Is Philosophy a waste of thought?

[ceptimus]

In one of his lectures, the late great Richard Feynman was asked by a member of the audience about the process of seeing.

'When we look at an object', he was asked, 'do we see the object itself, or the light that is reflected from it?'

Feynman grinned wickedly before giving his answer. He said that this was the sort of dopey question that philosophers busy themselves with, and that their efforts are pointless. Even the most philosophical people, he said, have no problem seeing the food on their plates, and moving it to their mouths. The philosophers that couldn't manage this trick have fallen by the wayside, through starvation.

So, depending on your point of view, Feynman either ducked the question or answered it fully. I suspect that the way people vote in this poll would also determine whether or not they think Feynman's answer to the question was satisfactory.

[HarryKeogh]

my education in philosophy ends at a couple of course in college. i just found contemplating whether or not a glass of water really existed incredibly boring.

i found science and mathematics much more fulfilling in exercising my mind and explaining things in reality for me (but what is reality? ugh!)

but hey, whatever floats your boat. i'd rather live my life than contemplate if i'm really living it or just dreaming it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
In one of his lectures, the late great Richard Feynman was asked by a member of the audience about the process of seeing.

'When we look at an object', he was asked, 'do we see the object itself, or the light that is reflected from it?'

Feynman grinned wickedly before giving his answer. He said that this was the sort of dopey question that philosophers busy themselves with, and that their efforts are pointless. Even the most philosophical people, he said, have no problem seeing the food on their plates, and moving it to their mouths. The philosophers that couldn't manage this trick have fallen by the wayside, through starvation.

So, depending on your point of view, Feynman either ducked the question or answered it fully. I suspect that the way people vote in this poll would also determine whether or not they think Feynman's answer to the question was satisfactory.

We see the object itself of course. Only a scientist would say we see the light reflected from it. Or if he is even more idiotic that the question is "dopey".

[Lord Kenneth]

As a scientist, he should know that we, technically, only see the light reflected from it because without the light being reflected from it we cannot see it.

So we "see" the object, but only via light.

There, problem solved.

[Lord Kenneth]

Anyways, science is based on philosophy.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I voted no. If the question had been "Is ontology a waste of thought?" I would have voted yes. If the question had been "Is metaphysics a waste of thought?" I would have voted Planet X.

~~ Paul

[evildave]

Anything that exercises the mind is not technically a waste.

One could equally claim that physical exercise is a waste of time.

Actually, it sort-of is. I can't bring myself to run in circles or do repetitious things. I tend to try to come up with a product for my physical efforts. Yesterday, I took down four trees and stacked the output for an eventual burn pile... except for some straight pieces of bull pine and a very dead oak that I used to set up the framework for a stair, and transplanted a bunch of cactuses and plants I was growing in pots. The dead manzanita was the most fun. I just tore it apart with my bare hands and stomped the brittle old branches flat. Of course, today I'm in the mood for some quiet reading. All that chainsawing, bucking, dragging and digging in 95 degree weather wore me out.

Yardercise!

At least I wasn't running in circles, or some similarly silly thing.

Having a product certainly focuses me better than having no product.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I voted no. If the question had been "Is ontology a waste of thought?" I would have voted yes. If the question had been "Is metaphysics a waste of thought?" I would have voted Planet X.

~~ Paul

Ontoogy a waste of thought! :eek: Please explain.

[JesFine]

Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since, no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
Yes, that is as true now as when I first said it. Oh wait... it wasn't me it was Bertrand Russell in The Problems of Philosophy

Also as Kenneth said, all science started out as philosophy, but over the years, as the answers became more definite, those questions by definition could no longer be considered philosophic.

And while I happen to disagree with Feynman on this particular issue, he is clearly not "idiotic". Jeez.

[Dub]

I think one problem with philosophy is that it is sometimes used as a 'catch-all' when people cant/dont want to answer a specific question. Instead of answering the said question the person replies with a philisophical question that has no real answer, and thus avoids the original question. Its a kind of mental slight of hand.

[Pyrian]

I think it's worthwhile, but I've come to the conclusion over the years that the vast majority of humanity is essentially incapable of it.

One of the most basic requirements of philosophical thought, IMO, is recognizing the difference between a real concept and a semantic anomaly.'When we look at an object', he was asked, 'do we see the object itself, or the light that is reflected from it?'This question is not philosophical, it is semantic - it does not ask any fundamental question about nature or reality or even sight, but instead asks a question about what we mean by the word "see".

But people are VERY easily side-tracked by such gobble-de-gook. I would even categorize Feynman's answer as a dodge, frankly.

[Rayn]

I agree with Pyrian, I think that philosophy in many ways gets side-tracked and bogged down in semantic mires, just look at the thread about secondary qualities that Interesting Ian started. However, when we are truly engaged in philosophy, I believe that we are attempting to broaden the scope of our understanding of how we relate to the world around us. I can't see how this is a waste of time, and personally Feynmann totally ducked the question, though he's still a genius.

[Dancing David]

I think that philospohy is a useful way to exercise critical thinking, because of he subjective nature of belief it brings all the issues to the front at once.

Are all philosophers capable of critical thought, no more or less than the general population.

[Phil]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
my education in philosophy ends at a couple of course in college. i just found contemplating whether or not a glass of water really existed incredibly boring.

i found science and mathematics much more fulfilling in exercising my mind and explaining things in reality for me (but what is reality? ugh!)

but hey, whatever floats your boat. i'd rather live my life than contemplate if i'm really living it or just dreaming it.
I agree with you, Harry. Where I think stretching the mind with the questions is in itself worthwhile, I prefer not to spend an inordinate amount of time on them.

Having said that, I will admit to having gotten a couple of good story ideas from philosphical discussions; one from an exchange between Ian and Stimpy in another thread.

[Eos of the Eons]

Philosophy is alright in some contexts. As long as one doesn't get completely wrapped up in what ifs, then yeah, the mind could use a stretch once in a while.

I once got into something about perception. Does a concept exist if noone is around to think about it? Like colors for instance, do they exist if there is nothing around (light, animals' eyes) to see them?

I say yes because the properties that allow colors to be detected are stil there whether or not someone is perceiving them. I'm sure there are concepts we are yet to discover.

Then another point about concepts not existing if noone is around to think them up...a blind man wouldn't have come up with the concept of color. A person who can't hear wouldn't come up with the concept of sound. But there is noise and light all the same whether or not we can identify them and label them as colors, sounds, etc.

That dumb question - if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound. Um yeah...if there is air present and everything else that creates noise.

Don't let common sense fly out the window when it comes to philosophy and it can be beneficial.

[c4ts]

Philosophy is your best defense against those who would seek to control your thoughts. It is anything but a waste of thought.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Philosophy is alright in some contexts. As long as one doesn't get completely wrapped up in what ifs, then yeah, the mind could use a stretch once in a while.
I agree, sometimes people get so wound up in Philosophical thought that they ignore a little something called commonsense.

I once got into something about perception. Does a concept exist if noone is around to think about it? Like colors for instance, do they exist if there is nothing around (light, animals' eyes) to see them?
"Does a concept exist if no one is around to think about it", I think the question is inherently flawed because it is suggesting that you treat an abstract idea (the word "concept") as something which exists concretely.

I say yes because the properties that allow colors to be detected are stil there whether or not someone is perceiving them. I'm sure there are concepts we are yet to discover.

Then another point about concepts not existing if noone is around to think them up...a blind man wouldn't have come up with the concept of color. A person who can't hear wouldn't come up with the concept of sound. But there is noise and light all the same whether or not we can identify them and label them as colors, sounds, etc.
Like you said earlier, all those hypothetical "what if" scenarios get very tedious. I, myself, dont have patience to deal with them.

That dumb question - if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound. Um yeah...if there is air present and everything else that creates noise.
It really pisses me off when I come across someone who doesnt understand that answer. It makes perfect sense to me, but someone might try to take it too far. "If no one is around to hear it, how do we even know the tree existed", "Does the forest exist", "Does ANYTHING EXIST?!?!". These kinds of questions can only be answered with Mightor's Club of Logic...

Don't let common sense fly out the window when it comes to philosophy and it can be beneficial.
I agree completely.

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmm, abstract/concrete...would have to say upfront which one was being discussed...

So, that's when we get into quantum physics...:D

Well, then there's philosophy vs theory..blah blah.

Yeah, I'm just rambling. Move along...nothing to see here :p

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We see the object itself of course. Only a scientist would say we see the light reflected from it. Or if he is even more idiotic that the question is "dopey".

What a preposterous, ridiculous troll

Ian, using the right optics, we can make the light entering an eye represent something that never existed.

Therefore, you can't see the "object" because it doesn't exist, but you can trivially see its image.

Hopeless, Ian, hopeless.

Interesting, not!
Ian fails to make his point,
And steps in a hole!

[Lord Kenneth]

Uh, philosophy is basically just reasoning...

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Don't let common sense fly out the window when it comes to philosophy and it can be beneficial.

This is the best line in the tread.

What's up with the whole "Planet X" thing? I've seen it on multiple threads?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Don't let common sense fly out the window when it comes to philosophy
Definite signature material!

[UserGoogol]

That (and much of Philosophy, perhaps) is more an issue of linguistics than anything else.

Seeing is using the photons which come off of an object to determine the physical characteristics thereof, primarily shape and color. The direct object of "see" refers to the object being examined.

The classically annoying Koan, "If a tree falls in an empty forest and noone is around to hear, does it make a sound?" Has the obvious answer of yes, as sound is merely the longitudal waves which pass through matter. Of course, if you want to define "sound" to mean the sensation one recieves when they use their ears to sense and proccess these waves, (which isn't my cup of tea, but I suppose it's not a terrible definition) then no it doesn't. Again, an issue of language.

One of the obvious problems is that English, (like most Natural Languages) although fun, is painfully ambiguous on many words. Of course, there's plenty of stuff that could be catagorized as "philosophy" which is worth thinking about, (Morals and the nature of things not particularly testable by Science, for instance) but some of the stuff is just semantics.

[Pyrian]

Eos of the Eons:
I once got into something about perception. Does a concept exist if noone is around to think about it? Like colors for instance, do they exist if there is nothing around (light, animals' eyes) to see them?This is another semantic question - it merely asks what we mean by a concept existing.

I guess the beauty in these sorts of questions is that different people can come to radically different answers depending on how their mind formed the linguistic elements - since the individual elements are not used in a concrete enough fashion in day-to-day discussion to result in entirely common experience.

[Kevin_Lowe]

There is useless philosophy. Like Uninteresting Ian's love affair with immaterialism - whether it's true or false, it makes absolutely no difference to anything.

But there is also useful philosophy, that provides us with guides for living and weapons against irrationality. Logic is a branch of philosophy. The standard arguments against belief in God come from the western philosophical tradition. Moral philosophy of one kind or another is the only alternative to blindly following commandments from imaginary deities.

At the moment I'm writing my thesis on the ethics of reproduction and genetic engineering. If you think you can figure out a coherent moral position on what you should or should not do to the genes of people who do not yet exist, without indulging in philosophical thinking, post it and save me some hassle.

Lord Kenneth had it almost right. Good philosophy is just reasoning. Bad philosophy is just bad reasoning, often about subjects which reason has nothing to say about.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
[B]That (and much of Philosophy, perhaps) is more an issue of linguistics than anything else.

Seeing is using the photons which come off of an object to determine the physical characteristics thereof, primarily shape and color. The direct object of "see" refers to the object being examined.

The classically annoying Koan, "If a tree falls in an empty forest and noone is around to hear, does it make a sound?" Has the obvious answer of yes, as sound is merely the longitudal waves which pass through matter.



Don't be absurd. Sound is a particular sensory experience. So in a strictly literal sense the answer is obviously no.



Of course, if you want to define "sound" to mean the sensation one recieves when they use their ears to sense and proccess these waves, (which isn't my cup of tea, but I suppose it's not a terrible definition) then no it doesn't. Again, an issue of language.



Yes, the scientist abuses language, he uses words outside their real meaning.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
There is useless philosophy. Like Uninteresting Ian's love affair with immaterialism - whether it's true or false, it makes absolutely no difference to anything.


Just the question of whether everything we ever perceptually experience is a delusion, that's all.



At the moment I'm writing my thesis on the ethics of reproduction and genetic engineering. If you think you can figure out a coherent moral position on what you should or should not do to the genes of people who do not yet exist, without indulging in philosophical thinking, post it and save me some hassle.



This is interesting stuff Kevin. I think it would be great if you started a thread on this issue some time and give us your thoughts. :)

[roger]

Don't let common sense fly out the window when it comes to philosophy and it can be beneficial.

I certainly take your point, but common sense is not really a good test. QM, relativity, etc, fail the common sense test on about all grounds. Common sense does not tell us what is true.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Gulliamo


This is the best line in the tread.

What's up with the whole "Planet X" thing? I've seen it on multiple threads?

EoE,
Planet X is the planet that was supposed to destroy earth back in May, it represents an number of things on the board:
- all things woo-woo
- an increadebly advanced civilization
- an option for those who don't agree with the way the question is phrased

[baggie]

"Is Philosophy a waste of thought?"

Interesting question, probably worth a couple of PhD.s and books in any good philosophy department.


I find that philosophy is useless at answering questions, but useful for working out what the questions actually mean

[Nyarlathotep]

That is a very difficult question because philosphy is such a broad catch-all term that I don't think it can be answered with a simple yes/no answer. I think parts of it like Ethics are very valuable and in no way a waste of thought. Other parts, like going around asking "Do I really exist?" are silly and probably are.

[billydkid]

is that philosophy is an art form and a form of entertainment. It is pointless to expect it to be anything more. Many people argue and think for fun. That is the point of it in my mind.

[ceptimus]

Interesting comments. Thanks. I wonder if the voting would be going differently if I'd placed this poll in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology forum instead of this one?

It occurs to me that Feynman's favourite Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) theory is (in one sense) a form of philosophy. But it is much more powerful than the kind regular philosophers use. It explains how the universe works and is able to make predictions about real testable phenomena. It explains things that ordinary philosophy (probably) never could - like where all the pretty colors come from when you look at the bottom surface of an uncolored CD.

[Pyrian]

Interesting Ian:
Don't be absurd. Sound is a particular sensory experience. So in a strictly literal sense the answer is obviously no.

Yes, the scientist abuses language, he uses words outside their real meaning.A spectacular first-hand demonstration of everything I've stated in this thread. :rolleyes:

[Eos of the Eons]

Whoa, lots of interesting points of view as opposed to philosophy. Language or definition?

What is sound? Something that exists (for sure) without our sensory experiences. Isn't that common sense? Our sensory experience is HEARING, not sound. Our perception is then the sensation interpreted by the brain.

I'm glad to see some get the common sense I meant (and quoted), really cool-Thanks. Now we have to have common sense defined when it comes to philosophy-this is where I DO have a problem with quantum physics in the multiple universe sense. Quantum physics is common sense when trying to explain waves and particles though? Common sense dictates that there are provable explanations out there for observed phenomenon (which doesn't seem to make sense at the moment) that some would like to attribute to multiple universes.

So looking at the abstract with philosophy would be OK while we don't have the answers? When we do have the answers then philosophy goes to the deeper levels of ethics/morals/human perception?

In any sense, then philosophy is valuable until common sense flies out the window and we start concerning ourselves with questions like "when we discover time travel we'll...have a moral dilemma..." instead of with questions like "How would time travel be possible when...".

I mean-why concern ourselves with topics that we don't know are possible, and may be impossible? Is that when philosophy is a waste of time? Or is the 'imagination' here being exercised? Is that a waste of time? Is it philosophy anymore then?

Please note I don't have answers here, but more questions. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with any of my statements since I'm just thinking here. I've never studied philosophy, so I'm relying on those who have to contribute more here.

Does anyone have a good definition of philosophy and let us know how we can tell philosophy from, let's say, musing?

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Yahweh

"Does a concept exist if no one is around to think about it", I think the question is inherently flawed because it is suggesting that you treat an abstract idea (the word "concept") as something which exists concretely.

Well...A concept is an arrangement of chemicals, neurons, whatever in the brain (Note that you can't pick apart a brain and say "This is this concept and this is concept B..." As far as we know, the brain doesn't work that way. However, it DOES store information, so a concept wouldn't exist if there was no one to think it.

What the concept treats is a different matter... If there's a helicopter, but no people to think about it, then the helicopter exists, just not the concept of it.


Did I make any sense there?

[Aristotle]

Philosophy is not a waste of time in my opinion. In fact, were it not for Philosophy I would still be in some pentecostal church believing people were possessed by demons and that the devil was constantly tempting me. Through most of my life, I had serious psychological problems that were, in my opinion, worsened by the ideas and beliefs placed on me. Too often would I try to read the bible to only come across some inconsistency and then ask someone about it. They would respond with "That's just nonsense. Don't ask such questions," or "That is just the devil putting thoughts into your mind! Rebuke him in the name of Jesus!" I can not count the number of nights in middle school I spent awake because I thought I was seeing demons on my wall and that the devil was trying to convert me. Such nonsense. While in twelth grade, I got bored one day and decided to read about Philosophy. First, it was Euthyphro. I was amazed, at first, at how ignorant and deceiving Socrates was. My ideas about the deceiving Socrates changed completely after finishing the dialogue. I then began to read all the Philosophy I could find. The more I read though the more I was returning to reality. I began to indulge myself in the free-thinking and open-minded skepticism that was a breeze of fresh air to such a stagnant wind of thought. I was even more relieved when I found that I shared a common voice in the problems and inconsistencies with not only religion, but the ideas of God and other things themselves. Other philosophers noticed these problems and had written about them. My life was and still is heavily influenced by Philosophy. A Critique of Pure Reason and The Problems of Philosophy were two books I did my twelth grade research paper on. Haha, if anyone thinks that Philosophy is a complete waste, they need to bee sent to me. I could write a book on the loads of christian/spiritual hogwash I was into (prophets, prophetic words, God talking to people, spiritual callings, etc..). Philosophy is a needed knowledge that can help more than any number of psychologists can (lol, I know too as I saw alot of them when I was young :roll: ). Many problems I had went away after I really began to think RATIONALLY. Amazing what some ideas can really do.

Concerning Perception: My view of perception is that they are nothing more then instruments to understand matter and the changes within it. For example, take a newspaper and read it. The colors may not exist intrinsically in the object, but it does show something about the object. This something is the various changes in wavelength to light caused by the structure of the paper itself. A change in color represents a change in the matter itself that we could not visually see. Smell is just as similar. It can make us aware of a state of change before any other sense has realized it (excluding ESP :P). Such an event would be the smell of smoke. One would smell smoke and realize that a change has occured in something.....a change for the worse or better. What was the smoke smell coming from? The mudpies your two year old niece decided to put in the oven for your birthday. A change in consistency is a change in matter. Like, smelling yummy hamburgers and then a minute later smelling burning plastic......realizing the plastic spatula was accidently left in the grill. Touch can show changes in matter that can not be done so by any other sense. For example, heat and coldness, or pain reveal something about matter. If it is hot and before was cold, it means something has changed. The coffee is ready, or the ice cream is ready. Taste can also reveal changes in matter. Raw fish definitely tastes different than cooked fish or fried fish. You could probably notice a difference in how it tasted dor how the after-taste is different in comparison. Hearing does the same thing. It reveals changes in matter just as any other sense. Sound for example, shows changes in objects by different wavelengths of force on molecules. The crackling of a fire, something going into motion that was at rest. The senses reveal nothing but changes in matter or environment (which is made of matter). On this ground, whether my shirt is really black and blue with a hot anime chick on it is irrelevant. What is important is that there is a change in the molecular composition that causes a change in light's wavelength. Just to clarify my ideas, when I mean change I mean that one form of matter is different from another. This does not mean that there is some perfect form of matter that I am comparing the changes too. It is just obvious that an ice cube and a puddle of water are both changes in matter. The only problem with my idea though is that it assumes that everything is in a constant state of change. Though change has to be assumed or else the universe seems totally unorganized and really asinine.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
[B]Whoa, lots of interesting points of view as opposed to philosophy. Language or definition?

What is sound? Something that exists (for sure) without our sensory experiences.

No.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Please note I don't have answers here, but more questions. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with any of my statements since I'm just thinking here. I've never studied philosophy, so I'm relying on those who have to contribute more here.

Does anyone have a good definition of philosophy and let us know how we can tell philosophy from, let's say, musing? [/B]

The core subjects of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. It wouldn't be very illuminating to attempt to provide a definition of philosophy. It's extremely difficult to define anyway.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by sorgoth


Well...A concept is an arrangement of chemicals, neurons, whatever in the brain

You what? What the hell are you talking about?? I suggest you go and buy yourself a dictionary.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We see the object itself of course. Only a scientist would say we see the light reflected from it.Why can't we see the object at night?

[Pyrian]

69dodge:
Why can't we see the object at night?Or without eyes...

Eyes and light (and sundry nerves and let's not even get into the arguments about what happens when the nerve signals reach the brain and/or mind) provide the mechanisms of sight, but in the English language it is the object itself which is defined as being what is seen.

More evidence that semantic misunderstandings form the bulk of philosophical discourse, and probably (depressingly) philosophical thought.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We see the object itself of course. Only a scientist would say we see the light reflected from it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why can't we see the object at night?[/B]

Because it's dark.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pyrian
69dodge:
Why can't we see the object at night?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or without eyes...

The self is filtered by the brain and thereby requires eyes to see.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The self is filtered by the brain and thereby requires eyes to see. Hmmph.

Where do the colours 'qualia?' in a rainbow come from?

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

It can and cannot depending on the situation or the context of questions asked.


In answer to that specific question mentioned, I see the whole not the part.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Just the question of whether everything we ever perceptually experience is a delusion, that's all.

It's obvious that it might be. But we can't tell.

So what difference does it make to anything at all? Take on board the fact that we don't know absolutely for certain that the things we experience perceptually are real (as opposed to some kind of fake, simulation or immaterial phenomena) and move on already.

Have you read Wittgenstein's famous remark about discarding your ladder, Ian? You haven't climbed a ladder - it's more like a Stairmaster in your case - but you might want to think about discarding it anyway.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because it's dark.What does that mean?

Does it mean, perhaps, that there's no light around to reflect off the object and into our eyes?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


It's obvious that it might be. But we can't tell.

So what difference does it make to anything at all? Take on board the fact that we don't know absolutely for certain that the things we experience perceptually are real (as opposed to some kind of fake, simulation or immaterial phenomena) and move on already.

Have you read Wittgenstein's famous remark about discarding your ladder, Ian? You haven't climbed a ladder - it's more like a Stairmaster in your case - but you might want to think about discarding it anyway.

I have no idea how Wittensteins remark remotely replies to me. I think you just say things without the remotest idea of why you're saying them.

Tell me, how would you feel about the idea that everyone else does not really have a conscious mind, but that doesn't matter since the totality of everything they ever do will be the same anyway? Are you still disposed to feel it makes absolutely no difference and doesn't matter if other people are truly conscious or not?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by 69dodge
What does that mean?

Does it mean, perhaps, that there's no light around to reflect off the object and into our eyes?

I mean precisely what I said. I'm not interested in the scientific story.

[baggie]

Is philisophy a waste of thought? Of course it is. You wouldn't catch me wasting my time discussing it, on say a web-based forum! ;)

[Leif Roar]

Okay, I give in. I can't resist posting this quote any longer:

"To ridicule philosophy is really to philosophize."
-- Blaise Pascal

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have no idea how Wittensteins remark remotely replies to me. I think you just say things without the remotest idea of why you're saying them.


Just knocking on doors.


Tell me, how would you feel about the idea that everyone else does not really have a conscious mind, but that doesn't matter since the totality of everything they ever do will be the same anyway? Are you still disposed to feel it makes absolutely no difference and doesn't matter if other people are truly conscious or not? [/B]

Yup. It makes no difference that I don't know for sure, and it doesn't matter to me that I don't know for sure.

There are lots of things that just aren't worth worrying about.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


Just knocking on doors.



Yup. It makes no difference that I don't know for sure, and it doesn't matter to me that I don't know for sure.

There are lots of things that just aren't worth worrying about.

I certainly don't worry about it. I do however feel psychologically disposed to ask such questions. I agree though that philosophy can have more immediate practical applications and benefits. Clearly we are compelled to philosophise about many issues. Or at least we can either allow our gut feelings to dictate our decisions, allow some authority to dictate our decisions, or we can philosophise. I know which I prefer! Your point before about genetic engineering for example.

But basically I like all philosophy really. I would be very hard pressed to think of any philosophy which wouldn't affect our behaviour or beliefs in one way or another. Even the question of the ontological status of the external world and whether other peoples bodies are inhabited by conscious minds.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Okay, I give in. I can't resist posting this quote any longer:

"To ridicule philosophy is really to philosophize."
-- Blaise Pascal

What he says is absolutely correct. Very bad philosophy though.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I mean precisely what I said. I'm not interested in the scientific story.What's your story?

I asked why we can't see things at night. You replied, "Because it's dark." I still don't know what you meant by that. Was it just a restatement of the fact that we can't see at night? That's not terribly satisfying. Aren't you interested in a deeper explanation?

[a_unique_person]

It certainly takes away from my orgy time, and I won't stand for that.

[uruk]

All I know is that a degree in philosophy is a waste of time.

[baggie]

Originally posted by uruk
All I know is that a degree in philosophy is a waste of time.

of course it isn't. It now qualifies you to teach a degree course in philosophy. Congratulations

[LawnOven]

nah

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by uruk
All I know is that a degree in philosophy is a waste of time.

Looking at your arguments elsewhere, it clearly wouldn't be a waste of time for you.

[uruk]

Looking at your arguments elsewhere, it clearly wouldn't be a waste of time for you.

Try and get a job with only a degree in philosophy and see how far you get.

My Father had a masters in philosopy. Guess what kind of a job
he got with that. Thats right, a job teaching philosophy.
And he didn't hold That for very long either.

of course it isn't. It now qualifies you to teach a degree course in philosophy. Congratulations

Nothing like a self-sustaining curriculum.

To Ian:
As for your good natured jab at me, a return in kind is in order. For someone who's method of debate is to argue semantics with a disdain for the use of a dictionary or other accepted sources of authority, you may do well to take your own advice. :p