For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
THIS!Notvacka wrote:I agree that philosophy could be deemed "useless" in some narrow, practical sense, just like art, music, poetry, religion and sports could be deemed "useless". But I would like to propose that only such "useless" activities are truly meaningful in a human sense.
As humans, we do all the useful, necessary stuff in order to make time for activities that give life meaning, things that are ends in themselves. Any animal can gather food and procreate. Which, when you think about it, is rather pointless unless it leads to something more.
Being human, as opposed to being an animal or a plant, is to reflect upon existence, to ask questions that have no answer. In that way, philosophy is the art of being human in its most refined form.
Science is science, not philosophy; otherwise, people graduating with philosophy degrees would be suited to work at CERN as physicists, or build computers, or cure disease, etc. Trying to justify the existence of philosophy at this juncture by claiming it gets credit for science, and by extension, people wasting their time studying non-scientific philosophy get credit for being useful makes no sense.Satyr wrote:Science is the application of philosophical concepts.
It is a byproduct of a particular branch of philosophy or a particular attitude and way of looking at the world.
I did state it has some entertainment value, but if that is all philosophy is then it is the equivalent to playing checkers.Thundril wrote:THIS!Notvacka wrote:I agree that philosophy could be deemed "useless" in some narrow, practical sense, just like art, music, poetry, religion and sports could be deemed "useless". But I would like to propose that only such "useless" activities are truly meaningful in a human sense.
As humans, we do all the useful, necessary stuff in order to make time for activities that give life meaning, things that are ends in themselves. Any animal can gather food and procreate. Which, when you think about it, is rather pointless unless it leads to something more.
Being human, as opposed to being an animal or a plant, is to reflect upon existence, to ask questions that have no answer. In that way, philosophy is the art of being human in its most refined form.
Once more you prove your quality.ForgedinHell wrote:Science is science, not philosophy; otherwise, people graduating with philosophy degrees would be suited to work at CERN as physicists, or build computers, or cure disease, etc. Trying to justify the existence of philosophy at this juncture by claiming it gets credit for science, and by extension, people wasting their time studying non-scientific philosophy get credit for being useful makes no sense.
Schopenhauer, Arthur wrote:Thus a man who thinks for himself only subsequently becomes acquainted with the authorities for his opinions when they serve merely to confirm him therein and to encourage him.
The book-philosopher, on the other hand, starts from those authorities in that he constructs for himself an entire system from the opinions of others which he has collected in the course of his reading.
Aristotle wrote:There is no science but that of the general.
Wikepedia wrote:Pinker argues that modern science has challenged three ‘linked dogmas’ that constitute the dominant view of human nature in intellectual life:
-The Blank Slate (the mind has no innate traits) — empiricism
- The Noble Savage (people are born good and corrupted by society) — romanticism
-The Ghost in the Machine (each of us has a soul that makes choices free from biology) — mind/body dualism.
Guenon,Rene wrote:The term ‘physics’, in its original and etymological sense, means precisely the ‘science of nature’ without qualifications; it is therefore the science that deals with the most general laws of ‘becoming’, for ‘nature’ and ‘becoming’ are in reality synonymous, and it was thus that the Greeks, and notably Aristotle, understood this science. If there are more specialized sciences dealing with the same order of reality, they can amount to no more that ‘specifications’ of physics, dealing with one or another more narrowly defined sphere.
Already, therefore, one can see the significant deviation of meaning to which the modern world has subjected the word ‘physics’, using it to designate exclusively one particular science among others, all of which are equally natural sciences, and this is an example of that process of subdivision we have already mentioned as being one of the characteristics of modern science.
This ‘specialization’, arising from an analytical attitude of mind, has been pushed to such a point that those who have undergone its influence are incapable of conceiving of a science that deals with nature in its entirety. Some of the drawbacks of this specialization have not passed altogether unnoticed, especially the narrowness of outlook that is its inevitable outcome; but even those who perceive this most clearly seem nonetheless resigned to accept it as a necessary evil entailed by the accumulation of detailed knowledge such as no man could hope to take in at once; on the one hand, they have been unable to perceive that this detailed knowledge is insignificant itself and not worth the sacrifice of synthetic knowledge which it entails, for synthetic knowledge, though this too is restricted to what is relative, is nevertheless of a much higher order; and on the other hand, they have failed to see that the impossibility of unifying the multiplicity of this detailed knowledge is due only to their refusal to attach it to a higher principle; in other words, it is due to a persistence in proceeding from below and from outside, whereas it is the opposite method that would be necessary if one wishes to have a science of any real speculative value.
Baudrillard, Jean wrote:Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment.
Camus, Albert wrote:Science today betrays its origins and denies its own acquisitions in allowing itself to be put to the service of State terrorism and the desire for power. Its punishment and its degradation lie in only being able to produce, in an abstract world, the means of destruction and enslavement. But when the limit is reached, science will perhaps serve the individual rebellion. This terrible necessity will mark the decisive turning-point.
Galbraith, John wrote:Much literary criticism comes from people for whom extreme specialization is a cover for either grave cerebral inadequacy or terminal laziness, the latter being a much cherished aspect of academic freedom.
Goetha, Wolfgang wrote:The history of philosophy, of the sciences, of religion, all show that opinions are spread abroad on a quantitative scale and that the leading position always goes to what is easier to grasp, that is, to whatever is easier and more comfortable for the human spirit. Indeed, the man who has fully educated and developed himself in a higher sense can always reckon to have the majority against him.
[quote="Kant, Immanuel""]Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.[/quote]Santayana, George wrote:Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.
Well, if you are taking the position that philosophy is useless for those who refuse to think for themselves, then aren't you contradicting yourself? If someone did accept an argument, that was valid, even if they didn't give it much thought, wouldn't the acceptance of that idea or argument be an improvement over not learning philosophy at all?Atthet wrote:Philosophy is useless to those who astutely and proudly refuse to think for themselves. Most participants in philosophy forums, ironically, least belong on them. This demonstrates the fact that for every thinker, and master of his own life, there are dozens and hundreds of slaves and followers, who will never garnish a gram of their own authority in life. Because this is true, the majority of morons will only regurgitate quotes from famous philosophers, or others in general, as their demonstrative "philosophy" in life.
It is a copy of somebody else's thoughts, beliefs, and aspirations. This makes mental slavery possible and demonstrative. The slave mentality is rampant on forums like these, countless slaves begging for an intellectual master, or at least, intellectually mastery of any kind, including the most distant fantasy of a possibility.
This is the birth of every idealism.
How does it protect the many who cannot think for themselves, the turd asks, wanting advice for himself, no doubt.Genetic Garbage wrote:And if one thinks for themselves, but they are lousy at it, how does that make them better off?
Well said!Notvacka wrote:I agree that philosophy could be deemed "useless" in some narrow, practical sense, just like art, music, poetry, religion and sports could be deemed "useless". But I would like to propose that only such "useless" activities are truly meaningful in a human sense.
As humans, we do all the useful, necessary stuff in order to make time for activities that give life meaning, things that are ends in themselves. Any animal can gather food and procreate. Which, when you think about it, is rather pointless unless it leads to something more.
Being human, as opposed to being an animal or a plant, is to reflect upon existence, to ask questions that have no answer. In that way, philosophy is the art of being human in its most refined form.
Yes.ForgedinHell wrote:
I did state it has some entertainment value, but if that is all philosophy is then it is the equivalent to playing checkers.
LOL. Well, then I'll take the opposite position in my post titled something like "Philosophy is one of the Greatest Disciplines to Learn."Thundril wrote:Yes.ForgedinHell wrote:
I did state it has some entertainment value, but if that is all philosophy is then it is the equivalent to playing checkers.
Implication is the most subtle form of accusation.ForgedinHell wrote:Well, if you are taking the position that philosophy is useless for those who refuse to think for themselves, then aren't you contradicting yourself?
Philosophy is nothing more than validation and self-gratification for you.ForgedinHell wrote:If someone did accept an argument, that was valid, even if they didn't give it much thought, wouldn't the acceptance of that idea or argument be an improvement over not learning philosophy at all?
Being retarded and genetic feces left to fend for itself in the wild, is a much better start and improvement than protection of this genetic filth, inside the walls of civilization, where it cannot be recycled, but instead molds, festers, and rots. We could compare the black plague of Europe to a memetic plague inhabiting the western world today. People are brain dead, zombies. No more is this apparent than on these "philosophy" forums, where thought and "free thinking" is rarest of all.ForgedinHell wrote:And if one thinks for themselves, but they are lousy at it, how does that make them better off?
mickthinks wrote:LOL - it's probably worth pointing out that many of us (most of us, I think) find Satyr's style of communication unsatisfactory and don't bother with him. By all means try and make it work for you but don't feel bad if you come to the same conclusion as we did.
Mick