I am just wondering. Sometimes it seems we are all just running around in circles/
Has anything concrete ever been confirmed/denied or figured out do to any discussion of philosophy?
Posts
Total:
41
-->
@janesix
it seems we are all just running around in circles/
it is as it seems, circles are just easier to run in than squares.
I think the discordian mantra reveals both something about intellectual masturbation(philosophy) and even the nature of creation itself.
Note that The Ultimate Reality, being The Uncreated, is distinct from creation.
"All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true, false, and meaningless in some sense."
It should be obvious that many of the armchair atheist philosophers around here struggle with the all affirmations are true in some sense, because then they would have to admit that God is true in some sense.
Really though, God is The Truth in every sense.
"Has anything concrete ever been confirmed/denied or figured out do to any discussion of philosophy?" Not at all, just the same shit repackaged and resold. Everyone thinks they know something nobody else does. I used to think I did. But then I realized what I thought was a new idea or way of thinking was thought of, done/tried and abandoned dozens if not hundreds of times over thousands of years.
It has been concretely confirmed through philosophy that humans can philosophize.
-->
@janesix
I'm quite willing to admit that phylosophy is mostly useless crap. While endlessly fascinating it rarely provides actionable data (which is generally provided by science).
-->
@secularmerlin
Science operates entirely within a philosophical framework.
-->
@janesix
Yes, accurately predicting the Higgs-Boson using pure mathematics.
-->
@Fallaneze
Science is a method. A baby is using the scientific method when it discovers it's own toes, then through experimentation discovers it can make them wiggle. It continues to use this method until it has done the experiment until the baby can be reasonably certain that their toes will move every time. Babies do not operate under philosophical frameworks ergo none is necessary for the application of the scientific method.Science operates entirely within a philosophical framework.
-->
@secularmerlin
Let me know how much we can know about anything assuming we have no epistemological framework.
Depends on how you define "concrete" "confirmed/denied" "figured out".
-->
@Fallaneze
We can know nothing with certainty but an epistemology comes from the observation of the scientific method not the other way around so it really doesn't matter.
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
i don't know what 'epistemological framework' nor 'philosophical framework' mean.
-->
@keithprosser
I guess I'm not sure either. I know what epistemology and philosophy are though so I've just been operating under the assumption that the word framework is just needless window dressing. If that is not the case maybe someone will come along and let us know exactly what the difference is.
-->
@keithprosser
It refers to the rules and boundaries that allow knowledge to be obtained.
-->
@secularmerlin
If we know nothing with certainty then your statement that "we know nothing with certainty" isn't a statement of knowledge.
An abstract epistemological framework must first exist before the scientific method has any use. Philosophy underpins the scientific method in its entirety.
-->
@Fallaneze
In order to apply the scientific method we must make certain assumptions, for example that observable reality reflects actual reality. We can never be truly certain if this basic axiom and so all knowledge has some degree of uncertainty.
If we accept reality at face value we can apply the scientific method and learn some things about reality. For example we can observe gravity.
However even accepting reality at face value does not give us any reason to believe in a being that cannot be demonstrated to be a part of that observed reality.
There is a fundamental difference between "believing" in gravity and "believing" in some god(s).
-->
@janesix
I am just wondering. Sometimes it seems we are all just running around in circles
Religion is philosophical.
Politics is philosophical.
If you're suggesting that Political and Religious leaders are all just running around in circles, I'd find it difficult to disagree with you.
The task of "pure philosophy" is to identify logical incoherence in religion and politics.
-->
@Fallaneze
If we know nothing with certainty then your statement that "we know nothing with certainty" isn't a statement of knowledge.
We know most things with less than 100% certainty.
This does not mean that there is nothing that can be known with 100% certainty.
-->
@3RU7AL
This does not mean that there is nothing that can be known with 100% certainty.
I don't disagree with you often but I would need at least one example or this time that may be the case.
-->
@secularmerlin
This does not mean that there is nothing that can be known with 100% certainty.I don't disagree with you often but I would need at least one example or this time that may be the case.
Cogito, ergo sum.
-->
@secularmerlin
In order for knowledge to be possible an axiom must be knowably certain. Is the statement "observed reality probaly reflects actual reality" knowably certain?
-->
@Fallaneze
It is in fact only reasonably certain. You are again asking me to violate my epistemology. I will not.
-->
@3RU7AL
Cogito, ergo sum.
That would seem to logically follow that if I am experiencing something then that experience exists but that would be the exception not the rule. Still point made.
-->
@secularmerlin
That would seem to logically follow that if I am experiencing something then that experience exists but that would be the exception not the rule. Still point made.
Another example would be, "there is no such thing as nothingness".
Generally these tautological or apodictic truths are rare, but they are important boundaries that demarcate our epistemological limits.
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you say that one requires an e,listing philosophy or epistemology to recognize these rare apodictic truths?
-->
@secularmerlin
Would you say that one requires an e,listing philosophy or epistemology to recognize these rare apodictic truths?
Probably.
Children intuitively subscribe to "naive realism".
Believe what you see, believe what you think, believe what you are told.
In order to understand the significance of "Cogito, ergo sum" you must first cultivate a rabid skepticism.
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you say that "naive realism" comes with its own built in epistemology even if it is not recognized as such by the naive realist?
-->
@secularmerlin
There is some acknowledgement of "I don't know everything" and "some people know things that I don't know" but strangely it doesn't seem to intuitively include the idea that some things may be "unknowable".Would you say that "naive realism" comes with its own built in epistemology even if it is not recognized as such by the naive realist?
It's easy for children to think "human potential is infinite", even though this is clearly impossible.
There are limits to knowledge, but there are things we can be absolutely certain of.
-->
@janesix
Has anything concrete ever been confirmed/denied or figured out do to any discussion of philosophy?
The scientific method.
Democracy.
Equal rights.