| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tornado_Creator
Royal Citizen
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 328
Local time: 1:22 AM
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
I agree with the original statement, philosophy, or at least modern philosophy is junk. I find it to be nothing but abstract thinking which takes many ideas too far to a point where they no longer bare any relation or point in every day life and thus becomes irrelevant. It is often used by the more intelligent theists as a way of reducing the argument down to something no longer relating an argument for or against theism, and falling into the traps of philosophy is remarkably easy. Philosophy in the early stages of civilisation was useful in that it was basic pondering as to why things are as they are, now it's a way for egotistical assholes to pretend to be intellectuals by saying things like...
"Words do not convey meanings; they call them forth.
So basically, anything we are meaning is never going to be conveyed correctly or appropriately to other because we each make our meaning. The hardest thing for you to really convey is the thing you think you already conveyed, and the hardest thing for you to really understand is the thing you think you already understand."
Now honestly... does the above matter at all. Sure it makes sense, but does it matter. All it will produce is a futile argument because as soon as you say that you've basically said "There's no point in debating", and I know of pseudo-intellectuals who use arguments like this, and squabble over the definition of "faith", "belief", "theory" and "evidence" rather than actually debating theism, and then claim that they've won.
This is why philosophy is rubbish, it have no purpose other than to confuse and bog down the minds of people who think they are intellectuals. In all honesty all they're doing is taking decent ideas and reducing them to a point where they no longer apply to reality, to the point where the thinking is so abstract they're calling into question their own existence, at which point they may as well not bother debating, (or breathing in my opinion).
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
nidias91
Visitor
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Local time: 7:22 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | Philosophy states nothing about survival or technology. Thus, it could not provide anything in those fields. |
Part of philosophy is the study of Axioms. These are THE BASIS of math and science. Without the presence of these axioms then there would be no basis for either subject. Therefore improved systems of survival with electronics and such would not exist. Furthermore, without math, essentially ALL SCIENCE would be bunk.
_________________
^^Irrefutable Logic^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 483
Local time: 7:22 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nidias91 wrote: | There are many things that don't help us survive, or are not necessary.
Clothes, mass entertainment, television, etc.
Anything can be used to help us survive. Philosophy, throughout history, has allowed people to develop their faith or lack of. This has allowed us to move away from things like the Crusades and the Inquisition. |
People in the time of the Crusades and Inquisition did not study philosophy. Science is what moves people away from religion. Simply laying about rules for what is necessary to be true or false is not as important as actually finding out the things that are true.
| Quote: |
Part of philosophy is the study of Axioms. These are THE BASIS of math and science. Without the presence of these axioms then there would be no basis for either subject. Therefore improved systems of survival with electronics and such would not exist. Furthermore, without math, essentially ALL SCIENCE would be bunk. |
Stating a true fact does not require extensive study into why it is so.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie.
Last edited by GodWarrior98 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nidias91
Visitor
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Local time: 7:22 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tornado_Creator wrote: | I agree with the original statement, philosophy, or at least modern philosophy is junk. I find it to be nothing but abstract thinking which takes many ideas too far to a point where they no longer bare any relation or point in every day life and thus becomes irrelevant. It is often used by the more intelligent theists as a way of reducing the argument down to something no longer relating an argument for or against theism, and falling into the traps of philosophy is remarkably easy. Philosophy in the early stages of civilisation was useful in that it was basic pondering as to why things are as they are, now it's a way for egotistical assholes to pretend to be intellectuals by saying things like...
"Words do not convey meanings; they call them forth.
So basically, anything we are meaning is never going to be conveyed correctly or appropriately to other because we each make our meaning. The hardest thing for you to really convey is the thing you think you already conveyed, and the hardest thing for you to really understand is the thing you think you already understand."
Now honestly... does the above matter at all. Sure it makes sense, but does it matter. All it will produce is a futile argument because as soon as you say that you've basically said "There's no point in debating", and I know of pseudo-intellectuals who use arguments like this, and squabble over the definition of "faith", "belief", "theory" and "evidence" rather than actually debating theism, and then claim that they've won.
This is why philosophy is rubbish, it have no purpose other than to confuse and bog down the minds of people who think they are intellectuals. In all honesty all they're doing is taking decent ideas and reducing them to a point where they no longer apply to reality, to the point where the thinking is so abstract they're calling into question their own existence, at which point they may as well not bother debating, (or breathing in my opinion). |
One thing that I would like to point out is that modern religeon is based on various philosophers of the past two millenia. Jesus was a philosopher himself. BTW, you must accurately define words like "evidence" (and etc.) and what evidence is, or else I can just point out random stuff and call it relevant.
_________________
^^Irrefutable Logic^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nidias91
Visitor
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Local time: 7:22 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[/quote]People in the time of the Crusades and Inquisition did not study philosophy. Science is what moves people away from religion. Simply laying about rules for what is necessary to be true or false is not as important as actually finding out the things that are true.[/quote]
Without rules that tell us how to define truth, how do we judge the truth in a statement.
phi·los·o·phy Audio Help /fɪˈlɒsəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fi-los-uh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -phies.
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6. a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.
Those in the Crusades DID study philosophy, same for the Inquisition.
To the religeous folk who agree with the OP, you are saying that people like Aquinas, Ignatius, and various other scholars and philosophers in Christian history are all somehow making pointless observations. The very same observations that define your religion. This is assuming that you are a Christian, but the same can be said for all other religions.
_________________
^^Irrefutable Logic^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isambard
Forum Leader
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 892
Local time: 7:22 PM
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | joshuas3521 wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | joshuas3521 wrote: | | *cough*Burden of proof*cough* |
Proof: Philosophy has not resulted in any advancement of the human race. |
First, prove it.
Second, Aristotle developed a precise set of laws governing the logical mind and syllogisms to represent them. This was the first time that algorithms could be written out and logic was developed. Thousands of years later, the first computer was invented based on this very principle. I'll scan in a few pages from a book. |
"Proof" is a philosophical term. By telling me to find some, you are assuming philosophy should be used in an argument.
Computers aren't based off of some paragraphs about what's wrong and right, they're based on quantum mechanics.
I do not, Isambard. |
Which underlying philosophy in science keeps answers such as "God did it" or "MAGIC WAND!" from being valid scientific responses?
_________________
Composite things are like dreams. Fantasies. Bubbles. Thoughts. Like a dewdrop and a flash of lightning. A new dress and a burning tire. Waves of sand and sinking ships. The shadow of a statue, and an entry in a diary. A brain tumor and an ice cream sundae. We are thus to be recorded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 483
Local time: 7:22 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nidias91 wrote: | People in the time of the Crusades and Inquisition did not study philosophy. Science is what moves people away from religion. Simply laying about rules for what is necessary to be true or false is not as important as actually finding out the things that are true.
Without rules that tell us how to define truth, how do we judge the truth in a statement.
To the religeous folk who agree with the OP, you are saying that people like Aquinas, Ignatius, and various other scholars and philosophers in Christian history are all somehow making pointless observations. The very same observations that define your religion. This is assuming that you are a Christian, but the same can be said for all other religions. |
Truth must be defined, but it doesn't require an entire field of pointless questions and statements to be defined.
Isambard, the inability of those statements to produce predictions that can be tested.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isambard
Forum Leader
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 892
Local time: 7:22 PM
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | nidias91 wrote: | People in the time of the Crusades and Inquisition did not study philosophy. Science is what moves people away from religion. Simply laying about rules for what is necessary to be true or false is not as important as actually finding out the things that are true.
Without rules that tell us how to define truth, how do we judge the truth in a statement.
To the religeous folk who agree with the OP, you are saying that people like Aquinas, Ignatius, and various other scholars and philosophers in Christian history are all somehow making pointless observations. The very same observations that define your religion. This is assuming that you are a Christian, but the same can be said for all other religions. |
Truth must be defined, but it doesn't require an entire field of pointless questions and statements to be defined.
Isambard, the inability of those statements to produce predictions that can be tested. |
Which falls under which philosophical understanding of facts?
_________________
Composite things are like dreams. Fantasies. Bubbles. Thoughts. Like a dewdrop and a flash of lightning. A new dress and a burning tire. Waves of sand and sinking ships. The shadow of a statue, and an entry in a diary. A brain tumor and an ice cream sundae. We are thus to be recorded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tornado_Creator
Royal Citizen
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 328
Local time: 1:22 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nidias91 wrote: | | Part of philosophy is the study of Axioms. These are THE BASIS of math and science. Without the presence of these axioms then there would be no basis for either subject. Therefore improved systems of survival with electronics and such would not exist. Furthermore, without math, essentially ALL SCIENCE would be bunk. |
Bollocks. The study of Axioms is mindless rubbish. All it is, is studying and disputing the nature of things that we take for granted or assume to be true. The questioning of things that are self-evident. Like for example. "I am Human" is self-evident, philosophy would actually not just dispute that but goes so far as to argue it on such levels that the arguments barely resemble anything that makes sense. You can easily find people saying...
"Well before you can state "I am Human", you must first ponder onto the meaning of the statements and ask, by "I" what am I referencing, is it my being, my physical presence, my censorious or interpretation of my sensory input, a combination of those already mentioned, or something less tangible. If by "I" you refer to a spirit, soul, consciousness or otherwise unknown entity, as by which you can identify as yourself, something that transcends both mind and body can it truly be considered human, as "human" is simply the name of the mammal that holds the DNA structure that we deem to be homo-sapien. If so, is the intangible part of the human psyche indeed part of the human condition or something more. Is it human, how do we define human? If we take these standpoints the statement "I am Human" looses much impact, as it is not truly a statement of fact until we can agree on the terms of our statement."
Do you see what that is.... it's BULLSHIT! Complete meaningless abstract bullshit. It doesn't have any fucking relation to life in any way. It serves no purpose other than to make the person saying it seem intelligent and the person listening to feel confused.
That is philosophy for you. It's worthless.
Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. If someone disputes the meaning of a number the answer is "fuck off". Maths and science are not based in philosophy, maths is based in pure logic, we simply use a base-10 system in which we have assigned each unit names before attempting to calculate. There is no philosophy in this and saying so is a fucking insult to maths and science.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nidias91
Visitor
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Local time: 7:22 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | nidias91 wrote: | People in the time of the Crusades and Inquisition did not study philosophy. Science is what moves people away from religion. Simply laying about rules for what is necessary to be true or false is not as important as actually finding out the things that are true.
Without rules that tell us how to define truth, how do we judge the truth in a statement.
To the religeous folk who agree with the OP, you are saying that people like Aquinas, Ignatius, and various other scholars and philosophers in Christian history are all somehow making pointless observations. The very same observations that define your religion. This is assuming that you are a Christian, but the same can be said for all other religions. |
Truth must be defined, but it doesn't require an entire field of pointless questions and statements to be defined.
Isambard, the inability of those statements to produce predictions that can be tested. |
So now you're basically saying that philosophers are wrong because the things they do are pointless. According to you anyways. Who are you to say such a thing.
Your argument is a completely emotional one. You just disagree with them because YOU don't necessarily agree with the way they go about living,.
_________________
^^Irrefutable Logic^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 483
Local time: 7:22 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nidias91 wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | nidias91 wrote: | People in the time of the Crusades and Inquisition did not study philosophy. Science is what moves people away from religion. Simply laying about rules for what is necessary to be true or false is not as important as actually finding out the things that are true.
Without rules that tell us how to define truth, how do we judge the truth in a statement.
To the religeous folk who agree with the OP, you are saying that people like Aquinas, Ignatius, and various other scholars and philosophers in Christian history are all somehow making pointless observations. The very same observations that define your religion. This is assuming that you are a Christian, but the same can be said for all other religions. |
Truth must be defined, but it doesn't require an entire field of pointless questions and statements to be defined.
Isambard, the inability of those statements to produce predictions that can be tested. |
So now you're basically saying that philosophers are wrong because the things they do are pointless. According to you anyways. Who are you to say such a thing.
Your argument is a completely emotional one. You just disagree with them because YOU don't necessarily agree with the way they go about living,. |
I don't recall saying they were "wrong." Merely that they did not contribute to society. While emotions play a factor, it is undeniable that most self-labeled philosophers are just douchebags who want to pretend they think deeply.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nidias91
Visitor
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Local time: 7:22 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tornado_Creator wrote: | | nidias91 wrote: | | Part of philosophy is the study of Axioms. These are THE BASIS of math and science. Without the presence of these axioms then there would be no basis for either subject. Therefore improved systems of survival with electronics and such would not exist. Furthermore, without math, essentially ALL SCIENCE would be bunk. |
Bollocks. The study of Axioms is mindless rubbish. All it is, is studying and disputing the nature of things that we take for granted or assume to be true. The questioning of things that are self-evident. Like for example. "I am Human" is self-evident, philosophy would actually not just dispute that but goes so far as to argue it on such levels that the arguments barely resemble anything that makes sense. You can easily find people saying...
"Well before you can state "I am Human", you must first ponder onto the meaning of the statements and ask, by "I" what am I referencing, is it my being, my physical presence, my censorious or interpretation of my sensory input, a combination of those already mentioned, or something less tangible. If by "I" you refer to a spirit, soul, consciousness or otherwise unknown entity, as by which you can identify as yourself, something that transcends both mind and body can it truly be considered human, as "human" is simply the name of the mammal that holds the DNA structure that we deem to be homo-sapien. If so, is the intangible part of the human psyche indeed part of the human condition or something more. Is it human, how do we define human? If we take these standpoints the statement "I am Human" looses much impact, as it is not truly a statement of fact until we can agree on the terms of our statement."
Do you see what that is.... it's BULLSHIT! Complete meaningless abstract bullshit. It doesn't have any fucking relation to life in any way. It serves no purpose other than to make the person saying it seem intelligent and the person listening to feel confused.
That is philosophy for you. It's worthless.
Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. If someone disputes the meaning of a number the answer is "fuck off". Maths and science are not based in philosophy, maths is based in pure logic, we simply use a base-10 system in which we have assigned each unit names before attempting to calculate. There is no philosophy in this and saying so is a fucking insult to maths and science. |
Then don't listen you moron. If you don't like it then stay away from it. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT get away from philosophy in a religious (AKA philosophical) debate. So then just ignore it or leave.
_________________
^^Irrefutable Logic^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WashMDJD
Forum Leader
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 794
Local time: 4:22 PM
Location: Everett/Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tornado_Creator wrote: |
Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. If someone disputes the meaning of a number the answer is "fuck off". Maths and science are not based in philosophy, maths is based in pure logic, we simply use a base-10 system in which we have assigned each unit names before attempting to calculate. There is no philosophy in this and saying so is a fucking insult to maths and science. |
Mathematicians, historians of mathematics, and philosophers who specialize in mathematical theory would be surprised to hear that, I would assume.
Logic itself is part of philosophy, after all - usually classified in the epistemological philosophical disciplines, where there is still much active controversy over different types of logic.
_________________
"Ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,
Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta reliquas."
-Lucretius, De rerum natura
("...that my gifts here set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be contempuously discarded before they have been understood.")
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" --Henri de la Rochejaquelein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:22 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tornado_Creator wrote: | | Bollocks. The study of Axioms is mindless rubbish. |
No, it's not. For without the proper axioms, you won't get anywhere.
| Tornado_Creator wrote: | | Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. |
It's certainly helpful, though.
And I do have a degree in math.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 483
Local time: 7:22 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WashMDJD wrote: | | Tornado_Creator wrote: |
Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. If someone disputes the meaning of a number the answer is "fuck off". Maths and science are not based in philosophy, maths is based in pure logic, we simply use a base-10 system in which we have assigned each unit names before attempting to calculate. There is no philosophy in this and saying so is a fucking insult to maths and science. |
Mathematicians, historians of mathematics, and philosophers who specialize in mathematical theory would be surprised to hear that, I would assume.
Logic itself is part of philosophy, after all - usually classified in the epistemological philosophical disciplines, where there is still much active controversy over different types of logic. |
Again, truth must be defined. This does NOT necessitate an entire field. If philosophizers had said "Truth is this this and this" and then been done with it, I would not be annoyed by them. However, they decided to make a giant mess out of simple concepts for some unknown reason.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
