Another reason why philosophers are useless

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
After thousands of years philosophers still can’t agree on the purpose of life, in fact they are still inventing new answers. Ordinary people have no difficulty with concluding that it’s therefore beyond reasonable doubt that there is no single purpose.**

Think about what you’ve just said as a proof that philosophy is useless and not true.

Now apply that argument to the following:

After thousands of years religious leaders still can’t agree on what Christ actually preached. In fact, they are still inventing new religious sects. Ordinary people have no difficulty with concluding that it’s therefore beyond reasonable doubt that there is no true Christian sect.

So does that apply to Baptists as well?

 

[anthony022071]

First: there is no such “THING” (ontological object) as “TRUTH”. (Truth is a concept.) Yes, sometimes the opinions of philosophers reflects REALITY. The question is: “how do we separate the opinions, which correctly reflect reality from those which do not”. I am aware of only one such method: “compare the opinion to reality”. No, of course I don’t believe that there is “supernatural” or “moral” truths, these are meaningless concepts.

I meant “thing” as in a reality. God is truth. Natural law is truth. the existence of anything is a truth. The best way to compare opinion to reality is to use sound definitions of words and essences,and consider the attributes and potentiality of causes,and fit effects with their proper causes. This is what Plato,Aristotle and the medieval theologians did.

Only in the somewhat nauseating language of lousy poets. Such language is inappropriate in a serious discussion.

Poets are right in locating the emotions in the heart. The heart is the source of blood for the rest of the body,and life and sensibility to the body. When we experience strong emotions,we fell them in and through our hearts.

We are not talking about what is “important”.

You said ironically that the the ability to act out free will is not important.

The usual “free will defense” is that God does not prevent the “evil actions”, since the free will of even the most evil person is so important, that it should not be tempered with. Now, if the “free will” is only the freedom to wish to do something, but it does not entail the ability to carry out that action, then God could prevent the actual action, while leaving the “free will” to stay “free”.

God sometimes does prevent evil actions. There are many examples in the Bible and in the history of the Church. One example is the battle of Lepanto in 1571. When it is said that God permits evil to happen,this does not mean he always permits it to happen. And though God allows for free human will,he does try to influence the human will to obey his commandments by the grace of his Spirit.

 

[inocente]

I am assuming no such thing. I am saying that there is a rational demonstration (rooted in sense experience and expounded upon by abstraction) of a single purpose of life in the classical philosophical tradition. It happens that said purpose is mutually exclusive with other “purposes.” So if the arguments for it (which we evaluate using reason) are good, then there is a unique purpose to life.

You are asserting the axiom that there is a unique purpose to life, common to all humans, which can be objectively determined. You cannot prove an axiom.

It’s not that anyone is dodging. It’s that these is simply no logical step from “there is disagreement as to what the purpose of life is” to “there is not a singular purpose of life.” I have no need to dodge it because it is a fallacy.

It’s not a fallacy, it’s called induction. If, since the dawn of history, the number of purportedly unique meanings of life has always increased and never diminished, it is beyond reasonable doubt that there is no such thing.

But as you’re a philosopher, and leaving aside whether it can or cannot be rationally determined, what is your rational argument that there must be a single unique purpose to life common to all humans? Noting that it is far from self-evident given the contrary evidence.

 

[inocente]

After thousands of years religious leaders still can’t agree on what Christ actually preached. In fact, they are still inventing new religious sects. Ordinary people have no difficulty with concluding that it’s therefore beyond reasonable doubt that there is no true Christian sect.

So does that apply to Baptists as well?

Of course, yes, why wouldn’t it?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Of course, yes, why wouldn’t it?

Then you don’t believe Christ founded a true church?

If so, why are you a Baptist?

Your attitude toward religion, it seems, is no different than your attitude toward science.

Both are useless because neither is true.

 

[inocente]

inocente

Of course, yes, why wouldn’t it?

Then you don’t believe Christ founded a true church?

If so, why are you a Baptist?

Those who are certain of their righteousness start wars in their arrogance.

Once you close the door to doubt you can never learn, never change, never renew.

What’s no scary about a bit of doubt?

*Your attitude toward religion, it seems, is no different than your attitude toward science.

Both are useless because neither is true.*

I’ve never said science or religion are useless, the exact opposite.

Did you notice Catholic Answers now has an article on ad hominem? No excuses anymore.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Those who are certain of their righteousness start wars in their arrogance.

Pot to kettle. It’s no different when liberal agnostics dogmatize their beliefs and demand conformity. Homosexualist States reversing Freedom of Speech and denying their citizens any rights to conscientious objection are aggressive, irrational and provocative actions. They are in fact objectively unlawful: i.e. they are tyrannical acts.

And it is political aspirations, some noble and some not, that are the cause of most wars. Frequently it’s just a country trying to secure itself. Most of Rome’s acquisitions and the endless wars it engaged in were started out of a perceived threat to its (national) security.

Once you close the door to doubt you can never learn, never change, never renew.

But you can also collapse into rank scepticism. You don’t have to doubt that some things are simply known and true. Starting from those things that are most evident and certain, you can progress to still more truths.

What’s no scary about a bit of doubt?

What’s so scary about doubting whether or not gravity is even real when washing the 63rd floor of a New York sky scraper? The scary part is that it can get you killed. Or you can lose your mind. Or why not, like that rank sophist Hume, doubt whether or not it’s reasonable to expect that when I -for example- go to open my bedroom door, that while turning the knob I might as well expect the door to turn into a unicorn because there is (ostensibly) no real relationship or good reason for thinking certain effects follow from certain causes and that cause and effect is really just a fiction of the human mind.

Scepticism is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual. When they ridiculously dogmatize their doubts they become a pestilence to civilization. It produces foolishness that can lead easily into Matrix-style paranoia or delusion as well as wide-spread atheism; for surely if you can’t be sure that blue is a real colour because you haven’t (ostensibly) enough sufficient evidence to make the “knowledge-claim” that it really exists, then things that aren’t even physical (like the spiritual) will be even more unreasonable to believe.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Those who are certain of their righteousness start wars in their arrogance.

Wars are promoted by “rightness” propaganda, but are started by a belief in, assurance of or quest for power. Survival (as a defensive measure) is the reason most wars endure past the initial offensive.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Did you notice Catholic Answers now has an article on ad hominem? No excuses anymore. **

You need to remember that the next time you want to say things like, “Those who are certain of their righteousness start wars in their arrogance.” Would you be referring to someone in this forum? If not, why would you even say anything so irrelevant to this thread?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve never said science or religion are useless, the exact opposite.

.

Let us make this very clear.

Charlemagne’s argument is:

1. Your reason to claim philosophy is useless is because philosophers cannot agree on the nature of reality.
2. Charlemagne pointed out that Christian denominations (like the Baptists) cannot agree on what Christ actually taught.

Ergo, according to your reasoning, Christian denominations, like philosophy, are useless as means of arriving at what Christ actually taught.

Yet, you decry any affiliation to philosophy but claim affiliation to a Christian denomination.

This is not an ad hominem, it is pointing out a blatant inconsistency in your “logic” or “reasoning.”

Yet, instead of answering Charlemagne, you go off on a tangent about the importance of skepticism and accuse him of committing an ad hominem.

Clearly, you would not recognize a logical argument even if it came up and tore a large gaping hole in your backside. You would probably offer it a bone, deny that it was hungry, admit skepticism concerning personal injury and let it rip off one of your hands because it was only trying to survive. Survival is, after all, the final arbiter of the truth of any matter.

 

[inocente]

Pot to kettle. It’s no different when liberal agnostics dogmatize their beliefs and demand conformity. Homosexualist States reversing Freedom of Speech and denying their citizens any rights to conscientious objection are aggressive, irrational and provocative actions. They are in fact objectively unlawful: i.e. they are tyrannical acts.

And it is political aspirations, some noble and some not, that are the cause of most wars. Frequently it’s just a country trying to secure itself. Most of Rome’s acquisitions and the endless wars it engaged in were started out of a perceived threat to its (national) security.

Yes, today it’s also very hot here.

I’ll see your Rome and raise you the results of certainty in the Aryan race myth, Godwin’s law not withstanding.

But you can also collapse into rank scepticism. You don’t have to doubt that some things are simply known and true. Starting from those things that are most evident and certain, you can progress to still more truths.

Agreed. Once you doubt everything then you are certain in your doubt, while science works in exactly the way you describe.

What’s so scary about doubting whether or not gravity is even real when washing the 63rd floor of a New York sky scraper? The scary part is that it can get you killed. Or you can lose your mind.

And when an inner voice says you can fly like Superman from the 63rd floor, it’s a good idea to doubt you can. And when some guy says he can double your $10,000 in two days, it’s a good idea to doubt.

Or why not, like that rank sophist Hume, doubt whether or not it’s reasonable to expect that when I -for example- go to open my bedroom door, that while turning the knob I might as well expect the door to turn into a unicorn because there is (ostensibly) no real relationship or good reason for thinking certain effects follow from certain causes and that cause and effect is really just a fiction of the human mind.

Who said doubt everything? That’s another useless philosophy from another useless philosopher.

Just leave the door open a little, neither take if off it’s hinges nor glue it shut. Those who crave certainty will take any answer, right or wrong. What’s so great about having an answer at all costs, even though it may be wrong?

Scepticism is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual. When they ridiculously dogmatize their doubts they become a pestilence to civilization. It produces foolishness that can lead easily into Matrix-style paranoia or delusion as well as wide-spread atheism; for surely if you can’t be sure that blue is a real colour because you haven’t (ostensibly) enough sufficient evidence to make the “knowledge-claim” that it really exists, then things that aren’t even physical (like the spiritual) will be even more unreasonable to believe.

I’m just saying a mustard seed of doubt is a very useful asset, just like a mustard seed of faith.

 

[inocente]

inocente
**
Did you notice Catholic Answers now has an article on ad hominem? No excuses anymore. **

You need to remember that the next time you want to say things like, “Those who are certain of their righteousness start wars in their arrogance.” Would you be referring to someone in this forum? If not, why would you even say anything so irrelevant to this thread?

Que?

Gone on then, I’ll bite, who on this forum do you think started a war? You’ll have to give exact citations here, no idea what you’re on about, I hope it’s not another one of those sectarian things.

Why don’t you go back and read the ad hominem article again and STOP DOING IT?

 

[WmJackP]

They are unable to come up with a coherent definition of “free will”.

Whether philosophers are useless or not is a point that can be argued persuasively either way. Certainly, it is not a practical or pragmatic enterprise, but, it is intellectually stimulating and philosophical discussion can lead to practical and productive ends.

As for free will, I would suggest that it can be argued that we do not have free will. Certainly we can intend our actions–but, we have no control over what we intend. A German philosopher (Schopenhauer) said it in an interesting way: Der Mensch kann tun was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will; or, in English there are various translations, but, the ones I like are “Man can do what he wills but he cannot choose what he wills” and “Man can do what he wants but he cannot intend what he wants” and “We can do what we wish, but we cannot determine our wishes”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Why don’t you go back and read the ad hominem article again and STOP DOING IT? **

You didn’t answer Peter Plato’s questions about why you ignored my question concerning the consistency of your logic. Anyone who tears at philosophy because it is not united should also be tearing at religion because it is not united. Yet you call yourself a Baptist. How is it you can be religious but not philosophical?

You have some 'splaining to do!

 

[inocente]

inocente
**
Why don’t you go back and read the ad hominem article again and STOP DOING IT? **

You didn’t answer Peter Plato’s questions about why you ignored my question concerning the consistency of your logic. Anyone who tears at philosophy because it is not united should also be tearing at religion because it is not united. Yet you call yourself a Baptist. How is it you can be religious but not philosophical?

You have some 'splaining to do!

I don’t get to see his posts, what’s your question?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jack

**“Man can do what he wills but he cannot choose what he wills” and “Man can do what he wants but he cannot intend what he wants” and “We can do what we wish, but we cannot determine our wishes”. **

Then, pray tell, who is doing the wishing and the intending?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**I don’t get to see his posts, what’s your question? **

Oh, aren’t you the ever Artful Dodger?

How is it you repudiate philosophy as a discipline without unity, and therefore useless, but do not repudiate the vast array of religions as a reason to call religion useless?

 

[WmJackP]

Jack
**“Man can do what he wills but he cannot choose what he wills” and “Man can do what he wants but he cannot intend what he wants” and “We can do what we wish, but we cannot determine our wishes”. **
Then, pray tell, who is doing the wishing and the intending?

I am afraid that question requires much more neuroscience than I have command of in order to answer. I have read enough, however, that I am personally convinced that the answer to “who” is much deeper and much more profound than the Cartesian notion of “the ghost in the machine”.

The next great scientific quest of the 21st century will perhaps be to come to an understanding of consciousness and what it means to experience “a self”. As we investigate AI (artificial intelligence) perhaps we will learn enough to answer the question of whether there are,in fact, any “who’s”

 

[inocente]

inocente

**I don’t get to see his posts, what’s your question? **

Oh, aren’t you the ever Artful Dodger?

How is it you repudiate philosophy as a discipline without unity, and therefore useless, but do not repudiate the vast array of religions as a reason to call religion useless?

Que? When did religion become an academic discipline? Seriously, are dancing, art, food now academic disciplines also, do we have to find truth in all boy bands now? Where does it say that reading Wittgenstein is the purpose of life?

The growing array of incompatible philosophies is a symptom of malaise. After Newton and the others took their leave to found modern science, the remaining philosophers were left hanging on to a faulty methodology. It works reasonably well in limited areas such as ethics, but is useless for answering most questions, the idea that truth can be found in the absence of evidence just by thinking really hard will go the same way as chicken entrails and astrology.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**When did religion become an academic discipline? **

When Jesus began to teach his followers.

It seems you have no answer, since you continue to dodge the question of why religious knowledge should not be as useless as philosophical knowledge by your own standard.