You didn't personally do the mythologizing. I say we for a reason. Alot of the mythologizing was done by later christians, both good and bad. Alot of the propping up in a tower. The history there gets convoluted fast as they felt compelled to both borrow from and distance themselves from the traditions and personages.

I think we both agree that this is/was a mistake.

'Bout tree fiddy.

(February 27, 2024 at 1:14 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You didn't personally do the mythologizing.  I say we for a reason.  Alot of the mythologizing was done by later christians, both good and bad.  Alot of the propping up in a tower.  The history there gets convoluted fast as they felt compelled to both borrow from and distance themselves from the traditions and personages.  

I think we both agree that this is/was a mistake.

A mistake, yes. A claim that we should be logical and scrutinize our possible mistakes. I think Plato had that part right. Taking Platonism as a whole is foolish.

But the denying of Plato's ideas wholesale is equally as foolish. He had good ideas. We both know it.

(February 27, 2024 at 1:24 am)Angrboda Wrote: 'Bout tree fiddy.

What's that's supposed to mean Angrboda?

I get it's a south park reference, but do you wholeheartedly think it applies here?

(February 16, 2024 at 10:25 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(November 14, 2023 at 7:30 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Should this discipline be required in college? Should students who are pursuing unrelated degrees be required to take any philosophy classes at all at university? Why or why not?

What about History? Should business majors be required to take History 101? Why or why not?

Personally, I think philosophy is largely useless unless one thinks that politics, law, or morality is useful. So, therefore, I tend to think that most philosophy courses are useless to those who pursue business degrees and such. Even scientists, though they may be interested in philosophy, and not too shabby at philosophizing either... philosophy doesn't help science much at all. Even philosophy of science doesn't help science. Let alone the rest of it.

But I do think philosophy is immensely useful to those who pursue political science or law. Maybe even science to some degree. But, meh. Only so useful to scientists...

I think two philosophy courses ought to be required of all students: ethics 101 and logic 101. Beyond that, philosophy is useless to the vast majority of professions.

I can't tell you the exact numbers. But I bet you I learned more useful things in philosophy class. That might not be the same for my friend Billy. Maybe Billy learned all kinds of useful things in business class, and little to none in philosophy class.

My best guess: if Billy learned logic ans ethics, we'd all be better off. If you disagree with that, there are plenty of good reasons why.

(February 27, 2024 at 1:26 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: A mistake, yes. A claim that we should be logical and scrutinize our possible mistakes. I think Plato had that part right. Taking Platonism as a whole is foolish.

But the denying of Plato's ideas wholesale is equally as foolish. He had good ideas. We both know it.

Absolutely.  Like I keep yammering about...I think that the likes of plato and laozi or their compilers spoke the most authoritatively on the subject of good government order as they saw it.  To be clear, some of the ideas or arguments I would call good ones are not even things I agree with - I admire the delivery, and the proof of their utility as governing philosophies of the mind or the mind of a nation would be in the pudding of the empires that were founded on their justifications and advice.

(February 27, 2024 at 1:34 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I get it's a south park reference, but do you wholeheartedly think it applies here?

No meaning. Just being silly.

(February 27, 2024 at 1:24 am)Angrboda Wrote: 'Bout tree fiddy.

220..........221, whatever it takes.

I haven't read much Plato, but the question of how worthless philosophy is may be something I have some thoughts about. When we're talking about how much something is worth, different standards may be at play, and often people use the most disadvantageous standard when talking about something they don't like. This leads to rather biased assessments. An assessment can come from a purely subjective standpoint, as in chocolate ice cream being worthless because I don't like chocolate ice cream. Alternatively one can try rational justification which ultimately leads to subjective values, but ones which are more universal.

Commonly, it is compared to the instrumental utility of science. I think this is a bit misleading as science itself is pretty useless except insofar as its accuracy in describing reality can be instrumentally useful in the development of technology. Knowing Einstein's theories alone is pretty inutile. Turning that knowledge into GPS satellites on the other hand, useful. I think this distinction is overlooked in criticizing philosophy. By itself, it may also be inutile, but in as much as it accurately describes something real, it can be turned into human technology and thought technology. Curmudgeons may complain about the uselessness of post-modernism, yet use logic to do it. Science fans may argue the uselessness of philosophy, yet be the first to turn around and make use of the concept of falsification in their arguments. And nobody serious would consider the question of a TOE without thinking of Godel being in the background. And quantum physics is overflowing with philosophical questions. These indirect uses of philosophy get dismissed by philosophy's critics and overlooked by the ignorant.

But instrumental utility itself is only one of multiple possible standards. Nobody would complain that because nobody built a boat with them, the Mona Lisa and Tolstoy's War and Peace are worthless. You'd have to be a boorish Philistine to assert such things.