Philosophy is redundant

[eFestivals]

The question of what is pointless and what is not is philosophical in nature.

it is. And philosophy is 100% unable to give a useful answer from the point of view of humanity, making the philosophical investigation no less pointless.

So why bother with it? The pointless trying to tell us about the pointless. Yeah, there's something worthwhile there.

And any conclusion made without falsification of evidence cannot be considered scientific. Science doesn't need to answer 'why', it only tells you 'how'. If there's no God to address then it can't say how God is, can it. If you then say that God doesn't exist BECAUSE there is no evidence then you've made an unscientific conclusion based entirely upon philosophical argument.

Perhaps. But more importantly I've avoided pointless navel gazing, because pointless is the best that philosophy can give here.

So that's yet another example of the pointlessness of such philosophy.

The rest of your subsequent diatribe makes no sense.

says the man who only does the senseless. See above.

[eFestivals]

I'm afraid this is more a case of you failing to understand science.

No, it's merely the case that I'm cutting thru the shite to get to something worthwhile, to get to something and not nothing.

Science works in reality on this basis.... unless you're going to show me research grants given to scientists to investigate a non-falling rocks.

[eFestivals]

This made me smile. Just as well we finally got to the stage in our intellectual development as a species when Neil could say it was all bollocks, as if all those numerous attempts to understand 'stuff' hadn't contributed to the 'thought place' where he could do that.

Care to show me where I've dismissed the knowledge base that humanity has built up?

All I'm saying here is that philosophy is no longer adding to that knowledge base - and I'm not the only person to notice this. It's now inventing patent bollox as a way to continue with it's own existence, to try to falsely claim that it still has contemporary importance.

Philosophy is now nothing more than a history lesson.

[worm]

it is. And philosophy is 100% unable to give a useful answer from the point of view of humanity, making the philosophical investigation no less pointless.

[worm]

All I'm saying here is that philosophy is no longer adding to that knowledge base.

Edited September 21, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

How does that make it redundant? All you're saying is that philosophy cannot give you the 'point', but that the 'point' is given by your philosophical perspective. I'd also say that the point is synonymous with the truth, which is precisely the point of modern philosophy.

which gets to prove the uselessness of philosophising over whether something is useful or not. So that part of philosophy is proven as empty.

You can't alter the fact that for something to be deemed of value requires a philosophical perspective, on which the value of the thing can be measured.

yet the establishment of philosophy and everything its done since hasn't changed a jot of anything about this. People were giving a value to things long before philosophy.

So philosophy is worthless here.

I simply cannot see how you can call philosophy redundant without using philosophy to do so. I'm convinced that Hawkings specifically meant philosophies based upon meta-physics.

See above.

Humanity was placing value on things long before any idea of philosophy. So for this, philosophy has been redundant from even before it was conceived.

[eFestivals]

Of course it is. It directs the scientific experiment.

Perhaps that's how you like to regard it, but it's really just ancient history.

We have the rules for how to do scientific experiments. We don't need to be told them again.

It directs everything, in fact.

Perhaps that's how you like to regard it, but it's really just ancient history.

No one stops what they're doing and says "I wonder what philosophy would say of this?" If it's for something to do with science, then they refer to science and not philosophy. Etc, etc, etc.

Even a philosophy that declares the end of all philosophy, as has happened in the past, is a philosophy.

But philosophers aren't trying to claim the world, oh no.

If no one had invented philosophy it wouldn't be missed. As is shown with the value people place on things, these things come from humanity (instinct, if you like) and not some pseudo academic bollox.

This was attempted throughout the 20th century, notably with Pol Pot's killing of all intellectuals.

you and the pope, brothers-in-arms.

Classy.

This claim is contrary to your earlier point about something being of value and something not having value. Without the recognition of a philosophical basis there is no value to any action. Essentially, the end of philosophy is the end of values and you most certainly have values.

Complete and utter bullshit.

It is human action, it is f**k all to do with any philosophising that you're post-applying.

Edited September 20, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

Perhaps that's how you like to regard it, but it's really just ancient history.

We have the rules for how to do scientific experiments. We don't need to be told them again.

[feral chile]

No, it's merely the case that I'm cutting thru the shite to get to something worthwhile, to get to something and not nothing.

Science works in reality on this basis.... unless you're going to show me research grants given to scientists to investigate a non-falling rocks.

[eFestivals]

You misunderstand. Philosophy directs science on the basis of 'why' we need a particular answer to a particular question, not 'how' we get the answer.

yet you've already categorically stated that this isn't possible for philosophy.

(well ... it can say it and does, it just means shit as you've already agreed).

For example, the philosophy of capitalism directs science into the expanse of media technologies, rather than say alternative medicine. We do this because the philosophy is deeply embedded in our ideologies, political systems and above all our values.

yes, it's of course nothing to do with base greed and financial necessity.

Then if your nihilism holds, you cannot judge anyone's actions as there is no reason why they are acting.

Bullshit. This only holds if philosophy is 100% accurate.

And given that you'll happily admit that a new idea comes along every day which changes philosophical ideas, both you and I know know it's not.

I can judge people's actions and place a reason on why they are acting as the are. It's just that I place different reasons on their actions than you do. Philosophy is not able to prove me wrong - but it won't stop philosophy saying that I am.

Which of us is more right? Who knows. But we do know that philosophy isn't right, as you'll admit. So nothing certain can be taken from philosophical ideas and projected onto others. So why do it, when you know it's wrong?

Human action would be conmpletely aimless and we wouldn't discern or conform to pleasure or desire and such like. However, it doesn't. We conform to views of the world owing to the values inherent to our philosophies.

And we also conform to our instincts, something which you like to pretend isn't there.

Edited September 21, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You said that falsifiability was a pointless principle

No, I said it's pointless proving what is already known to be wrong to be wrong. It says nothing.

[eFestivals]

it's bollox to you, but do you really think that everyone who simply disagrees with you is stupid?

No. But philosophy does.

Philosophy likes to claim "it's like this because....", yet it refuses to allow the factoring-in of those things which upsets it. There's more to human existence than philosophy will admit.

[eFestivals]

Of course it is. It directs the scientific experiment. It directs everything, in fact. Even a philosophy that declares the end of all philosophy, as has happened in the past, is a philosophy. Because it then becomes the underlying principle of all that stems from that thinking. All action that occurs due to the belief in no philosophy is governed by the principle of there being no philosophy. This was attempted throughout the 20th century, notably with Pol Pot's killing of all intellectuals. It is evidence of the failure of nihilistic philosophies.

Just wanted to come back on this because it's so laughable.

Because Pol Pot had a *DIFFERENT* philosophy, formal philosophy likes to view it as no philosophy (as you've made clear here).

A different philosophy does NOT have to include within it anything nihilistic. Formal philosophy labels it as such only for the purposes of its own power. Formal philosophy can't prove Pol Pot's ideas as wrong, but says that they are anyway.

And it's formal philosophy that can be rightly said to have brought about the likes of Pol Pot or Hilter. As you've said, "philosophy directs everything", including the ideas that have formed our political systems.

Yet is philosophy able to verify the correctness of what it's (in your view) brought about? Nope. But it pushes those onto us anyway, and by doing that excludes the better solutions.

As a hypothetical example:-

There's only enough food in the world to feed half of the population - so at least half will die. The pragmatic view - and the humanist view (because it causes the fewest deaths) - would be to bump off half of the world's population right now, but a philosophical take would never allow such a thing, and so would stop the right decision being taken.

[eFestivals]

I don't understand this concept of 'philosophy' having one united take on things. Is there a Philosophy Council somewhere, that gets together and comes up with one decision?

In the eyes of those who like to regard themselves as philosophers, you can be damned sure there is.

Which of worm's words have passed you by?

Just read back on his Pol Pot view. In his mind, because it's a philosophy that dares to differ, it's an only destructive philosophy.

Yet who knows (worm certainly doesn't), the right way forwards might actually be that the whole of society needs to be re-ordered to get us back on 'the right path', and that re-ordering might only be possible by bumping off certain sectors of a society.

We are on the path we're on, but philosophy is not able to say that it's a right path - yet that fact doesn't stop it from saying what is right and wrong, as he displayed with his Pol Pot comments that he's regurgitated from some book he's read.

Ultimately, formal philosophy is about power and not knowledge.

Edited September 21, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

Philosophy likes to claim "it's like this because....", yet it refuses to allow the factoring-in of those things which upsets it.

[worm]

Is there a Philosophy Council somewhere, that gets together and comes up with one decision?

[worm]

Ultimately, formal philosophy is about power and not knowledge.

Edited September 21, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

I wasn't saying that I want such a method, I just merely pointing out that who knows what improvement it might bring? The relevant point here is that philosophy doesn't.

I don't know. Maybe it's me, but you seem to have a much higher expectation of what philosphy can or can't do than I do.

Perhaps it's just worm then. It never used to be something I considered by itself till book-regurgitator appeared here, tho I'm well aware that over the years I've personally dissected certain ideas without ever considering the idea of philosophy or knowing what philosophy might have to say on a subject and come out the other end with what might be regarded as high-level philosophy.

For example, 'the selfish gene', something I deduced for myself long before I left school at 16. Or what I spouted a few days before my missus heard Hawking on the radio saying the same thing (and caused her to start this thread).

Ultimately, it's just people's thoughts on any given topic, isn't it?

Spot on. So nothing special, and nothing certain.

[eFestivals]

Spoken like a true post modernist.

No, spoken like a man who can see shit for what it is.

Just because you've convinced yourself you have a nice polished turd doesn't mean that you have.

[RABun]

There should be a Worms Law -

"all internet discussions will eventually reduce to Post Modernism"

or something

[eFestivals]

This doesn't make it redundant. It makes it incapable of truth without verification. We still conform to philosophy though whether verified or not (I do this because I think this is like this), so it isn't redundant at all.

"truth"? But philosophy doesn't do truth. You told me so, and in doing so imparted a philosophical truth!

We conform more to humanity than philosophy. Go on, tell me it's not so.

It's the emperors new clothes. Now you see me now you don't, because anything I say is sieved thru the shifting sands of utter bullshit.

As an aside, and to repeat what others have already repeated, a principle of verification is a philosophical device.

It can't be so from *your* philosophical perspective.

People were verifying things long before there was philosophy. Therefore it pre-dates philosophy, and by your words such things can't be post-applied.

If you did consistency you might get to elevate yourself from below amoebas.

You've missed the point again. The point I was making was that nihilism failed in bringing an end to philosophy as it was itself a philosophy, *different* and or otherwise.

Yet Pol Pot wasn't trying to bring an end to philosophy, he was attempting to apply his own philosophy.

So your whole premise is wrong, and from that only wrongness flows.

This is a philosphical assertion. So philosophy is hardly redundant in your argument is it.

Much as with religions, if we could go back in time we'd know the truth of things - the reasons behind it's establishment: power, or conviction.

Of those two possibilities, one pans out with there being no philosophy ever, just a scam.

But you won't consider this possibility will you? You won't subject philosophy to philosophical ideas, because you know that makes it empty. Oh dear.

But you just said that ''it's f**k all to do with philosophising'' yet here you are philosophising as to why human action has occured. So philosophy is hardly redundant.

To repeat, philosophy is any assertion as to 'why' something is or is not. Your assertions as to why things are the way they are is philosophical, thereby showing that philosophy is not redundant.

Is it telling us anything new?

There used to be jobs for coal miners, until they were made redundant. Yet there's still coal! How can that be?

[worm]

We conform more to humanity than philosophy.

[worm]

Spot on. So nothing special, and nothing certain.

[worm]

Is it telling us anything new?

[worm]

nor redundant..?