Originally posted by D-res
Rather than stick to your quasi-agnostic-nihilism, you'd be better off to side with the scientific realization via quantum mechanics that we're all essentially part of this petri dish of a universe, and being within the experiment, unable to view the universe objectively from the outside, there are truths and explanations that never can be known. See: the paradoxes surrounding electrons and their behavior. The uncertainty principle, the implications of the double-slit experiment, etc.
Philosophy was a great way for early thinkers to challenge convention and present novel explanations for existence, however its fair to assume that the majority of philosophical ideas and discussions that can be had, have been had, leaving us to ponder and regurgitate the notions thinkers before us spent their lives hammering out. Science, conversely, is dynamic and ever-changing. Ergo its purity and utility compared to philosophy.
I wouldn't disagree with any of that, actually. I'm a little confused about your first sentence though, as you say I'm sticking to "quasi-agnostic-nihilism" but then go on to say that we're unable to view the universe objectively, and thus never can know its origins. So instead of me believing that some theory in the future may actually allow us to prove the origins of the Universe via re-creating the Big Bang on a smaller scale, etc., you're suggesting that I just accept the fact that there are certain things that can never be known? It's almost as if you're arguing for one form of agnosticism over another.
Believe me, I would be thrilled if scientists were able to provide an explanation that holds true to the origins of the Universe, and I'd prefer to think that someday that could happen.
I do, however, take issue with some of your suppositions regarding Philosophy. You're treating it as some sort of stagnant and no longer useful field which has already produced all of the ideas that it will ever produce. There are many fields in modern Philosophy, Mind/Brain dualism for one, which are still being argued over today. Although these ideas may have originated from thoughts that have already been had, to suppose that all of the Philosophical thoughts that can be had, have been had, is just a ridiculous claim to make. I don't mean to sound rude in pointing that out, but it's just not correct. Philosophical thought evolves over time, as does scientific theory. They're not contradicting fields in my eyes at least. A lot of current Philosophical debate is based around scientific theories, in fact.
I think both fields can benefit from each other. Philosophers can debate current scientific theories, and come up with new ideas that scientists can then test out for themselves.
Capitalizt
This is real intelligent design folks...building lungs and hearts that actually work..frakking amazing.
woscar
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
There are many fields in modern Philosophy, Mind/Brain dualism for one, which are still being argued over today. Although these ideas may have originated from thoughts that have already been had.
That is only because dualists are stubborn little fucks who don't accept the recent facts that the neurosciences have uncovered. The argument from dualists is and has always been an argument from personal incredulity and is only becoming more and more evident in recent years once Science got the necessary tools to dabble in it.
And no, before you say I'm only trashing Philosophy because I don't understand it (as you think you can do with PKC), I guess I should point out that I'm getting a degree in Philosophy right now. I love Philosophy, but I am well aware of its limitations. I agree that Philosophy and Science enrich each other but I will not give Philosophy any credit it doesn't deserve. Philosophy that doesn't ground itself in the descriptions that the sciences make of the world are pretty much useless, aside from serving as examples of how not to do Philosophy. Henri Bergson's Creative Evolution is a perfect example of the amount of bull you can create by ignoring how the world actually works.
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by woscar
That is only because dualists are stubborn little fucks who don't accept the recent facts that the neurosciences have uncovered.
Such as?
And regardless, there's more than one side to Philosophical arguments such as dualism. That's the whole point of Philosophy. They don't all agree on the same thing, thus mind/brain dualism being a debate between people who believe in mind/brain dualism, and those who believe the mind to be reducible to the physiological constructs of the brain, hence my point that Philosophy and Science can coincide, and not be on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.
The point is that even if science uncovers new evidence which would support one theory (mind=brain), it doesn't mean we should just stop thinking about it, or stop discussing it.
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by woscar
That is only because dualists are stubborn little fucks who don't accept the recent facts that the neurosciences have uncovered.
like what? I need some intellectual ammo to use against this bastards in debate. I know the easiest thing to do is to point out that consciousness can be turned off with drugs, altered with chemicals, and irreparably damaged/changed with physical trauma..and we don't have a shred of evidence for consciousness existing apart from a brain. Until they get a piece of evidence to show otherwise they automatically lose..but I'm always looking for more stuff to thrash them with. :)
Nrg2Nfinit
i say bring something substantial to the table instead of talking about pink unicorns and fairy god mothers or hypothetical terms with no basis. Ingenuity should always be encourage, but instead of speaking in ridiculous hyperbole, i dare you to bring something substantial worth a thought to the table. Otherwise, please keep it in the disney section for your own personal amusement, or a story for the kids.
Desiderata
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
i say bring something substantial to the table instead of talking about pink unicorns and fairy god mothers or hypothetical terms with no basis. Ingenuity should always be encourage, but instead of speaking in ridiculous hyperbole, i dare you to bring something substantial worth a thought to the table. Otherwise, please keep it in the disney section for your own personal amusement, or a story for the kids.
Nobody is talking about god anymore. If you're likening Philosophy to pink unicorns and fairy god mothers, you're not really worth replying to.
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
Nobody is talking about god anymore. If you're likening Philosophy to pink unicorns and fairy god mothers, you're not really worth replying to.
You're not talking about anything. Just heresay and sensless drivel that in the end won't amount to anything. You're argument lacks substance as it has no thesis to attempt to prove or disprove anything.
Until you can do that, you might as well stop writing. I can talk about ghosts and goblins, but i prefer not to waste anyone's time here.
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
I can talk about ghosts and goblins, but i prefer not to waste anyone's time here.
Yet you do anyways. Last time I checked I can say whatever the I want, so I guess you can just deal with it however you please.
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
Yet you do anyways. Last time I checked I can say whatever the I want, so I guess you can just deal with it however you please.
Yeah, it's actually quite easy to deal with nonsensical irrationality. They do the pickup for that here on thursdays.
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Yeah, it's actually quite easy to deal with nonsensical irrationality. They do the pickup for that here on thursdays.
Clever girl. I bet you were proud of that one :stongue:
