20
   

What's the ultimate purpose of Philosophy ?

 
 
vori1234
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 06:31 pm
I think phylosophy was, after religion, another unsucessfull atempt to understand nature.
It never gave any answers just bunch of meaningless assumptions.
Only when science took over things become to happen in an amazing speed.
Phylosophy and religion should both be berried a long time ago but they still keep draging human race backwards feeding itself with humar fear and stupidity.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:43 am
@vori1234,
vori,

What are these statements if not "philosophical" ones ?

Quote:
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. EINSTEIN


Quote:
What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning. HEISENBERG


Quote:
The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. BOHR
vori1234
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:51 am
@fresco,
They are statements, assumptions.
Philosophy doesn't have an exclusive right of making statements, assumptions.
Everyone can make statements, assumptions.
Scientist can make statements, assumptions.
Philosphy makes statements and assumptions and stops there.
Sicence makes statements, assumptions and tries to prove them through experiments, mathematical models, by creating mathematical models of physical laws and so on.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:28 pm
@vori1234,
You've not answered the question. Three eminent scientists made statements.
Are you merely saying they are are "assumptions" in order to avoid the word "philosophy" ?...it certainly looks like it ! How could any of them be "scientifically tested" ?
vori1234
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:27 pm
@fresco,
Are you merely saying they are are "assumptions" in order to avoid the word "philosophy" ?...it certainly looks like it !

Yes, that is correct.
I want to separate phylosophy and science, and not making phylosophy as starting point for science, Science is science. phylosophy is phylosophy. They can both make assumptions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How could any of them be "scientifically tested" ?

I am not saying that they can or can not be tested.
I am sure that there are many assumptions that currently can't be tested.
Science tests those that can be tested.
Philosophy never tries to test anything which is why it is making absolultly no progress in our knowledge of universe.
Phylosophy just piles up infinite number of assumptions.

0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:34 pm
@stillmind,
The word philosophy is Greek for "love of wisdom", and if you ask me, that's still a pretty good description of what philosophy is. Wisdom, and the love of it, don't have an ultimate purpose. The purpose of philosophy is philosophy.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 05:54 pm
@Thomas,
Good point, Thomas. And that is true of life itself.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2009 10:43 am
@vori1234,
Vori: "I think phylosophy was, after religion, another unsucessfull atempt to understand nature."

I think both religion and philosophy were key ingredients in the looooong chain of events that put science where it is today.

I also think that the distinction is valid only on paper. Something is never just science, religion or philosophy. Except whey they are on paper. Before that, in the process of forming the ideas, a scientist will, by virtue of being a normal human being, have issues to relate to that fall under all categories. His inspiration to create great scientific works may be well founded in religious belief.

Einstein wasn't a great scientist because he was good at math. In fact, he wasn't very good, compared to lesser scientific minds of his time, at least not around the time his first ideas on relativity started to grow in his mind. What he did have was the power to envision. Imagination, creativity and intuition are important ingredients of scientific discovery. Of any discovery.
If any scientist denies this, ask him if he has ever discovered something Smile
0 Replies
 
rockpie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 12:42 pm
I don't think Philosophy has an ultimate end or goal. I think it's more to do with challenging things that claim to have ends or goals.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 04:05 pm
@rockpie,
philosophy is to thinking what tears are to crying
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 06:08 pm
To learn.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 06:17 pm
Why would anyone think that there was an ultimate purpose of philosophy except, of course, to deal with philosophical problems? But that is so obvious, why would anyone raise the question? It is like asking what is the ultimate purpose of chemistry.
Huxley
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 06:34 pm
@kennethamy,
If that is the case, I would say that you could posit that the ultimate purpose of chemistry is to give a basis for biological modeling, to explore the modeling of systems that more more complex than what physics proposes to model, or to help build faster computers/cheaper medicine/superior house cleaners.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 07:22 pm
@Huxley,
I suppose I could do that. But why would I? And what would be my justification for doing so? I don't see why I should suppose that chemistry has some ultimate purpose other than dealing with chemical issues, and similarly why I should suppose that philosophy has some ultimate purpose other than dealing with philosophical issues. That is why chemistry was invented. And that is why philosophy was invented.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 07:41 pm
@stillmind,
Seems your friend has it down right, I can't agree with your "suffering" part. Least in Denmark we don't have much suffering. We have a bunch of spoiled idiots who are being lazy of too much welfare, we have the worst and most inefficient educational system ..etc, because of welfare.

With too much welfare, people become complacent, lazy, stupid, doesn't strive.

You should read some Sun Tzu - Art of War, it's good for everyday understanding.
0 Replies
 
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 07:51 pm
@kennethamy,
As a thought exercise, I'd say. I don't think things need to have a point, but looking for a point can help to amalgamate information under categories, and thereby bring what may have at one point seemed to be disjointed into relation. Perhaps the wording "Ultimate Purpose" isn't the best, as I think purposes are self-ascribed, but I think the question was akin to "What it is that people are doing when they are doing philosophy?"
0 Replies
 
Pompy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 02:11 am
i personally believe that philosphy, without the unknowning, wouldn't be philosophy at all. Once something is proven, it becomes fact. Once there is a fact, there's no question to answer. With no question to answer there's no wonder, or desire to understand, since it's already understood.

luckily for us, we'll never fully understand.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 07:50 am
@curtis73,
curtis73 wrote:
Rene Descartes walks into a bar and sits down. The bartender asks, "do you want a beer?" Descartes replies, "no, I don't think so," and he disappears.


Haha! This is a good one

To answer the topic's question: If I had to say only one 'ultimate' purpose, it'd be Perspective.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/18/2014 at 03:36:26