Is philosophy crap?

[Lutherf]

On my science forum this question was asked and the responses were as I would expect.

I thought I'd ask the average Joe. What do you think?
Is philosophy crap?

Just farcical indulgences of the mind?
Or
Is it often of profound insights and of great value to our being?
Or something inbetween?

Philosophy is an exercise in thought, much like lifting weights is an exercise in muscle strength.

 

[Antiwar]

Pre-emptive philosophy: Just to be clear:

An ethical argument or debate or discussion is a choice among two or more good things. Ethics is a debate between goods. Ethics does not include an established bad. Only goods. Debate between them.

We got that?

Great. Now we know the difference between morals (drawing a line between good and evil) and ethics (choosing the greater of two or more goods).

So if we got the home-schooled trailer-parks on board, you know - the people disparaging philosophy, with the meaning of ethics then maybe we can move forward.

Ethics and morals are synonymous enough for us home-schooled trailer park residents.

If'n you wanna git fancy, you're at the wrong Internet trailer park.

 

[ecofarm]

Ethics and morals are synonymous enough for us home-schooled trailer park residents.

I know.

 

[Antiwar]

No it didn't.

You posit that prehistoric humans never made ethical considerations and/or that philosophy was prehistorical?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Science originated from philosophy.

So did the idea of humors and the heaven of perfect geometric shapes. If you speculate enough, something is bound to stick.

 

[ecofarm]

You posit that prehistoric humans never made ethical considerations and/or that philosophy was prehistorical?

Philosophy defines good; ethics debates goods. Therefore, philosophy inherently predates ethics in every scenario.

Or are we abandoning logic as well.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Philosophy defines good; ethics debates goods. Therefore, philosophy inherently predates ethics in every scenario.

Or are we abandoning logic as well.

I don't know. Perhaps prehistoric humans hadn't invented logic yet so maybe ethics existed without that as well

 

[Slartibartfast]

I feel like both of you are under the impression that philosophy is some narrow discipline that only deals with grand obscure questions about the nature of the self and the universe. That is simply not the case. Philosophy is such a broad discipline it practically encapsulates everything. For one, just all of ethics and morality and fundamentally philosophical questions, and those values in turn inform both laws and politics. So are areas such as logical reasoning, many concepts of which are important to the idea of mathematical proofs.

Philosophy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are many different competing definitions of philosophy and what should count as philosophy. But even answering that question itself is a philosophical question. Answering or asking any question fundamentally requires some kind of philosophical framework.

Using "philosophical" tools to create some sort of independently verifiable logical product is fine. But you don't need philosophy for that, you just need to know the rules of whatever logical discipline.

 

[Antiwar]

Philosophy defines good; ethics debates goods. Therefore, philosophy inherently predates ethics in every scenario.

Or are we abandoning logic as well.

Quoting:

Quite literally, the term "philosophy" means, "love of wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. ----

I don't see "defines good" in there. Can you find an explanation of 'philosophy' that has "defines good" as a primacy?

 

[Antiwar]

I don't know. Perhaps prehistoric humans hadn't invented logic yet so maybe ethics existed without that as well

That's also true.

 

[ecofarm]

Quoting:

Quite literally, the term "philosophy" means, "love of wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. ----

I don't see "defines good" in there. Can you find an explanation of 'philosophy' that has "defines good" as a primacy?

Argument from ignorance does not confront me. I don't expect you to get it. I post for the audience. Honestly, I think if you could get it then you'd already have it (in a mere moment's reflection) and so my expectations regarding your understanding are nil.

To make clear: my argument is in no way predicated on your understanding. And to make matters worse, for some, there will be no dumbing down.

 

[craig]

I don't know. Perhaps prehistoric humans hadn't invented logic yet so maybe ethics existed without that as well

Yes. Ethics evolved. Early humans who took care of their young survived. Tribes that took care of each other survived, and so on.

 

[NolanVoyd]

You posit that prehistoric humans never made ethical considerations and/or that philosophy was prehistorical?

Of course they did.

And those considerations were philosophy.

Saying ethics existed before philosophy is like saying that beagles existed way before dogs did. (Hint: beagles are a type of dog and could not have existed before dogs. Ethical considerations are a type of philosophical consideration, i.e. a type of philosophy, and could not have existed before philosophy.)

 

[Antiwar]

Argument from ignorance does not confront me. I don't expect you to get it. I post for the audience. Honestly, I think if you could get it then you'd already have it (in a mere moment's reflection) and so my expectations regarding your understanding are nil.

To make clear: my argument is in no way predicated on your understanding. And to make matters worse, for some, there will be no dumbing down.

Chuckle. Yer tho smart.

 

[ecofarm]

Chuckle. Yer tho smart.

I know.

 

[Antiwar]

Of course they did.

And those considerations were philosophy.

Saying ethics existed before philosophy is like saying that beagles existed way before dogs did. (Hint: beagles are a type of dog and could not have existed before dogs. Ethical considerations are a type of philosophical consideration, i.e. a type of philosophy, and could not have existed before philosophy.)

No, ethical considerations became a subset of philosophy.

The modern ignorant charicature of prehistoric humans is a big dumb caveman, woman, and child. Their "philosophy," if you need to call it that, was supposedly survival and little else.

When a group had an opportunity to gather edible plants, and another group wanted the same opportunity because of limited resources, then they either came up with a strategy or moralized. Ethical considerations are not exclusive to formal nor informal philosophy.

 

[Antiwar]

I know.

I've long recognized your retreat via your claim of intellectual superiority.

 

[NolanVoyd]

No, ethical considerations became a subset of philosophy.

The modern ignorant charicature of prehistoric humans is a big dumb caveman, woman, and child. Their "philosophy," if you need to call it that, was supposedly survival and little else.

When a group had an opportunity to gather edible plants, and another group wanted the same opportunity because of limited resources, then they either came up with a strategy or moralized. Ethical considerations are not exclusive to formal nor informal philosophy.

You've got it backwards.

Ethical considerations are a type of philosophical consideration; i.e. a type of philosophy.

 

[ecofarm]

I've long recognized your retreat via your claim of intellectual superiority.

You claimed it in rhetorical response. I merely acknowledge the obvious, which is something you've failed to do. You should follow my example.

How many members are gonna try to explain philosophy to you. Isn't it kinda sad? To know absolutely nothing. Good god, man, this is a debate website. You can't just never know anything. That's not an argument or debate. It's you declaring ignorance. That's not what this place is for.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Using philosophical tools to create some sort of independently verifiable logical product is fine. But you don't need philosophy for that, you just need to know the rules of whatever logical discipline.

It is quite literally impossible to arrive at any scientific meaning or even the concept of science without philosophy; even using the most narrow definitions of the word.

For example, what counts as a species? The concept of different animals species isn't something we discovered, it is an idea we developed that has changed over time. Where exactly an animal counts as an entirely different species or sub species is an entirely subjective line we draw. Things like colors and temperature don't objectively exist. Sure, atoms move around at certain speeds and light travels in certain wavelengths. But exactly where we draw the line for which wavelengths count as blue or what movement of atoms counts as 0 degrees is a philosophical framework we created.

Even once you've established the rules required to conduct science, what questions you ask and interpreting the conclusions you arrive at is right back to philosophy again. You can use economics to come to the conclusion that some policy will increase GDP. Ok, but then what? Knowing something will increase GDP is totally meaningless without some kind of moral framework.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

That's also true.

Are you actually claiming prehistoric humans didn't use logic?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to cite an example of an ethical statement that doesn't rely on philosophy.

 

[Antiwar]

You claimed it in rhetorical response. I merely acknowledge the obvious, which is something you've failed to do. You should follow my example.

How many members are gonna try to explain philosophy to you. Isn't it kinda sad? To know absolutely nothing. Good god, man, this is a debate website. You can't just never know anything. That's not an argument or debate. It's you declaring ignorance. That's not what this place is for.

Your smokescreens are obvious and noxious.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It is quite literally impossible to arrive at any scientific meaning or even the concept of science without philosophy; even using the most narrow definitions of the word.

For example, what counts as a species? The concept of different animals species isn't something we discovered, it is an idea we developed that has changed over time. Where exactly an animal counts as an entirely different species or sub species is an entirely subjective line we draw. Things like colors and temperature don't objectively exist. Sure, atoms move around at certain speeds and light travels in certain wavelengths. But exactly where we draw the line for which wavelengths count as blue or what movement of atoms counts as 0 degrees is a philosophical framework we created.

Even once you've established the rules required to conduct science, what questions you ask and interpreting the conclusions you arrive at is right back to philosophy again. You can use economics to come to the conclusion that some policy will increase GDP. Ok, but then what? Knowing something will increase GDP is totally meaningless without some kind of moral framework.

You are casting such a wide net here that you are basically crediting philosophy with any attempt at logical thought or basic categorization techniques.

If we're gonna do that, then all productive human thought may as well be called philosophy and the term can then not have any sort of practical use.

 

[ecofarm]

Your smokescreens are obvious and noxious.

That's childish horseshit.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

You are casting such a wide net here that you are basically crediting philosophy with any attempt at logical thought or basic categorization techniques.

If we're gonna do that, then all productive human thought may as well be called philosophy and the term can then not have any sort of practical use.

While I still assert that question like "what differentiates species" are philosophical questions, even if you restrict the definition exclusively to morals and ethics it still seems like philosophy is critically important to interpreting or assigning any meaning to scientific findings.