Philosophy is redundant

[feral chile]

along with souls, ego, self-awareness, identity, etc..

all of which doesn't have much to do with science, as far as I'm aware

[eFestivals]

That isn't a context. My very first point was that the assertion needed a context. Philosophy is redundant in relation to what?

if you iknew what the discussion was about instead of joining in and having it on your own terms you wouldn't have needed to ask that question. ;rolleyes:

Rubbish! I have THE literal interpretation of what philosophy IS, just as anyone else privy to English can verify.

Just you? Priceless.

Can I remind you what philosophy says about language?

Can I suggest that you apply a bit of philosophy to your own posts, instead of you doing far FAR worse than your claims of Hawkings failings?

All you're saying is that Hawking's interpretation of philosophy is wrong mate.

No I'm not. His interpretation is spot on from the position he's speaking from.

He's saying philosophy when he means redundant questioning.

care to tell me where that redundant questioning is coming from, what is driving it?

[eFestivals]

You mean from the correct context.

I'll remind you yet again what philosophy says about language.

And now you're the extra-thicko taking 100% accurate advice about philosophy from the person you think of as a philosophy thicko.

You mean the irrelevant one that you've made up and that has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy.

touche!

How do you know the author's intention Neil?

Touche!!!

However, only one of us has been stupid enough to take things in a strictly literal sense, when as you keep on pointing out, from a literal sense he's immediately wrong without even needing to consider what he's actually said.

Perhaps that simple fact might be the pointer that you've missed? Just perhaps, like.

All there is, is a grave mis-use of the term philosophy that should be rejected.

There is no less of a grave mis-use of words in those words of yours. Philosophy tells me it cannot be otherwise.

Oh dear. Philosophy says that you're in no position to criticise other people's words with similar 'just words'. Why is it that you've forgotten that?

It's not because you've sucked yourself up your own arse, oh no.

Edited October 4, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

I'll remind you yet again what philosophy says about language.

[worm]

Only from the viewpoint of a literal moron.

Edited October 4, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Which philosophy?

Oh, so there's more than one then?

Which might explain why you can't get a grip on what Hawkings is saying, because you're using a different philosophy to him. Just perhaps like.

And why would it be relevant here?

a question that you need to be asking yourself, with your approach here that there is only one.

If you had a brain, you'd have realised that for yourself.

We have a thing called philosophy

yes we do. A thing that is not just one fixed thing to all people.

So why are you treating it as tho it is, especially when philosophy itself says that it cannot be?

and we've been asked whether or not it is redundant in the modern world.

no we haven't. Hawkings simply stated that it is.

Science shows that it is. What does that then say of Hawking's assertion?

that from the point of view of the science that Hawkings is interested in, along with his knowledge, that he's spot on.

When I say philosophy what I mean is philosophy.

so which philosophy is that 6then?

Does it. I just thought it was an application of reasoned thought. Mainly because it is.

and Hawkings has applied reasoned thought. On what basis do you think he hasn't?

It's a rhetorical question - I know the basis. YOUR basis, a basis that everyone has to agree with otherwise they're wrong.

Yet philosophy itself says that's not much of any basis. Oh dear.

No, me and ''anyone else privy to English''.

Oh, so after you arguing endlessly over hundreds of pages from what you claimed was a philosophical viewpoint that there's no such thing as any fixed definition for anything, you now say that everything you've said on that subject from a philosophical viewpoint has been wrong?

Bearing that in mind, would you care to state again why exactly you think philosophy isn't redundant?

[eFestivals]

Your problem as ever is your poor understanding of English.

You can't have 'your own' literal interpretation as literal means quite literally the literal. You can only have 'the' literal interpretation.

yet "the" literal interpretation is always subject to subjectivism, meaning that there can never be any single literal interpretation.

Go on, tell me again that you're an expert on philosophy.

You then qualify your misuderstanding of language when you say 'only you?', which any good speaker of the English language would tell you is an inappropriate question.

translation: worm will go off the point as much as possible to avoid being cornered as he has been.

You keep jabbering on about philosophy as an entity

that's because definitions and interpretations make it so - as any good philosopher can tell you. Perhaps you should ask one?

[worm]

Oh, so there's more than one then?

Edited October 6, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Of course there is. There are many strands of philosophy, some of which that can say that philosophy is redundant and all of which that conform to the infinite number of subjective definitions of philosophy.

corrected for you.

If he uses a philosophical principle then according to science he cannot say that philosophy is redundant.

for a self-proclaimed philosopher you're not very philosophical, are you?

That statement doesn't have to be an absolute.

If he applies philosophical principles and gets a conclusion that's of no use whatsoever then he's proven the redundancy of philosophy.

Simples. For everyone except those who don't philosophise.

If his philosophy states that he can say that philosophy is redundant then it isn't a philosophy at all; it's nonsense.

see above for who has the nonsense. You.

But he does use a philosophical priciple, as is evident in his rationale. He uses rationality. Therefore, there is no validity to his assertion that philosophy is redundant, as this wouldn't be rational.

see above for who has the nonsense. You.

Scientific analysis proves that philosophy is not redundant.

No, it only self-proves the scientific analysis.

Edited October 4, 2010 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

Only if you're doing the worm thing and take everything literally. But if you were doing that you'd never use the word 'true', because there is no such thing, only best assumptions.

So that gets to show that you're treating his words inconsistently compared with your own words - you give yourself a flexibility of meaning which you don't grant him. And by doing so, you fail completely.

He's not claiming all human experience can be explained by science. He's saying that the bits of human experience that he's interested in can be best explained by science.I don't get why some of you are finding that so hard to grasp.

Edited October 4, 2010 by feral chile

[feral chile]

as I asked earlier, where does science stand on things like what constitutes an identity, or a soul?

[eFestivals]

but while some people find philosophy relevant

But do they tho? Really?

It occurted to me last night that I have six friends who are "doctors of philosophy". Not one of them has every studied philosophy, not one of them has much of a clue of what philosophy is. They simply know their own subject areas - which aren't philosophy.

So what they really are is not "doctors of philosophy", but in fact "doctors of investigation".

The fact that they've become "doctors of philosophy" without need of any direct reference to philosophy is by itself an indication of philosophy's redundancy, the fact that it's been surpassed by more specialist knowledge.

[eFestivals]

I'm an engineer ... but I don't fix engines.

actually you probably do, with the traditional meaning of what an engine is.

[eFestivals]

Are you referring to 'difference engines' ?

Nope, I'm referring to 'engines' - which literally is any machine designed to do a task.

So engineers are always dealing with 'engines' of some kind.

From Dictionary.com:-

en·gine

   /ˈɛndʒən/ Show Spelled[en-juhn] Show IPA

–noun

1. a machine for converting thermal energy into mechanical energy or power to produce force and motion.

2. a railroad locomotive.

3. a fire engine.

4. any mechanical contrivance.

5. a machine or instrument used in warfare, as a battering ram, catapult, or piece of artillery.

6. Obsolete . an instrument of torture, esp. the rack.

Number 4 nails it.

[eFestivals]

Er ... it doesn't.

Then you're probably mis-using 'engineer' for yourself.

What do you do?

[dakyras]

From the OED:

1. One who contrives, designs, or invents; an author, designer (const. of); also absol. an inventor, a plotter, a layer of snares. Obs. In the later quots. perh. a fig. use of 2.

2. a. A constructor of military engines (obs.) [so L. ingeniator in Pipe Rolls 12th c.] b. One who designs and constructs military works for attack or defence; also fig. Also in comb., as engineer-general.

c. A soldier belonging to the division of the army called Engineers, composed of men trained to engineering work. Also attrib., as in engineer-officer, -regiment, -warrant.

3. One whose profession is the designing and constructing of works of public utility, such as bridges, roads, canals, railways, harbours, drainage works, gas and water works, etc. From 18th c. also civil engineer, for distinction from 2b.

.

4. A contriver or maker of ‘engines’. The precise sense has varied from time to time in accordance with the development of meaning in ENGINE n.; in present use the engineer in this sense (specifically mechanical engineer) is a maker of steam engines or of heavy machinery generally.

In this sense (but not in 3) the term is applied to the working artisan as well as to the employer of labour.

5. One who manages an ‘engine’ or engines. a. One who manages engines of war; an artilleryman. Obs.

b. Mod. One who has charge of a steam-engine; in England only with reference to marine engines; in U.S. often applied to the driver of a locomotive engine.

6. (With defining word, as human engineer, spiritual engineer), one who is claimed to possess specialized knowledge, esp. as regards the treating of human problems by scientific or technical means.

[eFestivals]

An engineer doesn't have to have anything to do with an engine.

Aren't those things mechanical devices to you then?

PS: I did say "with the traditional meaning of what an engine is". Engineer came from 'engine', but engineer has now taken on a meaning of its own (such as someone with specialist knowledge).

Edited October 6, 2010 by eFestivals

[dakyras]

This was in the notes under 3:

Not in Johnson 1755 or Todd 1818; the former has only the military senses, to which the latter adds ‘a maker of engines’, citing Bullokar. In the early quots. the persons referred to were probably by profession military engineers, though the works mentioned were of a ‘civil’ character. Since 2b has ceased to be a prominent sense of engineer, the term ‘civil engineer’ has lost its original antithetic force; but it continues to be the ordinary designation of the profession to which it was first applied, distinguishing it from that of ‘mechanical engineer’ (sense 4). Other phraseological combinations, as electric (now usu. electrical), gas, mining, railway, telegraph engineer, are used to designate those who devote themselves to special departments of engineering.

English is a fluid, changing language. The term 'engineer' might very well have originally meant solely someone who deals with engines, but not if it's a 'phraseological combination' like civil engineer etc...

[dakyras]

Aren't those things mechanical devices to you then?

PS: I did say "with the traditional meaning of what an engine is". Engineer came from 'engine', but engineer has now taken on a meaning of its own (such as someone with specialist knowledge).

[eFestivals]

English is a fluid, changing language. The term 'engineer' might very well have originally meant solely someone who deals with engines, but not if it's a 'phraseological combination' like civil engineer etc...

The changing bit I fully agree with. Note that I said "with the traditional meaning of what an engine is".

But the likes of civil engineer still fits to that - "any mechanical contrivance" is what an 'engine' is, and a civil engineer works with mechanical contrivances.

[dakyras]

The changing bit I fully agree with. Note that I said "with the traditional meaning of what an engine is".

But the likes of civil engineer still fits to that - "any mechanical contrivance" is what an 'engine' is, and a civil engineer works with mechanical contrivances.

[eFestivals]

The last time I checked, a bridge isn't a mechanical device

so when you use a bridge to cross a river, are you floating in mid-air?

Or are using a mechanical device to stop you plunging into the river below?

and neither are the wires running through my house

Really? A smart person would realise that they are a mechanical device for transporting electricity, no less than a bridge is a mechancial device for transporting things over a chasm.

Says the qualified electrical engineer.

But you also said paulev's was misusing the word 'engineer', when he could very well be an electrical or a civil engineer, in which case he isn't.

see above.

[eFestivals]

No they don't. The construction workers do. Civil engineers design buildings and work out stress loads etc...

Architects design buildings.

But anyway, while they might not get their own hands dirty, such engineers are still working with mechanical contrivances.

[dakyras]

Oh, mechanical device, as in it works on the principles of mechanics?

In that case, yes, you might be right....

Actually, no you're not, because an engine is something that converts energy into motion, and a bridge doesn't do that. It...*insert mathsy word* does stuff with force....

*edit again*

Bridges = static mechanics

Engine = mechanical motion

Different.

Edited October 6, 2010 by dakyras

[eFestivals]

Actually, no you're not, because an engine is something that converts energy into motion, and a bridge doesn't do that. It...*insert mathsy word* does stuff with force....

*edit again*

Bridges = static mechanics

Engine = mechanical motion

Different.

You're getting confused with what engine has come to commonly mean, and not what it did mean.

But anyway, a bridge is not static from all angles. It is, after all, a device for moving things over a chasm - which is ultimately no different to (say) a war-engine being a device to move something (a boulder, or troops, whatever) over the wall of a castle.