Which of the following is the most worthless?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

When the many fields of sciences were forked off to do some real studying.

Philosophy's purpose was served LONG ago when we didn't know enough of the world to study specifics with scientific rigour. Now that we do, there's no point to philosophers.

Today, what do they discuss? "Ethics"? "Gender issues"? Hooey.

philosphers have been discussing ethics since Aristotle.

KH, did you something about which group is alway "pawned"?

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
making it central to philosophy. Duh.

Do you ever notice that most of your comments in a thread miss the point?

[Pekka]

Wittgenstein?

Like I said, interesting, I can read Wittgenstein when I get home. In our field, small breakthroughs are made every single ****ing day, days in, days out, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

So, let's see people who educate themselves in the other fields, let's see what kind of breakthroughs they do? Ohh... None?

Too bad, next!

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
3. Sample bias - something odd about the selection of phil majors here. Connected to who plays Civ, maybe. Or lets see, Boris is Canadian. Aggie studied in Canada. Hmmm, not a big sample, but Im detecting a pattern here.

Aggie studied in New Zealand.

There's no pattern here but your amazing tendency to have the points soar past your head.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
philosphers have been discussing ethics since Aristotle.

Okay?

And?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If this is your philosophical argument then I'm changing my contention to:

"The methodology employed leads to answers less meaningful than those which can be found by any intelligent individual."

Care to find an example from a rigorous philosopher, and show how his statement (about whatever topic of your choosing) is less 'meaningful' than intelligent common sense? I'm highly skeptical about your claim, but I'm willing to hear you.

Oh, and before you do that, you'll probably have to tell us what you mean by 'meaningful'. It's a word philosophers prefer to avoid, outside of arguments specifically dealing with philosophy of language; I don't see what it could refer to, in the context of your sentence.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Pekka
Wittgenstein?

Like I said, interesting, I can read Wittgenstein when I get home. In our field, small breakthroughs are made every single ****ing day, days in, days out, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

So, let's see people who educate themselves in the other fields, let's see what kind of breakthroughs they do? Ohh... None?

Too bad, next!

Huh... what's the point?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Do you ever notice that most of your comments in a thread miss the point?

You have a point?

[Pekka]

Money. That's another word philosophers try to avoid. Unemployment, real job, market value, I can go all night long baby..

While you guys are day dreaming, we change the world . We make information available to people around the world, the ability for everyone to communicate with each other, we give weapons the extra kick to kill people, we make the tools for experts to save their lives.

You are snoozing.

We build new ways to help the lives of the elderly, teach new things with technology and about technology to children, we gain new knowledge about the world around us every day and most of the times share that information with everyone interested.

You take another nap.

Shall I go on?

[Fake Boris]

And in case you assume too much from my silence... I've got some reading to do. I'll be back tomorrow.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Okay?

And?

You said today philosophers deal with ethics, unlike the good old days. I pointed out that philosophers have been discussing ethics for 2500 years, so the distinction you draw between old and new philosophers does not hold.

KH, this thing of denseness do you acknowledge yours?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Aggie studied in New Zealand.

There's no pattern here but your amazing tendency to have the points soar past your head.

I thought he was working on his PHd in canada. Did he finish his Phd in Kiwiland? If so let me modify it to "Aggie works in Canada"

Same pattern still applies.

[Pekka]

There is no pattern there LOTM. Some critical thinking would help to realize it

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You said today philosophers deal with ethics, unlike the good old days.

Actually that's not what I said. What a dumb conclusion to jump to. You lack critical thinking.

I said today that's primarily the kind of **** they deal with, that says nothing about them doing it before or it even being useful before...

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I thought he was working on his PHd in canada. Did he finish his Phd in Kiwiland? If so let me modify it to "Aggie works in Canada"

Same pattern still applies.

French Canadians and Kiwi Immigrants with huge critical thinking problems end up studying philosophy in Canada?