Bloody Johnny Foreigner birds taking over the country! Probably came over from Calais.

Fallible wrote:I think I'll go to the London Tower with the seagulls, I'd never heard of it before. I'd only heard of the Tower of London with the ravens.

Whatever You People call it it was a seagull and it shit on my sons head. The ravens just sat around and pecked at the crown jewels. Or is it jeweled crown?

edit: checking my photo evidence it may have been a pigeon.

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?

Talking about oughts is talking philosophy, so if you've ever though someone ought not to do something or ought to do something, then yes, philosophy is worth bothering with. Ethics and metaethics are about the only continually relevant areas of philosophy that most people grapple with on a frequent basis.

At the very least, I think people should bother with enough philosophy to be able to tell when they are, in fact, bothering with philosophy.

SpeedOfSound wrote:The ravens just sat around and pecked at the crown jewels.

Bet that made your eyes water.

Tracer Tong wrote:Anglophone cheese? My cheddar's not so much of a conversationalist.

That's why it's not popular at cocktail parties. Cheddar is a notoriously analytical personality type.

Boyle wrote:At the very least, I think people should bother with enough philosophy to be able to tell when they are, in fact, bothering with philosophy.

I like to believe some people are just natural at not bothering with philosophy.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Fallible wrote:I think I'll go to the London Tower with the seagulls, I'd never heard of it before. I'd only heard of the Tower of London with the ravens.

Whatever You People call it

Since it's here, I'd suggest that what We People call it is what it's called. I wouldn't go to the US and say I wanted to go to the Liberty Statue, because well, who really cares what those funny little American folk call it.

it was a seagull and it shit on my sons head. The ravens just sat around and pecked at the crown jewels. Or is it jeweled crown?

It's the Crown Jewels, but it would be the Jewelled Crown.

edit: checking my photo evidence it may have been a pigeon.

Slight difference.

VazScep wrote:

Boyle wrote:At the very least, I think people should bother with enough philosophy to be able to tell when they are, in fact, bothering with philosophy.

I like to believe some people are just natural at not bothering with philosophy.

What is 'bothering with'? Are we 'bothering with' philosophy right now? If so, is it the real philosophy we're 'bothering with', or simply the shadow of the Real philosophy on a cave wall? Will I be able to get the pie I want from the shop, or will I be forced into pasta again? If so, what, if anything, will that say?

VazScep wrote:

Boyle wrote:At the very least, I think people should bother with enough philosophy to be able to tell when they are, in fact, bothering with philosophy.

I like to believe some people are just natural at not bothering with philosophy.

I think as a preliminary exercise we need to perform a conceptual, syntactical and hierarchical analysis of the words "believe", "natural" "bothering" and "philosophy.

Nb. also "I" "to" "some" "are" and "with".

Fallible wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Fallible wrote:I think I'll go to the London Tower with the seagulls, I'd never heard of it before. I'd only heard of the Tower of London with the ravens.

Whatever You People call it

Since it's here, I'd suggest that what We People call it is what it's called. I wouldn't go to the US and say I wanted to go to the Liberty Statue, because well, who really cares what those funny little American folk call it.

I would.

Quite frankly now you've suggested it, that's more of an "I will". Loudly. And at length.

Will you be wearing a loud Hawaiian shirt? Will you say loudly ''excuse me, ma'am, where's the Liberdy Statue? We're trying to get to the Liberdy Statue? Ya know, yer transportation links are real poor. Whose leg d'ya have ta hump around here to get good directions to the Liberdy Statue? I got a whole bunch of your liddle papers here with the same pictures, ah think this one is a twenny American dahlers and this one looks like a hunnert American dahlers, ah had ta pay fahve American dahlers for one lousy piece a pizza, yer food sure is expensive and bad. Tell ya what, ah'll give ya summa this toy money if ya can take me to yer liddle Liberdy Statue. How bout that, huh? A whole two American dahlers. Ya can git yerself a whole heap o 'Cheez Whiz. Ya ever seen two American dahlers? Yer welcome. Nora, take a picture. Nora. NORA! NORA! Take a shat of me with this cute liddle American lady here.'' Will you?

I just luv The English.

Yeah, they think they are being funny, I love it :)

English?

I have to say, I want to.

That or insist on calling it the statue de la liberte. What with it being French and all. (You can tell by the unshaven armpits).

Thommo wrote:

VazScep wrote:

Boyle wrote:At the very least, I think people should bother with enough philosophy to be able to tell when they are, in fact, bothering with philosophy.

I like to believe some people are just natural at not bothering with philosophy.

I think as a preliminary exercise we need to perform a conceptual, syntactical and hierarchical analysis of the words "believe", "natural" "bothering" and "philosophy.

Nb. also "I" "to" "some" "are" and "with".

Nah, that's analytic shit. Continental philosophy is more fun.

Boyle wrote:

Thommo wrote:

VazScep wrote:

Boyle wrote:At the very least, I think people should bother with enough philosophy to be able to tell when they are, in fact, bothering with philosophy.

I like to believe some people are just natural at not bothering with philosophy.

I think as a preliminary exercise we need to perform a conceptual, syntactical and hierarchical analysis of the words "believe", "natural" "bothering" and "philosophy.

Nb. also "I" "to" "some" "are" and "with".

Nah, that's analytic shit. Continental philosophy is more fun.

Ahh, but you are now caught in the fundamental paradox of dispute. You try to evade the request for definition by narrowing the definition of "philosophy", one of the very terms I asked you to so do with.

BlackBart wrote:How to think and not what to think.

BTW Interesting fact; if you click on the first link in any Wikipedia article, then click on the first link in that article and so on and so on, invariably you end up at 'Philosophy'

I tried this with Pop-Tart and it took me to Natural Science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-Tarts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convenience_food
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science

Paul1 wrote:I only care about the evidence, mathematics and what I can experience around me.

Can you justify caring about only this specific restricted domain of objects? If not, then you appear to hold this stance for no reason, if so, then you have demonstrated a virtue of philosophy.

Paul1 wrote:What can I possibly learn from idly thinking about things I can't even test/calculate/act upon?

Who cares? Philosophy isn't the business of "idly thinking about things I can't even test/calculate/act upon", it is the theory and practice of argumentation about the underlying.