The Prog Mind

So I came to this site because I love progressive rock and after reading this thread all I listen to is Hip Hop!  

Edited by Larree - May 22 2013 at 14:50

Scientifically based philosophy is highly educational. Esoteric / Theological philsophy is not. This dichotomy basically plays out that Science > Humanities period.

Dean wrote: wilmon91 wrote: Another thing was that magnetism was seen by physicists as ”the property of a single metal”, while Schelling had presented it as ”a necessary category of matter” - later experiments by a french physicist proved him right. You're going to have to be a lot more specific on the magnetism thing... are you talking about "spin"? - if so, no, he didn't. I suspect he was talking of other forms of attraction that he simply called "magnetism" because magnets attract - this analogous naming convention was common in the 19th century.

refugee wrote: I’m sure you know that Kant’s project was both to provide a philosophical foundation for Newton’s ideas and to fight off the moral relativism of Hume. I don’t know if he really succeeded, but at least he gave it a try.

Well sure, I was always under the impression that it was Newton's science that influenced Kant's philosophy. Which gives a clear example of the horse leading the cart (which is what I've been saying all along).

refugee wrote: For once I have to disagree with you, my dear old Queen … oops, sorry, my queer old Dean.

moshkito wrote:     Top Ten is a form of brainwashing ... or control by a system ... but you don't see that?

^ That's a great one for the likes of the girl standing in front of the map - Ms. Amy Farrah Fowler.

Larree wrote: Dean wrote:   Philosophy is looking more like the thief of ideas rather than their creator. Bettah sue philosophy for copyright infringement!

Right. Let's be dumbass motherf$%kers without referring to our heads as the processors and holders of database.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - May 19 2013 at 22:55

Dean wrote:   Philosophy is looking more like the thief of ideas rather than their creator.

Sorry, pretty long...

Dean wrote: Ethics is not a product of philosophy,

Dean wrote: I posit that values and ethics came first, ad hoc and then formal Philosophy followed.

Ethics is a part of philosophy though, as a matter of fact. How do you describe or indulge in ethics if not with philosophical arguments?? Your idea of philosophy is in need of being revised.

Dean wrote: wisdom is not a product of philosophy. Philosophy (though it pains me to say it) is a use of knowledge and the use of knowledge is indeed wisdom, but there are other uses of knowledge that can be called wisdom that are not philosophy so they are not synonymous. You can teach philosophy but cannot teach wisdom, you can only teach knowledge. Application of knowledge by rote is not wisdom, application of philosophy by rote is not wisdom.

No, wisdom must be the product of (good) philosophy, knowledge and a harmonic way of life (for example including meditation). It should aso be dependent on a pure soul, because that's were the true motivations come from. Philosophy means someone who loves wisdom, if you already possessed it you wouldn't need philosophy. You search for wisdom (knowledge, insights understanding) by engaging in philosophy (thinking, reasoning) with the aim of understanding. Books on philosophy are the product of intellectual or logical reasoning , and may in turn produce incomplete philosophical systems with ideas that aren't fully explained - so it isn't necessarily the product of knowledge.

Dean wrote: Older philosophy was a far broader palette than anything since the 17th century yet they still presented theory and counter-theory to describe the same event. The foundations of modern society (in terms of laws and ethics) is rooted in the ancient philosophies even though we didn't get specific ethics or laws from them.

Yes. So how can you disregard philosophy when realizing that the civilization is based in human philosophical ideas?

Dean wrote:     Yup and nope. Everyone has a philosophy (or two or five), those philosophies are not a product of Philosophy per sey. If people change their philosophy it is through experience and the acquision of knowledge, we learn we grow we change. That change occurs and is recognised as a different philosophy, it did not occur because they read a Philosopher and wanted to adopt that Philosophy, it just affirmed what they already arrived at.

Yes but what you are saying explains that there is a value to philosophy, because it is valuable (or crucial) to learn from experience. But people in general prefer practical examples before abstract philosophy. You could watch a movie or read a book about someones misfortunes and overcoming obstacles and maybe learn something from it. Philosophy, instead of telling stories, focus on general main principles in abstract form. It's a more intelectual approach to everything that has to do with existence. So if you at any time feel that you have learned from an experience and changed as a person, you could write down what you learned in general terms, and that will be philosophy. Personal philosophical ideas and philosophical books are about the same thing.

Dean wrote:   Back on topic, Taoism is a common source of Prog lyrics, even when distilled through A.A. Milne (Mansun and Genesis for example).

Nice. And Howard Jones has a song called ”Is there a difference?” which ripped off a Lao Tzu verse, just a few words changed, His 80's albums have philosophical lyrics, basic advice like ”don't crack up, bend your brain, see both sides, throw off your mental chains”.

Dean wrote: There is a mass of human knowledge that we have forgotten over the ages, whether by accident or design, progress has stalled on many occasions because of someone's philosophical idealism. Today we look back at the achievements of antiquity with awe because we have forgotten the knowledge that produced them. .

The loss of valuable knowledge is most probably due to wars and violence (you want to blame that on philosophy too!?). Many traditions were kept alive by transferring them orally through generations, rather than writing them down. There is that indian wisdom , I forgot he name, which is not available in writing, but actually half of it is available, half is only told. Yes we shouldn' t underestimate the ancient people. Yet in school you are taught that people believed the earth was the center of the universe, that it was flat, they were superstitious, burning witches etc. In other words, they were stupid, and in our modern times with modern science we are more advanced in all respects.  But our times are extremely materialistic, we only believe in tangible things.

Dean wrote: it is this ambiguity that causes concern since no society really embarks on an endeavour believing they are doing a "bad thing" when their philosophy says it's a "good thing". A philosophy does not have to have a diametric opposite when it contains the capability of having opposing interpretations applied to it. .

But societies aren't ruled by philosophers, it has mostly been ruled by people hungry for power. Bad leaders don't care about philosophy. They control the people and think they own the country. When you cheat with the votes during an election, it's not part of a philosophy that says it's right to cheat. But they have to justify their actions somehow - with excuses , not philosophy.

Dean wrote: I'm not a materialist.

That's nice.

Dean wrote: Positing a testable hypothesis is not Philosophy, that is positing an untestable one, theoretical physists are not philosophers (and vice versa).

What i meant was that philosophical ideas may give rise to hypotheses regarding the material nature, which can be tested. The philosopher  Friedrich von Schelling , if I understood correctly, predicted the existence of Pallas, which he thought was a planet, but turned out to be a a moon. It was later discovered by someone else by using a telescope.Another thing was that magnetism was seen by physicists as ”the property of a single metal”, while Schelling had presented it as ”a necessary category of matter” - later experiments by a french physicist proved him right.