Philosophy is Dead

I remember Craig responding to this arguement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tup-dA88aw

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??

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.

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 ?...

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.

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.

Agreed. We cannot espcape our own personal philosophising even if we tried or even if we didn't have the neccessary knowledge when philosophising.

...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...

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.

I know that the earth is round. But on the map it looks like a square....

Some looks like an oval.

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.

You are going to be fun... No fooling... I can tell... Talk to me nice and I will let you smell my butt....

Come on Fido. I wondered why you gave yourself the name of a dog

I would prefer intelligent conversation. Prick.

Have you seen the subjectivity on the evolutionary science threads?

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???

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...

That's a bit misogynistic Fido. Top dogs always get sniffed first here.

Depends on the kind of dog, I would think.