11-02-2005 06:15									#151
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris Hmm... let's see. Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Aquinas, Ockham, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Husserl, Sartre, Habermas, Gadamer, Foucault, Putnam.

How many of those were in the past 50 years, and what have they contributed?

I think this will be the 4th or 5th time in this thread alone I've had to tell people that philosophy hundreds of years ago is different in usefulness from today.

	11-02-2005 06:19									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Asher Ethics are based on morals, and morals are relative to the person.

Now that's a load of crap. How is it that persons throughout ages have happened to share moral beliefs?

	11-02-2005 06:21									#153
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris Now that's a load of crap. How is it that persons throughout ages have happened to share moral beliefs?

Influence of the parents and religion?

If morals are absolute, how is it that morals throughout the ages have changed?

	11-02-2005 06:23									#154
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Asher How many of those were in the past 50 years, and what have they contributed?

Stop at Husserl.

quote: I think this will be the 4th or 5th time in this thread alone I've had to tell people that philosophy hundreds of years ago is different in usefulness from today.

Yeah, because there comes a point when ideas stop evolving...

quote: Influence of the parents and religion?

That's it, these are external factors, which at best mildly rely on purely subjective concepts. That was my point; as for moral absolutes, that's another debate.

	11-02-2005 06:25									#155
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris Yeah, because there comes a point when ideas stop evolving...

There becomes a point that "philosophy" branched off into many different fields which specialized in something.

quote: That's it, these are external factors, which at best mildly rely on purely subjective concepts. That was my point; as for moral absolutes, that's another debate.

If something is not relative, it is absolute.

If something relies on something else that exists before, then it is relative.

	11-02-2005 06:26									#156
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Derrida was also in the last 50 years and he studied under Foucault.

quote: Yeah, because there comes a point when ideas stop evolving...

Speaking of philosophers... Fukiyama, but I don't think he meant ideas stop evolving with his "End of History" .

	11-02-2005 06:43									#157
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Speaking of philosophers... Fukiyama, but I don't think he meant ideas stop evolving with his "End of History" .

	11-02-2005 06:56									#158
	Suffering from ads?

Epistemology, or at least the study of knowledge, is a flawed concept to begin with, since we can never honestly prove that we know anything. In order to justify a belief to be true, we must put forth a deductive argument (if (premise) then (conclusion)), which states that the conclusion must be true if the premises are. The main flaw in many epistemological queries is that they assume premises whose existence cannot be proven by any non-omnipotent beings like most of us humans. In fact, one might even say that epistemology begs it’s own question; can one prove what one knows if one may not truly know that they know anything? (Uhhuh…). But I digress, if questions like these didn’t exist, we would have nothing to scare the crap out of opiated intellectuals or your common household stoner, and so epistemology serves perhaps the most important purpose known to mankind.

René Descartes is probably my least favorite person, ever. Not only can I blame him for algebra, but also for the amount of annoying doubt-riddled philosophical jargon produced by him and his cronies. He started off well enough with his simple observation: “Cogito, ergo sum” – “ I think, therefore I am”, which actually kind of makes sense… good one René! I suppose he must have changed to a stronger brand of opium at this point, because things start to get weird pretty fast.

	11-02-2005 07:01									#159
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Naturalized epistemology? Holism?

	11-02-2005 07:28									#160
	Get a bigger avatar today!

This is getting tiresome... Like Colin McGin said:

quote: I tired quickly of this kind of lunchtime discussion, in which the value of my discipline was routinely questioned by people without the faintest idea of what it involves. I was often reduced to advising my interlocutor to read a book.

	11-02-2005 07:29									#161
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Oh, those poor pompous persecuted philosophy majors. Why doesn't anyone understand how (self)important their work is!

	11-02-2005 07:30									#162
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Well, apparently a lot of people do... philosophy departments do not seem to be too badly underfunded.

	11-02-2005 07:39									#163
	Inflate your Upload Space

What is there to fund?

You're paying a bunch of people who couldn't find a private sector job to save their life, and that's about it.

	11-02-2005 07:55									#164
	Got spare money?

I'm not pompous, nor do I feel persecuted. Saying that philosophy is valuable is not being pompous. However, categorically condemning something you obviously don't know much about isn't intellectually honest.

	11-02-2005 10:13									#165
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Asher Epistemology, or at least the study of knowledge, is a flawed concept to begin with, since we can never honestly prove that we know anything.

Solipsism doesn't get you anywhere.

	11-02-2005 10:16									#166
	Inflate your Upload Space

Neither does the incorrect use of pompous words.

I don't recall saying anything about the self.

	11-02-2005 12:09									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: You're paying a bunch of people who couldn't find a private sector job to save their life, and that's about it.

That's crap. I know plenty of former colleagues with private sector jobs.

Frankly, I feel that "businessmen" and "professionals" tend to be self inflated idiots who think that their success at selling widgets entitles them to pronounce fatuously on all the ills of the world without any sort of self reflection or scepticism.

Deflating them is a favourite sport of mine.

	11-02-2005 20:31									#168
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm sure you've shown them up.

----

The rest of my incredible Philosophy essay from my freshman year, which surprisingly got a good mark since my prof had a sense of humour.

....

Perhaps more mind-boggling than Descartes’ hallucinations are the vast masses of followers who actually fell for his “doubting” crap. While, it must be said in its defense, this obsessive global skepticism has brought about an excellent sci-fi trilogy (well okay, the third one kind of sucked), it poses almost no useful conjectures.

The first person to step up to the plate at combating skepticism was George Berkeley. He was the first Western philosopher to say flat-out that the world doesn’t exist independent of our perceptions of it (dude, whoa), but then goes on to say that it doesn’t mean objects cease to exist when we aren’t looking at them, because God is always watching (wait, what?). Berkeley takes himself so seriously, he wrote this argument in the form of a limerick:

There once was a man who said, “God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If He finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there’s no one about in the Quad.”

“Dear Sir:
Your astonishment’s odd:
I am always about in the Quad
And that’s why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.”

While its benign structure may be cute if you picture a rosy-cheeked leprechaun dancing around in a bonny Irish meadow, it really doesn’t accomplish much argumentatively. He extends this thought into another formally structured work: the dialogues between two of what must be his imaginary friends, Hylas and Philonous. In these dialogues, Berkeley tries to convince us that material objects, existing independently of the mind, do not exist as such. Rather, he states that all that exists are ideas and the minds that perceive them, including the hive-mind of God, which magically perceives and knows all. Berkeley’s use of God as a black box solution to an already nonsensical hypothesis is really quite annoying, since the existence of God is assumed, but not proven; yet it leaves no room for argument, since there is also no proof that God does not exist. Since all of his conclusions depend upon the existence of that which can neither be proven nor disproven, his conclusions are also immune to skepticism, and that annoys me in ways only fundamentalist Christians can.

Finally… Moore… My precious. Who would’ve thought epistemology could be summed up so eloquently? Two hands, two objects… let’s go have a beer. **** skepticism. QED. Ah, my word count is too low, I suppose I’ll fill this out then. Wait, if I feign belief in skepticism, perhaps this assignment doesn’t even exist, and I don’t have reason to submit it, and so I’m typing (on what?) for no reason whatsoever. Well if that’s the case, then who are you? What is god? Am I really sitting in this chair, or am I perceiving chairily, or is there some daemon putting this image of a chair in my head? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? Moore made a case against pointless, obsessive skepticism like this. He believes that we may doubt individual things (so, wait, the Earth isn’t the center of the Universe?), but when we become engulfed by doubt, we make incredible assumptions that can’t possibly be true. Moore instead suggests we all start with a ground we can agree on (common sense), rather than starting with bizarre ideas. Just because you can doubt, doesn’t mean you should.

In case it wasn’t totally obvious that Moore wins, let’s write a conclusion! Since we can’t form valid deductive arguments from any of these claims, we’ll have to stick to common sense. Well, Descartes believes in daemons. ‘Nuf said. Berkeley, well he’s almost more irrational than Descartes was, because if God were ever to blink, existence would cease to exist (say what?). Moore? Well he’s out having a good time getting plastered with his friends. So I’d say the sane choice is pretty obvious. Nevertheless, this still leaves room for skepticism, so let’s settle this once and for all, with the Philosopher’s Royal Rumble! Yes, we’re going to settle this the old fashioned way – fisticuffs! Assume Descartes, Berkeley and Moore got into boxing match. Descartes would sit curled up in a corner, frantically repeating, “I exist, I exist, I exist” convinced that as long as he is not saying it, he cannot know whether he exists or not. Berkeley would try to convince himself that as long as he concentrates on not perceiving pain, it doesn’t exist. Sadly, he is betrayed by God, who perceives the pain for him, as Berkeley is shamefully bludgeoned to death with a cod. That’s right, a cod. And Moore would merrily recite his cod limerick:

I must say it is rather odd
To be beating you with a cod
Ne’ertheless it is real
As I’m sure you can feel
Courtesy, the all-feeling God.

…Not that Moore buys into Berkeley’s all-feeling God thing, but hey, it rhymes with cod, and I’m sure it would’ve blown Berkeley’s mind at the moment of his death. And after all, isn’t that what epistemology is all about?

----

I really didn't give a rats-ass about the course...

	11-02-2005 22:53									#169
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

That's a C paper if ever I saw one. Standards must be low at the University of Calgary.

	11-02-2005 22:54									#170
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The introduction is interesting, but the rest shows little or no originality.

	11-02-2005 22:55									#171
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I was expecting to withdraw from the course.

The problem was, the prof was a Kiwi...and he had a sense of humour and found it to be an enjoyable, if unconventional, paper.

I don't expect the hard-ass Plato-type people to like it. Especially considering it was written late at night hours before it was due.

And for an intro to philosophy class, it's about as original as you can get. If I had a dime for every cookie-cutter intro-essay...

	11-02-2005 23:02									#172
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Asher Neither does the incorrect use of pompous words. I don't recall saying anything about the self.

Of course you didn't explicitly say it.

Without the "self" you are literally nothing.

Sophism doesn't get you anywhere, either.

	11-02-2005 23:05									#173
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Of course you didn't explicitly say it. Without the "self" you are literally nothing. Sophism doesn't get you anywhere, either.

You're the king in that.

I don't believe in solipsism, and that argument wasn't an example of sophism.

What it is an example of is what happens when someone incapable of constructing a real argument grabs a dictionary and opens it to the words starting with "so", and types them out if they sound obscure and may work.

For what it's worth, maybe a little blurb may help you: This argument isn't about existentialism. I never claimed that the self is the only thing that we know to exist. You're incorrectly using words you don't understand, not unlike your behavior in computer threads...

	11-02-2005 23:12									#174
	Tired of ads?

quote: And for an intro to philosophy class, it's about as original as you can get. If I had a dime for every cookie-cutter intro-essay...

Nope. I've seen this sort of incompetence from students many times. As I said, Calgary's department must be a joke if they gave you a good grade for that.

	11-02-2005 23:15									#175
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Nope. I've seen this sort of incompetence from students many times. As I said, Calgary's department must be a joke if they gave you a good grade for that.

Philosophy departments are a joke, period.

The problem with philosophy is what's an A-paper to one prof is an F-paper to another.

Unless, of course, the papers are written within the strict confines of the logical-argument system that philosophers try to blind us with to hide the complexities of an illogical world.

For what it's worth, the guy's more qualified than you are, with a PhD from Cambridge.

	11-02-2005 23:17									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: The problem with philosophy is what's an A-paper to one prof is an F-paper to another.

Dude, face it... that was a crap analytical paper. More focused on scoring 'cool' funny points than engaging in analysis. I don't care what liberal arts department you are in, that essay would have been at the bottom of the curve.

quote: Unless, of course, the papers are written within the strict confines of the logical-argument system that philosophers try to blind us with to hide the complexities of an illogical world.

Is this a tacit admission that you cannot succeed in logical argument?

	11-02-2005 23:18									#177
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I was looking around on the Philosophy site, and found the site of my Philosophy of Logic prof.

http://www.phil.ucalgary.ca/people/zach.html



Why is it that you can spot a philosopher from a mile away? Is it the emo look?

	11-02-2005 23:18									#178
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: For what it's worth, the guy's more qualified than you are, with a PhD from Cambridge.

Actually no. Cambridge has undergone a remarkable slide in the last 25 years. It used to be one of the top places in the world, but alas no longer. If you'd said Oxford, I would have agreed. But even U of T is better than Cambridge now for my particular specialization.

	11-02-2005 23:20									#179
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Dude, face it... that was a crap analytical paper.

It was an analytical paper?

The goal was to argue which philosopher is more in-line to your opinion.

quote: Is this a tacit admission that you cannot succeed in logical argument?

Nope, it's that the logical arguments are all still relative to the person's experience giving them.

Mathematical logic is a different thing.

	11-02-2005 23:21									#180
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: For what it's worth, the guy's more qualified than you are, with a PhD from Cambridge. Actually no. Cambridge has undergone a remarkable slide in the last 25 years. It used to be one of the top places in the world, but alas no longer. If you'd said Oxford, I would have agreed. But even U of T is better than Cambridge now for my particular specialization.

Well that's nice dear, but he went to Cambridge in 1963.

quote: Areas of Interest Epistemology Philosophy of Mind History of Philosophy since Descartes Recent Publications A Sort of Balance: Essays on the Later Wittgenstein, Olms Verlag, 2003. "The virtues of common sense," Philosophy, 2001 The Condition of Madness, University Press of America, 1999 "Truth or consequences," The Modern Schoolman (1997) "Wittgenstein's elephant and closet tortoise," Philosophy (1995)