Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It's a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.You have a premise here, that there is an internal reality. That there is an "us". What's an "us". Why can't we verify it? Why is it tragic? What is evidence? WHat is "ultimate". For someone who doesn't like philosophy, you sure do a lot of it. You're only proving my point.
Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It's a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.You have a premise here, that there is an internal reality. That there is an "us". What's an "us". Why can't we verify it? Why is it tragic? What is evidence? WHat is "ultimate". For someone who doesn't like philosophy, you sure do a lot of it. You're missing the point and just proving mine that it doesn't go anywhere. Where should it go? Towards a definitive answer instead of just leaving it as a possibility. But it can't give answers.
Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It's a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.What belief are we embracing? Pleaseprovide details. The belief in an external and testable reality and that other people and minds exist. I don't define reality as external. How do you define it? I don't know, because according to philosophy one cannot know. So, you need philosophy to tell you that you cannot know? I think you just answered your own question. Funny coincidence, I was looking up "deepity" for a different conversation. Look at the first example. ]
Realism is no more than a belief in an external reality that is independent of us. We cannot verify that to be the case. It's a bit tragic that in their search for evidence as a foundation they ultimately have to resort to belief. It makes them no different then theists.What belief are we embracing? Pleaseprovide details. The belief in an external and testable reality and that other people and minds exist. I don't define reality as external. How do you define it? I don't know, because according to philosophy one cannot know. So, you need philosophy to tell you that you cannot know? I think you just answered your own question. Funny coincidence, I was looking up "deepity" for a different conversation. Look at the first example. ] No, I'm saying that one cannot know. There is a difference between "I don't know" and "I cannot know", I thought you were smarter than that. Philosophy says that one cannot KNOW anything, which renders the entire field moot. Also that first example doesn't mean anything or prove the usefulness of philosophy. In fact you agreeing with me that philosophy states that you cannot know anything is further proof that it's useless. You also forgot to read the criticisms below.
It seems like every statement you make just further proves my point that the field is a waste of time.
No, I'm saying that one cannot know. There is a difference between "I don't know" and "I cannot know", I thought you were smarter than that. Philosophy says that one cannot KNOW anything, which renders the entire field moot. Also that first example doesn't mean anything or prove the usefulness of philosophy. In fact you agreeing with me that philosophy states that you cannot know anything is further proof that it's useless. You also forgot to read the criticisms below.What field says "you can know"? If there isn't one, then all fields are moot. I'm agreeing with you that there is a philosophy of epistemology, of how we know things, and that philosophy has some things to say about "proving" and "knowing" things. That doesn't make the philosophy or the field of philosophy useless. Unless everything is useless, but we would need to discuss what "useless" meant if we said that, and then we'd be doing philosophy again.
It seems like every statement you make just further proves my point that the field is a waste of time.The process of philosophy is valuable to all scientists to improve life and understand the world people perceive and the differences in the way people perceive that world. What do you care? Having an existential crisis Titanomachina or just spewing out disconnected sylables you call Proof? Do you know the difference between internal and external? You avoid words like evidence and prefer words like proof. Titan, both your language and logic are faulty to me so...I block you. But before I sign off, it is important to state that the evidence for theists is the holy moley book and general vague intuition. The evidence of science is testable ideas that can be disproved by human perceptions or machines and enhance our perceptions, plus logic, plus repetition. You are more like a theist without even the holy moley book and just a lot of gurgling sounds the seem like words that mean something to others but...they mean nothing to anyone. And that is big part of why you, and the likes of you...are ultra confused, confusing and intellectually lost. You again state nothing of import that addresses my question, you just state an irrelevant opinion and claim it to be relevant. You blocking me would actually keep this discussion on track for once. You also realize that human perception isn't a solid basis for proof right? If you are a student of philosophy as you claim then you would know that. Oh sorry, according to the same field you cannot "know". According to philosophy there also is no evidence of an external world or other minds so I don't know what you're getting at. It also argues about what is considered "improvement" or "progress". Science has evidence, philosophy doesn't. All it has are opinions. I will also say that you have not given evidence that philosophy is useful in science.
No, I'm saying that one cannot know. There is a difference between "I don't know" and "I cannot know", I thought you were smarter than that. Philosophy says that one cannot KNOW anything, which renders the entire field moot. Also that first example doesn't mean anything or prove the usefulness of philosophy. In fact you agreeing with me that philosophy states that you cannot know anything is further proof that it's useless. You also forgot to read the criticisms below.What field says "you can know"? If there isn't one, then all fields are moot. I'm agreeing with you that there is a philosophy of epistemology, of how we know things, and that philosophy has some things to say about "proving" and "knowing" things. That doesn't make the philosophy or the field of philosophy useless. Unless everything is useless, but we would need to discuss what "useless" meant if we said that, and then we'd be doing philosophy again. If there was a field that says you can know it is negated by the one that says you cannot know. Even, ironically, those who say that you cannot know cannot know that you cannot know.
No, I'm saying that one cannot know. There is a difference between "I don't know" and "I cannot know", I thought you were smarter than that. Philosophy says that one cannot KNOW anything, which renders the entire field moot. Also that first example doesn't mean anything or prove the usefulness of philosophy. In fact you agreeing with me that philosophy states that you cannot know anything is further proof that it's useless. You also forgot to read the criticisms below.What field says "you can know"? If there isn't one, then all fields are moot. I'm agreeing with you that there is a philosophy of epistemology, of how we know things, and that philosophy has some things to say about "proving" and "knowing" things. That doesn't make the philosophy or the field of philosophy useless. Unless everything is useless, but we would need to discuss what "useless" meant if we said that, and then we'd be doing philosophy again. If there was a field that says you can know it is negated by the one that says you cannot know. Even, ironically, those who say that you cannot know cannot know that you cannot know. Are you sure you are not Kwai Chang Caine? You sure sound like him? So there is no way to contradict the idea that we can't know for certain that we know anything, but somehow, asking the question of how we know anything caused this state of not knowing? Or are you stating as a premise that we cannot know, then saying we SHOULDN'T ask the question?
Philosophy is not a “Way of Life” . Every person does not have his or her own “Philosophy”. Philosophy is not simply a theory about something. Nor is Philosophy a belief or a wish. Philosophy is an activity: a quest after wisdom. Philosophy is an activity of thought. Philosophy is a particular unique type of thought or style of thinking. Philosophy is not to be confused with its product. What a philosopher provides is a body of philosophic thought NOT a Philosophy. A philosopher enacts a Philosophy, a quest after wisdom.
Philosophy is not a picking and choosing what body of thought one would like to call one’s own or would like to believe in; a choice based upon personal preferences or feelings. Philosophy is a pursuit. One can choose to be philosophical. One can choose to be a philosopher. One can NOT choose a Philosophy. Philosophy, insofar as it may be correlated at all to a “way of Life”, is a form of thinking meant to guide action or to prescribe a way of life. The philosophic way of life , if there is one, is displayed in a life in which action is held to be best directed when philosophical reflection has provided that direction; e.g., SOCRATES the paradigm of a philosopher.
Philosophy is an activity of thought, a type of thinking. Philosophy is critical and comprehensive thought, the most critical and comprehensive manner of thinking which the human species has yet devised. This intellectual process includes both an analytic and synthetic mode of operation. Philosophy as a critical and comprehensive process of thought involves resolving confusion, unmasking assumptions, revealing presuppositions, distinguishing importance, testing positions, correcting distortions, looking for reasons, examining world-views and questioning conceptual frameworks. It also includes dispelling ignorance, enriching understanding, broadening experience, expanding horizons, developing imagination , controlling emotion, exploring values, fixing beliefs by rational inquiry, establishing habits of acting, widening considerations, synthesizing knowledge and questing for wisdom.
Philosophy as a process functions as an activity which responds to society’s demand for wisdom, which is bringing together all that we know in order to obtain what we value. Viewed in this way Philosophy is part of the activity of human growth and thus an integral, essential part of the process of education. Philosophy and education have as a common goal the development of the total intellect of a person, the realization of the human potential.
404 Page Not Found 12Conclusion/What_is_Philosophy.htm
This is obviously too complicated for you, so pull the covers over your head.
I ask this because it doesn't seem to lead anywhere. I get that philosophy is the study of knowledge, existence, reality, and all that good stuff. But what I don't get is the point or the end game, since it seems like just about anything in it can be debated and still end up right. It's very vague and arbitrary and much of it is based on how you define things. But for a field that pursues knowledge and wisdom they seem to give very little if any of what they claim to seek. All it seems to do is make you ask questions and doubt your knowledge and beliefs, but doesn't give anything to replace that. It takes and takes but gives nothing back. Like in the case of solipsism it introduces the possibility that you might be the only thing that exists and that anything outside of you is not possible to verify that it exists. It makes you doubt what is real to the point that those who buy into it usually are unable to leave it. But it doesn't provide any way to solve the question it poses (like much of philosophy). The same goes for idealism, another idea that it can't prove. So why bother if it gets nowhere?Why study philosophy? I know the answer for me but it may not fit you all that well. When I first studied any of it I felt like it amounted to something similar to he said, she said arguments. Thus I was more confused after studying it than before. But at least that proved I was not brain dead, if so I would have ben unable to become more confused. That's my reason and I'm sticking to it.
You must be mistaken because it doesn’t do any of that. I have delved deep enough into it to know that it doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t unmask it clouds, there are many presuppositions at the basest form of an argument (without which the argument has nothing to stand on).
It’s a poor tool for wisdom because it ultimately doesn’t provide an answer for the questions it asks. It can’t bring together what we know because questions how we can know such things, which eventually has to resort to a presupposition. It is the dead end to humanity as it fails in its primary undertaking, it just takes much time
Invested in it to see that.
It’s causes confusion through introducing doubt, it relies on assumptions to even begin an argument, invents reasons for doing things, doesn’t dispel ignorance but rather enhances it by showing we know nothing. In short it does the opposite of everything you have listed. It’s the equivalent of being on a treadmill. Honestly, are you sure you’re even talking about philosophy?
You use words like “poor tool”, “it clouds” and “confuses”. For those to be true, there must be something to compare. Please tell us the non-poor tool you know of that clears up confusion and sheds light on the human condition and reality itself. We would all love to hear about it.
You use words like "poor tool", "it clouds" and "confuses". For those to be true, there must be something to compare. Please tell us the non-poor tool you know of that clears up confusion and sheds light on the human condition and reality itself. We would all love to hear about it.There isn't one, I would say science but that relies on our own flawed persceptions and senses. It is however a much better tool despite its flaws. But you are missing the point once again.
You use words like "poor tool", "it clouds" and "confuses". For those to be true, there must be something to compare. Please tell us the non-poor tool you know of that clears up confusion and sheds light on the human condition and reality itself. We would all love to hear about it.There isn't one, I would say science but that relies on our own flawed persceptions and senses. It is however a much better tool despite its flaws. But you are missing the point once again. Or you are really bad at making points. You use comparative language but you are comparing to nothing. Because something is difficult, you think it shouldn't be done. Just what should we be doing?
It’s not difficult it just doesn’t go anywhere.
It's not difficult it just doesn't go anywhere.I know. But nothing "goes anywhere". There are limits to human knowledge. That's all you are saying.
Philosophy, phi·los·o·phy. NOUN 1.the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy. •a particular system of philosophical thought: "Schopenhauer’s philosophy" •the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience: "the philosophy of science" synonyms: thinking · thought · reasoning •a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior: "don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy" powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press ·· And this is how you begin: http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?
Titanomachina,
Maybe you should read this:
Epicurus and happiness]
"When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and the aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, that produces a pleasant life. It is rather sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs that lead to the tumult of the soul." Based on this conception of happiness, it is the philosopher who is the happiest of all people, for he chooses the stable pleasures of knowledge over the temporary and volatile pleasures of the body.Bold by me. There is something wrong with your philosophy.
It is rather sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs that lead to the tumult of the soul." Based on this conception of happiness,it is the philosopher who is the happiest of all people, for he chooses the stable pleasures of knowledge over the temporary and volatile pleasures of the body.Go with the flow. Groovy. Don't know about titano, but I like it. :)