Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Oh, I didn't mean the earth wasn't on it 's so called axis.
*attempts to interpret massive run on paragraph*Priesto wrote:I just wanted to make one thing clear.I'm not on these boards to argue convert or anything of that nature.Arguing on the internet and on this site to a greater exent, is really pointless.If you've felt I've been doing this, then my apologies.It's hard to do what Darth wong says as far as debating.I can't just forget what I know and try and prove a point.I admit that I do make attempts, but it's only natural.As far as the statement I made on science, perhaps I should've been more clear.Science has advanced civilization, how can anyone disagree with that? But whe it comes down to subjects pertaining to the universe and such, I tend to forget that science examines the world as it is without a God.Science sees wind not God, it sees gravity as a force but not God and so forth.Science gives labels to earthly events as "natural pheonomena".I know that God has created and while at the same time, is the things science describes.I forget sometimes though.If you feel like debating what I posted then go ahead.This is ones mans perspective, not an insult to your very being.
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
It should also be pointed out that the latter is a quixotic quest which lacks both meaningful definition and useful method, and is thus doomed to failure, while the former is a far more realistic goal. Philosophers may not admit it, but they collectively suffer from professional jealous of scientists, hence the constant low-level sniping at them.The Dark wrote:I think what one of my philosophy professors said might help out some: science seeks to answer the question of how things happen, while philosophy (and theology by extension) seeks to answer why things happen. The difference in the answer sought is what makes arguments between the two so difficult.
Not all, DW, not all. Ethics and logic both fall under philosophy, and the professor I mentioned was part of a (very small) panel with the head of our biology department discussing the ethics of human cloning, which both felt would be a good idea in the future. I'll agree that there will likely never be a universal answer to the question philosophy asks, but there can be some useful results from it (unless you're an existentialist, in which case everything is subjective anyway and life's just a witch until you die).Darth Wong wrote: They waste their lives pretending to make progress toward an impossible goal while scientists make real progress. So they sniff and try to denigrate the goal toward which scientists are steadily progressing.
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
True. But that's obviously not the kind of philosophy your professor was talking about, since neither of them attempts to answer "why". Logic tells us whether the reasoning "A therefore B" is valid, and ethics tells us whether actions are desirable. Since neither of them seeks the impossible goal of answering the question "why", they are useful.The Dark wrote:Not all, DW, not all. Ethics and logic both fall under philosophy, and the professor I mentioned was part of a (very small) panel with the head of our biology department discussing the ethics of human cloning, which both felt would be a good idea in the future.Darth Wong wrote:They waste their lives pretending to make progress toward an impossible goal while scientists make real progress. So they sniff and try to denigrate the goal toward which scientists are steadily progressing.
No, actually I have never seen anyone produce a shred of evidence that anything useful can be gleaned from the "why" questions like "why are we here". Logic and ethics are NOT examples of endeavours to answer such questions.I'll agree that there will likely never be a universal answer to the question philosophy asks, but there can be some useful results from it (unless you're an existentialist, in which case everything is subjective anyway and life's just a witch until you die).
You can use whatever fucking language you want, goddamn it(BTW, exactly what language is allowed on this board...witch wasn't the first word I wrote there...)
Point conceded. I hadn't looked at it from that angle. I'll agree the why questions don't really have a practical use, they're just intriguing to me.Darth Wong wrote:True. But that's obviously not the kind of philosophy your professor was talking about, since neither of them attempts to answer "why". Logic tells us whether the reasoning "A therefore B" is valid, and ethics tells us whether actions are desirable. Since neither of them seeks the impossible goal of answering the question "why", they are useful.The Dark wrote:Not all, DW, not all. Ethics and logic both fall under philosophy, and the professor I mentioned was part of a (very small) panel with the head of our biology department discussing the ethics of human cloning, which both felt would be a good idea in the future.Darth Wong wrote:They waste their lives pretending to make progress toward an impossible goal while scientists make real progress. So they sniff and try to denigrate the goal toward which scientists are steadily progressing.
You can use whatever fucking language you want, goddamn it(BTW, exactly what language is allowed on this board...witch wasn't the first word I wrote there...)
[/quote]BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
Well, Philosophy is about the search for the truth. Neither Teology or Science exclude philosophy from their rules and methods.
Except that ideas in philosophy can usually be argued and accepted as valid, provided you argue them well. You can come up with whatever inane conclusion you wish and start with a mountain of assumptions to justify it, but as long as your reasoning from those assumptions is correct, the idea is valid.Just that Philosophy - if we get every single school, style, system created, will work against or favaroble to anything. It is a super-generalization.
Some are, some are not. Reason didn't come out of philosophy. Philosophy is an application of reason.The Scientific Method, Logic, Reason all that are product from one of the systems of philosophy. There is no problem for a scientist to say he is a philosophe. He is.
Consequently, all their philosophy was constructed of blatant logical fallacies. See Thomas Aquinas' "first mover" argument.But not all phisosophes can claim to be scietists. As the Philosophic thinking have gave origem to the teologic thinking and codes for the Catholic church for example.
Philosophy is largely based in word-play. When philosophers discuss the meaning of life or the origin of the universe, they do so from an ignorant perspective, not knowing what the actual terms in the theory mean.The difference between religion and science is not because of philosophy or anything, its because they have both fundaments that in end exclude the other.
It is like someone past in this forum that once claimed the goods of Catholic church because St. Thomas or Agostyne was a philosophe, so he had scietific-works just like would have Voltaire or any of those thinkers...That only make sense if the dude thought all Philosophy schools are the one and same...
Brr....it is gettin kinda cold down here....Nick wrote:*attempts to interpret massive run on paragraph*Priesto wrote:I just wanted to make one thing clear.I'm not on these boards to argue convert or anything of that nature.Arguing on the internet and on this site to a greater exent, is really pointless.If you've felt I've been doing this, then my apologies.It's hard to do what Darth wong says as far as debating.I can't just forget what I know and try and prove a point.I admit that I do make attempts, but it's only natural.As far as the statement I made on science, perhaps I should've been more clear.Science has advanced civilization, how can anyone disagree with that? But whe it comes down to subjects pertaining to the universe and such, I tend to forget that science examines the world as it is without a God.Science sees wind not God, it sees gravity as a force but not God and so forth.Science gives labels to earthly events as "natural pheonomena".I know that God has created and while at the same time, is the things science describes.I forget sometimes though.If you feel like debating what I posted then go ahead.This is ones mans perspective, not an insult to your very being.
Umm, did Priesto just admit that what he does isn't rational argument?
Satan (into phone): WILL YOU GUYS GET DOWN HERE AND FIX THE HEATERS ALREADY!!! IT'S GODDAMN FREEZING IN HERE!!!
The word Why, whose, whom, etc is irrelevant. Philosophy, science, Teology, anything...It is just a matter of semantics. Darwin clears say that he studied "why" he could found such variation of species. This little semantic is not even inside the topic or really worth for us to keep arguing. I think we can move ahead...Science excludes any question beginning with "why." Instead, it only seeks to answer the question of what mechanisms drive an observable phenomenon. We'll never know why, so it's pointless to waste resources on it.
You are making a generalization. And you miss the point, philosophy is not really about results but about the system.Except that ideas in philosophy can usually be argued and accepted as valid, provided you argue them well .
Sorry, product was a wrong word. Traits perhaps will sound better. But reason is the application of some philosophies. Not all schools used it. LikeSome are, some are not. Reason didn't come out of philosophy. Philosophy is an application of reason.
Never said otherwise. My point is not about he is right, good, or anything. Just to show up the difference about philosophic schools.Consequently, all their philosophy was constructed of blatant logical fallacies. See Thomas Aquinas' "first mover" argument.
I am sure you should halt. Darwin liked to call himself a philosophy and he have every right to do so. He did not discuss anything from a ignorant perspective.Philosophy is largely based in word-play. When philosophers discuss the meaning of life or the origin of the universe, they do so from an ignorant perspective, not knowing what the actual terms in the theory mean.
) who did not used any ignorant point of view. 
This is progress - you have realised that you can't argue someone into believing. As you say faith requires an intuitive leap - believing in something because it feels right. The only thing you can do with that is explain what you believe, and why you personally believe it.Priesto wrote:No, I admitted that discussing these types of topics with you guys is pointless since I'd have to conform to your beliefs.No God, Mans logic and so forth.I post logical and rational things, but they appear irrational since you don't understand it.It doesn't conform to your beliefs, so it's unwise of me to try and debate dealing with these things.There is depth in words, not just basic meaning.No hell is hot last I heard.
