Philosophy is stupid

[gsdx]

Ah. Over 2 hours. So it was just a game.

I was being baited to respond.

 

[LilBit]

I am treating and defining sound as Pysics defines it, You are choosing to define it by what you personally believe as a philosopher would. A sound is a mechanical wave, every reference I have found for you here agrees with that perspective.

No, he and I are defining it as a neuroscientist would. Again, you're too caught up in your tunnel-vision view of the world to accept that science isn't as clear-cut as you'd like it to be.

I promised to come back and clarify my argument, but gsdx has already pretty much made the argument that I was going to make, and you're still too dense to even try to understand his point of view. I'm getting tired of your judgmental, condescending attitude--not just in this thread, but all over JUB. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[trawler69]

Sounds a bit like a philosopher's football match!

 

[stiletto]

You're entirely missing the point: philosophy is supposed to be something "more", of less "vital" significance than wisdom, and my point is precisely that most of so-called Western philosophy is that "wisdom", what you call "spirituality" or even religion (because of its dogmatism, like in rationalism or positivism) than proper philosophy.

"Philosophy" doesn't not mean just "thinking", "thought", "wisdom" or "spirituality" of different sects centered in specific concepts like God or Duality or The Way or Whatever, but a particular form of rational investigation, and it had been often made in the same "irrational" and whimsical way attributed more specifically to Eastern traditions, which, in their turn, have their corresponding good share of decently logical and rational thinking.

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm not particularly educated, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance. Are you saying it's more about the approach than the result? Like critical thinking, or whatever? If so, I suppose I can see what you mean.

I've never been that logical, though. Many of the things I believe, I believe just because I have vague 'hunches' about it. That would be somewhat 'un-philosophical', right? It probably gives me a lot of potential to be full of shit. I'm pretty open to the more more whimsical approaches, if I have a 'feeling' about them, or if I find them useful in some way.

And I just discovered nondualism. I think it makes a lot of sense, though I can't really support it... I just find having that to aspire to has made living in general have a little bit more clarity, and I'm less likely to have anxiety or anger or to self-evade, etc. So I find it makes sense for this reason. I'm not very knowledgeable, but I can imagine how 'the ego' might get in the way of tranquility or whatever.

If I'm still missing the point, I wouldn't mind being educated. For some reason I had difficulty reading your post. I don't think it's badly written, I just had some difficulty following it. I think I got the gist, but I might be wrong.

 

[gsdx]

I find it astonishing that people try to argue opinion VS fact, and expect people to accept their opinions when they cant even provide one piece of evidence or proof about their claims. Then its funnier that they ignore the other person

And I find it in very poor taste to be mocked and insulted for refusing to play your childish games.

I am so tempted to post that PM you sent to me the other day. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you might have been pulling my leg, but now I see that your true being and childish mentality came out in that PM and now in this thread.

Such a miserable life you must lead to stoop to these measures.

 

[gdude30]

HAHA CONFUCIUS IS REFERE

THAT WAS SO EPIC.

I have to show that to my philosophy teacher.

Sokrates wins the game

Therefore philosophy=win

Case closed.

 

[_AJ_]

I don't see where you derive this idea from?

For instance if someone claimed Dogs could fly would you do research to dismiss this claim or just dismiss it instantaneously? Experience gives us enough intuition to question claims with out degree level knowledge.

I feel you are implying that you only believe things that you have academic knowledge of.

if that claim was backed up by years of research and study then then i would have to do research to dismiss it

your example is not analogous to an actual situation since there is no evidence that dogs fly nor have they ever flown anywhere back through their evolutionary path based on that its is highly improbable that there is a flying dog

you are not pragmatic in what you believe you choose an outcome and will not vary your opinion no matter how overwhelming the evidence to the contrary

what is the point of an experiment if you ignore the results and write what you think should have happened

 

[_AJ_]

Then of course Atheists are not at all intrested in engaging in an argument that gives room for a deity.

Really

i dont really care what people believe


but if you post things which are blatantly incorrect i am going to set the record straight

also i agree that belief in evolution does not preclude belief in god there are still so many unanswered and unanswerable questions how did life begin i personally think it started through chemical reactions billions of years ago if you believe god did it i really dont care what does it matter how it started really it is unprovable there is no evidence either way and unless we go back and observe it there never will be a definitive answer
but if you dont know something you dont make stuff up in my opinion

 

[belamy]

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm not particularly educated, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance. Are you saying it's more about the approach than the result? Like critical thinking, or whatever? If so, I suppose I can see what you mean.

I've never been that logical, though. Many of the things I believe, I believe just because I have vague 'hunches' about it. That would be somewhat 'un-philosophical', right? It probably gives me a lot of potential to be full of shit. I'm pretty open to the more more whimsical approaches, if I have a 'feeling' about them, or if I find them useful in some way.

And I just discovered nondualism. I think it makes a lot of sense, though I can't really support it... I just find having that to aspire to has made living in general have a little bit more clarity, and I'm less likely to have anxiety or anger or to self-evade, etc. So I find it makes sense for this reason. I'm not very knowledgeable, but I can imagine how 'the ego' might get in the way of tranquility or whatever.

If I'm still missing the point, I wouldn't mind being educated. For some reason I had difficulty reading your post. I don't think it's badly written, I just had some difficulty following it. I think I got the gist, but I might be wrong.

You got it. At your 20 years of age, you show to be FAIRLY educated: you would only need to keep it that way for the rest of your life.

 

[gsdx]

You would learn a lot about this if you also studied sound at university, but obviously you havnt done that.

No, I didn't study 'sound' in university. I got my degree in a silly little thing called 'psychology'. And, with 30-odd years of life experience on top of it, I've pretty-much got you pegged.

 

[_AJ_]

Also philosophy is not stupid unless you ask stupid questions

theoretical physicists around the word grapple with questions about unification theory's which borders on philosophy at the end of the day the answer may well be there is no answer
which is an answer

it is not stupid but the questions being asked here are no longer relevant we need some more modern ones like

if a mobile phone rings and there is no one there to answer it does it not go to message bank

how about a good one though how did life begin?
there is no way to prove how life began so it is purely philosophy

Bertrand Russell:

Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know.

Carl Jung:

Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than with bare hands. It is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is.

Henri Poincare:

Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.

Isaac Asimov:

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.
Marie Curie:

There are sadistic scientists who hurry to hunt down errors instead of establishing the truth.

Unknown:

- from the Institute for Stork Research and Science
Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of Sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school. In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favor of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.

 

[belamy]

Also philosophy is not stupid unless you ask stupid questions

(...)

You mean stupid a priori or stupid after having philosophized about them?

 

[belamy]

To the very practical minded, and those spending their time just trying to survive or making ends meet, academic philosophy will seem as pointless mental masturbation, and thus, 'stupid'. (?)

But if you think that philosophy is stupid, then 'thinking for the sake of thinking' is stupid.

Maybe it has no survival benefit in a pioneer society, but as basic needs are met, some minds will turn to abstract concepts, etc.. ..and wondering 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.'

So I think it is a human endeavor, even if it may seem unpractical. But we are not always practical. Ergo, philosophy is just an outcome of the complexity of our neural network, in my opinion. It comes with being sentient...and is part of the human condition.

That is what I said, but it is not the "stupidity" of which we were talking. Philosophy sure is of no vital importance, and that you can consider enough for something to be stupid if you are stupid enough to be so proud of not being able to think beyond what you have beofre your nose, but there are several
instances in which phylosophy can become a "stupid" subject, the first of them treating it as valuable only with respect to its position as cultural concept or as realted to an academical position or literary career.

What is called philosophy (and not wisdom spirituality or simply thinking) in the West is the AWARENESS of the daily abstraction involving every second of your life when you make decisions, try to understand what is around you and what is your position or even when you are taking all that for granted and you think you are exclusively devoted to "practical, " "real", "important", "meaningful" activities.

 

[belamy]

That is what I said, but it is not the "stupidity" of which we were talking. Philosophy sure is of no vital importance, and that you can consider enough for something to be stupid if you are stupid enough to be so proud of not being able to think beyond what you have beofre your nose, but there are several
instances in which phylosophy can become a "stupid" subject, the first of them treating it as valuable only with respect to its position as cultural concept or as realted to an academical position or literary career.

What is called philosophy (and not wisdom spirituality or simply thinking) in the West is the AWARENESS of the daily abstraction involving every second of your life when you make decisions, try to understand what is around you and what is your position or even when you are taking all that for granted and you think you are exclusively devoted to "practical, " "real", "important", "meaningful" activities.

Damn this I wouldn't wonder nobody understood; this is how it should read:

That is what I said, but it is not philosophy's "intrinsecal stupidity" the topic we were discussing. Philosophy sure is of no vital importance, and somebody can consider that a good enough reason to think of philosophy as something "stupid", provided he is stupid enough to be so proud of not being able to think beyond what he has before his very practical nose, but there are several instances in which philosophy can actually become a "stupid" subject, the first of them being treating it as valuable only with respect to its position as a cultural concept or as related to an academical position or literary career: like someone who said he can cook because he has a certification and spends the day in a kitchen but everything he does is valid only as far as he does it and is proud of it, not as far at it is edible at all.

What is called philosophy (and not wisdom, spirituality or simply thinking) in the West is the AWARENESS of the daily abstraction you go through every second of your life when you make decisions, when you try to understand what is around you and what is your position in it, all of which you make even when you are taking for granted all that process and you think you are exclusively devoted to "practical, " "real", "important", "meaningful" activities. That is, philosophy is a general systematization, made only for the sake of it, for the sake of investigating, out of mere curiosity, but which bears a direct relation with practical issues... a direct but not a "necessary" one: that's why, like I said, you can live without philosophy to some extent like you can live without technology or even without morals to a certain extent, that is, to the most miserable human condition conceivable.
In fact, from that point of view, you can identify "philosophy" with "science" since it all ultimately amounts to "investigation", and you can compare that conception with some of the attempts at definition made by different intellectual authorities given by a JUBber above.

 

[gsdx]

Do you have any idea how stupid you're making yourself look?

If no one in a hospital has depression, then does that mean depression doesnt exist?

By your logic about sound, it means that Depression doesnt exist.

I suppose you also think from an earlier example you gave that a mirror doesnt reflect light if no one looks at it.

Also, If humans weren't around to see Evolution millions of years ago, then you must believe that evolution didnt exist millions of years ago either.

This is your logic, not mine, and I consider that baiting because you want me to respond to it.

I won't.

 

[belamy]

I can't edit so I post it here: to reach the concept of "freedom" and for millions of people to agree to make up a nation according to that principle, you needed philosophy.
Go figure how much of a "dispensable" activity it is.
If you really believed such a concept is something any people, any society can find out there and make grow and prosper among them there would be no need to fight for freedom, since it would already be there.

The United States is not founded on the Bible: pioneer or tribal communities can be live according strong mystical beliefs, but a whole nation needs more "philosophy", more ingenuity than stubborness in faith or love of mother nature to prevent being swept away from the face of the earth.

Oh, and about the cook above, I forgot to add that, besides his own pride and confidence in the shit he produces, he needs also a bunch of people around him to proclaim an expert and authority, and even more people to blindly or simply indifferently be willing to agree that he does a very good job as a cook.