NearNihil Experience

I have had a small revelation lately. I have noticed two types of philosophy.

One kind spend it time questioning the eternal varities, what and how we can know things, underlying structure and stricture to the universe..and so on. Much to do with the world and its mysteries, solveable or not.

The other philosophy deal not so much with the world and universe, but more with what other people think and believe about said world and universe.

I seem to fit into the second category. I really don't care about whether the is or is not a God, when and how the universe began, and which perceptual structure of the unbiverse is most correct. I know I will never find the answers better than anyone else.

However, I do make it a point to examine the reasons and effects as to why and how someone else would believe x. I can't deal with wasting my time playing mental games and getting into intellectual gamesmanship. You just don't get anywhere with it. Well, rarely do you truly get anything useful out of it.

Whether there is or is not a God...I don't care and am honest enough to say that I am ill equiped(in sense and reason) to answer such a question. However, I am willing and capable of examining how someone else feels about God. Whether or not God exists is a mystery, but that Bob Jones believe in God is a fact and something that can be analysed and dealt with.

I just have a hard time taking mteaphysics and epistemology very seriously. Its just the next guys opinion, informed or not, there's really no better answer than what we each personally come up with. But in the realm of human beliefs and behaviors, there is method, and sense data, and reaction, effect and consequence.
These are things that can be dealt with...patterns of consequence in certain beliefs... specific reactions of one group to anothers belief...

See what I'm saying? Dealing with the reality of the situation...not the underlying reality(if there really is one).
Does anyone else get tired of intellectual clap-trap, especially if your in a philosophy field?

And please don't think I'm blindly attacking philosophies. Not my point at all. everything has its place and use, otherwise we wouldn't have it. I just think some philosophies are more of a Distraction\retreat from reality than an examination of reality.

"I found that the odds that I might actually figure out what is really going on are so absurdly remote, that I decided to hang the sense of it and keep myself occupied."
Slartibartfast-HHGTTG

phil

I agree. Philosophizing just to philosophize rarely accomplishes anything. I think people should set a goal and then try to accomplish it. What is it to talk about something if it has no effect on your life? It's nice to see there's someone out there with some sense.

-phil

NearNihil Experience

rock on phil!
i too am very glad to hear someone else doesn't pay too much mind too the smug intellectualism that does one thing...elevates one man's status above another because of how many abstract concepts he can keep track of at once.

Im not pounding on experience in a field, far be it. But it just gets out of hand when people waste their time fiddiling and arguing about God's characteristics and whether he paints his toenails or not...and what color they are...and how this might teach us something about morality...:banghead:

And discussing whether morality exists or not as you sit there and talk about it, and how exactly to define x when correlated with principle y to produce the inverse factor of the sum of said equation in a linear fashion...
:banghead:

Many people out there interested in such things are very bright, includiung some of the people here and there is a lot of potential in the world for positive, or at least progressive, change. I think it gets sidetracked when flights- of- fancy lean into verifiably real-world problem. We criticize people for turning to flights-of-fancy to help comfort them in times of stress, questions, and trouble...so why not deride ourselves also as such?

Your time is your own and flights-of-fancy keep us mentally healthy, or at least functional. No problems as long as they are applied in their proper context. We don't solve world hunger problems with radical new mathematics or quantum applications, nor through prayer. Whether space is curved or not only matters to those people who can apply such findings to the verifiable and functional everyday world. Too me, whoop-tee-shit if its curved or not. Rubber sheet or Plank-particle lattice work sea...i can't apply either to reality...someone who can, go for it.

Just saying I see too much speculation, something I remember from college as C or C- work. Speculation is so frowned upon in such areas. And I agree. Keep the two in their proper designations...speculations(flights of fancy) often lead to helpful or useful things. But speculations can only make the move to reality if they are applicable.

sorry, rant rant rant....

anyway,
Let's see if we can get more bites from this bitter bait...

PJPSYCO

I find it has more of a salty flavor, I feel like I need some extra salt in my diet.

Actually, there is only philosophy. To philosophize is to question. You asked a question how many philosophies are there? Right there you philosophized. Now, in the end you realized that there are two. One is solipsism and the other is empiricism. The difference only tends to be that the solipsist is as selfish as they seem. The empiricist can be too, but doesn’t have to be. They just need ask to the question why am I so damned important. The answer is they are not. To concede ones own existence is as fleeting as to concede everyone’s existence. Though to concede everyone’s existence is more relevant to conversation (ie to talk is to assume that one is not alone). There, that’s it. The big old point. You talk. To exist is to communicate. All done.

Now you probably found that fleeting, but yet, I got a lot done in just a few minutes. I can never concede to the solipsists, and still answer all their questions. The questions stand asked and answered.

On to god’s toenails.... The reason why the definition of god tends to be for the purpose of making the person who believes in the ‘concept’ shut up. That’s the whole point of it all. Questions are asked and answered. I am told I cannot be an atheist because that would be wrong, but if I have nothing to not believe in, then I am telling the truth. It is simply that. Also, those definitions that I do get tend to tell me why the person does believe. I am one who can be quoted as saying “ones god is merely the personification of ones own selfish desires”. To date that is a 100% true statement. So, what does god’s definition get me. I don’t have to bow down to the religious, I don’t have to really talk to the person about why they believe. Saves time.

Here is a philosophical question you may like:
The solipsist will never listen to you, you cannot force them to concede to reality, how will you get them to feed the poor they don’t even think exists?