Philosophy

[Paradoxum]

Hi,

What is the point in Philosophy? If many intelligent and well informed people of the past and present can still wildly disagree, what is gained by doing Philosophy? Isn't is arrogant to think that you will be right where so many others are wrong? In a world where the craziness of relativity and even more so quantum mechanic are true, how is reason meant to detect the difference between what is absurd but true and what is simply absurd?

 

[quatona]

Hi,

What is the point in Philosophy?

I am trying to find explanations that make sense to me.

If many intelligent and well informed people of the past and present can still wildly disagree, what is gained by doing Philosophy?

If many well intelligent and well informed people of the past and present can still wildly disagree which sort of icecream tastes best what is gained by finding out what tastes best to me?

Isn't is arrogant to think that you will be right where so many others are wrong?

Probably - though not a problem for me, since my philosophical approach doesn´t even strive for "truth".

In a world where the craziness of relativity and even more so quantum mechanic are true, how is reason meant to detect the difference between what is absurd but true and what is simply absurd?

I´m not sure why you´d call relativity and quantum mechanics crazy or absurd.

 

[Bushido216]

Hi,

What is the point in Philosophy? If many intelligent and well informed people of the past and present can still wildly disagree, what is gained by doing Philosophy? Isn't is arrogant to think that you will be right where so many others are wrong? In a world where the craziness of relativity and even more so quantum mechanic are true, how is reason meant to detect the difference between what is absurd but true and what is simply absurd?

For whatever it's worth, the messenger in the passage you're quoting is distressed.

 

[Paradoxum]

I am trying to find explanations that make sense to me.

Why is you are wrong? You just enjoy it?

If many well intelligent and well informed people of the past and present can still wildly disagree which sort of icecream tastes best what is gained by finding out what tastes best to me?

Isn't it generally assumed that when people talk about philosophy they are trying to get to the truth?

Probably - though not a problem for me, since my philosophical approach doesn´t even strive for "truth".

What does it strive for?

I´m not sure why you´d call relativity and quantum mechanics crazy or absurd.

In the sense that you wouldn't accept it based on reason alone. It isn't common sense. The human mind can't even understand it.

For whatever it's worth, the messenger in the passage you're quoting is distressed.

What??

 

[quatona]

Why is you are wrong? You just enjoy it?

Sorry, I don´t understand the question (bear with me, I´m not a native English speaker). Could you please reword it for me?

Isn't it generally assumed that when people talk about philosophy they are trying to get to the truth?

I don´t know what´s generally assumed. The translation of "philosopher" is "friend/lover of wisdom", not "friend/lover of truth".
But I´m not necessarily harping on etymology. I´m just giving my personal responses. What is or may be generally assumed is not for me to defend.

What does it strive for?

Sense, beauty, elegance, usefulness, coherence, consistency. Just to name the first that come to mind.
IOW: I want it to help me through the day - and through the night.

In the sense that you wouldn't accept it based on reason alone. It isn't common sense. The human mind can't even understand it.

Again: I can´t say anything about quantum mechanics - I just don´t have any clue. Sorry. However, as far as relativity is concerned, it makes total sense to me, I can accept it based on reason alone, and it is perfectly reconcilable with my common sense.

 

[Bushido216]

Your signature, Paradoxum.

 

[HosannaHM]

Hi,

What is the point in Philosophy? If many intelligent and well informed people of the past and present can still wildly disagree, what is gained by doing Philosophy? Isn't is arrogant to think that you will be right where so many others are wrong? In a world where the craziness of relativity and even more so quantum mechanic are true, how is reason meant to detect the difference between what is absurd but true and what is simply absurd?

Depends on what you personally deem to be absurd vs. what someone else may think is.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that in learning philosophy there is at least the use of logic applied to difficult situations. The fact that not everyone agrees is probably (amongst other things like different spirit and educational level) due to the factor of uncertainty in the discipline, but that does not mean that all views are equally well thought out. And there seems to have been progress. How many Platonists or Neoplatonists are there today believing in the cave allegory and the intuition of idealistic universals? Or how many Aristotolians are there believing (iirc) that the soul is the form of the body. Or how many people believe that everything is made from water as Thales did? Who would accept the argument from design so readily now we have the theory of evolution? Who would advocate over complicated, baroque metaphysics after Occam's Razor? Or would last thursdayism etc not be more popular if science, and the philosophy underpinning parts of it, were not so strong? Then there's things like doxastic logic and principles like "don't believe anything inconsistent with other beliefs" which for me has lead my heart away from mainstream religion where I would "go along" with things I dodn't really believe, to a more liberal and personalised view - which may well be progress of sorts, eh? At least: they never knew of doxastic logic 2000 years ago, or the logic's developed by the likes of Frege and other modern thinkers.

 

[Paradoxum]

Sorry, I don´t understand the question (bear with me, I´m not a native English speaker). Could you please reword it for me?

Sorry, its me that messed up my English.

I don´t know what´s generally assumed. The translation of "philosopher" is "friend/lover of wisdom", not "friend/lover of truth".
But I´m not necessarily harping on etymology. I´m just giving my personal responses. What is or may be generally assumed is not for me to defend.

I do prefer to think of it as love of wisdom, but it would seem that philosophers write essays to prove what they are saying is true.

Sense, beauty, elegance, usefulness, coherence, consistency. Just to name the first that come to mind.
IOW: I want it to help me through the day - and through the night.

A bit like religion.... I'm not saying thats a bad thing.

Again: I can´t say anything about quantum mechanics - I just don´t have any clue. Sorry. However, as far as relativity is concerned, it makes total sense to me, I can accept it based on reason alone, and it is perfectly reconcilable with my common sense.

But it isn't natural to think that if you move faster your time slows down relative to everything outside you. I accept it, its just that it is based on science rather than philosophy.

Your signature, Paradoxum.

Yup, it does exist. Mind telling me what your talking about with more than one or two short sentences?

Depends on what you personally deem to be absurd vs. what someone else may think is.

No one understands quantum mechanics.

I think that in learning philosophy there is at least the use of logic applied to difficult situations. The fact that not everyone agrees is probably (amongst other things like different spirit and educational level) due to the factor of uncertainty in the discipline, but that does not mean that all views are equally well thought out. And there seems to have been progress. How many Platonists or Neoplatonists are there today believing in the cave allegory and the intuition of idealistic universals?

Well I think many people think that we are born in darkness, only seeing an illusion of things and that the only way we can escape is by a saviour. People do believe in an immaterial soul that we gain a greater/full understanding of reality after death. Christians. Obviously not in quite the same way as Plato though.

Or how many Aristotolians are there believing (iirc) that the soul is the form of the body. Or how many people believe that everything is made from water as Thales did? Who would accept the argument from design so readily now we have the theory of evolution?

But haven't many developments like these come from science rather than philosophy?

Who would advocate over complicated, baroque metaphysics after Occam's Razor? Or would last thursdayism etc not be more popular if science, and the philosophy underpinning parts of it, were not so strong? Then there's things like doxastic logic and principles like "don't believe anything inconsistent with other beliefs" which for me has lead my heart away from mainstream religion where I would "go along" with things I dodn't really believe, to a more liberal and personalised view - which may well be progress of sorts, eh? At least: they never knew of doxastic logic 2000 years ago, or the logic's developed by the likes of Frege and other modern thinkers.

I'll accept we have learnt some things, but still many of the big questions have no answers.

 

[Bushido216]

You're signature is a quote from Nietzsche. In the paragraph the person speaking is distressed.

 

[Paradoxum]

You're signature is a quote from Nietzsche. In the paragraph the person speaking is distressed.

And thats such some random fact you felt like saying?

 

[Bushido216]

If you're going to have the audacity to lift an entire passage from one of the major works of one of the major philosophers of modernity, you should at least have the decency to know who wrote it and the context in which it was written.

 

[Paradoxum]

If you're going to have the audacity to lift an entire passage from one of the major works of one of the major philosophers of modernity, you should at least have the decency to know who wrote it and the context in which it was written.

Ok. Now tell me why this relates to me?

 

[quatona]

Sorry, its me that messed up my English.

No problem - but I really didn´t understand what you were asking. So, if it was important, feel invited to ask again.

I do prefer to think of it as love of wisdom, but it would seem that philosophers write essays to prove what they are saying is true.

Well, what can I say? I´m not a great fan of that approach.

A bit like religion.... I'm not saying thats a bad thing.

I would like to correct that: A bit like what religion is and can be for some people.

However - just like in philosophy, probably even more - I see "truth" being thrown around a lot in religion.

But it isn't natural to think that if you move faster your time slows down relative to everything outside you. I accept it, its just that it is based on science rather than philosophy.

I am afraid I am not only unfamiliar with quantum mechanics but also unfamiliar with the subtleties of relativity theory. If I remember correctly, I have learned that time is involved in the measurement of speed - so I cannot really make sense of "time slowing down". If time had its own speed that would lead to some strange paradoxons and self-references.
Scientifically speaking, that is (but I suspect that there are very different definitions of "time" around).

What´s more important and significant to me are observations such as: an hour appears to be very long when I´m bored and very short when I am thrilled with what I am doing. I don´t expect scientific relativity theory to explain that phenomenon.

I guess I am just more interested in second level reality than in first level reality. That´s why I am interested in metaphysics rather than in science. And that´s why I am not happy when metaphysics try to behave as science, pretending to be about facts, truth, objectivity, proof, first level reality.

 

[Bushido216]

Paradoxum, your signature paragraph ia lifted straight from Nietzsche and you don't even know anything about it?

Yikes.

 

[Paradoxum]

No problem - but I really didn´t understand what you were asking. So, if it was important, feel invited to ask again.

Na, I don't think it was important.

Well, what can I say? I´m not a great fan of that approach.

So you read philosophy to help you understand the world, even though you know your understanding may very well be wrong... am I right?

I would like to correct that: A bit like what religion is and can be for some people.

However - just like in philosophy, probably even more - I see "truth" being thrown around a lot in religion.

I think I agree.

I am afraid I am not only unfamiliar with quantum mechanics but also unfamiliar with the subtleties of relativity theory. If I remember correctly, I have learned that time is involved in the measurement of speed - so I cannot really make sense of "time slowing down". If time had its own speed that would lead to some strange paradoxons and self-references.
Scientifically speaking, that is (but I suspect that there are very different definitions of "time" around).

Well very simply according to relativity time is relative to where you are and what speed you are moving at. It has things to say on subjects other than time as well though. I'm not a scientist, but physics is an interest of mine.

What´s more important and significant to me are observations such as: an hour appears to be very long when I´m bored and very short when I am thrilled with what I am doing. I don´t expect scientific relativity theory to explain that phenomenon.

I don't think it will either

I guess I am just more interested in second level reality than in first level reality. That´s why I am interested in metaphysics rather than in science. And that´s why I am not happy when metaphysics try to behave as science, pretending to be about facts, truth, objectivity, proof.

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here. Could you give me an example of a metaphysics?

Paradoxum, your signature paragraph ia lifted straight from Nietzsche and you don't even know anything about it?

Yikes.

Well I think I know as much as you have told me already.... so I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make by saying the madman is distressed?

 

[quatona]

So you read philosophy to help you understand the world, even though you know your understanding may very well be wrong... am I right?

No, not quite. I don´t think that right and wrong are meaningful terms in second level reality. If something has a particular meaning to me that´s just that.

Well very simply according to relativity time is relative to where you are and what speed you are moving at. It has things to say on subjects other than time as well though. I'm not a scientist, but physics is an interest of mine.

Given the amount of speed I am able to develop in real life - does the insight that time is relative to what speed I am moving at have any significance? What should I change about my life as a consequence of this insight?

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here. Could you give me an example of a metaphysics?

I´ll try. We have this word "meaning". People use it to describe very different concepts. In my use of this word, "meaning" is when something means something to me (or someone else, for that matter). There are other people who deny there to be meaning, unless it can be shown to be "objective" (whatever that might mean) or unless it means something to a god.
Different metaphysical grounds - and no science will be able to prove one of the positions right or wrong.

 

[Daniel25]

Philosophy is system of deriving conclusions on particular issues from general rules, and deriving general rules from non-provable axioms. Good philosophy will give an intelligble framework for understanding and acting in the world w.r.t. these axioms. However, philosophy cannot provide you with axioms, or justify the ones you have chosen.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But haven't many developments like these come from science rather than philosophy?

Yes evolutionary theory has come from science but scientific understanding can affect philosophical theory. An example would be mataphysics, like I mentioned earlier. Ancient metaphysics might have recognised "5 elements" of fire, water, wind, metal wood etc, but those theories are not taken seriously anymore because science has superceded the more naive views. So now we have for instance "physicalism" as a metaphysics, which IIRC states things (various atoms etc) exist as they are thought to by modern physics. Again the metaphysics of mind has been helped along by brain science, such that the ageing ideas of the christian "immaterial soul", the buddhist "heart mind", the japanese "tantien consciousness" etc have taken a bit of a battering in the same way the "5 element" theory has. Philosophy does not happen in a vaccuum.

 

[qualitas occulta]

how is reason meant to detect the difference between what is absurd but true and what is simply absurd?

Because colorless green ideas sleep furiously.