Philosophy is redundant

[eFestivals]

nor redundant..?

It depends what you're calling 'philosophy'.

If you call being human being a philosopher then it's not redundant.

As an academic discipline that's taking humanity somewhere, it's dead. It'll take some a while to realise it tho.

[eFestivals]

What it's telling you is why something is the way it is.

But I already know, so it's not.

One day, when turkeys vote for xmas, the likes of you will catch up with this.

[eFestivals]

And there's no reason for this conclusion is there not? Of course you have a reason for this conclusion and it's evidence of your philosophy.

Only to the types who think that their own existence is owned by others.

[eFestivals]

This is a philosophical assertion.

no, it's a statement of fact.

I'm not interested in having a philosophical argument with you. We have never agreed philosophically and it isn't relevant. What is relevant and what I have pointed out is the fact that you're saying philosophy is redundant by being philosophical.

Yes, and so is you deciding to shit each morning.

But luckily for the world, some things are beyond being owned.

You can come out with all the irrelevant polemic rubbish you like old boy, the fact stands that you've proved that philosophy is not redundant in your assertions.

As you would say: you're too thick to get it.

Hawkings gets it. I get it. You don't.

[llcoolphil]

Great to see Culty and rfs posting again though not read the thread properly yet. However, Horizon on BBC 4 at 9 tonight concerns this very subject fyi

[feral chile]

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.

I've never studied philosophy (really? ), but I've had plenty of conversations with people who have, and it's my understanding that there are many branches of philosophy. Ultimately, it's just people's thoughts on any given topic, isn't it?

Edited September 21, 2010 by feral chile

[worm]

no, it's a statement of fact.

[worm]

But I already know, so it's not.

One day, when turkeys vote for xmas, the likes of you will catch up with this.

[llcoolphil]

well, yea..

and to suggest that philosophy is redundant seems to imply that we've reached some kind of state of bliss, and there's nothing else to discuss (or philosophize about)

if only..

Edited September 21, 2010 by llcoolphil

[eFestivals]

No it isn't. All philosophy stems from humanity, so what you've said is technically f**k all.

Ruight, so what you're saying is that philosophy - which came after - is allowed to claim all of humanity as its own, but that science - which came after - is NOT allowed to claim the bits of philosophy now assigned directly to it as its own.

Can I ask: what does philosophy have to say about consistency?

It clearly makes it up as it goes along (as it does for everything else) but still without any reference to reality.

Nevertheless, you've answered the question of 'why', which requires philosophical tools my friend. You and I don't make up the rules as to what philosophy is, so I'm afraid you're f**ked by way of constradiction. If you answer 'why' something is the way it is then you're being philosophical.

You've said previously that the rules of philosophy don't allow post-application to pre-existing ideas.

So why is philosophy post-applying itself to pre-existing ideas?

It's back to the consistency thing.

[eFestivals]

Here's an example. One current philosophical tool making the rounds is 'splitting'. Now this is hardly common place in everyday perceptions of the world. However, it's massive in the world of philosophy and will eventually filter down into common language, just as Marxist and Freudian terminology did.

Oh, please do parrot a book at me without you having grasped it, just this once I'll be happy for you to do what you do so well.

[worm]

Ruight, so what you're saying is that philosophy - which came after - is allowed to claim all of humanity as its own, but that science - which came after - is NOT allowed to claim the bits of philosophy now assigned directly to it as its own.

[eFestivals]

No, I'm saying that what you said was technically f**k all because philosophy (a human invention) derives from humanity. Same as all schools of knowledge.

then why won't philosophy allow the 'ownership' of the things it claims for itself to be passed on into another's 'ownership' in the exact same way?

For example, philosophy gave science its rules of investigation, but those rules are now firmly a part of science. So if humanity can't 'own' the things it created because philosophy has claimed them at a later date, then philosophy can't 'own' the rules of science because science has now come to 'own' them.

Philosophy only has one rule, and it's that philosophy will talk endless worthless shit for self-preservation.

The fact that it's recognised the necessity of doing that is a clear demonstration that even philosophy knows that its redundant. By such glaring inconsistencies it proves itself merely a pseudo discipline in modern life, and nothing of worth.

Instead of dismissing my perfectly legitimate demonstration of philosophy in action, why don't you attempt to rebuke it?

I can and I have (see above).

But of course you have a set of worthless 'rules' which allows you to reject what I say above, just as philosophy itself claims itself immune from philosophical analysis.

As I keep saying, it's the emperors new clothes. And I keep asking you to show me this wonderful costume, and you can't.

It's necessary if you wish to demonstrate that philosophy is redundant as I've given you proof that it is not.

no, you've given some self-serving inconsistent bollocks as 'proof'.

And as Neil has pointed out, no philosophy or its terms can be considered 100% true.

It's a damn shame that you can't intellectually grasp that.

[worm]

then why won't philosophy allow the 'ownership' of the things it claims for itself to be passed on into another's 'ownership' in the exact same way?

Edited September 22, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

You're going on as if philosophy is an actual entity

Because it likes to pretend that it is. I'm simply treating it as it thinks it should be treated. It's a different angle of attack against a slimy creature with moving goalposts.

You have been the perfect example of this by presenting it as an entity that is able to own other things. After all, philosophy did not exist when those things came about, yet philosophy claims them as its own.

(and in doing so is post-applying - something philosophy says cannot be done ).

<snip> blah blah blah </snip> So philosophical investigation has not ceased by any means and is far from redundant.

ahhhh, the 'goldfish in the bowl' defence. How very intelligent and intellectual of you. How very deep thinking. How very useful.

Philosophy dooesn't 'claim' or 'own' anything.

Yet you do just that on its behalf, constantly.

Philosophy is simply a word we use to denote the question of 'why'.

No, 'why' denotes why.

It's not 'why' that is redundant, it's the bollox that self-proclaimed philosophers spout off the back of that.

Edited September 22, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

'it?'.. what is 'it'?

you saying a thought process, that is different every time someone else does the thinking, is actually a tangible thing with it's own perception of things

This doesn't make any sense to me....

You, like worm, seem to be having difficulty differentiating the fact that we think from individuals who like to pretend they know every last detail of that thinking process.

Your foot is an idea. It exists as a concept (and more).

Philosophy is an idea. It exists as a concept (and less ).

Spot the difference? Me neither. Both can be rightly referred to by the word 'it'. :-)

And that's a part of the point - it is a concept, *ONLY* a concept. It is not anything real. Everything real it claims for itself existed long before the concept of philosophy.

After all, us humans have always been thinking, and been able to deduce that by thinking in certain ways we can be better informed and productive. None of that required a concept of philosophy.

Us humans have been building layer upon layer of knowledge since our first existence in that form (and perhaps before, who knows?), with each layer creating a path to somewhere new, and found better ways to share what we have discovered so that the layers have been able to built more quickly - none of which has required a concept of philosophy. Etc, etc, etc. Writing the idea of philosophy itself into a book and claiming all of human existence for it is the emperor's new clothes.

Edited September 22, 2010 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

You, like worm, seem to be having difficulty differentiating the fact that we think from individuals who like to pretend they know every last detail of that thinking process.

Your foot is an idea. It exists as a concept (and more).

Philosophy is an idea. It exists as a concept (and less ).

Spot the difference? Me neither. Both can be rightly referred to by the word 'it'. :-)

And that's a part of the point - it is a concept, *ONLY* a concept. It is not anything real. Everything real it claims for itself existed long before the concept of philosophy.

After all, us humans have always been thinking, and been able to deduce that by thinking in certain ways we can be better informed and productive. None of that required a concept of philosophy.

Us humans have been building layer upon layer of knowledge since our first existence in that form (and perhaps before, who knows?), with each layer creating a path to somewhere new, and found better ways to share what we have discovered so that the layers have been able to built more quickly - none of which has required a concept of philosophy. Etc, etc, etc. Writing the idea of philosophy itself into a book and claiming all of human existence for it is the emperor's new clothes.

Edited September 22, 2010 by feral chile

[feral chile]

You, like worm, seem to be having difficulty differentiating the fact that we think from individuals who like to pretend they know every last detail of that thinking process.

Your foot is an idea. It exists as a concept (and more).

Philosophy is an idea. It exists as a concept (and less ).

Spot the difference? Me neither. Both can be rightly referred to by the word 'it'. :-)

And that's a part of the point - it is a concept, *ONLY* a concept. It is not anything real. Everything real it claims for itself existed long before the concept of philosophy.

After all, us humans have always been thinking, and been able to deduce that by thinking in certain ways we can be better informed and productive. None of that required a concept of philosophy.

Us humans have been building layer upon layer of knowledge since our first existence in that form (and perhaps before, who knows?), with each layer creating a path to somewhere new, and found better ways to share what we have discovered so that the layers have been able to built more quickly - none of which has required a concept of philosophy. Etc, etc, etc. Writing the idea of philosophy itself into a book and claiming all of human existence for it is the emperor's new clothes.

[feral chile]

whaaa..?

my foot is a thing, it's there, on the end of my leg. You can call it a concept or whatever you want to call it. Philosophy isn't a thing, it's an idea, a concept, and only a concept. If my philosophy gets broken, can I get a replacement one?

and my foot is only a concept...?? well there's the difference

we'd still exist, wake up, eat some food, procreate etc, whether philosophy exists or not....

Philosophy is just the name we give it. What's the difference between thinking about how we can make our existence any better and philosphy

apart from Worm being a 'supporter' of it?

who said anything like that

Edited September 22, 2010 by feral chile

[worm]

Because it likes to pretend that it is.

Edited September 23, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

whaaa..?

my foot is a thing, it's there, on the end of my leg. You can call it a concept or whatever you want to call it. Philosophy isn't a thing, it's an idea, a concept, and only a concept. If my philosophy gets broken, can I get a replacement one?

I 100% agree with you about your foot (or my foot).

I was giving you the philosophical perspective of a foot. Philosophy says there are no physical objects, there are only ideas of objects.

From such a philosophical perspective, philosophy is very definitely an 'it'.

we'd still exist, wake up, eat some food, procreate etc, whether philosophy exists or not....

exactly. Just as we (humanity) were thinking before there was philosophy.

So thinking is not something of philosophy. Philosophy only gets to claim it by the post-application of the idea of philosophy onto a pre-existing thing - which is something that philosophy (or at least: worm's version of it) says is not allowed.

Yet despite worm having said it's not allowed, he's doing it.

Philosophy is just the name we give it. What's the difference between thinking about how we can make our existence any better and philosphy

Again, I 100% agree with you. Again, I'm giving you a bullshit philosophical idea, which you're seeing the bullshit of no less than me.

Both is just thinking. But one of those versions of thinking allows a a group of self-proclaimed experts to claim a power from their self-proclaimed expertise. If others think differently to the way they proscribe, they get labelled as unable to think properly, of being lesser beings, of (as worm has done very often) being thick.

who said anything like that

How many of worm's posts have you read in this very thread?

[eFestivals]

I don't really understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the founders of scientific method were not philosophers? What do you think philosophy is? The natural and social sciences stem from philosophy.

Yes, I am saying that the founders of scientific method were not philosophers.

Philosophy itself required an existing scientific method for philosophy to come about. If there was not an existing scientific method, there would be no basis on which to found the idea of philosophy.

Philosophy is simply a label given to what already existed.

Unless of course you're going to show me something which proves that methodical thinking only came into existence at the precise moment someone grasped the idea that thinking could be methodical.

Edited September 23, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I presume you're referring to an academic discipline

I am, as was Hawkings.

Thinking as a standard act of humans is not the same thing as formal philosophy believes itself to be.

For you to grasp what Hawkings and I are saying, you need to disassociate those two things.

How is that claiming to own the world?

You need to aim that question at Worm, as he's the one claiming the world for philosophy.

Oh and we can all claim to have thought of some of the things philosophers think of. I worked out Pascal's Wager when I was about 8.

I don't doubt it. And via which, you are now in the position to recognise that formal philosophy is not necessary, that it's redundant.

You reached those conclusions by yourself, by simply using the knowledgebase around you. No special skill was required, and no deference to self-proclaimed experts was required.

Philosophy formalises these thoughts and subjects them to critical analysis.

And comes out with patent bullshit as its conclusion.

Edited September 23, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Philosophy doesn't say anything. A person says something philosophical. That is, they may give their idea on why something is the way it is.

Correct.

Why has it taken you so long to get there?

No you aren't. You're saying that it's something that it's not.

In which case it's actually *YOU* that has been saying its something its not. I've simply given you back your own words.

That IS the concept of philosophy!

Yes it is, you're right.

It is a concept that has been post-applied to something pre-existing. It doesn't need to have its own word - 'philosophy' - as it already had its own word: 'thinking'.

You don't say the word foot is redundant because the thing at the end of your leg didn't require the concept of a foot to exist, do you.

How many words within one language are there for the concept of a foot?

If I call it "figgydopple" instead, does that alter anything about what is a foot?

However, if I can persuade everyone else to call a foot a "figgydopple", I can claim ownership of the whole concept of a foot. I will have redefined what is a foot is in my own terms, and people will defer to me as the person who knows about what a foot is.

It's the emperors new clothes.

[eFestivals]

to be honest, when you and him go off on one, I tend to turn off. I't s just bickering over pointless specifics. You blame him for it, but you seem to enjoy perpetuating it

All I'm doing is pointing out that one minute he says one thing, and then next he says something completely conflicting.

It's hardly "pointless" for me to point this out. We're having a discussion about something, which requires specifics. When the specifics he gives end up meaning nothing at all because of those clear conflicts in what he says, i point that out.

I knew this would end up like this. It's all about how one person defines it, and your disagreements with him.

If the man who reckons he knows all about a subject can't stick to one definition of that subject, then he has no definition at all.