What do people want from philosophy?

[thedoc]

Then your philosophy is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what, both science and philosophy are about learning, science learns about the physical world, philosophy learns about the abstract. If your learning is based on evidence then it is more science than philosophy.

[Dalek Prime]

I've got what I wanted from philosophy. And if I'm wrong, well, fuck it. Them's the breaks.

So did you reach the end of the road or the end of your tether?

I'm satisfied with my conclusions. Doesn't keep me from learning new things though. I enjoy learning.

[A_Seagull]

Then your philosophy is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what, both science and philosophy are about learning, science learns about the physical world, philosophy learns about the abstract. If your learning is based on evidence then it is more science than philosophy.

Your version of philosophy, being entirely abstract, is indistinguishable from fantasy.

[thedoc]

Then your philosophy is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what, both science and philosophy are about learning, science learns about the physical world, philosophy learns about the abstract. If your learning is based on evidence then it is more science than philosophy.

Your version of philosophy, being entirely abstract, is indistinguishable from fantasy.

And your version of philosophy, being based on evidence, is indistinguishable from science.

My philosophy isn't entirely abstract, but that is a major part of it.

And what is wrong with fantasy?

[A_Seagull]

Irrelevant to what, both science and philosophy are about learning, science learns about the physical world, philosophy learns about the abstract. If your learning is based on evidence then it is more science than philosophy.

Your version of philosophy, being entirely abstract, is indistinguishable from fantasy.

And your version of philosophy, being based on evidence, is indistinguishable from science.

My philosophy isn't entirely abstract, but that is a major part of it.

And what is wrong with fantasy?

Science has achieved a great deal over the centuries; philosophy, in contrast, has achieved very little. Being essentially fantasy, perhaps this is not so surprising. Perhaps the science of philosophy can do better.

[thedoc]

Your version of philosophy, being entirely abstract, is indistinguishable from fantasy.

And your version of philosophy, being based on evidence, is indistinguishable from science.

My philosophy isn't entirely abstract, but that is a major part of it.

And what is wrong with fantasy?

Science has achieved a great deal over the centuries; philosophy, in contrast, has achieved very little. Being essentially fantasy, perhaps this is not so surprising. Perhaps the science of philosophy can do better.

Actually philosophy, in the abstract form of fantasy, has led the way for science. Many of the scientific discoveries over the years, have been predicted by science fiction, which is fantasy of the future.

[Gabriel]

FRUSTRATIONS!

What do people want from philosophy, or school of thought? An end to everyday frustrations, an end to an inexperienced mind that gives in to frustrations. To establish how to live peacefully, without disrupting anger (different from other forms of anger) beside teaching thought itself.

If we don't get angry, our lives are much better. Unfortunately, science fiction makes us look like aliens if we indeed become beacons of calmness. And we loop all the way from Aquinus back to Buddha's homeland in northern India.

Note how evolutionary communism is the answer of humanity to Christian schools of thought after 400 years. They establish that indeed, communism. And start killing each other. Madness.

Imagine people who decide to actively become part of an indescribed blob that accompanies a thinking human. Ghosts following history while everything is already answered. Fantasy science-fiction.

[thedoc]

I just want some "cozy chat" some pleasant conversation, I don't want to read something that upsets me or makes me angry, I have enough anger in my life as it is.

[henry quirk]

From philosophy?

Not a goddamned thing.

From 'philosophers'?

Less arrogance, less condescension, acknowledgement that philo-jargon is not synonymous with knowledge.

Folks who fancy themselves 'philosopher kings' (but who couldn't spend a day in the woods alone), I want they should climb down offa their (hobby) horses (or come down from their Ivory Towers) and come stand, bare-footed in the mud like every one else.

And: get a job (a real one), you friggin' hippies. Go make sumthin', do sumthin'...navel gazin' is no kinda life.

[Lacewing]

Philosophy can be a way to continually question our deeply rooted beliefs -- and in doing so, we invite expansion and growth of our perspectives. Which seems courageous and adventurous.

People often use philosophy, however, to establish a "base" from which they can be "right"... and better than others. Which seems safe and contrived.

So, whatever a person NEEDS... seems to steer their brand and use of philosophy.

Just as it is false to consider all "theists" as divinely-driven, it must also be false to consider all "philosophers" as driven by a clarity and scope broader than their ego.

[henry quirk]

"People often use philosophy, however, to establish a "base" from which they can be "right"... and better than others."

Right on the money, Lace, right on the money.

[A_Seagull]

"People often use philosophy, however, to establish a "base" from which they can be "right"... and better than others."

Right on the money, Lace, right on the money.

So then what I want is a philosophy that can refute the BS of other philosophies.

[Londoner]

From philosophy?

Not a goddamned thing.

From 'philosophers'?

Less arrogance, less condescension, acknowledgement that philo-jargon is not synonymous with knowledge.

Folks who fancy themselves 'philosopher kings' (but who couldn't spend a day in the woods alone), I want they should climb down offa their (hobby) horses (or come down from their Ivory Towers) and come stand, bare-footed in the mud like every one else.

And: get a job (a real one), you friggin' hippies. Go make sumthin', do sumthin'...navel gazin' is no kinda life.

A philosopher responds:

Why abuse hippies? Hippies tend to be quite into spending days in the wood alone, standing barefooted in the mud etc.

In one part of this post, spending days in the wood, alone, with no footwear, is seen as a worthwhile activity. In another we are advised to get a real job, stop navel gazin'. This seems contradictory.

And why leave out the 'g' at the end of words ending 'ing'? It doesn't save any effort, not if you type an apostrophe to put in its place.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, mebbe you wanna put the kibosh on being so literal-minded.

And, it's flattering (I guess) you have such an interest in (worry about) my eccentricities, but -- really -- you're makin' too much about nuthin'.

[Londoner]

Yeah, mebbe you wanna put the kibosh on being so literal-minded.

And, it's flattering (I guess) you have such an interest in (worry about) my eccentricities, but -- really -- you're makin' too much about nuthin'.

You criticise philosophers for their 'philo-jargon'.

I'm pointing out that your own posts contain far more jargon that theirs, to the extent that you write using a special language.

Why 'flattering' and not 'flatterin'' ?