'Why Study Philosophy'

[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.

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...

I'm not sure I'm hung up. Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here. I agree with you 100%. I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness. When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol). He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay. When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T. I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.

 

[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...

I'm not sure I'm hung up. Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here. I agree with you 100%. I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness. When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol). He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay. When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T. I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.

Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.

Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.

Im really lost on what youre getting at still.

Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.

 

[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.

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...

I'm not sure I'm hung up. Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here. I agree with you 100%. I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness. When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol). He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay. When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T. I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.

Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.

Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.

Im really lost on what youre getting at still.

Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.

Thanks. I thought you were advocating teaching philosophy as a way to teach mind discipline.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.

 

[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...

I'm not sure I'm hung up. Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here. I agree with you 100%. I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness. When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol). He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay. When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T. I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.

Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.

Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.

Im really lost on what youre getting at still.

Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.

Thanks. I thought you were advocating teaching philosophy as a way to teach mind discipline.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.

Naw, on the contrary my 1st post in this thread was advocating the exact opposite, lol...

Philosophers, often times, have a LOT of logical errors in the theories they posit.

Im promoting more discipline in reasoning, overall.

For example, toro called pascale's wager "logically flawless" when that's probably the window-sticker model in bad philosophy. Its got fatally flawed logic, which render it incoherent using the simple fundamentals of human reasoning.

Thats why I offered to walk you through its refutation, because your response to what I said seemed to be something along the lines of......"see, since people disagree whether or not its valid means that its unresolved/ambiguous." (my words in attempt to paraphrase)

But the wager is defeated absent opinion, bias or other....logic soundly defeats it.

 

[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.

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...

I'm not sure I'm hung up. Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here. I agree with you 100%. I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness. When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol). He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay. When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T. I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.

Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.

Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.

Im really lost on what youre getting at still.

Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.

Thanks. I thought you were advocating teaching philosophy as a way to teach mind discipline.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.

Naw, on the contrary my 1st post in this thread was advocating the exact opposite, lol...

Philosophers, often times, have a LOT of logical errors in the theories they posit.

Im promoting more discipline in reasoning, overall.

For example, toro called pascale's wager "logically flawless" when that's probably the window-sticker model in bad philosophy. Its got fatally flawed logic, which render it incoherent using the simple fundamentals of human reasoning.

Thats why I offered to walk you through its refutation, because your response to what I said seemed to be something along the lines of......"see, since people disagree whether or not its valid means that its unresolved/ambiguous." (my words in attempt to paraphrase)

But the wager is defeated absent opinion, bias or other....logic soundly defeats it.

It seems we've been talking at cross purposes. I don't need an explanation for why God In The Bible doesn't exist, so I didn't need a blow by blow refutation of Pascale's Wager. It's dumb, in my opinion, to try and justify faith with logic. They are like oil and water, cats and dogs, east and west. But many still choose faith, and I don't think your logical arguments will have any effect on them, G.T. js

 

[G.T.]

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...

I'm not sure I'm hung up. Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here. I agree with you 100%. I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness. When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol). He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay. When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T. I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.

Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.

Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.

Im really lost on what youre getting at still.

Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.

Thanks. I thought you were advocating teaching philosophy as a way to teach mind discipline.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.

Naw, on the contrary my 1st post in this thread was advocating the exact opposite, lol...

Philosophers, often times, have a LOT of logical errors in the theories they posit.

Im promoting more discipline in reasoning, overall.

For example, toro called pascale's wager "logically flawless" when that's probably the window-sticker model in bad philosophy. Its got fatally flawed logic, which render it incoherent using the simple fundamentals of human reasoning.

Thats why I offered to walk you through its refutation, because your response to what I said seemed to be something along the lines of......"see, since people disagree whether or not its valid means that its unresolved/ambiguous." (my words in attempt to paraphrase)

But the wager is defeated absent opinion, bias or other....logic soundly defeats it.

It seems we've been talking at cross purposes. I don't need an explanation for why God In The Bible doesn't exist, so I didn't need a blow by blow refutation of Pascale's Wager. It's dumb, in my opinion, to try and justify faith with logic. They are like oil and water, cats and dogs, east and west. But many still choose faith, and I don't think your logical arguments will have any effect on them, G.T. js

I'm not trying to change anyones mind. I'm looking for good arguments and assisting to point out bad ones. In the process, I learn. Im a geek like that.

 

[ding]

The wager is defeated by its own logical error and the arguments against the wager are defeated by their own logical errors.

The correct logic for the wager is that the practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational.

It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

 

[ThirdTerm]

Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."

It's also a gender issue, Female students often choose a liberal arts education. The majority of liberal arts majors are women as they mostly become ordinary housewives. Looking back now, I should have chosen economics to land a job as a financial analyst at a major bank or political science. Philosophy that I majored is of no use in real life unless you will become a university lecturer teaching philosophy.

 

[G.T.]

Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."

It's also a gender issue, Female students often choose a liberal arts education. The majority of liberal arts majors are women as they mostly become ordinary housewives. Looking back now, I should have chosen economics to land a job as a financial analyst at a major bank or political science. Philosophy that I majored is of no use in real life unless you will become a university lecturer teaching philosophy.

Dept. of ed circa Nov 17

 

[midcan5]

"Politics is opposed to morality, as philosophy to naïveté." Emmanuel Levinas

Good to see this thread still active. A few links for the interested reader below.

'What Is It Like To Be A Philosopher?' What Is It Like to Be a Philosopher?

'Freedom and Neurobiology by John Searle' Freedom and Neurobiology by John Searle | Issue 66 | Philosophy Now

"Science asks and answers its big questions, so why is philosophy taking its time? Because it’s only just getting started"
Why philosophy is taking its time to answer the big questions | Aeon Essays

"No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character." William Kingdon Clifford

'Being 97' An ageing philosopher returns to the essential question: ‘What is the point of it all?’ | Aeon Videos


PS I think our 97 year old had a good life.

 

[midcan5]

Greetings all, I few items for you puzzlers out there in cyberspace.

'Our brains predict the outcomes of our actions, shaping reality into what we expect. That’s why we see what we believe'
How our brain sculpts experience in line with our expectations | Aeon Essays

'Probing age-old philosophical questions as well as the politics of the moment, the interview offers a revealing glimpse of the divergent styles, attitudes and outlooks of two enduringly influential thinkers.'

'When Chomsky met Foucault: how the thinkers debated the ‘ideal society’'
When Chomsky met Foucault: how the thinkers debated the ‘ideal society’ | Aeon Videos

'What Do You Do When You're Alone'
What does it mean to be lonely?

http://www.thecritique.com/exclusive/no-exit-from-darkness-the-philosophy-of-true-detective/

http://www.slate.com/bigideas/is-there-life-after-death/essays-and-opinions

"Sometimes we need to change our ways, sometimes we even need to change our dreams, but sometimes we are entitled to say that we are making moral progress." Ruth Anna Putnam

"A philosopher is a blind man, in a dark cellar, at midnight, looking for a black cat that isn't there. He is distinguished from a theologian in that the theologian finds the cat." [Various]

'72 Philosophy Books Everyone Should Read'

72 Philosophy Books Everyone Should Read

72? well some I've read.

 

[midcan5]

A magazine worth your time.

Greetings all, as I grow more mature, mature, you say, nah old. I know only so much time exists before me. I have been on this site so long I miss a few that are now gone. I admit I will miss life but death is that quiet place where there is no missing only....

"Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers believed that we had no reason to fear death. Socrates viewed it as a dreamless sleep, while Lucretius saw no difference between two stretches of non-existence: the time before we were born and the eternity after we die. He thought we should fear both equally; that is, not at all.

Yet Shakespeare understood the human condition much better: we most certainly do fear death. Most humans are terrified of the prospect of existing no more, of taking that one final breath.

Our fear of death is the ultimate fear of missing out – on all the events, the people, the progress, the battles. When we die, the world will not pause. Life, without us, will go on.

Rather than casting this fear aside, perhaps we should invite it into the room and look it square in the eye. What do we fear we’ll miss out on when we’re gone? What should we do more – or less – of while we’re here?

All must die. But not all will truly live, making the most of the hand – however unfair it may be – they have been dealt. Will you?"

New Philosopher | Magazine

 

[task0778]

There are those who believe that we all live many lives rather than just one. Therefore, we die many times and are reborn at some point into another life and situation, perhaps to satisfy the laws of karma, among whatever other reasons there might be. Ancient Greeks and Romans believed that too, as did the ancient Egyptians that built the Pyramids. Some anthropologists believe that pre-historic cavemen buried their dead with tools and weapons to use in the next life. There are many Eastern Religions practiced today that believe in reincarnation too.

Ergo, there's no reason to fear death if one believes in rebirth, we've done it before and will do it again. Ain't saying it's true, ain't saying it isn't either.

 

[ding]

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...

I'm not sure I'm hung up. Logical thinking is certainly an improvement over some of what I hear around here. I agree with you 100%. I just have a certain wariness about philosophical cleverness. When I was in college, I only took one philosophy course, but I took my mandatory two semesters of Humanities from a professor in the philosophy department (his take on Wuthering Heights was priceless...lol). He kept insisting that if I believed good and evil were relativist concepts, that I had to believe that Hitler's final solution was okay. When we get into arguments over the nature of being, and the existence of good--or God, no one can actually prove it, G.T. I believe there are different schools of thought on this, and they would be quite put out if you told them they were just being opinionated.

Good, evil and god have nothing to do with whether or not logic is valid or opinion based...I think you're confusing logic with philosophy.

Logic is the tool-set the brain literally uses to reason. Youd have to USE logic to even argue AGAINST logic.

Im really lost on what youre getting at still.

Philosophies can be right or wrong? That was my opinion in the 1st place.

Thanks. I thought you were advocating teaching philosophy as a way to teach mind discipline.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, either.

Naw, on the contrary my 1st post in this thread was advocating the exact opposite, lol...

Philosophers, often times, have a LOT of logical errors in the theories they posit.

Im promoting more discipline in reasoning, overall.

For example, toro called pascale's wager "logically flawless" when that's probably the window-sticker model in bad philosophy. Its got fatally flawed logic, which render it incoherent using the simple fundamentals of human reasoning.

Thats why I offered to walk you through its refutation, because your response to what I said seemed to be something along the lines of......"see, since people disagree whether or not its valid means that its unresolved/ambiguous." (my words in attempt to paraphrase)

But the wager is defeated absent opinion, bias or other....logic soundly defeats it.

It seems we've been talking at cross purposes. I don't need an explanation for why God In The Bible doesn't exist, so I didn't need a blow by blow refutation of Pascale's Wager. It's dumb, in my opinion, to try and justify faith with logic. They are like oil and water, cats and dogs, east and west. But many still choose faith, and I don't think your logical arguments will have any effect on them, G.T. js

Faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I don’t know anyone who would put complete trust in something or someone without good reason.

Therefore, there is an element of reason in faith. And since reason is informed through logic and logic is informed with facts, it seems to me that faith and logic are not mutually exclusive.

 

[midcan5]

"The lover of life knows his labour divine, And therein is at peace." George Meredith

Interesting read and Aeon is an excellent site for those who think.

"The meaning to life? A Darwinian existentialist has his answers"

The meaning to life? A Darwinian existentialist has his answers | Aeon Ideas

 

[ding]

"The meaning to life?

To pass it down.

 

[ding]

A magazine worth your time.

Greetings all, as I grow more mature, mature, you say, nah old. I know only so much time exists before me. I have been on this site so long I miss a few that are now gone. I admit I will miss life but death is that quiet place where there is no missing only....

"Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers believed that we had no reason to fear death. Socrates viewed it as a dreamless sleep, while Lucretius saw no difference between two stretches of non-existence: the time before we were born and the eternity after we die. He thought we should fear both equally; that is, not at all.

Yet Shakespeare understood the human condition much better: we most certainly do fear death. Most humans are terrified of the prospect of existing no more, of taking that one final breath.

Our fear of death is the ultimate fear of missing out – on all the events, the people, the progress, the battles. When we die, the world will not pause. Life, without us, will go on.

Rather than casting this fear aside, perhaps we should invite it into the room and look it square in the eye. What do we fear we’ll miss out on when we’re gone? What should we do more – or less – of while we’re here?

All must die. But not all will truly live, making the most of the hand – however unfair it may be – they have been dealt. Will you?"

New Philosopher | Magazine

I agree with the sentiment. The focus should be on living.

It seems to me that since the urge to survive is programmed into all living things that life must be a wonderful gift worth living.

 

[Unkotare]

"The meaning to life?

To pass it down.

Not down, forward (or maybe in a circle).

 

[Unkotare]

A magazine worth your time.

Greetings all, as I grow more mature, mature, you say, nah old. I know only so much time exists before me. I have been on this site so long I miss a few that are now gone. I admit I will miss life but death is that quiet place where there is no missing only....

"Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers believed that we had no reason to fear death. Socrates viewed it as a dreamless sleep, while Lucretius saw no difference between two stretches of non-existence: the time before we were born and the eternity after we die. He thought we should fear both equally; that is, not at all.

Yet Shakespeare understood the human condition much better: we most certainly do fear death. Most humans are terrified of the prospect of existing no more, of taking that one final breath.

Our fear of death is the ultimate fear of missing out – on all the events, the people, the progress, the battles. When we die, the world will not pause. Life, without us, will go on.

Rather than casting this fear aside, perhaps we should invite it into the room and look it square in the eye. What do we fear we’ll miss out on when we’re gone? What should we do more – or less – of while we’re here?

All must die. But not all will truly live, making the most of the hand – however unfair it may be – they have been dealt. Will you?"

New Philosopher | Magazine

I agree with the sentiment. The focus should be on living.

It seems to me that since the urge to survive is programmed into all living things that life must be a wonderful gift worth living.

And giving.

 

[ding]

"The meaning to life?

To pass it down.

Not down, forward (or maybe in a circle).

I agree. My reference to down was to the next generation.