Philosophy

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the end, if science is to provide objective content, it's ultimately a philosophical action that provides context. While I agree that philosophies that can't be measured and are ultimately abstract, are nothing but thought stroking. If you base your philosophy on science, then you're able to apply context to that science.
To a plebian like me I have no idea what you are trying to say. If I build an electron microscope and peer at the structure of atoms in a solid, the observations remains regardless of what philosophical action there is: that there are spheres apparently picometers in size that are packed like oranges on a supermarket stand to form table salt.

We can endlessly debate about what that means - that is why philosophy will never help me advance my understanding of table salt. But we now have clear progress: we understand that salt is not just a little cube (or a big one) that melts in water, but it is composed of apparently indivisible tiny spheres! Our understanding has been refined.
 
'New' is not 'progress'. You seem to be mixing my claim of 'philosophy makes no progress' as me saying something is 'bad'. I have avoided any mention of whether something is good or bad. The definition of good or bad, such as viewpoints, changes with context. It is entirely possible to imagine a society where the value of human life is zero - it has happened in the past! And at that time, such a thing was entirely regarded as good. There is no objective truth to philosophy, nor is there any piece of art or literature that is demonstrably 'better' than another piece.
Progress in science, however, is exactly how I have quoted it (see above, I don't want to rehash the argument in my words for fear of diluting it).
Yeah fair enough, I see what you're saying, but there's still a lot of what you and Jorick said that is truncated.
 
'New' is not 'progress'. You seem to be mixing my claim of 'philosophy makes no progress' as me saying something is 'bad'. I have avoided any mention of whether something is good or bad. The definition of good or bad, such as viewpoints, changes with context. It is entirely possible to imagine a society where the value of human life is zero - it has happened in the past! And at that time, such a thing was entirely regarded as good. There is no objective truth to philosophy, nor is there any piece of art or literature that is demonstrably 'better' than another piece.
Progress in science, however, is exactly how I have quoted it (see above, I don't want to rehash the argument in my words for fear of diluting it).
Except 'new' is absolutely progress. That's what progress is made of. Progress is new stuff that is different from the old stuff. Look at the various applicable definitions of progress and they all agree with this. "A movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage" requires new things to move onward, and philosophy moves to further stages with new additions to it all the time; the lack of a clearly defined goal like "to understand how everything in the universe works" does not mean progress is not made, it just means that progress is nebulous. "Advancement in general" is totally on board with new = progress. "Growth or development; continuous improvement" works too, there's definitely growth and development, though the improvement bit is debatable. "The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level" also works, as lots of philosophy aims to say which stuff is best for an individual or society and how to strive toward that betterment and there have been plenty of new thoughts on that over the years as well. The most general definition of "forward or onward movement" is also totally in synch with new things meaning progress.

As I've said before, science and philosophy are different. They have different goals and methods, so they progress in different ways. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that. You've latched on to this one essay and decided it is the gospel on philosophy, despite plenty of others countering it directly and the concept in general as well. For instance, go give this a read, maybe watch the video linked therein if you've got an hour to kill. There is progress in philosophy, you've just narrowed the definition of progress to only the one applicable to science for arbitrary reasons. Nowhere does any definition of progress say that it can only be achieved through the discovery of empirical truths of the physical world, yet this is your definition of it. I find that strange and confusing.
 
To a plebian like me I have no idea what you are trying to say. If I build an electron microscope and peer at the structure of atoms in a solid, the observations remains regardless of what philosophical action there is: that there are spheres apparently picometers in size that are packed like oranges on a supermarket stand to form table salt.
We can endlessly debate about what that means - that is why philosophy will never help me advance my understanding of table salt. But we now have clear progress: we understand that salt is not just a little cube (or a big one) that melts in water, but it is composed of apparently indivisible tiny spheres! Our understanding has been refined.
Right, and if reframed from given any thought to it (which is what philosophy is, a reflective tool). You will peer down that microscope for eternity.

Except you wont. Because you run with human nature like everyone else, and like a self justifying ego that's constantly measuring it's environment for value and an avoidance of risk, you will most likely take what value that is offered here and project it through thought, that will ultimately lead to another scientific observation or the passing that information to someone who will do it for you.

Whether democracy is more valuable than how crispy things are, is actually pretty worthless. It's only as valuable as the amount of people who buy into it, and that's most likely a matter of simply the context - which is arbitrary as an abstract concept in of itself - given to you as you were raised. On that thought alone, crispiness is more valuable by far, it actually gives us something. But considering that within the context of sociology, we can measure how free flow information within groups are, how many scientifically literature people there are, and how more progressive in terms of scientific discovery a democratic country is as opposed to a totalitarian one, we can measure which is more efficient for progress.

Philosophy is fucking useless on it's own.

Your measurements, useless on it's own.

Content provides possible context, which provides instance of new content, which gives opportunity for a new context. Revise the universe.
 
Except 'new' is absolutely progress. That's what progress is made of. Progress is new stuff that is different from the old stuff. Look at the various applicable definitions of progress and they all agree with this. "A movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage" requires new things to move onward, and philosophy moves to further stages with new additions to it all the time; the lack of a clearly defined goal like "to understand how everything in the universe works" does not mean progress is not made, it just means that progress is nebulous. "Advancement in general" is totally on board with new = progress. "Growth or development; continuous improvement" works too, there's definitely growth and development, though the improvement bit is debatable. "The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level" also works, as lots of philosophy aims to say which stuff is best for an individual or society and how to strive toward that betterment and there have been plenty of new thoughts on that over the years as well. The most general definition of "forward or onward movement" is also totally in synch with new things meaning progress.
As I've said before, science and philosophy are different. They have different goals and methods, so they progress in different ways. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that. You've latched on to this one essay and decided it is the gospel on philosophy, despite plenty of others countering it directly and the concept in general as well. For instance, go give this a read, maybe watch the video linked therein if you've got an hour to kill. There is progress in philosophy, you've just narrowed the definition of progress to only the one applicable to science for arbitrary reasons. Nowhere does any definition of progress say that it can only be achieved through the discovery of empirical truths of the physical world, yet this is your definition of it. I find that strange and confusing.
If new is progress, then progress is a constant regardless. "A new event occured" "Oh hey what happened?" "The paint dried on my walls" "Good progress".

"A new event occured" "Oh hey what happened" "My leg fell off" "Good progress".
 
See, now you're all arguing over the word progress and it's many meanings which is arbitrary and is usually one the biggest most common mistakes any philosophical debate has. This conversation is now useless as we're looking through dictionary meanings (which isn't even an absolute) for standing points.
 
If new is progress, then progress is a constant regardless. "A new event occured" "Oh hey what happened?" "The paint dried on my walls" "Good progress".
"A new event occured" "Oh hey what happened" "My leg fell off" "Good progress".
Pretty much. The only real difference between irrelevant new things happening and progress in philosophy, art, literature, etc. is whether or not people decide to record it in some way that other people can experience it as well. Progress is not always positive or improvement, it's just forward movement.
 
Pretty much. The only real difference between irrelevant new things happening and progress in philosophy, art, literature, etc. is whether or not people decide to record it in some way that other people can experience it as well. Progress is not always positive or improvement, it's just forward movement.
So we all agree. Science and Philosophy are worthless on their own until combined :D
 
That's what progress is made of. Progress is new stuff that is different from the old stuff. Look at the various applicable definitions of progress and they all agree with this.

There is no new philosophy that is different from old philosophy - the fact that we can endlessly debate old philosophy is proof of that. Until you can show me an irrefutable truth that philosophy has given me, then it has indeed made no progress - we are only arguing viewpoints that slide in and out of fashion with present societal context.

I will go read the page you have linked when I have time.
 
So we all agree. Science and Philosophy are worthless on their own until combined :D
Nope, I disagree with that. They have inherent worth separate from one another, however they are very complimentary and are better for society when used in tandem.
 
There is no new philosophy that is different from old philosophy - the fact that we can endlessly debate old philosophy is proof of that. Until you can show me an irrefutable truth that philosophy has given me, then it has indeed made no progress - we are only arguing viewpoints that slide in and out of fashion with present societal context.
I will go read the page you have linked when I have time.
Sure. Aristotle or someone else I can't remember made the thought that when rocks stop, it's because they get tired.

A philosopher later on said "Hey if something can travel for eternity without any forces acting on it, will it reach the edge of the universe?"

The difference was was that one philosopher didn't have a scientific understanding, the other did. But his lamenting on a scientific grounding led to the definition or idea of a universe having an edge, which then lead to more scientific discovery on that thought.

Whenever anyone reflects on anything ever, it's philosophical, it's thought, it's philosophy, it's applying a context to the content given to then bring about the questions that provides the answers. Scientists make philosophical points alll the fucking time.

The end.
 
Nope, I disagree with that. They have inherent worth separate from one another, however they are very complimentary and are better for society when used in tandem.
Oh, then we disagree. Philosophy is just thought, science is just measurement. If you just measure, you're a camera, and camera's are useless on their own. If you just think, you're just a brain that is both blind, death, and unable to feel heat, touch, balance, speed, direction or pain.
 
There is no new philosophy that is different from old philosophy - the fact that we can endlessly debate old philosophy is proof of that. Until you can show me an irrefutable truth that philosophy has given me, then it has indeed made no progress - we are only arguing viewpoints that slide in and out of fashion with present societal context.
I will go read the page you have linked when I have time.
I think it's pretty clear at this point that we have extremely different concepts of what progress is. There's not a lot of point of continuing this discussion as it stands, as we're already going around in circles.
Oh, then we disagree. Philosophy is just thought, science is just measurement. If you just measure, you're a camera, and camera's are useless on their own. If you just think, you're just a brain that is both blind, death, and unable to feel heat, touch, balance, speed, direction or pain.
That's true, philosophy is just thought and science is just measurement. Where we differ is that I say they have worth on their own. Worth is not derived from how things can be practically applied, that just happens to be something that enhances worth.
 
Sure. Aristotle or someone else I can't remember made the thought that when rocks stop, it's because they get tired.
A philosopher later on said "Hey if something can travel for eternity without any forces acting on it, will it reach the edge of the universe?"
Both of those statements are not testable o_o. You need to be able to test something to determine whether it is objectively true or not.

Philosophy is not testable. You cannot conceive of an instrument or measure that will say 'this is the truth', because philosophy operates on points of view that are never provably true!
 
Both of those statements are not testable o_o. You need to be able to test something to determine whether it is objectively true or not.
Philosophy is not testable. You cannot conceive of an instrument or measure that will say 'this is the truth', because philosophy operates on points of view that are never provably true!
But it is, we can measure the back ground radiation of the early universe, which is able to tell us the projection of the universe today. Thus, edge of the universe (if you define universe by parts that have shit in them, as oppose to edge in which universal constants don't apply.).

Also, you can make an instrument to measure truth within the relativity of it's environment, such as "hey this is 10 meters relative to us" "that's true" "yes that's truthful" "fuck yeah some truth right there".

But truth as a vague term is exactly that, vague and without relativity so it's meaningless. "Truth" as an absolute manner could only mean "as is now", which is only ever changing.
 
That's true, philosophy is just thought and science is just measurement. Where we differ is that I say they have worth on their own. Worth is not derived from how things can be practically applied, that just happens to be something that enhances worth.
Well we're at that point when the argument is, "does everything have inherent worth on it's own?", and I guess you're right, or wrong. This is now equated to the part in which we say "Does God exist" and y'know what? The answer to that thought will probably not effect me or you or anyone ever, so as a pragmatic person, i'm gonna say "Fucking whatever, let's go get some pancakes".
 
Okay, so you've made a testable statement, and can demonstrably prove whether it is false or not. Philosophy didn't enter into that at all o_o. Categorizing hypothesis driven exploration as philosophy is, I think, treading dangerously on debating over semantics. If you wish to categorize that as philosophy, then sure, 'philosophy' makes progress. But my assertion of philosophy as schools of thought where point of view dominates discussion is that those never go anywhere.
 
Okay, so you've made a testable statement, and can demonstrably prove whether it is false or not. Philosophy didn't enter into that at all o_o. Categorizing hypothesis driven exploration as philosophy is, I think, treading dangerously on debating over semantics. If you wish to categorize that as philosophy, then sure, 'philosophy' makes progress. But my assertion of philosophy as schools of thought where point of view dominates discussion is that those never go anywhere.
But philosophy did enter equating the thought of the universe having an edge. I mean sure, if you need a philosopher to come about and say "I wonder if we can make something to measure distance, we'll call it a ruler", then you're a bit far back in time there bucko.

And no shit, anyone who sits about and talks, say on an internet forum, without anyone taking something from it and doing something with it. Is being useless and wasting their time. Man that thesis you gave us sure is eye opening! "Sitting about and thinking all day does fuck all" *wow much insight* *such smarts*


;D
 
Yes, but the testability of that statement makes it a point of view that can be proved true or false. That is unlike the sorts of things that fall into "typical" philosophy, where you cannot construct any measurement or test that will tell you whether any competing theory of morals is true or false. Notice that I said true / false, not right / wrong - the definitions of those change with time and society.
 
Yes, but the testability of that statement makes it a point of view that can be proved true or false. That is unlike the sorts of things that fall into "typical" philosophy, where you cannot construct any measurement or test that will tell you whether any competing theory of morals is true or false. Notice that I said true / false, not right / wrong - the definitions of those change with time and society.
Yes, because anything that can't be tested is something not of our concern, unless someone knows how to. I agree. But science runs in tandem with philosophy every single time a scientist thinks "I wonder".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.