The Value of Philosophy

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Socrastein, May 8, 2005.

  1. Shadowdh

    Shadowdh Seeker of Knowledge


    I think I see why you think my arguments are contructed of straw of a humanoid shape... you are just not willing to look at another point of view... you have a definition and set of ideas and by christ thats how it is... I am a bit pushed for time now but will go over all the posts again to glean all examples of what I am trying to point out...

    "Shadowdh was saying that someone can rationally try to understand and question without philosophizing, but that's not true if you define philosophy as rationally trying to understand and question. He can't blatantly contradict my definition like that without completely ignoring what I've said."

    This part here is just so closed... again by YOUR definition... as you say...
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2005
  2. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Apologies for the length, I hope this doesn't come off as preachy, it is not meant in that way.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2005
  3. Cuchulain82

    Cuchulain82 Custodia Legis

    Since this is about the value of philosophy, I would like to say that there isn't much value in using such a contradictory tone all the time *coughsocrastiencough* Philosophy isn't just the rational questioning of ideas. At it's heart I think philosophy is a desire to understand the world, internal and external. All of these threads seems to degenerate into snippy semantical arguments. Discussion should be encouraged and posts should be articulate and precise, otherwise this isn't fun and no one will post here.
     
  4. Bil Gee

    Bil Gee Thug

    I would have thought that being able to present a succinct argument in your own words would have been one of the desired outcomes of a study of philosophy. As you point out the semantical arguments and needlessly wordy posts demonstrate that there a few with a passion for philosophy who aren't capable of doing this.

    Life is just too short for me to waste the time neccessary to respond to the points raised. Mosts of the posts are so dull, opinionated and crass in content that I can't even bother reading past the first paragraph.
     
  5. Shadowdh

    Shadowdh Seeker of Knowledge

    Geo, Cuch (may I call you Cuch) and Psin have pretty much said what I would probably say (but I would not have done so well methinks) so I will refrain from discussing semantics etc with socrastein...
     
  6. Cuchulain82

    Cuchulain82 Custodia Legis

    Yes, of course, call me Cuch... :D

    For me, I don't mean to be crappy to Socrastein, but arguments about philosophy should be discussions, not outright fights. The language one uses in posting goes a long way in that regard.
     
  7. Shadowdh

    Shadowdh Seeker of Knowledge

    I agree plus imho when one discusses phil or anything really, regardless of any personal definition you should be accepting of differences in the defintion of the subject... or as Geo said... what does it mean to you...???

    Thanks Cuch... :)
     
  8. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    Shadowdh I specifically asked what your definition of philosophy is. I NEVER said that my definition is right, or it's the only way, or anyone who disagrees is stupid, or anything like that. What I did say is that according to the way I define philosophy, you can't say that pursuing rational understanding is not philosophizing. I said you can disagree on account of having a different definition, but you can't deny that with my definition you would be philosophizing. Do you not see that? It's a very simple point, I'm sorry it's confusing you and you think that I'm trying to lay down absolutes or anything like that.

    My stance on what? Again I must ask you specify what you're actually referring to.

    What are you talking about Geo... Where did I say that if you carefully read it you would not understand it? You said you skimmed it, and didn't understand it. You then asked if that means you don't understand philosophy. I said no, it means you didn't understand one particular passage. Unless you lied about not understanding it, there was nothing condescending in my reply in any way. For Christ's sake, if you're going to accuse me of having an ego and acting intellectually superior, make sure I've actually done so.

    Well I don't think he was right, but even if he was right, his argument was still a ridiculous one. You can be right about something and still have a completely irrational argument. I could say "The earth rotates around the sun, because the nail on my pinky toe is really small." Yes, the earth does rotate around the sun, by my argument for it is absurd. So even if the film is anti-semitic, trying to argue that having never even seen it is just stupid and arrogant.

    First off, good choice in a book. Brian Greene is a good author and he puts the ideas and concepts together very fluidly. Anyway, if you made some thread on the phenomenon of quantum tunnelling and quoted a passage from the book that outlines and explains the phenomenon, then you could expect people to read it and find it very interesting. What more do you need? I've seen plenty of threads that are nothing more than that. Someone has an interesting article, or interesting passage from a book, or interesting exerpt from an interview, and they make a thread on it just to share it with people hoping they'll find it interesting. Like I said, it's no different that all the threads posted on MAP that are nothing but a link to a fight and a brief description of the fight, i.e. who vs who, what event, when it took place.

    Nope. The guy I mentioned who was convinced a film he had never seen had content he had never witnessed had a PHD in philosophy. Fancy that.

    Partly yes.

    Huh?

    Wow, you really are looking far too deep into someone posting an interesting passage for the sake of people who might find it insightful.

    What does this have to do with anything? You said I don't give my own input and you cited my free-will thread. I said that I created the free will thread with an opening post full of "my input". Either deny or accept this, don't get off on another tangent.

    If I wanted a friendly discussion on what philosophy means to everyone, I would have started a thread "What does philosophy mean to you?". I did not make such a thread. I made a thread for the sake of sharing a passage from a good book.


    I already have answered this. I said if someone doesn't want to be bothered to read it, that's fine - be smart enough to stay out of the discussion and let people who actually know what they're talking about discuss the piece. Do you go into afforementioned threads with posted clips of fights and start talking about the fight that you couldn't be bothered to watch? How is that any less stupid than debating about a piece you haven't read?

    How can they even know its similiar without reading it for comparison? Are we all magical in this thread? Do we all know what a passage says and is about without even reading it?

    Where did I ask for interpretation? Once again, we're not discussing poetry here.

    My motive was to provide an interesting passage for people to read and possibly find intriguing. I've met resistance because people want to attack and debate with me without even educating themselves on what is being debated. You say I'm the one racing to shoot people down, and treating this like a win/lose situation. I post a nice piece for others to check out, and I get responses that its crap from people who haven't read it - how is that not just begging for a fight? How is that not trolling in its purest form?

    I showed her that her "arguments" were weak at best, completely ridiculous at worst. I guess it would be better to let her continue thinking that her position was valid and that reasoning was a matter of saying your opponent is wrong without support :rolleyes:

    I could, but that would be a different kind of thread. Like the difference between asking everyone what they think of Muay Thai and its effectiveness, and just posting a clip of a Muay Thai fight so people can watch and enjoy it.

    You're detracting from the fact that the chapter I posted only takes about 3-5 minutes to read.

    Yes, it would be worth taking on board, IF THEY HAD ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN CHAPTER.

    No, I'm saying if you won't bother to read the chapter I posted, don't bother to debate it, cause you know nothing of what you're speaking.

    "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Wittgenstein

    When I defined philosophy I specifically mentioned devotion to understanding. So yes I agree with you.
     
  9. Bil Gee

    Bil Gee Thug

    Know nothing of the chapter itself, or know nothing of the concepts expressed in the chapter, or know nothing of the "value of philosophy" as was the title of the thread?

    Or perhaps just another example of your arrogant attitude towards others?

    As long as you continue to adopt this supercillious manner and show your ineptness in influencing the minds of others you are just making things worse for yourself. When your voice finally breaks and you need to shave more than once a month you are going to look back on this and cringe.

    Do you honestly believe that anyone who reads your posts sees anything more than a "so cras teen" with such an underdeveloped frontal lobe that he is unable to distinguish between a debate around a point of view and a personal attack.

    Its not big, its not clever and its not impressing anyone.
     
  10. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Socrastein, I read the OP fully after I posted last, because I felt it was the right thing to do. And I got what I expected. Why do you even regard me skimming something and not get the gist of it. I was right the first time. I did not see the big deal. I gave my own opinions on 'the value of philosophy' because of that. As a sort of reply to your OP. I mean what was your big revelation from reading that book? Please share it. It seems so important to you. What did you learn. Please, please tell me.

    The passage you highlighted, gives me no new information, just some one's opinion, Do I agree. In parts of the wording yes in others I question the terms. Because I would use my own!! So What?

    And to be honest the rest of it was no better. I noticed also In your OP your motivation for this thread : to let everone in on 'the value of philosophy' cos you felt and I quote "because it seems that there is a ridiculous lack of understanding inherent in most members of MAP, notably those who post in the philosophy section, regarding what philosophy is and how it is valuable.

    I think that says it all.
     
  11. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member


    Socrastein, if you ever intended to please flex your brain a little and give us in you own words your idea of 'the value of philosophy' as I did. As I said before you don't have to, but I think now, you might want to consider it..go on socrastein, don't you want to be a philosopher? Give us your own little philosophy on the 'value of philosophy'.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2005
  12. Sandus

    Sandus Moved Himself On

    Summary of 5 pages in one post:


    Socrastein: "You're all wrong!"

    Everybody else: "No you're wrong!"

    Socrastein: "I'm right, you're not listening!"

    Everybody else: "We disagree!"

    Socrastein: "Your argument sucks."

    Everybody else: "Stop being a jerk!"

    Socrastein: "I'm being a jerk to your argument, not you."

    Everybody else: "So what? You're still wrong!"

    Socrastein: "Fools! I shall conquer the world with my philosophy-powered nuclear device!"

    Everybody else: "Oh no! We need to summon Voltron!"

    Socrastein: "It's too late, Power Rangers!! My magic poison has already tainted your water supply. In mere hours you will all be my minions, and you shall become my personal logic-wielding toga-wearing ideological slaves, ready to expand the human brain into transcendance...and I will rule the Universe!!!! (Once I logically figure out what created it)

    Everybody else: "Move ZIG! For great justice!!"




    Okay, so I may be a little fuzzy on those last few details, but I think that about sums it up.
     
  13. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    :D that was good
     
  14. Shadowdh

    Shadowdh Seeker of Knowledge

    LOL I like it Sandus... (now which power ranger am I...???) :D
     
  15. Shadowdh

    Shadowdh Seeker of Knowledge

    I have also reread the op... tbh you come across rude, arrogant, condescending, inferring knowledge far beyond what it actually is (although tbf this may be MY perception due to the subsequent conduct of yourself in this thread), and when people have answered the question (ie The Value of Phil) you then spin off on arguing semantics and definitions...

    I stand by my original point of what the problem of phil is as it appears to me... (page 1)...
     
  16. Shadowdh

    Shadowdh Seeker of Knowledge

    btw...

    philosophy

    • noun (pl. philosophies) 1 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. 2 the theories of a particular philosopher. 3 a theory or attitude that guides one’s behaviour. 4 the study of the theoretical basis of a branch of knowledge or experience.

    — ORIGIN Greek philosophia ‘love of wisdom’.
     
  17. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    So psin is desperate to say I'm arrogant and make another petty attack on my age, no matter how applicable it may be. Geo still can't grasp the point of the thread and can't hold on to what I've said more than once before and therefore is arguing his tangents all the while thinking they're relevent. Sandus made a great summary. Shadow whines that it's rude of me to see many people don't know what philosophy is and try to offer up an insightful passage that some people might find interesting, and then of course answers my question as to what philosophy is by citing a dictionary, which flies in the face of all the accusations brought against me that I let other sources think for me!

    :rolleyes:
     
  18. gerard

    gerard Valued Member

    Philosophy is good within the limits where it was conceived:

    Human ego+reality=philosophy. If you take any of the first two out of the equation PHILOSOPHY IS WORTH COW MANURE.
     
  19. Socrastein

    Socrastein The Boxing Philosopher

    Actually if you take any of the two out, it won't equal philosophy anymore. So how could it be cow manure if it isn't even philosophy at that point?
     
  20. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member


    Socrastein, only you can tell us the point of thread - you started it.
    I talked about 'the value of philosophy' - most of the time.
    So you think Sandus summary was great?
    So do I.
    It confirms all my worst fears... (well I knew it was true anyway)

    But to be honest, it shouldn't surprise me that you don't get it, or refuse to give it up...

    You may think that I'm talking tangents, but I am not. Things are connected in ways you may not quite grasp just yet...
    Either that or this is just like an 'experiment ' for you.
    I think you see rhetoric as a means to control. how short sighted.
    You have demonstated how philosophy/ideology can be abused for control/manipulation purposes. governmental
    IE trying to get everyone to beleive you, no matter how irrational.....well done...
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2005

Share This Page