Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, "those that can't do, teach, and those that can't teach, teach gym." And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics what so ever, and I doubt that other philosophers read it because it's fairly technical. And so it's really hard to understand what justifies it. And so I'd say that this tension occurs because people in philosophy feel threatened, and they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn't.
Found the above article recently. Yeah, it's an old one, so I'm late to the picnic. But I guess better late than never. So those who can't do science teach science and those who can't teach science teach philosophy of science? Is science the only truly noble pursuit? Are philosophers essentially just the "retards" who can't do science and so they teach "remedial" education or something?
Imo most cozy chatters (so called philosophers) around various forums have no clue how to do philosophy. They usually lack basic cognitive abilities, doesn't comprehend the concept of relevance, have very limited knowledge, and are here to pass time, not solve great mysteries to help mankind.
..which is why no serious business really are demanding philosophers, even tho philosophers are has a degree in thinking.
Imo in order to get a degree in philosophy one has to be an unintelligent parrot, but good memory, one that totally lacks critical thinking, because if the philosopher had the ability to critically think, the nonsense and babble that one had to learn would make one insane.
Like 80% of all philosophy are outdated, old Greek guys that made superstitious remarks about life, only very few things has stood the test of time.
It's even more tragic when cozy chatters babble about how Nietze, Kant and other outdated "modern" philosophers has relevance.
Philosophy needs to be overhauled and made relevant again.
HexHammer wrote:Imo most cozy chatters (so called philosophers) around various forums have no clue how to do philosophy. They usually lack basic cognitive abilities, doesn't comprehend the concept of relevance, have very limited knowledge, and are here to pass time, not solve great mysteries to help mankind.
..which is why no serious business really are demanding philosophers, even tho philosophers are has a degree in thinking.
Imo in order to get a degree in philosophy one has to be an unintelligent parrot, but good memory, one that totally lacks critical thinking, because if the philosopher had the ability to critically think, the nonsense and babble that one had to learn would make one insane.
Like 80% of all philosophy are outdated, old Greek guys that made superstitious remarks about life, only very few things has stood the test of time.
It's even more tragic when cozy chatters babble about how Nietze, Kant and other outdated "modern" philosophers has relevance.
Philosophy needs to be overhauled and made relevant again.
What would make philosophy relevant again? What should philosophers be doing differently?
HexHammer wrote:Imo most cozy chatters (so called philosophers) around various forums have no clue how to do philosophy. They usually lack basic cognitive abilities, doesn't comprehend the concept of relevance, have very limited knowledge, and are here to pass time, not solve great mysteries to help mankind.
..which is why no serious business really are demanding philosophers, even tho philosophers are has a degree in thinking.
Imo in order to get a degree in philosophy one has to be an unintelligent parrot, but good memory, one that totally lacks critical thinking, because if the philosopher had the ability to critically think, the nonsense and babble that one had to learn would make one insane.
Like 80% of all philosophy are outdated, old Greek guys that made superstitious remarks about life, only very few things has stood the test of time.
It's even more tragic when cozy chatters babble about how Nietze, Kant and other outdated "modern" philosophers has relevance.
Philosophy needs to be overhauled and made relevant again.
What would make philosophy relevant again? What should philosophers be doing differently?
I've had the conversation about cozy chatterers before; can dig it out if it's still around. Enough to say that I value discussion on the PN forum. Not only to pass the time, there are other, more pleasant ways to do that; not even to solve the great mysteries ( as if )...but to practise listening to and responding to others - of a similar interest - and to be challenged.
I sympathise with the view that philosophy is seen as irrelevant.
I invite you to gatecrash and trash a philosophical party of your choice at: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15532
If you had to set out your own philosophical party broadcast, what would it be and how would you do it - to be relevant and reach out ?
marjoram_blues wrote:Enough to say that I value discussion on the PN forum. Not only to pass the time, there are other, more pleasant ways to do that; not even to solve the great mysteries ( as if )...but to practise listening to and responding to others - of a similar interest - and to be challenged.
marjoram_blues wrote:Enough to say that I value discussion on the PN forum. Not only to pass the time, there are other, more pleasant ways to do that; not even to solve the great mysteries ( as if )...but to practise listening to and responding to others - of a similar interest - and to be challenged.
Spoken like a true cozy chatter!
Lol
Come on, Hex, be a lovey and gatecrash my Philosophical Party. It won't be any fun without you...
BYOM
MB: Have had this conversation before, remember.
So, you want to continue your cozy chattering about the irrelevance of philosophy.
Carry on.
HH: Sorry, never talked about hijacking people with you, nor bringing your topics here. You babble.
MB: You know very well I meant the conversation about 'cozy chatterers'.
However, you do have a point about my kidnapping other people to take part in my party. Proper 'pologies to Skip and anyone else I've dragged into my sad and lonely chatterings.
Carry on.
Gary Childress wrote:What would make philosophy relevant again? What should philosophers be doing differently?
Ok, let me try again.
We need to cut off all the baby fat, all the history, all the outdated philosophers, refine all the useful pharses, make it like Math, we don't waste time on giving praise and credit to great math geniuses, learning their names, and what they did in the life.
We need to have some kind of separation of the retards to the reasonable intelligent people. There are too many babble heads here, that only waste space with their totally useless posts. At the same time they keep the forum alive, making all the not-so-bright-cozy-chatters-busy-chasing-their-own-tail ..dilemma!
Physics deliberately divorced itself from philosophy early in the 20th century after Einstein concocted the spacetime paradigm. Instead it adopted the chilling anti-philosophical doctrine of logical positivism, which denies the role of human reason in the conduct of human affairs. Spacetime emphatically offers us a model of a universe which makes no sense and physicists are pragmatic men of action and hubris. To them it seemed a lot simpler to accept that we live in a universe which makes no sense rather than to accept that their model might not be modelling the real universe.
On balance we'd have to say that this policy hasn't been working out too well for them for the past century.
HexHammer wrote:we don't waste time on giving praise and credit to great math geniuses, learning their names, and what they did in the life.
This is a good point. Sometimes philosophy can seem like idol worship in some respects. I will be the first to admit that I have always had a fascination with the idea of the "great" individual, an individual who radiates some kind of aura of "greatness" or "excellence" in everything they say or do. I've always wanted to emulate those examples as best I knew how (but haven't been very successful at it).
In some ways my admiration of "great" individuals in philosophy is maybe little different than a "common" person's worship of a "rock star", except that rock stars seem to be more prone to setting what some consider "bad" examples of behavior.
