Philosophy is useless

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by uwot »

Hi Satyr, as you say, Nietzsche "specifically mentioned Spinoza as an example." Well yes, the nature of examples is that they not examples unless they are specific.

You then say: "But, I notice, you come out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned." I hadn't noticed; is it actually true? If so, why is it an issue?

And finally: "Perhaps your own timidity is what you should worry about." Thank you for your concern. Is there any logical connection between this and your previous observation?
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

ForgedinHell wrote:
Impenitent wrote:justification is difficult to justify

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

-Imp
There you go. A shining example of how useless philosophy is.
You make a blanket statement, as if it's universal; uselessness is a matter of perspective! That which you argue against, is actually that which gave rise, to that which you defend.

It trains people to puzzle about the meaning of words, and because they cannot be given precise meanings, one must wonder in a perpetual fog of meaningless intellectualism. That's all philosophy teaches one? That's the best defense a philosopher can muster for the discipline?
This is funny as you disregard philosophies gift to your defense.

How disappointing.
For those that are selfish, sure!
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by ForgedinHell »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:
Impenitent wrote:justification is difficult to justify

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

-Imp
There you go. A shining example of how useless philosophy is.
You make a blanket statement, as if it's universal; uselessness is a matter of perspective! That which you argue against, is actually that which gave rise, to that which you defend.

It trains people to puzzle about the meaning of words, and because they cannot be given precise meanings, one must wonder in a perpetual fog of meaningless intellectualism. That's all philosophy teaches one? That's the best defense a philosopher can muster for the discipline?
This is funny as you disregard philosophies gift to your defense.

How disappointing.
For those that are selfish, sure!
Seriously though, I have yet to see any evidence of brain power from those who claim philosophy is so valuable. How many nitwits made the argument that because science came from philosophy that somehow philosophy is not useless in the here and now? Quite a few, and the argument is completely irrational. When one studies science, one sharpens the mind in a way that no philosopher can touch. Why do you think Feynman referred to philosophers as dopes?
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Satyr »

ubj wrote:Hi Satyr, as you say, Nietzsche "specifically mentioned Spinoza as an example." Well yes, the nature of examples is that they not examples unless they are specific.

You then say: "But, I notice, you come out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned." I hadn't noticed; is it actually true? If so, why is it an issue?
I said it was interesting.

Is not philosophy, for you, a way of understanding people?
ubj wrote:And finally: "Perhaps your own timidity is what you should worry about." Thank you for your concern. Is there any logical connection between this and your previous observation?
About as much as my comments on the subject matter and "my case".
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by ForgedinHell »

uwot wrote:Hi ForgedinHell. I think what this forum amply demonstrates is that philosophy as practised by people who invent laughable alter-egos or who write as though were scripting a low budget sword and sandals flick is useless. More generally appreciating someone's philosophy helps you understand how they think, what they think and why they think it. Whether you think this information useless depends on what you wish to do with it and your ability to do so.
I'll mark your comment down as a good, rational response. Thanks.
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by uwot »

Hi Satyr, with regard to my coming out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned, you claim "I said it was interesting." I have looked and can't find where you did so, perhaps you could show me. I also asked whether it was true and you offer no evidence.

You are quite right that I think philosophy is a way of understanding people and as far as possible respecting them; it is facile to be contemptuous of people you have made no effort with.

When I asked whether there is a logical connection between: "But, I notice, you come out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned." and: "Perhaps your own timidity is what you should worry about." You answer: "About as much as my comments on the subject matter and "my case"." Could you explain what you mean by this?

What is ubj? Is it not enough that you can invent personalities for yourself?
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Satyr »

ubj wrote:Hi Satyr, with regard to my coming out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned, you claim "I said it was interesting." I have looked and can't find where you did so, perhaps you could show me.
Forgive me this slight indiscretion, I was preoccupied with more interesting material at the moment I indulged your gamesmanship.

I precisely said, and I quote:
Satyr-God wrote: But, I notice, you come out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned.
I hope this clarifies the situation, such as it may be, and it leads you to a state of enlightened fulfillment.

Did I err, or did I pretend to err?
Can't decide.
ubj wrote:I also asked whether it was true and you offer no evidence.
I must beg for your forgiveness, once more, for I have lost the train of thought.
Remind me, once more, what the "true" was in reference to, for I can see that it means a lot to you that I answer this question and I do not wish to hurt your feelings.
ubj wrote:You are quite right that I think philosophy is a way of understanding people and as far as possible respecting them; it is facile to be contemptuous of people you have made no effort with.
Then you have little understanding of what philosophy is, my good sir.
Methinks that it is, for you, a way of reassuring yourself and as a method of retaining peace and tranquility.
ubj wrote:When I asked whether there is a logical connection between: "But, I notice, you come out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned." and: "Perhaps your own timidity is what you should worry about." You answer: "About as much as my comments on the subject matter and "my case"." Could you explain what you mean by this?
I mean exactly what was stated.
Only you can answer the question for only you know how much it matters, to you, how much my personal circumstances factor into my conceptions of reality...and how you judge them to factor in.
Taking yourself as a template of figuring an alien other out is but a first step in "psychoanalysis" or in understanding any alien being in general.
ubj wrote:What is ubj?
Only if you tell me what "uwot" is.
Is it a British euphemism for "you what"?
ubj wrote:Is it not enough that you can invent personalities for yourself?
Tell me, does an actor invent his reactions to the fictitious situations he is placed in or does he play himself in those situations, only mouthing the words others have written for him?

Is this an invention of a personality or am I playing a part of myself?
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by uwot »

Hi Satyr
Satyr wrote:
ubj wrote:Hi Satyr, with regard to my coming out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned, you claim "I said it was interesting." I have looked and can't find where you did so, perhaps you could show me.
Forgive me this slight indiscretion, I was preoccupied with more interesting material at the moment I indulged your gamesmanship.

I precisely said, and I quote:
Satyr-God wrote: But, I notice, you come out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned.
I hope this clarifies the situation, such as it may be, and it leads you to a state of enlightened fulfillment.

--Not only does the word interesting not appear in the context you claim, where it does it diminishes that claim.--

Did I err, or did I pretend to err?
Can't decide.

--I can, you erred.--
ubj wrote:I also asked whether it was true and you offer no evidence.
I must beg for your forgiveness, once more, for I have lost the train of thought.
Remind me, once more, what the "true" was in reference to, for I can see that it means a lot to you that I answer this question and I do not wish to hurt your feelings.

--You claim: "But, I notice, you come out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned." You needn't concern yourself with my feelings; what interests me is whether you can follow a simple argument and accept the conclusions.--
ubj wrote:You are quite right that I think philosophy is a way of understanding people and as far as possible respecting them; it is facile to be contemptuous of people you have made no effort with.
Then you have little understanding of what philosophy is, my good sir.

I think philosophy is rather more than that, but you are referring to a statement I made about why it is important. You need to use context honestly if you wish people to take Satyr seriously.
Methinks that it is, for you, a way of reassuring yourself and as a method of retaining peace and tranquility.

--It helps certainly, but, see above, there is more to it than that.--
ubj wrote:When I asked whether there is a logical connection between: "But, I notice, you come out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned." and: "Perhaps your own timidity is what you should worry about." You answer: "About as much as my comments on the subject matter and "my case"." Could you explain what you mean by this?
I mean exactly what was stated.
Only you can answer the question for only you know how much it matters, to you, how much my personal circumstances factor into my conceptions of reality...and how you judge them to factor in.

--It really isn't for me to answer questions that I put to other people and it isn't for me to say how much your personal circumstances factor into your conceptions of reality.--

Taking yourself as a template of figuring an alien other out is but a first step in "psychoanalysis" or in understanding any alien being in general.

--You will be familiar with projection then.--
ubj wrote:What is ubj?
Only if you tell me what "uwot" is.
Is it a British euphemism for "you what"?

--You don't know what euphemism means.--
ubj wrote:Is it not enough that you can invent personalities for yourself?
Tell me, does an actor invent his reactions to the fictitious situations he is placed in or does he play himself in those situations, only mouthing the words others have written for him?

Is this an invention of a personality or am I playing a part of myself?
--Again, it is not for me to speculate, but either is treatable.--
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Satyr »

ubj wrote:Hi Satyr--Not only does the word interesting not appear in the context you claim, where it does it diminishes that claim.--
Only in your tiny mind.
The interest was in my mind...whether it was expressed or not.
ubj wrote:Did I err, or did I pretend to err?
Can't decide.

--I can, you erred.--
Mmmm, I feel a desperate need to "correct" me.

Are you a Knight or in the night?
How easy these decisions must come to one as you.
ubj wrote:--You claim: "But, I notice, you come out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned." You needn't concern yourself with my feelings; what interests me is whether you can follow a simple argument and accept the conclusions.--
I know...and you shall be my guide. I suspect that verbal acrobatics and trying to twist semantics will be your lesson.

In common parlance when one "notices" one is exhibiting an "interest"...as in: "I notice you are wearing a hat" ..."I noticed you had a nice ass"...and so on.
Also in this vain when one calls "mother nature" a she it does not mean nature is female or conscious but it is an artistic device meant to convey a meaning through a metaphor.
Also, one can use a word to convey the opposite of its formal definition with sarcasm: "How interesting".

Are you trying to remind me that I am fallible?
Wow...this should be fun.
By the way I am also mortal, and needy, and seek affection.
ubj wrote: I think philosophy is rather more than that, but you are referring to a statement I made about why it is important. You need to use context honestly if you wish people to take Satyr seriously.
I shall if I meet someone worth the while.

Is this going to be a lesson in grammar as well?
I love those.

Context, dear wise sir?
The context was you inserting yourself into a conversation where you alluded to me and what I said about philosophy and the retards in this forum.
You wanted to agree with them, comfort them, tell them that you also are like them...so you chose a purpose for philosophy that debased it and made it into wives gossip.

But let us see what philosophy has taught you about people.

Tell me:

Does the crowd you associate yourself with say something about you and how you define yourself?

How does one know the other? Is projection an insult or does quality come into play here, as with everything?

Is fear absent from any exploration of the alien?
ubj wrote: --It helps certainly, but, see above, there is more to it than that.--
Mmmm, pretentious little git...are you Robin Hood?
Already I'm getting the feel of you.

The first sign was that first insertion, out of nowhere. I ignored it knowing there would be a follow-up...as there certainly was.
Then I just had to let you lead me where you wanted me to go.
ubj wrote:--It really isn't for me to answer questions that I put to other people and it isn't for me to say how much your personal circumstances factor into your conceptions of reality.--
Quid pro Quo, little Freud.
If you are going to dissect me with your "blunt instrument" then I want to feel your fingers move and tremble.

Why do you think it is "for me" to answer them?
Were you hoping for a Socratic victory, twit?
Was I supposed to make it easy for you?
But you will eventually claim that it was so, no?
That too is expected.
ubj wrote: --You will be familiar with projection then.--
Ha!!!
Yes, yes...this too was expected.

Give me an example of a non-projection.
When a man sees a dog wagging its tail how does he determine if this means that the dog is sad or happy?
When you see your mother scratching her tits, how do you determine that she is itching because of the spillage from the night before?
ubj wrote:--You don't know what euphemism means.--
Ha!!!
Was it offensive?
ubj wrote:--Again, it is not for me to speculate, but either is treatable.--
Oh how coy and hypocritical you are nitwit.
you are here to teach me a lesson, to put me in my place...to impose your ego upon mine, for purely altruistic reasons perhaps.

You are speculating and trying to "heal", "correct" bring the world back to its "equilibrium",,,return things to "normal".
I will enjoy your caresses though you might call them harsh lessons in reality.

You have no clue what I am do ya nit-wit, but you mean to find out one way or another.
Towards this end you will be quick to utilize your knowledge of psychology to project your own needs upon me.
If you need me to be unloved, abused, sad...then that's what you will see me as.
Anything to make me comprehensible, given the normality around you.

Your linguistic corrections will be on the surface, not dealing with the meaning of the words but with their syntax, their spelling, their usage within a sentence...and this will fill you with a secret glee.
Little victories to compensate.

The only question remaining for me is:
Will you make it interesting or will you be repeating the same shit I've come across over the years?
hossein
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:40 pm
Location: Tehran, Iran

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by hossein »

<<Everybody is certain of her ideas and argumentations, everybody defends them as though they are the most evident and clear “fact” in the world, nevertheless, there’s little agreement in any single point and it doesn’t seem a prospect of a general universal determining solution. Not only that but also it seems that the more the problems continue to be treated and the topics being discussed the less they seem to have a coming prospect of an agreed upon comprehensive settlement ; however the whole discussion seems to have little use or value in practical life, there seems to be no utility in the discussion, engagement in it and insistence on the continuity of it; furthermore all sides engaged seems to be equally right (or wrong, if you will); all of them think the other is stupid and the fact is, all of them at least in this point are right!!...>>
Above is the black sequence of "accusations" of “Philosophy” as it’s appeared in the history; complete parity of reasoning with no prospect of solution and settlement yet there’s no single part of “everyday life” which correct management of which depends on the settlement of these issues.
Interesting enough, “our present discussion here” has got all of the characteristics of Philosophy as it has appeared to the foes of it; it is morphologically the same “useless, worthless” philosophical discussions of people who equally count their cons and adversaries as stupid yet all of them seem to be equally right in that point.
The most stupid part of this discussion is, there’s one here who is engaging “practically and pragmatically” in a total philosophy and philosophizing thing( in its negative accused sense), by a claim of worthlessness and uselessness of philosophy. And by "philosophy" he has conveyed all of those shameful historical accusations he has in mind and at the same time and automatically he has engaged in the same practice he is mocking at! in other words he is semantically denouncing what he at the same time is pragmatically engaged in. Like a person who by saying bad words and swearing, asks people not to be impolite!!
Consider the downright inconsistency of the foe of philosophy if we accept his position; its a total paradox for such a person, an amazing one, but as he has mentioned earlier, I think thing philosophy so defined, a thing which is being simulated here, has at least the benefit of “amazement”!
Last edited by hossein on Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:28 pm, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Satyr »

The only difference being, you worthless piece of shit, that an argument gains credibility by the amount of reference points it has with the sensually perceived world.

Science also presupposes shit it cannot defend: like the #1 or its opposite the 0.

The application of static concepts upon a fluid environment demands a more flexible mind.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by mtmynd1 »

Satyr wrote:The only difference being, you worthless piece of shit, that an argument gains credibility by the amount of reference points it has with the sensually perceived world.

Science also presupposes shit it cannot defend: like the #1 or its opposite the 0.

The application of static concepts upon a fluid environment demands a more flexible mind.
Seriously, sadder... do you really believe what you write, you little parrot?
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Satyr »

Of course I don't Texas Cow....how could I?

It's satire.
A joke.
Who would believe such things.

:twisted:
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by mtmynd1 »

Satyr wrote:Of course I don't Texas Cow....how could I?
O! sadder, that is so cute! calling me names like that. you effeminate little creep.

Get back to your paltry little flock on your own site!
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by uwot »

Hi Satyr
Satyr wrote:
ubj wrote:Hi Satyr--Not only does the word interesting not appear in the context you claim, where it does it diminishes that claim.--
Only in your tiny mind.

--This is petulant.--

The interest was in my mind...whether it was expressed or not.

--This is confabulation.--
ubj wrote:Did I err, or did I pretend to err?
Can't decide.

--I can, you erred.--
Mmmm, I feel a desperate need to "correct" me.

--No you don't.--

Are you a Knight or in the night?

--This is gibberish.--

How easy these decisions must come to one as you.

--Because it is obvious.--
ubj wrote:--You claim: "But, I notice, you come out of the woodwork when famous names are mentioned." You needn't concern yourself with my feelings; what interests me is whether you can follow a simple argument and accept the conclusions.--
I know...and you shall be my guide. I suspect that verbal acrobatics and trying to twist semantics will be your lesson.

--No it won't.--

In common parlance when one "notices" one is exhibiting an "interest"...as in: "I notice you are wearing a hat" ..."I noticed you had a nice ass"...and so on.
Also in this vain when one calls "mother nature" a she it does not mean nature is female or conscious but it is an artistic device meant to convey a meaning through a metaphor.
Also, one can use a word to convey the opposite of its formal definition with sarcasm: "How interesting".

--Confabulation.--

Are you trying to remind me that I am fallible?
Wow...this should be fun.
By the way I am also mortal, and needy, and seek affection.

--Try and hold on to that thought.--
ubj wrote: I think philosophy is rather more than that, but you are referring to a statement I made about why it is important. You need to use context honestly if you wish people to take Satyr seriously.
I shall if I meet someone worth the while.

Is this going to be a lesson in grammar as well?

--No.--

I love those.

--Too bad.--

Context, dear wise sir?
The context was you inserting yourself into a conversation where you alluded to me and what I said about philosophy and the retards in this forum.

--Egotism. What did I say that made you think of you?--

You wanted to agree with them, comfort them, tell them that you also are like them...so you chose a purpose for philosophy that debased it and made it into wives gossip.

--No I didn't.--

But let us see what philosophy has taught you about people.

Tell me:

Does the crowd you associate yourself with say something about you and how you define yourself?

--Yes.--

How does one know the other? Is projection an insult or does quality come into play here, as with everything?

--This is meaningless.--

Is fear absent from any exploration of the alien?

--Yes,unless you are xenophobic.--
ubj wrote: --It helps certainly, but, see above, there is more to it than that.--
Mmmm, pretentious little git...are you Robin Hood?

--Can you not see the irony?--

Already I'm getting the feel of you.

The first sign was that first insertion, out of nowhere. I ignored it knowing there would be a follow-up...as there certainly was.

--Confabulation.--

Then I just had to let you lead me where you wanted me to go.

--Delusion.--
ubj wrote:--It really isn't for me to answer questions that I put to other people and it isn't for me to say how much your personal circumstances factor into your conceptions of reality.--
Quid pro Quo, little Freud.
If you are going to dissect me with your "blunt instrument" then I want to feel your fingers move and tremble.

--This is funny.--

Why do you think it is "for me" to answer them?
Were you hoping for a Socratic victory, twit?
Was I supposed to make it easy for you?
But you will eventually claim that it was so, no?
That too is expected.

--I asked a question.--
ubj wrote: --You will be familiar with projection then.--
Ha!!!
Yes, yes...this too was expected.

Give me an example of a non-projection.

--The following two sentences.--

When a man sees a dog wagging its tail how does he determine if this means that the dog is sad or happy?
When you see your mother scratching her tits, how do you determine that she is itching because of the spillage from the night before?
ubj wrote:--You don't know what euphemism means.--
Ha!!!
Was it offensive?

--Well done for looking it up.--
ubj wrote:--Again, it is not for me to speculate, but either is treatable.--
Oh how coy and hypocritical you are nitwit.
you are here to teach me a lesson, to put me in my place...to impose your ego upon mine, for purely altruistic reasons perhaps.

--This is projection.--

You are speculating and trying to "heal", "correct" bring the world back to its "equilibrium",,,return things to "normal".
I will enjoy your caresses though you might call them harsh lessons in reality.

--This made me laugh.--

You have no clue what I am do ya nit-wit,

--You are a basket-case.(Euphemism.)--

but you mean to find out one way or another.
Towards this end you will be quick to utilize your knowledge of psychology to project your own needs upon me.

--Projection; more irony.--

If you need me to be unloved, abused, sad...then that's what you will see me as.
Anything to make me comprehensible, given the normality around you.

--You are a perfectly normal type of nutter.--

Your linguistic corrections will be on the surface, not dealing with the meaning of the words but with their syntax, their spelling, their usage within a sentence...and this will fill you with a secret glee.
Little victories to compensate.

--Projection.--

The only question remaining for me is:
Will you make it interesting or will you be repeating the same shit I've come across over the years?

--No, sorry, it's all the same shit, the reason people keep telling you that you are bonkers is because you are bonkers.--
Post Reply