The Prog Mind

Edited by Earendil - May 18 2013 at 21:48

I know, it's really tempting not to give a piece of mind.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - May 18 2013 at 21:21

wilmon91 wrote: But to say that it is all worthless is to admit ”I don't understand it because there is nothing to understand”, which also is a lot of people's unfortunate opinion on abstract art.

No it isn't, but that's a brave attempt to put words in my mouth anyway. I never said I don't understand it. I can understand something and still believe it to be worthless, in fact I would say that is a prerequisite. Fortunately my opinion of abstract art is not the same as "a lot of people's".

Dean wrote: Philosophy is a waste of a mind.

Dean wrote: In its basic form, philosophy does nothing and gives us nothing, it has never produced anything of value, for every philosophical thought there is an counter train of thought that states the opposite view. .

Dean wrote: We are all arrogant

Very radical statements...very questionable..or downright absurd. Philosophy is related to a lot of things, but take first our conscience. Each person has an idea of what is right and wrong, it's a part of philosophy called ethics and is of course relevant because it affects our decisions and how we treat each other. A society is ruled by politics, which deals with all kinds of decisions about how money is distributed and so on, and it is all dependent on moral values. To discuss the grounds of those values you engage in philosophical debate. If you take away philosophy, you can never get to the bottom of how any person justifies any descision or opinion. Would that make things clearer? How do you picture an ideal society? Are discussions of right and wrong irrelevant? Then it must also be irrelevant who is ruling the society and how. Dictatorship, democracy? It's all irrelevant?

If we exchange the word ”philosophy” with ”wisdom” from the above quotes, you are saying the same thing, only it looks more ridiculous. Wisdom is one product of philosophy. But thought alltogether doesn't have a set moral value, it can be driven by good or evil, and that is human nature. You can't blame evil on religion, philosophy or any concept, it always originates within the human. What you are really opposing is the human intellect.

Your idea on philosophy seems to focus on philosophers around the 19th century, who produced theories and counter-theories along  the methods of science. But philosophy is a product of the human intellect ever since humans began thinking beyond the intellectual limitations of animals. Older philosophy is more wisdom-oriented. Modern society rests on a foundation of philosophy,  a system based on values and laws. Do you want a society without laws? How do you form laws without ethics?

Whether people are into philosophy or not they will always live according to some form of philosophy.  In all societies different things motivate people. In western society ,many are driven towards goals formed out of ideas of ”happiness” and self-realization. Not seldom people are fooling themselves, for example neither money or fame will automatically lead to happiness.Philosophy is what can help people find out what is really meaningful, to become more openminded, and not judging things too quickly and so on.

The 6th century philosopher Lao Tzu has great quotes, you can search the internet, I have never seen a quote by him that is less than great. And of course there are no ”counter-theories” to his philosophy because he is not an 19th century philosopher. Such quotes may challenge your own ideas, and you consider them, and some philosophical thinking ensues in your head.

Take away human intellect and  we will be like other wild animals in nature. Homo Sapiens were more primitive 50000 years ago, as we know. There were no philosophy. If you still want to keep the intellect, but get rid of philosophy, how can people work together in common projects if you can't form and agree upon ideas that explains the purpose and meaning and fairness of things? No values and no ethics, yet you think it's gonna work by itself . Because by saying that philosophy is the problem and the cause of all bad things (religion, politics, etc) you imply that by taking away philosophy we will also get rid of the problem (and maybe humans would cease to be ”arrogant”???) But then society couldn't exist.

Dean wrote: Since Aristotle's time we have managed to separate out the disciplines of Science, Philosophy and Alchemy - one of these permits the major advances we have experience, one of them we have discarded as charlatan, the other hangs on by the skin of its teeth because...

Modern chemistry is formed out of alchemy. Chemical processes has been experimented with by humans for thousands of years. People created bronze by making an alloy of copper and tin, 2000 BC. In the recent 200 years we have gained more knowledge about the constituents of matter, different particles, and corrected old misconceptions. The point is that we shouldn't disregard older knowledge and it's part in modern science.

Dean wrote: Philosophy has never figured anything out and I honestly don't expect that it ever will, the process of looking for the answer is not the goal.

Philosophy asks questions regarding everything unknown, the existence and the human nature, and to gain understanding. Humans occupy an extremely little space in the universe and have existed for an extremely limited time in the history of time. To accuse philosophy for lacking answers shows impatience, and makes me wonder - what philosophy have you read? Have you read all books? And what alternative source can provide the truth about the history of the universe and everything unknown about human consciusness etc? It's like saying "Thinking sucks, I want answers!". Slightly impatient..

So, is science going to answer these questions instead? If yes, only in a limited way that don't describe the reality, only material characteristics of it. It cannot describe emotions, experiences, psychological or spiritual stuff. And it is reasonable because everything in the scientific sphere has to follow the methodology and the rules. That doesn't mean that everyone should limit their thinking to facts established within the scientific sphere. That wouldn't be fair to the human intellect.

If you are a materialist, then the only results that count will be materialistic: objects, mechanical solutions etc. Philosophy will always be about ideas and values. So, are insights useless? Saying that all philosophy, religion and mysticism lack insights would be the same as saying that insights does not exist, or that they are useless.

If you think philosophy is inferior to other sciences because it is theoretical and can't produce evidence based on material observations and calculations, then you disregard our relation to the unknown, ignore big unanswered questions about existence, values, morals and what can be deemed as meaningful. You also ignore the concept of reasoning. I think philosophy goes hand in hand with other sciences, because it has to be about expanding human knowledge. Asking a question can be a big step forward. Then you may form a hypothesis. If possible, test it with experiments and form a theory. Then you have gone from a philosophical concept to a scientific one. But it's a work in progress, and one philosophers system can be further developed by someone else.

Of course their are intellectuals who like to get entangled in complex philosophical arguments just for the sake of it, to prove that they have been right all along, or to just show that they belong to the academical world. The only one to judge if a philosophy seems sensible and on the right track, is yourself.

But to say that it is all worthless is to admit ”I don't understand it because there is nothing to understand”, which also is a lot of people's unfortunate opinion on abstract art.

Dayvenkirq wrote: One banana and a mug of sugared tea is not a good breakfast ... unless you have to go to work at Macy's. progbethyname wrote: I've noticed that a lot of music lyrics can sound like really good or bad proverbs. I don't know what you mean by that. Could you please rephrase it?

There is no such thing as bad weather, only the wrong clothes.

Dayvenkirq wrote: The T wrote: False. We could still have music, history, and all the rest without philosophy. All the rest have an specific objective/purpose/matter/whatever. Only philosophy concerns itself with answering unanswerable questions. History tells us what happened. Music entertains us. So does poetry. Philosophy asks obvious questions and poses no real answers. I'm not seeing the connection you make. Music, history, poetry, is the here and the now (or "then" in history). Philosophy is the "what the hell". What? You do know that epistemology, politics, and other things (Google them) are branches of philosophy, right? That said, philosophy has anything and everything to do with science and politics. Also, what is this with people telling each other what is true and what is false? Like they know better, like they know what is objectively true or false. What are we, on Jeopardy? Are we taking an exam? Now let's quit rambling about philosophy and get

Thank god at least one of us had a good breakfast this morning.

I've noticed that a lot of music lyrics can sound like really good or bad proverbs.

Dean wrote: Because when the sun shines, we'll shine together, told you I'll be here forever, said I'll always be your friend, oceans drifting sideways, I am pulled into the spell, I feel you around me, I know you well, took an oath, I'll stick it out to the end. Stars slice horizons where the lines stand much too stark; Now that it's raining more than ever. I feel I am drowning - hands stretch in the dark, know that we'll still have each other, you can stand under my umbrella.   makes yer think?

Gerinski wrote: Dean wrote: Gerinski wrote: There's no clear line defining what is philosophy, we can move from the 'hard philosophy' ('are mathematics discovered or invented?' kind of stuff) all the way to just the writings of clever and educated thinkers. Some may say that writers such as Borges or Saramago are more philosophers than fiction writers, their stories always have some message, some deeper meaning, they are written so as to make the reader think about something (not that I'm any expert BTW). Are 'thinkers' useful to society? I think so, they may not have invented or developed any technological device, but so long as they make people think, that's already a good enough product. That's all well and good, but does it transpire in the lyric of a song when the lyricist distills that into a paraphrased summary that is itself cloaked in poetic symbolism?  As with everything there are degrees, maybe no rock lyricist deserves being called a profound thinker, but there's no reason why there couldn't be one, and even if on moderate levels, if they make some young (or not so young) people think about some stuff, it's a bit better than your typical pop hit lyrics.