Greatness in Philosophy is making other philosophies possible? Really?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I just need to clarify something: is greatness in Philosophy making other philosophies possible? Really?

Because if that is the case Christ is the greatest of inspiration for Philosophy...

Thoughts welcome.

 

[Freodin]

Considering all the great philosophers who had never even heard of Jesus... no.

 

[Gottservant]

It is impossible to completely refute a negative, is there some reason you are introducing doubt before arguments both for and against can be considered?

 

[Freodin]

It is impossible to completely refute a negative, is there some reason you are introducing doubt before arguments both for and against can be considered?

How are you going to consider arguments "both for and against", if you consider an argument against as "introducing doubt"?

 

[Gottservant]

How are you going to consider arguments "both for and against", if you consider an argument against as "introducing doubt"?

It's simple, present an argument for and contrast it with a negative. That way you look like you are participating in the conversation.

 

[Freodin]

It's simple, present an argument for and contrast it with a negative. That way you look like you are participating in the conversation.

No, that would be a monologue.

A conversation is when I present arguments against it, and you present arguments for it.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't have to do your work for you.

If you are interested, present both sides of the argument (and be objective).

Otherwise, annoy someone else with your negativity.

Thanks.

 

[Freodin]

I don't have to do your work for you.

If you are interested, present both sides of the argument (and be objective).

Otherwise, annoy someone else with your negativity.

Thanks.

Ouch. I think I know what kind of lesson I should learn from this "conversation".

Don't worry, Gottservant. I won't bother you anymore.

 

[Paradoxum]

Someone taking one position, and another person taking another position, is how many conversations work.

Presenting a for and against is more what you'd expect in a self-contained essay, not a conversation. Of course if you have no strong position in a discussion then you might bring up the pros and cons; but if you have a position, then you'll probably just give your opinion. That's still a conversation.

There was philosophy (and theism) before Christ, so I don't think he was the greatest inspiration for philosophy.

If you want a 'for': Quite alot of western philosophy was made by Christians, or probably influenced by the fact that Christianity was the major religion of Europe.

 

[lesliedellow]

How are you going to consider arguments "both for and against", if you consider an argument against as "introducing doubt"?

The day Gottservant posts something which makes any sense at all, that really will be something.

 

[quatona]

Hi there,

So I just need to clarify something: is greatness in Philosophy making other philosophies possible? Really?

Do you mean "Can the greatness of a philosophy make other philosophies possible?" or "Does a philosophy require a great philosophy that made it possible?"

Because if that is the case Christ is the greatest of inspiration for Philosophy...[/quote]
Could you elaborate a bit on the steps of this deduction?
As presented, the conclusion doesn´t seem to follow from the premise - no matter how it is to be interpreted.
(Actually, a deduction usually even requires at least two premises).

 

[Gottservant]

Do you mean "Can the greatness of a philosophy make other philosophies possible?" or "Does a philosophy require a great philosophy that made it possible?"

Because if that is the case Christ is the greatest of inspiration for Philosophy...

Could you elaborate a bit on the steps of this deduction?
As presented, the conclusion doesn´t seem to follow from the premise - no matter how it is to be interpreted.
(Actually, a deduction usually even requires at least two premises).

Thankyou for your genuine interest in this topic.

The point is simply one of causation, but you can go forward or backwards from the observation made, as you so rightly point out.

The deduction I would make is simple:

1 With one philosophy
2 come other philosophies

Ergo: the principle good of philosophy is to feed other philosophies.

 

[quatona]

Thankyou for your genuine interest in this topic.

The point is simply one of causation, but you can go forward or backwards from the observation made, as you so rightly point out.

The deduction I would make is simple:

1 With one philosophy
2 come other philosophies

Now, I´m not sure I agree with this in the way it is worded. Certainly, a philosophy will provoke responsive philosophies, contradicting philosophies, as well as philosophies that elaborate and modify this philosophy, though - if that´s what you mean to say.
However, that seems to apply to every philosophy - regardless of its quality.

Ergo: the principle good of philosophy is to feed other philosophies.

Well, this simply doesn´t follow. Just because A happens as a result B doesn´t mean that B is necessarily the principal good of the A.
E.g. with increased traffic more accidents are likely to occur. This doesn´t mean that the "principal good" of traffic is to cause accidents.

 

[Gottservant]

Now, I´m not sure I agree with this in the way it is worded. Certainly, a philosophy will provoke responsive philosophies, contradicting philosophies, as well as philosophies that elaborate and modify this philosophy, though - if that´s what you mean to say.
However, that seems to apply to every philosophy - regardless of its quality.


Well, this simply doesn´t follow. Just because A happens as a result B doesn´t mean that B is necessarily the principal good of the A.
E.g. with increased traffic more accidents are likely to occur. This doesn´t mean that the "principal good" of traffic is to cause accidents.

I think you are refuting philosophy for the sake of an argument that ends with you and only you.

The point of this thread, if there was one, was to explore the possibility of facilitating philosophy, not cutting individual philosophies down.

 

[quatona]

I think you are refuting philosophy for the sake of an argument that ends with you and only you.

I am not aware I was even attempting to refute philosophy.

On another note, when my conversation partner starts telling me what I think and what my motivations are, I know the rational part of the conversation is over because he obviously has run out of arguments.

The point of this thread, if there was one, was to explore the possibility of facilitating philosophy, not cutting individual philosophies down.

And I but followed your arguments and checked if they were logically sound and consistent. Consider it a service. You, however, immediately escaped to mind reading.
As far as I am concerned, the conversation is over. Thanks for your efforts.

 

[Gottservant]

whether or not you participate further, I want for my own sake to make something clear

there are two things I have noticed professional debaters with no faith claim are not valid, which having faith I completely understand the use of: one, strawman; two, projection

now, you might think "alright you believe you understand them, explain how" but I think that is premature, I would rather explore the supposition that makes negating them valid

I have in my defence the argument that pure negation is a fallacy and can suppose from the fact that strawman and projection are only ever negated not supplanted that because this is a fallacy the objections are therefore baseless

so what would you be thinking if you made this baseless objection, well, perhaps at first nothing, but let's move on, I rather think that negating strawmen is based on the idea that there is at some point a superfluity to the possibility of representation, the idea that you have to be lead being objectionable to people who lack moral fibre or obedience BUT this is clearly contradicted by the wisdom that representation is never superfluous if it can still be supplanted

"but wait" you say "what about projection is that different" well only slightly, once again we see as in quotana's post that there is a baseless objection to this, as if it is some sort of infringement on one's sense of space, as if you can't speak up for yourself if you really need to when surely that must be wrong, this I think is based on the idea that a person's voice can never be replicated, but actually you can take a scientific path at this point and point out that every (almost?) human being has mirror neurons and therefore the wisdom that every voice can be replicated, even if only meagerly proves true in every sense of the word

so my conclusion is that people who object to such things are basically insecure, argumentative, or deluded or possibly all three

whether that changes the elusive internet culture is another matter