"Top 5" Intellectuals and Philosophers

[Volnotova]

<snip>

Sorry, but I think your entire reasoning is false.

If I would hypothetically go back with a timemachine(logically impossible) and kill a lowly peasant somewhere in the year 1500 B.C. then I'll assure you that the world of today would have looked very different and you would probrally find out that the "greatest" minds
of mankind weren't even born.

Remove one person and all of human history would have turned out different.

It doesn't matter if it would be a lowly peasant or Plato; the end result will be one that is nowhere near close the world as it is today.

[Conserative Morality]

While it's funny that while you admit that you have been "arguing against my position" which, once again, is NOT the topic of this thread, you somehow...nonsensically posit that the burden is on ME to stop YOUR persistant attempts at threadjacking?

Burden? What burden? Not posting on a threadjack is a burden? Actually, considering that your original post was, by your own definition, a threadjack, this entire argument comes back to your post.

But really, nice try.

That seems kind of odd to me. Should I come over and do your homework for you too? Brush your teeth and feed your dog for you while you're at it?

Do you need me to dress you as well, or do you have that one covered at least?

I wouldn't mind if you fed my dog, I wouldn't trust you with any essays I have though. Wouldn't want to disappoint any of my teachers.

[Ninja Sloths]

pst, thread STILL not about me!

You know perfectly well that every thread is either about Muravyets or you.

Freud, you say?

You must be mad. Certainly, Freud was well-read. Certainly he had some experience of pathology. But he was just making shit up wasn't he? I mean really.

[Neo Art]

AT BEST philosophical exercise can be a fun little effort to warm up the mind for actual valuable work, like stretching before lifting, but that's about it.

This only works if you conveniently label any philosopher that does contribute something useful as 'theorists',

Which I did at the onset of this thread. I'm pretty certain I did exactly that. Theorists have work of predictive value, that's what makes them theorists.

which is circular.

Not exactly, though I see why you'd think that. If my contention is "if a work has predictive power, then it's more theory than philosophy, and only works with predictive power have any intellectual value, then philosophy has no intellectual value" it may appear as circular but it's more tautology.

I have value in theory because I see value in predictive capabilities, I see value in works that are functional for a purpose. If it has no purpose than it is, by definition, "purposless", and while my definition may seem that I find philosophy worthless, thus define it as something worthless in a self fulfilling effort, but that's rather the other way around.

Or, to put it another way, it's not that it has no value BECAUSE it's philosophy, but rather that it's philosophy because it has no value. If it had value it'd be theory.

[Neo Art]

perhaps the lady doth protest too much, you seem to be putting a lot of energy caring into arguing with me about how little I care.

I'm here because it amuses me, no more no less. Trying to ascribe value to it beyond that is just an error in judgment. You're not going to manage to change my beliefs on the subject no matter how many ascinine, sophmoric and utterly uninspired questions you have to ask, yet you seem to persist.

Why's that, exactly?

You're here because it amuses you? People's reactions to your statement amuse you, and you like to continue this amusement? So basically, you're trolling?

*sigh* and yet once again I have to point out (and really, it should be common sense by now) that if you feel my conduct is against forum rules the moderation forum is right up there and feel free to report it.

[Unhealthy2]

*sigh* and yet once again I have to point out (and really, it should be common sense by now) that if you feel my conduct is against forum rules the moderation forum is right up there and feel free to report it.

Except that I don't believe in reporting people. I have never, nor will I ever, report anyone for anything. You can search the entire "Moderation" board and find not a single post from me.

[Ninja Sloths]

<snip>

Sorry, but I think your entire reasoning is false.

If I would hypothetically go back with a timemachine(logically impossible) and kill a lowly peasant somewhere in the year 1500 B.C. then I'll assure you that the world of today would have looked very different and you would probrally find out that the "greatest" minds
of mankind weren't even born.

Remove one person and all of human history would have turned out different.

It doesn't matter if it would be a lowly peasant or Plato; the end result will be one that is nowhere near close the world as it is today.

I counter your Amazonian Butterfly with a Schrodinger's Cat. Suppose that (with perfect hindsight) I locate a lowly peasant who is mushrooming in the forest ... and five minutes before he would otherwise be killed by a falling branch I kill him with a blow to the head. None of his friends or family will ever know the difference, surely? What difference could this make to human history?

[Neo Art]

*sigh* and yet once again I have to point out (and really, it should be common sense by now) that if you feel my conduct is against forum rules the moderation forum is right up there and feel free to report it.

Except that I don't believe in reporting people. I have never, nor will I ever, report anyone for anything. You can search the entire "Moderation" board and find not a single post from me.

That's....nice? I guess. I'm not really sure I see the point of your original post though, but it's like the 3rd time you've called me a troll (or implied it). You seem to be getting very riled up about this whole thing.

[Rumbria]

I have to say I understand and empathise with what you say, to a point, yet there is much I disagree with.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are essentially claiming that if an idea has validity then it is a theory, and if it is baseless it is philosophy.

I understand and empathise as it is clear that some philosophy, particularly postmodern philosophy, is little more than pretentious wankary.

However, I ultimately disagree, because I would contest your definition, and firmly hold my belief that the enquiring, philosophical mind is the ultimate ideal, due to its flexible nature. From scientists to political theorists, the desire to question the status quo, to move beyond the banality of societal ethics, is truly the way in which humanity will move forwards.

[Conserative Morality]

That's....nice? I guess. I'm not really sure I see the point of your original post though, but it's like the 3rd time you've called me a troll (or implied it). You seem to be getting very riled up about this whole thing.

Oh dear, Neo Art, don't threadjack about UH! I thought you were against threadjacking this thread.

[Free Soviets]

If I would hypothetically go back with a timemachine(logically impossible)

is it?

[Gthanp]

I'll go with

Rousseau
Marx
Laozi
Jesus
George Orwell

[Hydesland]

If my contention is "if a work has predictive power, then it's more theory than philosophy, and only works with predictive power have any intellectual value, then philosophy has no intellectual value" it may appear as circular but it's more tautology.

I think this is a shoddy definition of philosophy, I see no compelling reason to adhere to it. That's all I have to say about that really.

[Free Soviets]

[If my contention is "if a work has predictive power, then it's more theory than philosophy, and only works with predictive power have any intellectual value, then philosophy has no intellectual value" it may appear as circular but it's more tautology.

I have value in theory because I see value in predictive capabilities, I see value in works that are functional for a purpose. If it has no purpose than it is, by definition, "purposless", and while my definition may seem that I find philosophy worthless, thus define it as something worthless in a self fulfilling effort, but that's rather the other way around.

Or, to put it another way, it's not that it has no value BECAUSE it's philosophy, but rather that it's philosophy because it has no value. If it had value it'd be theory.

meh, all this does is make most of the shit philosophers spend time on into 'theory' and not 'philosophy'

[Ninja Sloths]

I mean hell if we're going to 'jack the thread, let's at least make it fun.

If I would hypothetically go back with a timemachine(logically impossible)

is it?

I wouldn't invoke "logic" to prove it, but yes I would say that is impossible.

But cheerfully, I see no reason why we cannot retrieve information from the past. There are photons travelling through space (though we cannot catch up with them) which record the death of a nameless peasant holding an extinct species of mushroom in a forest long since cut down. It is my sincere hope, and I see no reason why not, that information from the past (including our present) may some day be retrieved with any desired level of detail.

[Neo Art]

I have to say I understand and empathise with what you say, to a point, yet there is much I disagree with.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are essentially claiming that if an idea has validity then it is a theory, and if it is baseless it is philosophy.

Again, not exactly. Something is a theory if it is a theory, by which I mean it meets the definition of a theory, given that it is:

1) based on observation
2) falisfiable
3) predictive

Something that meets those criteria has value on an intellectual level (which is not to say that only intellect has value, lots of things have value for reasons beyond intellect. Music, art, love, the Transformers movies, all have value, none particularly intellectual), because only those things that actually DO something are of intellectual value, otherwise it's valueless musings (at least, again, on an intellectual level).

So you've got your orders of operations wrong, I'm not defining anything of validity as "theory" and dismissing the rest as "philosophy" in a circular way as you and Hydesland seem to think. I'm doing the opposite, I'm defining value and stating that only things that meet an intellectual criteria have that value, and those intellectual criteria make such things "theory". The rest, being that it's not based on observation, not falisfiable, and not predictive, have no intellectual value because they don't accomplish anything.

[Neo Art]

If my contention is "if a work has predictive power, then it's more theory than philosophy, and only works with predictive power have any intellectual value, then philosophy has no intellectual value" it may appear as circular but it's more tautology.

I think this is a shoddy definition of philosophy, I see no compelling reason to adhere to it. That's all I have to say about that really.

That's....nice, I suppose.

[Hydesland]

Again, not exactly. Something is a theory if it is a theory, by which I mean it meets the definition of a theory, given that it is:

1) based on observation
2) falisfiable
3) predictive

Something that meets those criteria has value on an intellectual level (which is not to say that only intellect has value, lots of things have value for reasons beyond intellect. Music, art, love, the Transformers movies, all have value, none particularly intellectual), because only those things that actually DO something are of intellectual value, otherwise it's valueless musings (at least, again, on an intellectual level).

What you just described here is basically a set of theories on science, namely the falsification principle, which was invented by philosophers. Again this leads to troubling concepts, was everything you just said here worthless? Since the falsification principle, a theory itself on how to acquire useful knowledge, cannot by its own right be falsified, does that make it worthless? I don't know how you can say these things but then say philosophy is worthless.

So you've got your orders of operations wrong, I'm not defining anything of validity as "theory" and dismissing the rest as "philosophy" in a circular way as you and Hydesland seem to think. I'm doing the opposite, I'm defining value and stating that only things that meet an intellectual criteria have that value, and those intellectual criteria make such things "theory". The rest, being that it's not based on observation, not falisfiable, and not predictive, have no intellectual value because they don't accomplish anything.

Logic, for instance, is not based on observation, but it is extremely important. In order for the falsification principle to work, a bunch of other theories (yes, theory is not defined by its falsifiability) must hold true first.

[Neo Art]

What you just described here is basically a set of theories on science, namely the falsification principle, which was invented by philosophers. Again this leads to troubling concepts, was everything you just said here worthless? Since the falsification principle, a theory itself on how to acquire useful knowledge, cannot by its own right be falsified, does that make it worthless? I don't know how you can say these things but then say philosophy is worthless.

It's quite easy to demonstrate it false. If knowledge can be gained through other means is demonstrated, then it's proven false.

Logic, for instance, is not based on observation, but it is extremely important. In order for the falsification principle to work, a bunch of other theories (yes, theory is not defined by its falsifiability) must hold true first.

Logic is ENTIRELY based on observation. The whole concept of logical axioms are based on what we have observed, and then applied to principles. The whole premise upon which the entire concept logic is built is based on shit we've seen.

Logic is basically a series of inferences. Inference is impossible without observation.

[Hydesland]

It's quite easy to demonstrate it false. If knowledge can be gained through other means is demonstrated, then it's proven false.

No, the falsification principle doesn't even state that this is the only way to gain knowledge, so that wouldn't disprove it. But this is pretty absurd concept, what metric do we measure whether we know something or not using the new method in this case? Note that you cannot use the falsification principle in this instance because that would be circular, since we're trying to demonstrate knowledge can be gained from another method even if it isn't corroborated by the falsification method. These things are highly philosophical issues, highly contentious, and definitely not settled.

Logic is ENTIRELY based on observation. The whole concept of logical axioms are based on what we have observed, and then applied to principles. The whole premise upon which the entire concept logic is built is based on shit we've seen.

No, whether axioms are observed, or even true not, is utterly irrelevant to logic. Logic can be sound even when axioms are completely made up. Logic is about internal consistency mainly, whether the axioms are true or not are irrelevant.

No offence, and I wouldn't normally expect to say this to someone like you, but I don't think you actually know what you're talking about.

[Neo Art]

No, whether axioms are observed, or even true not, is utterly irrelevant to logic. Logic can be sound even when axioms are completely made up. Logic is about internal consistency mainly, whether the axioms are true or not are irrelevant.

*sigh* and how in the world to we know if something is internally consistant or not unless it squares away with our observations?

The problem is you're being recursive. While:

p - > q

~q

therefore ~p

can mean ANYTHING, even "if dragons are pink then they eat ambrosia" and "dragons don't eat ambrosia" are the premises here, even if they're made up entirely using fictional constructs, the only way we can know whether that's internally consistant is through our own understanding that if condition A is dependant on premise B, and premise B is not present, then condition A can not exist.

What those conditions and premises are is not relevant. Logical axioms are a formalized way of structuring what we observe to be true, or at least believe to be true, because without observation there's no way to understand whether the axioms as concepts are internally consistant or not. We know things are consistant because we observe them to be consistent, and it doesn't matter what P and Q are here, or whether the underlying premise is true, false, or entirely fanciful. The only way we can reach a logical conclusion that things can not exist if the thing they're dependant on does not exist is through observation

Logic, as a framework, can not function without being based on observation, because we can not determine whether something is internally consistant or not without having an understanding of what "internally consistant" is. Logic is just observation applied to axioms. Whether the axioms are real or not is irrelevant.

[Volnotova]

I counter your Amazonian Butterfly with a Schrodinger's Cat. Suppose that (with perfect hindsight) I locate a lowly peasant who is mushrooming in the forest ... and five minutes before he would otherwise be killed by a falling branch I kill him with a blow to the head. None of his friends or family will ever know the difference, surely? What difference could this make to human history?

Touché

I tend to concur.

However, killing peasants in public, pregnant women or soon to be husband's/wife's can have a major impact on Human history.

However, as you mentioned, killing a person who will otherwise be killed anyway and lost forever will in the grand scheme of things probrally not make any difference.

[North Suran]

People's reactions to your statement amuse you, and you like to continue this amusement? So basically, you're trolling?

*sigh* and yet once again I have to point out (and really, it should be common sense by now) that if you feel my conduct is against forum rules the moderation forum is right up there and feel free to report it.

Not a denial, let it be noted.

Because really, that is what you are doing - trolling. You knew that this thread was going to feature philosophy, since it has the term "Philosophers" in the title. You also knew that this thread wasn't going to be about philosophy as a subject, or your feelings on it, since it quite clearly said ""Top 5" Intellectuals and Philosophers". Therefore, you entered this thread with all this knowledge, and then made a post that you knew would get a rise out of the other people visiting this thread, who would obviously be keen on philosophy. Ergo, you are trolling.

It's the equivalent of someone making a thread called "Top 5 Artists", and another person coming on to the thread and saying, "I think art is worthless and all artists are hacks."

If you want to discuss the merits or demerits of philosophy, then start a thread about it. This thread is for listing your favour philosophers or intellectuals, not bitching about philosophy in general.

[Neo Art]

*sigh* and yet once again I have to point out (and really, it should be common sense by now) that if you feel my conduct is against forum rules the moderation forum is right up there and feel free to report it.

Not a denial, let it be noted.

Because really, that is what you are doing - trolling. You knew that this thread was going to feature philosophy, since it has the term "Philosophers" in the title.

And, again, if you find my conduct against the forum rules then feel free to report it, otherwise all you're doing is whining.

You also knew that this thread wasn't going to be about philosophy as a subject, or your feelings on it, since it quite clearly said ""Top 5" Intellectuals and Philosophers". Therefore, you entered this thread with all this knowledge, and then made a post that you knew would get a rise out of the other people visiting this thread, who would obviously be keen on philosophy. Ergo, you are trolling.

And, again, stating that I do not find philosophy an intellectual exercise worthy of consideration in a thread about intellectual philosophers is no more trolling than going into abortion threads and saying that abortion is a sin is trolling just because I know that abortion threads also attract pro-choice people who would be bothered by my comment.

Having a belief and sharing that belief is not trolling, whether you like that belief or not.

But if you're so very keen on preserving the topic of this thread, may I remind you as well, that, once again, I am not it, nor is continued attempts to argue whether my conduct is against forum rules. There's a place for that, and I'm sure you know where it is, if you feel like having that topic of conversation.

It's the equivalent of someone making a thread called "Top 5 Artists", and another person coming on to the thread and saying, "I think art is worthless and all artists are hacks."

Which would be a fairly on topic response

If you want to discuss the merits or demerits of philosophy, then start a thread about it.

If you feel like discussing whether my conduct is trolling or not, then start a thread about it. Where it belongs. In moderation.

This thread is for listing your favour philosophers or intellectuals, not bitching about philosophy in general.

To which "I have none because intellectual philosophy is a contradiction in terms" is a valid response. Complaining about my perspective, however, isn't.

[Trotskylvania]

Neo Art, I say this as someone who respects you.

You are being a whiny little bitch right now, and this kind of conduct really is beneath you. Grow a pair and bow out.