Page 2 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Is Philosophy Relevant Qua Real Life?
 Completely Relevant. 35%  35%  [ 6 ]
 Mostly Relevant. 18%  18%  [ 3 ]
 It Depends. 29%  29%  [ 5 ]
 Mostly Irrelevant. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
 Completely Irrelevant. 18%  18%  [ 3 ]
 Who is this Phil O. Sophy, and why should I care? 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 17

Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,864
Location: Small Town From Hell

18 Aug 2022, 4:16 pm

I think it depends.

Sometimes people get caught up in philosophical arguments and ignore what the evidence actually says. They somehow think their abstract ideas are more important than relevant research. Perhaps this is more of a complaint about the misapplication of philosophy.

I think that people need to have a balanced approach and outlook. Rather than getting caught up in theories, it’s more important to know how to think critically in a practical sense. Philosophy could help with that, but it so often doesn’t.

With that being said, people should explore whatever interests them.

I read Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy a couple years ago and enjoyed it immensely. I also took a couple of philosophy classes when I was in college. I found them beneficial as far as my inner world is concerned. (I was raised with the ridiculous notion that “philosophy is bad,” so studying it was liberating. To rebel, some experiment with drugs; others read philosophy books. :lol: )

With our current access to knowledge and resources, I don’t think that philosophy is as important as it used to be. I think that most of the important stuff has already been said by this point, too. Philosophical thought is still evolving, I believe, but at a much, much slower rate than before.


_________________
Away.


Last edited by Twilightprincess on 18 Aug 2022, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The_Znof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,126
Location: Vancouver Canada

18 Aug 2022, 5:00 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
It's completely relevant, whether epistemology, political philosophy, logic, ethics, bioethics, science and tech, aesthetics, animal rights, liberty, personal sovereignty, metaphysics / empiricism, law, justice, or corrections.

How is it possibly irrelevant to think?


nothing is impossible

Image


_________________
The Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts -The Donald


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,031
Location: Stendec

18 Aug 2022, 5:04 pm

The_Znof wrote:
nothing is impossible
How will you try to prove your claim?


_________________
 
• Veritas Illuminata • Semper Illuminans •


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 85,976
Location: Queens, NYC

18 Aug 2022, 5:25 pm

In my life, I take tidbits from multiple philosophers.

One should not ONLY believe in Kant, say.

There are some situations where Plato fills the bill; others where Aristotle applies.

Formal logic doesn’t always reflect what is true, even though it’s much easier and useful to use formal modes of thought.



Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,864
Location: Small Town From Hell

18 Aug 2022, 5:26 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
In my life, I take tidbits from multiple philosophers.

One should not ONLY believe in Kant, say.

There are some situations where Plato fills the bill; others where Aristotle applies.

Formal logic doesn’t always reflect what is true, even though it’s much easier and useful to use formal modes of thought.


When would you use Plato and when would you use Aristotle?


_________________
Away.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 85,976
Location: Queens, NYC

18 Aug 2022, 5:32 pm

I would use Plato within relatively creative things.

I would use Aristotle within relatively practical things.

In my life, I lean pretty strongly towards empiricism-----though certainly not in an absolute sense. I believe that a tree in the Taiga of Russia is chopped down, even if I don't actually hear it being chopped down.



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 51,134

18 Aug 2022, 5:42 pm

Image



The_Znof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,126
Location: Vancouver Canada

18 Aug 2022, 5:46 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
here's some info on Rawls' A Theory of Justice (1971) which led to my pursuit of Philosophy as a student / later tutor and teacher of Ethics.
a
[/quote]

My first meeting with Rawls may have been colored by the Philosopher who I first heard of him through.

https://youtu.be/2Z2fvF7L5AY?t=777

I saw this local documentary [sic] with "the bum philosopher", and later checked out his PHD thesis. He was big on Rawls, very authoritarian, and his thesis was not so good, unless I was confused somewhere. I suspected Rawls may have paved the way for him a bit, even if Rawls was not himself authoritarian.

But I know you are no bum philosopher Isabella, ethically or cognitively. maybe I should give Rawls another chance?

Btw I like Rawls a lot personally.

and last time Rawls was brought up I thought it may be a trap to make me look rude :jester:


_________________
The Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts -The Donald


Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,864
Location: Small Town From Hell

18 Aug 2022, 5:51 pm

Quote:
I would use Plato within relatively creative things.

I would use Aristotle within relatively practical things.

For me, it mostly comes down to enjoyment. I read philosophical works for pleasure, not for instruction.

I enjoy reading Plato and find him deeply moving at times, especially the dialogues and parts of The Republic. (I don’t like what he says regarding books, though.)

I don’t enjoy Aristotle all that much.

(I’m an empiricist or a rationalist depending on the topic, but I enjoy learning about different schools of philosophy and the progression of human thought.)


_________________
Away.


The_Znof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,126
Location: Vancouver Canada

18 Aug 2022, 8:10 pm

Fnord wrote:
The_Znof wrote:
nothing is impossible [with God]
How will you try to prove your claim?


I cant prove anything to you without Gods help. [fify]


_________________
The Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts -The Donald


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,658

18 Aug 2022, 8:53 pm

I like Bruno Latour and Peter Sloterdijk and Timothy Morton.
The professor of philosophy Ralph Moeller, who runs the youtube channel carefree wandering, said that the primary purpose of philosophy is to criticize religion.
Imho, in past centuries, the way to criticize the dominant religion has been to establish epistemology and such - but eventually, science did away with mystical religions and our dominant religion today is not mystic, but rational.
I think philosophy needed some time to readjust, in the 20th century, to a new object of criticism.
Latour, Sloterdijk and Morton all do that by either criticizing the modern, rational and scientific "religion" as not up to its own standards (Latour), historically very new and not well suited for humans - or humans not well suited for it (Sloterdijk) and limited by its focus on reductionism (Morton and Latour).

None of them advocates mysticism, yet all three are critics of our current worldview and it's limited horizon.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,878
Location: Poland

19 Aug 2022, 2:09 am

Fnord wrote:
magz wrote:
I think current professional philosophy is in a crisis of push for publishing . . .
Do you think this 'push' is greater, lesser, or about the same as other disciplines?

About the same. Unfortunately, unlike sciences, philosophy does not have an inner mechanism to weed out nonsense, so this push harms it more than it harms other disciplines.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,878
Location: Poland

19 Aug 2022, 2:59 am

And, by the way, post Wittgenstein, I recommend you to consider Karl Popper. He employed solid, logical approach and he significantly contributed to modern understanding of scientific method.

Scientific method is, I believe, the greatest achievement of human philosophy so far, but it does have its limits and understanding these limits is crucial to applying it properly.
Where the scientific method is non-applicable (i.e. philosophy itself...), attempts to mimic it are usually not a good idea... but they are common.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,031
Location: Stendec

19 Aug 2022, 8:23 am

Mr. Popper is from whom I derived my "valid empirical evidence" standard.  His politics, however, seemed a little too "out there" for me -- but that is just my opinion.

Wikipedia wrote:
Popper held that rationality is not restricted to the realm of empirical or scientific theories, but that it is merely a special case of the general method of criticism, the method of finding and eliminating contradictions in knowledge without ad-hoc measures.  According to this view, rational discussion about metaphysical ideas, about moral values and even about purposes is possible.
While possible, such discussions are not likely unless all participants possess equivalent levels of rationality, and do not rely on mere belief to support their cases.


_________________
 
• Veritas Illuminata • Semper Illuminans •


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,878
Location: Poland

19 Aug 2022, 8:42 am

Fnord wrote:
Mr. Popper is from whom I derived my "valid empirical evidence" standard.  His politics, however, seemed a little too "out there" for me -- but that is just my opinion.
Wikipedia wrote:
Popper held that rationality is not restricted to the realm of empirical or scientific theories, but that it is merely a special case of the general method of criticism, the method of finding and eliminating contradictions in knowledge without ad-hoc measures.  According to this view, rational discussion about metaphysical ideas, about moral values and even about purposes is possible.
While possible, such discussions are not likely unless all participants possess equivalent levels of rationality, and do not rely on mere belief to support their cases.
True.

Getting energy from cold fusion is also fundamentally possible but creating an environment where it sustainably happens has not been achieved so far.

Similarily, creating an environment for rational discussion on metaphysics, morality and purposes is a serious challenge in real life. Personally, I yearn for it.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,031
Location: Stendec

19 Aug 2022, 9:46 am

magz wrote:
. . . creating an environment for rational discussion on metaphysics, morality and purposes is a serious challenge in real life. Personally, I yearn for it.

[opinion=mine]

Personally, I believe creating an environment for rational discussion on metaphysics, morality, and purpose requires an initial tabla rasa condition and a subsequent build-up of rationally validated statements, without influence by politics, pre-judgement, or religion.

[/opinion]


_________________
 
• Veritas Illuminata • Semper Illuminans •