NationStates Jolt Archive

Imo, philosophy should focus only on language and logic, all other areas just result in gross errors, as science just comes along and demolishes philosophical assumptions directly dealing with physical existence. For example philosophy as regards time is just completely wrong. I heard some philosopher dude in my college say that the past cannot exist based on logical premises, wrong! in light of the existence of antimatter and the discovery of special relativity.

Good sir, we are not all college students, would you mind explaining those of us on the other end of the scale.

Well, there is an entire field called "philosophy of science", so I don't think that's necessarily true.

There are a number of different disciplines within the field that deal with certain subjects; a philosopher that specializes in epistemology probably isn't really qualified to comment on the philosophy of science, and a philosopher that specializes in mathematics is probably not qualified to comment on religion, and so on.

I heard some philosopher dude in my college say that the past cannot exist based on logical premises, wrong!

So, Richard III, for example, exists?

So, Richard III, for example, exists?

well yeah, just we cant percieve the past due to entropy

well yeah, just we cant percieve the past due to entropy

So I exist simultaneously at all points through my existence up to the present instant?

Aside from which, this just in: the Roman Empire has not fallen, the Third Reich marches across Europe and Abraham Lincoln is president of the USA.

Imo, philosophy should focus only on language and logic, all other areas just result in gross errors, as science just comes along and demolishes philosophical assumptions directly dealing with physical existence. For example philosophy as regards time is just completely wrong. I heard some philosopher dude in my college say that the past cannot exist based on logical premises, wrong! in light of the existence of antimatter and the discovery of special relativity.

Way to go. Let us eliminate from philosophy the reason for its existence at all.

ETHICS

Philosophy developed as a response to asking questions about what is the right way to live.

Then there is aesthetics. Do you really expect science to be able to say that X is 83.47% beautiful whereas Y is only 83.36% beautiful?

What you are on about is metaphysics (a small but highly populated area of philosophy) and in particular ontology.

And you have completely misunderstood the philosophy dude. The past cannot logically now exist. If it did exist it would be the present, not the past - the problems of simultaneity raised by general relativity only change that what is the past for one observer in one reference frame may be the present for another in a different reference frame.

Philosophy is basically exercising thought, as such everything has relevance to it. Attempts to make that exercise disciplined derive in logic, which derives in science.

It's not possible to take the philosophy out of science, or to contemplate about things without philosophy. Whether the results of that contemplation are correct or not is another matter.

Philosophy is like a cookie, and logic is like the chocolate chips.

Good sir, we are not all college students, would you mind explaining those of us on the other end of the scale.

He/she isn't a college student or college graduate. He/she is some Junior High School or High School student who doesn't even know what philosophy means. :eek:

For example philosophy as regards time is just completely wrong.

which one?

For example philosophy as regards time is just completely wrong.
How can you make such a generalisation? Philosophy is arguably the broadest branch of human endeavour.

And you have completely misunderstood the philosophy dude. The past cannot logically now exist. If it did exist it would be the present, not the past - the problems of simultaneity raised by general relativity only change that what is the past for one observer in one reference frame may be the present for another in a different reference frame.

he may also have been talking about mctaggart's "unreality of time" argument

Wasn't science itself based in a philosophy? Empiricism?

Imo, philosophy should focus only on language and logic, all other areas just result in gross errors, as science just comes along and demolishes philosophical assumptions directly dealing with physical existence. For example philosophy as regards time is just completely wrong. I heard some philosopher dude in my college say that the past cannot exist based on logical premises, wrong! in light of the existence of antimatter and the discovery of special relativity.

As others have said, you could stand to be much more specific. Philosophy is not a solid school, its branches are far too numerous to count and using the word like its a single entity is pointless.

Philosophy is that funny field where crazy people debate the triviality of trivial things.

No, existence does NOT precede essence!

It so does!

Yeah, well your ontological definition of essence is shit!

I heard some philosopher dude in my college say that the past cannot exist based on logical premises, wrong! in light of the existence of antimatter and the discovery of special relativity.
What the fuck does antimatter and special relativity have to do with whether the past exists or not?

You sound like a pretentious ass who just likes to throw around words that he thinks sound big and important to make himself sound smart.

Wasn't science itself based in a philosophy? Empiricism?
Hell, the scientific method is philosophical.

Why should we accept what science says? (That's a philosophical question.)

It's pretty hard to argue the merits of science without philosophy.

I always thought philosophy was just another way of stating one's own opinion on a subject.

Anything someone believes in or comes up with that can't be tested to prove repeatable results, is essentially Philosophy...like String Theory for instance.

I always thought philosophy was just another way of stating one's own opinion on a subject.

well you thought wrong

Stand-up comedy = Philosophy. :)

Anything someone believes in or comes up with that can't be tested to prove repeatable results, is essentially Philosophy...like String Theory for instance.
ZING!

Hey, I said directly dealing with reality ie, physical objects, not ethics etc. Im talking about the creation of the universe, its totally unreliable to use philosophy to answer such questions as none of the assertions are tested empirically so end up basically being wrong. And read up on how antimatter is created, and you'll see how the past does exist. Now I made a point about philosophy and I get personal insults thrown back at me, way to go for sophistry

Hey, I said directly dealing with reality ie, physical objects, not ethics etc. Im talking about the creation of the universe, its totally unreliable to use philosophy to answer such questions as none of the assertions are tested empirically so end up basically being wrong. And read up on how antimatter is created, and you'll see how the past does exist. Now I made a point about philosophy and I get personal insults thrown back at me, way to go for sophistry
Which philosophy pursues the creation of the universe?

Then there is aesthetics. Do you really expect science to be able to say that X is 83.47% beautiful whereas Y is only 83.36% beautiful?

Yes. People find things beautiful when they are in a ratio to 1:1.61 and demonstrate symmetry. The closer they get to that the better looking they are. That's why even novels will have a justified right margin. They look better when the pages are a straight line on both sides.

Other than that, it comes down to fashion and a declaration of cultural perspective and signs of health.

Like how in post-industrial countries fat is considered unattractive because it suggests that you are too poor to join a gym, too lazy to do any exercise, and are generally not healthy.

In pre agricultural societies fat is considered more attractive because it suggests that you are very unlikely to die of malnutrition anytime soon. Post-industrial countries aren't worried about dissentery and hunter-gatherers aren't worried about coranary artery disease, so those people don't worry about signs of those sicknesses.

Another example would be tanned skin. Today it suggests a willingness to get out of doors and exercise, suggesting healthy vitality. Several decades ago a tan was attractive because it suggested that you had the money to take a vacation somewhere sunny in the winter. But before that it was unattractive because it indicated that you had to work a shitty job out in the fields.

Which philosophy pursues the creation of the universe?

Cosmology and ontology (study of the nature of existence). But Cosmology isn't really a philosophy because scientists persue it with testable hypotheses (for this purpose making a prediction of finding something and then finding it is considered a succesful test).

Intelligent Design Theorists and Creationists couldn't be considered either because they don't produce testable hypothoses and demonstrate a hatred of wisdom.

Hey, I said directly dealing with reality ie, physical objects, not ethics etc. Im talking about the creation of the universe, its totally unreliable to use philosophy to answer such questions as none of the assertions are tested empirically so end up basically being wrong. And read up on how antimatter is created, and you'll see how the past does exist. Now I made a point about philosophy and I get personal insults thrown back at me, way to go for sophistry

Of course, the whole existence of science is owed to philosophers asking questions about the physical world. What we call science now used to be called Natural Philosophy.

Philosophers ask questions. Sometimes they come up with stupid answers like "homosexuality is unnatural and God hates it." But that just prompts scientists to come along and point out "well natural means 'occurs in nature' and some animals are gay. Therefore homosexuality is natural."

Would any self-respecting scientist ever have come up with the question "are penguins gay" had not some non-scientific blowhard prompted the question?

Cosmology and ontology (study of the nature of existence). But Cosmology isn't really a philosophy because scientists persue it with testable hypotheses (for this purpose making a prediction of finding something and then finding it is considered a succesful test).

Intelligent Design Theorists and Creationists couldn't be considered either because they don't produce testable hypothoses and demonstrate a hatred of wisdom.
So, ontology is the likely candidate? But doesn't that deal with the nature of existence from the perspective of a mind? How is that about the forces that brought about the creation of the universe?

Aside from which, this just in: the Roman Empire has not fallen, the Third Reich marches across Europe and Abraham Lincoln is president of the USA.

Don't be stupid. Rome could totally take the Nazis.

So, ontology is the likely candidate?

maybe? (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/#3)

well you thought wrong

So did I, apparently.

Which philosophy pursues the creation of the universe?

Cosmogony is a much better term to descriube philosophical speculation about the origin of the universe rather than 'cosmology', which is a scientific approach to the problem.

String theory? Big Bang? What on earth are you going on about?

Yes, they are theories, and there isn't enough evidence to make them law. But they are science, because, for example with the big bang, there is a certain amount of data supporting it. Philosophy and science are very intertwined, and I'd say that most of the Enlightenment era philosophers were scientists. A philosopher might say that the universe is an illusion created by our brains. A scientist would say that x billion years ago something exploded in a huge cloud of hydrogen gas. See the difference?

And what do you mean confined to language and logic? You really aren't making much sense. Would political philosophy be included in your narrow definition?

Don't be stupid. Rome could totally take the Nazis.

Tiger beats tortoise.

And what do you mean confined to language and logic? You really aren't making much sense. Would political philosophy be included in your narrow definition?

Seems to me that the OP has fallen under the spell of AJ Ayer and the Logical Positivists, without looking closely enough to see how laughably flawed their whole criterion for determine what philosophy should or shouldn't be really is.

Yes. People find things beautiful when they are in a ratio to 1:1.61 and demonstrate symmetry. The closer they get to that the better looking they are. That's why even novels will have a justified right margin. They look better when the pages are a straight line on both sides.

Other than that, it comes down to fashion and a declaration of cultural perspective and signs of health.

Like how in post-industrial countries fat is considered unattractive because it suggests that you are too poor to join a gym, too lazy to do any exercise, and are generally not healthy.

In pre agricultural societies fat is considered more attractive because it suggests that you are very unlikely to die of malnutrition anytime soon. Post-industrial countries aren't worried about dissentery and hunter-gatherers aren't worried about coranary artery disease, so those people don't worry about signs of those sicknesses.

Another example would be tanned skin. Today it suggests a willingness to get out of doors and exercise, suggesting healthy vitality. Several decades ago a tan was attractive because it suggested that you had the money to take a vacation somewhere sunny in the winter. But before that it was unattractive because it indicated that you had to work a shitty job out in the fields.

So which of these measures do you use to judge whether you want a Mondrian or a Jackson Pollack reproduction on your wall?

Yes - in some very limited spheres it is possible to describe what is and is not aesthetically pleasing. The golden ratio - symmetry of facial features etc. However these will not tell you anything about what types of reaction to expect from a poem or a sculpture. Nor do they address the role of art in society etc.

I, myself, don't and haven't studied aesthetics. But I do know that it deals with subjective issues, ones that science can not measure and categorize.

So then, what is philosophy? Remember, I'm a complete newcomer to the field.

So then, what is philosophy?

good question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-philosophy

String theory? Big Bang? What on earth are you going on about?

Yes, they are theories, and there isn't enough evidence to make them law. But they are science, because, for example with the big bang, there is a certain amount of data supporting it. Philosophy and science are very intertwined, and I'd say that most of the Enlightenment era philosophers were scientists. A philosopher might say that the universe is an illusion created by our brains. A scientist would say that x billion years ago something exploded in a huge cloud of hydrogen gas. See the difference?

And what do you mean confined to language and logic? You really aren't making much sense. Would political philosophy be included in your narrow definition?

Philosophy is very good at examining the intricacies of language, for example resolving the issue of say "why" questions in relation to "how" questions, stuff like that. Logic is another form of valid philosophy, political philosophy ethic etc are all fine, what Im attacking is philosophy applied to the universe, eg Aquinas' 3 ways, without a shred of evidence to support the conclusions/theories. String Theory is an interesting mathematical system but until they can validate it empirically I cant say it should be taken seriously as a description of the universe. The difference you cited does indeed exist, for all the fancy intellectual turn of phrase, someone who thinks the universe is in their head and then gets shot and dies isnt on the right track exactly, the universe is not in their head, its external to them, thats why the laws of gravity are not subjective and they got shot. This is the kind of reasoning I dislike and I dont think should be taught.

Logic is another form of valid philosophy, political philosophy ethic etc are all fine, what Im attacking is philosophy applied to the universe, eg Aquinas' 3 ways, without a shred of evidence to support the conclusions/theories.

Something of a change from your original position...

Imo, philosophy should focus only on language and logic, all other areas just result in gross errors, as science just comes along and demolishes philosophical assumptions directly dealing with physical existence.

Something of a change from your original position...

Not really, yar I know as I was typing it I didnt include the other areas, but I did say in that original post that philosophy just shouldnt attempt to pass comment on physical reality when its not up to the task, thats what I stressed.