Philosophy the Impractical Art

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Systematic
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Systematic »

Philosophy inasmuch as it deals merely with theories is utterly impractical to a truly functional person. In the modern world, we do not deal with theory as a rule. Instead we deal with specific applications. What use do we have for a philosopher who deals with ideas but cannot bend into a particular function such as that of a mechanic or electrician or IT specialist. We need people who can memorize the details of their own function--not those who question those things to be memorized. In the end, technique will always prevail over pure knowledge. Even philosophy herself is not immune to techniques which can be used. Unless you go to college, as prescribed, and learn the appropriate techniques of analysis, your philosophizing will not be adequate. It is not enough to merely read the philosophers themselves, deciding for yourself what is appropriate. You will obviously lack the skill in analysis necessary to make adequate judgements.

Of what use have philosophers been in the modern era to actual skills that everyone can easily apply. That is why people flock to self-help gurus. Their books are actually applicable to modern life.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Systematic wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:39 pm Philosophy inasmuch as it deals merely with theories is utterly impractical to a truly functional person. In the modern world, we do not deal with theory as a rule. Instead we deal with specific applications. What use do we have for a philosopher who deals with ideas but cannot bend into a particular function such as that of a mechanic or electrician or IT specialist. We need people who can memorize the details of their own function--not those who question those things to be memorized. In the end, technique will always prevail over pure knowledge. Even philosophy herself is not immune to techniques which can be used. Unless you go to college, as prescribed, and learn the appropriate techniques of analysis, your philosophizing will not be adequate. It is not enough to merely read the philosophers themselves, deciding for yourself what is appropriate. You will obviously lack the skill in analysis necessary to make adequate judgements.

Of what use have philosophers been in the modern era to actual skills that everyone can easily apply. That is why people flock to self-help gurus. Their books are actually applicable to modern life.
People base their whole lives around theories, as practicality is merely a theory. "If I do A then B happens" is the foundation for the majority of peoples decisions. What we understand of practicality is merely theoretical as their is no definition as to what practical is other than "what one needs"?

But what does one need? Food, shelter, sex? But what are those things in themselves? How much food and what type of food do I need?
Is this food good for my health, or bad for it? Why? Is this the best amount of x and I can get with y money. Is the quality enough to sustain my health?

And shelter? How big does my house need to be? How is it to be constructed? Is it is to be constructed in such a manner what skills, rooted in geometric theories, do I need? How much money should I put into X. Do I really need y, and if so why?

And sex? Should I chase the girl, or not chase her? What do I want out of this relationship? What does she want out of it? Should we have kids, not have kids? What are her goals? What are mine? Are we really happy together? What is happiness? Is it just a feeling? If so, should I listen to it or ignore it? Who is in charge of the relationship? Is it equal? Will one of us get bored with it?

All of these questions provide foundations for theories we build are lives around as theories are merely ideas and nothing more. The answers to many of our questions are simply ideas forming reality.
Systematic
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Systematic »

Practicality may in fact be a theory, but it is the only theory that matters, since it is the only theory that deals with practical matters. All other theories are too far removed from reality to be useful. When we stick to practical matters of thought, we avoid the superfluous the unneeded thoughts that do not have much bearing on what we are likely to experience in the real world. And if a philosophy cannot be actually useful, why would someone waste their time thinking about it. And I might go as far to say that nearly all of the philosophies that have come along so far have been so far removed from actual use that they have been largely ignored by those who actually make decisions. If we are not able to make actual decisions based on philosophy, then it is theory only. Up till now, there have not been many philosophers who have been practical enough to be adopted by seriously practical people. The empiricists have come close, but alas they put too much emphasis on theory. Observation is a practical function, but it does not end necessarily in anything practical such as a procedure.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Systematic wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:47 pm Practicality may in fact be a theory, but it is the only theory that matters, since it is the only theory that deals with practical matters. All other theories are too far removed from reality to be useful. When we stick to practical matters of thought, we avoid the superfluous the unneeded thoughts that do not have much bearing on what we are likely to experience in the real world. And if a philosophy cannot be actually useful, why would someone waste their time thinking about it. And I might go as far to say that nearly all of the philosophies that have come along so far have been so far removed from actual use that they have been largely ignored by those who actually make decisions. If we are not able to make actual decisions based on philosophy, then it is theory only. Up till now, there have not been many philosophers who have been practical enough to be adopted by seriously practical people. The empiricists have come close, but alas they put too much emphasis on theory. Observation is a practical function, but it does not end necessarily in anything practical such as a procedure.
If practicality is a theory, and this is the only theory that is practical, is it practical to form further theories that have practical applications?
Systematic
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Systematic »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:11 pm
Systematic wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:47 pm Practicality may in fact be a theory, but it is the only theory that matters, since it is the only theory that deals with practical matters. All other theories are too far removed from reality to be useful. When we stick to practical matters of thought, we avoid the superfluous the unneeded thoughts that do not have much bearing on what we are likely to experience in the real world. And if a philosophy cannot be actually useful, why would someone waste their time thinking about it. And I might go as far to say that nearly all of the philosophies that have come along so far have been so far removed from actual use that they have been largely ignored by those who actually make decisions. If we are not able to make actual decisions based on philosophy, then it is theory only. Up till now, there have not been many philosophers who have been practical enough to be adopted by seriously practical people. The empiricists have come close, but alas they put too much emphasis on theory. Observation is a practical function, but it does not end necessarily in anything practical such as a procedure.
If practicality is a theory, and this is the only theory that is practical, is it practical to form further theories that have practical applications?
You're walking a fine line there. Better to stick with theory that has been proven practical. Stay functional. That is the way of prudence.

Edit for spelling.
Last edited by Systematic on Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Systematic wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:42 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:11 pm
Systematic wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:47 pm Practicality may in fact be a theory, but it is the only theory that matters, since it is the only theory that deals with practical matters. All other theories are too far removed from reality to be useful. When we stick to practical matters of thought, we avoid the superfluous the unneeded thoughts that do not have much bearing on what we are likely to experience in the real world. And if a philosophy cannot be actually useful, why would someone waste their time thinking about it. And I might go as far to say that nearly all of the philosophies that have come along so far have been so far removed from actual use that they have been largely ignored by those who actually make decisions. If we are not able to make actual decisions based on philosophy, then it is theory only. Up till now, there have not been many philosophers who have been practical enough to be adopted by seriously practical people. The empiricists have come close, but alas they put too much emphasis on theory. Observation is a practical function, but it does not end necessarily in anything practical such as a procedure.
If practicality is a theory, and this is the only theory that is practical, is it practical to form further theories that have practical applications?
Your walking a fine line there. Better to stick with theory that has been proven practical. Stay functional. That is the way of prudence.
And what is theory that is proven practical?
Systematic
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Systematic »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:45 pm

And what is theory that is proven practical?
Electrical theory for example, has allowed us to communicate. Therefore, in that way it is practical in proof. I don't have to wait for mail nor a printing press to reach an audience. Mechanical theory in that it allows quicker transportation is practical. Factories have proven very practical. We know that those work. Any new idea or theory that you may have is not known to be practical. It might work, but change may reduce functionality. The scariest of all is that humanity become less functional owing to philosophy and the meandering mind.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Systematic wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:39 pm Philosophy inasmuch as it deals merely with theories is utterly impractical to a truly functional person. In the modern world, we do not deal with theory as a rule. Instead we deal with specific applications. What use do we have for a philosopher who deals with ideas but cannot bend into a particular function such as that of a mechanic or electrician or IT specialist. We need people who can memorize the details of their own function--not those who question those things to be memorized. In the end, technique will always prevail over pure knowledge. Even philosophy herself is not immune to techniques which can be used. Unless you go to college, as prescribed, and learn the appropriate techniques of analysis, your philosophizing will not be adequate. It is not enough to merely read the philosophers themselves, deciding for yourself what is appropriate. You will obviously lack the skill in analysis necessary to make adequate judgements.

Of what use have philosophers been in the modern era to actual skills that everyone can easily apply. That is why people flock to self-help gurus. Their books are actually applicable to modern life.
I disagree that it deals only with theories, it both deals with theories as well making evident that which is obvious/should be obvious to all. The theories themselves may finish up in a place of obvious sentiment. It is in the intricate construction of such sentiments that what was before an area of misinformed programming, come bias perception, may be revealed for the first time in all of its abundant undeniable clarity. Impractical to a functional person? - No, philosophical thinking makes the impractical practical, so in actual fact one becomes potentially more functional. Google celebritydiscodave. I am sixty five years old, collect physical records, come world records, and rankings, and my fan base are all under the age of sixteen, so likely your age now. All this was made possible through philosophy, as well my likely having only aged to about half of these years. Do n`t underestimate the powers of philosophy, but make it your own, and do n`t be indoctrinated by it. This serves only the gods.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Systematic wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:15 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:45 pm

And what is theory that is proven practical?
Electrical theory for example, has allowed us to communicate. Therefore, in that way it is practical in proof. I don't have to wait for mail nor a printing press to reach an audience. Mechanical theory in that it allows quicker transportation is practical. Factories have proven very practical. We know that those work. Any new idea or theory that you may have is not known to be practical. It might work, but change may reduce functionality. The scariest of all is that humanity become less functional owing to philosophy and the meandering mind.
But weren't these theories found by "meandering minds"? How is the role of philosophy any different than stairing into the unknown?

Besides, has instant communication made things better if people are not involved in their immediate environment anymore? What differs practicality from subjective want?
Systematic
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Systematic »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:32 am
Systematic wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:39 pm Philosophy inasmuch as it deals merely with theories is utterly impractical to a truly functional person. In the modern world, we do not deal with theory as a rule. Instead we deal with specific applications. What use do we have for a philosopher who deals with ideas but cannot bend into a particular function such as that of a mechanic or electrician or IT specialist. We need people who can memorize the details of their own function--not those who question those things to be memorized. In the end, technique will always prevail over pure knowledge. Even philosophy herself is not immune to techniques which can be used. Unless you go to college, as prescribed, and learn the appropriate techniques of analysis, your philosophizing will not be adequate. It is not enough to merely read the philosophers themselves, deciding for yourself what is appropriate. You will obviously lack the skill in analysis necessary to make adequate judgements.

Of what use have philosophers been in the modern era to actual skills that everyone can easily apply. That is why people flock to self-help gurus. Their books are actually applicable to modern life.
I disagree that it deals only with theories, it both deals with theories as well making evident that which is obvious/should be obvious to all. The theories themselves may finish up in a place of obvious sentiment. It is in the intricate construction of such sentiments that what was before an area of misinformed programming, come bias perception, may be revealed for the first time in all of its abundant undeniable clarity. Impractical to a functional person? - No, philosophical thinking makes the impractical practical, so in actual fact one becomes potentially more functional. Google celebritydiscodave. I am sixty five years old, collect physical records, come world records, and rankings, and my fan base are all under the age of sixteen, so likely your age now. All this was made possible through philosophy, as well my likely having only aged to about half of these years. Do n`t underestimate the powers of philosophy, but make it your own, and do n`t be indoctrinated by it. This serves only the gods.
You are highly inspirational sir. I can see how your ideal of strength fits very nicely with being highly functional. But where we differ is this: functionality does not equal superfluous achievements such as breaking world records. It is difficult to run while striking a pose.
Systematic
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Systematic »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:10 pm But weren't these theories found by "meandering minds"? How is the role of philosophy any different than stairing into the unknown?

Besides, has instant communication made things better if people are not involved in their immediate environment anymore? What differs practicality from subjective want?
Using the knowledge that we have definitively proven useful is much more prudent than breaking up the structures with new knowledge that may prove false. The unknown can be a very dangerous place. And we have had philosophy for millenia. Likely everything useful to be found has already been found. Are we not wise enough already? Is there anything yet to be discovered that would justify sacrificing a large degree of functionality?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Systematic wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:10 pm But weren't these theories found by "meandering minds"? How is the role of philosophy any different than stairing into the unknown?

Besides, has instant communication made things better if people are not involved in their immediate environment anymore? What differs practicality from subjective want?
Using the knowledge that we have definitively proven useful is much more prudent than breaking up the structures with new knowledge that may prove false.
Everything that has proven useful does not work eventually.


The unknown can be a very dangerous place.
We do not know that. The unknown is the unknown and noone knows what lies within the center of that "darkness".

And we have had philosophy for millenia. Likely everything useful to be found has already been found.
But would we know if it was forgotten?

Are we not wise enough already?
I don't know...are we?

Is there anything yet to be discovered that would justify sacrificing a large degree of functionality?
And tell me what this functionality is, because I look at nature and it seems to move regardless of whether it is "functional" or not. using an example found within nature: the deer. A deer with an arrow impaling its thigh continues to move, eat and have sex regardless. Does it die sooner? Compared to what? Plenty of "healthy" functional deer die before there time. Does it suffer? What doesn't?

The truth is functionality is perspective, and what "works" one day does not work the next as dictated by "progress" itself.
Systematic
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Systematic »

Using the knowledge that we have definitively proven useful is much more prudent than breaking up the structures with new knowledge that may prove false.
Everything that has proven useful does not work eventually.

I find that claim to be rather dubious. What has worked will likely continue working, and what hasn't worked will likely continue not working. Probability is in favor of doing what has worked before.

The unknown can be a very dangerous place.
We do not know that. The unknown is the unknown and noone knows what lies within the center of that "darkness".

The unknown can be a very dangerous place compared to what is known and proven to work. That is why proven science is held with such high regard while the unproven science must be carefully segregated from mainstream reality.

And we have had philosophy for millenia. Likely everything useful to be found has already been found.
But would we know if it was forgotten?

We have got what works from the philosophies. The unworkable parts are negligible. And after World War II, I would observe that adopting a new philosophy is highly volatile. That is evident by all of the warring that was brought on by the adoption new philosophies such as marxism, machiavellianism, and whatever ism you attribute to Nietzsche.

Are we not wise enough already?
I don't know...are we?

I would say, "No," there is still room to improve in practicality.

Is there anything yet to be discovered that would justify sacrificing a large degree of functionality?
And tell me what this functionality is, because I look at nature and it seems to move regardless of whether it is "functional" or not. using an example found within nature: the deer. A deer with an arrow impaling its thigh continues to move, eat and have sex regardless. Does it die sooner? Compared to what? Plenty of "healthy" functional deer die before there time. Does it suffer? What doesn't?

The truth is functionality is perspective, and what "works" one day does not work the next as dictated by "progress" itself.



And I hold that this progress, which philosophy may or may not deliver, to be a fairytale, in that, it is not likely to occur, and it could actually make things worse.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Systematic wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:53 pm Using the knowledge that we have definitively proven useful is much more prudent than breaking up the structures with new knowledge that may prove false.
Everything that has proven useful does not work eventually.

I find that claim to be rather dubious. What has worked will likely continue working, and what hasn't worked will likely continue not working. Probability is in favor of doing what has worked before.
Probability is strictly an observation of potentiality and actuality as potentiality/actuality. We can observe this in fractions. In these respects probabilistic logic correlates with a fuzzy logic, that while necessary is still a form of approximation as "movement". What we understand of anything of probabilistic nature is fundamentally a nature of movement as particulation. This is considering particulate exist if and only if they relate as "movement".

The problem occurs, logically speaking, with the question: "Is probability probabilistic?" This is considering a premise where what is probable is in a continual state of movement as particulation.





The unknown can be a very dangerous place.
We do not know that. The unknown is the unknown and noone knows what lies within the center of that "darkness".

The unknown can be a very dangerous place compared to what is known and proven to work.
What is known is dangerous, as it is probabilistic and subject to flux.

That is why proven science is held with such high regard while the unproven science must be carefully segregated from mainstream reality.

Proven science, embodied as empiricism, is approximation as probabilism. In these respect certainty is "gradated". Do not get me wrong however, empiricism is important and has its place. However I would constitute it as 1/3 of a perspective as 1/3 of knowledge.


And we have had philosophy for millenia. Likely everything useful to be found has already been found.
But would we know if it was forgotten?

We have got what works from the philosophies. The unworkable parts are negligible. And after World War II, I would observe that adopting a new philosophy is highly volatile.
Considering the times are volatile enough as they stand, would this volatility not end up synthesizing a new philosophy?


That is evident by all of the warring that was brought on by the adoption new philosophies such as marxism, machiavellianism, and whatever ism you attribute to Nietzsche.

These philosophies are founded through negation, however negation has its limits when faced with "being" itself. Would you agree to the possibility that these philosophies might negate themselves from existence and clear the way for a new philosophy?


Are we not wise enough already?
I don't know...are we?

I would say, "No," there is still room to improve in practicality.

Is there anything yet to be discovered that would justify sacrificing a large degree of functionality?
And tell me what this functionality is, because I look at nature and it seems to move regardless of whether it is "functional" or not. using an example found within nature: the deer. A deer with an arrow impaling its thigh continues to move, eat and have sex regardless. Does it die sooner? Compared to what? Plenty of "healthy" functional deer die before there time. Does it suffer? What doesn't?

The truth is functionality is perspective, and what "works" one day does not work the next as dictated by "progress" itself.



And I hold that this progress, which philosophy may or may not deliver, to be a fairytale, in that, it is not likely to occur, and it could actually make things worse.
Progress is self-anihilation as a linear movement towards ever-approaching zero. What if we find something after this annihilation?
Systematic
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Philosophy the Impractical Art

Post by Systematic »

To invent a new philosophy would require much open-mindedness not only on the part of the philosophers, but also on the part of the public at large. There are many who, like me, realize such extreme open-mindedness to be folly. We will stick with what has been proven through and through.

There is no reason for us to have faith in philosophy, for it is apparent that philosophy is reaching its nadir. Just as the land on Earth has already been discovered, all truth that can be known is known already. There is no need to rock the boat with theory that is just slightly closer to the truth. We shouldn't be revolutionaries just because we know a little better than before. If someone wish to learn the truth, they need only to memorize from those who have already found it.
Post Reply