Philosophy undermines truth

[Skepdick]

Well it depends on whether I ordered vanilla or chocolate ice cream.

How are YOU defining truth?

Probably the same way you defined it when you qualified it with "objective".

[attofishpi]

Well it depends on whether I ordered vanilla or chocolate ice cream.

How are YOU defining truth?

I don't know how to define truth any more than I know how to define riding a bycicle.

I just know how to use it.

Well, you screwed any chance of undermining philosophy.

[Skepdick]

Well it depends on whether I ordered vanilla or chocolate ice cream.

How are YOU defining truth?

I don't know how to define truth any more than I know how to define riding a bycicle.

I just know how to use it.

Well, you screwed any chance of undermining philosophy.

Did I?

It's not over until they throw me out...

[attofishpi]

I don't know how to define truth any more than I know how to define riding a bycicle.

I just know how to use it.

Well, you screwed any chance of undermining philosophy.

Did I?

It's not over until they throw me out...

Never on this forum!

So.

Will you be so kind as to define "philosophy"?

[Will Bouwman]

I don't disagree with any of the above but I think it's a bit different from your quote on aesthetics. I don't think this entails that it's all just aesthetics or emotional attachment to the implications, say. Otherwise we could conclude there is no point in checking anomalies. Or reevaluating our own beliefs in the face of...whatever.

At the foundational level that Descartes was trying to reach, questions like 'Is the universe material or ideal?', 'Do humans have souls?' are unanswerable.

I think some people can get better at finding things that work well and letting go of things that don't.

People can and do operate entirely successfully holding ideas that others reject. The reason some questions are unanswerable is because they make no difference.

[Skepdick]

Will you be so kind as to define "philosophy"?

Only if you are kind enough to define "define".

Once you spend enough time doing game theory and computational linguistics the language games get super boring and quite predictable.

[Skepdick]

The reason some questions are unanswerable is because they make no difference.

There's no question that doesn't make a difference.

At the very least there's a massive difference between spending your entire life trying to answer it; or dismissing it right away.

Damn philosophers. When are you going to take time seriously?

[attofishpi]

Will you be so kind as to define "philosophy"?

Only if you are kind enough to define "define".

Once you spend enough time doing game theory and computational linguistics the language games get super boring and quite predictable.

Philosophy undermines truth

So.

PHILOSOPHY - you refuse to define - unless I define "define" (cbf)
UNDERMINE = where you are with the thread title, undermined - it appears you have fallen through a hole of ambiguity since you are failing to define the key components of your argument.
TRUTH - you are unable to define.

[Will Bouwman]

So why did you introduce Descartes into the dialogue when even you think he was wrong?

He was making a point that undermines truth.

It's precisely the ordering of the data is what we are trying to settle.

Hypothesis 1: Think therefore exist

is valid,

Hypothesis 2: Exist therefore think.

isn't.

[Will Bouwman]

Damn philosophers. When are you going to take time seriously?

Who are you to decide what we should take seriously?

[Skepdick]

So why did you introduce Descartes into the dialogue when even you think he was wrong?

He was making a point that undermines truth.

It's precisely the ordering of the data is what we are trying to settle.

Hypothesis 1: Think therefore exist

is valid,

Hypothesis 2: Exist therefore think.

isn't.

Just as I thought you had agreed that thinking depends on existing.

Do you need a minute to un-confuse yourself?

[attofishpi]

So why did you introduce Descartes into the dialogue when even you think he was wrong?

He was making a point that undermines truth.

It's precisely the ordering of the data is what we are trying to settle.

Hypothesis 1: Think therefore exist

is valid,

Hypothesis 2: Exist therefore think.

isn't.

Just as I thought you had agreed that thinking depends on existing.

Do you need a minute to un-confuse yourself?

Something can exist, doesn't mean it thinks.

[Skepdick]

Damn philosophers. When are you going to take time seriously?

Who are you to decide what we should take seriously?

Who do I have to be to point out that time makes a difference?

[Skepdick]

Something can exist, doesn't mean it thinks.

Yes. This has been pointed out already.

Youu don't stop existing when you stop thinking.

[Will Bouwman]

Youu don't stop existing when you stop thinking.

But you do stop thinking when you stop existing.