Re: Re: Philosophy is FALSE!
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
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...
That is a true logical paradox, its is studied in logic. In logic every proposition must be either true or false, as the law of the excluded middle states, and this sentence can be none of them. Because of problems like this one, other kinds of logic called paraconsistent logics were created.
I dont know exactly where i stand on this issue but after thinking about it for a couple minutes the only thing that came to mind was this.
if you throw a guy into a fully developed society or country with a fully evolved government and system of life/lifestyle he is going to be trying to get used to it right? And after getting used to it and adjusting to this new lifestyle and way things work he will then try to survive in it. I.E. get a job, make money, buy a hosue, start a family, etc. Now, Until something happens to him in this new society he will more than likely feel neutral and subserving to the way things work. Right when he walks in the door his first thought isn't going to be, "well this is how things work sir", hes not going to say "oh, well dont you think that maybe they are lying to you?, or maybe that they are controlling your tv's radios, etc?"
No, thats not a right off the bat kind of thought you get as a human unless you go into this prepared or ready to question their way of life.
Now after he has been living in this pplace for some time and has adjusted and become one of them its all good. But the day that they do something to him, say maybe his kid gets in trouble at school for putting god in a paper he wrote, or asking why he has to do the pledge every day, because kids are curious and they ask questions. But when this happens and the mans emotions come into play that is when he will question. Nothing will come about until something stirs it. I mean philosphy couldnt have just been like, "hey dude, you think maybe, like, those guys never really went to the moon?" I would think that something would have to trigger it and it would be an emotion, because they do cause irrational thinking and thats what philosophy is in some peoples eyes. Irrational thinking.
If someone thinks about it and asks questions about it then they say they love it because they have to. Love, anger, emptiness, etc are what trigger the fetling to ask the questions so therefor they are going to say that they love it to replace what they really felt....
Just something to think about.
I like everyone's replies and I appreciate the responses. Please, I'am not trying to confuse nor turn this topic into a paradoxical puzzle. I'm just making an observation of the word Philosophy. And I as pointed out the word involves love and wisdom. Which I find to be opposites. Let me touch on this before continuing...
Originally posted by TheOne101
I dont know exactly where i stand on this issue but after thinking about it for a couple minutes the only thing that came to mind was this.
if you throw a guy into a fully developed society or country with a fully evolved government and system of life/lifestyle he is going to be trying to get used to it right? And after getting used to it and adjusting to this new lifestyle and way things work he will then try to survive in it. I.E. get a job, make money, buy a hosue, start a family, etc. Now, Until something happens to him in this new society he will more than likely feel neutral and subserving to the way things work. Right when he walks in the door his first thought isn't going to be, "well this is how things work sir", hes not going to say "oh, well dont you think that maybe they are lying to you?, or maybe that they are controlling your tv's radios, etc?"
No, thats not a right off the bat kind of thought you get as a human unless you go into this prepared or ready to question their way of life.
Now after he has been living in this pplace for some time and has adjusted and become one of them its all good. But the day that they do something to him, say maybe his kid gets in trouble at school for putting god in a paper he wrote, or asking why he has to do the pledge every day, because kids are curious and they ask questions. But when this happens and the mans emotions come into play that is when he will question. Nothing will come about until something stirs it. I mean philosphy couldnt have just been like, "hey dude, you think maybe, like, those guys never really went to the moon?" I would think that something would have to trigger it and it would be an emotion, because they do cause irrational thinking and thats what philosophy is in some peoples eyes. Irrational thinking.
If someone thinks about it and asks questions about it then they say they love it because they have to. Love, anger, emptiness, etc are what trigger the fetling to ask the questions so therefor they are going to say that they love it to replace what they really felt....
Just something to think about.
If you throw in a guy into a new society there are several things that could happen. Here are two that are most likely to happen.
One-He adopts to the enviorment and becomes part of the new society.
Two-Rejects the new society and seeks way to escape or persuade others to make changes.
If he is doing it out of love for his new society then that would be irrational and corrupt. He's imposing his feelings onto others. However, if he does it seeking a more rational and balance society. Then he does it for a more intellegent and advance society. When making changes in societies one must never do it out of love for his fellow man. He should do it for reasonable and logical balance for society.
It is understandble his love for his woman and child. But if he puts his family before the society....then we have at Tyrant. Society should come first. At least when you play the role of leader.
Kind of an FYI here...
Merriam-Webster says:
philosophy
Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)fE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarfphilo means love??? 😑
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? 😉
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Define good and evil. After that...give an argument why wisdom should be confined to just good and evil. Good luck. 😐
1. Good is generically considered positive, beneficial, in agreement with ethics and morality. Evil is juxtaposed to that; it's negative, harmful, and immoral. To get much more specific than that would require an argument that isn't one about wisdom or philosophy, but about good and evil. Save that for another thread.
2. All things are inherently either good or evil, and depending on which they gravitate towards, of a lesser or greater degree. There is nothing that is truly neutral- something will always be viewed as a positive or a negative by someone or something. However, keep in mind that the question of good and evil being assigned to things (Especially things outside of human social behavior... like, "Oh, this evil weather"😉 is completely subjective, and reflecting of the knowledge that the judge has of the object in question. So in a roundabout sense, wisdom does help would discriminate good from evil, but it does not neccessarily discern good and evil simply by being wisdom. It must be applied to something. Indeed, how could you ever have wisdom unless you had wisdom of something? Imagine a world where they hand out doctorates dedicated to the pursuit of nonspecific wisdom!
Originally posted by Janus Marius
1. Good is generically considered positive, beneficial, in agreement with ethics and morality. Evil is juxtaposed to that; it's negative, harmful, and immoral. To get much more specific than that would require an argument that isn't one about wisdom or philosophy, but about good and evil. Save that for another thread.2. All things are inherently either good or evil, and depending on which they gravitate towards, of a lesser or greater degree. There is nothing that is truly neutral- something will always be viewed as a positive or a negative by someone or something. However, keep in mind that the question of good and evil being assigned to things (Especially things outside of human social behavior... like, "Oh, this evil weather"😉 is completely subjective, and reflecting of the knowledge that the judge has of the object in question. So in a roundabout sense, wisdom does help would discriminate good from evil, but it does not neccessarily discern good and evil simply by being wisdom. It must be applied to something. Indeed, how could you ever have wisdom unless you had wisdom of something? Imagine a world where they hand out doctorates dedicated to the pursuit of nonspecific wisdom!
Your definition of good and evil consists of synonyms. You *have* to be more specific if you want to prove debbiejos argument for her.
e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that good is the exact opposite of evil by definition..... You don't think we need wisdom to discriminate between what is good and evil? Can we ever lack wisdom and make such a call? Can you sit there without a thought in your head and go "Dogs are good" and it be a rational and reasonably claim? Nope.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that good is the exact opposite of evil by definition..... You don't think we need wisdom to discriminate between what is good and evil? Can we ever lack wisdom and make such a call? Can you sit there without a thought in your head and go "Dogs are good" and it be a rational and reasonably claim? Nope.
That definition is again full of synonyms. It establishes what evil is in a subjective sense, but I was looking for it in an absolute sense. If you cannot establish good and evil in an absolute sense, then determining what is good and evil is entirely up to your own judgements like you said earlier. I suppose the act of doing this could be called wisdom, but then wisdom itself would have to be subjective. Whatever, Im confused. 😐
I dont quite understand your next points. Your telling me wisdom equals thought? Perhaps your confusing wisdom for plain rationalization? I see no reason why you couldnt determine if a dog is good or not(in a subjective sense) with just rationalization, perhaps wisdom would help increase the 'quality' of your opinion(though it is still subjective...) but I dont see why wisdom is essential.
Also you said earlier that nothing can be considered 'neutral'. Consider a rock, a simple rock, is it good or evil? Your reply should be interesting.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
That definition is again full of synonyms.
...
There ARE synonyms in the definition, yes. This is because those words must be used in the English language to accurately describe what good is (Assuming anyone who could read that definition didn't know), not because they are the same term.
Here...
dis·tant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dstnt)
adj.
Separate or apart in space.
Far removed; remote: distant lands.
Coming from or going to a distance: a distant sound; a distant telephone call.
Far removed or apart in time: the distant past; distant events.
Far apart in relationship: a distant cousin.
Minimally similar: a distant likeness.
Far removed mentally: distant thoughts.
Aloof or chilly: a distant smile.
How many synonyms do you find in that definition? Why do you suppose that is?
It establishes what evil is in a subjective sense, but I was looking for it in an absolute sense. If you cannot establish good and evil in an absolute sense, then determining what is good and evil is entirely up to your own judgements like you said earlier.
Good and evil are only objectively proven by a noble lie of sorts, from what I've studied. I haven't seen a compelling pure reason argument as to why anything is "evil" or "good" beyond how a person or culture feels about it. That's certainly not the answer I would have given you a few years ago, but it's all I have now.
I suppose the act of doing this could be called wisdom, but then wisdom itself would have to be subjective. Whatever, Im confused. 😐
I think you took Debbie too literally (Or perhaps I took her too generally)- what I believe she's saying is that wisdom helps us discriminate good from evil. As to what that good or that evil is, she doesn't say. And I'm agreeing with her in the sense that wisdom (a.k.a. knowledge) can definately help you discriminate things as good or bad. For example, lack of knowledge lends to stereotypes. However, having more knowledge might actually lead in some sort of understanding of the other party (Or perhaps of an object or creature within nature) and change how you perceive it, whether that be good or bad. Does that make sense now?
I dont quite understand your next points. Your telling me wisdom equals thought?
No, not at all. But you have to have some kind of knowledge to make any claims in the first place. You can have "partial wisdom" in that case. The term itself can be misleading because wisdom doesn't really denote when you reach it. It's not like "I know X amount of things about Y, therefore I am now wise." Even the term wisdom can be played with a bit. But what I'm saying is, you require some knowledge to make a claim, and in gaining wisdom you can make more thorough, discriminatory claims.
For example, when you were over a year old, could you see a shark and recognize it as bad? Probably not. However, as an adult, even if you haven't had a bad encounter with one, you have the knowledge that they are dangerous, and perhaps you will judge them as bad because of that. Or perhaps you're demented and you like being bitten. Then it's good. Either way, wisdom and knowledge have had an impact on your discrimination.
Perhaps your confusing wisdom for plain rationalization?
No, I wouldn't make that kind of mistake. It's not that late in the evening and I have been sober for a long time.
I see no reason why you couldnt determine if a dog is good or not(in a subjective sense) with just rationalization, perhaps wisdom would help increase the 'quality' of your opinion(though it is still subjective...) but I dont see why wisdom is essential.
Initially? Perhaps not. I will agree to that. You can make base claims and unsupported claims without wisdom. But you cannot make binding claims until you have some knowledge under your belt. At least, not in clear conscience.
Also you said earlier that nothing can be considered 'neutral'. Consider a rock, a simple rock, is it good or evil? Your reply should be interesting.
Ah, easy.
Person A comes up walking and slips on the simple rock, breaking his shin. He curses the rock, calling it bad.
Person B comes along, picks up the rock, and decides to research its location and composition. This person finds it a good thing.
In both cases, the rock was assigned a value when it was observed, and that value was either good or bad, and to a lesser or greater degree. Even the most "blah, it's there" rock can be viewed as good in that it's not say, causing harm. Indeed, you could even be perverse about it and see the rock as bad at the same time because it isn't made of gold. So there's always values attached to things, good and bad.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
...There ARE synonyms in the definition, yes. This is because those words must be used in the English language to accurately describe what good is (Assuming anyone who could read that definition didn't know), not because they are the same term.
Here...
dis·tant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dstnt)
adj.Separate or apart in space.
Far removed; remote: distant lands.
Coming from or going to a distance: a distant sound; a distant telephone call.
Far removed or apart in time: the distant past; distant events.
Far apart in relationship: a distant cousin.
Minimally similar: a distant likeness.
Far removed mentally: distant thoughts.
Aloof or chilly: a distant smile.How many synonyms do you find in that definition? Why do you suppose that is?
Good and evil are only objectively proven by a noble lie of sorts, from what I've studied. I haven't seen a compelling pure reason argument as to why anything is "evil" or "good" beyond how a person or culture feels about it. That's certainly not the answer I would have given you a few years ago, but it's all I have now.
I think you took Debbie too literally (Or perhaps I took her too generally)- what I believe she's saying is that wisdom helps us discriminate good from evil. As to what that good or that evil is, she doesn't say. And I'm agreeing with her in the sense that wisdom (a.k.a. knowledge) can definately help you discriminate things as good or bad. For example, lack of knowledge lends to stereotypes. However, having more knowledge might actually lead in some sort of understanding of the other party (Or perhaps of an object or creature within nature) and change how you perceive it, whether that be good or bad. Does that make sense now?
No, not at all. But you have to have some kind of knowledge to make any claims in the first place. You can have "partial wisdom" in that case. The term itself can be misleading because wisdom doesn't really denote when you reach it. It's not like "I know X amount of things about Y, therefore I am now wise." Even the term wisdom can be played with a bit. But what I'm saying is, you require some knowledge to make a claim, and in gaining wisdom you can make more thorough, discriminatory claims.
For example, when you were over a year old, could you see a shark and recognize it as bad? Probably not. However, as an adult, even if you haven't had a bad encounter with one, you have the knowledge that they are dangerous, and perhaps you will judge them as bad because of that. Or perhaps you're demented and you like being bitten. Then it's good. Either way, wisdom and knowledge have had an impact on your discrimination.
No, I wouldn't make that kind of mistake. It's not that late in the evening and I have been sober for a long time.
Initially? Perhaps not. I will agree to that. You can make base claims and unsupported claims without wisdom. But you cannot make binding claims until you have some knowledge under your belt. At least, not in clear conscience.
Ah, easy.
Person A comes up walking and slips on the simple rock, breaking his shin. He curses the rock, calling it bad.
Person B comes along, picks up the rock, and decides to research its location and composition. This person finds it a good thing.
In both cases, the rock was assigned a value when it was observed, and that value was either good or bad, and to a lesser or greater degree. Even the most "blah, it's there" rock can be viewed as good in that it's not say, causing harm. Indeed, you could even be perverse about it and see the rock as bad at the same time because it isn't made of gold. So there's always values attached to things, good and bad.
Okay your more clear to me now. I will try to make my points clear as well.
-Debbiejo said 'The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil'.
-What I originally wanted was an absolute definition of good and evil....I never expected anyone to come up with one.
-Since good and evil are not objective values, they are judgemental human values that cant properly apply to everything. Like say...mathematics, could apply to everything since it is an objective value. Good and evil however, doesnt exist beyond what applies to its subjective nature.
-Thus my question of what is a rock: good or evil? You cant properly apply good and evil to it because it is not within its realm of meaning. Your hypothetical situation is false(in my view, feel free to prove me wrong) because it uses outside meanings beyond the inherent concept of the rock to explain its inherent good or evil. For example, Gandhi would be considered good because it is within our concept of him that he is an altruist...the rock however is just a rock, nothing at all within its inherent concept to suggest good or evil tendencies. You would need to put it in a circumstance outside of its central meaning, to make it seem 'good' or 'evil'. Simply put, its natural state is alien to both good and evil and therefore neutral.
-So then wisdom cant be simply confined to the 'function of discriminating between good and evil' because there are other meanings that are beyond good and evils judgemental realm of meaning, and wisdom is the ability to discern any qualities or relationships... 'Insight'. Wisdom has a wider scope than just discriminating between good and evil.
-Another example... lets say there are two rocks lieing out on a river bed. Using wisdom, you could discern relationships between the two...which is bigger for instance. This has nothing to do with good and evil, so again, wisdom is beyond good and evil.
I agree ofcourse that wisdom can help discriminate between good and evil, in a subjective sense, however that is only one of many functions.