What is philosophy for?

No, I gotta disagree that philosophy is testable via the study of neuronal changes.

I mean, one can test if the neurons change (or whatever changes take place in the brain when one changes philosophical viewpoints), but philosophical issues - what is the meaning of life? Is execution of dangerous criminals acceptable? - can NEVER be determined by testing.

I mean, if that were true, then there would be objective proof that executions are okay (at least in some cases). But there are always going to be people who will disagree. So the idea of it being okay to execute criminals is not an objective thing, and it never will be. Purely philosophical issues are not testable and thus do not have any part in the real world. They only have an effect in peoples' minds.

Tiberius said:

No, I gotta disagree that philosophy is testable via the study of neuronal changes.

I mean, one can test if the neurons change (or whatever changes take place in the brain when one changes philosophical viewpoints), but philosophical issues - what is the meaning of life? Is execution of dangerous criminals acceptable? - can NEVER be determined by testing.

I mean, if that were true, then there would be objective proof that executions are okay (at least in some cases). But there are always going to be people who will disagree. So the idea of it being okay to execute criminals is not an objective thing, and it never will be. Purely philosophical issues are not testable and thus do not have any part in the real world. They only have an effect in peoples' minds.

Click to expand...

We both agreed that philosophy can't prove anything. It does function as a process to help people examine and modify what assumptions (axioms) they hold, and create a consistent world view based from them. Both of those things are neural activity, so they can be measured.

And it makes sense, because philosophical ideas HAVE changed society. How could a non-demonstrable thing ever bridge into the demonstrable? I'm not aware of any evidence that such a thing can occur.

But once a person uses a philosophical idea as a basis for actions, it ceases to be something that has no effect in the real world. Because any such action must have consideration about the real world consequences.

Tiberius said:

But once a person uses a philosophical idea as a basis for actions, it ceases to be something that has no effect in the real world. Because any such action must have consideration about the real world consequences.

Click to expand...

what I am suggesting is different. Since the human mind is in the real world, the thought IS an effect on the real world. The actions taken due to a philosophy are in response to the real impact in the mind due to the philosophical thought.

From your perspective, there are two worlds. The one inside your head, where you think, and the one outside, where your body and everyone else is.

One is a mental world, the other is physical. If you think something, it does not change the physical world. You have to act on it before it does. Your thoughts have no consequence in the physical world, but actions do. That is the basis of what I am saying.

Philosophy is subjective, and confined compeltely to the mental world. And it is different for each person. As long as philosophical ideas are confined there, they can not influence the world. But as soon as someone acts on them, they cease to be purely philosophical. There are other issues regarding those actions, not just philosophical issues. And it is these extra issues that are created when philosophy is used as the basis/justifications for actions that have an impact in the real world.

But a thought by itself cannot change the world by itself. It needs more.

Tiberius said:

Thus, no demonstratably true knowledge about the real world comes solely from philosophy. That's my point.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that we cannot know it is true that either God exists or he does not exist?

I thought that our point was that all truths had to be testable.

GrowingSmaller said:

Are you saying that we cannot know it is true that either God exists or he does not exist?

Click to expand...

I am saying that philosophy cannot tell us about the existence of God. An examination of the so called "proofs" of God - Pascal's wager, the ontological argument, etc - will always reveal flaws in them.

When we investigate the issue of God's existence in the real world using the only tools that have demonstrated an ability to provide useful information about the real world (useful being defined as being able to make predictions about the real world that can be tested), those tools being science and reason, we find that the existence of God can't be shown, and is not even implied (except by the God-of-the-gappers, and even then they are using an argument from ignorance in ever decreasing gaps).

In short, the existence of God is only supported by tools which are very unreliable when it comes to getting knowledge about the real world. And the tools that are reliable indicate that God is not needed.

GrowingSmaller said:

I thought that our point was that all truths had to be testable.

Click to expand...

We can test it. We can take any "truth" that is arrived at by a purely philosophical means and see if it is reflected in reality.

Tiberius said:

We can test it. We can take any "truth" that is arrived at by a purely philosophical means and see if it is reflected in reality.

Click to expand...

What counts as purely philosophical? There are some statemtnets of philosophy like "either the external universe is really physical or not" which seem philosophical to me, but which you might say don't count because logic is based on observation, or the concept of the physical comes from science. I think in that case you need to defend the position that the use of logic etc is not "pure philosophy", because prime facie you could be redefining philosophy as you go along so as to exclude some of what is generally treated as philosophy by experts in the field.

Tiberius said:

From your perspective, there are two worlds. The one inside your head, where you think, and the one outside, where your body and everyone else is.

One is a mental world, the other is physical. If you think something, it does not change the physical world. You have to act on it before it does. Your thoughts have no consequence in the physical world, but actions do. That is the basis of what I am saying.

Philosophy is subjective, and confined compeltely to the mental world. And it is different for each person. As long as philosophical ideas are confined there, they can not influence the world. But as soon as someone acts on them, they cease to be purely philosophical. There are other issues regarding those actions, not just philosophical issues. And it is these extra issues that are created when philosophy is used as the basis/justifications for actions that have an impact in the real world.

But a thought by itself cannot change the world by itself. It needs more.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I will respond to this really late.

Human decisions are to philosophy as physics is to mathematics.

Mathematics alone do nothing of value, just like philosophy alone does nothing of value. That doesn't mean it is useless, as it can be a tool in something useful.

GrowingSmaller said:

What counts as purely philosophical? There are some statemtnets of philosophy like "either the external universe is really physical or not" which seem philosophical to me, but which you might say don't count because logic is based on observation, or the concept of the physical comes from science. I think in that case you need to defend the position that the use of logic etc is not "pure philosophy", because prime facie you could be redefining philosophy as you go along so as to exclude some of what is generally treated as philosophy by experts in the field.

Click to expand...

Yes, logic is purely philosophical. We've all heard the examples like:

All squibs are bimps and all bimps are charries. Therefore all charries are squibs.

But the thing is that any logical thought process that applies to the real world (All mammals have fur and feed their young with milk. Cats have fur and feed their young with milk. therefore cats are mammals) can be tested in the real world. And while the first example with squibs and charries may be perfectly logical, it means nothing. it only has a meaning when it is applied to the real world in a testable way, as in the second example. And as soon as that happens, we accept it because it has been shown by observation in the real world, not because the logic is sound. After all, the logic in my first example is sound, but unobservable. And it means nothing to us.

Likewise, I could say that all comets come from the Oort cloud, and the Oort cloud contains remnants from the early solar system, but you may not believe me. I would have to SHOW you evidence to support the premise I propose in order for you to believe me. To do otherwise would leave us believing any old nonsense anyone tells us.

ug333 said:

Sorry, I will respond to this really late.

Human decisions are to philosophy as physics is to mathematics.

Mathematics alone do nothing of value, just like philosophy alone does nothing of value. That doesn't mean it is useless, as it can be a tool in something useful.

Click to expand...

But once the decision is made, it relates to the real world. It has a demonstratable consequence. Thus, it is no longer purely philosophical.

Tiberius said:

But once the decision is made, it relates to the real world. It has a demonstratable consequence. Thus, it is no longer purely philosophical.

Click to expand...

Agreed, not PURELY. But it is just as valuable as math to physics.

Tiberius said:

After all, the logic in my first example is sound, but unobservable. And it means nothing to us.


But once the decision is made, it relates to the real world. It has a demonstratable consequence. Thus, it is no longer purely philosophical.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by the "real world"? Certainly physicalism, and naturalism, and other metaphysical systems, claim to relate to the real world. They might not verifiable (or testable or demonstrable), but that does not mean that are nonsensical or meaningless. That was the mistake of Logical Positivism, for instance when Schlick said: "The meaning of a proposition is the method of its verification". Wittgenstein by apparently helped correct that error explaining the the meaning of a term was in it's use rather than a positive referent "pictured" by it. I don't see why a statement ought not be regraded as truth apt (because nonsensical), just because we cannot actually verify it's truth or falsity, or demonstrate or test it. That would seem to imply only that which we can know to be true or false can actually be true or false, but that seems arrogant to me. For instance, we cannot know or verify whether the neanderthal who had the most sexual partners ever imagined a purple crescent moon, but that does not imply that the assertion that she or he did is not truth apt or meaningful. And back to metaphysical systems, they may not be demonstrable, testable or verifiable - but they certainly have meaning; and that's how we can for instance cogently distuinguish one metaphysical system from another, and argue about how parsimonious they are, and what they imply etc.


It seems like you would like to say that the difference between physicalism and idealism is the differece between the two nonsense terms "uejenshsytebndnja!" and "shsywetrjsauapl!". Surely someone would have noticed by now?

GrowingSmaller said:

What do you mean by the "real world"?

Click to expand...

If you can measure something, and I can measure it too and reach the same conclusion as you, then it is in the real world.

If you measure the distance to Jupiter, and I measure it at the same time, we will get identical results (for all intents and purposes). Thus, the distance to Jupiter is real.

But if you use pure philosophy to come to a conclusion about whether executing prisoners is okay, then we can come to completely different conclusions.

Certainly physicalism,

Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia, physicalism "is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things."

Is that testable? Can you conduct an experiment to see if it is true? An example that comes to mind of something that is real and yet not physical is the event horizon of a black hole, or gravitational distortions in spacetime. They are not physical, yet they can be measured.

and naturalism,

Click to expand...

Metaphysical or methodological naturalism?

and other metaphysical systems, claim to relate to the real world. They might not verifiable (or testable or demonstrable), but that does not mean that are nonsensical or meaningless.

Click to expand...

If they cannot even be demonstratable in the real world, then they could very well not even be true. A claim to truth is fine, but that claim is meaningless unless it can be supported.

That was the mistake of Logical Positivism, for instance when Schlick said: "The meaning of a proposition is the method of its verification". Wittgenstein by apparently helped correct that error explaining the the meaning of a term was in it's use rather than a positive referent "pictured" by it.

Click to expand...

My goodness, that's hard to understand. Is there an english translation of that? What the hell is a positive referent?

I don't see why a statement ought not be regraded as truth apt (because nonsensical), just because we cannot actually verify it's truth or falsity, or demonstrate or test it.

Click to expand...

So I can say that I can turn into a squirrel, but only when I am not being observed or measured in any way, and you don't see any reason to disbelieve my claim?

That would seem to imply only that which we can know to be true or false can actually be true or false, but that seems arrogant to me. For instance, we cannot know or verify whether the neanderthal who had the most sexual partners ever imagined a purple crescent moon, but that does not imply that the assertion that she or he did is not truth apt or meaningful.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. Such a claim is testable (at least in theory). One can conduct a survey of all people to see who has had the most partners. And people can write down their thoughts or record them in some way. There is no reason why such thiongs could not have been done way back then. Of course, it is highly unlikely that they were, but that does not mean the method is impossible.

But the assertion that he did makes absolutely no difference to the world. If you can think of an example of the kind of difference we would see between a world where such a neanderthal did imagine a purple moon, and a world where he did not, then I'd love to know.

And back to metaphysical systems, they may not be demonstrable, testable or verifiable - but they certainly have meaning; and that's how we can for instance cogently distuinguish one metaphysical system from another, and argue about how parsimonious they are, and what they imply etc.

Click to expand...

Philosophy can be used to distingiush between different philosophies?

Isn't that kinda like writing two computer programs, say Program A and Program B where Program A's purpose is to only inform the user that it is not Program B, and vice versa?

It seems like you would like to say that the difference between physicalism and idealism is the differece between the two nonsense terms "uejenshsytebndnja!" and "shsywetrjsauapl!". Surely someone would have noticed by now?

Click to expand...

have you even been reading what I have written? I am saying that the difference between the two is that physicalism states that there are actual things that exist separately to the mind perceiving them (whether or not that perception is completely accurate) and idealism states that the true nature of things is entirely within the mind of the perceiver.

My own point of view is that anything that is real exists seperately to the mind perceiving it, and can be measured independantly by several minds, which will reach an agreement about that thing. I used the example earlier of measuring the distance to Jupiter.

Anything that does not fall into that category can have no effect on the real world. There's no difference between the non-consequential and the imaginary.

But you seem to be saying something is consequential only if it can be measured. That excludes the possibility of there being a reality where there are no measurements made, or there being unmeasurable things. Maybe "man is the measure of all things" and "without man there is nothing to be measured"?

My goodness, that's hard to understand. Is there an english translation of that? What the hell is a positive referent?

Click to expand...

I think if I understand Logical Positivism the meaning of a word was to be found in it's referent. The meaning of the term "Henry's cat" was Henry's cat. The positivist element (and hence the idea of a positive referent) was the idea that only things that could be positively measured via sense perception, like the temperature of water, could count as referents for terminology. Therefore, unless there was a potential positive empirical referent to a term, it was regarded as meaningless. (I am not mentioning analytic statements here, but only the idea that synthetic statements had to have "positive reference" in their component terms, like a cat for the tern "cat" and a Henry for term "Henry"). Therefore mataphysical statements such as "the unobserved is physical" were meaningless, having no possible empirical content, and not being analytic in nature.

Is that testable? Can you conduct an experiment to see if it is true? An example that comes to mind of something that is real and yet not physical is the event horizon of a black hole, or gravitational distortions in spacetime. They are not physical, yet they can be measured.

Click to expand...

They are studied by physics, and so part of the physical universe, therefore they are physical. Event horizons are spatial locations beyond which no light can escape from a gravitational field. I would have thought so, anyway...

If they cannot even be demonstratable in the real world, then they could very well not even be true. A claim to truth is fine, but that claim is meaningless unless it can be supported.

Click to expand...

Do you mean that unless I support the claim "I am sat on a chair" that statement is meaningless, and therefore not truth apt, and therefore neither true nor false? What do you mean by "meaningless"? Do you understand the import of "I am sat in a chair" when I do not support the statement? It is true that I am, or that I am not, whether I support that statement or not, right?

GrowingSmaller said:

But you seem to be saying something is consequential only if it can be measured. That excludes the possibility of there being a reality where there are no measurements made, or there being unmeasurable things. Maybe "man is the measure of all things" and "without man there is nothing to be measured"?

Click to expand...

If a thing has a measurable property, than that measurability exists so long as the object exists. That measurability does not depend on there being a measurer. A rock is a rock because it has "rockiness". Even without anyone to measure that rockiness, the rock would still have it.

I think if I understand Logical Positivism the meaning of a word was to be found in it's referent. The meaning of the term "Henry's cat" was Henry's cat. The positivist element (and hence the idea of a positive referent) was the idea that only things that could be positively measured via sense perception, like the temperature of water, could count as referents for terminology. Therefore, unless there was a potential positive empirical referent to a term, it was regarded as meaningless. (I am not mentioning analytic statements here, but only the idea that synthetic statements had to have "positive reference" in their component terms, like a cat for the tern "cat" and a Henry for term "Henry"). Therefore mataphysical statements such as "the unobserved is physical" were meaningless, having no possible empirical content, and not being analytic in nature.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I still don't get what you are saying.

They are studied by physics, and so part of the physical universe, therefore they are physical. Event horizons are spatial locations beyond which no light can escape from a gravitational field. I would have thought so, anyway...

Click to expand...

Yes, they have effects in the physical universe which can be measured, even though they are not physical things themselves. You can't have a jar of event horizon, for example.

What I'm really trying to say is that anything that is real - that is, anything that actually exists - is measurable in some way. if it is not measurable, then there is, by definition, no evidence at all to support its existence.

Do you mean that unless I support the claim "I am sat on a chair" that statement is meaningless, and therefore not truth apt, and therefore neither true nor false? What do you mean by "meaningless"? Do you understand the import of "I am sat in a chair" when I do not support the statement? It is true that I am, or that I am not, whether I support that statement or not, right?

Click to expand...

This is hard to understand. Your grammar is terrible, and I have no idea what you mean when you say "truth apt".

But, if I understand you correctly, the answer is that any statement about the universe must be able to be supported, even if it is just in theory (for example, in cases where we don't have the technology to test for it yet). Your statement that you are sitting in a chair is testable.

the greek word for philosophy appears only once in the new testament
col2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

and the teacher of this true philosophy after Christ
would be the holy spirit
Jhn 14:26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

now even tho the holy spirit is referred to as a he
not so tho as in proverbs wisdom is a woman
thus the holy spirit..the nurturing aspect of the holy trinity is the feminine part of the trinity

Proverbs 8 ►
King James Bible


The Excellence of Wisdom

1Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

2She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.

3She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

4Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.

5O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.

6Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.

7For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.

11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

12I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

13The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

14Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.

15By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.

16By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

17I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

18Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.

19My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.

20I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:

21That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.

22The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

32Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.

33Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

34Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.

35For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.

36But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

mindlight said:

I have been really distressed recently by the apparent irrelevance of much philosophical chatter. Whether with word games, nihilistic non questions, smart alec jargonisation, posturing and abstraction, or logical nonsences the conversations seem to have deteriorated and lost sight of the real purpose of philosophy.

Philosophy should be about the meaning of life. It is for life and about life. It is the pursuit of the kind of wisdom that changes cultures and provides the seminal thinking that defines the next generation.

The methodologies of philosophers- logical argumentation from clearly defined premises, the ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of various positions, the ability to see a system as a whole and explore and improve its systematic consistency should be subordinate to this task. Philosophy in a sense is the belief that a mans mind has enough light in it to be able to reason its way to meanings and by exploring them to deepen ones awareness of them. It has the humility to recognise its limits and by its arguments demonstrates the limits of reasons and is more connected to the real issues of its culture and time than much of the relativistic and jargonised nihilistic rantings that passes for philosophy these days.

Has philosophy lost its way? Has it become the minority pasttime of jargonised professionals and lost the common touch that once allowed to define eras and lay the foundations for future actions for better or for worse?

Click to expand...

Good questions and I think the answer is that the truth has already been revealed and many don't like it and would rather "philosophize" it away, rather than consider accepting it.

They'll say... "What truth would that be?"

The truth that we're all sinners in need of a Savior. A Savior who can make us righteous.

"I can make myself righteous in my own eyes, see watch my philosophizing skillz!"

Good for you, we'll see what God thinks about that.

Not to make light of a serious problem, but that's pretty much the base of it, unfortunately.

God help us all.

Huh, just realized how old this thread is. Oh well