has philosophy lost its way?

[Skepdick]

I suppose seeking the "meaning of life" could be a case of finding out exactly what our values are or what is truly of value and from there having a place to start.

Your values evolve over time. Circumstances change. There's no start; or end to it.

You just roll with the punches and let your biases fight it out.

[Gary Childress]

I suppose seeking the "meaning of life" could be a case of finding out exactly what our values are or what is truly of value and from there having a place to start.

Your values evolve over time. Circumstances change. There's no start; or end to it.

You just roll with the punches and let your biases fight it out.

That's probably true to whatever extent also, but I think values evolve through contact with others and discovering how we relate to them and how they relate to us also.

[phyllo]

The question about Semmelweiss and puerperal sepsis is not a philosophical question.

Questions like ...

What is evidence?

What is sufficient evidence?

How do we gather evidence ethically?

Do we need to be ethical when gathering evidence?

... are philosophical questions.

[Iwannaplato]

I suppose seeking the "meaning of life" could be a case of finding out exactly what our values are or what is truly of value and from there having a place to start.

That's closer to what I try to find out.

[Skepdick]

That's probably true to whatever extent also, but I think values evolve through contact with others and discovering how we relate to them and how they relate to us also.

Of course. The negotiation is never-ending. You will let some people influence you, and not others. You won't have a choice in preventing other people from influencing you. You will form some relationships and not others. Some relationships will be forced upon you.

It's too dynamic to try to pin down. Just go with it.

Perhaps the only people I don't want to form any relationships with are philosophers. If that's the most interesting thing about you - I'm afraid I'll just read your book.

The people who create stuff are much more fun.

[Gary Childress]

That's probably true to whatever extent also, but I think values evolve through contact with others and discovering how we relate to them and how they relate to us also.

Of course. The negotiation is never-ending. You will let some people influence you, and not others. You will form some relationships and not others.

It's too dynamic to try to pin down. Just go with it.

Perhaps the only people I don't want to form any relationships with are philosophers. If that's the most interesting thing about you - I'm afraid I'll just read your book.

Did you read my book of poetry or what do you mean by "I'm afraid I'll just read your book"? It would be the most wonderful thing to me if you read it and told me what you thought of it.

[Skepdick]

That's probably true to whatever extent also, but I think values evolve through contact with others and discovering how we relate to them and how they relate to us also.

Of course. The negotiation is never-ending. You will let some people influence you, and not others. You will form some relationships and not others.

It's too dynamic to try to pin down. Just go with it.

Perhaps the only people I don't want to form any relationships with are philosophers. If that's the most interesting thing about you - I'm afraid I'll just read your book.

Did you read my book of poetry or what do you mean by "I'm afraid I'll just read your book"? It would be the most wonderful thing to me if you read it and told me what you thought of it.

I was talking to a fictitious philosopher in my head. Not you - you. Them - you.

Either way, I can only promise to put your book on my bookshelf. Which seems to be growing significantly faster than I am able to read....

[Gary Childress]

Of course. The negotiation is never-ending. You will let some people influence you, and not others. You will form some relationships and not others.

It's too dynamic to try to pin down. Just go with it.

Perhaps the only people I don't want to form any relationships with are philosophers. If that's the most interesting thing about you - I'm afraid I'll just read your book.

Did you read my book of poetry or what do you mean by "I'm afraid I'll just read your book"? It would be the most wonderful thing to me if you read it and told me what you thought of it.

I was talking to a fictitious philosopher in my head. Not you - you. Them - you.

Either way, I can only promise to put your book on my bookshelf. Which seems to be growing significantly faster than I am able to read....

They're very short poems. Some of them Haikus (or Hackus I call them). Some are maybe 15 lines tops. There are maybe a couple over 50 lines, the rest are pretty short.

To get some idea of the style of its contents, the first poem starting it off is:

Abilify

I don't know why
Abilify
Works as well on me as it does
However it's been good medicine
That keep me stable while on the drug
Haldol a curse
Was so much worse
I never want to be on it again
Although it may have calmed me
It turned me into a zombie
And that's the worst I've ever been

Or, my personal favorite:

Being Fifty-two

I'm fifty-two
maybe a late bloomer
I wish I'd matured a little sooner

But now is fine
as I approach the close
of life

Still...
sooner would have been nice

[iambiguous]

Has Philosophy Lost its Way?
Massimo Pigliucci

Philosophers have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot, they ought to stop.

Then my own rendition of this:

Those philosophers among us in particular who, in a free will world, actually do believe that just as we can grasp an objective reality in the either/or world, we can, in turn, accomplish this in the world of conflicting value judgements. Either theologically or philosophically. In fact, those such as Sam Harris...given his own, in my view, peculiar understanding of determinism...seem convinced that up to a point science can accomplish this in turn.

Moral philosophy and the scientific method?

We'll need context. Or, rather, I will.

One of the characteristics of philosophy as a field of inquiry is that — unique among human endeavors — it also inquiries upon itself.

In other words, philosophers must eventually get around to how and why the human condition itself fits into the existence of existence itself. Not counting those here who approach this question as well as though it was just a...trivial pursuit?

This was true since the times of Socrates and Epictetus, of course. Here is how the latter puts it in his Discourses:

“Now if you are writing to a friend, grammar will tell you that you need particular letters; but it will not tell you whether or not you should write to your friend. The same holds in the case of music’s relation to song. It will not say whether at this moment you should sing or play the lyre, or whether you should not do so. Which faculty, then, will do so? The one that studies both itself and everything else. And what is that? The faculty of reason. Yes; for this is the only faculty we have inherited that can perceive itself — what it is, what it is capable of, and how valuable it is — and also perceive all the rest.”

Again, given my own rendition of this, there is a world of difference for philosophers between establishing the fact that they play the lyre and establishing that in fact they are obligated to play it. That's akin to establishing that in fact classical music is better than jazz music is better than new wave music is better than blues music.

Let alone that music is objectively better than painting or sculpture or photography or performance art.

Then back to the gap between the objective knowledge able to be accumulated by those who perform abortions versus what I construe to be the personal opinions that ethicists can provide us in regard to the morality of abortion. Here, in my opinion, even the views of philosophers are rooted subjectively and subjunctively in dasein.

This was in the context of a discussion with his students of the nature of philosophy, the practice of which is of course entirely based on “the faculty of reason.”

Or, perhaps, the limitations of reason given the argument I make above?

[phyllo]

Has Philosophy Lost its Way?
Massimo Pigliucci

Lawrence Yeo morphs into Massimo Pigliucci

[iambiguous]

Has Philosophy Lost its Way?
Massimo Pigliucci

Lawrence Yeo morphs into Massimo Pigliucci

Just for the record...

I will no longer waste my time responding to those here that I deem to be Stooges. In fact, I now spend most of my time at the science/philosophy forum. No Stooges there [so far]. Also, no Kids, no Nazis, no FFOs [so far], no yak yak yak social media types, and no one that strikes me as being afflicted with a "condition".



Well, provided of course that we do indeed live in a free will world.

And that even your God might not exist?

[phyllo]

A man would just admit that he made a mistake.

[phyllo]

It's not dishonorable to make a mistake, it's dishonorable to pretend not to have made a mistake.

[iambiguous]

I promise this is the last time:


Absolutely shameless!!




Now, to the best of your ability, try imagine hundreds and hundreds of dancing bananas below.

[phyllo]

Pathetic.