DoubleDutchy

Not quite, the interpretation was yours not mine.

Frotiw

There is no point anymore. This is an attempt to drag yourself by the hair. I have atempted(along with others, my sympathy) to take the optimistic stance. In vain we have been. Hope is lost, there can be no explaining the fanatic science and philosophy. Perhaps in the future a neurophyscial cure healing the stagnative fantatics will be found. Pehaps of the the like of electrochock stimulating the releasing of varius neurotransmitters. I am just happy that actual real educated scientists(at least the lot I have meet) doesn't accept the fanatic's stance.

Starboy

I have seen a great number of such cute definitions of philosophy. I have always held that if you can’t explain in simple terms what you think you know of something then you don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about. When it comes to philosophy, do you know what you are talking about Tyler?

You are right. It is silly to take the writings of one philosopher to represent the entire body of philosophy. But the great numbers of philosopher’s work that are still taught as philosophy when taken as a whole do represent philosophy. This body does reflect a reality challenged point of view. I would agree that it doesn’t represent all of philosophy, and that there is a philosophy fringe that recognizes the reality challenged historical traditions of philosophy but this fringe isn’t represented in what is being taught as philosophy at the undergraduate level. (My daughter took an introductory philosophy course last year at the undergraduate level and I helped her with it. What was taught, as philosophy, was pretty crusty.)

“Genealogy of knowledge.” Interesting term. That might be the closest to a workable definition of philosophy that I have seen yet. This illuminates the primary sticking point in this debate. My mentalist epistemology might be a strawman of philosophy if there was an understandable and applicable definition of philosophy that could be brought to bear in this discussion. Until such a definition materializes, your strawman point is moot.

Tyler, this is a simplistic representation of history. I am sure that politics, art and religion existed long before anything that referred to itself as philosophy. This of course depends on what is meant by the word philosophy.

Perhaps you are right. Only time will tell. I will say that the outlook doesn’t look good. After all, the philosophers of over two thousand years ago are till being taught today as if their philosophies are relevant. These subterranean people you speak of have their work cut out for them. They are bucking a two thousand year old trend.

“Archaeology of knowledge.” Yet another candidate for a definition for philosophy. The historical motif is strong. You appear to be conflicted. You recognize the weight of philosophies past and at the same time you recognize the handicap this weight has placed on philosophy.

Hmmmm, apparently another definition of philosophy – critical thinking. You are preaching to the choir. As far as I can tell philosophers do not practice what they preach. Perhaps these subterranean philosophers you speak of practice critical thinking, but what is held up as representing philosophy such as Descartes and the numerous philosophers that have continued on with the mind/body problem needs work or should be abandoned all together. (So much of it is implicitly “mind” centric.)

Perhaps another definition of philosophy – questioning the status quo? I guess that would make me a philosopher or a crank or both. You could say that my insistence that philosophy is useless is an extreme form of questioning the status quo.

Starboy

Frotiw

My God he has children

-Just kidding

Starboy

Oh my Frotiw. I have really gotten under you skin haven't I.

Good.

Starboy

Tyler Durden

How is your fallacy related to my proposed answer to what entails the subject matter of philosophy? I can answer your question of definition in depth, easily, but this needs addressing first.

phaedrus

*gets into his zen mode*

1. A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.

2. Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.

3. A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer.
???????????????

4. The wise speak when they have something to say, the fools speak when they have to say something

5.When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger

"What is wise, Phaedrus and what is not wise
Do we need anyone to tell us these things "

Tani

your observation is precisely correct, but you don't seem to see what that leads to. pay careful attention to what russell said: "something so simple as to seem worth stating." if what you state can be stated in an even simpler terms, you are not getting "simple" enough. however, when you get to that point and end up with a paradox, then you would have to wonder if you know what you are talking about all along to begin with.

and starboy, you are fighting a straw man. let me put it this way and see if you will understand: what you are talking about is not philosophy, what you are doing, however, is philosphy. try looking at what you are doing, and not concentrate on only the rhetorics. argue against what you are doing, and you'll have a successful case. but then, what does it mean to defeat yourself to be successful? does that not raise a question within yourself?

Nowhere357

Here is your first post:
My response:
And your answer:
I think this establishes both your viewpoint, and your reasoning ability. The rest of your posts confirm this, and more.

You say:
I am indeed a poor example when it comes to understanding philosophy. Your conclusion, that "philosophy is indeed not good for anything", does not follow - your logic is flawed. I think this is an example of "argument from ignorance". Look it up.

I note in passing that my direct challenge to you remains unanswered.

Tyler Durden

:notworthy