Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Sin 2 :)


Demigod

Recommended Posts

Philosphers did take reason and logic and draw up a set of rules around them and make them 'official', but, nonetheless, they did exist before, and separate from, philosophy.

 

I am a professional scientist (a biologist specialising on mammalian zoology), so I am used to making assumptions in order to test ideas, and working in terms of probabilities instead of certainties. But in a practical sense you have to be able to say, "I make the assumption that it is so staggeringly unlikely that gravity will change suddenly, that I will proceed as though it is absolutely certain that the laws of gravity as I currently understand them are correct", otherwise you will get nowhere fast.

That's exacxtly the point I made in an eariler post, so we're in agreement. You cannot build your foundations on shifting sand.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 321
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do it my way:

 

Download every game you like to play, and if it's really good *then* buy it.

 

That way you will only support good releases which were put a lot of effort in.

And you can also try if you liek a game or not before buying it.

 

Ofcourse games that will be an instant hit like STALKER and Operation Flashpoint 2 I will buy without downloading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think the only real knowledge that we gained about our surrounding universe is the one from Descartes: I think therfore I am. I don't know if there will ever be a more brilliant insight in a science in the history of the universe. Somehow I doubt that there will ever be any other insight which can claim 100% accuratness. :)

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oddity: Reason and logic are not part of philosophy.

 

This is patent nonesense. Refer to obscurus' defintion.

 

oddity: Philosophers use and abuse reason and logic to prattle on about a lot of nonsense that's no good to anyone, but cannot claim reason and logic for themselves.

 

No ones claiming logic and reason for philosophers alone, what is certain is that the study of logic and reasoning (versus their applications to other subjects) is the province of philosophy. In fact, when you are reasoning, using your critical thinking skills to ascertain "truth", you are engaging in philosophy. You may deny it but approximately 10 gazillion sources would argue against you. I suspect that wouldnt slow you down though. ;)

 

oddity:You cannot say that any argument which uses a reasonable, logical structure is a philosophical debate.

 

True, the argument could be about any topic, but my point was that you were using logic and reason to make some of your points, shaky as they were. Again, see obscurus' definition.

 

oddity:Certain truths - like if you have n number of objects and you add one, you then have more then n objects - do not require philosical debate, even though they are reaonable and locigal.

 

AHHH! Certain truths, you say? This implies a range of truths, as you say certain truths are self evident and require no debate. A priori, in other words, true before consideration. A posteriori truths, those found true AFTER consideration, of course make up the bulk of truths. Another fine philosophical concept you have employed sir! Excelsior!

 

oddity:Reason and logic exist separate from philosophy.

 

'reason; a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion (Princeton online dictionary, via Google)'

 

Logical truths are self evident, a priori of all consideration, but REASON, constructing arguments for truth based upon critical thinking, experimentation, whatever, IS philosophy in its most common form. You dont have to be a professional philosopher, as i hope to someday, to engage in philosophy. Such an argument is comparable to saying if one is not a chef, then going into the kitchen and heating up eggs until they are firm, toasting bread, and squeezing some fresh O.J. is not cookery.

 

obscurus: I think you are arguing over semantics to a degree there oDDity, although you are correct, logic and reason can be considered without reference to philosphy per se.

 

I have to disagree somewhat, when one considers whether a point is logical or not, or uses reasoning to arrive at a conclusion, this is native philosophy, in its original form.

 

obscurus: I am a professional scientist (a biologist specialising on mammalian zoology), so I am used to making assumptions in order to test ideas, and working in terms of probabilities instead of certainties. But in a practical sense you have to be able to say, "I make the assumption that it is so staggeringly unlikely that gravity will change suddenly, that I will proceed as though it is absolutely certain that the laws of gravity as I currently understand them are correct", otherwise you will get nowhere fast.

 

Of course this is correct, but it is the job of the philosopher, specifically a philosopher of science in your instance, to push those assumptions to their logical extremes. You the scientist work within those assumptions and its generally pretty safe, we seek the outmost outlines of those assumptions and see where they contradict, break down, or succeed. You may continue to trust in gravity, I do too, but the ONLY basis for that trust is past experience, which NOTHING can ultimately guarantee will continue into the future. It may seem silly to apply it so something as fundamental as gravity, but it serves to illustrate a point. In science, there are countless more minor instances where such certainty such future truths can be called into question. And agaiin, philosophy is not merely questioning the continuing existence of gravity, its more importantly questioning the questioning you have used to arrive at a theory of gravity, how you know what you claim to know about it. Thats ALWAYS open to questioning.

 

 

obscurus:Certainty, or rather a close approximation of certainty based on reason, logic and probability allows you to proceed with some endevour without getting too flustered about what-ifs and endless philosophical wanderings.

 

Right-o, see above.

 

But being certain of something when reason, logic and probability should give you plenty of cause to doubt is very foolish and dangerous, and is the sort of attitude that creates scuicide bombers and holy wars, and endless suffering.

 

And people often get too caught up in deep philosophical arguments to notice that the world is turning to shit around them.

Action based on reason, logic and common sense is better than blowing hot philosophical air and doing nothing.

 

Hmmm, reason and logic are often at odds with common sense, no? And as far as I can tell, action based on reason and logic often require blowing a lot of hot air in order to find out what exactly it is you think you believe to be true. I mean, you wouldnt recommend a course of action, especially in politics, without discussing the pertinent ideas to the furthest degree possible, would you? Or is there some arbitrary limit after which reason becomes hot air? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maximius, I think oDDity was in agreement with you saying that reason and logic were separate from philosophy...

 

And I wasn't saying that you shouldn't have a reasoned line of thought or discussion before doing something, I was talking more about people who have endless philosophical discusions about things that exist only as pure speculation (like God for example), from which no action will arise. Sure, politicians should debate issues and blow some hot air before they pass new legislation (too often they don't, they just pass laws without thinking about the consequences), and sure I always go through a lot of reasoned thought before I conduct a scientific experiement, but that is so I can arrive at a framework for action. Philosophical debates about the nature of the universe at 15.3 femtoseconds after the big bang or the origins of the universe or god have no conceivable application to science or daily life, other than to make the lives of emotionally and mentally immature people more interesting or "fulfiling", or as a crutch for the feeble-minded. So yes there is an arbitrary limit after which discussion becomes pointless, and that limit will vary depending on the subject matter at hand...

 

Take the debate about global warming for example. It is faily evident to the vast majority of scientists that the climate is changing, and that the likely cause, or at the very least a major contributing factor, is human carbon dioxide emmisions. People should have stopped blowing hot air about this decades ago (no pun intended ;) ), and proceeded to phase out hydrocarbon fuels and phase in a range of cleaner technologies gradually. Now, because we have wasted so much time, the only viable option to preventing the damage to the climate systems from progressing further is to rapidly switch to nuclear power generation, and since this option is very controversial, we will see another 20 years of endless debate, by which time we are well and truly screwed, and are probably set on a path to early extinction. Reason and logic have long ago demonstrated the need for action, ie to stop using primitive hydrocarbon combustion and replace it with a range of advanced energy generation technologies, but people have instead ignored reason and followed emotions like greed (milking every last drop out of the oil wells) and have doomed us all (perhaps I am using hyperbole too much, but you get the idea).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I dont think they are separate at all. The process of reasoning IS philosophy, in its natural, undistilled state if you will. Logical truths exist a priori but we have to arrange them into arguments to make points about the world, this is the process of reasoning.

 

And to be accurate, humans use at least three kinds of truth when they argue: analytic truths, narrative truths, and rhetorical truths. I had a really interesting pdf on this somewhere but I lost the damn thing.

 

Now I was being a bit silly with my point about hot air but I wanted to illustrate something. many philosophical arguements that seem to float amongst the clouds are supposed to do exactly that. It is the job of the philospher to look at the extremes of truth, even the ridiculous ones. There may be an arbitrary point after which the argument seems to detach itself from reality but thats ok. Philosophers must push the outermost limits of what we hold to be true, and more importantly HOW we arrive at that truth. And besides, such criticisms of philosophy are really straw men, because the majority of truths that philosophy deals with are of everyday import. Consider the fields of ethics, political philosophy, and the various philosophies of science, history, math, etc.

 

The debate on global warming tells me that we need MORE philosophy, and fast, in the minds of the public. We need sharper critical thinking to evaluate the claims of powerful organizations who keep telling us nothing is wrong even as sea levels rise, deserts grow larger, and extinctions abound. The hot air being blown about the warming debate did not come from philosophers, it came from the liars and whores who sell their childrens futures for a lucrative career with BP or Sunoco and the politicians who owe their careers to wealthy interests.

 

But critical thinking is a rare and precious gem, especially in this part of the world where we have self professed Christians who champion imperial wars and a grotesque materialistic way of life, a public that declares itself Born Free! at every turn but willingingly admits their political process is a shell game and that big $$$ rules their world, a nation that prides itself on its exaltation of the individual even as it demands unquestioning allegiance to nationalistic/patriotic group-think.

 

But let me stop this fantastic discussion for a second to:

 

1. Thank our hosts for putting up with this nonesense.

 

2. Invite any interested parties to continue this debate via personal email, as I dont wish to take up more of the lists time and space with my ramblings.

 

3. Give my email address:alex4545354@yahoo.com, for the abovementioned parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is the off-topic section, but I don't know if the moderator ever thought it would go this far off topic!

 

Aha! Thou art surely discover'd Alex4545354, if that be thine real name...

 

You are a braver man than I to invite correspondence via email to continue a philosophical debate... man that could turn ugly if you have a megabyte cap on your email...

 

But on Global warming, more debate is not really necessary: the solutions are known, and easily implemented provided people pull their collective fingers out and willingly forgo a few luxuries, and tell the politicians who supposedly represent their interests that they won't be fucked around with anymore. It is very simple, but requires that individuals go out on a limb to protect the future. People don't need to debate anything, they need to sacrifice some of their hard earned cash and buy products that are less damaging, so that big companies like BP get the hint and reconfigure their businesses to cater for the demands of a more sane marketplace.

 

The time for philosophical debate has passed. The time for action is now, but if we don't act soon, the time for that too will pass, and we will be left with one big mess on our hands.

 

OK, OK, I'll stop now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want a debate about philosophy, all I want you do do is convince me that philosophy isn't a completely useless waste of everyone's time, and the only people who study it or quote it aren't a bunch of pretentious twats.

Give me a tangible list of things that philosophy has achieved.

I've already said that reason and liogic exists separte from philosophy. Morality also exists separate from it, given that all the 'great' greek philosopers thought it natural that everyone else in the entire world apart from themselves were either for enslaving or killing and no better than animals.

Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche's philsophical ramblings when it came to his jew murdering, so there is where it can go wrong.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop spamming this forum you little twat, yiou get nothing for post count here but a kick in the bollocks every 100 posts - and take your amateur doodlings somewhere else as while you're at it.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want a debate about philosophy, all I want you do do is convince me that philosophy isn't a completely useless waste of everyone's time, and the only people who study it or quote it aren't a bunch of  pretentious twats.

 

Well. Here it is. Philosophy is not useless, because it provides a lot of rules which are extending into other areas. So even if you may not see physical results directly resulting from philosophy, other areas of science, imo most noticable math, uses these concepts to produce actual results.

 

Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche's philsophical ramblings when it came to his  jew murdering, so there is where it can go wrong.

 

That's a pretty useless argument. Nobel invented dynamite to help underground workers and make their live easier. Now it is used for grenades, bombs and whatever.

 

Physics is used to create better medicine, dabbles into biomedicine, it helps you to navigate your car via GPS and thousands of other applications. But the same physics allows people to create nuclear bombs, create ever smaller tracking devices to keep an eye on people, and what else there is.

 

So just because Hitler claimed a special philosophy doesn't make philosophy in general bad or useless.

A knife can be used for cutting bread or for killing people, but that doesn't make the knife good or bad.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already conceeded that philosophers took logic (which already existed of course - cavemen were using logic every day, we all do) and wrote it down, embellished it, and that refined logic has been useful, but that's less than 1% of what philosophy has been up to over the millenia, what about the other 99%? I don't thnk you can infinitely carry on justifying philosophy by pointing at an equation.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, that itself is a philosophical statement. It is really hard to avoid philosophy. The best way is to just do things and enjoy it instead of musing over whether or not they are worthwhile pursuits. Mind you, if people started killing other people for enjoyment instead of having a good, long, philosophical think about it first, the world could become a very dangerous place... I don't think you can say philosophy has no uses (especialy since that statement itself is a philosophy)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was being ironic.

You should study logic a bit more then, SH, because that isn't a valid argument.

You are saying either:

'philosophy is a useless waste of time only if art and music are a waste of time'

or

'If philosophy is a waste of time, then art and music are also a waste of time'

There are too many differences between art, music and philosophy to draw such a conclusion.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I took logic in university (interestingly, it was a philosophy course), and it WAS a waste of time.

 

My point was that the 'usefulness' of philosophy is highly subjective and personal, just like art and music. Any arguement trying to 'prove' that art is a useful pursuit can probably also be used for philosophy.

 

Of course, if you all really want to get into a debate over philosophy, you should probably make sure you've defined the term, which again, is as easy as defining 'art' or 'music'. Good luck. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eye candy fine art is useless actually, unless you define usefulness as 'something you can look at and/or appreciate asthetically' There are branches of art such as architecture which are obviously practically useful. I can't think of anything about music that could be called useful.

All depends how you define 'useful' I suppose, which like a great many English words has many different connotations.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good way of defining usefulness is by comparison.

If you had to choose between living the rest of your life without music, or without your left hand, which would you choose to get rid of?

I doubt there's anyone who would seriosuly have their right hand amputated in favour of keeping theri record collection.

How about computers? Would you choose to live the rest of your life never using a computer again or never hearing music again?

I like music, but it comes pretty low down my list of things that I wouldn't want to live without - that tells me that it isn't very useful, it's an extravagance.

Same goes for philosophy and fine art.

Living without philosophy isn't the same as living withot logic, I keep tellig you that logic already existed, it just hadn't been written down as rules.

Cavemen were able to work out logical conclusions for themselves.

'All members of the opposing clan are my enemy. Chief Dig Dag is a member of the opposing clan. Therefore, chief Dig Dag must be my enemy'

It didn't take Aristotle to write that down before anyone was able to use it in practice. People naturally think in a logically correct manner 70% of the time anyway, and that probably hasn't changed since our caveman days.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO you are confusing something here. The conclusion that you write above is an application of logic.

This is the same as saying. Kids can already determine at an early age that 1+1 = 2 because even my daughter at 4 knew already that when I give her one apple and another one she got two. But this is not the same as understanding formally that 1+1=2 and what implications this have. Furthermore the question is, is this always the case?

So your cavemen can of course identify Chief Dig Dag as his enemy because of the logical relationship to the enemytribe, but that doesn't mean that he is using this inference that you connect to it in your statement. Making these rules formal and proving that they are REALLY like this all the time is what logic is all about, and philosophy is the basement for this, because it thinks about abstract concepts like this. This is why you logic and philosophy are always tied together. One wouldn't work without the other.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • Ansome

      Finally got my PC back from the shop after my SSD got corrupted a week ago and damaged my motherboard. Scary stuff, but thank goodness it happened right after two months of FM development instead of wiping all my work before I could release it. New SSD, repaired Motherboard and BIOS, and we're ready to start working on my second FM with some added version control in the cloud just to be safe!
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      @TheUnbeholden
      You cannot receive PMs. Could you please be so kind and check your mailbox if it is full (or maybe you switched off the function)?
      · 1 reply
×
×
  • Create New...