1- The essence of philosophy is pure thought.
2- Modern philosophers quote older philosophers.
3- QED

There is a formal RA+ there.

(June 18, 2019 at 11:46 am)LastPoet Wrote: 1- The essence of philosophy is pure thought.
2- Modern philosophers quote older philosophers.
3- QED

There is a formal RA+ there.

QED? RA+ what’s that suppose to mean?

(June 18, 2019 at 11:46 am)LastPoet Wrote: 1- The essence of philosophy is pure thought.
2- Modern philosophers quote older philosophers.
3- QED

There is a formal RA+ there.

I can't disagree. Philosophy seems to consist of little more than word games.  I struggled with required philosophy courses at uni, not because I didn't understand the material, but because I found it pointless.

Quote:QED? RA+ what’s that suppose to mean?

Yeah, the RA+ is a new one for me as well.

Boru

Reductio ad absurdum in the form that the premisses are contradictory. Intuitionist (lel) logicians argue about the second law of thought. I swear there is a difference between being punched in the face and not being punched in the face.

(June 18, 2019 at 12:10 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Reductio ad absurdum in the form that the premisses are contradictory. Intuitionist (lel) logicians argue about the second law of thought. I swear there is a difference between being punched in the face and not being punched in the face.

Ta.

And yes - having been punched in the face and having been not punched in the face, I can testify that there is a difference.

Boru

Mental masturbation with minimal happy endings.

Where's the funny part?

[Not Serious] doesn't equate with [Funny]

Boru

I've always said philosophy is more about mapping out our own ignorance than discovering new knowledge. 

Most people are brought up to accept the norms and values of their encompassing society. Philosophy encourages people to investigate things for themselves. The first thing people tend to do is say "Ah ha! I've discovered something no one's ever thought of before!" But the thing is, someone usually has thought of it, and written a book about why it is wrong or done all the thinking one could ever expect to be done on the issue. Hence the constant reference to past thinkers. 

Once you read these past thinkers, you are brought to a new threshold, the threshold where the genuinely new "ah ha" moments reside. And you find it's hard work getting them at this point-- and further, people outside of university philosophy don't even know what the fuck you are talking about unless make a reference to an idea from the past thinker that led you to your new "ah ha" moment. So the temptation is to make a reference to the thinker who worked so hard to clarify X about Y.

At this point it's tempting to ask, "Why does all of this even matter?" It's easy to forget that what we set out to do was map out our own ignorance and challenge the norms of our encompassing society. That's an important duty as I see it. But it's hard work. It's not something you're qualified to do simply because you've taken a couple bong hits, and it's not something you're qualified to do simply because you've won an election. It's not something you're qualified to do because you've managed to make a lot of money, and it's not something you're qualified to do because you've convinced large numbers of people you have the right idea.

It's something you're qualified to do because you've taken the time to test your own ideas against actual objections and carefully worked out which ideas hold actual water. This is quite important to do. But (to most people anyway) it will never qualify you to make truth statements the way winning an election or getting rich will.

Did you not see the [Not Serious]? If this doesn't call for a report I don't know what does.