Philosophy is Dead

Not if we plug the computer in, talk less about the computer itself, and then use the computer.



A
R
T

then philosophy is dead

A
R.I.P.
T

discuss

Oh no! We're back at the beginning of the thread!

A
R
The Beginning

philosophy is never dead ART it just seems that way

knowledge and perspectives changes through moments of movement ( time if you perfer )

hence thinking and ideas do as well

for infinity

what philosophy does and is its purpose , is to sift through it all and find truths along the way , not opinions , but truths

Let me answer please...In many respects, Plato's republic would be some nightmare world... In attempting to prove justice was not giving to each his due he was wrong... But he was continually trying to apply logic to moral forms, and this great failing, whether he started it or not has continued on to today...

Yeah, look where religion got us?

Could you be so kind and to provide some support to your claim ?

I'm only having fun. I don't think it's dead.


Sure.


Correct.


But then of course some philosopher comes along and assaults the truths we find and reduces them to opinion. Philosophy then becomes less of a means to know truth, and more of a means to convoluted truth.

The phrase "...but how do you really know that..." comes to mind.

I'm all about truths. I'm all for knowledge. I simply think that philosophers create more problems than solutions for both. See the debate on evolution versus creationism for examples of this. Unfounded and unreasonable claims get elevated to one side of a great debate and are allowed to loiter because of epistemological meta-arguments to stay in the game, so to speak.

Truth and knowledge are great things. I don't think our advances in either are coming from the philosophers of our day. We've studied human behavior and we have learned a lot by reflecting and philosophizing about it. More recently though in fields like cognitive science we are learning more things about how the brain physically works, and with that we are gaining a great deal of insight to human functions and behaviors. The new truth and knowledge we have gained here would have never came out of the armchair.

I'll ask you the same question I posed Arujana. Is the gourmet cook or the community kitchen cook a better cook? Of course there is no correct answer, but how you choose to evaluate this is directly joined with how you assign value to food itself. A similar question is which car do you value more: A Ferrari or a car that can go 6oo miles on a single tank of fuel? The answer is directly married to what you use a car for.

A
R
T

If you are going to continue with such assertions without bothering to answer the points I have made about them you really do not belong on a thread where philosophy is the concern.

Christianity is at the front of our line, it is different from other religions and it is capable of meeting intellectual burdens the others are not. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It dominates the world to such an extent that it is making a come-back in Russia and China which have both experienced doing without it.



Exactly what you are doing fa when you pass out your opinions without reference to rebuttals of them. One might assume from your rebuttals of other matters that you can't answer my rebuttals of your opinions and convolutions and are pressing on, head down, looking neither to right or left, like a horse in blinkers, with my arguments on Ignore.

If your objective is to discredit philosophy, science and etiquette you are doing a fine job of it. You are setting aside the basic principles of all three in the service of you in "underpants down" mode and are thus disqualified from discussing any matter which comes under any of those heads.

If others don't know your agenda it is no reason to think I don't.

You've always been skilled at using the words to bait others spendi, but I know I've done more than I've ever to answer your questions in all these years. You're not looking to be intellectually satisfied with answers; your appetite is for others frustration, and frankly you've had a feast on A2K. You have made the sport of this, and I can't blame you, but don't mistake yourself for some great debater. You're Loki; you're Coyote, that's all. The questions you pose are met in full, and you ignore them. That is a part of the game. I'll play along sometimes, but that is for my amusement.

I find a particular satisfaction when you claim (and you really love to claim it) that others ignore your posts because they are afraid or can't answer.

I'll play along a little longer.


1) If we had bacon, we could have bacon and eggs, if we had eggs - Let's examine your claim. How does Christianity manage the intellectual burden of explaining the creation of the planet/universe versus any other religion?

2) Before you pray for rain, watch the weather report - If the proof is in the pudding being eaten, then no religion stands a chance. Christianity is losing ground to reason with each day. The technology that allows for us to even communicate uses applied science that the church once called heretical. Eventually, the church had to give in. It lost. This is a very common and reoccurring event. You may claim that people are gobbling up Christianity with eager spoons, but even the most staunch critics of radiometric dating will enjoy all sorts of technology that employs the same scientific theories that they claim are bogus.

The proof is in the pudding that is being eaten, and just because the bowl reads chocolate, doesn't mean that it's not actually filled with vanilla.

A
R
T

That's bullshit from first to last. The first sentence is incoherent. Of course I'm looking for answers. People who want to overthrow our settled and long-standing religious orientation should be answering questions concerning "why", "how" and with what consequences for society at large rather than for themselves in the short term.

On what basis do you claim that opposition to your "debunking" position, you used the word, is born of frustration? That's a catch-all allegation and not an argument. I do not mistake myself for a great debater. I am well aware of my limitations. Another catch-all allegation is in play. You have met no question I have put to you unless catch-all allegations are asserted to have done so. And you're not amused at all. You are deadly serious about debunking Christianity for your own reasons. You know very well that it isn't a game.



They ignore my posts because they can't answer them and are scared of getting into matters which undermine their long-standing and emotionally-charged viewpoints which they have expressed so often in public that they can't back down from them and have their pride dented.



By explaining those things in a way that satisfied millions of people over a very long period of time to such an extent that they supported the explanation with funds enough to build an empire of Christendom. And still does satisfy millions of people which atheism self evidently doesn't. And for a lot of reasons. What other religious explanation of the world do you have in mind? There are a large number historically. How can I answer such a daft question in relation to all of them. Islam has roughly the same explanations.



We do watch the weather reports. If we pray for rain it is because we are desperate. Otherwise we don't pray for rain. And even if we do what difference does it make to weather forecasts or the weather? What's your point. Are you now relying on primitive religions doing rain dances to debunk modern Christianity. "I wish it would rain" is a prayer. Umbrella manufacturers and salespersons might do that. And there's other things involved when it comes to dancing. Like fun.



Just as the prime mortgage business gained ground on sound fiscal reason in the run up to 2008. Is our Christian method of organising baby production losing ground to reason with each day? Heaven forbid. Your argument has no point. Reason is so disputable that if we relied upon it we would get nothing done. Emotions don't bend to reason. And whose reason do you have in mind? The Politburo's with you in the chair?



So what? The Church adapts. It uses the technology itself now. What's your point again? Dredging up ancient history which you don't understand is pointless. Congress used to meet with sidearms in evidence. The Constitution laid down principles of education for a world that has no relation to the world now.



Now you're back to self-comforting assertions which are totally false. Why are you battling with a Church that has lost? The champ doesn't continue to beat up the guy who has been counted out. It is the fact that the Church won't give in on "certain issues" that is exercising you as I explained in a previous post which you ignored. And will never give in on them.

I'm not a critic of radiometric dating so you should address remarks on the matter to those who are.

I'm well aware that a bowl labelled chocolate may contain vanilla. In my experience it has never happened and I guess it has never happened to you. But I'll bet you either have, or will one day, buy a bowl labelled lamb and discover it is mutton. Your arguments trash the female beautification industry just as they are trashed in North Korea and for the same reason.

The Church in its best moments allows us all to look and feel beautiful for a time. Perhaps we need that. Looking and feeling like animals on a permanent basis with no relief is likely bad for morale.

or maybe they just think you're a boring windbag

They would say that wouldn't they? as Mandy Rice Davies once said in the witness box. They need some other reason than the ones I've given seeing as how they are hardly a credit to them.

What are you doing reading the posts of a boring windbag? Is your day dragging to that extent?

in my mind you're only a windbag, some of what you say is interesting

It may all be and what isn't interesting to you results from your failing to understand it. I consider my posts to be stripped down as lean as I can make them.

Show me an example of a wasted word in my posts. Show me how you would say the same thing more efficiently. I promise to learn from your instruction.

here's the beauty of me, i don't really care about a lot of the discussions going on, i like to read what folks think, and might comment here or there (admittedly usually to bait someone), i live my life as i see fit, god, politics and world events really don't impact me much, i've figure i've got about 20 years left, given the life expectancy of males in my family tree, and after that, the world can go to hell in a hand basket (or more so i guess)

Lean is relative. You have never exactly been starved for words.

These are complex issues Cyr. Soundbites are useless for dealing with them.

I agree that "lean" is relative. That's why I asked for guidance. Perhaps you will identify a wasted word in my posts or an inefficiently expressed idea with an example of how to improve.

I hope you don't think I'm overestimating my readers.