ah, philosophy

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: LoKe
...That's a retarded quote. An eraser is lifeless; feelingless. A kitten is not.

Are you familiar at all with Augustine? I'm in the "Great Chain of Being" section. The quote is meant to illustrate Plotinus' ideas about the order of things 😉

:thumbsup:

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Without reading most of it, which I can probably do later, I can already tell you miss the point. Philosophy is not a collection of truths, its a collection of possible paths to truth that almost invariably end without the actual truth. But its the path, and understanding you gain along the road, that matter, and it has very little to do with *philosophy class*, which is indeed something that will most likely lead to nothing but unemployment. Taking a few classes does not make you an expert in anything. Believe it or not, philosophy exists and has day to day validity outside of a university.

I sometimes have a hard time putting my thoughts into words. What I ultimately meant that philosophy, or the idea of philosophy, can't be taught in a modern class. It's something that you must believe in, you must practice yourself rather than hear from someone else.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: BD2003
Without reading most of it, which I can probably do later, I can already tell you miss the point. Philosophy is not a collection of truths, its a collection of possible paths to truth that almost invariably end without the actual truth. But its the path, and understanding you gain along the road, that matter, and it has very little to do with *philosophy class*, which is indeed something that will most likely lead to nothing but unemployment. Taking a few classes does not make you an expert in anything. Believe it or not, philosophy exists and has day to day validity outside of a university.

I sometimes have a hard time putting my thoughts into words. What I ultimately meant that philosophy, or the idea of philosophy, can't be taught in a modern class. It's something that you must believe in, you must practice yourself rather than hear from someone else.

Philosophy isn't as amorphous as that. There are so many branches of philosophy that have very distinct parameter and lines of dialgoue such as in logic and in ethics. You can most definitely teach logic and its certainly possible to teach people whats been said regarding ethics and could attempt to define morality.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: pclstyle
it's a search for a higher truth, even though the possibility that we'll never be able to obtain it is very real.

It is a fruitless search, because it is entirely abstract and based on, well, nothing... Philosophy and religion are very similar in this regard, IMO.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: BD2003
Without reading most of it, which I can probably do later, I can already tell you miss the point. Philosophy is not a collection of truths, its a collection of possible paths to truth that almost invariably end without the actual truth. But its the path, and understanding you gain along the road, that matter, and it has very little to do with *philosophy class*, which is indeed something that will most likely lead to nothing but unemployment. Taking a few classes does not make you an expert in anything. Believe it or not, philosophy exists and has day to day validity outside of a university.

I sometimes have a hard time putting my thoughts into words. What I ultimately meant that philosophy, or the idea of philosophy, can't be taught in a modern class. It's something that you must believe in, you must practice yourself rather than hear from someone else.

Which I agree with to an extent, but if you really believed that, you wouldn't have mocked it in the first place.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: BD2003
Without reading most of it, which I can probably do later, I can already tell you miss the point. Philosophy is not a collection of truths, its a collection of possible paths to truth that almost invariably end without the actual truth. But its the path, and understanding you gain along the road, that matter, and it has very little to do with *philosophy class*, which is indeed something that will most likely lead to nothing but unemployment. Taking a few classes does not make you an expert in anything. Believe it or not, philosophy exists and has day to day validity outside of a university.

I sometimes have a hard time putting my thoughts into words. What I ultimately meant that philosophy, or the idea of philosophy, can't be taught in a modern class. It's something that you must believe in, you must practice yourself rather than hear from someone else.

Which I agree with to an extent, but if you really believed that, you wouldn't have mocked it in the first place.

I was merely mocking the quote, because it was, and still is in my opinion, utterly retarded.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: pclstyle
it's a search for a higher truth, even though the possibility that we'll never be able to obtain it is very real.

It is a fruitless search, because it is entirely abstract and based on, well, nothing... Philosophy and religion are very similar in this regard, IMO.

The primary difference being that philosophy is based on logic and supposedly stops at that point, whereas religion claims eternal truth based upon their mere proclamation, necessitating faith.

 

[HBalzer]

I like the philosophical idea that everything that happens is in my head. But if that is true I am one crazy mother.

 

[IronWing]

Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box.
Religion is the smile on a dog.

You all got me quoting Edie Brickell, the humidity is definitely up today, slows the brain down.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: pclstyle
it's a search for a higher truth, even though the possibility that we'll never be able to obtain it is very real.

It is a fruitless search, because it is entirely abstract and based on, well, nothing... Philosophy and religion are very similar in this regard, IMO.

The primary difference being that philosophy is based on logic and supposedly stops at that point, whereas religion claims eternal truth based upon their mere proclamation, necessitating faith.

They are both houses of cards; philosophy just employs better construction techniques. 🙂

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: pclstyle
it's a search for a higher truth, even though the possibility that we'll never be able to obtain it is very real.

It is a fruitless search, because it is entirely abstract and based on, well, nothing... Philosophy and religion are very similar in this regard, IMO.

The primary difference being that philosophy is based on logic and supposedly stops at that point, whereas religion claims eternal truth based upon their mere proclamation, necessitating faith.

They are both houses of cards; philosophy just employs better construction techniques. 🙂

Well, since we all need a house to live in, I prefer sticks over straw. 😛

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: pclstyle
it's a search for a higher truth, even though the possibility that we'll never be able to obtain it is very real.

It is a fruitless search, because it is entirely abstract and based on, well, nothing... Philosophy and religion are very similar in this regard, IMO.

The primary difference being that philosophy is based on logic and supposedly stops at that point, whereas religion claims eternal truth based upon their mere proclamation, necessitating faith.

They are both houses of cards; philosophy just employs better construction techniques. 🙂

Well, since we all need a house to live in, I prefer sticks over straw. 😛

They're both useless when built on a foundation of quicksand.

 

[fitzov]

It's an art--people that suck at it scoff at others' work

 

[pclstyle]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: pclstyle
it's a search for a higher truth, even though the possibility that we'll never be able to obtain it is very real.

It is a fruitless search, because it is entirely abstract and based on, well, nothing... Philosophy and religion are very similar in this regard, IMO.

The primary difference being that philosophy is based on logic and supposedly stops at that point, whereas religion claims eternal truth based upon their mere proclamation, necessitating faith.

They are both houses of cards; philosophy just employs better construction techniques. 🙂

Well, since we all need a house to live in, I prefer sticks over straw. 😛

They're both useless when built on a foundation of quicksand.

but even at the bottom of a vast pit of quicksand, you'll find a hard surface somewhere....



OH IT"S GETTING SO DEEP AND PHILOZOPHIKAL IN HERE.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: pclstyle
it's a search for a higher truth, even though the possibility that we'll never be able to obtain it is very real.

It is a fruitless search, because it is entirely abstract and based on, well, nothing... Philosophy and religion are very similar in this regard, IMO.

The primary difference being that philosophy is based on logic and supposedly stops at that point, whereas religion claims eternal truth based upon their mere proclamation, necessitating faith.

They are both houses of cards; philosophy just employs better construction techniques. 🙂

Well, since we all need a house to live in, I prefer sticks over straw. 😛

They're both useless when built on a foundation of quicksand.

You are completely wrong, and I'll leave it at that. Neither are "useless".

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: pclstyle
it's a search for a higher truth, even though the possibility that we'll never be able to obtain it is very real.

It is a fruitless search, because it is entirely abstract and based on, well, nothing... Philosophy and religion are very similar in this regard, IMO.

The primary difference being that philosophy is based on logic and supposedly stops at that point, whereas religion claims eternal truth based upon their mere proclamation, necessitating faith.

They are both houses of cards; philosophy just employs better construction techniques. 🙂

Well, since we all need a house to live in, I prefer sticks over straw. 😛

They're both useless when built on a foundation of quicksand.

You are completely wrong, and I'll leave it at that. Neither are "useless".

They are useful as either mental exercise, or for psychological/spiritual comfort (feeling like you have a place in the universe, etc.) However, the concept of searching for "truth" is an illusion, and when you boil off all the fluff, the only things that really matter are how we interact with our environment, and how our environment interacts with us.

Prove me wrong. 🙂

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: pclstyle
it's a search for a higher truth, even though the possibility that we'll never be able to obtain it is very real.

It is a fruitless search, because it is entirely abstract and based on, well, nothing... Philosophy and religion are very similar in this regard, IMO.

The primary difference being that philosophy is based on logic and supposedly stops at that point, whereas religion claims eternal truth based upon their mere proclamation, necessitating faith.

They are both houses of cards; philosophy just employs better construction techniques. 🙂

Well, since we all need a house to live in, I prefer sticks over straw. 😛

They're both useless when built on a foundation of quicksand.

You are completely wrong, and I'll leave it at that. Neither are "useless".

They are useful as either mental exercise, or for psychological/spiritual comfort (feeling like you have a place in the universe, etc.) However, the concept of searching for "truth" is an illusion, and when you boil off all the fluff, the only things that really matter are how we interact with our environment, and how our environment interacts with us.

Prove me wrong. 🙂

Easy enough...your outlook is nothing more than a typical chapter on skepticism/pragmaticism in a modern philosophy survey book, coexisting with at least 10 others, all as sure of their validity as the others.

 

[pclstyle]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Easy enough...your outlook is nothing more than a typical chapter on skepticism/pragmaticism in a modern philosophy survey book, coexisting with at least 10 others, all as sure of their validity as the others.

bad argument 🙁 what does its categorization in a philosophy book have anything to do with it's validity? plenty of textbooks out there portraying religion as nothing more than a way to soothe the primal instinct of the masses, but i'm sure you'd argue otherwise.


should stick with "no u stfu"

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: pclstyle

Originally posted by: BD2003

Easy enough...your outlook is nothing more than a typical chapter on skepticism/pragmaticism in a modern philosophy survey book, coexisting with at least 10 others, all as sure of their validity as the others.

bad argument 🙁 what does its categorization in a philosophy book have anything to do with it's validity? plenty of textbooks out there portraying religion as nothing more than a way to soothe the primal instinct of the masses, but i'm sure you'd argue otherwise.


should stick with "no u stfu"

While not 100% proof (nothing is, especiialy in philosophy), Its enough to point out that his POV is not the be-all-end of all POVs. Any good survey book will present all sides to each argument.l

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: pclstyle

Originally posted by: BD2003

Easy enough...your outlook is nothing more than a typical chapter on skepticism/pragmaticism in a modern philosophy survey book, coexisting with at least 10 others, all as sure of their validity as the others.

bad argument 🙁 what does its categorization in a philosophy book have anything to do with it's validity? plenty of textbooks out there portraying religion as nothing more than a way to soothe the primal instinct of the masses, but i'm sure you'd argue otherwise.


should stick with "no u stfu"

While not 100% proof (nothing is, especiialy in philosophy), Its enough to point out that his POV is not the be-all-end of all POVs. Any good survey book will present all sides to each argument.l

Great. So, as I said... prove me wrong. 🙂 What is "truth" to you?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: pclstyle

Originally posted by: BD2003

Easy enough...your outlook is nothing more than a typical chapter on skepticism/pragmaticism in a modern philosophy survey book, coexisting with at least 10 others, all as sure of their validity as the others.

bad argument 🙁 what does its categorization in a philosophy book have anything to do with it's validity? plenty of textbooks out there portraying religion as nothing more than a way to soothe the primal instinct of the masses, but i'm sure you'd argue otherwise.


should stick with "no u stfu"

While not 100% proof (nothing is, especiialy in philosophy), Its enough to point out that his POV is not the be-all-end of all POVs. Any good survey book will present all sides to each argument.l

Great. So, as I said... prove me wrong. 🙂 What is "truth" to you?

Thats far too much of a question for me to answer neffing in my spare time at work, not to mention a question that deserves a thread in its own right, far, far away from the bowels of ATOT...perhaps I'll take it up later tonight.

 

[concernedsophist]

Philosophy is a communal activity, a public search for truth. But it is a mistake to portray it as this alone. Some of the more ?useful? benefits of studying philosophy are the way it forces people to examine their system of beliefs and values, and adjust them to be consistent/justified; philosophy also gives people who would otherwise not have it the training and practice to use basic logic and critical thinking; It also acts as the ?gadfly of reason? within a society (as Plato/Socrates said) questioning and analyzing the choices and values of a society. All these roles are the incidental benefits of studying the public pursuit of truth. These positive benefits are available to other disciplines to some extent, but not to the same level of rigor as found in philosophy. Thus, philosophy is a study that is worth nearly anyone?s time.

Whether or not the public pursuit of truth as found in professional academic philosophy is a realistic and worthwhile goal is another matter. The more restricted objectives of traditional analytic philosophy may be more realistic. This is usually stated as the analysis of concepts.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: concernedsophist
Philosophy is a communal activity, a public search for truth. But it is a mistake to portray it as this alone. Some of the more ?useful? benefits of studying philosophy are the way it forces people to examine their system of beliefs and values, and adjust them to be consistent/justified; philosophy also gives people who would otherwise not have it the training and practice to use basic logic and critical thinking; It also acts as the ?gadfly of reason? within a society (as Plato/Socrates said) questioning and analyzing the choices and values of a society. All these roles are the incidental benefits of studying the public pursuit of truth. These positive benefits are available to other disciplines to some extent, but not to the same level of rigor as found in philosophy. Thus, philosophy is a study that is worth nearly anyone?s time.

Whether or not the public pursuit of truth as found in professional academic philosophy is a realistic and worthwhile goal is another matter. The more restricted objectives of traditional analytic philosophy may be more realistic. This is usually stated as the analysis of concepts.

:thumbsup: I disagree that it's just public though...it can exist just as easily in one own's mind on a deserted island.

 

[concernedsophist]

I am torn on whether or not to agree with you BD2003. We might be confused by an ambiguity. The practice of ?philosophy? can be done by anyone, anywhere. The only requirement is a cognitive ability. But ?Philosophy? is a communal activity. I think that the public aspect is a necessary condition for the discipline of philosophy.

 

[Kaido]

AHHHHHH I just wanted to share a funny part of my textbook about kittens :Q