Philosophy is redundant

[worm]

Correct.

Edited September 23, 2010 by worm

[rfs]

Philosophy says there are no physical objects, there are only ideas of objects.

[eFestivals]

So why do you keep contradicting the concept of philosophy to make it an autonomous entity?

more to the point, why are you giving the simple act of disciplined thinking another label to attempt to make it an autonomous entity?

You're just being polemic.

I'm repeating back at you some of the more ridiculous things you've claimed for philosophy.

You've made ridiculous claims and you know it. Get over it.

Just like all words. All words are used to denote a pre-existing concept.

I know, I've been tell you that for yours, whilst you've been denying it.

No you can't. You can claim responsibility for changing the common term used for foot. So what?

Oh, so there's no power to language now?

FFS, you're ridiculous. You can't do consistent.

Edited September 23, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Philosophy doesn't say that.

Worm does on behalf of philosophy. Take it up with him.

All philosophy requires thinking, but not all thinking is philosophical. Ergo, you don't seem to have any idea what philosophy is.

I know what it is thanks.

You're getting confused between what I know, and what worm has claimed for philosophy that I'm repeating back at him.

Actually, if there was not an existing philosophical theory, there would have been no basis on which to found the idea of science. But ya know, you needn't oppose science with philosophy, both being in a mutually beneficial relationship. Philosophy drives science by putting forward its considerations, and every relevant scientific discovery is taken into account when good philosophers deal with the respective issues. You can't really be a proponent of scientific investigation without also realising the value of philosophy.

There's "the idea of science", but there's also "science that was happening anyway without there being an idea of science".

For example, at some point (probably long before much more than the basics of language in man's early history), man was cooking food. That's science - they'd worked out that by exposing meat to heat, its properties changed. Having discovered it, and liking the results, they kept on doing it. And of course, doing all of that required philosoiphical thinking.

There was no science and no philosophy, but there was still what we've come to know as science and philosophy. Neither required any formalisation (or accompanying bollox) to happen.

We can argue forever (cos no one knows) about the dependence of one on the other, but my take on this is one which has a consistency right thru to the present day - that there is no such thing as genius discoveries, there is simply a pool of knowledge all dependent on each other from which further knowledge WILL BE deduced sooner or later. And our reality gets to prove this as 100% true, for which there's countless examples - all the instances of simultaneous but independent discoveries and inventions over centuries. And this take makes all ideas of philosophy redundant, once you've grasped that it brings only a big fat zero to that pool of knowledge.

Such a take on things doesn't credit one thing as having primacy in this process. Yet formal philosophy claims primacy, in contradiction to philosophy.

Edited September 23, 2010 by eFestivals

[rfs]

You're getting confused between what I know, and what worm has claimed for philosophy that I'm repeating back at him.

[eFestivals]

This is turning into a stock answer from you.

Why are you obsessed with what worm thinks. Either he's an idiot (which you seem to think he is) which means what he says or thinks is irrelevant, or he's not. You want it both ways depending on the point that's being made....

Oh, he's an idiot.

One day I might succeed in making him aware of it.

[eFestivals]

Yeah you seem to be a bit confused on both counts.

Nope, I'm not confused, but I accept that the likes of you might be confused by what I'm posting.

Worm is getting it tho (or mostly, at least), cos he realises that I'm chucking back at him things he's claimed previously. The fact that I know he's getting it is being given away by his almost total avoidance of coming back at me on those points.

I’m sure if I was some sort of psychoanalyst I would be drooling over your romantic and obsessive fascination of both the birth and the end of idea/knowledge/man (as if it had any relevance or we could possibly know). As it is I haven’t the first f**king clue of what you’re trying to say.

Oh, it has HUGE relevance. I'm highlighting the difference between the natural and artificial inventions.

The natural is of course not redundant. The artificial is - as Hawkings has also grasped.

Edited September 23, 2010 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

Worm does on behalf of philosophy. Take it up with him.

I know what it is thanks.

You're getting confused between what I know, and what worm has claimed for philosophy that I'm repeating back at him.

There's "the idea of science", but there's also "science that was happening anyway without there being an idea of science".

For example, at some point (probably long before much more than the basics of language in man's early history), man was cooking food. That's science - they'd worked out that by exposing meat to heat, its properties changed. Having discovered it, and liking the results, they kept on doing it. And of course, doing all of that required philosoiphical thinking.

There was no science and no philosophy, but there was still what we've come to know as science and philosophy. Neither required any formalisation (or accompanying bollox) to happen.

We can argue forever (cos no one knows) about the dependence of one on the other, but my take on this is one which has a consistency right thru to the present day - that there is no such thing as genius discoveries, there is simply a pool of knowledge all dependent on each other from which further knowledge WILL BE deduced sooner or later. And our reality gets to prove this as 100% true, for which there's countless examples - all the instances of simultaneous but independent discoveries and inventions over centuries. And this take makes all ideas of philosophy redundant, once you've grasped that it brings only a big fat zero to that pool of knowledge.

Such a take on things doesn't credit one thing as having primacy in this process. Yet formal philosophy claims primacy, in contradiction to philosophy.

Edited September 23, 2010 by feral chile

[feral chile]

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.

[worm]

Worm is getting it tho (or mostly, at least), cos he realises that I'm chucking back at him things he's claimed previously.

Edited September 24, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Animals learn from experience, through trial and error, cause and effect, but they're not scientific.

that's exactly what it is.

Neither are they philosophical, because they're unable to formulate theories to explain things.

So "if I expose this meat to heat it cooks" isn't a theory?

Science and philosophy have formulated rules for doing just that. Science using empiricism, philosophy using reason.

Some people have real difficulties taking their heads out from their indoctrination, don't they?

Someone saying "these are the rules" has f**k all to do with anything. People work to those rules without knowing of their existence.

They each specialise - I don't see why you think philosophy claims primacy.

I suggest that you read this thread and see posts from both you and others doing exactly that!

[eFestivals]

I don't know whether I agree with you or not, because I'm missing your point completely.

Yep. The indoctrination you've suffered has stopped you being able to think.

Think back to cavemen, long before any concept of science or philosophy. They were both scientists and philosophers, without knowing that they were.

Later, people claimed to be experts and specialists in those things. But not because they had any actual expertise above others, just because of the power it gave them.

If you look at a far more modern scenario - computers - it can be seen as that VERY clearly. The likes of Bill Gates* just got on doing what he was doing and took computer 'science' to new places, while others picked up on what he was doing and said "defer to me, I have all the knowledge you need to be just like Bill" (while knowing just a fraction of what he did). These people called themselves 'computer experts', 'computer scientists', 'computer lecturers', etc. In the end, even the likes of Bill get to fall into their trap and follow the lead they set within the industry via the students they've trained, to the detriment of further advances because of the containment such formality causes.

(* I picked Bill not cos he was the best example - he definitely isn't, and in fact has done very little that's new - but because to most lay people he's considered the father of modern computing)

The point is this: without there being a formal 'computer science' all of that knowledge was being gained anyway - and in many places, all at the same time and independent from others on similar paths - yet the formalisation then gets to constrain further advances because people are taught to stick to 'the rules'.

It's no different for any branch of knowledge, but at least some branches are growing new leaves. For philosophy there's no new leaves, because 'computer science' or any other speciality does a better job internally than is done by those who reference back to a pure philosophical take.

And so the pure philosophical take on things has become redundant. Just as things from 'humanity' came to be taken over by the new thing known as philosophy, things from philosophy have come to be taken over by other newer things.

[eFestivals]

No you aren't. You're talking utter nonsense, while avoiding valid questions.

Says the man who said everything is from language - until yesterday, when he said it wasn't.

Says the man who said that post-application of ideas is not allowable - but is post-applying the idea of philosophy tpo all of human existence.

Says the man who claims everything is from philosophy, when by his own ideas it can't ever be.

Says the man who sticks his finger up his own arse and swivels on it everytime he's caught out with talking complete bollocks.

Next up, you'll be calling me thick because I dare to disagree with you. Yeah, Hawkings is a thicko too.

The question is how is philosophy redundant, to which you've given no answer that has held up to scrutiny.

It's not scrutiny that the issue here, it's one of being able to think.

You have had your thinking constrained by the formal ideas you've sucked up, and refuse to consider or even think thru what is presented to you that differs. From where you sit, it's impossible for you to ever be wrong, because the ideas you subscribe to are absolute, unalterable.

Which is highly amusing, because when you take your head from your arse for occasional moments you're very happy to admit that tomorrow the ideas of philosophy will be completely different to what they are today.

In short, changing the word to something else won't change the fact that you are using philosophy to dismiss the concept of philosophy.

You just can't get it, can you? Never mind.

I'm not trying to dismiss the concept of philosophy, I'm dismissing the worth of it to the modern world. It's been surpassed, as Hawkings has recognised.

Philosophy has become the goldfish in a bowl, swimming around aimlessly and forgetting everything it said just 5 seconds ago, so we have to do it all again. It's the only way it can hang onto its own existence; the fact that it's doing that is self-recognition of its own redundancy.

Edited September 24, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

I'm not trying to dismiss the concept of philosophy, I'm dismissing the worth of it to the modern world.

[worm]

Says the man who said everything is from language - until yesterday, when he said it wasn't.

Edited September 27, 2010 by worm

[feral chile]

Yep. The indoctrination you've suffered has stopped you being able to think.

Think back to cavemen, long before any concept of science or philosophy. They were both scientists and philosophers, without knowing that they were.

Later, people claimed to be experts and specialists in those things. But not because they had any actual expertise above others, just because of the power it gave them.

If you look at a far more modern scenario - computers - it can be seen as that VERY clearly. The likes of Bill Gates* just got on doing what he was doing and took computer 'science' to new places, while others picked up on what he was doing and said "defer to me, I have all the knowledge you need to be just like Bill" (while knowing just a fraction of what he did). These people called themselves 'computer experts', 'computer scientists', 'computer lecturers', etc. In the end, even the likes of Bill get to fall into their trap and follow the lead they set within the industry via the students they've trained, to the detriment of further advances because of the containment such formality causes.

(* I picked Bill not cos he was the best example - he definitely isn't, and in fact has done very little that's new - but because to most lay people he's considered the father of modern computing)

The point is this: without there being a formal 'computer science' all of that knowledge was being gained anyway - and in many places, all at the same time and independent from others on similar paths - yet the formalisation then gets to constrain further advances because people are taught to stick to 'the rules'.

It's no different for any branch of knowledge, but at least some branches are growing new leaves. For philosophy there's no new leaves, because 'computer science' or any other speciality does a better job internally than is done by those who reference back to a pure philosophical take.

And so the pure philosophical take on things has become redundant. Just as things from 'humanity' came to be taken over by the new thing known as philosophy, things from philosophy have come to be taken over by other newer things.

[eFestivals]

Are you against specialisms in general, or philosophy in particular?

I'm against historical oddities attempting to retain a power that is no longer theirs to retain.

If your take on philosophy applies to all things then (for example) all left-ish political ideas are credited to Marx, and all right-ish political ideas are credited to Adam Smith. But we're all smart enough to know that such ideas are a gross simplification of the realities, and that things have moved on by a huge amount making such things a distortion of the realities.

My take on this is that humans have always been inquisitive, have probably always had an impulse to control - the environment, other people, themselves - in ancient times we used to call this quest for knowledge philosophy.

and before that, we called it nothing at all but it was still there doing all the same things.

Philosophy is now left with a meta analysis of these disciplines, and subjects that the specialisms can't, or are not interested, in asking - metaphysics being the most obvious example.

Yet it's just a history lesson.

So it does teach people to question things they might otherwise accept. Is that a bad thing?

Nope. But there's no need for it to be wrapped up in a psuedo-academic historical oddity. We all now know how to think and question, and if someone doesn't question they just need to be prompted so that they so. They don't need to be told HOW TO question; but if their questioning method needs strengthening, they can get it from historical references, but with no need to reference the whole idea of philosophy itself.

Edited September 27, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Without success.

yes, Hawkings has got it all wrong too.

You're clearly thinking "what a thicko that Neil is, he just doesn't get it". Well funnily enough, my take is that I do get it, and a whole lot more. Which turns your opinion of me (and Hawkings ) back onto yourself.

No it hasn't. As you have shown.

The concepts are clearly beyond your ability to think of them.

[eFestivals]

Language is not synonymous with words. It's how words get their meaning and how that meaning can change. Language governs words.

It's pseudo-academic bollox, without an iota of evidence.

But whether it's true or not, internal ideas govern everything - meaning there's something of far more power than language.

p.s. science is most certainly not cause and effect.

That's right. Any sciencific idea is always proven only in a philosophy classroom.

As everyone in here has pointed out to you in various capacities, you're whole discourse is error ridden.

Nope. It's your understanding of what I'm saying that is the error-ridden thing here. You are unable to think outside of the way you've been told is how you think.

I don't think anyone here knows what your purported redundancy of philosophy is based upon, other than ignorance of philosophy.

Ah well, looks like it's just me and Hawkings then.

And given *your* take on the existence of genius, you'll have to be admitting to yourself that you're the fool.

[eFestivals]

ans is still there/here now...?

Yep. It's what we humans do, without the need to wrap it up in any concept.

so it's just the word really, that you don't like anymore.

The word I have no problem with. The idea that the concept behind the word can just by itself bring anything new and useful I do.

New knowledge causes old ideas to become redundant; I'm sure that's a concept that most people can agree with as a general principle.

If you can separate the idea of philosophy (asking 'why') from what it has become ('attempting to tell us why') and treat them as different entities, then while it's clear that the first will never be redundant, the second can become that - and has.

The simple fact is that a scientist is better placed to deal with any 'why' issues towards science than anyone who regards themselves as a 'philosopher', and the same is true for all other subject areas. As we specialise the general becomes less and less useful in being able to achieve the same as a specialist. This applies to philosophy no more or less than any other thing.

The above is the general idea, the starting point, for why philosophy is now redundant. It's been surpassed.

[worm]

yes, Hawkings has got it all wrong too.

Edited September 28, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

Your tactic of aligning yourself with Hawkings hasn't washed with me I'm afraid. Your critique is in no way akin to his.

PMSL

1. you've not heard Hawkings take.

2. you've not understood my take.

So how are you reaching such a certain opinion? Telepathy?

It's very certain that my critique is very similar (if not identical) to his - it was the fact that I expressed the same thing BEFORE he did that led my missus to start this thread.

(PS: my missus is better qualified than you to comment on philosophy, and no less strongly than you disagrees with my take on things.)

More contrary rubbish.

My error, sorry. I'd forgotten that you understand everything (including things you've not understood and not heard), and no one in the world can say "you're just thick" aside from you.

You're discourse is error ridden because you're applying philosophical thought to say that philosophy is redundant.

whoosh!

You can't even f**king read simple words in front of you.

just PROVE me wrong.......

You're doing fine at that by yourself buddy.

Edited September 27, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

It's very certain that my critique is very similar (if not identical) to his

[worm]

New knowledge causes old ideas to become redundant; I'm sure that's a concept that most people can agree with as a general principle.

If you can separate the idea of philosophy (asking 'why') from what it has become ('attempting to tell us why') and treat them as different entities, then while it's clear that the first will never be redundant, the second can become that - and has.

The simple fact is that a scientist is better placed to deal with any 'why' issues towards science than anyone who regards themselves as a 'philosopher', and the same is true for all other subject areas.

As we specialise the general becomes less and less useful in being able to achieve the same as a specialist. This applies to philosophy no more or less than any other thing.

The above is the general idea, the starting point, for why philosophy is now redundant. It's been surpassed.

Edited September 28, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

No it isn't.

How the f**k do you know?

You've not heard what Hawkings has to say, and you'll failed to understand the most basic things of what I've said.

Just provide scientific evidence of a world that is run without the use of philosophy.

whoosh (yet again).

Explain to me without the use of philosophical discourse a world that is run without the use of philosophy. You can't as your critique is based upon philosophical thought.

Why not just stick a big placard on your forehead that says "this thread is beyond me, it's all going over my head".

Or failing that, just re-read this thread until you can differentiate between what I've said and what you want to believe I've said but never have.

FFS.

Edited September 28, 2010 by eFestivals