|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:51 pm
I created this Thread to try to Enlighten the somewhat closed minded, and introduce them into what we know as philosophy. i Realize that i haven't even touched on a fraction of the rules of philosophy, so feel free to add your own rules by posting "Rule # " and then the next chronological number in the sequence. PLEASE DO NOT POST ANYTHING OTHER THAN RULES IN THIS THREAD. To do otherwise might distract and discourage the ones who really need these guidelines.
Rule # 1
Just because you say it Doesn't make it true.
Rule # 2
You are not perfect (literally speaking). by the nature of philosophy YOU ARE WRONG.
Rule # 3
A FACT is a well tested, well documented, (well Agreed upon,) occurrence, but is not set in stone (so to speak).
Rule # 5
You will notice that there is no number between Rule # 3 and Rule # 5. That is because you cannot prove that there is supposed to be anything there. Moral of this story - you can't prove it, this is all speculation.
Rule # 6
a Weak argument is a weak argument. don't be offended if someone says your using one. learn from it, and move on.
Rule # 7
The wonderful thing about Philosophy is that you can have conflicting arguments. if someone says that the believe in god, and then say they don't believe in god, they may have a valid point.
Rule # 8
LISTEN! Everyone has a point, even if you don't agree with it.
Rule # 9
If you make a statement, be prepared to explain your theory in full.
Rule # 10
Sapere Aude!
Rule # 11 (courtesy of Jerba)
There are no rules.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 am
Rules two, three, five, seven and eight are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:00 am
zz1000zz Rules two, three, five, seven and eight are wrong. Actually, you are probably wrong. What you said is not a fact. You cannot prove that there is supposed to be a number four. You may be wrong, but you are quite correct. I do not agree with you, but you still have a valid point. Thank you for your contribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:13 am
Jerba zz1000zz Rules two, three, five, seven and eight are wrong. Actually, you are probably wrong. What you said is not a fact. You cannot prove that there is supposed to be a number four. You may be wrong, but you are quite correct. I do not agree with you, but you still have a valid point. Thank you for your contribution. I do not understand this post. Mostly I don't understand, "You may be wrong, but you are quite correct." If I am wrong, I am not correct. As for the rules I questioned, consider: Indvick You are not perfect (literally speaking). by the nature of philosophy YOU ARE WRONG. The first part isn't an issue to me. I will accept nobody is perfect. However, there is nothing in "the nature of philosophy" which says I am wrong in some general sense. Indvick A FACT is a well tested, well documented, (well Agreed upon,) occurrence, but is not set in stone (so to speak). Facts are true by definition. They are set in stone. Also, they do not need to be "well tested" or "well documented." Indvick You will notice that there is no number between Rule # 3 and Rule # 5. That is because you cannot prove that there is supposed to be anything there. Moral of this story - you can't prove it, this is all speculation. This rule is wrong, if only by vagueness. It seems to imply you cannot prove anything, which is false. Indvick The wonderful thing about Philosophy is that you can have conflicting arguments. if someone says that the believe in god, and then say they don't believe in god, they may have a valid point. Cognitive dissonance is not accepted in philosophy. Indvick LISTEN! Everyone has a point, even if you don't agree with it. I have met plenty of people who made posts without any points. P.S. Incidentally, most of these don't even qualify as "rules."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:55 am
This, zz, is why I dislike philosophers. For whatever benefits philosophy as an abstract may have, apparently those who wish to perform it for its own sake are always completely unable to actually reason.
But you, as a mathematician, really should not expect too much out of those who conflate open-mindedness with free speculation, or who abuse the word prove so terribly.
"Philosophy is a game with objectives but no rules."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:10 pm
zz1000zz Jerba zz1000zz Rules two, three, five, seven and eight are wrong. Actually, you are probably wrong. What you said is not a fact. You cannot prove that there is supposed to be a number four. You may be wrong, but you are quite correct. I do not agree with you, but you still have a valid point. Thank you for your contribution. I do not understand this post. Mostly I don't understand, "You may be wrong, but you are quite correct." If I am wrong, I am not correct. As for the rules I questioned, consider: Indvick You are not perfect (literally speaking). by the nature of philosophy YOU ARE WRONG. The first part isn't an issue to me. I will accept nobody is perfect. However, there is nothing in "the nature of philosophy" which says I am wrong in some general sense. Indvick A FACT is a well tested, well documented, (well Agreed upon,) occurrence, but is not set in stone (so to speak). Facts are true by definition. They are set in stone. Also, they do not need to be "well tested" or "well documented." Indvick You will notice that there is no number between Rule # 3 and Rule # 5. That is because you cannot prove that there is supposed to be anything there. Moral of this story - you can't prove it, this is all speculation. This rule is wrong, if only by vagueness. It seems to imply you cannot prove anything, which is false. Indvick The wonderful thing about Philosophy is that you can have conflicting arguments. if someone says that the believe in god, and then say they don't believe in god, they may have a valid point. Cognitive dissonance is not accepted in philosophy. Indvick LISTEN! Everyone has a point, even if you don't agree with it. I have met plenty of people who made posts without any points. P.S. Incidentally, most of these don't even qualify as "rules." You crack me up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:11 pm
Layra-chan This, zz, is why I dislike philosophers. For whatever benefits philosophy as an abstract may have, apparently those who wish to perform it for its own sake are always completely unable to actually reason. But you, as a mathematician, really should not expect too much out of those who conflate open-mindedness with free speculation, or who abuse the word prove so terribly. "Philosophy is a game with objectives but no rules." That's an excellent quote. Do you know who said it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:20 pm
(Sorry. We've all been posting when you said we should only post new rules.)
I wanted to notify you that I like this topic and am making it into a sticky.
That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:11 pm
The full quote is "Philosophy is a game with objectives but no rules, mathematics is a game with rules but no objectives." I don't actually know who said it; I get the feeling that it is one of those sayings whose authors have unfortunately been lost to history and misattribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:58 am
Layra-chan This, zz, is why I dislike philosophers. For whatever benefits philosophy as an abstract may have, apparently those who wish to perform it for its own sake are always completely unable to actually reason. But you, as a mathematician, really should not expect too much out of those who conflate open-mindedness with free speculation, or who abuse the word prove so terribly. "Philosophy is a game with objectives but no rules." To be fair, most people would not consider me a "mathematician." I have no professional interest in math, nor do I have any serious formal training in it. While I have always been interested in math, life circumstances have prevented me from pursuing it in a formal manner. The same is true for philosophy. I am as involved in philosophy as I am in math. I find the two fields to be quite similar, and I think cross-communication would be very beneficial. Of course, I think philosophy is in a horrible state currently, with most philosophical writing bordering on dishonesty. Philosophy has always been a system for group think and self gratification without any expectation of rigor. I love philosophy as a concept, but I hate philosophy as it is practiced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:54 pm
Ah. You demonstrate a depth of knowledge of mathematics that is exceedingly rare outside those who practice it for a living.
And I fully agree with you on the current state of philosophy as practiced. I would rather that philosophy were more like mathematics; at the moment I don't find them similar at all except in that they profess to rational analysis. Perhaps philosophy in the abstract is quite similar to mathematics, but the implementations remind me more of numerology.
It seems to me that as soon as a branch of philosophy becomes sufficiently rigorous it gets renamed, as mathematics, formal logic, and the sciences were, and leaves the umbrella of "philosophy".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:45 pm
Layra-chan Ah. You demonstrate a depth of knowledge of mathematics that is exceedingly rare outside those who practice it for a living. I think I should be honored. Layra-chan And I fully agree with you on the current state of philosophy as practiced. I would rather that philosophy were more like mathematics; at the moment I don't find them similar at all except in that they profess to rational analysis. Perhaps philosophy in the abstract is quite similar to mathematics, but the implementations remind me more of numerology. The implementation of philosophy is worse than numerology. Numerology only fools a small amount of people. Philosophers seem to have fooled almost everyone. Layra-chan It seems to me that as soon as a branch of philosophy becomes sufficiently rigorous it gets renamed, as mathematics, formal logic, and the sciences were, and leaves the umbrella of "philosophy". I don't think you will see that happen again. Philosophy used to be a catch-all phrase for thinking. I can't imagine anything spinning off from it again. I think the problem with philosophy is a simple one. It is solvable. Most fields grow over time, always having new things to explore. Philosophy lacks this. Philosophy is extremely limited, and it has practically no potential for growth. Because of this, any progress made in philosophy brings the field closer to death. I have actually been debating trying to create a "solution" for philosophy. The problem I have is figuring out a good way to organize it. The most intuitive approach I can think of is basically a flow chart, but that almost seems childish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:28 pm
I'm not so sure that philosophy is solvable (at least, I'm not sure that the abstract ideal of philosophy is solvable). Mathematics keeps finding new stuff to say all the time (or at least, bizarre new ways to say old stuff). Perhaps philosophy could do the same? At least in the more abstract branches like epistemology.
At the moment it's all turned inwards, everyone rehashing or reacting to old notions. But I think that it should be possible to expand at least some of the fields outward, or at least use the mutations brought about by paradigmatic incest to good use.
For example, I can imagine that ideas regarding utility and probability might bring some interesting ideas to teleology as a modeling outlet, so as to give rise to a study of how agents and systems act under teleological rather than naturalistic constraints. In turn this could lead to some questions about self-defeating teleologies and causal-versus-acausal narratives.
In turn, this could be used as a way to build some moral theories, wherein intent could be examined for self-consistency and the question of whether intent or result is more important could be recast in terms of utility and decision functions.
It's sad that philosophy seems to imply armchair speculation, because I think that computational philosophy could go very far, but I'll shut up now before I make up any more new, badly-defined terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:21 pm
Computational philosophy is essentially applied philosophy. It doesn't help the limited nature of philosophy. The best it could do is create a layer between philosophy and the decision making process. A number of utilitarianists took this idea seriously, and attempted to make a system for calculating the morality of actions. Other examples of computational philosophy exist, but few have produced anything worthwhile.
Figuring out rigorous applications of philosophy would be interesting, but it wouldn't do anything to expand the field of philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:17 pm
Layra-chan The full quote is "Philosophy is a game with objectives but no rules, mathematics is a game with rules but no objectives." I don't actually know who said it; I get the feeling that it is one of those sayings whose authors have unfortunately been lost to history and misattribution. Ah, I see. It's anonymous, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
