A real purpose for philosophy/philosophers

[ladyjane]

dregsof says in desperation

But what can one really take from philosophy? What can one write about? How does one get the A? What can one actually use in their everyday lives? Or am I completely missing the point?

there is a very good point to philosophy
by being a philosopher
you can correct the flawed thinking of others and offer critques of others flawed thinking

have a look at the philosopher demolish mathematicians for their flawed logic and philosophical ignorance in regard to their own discipline

Come on prove skolem paradox is not a contradiction
talkaboutscience.com/group/s … 03189.html

i say

the contradiction in SET theory is
The paradox is seen in Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory.

Using the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem, we can get a model of SET THEORY which only contains a countable number of objects. However, it must contain the aforementioned uncountable sets, which appears to be a CONTRADICTION.

The paradox is seen in Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory.

therefore ZF and ZFC are inconsistent

Peter Suber, Philosophy Department, Earlham College says there is a contradiction -that has not been resoved

Most mathematicians agree that the Skolem paradox creates no contradiction. But that does not mean they agree on how to resolve it.

but these mathematician still cant see its a contradiction in their beloved set theory

and look at this debate
where he pulls them apart

all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill
talkaboutscience.com/group/s … 02918.html

all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill it is proven that
systems are consistent

they all say IF the system is consistent then it is incomplete

so untill they PROVE whether the system is consistent
the proofs say nothing about mathematical reality

they remain just conjecture untill they prove systems are consistent
so all this shit about what godels incompleteness prof means for
math
physics
commmunication
computers
is all worthless shit untill it is proven the systems are consistent
you can say’
but
we must assume maths is consistent or else it is all meaningless shit
is not good enough just because you need it to be consistent does not make
it so or prove it

until you prove it incompleteness proofs are just conjecture and have no
bearing on mathematical reality-which could be inconsistent

[Maytacera]

Meh. I don’t see philosophers as having much of a purpose. Depends on what they choose to do with themselves.

[ladyjane]

Meh. I don’t see philosophers as having much of a purpose. Depends on what they choose to do with themselves.

imagine a philosopher debating with bush rumsfield etc on NBC the notions of torture democracy and even better the notion of good and evil- might stop a lot of wars

least a philosopher would have been of use in pointing out to the brain dead mass what was wrong with say the narzis racism - and perhaps stopped the brain dead from being manipulated by words and concepts
same go for Bush and his notions of spreading democracy to the world
a philosopher could point out to the brain dead masses what democracy means and does not mean -and thus perhaps stop a new war
in other words philosophers can help stop people being led by dangerous politicians etc who expose concepts

[north]

@ladyjane

Meh. I don’t see philosophers as having much of a purpose. Depends on what they choose to do with themselves.

imagine a philosopher debating with bush rumsfield etc on NBC the notions of torture democracy and even better the notion of good and evil- might stop a lot of wars

least a philosopher would have been of use in pointing out to the brain dead mass what was wrong with say the narzis racism - and perhaps stopped the brain dead from being manipulated by words and concepts
same go for Bush and his notions of spreading democracy to the world
a philosopher could point out to the brain dead masses what democracy means and does not mean -and thus perhaps stop a new war
in other words philosophers can help stop people being led by dangerous politicians etc who expose concepts

agreed

north

[Maytacera]

That’s…not a purpose. That’s an ability.

[Without_God]

As the other sciences has taken over the traditonal fields, questions and problems of philosophy (f.ex. physics, astronomy, psychology), there is a real risc, that Philosophy will "become the caddy carrying the other sciences golf clubs around the couses without having any (or at least mnimal) effect on the outcome og the research.

… But Philosophy is the only science/discipline/thinkink that can reflect on the demands to the “real sciences”. Induction Problem etc. Since the other sciences (perhaps with the sole exception of math) cannot reflect on themselves, their own rules, scientific methods etc., Philosophy will still be necessary for checking up on the dirty lyin cheatin research scientists (see for instance the case against the German nano-phyciist, where he fabricated almost ALL data to fit neatly into his model).
Philosophy of science can (hopefully - is is after all philosophy, so no definitive answer/rejection is possible) try to characterize what constitutes GOOD SCIENCE and what constitutes BAD SCIENCE.
… Which I THINK will be important because of the raging evolution in physics, nano-tech, chemistry etc.
It’s old news - Popper caught the central points very well a (relatively) long time ago - but it doesn’t make the need less urgens or important.

Besides that, recent decades has seen cross-disciplinary work between phenomenology, philosophy of being and cognitive science, in trying to understand the complex phenomena our consciousness really is.
In Denmark, “Center For Subjectivity Research” has done interdisciplinary work with psychologists, psychiatrists and many more, to try to see, if results and “elementary knowledge” from one field can be combined with new knowledge from another field, to answer - or describe more accurately - the questions of consciousness, embodiment, empathy, phenomenal experience of the world (the door seems farther from me, if it’s locked etc).

…

So my 2 best bets will be:

1. Philosophy of science to act as a kind of watchdog
2. In Cognitive science, empirical psychology etc. where the many years of phenomenological litterature is a goldmine.
   Just think of Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s analysis of embodiment ("Phenology of Perception), and his dissolving of the subject/object-dualism that has crippled both philosophy and science since Descartes cut a clear line down between “Me and You”, “Me and Other People” and “Me and the Whole World around me”.