'Why Study Philosophy'

[midcan5]

Ah come on guys, be philosophers for a moment and desist from empty repartee.

Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century by Jonathan Glover

"What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not." Jeremy LaBorde

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ah come on guys, be philosophers for a moment and desist from empty repartee.

Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century by Jonathan Glover

"What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not." Jeremy LaBorde

REACTIONARY: In political science, a reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.

Today we are faced with a President who seeks to become a Monarch, as he surrounds himself with family and nobles, the Billionaires of the 21 Century.

The study of philosophy goes hand in hand with the understanding of history; ignorance of one is the ban of democracy and it seems by reading the post's of Trump supporter on the USMB both are at work, and their ignorance is willful and ignoble.

 

[G.T.]

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.

 

[OldLady]

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.

The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say you are the "woo woo."
I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.

 

[G.T.]

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.

The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say you are the "woo woo."
I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.

The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.

I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.

Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.

 

[OldLady]

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.

The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say you are the "woo woo."
I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.

The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.

I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.

Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.

Okay. Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers. I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.

 

[Toro]

Pascal's Dilemma is why I'm a Christian.

It's irrefutable logic.

 

[G.T.]

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.

The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say you are the "woo woo."
I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.

The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.

I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.

Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.

Okay. Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers. I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.

I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.

Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.

Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.

In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.

The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.

 

[G.T.]

Pascal's Dilemma is why I'm a Christian.

It's irrefutable logic.

Pascale was refuted ten times over, I even gave you the most referenced refutations and you didnt care to counter them. At which point does that become trolling, as opposed to a discussion....

 

[Wry Catcher]

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.

The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say you are the "woo woo."
I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.

The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.

I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.

Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.

True. Now let's suppose each premise which ends as a conclusion? We can look at most of the meme's posted by 21st century self proclaimed conservatives, as logical fallacies. Shall I post the syllogism?

 

[OldLady]

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.

The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say you are the "woo woo."
I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.

The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.

I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.

Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.

Okay. Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers. I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.

I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.

Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.

Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.

In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.

The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.

Well, I love Aslan anyway.

 

[OldLady]

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.

The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say you are the "woo woo."
I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.

The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.

I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.

Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.

Okay. Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers. I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.

I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.

Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.

Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.

In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.

The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.

You won't want to hear this and I probably can't say it right, but ....
the fact that you think Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed and Toro believes it to be true, is a perfect example of my point, which is that there is too much disagreement about what is right or wrong in philosophy in order for it to be a universal standard upon which to rely.

 

[G.T.]

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.

The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say you are the "woo woo."
I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.

The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.

I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.

Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.

Okay. Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers. I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.

I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.

Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.

Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.

In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.

The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.

You won't want to hear this and I probably can't say it right, but ....
the fact that you think Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed and Toro believes it to be true, is a perfect example of my point, which is that there is too much disagreement about what is right or wrong in philosophy in order for it to be a universal standard upon which to rely.

Thats poor reasoning itself, that your standard is merely folks' opinions...and proclaiming that disagreement means theres no fact of the matter.

Thats undisciplined, heres how...

Theres not much disagreement in philosophy on pascales wager, theres just guys like toro that didnt know that its refuted in introductory philosophy courses.

Its not merely opinion, its the laws of logic like I told you.

If you want me to walk you through its refutation, sure. I can dewwwdatt

 

[OldLady]

The tricky bit about your argument is that many of the greats would say you are the "woo woo."
I've got nothing against it, unless it's held up as the be all and end all.
If A=B and B=C, then A=C is fine.
Where that leads--as in we're all just pushing that rock up the hill or as in drown all the lawyers and put a philosopher king in place--is still debatable.

The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.

I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.

Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.

Okay. Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers. I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.

I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.

Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.

Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.

In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.

The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.

You won't want to hear this and I probably can't say it right, but ....
the fact that you think Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed and Toro believes it to be true, is a perfect example of my point, which is that there is too much disagreement about what is right or wrong in philosophy in order for it to be a universal standard upon which to rely.

Thats poor reasoning itself, that your standard is merely folks' opinions...and proclaiming that disagreement means theres no fact of the matter.

Thats undisciplined, heres how...

Theres no disagreement in philosophy on pascales wager, theres just guys like toro that didnt know that its refuted in introductory philosophy courses.

Its not merely opinion, its the laws of logic like I told you.

If you want me to walk you through its refutation, sure. I can dewwwdatt

No need for that, thanks.

 

[G.T.]

The good thing about that ^ is that there's laws of logic, and a random guy's opinion over whether or not I'm woo woo is irrelevant. Demonstrations are required for claims to hold water.

I'm not using personal bias in what Im talking about ~ Im saying that many philosophers were debunked by other philosophers by demonstrating a fatal flaw, not just an opinion that its woo woo...Thats not how its demonstrated, not with a bias but methodically.

Claims require demonstrations, demonstrations require following the laws of logic, the laws of logic weed out fallacies where they exist, and sometimes not until many years later.

Okay. Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers. I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.

I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.

Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.

Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.

In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.

The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.

You won't want to hear this and I probably can't say it right, but ....
the fact that you think Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed and Toro believes it to be true, is a perfect example of my point, which is that there is too much disagreement about what is right or wrong in philosophy in order for it to be a universal standard upon which to rely.

Thats poor reasoning itself, that your standard is merely folks' opinions...and proclaiming that disagreement means theres no fact of the matter.

Thats undisciplined, heres how...

Theres no disagreement in philosophy on pascales wager, theres just guys like toro that didnt know that its refuted in introductory philosophy courses.

Its not merely opinion, its the laws of logic like I told you.

If you want me to walk you through its refutation, sure. I can dewwwdatt

No need for that, thanks.

No problem. Note that I was willing, thats all. There's no ego involved in a critique of ideas, and a lot of the time people get emotional over simple rational disagreements because of emotional baggage thats not necessary, or relevant. Best to just keep opinions to one's self, at that point. It's sort of like anti knowledge.

 

[OldLady]

Okay. Not to belabor a point, but some examples of what you are talking about would be helpful, if you are suggesting that philosophy would help us be better thinkers. I'm always trying to help people be better thinkers, which is why your statement interested me.

I think it's the highest goal because it's like the rising tide example - where better reasoning uplifts all other goals somebody might have.

Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed. Thats the easiest example to grasp.

Lots of C.S. Lewis' literature is fallacious as he appeals to claims of normativity to make the wider cases he's making, and most of the normativity he's implying is either demonstrably false, or yet to be established.

In other words, in order to prove his overarching claims, he just makes more undemonstrated claims. That's the fatal flaw in most of his literature. Its the type of a lack of discipline I was referencing before.

The good news is that many folks possess the ability to reason properly.

You won't want to hear this and I probably can't say it right, but ....
the fact that you think Pascale's Wager is fatally flawed and Toro believes it to be true, is a perfect example of my point, which is that there is too much disagreement about what is right or wrong in philosophy in order for it to be a universal standard upon which to rely.

Thats poor reasoning itself, that your standard is merely folks' opinions...and proclaiming that disagreement means theres no fact of the matter.

Thats undisciplined, heres how...

Theres no disagreement in philosophy on pascales wager, theres just guys like toro that didnt know that its refuted in introductory philosophy courses.

Its not merely opinion, its the laws of logic like I told you.

If you want me to walk you through its refutation, sure. I can dewwwdatt

No need for that, thanks.

No problem. Note that I was willing, thats all. There's no ego involved in a critique of ideas, and a lot of the time people get emotional over simple rational disagreements because of emotional baggage thats not necessary, or relevant. Best to just keep opinions to one's self, at that point. It's sort of like anti knowledge.

Yessir.

 

[Ringel05]

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.

Given the representation on this board alone it would appear philosophistry is winning hands down.....

 

[G.T.]

I've always had a pet peeve for undisciplined reasoning. I started studying philosophy, and through that I've learned that there are dozens of "ists" & world-views of philosophers born of poor reasoning and window dressing.

At the end of the day, common sense and a disciplined approach to knowledge (healthy skepticism) seem to produce the most fruitful paths forward. In philosophy, many of the greats had fatal errors in their approach and created a "woo woo" mockery of rationality.

Its making a comeback, though. Disciplined philosophy.

Given the representation on this board alone it would appear philosophistry is winning hands down.....

This site is deeeeeeply anti-intellectual. It makes it hard to consider it worth it to deep dive into most topics because in the end, most of these ass holes devolve into some meta hyperbolic insult contest and quit engaging in earnst.

At which point, fuck, I just have to beat them at that, too

 

[OldLady]

I do NOT think that philosophical arguments should be won based on opinion; I am simply pointing out that logical arguments are not immune from error, either.

Logic is a blind set of rules that, if based on a false underlying premise, can lead you to ridiculous or even evil outcomes.

It is the underlying agreement on A or B or C that is the real trick, isn't it? My point is that the jury is still out on that.

 

[G.T.]

I do NOT think that philosophical arguments should be won based on opinion; I am simply pointing out that logical arguments are not immune from error, either.

Logic is a blind set of rules that, if based on a false underlying premise, can lead you to ridiculous or even evil outcomes.

It is the underlying agreement on A or B or C that is the real trick, isn't it? My point is that the jury is still out on that.

The laws of logic are how the errors are found, and they're also not a blind set of rules but instead they're the most accurate we've got.

If your argument is based on a false premise or set of premises, its using logical deduction that would attest to that.

Im not sure what the big hang up is, there...