Retitled: Modern philosophers are full of it!

[Asher]

Originally posted by dannubis
in fact you are ...

since it is wrong ...

oh, and a monoploy isn't a free market thing...

If it were truly a monopoly we wouldn't have Apple and Linux.

Clearly there are choices, the fact that people choose Windows is a free market thing.

The reason why people don't choose Linux is in my sig.

[Seeker]

OP seems a rehash of Thrasymachus' argument from Republic 1.

Solution: Go back and re-read "the Republic" with a good commentary.

[MrFun]

So according to the bashers of philosophy, past philosophers have made no contribution to intellectualism and culture?

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
So according to the bashers of philosophy, past philosophers have made no contribution to intellectualism and culture?

I think the distinction has been made repeatedly between philosophers of the past and present. The qualifier of "modern" is there for a reason.

Philosophy of the past was the generalized search for knowledge and understanding, and today as our understanding of these fields progresses they became their own, specialized fields, usually under the umbrella of "Science" (or 'knowledge').

What modern philosophers are left with are the bull**** fields that don't warrant their own faculties or departments, for things such as "ethics" (which should not be a course that is lectured) or yet another way to interpret writings from 1,000 years ago that don't matter anymore.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

I think the distinction has been made repeatedly between philosophers of the past and present. The qualifier of "modern" is there for a reason.

Philosophy of the past was the generalized search for knowledge and understanding, and today as our understanding of these fields progresses they became their own, specialized fields, usually under the umbrella of "Science" (or 'knowledge').

What modern philosophers are left with are the bull**** fields that don't warrant their own faculties or departments, for things such as "ethics" (which should not be a course that is lectured) or yet another way to interpret writings from 1,000 years ago that don't matter anymore.

Writings from 1,000+ years ago are irrelevant? Aren't you contradicting yourself by saying that since the thread is making the distinction between past philosophers and modern philosophers, because past philosophers did make contributions, and then turning around saying their written works are not relevant?

[BeBMan]

"Modern philosophy is also stupid because I'm not interested in it."

[Asher]

Writings from 1,000+ years ago are irrelevant? Aren't you contradicting yourself by saying that since the thread is making the distinction between past philosophers and modern philosophers, because past philosophers did make contributions, and then turning around saying their written works are not relevant?

Not at all. We can have a history class to teach us what they wrote. You should like that, as a history major.

These philosophy classes where all of these keen undergrad geeks sit and argue about the interpretation of various translations of the writing is a waste of money.

The reason past philosophers made contributions was because there were no real scientific fields established at the time.

[BeBMan]

"And of course the field I'm working in/studying/whatever is teh greatest, but others may be stupid because I say so."

[Asher]

I will of course argue that today a computer science student will contribute far more to society than a philosophy student.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher


Not at all. We can have a history class to teach us what they wrote. You should like that, as a history major.

These philosophy classes where all of these keen undergrad geeks sit and argue about the interpretation of various translations of the writing is a waste of money.

The reason past philosophers made contributions was because there were no real scientific fields established at the time.

I see your point -- even if I don't agree with everything you say.

[Agathon]

Not at all. We can have a history class to teach us what they wrote. You should like that, as a history major.

This is the stupidest thing you have ever written, and that is an achievement on your part.

Historians simply don't have the tools to understand such writings. I should know, I've marked enough bad papers written by history majors. I'm sure that the history department has a lot of bad papers written by philosophy majors - they are completely different subjects.

The point of arguing about the meanings of the original texts is that there is no real agreement over what many of them mean (because the people who wrote them aren't around to ask) and no agreement over what the original actually is (this is what happens when people had to copy out the originals by hand and copy the copies).

And you have absolutely no idea of what contemporary philosophers do. You took an introductory course in the history of philosophy. The problem is, we never really touch that stuff again other than in historical survey courses. Contemporary philosophy has most to do with a finicky investigation of the nature of language, but it isn't linguistics. It is certainly not the same subject matter as someone like Aristotle conceived it. But there is, of course, a historical relation and shared concepts and methods.

I guess you have to be retarded to work at IBM.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
This is the stupidest thing you have ever written, and that is an achievement on your part.

Historians simply don't have the tools to understand such writings. I should know

Get off your high horse. The only problem with historians is most of them are not tools like modern Philosophy students.

You should have your ass in the history department if all you're going to do is dwell in the past.

I guess you have to be retarded to work at IBM.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

Get off your high horse. The only problem with historians is most of them are not tools like modern Philosophy students.

You should have your ass in the history department if all you're going to do is dwell in the past.

So you're one of those brutish cavemen who has no appreciation of the importance of history? I feel sorry for you.

History is the study of the past to better understand the present. Humans have always had a compelling interest in where they have come from, and how they got to where they are and for good reason.

[Kuciwalker]

He said those philosophers were useful at the time, not that they are so now.

EDIT: was responding to MrFun at the end of the previous page - didn't realize there was a page 2

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun


So you're one of those brutish cavemen who has no appreciation of the importance of history? I feel sorry for you.

History is the study of the past to better understand the present. Humans have always had a compelling interest in where they have come from, and how they got to where they are and for good reason.

I never said that at all, you need to stop jumping on strawmen.

I'm saying that Philosophers who spend all their time studying the past need to be in History.