Philosophy

[HosannaHM]

Philosophy will always be an arbitrary route to take because it allows people to gather what they perceive and attempt to make sense of ideas that clearly, sometimes, no one has the answer to.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Philosophy will always be an arbitrary route to take because it allows people to gather what they perceive and attempt to make sense of ideas that clearly, sometimes, no one has the answer to.

What do you mean by arbitrary?

 

[HosannaHM]

What do you mean by arbitrary?

Random;not based on complete reason like science which can be proven

 

[Tinker Grey]

How does the idea that "it allows people to gather what they perceive and attempt to make sense of ideas" lead to the conclusion that philosophy is random or arbitrary.

 

[Erth]

Sometimes books where people do a lot of 'thinking' off the charts disturb me or bore me, but maybe we should also ask is it arrogant to think in the first place.

But how do we detect the difference between what's absurd but true and what's simply absurd? Well, this is a little complicated, in my opinion. First of all, empirical science is not concerned with establishing absolute certainties, but only things that are true given a certain method of inquiry and way of doing things.

And well, in the end I really don't believe that there is any impartiality. I used to think that there is, but I don't anymore. What brought me to change was the personal God of Jesus. Being with him is partial and being apart from him is equally partial, we have a choice and it's not about establishing truths so much as it is about personal choice.

Sounds like gibberish if you don't believe in God I suppose, but that's my take.

 

[KCfromNC]

How does the idea that "it allows people to gather what they perceive and attempt to make sense of ideas" lead to the conclusion that philosophy is random or arbitrary.

I think what he's getting at is that when your assumptions aren't grounded in reality, the rest of the process turns into meaningless word games. Garbage in, garbage out, no matter how rigorous the part between in and out are.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think what he's getting at is that when your assumptions aren't grounded in reality, the rest of the process turns into meaningless word games. Garbage in, garbage out, no matter how rigorous the part between in and out are.

Fair enough. If that's what he means, then I agree.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think what he's getting at is that when your assumptions aren't grounded in reality, the rest of the process turns into meaningless word game.

All ducks are black. This is a duck. Therefore, this is black.

The above is regarded as a "valid" argument in logic. Logic is the science of reason and inference. Are you to be construed as saying logicians are playing "meaningless word games" in introducing this category (of validity) because the assumption that "all ducks are black" in the argument is false?

 

[Mling]

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?

I was at a conference last week, where a guy was talking about different systems people use to define something. In his presentation, he explained that he hadn't been able to find or invent a system that made him think, "that's it! That' right!" which made him wonder about the value of presenting the topic at all.

He then explained that the value was so that people could consider the merits and flaws, and reject them all in turn.

Descartes was wrong about a lot of things. Freud was wrong about almost everything he said, except for the basic ideas that the human mind was worth exploring, and that childhood and early relationships should be included.

Newton was wrong about some specifics of gravity, but if he hadnt been wrong, then Einstein wouldn't have had the opportunity to be wrong about quantum physics.

Most of what we learn, as a species, doesn't come ex nihilo. It comes from figuring out the flaws of the previous generation of thinkers.

Philosophy isn't about being *right.* it's about exploring how to think.

 

[KCfromNC]

All ducks are black. This is a duck. Therefore, this is black.

The above is regarded as a "valid" argument in logic. Logic is the science of reason and inference. Are you to be construed as saying logicians are playing "meaningless word games" in introducing this category (of validity) because the assumption that "all ducks are black" in the argument is false?

I don't think I've gained any meaning about the world from your first paragraph - so yes, meaningless word games. Something this simple is at best a useful example of how not to gain knowledge about the world, but I'd hope that philosophy aspires to be more than just a bad example contrasted against people doing the heavy lifting of learning about our world.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If youwant to pass off the most basic logical knowledge as "word games" feel free. But if you want to be respected for being logical, mon ami, you might have made a better start.