Which of the following is the most worthless?

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, you have to demonstrate to me that it was advances in filosofy which drove the advances in common sense rather than advances in the nature and condition of society which commonly drove both.

[KrazyHorse]

And before you can answer, I'm going to be at the gym for the next couple of hours hooping it up, so don't take my silence as any more meaningful than that.

[Fake Boris]

These objections would work, but they take for granted a certain definition of philosophy that is already skewed in favor of your premices.

I don't really want to dwelve in the details, but you should think of philosophy as a phenomenon parallel to other advances (of which you point out the obvious ones). You're right that it's simplistic to attribute change in ideas to philosophy alone; but in the same vein, it would be simplistic to attribute advances in philosophy to a simple evolution of historical factors. Would you say that the only reason Newton could inaugurate a new scientific paradigm was a decrease in religiosity, that let him reject Aristotelician physics (the official doctrine of the Church back then)?
And even if it was, what does that tell us about the validity of physics in general?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
These objections would work, but they take for granted a certain definition of philosophy that is already skewed in favor of your premices.

I don't really want to dwelve in the details

PWN3D!!!!!

[Kuciwalker]

And even if it was, what does that tell us about the validity of physics in general?

The validity of physics derives from it's accurate empirical predictions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

And even if it was, what does that tell us about the validity of physics in general?

The validity of physics derives from it's accurate empirical predictions.

And the concept of empiricism as the basis of truth, and how to reconcile that with various problems and objections was formulated by philosophers.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
And the concept of empiricism as the basis of truth, and how to reconcile that with various problems and objections was formulated by philosophers.

Philosophers of old != Philosophers of new.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
In other words, you have to demonstrate to me that it was advances in filosofy which drove the advances in common sense rather than advances in the nature and condition of society which commonly drove both.

A difficult historical question, for which it would be wise to utilize the best methodologies of history, sociology, and political science.

Of course by using the term "common sense" for a particular outlook, you are of course prejudging the issue.

[Asher]

Philosophy today involves crossdressing and then gayly asking, "but how do we feel".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Philosophers of old != Philosophers of new.

Ok, so youre kewl with say, David Hume, but not with Wittgenstein? Can you tell me exactly when philosophy went wrong, and show me that the new philosophers werent dealing with problems and questions raised by the old?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
Philosophy today involves crossdressing and then gayly asking, "but how do we feel".

focusing on how we feel began with JJ Rousseau, IIUC, whos hardly new.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Ok, so youre kewl with say, David Hume, but not with Wittgenstein? Can you tell me exactly when philosophy went wrong

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.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
focusing on how we feel began with JJ Rousseau, IIUC, whos hardly new.

Thanks, not sure what your point is -- I'm pretty sure people have had feelings before the 1700s, though.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The point is not whether or not I as a modern man have more ability to rationally deal with such questions than did Newton, but whether I as a modern man generally uneducted in modern/contemporary philosophy have any less ability to rationally deal with such questions than you do, as a modern man who does have such an education. The fact that the resident philosophers get regularly pwn3d by others on such matters tells me everything I need to know.

several possibilities

1. the most important questions were settled before modern contemporary phil IE what Asher says, Hume was important, but Russel, not so much
2. The phil guys here have been educated in the wrong modern phil - too much post-modernism vs too little analytics, or too much analytics and too little existentialism, or whatever. To make sense of such a discussion one would have to, you know, study modern phil.
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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Thanks, not sure what your point is -- I'm pretty sure people have had feelings before the 1700s, though.

making it central to philosophy. Duh.