Feather

Wait, I thought science was a particular "brand" of philosophy, if you will.

That is, the "scientific view" is itself a philosophical statement of epistemology--namely "rational empiricism" (not being a philosopher by profession, I don't know if there's a technical term to describe specifically what science is about other than, well, "science" ).

The scientific method is just a round 'about way of stating that knowledge is obtained by conducting experiments and analysing the resulting data, in other words. If this isn't an epistemological system, I don't know what is (and perhaps I don't, eh? ).

Starboy

1) There was no such thing as a scientist in Descartes day, so any claim that he was a scientist is made by later philosophers who have yet to show that they are competent to comment on science. And incidentally by claiming that Descartes was somehow a founding father of science is evidence that philosophers don’t know what they are talking about.
2) Descartes greatest achievement was not in science but mathematics. Philosophers may claim that philosophy had great influence on mathematics, and that may be so, but I am not arguing that. When philosophers point to Descartes influence on science they essentially point to his influence on mathematics, hardly a philosophy of science. And if anyone is in doubt on how reality challenged Descartes was, read his meditations. It is impossible for me to understand how anyone who was not reality challenged could write such tripe.
3) You have no idea what I know and don't know. If you think you are convincing me or anyone else by questioning my knowledge rather then provided convincing arguments that demonstrate your own knowledge, then philosophy is more f*ucked up than I thought it was.

Starboy

Nowhere357

There have been plenty of good arguments - you just choose to ignore them. I could cut and paste for you, in order to prove that your point here is, well, pointless. Instead, I'll provide only one such, and challenge you directly to answer the question posed by DoubleDutchy:

What was the question again ?
What is the point of philosophy ?

Clarity . It worked extremely well this time, you clarified your own ideas beyond reproach:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Starboy
DoubleDutch, I don't even know what a philosophy is ()Philosophy uh ha, what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!

Starboy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Take any disciplin you happen to be familiar with (calculus could be one) and substitute it for 'philosphy'. Then imagine somebody speaking the resulting sentence. All would be clear then, wouldn't it?
What more is there to be said ? You finally came to the point.

Starboy

I never asked those questions. What stupid philosophical game are you playing this time? Instead of asking me questions, why not address my points? You have turned an issue about philosophy into an issue about me. How philosophical of you.

Starboy

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.

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?

(N.B. My own opinions - i call for the mods to set me straight if i shouldn't have made them.)

Nowhere357

I didn't edit my post well - I apologize.

Here is your actual statement:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Starboy
DoubleDutch, I don't even know what a philosophy is ()Philosophy uh ha, what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!

Starboy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is DD's response:

Now I repeat the challenge: answer DD's question.

Starboy

You have taken someone else’s edit of my response out of context and have interpreted this as being germane to the discussion and to my position. Why are you doing this? Instead of butting into DoubleDutch’s interpretations and edits of my position why don't you take the time to determine my points and position for yourself and reply to that. What in the world makes you think that arguing from someone else’s edit of my position should reflect my position in any way? Is this another example of philosophy at work?

Starboy

Nowhere357

You claim it's out of context. Does this mean you retract the statement? Or wish to modify it?

You ask "...why don't you take the time to determine my points and position for yourself and reply to that?" Why do you assume I haven't? In fact, I thought the quote summarized your position rather succinctly. Currently, you've passed up three chances to clarify yourself, on this one single issue. I see no point in asking you again.

As for the "butting in" comment: this is an open forum, and until the mods tell me different, I intend to move around as I please. I suggest to you that your invective hurts your position.

Starboy

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. DoubleDutchy's edits of my posts are his interpretation of my position. His edits leave out the points I made that brought me to the conclusion that philosophy is not useful for anything. Your approach to argument either indicates that you are a poor example of what philosophy can produce or that philosophy is indeed not good for anything, least of all at preparing its promoters to defend philosophy.

Starboy

Tyler Durden

Starboy, here's my two cents.

"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it ... "Bertrand Russell

Stop over-generalizing and declaring that one person represents the entire body of philosophy, because that doesn't help you understand what a protean nature it really has. Unlike science, there isn't a clear and defined philosopher of the age who represents the whole fragmentary movement. Some are so radical that their thoughts are nearly alien to the layperson. We're all usually a couple generations behind those original thinkers.

If you recognize that this silly mentalist epistemology, your strawman of philosophy is irrelevant, you will understand why your position is ill-conceived, and your complete ignorance of the genealogy of knowledge is crippling this debate.

Historically speaking, philosophy is the body of discourse that proliferated into different fields of discourse science and religion and ethics and politics and art.

So, there are quite a few subterranean people who are capable of finding new ways in the aqueduct of thought, and their advances in turn eventually drag the entire inertia of the common sense beliefs of the mediocre. On the other hand, it also takes a longer while to get around them, no thanks to the all-too-human addiction to idols.

Its study is the archaeology of knowledge, which means it focuses on how our knowledge is related to our essential nature (physical, spiritual, chemical, or anything of teleological function), our current ideologies (science, ethics, politics, aesthetics) of the time.

You will understand the point of philosophy when you understand the assumptions you make about your questions, what kind of answers you expect, and the method you use in your questioning. If you read a few primers about philosophical methods, like Nicholas Rescher's book, you'd learn how useful they really are for argumentation, for assessing the value of someone else's presentation or convictions, etcetera. Since i am a pragmatist, my favorite part of philosophy is the rigorously technical and dynamic methodologies i can appropriate for my own personal uses.

For me, personally, the point of philosophy is to ask new questions, push knowledge in new areas, the dare to become discontent with the status quo, become dissatisfied with the current nature of knowledge, and seek bold ways to challenge the monolithic inertia of common sense beliefs. The answers to those questions we settle for are usually when we give up philosophy and do something else, like eating, sleeping, or partying.