Philosophy is....

Philosophy is…

Bullshit. Definition - Nonsense or also a person who communicates nonsense on a given subject may be referred to as a “bullshit artist”.

Is it fair to say then quite comfortably that philosophy is bullshit.

Hume has proven rationally and mathematically that most of the questions asked by philosophers from the very beginning cannot be answered. For example, what is the meaning of life? or where did we come from, or what is reality. These questions simply cannot be answered satisfactorily, which must leave us to accept that we prove damn all from reason alone.

Answers to these questions rely heavily not on self-evident truths, as they are fundamentally unprovable, but on personal opinion, which is rampant on a Philosophy Forum.

So I conclude that philosophy is mostly talking out of your ass/arse.

Although I can understand the cynicism - all the more if ILP is one’s main source of philosophy - I don’t think so.

I think the questions can be answered. What is your criteria for a satisfactory answer?

I am skeptical of claims about self-evident truth, but I think there is plenty of space for opinions that are thoughtful and supported.

Each solution presented to the above questions, still gives rise to something new that can give support to something else, which then in turn becomes circulatory and hence unsatisfactory in it’s resolution.

In the end of all evidence presented no exclusive, (by that I mean admitting absolutely) single final conclusion can be agreed upon, let alone accepted by all on the questions posed above.

The fact that debate can lead to no clear winners, and that people can become pessimistic about our ability to answer such questions does not necessarily make them unanswerable, nor unworthy of pursuing in the face of unsatisfactory answers. Maybe we find out that we just weren’t asking the questions with sufficient clarity, like we’ve found many times in the past. Soft of like if I asked “Where are the edges of this flat earth?” Maybe our assumptions impede our ability to ask good questions.

From another angle, isn’t the mere appraisal of these questions, or the rational proof of their bullshittyness, philosophy? Is Hume not a philosopher?

We are dumb and have a long way to go - I think that is a good enough explanation. And consensus can’t be the measure of truth, if only because many people can agree on an answer and still be wrong.

You may not like the answers, but they are answered.

In my sig, it says, consider the argument against itself before submitting it.

Is your post not philosophy then??

Then it refutes itself.

Is your post philosophy?

Then it refutes itself.

Irrespective of what you are saying E, philosophers, are still debating about the same issues they had been for hundreds of years, which suggests that there is a general lack of progress in philosophy.

Another aspect which is much talked about is the term Know Thyself. This is used to the same extent that the word love is, the flavour of the month, so to speak. Pontificating. Know thyself? assumes that there is an individual self that exists apart from any particular experience of it. I believe, as Hume describes it, that there is no particular ‘self’ to know, we are a mixture of perceptions, sensations, feelings and urges.

That conviction of Know Thyself is mere vanity, unintelligible and foolish.

I don’t think I am being cynical, perhaps I am.

Just another dead end, to one of the many big questions asked.

Wh is going to prove otherwise.

(edited post)

IMO one can always find a reason that a claim is true
IMO one can always find a reason why a claim is untrue

I suppose it just gets more nuanced with time

You say its bullshit, and I say most of it is brown shit except some is green and there is also some diarrhea.

Science was discovered through philosophy. What you now call “philosophy” (instead of science) is merely what logic or science has no addressed sufficiently to be convincing to enough of the masses. Bullshit is in the eye of the beholder. And if the beholder has become dedicated to science, then all else is “bullshit”, same as the other religions.

Philosophy now is not what it was. James is right and I would like to add that limiting philosophy to those that are published and studied has done thinking/wonder/curiosity a deep wrong. If you have taken any philosophy course , what actually do they teach?

Indeed, science was once natural philosophy, (all the answerable questions end up moving into the domain of science), as was psychology “freed” of metaphysical ties.
Scientism’s excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques demands that, if a question isn’t amenable to scientific solution, it is not a serious question at all.
James, so tell me, how far do you think science can and should offer answers to the questions that are still considered the domain of philosophy?

It isn’t that easy. Despite what people think and say, there are things that work and things that do not. What we call “religion” turns out to be, in essence, an essential to grand social structures. Atheism is merely a religion wherein Man stands in place of God. It is still just as much a religion as any has been. They don’t worship truth any more greatly than the others. The essence of religion is required. And Science is now standing in that position, because they discovered the necessity of it.

So today, Science isn’t really about science anymore, it is about public persuasion (aka “religion”). And that means being “willing to lie for the cause”. Science can’t lie quite as easily as other religions due to that concern of observational verification, but it can still lie (and does).

So to the question of what Science “should do”, you have to consider its actual role in the world of Man, not its theoretical role in history. Science could improve itself by being more precise than it has been. Taking that route would answer every philosophical question such that there really would be no more loose mindless philosophy running about. People don’t believe that can be done, some believe that it shouldn’t be done, but then what can be and what should be are exactly what philosophy is about.

From my own experience, I believe that they should go ahead through the seemingly dangerous route of improving science so that it can and will end up answering truly all questions, rather than take the more familiar route of using peoples worries and false hopes to manipulate them as has always been done. We live in a different paradigm than ever before. The real extinction of homosapian is really at hand, not merely a myth. Thus I believe it best that Man get his act together and his story actually straight so that he finally knows without and possibility of being wrong, exactly what he must do to survive (aka in religion - “command from God”).

The alternative is to hide most of science, as is being done today. That science still gets askewed and corrupted, but, as in the past religions, stays relatively clean and gets used to manipulate the world through their fantasy successes and failures until all of Man is totally replaced. Man isn’t bright enough to handle the severe weapon that Science is without Science being more perfectly done. It is like a monkey with a dirty nuclear arsenal versus a monkey with an Internet. Sufficiently precise Science to the point of answering ALL questions, keeps people alive, not replacing them.

And frankly, that is why I took the route that I have (rather than merely going along with what current Science professes and getting along with the scientific community and the world of public manipulation).

JSS wrote:

Human beings are far too complex and chaotic for scientific reasoning alone and what about moral questions, no scientific discovery could ever settle a question of right or wrong, or could it?
I don’t believe so.

Shieldmaiden is your typical female – a misosophist. Hater of everything intelligent because it reminds her of her own inferiority.

Lost women and their delusional way of dealing with reality they have developed over time and have become too attached to to let go off it.

I am not interested in your emotive responses, you sound like a person threatened by a mere woman.

Try answering the question.

I sound like a person who can observe other people’s motives and who does not ignore them when he observes them.

You are not here to understand. You are here to deny.

One does not engage such people.

And thus the “loose philosophy” continues.

What makes you so sure that “she” is a “she” (since your assumptions are based on it).

Biguous is also a “she” and yet he’s a “he”. It makes no difference because I am speaking of feminine mindset. Not of vaginas and reproductive systems.

As to why I think she’s a she . . . well, she declares herself as such and she also posted a picture of her face once which was more feminine than masculine.

Ultimately, it’s irrelevant.

Agreed, but “she” does have discernibly male characteristics.

So neither is willing to answer the question. LOL

You are jealous of other people understanding reality. So you want to assuage your feelings by forcing others to either make you understand it or give up on the fact that they understand it. You cannot stand the possibility of others possessing something you do not possess. So they must either help you acquire what you do not have or they must admit they do not have what you do not have. There must be no inequality.

Remember, it’s up to you to understand reality. Not up to others to justify themselves to you.

It’s a matter of good will if someone decides to answer your questions.