'Why Study Philosophy'

[Blues Man]

I often read that students should study some field of knowledge that leads to productive work. But consider that my eventual working world did not even exist when I started college. My degree was eventually in Liberal Arts as I was never sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When you examine the degrees of many of the national leaders in technology or business, their degree is often not related to their work. How is that, some even dropped out of school. So then maybe we need to ask what makes a person a good citizen and a productive member of society. Could it be a liberal education steeped in philosophy?

"Is a liberal arts education for everyone? Probably not. Some people would rather do just about anything than major in philosophy, and that is fine. But a liberal arts education forms students to be a thoughtful and concerned citizens, and that is the subtext here. Educated, concerned citizens arent going to sit back and let the economic elite run the show. McCrory can critique the educated elite all that he wants, but when you pal around with the likes of Art Pope you really have no business accusing anyone else of elitism.

McCrory himself studied political science and education. Bennett, who was interviewing him, has a PhD in you guessed it philosophy. The underlying assumption appears to be that if youre part of the upper class, you can enjoy the luxury of a liberal arts education. If youre lower or middle class, the public institutions that are supposed to be part of the mythical American dream, that level playing field, should only offer courses in skilled trades. Wealthy young people will get a liberal arts education. Poor and middle class young people will choose a trade."

Femmonite: Notes from an Employed Philosopher

Philosophy kicks in where science leaves off so dumb shits can have fake answers to the unanswered

Before “modern science”, philosophy and science were in the same academic boat.
Science used to be called “natural philosophy” a few hundred years ago.
Since they diverged, philosophy is the basis of scientific thought and methodology.
For example, there is Philosophy of Science, and Science itself.

Philosophy is BS when thinking science. As I said philosophy is now a way for stupid liberal professors to deny God and teach communist manifestos

Apparently, you know little about philosophy.
It’s the basis for overall rational thought, including topics in metaphysics and epistemology, which are the basis of religion & science.
Christians can be philosophers too.

Yawn, philosophy is a waste of time, I'll stick with quantum entanglement at the moment.


We are spirits clad in veils. (Quote by - Christopher P. Cranch)

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. (Quote by - Ludwig Wittgenstein)

Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death. (Quote by - Heraclitus)

The map is not the territory. (Quote by - Alfred Korzybski)

Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! (Quote by - Antonio Porchia)

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. (Quote by - Francis Bacon)

The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer. (Quote by - George Bernard Shaw)

Can quotes really be steered

Wake up Apple was up 5 percent yesterday

What were you?

You’re not CURIOUS how things work; how to explain quantum entanglement?
With more understanding, more progress can be made.

Sure I am curious but entanglement will not be explained by a philosopher but by teams doing real science

What’s the difference between “real science” and non-real science?

Well perhaps after you graduate kindergarten you might be able to understand.

However the answer is that science relies upon data, philosophy takes over in the absence of data where idiots try to look smart when talking shit about something they have no clue about. Like you are doing now professor

Examples of philosophic genius


1. Why are towels considered dirty when you get out of the shower clean?

2. Who closes the bus door once the bus driver gets off?

3. Why is there a "d" in "fridge" but not in "refrigerator"

4. If you drop soap on the floor is the floor clean or the soap dirty?

5. Is the "S" or the "C" silent in the word "scent?

6. Does expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?

7. Would Lightning McQueen buy car insurance or life insurance?

8. Who put the alphabet in alphabetical order?

9. What color are mirrors?

10. If 2 mind readers read each other's minds whose mind are they really reading?

11. Is there a synonym for "synonym"?

12. If your shirt isn't tucked into your pants, are your pants tucked into your shirt?

13. Why is it called "quick sand" if you sink slowly in it?

14. If I try to fail, but succeed, which one did I do?

15. If Cinderella's shoe fit perfectly, why did it fall off?


https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.theodysseyonline.com/random-funny-philosophical-questions?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1571144131

You ignored my question on what you think is “real science”. All sciences use data, but philosophy of science explores & questions the validity of scientific methods & their data.
For example, quantum mechanics has its measurement problems, and how to interpret them is an ongoing issue in the field.

Wrong real science is based on the data. Philosophy begins where the data leaves off and professors begin masterbating in public.

The big bang is philosophy, it is based upon the CMB radiation. When you examine the big bang theory it says that all matter started out in one place and exploded into existence. OK I accepted that but then ask since everything is moving away from that point then the mass in the universe could be traced beck to this point and also the universe should be in the shape of an expanding shell moving away from the center.

NONE OF THIS IS OBSERVED SO THE BIG BANG BECOMES A BIG DUMB IDEA

Seriously I ask about this once and was told that there was no point of origin, that everything just poped into existence at once.

Keep babbling doofy, my stock is splitting shortly

Atomic theory was first proposed by a philosopher.

 

[midcan5]

Hello all, glad to see this thread still has readers but we seem to have strayed in the 'no, you are' region of discussion. So anger piece may help. Enjoy.

'The Philosophy of Anger'

"There are two problems with anger: it is morally corrupting, and it is completely correct."

The Philosophy of Anger - Boston Review

There are two problems with anger: it is morally corrupting, and it is completely correct.

bostonreview.net

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." Richard Feynman

 

[AFrench2]

'Why Study Philosophy'

Same reason anyone studies anything...to learn and educate.

 

[OldLady]

We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." Richard Feynman

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[midcan5]

What do you think?

'What Do Philosophers Believe About the Rightness/Wrongness, Goodness/Badness of Human Extinction?'

Survey Move Alert | QuestionPro

This survey has been moved.

philosophersurvey2.questionpro.com

"If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos." E. O. Wilson

 

[Oddball]

What do you think?

'What Do Philosophers Believe About the Rightness/Wrongness, Goodness/Badness of Human Extinction?'

Survey Move Alert | QuestionPro

This survey has been moved.

philosophersurvey2.questionpro.com

"If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos." E. O. Wilson

You've obviously been steeped in the Frankfurt school, tovarich.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

A Buddhist walked up to a hot dog vendor and said, "Make me one with everything".

 

[midcan5]

Honesty. More food for thought. Hope all are well.

'The Neglected Virtue' 'Christian Miller literally wrote the book on honesty. So we talked to him about it.'

"An honest person has the virtue of honesty that dispossesses them. They think in honest ways, and they believe it’s important to tell the truth. They believe it’s important to not lie, cheat, or steal, and, at least in most cases, to feel certain things."

The Neglected Virtue | ORBITER

Christian Miller literally wrote the book on honesty. So we talked to him about it.

orbitermag.com

"We’re living in an era rife with frequent failure of honesty from cultural leaders. Religious leaders’ scandals are exposed, and politicians are continually caught in deceit. We, as a culture, shrug our shoulders at deceit and operate under an expectation that we will be lied to by our social, political, professional, and sometimes even religious leaders. What are the ramifications of such a culture?"

"We have to go culture by culture, but it does seem that dishonesty is par for the course, especially in the political climate."

 

[ClaireH]

Heh... yeah, I'm sure his head full of highfalutin ideas will cause him no end of trouble.

Anyway, he handles himself pretty well amongst the plebs. I'm sure he'll be fine.

I hope he pursues his dream job; he’s done the necessary work at that level and deserves a position of choice. If not his top choice, he can still use his first career land on his resume. If he enjoys the teaching/facilitating discussions aspect as much as discussing philosophy, he’s doubly prepared.

 

[ClaireH]

Well perhaps after you graduate kindergarten you might be able to understand.

However the answer is that science relies upon data, philosophy takes over in the absence of data where idiots try to look smart when talking shit about something they have no clue about. Like you are doing now professor

Examples of philosophic genius


1. Why are towels considered dirty when you get out of the shower clean?

2. Who closes the bus door once the bus driver gets off?

3. Why is there a "d" in "fridge" but not in "refrigerator"

4. If you drop soap on the floor is the floor clean or the soap dirty?

5. Is the "S" or the "C" silent in the word "scent?

6. Does expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?

7. Would Lightning McQueen buy car insurance or life insurance?

8. Who put the alphabet in alphabetical order?

9. What color are mirrors?

10. If 2 mind readers read each other's minds whose mind are they really reading?

11. Is there a synonym for "synonym"?

12. If your shirt isn't tucked into your pants, are your pants tucked into your shirt?

13. Why is it called "quick sand" if you sink slowly in it?

14. If I try to fail, but succeed, which one did I do?

15. If Cinderella's shoe fit perfectly, why did it fall off?


https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.theodysseyonline.com/random-funny-philosophical-questions?xrs=RebelMouse_fb&ts=1571144131

1. early conditioning
2. the bus
3. stumped on the "d"
4. clean house would be clean soap (opposite dirty/dirty possibility)
5. neither-muddled blend creates softer 's'
6. for those who see the future in details
7. as a sentient being he'd get life insurance
8. I'm guessing the same guy who discarded submitted books from the Bible-however the person who came up with the alphabet song is likely famous! lol
9. cheated here- soda lime...my thought was silver
10. each other's interpretations of their own mind if they speak the same language (added part about both knowing same language another cheat
11. yes-same
12. no
13. archaic definition of quicksand is life sand. I never knew that-tx! I gave myself 3 cheats considering humans are flawed ha
14. failed- I like that one for some reason. I will start to plan to fail more often but feeling good about the predictive factor I'll strictly focus on being right again about failing!
15. Have you ever tried running in glass slippers? Not easy!

 

[midcan5]

The times call for a return to reality. The internet is full of so much nonsense and hyperbole how does one come to know.

'Truth is real'

'For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently'

Truth is real and philosophers must return their attention to it | Aeon Essays

For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently

aeon.co

 

[Oddball]

The times call for a return to reality. The internet is full of so much nonsense and hyperbole how does one come to know.

'Truth is real'

'For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently'

Truth is real and philosophers must return their attention to it | Aeon Essays

For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently

aeon.co

Self awareness is your friend.

 

[Blues Man]

Self awareness is your friend.

As is the awareness that there is no self

 

[task0778]

Truth requires honesty, integrity, and courage. Which these days are warring with fear and greed. Too often, truth is losing the battle, and consequently there will be penalties to be paid, in part by future generations.

 

[Oddball]

Truth requires honesty, integrity, and courage.

None of which is in the possession of the OP.

 

[ClaireH]

As is the awareness that there is no self

Just to add to that mind-blowing concept, I recently read this: The "I" or ego, as being self-defined as who each of us "is", is merely (I use that word lightly) an outsider reading our own memory scripts.

A few years ago, a hypothetical experiment on TedTalks was about switching the brains of two people and where would "the individual" wind up being: with the original brain in the new body or with the old physical self? Which would cause pain for the original brain, stepping on the old body or the new one? The brain (along with pain receptors) would be in the new body along with all memories transfered without leaving any behind. So recently I read (and it might have been noted by a sharp USMB poster), that the "I" or "real self" is not really our memory bank full of our history but is the observer (interpreter) of those memories. After reading that post I had an "ah ha!" moment! Now, I have to grasp with the possibility that there really is no self whatsoever? I refuse!! lol Joking; I love to consider all possibilities so I'll work on it by continuing to question everything. Thought-provoking post to say the least BluesMan Thanks. I get it, but think fine tuning that concept could be most enlightening.

 

[ClaireH]

The times call for a return to reality. The internet is full of so much nonsense and hyperbole how does one come to know.

'Truth is real'

'For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently'

Truth is real and philosophers must return their attention to it | Aeon Essays

For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently

aeon.co

My intention is not to convert this engaging philosophical thread into a political one, but I'd like to share an opinion of another USMB poster from a previous thread. He stated (quite eloquently I might add) that politics is never about reality, although politics often drives reality. This poster's premise (which I accept fully) defines the process of mass information involving political and non-political realms. To consider that philosophy is limited due to deflated truisms and wise sages fleeing, is a cultural loss without question.

Connecting the statement that: X is never about reality, but often drives reality, truth is tainted in general by imperfect message carriers and receivers of messages. That imperfect status of communicating a specific message includes many a fine scholar and even teachers unfortunately.

The additional layer you've referenced, where unscrupulous types have bulk power to create a believable message or debate in an effective manner, adds a thick coat of deception converting truth into a whole other realm. A triple hoop to jump through, and that's even when people share similar knowledge backgrounds. Discussing oppositional points of view, for instance, the does a rock feel conversation, is a challenging feat to say the least. Rarely any winners if pure truth is deemed the winner, but many possibilities often discussed with emotional vitriol and the human need to be right. The "need to be right" works against us all during many divergent discussions, but someone has to be right

 

[Vikrant]

...
Connecting the statement that: X is never about reality, but often drives reality, truth is tainted in general by imperfect message carriers and receivers of messages. That imperfect status of communicating a specific message includes many a fine scholar and even teachers unfortunately.

...

Not only that, I have noticed that there are people who allow themselves to be conditioned in a manner that they can only effectively communicate if the mode of communication is imperfect. This I have always found very fascinating because these people do manage to exchange ideas.

 

[ClaireH]

Not only that, I have noticed that there are people who allow themselves to be conditioned in a manner that they can only effectively communicate if the mode of communication is imperfect. This I have always found very fascinating because these people do manage to exchange ideas.

Indeed, and is becoming a popular trend it seems. Shorthand style of communication leading to loss of previous skills and knowledge. Cursive writing no longer considered a requirement for public schools. That in itself is a small tragedy considering the US Declaration of Independence is written in cursive....alas, in comes shorthand everything: messaging, speaking, and thinking. Soon up: cell phones will be replaced with "in the air" tech that has nothing to do with a handheld device. Then, humans (mostly wealthy) with robotic parts will solve problems without the need for human thought.

AI will be either the "savior" or the destroyer of humankind, although 15 years ago it sounded much more promising for resolving physical handicaps. Now? "Age-refresher machines" are in the works, ready to make old people young again literally from the inside out. Organs will be marketed more than currently. Man playing with nature is like man playing with fire, as humankind still lacks adequate patience for safety considerations to be met. Consider the race to find the next pandemic. Research teams actively pursuing the Amazon for the next big one. Lovely. If it isn't going to happen naturally these hyper-motivated teams will ensure it happens by human error.

I apologize for focusing on the negative. I value life highly and realize every single minute is a "gift". From whom I don't claim to know, but I'm thankful to be alive every day.

 

[midcan5]

A favorite thinker of mine. 'Reasons and Persons' may make you think a bit.

"One thing that greatly matters is the failure of we rich people to prevent, as we so easily could, much of the suffering and many of the early deaths of the poorest people in the world. The money that we spend on an evening’s entertainment might instead save some poor person from death, blindness, or chronic and severe pain. If we believe that, in our treatment of these poorest people, we are not acting wrongly, we are like those who believed that they were justified in having slaves."

'Parfit in Seven Parts'

Parfit in Seven Parts

Overview and Table of Contents

rychappell.substack.com

"It is not enough to ask, Will my act harm other people? Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people? The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit