Retitled: Modern philosophers are full of it!

[Asher]

GePap changing his argument once again.

You can just say you disagree with the dictionary definition rather than look like a complete tool arguing about the semantics of its definition.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
GePap changing his argument once again.

You can just say you disagree with the dictionary definition rather than look like a complete tool arguing about the semantics of its definition.

Maybe you fail to realize that semantics is what a dictionary is all about. That is my point genius.

[Asher]

Semantics is the point of the dictionary, I agree. But the dictionary is quite clear in its context and usage, and it does not agree with you.

Sad, but true, "genius".

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
Semantics is the point of the dictionary, I agree. But the dictionary is quite clear in its context and usage, and it does not agree with you.

Sad, but true, "genius".

Ahem, not its not. Each word used in a definition in turn is itself defined, down the line.

It should be clear from common usage that the way you are attempting to define Philosophist, with your interpretation of the dictionary definition in hand, is such to try to show that Carly Fiorina was a philosopher. Well, you know what? That is absurd.

Carly Fiorina studied Philosophy and Medieval History as an undergraduate. She then promptly joined the field of business, got a couple of MBA's and then went into business. She did no work, nor did any serious study, of either philosophy nor Medieval History. To call her either a Medieval HIstorian or a Philosopher is absurd.

A close friend of mine got a degree in Anthropology. He then went to Law School, and is now a lawyer. He has a BA degree in anthropology, but was never an Anthropologist. Another person I know got a Math BA. He is know working to get his Math PhD. He is still not a mathematician, but will, once his time of being instructed ends. Yet another person I know studies Computer science as his BA. He is currently not working in a computer related field. He is NOT a computer scientist. Another example is a person I know who got a BA in Latin American History. He know works for the NYC EDC (Economic Development Corporation). He is not a Latin American Historian, and no one who knew him would describe him as such.

My mother, for example, got her masters in economics, then worked as an economist for about 18 years, then stopped. Today no one would describe her as an Economist. My stepfather on the other hand also got a Masters in Economics, and is still an Economist.

Nostromo might not feel inclined to argue the point of the semantics of the definition, but he has tried to make this point. It is obvious he is correct- just having an undergraduate degree in something does not make you that thing. Hell, even having a graduate degree does not make you that thing- you are in a profession only as long as you are actively partaking in it. You never start, or you stop, and you are no longer that.

What is sad is that you hide behind your supposedly "clear" definition based on your attempt and bolstering your tired rant.

[Asher]

I think everyone but you agrees that the definition does not assume student and specialist are the same thing...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
I think everyone but you agrees that the definition does not assume student and specialist are the same thing...

And if you read the definition of OR, you would know that OR also means separating choices in a list: definition B.

If you say "Apples or oranges can be had at the market", that does not mean you are negating the possiblity of having both apples and oranges. But you can grammatically correctly use OR in there, IF you read the damned definition of the word.

And of course, the word Student does not only denote someone being instructed by another, as in currently being taught actively, which is the definition of student you wish to pass on. You can also be a keen observer of something, someone who studies, which is not simply meant to state someone acitvely taking a class. That denotes someone actively persuing the discipline, even in a non-structured manner.

Which would be closer to Nostromo's correct point that just someone who at some point took a few, or even many philosophy classes is not a Philosopher unless they are actively persuing the field, be it as a profession, or even an active hobby.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

You mean the false premise below pee wee?

Why don't you come up with some real argument. You have nothing. If you want to be taken seriously, stop playing kindergartern games. Did you ignore the part about other contributory causes.... I guess so.

As it stands you are just making yourself look thick...

Admittedly that isn't hard for you. You and DinoDoc and the rest of your sad tory cabal never post anything of substance.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

You're missing the point. Philosophy education ought only to be distributed as much as there is a demand for it - which is only those people who want to study philosophy. It's not like you guys benefit the rest of us.

That's debatable. Philosophy has lots of obvious indirect benefits.

Even so, setting that aside, lots of people want to take our classes out of interest in the subject, so your argument fails.

[Agathon]

I think this thread is as good a demonstration of the value of philosophy as anything else on this board.

The half-wit science students are getting thrashed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
And if you read the definition of OR, you would know that OR also means separating choices in a list: definition B.

I understand that, but it's clearly not what was meant in the context. It makes no sense in that way, as it would imply student or specialist infer eachother or are otherwise similar.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
I think this thread is as good a demonstration of the value of philosophy as anything else on this board.

The half-wit science students are getting thrashed.

Other way around, the Philosophers are crying about the definition of "or" and otherwise ignoring the question about value to society.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why don't you come up with some real argument. You have nothing.

Hello Fez.

Just because you choose to ignore the argument doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Nostromo]

Other way around, the Philosophers are crying about the definition of "or" and otherwise ignoring the question about value to society.

I started to answer the value question. But expect a fuller answer in one or two days. I'm too busy right now.

Man, I feel the strippers pain: all her clients ask her at a point or another: "why are you doing this?"

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

I understand that, but it's clearly not what was meant in the context. It makes no sense in that way, as it would imply student or specialist infer eachother or are otherwise similar.

Exactly! Jesus. A student, not in the sense of someone taking classes, but someone who studies Philosophy, as someone might study human behavior, is much like a specialist, directly involved in the field of Philosophy, UNLIKE simply someone being instructed in the field.

If they meant to differentiate substantially between the two, it would have made more sense to number the two definitions seperately, not in one.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap


Exactly! Jesus. A student, not in the sense of someone taking classes, but someone who studies Philosophy, as someone might study human behavior, is much like a specialist, directly involved in the field of Philosophy, UNLIKE simply someone being instructed in the field.

If they meant to differentiate substantially between the two, it would have made more sense to number the two definitions seperately, not in one.

Go back and read my post on a crash course with dictionaries.

The reason they're not seperate is the word is used in the same sense between a student or specialist.

That's not how the dictionary used the word, and that's the simple facts. You think it means something else than what the dictionary defined it as, and that's fine, but don't try to point to the same definition as evidence.

The 3 different definitions refer to three conceptually different usages of the word, and the one in question refers to the person's qualifications. It clearly says they're a student, or they're a specialist.

That's simply how it's defined. Everyone can see that but you. Disagree with it if you wish, but don't twist the definitions and try to mock others because they read it how it's defined and not how you want it to be defined.