10-02-2005 03:21									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: If you knew anything, you'd know that Rawls' ideas have been the most influential political ideas of the last half century, with the possible exception of Hayek, who is supposed to be an economist, but is as much a political philosopher.

Frankly, I'd consider Hayek a political philosopher first, who used economics for his arguments about society.

	10-02-2005 03:23									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: All I hear from you is how they dictate ethics for us, which is hardly something I think is positive.

Who ever said that? Philosophy doesn't dictate anything. It doesn't tell you to live that way or that way. Philosophy isn't about dictating, it's about finding a rationale for our ethical beliefs. What is the foundation of our ethical beliefs, what is the consequence of holding this or that ethical belief?

	10-02-2005 03:27									#63
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Frankly, I'd consider Hayek a political philosopher first, who used economics for his arguments about society.

I defer to you as I haven't read that much of him.

quote: Who ever said that? Philosophy doesn't dictate anything. It doesn't tell you to live that way or that way. Philosophy isn't about dictating, it's about finding a rationale for our ethical beliefs. What is the foundation of our ethical beliefs, what is the consequence of holding this or that ethical belief?

I'll add to that, it is also for elucidating the implicit rules that guide our ethical decision making, thus helping people (like doctors) who have to make fraught decisions more able to make them confidently.

	10-02-2005 03:52									#64
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Strawman alert -- I'm referring to modern-day people who go to university and get a "philosophy" degree and call themselves philosophers. This clearly does not include Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. I can't remember how many times you've tried this, and each time I remind you I don't care about old philosophers, the vast majority of which never got a degree in "philosophy".

So basically you're saying philosophy was useful, but it's not useful anymore. It sorta ran out of steam. I don't agree. Here are some example:

- Philosophers are doing good work in bioethical comitees.

- Philosopher's who study the mind work closely with psychologists, neurobiologists, computer scientists, etc. to further our understanding of the mind. The study of the human mind is an interdisciplinary undertaking, and it includes philosophy.

- Philosophers like Austin and Searle developed speech act theory, which was adopted afterwards by linguists.

Those are examples that come to mind. That said, I agree with you when you say that most philosophers are mediocre. But remember that we can say the same of every other discipline. Mediocrity is rampant. So it's not a problem with philosophy per se.

	10-02-2005 03:57									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Philosophers are doing good work in bioethical comitees.

I've tried this one before. His response was that hospitals were private businesses and that whatever the owners decided was what was ethical.

	10-02-2005 04:00									#66
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I hate it when good threads degenerate into threads like this one.

	10-02-2005 04:05									#67
	Remove this text

It's an Asher troll, what do you expect?

	10-02-2005 04:20									#68
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon And who did a lot of philosophy, so much so that he is obsessed with it.

Not my point at all -- my original point, many threads ago, is that you don't need to study "philosophy" in school to be a philosopher. The best ones weren't.

quote: Not many people do philosophy as a major. Many more take it as a support. I should know, I teach them. Most people who go into advanced study end up doing teaching and research.

So in what respect did you disagree with my assertion that the only reason to take a philosophy degree was to teach it?

quote: It's insane to say that this has no influence on society. If you knew anything, you'd know that Rawls' ideas have been the most influential political ideas of the last half century, with the possible exception of Hayek, who is supposed to be an economist, but is as much a political philosopher.

So can we credit Rawls with the current political trend in the US to authoritarian religion?

If he's influenced politics so much, why is it still the same old ****?

quote: I don't care that you don't care.

Quite a lengthy post for someone who doesn't care, don't you think?

quote: People are interested in it. Similarly, people are interested in hunting down and characterizing the various forms of bugs that inhabit remote regions. Neither of these activities has a high probability of generating something that most people would find useful, but that's not the point, people are interested in them for their own sake.

I'm sure some people are interested in necrophelia as well. Should we offer courses in how to perform necrophelia?

Courses in theology are religious courses. I don't care if people are interested in it, I'm not banning any sort of private institution. If they are interested in it, they can pay for it.

Theology is not something I want my tax dollars going to, period. By the same token, I don't want my money going to any churches, either. Nor any bible colleges.

quote: For example, both economists and philosophers study game theory. Philosophers and historians study Plato. Mathematicians and philosophers study formal logic. Mathematicians and economists also have common ground. Linguists and philosophers are both interested in the nature of language.

Some great examples here.

Philosophy regarding history --> History dept.
Formal logic --> Math dept.
Economics is an applied mathematics which dabbles in theory, so that cooperation makes sense.

I don't see any reason for a Philosophy department to be on its own. The Philosophy majors I know study it because they think it sets them on a plateau about everyone else, and for no other reason.

They're the idiots that try to start an argument when I say I need a drink. "Do you really need a drink?"..

quote: Each discipline has common ground, but clusters the issues in different relational sets. That's why you find philosophers being referenced in English Lit (try reading some of Chaucer for example) and why you find historical contexts for ideas given in philosophy books.

This is because "philosophy" is part of everything we do. Which is precisely why it doesn't need its own faculty to have a circle-jerk over the ethics of saving burning babies.

quote: Because Plato has more in common with Bertrand Russell than he does with Herodotus. And because the some of topics that Plato raises are still live concerns. You cannot understand Plato historically unless you understand him philosophically, because you need philosophical tools to understand what he is saying (you also need literary tools as well - that's why it is so difficult, despite looking easy to the untrained eye).

You don't need "philosophical tools", you need a frickin' brain. Philosophy classes are all about trying to teach viable thinking methods to people who shouldn't have gained admission to university in the first place.

For example, the Philosophy of Logic courses. Dear God. Welcome to elementary school.

This plays into my point -- the great philosophers never had someone teach them "philosophy". Which is why I think it's stupid you're defending the presense of philosophy courses by citing people who've never taken a philosophy course in their life.

	10-02-2005 04:25									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I hate it when good threads degenerate into threads like this one.

The problem was, Agathon couldn't argue with any substantive subject matter.

This is all him trying to defend the integrity of his studies. He knows there is no possible way to defend Carly Fiorina.

	10-02-2005 04:27									#70
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by nostromo Who ever said that? Philosophy doesn't dictate anything. It doesn't tell you to live that way or that way. Philosophy isn't about dictating, it's about finding a rationale for our ethical beliefs. What is the foundation of our ethical beliefs, what is the consequence of holding this or that ethical belief?

And what is the usefulness of that?

Most ethics are based on anything but rational thought. They're based on people's morals, and in most cases, a book of fiction written many years ago, bastardized by countless translations.

	10-02-2005 04:29									#71
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by nostromo So basically you're saying philosophy was useful, but it's not useful anymore. It sorta ran out of steam. I don't agree. Here are some example: - Philosophers are doing good work in bioethical comitees.

How so?

Are they the kind of people who say it's not okay for stem cell research? Or are they the kind of people who say it's okay for stem cell research?

Here's an idea: It doesn't matter what the philosophers think.

quote: - Philosopher's who study the mind work closely with psychologists, neurobiologists, computer scientists, etc. to further our understanding of the mind. The study of the human mind is an interdisciplinary undertaking, and it includes philosophy.

How so?

quote: - Philosophers like Austin and Searle developed speech act theory, which was adopted afterwards by linguists.

Don't get me started on linguists. Long story short, their work is done.

quote: Those are examples that come to mind. That said, I agree with you when you say that most philosophers are mediocre. But remember that we can say the same of every other discipline. Mediocrity is rampant. So it's not a problem with philosophy per se.

The vast, vast majority of philosophy majors are beyond mediocre. "Useless" is the word that comes to mind.

	10-02-2005 04:51									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Asher Not my point at all -- my original point, many threads ago, is that you don't need to study "philosophy" in school to be a philosopher. The best ones weren't.

Wrong.

quote: So in what respect did you disagree with my assertion that the only reason to take a philosophy degree was to teach it?

Because people will take it before going to law school. Others may do more advanced work simply because they want to. Doing a PhD usually means you want to do research.

quote: So can we credit Rawls with the current political trend in the US to authoritarian religion?

Why don't you try reading him before you say silly things?

quote: If he's influenced politics so much, why is it still the same old ****?

ditto

quote: Quite a lengthy post for someone who doesn't care, don't you think?

I just enjoy watching you dig yourself into a hole.

quote: I'm sure some people are interested in necrophelia as well. Should we offer courses in how to perform necrophelia?

1. Necrophilia is immoral.

2. You don't need state support to engage in it, you merely need a spade.

quote: Courses in theology are religious courses. I don't care if people are interested in it, I'm not banning any sort of private institution. If they are interested in it, they can pay for it. Theology is not something I want my tax dollars going to, period. By the same token, I don't want my money going to any churches, either. Nor any bible colleges.

I don't want my tax dollars going to silly Santa parades and mendicant athletes. But that is the social contract again.

quote: Philosophy regarding history --> History dept. Formal logic --> Math dept. Economics is an applied mathematics which dabbles in theory, so that cooperation makes sense. I don't see any reason for a Philosophy department to be on its own. The Philosophy majors I know study it because they think it sets them on a plateau about everyone else, and for no other reason.

Because you conveniently ignored the point I made. This is a common tactic of yours - pretend something doesn't exist, or doesn't exist in the form it actually does.

I've been to phil talks attended by people from all sorts of departments, even physics, and talks given in other departments are often attended by us.

You can choose to ignore the interdisciplinary nature of universities and you can choose to ignore the fact that philosophy departments relate various issues to each other in ways that other departments do not, and they likewise with respect to philosophy. That's what happens.

You can choose to ignore those facts, but that would make you ignorant.

quote: They're the idiots that try to start an argument when I say I need a drink. "Do you really need a drink?".

They probably don't like you.

quote: This is because "philosophy" is part of everything we do. Which is precisely why it doesn't need its own faculty to have a circle-jerk over the ethics of saving burning babies.

I can't remember when mind/brain reductionism was part of common parlance.

quote: You don't need "philosophical tools", you need a frickin' brain. Philosophy classes are all about trying to teach viable thinking methods to people who shouldn't have gained admission to university in the first place.

Blah blah blah....

quote: For example, the Philosophy of Logic courses. Dear God. Welcome to elementary school.

Basic logic is relatively easy for me. Some people find it hard. Then again, some compsci students find English lit hard.

quote: This plays into my point -- the great philosophers never had someone teach them "philosophy". Which is why I think it's stupid you're defending the presense of philosophy courses by citing people who've never taken a philosophy course in their life.

They did.

Plato (student of Socrates, and the Heracleiteans)
Aristotle (Plato's student)
Kant (Konigsberg University, studied under philosophers there)
Wittgenstein (studie under Russell)
Locke (Oxford)
Aquinas (University of Naples)
Hume (Edinburgh)

etc.


You have proved neither that philosophy is useless, or even that if it had no practical use at all that it would be not worth doing.

Lame.

	10-02-2005 04:57									#73
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: And what is the usefulness of that? Most ethics are based on anything but rational thought. They're based on people's morals, and in most cases, a book of fiction written many years ago, bastardized by countless translations.

What are you saying? That ethics shouldn't be based on rational thought? Or that it can't be based on rational thought? I happen to think that it should be based on rational thought. I also think that it can be based, up to a certain point, on rational thought.

	10-02-2005 05:04									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: What are you saying? That ethics shouldn't be based on rational thought? Or that it can't be based on rational thought? I happen to think that it should be based on rational thought. I also think that it can be based, up to a certain point, on rational thought.

Asher is a naive relativist and finds it inconceivable that anyone might disagree with him.

That's why his threads just consist of endless repetitions of his opinions (it's OK to discriminate against smokers, bad against homosexuals, because it just is, etc.).

	10-02-2005 05:10									#75
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Wrong.

I think there's something lacking in this response -- is it substance?

quote: Why don't you try reading him before you say silly things? ditto

Ohhh, I get to explain something else to the philosopher.

I asked the questions because I have no idea. You should answer them, not say I'm saying silly things.

quote: 1. Necrophilia is immoral. 2. You don't need state support to engage in it, you merely need a spade.

What if I believe religion itself is immoral?

As for #2: You don't need state support to engage in philosophy either.

quote: I don't want my tax dollars going to silly Santa parades and mendicant athletes. But that is the social contract again.

Nonsense. You have every right to oppose spending money on those as well.

Grow a spine.

quote: You can choose to ignore the interdisciplinary nature of universities and you can choose to ignore the fact that philosophy departments relate various issues to each other in ways that other departments do not, and they likewise with respect to philosophy. That's what happens. You can choose to ignore those facts, but that would make you ignorant.

University is interdiscplinary, but that is no argument for having its own department. If different bits and pieces are used by different departments, that's not a justification for its existance as a separate entity.

quote: I can't remember when mind/brain reductionism was part of common parlance.

What is mind/brain reductionism used in, and Intertheoretic Identification, aside from a tool in sounding like a pompous ass?

quote: Blah blah blah....

Which philosophical tool is this?

quote: Basic logic is relatively easy for me. Some people find it hard. Then again, some compsci students find English lit hard.

English lit is a joke. There is no right or wrong, just what the prof wants to hear. It's a psychology course more than anything else.

quote: You have proved neither that philosophy is useless, or even that if it had no practical use at all that it would be not worth doing. Lame.

It's hard to prove something is useless, when it has many uses -- all of which have no use themselves.

The problem is you find a justification for what you guys do today, none of which is really evident.

Like that guy who influenced politics -- how is that a good thing when there's nothing I despise more than politics?

	10-02-2005 05:12									#76
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by nostromo What are you saying? That ethics shouldn't be based on rational thought? Or that it can't be based on rational thought? I happen to think that it should be based on rational thought. I also think that it can be based, up to a certain point, on rational thought.

It would be nice if it was based on rational thought. But it's not.

Ethics are based on morals, and morals are relative to the person.

	10-02-2005 05:14									#77
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Agathon That's why his threads just consist of endless repetitions of his opinions (it's OK to discriminate against smokers, bad against homosexuals, because it just is, etc.).

No, because it's okay to discriminate against something for choices they make, but not for things that are not their choices.

For example, it's okay for a fancy restaurant to fire employees who come to work nude.

It's okay for a Police force to fire an officer for smoking marijuana.

It's not okay for a fancy restaurant to fire employees who are black.

It's not okay for a Police force to fire an officer because he is short...

	10-02-2005 06:04									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Ethics are based on morals, and morals are relative to the person.

If you are a relativist, then you can't expect anyone else to agree with your evaluation that philosophy is not worth doing. It is merely a case of peoples' "values" or "morals" which you assert are relative. In this case, yours.

Well, the assumption that you shouldn't have to fund things that you don't want, is, according to you, merely subjective or relative, and by your own reasoning has no rational or moral claim on anyone else. Similarly with your claim that only "useful" things should be done.

And you can't claim that we are doing you wrong by forcing you to pay for them, because that's just your opinion.

In other words, you've said that we shouldn't really listen to you, because you offer reasons that are fundamentally, by your own account, wanting. A remarkable case of self-immolation, if ever there was one.

quote: No, because it's okay to discriminate against something for choices they make, but not for things that are not their choices. For example, it's okay for a fancy restaurant to fire employees who come to work nude. It's okay for a Police force to fire an officer for smoking marijuana. It's not okay for a fancy restaurant to fire employees who are black. It's not okay for a Police force to fire an officer because he is short...

So say you. But according to your own theory, who cares what you think? You say it's just based on your individual preferences, and those aren't a reason for anyone else to care if you are right.

	10-02-2005 06:13									#79
	Tired of ads?

quote: Here's an idea: It doesn't matter what the philosophers think.

If a philosopher is in a bioethical comitee, and if that comitee influences your government's decision to legalize or not something, then, yes, what he thinks matters up to a certain point.

	10-02-2005 06:16									#80
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Agathon If you are a relativist, then you can't expect anyone else to agree with your evaluation that philosophy is not worth doing. It is merely a case of peoples' "values" or "morals" which you assert are relative. In this case, yours. Well, the assumption that you shouldn't have to fund things that you don't want, is, according to you, merely subjective or relative, and by your own reasoning has no rational or moral claim on anyone else. Similarly with your claim that only "useful" things should be done. And you can't claim that we are doing you wrong by forcing you to pay for them, because that's just your opinion. In other words, you've said that we shouldn't really listen to you, because you offer reasons that are fundamentally, by your own account, wanting. A remarkable case of self-immolation, if ever there was one.

Exhibit A for my entire argument.

Thanks, Agathon.

quote: So say you. But according to your own theory, who cares what you think? You say it's just based on your individual preferences, and those aren't a reason for anyone else to care if you are right.

Nope, but some people may agree with my thinking or see the reasoning behind why I believe that.

	10-02-2005 06:17									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by nostromo If a philosopher is in a bioethical comitee, and if that comitee influences your government's decision to legalize or not something, then, yes, what he thinks matters up to a certain point.

Until the public revolts.

The government serves the public, not the bioethical committee.

	10-02-2005 06:24									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: The government serves the public, not the bioethical committee.

That's simply the way you feel. Why should you expect anyone else to feel that way. After all you have argued that it just boils down to what you feel.

All you are saying is that you would like it if we agreed with you.

But why should we care about what you like -- because you like it? That's not a reason for anyone else to listen to anything you say. By your own account you are talking garbage, and I actually agree with you on that one.

	10-02-2005 06:26									#83
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Agathon That's simply the way you feel. Why should you expect anyone else to feel that way. After all you have argued that it just boils down to what you feel. All you are saying is that you would like it if we agreed with you. But why should we care about what you like -- because you like it? That's not a reason for anyone else to listen to anything you say. By your own account you are talking garbage, and I actually agree with you on that one.

No, Agathon, it's a pretty fundamental fact that the purpose of a democracy is to serve the public and not a bioethical committee.

	10-02-2005 06:28									#84
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Nope, but some people may agree with my thinking or see the reasoning behind why I believe that.

But by your own account there is fundamentally no reasoning behind your position, as you seem to think it isn't a matter of reason.

Squawking at people for disagreeing with you is hypocritical in such circumstances, but I suppose that you don't care much about hypocrisy either... figures really.

	10-02-2005 06:31									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: No, Agathon, it's a pretty fundamental fact that the purpose of a democracy is to serve the public and not a bioethical committee.

Not really. It is a value claim, and by your own account is relative. No one else has any reason to believe it, and you can't complain if you are getting stiffed because all you are saying is that you don't like it.

Skippedy. That's no reason for anyone to stop. Especially gay bashers, who are just following their own values. There's really nothing wrong with gay bashing according to you, other than that some people don't like it.

But the belief that we should stop things if people don't like them is just your belief. Gay bashers certainly don't subscribe to that.

	10-02-2005 06:31									#86
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Agathon But by your own account there is fundamentally no reasoning behind your position, as you seem to think it isn't a matter of reason. Squawking at people for disagreeing with you is hypocritical in such circumstances, but I suppose that you don't care much about hypocrisy either... figures really.

You jump to conclusions, grasshopper.

It's not that there's no reasoning behind my position, it's that my reasoning is biased from my own experiences.

I never said there is no such thing as reason.

For a philosopher you really do have terrible reading comprehension skills.

As a sidenote, my reasoning for philosophy's uselessness is also based on my experiences -- not the least of which is Apolyton and people like you. You should be proud.

	10-02-2005 06:52									#87
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: It's not that there's no reasoning behind my position, it's that my reasoning is biased from my own experiences.

But it's not reasoning that anyone else could be required to agree with. Hence it's just relativistic claptrap.

I'll remember this when you post your next gay whine thread.

	10-02-2005 06:56									#88
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Agathon But it's not reasoning that anyone else could be required to agree with. Hence it's just relativistic claptrap. I'll remember this when you post your next gay whine thread.

Remember what, that I said everyone's reasoning and opinions are based on their experiences?

Is this a revelation to you or something?

	10-02-2005 06:58									#89
	Increase the size of your Attachments

This is getting to be almost as bad as a Kidicious C vs. C thread...

	10-02-2005 07:47									#90
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Remember what, that I said everyone's reasoning and opinions are based on their experiences?

That's not what I was getting at, and it's not even true in any case, but I can't be bothered wasting any more time. Arguing with relativists is pointless, largely because relativism is pointless.