Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote: So, for instance, while we can detect quarks, leptons and so on, which we think are fundamental, we cannot currently directly detect the stuff they are made of. We can't see it; we can only think about it. In Kant's terms, it is not phenomenal, it is noumenal.

...until possibly the next upgrade to the LHC. Eventually we will detect Nothing which will explain Everything and that's when the Universe will be understood as only noumenal without there being anything phenomenal about it.

Lear's statement "Nothing becomes of Nothing" will be inverted into "Everything becomes of Nothing" since it will be clear there is not Anything which is not made of Nothing which makes Nothing the final Theory of Everything...including Philosophy!

It couldn't be simpler or clearer!

A_Seagull wrote:What are the facts of philosophy?
And what are their origins?

I'm not sure that there are any 'facts of philosophy' ; depending on what you mean by that phrase.

Philosophy, in general, appears more about theories, propositions, doctrines or belief that ' X is the case'. This might be to try to account for something not yet understood. Sometimes it is to challenge dogmatism; agreed and unquestioned be!iefs held as facts.
That is to say, it must be true because it says so in [ name your book ]...

So many '-isms', but 'facts'...in the sense of knowledge or information based on real occurrences, or something believed to be true or real...I guess is found in the branch of empiricism ?

In philosophy, then, you will not find a whole bunch of facts to spout forth, and be certain of. But propositions that may be true, false; convincing or unconvincing. To be chewed over and over and over.
Some have no appetite for this. However, there is more than one side or aim to/in/of philosophy. Like philosophism...

uwot wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:...but why are they facts? Surely not just because Parmenides et al stated them? But then where do they come from?

How is it possible to conclude that "There is something"?

1. Because it is self refuting to state there is nothing.
2. By the same token, it is self refuting to think 'there are no thoughts', but as Descartes argued, it is possible that we are hallucinating or being deceived by an evil daemon.
3. Whatever hypothesis you propose as the explanation for the things you see and hear, it will always be subject to the problem of induction.
4. Whatever the source of the phenomena, it is beyond the reach of science to explain it. So, for instance, while we can detect quarks, leptons and so on, which we think are fundamental, we cannot currently directly detect the stuff they are made of. We can't see it; we can only think about it. In Kant's terms, it is not phenomenal, it is noumenal.
5. Using the same example; how and what we think about the stuff the universe is made of, depends on the model we have chosen to adopt. That is demonstrably the case.

Oh, this is good stuff !
A model response, I think

Dubious wrote:It couldn't be simpler or clearer!

Well, the thing is that even now, the colossal amount of data generated by the LHC means that you have to create algorithms that can search for specific patterns. In other words, you can only find what you are looking for. It is patterns in data that we can see, it is not, for instance the Highs (that's Higgs obviously. F@cking predictive text.) boson itself. The Higgs field, like all the other hypothetical quantum fields are, even in principle, beyond the range of any future upgrade, because all any particle accelerator will ever measure is the patterns in the fields. It is those patterns which are phenomenal, and which correspond to matter and energy. The fields themselves are noumenal.

marjoram_blues wrote:Oh, this is good stuff !
A model response, I think

Ta very much.

uwot wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:Oh, this is good stuff !
A model response, I think

Ta very much.

You are very welcome.

A_Seagull wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Thales believed everything was made of water.

Why is that philosophy? What was the origin of his assertion? Do you agree with it? If so why?

It's natural philosophy. Back in the day they were all in search of the fundmental element. I happen to agree with Heraclitus that everything is made of fire, I'm not sure why tho. lol

marjoram_blues wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:What are the facts of philosophy?
And what are their origins?

I'm not sure that there are any 'facts of philosophy' ; depending on what you mean by that phrase.

Philosophy, in general, appears more about theories, propositions, doctrines or belief that ' X is the case'. This might be to try to account for something not yet understood. Sometimes it is to challenge dogmatism; agreed and unquestioned be!iefs held as facts.
That is to say, it must be true because it says so in [ name your book ]...

So many '-isms', but 'facts'...in the sense of knowledge or information based on real occurrences, or something believed to be true or real...I guess is found in the branch of empiricism ?

In philosophy, then, you will not find a whole bunch of facts to spout forth, and be certain of. But propositions that may be true, false; convincing or unconvincing. To be chewed over and over and over.
Some have no appetite for this. However, there is more than one side or aim to/in/of philosophy. Like philosophism...

Uwot has suggested some facts of philosophy. Why these do not form the core of any book or university course on philosophy is a question I cannot answer. Instead as you point out books and courses are full of arguments and isms that seem to do little but chase their own tails!

uwot wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:...but why are they facts? Surely not just because Parmenides et al stated them? But then where do they come from?

How is it possible to conclude that "There is something"?

1. Because it is self refuting to state there is nothing.
2. By the same token, it is self refuting to think 'there are no thoughts', but as Descartes argued, it is possible that we are hallucinating or being deceived by an evil daemon.
3. Whatever hypothesis you propose as the explanation for the things you see and hear, it will always be subject to the problem of induction.
4. Whatever the source of the phenomena, it is beyond the reach of science to explain it. So, for instance, while we can detect quarks, leptons and so on, which we think are fundamental, we cannot currently directly detect the stuff they are made of. We can't see it; we can only think about it. In Kant's terms, it is not phenomenal, it is noumenal.
5. Using the same example; how and what we think about the stuff the universe is made of, depends on the model we have chosen to adopt. That is demonstrably the case.

Yes, nicely put.

I would just like to expand a bit on your point 5. Ok so the phenomenal world we live in is a paradigm. But then how do we chose to adopt a particular paradigm? I suggest that there is a pragmatic element to the process. We chose to adopt a paradigm that works, that brings us success.

Jaded Sage wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Thales believed everything was made of water.

Why is that philosophy? What was the origin of his assertion? Do you agree with it? If so why?

It's natural philosophy. Back in the day they were all in search of the fundmental element. I happen to agree with Heraclitus that everything is made of fire, I'm not sure why tho. lol

I suspect that Thales chose water as his fundamental element as it is easily seen to be able to take up the three forms of solid (ice), liquid and gas (steam). It was the first attempt at science. And it was a successful scientific theory as it gave a seed to the process of science and for a search for deeper patterns in the science of materials.

And yes, I like Heraclitus too. His focus on firte highlights the importance of change in the world. Without change the universe could not be perceived to exist.

But these are more to do with scientific 'facts' than philosophical ones.

Perhaps the underlying philosophical fact is that the physical world is understandable. And it is important to know that.

To ASeagull

Re the topic of philosophy books, courses and their contents.
Clearly some include the 'facts' which uwot carefully outlined. Some will go into more or less detail and provide alternative perspectives.

I also pointed out: there is more than one side or aim of/to or in philosophy.
The chasing of the seemingly stale old tales can make for good thinking and personal challenges and growth, depending on how they are presented.

I'm thinking of philosophy for children ( wiki article). You can scroll down to the list of books to glimpse the variety of fun and practical philosophy on offer.

Again, not dry theory or dogmatic posturing argumentation but use of fiction to address philosophical issues. Reflective thinking collaboratively.

Please explain why you bring up the issue of 'facts'- I'd like to know the background, thanks.

marjoram blues wrote:
Philosophy in general appears more about theories propositions doctrines or belief
that X is the case. This might be to try to account for something not yet understood

Yes I think that philosophy tries to explain what is unknown by using logic and reason

uwot wrote:
1. Because it is self refuting to state there is nothing
2. By the same token it is self refuting to think there are no thoughts but as Descartes argued it is possible that we
are hallucinating or being deceived by an evil daemon
3. Whatever hypothesis you propose as the explanation for the things you see and hear it will always be subject to the problem of induction
4. Whatever the source of the phenomena it is beyond the reach of science to explain it. So for instance while we can detect quarks leptons
and so on which we think are fundamental we cannot currently directly detect the stuff they are made of. We can t see it we can only think
about it. In Kants terms it is not phenomenal it is noumenal
5. Using the same example how and what we think about the stuff the universe is made of depends on the
model we have chosen to adopt. That is demonstrably the case

I agree with most of this but would question whether it is actually beyond the reach of science to explain anything
As a methodology it is the best means of understanding the observable universe. Even if it cannot absolutely do so

surreptitious57 wrote:

marjoram blues wrote:
Philosophy in general appears more about theories propositions doctrines or belief
that X is the case. This might be to try to account for something not yet understood

Yes I think that philosophy tries to explain what is unknown by using logic and reason

Good for you.
You know that was only a part of what I wrote; are you deliberately ignoring all the rest and my question to you in my last post.
Talk to me, please; philosophising about the 'the facts of philosophy' seems to strike a particular chord with you, why is it important to you?

marjoram_blues wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

marjoram blues wrote:
Philosophy in general appears more about theories propositions doctrines or belief
that X is the case. This might be to try to account for something not yet understood

Yes I think that philosophy tries to explain what is unknown by using logic and reason

You know that was only a part of what I wrote are you deliberately ignoring all the rest and my question to you in my last post
Talk to me please philosophising about the the facts of philosophy seems to strike a particular chord with you why is it important to you

I think that you mean A Seagull since he was the one you were asking the question of in your post and not me