The Nature Of Philosophy

[SubmissMe]

It seems that posts on philosophy have grown sparse lately - mainly due to the fact there are many people listening and not enough speaking.

So I ask, what is the primary function of philosophy?

Should we take the approach that philosophy should branch into all trees of learning? Do you take the Wittgenstein approach that "The World is all that is the case" and "Whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent"? Or do you take Ayer's line of approach that philosophy is simply "the handmaiden of science"?

So I ask you all, what is the use of philosophy?

[CuriousG]

Philosophy has no use. It was invented by the Greeks to avoid jobs with heavy lifting.

j/k.

Philosophy can help us understand ourselves and our actions, and allow us to come to an informed decision on how we should conduct ourselves. In other words, it's sort of like religion without all the weird stuff.

[goldragon_70]

I would like to see more member post on the forums, period.

[SubmissMe]

Well philosophy is a vast subject area, and it is hard to find a subject that appeals to all palates. I hate the fact that on this site there are a few speakers, but many many listeners.

Translated philosophy means philosophy in ancient Greek.

How many people here feel philosophy is still a useful component in a modern world?

[aeroue]

It's the search for truth.

IMO

But it is still useful.
Democracy is a philosophy.
Philosophy encompassed morality which surely will always be needed.
Religion is also part of philosophy, although we are getting more and more secular it is still significant.

But still philosophy is so much more than just government, morality and religion.

With such a vast spectrum im pretty sure philosophy will always have a role.

[SubmissMe]

But Wittgenstein and Kant both maintain the view that language is ill equiped to converse and articulate metaphysical matters. Is this really the case or is it a get-out close?

[nuit09]

But Wittgenstein and Kant both maintain the view that language is ill equiped to converse and articulate metaphysical matters. Is this really the case or is it a get-out close?

In my own study i have learned that it nearly impossible to completely convey a metaphysical experience. I speak here of my night hagging incident in Germany and my 'mental work" for my PK experiments. if this is nearly impossible imagine how much moreso it would be to verbally convey a metaphysical grand principal accurately in terms that completely transfer all of it to another's mind.

No matter how i try no matter the eloquence, no matter the technical care i cannot put into words adequately the reason's i do not believe what happened to me was merely "Hallucination brought on by anomolous REM related somatic paralysis while aware." I cannot describe the experience itself fully. That is words are inadequate forthe task.

i can give approximations of bits of the experience that approach closer or not to what transpired and this may or may not allow conversation with some degree of mutual understanding on the subject. But it never allows full total comprehension between the conversants. whether i am trying to convey something i experienced or believe or trying to understand something someone else experienced or believes.

This also applies to a lesser degree to any experience. we are prisoners of our senses. everything we experience comes to us in the form of sensory data that is interpreted by sections of our brain, and if we then talk about it it is sent to other portions of our brain, transmitted to an output device most likely the mouth or in this medium the fingers...

We cannot be sure red is red. we cannot be sure the red i see is the red you do. there is no way to prove it. and if you think that what i have just said is wrong then you need to read up on neurology and how the brain processes what we see.

the brain takes two separate upside down images; interprets them as rightside up, merges them, encodes the missing bits from damaged portions of the retina and from data comression algorithyms processes the images for data needed for survival or performing tasks in progress, or likely upcoming tasks, performs a host of operations at diverse portions of the brain then this is sent to a central processor so you consciouness can act on it approriately.

The brain of course is grown from specialized cells and those cells connect uniquely in each brain as it is built. the connections depend on how the brain originally grew and from connections made over a lifetime of experiences and incidents. everything my brain processes is processed differently than how it is processed in any other human's brain. there are of course more or less similarities at larger and larger scales. but at the small scale we all do it differently. what we interpret as red and call red; it is quite possibly not what you see as exactly red. and we might not know because what ever you see you might call it red too. experienced two different ways meaning two different things. and these are things that for all practical purposes we hold in common. what about communicating things we don't?

[SubmissMe]

Whilst we cannot be sure our reds are the same, we can't even be sure that the floor won't just cave in at any moment. We rely on probabilities.

But even if the red I see and the red you see are different in terms of type, they fall under the same token of the word red and so are just different types of the same token. :P

Colours are ambigouos, and the deep red I see may fall under the category of magenta to you. But whilst they have different colours, they still fall under the category red.

Confusing? God yes. But then type token identity isn't exactly poofs and giggles anyway. I could give a better analogy that doesn't involve colours but I can't be bothered. :wink:

[goldragon_70]

But Wittgenstein and Kant both maintain the view that language is ill equiped to converse and articulate metaphysical matters. Is this really the case or is it a get-out close?

In some cases, it's like you have volumes of information, in another language, and there is so much, that you don't know were to begin with translating, much less relating. Then in other cases, it's like having an emotion that doesn't exists and there is not way to define it.

[SubmissMe]

Well I think it's a bit of a cop out.....

[Agriff]

It's true that as humans we cannot express our emotions to the fullest degree. I myself have problems with it, as I am by no means articulate. Thats why I like the internet, because I can think about what I want to say before I say it. If I tried to do that in a normal conversation, the person I was talking to would get pissed off at me.

Poetry is an art that tries to pinpoint emotions to a better degree than normal speaking would be able to accomplish, but its still not by any means perfect. Thats why we have the expression "Words connot describe....".

Emotions are chemical reactions happening in the brain, and thousands are happening all the time. One particular emotion can be pinpointed to the chemicals in your brain at that time and the ratio of chemical to chemical, but you have no way of letting another person know what that combination feels like, only you do.

There are thousands of emotions that we feel everyday, its just that as a society we tend to group them into larger categories.

[SubmissMe]

you have no way of letting another person know what that combination feels like, only you do.

Yes it's called privilaged access.

[yaar]

It is the search for answers which can never be truly justified. It may seem in some sense a vain search, but reasoning about things like your existence, the nature of morality, and other things (even if you never find an answer) can truly lead to an enriched life.

[Geist]

In simple terms, it's mental masturbation.

[mai]

Its thinking that, despite its complexity, can not be avoided. Metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical ideas are contained in almost any meaningful statement. "How should we deal with pedophiles?" for example touches on the issue of Free Will, on where ethics come from ultimately and other such areas.

I find people get the idea its "useless" or "mental masturbation" because they want philosophy to be as cut and dry as the sciences. Which is idiotic. Look at things like String Theory, General Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics and tell me science is as straight forward as is normally claimed. Not to mention the fact that everything we consider basic are themselves philosophical ideas as arbitrary as any other, including the sciences.

Sigh. I could rant for hours.

[stephiebaby]

"So I ask, what is the primary function of philosophy?"

To think, to learn, to understand. To examine new discoveries , their uses and their impact on humanity. To examine the human condition. Which is why religion is not philosophy, and never really has been. Philosophy today is the domain of scifi and science.

Of course not all people see philosophy as such a useful tool, some reduce it to reinforcement of childhood indoctrinations, or examination of ancient fairytales, or turing it into a competition to ask the most useless questions imaginable (I've seen a uni course like this, and it was impossible for students to fail).

""How should we deal with pedophiles?" for example touches on the issue of Free Will, on where ethics come from ultimately and other such areas."

Free will? Are you kidding? The issues this question touches on are; living in a society, psychosocial development in young people, whether predatory behaviour can be removed from a predator. It is about reality, not religion. Talking about gods, free will and where ethics comes from (ethics come from social agreements) is ultimately useless and is about peoples internal fear, ignorance and desire, not about pedophiles, dealing with them, or philosophy.

"I find people get the idea its "useless" or "mental masturbation" because they want philosophy to be as cut and dry as the sciences. "

I find people call philosophy useless or mental masturbation because of the people who try to make it about religion, or ancient supserstitions, or asking completely useless questions.