Philosophy is useless

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by ForgedinHell »

reasonvemotion wrote:
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.
Theory based on experience is statistical. Jung claims when dealing with man it creates only an average, which cancels out exceptions to the rule. Stats show facts as the "average" person and this can falsify results. Theories based on stats is the perfect example and this must be considered whenever there is theory put forth as a guide to self knowledge. It is not the universal that characterises the individual but the unique. Of course man has to be presented as a stat unit, so it can be generalised what is actually known about him, unfortunately this gives an abstract picture of man as average but in doing so all the individual traits have been removed and these are exactly the characteristics that are the most important for understanding man.

Scientific knowledge, as we know it, has world acceptance, but to understand the individual one must reject science.
Jung? Why do all the pseudo-intellectuals always cite to Jung?
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by reasonvemotion »

Why do the jews quote the jews. A more acceptable response for you would have been Freud. No?
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by ForgedinHell »

reasonvemotion wrote:Why do the jews quote the jews. A more acceptable response for you would have been Freud. No?
How am I a Jew?

And why are you so prejudiced to make such a statement?
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Satyr wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Satyr wrote:Brilliant..now perhaps a man of your standing, vast knowledge and credentials can offer a definition for the #1...so as to begin our exploration of the real.
One definition of the #1 will do....just one.
No philosophy or deferments or vague references to some hypothetical solution accepted.
One: being or amounting to a single unit or individual or entire thing, item, or object rather than two or more; a single: one woman; one nation; one piece of cake.
What a simplistic, predictable, definition from a simpleton.
All you do here is replace the word "one" with "being", "individual", "unit", "item", "object"..."single", that one was the funniest one; it would be like offering the word Deity as a definition for the word God.

Turd, all the metaphors you used can be subdivided so is the #1 multiple ones?
How many ones are there and does not this contradict the notion of a one?
What is one, turd, or any of the substitute words you used?
You seem, an idiot of megalomaniacal proportions, one is simply a label for a singular unit so as to reference a quantity. Are you brain dead?

The tragic part is that you were confident enough that the crap you offered was good that you posted it. That's how stupid you are.
You are so stupid you do not know and will never understand how stupid you are.
Does a cow know how simple she is?

See why you Shitforbrains do not belong here?


Now, this specimen of human decay represents the average mind.
Now I ask you: is this specimen capable of what we would consider sophisticated thought?
All it offers in a philosophy forum no less, are dictionary definitions and word-games....that and its piercing eyes and adeptness at obliterating with its fists concrete blocks.
Its stabbing gazes aside, is this philosophy? Is this creature capable of it?
Is it not one of many reasons why the mediocre who try to engage in thinking, pretentiously and superficially, fail to find a use for it?

I mean just read this specimen's definition for the #1. It thought it was clever; that nobody had thought of opening a thesaurus or giving the staple response.
This is what mankind has fallen to.
Outsider
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Outsider »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You seem, an idiot of megalomaniacal proportions, one is simply a label for a singular unit so as to reference a quantity. Are you brain dead?
Nice tautology.

"One is a label for a Unit". :lol:

How old are you little one?
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Satyr »

"Singular" in place of "one".

Like defining "God" as a "Deity".
Basic rule in defining a concept....brain-dead, little one, TURD, moron...do not subsistence one word with another when they are similes.

You do not define light as "that which is illuminated".
Only a moron would.

A "unit" is also another term for a monad....a one.
Another term used is particle...or GOD.
The absolute.

Brain-Dead moron, with piercing eyes...a number is a symbol referring to a mental construct in the mind.
In mathematics it has reached the pinnacle of abstraction so that it can be sued to describe just about anything and everything.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Outsider wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:You seem, an idiot of megalomaniacal proportions, one is simply a label for a singular unit so as to reference a quantity. Are you brain dead?
Nice tautology.

"One is a label for a Unit". :lol:

How old are you little one?
R you stupid? I never said they weren't synonymous dip shit, of course they are the same, so you make no point.
Outsider
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Outsider »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Outsider wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:You seem, an idiot of megalomaniacal proportions, one is simply a label for a singular unit so as to reference a quantity. Are you brain dead?
Nice tautology.

"One is a label for a Unit". :lol:

How old are you little one?
R you stupid? I never said they weren't synonymous dip shit, of course they are the same, so you make no point.
If they are synonymous, then YOU make no point, and so your post was point-less, Stupid.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Satyr wrote:"Singular" in place of "one".

Like defining "God" as a "Deity".
Basic rule in defining a concept....brain-dead, little one, TURD, moron...do not subsistence one word with another when they are similes.

You do not define light as "that which is illuminated".
Only a moron would.

A "unit" is also another term for a monad....a one.
Another term used is particle...or GOD.
The absolute.

Brain-Dead moron, with piercing eyes...a number is a symbol referring to a mental construct in the mind.
In mathematics it has reached the pinnacle of abstraction so that it can be sued to describe just about anything and everything.
What an idiot you are, as I never said they weren't synonyms, fool. It was so as to speak and make things clear. "One" is a label to represent a "single unit." And any particular "unit" I might add. Tell me how many eyes you have without using a number. How about fingers, you could have lost one for all I know. or have an extra one. Your question and thus point are meaningless. It is so as to speak of the quantity of a unit! Nothing less and nothing more.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Both you idiots, say you lost 3 fingers on one hand, we are here talking, convey to me without using numbers how many fingers you have, Some people don't have a club foot they have a clubbed brain. My point was that it's a method of referencing quantity.
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:08 pm, edited 1 time 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 »

Yeah...philosophy is truly useless.
:roll:
I would go into what identity is and how static symbols are applied to dynamic processes and how language, math being a language, is but a representation, a symbol of a simplification/generalization, and how a unity is held together in memory, but it's hopeless.

No need...my mission is done.
I will return you to your regularly scheduled program(ing).

Live well, and remember: try to grow up before you die.

Ta, Ta,
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Satyr wrote:Yeah...philosophy is truly useless.
:roll:
I would go into what identity is and how static symbols are applied to dynamic processes and how language, math being a language, is but a representation, a symbol of a simplification/generalization, and how a unity is held together in memory, but it's hopeless.

No need...my mission is done.
I will return you to your regularly scheduled program(ing).

Live well, and remember: try to grow up before you die.

Ta, Ta,
Funny, so far you've not said anything I don't understand, yet you can't see that I reference it my way, which is obviously foreign to you.

Like I said above: 'It is so as to speak of the quantity of any particular unit, nothing more and nothing less.'

u·nit /ˈyunɪt/ [yoo-nit]
noun
2. any group of things or persons regarded as an entity: They formed a cohesive unit.

My point was that any particular unit could be comprised of any number of things as in "one world." 'One' is a label (number) and is just a particular quantity. Of numbers, in this case, 'one' is the singular quantity of any particular unit.


'One' is a label used so as to reference a quantity representing a singular unit so as to count and maintain records of quantity. Our star, "The Sun," has 'x' number of hydrogen atoms. The letter 'x' is a variable, a placeholder, that represents the total 'number' of each and every 'singular' hydrogen atom, existing within our star, at any given picosecond.

Yes what is a number? You tell me what you 'think' it is, other than a label for a quantity so as to count/speak of counting.
MarkM
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:02 am

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by MarkM »

Hello ForgedinHell - I want to play too.

Imagine if science manages to explain consciousness. An explanation of consciousness would have a very large bearing on several philosophical questions and disputes. These include epistemology, scepticism, logic among others. If science solves some of these problems, philosophy will be dispossessed of centuries of thought. Philsosophy will still have ontology, metaphysics and morality, but could have whole areas annexed for good by science.

Mark
MarkM
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:02 am

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by MarkM »

Hello - I would like to add another looming threat to philosophy's reputation. Many scientists are anticipating that the problem of consciousness may be successfully tackled in the near future. It is possible that science could explain consciousness soon.

This might be a problem for philosophy because consciousness cradles many of philosophy's more prominent topics; epistemology, logic, Hume's view of rationalism, and scepticism among others. If science explains consciousness, it will annex a significant slice of philosophy's franchise, and philosophy would be exposed to ridicule.

The areas of metaphysics, ontology and morality would not be affected of course.
User avatar
Notvacka
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:37 am

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Notvacka »

MarkM wrote:Hello - I would like to add another looming threat to philosophy's reputation. Many scientists are anticipating that the problem of consciousness may be successfully tackled in the near future. It is possible that science could explain consciousness soon.

This might be a problem for philosophy because consciousness cradles many of philosophy's more prominent topics; epistemology, logic, Hume's view of rationalism, and scepticism among others. If science explains consciousness, it will annex a significant slice of philosophy's franchise, and philosophy would be exposed to ridicule.
I doubt that a scientific explanation of what consciousness is or how it works would have any negative impact upon philosophy. Science is not equipped to answer philosophical questions. I suspect any such explanation would bring new philosophical questions instead, without even answering the old ones to philosophical satisfaction.
Post Reply