As a law student I don't think philosophy should have a higher place when it comes to jurisprudence - We need good solutions and justice/security - Philosophy only serves the purpose of determining What is justice? What is the law? Why do laws exist and answering other ambiguous questions - But other than that objectivity and precision are far more important.

(August 31, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Blackout Wrote: As a law student I don't think philosophy should have a higher place when it comes to jurisprudence - We need good solutions and justice/security - Philosophy only serves the purpose of determining What is justice? What is the law? Why do laws exist and answering other ambiguous questions - But other than that objectivity and precision are far more important.

You just made a philosphical statement.

(August 31, 2014 at 12:22 pm)PhiloTech Wrote:

(August 31, 2014 at 12:13 pm)naimless Wrote: yes philosophy has over stepped its boundaries

it fucked me... in all holes... while i was sleeping

it just won't stop

halp

pls

oh no wait it's not a real thing okay sorry my bad

Hey don;t worry buddy. Descartes loves you

Long time! With all the mind/body dualism you can handle.

---

(August 31, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Blackout Wrote: As a law student I don't think philosophy should have a higher place when it comes to jurisprudence - We need good solutions and justice/security - Philosophy only serves the purpose of determining What is justice? What is the law? Why do laws exist and answering other ambiguous questions - But other than that objectivity and precision are far more important.

Agreed. Once the field has been staked out it is ready for the specialists and no longer an active domain for philosophy .. unless something comes up to make you question its foundations.

(August 31, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Blackout Wrote: As a law student I don't think philosophy should have a higher place when it comes to jurisprudence - We need good solutions and justice/security - Philosophy only serves the purpose of determining What is justice? What is the law? Why do laws exist and answering other ambiguous questions - But other than that objectivity and precision are far more important.

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law.
Have you not heard of H.L.A Hart or Ronald Dworkin? There is much work on this very topic already.
Anytime you practice law you are practicing a jurisprudence or philosophy of law.

(August 31, 2014 at 7:47 pm)PhiloTech Wrote:

(August 31, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Blackout Wrote: As a law student I don't think philosophy should have a higher place when it comes to jurisprudence - We need good solutions and justice/security - Philosophy only serves the purpose of determining What is justice? What is the law? Why do laws exist and answering other ambiguous questions - But other than that objectivity and precision are far more important.

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law.
Have you not heard of H.L.A Hart or Ronald Dworkin? There is much work on this very topic already.
Anytime you practice law you are practicing a jurisprudence or philosophy of law.

Jurisprudence is the study of law and it's foundations, it's not merely philosophy, the philosophical pillars will come with time but in my opinion understanding practical solutions is far more important than memorizing all theoretical concepts - Both are important, but Law is inherently a practical science because it leads to a legal effect on the concrete real life case - That's when law fulfils it's purpose, in practical daily life - It's not a theoretical science unlike what some people may think - And yes Law with a capital L, involving not only written laws but all set of rules and principles that regulate how humans live in society is factually a science, when I finish my masters I can consider myself a small scientist in the middle of other hundreds. Still thinking about the topic of my thesis, and still don't know.

(August 31, 2014 at 7:42 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I find it telling that in 5000+ years of trying, philosophy has not solved one problem of human existence.

Boru

But they managed to convince us for 5000 + years that human existence has problems that need solving by philosophers, clever buggers.

MM

I'm really confused now. Since when is science philosophy?

*Google search*

Wha...?

Well, I think the OP is probably referring to what is generally considered philosophy by most people (i.e. Philosophy of law, mind, and metaphilosophy).

I think the reason that the OP is harping on philosophy is because people like William Lane Craig warp it to their own ends (at least that's one of the reasons that it annoys me sometimes). Personally, those branches of philosophy that attempt to answer questions that are fundamentally unanswerable annoy me. Also, those that seek to answer (or worse, claim to have answered) scientific questions without using any actual science, those are the worst. ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause" ...how do you know that?)

Don't get me wrong; I like a lot of philosophy, but since things like metaphilosophy don't require empirical evidence, people can just make stuff up and parade it around as though it were deeply insightful.

(September 8, 2014 at 1:08 pm)Darkstar Wrote: I'm really confused now. Since when is science philosophy?

*Google search*

Wha...?

Well, I think the OP is probably referring to what is generally considered philosophy by most people (i.e. Philosophy of law, mind, and metaphilosophy).

I think the reason that the OP is harping on philosophy is because people like William Lane Craig warp it to their own ends (at least that's one of the reasons that it annoys me sometimes). Personally, those branches of philosophy that attempt to answer questions that are fundamentally unanswerable annoy me. Also, those that seek to answer (or worse, claim to have answered) scientific questions without using any actual science, those are the worst. ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause" ...how do you know that?)

Don't get me wrong; I like a lot of philosophy, but since things like metaphilosophy don't require empirical evidence, people can just make stuff up and parade it around as though it were deeply insightful.

This is actually my exact issue with philosophy and its' usage. Philosophy unlike science cannot have an order, it must abide by pure testability and if nothing is testable then it is free of scientific criticisms.
But things like metaphysics are to come after physics(science) not before.

When you look at the ancient Greek philosophers most of them pondered about reality and came up with elaborate philosophy which was entirely proven wrong by science. Look at the concept of the nous and the nature of cognition. Neuroscience has disproved the philosophical concept of dualism and a metaphysical grounding of consciousness. These things have no place in philosophy or science.

Science renders old theories "out of date" but in philosophy and entire proposition can be declared bullshit. William Lane Craig is actually the reason I hate philosophy and Harris is the reason why I love it. Philosophy is a hate/love thing for me.

Philosophers in this day of age are going back to the Sophistry of the Greeks and doing something I hate.
I have a philosophy and phrase that I use to guide my life in terms of knowledge and it is "never speak to soon".

I find that people who wish to get ahead in realms of discourse and reasoning almost always abandon testability and instead engage in discourse about a matter before any evidence is laid forth. This is something that philosophers almost exclusively do.

Philosophy is great and it is obvious that I love it but I feel that it is being hijacked because "science is too hard". I hate hearing that goddamn phrase from kids and now philosophy is becoming more of a fad to discredit science and true wisdom.

(September 8, 2014 at 8:52 pm)PhiloTech Wrote: Philosophy is great and it is obvious that I love it but I feel that it is being hijacked because "science is too hard". I hate hearing that goddamn phrase from kids and now philosophy is becoming more of a fad to discredit science and true wisdom.

Really? Did anyone ever actually say they are choosing philosophy because science is too hard? Part of me feels like this is a politician's anecdote: "I was walking in the mall the other day, and some kid skateboarded up to me and said, Mitt, I feel my life isn't turning out because I can't get good moral guidance from my politicians. What can I do?"

I think philosophy is determined by the questions it asks rather than the answers it provides. The idea here being that while specific fields of inquiry are defined by which answers they seek, philosophy is about the questions. I consider philosophy to have four major branches:

Metaphysics - the question of what exists? What is its nature?

Epistemology - How do I know it?

Logic - How reason works?

Ethics - What should I do? How should I act?


For example, when the answer to metaphysical question is "the reality around you exists" and the one to epistemology is "you can know it by observing evidence and experimenting", then you have a basis for the scientific method.

Similarly, when you come up with the answers to "what your goal should be" or "what society, as a whole, should do", then you have a basis for morality and jurisprudence.

---

(August 31, 2014 at 7:01 pm)whateverist Wrote: Agreed. Once the field has been staked out it is ready for the specialists and no longer an active domain for philosophy .. unless something comes up to make you question its foundations.

I'd say that constantly making sure that there is no error in the foundation would be a desirable trait.