• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

What Is Philosophy?

 
 
 
DBT said:
Politesse said:
DBT said:
It seems that faith and philosophy are the fundamental building blocks of the universe. 🫤
Click to expand...
Only to perceiving and describing it.
Click to expand...

How is perceiving the world a matter of philosophy? If that is being suggested, it would make every animal on earth a philosopher.
Click to expand...
They are not very good philosophers. They can perceive, but not organize, synthesize, and predict.
 
Politesse said:
DBT said:
Politesse said:
DBT said:
It seems that faith and philosophy are the fundamental building blocks of the universe. 🫤
Click to expand...
Only to perceiving and describing it.
Click to expand...

How is perceiving the world a matter of philosophy? If that is being suggested, it would make every animal on earth a philosopher.
Click to expand...
They are not very good philosophers. They can perceive, but not organize, synthesize, and predict.
Click to expand...

Which raises the question: how or why is perception a matter of philosophy?
 
Politesse said:
DBT said:
Politesse said:
DBT said:
It seems that faith and philosophy are the fundamental building blocks of the universe. 🫤
Click to expand...
Only to perceiving and describing it.
Click to expand...

How is perceiving the world a matter of philosophy? If that is being suggested, it would make every animal on earth a philosopher.
Click to expand...
They are not very good philosophers. They can perceive, but not organize, synthesize, and predict.
Click to expand...
https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/th...c-eruptions-massive-storms-and-more-1.7274990

It appears as if some animals can predict the weather as well as some other things better than humans. So, in a way, they can predict the future better than we can. Just sayin'.

Plus dogs can predict when their families are due to come home, all based on smell, so don't make assumptions about other animals. In some ways, they are smarter than humans. Crow bodies have a bigger percentage of brain matter compared to humans. They are extremely smart. Humans have this superiority complex that makes them think they are smarter than other animals, but in many ways, they are smarter than humans. Does that make dogs philosophers? Their philosophy is based on manipulating humans to care for them in return for protecting us from the mailman and bike riders.

Yes the weed was good but that's enough bullshit for now. Have fun guys.
 
southernhybrid said:
Politesse said:
DBT said:
Politesse said:
DBT said:
It seems that faith and philosophy are the fundamental building blocks of the universe. 🫤
Click to expand...
Only to perceiving and describing it.
Click to expand...

How is perceiving the world a matter of philosophy? If that is being suggested, it would make every animal on earth a philosopher.
Click to expand...
They are not very good philosophers. They can perceive, but not organize, synthesize, and predict.
Click to expand...
https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/th...c-eruptions-massive-storms-and-more-1.7274990

It appears as if some animals can predict the weather as well as some other things better than humans. So, in a way, they can predict the future better than we can. Just sayin'.

Plus dogs can predict when their families are due to come home, all based on smell, so don't make assumptions about other animals. In some ways, they are smarter than humans. Crow bodies have a bigger percentage of brain matter compared to humans. They are extremely smart. Humans have this superiority complex that makes them think they are smarter than other animals, but in many ways, they are smarter than humans. Does that make dogs philosophers? Their philosophy is based on manipulating humans to care for them in return for protecting us from the mailman and bike riders.

Yes the weed was good but that's enough bullshit for now. Have fun guys.
Click to expand...
I am not insulting their intelligence, but I am not aware of any creatures aside from ourselves displaying a distinct philosophy. If they do, presumably that is to their advantage as well.
 
There is a video on YouTube of a crow and a human playing tic tac toe. The crow wins and then … crows about it. Flapping its wings and laughing into the camera. :)
 
Another vid of a crow being brushed by a human. When the human stops and puts down the brush, the crow pecks his hand, picks up the brush with his/her beak, and gives it back to the human. The human resumes brushing. :ROFLMAO:
 
That’s the thing about philosophy. It’s everywhere. Do unto others etc. appears to be self evident, but it isn’t.
 
Last edited:
pood said:
That’s the thing about philosophy. It’s everywhere. Do unto others etc. appears to be self evident, but it isn’t.
Click to expand...
It's not even a single rule. And it is far from clear whether any of them are self evident, or which (if any) is "correct" - different societies (and different philosophers) have different positions on that.

Dennis E Taylor lists three such rules in his book Heaven's River:
The Iron Rule: Treat others less powerful than you however you like.
The Silver Rule: Treat others as you’d like to be treated.
The Golden Rule: Treat others as they’d like to be treated.
Click to expand...
These represent ascending degrees of individual liberty, but how much individual liberty is most appropriate to a social species is far from "self evident".

I lean towards maximising this for actions that do not impact others, or that have limited impacts on others, but many good arguments exist for restricted liberty, and there is lots of room for debate about how limited our impacts on others actually is - for example, does my liberty to ride a motorcycle extend to doing so without a helmet (even though first responders might be traumatised by my avoidable death)? Without insurance (even though I may not be able to
pay for damage I do)? Without a licence (even though my lack of competence might put others at risk)? Without a speed limit (even when riding in heavy traffic)? Without age limits (are children allowed to ride motorbikes)? Each of these is contentious, and likely more complex than just a yes/no question, and none of the rules above help very much in making decisions on these matters.

The Iron Rule says "they can't catch me, so I can ride how I like".
The silver rule says "I want to ride fast, so nobody should have to obey any speed limits".
The golden rule says "You want to be safe, so I shouldn't ride a motorbike at all".

None are very obviously the most moral or ethical position to take.
 
Last edited:
There are hundreds of thousands maybe millions of people from around the world engaged in all aspects of science every day.

To say that because several philosophers, aka non scientific thinkers, influenced scientific theory means ‘philosophy’ guides science is a bad argument.


What is the totality of science?

Ancient China had advanced science and technology of the day. They had elements of linear algebra. They are more Confucianism than Greek philosophy. A different evolutionary path in thought than Europe.

In ancient Japan they figured out how to protect a pagoda against earthquakes.. Well before modern sconce and mechanics thy figured out how to use a pendulum to counteract the swaying/. Same principle is used today in tall buildings.

I raad a few books on ancient technology and science. History of math.

My favorite American philosopher is Popeye The Sailor who said ‘I ams what I ams’.

An entire philosophy in five words.

What constitutes a valid philosophy?
 
There was video of a crow fashioning a wire as a hook to get a piece of food out of a jar.

Video of an octopus firing out how to unscrew the lid on a jar to get food.

Squirrels figuring out how to defeat squire ll proof bird feeders.
 
bilby said:
pood said:
That’s the thing about philosophy. It’s everywhere. Do unto others etc. appears to be self evident, but it isn’t.
Click to expand...
It's not even a single rule. And it is far from clear whether any of them are self evident, or which (if any) is "correct" - different societies (and different philosophers) have different positions on that.

Dennis E Taylor lists three such rules in his book Heaven's River:
The Iron Rule: Treat others less powerful than you however you like.
The Silver Rule: Treat others as you’d like to be treated.
The Golden Rule: Treat others as they’d like to be treated.
Click to expand...
These represent ascending degrees of individual liberty, but how much individual liberty is most appropriate to a social species is far from "self evident".

I lean towards maximising this for actions that do not impact others, or that have limited impacts on others, but many good arguments exist for restricted liberty, and there is lots of room for debate about how limited our impacts on others actually is - for example, does my liberty to ride a motorcycle extend to doing so without a helmet (even though first responders might be traumatised by my avoidable death)? Without insurance (even though I may not be able to
pay for damage I do)? Without a licence (even though my lack of competence might put others at risk)? Without a speed limit (even when riding in heavy traffic)? Without age limits (are children allowed to ride motorbikes)? Each of these is contentious, and likely more complex than just a yes/no question, and none of the rules above help very much in making decisions on these matters.

The Iron Rule says "they can't catch me, so I can ride how I like".
The silver rule says "I want to ride fast, so nobody should have to obey any speed limits".
The golden rule says "You want to be safe, so I shouldn't ride a motorbike at all".

None are very obviously the most moral or ethical position to take.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the point. Something may APPEAR to be self evident, but actually isn’t. Then you’ve got to really think about it. The really thinking about it part is called … philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom