philosophy

[Kilgore Trout]

I find philosophy to be extraneous for the questing intellect.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I find philosophy to be extraneous for the questing intellect.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Smilies are also extraneous for the questing intellect - or, at least for the intellect with a cogent position to express.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

So we should presuppose that our current information gathering methods and paradigms are the absolute best that they could possible be and that investigation into those topics would be a complete waste of time?

The philosophy of science has lead to critique and investigations into the veracity of claims made by scientists (that subsequently did reveal cases of fraudulent claims), and so I should believe that as a venture the philosophy of science is a superfluous one?


What we know, how we know it, and why we think we know what we know are not at all obvious to people, even amongst people who are genius level intellects. I don't pretend to have an IQ of 180+ (and/or capable of 4 degrees of abstraction), but when a great many of the people who do claim that it is extremely difficult to know those things and to perpetually stay on top of them, then I can safely say that I am confidant that rationality is a complex and difficult task.

MTF

 

[Slapstick]

I think philosophy is a forgotten art and should be taught in high school (in the states) as a requirement, preferably freshmen year before getting deep into the sciences. Big questions are worth asking, exploring and investigating. Philosophy encourages people to think, not only about life, but the world around them. It would cover the basis for just about everything a young high school person needs to know before pursuing a career, going to college and deciding what they want to do with their life. Challenge their views and beliefs, create arguments, get engaged in debating, and learn about ethics and how to properly communicate and think rationally.

There is a long list of things that philosophy could teach younger people and obviously people at that age are going through times where they are trying to discover their own identity and philosophy would make an excellent addition. Otherwise philosophy will never get the recognition it deserves and will be taken over by other classes (like it already has) that are a complete waste of time – especially at a high school level. People should be able to develop critical thinking skills and begin making education decisions to things long before they leave high school.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Smilies are also extraneous for the questing intellect - or, at least for the intellect with a cogent position to express.

Since you didn't express a "cogent position" in the first place, one was hardly required in response. And it looks like my emoticon was roughly equivalent to the cogency of your post- and more parsimonious as well.

(I mean, when you say something silly, that you likely know is silly, what sort of response do you honestly expect to get? )

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What if I say, "buying food is extraneous for the hungry stomach"... Should I be surprised when I get mostly curious looks and mockery in response?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What if I say, "buying food is extraneous for the hungry stomach"... Should I be surprised when I get mostly curious looks and mockery in response?

You definitely shouldn't be surprised when you get that reaction when you make bad analogies.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You definitely shouldn't be surprised when you get that reaction when you make bad analogies.

And by the same token you shouldn't be surprised that your silly comment prompted similar reactions... "Philosophy is superfluous to the questing intellect"? Please. Looks like the analogy was spot on.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And by the same token you shouldn't be surprised that your silly comment prompted similar reactions.

Reactions? I only see one silly reaction. Yours.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Reactions? I only see one silly reaction. Yours.

Well, not really, but ok. At least you now understand why you received such a reaction- because your comment was stupid and plainly wrong. "Philosophy is extraneous for the questing intellect"... LOL.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, not really, but ok. At least you now understand why you received such a reaction- because your comment was stupid and plainly wrong. "Philosophy is extraneous for the questing intellect"... LOL.

I see that you still haven't actually stated any cogent argument against or about my statement, or even provided any indication that you've thought about what I might have meant. Repeating my statement over and over doesn't constitute a meaningful objection. Now, do you actually have anything substantive to say?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I see that you still haven't actually stated any cogent argument against or about my statement

Nor do I need to. Your statement was silly and ignorant, and you haven't bothered to give any reasons for thinking that what you said was the case at all. If no argument is offered, no counter-argument is required.

Now, do you actually have anything substantive to say?

Yes; your statement was naïve, and likely based more on a lack of familiarity with real philosophy than anything else (when someone makes a patently false bare assertion about something, this is often a safe bet)

The silliest part is, in order for you to substantiate your claim, you basically have to refute it; providing and analyzing arguments is part of what philosophy consists in- ironically, in order to back up your claim that philosophy is superfluous, you have to do some philosophy. Ouch.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nor do I need to. Your statement was silly and ignorant, and you haven't bothered to give any reasons for thinking that what you said was the case at all. If no argument is offered, no counter-argument is required.

A simple "no" would have sufficed. Let me know if come up with any cogent or substantive objection. Perhaps you find something some philosopher said to pass off as your own thinking. Anything would be better than your repeated, childish name calling.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Let me know if come up with any cogent or substantive objection.

Well, I can't really do that unless and until you give me a cogent and substantive position to object to. Your comment was basically tantamount to "I don't like philosophy"- no argument, no reasons, just a statement of preference. I don't know what you expect me to do with that other than say that your preference is silly and naïve, and appears to simply be one born of ignorance.

If you'd actually like to say why you consider philosophy to be "extraneous for the questing intellect", then we have something to discuss. But since you have not done so, your demands that I provide arguments and reasons (when you have no such obligation, even though you are the one making a claim) is ludicrous.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, I can't really do that unless and until you give me a cogent and substantive position to object to.

Then why do you keep babbling on in an endless hissy fit? If you don't have a cogent objection, then move on and get over it. Simple.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Then why do you keep babbling on in an endless hissy fit? If you don't have a cogent objection, then move on and get over it. Simple.

Really?

If you don't have a cogent position, then move on and get over it, and quit babbling on in an endless hissy fit about me pointing out how silly and naïve your comment was.

Also, notice how many times I've tried to prompt you to substantiate your claim and actually start a real discussion- at least 2 or 3 times now, if not more- all of which you've ignored in favor of these vacuous and petulant responses... Good grief. This avoidance makes it pretty safe to conclude that you simply can't substantiate your claim, that it was as baseless and ignorant as it appeared to be.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Okay, so what we're left with after 20 posts is my statement that "philosophy is extraneous to the questing intellect," and your repeated responses which amount to "no it isn't, poopy-head." If you come up with anything more substantial, let me know.

 

[Anatta]

I find philosophy to be extraneous for the questing intellect.

Why is that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why is that?

To be more specific, in my experience, I generally find that the study and pursuit of philosophy and philosophical works often corresponds to minds more suited for reflecting the thoughts of others, rather than formulating thoughts of their own. For the naturally questing intellect, questions and concepts of philosophy will naturally and organically evolve and develop without specific exposure to philosophical works or predefined concepts. Essentially, I find that the study of philosophy usually ends up being a study of thinkers, rather than a study of how to think.