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