Retitled: Modern philosophers are full of it!

[KrazyHorse]

Implausible result given the methodology.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by nostromo

I thought the point of his dialogues was to solve philosophical problems, or to show that some solutions don't work

He writes in dialogue form and leaves obvious gaps in his exposition. He even says in one dialogue that you don't put your best stuff down in writing.

If we are to believe Aristotle's testimony, then what was said in the Academy is never featured explicitly in the dialogues.

[Whaleboy]

The obsession with stuff like formal logic and the linguistic turn are on the way out, though. A lot of philosophers are sick and tired of it: thank God, we are moving to greener pastures!

True, and I do agree with you re. philosophy of mind. The thing is, as a self-defining field "love of wisdom" it has the potential to be so incredibly satisfying and beautiful, as indeed it has been in the past, but formal academia is so stifling

[RGBVideo]

This is either a joke or a damning condemnation of the intellect of the people who support modern philosophy.

It's a troll, inspired by you.

Since nobody has recognized it yet, I have to give it 7.7/10.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Implausible result given the methodology.

You mean armchair speculation? The Greeks probably relied a bit to heavily on armchair speculation. But its not like they had any choice. For example, since they didn't have access to particle accelerators, they had to speculate about the existence or inexistence of atoms. That said, they didn't rely exclusively on armchair speculation and argumentation: they based some of their claims on observation. When he wrote about biology, for example, Aristotle did some fieldwork, or at least some of his students did it for him. However, they didn't do a lot of experiments : we'll have to wait for the scientific revolution for that.

And I have to point out that the Greeks introduced some major methodological innovations. They introduced the notion of proof in mathematics. And they were the first to introduce naturalistic explanations of phenomena. Instead of explaining earthquakes by pissed-off gods, for example, they claimed that the earth floated on water and it was the water that made the earth shake.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Asher is neither a technician, nor an engineer. Though his field of computer science is much more of an applied field than mathematics or theoretical physics it is not mere technical details, and studies some fairly deep questions.

So I'm wondering who these so-called "technical" people are.

Unless you merely mean quantitative?

To people like Aggie computer science = computer programming = something taught at technical colleges.

Who was it that said "Computer Science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes"?

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

True, and I do agree with you re. philosophy of mind. The thing is, as a self-defining field "love of wisdom" it has the potential to be so incredibly satisfying and beautiful, as indeed it has been in the past, but formal academia is so stifling

Most philosophers frown at that stuff, in part because they feel it can't be done in an appropriate way. Not anymore. They prefer doing good philosophy on smaller, better defined problem, than poor philosophy on one of the so-called great problems of philosophy. After all, a great subject doesn't make a great painting. If you don't care about rigour, seek a guru. And that's a piece of wisdom I'm giving to you, free of charge

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think that Greek "philosophy" as they defined it was completely useless at all.

I do think that the section of Greek "philosophy" which would fit the definition of philosophy today did tend to be overly speculative, to the point of silliness.

It's funny that many of these Greek philosophers, who are being expounded as some of the wisest people to live did not realise that a fundamental part of wisdom is to admit when you don't have enough fact to base an opinion on.

The Greeks' real contribution was simply the introduction of formal logic and a (fairly) well-defined mathematical system. This took them as far away from the imprecision of normal language as possible, leaving sots like Plato to muck around with poorly-defined concepts and fuzzy logic.

Greek science, as opposed to Greek mathematics or logic was poorly developed and speculative. The existence of some minor observational techniques was hardly as revolutionary as some here would make it out to be. Chinese "philosophers" were probably far more advanced in that regard by this point.

And they were the first to introduce naturalistic explanations of phenomena.

BS.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

Which modern philosophy student came up with the idea of liberty and natural rights?

Someone is having problems differenciating modern philosophers (as in, the twirps who major in Philosophy and then get their McJobs) from the philosophers of old.

The modern era started soon after the medieval era, though.

[KrazyHorse]

Basically, what the **** do philosophers today do that justifies their existence?

We've split off the physical sciences, mathematics, sociology, economics, neurology, psychology...

What the hell is left other than navel-gazing?

[Kuciwalker]

Being objects of ridicule?

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The Greeks' real contribution was simply the introduction of formal logic and a (fairly) well-defined mathematical system. This took them as far away from the imprecision of normal language as possible, leaving sots like Plato to muck around with poorly-defined concepts and fuzzy logic.

Well, Aristotle invented logic. And it seems the Greeks were the first to use geometry to explain natural phenomena.

Greek science, as opposed to Greek mathematics or logic was poorly developed and speculative. The existence of some minor observational techniques was hardly as revolutionary as some here would make it out to be. Chinese "philosophers" were probably far more advanced in that regard by this point.

I never said that it was revolutionary. But they did base some of their claims on observation once in a while. It was worth pointing out, IMO. Of course, you're right when you say that their science and medecine tended to be speculative overall.

And they were the first to introduce naturalistic explanations of phenomena.

BS.

I didn't pull it out of my ass. I read it in a lot of books or articles on history of science. I assumed they checked their facts. Would it make you happier if I said that the Greeks were the first in the West to introduce naturalistic explanations of phenomena?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by nostromo


Well, Aristotle invented logic. And it seems the Greeks were the first to use geometry to explain natural phenomenas.

And what a wonderful success that was.

I didn't pull it out of my ass. I read it in a lot of books or articles on history of science. I assumed they checked their facts. Would it make you happier if I said that the Greeks were the first in the West to introduce naturalistic explanations of phenomena?

No.

The relevant definition is either:

An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

or

Physics. An observable event.

http://www.answers.com/phenomenon&r=67

They might have been the first to come up with a naturalistic explanation of certain phenomena. They were certainly not the first to come up with a naturalistic explanation of any phenomenon.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

And what a wonderful success that was.

Well, Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system led to Copernicus' and Kepler's heliocentric one.

They might have been the first to come up with a naturalistic explanation of certain phenomena. They were certainly not the first to come up with a naturalistic explanation of any phenomenon.

Of course, that's what I meant. They were the first to come up with naturalist explanations of certain phenomena. Are you saying that the Babylonians or the Egyptians, for example, also had some naturalistic explanations for some phenomena. If so, that would be interesting since it would refute what a lot of historians believe.

[KrazyHorse]

Are you seriously claiming that not a single example can be found of anybody explaining anything that ever happened prior to the Greeks except as the action of the gods or of men?