Starboy

Gurdur I see that you are backsliding into your old obnoxious ways. You attack me instead of my claims. What does it matter what my background is? I did state in the past that I had no formal graduate training in philosophy. It will be interesting to see how you twist this into some other personal attack.

Starboy

Starboy

Tyler, why buck the trend if one didn't think the philosophers of the day were full of shit? This is why the early scientists did their experiments in the first place. Why plot the location planets, why use a telescope to observe the heavens? There was a very real paralysis imposed by philosophy that went on for many centuries. To be fair philosophy was the tool of religion but as far as I can tell it has not managed to completely sperate itself from the religious frame of mind. We have been over this several times. Unless you have something new to add to the discussion I don't see the need to discuss it further. (I don't consider new personal insults to be something new.)

Starboy

Starboy

Let's start with the "philosopher" that is oft claimed by philosophers to be important to modern science.

Hmmmm, appears that ol'Bacon didn't think much of the philosophy of Aristitle. Of course if you read any of Bacon you would find that he was a big fan of cut the philosophical BS and get to the experiments.

Yup that's right. I would question philosophers and ask them to substantiate their various claims and then would find that all they had was BS and called them on it. However the philosophy mods had decided that philosophy could not abide such observations so I agreed not to post there anymore.

I've had debates. I know what to expect. Just a pile of execuses, equivocations, misdirections and word play hiding the huge presumptions of philosophy. And Hugo, oh philosopher dedicated to wisdom, if you have a question all ya gotta do is ask. Casting aspersion does appear to be a common philosophical argument but it doesn't become you.

Starboy

Starboy

Ed, a windmill has got to be the best definition of philosophy I've seen yet.

Starboy

Gurdur

What ? You cite Francis Bacon on Aristotle and pretend that that applies to all of philosophy ? Forgetting of course too that Francis Bacon wrote almost 400 years ago, and that Francis Bacon also was a philosopher.
You mean you simply went in for generalized abuse that never stuck to the point ?
Dear me ! You could have always protested to SecWeb admin if you felt some important principle was at stake; after all, skepticism is offically valued on this board,
Well, you could always clean up your act.
Since you do nothing but cast generalized aspersions without foundation upon philosophy as a whole, let alone the people working in it, and you speak from ignorance of the actual field, then ....... hey, pot, kettle, black ?

Tyler Durden

Just answer the questions. Pretty please with cherry on top, and all that.

Hugo Holbling

Shall we? You fail to note that objection to Aristotelianism in Bacon's day was far more sophisticated than you imagine, that Bacon was himself a philosopher (as Gurdur notes) and that Aristotle was already considered an empiricist. Even so, we could take this to formal debate.

Unfortunately for you, i have read Bacon; the caricature you offer is nowhere to be found in his work. Indeed, he offered a different philosophical basis that has since been replaced by other philosophical ideas. Once again, if you're so confident then we could easily take this to formal debate and you can embarrass me for my stupidy.

Very well: here you are failing to even offer a coherent position; here you are doing likewise, ranting at those who question your "equivocations, misdirections and excuses". I leave it to others to decide if your account is accurate.

Why don't you PM the philosophy moderators and ask them to back up this version of events? I wish you luck.

On the contrary, you can't get anywhere without philosophical presumptions. You use just as many in your own rhetoric about the disutility of philoosphy, but you can't see the irony of so doing, nor back them up. If you suppose otherwise, we could also have a formal debate on the possibility of any science (or, more generally, epistemology) without these presumptions.

I have asked, time and again - even in this thread. All you do is evade. Here you go: will you engage in the multiple formal debates you've been challenged to or is there in fact no defensible content to your rants?

Alas, i've already explained this before: if philosophy is so useless, it should be a simple matter for you to demonstrate thus in formal debate with me. Instead, you are plainly one of the most dogmatic members here.

Edited to add:

You are also welcome to provide an account of the history of science without philosophy; start with Einstein, i suggest. Alternatively, i propose a formal debate - resolved: the history of science was paralysed by philosophy for many centuries. You can respond here or i can challenge you again in the appropriate forum.

abe smith

I wanted, of course, to comply with your several-days's-ago request for the verbatim of Thos Aquinas's Prologue to the Summa theologica; but in order to provide the Latin qua-original, I find that I have to journey across-town to a copy of the English Dominicans's 20th century edition.

Meanwhile, if you're willing to accept the interim, here is the first paragraph in English:
"PROLOGUE
"Because the teacher of catholic {sic: lower case "c'} truth ought to teach not only those who have advanced along the road but also to instruct beginners {sic} (according to the saying of the Apostle: 'As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat.' -- I Cor,3.1,2.), we purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion in a way that is suited to the instruction of beginners.".... {sic}

This partial quotation , in response to your earlier request is from the EB's "Great Books" edition of 1952, volume 19. Thomas Aquinas: I.
*The Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas* translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province.....


* * * * * * * *

Unless you're really in the Outback, Tyler, you ought to be able to find, some-where in your reach : local University library, or major city-library: the 3 (I think)-volume big navy-blue edition of the Dominicans"s Latin & English texts.
Hope this bit at-least answers your qy about what "theology" meant to the Angelic Doctor.
Cordially...

Tyler Durden

<breach of forum rules deleted - COAS>

I am temporarily locking this thread. I'll be back.

COAS
Moderator, GRD