 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
So your ignorance is proof against Agathon? If your theory about philosophy being a waste of time and iincapable of teaching you anything, then you should, through your own intelliegence and innate ability for rational thought figure this out, no? |
Sure, here's what inate rational thought does:
1) An account of the good. --> A story or recorded enumeration of events that are "good".
2) An acceptance of consequentialism. --> **** happens.
3) A principle of aggregation, whereby more of the good is better and less is worse. --> Sex twice is better than once per night
quote:
Or perhaps, Philosophy does teach one things, and in learing philosophy you get to know what thesae things mean, and then you can use the new terms to build a greater understanding of the dieas out there. |
Or perhaps, Philosophy does teach one things, and in learning philosophy you get to know what these things mean, and then you, too, can act like a pretentious ass on web forums, talking down to villains like teachers?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
Would fakeboris, Asher, and Gepap please take their anti-philosophy flame elsewhere so that the discussion of teaching can continue in this thread?
Thank you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yes, and if I started arguing about the latest iBook with a PowerPC 970FX, you would correct me and say "no it's a G4".
This is exactly what Agathon did on utilitarianism. Don't use the word if you don't know what it means (not that I agreed with him, but simply that he had the right to do this). |
No, because utilitarianism is not Utilitarianism. It's a mistake Agathon made.
The definition of utilitarianism is:
quote:
u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-tl-târ--nzm)
n.
The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility. |
which Boris certainly used correctly. So a more correct analogy would be you saying you had the latest iBook with a G4, and Agathon telling you "no, books contain pages!!!!". 
quote:
Philosophers talk about ethics and supreme causes- topics that also fall under the discourse of the common man. Unfortunately, the comman man usually refuses to admit the philosopher's superiority on the domain, probably because beliefs are ferociously defended by whoever has them.
No one would dispute an engineer in his field of specialty, while philosophers get labeled as 'pretentious' every time they try to talk about ethics. |
Because ethics are relative and based on moral beliefs, not scientific fact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Because ethics are relative and based on moral beliefs, not scientific fact. |
Ah, yes, science..glad you bring that up..
Care to explain why we should listen to science, and not, say, faith, when thinking about the answers to a myriad of problems? After all, what is the value of empirical knowledge?
Interestingly enough, the validation of science is not a scientific answer at all, but a philosophical one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Ah, yes, science..glad you bring that up..
Care to explain why we should listen to science, and not, say, faith, when thinking about the answers to a myriad of problems? After all, what is the value of empirical knowledge?
Interestingly enough, the validation of science is not a scientific answer at all, but a philosophical one. |
Again, a blatant attempt to overcomplicate simple problems.
Scientific fact is so because it is observed to be true. There can be no valid argument made whatsoever against these facts.
When something can be repeatedly and consistently found to be absolutely true, it becomes a fact.
We listen to Science because it is undoubtedly true, at least for this world that we live in. Perhaps not so much scientific theories which are unsubstantiated, but certainly those that are. This takes precedence over faith or what Jim the Philosopher says, because it is obviously and inherently true in our world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Scientific fact is so because it is observed to be true. There can be no valid argument made whatsoever against these facts. |
:LOL:
There have been plenty of arguements made against this. Lets begin with Plato's perfect fomrs, saying that everything in this world is merely a shadow,a representation of a perfect form elsewhere. Only if what you observe is actual truth, as opposed to, say, merely images created in your mind, can you assume this.
quote:
When something can be repeatedly and consistently found to be absolutely true, it becomes a fact. |
You mean when something can be constantly rechecked and reaffirmed. nothing is absolutely true (though this of course, is just one philosophical position to take).
quote:
We listen to Science because it is undoubtedly true, at least for this world that we live in. Perhaps not so much scientific theories which are unsubstantiated, but certainly those that are. This takes precedence over faith or what Jim the Philosopher says, because it is obviously and inherently true in our world. |
If SCIENCE is undoubtedly true", why do theories change over time?
Everything you said in this statement can be argued philosohpically, but it ininstructive in that it shows were you are coming from: you have created a bunch of rigd assumtions about the world which yo do not seek to question- no kidding you will be dismissive of a profession built on questioning things, even those that seem absolute.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
:LOL:
There have been plenty of arguements made against this. Lets begin with Plato's perfect fomrs, saying that everything in this world is merely a shadow,a representation of a perfect form elsewhere. Only if what you observe is actual truth, as opposed to, say, merely images created in your mind, can you assume this. |
That's a lovely argument, but it's ridiculous because it's unsubtantiated. Do you not realize that my entire point is how ridiculous such arguments are?
quote:
You mean when something can be constantly rechecked and reaffirmed. nothing is absolutely true (though this of course, is just one philosophical position to take). |
That's your opinion. I take the fact that gravity is an absolute fact for this planet. Others may disagree, but that's a semantical philosophical issue...
quote:
If SCIENCE is undoubtedly true", why do theories change over time? |
I've already made an exception for unsubstantiated theories. Others, such as gravity, are undoubtedly true for our world.
quote:
Everything you said in this statement can be argued philosohpically, but it ininstructive in that it shows were you are coming from: you have created a bunch of rigd assumtions about the world which yo do not seek to question- no kidding you will be dismissive of a profession built on questioning things, even those that seem absolute. |
Why on earth would I question things like gravity? Why should I question if some "evil genius" is controlling my thoughts? Do you not recognize this as trivial and useless behavior?
Brainpower should not be wasted on such crap. Enter a real field and better the world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
That's a lovely argument, but it's ridiculous because it's unsubtantiated. Do you not realize that my entire point is how ridiculous such arguments are? |
quote:
That's your opinion. I take the fact that gravity is an absolute fact for this planet. Others may disagree, but that's a semantical philosophical issue... |
Semantics matter, no matter how much you may whish to denigrate them. If you want to use terminology like "absolute turth", get of your ass and define it. Gravity is a fact. Facts simply are.
quote:
I've already made an exception for unsubstantiated theories. Others, such as gravity, are undoubtedly true for our world. |
Why would gravity need to be a theory if it were "absolute truth"? This is were your refusal to accept that semantics matters gets you- to make stupid and easy to pick out logical mistakes. Gravity is the name we have given one of the physical forces we have thorugh empiral experimentation found to be working on matter in this universe.
quote:
Why on earth would I question things like gravity? Why should I question if some "evil genius" is controlling my thoughts? Do you not recognize this as trivial and useless behavior? |
For most of human history no one ver asked why things fell- after all, why question this? Did they not recognize this was trivial and useless behavior? After all, so what , can knowing why things fall allow you to stop making them fall? Thanfully, some people have more imagination and curiosity than you.
quote:
Brainpower should not be wasted on such crap. Enter a real field and better the world. |
The very field you have joined exist purely thanks to the work of men labelled philosophy. For 95% of human history, very very few fields of endevour existed. Thank your lucky starts someone started "wasting their time" with sueless tuff like thinkking instead of being out there bettering the world through agriculture, the priesthood, pottery, or war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Semantics matter, no matter how much you may whish to denigrate them. If you want to use terminology like "absolute turth", get of your ass and define it. Gravity is a fact. Facts simply are. |
The position wasn't that semantics don't matter, but basing entire arguments upon semantics is a waste of time.
quote:
Why would gravity need to be a theory if it were "absolute truth"? This is were your refusal to accept that semantics matters gets you- to make stupid and easy to pick out logical mistakes. Gravity is the name we have given one of the physical forces we have thorugh empiral experimentation found to be working on matter in this universe. |
It was a theory before it was accepted as fact. It's no longer refered to as the Theory of Gravity, but the Universal Law of Gravitation.
quote:
For most of human history no one ver asked why things fell- after all, why question this? Did they not recognize this was trivial and useless behavior? After all, so what , can knowing why things fall allow you to stop making them fall? Thanfully, some people have more imagination and curiosity than you. |
Argh. I wonder why Philosophers always claim Newton was a Philosopher? Newton was a scientist, not a philosopher.
I'm not sure why you're trying to use gravity as an example of philosophy being useful. Is it because 10 millenia before Newton did his studies, some fat philosopher pondered "why did things fall?" and somehow gets credit for it all?
quote:
The very field you have joined exist purely thanks to the work of men labelled philosophy. For 95% of human history, very very few fields of endevour existed. Thank your lucky starts someone started "wasting their time" with sueless tuff like thinkking instead of being out there bettering the world through agriculture, the priesthood, pottery, or war. |
This is a worthless argument, and I thought you were part of the last thread where this was dismissed. My argument is based upon current philosophy, which is VERY different from Philosophy 1000 years ago.
I'll thank you to stick to the subject at hand. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-03-2004 10:18
|