-->
@secularmerlin
@janesix
@3RU7AL
it may be that philosophy is more useful for discovering errors than uncovering truths.
Has anything concrete ever been confirmed/denied or figured out do to any discussion of philosophy?
Posts
Total:
41
-->
@keithprosser
it may be that philosophy is more useful for discovering errors than uncovering truths.
Good point. It's more of a critique and refinement process.
-->
@keithprosser
it may be that philosophy is more useful for discovering errors than uncovering truths.
There exists no errors in a cause and effect Universe i.e. it is all good in that the integerity of our finite, occupied space Universe is never violated.
The only error is in humans inability to find the order in a seemingly disorderly set of circumstances.
J-6....I am just wondering. Sometimes it seems we are all just running around in circles/
Occupied space Universe is finite ergo we can never get outside of occupied space Universe and we are forced to come back around to places we have been, or places that share the same inviolate cosmic laws/principles.
Memory is the going back { recall } to those sensations from whence the original experience occurred.
On the other hand there is no reversing of the arrow-of-time i.e..." we cannot return to the womb"... B Fuller......
>>> forward >>>>>> ( * i * ) >>>> forward >>>>>>> Entropic ex Dark Energy )(
<<< Past Out <<<<< ( * i * ) <<<< In Future <<<<<< Syntropic ex Gravity ( )
13 days later
-->
@Fallaneze
When is pure mathematics not philosophy and vice versa?
At what point does thought become philosophy?
Or; when is thought not philosophy?
In fact; doesn't it all boil down to data processing?
-->
@zedvictor4
When is pure mathematics not philosophy and vice versa?
Mathematics is a rigorously defined formalized system based on a well defined minimum axioms.
It is impossible to make philosophical statements in pure mathematics.
At what point does thought become philosophy?
When skepticism and logical coherence become your primary focus.
Or; when is thought not philosophy?
Thought is not philosophy when it is dogmatic and or unquestioning.
In fact; doesn't it all boil down to data processing?
Yes, on some level.
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that the word philosophy tends to get over-defined in an attempt to make it something more than it is.
We like to create exclusive specialisms out of things that are not necessarily exclusive or special.
Philosophy is basically processing data and coming up with conclusions.
Anyone can be philosophical.
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that the word philosophy tends to get over-defined in an attempt to make it something more than it is.
I think that the word philosophy tends to get over-defined in an attempt to make it something less than it is.
For example, the title of this thread seems to strongly imply that "philosophy is pointless and impractical". [LINK]
Philosophy is an analysis of the foundations of Law and Religion and Politics. It has very practical and far-reaching implications.
We like to create exclusive specialisms out of things that are not necessarily exclusive or special.
Please explain.
Philosophy is basically processing data and coming up with conclusions.
I agree.
Anyone can be philosophical.
I agree.
-->
@3RU7AL
"Philosophy is an analysis of the foundations of Law and Religion and Politics". Yep, this and everything else that requires a bit of thought.
Sit a bunch of wise guys on a pedestal and of course make it well worth their while and they will come up with all sorts of wordy stuff.
Stuff that might or might not have any practical value.
And also stuff that as a species we have probably always been inherently aware of.
-->
@zedvictor4
You seem to be conflating philosophers with philosophy. No wise guys or pedestals are required to engage in philosophical endeavors.
You also seem to be trying to confirm the consequence here
Sit a bunch of wise guys on a pedestal and of course make it well worth their while and they will come up with all sorts of wordy stuff.
Who said anything about making it worth anyones while? The argument is whether or not philosophy is worth your while on its own merits.
-->
@secularmerlin
We could accuse each other of conflating all day long, it's a cheap argument.
But suggesting that Philosophy and Philosophers are not relative is a bit silly.
And academic philosophy is all about wise guys on pedestals.
And the argument here is certainly open to more than one interpretation, given the ambiguity and incoherence of the proposition.
The thread specifically says any philosophy. You have equated all philosophy with a particular kind of philosopher (academic/wise guys on pedestals philosophy) and in so doing have committed a confirming the consequence fallacy "if you make it worth their while wise guys on pedestals will come up with all sorts of wordy stuff"
Wise guys on pedestals are not an inevitable outcome of the pursuit of philosophy merely am occasional side effect.