NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I would like to make clarification of this. First - Philosophy is important to everyone, no matter what, whether it is of conscious choice or not. Philosophy incorporates the way you live your life - From social standards, economics, politics, and governemental proceedings.

But, more individualized is what I am hoping to see discussed.

Furthermore, philosophy again is inherently important to you on an individual level, whether you consciously accept such or not.

So, as a more precise question, "Do you believe philosophy is worth contemplating as an individual?"

Beyond this, I am curious to hear philosophies espoused by the lovely occupants of said forum.

Now, before this can of worms is fully opened, I'd like to set down a few guidelines (whether they're actually followed is open to the proceedings that shall follow this post [one can only hope]).

I'd like to see coherent as well as cogent posts. None of this one line post garbage that is likened unto, "I think philosophy sucks and is boring and worthless today." Yes, that's nice. I'm sure you're a real academic as well.

Honestly, if you can't post something of intellectual worth in an intellectual topic, just shut up and read it instead. Atleast attempt to learn something before spouting some imbecilic comment that is completely and utterly subjective.

Further more, when describing your philosophical tendencies and adherences, please do not proclaim them as being axiomatic. Preparing your small speech as if it's self-evident to everyone here is absolutely absurd. That'd be like me saying, "Petrine Primacy is true, and you all suck if you don't believe in it!" First, I don't believe most would even know what Petrine Primacy is, furthermore, I would not be so arrogant to perpetuate that my view is automatically inherent with truth.

Also - Don't be shocked and amazed that your philosophical belief shall receive critique. It's natural in such a controversial topic. Philosophical tendencies will obviously blend into theological beliefs as well, for as many believe, philosophy is the opening door to theology.

So, while this might seem like a long first post (with not a lot of objective statements on my part [though, this was obviously not my case in the primary initiation of said topic]), I wish to root out the people that are likely to respond with drivel and subjective topic.

I'm hoping to see some true and meaty intellectual discussion in here. Here's to hopeful wishes. Let's see what comes.

I think philosophy is a game. Playing with concepts and reaching an interesting conclusion is fun.
However, a reasoning always depends on the hypotheses. The only thing we know is that we know nothing. Therefore the syntetheses is not necessarily true.
Humans do philosophy anyway because they like it and sometimes they discover a science.
I think philosophy should not drive politics, but that science should.

I spend a lot of my time thinking about and discussing philosophy in the metaphysical sense, but also in the social idealogical sense. I find that what is generally thought of as philosophy can be applied as a thought structure rather than a specific thought and as such is more versatile than people think. In the guise of philosophy any abstract concept can be discussed. In particular, those abstract concepts which fall into the catagory of "unknowable" rather than simply "unknown" seem to make up the bulk of philosophic thought. For me, the unknowable world is endlessly fascinating to speculate about, perhaps because no one can prove me wrong when I say something, but also because it includes the most important and penetrating questions of our existence.

The importance of philosophy? Huge, in ways we don't even stop to think about.

The most fundamental, pervasive field of philosophy is logic. Science depends on it. Stray from its principles and people instantly expose you for a bullsh!t artist.

But the most vital and lively area of philosophy is ethics. How do we know what's right or wrong? Science tells us what we can do. Philosophy, particularly ethics, tells us what we should do. No scientist is complete without a solid grounding in critical, ethical thought.

The importance of philosophy? Huge, in ways we don't even stop to think about.

The most fundamental, pervasive field of philosophy is logic. Science depends on it. Stray from its principles and people instantly expose you for a bullsh!t artist.

But the most vital and lively area of philosophy is ethics. How do we know what's right or wrong? Science tells us what we can do. Philosophy, particularly ethics, tells us what we should do. No scientist is complete without a solid grounding in critical, ethical thought.
I think it is the over way around. Philosophy depends on mathematics, but mathematics don't depend on philosophy. Mathematics were discovered thanks to philosophy though but they existed before.

I think philosophy is a game. Playing with concepts and reaching an interesting conclusion is fun.

Why do you believe it a game?

However, a reasoning always depends on the hypotheses.

As all things must. We must always ask a question before we can get an answer.

The only thing we know is that we know nothing.

A paradox, and true, technically. However, this is of the rational of probability as opposed to possibility (feasibility). While anything is possible (hence we know nothing), there are certain things that are the most probable, which is why we have applied reasoning, rationality, logic, and the very criteria of evidence (that which is most credible due to circumstances).

So, while you contend we know nothing, technically we don't even know that. It reverts in on itself, and practically everything is pointless then, to even the inclusion of thinking. We don't know if we're thinking, so we don't know if we know nothing, and we don't know that we don't know that we know nothing. It becomes silly linguistics, and falls apart at its very base.

In philosophical terms, if every thing is subjective, even the idea that everything is subjective is also subjective, so we couldn't even say that's objective, precluding us from even using that as a credible argument.

The philosophical standpoint that nothing is knowable is not a credible argument, in and of itself, lest we actually do take up the action of doing nothing in life and literally laying down. Just lay down and do nothing, and you shall accomplish the end result of such a philosophy.

Therefore the syntetheses is not necessarily true.

A non-sequitor.

Humans do philosophy anyway because they like it and sometimes they discover a science.

All sciences have their roots in philosophy, just like theology, economics, government, etc... etc...

Philosophy looks to solve "Why?" in a plethora of categories, and from such questioning we develope new ways to solve the question, and even perform more precise ways of asking the question, into detailed format.

Humans "do" philosophy because it is natural for a human to ask questions, and they wish to know the answer. However, not all things may be done by plain observance, so they must develope a new way to study, which is not always a physical study (however not precluded from such either), which developed philosophy (however, philosophy by very definition has always been around, we only gave it a term to pinpoint it from antiquated times).

I think philosophy should not drive politics, but that science should.

Far too ambiguous of a statement, to be frankly honest. What type of science? Physical science? Statistics? Biology? Psychology?

Not to mention, every single one of those sciences is foundationed into philosophy. Communism, democracy, capitalism, mercantilism, socialism... etc... etc... is all based on philosophy.

The importance of philosophy? Huge, in ways we don't even stop to think about.

Not everyone, which is the reason of this topic. But overall, surely.

The most fundamental, pervasive field of philosophy is logic. Science depends on it. Stray from its principles and people instantly expose you for a bullsh!t artist.

The fundamental of philosophy is not logic. The fundamental is asking a question, and wishing for an answer. The most basic question being, "Why?" Logic is simply how we have standardized to find that answer. (And I am a purveyor of logic, for it has shown the most credible response of coherent answer provided to the begged question.)

But the most vital and lively area of philosophy is ethics. How do we know what's right or wrong? Science tells us what we can do. Philosophy, particularly ethics, tells us what we should do. No scientist is complete without a solid grounding in critical, ethical thought.

To an extent, I could agree with that. However, as I've said, science developed because of philosophy. But yes, in strict philosophy, ethics tends to be the largest course study. Specifically speaking, what ethics are, how we decide them, and how to integrate them into reality, however one may view reality.

--------------------------

I think it is the over way around. Philosophy depends on mathematics, but mathematics don't depend on philosophy. Mathematics were discovered thanks to philosophy though but they existed before.

Logic depends on mathematics, philosophy does not. Logic is the core proof in philosophical study these days, but is not the proof of philosophy itself.

And mathematics is dependant upon philosophy, because it is a science developed from the question of "Why?"

Let's first define what is mathematics, science and philosophy.

And mathematics is dependant upon philosophy, because it is a science developed from the question of "Why?"
No, that's science, not mathematics. Mathematics doesn't need to be used to anything or make any sense. Physics, chemistry and biology do use mathematics, but mathematics alone has nothing to do with the reality we live in (or whatever you call it).

Let's first define what is mathematics, science and philosophy.

Ah! A fine resolution, surely.

Philosophy:

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

There is a plethora of definitions here, however the most basic one would be to go with the 3rd definition. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry:

Basic philosophy is simply inquiry. "Why?" Philosophy attempts to answer that question, in whatever form it might be. In fact, that is why even some of the old philosophers were apt to say, "Shall we philosophically discuss philosophy?" to the point of them saying, "Shall we even ask why of philosophy?" And of course, we should have to do that as well. To even the point of saying, "Why ask why?"

Science:

1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

1. a. would be the best definition in the inclusion of this topic. The specific attempt of an area to explain the phenomena. There's a phenomena, and now we develope a "science" to explain such a thing(and to be more precise, in some instances, to solve such a thing).

Mathematics:

The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

A fine definition, for the purposes of this discussion.

Are you adverse to these defintions? For, I do agree, precision would be best here, so we do not start spouting more axiomatic proclamations, and bicker over the definitions. Would be most helpful, indeed.

Second edition:

Why are you so fast?

No, that's science, not mathematics. Mathematics doesn't need to be used to anything or make any sense. Physics, chemistry and biology do use mathematics, but mathematics alone has nothing to do with the reality we live in (or whatever you call it).

Mathematics is a set science. However, thankfully, we have definitions to go by now. Science is not being termed here specifically as a "physical science" that you study in highschool. Just as there is political sciences, social sciences, historical sciences, etc... etc... mathematics is a branch of science.

Mathematics does need to make sense, by it's very case study. I'm not sure where you get the idea it does not need to make sense. If you mean it does not need to make sense to the common day man, because it's a complex science, you are correct. However, nor does epistemology, the Eucharist, etc... etc... But the theories, equations, and the like do need to make sense within the actual science.

Yes, other sciences do use mathematics, but this does not mean mathematics is not a science. And yes, mathematics most assuredly does have to do with the reality we live in, hence why you can tell someone, "2+2=4" and they can't tell you rationally, "No, 2+2 can equal 56."

Why are you so fast?

Well, I guess three things would be included here. Reading, thinking of response, and typing out response.

My reading I would assume comes from... well, I read a lot, so I've developed the ability to read more quickly through practice I suppose. Not a boast, just a fine art, in a sense.

Thinking would be due to the fact that philosophy tends to be a study of mine, not formally, but more a passion. Would account for most of the reading I do.

And typing is most likely due to the fact that I used to do a lot of web-design, and you tend to pick it up after just sitting at a computer for hours mashing away at a computer monotonously.

Is that what you were asking or was I mistaken?

Forgive me, Our Earth, I didn't see your post originally and thus did not respond, but I shall ammend my lack of observation now. (Again, my apologies.)

I spend a lot of my time thinking about and discussing philosophy in the metaphysical sense, but also in the social idealogical sense.

To discuss philosophy as a whole, one must consider the possibility of the metaphysical, whether they arrive to the conclusion later that it exists or not. If one doesn't question originally, they will not have as high of likelihood of adhering to truth (a credible answer).

I find that what is generally thought of as philosophy can be applied as a thought structure rather than a specific thought and as such is more versatile than people think.

Exactly. It's merely making an inquiry. We question things. We wish to understand.

In the guise of philosophy any abstract concept can be discussed.

Certainly.

In particular, those abstract concepts which fall into the catagory of "unknowable" rather than simply "unknown" seem to make up the bulk of philosophic thought.

Might seem as such, but as I already showed, philosophy sets out to understand the unknown. Philosophy can not have the pressumption of there being the "unknowable" inherently. However we can arrive at the conclusion that some things are unknowable, after already trying to answer the question. Again, the inquiry.

For me, the unknowable world is endlessly fascinating to speculate about, perhaps because no one can prove me wrong when I say something, but also because it includes the most important and penetrating questions of our existence.

Well, I don't believe the world is unknowable. I believe some things are, however the world is not inherently unknowable. Why is this? Well, when you say world, I assume you mean that as what is immediately around us and effects us, basically what is already "known" which is exactly why it's an oxymoron. You have given a very staple of terminology, "the world" or you may even say "existence" or whatever other philological word you'd like to give it... but you have given it something you "know" as it is.

It doesn't stand up on itself. There are things we know. And others we don't.

Philosophy hopes to lead us to eventually know those things we don't.

"Do you believe philosophy is worth contemplating as an individual?"

Yes of course, what thinking person doesn't. :cool:

Well, I guess three things would be included here. Reading, thinking of response, and typing out response.

My reading I would assume comes from... well, I read a lot, so I've developed the ability to read more quickly through practice I suppose. Not a boast, just a fine art, in a sense.

Thinking would be due to the fact that philosophy tends to be a study of mine, not formally, but more a passion. Would account for most of the reading I do.

And typing is most likely due to the fact that I used to do a lot of web-design, and you tend to pick it up after just sitting at a computer for hours mashing away at a computer monotonously.

Is that what you were asking or was I mistaken?
Oh, but I can assure you you were mistaken. And your so called "reading" does look like the definitions I found at dictionary.com and posted here, but I shall leave it for now.

Yes of course, what thinking person doesn't. :cool:

I think that would be the general point. What thinking person doesn't. :D Right on spot, I dare say. Unfortunately, a lot of people (who claim to be practical, often enough) claim it is pointless to contemplate philosophy these days. Ironic, surely.

----------------------------------------

Oh, but I can assure you you were mistaken. And your so called "reading" does look like the definitions I found at dictionary.com and posted here, but I shall leave it for now.

First, this is obviously a break down of communication and assumption. I thought that you asked why was I so fast merely because I was responding to each and every post thus far, not to specifically my posting of the definitions.

If that is the case, yes, I freely admit they came from www.dictionary.com

Would you rather we reference an Oxford dictionary? If that's the case, I'll comply and go grab such instead. We can find a suitable definition from that as well, I'm sure.

So, forgive me for being mistaken for what you were actually asking when you said, "Why are you so fast?"

Inference over message boards is often lost and ambiguous.

Now, are is anyone going to discuss actual points already raised, or we still hung up on something else?

You don't know what I do (and thereby what I am) and I doubt my forgiveness would mean anything to anybody. I am not angry, nor am I offended. Never offended.
I may have used the wrong set of words, but it hardly matters.


I have an ideology and I often have to test hypothetical problems in order to guess the results of my actions (which aren't always very good). I suppose that can be seen as philosophy.

Ah! A fine resolution, surely.

Philosophy:

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

There is a plethora of definitions here, however the most basic one would be to go with the 3rd definition. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry:

Basic philosophy is simply inquiry. "Why?" Philosophy attempts to answer that question, in whatever form it might be. In fact, that is why even some of the old philosophers were apt to say, "Shall we philosophically discuss philosophy?" to the point of them saying, "Shall we even ask why of philosophy?" And of course, we should have to do that as well. To even the point of saying, "Why ask why?"

Science:

1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

1. a. would be the best definition in the inclusion of this topic. The specific attempt of an area to explain the phenomena. There's a phenomena, and now we develope a "science" to explain such a thing(and to be more precise, in some instances, to solve such a thing).

Mathematics:

The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

A fine definition, for the purposes of this discussion.

Are you adverse to these defintions? For, I do agree, precision would be best here, so we do not start spouting more axiomatic proclamations, and bicker over the definitions. Would be most helpful, indeed.


I'd say I am opposed to limiting the definition to 3. And yes a clear definition would certainly be helpful.

For what I see as a more traditional classical definition, I would collapse all those definitions into this:
Philosophy: The systematic investigation of the underlying theories regarding the nature, causes, or principles of reality, involving the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

Thus, science (which includes mathematics) is properly considered a specialized branch of philosophy.

You don't know what I do (and thereby what I am) and I doubt my forgiveness would mean anything to anybody.

Whether I know "what you are" (according to your perspective on this ambiguous terminology) or not, it is still offering a respect of courtesy to you, for their was a misconception along the line, and I wished to ammend it. That is all. I was attempting to be civil.

I am not angry, nor am I offended. Never offended.

I am honestly happy to hear you are not angry, nor offended. And I'll keep in mind that you're never offended.

I may have used the wrong set of words, but it hardly matters.

I will contend otherwise, for the very subject in discussion is an intellectual subject, and has necessity that precision is present, especially in terminology. Even more so, considering you were refuting something I said.

It surely does matter, especially if you intend to stand behind what you say.

I have an ideology and I often have to test hypothetical problems in order to guess the results of my actions (which aren't always very good). I suppose that can be seen as philosophy.

Yes, that could be seen as philosophy.

Now, bringing that up, are you to say you arrived at your ideology according to your test results based on hypothesises, or did your hypothesises originate from an idealogy you already had undertaken? (Or, perhaps a mixing of both?)

Ah! A fine resolution, surely.

Philosophy:

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

There is a plethora of definitions here, however the most basic one would be to go with the 3rd definition. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry:

Basic philosophy is simply inquiry. "Why?" Philosophy attempts to answer that question, in whatever form it might be. In fact, that is why even some of the old philosophers were apt to say, "Shall we philosophically discuss philosophy?" to the point of them saying, "Shall we even ask why of philosophy?" And of course, we should have to do that as well. To even the point of saying, "Why ask why?"

Science:

1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

1. a. would be the best definition in the inclusion of this topic. The specific attempt of an area to explain the phenomena. There's a phenomena, and now we develope a "science" to explain such a thing(and to be more precise, in some instances, to solve such a thing).

Mathematics:

The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

A fine definition, for the purposes of this discussion.

Are you adverse to these defintions? For, I do agree, precision would be best here, so we do not start spouting more axiomatic proclamations, and bicker over the definitions. Would be most helpful, indeed.I would like to put it in my words if it doesn't bother you, just to make sure I understand what we are talking about.

Philosophy, according to what I understand, is all about reasoning, going from A to B using mathematics. It doesn't matter if the hypotheses and the synthetesis are true or false, provided the reasoning is true. One could create a virtual world, define all its basic rules and reason to find new elaborated rules using philosophy. This world does not need to exist at all. Is that correct? And am I right if I say that philosophy is about the path rather than the starting or end point?

Mathematics is the absolute truth.
Logic, according to me, is part of mathematics, is that correct?

Science, from what I understand is about applying mathematics on experimented phenomena. The hypotheses here are experimented and supposed to be true, therefore the syntethesis is supposed to be true as well.

If I am correct in my understanding on those terms, then I will certainly be correct if I say that once a philosophy is experimented it becomes a science.

I'd say I am opposed to limiting the definition to 3. And yes a clear definition would certainly be helpful.

Using definition 3 for philosophy is not limiting it, for it is the most broad of the definitions available to it. It's the study of inquiry.

For what I see as a more traditional classical definition, I would collapse all those definitions into this:
Philosophy: The systematic investigation of the underlying theories regarding the nature, causes, or principles of reality, involving the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

Your definition, however, is actually limiting it. Now, do not get me wrong, I still agree with your definition as fitting with philosophy, in so far as philology is concerned. It's not an incorrect definition, and works fine. However, a broad definition (essentially one that is not limiting) is being used as to allow the furthering of the general principles of philosophy. If the discussion decides to get more intricate, precise, and detailed, I'm completely for this and would condone such an action.

A more classical "observance" of philosophy, such as existentialism, pragmaticism, nihilism, etc... would be fine discussions, surely.

But for the general reasons and purpose of this topic (the original purpose anyway), definition 3 is the least binding and most lenient of them all. That is why I suggested its use, not that it was the only acceptable one.

Thus, science (which includes mathematics) is properly considered a specialized branch of philosophy.

I agree whole-heartedly, as I've stated and elaborated upon several times in my previous posts.

Using definition 3 for philosophy is not limiting it, for it is the most broad of the definitions available to it. It's the study of inquiry.



Your definition, however, is actually limiting it. Now, do not get me wrong, I still agree with your definition as fitting with philosophy, in so far as philology is concerned. It's not an incorrect definition, and works fine. However, a broad definition (essentially one that is not limiting) is being used as to allow the furthering of the general principles of philosophy. If the discussion decides to get more intricate, precise, and detailed, I'm completely for this and would condone such an action.

A more classical "observance" of philosophy, such as existentialism, pragmaticism, nihilism, etc... would be fine discussions, surely.

But for the general reasons and purpose of this topic (the original purpose anyway), definition 3 is the least binding and most lenient of them all. That is why I suggested its use, not that it was the only acceptable one.



I agree whole-heartedly, as I've stated and elaborated upon several times in my previous posts.You are trying to give a broad non-limiting definition of philosophy. I think it is not the right way to go. The best way to go in my opinion is to give an atomic, limiting and discriminating definition of philosophy, as we want to discuss it here. Any other definition is not a definition.

I would like to put it in my words if it doesn't bother you, just to make sure I understand what we are talking about.

Doesn't bother me at all. Again, this would be likened unto when philosophers would say, "Let's philosophically discuss philosophy." Trying to pertain it to your conception is fine, and I'm completely willing to hear you out and go from there.

Philosophy, according to what I understand, is all about reasoning, going from A to B using mathematics. It doesn't matter if the hypotheses and the synthetesis are true or false, provided the reasoning is true. One could create a virtual world, define all its basic rules and reason to find new elaborated rules using philosophy. This world does not need to exist at all. Is that correct? And am I right if I say that philosophy is about the path rather than the starting or end point?

Philosophy, in a classical sense, yes, is about reasoning. However, for purpose of this topic, I've used the most limitless definition that philosophy has used, which is basically the desire to satiate inquiry. However, the terminology you use essentially could still be philosophy (in the more classical sense [which is surely a good thing, and by no means inferior to the original purpose I have, as discussion naturally evolves]).

You are correct that the hypothesis and the end conclusion do not need to necessarily be true or false, because that is ultimately the reason why one studies philosophy and contemplates it. To come to a conclusion. And yes, in classical philosophy, reasoning is valued highly.

And again, your idea of the conceptual world is indeed correct. In fact, this is how philosophy mainly effected politics, social points, and economic powers. One would create a world, with a concept, and try to rationalize how it would work (with assumptions on how man works [which is another philosophical study in and of itself]).

The actual enaction of philosophy is the path, yes, however the goal of philosophy is you have a starting point and you need to get to the ending point. We inquire, and we wish to satiate it... that is, find the answer to the unknown. "Why?"

I certainly agree mostly with what you said.

Mathematics is the absolute truth.

Only according to the objectivity that we have already decided upon.

Logic, according to me, is part of mathematics, is that correct?

Yes, very much so. Logic and mathematics are co-dependant. Neither can exist technically without the other.

Science, from what I understand is about applying mathematics on experimented phenomena.

Not necessarily mathematics in all realms, though. We have theories that are bases for many other theories that are not completely proven on mathematics, but on observation. Gravity exists. Now, we can say how velocity is effected by gravity, and weight. But we can't prove that gravity is there with mathematics. We simply can drop something... and it hits the ground. We see that bodies pull eachother from observation. We see that gravity exists. We see how different masses increase or decrease gravity, but the actual gravity is proven by observance. There are a multitude of how proofs are come to in the "physical sciences."

The hypotheses here are experimented and supposed to be true, therefore the syntethesis is supposed to be true as well.

Yes, physical sciences are based on proofs. Actual scientific experimentation and observation.

If I am correct in my understanding on those terms, then I will certainly be correct if I say that once a philosophy is experimented it becomes a science.

Experimentation is a broad term, but still, yes that is essentially true. It is still a philosophy however, for it has been made into a specific reasoning for a specific area. Hence political science (which is based not on specific controlled substances [such as variables and the like] but on statistics, social structures, random precendence, etc...).

Philosophy is the broad term, and from there comes the many sciences, theologies, etc...

(May I still stress though, that Philosophy's goal is still to have an answer, and while the process of philosophy is about the path to the end, it does have a goal.)

Whether I know "what you are" (according to your perspective on this ambiguous terminology) or not, it is still offering a respect of courtesy to you, for their was a misconception along the line, and I wished to ammend it. That is all. I was attempting to be civil.
The word "civil" means little if you and I belong to different cultures and ideologies.




I will contend otherwise, for the very subject in discussion is an intellectual subject, and has necessity that precision is present, especially in terminology. Even more so, considering you were refuting something I said.

It surely does matter, especially if you intend to stand behind what you say.
But few will be affected by what we say here, compared to many other discussions. I don't see any direct actions wrom what I have read until now and I doubt it will suddenly change. Nobody have told others to act differently or break rules of society (unlike some other subject that often end up that way).



Yes, that could be seen as philosophy.

Now, bringing that up, are you to say you arrived at your ideology according to your test results based on hypothesises, or did your hypothesises originate from an idealogy you already had undertaken? (Or, perhaps a mixing of both?)
Based on some of the results perhaps, but not all. With the amount of snyde remarks I get because of my existence, beliefs and appearance I clearly see that people are not ready for everything I stand for.


Now, we can say how velocity is effected by gravity, and weight.
The force, yes. Unless you are incredible heavy, your mass does not have any effect on the velocity.

I think philosophy is a game. Playing with concepts and reaching an interesting conclusion is fun.
However, a reasoning always depends on the hypotheses. The only thing we know is that we know nothing. Therefore the syntetheses is not necessarily true.
Humans do philosophy anyway because they like it and sometimes they discover a science.
I think philosophy should not drive politics, but that science should.

Thats what I think. I suppose i do have my personal philosophy, but i try to make it : less thinking and more doing. I think too much.

You are trying to give a broad non-limiting definition of philosophy.

Yes, for the original purpose of this topic, that is why I was giving it such a definition, which completely correlates to such a desire and intention.

I think it is not the right way to go.

First, in relation to what? The original purpose of this topic? If that is your contention, that is absurd. My original purpose was to show how important philosophy was, and to see how people would view such an assertion. According to the non-limited definition, Philosophy is extraordinarily important and in fact, essential.

Or, do you mean, it is not the right way to go, if we wish to discuss philosophy more precisely? In such a case then I agree. Like I said, if you wish to use the more classical form, I shall not stop you. In fact, I welcome you to do such, and we may then be more precise in our use of Philosophy and perhaps discuss in more detail a specific branch of philosophy. Is that your purpose here?

The best way to go in my opinion is to give an atomic, limiting and discriminating definition of philosophy, as we want to discuss it here. Any other definition is not a definition.

I can only assume you did not mean "atomic", but instead "altruistic." If we were to put Philosophy at its most basic structure, that is what I did. It's at its purest form, without the precision. However, I suppose the analogy of atomic could be flipped likewise, and beconsidered "detailed" because of the intricate pieces of the molecular structure of something. (Lovely, how analogies can sometimes be spun two ways or even more.) So, in that sense, yes, atomic would work (my, how I digressed there, forgive me).

You say the best way to go is your way, if we want to discuss it how discuss it "as we want to discuss it here." Well, you mean as you want to discuss it here. As I said, I'm completely welcome to such a classical definition, and am open to such. If you wish to discuss philosophy in a finer and more minute detail, let us do such. In what effect would you start us off as?

However, it not being a definition is absurd. Basic understanding of philology, it does not have to be precise to be a definition. And definitions, with their multitudes of variances, can have certain ones that are not as limiting as others. It does not make the definition non-existant or fallacious. It simply makes it less strict.

The actual enaction of philosophy is the path, yes, however the goal of philosophy is you have a starting point and you need to get to the ending point. We inquire, and we wish to satiate it... that is, find the answer to the unknown. "Why?"Here I don't agree. I don't think philosophy has a goal, with any definition. I think it is a thing. The philosopher may have a goal, but not philosophy.


Not necessarily mathematics in all realms, though. We have theories that are bases for many other theories that are not completely proven on mathematics, but on observation. Gravity exists. Now, we can say how velocity is effected by gravity, and weight. But we can't prove that gravity is there with mathematics. We simply can drop something... and it hits the ground. We see that bodies pull eachother from observation. We see that gravity exists. We see how different masses increase or decrease gravity, but the actual gravity is proven by observance. There are a multitude of how proofs are come to in the "physical sciences."
Mathematics and experiments.
(May I still stress though, that Philosophy's goal is still to have an answer, and while the process of philosophy is about the path to the end, it does have a goal.)
May I stress this is not acceptable in pour definition?
I could use philosophy just for fun with the only goal of spending time in my virtual world without looking for a meaningful answer in our real world, couldn't I?

The word "civil" means little if you and I belong to different cultures and ideologies.

Quite correct, just as puerile does as well. However, one, in such a situation as the internet, must go with the most common factor accepted by many people, especially concerning a subjective statement such as "civil." And in respect to such a thing, the majority of people (and if you wish to contend otherwise, do as you wish, but common sense is certainly at the end here) would say it was civil of me to apologize for misunderstanding what you said and giving an answer based on that.

But few will be affected by what we say here, compared to many other discussions. I don't see any direct actions wrom what I have read until now and I doubt it will suddenly change. Nobody have told others to act differently or break rules of society (unlike some other subject that often end up that way).

That's immaterial. If you try to refute something I say, and then confess you might have used wrong terminology, this merely perpetuates the idea that we must be careful and precise when decide to critique something someone else proclaims.

Direct actions? You mean, people changing their lives based on this? Of course not. However, dialogue initiated on a message board is most likely in the form of exchanging views and information. The way we do this is definitely varied highly. I already set down in my beginning post that I was hoping this would be intellectual, and thus far, I would say it has been doing a decent job at such, while perhaps not to be acclaimed for such.

And no, there has been no espousing of "You should live your life this way." as of yet, nor does there need to be. However, points have been made, and that is the general hope and result of dialogue.

Based on some of the results perhaps, but not all. With the amount of snyde remarks I get because of my existence, beliefs and appearance I clearly see that people are not ready for everything I stand for.

What makes you distinguish between which results you shall base your ideology upon?

And I'm not here to make snyde remarks, I assure you. I may critique what you say, and object to it (and then giving reasons and proofs why), but I'm not here to insult you or act puerile. My intention is not such, by any means.

The force, yes. Unless you are incredible heavy, your mass does not have any effect on the velocity.

And differing states of gravity, depending on the planet. Different planets will effect your velocity at different mathematical values. I'm not saying as directly proportional of mass just on earth. I'm saying gravity effecting velocity due to different attraction of gravity on different planets, referring to mathematics. And you already mention the force itself. That was my point.

----------------------------------------

Thats what I think. I suppose i do have my personal philosophy, but i try to make it : less thinking and more doing. I think too much.

I agree that acting upon one's philosophical conclusions is important as well. However, the whole theory of it being a "game" I find highly absurd, and just a clever little way to ignore the fact that philosophy is something that should be thought about seriously, and considered.

Again, like I asked. Why do they think its a game? So - I'll ask you now, if you don't mind. Why do you think it's a game?

First, in relation to what? The original purpose of this topic? If that is your contention, that is absurd. My original purpose was to show how important philosophy was, and to see how people would view such an assertion. According to the non-limited definition, Philosophy is extraordinarily important and in fact, essential.But if you are calling everything philosophy, then the statement which says that philosophy is important is void. Is there a purpose in that?

Philosophy is intellectual masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you ...

Pick your premises and assumptions carefully. Ignore those thinkers that conflict with your desired worldview. Arrive at a limited conclusion based on the limited hypotheses, and you're all set. That way, you can easily achieve the ant-like communism of Plato, the arrogant anarchy of Ayn rand, the narrow moral platitudes of Teilhard de Chardin, or whomever is on your list of brilliant thinkers.

All of us have a presonal philosophy that we follow to some extent. I'm of the opinion that most of us fool ourselves into believing that we follow a set of intellectual principles that actually bear no resemblance to our lives. If people took the time to codify and abstract the actions which define our personal philosophies, I think they'd be amazed at how far they are from what they state.

Self-honesty is the key to understanding a personal philosophy, and even that will be fraught with errors. Brutally self-honest people often gloss over aspects of their lives, interactions, and environments that are far more defining than the 'honest' concepts they see. An individual's complete philosohy could probably only be collated and defined by an impartial outside observer, and as we have not developed the requiste telepathic tools, assessment remains improbable.

Intellectual masturbation is fine, though. It gives long-term pleasure to the individual, and when done properly, hurts no one else.

Here I don't agree. I don't think philosophy has a goal, with any definition. I think it is a thing. The philosopher may have a goal, but not philosophy.

According to definition, it does. However, if you're going to say, "Well, it doesn't say in the definition it explictly has a goal." then apparently science doesn't have a goal either and only the scientist has a goal. Apparently science is only a thing as well. If that's the way you wish to term it, I'm not going to stop you.

However, you are making them out to be "mock" studies, like a moot point, essentially. I won't stop you from using such a definition, but if you apply it to philosophy, it gets applied to science, theology and the rest just like it.

Mathematics and experiments.

Are you saying this in reference to the multitude of "proofs"? Yes, of course. And experiments revolves around observances, and there's many different types of observances, etc... etc...

I assume we agree on this point then.

May I stress this is not acceptable in pour definition?
I could use philosophy just for fun with the only goal of spending time in my virtual world without looking for a meaningful answer in our real world, couldn't I?

As I said, if you apply it to philosophy, you apply it to science as well. One could say he does a scientific study just for the hell of it, not to find the goal. If that's how you wish to view it, atleast apply it acrossed the board. I know plenty of friends that experiment and would say they're not doing it for the sake of the goal, but just for the "path."

Furthermore, if you're just "spending time" in your virtual world, it doesn't make it philosophy. Spending time in say... a video game (virtual world) doesn't mean you're studying or even contemplating philosophy.

I agree that acting upon one's philosophical conclusions is important as well. However, the whole theory of it being a "game" I find highly absurd, and just a clever little way to ignore the fact that philosophy is something that should be thought about seriously, and considered.I think the first action next to philosophy is experiment.

Just replying to the original question:
No, philosophy is not important to me... as far as the philosophies of men go. I'm not stupid, and just because I don't care for reading things by, say, Hume or Plato, doesn't mean I'm not a "thinking person". Of course I have my own philosophy for life, as all people do, but I derive mine from the Bible. I find the philosophies of men to be self-serving and generally unneccessary. This is simply my opinion, though.

Quite correct, just as puerile does as well. However, one, in such a situation as the internet, must go with the most common factor accepted by many people, especially concerning a subjective statement such as "civil." And in respect to such a thing, the majority of people (and if you wish to contend otherwise, do as you wish, but common sense is certainly at the end here) would say it was civil of me to apologize for misunderstanding what you said and giving an answer based on that.
Well, if you wish to follow the common way, I shall not stop you. But you still shouldn't apologize for nothing.



Direct actions? You mean, people changing their lives based on this? Of course not. However, dialogue initiated on a message board is most likely in the form of exchanging views and information. The way we do this is definitely varied highly. I already set down in my beginning post that I was hoping this would be intellectual, and thus far, I would say it has been doing a decent job at such, while perhaps not to be acclaimed for such.
It was a board. They were twins. They were in love.
I adviced them to tell only very open-minded people (the way I like to see myself), think nothing of the rules preventing them from being together and, well, do whatever they felt was right. Not what they were told was right.



What makes you distinguish between which results you shall base your ideology upon?

And I'm not here to make snyde remarks, I assure you. I may critique what you say, and object to it (and then giving reasons and proofs why), but I'm not here to insult you or act puerile. My intention is not such, by any means.Good, though I still don't think I can take any offence.

Anyway, I put the happiness it might bring on one side and the pain my brothers and sisters in arms and I will be forced to fell in the conversion process. Until not I don't regret any actions at all.

Just replying to the original question:
No, philosophy is not important to me... as far as the philosophies of men go. I'm not stupid, and just because I don't care for reading things by, say, Hume or Plato, doesn't mean I'm not a "thinking person". Of course I have my own philosophy for life, as all people do, but I derive mine from the Bible. I find the philosophies of men to be self-serving and generally unneccessary. This is simply my opinion, though.
So you refure to make any moral decisions yourself and instead you base all your judgements of wrong and right on an old piece of paper?

According to definition, it does. However, if you're going to say, "Well, it doesn't say in the definition it explictly has a goal." then apparently science doesn't have a goal either and only the scientist has a goal. Apparently science is only a thing as well. If that's the way you wish to term it, I'm not going to stop you.

However, you are making them out to be "mock" studies, like a moot point, essentially. I won't stop you from using such a definition, but if you apply it to philosophy, it gets applied to science, theology and the rest just like it.



Are you saying this in reference to the multitude of "proofs"? Yes, of course. And experiments revolves around observances, and there's many different types of observances, etc... etc...

I assume we agree on this point then.



As I said, if you apply it to philosophy, you apply it to science as well. One could say he does a scientific study just for the hell of it, not to find the goal. If that's how you wish to view it, atleast apply it acrossed the board. I know plenty of friends that experiment and would say they're not doing it for the sake of the goal, but just for the "path."

Furthermore, if you're just "spending time" in your virtual world, it doesn't make it philosophy. Spending time in say... a video game (virtual world) doesn't mean you're studying or even contemplating philosophy.Well, I have the feeling you think I'm trying to put down philosophy. I'm not.
Indeed science does not have a goal and spending time on a video game does not mean you are contemplating philosophy.

However it is illogical to say that the goal of philosophy is that or this. Philosophy does not have a goal, how could it have? Can you demonstrate this?

But if you are calling everything philosophy, then the statement which says that philosophy is important is void. Is there a purpose in that?

I did not say that everything is philosophy. The act of sex is not philosophy. Eating an apple is not philosophy. Contemplating why you're eating the apple is philosophy though. And the fact that philosophy encompasses so much is the very reason why it's important. And yes, there is purpose then, by that very fact.

However, again, if you wish to use the classical definition, I'm not stopping you.

--------------------------------------

Philosophy is intellectual masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you ...

Subjectively, sure. Not eveyone likes it, just like everyone doesn't like masturbation. However, my purpose was to show how important it is and how much it actually does effect our lives, whether we realize it or not.

Pick your premises and assumptions carefully. Ignore those thinkers that conflict with your desired worldview. Arrive at a limited conclusion based on the limited hypotheses, and you're all set. That way, you can easily achieve the ant-like communism of Plato, the arrogant anarchy of Ayn rand, the narrow moral platitudes of Teilhard de Chardin, or whomever is on your list of brilliant thinkers.

Relating to classical philosophy, yes, the idea is to pick your premises carefully and assume carefully. To rationally think things out. However, the ideal matter is that you don't ignore thinkers that conflict with your views, but instead study them and either change your viewpoint or critique there's to where your current one is more solid.

All of us have a presonal philosophy that we follow to some extent. I'm of the opinion that most of us fool ourselves into believing that we follow a set of intellectual principles that actually bear no resemblance to our lives. If people took the time to codify and abstract the actions which define our personal philosophies, I think they'd be amazed at how far they are from what they state.

I agree, that is the case with many people, however not all. (You did put most in there, so I can honestly agree with that.)

Self-honesty is the key to understanding a personal philosophy, and even that will be fraught with errors. Brutally self-honest people often gloss over aspects of their lives, interactions, and environments that are far more defining than the 'honest' concepts they see. An individual's complete philosohy could probably only be collated and defined by an impartial outside observer, and as we have not developed the requiste telepathic tools, assessment remains improbable.

Again, this is a valid point. Being aware of such things in fact, is primary to philosophy. And yes, while we can't have people read our minds, we should still attempt to judge what we do according to our personal philosophy (and what we espouse) is in relation to it and adheres to it, so we do not become hypocrites.

Intellectual masturbation is fine, though. It gives long-term pleasure to the individual, and when done properly, hurts no one else.

And, of course, those people that are concerned with the question of "Why?", especially in relation to whether they're Altruism.

BTW please use the word ideology when required. I would prefer to have a clear view on this. Philosophy and ideology are two different things.

I did not say that everything is philosophy. The act of sex is not philosophy. Eating an apple is not philosophy. Contemplating why you're eating the apple is philosophy though. And the fact that philosophy encompasses so much is the very reason why it's important. And yes, there is purpose then, by that very fact.

However, again, if you wish to use the classical definition, I'm not stopping you.
In my opinion, contemplating why you are eating an apple can be done using philosophy as a method. It can also be done using sciences such as biology.
Doing it with a science will lead to experimented result, whereas doing it with philosophy will lead to a result based on faith.

That way, you can easily achieve the ant-like communism of Plato, the arrogant anarchy of Ayn rand, the narrow moral platitudes of Teilhard de Chardin, or whomever is on your list of brilliant thinkers.

Well, since someone has finally brought Ayn Rand into this, I guess the time has come to bring her up properly.

Anyone who has read Ms. Rand's philosophy (known formally as Objectivism) will realize that it is based on reason. In brief: each person is an end in and of themselves. That is to say that everyone has a right to life, a right to sustain their life through productive activity, and a right to keep the products of that effort. In this system reason forms the standard of good and bad: that which supports and sustains one's life is good; that which is harmful is bad. This is not however carte blanche to do anything necessary to sustain yourself. One of the major tenets in the system is the non-initiation of force between individuals. One thing that Objectivism certainly does not advocate is anarchy.

In Objectivism, the government has a definite role. That role is to ensure individual rights through the police, courts and the military (to protect against foreign agression). The political philosophy that stems from Objectivism is Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Anyone who wishes to learn more about Objectivism should visit www.aynrand.org, the homepage of the Ayn Rand Institute.

I am most certain that people are going to now flame me and Objectivism. I will do my best to answer questions, so long as they are respectful of both me and Ms. Rand.

Cheers!

I'm trying to reply to every post made, so please give me time. I'm typing as fast as possible. (I dread later when I shall have to be off to work, and then this might go on without me. ^_^)

------------------------------------------------

I think the first action next to philosophy is experiment.

Somewhat, yes. But that's rather ambiguous. If you mean putting those philosophies to experimentation and action, then of course I agree with such an assertion.

-------------------------------------------------

Just replying to the original question:
No, philosophy is not important to me... as far as the philosophies of men go. I'm not stupid, and just because I don't care for reading things by, say, Hume or Plato, doesn't mean I'm not a "thinking person". Of course I have my own philosophy for life, as all people do, but I derive mine from the Bible. I find the philosophies of men to be self-serving and generally unneccessary. This is simply my opinion, though.

I didn't say anyone was "stupid" for not reading classic philosophy. However, I believe to understand the credibility of Christianity, one must first understand philosophy. You might buy into Christianity and the Bible because your parents believed in it or because you had an experience with God, however I have always wanted to understand Truth, objectivity (or lack of, if it's a myth). I believe that philosophy leads eventually into theology.

However, that is an entire subject in and of itself. If anyone is curious on such, e-mail me at starwarsgl@yahoo.com and we can discuss it further, or maybe another time I'll try to set up a new topic on this message board.

-------------------------------------------

Well, if you wish to follow the common way, I shall not stop you. But you still shouldn't apologize for nothing.

Civility is based upon social quo, and the mainstream social quo is as such. And in my desire to be respectful of others, I attempt to do such. That's all.

It was a board. They were twins. They were in love.
I adviced them to tell only very open-minded people (the way I like to see myself), think nothing of the rules preventing them from being together and, well, do whatever they felt was right. Not what they were told was right.

And now I understand the instance in reference. However, the subjective philosophy of doing whatever feels right is just that... subjective. What is "right" can be viewed entirely differently. However, the stipulation you place upon it comes in the next statement, and I'll address it there.

Good, though I still don't think I can take any offence.

Anyway, I put the happiness it might bring on one side and the pain my brothers and sisters in arms and I will be forced to fell in the conversion process. Until not I don't regret any actions at all.

You say as long as it does not harm another. However, harming someone is subjective. So, if what's right is subjective and what's harming is subjective... how does one know what they're doing is ok?

-------------------------------------------

So you refure to make any moral decisions yourself and instead you base all your judgements of wrong and right on an old piece of paper?

So, making moral decisions by your lonesome is ok then? Now, this is not a proof for Biblical reliability nor their Divine Inspiration (or even the credibility of the Bible), but her/him basing their morals off paper is really no less credible or objective than you making them up from your own subjective perspectives.

-------------------------------------------

Well, I have the feeling you think I'm trying to put down philosophy. I'm not.
Indeed science does not have a goal and spending time on a video game does not mean you are contemplating philosophy.

Nope, honestly I never got the idea you were putting down philosophy what-so-ever.

So, if you're going to go with the idea that the actual terms don't have goals, inherent to the study, then I'm not going to stop you from using that definition. You're using it acrossed the board, and you may continue to do such.

However it is illogical to say that the goal of philosophy is that or this. Philosophy does not have a goal, how could it have? Can you demonstrate this?

It's not illogical. It's according to definition. That's the whole point. Philosophy at it's core is the desire to study for an answer to the inquiry. You don't have to like that, but that's specifically what philosophy has been termed in the broad scope (and hence why I brought it up in the liberal [gasp,naughty word] definition).

Your saying that, "how could it have?" is a negative assertion. "Why can it not?" is the question. It's a definition, and within this liberal definition the point is made. There is no stipulation that precludes it from such. (Question, have you read Nietzsche? Not a put down if you haven't, but he's one of the many that defined it as the desire to satiate the "Why?" as well.)

Demonstrate it? How? Definitions (terms) are not demonstrated physically. They are what they are. A word defined. That's the entire reason communication exists.

Well, since someone has finally brought Ayn Rand into this, I guess the time has come to bring her up properly.

Anyone who has read Ms. Rand's philosophy (known formally as Objectivism) will realize that it is based on reason. In brief: each person is an end in and of themselves. That is to say that everyone has a right to life, a right to sustain their life through productive activity, and a right to keep the products of that effort. In this system reason forms the standard of good and bad: that which supports and sustains one's life is good; that which is harmful is bad. This is not however carte blanche to do anything necessary to sustain yourself. One of the major tenets in the system is the non-initiation of force between individuals. One thing that Objectivism certainly does not advocate is anarchy.

In Objectivism, the government has a definite role. That role is to ensure individual rights through the police, courts and the military (to protect against foreign agression). The political philosophy that stems from Objectivism is Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Anyone who wishes to learn more about Objectivism should visit www.aynrand.org, the homepage of the Ayn Rand Institute.

I am most certain that people are going to now flame me and Objectivism. I will do my best to answer questions, so long as they are respectful of both me and Ms. Rand.

Cheers!
So the hypotheses is :
everyone has a right to life, a right to sustain their life through productive activity, and a right to keep the products of that effort

and the synthetesis is :
Laissez Faire Capitalism.

I would really like to hear the reason between the two because there seem to be a logical error somewhere according to me.

BTW please use the word ideology when required. I would prefer to have a clear view on this. Philosophy and ideology are two different things.

Well, ideology is a specific form of philosophy, directly relating to social needs of a specific demographic group, social group, ethnic group, etc...

It hasn't really pertained a whole lot to the discussion so far, however if there was a specific point you wanted to make, please feel free to.

In my opinion, contemplating why you are eating an apple can be done using philosophy as a method. It can also be done using sciences such as biology.

No one is contending otherwise.

Doing it with a science will lead to experimented result, whereas doing it with philosophy will lead to a result based on faith.

Wrong, and a common fallacy. Philosophy does not inherently mean you must accept things on faith (other than the impossibility method [goes back to nothing is knowable]). They are assumptions, of course, but there are assumptions in science as well. Science is based on controled experiment, a specific form of philosophy. They are not opposites. Science is another way we have attempted to explain "Why?"

However, not all philosophies developed into empirical sciences.

--------------------------------------

I'm going not going to quote Poderetti's, because I'm not out to critique his. He's given a basic summary of Objectivism (specifically from the originator of such, Ayn Rand). While it is a quick synopsis and not completely authoritive, it does it justice.

--------------------------------------

So the hypotheses is :
everyone has a right to life, a right to sustain their life through productive activity, and a right to keep the products of that effort

and the synthetesis is :
Laissez Faire Capitalism.

I would really like to hear the reason between the two because there seem to be a logical error somewhere according to me.

He's giving a summary of the beliefs, not a proof. That's why she's written books on it, and also why he referenced the website.

Though, I'm sure he's trying to give you a reply now, since he said he would do as much with any questions people had.

Civility is based upon social quo, and the mainstream social quo is as such. And in my desire to be respectful of others, I attempt to do such. That's all.



And now I understand the instance in reference. However, the subjective philosophy of doing whatever feels right is just that... subjective. What is "right" can be viewed entirely differently. However, the stipulation you place upon it comes in the next statement, and I'll address it there.



You say as long as it does not harm another. However, harming someone is subjective. So, if what's right is subjective and what's harming is subjective... how does one know what they're doing is ok?

If we look at the common meaning then the actions I encuraged them to do were wrong. And illegal.

Okay, harming, to me, is recieving physical, economical and emotional pain. And emotional pain is what can lead people to a depression.
However, I only refered to the pain of "my own", not to the havoc it will undoubtly cause the conservative powers I fight (not to mention the destruction it has already). I'm quite sure it will cause much more chaos than order (as most of us are chaotic of nature), but that's the way it goes when one belong to a supressed minority.
Anyway, discussing corruption and highly illegal business here will not help our cause, as this place is too big and I don't have enough tome to defend myself.

Philosophy: I think thinking about our presence and experimenting with thoughts is a good thing to do. To examine all perspectives allows to expand our view and perhaps make up our minds.

Wrong, and a common fallacy. Philosophy does not inherently mean you must accept things on faith (other than the impossibility method [goes back to nothing is knowable]). They are assumptions, of course, but there are assumptions in science as well. Science is based on controled experiment, a specific form of philosophy. They are not opposites. Science is another way we have attempted to explain "Why?"All right, I'm slow but I'm starting to understand.
So, if philosophy is the desire to study, it can lead to the use of science. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

He's giving a summary of the beliefs, not a proof. That's why she's written books on it, and also why he referenced the website.

Though, I'm sure he's trying to give you a reply now, since he said he would do as much with any questions people had.But he said it was based on reason.

Honestly, if you can't post something of intellectual worth in an intellectual topic, just shut up and read it instead. Atleast attempt to learn something before spouting some imbecilic comment that is completely and utterly subjective.
That's funny, because philosophies are completely and utterly subjective. But I knew you meant opinions, I knew that.

My philosophy goes something like this:
1. Buy it now while it's in stock, because it won't always be in stock.
2. Buy it now while you have the money, because you won't always have the money.
3. Buy it for someone else if it makes you feel good.
4. Buy it for yourself if you really, really need it.

This philosophy has served me well, and has changed very little over the last 25 years (since my teens). It is applicable to goods, services, relationships, ideas (including beliefs and opinions) and work. I'm not going to try to explain it in detail, as (being subjective) philosophies only work for each individual anyway, but if you like it, you're welcome to adapt it for yourself.

If we look at the common meaning then the actions I encuraged them to do were wrong. And illegal.

Do you say that in reply to my civility statement? You are correct, to an extent, with such. However, civility is subjective in nature, and I wasn't using it as a reason to bend one's morals to the commonality. If mob rule = morality, then it denies what morality is - "good and bad." Mob rule, however, determines ethics - What is "right and wrong." Hence, we have laws based upon ethics. A government can not stipulate what a moral is, but the can say what an ethic is.

Now, the question is, where do we get our morality? You could say you base your morals off the society's ethics. Which in effect, makes the government your ruling authority on morals as well (and depending on what kind of gov't it is, it might be mob rule then).

In this case, morality is absolutely and completely subjective.

I do not believe, however, that morality is subjective. This, of course, is because I'm a Catholic. My reasoning for such is indepth, and as I said earlier, would require a whole other topic. But please, by all means, e-mail me if you wish to discuss it.

Okay, harming, to me, is recieving physical, economical and emotional pain. And emotional pain is what can lead people to a depression.

Exactly, harming to you. Not all people view it the same. So again, harmful effect is subjective.

However, I only refered to the pain of "my own", not to the havoc it will undoubtly cause the conservative powers I fight (not to mention the destruction it has already). I'm quite sure it will cause much more chaos than order (as most of us are chaotic of nature), but that's the way it goes when one belong to a supressed minority.

Which just reinforces the subjectivity, because you arbitrarily apply it to whomever you deem necessary.

Anyway, discussing corruption and highly illegal business here will not help our cause, as this place is too big and I don't have enough tome to defend myself.

I agree, which is basically why I don't have the time or space to apply my reasoning as to being a Catholic. However, I would gladly discuss our viewpoints in an e-mail correspondance. Some of the best discussion I've had has been done as such.

I'd value learning your views and sharing my own.

Philosophy: I think thinking about our presence and experimenting with thoughts is a good thing to do. To examine all perspectives allows to expand our view and perhaps make up our minds.

I absolutely agree. Looking and studying other viewpoints is necessary, especially when considering the credibility of them.

-------------------------------------------

All right, I'm slow but I'm starting to understand.
So, if philosophy is the desire to study, it can lead to the use of science. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

No, you're not slow, seriously. When you admit you're understanding now, instead of continually saying, "No, you're wrong." it shows the fact that you have a great deal more maturity than most people these days. That's how one should ideally learn, so I commend you.

And you're correct. Philosoph is the desire to study for the purpose of learning and gaining the answer to the inquiry. And this of course, depending on the question, require a specific way of going about it, which is why specific sciences have developed. You're absolutely correct.

But he said it was based on reason.

Yes, he's saying that Ayn Rand's Objectivism is based on reason. He probably doesn't have the time, the patience, nor the room to type out the entire proof for why Ayn Rand makes that contention.

He did not mean to say that what was put down is axiomatically true, but merely to summarize the beliefs of Objectivism, so people don't misunderstand it immediately. It was meant more to inform and combat ignorance than to convert.

That's funny, because philosophies are completely and utterly subjective. But I knew you meant opinions, I knew that.

All philosophies are completely and utterly subjective? Well, classical philosophy's purpose was to find an objective viewpoint (hence why they would try to prove their ideas with rational, logic, and evidence).

If we're going to say everything is subjective, though, then I refer people to read my first argument against such.

However, yes, I should have said opinions. Excuse me for not specifically saying such (I'm not being sarcastic, for clarification - in retrospect, opinion probably would have been a better term in that instance).

My philosophy goes something like this:
1. Buy it now while it's in stock, because it won't always be in stock.
2. Buy it now while you have the money, because you won't always have the money.
3. Buy it for someone else if it makes you feel good.
4. Buy it for yourself if you really, really need it.

This philosophy has served me well, and has changed very little over the last 25 years (since my teens). It is applicable to goods, services, relationships, ideas (including beliefs and opinions) and work. I'm not going to try to explain it in detail, as (being subjective) philosophies only work for each individual anyway, but if you like it, you're welcome to adapt it for yourself.

So, do you immediately rule out the idea of Objective Truth and/or Altruism? And, I've seen Buddhism work for many, Hinduism work for many, Christianity work for many, etc... etc... Apparently philosophies (further defined into religion/theology if we wish to get technical) don't have to be groomed to every single person.

I do not believe, however, that morality is subjective. This, of course, is because I'm a Catholic. My reasoning for such is indepth, and as I said earlier, would require a whole other topic. But please, by all means, e-mail me if you wish to discuss it.
"Yeah, or just come visit me."

Without an address I for sure won't e-mail you.

I believe philosophy is extremely important. Far from being mere "intellectual masturbation, philosophy (if it is the right one) gives you a consistant way of thinking. If you do not have one, you are more likely to fall victim to propaganda, the trends and bad philosophies of whatever time you live in, or many other things. Unfortunately, college philosophy departments are filled with post-modernists who do nothing the entire semester but say "prove that I am not just a brain in a vat with electrodes hooked to a computer and that this is not all an illusion created by a mad scientist's computer programme" or "prove that I am not really in the world of 'The Matrix'"or a hundred other things like that. I will take hostages if I have to read anything more by or about Heidegger, Foucault or Rorty. These people are the ones who make philosophy seem like a game.

I love Ayn Rand, but I do not really like the Ayn Rand Institute. As much as I like Leonard Peikoff for his Ominous Paralells, he really does a great job of making people think that Objectivism is dogmatic. In addition, the Institute is very pro-war, which Rand would have been against since the centrepiece of her political philosophy is the ban on first-strike force. I would suggest Sense Of Life Objectivists (http://www.solohq.org) since they are more open to discussion, are open to constructive criticism of the philosophy, and feature a few non-objectivists. I cannot tell their stand on the war in Iraq, but posters on the SOLO message boards have been divided and there recently was an article about how Frank Lloyd Wright is going to rebuild Baghdad (are they going to dig up his corpse?), which may or may not be a good thing.

No, you're not slow, seriously. When you admit you're understanding now, instead of continually saying, "No, you're wrong." it shows the fact that you have a great deal more maturity than most people these days. That's how one should ideally learn, so I commend you.

And you're correct. Philosoph is the desire to study for the purpose of learning and gaining the answer to the inquiry. And this of course, depending on the question, require a specific way of going about it, which is why specific sciences have developed. You're absolutely correct.In this context I may revise my position. Philosophy IS useful, because I have the belief that science is useful. And as I have understood, philosophy supports the use of science.

Yes, he's saying that Ayn Rand's Objectivism is based on reason. He probably doesn't have the time, the patience, nor the room to type out the entire proof for why Ayn Rand makes that contention.

He did not mean to say that what was put down is axiomatically true, but merely to summarize the beliefs of Objectivism, so people don't misunderstand it immediately. It was meant more to inform and combat ignorance than to convert.I've read some things in his link nad I found her to be contradictory, unless she has different definitions of words. I may have a communication problem it seems.

"Yeah, or just come visit me."

Without an address I for sure won't e-mail you.

I thought I posted it already, not in that post, but a couple before that. However, if I did not or just for the sake of convenience, here it is again:

starwarsgl@yahoo.com

Feel free to drop me a line if you wish to continue such more indepth.

--------------------------------------


I believe philosophy is extremely important. Far from being mere "intellectual masturbation, philosophy (if it is the right one) gives you a consistant way of thinking. If you do not have one, you are more likely to fall victim to propaganda, the trends and bad philosophies of whatever time you live in, or many other things.

However, you stipulate this on the idea of there being "the right one." So, first one must have the right one, so as not to fall to the "bad" philosophies (which being subjective, I can only assume you mean ones that are opposed to the one you came to the conclusion of being "the right one"). I assume you mean by if you have a philosophy, you've willfully made a decision on the contemplation of a philosophy and chose it, as opposed to simply living your life a way and that being your philosophy.

love Ayn Rand, but I do not really like the Ayn Rand Institute. As much as I like Leonard Peikoff for his Ominous Paralells, he really does a great job of making people think that Objectivism is dogmatic. In addition, the Institute is very pro-war, which Rand would have been against since the centrepiece of her political philosophy is the ban on first-strike force. I would suggest Sense Of Life Objectivists since they are more open to discussion, are open to constructive criticism of the philosophy, and feature a few non-objectivists. I cannot tell their stand on the war in Iraq, but posters on the SOLO message boards have been divided and there recently was an article about how Frank Lloyd Wright is going to rebuild Baghdad (are they going to dig up his corpse?), which may or may not be a good thing.

I shall check out that website then, according to your recommendation.

-----------------------------------

In this context I may revise my position. Philosophy IS useful, because I have the belief that science is useful. And as I have understood, philosophy supports the use of science.

Most certainly.

I've read some things in his link nad I found her to be contradictory, unless she has different definitions of words. I may have a communication problem it seems.

I have not read that webpage, however I have read her books. Perhaps I should take a gander at that webpage as well. (Ah, so much to read with such a short lifespan unfortunately.)

---------------------------

And with that, my lovely Nation States comrades, I must be off to work. It has been absolutely capital, and perhaps this thread shall stay active for a bit, and I shall come back to lots of discussion. Or maybe not. It shall have to wait and see.

Just to reinforce the idea, anyone is welcome to e-mail me. I enjoy intellectual discussion greatly, and the exchanging of views broadens one's scope of understanding. Truly a thing to be valued.

With that, God bless you all, and have a wonderful day.

That's funny, because philosophies are completely and utterly subjective.

That's funny, because the statement 'philosophies are completely and utterly subjective' is in the form of an objective one.

Hi Psylos,

Thanks for the reply. You said:

So the hypotheses is :
everyone has a right to life, a right to sustain their life through productive activity, and a right to keep the products of that effort

and the synthetesis is :
Laissez Faire Capitalism.

I would really like to hear the reason between the two because there seem to be a logical error somewhere according to me.

First, to be clear, everyone has a right to *pursue* life through their productive efforts, free from the initiation of force from others. It is a fine distinction but one worth making. Objectivism states that no one has a right to a guaranteed life, that is, life at the expense of others. One must actively engage reality to sustain one's life. The right we're talking about is the right to do this freely.

As the products of man's efforts are what allow him to live, then it follows that if man does not have the right to control what he produces, he does not have a right to his own life.

Laissez Faire capitalism is the only system in which people are entitled only to what they produce, and are entitled to *all* that they produce. Thus it is the economic system that allows for the realization of the Objectivist ethics.

I realize in reading my previous post that I misspoke. Laissez-Faire capiltalism is truly the economic ideal of Objectivism, not the political.

Sorry for any confusion that may have caused. Again, I encourage anyone who is interested to check out the ARI.

Having a philosophy is alright. Just don’t be lazy about coming up with one. And try not to commit philosophical plagiarism. That’s still pretty lazy. And trust me, I know lazy.

All philosophies are completely and utterly subjective? Well, classical philosophy's purpose was to find an objective viewpoint (hence why they would try to prove their ideas with rational, logic, and evidence).

If we're going to say everything is subjective, though, then I refer people to read my first argument against such.

However, yes, I should have said opinions. Excuse me for not specifically saying such (I'm not being sarcastic, for clarification - in retrospect, opinion probably would have been a better term in that instance).
I only read your posts after posting this in response to the first post.

Yes, philosophers can abstract an objective viewpoint. Everything is not subjective. Philosophies, however, are a subjective thing because they take place internally. When one reads the philosophy of logic on paper, one takes it inside and either buys it or rejects it. If it is purchased, it becomes a part of the self. Subjective ideas; that's what our philosophies are. That's all I meant.

So, do you immediately rule out the idea of Objective Truth and/or Altruism? And, I've seen Buddhism work for many, Hinduism work for many, Christianity work for many, etc... etc... Apparently philosophies (further defined into religion/theology if we wish to get technical) don't have to be groomed to every single person.
Objective Truth (with a capital T) is a fact o' life, complimented of course by subjective truth. Altruism is a fleeting act that has been known to happen from time to time, but as a philosophy it is not practical, and therefore not very useful. (Sorry for injecting an opinon, here.) ;-)

Buddhism looks very interesting (there's another thread about it on this board) and very close to my own beliefs. I might investigate it before I die. However, every idea taken into the self is "groomed" by that individual --everyone will put their own slant on it. The religious threads on this board exemplify this idea. Even religion is personalized for (by) every individual.

That's funny, because the statement 'philosophies are completely and utterly subjective' is in the form of an objective one.
Yes, it is. :-)

The limitations of a limited English education.

First, to be clear, everyone has a right to *pursue* life through their productive efforts, free from the initiation of force from others. It is a fine distinction but one worth making. Objectivism states that no one has a right to a guaranteed life, that is, life at the expense of others. One must actively engage reality to sustain one's life. The right we're talking about is the right to do this freely.
I don't understand. How can someone *not* freely "actively engage reality to sustain their life"? What does that mean? Why does it have to be defined as a right?

First - Philosophy is important to everyone, no matter what, whether it is of conscious choice or not.

Being pre-disposed to believing it important to everyone, why even ask?

I don't understand. How can someone *not* freely "actively engage reality to sustain their life"? What does that mean? Why does it have to be defined as a right?

There are a few different ways Ms. Rand writes about in which someone may *not* freely engage reality. One is the situation where another uses physical force to compel someone to judgements antithetical to the sustaining of their life. Another situation is the voluntary denial of the facts of reality which must be obeyed to sustain one's life. Ms. Rand calls this "blanking out." A third situation, the most heinous to Objectivist thought, is a philosophy that denies an objective reality, thereby obliterating the concept entirely.

This is rather simplistic and off the top of my head, but serves to give a few examples of how this situation can occur. I would join with others here in urging everyone to read Ms. Rand's works, if they want a good grounding in Objectivism as a philosophy.

I don't understand. How can someone *not* freely "actively engage reality to sustain their life"? What does that mean? Why does it have to be defined as a right?

That's a great question. Under other political and economic systems (namely comunism, socialism and facsim for example) people are considered to be tools of the collective. Under such systems, the government may expropriate persons and/or the products of their efforts at any time for any reason. The distinction I was attempting to draw was between being allowed to pursue one's life free of government control and being guaranteed your life without putting forth any effort. The former is actively engaging reality to sustain one's life; the latter is expecting the collective to do it for you. :)

Hope that helps.

I think that learning to think philosophically is very important and should be taught from a younger age. After a discussion of philosophy I always find that everyone looks more awake than ever. Unless you think about the fact that you are alive you do not fully appreciate how amazing it is to exist. When talking about philosophy in the presence of some one who does not want to think about all 'the big questions' or cannot really comprehend what I am talking about, I feel partly frustrated, but mainly I feel deeply sorry for them.

A third situation, the most heinous to Objectivist thought, is a philosophy that denies an objective reality, thereby obliterating the concept entirely.

Could me and Rand possibly be any different? I happen to reject the notion of an objective reality.

Could me and Rand possibly be any different? I happen to reject the notion of an objective reality.


Letila,

You would not be alone in rejecting the idea that reality is objective. There have been several prominent philosophers who have advocated this view over the centuries. I would however be interested in knowing your reasoning behind this. Perhaps you can expand your view?

Cheers!

Letila,

You would not be alone in rejecting the idea that reality is objective. There have been several prominent philosophers who have advocated this view over the centuries. I would however be interested in knowing your reasoning behind this. Perhaps you can expand your view?

Cheers!

A quote by Einstein would remedy this situation

"It's all relative"
-Albert Einstein

You would not be alone in rejecting the idea that reality is objective. There have been several prominent philosophers who have advocated this view over the centuries. I would however be interested in knowing your reasoning behind this. Perhaps you can expand your view?

For one thing, we don't have any real way of knowing that we are seeing the same thing. We both call grass green, but how do I know that what you see isn't what I would call pink? Afterall, when you see something like a color or shape, you also have some emotional responce, at the very least a sense of familiarity and in other cases, æsthetic enjoyment. In short, everyone experiences reality in a unique way that can't truly be understood by anyone else. We just agree that the basis is the same.

"it's all relative"

Hell yeah. I love it. I'm a heavy duty thinker. I wish I could get paid to think.

Could me and Rand possibly be any different? I happen to reject the notion of an objective reality.

Objective reality, as espoused in Ms. Rand's philosophy, is simply the recognition of existence and identity. The tree in your yard actually exists, and it really is a tree, not a rock. You actually exist, and you are really a human being, not a spider. The sun, planets, and stars all actually exist, and they are what they are. It is denial of this existence and identity that is abhorrent to Objectivist thought, because it can be extended to philosophically wipe the universe out of existence, which can then be used to justify any form of evil. After all, if "a boy is a tree is a rock" is accepted as a concept, who can oppose anyone's disposal of the boy/tree/rock according their whims? How does one oppose the destruction of something that doesn't exist?

Objective reality, as espoused in Ms. Rand's philosophy, is simply the recognition of existence and identity. The tree in your yard actually exists, and it really is a tree, not a rock.
Also, perception does not create reality. Things exist even if there is nothing to perceive them, or if something perceives them wrongly.

Also, perception does not create reality. Things exist even if there is nothing to perceive them, or if something perceives them wrongly.

How do you know?

For one thing, we don't have any real way of knowing that we are seeing the same thing. We both call grass green, but how do I know that what you see isn't what I would call pink? Afterall, when you see something like a color or shape, you also have some emotional responce, at the very least a sense of familiarity and in other cases, æsthetic enjoyment. In short, everyone experiences reality in a unique way that can't truly be understood by anyone else. We just agree that the basis is the same.
This is evidence of difference subjective realities --it says nothing about objective reality. Whether or not grass is percevied as "really" different colours, the grass still exists. If two people perceive a cat as different shapes, they will still recognize the shape as they perceive it as "cat".

Also, perception does not create reality. Things exist even if there is nothing to perceive them, or if something perceives them wrongly.

How do you know?
Things you perceive create a subjective reality. Objective reality is unaffected by them.

This is evidence of difference subjective realities --it says nothing about objective reality. Whether or not grass is percevied as "really" different colours, the grass still exists. If two people perceive a cat as different shapes, they will still recognize the shape as they perceive it as "cat".

How do you know that there is an objective reality?

How do you know that there is an objective reality?
Because I perceive it with my various tools of perception and analyse those perceptions with my mind. But neither one of those steps creates reality, they just perceive and comprehend it.

If my perceptive organs and my mind aren't real or can't be trusted I may as well give up and go on a shooting spree now. I'd rather live in the real world, thanks.

A more thorough explanation is available through Ayn Rand. If you want the condensed version try the first couple chapters of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.

How do you know that there is an objective reality?
Two answers that are related: 1. By definition, and 2. I don't have to. I don't have to prove to myself in any way that it is there because, by definition, it is there, and it works. This is the world I operate in. This is the world that maintains sanity.

If everything is subjective, then the ideas presented to you by me here are actually being presented to you by you. You are alone in the universe. I think that is the definitive insanity.

Philosophy is very important to me, because it gives me a free civilization advance when I'm the first to discover it. So I always make it my first goal.

Laissez Faire capitalism is the only system in which people are entitled only to what they produce, and are entitled to *all* that they produce. Thus it is the economic system that allows for the realization of the Objectivist ethics.
This is not true. Laissez Faire capitalism is the system in which people share what they produce with the owners of the production.

This is not true. Laissez Faire capitalism is the system in which people share what they produce with the owners of the production.


I think you may be confused somewhere in there... that or you are going to try to tell me that workers do all the work and are being exploited by the "owners of production." If you are Marxist, then out yourself and let's not beat around the bush. Otherwise, if you are confused, then I offer you this definition from Dictionary.com:

lais·sez faire also lais·ser faire
n.
An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

Cheers!

"The unexamined life is not worth living" -- Socrates

"The unexamined life is not worth living" -- Socrates
"The over-examined life is boring as shit." -- Frisbeeteria

"The unexamined life is not worth living" -- Socrates

Is it valid to use this as an argument for euthanasia for those in a persistant vegetative state?

Is it valid to use this as an argument for euthanasia for those in a persistant vegetative state?

Why not.

"The over-examined life is boring as shit." -- Frisbeeteria


Thinking is crucial to keep your mind active. So you can go ahead and not examine your life and probably end up with alzheimer's. I'll happily keep analyzing as much as I please to.

Why not.

Because although they may not be displaying self-examination behaviour, we do not know for certain that they are not undergoing a process of self-examination.

Because although they may not be displaying self-examination behaviour, we do not know for certain that they are not undergoing a process of self-examination.

Stop playing devil's advocate. I refuse to reciprocate.

Stop playing devil's advocate. I refuse to reciprocate.

I think that is the first time I have been labelled devil's advocate while arguing against euthanasia.

I think that is the first time I have been labelled devil's advocate while arguing against euthanasia.

There's a first time for everything.

Yes, I do think philosophy is worth contemplating. Thinking about philosophy can often help determine your reactions to various events, and you interactions with other people.

Well, just answering the first topic, I think philosophy is the most important thing, or one of the most important. At first, philosophy was science. We only made the distinction very recently between a philosopher and a scientist. Any question you ask is a philosophical question, whether it has an answer in our physical world or not. I think anyway.

At first, philosophy was science.

Nah: philosophy included what later became known as 'natural philosophy', which later split off to become science, but to imply that philosophy was limited to just science is misleading at best.

I really think philosophy is important and mine is "try to keep everyone happy", which at time can be very difficult when there is more than one person involved which makes everything fall apart because you have to aim to keep all people involved happy which can be difficult at times.

Well, just answering the first topic, I think philosophy is the most important thing, or one of the most important. At first, philosophy was science. We only made the distinction very recently between a philosopher and a scientist. Any question you ask is a philosophical question, whether it has an answer in our physical world or not. I think anyway.

Actually, Philosophy is a science in and of itself. It is the science that deals with the nature of the universe and man's role in it.

Actually, Philosophy is a science in and of itself.

Except for the fact that it isn't a science: scientific method and philosophical method are entirely different things, and the last time they really shared anything in common was when Aristotle was still held as the prime authority in both of them.

Except for the fact that it isn't a science: scientific method and philosophical method are entirely different things, and the last time they really shared anything in common was when Aristotle was still held as the prime authority in both of them.

I agree that philosophy is not an *experimental* science such as chemistry, physics or biology, but it is still a science. The fundamental method of both modern physical sciences and philosophy (at least a rational philosophy) is inductive logic. Many things that you would probably call sciences rely strictly on observation and inductive logic to draw their conclusions.

Many things that you would probably call sciences rely strictly on observation and inductive logic to draw their conclusions. The fundamental method of both modern physical sciences and philosophy (at least a rational philosophy) is inductive logic.

No, I define science as that which works on the basis of falsification.

I think anyway.
That's a lovely philosophy in itself. :-)

Everyone debating what philosophy and science is apparently skipped the first 3 pages of this topic.

Wunderbar!

Might want to go back to that, to see what the definitions would entail, as pertaining to the topic at hand, therefore allowing for a more coherent discussion.

Everyone debating what philosophy and science is apparently skipped the first 3 pages of this topic.

Wunderbar!

Might want to go back to that, to see what the definitions would entail, as pertaining to the topic at hand, therefore allowing for a more coherent discussion.

I read them, but I didn't disagree with the definition of science they set forth, for example I take strong objection to the claim that -

Yes, physical sciences are based on proofs.

No, if anything science is based on disproving hypotheses, not proving them - thus falsification.

No, if anything science is based on disproving hypotheses, not proving them - thus falsification.

First, I would hope you realize my comment in context was made specifically to physical sciences (I'm sure and do hope you recognize that).

Furthermore, the physical sciences are based on proofs, in so far as you can not make a statement of physical scientific fact without proof/s.

The way we go about this is the scientific method.

Besides, physical sciences are not "based on disproving hypotheses." A hypothesis is made and then a study is done, of controlled experiment of observation - however, none-the-less, not all physical sciences even follow that.

physical science:

n. the sciences used in the study of inanimate natural objects, e.g., physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.

(Oxford Dictionary)

Many proofs in physics are based on theorems, mathematical equations and such, not on a specific controlled environment of observation.

Even within the controlled environment, we are based upon proofs, to the natural discovery of what is the base conclusion.

I think, perhaps, you are confused on what proofs we're talking about here. I did not say that physical sciences are based on the idea of proving something (that is not the contention), but physical science are based on proofs. Do I now need to define the scientific term of proofs?

Do I now need to define the scientific term of proofs?


Possibly.

Maybe I could cut to the quick and ask you if you are aware of Karl Popper's concept of falsification?

I think you may be confused somewhere in there... that or you are going to try to tell me that workers do all the work and are being exploited by the "owners of production." If you are Marxist, then out yourself and let's not beat around the bush. Otherwise, if you are confused, then I offer you this definition from Dictionary.com:

lais·sez faire also lais·ser faire
n.
An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

Cheers!
I am marxist.

Oh and a JoltBot Shoeshiner too.
WTF?