|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cmxc
Joined: 19 May 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:13 pm Post subject: Monty Python's Bruce's Philosophers Song |
 |
|
I majored in Philosophy in college.
I even wrote a thesis on moral responsibility and free will, and graduated with honors.
Fortunately I found that intensely studying philosophy doesn't really provide any satisfactory answers to the fundamental questions. That's why people still puzzle over the same questions they did thousands of years ago.
Here is a great song that I always think about when I think about philosophy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
le-paul
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its funny you should say that because I was watching a discussion the other day between two prominent scientists, one British and one American. The question on the usefulness of philosophy came up and the American scientist commented that he believed it wasnt needed anymore in the world except for discussing politics occasionally but mostly for religion.
I always though people were drawn to it because there aren't any real answers. You can in effect, just argue and argue without ever really needing to know anything, just be belligerent or arrogant enough to want to support your own opinions for hours on end. You don't need any facts at all really, so your knowledge base doesn't need to be updated and you can also base your opinions on mere observation - fantastic!
Its about as far from scientific or mathematics as you can get.
Anyway, I didnt study philosophy so what do I know... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
I always though people were drawn to it because there aren't any real answers. |
What makes you think there's no real answers? Because people disagree? People disagree about whether or not America successfully visited the moon, does that mean there's no right answer? Of course not. Philosophic concerns tend to be more subtle than that, but the same underlying principle applies. Truth isn't a democracy; people being unable to reach consensus doesn't imply there is no fact of the matter.
| le-paul wrote: |
| You can in effect, just argue and argue without ever really needing to know anything, just be belligerent or arrogant enough to want to support your own opinions for hours on end. You don't need any facts at all really, so your knowledge base doesn't need to be updated and you can also base your opinions on mere observation - fantastic! |
With enough belligerence and arrogance you can go on national television and tell us fracking isn't causing earthquakes, or that we don't need to do anything about climate change because it's not happening, or so forth as well. I don't think that you'd consider that to be particularly damning against the physical sciences, though, because the purpose of the physical sciences isn't winning arguments with belligerent people. Here's the thing, though: that's not the purpose of philosophy either. Why, then, should this be deemed a problem for philosophy?
| le-paul wrote: |
| Its about as far from scientific or mathematics as you can get. |
I don't see an immense fundamental difference between a mathematician using logic to produce a numeric proof and a philosopher using logic to write out a formal argument, beyond perhaps the fact that the relative simplicity of numers as compared to the details of human life causes numeric logic requires far fewer assumptions, which means the proofs tend to be far less controversial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
le-paul
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Fox"]
| le-paul wrote: |
I always though people were drawn to it because there aren't any real answers. |
You said;
'What makes you think there's no real answers?'.
Because there two types of questions in the world, questions that can answered by an approach to testing or questions where the answer can be guessed (theres maybe another category that can be answered by pure, willing ignorance and that requests this from the outset). There are occasionally (Ill use your examples of moon ladings and fracking) questions that cannot be answered because the information needed to make a conclusion, isnt and will arguably never be, available to the general public - however they fit into the first category. It just happens that its not possible to prove/disprove because the information is difficult to view.
Facts are regularly found to be false or the data has changed. In these cases, if there is an available team/person to update the information, it will be updated and the facts changed. It is common knowledge these days that we live in an age of people who have learned most of what they have by word of mouth and myth. Religion and the internet have contributed to this massively. It could be argued that philosophy also does this as it does nothing to test theories scientifically.
You said;
'Philosophic concerns tend to be more subtle than that'.
Im assuming before I go ahead that you mean questions like 'What is morality?', ?.
There are sciences (however weak or actually 'scientific' they may occasionally be) that attempt to answer questions like this for example psychology, sociology. Once you start moving away from anything that can be proved or disproved with any concrete, unloving irrefutable evidence (as in the case of these sciences occasionally), then it becomes 'pseudo science' such as homeopathy, moon landing denial, Bigfoot, lay lines, anti-vaccination, intelligent design, feng shui, chemical trails, acupuncture, crop circles, crystals, psychics so many etc's.
The reason people disagree on pseudo science (and Id dare to put philosophy into this category), is that it is impossible to disprove most of what is being said - it is just opinion.
You said
'Truth isn't a democracy'.
I absolutely agree 100 percent with this point! You just need to look at how many people in the USA believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old to see the evidence of that statement. And there's the thing, there is evidence. Theres evidence that Americans belive this (statistical and interview) and theres evidence that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. Philosophy didn't help to prove either of these - maybe 200 years ago it would have, but there's no need for it today.
Ill say this again because I think its pertinent, there are far too many people in the world that absolutely refuse to see any evidence placed before them. For these people, pseudo sciences, religion and philosophy are fitting.
'With enough belligerence and arrogance you can go on national television and tell us fracking isn't causing earthquakes, or that we don't need to do anything about climate change because it's not happening, or so forth as well. I don't think that you'd consider that to be particularly damning against the physical sciences, though, because the purpose of the physical sciences isn't winning arguments with belligerent people. Here's the thing, though: that's not the purpose of philosophy either. Why, then, should this be deemed a problem for philosophy?'.
Im not entirely its arrogance or belligerence. I would guess that its corruption. However, I have no evidence to support my opinion (anyway, I dont think that was your point...).
In the big scheme of things, I dont think it is a problem with philosophy. As long as philosophers (much the same as catholics or people that make crop circles) dont hurt anyone, there is no problem with it.
I said
| le-paul wrote: |
| Its about as far from scientific or mathematics as you can get. |
And you replied,
'I don't see an immense fundamental difference between a mathematician using logic to produce a numeric proof and a philosopher using logic to write out a formal argument, beyond perhaps the fact that the relative simplicity of numbers as compared to the details of human life causes numeric logic requires far fewer assumptions, which means the proofs tend to be far less controversial'.
The fundamental difference is what the knowledge used to formulate the theory is based on.
Im sorry, I have to go to work, hold that thought... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
Because there two types of questions in the world, questions that can answered by an approach to testing or questions where the answer can be guessed |
It's interesting that you write this just a single post after bringing up mathematics, which reaches its conclusions neither by testing nor by guessing, but through logical deduction. This is especially important given philosophy, properly employed, also employs logical deduction.
| le-paul wrote: |
| There are occasionally (Ill use your examples of moon ladings and fracking) questions that cannot be answered because the information needed to make a conclusion, isnt and will arguably never be, available to the general public - however they fit into the first category. It just happens that its not possible to prove/disprove because the information is difficult to view. |
"The universe started with the big bang." How would you categorize this proposition under your "It's either science or guessing" schemata?
| le-paul wrote: |
| It is common knowledge these days that we live in an age of people who have learned most of what they have by word of mouth and myth. Religion and the internet have contributed to this massively. It could be argued that philosophy also does this as it does nothing to test theories scientifically. |
The overwhelming majority of people have obtained any "scientific" knowledge they possess by word of mouth as well. Given that, it's hard to see why receiving information by word of mouth should be damning for philosophy (or religion for that matter, though I'm not religious myself), but not for science. In fact, if anything, it's easier for the common man to think over and consider philosophic propositions than scientific ones, because he usually lacks the resources for the latter. You're not going to be building a particle collider in your backyard any time soon, but you can ponder whether Hume had it right for free.
| le-paul wrote: |
| Im assuming before I go ahead that you mean questions like 'What is morality?', ?. |
Well, that's not the representative question I would have chosen, but whatever you like.
| le-paul wrote: |
| There are sciences (however weak or actually 'scientific' they may occasionally be) that attempt to answer questions like this for example psychology, sociology. |
Yes, psychology and sociology. My point exactly: politically-driven, dubious, and in the case of psychology, an excuse to bilk people out of money while providing them nothing in return which a good friend or mentor could not. These "disciplines" are the result of a society which is overly-fixated on the scientific method. People will swallow any garbage so long as it's got the "scientific seal of approval." This kind of snake oil is a perfect example of from what sound reasoning skills should protect us. And like you, I take issue with certain pseudoscientific beliefs, but it's only sound reasoning which allows us to distinguish pseudoscience from science proper. Even your own position is clearly based upon reasoning! But you've insisted that reasoning can't answer questions, saying there's only data-driven observation and "guessing," and if you acknowledge reasoning, you've acknowledged the foundations of philosophy. So which is it? Is reasoning valid or not? If so, you can't deny the validity of philosophy, and if not, your own argument falls apart.
| le-paul wrote: |
I absolutely agree 100 percent with this point! You just need to look at how many people in the USA believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old to see the evidence of that statement. And there's the thing, there is evidence. Theres evidence that Americans belive this (statistical and interview) and theres evidence that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. Philosophy didn't help to prove either of these - maybe 200 years ago it would have, but there's no need for it today. |
Here you seem to imply that philosophy needs to have an answer for everything in order to have an answer to anything, since otherewise, why should it matter if philosophy provides no answer to the age of the world? I don't think there's anything wrong in admitting that logical deduction, in and of itself, isn't going to conjure up the age of the Earth. Logic only teases out the entailments of what we already know, after all. This makes it a fine tool for dealing with numbers (which are fundamentally simple), an adequate tool for dealing with human experience (which is complex but highly familiar to us), and a poor tool for dealing with the likes of geology, particle physics, and so forth (which is alien to us).
| le-paul wrote: |
| In the big scheme of things, I dont think it is a problem with philosophy. As long as philosophers (much the same as catholics or people that make crop circles) dont hurt anyone, there is no problem with it. |
Well, given I see philosophy first and foremost as a tool for self-improvement rather than a vehicle for imposing behavior upon others, I don't disagree with that. But the more important question given the context is whether or not philosophy can lead to self-improvement. If it can, even if only for some people, then no one is justified in declaring it useless.
| le-paul wrote: |
| The fundamental difference is what the knowledge used to formulate the theory is based on. |
But that's not a fundamental difference; the method is still the same, only differing in the details. "Other human beings can feel pain," for example, is a fairly non-controverisal premise which is strongly backed by our experiences. Given that, using such a premise in reasoning shouldn't be any more problematic than using a mathematical axiom. If anything, it should be less controverisal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shimokitazawa
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| guavashake wrote: |
Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!
Dr. Seuss |
Best reply! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shimokitazawa
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The only two things in life that make it worth livin' is guitars that tune good and firm feelin' women.
- Waylon Jennings |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| le-paul wrote: |
Because there two types of questions in the world, questions that can answered by an approach to testing or questions where the answer can be guessed |
It's interesting that you write this just a single post after bringing up mathematics, which reaches its conclusions neither by testing nor by guessing, but through logical deduction. This is especially important given philosophy, properly employed, also employs logical deduction.
| le-paul wrote: |
| There are occasionally (Ill use your examples of moon ladings and fracking) questions that cannot be answered because the information needed to make a conclusion, isnt and will arguably never be, available to the general public - however they fit into the first category. It just happens that its not possible to prove/disprove because the information is difficult to view. |
"The universe started with the big bang." How would you categorize this proposition under your "It's either science or guessing" schemata?
| le-paul wrote: |
| It is common knowledge these days that we live in an age of people who have learned most of what they have by word of mouth and myth. Religion and the internet have contributed to this massively. It could be argued that philosophy also does this as it does nothing to test theories scientifically. |
The overwhelming majority of people have obtained any "scientific" knowledge they possess by word of mouth as well. Given that, it's hard to see why receiving information by word of mouth should be damning for philosophy (or religion for that matter, though I'm not religious myself), but not for science. In fact, if anything, it's easier for the common man to think over and consider philosophic propositions than scientific ones, because he usually lacks the resources for the latter. You're not going to be building a particle collider in your backyard any time soon, but you can ponder whether Hume had it right for free.
| le-paul wrote: |
| Im assuming before I go ahead that you mean questions like 'What is morality?', ?. |
Well, that's not the representative question I would have chosen, but whatever you like.
| le-paul wrote: |
| There are sciences (however weak or actually 'scientific' they may occasionally be) that attempt to answer questions like this for example psychology, sociology. |
Yes, psychology and sociology. My point exactly: politically-driven, dubious, and in the case of psychology, an excuse to bilk people out of money while providing them nothing in return which a good friend or mentor could not. These "disciplines" are the result of a society which is overly-fixated on the scientific method. People will swallow any garbage so long as it's got the "scientific seal of approval." This kind of snake oil is a perfect example of from what sound reasoning skills should protect us. And like you, I take issue with certain pseudoscientific beliefs, but it's only sound reasoning which allows us to distinguish pseudoscience from science proper. Even your own position is clearly based upon reasoning! But you've insisted that reasoning can't answer questions, saying there's only data-driven observation and "guessing," and if you acknowledge reasoning, you've acknowledged the foundations of philosophy. So which is it? Is reasoning valid or not? If so, you can't deny the validity of philosophy, and if not, your own argument falls apart.
| le-paul wrote: |
I absolutely agree 100 percent with this point! You just need to look at how many people in the USA believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old to see the evidence of that statement. And there's the thing, there is evidence. Theres evidence that Americans belive this (statistical and interview) and theres evidence that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. Philosophy didn't help to prove either of these - maybe 200 years ago it would have, but there's no need for it today. |
Here you seem to imply that philosophy needs to have an answer for everything in order to have an answer to anything, since otherewise, why should it matter if philosophy provides no answer to the age of the world? I don't think there's anything wrong in admitting that logical deduction, in and of itself, isn't going to conjure up the age of the Earth. Logic only teases out the entailments of what we already know, after all. This makes it a fine tool for dealing with numbers (which are fundamentally simple), an adequate tool for dealing with human experience (which is complex but highly familiar to us), and a poor tool for dealing with the likes of geology, particle physics, and so forth (which is alien to us).
| le-paul wrote: |
| In the big scheme of things, I dont think it is a problem with philosophy. As long as philosophers (much the same as catholics or people that make crop circles) dont hurt anyone, there is no problem with it. |
Well, given I see philosophy first and foremost as a tool for self-improvement rather than a vehicle for imposing behavior upon others, I don't disagree with that. But the more important question given the context is whether or not philosophy can lead to self-improvement. If it can, even if only for some people, then no one is justified in declaring it useless.
| le-paul wrote: |
| The fundamental difference is what the knowledge used to formulate the theory is based on. |
But that's not a fundamental difference; the method is still the same, only differing in the details. "Other human beings can feel pain," for example, is a fairly non-controverisal premise which is strongly backed by our experiences. Given that, using such a premise in reasoning shouldn't be any more problematic than using a mathematical axiom. If anything, it should be less controverisal. |
I find it interesting that people are so dismissive of philosophy in this modern age, as compared to the past. Philosophy has shaped world history as much as modern science, and is still shaping the world's cultures and civilizations. What foundation do you think the modern order was built on if not philosophers?
There are far fewer hard answers in the physical sciences than most people think. Scientific consensus is constantly changing, sure there are some laws that don't change, but just because you don't understand or follow these things doesn't mean that they don't exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I find it interesting that people are so dismissive of philosophy in this modern age, as compared to the past. Philosophy has shaped world history as much as modern science, and is still shaping the world's cultures and civilizations. What foundation do you think the modern order was built on if not philosophers? |
What's confusing is that Le-Paul's own epistemological position actually hedges quite closely to the philosophy of the Ancient Indian Lokayatikas. He doesn't seem to realize how philosophic his own objections to "philosophy" are. Neither do the scientists (usually physicists, for some reason) who occasionally issue their imperious declarations that philosophy is now worthless. To the extent that modern philosophy warrants criticism, it's got more to do with the way in which it's trying to ape the sciences than anything, dividing itself into ever-more specialized disciplines, forcing academics to spam-produce "research papers" at the expense of slow, deep thought which refines a person into something better, and in the process growing ever-more alienated from the actual human experience. The societal fruits of philosophy will always be indirect; it makes society better by making people better, not by producing flashy new goods for consumption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maserial
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Location: The Web
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Yes, psychology and sociology. My point exactly: politically-driven, dubious, and in the case of psychology, an excuse to bilk people out of money while providing them nothing in return which a good friend or mentor could not. |
Having worked (and being licensed) in the mental health field, I (and many of those I know within said field) would be inclined to agree with you, insomuch that the Dr. Phils of the world have led people to believe that, for example, having been 'unreasonably' expected by one's parents to eat his or her vegetables has resulted in enough 'trauma' to qualify for a diagnosis of PTSD (been there, disputed that). To be candid, the system is occasionally (perhaps often) politically driven, even dubious with regard to merit and, furthermore, I am more than happy to propose that social sciences are inherently unstable. Having said that, cases involving disorders such as schizophrenia and those of a neurocognitive nature (Alzheimer's, vascular dementia, etc.) require more than a good friend or mentor to address , and in that sense, clinical psychology isn't entirely devoid of worth.
Long story short, is this post meant to be argumentative? Absolutely not, as I would imagine the bulk of mental health practitioners would agree with you that the discipline is fraught with inconsistencies, but the vast majority of said practitioners care less about getting talk shows, spewing easy answers, and peddling snake oil than they do about assisting clients in need of assistance. If anything, popularized misconceptions about the field (often proliferated by vainglorious individuals within said field) are the bigger problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm sure there are plenty of people working in the mental health field who have nothing but good intentions. But to be clear, isn't something like schizophrenia more often dealt with by psychiatry than psychology? I was under the impression that there was a distinction between these fields, that psychiatrists are actual medical doctors who can prescribe medication and the like, while psychologists generally cannot, and focus more on counseling and the such? You say you've worked in mental health, so you surely know better than me. Is my impression wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maserial
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Location: The Web
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I'm sure there are plenty of people working in the mental health field who have nothing but good intentions. But to be clear, isn't something like schizophrenia more often dealt with by psychiatry than psychology? I was under the impression that there was a distinction between these fields, that psychiatrists are actual medical doctors who can prescribe medication and the like, while psychologists generally cannot, and focus more on counseling and the such? You say you've worked in mental health, so you surely know better than me. Is my impression wrong? |
Excellent question, and your initial impression isn't wrong, in theory (which is to say, your impression is far more logical than things play out). The thing is, in my experience at least, psychiatrists don't spend that much time with patients, which is to say, they listen to team input (ideally), make a diagnosis, prescribe medication, and go on their way, leaving the 'rest of us' to actually do our best to assist that person, in the case of schizophrenia, specifically. In practice, there's far more to the disorder than medication alone, and psychiatrists don't have much to do with the day-to-day treatment of said individuals.
Edit: I do wish to point out, for the sake of clarity, Fox, that my training (or expertise, if you will) was mostly in the now-defunct Axis II (which has become, in DSM V terms) Personality Disorders. While I have, most certainly (and, in the matter of direct service, sometimes sadly so) 'dealt with' people suffering from schizophrenia and/or neurocognitive disorders, I won't by any means declare myself the authority on such matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ricochet
Joined: 04 Sep 2011
Location: carpetbagging...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stain wrote: |
| Does anybody really philosophize anymore? |
I do, it's fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Stain wrote: |
| Does anybody really philosophize anymore? |
I do, it's fun. |
That's wonderful. I was hoping someone still did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
