Jump to content

Is there such a Thing as Good Philosophy vs Bad Philosophy?


Is there such a Thing as Good Philosophy vs Bad Philosophy?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Is there such a Thing as Good Philosophy vs Bad Philosophy?

    • All philosophy is useless/too arbitrary/self-serving... (all bad)
      1
    • All philosophy has interesting points to consider (all good)
      3
    • There are good philosophies and bad philosophies
      10


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, joigus said:

Now you have

You're careening off topic towards discussing your favourite toys at alarming speed.

You're obviously one of the fools I systematically and physically demolished on mainstream hacking a dead forum to spite me with negs. Which would explain why I haven't gotten a single pos.That's pathetic though! Because you didn't unlock ultra instinct and your dojo sucks you're gonna hack a dead website.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You really have no clue what you're saying do you.

That is a pretty useless example of very bad philosophy.  you state that only facts matter in life you state that only numerically quantifiable observations count as facts And th

Come on guy's, time to stop feeding it... 🤒

25 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

You're obviously one of the fools I systematically and physically demolished on mainstream hacking a dead forum to spite me with negs. Which would explain why I haven't gotten a single pos.That's pathetic though! Because you didn't unlock ultra instinct and your dojo sucks you're gonna hack a dead website.

I care not how you define me. Nor would I waste a second's thought in defining you. Nothing you can say about me can move me one way or the other. Although I suspect you will appeal to insult rather easily. I do care about ideas, theories, consistency, rebuttals, compelling arguments, experimental checks, different levels of cross checks, certainty, hidden assumptions... If this site is dead, what are you doing trying to find a place among the dead? There are plenty of places out there where you can find people far more unconcerned about assumptions and logical consistency, and totally obsessed about defining each other and themselves rather than examining their mutual assumptions. You would feel far more at ease.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IDoNotCare said:

The difference in time particles (4D graviton topologies) can be interpreted as lp1*9^28=hG/c^3 ->c^3=hG/lp1*9^28->c=cuberoot(hG/9^28lp1)...

Thank you for taking the time to explain that but you lost me early.  

By "not being able to quantify anything at all" I merely meant that no event can occur in which all variables will ever be quantifiable.  We quantify conditions or possibilities using as much knowledge as we can.   But words and thought are much more events than conditions.  

Good luck in your work.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cladking said:

Thank you for taking the time to explain that but you lost me early.  

By "not being able to quantify anything at all" I merely meant that no event can occur in which all variables will ever be quantifiable.  We quantify conditions or possibilities using as much knowledge as we can.   But words and thought are much more events than conditions.  

Good luck in your work.   

Then you meant "not being able to quantify everything" which is not at all the same as "not being able to quantify anything at all"

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

Then you meant "not being able to quantify everything" which is not at all the same as "not being able to quantify anything at all"

To quantify an "event" and then predict what are its effects it is necessary to quantify every effect of that event including the trajectory of each subatomic particle.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cladking said:

To quantify an "event" and then predict what are its effects it is necessary to quantify every effect of that event including the trajectory of each subatomic particle.  

 

Then you know where you are, but not where you're going...

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

To quantify an "event" and then predict what are its effects it is necessary to quantify every effect of that event including the trajectory of each subatomic particle.  

You say this as if it were relevant. And true.

You can predict the result of raising the temperature of a gas without knowing the trajectory of each particle. You can predict how many particles will decay from a sample after a period of time without knowing the specifics of the particles.

There is a lot you can quantify, without having to (or being able to) quantify other things.

My point was that "we can't know everything" is not equivalent to "we know nothing" and you have done nothing to rebut that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swansont said:

My point was that "we can't know everything" is not equivalent to "we know nothing" and you have done nothing to rebut that.

I  don't rebut that.  

My point is that we don't know everything about anything.  This leaves open the possibility that our ignorance is far broader and deeper than anyone can imagine. 

Even a butterfly can use hot air rising from a fire to gain altitude but that hardly means he "understands" any kind of scientific theory whatsoever.  

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Then you know where you are, but not where you're going...

Yes.

Additionally to not being able to predict the future due to chaos and subtle effects we obviously don't even know all the fundamental "laws" which govern any event.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

And we don't know anything about many more things than those we know something about.

And then there are things we don't know if we don't know.

And things we don't know if we could know.

And maybe things we think we know, but we don't.

Makes you wonder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Alex Caledin said:

- according to Pascal, the best philosophy is made by those who have no time for it)

What does that mean, for you?

For me, it meant why not take the bet; not because there maybe a god who provides some sort of heaven, but because there maybe some truth in the teaching's of those who invoke a diety to instil a mind-set on those who can't imagine a heaven, now...

Then we don't have to wait for death to collect on the wager. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alex Caledin said:

- hmmm - first and foremost, LIFE IS SHORT - if indeed actually aware of that, one can be either a saint or a hitler - and it's the latter who was developing his own philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal

And Hitler was hyped up on amphetamines.

I know who I'd trust...

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Alex Caledin said:

- according to Pascal, the best philosophy is made by those who have no time for it)

Where did Pascal got the time to write such things down?

According to most other philosophers, philosophy only exists in cultures where people have spare time. E.g. the Greeks had slaves, which gave their masters time to reflect on nature, society and themselves.

People who have no time could be:

  • full in the struggle of life: all their time is used to get food, shelter, and stay safe for any danger
  • totally unaware that their world could be different as it is, i.e. accept the culture or society in which they live as a 'naturally given' and conform to to it without reflecting (My disclaimer could be extended from science to more or less all of life ("There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.")). Ideologically shaped societal dogmas are seen as 'natural', or 'obviously the best principles to live by'.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pascal must have been under a lot of pressure when he said that. ;)

14 hours ago, Eise said:

According to most other philosophers, philosophy only exists in cultures where people have spare time.

I see no way in which this could be false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
On 9/17/2020 at 9:59 PM, joigus said:
On 9/17/2020 at 7:28 AM, Eise said:

According to most other philosophers, philosophy only exists in cultures where people have spare time.

I see no way in which this could be false.

Didn't Wittgenstein describe the flaw in that argument?

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

Didn't Wittgenstein describe the flaw in that argument?

I'm not sure. You probably know more about Wittgenstein than I do. But then again, I'm a junk philosopher. ;) 

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

I see no way in which this could be false.

Let me just correct you about something: This is not really an argument, if you think about it. It's a statement. I think you mean that wielding it in order to prove something, right or wrong, is flawed. I'm not familiar with Wittgenstein's argument, but I'd be very interested to know. Perhaps @Eise knows. He's our on-call philosopher.

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Aren't we all?

You and I probably are. I don't know about "all".

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

Let me just correct you about something: This is not really an argument, if you think about it. It's a statement. I think you mean that wielding it in order to prove something, right or wrong, is flawed. I'm not familiar with Wittgenstein's argument, but I'd be very interested to know. Perhaps @Eise knows. He's our on-call philosopher

Indeed, perhaps  the life of brian can explain...

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, perhaps  the life of brian can explain...

It's the meek, that's the problem...

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

Indeed, perhaps  the life of brian can explain...

It's the meek, that's the problem...

Isn't it blessed are the Greek? (as long as we're discussing philosophy and Life of Brian...) ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, joigus said:

Let me just correct you about something: This is not really an argument, if you think about it. It's a statement. I think you mean that wielding it in order to prove something, right or wrong, is flawed. I'm not familiar with Wittgenstein's argument, but I'd be very interested to know. Perhaps @Eise knows. He's our on-call philosopher.

I'll be honest, I was hoping that post would intice Eise to return to the site and explain how badly I've misinterpreted Wittgenstein...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'll be honest, I was hoping that post would intice Eise to return to the site and explain how badly I've misinterpreted Wittgenstein...

You read my mind, mate.

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.