Which of the following is the most worthless?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


philosphers have been discussing ethics since Aristotle.

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

If you hadn't noticed, he didn't say they didn't always study ethics. Simply that they also used to study other stuff...

edit: missed a word

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


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?

It was a dig at you, son.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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?

Actually, the denseness here is all you...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I understood precisely what he meant. You misread it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by rah
Just plain snobbery. Not everyone is capable of or desires a science or engineering career. By calling those degrees worthless, you're implying that people that pursue those paths are worthless.

Not at all. I do think, however, that we pump out far too many graduates of these useless disciplines. We don't need them to receive a university education.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by rah
KH, Another voice of reason.

Who needs reason? We're talking about filosofy...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If you hadn't noticed, he didn't say they didn't always study ethics. Simply that they also used to other stuff...

"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"

Genders issues they clearly didnt study until recently, and i presume "hooey" is a reference to what they DO study, not to the fact that they no longer study say, physics. Reading the sentence, it LOOKS like hes grouping ethics with "gender issues" (note he also puts ethics in quotes) as modern "hooey".

Of course he never explicitly states that ethics werent studied before. His entire post was vague and rhetorical, and his defense is worthy of GePap.

[rah]

Remember that most of them end up in the vast army of corporate grunts. And some of them rise above it.

Somebody has to do it.

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Pekka
we give weapons the extra kick to kill people

You're doing your bit for human advancement there.

Why has no-one mentioned economics yet?

[Patroklos]

While you guys are day dreaming, we change the world

Excuse me?

I think the founders of every revolution in human history may disagree with you.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Actually, the denseness here is all you...

so the good old days were when philosophers were dealing mistakenly, non-empirically with issues more properly addressed through scientific method, and today, when they have confined themselves to issues that cant be resolved by experiment, they are useless?

And Asher still has NOT provided me with a date when phil went wrong, or who was the last of the "good" philosophers or the first of the "bad" ones. I dont know why thats so hard for someone with all the intelligence and research skills associated with a technical bent.

[KrazyHorse]

Not everybody has the ability or temperament to receive a technical or scientific degree. That's fine. This doesn't make them bad people, or even stupid, and certainly not useless.

What is useless is putting hordes of them through 4 years of makework which most of them will never use, and which fails to touch most of them.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


"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"

Genders issues they clearly didnt study until recently, and i presume "hooey" is a reference to what they DO study, not to the fact that they no longer study say, physics. Reading the sentence, it LOOKS like hes grouping ethics with "gender issues" (note he also puts ethics in quotes) as modern "hooey".

Of course he never explicitly states that ethics werent studied before. His entire post was vague and rhetorical, and his defense is worthy of GePap.

You've developed a regrettable reading deficiency. By the very fact that he claims that the useful disciplines were "forked off" from filosofy he implies that the other disciplines were always studied. Duh.

[Patroklos]

So you think there are too many, thats fine. I also think there are too many lawyers.

You may remember a few years ago when computer programers were a dime a dozen, spawned a very funny movie.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Not everybody has the ability or temperament to receive a technical or scientific degree.

What temperment is that, the rude boorish arrogance on display here?

I suggest you read Bronkowski, (an esteemed mathematician) on what scientific arrogance can do.