Eise

Philosophy (split from Sam Harris thread)

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, beecee said:

I believe you are totally wrong, despite your own beliefs that you are right. Getting down to the nitty gritty and at the risk of offending some philosophers, philosophy while being at its basic level, the foundation on which science is built, has had its day. Practical sciences like cosmology rule our understandings at this time, based mostly on what we observe and the results of our experiments. Physics and cosmology seems to have made philosophy redundant.  I will refer you to the following to elaborate further on what I am trying to say.....

What a nonsense. I would suggest you learn what modern philosophers are doing. See here.

Using your argumentation scheme, I could say that physics is dead because Newton got overruled by relativity and QM. 

Or the other way round, that what Newton did was philosophy, not physics: his main work was titled 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica'.

Both are nonsense of course.

And, btw, saying 'philosophy has had its day' is a philosophical remark.

Edited by Eise
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eise said:

What a nonsense. I would suggest you learn what modern philosophers are doing. See here.

Don't tell me, tell Stephen Hawking or Laurence Krauss, they are the professionals: I just happened to agree with them.

Quote

Using your argumentation scheme, I could say that physics is dead because Newton got overruled by relativity and QM. 

Not really...that's how science works and what the meaning of a scientific theory entails and how they may change with further extensive observations. And of course Newton was not wrong as such, after all we still use his model on near all Earth based measurements and even most space missions. His model is simply less accurate but suffice more most circumstances.

 

Quote

Or the other way round, that what Newton did was philosophy, not physics: his main work was titled 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica'.

You are speaking of the 1700's of course and times have changed. It was physics, based on observation.

Quote

And, btw, saying 'philosophy has had its day' is a philosophical remark.

You think so? :) 

1 hour ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Could you elabourate with respect to Sam Harris?

No more than I can elaborate on your own rather weird philosophical musings.

Edited by beecee
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beecee said:

Don't tell me, tell Stephen Hawking or Laurence Krauss, they are the professionals: I just happened to agree with them.

Professionals in what? Physics or philosophy?

Link:

Quote

<Baggini> continues to give a basic lesson in philosophical reasoning to Krauss: “What is disparagingly called scientism insists that, if a question isn’t amenable to scientific solution, it is not a serious question at all.” And that is one of the best definitions of scientism available. That there are questions that are not answerable scientifically and yet are perfectly meaningful should be clear to anyone who considers ethics, logic or mathematics, among other things.

And another one:

Quote

Like most scientists, Lawrence doesn’t get a lot out of the philosophy of science. That’s okay; the point of philosophy is not to be “useful” to science, any more than the point of mycology is to be “useful” to fungi. Philosophers of science aren’t trying to do science, they are trying to understand how science works, and how it should work, and to tease out the logic and standards underlying scientific argumentation, and to situate scientific knowledge within a broader epistemological context, and a bunch of other things that can be perfectly interesting without pretending to be science itself. And if you’re not interested, that’s fine.

Oh, and this one is beautiful too:

Quote

"(...) the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics what so ever. ... they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn’t.”

Okay, to begin with, it is fair to point out that the only people who read works in theoretical physics are theoretical physicists, so by Krauss’ own reasoning both fields are largely irrelevant to everybody else (they aren’t, of course). Second, once again, the business of philosophy (of science, in particular) is not to solve scientific problems — we’ve got science for that (Julia and I explain what philosophers of science do here). To see how absurd Krauss’ complaint is just think of what it would sound like if he had said that historians of science haven’t solved a single puzzle in theoretical physics. That’s because historians do history, not science. When was the last time a theoretical physicist solved a problem in history, pray?

And then of course there is the old time favorite theme of philosophy not making progress. I have debunked that one too, but the crucial point is that progress in philosophy is not and should not be measured by the standards of science, just like the word “progress” has to be interpreted in any field according to that field’s issues and methods, not according to science’s issues and methods. (And incidentally, how’s progress on that string theory thingy going, Lawrence? It has been 25 years and counting, and still no empirical evidence...)

 

 

 

Edited by Eise
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Eise said:

Professionals in what? Physics or philosophy?

What does a professional in philosophy actually do outside of academia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DrP said:

What does a professional in philosophy actually do outside of academia?

Much the same as a particle physicist. They have friends and family. Some of them go to the cinema, others like hunting. A proportion of them get drunk.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Eise said:

Professionals in what? Physics or philosophy?

Link:

And another one:

Oh, and this one is beautiful too:

Take it easy...Like I said, I agree with Krauss and Hawking and others who also are of that general opinion. But hey, as I did say earlier, I raised the issue fully aware it would upset some of our philosophical friends.

I havn't seen you yet comment on the subject of the thread though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

Take it easy...Like I said, I agree with Krauss and Hawking and others who also are of that general opinion. But hey, as I did say earlier, I raised the issue fully aware it would upset some of our philosophical friends.

You are just plainly wrong. Krauss and you have just no idea what philosophy is today. Read the articles I linked.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I havn't seen you yet comment on the subject of the thread though?

I did somewhere else. It is not the first time PGJ is confusing discussions by redefining words. Philosophy tries to bring intellectual clarity. PGJ is obviously not interested in that, so there is nothing to do for me here.

Edited by Eise
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2017 at 1:43 PM, DrP said:

What does a professional in philosophy actually do outside of academia?

What does a professional theoretical physicist actually do outside of academia?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Eise said:

What does a professional theoretical physicist actually do outside of academia?

He goes around looking for somebody to tie his shoelaces for him, avoiding philosophers of course.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eise said:

What does a professional theoretical physicist actually do outside of academia?

 

1 hour ago, Eise said:

What does a professional in philosophy actually do outside of academia?

The difference is stark, one advances our understanding, whilst the other reiterates our understanding; I'll leave you to guess which is which.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

The difference is stark, one advances our understanding, whilst the other reiterates our understanding; I'll leave you to guess which is which.

Another one who has no idea what modern philosophers do.... sigh.

Start reading the links in my posting. Or start here.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eise said:

Another one who has no idea what modern philosophers do.... sigh.

 

I'm intrigued, what does philosophy have to offer beyond enlightenment?

I'm not a great reader (I'm sure you'll find something amusing to say) so please reduce it to an abstract or summary.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm intrigued, what does philosophy have to offer beyond enlightenment?

I'm not a great reader (I'm sure you'll find something amusing to say) so please reduce it to an abstract or summary.  

I did already

If you refuse to read texts, then philosophy is not for you. But it does not mean it is useless. 

Edit:

PS And there is nothing that offers enlightenment. (That is my personal enlightenment...)

Edited by Eise
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Eise said:

I did already

If you refuse to read texts, then philosophy is not for you. But it does not mean it is useless. 

 

I didn't say it was useless, but philosophy is fundamentally for everyone, it's not for academics to lord it over the stupid such as me.

Quote

 

Edit:

PS And there is nothing that offers enlightenment. (That is my personal enlightenment...)

 

Well, then you seem to have misunderstood what philosophy is all about.

My point is, enlightenment/inner peace is the end game of every philosophical treatise, otherwise it's just about asking stupid questions. 

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dimreepr said:

I didn't say it was useless, but philosophy is fundamentally for everyone, it's not for academics to lord it over the stupid such as me.

You obviously have no idea about modern philosophy. Even after my academic philosophy study (subsidiary subjects physics, astronomy and mathematics), there are still many philosophy articles that are way too technical for me to understand. Sure, everybody can reflect on his thoughts and those of others and try to clarify them, and doing so one might call 'philosphising', but there is a justification that there is also an academic discipline with that name, e.g. that the intellectual level matches other academic disciplines.

Well, then you seem to have misunderstood what philosophy is all about.

I tend to think it is the other way round...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eise said:

You obviously have no idea about modern philosophy. 

 

What's the difference between modern and ancient philosophy? Are you so conceited that you think modern is somehow better? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dimreepr said:

What's the difference between modern and ancient philosophy? Are you so conceited that you think modern is somehow better? 

You said it is for everyone, implying that academic philosophy is useless. I was not comparing with ancient philosophy. 

But if you want: in ancient time nearly every science was called philosophy (with the exceptions of astronomy and mathematics maybe). What it is today you could have read here.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eise said:

You said it is for everyone, implying that academic philosophy is useless. I was not comparing with ancient philosophy. 

But if you want: in ancient time nearly every science was called philosophy (with the exceptions of astronomy and mathematics maybe). What it is today you could have read here.

I've explicitly said it's not useless a few post's ago (who's not reading now?), but you are determined to talk about modern philosophy and that no enlightenment is available, so I ask again, what is philosophy all about if not to reach enlightenment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I've explicitly said it's not useless a few post's ago (who's not reading now?), but you are determined to talk about modern philosophy and that no enlightenment is available, so I ask again, what is philosophy all about if not to reach enlightenment?

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eise said:

TLDR, please be more concise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

TLDR, please be more concise. 

Conceptual clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eise said:

Conceptual clarity.

LOL 

concise
kənˈsʌɪs/
adjective
 
  1. giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.
     
     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/09/2017 at 5:21 PM, dimreepr said:

My point is, enlightenment/inner peace is the end game of every philosophical treatise, otherwise it's just about asking stupid questions.

Philosophy is, to a large extent, the art of asking intelligent questions. Most areas or applications of philosophy that I am aware of have nothing to do with enlightenment or inner peace. For example, how do the philosophy of science or the study of logic contribute to those goals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Philosophy is, to a large extent, the art of asking intelligent questions. Most areas or applications of philosophy that I am aware of have nothing to do with enlightenment or inner peace. For example, how do the philosophy of science or the study of logic contribute to those goals?

This forum is turning me into a pedant, of the worst kind.

There is certainly a colloquial use of philosophy that  would aim for enlightenment and inner peace. (I've seen well argued cases that Bhuddism is a philosophy and not a religion. As I understand it, its goals include enlightenment and inner peace.) dimreepr seems to be talking about this definition of philosophy.

Also, Enlightenment, rather than enlightenment, was certainly a consequence of philosophy, if not its actual goal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now