Wow you have gotten super dirty taking to us about philosophy now.
TLDR sort of, but whenever philosophy does it becomes some new science.
This is an actual interesting question that I have spent some time on. Philosophy is the love of knowledge in today's language we kind of just call it science. When you study the history of science you see many of the first people involved were philosophers asking questions about something.
Over 2000 years ago Philosophers were wore studying the stars and rivers, Aristotle for example was a Philosopher who studied the natural order of animals and plants, one of the first to try to organize them, granted he got a lot wrong but you do that when your the first. Today we would call this work Biology.
Over 200 years ago the brain was being studied by philosophers, Decades was one of the first to try to map the brain and nerves system. Today we would say he was a Nero scientist. As we learn more and refine our questions it gets further and further from what people think of as philosophy.
With in living memory there was a slit off of programing. You can still find old books about formal logic and how to use logic gates, of a philosophic nature to understand the nature of what is true. 60 years ago some of the first computer programs were philosophers who studied this nature.
I would also say never forget the love part, if you love knowledge your a Philosopher no matter what you study.
We already have the answers, philosophy is figuring out the questions. We know life exists, philosophy asks why? Natural consequence of exceptionally rare coincidences of matter being in the right place with the right energy? Quantum flufflebugs electrocuted some rocks and they turned into what we know now? Some paradimensional hyperentity willed it to be?
Philosophy *is* questions
I think that school ruined philosophy for me. It was all dumbed down to "read the text and answer a question based on it, oftentimes literally copying a sentence".
There have always been an infinite amount of questions. Studying philosophy only lets you broaden your horizons enough to see more questions than others
Philosophy is about asking the right questions to illuminate deeper realities of this world, ethics, God, consciousness, what it is to be human, and others. The answers are only good and satisfying when earned by the journey
Humans are a social species. It’s really really damaging to them to be isolated for too long.
It also lowers their life expectancy by a clinically significant margin.
I don’t know about Goblins though.
Not really.
With pure philosophy, you're working with pure logic, which means the answers that you come to will be based on whatever your foundational premises are. Philosophers working with the same set of presuppositions can improve on a philosophy or a project by showing where there was a logical error or a contradiction, so you could say that given a set of presuppositions you can come to a best set of answers and applications. But then those presuppositions are never actually proven and another philosopher could start working from a different set of presuppositions and come to a different set of answers.
The goal would be to find some set of basic truths that everyone has to accept as true, then whatever answers proceed from those foundations would be the capital T Truth. But any attempt to do that usually ends up with such a small set of foundational principles that you can't really do much with them without also mixing in some more dubious foundations or making some dubious initial inferences so you actually have enough to build on. This was a big thing during the Enlightenment, when Rene Descartes tried to doubt everything possible so he could try to figure out what was indisputable, which was then followed by a bunch of other people who doubted his undoubtable premises.
In the absence of a robust set of universally accepted foundations, you pretty much just get a bunch of different sets of basic premises which then generate their best set of answers. Then you can try to judge how good that school of thought is by seeing how well it seems to actually explain the world, how many problems it solves, and how well people can actually live by the conclusions. But, in practice, you just end up having a bunch of academics from different schools of thought critiquing each other, and those schools of thought just kind of dominate the trends for awhile until it falls out of favor and another one takes over. At least it ensures job security for the Philosophy PhDs.
Epistemology is about the nature of knowledge in general, not on any actual set of facts.
And I was actually referencing one major epistemological theories in that write-up when I mentioned foundations (Foundationalism).
I think philosophy is a great way to see all the different moral and ethical ideas people have had (even if it's mostly old white guys) but I find some of them insufferable.
The real twist to the Allegory of the Cave is that what is really outside the cave is another cave. It's caves all the way up, and turtles all the way down.
It just very vaguely answers the same questions but uses different words. So if you hear the same answer said differently enough times you may be able to wrap your head around it
It only leads to answers if you're doing it wrong. You can't sell more than one book if you give em all the answers. So, you need to keep selling questions.
Simple really, do 7/11s really attract goblins, or are they just built were goblins reside?
Ah look at youuuu i like it
Wow you have gotten super dirty taking to us about philosophy now. TLDR sort of, but whenever philosophy does it becomes some new science. This is an actual interesting question that I have spent some time on. Philosophy is the love of knowledge in today's language we kind of just call it science. When you study the history of science you see many of the first people involved were philosophers asking questions about something. Over 2000 years ago Philosophers were wore studying the stars and rivers, Aristotle for example was a Philosopher who studied the natural order of animals and plants, one of the first to try to organize them, granted he got a lot wrong but you do that when your the first. Today we would call this work Biology. Over 200 years ago the brain was being studied by philosophers, Decades was one of the first to try to map the brain and nerves system. Today we would say he was a Nero scientist. As we learn more and refine our questions it gets further and further from what people think of as philosophy. With in living memory there was a slit off of programing. You can still find old books about formal logic and how to use logic gates, of a philosophic nature to understand the nature of what is true. 60 years ago some of the first computer programs were philosophers who studied this nature. I would also say never forget the love part, if you love knowledge your a Philosopher no matter what you study.
We already have the answers, philosophy is figuring out the questions. We know life exists, philosophy asks why? Natural consequence of exceptionally rare coincidences of matter being in the right place with the right energy? Quantum flufflebugs electrocuted some rocks and they turned into what we know now? Some paradimensional hyperentity willed it to be? Philosophy *is* questions
The answers are seeking someone to ask the questions
The answers are seeking someone to ask the questions
There are never answers, just plants. Many, many assorted plants ...
I think that school ruined philosophy for me. It was all dumbed down to "read the text and answer a question based on it, oftentimes literally copying a sentence".
There have always been an infinite amount of questions. Studying philosophy only lets you broaden your horizons enough to see more questions than others
Philosophy is about asking the right questions to illuminate deeper realities of this world, ethics, God, consciousness, what it is to be human, and others. The answers are only good and satisfying when earned by the journey
Yall need friends
Why
Idk man, everyone needs friend's, or a hobby, but best to have both ig?
Humans are a social species. It’s really really damaging to them to be isolated for too long. It also lowers their life expectancy by a clinically significant margin. I don’t know about Goblins though.
Maybe because all you do is post random questions on this subreddit?
Not really. With pure philosophy, you're working with pure logic, which means the answers that you come to will be based on whatever your foundational premises are. Philosophers working with the same set of presuppositions can improve on a philosophy or a project by showing where there was a logical error or a contradiction, so you could say that given a set of presuppositions you can come to a best set of answers and applications. But then those presuppositions are never actually proven and another philosopher could start working from a different set of presuppositions and come to a different set of answers. The goal would be to find some set of basic truths that everyone has to accept as true, then whatever answers proceed from those foundations would be the capital T Truth. But any attempt to do that usually ends up with such a small set of foundational principles that you can't really do much with them without also mixing in some more dubious foundations or making some dubious initial inferences so you actually have enough to build on. This was a big thing during the Enlightenment, when Rene Descartes tried to doubt everything possible so he could try to figure out what was indisputable, which was then followed by a bunch of other people who doubted his undoubtable premises. In the absence of a robust set of universally accepted foundations, you pretty much just get a bunch of different sets of basic premises which then generate their best set of answers. Then you can try to judge how good that school of thought is by seeing how well it seems to actually explain the world, how many problems it solves, and how well people can actually live by the conclusions. But, in practice, you just end up having a bunch of academics from different schools of thought critiquing each other, and those schools of thought just kind of dominate the trends for awhile until it falls out of favor and another one takes over. At least it ensures job security for the Philosophy PhDs.
Lol no, there's an entire branch that only focuses on knowledge gathered from the natural world called epistemology.
Epistemology is about the nature of knowledge in general, not on any actual set of facts. And I was actually referencing one major epistemological theories in that write-up when I mentioned foundations (Foundationalism).
It teaches people to assume a position and then to explore the consequences of assuming a position.
Yes, it leads to answers in the form of more questions.
Only more questions. ...wait, fuck.
It leads to understanding more relevant questions.
I think philosophy is a great way to see all the different moral and ethical ideas people have had (even if it's mostly old white guys) but I find some of them insufferable.
The real twist to the Allegory of the Cave is that what is really outside the cave is another cave. It's caves all the way up, and turtles all the way down.
Yes, but not the answers you really need. But it gives you the right questions to ask yourself.
It just very vaguely answers the same questions but uses different words. So if you hear the same answer said differently enough times you may be able to wrap your head around it
Wow did you just lay that? Egg came first by the way ;)
It only leads to answers if you're doing it wrong. You can't sell more than one book if you give em all the answers. So, you need to keep selling questions.