Philosophy is the Fundamental Search for Truth.

Upon entering philosophy, I felt it important that I not glorify the act, not to treat it like religion. Mind you, it absorbs almost my entire life. But- it has little merit without hard modesty. It truly is the foundation of the knowledges, but like a foundation you can build grand pillars without any significant substance for it to house. Tinkering with philosophical ideas, I feel like a bumbling chimpanzee compared with a roboticist or a neurologist or a physicist. But I suppose I just have to follow my natural curiousities.

Science is the fundamental search for truth, science is a type of philosophy based on objective and rational standards on what is most likely to be true, emprical.

Philosophy should be what you say it is, but philosophy is the breeding ground of religious faithful intellectual barren ideas, its the breeding ground of psuedo-propositions that could never be falsifiable in any real sense of the word, it is meaningless conjecture that has and continues to mentally retard many people and many intellectual discussions about the nature of mind, human-nature, and many other issues of concern.

Obviously though there are great philosophies and philosophers even outside empirical matters and plenty that do deal with empirical matters, but giving philosophy that title overall seriously is unfair, due to the fact that it retarded the search for truth for so long in so many ways.

Sure, and i’d love to.

Theres thousands of examples of philosophies that have large enough followings: Mind/body dualism, the idea that a mind isn’t confined to a brain, the idea that empirical evidence means nothing because of some overreaching ‘metaphysical’ notion, the naturallisic fallacy, philosophical thought is rife with non-falsifiable and illogical claims.

Things which people hold as true because of bias/emotion, in other words, even though they don’t believe in a superstitious god (somtimes) their beliefs hold just about as much water.

Sure, philosophy has retarded a lot of areas but i’m specifically talk about one that still has far reaching implications today. The bullshit ideas of tabula rasa and ghost in the machine is still the prominent feature of the standard social science model and has largely stood in the way of an empirical understanding of how the brain works and whether or not we’re born ‘blank-slates’. The very notion still retards scientific progression today, philosophers today still cling to ideas that haven’t seen any progress in hundreds of years.

Yes, a great many people reflecting all-to-seriously upon questions that are none…

Exactly, or questions that in times of ignorance meant somthing being carried into the future for hundreds of years, or even worse then questions that are nothing, questions that aren’t definable or even propositional in nature, its fucked.

of course belief in the dogma of science is kosher…


Yes, but when almost everything is called a philosophy and only philosophy 101 is really identified as philosophy, its hard not to make blanket statements, especially when the better philosophy is certainly not commonplace.

It was a generalization which I attempted to state by saying there were a lot of good empirical and nonempirical falisfies among the shit.

I kind of think that Philosphy is more inclined to be a search for justification, not truth.

I’ve figured it all out. Check this out.

The organism must either be directly engaged in voluntary action in an environment, where it is responding to immediate circumstances, or idling in an environment where no direct voluntary action is required in response, making contemplation possible, the mediation of thoughts, without any urgency.

The former type of interaction is scientific. The organism that is coordinating its actions with an environment immediately bases its actions on a cost/benefit ratio, and these probabilities are entirely rational- it is through the scientific method that the organism has learned the statistical probability of “making it across the river in one jump” or “the rock killing the deer if it is thrown at it.”

The latter type is philosophical (if the organism has a mind) because it is a mental operation that is not making decisions with any urgency or necessity…based on its immediate relationship to an environment. This contemplation which deals with concepts and ideas that are not evoked by an environment demanding attention, is the origin of philosophical thinking. In this kind of thinking there is no scientific method, because there is no surplus of methodologically learned behavior. It is an “improvisation”.

Now travel forward millions of years:

Enter the subject of “philosophy”. This is the accumulation of several millions of years of evolution conforming the brain to develop the physiology to produce cognitive operations that are arbitrary. These operations evolved in parallel to language and manifest themselves in the “meanings” of metaphysical, metaphorical ideas. For example “be virtuous and placid among the irrational warblers” is a philosophical statement. It certainly can “mean” something, but the very fact that the mind has the capacity to find meaning in that implies that it has had some time to relax and develop ambiguous concepts.

There was a time when a statement like that was totally useless and nonsensical. It had absolutely nothing to do with what was necessary to survive.

Might it be said, then, that the degree of philosophical intelligence man has is proportionate to the time he has had to not make useful decisions?


I don’t know if its voluntary for a jellyfish to act the way it does, nor do I think it engages in any type of contemplation.

A lot of these animals are unaware of their actions and are controlled by their genetic impulses, they don’t need to think out a jump rationally to do it economically.

I don’t buy that definition of either science or philosophy, or to which each applies. The reasoning to throw out an empirical outlook on all quests for truth is usually shabby, though not all philosophy is looking for objective truth a lot of it is.

Science is a sea of research (logical positivism) with a much greater sea of gaps where it won’t dare to tread (speculation)- reasonable fear it would become religion. Philosophy is that borrowed system of speculation for the sake of science, because it cannot create doctrines like religion. Eventually, the two might be united (or science simply takes over) but there’s no science believing the universe will be explained any time soon.

I do see what Epoche75 is getting at. I don’t quite see why the contemplation of the animal really has to differ from the instinct of instantaneous response. There are generally instincts regarding a resting (or “nesting”) state as well as a hunting or flight-or-flight state.

Humans are the only species with a neocortex, which really behaves like a puppet master to instinctive strings- giving some physical evidence that we really do contemplate unlike other species.

But there is a science in instincts. It just isn’t kept in a journal by the animal in order to artificially reproduce the effect, that’s the difference between instinct and science. It is readily understood that there’s complex math involved in the way that animals engage their environment.

There will always be a sea of gaps, my problem is while science gives the anwser “we don’t know yet but theres no reason to say we never will besides the limits of our adapted brain” many philosophies try to fill the gaps with ridiculous metaphysical claims, they open the door for the essential idea that empirical reality doesn’t matter, however no one takes this claim seriously. People make rational and logical deductions in day to day living without it, if people took a lot of their philosophical positions seriously, experience would dissolve into an irrational mist, telling a chair apart from a tiger would become an endless mental task.

With technological progress its hard to say anything for sure, in 100 years the world could look as different now as now does from ancient egypt.

Well one is voluntary, the other isn’t, and definatly not in the way that humans engage in voluntary actions.

Other animals, at least specific individuals of other animal species can probably proto-contemplate at some level as they seem to have or some of them, proto-aspects of the types of meta-awareness (even concerning the ability of deciet) that we have.

Well yes, the animals instincts work under scientific principles and are indeed amazingly complex computations (A cat making an accurate jump takes a lot of complex neural hardware) to do that math in our brains or on paper wouldn’t be easy, and yet animals engage in all these complex behaviors in miliseconds. Instincts are economical like that.

Two because if we’re talking about empirical reality nothing else fits the need. Philosophy is often-times about making nonsensical nonfalsifiable psuedopropositions about the universe and metaphysics, its ignorant and assinine to do.

Scientific projections are based on projections of empirical evidence and probability, where we don’t have enough to have real anwsers I don’t want speculation, scientific or philosophical and oftentimes scientists don’t feel the need to try and explain somthing theres no possible way they could yet understand, like philosophers.

Once again i’ll agree its a gross generalization, but besides that point theres not a whole lot going for philosophy 101. You can’t specifically attempt to teach people bullshit nonsense about metaphysics and say its about sparking real interest in real philosophy, and if the step towards better philosophy requires you to entertain the philosophy 101 notions seriously, theres a big problem.

Theres plenty thats important though in philosophy even early philosophy, its just searching for diamonds among the dirt and shit.

Socrates, was he or wasn’t he a mystic? I remember reading that the works between him and plato were so mashed as that it would be hard to accurately say?