Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
Paul1 wrote:Chatting to a friend yesterday who's very much into philosophy, questioning his existence, etc. He brings up interesting ideas.
I find I usually don't question things on a philosophical level as much. Basically, if there's no evidence and logic for some given statement, nor some concrete example or experience I can repeat, or some other way of making it real - I tend to think, guiltily, that it's just a waste of time ruminating about it.
Example: What is the nature of existence? My answer: I only care about the evidence, mathematics and what I can experience around me. What can I possibly learn from idly thinking about things I can't even test/calculate/act upon?
But then when it comes to reading philosophy, what do you do with philosophers who take themselves too seriously? Suspend disbelief, perhaps, or just grit your teeth and get on with it?Tracer Tong wrote:I'd say it's worth bothering with. I don't think it should be taken as seriously as some seem to take it, though.
jamest wrote:
lets not bother with philosophy because we already know that science explains everything
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Weaver wrote:There's a strong historical link between religion and morality, and religious studies were often cited as a necessary step in learning to think about morals - but it isn't.
Likewise, there are other ways to learn to think without the navel-gazing masturbation of philosophy.
One thing philosophy is useful for is analysing people's arguments, including your own and whether they're valid.
jamest wrote:Yeah, let's not bother with philosophy because we already know that science explains everything, even though it doesn't; and we already know that 'reality' is material, even though we don't; and we already know that God doesn't exist because science makes a mockery of literal interpretations of the bible, even though the bible and similar spiritual text was never meant to be read literally;
I've got stories, but I advise that no-one takes them too seriously. The history of ideas is more complex than this.Bernoulli wrote:Regarding mathematical logic, I really don't know what came first - the philosophical chicken or the mathematical egg? Anyone have an opinion? My intestines are telling me that philosophy is responsible for mathematical logic.
VazScep wrote:But then when it comes to reading philosophy, what do you do with philosophers who take themselves too seriously? Suspend disbelief, perhaps, or just grit your teeth and get on with it?Tracer Tong wrote:I'd say it's worth bothering with. I don't think it should be taken as seriously as some seem to take it, though.
jamest wrote:Yeah, let's not bother with philosophy
jamest wrote:because we already know that science explains everything, even though it doesn't;
jamest wrote:and we already know that 'reality' is material, even though we don't;
jamest wrote:and we already know that God doesn't exist because science makes a mockery of literal interpretations of the bible
jamest wrote:even though the bible and similar spiritual text was never meant to be read literally;
jamest wrote:and let's just ignore the whole of philosophy because it hasn't made one darn bit of difference to politics and social change, even though it has;
jamest wrote:and let's also just pretend that science wasn't borne of philosophy, as neither were maths/logic nor any other activity requiring of considered rational thought.
jamest wrote:Even the question pertaining to the thread's title is requiring of a philosophical answer
jamest wrote:so if you don't want to bother then don't expect an answer to such a ridiculous question.
jamest wrote:Philosophy, even erroneous philosophy, underpins almost everything that humans do.
jamest wrote:If you don't want to bother then the jungle beckons.
Tracer Tong wrote:
I'm interested in what philosophy you think amounts to this. Do you have any books or articles in mind that are particularly good examples?
Tracer Tong wrote:
I'm interested in what philosophy you think amounts to this. Do you have any books or articles in mind that are particularly good examples?
And I'm interested in what philosophy you think amounts to this. Do you have any books or articles in mind that are particularly good examples?Calilasseia wrote:On the other hand, the proper business of philosophy, namely working out which questions are apposite to ask, is a different matter.
Is philosophy worth bothering with?
In most of philosophy, digging out the foundation just means bursting a sewer pipe.igorfrankensteen wrote: Only to the degree that a foundation is worth bothering with, when building a house.
laklak wrote:I'm going to the beach bar, I don't know about y'all. Time for beer and fried shit, and I will contemplate the serenity of nature and probably get shat on by a seagull. There's a philosophical conundrum for you.
Weaver wrote:Philosophy is worth bothering with if you want to get into discussions with other philosophers or about philosophy.
As a method of learning anything - no, it's fucking useless as hell, right up there with religion as a method of determining "truth" and discerning "reality" (for which it has its own special meanings not accessible except through philosophy - evidencing a huge part of the problem.)
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest