Retitled: Modern philosophers are full of it!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
Not this argument again.


I think if people in this country had a few philosophy (espicially ethics and logic) classes in school the Family Values (tm) and the "OMG, teh sanctity of human life, OMG, OMG, OMG!!!11!!!" groups would lose thier hot air.

I think if we didn't have the scientists and engineers we'd still be an agricultural nation and we'd hold dear "family values" anyway...

[Kuciwalker]

Simple question: what would happen if universities stopped teaching engineering and science courses? What would happen if universities stopped teaching philosophy courses? Which is worse?

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Agathon

One of the main puzzles in interpreting what is left of presocratic philosophy is getting clear about what ???? means. I'm of the opinion that the early thinkers did not have a well defined concept of it and that the subsequent train of Greek naturalistic thought was an attempt to clarify it.

Parmenides of course denies that any such explanation is possible, and he inaugurates a series of thinkers who attempt to show how it is, and how change can be rationally explained. One result of this is Atomism, which has proved a surprisingly durable theory.

Interesting. I never heard about the ???? before... I read the presocratics (in the french translation) and never noticed a ???? or anything close to it. Is it a word that can't be translated?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by nostromo

Interesting. I never heard about the ???? before... I read the presocratics (in the french translation) and never noticed a ???? or anything close to it. Is it a word that can't be translated?

It is often translated as "first principle". Anaximander is the first to use it IIRC. Along with the notion of a kosmos it is the unifying concept of early Greek thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander

These are the most important testimonia:

Phys. iii. 4; 203 b 7. There is no beginning of the infinite, for in that case it would have an end. But it is without beginning and indestructible, as being a sort of first principle; for it is necessary that whatever comes into existence should have an end, and there is a conclusion of all destruction. Wherefore as we say, there is no first principle of this [i.e. the infinite], but it itself [Page 10] seems to be the first principle of all other things and to surround all and to direct all, as they say who think that there are no other causes besides the infinite (such as mind, or friendship), but that it itself is divine ; for it is immortal and indestructible, as Anaximandros and most of the physicists say.

Theophrastos, Dox. 477) Simpl. Phys. 6 r ; 24, 26. Among those who say that the first principle is one and movable and infinite, is Anaximandros of Miletos, son of Praxiades, pupil and successor of Thales. He said that the first principle and element of all things is infinite, and he was the first to apply this word to [Page 12] the first principle; and he says that it is neither water nor any other one of the things called elements, but the infinite is something of a different nature, from which came all the heavens and the worlds in them ; and from what source things arise, to that they return of necessity when they are destroyed ; for he says that they suffer punishment and give satisfaction5 to one another for injustice according to the order of time, putting it in rather poetical language. Evidently when he sees the four elements changing into one another, he does not deem it right to make any one of these the underlying substance, but something else besides them. And he does not think that things come into being by change in the nature of the element, but by the separation of the opposites which the eternal motion causes. On this account Aristotle compares him with Anaxagoras.

There are only a couple of actual fragments, but they are quite vague.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Simple question: what would happen if universities stopped teaching engineering and science courses? What would happen if universities stopped teaching philosophy courses? Which is worse?

It would be great. Most of the more practical science stuff could be moved to technical colleges, where it belongs with all the other job training stuff.

Then the rest of us could get on with doing what universities are actually for.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


If you want to live like that, why don't you go there? I doubt they have much funding for technical studies...

Reduced to making silly schoolboy statements.

You won't let us play with your Junior League baseball next.

[Last Conformist]

@Aggie: Since not all of us have the appropriate fonts to show the Greek letters you use*, could you provide transliterations?

* In my case it's kinda odd, since I normally have no trouble seeing Greek letters on this system. No idea why yours won't show up.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Just as you could explain Katrina naturalistically....from the point of God's intervention on

If God didn't like how New Orleans was acting, caused (as the saying goes) a butterfly to flap its wings in Shanghai, and by that mechanism sent Katrina toward NO 6 months later instead of harmlessly out into the Atlantic then everything in this explanation from the flap of that butterfly's wings on is naturalistic. The events thus sent into motion evolved strictly according to natural law. The proximate causes thus offered are naturalistic (warm water in the caribbean, prevailing wind patterns etc.), even though one of the further-removed causes is not.

Nice example. But the fact that God made the butterfly flap its wings makes the whole explanation not naturalistic IMO. Particularly since God is a crucial part of the fundies' explanation of Katrina: if God didn't make the butterfly flap its wings, it would presumably never have happened. Of course, I admit that if you remove the God part, by saying that the butterfly flapped its wings on his own, then the explanation would be naturalistic. Like I said, and again to put it simply, an explanation is naturalistic if and only if you use natural laws. The homophobic fundies didn't explain Katrina using only natural laws. On the contrary, their explanation featured a divine intervention. Hence their explanation isn't naturalistic.

Now if you postulate that God laid down all the laws of nature while he created the universe and stopped intervening after that, you could explain most natural phenomena, including Katrina, using only natural laws. Hence these explanations would be naturalistic. Of course, your explanation of the birth of the universe wouldn't itself be naturalistic. But I don't think that would make your explanation of Katrina not naturalistic, since that wouldn't stop you from explaining natural phenomena, like Katrina, using only natural laws.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@Aggie: Since not all of us have the appropriate fonts to show the Greek letters you use*, could you provide transliterations?

* In my case it's kinda odd, since I normally have no trouble seeing Greek letters on this system. No idea why yours won't show up.

Sorry man. It is unicode. It should show up for everyone if they have Unicode enabled.

The term in question is arche.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher


That's because you don't understand the power and potential of computers. They're only seen as calculators and communications devices to people who lack foresight or insightfulness in general. You name a field and I can tell you how computers made it better, and there's not many other fields we can say that about.

In the next 20+ years we're going to see it continue to progress to the level of artificial life and virtual reality, on top of what we know computers as for today.

Computers are not equal to the Personal Computer, which is what I think is your main misunderstanding. Computer Scientists do more than design Microsoft Word and Outlook...

Artifical life is far more than 20 years away- notions about how easy it is to create real AI are so overrated. As for Virtual reality, well, by definition isn't that a technology that has little to do with changing actual reality?

As for "field made better by computers", you miss the point that "faster and easier" does not equal better. As for your boast, explain how computers have made philosophy better

To say "world changing", I would assume it must be something that trully transform the way man lives, the jobs they do. Have computers really changed say the urban-rural distribution of mankind? Whether you are urban or rural has far more impact on the type of life you had than say whether you are with a computer or not, and the fact is simple things like railroads have made a far greater impact on the way almost everyone in the world lives as compared to computers.

The simple question would be this- is life in 1820 more or less similar from life in 1870 than life in 1950 is to life in 2000. I would state that the change in lifestyles in the mid 19th century for those in the first world was FAR more radical than changes in life for the same group in the last 50 years. I would take that as a simple evidence of which type of technology was more influential.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Artifical life is far more than 20 years away-

You make this comment based on how many years of study of artificial intelligence? This isn't Philosophy GePa, we like to stay grounded in the real world. If you're going to make such claims, you need to understand the field.

You have a hard enough time grasping intelligence, let alone artificial intelligence.

As for "field made better by computers", you miss the point that "faster and easier" does not equal better. As for your boast, explain how computers have made philosophy better

Easier communications between Philosophers, easier access to pornography, and easier access for plaigerism.

The simple question would be this- is life in 1820 more or less similar from life in 1870 than life in 1950 is to life in 2000. I would state that the change in lifestyles in the mid 19th century for those in the first world was FAR more radical than changes in life for the same group in the last 50 years.

That is complete bull****, and I'm sure you know it. It might be similar for the simpletons such as yourself, where computers only affected the distribution of pornography, but in the real world (with science and research and business and communications), the world is very much different.

You're acting like the typical philosopher BTW, nonsensical rhetoric and baseless claims.

[Odin]

GePap under-rating the impact of computers:

[Odin]

Originally posted by Asher


It might be similar for the simpletons such as yourself, where computers only affected the distribution of pornography, but in the real world (with science and research and business and communications), the world is very much different.

[Az]

Man, the computer troll sure is silly, but so is the philosophy troll.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

You make this comment based on how many years of study of artificial intelligence? This isn't Philosophy GePa, we like to stay grounded in the real world. If you're going to make such claims, you need to understand the field.

You have a hard enough time grasping intelligence, let alone artificial intelligence.


Easier communications between Philosophers, easier access to pornography, and easier access for plaigerism.



That is complete bull****, and I'm sure you know it. It might be similar for the simpletons such as yourself, where computers only affected the distribution of pornography, but in the real world (with science and research and business and communications), the world is very much different.

You're acting like the typical philosopher BTW, nonsensical rhetoric and baseless claims.

This is a reply?



As for the last bit of your sad troll. The massive growth of urban areas from 1820 to 1870 dwarves any changes in lifestyle in the western world since 1950, and the biggest changes there have been due to the increased use of the automobile, and have nothing to do with computers.

Unlike a man stuck in 1's and 0's, I actually read history, and obviously know far more than you do about what occured in the 19th century. It's cute seeing how much you need to justify yourself and chosen field to others- cute, pathetic, sad all in one.

Maybe in 50 years computers will have had as large an effect as say automobiles of all kinds have had in the last century, but computers aren't yet there, Hell, the simplest claim made by the computer futurists, the paperless society, is now a joke since people use more paper than ever.