Random Babbling Post #38

Remove all ads!

Kinda like when I went to fetch another bottle of coke... almost freaked out when I only saw two bottles, but the other three were hiding behind some junk

 

Coffee time! Quick espresso shot with whipped cream. *Looks around for DHB*

 

I *heart* philosophy.

Truly, time flies when studying philo.

 

Philosophy doesn't give answers, it's the search for the enlightenment that could give one certain insights. The mystery can't be solved, I certainly agree on that and so do most philosophers nowadays. but even if you can't beat the boss, the quest is worth a lot of experience points as well.

I guess that in today's society of progress this kind of no- (material) result actions are regarded as pointless. And in the end philo also influences the spirit of an era and in doing so has contributed to what man is today. Western man, talking western philosophy, I know too little about Eastern.

Science progresses, sure, but it can only do so by never questioning its basis.

Philosophy isn't something I'd want to do 24/7 (I'd simply go mad), but thinking about stuff now and then puts arrogant man conquerer-of-the-universe back in perspective

all very much IMHO of course. And Adams is hilarious.

 

Firstly: Might sound like a sophism to you but the same phormula may be used when addressing other subjects as well. For example science - apart from it's brilliant flashes, which more or less result in the progress of mankind, it is a total waste of time studying the mechanism of this and the mechanism of that whithout ever discovering the true nature of things. So, as you see we should either give up everything as a waste of time or accept this waste and hope that another brilliant flash occurs soon enough.
On second place: Do you really expect philosophy to tell you the truth about life universe and everything? That would be as silly as 42. The purpose of philosophy is not to give answers but to think on the proper questions and to doubt in the given answers, to doubt in everything we consider true, and this is the greatest use of them all IMO - freeing people from delusions.

 

There is no spoon.

 

@Ara:

 

@Tal: shouldn't this be in the AoDA?

But you can't ignore philosophy and say it hasn't produced anything - at the very least, rationalism brought the Scientific Method. And science was birthed from philosophy; that's why scientists used to be called natural philosophers, many moons ago. And if you talk about methodical doubt ... well, that's scepticism, which is in the oldest traditions of Western philosophy, going back to Socrates. I could say much more, but am on a timed dial-up connection, so it'll have to wait! I'll just have to cook up a suitably chev-lengthed post for when I get back...

 

I agree science and philosophy are entirely different but my comparison is based on the fact that they are both worthless and a sheer loss of time according to the abovegiven criteria. About advancement - how can something which puts everything that exists including itself to doubt to actually advance? Try to walk in a philosopher's shoes for a second - what is advancement? And how do we know it is actually a step forward not backward? And why are we so sure we are moving at all? Then again - why move? And what is moving exactly?
Do you still expect this to actually advance?
If you remember the scene with god in the Hihchhiker's guide and recall the way he saw the world, well then - this is the way a philosopher approaches the world and this (as you noticed) brings nothing constructive. But as I said the purpose of philosophy is not to be constructive but to attack everything we know with doubt thus destroying all the delusions and false preceptions we tend to build. So we actually need philosophy to tell us that there is no spoon when we build a delusion that the spoon is there.

And if you need income/outcome for philosophy - consider this - a million philosophers, a million points of view, a million new questions raised. Quot capita tot sententiae, what better outcome?

P.S. Nighty night folks. We work in sundays too.

 

If a stealth fighter crashes in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

 

*gulps a coffee potion*
Ok firstly I agree with The Magpie that we must not talk about philosophy as a whole but about all those different types of philosophy, different shapes of thought because some of them are "constructive" in a direct way (after all it is the idea of the domination of the human mind and the will of the individuum that brought humanity to its new age for good or ill) while others are, as owymoronic as it may sound, constructive in a destructive way. And since I started with the skepticism - then skepticism it is.

You got it from the wrong end it seems. Here philosophers take off from the point of "ok I know that what I seek is beyond human understanding" You see - they do not intend to answer questions because they have no answers. In fact they have less answers than anyone you would meet on the street. You are right - everyone could give an answer and everyone can have an opinion, but is this answer/opinion objectively correct? Does it contain the absolute truth about the question given? Obviously not. Every possible answer given by anybody is a half-truth which if taken as absolute leads to a delusion. So why speak in half truths when we cannot reach the absolute truth? Why deceive eachother and ourselves when we cannot possibly know the truth? That is why you will not get an answer from a philosopher - only questions. Does this help? But of course. Just think on it

That is correct. Science does give an answer. All that science does is give answers. But are those answers correct? Are they true? Who knows and who is to say? However those answers work in some beneficia way for humanity and thus it tends to take them as absolutely true, so that is how delusions are born, that is how "common sense" is born - we just take something for granted as an axiom. Nobody questions it, it is simply that way and no other. So you see here, at this point exactly questions are extremely valuable. So what if the entire world is based on those principles, they may still be wrong, and probably are since nothing we achieve is absolutely correct. That's why IMO skepticism is constructive in a destructive way - it is always important to have somebody who brings the flight scientifical progress to the ground and questions its foundations. Otherwise we will paradoxally enough live blindly believing in the illusions we create for ourselves.

 

Actually, didn't the Oracle at Delphi call Socrates of Athens the Wisest man alive because he claimed he knew nothing? Basically, we all go around the world with our imperfect understanding (some areas we have more confidence in than others), and the process of philosophy involves refining our understanding on these topics (Truth, Ethics, Knowledge) by making us answer questions about them or even correcting little points that aren't quite accurate...

 

"I know I know nothing," said Socrates. "But I know where to find it," Einstein would add. Science is like a huge memory bank with some advanced queries. But philosophy is thinking for its own sake, sometimes in connection with the deeper principles behind the relative simple rules or without much connection but pondering the abstract instead. What is the truth? Does 0/1 cut it?

 

There still is no spoon.

(at least a clean one - must dishage, I fear)

 

@ Ara

 

Well, I'm back, and at 1.5MB(sec) too! Yay for fast internet speeds!

Anyway, whlie I was stuck at home without the net, I blew the dust off my copy of Halo that I never played. I was hooked within the first 5 minutes, and had the game beat within 4 days. Now I'm playing it again on the hardest setting.

And it gets better...my 3 a.m.-ish dinner is ready!