Philosophy Now Forum

If a government can, 'for the good of the people' ban drugs, ban abortion and ban euthanasia they can certainly insist that all newborns are vaccinated, and I would support them on that. The benefit being that eventually, hopefully, the harmful virus will die out and people won't need to be vaccinat...

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:15 am

If philosophy does not help human beings it deserves ultimate censure, destruction and oblivion.

Good point.

The questions that then arise are:
1. How can you determine whether philosophy helps human beings?
2. If philosophy is deserving of destruction, how would you go about destroying it?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:31 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:05 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:21 am

I'm looking to a more advanced society. A civilization of 100% equality. One of no avarice or selfishness.

Sounds absolutely ghastly, a nightmare.

I expect such from the selfish ignorant!

I wonder if you realise what a selfish (and perhaps ignorant) position you hold.

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:26 pm

Alex Holzman sees the history of Golden Age Athens as a play with Pericles and Socrates as its tragic heroes.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/136/Th ... Was_Athens

They are better viewed as comic heroes.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:21 am

I'm looking to a more advanced society. A civilization of 100% equality. One of no avarice or selfishness.

Sounds absolutely ghastly, a nightmare.

The best writings on philosophy are not 'true'; they are communications of ideas.

What are your ideas?

PS I have 'known' Lacewing for quite a long time and IMO her model of the world is quite different from that of Skepdick; ergo they are different people. I would also suggest that using the use of capital letters as inferring that two posters are the same person is inefficient and ultimately inaccur...

Everyone has a different model of the world, albeit with some overlap.
There is no absolute or 'true' model of the world with which to compare one's model.
So the only way to objectively compare different models is with regard to their efficiency and accuracy.

It is all a PC game. Though admittedly some people take it quite seriously.

But as an outsider it is fun to watch, it's a bit like watching gridiron played with a balloon; entertaining but ultimately pointless.

All that we know of the world is a model of the world. To deny that is IMO to be a non-philosopher. I know my kitchen, clothes, wife and children, home town, colleagues, guitars, and so on and so on. These are real things that I know. They are not models (descriptions) of the world. They are featur...

All that we know of the world is a model of the world. To deny that is IMO to be a non-philosopher.

Peter Adamson reviews the relation of reason & revelation. https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/First_Believe_Then_Understand a proper use of reason is unattainable without religious commitment. It is the Vedas, or the Bible, that give us the truth, and the ‘scientist’s’ job is to understand that t...

Okay - thanks. So here are your claims: 1 What we call knowledge is an esoteric thing of some kind that we create with our brains. 2 Creating what we call knowledge involves a logical process. 3 What we call ideas are things of some kind that can be created ex nihilo. If that's correct, then here a...

Thanks. The reason why I'm not inclined to read your book is because of the impression I get from what you say. You seem to think that what we call knowledge is a thing of some kind that we 'create' with our brains, a thing with an esoteric nature of some kind, which you've managed to understand an...

Thanks for the heads-up. But I, for one, would be grateful for your summary (un-glib) answer to the question: 'What is knowledge and what does it mean to know something?' If the question lies at the root of philosophy, and you've answered it, we can all move on. First off, when the question is answ...