Philosophy truely sucks.

[sebbysteiny]

I think Philosophy is the worst form of accademic subject. It's not really about finding truth but obscuring it.

 

All it does is try to undermine completely obvious stuff by attempting to find and challenge base assumptions that should not be challenged.

 

Like, for example, why should one need to 'think therefore I am' to prove that the thinker exists in an attempt to challenge or overcome the pretty obvious assumption that we are not being tricked by a devil into thinking we exist when we don't?

 

By reducing all knowledge to unanswerable questions in that way, philosophy undermines knowledge rather than contributes to it and it's only practical application is to obscure reason.

 

Philosophy truely sucks.

[pgrmdave]

So, let me ask the obvious - is that your philosophy? :shrug:

[cwes99_03]

I think you are talking about a very narrow part of philosophy. There are philosophies of child rearing, philosophies of education, philosophies of marriage, philosophies of goverment rule, etc. etc. etc.

 

PGRMDave, hit it on the head. This is your philosophy on the philosophy of thought.

[sebbysteiny]

So, let me ask the obvious - is that your philosophy? :shrug:

 

This is typical of everything that is wrong with philosophy. In all other subjects, people answer questions with answers. In Philosophy, people answer questions with questions.

 

There are philosophies of child rearing, philosophies of education, philosophies of marriage, philosophies of goverment rule, etc. etc. etc.

 

What pray is the difference between 'philosophies of child rearing' and, say, 'the psychology of child rearing'? I cannot see how the methodoligy of bringing up a child requires being dealt with at a philosophical level. What is a child? What is a child's rear? All completely meaningless and unhelpful questions.

[Pyrotex]

This is typical of everything that is wrong with philosophy. In all other subjects, people answer questions with answers. In Philosophy, people answer questions with questions.....

So, I gather you are refering to "classical philosophy", like Socrates, Spinoza, Kant, Russell, et al.

 

Did you ever see the print by M.C. Escher showing a "drawing" containing two hands, each holding a pen? Each hand transitions from being a 2-D image to a 3-D image holding a real pen, which is being used to "draw" the other hand.

http://www.mcescher.com/Gallery/back-bmp/LW355.jpg

 

Fascinating, yes? Disturbing? Provoking? Is it "real" or illusory? Is it paradoxical, or is there some way to view the image so that paradox doesn't arise? Why am I asking all these questions?

 

That is what classical philosophy is like. It teaches by asking questions that provoke us into considering the possible answers--or into asking further questions. By and by, it leads us to this startling conclusion:

 

Philosophy is not about "things" but about "words". Actually, it is about languaging and how we humans use languaging to model our world, our selves, our existence, our purpose, and even our languaging. To come to grips with the universe, we must confront the fact that our minds are a part of that universe; that our minds use languaging to model the universe; that to understand our models, we must first understand our languaging; and that our languaging limits and constrains what we can observe about our universe.

 

So we come full circle: the one hand draws the other.

 

For this reason, philosophy is neither easy nor concise. It is in fact complex, self-referential, paradoxical and self-questioning. It is like trying to climb a mountain made of quicksand.

 

But the view from the top of that mountain...

Oh! My! God! The view!

[sebbysteiny]

Philosophy is not about "things" but about "words". Actually, it is about languaging and how we humans use languaging to model our world, our selves, our existence, our purpose, and even our languaging. To come to grips with the universe, we must confront the fact that our minds are a part of that universe; that our minds use languaging to model the universe; that to understand our models, we must first understand our languaging; and that our languaging limits and constrains what we can observe about our universe.

 

How does this help, say, a single mother struggling to bring up her kids?

 

Great post structure by the way. I loved the little story and the picture followed by the leap into a kind of analogy. Didn't understand it and that which I did understand I didn't agree with, but it was an excellently made post. So good that I think it is worthy of a QP in its own right.

 

For this reason, philosophy is neither easy nor concise. It is in fact complex, self-referential, paradoxical and self-questioning.

 

Just a pedantic point. You forgot a couple of adjectives in your sentence. I think what you really meant was

 

For this reason, philosophy is neither easy nor concise. It is in fact complex, self-referential, paradoxical, self-questioning, completely useless, fundamentally unhelpful, drivel.

Gramatical errors can happen to the best of us :(.

 

It is like trying to climb a mountain made of quicksand.

 

But the view from the top of that mountain...

 

Oh! My! God! The view!

 

It's funny you say that, because I kinda thought it was more like intellectual mastibation complete with the Oh! My! God! The view!

[InfiniteNow]

I like honey, but you don't. To say that honey is useless would be, not only a stretch, but wrong.

[Zythryn]

What pray is the difference between 'philosophies of child rearing' and, say, 'the psychology of child rearing'?

 

A person's philosophy of child rearing is their belief of how child rearing should be done. The psychology of child rearing is the study of child rearing with regards to the psychology of the child.

 

Philosophy is a study of thougt.

Psychology is a body of knowlege/study.

 

The most valuable class I had, and think anyone can have is 'Logic 101'. Basic structures of logical arguments. What makes for bad/illogical arguments?

 

Philosophy is a fascinating subject. How do we know what we know? Why act the way we do? Humankind has been asking these questions for millenium. I think the pursuit of this line of thought is noble. But it isn't for everyone:)

[Pyrotex]

How does this help, say, a single mother struggling to bring up her kids?

It doesn't. Nor should it. The purpose of philosophy is to understand the nature of intellect, not to know things.

Great post structure by the way. I loved the little story and the picture followed by the leap into a kind of analogy. Didn't understand it and that which I did understand I didn't agree with, but it was an excellently made post. So good that I think it is worthy of a QP in its own right.

Thank you kindly.

Just a pedantic point. You forgot a couple of adjectives in your sentence...

Your attempt to improve upon my pedantry is appreciated. :(

...It's funny you say that, because I kinda thought it was more like intellectual mastibation complete with the Oh! My! God! The view!

"Mastibation" is the process of chewing food with false teeth that do not belong to you. I think the word you are looking for is "mastication". :)

[arkain101]

If we didnt philosophise, err is that a word?

 

We might still think the earth was flat, but we questioned and came up with a philosophy of the shape of the earth.

[pgrmdave]

This is typical of everything that is wrong with philosophy. In all other subjects, people answer questions with answers. In Philosophy, people answer questions with questions.

 

There are some questions which simply cannot be answered simply, studied scientifically, or understood to be the same for everybody. Why are we self-aware? Why does the universe exist? What defines a thing? How do we know what we know? How can we be certain of one thing flowing to another? These questions, among others, don't seem to be easily answerable. Philosophy tries to get people to ask questions, to try to come to a logical, reasonable place where they will simply find more questions. It would be nice if philosophy provided hard, definable answers, but that doesn't seem to be possible. Beyond the philosophy that you seem to rail against in this thread, there is moral philosophy - what is good, why is it good, how do we distinguish good from evil, how do we make moral decisions...I'd like to see you determine an answer to these questions with a beaker...

[cwes99_03]

Arkain refers to the socratic method, or scientific method. That is to ask a question until every possible answer can be known.

 

There are two levels of philosophy. 1) is to put forth a point of view after studying a situation. 2) is to ask seemingly meaningless questions to find meaning in everything. The second is actually a type of the first, it is the philosophy that by asking questions one can open one's mind to other things that he would not be able to observe without the open mindedness. ZEN. This is actually a philosophical approach to Budhism.

[Kriminal99]

I think Philosophy is the worst form of accademic subject. It's not really about finding truth but obscuring it.

 

All it does is try to undermine completely obvious stuff by attempting to find and challenge base assumptions that should not be challenged.

 

Like, for example, why should one need to 'think therefore I am' to prove that the thinker exists in an attempt to challenge or overcome the pretty obvious assumption that we are not being tricked by a devil into thinking we exist when we don't?

 

By reducing all knowledge to unanswerable questions in that way, philosophy undermines knowledge rather than contributes to it and it's only practical application is to obscure reason.

 

Philosophy truely sucks.

 

Lets say you have a cow named Stebby and a cow named socrates. They both get herded around all day long and get to eat all the grass they want and are protected from predators etc. Stebby the cow thinks socrates the cow is obnoxious because he questions his surroundings with what seems like no cause. Socrates asks the question how do we know our whole life isn't just some carefully designed ploy to fatten us up so one day we can be eaten by someone. Stebby thinks this is rediculous and declares by fiat that there is no reason to attach such a cynical ulterior motive to their everyday lives. As the day goes by, Socrates notices that some cows go to a certain place and never come back and considers that this might be evidence that the such a scenario is the case. Stebby thinks it is strange but makes no such conclusion since he refuses to consider such a scenario. One day the farmer tries to make stebby and socrates go to that place. Socrates freaks out and runs away, and stebby thinks socrates is crazy. The next day all that remains of stebby is a few steaks and hamburgers and a pile of bones.

 

 

Socrates' inquiry into the nature of his surroundings allowed him to better prepare and react to the future. If Stebby woke up from a dream or from a VR program he might wonder whether the new reality was a dream, or if his whole existence was actually fake. However socrates would already know that because he is thinking he must exist for real somewhere.

 

Philosophy has many uses, and although sometimes it seems confusing it also allows one to produce criteria for removing such sources of confusion. For instance science is one such attempt to do so that was created by philosophy. The recognition of logical fallacies and debate fouls is another (and imo much more succesful) such attempt.

[Michaelangelica]

 

Philosophy truely sucks.

I never studied philosophy and I now regret it.

On day one of Uni I asked the philosophy advisor what philosophy was all about.

He said "O we ask questions like What is life? What is real? What is truth? etc etc.

I thought "Gee this is really good to understand those questions would be awsome. I might do this"

Then he laid the clanger on me.

"Of course we never reach any answers otherwise we would all be out of a job! Haw haw Haw"

I thought "bugger that!"; so went to the "Behavioural Science" advisor

who said

"We seek to know and understand the reasons for human behaviour. To anderstand the meanings of human existance"

I thought "Wow!" to understand how people worked would be cool.

So I did psychology, sociology anthropology etc (They were also the only subjects I could pass, which helped)

It took me 6 years of study to find out that the philosopher advisor was telling the truth and the psychology advisor was lying.

 

Since then I have felt that Philosophy is really the only subject worth studying. (maybe physics too)

I have seen friends do it, and with a study of logic, their thinking processes were obviously sharper and more insightful.

My godchild did a degree in it, on my advice ,and to his mother's disgust. He is now helping his dad run a pub 500m down the south coast. I don't know if it helped him to live. It certainly didn't seem to help in the job department. But then education should be about personal development not jobs.

 

I have tried to read philosophy now, but it is like 'water off a duck's back', nothing sticks. It just flows in one ear and out the other.

I think I am understanding it when I read it; then if you ask me to explain what was being said/written I couldn't tell you:confused:

 

If you are having problems I would suggest you read Sophie's World, a book that explains most of the major philosophical thinkers in the clearest way I have ever encountered.

 

It may be a matter of just "Learning the Language" To me most Uni. disciplines economics, psychology, biology, etc, have their own models of the world and their own secret language that makes it easy for people of the same discipline to talk to each other. Unfortunately it also makes it almost impossible for them to communicate with the average person.

 

Good luck

michael

Amazon.com: Sophie's World: A Novel about the History of ...

I still would recommend this book and here's why. Sophie's World will be an excellent read for anyone with a curiosity about philosophy, but who finds the ...

http://www.amazon.com/Sophies-World-about-History-Philosophy/dp/0425152251

 

--

[Boerseun]

I don't understand molecular biology. Therefore, it is a load of crap.

 

Like, Duh, dude...

[TheFaithfulStone]

How does this help, say, a single mother struggling to bring up her kids?

 

How do rocket ships help? Or maybe fighting terrorists? Or carbon nanotubes, or movies, or literary criticism, or lawyers, or anything that isn't giving her a job or passing out a sandwich.

 

Philosophy isn't useless because it tells you not only why you don't just let her starve, but also why you don't just pass out sandwiches.

 

TFS

[IDMclean]

Two things.

 

One is that you are espousing a philosophical doctrine in this thread.

 

One might say you have poised a proposition for consideration. The debate began with the onset of the thread and the introduction of the proposition. This is known as logic and debate.

 

Counter to popular belief, the golden age is that of our grandchildren, and not of our grandparents. Before about 300 years ago, logical thinking was pretty much esoteric. Used by a small portion of the population. The reading of philosophy by the masses has generated more logical individuals as a result, who otherwise would accept what they are given without recourse, due to the fact that without the knowledge that we do not know things which we should know, we would continue our lives unexamined.

 

Second thing is this. Science is a form of philosophical doctrine. Scientific method is very much a philosophical method of dialectic inquiry.

 

How does philosophy help a single mother struggling to bring up her kids?

 

Your proposition holds one of the possible answers. That is she is a single mother bring up her kids. Only 200 years ago, that proposition would be absurd.

 

Natural Philosophy (science) led to many of the inventions which make it possible for that mother to meet her and her children's subsistence needs. Her individuality from the father, and her ability to exist in society with less scorn. these are all things which have resulted from philosophical questioning. Is it moral to kill or punish a woman for sex outside of marriage? For birthing a bastard? Should women be allowed to own property, and vote?

 

Ethics is a field of philosophy. As is logic.

 

Surely it does not occur to you that prior to the age of reason, the Renaissance, your average person, and even your average intellectual could say nothing definitive about the universe because the powers that be might change something on a whim, or their delusion which is reality might shift because of their perceptions.

 

Descartes is often cited in many things because he said something concrete and easy to understand, even as complex of an idea as it is. "I think and I exist", or "I think therefore I am". That no matter what you can definitively say you exist. This was revolution in an era hallmarked by it's superstitious beliefs.

 

So what does purpose does philosophy serve? The proposition which one might pose instead is "What purpose does philosophy not serve?". The fact that you ask and answer questions means that you on some level engage in philosophical discourse. That you even acknowledge that there are questions, and that there are answers to those questions, and questions to those questions means that you acknowledge the implicit value of philosophy.

 

Not to say that in the field of philosophy there aren't some quacks, but really what field is without it's mad men, and false prophets?