"You don't need philosophy to prove reality" - Geeser

Not is, but certainly can be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

actually this thread is about your attempts to pass off reality while simultaneously bypassing philosophy as inferior or something

not sure where you go from this statement to this run-down on reality

Why would anyone other than the theist, need philosophy. You don't need philosophy, to prove reality. Reality is mind-independent, talk sense, for f**k sake.

or this

And secondly nothing can be gleaned completely or even partially from philosophy, it is a subjective discipline all you could possibly glean is an opinion

IOW for someone who is of the opinion that all philosophy amounts to is an opinion, its unclear why you insist that your take of reality is self evident and at the same time avoids the pitfalls of solipsism
:shrug:

In short, if you were really of the opinion that reality has no need to be accompanied by any sort of philosophical treatise, you would be silent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that might just be a case of semantics, because solipsism syndrome does.

Point taken, I haven't as yet studied it deep enough or long enough. So I'm only going with the basics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Probably because I don't, all I'm saying is I think a reality of sorts exist regardless of whether I, you or the goal posts do.

How so, I don't think nothing is real, as I said above.

I'm of the opinion that a reality of sort exist regardless.

As you reposted, my statements here they are again, with a couple of additions. and a bit more colourful. "nothing can be gleaned completely or even partially from philosophy, it is a subjective discipline all you could possibly glean is an opinion" You don't need philosophy, to prove reality. Reality is mind-independent and as said by Big Chiller "Additionally philosophy is used to study reality not to prove it. "and Pandaemoni "What we think of as "reality" may indeed be independent of you or me or the human race, and yet still not be "real" as we commonly think of it. but that itself is a philosophical position that one must hold without evidence. That position, and its contrary, are both fundamentally unprovable. "and from Signal "Geeser, if I am understanding you correctly, you are basically asking LG or anyone else to show to you how philosophy is not a subjective discipline."

Could you explain why you think philosophy is more than an opinion.

 

Actually, its not 'just' a case of semantics (whilst pointing out that, dismissing something as being a mere semantical issue does not render it insignificant).

As with most philosophical points of contention, there are indeed strict logical implications here, to wit: it is not the case that the solipsist is denying "reality".

Which brings me to:

Philosophy is more than opinion because it can, and often does provide irrefutable explications that would otherwise remain obscured.

It takes but a brief perusal of the history of philosophy to realize for example, that the entirety of our contemporary scientific disciplines each are direct descendants of philosophical investigations... 'natural philosophy', as it was known through the 13th to 18th Centuries.

Though I'm sure LG will reply, this should suffice for a beginning.

 

I'm afraid you say a quite deal more than that


I know via my senses that reality exists independent of consciousness, I know via my senses people have direct contact with reality through sensory perception, we can attain objective knowledge from our perception through the process of information via inductive and deductive logic"

read the quote again

solipsism -Belief that only I myself and my own experiences are real

you are of the belief that the workings of your senses (and the workings of the senses of those who yield similar results values/results to yours) are a transparent medium to objective reality.

While this is perhaps slightly distinct from solipsism, its not far from it

It appears that you are saying one thing in one place and something else in another.
For instance take the simple question of whether you think you have access to objective reality.
So far we have had "yes", "no" and "maybe".
Do you want to go for a fourth?

You've already offered one (philosophical) take on this question.

I know via my senses people have direct contact with reality through sensory perception, we can attain objective knowledge from our perception through the process of information via inductive and deductive logic"


While the problem of holding empiricism as primary and rationalism as secondary in determining the objective universe is also besieged by (philosophical) problems (such as how the activities of the senses can be deemed as operating independent from consciousness), I think more to the point here is how you entertain this as sufficient to relegate all philosophy to the realm of opinion.

Can you see the contradictory nature between these two statements or do you require us to continue spelling it out to you more clearly?

1. One comes in touch with objective reality primarily via the senses without having recourse to philosophy
2. This sensory perception relegates all philosophy to the realm of opinion

In philosophical terms, you've just left the comfort zone of semantics when you bring a meta-narrative to the table.
:shrug:

 

Frankly, I think Geeser is simply what mainstream Western culture and traditional Western psychiatry call "normal". And according to which, we who think differently are a bunch of wacked losers!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I mean, seriously, the scope of arguing against a position (and attitude) like Geeser's sets us up for being considered for a psychiatric diagnosis. Even though what we may be doing is no different than what goes on in so many classes on philosophy.

A "normal" person knows when to leave philosophical scrutiny behind and pretend (or not pretend?) to be ignorant of any epistemological or ontological problems.

 

To glaucon LG and even Signal (who's being bitchy)

No philosopher has ever proven a thing, it's spurious at best.

Arguments are used in a philosophical discussion not as proofs but as a means to making someone see things he hadn't noticed before; ergo to dispel wrong analogies, to point out similarities with other ideas and in that way, bring about a shift of perspective. however, there is no way of proving someone wrong or bullying them into an acceptance of the proposal.

Philosophic questions cant be settled by argument, I cannot find any good arguments and I'm doubtful whether any compelling arguments can be found. I made a mistake when I used the term deductive logic In my quote, philosophic arguments are not deductive as they are not rigorous and as such cant prove anything. But they can be very powerful.

Arguments must start somewhere, where does the philosopher find his starting point his premise, if in science then he is doing science, if in normal life, then he wont move forward. where does he find real substance for his argument, where can he be sure his arguments are not empty, can he ever be sure they are true, No. Thus he can only make an opinion, and hope it is either heeded or acted upon.

I'm sorry guys it cannot be anything but an opinion, as you cant have complete certainty, philosophy is insufficient to produce such certainty, do you know for certain, whatever you discuss is fact.

Oh and LG whatever I say be it "philosophical" or not is my opinion, ok.
As is whatever you say, it is that simply.

 

no one has proven a thing without philosophy

If you are making a claim about existence (never mind if it is objective or subjective), you are making a claim with philosophy.

The only question that remains is the quality of such philosophy

how does this relate to arguments about reality?

Does this also contextualize claims like ....

I know via my senses that reality exists independent of consciousness, I know via my senses people have direct contact with reality through sensory perception, we can attain objective knowledge from our perception through the process of information via inductive and deductive logic"

????

If not, why not?

Actually deductive reasoning is only pertinent to the field it operates out of. For instance deductive reasoning within the field of thermometers works brilliantly for assessment of temperature but is perfectly lousy for distance calculations.

As such, the "power" of empiricism lies in determining tacit relationships between the observable. The "weakness" of empiricism lies in contextualizing the extent on what is observable or even what the "facts indicate beyond the tacit relationship of the articles in question.

So what is the starting premise for "science"?

Then you are certainly calling upon something else than the type of falsifiable rigmarole of empiricism when you factor reality into your posts or even day to day living

sure

when you post gems like this ....

Religious people look to there peers, elders, priests, etc, for guidance, some go as far to actually study there holy books in order to become said peers, elders, etc. However they all start from a brainwashed/indoctrinated basis, none come to god from there own fruition, well not without some kind of trauma happening in there lives. Those who claim they chose belief in a deity, are deluding themselves, if they were intellectually honest they would admit this. No rational person turns to irrationality for guidance. So their behaviour is born from their books and their peers, and never from a rational standpoint.

... its painfully obvious

 

WOW! LG has all that writing Changed the fact that philosophy is merely opinion, No! Take a breath and try again.

 

Provided you don't try again to establish something real or objective while bypassing philosophy, I shouldn't have to ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That too does not change the fact that philosophy is mere opinion. Additionally you seem to be unable to grasp that I, you, and the rest of humanity have an opinion. if nothing can be established via philosophy to be real with certainty, then it can only be an opinion. Regardless of whether philosophy is there or bypassed as you say, it would still be an opinion.

 

its kind of funny the way you allude that there is something else other than philosophy ... I mean even if you try and bypass it, its still philosophy, albeit a weak form of it

 

Just using your terminology. And philosophy can only give an opinion. Wow! has it sunk in yet.

 

I was going to respond to each of these n turn, but LG has kindly (and astutely) done so already.
All I can say is: you're wrong on all points geeser.

And according to you geeser, everything is opinion.
Thus, all is moot.

I'm starting to suspect that Signal might be correct with his diagnosis...

 

Then all you need do is show me one instant that philosophy has proven anything.

Or where philosophy has debated anything to absolute certainty, to debunk my opinion argument.

That's your prerogative, however none of you have proven that philosophy is not a subjective discipline, or it's anything more than opinion, and that it has ever actually proven a thing.


And to finish, a quote from "The Uses of Philosophy in Today's World" by Rick Garlikov

http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/uses.htm

 

give us anything you accept as proven and we will provide you an example of philosophy at its foundation

give us an example of anything that is certain and we will give you an example of philosophy at its foundation

.... of course these things said, a solipsist has a hard time giving anyone an explanation of anything proven or certain, so go figure ....

As glaucon mentioned, that's fine if you want to believe that, but it makes all your attempts moot

I guess you didn't read the article, or even the first few paragraphs before the one you quoted

A more recent usage that is perhaps becoming more and more common is to equate philosophy with "mere idle speculation", particularly as in "Rather than sitting around merely philosophizing, we decided to do some actual empirical research into the phenomena." Or "There is no point in thinking about this philosophically; we need to find out what the facts are." Or "You can do all the philosophy about the likely result of this you want, but at some point you are going to have to get out of your chair and actually see what happens when you try to do it." In this sense, philosophy is equated with the kind of pointless thinking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; it is considered to be a waste of mental energy, for no useful purpose.

Loosely associated with this view of philosophy is the one that thinks philosophers are at best merely "book-smart" people who have no common sense because they come up with crackpot beliefs and ideas. While in some cases this may be true, more often it is believed because it is not the reasoning but only the conclusion that is looked at, and it is true that many conclusions philosophers reach are counter-intuitive or odd, or contrary to conventional belief. It is important, however, not to look just at conclusions that people reach, but the evidence and reasons they give for them. That is where insights lie if there are to be any.

If you want to just skim a few paragraphs to glean the thrust of an article, its better to look at the conclusion rather than the introduction (which usually plays the role of establishing the terms of use in the discussion)

Moreover, most people seem to think they "reason" well enough and that any argument that shows otherwise is merely someone else's opinion, and does not need to be considered any further than it takes to ignore, dismiss, or reject it. So although these are areas where people could benefit from philosophy, they usually do not, and do not care to. In that sense philosophy is just of potential benefit. But it is not unlike other, practical, areas of potential benefit that are ignored.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I still don't understand. Is geeser still engaging in a philosophical argument with you guys
as if he could prove his point - which would be an objective one - while taking the position that philosophy cannot prove objective points?

How.....surreal?

 

You're so misinformed.

OK.

If A, then B.
A.

Therefore B.​

That's called modus ponens, and is used by you, and everyone else, constantly.

Now, shut up.

Your "opinion argument" (sic) (as has been pointed out..) is not an argument, but rather, a statement. You've established a false dichotomy, therefore, your position is unsound (if not ridiculous) (Hint: outside of closed systems, there's no such thing as "absolute certainty).

You have no conception whatsoever of where the concept "proof" applies.

Sad.

I have no doubt that you're not familiar with the fallacy Argumentum ad Verecundiam. You should be.


geeser,
I'm afraid that, until you decide to deal with this issue rationally, you're opinions are not welcome here.

 

Kind of proves my point LG.

Kind of proves my point LG.

Exactly, kind of proves my point again LG.

Ah but I did or didn't you notice the very first line of the quote I posted. here it is again, and there I've coloured it for you.

Am I. then show me where I err.

Sorry, Modus Ponens Assumes the premise, it has no truth base to start with. In the use of reasoning, how do we know that the premises are true? we can only attempt to classify the reasoning according to the kinds of guarantees that we have about it, how do we know what probabilities to assign to the premises? the answer is that we don’t. This limits the value of those "truths". We don’t know anything for certain; everything is open to doubt.
Also Modus Ponens are not a foregone conclusion, Vann Mcgee has shown them to be invalid with counterexamples with so called "true" premises and conclusions. So sorry, you fail.

So what is certain within a closed system, nothing. From day one on this thread I've been told I can't know for sure that anything is true, which I must add I haven't challenged, The facts we work with are insufficient, observations we make through our physical senses which are themselves unreliable. Thus we do not have by any means sufficient data to use a method of raw logic. The way we assemble ideas is suspect, If our data is neither qualitatively nor quantitatively complete and accurate we are not able to put together absolutely reliable ideas to work with. The data we are using is not able to be elevated to a level of facts. only at most a close approximation Our method of drawing inferences is not reliable. which brings us to two methods of logic: deductive and inductive. As I have stated before, philosophic arguments are not deductive as they are not rigorous and as such cant prove anything. But they can be very powerful.
Deductive logic produces no new information. It is just a set of rules that allow us to cautiously handle information and definitions so that we only introduce conclusions that are directly derivable from the data we begin with.
Inductive logic makes generalisations from accepted data. Since there may be data or situations not included, considered or known, and since there is no way to rule out other possible generalisations not anticipated, induction only produces a degree of certainty. It does not produce absolute truth and is always subject to error. either way it can only be opinion.

Then show me where I err, show where the concept of proof applies in regard to philosophy.

Oh yes. very familiar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Oop's I did it again.

Then I suggest you take that up with LG he started the thread, and I haven't seen too much rationality, on this thread either, most certainly from(sorry cant say that nothing is certain) LG, Have you read some of his posts, in the religious section. You all appear to know how to word your posts, and appear intelligent by I fear that this is not proof, (oh wow there's that concept of proof again). This here is a reply that a another member made to LG, it kind of says it all in his regard, however hopefully not in anyone else regard here.

Oh yes I agree, a person is always unwelcome when they have an opposing viewpoint, especially when the person has a firm basis for their argument. Being unwelcome happens an awful lot when debating the religious. They too don't like their opinions stepped on, even when they are bullying, inculcating a person to get they opinion across.
I really don't need to be here, (but I will be back if someone replies to my post, as is my prerogative.
You lot just need to accept your wrong once in while.

"The only thing I know is, That I don't know anything" - Socrates.
(And yes I know it's contradictory, that's the point)