I would suggest you open a new thread so that we can deal with the topic more effectively.

---

No need - it's done and dusted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

Again at the expense of repeating myself, I'm pointing out to you that the purpose of finding the 'meaning of life' is not necessarily to be happy.

---

I agree - I was discussing your own particular case as stated by you twice. That's why I gave the exanple of apathetic agnosticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

If there is no meaning to life there is no point in living, notwithstanding your being happy or unhappy.

---

This makes no sense and appears to be a tautology where your "point" and "meaning" are the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

Again, at the expense of repeating myself, I am pointing out, if humans cannot survive for ever then there is no meaning to what humans are doing now - discovering, inventing, creating, waging wars over boundaries, over ideologies, discussing on lit-net forum, getting on with life and enjoying it, etc, etc. It would be like rehearsing for a play which will never be staged.

---

I do understand your position. I just happen to think it's rather meaningless itself. We are a part of the evolution of life on earth and whether the species continues or not is irrelevant to me.

Again, it seems your only option is theism, because it's a stone-cold certainty that humans will not be around forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

I will not claim that the meaning I've found is indisputable, but, for the time being I'm satisfied. So there is no point in your going go on and on about religion being the only source of answer, because I've gone past it.

---

This discussion would make a lot more sense if you just posted it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

To me, to "get on" with life and to "enjoy it", just because I have (or have been given) a chance (privilege) to live is nothing more than living like an animal.

---

You do realise we are animals? Lot better than being a plant, I'd say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

I agree, to some people, it is all the difference they need to make their life meaningful (good for them), but to me it's not enough unless the immortality of the human race is assured.

---

As I said - you're on a certain loser. Apart from anything else, the universe will burn out/die off at some stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

Your premise that philosophers have not found an answer for 10,000 years is wrong and your conclusion that it is very unlikely that they will find an answer is, again, wrong and it is a despondent attitude.

---

Not really despondent, because I'm not bothered by it at all.

Since you claim I'm wrong, I'll wait for your description of that one physical success philosophy has had - aside from staffing McDonald's.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

Some philosophers have come to a negative conclusion that there is no meaning to life for various reasons, and others have given a positive answer that life is meaningful for various reasons.

---

Excellent!

That's a classic example of what I mean. Philosophy can't even agree on whether there's an answer, far less what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar

I don't want to waste my time supplying you with proof for a widely discussed subject. Why don't you search on the internet. Just to let you know that I'm not running away from a challenge, I'll recommend to you 'The Fountainhead' by Ayn Rand (positive answer) and 'The Bet' by Anton Chekhov (negative answer).

---

It seems to me that you're confusing the issue here. Any philosopher can give what he/she thinks is an answer.

I asked for concrete examples of real-world answers which have been given to mankind by philosophy and you've managed to come up with two opposite doctrines.

Not even close.

I tend to think reading a lot of Existentialism that it suffers from being way too wordy. I wouldn't necessarily call it drivel, but close to it because they aren't forthcoming about what the justification of the fifty or more pages are. Greek philosophy and Lao-Tse is very straight forward; like Heraclitus' maxims are short statements that drive you to the core and are able to analyze then and there. Since I have not read other schools of philosophy besides (the close cousin), Absurdism, and Christian infused Boethius; on the other hand, I feel bad about naming Existentialism by name.

To suffice, I would say anything that's too much about wowing the student with their wordsmithy and not chopping to what they are trying to conclude.

I find the pre-Socratics and Lao Zi obscure, but interesting. For instance, I am not sure what the sage means by 'if a way can be told, it is not the everlasting way', the first sentence in his classic.

Has this whole philosophical enquiry been drivel? If all philosophy is drivel, then this whole discussion is, too. Then why, if I may ask, have those who so quickly denounce philosophy in her totality so eagerly partake in it? Are these people conscious of their hypocrisy, or do they just not know that they do not believe the words with which they speak?

When is(n’t) philosophy important? Sure, sitting around thinking never gets anything done. It’s never the action, and therefore never directly potent; it’s never a remedy that saves a life or a bullet that takes one away. But yet, when we have the luxury of time, shouldn’t we spend time questioning where to aim the gun or even questioning whether or not we should pull its trigger? Moral philosophy is a tool that we can use to inform our actions.

Endeavoring to discover whether or not this debate is important is of critical importance.
The essential questions at hand are: how should we live? How should we expend our energy in life? Should we expend it on philosophical endeavors? And other questions of the like.
Consider how much energy is expended on this endeavor here. How much energy could have gone into doing something more practical e.g. volunteer work?
As we expend energy here debating over how we ought to expend our energy, people elsewhere are dying. This is one of the greatest ironies in life I’ve ever encountered. We ought to expend it on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whathappened

I find the pre-Socratics and Lao Zi obscure, but interesting. For instance, I am not sure what the sage means by 'if a way can be told, it is not the everlasting way', the first sentence in his classic.

---

Something about the real, honest, one and only, truth being hidden from us, I imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

Has this whole philosophical enquiry been drivel? If all philosophy is drivel, then this whole discussion is, too. Then why, if I may ask, have those who so quickly denounce philosophy in her totality so eagerly partake in it? Are these people conscious of their hypocrisy, or do they just not know that they do not believe the words with which they speak?

---

What?

In what way is any hypocrisy involved?

Do you only argue propositions you agree with?

In case you didn't notice the front page, this is a discussion forum and we're in the philosophy section.

You may as well complain that I'm in some way hypocritical as an atheist talking in religious threads, or that I do makes me a closet theist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

When is(n’t) philosophy important? Sure, sitting around thinking never gets anything done. It’s never the action, and therefore never directly potent; it’s never a remedy that saves a life or a bullet that takes one away. But yet, when we have the luxury of time, shouldn’t we spend time questioning where to aim the gun or even questioning whether or not we should pull its trigger? Moral philosophy is a tool that we can use to inform our actions.

---

Ok, let's play then.

The scoreboard as I read it works like this:

Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.

We've been literally paying people to sit around and think for several thousand years, yet I'm still waiting for one single moral issue that philosophy has been able to solve. Go ahead and list 'em if you got 'em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

Endeavoring to discover whether or not this debate is important is of critical importance.
The essential questions at hand are: how should we live? How should we expend our energy in life? Should we expend it on philosophical endeavors? And other questions of the like.
Consider how much energy is expended on this endeavor here. How much energy could have gone into doing something more practical e.g. volunteer work?
As we expend energy here people debating over how we ought to expend our energy, elsewhere are dying. This is one of the greatest ironies in life I’ve ever encountered. We ought to expend it on them.

---

If you're seeing irony in that, you're admitting to being pretty naive, I think.

If I spent all my energy on volunteer work, I'd soon get sick of it and shoot myself. I've only got a limited supply of emotional energy and I like to save a bit for the kids and other things.

Part of my evolved human nature means that I need some entertainment time or I'll go nuts.

The time I spend online is the time I'd be doing nothing else of value - watching a tv, playing a game, sitting and scratching myself or brushing my hair. Claiming that I could make the world a better place during the time I spend typing is plain silly.

The Atheist: ‘Something about the real, honest, one and only, truth being hidden from us, I imagine.’

Lao Zi does not seem to claim that the dao is unknowable. But he tries to describe it in metaphors many of which are obscure like many poems. And he writes in the first place that the dao is indescribable. Despite these problems he seems very interesting. Like many poems many of his make great sense, after much sense-making. So I guess much sense-making is needed to understand his first sentence.

The Atheist: ‘Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.’

Whoever have definitions for the good and the just would seem be able to solve moral dilemmas. The difficulty is with the definitions. It is unhelpful to complain that no convincing definitions have been given by philosophers, unless you complain about the philosophical method. But what is the method?

To respond to the title.

When one cannot define the entirety of his belief without using esoteric terminology, it probably isn't worth hearing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

What?

In what way is any hypocrisy involved?

Do you only argue propositions you agree with?

In case you didn't notice the front page, this is a discussion forum and we're in the philosophy section.

You may as well complain that I'm in some way hypocritical as an atheist talking in religious threads, or that I do makes me a closet theist.

---

I would define this whole discussion as a philosophical, yet you sit here partaking in it while you claim that it's completely and utterly useless. As for saying that "I may as well complain that I'm in some way hypocritical as an atheist talking in religious threads, or that I do makes me a closet theist," I must disagree. It is more like trying to disprove reason using reason. I would like to hear your definition of philosophy, and I may agree that it is utterly useless when one accords with your definition; I will most likely contend, however, that you define it rather unfairly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Ok, let's play then.

The scoreboard as I read it works like this:

Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.

We've been literally paying people to sit around and think for several thousand years, yet I'm still waiting for one single moral issue that philosophy has been able to solve. Go ahead and list 'em if you got 'em.

---

one ought not kill when one does not have to
one ought not steal when one does not have to
one ought not lie when one does not have to
the list goes on like that...

Here is another point at which you're being a hypocrite: this debate is of a moral nature (it deals with how one ought to expend energy) and you're contending that one ought not spend it doing philosophy, or at least one ought not make a profession out of it. I find it curious that you make this moral generalization and yet claim that no moral generalizations can be made. Oops, guess you didn't think that one through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If you're seeing irony in that, you're admitting to being pretty naive, I think.

If I spent all my energy on volunteer work, I'd soon get sick of it and shoot myself. I've only got a limited supply of emotional energy and I like to save a bit for the kids and other things.

Part of my evolved human nature means that I need some entertainment time or I'll go nuts.

The time I spend online is the time I'd be doing nothing else of value - watching a tv, playing a game, sitting and scratching myself or brushing my hair. Claiming that I could make the world a better place during the time I spend typing is plain silly.

---

I see irony in it because, by definition, there is irony in it. I'm surprised someone who acts as clever as you do missed that. :rolleyes:

So, you're implicitly saying that philosophy is useful (or atleast justified) when one uses it for entertainment.

I'll have to get back to you on the rest of these, as I am short on time right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whathappened

The Atheist: ‘Number of intractable moral problems solved by philosophy to date = 0.’

Whoever have definitions for the good and the just would seem be able to solve moral dilemmas. The difficulty is with the definitions. It is unhelpful to complain that no convincing definitions have been given by philosophers, unless you complain about the philosophical method. But what is the method?

---

I doubt I can answer that in polite enough terms without resprting to the cliched "navel-gazing".

If we can't even define what "good" is, it's time to give up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceM

To respond to the title.

When one cannot define the entirety of his belief without using esoteric terminology, it probably isn't worth hearing.

---

That's as succinct a description as I've seen.

Is it yours, or borrowed?

If it's yours give me some attribution details so I can credit you when I use it.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

I would like to hear your definition of philosophy, and I may agree that it is utterly useless when one accords with your definition; I will most likely contend, however, that you define it rather unfairly.

---

I may be doing just that, so to be sure where I am, this has been covered in complete detail during the thread, so just scroll back and you'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

one ought not kill when one does not have to
one ought not steal when one does not have to
one ought not lie when one does not have to
the list goes on like that...

---

They sound a lot more like humanist priciples than philosophical ones.

I have yet to see any definable consensus among philosophers on those, not to mention the obvious fish-hook that my "have to" may be different from yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

Here is another point at which you're being a hypocrite: this debate is of a moral nature (it deals with how one ought to expend energy) and you're contending that one ought not spend it doing philosophy, or at least one ought not make a profession out of it. I find it curious that you make this moral generalization and yet claim that no moral generalizations can be made. Oops, guess you didn't think that one through.

---

No, I'm pretty sure you're just wrong.

Have I said that no moral generalisations can be made? If so, I don't remember it, and I expect it would be in error or out of context, because I don't agree with it. I think they can be made, but need arbitrary positions first, which philosophy cannot give us. I don't think moral generalisations can be made by philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

So, you're implicitly saying that philosophy is useful (or atleast justified) when one uses it for entertainment.

---

For entertainment? Absolutely.

A good analogy would be bigfoot. I find bigfoot entertaining and have several friends in the bigfoot community, yet I think they're all as mad as rabbits.

I don't make many absolute statements, but I will on that subject - bigfoot is a fairytale and does not exist. The bigfooters know this.

Lots of things are entertaining - a field of study where there has never been a right or wrong answer since its inception seems to me to be the highest form of drivel-making on the planet, thus making it near the top of the list in entertainment. Much more so than religion; religion is nice and absolute.

This whole thread ought to do a collective reading of the complete works of Wittgenstein. LOL! It'd "solve" a lot of the arguments :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Shannon_

This whole thread ought to do a collective reading of the complete works of Wittgenstein. LOL! It'd "solve" a lot of the arguments :)

---

The name is somewhere on my (HUGE) reading list, because it has been recommended to me twice. Yet I haven't narrowed it down to actual book titles. If your familiar with his works, which one is the most important in your opinion?

He wrote in German, didn't he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If you're seeing irony in that, you're admitting to being pretty naive, I think.

If I spent all my energy on volunteer work, I'd soon get sick of it and shoot myself. I've only got a limited supply of emotional energy and I like to save a bit for the kids and other things.

Part of my evolved human nature means that I need some entertainment time or I'll go nuts.

The time I spend online is the time I'd be doing nothing else of value - watching a tv, playing a game, sitting and scratching myself or brushing my hair. Claiming that I could make the world a better place during the time I spend typing is plain silly.

---

I have no where declared that one should spend all their time doing volunteer work. However, it is the case that the end of serious moral discussions is humanitarian. They inform us on how to best conduct our behavior in order to benefit those around us and ourselves, and are therefore very much a humanitarian endeavor by proxy. Therefore my former comments are hinting at my answer to the forum’s question: (at least) moral philosophy becomes drivel when it gets in the way of its own end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

I have no where declared that one should spend all their time doing volunteer work. However, it is the case that the end of serious moral discussions is humanitarian. They inform us on how to best conduct our behavior in order to benefit those around us and ourselves, and are therefore very much a humanitarian endeavor by proxy. Therefore my former comments are hinting at my answer to the forum’s question: (at least) moral philosophy becomes drivel when it gets in the way of its own end.

---

Can you give an example of a serious work of moral philosophy that gets in the way of its own declared end?

According to Aristotle's Ethics, the highest human endeavour is "contemplating like a God", which amounts, in human terms, to studying the greatest theoretical works (e.g., reading Euclid.) Is this humanitarian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I may be doing just that, so to be sure where I am, this has been covered in complete detail during the thread, so just scroll back and you'll see.

---

Yes, and if I remember correctly Satan pointed out how flawwed your definition of philosophy was. You better go change it because it's wrong. It amuses me how your vanity leads you about by your nose and makes you commit to really terrible arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

They sound a lot more like humanist priciples than philosophical ones.

I have yet to see any definable consensus among philosophers on those, not to mention the obvious fish-hook that my "have to" may be different from yours.

---

Nevertheless I could've omitted these because you still scored a goal on yourself. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, I'm pretty sure you're just wrong.

Have I said that no moral generalisations can be made? If so, I don't remember it, and I expect it would be in error or out of context, because I don't agree with it. I think they can be made, but need arbitrary positions first, which philosophy cannot give us. I don't think moral generalisations can be made by philosophy.

---

Yes, you have. It's curious how you argue here that no one should be making a profession out of philosophy (i.e. implicitly saying that it is immoral), yet you've also subscribed to moral relativism in other forums.

The fact still stants either way that, by definition, all arguments dealing with moral statuses fall under the scope of philosophy (by definition, to further assert the point). Once again, get your definitions straight. Oops, again.

I would like to point out that it is not necessary that everyone must reach a consensus on something in order for that something to be true. A man can disagree and say that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, yet this does not make the statment 1 + 1 = 2 not true, it makes the man incompetent or uneducated as to the meanings of the symbols used. It is very possible that philosophy is the same way (it is especially susceptible to the aforementioned latter possibility because of the subsymbolic nature of words), yet if you want to discuss this I’d be much more than happy to, but I beseech you to initiate that discussion by sending me a private message, for I fear that the topic is so large it shouldn’t be discussed here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

For entertainment? Absolutely.

A good analogy would be bigfoot. I find bigfoot entertaining and have several friends in the bigfoot community, yet I think they're all as mad as rabbits.

I don't make many absolute statements, but I will on that subject - bigfoot is a fairytale and does not exist. The bigfooters know this.

Lots of things are entertaining - a field of study where there has never been a right or wrong answer since its inception seems to me to be the highest form of drivel-making on the planet, thus making it near the top of the list in entertainment. Much more so than religion; religion is nice and absolute.

---

So you say it is okay if one uses it for entertainment but implying it's not if one makes a professional career out of it. This sounds much like you're trying to assert a moral maxim. Yet, you've clarified that you're a moral relativist...same point as before. :confused:
And also you're using philosophical debate to contend that philosophical debate is worthless. Of course, knowing what is useful and what is worthless is inherently useful, and philosophy being the only way one might go about finding these things is therefore useful. Yet you contend it’s not? That’s like trying to talk about how useless talking is. I hope you’re coming to realize how blatantly hypocritical that is.

"I dont make any absolute statements," do you realize how, first of all, this is an absolute statement, and second of all, how many absolute statments you DO make? You better go reveiw your other posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

The name is somewhere on my (HUGE) reading list, because it has been recommended to me twice. Yet I haven't narrowed it down to actual book titles. If your familiar with his works, which one is the most important in your opinion?

He wrote in German, didn't he?

---

I think if you were only to read one, it ought to be Philisophical Investigations...it is later than the Tractatus, and more reflective of what he came to believe, (and it will answer the OP :D)

Yes it's originally in German, but there are good English translations available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Shannon_

I think if you were only to read one, it ought to be Philisophical Investigations...it is later than the Tractatus, and more reflective of what he came to believe, (and it will answer the OP :D)

Yes it's originally in German, but there are good English translations available.

---

Thank you. I'll read that sometime, and then, depending on how I liked it, maybe more of his books.

German is my native language, yet I'm not sure if I should read it in German. Of course, the original language is always more precise, on the other hand, reading it in English would give me the English vocabulary to the book, so people understand me better when I talk about it. Additionally, I don't like German very much..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

Yes, and if I remember correctly Satan pointed out how flawwed your definition of philosophy was.

---

If your argument is with the description I'm using, changing your tack to that now seems quite dishonest.

The constant use of ad hominem doesn't encourage me to bother - I seem to recall you doing the same in another thread - but what really gives me the clue as to your level of argument is best shown here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

"I dont make any absolute statements," do you realize how, first of all, this is an absolute statement, and second of all, how many absolute statments you DO make? You better go reveiw your other posts.

---

While this is what I actually said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't make many absolute statements, but I will on that subject - bigfoot is a fairytale and does not exist. The bigfooters know this.

---

Bolding mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If we can't even define what "good" is, it's time to give up.

---

We can define what good is. It is just that our definition can hardly be satisfactory for all cases under all considerations. The difficulty is just working out more and more satisfactory definitions.

But of course we can do away with definitions... or can we?

If you have a non-philosophical (whatever this might mean) definition for the good, it would be interesting to hear it.