5 ms·

>The hierarchy of study is off, they mix things like "human values" "religion" and ethics with more fundamental things like logic. Who? Who are 'they'? Last ti

>The hierarchy of study is off, they mix things like "human values" "religion" and ethics with more fundamental things like logic. Who? Who are 'they'? Last time I checked pretty much every modern academic philosopher has a specialized area of study. That's what I was asking for sources on. You keep asserting that Philosophy (as a whole, singular field of study, which again it isn't even remotely) equally weights subjective human thought with objective logic and rationality. You make the same fallacious argument here: >It as mixed a bag as to study as Poetry and Math. Sure you can study math and poetry under one field, and you can probably discover some really amazing math under this field but it still doesn't give any credence to lumping poetry and math together under one school of thought. Philosophy is not a single school of thought. That's why I quoted you the definition. That's literally the central point of my entire argument, which you continuously have ignored or dismissed out of hand in favor of your personal definition of the term. >Inevitably every philosopher I've ever debated with turns around to me to tell me that some of the ideas I talk about are already ideas thought about by philosophers and that my entire argument is ironic. Please this is what happens when you define philosophy to encompasses logic and paradoxical logic. Yeah if you define philosophy to encompass so much than inevitably even criticism against philosophy will likely touch philosophy..... just like how if I criticise alchemy by bringing up earth water and fire.... oooh I'm criticising alchemy by bringing up alchemy itself.... oooh the irony. Stop. You're the one trying to redefine philosophy. It's a valid criticism to say that the term is too unspecific, sure, but it's also valid to argue that you have only a vague idea at best what you're talking about if you're not using the literal definition of the academic field correctly. >The quote above is exactly my point. What does "values" have to do with existence. "Values" and "language" are human inventions similar to how literature and poetry are human inventions. Existence is not a human invention, in fact "humans" themselves are an outcome of existence. We wouldn't even be having this debate if your understanding and use of the language involved was more disciplined. >These three elements have nothing to do with each other and are categorized incorrectly under alchemy just like how language and values and existence and reason and mind are categorized incorrectly in philosophy. Philosophy is a method of studying thought. It is no more a single school of thought than Science is a single theory.

nendroid 6y ago
>Philosophy is not a single school of thought. That's why I quoted you the definition. That's literally the central point of my entire argument, which you continuously have ignored or dismissed out of hand in favor of your personal definition of the term. If philosophy is so varied than how can it be more fundamental than science? You literally said that "philosophy" is more fundamental than science. How can a mixed bag of various schools of thought be more fundamental than science? That's my argument. That's what I've been arguing about from beginning.
- entropicdrifter 6y ago
  By the same token you could argue that science is less fundamental than philosophy because science includes gobs of relatively useless, unimportant information like the latin names of various extinct bugs that are no longer relevant to any current work. My point there is just that your argument doesn't really hold up since you can apply it to either side. Philosophy is the logically framed exploration of various paradigms of thought. This is more fundamental to the human ability to understand the world than raw data because it allows us to devise tests for our interpretations of that data and put the results to good use. Without logic and a foundational understanding of rationalism and the fallibility of the human mind, chemistry would still be alchemy. That's my point. We have people thinking they understand science in this day and age who really have no idea what they're talking about and thus end up in pseudoscientific dead ends all the time. This is because they haven't incorporated the foundational philosophies of science and therefore lack the mental discipline to practice it. You even see this at the institutional level with labs never producing follow up studies to show results are reproducible, thus rendering their initial research moot all for the sake of crass capitalistic gain. Likewise you see this in the weakening of the integrity of the scientific press, with their constant slew of clickbait headlines. The issue with the decay of scientific rigor in western culture is fundamentally a philosophical one. Do you see my point? Individuals and societies fail to do good science without well-considered philosophy. The converse is not true. Science depends on philosophy, not the other way around.

nendroid 6y ago

>Philosophy is not a single school of thought. That's why I quoted you the definition. That's literally the central point of my entire argument, which you continuously have ignored or dismissed out of hand in favor of your personal definition of the term. If philosophy is so varied than how can it be more fundamental than science? You literally said that "philosophy" is more fundamental than science. How can a mixed bag of various schools of thought be more fundamental than science? That's my argument. That's what I've been arguing about from beginning.

entropicdrifter 6y ago
By the same token you could argue that science is less fundamental than philosophy because science includes gobs of relatively useless, unimportant information like the latin names of various extinct bugs that are no longer relevant to any current work. My point there is just that your argument doesn't really hold up since you can apply it to either side. Philosophy is the logically framed exploration of various paradigms of thought. This is more fundamental to the human ability to understand the world than raw data because it allows us to devise tests for our interpretations of that data and put the results to good use. Without logic and a foundational understanding of rationalism and the fallibility of the human mind, chemistry would still be alchemy. That's my point. We have people thinking they understand science in this day and age who really have no idea what they're talking about and thus end up in pseudoscientific dead ends all the time. This is because they haven't incorporated the foundational philosophies of science and therefore lack the mental discipline to practice it. You even see this at the institutional level with labs never producing follow up studies to show results are reproducible, thus rendering their initial research moot all for the sake of crass capitalistic gain. Likewise you see this in the weakening of the integrity of the scientific press, with their constant slew of clickbait headlines. The issue with the decay of scientific rigor in western culture is fundamentally a philosophical one. Do you see my point? Individuals and societies fail to do good science without well-considered philosophy. The converse is not true. Science depends on philosophy, not the other way around.