hackenslash wrote:

kennyc wrote:It's been completely subsumed into other areas.

What other areas has it been subsumed into?

I guess he is probably thinking of certain disciplines like physics, astronomy and psychology branching out from philosophy. That the role of philosophy has been delegated to those (and other) disciplines and that now philosophy has become irrelevant because of that.

Or something like that.

Oldskeptic wrote:That said, I find the area of philosophy such a jumbled fucked up mess that it is next to useless. An example of why I think this, and agree with Cicero, is that no matter the philosophical position it seems fairly easy to find some other philosopher/s to argue against it.

I can see your point and where you are coming from. See this survey for example:

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Hardly a clear consensus in any question. Indeed there are only 7 or 8 questions that have more than 50% agreement. I understand why Hawking would say something like what you have in your sig, but I also see Sean Carroll's point that "physicists should stop saying silly things about philosophy" (source).

Oldskeptic wrote:Actually the two quotes in my sig are not meant as arguments. They're just two quotes by a couple of really smart guys that I happen to agree with. If I were to make arguments they would be in support of the individual quotes, and would not rest upon the authority of who came up with it.

I already knew that, mate. kenny, on the other hand, was perfectly happy to direct me to the quote and leave it at that, which is argumentum ad verecundiam in all its glory.

That said, I find the area of philosophy such a jumbled fucked up mess that it is next to useless. An example of why I think this, and agree with Cicero, is that no matter the philosophical position it seems fairly easy to find some other philosopher/s to argue against it.

Sure, and my position is reasonably well known. Indeed, I've been accused of just what kenny does in the past, but I think I've always tried to make my position on philosophy clear. It is certainly mired in obfuscation, but that's mostly done by apologists rather than philosophers. There are also the librarians, who can tell you what everybody said about everything but couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag.

Properly applied, though, it's a keen didactic tool. as long as you don't get so enamoured of it that you allow it to dictate what you should think, as opposed to how to think.

As for the Hawking quote; It pertains to questions that, in his and my opinion, pertain to things that could never be answered by philosophers, but can now be addressed by physics with at least the possibility of achieving good explanations grounded in evidence.

Indeed, and an example of his usual glibness, for which he's famous. Having read the entire book (and indeed pretty much every word the man's ever written, including his academic papers), I have no argument against him, but simply pointing to that quotation after emptying his arse at us yet again on a topic he knows exactly fuck all about but is happy to dismiss as nonsense as if it constitutes a response is textbook argument from authority. What he's saying is 'philosophy is bollocks, and if you don't agree, you should go argue with Stephen Hawking', completely setting aside the fact that Stephen Hawking is a philosopher, and that 'philosophy is bollocks' is a philosophical statement.

It's fucking stupid, and indeed I shouldn't have to even write this post, but for the utter fucking stupidity of kenny's post directing me to your signature after yet again failing to defend the utter cock that flows from his fingers on this topic. He trolls pretty much every topic dealing with philosophy, and has absolutely fuck all of interest to add, only advertising his own failures of thought.

Edit: typo

Dolorian wrote:I guess he is probably thinking of certain disciplines like physics, astronomy and psychology branching out from philosophy. That the role of philosophy has been delegated to those (and other) disciplines and that now philosophy has become irrelevant because of that.

Or something like that.

Then he's still talking through his arse, because those areas came from and still operate under the rubric of philosophy.

In any event, having experienced kenny evacuating his bowels on this topic before, I think you're being too charitable. He's not thinking of any of that, he's just talking bollocks.

Dolorian wrote: but I also see Sean Carroll's point that "physicists should stop saying silly things about philosophy" (source).

Until recently, I hadn't come across much by Sean Carroll aside from his work in physics (you may be gathering that physics is my area of interest), but I've found myself paying attention on all sorts of things of late. He's quite incisive and extremely careful in his choice of words. I also really like the layman's presentations of the latest research on his blog.

hackenslash wrote:

igorfrankensteen wrote: I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, but I think you've been careless with the statement that Philosophy only ASKS questions, and answers none. That is a very narrow definition of philosophy, and is one that I can't find listed in any definitions source I have on hand.

Not nearly as careless as you've been with this bollocks. You need a fucking source to tell you this? What an utterly fucking stupid thing to say.

It is always a problem that a lot of humans ARE sloppy in how they use important words such as Philosophy, and that is why we have a number of posts here already, declaring that Philosophy is dead or useless, or some sort of pompously phrased excuse for what some here like to call wibble.

Which I agree with, but I was very careful, thanks, as I generally am. I stand by every word.

I, on the other hand, have grown up under the definition that Philosophy is the overarching systematic framework that we choose to use to organize our perception of, and interaction with, all of existence. This is WHY Science is accurately defined as a subset of Philosophy, and why a statement such as "philosophy is useless" is ludicrous. One must HAVE a philosophy up and running to MAKE such an idiotic statement.

I agree with all of that - though your definition is far wordier than it need be - but it doesn't remotely disagree with anything I've said. I have always said that science is a subset of philosophy. It's the subset that actually provides answers to questions.

It is at the heart of most participants in this forum, that they have selected the scientific method to be their primary tool for managing all information which comes to them. This is not a scientific act on their part, it is a philosophical one, because scientific method is not thrust upon us by existence. If it were, our forebears would not have had to fight to make it the prominent approach used today. The existence of that long and ongoing struggle alone, is proof that an overarching PHILOSOPHY is at play here.

As soon as you say something that actually contradicts anything I've said (aside from your asinine opening), I'll comment further.

Well I will leave it at that I think that you have both erroneously chosen your own definition of Philosophy, as far as the thrust of this thread is concerned, AND, that you have also chosen to be unnecessarily, rudely, and in all ways unacceptably vile in your method of insisting on communicating your choice in a personally insulting manner, and leave the mess of that nonsense to you. There is no point or pleasure to be had from discussing anything with someone who thus refuses to show a basic level of decency in their modes of personal expression.

hackenslash wrote:
There are also the librarians who can tell you what everybody said about
everything but couldn t think their way out of a wet paper bag

Actually you should employ the singular because there is only one. And again [ as we have been here before ] I find myself defending him. He provides primary source material from philosophical publications other than just his own opinion. This in complete contrast to what kenny posts. Yet you disapprove of both methodologies. I know that the librarian posts in a rather dry academic style but that does not automatically invalidate what he is saying. Like james he is academically qualified and can therefore speak with authority on the subject. I must confess to most of it being above my station but that only proves my point about his expertise. I have to ask is there a single philosopher on the forum that you actually like as you seem to give all of them a really hard time. I so am glad I do not identify as one ha ha

igorfrankensteen wrote: Well I will leave it at that I think that you have both erroneously chosen your own definition of Philosophy, as far as the thrust of this thread is concerned,

Why should the thrust of this thread have anything to do with how philosophy is defined?

AND, that you have also chosen to be unnecessarily, rudely, and in all ways unacceptably vile in your method of insisting on communicating your choice in a personally insulting manner, and leave the mess of that nonsense to you.

Err, where the fuck did I insult you?

As for the rest, I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think of my posting style. If you find anybody who can, feel free to tell them all the fuck about it. Your fee-fees are of absolutely zero interest or utility to me.

There is no point or pleasure to be had from discussing anything with someone who thus refuses to show a basic level of decency in their modes of personal expression.

Don't talk shit, and I won't respond in kind.

surreptitious57 wrote:Actually you should employ the singular because there is only one.

No, the one you're talking about is merely the worst offender.

And again [ as we have been here before ] I find myself defending him. He provides primary source material from philosophical publications other than just his own opinion.

Except, of course, that the primary source material in this field consists only of opinions. It deals with what others have thought which, while interesting, does not constitute any kind of authority.

This in complete contrast to what kenny posts. Yet you disapprove of both methodologies.

We're not talking about a true dichotomy here. it isn't a matter of either extracting assertions from your own arse or extracting them from somebody else's which is the real contrast you're talking about here.

I know that the librarian posts in a rather dry academic style but that does not automatically invalidate what he is saying.

He rarely says anything of note, he merely informs us what others have said, which is most of my objection. I don't know much about what he thinks on anything other than that he thinks that sharing the opinions of others constitutes robust discourse.

Like james he is academically qualified and can therefore speak with authority on the subject.

That's complete bollocks for two reasons. Firstly, I reject the notion that academic qualification in this field, constitutes authority in philosophy, because of what the content of that qualification is, namely what people have thought. Secondly, I've already mentioned that I don't accept that james is thus qualified. I require evidence for that claim.

I must confess to most of it being above my station but that only proves my point about his expertise.

Expertise? I've been a librarian, and have read much of what those qualified have read. While this material is interesting, it still largely constitutes not much more than history of what has been thought about various things.

I have to ask is there a single philosopher on the forum that you actually like as you seem to give all of them a really hard time.

[

Not at all. There are those who express themselves and justify their thinking on any given topic with something other than appeals to literature, because they show their working out. That's pretty much all it takes. Posting what somebody else has thought isn't showing your working out, although some think it constitutes robust support. It isn't.

Anyhoo, those whose work on the forum I respect know who they are.

I so am glad I do not identify as one ha ha

hackenslash wrote:
the primary source material in this field consists only of opinions. It deals with what
others have thought which, while interesting, does not constitute any kind of authority

I reject the notion that academic qualification in this field, constitutes authority in philosophy
because of what the content of that qualification is, namely what people have thought

Given that philosophy is the study of ideas what exactly are you expecting of it other than that ? You know that they cannot be tested in the same way that scientific hypotheses can but does that fact alone render them invalid ? What is wrong with the study of philosophy simply as an academic discipline ? Should the entirety of all human thought that cannot be examined under a microscope be denied ? Is not how humans think in and of itself worthy of study ?

All of this is subtly but significantly different from having a world view as a philosophical position such as that of james [ who has stated that he has a first class degree so he is qualified like Teuton and so can speak with authority ] But if you do not think that an academic qualification in philosophy is valid then what is ?

There is nothing wrong with studying it as long as one does not accept its conclusions as being empirically sound. I shall shut up now as james gets angry if I say things like this. But he is an idealist so that makes perfect sense whereas you are not so you should be more accommodating towards it

Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge and as he is one of your favourite philosophers you might want to consider those words of his. You may say his imagination was geared to solving real world problems but that could also be said of philosophers in general so the distinction would be academic

surreptitious57 wrote:Given that philosophy is the study of ideas what exactly are you expecting of it other than that ?

I never said I expected more than that. I'm simply saying that it isn't authoritative.

But if you do not think that an academic qualification in philosophy is valid then what is ?

The ability to think clearly.

Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge

Einstein made a lot of throwaway comments like this.

and as he is one of your favourite philosophers

Errr, where did I say that?

you might want to consider those words of his.

Beautiful argumentum ad verecundiam.

You may say his imagination was geared to solving real world problems but that could also be said of philosophers in general so the distinction would be academic

I suggest you go back and read what I've written on the remit of philosophy, because this is complete arse-water.

If jamest has a first class degree in philosophy then such a degree does not an authority make...

hackenslash wrote:

surreptitous57 wrote:
he is one of your favourite philosophers

where did I say that

In the thread on favourite philosophers

You should find it without too much trouble

I think you listed nine and six of them were actually scientists

Feynman / Russell / Popper / Einstein [ cannot remember the others ]

Scientists are philosophers, as I've repeatedly stated. Any list of philosophers I deliver will be about the contributions they've made to knowledge or epistemology. I value Einstein because of his scientific achievements, not for the odd bit of wibble, to which he was prone.

The thread in question was asking about non scientific philosophers

No one else mentioned scientists other than you which I did think odd

I know scientists are philosophers but they are not usually thought of in that way

I did think it funny that you could hardly not think of any so had to name physicists instead

Utter fucking cock. It doesn't matter whether others think of scientists as philosophers, they ARE philosophers. there is no instead.

Incidentally, since you claimed that the thread in question was asking about non-scientific philosophers, I went and checked.

Bzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Also, the thread in question wasn't about favourites, it was about most influential.

hackenslash wrote:

Dolorian wrote: but I also see Sean Carroll's point that "physicists should stop saying silly things about philosophy" (source).

Until recently, I hadn't come across much by Sean Carroll aside from his work in physics (you may be gathering that physics is my area of interest), but I've found myself paying attention on all sorts of things of late. He's quite incisive and extremely careful in his choice of words. I also really like the layman's presentations of the latest research on his blog.

Yes, there's MUCH you have yet to come across. I suggest you learn some humility and broaden your horizons.

igorfrankensteen wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

igorfrankensteen wrote: I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, but I think you've been careless with the statement that Philosophy only ASKS questions, and answers none. That is a very narrow definition of philosophy, and is one that I can't find listed in any definitions source I have on hand.

Not nearly as careless as you've been with this bollocks. You need a fucking source to tell you this? What an utterly fucking stupid thing to say.

It is always a problem that a lot of humans ARE sloppy in how they use important words such as Philosophy, and that is why we have a number of posts here already, declaring that Philosophy is dead or useless, or some sort of pompously phrased excuse for what some here like to call wibble.

Which I agree with, but I was very careful, thanks, as I generally am. I stand by every word.

I, on the other hand, have grown up under the definition that Philosophy is the overarching systematic framework that we choose to use to organize our perception of, and interaction with, all of existence. This is WHY Science is accurately defined as a subset of Philosophy, and why a statement such as "philosophy is useless" is ludicrous. One must HAVE a philosophy up and running to MAKE such an idiotic statement.

I agree with all of that - though your definition is far wordier than it need be - but it doesn't remotely disagree with anything I've said. I have always said that science is a subset of philosophy. It's the subset that actually provides answers to questions.

It is at the heart of most participants in this forum, that they have selected the scientific method to be their primary tool for managing all information which comes to them. This is not a scientific act on their part, it is a philosophical one, because scientific method is not thrust upon us by existence. If it were, our forebears would not have had to fight to make it the prominent approach used today. The existence of that long and ongoing struggle alone, is proof that an overarching PHILOSOPHY is at play here.

As soon as you say something that actually contradicts anything I've said (aside from your asinine opening), I'll comment further.

Well I will leave it at that I think that you have both erroneously chosen your own definition of Philosophy, as far as the thrust of this thread is concerned, AND, that you have also chosen to be unnecessarily, rudely, and in all ways unacceptably vile in your method of insisting on communicating your choice in a personally insulting manner, and leave the mess of that nonsense to you. There is no point or pleasure to be had from discussing anything with someone who thus refuses to show a basic level of decency in their modes of personal expression.

Exactly.

Dolorian wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

kennyc wrote:It's been completely subsumed into other areas.

What other areas has it been subsumed into?

I guess he is probably thinking of certain disciplines like physics, astronomy and psychology branching out from philosophy. That the role of philosophy has been delegated to those (and other) disciplines and that now philosophy has become irrelevant because of that.

Or something like that.

Thanks.

kennyc wrote:Yes, there's MUCH you have yet to come across.

Undoubtedly.

I suggest you learn some humility

I suggest you read Luke 4:23.

and broaden your horizons.

I suggest you get some horizons.