Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 03-28-2003, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I think this establishes both your viewpoint, and your reasoning ability. The rest of your posts confirm this, and more.

Question for you NowHere, suppose I restated the first sentence as

Quote:

Philosophy is an attempt to understand truth without making any attempt to learn anything about reality.

Would you find anything wrong with this sentence?

Starboy

Starboy · 03-28-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Frotiw
Starboy

Im sorry if you got offended. I ended my remark with Just kidding. I know you have troubles understanding and accepting anything said by philosophers but I can only repeat that I really was just kidding. -On a side note the target of my joke was not you daughter but you, this should not be difficult to understand if read it again.

Frotiw, ever heard of sarcasm? I do not know you from a hole in the ground. I have no guide to judge your statements. Based on other insulting and aggressive posts from you directed to me on this thread there was no reason to interpret your comment in a positive way. Oh, just a little advice. If you are going to apologize do it whole-heartedly. Your backhanded and qualified apology is also not convincing based on your previous posts.

Starboy

Nowhere357 · 03-28-2003, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy

Philosophy is an attempt to understand truth without making any attempt to learn anything about reality.

Would you find anything wrong with this sentence?

Starboy

Yes. I think "truth" means something like "in accord with reality"; while "understand" and " to learn" mean about the same thing, also.

So I read the statement like this: "Philosophy is an attempt to UNDERSTAND truth without making any attempt to LEARN about truth".

Or maybe: "Philosophy is an attempt to understand TRUTH without making any attempt to understand REALITY".

Because of the way the words are defined in general use, I think both interpretations seem illogical. Please tell me how you define the terms, or maybe restate the original using my definitions.

Bob K · 03-29-2003, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Posted by meritocrat on March 11, 2003 03:07 PM:

What is the point of philosophy?

I know part of the 'ethos' of philosophy is to question our sensibilites (for example, many may feel it's wrong to steal, but a philosopher would ask WHY it's believed to be wrong). But is that the only limit to the subject?

What is philosophy?

What are philosophers?

What do philosophers do?

We humans deal with reality.

Reality consists of things and events.

A thing is an object, an identity which retains its identity over a longer duration of time than a related event.

Examples: Jane, a ball, Dick.

An event is a relationship between or among things.

Example: Jane throws the ball to Dick.

We create mental representations, ideas, of things/events.

A concept is a mental representation/idea of a thing.

A principle is a mental representation/idea of an event.

We develop techniques as applications of concepts/principles for the purpose of solving problems.

A problem is learning how to achieve a desire or avoid a fear.

A desire is wanting a person/thing/event.

A fear is not-wanting a person/thing/event.

Example: To solve the problem of how to get the ball to Dick Jane can use the technique of throwing it instead of the technique of handing it to Spot, her dog, and hoping Spot will take it to Dick. If, however, the intention is to solve the problem of how to have fun spending social/fun time with Dick, then Jane can solve that problem by the technique of playing catch, throwing the ball back and forth to Dick.

When we accumulate a set of concepts/principles/techniques, we have a philosophy, a set of concept/principles/techniques for dealing with problems, with reality.

Thus, philosophy is the process by which people develop concepts/principles/techniques for dealing with reality/for solving problems [achieving desires/avoiding fears].

An individual's personal philosophy is his set of concepts/principles/techniques he uses for dealing with reality/for solving problems.

Organizations likewise, comprised of individuals who intend to function as a group, can have a philosophy for dealing with reality/for solving problems.

Philosophy is said to be the original science, and developed when Hippocrates disbelieved the claims of priests that a individual suffering fits was possessed by demons and instead looked for natural explanations, leading to one natural/scientific explanation of 'fits' as epileptic seizures [other explanations could include drug overdoses]. thus, from philosophy, the original science, we derive the hard/physical and soft/social sciences.

A philosopher is an individual who develops concepts/principles/techniques for dealing with reality/for solving problems.

Philosophers thus develop concepts/principles/techniques for dealing with reality/for solving problems.

Answerer · 03-29-2003, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob K
What is philosophy?

What we are doing now is philosophy.

Starboy · 03-29-2003, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Yes. I think "truth" means something like "in accord with reality"; while "understand" and " to learn" mean about the same thing, also.

So I read the statement like this: "Philosophy is an attempt to UNDERSTAND truth without making any attempt to LEARN about truth".

Or maybe: "Philosophy is an attempt to understand TRUTH without making any attempt to understand REALITY".

Because of the way the words are defined in general use, I think both interpretations seem illogical. Please tell me how you define the terms, or maybe restate the original using my definitions.

I thought so. You confuse "truth" with reality. The sentence was a trap to smoke out philosophers like yourself.

Starboy

Nowhere357 · 03-29-2003, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
I thought so. You confuse "truth" with reality. The sentence was a trap to smoke out philosophers like yourself.

Starboy

Wow - I'm a philosopher! I never thought of it that way. I always describe myself as an open-minded skeptic. I know you were trying to insult me, but actually I like your conclusion.

One wonders why you felt the need to 'trap' at all. You are in the philosophy forum. Are you under a delusion that I was posing somehow? Starboy, you actually do not make any sense.

Well, if I confuse truth with reality, I guess that comes from looking up definitions. That is, I look up the words in the dictionary! So apparently your position reduces to the idea that using the dictionary causes confusion, and that only philosophers use the dictionary. Sheesh. I think YOU are confused.

I note that you offer no evidence for the assertion that I confuse truth and reality. Please provide evidence for your assertions, or refrain from replying.

The direct challenge is still unanswered, BTW.

Starboy · 03-29-2003, 02:07 PM

NowHere, the confusion is common. If it pleases you, you can confuse truth with anything you like and if you consider yourself a philosopher that should be no problem since they do it all the time. However if you want to think of yourself as a skeptic or a scientist then you must consider the possibility that your confusion may cause you to reach conclusions that are unwarranted. When people say something is "true" they are making a claim to certain knowledge or at least very nearly certain knowledge. The problem with making such claims about reality is we do not have certain knowledge about reality. If we did there would be no need for the ongoing human enterprise called science. Until scientists can claim that they know most everything there is to know about reality, perhaps then that will be the day you might be able to confuse "truth" with reality with little risk of being untruthful. However the skeptic and scientist in me makes me think that the day a scientist says that almost everything is known about reality will be the day I think that particular scientist is being untruthful.

Starboy

Starboy · 03-29-2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
The direct challenge is still unanswered, BTW.

I am not exactly sure which challenge you are referring to. If you are talking about your response to DD's edit of my post then I have no Idea why you would consider that a challenge. You see DD did not quote me but simply pulled a few lines from my post and then claimed that it was representative of my point of view. Perhaps this is a philosophical argument but be that as it may it is one that I hardly feel compelled to repond to.

Starboy

Starboy · 03-29-2003, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
It's a real shame to see you descend into invective, Starboy, but the point is well made. Just look at what you've come to: let's suppose that Frotiw does think he's convincing you and that his arguments are poor; it doesn't follow that philosophy as a whole is "fucked up" because of this.

Excuse me. Please accept my apologies. Your point is also well made.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
It was quite clear that DoubleDutchy had posted those questions and moreover that no implication was made that you had asked them. As you become more exasperated and less coherent the whole debate suffers and appears to be dying a name-calling death. What say we start over and calm things down a little?

I might add that this discussion had become a free-for-all and I can't juggle that many arguments at one time.

I am all for calming things down and starting over. Would you care to go first?

Starboy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-29-2003, 02:07 PM	#158
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	NowHere, the confusion is common. If it pleases you, you can confuse truth with anything you like and if you consider yourself a philosopher that should be no problem since they do it all the time. However if you want to think of yourself as a skeptic or a scientist then you must consider the possibility that your confusion may cause you to reach conclusions that are unwarranted. When people say something is "true" they are making a claim to certain knowledge or at least very nearly certain knowledge. The problem with making such claims about reality is we do not have certain knowledge about reality. If we did there would be no need for the ongoing human enterprise called science. Until scientists can claim that they know most everything there is to know about reality, perhaps then that will be the day you might be able to confuse "truth" with reality with little risk of being untruthful. However the skeptic and scientist in me makes me think that the day a scientist says that almost everything is known about reality will be the day I think that particular scientist is being untruthful. Starboy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.