So, seriously, what is philosophy anyway?

Quote:

Then why are the very same questions repeated endlessly?

cause people want answers provided to them without having to do the work.
Most people are basically lazy.

@HexHammer,

i would assume because we don't know enough about
our surroundings to understand it all.

endlessly isn't possible since the end has yet to happen.

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

Pompy wrote:

Also, certain philosophical questions have been answered,
and within time, more answers are to come.
Then why are the very same questions repeated endlessly? It seems you miss something to your equation.

The answer is above.

within time, more answers are to come.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I hope the preceding sentence was sufficiently convoluted enough for all who bothered to read through it.

Way to clear to be philosophy. Welcome aboard, anyway.

0 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

Right, I've been, well not really reading full on any of the philosophical threads here, just posts here and there, trying to get a flavor of the new kids.

Mostly though, I've been reading their responses to what posters I feel I know well have been saying.

Frankly, I'm not seeing any difference, as far as the rubber hits the road aspect of it, from what common sense people like soz, and others say.

I pick out soz, because, #1 she's got a good head on her shoulders. Also because in a thread about, of all things Winking, she basically answered the question, only to be rebuffed, and someone from the original philforum says practically the same damn thing, and is praised for his intellect.

I'm serious.
What is all this?

There was once a gentleman who ask a Jazz musician what is Jazz ... The Count answered: Man, if you have to ask you will never know...

I was a lousey student with a high IQ... I thought I was retarded because it was so difficult for me to learn.... In fact, I could only learn anything by findingbh where it connected with other knowledge, so the beginning of knowledge was the hard part, finding how the most basic points of knowledge cennected when I had so little...
Bcause I suffered that sense of challenge I cannot say whether the love of knowledge drove me or the hatred of my ignorance... I do know I was struck by the evident unfairness of life, and that it brought profound quesstions to my lips as a young child...It was not the question that made me philosophical, really; but that it drove me to learn so that the question philosophers like to ask are not met with dumb silence of stupid reply... Two qualities every philosophers owns are knolwledge, and love...Philosophy is not the love of knowledge... The philosopher is the location where love and knowledge come together, and find their expression...

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Quote:

I often wonder at the philosophy is is useless and abstract thinking is pointless crowd.

sozobe wrote:

How can you make such generalizations about a "crowd?" What is a crowd, anyway? Does a crowd need to be a physical gathering of people, on the ground, or can it be just people who are all reading something, from their various computers around the world? Must a crowd all think the same way? What if they only agree on one aspect out of a million different thoughts and decisions, can they still be a crowd?

There was no generalization I was referring to a specific group of people who are concerned with a specific issue. The rest of that is nice and vacuous I hope you enjoyed typing it.

Quote:

The simple act of labeling something is abstract. we couldn't get through the day without it.

sozobe wrote:

Isn't it possible to function without labels? Must labels be literal, a word attached to a meaning, or can one form ideas about objects without labels? Can one think without language? What if it is a signed language, with no spoken words? Is that actually a language?

No it is not possible to function without labels. Labels aren't necessarily literal words. Current research shows that one cannot form ideas without categorization, frame, schema, and typing. so one can create a gestalt prototype of a thing, situation, or action, but at the point of combinatory categorization (adding one prototype to another to form a thought with both action and object) labeling and language happen. Sign language has grammar, vocabulary and syntax it is a language.

Quote:

The goal of universal law creation is abstract, without it a child couldn't hypothesize that fire is always going to be hot so don't touch it.

sozobe wrote:

Is there really any such thing as a universal law? How is it determined whether it is universal or not?

I wouldn't know if there is any such thing as a universal law. It seems, however, that it is the human condition to chase it. Yet I was writing about a universal law as pertaining to one type of sensory input. Fire is hot is fairly universal

Quote:

Political theory is abstract. There never would have been an equal rights movement, a democratic revolution, any change for the better or worse without an abstract meta-conversation that at that point was not practical. people live their lives in the abstract and all people in some way or another are philosophers.

sozobe wrote:

Pooh is a philosopher, Piglet is a philosopher. This is very wise. I admire your intellect. It is enjoyable to find someone who is able to think things through in a highly intellectual way, like me. I appreciate you. Have a fabulous day.

A.A. Milne could be considered a philosopher, Pooh and Piglet maybe not so much.

But to answer your real question. Things have a place, a time, and a season. If one is posting in the philosophy section one should expect to find a certain level of abstractness. If one is posting in the gardening section, maybe not so much.

*****

At some point it becomes... wearying, no?

At any rate, while I agree with your post, I think it is a bit of a strawman in that I don't think anyone was arguing against all abstract thought.

edit: by the way I failed in being as vacuous and abstract as I planned, some of the questions in there are actually interesting and I wouldn't mind discussing...
[/quote]

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

I think some of that might be transitive. A lot of folk not interested in philosophy wanted to welcome the Philforum group, which then has the effect of diluting the topic for a week or two with folks who are not very informed on the subject (but who are interested in the people). The same thing happened with the Droid forum import, the welcoming itself becomes unwelcome.

Anyway, things will die down a lot and the folks who don't like philosophy will start to ignore the philosophy threads, while right now there are the welcomers, the curious and the ones who are throwing their weight around deliberately trying to goad you all (who I recommend you ignore).

The checking out the new folks and the posturing will die down significantly in about a week in my opinion and the philosophy threads will have a different signal-to-noise ratio.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus,

What, if anything, do you say to the proposition that "discussion" of any kind amounts to little more than a form of "social dancing". On that model, the "philosophy" here is "disco dancing",compared to the "philosophy" elsewhere which is "classical ballet".

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

A pleasure to meet you, KaseiJin. I think know you a bit better now.

Likewise, msolga, and the pleasure is definitely mine; and I fully agree with your sentiments. See you 'round !
KJ

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

(remember, I did major in philosophy)

Ah. I think we can forgive your dyspepsia, then.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

On that model, the "philosophy" here is "disco dancing",compared to the "philosophy" elsewhere which is "classical ballet".

different, but equal

unless you thought there was an agreed-upon value placed on either form of dance or philosophy discussion.

As usual, there is no Universal Truth.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Quote:

(remember, I did major in philosophy),

So did I. Well, we had to have two majors in our first degree, and that was one of them.

I imagine quite a number of people already here before you lot arrived did too.

I imagine, as I have said a couple of times as has Robert, that you'll soon have your more exclusive threads back.

But I think you greatly underestimate the group here with a very limited experience to go on. It's getting kind of old.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

Yes.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

On the same note, I could be very rude about NOT seeing the great qualities you guys look back to in your old forum and NOT seeing anything like the depth of discussion and knowledge you guys refer to. Far from it.

I have refrained because:

. I understand that it takes a great deal of time to find threads that are exemplars of the best your forum had to offer, (I will certainly follow up on the old threads that a bunch of you kindly recommended)

. those of you who DO post such threads are likely too discombobulated and involved in other stuff on this forum right now to be posting in your normal way,

. that it takes a long time to get to know a new bunch of people and it is very difficult early on to know for whose threads to look, thus one tends to become overwhelmed by the philosophy 101 stuff, and the more...er..emotional and incoherent posters amongst you.

. Just as YOU have no way to know how to get the best from this forum, and you don't know who and where to expect it from, and you are likely similarly overwhelmed by the material that impresses you least.

I have no intention of judging the PF people on what I have seen so far.

And yes, there is a lot more stuff going on here than just philosophy. Because it's not philosophy doesn't mean it's bad or inferior.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

It's not that I do not like having general conversations about philosophy with people mildly interested in the subject who have little to no formal knowledge of the subject, it's that I do that all the time in real life with my friends and acquaintances; therefore, I seek a more in depth conversation online with others a bit more studied in philosophy. I hope the preceding sentence was sufficiently convoluted enough for all who bothered to read through it.

The problem people here have is not with discussions of philosophy, it's the bullshit being peddled by so many of the philosophy refugees. There's also a definite problem with the attitude of condescending superiority shown by so many of the philosophy refugees, and you're a prime example.

So far, i've run into problems with your crew discussing science, history, archaeology, paleo-anthropology, religion and atheists--not a one of them were discussions of anything which might remotely have been considered philosophy. It seems that many of your philosophy refugees either consider themselves masters of many subjects (when they clearly are not), or that almost any subject is just a matter of opinion. This may be the biggest problem the philosophy refugees have. They seem to think that almost any subject is a matter of opinion suitable for "debate" (i see little evidence that many of them would know debate if it came up and bit them on the ass), and they seem to think that all opinions are of equal value. These are absurd positions to take.

You have written: "I hope the preceding sentence was sufficiently convoluted enough for all who bothered to read through it." This is mere ignorant hubris--and it's a lame and poorly written sentence. "Sufficiently convuluted enouhg?"--are you familiar with the concept of redundancy (two can play that game of being condescending about language, Bubba). Many, many of the members posting here have a far better command of and ability to express themselves in the English language than you have so far displayed, and the preceding sentence to which you referred was not convoluted at all. You appear to be a legend in your own mind.

Once again, to put it succinctly, the people here don't object to philosophy, nor are they ignorant of it--it's the bullshit you people commonly spread that is causing the problems.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

You're so full of it i'm surprised you don't choke.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Theaetetus wrote:
(remember, I did major in philosophy)

Ah. I think we can forgive your dyspepsia, then.

Good one!

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Theaetetus wrote:
(remember, I did major in philosophy)

Ah. I think we can forgive your dyspepsia, then.

Good one!

It was!

0 Replies

For MY part, I wanna say that I notice that this site is a lot more fun,
enjoyable and interesting since the arrival of our new friends from the PhilForum.
I recognize their hi intelligence and I know that we will be better off for having its value in this forum.
I hope that all of our new attenders will optimally enjoy this site.

I feel indebted to Robert for his having successfully made the effort to bring this about.

Thank u very much, Robert !

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I'm beginning to suspect that Set may have majored in philosophy as well.

1 Reply

So, seriously, what is philosophy anyway?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know