What has philosophy done for you lately?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, Ralph Estling replies to some letters as follows:

". . . My own view, for what it's worth, is that philosophy occurs when people with intelligence don't know what to do with it and so invent word-games to fill in their time and thereby escape the otherwise maddening boredom of their existence. At least that seems to have been the case in the last 200 years or so.

By and large, philosophers of the last 200 or so years come in two shapes and sizes: those that hold up a hand in front of their face and say "I see a hand," and those that hold up a hand in front of their face and say "I see no hand." What is there to say about either of them? I think there is nothing to say about either of them. Nothing at all. Nothing."

He then goes on to quote Martin Heidegger saying something that I hope is entirely made up:

"This wholly Other to all entities is the Non-entity. But this Nothing essentiates as Being . . . As historical, Beingness is possible only by reason of its temporaility, and temporaility temporizes itself in the ecstatico-horizontal unity of its raptures"

~~ Paul

[CFLarsen]

Does this thread exist? :)

Does Paulie The Greek? :)

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

By and large, philosophers of the last 200 or so years come in two shapes and sizes: those that hold up a hand in front of their face and say "I see a hand," and those that hold up a hand in front of their face and say "I see no hand." What is there to say about either of them? I think there is nothing to say about either of them. Nothing at all. Nothing."

He then goes on to quote Martin Heidegger saying something that I hope is entirely made up:

"This wholly Other to all entities is the Non-entity. But this Nothing essentiates as Being . . . As historical, Beingness is possible only by reason of its temporaility, and temporaility temporizes itself in the ecstatico-horizontal unity of its raptures"

~~ Paul

Gosh, Paul, it sounds like most of the philosophy I've heard. I wouldn't doubt Heidegger or any other recent philosopher said such a thing so devoid of any meaning.

I've never been able to mask my contempt for philosophers' trying to answer the questions they raise. Unfortunately, it seems too many of them fail to recognize that philosphy ends at the questions. Answering them is up to science. Or stoned college students.

AS

[Brown]

Reading books by Oliver Sacks gave me a new perspective on philosophy.

Dr. Sacks often uses philosophical concepts to explain or describe strange neurological conditions.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
By and large, philosophers of the last 200 or so years come in two shapes and sizes: those that hold up a hand in front of their face and say "I see a hand," and those that hold up a hand in front of their face and say "I see no hand."Straw man."This wholly Other to all entities is the Non-entity. But this Nothing essentiates as Being . . . As historical, Beingness is possible only by reason of its temporaility, and temporaility temporizes itself in the ecstatico-horizontal unity of its raptures"Well, although this is obviously thoroughly confusing (and out of context), and although you just need to flop open Sartre's Being and Nothingness at any point to get similarly confused, I don't think we can argue that this stuff is meaningless just because it sounds a bit weird.

They're not just playing word games; the words they're playing with have concepts attached. They're playing concept games, and that's what philosophy is.

They just could be a bit clearer about it, that's all.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You're right Nucular, there is a third case, those that hold up a hand and say "I see a hand, but it is not really there."

I agree that there are concepts attached to the words, but they are so poorly defined that it might as well just be wordplay.

I'm sure Estling is exaggerating, but it's a riot nonetheless.

~~ Paul

[Tormac]

Nuclar wrote
They're not just playing word games; the words they're playing with have concepts attached. They're playing concept games, and that's what philosophy is.

I think you are correct Nuclar with in the scholarly realm of Philosophy. Unfortunately some of these concepts have spilled over to popular culture, or other disciplines that do not have as strong an attachment to the concepts behind the words.

I've seen this in the field of education from time to time. Complex language is often used to obscure concepts that may not be consistent with the goals of public education.

The debate over the subjective verses the objective is an important one, but it becomes dangerous when language from the debate can be misused to justify teaching things that are not true, or at best questionable.

[Lord Kenneth]

Philosophy helps us determine what our world actually is.

While science is also used to do that, philosophy should be used to answer questions science cannot.

Like whether god exists, for example, and if Christianity's teachings are true. There is no evidence to support the claims, so the answers to those must be reasoned.

Also, morality, as well.

Science itself is a school of philosophy, and it is the most productive one. Scientific concepts can also be used in philosophic reasoning, such as the fact that no "morality" force has been found to exist, implying that there is no true morality.

However, the scientific route is the best one to take when possible-- and some subjects are simply "out of the scope" of science simply because of the nature of them.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I propose that many of the questions that are outside the scope of science are either meaningless or have no answer. You can philosophize about them until the spherical cows come home, but you'll get nowhere.

~~ Paul

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I propose that many of the questions that are outside the scope of science are either meaningless or have no answer. You can philosophize about them until the spherical cows come home, but you'll get nowhere.

~~ Paul

You can, as most skeptics as well as I do, apply scientific thinking to philosophic questions.

Take the existence of a god, for example...

The answer is not meaningless and does indeed have an answer. However, the question is still philosophic.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The question of god's existence is meaningless unless you define god carefully. I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor.

~~ Paul

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
The question of god's existence is meaningless unless you define god carefully. I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor.

~~ Paul

That can be true, however, I don't think anything that can really be called a god actually does exist, providing that god implies something supernatural and concious.

You are right, though, definitions must be used carefully. Take "free will", for instance...

[Lord Kenneth]

It's ironic how you have an anti-philosophy philosophy, Paul. A philosophy on how philosophy is useless.

What's the use of arguing the usefulness of philosophy? ;)

:D :D :D

[Nucular]

I think very often the concepts in philosophy are defined very tightly - in fact, often it's in the act of definition that all the confusing words start happening.

As to whether nonscientific questions are actually meaningless - well, that's a philosophical position, argued in terms of falsifiability criteria by Wittgenstein, etc. Maybe you're right - but this isn't to argue that the bulk of philosophy is bunk.

Is your propositionthat many of the questions that are outside the scope of science are either meaningless or have no answer. itself falsifiable? Is your accusation of meaninglessness meaningless?

Scientific thought - natural philosophy - attempts to disconfirm falsifiable hypotheses. This is quite similar to many other philosophical endeavours.

Is anybody on this thread arguing that philosophy is mostly or completely meaningless, or just that it's annoying and a bit opaque when quoted selectively?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I propose that many of the questions that are outside the scope of science are either meaningless or have no answer. You can philosophize about them until the spherical cows come home, but you'll get nowhere.

~~ Paul

Paul, it sounds like you also intend to author a book Morality of Secular Humanism.

Or, you truly believe morality is a "meaningless concept"?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Nucular

Is anybody on this thread arguing that philosophy is mostly or completely meaningless, or just that it's annoying and a bit opaque when quoted selectively?

I'm not. I'm merely arguing that too many philosophers and what passes for philosophy engage in attempts to answer the big questions, such as whether there really is a mind/body duality.

Although the question is firmly within the realm of philosophy, the answer is not. This is one of the biggest and most glaring errors of modern philosophy, in my opinion.

Philosophy has its place, to be sure. It also has its limitations. Philosophy's place is not in attempting to provide a conclusive answer to whether a mind/body duality exists. Enough about it already. Philosophers who attempt to reach conclusions about it with mere reasoning alone expose themselves as fools with regard to the topic at hand.

AS

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


I'm not. I'm merely arguing that too many philosophers and what passes for philosophy engage in attempts to answer the big questions, such as whether there really is a mind/body duality.

Although the question is firmly within the realm of philosophy, the answer is not. This is one of the biggest and most glaring errors of modern philosophy, in my opinion.

Philosophy has its place, to be sure. It also has its limitations. Philosophy's place is not in attempting to provide a conclusive answer to whether a mind/body duality exists. Enough about it already. Philosophers who attempt to reach conclusions about it with mere reasoning alone expose themselves as fools with regard to the topic at hand.

AS

Agreed.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


Agreed.

Of course, we wouldn't have anyone in particular in mind, would we?

;)

AS

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Of course, we wouldn't have anyone in particular in mind, would we?

;)

AS

Someone... not very... "interesting"?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Kenneth said:It's ironic how you have an anti-philosophy philosophy, Paul.
I'm not against philosophy. I just don't think a lot of it is useful.

Nucular asked:I think very often the concepts in philosophy are defined very tightly - in fact, often it's in the act of definition that all the confusing words start happening.
Perhaps. I guess all the concepts used in the Knowledge Argument, for example, happen to be the ones that aren't well-defined.

Is anybody on this thread arguing that philosophy is mostly or completely meaningless, or just that it's annoying and a bit opaque when quoted selectively?
I think it's mostly meaningless. Or if not meaningless, then vapid.

Hammegk asked:Or, you truly believe morality is a "meaningless concept"?
Gee, I don't think of morality as philosophy. But no, I don't think it's a meaningless concept. I do, however, think it's been beaten to death worse than any horse ever flogged.

I knew things were really in trouble when I started reading "On the Unseriousness of Human Affairs" and the damn book was so serious!

~~ Paul

[Yahweh]

What has philosophy done for me... well... ummm... uhhhh... ehhhh... mmmmm... lightly spread mayo on the bread... gahhhh... buuuuu... it taught me that Philosophy is Science's most annoying friend.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
if not meaningless, then vapid.Well vapidity's okay: it's a taste thing, not a comment on validity or usefulness.Perhaps. I guess all the concepts used in the Knowledge Argument, for example, happen to be the ones that aren't well-defined.I don't think philosophy itself suffers from those kinds of specific critical comments - it's similar to arguing within science that, say, the protocol of a particular experiment wasn't appropriate. It's a valid argument, made within the terms and frame of reference of the field itself, and can't be classed as a general criticism.

I dunno, I just think philosophy is indispensible, and science itself is a bit of it - and moreover, needs a philosophical, epistemological basis for us to be able to argue that what we say scientifically has any validity or relevance. There are various philosophical assumptions behind the scientific method, that are certainly not meaningless (though you might find them vapid), tied to epistemology, logic, and so forth, that should be acknowledged for science itself to have any meaning.Originally posted by Yahweh
What has philosophy done for me... well... ummm... uhhhh... ehhhh... mmmmm... lightly spread mayo on the bread... gahhhh... buuuuu... it taught me that Philosophy is Science's most annoying friend.Not just a friend or acquaintance - teacher, creator, secret lover...

[Gregor]

For the last 200 years what philosophy has been doing best is trying to justify its existence.

Since Pythagoras' time philosophers have argued about the nature of god(s) and morality. They haven't answered the questions in 2,500 years. I think we ought to call "time" on new philosophical constructs.

Since natural philosophy fully evolved into science post Newton, no questions have been 'answered' by philosophy. It's now just post-modernist cocktail discussion fodder.

[Yahzi]

I love Estling, but he is wrong on this.

The goal of philosophy is to invent new questions. Once they have properly framed a question so that it is useful, then it becomes a science.

Philosophy taught us that a god who behaves worse than a man is not more moral than a man.

[AmateurScientist]

I agree with both Gregor's and Yahzi's last posts. I understand and appreciate that philosophy is useful. I enjoy pondering some of its territory as well as many do. I happen to find that much of its debate gets lost in esoteric terms and phrases, however.

Again, ask the questions. Keep coming up with new ones and new ways to pose the old ones. Philosophers need to stop pretending or deluding themselves that they can answer those questions themselves, however, with mere armchair debate and reasoning.

As Gregor says, so many of the big questions have been asked for thousands of years, yet no one agrees on the answers. That speaks volumes about the utility of philosophy in answering them.

Philosophy is terrific at defining the terms, setting forth the parameters, providing the ground rules, and charting a course for reasoned debate and indeed for scientific inquiry. It must know its limitations, however.

AS

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, y'all have good points about philosophy framing new questions, as long as they are meaningful. I complain mostly about metaphysics, not "practical" philosophy such as morality.

I think this quote from Calvin Thomas about sums up my feelings:

"The excrementalization of alterity as the site/sight of homelessness, of utter outsideness and unsubiatable dispossession figure(s) in . . . Hegel's metanarrational conception of Enlightenment modernity as the teleological process of totalization leading to absolute knowing."


~~ Paul

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Well, y'all have good points about philosophy framing new questions, as long as they are meaningful. I complain mostly about metaphysics, not "practical" philosophy such as morality.

I think this quote from Calvin Thomas about sums up my feelings:

"The excrementalization of alterity as the site/sight of homelessness, of utter outsideness and unsubiatable dispossession figure(s) in . . . Hegel's metanarrational conception of Enlightenment modernity as the teleological process of totalization leading to absolute knowing."


~~ Paul

For example, take my situation on identity thread. Anyone can basically understand that topic, and it's rather important in defining how the justice system deals with people.

The problem is some "philosophers", not the reasoning itself. Just ignore the well-known blowhards. Who cares about some dead guy's incomprehendable ideas, anyways...

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Well, y'all have good points about philosophy framing new questions, as long as they are meaningful. I complain mostly about metaphysics, not "practical" philosophy such as morality.

I think this quote from Calvin Thomas about sums up my feelings:

"The excrementalization of alterity as the site/sight of homelessness, of utter outsideness and unsubiatable dispossession figure(s) in . . . Hegel's metanarrational conception of Enlightenment modernity as the teleological process of totalization leading to absolute knowing."


~~ Paul

I think this shows that many philosophers live by the code "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t"

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I think this shows that many philosophers live by the code "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t"

So true.

[ntech]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


So true.

Lord Kenneth


Great sigs

[sorgoth]

Actually, for philosophy to be useful, you need to mix it with science. As has been pointed out before, philosophy is great for thinking up the questions, but not so for answering them. However, starting off something with a philosophical question, then following it with a scientific answer IS useful, in my opinion.


I see philosophy as more of a 'science of thought' than something that answers pressing questions. Much of it is simply exercise for the mind in a different way than mathematics (and is often much less boring). When well done, it is exploration of thought in the sense that it shows us how to go from point A to point B, using logic on the way. Does it deal with the big things in life? Yes.

Can it do anything useful without facts to back it up? Probably not.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well advanced AI studies and Big Bang theory haven't done much for me lately, doesn't mean their studies are useless word games. Non seq.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I propose that many of the questions that are outside the scope of science are either meaningless or have no answer. You can philosophize about them until the spherical cows come home, but you'll get nowhere.

~~ Paul

What does "outside the scope of science" mean?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Perhaps I am just too mundane a person or simply lack interest in "deeper meaning," but I find the overall value of philosopy in my life to be very low.

Perhaps it stems from a few years ago when I bore witness to 700-800 messages posted on Free Will. I wanted to shoot mysef, but felt predestined not to. Perhaps it stems from the fact that I'm more interested in "how" than in "why." I really think, however, that it stems from my conclusion that navel gazing just gives you a deeper insight into belly button lint.

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Perhaps it stems from a few years ago when I bore witness to 700-800 messages posted on Free Will. I wanted to shoot mysef, but felt predestined not to. Perhaps it stems from the fact that I'm more interested in "how" than in "why." I really think, however, that it stems from my conclusion that navel gazing just gives you a deeper insight into belly button lint.


I think "why" is more important than "how", but I also think you cant really know "why" until you really know "how". Get it?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony
I think "why" is more important than "how", but I also think you cant really [b]know[/i] "why" until you really know "how". Get it?

I do agree with your second statement, otherwise it's wild speculation as to "why." I guess for myself, my curiousity is usually satisfied at "how."

And to be honest, sometimes why does have perfectly mundane explanations, "why do we fart?" "Why do I like a particular look in women?" But generally the answers to these sorts of "whys" are found with more "hows." I guess it's my mechanist Weltanschauung.

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

And to be honest, sometimes why does have perfectly mundane explanations, "why do we fart?" "Why do I like a particular look in women?" But generally the answers to these sorts of "whys" are found with more "hows." I guess it's my mechanist Weltanschauung.


I think the most fundamental "why" questions are; "Why does life exists (what purpose does it have)?" and, Why does the universe exists (what purpose does it have)?

Perhaps there is no purpose, perhaps the formation of the universe forming and spawing life are just functions of some grand cosmic process. Perhaps the human mind has a natural inclination (mabey a need?) to find purpose and meaning.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony



I think the most fundamental "why" questions are; "Why does life exists (what purpose does it have)?" and, Why does the universe exists (what purpose does it have)?

Perhaps there is no purpose, perhaps the formation of the universe forming and spawing life are just functions of some grand cosmic process. Perhaps the human mind has a natural inclination (mabey a need?) to find purpose and meaning.


Ahhhh, the "big questions." ;)

I don't know if, as I stated above, I'm really not all that interested or if I'm satisfied with my tautological anwer "We are here because previous generations led to us." As far as the Universe goes, I'm pretty convinced that if it doesn't have some ultimate meaning, whatever meaning it has probably isn't all that interesting in being communicated to humans... at least at this point.

I'm cool without meaning on a grand scale. I can find it on a much smaller and more mundane level and be perfectly fine with that.

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner



I'm cool without meaning on a grand scale. I can find it on a much smaller and more mundane level and be perfectly fine with that.


I dunno, without meaning, the universe and everything that happens in it, seems stupid.

[ntech]

Originally posted by Tony



I dunno, without meaning, the universe and everything that happens in it, seems stupid.


Even though I believe that it is just here for no grand reason, I still look at at life as a great gift. As short as our existence is, it is still cool. We are lucky to be born in countries that are free because for some, life is pure hell until they die.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ntech



Even though I believe that it is just here for no grand reason, I still look at at life as a great gift.


Personally, I see it more as a vicious tease.

But the objective truth is, life is neither a great gift or a vicious tease, life is nothing.

[ntech]

Originally posted by Tony



Personally, I see it more as a vicious tease.

But the objective truth is, life is neither a great gift or a vicious tease, life is nothing.


My objective truth is that life is what I feel it is to me.

To me it is a gift and will end some day. What can I say; I'm an optimist existentialist.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ntech



My objective truth is that life is what I feel it is to me.



Im sorry, but that is subjective.


To me it is a gift and will end some day. What can I say; I'm an optimist existentialist.


Im an optimist too, but is there really anything to be optimistic about?

[ntech]

Originally posted by Tony


Im sorry, but that is subjective.


To me it is a gift and will end some day. What can I say; I'm an optimist existentialist.


Im an optimist too, but is there really anything to be optimistic about?

Sorry, but that is not subjective to me.

I'm sorry you feel that way but there is so much to feel optimistic about. I feel it every time I look into my children's eyes. Every time I sit outside and feel the sun on a great day and much more. Life is a great gift.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ntech


Sorry, but that is not subjective to me.



:rolleyes: You obviously dont understand the discussion or what the word "subjective" means.

I'm sorry you feel that way but there is so much to feel optimistic about. I feel it every time I look into my children's eyes. Every time I sit outside and feel the sun on a great day and much more. Life is a great gift.

Again you dont understand the discussion. Sorry for wasting your time. :cool:

[ntech]

Originally posted by Tony


:rolleyes: You obviously dont understand the discussion or what the word "subjective" means.

I'm sorry you feel that way but there is so much to feel optimistic about. I feel it every time I look into my children's eyes. Every time I sit outside and feel the sun on a great day and much more. Life is a great gift.

Again you dont understand the discussion. Sorry for wasting your time. :cool:


Okey!
sub·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.

Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
Moodily introspective.
Existing only in the mind; illusory.
Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.

I am simply relaying a personal view. Isn't that subjective?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Tony asked:What does "outside the scope of science" mean?
It means a question not able to be attacked with the process of science.

I dunno, without meaning, the universe and everything that happens in it, seems stupid.
What possible meaning could you come up with that would really make you feel better?

~~ Paul

[Tony]

Originally posted by ntech


I am simply relaying a personal view. Isn't that subjective?


Yes a personal view is subjective, thats what I was saying.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Tony asked:
It means a question not able to be attacked with the process of science.



Is it possible that things which are out of the scope of science today, could be in the scope of science in 100 yrs? 1000 yrs?


What possible meaning could you come up with that would really make you feel better?

None. I guess.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by ntech



Even though I believe that it is just here for no grand reason, I still look at at life as a great gift. As short as our existence is, it is still cool. We are lucky to be born in countries that are free because for some, life is pure hell until they die.

Ugh, I must avoid philsophers corner... cannot..

Does the part I've italicized have anything to do with "meaning" per se, or it it about "value" or "fulfillment." Had I been born in the 1800s, lived my life as a successful green grocer and died in 1947 in a robbery attempt, I'd have to say that Gandhi, having lived a mostly hellish life, would have lived a more "meaningful" one.

Apart from this quibble, we're in total agreement. I've been arguing this crap about meaning of life when you're an atheist with the fundies and other theists for years now. I'm soooo tired of it.

- Note to self, "he puts the 'fun' back in 'fundy' will make a clever retort, use it at some point....

[ntech]

I'm sorry I was not clearer. I was going past the meaning of life itself part because I am also from the camp that feels that life has no meaning at all. I am an atheist who feels that it is all a grand accident. That said it leaves only what we make of it.

I hope I did not cloud the discussion. Sorry if I did.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by ntech
I'm sorry I was not clearer. I was going past the meaning of life itself part because I am also from the camp that feels that life has no meaning at all. I am an atheist who feels that it is all a grand accident. That said it leaves only what we make of it.

I hope I did not cloud the discussion. Sorry if I did.

My fault actually. We both agree and are coming from the same POV. Sorry if my tangent got away from the point you perfectly elucidated above.

"what we make of it." :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Tony asked:Is it possible that things which are out of the scope of science today, could be in the scope of science in 100 yrs? 1000 yrs?
Not if they are logically outside the scope of science. However, it's sometimes difficult to tell if something is logically outside the scope. And heck, I suppose the scope could change, although I don't see how.

~~ Paul

[Tony]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Tony asked:
Not if they are logically outside the scope of science. However, it's sometimes difficult to tell if something is logically outside the scope. And heck, I suppose the scope could change, although I don't see how.



Radical advances in science couldn’t redefine what was or was not inside the scope of science?


Do scientists really know that much about the universe?

[ntech]

Originally posted by Tony



Radical advances in science couldn’t redefine what was or was not inside the scope of science?


Do scientists really know that much about the universe?


The one thing we do know is that theism is based on word of mouth and a book that has many parts that continue to be debunked as we become more educated.

Science is a growing base of knowledge that continues to grow and refine a truth only established by trial and error.

These two observations can only tell us one thing.

Theism = 0
Science = infinity to come

I will bet on science.

[whitefork]

So Paul, are you just going to take Estling's word for it that most of modern philosophy is valueless, or are you planning on doing some research into the question?

The Heidegger quote is not invented, by the way. It was chosen for its weirdness content. Take something out of context from some of our more difficult physicists and you may get a similar "wha?" effect.

Heck, pick up something by John Rawls, Robert Nozick or Willard Van Orman Quine. Saul Kripke, Nelson Goodman. Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism. Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Read more than a few pages. Try to see the structure of the arguments and the techniques involved.

I'll grant you that most of what's being produced is of little value. It's always been that way. There's a lot of nice work being done in the area of political philosophy and logic. It's not all about metaphysics.

You can dismiss the content, but pay attention to the form.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ntech



The one thing we do know is that theism is based on word of mouth and a book that has many parts that continue to be debunked as we become more educated.

Science is a growing base of knowledge that continues to grow and refine a truth only established by trial and error.

These two observations can only tell us one thing.

Theism = 0
Science = infinity to come

I will bet on science.


I dont see what this has to do with anything, no one mentioned theism. I think you just like hear yourself type. :roll:

[ntech]

No it's the meds and the padded cell getting to me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Tony asked:Radical advances in science couldn’t redefine what was or was not inside the scope of science?
Not logically, I don't think. It can uncover things that always were in its scope, but simply unknown. That means that it's certainly possible that things we now call paranormal may turn out to be within the scope of science.

Kullervo asked:So Paul, are you just going to take Estling's word for it that most of modern philosophy is valueless, or are you planning on doing some research into the question?
I think I'll take his word for it. ... Nah, just kidding. ... Sort of. Point me at something I should read. Please exclude the Knowledge Argument and most of metaphysics. Absolutely exclude politics; it's way too political. Logic is good, although I don't think of that as philosophy.

"In a fundamental sense scientists and sociologists of
science may not disagree. It's just that the sociologists
and postmoderns talk funny."

---Martin Gardner

[whitefork]

Don't spend any money, use the library. That way you'll only be wasting your time if you find nothing of value here.

W. V. O. Quine's From a Logical Point of View. It's a collection of relatively short pieces.

In my opinion thinking that logic is not part of philosophy is like saying that counting is not part of mathematics, but I won't press the point.

I'd also take a look at Rawls' A Theory of Justice despite your distaste for political theory - maybe not the whole thing - it's fairly long. Very influential, reasonably readable.

Michael Polanyi: Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Always liked this one.

Jacques Monod: Chance and Necessity. Philosophy of biology.

Alfred North Whitehead: Adventures of Ideas.

I've always believed that the real value of philosophy is in its methods rather than its results. Once the results are firmly established, they tend to split off into disciplines unto themselves.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Kullervo said:In my opinion thinking that logic is not part of philosophy is like saying that counting is not part of mathematics, but I won't press the point.
I know that logic is important to philosophy, I just think of it as a branch of mathematics. It's traditional to call it part of philosophy, so I won't fight it.

Quine's book sounds interesting. I'll get a copy. Thanks!
:wink8:

~~ Paul

[whitefork]

If you haven't read The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennet, I'd suggest that as well.

And definitely Labyrinths by Jorge Luis Borges.

Quine's more academic, of course.