Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 08:48 pm
I remember Craig responding to this arguement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tup-dA88aw
0 Replies
 
michelleyy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 09:04 am
@The Outsider,
wow. I utterly and completely disagree with you. Philosophy is every where - it certainly isn't dead! Philosophy explains things that physics and science can't explain - how should we live our lives? What is good and bad? Science hasn't disproved the existence of God.. yet anyway. Philosophy = thinking. Without philosophy, we wouldn't even get science because philosophy is what lead us, humans, to question where the universe came from and how things work. So how could you possibly say that philosophy is dead??
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 10:31 am
@michelleyy,
I agree. Philosophy existed before it became a profession. It is all attempts to formulate and answer questions about the existence (ontology), meaning (epistemology) and worth (axiology) of our life experience.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 07:31 pm
@JLNobody,
Hi again JL ! It seams to me that ontology is pretty much out of the picture to you as to not even be considered, as for epistemology, the problem of what we can know, it does n´t seams much better according to your posts on that matter, from where we can fairly conclude that on your perspective, worth is relative and disputable according to usage and culture...so how come you simultaneously postulate Philosophy is alive ?...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 08:50 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Hi to you FA. I don't understand the grounds for your castration of my orientation to the problems of what exists (ontology) , or how we come to know or claim to know life (epistemology) or the problem of ascertaining the relative rank (value) of things (axiology). Nevertheless I was referring to how people in general deal with these matters before the professionalization of philosophy. In other words we are all philosophers of varying degrees of intensity and ability.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 09:09 pm
@JLNobody,
Very true! It doesn't matter whether the individual knows philosophy. What matters is that the individual seek answers for what his life is all about, and how he might achieve some sense of the why's. After all, all of life's values are personal.
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 11:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Agreed. We cannot espcape our own personal philosophising even if we tried or even if we didn't have the neccessary knowledge when philosophising.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 12:09 am
...the fact that you 3 guys are agreeing on something (shared Reality) is considered a good common sense reason for the assumption or the presupposition of being able to know something about it instead of creating your own delusional world...the odds for coinciding are infinitesimally small against infinity itself...and of course value without a social shared reality to contrast perspectives is absent...
...although the diversity of perspectives upon a square does n´t make it any more round...
Fedora77
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2012 01:59 pm
@mister kitten,
All three of those statements can be proven false, starting with the latter ur typing. ur alive. secondly, many arguments have been presented for and against the present existance of God and the only ones that have lasted for hundreds of years are those for God, and finally the fact that anyone is one here analysing such a thought means that philosophy hasnt died but rather may have been surpressed by various factors in society.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2012 06:57 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...although the diversity of perspectives upon a square does n´t make it any more round...


I know that the earth is round. But on the map it looks like a square....
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2012 07:01 pm
@Cyracuz,
Some looks like an oval. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
bulldogcoma
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 04:33 am
@The Outsider,
Is the human mind dead as well? That which perceives and in turn gives meaning to such scientific endeavors in the first place? Can it truly be said that subjective influences from sources outside a scientific realm have no consequence in the physical world? Aristotle's refutation of horseness being above horse was the engineering factor for any moderization of the scientific method. Aristotle was a philosopher. Subject observes object. Interaction between subject and object must be based on some qualitative intention to understand or better our world. Philosophy is simply another branch reaching towards an answer. Physics, although engineer-able by outside forces which can be called "humans", will continue to exist whether we intend to dabble in them or not. Philosophy does not keep up with objectivsm. Philosophy would be concerned with the usefulness of objectivism in creating an environment which makes life better. It asks, what is best, and why? Science does not. Subjective idealism can neither be dead or alive outside the scope of human understanding because it does not exist anywhere else. To them it may be dead. To me it is not. And if they can prove me wrong then I'll believe them. What is humorous about this would be the fact that they would have to use philosophy to do it.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 06:08 am
@bulldogcoma,
You are going to be fun... No fooling... I can tell... Talk to me nice and I will let you smell my butt....
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2012 09:13 pm
@Fido,
Come on Fido. I wondered why you gave yourself the name of a dog Razz
bulldogcoma
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2012 03:56 am
@Fido,
I would prefer intelligent conversation. Prick.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2012 04:30 am
@bulldogcoma,
Have you seen the subjectivity on the evolutionary science threads?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2012 07:39 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Come on Fido. I wondered why you gave yourself the name of a dog Razz
Only because dogs are more human than human; or should I say, dogs are better human beings than most people... You can trust a dog; but how many people can you trust???
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2012 07:42 am
@bulldogcoma,
bulldogcoma wrote:

I would prefer intelligent conversation. Prick.
Sorry... I always try to stay ready to communicate on a much more elementary level... My mistake... Lets shake hands then...Top dogs never git sniffed first anyway... Watch it... If two dogs can't decide who's going to get sniffed first there is bound to be a fight...
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2012 09:52 am
@Fido,
That's a bit misogynistic Fido. Top dogs always get sniffed first here.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2012 01:03 pm
@Fido,
Depends on the kind of dog, I would think. Mr. Green
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
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
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Philosophy is Dead
  3. » Page 28
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2024 at 09:37:35