Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote:

HexHammer wrote:That sounds very nice, could you elaborate on that? Where in the real world do they use such thing?

Occasionally on this forum; rarely in your part of Denmark.

So big buisnesses should just look on various philosphy fora to gain unique insights in life? ..from people who just sit there spekulating and guessing?

..that's good, I'm sure you can earn a lot of money off this cozy chat.

HexHammer wrote:So big buisnesses should just look on various philosphy fora to gain unique insights in life? ..from people who just sit there spekulating and guessing?

Mr Hammer, if you were a bit better at philosophy, you wouldn't make statements of this sort which simply do not follow from anything I have said. It's called a straw man fallacy, if you are interested. It's a cosy chat sort of thing.

HexHammer wrote:..that's good, I'm sure you can earn a lot of money off this cozy chat.

I'm doing alright, thanks. I'm sure if I cared enough about money I could do better.

uwot wrote:

HexHammer wrote:So big buisnesses should just look on various philosphy fora to gain unique insights in life? ..from people who just sit there spekulating and guessing?

Mr Hammer, if you were a bit better at philosophy, you wouldn't make statements of this sort which simply do not follow from anything I have said. It's called a straw man fallacy, if you are interested. It's a cosy chat sort of thing.

HexHammer wrote:..that's good, I'm sure you can earn a lot of money off this cozy chat.

I'm doing alright, thanks. I'm sure if I cared enough about money I could do better.

Yearh, that's why statisticly a philosopher on cozy chatting online has such high jobs, earning millions? ..yearh.

HexHammer wrote:

uwot wrote:

HexHammer wrote:So big buisnesses should just look on various philosphy fora to gain unique insights in life? ..from people who just sit there spekulating and guessing?

Mr Hammer, if you were a bit better at philosophy, you wouldn't make statements of this sort which simply do not follow from anything I have said. It's called a straw man fallacy, if you are interested. It's a cosy chat sort of thing.

HexHammer wrote:..that's good, I'm sure you can earn a lot of money off this cozy chat.

I'm doing alright, thanks. I'm sure if I cared enough about money I could do better.

Yearh, that's why statisticly a philosopher on cozy chatting online has such high jobs, earning millions? ..yearh.

Yeah and the only thing that matters of course is your bank balance.

HexHammer wrote:Yearh, that's why statisticly a philosopher on cozy chatting online has such high jobs, earning millions? ..yearh.

Well, if you can find the statistics, we could have a philosophical discussion about them, or a cosy chat if you'd rather, Mr Hammer.

uwot wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Yearh, that's why statisticly a philosopher on cozy chatting online has such high jobs, earning millions? ..yearh.

Well, if you can find the statistics, we could have a philosophical discussion about them, or a cosy chat if you'd rather, Mr Hammer.

Only if I can post vast swathes of maths on stochastic and statistical maths and their relation to quantum mechanics, that makes your ears bleed!



integral of e^(-x^2) dx is insoluble in cartesian co-ordinates:

But conveniently in spherical polar co-ordinates:



and because of that:



We end up with a Gaussian distribution. Widely used in electromagnetism and other areas.

Sorry had to post that haven't posted maths babble in 48 hours getting the DTs.

uwot wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Yearh, that's why statisticly a philosopher on cozy chatting online has such high jobs, earning millions? ..yearh.

Well, if you can find the statistics, we could have a philosophical discussion about them, or a cosy chat if you'd rather, Mr Hammer.

I've been around various philosophy fora since 2008, asked about 40 people which kind of job they had, and all was depressingly low wage jobs.

So far your sales pitch about this cozy chat has brought nothing solid, and wouldn't sell much without any solid evidense of what you try to push on me, rather you try to convince me with silly rethorics.

If you can't use philosophy out in the real world, then it's a delusion of relevance. It has been around for thousands of years, yet you can't bring a single useful thing.

HexHammer wrote:
So far your sales pitch about this cozy chat has brought nothing solid, and wouldn't sell much without any solid evidense of what you try to push on me, rather you try to convince me with silly rethorics.

If you can't use philosophy out in the real world, then it's a delusion of relevance. It has been around for thousands of years, yet you can't bring a single useful thing.

Our legal system is based on practical ethics, philosophers have contributed to science particularly in grounding it in a methodology, in fact there are millions of ways in which philosophy has contributed to society that are way to numerous to name, why you seem so down on it and yet hang around it so much is pretty odd though.

Archimedes was a famous inventor who built weapons based on his theories of ballistics and weight and maths which helped when the Romans invaded Sicily who also solved the volume of a sphere using a primitive form of calculus and advanced concrete mechanical engineering with his use of levers and the famous archimedes screw. Also the mathematics and principles used by The Egyptians and Greeks are so intrinsic to architecture and just about anything designed and built in the modern age. Without a maths philosopher called Heron invented the imaginary numbers, which were later refined by an Italian and later accepted when euler wrote the famous equation:



Which can be used to derive every trigonometric function. And is merely a 4th axis perpendicular to x,y,z allowing hence 4d models to be plotted such as where a ball bouncing will stop and so on.

Which lead Gauss to his stochastic solutions in spherical mediums as outlined in probability distribution maths above, although it didn't find much use until the 19th century when scientists made great use of probability mechanics in electrodynamics and the unification hence of magnetism.

They would reach a height of utility in the 20th century though when they were used by Einstein to model his General theory of gravity and by Bohr and Schrödinger and Dirac to produce equations which could model the wave/particle duality of matter. Incidentally Bohrs Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics drew heavily on Kant's ideas of realism, and Schrödinger keenly explored many philosophers in many works both inside and outside physics, as did Einstein.

So I'd say philosophy being the father of science has had and still has a lot to contribute, it has lead to the French revolution and American independence, it has also created some of the most diverse and popular literature in history, and it is used as a means of political polemics to this day.

Any big wig in politics has a think tank or two to turn to, and seldom do they lack a philosopher.

HexHammer wrote:I've been around various philosophy fora since 2008, asked about 40 people which kind of job they had, and all was depressingly low wage jobs.

Do you not think that might have something to do with the amount of time they spend on philosophy fora? Since they have 'depressingly low wage jobs', I presume none of the 40 described themselves as philosophers. Do you have any data on how depressing or low the wages of professional philosophers are?

HexHammer wrote:So far your sales pitch about this cozy chat has brought nothing solid, and wouldn't sell much without any solid evidense of what you try to push on me, rather you try to convince me with silly rethorics.

What sales pitch is that, Mr Hammer?

HexHammer wrote:If you can't use philosophy out in the real world, then it's a delusion of relevance.

Well; there's everything that ArisingUK and Blaggard said. I also made the point that philosophy is about understanding ideas and developing the skills to present your own and to challenge others. Your approach is to dismiss things you lack the wit to appreciate as cosy chat. It may be true, but it's not a very sophisticated argument. There are two examples of you developing some sort of argument that you have twice, to my knowledge, referred to; that is not a great return for someone who has "been around various philosophy fora since 2008".
Having said all that, should I care if I am deluded about relevence?

HexHammer wrote:It has been around for thousands of years, yet you can't bring a single useful thing.

Well, being able to recognise people who have no idea what they are talking about is handy.

uwot wrote:I also made the point that philosophy is about understanding ideas and developing the skills to present your own and to challenge others. Your approach is to dismiss things you lack the wit to appreciate as cosy chat. It may be true, but it's not a very sophisticated argument. There are two examples of you developing some sort of argument that you have twice, to my knowledge, referred to; that is not a great return for someone who has "been around various philosophy fora since 2008".
Having said all that, should I care if I am deluded about relevence?

Understanding what ideas? If people doesn't understand psychology, engineering, atomic physcis, etc, etc what can they solve? ...NOTHING! If they really wanted to develope themselves they would take a education.

Maybe I'm wrong, but back up your claim, istead of speaking out your ass, you can never prove anything of your fairytale dreams, because it's all a delusion to you.

If I'm proven wrong, I promise to leave this forum for good!

HexHammer wrote:Understanding what ideas? If people doesn't understand psychology, engineering, atomic physcis, etc, etc what can they solve? ...NOTHING!

Those things are sciences, Mr Hammer. There really is a difference between science and philosophy. Loosely speaking, science is how you learn about the behaviour of the world, philosophy is how you make sense of it.

HexHammer wrote:If they really wanted to develope themselves they would take a education.

In what? Is all we do problem solving?

HexHammer wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but back up your claim, istead of speaking out your ass, you can never prove anything of your fairytale dreams, because it's all a delusion to you.

For all I know, everything is a delusion, the point is I cannot prove it isn't. Apart from logic, there is very little you can prove in philosophy; generally you can prove an argument is valid, it is much harder to prove the premises are true. The point was graphically made by Bishop Berkeley, who believed that all sensations are ideas in the mind of god. There is nothing intrinsic in the empirical data we use to create our vision of the world that proves it is anything more than sensations. It doesn't even follow that their are 'physical' brains that perceive. Isaac Newton, who believed all sorts of silly bollocks, took the hint and set the course of physics ever since. He discovered a mathematical relation that described the action of gravity very accurately, but he admitted that he had no idea what caused gravity. In his opinion it was not the business of science to hypothesize about ultimate causes; they don't make any difference to the scientific observations. If it doesn't make bells ring or lights flash, it's metaphysics; all very interesting, but of no practical value. The trouble is that people believe in different unprovable metaphysical systems, some of which can be interpreted as exhorting believers to murder non believers. One practical use of philosophy is to make as strong a case for your point of view in an effort to lessen bloodshed, which is probably a good thing.

HexHammer wrote:If I'm proven wrong, I promise to leave this forum for good!

Do as you wish, Mr Hammer; I have no interest in causing you to leave this forum.

HexHammer wrote:So big buisnesses should just look on various philosphy fora to gain unique insights in life?

What makes you think interweeb forums are the place to find philosophers? I'd have thought business would go to the universities if they wanted such things.

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:So big buisnesses should just look on various philosphy fora to gain unique insights in life?

What makes you think interweeb forums are the place to find philosophers? I'd have thought business would go to the universities if they wanted such things.

Actually Arising they go to Philosophers R Us, where they can pick up in bulk steady thinkers at a price that is not too detrimental to their wallet.

You're naïve but that's how it works. I often go to the same store, and well Lawyers R Us it's a no brainer, for when I need legal representation without the hassle of worrying about my budget.

You can even pick up a cut price Scheister for pennies in such places, but you do have to keep your eyes open for a bargain...

HexHammer wrote:I've been around various philosophy fora since 2008, asked about 40 people which kind of job they had, and all was depressingly low wage jobs.

Did you ask them if they were depressed?

Have you done a comparison of rates of depression between those doing low wage jobs who had studied Philosophy and those who hadn't?

Does remind me of an old joke in academic Philosophy tho' - "What do you say to a philosopher with a job? Big Muc and large fries please".

If you can't use philosophy out in the real world, then it's a delusion of relevance. It has been around for thousands of years, yet you can't bring a single useful thing.

Depends what you mean by use in the real world? The last time a philosopher decided to change the real world he did and everyone seemed to get most upset about it.

A uk

It's depressingly that so many delusional people who thinks they do great things with cozy chat, has nothing but low wages job.

Real life = HD server.