When does philosophy become drivel and why?

[dizzydoll]

Good news Mr Atheist. As proof, first case solved by a psychic. More to follow:

Sgt. Tim Nolde -- Toledo PD
Psychic: Gail St. John
Missing case of: Jesse Jones

The psychic crossed State lines and found his body in a creek, he had drowned as a result of too much cocaine and pills in his system. His family had originally called her and she led the police to his body.

I expect you to follow up with the good Sergeant now, you cant keep saying its BS without confirming the proof for yourself. I will add more to this post as research allows. Now isnt that a coincidence, while its fresh in our minds?

[The Atheist]

Good news Mr Atheist. As proof, first case solved by a psychic. More to follow:

Sgt. Tim Nolde -- Toledo PD
Psychic: Gail St. John
Missing case of: Jesse Jones

Yet she doesn't make any note of this earth-shattering news on her own psychic page on the internet...

Also, I can't find any trace of information on Google.

How is that possible?

So, I look around Gail St John's website and picked one "case" at random - Caylee Anthony.

There is a YouTube link in the site to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bukQW...layer_embedded

Gail claims that she was within metres of where Caylee was eventually found.

On the face of it, this is startling!

Yet, again, once we check all the facts, we find that Caylee wass three years old and was found in a wood near her home.

Given that the "psychic" spent a couple of days driving around the area where Caylee disappeared from, it is impossible that she couldn't have been close to the body at some stage, yet she never knew it was right there.

Pathetic.

It's because people don't bother looking into facts that they accept absurdities like this.

If you can find some links to add into the alleged body discovery above, I'll investigate it, but at this moment, it is nothing more than an allegation as I cannot find any link or information about it.

Even "tim nolde" + toledo returns no Google results at all.

[dizzydoll]

Yet she doesn't make any note of this earth-shattering news on her own psychic page on the internet...

Well perhaps she hasnt updated her website yet, dont ask me.. and dont kill the messenger. Also I have no clue what you are babbling on about in the rest of your post, this case should be more than enough proof.

Why dont you contact the Sgt himself, in the flesh? Forget the internet, speak to the cop himself I am sure he will confirm. He's only a telephone call away.

I googled Toledo Police Dept and this came up and guess what.. there are telephone numbers too. Just ask for Sgt Tim Nolde:

http://www.toledopolice.com/

Cummon now, dont let me down.


oh and btw I am not opening your link, I'm not the one needing proof...

[Dodo25]

Dang it why did I leave the discussion right when it started to get interesting?

@ The Atheist, you're doing an outstanding job arguing for rationality and science. I agree with everything you're saying on a general level, yet sometimes you seem to oversimplify a bit, but actually that just makes it clearer to follow, and its straight-forward to the point.

@ dizzydoll, regarding psychics, there isn't really that much to it, I'm always amazed why so many people just gullibly believe this stuff. Think about it:

You have some 'supernatural ability'. Or you know someone who does. You tell people, they don't believe you. You want to prove them wrong - very natural. So if you're actually right, just set up a simple double-blind experiment with significant amount of data being produced. If you or your friend are 'special', there will be statistically significant results.

So if you manage to convince some people, this causes attention. Then you get sponsors, set up an experiment large-scale, invite some skeptics as experts, i.e. Richard Dawkins or James Randi and others, agree to their reasonable demands for accuracy and doulbe-blind study procedures, and show them live. If there is anything paranormal going on, results will show, and science will know and accept it as something that violates the current laws of nature.

The result: You prove haters wrong, you get fame, you get money, you probably get a Nobel Prize for discovering a new kind of force or whatever.

Now the Question: If there are psychics, why the hell has nobody ever conclusively settled the matter? It's not like it's that hard, seriously. It would be so clear by now if this stuff existed. And anyway, how do people think the stuff would work? Just by 'magic'? I really can't make any sense of this.

[dizzydoll]

Dodo, I am not here to change anyone's mind. Atheist put out a challenge I accepted and provided the name of a Sgt to contact, its no skin off my nose if either of you believe it or not!

yet sometimes you seem to oversimplify a bit, but actually that just makes it clearer to follow, and its straight-forward to the point.

He probably chose to do this on my account for which I am grateful.

Anyway I must go to bed now, its after midnight here.

[Dodo25]

I specifically meant the dismissal of all philosophy and (even) of religion. In a way he has good points, but it goes too easy, especially the 'scientific explanation of consciousness' (but yeah we've discussed this). I'm not intending to change the subject or disturb, you two keep the interesting discussion going

[The Atheist]

Why dont you contact the Sgt himself, in the flesh? Forget the internet, speak to the cop himself I am sure he will confirm. He's only a telephone call away.

I have e mailed this to the Chief of Police in Toledo:

Hi there; I'm wondering if you can help me - I am an investigator of claims made by psychics.

I have been advised that a Sergeant Tim Nolde of Toledo Police has been using psychics to assist with the search for perpetrators of some unsolved murders in your area.

Can you please advise if this is correct, and if so, what success or results have come from the use of psychics?

Thanks very much

I will post the reply when received.

I specifically meant the dismissal of all philosophy and (even) of religion. In a way he has good points, but it goes too easy, especially the 'scientific explanation of consciousness' (but yeah we've discussed this). I'm not intending to change the subject or disturb, you two keep the interesting discussion going

I think we'd pretty much done philosophy to death, hadn't we?

Quite happy to cover philosophy at the same time; claims of psi are easy.

[dizzydoll]

I see you are manipulative in your manner and it might even work for you -- sometimes. Bear in mind, life is a perception not a reality. Everyone's reality depends on their own individual perception of what life means to them. What appeals to one doesnt appeal to all. Our concept of life is unique in each of us, and we should embrace/accept others' concepts as simply different from our own, and not treat them as a threat or something to change. The only person we control is ourselves.

I will be surprised if he contacts you. You came across as demanding in your letter and besides that it is a misrepresentation of the facts I provided you. Over and above all that these cops work hard, I doubt they have time to email. He might spare the time for a telephone call tho.

have a nice day

[Il Dante]

First, I think that whether or not philosophy is useless, it is certainly understandable. It is altogether understandable to wonder: who am I, where did I come from, is there a purpose, etc.

Also, when was the day that science liberated itself from philosophy? What we call natural science used to be called "natural philosophy." The old name was more appropriate, because science is nothing more than a subset of philosophy. It is the application of certain philosophies in an attempt to make sense of the world. It is not greater than philosophy; rather, it is subordinate to philosophy.

Every scientific endevour makes basic philosophical assumptions. For example, when trying to create a theory to explain gravity, Newton made the metaphysical assumption that the universe is rational and that the stars are not being shunted around by capricious demons.

Of course, almost none of us has any problem with that assumption. But still, you have to admit that his science was, as all science is, subordinate to philosophy and based upon philosophical postulates.

So everything, whether purely philosophical or scientifically philosophical, is based upon certain metaphysical assumptions that we make. These constitute the foundation of all our reasoning. Unfortunately for seekers of the truth, most of these basic assumptions cannot be proven. For example, you can assume that the material universe is all there is and create scientific theories based upon that assumption. But that assumption can never be rigorously proven. Whether you believe in a universe without spirits or a universe with spirits, you can always create theories based upon your assumption to fit the data. Such theory creation is possible because science is not a purely logical process, but also involves creativity on the part of the scientist. It is a creative process inspired by data and tempered by experiment.

So where have we gone? Strictly speaking, no where.

The moral of this story is that philosophy cannot lead to an absolute knowledge of truth. It can only lead to contingent truth, i.e. thus and such is true if we assume x, y, and z.

The best we can do is make educated guesses. You can try to make your guesses more and more educated, but until you are omniscient (i.e. never) you can never know WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY anything more than logical tautologies.

This means that absolute skepticism of the "I think, therefore I am" variety does nothing for us. It doesn't get us anywhere.

[The Atheist]

I see you are manipulative in your manner and it might even work for you -- sometimes.

What on earth are you talking about?

I asked a simple question based on claims you've made that Sgt Toledo used psychics.

The answer is pretty easily an even simpler yes or no. Where's the manipulation in that?

Bear in mind, life is a perception not a reality.

This is exactly what Philosophy has to answer for!

Life is not a perception but is, in fact, real.

Everyone's reality depends on their own individual perception of what life means to them.

This is palpably wrong.

Mathematics always works. Perception is irrelevant, which is why all science is either replicable and consistent.

What appeals to one doesnt appeal to all.

No.

Whether something appeals to me or not, I will accept the evidence. There are lots of things which don't appeal to me at all, but are still true.

Our concept of life is unique in each of us, and we should embrace/accept others' concepts as simply different from our own, and not treat them as a threat or something to change. The only person we control is ourselves.

Another plea for magic.

I love the irony of people pleading for magic while using a computer - a device using thousands of years of science and mathematics which all must remain constant for it to work.

I'm not sure what you mean by "threat" as I only see True Bleevers as threats to themselves. Ignorance is bliss, so they tell me.

I will be surprised if he contacts you. You came across as demanding in your letter and besides that it is a misrepresentation of the facts I provided you.

Ok, this interests me.

How is a polite request couched in that language "demanding"?

What facts does it misrepresent?

Over and above all that these cops work hard, I doubt they have time to email. He might spare the time for a telephone call tho.

I'm not about to spend a whole lot of money phoning USA to follow up an unsupported anecdote. As I said, it will either be true or not and a simple yes or no answer will take less time than a phone call.

Also, it's because police are busy that psychics claiming to be able to help them disgusts me so much. Cops must listen to their insane bletherings because it could be the perpetrator pretending to be psychic, which has happened.

have a nice day

That's guaranteed - it's just dawning another brilliantly fine and clear day in paradise.

[Vautrin]

First, I think that whether or not philosophy is useless, it is certainly understandable. It is altogether understandable to wonder: who am I, where did I come from, is there a purpose, etc.

Also, when was the day that science liberated itself from philosophy? What we call natural science used to be called "natural philosophy." The old name was more appropriate, because science is nothing more than a subset of philosophy. It is the application of certain philosophies in an attempt to make sense of the world. It is not greater than philosophy; rather, it is subordinate to philosophy.

Every scientific endevour makes basic philosophical assumptions. For example, when trying to create a theory to explain gravity, Newton made the metaphysical assumption that the universe is rational and that the stars are not being shunted around by capricious demons.

Of course, almost none of us has any problem with that assumption. But still, you have to admit that his science was, as all science is, subordinate to philosophy and based upon philosophical postulates.

So everything, whether purely philosophical or scientifically philosophical, is based upon certain metaphysical assumptions that we make. These constitute the foundation of all our reasoning. Unfortunately for seekers of the truth, most of these basic assumptions cannot be proven. For example, you can assume that the material universe is all there is and create scientific theories based upon that assumption. But that assumption can never be rigorously proven. Whether you believe in a universe without spirits or a universe with spirits, you can always create theories based upon your assumption to fit the data. Such theory creation is possible because science is not a purely logical process, but also involves creativity on the part of the scientist. It is a creative process inspired by data and tempered by experiment.

So where have we gone? Strictly speaking, no where.

The moral of this story is that philosophy cannot lead to an absolute knowledge of truth. It can only lead to contingent truth, i.e. thus and such is true if we assume x, y, and z.

The best we can do is make educated guesses. You can try to make your guesses more and more educated, but until you are omniscient (i.e. never) you can never know WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY anything more than logical tautologies.

This means that absolute skepticism of the "I think, therefore I am" variety does nothing for us. It doesn't get us anywhere.

Great Post!

I'd say this pretty much sums up the science vs. philosophy debate.

With that out of the way, what about real life situations? What role does philosophy play in say: solving a dispute among family members, or saving a failing relationship between lovers or friends? Can we apply the teachings of philosophy to these very personal and complicated situations? Or would it seem crazy to the people involved and perhaps even a waste of time?

[The Atheist]

With that out of the way, what about real life situations? What role does philosophy play in say: solving a dispute among family members, or saving a failing relationship between lovers or friends? Can we apply the teachings of philosophy to these very personal and complicated situations? Or would it seem crazy to the people involved and perhaps even a waste of time?

I think philosophy fails in those situations because everyone is different and will react differently and no doctrine can handle that.

I'm still waiting for a single, real world application of philosophy beyond asking questions.

[Il Dante]

With that out of the way, what about real life situations? What role does philosophy play in say: solving a dispute among family members, or saving a failing relationship between lovers or friends? Can we apply the teachings of philosophy to these very personal and complicated situations? Or would it seem crazy to the people involved and perhaps even a waste of time?

Where does the philosophic rubber meet the road of life? This is a huge question.

I would say that one thing we all need to do is discern the negative impact certain philosophies can have on our lives in order to live brighter, higher, and more fulfilled life.

For example, since the Enlightenment there has been an ever increasing individualism in the West. Maybe it started with Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who both thought and taught that man is essentially an incorrigibly selfish being. This matches our experience and observation. But Locke and Hobbes' mistake was to assume that since we seem so selfish this state of things is normal—they made the mistake of thinking that we just have to live with this selfishness; that it is not something to be overcome.

But why in the world should we overcome it? Nietzche and his followers give us the answer.

Nietzche was a radical (I would say, extremist) individualist. And he intensified western philosophical individualism. Nietzche taught that Christianity had been disproven, and that this meant that all of Western philosophy had also been disproven since it was based upon Christian culture. Thus, he taught, this opened up the abyss of moral nihilism which would result in chaos. Nietzche's solution was the creation of myths and values to replace the old western/Christian/enlightenment philosophy. In other words, he taught that we have to create and believe in myths and systems of morality that we know are not true and are entirely artificial.

You say: impossible. "You are weak," Nietzche responds. "You have to be a 'superman' to create and believe in these myths. And if you are not a superman, you are pathetic."

Well, Nietzchianism became very chic. But his whole solution to our supposed problem—creating values—never caught on. Thus western civilization has slowly gone in the direction of nihilism without any solution.

Thus we lost God, lost any basis for a system of morality, lost afterlife, lost consequence for our actions, and lost philosophy. Well, if there is no God, and if there is no punishment or reward for our actions, and if this life is all I've got—if all of this is true, it logically follows that I should squeeze as much pleasure/fun out of life as possible. The problem with this is that one of the biggest things that often gets in the way of squeezing pleasure out of life is: people.

Children drain our funds and take up our time. Spouses limit our sexual possibilities and nag us. Parents tell us what to do. Men demand that women be beautiful. Women demand that men (horror of horrors!) love them. A man is inconvenienced because he has to do something with his wife/girlfriend instead of watching the game. A woman is inconvenienced because her kids leave her no time to do things that she likes.

So, the Nietzchian acolyte thinks to themself, people are the problem. They get in the way of my PERSONAL fun. They are so inconvenient. So I won't have relationships—not serious ones, at any rate.

This begins the epoch of casual relationships. Gone are the Romeos and Juliets who would rather die than live without each other. Gone is the lover who would give up life and joy for the life and joy of the object of love. Gone is agape—the noble, unselfish, highest love. Gone is true eros—the passion stemming not merely from lust but from love for another, which causes the lover to want to join and unite with the object of love and even to engage in the process of procreation, which produces a being that is a blending of the two lovers. All that is left is a sentimental and superficial phileo: momentary affection. We don't love, with all the passion and intensity of an Othello, anyone anymore. We like people... as long as they don't inconvenience us too much.

Thus human connections are fraying. Love is slowly dying. We are gradually becoming a little-souled people who only care about ourselves, and have never experienced the thrill of loving another purely. We live on a plateau, afraid of climbing the mountain, which is too strenuous for our taste. We are alive, but not living.

The character, Ryan Bingham, from the movie "Up in the Air" illustrates this sort of person. He doesn't have relationships because they cause pain. But he is a pathetic man whose life is worthless. The only meaning to his life are petty little pleasures such as getting his name on the side of a plane, racking up miles, etc. A Romeo or Juliet has lived more fully in sixteen years than a Ryan Bingham could ever live in a hundred lifetimes.

This is an example of how philosophy can, and has, affected the lives of many in an extremely negative way.

[Jozanny]

Dante, that is quite a post. My only critique is that I do not think most people in relatively autonomous societies are really that conscious of the tyranny of liberalism most of the time. I would like to have a decent grasp of the major philosophers before I'm dead. Quark might ask me why. I'd say because I believe in continuing education--but having admitted this, I will probably fail. What I understand of Kant, or Wittgenstein, Hegel, is mostly derivative, and even Nietzsche, with all his exhortations, remains difficult for me to grasp on my own. Foucault is the only thinker I am breaking a sweat over, because his insights into social pressure on the body is important within disability studies--but even I do not dwell on philosophy all of the time, or literature, for that matter, and if Wallace could have such abilities as he did and still hang himself, I don't know where that leaves me in the misery of my own self-interest. I am really provoked at his suicide, and his widow would probably dress me down a peg or two if she knew how personally I feel it as a failed disabled writer, his age, with my own suffering and yet refusing to cave, and yet he had to. [Note to self: Unwind and take a slow, deep breath..]

I know it is sort of the tradition within certain spheres, including philosophy, to do the suicide thing, but if autocratic autonomy has a whiff of rotten eggs about it, I am not sure I can imagine something else. Ideology usually fails, and religions are dangerous, whatever they benefit in terms of community, and intellectual pursuit becomes increasingly more esoteric. I do not know what else it could do.

*Note: I just downloaded the Tractus for free, and I thought it was under copyright--but the books about Wittgenstein's Investigations and language studies have a whopping price tag. My kindle is stuffed!

[caesar]

Hi all! I'm returning to this forum after a long time. After reading the posts in this thread, I really felt glad to be back.

A very interesting question by Vautrin as to the usefulness of philosophy, and brilliant arguments by all those who have posted.

Apparently, the argument as to whether philosophy is useful or not has originated from the difference in opinion as to whether science is a part of philosophy or not. In this regard, I agree with what Il Dante that "science is nothing more than a subset of philosophy".

Having regard to the apt distinction made by Il Dante (for our purposes here) between knowledge that is “purely philosophical” and that which is “scientifically philosophical”, I would like to give "law" as an example of a purely philosophical field of knowledge, the usefulness of which cannot be denied.

The question based on the hypothetical situation (See paragraph below) posed by Vautrin in post #50, reminded me of what I had once told my friend – “You can’t make a hungry man listen to philosophy”. Certainly, one would first want to know, “how to survive”, before wanting to know, “why one must live”. To Vautrin's question - "Can deep philosophical reflection be a motivational tool or something that causes despair?", my answer is, "It can be either". The man who has lost his job is confronted with a philosophical question. The answer to which is either hope or despair. In the hypothetical situation, if the man has hope, it is because he sees a plausible solution. His philosophy is in his hope or despair depending upon whether he thinks he can find a new job and buy a new house or not.

Hypothetical Situation:
A man with a wife and three kids loses his job and eventually his house. Clearly, the best solution to his problem would be for him to get a new job. He and his family could stay at a relative's house until he saves enough money to buy another house or condominium, rent an apartment, etc. In the meantime, how can philosophy help this man get through such a tough time? Can philosophy help this man approach the situation with a clearer head and keep him focused on the bigger picture or does it simply become rubbish he has no time for? Can deep philosophical reflection be a motivational tool or something that causes despair?

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.