Thread For Philosophical Discussion

[Unicorn]

Ooh, @Werbenja link that thread where you had that conversation with RMG about some philosophical concept that I had zero clues about!

[BroooMC]

No, they’re all based on a certain point of view, not on anecdotes.

Einstein had no way to test his theories; didn’t prevent him from making science progress.

Scientific theories like Einsteins’s are both made to fit and built upon all existing relevant observations at the time.
Philosophical theories are made to fit whatever the philosopher thinks life/society is and is built upon the brain aneurysm they had whilst consuming thousands funds just sitting in an armchair all day.

Science without philosophy would make you a robot. You wouldn’t have any concept of self, of society, of life, of purpose, …

No, people don’t need a religion or philosophy to live their life or be a decent person.
Take south korea for an example. They are a country that was originally built upon confucian values but over time since the 20th century these values have faded away, especially in the younger generations. And yet the general Life satisfaction is rapidly increasing despite losing them. So what is keeping South Korean held together? The society itself and the government that regulates it. Because without philosophy the society was allowed to adjust, away from confucianism.
http://wellbeing.ihsp.mcgill.ca/publications/Barrington-Leigh-KDIbook2015-excerpt-Chapter5.pdf

Without philosophy, you wouldn’t have this nihilism you’ve been trying to push both in this thread and the poetry one.

I used nihilism as an example of the least flawed philosophy.
The reason why it is the least flawed as the only way to disprove it is to find a definitive, all encompassing meaning to life.
But that means it could be false as there is always a possibility there could be one, which is why I don’t follow it.

Historically speaking, all the first scientists were philosophers.

That’s because there was no word for scientist back then.

All religions were based on a philosophy

I would love to see you show that ancient Greek and Egyptian, as well as American Indian and indigenous Australian religions were all made from philosophies.

Religions losing their hold on society also happened because of new philosophical ideas. I wouldn’t call that “getting nowhere”.

Philosophy wasn’t the only factor and I’m pretty sure the Heliocentric model and The Origin of Species were the ones that had the most impact.
I assume you follow the coherence theory of truth because of the robot thing you said. So I think you would agree that philosophy is untrue and so has no place in modern society due the all the bad things it has brought to the world (Marxism, nihilism etc.) outweigh the good (none?).

[Edwardidk]

_{this is the best “philosophy” I can contribute to this discussion xD}

[RMGnoob]

Scientific theories like Einsteins’s are both made to fit and built upon all existing relevant observations at the time.

If that were true then anybody could make science progress by simply reading a lot of science magazines and trying to build up from it. Better then, all progress could be completely automatized, since all you’d need would be an aggregation of current knowledge.

The truth of the matter is, all great scientists had a certain degree of intelligence and a certain vision. It’s their point of view that allowed them to find and exploit previously undiscovered angles.

People like Galilei or Champollion went completely against the commonly accepted truth of their times, and made progress thanks to that.

Also funny how you talk about “relevant observations” when the only reason you know what was relevant and what wasn’t is purely in hindsight. To consider those observations relevant at the time, you’d have needed a certain personal point of view.

Philosophical theories are made to fit whatever the philosopher thinks life/society is and is built upon the brain aneurysm they had whilst consuming thousands funds just sitting in an armchair all day.

Except for all the philosophers who were poor as dirt and probably had a much better grasp of reality and the toil of the common people than you ever will. (see for example Socrates or Diogenes).

Saying that all their theories are made-up bullshit would also imply that you personally have a 100% true, all-encompassing understanding of life and society… which makes you a complete hypocrite and is also impossible to prove.

No, people don’t need a religion or philosophy to live their life or be a decent person.

People need to have a certain outlook on life, on society, and on themselves. Doesn’t matter if they call it religion, philosophy, or something else.

Take south korea for an example.

Yes, people evolve over time. Things change. (as said Heraclite: “Everything flows”). They abandoned one form of philosophy and took another they felt was better suited to them.

I used nihilism as an example of the least flawed philosophy.

Of course it’s going to be difficult to find a flaw in your ideology when you refuse to acknowledge the point of view of everyone who isn’t you.

The reason why it is the least flawed as the only way to disprove it is to find a definitive, all encompassing meaning to life.

No, it’s actually very easy to disprove it: everyone needs something to live for. Everyone needs something to believe in. Trying to live a life without any purpose or meaning whatsoever will only lead you to depression and suicide.

It’s also stupid to wait for someone to find the meaning to all life, when the only thing you really need is the meaning of your own life by itself. And it’s equally asinine to think everything has meaning by itself and that it’s impossible for humans to give meaning to things.

That’s because there was no word for scientist back then.

Maybe because the concept of science hadn’t even been invented yet. And guess who’s really good at coming up with new concepts? Philosophers.

I would love to see you show that ancient Greek and Egyptian, as well as American Indian and indigenous Australian religions were all made from philosophies.

I wasn’t talking chronologically, just saying that all religions aren’t just a collection of funny myths to be reused by Disney to make movies centuries later: they’re all based on a certain idea of life, of the world and of humanity.

Philosophy wasn’t the only factor and I’m pretty sure the Heliocentric model and The Origin of Species were the ones that had the most impact.

I’m sure that’s what the illiterate peasants who took the Bastille were thinking about: “We want a government that acknowledges our simian ancestry and the importance of the Sun!”.

Those theories gained ground because the general mindset was changing, not the other way around.

I assume you follow the coherence theory of truth because of the robot thing you said.

No idea what that is.

I assume you follow the coherence theory of truth because of the robot thing you said. So I think you would agree that philosophy is untrue and so has no place in modern society due the all the bad things it has brought to the world (Marxism, nihilism etc.) outweigh the good (none?).

Without philosophy, you wouldn’t be able to know what “good” or “bad” mean, because the concept of “good” or “bad” wouldn’t exist to begin with.

It’s also an extremely stupid statement to begin with. “Hey, thinking can lead to bad stuff, so we should all stop thinking!”.

[BroooMC]

If that were true then anybody could make science progress by simply reading a lot of science magazines and trying to build up from it. Better then, all progress could be completely automatized, since all you’d need would be an aggregation of current knowledge.

True, and not a problem.

The truth of the matter is, all great scientists had a certain degree of intelligence and a certain vision. It’s their point of view that allowed them to find and exploit previously undiscovered angles.

Vision? “great scientists” were just the one out of the of hundreds, who got the theory correct when they tried to explain certain phenomena or make a correct theoretical prediction based on current theory.

Also funny how you talk about “relevant observations” when the only reason you know what was relevant and what wasn’t is purely in hindsight. To consider those observations relevant at the time, you’d have needed a certain personal point of view.

What I meant by that is you needn’t consider inter-molecular forces when predicting the movement of celestial bodies.

Saying that all their theories are made-up bullshit would also imply that you personally have a 100% true, all-encompassing understanding of life and society.

If I say all free energy devices are bullshit does that mean I have a free energy device?

People need to have a certain outlook on life, on society, and on themselves. Doesn’t matter if they call it religion, philosophy, or something else.

And for most people that role is taken by following their society’s norms and laws. Which isn’t a philosophy.

Yes, people evolve over time. Things change. (as said Heraclite: “Everything flows”). They abandoned one form of philosophy and took another they felt was better suited to them.

Then what was the new philosophy they chose? Can you name it? Does it even exist?

No, it’s actually very easy to disprove it:

ok

everyone needs something to live for. Everyone needs something to believe in. Trying to live a life without any purpose or meaning whatsoever will only lead you to depression and suicide.

How exactly does that disprove there is no meaning to life? That was just a feel-good circlejerk.
Also:

Maybe because the concept of science hadn’t even been invented yet. And guess who’s really good at coming up with new concepts? Philosophers.

Wow a word, congrats you know who also makes up words that eventually become part of English? Random people on the internet.
The word was created because there was already a differentiation between traditional philosophers and the then natural philosophers. The word was used so the two were then fully distinct from each other.

they’re all based on a certain idea of life, of the world and of humanity.

Which does not mean they are based on a pre-existing philosophy.

Those theories gained ground because the general mindset was changing, not the other way around.

Nope. The other way around was right. Astronomers had a real hard time trying to fit observations to the geocentric model and so they switched over after some internal conflict of wacky ideas but it took the rest of society longer to accept it.

Without philosophy, you wouldn’t be able to know what “good” or “bad” mean, because the concept of “good” or “bad” wouldn’t exist to begin with.

No. I know the concept of good and bad from my parents and the words associated with it from primary school.
If I peed in the bowl then that was good. If I didn’t pee in the bowl that was bad and I had to wait while the mess was cleaned up.
Even a dog can know the concept of good and bad without even knowing about the existence of philosophy. If you shout 'BAD!" at it, it will know something it did was bad. If you say ‘good boy!’ it will understand something it did was good.
Philosophy is not needed for these things.

Still waiting for a good reason why we should continue funding philosophers instead of cancer research.

[Werbenja]

Ooh, @Werbenja link that thread where you had that conversation with RMG about some philosophical concept that I had zero clues about!

Your wish is my command.

Relativism

@Werbenja I'm actually curious. What's your argument for this?

Yes! This one one-boxed!</font size>

---

Since I’m here, I just wanna point out that, even though this thread was created to discuss philosophical ideas, the discussion RMGNoob and BroooMC are having is about philosophy and its uses, which is in itself philosophy. Sooooo meta. Love it.

I guess I have a question: what is philosophy for you guys?

[RMGnoob]

True, and not a problem.

You do realize that doesn’t work, right? You’re not going to make progress if you think all previously accepted knowledge that came before you has to be used as foundation of your ideas and can never be challenged.

What you’re thinking of is a giant confirmation bias, not science.

Vision? “great scientists” were just the one out of the of hundreds, who got the theory correct when they tried to explain certain phenomena or make a correct theoretical prediction based on current theory.

And how do you think they came up with said theory? Why do you think they even researched that shit in the first place, instead of having a normal line of work and a normal life?

Again, you seem very preoccupied by the possibility of someone else having their own point of view and vision of life.

What I meant by that is you needn’t consider inter-molecular forces when predicting the movement of celestial bodies.

Again: the only reason you know those two things aren’t related is because you’re looking at it in hindsight, taking advantage of the centuries of research that took place before you.

If I say all free energy devices are bullshit does that mean I have a free energy device?

No, but it does mean you have a definitive proof they are bullshit and/or a better alternative to offer.

And for most people that role is taken by following their society’s norms and laws. Which isn’t a philosophy.

How do you think we even came with those norms and laws? What do you think conformism is, if not a philosophy?

Then what was the new philosophy they chose? Can you name it? Does it even exist?

Does something need a name to exist? Is this a disguised plea for me to give you a simple “-ism” so you can look it up on Wikipedia and immediately call it bullshit? (not like I’m faulting you for laziness, I’m doing the very same thing in this comment X) )

How exactly does that disprove there is no meaning to life?

It proves that your begging for some sort of transcendent ultimate meaning is completely irrelevant to how people actually live their lives.

Also:

Considering image macros to be valid arguments is generally a good sign there isn’t enough brain left under your fedora.

Wow a word, congrats you know who also makes up words that eventually become part of English? Random people on the internet.

Are you suggesting the word “scientist” didn’t exist before the invention of the internet? I find that very hard to believe.

Scientist | Historical development and etymology of the term

The word was created because there was already a differentiation between traditional philosophers and the then natural philosophers. The word was used so the two were then fully distinct from each other.

True, but that was after centuries of philosophers pondering about the world and things like human knowledge and human perception. Science wouldn’t exist without a certain philosophical base.

Which does not mean they are based on a pre-existing philosophy.

You don’t know what a philosophy is.

Definition of PHILOSOPHY

All you’re doing is rejecting what you’ve seen of philosophy, either in academia or elsewhere in modern media. That’s not the same thing as rejecting philosophy as a whole.

Nope. The other way around was right. Astronomers had a real hard time trying to fit observations to the geocentric model and so they switched over after some internal conflict of wacky ideas but it took the rest of society longer to accept it.

Again: how exactly did this have an impact on the general populace? Because you can’t make revolutions with just a small educated elite and you can’t fire up an entire nation with dry scientific debates.

No. I know the concept of good and bad from my parents and the words associated with it from primary school.
If I peed in the bowl then that was good. If I didn’t pee in the bowl that was bad and I had to wait while the mess was cleaned up.
Even a dog can know the concept of good and bad without even knowing about the existence of philosophy. If you shout 'BAD!" at it, it will know something it did was bad. If you say ‘good boy!’ it will understand something it did was good.
Philosophy is not needed for these things.

And how do you think your parents and teachers learned about those notions?

Even funnier, what do you think you’re doing when you’re claiming that only empirical experiences have value, or that there is no inherent sense of morals in humanity and it has to be learned, or that a system of values is still valid even if it is learned but not understood

Still waiting for a good reason why we should continue funding philosophers instead of cancer research.

If this is some sort of implied attack at some well-known philosophers or self-proclaimed “philosophers”, then you’ll have to explicitly tell me which ones.

We’re funding philosophy for the same reason we’re funding art: because we’re not robots.

I guess I have a question: what is philosophy for you guys?

Basically any question like “What is the meaning of the world?” or “How should I live my life?” and any answer to them we can ever come up with.

[Efnuiwrbvu]

This reminds me of the story "The Libary Of Babel"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel

(Btw this seems like the kind of thread for @RMGnoob @Werbenja and @Stupidity)

[Mynamerr]

heres the link for the none mobile version

The Library of Babel

[Scorchmist]

@RMGnoob @Werbenja and @Stupidity

it totally is, other than this comment you wont see me commenting here.

Although i have always been quite fascinated about philosophy

[BroooMC]

there isn’t enough brain left under your fedora.

Looks like somebody woke up on the wrong side of their armchair.

You do realize that doesn’t work, right? You’re not going to make progress if you think all previously accepted knowledge that came before you has to be used as foundation of your ideas and can never be challenged.

But that is what happens. And given how much we have achieved with it, I’m pretty sure you can’t say it doesn’t work.
You make theories to explain observations. You can then make more theoretical predictions and theories based on the already existing ones, just like mathematics does. When new observations come to light you see if it still fits the current theories and can use it to test the new ones if they are correct. If anything doesn’t fit it gets changed.
That’s the way science works in the most basic way, and it works.

And how do you think they came up with said theory?

Through stuff like pattern recognition, trial and error, finding similarities and testing the boundaries of existing theories.

Why do you think they even researched that shit in the first place, instead of having a normal line of work and a normal life?

'cus they wanted to.

Again: the only reason you know those two things aren’t related is because you’re looking at it in hindsight, taking advantage of the centuries of research that took place before you.

No, because when inter-molecular forces were discovered we were specifically looking at why our normal sized physics wasn’t working on an atomic level. We already knew it doesn’t significantly apply to anything on a larger scale.

Does something need a name to exist? Is this a disguised plea for me to give you a simple “-ism” so you can look it up on Wikipedia and immediately call it bullshit? (not like I’m faulting you for laziness, I’m doing the very same thing in this comment X) )

So then you are saying however the laws and society changes it is always a new philosophy? So every single culture in the world is a philosophy? What the hell isn’t a philosophy to you then?

How do you think we even came with those norms and laws? What do you think conformism is, if not a philosophy?

Science wouldn’t exist without a certain philosophical base.

And how do you think your parents and teachers learned about those notions?

Just because laws were originally based on the bible does not mean the bible is still part of the law in any way.
The same apples to all these things you’re referencing, philosophy is not relevant to them anymore. We don’t need philosophy to make up our own ethics for society and make up our own moral stance, or make up definitions for words.

It proves that your begging for some sort of transcendent ultimate meaning is completely irrelevant to how people actually live their lives.

And you’ve just said exactly the reason why philosophy shouldn’t be funded.
As per the definition you cited: [quote=“RMGnoob, post:43, topic:5787”]
Definition of PHILOSOPHY

the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
[/quote]
Which:

is completely irrelevant to how people actually live their lives.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Baiqnn]

@Shaxasno You like it when RMGnoob is being all smart and genius like right? Read some of these posts.

Also, DAMN you all make some good points. I don’t know weather or not to agree with RMGnoob or BroooMC.

[RMGnoob]

But that is what happens. And given how much we have achieved with it, I’m pretty sure you can’t say it doesn’t work.

No. If nobody had ever questioned what came before them, humanity would have never progressed.

You make theories to explain observations. You can then make more theoretical predictions and theories based on the already existing ones, just like mathematics does. When new observations come to light you see if it still fits the current theories and can use it to test the new ones if they are correct. If anything doesn’t fit it gets changed.

Good thing philosophers came up with the scientific method then.

And again, you’re doing philosophy when you say this. You’re claiming that empirical experiments are the only way to experience the world, that humanity can progress towards knowledge, that thought is supposed to be fluid and not set in a stone dogma…

'cus they wanted to.

And why did they want to do that? They had to go on a journey of complete uncertainty, often unrewarding, sometimes even dangerous. Why do you think they chose that life?

No, because when inter-molecular forces were discovered we were specifically looking at why our normal sized physics wasn’t working on an atomic level. We already knew it doesn’t significantly apply to anything on a larger scale.

So, again, you’re looking at things in hindsight: you know they’re not relevant to how celestial objects work because you’re living in an era where both have been discovered and studied, unlike people like Galilei or Copernic who had no way of knowing that.

So then you are saying however the laws and society changes it is always a new philosophy? So every single culture in the world is a philosophy? What the hell isn’t a philosophy to you then?

Most of the human thinking process can be classified as philosophy, especially now that we’ve conquered basic survival and have less and less to think about basic practical necessities. See also my response to Werbenja in my previous post.

Just because laws were originally based on the bible does not mean the bible is still part of the law in any way.

How in the holy name of fuck did we even get to the Bible X)

We don’t need philosophy to make up our own ethics for society and make up our own moral stance, or make up definitions for words.

Again: philosophy defines an entire category of human thought. Your rejecting of certain named doctrines doesn’t equate to a rejection of all of philosophy. If you truly rejected philosophy as a whole, you wouldn’t have any way to participate in this discussion in the first place.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

From a theoretical standpoint, it’s fine to keep asking yourself what the ultimate meaning of life is, or if that meaning can even exist in the first place, just like how it’s theoretically fine to be a complete nihilist and doubt everything.

However, from a practical standpoint, neither of those two attitudes are actually viable. You can’t live your life searching the meaning of everything while not having any meaning or purpose yourself, and you can’t live a life without certitude, purpose or meaning.

I was working under the assumption that you thought nihilism worked as a way of life, that is to say as a practical method, not a theoretical one. And it just doesn’t, unless you’re confusing it with something else like stoicism.

[Werbenja]

@BroooMC, I’m really interested in knowing what is philosophy to you. And not in a deprecating way, I already know you don’t like it, but tell me what is this thing you don’t like.

@everyone please answer me this question too.

[Mynamerr]

its @everyone

[Werbenja]

Weird, when I don’t use caps to call someone specifically, like @mynamerr, it works. Or when I use all caps, like @MYNAMERR. @Everyone and @EVERYONE should work too.

Anyway, thanks for the correction.

[Luve]

This is perfect ForumGasm material

[Mynamerr]

@everyone has no effect anyways

[DreadDrake]

A[quote=“BroooMC, post:38, topic:5787”]
That’s because there was no word for scientist back then.
[/quote]

''Twas called alchemy

[BroooMC]

''Twas called alchemy

That was more the beginnings of chemistry and not really science as a whole.

Good thing philosophers came up with the scientific method then.

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
It is reasonable to assume it was pretty much completely made by true scientists. Because looking at the history from the mid 1800s onwards (when the word scientist was introduced) all the philosophers working on it suddenly because scientists. Which means the philosophers before the word scientist were most likely true scientists simply being called philosophers.
I can’t see a good reason why the scientific method wouldn’t be developed without philosophy.

And again, you’re doing philosophy when you say this.

No I’m just making an argument.

So, again, you’re looking at things in hindsight: you know they’re not relevant to how celestial objects work because you’re living in an era where both have been discovered and studied,

Oh god you’re gonna make this into a circular argument aren’t you…

we were specifically looking at why our normal sized physics wasn’t working on an atomic level.

This means anything we found on that scale wouldn’t effect currently working theories on a normal scale because those theories already work on a normal scale. What more do you want?

Most of the human thinking process can be classified as philosophy,

Again: philosophy defines an entire category of human thought.

I’m really interested in knowing what is philosophy to you

Sure, if you are going to be broad you can define all ethics, shower thoughts and social systems as philosophies. But I prefer calling a spade a spade, and I’m not going to count every single social system as a philosophy. Especially since they aren’t the product of the study of philosophy anymore or made by philosophers.