Philosophizers

i was given an assignment in english to ask people their definition of a philosopher and to define their philosophy of life

so i figured i would bring it to the pit

use as many words as you like

My philosophy is, do not exceed your ability to influence the world around you.

Life is a circle. Everyones circles is different. Yours might be as big as Montana and you can sway anything you want. Mine is about as big as the period at the end of this sentence.

Do not worry about whats outside your circle.

A philosopher, is the person in charge within your circle. In my case, its my wife,son's and grandson. :smile:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

a good philosophy would be to do your own homework. :razz:

---

i eat paint

A good philosophy would be, be yourself.

Philosophy today is what's left that hasn't yet been split into a more specific science (like physics, psychology, politics ect.). And it seems to me like there is not much left that qualifies philosophy for an independent science anymore.

The main field of work for a philosopher today is to come up with words for things that aren't named yet - and probably do not need a name. I was in a class for semiotics (one of the last attempts to squeeze out a new form of science from philosophy) last year. It's "the study of signs" and how communication works on different levels. A smart guy (I'm not good with names) tried to categorize every possible sign and come up with a name for it. Obviously he failed and the result was a theoretical paper that's so overly complicated it's almost impossible to read. The point is nobody needs it. It's more complicated than the issue he tried to explain. That's what I don't like about philosophy today. You come up with a thousand words for something that can easily be understood - wordless.

My philosophy in life btw is to try to be a happy person. Our consciousness is controlled by biochemical processes. It makes us feel good when we do something that's evolutionary a good thing for individuals and/or mankind. There are errors (psychopaths) but usually it works. You just have to think long-terms and social.

[excuse my possibly bad english, try to filter the thoughts out of the babble]

reaper47 said:
[excuse my possibly bad english, try to filter the thoughts out of the babble]

Zounds man. If we did that you'd be left with a post of black space. :heee:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

reaper47 said:
[excuse my possibly bad english, try to filter the thoughts out of the babble]

I understood you alright man :smile:

I had to take a course in literary theory and had to suffer through the
whole "signifier vs. signified" thing and I know how you feel.

Anyway -- I don't really have a definition of philosopher for you, but
as for my own personal philosophy, I basically try to maximize the
overall happiness of loved ones, friends, and strangers. I know I
won't be able to have a worldwide influence with my actions, but
similar to Orpheus' thoughts on circles of influence, I try to
positively effect my own little circle of existence.

Not a very complicated philosophy, just one with an emphasis on
personal connections that hopefully will make this world a tiny bit
better than it was when I got here :smile:

I think we can sum this up using Plato's "Parable of the Cave."

The parable states that humankind is like prisoners chained in a cave since thier birth. The prisoners are facing toward the back wall of the cave with a fire behind them. They are chained so that all they can see is the flickering shadows made by the fire behind them. In between the prisoners and the fire is a raised walkway that animals and other things are brough across. All the prisoners can see of the animals is thier flickering, distorted shadows, and this is thier reality.

Plato states that if one prisoner were allowed to go free, he would realize that the shadows that he though were reality are not what was making the animal noises. If the freed prisoner were to go outside, he would be blinded by the sun's light, but in time he'd be able to see things that ARE real, even though to him, they would seem less real than the shadows of before.

A philosopher is the freed prisoner who goes back to tell the others about reality, even though they don't want to be freed. Even though it would mean having to go back into the cave to save his fellows.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Well for that to be the case, a philosopher has to have a
transcendental experience equivalent to being freed from chains and led
out of a cave...

How does a philosopher achieve that freedom? Thought? Meditation? Worldly experience?

a good philosophy would be to do your own homework. :razz:

no, my homework was to ask 5 people those questions

? posted by Addicted to Morphine

How does a philosopher achieve that freedom? Thought? Meditation? Worldly experience?

well, back in the late 60's, all it took was a hit or ten of LSD and you became capable of "philosophy, "speaking in tongues", and a thousand other "spiritual" inclinations.....s**t....my big sister got in a "philosophical discussion" at 5 in the morning in the front yard with a lawn ornament once....wasnt funny then, scared the s**t outta me actually, but i have to laugh now, what a f**kin' idiot she was.....

experience breeds the process of thought and contemplation, in regards to cause and effect....and everything else.. :heee:

Doc B... :dodgy:

One of my friends got so high he wandered into a cemetary and spent 2
hours talking to the corpses because he figured they might be lonely
since no one assumes they can hear...

Pretty creepy. Drugs make people do some pretty zany stuff.

we have about 20 pictures of one of my friends trying to catch a
picture of a chip in mid-air with another guy dropping it after
drinking a bunch

we got some really funny pics of his face

Philosiphizers are those who, by extrapolation and previous experience, cast a wide net out over the possible, and try to capture the truth.

Juim said:
Philosiphizers are those who, by extrapolation and previous
experience, cast a wide net out over the possible, and try to capture
the truth.

I really like this. It's a very elegant sentence as well as idea.

Juim said:
Philosiphizers are those who, by extrapolation and previous experience, cast a wide net out over the possible, and try to capture the truth.

Verily, this is "forum signature" material.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

A philosipher is someone who talks about stuff and tries to convey their own opinion about some views on whatever everyone else is talking about.

Here's my philosophy on the people who have decided to implement func_detail as the "new and improved version of func_wall" into hammer:

First of all, they are complete pricks, these guys, who have bogged down the entity list with 6 letter words. Detail = 6, Wall = 4. Simpler is better. Why couldn't they just make the improvements and leave them as func_wall then? Oh! That's what I thought.

Some will make arguments like "You can't make walls a func_wall, for the most part, so detail is a better description. Its longer, yes, but it is a better term for its own entity."

Hello! Wake up and smell the roses. Since when do the terms in computer programming and development have to even remotely translate to everyday English?

These people fail to see the hypocrisy of their own stand-
I'm telling you, If you are gonna say that we need func_detail, then you can't just sit there, eyes glazed and oblivious to the inaccuracy of the term "brush".

What would be a better term for brush, you ask?
A: Freakin "block".

That's why i hate it when people look at a list of hundreds of inaccurately named objects and pick out ONE of them and tout their NEW IMPROVED NAME for that single item, completely ignoring the rest, and any possibly weightier imbalances.

You need to visit the "What ticks you off?" thread.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

I think we can sum this up using Plato's "Parable of the Cave."
The parable states that humankind is like prisoners chained in a
cave since thier birth. The prisoners are facing toward the back wall
of the cave with a fire behind them. They are chained so that all they
can see is the flickering shadows made by the fire behind them. In
between the prisoners and the fire is a raised walkway that animals and
other things are brough across. All the prisoners can see of the
animals is thier flickering, distorted shadows, and this is thier
reality.

Plato states that if one prisoner were allowed to go free, he would
realize that the shadows that he though were reality are not what was
making the animal noises. If the freed prisoner were to go outside, he
would be blinded by the sun's light, but in time he'd be able to see
things that ARE real, even though to him, they would seem less real
than the shadows of before.

A philosopher is the freed prisoner who goes back to tell the others
about reality, even though they don't want to be freed. Even though it
would mean having to go back into the cave to save his fellows.

No one is in chains, you are born looking at "reality" because it is
right there in front of you. No one looks around becuase they
have always accepted that the shadows are the only real thing, there is
no thing better to look for.

one man just turns around one day, and finds that the world he has know all his life is only a fraction of what is out there.

^^^this is all philosophy, any time we question something with a
dynamic answer. To quote the "matrix" (which is based off "the
cave")

"it's the question that drives us"

Tom Lehrer once said something like (i.e. not an exact quote):
"Henry, like all good philosophers, told people who were much happier than he was how to run their lives. Before they took him to the home for the eternally bewildered, he said 'Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends upon what you put into it'"

A bit harsh perhaps, but quite fun. Incidentally, this was the same sketch where he claimed Henry was such an individualist he spelt his name H.E.N.3.R.Y.

Actually, in all seriousness, I prefer the more sensible defintions that people have given so far.

---

My site

As you can see from the variety of responses here, philosophy is poorly understood by the general population.

Real philosophy is not about your "life attitude", although philosophy may inform and be influenced by life attitude. For example, here is a typical piece of vapid non-philosophy: "My philosophy in life is to be happy and make other people happy". No, that's not your philosophy -- it's your outlook (or, rather, it's the outlook that you pretend you have, because it flatters your image of yourself).

Real philosophy is not about spouting off your opinions on subjects numerous and sundry. For example: "Yeah, I think that animal testing is bad, and capitalism is evil, and sex offenders should be hanged, and, like, we should all be cool and groovy towards one another." That's not philosophy -- that's opinionated fluff.

Real philosophy is not about complicating things that are simple, although philosophy always complicates things that are apparently simple.

So what is real philosophy?

Real philosophy is the learning and application of clear thinking. Philosophy is about arguments, not opinions. An opinion does not require rational justification; an argument does.

For example, "it's just my opinion and I'm entitled to it". This is what people say when they are incapable of justifying their beliefs and attitudes. But when did you hear anyone say, "it's just my argument and I'm entitled to it"?

Like the Enlightenment in Europe, that was philosophy. Philosophy like
you say is about arguments, and most importantly about applying
rationale, logic or laws when forming ideas.

Gollum said:
Real philosophy is the learning and application of clear thinking. Philosophy is about arguments, not opinions. An opinion does not require rational justification; an argument does.

I do not think I am very comfortable with this explanation Mike. As true as I believe it to be, because I doubt you'd have posted a deliberate falsehood.

With this rendition, it clearly omits anyone and everyone without the gift of words. I just do not believe that people who are poor in speaking make bad philosophers. I,sadly, fall deeply into the category of dumb at the mouth so you can see how this concept you post is a threat.

I kinda like Juims idea of the definition but when I first read it the person who popped into my mind first was the character from Bewitched "Mrs. Kravitz" Being a busybody in other words. I am not for a moment saying that that is what he said. It was just my first thought and I tend to understand my first impressions and trust them most.

In the end, I believe that you posted the Webster Dictionary definition of a Philosopher, but I think it was created by smart people to put stupid ones like me in my place.

Sorry if that sounds offensive. I don't intend such.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Good arguments do not necessarily need to be spoken, but they must be communicated in some way. If you cannot think clearly and express your thoughts effectively, then you cannot be a good philosopher. These characteristics are essential to philosophy.

That excludes the vast majority of people from being good philosophers (or, at least, they would have to train pretty hard first). Well, tough titty.

What makes you all think that you ought to be good philosophers? What makes you think you have a right to be assessed as a good philosopher?

If you are crippled and obese, you cannot be a good athlete. If you are dim and inarticulate, then you cannot be a good philosopher.

This popular attitude towards philosophy -- that anyone can do it, that it requires no talent, no skills, no training -- is grossly unfair to real philosophers. It demeans their abilities, their achievements, their hard work, and their talents.

You wouldn't say that about Lance Armstrong, would you? "Oh, anyone can win the Tour de France. Why, I'm just as good an athlete as Lance."

I would hardly describe myself as a philosopher, but I did spend four years studying the subject; and I don't like to see philosophy trivialised as an activity requiring no work, no skill, and no talent.

It is essential to distinguish between the precise meaning of "philosophy" -- which is the study and articulation of clear thinking -- and the common, inaccurate use of the term. The use of "philosophy" to mean "outlook, opinion, point of view" is acceptable in casual parlance but fundamentally inaccurate.

A person's outlook on life does not, by itself, qualify as philosophy. The term "philosophy" is far too grand to be applied to casual opinions and beliefs. To do so reveals a philistine attitude towards the venerable history of thought.

In other words, Orph -- I respect your opinions, and I think you're a good guy. You may even be a wise man. But you're no Aristotle, or W.V.O. Quine. And neither am I. To say otherwise is pure arrogance.

Gollum said:
If you are crippled and obese, you cannot be a good athlete. If you are dim and inarticulate, then you cannot be a good philosopher.

But you see, a cripple can be an athlete, if they are pitted against other athletic cripples. Obese people can exercise and become athletic too. But by your definition, dumb people cannot learn to be a philosopher, and I would hope that that isn't true.

Truly, if being a philosopher cannot be taught, what good is it to anyone? You are either born articulate, or you are not but I know a lot of smart people who are as dumb as bricks. I also know a lot of dumb people who are wise.

shrugs

I am just confused on your points. Not that I think them wrong, I don't know enough to make that claim.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I think a pithy summary of my position is in order:

Philosophy is like lions.

Lions are not warm and fuzzy. Lions are not cute. If you don't respect lions and keep your distance, they will cheerfully rip you to shreds.

Philosophy is not warm and fuzzy. Philosophy is not cute. If you offer a real philosopher your opinion, be prepared to have it ripped to shreds. Politely ripped to shreds, perhaps, but ripped to shreds nonetheless.

These people are intellectual giants. Respect them.

i really know nothing....im an old fart.....i have nothing to go on but a minimal education, and experience....i contemplate, i ponder, i articulate as best i can, and wait for retorts.....i reach "philosophical medians" every day.

and yet i am asked my opinion on events every day, whether i want the questions and comments or not....."philosopher"? not even close....but i will tell you that i have a better grip on "life" than alot of people who are "smrter" than i, and that has been rendered from a certain set of "philosophies".....

.....or am i just full of s**t?....

my point is, personally, i believe clear thought and processing takes a certain frame of mind, which is not readily achievable by alot of people.....

"personal philosophy"

:dodgy:

Doc B....

btw, nice to see ya, ya ole "boulder rollin' sonuvagun"...

You know the only problem with that Mike?

It would take another philosopher to recognize them for what they are. Dumb people like me, would think them to full of themselves and pompous boors.

Its like attempting to insult someone with no commonality with yourself. If I were to call you a Delbert, you'd most likely not get the insult at all when all along I thought it was pretty clear.

I can and will only respect things I understand to be respectable. If being a philosopher is that lofty, then they will never truly gain anything approaching respect from people of my ilk.

Sorry.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I do not deny each person's potential to improve his capacity for clear thinking.

But, like it or not, good philosophy consists of clear thinking and its articulate expression. You can train to improve these abilities, but without them you don't have philosophy.

I also don't mean to suggest that philosophers are aggressive and unpleasant. What I mean by my "lions analogy" is this: real philosophers are much better at what they do than you and I.

An ordinary person debating philosophy with a philosopher is like me trying to beat Lance Armstrong in a bike race. Not only will Lance win, but the margin of his victory will be humiliating for me.

But if Lance were friends and we went on a casual bike ride through the woods, he would probably have the courtesy not to leave me behind.

The difference is that, in this second example, I didn't ask for a competition.

Similarly, most philosophers are respectful of other people's opinions in ordinary conversation. Indeed, my experience suggests that they are far more respectful than average. They tend to listen more carefully than most people.

But if you ask a philosopher what he really thinks of your argument, then be prepared for a humbling experience -- like challenging Lance to a bike race.

I think philosophers are people who try to find and describe patterns in issues related to people.

So, to some extent, all people philosophize because one of the basic
things humans can do is find patterns in things around them.

True philosophers (people who have spent their life thinking about it,
applying themselves to it, and getting better and better at it) just
take this to higher levels by applying this same pattern finding
process to more and more things and attempting to find higher and
higher abstractions to those patterns (Probably toward some grand
unified philosophy? I should stop philosophizing midway).

Which kinda fits in with Gollum's and Orph's argument. Most people can
bicycle, but only Lance Armstrong wins the Tour De France because he
has spent his life getting better at it.

fraggard said:
Which kinda fits in with Gollum's and Orph's argument.

Were we arguing Mike?

I thought, that were were using our own limited abilities of philosophizing? I mean, isn't that the ability to express our viewpoint in a concise fashion?

[b]Philosophy is about arguments, not opinions. An opinion does not require rational justification; an argument does.

[/b] I honestly thought thats what we were doing. If I lead everyone to believe that I was being purely argumentative, I apologize.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

This confusion turns on an ambiguity in the word "argument".

"Argument", in everyday use, usually means a confrontational discussion.

In philosophy, it does not have this meaning. An argument is your justification (be it oral or written) of some belief. It does not imply conflict or anger.

So, in philosophy, arguments are about reasons and not about emotions. Well, most of the time :wink:

So Orph and I may be arguing, but we're not arguing :smile:

And I seem to be incompetent at posting on these forums. They don't like Firefox much....

And by the way Orph -- you may not think much of your "clear thinking and articulate expression" abilities, but they seem fine to me. At least for a layman :heee:

just because no one has, i posted the websters version, just as a benchmark for discussion....hopw ya'll dont mind, and holler if you disagree with this definition as a basekine....

Main Entry: phi?los?o?phy

Pronunciation: f&-'l?-s(&-)fE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

kinda makes me think in a few different directions just post=read.... hmm

Doc B... :dodgy:

15 years of school I have yet to take a philosophy class. Thats my excuse for confusing outlook with philosphy.

I have a question... does philosophy class ever extend beyond studying
past philosophers and their arguments? I mean, is it mostly a
history class or do you ever get a chance to think through different
things and present your own arguments?

Thanx Mike, I truly appreciate it.

I have few real fears in the forums, and one of them is my inability to convey. I am in many cases at a total loss to understand why so many people misunderstand me. It seems, from my perspective, that its as clear as a fine summer day. In reality, weatherdotcom couldn't forecast my posts if they had to.

I used to lose sleep worrying over this. I still do if the topic is going badly. The other day I royally pissed Gwil off and I still am unclear how.

shrugs

I think that you and I connect only because we spent hours in real time convo with MSN messenger. We learned.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Addicted to Morphine said:
15 years of school I have yet to take a philosophy class. Thats my excuse for confusing outlook with philosphy.

I have a question... does philosophy class ever extend beyond studying past philosophers and their arguments? I mean, is it mostly a history class or do you ever get a chance to think through different things and present your own arguments?

Philosophy is not just history. It is helpful to understand what great thinkers have thought about the topic, but ultimately you must assess their arguments for yourself.

You may also, occasionally, come up with entirely (or at least largely) novel arguments or ideas.

In four years of maths and philosophy at Oxford, I only came up with a few philosophical ideas that I think were genuinely original. I did, however, form my own assessments of the arguments that were presented to me. Knowing what other people thought is not sufficient; you must learn to analyse their arguments. It is a poor philosophy course that does not allow you to do this.

I paid relatively little attention to the history of philosophy. You can emphasize different aspects of philosophy in your study; I chose to concentrate on the arguments, rather than the people who advanced them. All of my courses were "subject based" or "topic based"; I did not elect to study any "philosopher based" or "history based" courses.

<div class="abouttext">Message submitted 4 minutes after original post:</b></div>

Orpheus said:
It seems, from my perspective, that its as clear as a fine summer day. In reality, weatherdotcom couldn't forecast my posts if they had to.

That made me laugh :smile:

It's also salutary -- text, especially forum text, is a very limited medium of interaction. I am convinced that you are not alone in having your posts misinterpreted; it happens to everyone.

I took a class in Philosophy in high school, but for us it was pretty much just history. We discussed what past philosophers thought, looked at the arguments for and against their ideas, and evaluated them. It was relatively interesting at times and boring at others - just not really my type of thing I guess.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

I stopped my academic studies at the end of my BA, partly because philosophy, though interesting, gives very few opportunities for self-expression and creativity.

In philosophy, how you feel is not relevant. Being witty and artful is not relevant. Only your argument is relevant; and your argument almost invariably relies on study of what other people have said, not on your original thoughts.

It gets pretty dry after a while. And, as many have alluded to in their comments in this thread, philosophy is no substitute for life.

Wisdom is not the same thing as philosophy. And as for fun....

The most interesting quote I ever read concerning philosophy is this one by Carl Friedrich von Weizs?cker:

?Philosophie ist die Wissenschaft, ?ber die man nicht reden kann, ohne sie selbst zu betreiben.?

which means "Philosophy is the science you cannot talk about without practicing it yourself."

It could mean both: that everything is philosophy... or nothing is.

mein gott....was ist das??

.....i may never be able to say "philosophy" again without hedging....meh

Doc... :dodgy:

:biggrin: Yea, it's a form of recursion, isn't it? You have to accept philosophy before you can even practice it. It's almost religious. That's what bothers me about it. Why I never got into it.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting reaper47</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>The most interesting quote I ever read concerning philosophy is this one by Carl Friedrich von Weizs?cker:

?Philosophie ist die Wissenschaft, ?ber die man nicht reden kann, ohne sie selbst zu betreiben.?

which means "Philosophy is the science you cannot talk about without practicing it yourself."

It could mean both: that everything is philosophy... or nothing is.</DIV></DIV>

....Or it could be one of those frivolous epigrams that philosophers indulge in while talking about their occupation. It might be more accurate to say you cannot understand philosophy properly without practising it, but that is true of many activities.

Take bondage, for example... :heee:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting reaper47</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext> :biggrin: Yea, it's a form of recursion, isn't it? You have to accept philosophy before you can even practice it. It's almost religious. That's what bothers me about it. Why I never got into it.</DIV></DIV>

Not really. Philosophy is more like the antithesis of faith: no belief, no matter how sacred or intuitively obvious, is immune from criticism.

the hell? golly's back?

more than anybody else, i lean on henry david thoreau for wording some philosphies i agree with. enjoy:

"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."

"As if you could kill time without injuring eternity."

"Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something."

"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."

"Live each season as it passes; breathe the air, drink the drink, taste the fruit, and resign yourself to the influences of each. "

at the same time...

"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine." -- Bertrand Russel

Ask me tomorrow, I'll say something different. (I'm not even going to insert a generic rant in here).

I don?t believe that philosophy has to be learned. Philosophy
in my mind is all about asking "why?" then trying to answering that
question by reflection on your experience and knowledge of the world.

And if you've ever been a little kid you'll know that philosophy is something
you are born with. What kid hasn't asked... "Why is the sky
blue" "why can birds fly" etc.

So, imho, the only point of argument is to strengthen your view point (think of
the last time you've swayed anyone on anything they believe strongly in).

DrGlass said:
So, imho, the only point of argument is to strengthen your view point (think of the last time you've swayed anyone on anything they believe strongly in).

Er....

What about arguments that change your viewpoint? Or are you omniscient?

DrGlass said:
And if you've ever been a little kid you'll know that philosophy is something
you are born with. What kid hasn't asked... "Why is the sky
blue" "why can birds fly" etc.

Isn't that just curiosity?

our world however has kicked philosophy in the arse and decided to answer everything with the scientific method

DrGlass said:
And if you've ever been a little kid you'll know that philosophy is something
you are born with. What kid hasn't asked... "Why is the sky
blue" "why can birds fly" etc.

Isn't that just curiosity?

Isn't that what drives people to pholosiphize? :wink: If I didn't
want to know more about the world I wouldn't care about all the
"whys." I dont, however, mean that "philosophy" strives to aswer
those kinds of questions, but thats how I feel it starts. You ask
why the sky is blue, then you question why light changes when it hits
the atmosphere, then you wonder what light is, untill you find a
question that doesn't have any kind of scientific answer (not yet
anyways)

What about arguments that change your viewpoint? Or are you omniscient?

How many people really change their views on subjects that dont have a
single right answer? You can't argue about 1+1 but people will
argue about religion untill the cows come home. ok, maybe 'never'
was the wrong word... but it takes a very
good argument to break someone away from a core belief. Thats why
I see argument as a tool to stregthen your views, rather than a way of
changing other's minds.

and no I dont think I'm omniscient :wink:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting FatStrings</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>our world however has kicked philosophy in the arse and decided to answer everything with the scientific method</DIV></DIV>

Hardly. Philosophy remains, nearly by definition, the only discipline whose subject matter encompasses all other fields of learning. Although philosophy cannot substitute for specific scientific study, its overview of all sciences is unique.

Granted, philosophy's role has changed greatly as previously subsumed sciences have established existences independent of it.

Some questions, in principle, can never be answered by scientific enquiry. For example, questions of ethics.

For a particularly interesting example, think of the Star Trek model of teleportation, whereby a person's matter is disassembled and then either reassembled or recreated at the destination, in the exact (sub)atomic configuration of the original matter.

If such a technology were ever to be developed, then it would raise a crucial question that only philosophy could even try to answer:

"Is this a quick way to travel, or just a quick way to die?"

No external evidence could possibly be relevant to this question, because the reassembled matter would behave precisely as the original person. But would it BE the same person? Or would the conscious experience of the original person have ended, and a new person come into being -- albeit one who remembered all the experiences of the old person, and was convinced that he was this person?

How about that for a headf**k? :biggrin: