Philosophy Now Forum

I'm pretty sure that's what the word "same" means.

Jaded Sage wrote:I'm pretty sure that's what the word "same" means.

A dog is an animal
that is not the same as saying an animal is a dog when it is a cat.

I think you need to read more Plato in learning, to understand the quote you used.

Hint: techne

There's a small plague on this site of people intentionally using false examples just to appear to win an argument. Shit is weak. Shit is real weak.

Jaded Sage wrote: Clearly we are talking about the broad sense. That's the only sense worth mentioning, as, in my opinion, it includes the narrow sense. Also, I think the version of the broad sense mentioned here is still too narrow. See the original post (or the second one—the one with Plato).

But why is the broad definition too narrow? And if it is, why is it a problem? Maybe it is an advantage because words that have a narrow meaning can be used more concretely.

Risto wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: Clearly we are talking about the broad sense. That's the only sense worth mentioning, as, in my opinion, it includes the narrow sense. Also, I think the version of the broad sense mentioned here is still too narrow. See the original post (or the second one—the one with Plato).

But why is the broad definition too narrow? And if it is, why is it a problem? Maybe it is an advantage because words that have a narrow meaning can be used more concretely.

It is too narrow because it has devolved into something that is largely useless at best and into something that makes people who do philosophy like pharisees at worst, arrogant and underdeveloped as people.

If it is redefined as I have redefined it, then it becomes something conducive to wholesomeness and happiness. The part that most people mean when they say the word becomes an important part of it. It becomes helpful instead of harmful or useless.

By is not learing by doing worth something too ?

I mean we start in the nursery school to argue and then we develop these skills later on.

What do I live for ? is a question that everybody including those who can´t read and write ask themselves in their lives.

This is philosophy too.

A human being is animal philosophicus.

I would also say that it is natural to be philosophical and to be unphilosophical is unnatural.

I would say that as children we learn how to disagree, not how to argue.

It is true that being a student does not require knowing how to read and write.

Jaded Sage wrote: It is too narrow because it has devolved into something that is largely useless at best and into something that makes people who do philosophy like pharisees at worst, arrogant and underdeveloped as people.

If it is redefined as I have redefined it, then it becomes something conducive to wholesomeness and happiness. The part that most people mean when they say the word becomes an important part of it. It becomes helpful instead of harmful or useless.

Very interesting. When you say, for example, "I philosophized this morning", do you mean "I studied something this morning"? Also, how do you justify the claim that critical, rational reflection and discourse on conceptual connections is largely useless at best but maybe even harmful?

Risto wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: It is too narrow because it has devolved into something that is largely useless at best and into something that makes people who do philosophy like pharisees at worst, arrogant and underdeveloped as people.

If it is redefined as I have redefined it, then it becomes something conducive to wholesomeness and happiness. The part that most people mean when they say the word becomes an important part of it. It becomes helpful instead of harmful or useless.

Very interesting. When you say, for example, "I philosophized this morning", do you mean "I studied something this morning"? Also, how do you justify the claim that critical, rational reflection and discourse on conceptual connections is largely useless at best but maybe even harmful?

First question: tho it sounds funny, yeah, I'd say it's acceptable to make those two interchangable.

Second question: Learning and teaching are hardly useless (those could be definitions of these). I suppose we are referring to the narrow definition when calling it useless and harmful. I mean it is harmful because it can lead to arrogance and lack of character development, like all academia can. Perhaps it is just my experience, but a good 95% of people who study phil (both profs and students) are like this. It could be argued that their raw intelligence contributed more, but they usually have to have something to be intelligent about before becoming arrogant. More than that, academics in this field feel the need to justify their work, unlike scientists, for instance. This insecurity leads to even greater arrogance and nastiness.

But to answer your question more specifically, I suppose the usefulness depends on the subject matter, and let's face it guys, most, if not all, of the fields of phil are entirely useless. Only the ones that are half-science are of any real use.

Jaded Sage wrote: I suppose we are referring to the narrow definition when calling it useless and harmful.

I thought we were speaking about philosophy in the broad sense, but you now instead state that philosophy is useless in the narrow sense. So you mean in this sense: critical reflection and discourse on specific, fundamental questions of human interest that cannot be resolved empirically. If I were to rephrase this as a claim, it could look like this, for example: critical reflection and discourse on questions such as, what is the meaning of life?, what is the best way for people to live?, what actions are right or wrong? is useless and harmful. Isn't that completely opposite of what you believe?

Jaded Sage wrote:I mean it is harmful because it can lead to arrogance and lack of character development, like all academia can.

Can you rephrase the reasons for why academic philosophy can lead to arrogance and lack of character development? Do you think it is insecurity?

Risto wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: I suppose we are referring to the narrow definition when calling it useless and harmful.

I thought we were speaking about philosophy in the broad sense, but you now instead state that philosophy is useless in the narrow sense. So you mean in this sense: critical reflection and discourse on specific, fundamental questions of human interest that cannot be resolved empirically. If I were to rephrase this as a claim, it could look like this, for example: critical reflection and discourse on questions such as, what is the meaning of life?, what is the best way for people to live?, what actions are right or wrong? is useless and harmful. Isn't that completely opposite of what you believe?

Jaded Sage wrote:I mean it is harmful because it can lead to arrogance and lack of character development, like all academia can.

Can you rephrase the reasons for why academic philosophy can lead to arrogance and lack of character development? Do you think it is insecurity?

Most of what academia categorizes as phil is useless. I thought it was blatantly clear that was the definition in question. Look up the course catelog of a university. Most of it is useless. I've yet to see a class on ethics make a single person more ethical (I've been waiting to say that for so long ).

The study of it can be harmful if studied in the wrong way. I'm not entirely sure how often it is harmful. Part of me says rarely, part of me says frequently in small ways. But I mean the study of anything difficult can be harmful in the same way.

Yes, I believe insecurity plays a roll. Also, what appears to contribute most is poor upbringing. Then the difficult studies exacerbate it.

However, the part I'd like to focus on is that if it is studied in the right way, it becomes quite beneficial.

Jaded Sage wrote: However, the part I'd like to focus on is that if it is studied in the right way, it becomes quite beneficial.

What is the right way of studying it and why?

Risto wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: However, the part I'd like to focus on is that if it is studied in the right way, it becomes quite beneficial.

What is the right way of studying it and why?

To be honest, I don't know how to answer the first question, but I do know the right way. I mean I don't know how to put it into words.

The second question: It is the right way because of the results it produces.