 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:26
|
|
I've gotten along well with all of my philosophy professors. We've rarely seen eye to eye, but that's life.
I've gotten along well with a miniscule fraction of the philosophy students I've met. Most of them seem to believe that a good argument consists of blindly questioning/contradicting what the other person says. E.g.,
Stud: "Do you exist?"
Me: "Yes."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that you exist?"
Me: "Because if I didn't exist then this conversation would be pretty pointless."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that it would be pointless?"
Me: "A conversation requires a minimum of two participants, so if I didn't exist then you'd be having a conversation with yourself. Hence, this conversation would be pointless."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that I'd be having a conversation with myself?"
Me: "We're the only two people here right now, so if I don't exist, then you'd be the only person here, hence you'd be alone."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that we're the only two people here?"
Me: "Excuse me, but is there a point to all of this?"
Stud: "Ah, but why do you assume that there has to be a point to all of this?"
Me: "You're a ****wit."
There's a purpose to philosophy, I certainly won't deny that. However, there's often not a purpose to taking a philosophy course, since they're full of cretins.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tuberski
|
 |
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
I've gotten along well with all of my philosophy professors. We've rarely seen eye to eye, but that's life.
I've gotten along well with a miniscule fraction of the philosophy students I've met. Most of them seem to believe that a good argument consists of blindly questioning/contradicting what the other person says. E.g.,
Stud: "Do you exist?"
Me: "Yes."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that you exist?"
Me: "Because if I didn't exist then this conversation would be pretty pointless."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that it would be pointless?"
Me: "A conversation requires a minimum of two participants, so if I didn't exist then you'd be having a conversation with yourself. Hence, this conversation would be pointless."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that I'd be having a conversation with myself?"
Me: "We're the only two people here right now, so if I don't exist, then you'd be the only person here, hence you'd be alone."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that we're the only two people here?"
Me: "Excuse me, but is there a point to all of this?"
Stud: "Ah, but why do you assume that there has to be a point to all of this?"
Me: "You're a ****wit."
|
Ah, but am I a ****wit or a ****wit?
 ACK!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
I've gotten along well with all of my philosophy professors. We've rarely seen eye to eye, but that's life.
I've gotten along well with a miniscule fraction of the philosophy students I've met. Most of them seem to believe that a good argument consists of blindly questioning/contradicting what the other person says. E.g.,
Stud: "Do you exist?"
Me: "Yes."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that you exist?"
Me: "Because if I didn't exist then this conversation would be pretty pointless."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that it would be pointless?"
Me: "A conversation requires a minimum of two participants, so if I didn't exist then you'd be having a conversation with yourself. Hence, this conversation would be pointless."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that I'd be having a conversation with myself?"
Me: "We're the only two people here right now, so if I don't exist, then you'd be the only person here, hence you'd be alone."
Stud: "Ah, but how do you know that we're the only two people here?"
Me: "Excuse me, but is there a point to all of this?"
Stud: "Ah, but why do you assume that there has to be a point to all of this?"
Me: "You're a ****wit."
There's a purpose to philosophy, I certainly won't deny that. However, there's often not a purpose to taking a philosophy course, since they're full of cretins. |
Very funny. Mere contradiction is bad philosophy - one should always attack the opponents premises not his conclusion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
You've yet to prove philosophy to be useful. Then you keep saying I'm not supporting my argument.
Then I ask you for a fourth time to tell me why it's useful.
Then you respond with the above.
Maybe this technique works with your philosopher colleagues, but not with me baby. 
For the record, it doesn't suffice to list simple observations/theories that philosophers have pulled out of their ass thousands of years ago that turned out to be right (by scientists, no doubt). |
Are you telling me that science doesn't proceed by suppostions and hypotheses just like Democritus' hypothesis? (which he didn't pull our of his ass - he had reasons for it) 
And where did this glorious scientific method originate from - the rationalist explanations of phenomena pioneered by the presocratic philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Sure, they were wrong about a lot of things but the core of their thinking is sound. Here's Roger Penrose (whom you should know)
"By some miraculous insight Plato seems to have foreseen, on the basis of what must have been very sparse evidence at that time, that: on the one hand, mathematics must be studied for its own sake, and one must not demand complete applicability to the objects of physical experience; on the other hand, the workings of the actual external world can ultimately be understood only in terms of precise mathematics.."
"The Emperor's New Mind" p. 205.
This alone makes a mockery of your entire case, since this is precisely the fundamental claim of his philosophy.
As for the rest I suggest that psychiatric treatment might work with you. I suppose none of the things I listed count as useful to you, again I ask, what planet are you living on?
To use a contemporary example: is medical ethics useful? Yes. Well where do ethicists come from? Answer: they are trained in philosophy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Are you telling me that science doesn't proceed by suppostions and hypotheses just like Democritus' hypothesis? (which he didn't pull our of his ass - he had reasons for it) |
Science involves hypotheses, but then they go and try to prove them right or wrong.
Philosophers write out hypotheses and then jump for joy, and go home...
quote:
And where did this glorious scientific method originate from - the rationalist explanations of phenomena pioneered by the presocratic philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Sure, they were wrong about a lot of things but the core of their thinking is sound. Here's Roger Penrose (whom you should know) |
The problem with this is you assume no one else can have the same ideas as those philosophers had, and further without them we wouldn't have had the work done by Dalton, etc.
And again, I'm still REALLY confused why you keep citing all these old people. I've said before that ancient philosophers were quite useful, but modern ones are not. To counter this, you cite all kinds of ancient philosophers?
quote:
This alone makes a mockery of your entire case. |
You don't seem to understand the case...
quote:
To use a contemporary example: is medical ethics useful? Yes. Well where do ethicists come from? Answer: they are trained in philosophy. |
Ethics should not be taught in a classroom. 
Everyone has their own code of ethics, don't philsophers understand that? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-02-2003 07:54
Your d1ck fits into a pencil sharpener? Excuse me, but this problem has more to do with medicine than with philosophy.
|