Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 85

Thread: What is philosophy?

  1. #21
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Faust View Post
    @Guess Who I could reiterate again how fucking idiotic that is, but you're rehashing what you've already espoused to great length in another thread, not that there seems to be much here to derail. If critical thinking is such a threat to your ethos, that telegraphs everything one needs to know about it.
    It would be more accurate to say that I see philosophy as meaningless than as a threat. I was being a little facetious with my initial post but I do see all human-made philosophy as ultimately wrong. Philosophy is meaningful for people who are not seeking to live spiritually and are committed to changing the world for the better. I am committed to living spiritually and believe that the world's problems stem from our sinful desires so consider efforts to change the world are, generally speaking, misplaced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faust View Post
    Philosophy is about the examined life. Meta-physics is sometimes fun but rather unsubstantial, more like a mental exercise. There's more to gain reading about how ought one live.
    I do examine life and think about how one ought to live. Philosophy can be thought of secular religion or religion can be thought of as theistic philosophy. I do think critically about various philosophies such as secular Humanism. For example, I critically analysed the concept of universal human rights in this thread. I am not too different from you.
    Last edited by Guess Who; 01-07-2019 at 08:40 PM.
    Big change is coming

  2. #22
    your cheapest wine Johnny's Avatar
    Type
    INTp
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Kamino
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    There is nothing to be gained from forcing people to outwardly act like a Christian.
    Do you ever worry about forcing ideas upon others (e.g., that you are a Christian)?

    What's up with that?
    What's the difference? It's just soda, bro.

  3. #23
    Moderator Thoth's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    AHJ 2006
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    I am not a theocrat; I'm apolitical. True Christianity is about an internal transformation undertaken willingly. There is nothing to be gained from forcing people to outwardly act like a Christian.
    Then why do you continually insist climbing upon your own personal pulpit every time the opportunity (according to you) arises to preach "truth" in Christianity? The thread is titled "What is philosophy?" and it seems you're only here to shill for mythology.

    Case in point:

    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    Take human rights, for example. Human rights is the idea that we can stop people mistreating others by making it a crime to mistreat people and catching and punishing those that do. We already do this but people continue to commit crimes so it won't work. Advocates of human rights will say we need better enforcement but this won't work either, so it is just really just a call for a totalitarian government. Universal human rights means totalitarian world government.

    The concept of universal human rights won't actually bring in a totalitarian world government but promoting the concept of universal human rights changes peoples thinking to make them more accepting of government control to allow world totalitarian government to eventually be brought in in response to an engineered crisis. Without this change in thinking, people will reject world government as unnecessary and undesirable when it is offered.

    Changing people's thinking to see world government necessary and even desirable is essential if the people are to accept it. Human rights is not the only way thinking is being changed. We are being trained to think collectively and globally in a number of ways. People are being deliberately squeezed financially and are increasingly stressed due to the time pressures, complexity and uncertainty of modern life. If there was a crisis such as WWIII or another Great Depression and someone offered world government, most people would say yes please because they accept the lie that collectivism will solve all the world's problems.
    What does any of that have to do with philosophy short a vague attempt to politicize the very concept of philosophy?

    Aside, it also betrays saying you are apolitical.


    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    That is your choice. I've made a different choice.
    Consider me Team Socrates.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    Do you ever worry about forcing ideas upon others (e.g., that you are a Christian)?

    What's up with that?
    My initial post made no mention of Christianity. If I am asked to elaborate or clarify my statements then I will have to make reference to Christianity because Christianity transformed my outlook.

    I do worry about creating the perception that I am forcing Christianity on others sometimes. However, I think a forum full of secular humanists agreeing with each other all the time would be pretty boring.

    How exactly am I forcing my views on others? I don't have any power to ban people on this forum. I don't use abusive or intimidating language. I am not in the majority. Perhaps my words are forceful because they ring true but it is a truth that you don't want to hear.

    Anyway, I am happy to stop posting in the thread because I don't want to derail a thread entitled "what is philosophy" with theological discussion or expressing my opinion that all philosophy is wrong.
    Last edited by Guess Who; 01-07-2019 at 10:44 PM.
    Big change is coming

  5. #25
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    Then why do you continually insist climbing upon your own personal pulpit every time the opportunity (according to you) arises to preach "truth" in Christianity? The thread is titled "What is philosophy?" and it seems you're only here to shill for mythology.

    Case in point:

    What does any of that have to do with philosophy short a vague attempt to politicize the very concept of philosophy?

    Aside, it also betrays saying you are apolitical.
    I am applying critical thinking to the concept of universal human rights and saying that it is not what it makes itself out to be. I am apolitical because I don't advocate taking any political action. I disagree with human rights but would never start or join a movement devoted to countering the human rights movement. I don't really spend any time talking out against human rights to "wake people up" either. Instead, I advocate that individuals get out of the material realm and into the spiritual realm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    Consider me Team Socrates.
    That's your choice. I am not conservative so I don't want to kill you or censor you in any way.
    Big change is coming

  6. #26
    your cheapest wine Johnny's Avatar
    Type
    INTp
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Kamino
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
    Perhaps my words are forceful because they ring true but it is a truth that you don't want to hear.
    Perhaps, or perhaps the ringing you hear can be accomplished with any other uttered words.

    Truth may or may not be the goal of philosophy. I don't contest that it may be the latter. Contribute, delete, and/or ignore conversation as you see fit. I don't care. But as far as Socrates goes, I think you wouldn't have been found interesting unless you were at least rich and youthful, if not also attractive. Don't feel bad. Likely, I would have also been shunned for the same.

    History, especially Western history, has put Socrates on a pedestal and songs are sung in his name among the most revered halls of academia. For me, some of his last ideas can be considered even to have founded American pragmatism. By comparison, you are at best a shrieking avatar on a little-known MBTI forum, being drowned out by my own irritating shrieking. Sorry, but it is what it is.

    Good luck with whatever you think you're trying to get away with here. Me, I just wanna take up the issues with soul.

    What up with that?
    Last edited by Johnny; 01-08-2019 at 03:26 AM.
    What's the difference? It's just soda, bro.

  7. #27
    Sysop Ptah's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,276
    The nature of truth is a matter of epistemology. Epistemology is only a component (or, truth a partial goal) of any given philosophy. It is also where most philosophies go way, way wrong (where "wrong" is established in reference to the facts of reality qua causality). Not nearly so egregiously (delusionally) wrong as the religious subspecies of philosophies, however.

    As for Socrates... meh. I'm team Aristotle.

    A is A, bitches.

  8. #28
    your cheapest wine Johnny's Avatar
    Type
    INTp
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Kamino
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Ptah View Post
    ...truth...is...where most philosophies go way, way wrong...
    This is what I mean regarding criticism. The easiest one is to reject the assuming elements founding the philosophical construction...as well as the most immediately damaging one, to me like ruining the foundation of a building.

    It ruins the building altogether.

    Idiot Priest on the streetcorner: There is no god!
    Pope standing nearby: You despair, Father. Pray with me!
    Idiot Priest: Oh sorry Your Holiness, I was told there would be a god here.
    Pope: There is no god but God.
    Idiot Priest: But God what?

    ******************

    Immanuel Kant attempted to uncover a philosophy that could be apprehended through experience, much like the story of Newton napping under a tree only to discover gravity the hard way, or the story of Job who discovers evil is an opponent who must be fought with everything and everyone connected to him.

    I throw in the second because assumptions are still there to found some philosophy or story no matter how one begins the work. The answer is already in the question.

    Whats up with that? Not even inductive reasoning avoids it.

    I don't really know, and I may be unwittingly wrong in some of my arguments also and not trying to be a smartass like in the dead ideas thread. I was never a great student. I'd just crash into some neat ideas that turned the profs on sometimes.
    Last edited by Johnny; 01-08-2019 at 02:19 AM.
    What's the difference? It's just soda, bro.

  9. #29
    Sysop Ptah's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    This is what I mean regarding criticism. The easiest one is to reject the assuming elements founding the philosophical construction...as well as the most immediately damaging one, to me like ruining the foundation of a building. It ruins the building also.

    Idiot Priest on the streetcorner: There is no god!
    Pope standing nearby: You despair, Father. Pray with me!
    Idiot Priest: Oh sorry Your Holiness, I was told there would be a god here.
    Pope: There is no god but God.
    Idiot Priest: But God what?
    Heh.

    As for truth and getting it right, as in a properly rooted epistemology. See: metaphysics proper (the nature of existence qua reality). As in... reality qua causality: get some. See also: A is A.

  10. #30
    your cheapest wine Johnny's Avatar
    Type
    INTp
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Kamino
    Posts
    475
    I know I should at least read something of Russell and Gettier at least and dig into the knowing of things but I haven't gotten that far.

    I've used a priori and a posteriori at times to sketch out arguments, and I suppose they were being used to address epistemological concerns, but I wasn't conscious of that.

    And it's pretty clear that there is value in putting "the known" into focus, as a painter considers what to paint, what image they desires to express.

    ************

    They is They

    What up with that?
    What's the difference? It's just soda, bro.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •