Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice attempt at equivocation. Don't confuse "a philosophy" as in "a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs" with "philosophy" as in "any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study."
I am talking about philosophy as a whole, and not differentiating between one school or another. In fact, I have pointed out, ad nauseam, that philosophy is behind science, politics and religion.
The "metaphysical" simply means "what is reality"? Even saying "reality is that which can be observed through scientific observation" IS A METAPHYSICAL STATEMENT. Positivism, the branch of philosophy that modern science is most affiliated with, is based on metaphysical assumptions.
This reads like a very, VERY bad version of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Later Edward Feser did a good job of pwning Kant that I will sum up as simply as possible and hopefully it will be understood (not holding my breath, but here goes)
The statement "that which is empirically demonstrable is all that really matters" is in and of itself not empirically demonstrable and is, hence, an unattainable position.
And even if one is a strict positivist, that does not refute mysticism. Even Sam Harris said, and I paraphrase, "there is nothing to stop a rational atheist from going to a cave to mediate and contemplate reality and his or her relationship to it." That is the very essence of mysticism.
Quote:
Including the fact that we can never know for sure. Seems self-refuting to me. Or just a bunch of word games. Take your pick.
Yes and physics seems to make little sense to me. The difference is that I ADMIT WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT UNDERSTAND and do not get into arguments with people who understand fields that I do not understand nor am I interested in.
And yes, we cannot prove of disproven anything ultimately and hence, all is doubtful save the mind. As Descartes once said "I think, therefore I am."
Quote:
Did it get something done, or is it just an illusion of things getting done created by your mind in a vat? We'll never "know".
We don't know for sure. But assuming the external world is correct, it was not a scientific research paper (based on the philosophical school of positivism) that won America's independence from Britain, won Civil Rights, or won civil rights.
Quote:
Sure. Do you deny that science has cured diseases while philosophy hasn't? I'm not sure of your point.
Is this a Scarecrow cosplay convention? If not, why so many strawmen?
Where oh where did I deny science has cured diseases, created planes etc? I am simply saying that it wasn't science that won social movements, etc. Science has its uses, I do not deny. However, it would be idiotic to assume science is the be all, end all of the human condition.
Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, himself an agnostic paleontologist, even understood this when he named the principal of Non-Overlapping Magisteria, a possession to which the National Academy of the Sciences agrees with and most scientists understand to be the truth even if they don't use that particular term.
I am NOT arguing against the validity of science save for a little bit of doubt created by Solipsism, which I also apply to everything within the external world INCLUDING religion. It's you claiming that "philosophy is rubbish" that is what's in question here. Please refrain from argumentum ad lapidem and/or strawmen and answer the claims at hand.
Quote:
Nice attempt, but science doesn't make moral pronouncements.
Ah...yeah. That was kind of the point...
Science cannot make moral judgements and hence, we need something else to make moral judgements, namely philosophy.
Quote:
Strict utilitarianism is a perfectly valid philosophical approach to the matter. Not sure what that has to do with science curing diseases, but thanks for bringing it up I guess.
So you argue against philosophy, but then say "yep, this philosophical school of thought is valid"
WTF!!! ????
Quote:
Looks like we're getting into "everything is philosophy if I say it is" territory.
No, I never said that. I said everything (or nearly everything) within the human condition has a philosophy behind it, be it religion, art, politics, economics etc.
And "I" never said Jack...allow me to clarify for someone who seems to have a sever problem understanding the metaphorical speech needed to understand and communicate the topics of philosophy and mysticism:
"I", as in "me" and "never said Jack" implies that the individual in question, the City-data user referred to as "Victorianpunk", did not come up with any of these ideas on his own. These are philosophical ideas that are being discussed and understood and commented on by the all from the greatest minds to the budding students of the humanities in every major Western university.
I did not make up existentialism, Solipsism, or Epistemology. I did not travel back in time and forge the works of Kierkegaard, Shestov, Nietzsche, Pascal or Hamann, nor did I forge the works of Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, Carl Jung, Sir James Frazier, or Huston Smith. Everything I am saying so far would be understood by anyone who has passed so much as an introductory level class in philosophy or Comparative Religion.
You now sit in the same place as a Young Earth Creationist arguing with Bill Nye or someone else (but at least they don't allude to a belief that Nye made up the theory of evolution on a whim) The difference is the YEC at least has the excuse of faith, and often they are not simply just ignorant of the topic they are arguing while at the same time claiming some kind of intellectual superiority over the 85% of the world's population that has a religion...
It depends on what you mean. I prefer non-violence, but understand such a position is not always possible. I could be called a follower of the non-aggression principal, which could be said to have a basis in existentialism. We all have nothing but what we figure out on our own and create for ourselves, and it would be wrong to hinder someone from pursuing themselves with aggression, but at the same time I must respect my own pursuit of self by defending it from aggression.
But I admit, this argument breaks down at the collective level. Taxation is a form of aggression but is necessary for modern society, and some limits on freedom (i.e., not allowing an artist to detonate a nuke as performance art) is needed as well...
Sometimes I get why so many Dawkin's Witnesses prefer to stick to natural sciences: the answers are simple and never ambiguous when one is trying to figure out the chemical composition of swamp gas or make a better cipher for an OS.
It depends on what you mean. I prefer non-violence, but understand such a position is not always possible. .
I asked due to your mentioning humans for experimentation which, although it could involve a relatively few , could provide benefits to many.
Why the almost universal abhorrence to the idea of sacrificing humans for this purpose but little universal objection to offering up millions of humans in wars with their too often negligible benefit to mankind, in general.
I am talking about philosophy as a whole, and not differentiating between one school or another.
No, you were equivocating. I pointed out the two meanings you were trying to confuse in your attempt to make it sounds like every time someone takes a dump they're actually doing academic philosophy. Think of the metaphysical commitments needed there to believe that there's an external reality than needs, uh, servicing.
Back here in reality, though, people don't need philosophy to realize that the real world exist. It is something that people learn pretty quickly on their own.
Quote:
The "metaphysical" simply means "what is reality"? Even saying "reality is that which can be observed through scientific observation" IS A METAPHYSICAL STATEMENT. Positivism, the branch of philosophy that modern science is most affiliated with, is based on metaphysical assumptions.
I love when laypeople who admit that they don't understand science try to tell people who do how science works.
Quote:
The statement "that which is empirically demonstrable is all that really matters" is in and of itself not empirically demonstrable and is, hence, an unattainable position.
Despite all the abstract philosophical objections to it, it seems to work pretty well. Maybe philosophy's approach of requiring deductive proofs rather than a more pragmatic approach isn't all that useful here in reality.
Quote:
The difference is that I ADMIT WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT UNDERSTAND and do not get into arguments with people who understand fields that I do not understand nor am I interested in.
Then what are you doing starting threads in an atheist forum?
Quote:
And yes, we cannot prove of disproven anything ultimately and hence, all is doubtful save the mind. As Descartes once said "I think, therefore I am."
Let's not get hasty. You have no proof he said this - or that he (or an external reality) even existed in the first place. It is all based on your positivist views about historical events, and we all know what philosophy says about those.
Quote:
it was not a scientific research paper (based on the philosophical school of positivism) that won America's independence from Britain, won Civil Rights, or won civil rights.
Neither was it academic philosophy. Your point?
Quote:
Where oh where did I deny science has cured diseases, created planes etc?
Just making sure, since my statement seemed to cause some defense mechanisms into overdrive and prompt a huge off topic rant.
Quote:
So you argue against philosophy, but then say "yep, this philosophical school of thought is valid"
I'm not ignorant of philosophy, just skeptical of the practical uses of it outside of practicing skills useful other places in life.
Quote:
No, I never said that. I said everything (or nearly everything) within the human condition has a philosophy behind it, be it religion, art, politics, economics etc.
If it is all philosophy, why bother with all of the other terms? Seems kinda strange we'd need all of the extra words to describe the fields if everyone is just doing philosophy. It is almost as if these other fields have unique names because they're different than academic philosophy.
Quote:
And "I" never said Jack...allow me to clarify for someone who seems to have a sever problem understanding the metaphorical speech needed to understand and communicate the topics of philosophy and mysticism:
Touchy, touchy. For someone unconvinced that an external reality is actually real, you do seem to get bent out of shape about your interactions with it. Where's the consistency and conviction in your views about the superiority of solipsism?
Quote:
You now sit in the same place as a Young Earth Creationist arguing with Bill Nye
Yes, of course my claim that science has accomplished things is based on nothing but faith. Pull the other one.
every set of beliefs is a philosophy
we don't know everything
there is no real proof
reality is illusion
now what?
you boiz like big names ... see Neil "the real deal" thread. He links these notion together with what is known. He doesn't care where the truth leads him. Carl helped remove from the nail any emotional debris that would have clouded his view. lol get it, neil nailed it.
Kc you do such a great job. Are paid by CD? not that it matters but your answers are so good I was just wondering.
My dishonest critics deliberately insist on denigrating anything I say as "baseless" or "no reason to believe" etc. (those who are astute readily recognize this tactic as disingenuous and not honest debate).
No - the dishonesty comes into it when you use science words - like Energy - and then when you are called on the science behind it you pretend you were using some kind of analogy of non scientific meaning of the word. You throw science words around when it suits - but with a retreat ready whenever required.
For example I called you out on this in two threads this week - where you talk of energy being converted into conscious energy and saying that that energy must go somewhere because it can not disappear.
The latter part of that is applying the laws of science to the word "energy" - but in the next breath you are telling us you do not really mean "energy" but something else that you are just using that word for. Despite having visibly applied conservation of energy laws to it.
Again - you have made a definite and clear empirical claim here. If energy is being converted into "consciouness energy" of some type - then you should be able to take the system (any given person) and measure the energy inputs and outputs of that system. And there should be some energy unaccounted for.
The reason you dodged replying to BOTH of the posts where I called you on this is simple - and clear - that you know as well as I do that there is no unaccounted for energy in this system at all. But of course pointing out this FACT means we are the dishonest ones - not you. Yea. Right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The degree of honesty and sincerity among my critics is so rare
No. It is not. Their honestly is just fine. You just manufacture sentences like the above because when you can not back up what you say - you instead turn to insulting everyone you can. Because insults are your "get out of conversation" card that you fall back on when you have nothing else.
we are at 25 pages. at some point we have to address "how we are defending" a stance. We are past the data at this point so there is no need to go back and keep rehashing it.
At some point the nicy wicy are left out. And you also say that we do not understand you thats why you are right. You have to understand that we understand you exactly. Why people can't handle others knowing what they are saying and not agreeing with them is funny. I do it too, right, mystic. They call be a bully sometimes because I keep going back to the first few things a person said.
Another honest response. Thank you
Another honest response. The word energy has such diverse baggage associated with it in science circles (like God in spiritual circles) . . that I have resorted to using "whatever" it is that manifests as energy/mass/momentum or matter. My dishonest critics deliberately insist on denigrating anything I say as "baseless" or "no reason to believe" etc. (those who are astute readily recognize this tactic as disingenuous and not honest debate).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The degree of honesty and sincerity among my critics is so rare that even begrudging acknowledgments are appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
No - the dishonesty comes into it when you use science words - like Energy - and then when you are called on the science behind it you pretend you were using some kind of analogy of non scientific meaning of the word. You throw science words around when it suits - but with a retreat ready whenever required.
For example I called you out on this in two threads this week - where you talk of energy being converted into conscious energy and saying that that energy must go somewhere because it can not disappear.
The latter part of that is applying the laws of science to the word "energy" - but in the next breath you are telling us you do not really mean "energy" but something else that you are just using that word for. Despite having visibly applied conservation of energy laws to it.
Again - you have made a definite and clear empirical claim here. If energy is being converted into "consciouness energy" of some type - then you should be able to take the system (any given person) and measure the energy inputs and outputs of that system. And there should be some energy unaccounted for.
"Jane you . . ." We can measure only that energy/mass that is part of the 4% of reality amenable to measurement. The bulk of the energy/mass in the universe is not currently measurable. You ignore this reality and pretend that I am making things up. I did not make dark energy up. Using probability theory . . . 4% of reality is measurable and 96% is not. You dismiss my claims on the basis of knowledge about 4% of reality. I like my chances.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah...yeah. That was kind of the point...
