Science lives. Philosophy is dead and we have killed it.

[Marcus de Brun]

There is something within philosophy which seeks to confound Philosophy and (like ego's on philosophy forums) this something consistently masquerades as 'critical appraisal'. I would like to know if that 'something' exists, what it is, and why (if it exists) does it serve as a paralysis to Philosophy and not to Science?

The contention here is that no discipline is as destructive of itself than that of Philosophy. This capacity for, and wanton indulgence in, self destructive analysis, is a definitive symptom of the 'depressive', and it declares more of contemporary Philosophers than it does of Philosophy.

Within the Philosophical tenet one is far more likely to find a dialogue that seeks to destroy Philosophy, than that which seeks to build upon deduced and established philosophical principles. There are those (severe depressives) who insist that Philosophy has produced 'no sound theories of anything', despite the reality that many of Philosophy's theories are more sound and more enduring than the most currently entrenched Theories of Science. One need only consider the truth that it was the Epicurean who fostered and preserved 'atomic theory', long before Science had freed herself from magic and miracles, and could be enticed to see some truth in physical phenomena.

This oddly destructive sentiment becomes more apparent as one moves from criticism of contemporary philosophy, backwards, towards established principles. Modern Scientific Journals and Medical Journals are not as concerned with the destruction of; Cell Theory, Genetic Theory, Evolutionary Theory, Disease Theory, etc., as they are concerned with pushing the paradigm forward, upon the basis of equally 'unstable' a priori.

Progress entails taking risks. Arguably Philosophy is infatuated with the notion 'a priori', as a prevaricating virgin might be fascinated with the notion of intercourse. Science has no reluctance or fear of consummating the relationship, and getting on with the business that is Science; whilst Philosophy remains religiously precious about her virginity.

Contemporary Philosophy, with her self imposed virginity and her diagnosis of refractory depression, is intellectually paralyzed by her passion for stigmata and self destruction; and likewise with the depressive patient, others (happy people like Scientists) generally choose to avoid her company, and have given up listening to her never ending negative self appraisal, and melodramatic suicide attempts. Today, few wish to go the the party if they know she is going to be there, she may be precocious, but she is essentially a bore.

This self flagellation should not be permitted to hide behind the facade of critical appraisal. We must ask is there something pathological in the contemporary Philosopher that compels her diet towards a predilection for her offspring? Is there something Oedipal in the Philosopher's psyche that he seeks always to kill his father, rather than climb on top of his father's shoulders? Does Strawson or Balaguer offer a sound refutation of Schopenhauer's Determinism? Have they restored 'free will' to some kind of certainty? If not, what have the 'criticisms' achieved' other than paralysis?

Who then has posited the fault that justifies the Determinist sentence of 'life without parole'? Or is it the fact that it is in prison, that renders it suitable as the concubine of Philosophers. Witty intellectuals can go down into the dungeon and give it a few kicks now and then, to prove their worth to each other. How the tables might turn should it escape from the dungeon, or better still should it be appropriated by a more reasoned 'Science'.

If and when it does escape, it will foster a new; Epistemology, a Theory of Language, a Theory of Time, a Theory of Relativity, and a Theory of Cosmology. Quantum Mechanics may be about to proceed where Philosophy still lingers. The new 'Philosophies' will arise, as certainly as those of biology and genetics have arisen from Evolution, or the machinations of the monk and his pea plants.

I am trying to understand why we are prevented from constructing an appropriate metaphysical theory of reality using the existing building blocks that Kant, Schopenhauer Berkeley and Hume have afforded us. What Nietzsche angrily demanded vis: a 'Philosophy of the future'. (we do apparently occupy Nietzsche's future)

I am not presently interested in the form of that Philosophy, only that I feel (as Nietzsche did) that it is prevented, not by an absence of requisite axioms, but rather by a socially sanctioned determination to avoid its 'dire' conclusions. Much of the contradiction of Determinism arises out of the immature fear that 'Justice & liberty might die!', 'We will have no reason to live...' the veritable cries of the depressive.

Descartes was depressing, only in that his metaphysical horizon was confined to that of the religious dogmatism of his day. What is the dogma that confines Philosophical dialogue today? If you are to say there is no such confinement, then history contradicts, for each generation (within the past) has had its dogmatism, or the mass psychogenic delusions that have corralled its thought. It (the dogmatism) only becomes evident to philosophers of the future. If Descartes was an atheist (in the Spinozan sense) how much closer he may have come to a proof of the 'I' and the 'am', in addition to the irrefutable axiom that 'thought exists'? Descartes ignored Spinoza because Spinoza defied dogmatism.


Joyce had a phrase which described the intellectual paralysis of the Ireland within which he lived, before he could tolerate it no more and fled in exile. He called it GPI General Paralysis of the Insane.

The same accusation might be put to the 'Philosophers of the present'.

M

[Eodnhoj7]

There is something within philosophy which seeks to confound Philosophy and (like ego's on philosophy forums) this something consistently masquerades as 'critical appraisal'. I would like to know if that 'something' exists, what it is, and why (if it exists) does it serve as a paralysis to Philosophy and not to Science?

The contention here is that no discipline is as destructive of itself than that of Philosophy. This capacity for, and wanton indulgence in, self destructive analysis, is a definitive symptom of the 'depressive', and it declares more of contemporary Philosophers than it does of Philosophy.

Within the Philosophical tenet one is far more likely to find a dialogue that seeks to destroy Philosophy, than that which seeks to build upon deduced and established philosophical principles. There are those (severe depressives) who insist that Philosophy has produced 'no sound theories of anything', despite the reality that many of Philosophy's theories are more sound and more enduring than the most currently entrenched Theories of Science. One need only consider the truth that it was the Epicurean who fostered and preserved 'atomic theory', long before Science had freed herself from magic and miracles, and could be enticed to see some truth in physical phenomena.

This oddly destructive sentiment becomes more apparent as one moves from criticism of contemporary philosophy, backwards, towards established principles. Modern Scientific Journals and Medical Journals are not as concerned with the destruction of; Cell Theory, Genetic Theory, Evolutionary Theory, Disease Theory, etc., as they are concerned with pushing the paradigm forward, upon the basis of equally 'unstable' a priori.

Progress entails taking risks. Arguably Philosophy is infatuated with the notion 'a priori', as a prevaricating virgin might be fascinated with the notion of intercourse. Science has no reluctance or fear of consummating the relationship, and getting on with the business that is Science; whilst Philosophy remains religiously precious about her virginity.

Contemporary Philosophy, with her self imposed virginity and her diagnosis of refractory depression, is intellectually paralyzed by her passion for stigmata and self destruction; and likewise with the depressive patient, others (happy people like Scientists) generally choose to avoid her company, and have given up listening to her never ending negative self appraisal, and melodramatic suicide attempts. Today, few wish to go the the party if they know she is going to be there, she may be precocious, but she is essentially a bore.

This self flagellation should not be permitted to hide behind the facade of critical appraisal. We must ask is there something pathological in the contemporary Philosopher that compels her diet towards a predilection for her offspring? Is there something Oedipal in the Philosopher's psyche that he seeks always to kill his father, rather than climb on top of his father's shoulders? Does Strawson or Balaguer offer a sound refutation of Schopenhauer's Determinism? Have they restored 'free will' to some kind of certainty? If not, what have the 'criticisms' achieved' other than paralysis?

Who then has posited the fault that justifies the Determinist sentence of 'life without parole'? Or is it the fact that it is in prison, that renders it suitable as the concubine of Philosophers. Witty intellectuals can go down into the dungeon and give it a few kicks now and then, to prove their worth to each other. How the tables might turn should it escape from the dungeon, or better still should it be appropriated by a more reasoned 'Science'.

If and when it does escape, it will foster a new; Epistemology, a Theory of Language, a Theory of Time, a Theory of Relativity, and a Theory of Cosmology. Quantum Mechanics may be about to proceed where Philosophy still lingers. The new 'Philosophies' will arise, as certainly as those of biology and genetics have arisen from Evolution, or the machinations of the monk and his pea plants.

I am trying to understand why we are prevented from constructing an appropriate metaphysical theory of reality using the existing building blocks that Kant, Schopenhauer Berkeley and Hume have afforded us. What Nietzsche angrily demanded vis: a 'Philosophy of the future'. (we do apparently occupy Nietzsche's future)

I am not presently interested in the form of that Philosophy, only that I feel (as Nietzsche did) that it is prevented, not by an absence of requisite axioms, but rather by a socially sanctioned determination to avoid its 'dire' conclusions. Much of the contradiction of Determinism arises out of the immature fear that 'Justice & liberty might die!', 'We will have no reason to live...' the veritable cries of the depressive.

Descartes was depressing, only in that his metaphysical horizon was confined to that of the religious dogmatism of his day. What is the dogma that confines Philosophical dialogue today? If you are to say there is no such confinement, then history contradicts, for each generation (within the past) has had its dogmatism, or the mass psychogenic delusions that have corralled its thought. It (the dogmatism) only becomes evident to philosophers of the future. If Descartes was an atheist (in the Spinozan sense) how much closer he may have come to a proof of the 'I' and the 'am', in addition to the irrefutable axiom that 'thought exists'? Descartes ignored Spinoza because Spinoza defied dogmatism.


Joyce had a phrase which described the intellectual paralysis of the Ireland within which he lived, before he could tolerate it no more and fled in exile. He called it GPI General Paralysis of the Insane.

The same accusation might be put to the 'Philosophers of the present'.

M

Thanks for the philosophical argument, it will be kept in advisement next time someone argues against philosophy using philosophy. With that being said, could this be considered strictly a philosophical argument only considering it expresses a heavy element of "un-scientific" emotion?

Welcome to the forum it has been along time since someone has been sacrificed to my "ego"...you will do for now. For the record, as a warning, I have literally caused people to lose their minds and directly affected their employment, relationships, etc all because of a few questions and accusations...it really is a sight to behold watching someone lose their mind in real-life let alone this cheap medium of the internet.

If you are game:

The question occurs: Do you want me to stop here or break down your argument point by point until it extends into a spider web of further arguments? Or are you just getting something off of your chest, like all people do? Both?