3
   

Is philosophy useless?

 
 
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 04:45 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Turing, you must recognize that so narrow a criterion as "labor market demand" (or even William James' broader metaphorical "cash value") is too limited for philosophical discussion.


It is good as an initial approximation. I want to start some debate, and argumentation going.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 04:46 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
You want to argue? I thought most of us were interested in discussing the merits of "is philosophy useless?"
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 04:54 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Sure I understand. You propose that we define "useful" as "having economic value." What you haven't proposed is any justification for that definition.


I think I did. I said that opportunity cost of reading/writing philosophy is huge in terms of time, and energy expenditure with no obvious benefits. Also, I did no say "having economic value". It is better to put it as "having no market demand". I want to be clear.

Quote:
I already did argue that. Remember?



No, you did not. Where did you propose a set of necessary, and sufficient conditions for something to be useful? I don 't see it.
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 04:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

TE, Here's a clue for you! a2k is an international chat blog, and anyone can post whatever they please. That's beyond the US Constitution.

really? I dear you to post porn here.



Quote:
I get the point; but you seem lost in your own world. Your idea about "market demand" as it pertains to philosophy is a tangent without any value. Market demand is about commerce, not philosophy
.

In order to doing philosophy, one have to read/write philosophy using time, and energy, and those do have value. Economic is about trying to deal with limited resources, and time, and energy are resources.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 04:58 pm
It's odd my post has been ignored. Did it scare some of you?

The thing about philosophy is that nothing scares it. Not even a rolling-pin wielding woman.

0 Replies
 
TuringEquivalent
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 05:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

TE, Here's a clue for you! a2k is an international chat blog, and anyone can post whatever they please. That's beyond the US Constitution.

really? I dear you to post porn here.



Quote:
I get the point; but you seem lost in your own world. Your idea about "market demand" as it pertains to philosophy is a tangent without any value. Market demand is about commerce, not philosophy
.

In order to doing philosophy, one have to read/write philosophy using time, and energy, and those do have value. Economic is about trying to deal with limited resources. Time, and energy are resources. Those resources more or less will be extracted from the earth.
TuringEquivalent
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 05:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You want to argue? I thought most of us were interested in discussing the merits of "is philosophy useless?"


I was hoping to do some philosophy, and philosophy involves argumentation.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 05:10 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Well argue about something then. Argue with Schopenauer's essay on women. I found it very useful. As I did Veblen's economic theory of women's dress. Is lingerie useful?

Arguing with ci. is a complete waste of time and energy.

Argue about the meaning of meaning or about whether thoughts are material objects. Get your teeth into something TE.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 05:16 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
It's not about a dare; it's about following the rules established by a2k.

FYI, the US Constitution does not allow us to break the laws of this country. It does allow us "free speech" within reason.

If you don't understand the simple rules of participating in society, you are living in total ignorance.

What makes you believe philosophy requires arguments? Do you understand the word debate?

Are you a teenager?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 05:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What does "within reason" mean ci. I hope it doesn't mean within your comfort zone.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 05:31 pm
@spendius,
Within reason means you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 08:17 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:
I think I did. I said that opportunity cost of reading/writing philosophy is huge in terms of time, and energy expenditure with no obvious benefits.

What would be an "obvious benefit?"

TuringEquivalent wrote:
No, you did not. Where did you propose a set of necessary, and sufficient conditions for something to be useful? I don 't see it.

Not necessary. You posed a definitional problem. I provided a definition.
TuringEquivalent
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2011 10:46 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Well argue about something then. Argue with Schopenauer's essay on women. I found it very useful. As I did Veblen's economic theory of women's dress. Is lingerie useful?

Arguing with ci. is a complete waste of time and energy.

Argue about the meaning of meaning or about whether thoughts are material objects. Get your teeth into something TE.


Are you ******* retarded? Seriously?

"arguing" is not ******* philosophy, you ******* moron.

The issue of philosophy, and its use is a philosophical question that deals with Normative issues, and thus, part of philosophy, you ******* prick.



TuringEquivalent
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2011 10:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's not about a dare; it's about following the rules established by a2k.

FYI, the US Constitution does not allow us to break the laws of this country. It does allow us "free speech" within reason.

If you don't understand the simple rules of participating in society, you are living in total ignorance.

What makes you believe philosophy requires arguments? Do you understand the word debate?

Are you a teenager?


Are you a ******* moron? ( a question with another question)

In fact, I think you are in the dark! Do you even have a ******* job, because society is not free. You can 't do a lot of stuff even if you legally can. There are things you can 't do legally, but everyone do it anyway, since it is rational to do so( obviously, such things are not highly regulated, or enforced).

Have we concluded that you are ******* moron?
0 Replies
 
TuringEquivalent
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2011 10:55 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

What would be an "obvious benefit?"


Surely, You are not that ******* stupid. The obvious benefit is gratification, or "fun".


Quote:

Not necessary. You posed a definitional problem. I provided a definition.

No, you did not, you lying son of bitchs. Where the **** is your "definition"? You did not give one, you ******* idiot. Also, It needs to have a necessary, and sufficient conditions in order to be applicable.




spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 02:57 am
@TuringEquivalent,
There is a well known expression: "being philosophical" about things. It means being "cool".

You don't seem very cool.

What normative issues do you wish to be cool about?

You wrote--

Quote:
I was hoping to do some philosophy, and philosophy involves argumentation.


I responded to that and you then said--

Quote:
"arguing" is not ******* philosophy, you ******* moron.


I'm a bit confused about your position. I offered you 5 topics to be philosophical about and you have ducked them all with an unphilosophical rant which has no meaning.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 03:59 am
@spendius,
I did the reading on Schopenauer's essay on women Spendi, and it was...how shall I put it ? hmm....enlightening upon Schopenauer's psychological state of mind...not only is he afraid of women as he lets in the air this feeling of hopelessness to control them which is what he would have wanted...not a surprise that he greatly exaggerates some traits that women indeed possess thus constructing a balloony ill glued cartoon upon their image...in resume he was a prick !

Do you have any other great reading that you want to debate and share with us ? Wink
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 05:10 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
But saying that he was a "prick" enlightens us as to your state of mind as well. I presume you are not afraid of women. Which is a bit misogynistic imo. It's like not being afraid of dogs because the only ones you have experience of are poodles kept in gilded domestication with their natural dogginess bred out of them by artificial selective breeding and skilled training. You sound very hopeful on the matter of controlling women.

What specifically did Schopenauer say that you think untrue? My problem with him is that he failed to cover the amusing aspects of the matter as stylishly as Veblen does.

But he does make an important point that the lady is a parasite on her less fortunate sisters and needs them to parade her airs and gracies. Which women are suffering the most from the debt crisis and which women caused it?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 06:11 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

But saying that he was a "prick" enlightens us as to your state of mind as well. I presume you are not afraid of women. Which is a bit misogynistic imo. It's like not being afraid of dogs because the only ones you have experience of are poodles kept in gilded domestication with their natural dogginess bred out of them by artificial selective breeding and skilled training. You sound very hopeful on the matter of controlling women.

What specifically did Schopenauer say that you think untrue? My problem with him is that he failed to cover the amusing aspects of the matter as stylishly as Veblen does.

But he does make an important point that the lady is a parasite on her less fortunate sisters and needs them to parade her airs and gracies. Which women are suffering the most from the debt crisis and which women caused it?


When I am afraid I am afraid of someone in specific or something, not afraid on a group at large, less alone one which is complementary to my nature...so that bit amounts to rubbish !

Te debt crisis responsibility falling upon the common citizen, independently of its wealth and pseudo social status inevitably brings a big smile to my face...
...the operating status of a system to my view is no oneĀ“s fault, not even from those who control it or help to sustain it in the higher administrative offices...it runs deep in mathematical complexity to be thrown at the streets with a common jargon boxing...

But what amuses me above all else, is that none of this consists in fresh news to you...you probably live a very tedious boring to death life and often fell the need to shake the tree to see what falls down from it just to make your days a bit more colourful...you, behind all that Romanesque theatrical ranting of yours, even sound a nice fellow to me...as I said before I like you Spendi ! the British style at its best... Wink
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 06:42 am
@TuringEquivalent,
Goodbye.
0 Replies
 
 

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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 01:03:58