Philosophy is FALSE!

Don't mean to go all Lexicon on you guys but....

The term philosophy comes from the ancient Greek word "Öéëïóïößá" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom".

How can you love wisdom? You don't love wisdom...you seek wisdom. Love has nothing to do with it! Have we been deceived? I though the idea behind the word was "reasoning and argument"?

Comments? 😉

define love please...

Love is an emotion. And Emotions lead to irrational thinking. Wisdom is not irrational thinking. Therefore....to love Wisdom is a contradiction.

"Love of wisdom", love (passion) and wisdom (knowledge, understanding). Philosophy must ultimately derive from some passion for the ultimate goal... wisdom. For the Greeks, it wasn’ t simply a matter of acquiring an understanding of the nature of life. Rather, it also included any exercise of intelligence or curiosity. Thus, any effort to find out more about a topic involves the attempt to expand or exercise sophia.

Storm, there can be no passions nor love. All that leads to irrational thinking. Which contradict the very essence of Wisdom.

Even those who commit themselves to repress their passions in favor of reason, that too must stem from a passion - in this case, a passion for reason.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Storm, there can be no passions nor love. All that leads to irrational thinking. Which contradict the very essence of Wisdom.

"Love"
1 definition would be....
get pleasure from; "I love cooking"

You can't actually Make "love" to cooking.. or be in "love" with cooking.. But you can really enjoy cooking..

So if I replace it as "get pleasure from wisdom" then it would be ok, no??

Love has several meanings really....

Indeed, love has many meanings. However Wisdom has only one. And that is the ability to make correct judgments and decisions. Love blocks such abilities if they involved something personal. Which can cause a fault. In wisdom there are no faults.

To clarify, I'm not claiming to know what wisdom is nor do I want to make love look like mindless blind thinking. Just pointing out that Wisdom and Love cannot be connected to a certain level of thinking.

the quote isn't;
philosophy; "making Wise choices while in love"
Its
philosophy: "love of wisdom" as in "enjoy talking/writing/thinking about wisdom"

I don't get why your trying to turn the quote around....

Why can´t I love wisdom ? I like to know things.

There is no contradiction between love, and wisdom. You are assuming that wisdom have to be rationalist. Rationalism would conflict with love, but not wisdom. Maybe it would be wise to take these "irrational" emotions in consideration when making a jugment.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Why can´t I love wisdom ? I like to know things.

There is no contradiction between love, and wisdom. You are assuming that wisdom have to be rationalist. Rationalism would conflict with love, but not wisdom. Maybe it would be [B]wise to take these "irrational" emotions in consideration when making a jugment. [/B]

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Why can´t I love wisdom ? I like to know things.

There is no contradiction between love, and wisdom. You are assuming that wisdom have to be rationalist. Rationalism would conflict with love, but not wisdom. Maybe it would be [B]wise to take these "irrational" emotions in consideration when making a jugment. [/B]

Knowing things and loving things are very different. To allow irrational emotions to govern in a judgement would only cloud the thinking. You can only view these irrational emotions as an outsider. Otherwise you may sympathise and thus not make a rational decision. One should never connect himself/herself with irrational emotions while making a judgment. Even a judge in a court of law is expected to be indepedant and also neutral.

It's not really a matter of irrational emotions; more the pursuit of knowledge for pleasure. It's not really a clash of conflicting ideals.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Knowing things and loving things are very different. To allow irrational emotions to govern in a judgement would only cloud the thinking. You can only view these irrational emotions as an outsider. Otherwise you may sympathise and thus not make a rational decision. One should never connect himself/herself with irrational emotions while making a judgment. Even a judge in a court of law is expected to be indepedant and also neutral.

What is really being discussed is if rationalism is right.

I think that emotions are so fundamental that they can´t be really eliminated, even in a court. What makes one believe that something someone did was right or wrong ? Our feelings, opinions, perspectives of what right or wrong is. If you eliminate your feelings then you can´t judge if one action was right or wrong, you only will be applying the laws of our government.

There is no sympathise thing, everyone sympathises with one concept or another. Of course emotions can bring bad results if you are not wise enough, but wisdom results from its proper use.

What make the criteria that you are using to judge, right ? Our own feelings about it.

"Philo" does not mean love in the way you use it there, WD. It means love as an 'an interest in', like a book lover or film lover. It doesn't mean an irrational attachment.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Storm, there can be no passions nor love. All that leads to irrational thinking. Which contradict the very essence of Wisdom.

There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom!

This sentence is false.

Figure that one out.

Originally posted by Mindship
This sentence is false.

Figure that one out.

That can´t be solved, it is a nice example of a true logical paradox.

Originally posted by Mindship
This sentence is false.

Figure that one out.

Grammer and spelling are ok.. so the actual sentence is true. But the information contained in the sentence tells us that the value of the sentence is false... they are 2 separate issues... disguised as one.

a bit like the number 0, all the positive numbers represent an actual value of something... But 0 has no value... How can something not have a value but be given a name?

suppose that was a waste of time...