A very british good evening to you all.

[Adam]

Hi All,

Just a quick hello. I am new to the philosophy world. Its always been something I have found intriguing and in recent years I have delved into books covering the subject starting with the early greek philosophers. Over time the subject and its satellite sciences have facinated me more and more. I am considering doing a distance learning degree this year but I am yet to decide whether this will be in philosophy, applied philosophy or anthropology. I am a mechanical engineer, based in the UK and enjoy the philosophy or science, language and ethics particularly.

I look forward to reading your posts, and perhaps making some of my own observations.

Treat the green horn nicely!!

Cheers,

Adam.

[conceptualizer]

Hi Adam
It feels odd to be the first to say hello, if no one beats me to it, as I joined just yesterday.
Let us hope we both enjoy some stimulating ideas.

[Adam]

Absolutely. Have a read of the topic "patience with opinions". It would be interesting to know what you think about my retort.

[conceptualizer]

Absolutely. Have a read of the topic "patience with opinions". It would be interesting to know what you think about my retort.

Hello Adam,
Sorry for the delay in replying.
I also added my opinions to the topic, but I was distracted, still I found my way back.

If infact you require a certain quantity (which needs defining?) of knowledge to be able to put forward a "water tight" argument on any given subject, then how did early thinkers gain the knowledge necessary to become "authorities" on the philosophy other than by thinking, formulation and consideration?

I don’t know, but I suggest that it was what we are doing here, dialogue.

By definition, if ignorance is the condition of being uneducated, unaware or uninformed, then is it reasonable to assume that a "philosopher" is completely omniscient? If so, why continue to philosophize?

I think most philosophers would be more likely to say they know just enough to know how little they know, but suspect in fact that they know less than enough to know how little they know. That is the reason they continue, along with the pleasure derived from the process.

I can understand how using tools such as logic or the philosophy of science can derive a degree of certainty to a subject or argument, but how can anyone ever define knowledge when that very knowledge is in question? (or "the problem is epistemology" as arising_uk put it)

Yes, as I have suggested elsewhere, to know impossible, one may only believe with varying degrees of certainty. It seems that we must elect to believe some information as axiomatic, which allows us to get on with our cogitating. Occasionally those beliefs are challenged and that is deeply troubling for us, as much of what we believe is fact must be re-examined.

[duszek]

According to Aristotle each being is happy when it uses its specific quality.
A rabbit is happy when it can jump.
A bird is happy when it can fly.
A human being is happy when it can reason. Because reason is what distinguishes a human being from other animals.