Philosophy truely sucks.

[sebbysteiny]

It tells you what the answer might be. It's the only thing that does.

 

Show me.

[sebbysteiny]

Ahh, but what KIND of suffering? Is mental suffering equivalent to physical suffering? And is it ever okay to inflict suffering? Let us say that I am being attacked on the street. Is it acceptable for me to strike my attacker - he intends only to rob me - to inflict economic suffering. Any physical suffering he inflicts is secondary to his aim. I however do not want to suffer, so I intend to physically restrain him from robbing me. Can I kick him in the groin? Can I stomp his arches or punch him in the solar plexus?

 

And now we have the first challenge to my sentence exposing wholes. My sentance did not contain the principal of self defence.

 

How about "an action that causes or potentially causes suffering to the perportrator or to a victim or potential victim unless it is done for the purposes of self defence.

 

"Self defence is a valid defence only if the action is to prevent the victim of the action from causing suffering upon the perpertrator of the action but only if the action is PROPORTIONATE to the suffering that may be caused upon the perportrator."

 

And I will now refer you to the English definition of PROPORTIONATE in Law which I will copy and paste if you like. Nevertheless, it's only a couple of sentences.

 

So the answers to your questions are yes and yes as long as it was either necessary for you to do that and that you believed it was necessary.

 

I think you can start to see the similarities between this and law. The form of my sentence is starting to look very much like the form of a statute in criminal law.

 

Aren't we now into the moral calculus of Jeremy Bentham? Let us say that I have ten dollars, and Bill has none. I need ten dollars to buy a tie for job interview, and Bill needs it to buy dinner for his kids. Am I inflicting suffering on Bill children by not giving him ten dollars? They won't starve in one night. Is Bill inflicting suffering on me by lowering my chances of getting a that job, if he asks for my ten dollars?

 

My words account for this. "an action that causes ... suffering". You did not commit any action and not committing any action is not wrong.

 

You could EASILY write several books about your one sentence, and STILL not answer all the questions.

Indeed you could. You could even right a book on the implications of this simple statement. Some people write many essays on whether, for example, the state of a particular law is fit for purpose and what that law should be ammended to. But usually the areas that are not 'moot' [ie hotly debated] cannot fill a book.

 

However, if we approach it philosphically :) , we can write books and books and books without ever getting anything positive out.

 

Why should we find a cure for AIDS? Doesn't it decrease the net suffering of those without AIDS if we do not invest our resources in finding a cure?

 

Quick answer: finding cures for common diseases decreases suffering more than investing in any other beneficial cause, though a balance does need to be struck.

 

Long philosophical answer: ;) :eek_big: :eek_big:

 

Sebbysteiny's third law.

[TheFaithfulStone]

My words account for this. "an action that causes ... suffering". You did not commit any action and not committing any action is not wrong.

 

So allowing bad things to happen is not immoral? If I see a man being mugged and do nothing to help him, even if I have the ability to do so, how is that not unethical?

 

Is defense of others a good reason to inflict suffering?

 

Show me.

 

Show me how anything OTHER than philosophy can possibly even attempt to answer this question. It can't have a philosophical base either - so you can't appeal to a legal framework. How does science tell you that you shouldn't let people who can't feed themselves starve?

 

Sebby, methinks your understanding of what it means to philosophize is grossly limited. We're having a philosophical conversation right now. Not all philosophy is ontology.

 

TFS

[pgrmdave]

Sebby, the more in depth that you get into your moral philosophy (because that's what it is), the closer you get to a somewhat complete philosophy. Let me ask you a question - what philosophy have you read? It seems to me that you are arguing against poor philosophers, who don't try to come to any conclusions, but only to ask questions. Asking questions is the first part of philosophy, reasoning them out is the second. Because of the nature of the world, and our minds, these questions will never be fully answered, but attempting to answer them is philosophy.

 

Take your one sentance morality. It can be expanded upon to explain what to do in different situations. It can be built upon to include things like - what is the best action to perform when faced with two seemingly good/bad actions? When does self-defense apply? Can good come from suffering if that suffering is punishment for evil?

 

I am not saying that it is necessary, but for it to be completely useful, these, among other, questions should be addressed. Yes, it is practical, that does not mean that it is not a philosophy.

[infamous]

 

 

 

This is a vary curious interjection. You are agreeing with me but not agreeing with me at the same time.

No sir, I'm not agreeing with you sebby......You are attacking the discipline which I view as a strange claim. My misgivings were directed at those who consider themselves philosophers when they are not.

 

 

 

Still Infamous our friendly neighbourhood moniter seems to disagree because he thinks this is a strange claim rather than philosophy!!!

Attacking the discipline of philosophy is a strange claim. Having a problem with a particular philosophical point of view is something else entirely.

 

BTW; That would be; friendly neighborhood moderator......................yours truly, Infy

[IDMclean]

Every acadedmic discipline has the concept of reason.

 

Which is inherited from it's philosophical basis.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFS

It tells you what the answer might be. It's the only thing that does.

 

Show me.

 

We can not show you anything you would not otherwise perceive yourself, without but a slight prod.

 

TFS is logically correct in is statement, however evaluating that statement is something which you would need to study the various facets of philosophy to fully comprehend, and I don't mean study begrudingly, I mean study with a love of questions and answers, of wisdom.

 

Now Sebby, before continueing your arguement you must tell me what it is that you mean when you say/write the word philosophy. To me it sounds like, from your arguements, that you are not talking about philosophy as the super-level field of inquiry, but rather a number of it's branches and/or garden variety disciples.

 

For instance, you philosophical doctrine for ethics would appear to fall into what is called "Moral Objectivism" as opposed to the philosophical doctrine of "Moral Relativism". These are two different branches of philosophy. They do not encompass the whole of philosophy, as they inherit they're traits from the mother field. The difference between them is what axioms they accept as true.

 

Also, as I stated before, all fields of study. All academics inherit there form from philosophy. The distinction of the fields from philosophy, though true is but a convenient construct . There is no hard line between somethings techniques (How), the thing itself (What), and the purpose of the thing (Why).

 

Also Sebby, I would like to remind you not to get lost in the details presented. Stay focused on your original arguement and don't let irrelevant questions side track you.

[sebbysteiny]

Attacking the discipline of philosophy is a strange claim. Having a problem with a particular philosophical point of view is something else entirely.

 

The problem with your view you have asserted on us is that I am not attacking the discipline of philosophy in terms of validity, I am attacking it in terms of utility.

 

If pointing out the failings of the scientific method is philosophy, so too must pointing out the failings of the philosophical method. :naughty:

 

So allowing bad things to happen is not immoral? If I see a man being mugged and do nothing to help him, even if I have the ability to do so, how is that not unethical?

 

Is defense of others a good reason to inflict suffering?

 

Allowing bad things to happen is not immoral / wrong. Preventing bad things from happening is moral / right. Just because you havn't taken a moral path does not mean you have taken an immoral path. Otherwise, everyone who has not dedicated their lives to charity lives an immoral life, which is absurd.

 

And yes, defence of others is a good reason to inflict suffering under the Annex to my sentence: English law.

 

I was only drafting the answer to what is wrong, not what is right.

 

Anyway, I think we've all seen how my alternative to philosophy now works. So the real question is, is my approach acceptable in a philosophy class? I say it is not and therefore falls outside of philosophy.

 

Now Sebby, before continueing your arguement you must tell me what it is that you mean when you say/write the word philosophy. To me it sounds like, from your arguements, that you are not talking about philosophy as the super-level field of inquiry, but rather a number of it's branches and/or garden variety disciples.

 

if it isn't tought in a pure philosophy class today at Oxford or any other University, it ain't philosophy.

 

Also Sebby, I would like to remind you not to get lost in the details presented. Stay focused on your original arguement and don't let irrelevant questions side track you.

 

And then I get a whole load of posts winging and winging when I don't answer their point. Seems like I can't be all things to all people :( .

 

Does it? Why should you not let her starve or just pass out sandwiches using undesputed, clear cut, philosophical reasoning alone? Is there any definitive reason why others should have a responsibility over the single mother's welfare? Naturally, only arguments that conform with all logic models are permitted

 

It tells you what the answer might be. It's the only thing that does.

 

Show me

 

My point is that I am really not convinced you would get any actual answers from philosophy. If you think you can get something useful by the application of philosophy, I would LOVE to see it. When you make a bold claim that philosoophy can answer the question it is up to you to establish it because I think all you will accomplish by turning to philosophy is muddying the waters even further.

 

It seems to me that you are arguing against poor philosophers, who don't try to come to any conclusions, but only to ask questions. Asking questions is the first part of philosophy, reasoning them out is the second.

 

I am saying that a philisophical question practically by definition has no once clear and precise answer and any attempt to find an answer only brings you into an even deeper interllectual mess.

 

Take the example given earlier

 

Let's say that I have a wooden box handed down through generations of my family. As the wood begins to rot, or break, we replace any planks that need replacing. Over the course of time, all the planks are replaced - is it the same box as when it was first created? This is a philosophical question that has no definite right or wrong answer, only logic, which can support both arguments.

 

NOW HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH THAT!!!!!!! The answer can be anything and everything would be equally justified.

 

That's philosophy.

 

So I hereby challenge everybody to find an example of the philosophical method coming up with something tangible and usable which is not so heavily dependant on one person's subjective world view.

 

To explain what I mean by 'dependant on one person's subjective view, my example in which I created words to distinguish between right and wrong I think does not depend one person's subjective view since almost all people who read it will agree with it (ignoring ammendments to include other principals that have not been thought of). Ie, nobody will read it and say "no, I think it is RIGHT to cause suffering.

 

And while you are at it, can somebody find me one example of a real life practical problem where somebody has come along and said 'I know, the thing that will really allow us to resolve this problem is some good old fashioned logic. After all, if Oxford students spend two terms studying the thing, it should have SOME kind of use in the outside world should it not :confused: ?

 

So common guys. Here are two challenges. 1) Find me some philosopher who has actually objectively shed light on a given topic, and 2) Find some purpose for logic justifying the enormous resourses spent on its study.

 

Shouldn't be that hard, should it? The entire credibility of the philosophical method depends on you succeeding in your mission.:lol:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Anyway, I think we've all seen how my alternative to philosophy now works. So the real question is, is my approach acceptable in a philosophy class? I say it is not and therefore falls outside of philosophy.

 

It's not an alternative to philosophy, it IS philosophy. It is an approach acceptable in a philosophy class, because I had this exact conversation with my 1000 level philosophy instructor!

 

TFS

[CraigD]

Anyway, I think we've all seen how my alternative to philosophy now works. So the real question is, is my approach acceptable in a philosophy class? I say it is not and therefore falls outside of philosophy.

When I studied philosophy in a classroom setting, we were told that any approach that followed Aquinas’s “principle of philosophy” - “Never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish” – should be acceptable in philosophical discussion.

 

The real academic world, of course, is also subject to the “it’s my damn class, so what I say is acceptable is what’s acceptable” principle, but IMHO good philosophy teachers stick pretty close to Aquinas’s advice.

[infamous]

The problem with your view you have asserted on us is that I am not attacking the discipline of philosophy in terms of validity, I am attacking it in terms of utility.

Let's examine your logic a little closer sebby.......

Webster's on validity: The quality or fact of being valid in law or in argument, proof. etc.

Webster's on utility: Something useful, as the service to the public.

 

Now it should occur to everyone reading this post that any fact that adds proof to an argument adds something useful to the mix. How on earth can a fact or proof not be useful to the argument?

 

.....................Yours truly, Infy

[pgrmdave]

Allowing bad things to happen is not immoral / wrong. Preventing bad things from happening is moral / right. Just because you havn't taken a moral path does not mean you have taken an immoral path. Otherwise, everyone who has not dedicated their lives to charity lives an immoral life, which is absurd.

 

To explain what I mean by 'dependant on one person's subjective view, my example in which I created words to distinguish between right and wrong I think does not depend one person's subjective view since almost all people who read it will agree with it (ignoring ammendments to include other principals that have not been thought of). Ie, nobody will read it and say "no, I think it is RIGHT to cause suffering.

 

These two statements are why we keep telling you that you have a philosophy, and that it is only parts of philosophy that you seem to object to.

 

And since you're so determined for something to be usable - how about utilitarianism?

[paigetheoracle]

Paige, it isn't the thoughts you espouse that is the problem. It is the style and form of your writing. You often spout thoughts and ideas without foundation or more often without structure. Perhaps this is related however to the topic at hand. Some think (like Sebby) that this is pure malarky. That it is worthless drivel as it lacks substance. Your writings will gain substance when you clearly state your thoughts in a pattern that is recognizable.

 

Similarly run-on sentences lack organization of thought, and you tend to be a king of them.

 

Nice to know I'm King of Something!

 

As for you not understanding it and it seeming like pure drivel - perhaps the fault lies in you for failing to put in the effort to see where I'm coming from , what I'm on about and the sequence of my thoughts. As for you and Sebby - sorry I don't want to join your gang as I'm a one man band (The discoverer goes out on a limb - the frightened hug the trunk in their fear: Now work out what that meant and where it came from!)*.

 

*By the way, to quote Nietzsche (that's the philosopher) 'What Doesn't kill you, makes you stronger' ('Me and Sebby think your post stinks, so there!' This is playground antics (politics), not science or philosophy). I got over it.

[sebbysteiny]

Now is should occur to everyone reading this post that any fact that adds proof to an argument adds something useful to the mix. How on earth can a fact or proof not be useful to the argument?

 

Because the facts are mostly not really facts but pieces of apparent information that undermines facts and because the proof's are either conviluted proofs full of holes and logical flaws or they serve to only question reality rather than prove anything.

 

Or to put it another way, what is a fact:eek_big: ? How do we know that what you present as a fact is not just an opinion:eek_big: ? What is a proof:eek_big: ? How can we be so arrogent to assume that just because it passes various man made logic tests, the proof is actually logical:eek_big: ? Do we live in a logical universe:eek_big: ? How can we say that just because it is logical, it is a description of reality B) ?

 

Take Descartes 'proof of god' as a case in point. Relying on assumption that god must exist simply because the human mind 'is capable of thinking of god' is very poor form indeed:naughty: . And Descartes is a heavyweight player in Philosophy!!!!

 

So show me one 'philosophical proof' that actually proves anything useful.

 

And since you're so determined for something to be usable - how about utilitarianism?

 

Utilitarianism (from the Latin utilis, useful) is a theory of ethics that prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. It is a form of consequentialism. This good to be maximized is usually happiness, pleasure, or preference satisfaction. Though some utilitarian theories might seek to maximize other consequences, these consequences generally have something to do with the welfare of people (or of people and nonhuman animals). For this reason, utilitarianism is often associated with the term welfarist consequentialism.

 

Nope, that's not what I was looking for. I can't see any link between Utilitarian and utility. Perhaps you can explain how the above HELPS or HAS ANY USE FOR society?

[infamous]

 

Or to put it another way, what is a fact:eek_big: ? How do we know that what you present as a fact is not just an opinion:eek_big: ? What is a proof:eek_big: ? How can we be so arrogent to assume that just because it passes various man made logic tests, the proof is actually logical:eek_big: ? Do we live in a logical universe:eek_big: ? How can we say that just because it is logical, it is a description of reality B) ?

 

Now you're really starting to sound like a Philosopher and I thought, for such you had little respect???.................Infy

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Cedars

I really didnt have an opinion on Philo myself other than it doesnt interest me. Until the Matrix came out. Teens and young adults (presumably with a whole 6 weeks of their semester work completed) flooded particular areas of the net where I was active, pondering "whether or not the matrix is real".

 

Sebby replies:

Great. Did anything useful come of it?

 

If your asking whether pondering the matrix resulted in anything useful, not for me. However knowing this particular trigger mechanism allowed me to quickly determine this particular poster would produce nothing of use to me and to waste valued internet posting time trying to create a meaningful dialog would be fruitless.

 

 

Moo:

Thanks :)

[TheFaithfulStone]

And Descartes is a heavyweight player in Philosophy!!!!

 

Only in the seventeenth century and freshman philosophy classes. Okay, that's not fair - but Descartes proof for the existence of god is not one of the better ones.

 

So show me one 'philosophical proof' that actually proves anything useful.

 

I consider this guy to have "proved" something useful.

 

TFS

 

Oh yeah, I think the proof you're describing is actually Anselm of Canterbury anyway.

[sebbysteiny]

Or to put it another way, what is a fact :) ? How do we know that what you present as a fact is not just an opinion :) ? What is a proof :) ? How can we be so arrogent to assume that just because it passes various man made logic tests, the proof is actually logical :eek_big: ? Do we live in a logical universe :eek_big: ? How can we say that just because it is logical, it is a description of reality :eek_big: ?

 

 

 

Now you're really starting to sound like a Philosopher and I thought, for such you had little respect???.................Infy

 

My point precisely. It's just a shame Sarcasm does not translate onto the page :hihi:

 

Your question was this

Now is should occur to everyone reading this post that any fact that adds proof to an argument adds something useful to the mix. How on earth can a fact or proof not be useful to the argument?

 

Because I chose to ANSWER THE QUESTION, my answer was.

 

Because the facts are mostly not really facts but pieces of apparent information that undermines facts and because the proof's are either conviluted proofs full of holes and logical flaws or they serve to only question reality rather than prove anything.

 

However, I could have chosen the philosophical approach instead. As an illustration, I gave what such an alternative "answer" might have looked like.

 

Or to put it another way, what is a fact :eek_big: ? How do we know that what you present as a fact is not just an opinion :eek_big: ? What is a proof :eek_big: ? How can we be so arrogent to assume that just because it passes various man made logic tests, the proof is actually logical :eek_big: ? Do we live in a logical universe :eek_big: ? How can we say that just because it is logical, it is a description of reality :eek_big: ?

 

Notice how the philosophical approach only undermines knowledge rather than contributes to it. The last part even challenges the notion that 2+2 = 4 :eek_big: . Not one sentence in that paragraph actually achieved anything contstructive.