Philosophy is redundant

[pinback]

I don't think that particular example does, but I would agree that science has become a synonymous with faith on a religious level.

It just shows that people don't care about who is leading just as long as they're being led.

Nah, that just shows that society's philosophy is driven by money.

Edited October 6, 2010 by pinback

[feral chile]

I don't think that particular example does, but I would agree that science has become a synonymous with faith on a religious level.

It just shows that people don't care about who is leading just as long as they're being led.

Nah, that just shows that society's philosophy is driven by money.

Certainly.

He's wrong to say that critical reflection and thought is unnecessary/dead/redundant in the modern world. It's evident in him using it.

Pretty straight forward irony really.

Exactly the same with philosophy really. The only difference being that the humanities get in trouble for using technical vocabulary, whereas the the science's vocabularies are believed as true.

Ironically, you may have a philosophy that tells you what to believe.

[feral chile]

first there's a god, then there isn't...

who knows when he'll change his mind again

[worm]

Hey, didn't realise you still posted on efests.

But isn't that showing something?

So your answer should have been:

"Yes, that shows that society's philosophy is driven by money".

Edited October 7, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Certainly.

He's wrong to say that critical reflection and thought is unnecessary/dead/redundant in the modern world. It's evident in him using it.

Pretty straight forward irony really.

Yet, as I keep pointing out to you, he's said no such thing - and you know it, as proven by your "you can't use philosophy to state philosophy is redundant" comments.

So all you're getting to show here is that YOU are failing in philosophy, because YOU are not using "reasoned thought".

You are using unreasoned and unreasonable thought.

You are believing that the world can only be considered on your own terms.

And that's as far away from being philosophical as it's possible for anyone to be.

[eFestivals]

So, we need a philosophy of philosophy.

Worm of course already has one. It says "only my take on things can be called philosophy".

Which is of course is unphilosophical.

[eFestivals]

Well he's certainly revised his opinion on the number of black holes he thinks are in the universe, which if he's right would make him wrong originally.

Yep, but that can't really be a valid angle of attack for philosophy (or anyone else), because there's no idea or person which hasn't done the same themselves. Any conclusion can only be based on the available info, and as we know the available info about anything might not be fixed.

[worm]

Yet, as I keep pointing out to you, he's said no such thing - and you know it, as proven by your "you can't use philosophy to state philosophy is redundant" comments.

[worm]

Worm of course already has one. It says "only my take on things can be called philosophy".

Edited October 8, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

You can't use philosophy to to state that philosophy is redundant, but he has. Therefore, he's made an error.

wrong. If you are using reason - which he is - then it is a perfectly valid statement within that reasoning and context.

It takes philosophising to understand that.

No Neil. I'm pointing out an irony. He's using philosophy to say that philosophy is redundant. Therefore, he's in error.

But you are not using reasoned thought, because you refuse to accept that there was any context to his choice of words. Yet there is always a context.

So as your own reasoning is flawed, you are not able to philosophise about his use of the word philosophy. You are in error.

[eFestivals]

No, Worm's just more familiar with philosophy than some of the others in this thread. That's all.

you mean the philosophy which says that all words are open to interpretation, as you've so often stated to me is a big and fixed part of philosophy.

So why have you now done the biggest u-turn in history and are saying that nothing is open to interpretation?

It seems that you're only able to sustain your view by talking absolute bollox - either in the here and now, or all that you've said in the past. It has to be one or the other, so which is it?

None of it is necessarily my take. I'm just showing how it is used in the modern world, rather than allowing the ignorant view that it is redundant to take precedence.

Yet like all words, it can only be used within a context. You refuse to allow it to be used within a context - and by doing so state that only you can define what any person has said.

That could be because you're an arrogant c**t, as thick as pig shit, or you don't do the philosophy you pretend to yourself you do. Take your pick.

I've no vested interest. This discussion doesn't really change anything. Modern philosophy, individual philosophies and epistemological philosophies will continue to operate in the world regardless of the outcome of this discussion.

Yep - such as the individual philosophy of Hawkings, whereby he's permitted to use words in a subjective way.

Just like you do in fact with every single word you use. But won't allow him.

That could be because you're an arrogant c**t, as thick as pig shit, or you don't do the philosophy you pretend to yourself you do. Take your pick.

[worm]

Here's one of my favourite quotes from a philosopher on the 'role' of modern philosophy......

'My role - and that is too emphatic a word - is to show people that they are much freer than they feel, that people accept as truth, as evidence, some themes which have been built up at a certain moment during history, and that this so-called evidence can be criticized and destroyed' - Michel Foucault, taken from Truth, Power, Self

[worm]

Oh, and another on the redundancy of science that Neil keeps inadvertently referring to....

'It is hard to see what kind of objectivity is achieved by the statistical analysis of a questionnaire examining the lies of school age children and their playmates. At the end of the day, the results are reassuring, we learn that children lie mostly to avoid punishment, then to boast of their exploits etc. We can be sure by virtue of these very findings, that the method was quite objective. So what? There are those obsessive peeping toms who, in order to look through a plate glass door, peer through the keyhole'. - Michel Foucault, The Scientific Research of Psychology