Philosophy Now Forum

Never understood this subject.

I think this category is really dealing with The Enlightenment.

You say you don't understand a subject and then try to define it?

Arising_uk wrote:You say you don't understand a subject and then try to define it?

What's wrong with that?

Where would you start if you don't understand it?

Arising_uk wrote:Where would you start if you don't understand it?

What does that mean?

I don't think you have any idea about the philosophy of mathematics either.

zorro wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:You say you don't understand a subject and then try to define it?

What's wrong with that?

Aha, an instance of Meno's paradox! (Meno, 80d-e)

zorro wrote:... I don't think you have any idea about the philosophy of mathematics either.

Maybe not but then I think I'd hesitate before defining it. At least until I'd heard a few views that is.

This the post-modernist/deconstructuralist approach to things?

Maybe not but then I think I'd hesitate before defining it. At least until I'd heard a few views that is.

This the post-modernist/deconstructuralist approach to things?

Profound

Philosophy seeks absolute answers.

Maths provides attributes to reality that can be explicitly expressed.

Ergo, Maths is a philosophers tool.

Philosophy seeks absolute answers.

Well, philosophy can go ahead and seek absolute answers all it wants but it wouldn't find them. Philosophy is not designed that way, to find absolutes. And if it does discover them then it isn't philosophy. In philosophy absolutes don't remain absolutes for long because they are constantly consummating themselves.

I wonder why the wise men of this forum even started this index. They should at least explain themselves and their motives for it. I think it was a pin-head decision.

Economics is more a philosophy than a science. Because economics is so fluid it is a philosophy more than a science. Yet economists are constantly forcing absolutes and mathematics on it. Why, the logic and mathematics economists have practices and insinuated on economics recently is what gave us the financial crisis we are in today. And some philosophers have been trying to do the same thing with all human endeavor, with mostly disastrous effects. Leave well enough alone and get rid of this stupid category.

Now let's hear from the rest of you and the peanut gallery out there who also don't have a clue about the existence of this category and why PN decided in its wisdom to add it to the form. At least we should have an expert's explanation for it.

spike wrote:Well, philosophy can go ahead and seek absolute answers all it wants but it wouldn't find them. Philosophy is not designed that way, to find absolutes. And if it does discover them then it isn't philosophy. In philosophy absolutes don't remain absolutes for long because they are constantly consummating themselves.

I'd have thought the tautologies and contradictions of Logic are absolutes in any meaningful sense of the word? Its why we found them.

I wonder why the wise men of this forum even started this index. They should at least explain themselves and their motives for it. I think it was a pin-head decision.

Economics is more a philosophy than a science. Because economics is so fluid it is a philosophy more than a science. Yet economists are constantly forcing absolutes and mathematics on it. Why, the logic and mathematics economists have practices and insinuated on economics recently is what gave us the financial crisis we are in today. And some philosophers have been trying to do the same thing with all human endeavor, with mostly disastrous effects. Leave well enough alone and get rid of this stupid category.

Why should they explain it to you? Or at all? You think this a democracy? Do you subcribe and pay your dues to fund this forum?

Why did you even bring economics up in this thread?

Still, what 'logic' economists? But I agree that Econometrics has assumed to much prevalence in Economics, although I'm at a loss as to how you think maths and statistics can be avoided in a subject that deals with quantities of things?

Since Logic is just about the only thing that Philosophy can truly call its own I understand no problem with this category. Although we could maybe drop the Maths bit but horses for courses I guess.

Now let's hear from the rest of you and the peanut gallery out there who also don't have a clue about the existence of this category and why PN decided in its wisdom to add it to the form. At least we should have an expert's explanation for it.

Logic has been a major part of Philosophy since its inception.

Ak:

Why should they explain it to you? Or at all?

This is the arrogance of this forum and from monitors like you.

What's a "monitor" when its at home?

Why do you not think you are arrogant and naive to think that free forums on the internet should be accountable for their strategic decisions to their users? Especially if they have not paid any dues for its support?

Of course the users can always withdraw their attention but what specifically makes you think "they should at least explain themselves and their motives..." when these things are privately funded enterprises?

Why did you not addresses the other points?

Love from the peanut gallery.

Arising_uk wrote:What's a "monitor" when its at home?

daydreaming of becoming Godzilla perhaps?

-Imp