Philosophy undermines truth

[Iwannaplato]

So, here we all are participating in some form of the possible activities under philosophy.

No we aren't. You might be. I am not.

I reject philosophy and I refuse to practice it. Why is this premise so difficult to grasp for philosophers?

If you are going to keep claiming that I am doing philosophy - take up the burden of proof and convince me.

Jesus, you're right. Starting a thread in a philosophy forum with a syllogism, using hundreds of various short forms of reductio ad absurdum arguments in response to other posters, entering philosophical discussions with links to ideas that support or challenge positions being presented or argued against, challenging other people's assumptions, using the imperative with me to take up the burden of proof to convince you of something.....
My head's so far up my ass I am looking out of... my eyes.
I realize none of us are doing anything under the abstract batching term philosophy. None of that stuff is happening and what a relief this is.
It's been like a dream of running through an airport late for a flight and always finding the wrong gate numbers...
and now suddenly waking up...being woken up by you.
How dare anyone accuse anyone here of doing anything philosophical. Philosophy is a few very clear activities and you, sir, are completely innocent, unbesmirched by that tiny subset of what morons see as a larger set of possible philosophical actions.
You are stain free. I publically apologize, accept your unstated, streamlined definition of philosophy, and shall not trouble you with this accusation again.
Consider the matter closed. I certainly do.

[Skepdick]

So, here we all are participating in some form of the possible activities under philosophy.

No we aren't. You might be. I am not.

I reject philosophy and I refuse to practice it. Why is this premise so difficult to grasp for philosophers?

If you are going to keep claiming that I am doing philosophy - take up the burden of proof and convince me.

Jesus, you're right. Starting a thread in a philosophy forum with a syllogism, using hundreds of various short forms of reductio ad absurdum arguments in response to other posters, entering philosophical discussions with links to ideas that support or challenge positions being presented or argued against, challenging other people's assumptions, using the imperative with me to take up the burden of proof to convince you of something.....
My head's so far up my ass I am looking out of... my eyes.
I realize none of us are doing anything under the abstract batching term philosophy. None of that stuff is happening and what a relief this is.
It's been like a dream of running through an airport late for a flight and always finding the wrong gate numbers...
and now suddenly waking up...being woken up by you.
How dare anyone accuse anyone here of doing anything philosophical. Philosophy is a few very clear activities and you, sir, are completely innocent, unbesmirched by that tiny subset of what morons see as a larger set of possible philosophical actions.
You are stain free. I publically apologize, accept your unstated, streamlined definition of philosophy, and shall not trouble you with this accusation again.
Consider the matter closed. I certainly do.

Yada yada yada. Shove your meltdown up your ass.

Justify the claim that anything I've done (or for that matter - anything you or anyone has done) is "philosophical".

Why can't you? Are you just "competing for the label"?

[Iwannaplato]

Oh, dear me. I thought I'd made myself clear. I couldn't be more ashamed of myself if I'd said you could be surly on occasion.
Philosophy and Skepdick...never the twain shall meet.
Should it come to litigation, I will happily testify on your behalf, be ye plaintiff or defendant.
And now, in my ignominy, I really must back off and consider the matter settled in your favor.

[attofishpi]

No we aren't. You might be. I am not.

I reject philosophy and I refuse to practice it. Why is this premise so difficult to grasp for philosophers?

If you are going to keep claiming that I am doing philosophy - take up the burden of proof and convince me.

Jesus, you're right. Starting a thread in a philosophy forum with a syllogism, using hundreds of various short forms of reductio ad absurdum arguments in response to other posters, entering philosophical discussions with links to ideas that support or challenge positions being presented or argued against, challenging other people's assumptions, using the imperative with me to take up the burden of proof to convince you of something.....
My head's so far up my ass I am looking out of... my eyes.
I realize none of us are doing anything under the abstract batching term philosophy. None of that stuff is happening and what a relief this is.
It's been like a dream of running through an airport late for a flight and always finding the wrong gate numbers...
and now suddenly waking up...being woken up by you.
How dare anyone accuse anyone here of doing anything philosophical. Philosophy is a few very clear activities and you, sir, are completely innocent, unbesmirched by that tiny subset of what morons see as a larger set of possible philosophical actions.
You are stain free. I publically apologize, accept your unstated, streamlined definition of philosophy, and shall not trouble you with this accusation again.
Consider the matter closed. I certainly do.

Yada yada yada. Shove your meltdown up your ass.

Justify the claim that anything I've done (or for that matter - anything you or ANYONT done) is "philosophical".

Why can't you? Are you just "competing for the label"?

Skeppy (or should I refer to your earlier username - TimeSeeker !) - maybe it would make you feel better hanging out back here:

The Argument Room: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=25309&hilit=the+argument+room

[Skepdick]

Oh, dear me. I thought I'd made myself clear. I couldn't be more ashamed of myself if I'd said you could be surly on occasion.
Philosophy and Skepdick...never the twain shall meet.
Should it come to litigation, I will happily testify on your behalf, be ye plaintiff or defendant.
And now, in my ignominy, I really must back off and consider the matter settled in your favor.

Oh dear me.

Just as you think philosophy has hit rock bottom there comes another idiot-philosopher who instead of engaging the issue decides to tackle the player.

[Wizard22]

Skepdick, think of it like this....

Descartes wasn't claiming that if you don't think, you don't exist....

He was claiming that the only way to logically prove existence, is through exposition by doubt.



A "burn it all down and see what's leftover" approach to reality, absolute Negation.

This led to a lot of the 'logical proofs of God' thereafter and throughout the Enlightenment phase.

Descartes represents Rationalism more than Existentialism. These are two different beasts entirely.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, think of it like this....

Descartes wasn't claiming that if you don't think, you don't exist....

He was claiming that the only way to logically prove existence, is through exposition by doubt.

I think you should re-read the OP and familiarize yourself with the distinction between true, provable and true but unprovable.

And even if Descartes' goal was exposition through doubt he failed. By material implication

-P -> Q v -Q

Now, in Classical logic Q v -Q is a tautology (Law of Excluded Middle), but any non-idiot understands that Q v -Q is impossible because the OR doesn't encode the mutual exclusivity of the options.

[Wizard22]

IF thinking THEN am ELSE am not.

But this isn't Descartes' argument.

This is -your- argument. And you missed the point.

[Skepdick]

IF thinking THEN am ELSE am not.

But this isn't Descartes' argument.

This is -your- argument. And you missed the point.

My point is THAT Descartes left out the ELSE part of his statement!

If thinking THEN am ELSE ???

So either Descartes meant: IF thinking THEN am ELSE am
OR Descartes meant: IF thinking THEN am ELSE am not

So which fallacy do you think he was trying to commit? Affirming the consequent or Denying the antecedent.

All of this follows trivialy from (P → Q) → (¬P → Q v ¬Q) when interpreted in a logic without excluded middle.

The classical logician says: I've proven Q v -Q!
I say: You have? Which one have you proven? Q or -Q?

[Wizard22]

Descartes already presented a case against 'Truth'.

When it comes to the nature of God, or Existence, people cannot discern Reality. You don't know if you're awake or dreaming, or deluded, or mentally impaired, etc. This is why the claim of somebody who is rational or irrational, makes the difference concerning evidence or proof toward God. Descartes proves that not all arguments are equal. There needs to be a rational route to Existential claims.

If not through Doubt, then through what other method? You're not providing any alternatives. You're merely shooting the messenger.

[Wizard22]

Essentially Descartes did postulate a 'paradigm-shift' which helped lift out of the Dark Ages.

Instead of 'Blind Faith' of the previously dominated Catholic millennium, Reason (through Doubt) was an alternative.

This fueled the Enlightenment period, allowing Secularists and Protestants to burn-down previous modes of irrationality.

[Skepdick]

Essentially Descartes did postulate a 'paradigm-shift' which helped lift out of the Dark Ages.

Instead of 'Blind Faith' of the previously dominated Catholic millennium, Reason (through Doubt) was an alternative.

This fueled the Enlightenment period, allowing Secularists and Protestants to burn-down previous modes of irrationality.

But not too much doubt, clearly.

He came just short of doubting God himself. The ego. The "I".

So we are still stuck with battles over labels, identity and "true meanings". The same all false idols nonsense.

[Wizard22]

But not too much doubt, clearly.

He came just short of doubting God himself. The ego.

You're entitled to your beliefs.

What are your thoughts on Carl Jung?

[Will Bouwman]

Well if you don't like the logic, then focus on the English.

"I thnk therefore I am." Is only half the story.
The other half is "I don't think therefore ...""?

I reject that English on the grounds that it is bollocks.

I reject your rejection on the exact same grounds.

Oh yeah? Well I reject your rejection of my rejection. Anyway, what is the rest of the other half of ""I don't think therefore ...""?", and why are you such an arsewipe that you demand anyone be committed to it? What are ya? Some kinda

fucking language Nazi.

[Skepdick]

What are your thoughts on Carl Jung?

My thoughts are that synchronicity (which when viewed through the lens of computer science is just agreement at some point in time) is highly desirable. Without it the consensus theory of truth collapses and you get to eternally argue over words.

Too bad philosophers are such a disagreeable bunch. So we have no choice but to praise scientists as the bastion of consensus.

They aren't perfect, mind you - but they are a far lesser filth than philosophers.