Lol, so just the neo-nazi ^_^

It all seems a sad world of pretense. & religion is blamed for this polar opposite of religion

(September 9, 2009 at 2:12 am)Saerules Wrote:

(August 15, 2009 at 6:31 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Our existence is derived from philosophy? News to me ... I rather thought it was a case of, "I'm alive, now what can I eat?". That 1 = 1 is a mathematical assumption ... again not philosophy (and certainly not derived from philosophy). Justice and morality are relative ... not derived from philosophy.

I repeat that philosophy (modern day philosophy) answers no questions that I can discern. I will change my view on that when (and only when) something is concluded in the basis of philosophical evidence and philosophical evidence alone.

I apologize if any of this offends you Kyu... but:

Apparently... you have no idea what philosophy means.

Actually I think I DO have a fair idea of what philosophy is I simply don't subscribe to the kind of philosophy you sometimes (and I mean that because you have posted some exceptionally rational stuff) do.

Obviously I have noted (with some dismay as I'm not fan of modern day philosophy) that you are "into" philosophy and it may well be that you reject all of what I say below but I have given this a great deal of thought across many posts and many years ... as a consequence I have rejected modern day philosophy as largely meaningless.

Philosophy seems to have (as is usual within the English language) a correct meaning and a number of common usage meanings but, thanks to Asimov (who I'm sure you know was a PhD, a Doctor of Philosophy) and his "New Guide to Science", it appears that it derives from the ancient Greeks. Asimov devotes some space to philosophy where he referred to the Greek investigations of the universe and that they called (and I quote) 'their new manner of studying the universe "philosophia" ("philosophy"), meaning "love of knowledge" or, in free translation, "the desire to know"'(page 8). I would argue that it is because current day philosophers seem to provide little or no direct value to the real world that much of the philosophy bandied about today is little more than academic psychobabble. The true philosophers are scientists.

Obviously I accept that philosophy can generate ideas that can feed into science (the real philosophy) but alone it is a pointless waste of space and nowadays philosophers seem largely people with huge ego's blowing deductive sunshine up each other's arses (and don't even get me started on its bastard child, metaphysics).

So yeah, likewise I have no intention to offend, but you and I see the world though different eyes, in many ways you are much closer to the Arcanus's of this world and I am very keen to see the debate you are taking him up on as I am not truly capable of arguing on his level (no implication of that being higher, just different ... if anything, based on the way he uses his philosophy, lower) whereas I think you are, you understand that tactics, the terminology and to some degree buy into the logic.

From the above it must be clear that I recognise the value of philosophy, simply not the value of the Arcanus style (and unfortunately I am poorly equipped to understand the difference between his and yours), that I consider philosophy (in Asimov's words) the desire to know and that science achieves that in a way that no other so-called philosophy does.

But ultimately no, I reject your assertion that I don't understand philosophy because my philosophy is what you would probably refer to as methodological naturalism (I'd refer to it as science or humanism).

Kyu

I think 99% of philosophy is crap, but science has come from it...it's pretty much speculation, but I see no harm in it and....I personally: Think it's awesome in the sense I find it highly enjoyable.

99% of everything is pretty much crap (except science...but that's ignoring all the discarded science of the past that turned out to be incorrect).

Ultimately, the ideas of philosophy, however few there are, that you say (despite your criticism) can 'obviously feed into science', are enough to make it worthwhile in the long run IMO. And if I (or whoever else) am enjoying the speculation in the meantime, what's the hurt?

EvF

(September 10, 2009 at 12:00 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I think 99% of philosophy is crap, but science has come from it...it's pretty much speculation, but I see no harm in it and....I personally: Think it's awesome in the sense I find it highly enjoyable.

You see I don't see that ... I think science is a rigorous version of trial & error and doesn't need philosophy because it already is one i.e. IMO the only true philosophy is science itself ('spose you could argue ad nauseum which came first) and that';s why they refer to the highest scientific qualification (outside of honorary ones like "Professor") as "Doctors of Philosophy". I think philosophy bolted itself on to science after and I genuinely consider most of it to be little more than mental masturbation.

Kyu

(September 10, 2009 at 5:07 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(September 10, 2009 at 12:00 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I think 99% of philosophy is crap, but science has come from it...it's pretty much speculation, but I see no harm in it and....I personally: Think it's awesome in the sense I find it highly enjoyable.

You see I don't see that ... I think science is a rigorous version of trial & error and doesn't need philosophy because it already is one i.e. IMO the only true philosophy is science itself ('spose you could argue ad nauseum which came first) and that';s why they refer to the highest scientific qualification (outside of honorary ones like "Professor") as "Doctors of Philosophy". I think philosophy bolted itself on to science after and I genuinely consider most of it to be little more than mental masturbation.

Kyu

Ftw once again.

Science is not related to philosophy in any practical sense, it is simply the application of logic, reason and evidence to a situation to separate truth from untruth; in fact i would say that, when done properly, science comes before philosophy and conducting philosophical thought without a foundation of verified truth is like blowing your load before you get her pants off!

(September 10, 2009 at 5:34 am)theVOID Wrote: Ftw once again.

FTW?

(September 10, 2009 at 5:34 am)theVOID Wrote: Science is not related to philosophy in any practical sense, it is simply the application of logic, reason and evidence to a situation to separate truth from untruth; in fact i would say that, when done properly, science comes before philosophy and conducting philosophical thought without a foundation of verified truth is like blowing your load before you get her pants off!

You see I think science is philosophy in the sense of the Greek meaning, "philosophia" ("the desire to know" or "the search for knowledge"). That's why I take the basic stance I do on philosophy (modern day variant" ... I think it broadly speaking achieves nothing UNLESS it feeds back into science for testing in the real world.

From the sound of it we're almost on the same plain here.

Kyu

(September 10, 2009 at 5:48 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(September 10, 2009 at 5:34 am)theVOID Wrote: Ftw once again.

FTW?

(September 10, 2009 at 5:34 am)theVOID Wrote: Science is not related to philosophy in any practical sense, it is simply the application of logic, reason and evidence to a situation to separate truth from untruth; in fact i would say that, when done properly, science comes before philosophy and conducting philosophical thought without a foundation of verified truth is like blowing your load before you get her pants off!

You see I think science is philosophy in the sense of the Greek meaning, "philosophia" ("the desire to know" or "the search for knowledge"). That's why I take the basic stance I do on philosophy (modern day variant" ... I think it broadly speaking achieves nothing UNLESS it feeds back into science for testing in the real world.

From the sound of it we're almost on the same plain here.

Kyu

FTW = For the win

And i would agree with you if philosophy was used as originally intended, but it isn't. When speaking about philosophy i prefer to refer to and object to it in the context of modern usage.

The problem most likely is all the home philosophers out there who know none but their own ideas.

(September 10, 2009 at 6:06 am)theVOID Wrote: And i would agree with you if philosophy was used as originally intended, but it isn't. When speaking about philosophy i prefer to refer to and object to it in the context of modern usage.

Sounds like we do agree ... cool!

Kyu

(September 10, 2009 at 6:08 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(September 10, 2009 at 6:06 am)theVOID Wrote: And i would agree with you if philosophy was used as originally intended, but it isn't. When speaking about philosophy i prefer to refer to and object to it in the context of modern usage.

Sounds like we do agree ... cool!

Kyu

I suspect on much, though you must be tone deaf to disagree with my musical tastes